Inventory of complicated grief: a scale to measure maladaptive symptoms of loss.
Abstract
Certain symptoms of grief have been shown (a) to be distinct from bereavement-related depression and anxiety, and (b) to predict long-term functional impairments. We termed these symptoms of "complicated grief" and developed the Inventory of Complicated Grief (ICG) to assess them. Data were derived from 97 conjugally bereaved elders who completed the ICG, along with other self-report scales measuring grief, depression, and background characteristics. Exploratory factor analyses indicated that the ICG measured a single underlying construct of complicated grief. High internal consistency and test-retest reliabilities were evidence of the ICG's reliability. The ICG total score's association with severity of depressive symptoms and a general measure of grief suggested a valid, yet distinct, assessment of emotional distress. Respondents with ICG scores > 25 were significantly more impaired in social, general, mental, and physical health functioning and in bodily pain than those with ICG scores < or = 25. Thus, the ICG, a scale with demonstrated internal consistency, and convergent and criterion validity, provides an easily administered assessment for symptoms of complicated grief.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Stigma significantly contributed to explaining variance in pathological grief among participants.
“The authors additionally investigated the influence of stigma on levels of pathological grief as measured by the Inventory of Complicated Grief [58] and found that stigma significantly contributed to explaining variance in pathological grief among participants.”
From The Stigma of Suicide Survivorship and Related Consequences—A Systematic Review (2016) · cites this paper as [58]
The first validated instrument for complicated grief was developed in 1995 (Inventory of Complicated Grief).
“Articles published after 1994 were included, as the first validated instrument for complicated grief was developed in 1995 (Inventory of Complicated Grief [ICG]; Prigerson et al., 1995).”
From Emotion Regulatory Strategies in Complicated Grief: A Systematic Review (2021) · cites this paper as Prigerson et al., 1995
The majority of the included studies used a version of the Inventory of Complicated Grief to assess complicated grief.
“Relatedly, the majority of studies used a version of the ICG (Prigerson et al., 1995) to assess CG”
From Emotion Regulatory Strategies in Complicated Grief: A Systematic Review (2021) · cites this paper as Prigerson et al., 1995
Total scores higher than 25 on the Complicated Grief Inventory indicate complicated grief.
“Total scores higher than 25 would indicate complicated grief.”
From Mindfulness y duelo: programa MADED, mindfulness para la aceptación del dolor, las emociones y el duelo (2020) · cites this paper as [29]
Data were collected using the PG-13 (n = 6), ICG/ICG-R (n = 7), ITG (n = 2), and CBI (n = 2).
“Data was collected using the Prolonged Grief Disorder scale, PG-13 (Prigerson et al., 2009) (n = 6), the Inventory of Complicated Grief and the Inventory of Complicated Grief-Revised, (ICG/ICG-R) (Prigerson et al., 1995; Prigerson and Jacobs, 2001) (n = 7), the Inventory of Traumatic Grief (ITG) (HG. Prigerson et al., 1999) (n = 2), and the Core Bereavement Items (CBI) (n = 2) (Burnett et al., 199”
From The assessment of grief in refugees and post-conflict survivors: a narrative review of etic and emic research (2018) · cites this paper as Prigerson et al., 1995
In Global North samples, dreaming of the deceased was originally one of the 30 symptoms proposed as a key intrusive symptom of complicated grief but is not used in the more recent Inventory of Complicated Grief.
“In Global North samples, dreaming of the deceased was originally one of the 30 symptoms proposed as a key intrusive symptom of complicated grief (Horowitz et al., 1997), but is not used in the more recent Inventory of Complicated Grief (Prigerson et al., 1995).”
From The assessment of grief in refugees and post-conflict survivors: a narrative review of etic and emic research (2018) · cites this paper as Prigerson et al., 1995
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 41 · Cited by 1,582
- Authors
- Prigerson, H. G., Maciejewski, P. K., Reynolds, C. F., Bierhals, A. J., Newsom, J. T., Fasiczka, A., Frank, E., Doman, J., & Miller, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- Corresponding author
- Prigerson, Holly G.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Psychiatry Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1995-11
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 65-79
- ISSN
- 0165-1781 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2055769378
- Cited by
- 1,582
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 54 · 2025: 61 · 2024: 130 · 2023: 79 · 2022: 100 · 2021: 92 · 2020: 108 · 2019: 84 · 2018: 85 · 2017: 101 · 2016: 69 · 2015: 78 · 2014: 68 · 2013: 64 · 2012: 61
- FWCI
- 8.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychiatry Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- National Institute of Mental Health (MH-01100, MH-52247, P30MH052247, MH-37869, R01MH037869)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Grief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Death, Funerary Practices, and Mourning
- Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
- Keywords
- complicated grief, Inventory of Complicated Grief, bereavement, scale development, depressive symptoms, functional disability, older adults, psychometric validation, bodily pain
- MeSH terms
- Adjustment Disorders, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Bereavement, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Grief, Humans, Male, Personality Inventory, Psychometrics, Reproducibility of Results, Widowhood
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
