# Assessment of Cognitive, Behavioral, and Emotional Skills in Therapy

Emma Guillard, Ambre Deshayes, Wissam El-Hage, David Clarys, Alexis Vancappel

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Emma Guillard, Ambre Deshayes, Wissam El-Hage, David Clarys, Alexis Vancappel. Assessment of Cognitive, Behavioral, and Emotional Skills in Therapy. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 2025, 10.1027/1015-5759/a000907. hal-05186309

HAL Id: hal-05186309

https://hal.science/hal-05186309v1

Submitted on 5 Jan 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
# Assessment of cognitive, behavioral and emotional skills in therapy

## The Brief revised transdiagnostic skills scale (T2S-21)

Emma Guillard<fnref n="1" />, Ambre Deshayes<fnref n="2" />, Wissam El-Hage²³, David Clarys<fnref n="1" />, Alexis Vancappel²⁴

Psychotherapy has demonstrated its efficacy in treating a wide range of psychological disorders. Despite the historical and widespread influence of psychiatric nosologies and diagnoses, there is a growing consensus that this way of conceptualizing psychopathology, based on ICD and DSM, may be reaching the limits of its clinical utility (Dalgleish & Bevan, 2020). In response, researchers have developed a new way to conceptualize patients' difficulties, focusing on altered processes rather than diagnoses. This conceptualization is called the transdiagnostic approach (Monestès & Baeyens, 2016). Indeed, it offers novel insights into how we might understand mental health difficulties to better treat them. This approach is expected to transcend existing categorical diagnoses. For example, transdiagnostic mechanisms, such as emotion regulation and cognitive flexibility, are often shared across different disorders and can provide a more holistic understanding of psychopathology. For instance, the success of transdiagnostic interventions like CBT across various disorders further supports the value of this approach. Transdiagnostic approaches are increasingly being recognized for their potential to improve treatment by focusing on the common underlying mechanisms across disorders.

The origin of transdiagnostic approaches can be traced back to cognitive-behavioral theories and treatments for eating disorders. These approaches were subsequently extended to anxiety and depressive disorders (Fairburn et al., 2003; Norton et al., 2004, 2008; Clark, 2009). Theories emerged to better understand and utilize this approach. The foundational assumptions of the initial transdiagnostic approach are: 1) psychological disorders share common etiological and maintenance processes, as well as cognitive-affective, interpersonal, and behavioral

<footnote n="1">¹UMR-CNRS 7295, Centre de Recherches sur la Cognition et l'Apprentissage, Université de Tours et Université de Poitiers, Tours, France ²Affiliation: Institution or Center, City, State, Country</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²CHRU de Tours, Pôle de Psychiatrie-Addictologie, Tours, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³INSERM, Imaging Brain & Neuropsychiatry iBraiN U1253, Université de Tours, Tours, France</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴Département de Psychologie, UR 1901 QualiPsy, Qualité de vie et santé psychologique, Université de Tours, Tours, France</footnote>
features; and 2) the ever-increasing number of disorder-specific treatment manuals hinders the implementation of cognitive behavioral therapy (Newby et al., 2015). Moreover, several paradigms, similar to the transdiagnostic approach, cut across various mental disorders, such as the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative (Cuthbert, 2014) developed by the US National Institute of Mental Health (2008), and the Unified Protocol for Transdiagnostic Treatment of Emotional Disorders (Barlow et al. 2008, 2017). The latter is a transdiagnostic emotion-focused, cognitive-behavioral treatment designed to be applicable to the full range of anxiety and related disorders. It comprises four core treatment modules that target key aspects of emotional processing and regulation of emotional experiences: (a) present-focused emotional awareness, (b) cognitive flexibility, (c) emotional avoidance and emotion-driven behaviors, and (d) interoceptive and situation-based emotion exposure, in addition to psychoeducation, motivational enhancement, and relapse prevention, consistent with standard cognitive-behavioral protocols (Barlow, Boisseau, Ellard, Farchione, & Fairholme, 2009). These authors found, through clinical case studies, that it could reduce symptoms of anxiety disorders as effectively as standard evidence-based psychological treatments for anxiety disorders, with less attrition. Thus, using one protocol instead of multiple ones to treat each psychiatric disorder could potentially treat the most commonly occurring anxiety and depressive disorders more efficiently (Boisseau & Barlow, 2010; Barlow et al., 2017).

Scales can be developed following models of the transdiagnostic approach in psychotherapy, in contrast to focusing on diagnoses. For example, Vancappel et al. (2022) aimed to identify the transdiagnostic skills trained within cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). These skills represent covert or overt adaptive behaviors. Using factorial structural analysis, they identified 6 skills that could be trained and created the Transdiagnostic Skills Scale (T2S) to evaluate them. They measured its internal consistency, factor structure and convergent validity in clinical and non-clinical samples, finding a six-factor structure composed of emotion regulation (the ability to reduce the intensity of aversive emotions), behavioral activation and planning (the ability to plan and organize daily activities), emotional identification (the ability to identify and name one's emotions), assertiveness (the ability to express constructively one's opinions and needs), problem-solving (the ability to solve daily life problems), and emotional confrontation (the ability to face aversive emotions). The T2S demonstrated high internal consistency for the general score (Cronbach's alpha = 0.95) and also the 6 dimensions (α=.92 ; α=.88 ; α=.82 ; α=.73 ; α=.92 ; α=.76). Moreover, the T2S showed negative associations between its skills and symptoms of anxiety, depression, and eating disorders, thanks to an additional questionnaire named the S2T (*Symptomatic Transdiagnostic Test*) which evaluated psychopathological symptoms (Vancappel, et al., 2023). However, they found no or weak association between these skills and symptoms of either alcohol or cannabis use disorder. Thus, while the T2S was a useful and valid tool for identifying the skills, and offered a complementary way to understand patients' difficulties, the researchers revised the scale to include the control of cravings and urges (the ability to repress or inhibit cravings and urges). The revised version, composed of 7 skills, called T2S-51 in this article, has good psychometric properties (Vancappel et al., 2023). It consists of the initial 42 items measuring the first six skills, plus 9 additional items to assess the control of cravings and urges, for a total of 51 items. This scale is
particularly interesting as it offers a way of measuring a concept involved in multiple
psychological disorders.

For transdiagnostic approaches to be more widely adopted by clinicians and patients, we need tools that can capture both transdiagnostic and specific diagnostic factors. Such scales would provide a comprehensive picture of a patient's mental health, tracking both general therapeutic progress and disorder-specific symptoms. While existing scales, such as the T2S-51 (Vancappel et al., 2023), offer valuable insights, their length can be a barrier to their use in routine clinical settings. In these contexts, shorter scales that capture both dimensions would be invaluable for reducing patient burden while still providing clinicians with useful feedback on progress. Therefore, the development of a brief scale that integrates both transdiagnostic mechanisms and diagnostic factors is the primary aim of this study. This will not only make assessment more feasible in therapeutic and research settings, but also contribute to advancing the use of integrated, flexible approaches that are essential for comprehensive patient care.

## Materials and Methods

Given their possible value and most likely uses, we shortened the T2S-51 to 21 items and evaluated its psychometric properties with one primary goal: to ensure the short form coherently assesses each skill and clearly differentiates between them without losing the broad range of each skill (cognitive, emotional, and behavioral facets), thereby retaining the original structure. To achieve this goal, consistent with recommendations for scale development in general and the development of short forms in particular (Hinkin 1998; Smith et al. 2000), we used the large sample of data of the T2S-51 for the short scale development and evaluation. We adopted a statistical approach to scale construction organized around the skills while omitting items that were less specific, clear, and robust regarding the structure of each skill. This approach was informed by examining earlier correlations between each skill and item of the T2S-51. The strategy focused on maximizing internal consistency within each skill by selecting items with high domain-level factor loadings and clarity for patients to understand. Specifically, we constructed the T2S-21 by selecting three items to represent each skill. Subsequently, we conducted a factorial analysis to reach the seven-skill structure of the T2S-51. Finally, we aimed for strong correlations between the T2S-21 and the original T2S-51, like those between the T2S-51 and other relevant measures. We used these correlations to evaluate the internal consistency of the T2S-21.

## Population

We recruited 1,298 participants (mean age 31.17 ± 13.56), including 1,078 (83.1%) who identified as women, 202 who identified as men (15.6%), and 18 (1.4%) who identified as neither man nor woman. Their education level was as follows: 25 participants (2.0%) had not completed high school, 189 (14.6%) had obtained a high-school diploma, 624 (48.1%) had completed one to three years of higher education, 367 (28.3%) had completed four or five years of higher education, and 93 (7.2%) had completed more than five years of higher education. Regarding their occupational activity, 651 participants (50.2%) were students, 597 (46.0%) were workers, and 110 (8.5%) were in another situation (e.g., retired). Details of the descriptive data are displayed in Table 1 for the seven dimensions, for the T2S-51 and the T2S-21. The
Cronbach's alpha and the Mc Donald's omega assessing internal consistency are also displayed
in Table 1 for each subscale.

## Procedure

We recruited data online through social media platforms (Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn). A brief description of the study was provided to invite participation. Specifically, it was emphasized that the study was related to the development of a tool to assess skills (e.g. emotion regulation, assertiveness) involved in various psychological difficulties. Participants were required to click on a link to proceed with the study. They were then asked to read further information about the study and click to give their consent. Afterward, they were asked to provide socio-demographic information, including age, gender, socio-professional status, and level of education. Finally, they completed several self-reported measures described below.

## Measures

The *Transdiagnostic Skills Scale 51 items (T2S-51)* is composed of 51 items measuring the seven skills (Vancappel et al., 2023). Participants rated each item on a seven-point Likert scale from 1 (never true) to 7 (always true). These items (e.g., "I know how to make requests easily") were based on questions clinicians typically ask their patients in order to evaluate their ability of self affirmation, for example. The first author proposed the items, which were then reviewed and corrected by clinicians until full agreement was reached.

Additionally, we used the *Symptomatic Transdiagnostic Test (S2T)* as a self-report questionnaire designed to measure psychopathology (Vancappel, et al., 2023), to evaluate the capacity of the T2S-21 to negatively correlate with psychopathology (the higher are the 7 abilities, the less we would have psychopathological symptoms). It includes 63 items that assess eleven psychopathological dimensions: negative thoughts and mood; psycho-traumatic and maladaptive symptoms; addictive symptoms; disturbed eating behavior; disturbed perception and behavior; panic and agoraphobia; emotional lability; dejection; neurodevelopmental manifestations; anxiety; and mental hyperactivity. Additionally, three items measure the functional impairment caused by the various symptoms. Participants rated each item on a seven-point Likert scale from 1 (never) to 7 (always). Previous studies have demonstrated good psychometric properties of the S2T (Vancappel et al., 2023).

## Analyses

To begin, the three items chosen per dimension were selected thanks to the evaluations of 3 judges and the remarks of the participants who answered the questionnaire. These remarks were characterized by criteria like clarity, understanding, item sizes, subjective fit to the dimensions and to the three faces of a control, that is emotion, cognition, and behavior. Additionally, our choices were influenced by the items that had the strongest loadings within their respective dimensions, in the T2S-51. Indeed, we used the results of the standardized factor loadings (λ) of the bifactor-ESEM solution in the T2S-51 article (Vancappel et al., 2023) to choose the four best items corresponding to its ability (e.g., item 7 for emotional regulation indicates λ =0.52 corresponding to one of the best loadings). Then, with the help of 1 patient, 1 clinician and 1 member of the research team, we could choose the 3 best items, according to the criteria of clarity mentioned.
After selecting the items, we used RStudio® to perform Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), bifactor-CFA (bi-CFA), Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM), and bifactor-ESEM (bi-ESEM) models (Morin et al., 2016) on participants' ratings of transdiagnostic skills. All models were assessed using maximum likelihood estimators. Factor analysis is a multivariate statistical technique where items are associated with one or more latent constructs based on the relationships among observed variables. It is the most frequently used statistical technique in studies on scale development and adaptation, as well as in short form scale development studies (Kogar, 2020). In CFA, each item was loaded on the factor it was assumed to measure, with no cross-loadings allowed. This model included seven correlated factors representing emotion regulation, behavioral activation and planning, emotional identification, assertiveness, problem solving, emotional confrontation, and control of cravings and urges. In ESEM, the same seven factors were estimated using confirmatory oblique target rotation (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2009). Here, all main loadings were specified a priori as freely estimated, while the cross-loadings were constrained to be as close to zero as possible. In a bifactor-CFA (Confirmatory Factor Analysis) model, all items are allowed to load simultaneously onto a single global (G-) factor and multiple specific (S-) factors. The rationale behind using a bifactor-CFA is to test the hypothesis that a general psychological factor (G-factor) underpins and influences all the specific skills (S-factors). This allows us to examine how much variance in the items can be attributed to the overarching construct (G-factor) versus the individual dimensions (S-factors). By doing so, the model provides insights into the structure of the data, highlighting both the shared and unique contributions of the general and specific factors. No cross-loadings were allowed, and all factors were specified as orthogonal according to bifactor assumptions (Chen, 2007). In bi-ESEM, the same set of G- and S-factors were estimated using orthogonal bifactor target rotation (Reise et al., 2011). In this model, all items were a priori specified as related to the G-factor, while the seven S-factors were defined a priori using the same pattern of target and non-target factor loadings used in ESEM.

