A Spanish short version of the TMMS was developed by Ferna ´ndez-Berrocal, Extremera, and Ramos (2004) .
This version consists of 24 items from the original English version (eight per scale).
Sample
Undergraduate students had scale means of 4.10 ( SD50.52) for Attention, 3.27 ( SD50.70) for Clarity, and
3.59 ( SD50.90) for Repair ( Salovey, Stroud, Woolery, & Epel, 2002 ).
The scale means of the Spanish short version were quite similar across the three scales in a Spanish sample of
184 undergraduate students. Specifically, this sample had means of 3.25 ( SD5.80) for Attention, 3.19 ( SD5.81)
for Clarity, and 3.22 ( SD5.78) for Repair ( Extremera, & Ferna ´ndez-Berrocal, 2005 ).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
For the English version of the TMMS, Cronbach alpha coefficients were .86 for Attention, .87 for Clarity, and
.82 for Repair; alpha coefficients were equal for the 30-item version (.88 for Clarity; Salovey et al., 1995 ). For the
24-item Spanish version, Cronbach alphas were .88 for Attention, .89 for Clarity, and .86 for Repair ( Extremera, &
Ferna ´ndez-Berrocal, 2005 ).
Test/C0Retest
Test/C0retest correlations over a four-week period were .60 for Attention, .70 for Clarity, and .83 for Repair
(Ferna ´ndez-Berrocal et al., 2004 ).
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
The AES correlated positively with the TMMS subscales of Attention to feelings ( r5.63,N548), Clarity of
feelings ( r5.52,N547) and Mood Repair ( r5.68,N547). Further, the Attention scale correlated positively with
public ( r5.36) and private ( r5.42) self-consciousness, while the Clarity scale correlated negatively with ambiva-
lence over emotional expression ( r52.25) and depression ( r52.27). The Repair scale correlated negatively with
depression ( r52.37) and positively with optimism ( r5.57) and beliefs regarding negative mood regulation
(r5.53;Salovey et al., 1995 ). Correlations with the Big Five were moderate between Attention and Neuroticism
(r5.37), between Clarity and Extraversion ( r5.32) or Openness ( r5.30), and between Repair and Neuroticism
(r52.44;Extremera, & Ferna ´ndez-Berrocal, 2005 ).
Divergent/Discriminant
The divergent/discriminant validities of the three scales have not been deliberately examined. However, the
scales showed different patterns of associations with various criteria ( N586;Salovey et al., 1995 ). Attention was
unrelated to depression ( r52.08), optimism ( r5.09), and mood regulation ( r5.17). Clarity and Repair were
unrelated to self-consciousness ( r5.01/C0.18), and Clarity also correlated non-significantly ( r5.12) with both opti-
mism and mood regulations.
Construct/Factor Analytic
A confirmatory factor analysis ( N5148) of the 48 items supported to the theoretical three-factor structure of
the TMMS ( χ2(48)549.56, p..05; GFI 5.94; RMSEA 5.05;Salovey et al., 1995 ).
Criterion/Predictive
The TMMS scales appear to predict various emotion-related criteria. Mood Repair predicted less passive cop-
ing ( r52.31 to 2.34) and a decreased perception of induced laboratory stressors as threatening ( r52.35);
Clarity predicted a greater increase in negative mood ( r5.32), but decreased cortical release during stressful
situations ( r52.31,2.40); Attention correlated negatively with cortical and blood pressure as a function to labo-
ratory challenges ( r5.27;Salovey et al., 2002 ).Thompson, Waltz, Croyle, and Pepper (2007) found Repair to be a
unique predictor of well-being vis-a `-vis demographic and affective variables, whereas the Attention and Clarity
scales predicted somatic symptoms incrementally. In terms of mental health, the TMMS has shown some crite-
rion validity, although it is among the weaker trait EI measures in the literature ( Martins et al., 2010 ).393 TRAIT EI MEASURES
III. EMOTION REGULATION