PCLM-D-25-00085

Development and validation of MACK-12: A short multidimensional climate knowledge scale

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Champagne St-Arnaud,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Climate. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria as it currently stands. The reviewers have several critical concerns that question the validity and methodolgy of the scale proposed in the paper, generally directing towards rejection of the manuscript. However, as the paper has potential for novel contribution in terms of measuring climate knowledge, we would like to offer you an opportunity to respond to the comments and revision of the manuscript accordingly before making a final decision.  Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by . If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at climate@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pclm/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Suborna Barua

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria ? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.-->

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Climate does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: I appreciate the opportunity to review the study: “Development and validation of MACK-12: A short multidimensional climate knowledge scale”

Although the study concerns an important issue in addressing the climate crisis we face today, I believe the work has several weaknesses especially in conceptual and methodological terms.

First, it is proposed that knowledge about climate change is a determining factor in people's attitudes and/or dispositions to take action on climate change, which is widely described as not being the case. Actions and even attitudes about climate change have to do with many other variables besides knowledge. I think the authors would benefit greatly from reading some of the studies on this topic in the journal “Environmental Education Research”.

Second, the creation of a measurement instrument must include several steps that are not well explained or well done in this paper. Review by only one climate science expert does not seem sufficient. 2 or 3 experts should be a more adequate number. Regarding construct validity, giving correlations between items or presenting a general Cronbach's alpha, when it is stated that the instrument has 6 dimensions, does not seem sufficient for the standards of instrument creation. If you have an instrument with 6 dimensions, you should present a Cronbach's alpha for each dimension. However, Cronbach's alpha is only a measure of reliability and better evidence of construct validity is to perform a factor analysis to confirm whether the questionnaire really behaves as if it had those dimensions. On the other hand, nowadays, to generate an instrument, it seems indispensable to perform a Rasch analysis. Finally, given that the final questionnaire includes 2 statements specifically related to Quebec City, it seems to me that the usefulness and generality of the instrument is significantly diminished.

Reviewer #2: The paper explores the development and validation of the Multidimensional Climate Knowledge Scale (MACK-12), a tool designed to assess climate change knowledge among residents of Quebec, Canada. This topic is highly relevant, given the increasing urgency of addressing climate change and the need for effective public engagement. The study offers valuable insights into the dimensions of climate knowledge and how they relate to environmental attitudes and behaviors. However, several aspects of the paper need attention to improve its clarity, robustness, and applicability:

1. The MACK-12 was developed with a focus on Quebec’s specific climate issues. While this local adaptation is an asset, the paper does not fully address how the tool can be adapted for different regions or populations. Climate change impacts and policy responses differ across regions, so a more detailed discussion on how the MACK-12 can be customized for use in other areas would enhance its applicability. The authors should expand on how the MACK-12 could be adapted for other regions, considering different local climate impacts and policy contexts. Providing a clear methodology for adaptation would increase the scale’s international relevance.

2. The study uses a representative sample of Quebec residents, but the paper does not sufficiently discuss potential biases in the sample. For example, Quebec's demographic makeup is unique, and the sample may not be fully representative of other populations in Canada or globally. Additionally, the paper uses a sample via online surveys, which could lead to selection bias, particularly in underrepresented groups (e.g., rural or lower-income populations). The authors should acknowledge the limitations of the sample, particularly regarding underrepresentation of certain groups, and discuss how these limitations might impact the generalizability of the findings. Comparisons with studies from different regions could help assess the external validity of the results.

3. While the study offers insights into the relationship between climate knowledge and environmental attitudes and behaviors, its cross-sectional design limits the ability to draw causal conclusions. The authors briefly mention this limitation, but the discussion could benefit from further emphasis on the need for longitudinal studies to establish causality. The authors should more explicitly discuss the limitations of the cross-sectional design in the discussion and suggest future research that could employ longitudinal designs or experiments to better establish causal relationships.

4. The study identifies some common misconceptions about climate change, such as the misunderstanding of carbon offsetting and the role of the transportation sector in emissions. However, the paper does not address how these misconceptions might influence the effectiveness of the MACK-12 in capturing true climate knowledge. The authors should discuss how misconceptions could impact the validity of the MACK-12 and consider revising the scale to target these specific gaps in knowledge more directly. Potential future revisions of the scale should address these knowledge gaps, especially regarding critical concepts like carbon offsetting.

5. The study finds a significant relationship between education level and climate knowledge, which is consistent with previous research. However, the authors do not delve deeply into how educational background interacts with other factors like age, geography, or political beliefs in influencing climate knowledge. The authors should explore how education level interacts with other demographic factors in shaping climate knowledge. This could provide more nuanced insights into how different groups perceive climate change and how interventions might be tailored for diverse populations.

6. The paper establishes a strong link between climate knowledge and pro-climate behaviors, but the practical implications of this relationship are not fully explored. For example, the authors do not address how the MACK-12 could be used to design interventions that effectively translate knowledge into behavior change. The authors should discuss the practical significance of the relationship between climate knowledge and behavioral change, and explore how the MACK-12 could be applied in behavior-change campaigns. The authors could elaborate on specific strategies that might use the MACK-12 to encourage greater public engagement in pro-environmental behaviors.

7. The paper briefly touches on climate change denial but does not fully address how climate skepticism or misinformation might affect responses to the MACK-12. Given that climate change denial can skew understanding, it would be important to consider how these factors might influence the scale’s results. The authors should expand on how climate denial and misinformation could affect the MACK-12’s effectiveness and reliability. This could involve adding items that assess trust in scientific consensus or the influence of climate disinformation.

8. While the MACK-12 demonstrates adequate reliability, the paper does not fully address the limitations of certain items, such as the question about Quebec’s transportation sector being the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, which failed to meet reliability thresholds. This item’s performance should be re-evaluated, particularly in the context of varying levels of education. The authors should further discuss why certain items, like the transportation question, performed poorly and consider revising or removing them based on their weak psychometric properties. Items that underperform should be critically reexamined to ensure the scale remains reliable and valid.

9. To strengthen the theoretical and methodological foundation of the MACK-12, the authors should consider integrating the recent systematic review (DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2025.111888), which analyzes how climate knowledge is measured across 92 studies. This review identifies critical gaps and inconsistencies in climate knowledge assessments, highlighting the need for standardized and validated instruments. By incorporating the findings of this review, the authors could better align the MACK-12 with current developments in climate knowledge measurement, ensuring that it reflects the most up-to-date insights into how climate knowledge is defined and assessed. Furthermore, this integration would demonstrate how the MACK-12 addresses existing measurement challenges and contributes to the ongoing effort to create reliable and comprehensive tools for assessing climate knowledge across diverse populations and regions.

Considering the points mentioned above, the paper presents a valuable contribution to the field of climate change knowledge assessment. However, addressing these issues would enhance the robustness, clarity, and broader applicability of the MACK-12. My recommendation is to revise and resubmit the paper after addressing these issues.

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Development and validation of MACK-12: A short multidimensional climate knowledge scale

PCLM-D-25-00085R1

Dear Prof. Champagne St-Arnaud,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Development and validation of MACK-12: A short multidimensional climate knowledge scale' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Climate.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow-up email from a member of our team. 

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact climate@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Climate.

Best regards,

Alessandro Del Ponte

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

***********************************************************

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear authors,

Thank you for revising and resubmitting your manuscript. I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript is accepted. Congratulations! I believe that this manuscript will make an important contribution to the field and hope that the MACK-12 scale will be widely used.

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):