Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

A systematic review of measures of emotion regulation in forensic settings

Meddeb, Adam LU ; Garofalo, Carlo LU orcid ; Gillespie, Steven M. ; van Dongen, Josanne D.M. ; Karlén, Malin Hildebrand LU and Wallinius, Märta LU (2026) In Frontiers in Psychology 16.
Abstract

Background: The study of emotion regulation (ER) has gained traction in forensic psychological and psychiatric research as a correlate of antisocial and aggressive behavior as well as for its relevance to psychopathology. However, conceptual and definitional ambiguity persists. Methods: This pre-registered systematic review aimed to investigate how ER is conceptualized and measured in forensic populations, and to synthesize available evidence on the reliability and validity of ER measurement instruments. A total of 59 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. Results: ER was primarily assessed using self-report questionnaires (93% of studies), with only four studies employing biophysiological indices of ER.... (More)

Background: The study of emotion regulation (ER) has gained traction in forensic psychological and psychiatric research as a correlate of antisocial and aggressive behavior as well as for its relevance to psychopathology. However, conceptual and definitional ambiguity persists. Methods: This pre-registered systematic review aimed to investigate how ER is conceptualized and measured in forensic populations, and to synthesize available evidence on the reliability and validity of ER measurement instruments. A total of 59 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. Results: ER was primarily assessed using self-report questionnaires (93% of studies), with only four studies employing biophysiological indices of ER. Seven distinct measurement models were identified. Most studies (80%) relied on one of two broad conceptual approaches: ER conceptualized as a set of interrelated abilities, most commonly assessed using the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale, or ER conceptualized as a set of strategies used to regulate emotional responses, most commonly assessed using the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire. Reliability estimates were reported in 64% of studies, with the majority of estimates exceeding conventional cut-offs for adequate internal consistency. Evidence for construct validity was generally conclusive or mixed across studies. Conclusions: ER research in forensic settings is characterized by conceptual heterogeneity and a strong reliance on self-report measures. The conceptual heterogeneity underscores the need for authors to clearly outline how ER is conceptualized and theoretically defined. Although reliability estimates were generally adequate when available, reliability was not consistently reported across studies. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42023495577.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; ; ; ; and
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
emotion regulation, forensic, measurement, psychiatry, reliability, validity
in
Frontiers in Psychology
volume
16
article number
1696832
publisher
Frontiers Media S. A.
external identifiers
  • pmid:41567440
  • scopus:105027962106
ISSN
1664-1078
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1696832
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
e329b5b1-afc8-4d54-925f-33a04b7c26d9
date added to LUP
2026-02-25 15:14:51
date last changed
2026-05-07 03:28:33
@article{e329b5b1-afc8-4d54-925f-33a04b7c26d9,
  abstract     = {{<p>Background: The study of emotion regulation (ER) has gained traction in forensic psychological and psychiatric research as a correlate of antisocial and aggressive behavior as well as for its relevance to psychopathology. However, conceptual and definitional ambiguity persists. Methods: This pre-registered systematic review aimed to investigate how ER is conceptualized and measured in forensic populations, and to synthesize available evidence on the reliability and validity of ER measurement instruments. A total of 59 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. Results: ER was primarily assessed using self-report questionnaires (93% of studies), with only four studies employing biophysiological indices of ER. Seven distinct measurement models were identified. Most studies (80%) relied on one of two broad conceptual approaches: ER conceptualized as a set of interrelated abilities, most commonly assessed using the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale, or ER conceptualized as a set of strategies used to regulate emotional responses, most commonly assessed using the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire. Reliability estimates were reported in 64% of studies, with the majority of estimates exceeding conventional cut-offs for adequate internal consistency. Evidence for construct validity was generally conclusive or mixed across studies. Conclusions: ER research in forensic settings is characterized by conceptual heterogeneity and a strong reliance on self-report measures. The conceptual heterogeneity underscores the need for authors to clearly outline how ER is conceptualized and theoretically defined. Although reliability estimates were generally adequate when available, reliability was not consistently reported across studies. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42023495577.</p>}},
  author       = {{Meddeb, Adam and Garofalo, Carlo and Gillespie, Steven M. and van Dongen, Josanne D.M. and Karlén, Malin Hildebrand and Wallinius, Märta}},
  issn         = {{1664-1078}},
  keywords     = {{emotion regulation; forensic; measurement; psychiatry; reliability; validity}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  publisher    = {{Frontiers Media S. A.}},
  series       = {{Frontiers in Psychology}},
  title        = {{A systematic review of measures of emotion regulation in forensic settings}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1696832}},
  doi          = {{10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1696832}},
  volume       = {{16}},
  year         = {{2026}},
}