IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v15y2022i4d10.1007_s40271-022-00571-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What is the Most Valid and Reliable Compassion Measure in Healthcare? An Updated Comprehensive and Critical Review

Author

Listed:
  • Shane Sinclair

    (University of Calgary
    University of Calgary
    University of Calgary)

  • Jane Kondejewski

    (University of Calgary
    University of Calgary)

  • Thomas F. Hack

    (University of Manitoba
    St. Boniface Hospital Research Centre)

  • Harrison C. D. Boss

    (University of Calgary)

  • Cara C. MacInnis

    (University of Calgary
    Acadia University)

Abstract

Our previous review of compassion measures in healthcare between 1985 and 2016 concluded that no available measure assessed compassion in healthcare in a comprehensive or methodologically rigorous fashion. The present study provided a comparative review of the design and psychometric properties of recently updated or newly published compassion measures. The search strategy of our previous review was replicated. PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases and grey literature were searched to identify studies that reported information on instruments that measure compassion or compassionate care in clinicians, physicians, nurses, healthcare students, and patients. Textual qualitative descriptions of included studies were prepared. Instruments were evaluated using the Evaluating Measures of Patient-Reported Outcomes (EMPRO) tool. Measures that underwent additional testing since our last review included the Compassion Competence Scale (CCS), the Compassionate Care Assessment Tool (CCAT)©, and the Schwartz Center Compassionate Care Scale (SCCCS)™. New compassion measures included the Sussex-Oxford Compassion for Others Scale (SOCS-O), a self-report measure of compassion for others; the Bolton Compassion Strengths Indicators (BSCI), a self-report measure of the characteristics (strengths) associated with a compassionate nurse; a five-item Tool to Measure Patient Assessment of Clinician Compassion (TMPACC); and the Sinclair Compassion Questionnaire (SCQ). The SCQ was the only measure that adhered to measure development guidelines, established initial construct validity by first defining the concept of interest, and included the patient perspective across all stages of development. The SCQ had the highest EMPRO overall score at 58.1, almost 9 points higher than any other compassion measure, and achieved perfect EMPRO subscale scores for internal consistency, reliability, validity, and respondent burden, which were up to 43 points higher than any other compassion measure. These findings establish the SCQ as the ‘gold standard’ compassion measure, providing an empirical basis for evaluations of compassion in routine care.

Suggested Citation

  • Shane Sinclair & Jane Kondejewski & Thomas F. Hack & Harrison C. D. Boss & Cara C. MacInnis, 2022. "What is the Most Valid and Reliable Compassion Measure in Healthcare? An Updated Comprehensive and Critical Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(4), pages 399-421, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:15:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s40271-022-00571-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-022-00571-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-022-00571-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-022-00571-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:15:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s40271-022-00571-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.