Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38899126›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024

On assessing trait rumination using the Ruminative Response Scale.

Isabell Int-Veen, Ann-Christine Ehlis, Andreas J Fallgatter, David Rosenbaum

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Isabell Int-VeenTübingen Center for Mental Health, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Ann-Christine EhlisTübingen Center for Mental Health, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Andreas J FallgatterTübingen Center for Mental Health, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
David RosenbaumTübingen Center for Mental Health, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

careless respondinginvalid datapsychometric analysisruminationruminative response scale

Identifiers

PMID38899126
PMCPMC11186473

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.