The Forms of Self-Criticising/Attacking & Self-Reassuring Scale (FSCRS)

Abstract

The Forms of Self-Criticising/Attacking & Self-Reassuring Scale (FSCRS) is a 22-item self-report psychometric instrument designed to assess individual differences in the characteristic ways people think, feel, and cope with personal failure, setbacks, and perceived shortcomings. Conceptualized and developed by Paul Gilbert and colleagues in 2004 within the theoretical framework of Compassion Focused Therapy (CFT) and evolutionary affective neuroscience, the FSCRS distinguishes qualitatively between two distinct expressions of internal self-adversarial processing—Inadequate Self (IS) and Hated Self (HS)—alongside a protective, adaptive affect-regulation capability termed Reassured Self (RS). Unlike unidimensional self-criticism inventories that assess only the magnitude of punitive thoughts, the FSCRS captures both the motivational intent and emotional phenomenology of internal hostility: Inadequate Self reflects a sense of personal failure, defectiveness, and striving for corrective improvement, whereas Hated Self captures contemptuous, destructive, and persecutory self-directed hostility often accompanied by self-disgust and self-injurious impulses. Conversely, Reassured Self measures the capacity to access warmth, support, and acceptance during distressing circumstances.

Each item is rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (“Not at all like me”) to 4 (“Extremely like me”). Across clinical and non-clinical populations globally, the FSCRS exhibits robust psychometric properties, consistently demonstrating high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha typically spanning 0.86 to 0.91 across subscales), robust structural validity in exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, and significant associations with diverse psychopathologies, including major depressive disorder, social anxiety, borderline personality disorder, eating disorders, and self-harming behavior. This comprehensive article provides an exhaustive psychometric examination of the FSCRS, evaluating its theoretical origins, latent factor architecture, construct and predictive validity, scoring mechanisms, and operational diagnostic value.

Keywords

Forms of Self-Criticising/Attacking & Self-Reassuring Scale, FSCRS, self-criticism, self-reassurance, Compassion Focused Therapy, Inadequate Self, Hated Self, shame, affect regulation, psychometrics, evolutionary psychology.

Authors

The FSCRS was developed by an interdisciplinary research team led by Paul Gilbert at the Mental Health Research Unit, Kingsway Hospital, Derby, United Kingdom, and the University of Derby. The original validation study, titled “Criticising and reassuring oneself: An exploration of forms, styles and reasons in female students,” was published in the British Journal of Clinical Psychology in 2004.

• Paul Gilbert, Ph.D., FBPsS: Professor of Clinical Psychology at the University of Derby and Founder of Compassion Focused Therapy (CFT) and the Compassionate Mind Foundation. His research focuses on evolutionary models of mood, shame, self-criticism, and compassion.
• Michelle Clark, M.Sc.: Mental Health Research Unit, Kingsway Hospital, Derby, UK. Researcher investigating self-directed affect, emotional processing, and cognitive vulnerabilities to depression.
• Susanne Hempel, Ph.D.: Psychometrician and research methodologist, formerly affiliated with the Mental Health Research Unit, Derby, and later directing evidence synthesis centers at the RAND Corporation and Southern California Evidence-Based Practice Center.
• Jeremy N. V. Miles, Ph.D.: Quantitative psychometrician and statistician, formerly with the University of York and the RAND Corporation, specializing in structural equation modeling, latent variable analysis, and scale development.
• Chris Irons, D.Clin.Psy.: Clinical psychologist, researcher, and author specializing in Compassion Focused Therapy, adult attachment styles, and affective neuroscience, based in London, UK.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the FSCRS is to provide a nuanced, multidimensional operationalization of self-to-self relating when individuals encounter distress, frustration, and failure. Historically, cognitive-behavioral traditions viewed self-criticism as a relatively monolithic, transdiagnostic cognitive distortion primarily characterized by negative self-evaluations, dysfunctional attitudes, and perfectionistic standards (Beck et al., 1979; Blatt et al., 1976). However, clinical observations within evolutionary psychotherapy indicated that individuals do not merely experience self-critical cognitions as neutral intellectual propositions; rather, self-criticism manifests with varying emotional tones, distinct motivational agendas, and divergent biological substrates.

