Premium
Psychometric properties of a Turkish version of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale
Author(s) -
Rugancı R. Neslihan,
Gençöz Tülin
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
journal of clinical psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.124
H-Index - 119
eISSN - 1097-4679
pISSN - 0021-9762
DOI - 10.1002/jclp.20665
Subject(s) - psychology , turkish , scale (ratio) , distress , clinical psychology , psychometrics , reliability (semiconductor) , confirmatory factor analysis , sample (material) , test validity , validity , structural equation modeling , developmental psychology , statistics , philosophy , linguistics , physics , power (physics) , mathematics , chemistry , chromatography , quantum mechanics
Abstract This study aimed to examine the psychometric properties of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS; developed by Gratz & Roemer, 2004) in a Turkish sample. For this purpose, first, the factor structure of the scale was examined with a sample of 338 university students, and an identical factor structure with the original scale was obtained with the exclusion of a single item. Following the confirmation of the 6‐factor structure of the scale with the current Turkish sample, the whole scale's and its six subscales' reliability coefficients were examined via internal consistency and test‐retest reliability coefficients. These reliability analyses indicated satisfactory coefficients. As for the concurrent validity, the correlations of DERS and its subscales with measures of psychological distress were examined. This examination generally revealed strong correlations, although the awareness factor of DERS had relatively weaker correlations with the measures of psychological distress. Finally, concerning the criterion validity, all the measures of DERS could significantly differentiate the participants with “high psychological distress” from those with “low psychological distress”; however, for the awareness subscale the effect size was small. These findings were discussed in line with the relevant literature. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Psychol 66:1–14, 2010.