↓ Skip to main content

Psychometric properties of the 10-item ruminative response scale in Chinese university students

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
Psychometric properties of the 10-item ruminative response scale in Chinese university students
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12888-017-1318-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiaoxia Lei, Mingtian Zhong, Ying Liu, Chang Xi, Yu Ling, Xiongzhao Zhu, Shuqiao Yao, Jinyao Yi

Abstract

Rumination increases vulnerability to depression, exacerbates and perpetuates negative moods. This study was aimed to examine the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the 10-item Ruminative Response Scale (RRS-10) in a large undergraduate sample. A sample of 5,236 university students finished the RRS and the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed to examine the two-factor structure and the measurement equivalence of the RRS-10 across gender. The internal consistency, test-retest reliability, correlations among RRS, RRS-10 and CES-D were also explored. In addition, gender difference on rumination and the relationship between rumination and depression were further investigated. The two-factor model of RRS-10 fit the data reasonably and had acceptable internal consistency and test-retest reliability in Chinese undergraduates sample. And the measurement equivalence of the RRS-10 was acceptable across gender in Chinese university students. Findings in respect of latent means and manifest means revealed non-significant gender difference in RRS-10. Besides, participants with high-level rumination had more depressive symptoms than those with low-level rumination. The Chinese version of the RRS-10 showed good psychometric properties and was measurement invariant across gender in undergraduates.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 24%
Student > Master 4 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Student > Postgraduate 2 10%
Researcher 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 3 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 57%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 19%
Chemistry 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Unknown 3 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 April 2017.
All research outputs
#7,509,412
of 9,741,287 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#2,078
of 2,539 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,428
of 262,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#88
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,741,287 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,539 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 262,400 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.