A Measure of Emotional Regulation and Irritability in Children and Adolescents: The Clinical Evaluation of Emotional Regulation–9
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To develop a scale for emotional regulation using item response theory. Method: Eighteen Swanson Nolan and Pelham (SNAP-IV) items that loaded on an emotional dysregulation factor were submitted to Rasch analysis. After eliminating the items that violated Rasch criteria, the remaining items were examined for reliability and validated against the Conners’ emotional lability index. Results: A nine-item scale for emotional regulation was developed that satisfies the Rasch model and reliably distinguishes emotionally dysregulated/irritable children and adolescents. A score of 4 or higher in this scale has optimal accuracy for identifying children and adolescents with current significant dysfunction in emotional regulation. Among youth with ADHD inattentive, hyperactive–impulsive, and combined types, 42%, 56%, and 71% met the Clinical Evaluation of Emotional Regulation–9 (CEER-9) threshold for emotional lability, respectively. Conclusion: A nine-item scale whose sum total is a measure of emotional regulation is proposed as a tool for clinical and research purposes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".