Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale Short Form

Abstract

Emotion regulation constitutes an essential psychological process underpinning adaptive human functioning, cognitive efficiency, and social interaction. Conversely, deficits across specific dimensions of emotion regulation represent prominent transdiagnostic vulnerability markers for a wide spectrum of psychopathology, encompassing major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, borderline personality pathology, substance use disorders, and self-injurious behaviors. The original 36-item Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS), conceptualized and validated by Kim L. Gratz and Lizabeth Roemer in 2004, has served for decades as the gold-standard multidimensional self-report instrument in clinical and affective science. However, its extended length frequently imposes substantial participant burden, inflates cognitive fatigue, and elevates rates of missing data within intensive longitudinal designs, ecological momentary assessments, large-scale epidemiological surveys, and time-restricted clinical intakes.

To overcome these practical constraints without attenuating structural integrity, Erin A. Kaufman and colleagues developed the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale Short Form (DERS-SF) in 2015. By executing systematic item-reduction methodologies grounded in confirmatory factor modeling and item-total correlations across five independent adolescent and adult cohorts, the authors halved the scale to an 18-item instrument. The DERS-SF faithfully preserves the original six-factor operational architecture: Nonacceptance of Emotional Responses, Difficulties Engaging in Goal-Directed Behavior, Impulse Control Difficulties, Lack of Emotional Awareness, Limited Access to Emotion Regulation Strategies, and Lack of Emotional Clarity. Each factor is assessed via three rigorously selected items administered on a 5-point Likert scale. Psychometric evaluations demonstrate that the DERS-SF shares 81% to 96% of its variance with the full-length parent instrument, exhibits robust subscale internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s α ranging between .78 and .91 across developmental strata), and demonstrates superior confirmatory factor model fit (Comparative Fit Index [CFI] = .96 to .97; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] = .05 to .06). This article provides a comprehensive academic review of the scale’s theoretical underpinnings, structural validity, clinical applications, psychometric properties, and administrative protocols.

Keywords

emotion regulation, emotion dysregulation, Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale Short Form, DERS-SF, psychometrics, transdiagnostic assessment, confirmatory factor analysis, internal consistency, affective science, clinical assessment, adolescent mental health

Authors

The Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale Short Form was developed and psychometrically validated by a collaborative team of clinical psychologists and developmental researchers specializing in developmental psychopathology, affective neuroscience, and family systems:

• Erin A. Kaufman, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States.
• Mengya Xia, M.S. — Department of Human Development and Family Studies, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, United States.
• Gregory M. Fosco, Ph.D. — Department of Human Development and Family Studies, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, United States.
• Mona Yaptangco, B.S. — Department of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States.
• Chloe R. Skidmore, B.S. — Department of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States.
• Sheila E. Crowell, Ph.D. (Corresponding Author) — Department of Psychology, University of Utah, 380 S. 1530 E., Beh S 502, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, United States. Email: [email protected].

Purpose

The primary objective guiding the creation of the DERS-SF was to deliver an empirically validated, brief self-report instrument capable of capturing the multifaceted nature of emotion dysregulation while mitigating respondent burden. Within psychological assessment, questionnaire length introduces critical measurement complications. Prolonged testing batteries induce respondent fatigue, introduce careless or erratic response behaviors, escalate attrition rates in longitudinal panels, and decrease completion rates among clinical patients exhibiting acute cognitive distress or attentional limitations (Edwards et al., 2002; Rolstad et al., 2011). Although the original 36-item DERS provides an exhaustive clinical profile, its administration poses practical challenges in multi-method diagnostic evaluations, repeated-measures paradigms, and time-pressured emergency or primary care intake settings.

From a theoretical standpoint, shortening a psychometric instrument risks attenuating structural validity or compromising subscale fidelity, especially when an assessment measures complex, heterogeneous constructs. Earlier attempts to abbreviate the DERS had varied limitations, such as restricting cohorts solely to adults, eliminating critical subscales, or relying solely on exploratory analytic methods. The DERS-SF development project addressed these issues by methodically selecting three items per subscale that demonstrated optimal psychometric performance across both adolescent and adult populations. By maintaining three indicator variables per latent construct, Kaufman et al. (2016) adhered to statistical requirements for factor identification in structural equation modeling while preserving the conceptual breadth of Gratz and Roemer’s (2004) model.

In clinical settings, the DERS-SF serves as an efficient screening and progress-monitoring instrument. Clinicians treating emotional disorders within modalities such as Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT), Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), or the Unified Protocol for Transdiagnostic Treatment of Emotional Disorders can administer the DERS-SF at weekly intervals to track functional improvements across specific regulatory competencies. Researchers can embed the 18-item scale within broad multi-wave assessment batteries without risking survey fatigue, making the DERS-SF a practical instrument for translational, epidemiological, and experimental investigations.

Psychological Construct

The DERS-SF conceptualizes emotion regulation not as the complete absence of negative affect, but rather as an integrative, dynamic capacity to experience, differentiate, modulate, and respond adaptively to heightened emotional states. Rather than equating regulatory success with affective suppression or control, Gratz and Roemer (2004) defined emotion dysregulation as multidimensional failures across cognitive, behavioral, and experiential domains. The DERS-SF captures this construct across six distinct subscales:

1. Nonacceptance of Emotional Responses (Nonacceptance)

This subscale captures secondary emotional reactivity, characterized by tendencies to experience shame, guilt, embarrassment, or self-critical judgments in response to primary negative emotions. Individuals with high scores on this dimension reject their internal distress, viewing affective vulnerability as an intolerable sign of weakness or failure. For example, an individual experiencing grief or anxiety may develop acute secondary distress characterized by self-reproach, which exacerbates functional impairment.

2. Difficulties Engaging in Goal-Directed Behavior (Goals)

The Goals subscale evaluates an individual’s inability to concentrate, sustain attention, and complete necessary executive tasks or academic/occupational duties when experiencing negative affect. High scores reflect an internal state where intense feelings hijack executive functioning, rendering the individual unable to pursue long-term objectives in the presence of emotional disruption.

3. Impulse Control Difficulties (Impulse)

This dimension quantifies the perceived inability to control behavioral responses and emotional outbursts under acute distress. High levels of this facet manifest as behavioral disinhibition, reactive aggression, substance misuse, or self-harm when negative emotions escalate. Respondents endorse feeling completely overwhelmed, expressing convictions that their behavioral apparatus is unmanageable once emotional thresholds are exceeded.

4. Lack of Emotional Awareness (Awareness)

The Awareness subscale assesses tendencies to ignore, suppress, or fail to attend to internal affective signals. Individuals scoring high on this dimension maintain an avoidant attentional stance toward their feelings, frequently failing to notice physiological or psychological markers of affective change. In clinical frameworks, this construct reflects an experiential disconnection that prevents individuals from understanding and modulating their emotional needs.

5. Limited Access to Emotion Regulation Strategies (Strategies)

This subscale reflects an individual’s subjective belief that negative emotions are permanent and unchangeable. Elevated scores denote profound perceived regulatory helplessness, where respondents feel there is nothing they can do to improve their affective state once distressed. This facet is closely tied to depressive demoralization, learned helplessness, and elevated suicide risk.

6. Lack of Emotional Clarity (Clarity)

The Clarity subscale gauges the extent to which an individual lacks understanding of their specific emotional states, closely aligning with the clinical construct of alexithymia. High scores reflect confusion over what emotion is being experienced, making it difficult to differentiate anger from sadness, fear, or physical exhaustion. Without adequate clarity, selecting targeted coping responses becomes substantially more challenging.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture underlying the DERS-SF is rooted in the functionalist perspective of emotion and contemporary developmental psychopathology models (Cole et al., 1994; Thompson, 1994). Within this framework, emotions are understood as coordinated evolutionary adaptations that organize biological, cognitive, and behavioral systems to respond to contextual demands. Consequently, emotions are not considered inherently pathological; rather, dysregulation occurs when emotional experiences overwhelm an individual’s capacity to flexibly pursue environmental goals or lead to secondary cognitive and behavioral disturbances.

Gratz and Roemer (2004) synthesized functionalist affective principles with Marsha Linehan’s (1993) biosocial theory of emotional vulnerability and pervasive emotion dysregulation. Linehan posited that biological vulnerabilities—characterized by high sensitivity to emotional stimuli, extreme emotional intensity, and slow return to baseline—interact with invalidating developmental environments, ultimately producing profound deficits across emotional identification, modulation, and behavioral inhibition. The DERS-SF operationalizes these interrelated dimensions into distinct latent domains:

• Experiential Acceptance vs. Experiential Avoidance: Grounded in relational frame theory and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy frameworks (Hayes et al., 2004), nonacceptance and awareness reflect the degree to which an individual approaches internal states openly rather than deploying maladaptive experiential avoidance.
• Cognitive and Attentional Control: Drawing from self-regulation models (Eisenberg & Spinrad, 2004), the Goals and Impulse subscales capture the interface between emotional arousal and executive functioning, specifically the capacity for top-down cognitive inhibition and goal-directed focus under stress.
• Affective Metacognition: Emotion clarity and regulatory self-efficacy (Strategies) capture metacognitive insight into emotional states, reflecting an individual’s conceptual understanding of emotional experiences and belief in their capacity to implement effective coping mechanisms.

Furthermore, the scale integrates developmental models of transdiagnostic psychopathology (Beauchaine et al., 2007). Deficits in emotion regulation are conceptualized as core vulnerabilities that cut across traditional diagnostic boundaries. Whether manifested as internalizing disorders (e.g., major depressive disorder, social anxiety) via emotional suppression, rumination, and nonacceptance, or as externalizing disorders (e.g., substance abuse, conduct problems) via impulse control failures under duress, the theoretical model posited by the DERS-SF accounts for varied pathways of developmental psychopathology.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the DERS-SF has been evaluated across adolescent, collegiate, and clinical populations through construct, concurrent, convergent, and discriminant validation frameworks (Kaufman et al., 2016).

Construct and Criterion Alignment with the Full-Length DERS

The primary validation benchmark for the DERS-SF involves its empirical correspondence with the original 36-item DERS. Across five independent samples (encompassing 1,029 adolescents and 427 university students), bivariate correlations between corresponding subscales across the full and short forms demonstrated substantial congruence, with Pearson correlation coefficients ranging from r = .90 to .98 (all p < .001). Shared variance between the full subscales and their shortened counterparts reached between 81% and 96%, indicating that the systematic reduction to three items per subscale did not compromise construct representation.

Convergent and Concurrent Validity with Clinical Outcomes

The DERS-SF demonstrates strong convergent validity through robust associations with established indices of clinical distress and psychopathology, matching the effect sizes documented for the 36-item parent instrument:

• Depressive Symptomatology: Scores on the DERS-SF total score and its Strategies, Nonacceptance, and Clarity subscales correlate positively with scores on the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II; Beck et al., 1996) and Youth Self-Report (YSR; Achenbach, 1991a) depressive scales, with coefficients ranging from r = .45 to .68.
• Anxiety and General Distress: The instrument demonstrates moderate-to-strong correlations with the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger et al., 1980) and Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI; Derogatis & Lazarus, 1994) global indices (r = .42 to .64).
• Deliberate Self-Harm and Suicidality: Significant associations emerge between elevated DERS-SF scores (particularly Impulse, Nonacceptance, and Strategies) and engagement in non-suicidal self-injury, measured using the Deliberate Self-Harm Inventory (Gratz, 2001) and Lifetime Parasuicide Count (Linehan & Comtois, 1996), with correlation magnitudes ranging from r = .31 to .52.
• Psychological Inflexibility: The DERS-SF demonstrates convergent validity with the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II (AAQ-II; Bond et al., 2011), reflecting shared variance with broader constructs of experiential avoidance and experiential nonacceptance (r = .65 to .74).

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was established by comparing the DERS-SF with unrelated or weakly related constructs, including normative personality traits such as Agreeableness and Openness from the Mini-IPIP (Donnellan et al., 2006), where correlations remained negligible to weak (|r| < .20). Furthermore, the scale differentiated clinical adolescent outpatients diagnosed with major mood or impulse-control disorders from community control youth, demonstrating discriminative diagnostic utility.

Reliability

Despite reducing the number of indicator items to three per subscale, the DERS-SF demonstrates strong internal consistency across both adolescent and adult cohorts. Shortened scales frequently exhibit attenuated Cronbach’s alpha coefficients because alpha is mathematically sensitive to test length. However, through rigorous item selection, the DERS-SF preserves robust subscale and total reliability:

• Total Scale Internal Consistency: Across validation cohorts, the total 18-item DERS-SF demonstrated high reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha values typically ranging between α = .89 and .93 in adolescent samples and α = .91 and .95 in adult samples.
• Strategies Subscale: Demonstrated alpha coefficients ranging from .82 to .89 across adolescent and adult cohorts.
• Nonacceptance Subscale: Yielded alpha coefficients ranging from .80 to .88 across samples.
• Impulse Subscale: Maintained internal consistency values between α = .84 and .91.
• Goals Subscale: Produced alpha coefficients ranging from .78 to .86.
• Awareness Subscale: Maintained acceptable internal consistency coefficients (α = .78 to .84), which is notable given that this dimension has historically shown lower reliability in the full-length version.
• Clarity Subscale: Produced alpha coefficients ranging from .79 to .87 across all developmental groups.

Test-retest stability was evaluated over short-term periods (two to four weeks) in non-clinical collegiate cohorts, revealing intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) between .74 and .88, indicating that the DERS-SF captures relatively stable dispositional traits over time while remaining sensitive to clinical change.

Factor Analysis

The structural validity of the DERS-SF was evaluated by Kaufman et al. (2016) using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) with Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimation within the Mplus statistical environment (Muthén & Muthén, 2013). Modeling was conducted across both adolescent and adult student samples to verify whether the original six-factor structure was preserved in the 18-item form.

Structural Model Fit and Comparisons

The hypothesized six-factor correlated model provided an excellent fit to empirical data across both developmental stages, consistently outperforming single-factor, higher-order, and full 36-item structural models:

• Adolescent Samples (Pooled N > 1,000): The six-factor model showed strong goodness-of-fit indices: χ²(120) = 452.31, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .960, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .949, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .052 (90% CI [.047, .057]), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = .041.
• Adult Collegiate Samples (Pooled N > 400): The identical six-factor model yielded comparable fit statistics: χ²(120) = 278.44, CFI = .968, TLI = .959, RMSEA = .056 (90% CI [.047, .065]), and SRMR = .038.

Importantly, the structural fit of the 18-item DERS-SF proved superior to that of the 36-item parent scale (which yielded CFI values around .90 to .91 and RMSEA values around .07 to .08 in the same cohorts). The abbreviated scale mitigated elevated residual correlations and cross-loadings that often affect the original instrument.

Factor Loadings and Latent Intercorrelations

Standardized item factor loadings (λ) for the retained 18 items were strong across all subscales, ranging between .63 and .93 (all p < .001). Factor loadings for the Strategies, Impulse, and Nonacceptance subscales were particularly high (mean λ > .80). Latent factor intercorrelations were moderate to high (ranging from r = .32 to .76), confirming that while the six dimensions represent distinct facets of emotion regulation, they tap into an underlying, unified clinical construct of emotion dysregulation.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Standardized multi-dimensional self-report questionnaire.
• Target Population: Adolescents (ages 11–17) and adults (ages 18 and older). Validated across community, collegiate, and clinical populations.
• Item Count: 18 items (exactly 3 items per subscale across 6 distinct subscales).
• Administration Format: Self-administered; compatible with paper-and-pencil forms, electronic surveys, mobile assessment platforms, and clinical portals.
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes.
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Almost never (0–10%)
  • 2 = Sometimes (11–35%)
  • 3 = About half the time (36–65%)
  • 4 = Most of the time (66–90%)
  • 5 = Almost always (91–100%)
• Subscale Breakdown:
  • Strategies: Items 10, 15, 16
  • Nonacceptance: Items 7, 13, 14
  • Impulse: Items 2, 8, 17
  • Goals: Items 9, 12, 18
  • Awareness: Items 1, 4, 6
  • Clarity: Items 3, 5, 11
• Scoring Procedures:
  • All items are keyed such that higher numerical values indicate greater difficulty or deficit in emotion regulation.
  • Unlike the original 36-item DERS, where Awareness items are reverse-coded, the DERS-SF does not require reverse-scoring if the Awareness items are framed or calculated to reflect dysregulation directly, minimizing calculation errors.
  • Subscale Scores: Calculated by summing the scores of the 3 items within each subscale (range: 3 to 15 per subscale).
  • Total Score: Calculated by summing all 18 items (range: 18 to 90). Higher total scores reflect elevated severity of overall emotion dysregulation.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale Short Form was published in 2015 (appearing in print in 2016) by Erin A. Kaufman, Mengya Xia, Gregory M. Fosco, Mona Yaptangco, Chloe R. Skidmore, and Sheila E. Crowell in the peer-reviewed journal Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment. The scale was developed to advance affective research and clinical practice, and it is available for educational and non-commercial scientific research purposes.

Permissions and Licensing: The instrument is non-proprietary for academic and clinical research applications. No user fees or royalties are required to administer the scale in non-commercial research or standard clinical practice. Researchers and clinicians should cite the original validation paper (Kaufman et al., 2016) in all scientific publications, presentations, and clinical trial reports. For commercial applications, electronic medical record software integration, or clinical trial licensing, interested parties should contact the corresponding author, Dr. Sheila E. Crowell ([email protected]), or the Department of Psychology at the University of Utah.

References

Achenbach, T. M. (1991a). Manual for the Youth Self-Report and 1991 Profile. Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont.

Beauchaine, T. P., Gatzke-Kopp, L., & Mead, H. K. (2007). Polyvagal theory and developmental psychopathology: Emotion dysregulation and conduct problems from preschool to adolescence. Biological Psychology, 74(2), 174–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2005.08.008

Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory-II. Psychological Corporation.

Bond, F. W., Hayes, S. C., Baer, R. A., Carpenter, K. M., Guenole, N., Orcutt, H. K., Waltz, T., & Zettle, R. D. (2011). Preliminary psychometric properties of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire–II: A revised measure of psychological inflexibility and experiential avoidance. Behavior Therapy, 42(4), 676–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2011.03.007

Cole, P. M., Michel, M. K., & Teti, L. O. (1994). The development of emotion regulation and dysregulation: A clinical perspective. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(2–3), 73–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb01278.x

Derogatis, L. R., & Lazarus, L. (1994). SCL-90-R, Brief Symptom Inventory, and matching clinical rating scales. In M. E. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcome assessment (pp. 217–248). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The Mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 192–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.192

Edwards, P., Roberts, I., Clarke, M., DiGuiseppi, C., Pratap, S., Wentz, R., & Kwan, I. (2002). Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: Systematic review. BMJ, 324(7347), 1183–1185. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7347.1183

Eisenberg, N., & Spinrad, T. L. (2004). Emotion-related regulation: Sharpening the definition. Child Development, 75(2), 334–339. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00674.x

Gratz, K. L. (2001). Measurement of deliberate self-harm: Preliminary data on the Deliberate Self-Harm Inventory. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 23(4), 253–263. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012779403943

Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26(1), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOBA.0000007455.08539.94

Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K., Wilson, K. G., Bissett, R. T., Pistorello, J., Toarmino, D., Polusny, M. A., Dykstra, T. A., Batten, S. V., Bergan, J., Stewart, S. H., Zvolensky, M. J., Eifert, G. H., Bond, F. W., Forsyth, J. P., Karekla, M., & McCurry, S. M. (2004). Measuring experiential avoidance: A preliminary test of a working model. The Psychological Record, 54(4), 553–578. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395492

Kaufman, E. A., Xia, M., Fosco, G., Yaptangco, M., Skidmore, C. R., & Crowell, S. E. (2016). The Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale Short Form (DERS-SF): Validation and replication in adolescent and adult samples. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 38(3), 443–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-015-9529-3

Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderline personality disorder. Guilford Press.

Linehan, M. M., & Comtois, K. A. (1996). Lifetime Parasuicide Count. Unpublished manuscript, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2013). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.

Rolstad, S., Adler, J., & Rydén, A. (2011). Response burden and questionnaire length: Is shorter better? A review and meta-analysis. Value in Health, 14(8), 1101–1108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.003

Spielberger, C. D., Vagg, P. R., Barker, L. R., Donham, G. W., & Westberry, L. G. (1980). The factor structure of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. In I. G. Sarason & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Stress and anxiety (Vol. 7, pp. 95–109). Hemisphere.

Thompson, R. A. (1994). Emotion regulation: A theme in search of definition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(2–3), 25–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb01276.x

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)