The results found in the EARE-AD (Bartlett p < 0.01; 15181.9; df = 561; KMO = 0.93) and the EARE-IJ (Bartlett p < 0.01; 8258.1; df = 378; KMO = 0.92) indicated that the data matrices of the two scales were subject to factorization, and they were analyzed separately. In both, parallel analysis suggested only one factor, whereas the MAP and Hull analyzes showed, respectively, the retention of five and four factors. Initially, factorial analysis was used, limiting five, four, three, two factors and the one-way solution, in order to analyze which of the results would be interpretable, taking into account the literature on the construct and theoretical cohesion. The psychometric indices found in each factorial solution for the two scales are shown in Table 1.

The psychometric indices found were similar in all factorial solutions of the EARE-AD, with four- and five-factor solutions as the most adequate. However, the four-factor structure (CFI = 0.994, RMSEA = 0.03 and χ² = 618.64, df = 431; RMSR = 0.04) showed the most coherent items in each factor and the number of factors supported by the literature. The final version consisted of 34 items, with the variance being explained, considering the four factors, of 62.7%. Factor 1 accounted for 3.7%; F2 accounted for 32.4%; F3, for 20.2%; and F4, for 6.3%. The reliability of F1 (15 items) was 0.98; F2 (7 items) presented a reliability of 0.69; F3 (6 items) presented a reliability of 0.88; and F4 (6 items), of 0.92.

Factor 1, Appropriate coping strategies, contains items that indicate the ability to solve problems, to seek to do other things when experiencing sadness and reflection on one’s own feelings (e.g., “I think about other things” and “I try to think in possible ways out of the problem”). Factor 2, Externalization of aggressiveness, has items that demonstrate irritation and aggression with things and people, as well as the accountability of the other person for what they feel (“I abuse people” and “I shout/yell” are examples of items). Factor 3 agglutinated items denoting feelings of inferiority and the negative view regarding the future and was denominated Pessimism (as an example of items, “I think I’m a bad person” and “I think I’m worse than the others”). Finally, Factor 4 (Paralysis) has items that indicate if the respondent has appropriate actions in identifying a negative emotion or if he/she is paralyzed and thinks continuously in the situation (“I am afraid this does not happen” and “I cannot understand why I am like this”). The factor loads varied from 0.52 to 0.98. Table 2 shows the solution of four factors with the respective factorial loads of the items, as well as the commonalities of the EARE-AD and the EARE-IJ.

The correlations found among the factors of the EARE-AD were low and moderate, ranging between 0.07 and 0.62. Factor 1 had negative correlations with all factors, and the other correlations were positive.

In relation to the EARE-IJ, as well as in the EARE-AD, the four-factor solution was the most adequate one (CFI = 0.996, RMSEA = 0.03, χ² = 256.62, df = 272, RSMS = 0.03), given the agglutination of coherent items in each factor and the number of factors supported by the literature. Considering the final version with 28 items and four factors, the explained variance was 64.2%. Factor 1 accounted for 14.9% of it, F2 for 35.9%, F3 for 5.3% and F4 for 8.1%. The reliability of F1 (8 items) was 0.95; F2 (4 items) had a reliability of 0.91; F3 (8 items), of 0.94; and F4 (8 items), of 0.94.

Four factors were found, three of which were partially similar to those of the EARE-AD, namely, Appropriate coping strategies (Factor 1), Pessimism (Factor 3) and Paralysis (Factor 4). Factor 2, Experience evaluation, has items that indicate the respondent’s assessment of the situation, that is, if the person evaluates that he/she will learn from the experience, whether the individual looks at it with optimism, if the individual feels able to solve the problems (“I think I can solve the problem” and “I cannot enjoy good things that are happening” are examples of items). The factorial loads ranged from 0.52 to 1.01, as shown in Table 2.

As for the correlations between the factors, it was possible to identify positive and negative coefficients and low to high associations of magnitudes, with values between -0.03 and 0.65. Both F1 and F2 presented positive associations between themselves and negative associations with F3 and F4. In turn, F3 and F4 were positively associated. Table 3 indicates the correlations found for both the EARE-AD and the EARE-IJ.

It should be noted that some items from the EARE-AD and the EARE-IJ should have their scores inverted. Table 4 shows a synthesis of the results found in the present study regarding the structure of the scales (number of items and factors, definition of factors, present items and each factor, and which of these items need to be inverted).

The objective of the present study was to verify the internal structure of both the EARE-AD and the EARE-IJ in samples of Brazilian volunteers, adults and children respectively. In addition, it should be emphasized that the study is preliminary, with further data collection to be carried out in order to deepen and refine the scales. Factor analysis indicated results similar to those initially proposed by Gratz and Roemer (2004), with a four-factor structure for assessing emotional self-regulation.

Of the four factors found in the two scales, three presented the same nomenclatures and definitions in both the adult and youth versions, namely, appropriate coping strategies, pessimism and paralysis. Of these, one refers to the control of negative feelings (pessimism) and the other two factors refer to the control of impulsive behaviors and negative thoughts (appropriate coping strategies and paralysis). In addition, in the EARE-AD, one factor is related to the control of impulsive behaviors (externalization of aggressiveness) and in the EARE-IJ, another factor refers to the control of negative feelings and thoughts (experience evaluation). The findings differed from those found by Gondim et al. (2015) in the ERP, in which two factors were obtained (positive and negative emotions). It should be noted that such results can be explained by the fact that the ERP authors have sought to access respondents’ emotions through eliciting scenarios, while both EAREs are self-report measures, indicating differences in the construction and response of the instruments.

The two versions of the Emotional Self-Regulation Scale presented factorial loads similar to those of other studies that used measures of emotional regulation (Batistoni et al., 2013; Gondim et al., 2015). However, the factor loadings of both the EARE-AD and the EARE-IJ were higher, as were the total variance explained and the reliability levels, possibly because the EARE-AD and the EARE-IJ assessed emotional control in the face of negative events and that may lead to impulsive behaviors, negative feelings and thoughts, that is, they are more specific than other instruments that evaluate emotions (Gondim et al., 2015) or are focused on life situations such as eating (TESQ- E, Gaspar et al., 2015).

In addition, the adjustment indices of the model were adequate to the data in the two scales of emotional self-regulation, however, factorial loads with values above 0.90 were observed in both scales, which may indicate the existence of improper solutions, which are called Heywood cases (Kolenikov & Bollen, 2012; Wang & Parmigiani, 2017). Improper solutions relate to situations where the estimates assume values that are impossible for the corresponding parameters or that are restricted to the limits of possible values, in this case, limited to zero or negative error variances. These data may indicate errors in the model, the data or the estimator (Wang & Parmigiani, 2017). Kolenikov and Bollen (2012) have suggested that negative error variations can occur frequently. One of the possibilities would be to consider that some items with semantic similarities need to be eliminated in the analysis with new samples in order to minimize possible improper solutions.

Regarding the EARE-AD, low-magnitude and negative correlations were found between the appropriate coping strategies factor and the other three factors, possibly because it is a factor that indicates positive thoughts and attitudes in the face of sadness, whereas the other factors refer to the control of negative actions, thoughts and feelings in the face of the same sad events (Zimmer-Gembeck & Skinner, 2016). Even with low magnitude correlations, some values were higher than those found by other authors (Batistoni et al., 2013; Gratz & Roemer, 2004). Finally, the moderate correlations were positive and were in the same direction as those found in other studies with measures of emotional self-regulation (Gondim et al., 2015; Gratz & Roemer, 2004; Nelis et al., 2011).

The correlations found between the EARE-IJ factors indicated two positive factors (appropriate coping strategies and experience evaluation) and two negative factors (paralysis and pessimism). Positive factors indicate attitudes, thoughts, and control of negative feelings in the face of sadness. Negative factors, on the other hand, refer to the control of negative feelings and thoughts when experiencing sad events. The associations found were positive between the same pole, and negative when they were of different poles, which indicates similarity with the results found in the EARE-AD, with the difference that the EARE-IJ had two negative and two positive factors, and the EARE-AD had three negative and one positive factors (Zimmer-Gembeck & Skinner, 2016). In addition, the results found in the EARE-IJ are similar to what other authors found for SR instruments (Gondim et al., 2015; Gratz & Roemer, 2004; Nelis et al., 2011), with higher magnitudes (Batistoni et al., 2013; Gratz & Roemer, 2004).

The EARE-AD has a factor that evaluates positive behaviors and thoughts in the face of sad events (appropriate coping strategies), and the EARE-IJ has two factors that also evaluate behaviors and positive thoughts in the face of sad events (coping strategies and experience evaluation). Nevertheless, both are measures that evaluate only the control of negative emotions. Weiss et al. (2015) argue that the control of positive emotions is also necessary, since individuals who fail to do so tend to be more distracted in their activities and do not discriminate correctly the received information, which carries along a greater risk of making inappropriate decisions (Nelis et al., 2011; Tull et al., 2012). Still, those who manage to control positive emotions tend to have higher levels of self-esteem, life satisfaction, and resilience (Artuch-Garde et al., 2017). However, by focusing on only one type of emotion (sadness), the Emotional Self-Regulation Scale may offer a greater explained variance and be more focal than the other ones that assess several positive affects, and may also be useful in populations with mood dysphoria and/or disorder (Berking et al., 2013).

The psychometric indices of the EARE-AD and the EARE-IJ were satisfactory, according to the objective of this study. Regarding limitations, the scope did not allow additional analyzes to be carried out, for example, the one concerning the discriminative power of the items and if the Heywood effect will be maintained in analyzes with new samples. It is believed that such verifications would allow the elimination of items with correlations of strong magnitudes between them, that is, the possibility of item reduction. As an agenda for future research, it is suggested that the construct be investigated considering its relationship with other instruments that evaluate, for example, anxiety and depression, besides considering other positive constructs, such as self-esteem, character strengths, perception of family support and parental styles, in order to obtain evidence of validity to contribute to evaluative processes in the various contexts.