A Psychometric Evaluation of the Revised Parental Emotion Regulation Inventory
- 506 Downloads
Despite significant research on parental emotion, parents’ regulation of their own emotions during discipline encounters is an understudied topic. Progress in this area of inquiry would be enhanced by the development of valid measures of emotion regulation. The present article describes an evaluation of such a measure, the revised Parental Emotion Regulation Inventory (PERI2). Mothers of 2-year-old children (N = 232) completed the PERI2, additional questionnaire measures, and a parent-child observation during home visits. The present findings support the factorial and concurrent validity of the PERI2’s suppression (e.g., concealing negative emotion), capitulation (e.g., giving into aversive child behavior to reduce negative emotion) and escape (e.g., walking away mid discipline encounter to reduce negative emotion) factors. Suppression, capitulation, and escape were distinct but interrelated emotion regulatory behaviors that were associated with such factors as harsh parenting, lax discipline, parental maladjustment, and child physical aggression. In contrast, the psychometric adequacy of the reappraisal factor (e.g., thinking differently about the child’s behavior to reduce negative emotion) was not supported. The results support the future use of the PERI2, minus the reappraisal factor’s items.
KeywordsDiscipline Emotion regulation Parenting Psychometric validation Toddlers
This study was funded by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Grant B1U49CE001246-01PR.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. However, Michael Lorber has received research grants/contracts from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Justice, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Amy Smith Slep has received research grants/contracts from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Justice, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Defense, United States Air Force, Institute of Educational Sciences, and Department of Justice.
- Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B (Methodological), 57, 289–300.Google Scholar
- Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Chen, F., Curran, P. J., Bollen, K. A., Kirby, J., & Paxton, P. (2008). An empirical evaluation of the use of fixed cutoff points in RMSEA test statistic in structural equation models. Sociological Methods and Research, 36, 462–494. doi: 10.1177/0049124108314720.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Coatsworth, J. D., Duncan, L. G., Nix, R. L., Greenberg, M. T., Gayles, J. G., Bamberger, K. T., Berrena, E., & Demi, M. A. (2015). Integrating mindfulness with parent training: Effects of the mindfulness-enhanced Strengthening Families Program. Developmental Psychology, 51, 26–35. doi: 10.1037/a0038212.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Duncan, L. G. (2007). Assessment of mindful parenting among parents of early adolescents: Development and validation of the Interpersonal Mindfulness in Parenting Scale (unpublished doctoral dissertation), The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA.Google Scholar
- Egloff, B., Schmukle, S. C., Burns, L. R., & Schwerdtfeger, A. (2006). Spontaneous emotion regulation during evaluated speaking tasks: Associations with negative affect, anxiety expression, memory, and physiological responding. Emotion, 6, 356–366. doi: 10.1037/1528-3522.214.171.1246.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gross, J. J., & Thompson, R. A. (2007). Emotion regulation: Conceptual foundations. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 3–24). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
- Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Lorber, M. F., & Slep, A. M. S. (2016). The reliability paradox of the Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale's corporal punishment subscale. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
- Lorber, M. F., Xu, S., Slep, A. M. S., Bulling, L. J., & O’Leary, S. G. (2014). A new look at the psychometrics of the parenting scale through the lens of item response theory. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 43, 613–626. doi: 10.1080/15374416.2014.900717.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus User’s Guide. Seventh Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Author.Google Scholar
- Parke, R. D. (2002). Fathers and families. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (Vol. 3, pp. 27–73). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Slep, A. M. S., Heyman, R. E. H., Mitnick, D. M., Lorber, M. F., Xu, S., & Niolon, P. H. (2014). Dyadic, skills-based primary prevention for partner violence in perinatal parents. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
- Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Finkelhor, D., Moore, D. W., & Runyan, D. (1998). Identification of child maltreatment with the Parent–Child Conflict Tactics Scales: Development and psychometric data for a national sample of American parents. Child Abuse and Neglect, 22, 249–270. doi: 10.1016/S0145-2134(97)00174-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar