Development of a Japanese Version of the Mini-Cambridge Exeter Repetitive Thought Scale

Abstract

Although repetitive thought is a risk factor for depression, it can also foster constructive consequences. One factor that determines whether repetitive thought is constructive is the processing mode. The Mini-Cambridge Exeter Repetitive Thought Scale (Mini-CERTS) is the only scale to evaluate such processing modes that relate to the abstractness of thoughts. However, there is no scale to evaluate processing modes in Japan. In this study, the Mini-CERTS was translated into Japanese, and we sought to establish a method of evaluating the processing modes of repetitive thoughts. We conducted exploratory factor analysis of data collected from 222 university students and examined internal consistency and criterion validity. Results showed that the Japanese version of the Mini-CERTS (CERTS-J) had only 12 items. These items loaded upon two factors: abstract analytical thinking (AAT) and concrete experiential thinking (CET). AAT showed sufficient criterion-related validity, but CET did not. Nevertheless, higher AAT predicted higher depression, whereas higher CET predicted lower depression. Thus, the CERTS-J can evaluate processing modes and the functionality of repetitive thoughts. Additional research is needed to assess whether the original English items suit the Japanese culture.

Cross-cultural validation of the Spanish version of the mini cambridge-exeter repetitive thought scale (Mini-CERTS) in two Spanish-speaking populations

“…The factorial structure of our 9-items version of Mini-CERTS is in agreement with this original proposal, finding a two-factor structure congruent with the abstract analytic and concrete experiential modes of rumination. As mentioned previously, the French (Douilliez et al, 2014), Japanese (Kambara et al, 2019) and Polish (Kornacka et al, 2016) versions of the Mini-CERTS also replicated this two-factor structure.…”

“…After an exploratory factor analysis, both studies reduced the scale to 12 items, although there were variations in the items comprising the factors. Thus, comparing our results and those of the previous validation studies of the Mini-CERTS (Douilliez et al, 2014; Kambara et al, 2019; Kornacka et al, 2016), there is evidence of a two-factor structure of the scale, but the items that form each factor are still inconclusive given its inconsistency between studies in different populations. To date, the common items between studies are items 8 and 13 for the constructive factor and items 3, 10, 12, and 15 for the unconstructive factor.…”

“…In this sense, the results of previous studies regarding the association between factors are also inconclusive. Thus, Douilliez et al (2014) and Kambara et al (2019) found associations between factors that, although statistically significant, had a minimum effect size (-.23 and .22, respectively). Nevertheless, with a Polish sample, Kornacka et al (2016) found a significant correlation of -.43.…”

“…Several items of the original Mini-CERTS scale had to be deleted to achieve an adequate fit in both samples (Spanish and Peruvian). In this regard, Kambara et al (2019) and Kornacka et al (2016) also reported a reduction in the number of items after analysing its factor structure. After an exploratory factor analysis, both studies reduced the scale to 12 items, although there were variations in the items comprising the factors.…”

“…Although no factor analysis of the broader CERTS measure has yet been published, factor analyses of the Mini-CERTS among French (Douilliez et al, 2014), Polish (Kornacka et al, 2016) and Japanese (Kambara et al, 2019) participants suggested it has a two-factor structure which aligns with the distinction between constructive and unconstructive types of repetitive thought (Watkins, 2008). The first factor, which is considered to represent unconstructive methods of coping with negative affect, regards the tendency to engage in abstract self-evaluative thinking about the causes and consequences of events and their implications for oneself (e.g., “I think about why I can’t get started on something”).…”