Which Brief Is Best? Clarifying the Use of Three Brief Versions of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale.

Emotion regulation is a fundamental affective process implicated in a range of clinically relevant phenomena such as mood, anxiety, and personality disorders, as well as self-harm and suicidality. Many self-report scales have been developed to measure this important construct, and the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (DERS) is one of the most widely used. The DERS has extensive empirical support for its use, however, its long length impacts its utility and a briefer version is needed. Recently three brief versions of the DERS (DERS-16, DERS-SF, and DERS-18) were developed independently. Initial analyses of each of these measures found them to retain the excellent psychometric properties of the original DERS measure. However, it remains unclear which version is most ideally suited to briefly measure emotion regulation in clinical and research contexts. To clarify this point, the current study examined the existing brief DERS measures on internal reliability and concurrent validity indices in a large sample of undergraduate students (n = 1181). The reliability and validity of all three brief forms were found to be comparable. Additionally, if replicated, our results suggest that it may be useful for future research and clinical work to use brief versions that retain subscale scores (DERS-SF and DERS-18). Based on the results and the existing literature, we recommend that the emotion regulation field come to a consensus about which brief version to use for consistency and the ability to compare findings across studies.

Restrictive eating and nonsuicidal self-injury in a nonclinical sample: Co-occurrence and associations with emotion dysregulation and interpersonal problems.

Disordered eating frequently co-occurs with nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI), and evidence suggests that the co-occurrence of these behaviors is associated with heightened emotion dysregulation. However, little is known about the relationship between restrictive eating and NSSI, and the significance of their co-occurrence. This study examined cross-sectional associations between self-reported restrictive eating, NSSI, and putative mechanisms of emotion regulation and interpersonal problems in a non-clinical sample of undergraduate students (N = 98, 80.6% female), using the Dietary Restriction Screener (Haynos & Fruzzetti, 2015), Deliberate Self-Harm Inventory (Gratz, 2001), Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (Gratz & Roemer, 2006), and Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-Personality Disorders-25 (Kim & Pilkonis, 1999). Hierarchical logistic regression analyses indicated that restrictive eating was associated with NSSI above and beyond the influence of binge eating, purging, and relevant covariates (B = 2.04, p < 0.001). In addition, multivariate analyses of variance revealed that the co-occurrence of restrictive eating and NSSI was associated with greater difficulties accessing and implementing effective, rather than impulsive, emotion regulation strategies when distressed than either behavior alone (p < 0.001). Findings highlight the seriousness of restrictive eating even within a nonclinical sample, as it is associated with heightened probability of NSSI and clinical severity among those who engage in co-morbid NSSI. Healthcare providers are encouraged to screen for NSSI among individuals with restrictive eating. In addition, a focus on improving emotion regulation and interpersonal skills may enhance prevention and intervention efforts for individuals with co-occurring restrictive eating and NSSI behaviors.

Investigating bang for your training buck: a randomized controlled trial comparing three methods of training clinicians in two core strategies of dialectical behavior therapy.

The present study examined the efficacy of online training (OLT), instructor-led training (ILT), and a treatment manual (TM) in training mental health clinicians in two core strategies of Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT): chain analysis and validation. A randomized controlled trial compared OLT, ILT, and TM among clinicians naïve to DBT (N=172) who were assessed at baseline, post-training, and 30, 60, and 90 days following training. Primary outcomes included satisfaction, self-efficacy, motivation, knowledge, clinical proficiency, and clinical use. Overall, ILT outperformed OLT and TM in satisfaction, self-efficacy, and motivation, whereas OLT was the most effective method for increasing knowledge. The conditions did not differ in observer-rated clinical proficiency or self-reported clinical use, which both increased to moderate levels after training. In addition, ILT was particularly effective at improving motivation to use chain analysis, whereas OLT was particularly effective at increasing knowledge of validation strategies. These findings suggest that these types of brief, didactic trainings may be effective methods of increasing knowledge of new treatment strategies, but may not be sufficient to enable clinicians to achieve a high level of clinical use or proficiency. Additional research examining the possible advantages of matching training methods to types of treatment strategies may help to determine a tailored, more effective approach to training clinicians in empirically supported treatments.

Overcoming barriers to disseminating exposure therapies for anxiety disorders: a pilot randomized controlled trial of training methods.

The present study evaluated methods for training mental health providers (N=46) in exposure therapies (ETs) for anxiety disorders. A pilot randomized controlled trial compared: (1) an interactive, multimedia online training (ET OLT), (2) the ET OLT plus a brief Motivational Interviewing-based intervention (ET OLT+MI), and (3) a placebo control OLT. Assessments were completed at baseline, post-training, and one-week following training. Both ET OLT and ET OLT+MI received high satisfaction ratings and were comparably effective at increasing knowledge of ETs as well as clinicians' overt efforts to learn and use the treatment. ET OLT+MI was the most effective method for improving clinicians' attitudes toward ETs. Results indicate that OLT is effective for disseminating knowledge about ETs to clinicians, and suggest that supplementing OLT with a brief MI-based intervention may be a promising direction to address potential attitudinal barriers to adopting these highly efficacious treatments.

Which training method works best? A randomized controlled trial comparing three methods of training clinicians in dialectical behavior therapy skills.

This study evaluated the efficacy of three methods of training community mental health providers (N = 150) in Dialectical Behavior Therapy skills, including a written treatment manual; an interactive, multimedia online training (OLT); and a two-day instructor-led training workshop (ILT). A hybrid design was utilized that incorporated aspects of efficacy and effectiveness trials. Assessments were completed at baseline, post-training, and 30- and 90-days following training. The results indicate that learner satisfaction with the training was highest in OLT and ILT, and both resulted in significantly higher satisfaction ratings than the manual. OLT outperformed ILT and the manual in increasing knowledge of the treatment, whereas ILT and the manual did not differ. All three training methods resulted in comparable increases in clinicians' ability to apply course content in clinical simulations. Overall, the results provide strong support for the efficacy of technology-based OLT methods in disseminating knowledge of empirically supported treatments to community mental health providers, suggesting that OLT may be a high-quality, easily accessible, and affordable addition to traditional training methods.