To be performed, several packages were used with RStudio®, like “lavaan” for CFA model, “esemComp” for ESEM model, “psych” for McDonald indices and “GPArotation”. Following recent recommendations (Peters, 2020), we used McDonald Omega to assess the internal consistency. Contrary to the Cronbach alpha, the McDonald Omega does not imply a tau-equivalent model (i.e., that all items measure the same latent variable with the same degree of precision, and all item true scores are equal), which is not realistic in the development of psychological tools.

We assessed model fit (Marsh et al., 2010) using the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). According to standard interpretation guidelines, values greater than .90 and .95 for the CFI and TLI respectively indicate adequate and excellent fit to the data. Values smaller than .08 and .06 for the RMSEA indicate respectively acceptable and excellent model fit. When comparing the tested models, guidelines suggest that models differing from one another by less than .01 on the CFI and TLI, or .015 on the RMSEA, can be considered to be equivalent (Chen, 2007). Nevertheless, Schwarz (1978) and Burnham (2002) that BIC is a value more suited for ESEM and bi-ESEM models.

As noted by Morin et al. (2016), fit indices are not sufficient to guide selection of the optimal model. Indeed, unmodelled cross-loadings result in inflated factor correlations in CFA, or
inflated G-factor loadings in bi-CFA (Asparouhov et al., 2015). Likewise, an unmodelled G-factor produces inflated factor correlations in CFA or inflated cross-loadings in ESEM. An examination of parameter estimates is thus required to select the best alternative. As suggested by Morin et al. (2016), model comparison should start by contrasting CFA and ESEM. Here, statistical evidence shows that ESEM provides more exact estimates of factor correlations when cross-loadings are present, while remaining unbiased otherwise (Asparouhov et al., 2015). For this reason, if the factors remain well defined, the observation of a distinct pattern of factor correlations supports the ESEM solution. The second step involves contrasting the retained CFA or ESEM solutions with a bifactor alternative. Here, the key elements supporting a bifactor representation are the observation of: (1) an improved level of fit to the data; (2) a well-defined G-factor; and (3) at least some reasonably well-defined S-factors. Observing multiple cross-loadings over .100 or .200 in ESEM that are lower in bi-ESEM is an additional source of evidence in favor of the bifactor solution (Morin et al., 2016).

Finally, we performed correlational analysis to evaluate the concurrent validity of the T2S-21. We considered a correlation above .10 as small, above .30 as medium, and above .50 as strong (Cohen, 1992). Also, correlations between T2S-21 and the S2T were performed to look out the relevance of the new scale regarding symptomatology.

# Results

## *Three items per dimension*

Noting that some items for each dimension were clearer to understand than others, and after checking the loadings for these items, we selected the items presented in Table 2. We verified that the items of each dimension best represented the three facets of the skills: cognitive, behavioral, and emotional regulation.

## CFA and BiCFA

The goodness-of-fit of the various measurement models is presented in Table 3. In the CFA model, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is 0.963, and the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) is 0.954, indicating a very good fit. The RMSEA is 0.046, indicating reasonably good fit. Each latent variable, such as emotional regulation to control urges and cravings, is associated with the items, and the values represent the strength of their relationship. The correlations are high for these three items chosen for each latent variable, indicating goodness of fit of this CFA model. Moreover, the covariances between pairs of latent variables, such as the skills, are strong, suggesting meaningful relationships between these dimensions as hypothesized in the original model. The variances, representing the variability of each latent variable, are high, indicating significant variation within the latent constructs. This aligns with the original hypothesis that the T2S-21 dimensions would be clearly identifiable in the model. Overall, the model seems to fit the data reasonably well, as indicated by various fit indices and parameter estimates. The covariances are important as they reflect how the latent constructs are interrelated, providing insight into the shared variance between skills and other dimensions, which supports the validity of the model.
The bi-CFA model includes seven specific factors and one general factor. All loadings are statistically significant (p<0.001). Concerning the model fit, the CFI is 0.915, and the TLI is 0.895, indicating a good model fit. Additionally, the p-value associated with the RMSEA (p = 1.00) suggests that the RMSEA is close to the optimal value. Moreover, all factor loadings are significant (p<0.001), indicating that each observed variable is associated with its respective latent factors. For the total variances of latent factors, values around 1 indicate that the factors explain a substantial amount of variance in the observed variables, with a value of 0.86 in this model. Overall, this bi-CFA model appears to provide a good fit to the data.

## ESEM and bi-ESEM

The ESEM suggests, based on the key indexes, a good fit between the model and the data, with an RMSEA score below 0.05 (indicating a good fit) and a TLI score above 0.9. Moreover, high correlations between scores and factors indicate good adequacy. Finally, the cumulative proportion of variance explained by the seven factors is 100%, suggesting that the model accounts for all the variance in the observed variables.

The bi-ESEM solution revealed a well-defined G-factor with good loadings for most items. The TLI is 0.987 and the RMSEA is 0.025, indicating good fit of the data.

## Comparisons of the models

Both the ESEM and bi-ESEM solutions resulted in substantial increases in model fit compared to bi-CFA (ESEM: $\Delta$CFI = +.079, $\Delta$TLI = +.069; bi-ESEM: $\Delta$CFI = +.080, $\Delta$TLI = +.072). Based on this statistical information, either the ESEM or the bi-ESEM solution could be retained. Notably, the RMSEA index shows no difference. In that case, BIC is more well-suited for comparing models that are not strictly nested and vary in complexity, which is common in ESEM. BIC imposes a heavier penalty for additional parameters, often making it more conservative in identifying the "best" model. We have excellent BIC values: -441, 27 for ESEM model and -449.57 for bi-ESEM (Table 3).

Therefore, after comparing them, we retained the bi-ESEM because it provides a satisfactory level of specificity for the seven skills: emotional regulation ($\lambda$ = .38 to .53, $\omega$ = .84), behavioral activation and planning ($\lambda$ = .62 to .70, $\omega$ = .86), emotional identification ($\lambda$ = .32 to .47, $\omega$ = .84), assertiveness ($\lambda$ = .56 to .64, $\omega$ = .72), problem solving ($\lambda$ = .52 to .77, $\omega$ = .85), emotional confrontation ($\lambda$ = .38 to .63, $\omega$ = .71), and control of cravings and urges ($\lambda$ = .24 to .69, $\omega$ = .83). This solution was retained for further analyses. Table 4 shows the strength of the relationship between each variable and the identified factors for this bi-ESEM model. Higher values indicate a stronger relationship.

## Correlations analyses

The correlations displayed between the T2S-21 and the S2T reveal the transdiagnostic reliability of the T2S-21. The results are indicated in Table 5.

Overall, we found significant moderate to strong correlations between all the skills and some clusters of symptoms, namely negative thoughts and mood (-.218<r<-.561), anxiety (-.266<r<-.594), and emotional lability (-.261<r<-.539), dejection (-.229<r<-.632) post-traumatic and
maladaptive symptoms (-.117<r<-.302), and panic and agoraphobia (-.165<r<-.464), disturbed
perception and behavior (-.191<r<-.386), addictive symptoms (-.113<r<-.325), disturbed
eating behavior (-.095<r<-.336), neurodevelopmental manifestations (-.201<r<-.594), and
functional impairment (-.231<r<-.482). Finally, we found negligible correlations between the
skills and mental hyperactivity (-.025<r<-.107). Indeed, only the dimension of mental
hyperactivity of the S2T is not correlated with the total of the T2S-21.

Comparison of T2S-51 and T2S-21

To begin, we conducted correlations between the dimensions of the T2S-21, presented in the Table 6, to be sure of their link. Then, to ensure that the shortened version exhibits the same properties as the T2S-51, we performed some comparisons, noted in Table 7. We compared the indices of bi-ESEM and the correlations made between the two scales and the S2T. This comparison was performed to assess the reliability of the two scales regarding the symptoms of different psychopathologies. Moreover, the two correlations between 1) the total of the S2T and the total of the T2S-51 (r=0.607) and 2) the total of the S2T and the total of the T2S-21 (r=0.637) are not different (delta =0.030) with a difference probability of p=0.23. Furthermore, strong correlations were found between the 7 dimensions, the same one by one between the T2S-51 and the T2S-21 (for example, emotional regulation skill of the T2S-51 is strongly correlated with the emotional regulation skill of the T2S-21, with a score of 0,932). These correlations are noted in Table 8.

Discussion

The aim of the study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of a T2S-21, using data from
the T2S-51 (Vancappel et al., 2023). This study investigated the structure of a dataset using
various statistical methods. The data included responses from 1,298 participants on the T2S-
51, and then, selecting 3 items for each of the 7 factors, we examined the new structure with
CFA, bi-CFA, ESEM, and bi-ESEM models.

Initially, 3 items per factors (skills) were chosen based on their clarity of understanding and internal consistency within the bi-ESEM model of the T2S-51 (Vancappel et al., 2023). To assess clarity, input from several people was gathered, and feedback from patients who completed the T2S-51 was considered to select the most suitable items. Additionally, we examined the loadings and aimed for items that assessed the three facets of regulation (emotion, cognition, and behavior); which may also be subjective in the choices of the items.

Secondly, the bi-ESEM model can be considered a good model. Nevertheless, correlations
between T2S-21 and S2T revealed that the dimension “mental hyperactivity” of the S2T was
not correlated with the total of the T2S-21, above all the following dimensions: “assertiveness”,
“emotion regulation”, “emotional confrontation”, and “problem solving”. This lack of link
between mental hyperactivity and the other dimensions could be a limitation to the model.
Moreover, like in the T2S-51, the skills are less predictive of externalizing than internalizing
problems, suggesting that both transdiagnostic and diagnostic factors are required for a full
understanding of psychopathology. These same results are also displayed in the revision of the
T2S-51 (Vancappel et al., 2023), further revealing similar correlations between T2S and S2T,
regardless of whether the 51 or the 21 versions were used. Indeed, the 51- and 21-item scales
are similar, the RMSEA index shows no difference.

The T2S-21 is interesting because it exhibits stronger fit indices for this model, and therefore,
could be reliable to use in research and clinical activities.

***Implications and future research***

From a clinical perspective, the development of such short scales could contribute to the
widespread adoption of the transdiagnostic approach, thus facilitating psychotherapy. These
scales are easy to administer to clients and analyze. Indeed, considering these skills for treating
symptoms across diagnoses could be beneficial for clinicians.

From a theoretical perspective, like the T2S-51 of Vancappel et al. (2023), the findings support the advancement of the transdiagnostic approach in psychopathology. The model retained, with one G-factor and seven S-factors, demonstrates that its factors exert varying degrees of influence on patients’ cluster symptoms. The general construct of the previous model is also evident in this shortened scale. Further research could focus on developing scales that target skills particularly diminished in specific diagnoses, aiming for precision in targeting what exacerbates the symptoms.

At this point, literature has raised some concerns about the construct of short scales. Short form
development studies are particularly concentrated in the fields of health sciences, where
clinicians require a quick and reliable measurement tool to alleviate the pressure they face.
However, research has shown that there is no certainty that the long and short forms of the scale
have the same factor structure (Kögar, 2020). To address this issue, Smith et al. (2000) proposed
conducting an independent factor analysis on the items comprising the short form. If the results
mirror those obtained from the long form, it suggests that both forms of the scale can serve as
viable alternatives to each other. Psychometric theories emphasize the necessity of validity in a
measurement tool, prioritizing factors related to accuracy over convenience, such as item
reduction or time efficiency. Thus, when developing a short form of a scale, the primary
objective should be to ensure its validity is comparable to that of the long form. In our study,
we performed a separate factor analysis on the selected items for the short form, and we
observed no disparities between the model of the long version (T2S-51, Vancappel et al., 2023)
and this iteration (T2S-21). Further research in psychometry for short scale development is
needed to enhance the clinical implications of such scales, following the criteria recommended
by Kögar (2020).

***Limitations***

This study has several limitations. The primary limitation is that the same dataset was
used to develop both the T2S-51 and the T2S-21 scales, which may introduce bias into the
comparisons between them. Ideally, separate datasets would have been used for scale
construction and validation to ensure greater independence and reliability of findings.

Additionally, the sample is not entirely representative of the general population, as it
predominantly consists of women, which may limit the generalizability of the conclusions.
Future research should aim to recruit more balanced samples in terms of gender, age, and other demographic factors to enhance the applicability of the findings. Furthermore, the non-probabilistic data collection method, though pragmatic for reaching a large audience, limits the representativeness of the sample and may introduce selection bias.

Conducting the study online via social media further introduces potential biases, as it excludes individuals who do not use the internet or social media, particularly from older age groups or socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. The online mode of administration could also influence response patterns, given the lack of supervision or controlled conditions. In such scenarios, the quality of participant selection becomes more critical than merely increasing the sample size.

We also acknowledge a lack of information on the number of participants who refused to respond to the scales, which could affect the overall validity and reliability of the findings. Monitoring and reporting response rates would provide a clearer picture of the data's robustness.

Regarding the scale development process, we opted not to select four items per dimension, as recommended by Fabrigar et al. (1999). This deviation was intentional, as our objective was to fully capture the three facets of regulation within each skill dimension. While this approach may be questioned, it reflects a deliberate trade-off between theoretical precision and adherence to conventional recommendations.

It is important to note that our sample size exceeded the threshold of 400 participants, typically recommended for such analyses, which strengthens the robustness of the findings (Kline, 2016). However, we acknowledge that a more diverse and probabilistically selected sample would further enhance reliability.

Finally, the inherent limitations of short scales should be recognized when interpreting the findings. Although the literature often supports the utility of short scales, they may lack the precision required to fully measure complex psychological traits due to the reduced number of items. This can result in lower reliability and validity estimates. This can also reduce the definition of certain subdimensions of the scale such as the emotional confrontation, that presented lower fit indexes such as lower specific factor loads. Researchers and practitioners must consider these trade-offs before relying on short scales for critical assessments.

## Conclusion

When constructing a short form, the number of observed items naturally decreases, resulting in a reduction in content and coverage. Consequently, this narrowing poses a challenge for the two test forms to function as viable alternatives. However, despite this limitation, we discovered that the abbreviated version of the T2S-51 exhibited strong relevance and fit through bi-ESEM analysis. This condensed scale comprising 21 items effectively meets the demand among clinicians for a swift and dependable measurement tool. Such a tool is instrumental in aiding clinicians to bolster their understanding of various psychological disorders and enhance relevant concepts and therapeutic skills during psychotherapy sessions.

## References
Allen, L. B., McHugh, R. K., & Barlow, D. H. (2008). Emotional disorders: a unified protocol.

Asparouhov, T., Muthén, B., & Morin, A. J. (2015). Bayesian structural equation modeling with cross-loadings and residual covariances: Comments on Stromeyer et al. *Journal of Management*, *41*(6), 1561-1577.

Barlow, D. H., Farchione, T. J., Bullis, J. R., Gallagher, M. W., Murray-Latin, H., Sauer-Zavala, S., ... & Cassiello-Robbins, C. (2017). The unified protocol for transdiagnostic treatment of emotional disorders compared with diagnosis-specific protocols for anxiety disorders: A randomized clinical trial. *JAMA psychiatry*, *74*(9), 875-884.

Boisseau, C. L., Farchione, T. J., Fairholme, C. P., Ellard, K. K., & Barlow, D. H. (2010). The development of the unified protocol for the transdiagnostic treatment of emotional disorders: A case study. *Cognitive and Behavioral Practice*, *17*(1), 102-113.

Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach (2nd ed.). Springer.

Clark, D.A. (2009). Cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety and depression: possibilities and limitations of a transdiagnostic perspective. *Cogn Behav Ther* ;38(Suppl. 1):29-34.

Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. *Structural Equation Modeling*, *14*, 464–504.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. *Psychological Bulletin*, 112 (1),155-159.

Cuthbert BN. (2004). The RDoC framework: facilitating transition from ICD/DSM to dimensional approaches that integrate neuroscience and psychopathology. *World Psychiatry* ;13:28-35.

Dalgleish, T., Black, M., Johnston, D., & Bevan, A. (2020). Transdiagnostic approaches to mental health problems: Current status and future directions. *Journal of consulting and clinical psychology*, *88*(3), 179.

Ellard, K. K., Fairholme, C. P., Boisseau, C. L., Farchione, T. J., & Barlow, D. H. (2010). Unified protocol for the transdiagnostic treatment of emotional disorders: Protocol development and initial outcome data. *Cognitive and behavioral practice*, *17*(1), 88-101.

Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. *Psychological Methods*, *4*(3), 272–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272

Fairburn CG, Cooper Z, Shafran R. (2003). Cognitive behaviour therapy for eating disorders: a "transdiagnostic" theory and treatment. *Behav Res Ther* ; 41:509-28.

Fusar-Poli, P., Solmi, M., Brondino, N., Davies, C., Chae, C., Politi, P., ... & McGuire, P. (2019). Transdiagnostic psychiatry: a systematic review. *World Psychiatry*, *18*(2), 192-207.

Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. *Organizational research methods*, *1*(1), 104-121.

Kline, P. (2016). *Principles and practice of structural equation modeling* (4th ed.). Guilford Press.

Kogar, H. (2020). Development of a Short Form: Methods, Examinations, and Recommendations. *Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology*, *11*(3), 302-310. doi: 10.21031/epod.739548.

Marsh, H. W., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Morin, A. J., & Trautwein, U. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and EFA: Application to students' evaluations of university teaching. *Structural equation modeling: A multidisciplinary journal*, *16*(3), 439-476.

Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Morin, A. J. S., Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2010). A new look at the Big-Five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. *Psychological Assessment*, *22*, 471–491.

Monestès, J. & Baeyens, C. (2016). *L'approche transdiagnostique en psychopathologie: Alternative aux classifications nosographiques et perspectives thérapeutiques*. Dunod.
Morin, A. J., Arens, A. K., & Marsh, H. W. (2016). A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling framework for the identification of distinct sources of construct-relevant psychometric multidimensionality. *Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal*, 23(1), 116-139.

Newby J.M., McKinnon A., Kuyken W. (2015). Systematic review and meta-analysis of transdiagnostic psychological treatments for anxiety and depressive disorders in adulthood. *Clin Psychol Rev*; 40:91-110.

Norton P.J., Hayes S.A., Hope D.A. (2004). Effects of a transdiagnostic group treatment for anxiety on secondary depression. *Depress Anxiety*; 20:198202.

Norton P.J., Philipp L.M. (2008) Transdiagnostic approaches to the treatment of anxiety disorders: a quantitative review. *Psychotherapy*, 45:214-26.

Norton P.J., Hope D.A. (2005). Preliminary evaluation of a broad-spectrum coginitive-behavioral group therapy for anxiety. *J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry*; 36:79-97.

Peters, G. J. Y. (2020). *The alpha and the omega of scale reliability and validity: Why and how to abandon Cronbach's alpha*. *Health Psychology Review*, 14(1), 142–152.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629

Scott J., Leboyer M., Hickie I. (2013). Clinical staging in psychiatry: a cross-cutting model of diagnosis with heuristic and practical value. *Br J Psychiatry*; 202:243-5

Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the Dimension of a Model. *The Annals of Statistics*, 6(2), 461–464.
https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344136

Smith, G. T., McCarthy, D. M., & Anderson, K. G. (2000). On the sins of short-form development. *Psychological assessment*, *12*(1), 102.

Vancappel A, Raysseguier C, Bouyer C, Jansen E, Mangolini A, Brunault P, Barbe PG, Réveillère C, El-Hage W. (2023). Development of the Transdiagnostic Skills Scale (T2S). *Nord J Psychiatry*;77(2):198-211. doi: 10.1080/08039488.2022.2082522.

