Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
1 23
1 23
383
Method
Participants and Procedure
One thousand and forty-five female undergraduate students
from a mid-sized Midwestern University were recruited to
participate in an Institutional Review Board approved study
designed to examine trauma and sexual revictimization, for
385
models, both a one-factor model and an uncorrelated sixfactor model of the DERS were tested. The uncorrelated sixfactor model was identical to the correlated six-factor model
described above, except the latent factor intercorrelations were
not freely estimated. The one-factor model consisted of all of
the DERS items loading on a single latent factor.
DERS: Higher-Order Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Given
the expected superiority of the correlated six-factor firstorder model relative to the alternative first-order models,
two higher-order CFA models were then used to further
examine the latent structure of the DERS. The first higherorder model tested whether a higher-order factor could
account for the first-order DERS factor intercorrelations
and thus examined the tenability of using a total scale score.
In this model, the first-order DERS factor intercorrelations
within the correlated six-factor first-order model were removed and direct effects from a higher-order factor to each
of the DERS first-order factors were added (following
Brown 2006). The fit of this higher-order model was compared to the fit of the correlated six-factor first-order model.
Next, an alternative higher-order CFA model was tested to
further examine the distinctiveness of DERS-AWARENESS
from the other dimensions of the DERS. In this second higherorder CFA, two higher-order factors were modeled. One of the
higher-order factors was identical to the higher-order factor
just described, in which each of the six factors of the DERS
loaded on a higher-order factor. For the second higher-order
factor, five factors were allowed to freely load on the higherorder latent variable (i.e., NONACCEPTANCE, GOALS,
IMPULSE, STRATEGIES, CLARITY). The two higherorder factors were not allowed to intercorrelate. This alternative higher-order model followed Geiser, Eid, and Nussbecks
(2008) method that allows for the assessment of whether a
group of indicators share covariation that is unaccounted for
by their relations with another set of indicators.1 Applying
Geiser et al.s method to the present study allowed us to
further examine whether five of the DERS factors (NONACCEPTANCE, GOALS, IMPULSE, STRATEGIES, CLARITY) share unique covariation that is unaccounted for by their
relations with DERS-AWARENESS. Evidence that this second higher-order model provided an adequate, and potentially
better fit relative to the single higher-order CFA model described above, would support the notion that DERSAWARENESS is relatively distinct from the other dimensions
of the DERS.
Examination of A Five-Factor Model Of the DERS. Based
on our predictions that DERS-AWARENESS might not
belong to the same domain as the other dimensions of the
1
We thank an anonymous reviewer for recommending our use of this
method.
Results
Full-Length DERS First-Order CFA (All 36 Items)
One-Factor Model, The one-factor model did not provide
an adequate fit to the data [2 019,416.05; Satorra-Bentler
(SB) 2 014,554.17 (df 0594, p < .01); CFI 0.836;
NNFI 0.826; RMSEA 0.151 (90% CI 0.149.153);
SRMR0.125]. None of the goodness-of-fit indices met or
exceeded the specified guidelines.
Uncorrelated Six-Factor Model, The uncorrelated six-factor
model did not provide an adequate fit to the data [2 0
7,549.56; Satorra-Bentler (SB) 2 05,824.98 (df 0594,
p < .01); CFI 0.939; NNFI 0.935; RMSEA 0.092 (90%
CI0.090.094); SRMR0.285]. None of the goodness-offit indices met or exceeded the specified guidelines.
Correlated Six-Factor Model, The correlated six-factor
model provided an adequate fit to the data [2 03,780.28;
Satorra-Bentler (SB) 2 03,431.53 (df 0579, p < .01);
C F I 0. 9 6 6 ; N N F I 0. 9 6 4 ; R M S E A 0. 0 6 9 ( 9 0 %
CI0.067.071); SRMR0.076]. All of the goodness-of-fit
indices met or exceeded the specified guidelines. In addition, the SDCS tests [one-factor versus correlated six-factor:
SDCS 2 01517.21 (df015, p<.01); uncorrelated six-factor
versus correlated six-factor: SDCS 2 0428.27 (df 015,
p<.01)] indicated that the correlated six-factor model provided a significantly better fit to the data relative to the
alternative models. Moreover, the CFIs were uniformly
.002 and there was evidence of non-overlapping 90%
RMSEA CIs. Thus, both the one-factor and uncorrelated
387
order factor that had all six DERS factors load on it and one
second-order factor that had all factors except AWARENESS load on it, generally provided an adequate fit to the
data [2 03,784.84; SB 2 03,443.56 (df 0583, p < .01);
C F I 0. 9 6 6 ; N N F I 0. 9 6 4 ; R M S E A 0. 0 6 9 ( 9 0 %
CI0.067.071); SRMR0.076]; all of the goodness-of-fit
indices met or exceeded the specified guidelines. Whereas
the SDCS test indicated that this alternative second-order
model provided a significant decrement in model fit compared to the six-factor second-order model described above
[SDCS 2 036.78 (df05, p<.01)], the CFI was .002 and
they had overlapping 90% RMSEA CIs. The adequacy of
this alternative second-order CFA, and its potential superiority relative to the other second-order model (i.e., all of the
goodness-of-fit indices of this alternative second-order model met or exceed specified guidelines), suggests five of the
DERS factors (NONACCEPTANCE, GOALS, IMPULSE,
STRATEGIES, and CLARITY) share unique covariation
that is unaccounted for by their relations with DERSAWARENESS.
Revised DERS First-Order CFA (AWARENESS Removed)
Revised One-Factor Model. The one-factor model of the
revised DERS did not provide an adequate fit to the data
[2 011,446.31; Satorra-Bentler (SB) 2 07,972.14 (df 0
405, p<.01); CFI0.899; NNFI0.892; RMSEA0.134 (90%
CI0.132.137); SRMR0.094]. None of the goodness-of-fit
indices met or exceeded the specified guidelines.
Revised Uncorrelated Five-Factor Model. The uncorrelated
five-factor model of the revised DERS generally did not
provide an adequate fit to the data [2 05,778.22; SatorraBentler (SB) 2 04,196.76 (df0405, p <.01); CFI0.950;
NNFI 0.946; RMSEA 0.095 (90% CI 0.093.098);
SRMR0.321]. Only the CFI and NNFI met or exceeded
the specified guidelines.
Revised Five-Factor Correlated Model. The five-factor correlated model of the revised DERS provided an adequate fit
to the data [ 2 02,524.34; Satorra-Bentler (SB) 2 0
2,038.38 (df 0395, p < .01); CFI 0.978; NNFI 0.976;
RMSEA0.063 (90% CI0.061.066); SRMR0.061]. All of
the goodness-of-fit indices met or exceeded the specified
guidelines. In addition, the SDCS tests [one-factor versus
correlated five-factor: SDCS 2 0966.37 (df010, p<.01);
uncorrelated five-factor versus correlated five-factor: SDCS
2 0475.40 (df010, p<.01)] indicated that the correlated
five-factor model provided a significantly better fit to the
data relative to the alternative models. Moreover, the CFIs
were uniformly .002 and there was evidence of nonoverlapping 90% RMSEA CIs. Thus, both the one-factor
and uncorrelated five-factor model appear to provide a
Item #
I
11
12
21
23
25
29
13
18
20
26
33
3
14
19
24
27
32
15
16
22
28
30
31
35
36
1
4
5
7
III
VI
.79
.82
.89
.67
.84
.83
II
III
IV
.79
.82
.88
.67
.84
.83
.85
.87
.47
.90
.85
.86
.47
.90
.82
.82
.58
.84
.85
.43
.83
.85
9
2
6
8
10
17
34
.58
.84
.85
.42
.83
.85
.77
.80
.43
.78
.80
.70
.79
.77
.77
.80
.43
.78
.80
.70
.79
.77
.55
.74
.80
.65
.47
.76
.85
.57
.69
.77
.81
.80
.66
.55
.51
.73
389
Table 2 Latent correlations among factors of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale
Factor
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
.52
.54
.72
.54
.24
.57
.72
.39
.08
.77
.49
.18
.61
.23
.61
NONACCEPTANCE
GOALS
IMPULSE
STRATEGIES
CLARITY
AWARENESS
clearer picture than did our evaluation of the six-factor higherorder model. All of the goodness-of-fit indices of the fivefactor higher-order model met our a-priori benchmark to
indicate adequate fit. Moreover, although the SCDS indicated
that the five-factor higher-order model provided a significant
decrement in model fit, because the CFIs was .002 and
overlapping RMSEA CIs were observed, a non-significant
difference in fit between the two models is suggested.
Concurrent Validity
Bivariate Correlations. Correlations between the two versions of the DERS total scale (full-length and revised version with the AWARENESS subscale omitted) and
symptom measures are presented in Table 3. As shown,
the two versions of the DERS total scale showed a similar
pattern of correlations with the symptom measures. However, the revised DERS total scale had a significantly stronger
relation with anxiety symptoms (z-statistic03.18, p<.01)
and PTSS (z-statistic 03.33, p< .01) relative to the fulllength DERS total scale. As such, there was no evidence
of attenuated relations between the revised DERS total scale
and criterion of interest.
Partial Correlations. The full-length DERS total scale did
not share significant unique relations with any of the symptom measures after controlling for the effects of the revised
DERS total scale (partial rs ranged from .04 to .03, ns).
Discussion
The DERS is a commonly used self-report measure that
purportedly assesses the emotion regulation domain.
DERS
DERS-R
.64a
.55a
.47a
.65a
.57b
.49b
the only DERS subscale that was not associated with PTSD.
They hypothesized that, whereas it may seem intuitive that
individuals experiencing the emotional numbing that is a
part of PTSD symptomatology would be more likely to be
unaware of their emotional states, it is also possible that
such individuals are just as aware of, and attentive to, their
emotions than those without PTSD. Attention to emotional
states does not necessarily suggest a healthy response or
regulation of such states. In fact, Lischetzke and Eid (2003)
found that attention to emotions had a negative impact on
affective well being in individuals who had low emotion
regulation abilities. Moreover, as noted by Tull et al., some
forms of emotional awareness may be adaptive (e.g., nonjudgmental acceptance), whereas other forms are likely maladaptive (e.g., rumination on negative emotion). Thus,
DERS-AWARENESS may sufficiently measure emotional
awareness, but emotional awareness may not necessarily be
associated with adaptive emotion regulation.
On the other hand, it could be argued that one must be
able to properly identify emotions in order to strategically
alter affective states. For example, experiencing the emotion
of sadness may lead one to employ cognitive (e.g., cognitive
reappraisal) and behavioral (e.g., seeking social support)
regulatory measures in order to reduce the potential of
experiencing a prolonged negative affective state. Those
who have difficulties noticing and correctly identifying the
experience of sadness would likely fail to employ emotion
regulation strategies, and thus, be more likely to experience
prolonged states of negative mood, which may develop into
psychopathological symptomatology. This view is consistent with an evolutionary perspective in which emotions
developed in order to direct behavior; through emotional
awareness one has the potential to up- or down-regulate
emotional states as needed. Thus, it appears that in the
temporal sequence of emotion regulation, emotional awareness and clarity are needed before one can employ adaptive
emotion regulation strategies; however, awareness and clarity by themselves do not guarantee that one will employ
such strategies. As noted above, it is possible that those who
develop psychopathology are just as aware of, and attentive
to, their emotions as those who do not develop psychopathological symptomatology, and that the deficits in emotion
regulation which lead to pathological conditions come later
in the temporal chain (i.e., impulse control, use of emotion
regulation strategies, engaging in goal directed behaviors).
Another possibility is that the way in which the DERSAWARENESS dimension is operationalized might be obscuring the relative importance of this dimension to the
emotion regulation domain. For example, the AWARENESS subscale is the only subscale of the DERS in which
all of the items are reverse-keyed. In fact, no other scale
contains more than two reverse-keyed items. Although
reverse-keyed items can serve to identify random
responding, they can also increase the likelihood of systematic error, thus reducing scale validity (Hinkin 1995). Moreover, enhanced psychometric properties of self-report
measures have been identified upon the removal of
reverse-keyed items, which has led some researchers to
advocate for the scoring of only the straightforwardworded items of these measures (e.g., see Rodebaugh et al.
2007; Weeks et al. 2005). Given Gratz and Roemers (2004)
theoretical justification for the inclusion of the AWARENESS dimension of emotion regulation when creating the
DERS, future research might seek to create and evaluate
straightforward-worded items of this scale. In addition to
providing a potentially more comprehensive assessment of
emotion regulation, the presence of a revised AWARENESS
scale might shed further light on the convergence of this
dimension with the other dimensions purported to underlie
emotion regulation. Nonetheless, given its divergence from
the other dimensions of the measure, the present results
support the removal of the current AWARENESS items
when computing the DERS total scale.
However, whereas we advocate for the removal of the
AWARENESS items from the DERS total scale, the
AWARENESS scale may have utility on its own. For example, Neumann et al. (2010) found that, while DERSAWARENESS was the only DERS dimension that was not
significantly associated with measures of anxiety and depression, the AWARENESS dimension was positively associated with delinquent behavior in an adolescent sample. Of
note, the AWARENESS dimension was the only DERS
dimension found to be significantly associated with delinquency. Neumann et al.s findings further highlight the
divergent pattern of criterion-related validity evidenced by
DERS-AWARENESS relative to the other dimensions of the
DERS. However, such findings do provide evidence for the
potential usefulness of this scale. As such, although it does
not appear to belong to the same higher-order construct as
the other dimensions of the DERS, future research may wish
to examine the validity of the AWARENESS subscale as a
construct separate from the DERS.
In addition to examining the latent structure of the DERS,
we sought to provide preliminary evidence of the tenability of
a revised version of the DERS that removes the AWARENESS items. First, we examined the factor structure of a fivefactor model of emotion regulation (i.e., excluding the
AWARENESS dimension). The five-factor model provided
an adequate fit to the data. Moreover, the revised DERS total
scale (removing DERS-AWARENSS) showed good internal
consistency and its relations with criteria were not attenuated
relative to those relations obtained using the full-length DERS
total scale. Further, the full-length DERS total scale did not
share unique relations with psychological symptom measures
after controlling for the revised DERS total scale. As such, the
revised DERS total scale does not appear to substantially
391
References
Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schweizer, S. (2010). Emotionregulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic
review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 217237.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders, (4th ed., text revision). Washington,
DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford.
Burns, E. E., Jackson, J. L., & Harding, H. G. (2010). Child maltreatment, emotion regulation, and posttraumatic stress: The impact of
emotional abuse. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma,
19, 801819.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit
indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation
Modeling, 9, 233255.
Cisler, J. M., Olatunji, B. O., & Lohr, J. M. (2009). Disgust sensitivity and
emotion regulation potentiate the effect of disgust propensity on
spider fear, blood-injection-injury, and contamination fear. Journal
of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 40, 219229.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues
in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7,
309319.
Ehring, T., & Quack, D. (2010). Emotion regulation difficulties in
trauma survivors: The role of trauma type and PTSD symptom
severity. Behavior Therapy, 41, 587598.
Fox, H. C., Hong, K. A., & Sinha, R. (2008). Difficulties in emotion
regulation and impulse control in recently abstinent alcoholics
compared with social drinkers. Addictive Behaviors, 33, 388394.
Geiser, C., Eid, M., & Nussbeck, F. W. (2008). On the meaning of the
latent variables in the CT-C(M-1) model: A comment on MaydeuOlivares and Coffman (2006). Psychological Methods, 13, 4957.
Glenn, C. R., & Klonsky, E. D. (2009). Emotion dysregulation as a
core feature of borderline personality disorder. Journal of Personality Disorders, 23, 2028.
Gratz, K. L., & Chapman, A. L. (2007). The role of emotional
responding and childhood maltreatment in the development and
maintenance of deliberate self-harm among male undergraduates.
Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 8, 114.
Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of
emotion regulation and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral
Assessment, 26, 4154.
Gratz, K. L., Rosenthal, M., Tull, M. T., Lejuez, C. W., & Gunderson,
J. G. (2006). An experimental investigation of emotion dysregulation in borderline personality disorder. Personality Disorders:
Theory, Research, and Treatment, 1, 1826.
Gratz, K. L., Paulson, A., Jakupcak, M., & Tull, M. T. (2009). Exploring the relationship between childhood maltreatment and intimate
partner abuse: Gender differences in the mediating role of emotion dysregulation. Violence and Victims, 1, 6882.
Gray, J. A., & McNaughton, N. (2000). The neuropsychology of
anxiety (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Heath, N. L., Toste, J. R., Nedecheva, T., & Charlebois, A. (2008). An
examination of nonsuicidal self-injury among college students.
Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 30, 137156.