ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024
On assessing trait rumination using the Ruminative Response Scale.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. 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.
- Investigating the neural and behavioral correlates of the stress-rumination link in healthy humans by modulating the left Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex using Theta Burst Stimulation.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2025Trial
- Artificial intelligence anxiety and academic burnout among Chinese postgraduate students: perceived stress and rumination as serial mediators.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study explores the stability of scores on psychometrically validated trait questionnaires over time. We illustrate potential pitfalls through a larger study that used the Ruminative Response Scale (RRS) to categorize participants prior to study inclusion into two groups based on their habitual tendency to ruminate. Surprisingly, when we re-administered the RRS at the start of an experimental session, significant score changes occurred, resulting in participants shifting between the two groups. Methods: To address this, we modified our recruitment process, aiming to reduce careless responses, including an online RRS assessment a week before the lab appointment. We analyzed the different samples prior to and after changing the recruitment procedure, as well as the total sample regarding the psychometric properties of the RRS. We also explored various indices to identify and predict score changes due to careless responding; however, only a subgroup of participants was successfully identified. Results: Our findings suggest that Mahalanobis distances are effective for identifying substantial score changes, with baseline state rumination emerging as a marginally significant predictor. Discussion: We discuss the importance of conducting manipulation checks and offer practical implications for research involving psychometrically validated trait questionnaires.
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.