Clinical and research measures of grief: A reconsideration

Tomita, Takuro; Kitamura, Toshinori

doi:10.1053/comp.2002.30801

Cited by 46 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…13 The items selected for this scale were derived from the authors' clinical experience with people who had lost a close friend or relative and was intended to measure grief-related behaviors and feelings, such as sadness, searching for the deceased, crying, and yearning. 38,46 Toedter et al 38 interviewed parents who experienced a perinatal loss and modified the wording of items based on these interviews. A condensed version of the scale was also developed.…”

Section: Instruments and Methodologies Used To Assess The Presence Anmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…23 Qualitative studies of the experience of miscarriage have varied widely in their methodology (i.e., questionnaires, interviews, and nonstandardized Likert scales) and in their sample sizes (i.e., from 6 to 294 subjects). 41,[43][44][45][46][47][48] Initially, a sense of shock and unreality is described, followed by feelings of confusion over the sudden disappearance of a maternal role, and disappointment over the loss of an anticipated future. 44,45,48 The intensity of grief is described as similar to the intensity of grief individuals experience after other types of significant losses, such as that of a family member.…”

Section: Grief Following Miscarriage 453mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Grief Following Miscarriage: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature

Brier

2008

Journal of Women's Health

213

188

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective:The literature exploring the relationship between miscarriage and grief is sparse. This paper summarizes the literature on grief subsequent to an early miscarriage to elucidate the nature, incidence, intensity, and duration of grief at this time and to identify potential moderators.Methods: An electronic search of the Medline and Psych Info databases was conducted. Studies were selected for inclusion if they related to early miscarriage, used a standardized measure to assess perinatal grief, and specified the assessment intervals employed. Qualitative studies were included when helpful to develop hypotheses.Results: Descriptions of grief following miscarriage are highly variable but tend to match descriptions of grief used to characterize other types of significant losses. A sizable percentage of women seem to experience a grief reaction, with the actual incidence of grief unclear. Suggestively, grief, when present, seems to be similar in intensity to grief after other types of major losses and is significantly less intense by about 6 months. Few conclusions can be drawn in regard to potential moderators of grief following a miscarriage.Conclusions: Although additional research is clearly needed, guidelines for coping with grief following miscarriage can be based on the data available on coping with other significant types of losses. Given the range of potential meanings for this primarily prospective and symbolic loss, practitioners need to encourage patients to articulate the specific nature of their loss and assist in helping them concretize the experience. 451

show abstract

Section: Instruments and Methodologies Used To Assess The Presence Anmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Grief Following Miscarriage 453mentioning

confidence: 99%

Grief Following Miscarriage: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature

Brier

2008

Journal of Women's Health

213

188

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The GEI has been validated (Schwab, 1996), but validation of the GEQ and BEQ has not been reported. However, these scales were all developed for measuring grief rather than guilt or shame specifically (Tomita & Kitamura, 2002), and the Cronbach's alpha coefficient for GEI guilt is .57 (Bohannon, 1990). Only three studies used instruments specifically operationalized for measuring guilt and shame (Barr, 2004(Barr, , 2012Barr & Cacciatore, 2007).…”

Section: Appraisal Of Sampling Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature on Self-Blame, Guilt, and Shame

Duncan

Cacciatore

2015

Omega (Westport)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the first systematic review of the evidence on the prevalence of self-blame, guilt, and shame in bereaved parents. A search of PsychINFO, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PubMed, and Science Direct resulted in 18 studies for the period 1975 to 2013 which the authors have appraised. Self-blame, guilt, and shame are common in bereaved parents, albeit to varying degrees, with differential relationships to sex, and diminishing over time. There is some evidence that guilt and shame predict more intense grief reactions and that self-blame predicts posttraumatic symptomology, anxiety, and depression in bereaved parents. Heterogeneity of the studies and numerous methodological concerns limit the synthesis and strength of the evidence and the generalizability of the findings. Self-blame, guilt, and shame are commonly experienced by bereaved parents. Awareness of these affective states may assist clinicians in the identification of bereaved parents who are at a higher risk of developing adverse psychological outcomes. Overall, self-blame, guilt, and shame have received very little attention in the bereavement research, leaving many unanswered questions. Implications for practice and recommendations for future research are discussed. Self-blame, guilt, and shame are common in bereavement and may hinder the healthy progression of mourning (Buckle & Fleming, 2011;Humphrey, 2009;Rando, 1986 , 1989). However, self-blame, guilt, and shame have received relatively little attention in parental bereavement research. Reviews of guilt and shame in bereavement are either not current or comprehensive, narrative in style and therefore more susceptible to researcher bias or focused on various types of bereavement rather than parental bereavement specifically (Buckle & Fleming, 2011;Humphrey, 2009;Rando, 1986). Miles and Demi (1986) have proposed the only current theory of guilt in bereaved parents. While clinicians acknowledge that self-blame, guilt, and shame often hinder the progression of normal grieving, there are currently no robust, empirically tested theories of self-blame, guilt, and shame in bereaved parents to guide either diagnoses or interventions. This is the first systematic review of the literature on self-blame, guilt, and shame in bereaved parents characterized by a specific research question, inclusion and exclusion criteria, an explicit search strategy, systematic data extraction procedure, coding and analysis of the studies, methodological appraisal, and a synthesis of the available evidence text. These characteristics reduce the likelihood of reviewer bias or selective citation and provide readers with the information necessary to appraise both the included studies and the systematic review itself (Mulrow, 1994;Pai et al., 2004).Defining Self-Blame, Guilt, and Shame Both guilt and shame are self-conscious emotions involving self-blame (Tangney & Salovey, 1999) and, because they are intimately related, they are more difficult to observe as separate phenomena (Blum, 2008;Kubany & Watson, 2003;Silfver, 2007). ...

show abstract

“…Tomita and Kitamura (2002) critiqued the weaknesses of these scales by indicating that none of them can be used to grade the severity of a symptom. In addition, whether selected items are based on clinical experience, previous literature or both is unclear.…”

Section: Development Of Cgrs Itemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, whether selected items are based on clinical experience, previous literature or both is unclear. Finally, these measures do not present details of a factor analysis (Tomita & Kitamura, 2002). Although different grief theoretical frameworks existed, the stages or phases (Kübler-Ross, 1969Lee, 2002), tasks (Cowles, 1996), and the Dual Process Model (Worden, 1991) were developed to describe a distinct cluster of grief symptoms and its recovering from grief responses from emotional, physical, behavioral, and cognitive perspectives (Fang & Nieh, 2006).…”

Section: Development Of Cgrs Itemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and validation of a Christian-based Grief Recovery Scale

Pan¹,

Deng²,

Tsai³

et al. 2013

British Journal of Guidance & Counselling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a Christian-based Grief Recovery Scale (CGRS) which was used to measure Christians recovering from grief after a significant loss. Taiwanese Christian participants were recruited from churches and a comprehensive university in northern Taiwan. They were affected by both the Christian faith and Chinese cultural beliefs. The CGRS is developed through replicated factor analyses in three stages. The final version of the CGRS retains 35 Likert-type items and consists of six factors: spiritual wellbeing; recovering meaning and sense of control; ongoing physical and emotional responses; reassuring faith; strongly missing a deceased loved one; and life disturbance. The evidence for CGRS reliability and validity is highlighted. Implications for research and counselling practice are suggested.

show abstract

Clinical and research measures of grief: A reconsideration

Cited by 46 publications

References 54 publications

Grief Following Miscarriage: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature

Grief Following Miscarriage: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature

A Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature on Self-Blame, Guilt, and Shame

Development and validation of a Christian-based Grief Recovery Scale

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About