Intrapersonal aspects of emotion regulation have been at the forefront of research, while interpersonal aspects have received less attention. The Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (IERQ) was developed to address this issue. However, this scale was neither adapted nor validated for European Portuguese.

The present study aims to adapt the IERQ to European Portuguese and explore the preliminary psychometric properties of the IERQ in a community sample, through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Construct validity was further supported by examining convergent validity with ERQ subscales.

Using a cross-sectional design, individuals were recruited online. Self-report questionnaires were used, namely the IERQ and the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ).

The four-factor structure was confirmed through CFA. IERQ subscales correlated positively with the dimensions of the ERQ of cognitive reappraisal and correlated negatively with experiential suppression.

This preliminary study showed that the IERQ has adequate psychometric properties in a Portuguese sample and supports that this instrument can be used to assess interpersonal emotion regulation strategies in non-clinical samples.

Risk perception of COVID-19 is potentially a significant determinant of the pandemic evolution and the public’s response to it. Acceptable levels of risk perception can be considered good for people to effectively fight the pandemic and adopt preventive health behaviors while high levels of risk perception may be damaging. Recently, Yıldırım&Güler (2020) developed the Covid-19 Perceived Risk Scale (C19PRS) to measure this construct.

To analyze the psychometric properties of the C19PRS Portuguese version, namely construct validity, internal consistency and convergent validity.

A community sample of 234 adults (75.6% women; mean age= 29.53±12.51; range:16-71) completed an on-line survey with the Portuguese versions of the CPRS and the Fear of Covid-19 Scale (FCV-19S; Cabaços et al. 2020). The total sample was randomly divided in two sub-samples: sample A (n=117) was used to perform an exploratory factor analysis/EFA; sample B (n=117) to make a confirmatory factor analysis/CFA.

EFA resulted in three components. CFA revealed that the second-order model with three factors presented good fit indexes (X2/df=1.471; CFI=.959; GFI=.948; TLI=.932; p[RMSEA≤.01]=.065). CPRS Cronbach alphas was α=.687; for F1 Worry, F2 Susceptibility to Covid-19 and F3 Susceptibility to Overall Morbimortality were α=.747, α=.813 and α=.543, respectively. The total and dimensional scores significantly correlated with FCV-19S (r>.30, p<.01).

This study provides evidence for the validity and reliability of the Portuguese version of CPRS, which will be used in an ongoing research project on the relationship between Covid-19 perceived risk, perfectionism, cognitive processes and adherence to public health measures to contain the pandemic.

Traditional perspectives conceptualize resilience as a trait and depression as resulting from resilience deficiency. However, research indicates that resilience varies substantially even among adults who are clinically depressed, as well as across the lifespan of an individual. Few studies have investigated resilience in depression, and even fewer have examined resilience in depressed older adults.

Three hundred thirty-seven adults ≥60 years with major depressive disorder completed the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) and measures of mental health, quality of life (QOL), and medical comorbidity. Exploratory factor analysis was used to explore the factor structure of the CD-RISC. Correlations and general linear models were used to examine associations between resilience and other variables.

The rotated component matrix indicated a four-factor model. Sorting of items by highest factor loading revealed constructs associated with (1) grit, (2) active coping self-efficacy, (3) accommodative coping self-efficacy, and (4) spirituality. Resilience was significantly correlated with increased age, lower cognitive functioning, greater cerebrovascular risk, and greater medical comorbidity. Resilience was negatively associated with mental health symptoms (depression, apathy, and anxiety) and positively associated with QOL. The final optimal model identified less depression, less apathy, greater medical comorbidity, higher QOL, and minority (non-White) race as factors that significantly explained variability in resilience.

Resilience was significantly associated with a range of mental health constructs in a sample of older adults with depression. Future clinical trials and dismantling studies may help determine whether interventions targeting grit, active coping, accommodative coping, and spirituality can increase resilience and help prevent and treat depression in older adults.