The multiple group IRT measurement invariance analysis of the Self-Compassion Scale in ten international samples

IF 1.8 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
M. Kanovský, J. Halamová, N. Petrocchi, H. Moreira, Eunjoo Yang, Jan Benda, Michael Lawrence Barnett, E. Brähler, Xianlong Zeng, M. Zenger
{"title":"The multiple group IRT measurement invariance analysis of the Self-Compassion Scale in ten international samples","authors":"M. Kanovský, J. Halamová, N. Petrocchi, H. Moreira, Eunjoo Yang, Jan Benda, Michael Lawrence Barnett, E. Brähler, Xianlong Zeng, M. Zenger","doi":"10.6092/2282-1619/MJCP-2682","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this study was to examine the measurement invariance of the Self-Compassion Scale by IRT differential test functioning in ten distinct populations (n = 13623 participants) from ten different countries: Australia (n = 517), China (n = 321), Czech Republic (n = 5081), Germany (n = 2510), Italy (n = 384), Portugal (n = 512), Slovakia (n = 1181), South Korea (n = 1813), Turkey (n = 471), and USA (n = 833). We assessed differential test functioning for the two SCS subscales, Self-compassionate responding and Self-uncompassionate responding separately, because previous bifactor and two-tier analyses of the scale showed the best fit with two separate general factors, and not for the overall score. Only 13 of the 45 comparisons for Self-compassionate responding and 13 of the 45 comparisons for Self-uncompassionate responding (analyses of every pair) demonstrated measurement invariance (no differential test functioning). Generally, our results revealed that the two subscales of Self-compassionate responding and Self-uncompassionate responding were not equivalent among all countries and groups. Therefore, it is impossible to compare overall scores across all countries. Two subscales of the Self-Compassion Scale (Self-compassionate responding and Self-uncompassionate responding) are valid and reliable instruments with substantial potential of use cross-culturally, but results reveal significant cross-cultural differences in the way these two constructs are measured by the subscales of the SCS. Future analyses of the meanings and connotations of this construct across the world are necessary to develop a scale which allows cross-cultural comparisons of various treatment outcomes related to self-compassion.","PeriodicalId":18428,"journal":{"name":"Mediterranean Journal of Clinical Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mediterranean Journal of Clinical Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6092/2282-1619/MJCP-2682","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the measurement invariance of the Self-Compassion Scale by IRT differential test functioning in ten distinct populations (n = 13623 participants) from ten different countries: Australia (n = 517), China (n = 321), Czech Republic (n = 5081), Germany (n = 2510), Italy (n = 384), Portugal (n = 512), Slovakia (n = 1181), South Korea (n = 1813), Turkey (n = 471), and USA (n = 833). We assessed differential test functioning for the two SCS subscales, Self-compassionate responding and Self-uncompassionate responding separately, because previous bifactor and two-tier analyses of the scale showed the best fit with two separate general factors, and not for the overall score. Only 13 of the 45 comparisons for Self-compassionate responding and 13 of the 45 comparisons for Self-uncompassionate responding (analyses of every pair) demonstrated measurement invariance (no differential test functioning). Generally, our results revealed that the two subscales of Self-compassionate responding and Self-uncompassionate responding were not equivalent among all countries and groups. Therefore, it is impossible to compare overall scores across all countries. Two subscales of the Self-Compassion Scale (Self-compassionate responding and Self-uncompassionate responding) are valid and reliable instruments with substantial potential of use cross-culturally, but results reveal significant cross-cultural differences in the way these two constructs are measured by the subscales of the SCS. Future analyses of the meanings and connotations of this construct across the world are necessary to develop a scale which allows cross-cultural comparisons of various treatment outcomes related to self-compassion.
10个国际样本的自我同情量表的多组IRT测量不变性分析
本研究的目的是通过IRT差异测试在来自十个不同国家的十个不同人群(n=13623名参与者)中检验自我同情量表的测量不变性:澳大利亚(n=517)、中国(n=321)、捷克共和国(n=5081)、德国(n=2510)、意大利(n=384)、葡萄牙(n=512)、斯洛伐克(n=1181)、韩国(n=1813),土耳其(n=471)和美国(n=833)。我们分别评估了两个SCS分量表(自我同情反应和自我非同情反应)的差异测试功能,因为之前对该量表的双因子和双层分析显示,两个单独的一般因素最适合,而不是总分。在45次自我同情反应的比较中,只有13次和45次自我非同情心反应的比较(每对分析)显示了测量不变性(没有差分测试功能)。总体而言,我们的研究结果表明,在所有国家和群体中,自我同情反应和自我非同情反应这两个分量表并不相等。因此,不可能比较所有国家的总体得分。自我同情量表的两个分量表(自我同情反应和自我非同情反应)是有效和可靠的工具,具有跨文化使用的巨大潜力,但结果显示,SCS分量表测量这两个结构的方式存在显著的跨文化差异。未来有必要在世界各地对这一结构的含义和内涵进行分析,以制定一个量表,对与自我同情相关的各种治疗结果进行跨文化比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
53.80%
发文量
0
审稿时长
4 weeks
期刊介绍: The MJCP is an Open Access Peer-Reviewed International Journal in Clinical Psychology. MJCP accepts research related to innovative and important areas of clinical research: 1. Clinical studies related to Clinical Psychology, 2. Psychopathology and Psychotherapy; 3. Basic studies pertaining to clinical psychology field as experimental psychology, psychoneuroendocrinology and psychoanalysis; 4. Growing application of clinical techniques in clinical psychology, psychology of health, clinical approaches in projective methods; 5. Forensic psychology in clinical research; 6. Psychology of art and religion; 7. Advanced in basic and clinical research methodology including qualitative and quantitative research and new research findings.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信