Reliability of 26 item Self Compassion Scale †MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Validity and Reliability of 26 item Self-Compassion Scale. Answer: Introduction The 26 item Self-Compassionate scale is psychological tool for assessing and measuring compassion. It focusses on psychometric properties of the responded where the individual responds to asset of 26n questions that are answered based on a scale of 1-5. Compassion is an element that is measured about an individuals reaction to others(Baer, Lykins, Peters, 2002). This means being open to and moved by others suffering and the desire to ease this suffering. This is mostly used in clinical settings where health practitioners are supposed to have a level of compassion to patients that they serve (Neff, 2003). This will entail three basic components; extended kindness to others, seeing others experiences as part of the larger human experience and lastly balancing the other persons pain rather than over-identifying with the pain that they experience. Self-Compassion is said to transform negative self-affect into a positive self-affect with psychological benefits associated with high self-e steem. Studies on the Self-Compassion scale have elicited different reactions on whether the components on the scale are A valid or not. However, the 26-item compassionate scale is a guide which has been used by many practitioners to design a scale that can be used to measure compassion(Costa Pinto-Gouveia, 2013). This has led to the question of whether the scale meets all the required measures or needs to be reviewed. This report is a critical review of the Self-Compassionate scale based on previous studies on the tool. This has raised several issues on the A validity of the scale. Validity and reliability Self-Compassion is a construct drawn from the Buddhist tradition, describing. Compassion for oneself. As compassion is characterized by understanding, acceptance, and forgiveness extended to others (McKay Fanning, 1992), Self-Compassion entails the same attributes of compassion turned inward(NEFF, 2003). According to Garcia-Campayo, et al. (2014) the Self-Compassion Scale is the only tool that is used to measure and self-report Self-Compassion. This scale focuses on the mindfulness of the practitioner through exercising a quality of consciousness that is non-judgmental and present centered. Self-Compassion as encompassing self-kindness, common humanity, and mindfulness in opposition to self-judgment isolation, and over-identification(Costa Pinto-Gouveia, 2013). As such, the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS) contains all of these aspects as separate yet related subscales. While most individuals may relate to the notion of compassion and empathy towards others, affording the same kind of t reatment towards oneself may be more novel. The construct of Self-Compassion regarding individual, relational, and physiological functioning is an exciting development in psychology. The tool is supposed to be designed across three different and related facets of mindfulness, common humanity and self-kindness. Further, there are six sub-scales that represent negative and positive facets for each scale that is measured in the three above. This means that the measures are based on the perceived responses towards themselves about the situations that others are in. Self-Compassion scales are designed differently in different countries. The SCS measure of compassion is A valid since is tis designed based on the confirmatory factor analyses to ensure that the scale items fit the models that are used for the study. The six factors listed above can be used in understanding the subscales within the study. When the factors in the scales are correlated with research findings, it has been reported that the factors can be interpreted and controlled according to the needs of the researcher(Gadermann, Schonert-Reichl, Zumbo, 2009). Internal validity and reliability of the SCS scale has been highly reported in several studies that have been tested by researchers. There are high correlation results between different studies that have varied out in separate studies. One of the measures that has been seen to be consistent is the difference in compassion levels among different groups in the population. Research and SCS studies have indicated that undergraduate and community adults have lower SCS scores as compared to those who pr actice Buddhism(Neff Germer, 2013). Further, convergent A validity in different measures that have been carried out based on therapist rating of Self-Compassion individuals who were using a single item had and the results that were displayed after being introduced to the new tools. A valid interpretation of the SCS scores has been highly debated on whether the measures can be validly interpreted. Through the bi-factor model, the individual factors that form the group factors can be modeled for a better understanding of the results. The association of overall factors of Self-Compassion allow for essay measurement of the factors through using the omega index to estimate the percentages of variance in the items. Thus A validity of the measures is achieved through optimal model, estimates that result from omega factor analysis(Reise, Bonifary, Haviland, 2013) The factor structure of the Self-Compassionate Scale has been designed in such a way that both negative and positive factors of the scale can be included. The dynamic balance between compassionate versus uncompassionate ways that individuals emotionally respond to pain and failure (with kindness or judgment), cognitively understand their predicament (as part of the human experience or as isolating), and pay attention to suffering (in a mindful or over-identified manner). The Self-Compassionate scale is based on generalized factors that are used across different populations. Different studies on the factors have yielded mixed results in higher-order factors of the scale. Studies in Chinese and Portuguese clinical students showed different results as compared to those from Germany and Italy. Researchers have questioned the ability of such findings to be generalized across different populations. This is because there are cultural factors that may shape reactions and compassion levels of the student. This led some researcher concluding that the Self-Compassion scale works better in measuring six components of Self-Compassion rather than measuring the real construct of Self-Compassion(Nef, 2015). This means that there are challenges in getting an overall Self-Compassion score and interpreting its validity. Approaches like the psychometric approach model, were designed to assess the multidisciplinary nature of psychological measures. These measures have re vealed that when the SCS is used with the bi-factor model,, the individual responses are impacted thus giving different scores. Studies on compassion using the SCS scale have revealed that compassion can be described in several ways. The six elements used in measuring compassion reveal that compassion is a complex construct that includes other elements like emotion, perceptiveness, sensitivity to suffering, understanding, distress tolerance and nonjudgmental attitudes(Strauss, et al., 2016). This therefore reveals that compassion is both trait and state like and thus can be measured a cross a continuum of tests using SCS. Through assigning questionnaires on an ordinal scale, compassion can be measured using a set of questions that evaluate the responses of the reader according to questions that are organization along the three psychological components. Researchers can analyses and measure compassion levels in individuals without and analyze it statistically using available tools for the research. Gilbert (2004) suggests that oone of the strengths of the SCS tool is its ability to compliment other psychological measures in research. The tool has been applied together with other psychometric tools that have been used to measure different aspects of life. Measures like self-esteem, understanding, kindness and other virtues have been measured using different scales. SCS allows researchers to carry out research and compare results from different studies. Since the measures allow for gathering of quantitative data, it becomes easy for the data gathered from different studies to be correlated and compared to determine the A validity of the data. One of the measures of validity in research is the ability of a research to be consistent with previous studies. Some studies have shown different confirmatory factor analysis results have revealed different findings. One study by Garcia-Campayo , Navarro-Gil M, Montero-Marin J, Demarzo (2014) reported higher confirmatory in students while the other by Petrocchi, Ottaviani, Couyoumdjian, (2013) replicated the six factor structure but failed to report evidence on higher-order factor among community samples. These studies suggest that it is difficult to sum the six factors together into an overall Self-Compassion score. This tests reveal convergent validity which gives results that relate to measures of self-esteem and rumination. This has also been reported in different reports of compassion that have been seen among different social groups like Buddhists who report higher compassion rates based on demographic differences. Further, arguments against the test have suggested that the psychometric properties of the tool were designed using measures that are fit for college students. This means that applying the test to different populations may not yield accurate results (Voruz, 2013). There are different factors like age, gender and even demographic characteristics that may affect the reliability of data. This social factors affect the nature of responses received thus making reliability of the data used in the scale less reliable. Any scale of measurement should have a way to avoid biases that may affect reliability of the data collected from the study. Since the SCS tool is designed as a single tool to be used in the profession, reliability id highly compromised. Further,, each of the positive and negative factors formulated in the scale lead to separate factors that are different from each other rather than one common factor. One of the limitations of using the tool is its lack of the primary definition of compassion. Primary levels of compassion are not measured under the normal measures of compassion thus not taking care of all the factors of compassion (Brown, 2006). At the individual level, compassion measures may reveal different results since they are not in certain situations. Therefore, the results in a clinical setting should be treated as a validly true since the levels that individuals score will vary from one way to another. Further, human being have social bonds that affect their compassion levels. This means that measures that are taken will vary depending on the individual setting(Crawford, Brown, Kvangarsnes, Gilbert, 2014). In the presence of a family member or friend, the levels of compassion may be higher as compared to the case of professional settings. There is need to find a common ground on how both settings can be integrated to improve measures of A validity. Conclusion The psychometric abilities of the scale have been highly criticized due to the use of the overall Self-Compassion score. Scholars have indicated that the scale cannot be A validly used to measure and arrive on a Self-Compassion score using different factors. This is but there are six elements that fall within the each of the three levels of measurement. The questions used for the scores have been weighted differently leading to the question of whether the overall score that is given by the results reveals the required information(Gadermann, Guhn, Zumbo, 2010). When the questions are weighted differently on different elements of the scale then it becomes challenging to measure the effects of each question on the overall score. Further, the elements are only three but compassion is affected by other factors which have not been accommodated in the scale. This leaves gaps in the overall score since the factors do not give the differences in the scores. References Baer, R. A., Lykins, E. L., Peters, J. R. (2002). Mindfulness and Self-Compassion as predictors of psychological wellbeing in long-term meditators and matched non-meditators. Journal of Positive Psychology, 7, 230238. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press. Costa, J., Pinto-Gouveia, J. (2013). Experiential avoidance and Self-Compassion in chronic pain. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 15781591. Crawford, P., Brown, B., Kvangarsnes, M., Gilbert, P. (2014). The design of compassionate care . Journal of Clinical Nursing. Gadermann, A. M., Guhn, M., Zumbo, B. D. (2010). Investigating the substantive aspect of construct A validity for the satisfaction with life scale adapted for children: A focus on cognitive processes. Social Indicators Research, 100, 37-69. Gadermann, A. M., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Zumbo, B. D. (2009). Investigating A validity evidence of the satisfaction with life scale adapted for children. Social Indicators Research, 96, 229247. Garcia-Campayo, J., Navarro-Gil M, A. E., Montero-Marin J, L.-A. L., MMP., D. (2014). A validation of the Spanish versions of the long (26 items) and short (12 items) forms of the Self-Compassion Scale. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 1-9. Garcia-Campayo, J., Navarro-Gil, M., Eva Andrs, Montero-Marin, J., Lpez-Artal, L., Demarzo, a. M. (2014). A validation of the Spanish versions of the long (26 items) and short (12 items) forms of the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS). Health Quarterly Life Outcomes, 12(4). Gilbert, P. . (2004). A pilot exploration of the use of compassionate images in a group of self-critical people. Memory,, 12(4), 507-516. Nef, K. D. (2015). The Self-Compassion Scale is a A valid and Theoretically Coherent Measure of Self-Compassion. Springer. NEFF, K. D. (2003). The Development and A validation of a Scale to Measure Self-Compassion. Self and Identity, 2, 223-250. Neff, K. D., Germer, C. K. (2013). A pilot study and randomized controlled trail of the mindful self-copmassion program. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 69(1), 28-44. Petrocchi, N., Ottaviani, C., Couyoumdjian, A. (2013). Dimensionality of Self-Compassion: translation and construct A validation of the Self-Compassion scale in an Italian sample. Journal of Mental Health, 23, 7277. Reise, S. P., Bonifary, W. E., Haviland, .. G. (2013). Scoring and model,ling psychological measures in the presence of multidimensionality. Journal of Personality Assesment, 95(2), 129-140. Strauss, C., Taylor, B. L., Gu, J., Kuyken, W., Baer, R., Jones, F., Cavanagh, K. (2016). What is compassion and how can we measure it? A review of and measures. Clinical Psychology Review, 47, 15-27. Voruz, S. (2013). An examination of the psychometric properties of the Self-Compassion Scale Short Form among a help-seeking clinical sample . Pacific University.