Measuring Gratitude in Germany: Validation Study ... - Frontiers ...

... Plasmodial slime molds of a tropical karst forest, …Dagamac · 被引用 16 次 · Reproduction and population structure of the sea …Dereli · 被引用 22 次 ... 首頁表示感謝感恩詞彙感恩量表GratitudeQuestionnaireMeasuringGratitudeinGermany:ValidationStudy...-Frontiers PositivePsychologytestPERMA-ProfilerWorkplacePERMAGratitudeappreciationgq-6GratitudeResentmentandAppreciationTestGratitudetestAsignedranktestforcensoredpairedlifetimesFroda·被引用14次Plasmodialslimemoldsofatropicalkarstforest,…Dagamac·被引用16次Reproductionandpopulationstructureofthesea…Dereli·被引用22次MeasuringGratitudeinGermany:ValidationStudy...-Frontiers2022-09-17文章推薦指數：80%投票人數：10人 TheGratitudeQuestionnaire-SixItemForm(GQ-6;McCulloughetal.,2002)isawell-establishedinstrumentformeasuringgratitude. Articles BojanaM.Dinic FacultyofPhilosophy,UniversityofNoviSad,Serbia MarcosGomez AdolfoIbáñezUniversity,Chile GloriaBernabé-Valero CatholicUniversityofValenciaSanVicenteMártir,Spain Theeditorandreviewers'affiliationsarethelatestprovidedontheirLoopresearchprofilesandmaynotreflecttheirsituationatthetimeofreview. Abstract Introduction MaterialsandMethods Results Discussion Limitations Conclusion DataAvailabilityStatement EthicsStatement AuthorContributions ConflictofInterest SupplementaryMaterial References SuggestaResearchTopic> DownloadArticle DownloadPDF ReadCube EPUB XML(NLM) Supplementary Material Exportcitation EndNote ReferenceManager SimpleTEXTfile BibTex totalviews ViewArticleImpact SuggestaResearchTopic> SHAREON OpenSupplementalData ORIGINALRESEARCHarticle Front.Psychol.,08October2020 |https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.590108 MeasuringGratitudeinGermany:ValidationStudyoftheGermanVersionoftheGratitudeQuestionnaire-SixItemForm(GQ-6-G)andtheMulti-ComponentGratitudeMeasure(MCGM-G) MatthiasF.C.Hudecek1,2*†,NicoleBlabst1†,BlaireMorgan3andEvaLermer2,4 1UniversityofRegensburg,Regensburg,Germany 2FOMUniversityofAppliedSciencesforEconomicsandManagement,Munich,Germany 3DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofWorcester,Worcester,UnitedKingdom 4CenterforLeadershipandPeopleManagement,LMUMunich,Munich,Germany TheGratitudeQuestionnaire-SixItemForm(GQ-6;McCulloughetal.,2002)isawell-establishedinstrumentformeasuringgratitude.Recently,theMulti-ComponentGratitudeMeasure(MCGM)wasdevelopedasamoreholisticapproach(Morganetal.,2017).WhiletheGQ-6mainlyfocusesontheemotionalcomponentofgratitude,theMCGMencompassesconceptual,attitudinal,andbehavioralaspects.Asoftoday,thereisnovalidatedGermanmeasureforgratitude.Inordertoclosethatresearchgap,thepresentstudyfocusedonvalidatingtheGermanversionsoftheGQ-6(GQ-6-G)andoftheMCGM(MCGM-G).Inaddition,multi-groupcomparisonswereconductedtotestforculturalmeasurementinvariance.Constructvaliditywastestedsimilartooriginalvalidationstudiesofthetwoscalesfocusingonaffect,well-being,empathy,anxietyanddepression.Theonlinesurveywascompletedinrandomorderby508participants.Theone-factormodeloftheGQ-6-GandthehierarchicalstructureoftheMCGM-Gcouldbereplicated.However,themodelfitoftheGratitudeQuestionnairewassignificantlybetteraftereliminatingoneitem(GQ-5-G).Multi-groupcomparisonsrevealedculturalmeasurementinvariancewasestablishedfortheGQ-5-GandpartialmeasurementinvarianceforfiveofsixfactorsoftheMCGM-G,respectively.Reliabilityanalysesrevealedgoodinternalconsistencyforbothinstruments,andmeasuresforcriterion-relatedanddiscriminantvalidityhaveshownhypothesizedrelationships.Thus,theGQ-5-GandtheMCGM-GaretwoinstrumentswithgoodreliabilityandvalidityformeasuringgratitudeinGermany. Introduction Gratitudeisamoralvirtuethathasuniversalandtimelesspresenceinhumanlifeandhasbeendiscusseduponanintellectuallevelforcenturiesbyphilosophersandscholars(McCulloughetal.,2002).Ineverydaylivedexperiencesofgratitude,onecaneasilybringtomindanoccasionthathaswarrantedthesimpleexpressionof“thankyou.”Indeed,knee-jerkexpressionsofgratitudehavearguablybecomeanunconsciouspartofinteractingwithothers:youthankthepersonholdingthedooropenforyou,yousay“thankyou”toyourcolleagueforsendinganimportantemail,andyouexpressyourgratitudeaftersneezingandreceivinga“blessyou”fromyourpartner.However,anowdiversefieldofpsychologicalliteratureongratitudehasshownittobemuchmorecomplexthansimpleexpressionsof“thankyou.”Thecomplexityofthisconstructismirroredinthefactthatthereisnooneagreeddefinitionoftheconstruct.Thus,gratitudecanbeunderstoodandexperiencedinmultipleways(Morganetal.,2017).AccordingtoWoodetal.(2010),gratitudecanbeseenasatrait-likedispositionaswellasatemporarystate,suchasapositivemood.Gratitudeasanemotionisdirectedtowardappreciatingvaluablehelporactionsfromothers(McCulloughetal.,2001).However,thereisalsosomeevidencethatgratitudecanbeassociatedwithnegativefeatures,e.g.,feelingsofobligation,guilt,orembarrassment(Morganetal.,2014).Atthedispositionallevel,gratitudecanbeunderstoodas“partofawiderlifeorientationtowardnoticingandappreciatingthepositiveintheworld”(Woodetal.,2010,p.891)andhasbeenshowntobedistinctfromfacetsofpersonalityandotherpositivepsychologyconstructssuchasoptimismandhope(Woodetal.,2008).Thissuggeststhatalatentgratefuldispositionexists. Atpresentthereexistfourwell-establisheddifferentmeasurestoassessgratitude(Morganetal.,2017;Lermer,2019).Thefirstlydevelopedmeasureofgratitude,theunifactorialGratitudeQuestionnaire-SixItemForm(GQ-6),mainlyfocusesontheemotionalcomponentofgratitude(McCulloughetal.,2002).Inthatcontext,gratitudewasdefinedas“ageneralizedtendencytorecognizeandrespondwithgratefulemotiontotherolesofotherpeople’sbenevolenceinthepositiveexperiencesandoutcomesthatoneobtains”(McCulloughetal.,2002,p.112).TheGQ-6consistsofsixitems(e.g.,“Ihavesomuchinlifetobethankfulfor”)thatmeasurespan,frequency,intensity,anddensityofgratitude(McCulloughetal.,2002).Incontrast,theGratitude,ResentmentandAppreciationTest(GRAT;Watkinsetal.,2003)providesabroaderviewofgratitude.Itconsistsofthreesubscales:senseofabundance(e.g.,“ThereneverseemstobeenoughtogoaroundandI’malwayscomingupshort”),simpleappreciation(e.g.,“Ithinkthatit’simportantto‘Stopandsmelltheroses”’),andappreciationofothers(e.g.,“Ifeeldeeplyappreciativeforthethingsothershavedoneformeinmylife”).Thethirdmeasure,theAppreciationscale,developedbyAdlerandFagley(2005),conceptualizesandassessesgratitudeasasubordinatefacetofthebroaderconstructofappreciation.Originally,appreciationwasdefinedtomeasuresomethingdistinctfromgratitude(AdlerandFagley,2005),butWoodetal.(2008)havereportedthatgratitudeandappreciationareasingle-factortraitratherthandistinctconstructs.Thisbroaderappreciationscalecompriseseightsubscales:afocusonwhatonehas(“havefocus”),awe,ritual,presentmoment,self/socialcomparison,gratitude,loss/adversity,andinterpersonal.Aftermorethan10yearsofnothavinganysignificantdevelopmentsmeasuringgratitude,Morganetal.(2017)introducedtheMulti-ComponentGratitudeMeasure(MCGM).TheMCGMoffersaholisticapproachtogratitudemeasurement,astheauthorsconsolidatedtheexistingdefinitions.Intotal,theMCGMconsistsoffourcomponents.Inadditiontotheoriginalemotionalaspectofgratitude,alreadyproposedbyMcCulloughetal.(2002),theyaddedanattitudinalandbehavioralaspectintheirunderstandingofgratitude.Theattitudecomponentfocusesonwhentoshowgratitudeandhowgratitudeisperceivedinthecontextofvalues(e.g.,“Ibelieveitisimportanttothankpeoplesincerelyforthehelptheygiveme”).Thebehavioralcomponentconsistsoftheexpressionaswellaslackofexpressionofgratitudetowardone’sbenefactorsandofamorespiritualconnectiontowardbeingthankful(e.g.,“IstoptorecognizeallthegoodthingsIhaveinmylife”).Inaddition,Morganetal.(2017)proposedthatpeoplecanunderstandandexperiencegratitudeinvariousways.Thus,theconceptualaspectwasaddedtocapturecognitionsaboutgratitude.AfifthmeasureofgratitudewasdevelopedbyBernabé-Valeroetal.(2014).TheGratitudeQuestionnaire-20Items(G-20)capturesfourdimensionsofgratitude(interpersonalgratitude,gratitudebeforesuffering,therecognitionofpersonalgiftsinpersonalexperience,andtheexpressionofgratitude)using20itemsandwasestablishedusingasampleof330Spanishundergraduates.Asoftoday,theinstrumentisonlyavailableinSpanishandwasrecentlyvalidatedwithanArgentiniansamplethatsupportsthefour-factorstructure(Klosetal.,2020). Earlyresearchfoundthatbeinggratefulisassociatedwithahappierandmoreoptimisticoutlookonlife(Watkinsetal.,2003)andthetendencytoovercomeadversitymoreeasily(EmmonsandMcCullough,2003).Consequently,gratitudewasshowntoberelatedwithhighersubjectivewell-being(EmmonsandMcCullough,2003)andlifesatisfaction(Petersonetal.,2007).Anotherwell-establishedfindingistheassociationofgratitudewithlowerrisksofdepressionandreducedanxiety(Kendleretal.,2003;Frohetal.,2007,2011).Furtherhealthbenefitswerereportedconcerningreducedstress(Woodetal.,2008)andimprovedsleeppatterns(EmmonsandMcCullough,2003;Woodetal.,2009).Inaddition,gratituderelatestointerpersonalbenefits,suchastheabilitytoformandmaintainstrongerinterpersonalbonds(Algoe,2012;Bartlettetal.,2012)andpromotingprosocialbehaviors(BartlettandDeSteno,2006). InordertoconductcomparableandreplicablestudiesongratitudeinGermany,itisvitaltoprovidereliableandvalidmeasuringtools.Asoftoday,thereisnovalidatedGermaninstrumentmeasuringgratitude.Thus,thepresentstudyaimedtovalidatethemostfrequentlyusedunidimensionalmeasure,theGQ-6(McCulloughetal.,2002),andthenewestholisticmeasureofgratitude,theMulti-ComponentGratitudeMeasure(MCGM;Morganetal.,2017).TheGQ-6hasalreadybeenvalidatedinseveralotherlanguagesincludingHungarian(Tamásetal.,2014),Dutch(Jans-Bekenetal.,2015),Chinese(Chenetal.,2008),Portuguese(Gouveiaetal.,2019),andSpanish(Bernabé-Valeroetal.,2013;Langeretal.,2016).ItwasmostlypossibletoreplicatetheunidimensionalstructureoftheGQ-6andtoprovidesimilarreliabilities,e.g.,theHungarianversionhadagoodreliabilityofCronbach’salphasbetween0.75and0.79(Tamásetal.,2014).However,somestudiesencountereddifficultiestovalidatethefactorstructureoftheGQ-6,sinceitem6(“LongamountsoftimecangobybeforeIfeelgratefultosomethingorsomeone”)didnotloadsatisfactoryontheproposedfactor.Thus,twostudiesfoundabettermodelfitfortheSpanishversionwhenremovingitemsix(Bernabé-Valeroetal.,2013;Langeretal.,2016).SimilarresultswerefoundfortheChineseversion(Chenetal.,2008).TheDutchversionalsoreportedpoorfitofitem6,althoughitwasretained,sinceapossibleexclusiondidnotimprovetheoverallmodelfit(Jans-Bekenetal.,2015).Arecentstudyfoundthatathreeitemversion(GQ-3)oftheGQ-5providesthebestmodelfitforasampleofFilipinohighschoolstudents(ValdezandChu,2018).DuetothesemixedresultsconcerningthefactorstructureoftheGQ-6,wedecidedtoincludethe6itemsforminourstudyandtestwhetherthesixorfiveitemversionfitsbetter. Itwashypothesizedthattheone-factormodeloftheGQ-6andthehierarchicalstructureoftheMCGMcouldbereplicatedthroughconfirmatoryfactoranalysesfortheGermanversions.Inaddition,constructvaliditywasexamined.Weusedanumberofconstructsthathavebeenappliedinpreviousstudiessuchassubjectivewell-beingandpositiveandnegativeaffect(Morganetal.,2017),empathy(DingandSong,2017),aswellaslifesatisfactionandpsychologicalsymptoms(McCulloughetal.,2002).Inlinewithfindingsinexistingliterature,weexpectedpositivecorrelationsbetweengratitudeandpositiveaffect,well-being,empathyandnegativerelationshipswithnegativeaffect,anxiety,anddepression. MaterialsandMethods ParticipantsandProcedure Atotalof508participants(79%female,20%male,1%other)completedthequestionnaireusinganonlinesurveytool.InreturntheyreceivedtheirgratitudescoreincomparisontotheUnitedKingdomsample(Morganetal.,2017).ThelinktothesurveywasdistributedthroughvariousmailinglistsofGermanuniversitiesandthroughFacebookgroupsthatareassociatedwithpsychologicalstudies.Participants’agerangedfrom18to67years(M=24.80,SD=8.00).Theirhighesteducationallevelwas7%primaryeducation,65%A-levelsand28%universitydegree,withabout30%beingpsychologystudents.Theorderofpresentationofthescaleswasrandomizedandaveragetimetocompletewas17.30min(SD=6.79).Duetousinganonlinesurveytoolwithallquestionshadtobeansweredmandatorily,thereoccurrednomissingdata. Inaddition,asamplewith1,599participants(52%female)fromacrosstheUnitedKingdomwasusedtotestculturalmeasurementinvariance.ItwascarefullyselectedtoreflectUnitedKingdompopulationestimates.Participants’agerangedfrom18to83years(M=51.43,SD=12.96).ThissamplewasusedfortheinitialvalidationoftheMCGMintheUnitedKingdom(Morganetal.,2017). Measures TheGermanversionsoftheGQ-6andtheMCGMwerederivedusingback-translationprocedure.First,atranslatorwasemployedtotranslatetheEnglishversionsintoGerman.Thus,anotherprofessionaltranslatorretranslatedtheseitemsintoEnglish.Eventually,bothversionswereconsolidatedbyapsychologistandthefinalversions(GQ-6-G,MCGM-G)werelaterrevisedtogetherwiththeauthorstoprovidethebestpossibletranslation.TheGermanitemsofbothinstrumentsareprovidedinAppendicesAandB. TheGQ-6-Gconsistsofsixitemsthatmeasurespan,frequency,intensityanddensityofgratitudeandprimarilyfocusesontheunidimensionalemotionalcomponentofgratitude.Participantshavetoratesixitems(e.g.,“Ihavesomuchinlifetobethankfulfor”)onaseven-pointLikertscale(1=stronglydisagreeto7=stronglyagree;GQ-6:α=0.82;McCulloughetal.,2002). TheMCGM-Gconsistsof43itemswithfourcorrespondingcomponentsofgratitude:(a)conceptions(orunderstandings)ofgratitude;(b)gratefulemotions;(c)attitudestowardgratitude;and(d)gratitude-relatedbehaviors.Fortheconceptualcomponent,participantsarepresentedwithsevenscenariosinvolvingdifferentconceptionsofgratitude:baseline,ulteriormotive,costtobenefactor,non-realizedbenefit,maliciousintent,valueofbenefit,andmixedemotions(e.g.,baseline:“Acolleaguenominatesyouforanawardatwork.Ifyouwin,youwillreceiverecognitionofyourhardworkandavoucher”).Aftereachscenariorespondentshavetoindicateiftheyaregratefultothispersononafive-pointLikertscale(AREratings;1=stronglydisagreeto5=stronglyagree;originalα=0.54)andstatewhatdegreeofgratitudetheywouldfeelineachsituation(DEGREEratings;0=notatallgratefulto100=mostgratefulyoucouldfeel;originalα=0.79).TheemotionalcomponentconsistsofthesubscaleFeelingsofgratitudeandcombinessixitems(e.g.,“Ifeelgratefulforthepeopleinmylife”)thatareratedonaseven-pointLikertscale(1=stronglydisagreeto7=stronglyagree;originalα=0.87).TheattitudecomponentismeasuredanalogouslyandconsistsofthesubscalesAttitudestoappropriateness(sixitems,e.g.,“Ionlyshowgratitudetowardpeoplewhoclearlyintendedtobenefitme”;originalα=0.85)andAttitudeofgratitude(sixitems,e.g.,“Ibelievegratitudeisanimportantvaluetohave”;originalα=0.74).Thebehavioralcomponentismeasuredonaseven-pointLikertscale(1=neverto7=morethanonceaday)andconsistsofthesubscalesBehavioralshortcomings(fouritems,e.g.,“IoverlookhowmuchIhavetobegratefulfor”;originalα=0.82),Rituals/noticingbenefits(fiveitems,e.g.,“IstopandthinkaboutallthethingsIamgratefulfor”;originalα=0.92),andExpressions(ofgratitude)(fouritems,e.g.,“Iexpressthankstothosewhohelpme”;originalα=0.79;Morganetal.,2017). Inadditiontothesetwogratitudemeasures,weusedfiveinstrumentstomeasureconstructvalidity: PositiveandnegativeaffectwasmeasuredusingtheGermanversionofthePositiveandNegativeAffectSchedule(PANAS;Watsonetal.,1988;Krohneetal.,1996).ThePANASisbasedonthetheorythatpositiveandnegativeemotionalstatesarenotsimplybipolaroppositesbutratherindependentmeasures.Itconsistsof20itemsthatmeasurethegeneraltendenciestoexperiencepositive(e.g.,“excited”)andnegativeaffect(e.g.,“distressed”).Participantshadtoindicateonafive-pointLikertscale(1=notatallto5=extremely)howwelleachoftheadjectivesdescribed“howtheygenerallyfeel.”Inpreviousstudies(Krohneetal.,1996)theGermanscalehasshowngoodvaluesofinternalconsistency(α=0.84toα=0.86). Subjectivewell-beingwasassessedwiththeSubjectiveHappinessScale(SHS;LyubomirskyandLepper,1999;Biedaetal.,2017).TheSHSconsistsoffouritemsthatmeasureglobalsubjectivehappiness.Participantsansweredonaseven-pointLikertscalewhosewordingofanchorpointsdependedonthequestion(e.g.,“Comparedtomostofmypeers,Iconsidermyself,”1=lesshappyto7=morehappy).InternalconsistencyoftheGermanscalewasreportedtobegoodwithα=0.87(Biedaetal.,2017). Inaddition,wemeasuredlifesatisfactionusingtheGermanversionoftheSatisfactionwithLifeScale(SWLS;Dieneretal.,1985;Glaesmeretal.,2011).TheSWLSconsistoffiveitemsandmeasuresthecognitivecomponentofsubjectivewell-being.Participantsindicatedagreementwithitems(e.g.,“Inmostwaysmylifeisclosetoideal”)onaseven-pointLikertscale(1=stronglydisagreeto7=stronglyagree).TheinternalconsistencyoftheGermanscalelieswithinanexcellentlevelofα=0.92(Glaesmeretal.,2011). TheGermanshortversionoftheBriefSymptomInventory(BSI;DerogatisandSpencer,1982;Frankeetal.,2011)wasusedtoexaminepsychologicalsymptomsamongtheparticipants.Respondentshadtoratetheirgeneralsufferingfromanxietyanddepressionsymptomsonafive-pointLikertscale(1=notatallto5=mostintensive).TheinternalconsistencyoftheGermanscalehasproventobegoodwithα=0.84(Frankeetal.,2011). Tomeasurethedispositiontowardempathy,theEmpathicConcernandPerspective-TakingsubscalesoftheInterpersonalReactivityIndex(IRI;DavisandOathout,1987;Paulus,2009)wereused.ParticipantshadtorateEmpathicConcernitems(e.g.,“WhenIseesomeonebeingtakenadvantageof,Ifeelkindofprotectivetowardthem”)andPerspective-Takingitems(e.g.,“Beforecriticizingsomebody,ItrytoimaginehowIwouldfeelifIwereintheirplace”)onafive-pointLikertscale(1=neverto5=always).InternalconsistencyoftheGermanscalesisacceptable(EmpathicConcern:α=0.77;Perspective-Taking:α=0.77;LauterbachandHosser,2007). StatisticalAnalysis First,confirmatoryfactoranalysis(CFA)wasusedinordertotestthefactorstructureoftheGQ-6-GandtheMCGM-GfortheGermansample.Asdatawerenotnormallydistributed,robustmaximumlikelihoodestimation(MLM)withSatorraandBentler(2001)scaledχ2wasused.Inordertoobtainrobustestimatesofthefitindices,wealsoadjustedthosefortherobustχ2teststatistic(WalkerandSmith,2016).Evaluationofthemodelfitfollowedtypicalconventions:Ideallytheχ2-testshouldnotbesignificant(Schermelleh-Engeletal.,2003).However,theχ2-testtendstoproducehighandstatisticsignificantvalueswhensamplesizeishigh(N>200:WalkerandSmith,2016;N>250:Bühner,2011).Thus,theratioχ2dividedbydegreesoffreedom(χ2/df)representsabetterfitindex(BentlerandBonett,1980)andshouldbesmallerthan3(Kline,1998).ValuesoftheSRMRbelow0.05aregood(Byrne,1998)andshouldnotexceed0.08(HuandBentler,1999),thoughitmustbenotedthattheSRMRdecreaseswithlargersamplesize(Hooperetal.,2008).ValuesoftheRMSEAbelow0.05indicategoodmodelfitandalsoshouldnotexceed0.08(BrowneandCudeck,1993),whereasCFIandTLIshouldbeabove0.95(Schermelleh-Engeletal.,2003). Second,multi-groupcomparisons(VandenbergandLance,2000;FischerandKarl,2019)wereconductedtoassessmeasurementinvariancebetweentheGermanandUnitedKingdomsample.TheanalysiswasbasedonthethreetypicalphasesdescribedbyFischerandKarl(2019).Inthefirststep,thebaselinemodeliscomparedwiththeconfiguralmodeltoexaminewhethertheoverallfactorstructureholdsupsimilarlyforbothgroups(configuralinvariance).Thenextstepistotestwhetherfactorloadingsareequivalentacrossthegroups(metricinvariance).Thelaststepistocheckwhethertheiteminterceptsareequivalentacrossgroups(scalarinvariance).Incasefullmeasurementinvariancecouldnotbeestablished,partialinvariancewasexamined(Byrneetal.,1989;PutnickandBornstein,2016).Thus,modificationindiceswereusedtocheckfornon-invariantitems.Inordertoobtainpartialmeasurementinvariance,atleasthalfoftheitemsofafactorshouldbeequalacrossgroups(SteenkampandBaumgartner,1998;VandenbergandLance,2000).Evaluationofthemodelfitfollowedtypicalconventions:Sinceχ2issensitivetosamplesize,differencesintheCFI(Little,1997)andRMSEA(Littleetal.,2007)aremoreinformativeandshouldbebelow0.01foreachlevelofinvariance(CheungandRensvold,2002;PutnickandBornstein,2016;FischerandKarl,2019).Forreportingresultsofthemulti-groupcomparisons,wefollowedthesuggestionsofPutnickandBornstein(2016). Third,analysisofthefactorstructureandculturalinvariancewasfollowedbyassessmentofCronbach’sAlpha(α)ofthegratitudemeasuresaswellacheckfornormaldistributionusingtheShapiro-Wilktest.Toensureagoodreliability,item-total-correlationshouldbeabove0.30(Bühner,2011)andCronbach’sαshouldbeabove0.70(Schermelleh-EngelandWerner,2012). Finally,theintercorrelationsaswellascriterion-relatedanddiscriminantvaliditywerecalculated. DatawereanalyzedusingRStudio(version1.2.1335onmacOS,Rversion4.0.0).Thelavaanpackage(Rosseel,2012)wasusedtocalculatetheCFAs.Thecycpackage(Karl,2020)andsemTools(Jorgensen,2020)wereusedtoconducttheculturalinvarianceanalyses.Thelevelofsignificanceforallanalyseswasα=5%. Results FactorStructureofGQ-6-GandMCGM-G Wefirsttestedtheone-factorstructureoftheGQ-6-G.Resultsrevealedamediocremodelfit(seeTable1).Factorloadingofthereverse-codeditem6(“LongamountsoftimecangobybeforeIfeelgratefultosomethingorsomeone”)appearedtobelow(0.29).Thus,werunasecondanalysisafterexcludingitem6(GQ-5-G).Allfitindicesimprovedandwereacceptabletogoodapartfromthesignificantχ2test(seeTable1). TABLE1 Table1.Goodness-of-fitindicesoftheCFAmodels(N=508). Second,wetestedthefactorstructureoftheMCGM-G.Here,threecompetingmodelswerecalculated.Fitindicesoftheoriginalsix-factormodel(Morganetal.,2017)indicatedgoodfitapartfromthesignificantχ2test.However,items2(“Gratitudeshouldbereservedforwhensomeoneintendstobenefityou”)and6(“Ionlyfeelgratefulwhenthebenefitisofgenuinevaluetome”)oftheAttitudeofappropriatenessscaleturnedouttohavenegativefactorloadings.Wecheckedwhetherthereoccurredanymistakewithreverse-codingofthesetwoitemsduringthepreviouslyperformedanalysis.Sincenoerrorcouldbefound,wedecidedtoexcludetheitems.Aftereliminatingbothitems,modelfitincreasedregardingallfitindices(CFI=0.93,TFI=0.92,RMSEA=0.058,SRMR=0.067).Interestingly,item1ofthesamescaleappearedtohavesomeissuesaswellwithalowcorrecteditem-totalcorrelationofrit=0.18.Aftertheexclusionofitem1,themodelfitfurtherincreased(CFI=0.94,TFI=0.93,RMSEA=0.050,SRMR=0.059).Lastly,thesecond-orderfactormodelwasanalyzed.Here,resultswereslightlyworsecomparedtothemodifiedsix-factormodelbutstillinanacceptabletogoodrange(seeTable1). MeasurementInvarianceBetweenCulturesofGQ-5-GandMCGM-G Theresultsofmulti-grouptestsofmeasurementinvarianceoftheGQ-5-GandtheMCGM-GarepresentedinTables2and3. TABLE2 Table2.SummaryofculturalinvarianceanalysesbetweengroupsfortheGQ-6-GandGQ-5-G. TABLE3 Table3.SummaryofculturalinvarianceanalysesbetweengroupsfortheMCGM-GandMCGM-Gwithoutitems1,2,and6inthescaleAttitudestoappropriateness. FitindicesofthebaselinemodeloftheGQ-5-Gindicateconfiguralmeasurementinvariance(χ2=72.43,df=10,p<0.001;CFI=0.984;RMSEA=0.077;SRMR=0.020).Acomparisonwiththemodeltestingmetricmeasurementinvarianceshowedthatthefitisworse(Δχ2=22.31,df=4,p<0.001).Sincetheχ2differencetestissensitivetosamplesizeandtheotherfitindicesweregood(CFI=0.980;RMSEA=0.074;SRMR=0.031),metricmeasurementinvariancecanbeassumed.Similarresultswerefoundforscalarmeasurementinvariance.Theχ2differenceindicatedaworsefit(Δχ2=37.93,df=4,p<0.001).However,theothercommonfitindicesweregood(CFI=0.971;RMSEA=0.078;SRMR=0.035),soscalarmeasurementinvariancecanbeassumed. FitindicesofthebaselinemodeloftheMCGM-Gindicateconfiguralmeasurementinvariance(χ2=1845.90,df=568,p<0.001;CFI=0.955;RMSEA=0.046;SRMR=0.039).Acomparisonwiththemodeltestingmetricmeasurementinvarianceshowedthatthefitisworse(Δχ2=152.44,df=20,p<0.001).Sincetheχ2differencetestissensitivetosamplesizeandtheotherfitindicesweregood(CFI=0.951;RMSEA=0.048;SRMR=0.044),metricmeasurementinvariancecanbeassumed.However,resultsindicatedaworseoverallmodelfitonthelevelofscalarmeasurementinvariance.Inadditiontothesignificantχ2difference(Δχ2=1027.56,df=20,p<0.001),thedifferencesoftheothercommonfitindiceswereabovetheacceptablethresholdof0.01(ΔCFI=0.035;ΔRMSEA=0.013).Thus,scalarmeasurementinvariancecannotbeassumed.Subsequentanalysesusingmodificationindicesrevealedthatseveraliteminterceptsonallfactorswerenotinvariantacrossgroups.Partialscalarmeasurementinvariancecouldbeestablishedbyallowingtheinterceptsofitems2,4,5,and6ofFeelingsofgratitude,items4and5ofAttitudestoappropriateness,items2and3ofBehavioralshortcomings,items4and5ofRituals/Noticingbenefits,item3ofExpressionofgratitudeanditems1,2,3,and4ofAttitudeofgratitudetovarybetweengroups(χ2=2243.13,df=592,p<0.001;CFI=0.942;RMSEA=0.052;SRMR=0.046;ΔCFI=0.009;ΔRMSEA=0.009;ΔSRMR=0.002). IntercorrelationsandReliability Shapiro-WilktestindicatedthattheGQ-5-Gandalldimensions(includingsecond-orderfactors)oftheMCGM-Garenotnormallydistributed(Skewness=−1.09to0.20,Kurtosis=2.80–4.05).Theaveragecorrecteditem–totalcorrelationfortheGQ-5-Gwasrit=0.49andrit=0.33–0.62fortheMCGM-G,respectively.Allfirst-andsecond-orderfactorsoftheMCGM-GandtheGQ-5-Ghadacceptabletoexcellentinternalconsistencies(Cronbach’sα=0.73–0.90;Table4).AdetailedoverviewcanbefoundinAppendicesCandD. TABLE4 Table4.CorrelationsbetweenGQ-5-GandMCGM-Gsecond-orderfactorsandscales. TheGQ-5-Gsignificantlycorrelatedwithallfirst-andsecond-orderfactorsoftheMCGM-G.ThestrongestrelationshipreferstotheGQ-5-GandtheemotionalfactoroftheMCGM-G(r=0.81,p<0.01). Criterion-RelatedandDiscriminantValidity Thecorrelationsbetweenthegratitudescales(GQ-5-G,MCGM-G)andthecriterion-relatedvariablesarepresentedinTables5,6.Asexpected,wecanreportsignificantpositivecorrelationsbetweenthegratitudemeasuresandpositiveaffect,well-beingaswellasempathyscales.ThestrongestrelationshipwasfoundbetweentheGQ-5-Gandlifesatisfaction(r=0.51,p<0.01).Inaddition,significantnegativecorrelationscanbereportedfordepressionandanxietymeasuresaswellasnegativeaffect. TABLE5 Table5.CorrelationsbetweenGQ-5-Gandcriterion-relatedscales. TABLE6 Table6.CorrelationsbetweenMCGM-Gsecond-orderfactorsandcriterion-relatedscales. Discussion ThemainaimofthecurrentstudywastovalidatethepsychometricpropertiesoftwogratitudemeasuresinGermanlanguage(GQ-6-GandtheMCGM-G).Wefirstsoughttoestablishwell-fittingbaselinemodelsforthetwoinstrumentsconductingCFAs.Thenextstepwastocheckforculturalmeasurementinvarianceusingmulti-groupcomparisons. Wereplicatedtheone-factorstructureoftheGQ-6andfoundagoodfitafterexcludingitem6ofthescale.Hence,theGermanversionoftheGQ-6enquiresthesameproblemwithitem6asalreadyreportedfortheDutch(Jans-Bekenetal.,2015)orSpanishversion(Langeretal.,2016).TheauthorsoftheSpanishversionarguethatthefive-itemversionisespeciallyappropriateforyoungerpopulations(universitystudentsandadolescents)incomparisontoolderparticipants(Langeretal.,2016).Similarresultswerefoundinanon-WesternsampleexamininggratitudeamongFilipinohighschoolstudents(Valdezetal.,2017).Consideringthemeanageofjustabout25years(SD=8.00)inthepresentstudy,thiscouldalsobeareasonableexplanationforourfindings.Multi-groupcomparisonswereconductedtotestmeasurementinvarianceacrosstwosamplesfromUnitedKingdomandGermany.Thus,measurementinvarianceonallthreelevels(configural,metric,andscalar)canbeassumedfortheGQ-5-GbutnotfortheGQ-6-G,sincedifferencesintheCFIandRMSEAforthelatterwereabovethethresholdof0.01.Theseresultsindicatethatparticipantsfrombothcountriesconceptualizetheone-factorstructureoftheGQ-5-Ginthesameway(configuralinvariance).Asmetricinvariancewasalsosupported,associationsbetweentheGQ-5-GandothervariablescanbecomparedacrosssamplesfromUnitedKingdomandGermany.Eventually,scalarinvariancesuggeststhatmeandifferencesbetweengroupsareduetodifferencesinthelatentconstructwhichallowscomparisonsofmeandifferences.Wethereforerecommendusingthefive-itemversion(GQ-5-G)forfutureresearch. WefoundagoodmodelfitfortheMCGM-GafterexcludingthreeitemsoftheAttitudestoappropriatenessscale(items1,2,and6wereexcluded).Interestingly,thedeviationscomparedtotheoriginalversionoftheMCGMonlyreferredtothisdimension.AsAttitudestoappropriatenesscapturesthedegreewhengratitudeisandisnotwarranted,thefindingsmightsuggestdifferentculturalunderstandings.Furtherstudiesshouldthereforeexplorethisdimensionofgratitudeinamorein-depthexamination.However,resultsoftheCFAsdidnotrevealsuperiormodelfitofthehierarchicalstructureoftheMCGM-Gwithsecond-orderfactors,asfitindiceswerealmostidenticalcomparedtothesix-factorsolution.Incontrasttotheoriginalstudy,bothmodelshadslightlyworsefit.Thus,futurestudiesshouldanalyzetheunderlyingfactorstructuremorecloselycomprisinglargersamples.Nevertheless,onthebasisofcurrentknowledge,itseemsappropriatetousethesecond-orderfactorsofMCGM-G,ifaneconomicconsiderationormerelyacomparisonofattitudeandbehaviorcomponentsofgratitudeisrequired.Multi-groupcomparisonsoftheMCGM-Gtestingforculturalinvariancerevealedthatconfiguralinvariancewasestablished.Thus,similarlatentfactorswerepresentinbothcountriessuggestingthatparticipantsfrombothsamplesconceptualizethesixcomponentsoftheMCGM-Gsimilarly.Metricinvariancewasalsosupported.Accordingly,thefactorstructureofthesixdimensionswasequivalentacrossbothgroupsindicatingthatindividualsattributedthesamemeaningtothelatentconstructs.Sincemetricinvariancewasestablished,associationsbetweentheMCGM-GandothervariablescanbecomparedacrosssamplesfromUnitedKingdomandGermany.However,scalarmeasurementinvariancecouldnotbesupported.Intotal,15-iteminterceptsonallfactorsturnedoutnottobeequalacrossthetwosamples.Whentheseiteminterceptswereallowedtovarybetweenthetwogroups,partialmeasurementinvariancecouldbeobtained.AnexceptionisthedimensionAttitudeofgratitudesincealliteminterceptsofthisfactorwerenon-invariant.Thus,latentmeancomparisonsforfiveMCGM-Gfactorscanbeconducted,ifthecorrespondingitemsareallowedtohavetheirownintercept. ThestrongcorrelationbetweentheemotioncomponentoftheMCGM-GandtheGQ-5-G(r=0.81,p<0.001)isevenhigherthaninpreviousstudies(e.g.,r=0.71,p<0.001;Morganetal.,2017).ThissupportstheassumptionthattheGQ-5-Gonlytapsfeelingsofgratitude,asitwasalreadysuggestedbyMorganetal.(2017).Thus,allcorrelationsbetweentheotherfactorsoftheMCGM-GandtheGQ-5-Gwerelower(r=0.11tor=0.51). Constructvaliditywithcriterion-relatedscalesofboththeGQ-5-GandtheMCGM-Gshowedtheexpectedcorrelationsasalreadyreportedinpreviousstudies(e.g.,McCulloughetal.,2002;Breenetal.,2010;Morganetal.,2017).Overall,gratitudeisassociatedwithincreasedpositiveandlowernegativeoutcomes.Wellbeingandaffectscalesrevealedmediumtostrongeffects,whileeffectsofempathy,anxietyanddepressionscalescanbecharacterizedaslowtomediumeffects.Theassociationsbetweenthecriterion-relatedscalesandtheGQ-5-GandtheMCGM-Gshowasimilarpattern.However,theMCGM-Gyieldsamorediverseperspective.Thus,ourresultsindicatethattheemotionalcomponentofgratitudeismorestronglyrelatedtolifesatisfactionandsubjectivewell-being,whereasthebehavioralcomponentismoststronglyassociatedwithpositiveaffectandempathy.Thecorrelationsbetweentheattitudecomponentandthecriterion-relatedscalesareratherlow. Limitations Asinmanypsychologicalstudies,theGermansampleisbiasedtowardfemaleparticipantsandhasalowmeanageof24.80years.Thismeansthattheconceptualizationofgratitudemayonlyberepresentativeofyoungfemales.Althoughthisseemstobeatypicalbiasthatalsoaffectsothervalidationstudiesofgratitudemeasures(e.g.,Gouveiaetal.,2019)aswellastheoriginalstudyoftheGQ-6byMcCulloughetal.(2002),wecheckedformeasurementinvariancebetweengender.TheresultsrevealedfullmeasurementinvarianceacrossthegenderoftheparticipantsfortheGQ-5-GandtheMCGM-G(seeAppendixE).Thus,meancomparisonsbetweengendersonthelatentfactorscanbeanalyzed.Nevertheless,futurestudiesshouldcomprisemorerepresentativesamplesregardingageandgenderandanalyzewhetherthefactorstructurereportedhereisstableacrossgender-balancedgroups.Itshouldalsobementionedthatusingmaximum-likelihoodestimationsondatathatviolatemultivariatenormalitycanbiasresults.However,wetriedtoaccountforthislimitationbyusingrobustmaximumlikelihoodestimation(MLM)withSatorraandBentler(2001)scaledχ2aswellasrobustestimatesofthefitindicesfollowingtheadjustmentsofWalkerandSmith(2016).Overall,ourresultsarebasedononlytwocountries.Therefore,futurestudiesareneededtoevaluatemeasurementinvarianceoftheGQ5-GandtheMCGM-Ginothercountries. Conclusion TheGQ-5-GandtheMCGM-GarebothreliableandvalidinstrumentsformeasuringgratitudeinGermany.MeasurementinvariancewasestablishedfortheGQ-5-GandpartialmeasurementinvarianceforfiveofsixfactorsoftheMCGM-G,respectively.Psychologicalresearchcanrelyonthesetoolsforfuturestudiesongratitude.Inthiscontext,theGQ-5-Gcanbeconsideredaverygoodandeconomicchoiceifareliableandvalidinstrumentisneededtomeasuretheemotionalcomponentofgratitude.Incontrast,themulti-componentapproachoftheMCGM-Goffersamorediverseperspectiveongratitude. DataAvailabilityStatement ThedatasetspresentedinthisstudycanbefoundinanonlinerepositoryintheOpenScienceFrameworkathttps://osf.io/8v5ej/. EthicsStatement Ethicalreviewandapprovalwasnotrequiredforthestudyonhumanparticipantsinaccordancewiththelocallegislationandinstitutionalrequirements.Thepatients/participantsprovidedtheirwritteninformedconsenttoparticipateinthisstudy. AuthorContributions NBandELdesignedthestudiesandsupervisedtheexecution.NBcollectedthedata.MHdidtheanalysis.NB,EL,BM,andMHwrotethemanuscript.Allauthorsreadandapprovedthefinalmanuscript. ConflictofInterest Theauthorsdeclarethattheresearchwasconductedintheabsenceofanycommercialorfinancialrelationshipsthatcouldbeconstruedasapotentialconflictofinterest. SupplementaryMaterial TheSupplementaryMaterialforthisarticlecanbefoundonlineat:https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.590108/full#supplementary-material References Adler,M.G.,andFagley,N.S.(2005).Appreciation:individualdifferencesinfindingvalueandmeaningasauniquepredictorofsubjectivewell-being.J.Pers.73,79–114.doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00305.x PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Algoe,S.B.(2012).Find,remind,andbind:thefunctionsofgratitudeineverydayrelationships.Soc.Pers.Psychol.Compass6,455–469.doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00439.x CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Bartlett,M.Y.,Condon,P.,Cruz,J.,Baumann,J.,andDesteno,D.(2012).Gratitude:promptingbehavioursthatbuildrelationships.Cogn.Emot.26,2–13.doi:10.1080/02699931.2011.561297 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Bartlett,M.Y.,andDeSteno,D.(2006).Gratitudeandprosocialbehavior:helpingwhenitcostsyou.Psychol.Sci.17,319–325.doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01705.x PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Bentler,P.M.,andBonett,D.G.(1980).Significancetestsandgoodnessoffitintheanalysisofcovariancestructures.Psychol.Bull.88,588–606.doi:10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Bernabé-Valero,G.,García-Alandete,J.,andGallego-Pérez,J.F.(2013).Análisiscomparativodedosmodelosdelgratitudequestionnaire-sixitemsform[Comparativeanalysisoftwomodelsofthegratitudequestionnaire-sixitemsform].Rev.Latinoam.Psicol.45,279–288.doi:10.14349/rlp.v45i2.811 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Bernabé-Valero,G.,García-Alandete,J.,andGallego-Pérez,J.F.(2014).Construccióndeuncuestionarioparalaevaluacióndelagratitud:ElCuestionariodeGratitud-20ítems(G-20)[Constructionofagratitudequestionnaire:thegratitudequestionnaire-20Items(G-20)].Anal.Psicol.30,279–287.doi:10.6018/analesps.30.1.135511 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Bieda,A.,Hirschfeld,G.,Schönfeld,P.,Brailovskaia,J.,Zhang,X.C.,andMargraf,J.(2017).Universalhappiness?Cross-culturalmeasurementinvarianceofscalesassessingpositivementalhealth.Psychol.Assess.29,408–421.doi:10.1037/pas0000353 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Breen,W.E.,Kashdan,T.B.,Lenser,M.L.,andFincham,F.D.(2010).Gratitudeandforgiveness:convergenceanddivergenceonself-reportandinformantratings.Pers.Individ.Differ.49,932–937.doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.033 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Browne,M.W.,andCudeck,R.(1993).“Alternativewaysofassessingmodelfit,”inTestingStructuralEquationModels,edsK.A.BollenandJ.S.Long(ThousandOaks,CA:Sage),136–162. GoogleScholar Bühner,M.(2011).EinführungindieTest-undFragebogenkonstruktion.London:PearsonStudium. GoogleScholar Byrne,B.M.(1998).StructuralEquationModelingwithLISRELPRELISandSIMPLIS:BasicConceptsApplicationsandProgramming.NewJersey:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates. GoogleScholar Byrne,B.M.,Shavelson,R.J.,andMuthén,B.(1989).Testingfortheequivalenceoffactorcovarianceandmeanstructures:theissueofpartialmeasurementinvariance.Psychol.Bull.105,456–466.doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.456 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Chen,L.H.,Chen,M.-Y.,Kee,Y.H.,andTsai,Y.-M.(2008).Validationofthegratitudequestionnaire(GQ)intaiwaneseundergraduatestudents.J.HappinessStud.10:655.doi:10.1007/s10902-008-9112-7 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Cheung,G.W.,andRensvold,R.B.(2002).Evaluatinggoodness-of-fitindexesfortestingmeasurementinvariance.Struct.Equ.Model.9,233–255.doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Cumming,G.(2014).Thenewstatistics:whyandhow.Psychol.Sci.25,7–29.doi:10.1177/0956797613504966 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Davis,M.H.,andOathout,H.A.(1987).Maintenanceofsatisfactioninromanticrelationships:empathyandrelationalcompetence.J.Pers.Soc.Psychol.53,397–410.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.2.397 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Derogatis,L.R.,andSpencer,P.M.(1982).AdministrationandProcedures:BSIManualI.Baltimore:ClinicalPsychometricRe-search. GoogleScholar Diener,E.,Emmons,R.A.,Larsen,R.J.,andGriffin,S.(1985).Thesatisfactionwithlifescale.J.Pers.Assess.49,71–75.doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Ding,F.,andSong,Y.(2017).Gratitudeandcollegestudents’Helpingbehaviors:mediatingeffectofempathyanditsgenderdifference.Psychol.Dev.Educ.33,289–296. GoogleScholar Emmons,R.A.,andMcCullough,M.E.(2003).Countingblessingsversusburdens:anexperimentalinvestigationofgratitudeandsubjectivewell-beingindailylife.J.Pers.Soc.Psychol.84,377–389.doi:10.1037//0022-3514.84.2.377 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Fischer,R.,andKarl,J.A.(2019).Aprimerto(Cross-Cultural)multi-groupinvariancetestingpossibilitiesinR.Front.Psychol.10:1507.doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01507 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Franke,G.H.,Ankerhold,A.,Haase,M.,Jäger,S.,Tögel,C.,Ulrich,C.,etal.(2011).Dereinsatzdesbriefsymptominventory18(BSI-18)beipsychotherapiepatienten[Theusefulnessofthebriefsymptominventory18(BSI-18)inpsychotherapeuticpatients].Psychother.Psychos.MedizinischePsychol.61,82–86.doi:10.1055/s-0030-1270518 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Froh,J.J.,Emmons,R.A.,Card,N.A.,Bono,G.,andWilson,J.A.(2011).Gratitudeandthereducedcostsofmaterialisminadolescents.J.Happ.Stud.12,289–302.doi:10.1007/s10902-010-9195-9 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Froh,J.J.,Miller,D.N.,andSnyder,S.F.(2007).Gratitudeinchildrenandadolescents:de-velopment,assessmentandschool-basedintervention.Sch.Psychol.Forum2,1–13. GoogleScholar Glaesmer,H.,Grande,G.,Braehler,E.,andRoth,M.(2011).Thegermanversionofthesatisfactionwithlifescale(SWLS).Eur.J.Psychol.Assess.27,127–132.doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000058 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Gouveia,V.V.,Ribeiro,M.G.C.,deAquino,T.A.A.,Loureto,G.D.L.,Nascimento,B.S.,andRezende,A.T.(2019).Gratitudequestionnarie(GQ-6):evidenceofconstructvalidityinBrazil.Curr.Psychol.doi:10.1007/s12144-019-00197-x[Epubaheadofprint] CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Hooper,D.,Coughlan,J.,andMullen,M.(2008).Structuralequationmodelling:guidelinesfordeterminingmodelfit.Electron.J.Bus.Res.Methods6,53–60. GoogleScholar Hu,L.T.,andBentler,P.M.(1999).Cutoffcriteriaforfitindexesincovariancestructureanalysis:conventionalcriteriaversusnewalternatives.Struct.Equ.Model.6,1–55.doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Jans-Beken,L.,Lataster,J.,Leontjevas,R.,andJacobs,N.(2015).Measuringgratitude:acomparativevalidationofthedutchgratitudequestionnaire(gq6)andshortgratitude,resentment,andappreciationtest(SGRAT).Psychol.Belgica55,19–31.doi:10.5334/pb.bd PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Jorgensen,T.D.(2020).Package‘semTools’.Availableonlineat:https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/semTools/semTools.pdf(accessedJuly20,2020). GoogleScholar Karl,J.A.(2020).Ccpsyc.Availableonlineat:https://github.com/Jo-Karl/ccpsyc(accessedJuly20,2020). GoogleScholar Kendler,K.S.,Liu,X.Q.,Gardner,C.O.,McCullough,M.E.,Larson,D.,andPrescott,C.A.(2003).Dimensionsofreligiosityandtheirrelationshiptolifetimepsychiatricandsubstanceusedisorders.Am.J.Psychiatr.160,496–503.doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.160.3.496 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Kline,R.B.(1998).PrinciplesandPracticeofStructuralEquationModeling.NewYork,NY:GuilfordPress. GoogleScholar Klos,M.C.,Balabanian,C.,Leom,V.N.,Bernabé-Valero,G.,andGarcía-Alandete,J.(2020).Propiedadespsicométricasdelcuestionariodegratitud(G-20)enunamuestradeadolescentesargentinos[PsychometricpropertiesoftheGratitudeQuestionnaire(G-20)inasampleofargentineadolescents].Rev.Argent.CienciasComportam.12,50–59. GoogleScholar Krohne,H.W.,Egloff,B.,Kohlmann,C.-W.,andTausch,A.(1996).Untersuchungenmiteinerdeutschenversionder“positiveandnegativeaffectschedule”(PANAS).Diagnostica42,139–156.doi:10.1037/t49650-000 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Langer,ÁI.,Ulloa,V.G.,Aguilar-Parra,J.M.,Araya-Véliz,C.,andBrito,G.(2016).ValidationofaSpanishtranslationoftheGratitudeQuestionnaire(GQ-6)withaChileansampleofadultsandhighschoolers.HealthQ.LifeOutcomes14,53–61.doi:10.1186/s12955-016-0450-6 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Lauterbach,O.,andHosser,D.(2007).Assessingempathyinprisoners-ashortenedversionoftheinterpersonalreactivityindex.SwissJ.Psychol.66,91–101.doi:10.1024/1421-0185.66.2.91 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Lermer,E.(2019).PositivePsychologie[PositivePsychology].Stuttgart:Utb. GoogleScholar Little,T.D.(1997).Meanandcovariancestructures(MACS)analysesofcross-culturaldata:practicalandtheoreticalissues.Multiv.Behav.Res.32,53–76.doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3201_3 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Little,T.D.,Card,N.A.,Slegers,D.W.,andLedford,E.C.(2007).“Representingcontextualeffectsinmultiple-groupMACSmodels,”inModelingContextualEffectsinLongitudinalStudies,edsT.D.Little,J.A.Bovaird,andN.A.Card(NewJersey:LawrenceErlbaumAssociatesPublishers),121–147. GoogleScholar Lyubomirsky,S.,andLepper,H.S.(1999).Ameasureofsubjectivehappiness:preliminaryreliabilityandconstructvalidation.Soc.Indic.Res.46,137–155.doi:10.1023/A:1006824100041 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar McCullough,M.E.,Emmons,R.A.,andTsang,J.A.(2002).Thegratefuldisposition:aconceptualandempiricaltopography.J.Pers.Soc.Psychol.82,112–127.doi:10.1037//0022-3514.82.1.112 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar McCullough,M.E.,Kilpatrick,S.D.,Emmons,R.A.,andLarson,D.B.(2001).Isgratitudeamoralaffect?Psychol.Bull.127,249–266.doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.249 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Morgan,B.,Gulliford,L.,andKristjánsson,K.(2014).GratitudeintheUK:anewprototypeanalysisandacross-culturalcomparison.J.Posit.Psychol.9,281–294.doi:10.1080/17439760.2014.898321 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Morgan,B.,Gulliford,L.,andKristjánsson,K.(2017).Anewapproachtomeasuringmoralvirtues:themulti-componentgratitudemeasure.Pers.Individ.Differ.107,179–189.doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.11.044 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Paulus,C.(2009).DerSaarbrückerPersönlichkeitsfragebogenSPF(IRI)zurMessungvonEmpathie:PsychometrischeEvaluationderdeutschenVersiondesInterpersonalReactivityIndex.Availableonlineat:https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christoph_Paulus/publication/37368098_Der_Saarbrucker_Personlichkeitsfragebogen_SPFIRI_zur_Messung_von_Empathie_Psychometrische_Evaluation_der_deutschen_Version_des_Interpersonal_Reactivity_Index/links/540045300cf24c81027dd4ba/Der-Saarbruecker-Persoenlichkeitsfragebogen-SPFIRI-zur-Messung-von-Empathie-Psychometrische-Evaluation-der-deutschen-Version-des-Interpersonal-Reactivity-Index.pdf(accessedJune20,2020). GoogleScholar Peterson,C.,Ruch,W.,Beermann,U.,Park,N.,andSeligman,M.E.P.(2007).Strengthsofcharacter,orientationstohappiness,andlifesatisfaction.J.Posit.Psychol.2,149–156.doi:10.1080/17439760701228938 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Putnick,D.L.,andBornstein,M.H.(2016).Measurementinvarianceconventionsandreporting:thestateoftheartandfuturedirectionsforpsychologicalresearch.Dev.Rev.41,71–90.doi:10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Rosseel,Y.(2012).lavaan:anRpackageforstructuralequationmodeling.J.Statist.Softw.48,1–36.doi:10.1002/9781119579038.ch1 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Satorra,A.,andBentler,P.M.(2001).Ascaleddifferencechi-squareteststatisticformomentstructureanalysis.Psychometrika66,507–514.doi:10.1007/BF02296192 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Schermelleh-Engel,K.,Moosbrugger,H.,andMüller,H.(2003).Evaluatingthefitofstructuralequationmodels:testsofsignificanceanddescriptivegoodness-of-fitmeasures.MethodsPsychol.Res.8,23–74. GoogleScholar Schermelleh-Engel,K.,andWerner,C.S.(2012).“Methodenderreliabilitätsbestimmung,”inTesttheorieundFragebogenkonstruktion,edsH.MoosbruggerandA.Kelava(Berlin:Springer),119–141.doi:10.1007/978-3-642-20072-4_6 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Steenkamp,J.-B.E.M.,andBaumgartner,H.(1998).Assessingmeasurementinvarianceincross-nationalconsumerresearch.J.Consum.Res.25,78–107.doi:10.1086/209528 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Tamás,M.,Magdolna,G.,andJudit,D.(2014).HálaKérdõívmagyarváltozatának(GQ-6-H)bemutatásaéspszichometriaielemzés[IntroductionandpsychometricpropertiesoftheHungarianversionoftheGratitudeQuestionnaire(GQ-6-H)].MentálhigiénéPszichoszom.15,203–214.doi:10.1556/Mental.15.2014.3.3 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Valdez,J.P.M.,andChu,S.K.W.(2018).Examiningthepsychometricvalidityofthefive-itemgratitudequestionnaire:anitemresponsetheoryapproach.J.Psychoeduc.Assess.38:073428291881654.doi:10.1177/0734282918816542 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Valdez,J.P.M.,Yang,W.,andDatu,J.A.D.(2017).Validationofthegratitudequestionnaireinfilipinosecondaryschoolstudents.Span.J.Psychol.20:E45.doi:10.1017/sjp.2017.51 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Vandenberg,R.J.,andLance,C.E.(2000).Areviewandsynthesisofthemeasurementinvarianceliterature:suggestions,practices,andrecommendationsfororganizationalresearch.Organ.Res.Methods3,4–70.doi:10.1177/109442810031002 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Walker,D.A.,andSmith,T.J.(2016).Computingrobust,bootstrap-adjustedfitindicesforusewithnonnormaldata.Measur.Eval.Counsel.Dev.doi:10.1177/0748175616671365[Epubaheadofprint] CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Watkins,P.C.,Woodward,K.,Stone,T.,andKolts,R.L.(2003).Gratitudeandhappiness:developmentofameasureofgratitudeandrelationshipswithsubjectivewell-being.Soc.Behav.Pers.Intern.J.31,431–452.doi:10.2224/sbp.2003.31.5.431 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Watson,D.,Clark,L.A.,andTellegen,A.(1988).Developmentandvalidationofbriefmeasuresofpositiveandnegativeaffect:thePANASscales.J.Pers.Soc.Psychol.54,1063–1070.doi:10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1063 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Wood,A.M.,Froh,J.J.,andGeraghty,A.W.(2010).Gratitudeandwell-being:areviewandtheoreticalintegration.Clin.Psychol.Rev.30,890–905.doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2010.03.005 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Wood,A.M.,Joseph,S.,Lloyd,J.,andAtkins,S.(2009).Gratitudeinfluencessleepthroughthemechanismofpre-sleepcognitions.J.Psychosom.Res.66,43–48.doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2008.09.002 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Wood,A.M.,Maltby,J.,Stewart,N.,Linley,P.A.,andJoseph,S.(2008).Asocial-cognitivemodeloftraitandstatelevelsofgratitude.Emotion8,281–290. GoogleScholar Keywords:gratitude,GratitudeQuestionnaire-SixItemForm,Multi-ComponentGratitudeMeasure,validationstudy,confirmatoryfactoranalysis,culturalmeasurementinvariance Citation:HudecekMFC,BlabstN,MorganBandLermerE(2020)MeasuringGratitudeinGermany:ValidationStudyoftheGermanVersionoftheGratitudeQuestionnaire-SixItemForm(GQ-6-G)andtheMulti-ComponentGratitudeMeasure(MCGM-G).Front.Psychol.11:590108.doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.590108 Received:31July2020;Accepted:08September2020;Published:08October2020. Editedby: BojanaM.Dinic,UniversityofNoviSad,Serbia Reviewedby: MarcosGomez,AdolfoIbáñezUniversity,Chile GloriaBernabé-Valero,CatholicUniversityofValenciaSanVicenteMártir,Spain Copyright©2020Hudecek,Blabst,MorganandLermer.Thisisanopen-accessarticledistributedunderthetermsoftheCreativeCommonsAttributionLicense(CCBY).Theuse,distributionorreproductioninotherforumsispermitted,providedtheoriginalauthor(s)andthecopyrightowner(s)arecreditedandthattheoriginalpublicationinthisjournaliscited,inaccordancewithacceptedacademicpractice.Nouse,distributionorreproductionispermittedwhichdoesnotcomplywiththeseterms. *Correspondence:MatthiasF.C.Hudecek,[email protected] †Theseauthorssharefirstauthorship COMMENTARY ORIGINALARTICLE Peoplealsolookedat SuggestaResearchTopic> 完整訊息請參考請為這篇文章評分？有幫助沒幫助延伸文章資訊1ValidationoftheGratitudeQuestionnaire(GQ)inTaiwanese...PDF|TheaimofthisstudywastotranslateandvalidatetheGratitudeQuestionnaire(GQ;McCull...2THEGRATITUDEQUESTIONNAIRETheGratitudeQuestionnaire(GQ-6)assessesaperson'sgratitudedisposition,whichisdefinedas...37GratitudeQuestionnairesandScalesThatScientistsUseTheGratitudeQuestionnaire(McCullough,Emmons,&Tsang,2002)GQ-6scaleisoneofthemostfre...4GratitudeQuestionnaire|PositivePsychologyCenterTheGQ-6isashort,self-reportmeasureofthedispositiontoexperiencegratitude.Participants...5TheGratitudeQuestionaire(GQ-6)-MidssTheGratitudeQuestionnaire-Six-ItemForm(GQ-6)isasix-itemself-reportquestionnairedesigned...最新文章北京首批授牌7家社區兒童中心，孕期保健、早教、親子課程一網打盡！2021-04-04如何培養孩子的閱讀力⑥：提升兒童閱讀力的五大方法（二）2021-04-04「親子共讀」就是給孩子講故事？百度問咖張麗萍：沒那麼簡單2021-04-04走向「活態」的親子閱讀2021-04-04上海最適合孩子去的繪本館，讀書遊玩兩不誤2021-04-09相關網站資訊月子中心剖腹產下訂單英文書信著迷憂鬱症發作怎麼辦心悸症狀重度憂鬱症