Examining the factor structure of the Self-Compassion Scale in 20 diverse samples: Support for use of a total score and six subscale scores
This is the largest examination of how the Self-Compassion Scale is structured, using twenty samples and more than eleven thousand people across seven English and thirteen non-English datasets, including community, student, clinical and meditator groups. It tests five competing models of the scale against the data. Treating self-compassion as one thing, or as two opposed things, fitted badly in every sample. Models with six components, or with one general factor sitting above six components, fitted well. The model representing compassionate and uncompassionate responding as two separate general factors was not well specified by the data, and a single general factor accounted for almost all of the reliable variance. The conclusion drawn is that the scale supports either six subscale scores or one total score, but not two separate scores for compassionate and uncompassionate responding. This is the other side of the scoring argument, and this vault records it alongside the papers that reach the opposite conclusion.
This is the largest examination of how the Self-Compassion Scale is structured, using twenty samples and more than eleven thousand people across seven English and thirteen non-English datasets, including community, student, clinical and meditator groups. It tests five competing models of the scale against the data. Treating self-compassion as one thing, or as two opposed things, fitted badly in every sample. Models with six components, or with one general factor sitting above six components, fitted well. The model representing compassionate and uncompassionate responding as two separate general factors was not well specified by the data, and a single general factor accounted for almost all of the reliable variance. The conclusion drawn is that the scale supports either six subscale scores or one total score, but not two separate scores for compassionate and uncompassionate responding. This is the other side of the scoring argument, and this vault records it alongside the papers that reach the opposite conclusion.
Written from the abstract, OpenAlex.
What our sources record
Reproduced as it was written when this source was checked, figures and all.
Neff, K. D., et al. (2019). Bifactor exploratory structural equation modelling of the Self-Compassion Scale across 20 samples, N = 11,685. General factor explained 95 per cent of the reliable variance in item responding, range 86 to 96 per cent across samples.
Where we use it
- Why You Are Kinder to Your Friends Than to Yourself, Why We Care
Reliability of this reference
The link below is the right work, with one detail that does not line up. This is the 20-sample bifactor-ESEM paper the citation describes, but the citation gives no title; matched on the distinctive '20 samples' description, author and year. Sample size N = 11,685 is consistent with this paper. Worth opening before quoting a figure from it.
The source
https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000629
DOI: 10.1037/pas0000629