Pros and Cons: A Look at the Validity
The Self-Compassion Scale has been extensively applied in clinical and health psychology research in order to investigate the protective influence of self-compassion on psychological wellbeing. Although generally accepted as a reliable and valid tool to measure self-compassion, the SCS has received criticism over whether or not the factor structure generalizes across populations (Williams, Dalgleish, Karl & Kuyken, 2014).
Multiple studies have been carried out in order to test the validity and reliability of the SCS when translated into other languages and applied to different cultures. For instance, results from a general population sample study in Germany advocated against the use of a total score across all SCS items but found that independent subscale scores captured a positive factor and a negative factor when administering the German SCS (Coroiu et al., 2018).
Research by Deniz, Kesici, & Sumer (2008) demonstrated that the Turkish version of the SCS is a valid and reliable measure. Similarly, Kotsou & Leys (2016) found that the French version of the SCS is a valid tool for French-speaking researchers and clinicians to effectively assess individual differences in self-compassion in French-speaking populations. Additionally, the psychometric properties and internal reliability scores of the French SCS were found to be significant.
As with the German SCS study mentioned above, other researchers have questioned the reliability of the SCS to calculate an overall self-compassion score – particularly when it includes items representing a lack of self-compassion.
Concerns have been raised that by measuring ‘negative’ components of compassion the SCS is actually measuring self-criticism, rumination, and social isolation, rather than self-compassion. Muris and Petrocchi (2017) suggested that the use of the SCS total score, which includes reverse scored negative subscales, may result in an inflated negative relationship between self-compassion and symptoms of psychopathology.
In response to these criticisms, Neff, Whittaker, & Karl (2017) examined the factor structure of the SCS in four distinct populations; undergraduate students, adults recruited online, meditators, and a fourth group who experienced a recurrent major depressive disorder.
Results from the study indicated that an overall self-compassion factor can effectively explain at least 90% of item variance across student, community, and clinical populations – providing support for the use of a total SCS score to represent overall trait levels of self-compassion.
The Self-Compassion Scale has also received criticism for issues related to psychometric validity: does the scale measure what it purports to measure? Costa et al. (2015) examined the psychometric properties of the SCS by testing the factorial validity and invariance of:
(a) a six-factor model (self-kindness, self-judgment, common humanity, isolation, mindfulness, and over-identification);
(b) a higher order factor model (self-compassion); and
(c) a two-factor model (self-compassionate attitude and self-critical attitude).
Findings from the confirmatory factorial analyses indicated that while coherent intercorrelation among the six subscales could not be explained by a single higher-order latent variable, the two-factor model (self-compassionate attitude and self-critical attitude) showed good internal consistencies, and each factor is better explained by its own observed items rather than by items from a different factor.
The conflicting evidence regarding the factor structure of the SCS has led to disparate views on the relative contribution of positive and negative items to the theoretical components of self-compassion (Pfattheiche, Geiger, Hartung, Weiss, & Schindle, 2017). Put simply, do the negative items within the SCS genuinely reflect the absence of self-compassion?
Other researchers have advocated the use of two independent subscale scores to capture the positive and negative group factors, advising against of the estimation of a single total score (Brenner, Heath, Vogel, & Credé, 2017).
While critics remain, the Self-Compassion Scale and other qualitative self-report measures provide useful data to researchers and to practitioners in terms of case conceptualization and treatment planning. How a client responds to the questionnaire can assist in the identification of treatment self-compassion strategies and techniques.
Furthermore, client’s responses on the SCS can be utilized during the debriefing process to introduce concepts that the client may not have considered, such as the idea of common humanity or being able to take perspective of how they behave in their own relationship with themselves (LeJeune, 2016).
Pros
- The Self-Compassion scale is a simple tool to use, administer, and score. It has been translated into 18 languages and is freely available for use by researchers, practitioners, students, and the general public.
- The SCS has shown internal consistency and test-retest reliability, significant positive correlations with social connectedness, emotional intelligence, and life satisfaction, and significant negative correlations with self-criticism, perfectionism, depression, and anxiety (Baer, 2006).
- The shortened SCS instrument has adequate internal consistency and a robust correlation with the SCS-Long form (Raes et al., 2011).
- The SCS as currently written and analyzed is not only useful for facilitating research, but also for clinicians trying to help their clients learn to be more self-compassionate (Neff, 2016).
- Several studies utilizing the SCS demonstrate good predictive validity, with positive correlations between self-compassion and mental health signs. For instance, high levels of self-compassion predict happiness, optimism and life satisfaction while lower self-compassion is a predictor of depression and anxiety (Neff & Vonk, 2009).
Cons
- Despite the scale’s extensive use, some consider the limited understanding of how the six components of the SCS interact with each other as problematic. Cleare, Gumley, & Cleare (2018) suggested that more robust analyses are required in order to understand if all the factors contribute equally to a person’s compassion or if one area is potentially more important than another.
- Potential incongruities in the factor structures found by previous researchers indicate that the structure of the SCS could be potentially unstable and would benefit from further analysis. Neff herself suggested that the higher-order structure may not be the most appropriate conceptualization of compassion (Neff, 2015).
- The SCS may be better suited to measuring the six components of self-compassion separately than to measuring the overarching construct of self-compassion (Williams, Dalgleish, Karl, & Kuyken, 2014).
- There are some concerns regarding the validity of the SCS translations in certain cultures. A recent study measuring self-compassion in Chinese Buddhists concluded that the six-factor model was not replicable and suggested that the Western conceptualization of self-compassion is theoretically distinct from the ideas of the East (Zeng, Wei, Oei, & Lui, 2016).
The Work of Brené Brown and Kristin Neff

Brené Brown is a researcher, scholar, and best-selling author who has spent over a decade investigating vulnerability, courage, worthiness, and shame.
Her TEDx talk – The Power of Vulnerability – has been viewed over 35 million times and is one of the top five most viewed TED talks in the world.
For Brown, Kristin Neff’s research was a key piece to understanding that the best way to support ourselves in difficult times is through self-compassion (Brown, 2012).
Brown & Neff are considered by many as the most influential shame, self-criticism and self-compassion researchers to date (Burton, 2016). While the two have collaborated on a number of projects, for the purpose of this article we will focus on their contributions to research on shame and its relationship to self-compassion.
Shame is defined as a negative emotion associated with depression, social anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder and problematic outcomes for wellbeing (Cibich, Woodyatt, & Wenzel, 2016). For Brown (2007), shame is a debilitating inner experience elicited by the negative self-appraisal of one’s entire self and is a direct hindrance to self-compassion – corroding the very part of us that believes we are capable of change.
Despite the inevitability of shame, hope can be found in the guise of shame resilience. According to Shame Resilience Theory (SRT: Brown, 2006), we can learn to move through feelings of shame by engaging in the examination of the self, awareness of cultural context, and intentionality in interpersonal relationships.
Brown proposed that practicing shame resilience takes the form of “reaching out” to others with empathy and non-judgment. This ability to demonstrate empathy for others is inherently linked to the practice of self-compassion, meaning that we must first act compassionately toward our own struggles in order to express compassion to others (Brown, 2006).
Self-compassion is intricately connected to the practice of shame resilience. According to Neff (2009) one of the key characteristics of self-compassion is that it is not dependent upon success or achievement. Consequently, it eliminates critical self-evaluation – a process inherent in shame – because it is not based on self-evaluations, performance, or comparisons to others.
Shame resilience is most commonly measured using the Self-Compassion Scale and the SRT draws directly from Neff’s self-compassion framework – viewing self-kindness, common humanity, and mindfulness as the primary components of self-compassion.
Brown hypothesized that shame requires three things to grow exponentially – secrecy, silence, and judgment – and that the three elements of self-compassion help counteract the three elements of shame in the following ways (Brown, 2014):
Mindfulness:
Allows us to be aware of our experience of shame and not over-identify with it or avoid it. In essence, mindfulness addresses the silence of shame.
Common humanity:
Addresses the secrecy of shame; we are not alone in how we feel. Understanding that shame is an inherently human trait encourages a connection with others.
Self-kindness:
Addresses the judgment of shame. Rather than talking to ourselves harshly, we treat ourselves with the care, understanding, and support we need during the experience of shame.
According to Brené Brown (2010), the acknowledgment of personal vulnerabilities such as shame is the key to authenticity; that is the continued practice of letting go of who we’re supposed to be and embracing who we really are. Through self-compassion we can learn to embrace these vulnerabilities rather than allowing them to affect us negatively.
What our readers think
A Marvellous resource..welldone and thankyou….Thailand is top of the pops for self compassion…Taiwan is the lowest.
have you got more detail on this so I can retire to somewhere harmonious..NOT the West!!
Israel?
Chile?
There is new information about the Self-Compassion Scale that can be added to this post. Neff et al., (2019) recently conducted the most comprehensive study of self-compassion ever undertaken, examining the factor structure of the SCS in 20 different international samples using 13 different translations, which included community, student, meditator and clinical samples. Support was found for use of a single SCS score (explaining 95% of the reliable variance in item responding!), six separate sub scale scores, but not two global positive and negative scores. Moreover, Ferrari et al.,, (2019) conducted a meta-analysis of 27 RCTs of self-compassion training and found that all six components of self-compassion changed as a result of changing. They also found effect sizes for reductions in psychopathology similar to those found in studies examining the correlations between the SCS and psychopathology, countering arguments that the SCS inflates the link between self-compassion and psychopathology. These articles can be found at self-compassion.org.
Hello. How can I obtain the self-compassion scale for the scientist Neff 2019. Can you help me? Thanks
Hi Husam,
I believe you can find the scale in Neff’s original article, which is available here.
– Nicole | Community Manager