File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the Utrecht Grief Rumination Scale

TitlePsychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the Utrecht Grief Rumination Scale
Authors
KeywordsChinese
grief
mindfulness
repetitive thought
rumination
Issue Date2019
PublisherJohn Wiley & Sons Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.interscience.wiley.com/jpages/1063-3995/
Citation
Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 2019, v. 26 n. 2, p. 262-272 How to Cite?
AbstractGiven the severe mental health consequences that may ensue after bereavement, it is crucial to better understand malleable cognitive factors that are associated with poorer bereavement outcomes. Grief rumination (i.e., repetitive thinking about the causes and consequences of a loss) is a malleable cognitive process that is concurrently and longitudinally associated with postloss mental health problems. To assess grief rumination, the English and Dutch Utrecht Grief Rumination Scale (UGRS) were recently developed. The current study examined the reliability and validity of a Chinese version of the UGRS. Three hundred and ninety‐three Chinese adults (56% women) bereaved on average 16.88 months ago filled out online questionnaires assessing demographic and loss‐related characteristics, grief rumination (UGRS), trait rumination, trait mindfulness, and anxiety, depressive, and prolonged grief symptoms. Confirmatory factor analyses showed that a second‐order five‐factor hierarchical model provided the most optimal factor structure for the Chinese UGRS. UGRS total scale and subscale scores demonstrated acceptable internal consistency. Grief rumination had a moderate positive association with trait rumination and a low negative association with trait mindfulness, providing convergent and discriminant validity evidence. Test‐criterion validity evidence was also provided. UGRS scores could distinguish bereaved groups with different relationships with the deceased. Moreover, grief rumination was associated with symptoms of anxiety, depression, and prolonged grief even after controlling for demographic and loss‐related variables, trait rumination, and trait mindfulness. The Chinese UGRS appears a valid and reliable instrument to assess grief rumination in Chinese bereaved individuals.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/274041
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 3.2
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.473
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorTANG, S-
dc.contributor.authorEisma, MC-
dc.contributor.authorLi, J-
dc.contributor.authorChow, AYM-
dc.date.accessioned2019-08-18T14:53:52Z-
dc.date.available2019-08-18T14:53:52Z-
dc.date.issued2019-
dc.identifier.citationClinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 2019, v. 26 n. 2, p. 262-272-
dc.identifier.issn1063-3995-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/274041-
dc.description.abstractGiven the severe mental health consequences that may ensue after bereavement, it is crucial to better understand malleable cognitive factors that are associated with poorer bereavement outcomes. Grief rumination (i.e., repetitive thinking about the causes and consequences of a loss) is a malleable cognitive process that is concurrently and longitudinally associated with postloss mental health problems. To assess grief rumination, the English and Dutch Utrecht Grief Rumination Scale (UGRS) were recently developed. The current study examined the reliability and validity of a Chinese version of the UGRS. Three hundred and ninety‐three Chinese adults (56% women) bereaved on average 16.88 months ago filled out online questionnaires assessing demographic and loss‐related characteristics, grief rumination (UGRS), trait rumination, trait mindfulness, and anxiety, depressive, and prolonged grief symptoms. Confirmatory factor analyses showed that a second‐order five‐factor hierarchical model provided the most optimal factor structure for the Chinese UGRS. UGRS total scale and subscale scores demonstrated acceptable internal consistency. Grief rumination had a moderate positive association with trait rumination and a low negative association with trait mindfulness, providing convergent and discriminant validity evidence. Test‐criterion validity evidence was also provided. UGRS scores could distinguish bereaved groups with different relationships with the deceased. Moreover, grief rumination was associated with symptoms of anxiety, depression, and prolonged grief even after controlling for demographic and loss‐related variables, trait rumination, and trait mindfulness. The Chinese UGRS appears a valid and reliable instrument to assess grief rumination in Chinese bereaved individuals.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherJohn Wiley & Sons Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.interscience.wiley.com/jpages/1063-3995/-
dc.relation.ispartofClinical Psychology & Psychotherapy-
dc.rightsPreprint This is the pre-peer reviewed version of the following article: [FULL CITE], which has been published in final form at [Link to final article using the DOI]. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions. Postprint This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: [FULL CITE], which has been published in final form at [Link to final article using the DOI]. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions.-
dc.subjectChinese-
dc.subjectgrief-
dc.subjectmindfulness-
dc.subjectrepetitive thought-
dc.subjectrumination-
dc.titlePsychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the Utrecht Grief Rumination Scale-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailChow, AYM: chowamy@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityChow, AYM=rp00623-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/cpp.2348-
dc.identifier.pmid30549158-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85059679197-
dc.identifier.hkuros302202-
dc.identifier.volume26-
dc.identifier.issue2-
dc.identifier.spage262-
dc.identifier.epage272-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000468312200010-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdom-
dc.identifier.issnl1063-3995-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats