CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 23Grief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthPsychometric Methodologies and TestingDeath, Funerary Practices, and Mourning

Reliability generalization of the Texas revised inventory of grief (TRIG)

Montano, Samuel A., Lewey, Jennifer H., O’Toole, Siobhan K., Graves, Douglas·2016·Death Studies
DOI 10.1080/07481187.2015.1129370
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

While grief is a universal experience, this phenomenon is experienced in a variety of ways largely dependent upon one's cultural schema. To consider the potential problems inherent in generalizing the results of an assessment tool across cultures, this study explores the notion of generalizability in assessment by evaluating the reliability of the Texas Revised Inventory of Grief (TRIG) using a meta-analytic technique called reliability generalization. The TRIG demonstrated strong reliability with mean Cronbach's alphas of .90 and .82 for the present and past subscales, respectively. Overall, the TRIG, especially the present subscale, appears to produce reliable scores even across cultures.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/07481187.2015.1129370

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Montano, S. A., Lewey, J. H., O’Toole, S. K., & Graves, D.
Affiliations
  • Alliant University (US)
  • Clinical Psychology Private Practice, Fresno, CA, USA
Corresponding author
Montano, Samuel A.
ORCID
Montano, Samuel A.
Venue
Death Studies
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2016-03
Volume
40
Issue
4
Pages
256-262
ISSN
  • 0748-1187 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-7683
DOI
10.1080/07481187.2015.1129370
OpenAlex
W2218062186
Cited by
23
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2
FWCI
2.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Death Studies (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Grief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Death, Funerary Practices, and Mourning
Keywords
grief, bereavement, reliability generalization, cross-cultural generalizability, psychometric properties, Cronbach's alpha
MeSH terms
Cross-Cultural Comparison, Female, Grief, Humans, Male, Personality Inventory, Reproducibility of Results

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