Psychometric Properties of the Intrapreneurial Self-Capital Scale in Malaysian University Students

Change Propertises   with Properties.

Changed

Abstract

- I suggest   restructuring the abstract, since currently it is more focused on the   introduction of the topic and study’s results, and misses conclusions and   considerations about practical implications of the study.

The previous abstract   was shortened and statements regarding practical implications were added.

Introduction

- Check the use of   abbreviations. Generally, the first time the word should be used in full,   followed by the abbreviation in parentheses. Thereafter use only   abbreviation.

The abbreviations have   been revised for consistency of use.

- According to the   title, which refers to testing psychometric properties of the scale, the   study means an adaptation, instead of validation (as you mentioned at rows 57   e 58).

The description of the   purpose of the study was changed to include adaptation. The same point is   also changed in the Discussion section.

- The introduction   misses references to previous studies’ results on Intrapreneurial   Self-Capital and its link with career outcomes. In particular, authors should   argument why they have chosen some specific variables in order to test   concurrent validity.

We argumented why we   have chosen some specific variables in order to test concurrent validity.

Method

Participants

- Since the study   involved a very wide sample of university students, it would be useful to   report what they studied.

Added – the students   were from art and science stream.

- Moreover, why did   author decide to specify participants’ religion?

Deleted.

- Finally, Row 103   misses an information after 10.8%.

Added – Kadazandusun

Measures

- The ISCS’s Likert   scale, where 1 is strongly agree and 5 is strongly disagree, is opposite   compared to the other scales. Could authors explain why and how they managed   it?

The original   instrument uses the stated scale. A statement is added to emphasise this   point.

- Row 133: change “for   .87” in “.87 for”

Changed

- Row 148: considering   that three authors proposed the paper, who the “fourth author” is?

This was a mistake.   The statement has been changed.

Results

This section needs   significant improvement, since the main results are not clearly presented. In   particular, this section misses:

- descriptive   statistics (mean and standard deviation) of each measure.

Descriptive statistics   (mean and standard deviation) of each measure are reported in Table 3.

- correlations table,   including all factors, other measured variables and demographic variables   (e.g. age, gender, …)

As suggested also by   the second review the full Pearson's correlation matrix with all the measures   included in the study, with APA format (Means, SD, and correlations) is   included in the article.

- CFA results, since   fit indices are not enough. A figure or table with all paths (factor   loadings, covariances, errors, …) is fundamental to understand and evaluate   the final model.

We provided in Figure 1   the path diagram for the final model in which factor loadings and covariances   are explicit. Further, we discussed in the discussion section the critical   issues related to the challenge and decisiveness dimensions (Line 274-280).

- if authors tested   alternative factor models they should present and compared fit results.

We did not test   alternative factor model because we would like to replicate the structure of   the original Italian version

- total-item   correlation

We reported in Table 2   the total-item correlations.

Moreover, presenting   items in English and Malaysian versions would benefit readers and future   scales’ users.

The items in English   are available under request from the author of original version of the ISCS:   Annamaria Di Fabio, University of Florence, Florence, Italy. Items in   Malaysian version are available under request from the author: Chua Bee Seok,   Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Sabah, Malaysia.

Discussion

In the discussion   section, authors should discuss practical implications of the study,   describing how the instrument may be used and linked to other interventions   in this field.

Three paragraphs were   added to include the suggested elaboration.

Please, expand your   discussion on the constructs that ISC includes using the current   literature. 

We expanded the discussion   adding reference to the constructs included in the ISC.

Please, better   justify your decision of taking CAAS and Life-project reflexibility in order   to test the validity of ISC. 

We justified our decision to   use CAAS and LPR in order to test concurrent validity of the ISC.

I strongly   recommend you to include the full Pearson's correlation matrix with all   the measures included in the study, with APA format (Means, SD, and   correlations). The absence precludes future inclusion of your paper in any   meta-analysis. 

The full Pearson's   correlation matrix with all the measures included in the study, with APA   format (Means, SD, and correlations) is included in the   article.

Perhaps, you can strength   your paper by including a regression analysis with control variables (gender,   age, educational level, socioeconomic position) in the first step, and ISC in   the second, and CAAS or Life-project as outcomes. 

We report a regression table   with available control variables (gender, age) in the first step and ISC in   the second, and CAAS or Life-project as outcomes. 

Finally, your paper has a   lot of implications for the further development of research, but also for   parents, teachers, and counselors. Please, expand them. 

Three paragraphs were added   to include the suggested elaboration.