Sussex-Oxford Şefkat Ölçeklerinin (SOCS) Türkçe Uyarlamasının Faktör Yapısı ve Psikometrik Özellikleri

Year 2025, Volume: 62 Issue: 62, 106 - 125, 22.07.2025

Eda Öztürk Belet , Azize Canel

https://doi.org/10.15285/maruaebd.1609624

Abstract

Gu ve arkadaşları (2020) tarafından geliştirilen orijinal Sussex-Oxford Şefkat Ölçekleri (SOCS), hem başkalarına yönelik şefkat (SOCS-O) hem de öz-şefkat (SOCS-S) için beş faktörlü bir yapıyı desteklemektedir. Şefkati, acıyı tanıma, bunu evrensel bir deneyim olarak anlama, acıyı yaşayan kişiyle duygusal bağ kurma, sıkıntıya tahammül etme ve acıyı hafifletme motivasyonu ile mevcut ölçüm araçlarındaki eksikliklere çözüm sunma gibi beş boyut üzerinden değerlendirmişlerdir. Bu çalışma, SOCS-O ve SOCS-S’nin Türkçe çevirilerinin geçerliliğini test etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Kesitsel ve metodolojik bir tasarım benimsenen bu çalışmada, SOCS-S için 654 Türk katılımcı ve SOCS-O için 660 Türk katılımcı çevrimiçi platformlar aracılığıyla değerlendirilmiştir. Ölçeklerin psikometrik özelliklerini değerlendirmek için Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) ve güvenirlik testleri uygulanmıştır. Sonuçlar, hem SOCS-S hem de SOCS-O’nun beş faktörlü yapısını desteklemiş ve yüksek iç tutarlılık (alt ölçekler arasında Cronbach alfa değerleri 0.70 ile 0.93 arasında) göstermiştir. Kriter geçerliliği, öz-şefkat ve duygusal etkiyle ilgili yerleşik ölçümlerle anlamlı korelasyonlar yoluyla doğrulanmış ve ölçeklerin Türk bağlamında geçerliliği daha da pekiştirilmiştir. Araştırma bulguları, Türkçe SOCS-S ve SOCS-O’nun başkalarına yönelik şefkat ve öz-şefkati değerlendirmek için güvenilir ve geçerli araçlar olduğunu göstermektedir.

Keywords

Şefkat , diğerlerine yönelik şefkat , öz-şefkat , yapı özellikleri , ölçek uyarlaması

Ethical Statement

Çalışma, Marmara Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma ve Yayın Etiği Kurulu’ndan etik onay almıştır (Tarih-Sayı: 06.10.2022 – 414697). Ölçeğin sahibinden e-posta yoluyla izin alınmıştır. Araştırma, Helsinki Deklarasyonu’nda belirtilen ilkeler doğrultusunda yürütülmüş olup, etik standartlara uygun bir şekilde gerçekleştirilmiştir (Dünya Tıp Birliği, 2013). Etik ilkeler kapsamında, katılımcıların bilgilendirilmiş onamları alınmış ve gizlilikleri titizlikle korunmuştur. Bu makale, Marmara Üniversitesi’nde Eda Öztürk Belet tarafından Prof. Dr. A. Nilgün Canel danışmanlığında yürütülen doktora tezinin bir parçasıdır.

Factor Structure and Psychometric Characteristics of the Turkish Adaptation of Sussex-Oxford Compassion Scales (SOCS)

Abstract

The original Sussex-Oxford Compassion Scales (SOCS) developed by Gu et al. (2020) support a five-factor structure for both compassion for others (SOCS-O) and self-compassion (SOCS-S). They assess compassion through five dimensions: recognizing suffering, understanding it as a universal experience, emotionally connecting with the sufferer, tolerating distress, and being motivated to alleviate suffering and offer a solution to the gap in existing measures of compassion, which often lack robustness and comprehensiveness. The purpose of this study is to validate the Turkish translations of both scales utilizing a cross-sectional and using a methodological design. The data for this study has been collected digitally from 654 Turkish participants for the SOCS-S and 660 Turkish participants for the SOCS-O. Confirmatory Factor Analysis and reliability assessments were completed to examine the psychometric properties of the SOCS. Results supported the five-factor structure of both scales, with high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha values ranged from 0.70 to 0.93 across subscales). Criterion validity was established through significant correlations with established measures of self-compassion and emotional affect, further affirming the scales' validity in Turkish contexts. Research findings suggest that the Turkish versions of SOCS are reliable and valid scales for measuring compassion in two levels.

Keywords

Compassion , compassion for others , self-compassion , structure properties , scale adaptation

Ethical Statement

The study received approval from the Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Committee of Marmara University (Date-Number: 06.10.2022 – 414697). Institutional permission was granted following approval from the scale's owner via email. The research was conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki, ensuring adherence to ethical standards throughout the study (World Medical Association, 2013). Ethical principles, including informed consent and participant confidentiality, were rigorously followed. This article is part of a doctoral dissertation conducted by Eda Öztürk Belet at Marmara University under the supervision of Prof. Dr. A. Nilgün Canel.

