A systematic review of measures of emotion regulation in forensic settings

TL;DR

This review examines how emotion regulation is measured in forensic populations, highlighting the use of self-report tools and the need for clearer conceptual definitions.

Contribution

The study provides a systematic review of ER measurement in forensic settings, identifying conceptual and methodological trends.

Findings

Most studies used self-report questionnaires to measure emotion regulation.

Seven distinct measurement models were identified, with two dominant conceptual approaches.

Reliability estimates were generally adequate but not consistently reported.

Abstract

The study of emotion regulation (ER) has gained traction in forensic psychological and psychiatric research as a correlate of antisocial and aggressive behavior as well as for its relevance to psychopathology. However, conceptual and definitional ambiguity persists.

This pre-registered systematic review aimed to investigate how ER is conceptualized and measured in forensic populations, and to synthesize available evidence on the reliability and validity of ER measurement instruments. A total of 59 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review.

ER was primarily assessed using self-report questionnaires (93% of studies), with only four studies employing biophysiological indices of ER. Seven distinct measurement models were identified. Most studies (80%) relied on one of two broad conceptual approaches: ER conceptualized as a set of interrelated abilities, most commonly assessed using the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale, or ER conceptualized as a set of strategies used to regulate emotional responses, most commonly assessed using the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire. Reliability estimates were reported in 64% of studies, with the majority of estimates exceeding conventional cut-offs for adequate internal consistency. Evidence for construct validity was generally conclusive or mixed across studies.

ER research in forensic settings is characterized by conceptual heterogeneity and a strong reliance on self-report measures. The conceptual heterogeneity underscores the need for authors to clearly outline how ER is conceptualized and theoretically defined. Although reliability estimates were generally adequate when available, reliability was not consistently reported across studies.

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42023495577.

Figures