Background Salutogenesis focuses on understanding the factors that contribute to positive health outcomes. At the core of the model lies the sense of coherence (SOC), which plays a crucial role in promoting well-being and resilience. Objective Using the validscale Stata command, we aimed to assess the psychometric properties of the French version of the 3-dimension 13-item SOC questionnaire (SOC-13), encompassing the comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness dimensions. We also aimed to determine if a refined scale, assessed through this method, exhibits superior psychometric properties compared to the SOC-13. Methods A sample of 880 consecutive primary care patients recruited from 35 French practices were asked to complete the SOC-13. We tested for internal consistency and scalability using the Cronbach α and Loevinger H coefficients, respectively, and we tested for construct validity using confirmatory factor analysis and goodness-of-fit indices (root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] and comparative fit index [CFI]). Results Of the 880 eligible patients, 804 (91.4%) agreed to participate (n=527, 65.6% women; median age 51 years). Cronbach α and Loevinger H coefficients for the SOC-13 were all <0.70 and <0.30, respectively, indicating poor internal consistency and poor scalability (0.64 and 0.29 for comprehensibility, 0.56 and 0.26 for manageability, and 0.46 and 0.17 for meaningfulness, respectively). The RMSEA and CFI were >0.06 (0.09) and <0.90 (0.83), respectively, indicating a poor fit. By contrast, the psychometric properties of a unidimensional 8-item version of the SOC questionnaire (SOC-8) were excellent (Cronbach α=0.82, Loevinger H=0.38, RMSEA=0.05, and CFI=0.97). Conclusions The psychometric properties of the 3-dimension SOC-13 were poor, unlike the unidimensional SOC-8. A questionnaire built only with these 8 items could be a good candidate to measure the SOC. However, further validation studies are needed before recommending its use in research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sebo et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: