Psychometric properties of a Turkish version of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale

• Published in: Journal of clinical psychology Vol. 66; no. 4; pp. 442 - 455
• Main Authors: RUGANCI, R. Neslihan, GENCÖZ, Tülin
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Hoboken Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company 01.04.2010; Wiley; Wiley Periodicals Inc
• Subjects: Adult; Affective Symptoms - diagnosis; Affective Symptoms - psychology; Biological and medical sciences; Clinical psychology; College students; Emotional disorders; Emotions; Factor Analysis, Statistical; Female; Humans; Male; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Psychological Tests - standards; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry; Psychometrics; Psychometrics. Diagnostic aid systems; Psychopathology. Psychiatry; Quantitative psychology; Self-Assessment; Stress, Psychological - diagnosis; Students; Surveys and Questionnaires - standards; Techniques and methods; Turkey; Universities; Young Adult; Turkey; Human; Affect affectivity; Foreign language version; Factor analysis; Evaluation scale; University environment; Internal consistency; Psychometrics; Emotion emotionality; Student; Test reliability; Intertrial interval; Turkish; Test validation; Construct validity; Psychological distress; Convergent validity; Self regulation; Predictive validity
• ISSN: 0021-9762; 1097-4679
• DOI: 10.1002/jclp.20665

This study aimed to examine the psychometric properties of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS; developed by Gratz & Roemer, 2004) in a Turkish sample. For this purpose, first, the factor structure of the scale was examined with a sample of 338 university students, and an identical factor structure with the original scale was obtained with the exclusion of a single item. Following the confirmation of the 6‐factor structure of the scale with the current Turkish sample, the whole scale's and its six subscales' reliability coefficients were examined via internal consistency and test‐retest reliability coefficients. These reliability analyses indicated satisfactory coefficients. As for the concurrent validity, the correlations of DERS and its subscales with measures of psychological distress were examined. This examination generally revealed strong correlations, although the awareness factor of DERS had relatively weaker correlations with the measures of psychological distress. Finally, concerning the criterion validity, all the measures of DERS could significantly differentiate the participants with “high psychological distress” from those with “low psychological distress”; however, for the awareness subscale the effect size was small. These findings were discussed in line with the relevant literature. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Psychol 66:1–14, 2010.