Gilbert and colleagues identified a vital clinical distinction between self-criticism aimed at correction versus self-criticism aimed at persecution and destruction. When individuals perceive that they have fallen short of their standards, some engage in self-criticism out of a desire to prevent future mistakes, avoid social demotion, or ensure adherence to group norms. Although distressing, this form of self-criticism preserves an underlying investment in the self’s survival and social inclusion. In contrast, other individuals attack the self with virulent disgust, contempt, and malice, seeking to punish, destroy, or expel intolerable aspects of the self. Conventional self-criticism inventories—such as the Depressive Experiences Questionnaire (DEQ) or the Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale (DAS)—conflate these phenomenologies into a single numerical index, failing to distinguish between feelings of inadequacy and genuine self-hatred.

Furthermore, traditional clinical scales routinely omitted the positive, resilient counterpart of self-relating: the capacity for self-reassurance. While many psychometric instruments operationalized the presence of pathological thinking, few assessed an individual’s ability to soothe, calm, and accept oneself in times of adversity. The FSCRS was formulated to capture both sides of this psychological equation. In clinical research and psychiatric practice, the scale serves several critical diagnostic and therapeutic purposes:

• Differential Phenotyping of Distress: It differentiates individuals who struggle with performance anxiety, shame, and feelings of inadequacy (Inadequate Self) from those exhibiting severe internal persecutory dynamics, moral disgust, and active risk for non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) or suicidality (Hated Self).
• Measurement of Soothing Deficits: It isolates deficits in the internal affiliative system (Reassured Self). In many mood and personality disorders, pathology arises not solely from elevated hostility, but from the complete absence of inner soothing capacities.
• Treatment Selection and Monitoring in Compassion Focused Therapy: The FSCRS serves as the primary outcome measure for CFT, Mindful Self-Compassion (MSC), and related third-wave interventions, allowing clinicians to evaluate whether therapy successfully downregulates punitive self-persecution while cultivating inner safeness and affiliative warmth.

Psychological Construct

The FSCRS is constructed upon the theoretical postulate that internal self-evaluation mirrors social interpersonal relationships. When an individual reflects upon their own behavior, the mind splits functionally into an internal evaluator (“the critic”) and an internal recipient (“the self being judged”). The scale measures three distinct latent dimensions of this internal dialogue:

1. Inadequate Self (IS)

The Inadequate Self dimension comprises 9 items that capture a profound sense of disappointment, failure, and perceived personal defectiveness. This construct reflects the cognitive and emotional appraisal that one is deficient, lacks essential capabilities, or consistently fails to meet internal or external standards. The internal tone of Inadequate Self is characterized by frustration, anxiety, and demoralization.

Critically, Inadequate Self is frequently rooted in social rank and social comparison dynamics. The individual feels inferior, clumsy, or inept relative to others, leading to apprehension of social exclusion or abandonment. A key feature of this construct is its self-corrective or subordinate intention: the self-criticism is driven by the urgent need to identify flaws so that the individual can avoid catastrophic failure or interpersonal rejection. Exemplary items include “I am easily disappointed with myself” (Item 1) and “I can’t accept failures and setbacks without feeling inadequate” (Item 17). Although highly correlated with depressive rumination, Inadequate Self does not necessarily encompass a desire to harm or eradicate the self.

2. Hated Self (HS)

The Hated Self dimension encompasses 5 items that reflect a severe, destructive, and persecutory form of self-directed hostility. Unlike the Inadequate Self, which laments personal shortcomings, the Hated Self is characterized by toxic self-disgust, loathing, contempt, and aggressive intent toward the self. The underlying affective orientation is not sadness or anxiety, but rather deep-seated anger, revulsion, and hatred.

