Objective: The current paper tries to illuminate the need for standard cutoff points. Introduction: rumination is considered to be a transdiagnostic process leading to a variety of consequences. But, what is prominent ruminative tendency? Are there agreed-upon specifications or cutoff points that distinguish between high and low tendency to ruminate? In an attempt to answer these questions, we reviewed 25 works that compared people characterized as high or low in rumination. We found numerous inconsistencies in the characterization criteria and a great variability in cutoff points. Most studies did not provide enough information about the cutoff criteria or values. Method: We examined a sample of 454 participants using the RRS (Ruminative Response Scale), from which we tried to identify standard cutoff points. Results showed: 1) distributions of RRS, brooding and reflective pondering; 2) most studies used median split, which might explain the differences among studies; 3) examination of standard scores for the various cutoffs presented big variability among the studies; and 4) women had higher scores of rumination and brooding than men. Conclusion: Our paper highlights the need for homogeneity in the field. It suggests addressing the RRS, brooding and reflective pondering distributions as references for future studies. We recommend specifying: cutoff criteria, cutoff values, range, means and standard deviations. Researchers should consider the specific population (i.e., men vs. women or clinical vs. non clinical) of interest and infer specific cutoff points accordingly. Importantly, researchers should consider the implications of their choice of cutoff points and apply their criterion accordingly.
Full Text Finder