你在反刍什么?反刍内容依赖性测量方法的开发与验证

IF 2.8 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Cognitive Therapy and Research Pub Date : 2024-05-12 DOI:10.1007/s10608-024-10482-0
Christopher Marcin Kowalski, Donald H. Saklofske, Julie Aitken Schermer
{"title":"你在反刍什么?反刍内容依赖性测量方法的开发与验证","authors":"Christopher Marcin Kowalski, Donald H. Saklofske, Julie Aitken Schermer","doi":"10.1007/s10608-024-10482-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Purpose</h3><p>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.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>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.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>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.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusions</h3><p>Overall, we present strong evidence supporting the validity of the RDQ.</p>","PeriodicalId":48316,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Therapy and Research","volume":"275 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What Are You Ruminating About? The Development and Validation of a Content-Dependent Measure of Rumination\",\"authors\":\"Christopher Marcin Kowalski, Donald H. Saklofske, Julie Aitken Schermer\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10608-024-10482-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Purpose</h3><p>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.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Methods</h3><p>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.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Results</h3><p>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.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Conclusions</h3><p>Overall, we present strong evidence supporting the validity of the RDQ.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48316,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Therapy and Research\",\"volume\":\"275 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Therapy and Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-024-10482-0\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Therapy and Research","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-024-10482-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的 现有的反刍测量方法只评估反刍思维,而不涉及反刍内容。本研究描述了 "反刍领域问卷 "的构建和验证,这是一种新的反刍测量方法,它考虑到了反刍思维的领域特异性。项目以这些领域、临床/咨询案例研究和专家反馈为基础。在研究 1 中,通过实证分析将 106 个初步项目缩减为 60 个项目。在研究 2 中,对内容效度和结构效度进行了评估。结果根据经验标准保留了项目,最终量表在 10 因子模型和分层模型中都表现出了可接受的拟合度。内容效度和标准效度都得到了支持,10 因子模型和分层模型都显示出了可接受的拟合度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
What Are You Ruminating About? The Development and Validation of a Content-Dependent Measure of Rumination

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cognitive Therapy and Research
Cognitive Therapy and Research PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: Cognitive Therapy and Research (COTR) focuses on the investigation of cognitive processes in human adaptation and adjustment and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). It is an interdisciplinary journal welcoming submissions from diverse areas of psychology, including cognitive, clinical, developmental, experimental, personality, social, learning, affective neuroscience, emotion research, therapy mechanism, and pharmacotherapy.
期刊最新文献
Examining Relationships between Psychological Flexibility and Comorbidity of Depression and Anxiety: A Network Analysis in a Non-Clinical Community Sample Lay Theories for Social Anxiety: Examining the Impact of Viewing Social Anxiety as Malleable Due to Personal Effort versus Fixed in Nature in a Non-clinical Sample Training to Increase Processing of Positive Content Paradoxically Decreases Positive Memory Bias in High Levels of Depression Associations Between Self-Criticism, Basic Psychological Needs Frustration, and Self-Damaging Behaviors: An Application of Self-Determination Theory Relapse prevention following guided self-help for common health problems: A Scoping Review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1