PONE-D-24-00059Measuring Self-Actualization and B-Values: Construction and Validation of Two Instruments in the Brazilian ContextPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Souza,

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 Apr 04 2024 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,

Victor Abiola Adepoju, MBCHB,Msc

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. In the online submission form you indicate that your data is not available for proprietary reasons and have provided a contact point for accessing this data. Please note that your current contact point is a co-author on this manuscript. According to our Data Policy, the contact point must not be an author on the manuscript and must be an institutional contact, ideally not an individual. Please revise your data statement to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, and send this to us via return email. Please also include contact information for the third party organization, and please include the full citation of where the data can be found.

4. We note that you have referenced (Asparouhov T, Muthen B. Simple second order chi-square correction. Unpublished manuscript; 2010. Available from: https://www.statmodel.com/download/WLSMV_new_chi21.pdf) which has currently not yet been accepted for publication. Please remove this from your References and amend this to state in the body of your manuscript: (ie “Bewick et al. [Unpublished]”) as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-reference-style

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments:

Abstract

Feedback: The abstract should mention the sample size and diversity, and briefly note the implications of the findings.

Example from Manuscript: The proposed instruments underwent content and semantic validity assessments, followed by verification of factor validity and internal consistency.

Practical Solution: Authors should revise the abstract to include a sentence like: "This study involved a diverse sample of 621 Brazilian participants from 25 different professions, indicating broad applicability of the findings. The validation of SAAS and BVI contributes to understanding self-actualization and B-values in varied Brazilian contexts, offering insights for psychological assessment and intervention."

Introduction

Feedback: Include a brief review of existing instruments measuring similar constructs to justify the need for the new instruments.

Example from Manuscript: While the introduction discusses the theoretical background, it lacks specific references to existing instruments and their limitations.

Practical Solution: Add a paragraph summarizing existing instruments, such as: "Previous instruments, such as the Personal Orientation Inventory (POI) and Characteristics of Self-Actualization Scale (CSAS), have provided foundational insights but exhibit limitations in cultural applicability and comprehensive coverage of B-values, highlighting the need for the development of the SAAS and BVI tailored to the Brazilian context."

Methods

Feedback: Provide a more detailed rationale for the choice of statistical methods.Example from Manuscript: EFA was applied to the instruments constructed in this study using the polychoric correlation matrix, with the Robust Diagonally Weighted Least Squares (RDWLS) extraction method for SAAS and Robust Unweighted Least Squares (RULS) for BVI.

Practical Solution: Expand on the choice of statistical methods by adding: The RDWLS and RULS methods were selected for their robustness in handling ordinal data and their suitability for the distribution characteristics of the survey responses, ensuring accurate factor extraction and reliability assessments in the context of psychological scale validation.

Results

Feedback: Discuss unexpected findings and their implications.

Example from Manuscript: From the analysis, one item (Item 01) was excluded due to a factor loading below 0.30 on all factors, and four items (Items 05, 31, 33, and 38) were excluded due to cross-loaded factor loadings.

Practical Solution: Provide an analysis of why these items did not perform as expected and how this affects the interpretation of the scales. For example: The exclusion of these items suggests a need to refine the conceptual alignment of the SAAS's dimensions. Future iterations could explore alternative phrasings or conceptual frameworks to ensure all aspects of self-actualization are accurately captured."

Discussion

Feedback: Offer more specific examples of how these instruments could be used in various Brazilian contexts and discuss potential cultural influences on the results.

Example from Manuscript: The SAAS fills a gap in research on self-actualization by directly linking it to the job, particularly by encompassing peak and flow experiences during the work process.

Practical Solution: Expand the discussion to include: In Brazilian cultural contexts, where job satisfaction and personal fulfillment are deeply interwoven with community and social ties, the SAAS and BVI can offer nuanced insights into how self-actualization and B-values manifest in professional settings. For instance, in education and healthcare sectors, where altruism and community service are prevalent, these instruments can help identify specific motivations and values driving job satisfaction and personal growth.

Conclusions

Feedback: Clearly state the practical applications and future research directions.Example from Manuscript: Lacks a direct statement of practical applications and detailed future research directions.

Practical Solution: Conclude with a statement like: The validation of SAAS and BVI for the Brazilian context opens avenues for their application in organizational psychology, career counseling, and personal development programs. Future research should explore longitudinal studies to assess how self-actualization and B-values evolve over time and across different life stages and professional paths.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

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: Thank the editors for inviting me to peer-review this manuscript. The topic is relatively meaningful and exciting. In general, the results are good and the data analyses support the instruments. I have some comments and hope that they are helpful to the authors.

1. In general, the authors divided their manuscript into numerous short parts. Several parts should be merged into longer paragraphs. A paragraph should include at least three sentences.

2. Please re-struct this manuscript following the normal structure of an article, including Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion.

3. Why did the authors choose a large number of professors (about two-thirds) for this survey? This group is only a minority of the population. Who will be the target population of these instruments?

4. Please add the information involving the response rate of participants.

5. Please explain why the authors used IPS and BVQ questionnaires in the Methods section.

6. The authors should not cite references in the Results section.

Best wishes to the authors.

Reviewer #2: General comment:

The article is well-written, however, some improvement is required to increase the clarity

Specific comment :

1. Title: The title should emphasise “the development and validation of the instrument” instead of the “measurement of the construct”.

2. Aim:

• The wording of the aim in the abstract is rather unclear. Please revise. Suggestion: Developing, validating, and cross-verifying measures for self-actualization attributes and B-values, focusing on job context and theoretical congruence with innovative behaviour and human values related to the self-actualization construct (suprapersonal subfunction).

• The wording of the aim in the introduction needs to be shortened. Please make it concise and consistent with the aim stated in the abstract.

3. Abstract:

The abstract stated that the method encompassed: “The proposed instrument underwent content and semantic validity assessments, followed by verification of factor validity and internal consistency. Additional evidence of convergent validity was also examined:” No information in the method on the constructs that instrument were cross-validated in the convergent validity and no information on the results regarding the findings related to content and validity assessment, factor analysis and internal consistency reliability

Suggestion: Rewrote the abstract to accommodate the missing information within the word limit

4. Introduction

The introduction (heading 1 ) and heading 2 is rather hard to follow, please make it more concise and simple for lay readers

Suggestion: Combine and rewrite headings 1 and 2 within the introduction section, following the IMRAD flow

5. Method

Suggestion: Following the IMRAD flow, please put Heading 3 and 4 under the method section

6. Results

Please put the findings of the content and semantic assessment in the results section instead of in the method section

Overall: Please add research implications and recommendations regarding practical and clinical application

Reviewer #3: Dear Editor,

I appreciate being given the chance to evaluate the manuscript titled “Measuring Self-Actualization and B-Values: Construction and Validation of Two Instruments in the Brazilian Context”. The authors have crafted and substantiated the validity and reliability of the Self-Actualization Attributes Scale (SAAS), a tool assessing self-actualization; they have constructed and established the validity and reliability of the B-Values Inventory (BVI), which pertains to B-values; and they analyzed the convergence between the factors of the SAAS and the BVI. In the manuscript, the authors not only provided a comprehensive review based on the underlying constructs and variable operationalization, but clearly described the content and semantic validity procedures, and conducted careful psychometric analyses, including exploratory factor analysis, quality of fit, predictive effectiveness, reliability, factor determination, parallel analysis, internal consistency, Cronbach's alpha, composite reliability, McDonald’s Omega, factor stability, and others. In addition to that, the authors attached crucial material that states the ethical standards as well as the context where the project was submitted. The results are two interesting scales that certainly fill a gap in research on self-actualization and being valued in the light of Maslow’s motivation theory. As an experienced reviewer, I may register that it is not often that we receive a manuscript so attempted in the details. Ideally, if possible, I would have expected some additional criteria validity analysis, assessing the extent to which a person's performance on these questionnaires conforms to external criteria or standards that are relevant to the construct the test is intended to measure, such as burnout, stress, or some general mental health. If the authors have something like that, I suggest including it. Nevertheless, this would be a minor suggestion.

Reviewer #4: ID: PONE-D-24-00059

Title: Measuring Self-Actualization and B-Values: Construction and Validation of Two Instruments in the Brazilian Context

Thank you for providing a chance to review this manuscript.

Abstract

1) Purpose and results are not adequately presented, which results in the reader not being able to extract the focus of the study from it, and the authors are asked to add clarity.

2) It is recommended that authors use subheadings to make the abstract section clearer, as in the case of “Background”, “Objective”, “Methods”, “Results”, “Conclusion”.

Overall: Abstracts require a brief summary of the article's background, aims, methods, results and conclusions. The current abstract does not provide a good overview. Please refer to abstracts of high quality articles and rewrite the abstract.

Introduction

Line34-37 Page 1: Please describe each requirement specifically.

Line52-56 Page 1: Please elaborate further. The current description does not give me a clear picture of this part of your research.

Methods

Line229-233 Page 6:

1) Whether there were inclusion or exclusion criteria for the study population, and if so, please state this in the article.

2) How was the sample size determined, give the calculation or supporting references.

3) Is 621 the final study sample?

4) Could the authors please clarify, as well as whether there is missing data and how to deal with missing data.

5) It is recommended that a table of demographic characteristics be created.

6) “From 25 different 229 professions”, please indicate what each of the 25 occupations is?

Line 235-238 Page 6: Please describe the process in detail, e.g. what is the source of the participants? Are participants paid accordingly, etc.?

Line 286-287 Page 7: “ v12.01.02 286 ”, “v” is an abbreviation, used here for the first time, which should be interpreted (version), Please revise it.

Results

Line 319 Page 8: Authors are asked to double-check the parts of the text that require italics, such as χ2.

Line 355 Page 10:

1) The decimal points are not harmonized.

2) The author needs to check that all abbreviations are explained e.g. CFI, TLI.

3) (χ2) needs to be italicized.

Line 367 Page 10: “(χ2(91) 367= 3052.8; p = 0.00)”, χ2 needs to be italicized.

Line 379 Page 11: “(H =0.87)”, Spaces are required before and after the equal sign.

Line 387 Page 11:

1) The decimal points are not harmonized.

2) The CFI TLI is not explained.

3) (χ2) needs to be italicized.

Conclusion

Overall: For an article, the conclusion is a necessary demonstration of important findings and the value of the research, which the authors are invited to add.

Other recommendations:

Overall: Give the source of funding and the role of the funders for the present study.

The author does not seem to be very good at essay writing and many of the basic requirements are not met. There are a number of problems with this essay: 1) punctuation conforms to incorrect use, 2) much of it is not detailed enough, and 3) the current analysis is too simplistic to explain the purpose of the study.

Thank you and my best,

Your reviewer

**********

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: Novita Intan Arovah

Reviewer #3: Yes: Bruno Kluwe-Schiavon

Reviewer #4: 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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS one General comment.docx

Self-Actualization and B-Values: Development and Validation of Two Instruments in the Brazilian Context

PONE-D-24-00059R1

Dear Gustavo Henrique Silva de Souza and Colleagues,

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. After a detailed review of the revised manuscript "Self-Actualization and B-Values: Development and Validation of Two Instruments in the Brazilian Context" by Gustavo Henrique Silva de Souza and colleagues, and considering the authors' comprehensive response to feedback, the study's innovative contribution to the field, and the rigorous methodological enhancements made, the final decision is to ACCEPT the manuscript for publication in PLOS ONE.

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Victor Abiola Adepoju, MBCHB,Msc

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Gustavo Henrique Silva de Souza and Colleagues,

Congratulations on the successful revision of your manuscript titled "Self-Actualization and B-Values: Development and Validation of Two Instruments in the Brazilian Context." Your efforts to address the reviewers' comments have significantly enhanced the clarity, depth, and contribution of your work. The revisions made, particularly in strengthening the methodological rigor and expanding on the theoretical implications of your findings, have positioned your article as a valuable contribution to the fields of psychology and self-actualization research.

Your work addresses an important gap in the literature by offering robust instruments for assessing self-actualization and B-values within the Brazilian context. This contribution not only advances our understanding of self-actualization but also provides practical tools for further research and application in this area.

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been recommended for acceptance for publication in PLOS ONE. We believe your research will be of great interest to our readership and look forward to its publication.

Best regards,

Reviewers' comments: