French validation of the Core Beliefs Inventory and the Event-Related Rumination Inventory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• The French versions of the CBI and the ERRI are valid. • The French version of the CBI differs slightly from the original. • Core beliefs and recent deliberate rumination predict posttraumatic growth (PTG). • Core beliefs predict PTG through recent deliberate rumination. • Intrusive rumination fosters deliberate rumination, leading to PTG. Posttraumatic growth (PTG) is associated with two important cognitive factors: challenge to core beliefs and event-related rumination. The objectives of this study were to 1) validate the French versions of the Core Beliefs Inventory (CBI, Cann et al., 2010) and the Event-Related Rumination Inventory (ERRI, Cann et al., 2011) and 2) explore direct and indirect effects of core beliefs and rumination on PTG in the long-term. : A sample of adults (N = 433 at T1, N = 222 at T2, six months later) who had experienced at least one traumatic event in their lifetime completed online questionnaires measuring core beliefs, rumination, distress, and PTG. Confirmatory factor analyses, correlations, and structural equation modeling were performed. (1) beliefs about justice, control, and the causality of events and (2) beliefs about relationships, self, and the future; as well as for the ERRI: (1) intrusive rumination and (2) deliberate rumination. Both scales showed good psychometric qualities. Disruption of beliefs about relationships, self, and the future at T1 and deliberate rumination at T2 had a direct positive effect on PTG at T2, while intrusive rumination at T1 had no effect. Deliberate rumination mediated both the relationship between disruption of core beliefs and PTG and the relationship between intrusive rumination and PTG. : The results demonstrate the validity of the CBI and ERRI and are consistent with the theoretical model emphasizing the importance of cognitive processing in the development of PTG.
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 | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".