CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 398Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPsychometric Methodologies and TestingAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 115 of the 115 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Examining the Factor Structure of the Self-Compassion Scale in 20 Diverse Samples: Support for Use of a Total Score and Six Subscale Scores

Open access
Neff, Kristin D., Tóth-Király, István, Yarnell, Lisa M., Arimitsu, Kohki, Castilho, Paula, Ghorbani, Nima, Guo, Hailan Xiaoxia, Hirsch, Jameson K., Hupfeld, Jörg, Hutz, Claudio S., Kotsou, Ilios, Lee, Woo Kyeong, Montero-Marin, Jesus, Sirois, Fuschia M., de Souza, Luciana K., Svendsen, Julie L., Wilkinson, Ross B., Mantzios, Michail·2019·Psychological Assessment
DOI 10.1037/pas0000629
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study examined the factor structure of the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS) using secondary data drawn from 20 samples (N = 11,685)-7 English and 13 non-English-including 10 community, 6 student, 1 mixed community/student, 1 meditator, and 2 clinical samples. Self-compassion is theorized to represent a system with 6 constituent components: self-kindness, common humanity, mindfulness and reduced self-judgment, isolation and overidentification. There has been controversy as to whether a total score on the SCS or if separate scores representing compassionate versus uncompassionate self-responding should be used. The current study examined the factor structure of the SCS using confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) and Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM) to examine 5 distinct models: 1-factor, 2-factor correlated, 6-factor correlated, single-bifactor (1 general self-compassion factor and 6 group factors), and 2-bifactor models (2 correlated general factors each with 3 group factors representing compassionate or uncompassionate self-responding). Results indicated that a 1- and 2-factor solution to the SCS had inadequate fit in every sample examined using both CFA and ESEM, whereas fit was excellent using ESEM for the 6-factor correlated, single-bifactor and correlated 2-bifactor models. However, factor loadings for the correlated 2-bifactor models indicated that 2 separate factors were not well specified. A general factor explained 95% of the reliable item variance in the single-bifactor model. Results support use of the SCS to examine 6 subscale scores (representing the constituent components of self-compassion) or a total score (representing overall self-compassion), but not separate scores representing compassionate and uncompassionate self-responding. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/pas0000629

Cites

115 of 115 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 114 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Benda, J., & Reichová, A. (2016). [Psychometric characteristics of the Czech version of the SelfCompassion Scale] Psychometrické charakteristiky č eské verze Self-Compassion Scale (SCS-CZ). Č eskoslovenská psychologie. 60 (2), 20-36.
  2. Ghorbani, N., Chen, Z., Saeedi, Z., Behjati, Z.,Watson,P.J. (2013). Sakhtare Ameli Meghyase Shafeghat e Khod dar Iran (Factorial Structure of Self-Compassion Scale in Iran) Pazhohesh Haye Karbordi Ravanshenakhti, 4 (3), 29-41. (In Persian)
  3. Gilbert, P. (2005). Compassion: Conceptualizations, research and use in psychotherapy. London: Brunner-Routledge.
  4. Hupfeld, J., & Ruffieux, N. (2011). Validation of a German version of the self-compassion scale (SCS-D). Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 40 (2), 115-123.
  5. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2017). Mplus users guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.
  6. Neff, K. D. & Germer, C. (2017). Self-compassion and psychological wellbeing. In J. Doty (Ed.) Oxford Handbook of Compassion Science (pp. 371-386) . Oxford University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–398 of 398

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Neff, K. D., Tóth-Király, I., Yarnell, L. M., Arimitsu, K., Castilho, P., Ghorbani, N., Guo, H. X., Hirsch, J. K., Hupfeld, J., Hutz, C. S., Kotsou, I., Lee, W. K., Montero-Marin, J., Sirois, F. M., de Souza, L. K., Svendsen, J. L., Wilkinson, R. B., & Mantzios, M.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • American Institutes for Research (US)
  • Kwansei Gakuin University (JP)
  • University of Coimbra (PT)
  • University of Tehran (IR)
  • East Tennessee State University (US)
  • University of Bern (CH)
  • Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (BR)
  • Université Libre de Bruxelles (BE)
  • Seoul Cyber University (KR)
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
  • University of Newcastle Australia (AU)
  • Birmingham City University (GB)
Corresponding author
Neff, Kristin D.
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Assessment
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2019-01
Volume
31
Issue
1
Pages
27-45
ISSN
  • 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-134X
DOI
10.1037/pas0000629
OpenAlex
W2888066044
Cited by
397
References
114
Citations by year
2026: 46 · 2025: 62 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 53 · 2022: 61 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 33
FWCI
35.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Psychological Assessment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BCU Open Access Repository (Birmingham City University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - East Tennessee State University (East Tennessee State University) (submittedVersion)
  • Bern Open Repository and Information System (University of Bern) (submittedVersion)
  • Dépôt institutionnel de l'Université libre de Bruxelles (Université Libre de Bruxelles) (submittedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Lume (Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul) (submittedVersion)
  • NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (08/56/01)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
self-compassion, Self-Compassion Scale, factor structure, bifactor model, self-kindness, common humanity, mindfulness, isolation, over-identification, subscale scores, full score
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Empathy, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Self Concept, 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