Co-Rumination Questionnaire (CRQ)

Overview

The CRQ asks respondents to rate statements about their typical interactions with their best or closest (same-sex) friends. There are 9 areas assessed within the measure: frequency that problems are discussed; discussing problems rather than doing other activities; the respondent encouraging discussion of their friend's problems; the friend encouraging discussion of the respondent's problems; repeated discussion of the same problem; speculating about what caused the problem; speculating about the consequences of the problem; speculating about aspects of the problem that are not understood; and focusing on negative feelings. The measure was initially developed and tested in 8-13 year-olds, but has since been used to assess co-rumination in adolescents and college students. The CRQ is also available in Chinese (Fan et al., 2016). The CRQ has also been shortened and revised to a format for mother-child dyads (Waller & Rose, 2010).

Scoring & Interpretation

The CRQ is a 27-Item measure scored using a Likert style scale from 1 ('Not at all true') to 5 ('Really true'). A single total score for co-rumination is calculated by taking the mean of responses to all items.

Psychometric Properties

Internal Consistency

Internal consistency was found to be excellent: α = .90-.97.

Test-Retest Reliability

Factor Structure

Exploratory factor analysis in the original article (Rose, 2002), indicated a single factor, to which all 27 items contribute (factor loadings all above .45). More recently an EFA suggested a three-factor solution, with factors labelled 'Rehashing', 'Mulling' and 'Encouraging problem talk', and this showed better fit than a single-factor model when tested using CFA (Davidson et al., 2014).

Validity

Convergent validity was demonstrated in the original development work. Including, the Rehashing subscale moderately correlated with behavioural coding of Rehashing (r = .31; Davidson et al., 2014). There was also a significant correlation between the Encouraging Problem Talk subscale and behavioural coding of Encouraging Problem Talk (r = .25). The CRQ total score was positively correlated with observations of co-rumination, in addition to other measures of rumination, worry and lack of self-confidence (but not with depressive symptoms). The Mulling subscale showed the same pattern of correlations as the CRQ.

Measurement Invariance

Access

Not reported.

References

Calmes, C. A., & Roberts, J. E. (2008). Rumination in Interpersonal Relationships: Does Co-rumination Explain Gender Differences in Emotional Distress and Relationship Satisfaction Among College Students? Cognitive Therapy and Research, 32(4), 577–590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-008-9200-3

Rose, A. J., Carlson, W., & Waller, E. M. (2007). Prospective Associations of Co-Rumination With Friendship and Emotional Adjustment: Considering the Socioemotional Trade-Offs of Co-Rumination. Developmental Psychology, 43(4), 1019–1031. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.4.1019

Davidson, C. L., Grant, D. M., Byrd-Craven, J., Mills, A. C., Judah, M. R., & Lechner, W. V. (2014). Psychometric properties of the Co-Rumination Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 70, 171–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.07.002

Fan, C., Chu, X., Wang, M., & Zhou, Z. (2016). Interpersonal stressors in the schoolyard and depressive symptoms among Chinese adolescents: The mediating roles of rumination and co-rumination. School Psychology International, 37(6), 664–679. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034316678447

Waller, E. M., & Rose, A. J. (2010). Adjustment trade-offs of co-rumination in mother–adolescent relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 33(3), 487–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.06.002