Cultural Adaptation of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale: Reliability and Validity of an Italian Version

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of an Italian version of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS; Gratz & Roemer, 2004).Method: Three studies were completed. First, factorial structure, internal consistency, and concurrent validity of our Italian version of the DERS were examined with a sample of 323 students (77% female; mean age 25.6). Second, test-retest analyses were completed using a different sample of 61 students (80% female; mean age 24.7). Third, the scores produced by a small clinical sample (N = 38; mean age = 24.2) affected by anorexia, binge eating disorder, or bulimia were compared to those of an age-matched, nonclinical female sample (N = 38; mean age = 24.7). Results: The factorial structure replicated quite well the six-factor structure proposed by Gratz and Roemer. The internal consistency and test-retest reliability were adequate and comparable to previous findings. The validity was good, as indicated by both the concurrent validity analysis and the clinical-nonclinical sample comparison. Conclusions:These studies provide further support for the multidimensional model of emotion regulation postulated by Gratz and Roemer and strengthen the rationale for cross-cultural utilization of the DERS. (Gross, 2008). This is partly due to the several processes that underlie diverse emotion regulation acts as well as the lack of consistent, agreed-upon conceptualizations of ER.Broadly defined, the construct of ER refers to the conscious or unconscious attempt of an individual to influence the expression and type of emotion he or she feels (Mauss, Bunge & Gross, 2007). ER also encompasses the extrinsic or intrinsic processes that are responsible for the monitoring, evaluation, and modification of emotional responses, including the ability to modulate and regulate behaviors when experiencing emotional distress (Gratz & Roemer, 2004; Thompson, 1994).According to Gross and Thompson (2007), there are five points in time in which emotions could be regulated: situation selection, situation modification, attentional deployment, cognitive change, and response modulation. Each of the five ER strategies has received a great deal of interest by several researchers (Gross, 2008). Moreover, two ER strategies have received major attention: cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression.The first consists of attempts to think about the situation as to alter its meaning and emotional (Fox et al., 2007; Gratz, 2007;Gratz, Lacroce, & Gunderson, 2006; Gratz & Roemer, 2004;Gratz, Rosenthal, Tull, Lejuez, & Gunderson, 2006;Gratz, Tull, Baruch, Bornovalova, & Lejuez, 2008;Salters-Pedneault, Roemer, Tull, Rucker, & Mennin, 2006; Tull & Roemer, 2007). Nonetheless, more research on this topic is needed, and the extent to which Gratz and Roemer's results can be generalized to samples from diverse cultural backgrounds remains an empirical question. Adaptability of the DERS to an Italian Sample.

Measuring psychological mindedness: validity, reliability, and relationship with psychopathology of an Italian version of the Balanced Index of Psychological Mindedness

“…Items are rated on five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always), and a total score and six subscale scores (Nonacceptance of Emotional Responses, Difficulties Engaging in Goal-Directed Behavior, Impulse Control Difficulties, Lack of Emotional Awareness, Limited Access to Emotion Regulation Strategies, and Lack of Emotional Clarity) are calculated. For the current study, an Italian validated version was utilized (Giromini, Velotti, de Campora, Bonalume, & Zavattini, 2012). Such version achieved good internal consistency (with a values ranging from 0.77 to 0.92), adequate to excellent test-retest stability (with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranging from 0.49 to 0.73), and good validity (as demonstrated by both significant correlations with related constructs, and significant scores differences in a clinical vs. non-clinical sample comparison).…”

Personality styles in a non-clinical sample: The role of emotion dysregulation and impulsivity

“…Participants had to indicate the extent to which each statement applied to them on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always), with higher score indicating greater emotion dysregulation. The DERS has good psychometric properties (Gratz, Rosenthal, Tull, Lejuez, & Gunderson, 2006), and all dimensions of the Italian version of the DERS showed a Cronbach's alpha higher than .77 (Giromini et al, 2012).…”

“…The Italian version of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS; Giromini, Velotti, de Campora, Bonalume, & Zavattini, 2012;Gratz & Roemer, 2004) was used to assess emotion dysregulation. The DERS is a comprehensive measure of emotion dysregulation composed of 36 items tapping six dimensions of emotion dysregulation: nonacceptance of negative emotional responses; difficulties engaging in goal-directed behavior when distressed; difficulties in controlling impulsive behavior when emotionally upset; lack of emotional awareness; limited access to emotion regulation strategies perceived as effective; and lack of emotional clarity.…”

Validity and Reliability of the Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire: Empirical Evidence from an Italian Study

“…The current investigation used the Italian version of the DERS (Giromini, Velotti, de Campora, Bonalume, & Zavattini, 2012), which has demonstrated good psychometric properties in several studies (e.g., de Campora, Giromini, Larciprete, Li Volsi & Zavattini, 2014;Giovannini et al, 2014;Giromini et al, 2012;Giromini, Brusadelli, Di Noto, Grasso & Lang, 2015). In our sample, Cronbach's alphas were as follows: .86 (Nonacceptance), .86 (Goals), .87 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 of depressed mood (3 items), (c) positive well-being (4 items), (d) self-control (3 items), (e) general health (3 items), and (f) vitality (4 items).…”