Systematic Review: Questionnaire-Based Measurement of Emotion Dysregulation in Children and Adolescents

Abstract

Objective:

Emotion dysregulation, understood as a critical transdiagnostic factor in the etiology and maintenance of psychopathology, is among the most common reasons youth are referred for psychiatric care. The present systematic review examines two decades of questionnaires used to assess emotion (dys)regulation in youth.

Method:

Using “emotion (dys)regulation,” we searched PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science for empirical, peer-reviewed journal studies published prior to May 2021 in clinical and/or non-clinical youth. A total of 510 studies met selection criteria and were included.

Results:

Across the literature, 115 distinct self-, parent-, or other –informant-reported measures of emotion (dys)regulation were used in cross-sectional (67.1%), longitudinal (22.4%), intervention (9.0%), and mixed design (1.6%) studies. Out of 115 different questionnaires, a subset of just five measures of emotion (dys)regulation were used in most of the literature (i.e., 59.6% of studies). Moreover, reviewed studies examined emotion (dys)regulation in over 20 distinct clinical groups, further supporting emotion dysregulation as a transdiagnostic construct.

Conclusion:

Numerous themes emerged. Broadly, we found that measures differ in their ability to capture: internal versus external components of emotion dysregulation; the use of adaptive versus maladaptive responses; and subjective experiences more broadly versus particular affective states. These findings serve to guide researchers and clinicians in selecting appropriate measurement tools for assessing specific domains of child and adolescent emotion dysregulation.

INTRODUCTION

Emotion dysregulation in children and adolescents (herein referenced as “youth”) is associated with considerable life impairment¹ and increased risk for a wide range of psychopathology outcomes.^2,3,4 As such, youth emotion dysregulation and associated transdiagnostic symptoms confer a sizeable public health concern.⁵ Against a backdrop of relatively limited progress in the development of consensus evidence-based practices for specifically addressing emotion dysregulation and its component processes, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry’s 2020 Presidential Initiative⁶ included an urgent call to meaningfully advance the assessment and treatment of emotion dysregulation in youth. An essential first step in this mission is to identify valid and reliable measurements of emotion dysregulation, with a particular focus on questionnaires that can be readily integrated into practice settings and patient-centered research.

In the present review, we first present and compare leading definitions of the emotion dysregulation construct. Next, we critically review over two decades of emotion dysregulation research. We provide both narrative and graphical reviews of questionnaires utilized to measure this term to highlight its unique and shared features. We then consider the extent to which available emotion dysregulation questionnaires converge with and diverge from these leading conceptualizations. We conclude with future directions to guide appropriate selection of measurement tools for assessing specific domains of child and adolescent emotion dysregulation.

Conceptualizations of emotion dysregulation

The regulation of emotions is a complex process that combines internal, behavioral, and environmental components of emotion management. Anderson and Adolph⁷ posited that emotion regulation (ER) is the ability to have some degree of volitional control over one’s emotion state, the conscious experience of that state, and the behavioral and autonomic expression of that state. Similarly, Gross⁸ asserted that emotion regulation refers to the internal (e.g., attentional/cognitive) or external (e.g., behavioral) responses used to change or maintain the subjective, behavioral, and/or physiological components of an emotional response. Others have further suggested that ER involves voluntary and implicit responding to one’s environment with an emotional response that is appropriate and within the range of socially acceptable behavior.⁹ Thus, ER is best understood as a process with the goal of modifying the valence or intensity of an emotional experience.^10–12 This process of regulation may be achieved through a variety of attentional/cognitive responses to stimuli—such as cognitive reappraisal, problem solving, self-soothing, emotional acceptance, and mindfulness—as well as through social and behavioral responses.

Conversely, emotion dysregulation refers to a maladaptive or aberrant emotion regulation process that results in emotional, mood, or behavioral dysfunction. Importantly, there is not yet consensus regarding what specifically defines emotion dysregulation in youth, resulting in numerous conceptualizations of varying scope and focus. A particularly salient area of disagreement concerns the breadth of the definition with respect to various emotions. Whereas authors such as Beauchaine¹³ offer a broad definition of emotion dysregulation as “a pattern of emotional experience and/or expression that interferes with appropriate goal-directed behavior”¹³ , others have presented a narrower conceptualization through the specific lens of disproportionate anger and irritability in response to frustrating events.⁶

Anger and associated emotions have been extensively investigated within past literature. Anger is one of the basic emotions posed by Ekman ¹⁴ and may be triggered by perceived injustice, blocked goal attainment, and/or disapproval of external and internal experiences. Others have highlighted the association of anger with disgust and contempt, terming the grouping of such emotions the hostility triad. ¹⁵ Per Izard,¹⁵ these three emotions commonly co-occur and are often triggered by disapproval of others or situations. Despite such similarities, the three emotions of the hostility triad differ in their action tendencies; while disgust and contempt are typically associated with avoidance and indifference, respectively, anger often manifests in aberrant approach behavior, such as relational and physical aggression and temper tantrums. ^{15, 16} Past work has highlighted the role of emotion regulation in mediating the association between anger and aberrant approach behavior, such as aggression.^17–19 For example, Ersan¹⁹ found that emotion regulation mediates the relation between anger and physical and relational aggression in youth, such that emotion regulation is negatively associated with both anger and relational aggression. Such results indicate that higher levels of anger are associated with lower levels of emotion regulation, which in turn are associated with higher levels of relational and physical aggression.¹⁹

The role of emotion regulation in the expression of anger is apparent in Carlson’s⁶ 2020 American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Presential Address, as she recounts the story of a “dysregulated child” who experienced intense anger, oppositionality, and temper outbursts that were disproportionate in intensity and duration to triggering events. In light of the reviewed literature,^17–19 it follows that the dysregulated child lacked the necessary emotion regulation skills to prevent aberrant approach behavior and temper outbursts. This association of anger, irritability, and aberrant approach behavior is characteristic of Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder.²⁰ The inclusion of the term “dysregulation” in the name of this disorder further highlights the common association between the term “dysregulation” and anger/irritability. Furthermore, a recent review of the measurement of dysregulation in youth²¹ emphasizes this association, as the authors focus exclusively on measures that assess anger, irritability, and aggressive behaviors. Indeed, many efforts to advance the understanding of emotion dysregulation in youth have specifically focused on the assessment, characterization, and treatment of angry outbursts in youth.^6,22

However, there are a variety of other emotion dysregulation conceptualizations that are not specific to anger and align more with the broader view of Beauchaine.¹³ For example, Gratz and Roemer²³ characterize emotion dysregulation as a lack of awareness and acceptance of emotions, limited access to adaptive ER responses, an unwillingness to endure emotional distress, and an inability to engage in goal-directed behavior while experiencing distress.²³ Cole and Hall’s²⁴ perspective presents a slightly different definition whereby emotion dysregulation comprises ineffective attempts at regulation, behavioral interference due to emotions, inappropriate expression of emotions (e.g., humor, excessive silliness or laughter), and aberrant fluctuations in emotions.²⁴ Although the Gratz and Roemer²³ and Cole and Hall²⁴ definitions may appear similar at face value, their subtle differences reflect an important question: is emotion dysregulation best conceptualized as deficient emotion regulation, or are they disparate constructs? That is, does the measurement of deficient emotion regulation diverge from the measurement of emotion dysregulation? Cicchetti and colleagues²⁵ argue that ER and emotion dysregulation are not synonymous processes (albeit inversely framed), as deficits or problems in emotion regulation involve an absence or underuse of adaptive ER responses (e.g., re-appraisal, acceptance, problem-solving), whereas emotion dysregulation involves the presence and/or application of aberrant or maladaptive ER responses (e.g., avoidance, maladaptive approach, rumination).²⁵ Taken together, the definition posed by Gratz and Roemer²³ supports the view of emotion dysregulation as the absence of adaptive responses such as emotional awareness and distress tolerance, whereas the definition posed by Cole and Hall²⁴ aligns more closely to the presence and application of aberrant ER responses.

In an attempt to bridge this discrepancy, D’Agostino and colleagues²⁶ reviewed the literature on emotion dysregulation definitions and conceptualizations. Although the authors did not discover a consistent, agreed upon definition of emotion dysregulation, they did identify five dimensions of emotion dysregulation across over 100 included studies: decreased emotional awareness, inadequate emotional reactivity, intense experience and expression of emotions, emotional rigidity, and cognitive reappraisal difficulty.²⁶ These components appear to bridge both aspects of Cichetti and colleagues’²⁵ argument, differentiating emotion regulation deficits as the underuse of adaptive responses (e.g., decreased emotional awareness, inadequate emotional reactivity, cognitive reappraisal difficulty) from emotion dysregulation as the application of maladaptive responses (e.g., intense experience and expression of emotions, emotional rigidity).

To highlight the subtle difference between deficient emotion regulation and emotion dysregulation, consider the example of a child who has been told to stop playing a videogame in order to get ready for bed. Due to the blocked goal (e.g., continuing to play the game), the child may experience frustration and exhibit anger. In this scenario, deficient emotion regulation presents as an inability to accept having to stop the preferred activity, and/or an inability to reappraise the situation in a less emotionally evocative frame (e.g., reasonable request given the time). On the other hand, emotion dysregulation may present as a temper tantrum (i.e., maladaptive approach) and rumination on the perceived injustice for the remainder of the evening. Importantly, in this example, the underuse of adaptive, proactive ER responses (i.e., deficient emotion regulation) and the application of maladaptive, reactive ER responses (i.e., emotion dysregulation) can interact; the child’s deficient proactive emotion regulation and maladaptive reactive emotion dysregulation result in the observed emotional and behavioral responses. Thus, both deficient emotion regulation and emotion dysregulation can contribute to a child’s emotional and behavioral state. While this example focused on anger as the emotion, one can easily replace the trigger with that of a worry evoking stimulus (e.g., the child has an important test tomorrow), the appraisal of threat, and a behavioral maladaptive response with that of avoidance or not wanting to go to school the next day.

Despite a lack of consensus regarding the optimal conceptualization of emotion dysregulation in youth, there has been rapid growth in the development of questionnaire-based measures of youth emotion dysregulation that has spurred a proliferation of research drawing on these tools. Varied conceptualizations of emotion dysregulation set the stage for potential misalignment between the true nature of emotion dysregulation and the measurements employed to assess it. This state of affairs can also constrain the extent to which certain studies across the literature using different measures, but purporting to measure the same processes (i.e., “emotion dysregulation in youth”), can truly be integrated.

The wide array of tools used by researchers and clinicians to assess emotion dysregulation is reflected in Adrian, Zeman, and Veits’²⁷ review from a decade ago that identified 30 self-, parent-, or other-report questionnaires measuring emotion (dys)regulation in youth.²⁷ A more recent review by Althoff and Ametti²¹ builds upon this work and presents common measures of emotion dysregulation within the context of anger and irritability. However, questions remain regarding the operationalization of emotion dysregulation and, relatedly, which questionnaires are most suitable to capture various facets of this construct.

The current work expands upon these reviews ^{21, 27} to provide an updated synthesis of the measures used to assess emotion dysregulation in youth, to consider how various measures differentially align with various conceptualizations of emotion dysregulation, and to provide an evidence-based assessment framework ^28–31 upon which interested parties can guide their selection of emotion dysregulation measures. Specifically, we surveyed the existing literature on emotion dysregulation measurement to identify a current and comprehensive list of questionnaires used to assess emotion dysregulation in clinical and non-clinical samples of children and adolescents. Importantly, we review studies that explicitly contain “emotion (dys)regulation” in the title or abstract. Therefore, studies that evaluate phenomena associated with emotion dysregulation, such as irritability and negative emotion management, but that do not contain “emotion (dys)regulation” in the title or abstract are not included. Results can guide researchers and clinicians in selecting the most appropriate measurement tool(s) for targeting specific domains of youth emotion dysregulation.

METHOD

The present review was conducted in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines³² and was pre-registered with PROSPERO. The primary search strategy involved three systematic literature searches using PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science for empirical, peer-reviewed journal articles using every combination of the following terms: emotion AND (dysregulation OR regulation) AND (assess OR scale OR measure OR interview OR questionnaire OR inventory OR report) AND (youth OR pediatric OR child OR adolescent). We restricted the search by applying additional filters based on article type (e.g., excluding non-empirical articles, such as commentaries), age, human subjects research, and language. We placed no restrictions on diagnostic groups or sampling, allowing us to examine the full literature and affording an opportunity to examine the extent to which certain tools have been used more in certain clinical or non-clinical populations of youth. The literature search returned studies based on inclusion of the above terms in the title, abstract, and keyword of studies; therefore, if these terms were missing from said fields, articles were not identified in the systematic literature search. The subsequent review was conducted in two stages: (1) title and abstract review and (2) full-text review. The first stage involved two independent reviewers screening article titles and abstracts from the search engine results for relevance and inclusion criteria. For studies passing this initial review, full-text papers were further examined for eligibility and relevant data were extracted by three independent reviewers.

Inclusion criteria

Articles examining emotion (dys)regulation were included if they met the following criteria: (a) original empirical study, (b) human-subjects research, (c) all participants were between 6–18 years of age (d) written in the English language, and (e) examined emotion (dys)regulation with self-, parent-, and/or other –informant-reported questionnaire(s). Duplicates across search engines were removed. To further streamline the review, articles were excluded if they did not explicitly state that a questionnaire measure was used for assessing emotion (dys)regulation. Moreover, we only included studies that assessed emotion (dys)regulation with a measure consisting of at least three items given that reliability cannot be computed with two or less items. Studies that included youth samples which fell outside the 6–18 years of age range were excluded, such that a study including youth 3–18 years-old, for example, would be excluded.

Data extraction

During full-text review, the coders independently extracted relevant data from all studies meeting inclusion criteria. The following data were extracted from each study: publication year, sample size, sample age range, clinical characteristics of sample, study design (i.e., cross-sectional, longitudinal, intervention), specific measure(s) of emotion (dys)regulation used, subscales of measure(s) used, reported internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha), measure informant(s), number of items per measure(s), language(s) of each measure, and accessibility of each measure.

RESULTS

Study Selection

Figure 1 illustrates the flow of screened and included studies³². The initial search yielded 2,051 articles, after removing duplicates, for initial (title and abstract) screening. Of these, 42.2% advanced for second phase (full-text) screening, and a final set of 510 studies met all selection criteria and were included in the present review.

Figure 1: PRISMA Flow Diagram of Study Inclusion Process for Present Review.

Note: ^aRecords were identified from PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science for empirical, peer-reviewed journal articles with the search criteria described in the Methods section. ^bRecords were excluded at the first stage of Screening if the abstract indicated the research was not empirical, was conducted with non-human subjects, included participants outside the age range of 6–18, was not written in English, and did not include a measure of emotion (dys)regulation.

Characteristics of the Literature

As seen in Figure 2, there has been a striking increase in the number of studies assessing emotion (dys)regulation measurement in youth over the last two decades (r = .852, p < .001), with the number of publications increasing by 800% from 2000–2010 to 2011–2021. Regarding study design, the majority of studies (i.e., 67.1%) were cross-sectional, one-fifth (22.4%) were longitudinal, 1.6% combined both cross-sectional and longitudinal designs, and 9.0% were intervention or treatment studies. Youth self-report was the most common mode of assessing emotion dysregulation (used in 75.7% of included studies), followed by parent-report (used in 19.2% of included studies). Only a small minority of studies relied on multiple reporters of emotion dysregulation—2.0% used both self- and parent-reports, 1.4% used both teacher- and parent-reports, 1.0% used teacher-reports, 0.6% used clinician-reports, and 0.2% used self-, parent-, and teacher-reports. Across studies, the vast majority (80.6%) used only one measure of emotion (dys)regulation, whereas 19.4% used more than one measure. The majority of studies (77.3%) included youth from a broad age range, whereas a relatively small proportion of studies (12.4%) examined emotion (dys)regulation specifically in younger samples (i.e., ≤12 years of age) and a small proportion of studies (10.0%) examined emotion (dys)regulation specifically in older youth (i.e., ≥13 years of age). The sample size across the included studies ranged from N = 3 participants to N = 5,271 participants, with a mean sample size of N = 429 youth and a median sample size of N = 204.

Figure 2: Number of Studies of Emotion Dysregulation Meeting Search Criteria by Year.

Note: The 2021a bar should be interpreted as “in progress”, as the corresponding value represents the number of studies published prior to May 2021 that were included in this review.

The majority of studies (58.0%) included non-clinical youth in their sample. Among studies that measured emotion (dys)regulation in clinical samples, almost one-third (29.4%) included youth with neurodevelopmental disorders and/or symptoms (i.e., attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder, intellectual disability, learning disorder, tourette syndrome), roughly one-fifth (18.7%) included youth with internalizing disorders and/or symptoms (i.e., anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorders), 12.1% included youth with medical conditions and/or symptoms (i.e., human immunodeficiency virus, arterial ischemic stroke, cerebral palsy, cystic fibrosis, traumatic brain injury, diabetes type 1, obesity, cancer, sickle cell disease), 11.2% included youth who were trauma-exposed (i.e., by war, neighborhood and/or domestic violence, sexual abuse, child maltreatment, natural disaster), and 8.8% included youth with externalizing disorders and/or symptoms (i.e., oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, substance use). A smaller percentage of the reviewed studies measured emotion (dys)regulation in youth engaging in non-suicidal self-injurious behaviors (6.5%), youth with disordered eating (5.6%), youth with borderline personality disorders and/or symptoms (5.1%), and youth with bipolar disorder and/or symptoms (1.4%). Of note, a large portion of studies evaluated emotion (dys)regulation in samples composed of numerous disorders (e.g., a sample including youth with anxiety disorders and youth with externalizing disorders).

Utilized Measures and their Links with Various Domains of Emotion (Dys)regulation

Across the literature, a total of 115 distinct self-, parent-, and other –informant-reported questionnaires were identified, compared to only 30 at the time of Adrian and colleagues’ review²⁷ (see Tables 1–4 for details).

