Next Article in Journal
A Composite Index to Measure Smartness and Competitiveness of Heritage Tourism Destination and Historic Building
Next Article in Special Issue
Personal Energy at Work: A Systematic Review
Previous Article in Journal
A Comprehensive Performance Characterization of a Nanofluid-Powered Dual-Fluid PV/T System under Outdoor Steady State Conditions
Previous Article in Special Issue
Human Resource Management Practices Perception and Career Success: The Mediating Roles of Employability and Extra-Role Behaviors
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 23
10.3390/su132313132
Review Report
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Construct Dimensionality of Personal Energy at Work and Its Relationship with Health, Absenteeism and Productivity

Sustainability 2021, 13(23), 13132; https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313132
by Alexandra F. J. Klijn *, Maria Tims, Evgenia I. Lysova and Svetlana N. Khapova
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Sustainability 2021, 13(23), 13132; https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313132
Submission received: 24 October 2021 / Revised: 19 November 2021 / Accepted: 22 November 2021 / Published: 26 November 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Careers and Flourishing Organizations)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, please provide some change to the text. First of all to the RMSEA value the range of set is nedded. I suggest to use another model fit index such as NFI and GFI. Additionally i don't know what kind of method of SEM was used. Was it maximum likelihood? Did the variables have distribution close to normal distribution?

In CFA value of factor loadings should be presented.

In limitation should be emphazised that all dependends variables were measured using one-item. Authors should consider using one latent dependent variable, which consist of three indicators. the main reason of that solution is the fact that this three measures are the part of the one tool.

In limitation potential cultural context influence should be signalised. It is possible that identified relationships could differ in US, Netherlands and China.

It is neccesarry to explain why unexpectedly and inconsistently to previous research emotional energy and spiritual energy were not related to health and productivity? It is very important to find the potential reasons of these discrepanties.

Author Response

Thank you for the constructive feedback. Based on your comments we have made the following changes to the text, with track changes in the document:

  • We added that the SEM was measures with maximum likelihood in the strategy analyses
  • We added the RMSEA value range in the strategy analyses
  • We added NFI in the strategy analyses and in the results
  • We checked the distribution of the variables and we can confirm that there was a normal distribution. We added this to the introduction paragraph of the results.
  • We included the factor loading range in the introduction paragraph of the results.
  • We considered the possibility of combining the three outcome variables into one. However we concluded that the three outcomes of productivity, health and absenteeism are too different, as they measure different constructs and we did not want a mix. In addition, we thought it would undermine the main objective of the study: to measure the impact of each energy dimension on each separate outcome. Based on your comments we added the disadvantages of using one-item measures in the limitations.
  • In the limitations we added a comment about the cultural differences between the countries and the possible impact on the relationships that we found
  • In the contribution, we added more reasoning for why it was unexpected that emotional and spiritual dimensions did not show significant relationships based on previous literature

We hope that these adjustments are a proper response to your review and serve the manuscript well.

Reviewer 2 Report

I find the paper Construct Dimensionality of Personal Energy at Work and its 2
Relationship with Health, Absenteeism And Productivity is very interesting and statistically well-written. The main theoretical sources are used in the theoretical background. The sample is explained in detail, and methodology, too. What I see as the big contribution is the support for the four-dimensional structure of personal energy at work and show that the construct of personal energy at work is related to the outcomes of health, absenteeism, and productivity.

Potentials for improvement of the paper lies in making the abstract more specified, with some more sentences regarding motivation for this research. Maybe the authors could add some more research with similar constructs to prove their hypotheses.

Author Response

Thank you for your positive feedback and suggestions for improvements. We have made two changes accordingly:

  • In the abstract we better explained our motivation for this study to make the purpose of the paper more clear
  • We experienced a challenge in elaborating more on the hypotheses in the abstract as it is limited in word count. Therefore, we have added a sentence about previous findings in research that formed the basis for this research

We hope these changes find you well and serve the manuscript.

Back to TopTop