MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972628396 · doi:10.1177/1073191119874108

The Development and Validation of the Compassion Scale

2019· article· en· W2972628396 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth Pommier, Kristin D. Neff, István Tóth‐Király

Bibliographic record

VenueAssessment · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyOperationalizationMindfulnessCompassionScale (ratio)Discriminant validitySample (material)Self-compassionReliability (semiconductor)KindnessStructural equation modelingPsychometricsClinical psychologyStatisticsInternal consistency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents a measure of compassion for others called the Compassion Scale (CS), which is based on Neff’s theoretical model of self-compassion. Compassion was operationalized as experiencing kindness, a sense of common humanity, mindfulness, and lessened indifference toward the suffering of others. Study 1 ( n = 465) describes the development of potential scale items and the final 16 CS items chosen based on results from analyses using bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling. Study 2 ( n = 510) cross-validates the CS in a second student sample. Study 3 ( n = 80) establishes test–retest reliability. Study 4 ( n = 1,394) replicates results with a community sample, while Study 5 ( n = 172) replicates results with a sample of meditators. Study 6 ( n = 913) examines the finalized version of the CS in a community sample. Evidence regarding reliability, discriminant, convergent, construct, and known-groups validity for the CS is provided.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations338
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAssessmentSame topicMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsFrench-language works237,207