Skip to main content
Full access
Letters to the Editor
Published Online: 1 November 2016

Performance of Complicated Grief Criteria

To the Editor: We read with interest the article by Cozza et al. on the accuracy of DSM-5 persistent complex bereavement disorder criteria (1). The study suggests that complicated grief criteria are more sensitive in detecting cases with grief-related symptoms than persistent complex bereavement disorder or prolonged grief disorder criteria, without compromising specificity. However, we feel that the article’s findings fail to prove superiority of the complicated grief criteria set. The study defined a “putative clinical sample” of bereaved military family members based on questionnaire cutoff scores. Specifically, putative cases needed to score 30 or higher on the 19-item Inventory of Complicated Grief (2). Criteria sets were evaluated using the 26-item Complicated Grief Questionnaire (3). Three criteria sets were compared: persistent complex bereavement disorder criteria that require endorsement of seven out of 16 criteria, prolonged grief disorder criteria that require endorsement of six out of 10 criteria, and complicated grief criteria that require endorsement of three out of 12 criteria. Given that the vast majority of the items in the Inventory of Complicated Grief and in the Complicated Grief Questionnaire are highly comparable, belonging to the putative clinical sample in the Cozza et al. study automatically implied a high likelihood of endorsing items on the Complicated Grief Questionnaire. Moreover, it was much easier for putative clinical cases to fulfill complicated grief criteria than to fulfill persistent complex bereavement disorder or prolonged grief disorder criteria for two reasons. First, for complicated grief as well as persistent complex bereavement disorder caseness, 17 Complicated Grief Questionnaire items were relevant, increasing chances of fulfilling these criteria, whereas for prolonged grief disorder caseness, only 12 Complicated Grief Questionnaire items were relevant. Second, for complicated grief caseness, a high score on only three (18%) of the 17 relevant Complicated Grief Questionnaire items was sufficient, whereas for persistent complex bereavement disorder or prolonged grief disorder caseness, high scores on seven out of 17 (41%) or six out of 12 (50%) relevant Complicated Grief Questionnaire items, respectively, were required. Thus, the apparent superior sensitivity of complicated grief criteria should come as no surprise. That the apparent high sensitivity came at no cost (i.e., that the apparent specificity was not compromised) could be because the nonclinical cases needed to score <20 on the Inventory of Complicated Grief, such that borderline cases were excluded from the study. The real challenge in distinguishing between normal and pathological cases is in parsing the borderline cases that the Cozza et al. analysis discarded. Furthermore, Cozza et al. did not demonstrate or compare predictive validity of the criteria sets by examining associations with independently assessed outcomes. Clinicians attempting to diagnose grief-related psychopathology need a gold standard for distinguishing between normal grief and psychopathology. Because of the shortcomings outlined above, the Cozza et al. study fails to provide a significant contribution to this aim.

References

1.
Cozza SJ, Fisher JE, Mauro C, et al: Performance of DSM-5 persistent complex bereavement disorder criteria in a community sample of bereaved military family members. Am J Psychiatry 2016; 173:919–929
2.
Prigerson HG, Maciejewski PK, Reynolds CF III, et al: Inventory of Complicated Grief: a scale to measure maladaptive symptoms of loss. Psychiatry Res 1995; 59:65–79
3.
Bui E, Mauro C, Robinaugh DJ, et al: The structured clinical interview for complicated grief: reliability, validity, and exploratory factor analysis. Depress Anxiety 2015; 32:485–492

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to American Journal of Psychiatry
Go to American Journal of Psychiatry
American Journal of Psychiatry
Pages: 1149
PubMed: 27798990

History

Accepted: August 2016
Published online: 1 November 2016
Published in print: November 01, 2016

Keywords

  1. Bereavement
  2. Diagnosis And Classification

Authors

Details

Geert E. Smid, M.D., Ph.D.
From Foundation Centrum ’45 and Arq Psychotrauma Expert Group, Diemen, the Netherlands; and the Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Paul A. Boelen, Ph.D.
From Foundation Centrum ’45 and Arq Psychotrauma Expert Group, Diemen, the Netherlands; and the Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Funding Information

The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Export Citations

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.

Format
Citation style
Style
Copy to clipboard

View Options

View options

PDF/EPUB

View PDF/EPUB

Login options

Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.

Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens login
Purchase Options

Purchase this article to access the full text.

PPV Articles - American Journal of Psychiatry

PPV Articles - American Journal of Psychiatry

Not a subscriber?

Subscribe Now / Learn More

PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.

Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share article link

Share