Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS): What It Measures

Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 16, 2026 · Editorial Policy

Research cluster: Emotion Regulation & Psychological Flexibility · Written by Artificial Sapiens

The Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS) is a self-report questionnaire designed to measure several kinds of difficulty people may experience when understanding, accepting, and responding to their emotions. Its original 36-item version assesses six related domains, including difficulties pursuing goals or controlling behavior while upset and a perceived lack of workable ways to regulate emotional distress. A higher score generally indicates more self-reported difficulties according to the scoring rules of that specific version. It does not diagnose a mental disorder. Gratz and Roemer (2004)

The distinction matters because emotional intensity, emotional dysregulation, psychological distress, and formal psychiatric diagnosis represent different questions. Someone may experience strong emotion yet remain capable of goal-directed action; another person may report few intense feelings but struggle to identify or tolerate the emotions they do experience. The DERS records a person's answers about recurring experiences and perceived abilities, not an independently observed test of regulatory skill. It can support research and a broader professional assessment when interpreted alongside history, circumstances, functional impact, and validated methods. National Child Traumatic Stress Network instrument review

What Is the DERS?

The DERS was developed by Kim L. Gratz and Lizabeth Roemer in 2004 to operationalize a multidimensional understanding of emotion regulation. Their framework treats regulatory functioning as involving awareness and understanding of emotions, willingness to accept emotional responses, access to strategies perceived as effective, and the capacity to act in desired ways during emotional arousal. The initial development research used undergraduate samples and presented reliability and validity evidence for a questionnaire intended to capture these different aspects of difficulty. That developmental history is useful context when a score is applied in settings that differ from the original samples. Original development and validation study

Emotion regulation refers broadly to processes influencing emotional experience, expression, intensity, duration, or the actions that follow. The DERS evaluates respondents' perceived difficulties with selected aspects of that broad domain. Its particular conceptual model should not be mistaken for a universal inventory of every regulatory mechanism. For example, it does not directly measure physiological recovery from stress, real-time strategy switching, situational flexibility, interpersonal support, or the actual success of instructed reappraisal in a laboratory. These would require different measures. Gross (2015), review of emotion regulation

The Six Original DERS Dimensions

The original DERS-36 is organized around six subscales. They describe distinguishable self-reported experiences, although their statistical boundaries vary by sample and model. Each dimension can be useful for interpreting a research profile, and each must be read in relation to its actual items rather than its label alone. Gratz and Roemer (2004)

1. Nonacceptance of emotional responses

Nonacceptance concerns secondary reactions such as shame, guilt, anger, or self-criticism about one's own distress. A person might feel sad and then judge that sadness as unacceptable, adding a second layer of suffering. This subscale is about the response to an emotion, not a moral verdict about the emotion itself. It also does not establish that the person practices or avoids any particular psychotherapy technique. A person can accept that fear is present while still working to change an avoidable threatening situation.

2. Difficulties engaging in goal-directed behavior

The Goals dimension concerns difficulty concentrating, completing tasks, or continuing goal-directed activity when upset. It does not mean that a person lacks goals, motivation, or executive functioning in every situation. A student who becomes unable to concentrate after a frightening event may endorse these experiences even if attention is usually well regulated. Context, intensity, duration, fatigue, and environmental demands all affect such responses. The items concern perceived disruption during distress, not an independently established attention disorder.

3. Impulse-control difficulties

The Impulse dimension addresses difficulty controlling behavior when distressed. This covers a perceived tendency to act in ways that are hard to restrain under emotional pressure. It does not measure all forms of impulsivity, nor does it by itself identify dangerous behavior, aggression, self-harm, ADHD, or any other diagnosis. When a person's actual behavior creates safety concerns, targeted clinical assessment of the behavior, risk, context, and immediate needs takes precedence over interpreting a general questionnaire score.

4. Lack of emotional awareness

Awareness concerns how much attention someone reports paying to their emotional experience. This dimension has attracted sustained psychometric debate because noticing feelings is conceptually different from how one responds after noticing them. A person may attend carefully to distress yet struggle to accept it; another person may notice feelings less explicitly while remaining effective in practical situations. Multiple analyses have found that Awareness behaves differently from the other subscales, sometimes reducing the consistency or interpretability of the full total score. Hallion et al. (2018)

5. Limited access to emotion-regulation strategies

The Strategies dimension captures a person's belief that manageable ways of responding to distress may be unavailable or ineffective. It measures perceived access rather than directly observing a repertoire of techniques or measuring each technique's real-world success. A temporary sense that distress will never improve can increase endorsement during a difficult period, even if external observers identify options the respondent has used before. Clinically, the perceived lack of options can be important to understand without concluding that the person objectively has no effective strategies.

6. Lack of emotional clarity

Clarity refers to difficulty knowing what one feels or making sense of emotional experience. It differs from Awareness: someone can know that an emotional response is occurring yet remain uncertain whether it is anger, fear, grief, or a blend. Likewise, a person can accurately label distress while still struggling with decisions or behavior. Self-reported clarity is not a neurological test of interoception, a diagnosis of alexithymia, or evidence of deficient intelligence. It is one aspect of how individuals understand their emotions.

How the Original DERS-36 Is Administered and Scored

The original questionnaire contains 36 statements and a five-point response scale describing how frequently each statement applies. The National Child Traumatic Stress Network lists the instrument as a self-report general assessment and gives an approximate completion time of eight minutes. Administration and scoring should use the exact wording, response options, reverse-keying instructions, and subscale composition supplied for the chosen version. Altering items or casually combining versions invalidates straightforward comparison with published research. NCTSN measure description

After appropriate reverse coding, item values in the 36-item original are commonly summed so that higher scores represent greater self-reported difficulties. The theoretical total-score range is 36–180. The number is a descriptive scale score: its meaning depends on which instrument was administered, the scoring convention, measurement error, the population, and the purpose of the assessment. The original subscales have unequal numbers of items, so their raw sums should not be treated as directly comparable magnitudes without considering scale length and scoring rules. Bjureberg et al. (2016)

A valid scoring procedure matters in both directions. Several items are worded to represent stronger awareness or clarity and therefore require reverse scoring under the original instructions. Missing responses must be addressed according to the applicable validated scoring protocol; guessing values or silently treating unanswered items as zero can distort totals. Reporting should identify the exact scale version and language, whether the score is a total or subscale score, whether Awareness was included, the response period or instructions, and any modifications or missing-data rules.

What does a high DERS score mean?

A higher score indicates that the respondent endorsed more frequent or stronger difficulties represented by the questionnaire items. It is not a measure of emotional 'badness,' a severity grade of a psychiatric disease, or evidence that someone is incapable of regulating emotion. The score can reflect genuinely recurrent obstacles, a recent stressful period, expectations about how a person should feel, current symptoms, or the way respondents interpret broad statements. Contextual interpretation and, when relevant, repeated assessment are essential. NCTSN instrument review

Is there a universal cutoff?

There is no single validated DERS cutoff that establishes an emotional-dysregulation diagnosis across ages, languages, populations, and scale versions. Studies may use distributions, sample-specific thresholds, statistical classifications, or contrasts between groups for a defined research purpose. Such thresholds do not automatically become clinical diagnostic boundaries. Any proposed cutoff requires evidence for its intended decision, population, sensitivity and specificity, and consequences of false positive and false negative classification. Readers should avoid interpreting a numerical score borrowed from an unrelated online calculator as a personal diagnosis.

