Evidence Base Update for Questionnaires of Emotion Regulation and Reactivity for Children and Adolescents. Issue 6 (2nd November 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Mazefsky, Carla A.; Conner, Caitlin M.; Breitenfeldt, Kaitlyn; Leezenbaum, Nina; Chen, Qi; Bylsma, Lauren M.; Pilkonis, Paul
• Is Part Of: Journal of clinical child and adolescent psychology. Volume 50:Issue 6(2021)
• Page Start: 683
• Page End: 707
• Publication Date: 2021-11-02
• Subjects: Child psychology -- Periodicals; Child psychiatry -- Periodicals; Adolescent psychology -- Periodicals; Adolescent psychiatry -- Periodicals; Adolescent Psychology -- Periodicals; Child Psychology -- Periodicals; Psychology, Clinical -- Periodicals; Adolescent psychiatry; Adolescent psychology; Child psychiatry; Child psychology; Periodicals; 155.4
• DOI: 10.1080/15374416.2021.1955372
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1537-4416

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Objective: Emotion regulation (ER) is a multi-faceted and dynamic process relevant to both normative emotional development and transdiagnostic emotional dysfunction for a range of psychological disorders. There has been tremendous growth in ER research over the past decade, including the development of numerous new measures to assess ER. This Evidence Base Update included a systematic review to identify self- and informant-report questionnaire measures of ER for children and adolescents, including measures of ER strategies and effectiveness (or emotion dysregulation).Methods: PubMed, PsycInfo, and Health and Psychosocial Instruments databases were searched using the terms emotion OR affect AND regulation OR control OR reactivity OR response, as well as terms related to questionnaires and psychometrics, restricted to articles on youth (< 18 years old). Each measure's psychometrics was evaluated based on modified criteria by De Los Reyes and Langer (2018).Results: Nine-hundred ninety-seven papers were identified yielding 87 measures that met inclusion for review. Although the majority (60%) of identified ER measures could not be recommended based on these criteria, 8% were Excellent, 14% were Good, and 17% were Adequate. The recommended measures included: 11 general ER measures (5 focused on strategies, 5 focused on dysregulation/ effectiveness), 13 measures of ER as it relates to specific emotions or contexts such as irritability or peer stress (4 focused on strategies, 9 focused on dysregulation/effectiveness), and 11 measures of other constructs that include an ER subscale (all focused on dysregulation). Conclusions: The characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses of the recommended ER measures are described in order to guide measure selection for clinical or research uses. A synthesis of themes identified during this review includes commonly observed areas of weakness and gaps in the literature to provide a foundation for future research and measure development.