期刊
PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
卷 35, 期 8, 页码 674-691出版社
AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/pas0001247
关键词
self-compassion; exploratory structural equation models (ESEM); bifactor structural equation models; Bayes structural equation models (BSEM); substantive-methodological synergy
The self-compassion research is driven by Neff's six-factor Self-Compassion Scale (SCS). There is a debate on SCS's global structure, with different opinions on whether it has one or two global factors. The authors propose a new bifactor model with two global factors, which has important implications for theory, scoring, and clinical application.
The rapidly expanding self-compassion research is driven mainly by Neff's (2003a, 2003b, 2023) six-factor Self-Compassion Scale (SCS). Despite broad agreement on its six-first-order factor structure, there is much debate on SCS's global structure (one- vs. two-global factors). Neff et al. (2019) argue for an exploratory structural equation model (ESEM) with six specific and one global bifactor (6ESEM + 1GlbBF) rather than two global factors (6ESEM + 2GlbBF). However, ESEM's methodological limitations precluded testing the appropriate 6ESEM + 2GlbBF, relying instead on a model combining ESEM and traditional confirmatory factor analysis (6ESEM + 2CFA). Although intuitively reasonable, this alternative model results in internally inconsistent, illogical interpretations. Instead, we apply recent advances in Bayesian SEM frameworks and Bayes structural equation models fit indices to test a more appropriate bifactor model with two global factors. This model (as does 6CFA + 2GlbBF) fits the data well, and correlations between compassionate self-responding (CS) and reverse-scored uncompassionate self-responding (RUS) factors (& SIM;.6) are much less than the 1.0 correlation implied by a single bipolar factor. We discuss the critical implications for theory, scoring, and clinical application for the SCS that previously were inappropriately based on this now-discredited 6ESEM + 2GlbCFA. In applied practice, we endorse using scores representing the six SCS factors, total SCS, and CS and RUS components rather than relying solely on one global factor. Our approach to these issues (dimensionality, factor structure, first-order and higher order models, positive vs. negatively oriented constructs, item-wording effects, and alternative estimation procedures) has wide applicability to clinical measurement (see our annotated bibliography of 20 instruments that might benefit from our approach).
作者
我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。
推荐
暂无数据