PONE-D-24-37745The Consequentialist Scale, the Ethical Standards of Judgment Questionnaire, and the Revised Ethics Position Questionnaire: Validation and Comparison of the German VersionsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Teichmann,

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 Dec 26 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,

Myriam M. Altamirano-Bustamante

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. In the online submission form, you indicated that [The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from the authors.]. All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.  3. 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. 

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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: The reviewed manuscript is original in nature, I congratulate the authors for the results. All the structures of the article have been preserved. The aim of the work has been clearly defined, the methodology has been properly described, the results are clearly presented. I agree with the authors' suggestion that the study can be conducted among respondents from different socio-economic areas.

Reviewer #2: The present manuscript deals with the validation of the German version of three ethics-inspired scales on the basis of selected psychometric properties. The survey of 263 participants was conducted online using a Google form that only accepted completed forms; 102 participants accepted a second survey four weeks later to assess re-test reliability.

The manuscript has a clear aim, concise methodology and rigorous results. It can therefore be accepted for publication after revision. However, some aspects need to be considered and adjusted. As a reviewer, I try to be systematic in my advice.

Some written mistakes

Line 85: You write “low subjectivism and low relativism”. Do you mean “low idealism and high relativism”?

Line 156: You write “idealism and realism”. Do you mean “idealism and relativism”?

Line 468: You write “religiois”. Do you mean “religious”?

Title

The title is rather long and less synoptic. I suggest an alternative: "German validation of three ethical questionnaires". Or more explicitly: "German validation of three ethical questionnaires: Consequentialist Scale, Ethical Standards of Judgement Questionnaire, and Revised Ethical Position Questionnaire". If accepted by the Editors, abbreviated as CS, EPQ-5 and ESJQ.

Abstract

Objective (perhaps more accurate): The aim is to assess the psychometric properties of the German version of the proposed scales.

In the "Methods" section, I miss the mention of statistical methods.

The "Results" section does not include the associations with age, gender, religiosity and personal characteristics.

In the "Conclusion" section, the possibilities of (clinical) implementation of the analysed questionnaires are not discussed.

Introduction

The authors state in the introduction that they are dealing with a philosophical issue, namely the distinction between a “consequentialist” and a “deontological” approach, and that behavioural styles can be identified in people that can be assigned to one or the other approach. They even suggest that these styles are orthogonal to each other at the level of behaviour. This is a very daring approach, which the EPQ-5 develops theoretically by formulating two dimensions (relativism vs. idealism), each of which is dichotomised into four typologies within a matrix (situationist, absolutist, subjectivist, exceptionist). These typologies are not intuitive and a pure definition according to the matrix (e.g. "absolutist" = low relativism + high idealism) is much too narrow for me. The authors should explain these typologies a little. The authors also distinguish between "morality" and "ethics", which is philosophically legitimate (but without semantic consensus), forgetting that there is a third ethical approach, namely “virtue ethics” (in the tradition of Aristotle and particularly important for medicine, see for example Edmund Pellegrino). I have a great deal of respect for Elisabeth Anscombe, but the traditional philosophical distinction is between "utilitarianism" (by John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham) - not "consequentialism", which means the same thing but is a little more humanistic than “utilitarianism”- and deontological ethics (by Immanuel Kant, with an interesting addition by Georg Simmel - self-legislation, “Selbstgesetzgebung”). I do not know whether the authors had an application to medicine and psychology in mind, as these meta-ethical approaches have not proved successful there, but rather judgement according to ethical principles (e.g. Beauchamp and Childress). A statement on this matter would be helpful.

Method

The recruitment of participants, the description of the scales used and the translation method of the questionnaires are accurate. The subsection 'statistical analysis' is not clearly structured for me: I miss a description of the statistical methods used for each step and the associated statistical parameters. I appreciate the power analysis and the consideration of floor and ceiling effects, but the statistical methods (e.g. construct validity, item analysis, correlation matrix and structural equation modelling) are not systematically explained step by step.

Please: describe each step and the corresponding statistical method, justify the chosen method and describe the significance of the statistical parameters (critical values) for the interpretation (e.g. correlation index, alpha, comparative fit index, etc.).

In psychometric analyses, I consider it important to first justify whether the questionnaire is a formative or a reflective measurement model, because "the use of an incorrect measurement model undermines the content validity of the constructs, misrepresents the structural relationships between them, and ultimately reduces the usefulness of [the underlying theory]" (T. Coltman et al. 2008; but especially Edwards and Bagozzi, 2000). I believe that the implemented scales are reflective (e.g. the indicators of the construct EPQ-5 are considered to be caused by assumed dimensions of the construct); this is because the authors use confirmatory factor analysis and not criterion validity.

The construct validity chosen in this research is not justified. I do not find in the manuscript the statistical method implemented. The dichotomous variables are critical because of the lack of a continuous approach (by accepting loss of information). Why did the authors not use logistic or linear multivariate models? (e.g. Logistic: dichotomous experience of philosophy - a bit strange variable -, dichotomous age, and dichotomous religiosity as dependent variables in each model and other variables as regressors/associates; (e.g. logistic: dichotomous experience of philosophy - a bit strange variable -, dichotomous age and dichotomous religiosity as dependent variables in each model and other variables as regressors/associates; or linear multivariate models: scores of each questionnaire or questionnaire dimensions as dependent continuous variables, three dichotomous variables as continuous variables and other variables as personality dimensions or socio-demographic variables as regressors/associates?

What can the authors say about the convergent or divergent validity of the questionnaires?

In my opinion, the orthogonality of the construct questionnaires has not been assessed (or displayed in the manuscript).

What can the authors say about the representativeness of the subsample (n=102) four weeks later? Usually researchers compare the same subsample or the whole sample and a subsample if the subsample can be considered representative.

Tables

As a general rule, I recommend more detailed captions in the tables to make them self-explanatory.

What do the different colours in Table 2 mean? The table is too large; I suggest reducing on the dimensions of the constructs. Some correlations have not been discussed, e.g. neuroticism and gender, religiosity, and having children.

Table 4: The internal consistency is, in my opinion, too concise. For example, the “average interitem covariance” is statistically relevant. I don't see whether some items can be removed from the model in the German version because the alpha of the item is > alpha of the whole scale. These tables can be included as supplementary material.

Table 6 is not clear. See the comments in the section above.

Table 8 needs to describe critical values of parameters.

Results and Discussion

This research aims to validate the German version of three ethics-based questionnaires. In this respect, the 'Results' section should systematically present the psychometric findings in accordance with the methodological comments further up in the text. The relationships between the assessed scales and factors/dimensions of the constructs with the other measured variables must be explained, focusing on the relevant findings.

In the "Discussion" section, I miss a reflection on the implications of these questionnaires for psychosocial, sociological or medical practice: What is the purpose of these questionnaires? What questions could these questionnaires be used for?

The section on limitations is well argued. Considerations of convergent/divergent validity could be added.

The literature is current, appropriate and detailed.

**********

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: Yes:  Jolanta Lewko

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.

German validation of three ethics questionnaires: Consequentialist Scale, Ethical Standards of Judgment Questionnaire, and Revised Ethics Position Questionnaire

PONE-D-24-37745R1

Dear Dr. Birgit Teichmann

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 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,

Myriam M. Altamirano-Bustamante

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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

**********

5. 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

**********

6. 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: Dear authors, the manuscript raises a very interesting topic, congratulations on undertaking research in this area. I believe that the research was conducted reliably and the research results were developed in accordance with the principles of writing original works. The aim of the work was clearly defined, the research tools used were properly characterized. The statistical analysis is correct and the conclusions result from the aim of the research. All comments from the reviewers have been corrected. I recommend the work for publication.

Reviewer #2: Dear authors,

Thank you for considering my comments, which you have implemented well and concisely in the manuscript. The focus of my comments and also your corrections and additions were the meaning of the construct and the refinement of the ethical terminology as well as the methodological part. I understood that you wanted to concentrate on the main results and therefore reduced the breadth of the results. That's fine. You ask me to specify which part of the results are missing. I meant a more systematic linking of the research question, the methods used to answer the questions and the single results. Perhaps I was too meticulous in my desire to systematise the manuscript more strongly throughout; the information has all been presented, important explanations have been included, so I will abstain from further systematisation of details.

From my point of view, the manuscript can be accepted for publication in its current form.

**********

7. 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: Yes:  Jolanta Lewko

Reviewer #2: No

**********