Cited by 143Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPersonality Traits and PsychologyPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Exploring Self‐criticism: Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the FSCRS in Clinical and Nonclinical Samples

Open access
Castilho, Paula, Pinto‐Gouveia, José, Duarte, Joana·2015·Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy

Abstract

The Forms of Self-criticizing/Attacking and Self-reassuring Scale (FSCRS) is a self-report questionnaire that assesses the forms of self-criticism and self-reassurance. The aim of this study was to explore the latent structure of the FSCRS in nonclinical and clinical samples. Data from 381 participants from the general population and from 304 participants from clinical settings were subjected to confirmatory factor analyses to explore several structural models reflecting alternative representations of the FSCRS dimensionality. Overall, the model with the best fit to the data, in both samples, was the three-factor model (inadequate self, hated self and reassured self subscales) replicating the FSCRS original structure. The scale showed good psychometric characteristics, and the three factors discriminated between the clinical and nonclinical samples. To our knowledge, this is the first study to confirm the factor structure of the FSCRS in a purely clinical sample, and to test alternative models. This study adds to the existent literature that has been supporting the conceptualization of self-criticism as a multidimensional construct. Given the good psychometric properties of the Portuguese version of the FSCRS, its use is encouraged and recommended for the assessment of self-criticism in both clinical and research settings.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cpp.1881

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 44 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Castilho, P., Pinto‐Gouveia, J., & Duarte, J.
Affiliations
University of Coimbra (PT)
Corresponding author
Duarte, Joana
Venue
Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-12-04
Volume
22
Issue
2
Pages
153-164
ISSN
  • 1063-3995 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0879
OpenAlex
W1590047132
Cited by
143
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5
FWCI
6.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
self-criticism, self-reassurance, factor structure, psychopathology, Portuguese version, self-hatred, self-compassion
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Anxiety Disorders, Feeding and Eating Disorders, Borderline Personality Disorder, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Personality Assessment, Personality Disorders, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reference Values, Self-Assessment, Reproducibility of Results, Models, Statistical, Mood Disorders, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review