Table 1:

Characteristics of Youth-Report Questionnaires of Emotion (Dys)regulation in the Literature

Youth-Report Questionnaires (n = 81)
Measure	Subscales	Behavioral Manifestation	Internal Process	# Items	n	Age Range	Population(s)	α Range	Language(s)	Freely Available
Abbreviated Dysregulation Inventory33	1. Emotional Dysregulation 2. Behavioral Dysregulation 3. Cognitive Dysregulation	Yes	Yes	30	1	12–18	Non-clinical	0.75	English; Persian; Portuguese	No
Acceptance and Action Questionnaire II34	N/A	No	Yes	7	1	12–16	Non-clinical	0.93	English; Spanish; Greek; Hungarian; Malay; Norwegian; Persian; Polish; Romanian; Serbian; Swedish; Turkish;	Yes
Adolescent Coping Scale35	1. Productive Coping 2. Non-Productive Coping 3. Other Coping	Yes	Yes	60	1	13–18	Non-clinical	0.61–0.71	English; Spanish	No
Adolescents Emotion Regulation Questionnaire36	1. Positive Emotion Regulation 2. Negative Emotion Regulation	Yes	Yes	35	1	10–14	Non-clinical	0.62–0.85	Chinese	No
Adolescent Quality of Life Mental Health Scale37	1. Emotional Regulation 2. Self-Concept 3. Social Context	Yes	Yes	31	1	12–18	Externalizing disorders; Neurodevelopmental disorders; Internalizing disorders	0.80–0.85	English; Spanish	Yes
Adolescent and Adult Mindfulness Scale38	1. Attention and Awareness 2. Non-Reactivity 3. Non-Judgmental 4. Self-Accepting	No	Yes	24	1	11–18	Non-clinical	0.61–0.88	English	Yes
Affect Dysregulation Scale39	N/A	Yes	Yes	6	1	12–15	Non-clinical	0.87	English	Yes
Affective Style Questionnaire40	1. Concealing 2. Adjusting 3. Tolerating	Yes	Yes	20	2	10–16	Non-clinical	0.56–0.83	English; Chinese; Dutch; French; German; Japanese; Serbian	Yes
Alexithymia Questionnaire for Children41	1. Difficulty Identifying Feelings 2. Difficulty Describing Feelings	No	Yes	20	1	10–15	Non-clinical	Not reported	Arabic; Croatian; Dutch; English; Farsi; Finnish; French; German; Hebrew; Italian; Polish; Spanish; Swedish; Urdu	Yes
Anger Response Inventory – Child Version42	1. Anger Arousal 2. Intentions 3. Maladaptive Responses 4. Adaptive Behaviors 5. Escapist-Diffusing Responses 6. Cognitive Reappraisals 7. Long-Term Consequences	Yes	Yes	20	1	9–13	Non-clinical	0.69–0.75	English	No
Anger Rumination Scale43	1. Angry Afterthoughts 2. Thoughts of Revenge 3. Angry Memories 4. Understanding of Causes	No	Yes	19	1	8–16	Neurodevelopmental disorders	0.93	English; Chinese; Farsi; French; Spanish; Turkish	Yes
Avoidance and Fusion Questionnaire for Youth44	N/A	No	Yes	17	3	12–17	Bipolar disorder; Eating disorders; Externalizing disorders; Internalizing disorders; Personality disorders; Inpatient; Non-clinical	0.87–0.88	English; Dutch; Italian; Persian; Spanish; Swedish	Yes
Bermond-Vorst Alexithymia Questionnaire45	1. Emotionalizing 2. Fantasizing 3. Identifying 4. Analyzing 5. Verbalizing	Yes	Yes	40	1	12–18	At-risk for schizophrenia	Not reported	English; Chinese; Dutch; French; Italian; Japanese; Polish; Russian; Turkish	Yes
Child and Adolescent Flexible Expressiveness Scale46	1. Expressive Enhancement 2. Expressive Suppression	Yes	No	13	1	8–16	Non-clinical	0.72–0.73	English; Chinese	No
Child Acceptance and Mindfulness Measure47	N/A	No	Yes	25	2	11–18	Inpatient (Mood disorders); Neurodevelopmental disorders; Non-clinical	0.80	English; Dutch	Yes
Child and Adolescent Mindfulness Measure48	N/A	No	Yes	10	4	11–18	Medical disorders; Non-clinical	0.83–0.89	English; Catalan; Dutch; French; Greek; Italian; Persian; Portuguese; Spanish; Turkish	Yes
Child Affect Questionnaire – Child Strategies49	1. Problem Solving 2. Seek Support 3. Cognitive Strategies 4. Behavioral Avoidance 5. Affect Change 6. Negative Responses	Yes	Yes	48	2	10–12	Non-clinical	0.80	English	No
Children’s Coping Strategies Checklist50	1. Problem-Focused Coping 2. Positive Cognitive Restructuring 3. Distraction Strategies 4. Avoidance Strategies	Yes	Yes	45	1	12–17	Trauma-exposed inpatient; Non-clinical	0.70	English; Dutch; Italian; Arabic; Persian	Yes
Children’s Coping Strategies Checklist – Revised51	1. Problem-Focused Coping 2. Positive Cognitive Restructuring 3. Distraction Strategies 4. Avoidance Strategies 5. Support Seeking Strategies	Yes	Yes	54	2	9–16	Non-clinical	0.78–0,92	English; Dutch	Yes
Children’s Negative Cognitive Error Questionnaire52	1. Catastrophizing 2. Over-Generalizing 3. Personalizing 4. Selective Abstraction	No	Yes	24	1	10–12	Internalizing disorders; Non-clinical	0.92	English; Turkish	No
Children’s Response Styles Questionnaire53	1. Rumination 2. Distraction 3. Problem-Solving	Yes	Yes	25	12	7–17	Internalizing disorders; Non-clinical	0.70–0.87	English; Chinese; Turkish	No
Cognition Efficacy Questionnaire54	N/A	No	Yes	25	1	10–18	Medical disorders	0.93	English	No
Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire55	1. Self-Blame 2. Other-Blame 3. Acceptance 4. Planning 5. Positive Refocusing 6. Rumination 7. Positive Reappraisal 8. Putting into Perspective 9. Catastrophize	No	Yes	36	32	8–18	Internalizing disorders; Neurodevelopmental disorders; Personality disorders; Medical disorders; Trauma-exposed; Non-clinical	0.32–0.91	English; Dutch; Spanish; French; Chinese; German; Persian; Portuguese; Hungarian; Romanian; Turkish	Yes
Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire for Children56	1. Self-Blame 2. Other-Blame 3. Acceptance 4. Planning 5. Positive Refocusing 6. Rumination 7. Positive Reappraisal 8. Putting into Perspective 9. Catastrophize	No	Yes	36	9	8–18	Internalizing disorders; Medical disorders; Non-clinical	0.54–0.82	English; Dutch; Chinese; Portuguese	Yes
Coping Scale57	1. Problem Solving 2. Seeking Social Support 3. Externalizing 4. Internalizing 5. Distraction 6. Trivializing	Yes	Yes	34	2	8–16	Neurodevelopmental disorders	0.66–0.80	English; Dutch	Yes
Co-Rumination Questionnaire58	N/A	Yes	Yes	27	1	9–17	Non-clinical	0.97	English	No
Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale – Short Form59	1. Non-Acceptance of Emotional Response 2. Difficulties in Goal-Directed Behavior 3. Impulse Control 4. Lack of Emotional Awareness 5. Limited ER Strategies 6. Lack of Emotional Clarity	Yes	Yes	18	12	7–18	Internalizing disorders; Trauma-exposed; PTSD; Neurodevelopmental disorders; NSSI; Non-clinical	0.63–0.93	English; Dutch; French; Spanish; Portuguese	Yes
Dimensions of Aggression Inventory60	1. Pure Overt Aggression 2. Pure Relational Aggression 3. Instrumental Aggression 4. Reactive Aggression	Yes	No	36	1	13–18	NSSI	0.72–0.86	English	No
Distress Tolerance Scale61	1. Tolerance 2. Appraisal 3. Absorption 4. Regulation	No	Yes	15	1	13–18	NSSI	0.96	English; Chinese; French; Persian; Polish; Spanish	Yes
Emotion Awareness Questionnaire62	1. Differentiating Emotions 2. Verbal Sharing of Emotions 3. Bodily Awareness of Emotions 4. Acting Out Emotions 5. Analyses of Emotions 6. Attention to Others’ Emotions	Yes	Yes	30	6	9–16	Neurodevelopmental disorders; Non-clinical	0.67–0.81	English; Dutch; Farsi; French; German; Italian; Japanese; Romanian; Spanish; Urdu	Yes
Emotional Clarity Questionnaire63	N/A	No	Yes	7	1	12–15	Non-clinical	0.81–0.82	English	No
Emotional Cultivation Scale64	1. Cultivating Emotion Strategies 2. Understanding Emotion Connotations	No	Yes	9	1	9–15	Non-clinical	0.67–0.78	English; Chinese	No
Emotion Reactivity Scale65	N/A	Yes	Yes	21	2	11–18	NSSI; Non-clinical	0.94–0.97	English; French; Icelandic	Yes
Emotion Regulation Ability Scale66	1. Emotional Control 2. Emotional Recovery 3. Strategy Use	N/A	Yes	14	1	12–17	Non-clinical	0.85	Chinese	No
Emotion Regulation Index for Children and Adolescents67	1. Emotional Control 2. Emotional Self-Awareness 3. Situational Responsiveness	Yes	Yes	16	6	7–17	Internalizing disorders; Neurodevelopmental disorders; NSSI; Non-clinical	0.51–0.81	English	Yes
Emotion Regulation Inventory68	1. Dysregulative 2. Suppressive 3. Integrative	No	Yes	18	4	9–18	Non-clinical	0.62–0.88	English	No
Emotion Regulation Questionnaire69	1. Cognitive Reappraisal 2. Expressive Suppression	Yes	Yes	10	44	6–18	Externalizing disorders; Internalizing disorders; NSSI; Suicidality; Psychotic experiences; Neurodevelopmental disorders; Medical disorders; Trauma-exposed; Non-clinical	0.60–0.88	+30 (https://spl.stanford.edu/resources#measures)	Yes
Emotion Regulation Questionnaire for Children and Adolescents70	1. Cognitive Reappraisal 2. Expressive Suppression	Yes	Yes	10	32	6–18	Eating disorders; Internalizing disorders; Neurodevelopmental disorders; Inpatient; Sleep disorders; Non-clinical	0.64–0.92	English; Portuguese; Chinese; Dutch; Italian; Spanish; Persian; Japanese	Yes
Emotional Self-Efficacy71	N/A	No	Yes	8	1	12–15	Non-clinical	0.89	English
Emotional Skills and Competencies Questionnaire72	1. Emotional Perception and Understanding 2. Emotional Expression and Labeling 3. Emotional Management and Regulation	Yes	Yes	45	1	12–15	Non-clinical	0.85–0.90	English; Chinese; Croatian; Finnish; French; Italian; Japanese; Portuguese; Slovene; Spanish; Swedish	Yes
Experiences in Close Relationships Scale-Revised73	1. Avoidance 2. Anxiety	Yes	Yes	36	1	11–18	Non-clinical	0.91–0.93	English	Yes
Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire74	1. Observing 2. Describing 3. Acting with Awareness 4. Nonjudging 5. Nonreactivity	Yes	Yes	39	1	10–13	Non-clinical	0.48–0.81	English; Chinese; Dutch; French; German; Italian; Portuguese; Spanish; Swedish	Yes
Fragebogen zur Erhebung der Emotionsregula tion bei Kindern und Jugendlichen (FEEL-KJ)75	1. Adaptive Emotion Regulation 2. Maladaptive Emotion Regulation	Yes	Yes	90	20	7–18	Internalizing disorders; Eating disorders; Inpatient; Suicidality; Medical disorders; Non-clinical	0.61–0.94	Dutch; German; Spanish	No
Hong’s Psychological Reactance Scale76	1. Freedom of Choice 2. Conformity Reactance 3. Behavioral Freedom 4. Reactance to Advice and Recommendations	Yes	Yes	11	1	14–16	Non-clinical	0.74	English; Czech; Finnish; Swedish	No
How I Deal With Stress Questionnaire77	N/A	Yes	Yes	24	1	11–13	Internalizing disorders; NSSI	0.80	English	Yes
How I Feel78,79	1. Positive Emotion 2. Negative Emotion 3. Emotion Control	Yes	Yes	30	3	7–13	Neurodevelopmental disorders; Non-clinical	0.84–0.90	English; Italian	Yes
Implicit Beliefs About Emotion Scale80	N/A	No	Yes	4	1	10–17	Non-clinical	Not reported	English	No
Interpersonal Regulation Questionnaire81	1. Positive Tendency 2. Positive Efficacy 3. Negative Tendency 4. Negative Efficacy	Yes	No	16	1	9–16	Non-clinical	Not reported	English; Chinese	Yes
Inventory of Statements about Self-Injury82	1. Affect Regulation 2. Interpersonal Boundaries 3. Self-Punishment 4. Self-Care 5. Anti-Dissociation/Feeling-Generation 6. Anti-Suicide 7. Sensation-Seeking 8. Peer-Bonding 9. Interpersonal Influence 10. Toughness 11. Marking Distress 12. Revenge 13. Autonomy	Yes	Yes	46	1	12–16	NSSI; Suicidality	Not reported	English; Persian; Korean; Norwegian; Spanish; Swedish; Turkish; Urdu	Yes
Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale for Children83	1. Self Awareness 2. Other Awareness 3. Total Awareness	No	Yes	12	1	14–17	Eating disorders; Neurodevelopmental disorders; Internalizing disorders	0.44–0.88	English; Chinese; Czech; Dutch; French; Italian; Japanese; Latvian; Polish	Yes
Life Problems Inventory84	1. Confusion About Self 2. Impulsivity 3. Emotional Dysregulation 4. Interpersonal Chaos	Yes	Yes	60	2	12–18	Externalizing disorders; Internalizing disorders; Personality disorders; Non-clinical	0.96	English	Yes
Mindful Attention Awareness Scale85	N/A	No	Yes	15	3	10–18	Non-clinical	0.78–0.86	20+	Yes
Mindful Thinking and Action Scale for Adolescents86	1. Healthy Self-Regulation 2. Active Attention 3. Awareness and Observation 4. Accepting Experience	No	Yes	32	1	11–17	Non-clinical	0.80	English	No
Mood Questionnaire87	1. Anger 2. Happiness 3. Sadness 4. Fear	No	Yes	16	1	9–14	Neurodevelopmental disorders	Not reported	English	No
Negative Mood Regulation Scale88	N/A	Yes	Yes	30	3	8–17	NSSI; Internalizing disorders; PTSD; Non-clinical	0.88	English; German; Spanish; Chinese; Japanese; Korean; Indonesian; Turkish	Yes
Pediatric Anger Expression Scale89	1. Anger Out 2. Anger Suppression 3. Anger Reflection 4. Anger Control	Yes	Yes	15	1	13–17	NSSI; Internalizing disorders; Non-clinical	Not reported	English	No
Profile of Emotional Competence Questionnaire90	1. Identification 2. Comprehension 3. Expression 4. Regulation 5. Utilization	No	Yes	50	1	12–18	Non-clinical	0.94–0.98	English; Arabic; Bengali; Chinese; Dutch; French; Japanese; Myanmar	Yes
Personal Strengths Inventory-291	1. Emotional Awareness 2. Emotional Regulation 3. Goal Setting 4. Empathy 5. Social Competence	Yes	Yes	21	1	8–11	Non-clinical	0.88	English	No
Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire92	1. Reactive Aggression 2. Proactive Aggression 3. Total Aggression	Yes	Yes	23	1	7–16	Non-clinical	0.80	English; Chinese; Dutch; German; Italian; Polish; Portuguese; Serbian; Turkish	Yes
Regulation of Emotions Questionnaire93	1. Dysfunctional Emotion Regulation 2. Functional Emotion Regulation	Yes	Yes	19	6	9–18	Non-clinical	0.54–0.80	English; German	No
Regulatory Emotional Self-Efficacy Scale94	1. Positive Affect 2. Negative Affect	Yes	Yes	14	2	7–15	Externalizing disorders; Internalizing disorders; Non-clinical	0.64–0.89	English; Chinese; German; Italian; Turkish	Yes
Resilience Scale for Chinese Adolescents95	1. Emotion Regulation 2. Goal Concentration 3. Positive Perception 4. Family Support 5. Interpersonal Assistance	Yes	Yes	27	1	10–17	Trauma-exposed; Non-clinical	Not reported	Chinese	No
Revised Dimensions of Temperament Survey96	1. Activity Level-General 2. Activity Level-Sleep 3. Approach/Withdrawal 4. Flexibility/Rigidity 5. Mood Quality 6. Rhythmicity-Sleep 7. Rhythmicity-Eating 8. Rhythmicity-Daily Habits 9. Distractibility 10. Persistence	Yes	Yes	54	1	11–14	Non-clinical	Not reported	English; Chinese German; Polish; Spanish; Japanese	No
Ruminative Responses Scale97	1. Depression 2. Brooding 3. Reflection	No	Yes	22	2	10–18	Eating disorders; Non-clinical	0.89–0.95	English; Japanese; Chinese; Dutch; Turkish	Yes
Ruminative Responses Scale – Short Version98	1. Brooding 2. Reflection	No	Yes	10	1	12–18	Non-clinical	0.80	English; Japanese; Chinese; Spanish; Portuguese; Turkish	No
Ruminative Thought Style Questionnaire99	1. Problem-Focused 2. Counterfactual 3. Repetitive 4. Anticipatory	No	Yes	20	3	10–18	Non-clinical	0.80–0.89	English; Bulgarian; Chinese; Hungarian; Turkish	No
Schoolager’s Coping Strategies Inventory100	N/A	Yes	Yes	26	1	8–17	Non-clinical	0.82	English; German	No
Self-Compassion Scale-Short Form101	1. Self-Kindness 2. Self-Judgement 3. Common Humanity 4. Isolation 5. Mindfulness 6. Over-Identified	No	Yes	12	1	8–18	Non-clinical	0.79	20+	Yes
Self-Efficacy Questionnaire for Children102	1. Social Self-Efficacy 2. Academic Self-Efficacy 3. Emotional Self-Efficacy	Yes	Yes	24	1	12–14	Non-clinical	Not reported	English; Malaysian; Persian	Yes
Self-Efficacy Scale for Children103	1. Negative Emotion Efficacy 2. Positive Emotion Efficacy 3. Academic Achievement Efficacy 4. Self-Control Efficacy	Yes	Yes	16	1	9–11	Externalizing disorders; Internalizing disorders; Non-clinical	0.85–0.93	English; Polish	No
Self-Regulation Scale104	1. Emotion Regulation 2. Cognitive Regulation 3. Behavior Regulation	Yes	Yes	10	2	9–15	Non-clinical	0.85–0.86	English; Chinese; German; Finnish; Spanish; Polish	Yes
Shortened Level of Expressed Emotion Scale105	1. Lack of Emotional Support 2. Irritability 3. Intrusiveness	No	Yes	33	1	13–15	Medical disorders	Not reported	English; Turkish	No
State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory106	1. State Anger 2. Trait Anger 3. Anger Expression-In 4. Anger Expression-Out 5. Anger Control-In 6. Anger Control-Out	Yes	Yes	57	1	12–18	Internalizing disorders; Non-clinical	0.72	English; Spanish; Portuguese; Turkish	No
Strategies of Anger Regulation for Adolescents107	1. Confrontation and Harming 2. Redirection of Attention 3. Ignoring 4. Explanation and Reconciliation 5. Self-Blaming and Reappraisal 6. Humor	Yes	Yes	17	2	12–14	Non-clinical	0.51–0.89	English; German	Yes
Stress and Coping Questionnaire for Children and Adolescents108	1. Seeking Social Support 2. Problem Solving 3. Avoidant Coping 4. Palliative Emotion Regulation 5. Anger-Related Emotion Regulation	Yes	Yes	30	5	7–16	Non-clinical	0.62–0.92	English; French; German; Russian; Spanish; Turkish; Ukranian	Yes
Thought Control Ability Questionnaire109	N/A	No	Yes	25	2	14–15	Non-clinical	0.92	English; French; Spanish	Yes
Three Factors Eating Questionnaire110	1. Cognitive Restraint 2. Disinhibition 3. Hunger	Yes	Yes	51	1	11–18	Medical disorders; Non-clinical	0.80–0.93	English; French; German; Swedish; Turkish	No
Toronto Alexithymia Scale111	1. Difficulty Describing Feelings 2. Difficulty Identifying Feelings 3. Externally-Oriented Thinking	No	Yes	20	5	11–18	Eating disorders; Internalizing disorders; Neurodevelopmental disorders; Somatoform disorders	0.76–0.82	English; Arabic; Chinese; Croatian; Portuguese; Greek; Dutch; Turkish; Peruvian; Spanish	Yes
Trait-Meta Mood Scale112	1. Attention to Feelings 2. Clarity in Discrimination of Feelings 3. Mood Repair	No	Yes	48	1	6–15	Non-clinical	0.83	English; Spanish; Turkish; Portuguese	Yes
Walden Self-Regulation Scale113	N/A	Yes	Yes	9	1	14–18	Externalizing disorders	Not reported	English	No
Worry/Rumination Questionnaire for Children114	N/A	No	Yes	10	2	9–15	Neurodevelopmental disorders; Internalizing disorders; Non-clinical	0.76–0.86	English; Dutch; Farsi	Yes
Youth Coping Index115	1. Spiritual and Personal Development 2. Positive Appraisal and Problem Solving 3. Incendiary Communication and Tension Management	Yes	Yes	31	1	11–15	Trauma-exposed	0.67–0.72	English; Spanish	Yes
Youth Self Report116	1. Affective Problems 2. Anxiety Problems 3. Somatic Problems 4. ADHD 5. Oppositional Defiant Problems 6. Conduct Problems	Yes	Yes	112	1	11–18	NSSI; Non-clinical	Not reported	English; Spanish; French; Italian; Tagalog; Vietnamese; Chinese; American Sign Language; Farsi; Polish; Russian; Urdu

