The Validation and Psychometric Properties of the Gaming Instinctual Motivation Scale
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
First of all, thank you for the opportunity to review this article.
Here are a series of recommendations for authors:
Introduction
-I would recommend using connectors to link ideas between paragraphs.
-When explaining Lazzaro's theory (lines 63 to 69), they should reword the text to make it easier to read.
-Otherwise, the introduction is correct and provides the necessary inform
Material and Methods
-The reference on line 172 is not in the proper format.
-I would recommend that you include the code of approval of the Bioethics Committee and the university that issued it.
-The abbreviation "PANAS-X" was not defined prior to line 202.
-It would also be appropriate to include the date of data collection in the "Procedure" subsection.
Results
-In the results they talk about modifying the 4-dimensional factor structure, however, Figure 1 shows a single factor structure of 15 items. Please clarify this issue. You can move it to subsection 3.3. or generate another figure with the CFA of the 4 dimensions.
-Likewise, this statement is incorrect "The discriminant validity was not sufficient for the model since MSV values were less than AVEs", since in this case it would be sufficient. In the proposed model, MSV values are greater than AVEs.
-Table 4 needs to be restructured, it could easily show in a single row the correlations between the GIMS and GAMS scales. Likewise, it seems to me "presumptuous" to claim high convergent validity between the two scales when only a single subscale of the GAMS correlates with the GIMS.
Discussion and Conclusions
-In "Key Findings" continue to talk about the 4-dimensional structure, which does not appear in any section of the manuscript.
-The rest of the section is correct.
Author Response
See attached
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is interesting as well as relevant. The number of adolescents and young people who experience gaming is growing, so understanding the motivation to play is important not only for the gaming industry but also for those involved in education and training. For this reason, the usefulness of the validation of the Gaming Instinctual Motivation Scale (GIMS) instrument also extends to its use in educational and training contexts.
In analysing the state of the art, the study highlights the need to validate a scale able to measure motivation to play, adequately describing the theoretical framework of reference that supported the methodological choices in view of the scale's development and validation.
The sample, although not very large, is well balanced with respect to the gender-age variables, perhaps a little too wide the range of hours playing video games.
The measures and procedures are detailed and clearly described as is the presentation of the data supported by an adequately conducted data analysis.
The critical analysis in the conclusions is also good, highlighting the criticality of the validation for the generalisation and interpretation of the results, which are closely connected aspects. There is certainly a need for further studies on this subject.
Overall, the article is good and useful to the scientific community.
Author Response
See attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript aimed to develop and validate a 30-item Gaming Instinctual Motivation Scale (GIMS) based on Dillon's 6-11 Framework and Lazzaro's gaming experience model. The scale had a one-dimension structure with 15 items and demonstrated good construct validity, convergent validity, and reliability. Higher scores on the GIMS were associated with a greater intention to play games. The scale was found to be applicable to Role Playing Games (RPG) and First Person Shooters (FPS) games. The GIMS could be useful in informing professional game designers of players' motivation to play a game.
1- Title: Consider using "Validation and Psychometric Properties of the... Version" for improved clarity.
2- Abstract: Abstract:
- The study's objectives are absent from the Abstract, warranting a need for their inclusion to provide a concise overview of the research focus.
- Enhance the abstract by integrating quantitative data. Highlight not only the reporting of favorable outcomes but also substantiate with specific numerical results, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of the study's success. The a
3- Keywords: Additional keywords that extend beyond the primary terms in the title. This strategy will enhance the paper's discoverability and broaden its reach among relevant readers.
4- Introduction:
- To enhance this aspect, explore the latest articles published between 2022 and 2023 on MDPI. This approach will allow you to identify and incorporate insights from recent and relevant research, providing a clearer perspective on the existing gap within your study.
- The concluding paragraph of the introduction fails to adequately clarify the existing gap within the study.
5- Methodology:
Consider omitting the sentences "We adopted a correlational approach by conducting an online survey. Since we aimed to validate the GIMS using EFA and CFA" from lines 136-137 in the initial part of the Participants and Design section.
- 2.2.3. Gaming Retention Scale: the explanation and information are incomplete.
The caption for Table 1 is short and not informative. provide more details about statistical analysis software.
Section 1.3: Research Aims - The content of the second paragraph appears disconnected from the intended study objectives, necessitating a revision for alignment and coherence.
- line 222, “had the absolute values of factor loadings of lower than .40,” add reference that show these values is adequate.
6- Results:
- Reorganize your Results section for improved coherence and clarity.
- Bring the result of Confirmatory Factor Analysis in one section.
Table 2, add statistical analysis for all columns. Same for other tables and figures, even when there are no differences you need to use the same letter. The calculation method is better described in the methodology, not in table notes.
7- Discussion: bring consistent and inconsistent studies in the discussion section
8- Conclusion: this part, only justify your hypothesis and some future research recommendations.
9- double check all your references. For example, “Tyree, S.M.; de Lecea, L. Lateral hypothalamic control of the ventral tegmental area: reward evaluation and the driving of 532 motivated behavior. Frontiers in systems neuroscience 2017, 11, 50.”
Author Response
See attached
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have conveniently corrected the relevant corrections- Congratulations for the great work and I look forward to continue seeing your research results.
