ArticleBMC psychology2026
Psychometric evaluation of the regulatory emotional self-efficacy scale in China: evidence for a bifactor approach.
Article in BMC psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Predicting Professional Identity Among Chinese Nurses Using the Job Demands-Resources Model: A Comparative Machine-Learning Study.Journal of nursing management · 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
Abstract
backgroundThe Regulatory Emotional Self-Efficacy (RESE) scale is widely recognized as a robust instrument for measuring emotion regulation, a construct that is critical for mediating psychosocial functioning and psychological well-being. However, prior factor analytic studies have yielded inconsistent findings regarding its latent structure across different cultural contexts, leading to debates over its internal dimensions. This study aims to determine the most appropriate factor structure of the RESE scale within a Chinese population to reconcile these structural discrepancies and enhance its cross-cultural applicability.
methodsWe employed a rigorous psychometric approach using both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), alongside an innovative bifactor modeling approach. Data were collected from a large, geographically diverse sample of over one thousand Chinese participants recruited from 32 major cities, encompassing both adolescent and adult populations to ensure broad representativeness. The total sample was randomly split into independent sub-samples to systematically test existing frameworks and validate novel structural patterns through comparative model testing.
resultsModel comparisons demonstrated that the latent structure of the RESE scale is best represented by a bifactor structure rather than traditional correlated-factor or unidimensional models. This structure effectively distinguishes a dominant general factor of emotion regulation from three distinct, specific subdimensions: expressing positive emotions, managing despondency/distress, and regulating anger/irritation. The analysis revealed that the bifactor model provides a superior fit to the empirical data by more accurately partitioning the common and specific variance, thereby clarifying the interplay between global and specific efficacy beliefs.
conclusionsThe findings indicate that the RESE scale is primarily a unidimensional measure with specific subfactors, where the general factor accounts for the majority of the reliable variance. This study provides a fresh perspective on the scale’s inherent structure and strongly supports the use of a total score for a comprehensive assessment of emotion regulation in Chinese contexts. These results bridge the structural gap between Western-developed instruments and Eastern cultural applications, providing a robust, validated tool for future research and clinical practice.
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.