References

• Baker, F. B. (2001). The basics of item response theory (2nd ed.). ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED458219.pdf
• Deniz, M. E., Kesici, Ş., & Sümer, A. S. (2008). The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Self-Compassion Scale. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 36(9), 1151–1160. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2008.36.9.1151
• de Krijger, E., Willems, R., Ten Klooster, P., Bakker, E., Miedema, H., Drossaert, C., & Bohlmeijer, E. (2022). Further validation of a Dutch translation of the Sussex Oxford compassion for the self scale in samples of crisis line volunteers, military personnel, and nursing students. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 895850. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.895850
• Fredrickson, B. L., Cohn, M. A., Coffey, K. A., Pek, J., & Finkel, S. M. (2013). Open hearts build lives: Positive emotions, induced through loving-kindness meditation, build consequential personal resources. American Psychologist, 68(7), 673–685. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013262
• Gençöz, T. (2000). Pozitif ve negatif duygu ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 15(46), 19–26.
• Gilbert, P., & Procter, S. (2006). Compassionate mind training for people with high shame and self-criticism: Overview and pilot study of a group therapy approach. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 13(6), 353–379. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.507
• Goetz, J. L., Keltner, D., & Simon-Thomas, E. (2010). Compassion: An evolutionary analysis and empirical review. Emotion, 10(2), 105–130. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018807
• Gu, J., Baer, R., Cavanagh, K., Kuyken, W., & Strauss, C. (2020). Development and psychometric properties of the Sussex-Oxford compassion scales (SOCS). Assessment, 27(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191119860911
• Gunnarsdóttir, M. N. (2023). The Sussex-Oxford compassion scales: Psychometric properties of the Icelandic version and correlation with well-being (Master's thesis). Reykjavík University.
• Halamová, J., & Kanovský, M. (2019). Factor structure of the Sussex-Oxford compassion scales. Psychology Topics, 30(3), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.31820/pt.30.3.5
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
• Heidary, F., Abbasi, K., Kazemzadeh, M., & Nematollahi, M. A. (2021). Compassion in the face of adversities: A review of the development and application of self-compassion interventions in the context of coping with trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 34(6), 1191-1204. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.22780
• Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online readings in psychology and culture, 2(1), 8.
• Jöreskog, K. G. (2004). On chi-squares for the independence model and fit measures in LISREL. http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/techdocs/ftb.pdf
• Kagitcibasi, C. (2005). Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context: Implications for self and family. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 36(4), 403-422.
• Kim, S., & Seo, K. (2021). The relationship between self-compassion and well-being: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 25(2), 118-139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868320937368
• Kirby, J. N. (2016). Compassion interventions: The programs, the evidence, and implications for research and practice. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 89(3), 374-396. https://doi.org/10.1111/papt.12064
• Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
• López, A., Sanderman, R., Ranchor, A. V., & Schroevers, M. J. (2018). Compassion for others and self-compassion: Levels, correlates, and relationship with psychological well-being. Mindfulness, 9(1), 325-331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-017-0777-z
• Lucarini, V., Carré, J., Meyer, M., & Melka, I. (2022). Self-compassion and emotional regulation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 46(5), 828-841. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-022-10271-6
• MacBeth, A., & Gumley, A. (2012). Exploring compassion: A meta-analysis of the association between self-compassion and psychopathology. Clinical Psychology Review, 32(6), 545-552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.06.003
• Mongrain, M., Chin, J. M., & Shapira, L. B. (2011). Practicing compassion increases happiness and self-esteem. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12(6), 963-981. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-010-9239-1
• Neff, K. D. (2003a). The development and validation of a scale to measure self-compassion. Self and Identity, 2(3), 223-250. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860309027
• Neff, K. D., & Germer, C. K. (2007). Self-compassion and psychological well-being. In P. Gilbert (Ed.), Compassion: Conceptualizations, research and use in psychotherapy, (pp. 95-110). Routledge.
• Sansó, N., Escrivá-Martínez, T., Flowers, S., West, M. A., & Galiana, L. (2024). The Spanish Version of the Sussex-Oxford Compassion for Others Scale (SOCS–O) in Nursing Students: Psychometric Properties and Its Relation with Mindfulness. Mindfulness, 15(7), 1778-1792. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-024-02400-y
• Sarling, A., Sundin, Ö., Åhs, F., Gu, J., & Jansson, B. (2024). Factor structure and psychometric properties of a Swedish version of the Sussex-Oxford Compassion Scales (SOCS). Nordic Psychology, 76(1), 78–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/19012276.2022.2156381
• Strauss, C., Lever Taylor, B., Gu, J., Kuyken, W., Baer, R., Jones, F., & Cavanagh, K. (2016). What is compassion and how can we measure it? A review of definitions and measures. Clinical Psychology Review, 47, 15-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2016.05.004
• Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063