The Inventory of Complicated Grief (ICG) is a commonly used self-report measure in psycho-oncology, best supportive care, and palliative medicine. However, existing validation studies yielded conflicting results regarding the structural validity. This study provides a psychometric review and conceptual replication of the ICG latent structure to test the hypothesis that existing studies overfit unreliable sources of variance, which overshadow the unidimensionality of the ICG. All proposed latent models identified in the psychometric review were tested in a series of confirmatory and exploratory structural equation models. Specifically, at least five to six latent intercorrelated factors were necessary to reach acceptable model fit. However, a general CG factor accounted for most variance and ICG sum scores showed predictable associations with anxiety and depressive symptoms, which suggests that the ICG is essentially unidimensional. There are indications that other measures of pathological grief show similar inconsistencies. Overall, potentially emerging subfacets of the ICG should not be interpreted as distinct “symptom clusters.” If time constraints are an issue as is often the case in clinical research, complicated grief may just be measured by a reduced item set without a significant loss of information or complexity.
BrownT. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
6.
CarmassiC.ShearM. K.MassimettiG.WallM.MauroC.GemignaniS.ConversanoC.Dell’OssoL. (2014). Validation of the Italian version Inventory of Complicated Grief (ICG): A study comparing CG patients versus bipolar disorder, PTSD and healthy controls. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 55(5), 1322–1329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2014.03.001
7.
ChoS.-J.CohenA. S.KimS.-H. (2014). A mixture group bifactor model for binary responses. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(3), 375–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.915371
8.
CostantiniL.PasquarellaC.OdoneA.ColucciM. E.CostanzaA.SerafiniG.AgugliaA.Belvederi MurriM.BrakouliasV.AmoreM.GhaemiS. N.AmerioA. (2021). Screening for depression in primary care with Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9): A systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 279(March 2020), 473–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.09.131
9.
DeffnerD.RohrerJ. M.McElreathR. (2021). A causal framework for cross-cultural generalizability. PsyArXiv Preprints. http://arxiv.org/abs/2106.10576
10.
FisherJ. E.MauroC.CozzaS. J.WallM.SimonN. M.OrtizC. D.Harrington-LaMorieJ.WangY.FullertonC. S.UrsanoR. J.Katherine ShearM. (2017). Examination of factor structure of the inventory of complicated grief (ICG) in a sample of bereaved military family members with persistent and elevated grief. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 26, e1571–e1578. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1571
11.
HanD. H.LeeJ. J.MoonD.-S.ChaM.-J.KimM. A.MinS.YangJ. H.LeeE. J.YooS. K.ChungU.-S. (2016). Korean version of Inventory of Complicated Grief Scale: Psychometric properties in Korean adolescents. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 31(1), 114–119. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2016.31.1.114
12.
HaunM. W.SchakowskiA.PreibschA.FriederichH. C.HartmannM. (2019). Assessing decision regret in caregivers of deceased German people with cancer-A psychometric validation of the Decision Regret Scale for Caregivers. Health Expectations: An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care and Health Policy, 22(5), 1089–1099. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12941
13.
HinzA.KleinA.BrählerE. (2017). Psychometric evaluation of the generalized anxiety disorder screener GAD-7, based on a large German general population sample. Journal of Affective Disorders, 210, 338–344.
14.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
15.
HuangP. H. (2017). Asymptotics of AIC, BIC, and RMSEA for model selection in structural equation modeling. Psychometrika, 82(2), 407–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-017-9572-y
JohnsonS. U.UlvenesP. G.ØktedalenT.HoffartA. (2019). Psychometric properties of the GAD-7 in a heterogeneous psychiatric sample. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(JULY), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01713
18.
KroenkeK.SpitzerR.WilliamsJ. (2001). The PHQ-9. General Internal Medicine, 16(9), 606–613.
19.
LiJ.PrigersonH. (2016). Assessment and associated features of prolonged grief disorder among Chinese bereaved individuals. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 66, 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2015.12.001
20.
LifshitzR.IfrahK.MarkovitzN.BluvsteinI.ShmotkinD. (2022). Inventory of complicated grief: Factor structure among middle-aged and older bereaved parents. Death Studies, 46, 200–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2020.1725931
21.
LitalienD.MorinA. J. S.GagnéM.VallerandR. J.LosierG. F.RyanR. M. (2017). Evidence of a continuum structure of academic self-determination: A two-study test using a bifactor-ESEM representation of academic motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 51, 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.06.010
22.
Ludwikowska-ŚwiebodaK.LachowskaB. (2019). Polish version of the Inventory of Complicated Grief—preliminary validation. Psychiatria Polska, 53(5), 1069–1086. https://doi.org/10.12740/PP/91729
23.
LumbeckG.BrandstätterM.GeissnerE. (2012). Erstvalidierung der deutschen version des “Inventory of Complicated Grief” (ICG-D) = Preliminary validation of the German version of the Inventory of Complicated Grief (ICG-D). Zeitschrift Für Klinische Psychologie Und Psychotherapie: Forschung Und Praxis (Journal for Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy: Research and Practice), 41(4), 243–248.
