The Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ)

1. Abstract

The Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ), developed by J. M. Brown, William R. Miller, and L. A. Lawendowski (1999), is a comprehensive 63-item self-report instrument designed to assess an individual’s generalized capacity to plan, monitor, and adaptively direct their cognitive, emotional, and behavioral processes in pursuit of personal goals. Grounded in Miller and Brown’s (1991) seven-step cybernetic model of self-regulation—which extends classical control systems and social-cognitive theories of behavioral self-management—the instrument captures seven theoretically derived operational phases: (1) Receiving relevant information, (2) Evaluating information against internal and external norms, (3) Triggering change through discrepancy detection, (4) Searching for alternative behavioral options, (5) Formulating a coherent plan of action, (6) Implementing the plan while managing competing demands, and (7) Assessing the effectiveness of the enacted plan. Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree), with 26 reverse-scored items intended to mitigate acquiescence bias.

Psychometrically, the full-scale SRQ has demonstrated outstanding internal consistency across diverse adult, clinical, and collegiate samples, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients consistently reported between .91 and .94, and test-retest reliability estimates exceeding .90 over brief measurement intervals. Although initially formulated to yield seven distinct subscale scores reflecting each chronological phase of the self-regulatory feedback loop, subsequent exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses have sparked extensive empirical debate, frequently revealing a high degree of inter-subscale collinearity and supporting parsimonious bifactor, one-factor, or two-factor models (such as Goal Orientation and Impulse Control) or prompting shortened derivatives such as the Short SRQ (SSRQ). The SRQ demonstrates robust convergent, construct, and criterion-related validity, exhibiting substantial inverse relationships with substance misuse, behavioral addictions, impulsivity, and executive dysfunction, alongside positive associations with self-efficacy, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and therapeutic compliance. As an assessment tool, the SRQ continues to serve as a foundational instrument within behavioral medicine, clinical psychology, and intervention science to identify deficits in self-regulatory competence and evaluate progress in behavioral change programs.

2. Keywords

Self-Regulation Questionnaire, SRQ, Self-Regulation, Behavioral Self-Management, Cybernetic Theory, Executive Function, Goal Directed Behavior, Impulsivity, Addictive Behaviors, Psychometrics, Assessment of Self-Control

3. Authors

The Self-Regulation Questionnaire was conceptualized and formalized by a collaborative team of clinical researchers at the Center on Alcohol, Substance use, And Addictions (CASAA) within the Department of Psychology at the University of New Mexico:

• J. M. Brown, Ph.D. — Primary psychometric investigator who spearheaded the operationalization of the seven-stage cybernetic model and the initial empirical validation of the item pool within collegiate and clinical populations studying addictive behaviors.
• William R. Miller, Ph.D. — Emeritus Distinguished Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of New Mexico. Internationally acclaimed as the originator of Motivational Interviewing (MI), Dr. Miller has published extensively on the mechanisms of behavior change, self-regulation, addiction science, and evidence-based clinical practices.
• L. A. Lawendowski, Ph.D. — Co-investigator and clinical psychometrician who collaborated on the instrument’s standardization, clinical normative data collection, and dissemination through clinical reference manuals.

4. Purpose

The primary clinical and research objective of the Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ) is to provide a granular, process-oriented assessment of an individual’s generalized self-regulatory ability. Unlike unidimensional constructs of willpower, simple trait impulsivity, or general conscientiousness, self-regulation as conceptualized by Miller and Brown (1991) constitutes an integrated dynamic feedback system. The instrument was intentionally engineered to identify exactly where breakdowns occur within this feedback loop when an individual attempts to alter habituated, maladaptive behavioral patterns or initiate complex goal-directed routines.

Clinical Applications

In clinical practice, the SRQ serves several diagnostic and therapeutic functions:

• Targeting Intervention Loci: Chronic health conditions, substance use disorders, eating pathology, and treatment non-adherence rarely stem from a uniform deficit in motivation. By evaluating the separate stages of self-regulation, clinicians can distinguish whether a patient suffers from an input defect (failing to notice excessive consumption; Phase 1), a standard-setting failure (lack of clear internal norms; Phase 2), an executive deficit (inability to generate plans; Phase 5), or persistence difficulties (impairment in implementation; Phase 6).
• Motivational Interviewing & Treatment Matching: In accordance with Miller’s broader therapeutic frameworks, individuals presenting with deficits in discrepancy detection (Phase 3) benefit maximally from ambivalence-resolving techniques and values clarification, whereas those with intact motivation who struggle in behavioral execution (Phase 6) require skills training, stimulus control, and environmental restructuring.
• Outcome Monitoring: The SRQ functions as a sensitive metric for measuring generalized cognitive-behavioral maturation following interventions such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), Mindfulness-Based Relapse Prevention (MBRP), and structured executive-skills coaching.

Research Applications

In basic and applied psychological science, the SRQ provides a standardized dimensional measure of executive self-direction. It is widely employed in:

• Addiction Research: Investigating the neurocognitive underpinnings of behavioral automaticity versus voluntary control across alcohol, nicotine, cannabis, and gambling addictions.
• Health Psychology: Modeling long-term lifestyle adherence involving rigorous dietary regimens, physical activity routines, and glycemic control among patients with chronic diseases such as Type II diabetes.
• Academic and Occupational Performance: Examining how meta-cognitive planning, resistance to environmental distractions, and feedback monitoring interact to predict academic perseverance, avoidance of procrastination, and executive leadership efficacy.

5. Psychological Construct

The overarching construct assessed by the SRQ is behavioral self-regulation: the endogenous capacity to modulate one’s own thoughts, emotions, physiological states, and behavioral repertoires to achieve desired future outcomes and adhere to personal or social standards. Rather than viewing self-regulation as an invariant, static personality trait, the SRQ operationalizes it as an iterative, seven-stage cybernetic control loop. Each of the seven subscales corresponds directly to an operational stage of this behavioral self-management cycle:

1. Receiving Relevant Information (Input / Monitoring)

This dimension reflects an individual’s attentiveness and perceptual receptivity toward information regarding their current behavioral status and the immediate effects of their actions on their internal state and external environment. High scorers actively monitor biological and behavioral cues (e.g., physiological sensations of satiety or intoxication, social reactions), whereas low scorers demonstrate perceptual blunting or deliberate inattention. Items include: “I usually keep track of my progress toward my goals” (Item 1) and “It’s hard for me to notice when I’ve ‘had enough’ (alcohol, food, sweets)” (Item 15, reverse-scored).

2. Evaluating Information and Comparing It to Norms (Evaluation / Standards)

This component captures the cognitive process of comparing current behavioral feedback against internal values, self-imposed rules, or external societal benchmarks. This comparator function determines whether current behavior matches aspirational standards. Items include: “I have personal standards, and try to live up to them” (Item 30) and “I tend to compare myself with other people” (Item 23).

3. Triggering Change (Discrepancy Recognition)

Once a discrepancy between present reality and desired standards is evaluated, a motivational threshold must be crossed to activate change mechanisms. This phase represents the recognition that current behavior is problematic and that a corrective response is warranted. Items include: “As soon as I see things aren’t going right I want to do something about it” (Item 38) and “It’s hard for me to see anything helpful about changing my ways” (Item 10, reverse-scored).

4. Searching for Options (Generation of Alternatives)

This operational phase involves divergent problem-solving and cognitive flexibility, specifically the capacity to identify, conceptualize, and evaluate multiple alternative courses of action to reduce the detected discrepancy. Individuals with high self-regulation brainstorm diverse solutions and seek external counsel. Items include: “As soon as I see a problem or challenge, I start looking for possible solutions” (Item 32) and “I have sought out advice or information about changing” (Item 25).

5. Formulating a Plan (Planning and Decision-Making)

Following the ideation of alternatives, the individual must commit to a concrete, strategic plan of action. This phase requires convergent decision-making, executive scheduling, setting sub-goals, and anticipating potential obstacles. Low scorers experience decision paralysis or procrastination. Items include: “Once I have a goal, I can usually plan how to reach it” (Item 47) and “When it comes to deciding about a change, I feel overwhelmed by the choices” (Item 19, reverse-scored).

