Assessing Psychosocial Work Conditions: Preliminary Validation of the Portuguese Short Version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire III
, Carla Carvalho 2, Lisete S. Mónico 2, Isabel Moio 3, Joel Alves 4,5 and Tânia M. Lima 4,5,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper presents the translation of the COPSOQ from English to Portuguese. It includes demonstration of the validity of the translation, as well as the results of an initial application in Portugal. The authors have taken the results of a survey using the translated tool, and have a statistical model of the results.
What is missing is a discussion of what the survey and model indicate.Even qualitatively, there are indications of the factors that are deemed "positive" and those which are deemed "negative" in Portugal. A cursory look shows the linkages that one may expect - negative impacts of work-life balance, and of conflict, etc.
In contrast, the Introduction is more than 2 full pages of discussion about the importance of the psychosocial factors. But, these are not commented on the in the discussion of the results.
It would seem to follow that if the authors have no discussion of the results themselves - then the Introduction needs to be shortened. Or, bring in a psychosocial discussion. Without such, the paper is a weak contribution, in that it only presents the translation, the model, and some data, with little discussion.
Author Response
Reviewer 1/Comment 1: This paper presents the translation of the COPSOQ from English to Portuguese. It includes demonstration of the validity of the translation, as well as the results of an initial application in Portugal. The authors have taken the results of a survey using the translated tool, and have a statistical model of the results.
What is missing is a discussion of what the survey and model indicate. Even qualitatively, there are indications of the factors that are deemed "positive" and those which are deemed "negative" in Portugal. A cursory look shows the linkages that one may expect - negative impacts of work-life balance, and of conflict, etc.
Answer: The authors would like to thank you for taking time to review our paper. Your comments and suggestions have helped to clarify and improve the article. We think we have answered all the questions you have raised, and we have amended the text accordingly.
Reviewer 1/Comment 2: In contrast, the Introduction is more than 2 full pages of discussion about the importance of the psychosocial factors. But, these are not commented on the in the discussion of the results.
Answer: We appreciate your comment because it was necessary to balance the content of the article. The discussion of the results and the conclusion were reviewed to clarify the work developed.
Reviewer 1/Comment 3: It would seem to follow that if the authors have no discussion of the results themselves - then the Introduction needs to be shortened. Or, bring in a psychosocial discussion. Without such, the paper is a weak contribution, in that it only presents the translation, the model, and some data, with little discussion.
Answer: As we indicated in the response to the previous comment, the discussion of the results and the conclusion were revised to clarify the work developed. We hope we have provided an adequate response to your comment.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled: "Assessing Psychosocial Work Conditions: Preliminary Validation of the Portuguese Short Version of COPSOQ III".
I would like to congratulate the authors for writing this paper. This manuscript is interesting, well-written, organised and the choices made in the research seem to be relevant.
Given the nature of the article, I consider that the entire methodology is appropriate and clearly presented.
The results are also clear and presented in a perceptible way.
My suggestion is to improve the discussion and conclusions chapter. I think they will be able to delve a little deeper into the discussion of the results obtained and present the theoretical and practical implications of this research.
In the introduction you can also cite more recent research, relevant in the area.
Author Response
Reviewer 2/Comment 1: Thanks for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled: "Assessing Psychosocial Work Conditions: Preliminary Validation of the Portuguese Short Version of COPSOQ III". I would like to congratulate the authors for writing this paper. This manuscript is interesting, well-written, organised and the choices made in the research seem to be relevant.
Given the nature of the article, I consider that the entire methodology is appropriate and clearly presented.
The results are also clear and presented in a perceptible way.
Answer We appreciate your positive feedback on our work. We are pleased to know that you find our paper interesting. We will continue to strive to contribute to meaningful research in this area. We have revised the manuscript according to your suggestions and comments.
Reviewer 2/Comment 2: My suggestion is to improve the discussion and conclusions chapter. I think they will be able to delve a little deeper into the discussion of the results obtained and present the theoretical and practical implications of this research.
Answer: As suggested, the Discussion and Conclusion chapter/section have been improved, and new references (current and relevant) have been added. The theoretical and practical implications of the study were added.
Reviewer 2/Comment 3: In the introduction you can also cite more recent research, relevant in the area.
Answer: As suggested, new references (current and relevant) were added to the Introduction chapter/section.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authores,
I consider that this article is a valuable contribution to psychological assessment in an organizational context. The writing is clear and adheres to scientific writing standards, the study was well conducted, and it employs data collection and analysis methodologies that are suited to the study’s objectives. The conclusions are appropriate considering the results obtained.
As a suggestion, I recommend that the authors indicate the percentages of sample distribution by country region, and sector of activity.
In light of the above, I am in favor of accepting the article.
Author Response
Reviewer 3/Comment 1: I consider that this article is a valuable contribution to psychological assessment in an organizational context. The writing is clear and adheres to scientific writing standards, the study was well conducted, and it employs data collection and analysis methodologies that are suited to the study’s objectives. The conclusions are appropriate considering the results obtained.
As a suggestion, I recommend that the authors indicate the percentages of sample distribution by country region, and sector of activity.
In light of the above, I am in favor of accepting the article.
Answer: We appreciate your positive feedback on our work. We are pleased to know that you find our paper interesting. We will continue to strive to contribute to meaningful research in this area. We have revised the manuscript according to your suggestions and comments.
Concerning the sector of activity, the indication of the percentage of participants in the industrial sector (30.7%) and the services sector (69.3%) was included in the Abstract and section 2.1, second paragraph. As for this distribution by region of the country, we cannot present it because this variable was not collected from the study participants.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt is evident that the authors have expanded the discussion of results, as well as adding a significant number of references. As such, the paper presents results and discusses the importance of those.
