Construct validity of the Self-Compassion Scale-Short Form among psychotherapy clients
Abstract
Interest has been growing in the mental health benefits of self-compassion. Whereas, most research on this topic has been conducted with the 26-item Self-Compassion Scale (SCS), a briefer 12-item version of the instrument, the Self-Compassion Scale-Short Form (SCS-SF), also exists. The SCS-SF has demonstrated good validity and reliability in non-clinical samples, but it has not been used often in research with psychotherapy clients. This study was designed to examine the factor structure and construct validity of the SCS-SF in a clinical population. Data for this study were collected from 1609 college students receiving services at 10 campus counseling centers. The previously proposed factor structure of the SCS-SF was not supported. Instead, analyses revealed two factors, Self Care and Self Disparagement. Evidence for the construct validity of these factors was found via expected relationships with indices of depression, anxiety, social anxiety, hostility, academic distress, eating concerns, family distress, maladaptive perfectionism, suicidality, self-injurious behavior, and social support. SCS-SF scores were unrelated to various measures of substance use. Implications for clinical work and future research are discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Some adaptations found a two-factor structure instead of one factor, in a clinical population and among students.
“pojawiły się również adaptacje, wktórych zamiast jednego czynnika wyłoniono strukturę dwuczynnikową (w populacji klinicznej [33] iwśród studentów [34]).”
From The Polish adaptation of the Self-Compassion Scale Short Form (2024) · cites this paper as [33]
The SCS-SF has good internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and convergent validity in clinical populations.
“The SCS-SF has good internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and convergent validity in clinical populations (Hayes et al., 2016).”
From The feasibility and preliminary effects of a pilot randomized controlled trial: Videoconferencing acceptance and commitment therapy in distressed family caregivers of people with dementia. (2023) · cites this paper as Hayes et al., 2016
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 47 · Cited by 107
- Authors
- Hayes, J. A., Lockard, A. J., Janis, R. A., & Locke, B. D.
- Affiliations
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hayes, Jeffrey A.
- Venue
- Counselling Psychology Quarterly
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2016-04-06
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 405-422
- ISSN
- 0951-5070 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-3674
- OpenAlex
- W2324318967
- Cited by
- 107
- References
- 47
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 6.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Counselling Psychology Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Keywords
- self-compassion, Self-Compassion Scale Short Form, construct validity, factor structure, psychotherapy patients, university students, self-care, depression, anxiety, social anxiety, maladaptive perfectionism, suicidality, self-harm, social support
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