Search

Education research has recently seen the emergence of two distinct frameworks guiding the application of quantitative methods through a more critical and equity-oriented lens. These two frameworks are critical quantitative (CritQuant) studies and quantitative critical race theory (QuantCrit). Although different in their intellectual traditions, they both acknowledge the oppressive history of quantitative methods and the need to improve the criticality of quantitative research in education. For applied quantitative research in education to become more critical, it is imperative that learners of quantitative methodology be made aware of its historical and modern misuses. This directive calls for an important change in the way quantitative methodology is taught in educational classrooms. Critical quantitative literacy (CQL) is introduced in this manuscript as a paradigm for teaching, learning, understanding, and applying quantitative methods in a way that supports the application of CritQuant and QuantCrit frameworks in educational research.

Abstract Background The ability to understand another’s emotions and act appropriately, empathy, is an important mediator of relationship function and health intervention fidelity. We adapted the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) – an empathy scale – among seroconcordant expectant couples with HIV in the Homens para Saúde Mais (HoPS+) trial – a cluster randomized controlled trial assessing couple-based versus individual treatment on viral suppression – in Zambézia Province, Mozambique. Methods Using baseline data from 1332 HoPS+ trial participants (666 couples), an exploratory factor analysis assessed culturally relevant questions from the IRI. Because empathy is interdependent among couples, we validated the results of the exploratory factor analysis using a dyadic confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with dyadic measurement invariance testing. Finally, we assessed the relationship between scores on our final scale and basic demographic characteristics (sex, age, education, and depression) using t-tests. Results We found two subscales: 1) a seven-item cognitive empathy subscale (Cronbach’s alpha 0.78) and 2) a six-item affective empathy subscale (Cronbach’s alpha 0.73). The dyadic CFA found acceptable model fit and metric invariance across partners (Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.914, Tucker Lewis Index = 0.904, Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation = 0.056, ΔCFI = 0.011). We observed higher cognitive (p: 0.012) and affective (p: 0.049) empathy among males and higher cognitive (p: 0.031) and affective (p: 0.030) empathy among younger participants. More educated participants had higher affective empathy (p: 0.017) and depressed participants had higher cognitive empathy (p: