Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terror Scale: Development and Validation for Portuguese Accounting Professionals

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

- In the abstract, it must contain the Research Design & Methods (main design: qualitative or quantitative; methods were used; sample size; statistical/econometric tools were used) and the practical implications of the results found;

- The introduction needs to be improved: What is the novelty/originality of your article compared to previous literature of the subject ?; What is the objective of your article ?; What are the research questions in your article ?; What are the following parts of your article about?

- In the literature review, bibliographic references must be updated. More recent studies already exist and, in particular, for the Portuguese case. Correct citations of authors throughout the text (more than 3 authors should be placed et al. - example: 102, 113, 121, etc.)

- Methodology: detail the methodology used and justify its use in this study

- Place section with results and discussion. The main results are not presented and there is no discussion with the results found in other studies

- Perform statistical analysis of indicators and latent variables and add other measures of validation of the structural model used in factor analysis.

- Insert a subtitle in Figure 1 with the identification of the latent variables.

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer,

We would like to thank you very much for acknowledging the merit and value of our paper. Thanks again for your valuable comments and suggestions. We have carefully considered your comments and suggestions and made further improvements to the manuscript. The Response to each individual comment/suggestion is contained in the table below. In line with each of your comments/suggestions, there are some specific revisions to the text as highlighted in green within the revised manuscript.

Many thanks for your great effort and time.

Kind regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article describes a study that investigates an instrument for mobbing (ALIPT) in the specific group of accountants. I had many concerns regarding the aims of the study, the methodology and the interpretation of results.  I think the paper needs extensive revision, the authors need to present the manuscript in such a way that the objectives are clear and explain what exactly was done in the study and why. I wish the authors all the best in rewriting the article.

 

1)

The whole translation procedure is not clear to me. First, I had the impression that you have adapted the LIPT to Portuguese language and named it ALIPT. See opening sentence in the Abstract. Then you list different adaptions to different languages, which drives the article more into the direction of being a translation study. However, then on page 2 (line 121), you write that it already has been translated to Portuguese by Maximo et al. (2020). Then you write in the methodology that you translated the LIPT to Portuguese again (see page 4, line 156). To confuse me even more, in line 163 it is stated that the version of Maximo et al. (2020) is used.

 

2)

More information about the importance of investigating the instrument in the group of accountants is needed? I only found one sentence that highlighted the importance of investigating mobbing in the group of accountants (line 71):

“Portuguese accountants are often faced with a heavy workload and great responsibility, besides having to fulfil urgent deadlines, which can facilitate the conditions for the occurrence of mobbing.”

So my questions are: what makes this group so special? Why is the LIPT not able to assess mobbing in this special group and why does it have to be adapted to the ALIPT? What should the ALIPT add to the LIPT? In my view, it is more important to answer all these questions and insert literature about the accountants’ special working conditions instead of listing different translation articles that have little to do with your study’s aim.

 

3)

Given that I understood the study’s aim correct, you have adapted the LIPT to be suitable for accountants. How as it adapted? Were certain items rewritten / added / removed? On page 4, line 173, it is written “As shown in Table 1, the LIPT scale has been used with accountants.” Taking a look at Table 1, I did not find any clue that could be linked to the accountants’ work. Did you use the Portuguese LIPT without changing it and tested the factorial structure again in accountants? If yes, why was it assumed that the original LIPT might not fit accountants and why is this study needed?

 

4)

the pilot study needs some more details. The pilot study was applied to 100 accountants, but before to students, too? Or is this the same group?  If there were doubts regarding some items and they had to be clarified first (in a personal feedback conversation, I assume), why were the items not rewritten?

 

5)

In the study, how were the participants recruited? Came they from different organizations or from the same organization? From which industrial sectors? Do you know how big the organizations were or how big the team is? I think these are important variables when it comes to mobbing.

 

6)

what instrument is the MLS? Is it the same as the LIPT? In the manuscript, sometimes the term MLS is used.

 

7)

why was an EFA conducted if the factorial structure of the Portuguese LIPT (or ALIPT?) is already known? Why not perform the CFA right away? Also for the EFA, the principal axis method would be more suited as the dimensions are most likely to be highly correlated.

 

8)

From Figure 1, I see that item SRE10 was removed. Is there an explanation why this item does not fit the dimension “Social Reputation Effects” well? Was this item also critical in the study of Maximo et al. (2020)?

 

9)

The discussion section mainly repeats the results section, which is usually one part of the discussion. However, what is missing is the actual discussion. What is with item SRE10? Should it stay in future studies or should it be removed? What is the connection to the study conducted by Maximo et al. (2020)? Are the results similar or different?

 

10)

The factor structure is almost identical to the original version (except for item SRE10), so it tells us that the instrument is good. Given the assumption, that the original version was not adapted regarding the items – the instrument would probably also be suitable for other occupational groups, such as teachers, call center employees, waiters, etc.?

 

11)

I was very surprised by the limitations described. Wasn't the aim of the study to measure the ALIPT precisely in the group of accountants? Why should this specific group suddenly represent a limitation?

 

Minor:

• Explain the short-term ALIPT in the abstract. I guess that it means “Adapted LIPT” or either “Accountant LIPT”.
• Please remove the citation in the abstract
• The term LIPT has been introduced in the abstrat but should be introduced in the section “introduction” as well.

The script needs English editing, the sentences are sometimes hard to follow and complicated (see for example the very first sentence in the introduction).

Other difficult or misleading sentences:

Page 1, line 42: “In other words, this study allows us to understand how the different types of bullying 42 at work are distributed.” Which study do you mean? The term “this study” usually refers to the study you have conducted. But I suppose you mean the study of Hirgoyen (1999)?

Line 74: Uninformed observers can interpret mobbing behaviours (for example, rudeness or indifference) in a completely different way, as the meaning of a specific behaviour can be known only by the author and the addressee. --> I don’t understand what is the message here

Line 78: Given this problematic… Given this problem?

Line 121: Finally, in Portugal looked into and adapted the inner structure of the Portuguese version… (delete “in” or insert “authors”?)

Line 136 “The present quantitative study proposes to test and validate LIPT constructs by means of factor analysis, looking into the internal consistency of items and factors in what concerns accountants.” --> what is meant with  LIPT constructs?

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer,

We would like to thank you very much for acknowledging the merit and value of our paper. Thanks again for your valuable comments and suggestions. We have carefully considered your comments and suggestions and made further improvements to the manuscript. The Response to each individual comment/suggestion is contained in the table below. In line with each of your comments/suggestions, there are some specific revisions to the text as highlighted in red within the revised manuscript.

Many thanks for your great effort and time.

Kind regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors made the requested changes.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for all the work you have put in to help us improve this article.
Best Regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

thank you for addressing all of my concerns so carefully. I think the manuscript has improved, but I have still some points that need to be addressed and some comments.

 

1 ) I understand that you have used the Portuguese version of the LIPT45 by Maximo et al. and used this questionnaire in the specific sample of accountants, now naming the questionnaire ALIPT. What is still unclear to me is if you have kept the items of the LIPT45 100% the same or if you adjusted some items for a better measurement of mobbing in the group of accountants. As from certain parts in the manuscript (for example in the Abstract, or on page 4 – lines 195-196) I assume that you have changed / modified some items prior to the pilot study. This is a very important step in your study, as it shows that you did not only apply the LIPT45 100% to the sample of accountants (which would be a poor way of doing such kind of research) but actually you went through the items and concluded if some adjustments have to be made to measure mobbing better in the group of accountants. This is good and this is important. Please describe the modification process much more clearly. How many items were changed? What was changed? Who made the changes? Where the changes made according to the specific stress factors in accountants (page 2)?

 

2 ) In my comment about item SRE10, I assumed that you have some thoughts or ideas why this item is not suited. Is it not suited for Portuguese people or is it not suited for accountants? Why is it problematic? I see that it refers to “ridiculing the nationality”. Is that not an issue in the group of accountants, are they not so diverse in their nationality? Or is it not an issue in Portugal, as people from other nationalities are in the minority? I understand that these are just assumptions and cannot be verified with your data, but maybe you have at least an idea why this item is problematic.

 

Further comments:

Now, I also understand why you conducted the EFA before conducting the CFA. As you apparently have modified some items, the factor structure might not be the same anymore and an EFA should be conducted to see if changes in the factor structure should be done.

The discussion now significantly improved.

I still think that the paper needs some revising regarding the English language. But as I’m not a native speaker myself, I leave that with the Editorial team.

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer,

We would like to thank you very much for acknowledging the merit and value of our paper. Thanks again for your valuable comments and suggestions. We have carefully considered your comments and suggestions and made further improvements to the manuscript. The Response to each individual comment/suggestion is contained in the table below. In line with each of your comments/suggestions, there are some specific revisions to the text as highlighted in green within the revised manuscript.

Many thanks for your great effort and time.

Kind regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx