Construct Validity and Measurement Invariance of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale - Short Form (DERS-SF): Further Evidence From Community and Student Samples.

The current study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale-Short Form (DERS-SF) in Iran, including testing its measurement invariance across sexes, as well as community and student populations. Two samples were recruited: a community sample of 583 participants (58.7% female; Mage = 33.55) and a university student sample of 409 participants (67.2% female; Mage = 24.48). Besides the DERS-SF, participants completed a battery of instruments online, measuring mentalizing capacity and borderline personality features. Confirmatory factor analyses supported the tenability of the five-factor model, excluding the awareness subscale. Except for the awareness subscale, acceptable to excellent internal consistencies were found for the DERS-SF and its subscales. The awareness-excluded DERS-SF was significantly and strongly associated with relevant constructs (|rs| = .49 to .59). This study also found evidence for configural, metric, and scalar invariance of the DERS-SF across sexes and community and student populations. Our findings extended the evidence for the validity and reliability of the DERS-SF and its awareness-excluded version by administering it in Iranian samples and supporting its cross-cultural applicability.

Iranian adaptation of the Epistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire (ETMCQ): Validity, reliability, discriminant ability, and sex invariance.

INTRODUCTION: Epistemic trust, or trust in transmitted knowledge, has been proposed as a critical factor in psychopathology and psychotherapy. This study aimed at evaluating the psychometric properties of the Epistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire (ETMCQ) in Iran. METHOD: Data were collected from 906 participants. Along with the ETMCQ, measures of mentalizing, mindfulness, perspective-taking, attachment, emotion dysregulation, and borderline personality disorder were administered. Confirmatory factor analysis and exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) were used to determine factorial structure. RESULTS: The ESEM model showed an acceptable fit and outperformed the confirmatory model. A 14-item version of the ETMCQ was retained after examining item performance. Our findings also established criterion-related validity for mistrust and credulity, an acceptable internal consistency for credulity, discriminant power for mistrust and credulity in detecting positive screens for borderline personality disorder, and measurement invariance across sexes. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence for the cross-cultural applicability of the ETMCQ. Nonetheless, the validity of the trust and internal consistency of the mistrust subscale require particular attention in future research.

Shame-coping clusters: comparisons regarding attachment insecurities, mentalizing deficits, and personality pathology, controlling for general emotion dysregulation.

BACKGROUND: General Emotion Dysregulation (GED) is increasingly implicated as an underlying factor in personality pathology; however, the regulation of specific emotions, such as shame, has been relatively overlooked in the literature. We aimed to identify distinct clusters of shame-coping/regulation and compare them regarding attachment insecurities, mentalizing deficits, and personality pathology, controlling for GED. METHODS: A convenience sample of 600 participants (351 females and 249 males) from the general population with ages ranging from 18 to 65 (M = 33.78, SD = 12.80) completed a battery of self-report instruments, measuring shame-coping styles, GED, attachment insecurities, mentalizing deficits, criteria A and B of the alternative model for personality disorders, and borderline personality traits. A two-stage clustering method was employed, with shame-coping styles as the clustering variables. The identified clusters were then compared for their effects on dependent variables using multivariate and univariate analyses. These comparisons were also performed after controlling for GED. RESULTS: Multiple determination methods suggested a two-cluster solution: maladaptive and adaptive shame-coping. Attack-self, withdrawal, and attack-other styles were the main discriminators. Compared with the adaptive cluster, the maladaptive cluster was characterized by higher use of maladaptive and lower use of adaptive shame-coping styles. Multivariate analyses demonstrated significant differences for all the between-cluster comparisons, with and without GED as the covariate (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The current study provides evidence for the presence of homogenous clusters of shame-coping in community-based adults. Between-cluster contrasts after controlling for GED suggest that addressing shame-coping could have incremental utility over and above GED.

Mentalization Scale (MentS): Validity and reliability of the Iranian version in a sample of nonclinical adults.

INTRODUCTION: Mentalizing incapacity is increasingly identified as a common factor in psychopathology. The Mentalization Scale (MentS) is a cost-effective measure built upon the dimensional model of mentalizing. We aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Iranian version of MentS. METHODS: Two samples of community-based adults (N1  = 450, N2  = 445) completed different batteries of self-report measures. In addition to MentS, participants completed measures of reflective functioning and attachment insecurities in the first sample and a measure of emotion dysregulation in the second sample. RESULTS: Due to the conflicting results of confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses, an item-parceling approach was applied, which replicated the original three-factor structure of MentS, yielding Self-Related Mentalization, Other-Related Mentalization, and Motivation to Mentalize. The reliability and convergent validity of MentS were supported in both samples. CONCLUSION: Our findings provided preliminary evidence for using the Iranian version of MentS in nonclinical populations as a reliable and valid measure.

Emotion dysregulation as mediator between mentalizing capacity and affective states: An exploratory study.

Aim: We intended to elucidate the relationship between mentalizing capacity and affective states by investigating the mediatory role of emotion dysregulation. Methods: A sample of nonclinical Iranian adults (N = 445) completed a battery of online self-report measures comprising the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), Mentalization Scale (MentS), and Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS). Results: Correlational analyses demonstrated that self- and other-related mentalizing were significantly and inversely associated with emotion dysregulation, which in turn was strongly linked with positive and negative affects. Using structural equation modeling, the results delineated emotion dysregulation as a mediator between self- and other-related mentalizing and affective states, predicting higher negative and lower positive affects. However, motivation to mentalize failed to predict positive affects and only contributed to lower negative affects directly. Conclusion: Mentalizing capacity was found to be indirectly linked with affective states through emotion dysregulation; hence, along with the previously substantiated association between emotion dysregulation and affective states and the partially established relationship between mentalizing capacity and affective states, we propose mentalizing incapacity to be at fault in the development of affective difficulties.