Meta-analysis of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale and its short forms: A two-part study

IF 2.5 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Journal of Clinical Psychology Pub Date : 2024-04-17 DOI:10.1002/jclp.23695
Giulia Raimondi, Michela Balsamo, Leonardo Carlucci, Fabio Alivernini, Fabio Lucidi, Tonia Samela, Marco Innamorati
{"title":"Meta-analysis of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale and its short forms: A two-part study","authors":"Giulia Raimondi,&nbsp;Michela Balsamo,&nbsp;Leonardo Carlucci,&nbsp;Fabio Alivernini,&nbsp;Fabio Lucidi,&nbsp;Tonia Samela,&nbsp;Marco Innamorati","doi":"10.1002/jclp.23695","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS) is the most used self-report questionnaire to assess deficits in emotion regulation (ER), composed of 6 dimensions and 36 items. Many studies have evaluated its factor structure, not always confirming the original results, and proposed different factor models. A possible way to try to identify the dimensionality of the DERS could be through a meta-analysis with structural equation models (MASEM) of its factor structure. The MASEM indicated that a six-factor model with 32 items (DERS-32) was the most suitable to represent the dimensionality of the DERS (<i>χ</i><sup>2</sup> = 2095.96, <i>df</i> = 449, <i>p</i> &lt; .001; root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.024, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.023–0.025; comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.97; Tucker Lewis index [TLI] = 0.96; standardized root mean squared residual [SRMR] = 0.04). This result was also confirmed by a confirmatory factor analysis (<i>χ</i><sup>2</sup> = 3229.67, <i>df</i> = 449, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001; RMSEA = 0.075, 95% CI: 0.073–0.078; CFI = 0.94; TLI = 0.93; SRMR = 0.05) on a new sample (1092 participants; mean age: 28.28, SD = 5.82 years) recruited from the Italian population. Analyses and results from this sample are reported in the second study of this work. The DERS-32 showed satisfactory internal consistency (i.e., ordinal <i>α</i>, Molenaar Sijtsma statistic, and latent class reliability coefficient) for all its dimensions and correctly categorized individuals with probable borderline symptomatology. In conclusion, the DERS-32 has demonstrated to be the best model for the DERS among all the others considered in this work, as well as a reliable tool to assess deficits in ER.</p>","PeriodicalId":15395,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jclp.23695","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS) is the most used self-report questionnaire to assess deficits in emotion regulation (ER), composed of 6 dimensions and 36 items. Many studies have evaluated its factor structure, not always confirming the original results, and proposed different factor models. A possible way to try to identify the dimensionality of the DERS could be through a meta-analysis with structural equation models (MASEM) of its factor structure. The MASEM indicated that a six-factor model with 32 items (DERS-32) was the most suitable to represent the dimensionality of the DERS (χ2 = 2095.96, df = 449, p < .001; root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.024, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.023–0.025; comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.97; Tucker Lewis index [TLI] = 0.96; standardized root mean squared residual [SRMR] = 0.04). This result was also confirmed by a confirmatory factor analysis (χ2 = 3229.67, df = 449, p < 0.001; RMSEA = 0.075, 95% CI: 0.073–0.078; CFI = 0.94; TLI = 0.93; SRMR = 0.05) on a new sample (1092 participants; mean age: 28.28, SD = 5.82 years) recruited from the Italian population. Analyses and results from this sample are reported in the second study of this work. The DERS-32 showed satisfactory internal consistency (i.e., ordinal α, Molenaar Sijtsma statistic, and latent class reliability coefficient) for all its dimensions and correctly categorized individuals with probable borderline symptomatology. In conclusion, the DERS-32 has demonstrated to be the best model for the DERS among all the others considered in this work, as well as a reliable tool to assess deficits in ER.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
情绪调节困难量表及其简表的元分析:由两部分组成的研究
情绪调节困难量表(DERS)是评估情绪调节(ER)缺陷最常用的自我报告问卷,由 6 个维度 36 个项目组成。许多研究都对其因子结构进行了评估,但并不都证实了最初的结果,并提出了不同的因子模型。对 DERS 的因素结构进行结构方程模型元分析(MASEM)是确定 DERS 维度的一个可行方法。MASEM表明,有32个项目的六因素模型(DERS-32)最适合代表DERS的维度(χ2 = 2095.96, df = 449, p < .001; 均方根近似误差 [RMSEA] = 0.024, 95%置信区间 [CI]:0.023-0.025;比较拟合指数 [CFI] = 0.97;塔克-刘易斯指数 [TLI] = 0.96;标准化均方根残差 [SRMR] = 0.04)。对从意大利人口中招募的新样本(1092 名参与者;平均年龄:28.28 岁,SD = 5.82 岁)进行的确认性因子分析(χ2 = 3229.67,df = 449,p < 0.001;RMSEA = 0.075,95% CI:0.073-0.078;CFI = 0.94;TLI = 0.93;SRR = 0.05)也证实了这一结果。对该样本的分析和结果将在本研究的第二部分报告。DERS-32 的所有维度均显示出令人满意的内部一致性(即序数α、Molenaar Sijtsma 统计量和潜类信度系数),并能正确地将可能存在边缘症状的个体分类。总之,DERS-32 是本研究中所有其他 DERS 模型中的最佳模型,也是评估 ER 缺陷的可靠工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Psychology
Journal of Clinical Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.30%
发文量
177
期刊介绍: Founded in 1945, the Journal of Clinical Psychology is a peer-reviewed forum devoted to research, assessment, and practice. Published eight times a year, the Journal includes research studies; articles on contemporary professional issues, single case research; brief reports (including dissertations in brief); notes from the field; and news and notes. In addition to papers on psychopathology, psychodiagnostics, and the psychotherapeutic process, the journal welcomes articles focusing on psychotherapy effectiveness research, psychological assessment and treatment matching, clinical outcomes, clinical health psychology, and behavioral medicine.
期刊最新文献
How Metacognitions Contribute to Compulsive Online Shopping: An Exploratory Study. Virtual Reality Exposure for Treating PTSD Due to Military Sexual Trauma. Issue Information Therapists in Wartime: Holding Others' Trauma While Contending With Your Own. Reducing emotion dysregulation online in nonclinical population with compassion focused therapy and emotional competencies program: A randomized controlled trial
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1