Skip to main content
. 2019 Jun 7;49(10):3956–3964. doi: 10.1007/s10803-019-04080-3

Table 3.

Replication study—regression analyses for overall, cognitive and affective empathy

Predictor β t p
(i) Overall empathy—F(5, 348) = 30.28, R2 = 0.30, p < .001
 Sex (1 = male, 0 = female) − .34 − 7.48 < .001
 Sex × autism .02 0.30 .77
 Sex × alexithymia .10 1.95 .052
 Autism − .25 − 4.72 < .001
 Alexithymia − .18 − 3.41 .001
(ii) Cognitive empathy–F(6, 347) = 40.61, R2 = 0.41, p < .001
 Affective empathy .31 6.82 < .001
 Sex − 1.62 − 1.62 .11
 Sex × autism .03 0.56 .57
 Sex × alexithymia .01 0.10 .92
 Autism − .34 − 6.96 < .001
 Alexithymia − .23 − 4.74 < .001
(iii) Affective empathy—F(6, 347) = 22.81, R2 = 0.28, p < .001
 Cognitive empathy .38 6.82 < .001
 Sex − .33 − 6.99 < .001
 Sex × autism − .02 − 0.28 .078
 Sex × alexithymia .12 2.29 .023
 Autism .12 2.03 .044
 Alexithymia .07 1.19 .24

Examination of VIF values across the regression analyses indicated that multicollinearity was not a concern (all < 10), and the residuals were normally distributed. Durbin–Watson statistics were inspected and found to be ~ 2 across the regression analyses, suggesting that errors were uncorrelated and thus independent. Together, the data were suitable for multiple linear regression analysis

Β Standardized regression coefficient, t Student’s t-statistic, p p value