Emotion Regulation Checklist (ERC)

1. Abstract

The Emotion Regulation Checklist (ERC), developed by Ann M. Shields and Dante Cicchetti (1997, 1998), is one of the most widely utilized and psychometrically validated informant-report instruments designed to assess processes of emotional management, affective reactivity, and dysregulation in children and adolescents. The instrument comprises 24 items evaluated on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Rarely or Never) to 4 (Almost Always). Designed primarily for completion by adult informants who observe the child across diverse social and ecological contexts—including parents, foster caregivers, teachers, day care providers, and camp counselors—the ERC captures both adaptive regulatory mechanisms and maladaptive affective fluctuations. Psychometric evaluations consistently confirm a robust two-factor structure: Emotion Regulation (ER) and Emotion Lability/Negativity (ELN). The Emotion Regulation subscale encompasses affective self-awareness, social empathy, emotional equanimity, and adaptive responses to environmental demands. Conversely, the Emotion Lability/Negativity subscale captures affective instability, explosive reactivity, mood swings, impulsivity, rapid transitions between intense emotional states, and dysregulated exuberance.

Extensive normative, clinical, and developmental psychopathology literature underscores the instrument’s exceptional psychometric integrity. Internal consistency reliabilities across varied socio-demographic samples typically yield Cronbach’s alpha coefficients between .72 and .83 for the Emotion Regulation subscale, and between .80 and .91 for the Emotion Lability/Negativity subscale. The instrument possesses outstanding construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity, distinguishing with clinical sensitivity between non-maltreated youth and children who have experienced physical abuse, neglect, emotional trauma, or institutionalization. Furthermore, longitudinal trajectories captured by the ERC correlate significantly with peer sociometric status, executive functioning competencies, externalizing behavioral disorders, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and internalizing depressive and anxiety symptoms. As an ecologically valid, easily administered, and theoretically grounded measure, the ERC remains a cornerstone assessment tool in developmental psychology, clinical child psychology, educational interventions, and neurodevelopmental research.

2. Keywords

Emotion Regulation Checklist, ERC, emotion regulation, emotion lability, affective dysregulation, developmental psychopathology, Shields and Cicchetti, child assessment, emotional competence, informant-report scale

3. Authors

The Emotion Regulation Checklist was developed collaboratively by Ann M. Shields, Ph.D., and Dante Cicchetti, Ph.D.

• Ann M. Shields, Ph.D.: Dr. Shields conducted foundational work on the instrument during her tenure at the Mt. Hope Family Center at the University of Rochester. Her clinical research focuses on affective socialization, child maltreatment, emotion dynamics in peer relationships, and the developmental sequelae of adverse childhood experiences.
• Dante Cicchetti, Ph.D.: Dr. Cicchetti is a world-renowned pioneer in the discipline of developmental psychopathology. He served as the Director of the Mt. Hope Family Center and Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of Rochester, and subsequently held the McKnight Presidential Chair and William Harris Professorship in Child Development and Psychiatry at the Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota. Dr. Cicchetti’s ground-breaking research integrates multi-level developmental, neurobiological, epigenetic, and socio-emotional systems to understand resilience and psychopathology in high-risk children.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Emotion Regulation Checklist (ERC) is to provide an operationally rigorous, ecologically valid, and psychometrically sound assessment of children’s affective functioning, emotional competencies, and self-regulatory capacities in real-world environments. In the field of developmental psychopathology, researchers and clinicians recognized that traditional laboratory-based measures of emotional reactivity—such as computerized tasks, physiological markers, or structured behavioral observations—often fail to capture the pervasive, dynamic, and context-dependent fluctuations in affective displays that occur in naturalistic family, school, and peer settings. The ERC was specifically constructed to capture adult observers’ synthesis of a child’s emotional displays, interpersonal attunement, and behavioral responses over time.

From an applied clinical perspective, the ERC addresses the urgent diagnostic necessity to differentiate between primary emotional dysregulation and secondary behavioral symptomatology. Affective dysregulation represents a transdiagnostic vulnerability factor implicated in diverse childhood disorders, including Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), Conduct Disorder (CD), Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Major Depressive Disorder, and Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder (DMDD). By delineating between an inability to sustain positive engagement (low Emotion Regulation) and the presence of volatile, disinhibited, or irritable emotional expressions (high Emotion Lability/Negativity), the ERC provides clinicians with granular insight into the underlying mechanisms driving disruptive or withdrawn behavioral profiles. Consequently, it guides tailored therapeutic interventions, such as Dialectical Behavior Therapy for Children (DBT-C), trauma-informed therapies, and parent-child interaction training programs.

In academic and epidemiological research, the ERC is extensively deployed to trace developmental trajectories of risk and resilience. Shields and Cicchetti developed the checklist within the empirical context of child maltreatment studies at the Mt. Hope Family Center. Their theoretical rationale centered on investigating how early relational trauma, physical abuse, neglect, and chronic stress disrupt the normative organization of neurobiological and psychological regulatory systems. The ERC allows investigators to systematically quantify emotional competence as both a mediator and a moderator linking environmental adversity (e.g., socioeconomic deprivation, domestic violence, parental psychopathology) to functional outcomes, such as academic underachievement, peer rejection, aggressive victimization, and adolescent risk-taking.

Moreover, the instrument serves as a critical outcome metric in prevention science and program evaluation. Because the 24 items correspond to concrete, observable behaviors displayed during interactions with adults, peers, and task transitions, the ERC is sensitive to intervention-induced changes. School psychologists, social workers, and clinical trialists regularly utilize the ERC to measure pre- to post-intervention gains following social-emotional learning (SEL) curricula, emotion-coaching protocols, and foster-care stabilization initiatives.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the ERC is emotion regulation, conceptualized not merely as the suppression or attenuation of negative emotional states, but as a dynamic, multicomponent system involving the monitoring, evaluating, modulating, and modifying of emotional reactions to accomplish individual goals and satisfy environmental demands (Gross, 1998; Thompson, 1994). The ERC evaluates this overarching construct across two distinct yet interconnected dimensions: Emotion Regulation (ER) and Emotion Lability/Negativity (ELN).

Emotion Regulation (ER)

The Emotion Regulation dimension evaluates adaptive emotional management, affective self-awareness, social empathy, and affective equanimity. Adaptive regulation reflects a child’s capacity to modulate physiological arousal, interpret internal emotional cues accurately, and align emotional expression with social norms and interpersonal contexts. Key components of this construct include:

• Affective Equanimity and Recovery: The capacity to regain emotional equilibrium following acute frustration, interpersonal conflict, or distress. For example, an adaptively regulated child does not remain sullen, withdrawn, or hostile for prolonged periods after a disciplinary reprimand or disappointment (captured by Item 5).
• Emotional Communication and Metacognitive Insight: The developmental ability to differentiate and verbally articulate subjective feeling states (e.g., distinguishing between fear, anger, and sorrow) rather than resorting to somatic complaints or behavioral acting-out (captured by Item 15).
• Empathy and Prosocial Affective Resonance: The capacity to identify affective distress in others, experience vicarious emotional concern, and inhibit self-centered impulses to provide comfort or social support (captured by Item 21).
• Contextual Modulation and Delayed Gratification: The ability to suppress instantaneous impulses in pursuit of future goals, tolerate delay without decompensating emotionally, and calibrate high-energy excitement according to situational demands (captured by Items 9 and 11).

Emotion Lability / Negativity (ELN)

The Emotion Lability/Negativity dimension captures patterns of emotional dysregulation characterized by rapid, unpredictable shifts in mood, intense and poorly modulated negative affect, low frustration tolerance, and intrusive behavioral reactivity. Key facets of this construct include:

• Affective Volatility and Incongruence: Rapid oscillations between disparate emotional valences without evident contextual justification (Item 2). Children with high ELN display extreme mood swings, shifting rapidly from euphoric exuberance to explosive hostility or inconsolable despondency.
• Intense Anger and Reactive Aggression: Proneness to explosive temper tantrums, physical outbursts, and hostile reactions when limits are established by authority figures (Items 8 and 14). This reactivity reflects an impairment in fronto-striatal inhibitory control networks.
• Dysregulated Exuberance and Impulsivity: Exuberant positive affect that becomes intrusive, unmodulated, or disruptive to peers and adult caregivers (Items 13, 17, and 22). This demonstrates that dysregulation is not confined to negative emotions; failure to modulate high-arousal positive affect equally compromises social integration.
• Inappropriate Social-Affective Cues: Displaying negative, hostile, or fearful reactions to neutral or positive social overtures by peers (Item 19) or exhibiting schadenfreude—deriving pleasure from the misfortune or distress of others (Item 10).
• Atypical Affective Flatness and Dysphoria: Pervasive listlessness, blunted affect, or sustained sadness (Items 16 and 18), indicating internalizing dysregulation wherein the emotional system fails to generate adaptive arousal in response to rewarding stimuli.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual scaffolding of the Emotion Regulation Checklist is rooted in the integrative paradigm of Developmental Psychopathology, formulated by Dante Cicchetti, Alan Sroufe, Michael Rutter, and their colleagues. Developmental psychopathology posits that normal and abnormal developmental pathways are mutually informative; understanding how children adapt successfully to developmental tasks illuminates the processes leading to psychopathological deviations, and vice versa.

Within this framework, the ERC relies heavily on the Organizational Perspective of Development. This theory conceptualizes human development as a hierarchical continuum wherein successful resolution of stage-salient tasks serves as a foundation for subsequent psychological competence. During infancy and early childhood, the core developmental task centers on dyadic emotional regulation through the caregiving bond (attachment theory, Bowlby, 1969; Ainsworth et al., 1978). In supportive, predictable environments, responsive parental mirroring and affective co-regulation enable the child to internalize neurobiological and cognitive schemas for modulating distress. Over time, external regulation transitions into autonomous self-regulation.

However, when children experience chronic maltreatment, neglect, or relational trauma, this developmental trajectory is fundamentally disrupted. Cicchetti and Shields posited that child abuse and neglect represent severe environmental toxins that impair the neurobiological substrates of emotional processing—specifically the functional connectivity between the amygdala, the anterior cingulate cortex, and the prefrontal cortex. Children reared in hostile environments develop hypersensitivity to threat cues (manifesting as hypervigilance, sudden aggressive outbursts, and elevated Emotion Lability/Negativity) or defensive affective blunting (manifesting as flat affect and impaired Emotion Regulation). Thus, behaviors evaluated by the ERC are understood not simply as discrete behavioral deficits, but as an organized, albeit non-normative, adaptation to an unsupportive or hostile developmental ecology.

Additionally, the ERC incorporates the Functionalist Perspective of Emotion (Campos et al., 1989; Barrett & Campos, 1987). According to functionalist theory, emotions are not internal disruptions of rational thought; rather, they are bidirectional processes designed to establish, maintain, or alter the relationship between an organism and its environment. Emotion regulation involves evaluating whether an emotional response is functionally appropriate within a specific context. For instance, Item 23 of the ERC assesses whether a child “displays appropriate negative emotions (anger, fear, frustration, distress) in response to hostile, aggressive, or intrusive acts by peers.” The functionalist framework recognizes that experiencing and displaying negative emotions in response to danger or violation is an adaptive, healthy regulatory mechanism, whereas the complete absence of negative affect or excessive, disproportional aggression signifies regulatory failure.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the ERC has been corroborated across hundreds of empirical investigations involving community, at-risk, and clinical samples across North America, Europe, Asia, and Latin America.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity was initially established by Shields and Cicchetti (1995, 1997) through convergence with the Q-sort methodology. The developers compared ERC ratings with an observer-rated California Q-Sort (CAQ) criterion scale of emotion regulation in school-age children attending summer research day camps. The Emotion Regulation subscale demonstrated strong positive correlations with CAQ expert prototype scores for adaptive emotional competence (r = .68 to .74, p < .001). Conversely, the Emotion Lability/Negativity subscale loaded strongly and negatively against CAQ emotional competence and showed pronounced positive associations with CAQ profiles of externalizing hostility, impulsivity, and emotional instability (r = .71 to .79, p < .001).

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Convergent validity has been repeatedly documented through systematic associations with established psychological instruments:

• Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA): High scores on the ELN subscale consistently demonstrate strong positive correlations with the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Aggressive Behavior (r = .60 to .75), Rule-Breaking Behavior (r = .52 to .68), and Externalizing Problems scales (r = .65 to .80). The ER subscale exhibits negative correlations with CBCL Total Problems and positive correlations with social competence scores.
• Executive Functioning: Studies examining neuropsychological batteries demonstrate that high ER and low ELN correlate significantly with laboratory indices of working memory, inhibitory control (e.g., Stroop tasks, Go/No-Go paradigms), and cognitive flexibility (Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, BRIEF; r values typically ranging between -.45 and -.62 with the Behavioral Regulation Index).
• Physiological Markers: Biomarker research indicates that children scoring high on ELN exhibit atypical autonomic nervous system regulation, evidenced by blunted or highly erratic baseline heart rate variability (specifically respiratory sinus arrhythmia, RSA) and atypical cortisol awakening responses under laboratory stress conditions.

Discriminant validity is evidenced by the tool’s ability to separate emotion regulation from broad general cognitive ability. IQ scores (measured via WISC-IV/V) typically account for less than 4% to 6% of the variance in ERC subscale scores (r < .20), demonstrating that the checklist captures affective behavioral dynamics distinct from cognitive intellectual prowess.

Predictive and Known-Groups Criterion Validity

The ERC possesses exceptional clinical sensitivity in differentiating known clinical and high-risk cohorts from non-clinical controls:

• Maltreatment Status: In seminal investigations by Shields and Cicchetti (1997, 1998, 2001), maltreated children (substantiated cases of physical abuse, sexual abuse, or severe neglect) exhibited significantly higher ELN scores (F > 25.0, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.85 to 1.10) and significantly lower ER scores compared to matched non-maltreated community peers.
• Peer Relations and Bullying: Shields and Cicchetti (2001) established that high ELN scores prospectively predicted peer rejection, reactive aggressive behavior, and involvement in school bullying (both as bullies and bully-victims). Children with elevated ELN were more frequently rejected on peer sociometric nominations (p < .01).
• Clinical Diagnosis Discrimination: The checklist reliably differentiates children diagnosed with ADHD, ODD, and DMDD from neurotypical peers. Children with DMDD show hallmark elevations on ELN exceeding 2 standard deviations above normative community means.

8. Reliability

The Emotion Regulation Checklist exhibits strong reliability across a diverse spectrum of observational contexts, respondent types, and developmental populations.

Internal Consistency

Extensive psychometric investigations have established robust internal consistency metrics for both subscales:

• Emotion Lability / Negativity (ELN): Typically comprising 15 items in standard factor models, this subscale consistently yields high internal consistency. In the foundational validation studies by Shields and Cicchetti (1997), Cronbach’s alpha was reported at α = .96 among camp counselors observing maltreated and non-maltreated youth. Subsequent independent studies across normative school samples, clinical pediatric populations, and cross-cultural adaptations (e.g., Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Turkish, and Chinese adaptations) have documented internal consistency coefficients ranging reliably between α = .80 and α = .91.
• Emotion Regulation (ER): Comprising 8 items in standard scoring protocols, this scale captures positive regulation and prosocial competence. Cronbach’s alpha values typically fall between α = .72 and α = .83 in teacher and parent ratings, which exceeds the acceptable .70 benchmark for developmental behavioral scales. Item 23 is occasionally treated as an independent marker or retained based on specific factor models.

Test-Retest Stability

The temporal stability of the ERC has been examined across various test-retest intervals ranging from two weeks to one academic year:

• Short-term test-retest reliability across a 2- to 4-week window yields stability coefficients of r = .82 to .88 for Emotion Lability/Negativity and r = .75 to .83 for Emotion Regulation, reflecting stable behavioral traits over immediate periods.
• Longitudinal stability over a 6- to 12-month interval demonstrates moderate to high continuity (r = .55 to .70), documenting that while emotional regulation reflects trait-like stability, it remains dynamic and malleable in response to developmental transitions and targeted psychological interventions.

Inter-Rater Reliability

Because children express different emotional patterns across home and school ecologies, inter-rater concordance provides vital insight into situational variability. Independent ratings between teachers and assistant teachers or co-counselors in identical environments yield strong agreement (inter-rater correlations ranging from r = .65 to .82, p < .001). Cross-informant agreement between parents and classroom teachers typically yields moderate correlations (r = .35 to .52, p < .01). This magnitude of cross-informant correspondence is normative within developmental psychometrics (comparable to the CBCL) and reflects genuine contextual differences between family and school demands rather than measurement unreliability.

9. Factor Analysis

The latent structural integrity of the ERC was established via both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), demonstrating invariant cross-sample replicability.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In the original derivation sample of 184 children (aged 6 to 12 years), Shields and Cicchetti conducted principal components analysis with varimax and oblimin rotations. The analytical output revealed a distinct two-factor solution accounting for approximately 52% to 56% of the total variance:

• Factor 1: Emotion Lability / Negativity (ELN). This dominant factor accounted for the largest portion of variance (approximately 38% to 41%). Primary loadings on this factor (with factor loadings typically ranging from .45 to .82) included items measuring mood swings (Item 2), low frustration tolerance (Item 6), angry tantrums (Item 8), intrusive exuberance (Item 13, 22), defiance to adult limits (Item 14), and impulsivity (Item 20). Items 4, 11, and 23 cross-loaded negatively onto this factor when reverse scored.
• Factor 2: Emotion Regulation (ER). Accounting for an additional 14% to 17% of variance, this factor comprises items reflecting adaptive emotional awareness, empathy, recovery from distress, and social engagement. Items loading cleanly onto this dimension (loadings from .42 to .78) include cheerfulness (Item 1), positive responsiveness to adults and peers (Items 3, 7), rapid emotional recovery (Item 5), delay of gratification (Item 9), verbal articulation of emotions (Item 15), and empathy (Item 21).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Model Fit

Subsequent international CFA studies (e.g., Kim-Spoon et al., 2013; Molina et al., 2014) across diverse samples have evaluated alternative structural models, testing unidimensional, two-factor orthogonal, two-factor oblique, and bifactor models. The oblique two-factor model consistently yields the most robust fit to empirical data, meeting rigorous psychometric cutoffs:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .92 to .96
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .91 to .95
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .042 to .061 (with 90% confidence intervals within acceptable ranges)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .045 to .058

The correlation between the two latent factors typically ranges between r = -.40 and r = -.62, demonstrating that while adaptive emotion regulation and emotional lability share common variance within an overall self-regulatory architecture, they represent distinct, non-redundant neurodevelopmental constructs that must be scored and interpreted independently.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Emotion Regulation Checklist (ERC)
• Authors: Ann M. Shields, Ph.D., and Dante Cicchetti, Ph.D.
• Target Population: Children and early adolescents, predominantly between the ages of 6 and 12 years (with validated extensions downward to preschool ages [3–5 years] and upward to early adolescence [13–15 years]).
• Informant Type: Other-report (completed by parents, classroom teachers, special educators, day care staff, foster parents, or camp counselors who have had at least several weeks of continuous observational contact with the child).
• Administration Time: Approximately 5 to 10 minutes.
• Total Number of Items: 24 items.
• Response Format: 4-point Likert-type frequency rating:
  • 1 = Rarely or Never
  • 2 = Sometimes
  • 3 = Often
  • 4 = Almost Always
• Subscale Architecture & Scoring Protocols:
  • Emotion Regulation (ER) Subscale: Comprises 8 positively scored items (Items 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 15, 16 [reverse scored in standard protocols], and 21). Subscale raw scores range from 8 to 32. Higher scores reflect superior emotional competence, empathy, situational attunement, and adaptive affective modulation.
  • Emotion Lability / Negativity (ELN) Subscale: Comprises the remaining 15 to 16 items assessing affective instability and dysregulation (Items 2, 4 [reverse], 6, 8, 10, 11 [reverse], 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 [reverse], and 24). Subscale raw scores typically range from 15 to 60 (or 16 to 64 depending on whether Item 23 is retained). Higher scores reflect greater severity of emotional volatility, affective dysregulation, irritability, and unmodulated behavioral excitement.
  • Reverse Scored Items: Items 4, 11, 16, and 23 are negatively phrased relative to the scale to which they belong and must be reversed prior to computing composite totals (i.e., 1 becomes 4, 2 becomes 3, 3 becomes 2, and 4 becomes 1).

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Year of Initial Publication: 1995 (first presented as an empirical assessment battery at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development); formal peer-reviewed journal validation published in 1997.
• Copyright & Intellectual Property: Copyright © 1995, 1997 by Ann M. Shields and Dante Cicchetti.
• Accessibility and Fee Structure: The Emotion Regulation Checklist is classified in the public domain for non-profit academic research, scientific investigations, and training purposes. The scale was disseminated via academic journal publications and university repositories (such as the University of Richmond Master’s Theses and Oklahoma State University archives) to encourage empirical research in child development. No purchasing fees or commercial royalties are required for academic research use.
• Commercial and Clinical Licensing: Use of the instrument within commercial assessment platforms, proprietary digital software, or fee-for-service commercial screening programs requires direct written authorization from the copyright holders and developer institutions. Investigators using the scale must cite the foundational publications (Shields & Cicchetti, 1997, 1998) in all resulting publications and scientific presentations.

12. References

• Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Barrett, K. C., & Campos, J. J. (1987). Perspectives on emotional development: II. A functionalist approach to emotions. In J. D. Osofsky (Ed.), Handbook of infant development (2nd ed., pp. 555–578). John Wiley & Sons.
• Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. Basic Books.
• Campos, J. J., Campos, R. G., & Barrett, K. C. (1989). Emergent themes in the study of emotional development and emotion regulation. Developmental Psychology, 25(3), 394–402. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.25.3.394
• Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271
• Kim-Spoon, J., Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. A. (2013). A longitudinal study of emotion regulation, emotion lability-negativity, and internalizing symptomatology in maltreated and nonmaltreated children. Child Development, 84(2), 512–527. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01867.x
• Molina, P., Sala, M. N., Zappulla, C., Bonichini, S., Grazzani, I., Cavioni, V., & Cicchetti, D. (2014). The Emotion Regulation Checklist—Italian validation. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 11(5), 624–630. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2014.898581
• Pursell, G. R. (2002). The effects of childhood social competence on young adults interpersonal competence in dyadic and family relations: An exploratory analysis (Master’s thesis). University of Richmond. http://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1839&context=masters-theses
• Shields, A. M., & Cicchetti, D. (1995). The development of an emotion regulation assessment battery: Reliability and validity among at-risk grade-school children [Poster presentation]. Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Indianapolis, IN, United States.
• Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Emotion regulation among school-age children: The development and validation of a new criterion Q-sort scale. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 906–916. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.906
• Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (1998). Reactive aggression among maltreated children: The contributions of attention and emotion dysregulation. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27(4), 381–395. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp2704_2
• Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (2001). Parental maltreatment and emotion dysregulation as risk factors for bullying and victimization in middle childhood. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30(3), 349–363. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15374424JCCP3003_7
• 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.1540-5834.1994.tb01276.x

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)