24.
LundorffM.HolmgrenH.ZachariaeR.Farver-VestergaardI.O’ConnorM. (2017). Prevalence of prolonged grief disorder in adult bereavement: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 212(December 2016), 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.01.030
25.
LuoY.Al-HarbiK. (2016). The utility of the bifactor method for unidimensionality assessment when other methods disagree: An empirical illustration. SAGE Open, 6(4), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016674513
26.
MaciejewskiP. K.MaerckerA.BoelenP. A.PrigersonH. (2016). “Prolonged grief disorder” and “persistent complex bereavement disorder,” but not “complicated grief,” are one and the same diagnostic entity: An analysis of data from the Yale Bereavement Study. World Psychiatry, 15(3), 266–275. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20348
27.
MaroufizadehS.Omani-SamaniR.Almasi-HashianiA.AminiP.SepidarkishM. (2019). The reliability and validity of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and PHQ-2 in patients with infertility. Reproductive Health, 16(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-019-0802-x
28.
MarshH. W.GuoJ.DickeT.ParkerP. D.CravenR. G. (2020). Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM), and Set-ESEM: Optimal balance between goodness of fit and parsimony. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 55(1), 102–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2019.1602503
29.
MarshH. W.LüdtkeO.MuthénB.AsparouhovT.MorinA. J. S.TrautweinU.NagengastB. (2010). A new look at the Big Five factor structure through Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling. Psychological Assessment, 22(3), 471–491. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019227
30.
MasferrerL.Garre-OlmoJ.CaparrósB. (2017). Estructura factorial y validez de constructo concurrente del IDC entre usuarios de drogas en duelo = Factor structure and concurrent construct validity of ICG among bereaved substance users. Actas Españolas de Psiquiatría (Spanish Journal of Psychiatry), 45(2), 47–55.
31.
MauroC.ReynoldsC. F.MaerckerA.SkritskayaN.SimonN.ZisookS.LebowitzB.CozzaS. J.ShearM. K. (2019). Prolonged grief disorder: Clinical utility of ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines. Psychological Medicine, 49(5), 861–867. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291718001563
32.
MilicJ.Saavedra PerezH.ZuurbierL. A.BoelenP. A.RietjensJ. A.HofmanA.TiemeierH. (2019). The longitudinal and cross-sectional associations of grief and Complicated Grief with sleep quality in older adults. Behavioral Sleep Medicine, 17(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/15402002.2016.1276016
33.
MokkinkL. B.de VetH. C. W.PrinsenC. A. C.PatrickD. L.AlonsoJ.BouterL. M.TerweeC. B. (2018). COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 27(5), 1171–1179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1765-4
MokkinkL. B.PrinsenC. A. C.PatrickD. L.AlonsoJ.BouterL. M.de VetH. C.TerweeC. B. (2019). COSMIN study design checklist for patient-reported outcome measurement instruments (Issue July). www.cosmin.nl
36.
MorinA. J. S.ArensA. K.MarshH. W. (2016). A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling framework for the identification of distinct sources of construct-relevant psychometric multidimensionality. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23, 116–138.
37.
MorinA. J. S.ArensA. K.TranA.CaciH. (2016). Exploring sources of construct-relevant multidimensionality in psychiatric measurement: A tutorial and illustration using the composite scale of morningness. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 25(4), 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr
38.
MorinA. J. S.MeyerJ. P.CreusierJ.BiétryF. (2016). Multiple-group analysis of similarity in latent profile solutions. Organizational Research Methods, 19(2), 231–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115621148
NiemandT.MaiR. (2018). Flexible cutoff values for fit indices in the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(6), 1148–1172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-018-0602-9
41.
NyeC. D.DrasgowF. (2011). Assessing goodness of fit: Simple rules of thumb simply do not work. Organizational Research Methods, 14(3), 548–570. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428110368562
42.
O’ConnorM.LasgaardM.ShevlinM.GuldinM.-B. B. (2010). A confirmatory factor analysis of combined models of the Harvard Trauma Questionnaire and the Inventory of Complicated Grief-Revised: Are we measuring complicated grief or posttraumatic stress?Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 24(7), 672–679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2010.04.009
43.
OsborneJ. W.FitzpatrickD. C. (2012). Replication analysis in exploratory factor analysis: What it is and why it makes your analysis better. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 17(15), 1–8.
44.
PohlkampL.KreicbergsU.PrigersonH.SveenJ. (2018). Psychometric properties of the Prolonged Grief Disorder-13 (PG-13) in bereaved Swedish parents. Psychiatry Research, 267(January), 560–565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.06.004
45.
PrigersonH.BoelenP. A.XuJ.SmithK. V.MaciejewskiP. K. (2021). Validation of the new DSM-5-TR criteria for prolonged grief disorder and the PG-13-Revised (PG-13-R) scale. World Psychiatry, 20(1), 96–106. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20823
46.
PrigersonH.FrankE.KaslS. V.ReynoldsC. F.AndersonB.ZubenkoG. S.HouckP. R.GeorgeC. J.KupferD. J. (1995). Complicated grief and bereavement-related depression as distinct disorders: preliminary empirical validation in elderly bereaved spouses. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 152(1), 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.152.1.22
47.
PrigersonH.KakaralaS.GangJ.MaciejewskiP. K. (2021). History and status of Prolonged Grief Disorder as a psychiatric diagnosis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-081219-093600
48.
PrigersonH.MaciejewskiP. K.ReynoldsC. F.BierhalsA. J.NewsomJ. T.FasiczkaA.FrankE.DomanJ.MillerM. (1995). Inventory of Complicated Grief: A scale to measure maladaptive symptoms of loss. Psychiatry Research, 59(1–2), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1781(95)02757-2
49.
R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (4.0.2). R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/
50.
ReiseS. P.BonifayW. E.HavilandM. G. (2013). Scoring and modeling psychological measures in the presence of multidimensionality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(2), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.725437
51.
ReiseS. P.MorizotJ.HaysR. D. (2007). The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures. Quality of Life Research, 16, 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9183-7
52.
ReiseS. P.ScheinesR.WidamanK. F.HavilandM. G. (2013). Multidimensionality and structural coefficient bias in Structural Equation Modeling: A bifactor perspective. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164412449831
53.
RodriguezA.ReiseS. P.HavilandM. G. (2016). Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21(2), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000045
54.
SapraA.BhandariP.SharmaS.ChanpuraT.LoppL. (2020). Using Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2 (GAD-2) and GAD-7 in a primary care setting. Cureus, 2(5). https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.8224
ShiD.Maydeu-OlivaresA. (2020). The effect of estimation methods on SEM fit indices. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 80(3), 421–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164419885164
57.
ShiD.Maydeu-OlivaresA.RosseelY.XiaY.YangY. (2020). Assessing fit in ordinal factor analysis models: SRMR vs. RMSEA. Structural Equation Modeling, 27(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2019.1611434
58.
SimonN. M.ShearM. K.ReynoldsC. F.CozzaS. J.MauroC.ZisookS.SkritskayaN.RobinaughD. J.MalgaroliM.SpandorferJ.LebowitzB. (2020). Commentary on evidence in support of a grief-related condition as a DSM diagnosis. Depression and Anxiety, 37(1), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22985
59.
SimonN. M.WallM. M.KeshaviahA.DrymanM. T.LeblancN. J.ShearM. K. (2011). Informing the symptom profile of complicated grief. Depression and Anxiety, 28(2), 118–126. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.20775
SveenJ.BondjersK.HeinsooJ.ArnbergF. K. (2020). Psychometric evaluation of the Swedish version of the Prolonged Grief Disorder-13 (PG-13) in a bereaved mixed trauma sample. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, 1420.
62.
TerweeC. B.JansmaE. P.RiphagenI. I.De VetH. C. W. (2009). Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Quality of Life Research, 18(8), 1115–1123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9528-5
63.
TerweeC. B.MokkinkL. B.KnolD. L.OsteloR. W. J. G.BouterL. M.De VetH. C. W. (2012). Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: A scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Quality of Life Research, 21(4), 651–657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9960-1
64.
ThimmJ.DavidsenM.EslnessM.VaraH. (2019). Reliability, factor structure, and validity of the Inventory of Complicated Grief (ICG) in a general bereaved sample in Norway. Scandinavian Psychologist, 6, e7. https://doi.org/10.15714/scandpsychol.6.e7
65.
TönniesJ.HartmannM.JägerD.BleyelC.BeckerN.FriederichH. -C.HaunM. W. (2021). Aggressiveness of care at the end-of-life in cancer patients and its association with psychosocial functioning in bereaved caregivers. Frontiers in Oncology, 11, 1895. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.673147
66.
TremlJ.KaiserJ.PlexniesA.KerstingA. (2020). Assessing prolonged grief disorder: A systematic review of assessment instruments. Journal of Affective Disorders, 274(March), 420–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.05.049
67.
WågøS. S.ByrkjedalI. K.SinnesH. M.HystadS. W.DyregrovK. (2017). Social support and complicated grief: A longitudinal study on bereaved parents after the Utøya terror attack in Norway. Scandinavian Psychologist, 4, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.15714/scandpsychol.4.e10
68.
XiaY.YangY. (2019). RMSEA, CFI, and TLI in structural equation modeling with ordered categorical data: The story they tell depends on the estimation methods. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 409–428. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1055-2
69.
ZieglerM.HagemannD. (2015). Testing the unidimensionality of items: Pitfalls and loopholes. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 31(4), 231–237. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000309
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
