Should We Use a Total Score, Two Subscale Scores, or Six Subscale Scores for the Self-Compassion Scale? A Multi-faceted Assessment Beyond Model Fit Indices
-
Published:2022-06-08
Issue:7
Volume:13
Page:1793-1803
-
ISSN:1868-8527
-
Container-title:Mindfulness
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Mindfulness
Author:
Buz JoséORCID, Crego AntonioORCID, Yela José R.ORCID, Sánchez-Zaballos ElenaORCID, Ayuso AntonioORCID
Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
The aim of this study was to conduct a multi-faceted assessment of the psychometric properties of the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS). In addition to the goodness-of-fit, we aimed to assess the strength and replicability of three factorial solutions, and the quality and effectiveness of the three scoring schemes of the scale (i.e., total scale score, two subscale scores, and six subscale scores).
Methods
Participants were 1508 Spanish-speaking community-dwelling adults (M = 34.94 years, SD = 15.02). Data were examined by means of a conjoint strategy using Rasch modeling, non-linear factor analysis, exploratory bifactor analysis, and parallel analysis. A procedure for selecting the optimal set of items that must be used to compute individual’s scores was used.
Results
The unidimensional solution showed a marginal model fit (RMSR = .089), and both the bifactor two-group and bifactor six-group solutions showed a good fit (RMSR = .043 and .019, respectively). However, only the unidimensional and the bifactor two-factor solutions showed interpretable and replicable factor structures, and high-quality and effective scores to be used for measurement purposes. Subscale scores derived from the six primary factors did not show adequate psychometric properties. It was observed that the information provided by 10 items was redundant and had already been provided by the other 16 items.
Conclusions
Good model fit is neither sufficient nor necessary to justify the use of a scoring scheme. Goodness-of-fit statistics should be complemented by an assessment of the metric properties of the resulting scores when proposing SCS scoring schemes.
Funder
Universidad de Salamanca
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Applied Psychology,Developmental and Educational Psychology,Experimental and Cognitive Psychology,Health (social science),Social Psychology
Reference39 articles.
1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association. 2. Brenner, R. E., Heath, P. J., Vogel, D. L., & Credé, M. (2017). Two is more valid than one: Examining the factor structure of the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64(6), 696–707. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000211 3. Brown, A., & Croudace, T. J. (2015). Scoring and estimating score precision using multidimensional IRT models. In S. P. Reise & D. A. Revicki (Eds.), Handbook of item response theory modeling: Applications to typical performance assessment (pp. 307–333). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. 4. Calderón, C., González, D. N., Seva, U. L., & Piera, P. J. F. (2019). Multidimensional or essentially unidimensional? A multi-faceted factor analytic approach for assessing the dimensionality of tests and items. Psicothema, 31(4), 450–457. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2019.153 5. Coroiu, A., Kwakkenbos, L., Moran, C., Thombs, B., Albani, C., Bourkas, S., Zenger, M., Brahler, E., & Körner, A. (2018). Structural validation of the Self-Compassion Scale with a German general population sample. PLoS ONE, 13(2), e0190771. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190771
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|