ArticleBMC psychology2023
The psychometric properties of positive and negative beliefs about the rumination scale in Chinese undergraduates.
Article in BMC psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Psychological stress and depression symptoms in nursing undergraduates: the chain mediating effect of cognitive reappraisal and ruminate thinking.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- The Specificity of Metacognition Questionnaire-30 Subdimensions: Findings From Connectome-Based Predictive Modeling.Depression and anxiety · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRumination, a transdiagnostic factor in different psychopathological conditions, is believed to be activated and sustained by dysfunctional metacognition. The Positive Beliefs about Rumination Scale (PBRS) and the Negative Beliefs about Rumination Scale (NBRS) have been used to measure the metacognitive beliefs of rumination and have been investigated in many cultural contexts. However, it remains unclear whether these scales can work as well for the Chinese population. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the psychometric properties of the Chinese versions of these scales and to test the metacognitive model of rumination for students with different levels of depression.
methodsThe PBRS and NBRS were forward-backward translated into Mandarin. In total 1,025 college students were recruited to complete a battery of web-based questionnaires. Exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and correlation analysis were used to test the structure, validity, and reliability of the two scales, as well as their item correlations with rumination.
resultsA new two-factor structure of the PBRS (rather than the original one-factor model) and a new three-factor structure of the NBRS (rather than the original two-factor model) were extracted. The goodness-of-fit indices of these two factor models showed they had a good to very good fit with the data. The internal consistency and construct validity of PBRS and NBRS were also affirmed.
conclusionThe Chinese versions of the PBRS and the NBRS were generally shown to be reliable and valid, but their newly extracted structures fit the Chinese college students better than their original structures. These new models of PBRS and NBRS are of value to be further explored in Chinese population.
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.