Abstract
Emotion regulation (ER) in parenting is crucial for parental well-being and children’s mental health. However, ER in parenting is often studied as a general construct, overlooking the unique challenges of caregiving, particularly for sexual and gender minority (SGM) parents. This study examines the psychometric properties of the Regulating Emotions in Parenting Scale (REPS) in parents across SGM status. Specifically, we leverage cross-sectional survey data from two national samples of ethno-racially diverse parents (n = 1,958, 32.3% sexual minority, 11.2% gender minority) to evaluate measurement invariance, reliability, and predictive validity of the REPS. Model fit indices suggest that the REPS has a consistent structure, item loadings, and intercepts across groups. In terms of validity, results indicate that adaptive strategies predicted lower child psychopathology, while suppression and rumination were more strongly associated with emotional and behavioral issues. Importantly, parent SGM status did not significantly moderate the associations between REPS and child psychopathology, suggesting that these associations are consistent across diverse family structures. By validating the REPS as a robust tool for assessing parenting-specific ER across diverse parent populations, this work addresses critical gaps in parenting research and promotes more inclusive and equitable approaches to understanding parenting and child development.
Raising a child is a profoundly rewarding yet inherently complex experience, necessitating the regulation of a wide array of emotions (Dix, 1991). Emotion regulation (ER) is recognized as a context-dependent behavior, shaped by situational goals and demands (Aldao & Tull, 2015; Gratz et al., 2018), and parenting is no exception. According to the affective model of parenting (Dix, 1991), parents’ emotional experiences and regulatory processes are influenced by concerns related to their own well-being, their child’s well-being, and broader contextual influences such as co-parenting dynamics (Augustine & Leerkes, 2019). Unlike other contexts, ER in parenting typically involves a deep sense of responsibility for fostering a child’s development and well-being (Rutherford et al., 2015).
Parental ER plays a central role in shaping children’s psychological outcomes. In a meta-analysis of 53 empirical studies (Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2022), parents with better ER skills were more likely to engage in positive parenting behaviors and had children with better ER skills and fewer internalizing symptoms. Parents who had more difficulties with ER reported less warmth, more hostility, and more unsupportive responses to their children’s negative emotions in their parenting. These effects extend beyond moment-to-moment interactions. It also influences the overall emotional climate of the family, which in turn affects children’s emotional competence and social behavior (Gus et al., 2015). For instance, children whose parents demonstrate effective ER skills tend to better recognize and empathize with the emotions of others (De Raeymaecker & Dhar, 2022). This highlights the far-reaching consequences of parental ER on children’s development and adjustment.
Despite the unique demand and goals of parenting and the extensive effects of parental ER on children’s development, parental ER is often researched as a general construct rather than one shaped or at least influenced by the demands of caregiving. This approach neglects the complex and dynamic nature of ER within parent–child interactions. Parents’ regulation of their emotions not only orients around personal goals but also contributes to emotion-related socialization behaviors, shaping children’s own ER and socioemotional development throughout childhood and adolescence (Edler & Valentino, 2024; Hajal & Paley, 2020; Lougheed et al., 2020). Having a repertoire of general ER skills does not necessarily mean that parents can access them during emotionally charged parent–child interactions. Likewise, difficulties with ER in a general sense do not unequivocally predict problematic parenting behaviors or negative child outcomes. For example, even when parents face challenges with ER generally, they may still be able to regulate their emotions in parent–child interactions to support their children. The distinction between general ER and ER in the parenting context thus highlights the need for assessment tools that capture the complexities of ER specific to the parenting context. Understanding how parents regulate their emotions in response to the unique demands of caregiving requires measures that go beyond traditional ER frameworks, focusing instead on the dynamic and reciprocal nature of parent–child interactions.
Recognizing this gap, researchers have sought to develop tools that specifically capture ER within the parenting context. One such measure is the Regulating Emotions in Parenting Scale (REPS; Rodriguez & Shaffer, 2021), designed to assess how parents regulate their emotions during interactions with their children. Based on ER theories and existing measures of adult ER, the REPS captures adaptive strategies such as reappraisal, emotional awareness, and problem solving; suppression of emotional expression and avoiding thoughts about emotionally challenging parent–child interactions; and rumination about past parenting behaviors. The REPS has been shown to be more specific in measuring parent ER than general ER measures, as evidenced by stronger associations with child behavior and psychopathology compared with general measures of ER. This contributes to both quantification and conceptualization of ER in the parenting context. Further highlighting the unique context of ER in the parenting context, research with the REPS has shown that while rumination is typically considered a maladaptive ER strategy (Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 2008), it may serve an adaptive function in the parenting context (Rodriguez et al., 2025). Reflecting on past parenting experiences—particularly in a structured and constructive manner—could help parents identify patterns, learn from mistakes, and adjust their future responses to their child’s emotions and behaviors. This distinction between maladaptive, repetitive negative rumination and more reflective, solution-oriented rumination is critical.
While the REPS provides a promising framework for assessing ER in parenting, existing research has primarily focused on cisgender, heterosexual families. This narrow focus overlooks an essential population—sexual and gender minority (SGM) parents, who face unique stressors that may influence their ER and parenting practices. Estimates suggest that 2 to 3.7 million children in the United States are raised by SGM parents (Gates, 2015). The journey of parenting for SGM parents is often compounded by societal pressures, including discrimination and legal challenges, which can exacerbate stress and hinder their ability to scaffold their children’s emotional development (Havighurst & Kehoe, 2017; Levitt et al., 2020; Shapiro et al., 2009). Minority stress theory (Frost & Meyer, 2023; Meyer, 2003) suggests that chronic experiences of discrimination and stigma create a hostile environment that undermines mental health and well-being. When parents are stressed, their ability to regulate their own emotions and scaffold their child’s ER may be readily compromised, decreasing supportive parenting behaviors and impacting child well-being (Bertie et al., 2021; Moran et al., 2023). Given that ER is highly context-dependent (Aldao & Tull, 2015; Gratz et al., 2018), SGM parents might employ ER strategies differently or place different emphasis on them based on their lived experiences. For instance, SGM parents may engage in heightened emotional suppression to protect their children from external prejudice, making suppression-related items more salient (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2008, 2009). Internalized stigma might lead to greater endorsement of maladaptive strategies such as rumination and suppression (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2009; Sarno et al., 2020). Chronic stress may also deplete cognitive resources needed for adaptive reappraisal, altering the meaning of these items for SGM parents (Joormann & Gotlib, 2010).
Despite chronic exposure to minority stressors such as stigma, discrimination, and systemic barriers, SGM parents often raise children who show psychosocial adjustment comparable to those raised by cisgender and heterosexual parents (Goldberg & Gartrell, 2014; Mazrekaj & Jin, 2023; Patterson, 2006). This resilience is often supported by protective factors such as social support, identity pride, and self-esteem (Perrin et al., 2020). As such, positive child outcomes may not only reflect the absence of harm, but the presence of adaptive strengths, such as effective use of more adaptive ER strategies in parent–child interactions. To compensate for the effects of external stressors on the family unit, SGM parents may employ more adaptive strategies in the presence of children (Gorman et al., 2022). Experiences navigating social and systemic barriers may cultivate greater flexibility in parenting roles and increased adaptability in relational dynamics (Fortunato et al., 2023). These resilience-enhancing processes may shape how SGM parents respond to parenting-specific ER measures. To accurately understand how SGM parents approach ER in parenting, it is essential to use psychometrically robust scales that minimize measurement artifact.
There is growing recognition of the diverse experiences of SGM parents, yet valid and reliable tools to assess their ER in parenting contexts remain scarce. Addressing this gap, this study examines the measurement invariance, reliability, and validity of the REPS when applied to SGM parents (Rodriguez & Shaffer, 2021). The REPS was developed and validated primarily in cisgender-heterosexual samples, raising concerns that its items may reflect cis-heteronormative assumptions about parenting. SGM parents may interpret or endorse items differently based on their unique parenting contexts, making it unclear whether the REPS adequately captures ER in parenting equivalently across diverse family structures. The authors have also pushed for its testing in diverse samples to ensure broad applicability (Rodriguez & Shaffer, 2021). Thus, the overarching goal of this study is to evaluate the psychometric properties of the REPS in SGM parents. Specifically, we first test measurement invariance of the REPS when applied to cisgender heterosexual parents, sexual minority parents, and gender minority parents. Given the limited research on SGM parents, we explore whether differences in minority status (i.e., SGM) influence how parents interpret and respond to the measure. Second, we investigate the reliability, validity, and differential validity of REPS. By differential validity here we mean whether the REPS differentially predicts child psychopathology in parents across SGM status. Differences in predictive validity may arise due to minority stress spillover within the family (Nelson et al., 2009) or, conversely, protective processes that buffer against such stressors (Perrin et al., 2020). Improving measurement in this area can help us recognize child-rearing experiences of SGM parents and the psychological adjustment of their children. By addressing these critical gaps, we aim to deepen the understanding of ER in parenting across diverse family structures, ultimately guiding the development of targeted interventions for all parents and families.
Method
Ethics
Participants were two national samples of parents from diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds. The first sample, which was mostly comprised of heterosexual and cisgender parents, received ethical approval from the University of Illinois Urbana Champaign Institutional Review Board (IRB). The second sample, consisting of SGM parents, received ethical approvals from the University of Illinois Urbana Champaign and Boston University IRBs.
Participant Eligibility
Eligible participants in both samples were at least 18 years of age, parenting at least one child aged 3 to 17, and living with their target child at least 50% of the time, consistent with the REPS development and validation sample (Rodriguez & Shaffer, 2021). For the purposes of the study, if the parent had more than one child in the 3 to 17 age range, they were instructed to choose the one with the most recent birthday. To maintain data independence, only one parent per family was allowed to complete the survey. For the second study, an additional eligibility criterion specified that parents must identify as a member of the SGM community. Participants were screened out if they did not meet the criteria, though they were not made aware of this part of the study criteria during the process of recruitment.
Recruitment
Participants were recruited through Qualtrics Panels, a data management and collection company. Qualtrics Panels services provide access to a diverse pool of pre-screened participants to facilitate online survey data collection. Nationally representative samples voluntarily participate in online surveys in exchange for monetary compensation. Recruitment for the first sample was completed from November 2022 to December 2022, and for the second sample from October 2023 to November 2023. For quality control purposes, only eligible participants who correctly answered all attention check questions were included in the final dataset. Examples of these attention check questions included instructions to select a specific response (e.g., “Select ‘Strongly Agree’ to indicate you are paying attention”). Furthermore, the surveys for both samples were piloted with n = 150 participants initially, and their average completion time was calculated. Participants who completed the survey in more than 1.5 standard deviations faster than the pilot average were excluded. For the first sample, n = 119 participants were excluded for completing the survey too quickly. From the second sample, n = 104 participants were excluded using similar criteria.
Measures
Sociodemographic Characteristics
Participants completed a sociodemographic questionnaire about their age, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, educational attainment, relationship status and length, employment status, source of income, and household income. Parents also answered questions on the gender and age of the target child.
Regulating Emotions in Parenting Scale
To assess ER in parenting, we asked participants to complete the REPS (Rodriguez & Shaffer, 2021). The REPS is a measure designed to assess how parents regulate their emotions during interactions with their children. The current 18-item version has been empirically validated, supporting its factor structure based on confirmatory factor analyses (CFA). Analyses of measurement invariance and differential item functioning (DIF) demonstrated that the REPS functions similarly for both mothers and fathers as a valid and reliable measure. The REPS comprises three factors of ER strategies: adaptive strategies, suppression, and rumination. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always), with higher scores indicating more frequent use of these strategies. For adaptive strategies, an example item is “I can decide when to set my emotions aside to respond to my child.” For suppression, an example item is “After losing my temper with my child, I don’t think about it much.” For rumination, an example item is “After losing temper around my child, I feel guilty.”
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire
To assess child symptoms of psychopathology, we asked parents to complete the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 1997). The SDQ is a 25-item behavioral screening questionnaire that assesses emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity/inattention, peer relationship problems, and prosocial behavior. The SDQ uses a 3-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not true) to 3 (certainly true) to describe how much an item describes the target child’s behavior. For parents of target children ages 2 to 4 years, ages 5 to 11 years, and ages 12 to 17 years, reliability was excellent in our sample (McDonald’s ω = .95).
Data Analysis
Preliminary Analyses
First, we computed descriptive statistics to summarize the sample’s demographic characteristics. We then conducted preliminary diagnostics for normality, missing data, and outliers. Missing data were minimal (0.46%–2.94%) and were therefore removed from further analysis.
Measurement Invariance
We evaluated measurement invariance of the REPS across SGM and non-SGM groups using multi-group CFA. We compared the factor structure by SGM status, sexual minority status, and gender minority status to assess whether the scale functions similarly across these groups. Then, we investigated measurement invariance across groups by sequentially constraining parameters (configural, metric, scalar, and residual invariance) and examining changes in fit indices. Configural invariance tests whether the basic factor structure is consistent across groups. Metric invariance tests whether factor loadings are equivalent across groups. Scalar invariance tests whether item intercepts (or thresholds when categorical) are equivalent across groups. In cases where strict invariance was not established, we tested for partial invariance, adhering to the guideline of less than 20% of freed parameters (Dimitrov, 2010). Residual invariance tests whether the error variances at the item level are equivalent. As noted in existing literature, partial scalar invariance is generally considered sufficient for meaningful comparisons of latent mean differences, and residual invariance is necessary for observed mean difference comparisons (Byrne et al., 1989; Putnick & Bornstein, 2016). Nevertheless, we acknowledge the utility of residual invariance testing in that it provides a valuable direction for future research aiming to assess item-level reliability equivalence across groups. Model fit was evaluated using χ2 tests, comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker Lewis Index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). A cutoff value close to .95 for CFI and TLI and an SRMR value ≤.08 indicates a relatively good fit of the model to the observed data. Similarly, an RMSEA value ≤.05 indicates a close fit of the model to the data (Brown, 2015; Kline, 2023), and a value close to .06 indicates good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). To test whether constraining parameters worsens model fit, we ran chi-square difference tests to compare nested models. A statistically significant p (∆χ2) implies worsening of fit. A change of <.01 in CFI, supplemented by a change of <.015 in RMSEA or a change of <.03 in SRMR would indicate invariance. For testing scalar invariance, a change of <.01 in CFI, supplemented by a change of <.015 in RMSEA or a change of <.01 in SRMR would indicate invariance (Chen, 2007).
Reliability
We then computed McDonald’s omega reliability coefficient to assess the reliability of the REPS subscales across parent SGM status, sexual minority status, and gender minority status (McDonald, 2013).
Validity
Prior to conducting multiple regression analyses to examine validity, associations between demographic variables and variables of interest were examined to determine confounders. Confounding demographic variables were included in the models to control for confounding effects, improve model precision, and avoid spurious effects. Next, we conducted multiple regression analyses to assess the predictive and differential validity of each REPS subscale for child psychopathology outcomes (SDQ subscales). We used the lm() function to fit a linear regression model, which follows the standard Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) method. To account for violations of homoscedasticity without altering the estimated coefficient, we calculated heteroscedasticity-robust standard errors using the Huber-White (HC1) robust variance estimator. Given that our data did not meet normality assumptions, we calculated heteroscedasticity-robust standard errors from the “sandwich” package (version 3.1-1; Zeileis, 2004; Zeileis et al., 2020). The robust standard errors were applied in hypothesis testing using the coeftest() function from the “lmtest” package (Zeileis & Hothorn, 2002), which provides corrected t-values and p-values. Interaction terms (REPS subscale by SGM status interaction) were included in the regression models to test for differential predictive validity across parent SGM status. To balance parsimony and comprehensiveness of results, we included several interactions per outcome (e.g., emotional symptoms, conduct problems) within a single model. This approach limited the number of models, making the results easier to interpret while offering a comprehensive evaluation of the REPS’ psychometric properties. False discovery rate (FDR) corrections were applied to account for multiple comparisons. All analyses were conducted using R.
Results
Sociodemographic Characteristics
Participants were a total of n = 1,958 individuals, of whom 32.3% identified as sexual minorities and 11.2% as gender minorities. Sociodemographic characteristics and comparisons by SGM status are provided in Table 1. On average, non-SGM parents were older (M = 40.5, SD = 9.8) than SGM parents (M = 35.0, SD = 8.9; p < .001). In terms of sex distribution, a higher proportion of SGM parents identified as female (74.3%) compared with non-SGM parents (60.3%), p < .001. Significant differences were also observed in ethnoracial identity, p < .001. Among non-SGM parents, the largest ethnoracial groups were White (30.5%), Black (26.6%), and Hispanic (24.9%). In contrast, among SGM parents, the largest ethnoracial groups were Hispanic (29.1%), Black (16.6%), and Native American (15.8%), with a notably lower proportion of White parents (13.4%) compared to the non-SGM group.
Sociodemographic Characteristics (N = 1,958).
Measurement Invariance
Measurement invariance testing was conducted across SGM status, sexual minority status, and gender minority status using a series of CFA models. Measurement invariance testing demonstrated that the REPS performed well across SGM and non-SGM parent groups, with the strongest evidence for invariance when tested by gender minority status. Results are summarized in Table 2, and full model results can be found in the Supplemental Material.
Summary of Measurement Invariance Tests.
Measurement Invariance Across SGM Status
First, the configural invariance model, which does not impose any equality constraints across groups, provided a baseline model for comparison. The configural model had a modest fit (χ2df=264 = 1,069.4, RMSEA = 0.057, SRMR = .049, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.94) to the data, suggesting that the factor structure of the REPS was similar across SGM and non-SGM parents. Second, metric invariance was assessed by constraining the factor loadings to be equal across groups. The metric model had a similarly good fit (χ2df=279 = 1,099.6, RMSEA = 0.056, SRMR = 0.051, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.94). Comparing the metric model to the configural model indicated no significant worsening of model fit at the .001 level (Δχ2df=15 = 30.2, p = .011, ΔCFI = 0.001, ΔRMSEA = 0.033). The results suggest that metric invariance was supported, meaning that factor loadings of the REPS were similar across groups. Third, the scalar invariance model, which constrained both factor loadings and intercepts to be equal across groups, was fit to the data. The scalar model showed a small but statistically significant worsening of fit from the metric model (Δχ2df=15 = 46.81, p < .001, ΔCFI = 0.003, ΔRMSEA = 0.047), though fit indices suggested these differences were negligible (χ2df=294 = 1,146.4, RMSEA = 0.055, SRMR = 0.052, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.94). We then proceeded to test for partial scalar invariance. Modification indices suggested the relaxation of equality constraints on the intercepts for Item 7 (“I take care of my emotions before I respond to my child”). Allowing the intercept for Item 7 to vary across groups significantly improved model fit (Δχ2df=1 = 19.6, p < .001), indicating partial scalar invariance. The model demonstrated acceptable fit indices: χ2df=293 = 1,126.8, CFI = 0.941, TLI = 0.939, RMSEA = 0.055, SRMR = 0.051. The Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) for the partial scalar model were 87,324 and 87,795, respectively, indicating a better fit over the strict scalar model (AIC = 87,803, BIC = 87,795). Thus, except for Item 7, scalar invariance was supported across the remaining scale.
Measurement Invariance Across Sexual Minority Status
Similarly, for measurement invariance across sexual minority status, the configural model showed an acceptable fit (χ²df=264 = 1,062.3, RMSEA = 0.056, SRMR = 0.049, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.94); the metric model had a good fit (χ²df=279 = 1,090.3, RMSEA = 0.055, SRMR = 0.05, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.94), with no statistically significant worsening of fit at the 0.01 level (∆χ²df=15 = 27.9, p = .022); the scalar model showed a small but significant worsening of fit (∆χ²df=15 = 52.1, p < .001, ∆CFI = 0.003). However, the stability of most fit indices suggested these differences were negligible. We then proceeded to evaluate partial scalar invariance. Similar to results found across SGM status, allowing the intercept for Item 7 (“I take care of my emotions before I respond to my child”) to vary across groups significantly improved model fit, indicating partial scalar invariance (Δχ2df=1 = 23.7, p < .001). The model demonstrated acceptable fit indices: χ2df=293 = 1,118.6, CFI = 0.942, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.055, SRMR = 0.051. The AIC and BIC for the partial scalar model were 87,468 and 87,939, respectively, indicating a better fit over the strict scalar model (AIC = 87,954, BIC = 88,420). By allowing the intercept in Item 7 to vary across sexual minority status, partial scalar invariance was achieved.
Measurement Invariance Across Gender Minority Status
Findings on gender minority status also pointed to measurement invariance between groups. The configural model demonstrated an acceptable fit (χ²df=264 = 1,084.4, RMSEA = 0.057, SRMR = 0.049, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.93); the metric model showed a better fit (χ²df=279 = 1,107.2, RMSEA = 0.056, SRMR = 0.05, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.94), with no significant worsening of fit compared to the configural model (∆χ²df=15 = 22.9, p = .087, ∆CFI = 0.001). Finally, the scalar model showed a good fit (χ²df=294 = 1,142.3, RMSEA = 0.054, SRMR = 0.05, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.94), with no statistically significant worsening of fit from the metric model (∆χ²df=15 = 13.8, p = .54). Given that full scalar invariance was achieved, we proceeded to test for residual invariance by constraining the residuals of each item to be equal. The residual model showed a good fit (χ²df=312 = 1,163.3, RMSEA = 0.053, SRMR = 0.051, CFI = 0.941, TLI = 0.942). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) comparison between scalar and residual models approached significance (∆χ²df=18 = 42.2, p = .001019). Model fit indices were mixed, with an increase in AIC and a decrease in BIC (residual model: AIC = 88,326, BIC = 88,693; scalar model: AIC = 88,320, BIC = 88,787). Given our focus on latent mean comparisons and the lack of consistent support for improved model fit, we did not pursue partial residual invariance testing. Overall, results suggest stronger evidence for measurement invariance across gender minority status.
Reliability
The REPS subscales showed acceptable to excellent McDonald’s omega reliability coefficients across Adaptive Strategies, Suppression, and Rumination, demonstrating robust internal reliability for both SGM and non-SGM parents, as indicated in Table 3.
Omega Reliability Coefficients for REPS Subscales.
Validity
Predictive and differential validity of each REPS subscale for each child's psychopathology subscales (SDQ) were assessed using a series of multiple regression analyses, including demographic controls and parent SGM status as covariates. FDR corrections were applied in all models (Table 4). Consistent with our pre-registered hypotheses, adaptive strategies negatively predicted youth emotional symptoms (β = −0.13, SE = 0.01, t = −7.34, FDR-corrected p < .001), conduct problems (β = −0.17, SE = 0.01, t = −8.81, FDR-corrected p < .001), hyperactivity/inattention (β = −0.2, SE = 0.01, t = −9.36, FDR-corrected p < .001), peer relationship problems (β = −0.15, SE = 0.01, t = −7.38, FDR-corrected p < .001), and overall psychopathology (β = −0.19, SE = 0.03, t = −10.12, FDR-corrected p < .001); and positively predicted prosocial behaviors (β = 0.25, SE = 0.01, t = 11.63, FDR-corrected p < .001). The suppression subscale positively predicted youth emotional (β = 0.15, SE = 0.02, t = 7.98, FDR-corrected p < .001) and conduct problems (β = 0.17, SE = 0.01, t = 8.1, FDR-corrected p < .001), peer relationship problems (β = 0.18, SE = 0.01, t = 8.37, FDR-corrected p < .001), and overall psychopathology (β = 0.15, SE = 0.04, t = 7.66, FDR-corrected p < .001), but not hyperactivity/inattention and prosocial behaviors. Rumination positively predicted emotional symptoms (β = 0.09, SE = 0.02, t = 5.19, FDR-corrected p < .001), conduct problems (β = 0.07, SE = 0.01, t = 3.93, FDR-corrected p < .001), hyperactivity/inattention (β = 0.15, SE = 0.02, t = 6.63, FDR-corrected p < .001), and overall psychopathology (β = 0.11, SE = 0.05, t = 5.98, FDR-corrected p < .001), but no significant associations emerged between rumination and peer relationship problems and prosocial behaviors. Parent SGM status significantly predicted all child psychopathology outcomes—emotional symptoms (B = 4.42, SE = 0.16, t = 26.91, FDR-corrected p < .001), conduct problems (B = 2.97, SE = 0.13, t = 23.48, FDR-corrected p < .001), hyperactivity/inattention (B = 1.81, SE = 0.13, t = 13.79, FDR-corrected p < .001), peer relationship problems (B = 2.1, SE = 0.11, t = 19.53, FDR-corrected p < .001), prosocial behaviors (B = 3.51, SE = 0.15, t = 23.17, FDR-corrected p < .001), and overall psychopathology (B = 11.29, SE = 0.43, t = 26.18, FDR-corrected p < .001).
Associations Between REPS and SDQ Subscales.
Note. Demographic controls are included in the model but omitted from the table reported here for space considerations. The full regression table is available in the Supplemental Material Table S2. Standardized coefficients were not calculated for categorical variables.
Differential Validity
To evaluate differential predictive validity across parent SGM status, we conducted multiple regression analyses. Interaction terms (REPS subscale × SGM status) were first included in the regressions to assess whether associations between parental ER and child outcomes differed for SGM versus non-SGM parents. Next, separate models tested sexual minority and gender minority status as moderators to examine nuances within subgroups. For space considerations, we focus our results on SGM status as the moderator in the main text (Table 5), while touching on divergent findings from sexual minority and gender minority models. Complete model results can be found in the Supplemental Material (Tables S3–S5). Considering the role of parent SGM status (1 = SGM; 0 = non-SGM), we explored associations between ER in parenting—adaptive strategies, suppression, and rumination—and child psychopathology (i.e., emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity/inattention, peer relationship problems, decreased prosocial behaviors, and overall psychopathology).
Associations Between REPS and SDQ Subscales With Parent SGM Status as Moderator.
Note. Demographic controls are included in the model but omitted from the table reported here for space considerations. The full regression table is available in the Supplemental Material Table S3. Standardized coefficients were not calculated for categorical variables.
Overall, there was no evidence of differential validity (i.e., no significant interaction effects were found between parental SGM status and REPS subscales). In other words, the association between ER in parenting and child psychopathology subscales does not vary depending on whether a parent identifies as SGM or not. Model results are presented in Table 5. Regression analyses showed similar results as those found in the predictive validity model with no interaction terms. Adaptive strategies were negatively associated with child emotional problems, conduct problems, hyperactivity, peer problems, and overall psychopathology, and positively associated with prosocial behaviors. Suppression was positively associated with emotional problems, conduct problems, peer problems, and overall child psychopathology. Similarly, rumination was positively associated with emotional problems, hyperactivity/inattention, and overall child psychopathology. It is worth noting that parent SGM status did not significantly predict conduct problems, hyperactivity/inattention, and peer relationship problems, but predicted emotional symptoms, prosocial behaviors, and total child psychopathology in the moderation models. Results from the sexual minority model aligned mostly with the model that collapsed parent SGM status. In the models with gender minority status as the moderator, however, several more significant associations were found between parent ER strategies and child outcomes. Rumination was significantly associated with conduct problems (β = 0.1, SE = 0.02, t = 4.49, FDR-corrected p < .001), peer relationships problems (β = 0.08, SE = 0.01, t = 3.91, FDR-corrected p < .001); and suppression was negatively associated with prosocial behaviors (β = −0.08, SE = 0.02, t = −3.79, FDR-corrected p < .001).
Discussion
ER in the parenting context plays a critical role in shaping parenting behaviors and is integral to understanding the ways in which parents navigate caregiving demands (Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2022). Given that ER in parenting is a distinct construct from general ER, it is crucial to have measurement tools that accurately assess its unique dimensions (Rodriguez & Shaffer, 2021). Without inclusive and psychometrically robust measurement tools, however, it is challenging to understand how parents navigate ER in their parenting and its effects on their children, especially for SGM parents. Therefore, in this study, we examined the psychometric properties of the REPS across cisgender-heterosexual, sexual minority, and gender minority parents, focusing on measurement invariance, reliability, predictive validity, and differential validity. Overall, our findings suggest that the REPS functions consistently across SGM status, supporting its broad applicability in family and child research.
Measurement invariance analyses indicated that the factor structure and loadings of the REPS are largely consistent across SGM and non-SGM parents. Full scalar invariance and partial residual invariance were established for comparison by gender minority status. While full scalar invariance was not achieved across sexual minority status and SGM status, the findings suggest configural, metric, and partial scalar invariance, meaning that the core construct and factor loadings of the REPS operate similarly. This supports the validity of comparing relationships between REPS scores and external variables (e.g., child psychopathology) across groups (Chen, 2007; Cheung & Lau, 2011). Given that more SGM parents in our sample identified as sexual minority (32.3% sexual minority, 11.2% gender minority), it was not surprising that results on SGM status and sexual minority status converged. The stronger evidence for invariance by gender minority status compared to sexual minority status, indicated by the absence of significant model fit deterioration from metric to scalar invariance testing, suggests that gender-related experiences may have a more consistent influence on how parents engage in ER strategies. By relaxing the constraint on Item 7, “I take care of my emotions before I respond to my child,” we achieved partial scalar invariance for comparison across sexual minority and SGM status.
SGM individuals often face chronic discrimination and stigma, which could contribute to elevated stress and a heightened need for self-regulation in various contexts, including parenting (Frost & Meyer, 2023; Havighurst & Kehoe, 2017; Levitt et al., 2020; Meyer, 2003). This increased vigilance could translate into a more deliberate approach to ER, leading SGM parents to interpret and endorse the item differently than non-SGM parents. In addition, SGM parents may feel more pressured to demonstrate “good” parenting, such as effectively regulating their emotions, perhaps to counteract negative stereotypes or prove their competence as parents in a heteronormative society. As a result, they may be acutely aware of the need to “take care of their emotions” before responding to their child. On the other hand, parenting is increasingly seen as a role independent of traditional gender norms. Both male and female parents, as well as parents who do not conform to binary gender identities, are expected to engage in ER for the well-being of their children. Therefore, the concept of taking care of emotions before responding might be understood similarly across gender identities. While there are social differences in emotional expression—mothers have been found to be able to express their emotions more clearly than fathers, who are often more inclined to mask their emotions (Dunsmore et al., 2009; Wong et al., 2009)—the desire to regulate emotions for effective parenting might be equally salient across gender identities. This item focuses on the behavior of “taking care of emotions” rather than the expression of them, which might make it less sensitive to gender-specific emotional norms. Despite some discrepancies, the overall pattern of findings indicates that the REPS is a psychometrically sound tool for assessing ER in parenting across diverse family structures. Non-invariance at the intercept level across sexual minority and SGM status for Item 7 suggests that it is crucial to test for measurement invariance before drawing mean comparisons between subgroups in different samples. It is important to consider the psychometric properties of a measurement scale to avoid biases when working with diverse populations.
Regarding reliability, the REPS subscales demonstrated robust internal consistency for adaptive strategies, suppression, and rumination across both SGM and non-SGM parents, indicating that the scale captures stable and consistent constructs across diverse parent groups. McDonald’s Omega provides a more precise and accurate estimate of reliability compared to Cronbach’s alpha (Deng & Chan, 2017). Therefore, high McDonald’s omega coefficients for the REPS indicate strong internal consistency and reliability, reinforcing confidence in the scale’s use across SGM minority status.
The observed associations between REPS subscales and theoretically related child constructs suggest that the measure captures unique dimensions of ER in parenting. Our findings show that parent adaptive strategies in ER consistently predicted lower child psychopathology across emotional symptoms, conduct problems, peer problems, hyperactivity/inattention, and increased prosocial behavior. Parents’ capacity to understand and regulate their own emotions contributes to how they respond to children’s emotions and scaffold implicit emotion socialization (Palmer et al., 2020). For example, parents who employ strategies involving positive reappraisal when interacting with their children tend to exhibit more supportive parenting practices and more positive affect, which contribute to healthy child adjustment (Hughes & Gullone, 2010). In our sample, only adaptive strategies were significantly associated with child prosocial behaviors. This aligns with prior research suggesting that parents who use constructive ER strategies may foster emotional intelligence and prosocial engagement in their children (Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2022). Conversely, children of parents who employ maladaptive ER strategies may struggle learning how to interact positively with people, potentially mirroring less adaptive regulatory styles and relating in a less prosocial way to people around them (Yavuz et al., 2022). The positive association between adaptive strategies and prosocial behaviors in children underscores the potential role of ER modeling in parent–child interactions, where children may internalize and adopt the regulatory strategies demonstrated by their caregivers (Morris et al., 2017). Previous studies have found that the use of maladaptive ER strategies, such as suppression and rumination, was more strongly associated with psychopathology among adults and children, whereas adaptive ER had a weaker effect on buffering against mental health problems (Aldao et al., 2010). Contrary to such findings, standardized coefficients from our results indicate that adaptive ER strategies have a similar influence on protecting against psychopathology as maladaptive strategies do in heightening its risk.
The lack of significant associations between rumination and conduct problems and peer problems is intriguing. Such a finding might be due to rumination’s more internal nature. While rumination involves repetitive negative thinking, it may not directly impact children’s conduct or social behaviors in the same way as adaptive strategies or suppression (Leve et al., 2005). Adaptative strategies and suppression in parenting might be more readily observable in parent–child interactions, making their impact on children more apparent (Oppenheimer et al., 2018). Rumination, being a more private cognitive process, may have less visible effects on peer and conduct problems at the child level. In addition, thoughtfully reflecting on past parenting experiences in an organized and constructive way may help parents engage in more positive interactions with their children in the future. A study that used the REPS found that rumination was associated with supportive emotion socialization strategies and supportive reactions, highlighting its potentially adaptive nature in the parenting context (Rodriguez et al., 2025). Future work may benefit from differentiating maladaptive and adaptive rumination in parenting and examining their associations with child outcomes separately from a more person-centered approach. For example, a parent who frequently has both adaptive and maladaptive ruminative thoughts on parenting may interact with their children differently from a parent who frequently engages in a more reflective, solution-oriented rumination but does not dwell on destructive thoughts.
Rumination, and not suppression, significantly predicted child hyperactivity/inattention. This selective association suggests that the influence of rumination in parenting on child outcomes may be more specific than previously thought. The REPS captures rumination focusing on feelings of guilt after negative parent–child interactions. Parents who think ruminate on their mistakes and failures in parenting may be less attentive to their children’s needs, which could consequently influence the overall quality of parent–child relationships (Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 2008). Reduced attunement with their children can manifest as lower emotional reactivity, inadvertently hampering children’s emotional development and reinforcing hyperactivity or inattentiveness (Di Renzo et al., 2020). Given the strong neurobiological underpinnings of hyperactivity, parental ER might exert a more indirect effect through broader parenting (Musser et al., 2018). Emotional suppression, which primarily regulates emotional expression, may have limited direct influence on externalizing behaviors like hyperactivity, which are often shaped by attentional control and impulse regulation (Cueli et al., 2024). This highlights the importance of assessing both ER in the parenting context and parenting broadly to identify how they contribute to child hyperactivity/inattention. Future research should also consider the emotional context of suppression to extrapolate how suppression under differential circumstances might influence child psychopathology outcomes distinctively (Schwartz et al., 2012).
In the predictive validity model with no interaction terms, parent SGM status significantly predicted all child psychopathology outcomes, as well as child prosocial behaviors. SGM parents face compounded stressors in their parenting journey, including legal and systemic barriers and discrimination (Levitt et al., 2020). These challenges—such as unequal rights status, concerns about family discrimination, and the cumulative effects of stigma—can heighten parental stress (Haines et al., 2018; Horne et al., 2022; Shapiro et al., 2009). Heightened stress may, in turn, hinder effective ER and supportive parenting behaviors (Moran et al., 2023). Unlike acute stressors, minority stress is often persistent and pervasive (Frost & Meyer, 2023; Meyer, 2003). The accumulation of these stressors, even seemingly subtle ones, can have a broad impact on parents’ well-being, caregiving capacity, and overall family functioning. Such a finding underscores the urgent need for systemic and tailored interventions that acknowledge and address the unique experiences of SGM parents and their families.
