Skip to main content
Top

12-05-2024 | Original Article

What Are You Ruminating About? The Development and Validation of a Content-Dependent Measure of Rumination

Auteurs: Christopher Marcin Kowalski, Donald H. Saklofske, Julie Aitken Schermer

Gepubliceerd in: Cognitive Therapy and Research

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

Purpose

Existing measures of rumination assess ruminative thought without reference to the content of ruminations. The present studies describe the construction and validation of the Rumination Domains Questionnaire, a new measure of rumination which considers the domain specificity of ruminative thought.

Methods

A theoretical definition of rumination and domains of life were formulated through a literature review. Items were based on these domains, clinical/counselling case studies, and expert feedback. In Study 1, 106 preliminary items were reduced to 60 items through empirical analyses. In Study 2, the content and structural validity were assessed.

Results

Items were retained based on empirical criteria and the final scale demonstrated acceptable fit for both a 10-factor model and a hierarchical model. Content validity and criterion validity were supported, and both 10-factor and hierarchical models demonstrated acceptable fit.

Conclusions

Overall, we present strong evidence supporting the validity of the RDQ.
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Voetnoten
1
Kendall’s Tau B was used as the rumination items have four response categories and should be considered ordinal in level of measurement. Tau B is a non-parametric coefficient that assesses the relationship between an ordinal and a continuous variable. Evidence has suggested that Tau B may be a more accurate estimate of the correlation in population than Spearnan’s Rho (Howell, 1997). Jamovi (The Jamovi Project, 2021) was used to calculate Kendall’s Tau B.
 
2
These values were chosen based on their conversion to Pearson’s r. That is Tau B = .41 is approximately equal to r = .60 and Tau B = .19 is approximately equal to r = .29, according to Gilpin (1993).
 
3
van der Eijk and Rose (2015) found that Kaiser’s (1960) “eigenvalues greater than 1” rule, although criticized for over-dimensionalization, tends to work more precisely when using polychoric correlations, such as when the WLSMV estimator is used.
 
4
Kline (1994) suggested that loadings of .30 or higher can be regarded as salient loadings.
 
5
Advantages of using coefficient omega relative to using coefficient alpha are discussed thoroughly by Dunn et al. (2014), Goodboy and Martin (2020), Hayes and Coutts (2020), and Kalkbrenner (2021).
 
6
Omega can be calculated using ESEM, however research has found that regardless of the superior fit of ESEM models relative to CFA models, Omega should not differ substantially regardless of which type of model is used (Fu et al., 2022).
 
7
At the request of the editor, we have also examined with participants who only passed two attention checks removed from the sample. The sample size with these participants removed was reduced by only 9 participants and the removal of these participants did not meaningfully affect the results of the study.
 
8
A bifactor model with a general factor and 10 specific factors was also tested and provided strong fit indices but was not included here due to issues with interpretability of bifactor model fit (e.g., Murray & Johnson, 2013). Mplus output for these analyses is available on our OSF.
 
9
It should be noted that hypotheses for both study 1 and study 2 were posited prior to the collection of study 1 data.
 
10
The categorization of strength of correlation is based on Hemphill’s (2003) empirical guidelines, where a correlation of less than .20 is classified as weak, a correlation between .20 and .30 is classified as medium, and a correlation of stronger than .30 is categorized as strong.
 
Literatuur
go back to reference Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Manual for the beck depression inventory-II. Psychological Corporation. Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Manual for the beck depression inventory-II. Psychological Corporation.
go back to reference DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). SAGE. DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). SAGE.
go back to reference Goldberg, L. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg University Press. Goldberg, L. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg University Press.
go back to reference Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
go back to reference Howell, D. C. (1997). Statistical methods for psychology (4th ed.). Duxberry. Howell, D. C. (1997). Statistical methods for psychology (4th ed.). Duxberry.
go back to reference Jackson, D. N. (1984). Personality research form manual (3rd ed.). Sigma Assessment Systems. Revised. Jackson, D. N. (1984). Personality research form manual (3rd ed.). Sigma Assessment Systems. Revised.
go back to reference Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. Routledge. Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. Routledge.
go back to reference Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (5th ed., pp. 3–427). New York: The Guilford Press. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (5th ed., pp. 3–427). New York: The Guilford Press.
go back to reference Marsh, H. W., Liem, G. A. D., Martin, A. J., Morin, A. J. S., & Nagengast, B. (2011). Methodological measurement fruitfulness of exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM): New approaches to key substantive issues in motivation and engagement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 322–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911406657CrossRef Marsh, H. W., Liem, G. A. D., Martin, A. J., Morin, A. J. S., & Nagengast, B. (2011). Methodological measurement fruitfulness of exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM): New approaches to key substantive issues in motivation and engagement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 322–346. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​0734282911406657​CrossRef
go back to reference Martin, L. L., & Tesser, A. (1996). Some ruminative thoughts. In R. S. Wyer (Ed.), Ruminative thoughts: Advances in social cognition (Vol. 9, pp. 1–47). Erlbaum. Martin, L. L., & Tesser, A. (1996). Some ruminative thoughts. In R. S. Wyer (Ed.), Ruminative thoughts: Advances in social cognition (Vol. 9, pp. 1–47). Erlbaum.
go back to reference Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide. Author. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide. Author.
go back to reference Ree, M. J., French, D., MacLeod, C., & Locke, V. (2008). Distinguishing cognitive and somatic dimensions of state and trait anxiety: Development and validation of the State-Trait Inventory for Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety (STICSA). Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 36, 313–332. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352465808004232CrossRef Ree, M. J., French, D., MacLeod, C., & Locke, V. (2008). Distinguishing cognitive and somatic dimensions of state and trait anxiety: Development and validation of the State-Trait Inventory for Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety (STICSA). Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 36, 313–332. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​S135246580800423​2CrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
What Are You Ruminating About? The Development and Validation of a Content-Dependent Measure of Rumination
Auteurs
Christopher Marcin Kowalski
Donald H. Saklofske
Julie Aitken Schermer
Publicatiedatum
12-05-2024
Uitgeverij
Springer US
Gepubliceerd in
Cognitive Therapy and Research
Print ISSN: 0147-5916
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2819
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-024-10482-0