European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research
and Management Studies
87
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijmrms
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
87-107
DOI
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
10 March 2025
ACCEPTED
20 April 2025
PUBLISHED
27 May 2025
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue05 2025
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
The Self-Comforting and
Coping Scale (SCCS):
Validity and Reliability of a
Measure of Self-
Comforting Behaviours
PhD, Department of Health, Wellbeing and Social Care, Oxford Brookes
University, GBS Partnership, Birmingham, United Kingdom; and PENKUP
Research Institute, Birmingham, United Kingdom
Gordon Mabengban Yakpir
PhD, Department of Health, Wellbeing & Social Care, Oxford Brookes
University, GBS Partnership, Birmingham, United Kingdom; and PENKUP
Research Institute, Birmingham, United Kingdom
Simran Koretaine
LLM, Department of Health, Wellbeing & Social Care, Oxford Brookes
University, GBS Partnership, Birmingham, United Kingdom; and PENKUP
Research Institute, Birmingham, United Kingdom
Ibiangake Ndioho
PhD, Department of Health and Care Management, Arden University,
Manchester, United Kingdom; and PENKUP Research Institute,
Birmingham, United Kingdom
Jesse Omoregie
PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Bolton, Bolton, United
Kingdom; and PENKUP Research Institute, Birmingham, United Kingdom
Maame Ama Owusuaa-Asante
PhD, Department of Health, Wellbeing & Social Care, Oxford Brookes
University, GBS Partnership, Birmingham, United Kingdom; and PENKUP
Research Institute, Birmingham, United Kingdom
Gabriel Abayomi
PhD, Department of Health, Wellbeing & Social Care, Oxford Brookes
University, GBS Partnership, Manchester, United Kingdom; and PENKUP
Research Institute, Birmingham, United Kingdom
Karen Henry
MSC, IBIC Change, London, United Kingdom; and PENKUP Research
Institute, Birmingham, United Kingdom
Jamila Ally
MSC, Department of Health, Wellbeing & Social Care, Oxford Brookes
University, GBS Partnership, Birmingham, United Kingdom
Oluwatoyin Aderinsola Bewaji
PhD, Department of Health, Wellbeing & Social Care, Oxford Brookes
University, GBS Partnership, Manchester, United Kingdom; and PENKUP
Research Institute, Birmingham, United Kingdom
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research
and Management Studies
88
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijmrms
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Management Studies
Aung Htet Sai Bo Bo
MPH, Department of Health, Wellbeing & Social Care, Oxford Brookes
University, GBS Partnership, Manchester, United Kingdom; and PENKUP
Research Institute, Birmingham, United Kingdom
Nourhan Abdelkader
MSC, Department of Health, Wellbeing & Social Care, Oxford Brookes
University, GBS Partnership, Birmingham, United Kingdom; and PENKUP
Research Institute, Birmingham, United Kingdom
Angela Augustine
MSC, Department of Health, Wellbeing & Social Care, Oxford Brookes
University, GBS Partnership, Birmingham, United Kingdom; and PENKUP
Research Institute, Birmingham, United Kingdom
Oluwadamilola R. Tayo
MPH, Department of Health, Wellbeing & Social Care, Oxford Brookes
University, GBS Partnership, Leeds, United Kingdom
Osinubi Olusunmola
PhD, Department of Health, Wellbeing & Social Care, Oxford Brookes
University, GBS Partnership, Birmingham, United Kingdom; and PENKUP
Research Institute, Birmingham, United Kingdom
Rupali Chauhan
MPH Faculty of Health, Wellbeing & Social Care, Oxford Brookes
University, GBS Partnership, Manchester, United Kingdom
Shubham Sharma
MDS Independent Researcher, Manchester, United Kingdom
Divya Motupalli
MPHGH Faculty of Health, Wellbeing & Social Care, Oxford Brookes
University, GBS Partnership, Manchester, United Kingdom
Fidelis Evwiekpamare Olori
PhD, Faculty of Business Management, Oxford Brookes University, GBS
Partnership, Birmingham, United Kingdom; and PENKUP Research
Institute, Birmingham, United Kingdom
Charles Leyman Kachitsa
PhD, Faculty of Business Management and Enterprise, Leeds Trinity
University, GBS Partnership, Manchester, United Kingdom; and PENKUP
Research Institute, Birmingham, United Kingdom
Ibrahim Olanrewaju Lawal
PhD, Faculty of Business and Tourism Management, University of
Suffolk, GBS Partnership, Birmingham, United Kingdom; and PENKUP
Research Institute, Birmingham, United Kingdom
Samuel Oluwatosin Adejuyitan
MSc, Doctoral Researcher, School of Business and Creative Industries,
University of the West of Scotland, United Kingdom; and PENKUP
Research Institute, Birmingham, United Kingdom
Reginald Ugochukwu Amanze
PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Bolton, Bolton, United
Kingdom
Corresponding Author:
Obohwemu, PhD
Department of Health, Wellbeing and Social Care,
Oxford
Brookes
University,
GBS
Partnership,
Birmingham, United Kingdom; and PENKUP Research
Institute, Birmingham, United Kingdom
Abstract:
The present study investigated self-
comforting behaviours of university students by
validating and applying the Self-Comforting and Coping
Scale (SCCS), a newly developed multidimensional
psychometric instrument designed to measure
emotional self-regulation and adaptive coping
strategies.
Self-comforting
behaviours
—
including
positive self-encouragement, mindfulness, cognitive
reframing, and self-compassion
—
are essential for
psychological resilience, yet few tools adequately
capture these dimensions in a cohesive framework. A
sample of 300 undergraduate students participated in
the study to validate the SCCS and assess the prevalence
of these behaviours within a higher education context.
Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were
conducted to evaluate self-comforting tendencies in the
sample. A one-sample t-test revealed that the overall
SCCS mean score (M = 3.25, SD = 0.72) was significantly
higher than the scale's theoretical midpoint of 3.0
(t(299) = 3.47, p < 0.001), confirming that the students
demonstrated a relatively high level of self-comforting
behaviour. Subscale-specific analyses further supported
this finding, with particularly elevated scores reported
in domains such as Mindfulness and Acceptance (M =
4.5, SD = 0.6), Positive Affect/Self-Encouragement (M =
4.3, SD = 0.8), and Self-Compassion (M = 4.2, SD = 0.75).
These results suggest that students not only engage in
self-comforting strategies but do so consistently and
with considerable effectiveness.
To validate the internal structure of the SCCS, both
exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were
performed. Eigenvalues for the 13 identified factors
ranged from 1.2 to 7.8, collectively explaining 73.2% of
the total variance, indicating that the scale captured a
substantial proportion of the underlying constructs. The
confirmatory factor analysis yielded standardized factor
loadings ranging from 0.60 to 0.88, with minimal
residuals and no significant modification indices,
supporting the robustness of the proposed factor
structure.
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research
and Management Studies
89
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijmrms
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Management Studies
These findings affirm the SCCS as a psychometrically
sound instrument and highlight the presence of strong
self-comforting and coping capacities among
university students. The results have implications for
mental
health
practitioners,
educators,
and
researchers seeking to identify and support
emotionally resilient individuals in academic settings.
Keywords
:
Self-Comforting,
Coping
Strategies,
Emotional Regulation, Stress Management, SCCS
Validation, SCCT, Psychometric Analysis.
INTRODUCTION
The ability to manage stress and regulate emotions is
essential for psychological wellbeing, particularly in
challenging or high-pressure environments. Self-
comforting behaviours, which involve actions that
individuals use to soothe themselves during distress,
have emerged as a critical yet underexplored
dimension of adaptive coping (Skinner & Zimmer-
Gembeck, 2016; Obohwemu et al., 2024). While
related constructs such as resilience, self-compassion,
and cognitive reappraisal have been extensively
studied (Neff & Germer, 2013), self-comforting
behaviours remain largely absent from mainstream
psychological assessment tools. Given their potential
role in emotional regulation, stress reduction, and
mental health maintenance, a valid and reliable
measure of self-comforting behaviours is essential to
advance both research and clinical practice.
The Self-Comforting and Coping Scale (SCCS) was
recently developed to address a critical gap in the
assessment of self-directed coping strategies by
providing a comprehensive, theory-driven measure of
self-comforting behaviours. Grounded in the Self-
Comforting and Coping Theory (SCCT) and the Self-
Comforting Attitude Theory (SCAT), the SCCS
conceptualizes self-comforting as a multidimensional
construct encompassing emotional, cognitive, and
behavioural strategies that individuals employ to
preserve psychological equilibrium during periods of
stress and adversity (Obohwemu, 2025a; Obohwemu,
2025b.) These theoretical frameworks form the
backbone of the scale’s development, ensuring
conceptual clarity, construct validity, and relevance to
both clinical and non-clinical populations.
Although the scale was developed using rigorous
psychometric principles
—
including expert reviews,
focus groups, and item refinement
—
validation is
necessary to ensure its reliability, structural integrity,
and applicability across diverse populations. Without
validation, its utility remains uncertain, limiting its
potential contribution to coping and resilience research.
Scale validation is a critical step in psychometric
research, ensuring that an instrument measures its
intended construct with accuracy and consistency
(Boateng et al., 2018). Validity is typically assessed
through multiple approaches, including factor structure
analysis, convergent validity, and discriminant validity
(Kline, 2015). Exploratory and confirmatory factor
analyses (EFA and CFA) are commonly employed to
verify the structural composition of new scales, ensuring
that their theoretical foundations align with empirical
data (Brown, 2015). Internal consistency, as measured
by Cronbach’s alpha, and test
-retest reliability provide
further evidence of a scale’s stability over time (Taber,
2018). Convergent validity is demonstrated when a new
scale correlates strongly with established measures of
theoretically related constructs, while discriminant
validity ensures that the instrument does not overlap
with unrelated constructs (Lim, 2024; Rönkkö & Cho,
2024).
Given the increasing recognition of self-comforting
behaviours as a vital component of psychological
resilience, it is crucial to validate the SCCS within a
diverse population. University students represent an
ideal initial sample for validation, as they frequently
experience academic stress and other challenges
requiring effective coping strategies (Freire et al., 2020;
Moreno-Montero, Ferradás, & Freire, 2024). Studies
have shown that self-soothing strategies such as
mindfulness, self-compassion, and positive self-talk are
positively correlated with psychological resilience, life
satisfaction, and academic performance (Diener et al.,
1985; Wang, 2020; Egan, 2022). However, a
standardized measure capturing these behaviours has
been lacking, limiting the ability to systematically
investigate their impact on wellbeing.
This study aims to validate the SCCS by assessing its
factor structure, reliability, and validity in a sample of
300 university students. Specifically, exploratory and
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research
and Management Studies
90
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijmrms
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Management Studies
confirmatory factor analyses will be conducted to
confirm the scale’s dimensional structure. Internal
consistency and test-retest reliability will be examined
to determine the scale’s stability over time.
Convergent validity will be evaluated through
correlations with established psychological measures,
including the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), Self-
Compassion Scale (SCS), and Satisfaction with Life
Scale (SWLS). Discriminant validity will be tested by
examining weak correlations with theoretically
unrelated constructs, such as physical activity levels
and hours of screen time. Additionally, criterion-
related validity will be explored by assessing the extent
to which SCCS scores predict individuals’ self
-reported
engagement in self-comforting behaviours during
stressful events.
Establishing the SCCS as a reliable and valid
instrument, this study aims to contribute a robust tool
for future research and clinical practice, enabling a
more comprehensive understanding of how self-
comforting behaviours facilitate resilience and
emotional wellbeing. Given the increasing emphasis on
self-care and adaptive coping mechanisms in mental
health interventions (Gold et al., 2015; Butler et al.,
2019), a validated SCCS could provide valuable insights
into individual differences in stress management and
inform the development of targeted interventions. The
findings of this study will help ensure that self-
comforting behaviours are recognized as a distinct and
measurable component of psychological resilience,
fostering new avenues for research and practical
applications in mental health, education, and
organizational settings.
METHODS
Sample and Procedure
The scale was administered to a sample of 300
undergraduate students from various academic
programs at 6 universities in the West Midlands,
United Kingdom, representing diverse demographic
backgrounds to enhance the generalizability of
findings. The sample size of 300 participants was
determined using an a priori power analysis conducted
with G*Power 3.1 software (Faul et al., 2017) to ensure
the study had sufficient statistical power to detect
meaningful effects. The analysis was based on a
standard significance level of α = 0.05 (two
-tailed), a
statistical power of 0.80 (80%), and an anticipated small-
to-moderate effect size. For correlational analyses, this
sample size provides adequate sensitivity to detect
effect sizes of r = 0.16
–
0.18, aligning with established
thresholds for small effects (Cohen, 1988).
Participants were recruited using a combination of
online announcements and in-person outreach at
university events. To increase participation, both
convenience and snowball sampling techniques were
employed. All participants provided informed consent
before taking part in the study.
The survey was distributed through a combination of
online announcements and in-person sessions, with
measures in place to maintain anonymity and
confidentiality. Respondents were assured that their
data would be used solely for research purposes and
that participation was voluntary, with the option to
withdraw at any time. To mitigate response bias and
encourage honest reporting, no identifying information
was collected, and the survey was designed to be
engaging and straightforward.
Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted on an
initial pilot sample of 150 participants to determine the
underlying structure of the SCCS. Principal axis factoring
with oblique (Promax) rotation was used, as it allows for
the possibility of correlated factors, which aligns with
the conceptualization of self-comforting and coping as
interrelated dimensions. Items with factor loadings
below 0.40 or cross-loadings greater than 0.30 were
critically examined and, where necessary, removed or
revised to improve the clarity and distinctiveness of
factors.
Based on the findings from the EFA, a preliminary factor
structure was developed and subsequently tested using
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) on the full validation
sample (n = 300). Model fit was evaluated using multiple
fit indices, including:
•
Comparative Fit Index (CFI), with values ≥ 0.90
indicating acceptable fit.
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research
and Management Studies
91
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijmrms
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Management Studies
•
Tucker-
Lewis Index (TLI), with values ≥ 0.90
considered adequate.
•
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA), with values ≤ 0.08 indicating reasonable
fit and values ≤ 0.06
indicating good fit.
Modification indices were inspected to identify
potential improvements to the model, and iterative
adjustments were made only when theoretically
justified.
Reliability and Validity
Reliability
Internal consistency of the SCCS was assessed using
Cronbach’s alpha for each factor and the overall scale,
with α > 0.70 indicating acceptable reliability. To
evaluate temporal stability, test-retest reliability was
assessed by re-administering the SCCS to a subset of 50
participants after a two-week interval. The intraclass
correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated, with values
≥ 0.75 considered indicative of good reliability.
Validity
Construct validity was evaluated through a series of
convergent and discriminant validity tests:
•
Convergent Validity: Positive correlations were
expected and observed between SCCS scores and
scores on theoretically related constructs,
including the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), Self-
Compassion Scale (SCS), and Satisfaction with Life
Scale (SWLS). Strong positive correlations with self-
compassion and life satisfaction supported the
scale's convergent validity.
•
Discriminant Validity: Weak correlations with
theoretically unrelated constructs, such as physical
activity and hours of screen time, provided evidence
for discriminant validity.
Additionally, criterion-related validity was explored by
examining whether SCCS scores could predict
participants' self-reported frequency of using self-
comforting behaviours during stressful events, as
assessed through open-ended responses and a
behavioural checklist.
RESULTS
Sociodemographic Characteristics of Participants
Tables 1-3 present the demographic characteristics of
the 300 students who participated in the validation of
the expert-reviewed survey version. The sample spans a
wide age range (range: 20
–
50+), with a significant
proportion of participants in the 30-39 age group. The
majority were female (54%), with 40% identifying as
male and 6% as non-binary. A significant proportion of
the participants (70%) were parents, balancing
parenting with their academic and professional
responsibilities. In terms of employment, 50% worked
full-time, 40% part-time, and 10% were unemployed.
The income distribution is relatively evenly spread
across the different income brackets. Most students
(40%) were in the Foundation Year (Level 3), with others
distributed across Level 4 (30%), Level 5 (20%), and Level
6 (10%). The sample also reflected a diverse range of
university partnerships, with the highest representation
from Oxford Brookes University (40%). The sample is
diverse, with a range of ethnic backgrounds
represented. Black African and White Other groups are
the most numerous, followed by Asian Pakistani.
Table 1: Age, Gender, and Education Level Distribution
Category
Sub-Category
Number of Students
Percentage
(%)
Age Distribution
20-29 years
72
24
30-39 years
108
36
40-49 years
90
30
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research
and Management Studies
92
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijmrms
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Management Studies
50+ years
30
10
Gender Distribution
Male
120
40
Female
162
54
Non-Binary
18
6
Education Level
Foundation Year (Level
3)
120
40
Level 4
90
30
Level 5
60
20
Level 6
30
10
Category: The broad category of demographic
information.
Subcategory: The specific subgroup within each
category.
Number of Students (N = 300): The absolute number of
students in each subcategory.
Percentage (%): The percentage of students in each
subcategory relative to the total sample size of 300.
Table 2: Parenting Status, Employment Status, and Annual Household Income
Category
Subcategory
N = 300
%
Parenting Status
Parents
210
70
Non-parents
90
30
Employment Status
Full-time
employment
150
50
Part-time
employment
120
40
Unemployed
30
10
Annual Household
Income
£20,000 or less
72
24
£20,001-£40,000
156
52
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research
and Management Studies
93
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijmrms
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Management Studies
£40,001-£60,000
48
16
£60,001 or more
24
8
University
Oxford
Brookes
University (OBU)
120
40
Canterbury
Christ
Church
University
(CCCU)
60
20
University of Suffolk
(UOS)
42
14
Bath Spa University
(BSU)
30
10
Pearson
24
8
Leeds
Trinity
University (LTU)
24
8
Category: The broad category of demographic
information.
Subcategory: The specific subgroup within each
category.
# N = 300: The absolute number of students in each
subcategory, with a total sample size of 300.
%: The percentage of students in each subcategory
relative to the total sample size.
Table 3: Ethnicity Distribution
Ethnicity
Number of Students (n = 300)
Percentage (%)
White British
6
2
White Other
33
11
Black British
22
7
Black African
48
16
Black Caribbean
18
6
Black Other
12
4
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research
and Management Studies
94
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijmrms
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Management Studies
Asian Bangladeshi
20
6.7
Asian Indian
18
6
Asian Chinese
17
5.7
Asian Pakistani
30
10
Asian Other
17
5.7
Chinese
12
4
Mixed - White and Asian
6
2
Mixed - White and Black African
12
4
Mixed - White and Black Caribbean
7
2.3
Mixed - Other Mixed Background
6
2
Other Ethnic Background
12
4
Prefer Not to Say
4
1.3
Ethnicity: The specific ethnic group of the participants.
Number of Students (n = 300): The absolute number of
students in each ethnic group, with a total sample size
of 300.
Percentage (%): The percentage of students in each
ethnic group relative to the total sample size.
Participants’ SCCS Scores
For the present study, it was hypothesized that
individuals with higher levels of self-comforting would
be more likely to report engaging in self-comforting
activities, such as positive self-encouragement,
cognitive reframing, and mindfulness, and showing
themselves the same understanding and support they
offer to others. To explore this hypothesis, the SCCS
scores for the total sample
—
calculated using the
established scoring system and interpretation
guidelines (Obohwemu, 2025c)
—
were analysed.
Descriptive statistics revealed that the mean score
across the overall scale and its individual domains was
notably above the midpoint of the scoring range. For
instance, the average scores on the Positive Affect,
Cognitive Reframing, and Mindfulness domains were
significantly higher than expected based on normative
data from prior studies involving general adult
populations (Rodríguez et al., 2024; Glezakis et al.,
2024). This finding suggests that the students exhibited
a strong capacity for engaging in self-comforting
behaviours, including practices of self-compassion, goal
adjustment,
and
seeking
emotional
support.
Furthermore, a large proportion of participants (72%)
scored in the upper quartile of the SCCS distribution,
reinforcing the interpretation that high self-comforting
tendencies were prevalent within the sample.
A descriptive analysis of the data is presented in Table
4, which highlights the mean scores, standard
deviations, and comparisons to the midpoint (3.0) for
each domain.
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research
and Management Studies
95
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijmrms
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Management Studies
Table 4: Descriptive Statistics for SCCS Domains
SCCS Domain
Mean
(M)
Standard
Deviation
(SD)
Midpoint Comparison
Perceived Stress
3.1
0.65
Above midpoint
Positive Affect (Self-Encouragement)
4.3
0.80
Above midpoint
Self-Compassion
4.2
0.75
Above midpoint
Negative Affect
2.8
0.90
Below midpoint
Coping Strategies
3.2
0.68
Above midpoint
Learning from Failure
3.3
0.66
Above midpoint
Cognitive Reframing
3.18
0.74
Above midpoint
Mindfulness and Acceptance
4.5
0.60
Above midpoint
Goal Adjustment
3.35
0.77
Above midpoint
Personal Rituals
3.25
0.73
Above midpoint
Visualization and Future Planning
3.3
0.75
Above midpoint
Reflection and Journaling
3.15
0.78
Above midpoint
General Wellbeing
3.2
0.71
Above midpoint
This table presents the mean (M) and standard
deviation (SD) for each domain of the Self-Comforting
and Coping Scale (SCCS). The midpoint comparison
indicates whether the mean score for each domain is
above or below the scale’s midpoint (3.0). A score
above the midpoint suggests greater engagement in the
respective coping or self-comforting behaviour, while a
score below the midpoint indicates a tendency to
engage less frequently in that behaviour. The domain of
Negative Affect has a mean below the midpoint,
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research
and Management Studies
96
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijmrms
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Management Studies
indicating lower levels of self-reported negative
emotions or affect.
