Content uploaded by Johan Lataster
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Johan Lataster on Jun 04, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article describes the validation study
of the Dutch translations of the Gratitude
Questionnaire (GQ6; McCullough, Emmons,
& Tsang, 2002) and the Short Gratitude,
Resentment, and Appreciation Test (SGRAT;
Thomas & Watkins, 2003). These ques-
tionnaires were developed to measure the
grateful disposition which is defined as
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Measuring Gratitude: A Comparative
Validation of the Dutch Gratitude
Questionnaire (GQ6) and Short Gratitude,
Resentment, and Appreciation Test (SGRAT)
Lilian Jans-Beken
*
, Johan Lataster
*,†
, Roeslan Leontjevas
*
and
Nele Jacobs
*,†
* Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences,
Open University; Heerlen, The Netherlands
info@lilianjansbeken.nl, roeslan.leontjevas@ou.nl
Corresponding author: Lilian Jans-Beken
†
Department of Psychiatry and Psychology,
School for Mental Health and Neuroscience,
Maastricht University Medical Centre;
Maastricht, The Netherlands
johan.lataster@ou.nl, nele.jacobs@ou.nl
Jans-Beken, L. et al (2015). Measuring Gratitude: A Comparative Validation
of the Dutch Gratitude Questionnaire (GQ6) and Short Gratitude,
Resentment, and Appreciation Test (SGRAT).
Psychologica Belgica,
55(1), 19-31, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/pb.bd
ψ
%HOJLFD
3V\FKRORJLFD
The aim of this article was to validate and compare the Dutch translations of the
Gratitude Questionnaire (GQ6) and the Short Gratitude, Resentment, and Appre-
ciation Test (SGRAT) in an adult general population sample. In an online survey,
706 respondents (
M
age
= 44,
SD
age
= 14) completed Dutch versions of the GQ6,
the SGRAT, the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) and the Positive Aect and
Negative Aect Schedule (PANAS). At six week follow-up, 440 (62%) of them (
M
age
= 46,
SD
age
= 14) again completed the GQ6-NL and SGRAT-NL. Parallel analyses,
exploratory factor analyses and conrmatory factor analyses revealed and con-
rmed one factor for the GQ6-NL, and three factors for the SGRAT-NL. Inter-
nal consistency indices of the GQ6-NL and of the SGRAT-NL were satisfactory.
Both questionnaires demonstrated good test-retest reliability. Regression analyses
showed, for the total scores on both gratitude questionnaires, positive associa-
tions with the SWLS and the Positive Aect Scale, and negative associations with
the Negative Aect Scale. The results support the validity of the Dutch GQ6 and
SGRAT. These questionnaires can be used to conduct further research of the grate-
ful disposition in Dutch speaking individuals and groups.
Keywords: gratitude; life satisfaction; positive aect; negative aect; validation;
Dutch
Jans-Beken et al: Measuring Gratitude: Validation Dutch GQ6 and SGRAT20
a ‘generalized tendency to recognize and
respond with grateful emotion to the roles
of other people’s benevolence in the positive
experiences and outcomes that one obtains’
(McCullough et al., 2002, p. 112).
McCullough et al. (2002) proposed a theo-
retical framework wherein four facets of grat-
itude are distinguished: intensity, frequency,
span, and density. An individual with a strong
grateful disposition is thought to experi-
ence gratitude more intensely and more fre-
quently than someone with a weaker grateful
disposition. Span refers to the number of life
events for which a person feels grateful at a
given time, and density refers to the number
of persons one is grateful to. McCullough et
al. (2002) developed the GQ6 based on these
four facets.
Another theoretical framework was pro-
posed by Watkins, Woodward, Stone, and
Kolts (2003), identifying three distinct char-
acteristics within a grateful individual. The
first characteristic is a lack of a sense of dep-
rivation. The second characteristic is the ten-
dency to appreciate simple pleasures, and the
third characteristic is the tendency to appre-
ciate the contributions of others to one’s
own well-being and to express this gratitude.
Watkins et al. (2003) developed the SGRAT
based on these three characteristics.
Recent empirical studies have shown
positive associations of the grateful dispo-
sition with subjective well-being (Emmons
& McCullough, 2003; McCullough et al.,
2002; Thomas & Watkins, 2003; Watkins et
al., 2003; Wood, Froh, & Geraghty, 2010),
happiness (Watkins et al., 2003), spiritual
transcendence (Diessner & Lewis, 2007),
religiousness and spirituality (McCullough
et al., 2002), optimism (Chen, Chen, Kee,
& Tsai, 2009), and positive affect (Emmons
& McCullough, 2003; McCullough et al.,
2002; Thomas & Watkins, 2003; Watkins
et al., 2003). Negative associations have
been found between the grateful disposi-
tion and depression (Thomas & Watkins,
2003; Watkins et al., 2003), negative affect
(Thomas & Watkins, 2003), and aggression
(Watkins et al., 2003). These correlates have
in turn been causally linked to cardiovascu-
lar disease (Krantz, Contrada, Hill, & Friedler,
1988; Suinn, 2001), hypertension (Shapiro
& Goldstein, 1982), and immune system
dysfunction (Cohen, Tyrrell, & Smith, 1993;
Graham, Christian, & Kiecolt-Glaser, 2006).
The results of the aforementioned empirical
studies show the importance of dispositional
gratitude as a possible protective factor in
health care and thereby the importance of
measures to assess the grateful disposition.
There are several reasons for validating
Dutch translations of the gratitude ques-
tionnaires. First, although large numbers of
people in the Netherlands and Belgium can
speak and understand English, English read-
ing comprehension is strongly associated
with socioeconomic status (EF - EPI, 2014).
Second, the use of a translated question-
naire prevents responses being affected by
cultural accommodation (Harzing, 2005),
misinterpretation, and reduces the cognitive
and emotional bias that exists when answer-
ing questions in another language than one’s
mother tongue (Keysar, Hayakawa, & An,
2012). Third, Dutch is the official language
in six countries of the world, representing a
total population of more than twenty eight
million people. Taken together, a question-
naire in Dutch is invaluable for studying
gratitude in Dutch-speaking countries. These
brief questionnaires were selected for vali-
dation because previous research showed
them to be reliable and valid measures of the
grateful disposition in English-speaking pop-
ulations (McCullough et al., 2002; Watkins
et al., 2003). Particularly, a validation study
of two different scales can help the reader
to choose the most appropriate scale. The
current comparative validation may be valu-
able for the international reader because
the scales are based on different theoretical
frameworks and the scales’ comparison adds
to the discussion on the grateful disposi-
tion as a psychological construct. For the
translated scales we aimed to assess their
factorial structure, their internal consistency,
Jans-Beken et al: Measuring Gratitude: Validation Dutch GQ6 and SGRAT 21
test-retest reliability, and the convergent,
divergent, and concurrent validity.
Method
Respondents
We recruited participants mainly through
social media, e-mails, personal contacts, and
door-to-door flyers with the intention to
collect a sample as heterogeneous as pos-
sible in terms of gender, age, education,
employment status, and religious affiliation.
Inclusion criteria were: (a) Dutch speaking,
and (b) eighteen years or older. Participants
enrolled voluntarily and were rewarded for
participation with a raffle for gift cards. In
the informed consent, ethical and privacy
issues were covered. Confidentiality as well
as anonymity were ensured. The conveni-
ence sample consisted of 706 Dutch speak-
ing adults at baseline (M
age
= 44, SD
age
= 14,
Range = 18 - 80). At follow-up, 440 partici-
pants (62%) of the initial sample completed
the survey (M
age
= 46, SD
age
= 14, Range = 18
- 80). These subjects (hereafter: completers)
were significantly higher educated and older,
and reported less negative affect compared
to subjects who completed only the baseline
survey (hereafter: dropouts; Table 1).
Measures
Gratitude. The grateful disposition was
measured with Dutch translations of the
GQ6 (McCullough et al., 2002), and the
SGRAT (Thomas and Watkins, 2003).
GQ6-NL. The GQ6 consists of six propo-
sitions representing one single factor with
acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s
α = 0.82) (McCullough et al., 2002).
Respondents indicate their response on a
7-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly
Whole
sample
Drop-outs Completers Δ Drop-out
- Completers
n
706 266 440
Low education N(%) 173(25) 85(31) 88(20) χ
2
(1, N = 706) = 10.353
**
High education N(%) 533(75) 181(69) 352(80)
Full time employed
N(%)
201(28) 88(33) 114(26) χ
2
(2, N = 706) = 4.382
Part time employed
N(%)
241(34) 85(32) 154(35)
Not employed N(%) 264(38) 93(35) 172(39)
No belief N(%) 327(47) 122(46) 202(46) χ
2
(2, N = 706) = 0.025
Religious N(%) 234(33) 91(34) 145(33)
Spiritual N(%) 145(20) 53(20) 93(21)
Age M(SD) 43.90(14.10) 40.07 (13.67) 46.22 (13.86) t (704) = -5.74
**
GQ6-NL M(SD) 32.51(5.14) 32.12 (5.14) 32.75 (5.14) t (704) = -1.584
SGRAT-NL M(SD) 110.95(15.54) 109.71 (15.49) 111.70 (15.54) t (704) = -1.648
SWLS M(SD) 24.58(6.41) 24.03 (6.46) 24.92 (6.36) t (704) = -1.780
PA-scale M(SD) 35.40(7.05) 35.33 (7.06) 35.44 (7.05) t (704) = -0.201
NA-scale M(SD) 19.21(7.72) 20.15 (7.74) 18.64 (7.66) t (704) = 2.524*
Table 1: Sample characteristics at baseline including drop-outs and completers (N = 706).
Note.
**
p < 0.001,
*
p < 0.05. Dropouts are participants who completed only the baseline
survey. Completers are participants who completed both the baseline and sex-week
follow-up survey.
Jans-Beken et al: Measuring Gratitude: Validation Dutch GQ6 and SGRAT22
disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Two nega-
tively formulated items are reverse coded
and item scores are summed to a total score,
ranging from 6 to 42, with high scores indi-
cating a higher level of a grateful disposition.
SGRAT-NL. The GRAT was initially devel-
oped by Watkins et al. (2003). They conducted
four studies to develop and validate this scale
consisting of 44 items allocated to three sub-
scales. Thomas and Watkins (2003) revised
the GRAT and developed a short form. The
remaining 16 items of the SGRAT displayed a
Cronbach’s α = 0.92 for the total score. This
short version appeared to be as reliable and
valid as the initial GRAT. Diessner and Lewis
(2007) confirmed the original three-factor
structure with factors (a) Lack of a Sense of
Deprivation (LOSD), (b) Simple Appreciation
(SA), and (c) Appreciation for Others (AO).
Respondents indicate their response on a
9-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly
disagree (1) to strongly agree (9). Five nega-
tively formulated items are reverse coded.
The total score ranges from 16 to 144, and
high scores indicate a higher level of the
grateful disposition.
Subjective well-being. We used the defi-
nition of Myers and Diener (1995) for subjec-
tive well-being, comprising frequent positive
affect, infrequent negative affect, and a sense
of life satisfaction.
Life Satisfaction. Life satisfaction is an
evaluation of the quality of life according
to criteria chosen by the individual (Shin &
Johnson, 1978), which was measured with
the validated Dutch version of the Satisfaction
With Life Scale (SWLS; Arrindell, 1991; Diener,
Emmons, & Griffin, 1985). The questionnaire
consists of five propositions on which the
respondents indicate their response using a
7-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly
disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). All item
scores are summed to a total score, ranging
from 5 to 35, with high scores indicating a
higher level of life satisfaction. The SWLS is
found to be a reliable measure with reported
Cronbach’s α values in the range of 0.85 to
0.87 (Arrindell, 1991; Van Beuningen, 2012).
Positive and negative affect. Affect was
measured with the validated Dutch Positive
Affect and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS;
Peeters, Ponds, & Vermeeren, 1996). The
schedule measures two dimensions: positive
affect and negative affect. The questionnaire
consists of twenty descriptor terms: ten items
measuring positive affect, and ten items
measuring negative affect. Respondents are
asked to rate the extent to which they have
experienced each mood state during the past
week on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from
very slightly or not at all (1) to extremely
(5). Scores on each dimension are summed
to a total score, ranging from 10 to 50 for
each dimension, with high scores indicating
a higher level of positive or negative affect.
Dutch translations of the negative affect
scale (NA-scale) and positive affect scale
(PA-scale) showed internal consistencies of α
= 0.83 and α = 0.79, respectively (Peeters et
al., 1996).
Procedure
Both the GQ6 and the SGRAT were translated
into Dutch by a translator who was raised
bilingual. A second bilingual translator
translated the Dutch items back into English.
Dutch and English items were evaluated by
both translators and the researcher to ensure
equivalence in meaning and comparability of
the items. The items of the translated SGRAT
and GQ6 are listed in Table 2 and Table 3,
respectively. Study participants filled in an
online survey at baseline (GQ6, SGRAT, SWLS,
and the PANAS) and at six-weeks follow-up
(GQ6 and SGRAT).
Analyses
Differences in demographic variables, as well
as in the main variables of gratitude and sub-
jective well-being between completers and
dropouts, were examined using chi-square
tests for categorical variables and independ-
ent t-tests for continuous variables. Parallel
analysis with Monte Carlo simulations was
conducted on the items at baseline (T0)
of the GQ6-NL and SGRAT-NL in order to
Jans-Beken et al: Measuring Gratitude: Validation Dutch GQ6 and SGRAT 23
Item
1 Zonder de hulp van veel mensen had ik niet kunnen komen waar ik nu ben in mijn leven.
2 Het leven is goed voor me geweest.
3 Het lijkt alsof er nooit genoeg is waardoor ik mijn deel nooit krijg.
4 Ik ben vaak overweldigd door de schoonheid van de natuur.
5 Ik vind dat het niet alleen belangrijk is om trots te zijn op mijn prestaties maar ook te
herinneren welke rol anderen hebben gespeeld bij het tot stand komen van de prestaties.
6 Ik denk niet dat ik alle goede dingen heb gekregen die ik verdien in het leven.
7 Elke herfst geniet ik echt van de bladeren die van kleur veranderen.
8 Ondanks dat ik de controle heb over mijn leven, denk ik toch veel aan de mensen die me
hebben aangemoedigd en geholpen.
9 Het is belangrijk om af en toe stil te staan bij de mooie dingen in het leven.
10 Er zijn meer slechte dingen gebeurd in mijn leven dan dat ik verdien.
11
Door alles wat ik heb meegemaakt in mijn leven, vind ik dat de wereld me iets verschuldigd is.
12 Het is belangrijk om je zegeningen te tellen.
13 Het is belangrijk om te genieten van de simpele dingen in het leven.
14 Ik ben zeer dankbaar voor alle dingen die andere mensen voor me hebben gedaan in mijn leven.
15 Om de een of andere reden krijg ik niet de voordelen die anderen wel krijgen.
16 Het is belangrijk om iedere dag dat je leeft te waarderen.
Table 2: Short Gratitude, Resentment and Appreciation Test, Dutch translation (S-GRAT-NL).
Note.
Items 3, 6, 10, 11, and 15 should be reverse coded.
Items 2, 3, 6, 10, 11, and 15 constitute the Lack of a Sense of Deprivation (LOSD) factor.
Items 4, 7, 9, 12, 13, and 16 constitute the Simple Appreciation (SA) factor.
Items 1, 5, 8, and 14 constitute the Appreciation for Others (AO) factor.
Answers are scored on a 9-point Likert scale:
(1) Sterk mee oneens, (3) Enigszins mee oneens, (5) Neutraal, (7) Enigszins mee eens, (9) Sterk
mee eens.
Item
1 Ik heb veel dingen in het leven om dankbaar voor te zijn.
2 Als ik een lijst zou maken van alle dingen waar ik dankbaar voor ben, wordt dat een hele
lange lijst.
3 Als ik naar de wereld kijk, zijn er niet veel dingen om dankbaar voor te zijn.
4 Ik ben veel verschillende mensen dankbaar.
5 Naarmate ik ouder word, kan ik mensen, gebeurtenissen en situaties die deel van mijn leven
zijn, meer waarderen.
6 Het duurt soms lang voor ik dankbaar kan zijn voor iets of iemand.
Table 3: Gratitude Questionnaire-6, Dutch translation (GQ-6-NL).
Note. Items 3 and 6 should be reverse coded. Answers are scored on a 7-point Likert scale:
(1) Sterk mee oneens, (2) Mee oneens, (3) Enigszins mee oneens, (4) Neutraal, (5) Enigszins mee
eens, (6) Mee eens, (7) Sterk mee eens.
Jans-Beken et al: Measuring Gratitude: Validation Dutch GQ6 and SGRAT24
determine the number of factors to retain
in Exploratory Factor Analysis (Horn, 1965).
The simulation was executed with 1000 par-
allel datasets based on permutations of the
original raw data set, with the criterion set
at the 95
th
percentile. The eigenvalue of the
raw data needed to exceed the eigenvalue
of the 95
th
percentile to be defined as a fac-
tor (O’Connor, 2000). Exploratory Factor
Analyses (EFA) using maximum-likelihood
were applied on the items of the GQ6-NL and
SGRAT-NL at baseline (T0). To assess the sam-
pling adequacy, a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)
measure was conducted. A KMO is consid-
ered good when the outcome is between
0.7 - 0.8, and excellent when between 0.8
- 0.9 (Hutcheson, & Sofroniou, 1999). Anti-
image correlations of > 0.5 were regarded
acceptable (Field, 2013). Factor loadings
were examined, and rotation of factors with
direct oblimin was applied when more than
one factor was found. Confirmatory factor
analyses (CFA) using maximum-likelihood
estimation were applied on respectively the
items of the GQ6-NL and SGRAT-NL to con-
firm the factor structures of the question-
naires at six weeks follow-up (T1). To assess
goodness of fit, the chi-square (χ
2
), compara-
tive fit index (CFI) and standardized root-
mean-square residual (SRMR) statistics were
examined. CFI values above 0.95 and SRMR
values below 0.05 are typically considered to
indicate that a model is adequately param-
eterized although values as high as 0.90 and
as low as 0.10 are acceptable (Hu & Bentler,
1999). Internal consistency was determined
by McDonald’s omega (ω
h
), accounting for
the proportion of variance a potential latent
variable explains on a general factor (Zinbarg,
Revelle, Yovel, & Li, 2005). McDonald’s
omega values between 0.70 and 0.80 were
considered acceptable, and between 0.80
and 0.90 as good (Terwee et al., 2007). The
test-retest reliability was evaluated using the
intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with
a two-way random effects model with abso-
lute agreement (Shrout & Fleiss, 1979). An
ICC over 0.70 can be considered good in a
sample with at least 50 cases (Terwee et al.,
2007). Regression analyses were performed
to test for convergent and divergent valid-
ity. For convergent validity, (1) total scores of
gratitude scales, and (2) SGRAT-NL subscales
were used as predictors of the SWLS and PA
scores. To assess divergent validity, regression
analyses were conducted for the NA scale
using (1) gratitude scales’ total scores, and (2)
SGRAT-NL subscales as predictors. Regarding
the subscales, we controlled for the variance
inflation factor (VIF < 10) , and a tolerance
of more than 0.1 to preclude multicollinear-
ity (Fields, 2013). For convergent validity it
was expected that the beta for the associa-
tions between gratitude (sub)scores measure
with the GQ6 and SGRAT-NL and SWLS and
PA would be positive and between 0.40 and
0.59 (Evans, 1996); for divergent validity
a negative or no association was expected
between gratitude (sub)scores measured
with the GQ6 and SGRAT-NL and NA. To test
for concurrent validity between gratitude
scales, Pearson’s correlation coefficient was
calculated at T0 and T1. It was expected that
the Pearson’s r would be positive and 0.70 or
greater (Terwee et al., 2007). All results were
interpreted against a significance threshold
of 5%, and 95% confidence intervals were
calculated. Analyses were conducted using
SPSS 20.0 except for the CFA and McDonalds
omega, which were conducted using Lavaan
0.5–16 (Rosseel, 2012) in R 3.0.3.
Results
GQ6-NL
Parallel analysis showed one factor for the
GQ6-NL (Table 4). The KMO of 0.74 verified
the sampling adequacy for the EFA at T0.
Anti-image correlation values for individual
items were all ≥ 0.70, which is well above
the acceptable limit of 0.50. All but item six
loaded satisfactory on the single factor (Table
5). Rotation was not conducted because
of the one-factor scale of the GQ6-NL. Our
CFA confirmed the one-factor structure of
the GQ6-NL at T1 with a good fit with the
sample, χ
2
(9, N = 444) = 65.752, p < 0.001,
Jans-Beken et al: Measuring Gratitude: Validation Dutch GQ6 and SGRAT 25
CFI = 0.92, SRMR = 0.06. Internal consist-
ency was acceptable, ω
h
= 0.75. Item six was
retained in the factor because at least three
items within the factor showed high loadings
(Pasta & Suhr, 2004), all items had a good
anti-image correlation, internal consistency
of the factor did not improve with at least
0.05 when item 6 was removed (ω
h
= 0.77),
and CFA confirmed the one-factor structure.
The test-retest reliability for the GQ6-NL was
good (Table 6). Results of the regression
analysis showed that the total score of the
GQ6-NL was moderately positively associated
with life satisfaction and positive affect, and
moderately to weakly negatively associated
with negative affect (Table 7).
SGRAT-NL
Parallel analysis showed three factors for
the SGRAT-NL (Table 4). The KMO of 0.84
verified the sampling adequacy for the EFA
at T0. Anti-image correlation values for
individual items were ≥ 0.77, which is well
above the acceptable limit of 0.50. The
rotated component matrix showed that all
items of a specific subscale loaded on the
same factor (Table 8) corresponding with
the subscales of the original SGRAT. CFA on
T1 confirmed the three-factor structure of
the SGRAT-NL with acceptable fit, χ
2
(101,
Measures and factors Raw data 95
th
percentile Proportion variance
explained (%)
GQ6-NL
− Factor 1
− Factor 2
2.668317
1.037477
1.176871
1.176871
35.68
SGRAT-NL
− Factor 1
− Factor 2
− Factor 3
− Factor 4
4.350429
2.853171
1.861935
0.978189
1.315935
1.246335
1.199335
1.157936
23.74
14.93
8.43
Table 4: Parallel analyses from the items of the GQ6-NL and SGRAT-NL (N = 706).
Note. Parallel analyses with Monte Carlo simulations determines the number of factors to
retain in Exploratory Factor Analysis (Ledesma & Valero-Mora, 2007). The simulation was
executed with 1000 parallel datasets based on permutations of the original raw data set,
with the criterion set at the 95
th
percentile. The eigenvalue of the raw data needs to exceed
the eigenvalue of the 95
th
percentile to be defined as a factor (O’Connor, 2000).
Table 5: Factor matrix with loadings of GQ6-
NL items (N = 706).
Note. Extraction Method: Maximum Likeli-
hood.
Item Factor 1
Item 2 0.889
Item 1 0.795
Item 4 0.488
Item 5 0.436
Item 3 0.412
Item 6 0.347
Measures ICC(2,2) CI
GQ6-NL 0.85
**
0.82 – 0.88
SGRAT-NL 0.91
**
0.89 – 0.92
LOSD 0.89
**
0.87 – 0.91
SA 0.89
**
0.87 – 0.91
AO 0.89
**
0.86 – 0.91
Table 6: Test-retest reliability after a six week
interval of the GQ6-NL and SGRAT-NL.
Note.
**
p < 0.001, ICC = intraclass correla-
tion coefficient, CI = confidence interval,
LOSD = Lack of a sense of deprivation, SA
= Simple appreciation, AO = Appreciation
of others.
Jans-Beken et al: Measuring Gratitude: Validation Dutch GQ6 and SGRAT26
Table 7: Multiple regression coefficients of the independent variables GQ6-NL, SGRAT-NL, and subscales, and the dependent variables SWLS, PA-
scale, and NA-scale.
Note. N = 706,
*
p < 0.05,
**
p < 0.001. CI = 95% confidence Interval, R
2
= percentage variance explained. SWLS = Satisfaction With Life Scale;
SGRAT-NL = Short Gratitude, Resentment, and Appreciation Test; PA = positive affect scale; NA = negative affect scale; LOSD = lack of a sense of
deprivation; SA = simple appreciation; AO = appreciation of others.
SWLS PA NA
B-coefcient
(Standard
Error)
CI Beta R
2
B-coefcient
(Standard Error)
CI Beta R
2
B-coefcient
(Standard
Error)
CI Beta R
2
Model 1
GQ6-NL 0.542 (0.042) 0.459
- 0.625
0.44**
0.19**
0.651 (0.045) 0.562
- 0.741
0.48**
0.23**
-0.400 (0.055) -0.507 -
-0.293
-0.27**
0.07**
Model 2
SGRAT-NL 0.212 (0.013) 0.186
- 0.238
0.51**
0.26**
0.171 (0.016) 0.141
- 0.203
0.38**
0.14**
-0.143 (0.018) -0.178 -
-0.107
-0.29**
0.08**
Model 3
SGRAT-NL
subscales
0.31** 0.15** 0.14**
LOSD 0.316 (0.021) 0.275
- 0.358
0.48** 0.141 (0.026) 0.090
- 0.192
0.20** -0.257 (0.028) -0.313 -
-0.201
-0.33**
SA 0.169 (0.034) 0.103
- 0.235
0.17** 0.247 (0.041) 0.166
- 0.328
0.22** -0.177 (0.045) -0.266 -
-0.088
-0.15**
AO 0.054 (0.034) -0.013
- 0.120
0.05 0.149 (0.041) 0.068
- 0.230
0.13** 0.122 (0.046) 0.033
- 0.212
0.10 *
Jans-Beken et al: Measuring Gratitude: Validation Dutch GQ6 and SGRAT 27
N = 444) = 481.800, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.88,
SRMR = 0.07. The internal consistency of the
subscales of the SGRAT-NL was good (LOSD
ω
h
= 0.86, SA ω
h
= 0.79, AO ω
h
= 0.82). The
total SGRAT-NL also showed good internal
consistency, ω
h
= 0.88. Test-retest reliability
showed good results for the total score and
for all subscales (Table 6). VIF and tolerance
scores indicated no concern about multicol-
linearity. The total score of the SGRAT-NL was
moderately positively associated with life
satisfaction and positive affect, and moder-
ately to weakly negatively associated with
negative affect. When controlled for the
separate contribution of all other SGRAT-NL
subscale measures, scores on the LOSD sub-
scale explained the largest proportion of
variance in the models of life satisfaction
and negative affect. In the model of positive
affect, no differences were found regarding
the proportion of variance explained by each
of the SGRAT-NL subscale scores. (Table 7).
Pearson’s correlation coefficients regarding
the relationship between both gratitude
questionnaires were r = 0.72 (p < .001) at T0
and r = 0.73 (p < .001) at T1.
Discussion
In this study, we examined the Dutch GQ6
and SGRAT regarding their factorial struc-
ture, the internal consistency and test-retest
reliability of the (sub)scales, and the asso-
ciation of the (sub)scales with measures of
well-being in a Dutch speaking adult sample.
Parallel analyses, exploratory factor analyses,
and confirmatory factor analyses found and
confirmed the one-factor structure of the
GQ6-NL as well as the three-factor structure
of the SGRAT-NL. Internal consistency and
test-retest reliability of both questionnaires
and their subscales were good. In addition,
our results showed that individuals with a
stronger grateful disposition reported higher
life satisfaction, higher positive affect, and
less negative affect. The results showed that
the total scores of the GQ6-NL and SGRAT-NL
were significantly and positively associated
with both life satisfaction and positive affect,
indicating good convergent validity for both
questionnaires. With regard to divergent
validity, scores on both questionnaires were
negatively associated with negative affect.
We found a strong correlation between both
scales indicating that the scales measure the
same construct. However, the correlations
were not perfect, possibly due to different
conceptualizations of gratitude underpin-
ning both scales.
Associations between the three subscales
of the SGRAT-NL and measures of well-being
were not assessed previously to the best of
our knowledge. In our research, the sub-
scale lack of a sense of deprivation showed
a positive association with life satisfaction,
a positive association with positive affect,
and a negative association with negative
affect, when controlled for the separate
contribution of all other SGRAT-NL subscale
measures. The association between lack of a
sense of deprivation and life satisfaction cor-
responds with previous research on relative
Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
Item 15 0.797
Item 6 0.773
Item 10 0.735
Item 3 0.701
Item 11 0.678
Item 2 0.512
Item 8 0.790
Item 1 0.722
Item 14 0.711
Item 5 0.659
Item 13 0.723
Item 9 0.710
Item 4 0.613
Item 16 0.593
Item 7 0.557
Item 12 0.506
Table 8: Pattern Matrix with loadings of
SGRAT-NL items (N = 706).
Note. Extraction Method: Maximum Likeli-
hood. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kai-
ser Normalization.
Jans-Beken et al: Measuring Gratitude: Validation Dutch GQ6 and SGRAT28
deprivation. Relative deprivation has been
described as ‘the judgment that one is worse
off compared to some standard and is accom-
panied by feelings of anger or resentment’
(Smith, Pettigrew, Pippin, & Bialosiewicz,
2012). This judgment may lead individuals
to believe that they do not get what they
deserve (Smith et al., 2012), and can result in
increased negative affect, decreased positive
affect and a decrease in feeling gratitude in
life. The positive association of the subscale
simple appreciation with life satisfaction and
positive affect, and its negative association
with negative affect supports these claims
by suggesting that appreciation of the little
things in life may increase positive feelings
and life satisfaction, and reduces negative
feelings. Interpretation of causality regarding
these relationships is, however, hampered by
the research design of the current study. The
subscale appreciation of others showed no
significant positive association with life sat-
isfaction, a positive association with positive
affect, and a positive association with nega-
tive affect. Wood, Maltby, Gillett, Linley, and
Joseph (2008) stated that dispositional grati-
tude may lead to more conscious awareness
about perceived social support. Because of
this conscious awareness, it can be expected
that appreciation of others would be posi-
tively associated to life satisfaction (a more
evaluative state), than to positive and nega-
tive affect (emotional states). This positive
association between perceived social sup-
port and life satisfaction has been found
in previous research (Siedlecki, Salthouse,
Oishi, & Jeswani, 2014). However, we found
that appreciation of others is not related to
life satisfaction, but seems to be associated
with the experience of positive and negative
emotions. The positive association with neg-
ative affect supports previous research that
has shown gratitude to be not only related
to positive affect, but also to negative affec-
tive experiences such as guilt and shame
(McCullough, Emmons, Kilpatrick, & Larson,
2001), and indebtedness (Algoe, Gable, &
Maisel, 2010; Watkins, Scheer, Ovnicek, &
Kolts, 2006). Overall, our findings support
that social components of gratitude are asso-
ciated with both positive and negative affec-
tive experience.
There are some limitations of the current
study that should be noted. First, the par-
ticipants in this study were not randomly
selected which may have led to a selective
sample of adults. Furthermore, although the
sample was demographically heterogene-
ous, participants who completed both meas-
urements were higher educated, older, and
showed less negative affect than those who
dropped out after the baseline measure-
ment. Although this may have introduced
bias in the data, test-retest reliability was
very good. Another limitation is that there
is no direct comparison between the origi-
nal and translated questionnaires within the
same sample. However, to ensure an optimal
translation of both questionnaires, the origi-
nal versions were translated by bilingual
translators to assure equivalence of mean-
ing between both the translated and origi-
nal versions.
Comparison of the outcomes of the
SGRAT-NL with the outcomes of the GQ6-NL
regarding reliability and validity in this
study shows that there is great resemblance
between both scales. The outcomes indicate
that both scales are of sufficient psycho-
metric quality to be used for assessment of
the grateful disposition in individuals and
groups (Kruyen, Emons, & Sijtsma, 2012).
The choice between one scale or the other is
therefore based on the amount of items, and
on the different conceptualizations of both
scales. The SGRAT-NL is based on three char-
acteristics of individuals: lack of a sense of
deprivation, simple appreciation, and appre-
ciation of others; the GQ6-NL is based on
four descriptive facets: intensity, frequency,
span, and density.
As this is the first research using the sub-
scales of the SGRAT-NL, future research is
needed. Especially the subscales simple
appreciation and appreciation of others
should be scrutinized further. Simple appre-
ciation seems to be associated with more
positive affect and life satisfaction, and less
Jans-Beken et al: Measuring Gratitude: Validation Dutch GQ6 and SGRAT 29
negative affect; the results regarding appreci-
ation of others were partly inconsistent with
findings from previous research.
Conclusion
The outcomes of our study replicated and
extended previous studies (Froh et al., 2011;
McCullough et al., 2002; Thomas & Watkins,
2003; Watkins et al., 2003), showing that the
GQ6-NL and SGRAT-NL can be used to assess
the grateful disposition in a Dutch speak-
ing sample. The subscales of the SGRAT-NL
showed good internal consistency and test-
retest reliability and may be used for future
research in order to further disentangle the
relationship between a lack of a sense of
deprivation, simple appreciation and the
appreciation of others in the context of the
grateful disposition.
References
Algoe, S. B., Gable, S. L., & Maisel, N. C.
(2010). It’s the little things: Everyday
gratitude as a booster shot for roman-
tic relationships. Personal Relationships,
17(2), 217–233. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01273.x
Arrindell, W. (1991). The satisfaction with
life scale (SWLS): Psychometric properties
in a non-psychiatric medical outpatients
sample. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 12(2), 117–117.
Chen, L. H., Chen, M. Y., Kee, Y. H., & Tsai,
Y. M. (2009). Validation of the Gratitude
Questionnaire (GQ-6) in Taiwanese Under-
graduate Students. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 10(6), 655–664. DOI: http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-008-9112-7
Cohen, S., Tyrrell, D. A. J., & Smith, A. P.
(1993). Negative Life Events, Perceived
Stress, Negative Affect, and Susceptibility
to the Common Cold. Journal of Person-
ality & Social Psychology, 64(1), 131–140.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., &
Grifn, S. (1985). The satisfaction with
life scale. Journal of Personality Assess-
ment, 49(1), 71–75.
Diessner, R., & Lewis, G. (2007). Further
Validation of the Gratitude, Resentment,
and Appreciation Test (GRAT). Journal of
Social Psychology, 147(4), 445–447.
EF - EPI. (2014). Education First - English
Proficiency Index Fourth Edition. from
http://www.ef.nl/
Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E.
(2003). Counting Blessings Versus Bur-
dens: An Experimental Investigation of
Gratitude and Subjective Well-Being in
Daily Life. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 84(2), 377–389. DOI: http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.2.377
Evans, J. D. (1996). Straightforward Statistics
for the Behavioral Sciences: Brooks/Cole
Publishing Company, California.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering Statistics using
SPSS (pp. 627–671). London: SAGE
Publications.
Froh, J., Fan, J., Emmons, R. A., Bono, G.,
Huebner, E. S., & Watkins, P. (2011).
Measuring Gratitude in Youth: Assess-
ing the Psychometric Properties of Adult
Gratitude Scales in Children and Adoles-
cents. Psychological Assessment, 23(2),
311–324.
Graham, J. E., Christian, L. M., & Kiecolt-
Glaser, J. K. (2006). Stress, Age, and
Immune Function: Toward a Lifespan
Approach. Journal of Behavioral Medi-
cine, 29(4), 389–400. DOI: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s10865-006-9057-4
Harzing, A. W. (2005). Does the use of
English-language questionnaires in cross-
national research obscure national dif-
ferences? International Journal of Cross
Cultural Management, 5(2), 213–224.
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for
the number of factors in factor analysis.
Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff crite-
ria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new
alternatives. Structural Equation Mod-
eling, 6(1), 1–55. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/10705519909540118
Hutcheson, G. D., & Sofroniou, N. (1999).
The multivariate social scientist. intro-
ductory statistics using generalized linear
models. Sage Publications.
Jans-Beken et al: Measuring Gratitude: Validation Dutch GQ6 and SGRAT30
Keysar, B., Hayakawa, S. L., & An, S. G.
(2012). The foreign-language effect think-
ing in a foreign tongue reduces deci-
sion biases. Psychological science, 23(6),
661–668.
Krantz, D. S., Contrada, R. J., Hill, D. R., &
Friedler, E. (1988). Environmental stress
and biobehavioral antecedents of coro-
nary heart disease. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 56(3), 333–341.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
006X.56.3.333
Kruyen, P. M., Emons, W. H. M., & Sijtsma,
K. (2012). Test Length and Decision Qual-
ity in Personnel Selection: When Is Short
Too Short? International Journal of Test-
ing, 12(4), 321–344. DOI: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/15305058.2011.643517
Ledesma, R. D., & Valero-Mora, P. (2007).
Determining the number of factors to
retain in EFA: an easy to use computer
program for carrying out parallel analy-
sis. Practical Assessment, Research & Eval-
uation, 12(2), 1–11.
McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., Kil-
patrick, S. D., & Larson, D. B. (2001). Is
Gratitude a Moral Affect? Psychological
Bulletin, 127(2), 249.
McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., &
Tsang, J. A. (2002). The Grateful Disposi-
tion: A Conceptual and Empirical Topog-
raphy. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 82(1), 112–127. DOI: http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.1.112
Myers, D. G., & Diener, E. (1995). Who is
happy? Psychological science, 6(1), 10–19.
O’Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS pro-
grams for determining the number of
components using parallel analysis and
Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research
Methods, Instrumentation, and Comput-
ers, 32, 396–402.
Pasta, D. J., & Suhr, D. (2004). Creating
Scales from Questionnaires: PROC VAR-
CLUS vs. Factor Analysis. Paper presented
at the Annual SAS Users Group Interna-
tional Conference, Québec.
Peeters, F. P. M. L., Ponds, R. H. W. M., &
Vermeeren, M. T. G. (1996). Affectiviteit
en zelfbeoordeling van depressie en
angst. Tijdschrift voor Psychiatrie, 38(3),
240–250.
Rosseel, Y. (2012). {lavaan}: An {R} Package
for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal
of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36.
Shapiro, D., & Goldstein, I. B. (1982).
Biobehavioral perspectives on hyperten-
sion. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 50(6), 841–858. DOI: http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.50.6.841
Shin, D. C., & Johnson, D. M. (1978). Avowed
happiness as an overall assessment of the
quality of life. Social Indicators Research,
5(1–4), 475–492.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass
correlations: Uses in assessing rater reli-
ability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–
428. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0033-2909.86.2.420
Siedlecki, K., Salthouse, T., Oishi, S., &
Jeswani, S. (2014). The Relationship
Between Social Support and Subjective
Well-Being Across Age. Social Indicators
Research, 117(2), 561–576. DOI: http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0361-4
Smith, H. J., Pettigrew, T. F., Pippin, G. M.,
& Bialosiewicz, S. (2012). Relative Dep-
rivation A Theoretical and Meta-Analytic
Review. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 16(3), 203–232.
Suinn, R. M. (2001). The Terrible Twos: Anger
and Anxiety. American Psychologist, 56(1),
27.
Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D. M., de Boer, M.
R., van der Windt, D. A. W. M., Knol,
D. L., Dekker, J., … de Vet, H. C. W.
(2007). Quality criteria were proposed for
measurement properties of health status
questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epide-
miology, 60(1), 34–42.
Thomas, M., & Watkins, P. (2003). Meas-
uring the grateful trait: development of
revised GRAT. Poster session at the Annual
Convention of the Western Psychological
Association, Vancouver, Britisch Colum-
bia, Canada.
Van Beuningen, J. (2012). The Satisfaction
With Life Scale Examining Construct
Jans-Beken et al: Measuring Gratitude: Validation Dutch GQ6 and SGRAT 31
Validity. Den Haag/Heerlen: Statistics
Netherlands.
Watkins, P., Scheer, J., Ovnicek, M., &
Kolts, R. (2006). The debt of gratitude:
Dissociating gratitude and indebtedness.
Cognition & Emotion, 20(2), 217–241. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699930
500172291
Watkins, P., Woodward, K., Stone, T., &
Kolts, R. (2003). Gratitude and happi-
ness: Development of a measure of grati-
tude and relationships with subjective
well-being. Social Behavior and Personal-
ity, 31(5), 431–451.
Wood, A. M., Froh, J. J., & Geraghty, A.
W. A. (2010). Gratitude and well-being:
A review and theoretical integration.
Clinical Psychology Review, 30(7), 890–
905. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
cpr.2010.03.005
Wood, A. M., Maltby, J., Gillett, R., Linley,
P. A., & Joseph, S. (2008). The role of
gratitude in the development of social
support, stress, and depression: Two
longitudinal studies. Journal of Research
in Personality, 42(4), 854–871. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.
11.003
Zinbarg, R. E., Revelle, W., Yovel, I., & Li,
W. (2005). Cronbach’s [Alpha], Revelle’s
[Beta], and McDonald’s [Omega][sub H]:
Their Relations with Each Other and Two
Alternative Conceptualizations of Reli-
ability. Psychometrika, 70(1), 123–133.
How to cite this article: Jans-Beken, L., Lataster, J., Leontjevas, R. and Jacobs, N. (2015). Measuring
Gratitude: A Comparative Validation of the Dutch Gratitude Questionnaire (GQ6) and Short
Gratitude, Resentment, and Appreciation Test (SGRAT).
Psychologica Belgica,
55(1), 19-31, DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/pb.bd
Published: 15 May 2015
Copyright: © 2015 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY 3.0), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/.
Psychologica Belgica
is a peer-reviewed open access journal
published by Ubiquity Press
OPEN ACCESS
