SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education / 2018 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 4

Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Scale (IERS): Adaptation and Psychometric Properties in a Turkish Sample

Reyhan ARSLAN
Meltem ASLAN GÖRDESLİ
Ferah ÇEKİCİ
Zeynep AYDIN SÜNBÜL
Asude MALKOÇ
Pages
754–762
Publication Date
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The Cronbach-Alpha internal consistency coefficient was found as .92 for the overall scale.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to test the validity and reliability of the Turkish adaption of Hofmann, Carpenter and Curtis’ (2016) Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Scale (IERS).
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study was carried out with 326 students from various departments of Medipol University.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The Cronbach-Alpha internal consistency coefficient was found as .92 for the overall scale.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Emotion regulation · Interpersonal emotion regulation · Validity

Abstract

This study aims to test the validity and reliability of the Turkish adaption of Hofmann, Carpenter and Curtis’ (2016) Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Scale (IERS). The original scale is comprised of four sub-dimensions; namely, enhancing positive affect, perspective taking, soothing, and social modeling. The study was carried out with 326 students from various departments of Medipol University. Work on adapting the scale began with an attempt to find linguistic equivalence. After ensuring this linguistically equivalence for the scale’s original form, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis was launched to examine its construct validity. The results of this confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the four-factor original structure of the scale was also valid for the Turkish sample and the goodness of fit indices of the scale was within acceptable limits. The Cronbach-Alpha internal consistency coefficient was found as .92 for the overall scale. The scale shows outstanding psychometric characteristics.

Özet

This study aims to test the validity and reliability of the Turkish adaption of Hofmann, Carpenter and Curtis’ (2016) Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Scale (IERS). The original scale is comprised of four sub-dimensions; namely, enhancing positive affect, perspective taking, soothing, and social modeling. The study was carried out with 326 students from various departments of Medipol University. Work on adapting the scale began with an attempt to find linguistic equivalence. After ensuring this linguistically equivalence for the scale’s original form, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis was launched to examine its construct validity. The results of this confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the four-factor original structure of the scale was also valid for the Turkish sample and the goodness of fit indices of the scale was within acceptable limits. The Cronbach-Alpha internal consistency coefficient was found as .92 for the overall scale. The scale shows outstanding psychometric characteristics.

🔖

Cite This Article

ARSLAN, R., GÖRDESLİ, M. A., ÇEKİCİ, F., SÜNBÜL, Z. A., MALKOÇ, A. (2022). Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Scale (IERS): Adaptation and Psychometric Properties in a Turkish Sample. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 4, 754–762. https://ajindex.com/articles/540201

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Bentler, M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
  2. Berking, M., & Wupperman, P. (2012). Emotion regulation and mental health: recent findings, current challenges, and future directions. Current Opinions in Psychiatry, 25(2), 128-134.
  3. Berscheid, E. (2003). The human's greatest strength: Other humans. In L. G. Aspinwall & U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), A psychology of human strengths: Fundamental questions and future directions for a positive psychology (pp. 37-47).
  4. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. Brown, A. T. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (1st ed). New York: Guilford Press.
  5. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications, and programming. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cicchetti, D., Ackerman, B. P., & Izard, C. E. (1995). Emotions and emotion regulation in developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 7(1), 1-10.
  6. Coan J. A., Schaefer, H.S., & Davidson, R. J. (2006). Lending a hand: Social regulation of the neural response to threat. Psychological Science, 17, 1032–1039.
  7. Cote, S. (2005). A social interaction model of the effects of emotion regulation on work strain. Academy of Management Review, 30(3), 509-530.
  8. Debrot, A., Schoebi, D., Perrez, M., & Horn, A.B. (2013). Touch as an interpersonal emotion regulation process in couples’ daily lives: The mediating role of psychological intimacy Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(10), 1373–1385.
  9. Diamond, L. M., & Aspinwall, L.G. (2003). Emotion regulation across the life span: an ıntegrative perspective emphasizing self-regulation, positive affect, and dyadic processes. Motivation and Emotion, 27(2), 125–156.
  10. 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, 136-157.
  11. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Gaensbauer, T. J. (1982). Regulation of emotional expression in infants from two contrasting caretaking environments. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 21 (2), 163–171.
  12. Garnefski, N., Kraaij, V., & Spinhoven, P. (2001). Negative life events, cognitive emotion regulation and emotional problems. Personality and Individual Differences, 30(8), 1311-1327.
  13. Garnefski, N. &