DERS Versions: DERS-36, DERS-16, DERS-18, DERS-SF, and DERS-32

Several short forms were created to reduce administration burden and address psychometric concerns. Similar names can conceal material differences in item sets, factor coverage, scoring, and validation populations. A shorter questionnaire may be appropriate for repeated surveys or large studies, but a short form is not simply a mathematically scaled copy of the 36-item total. Research papers and clinical records should state the version exactly. Hallion et al. (2018)

DERS-36: the original reference instrument

The original DERS-36 includes six domains and is the historical reference for much of the literature. Its breadth provides a richer item pool, but the Awareness factor and the structure of a single overarching score have been questioned. The original total remains common in published research; investigators should interpret its components and assumptions transparently instead of inferring that longstanding use resolves all structural questions. Gratz and Roemer (2004)

DERS-16: brief assessment of global difficulty

Bjureberg and colleagues developed a 16-item form emphasizing overall emotion-regulation difficulties. Their analyses examined a clinical sample and two community samples and found promising reliability and convergent and discriminant validity for this shortened instrument. DERS-16 omits the original Awareness domain, so it should not be described as a six-subscale equivalent of the DERS-36. Its advantages in brevity depend on the construct the researcher actually wants to measure. Bjureberg et al. (2016)

DERS-18: a six-domain short form

Victor and Klonsky validated an 18-item version in five samples, retaining a compact representation of the original six dimensions. It offers a different compromise between coverage and brevity than DERS-16. The fact that multiple short forms show sound associations in some populations does not guarantee they will produce interchangeable total scores or identical relationships with every clinical outcome. Victor and Klonsky (2016)

DERS-SF: an alternative 18-item short form

Kaufman and colleagues developed the DERS-SF through research in adolescent and adult samples. It uses 18 items with six subscales and showed strong correspondence with the original measures in the development work. The acronym DERS-SF must not be treated as a synonym for the Victor–Klonsky DERS-18; they are distinct instruments with different selected items. Kaufman et al. (2016)

DERS-32: evidence from a structural meta-analysis

Raimondi and colleagues combined research on factor structure using meta-analytic structural equation modeling and found that a 32-item, six-factor solution fit the evaluated evidence especially well. They also tested that solution in an independent Italian sample. The result highlights the scientific importance of item-level model testing. It does not automatically establish DERS-32 as the best version for every population, clinical service, longitudinal intervention, language, or individual decision. Model fit is one form of validity evidence, not a universal clinical endorsement. Raimondi et al. (2024)

What Do Psychometric Studies Actually Support?

Psychometric validity is a collection of questions about how a score behaves and what interpretation it supports. Reliability addresses the consistency or stability of observed scores under stated conditions. Structural validity asks whether the hypothesized dimensions fit item responses. Convergent and discriminant validity examine expected relationships and distinctions between other constructs. Criterion-related studies explore whether scores predict external variables. Sensitivity to change concerns whether meaningful change can be detected over time. A good result on one property does not certify all the others.

Evidence from clinical samples

Hallion and colleagues studied 427 treatment-seeking adults with emotional disorders, examining the 36-item scale and three short forms. They found strong internal consistency for most original subscales but weaker performance for Awareness. In their analyses, removing Awareness improved aspects of total-score consistency, and short-form scores captured substantial information about symptoms and clinical severity. These findings support practical usefulness while making the composition of the total score an explicit methodological choice. Hallion et al. (2018)

Importantly, Hallion and colleagues also examined associations with treatment outcomes; the results should not be translated into a rule that DERS values prescribe which treatment to use. Correlation with symptom severity, change during treatment, and prediction of outcome involve different estimands and sources of bias. A questionnaire can improve as symptoms improve without proving that modification of the specific questionnaire construct caused the clinical change. Hallion et al. (2018)

What the 2026 comparative study adds

A 2026 study by Faulkenberry, Hicks, and Byllesby compared five DERS versions using confirmatory factor analyses in 618 college students recruited through a convenience sample. Their best-fitting evaluated model was a bifactor DERS-18, and the Awareness factor was again poorly defined. In analyses with MMPI-3 scales, the specific factors were related to internalizing difficulties, while connections to externalizing indicators were generally small or nonsignificant. This is informative evidence about measurement structure and construct overlap in that sample, not a final ranking of instruments for all clinical populations. Faulkenberry et al. (2026)

