ArticleBMC psychology2026
A multi-model LLM framework for AI-assisted psychological scale development: initial psychometric evaluation of the Emotion Regulation Scale (ERS).
Article in BMC psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEmotion regulation is a key construct in mental health, yet existing measures differ in conceptual coverage, with some focusing on specific strategies or regulatory difficulties rather than broader cognitive, behavioral, and contextual regulation processes. This study aimed to develop an Emotion Regulation Scale (ERS) grounded in Gross's Process Model, using large language models (LLMs) as assistive tools within an established psychometric framework.
methodThis cross-sectional study included 743 adults recruited through convenience sampling. Participants were randomly divided into two non-overlapping subsamples, one used for exploratory factor analysis and the other for confirmatory factor analysis. Multiple LLMs and AI-based tools assisted with item generation, refinement and bias screening, translation, and post-EFA construct interpretation, with human oversight throughout development. An initial pool of 25 items was generated and refined to produce the final 17-item ERS.
resultsThe ERS revealed a preliminary four-factor structure, with EFA explaining 50.85% of the variance. CFA provided preliminary support for a post hoc refined 17-item model (χ²/df = 1.95, CFI = 0.934, TLI = 0.918, IFI = 0.935, RMSEA = 0.050). Reliability was acceptable for early-stage scale development (α = 0.68-0.74; ω = 0.68-0.75). Convergent validity showed positive correlations between adaptive strategies and cognitive reappraisal (r = 0.522-0.608) and between maladaptive cognitions and suppression (r = 0.400). Concurrent validity showed associations with depression (r = 0.432), anxiety (r = 0.462), well-being (r = -0.330), and quality of life (QOL1 = -0.357; QOL2 = -0.295), while adaptive strategies correlated with depression (r = -0.184 to -0.239), anxiety (r = -0.141 to -0.211), well-being (r = 0.150 to 0.203), and quality of life (r = 0.211 to 0.375). Known-groups validity indicated significant differences across depression and anxiety levels (MCR: F(4, 738) = 39.32; 64.49, p < 0.001).
conclusionThe findings provide preliminary psychometric evidence for the 17-item ERS and suggest that it may complement existing measures by capturing broader cognitive, behavioral, and contextual emotion regulation processes. The study illustrates the potential for LLM-assisted scale development within established psychometric procedures and human oversight. Further research using diverse samples is needed to evaluate the scale's psychometric properties, generalizability, and broader utility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.