Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 14, 2026

Culture and Assay of Large-Scale Mixed-Stage Caenorhabditis elegans Populations
Published on: May 5, 2021
Structural validation of the Self-Compassion Scale with a German general population sample
Adina Coroiu1, Linda Kwakkenbos2,3,4, Chelsea Moran1
1Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Background:
Published validation studies have reported different factor structures for the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS). The objective of this study was to assess the factor structure of the SCS in a large general population sample representative of the German population.
Methods:
A German population sample completed the SCS and other self-report measures. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in MPlus was used to test six models previously found in factor analytic studies (unifactorial model, two-factor model, three-factor model, six-factor model, a hierarchical (second order) model with six first-order factors and two second-order factors, and a model with arbitrarily assigned items to six factors). In addition, three bifactor models were also tested: bifactor model #1 with two group factors (SCS positive items, called SCS positive) and SCS negative items, called SCS negative) and one general factor (overall SCS); bifactor model #2, which is a two-tier model with six group factors, three (SCS positive subscales) corresponding to one general dimension (SCS positive) and three (SCS negative subscales) corresponding to the second general dimension (SCS negative); bifactor model #3 with six group factors (six SCS subscales) and one general factor (overall SCS).
Results:
The two-factor model, the six-factor model, and the hierarchical model showed less than ideal, but acceptable fit. The model fit indices for these models were comparable, with no apparent advantage of the six-factor model over the two-factor model. The one-factor model, the three-factor model, and bifactor model #3 showed poor fit. The other two bifactor models showed strong support for two factors: SCS positive and SCS negative.
Conclusion:
The main results of this study are that, among the German general population, six SCS factors and two SCS factors fit the data reasonably well. While six factors can be modelled, the three negative factors and the three positive factors, respectively, did not reflect reliable or meaningful variance beyond the two summative positive and negative item factors. As such, we recommend the use of two subscale scores to capture a positive factor and a negative factor when administering the German SCS to general population samples and we strongly advise against the use of a total score across all SCS items.
More Related Videos
12:27Large-scale Reconstructions and Independent, Unbiased Clustering Based on Morphological Metrics to Classify Neurons in Selective Populations
Published on: February 15, 2017
09:17Structure-Based Simulation and Sampling of Transcription Factor Protein Movements along DNA from Atomic-Scale Stepping to Coarse-Grained Diffusion
Published on: March 1, 2022
Related Concept Videos
Compass
Sample Proportion and Population Proportion
Reliability and Validity
pH Scale
Design Example: Marking Boundaries of a Site Using a Compass
Conservation of Small Populations