反刍思维量表在不同性别和抑郁症状医学院校新生中的测量等值性

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2023.06.018

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 采用10项目反刍思维量表(Ruminative Response Scale, RRS-10)和贝克抑郁量表对山东省两所医科院校8019名新生进行调查，使用多组验证性因素分析检验RRS-10在不同性别和抑郁症状医学院校新生中的测量等值性。结果发现，抑郁症状阳性组的RRS-10总分、强迫思考和反省深思因子分显著高于抑郁症状阴性组；RRS-10在男性和女性、抑郁症状阳性组和阴性组样本间的形态等值、弱等值、强等值和严格等值模型均成立。结果表明，RRS-10的二因子结构在不同性别以及抑郁症状医学院校新生间具有测量等值性。

关键词: 反刍思维, 测量等值性, 性别差异, 抑郁症状, 医学院校新生

Abstract: Using the 10-item Ruminative Response Scale (RRS-10) and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), 8019 first-year students from two medical universities in Shandong Province were surveyed. Multi-group confirmatory analysis (MCFA) was conducted to examine the measurement invariance of RRS-10 across gender and depressive symptoms, respectively. The independent two-sample t test showed no gender difference in the scores of RRS-10 and subscales. The total scores of RRS-10 and subscale scores of brooding and reflection in the depression-positive group were significantly higher than those in the depression-negative group. The configural invariance, metric invariance, scalar invariance and strict invariance of RRS-10 across different genders and depressive symptoms all showed good fitness. There was a significant difference in rumination between depression-positive students and depression-negative students. The 2-factor model of RRS-10 had good fitness of measurement invariance across different genders and depressive symptoms in Chinese medical first-year students.

Key words: rumination, measurement invariance, gender difference, depressive symptoms, medical first-year students

中图分类号:

B849

李文福, 刘燕, 段熙明, 牛四方, 许瑞雪, 慕福芹. 反刍思维量表在不同性别和抑郁症状医学院校新生中的测量等值性[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2023, 21(6): 854-860.

Wenfu LI, Yan LIU, Ximing DUAN, Sifang NIU, Ruixue XU, Fuqin MU. Measurement Invariance of the Ruminative Response Scale Across Different Genders and Depressive Symptoms in Chinese Medical First-Year Students[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2023, 21(6): 854-860.

图/表 5

参考文献

	白新文, 陈毅文. 测量等价性的概念及其判定条件. 心理科学进展, 2004, 12 (2): 231- 239.
	陈俊波, 申秀云, 李玲艳, 韩燕, 朱熊兆. (2021). 手机依赖指数中文版在不同性别大学生中的测量等值性. 中国临床心理学杂志, 29(2), 380–383, 379.
	黄雅莲, 陈孜, 石杭科, 李衡, 叶木槿, 唐平. (2016). 医学生反刍思维、自尊与抑郁的关系研究. 成都医学院学报, 11(4), 489–492, 495.
	蒋水琳, 杨文辉. 贝克抑郁量表第2版中文版在我国大学生中的因子结构. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2020, 28 (2): 299- 305. DOI
	雷小霞, 钟明天, 席畅, 刘莹, 凌宇, 蚁金瑶. 冗思反应量表简版在抑郁症状阴性和阳性大学生人群中的测量等值性. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2018, 26 (1): 39- 42. DOI
	李文福, 强景, 徐芳芳, 李功迎. 医学院校大学新生心理症状变迁的横断历史研究. 中国心理卫生杂志, 2020, 34 (9): 784- 789.
	林雯仪, 何昊, 关青. 反刍思维的脑功能网络机制. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30 (6): 1262- 1269. DOI
	刘慧瀛, 吉思思, 孔德荣, 王婉, 杨静怡, 赵华夏. (2022). 期待性快感缺失与自杀风险的关系: 抑郁与反刍思维的作用. 中国临床心理学杂志, 30(3), 669–673, 652.
	刘砚燕, 袁长蓉. 量表测量等价性及其在护理研究中的应用. 中华护理杂志, 2015, 50 (1): 110- 116. DOI
	孟健男, 司维, 邵杰. 大学新生SCL-90心理测评研究——以某中医药大学药学院2017级新生为例. 中国社会医学杂志, 2019, 36 (4): 388- 391. DOI
	桑志芹, 伏干. 家庭环境、专业满意度与大一新生心理健康的关系. 心理与行为研究, 2015, 13 (2): 278- 282. DOI
	佘爱, 韦光彬, 曾练平. 工作家庭平衡问卷在不同性别中的测量等值性. 心理技术与应用, 2020, 8 (1): 60- 64. DOI
	魏修建, 郑广文. 测量不变性研究综述与理论框架. 系统工程, 2015, 33 (3): 64- 71.
	杨晨虹, 杨宏飞. 抑郁症患者的积极反刍思维训练效果. 中国健康心理学杂志, 2020, 28 (5): 648- 651.
	杨春柳, 徐华, 刘君妍, 吴南. 抑郁状态大学生的反刍思维和心智游移关系. 中国健康心理学杂志, 2021, 29 (11): 1733- 1737.
	杨文辉, 熊戈. 常用抑郁量表筛查我国青少年抑郁的效度和划界分. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2016, 24 (6): 1010- 1015. DOI
	张斌, 毛惠梨, 刘静, 邱致燕, 罗鑫森, 熊思成. 大学生手机依赖与睡眠质量的关系: 反刍思维的中介作用. 教育生物学杂志, 2021, 9 (3): 173- 178.
	张阔, 方春夏, 杨宁. 孤独感和反刍思维与大学生抑郁的关系: 有调节的中介模型. 心理研究, 2021, 14 (5): 457- 463. DOI
	张宁, 陈豆豆, 沈歆怡, 陈艺文. 医学院新生压力知觉与学习倦怠的相关性研究. 中国多媒体与网络教学学报(上旬刊), 2022, (10): 203- 206.
	Arana, F. G., & Rice, K. G.. Cross-cultural validity of the Ruminative Responses Scale in Argentina and the United States. Assessment, 2020, 27 (2): 309- 320. DOI
	Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B.. Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 1989, 105 (3): 456- 466. DOI
	Chen, F. F.. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 2007, 14 (3): 464- 504. DOI
	Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B.. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 2002, 9 (2): 233- 255. DOI
	Deguchi, A., Masuya, J., Naruse, M., Morishita, C., Higashiyama, M., Tanabe, H., ... Ichiki, M.. Rumination mediates the effects of childhood maltreatment and trait anxiety on depression in non-clinical adult volunteers. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 2021, 17, 3439- 3445. DOI
	Dyrbye, L. N., Thomas, M. R., & Shanafelt, T. D.. Systematic review of depression, anxiety, and other indicators of psychological distress among U.S. and Canadian medical students. Academic Medicine, 2006, 81 (4): 354- 373. DOI
	Extremera, N., & Fernández-Berrocal, P.. Validity and reliability of spanish versions of the Ruminative Responses Scale-Short Form and the Distraction Responses Scale in a sample of Spanish high school and college students. Psychological Reports, 2006, 98 (1): 141- 150. DOI
	French, B. F., & Finch, W. H.. Confirmatory factor analytic procedures for the determination of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 2006, 13 (3): 378- 402. DOI
	He, J. Y., Liu, Y. L., Cheng, C., Fang, S. L., Wang, X., & Yao, S. Q.. Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the 10-item Ruminative Response Scale among undergraduates and depressive patients. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 2021, 12, 626859. DOI
	Holdaway, A. S., Luebbe, A. M., & Becker, S. P. (2018). Rumination in relation to suicide risk, ideation, and attempts: Exacerbation by poor sleep quality? Journal of Affective Disorders, 236, 6–13.
	Horwitz, A. G., Czyz, E. K., Berona, J., & King, C. A.. Rumination, brooding, and reflection: prospective associations with suicide ideation and suicide attempts. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 2019, 49 (4): 1085- 1093. DOI
	Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M.. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 1999, 6 (1): 1- 55. DOI
	Johnson, D. P., & Whisman, M. A.. Gender differences in rumination: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 2013, 55 (4): 367- 374. DOI
	Kim, J. S., Jin, M. J., Jung, W., Hahn, S. W., & Lee, S. H.. Rumination as a mediator between childhood trauma and adulthood depression/anxiety in non-clinical participants. Frontiers in Psychology, 2017, 8, 1597. DOI
	Kong, T. Z., He, Y. N., Auerbach, R. P., McWhinnie, C. M., & Xiao, J.. Rumination and depression in Chinese university students: The mediating role of overgeneral autobiographical memory. Personality and Individual Differences, 2015, 77, 221- 224. DOI
	Kovács, L. N., Takacs, Z. K., Tóth, Z., Simon, E., Schmelowszky, Á., & Kökönyei, G.. Rumination in major depressive and bipolar disorder: A meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 2020, 276, 1131- 1141. DOI
	Lavadera, P., Millon, E. M., & Shors, T. J.. MAP train my brain: Meditation combined with aerobic exercise reduces stress and rumination while enhancing quality of life in medical students. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 2020, 26 (5): 418- 423. DOI
	Lei, X. X., Zhong, M. T., Liu, Y., Xi, C., Ling, Y., Zhu, X. Z., ... Yi, J. Y.. Psychometric properties of the 10-item Ruminative Response Scale in Chinese university students. BMC Psychiatry, 2017, 17 (1): 152. DOI
	Moulds, M. L., Bisby, M. A., Wild, J., & Bryant, R. A.. Rumination in posttraumatic stress disorder: A systematic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 2020, 82, 101910. DOI
	Nolen-Hoeksema, S.. Responses to depression and their effects on the duration of depressive episodes. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1991, 100 (4): 569- 582. DOI
	Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Wisco, B. E., & Lyubomirsky, S.. Rethinking rumination. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2008, 3 (5): 400- 424. DOI
	Rogers, M. L., & Joiner, T. E.. Suicide-specific rumination relates to lifetime suicide attempts above and beyond a variety of other suicide risk factors. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 2018, 98, 78- 86. DOI
	Sartorius, N., & Kuyken, W. (1994). Translation of health status instruments. Proceedings of the Joint-Meeting Organized by the World Health Organization and the Foundation IPSEN, Paris.
	Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M.. A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 2001, 66 (4): 507- 514. DOI
	Smith, K. E., Mason, T. B., & Lavender, J. M.. Rumination and eating disorder psychopathology: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 2018, 61, 9- 23. DOI
	Treynor, W., Gonzalez, R., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S.. Rumination reconsidered: A psychometric analysis. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 2003, 27 (3): 247- 259. DOI
	Wang, S., Jing, H. L., Chen, L., & Li, Y.. The influence of negative life events on suicidal ideation in college students: The role of rumination. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2020, 17 (8): 2646. DOI
	Whisman, M. A., Miranda, R., Fresco, D. M., Heimberg, R. G., Jeglic, E. L., & Weinstock, L. M.. Measurement invariance of the Ruminative Responses Scale across gender. Assessment, 2020, 27 (3): 508- 517. DOI
	Zhang, R. B., Kranz, G. S., Zou, W. J., Deng, Y., Huang, X. J., Lin, K. G., & Lee, T. M. C.. Rumination network dysfunction in major depression: A brain connectome study. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, 2020, 98, 109819. DOI
	Zhou, H., Liu, W. T., Fan, J., Xia, J., Zhu, J., & Zhu, X. Z.. The Temporal Experience of Pleasure Scale (TEPS): Measurement invariance across gender in Chinese university students. Frontiers in Psychology, 2019, 10, 2130. DOI

条目	平均数	标准差	偏度	峰度	因子载荷
条目	平均数	标准差	偏度	峰度	强迫思考	反省深思
条目1	2.04	0.77	0.44	−0.08	0.69
条目2	1.94	0.74	0.57	0.24	0.75
条目3	2.32	0.76	0.24	−0.23	0.66
条目4	1.94	0.77	0.61	0.17	0.61
条目5	2.22	0.76	0.39	−0.01	0.69
条目6	2.05	0.80	0.44	−0.27		0.68
条目7	2.15	0.77	0.40	−0.08		0.78
条目8	1.73	0.78	0.90	0.38		0.40
条目9	1.92	0.78	0.62	0.10		0.63
条目10	1.85	0.79	0.76	0.27		0.52

条目	平均数	标准差	偏度	峰度	因子载荷
条目	平均数	标准差	偏度	峰度	强迫思考	反省深思
条目1	2.04	0.77	0.44	−0.08	0.69
条目2	1.94	0.74	0.57	0.24	0.75
条目3	2.32	0.76	0.24	−0.23	0.66
条目4	1.94	0.77	0.61	0.17	0.61
条目5	2.22	0.76	0.39	−0.01	0.69
条目6	2.05	0.80	0.44	−0.27		0.68
条目7	2.15	0.77	0.40	−0.08		0.78
条目8	1.73	0.78	0.90	0.38		0.40
条目9	1.92	0.78	0.62	0.10		0.63
条目10	1.85	0.79	0.76	0.27		0.52

	性别			抑郁症状
	男性组	女性组	t	抑郁症状阳性组	抑郁症状阴性组	t
反刍思维	20.13±5.52	20.19±5.11	−0.47	25.12±5.63	19.83±5.08	22.52***
强迫思考	10.42±3.03	10.50±2.82	−1.17	13.32±3.16	10.27±2.79	23.60***
反省深思	9.71±2.89	9.69±2.71	0.33	11.80±2.96	9.56±2.71	17.93***

	性别			抑郁症状
	男性组	女性组	t	抑郁症状阳性组	抑郁症状阴性组	t
反刍思维	20.13±5.52	20.19±5.11	−0.47	25.12±5.63	19.83±5.08	22.52***
强迫思考	10.42±3.03	10.50±2.82	−1.17	13.32±3.16	10.27±2.79	23.60***
反省深思	9.71±2.89	9.69±2.71	0.33	11.80±2.96	9.56±2.71	17.93***

	χ²	df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA(90% CI)	SRMR
总样本(n=8019)	1797.95***	34	0.916	0.889	0.080[0.077, 0.084]	0.043
总样本(n=8019)^#	1240.65***	32	0.942	0.919	0.069[0.065, 0.072]	0.036
男生(n=3200)	438.70***	32	0.950	0.929	0.063[0.058, 0.068]	0.033
女生(n=4819)	919.96***	32	0.933	0.906	0.076[0.072, 0.080]	0.040
抑郁症状阴性组(n=7512)	1150.51***	32	0.939	0.915	0.068[0.065, 0.072]	0.037
抑郁症状阳性组(n=507)	110.98***	32	0.946	0.924	0.070[0.056, 0.084]	0.041