Identifying self-report measures of emotion regulation and evaluating their psychometric properties: a protocol for a systematic review

Abstract

IntroductionSuccessful emotion regulation (ER) is critical for psychological health. Disturbances in this ability are associated with several psychiatric disorders. There are several self-report questionnaires to assess ER. However, there are no studies synthesising the evidence on their psychometric properties. We aim to identify all available instruments addressing ER in adolescents or adults and to critically appraise, compare and summarise the quality of their psychometric properties. For this, we will use COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) criteria.Method and analysisThe search process to identify eligible studies will be conducted in April 2021 including the ProQuest, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases with no restriction in terms of publication date. Eligibility criteria include peer-reviewed research articles written in English or Spanish by means of patient-reported outcome measures focused on ER among participants of 13 years or older. We will assess the quality of measures according to the COSMIN Risk of Bias Checklist. The psychometric properties will be assessed by the COSMIN updated criteria for good measurement. The available evidence will be addressed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach. Our findings will be synthesised independently for each measure, including information on their sample, theoretical model and psychometric properties when possible.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required, as this study does not involve any participants or collection of primary data. Results are expected to be published in a peer-reviewed journal in the field of youth mental health and presented at relevant meetings and conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021249498.

Coping and emotion regulation: A conceptual and measurement scoping review.

“…Despite an increasing effort to unite coping and emotion regulation from a conceptual standpoint (Compas et al, 2014; Stanisławski, 2019; Troy et al, 2023), virtually all reviews of their self-reported measures have been led in parallel, which limits the appreciation of similarities and distinctions. Among those reviewed, most validated scales focused on strategies typically used, as a disposition (trait like), by nonclinical adult samples (Greenaway et al, 2014; Kato, 2015; Núñez et al, 2022; Penley et al, 2002; Zaid et al, 2021). Besides, a growing field is emerging on intensive longitudinal assessment methodologies that permit a better consideration of the contexts in which such strategies are implemented (i.e., in-the-moment coping/emotion regulation; state like), with most reviews targeting emotion regulation (Boemo et al, 2022; Schatten et al, 2020).…”

“…Relevant data from each retained article was then extracted (Stage 4). As done in prior reviews (Núñez et al, 2022; Zaid et al, 2021) and suggested elsewhere (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Peters et al, 2015), we coded the following elements for each coping and emotion regulation measure: name, year of publication, country of study completion, structure of the measure (e.g., construct evaluated, number of items, strategies covered, time frame, context, and response options), sample characteristics, and psychometric properties. As psychometric properties, we retained internal consistency for multi-item validated scales and intraclass correlations (ICC) for the intensive longitudinal assessments, as they were the ones available for most measures.…”

“…Over the years, distinct theoretical frameworks of coping and emotion regulation have been developed, reflecting underlying differences in how these constructs are conceptualized. Here, we report on selected prominent frameworks and invite interested readers to dive into detailed reviews elsewhere (e.g., Compas et al, 2014;Núñez et al, 2022;Stanisławski, 2019). Initial theories and research on coping trace back as early as the 1960s (Coehlo et al, 1974;Lazarus, 1966;Pearlin & Schooler, 1978).…”