The psychometric properties of the 5‐item gratitude questionnaire in Chinese adolescents

Abstract

Background This study was conducted to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the 5-item Gratitude Questionnaire (GQ-5). Method The sample consisted of 2093 middle school students (46.8% males) in mainland China. Confirmatory factor analysis and multigroup confirmatory factor analysis were performed to examine the factor structure and the measurement equivalence across gender. The convergent validity, Cronbach's α and mean interitem correlations of the GQ-5 were also evaluated. Results The results provided evidence of internal consistency reliability through a Cronbach's α of 0.812 and a mean interitem correlation of 0.463 for the total sample. The results also supported a one-dimensional factor structure. In addition, convergent validity was assessed by statistically significant positive correlations between the GQ-5 and the two subscales of the Children's Hope Scale (CHS) and the Brief Multidimensional Students' Life Satisfaction Scale (BMSLSS) total score. Finally, multigroup confirmatory factor analysis also demonstrated measurement equivalence across gender. Subsequent analyses of latent mean revealed gender differences in early adolescent male and female students. Conclusions The Chinese version of the GQ-5 appears to be a reliable and valid measure of gratitude among Chinese early adolescents. Early adolescent female students reported higher gratitude than early adolescent male students.

Factor Structure of the Gratitude Questionnaire in a Spanish Sample

“…The results of the current study indicated that the one-factor with five items model of the GQ possessed a more satisfactory factor validity than the six-item model. The five-item solution was consistent with other GQ validations with university students from different countries (Chen et al, 2009; Langer et al, 2016; Yüksel & Oğuz, 2012; Zeng et al, 2017). In addition, a previous study conducted in Spain comparing the two models of the GQ by means of CFA showed that the 5-item approach was the most parsimonious (Bernabé-Valero et al, 2013).…”

“…Fourthly, the reliability of the GQ was appropriate given Cronbach’s alphas and CR found. In addition, the five-item GQ presented a similar reliability to those reported in other validation studies, with Cronbach’s alphas between .70 and .80 (Chen et al, 2009; Langer et al, 2016; Yüksel, & Oğuz, 2012; Zeng et al, 2017).…”

“…In the Chilean adaptation of the GQ a five-item version for the younger population and a six-item for older participants were found (Langer, Ulloa, Aguilar-Parra, Araya-Véliz, & Brito, 2016). Furthermore, in the Taiwan (Chen, Chen, Kee, & Tsai, 2009), Turkey (Yüksel & Oğuz, 2012), and China (Zeng, Ling, Huebner, He, & Lei, 2017) versions of the GQ a five-item model was found to have a better fit compared to the original six-item model. However, validations conducted in Poland (Kossakowska, & Kwiatek, 2014), Hungary (Martos, Garay, & Désfalvi, 2014), Japan (Hatori, & Kodama, 2014), Belgium (Jans-Beken, Lataster, Leontjevas, & Jacobs, 2015), and Italy (Caputo, 2016) supported a six-item version of the GQ.…”

The Effects of Forgiveness, Gratitude, and Self-Control on Reactive and Proactive Aggression in Bullying

“…However, studies exploring the differences in reactive aggression are also inconclusive, with some research reporting that male reactive aggression was higher than female [ 81 , 82 ], while no gender differences were observed in others [ 18 , 83 , 84 ]. Moreover, studies suggest that females seek less revenge [ 34 , 85 , 86 ] and are more grateful than males [ 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 ]. The literature has also found differences by age.…”

Validation of the Gratitude Questionnaire in Filipino Secondary School Students

“…Limited research was also conducted that assessed the linkage of gratitude to academic outcomes especially in non-Western and collectivist settings (i.e., Philippines). Previous studies primarily focused on GQ-6’s factor structure and its association with well-being outcomes (i.e., mainland Chinese, Taiwanese, and Filipino samples; Chen, Chen, Kee, & Tsai, 2009; Chen & Kee, 2008; Datu, 2014; Datu & Mateo, 2015; Zeng, Ling, Huebner, He, & Lei, 2017).…”