PONE-D-21-01374

Validating the Bifactor Structure of the Ruminative Thought Style Questionnaire - a Psychometric Study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kökönyei,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 02 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Frantisek Sudzina

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1) Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2) Peer review at PLOS ONE is not double-blinded (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/editorial-and-peer-review-process). For this reason, authors should include in the revised manuscript all the information removed for blind review, including URLs.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The present study attempts to investigate the factor structure of the RTSQ using ESEM bifactor in two large samples, as well as gender invariance and criterion-related validity. There are a number of technical/methodological problems with this article. Additionally, the overall scientific contribution is not clear. I would suggest making the paper a brief report.

To begin, the introduction/setup of the paper was far too long. The authors should remember that factor analysis does not ‘uncover reality’. In this vein, detailed descriptions of who found which factor structure are likely not needed. Moreover, what is not clear is the ultimate contribution of this study. What is the clinical relevance of finding that the RTSQ has this structure or that? How does one versus the other finding in terms of structure impact what you do in the clinic?

Notably, page 12, line 179 – predicting depression from the RTSQ factors is criterion-related validity, not convergent validity (that would be another measure of rumination).

Methods:

Please document – at least briefly – the validation procedure for Hungarian measures in terms of translation/back-translation and cross-cultural construct validity previously found, if any.

It seems a little odd to use fit indices to arbitrate between models, especially when using a bifactor and ESEM. The bifactor is already a very general model and has a tendency to overfit – there’s quite a bit of discussion in the literature about it. ESEM compounds this problem further; in other words, there’s basically no way for the ESEM bifactor not to come out as the best-fitting model. The authors should at least discuss some of the auxiliary ways of arbitrating between models – content of general/specific factors, whether a factor is ‘collapsing in’ on itself, whether it’s driven by a single factor loading (see the AT factor), etc in this context.

Next, the authors could have reasonably stopped at Model 3 – it’s more interpretable and fits fine (although I’d have to look at the specific factor loadings to be sure). Additionally, why use 90% rather than 95% CI? Finally, the cross-loadings don’t seem to be reported (Table 3).

Notably, please go through the measure carefully and clean out any criterion contamination with depression items or criteria. Some of the content still appears overlapping. Additionally, in Table 3, items 18 and 20 seem to be the same.

There appear to be issues with the gender invariance models. First, the authors don’t include the AIC across models. Second, it appears that the likelihood ratio tests across models are significant, which would indicate a worsening fit across more constrained models. As such, I don’t think the authors can argue for gender invariance. Finally, why not examine predictive invariance (predicting depression) across gender?

Why not examine whether the specific factors predict a criterion variable above and beyond the general factor within the model, rather than just using sum scores?

Study 2: why did the authors not replicate the same models as in Study 1? Also, why was discriminant validity (e.g., some externalizing metric) not included?

Age should have been controlled for, given the range.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript investigates psychometric properties of the Ruminative Thought Style Questionnaire (RTSQ) among university students. Authors found that (1) the factor structure of the RTSQ was best described with a 19-item bifactor Exploratory Structural Equation Modelling (ESEM), and (2) the RTSQ was congruent with the RRS. This study appears to have a good methodology; however, it is unclear what the rumination would be.

Introduction

1.The most important problem was the lack of information about the definition of "Rumination." What is the gold standard for this word?

2.Although authors state that “Ruminative response, accompanied by other psychosocial factors, appears to aggravate depressed mood from early adolescence in case of women (ref.10)”, are there any reports that have shown clinical significance using the RTSQ (score) in university students? The significance of the RTSQ total score in the target population should be justified in the Introduction section, since the authors state that they want to see if the RTSQ total score is a valid measure of rumination.

3.The authors raise the ambiguity of the concept of rumination, and issues of differences in structural validity between studies as a problem, but there is not enough information on a problem for content validity of the RTSQ.

Methods & Results;

4.Sample collection: How were the participants collected for this study？ At least, eligibility criteria need to be shown. (Study1 & Study2)

5.Convergent validity needs to be assessed in separate analyses for men and women, respectively. (Study1)

6.Why did the authors examine the correlation between the CES-D and RTSQ in Study 1, while the correlation between the ZSDS and RTSQ in Study 2? Not only the ZSDS but also the CES-D scale are widely used to evaluate depressive symptom severity, with higher scores reflecting increased symptom severity. Please elaborate on why the depression scale was changed between studies 1 and 2. (Study1 & Study2)

7.Why did authors examine the relationship between the RTSQ scores and each subscale score, but not the total RPS score? (Study2)

Discussion;

8.In the method section, the word "Reliabilty" is used when explaining Cronbachα, but the word "Internal consistency" is used in the discussion section. The different ways of expressing the same meaning can be confusing. According to the COSMIN, the word "Reliability" can have several meaning, which may cause misinterpretation.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Validating the Bifactor Structure of the Ruminative Thought Style Questionnaire - a Psychometric Study

PONE-D-21-01374R1

Dear Dr. Kökönyei,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Frantisek Sudzina

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: