ArticlePloS one2021
Validating the bifactor structure of the Ruminative Thought Style Questionnaire-A psychometric study.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Ruminative Thought Style Questionnaire (RTSQ) is a self-report measure that aims to capture rumination globally, unbiased by depressive symptoms. We explored its psychometric properties among university students (N = 1123), as the existing models about the factor structure of the RTSQ have been inconclusive. In a second study (N = 320) we tested its convergent validity compared to the Ruminative Response Scale (RRS) and its construct validity compared to the Zung Self-rating Depression Scale (ZSDS). The results of Study 1 suggest that the factor structure of the RTSQ is best described with a 19-item bifactor Exploratory Structural Equation Modelling (ESEM), where most of the variance is explained by the general factor. The model was found to be invariant across genders. The correlations in Study 2 demonstrated that the RTSQ is congruent with the RRS, and that rumination captured by the RTSQ is rather maladaptive, as it was more strongly associated with the brooding subscale of the RRS than with reflective pondering. Significant positive associations were found with depressive symptoms, reaffirming the validity of the RTSQ due to the well-known association between rumination and depressive symptoms. Our results support that RTSQ assesses rumination globally, and it is a valid measure of ruminative thinking style that is rather negatively valenced but does not solely focus on depressive mood and symptoms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.