Validation of the French version of a questionnaire that evaluates constructive and non-constructive repetitive thoughts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents the adaptation and the validation of a short self-report questionnaire assessing repetitive thinking, the Mini Cambridge-Exeter Repetitive Thought Scale (Mini-CERTS). This 16 item scale evaluates two dimensions of repetitive thinking: concrete, experiential thinking (CET) and abstract, analytical thinking (AAT) that may have constructive and unconstructive consequences. A large sample of adult volunteers (n = 247) filled in the Mini-CERTS. Subsamples also responded to depression, anxiety and general symptomatology questionnaires as well as to a concurrent measure, the Ruminative Response Scale. Confirmatory factor analysis ascertained the two-dimension structure of the questionnaire. Correlational analyses evidenced differentiated patterns of relation between CET and AAT and anxiety, depression and general symptomatology scales. AAT was correlated to the brooding scale of the RRS but there was no relation between CET and both scales of the RRS. Preliminary data suggest that the Mini-CERTS is sensitive to clinical status and treatment. © 2012 Canadian Psychological Association.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".