SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2025
A systematic review of measures of emotion regulation in forensic settings.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Psychometric Properties and Clinical Usefulness of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale in Forensic Settings.Journal of clinical psychology · 2026Article
- A dual-fMRI investigation of interpersonal emotion regulation: Predicting strategy selection and implementation success from effective brain connectivity.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The study of emotion regulation (ER) has gained traction in forensic psychological and psychiatric research as a correlate of antisocial and aggressive behavior as well as for its relevance to psychopathology. However, conceptual and definitional ambiguity persists. Methods: This pre-registered systematic review aimed to investigate how ER is conceptualized and measured in forensic populations, and to synthesize available evidence on the reliability and validity of ER measurement instruments. A total of 59 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. Results: ER was primarily assessed using self-report questionnaires (93% of studies), with only four studies employing biophysiological indices of ER. Seven distinct measurement models were identified. Most studies (80%) relied on one of two broad conceptual approaches: ER conceptualized as a set of interrelated abilities, most commonly assessed using the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale, or ER conceptualized as a set of strategies used to regulate emotional responses, most commonly assessed using the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire. Reliability estimates were reported in 64% of studies, with the majority of estimates exceeding conventional cut-offs for adequate internal consistency. Evidence for construct validity was generally conclusive or mixed across studies. Conclusions: ER research in forensic settings is characterized by conceptual heterogeneity and a strong reliance on self-report measures. The conceptual heterogeneity underscores the need for authors to clearly outline how ER is conceptualized and theoretically defined. Although reliability estimates were generally adequate when available, reliability was not consistently reported across studies. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42023495577.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.