Auditing Congregational Health: Exploring Members’ Well-Being in the Church and Commitment to the Congregation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an applied paper detailing the findings of a congregational health survey conducted in a large Dutch church. A factor analysis supports the findings of the survey. Although the theoretical contributions to congregational studies are limited, the methodological contributions are sound.
Fortunately, I only have minor typographic revisions to offer:
1. "assessment" in the title on line 47 should be capitalized.
2. "Whitebread" in the citation on line 61 should be "Whitehead".
3. The title on line 434 needs to be revised.
This is a very well-written paper. I will use it in my future research.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for reading our work carefully and your suggestions to further improve it. We have made the three typographical adjustments, as you suggested and hope that you have benefitted from reading this contribution.
Thanks for all your encouragements,
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an interesting paper. It could be beneficial to describe how you chose your sample (ie- why only 30-50 year olds surveyed?). Additionally, it would be important to note the timeline when data was collected and geographical location.
Lastly, check capitalization and spelling of headings and correctness
of parenthetical citations.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for carefully reading our work and your suggestions to further improve it. We introduced a timeline of study to the contribution and gave an impression of the geographical location of the congregation. Lastly, we checked for typographical errors and made relevant changes. Thank you for providing these suggestions to us.
Yours sincerely,
the authors
Reviewer 3 Report
In this article, the authors treat a problem of the congregational health. They specifically focus on the perception of church health factors in statements that stay close to the feelings and attitudes of members. The article seeks demonstrate that the members’ sense of belonging to their church represents an extremely meaningful aspect of church life. The research findings are significant for the theologians and organizational scientists.
The title begins with a catchy main title and is followed by a subtitle that gives information about the subject of the manuscript. I would like to recommend deleting the capital letters in the main title (Auditing Congregational Health: Exploring Members’ Well-Being in the Church and Commitment to the Congregation).
The abstract does not contains information to enable the reader to understand what was done. My suggestions: (1) to explain the central question or statement of the problem this research addresses; (2) to pronounce the most important parts of the article’s content; (3) to demonstrate clearly the importance of the paper for the field.
The keywords reflect the content. However, to be effective, Audit Research should be substituted by better keyword.
The Introduction provides the reader with the background of research and articulates aim of the article. The Introduction establishes the originality of the article by demonstrating that a relational approach to the membership-congregation connection is lacking.
The first part of the paper (Church Health Characteristics and Assessment Tools) shortly summarize recent research related to the topic.
The data collection and methods are detailed enough. However, the explicit description of how data were analysed is lacking. The ethical considerations are absent.
The text of Results is clear and easy to read.
The authors should check the use lowercase letters in this title: discussion AND CONCLUSIONS.
The Discussion focuses on explaining that at the heart of church health is the congregational commitment of its members. The authors effectively demonstrate that this commitment encompasses both psychological/emotional aspects of the member-congregation relationship as well as behavioural components.
Finally, the concluding part of the article could be communicated better. The conclusions should be evidence-based, i.e. they should clearly describe what the data show.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for carefully reading our work and making suggestions to further improve it. We have made relevant changes to the manuscript as you suggested, by adding relevant key-words, making typographical adjustments and explaining the ethical considerations that we have upheld all throughout the research process.
We hope you have also benefitted from reading our work and want to again express our thanks for your suggestions for improvement.
the authors
