CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 181Grief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthDeath, Funerary Practices, and MourningPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Measuring core bereavement phenomena.

Open access
BURNETT, P., MIDDLETON, W., RAPHAEL, B., MARTINEK, N.·1997·Psychological Medicine
DOI 10.1017/s0033291796004151
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

As part of a longitudinal study of bereavement phenomena in three groups, bereaved spouses, bereaved adult children and bereaved parents, scale development was carried out using a pool of bereavement phenomenology questions administered prospectively. The items were derived from the literature, in particular studies dealing with the measurement of grief/bereavement, as well as from clinical experience. Factor analysis of theoretically grouped items produced seven subscales, three of which tapped frequently experienced phenomena in the bereaved. These three subscales formed the basis of a single measure, labelled the Core Bereavement Items (CBI), which demonstrated high reliability and sound face and discriminant validity. Preliminary analysis suggested that the CBI will prove to be a reliable and valid instrument with respect to the measure of core bereavement phenomena in commonly bereaved groups in Western society.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0033291796004151

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Parents who suffer perinatal loss face an increased risk of poor psychological outcomes including grief, depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbances.

    “Parents who suffer from such a loss face an increased risk of developing poor psychological outcomes, including grief, depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbances (Burnett et al., 1997; Fernández‐Basanta et al., 2020; Fernández-Férez et al., 2021)”

    From Nurses' and midwives' experiences of supporting parents following perinatal bereavement: A qualitative systematic review (2026) · cites this paper as Burnett et al., 1997

    The Subjects section (p. 5) studied parents whose children died at ages 1–18, not parents experiencing perinatal loss. Subscale Development (p. 6) reports more grief-related intrusive thoughts in those parents than in the other bereaved groups. The paper does not establish increased risks of depression, anxiety, or sleep disturbances after perinatal loss. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Although the assessment instruments all exhibited acceptable psychometric properties, possible differences between the scales in how the construct is measured could pose a challenge for comparison.

    “Although these assessment instruments all exhibited acceptable psychometric properties (Burnett et al., 1997; Byrne and Raphael, 1994; Prigerson et al., 2009, 1995b; Prigerson and Jacobs, 2001; Shear et al., 2006), possible differences between the scales in how the construct is measured could pose a challenge for comparison.”

    From Prevalence of prolonged grief disorder in adult bereavement: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2017) · cites this paper as Burnett et al., 1997

    The Scale Development section (p. 7) reports high reliability for Burnett et al.’s CBI, and the Discussion (p. 8) describes indicators of its validity. But the citation is attached to a claim that all the assessment instruments had acceptable psychometric properties; the Introduction (p. 2) describes one reviewed scale’s reliability as poor on a subscale. The paper therefore supports the CBI portion, not the unqualified claim about all instruments. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • 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 Burnett et al., 1997

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. Bowlby, J. (1980/1981). Attachment and Loss (Vol. 3): Sadness and Depression. Hogarth: New York and Basic Books/ Harmondsworth Penguin Books: London.
  2. Buruett, P. C., Middleton, W., Raphael, B., Dunne, M., Moylan, A. & Martinek, N. (1994). Concepts of normal bereavement. Journal of Traumatic Stress 7, 123–128.
  3. Faschingbauer, T. R., DeVaul, R A. & Zisook, S. (1977). Development of the Texas Inventory of Grief. American Journal of Psychiatry 134, 696-698.
  4. Faschingbauer, T. R., Zisook, S. & DeVaul, R. (1987). The Texas Revised Inventory of Grief. In Biopsychosocial Aspects of Bereavement (ed. S. Zisook), pp. 11–124. American Psychiatric Press: Washington, DC.
  5. Jacobs, S. C. (1987). Measures of the psychological distress of bereavement. In Biopsychosocial Aspecrs of Bereavement (ed. S. Zisook), pp. 125-138. American Psychiatric Press: Washington, DC.
  6. Parkes, C. M. (1972). Bereavement: Studies of Grief in Adult Life. International Universities Press: New York.
  7. Raphael, B. & Middleton, W. (1987). Current state of research in the field of bereavement. Israel Journal of Psychiatry and Relared Sciences 24, 5-32.
  8. Remondet, J. H, & Hansson, R. O. (1987). Assessing a widow's grief: a short index. Journal of Gerontological Nursing 13, 31–34.
  9. Sanders, C. M., Mauger, P. A. & Strong, P. N. (1985). A Manual for the Grief Experience Inventory. Consulting Psychologists Press: Palo Alto, CA.
  10. Toedter, L. J., Lasker, J. N. & Alhadefi, J. M. (1988). The perinatal grief scale: development and initial validation. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 58, 435-449.
  11. Videka-Scherman, L. (1982). Coping with the death of a child: a study over time. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 52, 688–699. Zisook, S. & DeVaul, R. A. (1984). Measuring acule grief. Psychiatric Medicine 2, 169–176.
  12. Vargas, L. A., Loya, F. & Hodde-Vargas, J. (1989). Exploring the multidimensional aspects of griel reactions. American Journal of Psychiatry 146, 1484-1488.
  13. Zisook, S. DeVaul, R. A. & Clide, M. A. (1982). Measuring symptoms of grief and bereavement. American Journal of Psychiatry 139, 1590–1593.
  14. Zisook, S., Shuchter, S. R. & Lyons, L. E. (1987). Adjustment to widowhood. In Biopsychosocial Aspects of Bereavement (ed. S. Zisook), pp. 49..74. American Psychiatric Press, Washington, DC.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
BURNETT, P., MIDDLETON, W., RAPHAEL, B., & MARTINEK, N.
Affiliations
Queensland University of Technology (AU)
ORCID
MIDDLETON, W.
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
1997-01
Volume
27
Issue
1
Pages
49-57
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
DOI
10.1017/s0033291796004151
OpenAlex
W1571804994
Cited by
181
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 10
FWCI
2.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified)
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Division of Research and Commercialisation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Grief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Death, Funerary Practices, and Mourning
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
bereavement, grief, scale development, bereaved spouses, bereaved parents, psychometric validation, factor analysis
MeSH terms
Adult, Bereavement, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Parents, Prospective Studies, Psychometrics, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Discriminant Analysis, Spouses

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