Purpose/Hypothesis: Empathy is the ability to understand and identify with another person’s feelings. It is theorized to involve cognitive and affective domains. The Kiersma-Chen Empathy Scale (KCES) was developed to measure these at no cost. Initial reliability was determined from a cohort of pharmacy and nursing students. The purpose of this study was to assess the reliability of the KCES in a diverse cohort of health professions students including physical therapy (PT) and pre-PT students. Number of Subjects: 203 students in Doctor of Physical Therapy, Pre-PT, Doctor of Pharmacy, Bachelor and Master of Speech-Language Pathology, Doctor of Audiology, Master of Physician Assistant, and Doctor of Dental Surgery programs. Materials and Methods: IRB approval was obtained. All students received an electronic version of the KCES (test 1) and a demographics form at the start of Fall term. Researchers made an announcement in class, and an email reminder was sent several days later. A second survey (test 2) was sent at the second week, followed by an email reminder. The lead researcher matched and de-identified the surveys. A blinded researcher performed data analysis. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Cronbach’s a was used to assess scale homogeneity at each test administration for total, cognitive, and affective scores. Pearson correlation was used to assess the association between subscales and total score. Two-way intraclass correlation coefficients with random effects were used to determine reliability for total, cognitive, and affective scores between tests. Minimum detectable change outside the 95% confidence interval (MDC95) was calculated for total and subscale scores as an estimate of responsiveness. Results: Two hundred and three students completed the KCES (n=154 female; 79.6%), and most commonly ranged in age from 23-27 years (n=98; 48.3%). The total score demonstrated good internal consistency reliability (Test 1 = .809; Test 2 = .870). The cognitive and affective scores demonstrated fair internal consistency reliability at Test 1 (cognitive = .701; affective = .672) and Test 2 (cognitive = .764, affective = .787). Deleting two items mildly increased internal consistency reliability for total and subscale scores. For Test 1 and Test 2, the subscale scores demonstrated significant and strong correlations with the total score, but significant and fair correlations with each other. The total score (.704) and subscale scores (cognitive = .687; affective = .623) demonstrated moderate test-retest reliability. MDC95 were 12.8, 8.4, and 6.5 points for the total, cognitive, and affective scores, respectively. Conclusions: The KCES and its cognitive and affective subscales demonstrate sufficient test-retest and internal consistency reliability in health professions students. The subscales demonstrate convergent and divergent validity. Data regarding responsiveness may be used to assess the relevance of potential changes in total and subscale scores in response to educational methods. Clinical Relevance: The KCES is an appropriate instrument to measure empathy in health professional students.