CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3,808Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Research TopicsIdentity, Memory, and Therapy

Rumination reconsidered: a psychometric analysis.

Open access
Treynor, Wendy, Gonzalez, Richard, Nolen-Hoeksema, Susan·2003·Cognitive Therapy and Research
DOI 10.1023/a:1023910315561
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/a:1023910315561

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The RRS has good validity and a stable structure supporting the multidimensional nature of rumination.

    “This scale has a good validity and a stable structure to support the multidimensional nature of rumination (Treynor et al., 2003; Schoofs et al., 2010).”

    From Coexistence and different determinants of posttraumatic stress disorder and posttraumatic growth among Chinese survivors after earthquake: role of resilience and rumination (2015) · cites this paper as Treynor et al., 2003

    In “Construction of a New Rumination Scale,” the authors report a robust two-factor structure for a 10-item version of the RRS, supporting the multidimensional aspect of the claim. The Conclusion, however, describes the subscales’ reliabilities as moderate and says further work is needed to improve their construct validity. The paper therefore does not establish the unqualified claim of good validity for the RRS. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • More rumination in females partly explains gender differences in depressive symptoms.

    “Furthermore, longitudinal studies have shown that more rumination in females partly explains gender differences in depressive symptoms (Hamilton, Stange, Abramson, & Alloy, 2015; Treynor et al., 2003).”

    From A mindful yoga intervention for young women with major depressive disorder: Design and baseline sample characteristics of a randomized controlled trial (2020) · cites this paper as Treynor et al., 2003

    The Mediation section reports that brooding at Time 1 appeared to mediate the gender difference in depressive symptoms at Time 2, supporting the longitudinal part of the claim. The Conclusion says women scored higher on both rumination factors, but only brooding—not reflection—mediated that difference. The claim omits this important qualification. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The RRS has good psychometric properties including internal consistency (α = 0.72-0.79) and test-retest reliability (r = 0.60-0.62).

    “The measure has good psychometric properties including internal consistency (α = 0.72–0.79) and test-retest reliability (r = 0.60–0.62) (Roelofs et al., 2006; Treynor et al., 2003).”

    From Online mindfulness-enhanced cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety and depression: Outcomes of a pilot trial (2018) · cites this paper as Treynor et al., 2003

    The ‘Construction of a New Rumination Scale’ section reports test–retest correlations of .60 and .62 for the five-item reflection and brooding subscales, but their internal-consistency alphas are .72 and .77, not .72–.79. The ‘Rumination’ section gives different values for the full 22-item RRS (alpha .90; test–retest correlation .67), so the cited figures should not be presented as properties of the full scale. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The brooding subscale has shown good reliability in other studies (α = .77).

    “The brooding subscale has been shown to have good reliability in other studies (α = .77; Treynor et al., 2003)”

    From Group CBT versus MBSR for social anxiety disorder: A randomized controlled trial. (2016) · cites this paper as Treynor et al., 2003

  • Maladaptive rumination ("brooding") has been associated with higher depressive symptoms in the later course of the disease.

    “Maladaptive rumination (“brooding”) has been associated with higher depressive symptoms in the later course of the disease (59).”

    From SSRI Treatment Response Prediction in Depression Based on Brain Activation by Emotional Stimuli (2020) · cites this paper as [59]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [16]16. Martin, L. L., & Tesser, A. (1996). Some ruminative thoughts. In R. S. Wyer Jr. (Ed.), Advances in social cognition (pp. 1-47). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  2. [35]35. Wyer, R. S., Jr. (Ed.). (1996). Advances in social cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Treynor, W., Gonzalez, R., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Treynor, Wendy
Venue
Cognitive Therapy and Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2003-06
Volume
27
Issue
3
Pages
247-259
ISSN
  • 0147-5916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2819
DOI
10.1023/a:1023910315561
OpenAlex
W2158598050
Cited by
3,808
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 233 · 2025: 280 · 2024: 253 · 2023: 256 · 2022: 273 · 2021: 319 · 2020: 248 · 2019: 250 · 2018: 230 · 2017: 212 · 2016: 198 · 2015: 173 · 2014: 165 · 2013: 145 · 2012: 105
FWCI
25.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Cognitive Therapy and Research (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (9809261)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Identity, Memory, and Therapy
Keywords
rumination, depression, response styles theory, brooding, gender differences in depression, psychometric properties, depressive symptoms

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review