1. Samiul Hossain1, Nadia Garnefski2 & Vivian Kraaij3
Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ) Bengali version: Translation, Adaptation and Validation.
Samiul Hossain1, Nadia Garnefski2 & Vivian Kraaij3
1 student, 2 Associate Professor, 3 Assistant Professor. Department of Clinical, Health and NeuroPsychology, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Universiteit Leiden, The Netherlands

2. Introduction
The field of Emotion Regulation (ER) enjoyed exponential growth in last two decades (Tamir, 2011).
Emotion Regulation has been studied in great length in association with different topics, such as but not limited to, psychopathology (e.g., Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema, & Schweizer, 2010), physical health (e.g., DeSteno, Gross, & Kubzansky, 2013), decission making (van't Wout, Chang, & Sanfey, 2010) and conflict resolution (e.g., Halperin, 2014).

3. Continuation
There has been a proliferation of interests to include emotion regulation as a treatment component of psychotherapy (e.g., Berking, Ebert, Cuijpers, & Hofmann, 2013). Likewise, ER has been studied as a moderator of treatment outcomes in different forms of psychotherapies (e.g., Wisco, Sloan, & Marx, 2013).
it is argued that Emotion Regulation has become one of the most vibrant fields of psychology (Koole, 2009).

4. The process model of emtion regulation
The process model postulated that emotion regulation can occur in five different points namely: situation selection, situation modification, attentional deployment, cognitive change, and response modulation (Gross & Thompson, 2007).

5. Cognitive Emotion Regulation
Cognitive Emotion Regulation (CER) is one of these activities which supposedly fall under the cognitive change point. The Cognitive Emotion Regulation has been generally conceptualised as “conscious, cognitive way of handling the intake of emotionally arousing information” (Garnefski, Kraaij, & Spinhoven, 2001; Thompson, 1991).

6. Cognitive Emotion Regulation
Nine ‘conceptually different’ CER strategies have been postulated according to this model namely: Self-blame, Other-blame, Rumination, Catastrophizing, Putting into perspective, Positive Refocusing, Positive Reappraisal, Acceptance and Planning (Garnefski et al., 2001).

7. Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ)
The Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ) (Garnefski et al., 2001) is a self-report questionnaire to assess cognitive emotion regulation strategies.
It has 09 sub-scales and 36 items.
. Participants have to answer a scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always). The total scores of each sub-scales ranged from 4 to 20.

8. Continuaion
Since the development, the CERQ has been translated into different languages, such as,
Spanish (e.g.,Dominguez-Sánchez, Lasa-Aristu, Amor, & Holgado-Tello, 2013).
Italian (e.g., Cerutti, Presaghi, Manca, & Gratz, 2012).
Turkish (e.g., Öngen, 2010; Tuna, & Bozo, 2012).
Persian (e.g., Dadkhah, 2012; Omran, 2011).

9. Continuaion Chinese (e.g., Zhu et al., 2008).
French (e.g., Jermann, Van der Linden, d'Acremont, & Zermatten, 2006).
Romanian (e.g., Perţe & Miclea, 2011).

10. Rationale
It is quite important to have a reliable and valid measure which can be used in different languages and cultures (Van Widenfelt, Treffers, De Beurs, Siebelink, & Koudijs, 2005).
Having a valid measurement in different cultures and languages is pivotal for cross-cultural researches. Translating and validating a measure from the original language into other languages is one of the ways to achieve this goal (Guillemin, Bombardier, & Beaton, 1993).

11. Rationale
It has been well argued the importance of performing cross cultural researches for the advancement of behaviour science ((Norenzayan & Heine, 2005; for an excellent review see Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010a, 2010b).

12. Present study/ Research question
The focus of this study was to validate the CERQ in Bangladesh’s context. To our best knowledge, this was the first study which attempted to validate a questionnaire which assesses emotion regulation in Bangladesh’s context.

13. Translation process
Several guidelines were consulted to accomplish the translation tasks (e.g., Geisinger, 1994; Guillemin et al., 1993; Hambleton, 2001; Peña, 2007; Van Widenfelt et al., 2005).

14. Translation Process
First of all, we contacted colleagues in Bangladesh to check availability of any Bengali version of the CERQ.
Secondly, we included an independent translator who is a native Bengali speaker.
Thirdly, we also included the original authors of CERQ in translator teams.
Finally, we included native Bangladeshi in our translation teams to ensure cultural equivalence.

15. Translation process Stage 1: Translation Stage 2: Back Translation
Stage 3: Expert Review
Stage 4: Synthesis and finalisation
Stage 5: Testing

16. Method
Cross sectional research design.

17. Participants
The participants comprised of 378, years school students from Dhaka (Capital of Bangladesh) ranging age from years (Mean age 14.58, SD 2.16).

18. Procedure
Ethical approval was obtained from Institute of Psychology Ethical Review Committee.
Informed conscent was obtained from participants.
Participants filled questionnaire in their classrooms with the prsence of a researcher.

19. Instruments
Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ).

20. Data analysis First stage
We computed Cronbach’s / coefficients alpha of CERQ subscales in this stage. We computed confidence intervals according to the guideline outlined by Fan & Thompson (2001).
Second stage
We ran the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to obtain factor structure and factor loadings.
We consulted the guideline provided by Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan (1999) to perform the analysis.

21. Data analysis Third stage
We ran Confirmatory Factorial Analysis (CFA) to obtain fit indexes of our model in this stage. We obtained fit indexes of the nine factors solution at first.
We consulted the guideline provided by Schreiber, Nora, Stage, Barlow, & King (2006) to perform this analysis.

22. Results Scales M SD Range
Coefficient/ Cronbach's alpha of standardized items
95% Confidence Intervals of coefficient/ Cronbach’s alpha
Symptoms Check List (SCL).
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Anxiety
9.34
6.92
0-36
.81
.77
.83
Depression
18.24
11.67
0-55
.86
.84
.89
Hostility
4.79
4.22
0-24
.67
.61
.72
Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ).
Self-blame
8.45
3.62
4-19
.70
.65
.75
Acceptance
9.41
3.69
4-20
.62
.55
.68
Rumination
10.48
4.29
.78
.74
Positive Refocusing
10.50
3.95
.69
Refocus on Planning
12.48
4.32
.73
.80
Positive Reappraisal
Putting into Perspective
9.25
3.75
Catastrophizing
8.67
3.65
.64
.57
Blaming Others
7.12
2.69
4-16
.50
.39

23. Correlation statistics
Measures
Anxiety
Depression
Hostility
Self-blame
Acceptance
Rumination
Positive Refocusing
Refocus on Planning
Positive Reappraisal
Putting into perspective
Catastrophizing
Other-blame -
.78***
.53***
.48** *
.34***
.58***
.21***
.23***
.22***
.20***
38***
.52***
.57***
.41***
.63***
.19***
.25***
.33***
.59***
.37***
.26***
.18***
.17***
.16***
.38***
.35***
.65***
.70***
.32***
.49***
.46***
.45***
.67***
.44***
.54***
.42***
.40***
.72***
.68***
.39***
.51***
.66***
.55***
.47***
.50***

24. Factor Loadings Scale Item Item number Factor Loading Component number
Values obtained after rotation
Self-blame
– I feel that I am the one to blame for it 1 4
0.63
-I feel that I am the one who is responsible for what has happened 10
0.52
– I think about the mistakes I have made in this matter 19
0.70
– I think that basically the cause must lie within myself 28
0.60
Acceptance
– I think that I have to accept that this has happened 2
0.74
– I think that I have to accept the situation 11
0.58
I think that I cannot change anything about it 20
0.53
– I think that I must learn to live with it 29 7
Rumination
– I often think about how I feel about what I have experienced 3
0.61
I am preoccupied with what I think and feel about what I have experienced 12
0.72
– I want to understand why I feel the way I do about what I have experienced 21
– I dwell upon the feelings the situation has evoked in me 30
0.77
Positive Refocusing
– I think of nicer things than what I have experienced
0.68
– I think of pleasant things that have nothing to do with it 13
0.48
– I think of something nice instead of what has happened 22
0.75
– I think about pleasant experiences 31
0.71
Refocus on Planning
– I think of what I can do best 5
0.57
– I think about how I can best cope with the situation 14
– I think about how to change the situation. 23
0.49
– I think about a plan of what I can do best 32
0.65
Positive Reappraisal
– I think I can learn something from the situation 6
0.47
-I think that I can become a stronger person as a result of what has happened 15
0.67
– I think that the situation also has its positive sides 24
– I look for the positive sides to the matter 33
0.43
Putting into perspective
– I think that it all could have been much worse
– I think that other people go through much worse experiences 16
0.55
– I think that it hasn't been too bad compared to other things 25
0.41
– I tell myself that there are worse things in life 34
Catastrophizing
– I often think that what I have experienced is much worse than what others have experienced 8
0.44
– I keep thinking about how terrible it is what I have experienced 17
– I often think that what I have experienced is the worst that can happen to a person 26
0.54
– I continually think how horrible the situation has been 35
0.79
Other-blame
I feel that others are to blame for it 9
– I feel that others are responsible for what has happened 18
0.56
– I think about the mistakes others have made in this matter 27
– I feel that basically the cause lies with others 36
0.66

25. Fit indexes
The following fit indexes were obtained from Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) are as follows;
χ2 (df = 558; p = ) =
Root Mean Square Error Approximation (RMSEA) =.074, with an interval at 90% (.070 to .079), Adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) =.73,
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) =.79, Normed Fit Index (NFI) = .70, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) =.07.
Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .78.

26. Discussion
According to rule of thumbs laid out by George and Mallery (2003)Rumination, Positive Refocusing, Refocus on Planning obtained “Good”,
Self-blame, Positive Reappraisal, Putting into Perspective, Catastrophizing, Acceptance obtained “Acceptable”,
Blaming Others obtained “Unacceptable” reliability value.

27. Discussion
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) extracted 07 factors with Eigenvalue more than 1.
We can retain 07 factors according to Kaiser (1960) criterion.
On the other hand, we can retain 16 factors according to Jolliffe (1972) criterion (retain factors with Eigenvalue >0.7), we can retain 16 factors.

28. Discussion
The χ2 value was It is argued that χ2 value closer to 0 suggested better fit to the model (Gatignon, 2010). Thus, χ2 value did not suggest a better fit.
Secondly, the RMSEA value was .07. It is suggested that RMSEA value close to .06 are indicative of acceptable model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Schreiber et al., 2006).

29. Discussion
Thirdly, the SRMR value was .07. A value close to .08 considered as acceptable model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Schreiber et al., 2006).
Fourthly, CFI and TLI values were .79 and .78 respectively. Any value closer to .95 considered as an accepted model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Schreiber et al., 2006).
Finally, the AGFI value was .73. A value closer to .90 generally considered as good model fit (Baumgartner & Homburg, 1996).

30. Key findings.
Reliability/ internal consistency values ranged from .50 (Blaming Others) to .78 (Rumination).
Principal Component Analysis did not extract 09 factors.
Confirmatory Factorial Analysis did not confirm the 09 factor solutions.

31. Implication
A translated version of the CERQ may lead to further researches in the field of Emotion Regulation in Bangladesh.

32. Future Direction
Conduct further studies alongside other emotion regulation questionnaire. Such as Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ).
Apply state-of-the-art statistical analyses with different participants. Analytic technique like, Omega instead of Coeefficient Alpha ((Dunn et al., 2013).

33. Limitations Data collected through self-report questionnaire.
Participants were recruited from a certain city.
Boys and girls were not equal in numbers.

34. Acknowledgement
We are largely indebted to Mohammad Mahumudur Rahman PhD for his contribution to the translation process, and Ralph Rippe PhD for his assistance in the data analysis process.
We are thankful to the participants, teachers and the schools for the willingness to participate this study.

35. Funding note
Leiden University provided partial funding for this study. The funding agency did not have any influence on the research process, including research question setting, data collection and analysis and manuscript preparation.

36. Thank you samiulhossain@gmail. com, samiulhossain@openmailbox
Thank you @SamiulHossain