Clinical Applications of Research on the Psychometric Properties of Self-Report Measures of Emotional Responding

Abstract

This article discusses the clinical applications of two articles in the current issue of this journal focused on self-report measures of emotional responding. Although the studies described in these articles focus on psychometric and measurement issues related to specific self-report measures of emotional responding, the clinical implications of these studies extend beyond these immediate findings and warrant further attention. The article by Preece, Becerra, and Campitelli (this issue) focuses on the psychometric properties of both the original and short-form versions of a comprehensive measure of temperamental emotional vulnerability, the Perth Emotional Reactivity Scale (PERS; Becerra & Campitelli, 2013). In addition to assessing the valence of the emotional experience (i.e., positive or negative), the PERS and its short form assess three distinct dimensions of emotional vulnerability, including emotional sensitivity, intensity, and persistence. Although the development of a short form of the PERS might itself be considered one clinical application of this research, as it provides an opportunity for the comprehensive yet feasible assessment of three key dimensions of emotional vulnerability in clinical settings, the results of this study have other clinical implications as well. First, findings that all aspects of negative emotional vulnerability assessed in these measures were strongly associated with greater difficulties regulating emotions provide further evidence that more intense, reactive, and persistent negative emotions are more difficult to regulate and, thus, require more well-developed emotion regulation skills. Sharing this information with patients who have these temperamental emotional vulnerabilities may, in and of itself, be a useful intervention, as it provides a framework for understanding why they might have experienced such difficulties regulating emotions and, thus, may promote self-compassion and acceptance. Moreover, these findings highlight the utility of directly targeting emotion regulation among individuals with heightened emotional vulnerability. Given the relative stability of the temperamental characteristics assessed with the PERS (e.g., de Clercq, van Leeuwen, van den Noortgate, de Bolle, & de Fruyt, 2009; Zanarini, Frankenburg, Hennen, & Silk, 2003), as well as limited evidence that these characteristics change following treatment, efforts to directly target or modify these traits through psychological interventions are unlikely to be effective. Conversely, maladaptive responses to emotions (rather than the nature or quality of the emotional response itself) may be a more useful target for treatment, as such responses are learned behaviors that are more amenable to interventions (Gratz, 2007; Livesley, 2002). Indeed, research provides strong support for the utility of a brief emotion regulation treatment designed to target the specific dimensions of emotion regulation difficulties assessed in this study (e.g., Bjureberg et al., 2018; Bjureberg et al., 2017; Gratz & Gunderson, 2006; Gratz, Tull, & Levy, 2014; Sahlin et al., 2017). Second, findings that the three negatively valenced subscales in these measures correlate so highly with one another suggest that, although distinct, these dimensions of emotional vulnerability tend to cooccur with one another (e.g., individuals whose negative emotions are more intense are also likely to be more sensitive to emotional cues and to have more persistent negative emotions). Given that patients are not always aware of all aspects of their emotional responses, those who endorse any of these dimensions of emotional vulnerability should be assessed for the other dimensions, and the potential impact of all three dimensions on patients’ emotional and behavioral functioning should be explicitly explored in treatment. Finally, findings of negative associations between the positively valenced subscales and the measures of both emotion regulation difficulties and mood and anxiety symptoms suggest that positive emotional sensitivity, intensity, and persistence may be protective factors that can offset the risk posed by negative emotional vulnerability. Although the overall negative and positive scales on this measure were negatively associated with one another (suggesting that the tendency to experience more intense, reactive, and persistent negative emotions is inversely related to the tendency to experience more intense, reactive, and persistent positive emotions), the associations between the negatively and positively valenced subscales were much