4.6 Article

THE STRUCTURED CLINICAL INTERVIEW FOR COMPLICATED GRIEF: RELIABILITY, VALIDITY, AND EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS

期刊

DEPRESSION AND ANXIETY
卷 32, 期 7, 页码 485-492

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/da.22385

关键词

grief; bereavement; complicated grief; assessment; diagnosis; depression; anxiety; anxiety disorders; PTSD; posttraumatic stress disorder

资金

  1. NIH [P30 MH90333, R01 MH085288, R01 MH060783, R01 MH085308, R01 MH085297]
  2. American Foundation for Suicide Prevention
  3. Highland Street Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundComplicated grief (CG) has been recently included in the DSM-5, under the term persistent complex bereavement disorder, as a condition requiring further study. To our knowledge, no psychometric data on any structured clinical interview for CG (SCI-CG) is available to date. In this manuscript, we introduce the SCI-CG, a 31-item SCID-like clinician-administered instrument to assess the presence of CG symptoms. MethodsParticipants were 281 treatment-seeking adults with CG (77.9% [n = 219] women, mean age = 52.4, standard deviation [SD] = 17.8) who were assessed with the SCI-CG and measures of depression, posttraumatic stress, anxiety, functional impairment. ResultsThe SCI-CG exhibited satisfactory internal consistency ( = .78), good test-retest reliability (interclass correlation [ICC] 0.68, 95% CI [0.60-0.75]), and excellent interrater reliability (ICC = 0.95, 95% CI [0.89-0.98]). Exploratory factor analyses revealed that a five-factor structure, explaining 50.3% of the total variance, was the best fit for the data. ConclusionsThe clinician-rated SCI-CG demonstrates good internal consistency, reliability, and convergent validity in treatment-seeking individuals with CG and therefore can be a useful tool to assess CG. Although diagnostic criteria for CG have yet to be adequately validated, the SCI-CG may facilitate this process. The SCI-CG can now be used as a validated instrument in research and clinical practice. (C) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据