OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
PloS one
2015;10 (7): e0132940.

A Reconsideration of the Self-Compassion Scale's Total Score: Self-Compassion versus Self-Criticism.

Angélica López, Robbert Sanderman, Ans Smink, Ying Zhang, Eric van Sonderen, Adelita Ranchor, Maya J Schroevers
Author Information
  1. Angélica López: Department of Health Sciences, Health Psychology Section, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
  2. Robbert Sanderman: Department of Health Sciences, Health Psychology Section, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; Department of Psychology, Health and Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
  3. Ans Smink: Department of Health Sciences, Health Psychology Section, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
  4. Ying Zhang: Department of Applied Psychology, Lingnan University, Hong Kong, China.
  5. Eric van Sonderen: Department of Health Sciences, Health Psychology Section, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
  6. Adelita Ranchor: Department of Health Sciences, Health Psychology Section, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
  7. Maya J Schroevers: Department of Health Sciences, Health Psychology Section, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
PMID: 26193654 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132940

Abstract

The Self-Compassion Scale (SCS) is currently the only self-report instrument to measure self-compassion. The SCS is widely used despite the limited evidence for the scale's psychometric properties, with validation studies commonly performed in college students. The current study examined the factor structure, reliability, and construct validity of the SCS in a large representative sample from the community. The study was conducted in 1,736 persons, of whom 1,643 were included in the analyses. Besides the SCS, data was collected on positive and negative indicators of psychological functioning, as well as on rumination and neuroticism. Analyses included confirmatory factor analyses (CFA), exploratory factor analyses (EFA), and correlations. CFA showed that the SCS's proposed six-factor structure could not be replicated. EFA suggested a two-factor solution, formed by the positively and negatively formulated items respectively. Internal consistency was good for the two identified factors. The negative factor (i.e., sum score of the negatively formulated items) correlated moderately to strongly to negative affect, depressive symptoms, perceived stress, as well as to rumination and neuroticism. Compared to this negative factor, the positive factor (i.e., sum score of the positively formulated items) correlated weaker to these indicators, and relatively more strongly to positive affect. Results from this study do not justify the common use of the SCS total score as an overall indicator of self-compassion, and provide support for the idea, as also assumed by others, that it is important to make a distinction between self-compassion and self-criticism.

References

  1. Assessment. 2012 Jun;19(2):198-204 [PMID: 22389242]
  2. Psychiatry Res. 2010 May 15;177(1-2):120-3 [PMID: 20207424]
  3. Clin Psychol Rev. 2012 Aug;32(6):545-52 [PMID: 22796446]
  4. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988 Jun;54(6):1063-70 [PMID: 3397865]
  5. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2000 Aug;32(3):396-402 [PMID: 11029811]
  6. Qual Life Res. 2000;9(9):1015-29 [PMID: 11332223]
  7. Neuroimage. 2010 Jan 15;49(2):1849-56 [PMID: 19770047]
  8. Compr Psychiatry. 2006 Mar-Apr;47(2):106-15 [PMID: 16490568]
  9. Psychol Psychother. 2011 Sep;84(3):239-55 [PMID: 22903867]
  10. Multivariate Behav Res. 1982 Apr 1;17(2):193-219 [PMID: 26810948]
  11. Br J Clin Psychol. 2004 Sep;43(Pt 3):245-65 [PMID: 15333231]
  12. Behav Ther. 2013 Sep;44(3):501-13 [PMID: 23768676]
  13. Emotion. 2001 Mar;1(1):25-37 [PMID: 12894809]
  14. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014 Jan 10;12:4 [PMID: 24410742]
  15. J Health Soc Behav. 1983 Dec;24(4):385-96 [PMID: 6668417]
  16. J Clin Psychol. 2013 Jan;69(1):28-44 [PMID: 23070875]
  17. J Anxiety Disord. 2011 Jan;25(1):123-30 [PMID: 20832990]
  18. Behav Res Ther. 2010 Nov;48(11):1105-12 [PMID: 20810101]
  19. Compr Psychiatry. 2009 Jul-Aug;50(4):335-46 [PMID: 19486732]
  20. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2008 Oct;76(5):799-810 [PMID: 18837597]
  21. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999 Feb;76(2):284-304 [PMID: 10074710]
  22. J Ment Health. 2014 Apr;23(2):72-7 [PMID: 24328923]
  23. Psychol Assess. 2014 Jun;26(2):407-18 [PMID: 24490681]
  24. J Pers. 2009 Feb;77(1):23-50 [PMID: 19076996]

MeSH Term

Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Anxiety
Depression
Empathy
Factor Analysis, Statistical
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Self Report
Stress, Psychological
Surveys and Questionnaires
Journal Article
Article has an altmetric score of 23

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0factorSCSnegativeSelf-Compassionself-compassionstudyanalysespositiveformulateditemsscorestructure1includedindicatorswellruminationneuroticismCFAEFApositivelynegativelyiesumcorrelatedstronglyaffectScalecurrentlyself-reportinstrumentmeasurewidelyuseddespitelimitedevidencescale'spsychometricpropertiesvalidationstudiescommonlyperformedcollegestudentscurrentexaminedreliabilityconstructvaliditylargerepresentativesamplecommunityconducted736persons643BesidesdatacollectedpsychologicalfunctioningAnalysesconfirmatoryexploratorycorrelationsshowedSCS'sproposedsix-factorreplicatedsuggestedtwo-factorsolutionformedrespectivelyInternalconsistencygoodtwoidentifiedfactorsmoderatelydepressivesymptomsperceivedstressComparedweakerrelativelyResultsjustifycommonusetotaloverallindicatorprovidesupportideaalsoassumedothersimportantmakedistinctionself-criticismReconsiderationScale'sTotalScore:versusSelf-Criticism

Similar Articles

Cited By