A systematic literature review of emotion regulation measurement in individuals with autism spectrum disorder.
Use at least two ways to measure emotion regulation in clients with autism; one form is not enough.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The authors read every paper that measured emotion regulation in people with autism. They looked at how each study did it.
They found most teams used only one tool, like a parent form or a self-report. Few mixed methods.
What they found
Only one in four studies used more than one way to measure emotion regulation.
Most relied on a single view, such as a questionnaire filled out by parents only.
How this fits with other research
Cai et al. (2018) later said the same thing: stop leaning on one form. They pushed for tests of flexibility and positive up-regulation.
Burrows et al. (2018) and Bradley et al. (2026) built the 30-item Emotion Dysregulation Inventory. It is short, caregiver-only, and fits the very gap the review warned about.
Trimmer et al. (2017) showed that autistic adults’ bodies react, but their self-ratings stay flat. This mismatch proves the review’s point: you need more than one source.
Why it matters
If you test emotion regulation with one form, you may miss the picture. Add a quick direct observation and a short self-rating. It takes five extra minutes and gives you a fuller baseline.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one client. Add a five-minute direct observation tally to the parent form you already use.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Emotion regulation (ER) difficulties are a potential common factor underlying the presentation of multiple emotional and behavioral problems in individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). To provide an overview of how ER has been studied in individuals with ASD, we conducted a systematic review of the past 20 years of ER research in the ASD population, using established keywords from the most comprehensive ER literature review of the typically developing population to date. Out of an initial sampling of 305 studies, 32 were eligible for review. We examined the types of methods (self-report, informant report, naturalistic observation/ behavior coding, physiological, and open-ended) and the ER constructs based on Gross and Thompson's modal model (situation selection, situation modification, attention deployment, cognitive change, and response modulation). Studies most often assessed ER using one type of method and from a unidimensional perspective. Across the 32 studies, we documented the types of measures used and found that 38% of studies used self-report, 44% included an informant report measure, 31% included at least one naturalistic observation/behavior coding measure, 13% included at least one physiological measure, and 13% included at least one open-ended measure. Only 25% of studies used more than one method of measurement. The findings of the current review provide the field with an in-depth analysis of various ER measures and how each measure taps into an ER framework. Future research can use this model to examine ER in a multicomponent way and through multiple methods.
Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research, 2014 · doi:10.1002/aur.1426