ArticleJournal of clinical psychology2026
Examining the Measurement and Validity of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale and Its Short Forms.
Article in Journal of clinical psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Emotion regulation is a transdiagnostic development and maintenance factor for internalizing and externalizing psychopathology, and one popular measure of emotion dysregulation is the 36-item Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS). Due to psychometric issues and concerns with length, research with the DERS has produced multiple short forms of the scale. The present study, using a convenience sample of 618 college students with measures administered online, aimed to examine and compare all DERS versions to identify the best fitting model. Each of the five versions of the DERS was examined using a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFA), including both correlated factors models and bifactor models, as appropriate. The bifactor DERS-18 model was determined to be the best fitting model, and it was retained for subsequent analyses. In keeping with similar studies, findings indicated that the awareness factor was not well defined. Next, the specific factors and the general factor of the DERS-18 were correlated with the scale scores of the MMPI-3 to examine the relationships with psychopathology. The specific factors, but not the general factor alone, were related to internalizing MMPI-3 scale scores; however, the DERS-18 factors had low or nonsignificant correlations with externalizing scales. Results suggested that in a large non-clinical sample, the DERS-18 was primarily associated with internalizing psychopathology at the latent level, so it may be more appropriate for use in assessing internalizing distress rather than associations with external behaviors.
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.