Table 4:

Characteristics of Multiple Informant-Report Questionnaires of Emotion (Dys)regulation in the Literature

Multiple Informant-Report Questionnaires (n = 14)
Measure	Subscales	Behavioral Manifestation	Internal Process	# Items	n	Age Range	Population(s)	α Range	Language(s)	Freely Available
Adolescent Self-Regulatory Inventory136 (Self; Parent)	1. Short-Term Self-Regulation 2. Long-Term Self-Regulation	Yes	Yes	27	3	12–15	Non-clinical	0.66–0.88	English; Portuguese	Yes
Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function137 (Self; Parent; Teacher)	1. Behavior Regulation Index 2. Emotional Recognition Index 3. Cognitive Regulation Index	Yes	Yes	86	18	6–18	Externalizing disorders; Neurodevelopmental disorders; Trauma-exposed; Deliberate self-harm; Medical disorders; Non-clinical	0.72–0.97	English; Chinese; Spanish; Bulgarian; Latvian; Lithuanian; Serbian	No
Children’s Emotion Management Scales138–140(Self; Parent)	1. Dysregulation 2. Coping 3. Inhibition	Yes	Yes	33	58	7–18	Eating disorders; Externalizing disorders; Neurodevelopmental disorders; Internalizing disorders; Trauma-exposed; Medical disorders; Non-clinical	0.55–0.91	English; Chinese; Spanish	Yes
Children’s Self Control Scale141 (Self; Parent)	N/A	Yes	No	17	2	9–13	Externalizing disorders; Neurodevelopmental disorders; Non-clinical	0.79–0.90	English; Hebrew	No
Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale23 (Self; Parent)	1. Non-Acceptance of Emotional Response 2. Difficulties in Goal-Directed Behavior 3. Impulse Control 4. Lack of Emotional Awareness 5. Limited ER Strategies 6. Lack of Emotional Clarity	Yes	Yes	36	97	9–18	Eating disorders; Internalizing disorders; Personality disorders; NSSI; Suicidality; Neurodevelopmental disorders; Inpatient; Internet addition; Transdiagnostic; Trauma-exposed; Medical disorders; Non-clinical	0.66–0.95	English; Chinese; Hindi; Turkish; Greek; Dutch; Portuguese; Italian; Spanish	Self: Yes Parent: No
Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire142 (Self; Parent)	1. Activation Control 2. Activity Level 3. Affiliation 4. Attention 5. Fear 6. Frustration 7. High Intensity Pleasure 8. Inhibitory Control 9. Perceptual Sensitivity 10. Pleasure Sensitivity 11. Shyness 12. Aggression 13. Depressive Mood	Yes	Yes	65	8	7–18	Inpatient; Internalizing disorders; PTSD; Non-clinical	0.65–0.81	English; Arabic; Catalan; Chinese; Czech; Dutch; Farsi; Finnish; German; Italian; Japanese; Norwegian; Polish; Portuguese; Romanian; Spanish; Swedish; Tagalog; Turkish; Urdu	Yes
Emotion Expression Scale for Children143 (Self; Parent)	1. Poor Emotional Awareness 2. Expressive Reluctance	Yes	Yes	16	19	6–18	Internalizing disorders; NSSI; Non-clinical	0.70–0.90	English; German; Portuguese	No
Emotion Regulation Checklist128 (Parent; Teacher)	1. Lability/Negativity 2. Emotion Regulation	Yes	Yes	24	73	6–18	Internalizing disorders; Externalizing disorders; Neurodevelopmental disorders; Personality disorders; Inpatient; Trauma-exposed; Internet Gaming Disorder; Medical disorders	0.58–0.96	English; Portuguese; Italian; Persian; Malay; Arabic	Yes
Emotion Regulation and Social Skills Questionnaire144 (Parent; Teacher)	N/A	Yes	Yes	27	3	7–14	Neurodevelopmental disorders	0.90–0.92	English	Yes
Korean Youth Panel Survey145 (Self; Parent)	1. Personal Details of Youth Career Choice 2. Career Plan 3. Career Preparation 4. Leisure Activities 5. Deviance and Others 6. Time Allocation of Everyday Activities 7. Self-identity and Others	Yes	Yes	49–54	1	9–13	Non-clinical	0.63	English; Korean	Yes
Responses to Stress Questionnaire146 (Self; Parent)	1. Primary Control Coping 2. Secondary Control Coping 3. Disengagement Coping 4. Involuntary Engagement Stress Response 5. Involuntary Disengagement Stress Response	Yes	Yes	57	6	9–16	Medical disorders; Non-clinical	0.74–0.92	English; Dutch; Thai; Spanish; Portuguese; Norwegian; Indonesian; Croatian	Yes
Social Skills Improvement System147 (Self; Parent; Teacher)	1. Social Skills 2. Problem Behaviors 3. Academic Competence	Yes	Yes	80	1	11	Neurodevelopmental disorders; Non-clinical	0.91	English; Spanish	No
Spanish Assessment System for Children and Adolescents148 (Self; Parent)	1. Externalizing Problems 2. Internalizing Problems 3. Adaptive Skills	Yes	Yes	105–165	1	8–14	Neurodevelopmental disorders	Not reported	Spanish	No
Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire149 (Self; Parent)	1. Emotional Problems 2. Conduct Problems 3. Hyperactivity/Inattention 4. Peer Relationship Problems 5. Prosocial Behavior 6. Dysregulation Profile	Yes	Yes	25	2	6–18	Externalizing disorders; Internalizing disorders; Neurodevelopmental disorders; Medical disorders; PTSD; Non-clinical	0.75–0.76	50+	Yes

Note: Measures are presented alphabetically for eased identification. “Subscales” = subscales per measure; “Behavioral Manifestation” = whether the measure captures behavioral manifestations of emotion (dys)regulation; “Internal Processes” = whether the measure captures internal processes of emotion (dys)regulation; “# Items” = number of items per measure; “n” = frequency with which the specific measure was used; “Age Range” = observed age range in included studies; “Population(s)” = clinical group(s) in which the questionnaire was used; “α Range” = reported range of internal consistency per measure; “Language(s)” = languages in which measures have been translated; “Freely Available” = whether measures are freely accessible (“Yes”) or commercially available/access is limited (“No”); “N/A” implies there are either no subscales (i.e., the measure is unidimensional) or the scoring information could not be found. Internalizing disorders include anxiety, depressive, and obsessive-compulsive disorders; Externalizing disorders include disruptive mood dysregulation disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, and substance use; Neurodevelopmental disorders include attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), learning disorders, intellectual disabilities, and Tourette syndrome; Trauma-exposed includes war exposure, neighborhood and/or domestic violence exposure, sexual abuse, child maltreatment, natural disaster exposure; Medical disorders include arterial ischemic stroke, cerebral palsy, cystic fibrosis, traumatic brain injury, diabetes, obesity, brain tumor, cancer, acne vulgaris, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), inflammatory bowel disease, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, sickle cell disease.

Figure 3 presents the frequencies with which the top ten most commonly used emotion (dys)regulation questionnaires appeared in the literature. Despite the large number of distinct measures, the vast majority of the literature (i.e., 80.2%) has nonetheless drawn from one of these specified ten measures, with 59.6% of the studies drawing from a pool of only five measures of emotion (dys)regulation—i.e., the Children’s Emotion Management Scales (CEMS),^138–140 the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ),⁵⁶ the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS),^23,59,122 the Emotion Regulation Checklist (ERC),¹²⁸ and the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ).⁶⁹

Figure 3: Frequency of Ten Most Used Measures.

Note: DERS = Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale; ERC = Emotion Regulation Checklist; CEMS = Children’s Emotion Management Scale; ERQ = Emotion Regulation Questionnaire; CERQ = Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire; ERQ-CA = Emotion Regulation Questionnaire for Children and Adolescents; EESC = Emotion Expression Scale for Children; BRIEF = Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function; ERICA = Emotion Regulation Index for Children and Adolescents; FEEL-KJ = Fragebogen zur Erhebung der Emotionsregulation bei Kindern und Jugendlichen.

Of these five measures, three offer parent-report versions (DERS, ERC, CEMS) and four offer youth self-report versions (DERS, CEMS, ERQ, CERQ). These measures range from just 10 items (ERQ) to 36 items (DERS, CERQ). The majority (i.e., 69.1%) of studies using the five most common questionnaires reported adequate reliability in the form of internal consistency (i.e., α ≥ 0.70). The highest reported internal consistency was reported for the DERS in a sample of adolescents with anxiety (α = 0.95), and the lowest reported internal consistency was reported for the CEMS in a sample of non-clinical children (α = 0.55).

The five commonly used questionnaires vary in focus and assess overlapping, but different, domains of emotion (dys)regulation. For example, the DERS^{23 ,122} is a 36-item self-report that assesses six facets of emotion dysregulation via six corresponding subscales: Lack of Emotional Awareness, Impulse Control Difficulties, Lack of Emotional Clarity, Inability to Engage in Goal-directed Behavior, Non-Acceptance of Negative Emotions, and Limited Access to Emotion Regulation Strategies. Items across each subscale are rated along a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (“Almost Never”) to 5 (“Almost Always”). Generally, high scores reflect a child’s difficulty in regulating their emotions and thus reflect greater emotional dysregulation. In the reviewed studies, the internal consistency of the DERS ranged from α = 0.66 – 0.95, with 82.5% of studies reporting internal consistency above α = 0.70. As can be seen in Figure 4, the DERS was most frequently used to assess non-clinical, typically developing youth (k = 36), followed by youth with internalizing disorders (k = 13), trauma-exposed youth (k = 11), youth with neurodevelopmental disorders (k = 8), NSSI (k = 8), externalizing disorders (k = 4), and medical conditions (k = 2). As a measure of emotion dysregulation, the DERS and its subscales assess the aberrant or underuse of adaptive ER responses, such as emotional awareness or acceptance. Furthermore, the DERS predominantly assesses internal processes of emotion dysregulation; however, behavioral manifestations are also tapped into by the subscale measuring one’s inability to engage in goal-directed behavior.

Figure 4: Most Used Questionnaires of Emotion (Dys)regulation, by Clinical Category.

Note: Internalizing includes anxiety, depressive, and obsessive-compulsive disorders; Externalizing includes disruptive mood dysregulation disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, and substance use; neurodevelopmental disorders (ND) include attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), learning disorders, intellectual disabilities, and Tourette’s syndrome; Trauma includes war exposure, neighborhood and/or domestic violence exposure, sexual abuse, child maltreatment, natural disaster exposure; Medical includes arterial ischemic stroke, cerebral palsy, cystic fibrosis, TBI, diabetes, obesity, brain tumor, cancer, acne vulgaris, HIV, inflammatory bowel disease, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, sickle cell disease; DERS = Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale; ERC = Emotion Regulation Checklist; CEMS = Children’s Emotion Management Scale; ERQ = Emotion Regulation Questionnaire; CERQ = Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire; ERQ-CA = Emotion Regulation Questionnaire for Children and Adolescents; EESC = Emotion Expression Scale for Children; BRIEF = Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function; ERICA = Emotion Regulation Index for Children and Adolescents; FEEL-KJ = Fragebogen zur Erhebung der Emotionsregulation bei Kindern und Jugendlichen.

Emotion Regulation Checklist (ERC)¹²⁸ is a 24-item parent-reported measure of children’s emotion regulation skills. Items are rated along a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Never”) to 4 (“Almost Always”). The ERC has two subscales: Emotion Regulation, on which higher scores reflect better emotion regulation, and Lability/Negativity, where higher scores reflect worse emotion regulation. In the reviewed studies, the internal consistency of the ERC ranged from α = 0.58 – 0.96, with 70% of studies reporting internal consistency above α = 0.70. The ERC was most frequently used to assess non-clinical youth (k = 41), followed by youth with externalizing disorders (k = 8), neurodevelopmental disorders (k = 7), internalizing disorders (k = 5), trauma-exposed youth (k = 2), and youth with medical conditions (k = 1). No studies conducted in samples of youth with NSSI used the ERC. As a measure of emotion dysregulation, the ERC’s Emotion Regulation subscale includes items that assess the (under)use of adaptive emotion regulation responses (e.g., “can say when he/she is feeling sad, angry or mad, fearful or afraid), whereas the Lability/Negativity subscale includes items that assess the presence of maladaptive responses (e.g., “responds angrily to limit setting by adults”)¹²⁸. Moreover, each subscale taps into both internal processes and behavioral manifestations of emotion dysregulation.

Children’s Emotion Management Scales (CEMS)^138–140 is a self- and parent-report of children’s sadness (12 items), anger (11 items), and worry (10 items) management, each which consists of three subscales: Dysregulation, Coping, and Inhibition. The three emotions included in the CEMS can be assessed independently with the Children’s Worry Management Scale,³³ Children’s Sadness Management Scale,³⁴ and Children’s Anger Management Scale³⁵ (CWMS, CSMS, and CAMS, respectively), or all three domains can be measured with the CEMS. All versions of the scale (CEMS, CWMS, CSMS, and CAMS) include items that are rated along a 3-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Hardly Ever”) to 3 (“Often”). On this suite of measures, and the CEMS more generally, higher scores on the Coping subscale reflect greater emotion regulation while higher scores on the Dysregulation subscale reflect greater emotion dysregulation. Scores on the Inhibition subscale should be interpreted with caution depending on the emotion of interest, such that higher scores of inhibiting anger expression may reflect less emotion dysregulation, whereas higher scores of inhibiting and thus not expressing worry or sadness may reflect more maladaptive regulation responses. In the reviewed studies, the internal consistency of the CEMS ranged from α = 0.55 – 0.91, with 55.2% of studies reporting internal consistency above α = 0.70. The CEMS was most frequently used to measure emotion (dys)regulation in non-clinical samples (k = 33), followed by internalizing disorders (k = 7), neurodevelopmental disorders (k = 5), externalizing disorders (k = 1), and medical conditions (k = 1). No studies conducted in samples of youth with trauma exposure or NSSI used the CEMS. As a measure of emotion dysregulation, the CEMS assesses both adaptive (e.g., “when my child is feeling sad[/worried/angry], he/she can control his/her crying and carry on”) and maladaptive emotion regulation responses (e.g., “my child is afraid to show his/her sadness[/worry/anger]”). ^138–140 Moreover, the CEMS includes items that assess internal processes and behavioral manifestations of emotion dysregulation.

Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ)⁶⁹ is a 10-item self-report measure that assesses children’s use of two emotion regulation responses: Cognitive Reappraisal (6 items) and Expressive Suppression (4 items). Items across both subscales are rated along a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly Agree”). On this measure, higher scores on the Cognitive Reappraisal subscale are indicative of less emotion dysregulation (e.g., more ability to reappraise), whereas higher scores on the Expressive Suppression subscale are indicative of more emotion dysregulation (e.g., less expression). Similar to the CEMS, ^138–140 scores on the Expressive Suppression subscale should be interpreted with caution, as youth with angry approach behavior may have lower scores on this subscale due to less inhibition of their aberrant emotion expression despite such inhibition being socially normative. In the reviewed studies, the internal consistency of the ERQ ranged from α = 0.60 – 0.88, with 65.9% of studies reporting internal consistency above α = 0.70. The ERQ was most frequently used to measure emotion (dys)regulation in non-clinical samples (k = 33), youth with internalizing disorders (k = 4), NSSI (k = 3), externalizing disorders (k = 1), medical conditions (k = 1), and trauma-exposed youth (k = 2). No studies conducted in samples of youth with neurodevelopmental disorders used the ERQ. As a measure of emotion dysregulation, the ERQ predominantly assesses the (under)use of adaptive regulation responses, such as reappraisal and expression of emotions. Moreover, the ERQ’s Cognitive Reappraisal subscale taps into internal processes, while the Expressive Suppression subscale taps into behavioral manifestations (or lack thereof) of emotion dysregulation. ⁶⁹

Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ)⁵⁶ assesses children’s emotion regulation responses to negative and stressful life events. It consists of 36 items that are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Almost Never”) to 5 (“Almost Always”). The CERQ contains nine subscales of 4 items each: Self-Blame, Other-Blame, Catastrophizing, Rumination, Planning, Positive Refocusing, Acceptance, Positive Reappraisal, and Putting into Perspective.⁵⁶ Higher scores on each subscale indicate greater use of the specific responses. In the reviewed studies, the internal consistency of the CERQ ranged from α = 0.32 – 0.91, with 56.3% of studies reporting internal consistency above α = 0.70. The CERQ was most frequently used to measure emotion (dys)regulation in non-clinical samples (k = 18), followed by internalizing disorders (k = 5), medical conditions (k = 4), neurodevelopmental disorders (k = 2), externalizing disorders (k = 1), and trauma-exposed youth (k = 1). No studies conducted in samples of youth with NSSI used the CERQ. The CERQ captures both the (under)use of adaptive regulation responses (e.g., Planning, Positive Refocusing, Acceptance, Positive Reappraisal, and Putting into Perspective subscales) and maladaptive responses (e.g., Self-Blame, Other-Blame, Catastrophizing, Rumination)⁵⁶. Moreover, the CERQ predominantly assesses internal processes of emotion dysregulation and does not include items capturing behavioral manifestations.

DISCUSSION

The study of emotion (dys)regulation and its role in the development and maintenance of psychopathology has burgeoned in recent decades. The present review aimed to synthesize the literature and hone the operationalization and measurement of emotion (dys)regulation in child and adolescent samples. Our review of 2,051 studies identified 115 different measures, with the DERS, ERC, CEMS, ERQ, and CERQ being among the most frequently used.

The review identified 115 measures, which can be partitioned into two categories: those that primarily capture behavioral manifestations of emotion (dys)regulation (e.g., DERS, Dimensions of Aggression Inventory, ⁶⁰ Hong’s Psychological Reactance Scale, ⁷⁶ Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL),¹¹⁶ Emotional Reactions to External Contingencies Scale¹²⁷), and those that capture the specific processes or responses used to regulate emotion (e.g., ERQ, CERQ, Emotion Regulation Index for Children and Adolescents; ERICA⁶⁷). Moreover, there are several measures that capture both the external expression and the internal processes of emotion (dys)regulation (e.g., Emotion Awareness Questionnaire,⁶² Stress and Coping Questionnaire for Children and Adolescents,¹⁰⁸ Child Affect Questionnaire⁴⁹). Classifying measures that assess external manifestations versus internal processes of emotion dysregulation may guide researchers and practitioners in the selection of appropriate measures. For instance, if a researcher/clinician is interested in assessing emotion dysregulation in a child presenting primarily with dysregulated, externalizing behaviors (e.g., temper tantrums or aggression), using a measure that captures behavioral manifestations of emotion dysregulation may be indicated. Conversely, if assessing emotion dysregulation in a child presenting with internalizing concerns, using a measure that captures the internal processes contributing to such concerns may be more appropriate. We have indicated which measures assess the external and internal manifestations of emotion dysregulation in Tables 1–4.

Beyond capturing external manifestations and internal processes of emotion (dys)regulation, the reviewed measures can be further categorized. A host of measures used to measure emotion dysregulation assess the presence/absence of adaptive ER responses (e.g., DERS, Cognitive Reappraisal subscale of the ERQ, and Positive Refocusing subscale of the CERQ). Additionally, there are a host of measures that assess the presence/absence of maladaptive ER responses (e.g., Rumination subscale of the Children’s Response Styles Questionnaire⁵³, Catastrophize subscale of the CERQ⁵⁶, and Avoidance Strategies subscale of the Children’s Coping Strategies Checklist⁵⁰). Moreover, our review yielded only one measure, Strategies of Anger Regulation for Adolescents (SAR-A),¹⁰⁷ that assesses the dysregulation of positive emotional states (e.g., humor). Of note, the majority of reviewed questionnaires do not directly reflect the conceptualization of emotional dysregulation as specifically related to anger and irritability.^6,22 Indeed, only a small number of reviewed measures assessed disproportionate anger and temper outbursts. The CEMS^138–140 Anger domain was the only questionnaire among those most commonly used to specifically examine emotion dysregulation in the context of anger, irritability, or aggression. Beyond the CEMS, few studies used the SAR-A¹⁰⁷, the Anger Response Inventory - Child Version (ARI-C),⁴² Anger Rumination Scale,⁴³ Pediatric Anger Expression Scale (PAES),⁸⁹ Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ),⁹² and the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).¹⁰⁶ Out of the 214 studies that assessed emotion (dys)regulation in clinical youth samples, only 9.3% (k = 20) examined this construct in youth with externalizing concerns and 29.4 % (k = 63) examined it in youth with neurodevelopmental disorders, such as ADHD, which often involve dysregulated behavior that manifests similarly to those of externalizing disorders. These findings represent a key difference between the current review and that of Althoff and Ametti²¹, who predominantly reviewed measures that largely assess emotion dysregulation in the context of anger and irritability. The authors included numerous measures, such as the Affective Reactivity Index,¹⁵⁰ the Overt Aggression Scale,¹⁵¹ Children’s Agitation Inventory,¹⁵² and Outburst Monitoring Scale.¹⁵³ These measures, among others identified in their review, ²¹ likely are not included in the present study because they were not explicitly presented as broad-based measures of “emotion (dys)regulation” among the empirical studies that utilized them.

Here, we demonstrate that the various measures used in the literature to assess this construct target distinct aspects of emotion dysregulation processes. There are general measures that are not specific to the regulation of certain affective states but rather assess an array of ER processes (e.g., DERS, ERQ, ERC), those that capture specific regulation responses (e.g., Ruminative Thought Style Questionnaire,⁹⁹ Child Acceptance and Mindfulness Measure,⁴⁷ Toronto Alexithymia Scale¹¹¹), and those that assess the (dys)regulation of particular affective states, such as the CEMS, ^138–140 STAXI,¹⁰⁶ and Children’s Affective Lability Scale.¹¹⁸ As previously mentioned, there are questionnaires that are better suited to measure the external manifestation of emotion dysregulation and those better suited to measure the internal processes contributing to emotion dysregulation. As such, it is imperative that clinicians and researchers are intentional with their selection of questionnaires, as seemingly similar measures of emotion dysregulation tap into its different components and operationalizations.

The findings from the present systematic review have important implications for guiding researchers’ and clinicians’ selection and interpretation of the various measures assessing emotion dysregulation in youth. Although we present over 100 questionnaires used in the literature to measure emotion dysregulation, readers may remain perplexed regarding the most suitable questionnaire. To further direct this selection, we turn to an evidence-based assessment (EBA) framework, which is progressively emphasized by various researchers and professional organizations.^28–31 Hunsley and Mash^29,31 assert that EBA is an approach to clinical evaluation that leverages theory and research to guide the selection of assessment constructs and methodologies. Moreover, they pose three guiding principles of EBA: (1) the assessment of psychological constructs should be driven by research and theory, (2) the specific measures used in assessment should be psychometrically strong (e.g., standardized, sufficient reliability and validity, and clinical utility), (3) and the entire assessment process (e.g., selection and interpretation of measurements) should be empirically driven and evaluated.^29,31

Results of the present study, and particularly Tables 1–4, can be interpreted in the context of these principles. Firstly, we offer a review of research employing questionnaires to assess emotion dysregulation in youth and interpret the resulting questionnaires in light of theories of emotion dysregulation. We encourage readers to consider the specific facets of emotion dysregulation they wish to measure (e.g., internal processes/external manifestations, adaptive/maladaptive responses, and general/specific affective states), and to carefully examine reviewed measures in making their selection. For those interested in evidence-based assessment of the dysregulation of specific affective states and emotions, we refer readers to “A Guide to Assessments that Work.”¹⁵⁴ Secondly, we present numerous factors contributing to the psychometric strength of each questionnaire. Regarding reliability, we present the range of internal consistency (α), and relatedly, the number of items per questionnaire. Furthermore, we outline measures that offer versions for multiple informants. Regarding validity, we present information on the number of studies that have used each measure and the specific age ranges in which they have been administered. Regarding clinical utility, we summarize the clinical and non-clinical populations in which emotion dysregulation has been assessed by each questionnaire. We further list the language translation(s) available and nature of accessibility per measure. Lastly, we encourage readers to select frequently used measures that have acceptable internal consistencies (α > 0.70) and that have been employed in developmental and clinical populations relevant to their intended sample.

This review is not without limitations. Importantly, and as mentioned throughout, we solely reviewed literature that contained “emotion (dys)regulation” in the title/abstract and employed questionnaires that were explicitly described as measures of emotion (dys)regulation. As such, there are a host of measures, such as those identified in Althoff and Ametti’s²¹ review, that capture particular facets of emotion dysregulation (e.g., anger) that are not included in the present review. Moreover, we did not exclusively include measures of emotion dysregulation. Rather, we included studies that used emotion regulation questionnaires more broadly. Although this was a conscious choice to capture measures tapping into a variety of definitions (namely emotion dysregulation as the absence or underuse of adaptive emotion regulation responses), it could be argued that we further conflated the two constructs.

Further, in reporting the reliability of the identified measures, we relied on Cronbach’s alpha. While this is a common and widely used metric of reliability, we recommend that readers take caution in interpreting the values presented here. Cronbach’s alpha is calculated as a function of the number of items within a measure; thus, all else being equal, longer scales have higher values. As such, when interpreting the presented range of internal consistency, we recommend that readers consider the number of items that are also presented in Tables 1–4. Furthermore, this metric of internal consistency may penalize multifactorial scales that cover a wider breadth of emotion (dys)regulation processes compared to unidimensional scales. For example, a measure that assesses a singular response (e.g., rumination) may have a higher Cronbach’s alpha compared to a measure that assesses multiple distinct responses (e.g., rumination, problem-solving, impulse control). Moreover, we did not report the frequency with which measures have been used in treatment studies or a given measure’s sensitivity to treatment response, which is an important component of the EBA movement.²⁹ Given that emotion dysregulation is a transdiagnostic process implicated in a variety of youth psychopathology, future work should examine the applicability and sensitivity of presented measures to assess change in emotion dysregulation as a function of clinical intervention.

A final limitation is that our review is not exhaustive of all methodologies used to assess emotion dysregulation in youth, as we focused solely on questionnaires. As is noted in Adrian and colleagues’²⁷ review, there are a variety of other clinician-administered interviews, physiological measures, and behavioral and neuroimaging paradigms that assess emotion dysregulation in youth. Emotional processes such as emotion (dys)regulation may best be understood through multiple levels of analysis and thus an integrated, multimodal approach may best capture emotion dysregulation in youth. While such measures are beyond the scope of the present study, we would be remiss not to acknowledge the value of such methodology.

Based on our review, there are four overarching points for both researchers and clinicians to integrate within their studies and/or practices. Firstly, over 100 questionnaires have been used to probe emotion (dys)regulation in youth since 2000. This is more than three times the number of self-, parent-, and other –informant-reported measures identified by Adrian and colleagues²⁷ – an increase which illustrates the mission of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry’s 2020 Presidential Initiative.⁶ Secondly, closer examination of the questionnaires and their subscales reveals that measures assess disparate constructs and processes, whereby some capture emotion dysregulation’s external manifestations, while others capture its internal processes. Moreover, some measures assess the use of adaptive responses, whereas others assess the use of maladaptive responses. Thus, clinicians and researchers should carefully consider the specific facets of emotion dysregulation they wish to study and select psychometrically sound questionnaires accordingly. Third, the reviewed definitions and constructs assessed by questionnaires further contribute to the notion that, while related, emotion regulation and dysregulation are different constructs, with corresponding measures. Lastly, the reviewed literature suggests that anger/irritability is a discrete subcomponent of emotion dysregulation with several questionnaires available to assess this specific component.

Table 2:

Characteristics of Parent-Report Questionnaires of Emotion (Dys)regulation in the Literature

Parent-Report Questionnaires (n = 17)
Measure	Subscales	Behavioral Manifestation	Internal processes	# Items	n	Age Range	Population(s)	a Range	Language(s)	Freely Available
Behavior Assessment System for Children117	1. Externalizing Problems 2. Internalizing Problems 3. Adaptive Skills 4. Behavioral Symptoms Index	Yes	Yes	139–173	3	6–18	Neurodevelopmental disorders; PTSD	0.90	English; Spanish; French	No
Children’s Affective Lability Scale118	1. Angry/Depressed 2. Disinhibited/Impersistent	Yes	No	20	1	13–18	NSSI; Suicidality; Non-clinical	0.95	English	Yes
Child Behavior Checklist116	1. Delinquent Behavior 2. Aggressive Behavior 3. Withdrawn/ 4. Depressed 5. Somatic Complaints 6. Anxious/Depressed 7. Social Problems 8. Thought Problems 9. Attention Problems 10. Externalizing Problems 11. Internalizing Problems 12. Total Problems	Yes	Yes	118	12	6–18	Bipolar Disorder; Eating disorders; Externalizing disorders; Neurodevelopmental disorders; NSSI in non-clinical; Non-clinical	0.80–0.90	50+	No
	Dysregulation Profile (Sum of subscales 2, 6, 9)	Yes	Yes	40	8	6–18	Bipolar Disorder; Eating disorders; Neurodevelopmental disorders; NSSI in non-clinical; Non-clinical	Not reported	50+	No
Child Mania Rating Scale119	N/A	Yes	Yes	21	1	8–17	Bipolar Disorder; Externalizing disorders; Internalizing disorders; Neurodevelopmental disorders; Psychosis NOS	0.89	English	Yes
Conners Parent Rating Scale120	1. Conduct Problems 2. Learning problems 3. Psychosomatic 4. Impulsive/Hyperactive 5. Anxiety	Yes	Yes	48	2	6–11	Neurodevelopmental disorders; Non-clinical	Not reported	English; French; Spanish; Turkish	No
Conners’ Parent Rating Scale – Revised121	1. Oppositional 2. Cognitive Problems 3. Hyperactivity/Impulsivity 4. Anxious/Shy 5. Perfectionism 6. Social Problems 7. Psychosomatic	Yes	Yes	80	1	6–13	Neurodevelopmental disorders	Not reported	English; Spanish	No
Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale – Parent122	1. Non-Acceptance of Emotional Response 2. Difficulties in Goal-Directed Behavior 3. Impulse Control 4. Lack of Emotional Awareness 5. Limited ER Strategies 6. Lack of Emotional Clarity	Yes	Yes	36	4	11–17	Neurodevelopmental disorders; Non-clinical	0.84	English	No
Emotionality, Activity, and Sociability Survey123	1. Emotionality 2. Activity 3. Shyness 4. Sociability	Yes	No	20	1	9–11	Non-clinical	0.78	English; Dutch; Japanese	No
Emotion Dysregulation Inventory124	1. Reactivity 2. Dysphoria	Yes	No	30	2	6–17	Neurodevelopmental disorders; Inpatient; Non-clinical	Not reported	English	No
Emotion Expression Scale for Children – Parent125	1. Poor Emotional Awareness 2. Expressive Reluctance	Yes	Yes	16	1	6–17	Internalizing disorders	0.86	English; Portuguese	No
Emotion Questionnaire126	1. Sadness 2. Anger 3. Fear 4. Positive Emotions	Yes	Yes	12	2	7–13	Neurodevelopmental disorders; Non-clinical	Not reported	Swedish	No
Emotional Reactions to External Contingencies Scale – Parent Version127	1. Emotional Reactions to Positive Consequences 2. Emotional Reactions to Negative Consequences	No	Yes	20	1	6–15	Neurodevelopmental disorders	0.87–0.91	English	No
Emotion Regulation QScale128	N/A	Yes	Yes	10	1	8–17	Medical disorders	0.82	English	No
Multidimensional Social Competence Scale129	1. Social Motivation 2. Social Inferencing 3. Demonstrating Empathic Concern 4. Social Knowledge 5. Verbal Conversation Skills 6. Nonverbal Sending Skills 7. Emotion Regulation Skills 8. Social Responsiveness 9. Social Understanding/Emotion Regulation	Yes	Yes	77	1	11–18	Neurodevelopmental disorders	0.89	English	Yes
Parent General Behavior Inventory – 10 Item Mania Scale130	N/A	Yes	Yes	10	1	9–17	Bipolar Disorder; Early-onset Schizophrenia; Externalizing disorders; Internalizing disorders; Neurodevelopmental disorders; Non-clinical	Not reported	English; Korean	Yes
School-Age Temperament Inventory131	1. Negative Reactivity 2. Task Persistence 3. Approach/Withdrawal 4. Energy	Yes	No	38	2	6–12	Neurodevelopmental disorders; Non-clinical	0.79–0.89	English; Turkish	No
Social Competence Scale – Parent132	1. Prosocial/Communication Skills 2. Emotion Regulation Skills	Yes	Yes	12	1	13	Non-clinical	0.85–0.87	English	Yes

Table 3:

Characteristics of Other-Report Questionnaires of Emotion (Dys)regulation in the Literature

Other-Report Questionnaires (n = 3)
Measure	Subscales	Behavioral Manifestation	Internal Process	# Items	n	Age Range	Population(s)	α Range	Language(s)	Freely Available
Adolescent Needs and Strengths Assessment133 (Clinician)	1. Behavioral/Emotional Needs 2. Caregiver Resources & Needs 3. Cultural Factors 4. Life Functioning 5. Risk Behaviors 6. Individual Strengths	Yes	Yes	50	1	12–13	Externalizing disorders; Internalizing disorders; Trauma-exposed; Non-clinical	Not reported	English	Yes
Social Competence Scale134 (Teacher)	1. Dysregulation 2. Social Competence 3. Attention 4. Authority Acceptance	N/A	N/A	22	1	12–15	Non-clinical	0.79–0.96	English	No
Teacher – Child Rating Scale135 (Teacher)	1. Acting Out 2. Shyness/Anxiety 3. Learning Problems 4. Assertive Social Skills 5. Task Orientation 6. Frustration Tolerance 7. Peer Social Skills	Yes	Yes	32	1	9–11	Non-clinical	Not reported	English	NO