What is the Most Valid and Reliable Compassion Measure in Healthcare? An Updated Comprehensive and Critical Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our previous review of compassion measures in healthcare between 1985 and 2016 concluded that no available measure assessed compassion in healthcare in a comprehensive or methodologically rigorous fashion. The present study provided a comparative review of the design and psychometric properties of recently updated or newly published compassion measures. The search strategy of our previous review was replicated. PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases and grey literature were searched to identify studies that reported information on instruments that measure compassion or compassionate care in clinicians, physicians, nurses, healthcare students, and patients. Textual qualitative descriptions of included studies were prepared. Instruments were evaluated using the Evaluating Measures of Patient-Reported Outcomes (EMPRO) tool. Measures that underwent additional testing since our last review included the Compassion Competence Scale (CCS), the Compassionate Care Assessment Tool (CCAT) © , and the Schwartz Center Compassionate Care Scale (SCCCS)™. New compassion measures included the Sussex-Oxford Compassion for Others Scale (SOCS-O), a self-report measure of compassion for others; the Bolton Compassion Strengths Indicators (BSCI), a self-report measure of the characteristics (strengths) associated with a compassionate nurse; a five-item Tool to Measure Patient Assessment of Clinician Compassion (TMPACC); and the Sinclair Compassion Questionnaire (SCQ). The SCQ was the only measure that adhered to measure development guidelines, established initial construct validity by first defining the concept of interest, and included the patient perspective across all stages of development. The SCQ had the highest EMPRO overall score at 58.1, almost 9 points higher than any other compassion measure, and achieved perfect EMPRO subscale scores for internal consistency, reliability, validity, and respondent burden, which were up to 43 points higher than any other compassion measure. These findings establish the SCQ as the ‘gold standard’ compassion measure, providing an empirical basis for evaluations of compassion in routine care.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.044 | 0.213 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".