The Self-Compassion Scale (SCS) is currently the only self-report instrument to measure self-compassion. The SCS is widely used despite the limited evidence for the scale’s psychometric properties, with validation studies commonly performed in college students. The current study examined the factor structure, reliability, and construct validity of the SCS in a large representative sample from the community. The study was conducted in 1,736 persons, of whom 1,643 were included in the analyses. Besides the SCS, data was collected on positive and negative indicators of psychological functioning, as well as on rumination and neuroticism. Analyses included confirmatory factor analyses (CFA), exploratory factor analyses (EFA), and correlations. CFA showed that the SCS’s proposed six-factor structure could not be replicated. EFA suggested a two-factor solution, formed by the positively and negatively formulated items respectively. Internal consistency was good for the two identified factors. The negative factor (i.e., sum score of the negatively formulated items) correlated moderately to strongly to negative affect, depressive symptoms, perceived stress, as well as to rumination and neuroticism. Compared to this negative factor, the positive factor (i.e., sum score of the positively formulated items) correlated weaker to these indicators, and relatively more strongly to positive affect. Results from this study do not justify the common use of the SCS total score as an overall indicator of self-compassion, and provide support for the idea, as also assumed by others, that it is important to make a distinction between self-compassion and self-criticism.

The findings suggest that getting support from family and friends, characterized by reassuring, comforting, and problem-solving, in the period following diagnosis is an important resource that may help cancer survivors to find positive meaning in the cancer experience.

Objectives: We evaluated screening for distress in terms of its ability to uncover unmet need for psychosocial services in cancer patients. Correlates of distress, need for services and met and unmet need for services were investigated.Methods: Immediately after cancer treatment (T1) and 2 months later (T2), 302 patients completed the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 (HSCL-25) and a single question assessing the need for services. All distressed patients (HSCL-25X39) and non-distressed patients endorsing a need for services were then called (n 5 99) to assess their need.Results: Thirty-seven percent (T1) and 31% (T2) of patients were distressed and 31% (T1) and 18% (T2) expressed the need for services. Both time points showed higher distress in younger patients and females and lower distress in prostate cancer and patients treated by radiotherapy only. Less need for services was found in prostate cancer (T1), greater need was related to being single (T1) and younger (T2). Distress and need for services were positively related (po0.001). The HSCL-25 showed modest sensitivity (T1: 0.59, T2: 0.65) and specificity (T1: 0.75, T2: 0.78) as an indicator of need for services. Interviews at T2 revealed that 51% of distressed patients needed no psychosocial services and 25% were already receiving services. At T2, regardless of distress level, 10% of all screened patients reported an unmet need for psychosocial services.Conclusions: Depending on the clinical context, screening might be more efficient if it assessed the unmet need for services rather than distress. More attention should be concentrated on directing patients with meetable unmet needs to available services.