PONE-D-21-10267

The Basic Psychological Needs Satisfaction and Frustration Scale at Work: A Validation in the Polish Language

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Szulawski,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. 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 Aug 14 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ 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 academic 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'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Paola Gremigni, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

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. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). 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 ONE 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: This paper seems to be a piece of valuable work to provide a Polish language validated BPNSFS to future researchers. The authors also acknowledged limitations of this study.

As mentioned in the paper that the scale has been validated in Polish by Kuzma et al (2020), is it possible to add a few sentences on how is this validation different to theirs or the further contributions?

I understand that this BPNSFS has 6 dimensions like previous findings, is there any comparisons between the criterion validity of this scale with previous findings?

Reviewer #2: In their manuscript, the authors validate the BPNSF scale within a Polish context. I enjoyed the use of large samples and the strong statistical background. My only larger concern centers around missing a replicable code to rerun the analysis (see comment 1).

I structured my review along the following lines: General comments and minor comments. Each section is structured by perceived importance of the comment. Parts I copy-pasted from the manuscript are in quotation marks.

General comments

1.Some parts of the results section were not 100% clear to me. How exactly was invariance established? When I think of measurement invariance I think of multilevel SEMs (Fischer & Karl, 2019). The approach you are using seems sounds but for less experienced readers an additional explanation (+ a reference at the beginning of the invariance section) that explains the approach or publishing the analysis code (maybe just the AmostOutput?) next to the dataset could be helpful?

2.Related to the above point I was wondering whether a cross-cultural sample would be needed to really establish measurement invariance? At the moment it seems that we can conclude that asking different samples within Poland will produce solid scales across those samples. However, can we compare the findings from Poland to other countries? Maybe this is not the goal of the study though :)

3.I was wondering in which language the questionnaires were distributed. I imagine the BPNSFS was presented in Polish. Were the other items also presented in Polish? Are they validated in that language? If not, would that need to be discussed in the limitations?

4.Within the first paragraph, I was wondering what low-quality vs. high-quality motivation stands for? What Vansteenkiste and colleagues (2009) would term good vs. poor quality motivation groups?

5.Very nice literature review on need frustrations within the organizational context. If the authors would like to broaden their literature review to other areas of research on need frustration some additional references could give the paper a broader audience e.g. (Leander et al., 2019, 2020; Stollberg et al., 2015; Williams, 2009)

6.Nice limitations; great picking up on the gender distribution. Does the dropout (and completion rates leading to them) also need a short discussion?

7.I understand the reason behind summing up the items (Table 1); as there has been some recent debate around obtaining multiple-item scale scores through summing (McNeish & Wolf, 2020), alternative strategies could have been used as well. I am not sure though whether the authors need to engage with this comment; just a thought :)

8.Unfortunately, some of the tables were cut off. Maybe an explanation underneath could help the reader understand the different concepts (e.g. in Table 1 what does the s stand for?)

Minor comments

1.On page 16 it could be handy to refer to the exact number of cases that were excluded? Six I believe?

2.Some sentences could be streamlined (e.g. in the abstract (p. 9) “has been validated” could be “was validated” as the process of validation is now complete)

3.There is still the one or other typo; maybe a fresh pair of eyes could help finding those

a.(e.g. (p. 10) “yet he or she may not feel [incompetence or failure regarding their work]”

b.(p. 11) …, the purpose of this project was to validate the BSNSFS-Work Domain [in Poland].

References

Fischer, R., & Karl, J. A. (2019). A primer to (cross-cultural) multi-group invariance testing possibilities in R. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(JULY), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01507

Leander, N. P., Agostini, M., Stroebe, W., Kreienkamp, J., Spears, R., Kuppens, T., Van Zomeren, M., Otten, S., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2020). Frustration-affirmation? Thwarted goals motivate compliance with social norms for violence and nonviolence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000190

Leander, N. P., Stroebe, W., Kreienkamp, J., Agostini, M., Gordijn, E., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2019). Mass shootings and the salience of guns as means of compensation for thwarted goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(5), 704–723. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000150

McNeish, D., & Wolf, M. G. (2020). Thinking twice about sum scores. Behavior Research Methods, 52(6), 2287–2305. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01398-0

Stollberg, J., Fritsche, I., & Bäcker, A. (2015). Striving for group agency: threat to personal control increases the attractiveness of agentic groups. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(May), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00649

Vansteenkiste, M., Sierens, E., Soenens, B., Luyckx, K., & Lens, W. (2009). Motivational Profiles From a Self-Determination Perspective: The Quality of Motivation Matters. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 671–688. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015083

Williams, K. D. (2009). Ostracism: A temporal need-threat model. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol 41. (pp. 275–314). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)00406-1

**********

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.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Maximilian Agostini

[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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments to the Authors.pdf

PONE-D-21-10267R1The Basic Psychological Needs Satisfaction and Frustration Scale at Work: A Validation in the Polish LanguagePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Szulawski,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. The point-by-point responses you gave to Reviewers are, in my opinion,  competent and exhausive; however, many of these  responses seem not to have been implemented within the manuscript. Can you synthetize and add them? I believe they can answer  other readers who may  potentially raise the same doubts or concerns. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 08 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ 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 academic 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'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Prof. Paola Gremigni, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

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

Reviewers' comments:

[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.

The Basic Psychological Needs Satisfaction and Frustration Scale at Work: A Validation in the Polish Language

PONE-D-21-10267R2

Dear Dr. Szulawski,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

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 onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Paola Gremigni, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

I only observe that I agree with the authors that invariance analysis may give useful information on the structural stability of a measure  by comparing it across different subpopulations of the same country, besides cross-cultural  comparisons.