In evolutionary terms, while Inadequate Self represents an internalized subordinate response to perceived social competition, Hated Self represents an internalized attack from an abusive or persecutory entity. The motivational goal of Hated Self is not to improve the self or prevent mistakes, but to punish, injure, reject, or purge aspects of the self perceived as repugnant. This dimension correlates heavily with clinical manifestations of borderline personality organization, deep-seated internal shame, complex trauma, and active urges toward non-suicidal self-injury. Exemplary items include “I have become so angry with myself that I want to hurt or injure myself” (Item 9) and “I have a sense of disgust with myself” (Item 10).

3. Reassured Self (RS)

The Reassured Self dimension comprises 8 items measuring the psychological capacity to generate warmth, kindness, encouragement, and emotional soothing when confronting failure, loss, or distress. Rather than reflecting narcissistic self-aggrandizement or defensive high self-esteem, Reassured Self reflects realistic self-acceptance, emotional equanimity, and compassionate self-advocacy.

Individuals scoring high on Reassured Self possess access to an internalized nurturing figure. When life events go awry, they do not default to punitive rumination; instead, they activate compassionate caregiving scripts: forgiving mistakes, remaining emotionally supportive, and sustaining positive self-regard despite imperfect performance. Exemplary items include “I find it easy to forgive myself” (Item 5), “I am gentle and supportive with myself” (Item 16), and “I encourage myself for the future” (Item 21). This dimension serves as a potent psychological buffer against affective disorders.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical foundations of the FSCRS are deeply embedded in Compassion Focused Therapy, evolutionary psychology, affective neuroscience, and attachment theory, as articulated by Paul Gilbert (1989, 2000, 2005, 2009). The central premise is that human cognition and emotion are structured by evolved motivational systems designed to navigate social relationships, hierarchical dominance, and physical safety.

The Tripartite Model of Affect Regulation

Gilbert posited that human affect regulation relies on three distinct, neurobiologically grounded functional emotion systems:

1. The Threat and Self-Protection System: Focused on detecting danger and initiating defensive responses (fight, flight, freeze, or submit). Mediated primarily by the amygdala, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, and cortisol, this system generates emotions such as fear, anger, disgust, and shame. In the absence of safety, the threat system directs attention inward, treating one’s own perceived shortcomings as existential threats that must be conquered or punished.
2. The Drive, Seeking, and Resource Acquisition System: Focused on securing vital survival resources, status, sexual partners, and social success. Mediated by dopaminergic pathways and the nucleus accumbens, this system produces feelings of excitement, pride, and vitality. When linked with rigid, perfectionistic threat-avoidance, the drive system fuels relentless striving to prevent perceived inadequacy.
3. The Soothing and Social Safeness System: Focused on peace, social connection, affiliation, and restorative physiological states. Mediated by oxytocin, endogenous endorphins, and the parasympathetic branch of the autonomic nervous system (vagal tone), this system operates when threats are absent and individuals feel socially connected and loved.

The FSCRS directly maps onto these neuroarchitectural systems. Inadequate Self and Hated Self represent hyperactive threat-system operations where self-directed threat processing operates unchecked. In contrast, Reassured Self reflects the active functioning of the soothing-safeness system. Gilbert argued that psychological distress often results not simply from excessive threat activation, but from a profound hypofunctioning or atrophy of the soothing-safeness system, leaving the individual incapable of generating neurophysiological safeness cues.

Social Rank, Internal Dominance, and Attachment

The FSCRS also integrates social rank theory and attachment theory. Humans possess evolved mental architectures for tracking relative power, social status, and inclusion within hierarchies. When defeated or subordinated by dominant conspecifics, animals exhibit submissive, appeasement behaviors to avoid severe injury. Gilbert conceptualized internal self-criticism as an internalized dominance-submission dynamic: one part of the mind acts as an aggressive, dominant challenger, while another part submits as a frightened, defeated subordinate. When this dynamic takes the form of Inadequate Self, the subordinate self seeks to appease the dominant self through distress and attempts at improvement. When it manifests as Hated Self, the dominant self attempts to utterly destroy or excise the defective subordinate self.

Simultaneously, attachment experiences with early caregivers shape internal working models (Bowlby, 1969). Individuals who experienced warmth, reliable attunement, and validating care internalize comforting parental voices, forming the foundation of the Reassured Self. Conversely, individuals who grew up in invalidating, abusive, or highly critical environments internalize persecutory, rejecting caregiving voices, establishing the cognitive scaffolds for Inadequate Self and Hated Self.

Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the FSCRS have been established across a wide spectrum of psychometric, experimental, and clinical investigations worldwide.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Initial construct validation by Gilbert et al. (2004) in a sample of female university students demonstrated that Inadequate Self, Hated Self, and Reassured Self formed three coherent latent dimensions that explained substantial variance in cognitive-emotional self-appraisal. Subsequent studies across diverse linguistic and demographic populations—including clinical psychiatric samples (e.g., Castilho et al., 2015; Kupeli et al., 2013; Baião et al., 2015)—have repeatedly substantiated that a three-factor solution exhibits superior fit compared to unidimensional or simple two-factor (criticism vs. reassurance) models.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been established through extensive correlations with established measures of mood pathology, shame, perfectionism, and personality structure:

• Depressive Symptoms: The Inadequate Self and Hated Self subscales demonstrate strong positive correlations with depressive symptomatology as measured by the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II; typically $r = 0.55$ to $0.72$ for IS, and $r = 0.45$ to $0.65$ for HS). Conversely, the Reassured Self subscale exhibits robust negative correlations with depression ($r = -0.50$ to $-0.68$).
• Internal and External Shame: Inadequate Self correlates moderately-to-strongly with the Other As Shamer scale (OAS; external shame, $r \approx 0.50\text{–}0.65$) and the Experience of Shame Scale (ESS; internal shame). Hated Self demonstrates exceptionally high associations with internal shame and self-disgust, confirming its conceptual alignment with deeply internalized self-devaluation.
• Self-Compassion and Self-Esteem: Reassured Self exhibits strong positive convergence with the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS; Neff, 2003) and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; $r = 0.60$ to $0.75$), while Inadequate Self and Hated Self correlate negatively with these resilience markers.

Discriminant and Incremental Predictive Validity

Crucially, studies demonstrate that Hated Self predicts specific clinical endpoints above and beyond general neuroticism, negative affectivity, and Inadequate Self. Specifically, regression models examining non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) and active suicidal ideation reveal that Hated Self remains a significant, independent predictor even after controlling for total depression scores and Inadequate Self. While Inadequate Self is prevalent among both subclinical populations and individuals with mild affective disorders, elevated Hated Self scores uniquely characterize severe psychiatric conditions, including major depression with melancholic features, treatment-resistant depression, and borderline personality disorder.

In longitudinal and intervention studies, changes in FSCRS subscale scores systematically predict symptom remission. Reductions in Inadequate Self and Hated Self alongside increases in Reassured Self mediate therapeutic improvements in Compassion Focused Therapy, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, and Dialectical Behavior Therapy.

Reliability

The FSCRS exhibits exemplary internal consistency and temporal stability across clinical, university, and community cohorts globally.

Internal Consistency

In the seminal psychometric investigation by Gilbert et al. (2004) involving 248 female participants, the scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency estimates:

• Inadequate Self (IS): Cronbach’s $\alpha = 0.90$
• Hated Self (HS): Cronbach’s $\alpha = 0.86$
• Reassured Self (RS): Cronbach’s $\alpha = 0.86$

Subsequent psychometric evaluations across varied demographics have consistently replicated these high reliability parameters. In a large validation study of the Portuguese version within both clinical and non-clinical populations, Castilho, Pinto-Gouveia, and Duarte (2015) reported Cronbach’s alphas of $0.89$ for Inadequate Self, $0.85$ for Hated Self, and $0.87$ for Reassured Self in the non-clinical cohort ($N = 601$), and alphas of $0.91$ (IS), $0.87$ (HS), and $0.88$ (RS) in the clinical cohort ($N = 143$). Composite reliability (Raykov’s $rho$) and McDonald’s omega ($\omega$) coefficients systematically parallel or exceed these Cronbach’s alpha values, confirming that measurement error remains low across diverse clinical presentations.

Temporal Stability (Test-Retest Reliability)

Test-retest evaluations have demonstrated substantial temporal stability over varying time intervals in non-clinical populations where no therapeutic interventions were applied. Stability coefficients over a 2- to 4-week test-retest period generally range from $r = 0.75$ to $r = 0.84$ for Inadequate Self, $r = 0.70$ to $r = 0.81$ for Hated Self, and $r = 0.78$ to $r = 0.85$ for Reassured Self. These findings confirm that while the FSCRS is sensitive to clinical state changes resulting from psychological therapy, it measures relatively enduring cognitive-affective trait dispositions under unmanipulated conditions.

Factor Analysis

The latent structural architecture of the FSCRS has been the subject of extensive psychometric investigation, shifting from early Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) toward sophisticated Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and bifactor structural equation modeling.

Original Exploratory Factor Analysis

Gilbert et al. (2004) initially subjected the 22 candidate items to principal component analysis (PCA) with oblimin (oblique) and varimax rotations. The scree test and eigenvalue criteria clearly identified three principal factors accounting for over 50% of the total variance:

• Factor 1 (Inadequate Self): Explained approximately 35.8% of the initial variance, capturing items reflecting feelings of disappointment, inadequacy, and failure (e.g., Items 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 14, 17, 18, 20). Item loadings ranged from $0.48$ to $0.78$.
• Factor 2 (Reassured Self): Explained approximately 10.5% of the variance, loading positively on all reverse-valenced, soothing, and supportive coping items (e.g., Items 3, 5, 8, 11, 13, 16, 19, 21). Factor loadings ranged from $0.45$ to $0.79$.
• Factor 3 (Hated Self): Explained approximately 7.2% of the variance, capturing explicit destructive self-loathing, disgust, and self-injury (e.g., Items 9, 10, 12, 15, 22). Factor loadings ranged from $0.51$ to $0.83$.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Competing Models

Subsequent psychometric investigations have compared multiple alternative structural models to assess construct fidelity:

• Unidimensional Model: All 22 items load onto a single general self-relating factor. This model routinely yields unacceptable fit across all structural indices (e.g., $\text{CFI} < 0.70$, $\text{RMSEA} > 0.14$).
• Two-Factor Model: Items are divided simply into negative self-criticism (collapsing Inadequate Self and Hated Self into a single 14-item factor) and positive self-reassurance (8 items). While outperforming the unidimensional model, it consistently demonstrates poor fit, failing to account for the unique variance of destructive self-hatred.
• Correlated Three-Factor Model: The standard tripartite model (IS, HS, RS) proposed by Gilbert et al. CFA studies (e.g., Kupeli et al., 2013; Castilho et al., 2015) consistently demonstrate that this model provides a markedly superior fit, typically satisfying standard structural criteria:

  $\chi^2/df < 3.0, \quad \text{CFI} ge 0.92\text{–}0.95, \quad \text{TLI} ge 0.91\text{–}0.94, \quad \text{RMSEA} le 0.05\text{–}0.07$

• Bifactor and Hierarchical Models: More recent evaluations (e.g., Halamová et al., 2018; Baião et al., 2015) have evaluated bifactor specifications where a general “Self-Criticism” factor accounts for common variance across IS and HS, while distinct group factors capture the unique residual variance of Inadequate Self and Hated Self, alongside an orthogonal Reassured Self factor. Bifactor modeling has demonstrated that while a broad vulnerability factor exists, Hated Self retains substantial independent variance critical for clinical risk stratification.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The standard FSCRS is administered as a structured, pen-and-paper or digital self-report questionnaire. Its formal design characteristics and administrative parameters are detailed below:

• Instrument Name: Forms of Self-Criticising/Attacking & Self-Reassuring Scale (FSCRS)
• Primary Author: Paul Gilbert, Ph.D.
• Publication Year: 2004
• Format: 22 self-report items rated on a 5-point Likert-type response scale.
• Target Population: Adults and adolescents aged 16 and older (validated in non-clinical, student, and diverse clinical cohorts).
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 7 minutes.
• Response Anchor Scale:
  • 0 = Not at all like me
  • 1 = A little bit like me
  • 2 = Moderately like me
  • 3 = Quite a bit like me
  • 4 = Extremely like me
• Subscale Item Composition:
  • Inadequate Self (IS) [9 items]: Items 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 14, 17, 18, 20.
  • Hated Self (HS) [5 items]: Items 9, 10, 12, 15, 22.
  • Reassured Self (RS) [8 items]: Items 3, 5, 8, 11, 13, 16, 19, 21.
• Scoring Instructions:
  • Subscale scores are calculated by summing the raw item values for each respective dimension. No items are reverse-scored during subscale summation.
  • Inadequate Self Score: Theoretical range = 0 to 36. Higher scores reflect greater self-perceived deficiency, disappointment, and vulnerability to social-rank anxiety.
  • Hated Self Score: Theoretical range = 0 to 20. Higher scores indicate virulent self-contempt, destructive hostility, and potential risk for self-injurious behavior.
  • Reassured Self Score: Theoretical range = 0 to 32. Higher scores reflect greater resilience, inner warmth, and adaptive self-soothing abilities.
  • Total Score Usage: In clinical practice, researchers and clinicians are strongly discouraged from computing an overall composite score. Inadequate Self and Hated Self represent distinct negative pathways, and Reassured Self must not simply be treated as the inverse of criticism, as an individual may possess both high criticism and moderate reassurance capacities simultaneously.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The FSCRS was developed in 2004 under the auspices of the Mental Health Research Unit, Kingsway Hospital, Derby, UK, and the University of Derby. The copyright of the instrument is held by Paul Gilbert and co-authors (© Gilbert et al., 2004).

The scale is maintained and made accessible to the international scientific and therapeutic community via the Compassionate Mind Foundation (www.compassionatemind.co.uk). The instrument is placed in the public domain for non-commercial academic research, educational use, and direct clinical practice without licensing fees, provided that appropriate formal academic citation is attributed to the seminal 2004 validation paper. Researchers and institutions wishing to utilize the instrument in commercial clinical trials, fee-for-service digital applications, or proprietary assessments must obtain explicit written authorization from the authors and copyright holders.

References

• Baião, R., Gilbert, P., McEwan, K., & Carvalho, S. (2015). Forms of Self-Criticising/Attacking & Self-Reassuring Scale: Psychometric properties and normative data in a Portuguese clinical sample. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 22(6), 666–676. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.1927
• Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B. F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive therapy of depression. Guilford Press.
• Blatt, S. J., D’Afflitti, J. P., & Quinlan, D. M. (1976). Experiences of depression in normal young adults. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85(4), 383–389. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.85.4.383
• Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. Basic Books.
• Castilho, P., Pinto-Gouveia, J., & Duarte, J. (2015). Evaluating the multi-factor structure of the Forms of Self-Criticizing/Attacking & Self-Reassuring Scale: A study with clinical and non-clinical samples. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54(4), 438–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjc.12088
• Gilbert, P. (1989). Human nature and suffering. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Gilbert, P. (2000). The relationship of shame, social anxiety and depression: The role of the evaluation of social rank. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 7(3), 174–189. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-0879(200007)7:3<174::AID-CPP236>3.0.CO;2-U
• Gilbert, P. (2005). Compassion: Conceptualisations, research and use in psychotherapy. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203003459
• Gilbert, P. (2009). Introducing compassion-focused therapy. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 15(3), 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1192/apt.bp.107.005264
• Gilbert, P., Clarke, M., Hempel, S., Miles, J. N. V., & Irons, C. (2004). Criticising and reassuring oneself: An exploration of forms, styles and reasons in female students. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466504772812959
• Halamová, J., Kanovský, M., & Pacúchová, M. (2018). Robust systematic examination of the factor structure of the Forms of Self-Criticizing/Attacking & Self-Reassuring Scale. Psychiatry Research, 269, 584–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.08.067
• Kupeli, N., Chater, A., Chilcot, J., & Norton, S. (2013). The Forms of Self-Criticising/Attacking and Self-Reassuring Scale: Confirmatory factor analysis and psychometric properties in an English-speaking community sample. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 20(6), 534–543. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.1817
• 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

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)