Cited by 1,081Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

Development and Validation of a Brief Version of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale: The DERS-16

Open access
Bjureberg, Johan, Ljótsson, Brjánn, Tull, Matthew T., Hedman, Erik, Sahlin, Hanna, Lundh, Lars-Gunnar, Bjärehed, Jonas, DiLillo, David +3 more·2016·Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment

Abstract

The Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS) is a widely-used, theoretically-driven, and psychometrically-sound self-report measure of emotion regulation difficulties. However, at 36-items, the DERS may be challenging to administer in some situations or settings (e.g., in the course of patient care or large-scale epidemiological studies). Consequently, there is a need a briefer version of the DERS. The goal of the present studies was to develop and evaluate a 16-item version of the DERS - the DERS-16. The reliability and validity of the DERS-16 were examined in a clinical sample (N = 96) and two large community samples (Ns = 102 and 482). The validity of the DERS-16 was evaluated comparing the relative strength of the association of the two versions of the DERS with measures of emotion regulation and related constructs, psychopathology, and clinically-relevant behaviors theorized to stem from emotion regulation deficits. Results demonstrate that the DERS-16 has retained excellent internal consistency, good test-retest reliability, and good convergent and discriminant validity. Further, the DERS-16 showed minimal differences in its convergent and discriminant validity with relevant measures when compared to the original DERS. In conclusion, the DERS-16 offers a valid and brief method for the assessment of overall emotion regulation difficulties.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10862-015-9514-x

Cites

76 of 76 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A total score was calculated using the remaining five DERS subscales (30 items total), consistent with the DERS-SF-5; the α for the included scales ranged from .82 to .90.

    “A total score was calculated using the remaining five subscales (30 items total), consistent with a recently developed short-form measure (DERS-SF-5; Bjureberg et al., 2016). The α for the included scales ranged from .82 to .90.”

    From Facets of Mindfulness Mediate the Relationship Between Attachment Orientation and Emotion Regulation in University Students (2024) · cites this paper as Bjureberg et al., 2016

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The DERS-16 has good psychometric properties in adolescents.

    “The DERS-16 has good psychometric properties in adolescents [159]”

    From Efficacy of a transdiagnostic Internet prevention approach in adolescents (EMPATIA study): study protocol of a randomized controlled trial (2024) · cites this paper as [159]

    The Discussion reports satisfactory psychometric properties for the DERS-16, but the studied samples were adults, not adolescents. Study 1 required participants to be over 18; Study 2 recruited adults and young adult women. The paper therefore does not establish the claim specifically for adolescents. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale has shown acceptable test-retest reliability and internal consistency in adolescent populations.

    “It uses a 5-point Likert scale and has shown acceptable test-retest reliability and internal consistency in adolescent populations [137-140].”

    From Family Support Protocol for Adolescent Internalizing Disorders: Protocol for a Pre-Post Quantitative Treatment Development Study (2024) · cites this paper as [137]

    The Results (Reliability of the DERS-16; page unavailable) report excellent internal consistency and good test-retest reliability. But Study 1 enrolled women over 18, and Study 2 describes adult samples (Participants and Procedure[s]; pages unavailable). The paper does not establish those reliability findings in adolescent populations. Study 1 (Measures; page unavailable) also confirms the 5-point response scale. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The DERS has moderate to very strong internal consistency (α=.69-.97) and strong retest reliability (r=0.88; ρI=0.85).

    “The DERS’s psychometric properties are favorable, having moderate to very strong internal consistency (α=.69-.97) and strong retest reliability (r=0.88; ρI=0.85) [29, 46-49].”

    From A Virtual Reality-Assisted Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for and With Inuit in Québec: Protocol for a Proof-of-Concept Randomized Controlled Trial (2023) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Results sections report excellent internal consistency for the 36-item DERS and DERS-16 (α=.92–.95) and good test–retest reliability for the DERS-16 (ρI=.85). They do not substantiate the stated α=.69–.97 range or r=.88 retest value, and the reported retest result applies specifically to the DERS-16. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The DERS-16 reported good test-retest reliability and excellent internal consistency.

    “DERS-16 reported good test–retest reliability [46] and excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s alphas between 0.87 and 0.96) [47].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bjureberg, J., Ljótsson, B., Tull, M. T., Hedman, E., Sahlin, H., Lundh, L.-G., Bjärehed, J., DiLillo, D., Messman-Moore, T., Gumpert, C. H., & Gratz, K. L.
Affiliations
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
  • University of Mississippi Medical Center (US)
  • Lund University (SE)
  • University of Nebraska–Lincoln (US)
Corresponding author
Bjureberg, Johan
Venue
Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment
Published
2015-09-14
Volume
38
Issue
2
Pages
284-296
ISSN
  • 0164-0305 (ISSN-L)
  • 0882-2689
  • 1573-3505
OpenAlex
W2172838886
Cited by
1,081
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 217 · 2025: 186 · 2024: 170 · 2023: 151 · 2022: 128 · 2021: 104 · 2020: 61 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 1
FWCI
13.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD062226)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale, emotional dysregulation, scale shortening, psychometric validation, self-report measures, psychopathology, convergent and discriminant validity, test-retest reliability, internal consistency

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review