Objective About 10 years ago, Gratz and Roemer (2004) introduced the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS), a 36‐item self‐report instrument measuring 6 areas of emotion regulation problems. Recently, Bjureberg et al. (2015) have introduced a new, briefer version of the DERS comprising only 16 of the 36 items included in the original version. Because no studies have yet cross‐validated the recently introduced 16‐item DERS and the 36‐item DERS has never been tested in Brazil, we sought to inspect the psychometric properties of scores from both DERS versions with a nonclinical Brazilian sample. Method Participants were 725 adult volunteers aged 18–70 years (mean = 30.54, standard deviation = 10.59), 82.3% of whom were women. All were administered the DERS along with a number of other self‐report and performance‐based instruments. Data analyses inspected internal consistency, factor structure, and convergent as well as divergent validity of scores from both DERS versions. Results Results show that scores from both DERS versions possess good psychometric properties. Interestingly, both versions correlated, in the expected direction, with psychopathology and showed no significant correlations with cognitive measures. Like in other studies, however, the Awareness factor of the 36‐item DERS did not produce optimal validity and reliability indexes. Conclusion Taken together, our findings indicate that the 16‐item DERS may be preferred over the 36‐item version and provide additional support to the differentiation between emotion regulation and cognitive tasks of emotional perception and abstract and verbal reasoning.

A Brazilian Investigation of the 36-and 16-Item Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scales

GIROMINI, Luciano;ZENNARO, Alessandro
2017

Abstract

Objective About 10 years ago, Gratz and Roemer (2004) introduced the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS), a 36‐item self‐report instrument measuring 6 areas of emotion regulation problems. Recently, Bjureberg et al. (2015) have introduced a new, briefer version of the DERS comprising only 16 of the 36 items included in the original version. Because no studies have yet cross‐validated the recently introduced 16‐item DERS and the 36‐item DERS has never been tested in Brazil, we sought to inspect the psychometric properties of scores from both DERS versions with a nonclinical Brazilian sample. Method Participants were 725 adult volunteers aged 18–70 years (mean = 30.54, standard deviation = 10.59), 82.3% of whom were women. All were administered the DERS along with a number of other self‐report and performance‐based instruments. Data analyses inspected internal consistency, factor structure, and convergent as well as divergent validity of scores from both DERS versions. Results Results show that scores from both DERS versions possess good psychometric properties. Interestingly, both versions correlated, in the expected direction, with psychopathology and showed no significant correlations with cognitive measures. Like in other studies, however, the Awareness factor of the 36‐item DERS did not produce optimal validity and reliability indexes. Conclusion Taken together, our findings indicate that the 16‐item DERS may be preferred over the 36‐item version and provide additional support to the differentiation between emotion regulation and cognitive tasks of emotional perception and abstract and verbal reasoning.
73
9
1146
1159
http://www.interscience.wiley.com/jpages/0021-9762
Brazil; DERS; Emotion regulation; Reliability; Validity; Clinical Psychology; Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
Miguel, Fabiano Koich; Giromini, Luciano; Colombarolli, Maíra Stivaleti; Zuanazzi, Ana Carolina; Zennaro, Alessandro
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
jclp_22404.pdf

Accesso aperto

Tipo di file: PREPRINT (PRIMA BOZZA)
Dimensione 1.1 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.1 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
A Brazilian Investigation of the 36-and 16-Item Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scales.pdf

Accesso riservato

Tipo di file: PDF EDITORIALE
Dimensione 410.29 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
410.29 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/2318/1617714
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 7
  • Scopus 35
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 30
social impact