实验室团队在《Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy》上发表了论文。哀伤反刍作为以丧亲事件及其因果关系的重复性思维为特征的心理过程，与延长哀伤障碍（Prolonged Grief Disorder, PGD）等精神病理症状密切相关。传统特质性自评量表虽可评估有关自身反应、不公感、反事实思维及意义寻求等多维度反刍，但其易受回忆性偏差影响且难以捕捉反刍思维的动态情境特征。基于此，实验室负责人唐苏勤副教授带领实验室往届成员周士人和在读研究生张心兰与格罗宁根大学行为与社会科学院临床心理学与实验精神病理学系助理教授Lonneke I. M. Lenferink合作撰写文章“ Ecological validity of grief rumination measures among bereaved people”于2025年8月6日在《Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy》上发表。本研究旨在本研究采用生态瞬时评估技术，对丧亲者进行11种特质与状态哀伤反刍的生态效度检验。研究表明特质性测量难以全面捕捉丧亲后日常生活中哀伤反刍的动态变化，建议采用更具生态敏感性的状态测量方法以准确评估真实情境下的哀伤反刍波动。
摘要
Grief rumination, characterised by repetitive thinking about the loss and its causes and consequences, is linked to various psychopathological symptoms, including prolonged grief disorder (PGD). Traditional assessments of grief rumination rely on trait self-report questionnaires assessing multiple types of rumination (e.g., reactions, injustice, counterfactuals and meaning), which may be susceptible to memory biases and often fail to capture the dynamic and context-dependent nature of ruminative thoughts. This brief report evaluates the ecological validity of trait versus state grief rumination types using ecological momentary assessment (EMA), testing their convergent and discriminant validity. Bereaved adults (N = 65, 42 women, Mage = 21.88 ± 2.92) completed online measures for 11 types of trait and state grief rumination. The state measures were completed four times a day for 14 consecutive days. We examined the convergent and discriminant validity of these measures through zero-order and multivariate associations. The associations between trait and state grief rumination measures varied between 0.388 and 0.765, but we did not find sufficient evidence supporting the discriminant validity. Multilevel regression analyses further indicated that trait measures of grief rumination captured a fraction of the individual's state grief ruminations. Our findings suggest that trait grief rumination measures may not fully capture the nuances of grief rumination experienced in daily life after loss. We therefore recommend using state measures given they more accurately seem to assess the ebb and flow of grief rumination in real-world settings.