Parental death communication style scale (PDCSS): Initial development and preliminary validation via communication privacy management theory

Parental death communication style scale (PDCSS): Initial development and preliminary validation via communication privacy management theory | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Parental death communication style scale (PDCSS): Initial development and preliminary validation via communication privacy management theory Şenil ÜNLÜ This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9200090/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Talking about death with young children is a challenging process for parents. The literature relies primarily on qualitative studies with limited parent samples. One of the main reasons for this is the lack of reliable and valid instruments to measure parental death communication styles. To fill this gap, the current study presents the development and validation of the Parental Death Communication Style Scale (PDCSS), designed for parents of children aged 2–6 years. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted with 230 parents of preschoolers using maximum likelihood extraction and direct elimination rotation. EFA revealed a 23-item scale with three factors, “competence on death communication”, “avoidance from death communication” and “honesty and transparency during death communication”, which explained 51.7% of the total variance. The factors demonstrated strong reliability (α = .82–.93). These findings confirm that the PDCSS is a valid and reliable tool that might successfully fill the gap in the death literature. The results also revealed a significant strong correlation between Competence and Honesty (r = .654) but a weak correlation between Competence and Avoidance (r = − .139) and no relationship between Avoidance and Honesty and Transparency. Framed within communication privacy management (CPM) theory, the results suggest that avoidance is independent of competence or honesty. A parent may avoid communication despite feeling competent or remaining honest once communication begins despite initial avoidance of death-related communication. The relationships between these factors highlight the fact that having information on how to talk about death with young children is not enough solely to avoid topic. These findings suggest that death education and psychoeducation provided to parents with young children should prioritize not only information but also emotional self-regulation and privacy boundaries to encourage developmentally appropriate death communication within the family. Parent–Death Communication Communication Privacy Management (CPM) Scale Development Early childhood death education Figures Figure 1 1. BACKGROUND Death is an inevitable part of life; however, it is a topic that humans mostly avoid discussing because of the stress, anxiety, and worry it creates ( 1 ). Young children are the most disenfranchised group when the subject is dead ( 2 ). This is because they are often believed not to be immune enough to handle death and death ( 3 ). However, many children worldwide are exposed to the concept of death either through personal experiences or through media, TV programs, and even digital games ( 4 , 5 , 6 ). Despite this increased exposure and their natural curiosity, children cannot easily find age-appropriate, open, and honest communication opportunities about death and dying either at home or even at preschools. Nevertheless, recent studies consistently highlight the importance of open communication between adults and especially young children to help children develop a true understanding of death ( 7 ). In the literature, there is a great deal of research on how children understand the concept of death and how this understanding develops during childhood. On the basis of these results, we now know that to understand the concept of death truly, one must make meaning of its five different subcomponents: inevitability, irreversibility, causality, nonfunctionality, and noncorporal continuation ( 8 ). Inevitability refers to the fact that all living things die; irreversibility implies that a deceased person cannot return, whereas nonfunctionality refers to the fact that after death, there are no biological or emotional needs. Most of these subcomponents can be understood by young children gradually during the early years of life prior to the age of five. In contrast, causality—which means that there is either an internal (e.g., the heart has stopped) or external (e.g., a traffic accident) reason that caused the death—is typically grasped by young children around the age of seven or eight ( 8 , 9 , 10 ). The final subcomponent, noncorporal continuation, refers to beliefs about life after death, which are shaped mainly by religious beliefs; this is found to coexist with a biological understanding of death even among children as young as four years old ( 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 ). All of these subcomponents should be grasped by children to understand death and dying as adults. During the development of these subcomponents, it is crucial for young children to find adults who can discuss them in an open, age-appropriate, and honest manner. In their study with 5–6-year-old children, Jingjing and Fuyan ( 14 ) reported that open communication about death among families significantly affects children’s understanding of these subcomponents. Similarly, Yang and Chen ( 15 ) clearly reported that compared with children who never find this opportunity, children who have the opportunity to communicate about death with others develop more positive judgments about the topic and exhibit fewer negative somatic reactions. Interestingly, children who cannot discuss death with others are more likely to believe that death is bad and scary; furthermore, their fear of death and death anxiety levels are greater than those of children who can openly discuss the subject with close adults ( 7 ). The aforementioned findings clearly indicate a need for young children, who are concrete thinkers ( 16 ), to reach adults who can provide honest guidance for them to think and talk about death and dying. The very first studies on parent‒child death conversations revealed that parents and early childhood educators recognize the importance of talking about death with young children. McGovern and Barry ( 17 ) reported that although parents recognize the necessity of death education, their personal attitudes and lack of guidance often create barriers to practice. Furthermore, parents agree with the idea that children are naturally curious about the concept of death ( 3 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ). In spite of these findings, the literature also consistently indicates that the majority of close adults surrounding young children, including parents and early childhood educators, avoid talking about death with them. For instance, Bridgewater, Menendez, and Rosengren ( 5 ) reported that even though parents watch animated films with their young children in which death is portrayed, very few use these films as an opportunity to initiate a conversation on death. In most cases, young children are the initiators of death-related communication ( 9 , 22 ). Even in these instances, research has shown that parents’ answers are often not age appropriate. For example, Bridgewater et al. ( 5 ) and Gutierrez et al. ( 22 ) reported that parents provide religious explanations for children’s questions about the biological components of death. One of the primary reasons for this avoidance is the desire to protect the child from confusion and prevent the creation of fear ( 3 ). More recent studies have also revealed that an underestimation of children’s ability to understand death or a lack of personal comfort with the subject are further reasons for parental avoidance ( 21 , 23 , 24 ). Communication privacy management (CPM), which is “a practical theory constructed to permit applications that give us an opportunity to understand everyday problems and events that people encounter in families” ( 25 , p. 36), provides a strong theoretical basis for the parent–child death communication phenomenon. According to this theory, when deciding to share information, people engage in a careful assessment process regarding the potential positive and negative consequences of such disclosure ( 26 , 27 ). CPM emphasizes that individuals make assessments to determine whether a piece of information should “remain private” or “be shared” ( 26 ). As a result of these assessments, they establish various metaphorical boundaries that determine the extent, manner, and circumstances under which they share information. These boundaries are influenced by gender, culture, social context, motivation, and the potential consequences of information sharing ( 26 ). With respect to parent–child death communication, this theory was supported by a qualitative study by Toller and McBride ( 28 ) involving 14 parents who had lost a close family member. They reported that while parents tried to communicate openly and honestly with their children about death—unlike their own parents—they were also inclined to withhold certain information that might cause harm or violate confidentiality. An interesting finding of this study is that, although parents are motivated to shift privacy boundaries (i.e., they are more motivated to talk about death than their own parents were), they “did not talk about issues of death with their children until a family member had died (or death was inevitable)” ( 28 , p. 42). This suggests that, as proposed by CPM, parents can and do change privacy rules when they feel they must. The aforementioned studies have provided valuable contributions to understanding the patterns of parent–child death communication; however, nearly all of this previous research is qualitative in nature. Consequently, the literature has failed to identify a general tendency among parents regarding death-related communication with young children. A primary reason for this gap is the lack of a psychometrically validated instrument that can be utilized to systematically assess parental tendencies in death communication. There are widely used scales in death-related research, such as the Templer Death Anxiety Scale ( 29 ), the Death Anxiety Beliefs and Behaviors Scale ( 30 ), and the Collett-Lester Fear of Death Scale ( 31 ). These scales provided valuable information about personal attitudes regarding death. However, understanding the extent to which parents feel anxious about or fear death is not sufficient for understanding their communicative tendencies. To increase their capacity and provide guidance, particularly for the parents of grieving children, there is a need to understand the extent to which they evaluate their own ability to talk about death with their children. Communication privacy management (CPM) also suggests that protecting the child’s well-being and evaluating the benefits and costs of death conversation might create metaphorical boundaries that are not entirely related to an anxiety or fear of death. Nevertheless, there is currently no available multidimensional scale to measure parents’ communication competence, avoidance levels, or honesty during death conversations. A valid and reliable scale assessing parents' communicative approaches would provide insights into their personal evaluations of their capacity, behaviors, and tendencies regarding death-related conversations with their young children rather than merely measuring their personal beliefs, attitudes, or fears of death. This type of scale may offer practitioners the opportunity to focus directly on communicative tendencies instead of deeper personal attitudes toward death while guiding parents, preparing support programs, and enhancing their capacity for death-related communication. To fill this significant gap, the primary aim of this study is to develop a valid, reliable, and multidimensional parental death communication style scale (PDCSS). This scale is designed to provide information on parents’ perceptions of their competence, their level of avoidance, and their ability to explain death in an honest and transparent manner. It is believed that such a measurement tool contributes substantially to death-related research and family support systems by helping professionals identify the specific needs of parents and determine appropriate interventions. 2. METHODS 2.1. Participants For this exploratory phase of PDCSS, by utilizing a convenient snowball sampling strategy ( 32 ), this study reached 230 parents of children aged between 3 and 6 years. Among the participating parents, 186 were mothers, and 44 were fathers. The ages of the participants ranged from 20 to 48 years, with a mean of 31.85 years. With respect to educational background, more than half of the participating fathers and mothers had at least a high school diploma, while the largest group held a university degree (n = 117); only 40 participants had graduated from elementary or secondary school. The age range of the children was between 2 and 6 years, with a mean of 4.53 years. The sex distribution of the children was nearly equal, with 117 females and 113 males. In terms of economic status, 11 parents reported a low income, 125 reported a medium level, and the remaining parents reported a high economic status. When asked about recent bereavement, 75 parents reported experiencing the death of a close family member within the past three years, while the remaining 155 reported no such experience. Since the primary aim of this study was to develop a valid and reliable scale, high importance was placed on reaching a ratio of at least five participants for each item in the initial form. This is considered an acceptable ratio according to Gorsuch ( 33 ) and Tabachnick and Fidell ( 34 ). Furthermore, the Kaiser‒Meyer–Olkin (KMO) value obtained during the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) indicated that the sample size was sufficient to conduct factor analysis for the initial 40-item version of the scale (KMO = .907) 2.2. Procedure The data of the study were gathered through an online form distributed through social media and personal networks, and participants were encouraged to share the form with others meeting the inclusion criteria (having at least one child aged 3–6). All the data were collected between January 2024 and December 2024 2.3. Scale Development Process 2.3.1. Item Generation The item generation process for the parental death communication style scale (PDCSS) was guided by the core concepts of communication privacy management (CPM) theory and findings derived from previously conducted qualitative studies. As mentioned earlier, Petronio ( 26 ) states that individuals determine the content of their communication through metaphorical boundaries, which are shaped by specific privacy rules, risk-benefit assessments, and boundary permeability. Specifically, the items were generated to reflect how parents navigate these privacy boundaries on the basis of qualitative themes identified in the literature. For instance, by combining CPM’s concept of “closed boundaries” with qualitative evidence of parental avoidance, items such as “I believe young children are not ready to understand death” (I-18) and “When my child asks a question about death, I distract his/her attention” (I-14) were generated. Similarly, items such as “I can explain the concept of death in an age-appropriate and correct way” (I-33) were formulated to reflect the parent’s decision-making rule to open the privacy boundary when information is deemed developmentally manageable for the child, aligning with the CPM’s concept of boundary permeability. Drawing from CPM's focus on “information management,” items regarding the technical and procedural aspects of the conversation—such as “I know how to start a conversation about death with my child” (I-4) and “I know how to manage the process while talking about death with my child” (I-10)—were created to capture parents’ perceived competence in managing these complex dialogues. 2.3.2. Content validity To evaluate content validity, expert opinions and a piloting process were utilized. After the generation of an item pool consisting of 42 items, all the items were examined by five in-service early childhood educators and four academic staff members in early childhood education. The majority of the experts (n = 6) suggested dropping two items: “I explain that some deceased people are cremated while others are buried in the ground," and “I explain that some people believe the deceased return to the world in a different body," because they found them to be culturally inappropriate for the target population. These items were found to be unfamiliar and not suitable for the social and cultural characteristics of Turkish society. The experts’ feedback focused on the possibility of confusion or discomfort that could be created among parents whose belief systems do not typically include cremation or reincarnation. This decision aligns with communication privacy management (CPM) theory’s emphasis on “cultural criteria” as a primary factor in determining privacy rules and the boundaries of shared information. Therefore, these two items were dropped from the item pool. The experts suggested minor changes for the remaining items to strengthen their clarity, and 90% agreement was established between the experts. The final version of the scale with 40 items was piloted with ten mothers and ten fathers by the researcher to understand whether the items were clear, understandable, and readable. All fathers and mothers completed the scale within ten minutes, and none of the parents reported having difficulty understanding the items or discomfort in answering the questions. 2.4. Data Analysis Jamovi was used to run the exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The results of the KMO measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity were checked before the analysis. EFA was run with maximum likelihood extraction, and direct elimination rotation was used. Finally, the Cronbach's alpha values for each factor were calculated. 3. RESULTS 3.1. Construct Validity The construct validity of the draft scale, which initially consisted of 40 items, was examined using exploratory factor analysis (EFA). To achieve the most robust and theoretically consistent factor structure, a rigorous item purification process was conducted. During the iterative EFA cycles, items were excluded on the basis of the three statistical criteria: ( 1 ) failing to exhibit a significant loading, ( 2 ) having high uniqueness values, which refer to insufficient shared variances with the underlying constructs, and ( 3 ) cross-loading, i.e., high loadings on multiple factors with a difference of less than .10 between them. Table 1 presents clear information about this item purification process. Table 1 Summary of the Item Purification Process Reason for Exclusion Number of Items Eliminated Items Failed to load on any factor 6 I1, I12, I18, I23, I24, I40 High uniqueness values (≥ .67) 8 I8, I22, I26, I28, I29, I30, I31, I35, Cross-loading (difference < .10) 3 I38, I39, I20 Total Items Excluded 17 Final Number of Items 23 Prior to performing the EFA, the suitability of the data for factor analysis was assessed. The Kaiser‒Meyer‒Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was .907, which is well above the recommended threshold of .60, indicating that the sample size was excellent for factorability. Additionally, Bartlett’s test of sphericity reached statistical significance (x 2 , p < .001), confirming that the correlations between items were sufficiently large for EFA. The results of these tests are presented in Table 2 and Table 3 . Table 2 KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy Overall MSA .907 I-2 .937 I-3 .931 I-4 .930 I-5 .926 I-6 .937 I-7 .926 I-9 .831 I-10 .946 I-11 .948 I-13 .865 I-14 .863 I-16 .921 I-17 .872 I-18 .810 I-21 .871 I-25 .902 I-27 .892 I-34 .926 I-15 .860 I-19 .856 I-37 .873 I-38 .800 I-33 .910 Table 3 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity χ² df p 2892 253 < .001 The final EFA, conducted on the 23 items using maximum likelihood with oblimin rotation, revealed a three-factor structure with eigenvalues greater than 1.0. This three-factor solution accounted for approximately 52% of the total variance. The first factor explained 24.4% of the variance, the second factor explained 14.8%, and the third factor explained 12.3%. Table 4 presents the detailed information. Table 4 Variance explained by factors Factor SS Loadings % of Variance Cumulative % Competence 5.62 24.4 24.4 Avoidance 3.41 14.8 39.3 Honesty & Transparency 2.83 12.3 51.6 The distribution of the 23 items across the three factors was theoretically consistent with communication privacy management (CPM) theory and previous research findings. The factor loadings for the final items ranged from .459 to .892, indicating a strong association between the items and their respective factors, as presented in Table 5 . The first factor was labelled “competence in death communication” and included ten items. Example items for this factor included “I know how to start talking about death with my child,” “I believe I can handle the process correctly when talking to my child about death,” and “I believe I can explain death to my child in the right way.” Higher scores obtained from this subscale indicate higher perceived competence in initiating, continuing, and concluding satisfactory death communication. The second factor was labelled “avoidance of death communication” and included eight items, such as “I avoid talking to my child about death,” “When talking to my child about death, I avoid using concepts such as ‘death’ and ‘dying’,” “I think it is too early to talk to my child about death,” “When my child asks a question about death, I divert their attention elsewhere,” and “Talking to my child about death makes me anxious/worried.” High scores on this factor indicate that the parent has a high level of avoidance regarding conversations on death with their young children. During the item purification process, although a strict uniqueness threshold was initially applied, an exception was made for Items 18, 9, and 13, which loaded onto this factor. Despite their relatively high uniqueness values (above .67), these items were retained in this second factor because of their strong theoretical relevance and their essential role in representing the conceptual domain of the avoidance of death communication factor. The last factor was named “Honesty and Transparency in Death Communication" and included five items, such as “When talking to my child about death, I can explain the concept of death in an age-appropriate and accurate manner,” “When talking to my child about death, I am honest and realistic with them,” and “I can use clear, straightforward, and simple language when talking to my child about death.” The higher scores gathered from this factor indicate an honest approach utilized during death conversations with young children. Table 5 Factor loading Factor 1 2 3 Uniqueness I-6 .883 .207 I-5 .832 .290 I-2 .787 .519 I-10 .787 .348 I-4 .761 .413 I-16 .740 .415 I-7 .595 .525 I-17 .590 .512 I-3 .526 .392 I-11 .523 .509 I-14 .762 .375 I-15 .746 .386 I-37 .737 .421 I-19 .687 .536 I-38 .646 .582 I-18 .564 .672 I-9 .511 .743 I-13 .449 .739 I-27 .710 .479 I-34 .708 .436 I-33 .618 .443 I-21 .616 .591 I-25 .586 .601 Note. 'Maximum likelihood' extraction method was used in combination with a 'oblimin' rotation An examination of the scree plot (Fig. 1 ) supported this three-factor solution. The plot displayed a clear break after the third component, with the curve leveling off. 3.2. Interfactor Correlations: The relationships between the subdimensions of the scale were analysed using Pearson correlation coefficients (see Table 6 ). The results revealed a statistically significant strong positive correlation between competence in death communication (F1) and honesty and transparency in death communication (F3) (r = .654, p < .001). This suggests that parents who perceive themselves as competent in talking about death with young children also tend to maintain more transparent and honest dialogue with them. In contrast, Avoidance of Death Conversation (F2) was significantly but weakly negatively correlated with Competence in Death Communication (F1) (r = − .139, p = .035), indicating that greater competence in death communication is associated with lower levels of avoidance behaviors. Interestingly, the correlation between Avoidance (F2) and Honesty & Transparency (F3) was not statistically significant (r = − .112, p = .091). This suggests that the tendency to avoid the topic may be independent of the value the parent places on honesty when a conversation actually occurs. That is, even if a parent may prefer to avoid discussing death, they might still engage in an honest and transparent manner if communication becomes necessary. Table 6 Interfactor Correlations Correlation F1-Competence F2-Avoidance F3: Honesty F1-Competence Pearson's r — p value — F2-Avoidance Pearson's r − .139 — p value .035 — F3: Honesty Pearson's r .654 − .112 — p value < .001 .091 — Note . *p < .05, ***p < .001 3.3. Reliability Analysis To assess the reliability of each extracted factor, the Cronbach’s alpha value for each factor was calculated (see Table 7 ). Each factor has strong reliability. The Cronbach's α for Factor 1, Competence in Death Communication, is .929; it is .845 for Factor 2, Avoidance of Death Communication, and .823 for Factor 3, Honesty and Transparency in Death Communication. Table 7 Cronbach's α Factor Number of Items Cronbach’s α 1 2 3 1. Competence 10 .929 — 2. Avoidance 8 .845 − .139* — 3.Honesty/Transparency 5 .823 .654*** − .112 — Note . *p < .05, ***p < .001 In summary, the exploratory factor analysis resulted in a final 23-item parental death communication style scale (PDCSS) consisting of three distinct factors. Factor 1, titled “competence in death communication," included 10 items (e.g., S6, S5, and S2) that reflected parents' perceived ability and knowledge to discuss death with their children. Factor 2, titled “Avoidance of Death Conversation," consisted of 8 items (e.g., S14, S15, and S37) focusing on parental tendencies to redirect or avoid the topic. Factor 3, titled “Honesty and Transparency in Death Communication," comprised 5 items and assessed the parent's ability to maintain a transparent, calm, and age-appropriate dialogue while supporting the child's emotional expression. The scree plot clearly supported this three-factor solution, with the “elbow” point occurring after the third component. Collectively, these three factors accounted for 51.6% of the total variance. The internal consistency of the scale was robust, as evidenced by the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. The reliability values were .929 for Factor 1, .845 for Factor 2, and .823 for Factor 3. Notably, despite the high uniqueness values associated with Items 18, 9, and 13, their inclusion in Factor 2 did not compromise the subscale's overall reliability and was maintained to preserve theoretical depth. 4. DISCUSSION This study presents a psychometric analysis of a 23-item, three-factor scale, representing the exploratory phase of scale development for measuring parents' death communication style with their young children. A statistical analysis, including EFA and reliability analyses, demonstrated that the scale is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing how parents feel about communicating about death, whether they choose to avoid talking about death, and whether they can engage in honest and transparent communication on death. EFA results indicated that 17 of 40 items should be disregarded because of low factor loadings, cross-loadings, or high uniqueness, and the final 23-item structure offers a more parsimonious and robust framework. Specifically, the retention of key items in the “avoidance of death conversation” factor—despite their statistical uniqueness—ensured that the scale maintained its high content validity and theoretical depth. The second factor, titled 'Avoidance of Death Conversation', reflects parents' tendency to redirect or terminate discussions about death. Although items 9, 13, and 18 showed higher uniqueness values, their retention was essential, as they captured the underlying maternal/paternal anxiety that fuels this avoidance. This scale indicates that parental death communication is a multifaceted phenomenon characterized by competence, avoidance, and honesty/transparency. The partial correlation analysis indicated a strong positive and significant relationship between competence in death communication (F1) and honesty and transparency in death communication (F3). These findings are in parallel with those of previous qualitative studies indicating that parents and teachers who feel competent and more motivated in talking about death can provide more age- and developmentally appropriate information on the concept of death ( 19 , 35 ). One of the most noteworthy findings of this study is the significant and negative correlation between two factors: competence in death communication and avoidance of death communication (p=.035 $ ). Although this negative correlation was expected, interestingly, it was observed that this correlation is very low (r=-0.139 $ ). Although these results suggest that higher confidence resulted in lower avoidance, the small effect size indicates that competence alone explains only a minimal fraction of the variance in avoidant tendencies. That is, although a parent feels competent in initiating, continuing, and completing death-related communication, s/he may still prefer to avoid talking about death. These findings support Feifel’s ( 36 ) notion and the theoretical framework suggested by Wass ( 37 ). Feifel ( 36 ), the pioneer of death education research, stressed that although people's knowledge of death is increasing, the avoidance of talking about it is still persistent. Later, Wass ( 37 ) suggested that death education should not only try to increase knowledge on death; instead, it should be intertwined with “personal understanding, values, meanings, and attitudes toward death” to be successful. As Wass suggests, possessing technical information or “know-how” (represented by items such as I-6 and I-4 in the PDCSS) does not automatically eliminate the emotional barriers or the “taboo” nature of death that drives avoidance. Furthermore, the presence of items in the avoidance factor reflecting anxiety (I-9) and the fear of creating misconceptions (I-13) highlights that even 'competent' parents may still be hindered by internal distress. These findings suggest that parental death communication is a complex “style” in which individuals must contend with emotional resistance, reinforcing the idea that interventions for parents should focus not only on information sharing but also on managing the emotional burden of the death dialogue. These findings confirm that competence and avoidance are not opposite ends of a single continuum; rather, they are independent psychological constructs that can coexist within parents' communicative behaviors during dialogues about death. In this regard, the weak correlation between competence and avoidance strongly supports the notion put forward by Feifel ( 36 ) and Wass ( 37 ), which suggests that death education should address the emotional barriers that prevent the utilization of knowledge rather than merely focusing on increasing the amount of information. When evaluated within the framework of communication privacy management (CPM) theory—the theoretical foundation of this study—this finding is highly consistent with the core arguments of the theory. In accordance with CPM, when individuals discuss sensitive topics, they decide on their communicative behavior on the basis of a risk-benefit analysis of the dialogue's potential impact rather than on their perceived competence alone. Accordingly, the current findings suggest that parental avoidance in death-related dialogues may stem from the perceived negative consequences the conversation might have on the child rather than a lack of personal competence. In other words, even when parents possess the necessary “know-how” (high competence), they may still choose to maintain privacy boundaries because of protective instincts. Another interesting result involves the relationship between avoidance behavior and a transparent approach. The results indicated that there is a small and negative relationship between avoidance and honesty, which was not statistically significant. This information supports the three-factor structure of this scale by indicating that, despite having a tendency to avoid talking about death with young children, parents might still provide honest and transparent information to them once communication is initiated. In other words, avoidant behaviors of parents do not necessarily preclude communicative transparency if this communication has to occur. These results underscore the distinction between the decision to communicate and the quality of that communication. These results are supported by previous qualitative findings. Most previous studies have shown that parents do not prefer to talk about death with their children since they want to protect them from the possible emotional stress that this conversation may cause ( 15 , 38 , 39 ). More recently, Zajac and Boyatzis ( 40 ) reported that parents who choose to open communication about death with their children believe that this communication provides emotional, social, and intellectual benefits for the child. This finding is similar to the notion that this scale empirically indicated. The avoidance of death conversation is not entirely about the lack of competence; instead, it may be the result of the emotions and values that a parent attributes to the conversation on behalf of the children. In cases where parents believe that such a conversation can be harmful for the child, even if s/he feels competent, s/he can avoid this conversation. In other words, both the qualitative studies conducted with parents and the negative but small correlation between the competence and honesty factors of the PDCSS found in this study clearly indicate that the main reason for avoidance is not feeling incompetent; rather, it is the lack of information regarding how open communication on death benefits the child from a very young age. The factor structure of the PDCSS and the relationships between these factors are highly consistent with the framework of communication privacy management (CPM) theory. CPM suggests that individuals engage in a careful risk-benefit analysis before sharing information on important and sensitive topics, creating specific rules to manage what, how much, and under which circumstances they will disclose information ( 26 ). The interfactor relationships found in the PDCSS empirically validate this discourse. Specifically, the statistically significant but weak relationship between competence (F1) and avoidance (F2) underscores that perceived self-efficacy does not automatically eliminate avoidant tendencies. Furthermore, the lack of a significant relationship between Avoidance (F2) and Honesty/Transparency (F3) provides a unique insight: it suggests that even if parents initially exhibit avoidant behaviors—potentially to protect their children from the perceived negative consequences of death conversations—they remain capable of maintaining an open, honest, and developmentally appropriate dialogue if communication becomes necessary. Crucially, these results indicate that avoidant behaviors are not inherently linked to a lack of honesty or a total lack of competence; instead, parents may choose to avoid the topic on the basis of their assessment of the potential negative impact on the child. These findings provide strong empirical support for the premise of the CPM that privacy boundaries are dynamic and permeable while also validating the qualitative findings of Toller and McBride ( 35 ). The lack of a significant relationship between avoidance (F2) and honesty (F3), combined with the remarkably low correlation between competence (F1) and avoidance (F2), provides critical insight into the cultural nuances of parental death communication in Türkiye. In Turkish culture, where protective parenting styles are prevalent, the protection of a child’s emotional well-being is often prioritized. Within this context, death is frequently perceived as a 'taboo' or a 'threat' from which children must be shielded. This cultural inclination toward 'overprotection' reinforces a 'protective silence' where avoidance is not viewed as a communicative failure or a lack of honesty. Rather, it is perceived as a culturally appropriate “protective strategy”. These findings regarding parental avoidance in this study are consistent with the cultural patterns observed by Yang and Chen ( 15 ) in collectivist societies, where protecting children’s emotional well-being often takes precedence over open communication. As suggested by the literature, parents in such settings often believe that discussing death might cause irreversible psychological harm. Therefore, even when parents possess the necessary “know-how” (high competence) and value truthful information (high honesty), they may still choose to maintain closed privacy boundaries on the basis of their risk-benefit assessment for the child. This underscores that in collectivist cultures, the decision to communicate (avoidance) is a distinct psychological process independent of the parent's skills or integrity." 5. CONCLUSION This study contributes to research on parent–child death communication and death education through the developed parental death communication style scale (PDCSS) in several ways. First, the PDCSS is a reliable and valid scale that can be utilized as an assessment tool by professionals working with grieving families to identify parents’ communication styles. This scale helps professionals identify competence, avoidance, and honesty levels, thereby facilitating the preparation of family need-based interventions. Furthermore, by highlighting that avoidance is not merely a result of incompetence but may instead stem from a desire to protect children, professionals can help reduce the “guilt” parents might feel about their avoidance of talking about death. The factor structure of this scale supports the arguments of Feifel ( 36 ) and Wass ( 37 ) regarding the content of death education. Death education programs should focus not only on “what should be said to children” to decrease the avoidance level of parents but also on encouraging parents to regulate their own emotional barriers and reorganize their risk-benefit analysis. By applying the PDCSS, parents may be informed about their weaknesses and strengths, understanding that an avoidance tendency does not necessarily mean an inability to provide honesty and transparency in death-related conversations. Clinicians and educators should emphasize the benefits of honest communication rather than merely evaluating a parent’s technical ability and capacity to talk. Despite its contributions, this study has certain limitations. Since the PDCSS was developed within the cultural context of Türkiye, the observed independence of avoidance behavior from competence and honesty may be culture specific. The prevalence of 'protective silence' in this sample suggests that the factor dynamics of the scale might differ in cultures with more individualistic or open communication norms. Therefore, future cross-cultural studies are essential to validate the instrument's applicability in diverse societal settings. Importantly, this study focused on the exploratory phase of scale development. A significant limitation is the absence of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to further verify the identified factor structure in a different sample. Additionally, future research should incorporate test-retest reliability analysis to assess the temporal stability of the scale. Addressing these gaps will strengthen the psychometric robustness of the PDCSS. Furthermore, the PDCSS was specifically developed and validated with parents of children aged between 2 and 6 years. Since a child’s developmental stage and cognitive maturity are crucial factors in how death is perceived, parental communication styles may significantly vary as children grow older. Therefore, the findings of this study should be interpreted within this specific age range, and future research is recommended to test the reliability and validity of the scale with parents of older children and adolescents to understand how these communication styles evolve across different developmental stages. The present study addresses a critical juncture in death education and communication research by presenting the exploratory phase of scale development for a novel measurement tool. Previous literature, largely qualitative, has consistently indicated that parents—especially those of young children—frequently avoid discussing the concept of death ( 41 , 42 ). By utilizing a psychometrically validated instrument, this research provides empirical evidence for these observations through the lens of communication privacy management (CPM) theory, offering a nuanced understanding of the internal dynamics of death-related dialogues ( 26 , 27 ). The first key finding of this study validates the “knowledge-action gap” through an empirical lens. Although perceived competence in death communication significantly predicts lower levels of avoidance, the effect size is remarkably small. This confirms the theoretical framework of Feifel ( 26 ) and Wass ( 27 ), who argued that increasing information alone is insufficient to overcome the silence surrounding death. These findings suggest that personal fears, cultural meanings, and internal anxieties, rather than a mere lack of knowledge, are the primary drivers of parental avoidance. Second, the results indicate that the decision to avoid the topic is independent of the quality and integrity of the information provided once the conversation occurs. The lack of a significant correlation between the factors of avoidance (F2) and honesty& transparency (F3) demonstrates that avoidant behaviors do not necessarily preclude communicative transparency. These findings challenge the belief that avoidant parents are incapable of honest communication and underscore that avoidance often stems from an emotional reaction to the concept of death rather than a lack of communicative skill. As suggested by CPM, while avoidance may be the result of initial risk–benefit analyses, these metaphorical boundaries can be shifted when parents perceive the communication as necessary or once it is initiated by the child. Finally, the strong and significant relationship between competence and honesty highlights that feeling efficacious is a crucial prerequisite for maintaining a high-quality, truthful dialogue. When viewed as a whole, the three-factor structure of the Parental Death Communication Style Scale (PDCSS) reveals that death communication is determined by a complex interplay of cognitive, technical, and emotional components. While competence and honesty form the technical and ethical foundation of the dialogue, avoidance remains an emotional barrier that must be regulated to activate these skills. In conclusion, these results emphasize that interventions for parents of bereaved or grieving children and training for parents of young children, who are curious about the concept of death, must prioritize parents’ emotional self-regulation and the deconstruction of personal fears alongside information delivery related to talking about death. Future death education programs should aim not only to equip parents with “what to say” about death but also to support them in managing the profound emotional burden of the subject. In other words, the aim of those kinds of programs for parents should not be increasing their competence; instead, these programs should prioritize determining the reasons for avoidance and encouraging parents to regulate and decrease their influence while talking about death. It is believed that instead of just providing information on what and how to talk about death, increasing awareness about the long-term benefits of open and honest communication, even with very young children, remains essential for fostering healthy developmental outcomes and encouraging parents not to avoid talking about death since competence and avoidance and avoidance and honesty are independent of each other, as PDCSS indicated. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate Ethical approval for the current study was obtained from the Authors’ University Social Sciences Institute. Consent for publication All participants completed a consent form in which they could read the aim of the study and their right to withdraw from the study whenever they wanted through an online form. Availability of data and materials The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Funding There is no funding used for this study. Authors' contributions Author(s) equally contributed to the research process and manuscript preparation. Acknowledgements Thank you to all parents who share their experiences and spend time completing the scale. Author Information (the name of the author) is an assistant professor at a public university in the early childhood education department for ten years. Her/his major study areas are parent involvement in early years, father involvement, early childhood science education, and music in early years. S/he is working on early death education and talking about death with young children for five years. During these times, s/he worked with in-service and preservice early childhood educators, parents and prescholers. S/he is providing a course on “Death Experience in the Early Childhood Period at his/her institution. References Solomon S, Greenberg J, Pyszczynski T (1991) A terror management theory of social behavior: the psychological functions of self-esteem and cultural worldviews. In: Zanna MP (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic, pp 91–159 Doka KJ (ed) (2002) Disenfranchised grief: New directions, challenges, and strategies for practice. Research Su-Russell C, Russell LT, Ermer AE, Greiner C, Gregory R (2024) Parents’ Anticipated Discussions about death with young children. OMEGA - J Death Dying 88(3):1181–1202. 10.1177/00302228211057735 Burns M, Griese B, King S, Talmi A (2020) Childhood bereavement: Understanding prevalence and related adversity in the United States. Am J Orthopsychiatry 90(4):391–405. 10.1037/ort0000442 Bridgewater E, Menendez D, Rosengren KS (2021) Capturing death in animated films: Can films stimulate parent–child conversations about death? [Unpublished manuscript]. 10.31234/osf.io/q8w4p Nguyen SP, Rosengren KS (2004) Parental reports of children’s biological knowledge and misconceptions. Int J Behav Dev 28(5):411–420. 10.1080/01650250444000108 Slaughter V, Griffiths M (2007) Death understanding and fear of death in young children. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry 12(4):525–535. 10.1177/1359104507080980 Speece MW, Brent SB (1984) Children's understanding of death: a review of three components of a death concept. Child Dev 55(5):1671–1686. 10.2307/1129911 Rosengren KS, Miller PJ, Gutiérrez IT, Chow PI, Schein SS, Anderson KN (2014) Children’s understanding of death: Toward a contextualized model. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev 79(1):1–154. 10.1111/mono.12076 Slaughter V (2005) Young children’s understanding of death. Aust Psychol 40:179–186. 10.1080/00050060500243426 Astuti R, Harris PL (2008) Understanding mortality and the life of the ancestors among the Vezo of Madagascar. Cogn Sci 32(4):713–740. 10.1080/03640210802035348 Harris PL, Giménez M (2005) Children's acceptance of conflicting beliefs: The case of death. J Cogn Cult 5(1–2):143–155. 10.1163/1568537054068632 Legare CH, Visala A (2011) Between religion and science: Integrating psychological and philosophical accounts of explanatory coexistence. Hum Dev 54(3):169–184. 10.1159/000329135 Jingjing L, Fuyan L (2024) Research on the development of the concept of death in children and its influencing factors. Front Psychol 15:1376253. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1376253 Yang SC, Chen SF (2006) Content analysis of free-response narratives to personal meanings of death among Chinese children and adolescents. Death Stud 30(3):217–241. 10.1080/07481180500493385 Piaget J (1936) Origins of intelligence in the child. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London McGovern M, Barry MM (2010) Death education: Knowledge, attitudes, and perspectives of Irish parents and teachers. Death Stud 24(4):325–333. 10.1080/074811800200487 Crase DR, Crase D (1982) Parental attitudes toward death education for young children. Death Educ 6(1):61–73. 10.1080/07481188208252116 Hunter SB, Smith DE (2008) Predictors of children’s understanding of death: Age, cognitive ability, death experience, and maternal communication competence. OMEGA - J Death Dying 57(2):143–162. 10.2190/OM.57.2.b Kenyon BL (2001) Current research in children's conceptions of death: a critical review. OMEGA - J Death Dying 43(1):63–91. 10.2190/0X2B-B1N9-A579-DVK1 Longbottom S, Slaughter V (2018) Sources of children’s knowledge about death and dying. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 373(1754):20170267. 10.1098/rstb.2017.0267 Gutierrez IT, Menendez D, Jiang MJ, Hernandez IG, Miller P, Rosengren KS (2020) Embracing death: Mexican parent and child perspectives on death. Child Dev 91(2):e491–e511. 10.1111/cdev.13263 Kronaizl SG (2019) Discussing death with children: A developmental approach. Pediatr Nurs 45(1):470097–509805 Renaud SJ, Engarhos P, Schleifer M, Talwar V (2015) Children’s earliest experiences with death: circumstances, conversations, explanations, and parental satisfaction. Infant Child Dev 24(2):157–174. 10.1002/icd.1889 Petronio S, Caughlin JP (2006) Communication privacy management theory: What do we know about family privacy regulation? In: Braithwaite DO, Baxter LA (eds) Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives. Sage, pp 35–49 Petronio S (2002) Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. State University of New York, Albany (NY) Petronio S (2010) Communication privacy management theory: What do we know about family privacy regulation? J Fam Theory Rev 2:175–196. 10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00052.x Toller PW, McBride MC (2013) Enacting privacy rules and protecting disclosure recipients: Parents’ communication with children following the death of a family member. J Fam Commun 13(1):32–45. 10.1080/15267431.2012.742091 Templer DI (1970) The construction and validation of a death anxiety scale. J Gen Psychol 82(2):165–177 Menzies RE, Sharpe L, Dar-Nimrod I (2022) The development and validation of the death anxiety beliefs and behaviours scale (DABBS). Br J Clin Psychol 61(4):1169–1187. 10.1111/bjc.12381 Lester D (1990) The Collett-Lester Fear of Death Scale: The original version and a revision. Death Stud 14(5):451–468. 10.1080/07481189008252385 Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison K (2017) Research methods in education, 8th edn. Routledge, London Gorsuch RL (1983) Factor analysis, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (NJ) Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2019) Using multivariate statistics. 7th ed. Pearson Toller PW, MacBride MC (2013) Enacting privacy rules and protecting disclosure recipients: Parents’ communication with children following the death of a family member. J Family Communication 13(1):32–45. 10.1080/15267431.2012.742.09 Feifel H (1959) (Note: In text cited as 1982, potentially referring to: Feifel H. Role of death in life. In: Psychopathology of human adaptation. Springer) The meaning of death. McGraw-Hill Wass H (2004) A perspective on the current state of death education. Death Stud 28(4):289–308. 10.1080/07481180490432315 Silverman PR, Nickman S, Worden JW (1992) Detachment revisited: The child's reconstruction of a dead parent. Am J Orthopsychiatry 62(4):494–503 van der Geest IM, Darlington AS, Streng IC, Michiels EM, Pieters R, van den Heuvel-Eibrink MM (2015) Parents' experiences with death education and support in pediatric oncology. Pediatr Blood Cancer 62(10):1825–1831 Zajac L, Boyatzis C (2020) Mothers’ perceptions of the role of religion in parent–child communication about death in the family. Psychol Relig Spiritual. 10.1037/rel0000309 Mahone IH, McKenney SJ, Dickey S (2007) Death communication with children. J Pediatr Nurs 22(2):162 Hoffman SI, Strauss S (1985) The development of children's concepts of death. Death Educ 9(6):469–485 Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9200090","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":610664299,"identity":"80c19fd6-e20b-4c2b-8614-2f15bee0f711","order_by":0,"name":"Şenil ÜNLÜ","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9898-1609","institution":"Kirikkale University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Şenil","middleName":"","lastName":"ÜNLÜ","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-03-23 11:52:00","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9200090/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9200090/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":105310811,"identity":"8a76ccc1-cf72-43bf-9696-2840f488fa2a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-24 15:12:29","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":102088,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eScree Plot\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9200090/v1/c6887fcb7ca0ede1e2194e41.png"},{"id":105310931,"identity":"914f2049-8f1f-409d-80d4-1d04f6e14150","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-24 15:13:05","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1169074,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9200090/v1/ee2f663c-f45e-4d74-9fa2-ff6b8f51fee9.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eParental death communication style scale (PDCSS): Initial development and preliminary validation via communication privacy management theory\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"1. BACKGROUND","content":"\u003cp\u003eDeath is an inevitable part of life; however, it is a topic that humans mostly avoid discussing because of the stress, anxiety, and worry it creates (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Young children are the most disenfranchised group when the subject is dead (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). This is because they are often believed not to be immune enough to handle death and death (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). However, many children worldwide are exposed to the concept of death either through personal experiences or through media, TV programs, and even digital games (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e). Despite this increased exposure and their natural curiosity, children cannot easily find age-appropriate, open, and honest communication opportunities about death and dying either at home or even at preschools. Nevertheless, recent studies consistently highlight the importance of open communication between adults and especially young children to help children develop a true understanding of death (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the literature, there is a great deal of research on how children understand the concept of death and how this understanding develops during childhood. On the basis of these results, we now know that to understand the concept of death truly, one must make meaning of its five different subcomponents: inevitability, irreversibility, causality, nonfunctionality, and noncorporal continuation (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e). Inevitability refers to the fact that all living things die; irreversibility implies that a deceased person cannot return, whereas nonfunctionality refers to the fact that after death, there are no biological or emotional needs. Most of these subcomponents can be understood by young children gradually during the early years of life prior to the age of five. In contrast, causality\u0026mdash;which means that there is either an internal (e.g., the heart has stopped) or external (e.g., a traffic accident) reason that caused the death\u0026mdash;is typically grasped by young children around the age of seven or eight (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e). The final subcomponent, noncorporal continuation, refers to beliefs about life after death, which are shaped mainly by religious beliefs; this is found to coexist with a biological understanding of death even among children as young as four years old (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll of these subcomponents should be grasped by children to understand death and dying as adults. During the development of these subcomponents, it is crucial for young children to find adults who can discuss them in an open, age-appropriate, and honest manner. In their study with 5\u0026ndash;6-year-old children, Jingjing and Fuyan (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e) reported that open communication about death among families significantly affects children\u0026rsquo;s understanding of these subcomponents. Similarly, Yang and Chen (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e) clearly reported that compared with children who never find this opportunity, children who have the opportunity to communicate about death with others develop more positive judgments about the topic and exhibit fewer negative somatic reactions. Interestingly, children who cannot discuss death with others are more likely to believe that death is bad and scary; furthermore, their fear of death and death anxiety levels are greater than those of children who can openly discuss the subject with close adults (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe aforementioned findings clearly indicate a need for young children, who are concrete thinkers (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e), to reach adults who can provide honest guidance for them to think and talk about death and dying. The very first studies on parent‒child death conversations revealed that parents and early childhood educators recognize the importance of talking about death with young children. McGovern and Barry (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e) reported that although parents recognize the necessity of death education, their personal attitudes and lack of guidance often create barriers to practice. Furthermore, parents agree with the idea that children are naturally curious about the concept of death (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn spite of these findings, the literature also consistently indicates that the majority of close adults surrounding young children, including parents and early childhood educators, avoid talking about death with them. For instance, Bridgewater, Menendez, and Rosengren (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e) reported that even though parents watch animated films with their young children in which death is portrayed, very few use these films as an opportunity to initiate a conversation on death. In most cases, young children are the initiators of death-related communication (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e). Even in these instances, research has shown that parents\u0026rsquo; answers are often not age appropriate. For example, Bridgewater et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e) and Gutierrez et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e) reported that parents provide religious explanations for children\u0026rsquo;s questions about the biological components of death. One of the primary reasons for this avoidance is the desire to protect the child from confusion and prevent the creation of fear (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). More recent studies have also revealed that an underestimation of children\u0026rsquo;s ability to understand death or a lack of personal comfort with the subject are further reasons for parental avoidance (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunication privacy management (CPM), which is \u0026ldquo;a practical theory constructed to permit applications that give us an opportunity to understand everyday problems and events that people encounter in families\u0026rdquo; (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e, p. 36), provides a strong theoretical basis for the parent\u0026ndash;child death communication phenomenon. According to this theory, when deciding to share information, people engage in a careful assessment process regarding the potential positive and negative consequences of such disclosure (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e). CPM emphasizes that individuals make assessments to determine whether a piece of information should \u0026ldquo;remain private\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;be shared\u0026rdquo; (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e). As a result of these assessments, they establish various metaphorical boundaries that determine the extent, manner, and circumstances under which they share information. These boundaries are influenced by gender, culture, social context, motivation, and the potential consequences of information sharing (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e). With respect to parent\u0026ndash;child death communication, this theory was supported by a qualitative study by Toller and McBride (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e) involving 14 parents who had lost a close family member. They reported that while parents tried to communicate openly and honestly with their children about death\u0026mdash;unlike their own parents\u0026mdash;they were also inclined to withhold certain information that might cause harm or violate confidentiality. An interesting finding of this study is that, although parents are motivated to shift privacy boundaries (i.e., they are more motivated to talk about death than their own parents were), they \u0026ldquo;did not talk about issues of death with their children until a family member had died (or death was inevitable)\u0026rdquo; (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e, p. 42). This suggests that, as proposed by CPM, parents can and do change privacy rules when they feel they must.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe aforementioned studies have provided valuable contributions to understanding the patterns of parent\u0026ndash;child death communication; however, nearly all of this previous research is qualitative in nature. Consequently, the literature has failed to identify a general tendency among parents regarding death-related communication with young children. A primary reason for this gap is the lack of a psychometrically validated instrument that can be utilized to systematically assess parental tendencies in death communication.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere are widely used scales in death-related research, such as the Templer Death Anxiety Scale (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e), the Death Anxiety Beliefs and Behaviors Scale (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e), and the Collett-Lester Fear of Death Scale (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e). These scales provided valuable information about personal attitudes regarding death. However, understanding the extent to which parents feel anxious about or fear death is not sufficient for understanding their communicative tendencies. To increase their capacity and provide guidance, particularly for the parents of grieving children, there is a need to understand the extent to which they evaluate their own ability to talk about death with their children. Communication privacy management (CPM) also suggests that protecting the child\u0026rsquo;s well-being and evaluating the benefits and costs of death conversation might create metaphorical boundaries that are not entirely related to an anxiety or fear of death.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNevertheless, there is currently no available multidimensional scale to measure parents\u0026rsquo; communication competence, avoidance levels, or honesty during death conversations. A valid and reliable scale assessing parents' communicative approaches would provide insights into their personal evaluations of their capacity, behaviors, and tendencies regarding death-related conversations with their young children rather than merely measuring their personal beliefs, attitudes, or fears of death. This type of scale may offer practitioners the opportunity to focus directly on communicative tendencies instead of deeper personal attitudes toward death while guiding parents, preparing support programs, and enhancing their capacity for death-related communication.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo fill this significant gap, the primary aim of this study is to develop a valid, reliable, and multidimensional parental death communication style scale (PDCSS). This scale is designed to provide information on parents\u0026rsquo; perceptions of their competence, their level of avoidance, and their ability to explain death in an honest and transparent manner. It is believed that such a measurement tool contributes substantially to death-related research and family support systems by helping professionals identify the specific needs of parents and determine appropriate interventions.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. METHODS","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1. Participants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor this exploratory phase of PDCSS, by utilizing a convenient snowball sampling strategy (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e), this study reached 230 parents of children aged between 3 and 6 years. Among the participating parents, 186 were mothers, and 44 were fathers. The ages of the participants ranged from 20 to 48 years, with a mean of 31.85 years. With respect to educational background, more than half of the participating fathers and mothers had at least a high school diploma, while the largest group held a university degree (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;117); only 40 participants had graduated from elementary or secondary school.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe age range of the children was between 2 and 6 years, with a mean of 4.53 years. The sex distribution of the children was nearly equal, with 117 females and 113 males. In terms of economic status, 11 parents reported a low income, 125 reported a medium level, and the remaining parents reported a high economic status. When asked about recent bereavement, 75 parents reported experiencing the death of a close family member within the past three years, while the remaining 155 reported no such experience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSince the primary aim of this study was to develop a valid and reliable scale, high importance was placed on reaching a ratio of at least five participants for each item in the initial form. This is considered an acceptable ratio according to Gorsuch (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e) and Tabachnick and Fidell (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, the Kaiser‒Meyer\u0026ndash;Olkin (KMO) value obtained during the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) indicated that the sample size was sufficient to conduct factor analysis for the initial 40-item version of the scale (KMO = .907)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2. Procedure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe data of the study were gathered through an online form distributed through social media and personal networks, and participants were encouraged to share the form with others meeting the inclusion criteria (having at least one child aged 3\u0026ndash;6). All the data were collected between January 2024 and December 2024\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3. Scale Development Process\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3.1. Item Generation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe item generation process for the parental death communication style scale (PDCSS) was guided by the core concepts of communication privacy management (CPM) theory and findings derived from previously conducted qualitative studies. As mentioned earlier, Petronio (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e) states that individuals determine the content of their communication through metaphorical boundaries, which are shaped by specific privacy rules, risk-benefit assessments, and boundary permeability. Specifically, the items were generated to reflect how parents navigate these privacy boundaries on the basis of qualitative themes identified in the literature.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor instance, by combining CPM\u0026rsquo;s concept of \u0026ldquo;closed boundaries\u0026rdquo; with qualitative evidence of parental avoidance, items such as \u0026ldquo;I believe young children are not ready to understand death\u0026rdquo; (I-18) and \u0026ldquo;When my child asks a question about death, I distract his/her attention\u0026rdquo; (I-14) were generated. Similarly, items such as \u0026ldquo;I can explain the concept of death in an age-appropriate and correct way\u0026rdquo; (I-33) were formulated to reflect the parent\u0026rsquo;s decision-making rule to open the privacy boundary when information is deemed developmentally manageable for the child, aligning with the CPM\u0026rsquo;s concept of boundary permeability. Drawing from CPM's focus on \u0026ldquo;information management,\u0026rdquo; items regarding the technical and procedural aspects of the conversation\u0026mdash;such as \u0026ldquo;I know how to start a conversation about death with my child\u0026rdquo; (I-4) and \u0026ldquo;I know how to manage the process while talking about death with my child\u0026rdquo; (I-10)\u0026mdash;were created to capture parents\u0026rsquo; perceived competence in managing these complex dialogues.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e2.3.2. Content\u003c/b\u003e validity To evaluate content validity, expert opinions and a piloting process were utilized. After the generation of an item pool consisting of 42 items, all the items were examined by five in-service early childhood educators and four academic staff members in early childhood education. The majority of the experts (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6) suggested dropping two items: \u0026ldquo;I explain that some deceased people are cremated while others are buried in the ground,\" and \u0026ldquo;I explain that some people believe the deceased return to the world in a different body,\" because they found them to be culturally inappropriate for the target population. These items were found to be unfamiliar and not suitable for the social and cultural characteristics of Turkish society.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe experts\u0026rsquo; feedback focused on the possibility of confusion or discomfort that could be created among parents whose belief systems do not typically include cremation or reincarnation. This decision aligns with communication privacy management (CPM) theory\u0026rsquo;s emphasis on \u0026ldquo;cultural criteria\u0026rdquo; as a primary factor in determining privacy rules and the boundaries of shared information. Therefore, these two items were dropped from the item pool. The experts suggested minor changes for the remaining items to strengthen their clarity, and 90% agreement was established between the experts. The final version of the scale with 40 items was piloted with ten mothers and ten fathers by the researcher to understand whether the items were clear, understandable, and readable. All fathers and mothers completed the scale within ten minutes, and none of the parents reported having difficulty understanding the items or discomfort in answering the questions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4. Data Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eJamovi was used to run the exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The results of the KMO measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett\u0026rsquo;s test of sphericity were checked before the analysis. EFA was run with maximum likelihood extraction, and direct elimination rotation was used. Finally, the Cronbach's alpha values for each factor were calculated.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. RESULTS","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1. Construct Validity\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe construct validity of the draft scale, which initially consisted of 40 items, was examined using exploratory factor analysis (EFA). To achieve the most robust and theoretically consistent factor structure, a rigorous item purification process was conducted. During the iterative EFA cycles, items were excluded on the basis of the three statistical criteria: (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) failing to exhibit a significant loading, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) having high uniqueness values, which refer to insufficient shared variances with the underlying constructs, and (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e) cross-loading, i.e., high loadings on multiple factors with a difference of less than .10 between them. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e presents clear information about this item purification process.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSummary of the Item Purification Process\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReason for Exclusion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumber of Items\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEliminated Items\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFailed to load on any factor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI1, I12, I18, I23, I24, I40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh uniqueness values (\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;.67)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI8, I22, I26, I28, I29, I30, I31, I35,\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCross-loading (difference \u0026lt; .10)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI38, I39, I20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal Items Excluded\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e17\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFinal Number of Items\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e23\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrior to performing the EFA, the suitability of the data for factor analysis was assessed. The Kaiser‒Meyer‒Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was .907, which is well above the recommended threshold of .60, indicating that the sample size was excellent for factorability. Additionally, Bartlett\u0026rsquo;s test of sphericity reached statistical significance (x\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e, p \u0026lt; .001), confirming that the correlations between items were sufficiently large for EFA. The results of these tests are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e and Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMSA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.907\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.937\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.931\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.930\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.926\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.937\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.926\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.831\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.946\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.948\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.865\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.863\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.921\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.872\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.810\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.871\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.902\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.892\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-34\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.926\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.860\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.856\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-37\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.873\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-38\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.800\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.910\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBartlett's Test of Sphericity\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eχ\u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003edf\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2892\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e253\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe final EFA, conducted on the 23 items using maximum likelihood with oblimin rotation, revealed a three-factor structure with eigenvalues greater than 1.0. This three-factor solution accounted for approximately 52% of the total variance. The first factor explained 24.4% of the variance, the second factor explained 14.8%, and the third factor explained 12.3%. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e presents the detailed information.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eVariance explained by factors\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFactor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSS Loadings\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e% of Variance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCumulative %\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompetence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.62\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAvoidance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.41\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e39.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHonesty \u0026amp; Transparency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.83\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e51.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe distribution of the 23 items across the three factors was theoretically consistent with communication privacy management (CPM) theory and previous research findings. The factor loadings for the final items ranged from .459 to .892, indicating a strong association between the items and their respective factors, as presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe first factor was labelled \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;competence in death communication\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e and included ten items. Example items for this factor included \u0026ldquo;I know how to start talking about death with my child,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;I believe I can handle the process correctly when talking to my child about death,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;I believe I can explain death to my child in the right way.\u0026rdquo; Higher scores obtained from this subscale indicate higher perceived competence in initiating, continuing, and concluding satisfactory death communication.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe second factor was labelled \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;avoidance of death communication\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e and included eight items, such as \u0026ldquo;I avoid talking to my child about death,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;When talking to my child about death, I avoid using concepts such as \u0026lsquo;death\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;dying\u0026rsquo;,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;I think it is too early to talk to my child about death,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;When my child asks a question about death, I divert their attention elsewhere,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;Talking to my child about death makes me anxious/worried.\u0026rdquo; High scores on this factor indicate that the parent has a high level of avoidance regarding conversations on death with their young children. During the item purification process, although a strict uniqueness threshold was initially applied, an exception was made for Items 18, 9, and 13, which loaded onto this factor. Despite their relatively high uniqueness values (above .67), these items were retained in this second factor because of their strong theoretical relevance and their essential role in representing the conceptual domain of the avoidance of death communication factor.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe last factor was named \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Honesty and Transparency in Death Communication\"\u003c/em\u003e and included five items, such as \u0026ldquo;When talking to my child about death, I can explain the concept of death in an age-appropriate and accurate manner,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;When talking to my child about death, I am honest and realistic with them,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;I can use clear, straightforward, and simple language when talking to my child about death.\u0026rdquo; The higher scores gathered from this factor indicate an honest approach utilized during death conversations with young children.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFactor loading\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"1\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Taba\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFactor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUniqueness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.883\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.207\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.832\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.290\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.787\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.519\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.787\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.348\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.761\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.413\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.740\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.415\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.595\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.525\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.590\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.512\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.526\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.392\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.523\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.509\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.762\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.375\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.746\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.386\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-37\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.737\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.421\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.687\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.536\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-38\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.646\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.582\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.564\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.672\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.511\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.743\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.449\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.739\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.710\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.479\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-34\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.708\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.436\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.618\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.443\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.616\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.591\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.586\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.601\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e 'Maximum likelihood' extraction method was used in combination with a 'oblimin' rotation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn examination of the scree plot (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) supported this three-factor solution. The plot displayed a clear break after the third component, with the curve leveling off.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2. Interfactor Correlations:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe relationships between the subdimensions of the scale were analysed using Pearson correlation coefficients (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e). The results revealed a statistically significant strong positive correlation between competence in death communication (F1) and honesty and transparency in death communication (F3) (r = .654, p \u0026lt; .001). This suggests that parents who perceive themselves as competent in talking about death with young children also tend to maintain more transparent and honest dialogue with them.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contrast, Avoidance of Death Conversation (F2) was significantly but weakly negatively correlated with Competence in Death Communication (F1) (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.139, p = .035), indicating that greater competence in death communication is associated with lower levels of avoidance behaviors. Interestingly, the correlation between Avoidance (F2) and Honesty \u0026amp; Transparency (F3) was not statistically significant (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.112, p = .091). This suggests that the tendency to avoid the topic may be independent of the value the parent places on honesty when a conversation actually occurs. That is, even if a parent may prefer to avoid discussing death, they might still engage in an honest and transparent manner if communication becomes necessary.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab6\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 6\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInterfactor Correlations\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCorrelation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF1-Competence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF2-Avoidance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF3: Honesty\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF1-Competence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePearson's r\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ep value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF2-Avoidance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePearson's r\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.139\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ep value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.035\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF3: Honesty\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePearson's r\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.654\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.112\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ep value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.091\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e. *p \u0026lt; .05, ***p \u0026lt; .001\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3. Reliability Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo assess the reliability of each extracted factor, the Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha value for each factor was calculated (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e). Each factor has strong reliability. The Cronbach's α for Factor 1, Competence in Death Communication, is .929; it is .845 for Factor 2, Avoidance of Death Communication, and .823 for Factor 3, Honesty and Transparency in Death Communication.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab7\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 7\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCronbach's α\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFactor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumber of Items\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCronbach\u0026rsquo;s α\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Competence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.929\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Avoidance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.845\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.139*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.Honesty/Transparency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.823\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.654***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.112\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e. *p \u0026lt; .05, ***p \u0026lt; .001\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, the exploratory factor analysis resulted in a final 23-item parental death communication style scale (PDCSS) consisting of three distinct factors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eFactor 1, titled \u0026ldquo;competence in death communication,\" included 10 items (e.g., S6, S5, and S2) that reflected parents' perceived ability and knowledge to discuss death with their children.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eFactor 2, titled \u0026ldquo;Avoidance of Death Conversation,\" consisted of 8 items (e.g., S14, S15, and S37) focusing on parental tendencies to redirect or avoid the topic.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eFactor 3, titled \u0026ldquo;Honesty and Transparency in Death Communication,\" comprised 5 items and assessed the parent's ability to maintain a transparent, calm, and age-appropriate dialogue while supporting the child's emotional expression.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe scree plot clearly supported this three-factor solution, with the \u0026ldquo;elbow\u0026rdquo; point occurring after the third component. Collectively, these three factors accounted for 51.6% of the total variance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe internal consistency of the scale was robust, as evidenced by the Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha coefficients. The reliability values were .929 for Factor 1, .845 for Factor 2, and .823 for Factor 3. Notably, despite the high uniqueness values associated with Items 18, 9, and 13, their inclusion in Factor 2 did not compromise the subscale's overall reliability and was maintained to preserve theoretical depth.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study presents a psychometric analysis of a 23-item, three-factor scale, representing the exploratory phase of scale development for measuring parents' death communication style with their young children. A statistical analysis, including EFA and reliability analyses, demonstrated that the scale is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing how parents feel about communicating about death, whether they choose to avoid talking about death, and whether they can engage in honest and transparent communication on death.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEFA results indicated that 17 of 40 items should be disregarded because of low factor loadings, cross-loadings, or high uniqueness, and the final 23-item structure offers a more parsimonious and robust framework. Specifically, the retention of key items in the \u0026ldquo;avoidance of death conversation\u0026rdquo; factor\u0026mdash;despite their statistical uniqueness\u0026mdash;ensured that the scale maintained its high content validity and theoretical depth. The second factor, titled 'Avoidance of Death Conversation', reflects parents' tendency to redirect or terminate discussions about death. Although items 9, 13, and 18 showed higher uniqueness values, their retention was essential, as they captured the underlying maternal/paternal anxiety that fuels this avoidance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis scale indicates that parental death communication is a multifaceted phenomenon characterized by competence, avoidance, and honesty/transparency. The partial correlation analysis indicated a strong positive and significant relationship between competence in death communication (F1) and honesty and transparency in death communication (F3). These findings are in parallel with those of previous qualitative studies indicating that parents and teachers who feel competent and more motivated in talking about death can provide more age- and developmentally appropriate information on the concept of death (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne of the most noteworthy findings of this study is the significant and negative correlation between two factors: competence in death communication and avoidance of death communication (p=.035\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e). Although this negative correlation was expected, interestingly, it was observed that this correlation is very low (r=-0.139\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e). Although these results suggest that higher confidence resulted in lower avoidance, the small effect size indicates that competence alone explains only a minimal fraction of the variance in avoidant tendencies. That is, although a parent feels competent in initiating, continuing, and completing death-related communication, s/he may still prefer to avoid talking about death.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings support Feifel\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e) notion and the theoretical framework suggested by Wass (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e). Feifel (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e), the pioneer of death education research, stressed that although people's knowledge of death is increasing, the avoidance of talking about it is still persistent. Later, Wass (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e) suggested that death education should not only try to increase knowledge on death; instead, it should be intertwined with \u0026ldquo;personal understanding, values, meanings, and attitudes toward death\u0026rdquo; to be successful. As Wass suggests, possessing technical information or \u0026ldquo;know-how\u0026rdquo; (represented by items such as I-6 and I-4 in the PDCSS) does not automatically eliminate the emotional barriers or the \u0026ldquo;taboo\u0026rdquo; nature of death that drives avoidance. Furthermore, the presence of items in the avoidance factor reflecting anxiety (I-9) and the fear of creating misconceptions (I-13) highlights that even 'competent' parents may still be hindered by internal distress. These findings suggest that parental death communication is a complex \u0026ldquo;style\u0026rdquo; in which individuals must contend with emotional resistance, reinforcing the idea that interventions for parents should focus not only on information sharing but also on managing the emotional burden of the death dialogue.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings confirm that competence and avoidance are not opposite ends of a single continuum; rather, they are independent psychological constructs that can coexist within parents' communicative behaviors during dialogues about death. In this regard, the weak correlation between competence and avoidance strongly supports the notion put forward by Feifel (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e) and Wass (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e), which suggests that death education should address the emotional barriers that prevent the utilization of knowledge rather than merely focusing on increasing the amount of information.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen evaluated within the framework of communication privacy management (CPM) theory\u0026mdash;the theoretical foundation of this study\u0026mdash;this finding is highly consistent with the core arguments of the theory. In accordance with CPM, when individuals discuss sensitive topics, they decide on their communicative behavior on the basis of a risk-benefit analysis of the dialogue's potential impact rather than on their perceived competence alone. Accordingly, the current findings suggest that parental avoidance in death-related dialogues may stem from the perceived negative consequences the conversation might have on the child rather than a lack of personal competence. In other words, even when parents possess the necessary \u0026ldquo;know-how\u0026rdquo; (high competence), they may still choose to maintain privacy boundaries because of protective instincts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother interesting result involves the relationship between avoidance behavior and a transparent approach. The results indicated that there is a small and negative relationship between avoidance and honesty, which was not statistically significant. This information supports the three-factor structure of this scale by indicating that, despite having a tendency to avoid talking about death with young children, parents might still provide honest and transparent information to them once communication is initiated. In other words, avoidant behaviors of parents do not necessarily preclude communicative transparency if this communication has to occur. These results underscore the distinction between the decision to communicate and the quality of that communication.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese results are supported by previous qualitative findings. Most previous studies have shown that parents do not prefer to talk about death with their children since they want to protect them from the possible emotional stress that this conversation may cause (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e). More recently, Zajac and Boyatzis (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e) reported that parents who choose to open communication about death with their children believe that this communication provides emotional, social, and intellectual benefits for the child. This finding is similar to the notion that this scale empirically indicated.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe avoidance of death conversation is not entirely about the lack of competence; instead, it may be the result of the emotions and values that a parent attributes to the conversation on behalf of the children. In cases where parents believe that such a conversation can be harmful for the child, even if s/he feels competent, s/he can avoid this conversation. In other words, both the qualitative studies conducted with parents and the negative but small correlation between the competence and honesty factors of the PDCSS found in this study clearly indicate that the main reason for avoidance is not feeling incompetent; rather, it is the lack of information regarding how open communication on death benefits the child from a very young age.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe factor structure of the PDCSS and the relationships between these factors are highly consistent with the framework of communication privacy management (CPM) theory. CPM suggests that individuals engage in a careful risk-benefit analysis before sharing information on important and sensitive topics, creating specific rules to manage what, how much, and under which circumstances they will disclose information (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e). The interfactor relationships found in the PDCSS empirically validate this discourse.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpecifically, the statistically significant but weak relationship between competence (F1) and avoidance (F2) underscores that perceived self-efficacy does not automatically eliminate avoidant tendencies. Furthermore, the lack of a significant relationship between Avoidance (F2) and Honesty/Transparency (F3) provides a unique insight: it suggests that even if parents initially exhibit avoidant behaviors\u0026mdash;potentially to protect their children from the perceived negative consequences of death conversations\u0026mdash;they remain capable of maintaining an open, honest, and developmentally appropriate dialogue if communication becomes necessary. Crucially, these results indicate that avoidant behaviors are not inherently linked to a lack of honesty or a total lack of competence; instead, parents may choose to avoid the topic on the basis of their assessment of the potential negative impact on the child. These findings provide strong empirical support for the premise of the CPM that privacy boundaries are dynamic and permeable while also validating the qualitative findings of Toller and McBride (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe lack of a significant relationship between avoidance (F2) and honesty (F3), combined with the remarkably low correlation between competence (F1) and avoidance (F2), provides critical insight into the cultural nuances of parental death communication in T\u0026uuml;rkiye. In Turkish culture, where protective parenting styles are prevalent, the protection of a child\u0026rsquo;s emotional well-being is often prioritized. Within this context, death is frequently perceived as a 'taboo' or a 'threat' from which children must be shielded. This cultural inclination toward 'overprotection' reinforces a 'protective silence' where avoidance is not viewed as a communicative failure or a lack of honesty. Rather, it is perceived as a culturally appropriate \u0026ldquo;protective strategy\u0026rdquo;. These findings regarding parental avoidance in this study are consistent with the cultural patterns observed by Yang and Chen (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e) in collectivist societies, where protecting children\u0026rsquo;s emotional well-being often takes precedence over open communication.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs suggested by the literature, parents in such settings often believe that discussing death might cause irreversible psychological harm. Therefore, even when parents possess the necessary \u0026ldquo;know-how\u0026rdquo; (high competence) and value truthful information (high honesty), they may still choose to maintain closed privacy boundaries on the basis of their risk-benefit assessment for the child. This underscores that in collectivist cultures, the decision to communicate (avoidance) is a distinct psychological process independent of the parent's skills or integrity.\"\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. CONCLUSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study contributes to research on parent\u0026ndash;child death communication and death education through the developed parental death communication style scale (PDCSS) in several ways. First, the PDCSS is a reliable and valid scale that can be utilized as an assessment tool by professionals working with grieving families to identify parents\u0026rsquo; communication styles. This scale helps professionals identify competence, avoidance, and honesty levels, thereby facilitating the preparation of family need-based interventions. Furthermore, by highlighting that avoidance is not merely a result of incompetence but may instead stem from a desire to protect children, professionals can help reduce the \u0026ldquo;guilt\u0026rdquo; parents might feel about their avoidance of talking about death.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe factor structure of this scale supports the arguments of Feifel (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e) and Wass (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e) regarding the content of death education. Death education programs should focus not only on \u0026ldquo;what should be said to children\u0026rdquo; to decrease the avoidance level of parents but also on encouraging parents to regulate their own emotional barriers and reorganize their risk-benefit analysis. By applying the PDCSS, parents may be informed about their weaknesses and strengths, understanding that an avoidance tendency does not necessarily mean an inability to provide honesty and transparency in death-related conversations. Clinicians and educators should emphasize the benefits of honest communication rather than merely evaluating a parent\u0026rsquo;s technical ability and capacity to talk.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite its contributions, this study has certain limitations. Since the PDCSS was developed within the cultural context of T\u0026uuml;rkiye, the observed independence of avoidance behavior from competence and honesty may be culture specific. The prevalence of 'protective silence' in this sample suggests that the factor dynamics of the scale might differ in cultures with more individualistic or open communication norms. Therefore, future cross-cultural studies are essential to validate the instrument's applicability in diverse societal settings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImportantly, this study focused on the exploratory phase of scale development. A significant limitation is the absence of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to further verify the identified factor structure in a different sample. Additionally, future research should incorporate test-retest reliability analysis to assess the temporal stability of the scale. Addressing these gaps will strengthen the psychometric robustness of the PDCSS.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the PDCSS was specifically developed and validated with parents of children aged between 2 and 6 years. Since a child\u0026rsquo;s developmental stage and cognitive maturity are crucial factors in how death is perceived, parental communication styles may significantly vary as children grow older. Therefore, the findings of this study should be interpreted within this specific age range, and future research is recommended to test the reliability and validity of the scale with parents of older children and adolescents to understand how these communication styles evolve across different developmental stages.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe present study addresses a critical juncture in death education and communication research by presenting the exploratory phase of scale development for a novel measurement tool. Previous literature, largely qualitative, has consistently indicated that parents\u0026mdash;especially those of young children\u0026mdash;frequently avoid discussing the concept of death (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e). By utilizing a psychometrically validated instrument, this research provides empirical evidence for these observations through the lens of communication privacy management (CPM) theory, offering a nuanced understanding of the internal dynamics of death-related dialogues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe first key finding of this study validates the \u0026ldquo;knowledge-action gap\u0026rdquo; through an empirical lens. Although perceived competence in death communication significantly predicts lower levels of avoidance, the effect size is remarkably small. This confirms the theoretical framework of Feifel (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e) and Wass (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e), who argued that increasing information alone is insufficient to overcome the silence surrounding death. These findings suggest that personal fears, cultural meanings, and internal anxieties, rather than a mere lack of knowledge, are the primary drivers of parental avoidance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, the results indicate that the decision to avoid the topic is independent of the quality and integrity of the information provided once the conversation occurs. The lack of a significant correlation between the factors of avoidance (F2) and honesty\u0026amp; transparency (F3) demonstrates that avoidant behaviors do not necessarily preclude communicative transparency. These findings challenge the belief that avoidant parents are incapable of honest communication and underscore that avoidance often stems from an emotional reaction to the concept of death rather than a lack of communicative skill. As suggested by CPM, while avoidance may be the result of initial risk\u0026ndash;benefit analyses, these metaphorical boundaries can be shifted when parents perceive the communication as necessary or once it is initiated by the child.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, the strong and significant relationship between competence and honesty highlights that feeling efficacious is a crucial prerequisite for maintaining a high-quality, truthful dialogue. When viewed as a whole, the three-factor structure of the Parental Death Communication Style Scale (PDCSS) reveals that death communication is determined by a complex interplay of cognitive, technical, and emotional components. While competence and honesty form the technical and ethical foundation of the dialogue, avoidance remains an emotional barrier that must be regulated to activate these skills.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, these results emphasize that interventions for parents of bereaved or grieving children and training for parents of young children, who are curious about the concept of death, must prioritize parents\u0026rsquo; emotional self-regulation and the deconstruction of personal fears alongside information delivery related to talking about death. Future death education programs should aim not only to equip parents with \u0026ldquo;what to say\u0026rdquo; about death but also to support them in managing the profound emotional burden of the subject. In other words, the aim of those kinds of programs for parents should not be increasing their competence; instead, these programs should prioritize determining the reasons for avoidance and encouraging parents to regulate and decrease their influence while talking about death. It is believed that instead of just providing information on what and how to talk about death, increasing awareness about the long-term benefits of open and honest communication, even with very young children, remains essential for fostering healthy developmental outcomes and encouraging parents not to avoid talking about death since competence and avoidance and avoidance and honesty are independent of each other, as PDCSS indicated.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthical approval for the current study was obtained from the Authors\u0026rsquo; University Social Sciences Institute.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch4\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003eAll participants completed a consent form in which they could read the aim of the study and their right to withdraw from the study whenever they wanted through an online form.\u003c/h4\u003e\n\n\u003ch4\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003eThe datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u003c/h4\u003e\n\n\u003ch4\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch4\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere is no funding used for this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch4\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026apos; contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAuthor(s) equally contributed to the research process and manuscript preparation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThank you to all parents who share their experiences and spend time completing the scale.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAuthor Information\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e(the name of the author) is an assistant professor at a public university in the early childhood education department for ten years. Her/his major study areas are parent involvement in early years, father involvement, early childhood science education, and music in early years. S/he is working on early death education and talking about death with young children for five years. During these times, s/he worked with in-service and preservice early childhood educators, parents and prescholers. S/he is providing a course on \u0026ldquo;Death Experience in the Early Childhood Period at his/her institution.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSolomon S, Greenberg J, Pyszczynski T (1991) A terror management theory of social behavior: the psychological functions of self-esteem and cultural worldviews. In: Zanna MP (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic, pp 91\u0026ndash;159\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDoka KJ (ed) (2002) Disenfranchised grief: New directions, challenges, and strategies for practice. Research\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSu-Russell C, Russell LT, Ermer AE, Greiner C, Gregory R (2024) Parents\u0026rsquo; Anticipated Discussions about death with young children. OMEGA - J Death Dying 88(3):1181\u0026ndash;1202. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1177/00302228211057735\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/00302228211057735\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBurns M, Griese B, King S, Talmi A (2020) Childhood bereavement: Understanding prevalence and related adversity in the United States. Am J Orthopsychiatry 90(4):391\u0026ndash;405. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1037/ort0000442\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/ort0000442\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBridgewater E, Menendez D, Rosengren KS (2021) Capturing death in animated films: Can films stimulate parent\u0026ndash;child conversations about death? [Unpublished manuscript]. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.31234/osf.io/q8w4p\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.31234/osf.io/q8w4p\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNguyen SP, Rosengren KS (2004) Parental reports of children\u0026rsquo;s biological knowledge and misconceptions. Int J Behav Dev 28(5):411\u0026ndash;420. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/01650250444000108\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/01650250444000108\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSlaughter V, Griffiths M (2007) Death understanding and fear of death in young children. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry 12(4):525\u0026ndash;535. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1177/1359104507080980\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1359104507080980\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpeece MW, Brent SB (1984) Children's understanding of death: a review of three components of a death concept. Child Dev 55(5):1671\u0026ndash;1686. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.2307/1129911\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2307/1129911\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRosengren KS, Miller PJ, Guti\u0026eacute;rrez IT, Chow PI, Schein SS, Anderson KN (2014) Children\u0026rsquo;s understanding of death: Toward a contextualized model. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev 79(1):1\u0026ndash;154. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1111/mono.12076\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/mono.12076\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSlaughter V (2005) Young children\u0026rsquo;s understanding of death. Aust Psychol 40:179\u0026ndash;186. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/00050060500243426\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00050060500243426\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAstuti R, Harris PL (2008) Understanding mortality and the life of the ancestors among the Vezo of Madagascar. Cogn Sci 32(4):713\u0026ndash;740. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/03640210802035348\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/03640210802035348\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarris PL, Gim\u0026eacute;nez M (2005) Children's acceptance of conflicting beliefs: The case of death. J Cogn Cult 5(1\u0026ndash;2):143\u0026ndash;155. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1163/1568537054068632\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1163/1568537054068632\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLegare CH, Visala A (2011) Between religion and science: Integrating psychological and philosophical accounts of explanatory coexistence. Hum Dev 54(3):169\u0026ndash;184. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1159/000329135\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1159/000329135\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJingjing L, Fuyan L (2024) Research on the development of the concept of death in children and its influencing factors. Front Psychol 15:1376253. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1376253\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1376253\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYang SC, Chen SF (2006) Content analysis of free-response narratives to personal meanings of death among Chinese children and adolescents. Death Stud 30(3):217\u0026ndash;241. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/07481180500493385\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/07481180500493385\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePiaget J (1936) Origins of intelligence in the child. Routledge \u0026amp; Kegan Paul, London\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcGovern M, Barry MM (2010) Death education: Knowledge, attitudes, and perspectives of Irish parents and teachers. Death Stud 24(4):325\u0026ndash;333. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/074811800200487\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/074811800200487\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCrase DR, Crase D (1982) Parental attitudes toward death education for young children. Death Educ 6(1):61\u0026ndash;73. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/07481188208252116\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/07481188208252116\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHunter SB, Smith DE (2008) Predictors of children\u0026rsquo;s understanding of death: Age, cognitive ability, death experience, and maternal communication competence. OMEGA - J Death Dying 57(2):143\u0026ndash;162. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.2190/OM.57.2.b\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2190/OM.57.2.b\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKenyon BL (2001) Current research in children's conceptions of death: a critical review. OMEGA - J Death Dying 43(1):63\u0026ndash;91. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.2190/0X2B-B1N9-A579-DVK1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2190/0X2B-B1N9-A579-DVK1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLongbottom S, Slaughter V (2018) Sources of children\u0026rsquo;s knowledge about death and dying. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 373(1754):20170267. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1098/rstb.2017.0267\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1098/rstb.2017.0267\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGutierrez IT, Menendez D, Jiang MJ, Hernandez IG, Miller P, Rosengren KS (2020) Embracing death: Mexican parent and child perspectives on death. Child Dev 91(2):e491\u0026ndash;e511. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1111/cdev.13263\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/cdev.13263\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKronaizl SG (2019) Discussing death with children: A developmental approach. Pediatr Nurs 45(1):470097\u0026ndash;509805\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRenaud SJ, Engarhos P, Schleifer M, Talwar V (2015) Children\u0026rsquo;s earliest experiences with death: circumstances, conversations, explanations, and parental satisfaction. Infant Child Dev 24(2):157\u0026ndash;174. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1002/icd.1889\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/icd.1889\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePetronio S, Caughlin JP (2006) Communication privacy management theory: What do we know about family privacy regulation? In: Braithwaite DO, Baxter LA (eds) Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives. Sage, pp 35\u0026ndash;49\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePetronio S (2002) Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. State University of New York, Albany (NY)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePetronio S (2010) Communication privacy management theory: What do we know about family privacy regulation? J Fam Theory Rev 2:175\u0026ndash;196. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00052.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00052.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eToller PW, McBride MC (2013) Enacting privacy rules and protecting disclosure recipients: Parents\u0026rsquo; communication with children following the death of a family member. J Fam Commun 13(1):32\u0026ndash;45. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/15267431.2012.742091\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/15267431.2012.742091\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTempler DI (1970) The construction and validation of a death anxiety scale. J Gen Psychol 82(2):165\u0026ndash;177\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMenzies RE, Sharpe L, Dar-Nimrod I (2022) The development and validation of the death anxiety beliefs and behaviours scale (DABBS). Br J Clin Psychol 61(4):1169\u0026ndash;1187. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1111/bjc.12381\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/bjc.12381\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLester D (1990) The Collett-Lester Fear of Death Scale: The original version and a revision. Death Stud 14(5):451\u0026ndash;468. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/07481189008252385\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/07481189008252385\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCohen L, Manion L, Morrison K (2017) Research methods in education, 8th edn. Routledge, London\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGorsuch RL (1983) Factor analysis, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (NJ)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2019) Using multivariate statistics. 7th ed. Pearson\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eToller PW, MacBride MC (2013) Enacting privacy rules and protecting disclosure recipients: Parents\u0026rsquo; communication with children following the death of a family member. J Family Communication 13(1):32\u0026ndash;45. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/15267431.2012.742.09\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/15267431.2012.742.09\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFeifel H (1959) (Note: In text cited as 1982, potentially referring to: Feifel H. Role of death in life. In: Psychopathology of human adaptation. Springer) The meaning of death. McGraw-Hill\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWass H (2004) A perspective on the current state of death education. Death Stud 28(4):289\u0026ndash;308. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/07481180490432315\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/07481180490432315\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSilverman PR, Nickman S, Worden JW (1992) Detachment revisited: The child's reconstruction of a dead parent. Am J Orthopsychiatry 62(4):494\u0026ndash;503\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003evan der Geest IM, Darlington AS, Streng IC, Michiels EM, Pieters R, van den Heuvel-Eibrink MM (2015) Parents' experiences with death education and support in pediatric oncology. Pediatr Blood Cancer 62(10):1825\u0026ndash;1831\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZajac L, Boyatzis C (2020) Mothers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of the role of religion in parent\u0026ndash;child communication about death in the family. Psychol Relig Spiritual. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1037/rel0000309\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/rel0000309\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMahone IH, McKenney SJ, Dickey S (2007) Death communication with children. J Pediatr Nurs 22(2):162\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHoffman SI, Strauss S (1985) The development of children's concepts of death. Death Educ 9(6):469\u0026ndash;485\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"Kirikkale University","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Parent–Death Communication, Communication Privacy Management (CPM), Scale Development, Early childhood death education","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9200090/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9200090/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eTalking about death with young children is a challenging process for parents. The literature relies primarily on qualitative studies with limited parent samples. One of the main reasons for this is the lack of reliable and valid instruments to measure parental death communication styles. To fill this gap, the current study presents the development and validation of the Parental Death Communication Style Scale (PDCSS), designed for parents of children aged 2\u0026ndash;6 years. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted with 230 parents of preschoolers using maximum likelihood extraction and direct elimination rotation. EFA revealed a 23-item scale with three factors, \u0026ldquo;competence on death communication\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;avoidance from death communication\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;honesty and transparency during death communication\u0026rdquo;, which explained 51.7% of the total variance. The factors demonstrated strong reliability (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.82\u0026ndash;.93). These findings confirm that the PDCSS is a valid and reliable tool that might successfully fill the gap in the death literature. The results also revealed a significant strong correlation between Competence and Honesty (r = .654) but a weak correlation between Competence and Avoidance (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.139) and no relationship between Avoidance and Honesty and Transparency. Framed within communication privacy management (CPM) theory, the results suggest that avoidance is independent of competence or honesty. A parent may avoid communication despite feeling competent or remaining honest once communication begins despite initial avoidance of death-related communication. The relationships between these factors highlight the fact that having information on how to talk about death with young children is not enough solely to avoid topic. These findings suggest that death education and psychoeducation provided to parents with young children should prioritize not only information but also emotional self-regulation and privacy boundaries to encourage developmentally appropriate death communication within the family.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Parental death communication style scale (PDCSS): Initial development and preliminary validation via communication privacy management theory","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-03-24 15:09:53","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9200090/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"485c08ad-5368-4ad6-8313-08d072245b30","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 24th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-24T15:09:53+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-03-24 15:09:53","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9200090","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9200090","identity":"rs-9200090","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}