118 Views

Assessment

Initial psychometric properties of the Behavior Regulation Scale: Validation of a self-report measure of behavioral emotion regulation

(PS8-B46) Initial Psychometric Properties of the Behavior Regulation Scale: Validation of a Self-report Measure of Behavioral Emotion Regulation

Saturday, November 19, 2022

12:00 PM – 1:00 PM EST

Location: Westside Ballroom, 5th Floor

Author(s)

Michal E. Clayton, B.A.

PhD Student in Clinical Psychology
Teachers College, Columbia University
New York, New York

Co-Author(s)

EY

Erin Young, M.A.

Doctoral Student
Columbia University
New York, New York
DM

Douglas Mennin, Ph.D.

Professor of Clinical Psychology
Teachers College, Columbia Universitty
New York, New York
PS

Phillip E. Spaeth, B.A.

Doctoral Student
Teachers College, Columbia University
Jersey City, New Jersey

Emotion regulation (ER) has been conceptualized as the process through which individuals alter the unfolding of their emotional experience over time. Although behavior can serve an emotion regulatory function, the bulk of research and assessment has been on cognitive regulation strategies (e.g., reappraisal). Behavioral acts can serve both adaptive (i.e., physical exercise to increase a sense of reward) or maladaptive (i.e., drinking to reduce feeling sad or scared) functions. Despite the clear relevance of these behavioral forms of ER, there have been few systematic attempts to reliably measure this construct. This study examined the initial psychometric properties for a measure of behavioral ER, the Behavior Regulation Scale (BRS). In a sample of 494 participants recruited via Mechanical Turk (Mage = 39.45; SD = 11.16), the psychometric properties of the BRS and its relationship with cognitive adaptive and maladaptive emotion regulation strategies (e.g., reappraisal, decentering, worry), coping, and quality of life were examined. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was utilized to confirm the presence of a rationally derived two-factor structure comprised of adaptive and maladaptive forms of behavioral ER (CFI = .95; RMSEA = .05). Internal consistency was good for the BRS adaptive subscale (α = .82), and acceptable for the maladaptive subscale (α = .78). The convergent and discriminant validity of the adaptive BRS subscale was demonstrated in positive correlations with measures of reappraisal (r = .25, p < .001), decentering (r = .15, p < .001), quality of life (r = .29, p < .001), and coping (r = .24, p < .001). The maladaptive BRS subscale was negatively correlated with measures of reappraisal (r = -.12, p =.01), decentering (r = -.44, p < .001), and coping (r = -.18, p < .001), and positively correlated with worry (r = .45, p < .001). Overall, these findings provide preliminary support for the BRS as a reliable and valid measure of behavioral ER. Increased confidence in the two-factor structure of this measure awaits confirmation in another sample. In addition, claims of convergent validity would be strengthened by comparing BRS scores in individuals with psychopathology defined by deficits in ER (e.g., generalized anxiety disorder) versus healthy controls. Use of the BRS in clinical research trials may help delineate behavioral ER as a mechanism of change across transdiagnostic forms of psychotherapy. Clinicians could also benefit from the BRS as a tool to measure change in the regulatory function of client behavior during emotional moments.