How I Feel (HIF)

1. Abstract

The How I Feel (HIF) scale is a specialized, 30-item self-report psychometric instrument designed to evaluate emotional arousal and emotion regulation in children and early adolescents (typically ages 8 through 12). Developed by developmental psychologists Tedra A. Walden, Vicki S. Harris, and Thomas F. Catron (2003) at Vanderbilt University, the HIF addresses a critical gap in developmental psychopathology: the empirical separation of affective experience (arousal, encompassing emotional frequency and intensity) from emotion regulation (the perceived capacity to modulate, initiate, maintain, or alter emotional experiences). The instrument evaluates five discrete basic emotions—happiness, excitement, sadness, anger (“mad”), and fear (“scared”)—across three primary psychometric dimensions: Negative Emotion (12 items), Positive Emotion (8 items), and Emotion Control (10 items). Items are rated on an authentic 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all true of me) to 5 (very true of me). Extensive psychometric validation in normative elementary school cohorts and clinical mental health samples demonstrates strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha values typically ranging from .77 to .88 across subscales), robust test-retest reliability, well-defined factor stability through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, and meaningful convergent and discriminant validity with established measures of child anxiety, depression, externalizing behavior, and social competence. This article provides a comprehensive academic analysis of the HIF, examining its theoretical architecture, psychometric properties, scoring paradigms, clinical and research applications, and its full verbatim instrument structure.

2. Keywords

How I Feel, HIF, emotion regulation, emotional arousal, child self-report, positive affect, negative affect, emotional control, developmental psychopathology, psychometrics

3. Authors

The How I Feel (HIF) measure was formulated and validated by a collaborative research team based at the Department of Psychology and Human Development, Peabody College, and the Vanderbilt Child and Family Center at Vanderbilt University:

• Tedra A. Walden, Ph.D. — Professor Emerita of Psychology and Human Development, Peabody College of Education and Human Development, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. Specialization: Infant and child social-emotional development, social referencing, affective communication, and emotional competence.
• Vicki S. Harris, Ph.D. — Associate Professor of the Practice of Psychology and Human Development, and Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. Specialization: Developmental psychopathology, school-based mental health interventions, and clinical assessment of children.
• Thomas F. Catron, Ph.D. — Associate Professor of Medical Education and Administration, and Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center; former Director of the Vanderbilt Child and Family Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. Specialization: Children’s mental health services, clinical child psychology, and community-based mental health outcomes.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the How I Feel (HIF) questionnaire is to provide developmental researchers, pediatric clinicians, and school psychologists with a standardized, developmentally tailored self-report instrument capable of indexing emotional experience and regulatory control directly from the child’s perspective. Historically, the assessment of emotion in pediatric populations relied predominantly on third-party informant reports, such as parent ratings (e.g., the Child Behavior Checklist) or teacher evaluations. While informant reports provide valuable observations of observable behavior and disruptive symptomatology, they frequently underestimate the internal, subjective affective states of children, particularly internalizing distress, subjective emotional intensity, and covert regulatory efforts.

Walden, Harris, and Catron (2003) designed the HIF to resolve a central conceptual and diagnostic dilemma in developmental psychopathology: disentangling emotional arousal (how frequently and intensely a child experiences specific emotions) from emotion regulation (the child’s perceived ability to manage, modulate, inhibit, or alter those feelings). In clinical contexts, children exhibiting behavioral challenges or affective disorders may present with excessive emotional reactivity, deficient regulatory strategies, or a combination of both. For example, a child with severe anxiety may experience heightened fear intensity despite maintaining age-appropriate regulatory motivation, whereas a child with externalizing aggression may lack the perceived self-efficacy or cognitive tools to down-regulate moderate states of anger. The HIF equips clinicians with the diagnostic resolution necessary to identify whether therapeutic intervention should focus primarily on physiological/affective desensitization, cognitive-behavioral regulation skills, or both.

In empirical research, the HIF serves as a critical measure for investigating the normative development of affective systems during middle childhood and the transition to early adolescence. It allows investigators to examine how individual differences in affective intensity and regulatory capacity predict academic performance, peer acceptance, social information processing, and resilience against stress. By assessing discrete positive (happiness, excitement) and negative (sadness, anger, fear) emotions within identical operational frameworks, the HIF facilitates balanced multi-dimensional modeling of pediatric affective processing.

5. Psychological Construct

The HIF operationalizes the multi-faceted nature of emotional functioning through three primary subscales that capture affective frequency, affective intensity, and perceived regulatory efficacy across both positive and negative emotional domains.

Negative Emotion (12 Items)

The Negative Emotion subscale assesses both the frequency and intensity of three primary dysmorphic or distressing emotional states: sadness, anger (“mad”), and fear (“scared”). The construct reflects affective reactivity and subjective negative valence. Rather than conceptualizing negative affect as a unitary global disposition, the HIF incorporates balanced sampling across these discrete affective states:

• Frequency of Negative Affect: Assesses the chronic recurrence or pervasive temporal presence of negative emotions in the child’s daily life (e.g., Item 7: “I was sad very often”; Item 10: “I was scared almost all the time”; Item 13: “I was mad very often”; Item 22: “I was sad almost all the time”; Item 25: “I was scared very often”; Item 28: “I was mad almost all the time”).
• Intensity of Negative Affect: Evaluates the magnitude, power, and overwhelming strength of negative emotions when they occur (e.g., Item 2: “When I felt sad, my sad feelings were very strong”; Item 5: “When I felt scared, my scared feelings were very powerful”; Item 8: “When I felt mad, my mad feelings were very strong”; Item 17: “When I felt sad, my sad feelings were very powerful”; Item 20: “When I felt scared, my scared feelings were very strong”; Item 23: “When I felt mad, my mad feelings were very powerful”).

Positive Emotion (8 Items)

The Positive Emotion subscale captures the presence, temporal frequency, and phenomenological strength of positive emotional states, specifically happiness and excitement. Excitement reflects high-arousal approach-oriented positive affect, whereas happiness represents both moderate- and high-arousal positive valence:

• Frequency of Positive Affect: Captures how routinely the child encounters positive experiential states (e.g., Item 1: “I was happy very often”; Item 4: “I was excited almost all of the time”; Item 16: “I was happy almost all the time”; Item 19: “I was excited very often”).
• Intensity of Positive Affect: Measures the vigor and subjective magnitude of positive emotions (e.g., Item 11: “When I felt happy, my happy feelings were very powerful”; Item 14: “When I felt excited, my excited feelings were very strong”; Item 26: “When I felt happy, my happy feelings were very strong”; Item 29: “When I felt excited, my excited feelings were very powerful”).

Emotion Control (10 Items)

The Emotion Control subscale measures perceived self-efficacy and active regulatory capability regarding emotional states. Crucially, the HIF operationalizes emotion control as a bi-directional construct spanning both negative and positive affect. It reflects the child’s belief that they can exert executive agency over emotional trajectory:

• Frequency Control: The perceived ability to govern the occurrence or recurrence of an emotional episode (e.g., Item 3: “I was in control of how often I felt mad”; Item 9: “I was in control of how often I felt excited”; Item 15: “I was in control of how often I felt scared”; Item 21: “I was in control of how often I felt happy”; Item 27: “I was in control of how often I felt sad”).
• Intensity / Modulation Control: The capacity to actively down-regulate, alter, or transform emotional intensity once an emotion has emerged (e.g., Item 6: “When I felt happy, I could control or change how happy I felt”; Item 12: “When I felt sad, I could control or change how sad I felt”; Item 18: “When I felt mad, I could control or change how mad I felt”; Item 24: “When I felt excited, I could control or change how excited I felt”; Item 30: “When I felt scared, I could control or change how scared I felt”).

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework of the HIF synthesizes functionalist emotion theories, developmental temperament models, and contemporary process models of emotion regulation.

Functionalist Theory of Emotion

Rooted in the functionalist perspectives articulated by Joseph Campos and colleagues, emotions are viewed not merely as feeling states, but as dynamic processes designed to establish, maintain, or disrupt an individual’s relationship with the external environment. Each discrete emotion serves an adaptive evolutionary function: fear promotes defensive withdrawal from threat; anger mobilizes energetic resources to overcome obstacles; sadness elicits interpersonal support and signals the need to conserve energy after loss; and positive emotions foster exploratory behavior, broad cognitive repertoires, and social bonding (Fredrickson’s broaden-and-build theory). Walden et al. (2003) grounded the HIF in this functionalist view by assessing these specific, discrete emotional systems rather than treating emotionality solely as an undifferentiated global mood state.

Temperament and Dual-Process Architectures

The HIF aligns closely with Mary Rothbart and Nancy Eisenberg’s models of temperament, which distinguish between reactive emotionality (individual thresholds of physiological arousal, affective latency, and emotional intensity) and self-regulation (specifically effortful control, involving executive attention and inhibitory mechanisms). Rothbart posited that psychopathology often emerges from imbalances between high reactive emotionality and low effortful control. Walden and colleagues built the HIF explicitly to capture these two interactive systems through children’s self-reports. The Negative Emotion and Positive Emotion subscales capture reactive emotionality, whereas the Emotion Control subscale captures the self-perceived operationalization of effortful control.

Process Model of Emotion Regulation

In accordance with James Gross’s Process Model of Emotion Regulation, regulatory efforts can target different stages of the emotion-generative timeline: situation selection, situation modification, attentional deployment, cognitive reappraisal, and response modulation. The HIF captures child-level implementations of these strategies through two linguistic formulations: controlling how often an emotion occurs (antecedent-focused regulation, such as situation selection or cognitive reframing) and controlling or changing the feeling once active (response-focused regulation and cognitive modulation). By utilizing simple, developmentally sensitive terminology (“control or change how I felt”), the HIF measures the cognitive representation of regulatory self-efficacy in childhood without requiring complex meta-cognitive jargon.

7. Validity

Extensive empirical studies conducted during the development and subsequent cross-validation of the HIF provide robust evidence for its construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity.

Construct and Factorial Validity

In the original validation study by Walden, Harris, and Catron (2003), involving both normative school samples (over 700 children across grades 3 through 6) and clinical outpatients, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses systematically verified the three-factor model. The three factors—Negative Emotion, Positive Emotion, and Emotion Control—demonstrated distinct psychometric boundaries. Factor loadings across primary items consistently exceeded .40, with clean separation between affective arousal and affective control items.

Convergent Validity

The convergent validity of the HIF has been established through meaningful associations with independent psychological and behavioral measures:

• Internalizing Symptoms: The Negative Emotion subscale correlates positively and significantly with self-reported depression on the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI) and anxiety on the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS; r values typically ranging from .45 to .62, p < .001). Conversely, the Emotion Control subscale exhibits significant negative correlations with both CDI and RCMAS scores (r values ranging from -.30 to -.48), indicating that lower perceived control is associated with higher depressive and anxious symptomatology.
• Externalizing and Behavioral Adjustment: In clinical samples, elevated Negative Emotion scores (particularly anger and mad intensity) and depressed Emotion Control scores correlate significantly with parent- and teacher-reported externalizing problems on the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and Teacher Report Form (TRF).
• Observer-Rated Emotion Regulation: The HIF Emotion Control subscale shows moderate-to-strong positive associations with the Emotion Regulation Checklist (ERC; Shields & Cicchetti), completed by teachers and clinicians who observe the child’s daily behavioral adaptability.

Discriminant and Criterion Validity

The HIF demonstrates sound discriminant validity: correlations between the HIF subscales and measures of general cognitive ability (e.g., standard IQ scores or academic achievement percentiles) are negligible (r < .10, non-significant), demonstrating that the instrument does not merely reflect intellectual competence or academic aptitude. Furthermore, the HIF successfully discriminates between clinical populations (children referred to outpatient mental health clinics for mood, anxiety, or conduct problems) and non-referred community controls. Clinical cohorts report significantly higher Negative Emotion scores and significantly lower Emotion Control scores than matched non-referred peers.

8. Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the HIF has been substantiated through rigorous assessments of internal consistency, item-total correlations, and temporal stability across diverse pediatric cohorts.

Internal Consistency

Internal consistency estimates, evaluated via Cronbach’s coefficient alpha, indicate high measurement reliability across all three subscales in both normative and clinical groups:

• Negative Emotion Subscale (12 items): Cronbach’s alpha consistently ranges from .84 to .88 across normative elementary school cohorts and reaches .89 in clinical samples. Corrected item-total correlations for this dimension remain robust, ranging from .42 to .68.
• Positive Emotion Subscale (8 items): Demonstrates good internal consistency, with alpha coefficients typically between .77 and .84. The coherence of these items confirms that happiness and excitement form a reliable positive affect dimension in middle childhood.
• Emotion Control Subscale (10 items): Exhibits solid internal consistency, with alpha values ranging from .74 to .82. Given that this scale incorporates regulatory self-efficacy across five distinct emotions (positive and negative), an alpha around .80 highlights strong common variance reflecting generalized emotion regulatory agency.

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability assessments over a two-to-four-week test-retest interval demonstrate reliable longitudinal consistency in school-age children:

• Negative Emotion: Test-retest correlation r = .71 to .76 (p < .001).
• Positive Emotion: Test-retest correlation r = .65 to .72 (p < .001).
• Emotion Control: Test-retest correlation r = .68 to .74 (p < .001).

These coefficients reflect a balanced measurement profile: sufficient stability to capture trait-like dispositions and perceived regulatory competence, alongside appropriate sensitivity to developmental fluctuations and therapeutic change.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural validity of the HIF was established by Walden et al. (2003) through a combination of Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During scale development, an initial pool of items tapping discrete affective frequency, intensity, and regulation was administered to a normative validation sample. Principal Axis Factoring with oblique (Promax) rotation was employed due to the theoretical expectation that affective arousal and control dimensions would correlate moderately. The analysis yielded a distinct three-factor solution based on the scree test, eigenvalues greater than 1.5, and conceptual interpretability:

• Factor 1 (Negative Emotion): Accounted for the largest proportion of total variance (~24.5%). All 12 items addressing sadness, fear, and anger loaded strongly onto this factor (loadings ranging from .41 to .72) with minimal cross-loadings onto the other factors (< .20).
• Factor 2 (Emotion Control): Accounted for ~13.8% of the variance. All 10 items assessing control over emotional frequency and modulation loaded on this factor (loadings ranging from .38 to .69). Notably, items reflecting control over negative feelings and control over positive feelings loaded onto this single regulatory factor.
• Factor 3 (Positive Emotion): Accounted for ~9.2% of the variance. All 8 items evaluating the frequency and intensity of happiness and excitement loaded cleanly onto this factor (loadings ranging from .44 to .71).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

In cross-validation samples, Walden et al. tested competing theoretical models using Confirmatory Factor Analysis:

• Model 1 (Single-Factor Model): All items loading onto a generalized “emotionality” construct. This model exhibited poor fit: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) > .11, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) < .68.
• Model 2 (Two-Factor Valence Model): All negative items (arousal + control) vs. all positive items (arousal + control). This model also displayed inadequate fit (RMSEA = .094, CFI = .76).
• Model 3 (Two-Factor Functional Model): All emotional arousal items (positive and negative) vs. all control items. Fit remained subpar (RMSEA = .089, CFI = .79).
• Model 4 (Hypothesized Three-Factor Model): Negative Emotion, Positive Emotion, and Emotion Control modeled as correlated latent factors. This model demonstrated superior and robust fit across standard psychometric criteria: χ²/df < 2.1, RMSEA = .046 (90% CI [.041, .052]), CFI = .94, and TLI = .93.

Inter-factor correlations in the CFA confirmed that Negative Emotion was negatively correlated with Emotion Control (r ≈ -.38, p < .001), Positive Emotion was positively correlated with Emotion Control (r ≈ .32, p < .001), and Negative Emotion was weakly and inversely related to Positive Emotion (r ≈ -.15, p < .01).

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The practical administration, structural parameters, and scoring conventions for the How I Feel (HIF) instrument are organized as follows:

• Instrument Type: Standardized self-report psychometric rating scale for children and early adolescents.
• Target Population: Children ages 8 to 12 years (grades 3 through 6; adaptable for adolescents up to age 14).
• Reading Level: Formulated at an approximate 2nd to 3rd-grade reading level to ensure independent comprehension by elementary school students.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire or secure digital assessment. In younger cohorts (grades 3–4) or clinical populations with reading difficulties, items may be read aloud by a trained administrator.
• Estimated Completion Time: 10 to 15 minutes.
• Item Count: 30 items total.
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert scale formatted with authentic childhood-friendly verbal anchors:
  • 1 = not at all true of me
  • 2 = a little true of me
  • 3 = somewhat true of me
  • 4 = pretty true of me
  • 5 = very true of me
• Subscale Composition:
  • Negative Emotion (12 items): Items 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 17, 20, 22, 23, 25, 28.
  • Positive Emotion (8 items): Items 1, 4, 11, 14, 16, 19, 26, 29.
  • Emotion Control (10 items): Items 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30.
• Scoring Procedures:
  • All items are scored directly from 1 to 5. There are no reverse-scored items on the HIF.
  • Subscale scores are typically computed by calculating the mean item score (sum of subscale items divided by the number of completed items on that subscale), maintaining a standardized 1.00 to 5.00 metric across all three dimensions.
  • Alternatively, raw sum scores may be utilized: Negative Emotion range = 12–60; Positive Emotion range = 8–40; Emotion Control range = 10–50.
  • Higher scores on Negative Emotion indicate greater experienced frequency and intensity of sadness, fear, and anger.
  • Higher scores on Positive Emotion denote more frequent and powerful happiness and excitement.
  • Higher scores on Emotion Control represent greater perceived self-efficacy and active capability in regulating emotional experiences.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The How I Feel (HIF) instrument was officially published in 2003 by the American Psychological Association (APA) in the peer-reviewed journal Psychological Assessment (Walden, Harris, & Catron, 2003). It is also documented and reproduced in clinical assessment sourcebooks, including Fischer and Corcoran’s Measures for Clinical Practice and Research: A Sourcebook (4th ed., 2007, Oxford University Press).

The instrument is considered an uncopyrighted/open clinical-research assessment tool developed under university auspices. It is accessible free of charge for non-commercial academic research, educational training, and clinical practice purposes, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution is given to Walden, Harris, and Catron (2003). Commercial reproduction, inclusion within proprietary software platforms, or commercial redistribution requires formal permission from the primary copyright holders and the American Psychological Association.

12. References

• Cole, P. M., Martin, S. E., & Dennis, T. A. (2004). Emotion regulation as a scientific construct: Methodological challenges and directions for child development research. Child Development, 75(2), 317–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00673.x
• Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Guthrie, I. K., & Reiser, M. (2000). Dispositional emotionality and regulation: Their role in predicting quality of social functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(1), 136–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.136
• Fischer, J., & Corcoran, K. J. (2007). Measures for clinical practice and research: A sourcebook (4th ed., Vol. 1: Couples, families, and children, pp. 550–551). Oxford University Press.
• 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
• Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (2006). Temperament. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3, Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 99–166). John Wiley & Sons.
• 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
• Walden, T. A., Harris, V. S., & Catron, T. F. (2003). How I feel: A self-report measure of emotional arousal and regulation for children. Psychological Assessment, 15(3), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.15.3.399

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)