Validity and Reliability of the Turkish version of the Ruminative Thought Style Questionnaire

Objectives: Defined as the constant occupation with one matter or thought, the concept of rumination is recognized as an important cognitive process, which plays a role in the evolution of many psychiatric disorders. In order to evaluate the form of ruminative thought, many measurement questionnaires have been developed in psychiatry practice. The Ruminative Thought Style Questionnaire estimates ruminative thinking, regardless of any psychopathology, as a single cognitive process. The purpose of this study is to examine the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Ruminative Thought Style Questionnaire, developed by Brinker and Dozois in English. Method: The study was done with a sample of 262 healthy volunteers, who agreed to participate in the research. Every participant was given the following questionnaires: the Ruminative Thought Style Questionnaire (RTS), the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), the Leahy Emotional Schema Scale (LESS), the Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ), the short form of the Metacognitions Questionnaire (MCQ-30), and the Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire (ATQ). For reliability analysis we used Cronbach's alpha values as an indicator of internal consistency, item-total correlations and test-retest reliability. To determine the construct validity and factor structure of the RTS, we used principal components factor analysis and the varimax rotation method. To assess the factor structure of the RTS, principal components analysis and scree-plot analysis were applied to the test. Results: In the study of reliability with correlation analysis, it was observed that the internal consistency of the questionnaire was high (Cronbach alpha= 0.907). Principal components analysis identified 5 items over the eigenvalue of 1. After principal components analysis was applied, scree plot analysis revealed that the Turkish version of the RTS had one component, and this explained 63.43% of the total variance. In our study, the total point test-retest correlation factor of the scale was calculated as r=0.84 (p