Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling Analysis of the Self-Compassion Scale
- 1k Downloads
The present research investigated the construct validity and psychometric properties of the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS) with a new and advanced statistical procedure, exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM), in order to contribute to the ongoing discussion about its dimensionality by employing a bifactor-ESEM framework. A Hungarian online representative sample (N = 505, N female = 265, M age = 44.37) filled out the Hungarian version of the SCS. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and ESEM methods were employed, and first-order and bifactor solutions were examined and compared. The bifactor ESEM model demonstrated the best fit to the data with the joint presence of the general self-compassion factor and the specific factors. Internal consistency was adequate in all cases. Reliability indices—omega and omega hierarchical—showed that not all specific factors had unique contributions over and above the general factor. High levels of gender invariance were also achieved with females having lower general self-compassion and self-judgment latent means, while having higher self-kindness scores. The findings shed new light on the underlying theory behind the SCS and proved the usefulness of the bifactor ESEM framework in the investigation of multidimensional constructs.
KeywordsBifactor Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) Exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) Invariance Self-compassion scale (SCS)
The last author (GO) was supported by the Hungarian Research Fund (NKFI PD 106027, 116686) and the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (Lendület Project LP2012-36).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and with the approval of the Institutional Review Board of the Eötvös Loránd University.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Azizi, A., Mohammadkhani, P., Lotfi, S., & Bahramkhani, M. (2013). The validity and reliability of the Iranian version of the self-compassion scale. Iranian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 2(3), 17–23.Google Scholar
- Benda, J., & Reichová, A. (2016). [Psychometric characteritics of the Czech version of the self-compassion scale] Psychometrické charakteristiky české verze self-compassion scale (SCS-CZ). Československá psychologie., 60(2), 20–36.Google Scholar
- Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Chen, J., Yan, L., & Zhou, L. (2011). Reliability and validity of Chinese version of self-compassion scale. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 19(6), 734–736.Google Scholar
- Chen, F. F., Hayes, A., Carver, C. S., Laurenceau, J. P., & Zhang, Z. (2012). Modeling general and specific variance in multifaceted constructs: a comparison of the bifactor model to other approaches. Journal of Personality, 80(1), 219–251. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00739.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Chiorri, C., Marsh, H. W., Ubbiali, A., & Donati, D. (2016). Testing the factor structure and measurement invariance across gender of the big five inventory through exploratory structural equation modeling. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(1), 88–99. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2015.1035381.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Costa, J., Marôco, J., Pinto-Gouveia, J., Ferreira, C., & Castilho, P. (2015). Validation of the psychometric properties of the self-compassion scale. Testing the factorial validity and factorial invariance of the measure among borderline personality disorder, anxiety disorder, eating disorder and general populations. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy. doi: 10.1002/cpp.1974.Google Scholar
- Finney, S. J., & DiStefano, C. (2006). Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. D. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: a second course (pp. 269–314). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
- Friis, A. M., Johnson, M. H., Cutfield, R. G., & Consedine, N. S. (2016). Kindness matters: a randomized controlled trial of a mindful self-compassion intervention improves depression, distress, and HbA1c among patients with diabetes. Diabetes Care, 39(11), 1963–1971. doi: 10.2337/dc16-0416.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Garcia-Campayo, J., Navarro-Gil, M., Andrés, E., Montero-Marin, J., López-Artal, L., & Demarzo, M. M. P. (2014). Validation of the Spanish versions of the long (26 items) and short (12 items) forms of the self-compassion scale (SCS). Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12(4), 1–9. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-12-4.Google Scholar
- Germer, C. K. (2009). The mindful path to self-compassion: freeing yourself from destructive thoughts and emotions. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Hupfeld, J., & Ruffieux, N. (2011). Validierung einer deutschen version der self-compassion scale (SCS-D) [validation of a German version of the self-compassion scale (SCS-D)]. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 40(2), 115–123. doi: 10.1026/1616-3443/a000088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Leary, M. R., Tate, E. B., Adams, C. E., Allen, A. B., & Hancock, J. (2007). Self-compassion and reactions to unpleasant self-relevant events: the implications of treating oneself kindly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), 887–904. doi: 10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.1247.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lee, W. K., & Lee, K. (2010). The validation study of the Korean version of the self-compassion scale with adult women in the community. Journal of the Korean Neuropsychiatric Association, 49, 193–200.Google Scholar
- Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320–341. doi: 10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Grayson, D. (2005). Goodness of fit evaluation. In A. Maydeu-Olivares & J. McArdle (Eds.), Contemporary psychometrics (pp. 275–340). Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Marsh, H. W., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Morin, A. J. S., & Trautwein, U. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and EFA: application to students’ evaluations of university teaching. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(3), 439–476. doi: 10.1080/10705510903008220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Marsh, H. W., Liem, G. A. D., Martin, A. J., Morin, A. J. S., & Nagengast, B. (2011). Methodological measurement fruitfulness of exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM): new approaches to key substantive issues in motivation and engagement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(4), 322–346. doi: 10.1177/0734282911406657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Marsh, H. W., Morin, A. J. S., Parker, P. D., & Kaur, G. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: an integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 85–110. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Morin, A. J. S., Marsh, H. W., & Nagengast, B. (2013). Exploratory structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: a second course (pp. 395–436). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, Inc..Google Scholar
- Morin, A. J. S., Arens, A. K., Tran, A., & Caci, H. (2015). Exploring sources of construct-relevant multidimensionality in psychiatric measurement: a tutorial and illustration using the composite scale of morningness. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research. doi: 10.1002/mpr.1485.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Morin, A. J. S., Arens, A. K., & Marsh, H. W. (2016). A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling framework for the identification of distinct sources of construct-relevant psychometric multidimensionality. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23(1), 116–139. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2014.961800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2015). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
- Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar