International Coaching Psychology Review, 4.2, September 2009

John Franklin & Justin Doran
two-week period. In relation to validity,
Dweck et al. (1995) reported that on the
same three-item measure, disagreement with
an entity-theory statement represented
agreement with the incremental theory. In
relation to discriminate theory, Dweck et al.
(1995) reported that the three-item measure
was unrelated to measures of self-esteem
(Coopersmith, 1967; β=0.39, ns), and cognitive
ability (SAT scores, β=–11.03, ns). It has
also been found that entity theorists perceive
academic success to be as of equal importance
as do incremental theorists (Hong et
al., 1999). This suggests that any relation
between implicit theory of intelligence and
academic success is unlikely to be due to differential
value placed on academic success.
In sum, although the reliability and validity
of the personality subscale has not been
reported, it is likely that the implicit intelligence
items of the TIS-SFFA are a reliable
and valid measure.
Self-Compassion
The 26-item Self-Compassion Scale (SCS;
Neff, 2003) was used to measure self-compassion.
The SCS consists of six subscales:
the five-item self-kindness subscale (e.g. ‘I try
to be understanding and patient towards
those aspects of my personality I don’t like’),
the five-item self-judgment subscale (e.g.
‘When I see aspects of myself that I don’t
like, I get myself down’), the four-item
common humanity subscale (e.g. ‘When I
feel inadequate in some way, I try to
remember that feelings of inadequacy are
shared by most people’), the four-item isolation
subscale (e.g. ‘When I fail at something
that’s important to me I tend to feel alone in
my failure’), the four-item mindfulness subscale
(e.g. ‘When something upsets me I try
to keep my emotions in balance’), and the
four-item over-identification subscale (e.g.
‘When I fail at something I get carried away
with my feelings’). Participants responded to
the SCS on a five-point scale ranging from
1=‘Almost Never’ to 5=‘Almost Always’. The
SCS is scored by reverse coding the negative
subscale’s (self-judgment, isolation, and
over-identification), summing the mean
totals for each of the subscales, and finally
summing the mean of this total, to produce
a total SCS score. To enable comparisons
between the subscales the total scores were
each divided by the number of items in each
subscale to produce an average in the range
1 to 5.
The SCS has been found to have high
internal consistency in a sample of college
students, with Neff (2003) reporting Cronbach
alphas ranging from .77 to .89 for each
of the subscales, and .92 for the overall SCS.
Neff has reported a test-retest reliability of
.93 over a three-week interval. The SCS has
been demonstrated to have strong discriminate
validity. Neff reports that whilst selfesteem
scales, such as the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale, have a significant positive
correlation with the Narcissistic Personality
Inventory, the SCS has been found to have a
non-significant negative correlation with
narcissism (r=–.08, p=.23), when controlling
for the variance due to self-esteem.
Resilience
The 33-item Resilience Scale for Adults
(RSA; Friborg et al., 2005) was used to
measure resilience. The RSA consists of six
subscales: the six-item perception of self subscale
(e.g. ‘When something unforeseen
happens’), the four-item perception of
future subscale (e.g. ‘My plans for the future
are’), the four-item structured style subscale
(e.g. ‘I am at my best when’), the six-item
social competence subscale (e.g. ‘I enjoy
being’), the six-item family cohesion subscale
(e.g. ‘My family’s understanding of
what is important in life’), and the sevenitem
social resources scale (e.g. ‘I can discuss
personal issues with’). Participants
responded on a five-point semantic differential
scale, in which each item had a positive
and a negative attribute at the end of each
continuum. The RSA is scored by summing
the means of the six subscales to produce a
total resilience score.
The RSA has been demonstrated to have
high internal consistency with Friborg et al.
134 International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 4 No. 2 September 2009