No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
Natasha Benfera, Joseph R. Bardeena* , Thomas A. Fergusb & Travis A. Rogersaa Department of Psychology, Auburn University; b Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Baylor UniversitySupplemental data for this article can be accessed on the publisher's website.CONTACT Joseph R. Bardeen jbardeen@auburn.edu Department of Psychology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36832.AbstractThe Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS; Gratz & Roemer, 2004) is a self-report measure that assesses six facets of emotion dysregulation. A modified version of the DERS (M–DERS) was developed to address psychometric limitations of the original measure (Bardeen, Fergus, Hannan, & Orcutt, 2016). Although the factor structure of the M–DERS (i.e., two models: correlated trait and second-order models) has been supported via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), the tenability of a bifactor model of the M–DERS has yet to be examined. Preliminary research suggests that a bifactor model of the M–DERS is tenable. In this study (Ns of 993 and 578), results from a series of CFAs indicated adequate fit of the M–DERS and poor fit of the original DERS across several tested models (e.g., correlated trait, second-order, bifactor). Although a considerable amount of variance was accounted for by the general factor, statistical indexes from the bifactor model supported a multidimensional conceptualization of the M–DERS. The Nonacceptance and Goals subscales evidenced incremental utility, after accounting for the general factor, in predicting general distress (Nonacceptance only) and intolerance of uncertainty. Implications for future use of the DERS and M–DERS are discussed.
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 34 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.