Skip to main content

Table 2 Targeted concepts, names and psychometric features of survey acceptability, appropriateness, and outcome measures

From: Development and evaluation of the Good Grief program for young people bereaved by familial cancer

Concept/variable – measure name No of items/subscales Response scale Example item/s Validity and reliability evidence
Acceptability: End of session engagement (measuring perceived session helpfulness, meaningfulness and interestingness) 3 items 11-point discrete visual analogue scales (Not helpful/ meaningful/ interesting at all to Very helpful/ meaningful/ interesting) “How helpful did you find this session?” N/A
Acceptability: End of program satisfaction
 Overall program helpfulness 1 item Four-point Likert item (Not helpful to Very helpful) “Overall, how helpful was the program?” N/A
 Overall program satisfaction 1 item Four-point Likert item (Not at all satisfied to Very satisfied) “Overall, how satisfied were you with the program?” N/A
 Enjoyment of recreational activities 1 item 11-point scale (Not enjoyable at all to Extremely enjoyable “Overall, on a scale of 1 to 10, how much did you enjoy the recreational activities you participated in on camp?” N/A
 Program recommendation to other bereaved young people 1 item Yes/no question “Would you recommend the program to other young people who have a parent who has died from cancer?” N/A
 Satisfaction questions (liked most, most useful, why recommend/not recommend, improvements suggestions) 4 items Open ended “What did you like most about the program?” N/A
 Satisfaction with facilitators (listening, supportiveness, understanding, respectfulness, creating a safe space, taking participant views/concerns seriously, knowledge, coping strategy provision) 8 items Six-point Likert scale (Strongly disagree to Strongly agree) During the program, I felt that the facilitators… “listened to me”; “understood what I was going through N/A
Appropriateness of program topicsa (perceived usefulness/ relevance/ practicability for day-to-day life in the months following GG attendance) 9 items Five-point Likert scale (Very unhelpful to Very helpful) “There are ways to manage intense emotions that come from your grief”; “You share strengths and values with the person who died” N/A
Outcome measures
 Grief intensity – Texas Revised Inventory of Grief (TRIG; Present Feelings subscale) [49] 13 items Five-point Likert scale (Completely false to Completely true) I still cry when I think about the person who died Present Feelings subscale scores showed sufficient internal consistency (α = .86) and split-half reliability (r = .88) [49].
 Meaning-making – Grief and Meaning Reconstruction Inventory (GMRI; Personal Growth and Valuing Life subscales) [50] 11 items, 2 subscales (Personal Growth - one’s sense of having experienced positive change and increased resilience following the loss; Valuing Life - one’s sense of desire to live life to the fullest) Five-point Likert scale (Strongly disagree to Strongly agree). “Since this loss, I’m a stronger person”; “I value and appreciate life more” The GMRI (overall and its subscales) has good convergent and discriminant validity [51]. Subscales demonstrated good internal consistency (αPersonal Growth = .83; αValuing Life = .76) [51].
 Trauma coping abilities – Perceived Ability to Cope with Trauma Scale (PACT) [52] 20 items, 2 subscales (Trauma Focus - one’s ability to spend time processing the trauma; Forward Focus - one’s ability to move beyond the trauma) Seven-point numeric rating scale (Not at all able to to Extremely able to “Look for the positive in things” The Coping Flexibility Scale shows good incremental, convergent and discriminant validity [52].
 Unmet needs – Bereaved Cancer Needs Instrument (BCNI) [15] 57 items, 7 subscales (Help and Information About Grief, Time-Out From Grief, Planning For The Future, Support From Friends, Talking To Others With Similar Experiences, Dealing With Feelings, Family Connectedness) Four-point Likert-type scale (No need to Strong need). e.g., “I currently need to be informed about grief and loss in a way that I can understand” Good convergent validity with a measure of psychological distress and high internal consistency for all subscales when validated in a sample of cancer-bereaved sibling and offspring AYAs [15].