Expectant parents who live through perinatal loss experience intense grief, which is not always acknowledged or accepted. A screening tool to detect bereaved parents’ grief reactions can guide professionals, including perinatal palliative care teams, to provide follow-up for those in need. This review's goal is to identify and synthesize the international published literature on existent instruments specifically measuring the grieving process after any perinatal loss and to identify factors that could moderate grief reactions.

Systematic review (PROSPERO # CRD42018092555) with critical synthesis. PUBMED, Cochrane, and PsycINFO databases were searched in English language articles using the keywords “perinatal” AND (“grief” OR “bereavement” OR mourning) AND (“scale” OR “questionnaire” OR “measure” OR “assessment”) up to May 2018. Eligibility criteria included every study using a measure to assess perinatal grief after all kinds of perinatal losses, including validations and translations to other languages and interventions designed to alleviate grief symptoms.

A total of 67 papers met inclusion criteria. Seven instruments measuring perinatal grief published between 1984 and 2002 are described. The Perinatal Grief Scale (PGS) was used in 53 of the selected studies. Of those, 39 analyzed factors associated with grief reactions. Six articles used PGS scores to evaluate pre- and post-bereavement interventions. Studies in English language only might have limited the number of articles.

The PGS is the most used standardized measures to assess grief after perinatal loss. All parents living through any kind of perinatal loss should be screened.

Executive function (EF) difficulties are commonly found in youth with intellectual disability (ID). Given mixed results from studies using performance-based EF measures, the EF profile has not been well characterized for this population. No published work has examined the clinical utility of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, Second Edition (BRIEF2) in distinguishing EF in ID. We hypothesized that the BRIEF2 would show greater elevations in youth with ID compared to the Average IQ comparison group.

Participants included a large sample of 504 youth (157 in ID group; aged 8–18 years) referred for (neuro)psychological evaluation (2015–2019) and identified as meeting criteria for either ID or Average IQ comparison group.

Significant elevations were found across BRIEF2 indices and scales. Only mild elevations were noted in selective cognitive regulation scales within the Average IQ group. Groups differed significantly across all EF dimensions, with greater differences observed in behavioral regulation (Self-Monitoring, Inhibition), Shift, and Working Memory. An elevated but less variable pattern of index scores was noted in ID, while the overall pattern of scaled scores appeared similar between groups.

The less variable and consistently elevated profile may suggest fewer EF dimensions in individuals with ID than the model proposed in the test manual. Similar profiles between groups may reflect differences in severity, rather than differences in constructs measured by the EF factors, per se. Additional examination is needed to confirm potential structural differences in EF for youth with ID as measured by BRIEF2, with a clinical implication for greater efficiency of EF assessment in this population.