Epistemic trust towards teacher questionnaire: Development and preliminary validation

Alex Desatnik; Maxim Yakubovskiy; Sergei Tarasov; Peter Fonagy

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0331398

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 8, 2024
4 Jul 2025 Decision Letter - Amir Karimi, Editor Dear Dr. Yakubovskiy, Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 18 2025 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. 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 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, Amir Karimi, PhD 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. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met. Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript. 3. In the online submission form, you indicated that “Our study’s minimal underlying data are within the manuscript, and all other data can be uploaded to a repository upon request”. All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either a. In a public repository, b. Within the manuscript itself, or c. 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. 4. 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. 5. Please remove all personal information, ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set. Note: spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file. Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long . 6. 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: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Dear Editor, Thank you very much for inviting me to review this study. I believe that the manuscript could be accepted with minor revisions in terms of grammar and some APA issues. I got familiarized with epistemic trust a few months ago and wondered it would be a good idea to consider its implications in education. I am very happy to see that the esteemed authors conducted this study. The authors have skillfully provided a very thorough account of the literature review. In addition, the study has a well-justified design, and the data have been analyzed accurately. Meanwhile, the discussion section is very convincing. Overall, this is a high-quality manuscript which could be accepted for publication. Last but not the least, it would be very necessary to provide more information about the implications of epistemic trust in education. For example, the authors may refer to more potentially-related correlates of epistemic trust in learning. Best regards, Reviewer Reviewer #2: Abstract: The abstract introduces a promising and timely study on the development and validation of the Epistemic Trust Towards Teacher (ETT) scale. However, several improvements are recommended to enhance its clarity, precision, and alignment with reporting standards for psychometric research: • The results section of the abstract should briefly include model fit indices from the confirmatory factor analysis (e.g., CFI, RMSEA) and reliability coefficients (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha). • Replacing phrases like “relatively distinct and theoretically coherent” with more precise statements (e.g., “the three factors showed good discriminant validity and aligned with theoretical expectations”) would improve clarity. Introduction: The introduction offers a strong and well-referenced theoretical foundation for the study, effectively bridging epistemic trust from its developmental and evolutionary psychology origins to its relevance in educational contexts. The justification for creating a context-specific instrument tailored to the student–teacher relationship is compelling and timely. However, the section would benefit from streamlining and greater clarity. Some ideas particularly those related to the evolutionary basis of learning and the role of generalization are repeated and could be condensed to improve readability. Additionally, the inclusion of methodological details (e.g., questionnaire development and hypotheses) in the introduction disrupts the logical flow and may be better placed in the Methods section. Improving transitions between themes and refining some sentences for grammar and conciseness will further enhance the narrative clarity and strengthen the impact of this important contribution. Methods The Methods section presents a solid framework for instrument development, with commendable efforts taken to ensure theoretical grounding, expert review, and psychometric rigor. The initial item pool was thoughtfully developed across six conceptual dimensions, and the multi-phase validation design—comprising EFA, CFA, and correlation-based validity testing—is appropriate and aligned with current best practices in scale development. The use of multiple well-validated external measures (WAI, NVI, TSRI, SMS) to assess convergent and divergent validity is particularly noteworthy and strengthens the methodological integrity of the study. However, several aspects of the section would benefit from clarification and minor revisions: Clarity and Structure: The section is densely written and would be easier to follow with clearer subheadings (e.g., "Item Development," "Participants and Procedures," "Validation Instruments," "Statistical Analysis"). Sentences such as those in lines 185–193 are long and would benefit from being split and simplified for clarity. Item Reduction Procedure: While the expert review process is mentioned, the criteria for item rejection (e.g., item-total correlations, theoretical redundancy) are not fully elaborated. Please clarify how final items for CFA were selected beyond expert input and whether inter-rater agreement among experts was assessed. Sampling and Demographics: The demographic table is informative, but the sample is highly homogeneous (urban, mostly upper-middle class). This limitation should be acknowledged either here or in the Discussion section as it affects generalizability. Ethical Procedures: The ethical approvals and consent procedures are adequately described. It might help to explicitly state that data were anonymous and voluntary to reinforce adherence to ethical standards. discussion The discussion section presents a clear and thoughtful interpretation of findings, effectively connecting empirical results to the theoretical constructs introduced earlier in the manuscript. The authors appropriately highlight the study’s main contributions, including the validation of a psychometrically sound, theoretically grounded, and practically relevant measure of epistemic trust in student–teacher relationships. The inclusion of generalization as a distinct factor adds novel value to the field of educational psychology. Nevertheless, several improvements are recommended to enhance clarity, precision, and scientific rigor: Overuse of General Statements Phrases such as “seem to provide preliminary support” and “may be a promising marker” occur frequently and can be more assertively stated, especially when the evidence is clear and the statistical results are strong. I suggest to rephrase to reflect confidence where justified by the data (e.g., “provide preliminary evidence” or “indicate potential”). Limited Depth in Interpretation While the findings are restated clearly, the discussion would benefit from deeper theoretical interpretation. For example, how might the "generalization" subscale inform classroom practices or intervention design? I suggest to expand on practical implications for teachers or policy recommendations based on ETT findings. Acknowledgment of Limitations The limitations are appropriately acknowledged (e.g., use of self-report, socioeconomic homogeneity), though the discussion of sampling limitations could be more explicitly tied to generalizability. I suggest to clarify how the upper-middle-class, urban sample may limit cross-cultural or lower-income applications. ****** 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: 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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331398.r001
Revision 1
27 Jul 2025 Author Response Dear Dr. Karimi and Reviewers, We would like to thank you and the reviewers for the thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript, titled “Epistemic trust towards teacher questionnaire: Development and preliminary validation.” We greatly appreciate the opportunity to revise our submission and are pleased that the reviewers found the manuscript to be of high quality, with a well-justified design, accurate data analysis, and a convincing discussion. We are particularly grateful for the reviewer’s encouraging comments regarding the theoretical potential of epistemic trust in educational contexts. We are also thankful for the reviewers’ recognition of the study’s theoretical grounding, methodological rigor, and practical relevance. Below, we provide point-by-point responses to all comments, describing the revisions made in response. Reviewer #1 Comment: “It would be very necessary to provide more information about the implications of epistemic trust in education. For example, the authors may refer to more potentially-related correlates of epistemic trust in learning.” Response: We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful and constructive suggestion. In response, we have expanded the Discussion section to offer a deeper theoretical interpretation of the “Generalization” subscale and its relevance for educational practice. We highlight how this dimension reflects students’ perception of the real-world applicability of knowledge and propose implications for teacher communication strategies, classroom design, and teacher training. We also briefly discuss how this measure can be used to guide interventions or inform educational policy. This addition is now included on page 30 of the revised manuscript. Additionally, we have addressed the minor revisions suggested regarding grammar and APA style formatting to ensure clarity and adherence to publication standards. Reviewer #2 Comment (Abstract): “The abstract should include model fit indices from the CFA and reliability coefficients. Additionally, phrases such as “relatively distinct and theoretically coherent” should be replaced with more precise language.” Response: We thank the reviewer for these insightful suggestions. We have revised the abstract to enhance clarity and align it with psychometric reporting standards. Specifically, we now report CFA model fit indices (χ²/df, CFI, TLI, RMSEA) and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for each subscale. We have also replaced vague phrasing with more precise language describing the discriminant validity and theoretical alignment of the three factors. The revised abstract appears on page 2 of the manuscript. Reviewer #2 Comment (Introduction): “While the introduction is strong, some theoretical content (particularly on the evolutionary basis of learning and generalization) is repeated and could be condensed. Methodological content (e.g., item development and hypotheses) may be better suited for the Methods section. Transitions and grammar should also be improved.” Response: We appreciate this valuable feedback. The introduction has been revised to improve readability and logical flow. We have removed repetitive content, streamlined the discussion of evolutionary theory and generalization, and relocated methodological details (e.g., scale development procedures, hypotheses) to the Methods section on pages 7-8 of the Manuscript. We have also refined transitions and edited for clarity and conciseness throughout the section. Reviewer #2 Comment (Methods – Clarity and Structure): “The Methods section is densely written and would benefit from subheadings (e.g., “Item Development,” “Participants and Procedures,” etc.). Long sentences (e.g., lines 185–193) should be simplified.” Response: Thank you for this constructive suggestion. We have restructured the Methods section to include clear subheadings: “Development of the epistemic trust towards teachers questionnaire,” “Study hypothesis,” “The development of the scale,” “Participants and Procedures,” and “Other Measures.” We have also revised lengthy sentences for clarity and readability, as advised. Reviewer #2 Comment (Methods – Item Reduction Procedure): “The criteria for item rejection are not fully explained. Please clarify how items were selected for CFA beyond expert input and whether inter-rater agreement was assessed.” Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have expanded the manuscript to clarify our item reduction procedure. Specifically, items were evaluated by seven international experts based on clarity, relevance, and redundancy. Items were retained if at least five experts rated them as highly relevant and non-redundant. While we did not compute formal inter-rater agreement statistics, a structured consensus procedure modeled on the Delphi method was used, incorporating independent review and iterative feedback. These details have been added to the “The development of the scale” section on page 10. Reviewer #2 Comment (Sampling and Demographics): “The sample is highly homogeneous (urban, upper-middle-class). This limitation should be acknowledged, as it affects generalizability.” Response: We fully agree with this critical point. We have revised the Limitations section (pages 28–30) to explicitly acknowledge the socioeconomic and geographic homogeneity of our sample. We discuss how this limitation affects the generalizability and interpretation of findings across more diverse or cross-cultural populations. We also note the need for future validation of the scale in broader and more diverse samples. Reviewer #2 Comment (Ethical Procedures): “The ethical procedures are adequately described, but it would help to state explicitly that data were anonymous and voluntary.” Response: We appreciate this suggestion. We have now explicitly stated that participation was both anonymous and voluntary, in order to reinforce adherence to ethical standards. This clarification appears on pages 10–11 of the revised manuscript. Reviewer #2 Comment (Discussion – Overuse of General Statements): “Phrases such as “seem to provide preliminary support” or “may be promising” are overused. Please use more assertive language where justified by strong data.” Response: Thank you for this helpful observation. We have revised the Discussion section to reduce hedging language and adopt more confident phrasing where the data are statistically robust. For example, we now state that the findings “a similar pattern was observed,” “these findings indicate,” “study provides encouraging evidence” rather than “seem to provide,” and have made similar adjustments throughout the paper. Reviewer #2 Comment (Discussion – Limited Depth in Interpretation): “The discussion would benefit from deeper theoretical interpretation—particularly of the “Generalization” subscale—and its implications for educational practice and policy.” Response: We thank the reviewer for this important recommendation. We have expanded the Discussion section to offer a deeper interpretation of the “Generalization” subscale and its practical relevance. We propose that this dimension reflects students’ perception of the real-world applicability of knowledge, which may inform strategies in classroom communication, instructional design, and teacher training. We also comment on how this construct could guide targeted interventions and educational policy. This revision is included on page 30 of the revised manuscript. Reviewer #2 Comment (Discussion – Acknowledgment of Limitations): “Limitations are generally acknowledged, but sampling limitations should be more explicitly tied to generalizability.” Response: We agree and have revised the Limitations section (pages 28–30) to more clearly connect sample characteristics — especially the upper-middle-class, urban background of participants — to constraints on generalizability. We emphasize the importance of future studies validating the ETT scale in more diverse socioeconomic and cultural settings. Once again, we are grateful for the opportunity to revise the manuscript and for the reviewers’ positive evaluation of our work. We sincerely thank the Academic Editor and both Reviewers once again for their detailed and insightful comments. These suggestions significantly improved the clarity, depth, and impact of the manuscript. Sincerely, Max Yakubovskiy On behalf of all co-authors Department of Educational Policy Studies, School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI, USA yakubovskiy@wisc.edu Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331398.r002
15 Aug 2025 Decision Letter - Amir Karimi, Editor Epistemic trust towards teacher questionnaire: Development and preliminary validation PONE-D-24-44350R1 Dear Dr. Yakubovskiy, 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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support . 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, Amir Karimi, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331398.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Amir Karimi, Editor PONE-D-24-44350R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Yakubovskiy, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Amir Karimi Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331398.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .