↓ Skip to main content

Good and Bad Sides of Self-Compassion: A Face Validity Check of the Self-Compassion Scale and an Investigation of its Relations to Coping and Emotional Symptoms in Non-Clinical Adolescents

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Child and Family Studies, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
77 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
164 Mendeley
Title
Good and Bad Sides of Self-Compassion: A Face Validity Check of the Self-Compassion Scale and an Investigation of its Relations to Coping and Emotional Symptoms in Non-Clinical Adolescents
Published in
Journal of Child and Family Studies, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10826-018-1099-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Muris, Myrr van den Broek, Henry Otgaar, Iris Oudenhoven, Janine Lennartz

Abstract

To demonstrate that the positive and negative subscales of Self-Compassion Scale (SCS) are very different in nature, we conducted a series of face validity checks on the items of this questionnaire among psychologists and psychology students (Study 1). Furthermore, a survey was administered to a convenience sample of non-clinical adolescents to examine the relations between various SCS subscales and symptoms of anxiety and depression as well as coping styles (Study 2). The results of the face validity checks revealed that the positive subscales seem to be well in line with the protective nature of self-compassion as they were mainly associated with cognitive coping and healthy functioning, whereas the negative subscales were chiefly associated with psychopathological symptoms and mental illness. The survey data demonstrated that the positive SCS subscales were positively correlated with adaptive coping (r's between .22 and .50) and negatively correlated with symptoms of anxiety and depression (r's between -.19 and -.53), while the negative subscales were positively correlated with symptoms (r's between .49 and .61) and maladaptive coping strategies such as passive reacting (r's between .53 and .56). Additional analyses indicated the negative subscales of the SCS accounted for a significant proportion of the variance in symptoms, whereas the unique contribution of the positive SCS subscales was fairly marginal. We caution to employ the total SCS score that includes the reversed negative subscales as such a procedure clearly inflates the relation between self-compassion and psychopathology.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 164 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 7%
Researcher 11 7%
Other 27 16%
Unknown 54 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 73 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 4%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Neuroscience 4 2%
Other 11 7%
Unknown 58 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 March 2019.
All research outputs
#14,954,534
of 23,867,274 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Child and Family Studies
#922
of 1,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,786
of 330,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Child and Family Studies
#28
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,867,274 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,463 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,054 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.