Development of Self-Assessment Indicators for Motorcycle Riders in Thailand: Application of the Motorcycle Rider Behavior Questionnaire (MRBQ)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This reviewer has carefully examined the manuscript entitled "Developing indicators of self-assessment for motorcycle riders: Application of motorcycle rider behavior questionnaire (MRBQ)", by Savalee Uttra et al.  

In the paper, the authors study the factors influencing riders’ behaviour by employing the motorcycle rider behaviour questionnaire (MRBQ). Their aim is to create motorcycle riding behaviour model of Thai riders by applying MRBQ and define guidelines for creating self-assessment reports for Thai citizens to qualify for motorcycle riding. The sample used consists of 1,516 adult riders.  

This reviewer considers that the aim of the paper is not completely fulfilled, and the authors must clarify and develop the methodology, results and, above all, the Discussion Section. Conclusions should be separated from Discussion and merged with Section 5.  

The title should be modified to include some reference to the area of study, Thailand.

The manuscript needs strong English proofreading, as several grammar mistakes and typos have been detected.

Fig. 1 has to be improved, place labels correctly.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

First of all, thanks for submitting this interesting manuscript to the journal. If published, I believe the readers of Sustainability will find it very useful for developing key insights in the field of road behaviors and crash risk amongst motorbike riders.

The structure is adequate, and you have successfully achieved some relevant statistical requirements that allow you to support the conclusions reported at the end of the paper (that, anyway, need some adjustments).

However, I believe some amendments and clarifications (some of them minor, but other major) are required to maximize the soundness and scientific value of the study. Please see below:

1. First of all, the paper needs a reading proof. I believe the fact that the authors are not English native speakers should not separate them from publishing this insightful paper, but a professional/native editor might contribute to enhance its clarity and readability.
2. In the abstract, please better describe the study sample, including some demographic features and basic considerations regarding the research tool. Also, I believe the conclusion included there could be more explicative and synthetic of the study.
3. The objective needs to be more clearly raised, stated and supported at the end of the introduction, in accordance to the hypothesis of the study.
4. The introduction is sound, but more evidence on the need of specifically studying motorbike rider’s behavior in regard to other groups of road users concentrating most of the existing research (what do they have in common, and some key differences) would help readers to understand the pertinence of the development and application of this version of Elliot’s MRBQ. In this regard, some findings comparing (e.g.) drivers with riders in terms of the BQ (behavioral questionnaire) paradigm may highlight the widespread influence of errors and violations on their crashes, always considering ergonomic, vehicular and task-related differences across them.
5. In section 2.2.1, the description of the MRBQ needs more work, clarity and, perhaps, operationalization of the main variables measured.
6. The first paragraph of section 3.1 is, in my opinion, more suitable at section 2.2, since this is not rigorously a research outcome.
7. Although Table 4 is accurate, on the other hand you have that Table 5 is not quite useful for readers. Rather, a factor-correlation table could be enough to illustrate the correlations between pairs of study factors.
8. In section 3.3, authors should talk about CRI (Composite Reliability Index) instead of CR, that is the construct and not the reliability indicator, highlighting that it ranges from 0 to 1.
9. In my opinion, the main weakness of the paper is the lack of a good discussion. Authors should work in the development of insights and comparisons between the actual findings of their study and previous applications of the MRBQ, considering (e.g.) variable associations, causal paths, conclusions, etc. This might support the conclusions in a more efficient way.
10. Limitations of the study need more accuracy, discussion and description.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article describes the development of a  motorcycle rider behavior questionnaire (MRBQ) in Thailand. The topic is interesting and the article is well structured. However, the English language should be heavily revised. There are several mistakes and some sections are very hard to follow.

Apart from language, comments on the study are as follows.

• The link between the paper topic and the journal aims and scope should be better clarified and stated in the article.
• In my opinion, the major issue of this paper is the lack of relationships with accident data. Apart from statistical tests on the internal consistency of the questions in the survey, it could be important to link the final indicators with accident data and related descriptions/causes/related factors. This may be useful to test if these behaviors are actually related to accident risk.
• The hypothesis in the methods section should be better explained in detail, not only listed.

Minor comments:

• Table 5 could be put in an Appendix section. There is no need for that in the article.
• Personal data in Table 3 could be better organized, for example with headings in bold type.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The comments and suggestions made by this reviewer have been taken into account by the authors in the revised version of the manuscript. Therefore, publication in present form is advisable.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thanks so much for the responses provided in your rebuttal letter. Although it was a bit difficult to cross-check all the comments raised in my last review (the authors made such a synthesis of the comments received in the past phase of reviews), and marked the modifications performed along the text document attached to their submission. In this regard, I consider that:

a) Their responses and rationales are substantially accurate, and the main points and concerns expressed by all the reviewers were properly responded, detailing some adjustments and technical considerations used for it.

b) The changes included in the text are sufficient to consider the manuscript as publishable. In my past review, I (specially) argued about the lack of specificity and succinctness for (e.g.) referring to some key aspects of the study, such as the study sample and the instruments used for the data collection phase. However, I ind in this second (revised) version a considerably good job from the authors of the paper, providing clearer definitions and using more recent and pertinent sources for supporting this information.

c) The English writing presents some key improvements (in the previous version, the manuscript had several typos and grammar errors; most of them were properly amended during the revision), and it enhances the readability of the paper.

Good job and best wishes.

Reviewer 3 Report

The article has considerably improved in the revised version.