For this systematic review, we included relevant literature from 2000 to 2024 that focused on translating and evaluating the psychometric properties of the CERQ.

In this study, we conducted a systematic literature search using databases such as PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus. The search was based on the keywords (“Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire” OR “CERQ”) AND (“Cross-Cultural Adaptation” OR “Translation”) AND (“Validation” OR “Psychometric Properties” OR “Validity” OR “Reliability”). The present systematic review utilized the PRISMA checklist for conducting the study (Page et al., 2021).

Initially, we screened titles related to the mentioned specified keywords. Articles retrieved from each literature search database were exported as research information system (RIS) files and then imported into Covidence¹ for abstract and full-text screening (Azeroual et al., 2019; Kellermeyer et al., 2018). Subsequently, two reviewers (authors) independently assessed abstracts and excluded the irrelevant articles. In cases of disagreement, a third reviewer was consulted to reach a consensus. He was not the author of the research. Following this, the reviewers thoroughly examined the full text of relevant articles and selected those aligned with the research title and aim. The psychometric properties of the instrument were meticulously examined by the COSMIN (consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments) guidelines. These guidelines provide a comprehensive framework for evaluating the quality of health measurement instruments, ensuring that the studies are both reliable and valid for their intended purposes.

Psychometric studies conducted in English between 2000 and 2024 were included in the study. Observational studies randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cross-sectional studies, case reports, qualitative studies, protocol studies, review articles, and published abstracts were excluded. Full text of articles in non-English were excluded from the analysis.

The extensive literature review combined with a manual search resulted in a total of 1,476 studies. After removing 1,056 duplicate entries, 420 articles remained for investigation. A thorough screening of titles and abstracts led to the identification of 13 pertinent studies, discarding those that were not relevant. Five full-text articles were excluded from the analysis due to being published in non-English and three versions were also excluded from the analysis due to being not full-text available. Ultimately, the authors thoroughly examined the complete texts of the 13 selected studies released through September 2024. The process of study selection is illustrated in Figure 1, following the guidelines outlined by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol in a flow diagram.

The reviewed studies aimed to provide insights into the methods used in adapting and validating the CERQ. A concise overview of the methods used in each study is presented below, organized chronologically by publication year. This overview is based on various criteria, including the research year, authors, alterations made, involved professionals, publication specifics, location, language of adaptation, and the demographics of the study population, all of which are summarized in Table 1. Detailed explanations of the adaptation processes and the examination of psychometric properties will follow in the subsequent sections.

The administration process of various versions was quite simple. Participants completed the questionnaires either in person or via postal mail, carefully considering each item and selecting the response that best reflected cognitive strategies for emotion regulation. The CERQ is a 36-item scale based on the Likert format, featuring five response options that range from ‘almost never’ (Grecucci et al., 2020) to ‘almost always’ (Kraft et al., 2024). To determine higher and lower adaptive scores, the scores of all relevant items are added together. The high adaptive component consists of five subscales: acceptance, positive refocusing, planning refocuses, positive reappraisal, and putting things into perspective. In contrast, the less adaptive strategies encompass four subscales: self-blame, rumination, catastrophizing, and blaming others. The total CERQ score is calculated by aggregating the scores from all 36 items, with a possible score ranging from 36 to 180. Subscale scores are derived by summing the relevant items within each subscale, with each subscale yielding a score ranging from 4 to 20 (Shahzad et al., 2022; Uzzaman et al., 2024).

The 13 versions selected in the method section were subjected to a comprehensive critical assessment, the specifics of which are outlined for each study in the results section. Table 2 summarizes these evaluations.

The CERQ has translated modifications and validation in various languages to assess cognitive strategies related to emotion regulation under stress (Tyra et al., 2024). The effective adaptation and validation of the CERQ for different languages and populations highlight the importance of consistently and reliably measuring these cognitive strategies. Traditional translation methods or “forward-backward approach” included a forward translation, back translation, and review (Gorecki et al., 2014). The predominant translation method identified in the literature reviewed was Brislin’s traditional back-translation model (Jones et al., 2001); however, it was often referenced without using Brislin’s name. In some published versions, there is detailed and supplementary information about all the stages of the study. A review of the various versions showed that most of them were translated by professionals. For example, psychologists translated the Spanish, Turkish, Persian, and Urdu versions, while translators handled the French, Chinese, Brazilian, and Indonesian versions (Prastuti et al., 2020; Jermann et al., 2006; Zhu et al., 2008; Schäfer et al., 2018). However, there is insufficient information regarding the Japanese, Australian, and Bangladeshi translations (Uzzaman et al., 2024; Urano et al., 2022; Rice et al., 2022). Additionally, only the Turkish version had more than two translators. To ensure the cultural adaptation of questionnaires, it is important to utilize expert panels. An expert panel was employed for the backward translation in the Turkish, Brazilian, Indonesian, and Urdu versions (Shahzad et al., 2022; Prastuti et al., 2020; Tuna and Bozo, 2012; Schäfer et al., 2018).

Although face and content validity has been assessed for most languages, the findings have not been thoroughly detailed, and do not present statistical results. The construct validity of the adapted version has been established in multiple studies conducted in various languages, except Brazilian and Bangladeshi (Uzzaman et al., 2024; Schäfer et al., 2018). Each version has shown a correlation with different scales and tools, yet only the Turkish and Japanese versions demonstrated a correlation with the self-efficacy scale (Tuna and Bozo, 2012; Sakakibara and Endo, 2016). The Pearson correlation coefficient also was reported only in the original English version (r = 0.42) (Garnefski et al., 2001). Table 3 presents the validity types and properties. The structural validity model was reported to be a good fit in all versions except Persian and Urdu.

Inter-rater reliability was reported utilizing Intra Class Coefficients (ICC) and Pearson rank coefficients. Seven versions including English, Chinese, Japanese, Brazilian, Indonesian, Urdu, and Bangladeshi demonstrated internal consistency for the overall CERQ (Shahzad et al., 2022; Prastuti et al., 2020; Garnefski et al., 2001; Uzzaman et al., 2024; Zhu et al., 2008; Schäfer et al., 2018; Urano et al., 2022; Sakakibara and Endo, 2016). However, except for the English, Arabic, and Bangladeshi versions, the other translations showed good internal consistency for their subscales (Garnefski et al., 2001; Uzzaman et al., 2024; Saad and Kamel, 2020). In addition, seven English, Chinese, Spanish, Turkish, Japanese, Arabic, and Urdu versions reported evidence of test–retest reliability (Shahzad et al., 2022; Garnefski et al., 2001; Tuna and Bozo, 2012; Domínguez-Sánchez et al., 2013; Saad and Kamel, 2020; Zhu et al., 2008; Sakakibara and Endo, 2016) (See Table 3).

The French and Brazilian versions have reported confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). By establishing cut-off points and evaluating psychometric properties, researchers and clinicians can effectively measure the impact of cognitive strategies on emotion regulation. These versions of the CERQ use a cut-off score of 0.95 (Jermann et al., 2006; Schäfer et al., 2018). Also, the sensitivity index is reported in the Australian version of the CERQ (Rice et al., 2022). This detailed information is reported in Table 4. The psychometric properties of each version were examined following the COSMIN guidelines. Consequently, we applied the updated COSMIN criteria for the various versions of the CERQ, as outlined in Table 5.

Additionally, the CERQ is a valuable scale that enables the identification of individuals who may need additional assessment for communication and participation problems. Therefore, its translation and cultural adaptation to other languages is recommended. The authors suggest areas for further investigation, such as exploring additional cultural contexts or populations to enhance the generalizability of the CERQ. Also, we recommend using the CERQ in clinical settings to assess emotional regulation strategies in various psychological interventions.