Centered on hierarchical regression patterns, no tall admission out-of mountain parallelism around the groups try observed having the connection amongst the DERS overall score while the UPPS-P Bad Necessity, R dos
changes = .00, p > .90, and Positive Urgency, R 2 change = .00, p > .80, scores. Thus, DERS scores could be safely adjusted using a pooled estimate of the effect of Negative Urgency and Positive Urgency in the ANCOVA model. The mean DERS total scores adjusted for the effects of UPPS-P Negative Urgency and Positive Urgency scales were (SD = ), (SD = ), and (SD = ) for the high-BPD group, average-BPD group, and low-BPD group, respectively. After controlling for the variance associated with Positive and Negative Urgency, the between group differences in DERS total scores remained significant, F (2, 86) = 4.84, p < .05, although the ? 2 value dropped to .12; according to Bonferroni contrasts, however, the high-BPD group differed significantly from only the low-BPD group on the Urgency-corrected DERS total score, Bonferroni t = 3.11, p < .005, d = 0.80, as the difference between the high- and average-BPD groups did not remain significant, Bonferroni t = 2.11, p > .0083, d = 0.55. The proportions of the effect size for the DERS-BPD relation that can be explained by the variance associated with the UPPS-P Negative and Positive Urgency scales were .63 for the high-BPD versus passion low-BPD group contrast and .56 for the high-BPD versus average-BPD group contrast.
19, p < .001) a significant multivariate group effect was found for Positive and Negative Urgency (Pillai V = .29, p < .001), with univariate F (2, 87) effects of 8.38 (? 2 = .19; p < .001) for Negative Urgency and (? 2 = .29; p < .001) for Positive Urgency. In contrast to the results for the DERS above, all between group differences in Negative and Positive Urgency remained significant when controlling for the variance associated with emotion dysregulation. Specifically, the high BPD group had significantly higher DERS-corrected Negative Urgency scores than both the average BPD group, Bonferroni t = 2.70, p < .0083, d = 0.70 (proportion of effect size that was mediated by the DERS total score = .29), and low BPD group, Bonferroni t = 4.09, p < .001, d = 1.24 (proportion of effect size that was mediated by the DERS total score = .41). Similarly, the high-BPD group had significantly higher DERS-corrected Positive Urgency scores than both the average–BPD group, Bonferroni t = 3.41, p < .001, d = 0.88 (proportion of effect size that was mediated by the DERS total score = .30), and low–BPD group, Bonferroni t = 5.33, p < .001, d = 1.38 (proportion of effect size that was mediated by the DERS total score = .34).
Discussion
General, our results verified prior findings inside mature samples recommending one to feelings dysregulation and some proportions of impulsivity is actually robustly connected with BPD has actually within the an example regarding nonclinical teenagers. In line with earlier records elizabeth.grams., [29, forty two, 54–60], emotion dysregulation (since the assessed of the DERS total rating) significantly discriminated adolescents on large-BPD class out-of those in both the average- and you can low-BPD communities, which have effect size thinking that will be sensed higher by old-fashioned conditions . In fact, whether or not bookkeeping with the difference of Good and bad Importance, DERS results notably discriminated teenagers from the highest-BPD group out-of those in the reduced-BPD group. These findings provide further help towards relevance out of feelings dysregulation so you’re able to BPD and you may stretch the research of this type to help you kids which have heightened BPD enjoys.
