I have been following this discussion with interest. I no longer teach a life-span development course but the last time I did. I closed the course with a presentation of K-R's stages and a statement that they probably did not present a useful or valid theory. My comment was based primarily on discussions with my wife who is a physician and had read something to that effect. So I was surprised by both Stephen's comment that this reasearch is the first good test of K-R's theory and Jim's dogged defense. Of course that meant it was time to look for myself.
I found the following paper with Google Scholar (I am at home without access to the better databases). Admittedly this paper is review about people who are experiencing their own death rather than those who are grieving for others. Corr, C. A. (1993). Coping with dying: Lessons that we should and should not learn from the work of Elisabeth Kubler-Ross. Death Studies, 17, 69-83. On page 70 he writes "Howeer, the early research literature (e.g. Metzger, 1979; Schulz & Aderman, 1974) did not provide much support for this stage-based model. In addition, more than 20 years later there still is no confirmation of its validity or reliability. In fact, some of the most knowledgeable and sophisticated clinicians who work with those who are coping with dying have made clear their view that the stage-based model put forth by Kubler-Ross is inadequate, superficial, and misleading (e.g. Feigenberg, 1980; Pattison, 1977; Shneidman, 1980; Weisman, 1977). Also, it has been argued that the stage-based model for coping with dying was widely accepted for reasons other than its own intrinsic strengths (Klass, 1982; Klass & Butch, 1985)." (p.70) The whole paper is available in PDF format, but I only get a download link so can't seem to capture a URL. Regards Dennis
<<winmail.dat>>
--- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
