Measurement Development and Validation for Construct Validity of the Treatment: The Grief Recovery Method® Instrument (GRM-I)

References

• National Institutes of Health. Coping with Grief. https://newsinhealth.nih.gov/2017/10/coping-grief. Published November 1, 2017. Accessed August 28, 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Klass D, Silverman P, Nickman S. Continuing Bonds: New Understandings of Grief. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Stroebe M, Schut H. The dual process model of coping with bereavement: rationale and description. Death Stud. 1999;23:197–224. doi:10.1080/074811899201046.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jordan J, Neimeyer R. Does grief counseling work? Death Stud. 2003;27:765–786. doi:10.1080/713842360.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sallnow L, Tishelman C, Lindqvist O, Richardson H, Cohen J. Research in public health and end-of-life care: building on the past and developing the new. Prog Palliat Care. 2016;24:25–30. doi:10.1080/09699260.2015.1101260.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neimeyer R, Currier J. Grief therapy: evidence of efficacy and emerging directions. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2009;18:352–356. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01666.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James J, Friedman R. The Grief Recovery Handbook. 20th Anniversary Expanded ed. New York, NY: Harper-Collins Publishers; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Streiner D, Norman G, Cairney J. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. 5th ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2015:319.
   Google Scholar
• Hallam J, Petosa R. The long-term impact of a four-session work-site intervention on selected Social Cognitive Theory variables linked to adult exercise adherence. Health Educ Behav. 2004;31:88–100. doi:10.1177/1090198103259164.
   Google Scholar
• Guilford J. When not to factor analyze. Psychol Bull. 1952;49:26–37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costello A, Osborne JW. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract Asess Res Eval. 2005;10:1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Fagundes C, Brown R, Chen M. et al. Grief, depressive symptoms, and inflammation in the spousally bereaved. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2018;101:e1–e28. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2018.10.006.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Green B, Krupnick J, Stockton P, Goodman L, Corcoran C, Petty R. Psychological outcomes associated with traumatic loss in a sample of young women. Am Behav Sci. 2001;44:817–837 (Special Issue: New Direction in Bereavement Research and Theory). doi:10.1177/00027640121956511.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stroebe M, Gergen K, Stroebe W. Broken hearts or broken bonds: love and death in historical perspective. Am Psychol. 1992;47:1205–1212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clore G, Huntsinger J. How emotions inform judgment and regulate thought. Trends Cognit Sci. 2007;11:393–399. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2007.08.005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilhelm P, Schoebi D. Assessing mood in daily life: structural validity, sensitivity to change and reliability of a short-scale to measure three basic dimensions of mood. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2007;23:258–267. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.23.4.258.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogan N, Greenfield D, Schmidt L. Development and validation of the Hogan grief reaction checklist. Death Stud. 2001;25:1–32. doi:10.1080/07481180125831.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neimeyer R, Hogan N, Laurie A. The measurement of grief: psychometric considerations in the assessment of reactions to bereavement. In: Stroebe M, Hansson R, Schut H, Stroebe W, eds. Handbook of Bereavement Research and Practice: Advances in Theory and Intervention. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2008:133–161.
   Google Scholar
• Gillies J, Neimeyer R, Milman E. The grief and meaning reconstruction inventory (GMRI): initial validation of a new measure. Death Stud. 2015;39:61–74. doi:10.1080/07481187.2014.907089.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fowler F. Survey Research Methods. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Rubio D, Berg-Weger M, Tebb S, Lee S, Rauch S. Objectifying content validity: conducting a content validity study in social work research. Social Work Res. 2003;27:94–104. doi:10.1093/swr/27.2.94.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arbuckle J SPSS AMOS [computer software]. Version 22.0. Chicago, IL: IBM Corporation; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Cronbach L. Designing Evaluations of Educational and Social Programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1982.
   Google Scholar
• McCowan R, McCowan S. Item Analysis for Criterion-Referenced Tests. Buffalo, NY: Research Foundation of SUNY/Center for Development of Human Services; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Ebel R, Frisbie D. Essentials of Educational Measurement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1986.
   Google Scholar
• Wan Afthanorhan W. A comparison of partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) and covariance based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) for confirmatory factor analysis. Int J Eng Sci Innov Technol. 2013;2:198–205.
   Google Scholar
• Byrne B. Structural Equation Modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Byrne B. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Statistical Software; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen M. Structural equation modeling: guidelines for determining model fit. Elect J Bus Res Methods. 2008;6:53–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu L, Bentler P. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychol Methods. 1998;3:424–453. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schumacker R, Lomax R. A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Schumacker R, Lomax R. A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Routledge; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Tabachnick B, Fidell L. Using Multivariate Statistics. 5th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Wheaton B, Muthén B, Alwin D, Summers G. Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. Sociol Methodol. 1977;8:84–136. doi:10.2307/270754.
   Google Scholar
• Marsh H, Hau K, Wen Z. In search of golden rules: comment on hypothesis testing, approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes, and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Struct Equation Model. 2004;11:320–341. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bentler P. EQS: Structural Equations Program Manual. Los Angeles, CA: BMDP Statistical Software; 1983.
   Google Scholar
• Gorsuch R. Factor Analysis. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1983.
   Google Scholar
• Nunnally J, Bernstein I. Psychometric Theory. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw Hill; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• SPSS [computer software]. Version 23.0. Chicago, IL: IBM Corporation; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Weston R, Gore P. A brief guide to structural equation modeling. Couns Psychol. 2006;34:719–751. doi:10.1177/0011000006286345.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kline T. Psychological Testing: A Practical Approach to Design and Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Nolan RD, Hallam J. Construct Validity of the Theory of Grief Recovery (TOGR): A new paradigm towards our understanding of grief and loss. Am J Health Educ. 2019. In-Press. doi:10.1080/19325037.2019.1571964.
   Google Scholar
• Doka K, Martin T. Grieving beyond Gender: Understanding the Ways Men and Women Mourn. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Taylor & Francis Group; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Bielby W, Hauser M. Structural equation models. Annu Rev Sociol. 1977;3:137–161. doi:10.1146/annurev.so.03.080177.001033.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bentler P. EQS Structural Equations Program Manual. Temple City, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc.; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• McIntosh C. Rethinking fit assessment in structural equation modelling: a commentary and elaboration on Barrett. Pers Individ Dif. 2006;42:859–867. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu L, Bentler P. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equation Model. 1999;6:1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald R, Ho M. Principles and practice in reporting structure equation analyses. Psychol Methods. 2002;7:64–82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Satorra A, Bentler P. Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In: von Eye A, Clogg S, eds. Latent Variables Analysis: Applications for Developmental Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1994:399–419.
   Google Scholar
• Roehler L, Duffy G, Herrmann B, Conley M, Johnson J. Knowledge structures as evidence of the ‘personal: bridging the gap from thought to practice. J Curriculum Stud. 1988;20:159–165. doi:10.1080/00220272.1988.11070787.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar