The objectives of the study were explained to the participants. All of them were provided with the necessary explanations in the attachment sheet of the virtual questionnaire regarding the confidentiality of their information with the researchers. This study was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration.
The sample of this study includes all people over 18 years of age with a history of grief experience that is at least 6 months old. The questionnaire was made available to individuals virtually through social networks. The sample size in this study was 300 people. This is 10 times the number of tool items. The questionnaire was provided to the participants electronically and in person, and finally 480 questionnaires were completed and delivered.
The Coping Assessment for Bereavement and Loss Experiences (CABLE)
CABLE is a scale designed to identify coping strategies that mourners use to cope with Bereavement and loss. This scale consists of 28 items that are followed by convergent validity in the original version of CABLE with the Brief Cope scale. And is set in 6 areas: Help Seeking (7 items), Positive Outlook (5 items), Spiritual Support (4 items), Continuing Bound (5 items), Compassion Outreach (3 items), Social Support (4 items) and its response On a scale of 6 to zero (I have never done this), (I have done this once), (I have done this many times), (I do it almost daily I have done this, (I have done this every day), (this does not apply to my menu and my mourning). Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the total scale was 0.91[23,24].
The present study is a methodological research that has been conducted with the aim of translating and psychometric evaluation of the Persian version of the questionnaire to assess compliance with grief and the experience of loss from April 2020 to April 2021 in the form of a cross-sectional descriptive design.
Validity and Reliability
The translation is performed according to the standard defined in the validity of the instrument by the World Health Organization. After obtaining written permission from the original designer of the "CABLE" tool, using the World Health Organization guide and the Forward method, the translation process began [25, 26]. In the first stage, the "CABLE" questionnaire was translated into Persian by three translators whose mother tongue was Persian and who had sufficient experience and proficiency in translating English texts. During the translation, an attempt was made not to change the meaning and concept of the phrases and their level of difficulty. In this regard, in the translation process, the conceptual equivalence of words, sentences and phrases was emphasized. In the second stage, the original translated versions were reviewed and compared by experts, and the discrepancies between them were corrected and the original translations were merged. Then, in the third stage, the translated version was independently translated into English by two fluent English speakers (a Canadian Citizen Doctor and a skilled English translator), and then an agreed-upon version was reviewed, and finally the final English version. Prepared with the original version to receive approval for the original design and after applying his comments and suggestions, the final approval was received.
Face and content validity
Cognitive interviews were used to perform face validity. The Persian version of the scale was provided to 15 people with experience of mourning, over 18 years of age with a minimum level of literacy, and qualitative face validity was performed. Due to the existing cultural-socio-religious differences, limited changes were made in some words. Then, in reviewing the quality validity of the content, 10 experts (respected university professors with experience in methodology, psychometrics, instrumentation, psychology and nursing) in this field were asked to review the quality of the scale based on grammar criteria. Use the right words, place the items in the right place, and score the right amount to provide the necessary feedback [27, 28].
At this stage, the final and modified version of the scale was given to 30 participants. Using SPSS 26 software and loop technique, the correlation between items and the correlation of each item with the total score were measured. Cronbach's alpha was also described after removing each item.
Exploratory factor analysis was used to determine the Construct validity. In this method, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test (KMO) was used to evaluate the adequacy of sampling. (KMO <0.7) Measurement of KMO close to 1 indicates developmental adequacy. High negation in factor analysis and KMO between 0.7-0.8 and above 0.8 is considered good. Then the correlation matrix between the variables was evaluated using Bartlett test for factor analysis with an error level of less than 0.05. To extract the factors, the Principal axis factoring (PAF) and Scree design were used. Also, the rotation of factors in this study was done by rotation of Promax. Data analysis in EFA was performed using Spss 26 software.
For confirmatory factor analysis, 220 individuals were surveyed according to inclusion criteria and by sampling method. In confirmatory factor analysis, several change techniques were used to evaluate the relationships. In order to fit the model, chi-square, chi-square to degrees of degree of error scales, goodness-fit index, standardized fit index, and adaptive fit index are used, which are commonly used in determining fit in factor analysis. In examining the goodness indicators of fit, if the result of the chi-square test is not statistically significant, the fit of the model indicates. The first degree error criteria show the fit for each of the freedoms, and the closer the model is to the greater zero of the model. If the square root of the error is less than 0.08, it indicates a very good fit, 0.08 to 0.1 indicates an acceptable fit, and greater than 0.1 indicates a poor fit of the model. Goodness indicators of fit, handled fit and adaptive fit are indicators that have been developed to compare the model and are calculated with a base model. Their online is between zero and 1 and above 0.9 indicates a good fit of the model . Data analysis in CFA was performed using Lisrel 8.8 software.
Reliability was assessed by two methods of internal consistency including Cronbach's alpha and test-retest. In the open test phase, the scale was given to 30 subjects in two stages two weeks apart. Then the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated with a confidence interval of 0.95 and values above 0.7 were accepted for scale stability.