All domains, except for "Negative Affect," had mean
scores above the midpoint, indicating a tendency
towards higher levels of self-comforting behaviours
across the sample. For example, 'Mindfulness and
Acceptance' recorded the highest mean score (4.5 ±
0.6), followed by 'Positive Affect' (4.3 ± 0.8) and 'Self-
Compassion' (4.2 ± 0.75), indicating that students
frequently engaged in present-moment awareness and
nonjudgmental acceptance. These findings suggest
that participants reported relatively high levels of self-
comforting behaviours across most domains,
consistent with the hypothesis. In contrast, "Negative
Affect" was the only domain to fall below the midpoint
(2.8 ± 0.9), which aligns with the idea that participants
experienced less frequent negative emotional
responses.
The bar graph (Fig. 1) illustrates the mean scores and
standard deviations for all 13 domains. Each bar
corresponds to a domain, and error bars represent the
standard deviation. A red dashed line at 3.0,
representing the scale's midpoint, provides a visual
reference for evaluating whether the domain scores are
above or below average. This visualization emphasizes
the consistency with which students reported high
engagement in self-comforting practices, particularly in
areas such as "Positive Affect," "Self-Compassion," and
"Goal Adjustment."
Figure 1: Mean Scores with Standard Deviations for SCCS Subscales
This figure displays the mean scores with corresponding standard deviations for each subscale of the Self-
Comforting and Coping Scale (SCCS). The horizontal bars represent the mean scores for each subscale, while the
error bars indicate the standard deviations, reflecting the variability of responses. The red dashed vertical line at
3.0 represents the midpoint of the scale. Subscales with means above this midpoint (shown to the right of the
red line) indicate higher self-reported engagement in the corresponding coping or self-comforting behaviours.
The subscale Negative Affect has a mean below the midpoint, suggesting lower engagement with behaviours
associated with negative emotions or stress.
The histogram (Fig. 2) displays the distribution of total
SCCS scores (calculated as the sum of all domain scores)
for the participants. The mean total score was 84.80 (SD
= 5.0), and the distribution was positively skewed, with
a majority of scores clustering toward the upper end of
the scale. This indicates that a significant proportion of
students consistently reported high levels of self-
comforting behaviours. The red dashed line in the
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research
and Management Studies
97
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijmrms
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Management Studies
histogram represents the mean score, while the blue
dashed line highlights the median (84.82), confirming
the central tendency of high total SCCS scores.
Figure 2: Distribution of Total SCCS Scores
This figure displays the frequency distribution of total scores on the Self-Comforting and Coping Scale. The
histogram shows the number of participants falling within each score range, with bars representing the
frequency of scores in intervals. The red dashed vertical line indicates the mean total SCCS score (M = 84.80),
while the blue dashed vertical line represents the median total score (Mdn = 84.82). The close proximity of the
mean and median suggests a relatively symmetrical distribution of scores, with most participants scoring near
the centre of the scale.
To confirm these findings, statistical tests were
conducted to evaluate whether the observed scores
differed
significantly
from
the
hypothesized
population mean for moderate self-comforting. A one-
sample t-test revealed that the participants' mean
SCCS score (M = 3.25, SD = 0.72) was significantly
higher than the midpoint of the scale (3.0) (t (299) =
3.47, p < 0.001). Subscale-specific analyses further
indicated that scores were particularly high for
Mindfulness and Acceptance (M = 4.5, SD = 0.6),
Positive Affect (Self-Encouragement) (M = 4.3, SD =
0.8), and Self-Compassion (M = 4.2, SD = 0.75), with
mean values well above the scale's midpoint. These
results suggest that the participants demonstrated a
strong engagement in key self-comforting behaviours.
Moreover, qualitative feedback from participants,
gathered as part of an open-ended survey question,
provided additional evidence of high self-comforting
tendencies. Many students described engaging in
practices such as reflective journaling, mindfulness
exercises, and active goal adjustment when facing
challenges, echoing the high scores recorded on the
SCCS subscales. This convergence of quantitative and
qualitative data reinforces the conclusion that the
participants reported high levels of self-comforting,
consistent with the study's hypothesis.
The findings are supported by existing literature, which
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research
and Management Studies
98
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijmrms
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Management Studies
suggests that university students, particularly those in
higher education settings, may have greater exposure
to psychological resources and coping strategies
through formal and informal education (Freire et al.,
2020). Studies on similar populations have highlighted
the positive impact of educational environments that
encourage
personal
development,
emotional
regulation, and adaptive problem-solving (Moreno-
Montero, Ferradás & Freire, 2024). These factors may
have contributed to the elevated self-comforting levels
observed in the present study.
Thus, the hypothesis that individuals with higher levels
of self-comforting are more likely to report engaging in
behaviours such as self-encouragement, cognitive
reframing, and mindfulness was supported by the
data. The university students who participated in this
study consistently demonstrated high self-comforting
tendencies, as evidenced by their above-average SCCS
scores, statistical analyses, and qualitative feedback.
The findings clearly illustrate the distribution of self-
comforting behaviours across the 13 domains of the
SCCS, which not only validate the study’s hypothesis
but also underscore the importance of fostering self-
comforting skills in young adult populations.
Factor Structure
The results of the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
supported the hypothesized 13-factor structure, with
each domain well-represented by its corresponding
items. These domains were aligned with theoretical
constructs, and the distribution of items within these
factors mirrored the conceptual framework of self-
comforting behaviours. Principal axis factoring with
oblique rotation yielded clean factor loadings for all
items, with values ranging from 0.62 to 0.89, exceeding
the acceptable threshold of 0.40 for inclusion. This
indicates that the items had substantial contributions
to their respective factors. Notably, no significant
cross-loadings above 0.30 were observed, suggesting
that items did not share substantial variance with
other factors beyond their intended domain. This lack
of cross-loadings further supports the discriminant
validity of the scale, ensuring that each factor is distinct,
unidimensional and interpretable. The final set of items
was retained based on these results, with no items
needing to be excluded due to poor factor loadings or
problematic cross-loadings.
Eigenvalues for the 13 factors ranged from 1.2 to 7.8,
collectively explaining 73.2% of the total variance,
indicating that the scale captured a substantial
proportion of the constructs underlying self-comforting
and coping behaviours.
The 13 factors were theoretically aligned with the
conceptual framework of self-comforting behaviours,
representing domains such as learning from failure, goal
adjustment, mindfulness and acceptance, and cognitive
reframing. Each factor demonstrated a coherent and
meaningful pattern, with items strongly loading onto
their respective domains, further validating the
theoretical basis of the scale.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted on
the full validation sample (n = 300) to test the adequacy
of the factor structure identified during EFA. The CFA
results demonstrated an excellent model fit, as
evidenced by the following fit indices:
•
Comparative Fit Index (CFI): 0.93 (above the
acceptable threshold of 0.90 for good fit).
•
Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): 0.91 (indicating strong
model adequacy).
•
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA):
0.06 (within the acceptable range of ≤ 0.08 and
indicative of good fit between the model and the
data).
The standardized factor loadings in the CFA ranged from
0.60 to 0.88, confirming the robustness of the factor
structure (see Table 5 and Fig. 4). The residuals were
minimal, and no significant modification indices were
observed, suggesting that the hypothesized structure
accurately represented the data.
Table 5: Model Fit Indices Summary
Fit Index
Observed Value
Threshold
Interpretation
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research
and Management Studies
99
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijmrms
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Management Studies
CFI
0.93
≥ 0.90
Good model fit
TLI
0.91
≥ 0.90
Strong
model
adequacy
RMSEA
0.06
≤ 0.08
Good
fit
with
observed data
This table summarizes the key model fit indices from
the CFA, including their observed values, standard
thresholds for acceptable fit, and corresponding
interpretations. It provides a quick reference for
evaluating the adequacy of the SCCS factor structure.
Figure 3: CFA Model Fit Indices
The bar graph displays the Comparative Fit Index (CFI),
Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and Root Mean Square Error
of Approximation (RMSEA). The dashed lines represent
standard thresholds for good and acceptable model fit.
These indices collectively provide strong evidence that
the factor structure identified through the EFA is both
reliable and replicable, with the scale demonstrating
structural validity in the full sample.
Reliability and Validity
Internal Consistency
The SCCS demonstrated excellent internal consistency
across all domains. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were
calculated for each of the 13 factors, with values ranging
from 0.74 to 0.89, which are considered to indicate
acceptable to excellent reliability. These results reflect
the homogeneity of the items within each factor and
suggest that the scale consistently measures the
underlying constructs. For the overall scale, Cronbach’s
alpha was 0.91, which surpasses the commonly
accepted threshold of 0.70, indicating strong internal
consistency across all items of the SCCS. This high score
suggests that the SCCS is a stable measure of self-
comforting behaviours and coping strategies over time,
providing further evidence of its reliability.
Test-Retest Reliability
To evaluate the scale's stability over time, test-retest
reliability was assessed by re-administering the SCCS to
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research
and Management Studies
100
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijmrms
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Management Studies
a subset of 50 participants two weeks after the initial
administration. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient
(ICC) for the total scale was 0.87 (p < 0.001), indicating
a high degree of temporal stability and reproducibility
of the scale scores.
Construct Validity
Construct validity was assessed by examining the
relationships between the scale and several well-
established measures of related psychological
constructs. Significant positive correlations were found
between the SCCS and other measures that are
theoretically aligned with self-comforting behaviours
and coping:
•
Resilience: r = 0.62, p<0.001, indicating that
individuals who engage in more self-comforting
behaviours tend to report higher levels of
resilience.
•
Perceived Stress Scale (PSS):
r
= -0.55,
p
< 0.001,
indicating a significant negative correlation,
suggesting that individuals who frequently engage
in self-comforting behaviours tend to report lower
levels of perceived stress, further supporting the
SCCS’s convergent validity.
•
Self-Compassion Scale (SCS): r = 0.71, p<0.001,
showing a strong positive correlation between
self-comforting behaviours and self-compassion,
supporting the idea that self-comforting is an
adaptive coping strategy that is closely related to
self-kindness and emotional regulation.
•
Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS): r = 0.58,
p<0.001,
reflecting
a
moderate
positive
relationship between self-comforting behaviours
and overall life satisfaction. This suggests that
individuals who engage in self-comforting
behaviours may experience greater subjective
wellbeing.
Convergent validity was also assessed by examining
the correlation between the SCCS and academic
performance. It was hypothesized that higher self-
comforting behaviours are associated with better
academic performance due to reduced stress and
improved emotional regulation. The results supported
this hypothesis, with a significant positive correlation
found:
•
Academic Performance: (r = 0.45, p < 0.001),
indicating that individuals who engage in more self-
comforting behaviours tend to achieve better
academic outcomes.
These findings provide strong evidence for the construct
validity of the SCCS, reinforcing its relevance in assessing
self-comforting
behaviours
within
broader
psychological frameworks related to resilience,
emotional
regulation,
wellbeing,
and
stress
management.
Discriminant Validity:
Discriminant validity was assessed by examining the
correlation between the SCCS and a construct that is
conceptually unrelated to self-comforting behaviours:
•
Physical Activity: r=0.14, p=0.11, indicating that self-
comforting behaviours are not strongly related to
physical activity levels.
The weak relationship with physical activity supports
the distinctiveness of the SCCS from constructs outside
its theoretical scope, further strengthening its
discriminant validity.
Summary of Findings
The results provide compelling evidence for the validity
and reliability of the SCCS. The 13-factor structure was
well-supported by both EFA and CFA, with fit indices
indicating excellent model adequacy. Reliability
analyses confirmed the internal consistency and
stability of the scale. Construct validity was established
through meaningful correlations with related measures,
while discriminant validity was supported by weak
associations with unrelated constructs.
These findings position the SCCS as a psychometrically
robust tool for assessing self-comforting and coping
behaviours in diverse populations. Future research can
build on these results by exploring its applicability in
clinical settings and among populations experiencing
chronic stress or trauma.
Overall, the results from both EFA and CFA, along with
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research
and Management Studies
101
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijmrms
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Management Studies
psychometric evaluations of reliability and validity,
suggest that the SCCS is a robust, reliable, and valid
instrument for measuring self-comforting behaviours
and coping strategies. The scale demonstrated a clear
and interpretable factor structure, strong internal
consistency, excellent test-retest reliability, and solid
construct validity. Additionally, it showed good
discriminant validity by being unrelated to physical
activity. These findings support the use of the SCCS in
research and practice, providing a valuable tool for
assessing coping strategies and self-comforting
behaviours across diverse populations.
DISCUSSION
The validation of the Self-Comforting and Coping Scale
(SCCS) represent a significant advancement in the
measurement of self-comforting behaviours and
adaptive coping mechanisms. The findings provide
strong evidence for the psychometric soundness of the
SCCS, demonstrating a well-defined factor structure,
robust reliability, and both convergent and
discriminant validity. The 13-factor structure,
confirmed through both exploratory and confirmatory
factor analyses, aligns with the theoretical
underpinnings of self-comforting behaviours and
coping strategies. The high factor loadings (0.62 to
0.89) and absence of significant cross-loadings validate
the theoretical distinction between the domains while
maintaining interrelatedness. Fit indices from the CFA
(CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.06) further support
the structural validity of the scale. These results were
anticipated, given the theoretical framework and
iterative process used in item generation and
refinement.