The study is especially relevant to claims that the DERS is a uniform measure of all behavioral dysregulation. Its results suggest that the substantive interpretation of the score can differ between internalizing distress and externalizing behavior, and that individual factors may matter more than a broad total for some questions. Its cross-sectional and predominantly student-sample design limits clinical transportability. Replication in diverse groups, with longitudinal and prospective criteria, remains an important direction. Faulkenberry et al. (2026)

The Awareness controversy

The most persistent structural concern involves Awareness. Paying attention to feelings is not necessarily the same psychological capacity as knowing what they mean, accepting them, regulating behavior during distress, or perceiving workable strategies. If Awareness items share less variance with the others, their inclusion can weaken the coherence of a general difficulty factor. Hallion and colleagues recommended excluding Awareness from certain composite interpretations or at least reporting it separately with caution. That recommendation arises from evidence in the studied populations and should be evaluated against the precise research purpose. Hallion et al. (2018)

A defensible paper therefore reports whether it used the original six-subscale total, a total excluding Awareness, or a designated alternative form. Changing the algorithm after inspecting outcome correlations can inflate apparent validity; the choice should ordinarily be prespecified and justified. For readers, disagreement about Awareness is a reason to ask which score was used rather than to conclude that every DERS study is unreliable.

What the DERS Measures—and What It Does Not

The DERS is best understood as an instrument for self-reported difficulties within one influential emotion-regulation model. It does not establish whether the person's emotion was appropriate to a situation. It does not quantify a nervous system's regulatory capacity, verify behavioral performance under controlled conditions, or independently measure stress physiology. Its items capture remembered patterns and interpretations, which are meaningful data but subject to response biases, social norms, memory, current affect, and measurement context. Gratz and Roemer (2004)

The scale is also different from the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ). The ERQ asks primarily about habitual use of cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression, whereas DERS covers several perceived regulatory difficulties. A person might rarely suppress emotional expression but still find emotions hard to clarify, or often use reappraisal and nevertheless report difficulty pursuing goals during intense distress. These are compatible patterns because the instruments address different constructs. Gross (2015)

Psychological flexibility, regulatory flexibility, cognitive flexibility, distress tolerance, emotional awareness, and experiential avoidance overlap conceptually with DERS domains but are not interchangeable scores. Psychological flexibility includes adaptive responding in relation to goals and values; regulatory flexibility involves sensitive strategy selection and adjustment to circumstances; cognitive flexibility concerns particular forms of shifting mental sets or representations. High correlation between scores does not remove the need to explain what each measure actually samples.

DERS in Research on Depression, Anxiety, Trauma, Personality, and Behavior

Emotion-regulation difficulties are associated with multiple forms of psychological distress, which is why DERS is often described as transdiagnostic. The broader literature on strategies shows substantial links between habitual responses such as rumination and avoidance and mental-health symptoms, although many studies are observational and do not resolve direction of causation. Specific conditions and mechanisms require evidence beyond a DERS questionnaire. Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema, and Schweizer (2010)

A statistically elevated DERS score in a group of people with anxiety, depression, trauma-related symptoms, or personality pathology is compatible with several explanations. Regulatory difficulties may contribute to distress, symptoms may increase perceived difficulty, common vulnerability factors may influence both, or processes may interact over time. Cross-sectional associations cannot establish a single causal sequence. This is important when interpreting mediation analyses that use DERS as one variable among several.

Research linking DERS to self-injury, suicidal thoughts, or other high-risk outcomes concerns associations in populations. An overall score should never substitute for direct assessment of current thoughts, intent, behavior, access to means, protective factors, and clinical judgment. When immediate safety risk exists, local emergency or crisis resources and qualified professional assessment are indicated regardless of the questionnaire total. Original DERS development context

For a narrower explanation of how this construct differs from a broad personality trait, see Neuroticism and Emotion Regulation: Strategies, Flexibility, and Distress. The relationship between DERS and ADHD-specific symptoms belongs to condition-focused research, and a relevant published analysis appears in Neuroticism and ADHD: Trait Associations, Comorbidity, and What They Mean. Neither published discussion should be read as a claim that DERS diagnoses either condition.

Age, Language, Culture, and Measurement Invariance

An instrument developed with adult undergraduates cannot automatically be assumed equivalent for children, older adults, different languages, or populations with different educational and clinical profiles. Translating a questionnaire introduces choices about words for feelings, how distress is expressed, and whether a response scale carries the same meaning. Validation in each setting should examine relevant factor structure, reliability, group comparability, and interpretation; familiar wording alone does not establish invariance.

Developmental versions and shortened forms have been examined in adolescents and adults, including the DERS-SF. These findings broaden the evidence base, but they do not make all questionnaire versions interchangeable for a particular child or teenager. Developmental stage, reading comprehension, caregiver context, local norms, and the suitability of self-report all matter. Kaufman et al. (2016)

Measurement invariance asks whether scores reflect comparable constructs across the groups or time points being contrasted. Without adequate invariance, an observed group difference may partly reflect how items function or are interpreted. Researchers should avoid ranking demographic groups by raw DERS totals without a relevant measurement argument. This is a methodological principle; it does not assert that every existing translation or group comparison is invalid.

Can the DERS Track Change Over Time?

Repeated DERS administration can describe changes in the respondent's reported difficulties, but meaningful change requires more than two different totals. Investigators need to consider measurement error, stability, floor and ceiling effects, missing values, the time interval, and whether the same scale version and administration procedures were used. Responsiveness should be established for the population and research purpose. The direction and magnitude of a change alone cannot establish why it happened.

A lower score after therapy or a stressful period may accompany improved coping, reduced symptom severity, changed beliefs about emotions, different life circumstances, or shifts in response style. A randomized intervention with appropriate mediation and temporal design can test some causal hypotheses more convincingly than an uncontrolled before-and-after comparison, but even significant mediation does not automatically validate a mechanistic explanation. DERS change and clinical outcome should be analyzed as related, distinct endpoints. Hallion et al. (2018)

Within clinical practice, repeated profiles may help organize a discussion about what has become easier or harder: accepting feelings, staying with tasks, acting deliberately, understanding emotions, or perceiving options. Clinical conversations can use these patterns constructively while preserving attention to safety, symptom history, impairment, and the patient's own priorities. A self-report scale does not replace a comprehensive interview.

How to Interpret DERS Results Responsibly

First, identify the instrument precisely: original DERS-36, DERS-16, Victor–Klonsky DERS-18, Kaufman DERS-SF, or another validated form. Record its language and the scoring method. A result labeled only 'DERS 70' without information about version and total construction is incomplete. Numbers from different forms should not be compared directly unless a validated linking method is available.

Second, examine the pattern alongside the total. An elevated Goals score may point toward difficulty continuing meaningful activity during distress; a higher Clarity score suggests perceived difficulty making sense of feelings; a higher Strategies score may signal limited confidence in available coping options. Those interpretations are descriptive starting points, not diagnostic classifications. The original dimensions sometimes overlap, so avoid inventing a single distinct psychological cause for each subscale.

Third, compare a respondent only with appropriate research norms or benchmarks when these exist, and explain the relevant sampling population. Fourth, consider whether acute stress, sleep disruption, a new medical problem, substance effects, medication changes, environmental threat, or a particular relationship situation could be influencing the answers. Fifth, use other measures or clinical evaluation for questions about symptoms, behavioral risk, functioning, and diagnosis.

Finally, report limitations. Self-report can be affected by response tendencies, present mood, and differences in understanding items. Reliability within a sample is not proof of diagnostic utility for an individual. A statistically reliable difference between groups need not be clinically important. Where a score is used to make a high-stakes decision, evidence for that specific use must be stronger than evidence that the instrument correlates with distress in published samples.

The DERS and Clinical Diagnosis: Essential Boundaries

Emotion dysregulation is a psychological construct describing patterns of difficulty with emotional processes and related behavior. It is not a standalone DSM or ICD diagnosis. DERS was developed to measure selected difficulties and has been used in studies involving many different symptom groups. A high score cannot establish depression, generalized anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, borderline personality disorder, bipolar disorder, ADHD, autism, or psychosis, and a low score cannot rule any of them out. Gratz and Roemer (2004)

Diagnosis depends on disorder-specific criteria, time course, functional impairment, differential assessment, and qualified clinical evaluation. Some acute presentations require urgent decisions that cannot wait for self-report interpretation: escalating suicidality or self-injury risk, psychotic symptoms, severe mania, marked confusion, or sudden neurological symptoms. DERS is not an emergency triage tool. When a person may be in immediate danger, use appropriate local emergency services and direct professional care.

DERS also should not be used to infer whether someone is telling the truth about their emotions, whether another person is 'emotionally healthy,' or whether a family member's reaction is legitimate. Individual results are sensitive personal information; consent, privacy, and responsible explanation are especially important when questionnaires are used at school, work, or in digital applications.

Practical Examples of What a DERS Profile Could Mean

A person who can name emotions but cannot concentrate when upset

This person may report relatively little difficulty on Clarity while endorsing more difficulty on Goals. The pattern suggests perceived interference between emotional arousal and purposeful activity. Further questions would examine whether the disruption occurs during ordinary stress, specific interpersonal events, anxiety episodes, sleep loss, or other circumstances, and what helps the person return to tasks. The profile does not establish executive dysfunction or a particular clinical disorder.

A person who notices feelings but feels ashamed of them

This pattern may involve high emotional awareness alongside stronger nonacceptance. Attempts to suppress or criticize feelings can coexist with accurate identification of what is being felt. A productive educational response is to recognize that noticing emotion and accepting its existence are separable capacities. The DERS does not reveal which individual practice would be most helpful without additional information.

A person who believes no coping strategy will work

Higher Strategies scores can reflect a perceived lack of workable options. That experience deserves attention even when the person possesses techniques that have worked before. Anxiety, depression, extreme stress, and repeated failed attempts may influence expectations about effectiveness. Collaborative examination of past experiences and available support may clarify the context; an online score alone cannot determine a treatment plan.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is DERS an emotional dysregulation test?

It is a standardized self-report measure of selected difficulties in emotion regulation. In everyday language it may be called a 'test,' but it does not independently diagnose emotional dysregulation as a disease or establish the presence of a particular psychiatric condition. Its scientific value depends on the instrument version, validation evidence, and intended interpretation.

How many questions are in the DERS?

The original DERS has 36 items. DERS-16 has 16; the Victor–Klonsky DERS-18 and Kaufman DERS-SF each have 18; the proposed DERS-32 factor solution uses 32. These instruments share a historical source but differ in content and intended measurement structure. Bjureberg et al. (2016); Raimondi et al. (2024)

Does a higher DERS score always mean worse emotion regulation?

It means a higher level of endorsed difficulties for the questionnaire items under the relevant scoring rules. A person's real-world abilities, contextual flexibility, and functional outcomes are more complex than a single self-report total. Score interpretation also depends on whether Awareness is included and which validated short form was used.

Can I calculate my DERS score online?

A calculator can add correctly coded responses, but numerical accuracy is only the first step. Online reproductions may use altered wording, ambiguous reverse scoring, incomplete items, or unexplained norms. A self-calculated score should be treated as educational information rather than evidence of a diagnosis or a directive to seek a particular treatment.

Is the DERS reliable?

Many studies report useful reliability evidence, particularly for several non-Awareness domains. Reliability varies with version, sample, subscale, and how the general factor is modeled. The Awareness dimension has recurring psychometric concerns, and recent comparison studies underline the importance of specifying exactly what was scored. Hallion et al. (2018); Faulkenberry et al. (2026)

Which DERS version should researchers choose?

The selection should follow the intended construct, population, burden, relevant validation data, comparability requirements, and preregistered analysis plan. DERS-36 offers historical comparability, DERS-16 offers a brief global measure without Awareness, and the 18-item forms provide different shortened multidimensional approaches. The 2024 and 2026 structural findings are useful inputs, not one universal answer. Raimondi et al. (2024); Faulkenberry et al. (2026)

Does DERS measure emotional intelligence or psychological flexibility?

No. It overlaps with aspects of emotional understanding and regulatory difficulty but is not a comprehensive test of emotional intelligence, regulatory flexibility, or psychological flexibility. These constructs have different theories, operational definitions, and measurement requirements. Substituting DERS for them risks a misleading interpretation even when scores correlate.

Can DERS scores prove that therapy works?

A change in DERS may be one outcome within an appropriately designed evaluation. It does not, alone, prove treatment efficacy or explain a causal mechanism. Such conclusions require suitable comparison conditions, careful outcome selection, appropriate statistical analysis, and evaluation of alternative explanations.

Related Articles

Neuroticism and Emotion Regulation: Strategies, Flexibility, and Distress — explores the distinction between a personality trait, emotion-regulation strategies, and perceived regulatory difficulty.

Neuroticism and ADHD: Trait Associations, Comorbidity, and What They Mean — explains the boundaries among trait neuroticism, ADHD-specific features, and measures of emotional dysregulation.

The Process Model of Emotion Regulation Explained — Maps situation selection, situation modification, attentional deployment, cognitive change, and response modulation to the unfolding emotional process.

Emotion Regulation Flexibility: Context, Strategy Choice, and Goals — Examines context-sensitive strategy selection, monitoring, feedback, and switching, along with their methodological challenges.

Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ): What It Measures — Explains the ERQ's reappraisal and suppression scales, research uses, interpretation, and limits of self-report measurement.

Rumination and Emotion Regulation: How They Relate — Explores repetitive negative thinking as a potential maintaining process and distinguishes rumination from reflection and active problem-solving.

References

Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schweizer, S. (2010). Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(2), 217–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.004

Bjureberg, J., Ljótsson, B., Tull, M. T., et al. (2016). Development and validation of a brief version of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale: The DERS-16. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 38, 284–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-015-9514-x

Faulkenberry, R. S., Hicks, A. D., & Byllesby, B. M. (2026). Examining the measurement and validity of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale and its short forms. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 82, 1413–1422. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.70170

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, 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOBA.0000007455.08539.94

Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological Inquiry, 26(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2014.940781

Hallion, L. S., Steinman, S. A., Tolin, D. F., & Diefenbach, G. J. (2018). Psychometric properties of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS) and its short forms in adults with emotional disorders. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 539. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00539

Kaufman, E. A., Xia, M., Fosco, G., Yaptangco, M., Skidmore, C. R., & Crowell, S. E. (2016). The Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale Short Form (DERS-SF): Validation and replication in adolescent and adult samples. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 38, 443–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-015-9529-3

National Child Traumatic Stress Network. (n.d.). Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale: Measure description and administration information. https://www.nctsn.org/measures/difficulties-emotion-regulation-scale

Raimondi, G., et al. (2024). Meta-analysis of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale and its short forms: A two-part study. Journal of Clinical Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.23695

Victor, S. E., & Klonsky, E. D. (2016). Validation of a brief version of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS-18) in five samples. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 38, 582–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-016-9547-9