Propiedades de medición de la escala de Sentidode Coherencia (SOC): una revisión narrativa

Measurement properties of the Sense of Coherence (SOC) scale: a narrative review

Publicado 2026-04-29


https://doi.org/10.30554/archmed.26.1.5595.2026
Abrir | Descargar
PDF FLIP HTML XML ePUB
Número
Vol. 26 Núm. 1 (2026): Archivos de Medicina (Manizales)
Sección
Artículos de Revisión
Cómo citar
Vélez Alvarez, C., Sanchez Palacio, N., & Betancurth Loaiza, D. P. (2026). Propiedades de medición de la escala de Sentidode Coherencia (SOC): una revisión narrativa. Archivos De Medicina (Manizales), 26(1). https://doi.org/10.30554/archmed.26.1.5595.2026
Descargar cita
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX
DOI

https://doi.org/10.30554/archmed.26.1.5595.2026
Dimensions
PlumX

Cómo citar

Vélez Alvarez, C., Sanchez Palacio, N., & Betancurth Loaiza, D. P. (2026). Propiedades de medición de la escala de Sentidode Coherencia (SOC): una revisión narrativa. Archivos De Medicina (Manizales), 26(1). https://doi.org/10.30554/archmed.26.1.5595.2026

Descargar cita

Licencia
Creative Commons License

Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.

Consuelo Vélez Alvarez
University of Caldas, Manizales, Caldas, Colombia.
Perfil Google Scholar
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7274-7304 ORCID
Natalia Sanchez Palacio
University of Caldas, Manizales, Caldas, Colombia.
Perfil Google Scholar
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3405-5144 ORCID
Diana Paola Betancurth Loaiza
University of Caldas, Manizales, Caldas, Colombia
Perfil Google Scholar
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7620-2336 ORCID
Mostrar biografía de los autores

Artículos más leídos del mismo autor/a

Introducción: La escala de Sentido de Coherencia (SOC) se ha utilizado ampliamente
en investigación en salud, respaldada por evidencia sobre sus propiedades psicométricas en diversas poblaciones y contextos socioculturales. Sin embargo, persisten
inconsistencias en la evaluación y el reporte de dichas propiedades, lo que evidencia
la necesidad de una síntesis crítica e integradora. Este estudio tuvo como objetivo
sintetizar e interpretar la evidencia disponible sobre las propiedades de medición de la
escala SOC, con énfasis en la validez, la fiabilidad y sus características estructurales.
Metodología: Se realizó una revisión narrativa con enfoque interpretativo. La búsqueda
se llevó a cabo en PubMed, Scopus, Scielo, ScienceDirect, Biblioteca Virtual en Salud y
Google Académico. Los estudios fueron seleccionados según su relevancia temática y
su contribución al análisis de las propiedades psicométricas de la escala. El análisis se
centró en identificar patrones, consistencias y variaciones en los hallazgos, sin aplicar
marcos formales de evaluación de calidad. Resultados: La escala SOC mostró una
validez estructural consistente, alta consistencia interna y adecuada validez transcultural en múltiples contextos. La validez de criterio y de constructo se respaldó mediante
asociaciones coherentes con variables relacionadas con salud mental, afrontamiento y
bienestar. La capacidad de respuesta fue adecuada en los estudios que la evaluaron.
No obstante, la fiabilidad presentó variabilidad según contexto y población, y el error de
medición fue poco evaluado o reportado de manera inconsistente. La validez de contenido fue escasamente abordada, constituyendo una brecha relevante. Conclusión: La
escala SOC presenta un desempeño psicométrico global adecuado y continúa siendo útil en investigación en salud. Sin embargo, algunas propiedades —especialmente
la fiabilidad, el error de medición y la validez de contenido— requieren interpretación
cautelosa. Se recomienda fortalecer el rigor metodológico y ampliar su validación en
diversos contextos

Visitas del artículo 80 | Visitas PDF 49

Descargas

Los datos de descarga todavía no están disponibles.
  1. 1. Soriano Rodríguez AM. Design and validation of measurement instruments. Diá-logos Journal. 2014;8(14): 19-40.
  2. Available at: https://www.revistas.udb.edu.sv/ojs/index.php/dl/article/view/166.
  3. 2. Eriksson M, Lindström B. Validity of Antonovsky’s sense of coherence scale: a systematic review. J Epidemiol
  4. Community Health. 2005;59(6):460–6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2003.018085.
  5. 3. Liu X, Zhao H, Song S, Wen R, Liu B, Luo Y. Effectiveness of a salutogenic intervention on self-perception of
  6. aging and sense of coherence for community-dwelling older adults: A quasi-experimental study. Geriatr Nurs. 16
  7. de febrero de 2026;69:103943. doi:10.1016/j.gerinurse.2026.103943 PubMed PMID: 41702334.
  8. 4. Jasiński AM, Derbis R, Rakoczy J, Wrzesińska M. The sense of coherence scale and relationships between
  9. sense of coherence, sociodemographic variables and chronic disease. Sci Rep. 2025;15:18289.
  10. doi:10.1038/s41598-025-02998-6.
  11. 5. Hernán M, Morgan A, Mena ÁL. Training in salutogenesis and health assets. Andalusian School of Public Health,
  12. editor. Granada; 2010. Available at: https://www.easp.es/project/formacion-en-salutogenesis-y-activos-para-la-salud/.
  13. 6. Herrera Torres I, Carreras Salcedo E, Vega Pozuelo SF. Salutogenesis, the new positivist perspective on health.
  14. Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health. 2017.
  15. Available at: https://www.revista-portalesmedicos.com/revista-medica/salutogenesis/.
  16. 7. Sánchez-Palacio N, Vélez-Álvarez C, Betancurth-Loaiza DP, Sánchez-Palacio N, Vélez-Álvarez C, BetancurthLoaiza DP. Validación de contenido y adaptación de la escala de sentido de coherencia 29 para la población
  17. colombiana. Revista Facultad Nacional de Salud Pública. diciembre de 2021;39(3).
  18. doi: https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rfnsp.e342827.
  19. 8. Länsimies H, Pietilä A, Hietasola-Husu S, Kangasniemi M. A systematic review of adolescents’ sense of coherence
  20. and health. Scand J Caring Sci. 2017;31(4):651–61. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.12402.
  21. 9. Rivera F, García-Moya I, Moreno C, Ramos P. Developmental contexts and sense of coherence in adolescence:
  22. A systematic review. J Health Psychol. 2013;18(6):800–12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105312455077.
  23. 10. Loaiza DPB, Palacio NS, Álvarez CV. Sentido de coherencia en universitarios: recurso para el cuidado en tiempos
  24. de pandemia. Revista Cuidarte [Internet]. 2022 [citado 6 de abril de 2026];13(3).
  25. Disponible en: https://www.redalyc.org/journal/3595/359575082012/html/.
  26. 11. Elyasi M, Guimarães Abreu L, Badri P, Saltaji H, Flores-Mir C, Amin M. Impact of Sense of Coherence on Oral
  27. Health Behaviours: A Systematic Review . PLoS One. 2015;10(8):e0133918.
  28. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133918.
  29. 12. Cesarino Gomes M, Costa Dutra L, Melo Brito Costa EM, Martins Paiva S, Granville-Garcia AF, Castro Martins
  30. C. Influence of sense of coherence on oral health-related quality of life: a systematic review. Qual Life Res.
  31. 2018;27(8):1973–83. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1832-5.
  32. 13. (11) Pino-Casado R, Espinosa-Medina A, López-Martínez C, Orgeta V. Sense of coherence, burden and mental
  33. health in caregiving: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Affect Disord. 2019;242:14–21.
  34. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2018.08.002.
  35. 14. Perdigão Torres TA, Corradi-Dias L, Drummond Oliveira P, Castro Martins C, Martins Paiva S, Almeida Pordeus
  36. I, et al. Association between sense of coherence and dental caries: systematic review and meta-analysis. Health
  37. Promot Int. 2020;35(3):586–97. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daz038.
  38. 15. Baethge C, Goldbeck-Wood S, Mertens S. SANRA—a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles.
  39. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019;4:5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0064-8. PMID: 30962953.
  40. 16. Colombia. Ministry of Health and Social Protection. Resolution 8430 of 1993. 1993. Available at:
  41. https://www.minsalud.gov.co/sites/rid/Lists/BibliotecaDigital/RIDE/DE/DIJ/RESOLUCION-8430-DE-1993.PDF.
  42. 17. World Medical Association. World Medical Association. 2022. WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical principles for
  43. medical research involving human subjects. Available at: https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-ofhelsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/.
  44. 18. Vega Martínez M del C, Frías Osuna A, Del Pino Casado R. Validity and reliability of the sense of coherence
  45. scale in nursing students at a Spanish university. Gac Sanit. 2019;33(4):310–6.
  46. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2018.02.009.
  47. 19. Nicolalde Cifuentes TM, Guevara Castillo MS, Heredia Aguirre SI. Dimensionality , and psychometric properties
  48. of the SOC scale in ESPOCH students. Revista mktDescubre. 2017;1(10):84–93. Available at:
  49. https://dspace.espoch.edu.ec:8080/server/api/core/bitstreams/286ff9c8-84fe-4276-afb4-3470915b3b0d/content.
  50. 20. Velázquez Jurado H, Cárdenas Rivera V, Chávez Franco A, Montes de Oca VO, Hernández Salazar P, Pulido
  51. Rull MA. Comparison of two forms of a sense of coherence scale. Intercontinental Journal of Psychology and
  52. Education. 2014;16(2):51–70. Available at: https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=80231541004.
  53. 21. Lizarbe Chocarro M, Guillén-Grima F, Aguinaga-Ontoso I, Canga Armayor N. Validation of Antonovsky’s Life Orientation Questionnaire (OLQ-13) in a sample of university students in Navarre. An Sist Sanit Navar. 2016;39(2):237–48.
  54. doi: https://doi.org/10.23938/assn.0270.
  55. 22. Virués-Ortega J, Martínez-Martín P, del Barrio JL, Lozano LM. Cross-cultural validation of Antonovsky’s Sense of
  56. Coherence Scale (OLQ-13) in elderly people over 70 years of age. Med Clin (Barc). 2007;128(13):486–92.
  57. doi: https://doi.org/10.1157/13100935.
  58. 23. Rivera F, López A, Ramos P, Moreno C. Psychometric properties of the scale sense of coherence (SOC-29) in
  59. Spanish adolescents. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2011;(4):11–39.
  60. Available at: https://idus.us.es/items/dd97d6b1-ead7-4ea9-8b13-277c19ce8519.
  61. 24. Schmidt DRC, Dantas RAS. Analysis of validity and reliability of the adapted Portuguese version of Antonovsky’s
  62. Sense of Coherence Questionnaire among nursing professionals. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2011;19(1):42–9.
  63. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-11692011000100007.
  64. 25. Grødal K, Innstrand ST, Bauer GF, Haugan G, Rannestad T, André B. Validation of the Norwegian version of the
  65. work-related sense of coherence scale. Scand J Public Health. 2018;46(7):711–7.
  66. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494817725466.
  67. 26. von Humboldt S, Leal I. The Orientation to Life Questionnaire: Validation of a Measure to Assess Older Adults’
  68. Sense of Coherence. Educ Gerontol. 2015;41(6):451–65. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03601277.2014.983373.
  69. 27. Spadoti Dantas RA, Silva FS e, Ciol MA. Psychometric properties of the Brazilian Portuguese versions of the
  70. 29- and 13-item scales of the Antonovsky’s Sense of Coherence (SOC-29 and SOC-13) evaluated in Brazilian
  71. cardiac patients. J Clin Nurs. 2014;23(1–2):156–65. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12157.
  72. 28. Saravia JC, Iberico C, Yearwood K. Validation of sense of coherence (SOC) 13-item scale in a Peruvian sample.
  73. Journal of Behaviour, Health & Social Issues. 2015;6(2):35–44.
  74. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2007078015300031.
  75. 29. Albino J, Shapiro ALB, Henderson WG, Tiwari T, Brega AG, Thomas JF, et al. Validation of the Sense of Coherence Scale in an American Indian population. Psychol Assess. 2016;28(4):386–93.
  76. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000193.
  77. 30. 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. Slovenian Journal of Public Health.
  78. 2019;58(1):31–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.2478/sjph-2019-0004.
  79. 31. 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. Clinical Practice &
  80. Epidemiology in Mental Health. 2012;8(1):1–6. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1745017901208010001.
  81. 32. Ngai FW, Ngu SF. Translation and Validation of a Chinese Version of the Family Sense of Coherence Scale in Chinese Childbearing Families. Nurs Res. 2011;60(5):295–301. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/NNR.0b013e3182269b00.
  82. 33. Lajunen T. Cross-Cultural Evaluation of Antonovsky’s Orientation to Life Questionnaire: Comparison Between
  83. Australian, Finnish, and Turkish Young Adults. Psychol Rep. 2019;122(2):731–47.
  84. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118765420.
  85. 34. Mahammadzadeh A, Poursharifi H, Alipour A. Validation of Sense of Coherence (SOC) 13-item scale in Iranian
  86. sample. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2010;5:1451–5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.306.
  87. 35. Paika V, Ntountoulaki E, Papaioannou D, Hyphantis T. The Greek Version of the Sense of Coherence Scale (SOC29): Psychometric Properties and Associations with Mental Illness, Suicidal Risk and Quality of Life. Journal of
  88. Psychology & Clinical Psychiatry. 2017;7(4). doi: https://doi.org/10.15406/jpcpy.2017.07.00449.
  89. 36. Chiesi F, Marunic G, Lau C. Validation study of an Italian version of the revised Sense of Coherence Scale (SOCR). Current Psychology. 2022;41(2):705–12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00606-6.
  90. 37. Möllerberg ML, Årestedt K, Sandgren A, Benzein E, Swahnberg K. Adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the
  91. short version of Family Sense of Coherence Scale in a sample of persons with cancer in the palliative stage and
  92. their family members. Palliat Support Care. 2020;18(1):24–32. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1478951519000592.
  93. 38. Söderhamn U, Sundsli K, Cliffordson C, Dale B. Psychometric properties of Antonovsky’s 29-item Sense of Coherence scale in research on older home-dwelling Norwegians. Scand J Public Health. 2015;43(8):867–74.
  94. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494815598863.
  95. 39. Naaldenberg J, Tobi H, van den Esker F, Vaandrager L. Psychometric properties of the OLQ-13 scale to measure
  96. Sense of Coherence in a community-dwelling older population. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011;9:37.
  97. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-9-37.
  98. 40. Ørts Hansen A, Kaae Kristensen H, Cederlund R, Tromborg H. Test–retest reliability of Antonovsky’s 13-item
  99. sense of coherence scale in patients with hand-related disorders. Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39(20):2105–11.
  100. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2016.1215555.
  101. 41. Luyckx K, Goossens E, Apers S, Rassart J, Klimstra T, Dezutter J, et al. The 13-Item Sense of Coherence Scale
  102. in Dutch-Speaking Adolescents and Young Adults: Structural Validity, Age Trends, and Chronic Disease. Psychol
  103. Belg. 2012;52(4):351–68. doi: https://doi.org/10.5334/pb-52-4-368.
  104. 42. Baladrón J, Curbelo J, Sánchez-Lasheras F, Romeo-Ladrero JM, Villacampa T, Fernández-Somoano A. The 2015
  105. MIR exam. An approach to structural validity through classical test theory. FEM. 2016;19(4):217–26. Available at:
  106. https://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2014-98322016000400008&lng=en&tlng=en.
  107. 43. Hernandez-Armenta I, Dominguez A. Evaluation of Perceptions of Interdisciplinarity: Validation of Instrument for
  108. Higher Education Students. Form Univ. 2019;12(3):27–38. doi: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-50062019000300027.
  109. 44. Super S, Wagemakers M a. E, Picavet HSJ, Verkooijen KT, Koelen MA. Strengthening sense of coherence: opportunities for theory building in health promotion. Health Promot Int. diciembre de 2016;31(4):869-78.
  110. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dav071 PubMed PMID: 26208654.
  111. 45. Tušl M, Šípová I, Máčel M, Cetkovská K, Bauer GF. The sense of coherence scale: psychometric properties in
  112. a representative sample of the Czech adult population. BMC Psychol. 26 de mayo de 2024;12(1):293.
  113. doi: 10.1186/s40359-024-01805-7 PubMed PMID: 38796516; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC11128106.
  114. 46. Eriksson M, Lindström B. Validity of Antonovsky’s sense of coherence scale: a systematic review. J Epidemiol
  115. Community Health. junio de 2005;59(6):460-6. doi: 10.1136/jech.2003.018085 PubMed PMID: 15911640; PubMed
  116. Central PMCID: PMC1757043.
  117. 47. [42] Frías-Navarro D. Notes on estimating the internal consistency reliability of items in a measurement instrument.
  118. University of Valencia. Spain. 2022. Available at: https://www.uv.es/friasnav/AlfaCronbach.pdf
  119. 48. Domínguez-Salas S, Andrés-Villas M, Riera-Sampol A, Tauler P, Bennasar-Veny M, Aguilo A, et al. Analysis of the
  120. psychometric properties of the Sense of Coherence scale (SOC-13) in patients with cardiovascular risk factors: a
  121. study of the method effects associated with negatively worded items. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 10 de enero de
  122. 2022;20(1):8. doi: 10.1186/s12955-021-01914-6 PubMed PMID: 35012547; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8751372.
  123. 49. Mafla AC, Herrera-López M, España-Fuelagan K, Ramírez-Solarte I, Gallardo Pino C, Schwendicke F. Psychometric Properties of the SOC-13 Scale in Colombian Adults. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 10 de diciembre
  124. de 2021;18(24):13017. doi: 10.3390/ijerph182413017 PubMed PMID: 34948627; PubMed Central PMCID:
  125. PMC8700993.
  126. 50. Chu JJ, Khan MH, Jahn HJ, Kraemer A. Sense of coherence and associated factors among university students in
  127. China: cross-sectional evidence. BMC Public Health. 16 de abril de 2016;16:336. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3003-3
  128. PubMed PMID: 27083414; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4833908.
  129. 51. Lee J, Lee EH, Hei Moon S. Systematic review of the measurement properties of the Depression Anxiety Stress
  130. Scales–21 by applying updated COSMIN methodology. Qual Life Res. 2019;28:2325–39.
  131. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02177-x
  132. 52. Hong Le MT, Duc Tran T, Holton S, Thanh Nguyen H, Wolfe R, Fisher J. Reliability, convergent validity and factor
  133. structure of the DASS-21 in a sample of Vietnamese adolescents. PLoS One. 2017;12(7):e0180557.
  134. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180557
  135. 53. Domínguez-Lara S. Confidence interval in reliability reports: a necessary analysis. An Sist Sanit Navar. 2016;39(1).
  136. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4321/S1137-6627/2016000100024
  137. 54. Dominguez- -Lara SA. Correlation attenuation and low reliability: does it really matter? Nutr Hosp. 2017;34(5):1261–
  138. 2. Available at: https://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0212-16112017000500032
  139. 55. Mokkink LB, Elsman EBM, Terwee CB. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome
  140. measures version 2.0. Qual Life Res. noviembre de 2024;33(11):2929-39. doi:10.1007/s11136-024-03761-6 PubMed PMID: 39198348; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC11541334.
  141. 56. Nóblega M, Conde G, Nuñez del Prado J, Bárrig P, Marinelli F, Alcántara N, et al. Evidence of construct and criterion
  142. validity of the Massie-Campbell Attachment During Stress Scale (ADS). Acta Colomb Psicol. 2019;22(1):129–51.
  143. doi: https://doi.org/10.14718/ACP.2019.22.1.7
  144. 57. Argibay JC. Psychometric techniques. Issues of validity and reliability. Subjectivity and Cognitive Processes.
  145. 2006;(8):15–33. Available at: https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/3396/339630247002.pdf
  146. 58. Schäfer SK, Sopp MR, Fuchs A, Kotzur M, Maahs L, Michael T. The relationship between sense of coherence
  147. and mental health problems from childhood to young adulthood: A meta-analysis. J Affect Disord. 15 de marzo
  148. de 2023;325:804-16. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2022.12.106 PubMed PMID: 36638967.
  149. 59. Di-Luciano A, Montero M, Chewerk H. Construct validity of the use of virtual reality in cataract surgery: systematic
  150. review. Latin American Journal of Clinical Simulation. 2020;2(2):71–80. doi: https://doi.org/10.35366/95231
  151. 60. García González LA, Aguilar Sierra FJ, Moreno Serrano C, Enciso M. Translation, cultural adaptation and validation
  152. of an upper limb function scale: DASH. Colombian Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology. 2020;34(3):231–40.
  153. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rccot.2017.06.011
  154. 61. Pardal-Refoyo JL, Batuecas-Caletrío Á. Review of assessment tools for disability in vestibular pathology. ENT.
  155. 2018;9(2):145–64. doi: https://doi.org/10.14201/orl.17700
  156. 62. Sierra García L, Orta Pérez M, Moreno García FJ. Development and validation of an instrument for measuring the
  157. quality of audit services. Accounting Journal. 2017;20(2):167–75. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcsar.2016.10.001

Información

Perfil de Google Académico

Guía de autores

Palabras clave

Código QR