A cross-cultural investigation of the short version of the Celebrity Attitude Scale (CAS-7) across five countries

Rita Horváth; David C. Watson; Lynn McCutcheon; Yohanes Budiarto; Róbert Urbán; Zsolt Demetrovics; Fransisca Iriani Roesmala Dewi; Reza Shabahang; Benyamin Mokhtari Chirani; Joshua L. Williams; Carlota Cruces Serrano; Nancy G. McCarley; Jonathan E. Roberts; Mara S. Aruguete; James D. Griffith; Jeanne Edman; Thomas Green; Ho Phi Huynh; Blaine L. Browne; Bethany Jurs; Emilia Flint; Michael J. Bernstein; Hyeyeon Hwang; Marc Eric S. Reyes; Ágnes Zsila

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0331696

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 15, 2025
29 Apr 2025 Decision Letter - Osmond Ekwebelem, Editor PONE-D-24-58562A cross-cultural investigation of the short version of the Celebrity Attitude Scale (CAS-7) across five countriesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zsila, 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 Jun 13 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. 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, Osmond Ekwebelem 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “Reza Shabahang is supported by the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship (AGRTPS). This funding source has no role in covering the publication fee as it is used for an individual training program which does not cover APCs.” Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: “NO” Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. In this instance it seems there may be acceptable restrictions in place that prevent the public sharing of your minimal data. However, in line with our goal of ensuring long-term data availability to all interested researchers, PLOS’ Data Policy states that authors cannot be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-acceptable-data-sharing-methods). Data requests to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, helps guarantee long term stability and availability of data. Providing interested researchers with a durable point of contact ensures data will be accessible even if an author changes email addresses, institutions, or becomes unavailable to answer requests. Before we proceed with your manuscript, please also provide non-author contact information (phone/email/hyperlink) for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If no institutional body is available to respond to requests for your minimal data, please consider if there any institutional representatives who did not collaborate in the study, and are not listed as authors on the manuscript, who would be able to hold the data and respond to external requests for data access? If so, please provide their contact information (i.e., email address). Please also provide details on how you will ensure persistent or long-term data storage and availability. 6. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. 7. 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. 8. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files. Additional Editor Comments: • Some sentences are unnecessarily long and complex. Breaking them down would improve readability. Example: "Therefore, based on the findings by Zsila et al. (14), the CAS-7 is fundamentally unidimensional with some multidimensionality." Simplify or rephrase to avoid confusion between "fundamentally unidimensional" and "some multidimensionality." • Some minor errors, like missing commas or awkward phrasing. Examples: o Line 8: "Cronbach’s 123 alphas" = Should just be "Cronbach’s alphas." o Line 9: "which have been generally used in celebrity worship research." It could be smoother as "which are commonly used in celebrity worship research." • Terms like "cross-cultural setting" and "applicability" are repeated multiple times. Consider varying word choice slightly for flow. • While you hint at cultural differences (e.g., McCutcheon et al. finding differences between U.S. and India), you don't explain why cultural context might impact celebrity worship. Briefly explaining this would better justify the need for cross-cultural validation. • The transition to study aims feels a little abrupt. A bridge sentence summarizing why cross-cultural validation is needed based on previous limitations could strengthen it. Questions for the Authors on introduction: • How were the five countries (Canada, Hungary, Indonesia, Iran, and the U.S.) selected? Were there any cultural frameworks (e.g., individualism-collectivism) considered in their selection? • Since you're using student and fan samples, how comparable are these samples across countries? Are they matched on key demographics (age, gender)? • Was measurement invariance testing (e.g., configural, metric, scalar invariance) considered to formally establish cross-cultural comparability of the CAS-7? • If CAS-7 is found to be "fundamentally unidimensional," how should future researchers treat the subscales — still interpret separately or focus mainly on the total score? • If CAS-7 shows poor fit in certain countries, would you recommend culturally adapting it, or would you suggest developing entirely new culturally sensitive scales? Comments on the methods • The word “database” sounds strange when referring to people (line 168). Consider replacing it with "sample" or "dataset". • You mention the 3 ES and 4 IPBP items but don't explain what ES and IPBP stand for here. This should be briefly expanded for clarity. Questions for the Authors on methods: • Convenience sampling inherently limits generalizability, but this limitation is not acknowledged. It should be. • How many participants came from each country/sample (students vs general population vs celebrity fans)? • Was the sample distribution approximately equal across groups, or heavily skewed toward one? • It is unclear why data access dates are different from data collection dates. o Line 182–183: "The data for research purposes were accessed between 31/12/2015 and 12/04/2024." But participants were recruited starting from 2018. Why access data from 2015? o Please clarify whether there were existing datasets before new data collection started. • Other than age and gender, were any other sociodemographic variables collected (e.g., education, income, country of residence)? If yes, mention them. • Why is this large sample appropriate for CFA and SEM? (A brief note would strengthen the methods section.) • Why are the data access dates (starting from 2015) earlier than the participant recruitment dates (2018)? Were earlier datasets used? Please clarify. • Since participants were from five different countries, was the CAS-7 translated into local languages? • Could you please define ES and IPBP when first introducing them? It will help readers unfamiliar with the original CAS structure. Comments on the discussion • Ideas sometimes jump between results, limitations, and broader interpretations without clear transitions. Use more structured subsections or clearer paragraph transitions. • The claim that CAS-7 “may be widely applicable” (lines 310–311) feels overstated, especially given the cross-cultural limitations admitted. Temper this language to avoid implying broader validity than supported. • The Iranian sample's deviation is mentioned but not discussed in depth. Elaborate more on why the Iranian sample's results differed—was it sample size, cultural interpretation of celebrity, translation issues, etc.? • Some sentences are awkward or confusing, particularly around lines 288–293. Example: “Looking at the term ‘celebrity’, it may have a different meaning across cultures.” Reword to, e.g., "The concept of 'celebrity' itself may vary considerably across cultures, influencing how celebrity admiration is experienced and reported." • Besides research, could CAS-7 be used for clinical, media, or public health purposes in different countries? Briefly discuss practical applications and caution about their limitations due to cultural variability. • It’s unclear how different participant sources (students, general public, celebrity fans) might have influenced the findings. Reflect briefly on whether sample type (beyond nationality) may have introduced additional variability. Questions for the Authors on the discussion: • What are your hypotheses for why the two-factor model did not fit well for the Iranian sample? Could it be related to cultural norms about fame or admiration? • Were there particular CAS-7 items that performed inconsistently across cultures? If yes, which ones and why might that be? [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: Dear authors, I found your work invaluable and a timely issue however I have a suggestion for you. Despite mentioned in problem statement slightly, you did not justify 7-point likert scale than a 5-point likert scale. I believe that you need to critically show the rationale of using CAS-7 factor structure with its implications under the method section-measure section. ****** 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 ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331696.r001
Revision 1
20 Jul 2025 Author Response Dear Osmond Ekwebelem, We are grateful for the positive and constructive comments. The insightful suggestions helped us significantly improve the quality of our manuscript. Following your recommendation, we are pleased to submit a revised version of the manuscript entitled “A cross-cultural investigation of the short version of the Celebrity Attitude Scale (CAS-7) across five countries” for further consideration in PlosOne. We have addressed all the comments (summarized below), which you can see in the revised version of the manuscript with yellow highlights. Reviewer comments appear in bold, followed by our response, and the revised section of the manuscript (in italics). Again, we are grateful for all the recommendations. We hope that the revisions will meet your standards for publication in PlosOne. Sincerely, the authors Editor Comments 1.Some sentences are unnecessarily long and complex. Breaking them down would improve readability. Example: "Therefore, based on the findings by Zsila et al. (14), the CAS-7 is fundamentally unidimensional with some multidimensionality." Simplify or rephrase to avoid confusion between "fundamentally unidimensional" and "some multidimensionality." Author’s response: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have made the necessary modifications in the manuscript accordingly. Changes in themanuscript: Page 8: “Therefore, based on the findings by Zsila et al. (14), the CAS-7 is mainly unidimensional.” Page 15: “Therefore, the present findings also indicated that the CAS-7 is primarily a unidimensional construct, consistent with Zsila et al. (14).” 2.Some minor errors, like missing commas or awkward phrasing. Examples: o Line 8: "Cronbach’s 123 alphas" = Shouldjust be "Cronbach’s alphas." o Line 9: "which have been generally used in celebrity worship research." It could be smoother as "which are commonly used in celebrity worship research." Author’s response: We carefully revised and rewrite those lines accordingly. Changes in themanuscript: Page 8: „Common problems concerning the CAS were its length, the lack of a cut-off score to differentiate between healthy and problematic celebrity admiration (13), the poorer internal consistency of the BP factor (Cronbach’s alphas were around 0.6 or below across many studies, see [10]), and the high correlation between the IP and BP factors (14), which have been regarded as the two problematic factors, while ES theoretically represents a healthy dimension of celebrity admiration.” Page 9: “Therefore, the suitability of the CAS-7 on convenience samples, which are commonly used in celebrity worship research, needs further empirical evidence.” 3.Terms like "cross-cultural setting" and "applicability" are repeated multiple times. Consider varying word choice slightly for flow. Author’sresponse: Thank you for pointing this out. We made some changes in the manuscrip taccordingly. Changes in themanuscipt: Page 8-9: “Therefore, the suitability of the CAS-7 on convenience samples, which are commonly used in celebrity worship research, needs further empirical evidence.” Page 9: „To date, no studies have provided evidence for the appropriateness of the CAS for cross cultural comparison purposes.” “The aim of the current study was to test the psychometric properties of the CAS-7 in terms of factor structure and reliability in other cultures, thereby extending its potential use. To examine the consistency of the factor structure of the CAS-7, seven samples (student and fan convenience samples) from five countries (Canada, Hungary, Indonesia, Iran, and the United States) are used. This study also investigates the usability of the CAS-7 for cross-cultural research purposes if consistency across the factor structures is confirmed.” Page 10: “Evidence for the usability of the CAS-7 in a cross-cultural setting could contribute to a more accessible assessment of celebrity worship in future research and practice in a broader, international context.” Page 14: “However, to ensure the broader appropriateness and generalizability of previous findings regarding this brief measure, further validation across diverse cultural contexts is necessary.” “Such evidence could provide further support for the international utility of the CAS-7 in different cultures.” Page 16: “Despite this limitation, preliminary evidence from five countries suggests that the CAS-7 has a consistent bifactor structure and good reliability, confirming its suitability for research purposes and practical utilization in a wider international context.” 4.While you hint at cultural differences (e.g., McCutcheon et al. finding differences between U.S. and India), you don't explain why cultural context might impact celebrity worship. Briefly explaining this would better justify the need for cross-cultural validation. Author’s response: Thank you for this insightful observation regarding the need to elaborate on how cultural context may impact celebrity worship. We have now elaborated more on this aspect. Changes in the manuscript: Page 9: “Cross-cultural studies using the CAS have been scarce. McCutcheon et al. (16) found substantial differences across students from different universities (i.e., U.S., India) in celebrity worship. McCutcheon et al. (17) also found significant difference between African-American, Hispanic and Asian American, and White participants’ in celebrity worship levels. Specifically , African-American participants scored higher in the IP and BP dimensions than Hispanic and Asian American participants, while White participants had higher scores compared to African-American, Hispanic and Asian American participants. A strong preference was also demonstrated for celebrities of the same ethnicity to their own across these groups. McCutcheon et al. (17) explained that relating to a celebrity can offer a psychological escape from the difficult reality of belonging to a minority group in a society that cannot ascertain full acceptance toward these individuals.” 5.The transition to study aims feels a little abrupt. A bridge sentence summarizing why cross-cultural validation is needed based on previous limitations could strengthen it. Author’s response: Thank you for pointing this out. We integrated a bridge sentence. Changes to the Manuscript: Page 9: „Building on previous findings, and the lack of a cross-cultural investigation of the CAS, the present study focuses specifically on the extension of the usability of the CAS across diverse populations.” Introduction 1. How were the five countries (Canada, Hungary, Indonesia, Iran, and the U.S.) selected? Were there any cultural frameworks (e.g., individualism-collectivism) considered in their selection? Author’s response: Thank you for your thoughtful question regarding the selection of countries. The five countries (Canada, Hungary, Indonesia, Iran, and the U.S.) were chosen based on the availability of relevant datasets and our established collaborations with research teams in these locations who are engaged in the study of celebrity worship and utilize the Celebrity Attitude Scale. The selection was therefore primarily based on convenience, reflecting accessible data sources and existing academic partnerships, rather than being guided by a specific cultural framework such as individualism-collectivism. Changes to the manuscript: Page 10: „The five countries (i.e., Canada, Hungary, Indonesia, Iran, and the USA) were selected based on existing research collaborations among research teams with significant expertise in celebrity worship research. Therefore, the selection was convenience-based.” 2. Since you're using student and fan samples, how comparable are these samples across countries? Are they matched on key demographics (age, gender)? Author’s response: Thank you for raising this important point. To evaluate demographic comparability, we examined gender and age distributions across the seven samples. Chi-square and post hoc z-tests revealed significant differences in gender ratios with female proportions ranging from 27.1% (Iran) to 85.0% (Indonesia). In terms of age, a one-way ANOVA showed significant differences across the samples in terms of age, F(6, 4346) = 245.74, p< .001. Tukey post hoc tests indicated that participants from Hungary (fan sample; M = 34.70) and the U.S. (general sample; M = 31.59) were significantly older than those in Indonesia (M = 19.45), U.S. students (M = 20.50), and Canada (M = 20.55). These findings suggest that the samples had significant differences on key demographic variables. We now report these findings (see SM Table 7) acknowledge this in the revised manuscript and recommend that future studies either recruit more demographically balanced samples or include statistical controls for age and gender when examining cross-cultural effects. Changes to the manuscript: Page 10: „A chi-square test revealed a significant difference in gender distribution across samples, χ²(12, n = 4353) = 1035.04, p < 0.001, with the Iranian sample having the highest proportion of male participants (72.9%) and the Indonesian sample having the highest proportion of females (85.0%). Similarly, a one-way ANOVA showed significant differences in participants’ age across groups, F(6, 4346) = 245.74, p < 0.001. The youngest mean age was demonstrated in the Indonesian student sample (Mage = 19.45, SD = 1.89), while the highest mean age was found in the Hungarian fan sample (Mage = 34.70, SD = 12.40) (see SM Table 7).” Page 17: “Another important limitation of this study relates to the heterogeneity of the samples. Demographic variability may further limits the generalizability of the present findings.” 3. Was measurement invariance testing (e.g., configural, metric, scalar invariance) considered to formally establish cross-cultural comparability of the CAS-7? Author’s response: Thank you for this valuable comment. To assess cross-cultural comparability of the CAS-7, we conducted measurement invariance testing using a stepwise approach (configural, metric, scalar) across six country samples where the two-factor model showed acceptable fit. While the configural model demonstrated good fit (χ²(78) = 224.26, p < 0.001; CFI = .981; RMSEA = .055), subsequent models indicated declining fit indices. The metric model showed moderate change (ΔCFI = .018; ΔRMSEA = .011), and the scalar model yielded a notable decline in fit (ΔCFI = .024; ΔRMSEA = .051), suggesting that full scalar invariance was not supported. Given these findings and the known limitations of bifactor models in cross-cultural comparisons due to differential constraints, we opted to retain the more stable and theoretically grounded two-factor structure for the current study. These limitations and theoretical implications are now discussed in the manuscript. Changes to the manuscript: Page 12-13: “To examine the cross-cultural comparability of the CAS-7, stepwise measurement invariance testing was employed using multigroup CFA (24) across six country samples in which the two-factor model showed acceptable fit. The Iranian sample was excluded from this analysis as the two-factor model did not show good fit in this sample. The grouping variable was the origin of the sample (i.e., country). Although the bifactor model showed superior fit compared to the two-factor model across some of the samples, due to the lack of differences in the measurement model (i.e., different item-level restrictions) which were present in the bifactor models, alongside with theoretical interpretability (see 14), stability and replicability across the present samples, and good psychometric properties of the two-factor model, this model was selected for the invariance testing. The two-factor model was comparable across the samples as the measurement model was equal. Configural, metric, and scalar invariance were sequentially tested to detect potential measurement biases. Nonsignificant change in the commonly used fit indices indicates measurement invariance in the indicated levels (25,26): ΔCFI ≤ 0.010; ΔTLI ≤ 0.010; and ΔRMSEA ≤ 0.015; ΔSRMR ≤ 0.030 for metric and 0.015 for scalar invariance.” Page 15: “Measurement invariance testing based on the two-factor model across the six country samples did not support either metric or scalar invariance (see Table 4). Specifically, changes in the fit indices (i.e., CFI, TLI, RMSEA, SRMR) were substantial across the scalar–metric, and metric–configural models. Therefore, measurement invariance was not demonstrated across the samples. In more detail, the factor loadings and the intercepts (mean scores) are substantially varied across the samples, preventing meaningful cross-cultural comparison in celebrity worship levels measured by the CAS-7. In summary, the CAS-7 measure does not meet the criteria for cross-cultural comparability in terms of mean scores and strength of associations between celebrity worship and other constructs, despite the consistent and replicable factor structures across the cultural samples.” Page 16: “In summary, the present findings suggest that the CAS-7 is a psychometrically sound tool for assessing celebrity worship separately in diverse cultural contexts, as the bifactor structure demonstrated good overall fit across each sample. Measurement invariance testing did not support metric and scalar invariance, suggesting that neither factor loadings, nor intercepts were equivalent across the samples, seriously limiting the scale’s appropriateness for cross-cultural comparisons in terms of associations or latent means.” Page 18: “Finally, neither metric, nor scalar invariance was supported across the examined country samples. Items and item groups contributing to the lack of measurement invariance were investigated by analyzing the invariance of the two factors of the CAS-7 separately. Evidence of metric or scalar invariance was not found for either factor. Therefore, we were unable to identify any item group that could be invariant across the examined samples. Future research may consider applying further item-level analysis (e.g., item response theory methods).” 4. If CAS-7 is found to be "fundamentally unidimensional," how should future researchers treat the subscales — still interpret separately or focus mainly on the total score? Author’s response: Thank you for raising this important methodological consideration. While the CAS-7 demonstrates fundamental unidimensionality, we recommend that researchers interpret both subscales (entertainment-social and intense-pathological) alongside the total score. These subscales capture distinct dimensions of celebrity worship (e.g., social bonding vs. excessive preoccupation), which can remain meaningful despite the scale’s unidimensional structure, based on the respective research aims. The choice to prioritize subscales or the global score should depend on the study’s focus: subscales are preferable for examining mechanisms linked to specific behaviors (e.g., differentiating healthy engagement from problematic levels of admiration), while the total score is suitable for assessing general celebrity admiration. This approach aligns with recent psychometric recommendations advocating for context-driven interpretations of unidimensional measures (see Zsila et al., 2024). We have clarified this rationale in the revised manuscript. Changes to the manuscript: Page 15: "Researchers should use the subscale or the total score of the CAS-7 based on the study’s objectives. Specifically, subscales could be used to provide a more differentiated picture on the associations of specific behavioral or emotional dimensions (e.g., excessive absorption or healthy interest in a celebrity) with other psychological constructs (e.g., cognitive functioning), and the global score for assessing celebrity admiration when the research aim is rather focused on measuring the extent of celebrity admiration generally (see (14)). 5. If CAS-7 shows poor fit in certain countries, would you recommend culturally adapting it, or would you suggest developing entirely new culturally sensitive scales? Author’s response: Thank you for raising this critical methodological question. Our analyses revealed no instances of poor model fi Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_CAS7.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331696.r002
20 Aug 2025 Decision Letter - Osmond Ekwebelem, Editor <p>A cross-cultural investigation of the short version of the Celebrity Attitude Scale (CAS-7) across five countries PONE-D-24-58562R1 Dear Dr. Zsila, 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, Osmond Ekwebelem Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Comments and questions raised were thoroughly addressed. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331696.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Osmond Ekwebelem, Editor PONE-D-24-58562R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zsila, 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. Osmond Ekwebelem Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331696.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 .