Advertisement

Mindfulness

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 881–892 | Cite as

Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling Analysis of the Self-Compassion Scale

  • István Tóth-KirályEmail author
  • Beáta Bőthe
  • Gábor Orosz
ORIGINAL PAPER

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Bifactor Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) Exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) Invariance Self-compassion scale (SCS) 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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

Ethics Statement

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.

References

  1. Arens, A. K., & Morin, A. J. (2016). Examination of the structure and grade-related differentiation of multidimensional self-concept instruments for children using ESEM. The Journal of Experimental Education, 84(2), 330–355. doi: 10.1080/00220973.2014.999187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arimitsu, K. (2014). Development and validation of the Japanese version of the self-compassion scale. The Japanese Journal of Psychology, 85(1), 50–59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(3), 397–438. doi: 10.1080/10705510903008204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Bandalos, D. L. (2014). Relative performance of categorical diagonally weighted least squares and robust maximum likelihood estimation. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(1), 102–116. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2014.859510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186–3191.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Bento, E., Xavier, S., Azevedo, J., Marques, M., Freitas, V., Soares, M. J., et al. (2016). Validation of the self-compassion scale in a community sample of Portuguese pregnant women. European Psychiatry, 33, S238. doi: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2016.01.598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  10. Brunner, M., Nagy, G., & Wilhelm, O. (2012). A tutorial on hierarchically structured constructs. Journal of Personality, 80(4), 796–846. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00749.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Caci, H., Morin, A. J., & Tran, A. (2015). Investigation of a bifactor model of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 24(10), 1291–1301. doi: 10.1007/s00787-015-0679-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Castilho, P., Pinto-Gouveia, J., & Duarte, J. (2015). Evaluating the multifactor structure of the long and short versions of the self-compassion scale in a clinical sample. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 71(9), 856–870. doi: 10.1002/jclp.22187.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504. doi: 10.1080/10705510701301834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. Cunha, M., Xavier, A., & Castilho, P. (2016). Understanding self-compassion in adolescents: validation study of the self-compassion scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 93, 56–62. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.09.023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. de Souza, L. K., & Hutz, C. S. (2016). Adaptation of the self-compassion scale for use in Brazil: evidences of construct validity. Trends in Psychology, 24(1), 159–172. doi: 10.9788/TP2016.1-11.Google Scholar
  21. Deniz, M., Kesici, Ş., & Sümer, A. S. (2008). The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the self-compassion scale. Social Behavior and Personality, 36(9), 1151–1160. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2008.36.9.1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dundas, I., Svendsen, J. L., Wiker, A. S., Granli, K. V., & Schanche, E. (2016). Self-compassion and depressive symptoms in a Norwegian student sample. Nordic Psychology, 68(1), 58–72. doi: 10.1080/19012276.2015.1071203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ferreira, C., Pinto-Gouveia, J., & Duarte, C. (2013). Self-compassion in the face of shame and body image dissatisfaction: implications for eating disorders. Eating Behaviors, 14(2), 207–210. doi: 10.1016/j.eatbeh.2013.01.005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. Germer, C. K. (2009). The mindful path to self-compassion: freeing yourself from destructive thoughts and emotions. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  28. Guay, F., Morin, A. J. S., Litalien, D., Valois, P., & Vallerand, R. J. (2015). Application of exploratory structural equation modeling to evaluate the academic motivation scale. The Journal of Experimental Education, 83(1), 51–82. doi: 10.1080/00220973.2013.876231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Joshanloo, M., & Lamers, S. M. (2016). Reinvestigation of the factor structure of the MHC-SF in the Netherlands: contributions of exploratory structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 97, 8–12. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kotsou, I., & Leys, C. (2016). Self-compassion scale (SCS): psychometric properties of the French translation and its relations with psychological well-being, affect and depression. PloS One, 11(4), e0152880. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152880.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Krieger, T., Altenstein, D., Baettig, I., Doerig, N., & Holtforth, M. G. (2013). Self-compassion in depression: associations with depressive symptoms, rumination, and avoidance in depressed outpatients. Behavior Therapy, 44(3), 501–513. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2013.04.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 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: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.887.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. López, A., Sanderman, R., Smink, A., Zhang, Y., van Sonderen, E., Ranchor, A., et al. (2015). A reconsideration of the self-compassion scale’s total score: self-compassion versus self-criticism. PloS One, 10(7), e0132940. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132940.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. MacBeth, A., & Gumley, A. (2012). Exploring compassion: a meta-analysis of the association between self-compassion and psychopathology. Clinical Psychology Review, 32(6), 545–552. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2012.06.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Maïano, C., Morin, A. J., Lanfranchi, M. C., & Therme, P. (2013). The eating attitudes test-26 revisited using exploratory structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41(5), 775–788. doi: 10.1007/s10802-013-9718-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Mantzios, M., Wilson, J. C., & Giannou, K. (2015). Psychometric properties of the Greek versions of the self-compassion and mindful attention and awareness scales. Mindfulness, 6(1), 123–132. doi: 10.1007/s12671-013-0237-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Morin, A. J. S., Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2010). A new look at the big five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 22(3), 471–491. doi: 10.1037/a0019227.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B., & Morin, A. J. S. (2013). Measurement invariance of big-five factors over the life span: ESEM tests of gender, age, plasticity, maturity, and la dolce vita effects. Developmental Psychology, 49(6), 1194–1218. doi: 10.1037/a0026913.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58(4), 525–543. doi: 10.1007/BF02294825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Meredith, W., & Teresi, J. A. (2006). An essay on measurement and factorial invariance. Medical Care, 44(11), S69–S77. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000245438.73837.89.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Morin, A. J. S., & Maïano, C. (2011). Cross-validation of the short form of the physical self-inventory (PSI-S) using exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM). Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12(5), 540–554. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.04.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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
  51. 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
  52. 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
  53. Muris, P., Otgaar, H., & Petrocchi, N. (2016). Protection as the mirror image of psychopathology: further critical notes on the self-compassion scale. Mindfulness, 7(3), 787–790. doi: 10.1007/s12671-016-0509-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2015). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  55. Neff, K. D. (2003). The development and validation of a scale to measure self-compassion. Self and Identity, 2(3), 223–250. doi: 10.1080/15298860309027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Neff, K. D. (2011). Self-compassion, self-esteem, and well-being. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(1), 1–12. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00330.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Neff, K. D. (2016a). The self-compassion scale is a valid and theoretically coherent measure of self-compassion. Mindfulness, 7(1), 264–274. doi: 10.1007/s12671-015-0479-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Neff, K. D. (2016b). Does self-compassion entail reduced self-judgment, isolation, and over-identification? A response to Muris, Otgaar, and Petrocchi (2016). Mindfulness, 7(3), 791–797. doi: 10.1007/s12671-016-0531-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Neff, K. D., & Germer, C. K. (2013). A pilot study and randomized controlled trial of the mindful self-compassion program. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 69(1), 28–44. doi: 10.1002/jclp.21923.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Neff, K. D., Pisitsungkagarn, K., & Hsieh, Y. P. (2008). Self-compassion and self-construal in the United States, Thailand, and Taiwan. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(3), 267–285. doi: 10.1177/0022022108314544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  62. Petrocchi, N., Ottaviani, C., & Couyoumdjian, A. (2014). Dimensionality of self-compassion: translation and construct validation of the self-compassion scale in an Italian sample. Journal of Mental Health, 23(2), 72–77. doi: 10.3109/09638237.2013.841869.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Raes, F. (2010). Rumination and worry as mediators of the relationship between self-compassion and depression and anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(6), 757–761. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.01.023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Reise, S. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47(5), 667–696. doi: 10.1080/00273171.2012.715555.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. Reise, S. P., Morizot, J., & Hays, R. D. (2007). The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures. Quality of Life Research, 16(1), 19–31. doi: 10.1007/s11136-007-9183-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016). Evaluating bifactor models: calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21(2), 137–150. doi: 10.1037/met0000045.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74(1), 107–120. doi: 10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Vandenberg, R. J. (2002). Toward a further understanding of and improvement in measurement invariance methods and procedures. Organizational Research Methods, 5(2), 139–158. doi: 10.1177/1094428102005002001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70. doi: 10.1177/10944281003100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Williams, M. J., Dalgleish, T., Karl, A., & Kuyken, W. (2014). Examining the factor structures of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire and the self-compassion scale. Psychological Assessment, 26(2), 407–418. doi: 10.1037/a0035566.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Yarnell, L. M., Stafford, R. E., Neff, K. D., Reilly, E. D., Knox, M. C., & Mullarkey, M. (2015). Meta-analysis of gender differences in self-compassion. Self and Identity, 14(5), 499–520. doi: 10.1080/15298868.2015.1029966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zeng, X., Wei, J., Oei, T. P., & Liu, X. (2016). The self-compassion scale is not validated in a Buddhist sample. Journal of Religion and Health, 55(1996), 1–14. doi: 10.1007/s10943-016-0205-z.Google Scholar
  73. Zessin, U., Dickhäuser, O., & Garbade, S. (2015). The relationship between self-compassion and well-being: a meta-analysis. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 7(3), 340–364. doi: 10.1111/aphw.12051.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Doctoral School of PsychologyEötvös Loránd UniversityBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Institute of PsychologyEötvös Loránd UniversityBudapestHungary
  3. 3.Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience and Psychology, Research Centre for Natural Sciences, Hungarian Academy of SciencesBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations