phd in law czech republic

Go to main content | Go to main menu | Go to search

Masaryk University

Search ... Search ...

• Ph. D. studies

About Ph.D. studies

How to apply, study programmes.

• Faculty webpages

Ph.D. studies at MU

There’s something more than a master’s. Distinguish yourself from the crowd and start your doctoral studies with us. At Masaryk University, you can choose from a wide range of doctoral programmes that will take your academic, scientific, and research career further. Never stop learning and make a positive change in the world.

Why choose Masaryk

Fees and scholarships, contacts and faq, news from ph.d. studies and research.

Scientists across MU fields accept MUNI Scientist awards

The Grant Agency of Masaryk University held its annual conference in the Augustinian Abbey last Wednesday, 30 November. It included, for the third time, the MUNI Scientist Award ceremony.

MU awards two honorary doctorates

Ross J. Anderson, professor of security engineering, and Ondřej Křivánek, physicist, designer and developer of electron microscopy technology, have been awarded the doctor honoris causa degree by Masaryk University.

Masaryk University has new spin-off: AI|ffinity

Last week, Masaryk University’s 20th spin-off company was founded. AI|ffinity has gained a licence for software that uses artificial intelligence to determine the structure of biomolecules all the way down to the atomic level.

Brno Ph.D. Talent: Fourteen young scientists from MU recognised

The Mayor of the City of Brno presented a check for CZK 300,000 to finalists of the 11th year of the competition Brno Ph.D. Talent as acknowledgement of their achievements.

Previous 1 2 3 4 Next

FURTHER NEWS

Explore further:

TUITION FEES AND SCHOLARSHIPS

VISA REQUIREMENTS

FORMER EDUCATION VERIFICATION

Faculty webpages on Phd studies

You are running an old browser version. We recommend updating your browser to its latest version.

More info Close

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some cookies ensure the proper functioning of this site, others help us improve the site by allowing us to see how the site is used. By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies. — More information?

Application: PhD program European Doctorate in Law & Economics

You can apply until 1 February 2024!

5-6 and 1-2 partial scholarships available!

• one of the largest doctorate programmes in the field
• a joint doctoral programme by five of the leading European universities, the Universities of Bologna, Hamburg, Rotterdam, Prague, and Rennes
• a chance to live in (at least) three different countries, work together with PhD researchers from all over the world and be supervised by experts in the field of Law and Economics
• scholarships offered by partner universitaties
• multiple doctoral degree

Admission to the programme:

Diploma or a bachelor's and master's degree in law or economics or a relevant field, or an equivalent university degree (second cycle qualification).

Applicants will be selected based on their academic merit and their capability of carrying out high-level scientific research activities in the field of the economics analysis of law, and in compliance with the regulations. Good knowledge of English is a prerequisite. 

More information about the programme, the application procedure and required documents is available here.  

Original document can be found here.

Let's Stay in Touch

All the interesting stuff happening at the faculty and beyond. Follow us at the social networks!

• https://www.facebook.com/pravnickafakultauk/
• https://www.instagram.com/pf_unikarlova/
• https://twitter.com/PF_CUNI
• https://www.linkedin.com/company/pfuk
• https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSg2hm__vC0Vj__hd1xHBcg/feed

universities.cz

• Welcome Programme
• Entrance requirements
• Admission Procedure
• Student VISA
• Health Insurance
• Higher Education Recognition
• Professional Recognition
• Nostrification
• Language & Prep Studies
• University of Hradec Králové
• Academy of Arts
• Academy of Fine Arts
• Academy of Performing Arts
• Charles University
• Czech Technical University
• University of Life Sciences
• Chemical Technology
• University of Economics
• Masaryk University
• Institute for Language
• VŠB - Technical Uni of Ostrava
• Mendel University
• University of West Bohemia
• Technical University of Liberec
• Brno University of Technology
• Tomas Bata University in Zlín
• Palacký University Olomouc
• Uni of Veterinary & Pharmacy
• Jan Evangelista Purkyně Uni
• University of Pardubice
• University of South Bohemia
• Silesian University in Opava
• University of Ostrava
• Polytechnics Jihlava
• Anglo-American University
• Europort Business School
• University of Pittsburgh
• Prague Film School
• ŠKODA AUTO University
• UNYP Greece
• List of Universities
• Study in CZ
• TOEIC L&R
• TOEIC S&W
• Students & Partners about us
• Graduation 2011
• Data Protection
• Skip to content

Ph.D. in European Law, Faculty of Law of Charles University in Prague

• Be the first to comment!

Programme information

*5,000 USD per academical year

The programme is oriented on theoretical questions of European Union and European Union Law including impacts on international trade or economic, monetary and financial issues. The programme offers also focus on human rights issues in European context including a position of individuals in the EU Law.

Admission requirements

• Master degree certification ( If the applicant has not yet completed, the required documents must be submit not later than on September 30, 2014
• In the oral entrance examination the applicant shall sufficiently demonstrate his/her professional and academic capacity to participate in the programme chosen and to autonomously conduct scientific research

For more detailed information and to apply for programme, please contact us: ' ); document.write( addy15573 ); document.write( ' ' ); //--> ' ); //--> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ' ); //-->

Additional info.

• FACULTY: Law
• STUDY PROGRAM: Doctoral studies
• UNIVERSITY: Charles University in Prague
• TYPE OF UNIVERSITY: Public university
• CITY: Prague
• Add to Google Buzz
• Add to Facebook
• Add to Delicious
• Add to Reddit
• Add to StumbleUpon
• Add to MySpace
• Add to Technorati

Leave a comment

Make sure you enter the (*) required information where indicated. Basic HTML code is allowed.

CHOOSE UNIVERSITY PROGRAM

Study programs.

• Ph.D. in English and American Literature, The Faculty of Arts of Charles University in Prague in Charles University in Prague
• Ph.D. in Environmental Law, Faculty of Law of Charles University in Prague in Charles University in Prague
• Ph.D. in European Law, Faculty of Law of Charles University in Prague in Charles University in Prague
• Ph.D. in International Law, Faculty of Law of Charles University in Prague in Charles University in Prague
• Bachelor in Choir Conducting Oriented at Education, Faculty of Education in Charles University in Prague
• Bachelor in Music Oriented at Education, Faculty of Education in Charles University in Prague
• Bachelor in Liberal Arts and the Humanities, Faculty of Humanities in Charles University in Prague
• Bachelor in Economics and Finance (BEF), Faculty of Social Sciences in Charles University in Prague
• Bachelor in Physiotherapy, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport in Charles University in Prague
• Bachelor in Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport in Charles University in Prague
• Bachelor in Musical Instrument Oriented at Education, Faculty of Education in Charles University in Prague
• Bachelor in English Language Oriented at Education, Faculty of Education in Charles University in Prague
• Bachelor in Russian Language Oriented at Education, Faculty of Education in Charles University in Prague
• Master in General Medicine, Faculty of Medicine in Hradec Králové in Charles University in Prague
• Master in Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine in Hradec Králové in Charles University in Prague
• Master in Special Education, Faculty of Education in Charles University in Prague
• Master in The Law and Business in the Czech Republic and Central Europe, Faculty of Law of Charles University in Prague in Charles University in Prague
• Master in Training Teachers of General Subjects at Lower and Higher Secondary Schools, English Language, Faculty of Education in Charles University in Prague
• Ph. D in Anatomy, histology and embryology, Faculty of Medicine in Hradec Králové in Charles University in Prague
• Master in Pharmacy, The Faculty of Pharmacy in Hradec Králové in Charles University in Prague

Universities.cz | E-mail: [email protected] |

Remember Me

• Forgot your password?
• Forgot your username?

PhD Law programs in Czech Republic

Law and business in czech republic and central europe.

Charles University Prague

The Times Higher Education World University Rankings is the only global university performance table to judge research-intensive universities across all of their core missions: teaching, research, knowledge transfer and international outlook.

International Human Rights Law and Protection of Enviroment

Deadline information, best universities with law in czech republic.

Bachelor Law programs in Czech Republic

Master Law programs in Czech Republic

Most Popular Law programs in Czech Republic

PhD Law programs in Czech Republic

We use cookies to give you the best online experience. Their use improves our sites' functionality and enables our partners to advertise to you. By continuing to use our website or clicking on the I agree button you are agreeing to our use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy. Details on how we use cookies can be found in our Cookie Policy

Don’t miss out!

Sign up or Log in now to save your favorites.

Get updates on your chosen subjects and programs

Wishlist your ideal programs

Save time sending enquiries to programs providers

• Program Finder
• Internships
• Scholarships
• Collections
• Bachelor programs
• Masters programs
• PhD programs
• MBA programs
• PostDoc programs
• Norway programs
• US programs
• UK programs
• Canada programs
• Germany programs
• Italy programs
• Netherlands programs
• Australia programs
• New Zealand programs
• Applied Sciences
• Natural Sciences
• Social Sciences
• Clients and Partners
• Public relations

1 PhD Degrees in Law Studies National Law Studies European Law in Czech Republic for 2024

• Law Studies
• National Law Studies
• European Law

Law Studies (1)

• Administrative Law Studies (1)
• International Law Studies (1)
• European Law (1)
• Back to main category
• United Kingdom (0)
• Australia (0)
• Bachelor (0)
• Certificate (0)
• Diploma (0)
• Associate of Applied Science (0)
• Associate Degree (0)
• Graduate Certificate (0)
• Associate of Arts (0)
• Advanced Diploma (0)
• Summer Course (0)
• Postgraduate Diploma (0)
• Graduate Diploma (0)
• Foundation Year (0)
• Postgraduate Certificate (0)
• A-level (0)
• Preparatory Program (0)
• Doctor of Education (0)
• Advanced Certificate (0)
• Juris Doctor (0)
• Undergraduate Pathway (0)
• Undergraduate Certificate (0)
• Graduate Pathway (0)
• 2 years (0)
• 3 years (1)
• 4+ years (0)
• Full time (1)
• Part time (1)
• English (1)
• Spanish (0)
• Portuguese (0)
• Italian (0)
• On-Campus (1)
• Distance Learning (0)
• Blended (0)

Popular degree type

Popular study format

Popular education type

PhD Degrees in Law Studies National Law Studies European Law

European law, as an academic subject, usually engages with the policies, courtroom proceedings and legislation that form the legal framework for the European Union. These classes also tend to investigate treaties the Union has formed over the years it has been in effect.

Czech Republic has a well-established and research based university education. This has made learning ini Prague one of the respected curriculum's in Europe since it cultivates the spirit of creativity and innovation among students.

Requirements for the PhD program often involve the student having already obtained a Master’s degree. Additionally, a thesis or dissertation primarily consisting of original academic research must be submitted. In some countries, this work may even need to be defended in front of a panel.

• Internal structure

Admission Procedure in PhD Programmes

Admission procedure 2024/2025, information on the admission procedure.

Admission procedure 2024/2025 for

all doctoral programs taught in English at Charles University, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, with the exception of the Bioinformatics and Computational Biology program

To apply for one of our doctoral study programmes taught in English you must hold or be working towards a master's diploma and have the necessary abilities for research. The latter consists mainly of the knowledge of the chosen field, English language, and the ability of independent creative work as well as teamwork. The assessment of these abilities is based on the documents submitted with your application and on the entrance examination, if the latter is not waived (see below). The entrance examination has two parts – examination in the expertise in the field (subject examination) and examination in the English language (language examination).

The admission procedure commences with the submission of an application form. Important dates:

• Application's submission till April 30, 2024
• Letters of recommendation are due till April 30, 2024
• The language examination waiver must be requested and the compliance with one of the conditions for the waiver must be documented till April 30, 2024
• Application for the waiver of the subject entrance examination as soon as possible, but no later than May 31, 2024
• Invitation to take the entrance examination in mid-May, 2024
• Entrance examination dates: June 17 and 18, 2024
• Alternative entrance examination date: June 25, 2024, can be requested for serious reasons only
• A document certifying completion of a university education at Master's level needs to be delivered as soon as possible after the application submission, and in any case no later than September 30, 2024.

If the applicant has submitted an application for recognition of foreign education and no decision has yet been made on it, the deadline for delivery of the document is extended to October 22, 2024. For students graduating between September 1, 2024 and September 30, 2024, the deadline is also extended till October 22, 2024.

Admission for studies

Admission for studies in one of our doctoral study programmes taught in English except the programme Physics Education and General Problems of Physics will be granted to the applicants who

• Submitted a complete application form together with all obligatory attachments before the deadline,
• successfully passed the subject part of the entrance examination or they were granted a waiver of it,
• successfully passed the language part of the entrance examination or they were granted a waiver of it.

Admission for studies to the doctoral study programme Physics Education and General Problems of Physics taught in English will be granted to the applicants who

• successfully passed the subject part of the entrance examination and achieved rank 1 in the ranking of applicants,
• successfully passed the language part of the entrance examination or they got a waiver of it

Invitation to subject entrance examination

The invitation to the subject entrance examination will be sent to those applicants, who

• submitted a complete application together with its obligatory attachments 2,3 and 4 before the deadline,
• paid the application fee,
• did not obtain the confirmation of the waiver of the subject entrance examination before mid-May, 2024.

The invitation to an entrance examination is delivered through the University Electronic Information System. In mid-May, 2024, all applicants without a waiver receive an invitation to take the entrance examination from the Faculty of Mathematics and Physics. If the Faculty approves the waiver after sending out the invitation, the invitation ceases to apply.

Entrance examination to all programmes taught in English, except the programme Physics Education and General Problems of Physics

The entrance examination consists of two parts, subject part and a language part. The subject part of the entrance examination takes the form of a discussion about the chosen study programme. The committee gives the applicant three questions related to the chosen study programme. The committee judges the correctness of the answer, the knowledge of the field and overall readiness for doctoral studies. Each answer is evaluated on the binary Pass/Fail scale. The applicant must obtain three passing grades. If the applicant has chosen one of the thesis topics offered by the faculty and has obtained an approval of a future supervisor, or if the committee accepts the annotation of the applicant‘s own topic, the applicant will successfully pass the exam with only two passing grades from three questions.

Entrance examination to the programme Physics Education and General Problems of Physics taught in English

The entrance examination consists of two parts, subject part and a language part. The subject part of the entrance examination takes the form of a discussion about the field of Physics education and general problems of physics. The committee gives the applicant three questions related to the field of the study programme. The committee judges the correctness of the answers, the knowledge of the field and overall readiness for doctoral studies. Each answer is evaluated on the scale of 0–30 points, the applicant can therefore obtain at most 90 points for all three answers. In order to pass the exam, the applicant must obtain at least 60 points. If there is more than one successful applicant, the committee will rank the applicants according to the total number of points they obtained. Admission for studies to the doctoral study programme Physics Education and General Problems of Physics taught in English will be granted to the candidate who successfully passes both parts of the entrance examination and obtains the highest score from the subject part of the examination among all applicants.

Language part of the entrance examination

The language part of the entrance examination consists of verification of knowledge of the English language in the form of a written test conducted in person. The applicant may obtain a maximum of 100 points, the threshold for passing the exam is 50 points. If the applicant cannot take part in the face-to-face test for objective reasons, it is possible to take the test online at the Department of Language Education of the Faculty of Mathematics and Physics under the same conditions. In this case, the student must contact the Study Department two weeks before the exam at the latest and ask for a permission to take the exam online.

Waiver conditions of the subject entrance examination

The subject entrance examination cannot be waived for applicants to the study programme Physics Education and General Problems of Physics.

The subject entrance examination may be waived for applicants for any study programme (with the exception of the programme Physics Education and General Problems of Physics) who have chosen one of the thesis topics offered by the faculty and obtained an approval of a future supervisor, and for whom at least one of the following conditions applies:

• their original scientific work on a relevant topic has been published, or has been accepted for publication, in a reviewed medium indexed by MathSciNet, SCOPUS or ISI Web of Knowledge databases;
• they have achieved excellent results in their master's study programme in the field of Physics, Computer Science, or Mathematics, corresponding to the field of the doctoral programme they are applying to;
• they have achieved other remarkable results testifying their ability for doctoral studies.

It is necessary to apply for the waiver and prove that the applicant satisfies some of the above conditions, by no later than May 31, 2024

Conditions for a language examination waiver

The language examination will be waived if the applicant fulfills at least one of the following waiver conditions:

A. The applicant spent at least two years of his/her previous education at secondary or university level with English as the sole language of instruction in one of the following countries: Australia, Canada, India, Ireland, Malta, New Zealand, South Africa, UK or USA.

B. The applicant does not need to take the language examination of English if (s)he has already passed one of the following exams (in some cases we recognize the exam only with a minimum score or level):

• General State Language Examination in English in the Czech Republic
• examination in English at Charles University, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics
• TOEFL (paper) – 550 points
• TOEFL (computer) – 213 points
• TOEFL (internet) – 80 points
• IELTS – 7 points
• C2 Proficiency (formerly known as CPE) – Pass
• C1 Advanced (formerly known as CAE) – Pass
• B2 First (formerly known as FCE) – Grade A
• ESOL International (C1 – C2)
• TELC (The European Language Certificates) – TELC English C1 – Pass
• UNIcert English for Mathematicians: Level C1 – level C1
• Melab – 77 points
• Examination for the Certificate of Proficiency in English (ECPE) – Pass
• Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) – 605 points

The language examination waiver and the compliance with one of the conditions mentioned above must be requested before the deadlines mentioned above.

Admission procedure 2024/2025 for the Bioinformatics and Computational Biology program

Application Form Requisites

APPLICATION SUBMISSION

Applications are to be submitted electronically via the Student Information System of Charles University at https://is.cuni.cz/studium/eng/prijimacky/ . The application fee will be determined by a dean’s measure. You need to fill in the application form, confirm it, and submit it in the system. Electronically submitted applications do not need to be sent in paper form. After the completion and submission of an electronic application, the information system generates a 6-digit ID number for each applicant; this ID should be given in any subsequent correspondence about the application with the Department of Student Affairs. In the application the applicant chooses a study programme, and states a desired doctoral thesis topic (from those offered by the programme). We recommend discussing these at the department concerned before submitting the application.

ATTACHMENTS TO THE APPLICATION

A. Obligatory

1. A document proving the completion of a master's study programme; A document certifying the completion of a university education at Master's level needs to be delivered as soon as possible after the application submission, and in any case no later than September 30, 2024. For students graduating between September 1, 2024 and September 30, 2024, the deadline is extended till October 22, 2024. This is not required from students and graduates of the Charles University, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics. Those applicants who completed their education at a university abroad, must deliver one of the following documents: a document about a general recognition of equality or validity of a foreign university graduation certificate in the Czech Republic (so called „nostrification“), or a foreign document about a foreign university education if it is automatically recognized in the Czech Republic, according to its international agreements, without further official processing (university diploma from Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Slovenia), or a foreign document about completing university education which will be assessed by the faculty itself (no fee is being charged). 2. Two letters of recommendation; letters of recommendation from professors and employers who can comment on your recent professional accomplishments and your qualifications for pursuing a master’s degree in Computer Science, Mathematics or Physics. You should arrange for letters of recommendation to be sent directly by your referees to the e-mail address phd@ mff.cuni.cz till April 30, 2024. 3. A brief CV. 4. A letter of motivation.

B. Optional

• An application for a waiver of the subject or language part of the entrance examination and its attachments
• A brief annotation of a proposed thesis topic in case that the applicant has not chosen a thesis topic offered by the programme

APPLICATION FEE

An application fee must be paid for each application. The application fee is 1500 CZK. The fee is to be paid by the application submission deadline to the bank account below with the 6-digit ID applicant number as “a specific symbol” or a message for the recipient. The fee can either be paid in EUR or in CZK. The application fee is non-refundable. The fee can be paid by postal order or by bank transfer. When paying by bank transfer, the applicants are obliged to pay any additional fees charged by the banks (esp. when paying from abroad).

Bank details for the application fee: Bank: Komercni banka Account number: 21210277/0100 IBAN: CZ49 0100 0000 0000 2121 0277 SWIFT: KOMB CZ PP

If the application is not completed and confirmed, or the application fee is not fully paid in due time, and the deficiencies are not corrected in the additional time permitted, the faculty will officially terminate the admission procedure.

Other important resources:

• Application Form
• Admission Procedure Status
• Study Programmes and Branches
• Charles University Admission

Programme specific information

• Programme Computational linguistics
• Programme Computer Science – Software Systems
• Programme Computer Science – Visual computing and computer games
• Programme Bioinformatics and computational biology
• Programme Biophysics, chemical and macromolecular physics

Cookie usage

• Open access
• Published: 26 May 2024

The sense of coherence scale: psychometric properties in a representative sample of the Czech adult population

• Martin Tušl 1 ,
• Ivana Šípová 2 ,
• Martin Máčel 2 ,
• Kristýna Cetkovská 2 &
• Georg F. Bauer 1  

BMC Psychology volume  12 , Article number:  293 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Sense of coherence (SOC) is a personal resource that reflects the extent to which one perceives the world as comprehensible, manageable, and meaningful. Decades of empirical research consistently show that SOC is an important protective resource for health and well-being. Despite the extensive use of the 13-item measure of SOC, there remains uncertainty regarding its factorial structure. Additionally, a valid and reliable Czech version of the scale is lacking. Therefore, the present study aims to examine the psychometric properties of the SOC-13 scale in a representative sample of Czech adults.

An online survey was completed by 498 Czech adults (18–86 years old) between November 2021 and December 2021. We used confirmatory factor analysis to examine the factorial structure of the scale. Further, we examined the variations in SOC based on age and gender, and we tested the criterion validity of the scale using the short form of the Mental Health Continuum (MHC) scale and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) scale as mental health outcomes.

SOC-13 showed an acceptable one- and three-factor fit only with specified residual covariance between items 2 and 3. We tested alternative short versions by systematically removing poorly performing items. The fit significantly improved for all shorter versions with SOC-9 having the best psychometric properties with a clear one-factorialstructure. We found that SOC increases with age and males score higher than females. SOC showed a moderately strong positive correlation with MHC, and a moderately strong negative correlation with GAD. These findings were similar for all tested versions supporting the criterion validity of the SOC scale.

Our findings suggest that shortened versions of the SOC-13 scale have better psychometric properties than the original 13-item version in the Czech adult population. Particularly, SOC-9 emerges as a viable alternative, showing comparable reliability and validity as the 13-item version and a clear one-factorial structure in our sample.

Peer Review reports

Sense of coherence (SOC) was introduced by the sociologist Aaron Antonovsky as the main pillar of his salutogenic theory, which explains how individuals cope with stressors and stay healthy even in case of adverse life situations [ 1 ]. SOC is a personal resource defined as a global orientation to life determining the degree to which one perceives life as comprehensible, manageable, and meaningful [ 2 ]. A strong SOC enables individuals to cope with stressors and manage tension, thus moving to the ease-end of the ease/disease continuum [ 2 , 3 ]. A person’s strength of SOC can be measured with the Orientation to Life Questionnaire commonly referred to as the SOC scale [ 4 ]. The original version is composed of 29 items (SOC-29) and Antonovsky recommended 13 items for the short version of the scale (SOC-13). To date, both versions of the scale have been used across diverse populations in at least 51 languages and 51 countries [ 5 ]. Studies have consistently shown that SOC correlates strongly with different health and well-being outcomes [ 6 , 7 ] and quality of life measures [ 8 ]. In the context of the recent COVID-19 pandemic, SOC has been identified as the most important protective resource in relation to mental health [ 9 ]. Regarding individual differences, SOC has been shown to strengthen over the life course [ 10 ], males usually score higher than females [ 11 ], and some studies indicate that SOC increases with the level of education [ 12 ]. However, despite the extensive evidence on the criterion validity of the scale, there is still a lack of clarity about its underlying factor structure and dimensionality.

The SOC scale was conceptualized as unidimensional suggesting that SOC in its totality, as a global orientation, influences the movement along the ease/dis-ease continuum [ 2 ]. However, the structure of the scale is rather multidimensional as each item is composed of multiple elements. Antonovsky developed the scale according to the facet theory [ 13 , 14 ] which assumes that social phenomena are best understood when they are seen as multidimensional. Facet theory involves the construction of a mapping sentence which consists of the facets and the sentence linking the facets together [ 15 ]. The SOC scale is composed of five facets: (i) the response mode (comprehensibility, manageability, meaningfulness); (ii) the modality of stimulus (instrumental, cognitive, affective), (iii) its source (internal, external, both), (iv) the nature of the demand it poses (concrete, diffuse, affective), (v) and its time reference (past, present, future). For example, item 3 “Has it happened that people whom you counted on disappointed you?” is a manageability item that can be described with the mapping sentence as follows: "Respondent X responds to an instrumental stimulus (“counted on”), which originated from the external environment (“people”), and which poses a diffuse demand (“disappointed”) being in the past (“has it happened”)." Although each item can be categorized along the SOC component comprehensibility, manageability, or meaningfulness, the items also share elements from the other four facets with items within the same, but also within the other SOC components (see 2, Chap. 4 for details). As Antonovsky states [ 2 , p. 87]: “The SOC facet pulls the items apart; the other facets push them together.”

Thus, the multi-facet nature of the scale can create difficulties in identifying the three theorized SOC components using statistical methods such as factor analysis. In fact, both the unidimensional and the three-dimensional SOC-13 rarely yield an acceptable fit without specifying residual covariance between single items (see 5 for an overview). This has been further exemplified in a recent study which examined the dimensionality of SOC-13 using a network perspective. The authors were unable to identify a clear structure and concluded that SOC is composed of multiple elements that are deeply linked and not necessarily distinct [ 16 ]. As a result, several researchers have suggested modified [ 17 ] or abbreviated versions of the scale, such as SOC-12 [ 18 , 19 ], SOC-11 [ 20 , 21 , 22 ], or SOC-9 [ 23 ], which have empirically shown a better factorial structure. This prompts the general question, whether an alternative short version should be preferred over the 13-item version. In fact, looking into the original literature [ 2 ], it is not clear why Antonovsky chose specifically these 13 items from the 29-item scale. We will address this question with the Czech version of the SOC-13 scale.

Salutogenesis in the Czech Republic

Salutogenesis and the SOC scale were introduced to the Czech audience in the early 90s by a Czech psychologist Jaro Křivohlavý. His work included the Czech translation of the SOC-29 scale [ 24 ] and the application of the concept in research on resilience [ 25 ] and behavioral medicine [ 26 ]. Unfortunately, the early Czech translation of the scale by Křivohlavý is not available electronically, nor could we locate it in library repositories. Later studies examined SOC-29 in relation to resilience [ 27 , 28 ] and self-reported health [ 29 , 30 ], however, it is not clear which translation of SOC-29 the authors used in the studies. A new Czech translation of the SOC-13 scale has recently been developed by the authors of this paper to examine the protective role of SOC for mental health during the COVID-19 crisis [ 31 ]. In line with earlier studies [ 9 ], SOC was identified as an important protective resource for individual mental health. This recent Czech translation of the SOC-13 scale [ 31 ] is the subject of the present study.

Present study

Our study aims to investigate the psychometric properties of the SOC-13 scale within a representative sample of the Czech adult population. Specifically, we will examine the factorial structure of the SOC-13 scale to understand its underlying dimensions and evaluate its internal consistency to ensure its reliability as a measure of SOC. Additionally, we aim to assess criterion validity by examining the scale’s association with established measures of positive and negative mental health outcomes - the Mental Health Continuum [ 32 ] and Generalized Anxiety Disorder [ 33 ]. We anticipate a strong correlation between these measures and the SOC construct [ 6 ]. Furthermore, we will investigate demographic variations in SOC, considering factors such as age, gender, and education. Understanding these variations will provide valuable insights into the applicability of the SOC-13 scale across different population subgroups. Finally, we will explore whether alternative short versions of the SOC scale should be preferred over the 13-item version. This analysis will help determine the most efficient version of the SOC scale for future research.

Study design and data collection

Our study design is a cross-sectional online survey of the Czech adult population. We contracted a professional agency DataCollect ( www.datacollect.cz ) to collect data from a representative sample for our study. Participants were recruited using quota sampling. The inclusion criteria were: being of adult age (18+), speaking the Czech language, and having permanent residence in the Czech Republic. Exclusion criteria related to study participation were predetermined to minimize the risk of biases in the collected data. The order of items in all measures was randomized and we implemented two attention checks in the questionnaire (e.g. “Please, choose option number 2”). Participants were excluded if they did not finish the survey, completed the survey in less than five minutes, did not pass the attention checks, or gave the same answer to more than 10 consecutive items. Data collection was conducted via the online platform Survey Monkey between November 2021 and December 2021.

Translation into the Czech language

Translation of the SOC scale was carried out by the authors of the paper with the help of a qualified translator. We followed the translation guidelines provided on the website of the Society for Research and Theory on Salutogenesis ( www.stars-society.org ), where the original English version of the SOC scale is available for download. Two translations were conducted independently, then compared and checked for differences. Based on this comparison, the agreed version of the scale was back translated into English by a Czech-English translator. The final version was checked for resemblance to the original version in content and in form. Although we used only the short version of the scale in our study (i.e., SOC-13), the translation included the full SOC-29 scale. The Czech translation of the full SOC scale is available as supplementary material.

Sense of coherence. We used the short version of the Orientation to Life Questionnaire [ 3 ] to assess SOC. The measure consists of 13 items evaluated on a 7-point Likert-type scale with different response options. Five items measure comprehensibility (e.g., “Does it happen that you experience feelings that you would rather not have to endure?”), four items measure manageability (e.g., “Has it happened that people whom you counted on disappointed you?”), and four items measure meaningfulness (e.g., “Do you have the feeling that you really don’t care about what is going on around you?”). In our sample, Cronbach’s alpha for the full scale was α = 0.88, for comprehensibility α = 0.76, manageability α = 0.72, and meaningfulness α = 0.70.

Mental health continuum - short form (MHC-SF; 32). This scale consists of 14 items that capture three dimensions of well-being: (i) emotional (e.g. “During the past month, how often did you feel interested in life?”); (ii) social (e.g. “During the past month, how often did you feel that the way our society works makes sense to you?”); (iii) psychological (e.g. “During the past month, how often did you feel confident to think or express your own ideas and opinions?”). The items assess the experiences the participants had over the past two weeks, the response options ranged from 1 (never) to 6 (every day). Internal consistency of the scale was α = 0.90.

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD; 33). The scale consists of seven items that measure symptoms of anxiety over the past two weeks. Sample items include, e.g. “Over the past two weeks, how often have you been bothered by the following problems?” (i) “feeling nervous, anxious, or on edge”, (ii) “worrying too much about different things”, (iii) “becoming easily annoyed or irritable”. The response options ranged from 0 (not at all) to 3 (almost every day). Internal consistency of the scale was α = 0.92.

Sociodemographic characteristics included age, gender, and level of education (i.e., primary/vocational, secondary, tertiary).

Analytical procedure

Data analysis was conducted in R [ 34 ]. For confirmatory factor analysis, we used the cfa function of the lavaan package 0.6–16 [ 35 ]. We compared a one-factor model of SOC-13 to a correlated three-factor model (correlated latent factors comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness) and a bi-factor model (general SOC dimension and specific dimensions comprehensibility, manageability, meaningfulness). Based on the empirical findings we further assessed the fit of alternative shorter versions of the SOC scale. We assessed the model fit using the comparative-fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) with the conventional cut-off values. The goodness-of-fit values for CFI and TLI surpassing 0.90 indicate an acceptable fit and exceeding 0.95 a good fit [ 36 ]. A value under 0.08 for RMSEA and SRMR indicates a good fit [ 37 ]. Nested models were compared using chi-square difference tests and the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC). Models with lower BIC values should be preferred over models with higher BIC values [ 38 ]. All models were fitted using maximum likelihood estimation.

Further, we used the cor function of the stats package 4.3.2 [ 34 ] for Pearson correlation analysis to explore the association between SOC-13 and age, the t.test function of the same package for between groups t-test for differences based on gender, and the aov function with posthoc tests of the same package for one-way between-subjects ANOVA to test for differences based on level of education. To examine the criterion validity of the scale, we used the cor function for Pearson correlation analysis to examine the associations between SOC-13, MHC-SF, and GAD. We conducted the same analyses for the alternative short versions of the scale.

Participants

The median survey completion time was 11 min. In total, 676 participants started the survey and 557 completed it. Of those, 56 were excluded due to exclusion criteria. One additional respondent was excluded because of dubious responses on demographic items (e.g., 100 years old and a student), and two respondents were excluded for not meeting the inclusion criteria (under 18 years old). The final sample included N  = 498 participants. Of those, 53.4% were female, the average age was 49 years ( SD  = 16.6; range = 18–86), 43% had completed primary, 35% secondary, and 22% tertiary education. The sample is a good representation of the Czech adult population Footnote 1 with regard to gender (51% females), age ( M  = 50 years), and education level (44% primary, 33% secondary, 18% tertiary). Representativeness was tested using chi-squared test which yielded non-significant results for all domains.

Descriptive statistics

In Table  1 , we present an inter-item correlation matrix along with skewness, kurtosis, means and standard deviations of single items for SOC-13. Item correlations ranged from r  = 0.07 (items 2 and 4) to r  = 0.67 (items 8 and 9). Strong and moderately strong correlations were found also across the three SOC dimensions (e.g., r  = 0.77 comprehensibility and manageability).

• Confirmatory factor analysis

A one-factor model showed inadequate fit to the data [χ2(65) = 338.2, CFI = 0.889, TLI = 0.867, RMSEA = 0.092, SRMR = 0.062]. Based on existing evidence [ 6 ], we specified residual covariance between items 2 and 3 and tested a modified one-factor model. The model showed an acceptable fit to the data [χ2(64) = 242.6, CFI = 0.927, TLI = 0.911, RMSEA = 0.075, SRMR = 0.050], and it was superior to the one-factor model (Δχ2 = 95.5, Δ df  = 1, p  < 0.001).

A correlated three-factor model showed an acceptable fit considering CFI and SRMR [χ2(63) = 286.6, CFI = 0.909, TLI = 0.885, RMSEA = 0.085, SRMR = 0.058]. The model was superior to the one-factor model (Δχ2 = 51.5, Δ df  = 2, p  < 0.001), however, it was inferior to the modified one-factor model (ΔBIC = -56). We further tested a modified three-factor model with residual covariance between items 2 and 3 which showed an acceptable fit to the data based on CFI and TLI and a good fit based on RMSEA and SRMR [χ2(62) = 191.7, CFI = 0.947, TLI = 0.932, RMSEA = 0.066, SRMR = 0.046]. The model was superior to the three-factor model (Δχ2 = 97.1, Δ df  = 1, p  < 0.001) as well as to the modified one-factor model (Δχ2 = 50.9, Δ df  = 3, p  < 0.001). See Fig.  1 for a detailed illustration of the model.

Finally, we tested a bi-factor model with one general SOC factor and three specific factors (comprehensibility, manageability, meaningfulness), however, the model was not identified.

Correlated three-factor model of SOC-13 with residual covariance between item 2 and item 3

Alternative short versions of the SOC scale

We further tested the fit of alternative shorter versions of the SOC scale by systematically removing poorly performing items. In SOC-12, item 2 was excluded (“Has it happened in the past that you were surprised by the behavior of people whom you thought you knew well?”). This item measures comprehensibility, hence SOC-12 has even distribution of items for each dimension (i.e., comprehensibility, manageability, meaningfulness). Item 2 has previously been identified as problematic [ 6 ] and also in our sample it did not perform well in any of the fitted SOC-13 models (i.e., low factor loading and explained variance). A one-factor SOC-12 model showed an acceptable fit to the data based on CFI and TLI and a good fit based on RMSEA and SRMR [χ2(54) = 221.1, CFI = 0.927, RMSEA = 0.079, SRMR = 0.048]. A correlated three-factor model showed an acceptable fit based on CFI and TLI and a good fit based on RMSEA and SRMR [χ2(52) = 171.1, CFI = 0.948, TLI = 0.932, RMSEA = 0.069 SRMR = 0.043]. The model was superior to the one-factor model (Δχ2 = 50, Δ df  = 3, p  < 0.001). Bi-factor model was not identified.

In SOC-11, we removed item 3 (“Has it happened that people whom you counted on disappointed you?”), which measures manageability. The item had the lowest factor loading and the lowest explained variance in the one-factor SOC-12. A one-factor SOC-11 model showed a good fit to the data [χ2 (44) = 138.5, CFI = 0.955, TLI = 0.944, RMSEA = 0.066, SRMR = 0.038]. A correlated three-factor model was identified but not acceptable due to covariance between comprehensibility and manageability higher than 1 (i.e., Heywood case; 39).

In SOC-10, we removed item 1 (“Do you have the feeling that you don’t really care about what goes on around you?”), which measures meaningfulness. The item had the lowest factor loading and the lowest explained variance in one-factor SOC-11. A one-factor SOC-10 model showed a good fit to the data [χ2 (35) = 126.6, CFI = 0.956, TLI = 0.943, RMSEA = 0.072, SRMR = 0.039]. As in the case of SOC-11, a correlated three-factor model was identified but not acceptable due to covariance between comprehensibility and manageability higher than 1.

Finally, in SOC-9, we removed item 11 (“When something happened, have you generally found that… you overestimated or underestimated its importance / you saw the things in the right proportion”), which measures comprehensibility. The item had the lowest factor loading and the lowest explained variance in one-factor SOC-10. SOC-9 has an even distribution of three items for each dimension. A one-factor model showed a good fit to the data [χ2 (27) = 105.6, CFI = 0.959, TLI = 0.946, RMSEA = 0.076, SRMR = 0.038]. As in the previous models, a correlated three-factor model was identified but not acceptable due to covariance between comprehensibility and manageability higher than 1. See Fig.  2 for an illustration of one-factor SOC-9 model. Detailed results of the confirmatory factor analysis are shown in Table  2 . In Table 3 , we present the items of the SOC-13 (and SOC-9) scale with details about their facet structure.

One-factor model of SOC-9

Differences by gender, age, and education

Correlation analysis indicated that SOC-13 increases with age ( r  = 0.32, p  < 0.001), this finding was identical for all alternative short versions of the SOC scale (see Table  2 ). Further, the results of the two-tailed t-test showed that males ( M  = 4.8, SD  = 1.08) had a significantly higher SOC-13 score [ t (497) = 3.06, p  = 0.002, d  = 0.27] than females ( M  = 4.5, SD  = 1.07). A one-way between-subjects ANOVA did not show any significant effect of level of education on SOC-13 score [F(2, 497) = 1.78, p  = 0.169, η p 2  = 0.022]. These results were similar for all alternative short versions of the SOC scale.

Criterion validity

We found a moderately strong positive correlation ( r  = 0.61, p  < 0.001) between SOC-13 and the positive mental health measure MHC, and a moderately strong negative correlation between SOC-13 and the negative mental health measure GAD ( r = -0.68, p  < 0.001). These findings were similar for all alternative short versions of the SOC scale (see Table  4 ).

Our study examined the psychometric properties of the SOC-13 scale and its alternative short versions SOC-12, SOC-11, SOC-10, and SOC-9 in a representative sample of the Czech adult population. In line with existing studies [ 40 ], we found that SOC increases with age and that males score higher than females. In contrast to some prior findings [ 12 ], we did not find any significant differences in SOC based on the level of education. Further, we tested criterion validity using both positive and negative mental health outcomes (i.e., MHC and GAD). SOC had a strong positive correlation with MHC and a strong negative correlation with GAD, thus adding to the evidence about the criterion validity of the scale [ 6 , 40 ].

Analysis of the factor structure showed that a one-factor SOC-13 had an inadequate fit to our data, however, an acceptable fit was achieved for a modified one-factor model with specified residual covariance between item 2 (“Has it happened in the past that you were surprised by the behavior of people whom you thought you knew well?”) and item 3 (“Has it happened that people whom you counted on disappointed you?”). A correlated three factor model with latent factors comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness showed a better fit than the one factor-model. However, it was also necessary to specify residual covariance between item 2 and item 3 to reach an acceptable fit for all fit indices. A recent Slovenian study [ 41 ] found a similar result and several prior studies (see 6 for an overview) have noted that items 2 and 3 of the SOC-13 scale are problematic. Although the items pertain to different SOC dimensions (item 2 to comprehensibility, item 3 to manageability), multiple studies [e.g., 20 , 42 , 43 ] have reported moderately strong correlation between them and this is also the case in our study ( r  = 0.5, p  < 0.001). The two items aptly illustrate the facet theory behind the scale construction as the SOC component represents only one building block of each item. Although items 2 and 3 theoretically pertain to different SOC components, they share the same elements from the other four facets (i.e., modality, source, demand, and time) which is reflected in the similarity of their wording. Therefore, they will necessarily share residual variance and this needs to be specified to achieve a good model fit. Drageset and Haugan [ 18 ] explain this similarity in that the people whom we know well are usually the ones that we count on, and feeling disappointed and surprised by the behavior of people we know well is closely related. Therefore, it should be theoretically justifiable to specify residual covariance between item 2 and item 3 as a possible solution to improve the fit. As we could show in our sample, the model fit significantly improved for both one-factor and three-factor solutions.

In addition, we examined the fit of alternative short versions of the SOC scale by systematically removing single items that performed poorly. First, in line with previous studies [ 6 ], we addressed the issue of residual covariance in SOC-13 by removing item 2, examining the factor structure of SOC-12. The remaining 12 items were equally distributed within the three SOC components with four items per each component. Interestingly, a one-factor model reached an acceptable fit and the fit further improved for a correlated three-factor model with latent factors of comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness. Although correlated three-factor models were superior to one-factor models, we observed extreme covariances between latent variables, especially in case of comprehensibility and manageability (cov = 0.98). This suggests that the SOC components are not empirically separable and that, indeed, SOC is rather a one-dimensional global orientation with multiple components that are dynamically interrelated as Antonovsky proposed [ 2 ]. This notion was supported in a recent study that explored the dimensionality of the scale using a network perspective [ 16 ]. Our examination of SOC-11, SOC-10 and SOC-9 provided further support for a one-factor structure of the scale. All shorter versions yielded a good one-dimensional fit, however, we could not identify a correlated three-factor model fit due to the Heywood case. This refers to the situation when a solution that otherwise is satisfactory produces communality greater than one explained by the latent factor, which implies that the residual variance of the variable is negative [ 39 ]. In our case, this was true for the latent factors comprehensibility and manageability. However, we demonstrated that we could attain a good one-dimensional fit for all alternative short versions of SOC, and, importantly, they all showed comparable reliability and validity metrics to their longer counterpart SOC-13. In particular, SOC-9 shows very good fit indices and it performs equally well in validity analyses as SOC-13. Given these findings and existing evidence [ 5 ], we propose that future investigations may consider utilizing the SOC-9 scale instead of the SOC-13. It is interesting to point out that the majority of items that were removed for the shorter versions of the scale are negatively worded or reverse-scored (expect for item 11). This is in line with the latest research suggesting that such items can cause problems in model identification as they create additional method factors [ 44 , 45 , 46 ].

Finally, it is important to highlight that Antonovsky did not provide any information about the selection of the 13 items for the short version of the SOC scale [ 2 ]. For example, a detailed examination of the facet structure reveals that none of the items included in SOC-13 refers to future which is part of facet referring to time (i.e., past, present, future). Hence, considering the absence of explicit criteria for item selection in the SOC-13 scale, it would be interesting to gather data from diverse populations utilizing the full SOC-29 scale. Subsequently, through exploratory factor analysis, researchers could derive a new, theory- and empirical-driven, short version of the SOC scale.

Strengths and limitations

A clear strength of our study is that our findings are based on a representative sample that accurately reflects the Czech adult population. Moreover, we implemented rigorous data cleaning procedures, meticulously excluding participants who provided potentially careless or low-quality responses. By doing so, we ensured that our conclusions are based on high-quality data and that they are generalizable to our target population of Czech adults. Finally, we conducted a thorough back-translation procedure to achieve an accurate Czech version of the SOC scale and we carried out systematic testing of different short versions of the SOC scale.

However, our study also has some limitations. First, our conclusions are based on data from a culturally specific country and they may not be generalizable to other populations. It is important to note, however, that most of our findings are in line with multiple existing studies which supports the validity of our conclusions. Second, the data were collected during a later stage of the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have impacted particularly the mental health outcomes we used for criterion validity. It would be worthwhile to investigate whether the data replicate in our population outside of this exceptional situation. Third, it should be noted that we did not examine test-retest reliability of the scale due to the cross-sectional design of our study. Finally, self-reported data are subject to common method biases such as social desirability, recall bias, or consistency motive [ 47 ]. We aimed to minimize this risk by implementing various strategies in the questionnaire, such as randomization of items and the use of disqualifying items (e.g. “Please, choose option number 2”) to disqualify careless answers.

Our study contributes to decades of ongoing research on SOC, the main pillar of the theory of salutogenesis. In line with existing research, we found evidence for the validity of the SOC as a construct, but we could not identify a clear factorial structure of the SOC-13 scale. However, following Antonovsky’s conception of the scale, we believe it is theoretically sound to aim for a one-factor solution of the scale and we could show that this is possible with shorter versions of the SOC scale. We particularly recommend using the SOC-9 scale in future research which shows an excellent one-factor fit and validity indices comparable to SOC-13. Finally, since Antonovsky does not explain how he selected the items of the SOC-13 scale, it would be interesting to examine the possibility of developing a new one-dimensional short version based on exploratory factor analysis of the original SOC-29 scale.

Data availability

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study and the R code used for the statistical analysis are available as supplementary material.

www.czso.cz .

Antonovsky A. The salutogenic model as a theory to guide health promotion. Health Promot Int. 1996;11(1).

Antonovsky A. Unraveling the mystery of Health how people manage stress and stay well. Jossey-Bass; 1987.

Antonovsky A. Health stress and coping. Jossey-Bass; 1979.

Antonovsky A. The structure and Properties of the sense of coherence scale. Soc Sci Med. 1993;36(6):125–733.

Article   Google Scholar  

Eriksson M, Contu P. The sense of coherence: Measurement issues. The Handbook of Salutogenesis. Springer International Publishing; 2022. pp. 79–91.

Eriksson M. The sense of coherence: the Concept and its relationship to Health. The Handbook of Salutogenesis. Springer International Publishing; 2022. pp. 61–8.

Eriksson M, Lindström B. Antonovsky’s sense of coherence scale and the relation with health: a systematic review. J Epidemiol Community Health (1978). 2006;60(5):376–81.

Eriksson M, Lindström B. Antonovsky’s sense of coherence scale and its relation with quality of life: a systematic review. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007;61(11):938–44.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Mana A, Super S, Sardu C, Juvinya Canal D, Moran N, Sagy S. Individual, social and national coping resources and their relationships with mental health and anxiety: A comparative study in Israel, Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands during the Coronavirus pandemic. Glob Health Promot [Internet]. 2021;28(2):17–26.

Silverstein M, Heap J. Sense of coherence changes with aging over the second half of life. Adv Life Course Res. 2015;23:98–107.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Rivera F, García-Moya I, Moreno C, Ramos P. Developmental contexts and sense of coherence in adolescence: a systematic review. J Health Psychol. 2013;18(6):800–12.

Volanen SM, Lahelma E, Silventoinen K, Suominen S. Factors contributing to sense of coherence among men and women. Eur J Public Health [Internet]. 2004;14(3):322–30.

Guttman L. Measurement as structural theory. Psychometrika. 1971;3(4):329–47.

Guttman R, Greenbaum CW. Facet theory: its development and current status. Eur Psychol. 1998;3(1):13–36.

Shye S. Theory Construction and Data Analysis in the behavioral sciences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1978.

Google Scholar  

Portoghese I, Sardu C, Bauer G, Galletta M, Castaldi S, Nichetti E, Petrocelli L, Tassini M, Tidone E, Mereu A, Contu P. A network perspective to the measurement of sense of coherence (SOC): an exploratory graph analysis approach. Current Psychology. 2024;12:1-3.

Bachem R, Maercker A. Development and psychometric evaluation of a revised sense of coherence scale. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2016;34(3):206–15.

Drageset J, Haugan G. Psychometric properties of the orientation to Life Questionnaire in nursing home residents. Scand J Caring Sci. 2016;30(3):623–30.

Kanhai J, Harrison VE, Suominen AL, Knuuttila M, Uutela A, Bernabé E. Sense of coherence and incidence of periodontal disease in adults. J Clin Periodontol. 2014;41(8):760–5.

Naaldenberg J, Tobi H, van den Esker F, Vaandrager L. Psychometric properties of the OLQ-13 scale to measure sense of coherence in a community-dwelling older population. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011;9.

Luyckx K, Goossens E, Apers S, Rassart J, Klimstra T, Dezutter J et al. The 13-item sense of coherence scale in Dutch-speaking adolescents and young adults: structural validity, age trends, and chronic disease. Psychol Belg. 2012;52(4):351–68.

Lerdal A, Opheim R, Gay CL, Moum B, Fagermoen MS, Kottorp A. Psychometric limitations of the 13-item sense of coherence scale assessed by Rasch analysis. BMC Psychol. 2017;5(1).

Klepp OM, Mastekaasa A, Sørensen T, Sandanger I, Kleiner R. Structure analysis of Antonovsky’s sense of coherence from an epidemiological mental health survey with a brief nine-item sense of coherence scale. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2007;16(1):11–22.

Křivohlavý J. Sense of coherence: methods and first results. II. Sense of coherence and cancer. Czechoslovak Psychol. 1990;34:511–7.

Křivohlavý J. Nezdolnost v pojetí SOC. Czechoslovak Psychol. 1990;34(6).

Křivohlavý J. Salutogenesis and behavioral medicine. Cas Lek Cesk. 1990;126(36):1121–4.

Kebza V, Šolcová I. Hlavní Koncepce psychické odolnosti. Czechoslovak Psychol. 2008;52(1):1–19.

Šolcová I, Blatný M, Kebza V, Jelínek M. Relation of toddler temperament and perceived parenting styles to adult resilience. Czechoslovak Psychol. 2016;60(1):61–70.

Šolcová I, Kebza V, Kodl M, Kernová V. Self-reported health status predicting resilience and burnout in longitudinal study. Cent Eur J Public Health. 2017;25(3):222–7.

Šolcová I, Kebza V. Subjective health: current state of knowledge and results of two Czech studies. Czechoslovak Psychol. 2006;501:1–15.

Šípová I, Máčel M, Zubková A, Tušl M. Association between coping resources and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study in the Czech Republic. Int J Environ Health Res. 2022;1–9.

Keyes CLM. The Mental Health Continuum: from languishing to flourishing in life. J Health Soc Behav. 2002;43(2):207–22.

Löwe B, Decker O, Müller S, Brähler E, Schellberg D, Herzog W, et al. Validation and standardization of the generalized anxiety disorder screener (GAD-7) in the General Population. Med Care. 2008;46(3):266–74.

R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2022.

Rosseel Y. Lavaan: an R Package for Structural equation modeling. J Stat Softw. 2012;48(2):1–36.

Bentler PM, Bonett DG. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol Bull. 1980;88(3):588–606.

Beauducel A, Wittmann WW. Simulation study on fit indexes in CFA based on data with slightly distorted simple structure. Struct Equ Model. 2005;12(1):41–75.

Raftery AE. Bayesian model selection in Social Research. Sociol Methodol. 1995;25:111–63.

Farooq R. Heywood cases: possible causes and solutions. Int J Data Anal Techniques Strategies. 2022;14(1):79.

Eriksson M, Lindström B. Validity of Antonovsky’s sense of coherence scale: a systematic review. J Epidemiol Community Health (1978). 2005;59(6):460–6.

Stern B, Socan G, Rener-Sitar K, Kukec A, Zaletel-Kragelj L. Validation of the Slovenian version of short sense of coherence questionnaire (SOC-13) in multiple sclerosis patients. Zdr Varst. 2019;58(1):31–9.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bernabé E, Tsakos G, Watt RG, Suominen-Taipale AL, Uutela A, Vahtera J, et al. Structure of the sense of coherence scale in a nationally representative sample: the Finnish Health 2000 survey. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(5):629–36.

Sardu C, Mereu A, Sotgiu A, Andrissi L, Jacobson MK, Contu P. Antonovsky’s sense of coherence scale: cultural validation of soc questionnaire and socio-demographic patterns in an Italian Population. Clin Pract Epidemiol Mental Health. 2012;8:1–6.

Chyung SY, Barkin JR, Shamsy JA. Evidence-based Survey Design: the Use of negatively worded items in surveys. Perform Improv. 2018;57(3):16–25.

Suárez-Alvarez J, Pedrosa I, Lozano LM, García-Cueto E, Cuesta M, Muñiz J. Using reversed items in likert scales: a questionable practice. Psicothema. 2018;30(2):149–58.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

van Sonderen E, Sanderman R, Coyne JC. Ineffectiveness of reverse wording of questionnaire items: let’s learn from cows in the rain. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(7).

Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(5):879–903.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank to the team of Center of Salutogenesis at the University of Zurich for their helpful comments on the adapted version of the SOC scale.

MT received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 801076, through the SSPH + Global PhD Fellowship Program in Public Health Sciences (GlobalP3HS) of the Swiss School of Public Health. Data collection was supported by the Charles University Strategic Partnerships Fund 2021. The University of Zurich Foundation supported the contribution of GB.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Division of Public and Organizational Health, Center of Salutogenesis, Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Hirschengraben 84, Zurich, 8001, Switzerland

Martin Tušl & Georg F. Bauer

Department of Psychology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

Ivana Šípová, Martin Máčel & Kristýna Cetkovská

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the conception and design of the study. MT wrote the manuscript, conducted data analysis, and contributed to data collection. MM and IS conducted data collection, contributed to data analysis, interpretation of results, edited and commented on the manuscript. KC and GB contributed to interpretation of results, edited and commented on the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Tušl .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The study was conducted in accordance with the general principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and with the ethical principles defined by the university and by the national law ( https://cuni.cz/UK-5317.html ). Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to the completion of the survey. Participation was voluntary and participants could withdraw from the study at any time without any consequences. For anonymous online surveys in adult population no ethical review by an ethics committee was necessary under national law and university rules. See: https://www.muni.cz/en/about-us/organizational-structure/boards-and-committees/research-ethics-committee/evaluation-request .

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, supplementary material 3, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Tušl, M., Šípová, I., Máčel, M. et al. The sense of coherence scale: psychometric properties in a representative sample of the Czech adult population. BMC Psychol 12 , 293 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01805-7

Download citation

Received : 22 March 2023

Accepted : 21 May 2024

Published : 26 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01805-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Salutogenesis
• Sense of coherence
• Psychometrics
• Czech adult population
• Mental health

BMC Psychology

ISSN: 2050-7283

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Olympic champ Pidcock, Ferrand-Prevot win mountain bike World Cup races in Czech Republic

By the associated press | posted - may 26, 2024 at 12:25 p.m..

Estimated read time: Less than a minute

NOVE MESTO, Czech Republic — Olympic mountain bike champion Tom Pidcock won the World Cup event in the Czech Republic for the fourth straight year on Sunday, attacking solo on the fourth lap of the race to finish well ahead of Nino Schurter and Marcel Guerrini. Pauline Ferrand-Prevot of France won the women's race over the course in Nove Mesto by more than a minute over Haley Batten of the U.S., and Alessandra Keller of was another 29 seconds back in third place for Switzerland.

Most recent Olympics stories

Olympic champion carapaz misses out on ecuador's road cycling spot at paris games, report: japanese carmaker toyota set to end massive olympic sponsorship deal, gov. cox, other leaders share vision for utah ahead of a 2034 winter olympics, related topics, more stories you may be interested in.

Record-breaking gymnast Oksana Chusovitina's bid for ninth Olympics ends with injury at 48

On Chinese doping case, lawmakers demand action, answers from Olympic and law-enforcement leaders

Most viewed.

• Gen Z is deleting dating apps. Here's what Utah-based app Mutual is trying
• Got wild swine? Then you have a problem
• St. George family believes they found long-lost charm on eBay
• 73-year-old survives five days in the wilderness after raft flips on Idaho river
• South Salt Lake police: Multiple people detained after shots fired at 'large gathering'
• Here are the Utah collegians who advanced to 2024 NCAA track and field championships
• Drought projections for the West
• 'End of an era': Motor-Vu Drive-In will soon be demolished to make way for housing
• Man drowns in Taylorsville apartment complex swimming pool
• Use these 7 tricks to feed your family for less

ARE YOU GAME?

KSL Weather Forecast