Composition Vendor Newgen KnowledgeWorks (P) Ltd. PLoS One plos plosone PLOS One 1932-6203 Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA 10.1371/journal.pone.0326319 PONE-D-25-17586 Research Article Research and analysis methodsMicroscopyElectron microscopyScanning electron microscopy Biology and life sciencesPsychologyEmotions Social sciencesPsychologyEmotions Biology and life sciencesPsychologyPsychometrics Social sciencesPsychologyPsychometrics Biology and life sciencesNeuroscienceCognitive scienceCognitive psychologyClinical psychology Biology and life sciencesPsychologyCognitive psychologyClinical psychology Social sciencesPsychologyCognitive psychologyClinical psychology Research and analysis methodsMathematical and statistical techniquesStatistical methodsFactor analysis Physical sciencesMathematicsStatisticsStatistical methodsFactor analysis Research and analysis methodsResearch designSurvey researchQuestionnaires Medicine and health sciencesMental health and psychiatryMental health therapies Biology and life sciencesPsychologyBehavior Social sciencesPsychologyBehavior Cognitive emotion regulation questionnaire: Evidence of internal structure through confirmatory factor modeling and exploratory structural equation modeling Cognitive emotion regulation questionnaire: Evidence of internal structure https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6712-779X Flores-Kanter Pablo Ezequiel Conceptualization Data curation Formal analysis Investigation Methodology Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 1 2 3 * Moretti Luciana Supervision Writing – review & editing 1 García-Batista Zoilo Emilio Supervision Writing – review & editing 4 Medrano Leonardo Conceptualization Supervision Validation Writing – review & editing 1 4 Universidad Siglo 21, Córdoba, Argentina Universidad Santo Tomás, Villavicencio, Colombia Universidad Católica de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina Pontificia Universidad Católica Madre y Maestra, Santiago de los Caballeros, República Dominicana Monteiro Diogo Manuel Teixeira Editor ESECS-Polytechnique of Leiria / Research Center in Sports Sciences, Health Sciences and Human Development, CIDESD, PORTUGAL

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

 * E-mail: pablo.floreskanter@ues21.edu.ar 2062025 2025 20 6 e0326319 1042025 2952025 2025 Flores-Kanter et al This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

The Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire is one of the most widely used instruments to measure cognitive emotion regulation, and its psychometric properties have been evaluated in various studies and cultural contexts. However, the 9-factor internal structure originally proposed for the scale measures does not present consistent evidence in the literature. The exclusive use of the confirmatory factor modeling in previous literature may largely explain this inconsistency. In the present research, we propose to estimate innovative measurement models for this questionnaire, the exploratory structural equation modeling. For this purpose, we worked with a large sample of Argentines of 6881 Argentine adults aged between 18 and 81 (M = 27.14, SD = 9.86; 69.6% female; 86.4% not being in psychological or psychiatric treatment) and compared the fit of the models. The results favored the exploratory structural equation model (χ2 = 4092.89, df = 342, CFI = .982, SRMR = .013, RMSEA = .04), indicating that we are not observing indicators that reflect simple factorial structures. Based on the results of the present study, it can be concluded that the simple 9-factor structure traditionally proposed for the CERQ does not exhibit adequate model fit. This finding suggests the need for caution among applied psychologists and clinical researchers who interpret scale scores as if they reflect distinct, unidimensional factors. The common practice of generating summed scores across items associated with each of the originally proposed factors may therefore be questionable. A more nuanced understanding of the questionnaire’s internal structure may ultimately enhance the reliability and interpretability of CERQ scores in both clinical and applied settings, thereby improving the quality of psychological assessment and intervention outcomes.

 The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. Data Availability The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in Mendeley Data at http://doi.org/10.17632/48y8tkf5wh.4. Introduction

Understanding how individuals regulate their emotions is fundamental to explaining human behavior, mental health, and psychological resilience [1–3]. Emotional regulation is not only a core mechanism in everyday functioning but also a critical factor in the onset, maintenance, and treatment of numerous psychological disorders [4,5]. Given its centrality, the ability to accurately measure emotional regulation—particularly through cognitive strategies—has become a pressing concern in both clinical and research contexts [6]. Reliable and valid assessment tools are essential for identifying dysfunctional patterns, designing targeted interventions, and advancing theoretical models of emotion regulation.

One of the most widely used instruments for assessing cognitive emotion regulation strategies is the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ). Developed to evaluate how individuals cognitively manage negative or stressful life events [7], the CERQ captures a broad spectrum of regulatory strategies, including both adaptive (e.g., acceptance, positive reappraisal) and maladaptive (e.g., rumination, catastrophizing) responses. Since its introduction, the CERQ has been extensively applied in diverse populations and settings, serving as a reference point for both clinical diagnostics and empirical research. However, despite its widespread use, important psychometric limitations remain (particularly concerning its internal structure and the theoretical independence of its factors) raising critical questions about the validity of the interpretations of its scores and the assumptions underlying its factorial model.

A review of previous studies examining the psychometric properties of the CERQ indicates that its original nine-factor model often fails to achieve adequate fit without post hoc modifications. These include correlating residual errors [8–12], removing several items [13], or allowing items to load on theoretically distinct factors [9,11]. Moreover, there is consistent evidence of factor overlap, particularly between rumination and catastrophizing [4,11,13], which undermines the conceptual clarity and discriminant validity of these constructs. Additional signs of model misfit have also been reported, such as low (<.30), nonsignificant, or even negative factor loadings [9,13,14]. These issues are particularly salient in the short version of the CERQ, where certain items exhibit complex or ambiguous behavior and latent factors continue to overlap [15].

To date, the evaluation of the CERQ’s internal structure has relied almost exclusively on Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), predominantly using the maximum likelihood estimation method [8,12,14,16–18]. CFA models assume that each item loads solely on its designated factor, prohibiting cross-loadings. This implies that items are treated as pure indicators of their constructs—an assumption that often does not hold in psychological measurement [19]. In reality, items may share variance with multiple latent constructs, particularly when measuring related domains [20]. When such cross-loadings are ignored—i.e., constrained to zero—the unmodeled complexity is absorbed elsewhere in the model, leading to biased parameter estimates and reduced model validity [21]. For this reason, accounting for cross-loadings is essential, especially in scales like the CERQ that aim to assess conceptually interconnected strategies [22].

In light of these concerns, the present study aims to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the internal structure of the CERQ using advanced factorial modeling techniques [23,24]. Specifically, we compare the traditional Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) approach with Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM), including a variant known as Set-ESEM (Fig 1), to determine which framework provides a more accurate and theoretically coherent representation of the scale [25]. We hypothesize that: (a) ESEM models will demonstrate superior parameter estimation compared to the CFA model, particularly in terms of standardized factor loadings and interfactor correlations; and (b) within the ESEM framework, the Set-ESEM model will yield a more parsimonious yet well-fitting solution by allowing cross-loadings within conceptually related strategy groups while restricting them across theoretically distinct domains.

10.1371/journal.pone.0326319.g001Schematic comparison of CFA, Set-ESEM and Full-ESEM models. Methods Participants

Although a prior calculation of the required sample size was not conducted, a sufficiently large sample was anticipated to ensure both the stability (i.e., that the estimation algorithm would converge on an admissible solution) and the accuracy of the parameter estimates (i.e., that the estimated parameter values would not substantially differ from the true population values) derived from the tested models [26,27]. The simulation studies reported by Wolf et al. [26] suggest a minimum required sample size of 500 participants, considering the complexity of the models evaluated here (e.g., number of parameters to be estimated, number of items per factor). Here, the sample consisted of 6881 Argentine adults aged between 18 and 81 (M = 27.14, SD = 9.86). Of the total sample, 69.6% (n = 4,792) identified as female, while 86.4% (n = 5,948) reported not being in psychological or psychiatric treatment. All participants were adequately informed of the research objectives, the anonymity of their responses, and their voluntary participation. It was also made clear to them that participating would not cause them any harm and that they could leave the study whenever they wished. Informed consent was obtained from all participants by clicking the ‘I Accept’ button on the online form. Participants did not receive any specific incentive for participation. International ethical guidelines for human studies were included [28]. The ethics committee of the Research Secretariat of the Universidad Siglo 21 previously approved the research protocol following the ethical guidelines of the APA. For participant recruitment, an open-mode online sampling method was used [29]. This data collection methodology is equivalent to traditional forms of collection (i.e., face-to-face), yielding equality of means, internal consistencies, intercorrelations, response rates, and comfort level in completing the questionnaires [30]. It is important to note that, given the data collection method, there were no missing data, and the only inclusion criteria were agreeing to participate in the study and being 18 years of age or older. The sample for this observational, cross-sectional study was collected using an online survey format to collect information through the Google Forms platform and delivered via Facebook social media. The recruitment period was from April 15, 2019, to August 18, 2021.

 Instruments

Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ). The CERQ is a self-report instrument composed of 36 items answered on a Likert-type scale, where 1 is almost never, and 5 is almost always [10]. This questionnaire assesses nine ER cognitive strategies commonly used in the face of aversive events: self-blame, blaming others, rumination, catastrophizing, putting into perspective, positive refocusing, positive reappraisal, acceptance and planning. The Argentine version of the scale was used [11]. This version was adapted and validated in a sample of university students (N = 359, M age = 24.6, female = 50.1). The model of 9 correlated factors showed acceptable fit indicators (χ2 = 875.50, df = 538, CFI = .91, GFI = .90, RMSEA = .04), and the internal consistency indicators measured by Cronbach’s Alpha varied between .59 and .83.

 Statistical analysis

To evaluate the internal structure of the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ), three models with increasing degrees of flexibility were estimated: [1] Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) [2], Set-ESEM, and [3] Full-ESEM. This order reflects a progression from more restrictive to more flexible modeling approaches. CFA assumes that each item loads exclusively on its designated factor, with all cross-loadings fixed to zero. In contrast, Full-ESEM allows all items to load on all factors, while Set-ESEM offers an intermediate solution: it permits cross-loadings within predefined, theoretically coherent groups of factors, but constrains them across groups [25].

In our study, the nine cognitive emotion regulation strategies were divided into two theoretically grounded and functionally distinct groups. CERS Group 1—comprising rumination, catastrophizing, self-blame, and other-blame—includes maladaptive strategies characterized by their implicit, automatic, and reactive nature. These strategies tend to be activated with little cognitive control, often in response to stress or emotional threat, and have been associated with negative affect, perseverative thinking, and greater vulnerability to psychopathology. In contrast, CERS Group 2—comprising acceptance, putting into perspective, positive refocusing, positive reappraisal, and planning—includes more adaptive strategies that require deliberate, effortful processing and are typically mediated by executive functions such as inhibition, working memory, and cognitive flexibility. These strategies reflect top-down emotional regulation and are associated with greater psychological resilience, wellbeing, and functional coping. The distinction between these two groups is supported by dual-process models of emotion regulation, which differentiate between bottom-up, stimulus-driven responses and top-down, cognitively regulated mechanisms, as well as by neurocognitive evidence showing differential activation patterns in brain networks involved in automatic versus controlled regulation processes [4,31]. This grouping provided the theoretical basis for specifying the Set-ESEM model, allowing cross-loadings within each group to account for conceptual overlap, while constraining cross-loadings across groups to preserve parsimony and interpretability.

Models were analyzed using weighted mean squares with adjusted mean and variance (WLSMV) as the estimator, given the categorical nature of the observable variables [32,33]. In the case of the ESEM models, factors were rotated using Target and Geomin (Oblique) rotations [25]. To interpret the factorial solutions loadings of .40, .55 and .70 were considered low, medium and high, respectively [34]. Regarding the size of the factorial correlations, values of .10, .30 and .50 were considered small, medium and large, respectively [35].

The fit of the factor models was assessed with three complementary indices: the comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). It has been suggested that CFI values greater than or equal to 0.90 and 0.95 reflect an acceptable and excellent fit to the data, while RMSEA values less than 0.08 and 0.05 may indicate a reasonable and close fit to the data, respectively [19,36,37]. In the case of SRMR, a value less than or equal to .08 has been found to indicate a good fit for the data [36,37]. However, since it is to be expected by the very specification of ESEM models that they achieve better fit indices [25], the most important criterion lies in the comparison of the parameters estimated by the CFA and ESEM models. According to Marsh et al. [25], ESEM models are most appropriate when the multiple ESEM factors are well defined in the measurement model, and there are substantively important differences in the parameter estimates based on the CFA and ESEM models (i.e., ESEM would typically show significant non-trivial cross-loadings, as well as different primary loadings and lower factor correlations than CFA, which would generally overestimate factor correlations due to omitted cross-loadings) [19,23]. In the latter case, the factor structure is considered complex, and ESEM would be the optimal model. If the ESEM models are sufficiently similar to the CFA results, this would support the simple structure, and indicate that the CFA is the optimal model. The aforementioned statistical analyses were performed with Mplus (version 8).

 Results

The first step consisted of verifying the fit of the CFA, Full-ESEM, and Set-ESEM models. In the Set-ESEM model with Target rotation, the standard errors of the estimated model parameters could not be computed because the model could not be identified. As for the rest of the estimated models, while the CFA model presents an acceptable fit to the data, the Full-ESEM and Set-ESEM models achieve a better fit (Table 1). Since this is to be expected given the models’ specifications [25], the most crucial step lies in comparing the estimated parameters.

10.1371/journal.pone.0326319.t001 Comparison of fit between CFA, Full-ESEM and set-ESEM models.
Model χ2 df CFI SRMR RMSEA (90% CI)
CFA 21007.56 558 .900 .057 .073 (.072, .074)
Set-ESEM 9140.25 462 .959 .026 .052 (.051 ,.053)
Full-ESEM 4092.89 342 .982 .013 .040 (.039, .041)

ESEM = exploratory structural equation modeling; CFA = confirmatory factor analysis; χ2 = chi-square; df = degrees of freedom; CFI = comparative fit index; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; p < .001 for all chi-square tests of model fit. Since in ESEM models the fitting results do not vary as a function of the rotation method (Marsh et al., 2019), the table does not differentiate the fit as a function of these methods.

Second, the estimated parameters for these models were verified (except for the Set-ESEM model with Target rotation that could not be identified; see Tables 2 and 3). In the case of the CFA, high interfactor correlations are evident (≥.50; see Table 2). More specifically, between the latent factors of self-blame, rumination, and catastrophizing, the interfactor correlations obtained were .67, .57, .75; between catastrophizing and positive reinterpretation of −.51; between positive refocusing, putting in perspective, positive reinterpretation, and focus on plans of .55, .52, .67, .68, .65, .63, .54, .51, .81. When the correlation matrix of the CFA is compared with the model that follows it in restrictive terms (from more to less restrictive models), the Set-ESEM, it is verified that some correlations decrease in magnitude (Table 2). For example, among the latent factors self-blame, rumination, and catastrophizing, the interfactor correlations obtained were .38, .43, .48. The same is evident for the case of the interfactor correlations between positive refocusing, putting into perspective, positive reinterpretation, and focus on plans. Unexpectedly and contrary to the initial hypothesis, an increase in the magnitude of some of the interfactor correlations is also verified in the Set-ESEM model, specifically, between the latent factor of rumination and the latent factors of acceptance, putting in perspective and focusing on plans. In addition, theoretically, incongruent correlations were observed in the Set-ESEM model with oblique rotation (Table 2). These correspond to the interfactor correlations between the latent factor rumination and the latent factors’ acceptance, putting in perspective, and focus on plans (.21, .21, .44).

10.1371/journal.pone.0326319.t002Standardized regression weights for the CFA and Set-ESEM models (Oblique rotation).
CFA Set-ESEM Oblique
Ítem/Factor F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9
S-B
 i01 .84 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .69 −.06 .24 −.04 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
 i17 .80 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .92 .05 −.05 .03 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
 i26 .63 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .24 .45 .11 −.01 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
 i33 .66 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .52 .26 .02 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
Rum.
 i03 .00 .60 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 −.02 .45 .25 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
 i15 .00 .78 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .06 .32 .48 −.04 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
 i18 .00 .51 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .04 .64 −.01 .06 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
 i27 .00 .81 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 −.02 .47 .46 −.02 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
Catas.
 i08 .00 .00 .35 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .01 .13 .19 .22 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
 i10 .00 .00 .87 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .07 −.03 .81 .04 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
 i22 .00 .00 .58 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 −.05 .02 .52 .18 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
 i35 .00 .00 .86 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .02 .09 .76 .05 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
O-B
 i09 .00 .00 .00 .79 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 −.01 −.06 .04 .78 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
 i21 .00 .00 .00 .59 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .27 −.11 .60 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
 i29 .00 .00 .00 .90 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .03 −.04 .01 .90 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
 i36 .00 .00 .00 .79 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 −.03 .03 .04 .76 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
Acept.
 i02 .00 .00 .00 .00 .53 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .67 −.07 −.05 .08 −.05
 i16 .00 .00 .00 .00 .81 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .73 −.01 .02 .14 −.01
 i32 .00 .00 .00 .00 .70 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .60 .04 .09 −.04 .11
 i25 .00 .00 .00 .00 −.21 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .39 .22 .02 −.75 .04
Ref.
 i04 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .80 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 −.02 .66 −.02 .25 −.05
 i14 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .80 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .03 .86 −.03 −.06 .04
 i24 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .85 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .85 .05 .03 −.04
 i28 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .87 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .76 .05 .07 .06
Pers.
 i07 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .56 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .08 .01 .48 .02 .01
 i11 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .65 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .03 −.03 .75 −.04 −.03
 i20 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .81 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 −.09 .02 .68 .19 .02
 i34 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .78 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .10 .01 .75 .00 −.02
Reint.
 i06 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .77 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .14 .01 .07 .52 .20
 i12 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .82 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .15 .06 .13 .48 .20
 i23 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .80 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 −.01 .03 .33 .59 .04
 i31 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .91 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .02 .16 .25 .61 .06
F-P
 i05 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .74 .00 .00 .00 .00 .07 .02 −.05 .35 .42
 i13 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .88 .00 .00 .00 .00 .05 .05 −.03 .38 .51
 i19 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .58 .00 .00 .00 .00 −.05 −.14 .08 −.01 .81
 i30 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .75 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .03 −.01 .21 .62
Interfactor Correlation F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9
 F1 1.00 1.00
 F2 .67 1.00 .38 1.00
 F3 .57 .75 1.00 .43 .48 1.00
 F4 −.02 .27 .42 1.00 −.10 .07 .34 1.00
 F5 −.04 −.02 −.27 −.11 1.00 −.00 .21 −.16 −.06 1.00
 F6 −.32 −.32 −.40 .00 .44 1.00 −.29 −.13 −.40 .04 .35 1.00
 F7 −.07 −.06 −.25 .04 .55 .52 1.00 −.05 .21 −.26 .06 .44 .46 1.00
 F8 −.27 −.25 −.51 −.11 .67 .68 .65 1.00 −.31 −.12 −.16 −.06 .47 .52 .37 1.00
 F9 −.13 .02 −.33 −.03 .63 .54 .51 .81 1.00 −.05 .44 −.17 .03 .44 .40 .40 .54 1.00

ESEM = exploratory structural equation modeling; i01-i36 = items; F1-F9 = factors; Factor loadings ≥ .40 in absolute value are bolded and highlighted in grey. Within the correlation matrix, those correlations that show a decrease in magnitude (∆ ≥ .10) have been highlighted in boldface, comparing in all cases with the interfactor correlations derived from the CFA. In the case of the correlation matrix corresponding to the Set-ESEM, those correlations that account for an increase in magnitude (∆ ≥ .10) have also been highlighted in bold italics, comparing in all cases with the interfactor correlations derived from the CFA. Cross-loadings fixed to zero appear in italics. p < .05 for all factor loadings and factor correlations, except those underlined.

 10.1371/journal.pone.0326319.t003Standardized regression weights for Full-ESEM models with Target and Oblique rotation.
Full-ESEM Target Full-ESEM Oblique
Ítem/Factor F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9
S-B
 i01 .73 −.01 .02 −.02 .00 −.00 .00 −.08 −.03 .66 .11 .02 −.01 −.00 −.01 .00 −.08 −.06
 i17 1.04 −.16 −.03 .00 −.01 .03 −.01 .03 .02 .95 −.01 −.01 .02 −.01 .01 −.00 .00 .02
 i26 .30 .38 .06 −.03 .06 −.04 .01 .02 .05 .22 .50 .01 −.05 .04 −.02 .01 .03 .05
 i33 .57 .12 .08 −.05 .05 −.00 .01 .08 −.04 .50 .25 .05 −.05 .05 .00 .01 .08 −.04
Rum.
 i03 .07 .48 .04 .06 .01 −.07 −.00 −.06 .15 .01 .58 −.01 .03 −.00 −.06 −.01 −.03 .15
 i15 .14 .45 .17 .02 −.01 −.10 −.00 −.06 .08 .08 .58 .10 .00 −.03 −.08 −.00 −.04 .07
 i18 .14 .49 .00 .04 .03 −.00 .03 −.01 .17 .07 .59 −.05 .01 .01 .00 .02 .00 .17
 i27 .04 .70 .15 .01 .02 −.01 −.03 −.02 −.02 −.04 .83 .04 −.02 .00 .02 −.03 .02 −.04
Catas.
 i08 .02 −.17 .64 .02 −.08 −.01 .14 .03 .06 .04 −.03 .60 .02 −.07 −.01 .18 −.00 .09
 i10 .13 .18 .49 .08 −.00 −.10 −.07 −.10 −.01 .09 .36 .42 .06 −.01 −.08 −.04 −.08 −.03
 i22 −.02 −.06 .82 .03 −.01 .09 −.10 .05 −.04 −.01 .11 .74 .02 −.02 .10 −.06 .04 −.02
 i35 .05 .31 .49 .05 .04 −.07 −.01 −.10 −.07 .01 .49 .41 .02 .02 −.04 .00 −.06 −.09
O-B
 i09 −.02 −.06 −.03 .82 .02 −.02 −.02 −.06 .07 −.00 −.04 −.00 .81 .01 −.03 −.00 −.06 .05
 i21 −.02 .13 .06 .52 −.06 −.03 .18 .08 −.01 −.03 .18 .03 .51 −.06 −.02 .20 .06 −.01
 i29 .01 −.04 −.02 .93 .04 .02 −.08 .02 −.01 .02 −.01 −.00 .91 .03 .02 −.05 .01 −.03
 i36 −.04 −.00 .06 .75 .00 .01 .00 .00 −.00 −.03 .03 .07 .74 −.00 .01 .03 −.00 −.01
Acept.
 i02 .08 −.09 −.09 .00 .66 −.03 −.00 −.09 .06 .09 −.05 −.05 .01 .64 −.03 −.01 −.02 .06
 i16 −.01 −.04 −.07 −.00 .75 −.00 .04 .02 .06 .00 −.01 −.03 .00 .72 −.00 .03 .08 .08
 i32 −.01 .09 .00 .00 .57 .02 .03 .19 −.05 −.01 .13 .00 −.00 .54 .04 .03 .22 −.01
 i25 .00 .11 .22 .06 .28 .11 .01 −.12 −.32 −.00 .17 .19 .04 .27 .13 .03 −.04 −.37
Ref.
 i04 −.01 −.09 −.02 −.00 .01 .67 .01 −.02 .13 −.00 −.13 −.00 −.00 .01 .64 .00 −.01 .15
 i14 .00 .00 .04 −.00 .01 .88 .01 −.10 .05 −.00 −.01 .04 −.00 .01 .85 .00 −.06 .03
 i24 .02 .00 −.00 .00 −.00 .86 .02 .04 −.06 .02 −.03 −.00 −.00 −.00 .84 .02 .06 −.05
 i28 −.00 .07 −.02 .01 −.00 .78 .01 .09 .01 −.01 .03 −.03 .00 −.00 .76 .00 .10 .03
Pers.
 i07 .02 −.14 .17 −.03 .02 −.02 .50 .09 .04 .03 −.10 .17 −.02 .03 −.02 .50 .06 .07
 i11 −.03 .00 .00 .00 .02 −.00 .80 −.13 .00 −.03 .01 .00 −.00 .03 −.00 .80 −.12 −.01
 i20 .03 −.00 −.13 .05 −.06 .05 .66 .06 .06 .02 −.03 −.11 .05 −.05 .04 .66 .03 .08
 i34 −.00 .06 −.02 −.01 .08 .03 .72 .05 −.08 −.01 .06 −.03 −.02 .09 .04 .72 .05 −.07
Reint.
 i06 −.02 −.11 .10 −.07 .10 −.01 −.00 .55 .26 −.01 −.08 .09 −.05 .09 −.01 −.01 .45 .40
 i12 −.12 −.04 .07 −.03 .14 .00 .08 .47 .25 −.10 −.02 .06 −.02 .13 .01 .08 .38 .37
 i23 .06 .03 −.09 .05 −.04 −.03 .04 .96 −.14 .04 .00 −.13 .05 −.04 .00 .04 .82 .01
 i31 −.00 .01 −.06 −.00 .02 .14 .01 .75 .00 −.01 −.01 −.09 .00 .02 .16 .00 .64 .13
F-P
 i05 −.03 −.07 .00 −.01 .10 .07 .02 .05 .59 −.02 −.04 .02 −.00 .09 .03 .01 .00 .66
 i13 −.10 .04 .00 −.03 .08 .09 .03 .16 .59 −.09 .07 .00 −.02 .07 .06 .01 .10 .68
 i19 .08 .21 −.05 .01 −.05 .05 .10 .01 .61 .05 .28 −.06 .01 −.06 .02 .07 −.03 .67
 i30 −.00 .09 −.05 .06 .03 .10 −.00 .16 .56 −.01 .13 −.05 .07 .01 .07 −.02 .10 .64
Interfactor Correlation F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9
 F1 1.00 1.00
 F2 .48 1.00 .45 1.00
 F3 .40 .44 1.00 .25 .37 1.00
 F4 .01 .21 .38 1.00 −.08 .23 .34 1.00
 F5 .01 .09 −.01 −.06 1.00 −.01 .02 −.09 −.08 1.00
 F6 −.33 −.23 −.22 −.02 .34 1.00 −.26 −.26 −.18 .01 .32 1.00
 F7 −.06 −.03 −.18 .02 .43 .45 1.00 −.05 −.00 −.18 .01 .40 .45 1.00
 F8 −.27 −.15 −.10 −.14 .48 .61 .57 1.00 −.19 −.23 −.29 −.11 .41 .55 .56 1.00
 F9 −.08 .07 −.34 −.05 .39 .32 .32 .60 1.00 −.13 −.09 −.32 −.08 .41 .42 .38 .59 1.00

ESEM = exploratory structural equation modeling; i01-i36 = items; F1-F9 = factors; Factor loadings ≥ .40 in absolute value are bolded and highlighted in grey. Within the correlation matrix, correlations showing a decrease in magnitude (∆ ≥ .10) have been highlighted in bold, comparing in all cases with the interfactor correlations derived from the CFA. Cross-loadings fixed to zero appear in italics. p < .05 for all factor loadings and factor correlations, except those underlined.

Following in order of restriction, in the Full-ESEM models with target and oblique rotation, a similar decrease in the interfactor correlations already described is verified (Table 3). The Full-ESEM model with target rotation also shows a theoretically incongruent correlation. Here, a positive correlation of low magnitude is evident between the factors Rumination and Acceptance. In the Full-ESEM model with oblique rotation, no theoretically incongruent correlation between the latent factors is evident. Likewise, in the Full-ESEM model with oblique rotation for most of the interfactor correlations described a larger decrease in the magnitude of these correlations is observed (Table 3).

Regarding the standardized regression weights estimated in each model, it can be generally stated that there is a great variation in the magnitude of these parameters depending on the model specified (CFA model vs. ESEM models; see Tables 2 and 3). For example, in the CFA model, item 25 presents a standardized regression weight of −.21 in its respective factor, while in the Set-ESEM model, this item presents a standardized regression weight of −.75 with the reinterpretation factor. In the case of the Full-ESEM models, item 25 presents standardized regression weights between .28 and .27 with its factor, also showing cross-loadings of similar magnitude with other factors. Another example is item 26, which in the Set-ESEM and Full-ESEM model with oblique rotation presents a standardized regression weight of .22 and .24 with its respective factor (self-blame), being higher with the rumination factor (.45 and .50). This same item does not present a standardized regression weight higher than .40 with any factor when a Full-ESEM model with target rotation is specified.

Regarding the evidence of cross-loadings of indicators with different latent factors, it is possible to verify in the data of Tables 2 and 3 that when less restrictive models are specified, some items present factor loadings higher and above .40 with latent factors different from what was suggested by the original nine-factor model. Furthermore, in some situations, these standardized regression weights are greater than .40 with more than one latent factor. In conclusion: 1- as the models become less restrictive, the anomalous results (i.e., theoretically incongruent interfactor correlations) disappear; 2- in the less restrictive models’ the interfactor correlations decrease in magnitude, and this decrease is directly proportional to the degree of restriction of the specified model; 3- in the less restrictive models a greater degree of cross-loadings can be observed. Finally, contrary to the hypothesis proposed in the present work, the Set-ESEM model did not present a more adequate solution or fit compared to less restrictive models, which also suggests that the cross-loadings of the indicators with different latent factors are not circumscribed to the groups of CERS described.

 Discussion

The present research aimed to apply ESEM models to study the internal structure of CERQ-derived measures. Two hypotheses were proposed: 1- in comparison with the CFA Model, in the ESEM models, the parameters will be better estimated, expressed especially in the standardized regression weights and the interfactor correlations; and 2- within the ESEM models, in the Set-ESEM model the parameters will be correctly estimated evidencing a more restricted solution. Results demonstrated partial evidence in favor of hypothesis number 1, while the results did not support hypothesis number 2.

Regarding the first hypothesis, in the CFA model, there were high-magnitude interfactor correlations; in the less restrictive models (i.e., ESEM), these correlations decreased in magnitude; the decrease in interfactor correlations is accompanied by evidence of cross-loadings in several indicators. Even so, both Set-ESEM models with oblique rotation and Full-ESEM with target rotation showed anomalous results, and the Set-ESEM model with target rotation could not be estimated due to model identification problems. In this sense, there was no evidence supporting the second hypothesis. The latter suggests that the cross-loadings of the various indicators do not only occur between latent factors of the same group of CERS but involve the whole set of strategies considered. From all this, it is concluded that, although for the CERQ-derived measures, some parameters are better estimated in the ESEM models, the model that shows the best fit is the least restrictive, the Full-ESEM model with oblique rotation. Unlike the other ESEM models, no anomalous results are found in the latter model, the interfactor correlations decrease in greater magnitude, and there is evidence of cross-loadings of indicators that show some overlap in their content. All this suggests that, in the case of CERQ measurements, we would not be in the presence of indicators that reflect simple factorial structures [22], at least in most cases, as is explained below.

Given the better fit of the Full-ESEM model with oblique rotation, the discussion will focus on the parameters estimated from that model. First, it is important to discuss the interfactor correlations evidenced in the CFA model and those resulting from the Full-ESEM model with oblique rotation. Visualizing only the CFA model, there seems to be a high correlation between the variables self-blame and catastrophizing. However, this correlation becomes low in the Full-ESEM model. Another similar example is the correlation between catastrophizing and acceptance. While in the CFA model, a negative correlation of low to moderate magnitude (−.27) is observed, in the Full-ESEM model with oblique rotation this negative correlation is very low (−.09). Similarly, the high magnitude correlations observed in the CFA model between the factors rumination and catastrophizing (.75), catastrophizing and positive refocusing (−.40), catastrophizing and positive reinterpretation (−.51) can be mentioned and considered; and the differences that are appreciated, in decreasing magnitude, with the Full-ESEM model with oblique rotation (r rumination and catastrophizing = .37; r catastrophizing and positive refocusing = −.18; r catastrophizing and positive reinterpretation = −.29). A similar situation is present in the interfactor correlations between the latent factors acceptance, positive refocusing, putting into perspective, positive reinterpretation, and refocusing on plans. The only exception is the indicators referring to the factor blaming others, where there were no changes in the estimated interfactor correlations. It is important to note that, to date, analyses of the internal structure of the CERQ have relied exclusively on confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) [8,12,14,16–18]. In this study, we show that, in the case of CERQ-derived measurements, the application of CFA models often results in biased parameter estimates, particularly through the overestimation of correlations among different cognitive emotion regulation strategies (CERS).

Secondly, data of interest are also verified when considering the estimated standardized regression weights and the comparison between the CFA model and the Full-ESEM model with oblique rotation. In the latter case, the presence of cross-loadings is verified as well as standardized regression weights greater than or equal to .40 with latent factors that do not correspond to the original 9-factor proposal. Specifically, this performance is corroborated in the following cases: item 26 (standardized regression weight of .50 with the rumination factor, and .22 with its self-blame factor), item 35 (standardized regression weight of .49 with the rumination factor, and .41 with its catastrophizing factor), and item 6 (standardized regression weight of .45 with its positive reinterpretation factor, and .40 with its refocusing on plans factor). In addition, if we consider a less conservative cut-off point, such as standardized regression weights greater than or equal to .35, we add more evidence of cross-loadings and standardized regression weights with latent factors that do not correspond to the original 9-factor proposal, such as: item 12 (standardized regression weight of .38 with its reinterpretation factor), item 12 (standardized regression weight of .38 with its positive reinterpretation factor, and .37 with its refocusing on plans factor), item 25 (standardized regression weight of .27 with its acceptance factor, and −.37 with its refocusing on plans factor), and item 10 (standardized regression weight of .42 with its catastrophizing factor and .36 with its rumination factor). Only three of the nine latent factors originally proposed do not present this type of behavior: blaming others, positive refocusing, and putting into perspective. Only in these cases would there be evidence favoring a simple factor structure. The opposite situation evidenced for the rest of the latent factors and their indicators would be explained in terms of content validity failures, probably due to: a) indicators whose content does not correspond to the proposed construct definition (e.g., item 25); b) content overlap between indicators (e.g., item 6, item 26, item 35). These results are consistent with the conclusions we previously reached in the introduction regarding the existing evidence on the psychometric properties of the CERQ. A review of these prior investigations shows that the original nine-factor model does not demonstrate adequate fit to the data. In this sense, different studies have found that the original nine-factor model only achieves an acceptable fit after several post hoc modifications, such as correlating residual errors [8–12], removing several items [13], or specifying the cross-loading of certain items on theoretically distinct factors [9,11]. Overlap between some latent factors, particularly Rumination and Catastrophizing, has also been observed [4,11,13]. Likewise, poor fit indicators have been reported, such as low factor loadings (<.30), or non-significant and negative factor loadings for some items within its factors [9,13,14].

All the above gives rise to questions that have important practical implications. In this sense, it is worth asking how the estimation of parameters with a very restrictive model (i.e., CFA) in cases such as the one we present from CERQ can lead not only to biasing the resulting parameters in a measurement model but also to obtaining biased estimates in regression or structural models where other variables are considered for predictive purposes. Along these lines, some studies have highlighted the importance of adequate factor modelling to estimate factor scores and the use of these scores for predictive purposes [38]. Also, the ESEM is recommended for multiple regression with latent variables when nonignorable cross-factor loadings exist [39]. All of this becomes more relevant when considering that much of the applied literature has based its correlation/prediction studies on the premise that a simply structured CFA model (i.e., original 9-factor model) is the best-fit model to account for CERQ scores [40].

Regarding limitations, this work has not analyzed the criterion validity with variables derived from other instruments. It would be important for future studies to determine whether the overestimation of the parameters evidenced in the case of the CERQ is also observed when a structural model is specified, including other measurement models derived from different instruments. For these purposes, the combined use of other types of derived measurements is relevant, for example, behavioral measures or performance-based tests (e.g., an ability test of emotional intelligence, such as the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test, [41]). On the other hand, although we have worked with a large sample, in the present work, we have not applied analyses that would allow us to demonstrate the stability of the results obtained. Future work could advance on this point by incorporating relevant analyses (e.g., bootstrapping methods; cross-validity analysis between independent samples) or by replicating the study in populations different from the present study. Additionally, the replicability of the present results could be examined through the implementation of longitudinal and repeated measures designs (e.g., ecological momentary assessment; see [42]).

 Conclusion

Based on the results of the present study, it can be concluded that the simple 9-factor structure traditionally proposed for the CERQ [7,10] does not exhibit adequate model fit. This finding suggests the need for caution among applied psychologists and clinical researchers who interpret scale scores as if they reflect distinct, unidimensional factors. The common practice of generating summed scores across items associated with each of the originally proposed factors may therefore be questionable. The evidence presented here suggests that in the case of the CERQ, there would be flaws in the content validity of some of its indicators and that factor modelling of the scores derived from this instrument using CFA results in biased parameter estimates that greatly overestimate the interfactor correlations. Exceptions to this general conclusion are the indicators reflecting the latent variables of blaming others, positive refocusing, and putting into perspective, for which evidence of simple factor structure has been obtained here. Researchers interested in the use of CERQ may choose to use a strategy similar to that applied by Heinrich et al. [43]. There, it is suggested, first, to start from the content validity of the indicators that would be reflective of the latent factors of interest. In the case of CERQ, it is suggested to consider only those indicators per latent factor that have not presented evidence of cross-loadings or loadings attainable on factors other than those originally proposed (according to the evidence presented here, in the case of self-blaming, for example, only items 1, 17 and 33 would be considered). Then, Henrich et al. [43] exemplify the use of bifactor (S-1) models to test predictive hypotheses. They suggested that this type of measurement model is relevant for multidimensional scales, as is the case of the CERQ. Another alternative possibility is the in-depth review of the content validity of the indicators included in the CERQ, particularly those whose scores show complex behavior. All in all, it is hoped that the data offered by the present work will make it possible to achieve greater coherence between the psychometric evidence and the applied use of the CERQ measures. A more nuanced understanding of the questionnaire’s internal structure may ultimately enhance the reliability and interpretability of CERQ scores in both clinical and applied settings, thereby improving the quality of psychological assessment and intervention outcomes.

 References Aldao A, Christensen K. Linking the expanded process model of emotion regulation to psychopathology by focusing on behavioral outcomes of regulation. Psychol Inq. 2015;26(1):27–36. Ford BQ, Gross JJ, Gruber J. Broadening our field of view: The role of emotion polyregulation. Emot Rev. 2019;11(3):197–208. Braunstein LM, Gross JJ, Ochsner KN. Explicit and implicit emotion regulation: a multi-level framework. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2017;12(10):1545–57. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsx096 28981910 Flores-Kanter PE, García-Batista ZE, Moretti LS, Medrano LA. Towards an Explanatory Model of Suicidal Ideation: The Effects of Cognitive Emotional Regulation Strategies, Affectivity and Hopelessness. Span J Psychol. 2019;22:E43. doi: 10.1017/sjp.2019.45 31679556 Flores Kanter PE, Medrano LA. Commentary: Putting ‘emotional intelligences’ in their place: Introducing the integrated model of affect-related individual differences. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020;11:574. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00574 Bornas X, Tortella-Feliu M, Balle M, Llabrés J. Self-focused cognitive emotion regulation style as associated with widespread diminished EEG fractal dimension. Int J Psychol. 2013;48(4):695–703. doi: 10.1080/00207594.2012.671945 22519470 Garnefski N, Kraaij V, Spinhoven P. Negative life events, cognitive emotion regulation and emotional problems. Personal Individ Differ. 2001;30(8):1311–27. Balzarotti S, Biassoni F, Villani D, Prunas A, Velotti P. Individual Differences in Cognitive Emotion Regulation: Implications for Subjective and Psychological Well-Being. J Happiness Stud. 2016;17(1):125–43. Domínguez-Sánchez FJ, Lasa-Aristu A, Amor PJ, Holgado-Tello FP. Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire. Assessment. 2013;20(2):253–61. doi: 10.1177/1073191110397274 21467092 Garnefski N, Kraaij V. The Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2007;23(3). Medrano LA, Moretti L, Ortiz Á, Pereno GL. Validación del cuestionario de regulación emocional en universitarios de Córdoba. Psykhe Santiago. 2013;22(1):83–96. Schäfer JL, Cibils Filho BR, de Moura TC, Tavares VC, Arteche AX, Kristensen CH. Psychometric properties of the Brazilian version of the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire. Trends Psychiatry Psychother. 2018;40(2):160–9. doi: 10.1590/2237-6089-2017-0074 29995160 Ireland MJ, Clough BA, Day JJ. The cognitive emotion regulation questionnaire: factorial, convergent, and criterion validity analyses of the full and short versions. Personal Individ Differ. 2017;110. Tuna E, Bozo Ö. The Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire: Factor Structure and Psychometric Properties of the Turkish Version. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2012;34(4):564–70. Lee DJ, Thompson-Hollands J, Strage MF, Marx BP, Unger W, Beck JG, et al. Latent Factor Structure and Construct Validity of the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire-Short Form Among Two PTSD Samples. Assessment. 2020;27(3):423–31. doi: 10.1177/1073191118791301 30043646 Jermann F, Van Der Linden M, d’Acremont M, Zermatten A. Cognitive emotion regulation questionnaire (CERQ). Eur J Psychol Assess. 2006;22(2):126–31. Zelkowitz RL, Cole DA. Measures of Emotion Reactivity and Emotion Regulation: Convergent and Discriminant Validity. Pers Individ Dif. 2016;102:123–32. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.045 31507307 Zhu X, Auerbach RP, Yao S, Abela JRZ, Xiao J, Tong X. Psychometric properties of the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire: Chinese version. Cogn Emot. 2008;22(2):288–307. Marsh HW, Morin AJS, Parker PD, Kaur G. Exploratory structural equation modeling: an integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. 2014;10(1):85–110. Gillet N, Caesens G, Morin AJS, Stinglhamber F. Complementary variable- and person-centred approaches to the dimensionality of work engagement: a longitudinal investigation. Eur J Work Organ Psychol. 2019;28(2):239–58. Xiao Y, Liu H, Hau KT. A comparison of CFA, ESEM, and BSEM in test structure analysis. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2019;26(5):665–77. Morin AJS, Arens AK, Marsh HW. A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling framework for the identification of distinct sources of construct-relevant psychometric multidimensionality. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2016;23(1):116–39. Asparouhov T, Muthén B. Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 2009;16(3):397–438. Asparouhov T, Muthén B, Morin AJS. Bayesian structural equation modeling with cross-loadings and residual covariances: comments on Stromeyer et al. J Manag. 2015;41(6):1561–77. Marsh HW, Guo J, Dicke T, Parker PD, Craven RG. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM), and Set-ESEM: Optimal Balance Between Goodness of Fit and Parsimony. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 2020;55(1):102–19. Wolf EJ, Harrington KM, Clark SL, Miller MW. Sample Size Requirements for Structural Equation Models: An Evaluation of Power, Bias, and Solution Propriety. Educ Psychol Meas. 2013;76(6):913–34. doi: 10.1177/0013164413495237 25705052 Ulitzsch E, Lüdtke O, Robitzsch A. Alleviating estimation problems in small sample structural equation modeling-A comparison of constrained maximum likelihood, Bayesian estimation, and fixed reliability approaches. Psychol Methods. 2023;28(3):527–57. doi: 10.1037/met0000435 34928675 American Psychological Association. Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Am Psychol. 2002;57(12):1060–73. The International Test Commission. International guidelines on computer-based and internet-delivered testing. Int J Test. 2006;6(2):143–71. Weigold A, Weigold IK, Russell EJ. Examination of the equivalence of self-report survey-based paper-and-pencil and internet data collection methods. Psychol Methods. 2013;18(1):53–70. doi: 10.1037/a0031607 23477606 Flores-Kanter PE, Moretti L, Medrano LA. A narrative review of emotion regulation process in stress and recovery phases. Heliyon. 2021;7(6):e07218. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07218 34179528 Rhemtulla M, Brosseau-Liard PÉ, Savalei V. When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychol Methods. 2012;17(3):354–73. doi: 10.1037/a0029315 22799625 Flora DB, Curran PJ. An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychol Methods. 2004;9(4):466–91. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.9.4.466 15598100 Garrido LE, Abad FJ, Ponsoda V. A new look at Horn’s parallel analysis with ordinal variables. Psychol Methods. 2013;18(4):454–74. doi: 10.1037/a0030005 23046000 Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992;112(1):155–9. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155 19565683 Schreiber JB, Nora A, Stage FK, Barlow EA, King J. Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: a review. J Educ Res. 2006;99(6):323–38. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 1999;6(1):1–55. Flores-Kanter PE, Toro R, Alvarado JM. Internal structure of Beck hopelessness scale: An analysis of method effects using the CT-C(M–1) model. J Pers Assess. 2021;1–9. Mai Y, Zhang Z, Wen Z. Comparing exploratory structural equation modeling and existing approaches for multiple regression with latent variables. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 2018;25(5):737–49. Potthoff S, Garnefski N, Miklósi M, Ubbiali A, Domínguez-Sánchez FJ, Martins EC. Cognitive emotion regulation and psychopathology across cultures: A comparison between six European countries. Personal Individ Differ. 2016;98:218–24. Mayer JD, Salovey P, Caruso DR. Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test. PsycTESTS Dataset. American Psychological Association (APA); 2012. doi: 10.1037/t05047-000 Kim J, Marcusson-Clavertz D, Yoshiuchi K, Smyth JM. Potential benefits of integrating ecological momentary assessment data into mHealth care systems. Biopsychosoc Med. 2019;13:19. doi: 10.1186/s13030-019-0160-5 31413726 Heinrich M, Zagorscak P, Eid M, Knaevelsrud C. Giving g a meaning: An application of the bifactor-(s-1) approach to realize a more symptom-oriented modeling of the Beck Depression Inventory–II. Assessment. 2020;27(7):1429–47. 10.1371/journal.pone.0326319.r001 Author response to Decision Letter 0 Submission Version 0

10 Apr 2025

 10.1371/journal.pone.0326319.r002 Decision Letter 0 Monteiro Diogo Manuel Academic Editor 2025 Diogo Manuel Monteiro This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Submission Version 0

Dear Dr. Flores-Kanter,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 12 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Diogo Manuel Teixeira Monteiro, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1.  Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf   and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: In this study, Flores-Kanter et al. proposed to estimate innovative measurement models for the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire, ie., using the exploratory structural equation models approaches. The authors present a correct and transparent methodology, however, some minor issues need clarification. Authors are invited to address the points outlined below:

1. The abstract should be revised to clearly state the objective of the study. The statement “worked with a large sample of Argentines” is vague; indicate the sample size and mean age of participants. In the results section, it would be better to mention how much better the ESEM models performed (please include some numbers to provide precise information).

2. The Methods section should clearly state any inclusion or exclusion criteria applied during data collection, i.e., incomplete responses excluded or duplicate responses.

3. If available, include more demographic details (i.e., sex, education, socioeconomic status) to assess sample representativeness.

4. Please report basic psychometric properties (i.e., internal consistency) of the Argentine adaptation of the CERQ (Medrano et al., 2013).

5. L207 - the authors stated that the Set-ESEM model with Target rotation "could not be identified," but do not explain why.

6. The paragraph of limitations should be completed by discussing possible cultural specificity of the findings and acknowledging potential biases associated with self-reported data.

7. I suggest grouping future research directions into a coherent final paragraph.

8. References are not in accordance with the journal's guidelines. PLOS uses the reference style outlined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), also referred to as the “Vancouver” style.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire: Evidence of Internal Structure through Confirmatory Factor Modeling and Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling”.

The study addresses a relevant topic and presents a rigorous methodological analysis. However, some improvements are needed to strengthen the clarity and presentation of the results. I present my considerations and suggestions below:

1. The summary ends abruptly. I recommend that the authors add a final sentence highlighting the practical contributions of the findings.

2. The introduction is excessively dense and difficult to read. I suggest that the authors simplify the wording and make the exposition more objective, making it easier for the reader to understand.

3. It is important to expand on the justification for carrying out this study, highlighting the gaps in the literature that the research seeks to fill.

4. I would ask the authors to clarify how they theoretically justify the division into two large groups of strategies (CERS group 1 vs. group 2) in the Set-ESEM model.

5. I recommend that the authors discuss more explicitly how their findings relate to previous cross-cultural studies that have used the CERQ.

6. I ask for clarification as to whether there was a prior calculation of the sample size required for the study.

7. The instruments used could be described in more detail and depth, including information on their psychometric properties in similar populations.

8. I suggest that the inclusion and exclusion criteria used to select the participants be explicitly presented.

9. I have not found information on the approval of the study by a human research ethics committee. I recommend that this information be included, as required by international research standards.

10. Although the manuscript addresses some limitations, I suggest that the authors broaden this discussion, indicating practical ways in which future research can overcome them.

11. Tables 2 and 3 are excessively long and difficult to interpret. I recommend presenting summaries or breaking down the information, focusing on the most relevant items (for example, those with significant cross-loadings).

12. The authors could further explore the practical implications of the results for the use of CERQ in clinical and research contexts.

13. I recommend including a “Conclusion” section, summarizing the main findings and their practical and theoretical implications.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Miguel Jacinto

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

 10.1371/journal.pone.0326319.r003 Author response to Decision Letter 1 Submission Version 1

14 May 2025

We would like to express our gratitude the editor for providing us with the opportunity to respond to the reviewer's comments. We also extend our appreciation to both the editor and the reviewer for their time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Below, we provide point-by-point responses to the comments, and the modifications made have been tracked in the manuscript.

Abstract

Reviewer #1: The statement “worked with a large sample of Argentines” is vague; indicate the sample size and mean age of participants.

Response: Thank you. We changed the sentence accordingly (line 7-10): “For this purpose, we worked with a large sample of Argentines of 6881 Argentine adults aged between 18 and 81 (M = 27.14, SD = 9.86; 69.6% female; 86.4% not being in psychological or psychiatric treatment) and compared the fit of the models.”

Reviewer #1: In the results section, it would be better to mention how much better the ESEM models performed (please include some numbers to provide precise information).

Response: Thank you. The suggested information has been added (line 10-12): “The results favored the exploratory structural equation models (χ2 = 4092.89, df = 342, CFI = .982, SRMR = .013, RMSEA = .04), indicating that we are not observing indicators that reflect simple factorial structures.”

Reviewer #2: The summary ends abruptly. I recommend that the authors add a final sentence highlighting the practical contributions of the findings.

Response: Thank you. The suggested information has been added (line 12-19): “Based on the results of the present study, it can be concluded that the simple 9-factor structure traditionally proposed for the CERQ does not exhibit adequate model fit. This finding suggests the need for caution among applied psychologists and clinical researchers who interpret scale scores as if they reflect distinct, unidimensional factors. The common practice of generating summed scores across items associated with each of the originally proposed factors may therefore be questionable. A more nuanced understanding of the questionnaire's internal structure may ultimately enhance the reliability and interpretability of CERQ scores in both clinical and applied settings, thereby improving the quality of psychological assessment and intervention outcomes.”

Introduction

Reviewer #2: The introduction is excessively dense and difficult to read. I suggest that the authors simplify the wording and make the exposition more objective, making it easier for the reader to understand.

Response: Thank you. We simplified the wording and tried to make the exposition more direct (see lines 22–69).

Reviewer #2: It is important to expand on the justification for carrying out this study, highlighting the gaps in the literature that the research seeks to fill.

Response: Thank you. The suggested information has been added (see lines 22–69).

Methods

Reviewer #2: I ask for clarification as to whether there was a prior calculation of the sample size required for the study.

Response: Thank you. The suggested information has been added (line 73-75): “Although a prior calculation of the required sample size was not conducted, a sufficiently large sample was anticipated to ensure the stability and accuracy of the estimates derived from the applied models.”

Reviewer #1: If available, include more demographic details (i.e., sex, education, socioeconomic status) to assess sample representativeness.

Response: Thank you. The suggested information has been added (line 75-77): “The sample consisted of 6881 Argentine adults aged between 18 and 81 (M = 27.14, SD = 9.86). Of the total sample, 69.6% (n = 4,792) identified as female, while 86.4% (n = 5,948) reported not being in psychological or psychiatric treatment.”

Reviewer #2: I have not found information on the approval of the study by a human research ethics committee. I recommend that this information be included, as required by international research standards.

Response: Thank you. This information can be found in lines 82-83: “The ethics committee of the Research Secretariat of the Universidad Siglo 21 previously approved the research protocol following the ethical guidelines of the APA.”

Reviewer #1: The Methods section should clearly state any inclusion or exclusion criteria applied during data collection, i.e., incomplete responses excluded or duplicate responses. Reviewer #2: I suggest that the inclusion and exclusion criteria used to select the participants be explicitly presented.

Response: Thank you. The suggested information has been added (line 87-88): “It is important to note that, given the data collection method, there were no missing data, and the only inclusion criteria were agreeing to participate in the study and being 18 years of age or older.”

Reviewer #1: Please report basic psychometric properties (i.e., internal consistency) of the Argentine adaptation of the CERQ (Medrano et al., 2013). Reviewer #2: The instruments used could be described in more detail and depth, including information on their psychometric properties in similar populations

Response: Thank you. The suggested information has been added (line 97-101): “The Argentine version of the scale was used (34). This version was adapted and validated in a sample of university students (N = 359, M age = 24.6, female = 50.1). The model of 9 correlated factors showed acceptable fit indicators (χ2 = 875.50, df = 538, CFI = .91, GFI = .90, RMSEA = .04), and the internal consistency indicators measured by Cronbach’s Alpha varied between .59 and .83.”

Reviewer #2: I would ask the authors to clarify how they theoretically justify the division into two large groups of strategies (CERS group 1 vs. group 2) in the Set-ESEM model.

Response: Thank you. We added this clarification in lines 103-126.

Results

Reviewer #2: Tables 2 and 3 are excessively long and difficult to interpret. I recommend presenting summaries or breaking down the information, focusing on the most relevant items (for example, those with significant cross-loadings).

Response: Thank you. We have not modified the information presented in Tables 2 and 3, as all content is pertinent and relevant for a proper understanding of the results. Moreover, a comprehensive presentation is essential to ensure the reproducibility of the findings.

Discussion

Reviewer #2: I recommend that the authors discuss more explicitly how their findings relate to previous cross-cultural studies that have used the CERQ.

Response: Thank you. We have added a more explicit discussion of how our findings relate to previous cross-cultural studies that have employed the CERQ. Please see lines 266-271 and 292-300.

Reviewer #1: the authors stated that the Set-ESEM model with Target rotation "could not be identified," but do not explain why.

Response: Thank you. This explanation can be found in lines 239-250: “Even so, both Set-ESEM models with oblique rotation and Full-ESEM with target rotation showed anomalous results, and the Set-ESEM model with target rotation could not be estimated due to model identification problems. In this sense, there was no evidence supporting the second hypothesis. The latter suggests that the cross-loadings of the various indicators do not only occur between latent factors of the same group of CERS but involve the whole set of strategies considered. From all this, it is concluded that, although for the CERQ-derived measures, some parameters are better estimated in the ESEM models, the model that shows the best fit is the least restrictive, the Full-ESEM model with oblique rotation. Unlike the other ESEM models, no anomalous results are found in the latter model, the interfactor correlations decrease in greater magnitude, and there is evidence of cross-loadings of indicators that show some overlap in their content. All this suggests that, in the case of CERQ measurements, we would not be in the presence of indicators that reflect simple factorial structures (Morin et al., 2015), at least in most cases, as is explained below.”

Reviewer #1: The paragraph of limitations should be completed by discussing possible cultural specificity of the findings and acknowledging potential biases associated with self-reported data. Reviewer #1: I suggest grouping future research directions into a coherent final paragraph. Reviewer #2: Although the manuscript addresses some limitations, I suggest that the authors broaden this discussion, indicating practical ways in which future research can overcome them.

Response: Thank you. The suggested information has been added (line 312-317 and line 321-323): “It would be important for future studies to determine whether the overestimation of the parameters evidenced in the case of the CERQ is also observed when a structural model is specified, including other measurement models derived from different instruments. For these purposes, the combined use of other types of derived measurements is relevant, for example, behavioral measures or performance-based tests (e.g., an ability test of emotional intelligence, such as the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test, 43).” And “Additionally, the replicability of the present results could be examined through the implementation of longitudinal and repeated measures designs (e.g., ecological momentary assessment; see 44).”

Reviewer #2: The authors could further explore the practical implications of the results for the use of CERQ in clinical and research contexts. I recommend including a “Conclusion” section, summarizing the main findings and their practical and theoretical implications.

Response: Thank you. We added a Conclusion section in which we summarize the main findings and explore the practical implications of the results for the use of the CERQ in clinical and research contexts.

 10.1371/journal.pone.0326319.r004 Decision Letter 1 Monteiro Diogo Manuel Academic Editor 2025 Diogo Manuel Monteiro This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Submission Version 1

Dear Dr. Flores-Kanter,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 04 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Diogo Manuel Teixeira Monteiro, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Since the sample size has not been calculated, it is necessary to understand how the authors ensure that the sample is sufficiently large.

The eligibility criteria for the participants are still not presented.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Miguel Jacinto

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org

 10.1371/journal.pone.0326319.r005 Author response to Decision Letter 2 Submission Version 2

27 May 2025

We would like to express our gratitude the editor for providing us with the opportunity to respond to the reviewer's comments. We also extend our sincere appreciation to both the editor and the reviewer for their time and effort in re-evaluating our manuscript. Below, we provide point-by-point responses to the comments, and the modifications made have been tracked in the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: Since the sample size has not been calculated, it is necessary to understand how the authors ensure that the sample is sufficiently large.

Response: Thank you. The suggested information has been added (see lines 86–92): “Although a prior calculation of the required sample size was not conducted, a sufficiently large sample was anticipated to ensure both the stability (i.e., that the estimation algorithm would converge on an admissible solution) and the accuracy of the parameter estimates (i.e., that the estimated parameter values would not substantially differ from the true population values) derived from the tested models (26,27). The simulation studies reported by Wolf et al. (26) suggest a minimum required sample size of 500 participants, considering the complexity of the models evaluated here (e.g., number of parameters to be estimated, number of items per factor).”

Reviewer #2: The eligibility criteria for the participants are still not presented.

Response: Thank you. This information can be found in lines 105-106: “It is important to note that, given the data collection method, there were no missing data, and the only inclusion criteria were agreeing to participate in the study and being 18 years of age or older.”

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct.

Response: Thank you. We have carefully reviewed the reference list to ensure it is complete and correctly formatted in accordance with the journal's requirements.

Thanks again, and we look forward to hearing from you.

Submitted filename: Response Letter.docx

 10.1371/journal.pone.0326319.r006 Decision Letter 2 Monteiro Diogo Manuel Academic Editor 2025 Diogo Manuel Monteiro This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Submission Version 2

Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire: Evidence of Internal Structure through Confirmatory Factor Modeling and Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling

PONE-D-25-17586R2

Dear Dr. Flores-Kanter,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Diogo Manuel Teixeira Monteiro, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

 10.1371/journal.pone.0326319.r007 Acceptance letter Monteiro Diogo Manuel Academic Editor 2025 Diogo Manuel Monteiro This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

PONE-D-25-17586R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Flores-Kanter,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Diogo Manuel Teixeira Monteiro

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE