Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,541

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 144 of the 144 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Validity of Antonovsky’s sense of coherence scale: a systematic review

Open access
Eriksson, Monica, Lindström, Bengt·2005·Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health

Abstract

Study objective: The aim of this paper is to systematically review and analyse the validity and reliability of Antonovsky’s life orientation questionnaire/sense of coherence scale (SOC). Design: The study is descriptive and analytical with a systematic integration of the contemporary knowledge base on the salutogenic research published 1992–2003. The review includes 458 scientific publications and 13 doctoral theses. Setting: Worldwide, based on postgraduate scientific publications in eight authorised databases, doctoral theses, and available books. Main results: The SOC questionnaire has been used in at least 33 languages in 32 countries with at least 15 different versions of the questionnaire. In 124 studies using SOC-29 the Cronbach’s α ranges from 0.70 to 0.95. The α values in 127 studies using SOC-13 range from 0.70 to 0.92, and in 60 studies using a modified SOC scale range from 0.35 to 0.91. Test-retest correlation show stability and range from 0.69 to 0.78 (1 year), 0.64 (3 years), 0.42 to 0.45 (4 years), 0.59 to 0.67 (5 years) to 0.54 (10 years). The means of SOC-29 range 100.50 (SD 28.50) to 164.50 (SD 17.10) points and SOC-13 from 35.39 (SD 0.10) to 77.60 (SD 13.80) points. After 10 years SOC seems to be comparatively stable, but not as stable as Antonovsky initially assumed. SOC tends to increase with age. The factorial structure of SOC seems rather to be multidimensional than unidimensional. SOC predicts a positive outcome in a long term perspective, although there are divergent findings reported. The SOC scale seems to be a reliable, valid, and cross culturally applicable instrument measuring how people manage stressful situations and stay well.

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 · 10.1136/jech.2003.018085

Cites

144 of 144 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

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

Show all 144 references

Cited by

See all 1,541

Metadata

Authors
Eriksson, M., & Lindström, B.
Venue
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2005-05-23
Volume
59
Issue
6
Pages
460-466
ISSN
  • 0141-7681 (ISSN-L)
  • 0143-005X
  • 1470-2738
OpenAlex
W2019685630
Cited by
1,541
References
144
FWCI
8.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Validity of Antonovsky’s sense of coherence scale: a systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/jech.2003.018085
The paper
Eriksson, M., & Lindström, B. (2005). Validity of Antonovsky’s sense of coherence scale: a systematic review. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2003.018085

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.