Adiva Sifris

A psychometric appraisal of the Jefferson Scale of Empathy using law students

Background A growing body of literature indicates that empathic behaviors are positively linked, in several ways, with the professional performance and mental well-being of lawyers and law students. It is therefore important to assess empathy levels among law students using psychometrically sound tools that are suitable for this cohort. Participants and methods The 20-item Jefferson Scale of Empathy – Health Profession Students Version was adapted for a law context (eg, the word “health care” became “legal”), and the new Jefferson Scale of Empathy – Law Students (JSE-L-S) version was completed by 275 students at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Data were subjected to principal component analysis. Results Four factors emerged from the principal component analysis (“understanding the client’s perspective”, “responding to clients’ experiences and emotions”, “responding to clients’ cues and behaviors”, and “standing in clients’ shoes”), which accounted for 46.7% of the total variance. The reliability of the factors varied, but the overall 18-item JSE-L-S yielded a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.80. Several patterns among the item loadings were similar to those reported in studies using other versions of the Jefferson Scale of Empathy. Conclusion The JSE-L-S appears to be a reliable measure of empathy among undergraduate law students, which could help provide insights into law student welfare and future performance as legal practitioners. Additional evaluation of the JSE-L-S is required to disambiguate some of the minor findings explored. Adjustments may improve the psychometric properties.

Measuring empathy in undergraduate law students: Examining the factorial validity of the Jefferson Scale of Empathy - Law Students (JSE-LS)

Several scholars have hypothesised a link between empathy and a range of important outcomes for law students including well-being, mental health and the development of effective client-lawyer relationships. However, few studies have examined these claims empirically. Empirical investigation of empathy among law students requires effective methods of measuring empathy. The present study sought to examine an instrument designed specifically to measure empathy among law students - the Jefferson Empathy Scale - Law Students (JSE-LS). The study involved examining the internal consistency and factor structure of the instrument using a sample of 276 Australian undergraduate law students. The study found that a four-factor solution was optimal for the dataset. Two of the factors were readily interpretable with previous literature, however the remaining two factors were unstable, suggesting the need for further revision of the instrument. Recommendations for revising the JSE-LS to better measure empathy are discussed.

Jack & Jill or Jack & Bill: The Case for Same-Sex Adoption

An increasing number of same-sex couples are raising children in Australia. Although there are a number of ways for same-sex couples to become parents – including heterosexual intercourse and assisted conception procedures – adoption is denied to same-sex couples in many Australian jurisdictions. For same-sex couples, adoption (either in the form of non-relative adoption or step-parent/second parent adoption) is a crucial and significant avenue for family formation. Like heterosexual couples, same-sex couples decide to adopt children for numerous reasons including medical infertility, social infertility, and (most importantly) the desire to provide a child with a loving and nurturing environment. For male same-sex couples, who have limited alternatives for achieving parentage, the adoption process presents a particularly attractive pathway to parenting. There is now a large body of research that indicates that same-sex couples parent as well as heterosexual couples. Once it is accepted that same-sex couples are suitable parents, there is no reason to discriminate against them in relation to the way they become parents.

Children in Immigration Detention: The Bakhtiyari Family in the Family Court

In December 2002 public attention turned to the Family Court of Australia when, in a historic fi rst, the Full Court heard an appeal for the release of children held in immigration detention. The fundamental question before the Court in B and B and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (‘B Family Court’), was whether the Family Court in the exercise of its welfare jurisdiction (pursuant to s 67ZC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and injunctive powers (pursuant to s 68B of the Family Law Act) had jurisdiction to order the release of children from immigration detention. This article explores what is meant by the welfare power and examines the constitutional powers relied on by the Family Court in utilising the welfare jurisdiction to make orders about children in immigration detention.