CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2Psychometric Methodologies and TestingAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Research Topics

Cognitive emotion regulation questionnaire: Evidence of internal structure through confirmatory factor modeling and exploratory structural equation modeling

Open access
Flores-Kanter, Pablo Ezequiel, Moretti, Luciana, García-Batista, Zoilo Emilio, Medrano, Leonardo·2025·PLOS One
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0326319PMC PMC12180731
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire is one of the most widely used instruments to measure cognitive emotion regulation, and its psychometric properties have been evaluated in various studies and cultural contexts. However, the 9-factor internal structure originally proposed for the scale measures does not present consistent evidence in the literature. The exclusive use of the confirmatory factor modeling in previous literature may largely explain this inconsistency. In the present research, we propose to estimate innovative measurement models for this questionnaire, the exploratory structural equation modeling. For this purpose, we worked with a large sample of Argentines of 6881 Argentine adults aged between 18 and 81 (M = 27.14, SD = 9.86; 69.6% female; 86.4% not being in psychological or psychiatric treatment) and compared the fit of the models. The results favored the exploratory structural equation model (χ2 = 4092.89, df = 342, CFI = .982, SRMR = .013, RMSEA = .04), indicating that we are not observing indicators that reflect simple factorial structures. Based on the results of the present study, it can be concluded that the simple 9-factor structure traditionally proposed for the CERQ does not exhibit adequate model fit. This finding suggests the need for caution among applied psychologists and clinical researchers who interpret scale scores as if they reflect distinct, unidimensional factors. The common practice of generating summed scores across items associated with each of the originally proposed factors may therefore be questionable. A more nuanced understanding of the questionnaire’s internal structure may ultimately enhance the reliability and interpretability of CERQ scores in both clinical and applied settings, thereby improving the quality of psychological assessment and intervention outcomes.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0326319

Cites

4 of 4 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?

  • Some evidence among healthy adults suggests that the factorial structure of the CERQ may be inconsistent across groups.

    “Though adaptive coping skills measured with the CERQ have routinely been examined as a latent factor in prior work focused on IPV and substance misuse (e.g., Flanagan et al., 2025; Forkus et al., 2025; Weiss et al., 2021), some evidence among healthy adults suggests that the factorial structure of this measure may be inconsistent across groups (Flores-Kanter et al., 2025).”

    From Negative Urgency, Emotion Regulation, and Intimate Partner Violence Severity in High Risk Couples with Alcohol Use Disorders. (2026) · cites this paper as Flores-Kanter et al., 2025

    The Introduction and Conclusion report inconsistent evidence for the CERQ’s proposed nine-factor structure and inadequate fit in this study. The Methods describe a sample of Argentine adults, most of whom were not in psychological or psychiatric treatment, but the Discussion says the results were not tested across independent samples or replicated in other populations. The paper therefore supports concern about the factorial structure, not a finding that it differs across groups. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. [2]Ford BQ, Gross JJ, Gruber J. Broadening our field of view: The role of emotion polyregulation. Emot Rev. 2019; 11(3): 197– 208.
  2. [4]Flores-Kanter PE, García-Batista ZE, Moretti LS, Medrano LA. Towards an Explanatory Model of Suicidal Ideation: The Effects of Cognitive Emotional Regulation Strategies, Affectivity and Hopelessness. Span J Psychol. 2019; 22:E43. doi: 10.1017/sjp.2019.45 31679556 · DOI
  3. [5]Flores Kanter PE, Medrano LA. Commentary: Putting ‘emotional intelligences’ in their place: Introducing the integrated model of affect-related individual differences. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020; 11: 574. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00574 32300322 PMC7142235 · DOI
  4. [6]Bornas X, Tortella-Feliu M, Balle M, Llabrés J. Self-focused cognitive emotion regulation style as associated with widespread diminished EEG fractal dimension. Int J Psychol. 2013; 48(4): 695– 703. doi: 10.1080/00207594.2012.671945 22519470 · DOI
  5. [7]Garnefski N, Kraaij V, Spinhoven P. Negative life events, cognitive emotion regulation and emotional problems. Personal Individ Differ. 2001; 30(8): 1311– 27.
  6. [9]Domínguez-Sánchez FJ, Lasa-Aristu A, Amor PJ, Holgado-Tello FP. Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire. Assessment. 2013; 20(2): 253– 61. doi: 10.1177/1073191110397274 21467092 · DOI
  7. [11]Medrano LA, Moretti L, Ortiz Á, Pereno GL. Validación del cuestionario de regulación emocional en universitarios de Córdoba. Psykhe Santiago. 2013; 22(1): 83– 96.
  8. [12]Schäfer JL, Cibils Filho BR, de Moura TC, Tavares VC, Arteche AX, Kristensen CH. Psychometric properties of the Brazilian version of the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire. Trends Psychiatry Psychother. 2018; 40(2): 160– 9. doi: 10.1590/2237-6089-2017-0074 29995160 · DOI
  9. [14]Tuna E, Bozo Ö. The Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire: Factor Structure and Psychometric Properties of the Turkish Version. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2012; 34(4): 564– 70.
  10. [15]Lee DJ, Thompson-Hollands J, Strage MF, Marx BP, Unger W, Beck JG, et al. Latent Factor Structure and Construct Validity of the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire-Short Form Among Two PTSD Samples. Assessment. 2020; 27(3): 423– 31. doi: 10.1177/1073191118791301 30043646 PMC6591115 · DOI
  11. [17]Zelkowitz RL, Cole DA. Measures of Emotion Reactivity and Emotion Regulation: Convergent and Discriminant Validity. Pers Individ Dif. 2016; 102: 123– 32. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.045 31507307 PMC6736644 · DOI
  12. [18]Zhu X, Auerbach RP, Yao S, Abela JRZ, Xiao J, Tong X. Psychometric properties of the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire: Chinese version. Cogn Emot. 2008; 22(2): 288– 307.
  13. [19]Marsh HW, Morin AJS, Parker PD, Kaur G. Exploratory structural equation modeling: an integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. 2014; 10(1): 85– 110. 24313568
  14. [20]Gillet N, Caesens G, Morin AJS, Stinglhamber F. Complementary variable- and person-centred approaches to the dimensionality of work engagement: a longitudinal investigation. Eur J Work Organ Psychol. 2019; 28(2): 239– 58.
  15. [21]Xiao Y, Liu H, Hau KT. A comparison of CFA, ESEM, and BSEM in test structure analysis. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2019; 26(5): 665– 77.
  16. [22]Morin AJS, Arens AK, Marsh HW. A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling framework for the identification of distinct sources of construct-relevant psychometric multidimensionality. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2016; 23(1): 116– 39.
  17. [23]Asparouhov T, Muthén B. Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 2009; 16(3): 397– 438.
  18. [24]Asparouhov T, Muthén B, Morin AJS. Bayesian structural equation modeling with cross-loadings and residual covariances: comments on Stromeyer et al. J Manag. 2015; 41(6): 1561– 77.
  19. [25]Marsh HW, Guo J, Dicke T, Parker PD, Craven RG. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM), and Set-ESEM: Optimal Balance Between Goodness of Fit and Parsimony. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 2020; 55(1): 102– 19. 31204844
  20. [26]Wolf EJ, Harrington KM, Clark SL, Miller MW. Sample Size Requirements for Structural Equation Models: An Evaluation of Power, Bias, and Solution Propriety. Educ Psychol Meas. 2013; 76(6): 913– 34. doi: 10.1177/0013164413495237 25705052 PMC4334479 · DOI · Paper page
  21. [27]Ulitzsch E, Lüdtke O, Robitzsch A. Alleviating estimation problems in small sample structural equation modeling-A comparison of constrained maximum likelihood, Bayesian estimation, and fixed reliability approaches. Psychol Methods. 2023; 28(3): 527– 57. doi: 10.1037/met0000435 34928675 · DOI
  22. [28]American Psychological Association. Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Am Psychol. 2002; 57(12): 1060– 73. 12613157
  23. [29]The International Test Commission. International guidelines on computer-based and internet-delivered testing. Int J Test. 2006; 6(2): 143– 71.
  24. [30]Weigold A, Weigold IK, Russell EJ. Examination of the equivalence of self-report survey-based paper-and-pencil and internet data collection methods. Psychol Methods. 2013; 18(1): 53– 70. doi: 10.1037/a0031607 23477606 · DOI
  25. [31]Flores-Kanter PE, Moretti L, Medrano LA. A narrative review of emotion regulation process in stress and recovery phases. Heliyon. 2021; 7(6):e07218. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07218 34179528 PMC8213899 · DOI
  26. [32]Rhemtulla M, Brosseau-Liard PÉ, Savalei V. When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychol Methods. 2012; 17(3): 354– 73. doi: 10.1037/a0029315 22799625 · DOI · Paper page
  27. [33]Flora DB, Curran PJ. An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychol Methods. 2004; 9(4): 466– 91. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.9.4.466 15598100 PMC3153362 · DOI
  28. [34]Garrido LE, Abad FJ, Ponsoda V. A new look at Horn’s parallel analysis with ordinal variables. Psychol Methods. 2013; 18(4): 454– 74. doi: 10.1037/a0030005 23046000 · DOI
  29. [35]Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992; 112(1): 155– 9. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155 19565683 · DOI · Paper page
  30. [36]Schreiber JB, Nora A, Stage FK, Barlow EA, King J. Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: a review. J Educ Res. 2006; 99(6): 323– 38.
  31. [37]Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 1999; 6(1): 1– 55.
  32. [38]Flores-Kanter PE, Toro R, Alvarado JM. Internal structure of Beck hopelessness scale: An analysis of method effects using the CT-C(M–1) model. J Pers Assess. 2021; 1– 9. 34227922
  33. [39]Mai Y, Zhang Z, Wen Z. Comparing exploratory structural equation modeling and existing approaches for multiple regression with latent variables. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 2018; 25(5): 737– 49.
  34. [40]Potthoff S, Garnefski N, Miklósi M, Ubbiali A, Domínguez-Sánchez FJ, Martins EC. Cognitive emotion regulation and psychopathology across cultures: A comparison between six European countries. Personal Individ Differ. 2016; 98: 218– 24.
  35. [41]Mayer JD, Salovey P, Caruso DR. Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test. PsycTESTS Dataset. American Psychological Association (APA); 2012. doi: 10.1037/t05047-000 · DOI
  36. [42]Kim J, Marcusson-Clavertz D, Yoshiuchi K, Smyth JM. Potential benefits of integrating ecological momentary assessment data into mHealth care systems. Biopsychosoc Med. 2019; 13: 19. doi: 10.1186/s13030-019-0160-5 31413726 PMC6688314 · DOI
  37. [43]Heinrich M, Zagorscak P, Eid M, Knaevelsrud C. Giving g a meaning: An application of the bifactor-(s-1) approach to realize a more symptom-oriented modeling of the Beck Depression Inventory–II. Assessment. 2020; 27(7): 1429– 47. 30293444

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Flores-Kanter, P. E., Moretti, L., García-Batista, Z. E., & Medrano, L.
Affiliations
  • Universidad Católica de Córdoba (AR)
  • Universidad Siglo 21 (AR)
  • Pontificia Universidad Católica Madre y Maestra (DO)
Corresponding author
Flores-Kanter, Pablo Ezequiel
ORCID
Venue
PLOS One
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2025-06-20
Volume
20
Issue
6
Pages
e0326319
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0326319
PMC
PMC12180731
OpenAlex
W4411485352
Cited by
2
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1
FWCI
1.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire, cognitive emotion regulation, exploratory structural equation modeling, confirmatory factor analysis, factor structure, psychometric properties, Argentine adults
MeSH terms
Emotional Regulation, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cognition, Emotions, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Young Adult

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