Adaptation of the Revised Environmental Identity Scale to Adult Portuguese Native Speakers: A Validity and Reliability Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The aim of this paper is to translate to Portuguese the Revised Environmental Identity Scale (Revised 15 EID) and to analyse its validity and reliability in a sample of native speakers of Portuguese (18-83 years old). To the knowledge of the authors there is no Portuguese validated EID scale although Portuguese is the seventh most spoken language worldwide with around 230 million speakers in Europe, South America, Africa, and Asia. A sample of 545 Portuguese and native speakers of Portuguese from other countries (Angola, Brazil, Mozambique), aged 18 or older, were selected for this study.

The paper is well put together and follows a logical and rational structure. The topic is pertinent; scale translation and adaptation to different cultural contexts is very useful.

I don't have the skills to evaluate the statistical part of the paper.

Comments related to the methodology:

1.      Did the authors obtained permissions from the original authors to translate the EID revised scale?

2.      Did the authors followed any protocol for the translation and adaptation of the scale (for example Test Commission Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests Gregoire, 2018)

3.          The inclusion of several countries where Portuguese is the official language was the justification given for including respondents from Angola, Brazil and Mozambique in the sample, in addition to Portuguese respondents.

-              However, the sample description does not give any information about the distribution by country.

-              Also, although these countries share a common language, the social and economic reality in Portugal, Angola, Brazil and Mozambique is quite different. On the one hand, the consequences of climate change are different in Africa and Europe, which could lead to different experiences and thus also to different answers. The environmental crisis is global, but the threats and challenges that climate change brings vary between regions, with some being disproportionately affected, namely some African countries. These changes are experienced by populations in different ways that also stem from contextual and cultural factors.

-              On the other hand, there are some variants and differences between the European Portuguese and the Brazilian Portuguese.

This can raise questions about the validity of EID scale for all the 4 countries even though they share the same official language.

In this sense, the discussion of the results by country could bring additional information that could be valuable.

4. Although all the methodological steps have been described, i.e, “the questionnaire was translated into Portuguese by two translators with proficiency in both Portuguese and English, both of whom were trained in methods and psychometric methods and item construction, and both were experts in the field of environmental psychology.” it would be appropriate to present some evidences, for example:

- did the two translations of the scale diverge or were they consensual? did any issues arise in the translation into Portuguese? How were they resolved?  Were the different versions of Portuguese considered?

5. “The two independent translations were compared and discussed until a consensus version of each item was obtained.”

- Who participated in that discussion?  The translator and the researchers? Has an expert panel been appointed to take part? Did it included experts form the 4 countries? Did the authors and /or the panel of experts introduced other changes to the final translate version of the scale?

6. Was the consensus forward translation tested among representatives of the target population?

7. “In some items, modifications were made to have a better adaptation to the cultural setting. (Line 154).

Can you give some examples of those modifications?

8. Finally, it could be helpful if the translated scale was included in the annexes.

Author Response

Comment 1: The paper is well put together and follows a logical and rational structure. The topic is pertinent; scale translation and adaptation to different cultural contexts is very useful.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your comments. We have made our best efforts to meet the Journal's quality standards.

 

Comment 2: Did the authors obtained permissions from the original authors to translate the EID revised scale?

Response 2: We asked permission from the first author (Susan Clayton) of the original Revised EID article. The author authorized us to adapt the scale and sent us the version that was used in this manuscript.

 

Comment 3: Did the authors followed any protocol for the translation and adaptation of the scale (for example Test Commission Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests Gregoire, 2018)

Response 3: Thank you very much for your question. In fact, we followed the guidelines of the International Test Commission (Hernández et al., 2020). In accordance, the following information has been added to the revised version of the manuscript: “As necessary, the questionnaire was translated into Portuguese following the guidelines of the International Test Commission [31].”

 

Comment 4: The inclusion of several countries where Portuguese is the official language was the justification given for including respondents from Angola, Brazil and Mozambique in the sample, in addition to Portuguese respondents.

However, the sample description does not give any information about the distribution by country.

Also, although these countries share a common language, the social and economic reality in Portugal, Angola, Brazil and Mozambique is quite different. On the one hand, the consequences of climate change are different in Africa and Europe, which could lead to different experiences and thus also to different answers. The environmental crisis is global, but the threats and challenges that climate change brings vary between regions, with some being disproportionately affected, namely some African countries. These changes are experienced by populations in different ways that also stem from contextual and cultural factors.

On the other hand, there are some variants and differences between the European Portuguese and the Brazilian Portuguese.

This can raise questions about the validity of EID scale for all the 4 countries even though they share the same official language.

In this sense, the discussion of the results by country could bring additional information that could be valuable.

Response 4: Thank you very much for your comments. In fact, the sample included native Portuguese speakers of other nationalities who have been living in Portugal for the last five years (this latter information has been added to the manuscript). We have decided to include these participants considering the increase in migrants from Portuguese-speaking countries to Portugal observed in recent years, so that this proportion would be closer to the proportion observed in the last Census carried out in Portugal.

We acknowledge the cultural differences between countries, but the main aim of this manuscript was to develop a Portuguese version of the measure. However, some procedures were adopted to develop a version of the scale taking into account possible linguistic and cultural differences between the participants, even though they had all been living in Portugal for at least the last five years. Firstly, one of the translators was born in Angola. Secondly, the research team had knowledge of the cultural context of the other countries (Brazil and Mozambique), since for professional reasons they had lived in these countries for extended periods of time.

In general, the aim of this study is to develop a version for the Portuguese language, and replication of this study in samples from other Portuguese-speaking countries would be highly relevant. All this information has been added to the revised version of the manuscript. We hope that these arguments will satisfy the questions raised.

 

Comment 5: Although all the methodological steps have been described, i.e, “the questionnaire was translated into Portuguese by two translators with proficiency in both Portuguese and English, both of whom were trained in methods and psychometric methods and item construction, and both were experts in the field of environmental psychology.” it would be appropriate to present some evidences, for example:

Did the two translations of the scale diverge or were they consensual? did any issues arise in the translation into Portuguese? How were they resolved?  Were the different versions of Portuguese considered?

The two independent translations were compared and discussed until a consensus version of each item was obtained.”

Who participated in that discussion?  The translator and the researchers? Has an expert panel been appointed to take part? Did it included experts form the 4 countries? Did the authors and /or the panel of experts introduced other changes to the final translate version of the scale?

“In some items, modifications were made to have a better adaptation to the cultural setting. (Line 154).

Can you give some examples of those modifications?

Response 5: Thank you very much for your comments. The following information has been added to the manuscript: “The two independent translations were compared, and it was noticed that there was a high consensus between both translations (Cohen’s kappa = 0.93). There were a few differences in some items which were discussed until a consensus version of each item was obtained. This procedure was carried out by the two translators and the research team whose members were familiar with the cultural context of the other Portuguese-speaking countries. In some items, modifications were made to have a better adaptation to the cultural setting.” Additionally, an example was provided: “As an example, in item 12 (“I consider myself a steward of our natural resources”), the word “steward” was translated into “guardião”, whose meaning in Portuguese relates to being a “Keeper”, because it was more adapted to the cultural context of both Portugal and the other Portuguese-speaking countries.” We hope that our explanations and adopted procedures satisfy the questions raised.

 

Comment 6: Was the consensus forward translation tested among representatives of the target population?

Response 6: A pilot study was carried out with a group of participants with similar characteristics to the target population. The following information has been added to the revised manuscript: “Before data collection, a pilot study of the final version of the translated scale was conducted with a group of participants representative of the target population. This group was comprised of 27 participants (age range: 18-73 years old), 18 females and 9 males, and 19 Portuguese, two Brazilians, two Angolans and two Mozambicans. As a result of this procedure, no changes were made to the scale.”

 

Comment 7: Finally, it could be helpful if the translated scale was included in the annexes.

Response 7: The original version of the scale and the translated version of the scale have been added as an appendix to the manuscript. In view of your first comment regarding the request for permission from the authors of the scale, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, we will share this version of the scale with the authors of the original scale.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulate the authors for the development of a novel and currently very important research topic.

The authors correctly describe and contextualize the previous theoretical background on the topic.

What is the main question addressed by the research?

This study analysed the validity and reliability of the Revised Environmental Identity Scale (Revised 15 EID) in a sample of native speakers of Portuguese (18-83 years old). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis were conducted to assess the construct validity of the scale.

Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? Please also explain why this is/ is not the case.

The study is interesting because it analyses a current and worrying topic such as climate change as a source of concern for a large part of the population around the world and the relationship with mental health problems by identifying emotional and cognitive symptoms triggered by environmental problems.

What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

The contribution of the research is in an area of ​​great scientific importance, the potential consequences of the environmental crisis and pro-environmental behaviors where populations have already directly experienced the effects of climate change.

What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?

How the proposed research model is validated, what are its strengths, theoretical support and the means to validate the possible results that are processed with the tools indicated in the article.

Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? Please also explain why this is/is not the case.

The conclusions are fully supported by the results presented in the article; a comparative analysis could be included with the results of similar studies that could expand the field of study.

Are the references appropriate?

Everything is correct

Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures and quality of the data.

Everything is correct

Author Response

Comment 1: Congratulate the authors for the development of a novel and currently very important research topic. The authors correctly describe and contextualize the previous theoretical background on the topic.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your comments. We have made our best efforts to meet the Journal's quality standards.

 

Comment 2: The study is interesting because it analyses a current and worrying topic such as climate change as a source of concern for a large part of the population around the world and the relationship with mental health problems by identifying emotional and cognitive symptoms triggered by environmental problems. The contribution of the research is in an area of great scientific importance, the potential consequences of the environmental crisis and pro-environmental behaviors where populations have already directly experienced the effects of climate change.

Response 2: Thank you very much for your comments.

 

Comment 3: How the proposed research model is validated, what are its strengths, theoretical support and the means to validate the possible results that are processed with the tools indicated in the article.

Response 3: Thank you very much for your comments. Meanwhile, it is our belief that the results presented and their discussion in the light of the literature on the topic are in line with the methodological and statistical analysis procedures used in research into the adaptation and validation of scales. In addition, the originality of our results on the multidimensional nature of environmental identity, as well as its relationship with pro-environmental and sustainability-promoting behaviors, is addressed in the discussion and added to in the Conclusions.

 

Comment 4: The conclusions are fully supported by the results presented in the article; a comparative analysis could be included with the results of similar studies that could expand the field of study.

Response 4: Thank you very much for your comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

I have reviewed your manuscript titled: ”Adaptation of the Revised Environmental Identity Scale to Adult Portuguese Native Speakers: A Validity and Reliability Study” and concluded that it is an interesting study dealing with the topic that is relevant for the readership of the journal Sustainability. I think this work is suitable and within the scope of the journal Sustainability. However, some issues need to be addressed.

 

1.     In Abstract in Line 22 there are two dots: (SEEKING, CARE and PLAY). . One should be deleted.

2.     In Introduction section, detail explanation of Revised Environmental Identity Scale should be added.

3.     In Chapter 2.1 can you specify how many Portuguese and how many native speakers of Portuguese were tested? Since you only gave a sum of these two groups.

4.     In chapter 3.1, line 263 it is stated that p < .001 (p should be italic in the whole manuscript). Is this determined p value? What is statistical significance level at which the tests were performed?

5.     In the whole Manuscript, I suggest to add zero before dots e.g. Table 2 .78 as 0.78.

6.     Since in Table 4 and 5 you have two factor solution, could you apply analysis by two-factor ANOVA test?

7.     In the whole Manuscript n should be italic.

8.     Conclusion section should be extended with obtained conclusions.

Author Response

Comment 1: In Abstract in Line 22 there are two dots: (SEEKING, CARE and PLAY). . One should be deleted.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your correction. This error has been corrected in the new version of the manuscript.

 

Response 2: In Introduction section, detail explanation of Revised Environmental Identity Scale should be added.

Comment 2: Thank you very much for your suggestion. The requested information has been added to the new version of the manuscript

 

Comment 3: In Chapter 2.1 can you specify how many Portuguese and how many native speakers of Portuguese were tested? Since you only gave a sum of these two groups.

Response 3: Thank you very much for your question. In Table 1 (Sample demographic characteristics), information on the proportion of participants' nationalities has been added.

 

Comment 4: In chapter 3.1, line 263 it is stated that p < .001 (p should be italic in the whole manuscript). Is this determined p value? What is statistical significance level at which the tests were performed?

Response 4: Thank you very much for your questions. All p-values presented in the manuscript are now in italics. The following sentence has been added to the new version of the manuscript: “All statistical analyses were carried out at a significance level of .05.”

 

Comment 5: In the whole Manuscript, I suggest to add zero before dots e.g. Table 2 .78 as 0.78.

Response 5: Thank you very much for your suggestion. The requested changes were conducted.

 

Comment 6: In the whole Manuscript, I suggest to add zero before dots e.g. Table 2 .78 as 0.78.

Response 6: Thank you very much for your suggestion.  However, the two-factor ANOVA test s used to estimate how the mean of a quantitative variable changes according to the levels of two independent variables. From our perspective, both the analysis of the associations between the factors taken from the FA and the variables related to environmental identity (Tables 4 and 5) and the t-tests (with Bonferroni correction) for comparing the means of two independent groups (Tables 6 and 7) are the statistical approaches usually used in research.

 

Comment 7: In the whole Manuscript n should be italic.

Response 7: Thank you very much for your suggestion. The requested changes were conducted.

 

Comment 8: Conclusion section should be extended with obtained conclusions.

Response 8: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have deepened the conclusions drawn from our results. We hope you will be satisfied with the changes made to the manuscript.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Dear Authors,

 I have looked at your reviewed Manuscript titled: ”Adaptation of the Revised Environmental Identity Scale to Adult Portuguese Native Speakers: A Validity and Reliability Study”. Since all suggestions have been implemented, I suggest that this paper should be published in the journal Sustainability.

 With my kindest regards,