Abstract
In recent years, grit has drawn increasing attention from both researchers and practitioners. Despite the utility and popularity, controversies revolve around the structure and measurement of grit. To address this, the present paper gives an account of development and psychometric validation of multidimensional grit scale (MGS) – a new tool to comprehensively measure grit. The MGS has five factors namely perseverance, passion, purpose, patience, and psychological flexibility (i.e. 5 Ps). Following the item generation process, a series of six studies by taking higher education students as participants were carried out to develop the MGS; study 1 (content validity, n = 6 experts), study 2 (pilot study, n = 60), study 3 (exploratory factor analysis (EFA), n = 236), study 4 (confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), n = 285), study 5 (reliability assessment, n = 102), and study 6 (validity testing, n = 248). The EFA and CFA results revealed a five-factor correlational model positioning grit as a latent two-level hierarchical construct comprising of five first-order factors. The reliability analysis showed that the 15-item MGS possessed good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.85) and test-retest reliability (stability r = 0.91, p < 0.001). The MGS and its dimensions had a moderate positive correlation with triarchic grit and self-efficacy scores indicating criterion-related and convergent validities, respectively. External locus of control was found to have a moderate negative association with the MGS garnering evidence for discriminant validity of the newly developed tool.
Keywords
Introduction
The emergence of the positive psychology movement, rooted in the humanistic approach, brought a paradigm shift in the disciplinary focus on the core strengths of human behavior and experiences. This new branch of psychology has made it possible to study the ordinary potential of individuals and develop interventions to build on their positive experiences and behavioral outcomes. Instead of relying on correctional measures, the focus of positive psychology lies on augmenting positive aspects of human behavior. One such positive quality that has captured the attention of behavioral scientists and the common mass alike in the recent past is grit. Defined as perseverance and passion for long-term goals (Duckworth et al., 2007), grit is considered a positive psychological resource that helps individuals sail through setbacks, failures, and obstacles in their journey of pursuing goals spanning over the years or decades. While undoubtedly a number of attributes are required to achieve success in the long run, grit is considered as an individual characteristic that is essential to supreme accomplishment in every domain irrespective of the nature of the field. The authors write “we suggest that one personal quality is shared by the most prominent leaders in every field: grit.” (Duckworth et al., 2007). The gritty people can work relentlessly toward challenges while also keeping up their efforts and interest over a sustained duration in order to accomplish their goals even when they have to deal with setbacks, rejections, and halted progress in their path. In other words, when it seems to be impossible to go on, the grittier are the ones who don’t give up midway. Owing to its role in determining success measured in terms of objective accomplishments (e.g., grades obtained in the examinations or earning a degree), grit has been shown as an important factor to be considered while talking about the science of achievement.
Duckworth and colleagues (2007), through a number of cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, showed that the grit predicted success in terms of educational achievement, grade point average (GPA) of students, and retention of cadets at a military academy, over and beyond intelligence quotient (IQ). Various other studies have corroborated these research conclusions thus positioning grit as a strong predictor of success (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009; Kelly et al., 2014; Strayhorn, 2014). Moreover, grit has shown its predictive role in determining the well-being status of the individuals as well. Salles et al. (2014) found that grit measured at the first time point predicted psychological well-being six months later even after controlling for baseline psychological well-being. Grittier individuals possess higher levels of subjective well-being in terms of higher positive affectivity and greater life satisfaction, thus making it a case for experiencing more happiness (Jiang et al., 2020; Pradhan et al., 2025; Young et al., 2015).
Moreover, research suggests that the two facets of grit may, in fact, predict achievement and well-being outcomes differentially. A preponderance of studies reveals that while perseverance of efforts is related positively to academic performance, the same may not be true always in case of passion thus advocating the possibility of later being a separate measure altogether (Bowman et al., 2015; Christensen & Knezek, 2014; Muenks et al., 2017; Wolters & Hussain, 2015). Similarly, the existing literature shows that while perseverance does predict well-being; passion may not do so invariably (Datu et al., 2016; Disabato et al., 2019; Lan & Zhang, 2019; Zhang et al., 2018). However, it needs to be stressed that, as per grit theory propounded by Duckworth and colleagues (2007), the consistency of interest is an equally important and key facet of grit. Further, albeit, attempts have been made to distinguish grit from other similar constructs such as self-control (Duckworth & Gross, 2014), need for achievement (Duckworth et al., 2007), and conscientiousness (Abuhassàn & Bates, 2015; Schmidt et al., 2018); some researchers have questioned the uniqueness of the construct and have raised their objections regarding overlapping nature of grit (Ponnock et al., 2020).
Review of Existing Grit Measures
The oldest measure of grit is the one developed by Duckworth and colleagues (2007) i.e. Grit-O scale of 12 items measuring the construct under two sub-dimensions namely perseverance and passion. A refined version of the Grit-O came out in the form of Short Grit Scale (Grit-S; Duckworth & Quinn, 2009) a brief self-report scale having lesser number of items and better psychometric properties without predictive validity being affected. Since then few other measures have also been developed viz. Grit Scale for Children and Adults (GSCA; Sturman & Zappala-Piemme, 2017), Triarchic Model of Grit Scale (Datu et al., 2017), and three dimensional grit scale (Kuruveettissery et al., 2023) along with some of the scales focused on measuring domain-specific grit level as such Academic Grit Scale (Clark & Malecki, 2019) and Physical Education Grit Scale (PE-GRIT; Guelmami et al., 2022). A review of these measures is provided subsequently.
The shorter version of original grit scale (i.e. Grit-S) is the most widely used tool to measure grit. This scale consists of eight items equally distributed under perseverance and passion facets thus retaining the original two-factor structure of grit. The confirmatory factor analyses showed better model fit for Grit-S vis-à-vis Grit-O (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009). Further, Grit-S predicted educational attainment, grade point average (GPA) scores, and retention at military academies, garnering evidence in favor of predictive validity of the brief measure. Nonetheless, some of the recent work has indicated a relatively low reliability for Grit-S falling below the acceptable cut-off value of α = .70 (Datu et al., 2016; Oriol et al., 2017). Additionally, the dimensionality of the construct has been a bone of contention among the grit researchers. Areepattamannil and Khine (2018) suggested a uni-dimensional structure of grit vis-à-vis the likeliness of a two-factor structure instead of a second-order latent model of grit (Abuhassàn & Bates, 2015; Wolters & Hussain, 2015). While deciphering the linkage of grit within the broader personality and intelligence framework, Abuhassàn and Bates (2015) note that passion component fits to conscientiousness aspect of Big Five personality scaffolding, whereas perseverance facet i.e., “effortful persistence” appears to be a distinct mechanism which cannot be assumed to be a mere manifested effect of conscientiousness and neuroticism. This is contrary to some of the previous findings that suspect the overlapping nature of perseverance strand with conscientiousness (Christensen & Knezek, 2014; Credé et al., 2017; Ponnock et al., 2020). Furthermore, item reduction in Grit-S in comparison of Grit-O suffers the risk of attenuation paradox i.e. psychometric amelioration at the cost of loss in construct relevancy thereby mischaracterizing the original thesis of grit (Tynan, 2021).
The Grit Scale for Children and Adults (GSCA; Sturman & Zappala-Piemme, 2017) was developed to overcome the requirement of high reading level in the original Grit-O scale and to ensure age-appropriateness of the items. Furthermore, simultaneous pursuit of wide-ranging interests was seen as a norm but not exception for grit to occur (Sturman & Zappala-Piemme, 2017). While re-defining passion aspect, Sturman and Zappala-Piemme (2017) write, “it is fine to have wide ranging, changing interests and grit is reflected in the ability to maintain focus on any one of them and see projects through to completion.” However, the GSCA treats grit as a homogenous construct and thus focuses on only single facet of grit viz. perseverance as reflected in the conceptual definition of grit put forward by the authors of the scale, “…to sustain a focused effort to achieve success in a task, regardless of the challenges that present themselves, and the ability to overcome setbacks” (Sturman & Zappala-Piemme, 2017). The reasons cited by Sturman and Zappala-Piemme (2017) for excluding passion dimension from conceptualization of grit and focusing solely on perseverance aspect as a marker of grit were (a) lack of incremental validity of overall grit score (comprising of both dimensions) over conscientiousness (Credé et al., 2017), and (b) ability of perseverance facet alone to yield incremental validity, over and above conscientiousness (Rimfeld et al., 2016; Sturman & Zappala-Piemme, 2017). Thus, the sub-factor of consistency of interest gets little to no importance here in contrast to the equal status credited to passion facet in the original grit definition.
The triarchic model of grit scale (Datu et al., 2017) advocates for the possibility of an additional element of grit namely “adaptability to situations” being present especially in collectivist cultures. The scale was found to have satisfactory psychometric characteristics nonetheless perseverance and adaptability dimensions were not associated with the passion facet of grit (Datu et al., 2017) thereby bringing the inter-dimensional relationship under question. The three-dimensional grit scale (Kuruveettissery et al., 2023) comprises of three factors namely perseverance-commitment, interest-passion, and goal-directed resilience (GR). The scale developers showed that grit was mutually exclusive from conscientiousness, a Big Five personality facet (Kuruveettissery et al., 2023). The scale differs from the original grit scales in terms of inclusion of a third component of GR under the hierarchical grit construct. The authors write, “…GR entitles the non-cognitive resilient responses to maintain perseverance and interest despite various obstacles” (Kuruveettissery et al., 2023). Thus, the GR component is conceptualized as a protective factor for the remaining two dimensions (i.e. original grit dimensions) of grit.
The academic grit scale (Clark & Malecki, 2019) is a domain-specific grit scale to measure grit among adolescent students. The scale focuses on the students’ experience at school and the grit shown in the academic pursuit. Further, the scale conceptualizes grit as a uni-dimensional entity devoid of any sub-factors thus academic grit exists contrary to the original two factor grit structure propounded by Duckworth and colleagues (2007). The justification offered by Clark and Malecki (2019) for considering grit as a uni-dimensional entity can be found in the definition of academic grit put forth by the authors “an individual characteristic or skill encompassing determination, resilience, and focus in the pursuit of challenging long-term goals within the domain of education.” The authors admit that this definition does not align with the original Duckworth et al.’s (2007) conceptualization of two-factor grit seamlessly (Clark & Malecki, 2019). However, it is acknowledged by the developers of academic grit scale that the focus element or prioritization of academic goals over the other goals partially overlaps with consistency of interest facet of general grit (Clark & Malecki, 2019).
The Physical Education Grit Scale (PE-GRIT; Guelmami et al., 2022) measures grit in the specific context of physical education and sports considering the presence of physical component in the physical education process. Besides, the weather conditions and (non) availability of sports infrastructure and facilities do impact the process of imparting and inculcating physical education. Thus, the content of educational background and learning experience may differ in case of physical education students from their counterparts in the general academic disciplines. The PE-GRIT measures grit comprising of four factors namely physical interest, academic interest, physical practice effort, and academic effort highlighting the distinctiveness of academic interest from physical interest and of efforts in academic domain from physical efforts. Both academic grit scale and PE-GRIT focus on domain-specificity of grit thus their utility remains limited to academic and physical education domains only.
The issue of domain-specificity of grit is an under-explored area in the literature. While grit is associated with a number of desirable outcomes across the life spheres, the question whether grit itself is domain-specific in nature remains a matter of investigation (Schmidt et al., 2019). Duckworth and Quinn (2009) mention that “the tendency to pursue long-term goals with passion and perseverance is relatively domain general” (p. 173). Further, as a non-cognitive trait, grit operates as a personality construct that is relatively stable in nature (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009). Thus, the likelihood that any motivational or personality construct would operate in a way that some particular behaviors can be predicted adequately (i.e., domain-specificity) is low (Bandura, 1994; Wigfield, 1997). Schmidt et al. (2019) write “[it] is yet to be shown that grit can vary between different interests or goals in life” (p. 437). The present work approaches grit, in line with Duckworth and Quinn (2009), as a personality construct that is chiefly domain-generic in nature.
Taken together, the aforementioned evidence reveals the inconsistency found in the measurement of grit and the controversies revolving around its nature and structure. Particularly, the passion facet appears to be not so effective in collectivist setting as evident through various studies and the measuring instruments. However, the original grit theory of Duckworth et al. (2007) gives equal emphasis on both efforts and interest components. Thus, the question of factor structure of grit remains unanswered. The present study makes an attempt to answer this by developing and psychometrically validating a five-dimensional grit measure by undertaking six sequential studies. The first objective of the study is to see whether grit is a uni-dimensional, bi-directional, or a multi-dimensional construct? The second objective is to re-consider the significance of perseverance and passion aspects of grit in achieving durable goals. Thus, the extant work strives to re-visit the originally propounded two-factor structure of grit. The third objective the proposed work tries to achieve is to resolve the discrepancies found in the literature surrounding factorial composition of grit, by exploring the possibility of additional dimensions of grit that may exist. Fourth objective is to check whether grit operates as a superordinate latent hierarchical construct?
By attempting to achieve the aforementioned objectives, the newly developed measure makes several contributions to the extant body of knowledge on grit. First, it re-instates the significance of originally proposed grit dimensions of perseverance and passion which, in recent past, have come under critical scrutiny. Second, this measure differs from the existing tools of grit in the aspect that the item construction process followed a mix of both deductive (literature driven) and inductive (qualitative data driven) approaches. This has helped in generating scale items suitably anchored in theory and in the field. Third, the items of newly developed tool differ from the existing scales in the aspect of containing time-relevant content. This time-frame relevance signifies the association of grit with the perennial goals only. Fourth, the present work extends the conceptualization of grit being a multi-factor entity by meaningful incorporation of additional dimensions to it. Fifth, the current research endeavor, while answering to the call for fresh look at grit measurement and need for revisiting the construct (Credé et al., 2017; Tynan, 2021), offers a psychometrically validated tool consisting of over-inclusive items to measure grit in a comprehensive manner.
Theoretical Background
From a conceptual point of view, it can be seen that while the initial intellectual impetus propagated by Duckworth and colleagues (2007) considered grit comprising of two elements i.e., passion and perseverance; recent research hints at the possibility of grit being a much more comprehensive construct. In this line, as it has been mentioned earlier, we find at least some references of grit being a multidimensional construct. For instance, Datu et al. (2017) consider grit containing additional dimension of “adaptability to situations” besides passion and perseverance; Kuruveettissery et al. (2023) proposed a grit structure involving three-dimensions of commitment, interest, and goal-directed resilience; and Singh and Chukkali (2021) cogitate about four facets of grit, viz. “Adaptability to situation, perseverance of effort, spirited initiative and steadfastness in adverse situations”. This becomes our first theoretical vantage point to draw upon as a deductive approach.
Further to this, the present endeavor takes into account the optimal performance and health (OPAH) model of grit proposed by Datu (2021) as a theoretical basis which, in fact, originated from previous scholarship that stood on original two-factor grit theory (Duckworth et al., 2007). The OPAH model delineates the processes involved in gritty behavior and its upshot. Broadly, the model discusses about the role of behavioral efforts, adaptive motivation, cognitive resourcefulness, need satisfaction, emotional regulation, and positive cognition (Datu, 2021) as underpinning psychological basis for achievement behavior. The “behavioral effort” denotes the capacity to galvanize efforts for achievement of tasks or the actual effort investment made by the individual. “Adaptive motivation” refers to “one's drive or desire to achieve optimal levels of performance”, whereas “cognitive resourcefulness … covers any construct that necessitates usage of cognitive resources to successfully accomplish a wide range of tasks in various settings.” (Datu, 2021). Satisfaction of basic psychological needs viz. competence, autonomy, and relatedness (Ryan, 1995) foster intrinsic motivation and optimal functioning of the individual (Datu, 2021; Ryan & Deci, 2000). The OPAH model considers emotional regulation being operated through cognitive reappraisal which refers to modifying the way a specific event is interpreted in order to regulate the emotional response to the situation, whereas the “positive cognitions … encompasses one's capability to espouse positive thoughts about self, others, and environment” (Datu, 2021). Taken together, the model summarizes the actional, motivational, cognitive, and affective processes nurturing gritty behavioral outcomes.
The Present Study
The present paper has been organized as follows: initially, the item generation process has been described following by a series of studies for developing a new measure of grit i.e. multidimensional grit scale (MGS). Study 1 relates to establishing content validity of developed items. Study 2 is a pilot study aimed to check for the suitability of the items. Study 3 and 4 report the findings from exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis, respectively. Study 5 pertains to reliability assessment of the newly developed measure of grit whereas Study 6 mentions the findings of validity testing procedure. The paper ends with a general discussion of the findings from various studies carried out in the process of development of the MGS.
Development of Multidimensional Grit Scale
In order to develop a psychometrically validated multidimensional grit scale (MGS), following procedures were undertaken.
Item Generation
A preliminary qualitative study conducted by the authors on two samples namely higher education students and positive psychology experts revealed that grit, in a collectivist context like India, appeared to be a multifaceted construct with five facets namely perseverance, passion, patience, purpose, and psychological flexibility (Jandu & Pradhan, 2025a). Based on the findings of this qualitative inquiry (inductive approach) and a review of recent literature (deductive approach), the authors generated an initial pool of 60 items covering these five facets of grit. Out of these 60 items, 12 items were dropped by the authors owing to difficulty in reading, comprehension, and language suitability. The retained 48 items were sent to the positive psychology experts teaching at various Indian universities. After getting feedback from the experts, content validity index was computed as described in the following section.
Study 1: Content Validity
Based on the recommendations of Yusoff (2019), content validity index (CVI) of the multidimensional grit measure was calculated. Rubio et al. (2003) stressed that selection of experts from the related field is crucial in determining the suitability of the developed measure for psychometric testing. The literature acknowledges the differences in recommendations regarding the size of expert panel. It could vary from a minimum of three (Gable & Wolf, 2012; Lynn, 1986; Rubio et al., 2003) to ten experts (Grant & Davis, 1997). Keeping these suggestions in mind, the expert opinion of six positive psychology experts was considered in this study. On the basis of the experts’ suggestions and feedback on domain relevance, a set of 31 items was retained. The CVI for scale (S-CVI) based on the average method (S-CVI/Ave) and the universal agreement method (S-CVI/UA) were computed for the retained 31 items. The S-CVI/Ave was calculated considering an average of item-level CVI (I-CVI) and an average of proportion relevance. The S-CVI/Ave (based on I-CVI) and S-CVI/Ave (based on relevant proportion) were 0.98 and 0.98, respectively. The S-CVI/UA was 0.87 for the retained set of 31 items. In order to rule out the possibility that the agreement among the experts was just by chance, we calculated Kappa statistic coefficient. The Kappa statistic supplements CVI and ensures that the expert agreement is not an outcome of random chance (Shrotryia & Dhanda, 2019). A value above 0.74 is considered excellent for the Kappa statistic coefficient (Polit & Beck, 2006). In the present study, the Kappa statistic ranged from 0.81 to 1 for 31 items. Together, both CVI and Kappa values ensure that the retained set of 31 items has adequate content validity.
Study 2: Pilot Study
This study aimed to conduct a pilot study in the real-world setting on the retained 31 items from the Study 1. A sample of 60 higher education students (male = 32, female = 27, transgender = 1) took part in this study. The age range of the participants was 20-32 years with a mean age of 27.33 years. The sample consisted of 15 undergraduate, 18 post-graduate, 5 M.Phil., and 22 Ph.D. students. A number of parameters such as wordiness, use of jargon, clarity of the items, and the participants’ responses were considered to make a decision about dropping 10 items which seemed to lack clarity in presentation and comprehension. The remaining 21 items possessed an initial reliability of α = 0.92.
Study 3: Exploratory Factor Analysis
The aim of this study was to perform an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to analyze the factor structure of the multidimensional grit measure. The sample for the current study consisted of higher education students receiving tertiary education at various Indian educational institutes. There was a total of 236 participants (female = 82, male = 154) in the age range of 17 to 35 years studying in undergraduate (n = 105), post-graduate (n = 69), and PhD (n = 62) degree programs. The participants were asked to provide their response in the form of degree of agreement ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) on the 21-item self-reported questionnaire retained from Study 2. In order to check for the possibility of social desirability bias, a five-item measure namely Socially Desirable Response Set i.e., SDRS-5, (Hays et al., 1989), was also administered on the participants. The participants provided their voluntary consent to take part in the study.
Factor Loadings of the Items Under Their Respective Factors Retained After Exploratory Factor Analysis
Note. *Scoring is done in reverse direction for these negatively worded items.
Descriptive Statistics, Reliability, and Correlations Among Sub-scales (Study 3)
Note. **p < .01.
Study 4: Confirmatory Factor Analysis
In order to confirm the factor structure of grit obtained after the EFA, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was carried out using Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS) v.22. The CFA model fit was assessed with the help of common cut-off criteria of goodness-of-fit indices (Hair et al., 2010). Data were collected from a sample of 285 students receiving higher education at different educational institutions in India. There were 172 male and 113 female participants in the age range of 18–32 years (age mean = 22.68 years). The sample included 118 undergraduate, 70 post-graduate, 12 post-graduate diploma, 17 M.Phil., and 68 Ph.D. students. The participants provided their informed consent and did self-rating on retained 15 items of multidimensional grit measure by indicating their degree of agreement ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
The results revealed that the factor loadings of the items under their respective factors namely perseverance, passion, purpose, patience, and psychological flexibility ranged from 0.39 to 0.49, 0.40 to 0.75, 0.57 to 0.61, 0.42 to 0.63, and 0.43 to 0.74, respectively (Figure 1). Many researchers have opined the use of standardized factor loadings in evaluating CFA models (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Dunn et al., 1994). However, since the CFA generally involves larger sample size (i.e., 200 or more cases) for reliable results, even small factor loadings may be statistically significant (Cheung et al., 2024). Hinkin (1995) reviewed scale development procedures for 277 scales and noted that “… with .40 being the most commonly mentioned criterion, but items were retained with as little as a .30 loading on a specified factor.” (Hinkin, 1995). Further, Hinkin (2005), while citing Ford et al. (1986), mentions that “there are no hard and fast rules, but the .40 criterion level appears most commonly used in judging factor loadings as meaningful (Ford et al., 1986).” Therefore, in the present work we have followed the recommendations of Stevens (2002) and Hinkin (2005) who have suggested factor loadings of 0.4 and above to consider for interpretation purposes. Moreover, taking into account the importance of content reflected by the items in measuring the concerned factors, we decided to retain these 15 items for the newly developed scale. The goodness of fit indices including χ2/df = 1.428, p < .001, NFI = 0.93, IFI = .94, CFI = .94, TLI = .92, RMSEA = .04, LO90 = 0.021, HI90 = 0.054 showed that the five-factor correlational model of grit was acceptable. Confirmatory factor analysis of five correlated factor model of grit.
The correlation coefficients showed that the perseverance facet of grit had a moderate to strong relationship with other four factors (r = .43 to r = .67) while passion had a weak to moderate relationship with patience (r = .16), psychological flexibility (r = .34), and purpose (r = .49). The purpose factor showed a moderate relationship with patience (r = .41) and psychological flexibility (r = .56). There was a weak relationship between patience and psychological flexibility (r = .28) (see Figure 1). Furthermore, the possibility of grit as a second order factor with five first order factors in a two-level hierarchical model was tested (Figure 2). The fit indices of the hierarchical model were as follows: χ2/df = 1.38, p < .001, NFI = 0.92, IFI = .94, CFI = .94, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .04, LO90 = 0.02, HI90 = 0.05. It indicated that there was an acceptable model fit of grit as a latent hierarchical construct comprising of five first-order factors. Confirmatory analysis of grit as a second-order factor in a two-level hierarchical model.
Study 5: Reliability Assessment
This study aimed at establishing test-retest reliability of the multidimensional grit measure to check whether the measure in question remains temporally stable over time. There were 102 students (male = 68, female = 34) enrolled in a post-graduate degree program at a local university who participated in this study. The age of the participants ranged from 19 to 23 years with a mean age of 20.66 years (SD = 1.60). The multidimensional grit measure was administered twice on the sample participants with a time gap of one month between the two test administrations (time 1 and time 2). The participants indicated their degree of agreement with the items of the multidimensional grit measure on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The participants also provided their informed consent to voluntarily participate in the study. When the multidimensional grit measure was administered for the first time (time 1), a total of 196 students took part in the survey conducted at a classroom in the said university. However, when the participants were contacted again after one month for the second round of survey (time 2), only 102 students appeared in the survey and provided their responses on the multidimensional grit measure.
Test-Retest Reliability Assessment
Note. df = 101. Correlations are significant at p < .001.
Study 6: Validity Assessment: Criterion, Convergent, and Discriminant Validity
This study aimed at establishing criterion validity to see if the multidimensional grit would show positive association with the presently available other scale measuring grit. Further, the aim was to establish convergent and discriminant validity of the multidimensional grit construct by examining its association with the other related (i.e., self-efficacy) and unrelated constructs (i.e., external locus of control), respectively. Hereafter, the multidimensional grit measure with its five sub-scales (i.e. 5 Ps) is named as the Multidimensional Grit Scale (MGS) for the convenience purpose.
Participants
The participants in the current study were higher education students receiving tertiary education at a national university in India. A sample of 248 students was selected from the pool of students enrolled in various degree programs at graduation level. The participants provided their informed consent and voluntary agreement to take part in the study. Anonymity and confidentiality of data were ensured by the researchers. The sample included 150 male and 98 female students in the age range of 17 to 22 years (Mean = 18.33 years, SD = 1.67).
Instruments
The following measures of grit, self-efficacy, and external locus of control were administered in this study:
Multidimensional Grit Scale (MGS): This is the newly developed scale from the above-mentioned Study 3. It consists of 15 items distributed evenly under five dimensions with a five-point Likert-type scale response format with the endpoints 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. The internal consistency of the MGS in the present sample was sound with Cronbach’s α = 0.86.
Triarchic Model of Grit Scale (TMGS): This scale was developed by Datu and colleagues (2017) to measure grit with its three dimensions namely perseverance of effort, consistency of interests, and adaptability to situations (Datu et al., 2017). The scale consists of 10 items rated on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Not like me at all) to 5 (Very much like me). A sample item is “I am able to cope with the changing circumstances in life.” The Cronbach’s alpha value indicating internal consistency of this scale in the present sample was α = 0.82.
New General Self-Efficacy Scale (NGSES): This scale was developed by Chen et al. (2001). This is an eight-item uni-dimensional scale measuring general self-efficacy in terms of one’s belief in his/her ability to perform a wide variety of tasks. A sample item is “I believe I can succeed at most any endeavor to which I set my mind.” The participants provided their responses on the items in the format of a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The scale showed a good internal consistency in the present sample with Cronbach’s α = 0.84.
Brief Version of Levenson’s Locus of Control Scale (BVLLCS): Sapp and Harrod (1993) developed this scale as a brief version of Levenson’s (1974) locus of control scale. This scale consists of 9 items distributed equally under three dimensions namely internal, chance, and powerful others. However, for the purpose of present study, only six items (item number 4-9) representing external locus of control under the two dimensions viz. chance and powerful others have been used. The responses by the participants are provided on a seven-point Likert-type scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree. A sample item is, “When I get what I want, it’s usually because I’m lucky.” The internal consistency for external locus of control in the present sample was acceptable with Cronbach’s α = 0.77.
Common Method Bias
The use of self-reported measures in the present study risks the occurrence of common method bias (CMB). Following the recommendations by Podsakoff et al. (2012), the procedural remedies such as encouraging the participants to provide their honest and frank responses to the items and assurance of maintaining the confidentiality of their data were used to reduce the odds of CMB. Along with this, to employ “psychological separation of measurement” (Craighead et al., 2011), the respondents were apprised that various scales used in the study were distinct and un-associated to each other and therefore responses given by them are presumed to be free-standing across the scales. Another procedural precaution was taken by keeping the survey questions unambiguous and straightforward in nature (Podsakoff et al., 2012). Furthermore, the items of scales and the sequence of questionnaires used were randomized while administrating to reduce the chances of CMB arising due to single-source data.
To statistically address the issue of CMB, Harman’s single factor test was employed (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The EFA was performed using principal axis factoring method with unrotated factor solution. It was revealed that a single factor accounted for by only 28.66% variance of the measures, much less than the cut off of 50% (Podsakoff et al., 2003). This indicated that common method variance was not a likely concern in the present work. To further substantiate this, a common latent factor test using CFA was performed as a post-hoc statistical remedy (Podsakoff et al., 2012). The use of CFA is considered more sturdy for it allows direct tests of differences instead of estimations on the basis of unrotated factor solutions (Craighead et al., 2011). The findings showed a poor model fit (χ2/df = 8.42, CFI = 0.48, GFI = 0.52, NFI = 0.53 and RMSEA = 0.09) suggesting low risk of CMB in the current work. A combination of procedural and statistical remedies helps ensuring dataset being free from shared variance among the variables under study.
Results
We used MGS, TMGS, and NGSES total scores, and BVLLCS external locus of control score to compute criterion, convergent, and discriminant validity. Pearson product moment correlation coefficients among the aforementioned scales’ scores were calculated for the purpose of examining validity. The magnitude and direction of the correlation coefficients were evaluated.
The association between the MGS and TMGS was examined for the purpose of criterion-related validity. The MGS showed a significant moderate positive correlation with the TMGS (r = 0.52, p < .01); thus, establishing criterion validity. Further, the relationships among the sub-scales of the MGS and the TMGS total score observed were significantly moderate as follows: perseverance dimension (r = 0.58, p < .01), passion dimension (r = 0.54, p < .01), purpose dimension (r = 0.50, p < .01), patience dimension (r = 0.43, p < .01), and psychological flexibility dimension (r = 0.47, p < .01).
For the purpose of convergent validity, the relationship between the MGS and NGSES was examined in terms of Pearson correlation coefficient. The association between the MGS and the NGSES was found to be significantly moderate in a positive direction (r = 0.44, p < .01). The sub-scales of the MGS correlated positively at moderate level with the NGSES total score viz. perseverance dimension (r = 0.46, p < .01), passion dimension (r = 0.40, p < .01), purpose dimension (r = 0.41, p < .01), patience dimension (r = 0.39, p < .01), and psychological flexibility dimension (r = 0.47, p < .01).
The discriminant validity was ascertained by examining the relationship between the MGS and external locus of control facet of BVLLCS. The findings revealed that there was a significantly negative moderate correlation between the multidimensional grit and the external locus of control scores (r = −0.38, p < .01). Further, the five sub-scales of the MGS showed significant weak to moderate negative association with the external locus of control score: perseverance dimension (r = −0.29, p < .01), passion dimension (r = −0.31, p < .01), purpose dimension (r = −0.38, p < .01), patience dimension (r = −0.27, p < .01), and psychological flexibility dimension (r = −0.35, p < .01).
Discussion
The present work reports the findings of a series of studies carried out to develop a new tool to measure grit. Both inductive and deductive approaches have been used to develop scale items for the MGS. Study 1 to Study 6 provide description of psychometric properties of the newly developed scale. The study 1 pertains to establishing content validity of the retained 31 items as approved by the experts. For this purpose, content validity index was computed. The study 2 is a pilot study carried out to ensure that the scale items meet the standards of linguistic parameters. This resulted in a loss of ten items making the available figure as 21 items after pilot conduct. These 21 items had an initial reliability of 0.92 alpha. The study 3 aimed at exploring the factorial structure of the multidimensional grit construct. After necessary rotational procedures, the solution resulted in 15 items and five factors structure (5Ps) i.e., perseverance, passion, purpose, patience, and psychological flexibility. The reliability coefficient for the entire scale was 0.85 whereas the alpha values for the sub-dimensions ranged between 0.72 and 0.83 thus establishing new MGS as a reliable tool.
The study 4 was carried out with a purpose to confirm the obtained five factor structure of multi-dimensional grit by employing a confirmatory factor analysis. The findings garnered the support for five-factor correlational model of grit while also positioning grit as a second-order hierarchical construct. The study 5 has established the temporal stability of the measure MGS as evident through strong correlation found between scores obtained at two occasions. The study 6 was aimed at establishing the validity of the MGS. The newly developed scale scores were compared with the already existing measure of grit along with the conceptually similar and dissimilar constructs. It was found that multidimensional grit was moderately associated with the triarchic grit. The TMGS was chosen as a criterion keeping in mind that it was developed in a collectivist context and hence was expected to relate closely to new MGS which has also been devised based on a collectivist sample. Further, the MGS and its sub-dimensions correlated positively with self-efficacy but negatively with external locus of control denoting the convergent and discriminant validity, respectively.
The present multidimensional scale of grit makes it possible to measure the construct with the additional dimensions of purpose, patience, and psychological flexibility besides the originally proposed structure of grit by Duckworth and colleagues (2007). Some of the recent research has brought out few aspects which may serve as grit facets namely adaptability to situations (Datu et al., 2017), spirited initiative and steadfastness in adverse situations (Singh & Chukkali, 2021), and goal-directed resilience (Kuruveettissery et al., 2023). Thus, the present work responds to Tynan’s (2021) call for over-inclusive scale items and is in line with the ongoing attempts to develop tools to capture grit in toto. Further, the utility of the MGS lies in the fact that it explores the possibility of additional facets of grit that may exist in collectivist settings due to the unique demands placed by cultural values and expectations on an individual in their pursuit of achieving long-term goals. These demands may include suspension of chosen goal for the time being, re-prioritizing it, re-aligning oneself to the long-term goal after a significant time gap etc. Hence, the dimensions such as patience and flexibility become of significant value. Additionally, in the scenario as described above, it is seemingly impossible to hold on to a designated goal without a sense of meaning in pursuit thereby making purpose a grit facet.
Nonetheless, the newly emergent grit structure needs not necessarily be limited to collectivist settings per se. On the basis of two field studies and a meta-analytic review of 127 studies, Jachimowicz et al. (2018) concluded that passion was a key aspect of grit and the reason for inconsistencies seen in grit research evidence was due to the fact that “… prior research has emphasized perseverance and ignored, both theoretically and empirically, the critical role of passion” (Jachimowicz et al., 2018). While defining passion, Jachimowicz et al. (2018) refer to it “as a strong feeling toward a personally important value/preference that motivates intentions and behaviors to express that value/preference.” This conceptual stance on grit as a construct is in line with present work that duly acknowledges the significance of passion dimension in describing grit. Further, the Grit Psychological Resources Scale (GPRS) by Schimschal et al. (2022) includes the dimensions of interest, purpose, practice, and hope. Besides, the authors consider the attributes such as patience (remaining calm in face of difficulties and ability to focus on complexities; Schnitker, 2012) and self-regulation (changing behavior for effective adjustment; Baumeister & Heatherton, 1996) being worthy of attention while characterizing grit (Schimschal et al., 2022). It can be noted that the aspect of self-regulation of GPRS is closer to psychological flexibility of MGS as both emphasize on adaptation; while the rest of the dimensions being more or less similar in both the frameworks. Dovetailing with this line of thought, conceptual similarities can be drawn between GPRS and MGS, for both takes into account the muti-dimensionality of grit while displaying convergence on its sub-components. Despite the fact that the MGS has been developed using samples from collectivist setting, the grit structure it espouses (i.e., 5 Ps) is expected to operate in diverse settings as well owing to the motivational nature of the construct. Taking into cognizance the conceptual resemblance as discussed above, MGS prima facie does not appear to be a culture-specific test notwithstanding the fact that its validity in various cultural milieu is yet to be established.
The present pluri-dimensional grit measure illustrates that the passion facet of grit is equally relevant while talking about accomplishing the enduring goals. This is contrary to some of the criticisms questioning the appositeness of consistency of interest dimension in grit constitution (Areepattamannil & Khine, 2018; Credé et al., 2017). Furthermore, inclusion of passion as one of the key aspects of grit is in line with some of the recent work related to grit measurement. For example, Alamer’s (2021) L2-grit scale is based on two-factor grit structure to measure efforts and consistency of interest for language learning among the learners. On the similar lines, the work of Sudina et al. (2021) reports development of L2-Teacher Grit Scale that measures occupation-specific grit level among English language teachers through passion and perseverance components of grit. Besides, another literature evidence corroborating the present findings related to grit dimensions of MGS comes from the Teacher Grit Scale developed by Baraquia (2020). This 14-item scale measures grit level among educators through two factors namely “perseverance in teaching” and “passion and purpose in teaching” (Baraquia, 2020). The perseverance aspect refers to “determination, mental toughness, and composure to withstand the [work] demands” whereas the passion and purpose dimension highlights “strong feelings and enthusiasm of the teachers … in the teaching profession” along with “contentment in the teaching profession and the sense of purpose in serving learners for a lifetime” (Baraquia, 2020).
The possibility of grit being a multi-dimensional construct is in line with the previous work. Kuruveettissery et al. (2023) proposed in their three-dimensional grit scale that the construct of grit could be measured under the dimensions of commitment, interest, and goal-resilience. The aspect of ‘resilience’ of three-dimensional grit scale (Kuruveettissery et al., 2023), in particular, relates to ‘psychological flexibility’ of MGS that helps the individual successfully cope with the challenges and setbacks by amending their strategy and orientation towards set goal. Another line of evidence comes from the work of Singh and Chukkali (2021) who have offered a framework of multi-dimensional grit comprising of four dimensions viz. “Adaptability to situation, perseverance of effort, spirited initiative and steadfastness in adverse situations”. The ‘adaptability’ aspect is closer to psychological flexibility of MGS reflecting effective adaptation to changing demands of goal pursuit. The ‘initiative’ component refers to displaying positive energy and initiating actions (Singh & Chukkali, 2021) and it relates to the positive cognition of ‘purpose’ of MGS reflecting meaningful association with the chosen goal. Singh and Chukkali (2021) maintain that ‘steadfastness’ is about unwavering focus on the goal and thus it corresponds to ‘passion’ of MGS that mandates sticking to same goal over a sustained duration. Moreover, Park et al. (2020) have developed a 14-item Clinical Nurses Grit Scale (CN-GRIT) that measures grit for nurses under three factors namely ‘sustained persistence’, ‘consistency of interest as a nursing professional’, and ‘patient oriented intrinsic motivation’. The scale demonstrates the importance of passion for the nursing profession as a key component that helps nurses display relentless interest and affective commitment for the profession and to actively contribute towards patient recovery and low turnover. The aspect of ‘intrinsic motivation’ of CN-GRIT (Park et al., 2020) relates to the ‘purpose’ facet of MGS denoting a sense of meaning in the goal undertaken that energizes the individual to carry out the task and for which the person is volitionally motivated to put in efforts to succeed. Dovetailing from the aforementioned evidence related to the recently developed grit measures, it can be posited that the grit dimensions emerged in the MGS are in tandem with and supported by the findings of previous literature on this topic. While doing so, the present work makes an attempt to extend the scholarship on grit measurement by inclusion of additional dimensions and thus, it is expected to tap the construct in an encyclopedic manner.
The MGS items make a reference to time period of goals chased wherein each item specifies that the scale statements to which an individual responds to has to be understood in the context of long-term goals only instead of any immediate objective. This becomes imperative as the literature on grit categorically mandates that the construct in question is examined only in the case of durable goals. In other words, the time-relevant content is the decisive factor separating grit from other closely associated personality traits such as conscientiousness. Thus, it is pertinent that the items measuring grit include time-frame content (Tynan, 2021). Having done so while developing the MGS items has helped the present five-factor model reach closer to the original conceptualization of grit as ‘long-term stamina’ propounded by Duckworth and colleagues (2007).
In sum, the newly constructed tool i.e. MGS has shown initial evidence of psychometric robustness in terms of its reliability and validity. The MGS attempts to capture the construct of grit in its entirety through inclusive items under a five-factor framework. The items encompass time-relevant information particular to the construct of grit vis-à-vis other psychological traits. Inclusion of additional dimensions to grit in the present measure elicits the role of cultural fabric in guiding the journey of goal pursuit and ushering the accomplishment of protracted aims. However, it also opens up avenues for exploring the possibility of validating five-factor grit structure across the cultures in the time to come.
Implications
Theoretical Implications
The theoretical implications of the newly developed MGS can be seen in terms of extension of existing grit conceptualization by incorporating additional dimensions of purpose, patience, and psychological flexibility. The newly emerged multi-factor grit structure helps resolve prevalent inconsistencies regarding dimensionality of grit. It can be stated that while originally proposed grit structure consisting perseverance and passion facets (Duckworth et al., 2007) is relevant, the construct appears to be more of multi-dimensional in nature comprising of added components. Further, the MGS contributes to the grit literature by building upon and extending the OPAH model of grit (Datu, 2021). It is plausible to argue that the perseverance facet of MGS denoting consistent endeavor for goal achievement can be linked to the psychological process of ‘behavioral efforts’ of the OPAH model of grit (Datu, 2021), as both these elements revolve around investment of efforts done by the individual. Similarly, the passion component of MGS that reflects consistency of interest in sticking to set goal is closely related to ‘adaptive motivation’ of OPAH inasmuch as both these aspects hint at the motivational force behind driving the individual’s actions towards goal accomplishment. The psychological flexibility dimension of MGS denotes cognitive and behavioral adaptation for contextual demands and resource mobilization. This aspect converges with ‘cognitive resourcefulness’ of OPAH model that necessitates employing cognitive resources for goal accomplishment. While the patience ensures calmness in the face of challenges, the process of ‘emotion regulation’ helps in doing so by cognitive restructuring and re-interpreting the situation to manage emotional consequences of the event. Since the purpose dimension of MGS signifies one’s sense of meaning in the chosen goal, it relates to the ‘positive cognitions’ that indicate one’s ability to embrace positive beliefs about the self and the others. Thus, in sum, it can be said that the new measure of grit i.e., MGS adds to the theoretical understanding of grit structure and measurement while also ushering the avenue to re-substantiate the multidimensional nature of grit through empirical inquiry in the future endeavors.
Practical Implications
The practical implications of the multidimensional grit scale are diverse. The MGS can be used in a variety of settings ranging from educational and counseling to organizational and academic. The university education system entails higher academic productivity. Past research suggests that grit helps in enhancing academic output through engagement (Hodge et al., 2018), experiential learning (Li & Li, 2021), and ability of the students to view the obstacles as manageable tasks (Almeida, 2016). This becomes possible due to the fact that students with higher grit level put in sustained efforts (perseverance) to earn their degrees while sticking to a particular academic program (passion). Moreover, when faced with setbacks or failures, gritter students are the ones who can maintain forbearance (patience) and navigate through tough times by employing a sense of meaning in their aim of earning university degree (purpose) and adapt themselves to the situational demands by re-aligning their learning strategy (psychological flexibility).
The importance of grit in organizational setting has been ascertained by treating it as a strategic imperative. When employees treat the organizational goal as a collective aim for which they display passion, grit acts as work motivation (Jordan et al., 2021). The high-performing organizations capitalize on grit by enhancing resilience and stamina of their employees to ensure relentless achievement of organizational goals even under the shadow of critical times and volatile business environment (de Waal et al., 2023). Lee (2022) maintains that grit can be viewed as organizational sustainability trait that favorably affects organizational performance when coupled with supportive climate and transformational leadership.
The academic scholars may use the new multi-dimensional grit measure to determine the level of grit of the participants for research purposes as part of their scholarly endeavors. Further, the MGS can be validated in other contexts and population viz. Parents, organizational workforce, children, and clinical population, to name a few. Such efforts will help build more concrete evidence and subject the new measure to further scientific scrutiny.
The practitioners of positive psychology can utilize the scale (a) to assess the level of grit possessed by the individuals and the need to support interventional course; (b) to map the individual on various sub-dimensions of multifarious grit; and (c) to assess the level of grit among organizational workforce, sportsperson, mental health care seekers etc. The significance of grit in bolstering well-being and productivity makes it a suitable interventional ingredient for counseling purposes particularly for those who face difficulty in coping with growing demands at their personal and professional fronts.
Relevance at Individual Level
The literature emphasizes upon the benefits grit can yield as a non-cognitive trait particularly in the area of personal growth and psychological flourishing. Pradhan and colleagues (2025) highlighted that grit fosters well-being via basic need satisfaction and psychological empowerment by acting as a psychological resource at the disposal of the individual. When set goal is in accordance with the value-system, consistent efforts bring about optimal performance owing to the fact that people put in deliberate vigorous attempt to chase what they value the most (Pradhan et al., 2025). Jandu and Pradhan (2025b) envisage grit as a potential impetus for building resilience; the ripple effect of which are seen in terms of adaptive coping, post-traumatic growth, and enhanced quality of life. Besides, grit helps students attain academic success (Mason, 2018) through personal resources such as psychological capital (Luthans et al., 2019) and self-efficacy (Alhadabi & Karpinski, 2020). The new measure of grit, MGS, being a comprehensive tool can better assess and examine the construct in a more holistic way. Such a thorough measurement aids to understanding of role played by this attribute in reaping advantageous benefits for the individuals.
Relevance at Societal Level
The new measure of MGS offers a comprehensive framework of grit and helps to understand how individuals differ in their level of grit. This understanding is important to trace their goal achievement journey while fully acknowledging the fact that grit is not the only attribute affecting their life course. Nonetheless, as an underdeveloped form of agency, grit does help to bring about how personal beliefs of agentic self are getting translated into willing actions executed by the individuals (Kwon, 2017). These volitional undertakings, in turn, shape the people’s life trajectory and thus, as such, grit may serve as a potential variable affecting social stratification (Kwon, 2017). Furthermore, at a broader level, collective grit in communities or in work organizations (Flareau, 2020; Lee, 2022; Raver & Ledford, 2024) can foster steadfastness for achieving common goals linked to organizational performance or community growth by enabling a gritty culture nurtured over a period of time.
Limitations and Future Directions
Despite the sound procedural endeavor undertaken to develop the MGS, there are few limitations that need to be acknowledged. First, despite the use of CVI and Kappa statistic, it is to be noted that for establishing content validity, the size of expert panel was n = 6 (study 1). A larger panel could have been beneficial in bringing about more information about the measure. Second, in case of few items, it was observed that the item loadings were below 0.50 (ranging between 0.40 and 0.50) in CFA model thus the issue of item strength may arise. In subsequent studies, item refinement may help in addressing this concern. Third, the sample chosen was university students thus the generalizability of the findings comes with a caveat. Having higher education students as sample also delimits the age range thus the nuances of incremental change over the years due to experiential wisdom may not be well captured through the scale. Although, the samples used for EFA, CFA, reliability, and validity testing were independent samples; nonetheless, owing to tertiary education domain, the nature of samples may be termed as similar in many aspects. Thus, non-inclusion of samples other than higher education students becomes a procedural limitation that could reduce the generalizability of the measure developed. Fourth, since the scale has been evolved from a collectivist context, the claims regarding culture specificity or culture sensitivity of the measure may sound simplistic in the absence of cross-cultural validation. Fifth, the scale’s power to predict real life outcomes in not examined in the present work. Thus, predictive validity of the MGS becomes a limitation that needs to be overcome in the ensuing endeavors by investigating the significance of the scale in predicting achievement and well-being related outcomes. Nonetheless, the sturdy psychometric properties of the scale promise to evince the utility of MGS as a valuable tool in diverse settings. By including non-student samples, the upcoming research may substantiate the external validity of the scale. The future research may focus on establishing the cross-cultural validity of the scale inasmuch as the MGS has been developed by taking a collectivist sample and its validity in independent cultures is yet to be established. Moreover, research may be carried out to study multi-dimensional grit along with other personality traits and key adaptive attributes such as resilience, hardiness, conscientiousness, and psychological capital to establish the distinctiveness of grit from these conceptually similar constructs.
Conclusion
Using multi-study approach, the present work provides a comprehensive account of development and validation of a new multi-dimensional psychometric instrument (i.e., MGS) possessing adequate reliability and validity to measure grit. A series of studies were conducted to establish content, criterion, convergent, and discriminant validity of newly constructed scale along with performing exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. This has helped establishing the multidimensional grit scale as a robust psychological tool that takes into account the multifaceted nature of grit comprising of five dimensions while measuring the much talked about positive psychological attribute in question.
Footnotes
Ethical Considerations
The authors followed all necessary guidelines applicable to this quantitative research work. Institutional ethical review permission was obtained from the Institute Ethical Committee of the Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur where this research work was carried out (No. IIT/SRIC/DEAN/2025). The participants of the study gave their voluntary consent to take part in the study. The paper does not violate any copyright issues.
Consent of Participate
Informed consents of participants were obtained before data collection.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization and study design were done by Kailash Jandu and Rabindra Kumar Pradhan. Material preparation, data collection, and data analysis were done by Kailash Jandu. The original draft was written by Kailash Jandu and was commented upon by Rabindra Kumar Pradhan. The final version was read and approved by both the authors.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data Availability Statement
Data will be made available upon reasonable request.