| Course | MSW 533 Death, Dying, and Bereavement |
|---|---|
| Week | 3 |
| Paper type | Grief theory analysis |
| Length | About 520 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | Master of Social Work (MSW) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MSW 533 Week 3
Grief Theory Analysis of One Account, a Widowed Spouse Eight Months Out: Three Questions Put to the Dual Process Model, Worden's Tasks and Continuing Bonds, Where They Fight, and Kubler-Ross Read as History
Student Name
Chamberlain University
MSW 533: Death, Dying, and Bereavement
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Grief Theory Analysis of One Account, a Widowed Spouse Eight Months Out: Three Questions Put to the Dual Process Model, Worden's Tasks and Continuing Bonds, Where They Fight, and Kubler-Ross Read as History
The Account
C., 61, whose spouse died at home under hospice care eight months ago after pancreatic cancer, says: "Some days I'm fine, I go to work, I see my sister. Then I find a grocery list in J.'s handwriting and I'm on the floor. I still talk to J. in the car. My son says I should be over it by now."
Three Questions per Model
For each model: What does it say about the back-and-forth C. describes? What does it say about talking to J.? What does it say about the son's view that C. should be over it?
The Dual Process Model
It describes coping as oscillation between loss-oriented work, such as grieving the handwriting, and restoration-oriented work, such as going to work and building a new routine (Stroebe & Schut, 1999). The back-and-forth is expected, even healthy. On talking to J., it is neutral. On the son's view, it rejects a fixed endpoint.
Worden's Tasks
It describes tasks: accepting the reality of the loss, processing the pain, adjusting to a world without the person and finding an enduring connection while moving forward (Worden, 2018). C. has accepted the loss and is processing pain. Talking to J. fits the fourth task. On the son's view, tasks are not timed.
Continuing Bonds
It holds that ongoing connection to the deceased is common and can be adaptive, rather than something to be broken (Klass et al., 1996). Talking to J. in the car is the model's central example. On the son's view, it disagrees directly: the goal is not to be over it.
Where the Models Fight
Older approaches, still voiced by C.'s son, assumed healthy grief meant detaching from the deceased. Continuing bonds and Worden's fourth task say the opposite. The dual process model does not take a side on bonds but disagrees with any fixed timeline.
Kubler-Ross as History
The five stages, from denial to acceptance, were drawn from interviews with dying patients about their own deaths, not from bereaved families (Kubler-Ross, 1969). C. does not move through them in order and has no stage called "the grocery list." The model is better read as history: it opened conversations about dying, but it does not describe C.'s grief.
The Decision, Argued
The dual process model fits C.'s account best because it explains the oscillation C. describes and gives the son a way to understand the "fine" days without concluding the grief is over. Continuing bonds best explains the car conversations. Using both together, I would tell C. that both the good days and the talks with J. are ordinary.
References
Klass, D., Silverman, P. R., & Nickman, S. L. (Eds.). (1996). Continuing bonds: New understandings of grief. Taylor & Francis.
Kubler-Ross, E. (1969). On death and dying. Macmillan.
Stroebe, M., & Schut, H. (1999). The dual process model of coping with bereavement: Rationale and description. Death Studies, 23(3), 197-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/074811899201046
Worden, J. W. (2018). Grief counseling and grief therapy: A handbook for the mental health practitioner (5th ed.). Springer Publishing.
MSW 533 Week 3 instructions, in plain terms
The grief theory analysis puts one account at the front and never changes it: a person, a loss and the person's own words. Then ask each model the same few questions about that account, such as how it explains the person's pattern, what it says about ongoing connection to the deceased and what it says about timelines. Give each model equal space before ranking. Show where the models disagree. Treat the stage model as history: say where its data came from and why it does not describe bereavement well. End with a decision about which model or combination fits this account best, argued from the account, not from preference.
Inside the MSW 533 Week 3 example
The account quotes C., 61, eight months after J.'s death, on good days, a grocery list in J.'s handwriting, talking to J. in the car and a son's view that C. should be over it. Three questions are set. The dual process section, citing Stroebe and Schut (1999), treats oscillation as expected and rejects a fixed endpoint. The tasks section, citing Worden (2018), places C. in the second task with the car talks fitting the fourth. The continuing bonds section, citing Klass et al. (1996), treats the car talks as its central example. A section shows the models fighting older detachment views. Kubler-Ross (1969) is read as history, and the decision combines the first and third models.
Reading the MSW 533 Week 3 grading rubric
The analysis earns the most when every model answers the same questions about the same account. Faculty deduct for a survey of models that never meets the person. Equal weight before ranking is expected, as is a clear account of where models disagree. Treating the stage model as history, with its origins explained, shows understanding of its limits. The final decision must be argued from the account. A conclusion that no model fits is acceptable if it is argued. Primary sources should be cited in APA. The person's words should be quoted, not paraphrased into clinical language. Quoting the person's own words keeps every model honest.
MSW 533 Week 3 help from the desk
The paper that loses most summarizes four models in turn and attaches the case at the end. Another common slip is presenting the five stages as current guidance for bereaved families. Some papers rank models before testing them, or never ask the same questions of each. Others choose an account that fits one model perfectly, leaving nothing to compare. If your account is different, perhaps a father whose adult son died of an overdose or a spouse grieving a partner still alive with dementia, keep the same three questions and ask them of each model. An analysis built this way for your account will end with a decision a classmate could disagree with.
Get a MSW-533 Week 3 example written to your instructions
Send the account your section assigned along with the list of models it names, and a finished analysis written against both comes back inside 24 to 48 hours, free. If your section supplied its own vignette, send that rather than a description of it, since half the marks here depend on lines quoted from the case.
More MSW 533 papers and MSW samples
- MSW 533 Week 1: One Family Incident Post
- MSW 533 Week 2: Personal Loss History Paper
- MSW 533 Week 4: Hospice Benefit Brief
- MSW 533 Week 5: Survivor Benefits Write-up
- MSW 533 Week 6: Complicated Grief Case Study
- MSW 533 Week 7: Bereavement Support Plan
- MSW 533 Week 8: Worker Grief Reflection
- MSW 535 Week 3: Tolerance and Withdrawal Write-up
- MSW 532 Week 3: Daughter Caregiver Burden Assessment
- MSW 531 Week 3: Four Aging Theories Compared
- MSW 529 Week 3: Dialysis Coverage Comparison 2026
MSW 533 Week 3 questions, answered
How many models does the analysis need?
Whatever the assignment names, and no more than that. Where the choice is open, three is usually the working number: two that genuinely disagree about the account and one that turns out not to fit, since showing where a framework runs out earns as much as showing where it works. Four models at a page each tends to produce description rather than analysis.
Can I use a case from my own work?
Plenty of sections permit it; others hand you a vignette and expect that one. Check yours. Where a real situation is permitted, the identifying detail comes out first: no employer, no location, ages given as a range. What the models need is the relationship, the circumstances and the timeline, and none of that requires anybody to be identifiable.
Is it acceptable to conclude that none of the models fits well?
Yes, when the paper shows the work that led there. A conclusion reporting that each framework explains part of the account and none explains the yearning that dominates it is a legitimate finding, provided the models were tested one at a time first. What earns nothing is arriving there because the writer preferred not to choose.
Where can I find a free MSW 533 Week 3 sample paper?
You can read the full MSW 533 Week 3 grief theory analysis of one spouse's account here, with margin notes on the three questions put to each model.
Why does the MSW 533 Week 3 sample treat Kubler-Ross as history?
Because the stages came from interviews with dying patients about their own deaths, not from bereaved families, and the account does not follow them in order.