Regarding differential validity, our findings revealed that parent SGM status did not significantly moderate the associations between REPS and child psychopathology, suggesting that the associations between ER in parenting and child psychopathology are consistent across diverse family structures. This reinforces the utility of the REPS for comparative studies across SGM and non-SGM families, allowing for meaningful investigations into parenting-related ER processes in minoritized groups. Specifically, our results demonstrate that the REPS can be interpreted similarly across SGM and non-SGM groups when comparisons are made between groups, underscoring its utility as a potentially inclusive tool for assessing ER in parenting. Our results also highlight the resilience of SGM parents, showing alignment with prior research noting that SGM parents appear to foster comparable outcomes in their children (Chan et al., 1998; Goldberg & Gartrell, 2014; Patterson, 2006). Despite pervasive stressors, SGM parents appear to be able to manage and regulate their emotions effectively (Havighurst & Kehoe, 2017; Levitt et al., 2020). This resilience provides important insight into the strengths of SGM families and challenges deficit-focused perspectives that often dominate discussions of marginalized groups (Goldberg, 2023). Future studies should continue exploring how contextual factors, such as minority stress and resilience mechanisms, shape ER in parenting across different family structures. Interestingly, while parent SGM status did not moderate the association between ER in parenting and child psychopathology, it emerged as a strong predictor across various child outcomes. Such findings deepen our understanding of SGM parents and their families in that they point to complex pathways between parent SGM status and child outcomes. Notably, while children of SGM parents in our sample scored higher on psychopathology, they also displayed greater prosocial behaviors. Further research is warranted to investigate the nuanced experiences of SGM parents and the outcomes of their children.
Given that more SGM parents in our sample identified as a sexual minority, associations between ER in parenting and child psychopathology converged between models with SGM status and models with sexual minority status as moderators. While we did not observe interaction effects, we did find that when disaggregated, parent sexual minority status and gender minority status played distinct roles in the associations between parent ER strategies and child outcomes. Specifically, with gender minority status as the moderator, rumination was significantly associated with conduct problems and peer relationship problems, and suppression was negatively associated with prosocial behaviors. Gender minority parents may engage in more internal processing, self-reflection, or rumination about their identity and their role as a parent (Sarno et al., 2020). In cases where such internal processing turns into maladaptive rumination, it could spill over into how parents respond to their children’s challenging behaviors (Nelson et al., 2009). When it comes to navigating their identities, sexual minority and gender minority parents might engage in different forms of emotion suppression to protect themselves and their children from potential judgment (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2009; Singh et al., 2022). In addition, albeit limited, existing literature on gender minority individuals’ experiences of stigma and coping indicates that they employ unique and effective coping strategies for managing stress throughout their lives (Gorman et al., 2022). This may suggest that gender minority parents develop unique ER strategies in child-rearing contexts, fostering resilience in their children (Farr et al., 2016). Overall, these findings suggest that sexual minority status and gender minority status are distinct constructs. While often grouped under the “SGM” umbrella, they have unique and nuanced impacts on family dynamics and child outcomes.
Strengths and Limitations
Despite its contributions, this study has several limitations. First, the cross-sectional design limits the ability to infer causality between parental ER and child psychopathology. Utilizing multiple-informant reporting and conducting longitudinal studies could provide additional insights, including whether the scale maintains its reliability and validity across different developmental stages of parenting. Second, the data were collected on Qualtrics Panel, which may limit the generalizability of the results since participants self-selected themselves into a web-based research platform. Despite the limitation in generalizability, Qualtrics Panel provided access to understudied racial and ethnic groups, resulting in two large, racially and ethnically diverse national samples, enhancing the external validity of our findings. Third, there was an imbalance in subgroup sizes, with more non-SGM parents than SGM parents. Such imbalances in group sizes can influence results, as chi-square statistics incorporate weighting by sample size. Consequently, groups with larger sample sizes carry more weight in determining the outcomes, while the impact of invariance violations in the smaller group is reduced (Yoon & Lai, 2018). However, we note that there are critical gaps in inclusive and representative measurement tools that capture the diverse experiences of SGM families. Addressing measurement invariance is important to ensure the validity and reliability of parenting-related scales across different subgroups. Fourth, the REPS was designed to capture ER specific to the parenting context across child ages (Rodriguez & Shaffer, 2021). While the age of the target child was included in the regression models, we did not consider the developmental stage of the child explicitly, as this was beyond the scope of our study. However, parenting tasks and associated ER demands vary considerably across developmental stages (Hajal & Paley, 2020; Morris et al., 2017). For instance, regulating distress during child tantrums requires different strategies than navigating conflicts with an adolescent. Future research should examine how the REPS functions across developmental stages or how the REPS could be revised to capture ER in parenting across developmental periods. While not without limitations, this study represents a significant step forward in addressing critical measurement gaps in parenting research.
Conclusion
Overall, this study provides strong evidence for the psychometric soundness of the REPS across diverse parenting populations. By demonstrating configural and metric invariance across SGM and non-SGM groups, our findings support its utility in capturing ER processes across diverse family structures. By validating the REPS as an inclusive measure, this work contributes to a more comprehensive and representative understanding of ER in parenting, paving the way for further research and application in diverse populations. Future research should expand upon these findings by integrating longitudinal data and examining contextual influences on parental ER.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-asm-10.1177_10731911251382031 – Supplemental material for Psychometric Evaluation of the Regulating Emotions in Parenting Scale in Sexual and Gender Minority Parents
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-asm-10.1177_10731911251382031 for Psychometric Evaluation of the Regulating Emotions in Parenting Scale in Sexual and Gender Minority Parents by Antonia Yuxin Hua, Qimin Liu and Violeta J. Rodriguez in Assessment
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: VJR was supported by a NIH Director’s Early Independence Award (DP5-OD036508) awarded to Violeta J. Rodriguez.
AI Disclosure
ChatGPT was used for proofreading.
Preregistration
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.