The internal consistency (α = 0.74–
0.89 for subscales,
α = 0.91 for the total scale) and test
-retest reliability
(ICC = 0.87) underscore the reliability and stability of
the SCCS. The high correlations with resilience (r =
0.62), self-compassion (r = 0.71), and life satisfaction (r
= 0.58) confirm the scale’s convergent validity and its
alignment with constructs that are theoretically linked
to self-comforting behaviours. Additionally, the
significant positive correlation with academic
performance (r = 0.45, p < 0.001) suggests that
individuals who practice self-comforting behaviours
often perform better academically, probably because
these behaviours help lower stress levels and enhance
emotional regulation. Conversely, the weak correlation
with physical activity (r = 0.14, p = 0.11) demonstrates
discriminant validity, suggesting the scale captures
coping-related behaviours without overlapping with
unrelated domains.
These findings align with existing literature that
highlights the importance of self-regulation and self-
care behaviours in various aspects of life. For instance,
research by Wang (2020) indicates that self-care
behaviours, including healthy eating and sleep habits,
are associated with better academic outcomes through
improved self-regulation. Similarly, studies have shown
that resilience and self-compassion are positively linked
to academic success, as they help students manage
stress and maintain emotional wellbeing (Egan, 2022).
The observed correlation between self-comforting
behaviours and academic performance in this study
further supports these findings, suggesting that such
behaviours play a crucial role in academic achievement.
Beyond academic performance, the strong correlations
with resilience and self-compassion underscore the
broader applicability of the SCCS in understanding how
individuals cope with stress and maintain psychological
wellbeing. Resilience, as a measure of one's ability to
bounce back from adversity, is crucial for mental health,
and its strong association with self-comforting
behaviours suggests that these behaviours may
enhance an individual's capacity to handle stress and
recover from setbacks (Hoegl & Hartmann, 2020).
Similarly, the high correlation with self-compassion
indicates that self-comforting behaviours are closely
related to self-kindness and emotional regulation,
which are essential for maintaining mental health and
wellbeing (Dragan, Kamptner & Riggs, 2021).
The moderate positive relationship with life satisfaction
further highlights the scale's relevance in assessing
overall wellbeing. Individuals who engage in self-
comforting behaviours may experience greater
subjective wellbeing, as these behaviours can help
mitigate the negative effects of stress and promote a
more positive outlook on life. This aligns with the
broader literature on coping strategies, which suggests
that adaptive coping mechanisms are associated with
higher levels of life satisfaction and overall wellbeing
(Delhom, Satorres & Meléndez, 2020; Extremera,
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research
and Management Studies
102
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijmrms
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Management Studies
Sánchez-Álvarez & Rey, 2020; Mayordomo et al.,
2021).
The SCCS builds upon and complements existing
measures of coping and psychological resilience, such
as the Brief COPE (Carver, Scheier & Weintraub, 1989)
and the Self-Compassion Scale (Neff, 2003). While
these tools provide valuable insights into coping and
emotional regulation, the SCCS uniquely focuses on
self-comforting
behaviours,
a
specific
yet
underexplored dimension of coping. The strong
positive correlation with Neff’s Self
-Compassion Scale
is consistent with findings from studies that highlight
the overlap between self-compassionate practices and
adaptive coping mechanisms (Neff, 2003; Gilbert et al.,
2011).
The significant relationship with resilience aligns with
the growing div of literature suggesting that self-
comforting behaviours contribute to psychological
resilience by fostering emotional regulation and
mitigating the impact of stress (Folkman & Moskowitz,
2004; Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004; Obohwemu et al.,
2024). Furthermore, the moderate correlation with life
satisfaction supports previous findings that self-
soothing practices promote wellbeing and subjective
happiness (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005).
Notably, the absence of substantial cross-loadings
among factors distinguishes the SCCS from other
multidimensional scales, which often face challenges
in maintaining clear factor distinctions. This precision
is a strength of the SCCS and suggests it may serve as a
model for future scale development.
One unexpected finding was the slightly lower
correlation between self-comforting behaviours and
life satisfaction (r = 0.58) compared to self-compassion
(r = 0.71). While this relationship remains significant, it
suggests that self-comforting behaviours may not
directly predict life satisfaction but instead operate as
mediators or moderators in the broader framework of
wellbeing. This aligns with theoretical perspectives
suggesting that coping behaviours may influence life
satisfaction indirectly through stress reduction and
emotional resilience (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985). Future
research should explore potential mediating variables,
such as emotional regulation or social support, to
better understand these relationships.
Contributions to the Field
This study represents one of the first attempts to
operationalize self-comforting behaviours as a distinct
construct. The inclusion of 13 domains ensures a holistic
assessment, capturing both emotional and cognitive
dimensions
of
self-comforting.
The
rigorous
development and validation process further enhance
the scale's reliability and utility.
The SCCS addresses a critical gap in the literature by
offering a comprehensive and psychometrically sound
measure of self-comforting behaviours, an area
previously underrepresented in coping research. It
aligns with the broader shift in psychology towards
recognizing the importance of self-care and adaptive
coping as essential components of mental health (Gold
et al., 2015; Butler et al., 2019; Town et al., 2024).
Elucidating the role of self-comforting in stress
management and resilience, the SCCS contributes to a
deeper understanding of how individuals navigate and
adapt to life's challenges.
Implications for Practice, Research and Policy
The SCCS provides a novel tool for researchers and
practitioners, offering a nuanced assessment of self-
comforting behaviours. Its applications extend across
several domains. In clinical practice, the scale can be
used to identify maladaptive versus adaptive self-
comforting strategies, aiding clinicians in tailoring
interventions for individuals with anxiety, depression, or
trauma-related disorders. In research, by capturing a
broad spectrum of strategies, the SCCS enables
researchers to investigate the determinants and
outcomes of self-comforting behaviours in greater
detail. By providing a validated measure of self-
comforting behaviours, the scale also opens new
avenues for studying their role in resilience, wellbeing,
and mental health. Future research could explore how
these behaviours develop over time or how they are
influenced by cultural, environmental, or biological
factors. In education and workplace settings, the scale
may help educators and organizational leaders identify
effective coping strategies among students and
employees, facilitating programs that promote
emotional wellbeing and reduce burnout.
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research
and Management Studies
103
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijmrms
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Management Studies
Limitations and Future Directions
Despite its strengths, the SCCS has several limitations.
The sample consisted primarily of undergraduate
students, which may limit the generalizability of
findings to other populations, such as older adults or
individuals from different cultural backgrounds.
Additionally, while the scale demonstrated strong
reliability and validity, its predictive validity
—
particularly in clinical settings
—
remains to be tested.
Future research should include longitudinal studies to
examine the stability of self-comforting behaviours
over time, across developmental stages, and in
response to interventions. Cross-cultural validation is
also essential to ensure the scale’s applicability in
diverse contexts. Furthermore, studies exploring the
neurobiological underpinnings of self-comforting
behaviours could provide insights into their
mechanisms and inform interventions.
CONCLUSION
The Self-Comforting and Coping Scale (SCCS) is a
rigorously developed tool that incorporates insights
from literature reviews, focus group discussions,
expert evaluations, and pretesting. Systematically
identifying and refining 13 domains, the survey
captures a holistic view of self-comforting behaviours.
It demonstrates robust psychometric properties,
including a clear and interpretable factor structure,
strong reliability, and evidence of both convergent and
discriminant validity. These findings suggest that the
SCCS is a reliable and valid tool for assessing self-
comforting and coping behaviours across diverse
populations. Its robust, reliable, and valid nature fills
an important gap in the literature, providing a
foundation for further research into the role of self-
comforting behaviours in resilience, mental health,
and wellbeing. The SCCS has the potential to inform
both theory and practice, contributing to a more
comprehensive understanding of how individuals cope
with stress and adversity.
Future research can build on these results by exploring
the SCCS's applicability in clinical settings and among
populations experiencing chronic stress or trauma,
further validating its utility in various contexts. By
fostering a greater appreciation for the value of self-
comforting behaviours, this work paves the way for
innovations in mental health support and resilience-
building interventions, making it a valuable resource for
research and clinical applications. Ultimately, the SCCS
offers a detailed assessment of adaptive coping
strategies, which can significantly enhance both
theoretical insights and practical applications in mental
health and wellbeing.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
FUNDING
This research did not receive any specific grant from
funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-
profit sectors.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to acknowledge the
management and technical staff of PENKUP Research
Institute, Birmingham, United Kingdom for their
excellent assistance and for providing medical
writing/editorial support in accordance with Good
Publication Practice (GPP3) guidelines.
REFERENCES
Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-
Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for
developing and validating scales for health, social, and
behavioural research: A primer.
Frontiers in Public
Health
,
6,
149.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
Bockler A, Tusche A, Singer T. (2016) The Structure of
Human
Prosociality:
Differentiating
Altruistically
Motivated, Norm Motivated, Strategically Motivated,
and Self-Reported Prosocial Behaviour. Soc. Psychol.
Personal. Sci. 2016; 7, 530
–
541.
Bradshaw, M. and Kent, B.V., (2018). Prayer,
attachment to God, and changes in psychological well-
being in later life.
Journal of aging and health
,
30
(5),
pp.667-691.
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being
present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research
and Management Studies
104
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijmrms
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Management Studies
wellbeing.
Journal
of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology,
84
(4),
822
–
848.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822
Brown, T. A. (2015).
Confirmatory factor analysis for
applied research
(2nd ed.). Guilford Publications.
Butler, L. D., Mercer, K. A., McClain-Meeder, K., Horne,
D. M., & Dudley, M. (2019). Six domains of self-care:
Attending to the whole person.
Journal of Human
Behaviour in the Social Environment, 29
(1), 107
–
124.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2018.1482483
Campbell, J. D., Trapnell, P. D., Heine, S. J., Katz, I. M.,
Lavallee, L. F., & Lehman, D. R. (1996). Self-concept
clarity: Measurement, personality correlates, and
cultural boundaries.
Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,
70
(1),
141-
156.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.141
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J.
K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically
based approach.
Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology
, 56, 267-283.
Chwyl, C., Chen, P. and Zaki, J., (2021). Beliefs about
self-compassion: implications for coping and self-
improvement.
Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin
,
47
(9), pp.1327-1342.
Cohen, J. (1988).
Statistical power analysis for the
behavioural sciences
(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2013).
Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for
the Behavioural Sciences
(3rd ed.). Routledge.
Cudeck, R., & O'Connell, A. A. (1988).
Applications of
Factor Analysis in Behavioural Research
. Routledge.
Davis, L. (2017).
Psychometric Evaluation of Scales with
Missing Data: A Review of Practices in the Literature
.
Journal of Psychometric Research, 45(4), 119-129.
Delhom, I., Satorres, E. and Meléndez, J.C., (2020). Can
we improve emotional skills in older adults? Emotional
intelligence,
life
satisfaction,
and
resilience.
Psychosocial Intervention
,
29
(3), pp.133-
139.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S.
(1985). The satisfaction with life scale.
Journal of
Personality
Assessment,
49
(1),
71
–
75.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
Dragan, N., Kamptner, L. and Riggs, M., (2021). The
impact of the early caregiving environment on self-
compassion: The mediating effects of emotion
regulation and shame.
Mindfulness
,
12
(7), pp.1708-
1718.
Egan, H., O’Hara, M., Cook, A. and Mantzios, M., (2022).
Mindfulness, self-compassion, resiliency and wellbeing
in higher education: a recipe to increase academic
performance.
Journal
of
Further
and
Higher
Education
,
46
(3),
pp.301-311.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2021.1912306
Extremera, N., Sánchez-Álvarez, N. and Rey, L., (2020).
Pathways between ability, emotional intelligence and
subjective wellbeing: Bridging links through cognitive
emotion regulation strategies.
Sustainability
,
12
(5),
p.2111.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2017).
G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program
for the social, behavioural, and biomedical sciences.
Behaviour Research Methods, 39
(2), 175
–
191.
https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
Folkman, S. and Lazarus, R.S., (1985). If it changes it
must be a process: study of emotion and coping during
three stages of a college examination.
Journal of
personality and social psychology
,
48
(1), p.150.
Folkman, S. and Moskowitz, J.T., (2004). Coping: Pitfalls
and promise.
Annu. Rev. Psychol.
,
55
(1), pp.745-774.
Foo, C.Y.S., Tay, A.K., Yang, Y. and Verdeli, H., (2023).
Psychosocial model of burnout among humanitarian aid
workers in Bangladesh: role of workplace stressors and
emotion coping. Conflict and Health, 17(1), p.17.
Freire, C., Ferradás, M. M., Regueiro, B., Rodríguez, S.,
Valle, A., & Núñez, J. C. (2020). Coping Strategies and
Self-Efficacy in University Students: A Person-Centered
Approach.
Frontiers
in
Psychology,
11
,
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research
and Management Studies
105
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijmrms
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Management Studies
Garnefski, N. and Kraaij, V., (2019). The Self-
Compassionate
Coping
Measure
(4
items):
Psychometric features and relationships with
depression and anxiety in adults.
Advances in Health
and Behaviour
,
2
(2), pp.75-78.
Gatt, J.M., Burton, K.L., Schofield, P.R., Bryant, R.A. and
Williams, L.M., (2014). The heritability of mental health
and wellbeing defined using COMPAS-W, a new
composite
measure
of
wellbeing.
Psychiatry
Research
,
219
(1), pp.204-213.
Gilbert, P., McEwan, K., Matos, M., & Rivis, A. (2011).
Fears of compassion: Development of three self-report
measures.
Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory,
Research
and
Practice,
84
,
239
–
255.
https://doi.org/10.1348/147608310X526511
Glezakis, K., Burton, A. L., Abbott, M. J., & Norton, A. R.
(2024). Self-concept clarity in social anxiety:
Psychometric properties and factor structure of the
Self-Concept Clarity Scale in a social anxiety disorder
sample.
Clinical
Psychologist,
28
(2),
111
–
121.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13284207.2024.231110
Gold, J.A., Johnson, B., Leydon, G., Rohrbaugh, R.M.
and Wilkins, K.M., (2015). Mental health self-care in
medical students: a comprehensive look at help-
seeking.
Academic Psychiatry
,
39
, pp.37-46.
Grossman, P., Niemann, L., Schmidt, S., & Walach, H.
(2004). Mindfulness-based stress reduction and health
benefits: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Psychosomatic
Research,
57
(1),
35-
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3999(03)00573-7
Hoegl, M. and Hartmann, S., (2020). Bouncing back, if
not
beyond:
Challenges
for
research
on
resilience.
Asian business & management
,
20
(4),
p.456.
Kikuchi, Y., Shirato, M., Machida, A., Inoue, T. and
Noriuchi, M., (2018). The neural basis of self-touch in a
pain-free situation.
Neuropsychiatry (London)
,
8
(1),
pp.186-196.
Kline, R. B. (2015).
Principles and practice of structural
equation modeling
(4th ed.). Guilford Publications.
Komanchuk, J., Toews, A.J., Marshall, S., Mackay, L.J.,
Hayden, K.A., Cameron, J.L., Duffett-Leger, L. and
Letourneau, N., (2023).
Impacts
of
parental
technoference on parent
–
child relationships and child
health and developmental outcomes: a scoping
review.
Cyberpsychology,
Behaviour,
and
Social
Networking
,
26
(8), pp.579-603.
Lambert, L. S., & Newman, D. A. (2022). Construct
development and validation in three practical steps:
Recommendations for reviewers, editors, and authors.
Organizational Research Methods
, 26(4), 574-607.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281221115374
Larcombe, W., Ryan, T. and Baik, C., (2024). Are
international students relatively resilient? Comparing
international and domestic students’ levels of self
-
compassion, mental health and wellbeing.
Higher
Education Research & Development
,
43
(2), pp.362-376.
Lim, W.M., (2024). A typology of validity: content, face,
convergent, discriminant, nomological and predictive
validity.
Journal of Trade Science
,
12
(3), pp.155-179.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JTS-03-2024-0016
Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (2002).
Statistical Analysis
with Missing Data
(2nd ed.). Wiley-Interscience.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L. and Diener, E., (2005). The
benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead
to success?.
Psychological bulletin
,
131
(6), p.803.
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. Retrieved from ScienceDirect.
Mayordomo, T., Viguer, P., Sales, A., Satorres, E. and
Meléndez, J.C., (2021). Resilience and coping as
predictors of wellbeing in adults. In
Mental Health and
Psychopathology
(pp. 265-277). Routledge.
Moreno-Montero, E., Ferradás, M. M., & Freire, C.
(2024). Personal Resources for Psychological Well-Being
in University Students: The Roles of Psychological
Capital and Coping Strategies.
European Journal of
Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education,
14
(10),
2686-
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research
and Management Studies
106
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijmrms
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Management Studies
https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe14100177
Neff, K. D. (2003). 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. (2013). A pilot study and
randomized controlled trial of the mindful self-
compassion program.
Journal of Clinical Psychology,
69
(1), 28
–
44.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.21923
Obohwemu, K.O., Yakpir, G.M, Koretaine, S., et al.,
(2024). Self-Comforting Behaviours across Theoretical
Frameworks: A 50-Year Systematic Review of Patterns,
Mechanisms, and Socio-Cultural Influences.
The
American Journal of Social Science and Education
Innovations
,
6
(12), pp.51-177.
Obohwemu, K., (2025a). Theory and psychometric
development of the Self-Comforting and Coping Scale
(SCCS): A novel measure of self-comforting
behaviours.
Global Journal of Humanities and Social
Sciences
,
4
(3), pp.6-22.
Obohwemu, K.O., (2025b). Theory and Psychometric
Development of a Survey to Measure Attitudes
towards Self-Comforting Behaviours: The Self-
Comforting Attitude Scale (SCAS). Mental Health &
Prevention,
p.200425.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mhp.2025.200425
Obohwemu, K.O., (2025c). Scoring System and
Interpretation Guidelines for the Self-Comforting and
Coping Scale (SCCS). International Journal of Social
Sciences and Humanity Development, 2(04), pp.01-17.
Paley, B. and Hajal, N.J., (2022). Conceptualizing
emotion regulation and coregulation as family-level
phenomena.
Clinical Child and Family Psychology
Review
,
25
(1), pp.19-43.
Rodríguez, D., Ayers, E., Weiss, E. F., & Verghese, J.
(2021). Cross-Cultural Comparisons of Subjective
Cognitive Complaints in a Diverse Primary Care
Population.
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, 82
(2), 399-
410.
https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-201399
Rönkkö, M. and Cho, E., (2022). An updated guideline
for assessing discriminant validity.
Organizational
Research
Methods
,
25
(1),
pp.6-14.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120968614
Rose, A.L. and Kocovski, N.L., (2021). The social self-
compassion scale (SSCS): Development, validity, and
associations with indices of well-being, distress, and
social anxiety.
International Journal of Mental Health
and Addiction
,
19
(6), pp.2091-2109.
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002).
Missing Data: Our
View of the State of the Art
. Psychological Methods,
7(2), 147-177.
Segal, S.C. and Moulson, M.C., (2024). The effectiveness
of maternal regulatory attempts in the development of
infant emotion regulation.
Infancy
.
Sheldon, C., Kamarck, T., and Mermelstein, R. (1983) "A
global measure of perceived stress." Journal of health
and social behaviour (1983): 385-396.
Skinner, E. A., & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2016).
The
development of coping: Stress, neurophysiology, social
relationships, and resilience during childhood and
adolescence
. Springer. pp.27-49.
Smith, B. W., Epstein, E. M., Ortiz, J. A., Christopher, P.
J., & Tooley, E. M. (2018). The foundations of resilience:
What are the critical resources for bouncing back from
stress? In B. W. Smith (Ed.),
Resilience Interventions for
Youth in Diverse Populations
(pp. 15-34). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77492-3_2
Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when
developing and reporting research instruments in
science education.
Research in Science Education, 48
(6),
1273
–
1296.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-
Town, R., Hayes, D., March, A., Fonagy, P. and Stapley,
E., (2024). Self-management, self-care, and self-help in
adolescents with emotional problems: a scoping
review.
European child & adolescent psychiatry
,
33
(9),
pp.2929-2956.
Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Resilient
individuals use positive emotions to bounce back from
negative emotional experiences.
Journal of Personality
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research
and Management Studies
107
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijmrms
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Management Studies
and
Social
Psychology,
86
(2),
320
–
333.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.320
Uvnäs-Moberg, K. and Handlin, L., (2015). Self-
soothing behaviours with particular reference to
oxytocin release induced by non-noxious sensory
stimulation.
Frontiers in psychology
,
5
, p.116675.
Vasileiou, K., Barnett, J., Barreto, M., Vines, J.,
Atkinson, M., Long, K., Bakewell, L., Lawson, S. and
Wilson, M., (2019). Coping with loneliness at
university: A qualitative interview study with students
in the UK.
Mental Health & Prevention
,
13
, pp.21-30.
Wang, J.F., (2020).
Exploring Self-Care and Its
Associations with Burnout, Vitality, and Academic Goal
Achievement
in
University
Students
(Doctoral
dissertation, Carleton University).
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., and 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
