DERA
Questionnaire of Emotional Maladjustment and Adaptive Resources in Infertility (DERA)
The DERA is an infertility-specific self-report questionnaire designed to detect emotional maladjustment and estimate personal and interpersonal adaptive resources in adults undergoing fertility diagnosis or treatment. It helps the psychologist quickly identify emotional distress, vulnerability factors and the supports that can be drawn on, including within the couple. Its use is particularly relevant for clinical screening, for supporting patients through assisted reproduction and for monitoring psychological changes over the course of treatment.
- Number of questions
- 48 questions
- Estimated duration
- 12 minutes
- Language
- English
- Original name
- Questionnaire of Emotional Maladjustment and Adaptive Resources in Infertility
- Target audience
- Adults with infertility
- Authors
- Carmen Moreno-Rosset, Rosario Antequera Jurado, Cristina Jenaro Río (2008)
Scoring & interpretation
Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Raw scores are calculated for the Emotional Maladjustment, Personal Resources and Interpersonal Resources dimensions. The Adaptive Resources score is the sum of the personal and interpersonal resources. The scores are then converted into percentiles using separate norms for women and for men. A high emotional maladjustment score indicates greater distress, while high scores on the resource scales reflect better coping abilities. An emotional maladjustment score above the 75th percentile warrants a more in-depth clinical assessment of an anxious or depressive component.
Usage
This tool isn't available on Mentaal. To use this questionnaire in your practice, you need a valid license. We invite you to send it directly from the publisher's website.
What psychologists think
No ratings yet. Be the first to rate this questionnaire.
Clarity and comprehension
—Are the test's instructions and questions easy for patients to understand?
Clinical relevance
—Does the test measure what it's meant to measure, and is it useful in a clinical setting?
Perceived reliability of the results
—Do the results seem reliable and consistent in their interpretation?