Cited by 15Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPsychometric Methodologies and TestingPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction

Assessing Compassion in Korean Population: Psychometric Properties of the Korean Version of Sussex-Oxford Compassion Scales

Open access
Kim, Jiyoung, Seo, Jang-Won·2021·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

A newly developed scale, the Sussex-Oxford Compassion Scale (SOCS) measures compassion for others and the self-based on an empirically supported five-elements definition of compassion: (a) recognizing suffering; (b) understanding the universality of suffering; (c) feeling for the person suffering; (d) tolerating uncomfortable feelings; and (e) motivation to act/acting to alleviate suffering. This study aimed to validate a Korean version of SOCS in a Korean adult sample. We administered the Sussex-Oxford Compassion Scale for Others (SOCS-O), the Sussex-Oxford Compassion Scale for the Self (SOCS-S), and other self-report measures of mindfulness, self-compassion, compassionate love, wellbeing, interpersonal reactivity, and mental health problems to analyze their psychometric properties. The findings support the five-factor hierarchical structure for the SOCS-O and SOCS-S, and as well as both scales' adequate psychometric properties of measurement invariance, interpretability, internal consistency, floor/ceiling effects, and convergent/discriminant validity.

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 · 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.744481

Cites

65 of 65 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?

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

1 of the 66 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Kirkpatrick K. L. (2005). Enhancing self-compassion using a Gestalt two-chair intervention. dissertation. Texas (TX): University of Texas at Austin.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kim, J., & Seo, J.-W.
Affiliations
Jeonbuk National University (KR)
Corresponding author
Seo, Jang-Won
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2021-10-11
Volume
12
Pages
744481-744481
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3205186795
Cited by
15
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2
FWCI
1.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Jeonbuk National University (4199990714213)
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, Korean adaptation, psychometric validation, self-compassion, compassion for others, measurement invariance, convergent and discriminant validity, Korean adults

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