Scholarlink

<p>The present study evaluated 18 gratitude scales on three significant aspects, i.e., theoretical framework, conceptual framework, and scale development and validation. These three aspects were evaluated using 11 criteria, including scale domain (conceptualisation and dimensionality), item generation, sample design, reliability and validity, and religious and cultural connotations of the scale. The study also listed eight significant limitations of the 18 gratitude scales. These limitations included a lack of agreement in conceptual propositions and dimensionality, inadequate linkage of gratitude definitions with dimensions, inadequate linkage of scale with the conceptual framework of gratitude, sparse adaptation in the work context, gratitude in religious interpretation, dominance of self-reported scales, inadequate content validity assessment, and inaptness in the method of scale composition. Further, future directions were discussed in light of the highlighted limitations of the scales.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Gratitude scales: review and future directions

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年5月13日

查看全文
  • Stuti Jalan,
  • Nidhi Sharma,
  • Naval Garg,
  • B. K. Punia

摘要

The present study evaluated 18 gratitude scales on three significant aspects, i.e., theoretical framework, conceptual framework, and scale development and validation. These three aspects were evaluated using 11 criteria, including scale domain (conceptualisation and dimensionality), item generation, sample design, reliability and validity, and religious and cultural connotations of the scale. The study also listed eight significant limitations of the 18 gratitude scales. These limitations included a lack of agreement in conceptual propositions and dimensionality, inadequate linkage of gratitude definitions with dimensions, inadequate linkage of scale with the conceptual framework of gratitude, sparse adaptation in the work context, gratitude in religious interpretation, dominance of self-reported scales, inadequate content validity assessment, and inaptness in the method of scale composition. Further, future directions were discussed in light of the highlighted limitations of the scales.