Cited by 165Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyMindfulness and Compassion Interventions

Development and Validation of a State-Based Measure of Emotion Dysregulation: The State Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (S-DERS)

Open access
Lavender, Jason M., Tull, Matthew T., DiLillo, David, Messman-Moore, Terri, Gratz, Kim L.·2017·Assessment

Abstract

Existing measures of emotion dysregulation typically assess dispositional tendencies and are therefore not well suited for study designs that require repeated assessments over brief intervals. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a state-based multidimensional measure of emotion dysregulation. Psychometric properties of the State Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (S-DERS) were examined in a large representative community sample of young adult women drawn from four sites ( N = 484). Exploratory factor analysis suggested a four-factor solution, with results supporting the internal consistency, construct validity, and predictive validity of the total scale and the four subscales: Nonacceptance (i.e., nonacceptance of current emotions), Modulate (i.e., difficulties modulating emotional and behavioral responses in the moment), Awareness (i.e., limited awareness of current emotions), and Clarity (i.e., limited clarity about current emotions). S-DERS scores were significantly associated with trait-based measures of emotion dysregulation, affect intensity/reactivity, experiential avoidance, and mindfulness, as well as measures of substance use problems. Moreover, significant associations were found between the S-DERS and state-based laboratory measures of emotional reactivity, even when controlling for the corresponding original DERS scales. Results provide preliminary support for the reliability and validity of the S-DERS as a state-based measure of 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 · 10.1177/1073191115601218

Cites

68 of 68 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?

  • S-DERS non-acceptance demonstrated convergent validity, showing significant moderate-to-large correlations with the DERS non-acceptance subscale (r=.44) and the AAQ (r=.41).

    “Non-acceptance demonstrated convergent validity, showing significant moderate-to-large correlations with the DERS non-acceptance subscale ( r= .44) and the AAQ ( r =.41).”

    From Psychometric properties of acceptance measures: A systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as Lavender et al. (2017)

    The Results section (‘Validity of the S-DERS’; page unavailable) reports moderate correlations between corresponding S-DERS and original DERS subscales and a positive association between S-DERS Nonacceptance and the AAQ. The passages available from our copy do not give the claimed coefficients of r=.44 and r=.41, so those exact values cannot be verified. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Despite being styled on the DERS, EFA demonstrated a different factor solution for the S-DERS; four of the original six factors remained, one of which was the non-acceptance scale.

    “Despite being styled on the DERS, EFA demonstrated a different factor solution; four of the original six factors remained, one of which was the non-acceptance scale.”

    From Psychometric properties of acceptance measures: A systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as Lavender et al. (2017)

    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 S-DERS was developed to assess emotional regulation difficulties at a particular moment in time.

    “Lavender, Tull, DiLillo, Messman-Moore, and Gratz (2017) developed the S-DERS with the aim of assessing emotional regulation difficulties at a particular moment in time”

    From Psychometric properties of acceptance measures: A systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as Lavender, Tull, DiLillo, Messman-Moore, and Gratz (2017)

  • Internal consistency of the S-DERS non-acceptance scale was excellent (α=.92).

    “However, internal consistency of the non-acceptance scale was excellent (α=.92).”

    From Psychometric properties of acceptance measures: A systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as Lavender et al. (2017)

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

2 of the 70 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lavender, J. M., Tull, M. T., DiLillo, D., Messman-Moore, T., & Gratz, K. L.
Affiliations
  • Neuropsychiatric Research Institute (US)
  • University of Mississippi Medical Center (US)
  • University of Nebraska–Lincoln (US)
  • Miami University, Oxford, OH, USA
Corresponding author
Lavender, Jason M.
Venue
Assessment
Published
2016-07-27
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
197-209
ISSN
  • 1073-1911 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3489
OpenAlex
W2126477718
Cited by
164
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
5.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Assessment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Lincoln (University of Nebraska) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health (K23MH101342)
  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
  • 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 › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Keywords
emotional dysregulation, emotional reactivity, emotional awareness, emotional clarity, experiential avoidance, mindfulness, problematic substance use, young adult women, scale development and validation
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Affective Symptoms, Arousal, Character, Female, Humans, Life Change Events, Personality Assessment, Prospective Studies, Psychometrics, Substance-Related Disorders, Young Adult, Emotional Intelligence

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