{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021026072329688814, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002523128679562658, 'mean_word_length': 5.95906432748538, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Intuitive and Instrumental Grief: A Study of the Reliability and Validity of the Grief Pattern Inventory

A convenience sample of 209 participants completed the Grief Pattern Inventory (GPI) together with the Hogan Grief Reaction Checklist (HGRC), the Integration of Stressful Life Events Scale (ISLES), and the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). Alpha coefficients of the GPI’s intuitive and instrumental subscales were improved by eliminating low-performing items and empirically reassigning items from the GPI dissonant subscale. The two modified scales showed a near zero intercorrelation indicating they were independent constructs in this sample, a conclusion further verified by factor analysis. Both styles correlated with distress measures from the HGRC and correlated negatively with adaptation indicators from the ISLES, though the findings were stronger for intuitive grievers. MBTI findings revealed that intuitive grievers endorsed significantly more “feeling” in how processing occurs while grievers who preferred sensing/thinking functions more often identified with the instrumental grief pattern. Implications of these findings for scholars and clinicians are discussed.