Reliability and validity of the Emotional Processing Self-Report.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deficits in emotional processing are considered to underlie a range of psychopathologies, and thus constitute a crucial target to improve mental health. Given the broad consensus on the importance of emotional processing during psychotherapy to reduce symptomology, it is surprising that there is no self-report scale designed to measure this construct. The purpose of this study was to develop the Emotional Processing Self-Report (EP-SR), a practical easy-to-use tool for assessing client emotional processing during therapeutic sessions. In Study 1, 53 items were developed according to theory and evaluated by experts. Exploratory factor analyses of the newly created EP-SR items were administered in a cross-sectional design to 124 individuals in treatment. In Study 2, multilevel exploratory factor analyses were performed on a sample of 114 patients who completed the EP-SR after each therapy session (1956 measurements). The results indicated that the EP-SR could be used to assess three independent lower order emotional processes: emotional expression, regulation, and understanding emotional meaning. In Study 3, multilevel confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on additional sample of 77 patients who completed the EP-SR after each therapy session (1,423 measurements). Results confirmed the factor structure of the EP-SR. The internal consistency, convergent, incremental, and predictive validity of the EP-SR were confirmed by showing its association with clients' process and outcome measures. The results of these three studies support the reliability and validity of the EP-SR and its clinical importance. Given its user-friendliness and strong psychometric properties, the EP-SR emerges as a good instrument to assess individuals' emotional processing. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".