Factor Structure of the Self-Compassion Scale in 11 International Samples

Abstract

In this study, different factor analysis models were employed to test the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS) in 11 distinct populations (n = 15,266) in different countries. The results strongly suggest that the most appropriate use of the SCS is to measure levels of Self-Compassionate responding (positive items) and Self-Uncompassionate responding (negative items) separately.

Keywords:

• Bifactor models
• factor structure
• psychometric analysis
• self-compassion
• two-tier models

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

The data collection from all these samples was in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Availability of Data and Materials

In order to comply with the ethics approvals of the study protocols, data cannot be made accessible through a public repository. However, data are available upon request for researchers who consent to adhering to the ethical regulations for confidential data.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Emine Akçin Şenyuva, PhD, from Nursing Education Department, Florence Nightingale Nursing Faculty, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey, for providing us the Turkish sample and Lydia Brown, PhD, from School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, for providing us the Australian sample.

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author Contributions

JH designed research, invited coauthors to participate and coordinated research team. JH, NP, HM, AL, MB, EY, JB, EB, XZ, and MZ shared their collected data. MK performed the statistical analysis. JH and MK wrote the first draft of the article. All authors interpreted the results, revised the manuscript and read and approved the final manuscript. MZ secured funding for open access publishing.

Additional information

Funding

Writing of this work was supported by the VEGA under Grant 1/0578/15.

Notes on contributors

Júlia Halamová

Júlia Halamová is at the Institute of Applied Psychology, Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences, Comenius University in Bratislava, Bratislava, Slovakia.

Martin Kanovský

Martin Kanovský is at the Institute of Social Anthropology, Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences, Comenius University in Bratislava, Bratislava, Slovakia.

Nicola Petrocchi

Nicola Petrocchi is at the Department of Economics and Social Sciences, John Cabot University, Rome, Italy.

Helena Moreira

Helena Moreira is at the Cognitive and Behavioral Center for Research and Intervention, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.

Angélica López

Angélica López is at the Department of Health Sciences, Health Psychology Section, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.

Michael D. Barnett

Michael D. Barnett is at the Department of Psychology and Counseling, Memory Assessment and Research Center, University of Texas at Tyler, Tyler, Texas, USA.

Eunjoo Yang

Eunjoo Yang is at the Department of Psychology, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea.

Jan Benda

Jan Benda is at the Department of Psychology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.

Elmar Brähler

Elmar Brähler is at the Department of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany, and the Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany.

Xianglong Zeng

Xianglong Zeng is at the Department of Psychology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.

Markus Zenger

Markus Zenger is with the Faculty of Applied Human Studies, University of Applied Sciences Magdeburg-Stendal, Stendal, Germany, and the Integrated Research and Treatment Center (IFB) Adiposity Diseases – Behavioral Medicine, Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University of Leipzig Medical Center, Leipzig, Germany.