CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 21Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPsychometric Methodologies and TestingPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction

Factor Structure of the Sussex-Oxford Compassion Scales

Open access
Halamová, Júlia, Kanovský, Martin·2021·Psihologijske teme
DOI 10.31820/pt.30.3.5
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Without a reliable and valid instrument of compassion and self-compassion, it is hard to conduct quality research in compassion even though it is a rapidly growing area of interest in many scientific fields. However, recently the Sussex-Oxford Compassion Scales (SOCS; Gu et al., 2020) were developed, with two parallel versions for compassion (SCOS-O) and self-compassion (SCOS-S) containing 20 items each. Because the SOCS scales are newly developed measures of compassion, this is the first study to be conducted beyond the original research (Gu et al., 2020) that validates their factor structure. Our sample consisted of 1080 respondents; 19.35% were males and 80.65% were females. Mean age was 29.29 (SD = 11.15). Convenience sampling via social networks was used. To analyse the data, we reproduced all the confirmatory models in Gu et al. (2020) for both scales: the one-factor model, five-factor model, and five-factor hierarchical model. Our research results showed that for the SCOS-O, the multidimensional definition of compassion for others fits the factor structure of the scale, but this does not apply to the SCOS-S. Self-compassion has two dominant factors over and above five specific factors: Rational Compassion (containing two specific factors: Recognising Suffering and Understanding the Universality of Suffering) and Emotional/Behavioural Compassion (containing three specific factors: Feeling for the Person Suffering, Tolerating Uncomfortable Feelings, and Acting or Being Motivated to Act to Alleviate Suffering). Therefore, the total self-compassion score is unsuitable for use because the scale lacks essential unidimensionality; however, the compassion for others total score can be used safely.

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 · 10.31820/pt.30.3.5

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Validation of a Slovak translation found support for the proposed five-factor hierarchical structure for the SOCS-O, but advises against using the total score for the SOCS-S as they found support for two dominant factors above the five proposed factors.

    “Validation of a Slovak translation found support for the proposed five-factor hierarchical structure for the SOCS-O, but advises against using the total score for the SOCS-S as they found support for two dominant factors (which they refer to as “Rational Compassion” and “Emotional/Behavioural Compassion”) above the five proposed factors [113].”

    From Validation of the compassionate engagement and action scales, compassion scale, and Sussex-Oxford compassion scales in a French-Canadian sample (2024) · cites this paper as [113]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. Baránková, M., Halamová, J., & Koróniová, J. (2019). Non-expert views of compassion: Consensual qualitative research using focus groups. Human Affairs, 29(1), 6-19. https://doi.org/10.1515/humaff-2019-0002 · DOI
  2. Benda J., & Vyhnánek, A. (2019, September 29-29). Childhood, toxic shame, toxic guilt and self-compassion [Paper presentation]. 7th International Conference on Pesso Boyden System Psychomotor® (PBSP®), Science and Good Practice, Prague, Czech Republic.
  3. Bluth K., Campo R. A., Futch W. S., & Gaylord S. A. (2017). Age and gender differences in the associations of self-compassion and emotional well-being in a large adolescent sample. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46, 840-853. https://doi.org/10.007/ s10964-016-0567-2
  4. Cai, L. (2010). A two-tier full-information item factor analysis model with applications. Psychometrika, 75, 581-612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-010-9178-0 · DOI
  5. Cucina, J., & Byle, K. (2017). The bifactor model fits better than the higher-order model in more than 90% of comparisons for mental abilities test batteries. Journal of Intelligence, 5, 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence5030027 · DOI
  6. Gilbert, P. (2014). The origins and nature of compassion focused therapy. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53, 6-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjc.12043 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Halamová, J., Baránková, M., Strnádelová, B., & Koróniová, J. (2018). Consensual qualitative research on free associations for compassion and self-compassion. Human Affairs, 28(3), 253-270. https://doi.org/10.1515/humaff-2018-0021 · DOI
  8. Halamová, J., Kanovský, M., Petrocchi, N., Moreira, H., López, A., Barnett, M., Yang, E., Benda, J., Brähler, E., Zeng, X., & Zenger, M. (2021). Factor structure of the Self- Compassion scale in 11 international samples. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 54, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2020. 1735203 · DOI
  9. Halamová, J., Koróniová, J., Kanovský, M., Kénesy-Túnyiová, M., & Kupeli, N. (2019). Psychological and physiological effects of emotion focused training for self-compassion and self-protection. Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome, 22, 264-279. https://doi.org/10.4081/ripppo.2019.358 · DOI
  10. Henry, J. D., & Crawford, J. R. (2005). The short-form version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21): Construct validity and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44, 227-239. https://doi.org/10.1348/ 014466505X29657 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Hwang, J. Y., Plante, T., & Lackey, K. (2008). The development of the Santa Clara brief compassion scale: An abbreviation of Sprecher and Fehr's compassionate love scale. Pastoral Psychology, 56, 421-428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11089-008-0117-2 · DOI
  12. Jazaieri H., McGonigal K., Jinpa T., Doty, J. R., Gross, J. J., & Goldin, P. (2013). A randomized controlled trial of compassion cultivation training: Effects on mindfulness, affect, and emotion regulation. Motivation and Emotion, 38(1), 23-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-013-9368-z · DOI
  13. Jeon, M., Rijmen, F. & Rabe-Hesketh, S. (2018): CFA models with a general factor and multiple sets of secondary factors. Psychometrika, 83, 785-808. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11336-018-9633-x · DOI
  14. Kanovský, M., Baránková, M., Halamová, J., Strnádelová, B., & Koróniová, J. (2020). Analysis of facial expressions made while watching a video eliciting compassion. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 127(2), 317-346. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0031512519897512 · DOI
  15. Kline, P. (1999). The handbook of psychological testing. Routledge.
  16. Koróniová, J., Halamová, J., & Džongová, Z. (2020). Differences in electromyography during self-compassionate and self-critical imageries according to the level of self-criticism. Sudia Psychologica, 62(4), 364-375. https://doi.org/10.31577/sp.2020.04.810 · DOI
  17. Koróniová, J., Halamová, J., & Taňkošová, N. (2020): Level of self-criticism and changes in imagery among participants attending Emotion Focused Training for Self-Compassion and Self-Protection. Československá psychologie, 64(5), 608-624.
  18. Martins D., Nicholas N.A., Shaheen M., Jones L., & Norris K. (2013). The development and evaluation of a Compassion Scale. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 24, 1235-1246. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2013.0148 · DOI
  19. Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1981). Maslach Burnout Inventory: MBI. Consulting Psychologists press.
  20. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2010). Mplus User's Guide. Sixth Edition.
  21. Neff, K. D. (2003a). Development and validation of a scale to measure self-compassion. Self and Identity, 2, 223-250. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860309027 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Neff, K. D. (2003b) Self-compassion: An alternative conceptualization of a healthy attitude toward oneself. Self and Identity, 2, 85-102. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860309032 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2019). Thanks coefficient alpha, we still need you! Educational and Psychological Measurement, 79(1), 200-210. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0013164417725127 · DOI
  24. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference chi-square test statistic. Psychometrika, 75, 243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-009-9135-y · DOI
  25. Satorra, A. (2000). Scaled and adjusted restricted tests in multi-sample analysis of moment structures. In R. D. H. Heijmans, D. S. G. Pollock, & A. Satorra (Eds.), Innovations in multivariate statistical analysis. A Festschrift for Heinz Neudecker (pp. 233-247). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  26. Savalei, V., & Reise, S. P. (2019). Don't forget the model in your model-based reliability coefficients: A reply to McNeish (2018). Collabra: Psychology, 5(1), Article 36. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.247 · DOI
  27. Seppälä, E. M., Simon-Thomas, E., Brown, S. L., Worline, M. C., Cameron, C. D., & Doty, J. R. (2017). The Oxford handbook of compassion science. Oxford University Press.
  28. Sprecher, S., & Fehr, B. (2005). Compassionate love for close others and humanity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(5), 629-651.
  29. Stevens, J. P. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Routledge.
  30. Stewart-Brown, S., Tennant, A., Tennant, R., Platt, S., Parkinson, J., & Weich, S. (2009). Internal construct validity of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS): A Rasch analysis using data from the Scottish Health Education Population Survey. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 7, 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/ 1477-7525-7-15 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Strnádelová, B., Halamová, J., & Kanovský, M. (2019). Eye-tracking of facial emotions in relation to self-criticism and self-reassurance. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 33(10), 839-862. https://doi.org/10.1080/08839514.2019.1646004 · DOI
  32. Stucky, B. D., & Edelen, M. O. (2014). Using hierarchical IRT models to create unidimensional measures from multidimensional data. In S. P. Reise & D. A. Revicki (Eds.), Handbook of item response theory modelling: Applications to typical performance assessment (pp. 183-206). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
  33. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53-55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Halamová, J., & Kanovský, M.
Affiliations
Comenius University Bratislava (SK)
ORCID
Venue
Psihologijske teme
Publisher
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences University of Rijeka
Published
2021-12-13
Volume
30
Issue
3
Pages
489-508
ISSN
  • 1332-0742 (ISSN-L)
  • 1849-0395
DOI
10.31820/pt.30.3.5
OpenAlex
W4200394250
Cited by
21
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4
FWCI
1.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-sa
Locations
  • Psihologijske teme (publishedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Hrčak Portal of scientific journals of Croatia (University Computing Centre) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Agentúra na Podporu Výskumu a Vývoja (PP-COVID-20-0074)
  • Vedecká Grantová Agentúra MŠVVaŠ SR a SAV (1/0075/19, Grant 1/0075/19)
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 › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Keywords
compassion, self-compassion, factor structure, scale validation, unidimensionality, compassion for others

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