Vancappel, A., Gillet, N., Fouquereau, E., Chevalier, S., Aubouin-Bonnaventure, J., Coillot, H., ... & El-Hage, W. (2023). Development of a revised version of the transdiagnostic skills scale (T2S-R). *Frontiers in Psychology, 15*, 1290692.
**Open Science**

We report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions (if any), all data inclusion/exclusion criteria, whether inclusion/exclusion criteria were established prior to data analysis, all measures in the study, and all analyses including all tested models. If we use inferential tests, we report exact p values, effect sizes, and 95% confidence or credible intervals.

*Open Data: The information needed to reproduce all of the reported results are not openly accessible. The data is available on request from the author(s).

*Open Materials: I confirm that there is sufficient information for an independent researcher to reproduce all of the reported methodology. The material is available on request from the author(s).

*Preregistration of Studies and Analysis Plans: This study was not preregistered

*Open Analytic Code: The scripts, code, and outputs needed to reproduce all of the reported results are not openly accessible.
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Descriptive data of the T2S-51, T2S-21, and S2T.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Range</th><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th><th>Cronbach's α</th><th>McDonald's ω</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="6"><strong>T2S-51</strong></td></tr><tr><td>T2S-ER</td><td>9-62</td><td>36.07</td><td>9.74</td><td>-</td><td>0.92</td></tr><tr><td>T2S-BAP</td><td>9-63</td><td>44.05</td><td>8.94</td><td>-</td><td>0.89</td></tr><tr><td>T2S-EI</td><td>6-42</td><td>28.95</td><td>5.80</td><td>-</td><td>0.76</td></tr><tr><td>T2S-A</td><td>6-42</td><td>27.73</td><td>5.48</td><td>-</td><td>0.72</td></tr><tr><td>T2S-PS</td><td>6-42</td><td>28.48</td><td>5.92</td><td>-</td><td>0.91</td></tr><tr><td>T2S-EC</td><td>5-35</td><td>21.07</td><td>4.89</td><td>-</td><td>0.70</td></tr><tr><td>T2S-CCU</td><td>9-63</td><td>42.28</td><td>10.16</td><td>-</td><td>0.93</td></tr><tr><td>T2S-7D</td><td>50-337</td><td>228.62</td><td>38.13</td><td>-</td><td>0.95</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6"><strong>T2S-21</strong></td></tr><tr><td>T2S-ER</td><td>3-21</td><td>10.84</td><td>3.84</td><td>0.84</td><td>0.84</td></tr><tr><td>T2S-BAP</td><td>3-21</td><td>14.78</td><td>3.72</td><td>0.85</td><td>0.86</td></tr><tr><td>T2S-EI</td><td>3-21</td><td>14.73</td><td>3.30</td><td>0.84</td><td>0.84</td></tr><tr><td>T2S-A</td><td>3-21</td><td>13.95</td><td>3.04</td><td>0.71</td><td>0.72</td></tr><tr><td>T2S-PS</td><td>3-21</td><td>14.18</td><td>3.10</td><td>0.84</td><td>0.85</td></tr><tr><td>T2S-EC</td><td>3-21</td><td>12.08</td><td>3.42</td><td>0.68</td><td>0.71</td></tr><tr><td>T2S-CCU</td><td>3-21</td><td>13.55</td><td>3.55</td><td>0.83</td><td>0.83</td></tr><tr><td>T2S-7D</td><td>21-140</td><td>94.10</td><td>16.37</td><td>0.90</td><td>0.92</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6"><strong>S2T</strong></td></tr><tr><td>S2T-NTM</td><td>5-35</td><td>16.64</td><td>6.96</td><td>-</td><td>0.88</td></tr><tr><td>S2T-PMS</td><td>7-49</td><td>18.10</td><td>12.59</td><td>-</td><td>0.96</td></tr><tr><td>S2T-AS</td><td>6-42</td><td>14.69</td><td>7.99</td><td>-</td><td>0.89</td></tr><tr><td>S2T-DEB</td><td>6-42</td><td>17.08</td><td>8.67</td><td>-</td><td>0.88</td></tr><tr><td>S2T-DPB</td><td>5-35</td><td>9.69</td><td>5.02</td><td>-</td><td>0.74</td></tr><tr><td>S2T-PA</td><td>5-35</td><td>14.31</td><td>7.22</td><td>-</td><td>0.87</td></tr><tr><td>S2T-EL</td><td>7-49</td><td>22.95</td><td>8.28</td><td>-</td><td>0.87</td></tr><tr><td>S2T-D</td><td>9-49</td><td>28.50</td><td>7.75</td><td>-</td><td>0.85</td></tr><tr><td>S2T-NM</td><td>4-28</td><td>14.19</td><td>5.66</td><td>-</td><td>0.78</td></tr><tr><td>S2T-A</td><td>9-63</td><td>30.61</td><td>11.58</td><td>-</td><td>0.88</td></tr><tr><td>S2T-PHA</td><td>2-14</td><td>7.16</td><td>2.84</td><td>-</td><td>0.41</td></tr><tr><td>S2T-FI</td><td>3-21</td><td>8.02</td><td>4.71</td><td>-</td><td>0.87</td></tr><tr><td>Total S2T</td><td>78-462</td><td>201.93</td><td>63.74</td><td>-</td><td>0.96</td></tr></tbody></table>

S2T-NTM negative thoughts and mood; ST2-PMS psycho-traumatic and maladaptive symptoms; ST2-AS: addictive symptoms; S2T-DEB: disturbed eating behavior; S2T-DPB: disturbed perception and behavior; S2T-PA: panic and agoraphobia; S2T-EL: emotional lability; S2T-D: dejection; S2T-NM: neurodevelopmental manifestations; S2T-A: anxiety; S2T-PHA: mental hyperactivity; S2T-FI: functional impairment; T2S-ER: emotion regulation; T2S-BAP: Behavioral activation and planning; T2S-EI: emotional identification; T2S-A: assertiveness; T2S-PS: problem solving; T2S-EC: emotional confrontation; T2S-CCU: control of cravings and urges. SD: Standard deviation.
<table><caption>Table 2. The chosen items for the T2S-21.</caption><thead><tr><td>Dimension</td><td>Items</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Emotional regulation</td><td>7. J'arrive à interrompre la persévération de mes pensées désagréables<br>11. Lorsque je pense à quelque chose de négatif, j'arrive à dédramatiser<br>12. Lorsque mes pensées négatives tournent en boucle, j'arrive à me focaliser sur autre chose</td></tr><tr><td>Behavioral activation/planning</td><td>8. J'arrive normalement à organiser mes activités<br>29. J'arrive à suivre les actions que j'ai planifiées<br>34. J'arrive à planifier mes journées</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional identification</td><td>1. J'arrive à prendre le temps d'identifier mes sentiments<br>13. Je sais donner un sens à mes sentiments<br>31. Je sais identifier mes émotions</td></tr><tr><td>Assertiveness</td><td>24. Je sais faire des critiques sans vexer mon interlocuteur<br>25. Je sais désamorcer les conflits<br>28. Je sais exprimer mon désaccord de manière constructive</td></tr><tr><td>Problem solving</td><td>22. Lorsque je n'ai pas réussi à résoudre un problème, je sais rebondir et trouver de nouvelles solutions<br>35. Lorsqu'un problème survient, j'arrive à trouver des solutions<br>37. Lorsqu'un problème survient, j'arrive à identifier les étapes pour le résoudre</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional confrontation</td><td>18. Je ne suis pas gêné(e) lorsque je ressens un sentiment pénible<br>38. Lorsque j'ai un sentiment désagréable, j'arrive à le laisservenir<br>40. Lorsqu'une pensée désagréable survient, je sais porterattention sans chercher à la supprimer</td></tr><tr><td>Control of cravings and urges</td><td>45. Je sais mettre en place des stratégies pour gérer mes envies et mes pulsions<br>48. Lorsque je suis occupé(e) et que je ressens des envies et des pulsions, j'arrive à poursuivre mon activité sans y céder.<br>50. Lorsque je ressens une envie ou une pulsion, j'arrive à penser à autre chose</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 3.** Goodness-of-fit statistics of the different models for the T2S-21.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>χ<sup>2</sup> (df)</th><th>CFI</th><th>TLI</th><th>RMSEA</th><th>90% CI</th><th>BIC</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>CFA</td><td>12587 (210)*</td><td>0.963</td><td>0.954</td><td>0.046</td><td>[0.042, 0.050]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Bi-CFA</td><td>12587 (210)*</td><td>0.915</td><td>0.895</td><td>0.069</td><td>[0.065, 0.073]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ESEM</td><td>160.9 (84)*</td><td>0.994</td><td>0.987</td><td>0.025</td><td>[0.017, 0.032]</td><td>-441,27</td></tr><tr><td>Bi-ESEM</td><td>124.9 (70)*</td><td>0.995</td><td>0.987</td><td>0.025</td><td>[0.017, 0.032]</td><td>-449.57</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote>* p<.01; CFA: Confirmatory factor analysis; Bi-CFA: Bifactor-CFA; ESEM: Exploratory structural equation modeling; Bi-ESEM: Bifactor-ESEM; χ²: Robust chi-square test of exact fit; df: Degrees of freedom; CFI: Comparative fit index; TLI: Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA: Root mean square error of approximation; 90% CI: 90% confidence interval for the RMSEA; BIC: Bayesian Information Criterion.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 4.** Bifactorial ESEM analyses of the T2S-21, standardized loadings (λ) and uniqueness (δ) based upon correlation matrix.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>S-ERλ</th><th>S-BAPλ</th><th>S-PSλ</th><th>S-IEλ</th><th>S-CCUλ</th><th>S-Aλ</th><th>S-ECλ</th><th>Gλ</th><th>δ</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>S-ER</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Item 7</td><td>0.58</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.07</td><td>-0.01</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.53</td><td>0.36</td></tr><tr><td>Item 11</td><td>0.38</td><td>-0.13</td><td>-0.09</td><td>-0.15</td><td>-0.10</td><td>-0.03</td><td>-0.02</td><td>0.72</td><td>0.28</td></tr><tr><td>Item 12</td><td>0.53</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>-0.01</td><td>0.03</td><td>-0.07</td><td>-0.01</td><td>0.64</td><td>0.30</td></tr><tr><td><strong>S-BAP</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Item 8</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.62</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.04</td><td>-0.01</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.36</td></tr><tr><td>Item 29</td><td>-0.01</td><td>0.56</td><td>-0.02</td><td>-0.03</td><td>0.09</td><td>-0.04</td><td>-0.01</td><td>0.51</td><td>0.42</td></tr><tr><td>Item 34</td><td>-0.02</td><td>0.70</td><td>0.03</td><td>-0.03</td><td>0.06</td><td>-0.02</td><td>-0.03</td><td>0.55</td><td>0.20</td></tr><tr><td><strong>S-PS</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Item 22</td><td>0.03</td><td>-0.05</td><td>0.34</td><td>0.02</td><td>-0.04</td><td>0.02</td><td>-0.05</td><td>0.67</td><td>0.43</td></tr><tr><td>Item 35</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.47</td><td>0.02</td><td>-0.06</td><td>0.02</td><td>-0.05</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.21</td></tr><tr><td>Item 37</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.32</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.71</td><td>0.39</td></tr><tr><td><strong>S-IE</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Item 1</td><td>-0.07</td><td>-0.08</td><td>-0.04</td><td>0.58</td><td>-0.06</td><td>-0.01</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.48</td><td>0.41</td></tr><tr><td>Item 13</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.56</td><td>-0.04</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.57</td><td>0.34</td></tr><tr><td>Item 31</td><td>-0.04</td><td>-0.02</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.64</td><td>-0.01</td><td>-0.02</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.53</td><td>0.30</td></tr><tr><td><strong>S-CCU</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Item 45</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.52</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.47</td><td>0.50</td></tr><tr><td>Item 48</td><td>-0.06</td><td>0.11</td><td>-0.07</td><td>-0.05</td><td>0.65</td><td>0.0</td><td>-0.02</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.36</td></tr><tr><td>Item 50</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.0</td><td>-0.05</td><td>0.77</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.42</td><td>0.21</td></tr><tr><td><strong>S-A</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Item 24</td><td>-0.05</td><td>-0.03</td><td>0.0</td><td>-0.02</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.63</td><td>-0.03</td><td>0.37</td><td>0.46</td></tr><tr><td>Item 25</td><td>0.0</td><td>-0.02</td><td>-0.01</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.60</td><td>-0.03</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.48</td></tr><tr><td>Item 28</td><td>-0.05</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.38</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.46</td><td>0.63</td></tr><tr><td><strong>S-EC</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Item 18</td><td>0.11</td><td>-0.02</td><td>-0.04</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.05</td><td>-0.01</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.67</td></tr><tr><td>Item 38</td><td>-0.15</td><td>-0.05</td><td>-0.07</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.0</td><td>-0.07</td><td>0.56</td><td>0.36</td><td>0.52</td></tr><tr><td>Item 40</td><td>0.06</td><td>-0.01</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.12</td><td>-0.01</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.69</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.31</td></tr></tbody></table>

ER: Emotional regulation; BAP: Behavioral activation and planning; EI: Emotional identification; A: Assertiveness; PS: Problem solving; EC: Emotional confrontation; CCU: Control of cravings and urges; H2: Explained variance; U2: Uniqueness.
<table><caption>**Table 5.** Correlations between dimensions of T2S-21 and S2T.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th colspan="12">S2T</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>NTM</th><th>PMS</th><th>AS</th><th>DEB</th><th>DPB</th><th>PA</th><th>EL</th><th>D</th><th>NM</th><th>A</th><th>PHA</th><th>FI</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>T2S-21</th><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>ER</th><td>-0.561</td><td>-0.302</td><td>-0.257</td><td>-0.286</td><td>-0.316</td><td>-0.464</td><td>-0.491</td><td>-0.522</td><td>-0.305</td><td>-0.535</td><td>-0.035</td><td>-0.401</td><td>-0.552</td></tr><tr><th>BAP</th><td>-0.459</td><td>-0.213</td><td>-0.324</td><td>-0.217</td><td>-0.386</td><td>-0.309</td><td>-0.449</td><td>-0.632</td><td>-0.309</td><td>-0.479</td><td>-0.107</td><td>-0.482</td><td>-0.518</td></tr><tr><th>EI</th><td>-0.379</td><td>-0.146</td><td>-0.199</td><td>-0.228</td><td>-0.249</td><td>-0.229</td><td>-0.282</td><td>-0.336</td><td>-0.222</td><td>-0.389</td><td>-0.060</td><td>-0.263</td><td>-0.362</td></tr><tr><th>A</th><td>-0.218</td><td>-0.117</td><td>-0.113</td><td>-0.095</td><td>-0.193</td><td>-0.165</td><td>-0.261</td><td>-0.229</td><td>-0.216</td><td>-0.266</td><td>0.025</td><td>-0.231</td><td>-0.252</td></tr><tr><th>PS</th><td>-0.458</td><td>-0.201</td><td>-0.165</td><td>-0.238</td><td>-0.274</td><td>-0.367</td><td>-0.379</td><td>-0.489</td><td>-0.244</td><td>-0.494</td><td>0.035</td><td>-0.339</td><td>-0.450</td></tr><tr><th>EC</th><td>-0.299</td><td>-0.191</td><td>-0.146</td><td>-0.236</td><td>-0.191</td><td>-0.294</td><td>-0.286</td><td>-0.319</td><td>-0.201</td><td>-0.377</td><td>-0.033</td><td>-0.259</td><td>-0.352</td></tr><tr><th>CCU</th><td>-0.285</td><td>-0.193</td><td>-0.321</td><td>-0.291</td><td>-0.315</td><td>-0.231</td><td>-0.405</td><td>-0.353</td><td>-0.203</td><td>-0.289</td><td>-0.056</td><td>-0.304</td><td>-0.391</td></tr><tr><th>Total</th><td>-0.561</td><td>-0.288</td><td>-0.325</td><td>-0.336</td><td>-0.406</td><td>-0.435</td><td>-0.539</td><td>-0.609</td><td>-0.357</td><td>-0.594</td><td>-0.052</td><td>-0.481</td><td>-0.607</td></tr></tbody></table>

T2S-ER: emotion regulation; T2S-BAP: Behavioral activation and planning; T2S-EI: emotional identification; T2S-A: assertiveness; T2S-PS: problem solving; T2S-EC: emotional confrontation; T2S-CCU: control of cravings and urges; S2T- NTM negative thoughts and mood; ST2-PMS psycho-traumatic and maladaptive symptoms; ST2-AS: addictive symptoms; S2T-DEB: disturbed eating behavior; S2T-DPB: disturbed perception and behavior; S2T-PA: panic and agoraphobia; S2T-EL: emotional lability; S2T-D: dejection; S2T-NM: neurodevelopmental manifestations; S2T-A: anxiety; S2T-PHA: mental hyperactivity; S2T-FI: functional impairment
<table><caption>**Table 6.** Correlations between the different dimensions of the T2S-21.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>T2S-ER</th><th>T2S-BAP</th><th>T2S-EI</th><th>T2S-A</th><th>T2S-PS</th><th>T2S-EC</th><th>T2S-CCU</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>T2S-ER</th><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>T2S-BAP</th><td>0.414**</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>T2S-EI</th><td>0.389**</td><td>0.314**</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>T2S-A</th><td>0.324**</td><td>0.296**</td><td>0.339**</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>T2S-PS</th><td>0.606**</td><td>0.488**</td><td>0.517**</td><td>0.451**</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>T2S-EC</th><td>0.410**</td><td>0.297**</td><td>0.459**</td><td>0.261**</td><td>0.419**</td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>T2S-CCU</th><td>0.376**</td><td>0.424**</td><td>0.261**</td><td>0.293**</td><td>0.380**</td><td>0.304**</td><td>1</td></tr></tbody></table>

T2S-ER: emotion regulation; T2S-BAP: Behavioral activation and planning; T2S-EI: emotional identification; T2S-A: assertiveness; T2S-PS: problem solving; T2S-EC: emotional confrontation; T2S-CCU: control of cravings and urges. **: p<.01
<table><caption>**Table 7.** Comparison of the factorial and correlational analyses of the long and short forms (T2S-51 and T2S-21).</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>χ<sup>2</sup> (df)</th><th>CFI</th><th>TLI</th><th>RMSEA</th><th>90% CI</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Bi-ESEM</td><td>T2S-51</td><td>1785.5 (895)*</td><td>0.968</td><td>0.954</td><td>0.028</td><td>[0.026, 0.030]</td></tr><tr><td>T2S-21</td><td>124.9 (70)*</td><td>0.995</td><td>0.987</td><td>0.025</td><td>[0.017, 0.032]</td></tr><tr><td>Comparison</td><td>delta</td><td></td><td><strong>0.025</strong></td><td><strong>0.033</strong></td><td><strong>-0.003</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Correlations</td><td></td><td>Total score of the T2S-51 * Total score of the S2T</td><td></td><td></td><td>r = 0.607, p = 0.23</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Total score of the T2S-21 * Total score of the S2T</td><td></td><td></td><td>r = 0.637, p = 0.23</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 8.** Correlations between the same dimensions of the T2S-51 and the T2S-21.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>T2S51-ER</th><th>T2S51-BAP</th><th>T2S51-EI</th><th>T2S51-A</th><th>T2S51-PS</th><th>T2S51-EC</th><th>T2S51-CCU</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>T2S21-ER</td><td>0,931**</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>T2S21-BAP</td><td></td><td>0,924**</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>T2S21-EI</td><td></td><td></td><td>0,930**</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>T2S21-A</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0,860**</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>T2S21-PS</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0,959**</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>T2S21-EC</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0,912**</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>T2S21-CCU</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0,940**</td></tr></tbody></table>

T2S-ER: emotion regulation; T2S-BAP: Behavioral activation and planning; T2S-EI: emotional identification; T2S-A: assertiveness; T2S-PS: problem solving; T2S-EC: emotional confrontation; T2S-CCU: control of cravings and urges. **: p<.01