6. Implementing the Plan (Action and Maintenance)

This dimension encompasses self-efficacy, volitional endurance, and executive impulse control. It reflects the direct mobilization of behavioral effort to execute the formulated plan, adhere to established rules, resist immediate temptations, and navigate distractions. Items include: “I am able to resist temptation” (Item 41) and “Little problems or distractions throw me off course” (Item 55, reverse-scored).

7. Assessing the Plan’s Effectiveness (Outcome Assessment and Correction)

The final phase completes the feedback loop by evaluating the functional consequences of the enacted behavior. The individual reviews whether the chosen strategy successfully mitigated the target discrepancy, extracts lessons from procedural errors, and adjusts tactics accordingly. Items include: “I change the way I do things when I see a problem with how things are going” (Item 14) and “I don’t seem to learn from my mistakes” (Item 21, reverse-scored).

6. Theoretical Framework

The architecture of the SRQ is anchored in cybernetic control theory, behavioral self-control formulations, and social-cognitive psychology. Specifically, it synthesizes three major conceptual paradigms:

The Cybernetic Feedback Loop (Miller & Brown, 1991)

The explicit foundation of the SRQ is the closed-loop cybernetic feedback model articulated by William R. Miller and J. M. Brown in their seminal 1991 chapter, “Self-regulation as a conceptual basis for the prevention and treatment of addictive behaviors.” Cybernetic theory, initially formalized by Norbert Wiener (1948), posits that goal-directed systems operate via continuous feedback comparisons known as TOTE units (Test-Operate-Test-Exit; Miller, Galanter, & Pribram, 1960). Miller and Brown extended this mechanical control system into human psychology by postulating seven sequential, highly interdependent stages:

1. Input / Sensor: Detecting the present internal and environmental reality.
2. Standard: Referencing internal values, rules, and behavioral norms.
3. Comparator: Calculating the mathematical or qualitative difference between input and standard.
4. Effector Generation: Formulating corrective behavioral alternatives if a meaningful gap exists.
5. Selection: Choosing a specific corrective behavioral strategy.
6. Execution: Actuating the motor and behavioral response.
7. Re-assessment: Re-sampling environmental feedback to establish if the discrepancy has diminished.

According to this theoretical architecture, self-regulatory failure is not an all-or-nothing breakdown of moral fortitude; rather, it is a localized dysfunction in one or more nodes of this functional loop.

Kanfer’s Three-Stage Model of Self-Regulation

Miller and Brown’s conceptualization heavily integrates Frederick Kanfer’s (1970) pioneering behavioral self-control theory, which divided self-directed modification into: (a) Self-Monitoring, (b) Self-Evaluation, and (c) Self-Reinforcement. The SRQ operationalizes Kanfer’s self-monitoring through its “Receiving” dimension, expands self-evaluation across its “Evaluating” and “Triggering” phases, and contextualizes self-reinforcement within the “Assessing” domain (e.g., Item 7: “I reward myself for progress toward my goals”).

Carver and Scheier’s Control-Process Model and Bandura’s Social-Cognitive Theory

The instrument additionally incorporates the control-process model of Charles Carver and Michael Scheier (1981, 1998) and Albert Bandura’s (1986, 1991) social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Bandura posited that self-efficacy beliefs—the subjective conviction that one possesses the personal resources to execute required courses of action—govern whether individuals even attempt self-regulation (captured by SRQ Item 18: “If I wanted to change, I am confident that I could do it”). Carver and Scheier emphasized that negative affect serves as an immediate experiential signal indicating an unacceptable rate of discrepancy reduction (reflected in SRQ Item 56: “I feel bad when I don’t meet my goals” and Item 59: “It bothers me when things aren’t the way I want them”).

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the SRQ has been scrutinized across numerous clinical, general population, and collegiate samples, establishing strong evidence for its construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related utility.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Initial construct validity was demonstrated by Brown and colleagues (1997, 1999) through hypothesized correlations with measures of general impulsivity, self-monitoring, and cognitive mastery. However, extensive psychometric investigations—most notably by Carey, Neal, and Collins (2004)—identified that while the full 63-item scale possesses substantial global construct validity, the seven theoretically posited subscales exhibit high collinearity (inter-subscale correlations frequently exceeding .70). Consequently, while the total SRQ score reliably measures generalized behavioral self-regulation, treating the seven individual subscales as independent structural dimensions is often psychometrically problematic without bifactor modeling.

Convergent Validity

The SRQ displays robust, statistically significant positive correlations with conceptually related constructs:

• General Self-Efficacy: Strongly correlates with the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE; r = .52 to .68), demonstrating that high self-regulators hold stronger beliefs regarding their agency.
• Conscientiousness: Exhibits substantial positive association with the Conscientiousness domain of the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R; r = .58 to .71).
• Effortful Control: Demonstrates high convergence with Rothbart’s Adult Temperament Questionnaire (ATQ) effortful control subscale (r = .61).

Discriminant and Criterion-Related Validity

The SRQ demonstrates notable discriminant validity from unrelated constructs such as general intelligence or social desirability when properly controlled, and exhibits strong divergent associations with maladaptive behavioral traits:

• Impulsivity: Consistently shows moderate-to-strong inverse correlations with the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11; r = -.45 to -.64), particularly with the Motor Impulsiveness and Non-planning Impulsiveness subscales.
• Addictive Behaviors: In collegiate and clinical populations, low SRQ scores prospectively predict heavy episodic drinking, alcohol-related negative consequences (as measured by the Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index; RAPI), illicit drug consumption, and disordered gambling (Brown et al., 1997; Neal & Carey, 2005). Individuals scoring in the lowest tertile on the SRQ present with a significantly elevated incidence of substance dependence compared to high scorers.
• Psychopathology: Displays moderate negative correlations with depressive symptomatology (BDI-II; r = -.35 to -.48) and state-trait anxiety (STAI; r = -.32 to -.44), illustrating that deficits in self-regulatory competence frequently co-occur with affective distress.

8. Reliability

The reliability metrics of the Self-Regulation Questionnaire have been widely established across three decades of psychometric inquiry, proving that the scale provides stable, internally consistent measurement when utilized in adult populations.

Internal Consistency

The global 63-item SRQ demonstrates exceptional internal consistency across heterogeneous samples:

• Full-Scale Cronbach’s Alpha ($lpha$): Consistently reported between .91 and .94 in major clinical and academic cohorts (Brown et al., 1999; Carey et al., 2004; Neal & Carey, 2005).
• Subscale Reliabilities: In the initial normative investigations by Brown et al. (1999), the internal consistency estimates for the theoretical 9-item subscales ranged from acceptable to modest: Receiving ($lpha = .74$), Evaluating ($lpha = .67$), Triggering ($lpha = .71$), Searching ($lpha = .72$), Formulating ($lpha = .77$), Implementing ($lpha = .78$), and Assessing ($lpha = .69$). Subsequent studies have occasionally noted that subscales with higher proportions of reverse-scored items (such as Evaluating and Triggering) yield slightly attenuated alpha levels ($lpha pprox .60 – .68$), largely attributable to method variance associated with negative item phrasing.

Test-Retest Reliability

Temporal stability assessments have confirmed that behavioral self-regulation operates as a relatively stable executive trait across un-manipulated baseline intervals:

• Short-Term Stability: Over a two-week retest window in non-clinical cohorts, Brown et al. (1999) reported an omnibus test-retest correlation coefficient of $r = .94$ ($p < .001$), demonstrating minimal measurement error.
• Medium-Term Stability: Over 12-week test-retest intervals in control groups of behavioral intervention trials, stability coefficients remain robust ($r = .78$ to $.84$), indicating that while the construct functions as a stable behavioral baseline, it remains moderately dynamic and sensitive to deliberate therapeutic intervention.

9. Factor Analysis

The latent structural architecture of the SRQ has been one of the most vigorously debated topics in contemporary psychological assessment, resulting in significant psychometric insights regarding the operationalization of self-regulation.

Theoretical vs. Empirical Latent Structure

The instrument was engineered around an a priori, 7-factor theoretical blueprint representing Miller and Brown’s seven sequential stages of self-regulation. Each factor was operationalized using 9 balance-distributed items:

• Theoretical Model: A 7-factor first-order oblique model, where each 9-item group loads cleanly onto its respective latent factor: Receiving ($F_1$), Evaluating ($F_2$), Triggering ($F_3$), Searching ($F_4$), Formulating ($F_5$), Implementing ($F_6$), and Assessing ($F_7$).

Exploratory and Confirmatory Investigations

When empirical psychometricians subjected the full 63-item SRQ to exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), the hypothesized seven-factor independent structure failed to achieve optimal fit criteria. Most notably, Carey, Neal, and Collins (2004) conducted a comprehensive psychometric evaluation in a large sample of young adults ($N = 391$):

• CFA Fit of the 7-Factor Model: The theoretical 7-factor model yielded poor-to-mediocre global fit indices ($\chi^2 / df > 2.5$, RMSEA = .071, CFI = .76, TLI = .74), driven by high factor intercorrelations ($r$ values ranging from .65 to .92) and cross-loadings across stages.
• Empirical Factor Solutions: Principal components analysis and parallel analysis performed by Carey et al. (2004) demonstrated that the variance was heavily dominated by a single overarching general factor accounting for the majority of common variance. Further structural refinement revealed that a parsimonious two-factor solution—capturing (1) Goal Setting / Planning and (2) Impulse Control / Execution—or a unidimensional 31-item short form (the Short SRQ, or SSRQ) provided vastly superior psychometric properties ($\chi^2 / df < 1.8$, RMSEA = .043, CFI = .94).
• Cross-Cultural Factor Analyses: Subsequent structural examinations in international contexts (e.g., Pichardo et al., 2014, 2018 in Spanish universities) have demonstrated that the 63 items can be modeled effectively either via a bifactor model—comprising one dominant general self-regulation factor ($g_{SR}$) alongside localized group factors representing goal setting, perseverance, decision making, and learning from mistakes—or through reduced versions that eliminate method-effect noise generated by reverse-keyed items.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: The Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ)
• Authors: J. M. Brown, William R. Miller, and L. A. Lawendowski (1999)
• Instrument Type: Standardized self-report psychometric rating scale
• Construct Assessed: Generalized behavioral self-regulation and executive self-management capacity
• Item Count: 63 items
• Administration Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes
• Target Population: Adults and adolescents (ages 16 and older); adaptable for clinical, collegiate, and workplace cohorts
• Response Format: 5-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Strongly disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Uncertain or Unsure
  • 4 = Agree
  • 5 = Strongly Agree
• Reverse-Scored Items (26 items): Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 19, 20, 21, 24, 26, 29, 31, 33, 37, 40, 43, 45, 50, 55, 62, and 63. These items must be inverted prior to subscale or total summation using the conversion: $(6 – ext{Original Response})$.
• Subscale Allocation (9 items per subscale):
  • Receiving relevant information: Items 1, 8*, 15*, 22, 29*, 36, 43*, 50*, 57
  • Evaluating the information and comparing it to norms: Items 2*, 9, 16, 23, 30, 37*, 44, 51, 58
  • Triggering change: Items 3*, 10*, 17, 24*, 31*, 38, 45*, 52, 59
  • Searching for options: Items 4*, 11, 18, 25, 32, 39, 46, 53, 60
  • Formulating a plan: Items 5*, 12*, 19*, 26*, 33*, 40*, 47, 54, 61
  • Implementing the plan: Items 6*, 13*, 20*, 27, 34, 41, 48, 55*, 62*
  • Assessing the plan’s effectiveness: Items 7, 14, 21*, 28, 35, 42, 49, 56, 63*

  (* denotes reverse-scored item)

• Scoring and Interpretation:
  • Total Score: Calculated by summing all 63 items (after reversing designated items). Theoretical scores range from 63 to 315.
  • Normative Classifications (Brown et al., 1999):
    • High Self-Regulation: Total scores $ge 239$ (> 75th percentile); denotes intact executive functioning, robust impulse control, and adaptive goal setting.
    • Intermediate Self-Regulation: Total scores between 214 and 238 (25th to 75th percentile); represents typical self-management capacity with occasional localized lapses under high stress or cognitive overload.
    • Low Self-Regulation: Total scores $le 213$ (< 25th percentile); indicates substantial vulnerability to self-regulatory failure, heightened susceptibility to impulsive behaviors, substance misuse, and difficulties in initiating or sustaining deliberate lifestyle changes.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Year of Formal Publication: 1999 (earlier conference validation presented in 1997; conceptual framework published in 1991).
• Copyright & Ownership: J. M. Brown, William R. Miller, and L. A. Lawendowski. The instrument was developed under the auspices of research initiatives conducted at the Center on Alcohol, Substance use, And Addictions (CASAA) at the University of New Mexico.
• Accessibility & Licensing: The SRQ is placed in the public domain for academic research and non-profit clinical practice. No licensing fees or purchase royalties are required to administer, score, or reproduce the questionnaire for non-commercial educational and diagnostic applications.
• Availability: The original instrument, manual, and scoring protocols are archived and freely accessible for clinical and scientific investigators through the University of New Mexico CASAA psychometric repository (https://casaa.unm.edu/inst/SelfRegulation%20Questionnaire%20(SRQ).pdf). Commercial incorporation into proprietary software systems or commercial test batteries requires explicit written permission from the primary authors.

12. References

• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
• Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-L
• Brown, J. M. (1998). Self-regulation and the addictive behaviors. In W. R. Miller & N. Heather (Eds.), Treating addictive behaviors (2nd ed., pp. 61–74). Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-1934-2_5
• Brown, J. M., Baumann, B. D., Smith, C. D., & Etheridge, S. L. (1997, July). Self-regulation, extroversion, and substance abuse among college students [Paper presentation]. Research Society on Alcoholism, San Francisco, CA.
• Brown, J. M., Miller, W. R., & Lawendowski, L. A. (1999). The Self-Regulation Questionnaire. In L. VandeCreek & T. L. Jackson (Eds.), Innovations in clinical practice: A source book (Vol. 17, pp. 281–289). Professional Resource Press.
• Carey, K. B., Neal, D. J., & Collins, S. E. (2004). A psychometric analysis of the self-regulation questionnaire. Addictive Behaviors, 29(2), 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2003.08.001
• Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control-theory approach to human behavior. Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5887-2
• Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174794
• Kanfer, F. H. (1970). Self-regulation: Research, issues, and speculations. In C. Neuringer & J. L. Michael (Eds.), Behavior modification in clinical psychology (pp. 178–220). Appleton-Century-Crofts.
• Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. Henry Holt & Co. https://doi.org/10.1037/10039-000
• Miller, W. R., & Brown, J. M. (1991). Self-regulation as a conceptual basis for the prevention and treatment of addictive behaviors. In N. Heather, W. R. Miller, & J. Greeley (Eds.), Self-control and the addictive behaviours (pp. 3–79). Maxwell Macmillan Publishing.
• Neal, D. J., & Carey, K. B. (2005). A follow-up psychometric analysis of the self-regulation questionnaire. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 19(4), 414–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.19.4.414
• Pichardo, M. C., Justicia, F., de la Fuente, J., Martínez-Vicente, J. M., & Berbén, A. B. (2014). Factor structure of the Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ) at Spanish Universities. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 17, E62. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2014.63
• Pichardo, M. C., Cano, F., Garzón-Umerenkova, T., de la Fuente, J., Peralta-Sánchez, F. J., & Amate-Romera, J. (2018). Self-regulation questionnaire (SRQ) in Spanish adolescents: Factor structure and psychological correlates. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1370. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01370
• Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics: Or control and communication in the animal and the machine. John Wiley & Sons.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)