Cited by 27Grief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthDeath, Funerary Practices, and MourningAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Assessment of grief-related rumination: validation of the German version of the Utrecht Grief Rumination Scale (UGRS)

Open access
Doering, Bettina K., Barke, Antonia, Friehs, Thilo, Eisma, Maarten C.·2018·BMC Psychiatry

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Bereavement can result in severe mental health problems, including persistent, severe and disabling grief symptoms, termed complicated grief. Grief rumination (i.e., repetitive thought about the causes and consequences of the loss) is a malleable cognitive risk-factor in adjustment to bereavement. The Utrecht Grief Rumination Scale (UGRS) was recently developed to assess grief rumination. The present study aimed to develop and validate a German version of the UGRS. METHODS: An online survey including measures of demographic and loss-related variables, grief rumination (UGRS), depressive rumination (brooding and reflection), and symptoms of depression, anxiety, and complicated grief, was administered online among 159 persons (87% women) who had lost a first-degree relative in the past three years. UGRS item analyses, a confirmatory factor analysis and associations of grief rumination with brooding, reflection and symptom levels were performed. RESULTS: The internal consistency of the UGRS was good. The confirmatory factor analysis obtained a good fit for a model with five correlated grief rumination subscales. The UGRS contributed uniquely to the prediction of complicated grief symptoms even when controlling for symptoms of anxiety and depression, brooding, reflection, and demographic and loss-related variables. Discriminant validity of the UGRS was demonstrated by the fact that higher UGRS scores were found in participants with a higher likelihood of receiving a diagnosis of complicated grief (d > 1.60). CONCLUSION: The translated UGRS showed very good psychometric properties and the correlations with maladaptive ruminative styles and complicated grief symptoms demonstrated the clinical relevance of grief rumination. Limitations concerning generalisability of the results are discussed.

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 · 10.1186/s12888-018-1630-1

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • The depressive rumination subtype brooding generally shows moderate to large positive concurrent and longitudinal associations with complicated grief symptoms, whereas such associations are small or nonsignificant for reflection.

    “The depressive rumination subtype brooding generally shows moderate to large positive concurrent and longitudinal associations with CG symptoms, whereas such associations are small or nonsignificant for reflection (Boelen et al., 2012; Boelen et al., 2016; Doering et al., 2018; Eisma, Stroebe, et al., 2014; Eisma, Schut, et al., 2015; Lenferink et al., 2018).”

    From Emotion Regulatory Strategies in Complicated Grief: A Systematic Review (2021) · cites this paper as Doering et al., 2018

    The Results > Validity section reports a concurrent association with complicated-grief symptoms for brooding but not reflection in a regression model. It does not establish moderate-to-large correlations between those subtypes and complicated grief, and this study’s data are cross-sectional, not longitudinal. The Background mentions longitudinal findings for grief rumination, a different construct. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Grief rumination and its subtypes generally show moderate to large positive associations with complicated grief symptoms concurrently and longitudinally.

    “Grief rumination and its subtypes generally show moderate to large positive associations with CG symptoms concurrently and longitudinally (Boelen, 2012; Boelen &van den Hout, 2008; Doering et al., 2018; Eisma et al., 2013; Eisma, Schut, et al., 2015; Johnsen et al., 2018; Pohlkamp et al., 2018; Tang et al., 2019; van der Houwen et al., 2010).”

    From Emotion Regulatory Strategies in Complicated Grief: A Systematic Review (2021) · cites this paper as Doering et al., 2018

    The Results > Validity and Discussion (pages not supplied) report high concurrent correlations between complicated grief symptoms and both the UGRS total score and all subscales. The Background reports longitudinal evidence for grief rumination, but describes one subtype—rumination about emotional reactions—as associated with lower later symptom levels. The paper therefore does not support a general positive longitudinal association for the subtypes. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Grief rumination was higher in people with higher versus lower complicated grief symptom levels with a large effect size.

    “Grief rumination (repetitive thinking about the causes and consequences of the loss) was also higher in people with higher (vs. lower) CG symptom levels with a large effect size (Doering et al., 2018)”

    From Emotion Regulatory Strategies in Complicated Grief: A Systematic Review (2021) · cites this paper as Doering et al., 2018

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Doering, B. K., Barke, A., Friehs, T., & Eisma, M. C.
Affiliations
  • Philipps University of Marburg (DE)
  • University of Groningen (NL)
Corresponding author
Doering, Bettina K.
Venue
BMC Psychiatry
Published
2018-02-09
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
43-43
ISSN
1471-244X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2787135336
Cited by
27
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
FWCI
3.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMC Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Grief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Death, Funerary Practices, and Mourning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
complicated grief, German translation, psychometric validation, bereavement, brooding, reflection, depression, anxiety
MeSH terms
Rumination, Cognitive, Adult, Anxiety Disorders, Bereavement, Depressive Disorder, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Family, Female, Germany, Grief, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Risk Factors, Translating, 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