Abstract
The Empathy Fatigue Scale for Healthcare Professionals (EFS-HP) is an empirically developed psychometric instrument constructed to measure the distinct phenomenon of empathy-driven emotional exhaustion among medical personnel practicing in high-acuity clinical environments. Operating within acute care settings such as intensive care units (ICUs), emergency departments (EDs), and neonatal intensive care units (NICUs), healthcare workers are routinely subjected to high-stakes decision-making, acute patient suffering, and relational distress. Over time, persistent empathic engagement under severe environmental pressure precipitates a profound drain on emotional reserves, termed empathy fatigue. While broader occupational stress assessments exist, the EFS-HP isolates the psychological toll of interpersonal caregiving from systemic operational stressors. Developed and validated across independent clinical cohorts in Turkey, the instrument comprises 21 items structured around a robust unidimensional factor model. Psychometric evaluation demonstrates superior internal consistency, evidenced by a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.958, and exceptional temporal stability, indicated by a two-week test-retest reliability coefficient of r = 0.891. Confirmatory factor analysis verifies acceptable structural fit (Comparative Fit Index [CFI] = 0.918, Tucker-Lewis Index [TLI] = 0.907, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] = 0.080). Criterion-related convergent validity testing against the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21) demonstrates significant positive correlations with depression (r = 0.485), stress (r = 0.396), and anxiety (r = 0.348). Consequently, the EFS-HP serves as an indispensable diagnostic and evaluative tool for clinicians, nurse administrators, and industrial-organizational researchers seeking to quantify empathic distress, formulate targeted institutional wellness initiatives, and mitigate clinician attrition.
Keywords
empathy fatigue, healthcare professionals, psychometrics, critical care nursing, emotional exhaustion, compassion fatigue, secondary traumatic stress, scale validation, clinical psychology, medical burnout
Authors
The Empathy Fatigue Scale for Healthcare Professionals was developed and psychometrically validated by an interdisciplinary team of researchers in psychological counseling, medicine, and healthcare administration:
- Nesrullah Okan, Ph.D. (Corresponding Author) — Department of Educational Sciences, Guidance and Psychological Counseling, Faculty of Education, Fırat University, Elazığ, Turkey. Email: [email protected]
- Fuat Zengin, M.D. — Republic of Türkiye, Malatya Provincial Health Directorate (Malatya İl Sağlık Müdürlüğü), Family Medicine Division, Malatya, Turkey.
- Yusuf Taha Okan, Ph.D. — Department of Management and Organisation, Vocational School of Social Sciences, Harran University, Şanlıurfa, Turkey.
- Yahya Şahin, Ph.D. — Department of Educational Sciences, Guidance and Psychological Counseling, Faculty of Education, Fırat University, Elazığ, Turkey.
Purpose
The primary clinical and research objective of the EFS-HP is to provide an accurate, contextually attuned measurement of the emotional exhaustion uniquely generated by continuous empathic engagement with critically ill and traumatized patients. Healthcare professionals stationed in high-acuity environments—including adult ICUs, pediatric and neonatal ICUs, trauma bays, and emergency services—operate under unrelenting cognitive and affective demands. These practitioners routinely encounter acute clinical deterioration, surrogate grief, cardiopulmonary arrests, ethical dilemmas surrounding end-of-life care, and complex family dynamics. Although existing psychometric batteries, such as the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and the Professional Quality of Life Scale (ProQOL), assess general occupational burnout, secondary traumatic stress, and compassion satisfaction, they broadly encapsulate occupational grievances (e.g., workload, administrative burdens, salary discontent) alongside affective phenomena. Consequently, they often fail to isolate the precise interpersonal and neurobiological toll of persistent affective resonance and emotional labor.
The EFS-HP addresses this gap by establishing an instrument focused specifically on the subjective depletion of empathic capability. In clinical practice and organizational oversight, the utility of the EFS-HP spans multiple applications:
- Institutional Surveillance and Early Warning: Hospital administrators and nurse managers can deploy the scale during routine institutional wellness audits to track departments at high risk of empathic overextension before clinical disengagement or systemic turnover occurs.
- Intervention Efficacy Assessment: The scale offers researchers and counseling practitioners a responsive metric for evaluating pre- and post-intervention outcomes in clinical resilience workshops, mindfulness-based interventions, cognitive reappraisal training, and Balint-style peer debriefing groups.
- Occupational Health Diagnostic Support: Employee assistance programs (EAPs) and occupational health clinics can utilize the EFS-HP during confidential clinician assessments to differentiate between operational fatigue caused by shift scheduling and deep-seated empathy fatigue stemming from unmitigated vicarious distress.
- Retention and Quality of Care Preservation: Because unmanaged empathy fatigue is longitudinally predictive of depersonalization, reduced clinical vigilance, diagnostic errors, and career abandonment, early detection via the EFS-HP safeguards both healthcare workforce sustainability and patient safety benchmarks.
Psychological Construct
Empathy fatigue is conceptualized as an acute or chronic emotional depletion state precipitated by prolonged, immersive empathic exposure to the suffering, physical agony, and psychological trauma of others within a therapeutic or clinical relationship. While empathy is universally acknowledged as a foundational pillar of high-quality clinical care—facilitating therapeutic alliance, diagnostic accuracy, and patient adherence—unregulated empathic immersion imposes substantial psychophysiological costs on the provider.
To accurately understand the psychological construct measured by the EFS-HP, it must be differentiated from closely aligned constructs in occupational health psychology:
- Empathy Fatigue versus Burnout: According to Maslach’s multi-dimensional framework, burnout encompasses emotional exhaustion, depersonalization (cynicism), and a reduced sense of personal accomplishment. Burnout is primarily an institutional and environmental syndrome driven by excessive workload, insufficient autonomy, organizational injustice, and systemic inefficiencies. Conversely, empathy fatigue is an interpersonal and relational phenomenon; it emerges directly from the emotional resonance between the caregiver and the patient’s existential distress, regardless of administrative support or operational resources.
- Empathy Fatigue versus Compassion Fatigue: Charles Figley historically conceptualized compassion fatigue as an umbrella term comprising secondary traumatic stress (STS) and burnout, often emphasizing intrusion, avoidance, and hyperarousal similar to PTSD. However, modern affective neuroscience suggests that while compassion generates pro-social, outward-facing motivations to alleviate suffering, empathy involves affective sharing—feeling with the patient. When cognitive regulation is overwhelmed, affective sharing transitions into empathic distress. Thus, empathy fatigue operationalizes the exhaustion of the cognitive and affective mechanisms that sustain shared feeling.
- Empathy Fatigue versus Secondary Traumatic Stress (STS): Secondary traumatic stress requires vicarious exposure to traumatic events resulting in classic trauma symptoms (e.g., nightmares, flashbacks, hypervigilance). Empathy fatigue does not necessitate exposure to catastrophic trauma; rather, it arises from the persistent, cumulative accumulation of shared grief, chronic illness suffering, and relational emotional exertion.
The EFS-HP operationalizes empathy fatigue as a unidimensional construct. Rather than fractionating the clinical experience into artificial sub-components, the authors established that empathy fatigue manifests as a pervasive, generalized psychological exhaustion. A clinician experiencing empathy fatigue describes feeling “emotionally hollowed out,” unable to generate genuine concern for new patients, detached from family members upon returning home, and subject to an overarching psychic numbness. The 21 items of the instrument capture this holistic affective erosion across clinical, interpersonal, and personal domains.
Theoretical Framework
The conceptual architecture of the Empathy Fatigue Scale for Healthcare Professionals is anchored in the convergence of three dominant theoretical paradigms within affective neuroscience, cognitive psychology, and stress research: Decety’s Neurodevelopmental Model of Empathy and Empathic Distress, Figley’s Secondary Traumatic Stress / Compassion Fatigue Model, and Lazarus and Folkman’s Transactional Theory of Stress and Coping.
Decety’s Affective Neuroscience Framework
Jean Decety and colleagues have established that human empathy relies on three dissociable but interacting neural components:
- Affective Sharing: Bottom-up, automatic resonance mediated by the anterior insula (AI) and anterior midcingulate cortex (aMCC), causing the observer to mirror another’s somatic and emotional states.
- Cognitive Perspective Taking: Top-down cognitive processing mediated by the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), temporoparietal junction (TPJ), and superior temporal sulcus, allowing the clinician to understand the patient’s internal world without confusing self and other.
- Emotion Regulation: Prefrontal executive mechanisms that modulate visceral affective resonance to prevent self-oriented distress.
Within critical care medicine, practitioners are exposed to non-stop sensory cues of pain, panic, and bereavement. When prefrontal cognitive regulation is eroded by prolonged shift work, sleep debt, and continuous patient mortality, bottom-up affective sharing dominates. The clinician transitions from therapeutic empathy into acute empathic distress (a self-focused, aversive emotional reaction). The EFS-HP theoretical framework posits that empathy fatigue is the chronic neurobiological and psychological state of exhaustion that ensues when an individual’s capacity for top-down emotion regulation is depleted, leaving affective neural circuits overstimulated and drained.
Figley’s Model of Relational Cost
The scale integrates foundational tenets from Charles Figley’s relational framework, which positions empathy as the essential catalyst for therapeutic bonding, while simultaneously identifying it as the primary vulnerability vector for caregiver distress. Caregivers who possess the highest baseline empathy form deeper connections with suffering patients; consequently, they absorb higher magnitudes of vicarious pain. When institutional expectations dictate relentless empathic output without structural opportunities for emotional processing, the caregiver pays an unavoidable “cost of caring.”
Transactional Stress Theory
Under Lazarus and Folkman’s model, stress is an evaluative transaction between external environmental demands and internal coping resources. In intensive care environments, the demand for emotional labor is perpetual. Healthcare professionals continuously appraise patient suffering as demanding an empathic response. Empathy fatigue occurs when internal psychological coping mechanisms are systematically overwhelmed by cumulative affective demands, resulting in psychological strain, defensive withdrawal, and functional impairment.
Validity
The psychometric validation of the Empathy Fatigue Scale for Healthcare Professionals was executed following rigorous classical test theory guidelines across multiple phases, ensuring content, construct, and criterion-related validity.
Content and Face Validity
The initial pool of items was generated based on an extensive literature review of emotional labor, vicarious traumatization, and intensive care nursing stressors. Content validity was statistically evaluated using Lawshe’s Quantitative Content Validity Technique. An expert panel comprising clinical psychologists, psychiatrists, intensive care nursing supervisors, and medical educators evaluated each candidate item regarding its clinical relevance, clarity, and representativeness of empathy fatigue. Items that failed to meet the critical Lawshe Content Validity Ratio (CVR) threshold were eliminated, ensuring that the remaining 21 items directly tapped the core behavioral and psychological indicators of the target construct.
Construct and Criterion-Related Validity
Criterion validity was established by administering the scale alongside the validated Turkish version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales-21 (DASS-21) (Sariçam, 2018) in an independent clinical sample (N = 54). The researchers formulated a priori hypotheses that empathy fatigue would demonstrate moderate-to-strong positive correlations with the three negative affective states measured by DASS-21, as severe emotional exhaustion frequently co-occurs with systemic affective disturbance without being conceptually identical to it.
Bivariate Pearson correlation analyses confirmed statistically significant positive associations across all three criterion dimensions:
- Depression Subscale: r = 0.485 (p < 0.001)
- Stress Subscale: r = 0.396 (p < 0.001)
- Anxiety Subscale: r = 0.348 (p < 0.005)
The correlation between empathy fatigue and depression (r = 0.485) was the strongest, aligning with theoretical expectations: as clinicians exhaust their emotional capacity, they frequently experience anhedonia, loss of clinical purpose, and low mood. The moderate magnitudes of these correlation coefficients confirm robust convergent validity while demonstrating discriminant validity; the values are sufficiently below the standard psychometric cutoff (r > 0.85), establishing that empathy fatigue is an independent psychological construct and not merely a redundant proxy for generalized anxiety or mood disorder.
Reliability
The reliability of the EFS-HP was evaluated through rigorous assessments of internal consistency and temporal stability (test-retest reliability), confirming high measurement precision across critical care cohorts.
Internal Consistency
Internal consistency was assessed across the scale’s 21 items using Cronbach’s alpha (α). In the validation sample, the instrument achieved a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.958 (reported rounded as 0.96). According to established psychometric conventions (Nunnally, 1994; Hair et al., 2020), an alpha value exceeding 0.90 reflects exemplary internal cohesion suitable for clinical diagnostic screening and individual assessment. Item-total correlations across all 21 items were high and positive, confirming that each item significantly contributes to the overall latent construct without introducing extraneous measurement error or construct fragmentation.
Test-Retest Temporal Stability
To ensure that the EFS-HP measures a stable, persistent psychological state rather than transient situational fluctuations in daily mood or acute shift-related physical fatigue, temporal stability was evaluated using a longitudinal test-retest protocol. A sub-sample of healthcare professionals completed the instrument on two distinct occasions separated by a two-week interval. Pearson correlation analysis between the two testing points yielded a test-retest reliability coefficient of r = 0.891 (p < 0.001). This high test-retest correlation demonstrates that the scale possesses strong temporal invariance over time in the absence of targeted psychological intervention, making it a dependable assessment tool for longitudinal epidemiological studies and randomized controlled trials evaluating burnout reduction programs.
Factor Analysis
The structural dimensionality of the EFS-HP was established using a comprehensive two-stage factor analytic strategy across two separate, non-overlapping samples of healthcare workers employed in intensive care, emergency, and neonatal units.
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
An initial Exploratory Factor Analysis was conducted on a calibration sample of N = 296 healthcare professionals (comprising 128 females and 168 males; 60.8% physicians and 27.0% nurses/midwives). Data factorativity was confirmed via the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, both of which indicated that the correlation matrix was fully suitable for factor extraction. Principal Component Analysis and common factor analytic procedures with oblique and orthogonal rotations consistently demonstrated the presence of a single dominant factor with an eigenvalue substantially exceeding unity.
This solitary latent factor accounted for 54.5% of the total variance in the data, far exceeding the standard 40% threshold commonly accepted for unidimensional structural validity in social science measurement. Items demonstrating weak factor loadings (< 0.40) or cross-loadings across exploratory runs were iteratively removed. The final 21 items exhibited high, uniform factor loadings on this single latent dimension, confirming an unambiguous unidimensional factor structure.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
To cross-validate the empirical structure identified in the EFA, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis was executed on an independent validation sample of N = 242 critical care professionals (104 females, 138 males) using structural equation modeling (SEM) with maximum likelihood estimation.
Model fit was evaluated using multiple absolute and incremental fit indices against established standards (Kline, 2016; Brown, 2015):
- Comparative Fit Index (CFI): 0.918 (exceeding the standard ≥ 0.90 threshold for acceptable fit)
- Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): 0.907 (exceeding the standard ≥ 0.90 benchmark)
- Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): 0.080 (meeting the acceptable threshold for complex field psychometrics)
All standardized item loadings on the single latent factor in the CFA were statistically significant (p < 0.001) and substantial, confirming that the single-factor structural representation of empathy fatigue is robust, reproducible, and psychometrically sound across independent healthcare cohorts.
Instrument / Measurement Tool
- Tool Name: Empathy Fatigue Scale for Healthcare Professionals (EFS-HP)
- Test Type: Self-report psychometric questionnaire
- Format: 21 items
- Target Population: Healthcare professionals, specifically critical care nurses, emergency department nurses, intensive care physicians, and allied clinical staff
- Target Age Group: Adult clinical workforce (validated across ages 22 to 55 years)
- Original Language: Turkish (validated in hospital systems across Turkey)
- Structural Dimension: Unidimensional (single composite score reflecting total empathy fatigue)
- Scoring Format: Continuous additive scoring. Individual items are summed to produce an overall Empathy Fatigue index score. Higher aggregate scores correspond to elevated levels of empathy-related emotional exhaustion and greater risk of clinical impairment.
- Administration Time: Approximately 5 to 8 minutes to complete
Permissions & Fee and Test Year
- Publication Year: 2025
- Original Publication Outlet: Published in Nursing in Critical Care (John Wiley & Sons Ltd).
- Copyright & Ownership: The psychometric construct, structural validation, and full questionnaire items are intellectual property authored by Nesrullah Okan, Fuat Zengin, Yusuf Taha Okan, and Yahya Şahin.
- Access and Licensing: The complete item battery is not disseminated in the open public domain to protect scale integrity and prevent unauthorized commercial exploitation. Academic researchers, health authorities, and clinical investigators seeking to administer the EFS-HP for non-commercial scientific research, hospital audits, or clinical trials must obtain formal permission from the lead author, Dr. Nesrullah Okan ([email protected]). Commercial usage, translation into other languages, or integration into institutional software systems requires explicit licensing and written agreement from the copyright holders.
- Fee: Academic and non-commercial research access is generally provided free of charge upon formal ethical review and written institutional request to the authors.
References
Abbaszadeh, R., Ahmadi, F., Khoobi, M., Kazemnejad, A., & Vaismoradi, M. (2025). Contributors to fatigue among nurses working in critical care units: A qualitative study. Nursing in Critical Care, 30(2), Article e13091. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.13091
Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). Guilford Publications.
Decety, J., & Fotopoulou, A. (2015). Why empathy has a beneficial impact on others in medicine: Unifying theories. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 8, Article 457. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00457
Ding, S., Huang, X., Sun, R., Yang, L., Yang, X., Li, X., … & Wang, K. (2023). The relationship between alarm fatigue and burnout among critical care nurses: A cross-sectional study. Nursing in Critical Care, 28(6), 940–947. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12899
Erdem, R. (2020). The relationship between empathy fatigue, burnout and intention to quit in health workers: The case of Turkey. Journal of Health and Social Policy Studies, 2(3), 45–58.
Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Figley, C. R. (Ed.). (1995). Compassion fatigue: Coping with secondary traumatic stress disorder in those who treat the traumatized. Brunner/Mazel.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2020). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Jenkins, P., Ducker, I., Gooding, R., James, M., & Rutter-Eley, E. (2021). Anxiety and depression in a sample of UK college students: A study of prevalence, comorbidity, and quality of life. Journal of American College Health, 69(8), 813–819. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2019.1709474
Jones, E. (2019). PTSD in an era of uncertainty and challenge. International Review of Psychiatry, 31(1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540261.2019.1603663
Kartsonaki, M., Georgopoulos, D., Kondili, E., Nieri, A., Alevizaki, A., Nyktari, V., … & Papaioannou, A. (2023). Prevalence and factors associated with compassion fatigue, compassion satisfaction, burnout in health professionals. Nursing in Critical Care, 28(2), 225–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12769
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Publications.
Maslach, C. (2016). Burnout: Stress: Concepts, cognition, emotion, and behavior. In G. Fink (Ed.), Stress: Concepts, Cognition, Emotion, and Behavior (pp. 351–357). Academic Press.
Nunnally, J. C. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Okan, N., Zengin, F., Okan, Y. T., & Şahin, Y. (2025). Empathy Fatigue Scale for Healthcare Professionals. Nursing in Critical Care, Article e70079. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.70079
Palma, A., & Cater, K. (2024). Compassion fatigue: The real emergency paramedics face. Whitireia Journal of Nursing, Health and Social Services, 31, 21–34. https://doi.org/10.34074/whit.3103
Raab, K. (2014). Mindfulness, self-compassion, and empathy among health care professionals: A review of the literature. Journal of Health Care Chaplaincy, 20(3), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/08854726.2014.913876
Ray, S. L., Wong, C., White, D., & Heaslip, K. (2013). Compassion satisfaction, compassion fatigue, work life conditions, and burnout among frontline mental health care professionals. Traumatology, 19(4), 255–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534765612471144
Sariçam, H. (2018). The psychometric properties of Turkish version of Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21) in health control and clinical samples. Journal of Cognitive Behavioral Psychotherapy and Research, 7(1), 19–30.
Sinclair, S., Beamer, K., Hack, T. F., McClement, S., Bouchal, S. R., Chochinov, H. M., & Hagen, N. A. (2017). Sympathy, empathy, and compassion: A grounded theory study of palliative care patients’ understandings, experiences, and preferences. Palliative Medicine, 31(5), 437–447. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216316663499
Stamm, B. H. (2010). The ProQOL (Professional Quality of Life Scale: Compassion Satisfaction and Compassion Fatigue) manual (2nd ed.). Center for Victims of Torture.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.
Trapani, J., Stewart, N., Eltaybani, S., & Vollam, S. (2024). Spotlight on respiratory care, delirium, well-being and moral injury. Nursing in Critical Care, 29(6), 1195–1198. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.13189
Wilkinson, H., Whittington, R., Perry, L., & Eames, C. (2017). Examining the relationship between burnout and empathy in healthcare professionals: A systematic review. Burnout Research, 6, 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burn.2017.06.003