Age Discrimination and Employability in Healthcare Work: A Double-Edged Sword for Older Workers?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- The results of CFAs for internal employability and age discrimination showed that the scales, internal employability and age discrimination, must be adapted because of p less than or equal to 0.05. However, the authors considered that p less than 0.01 is fit for a good fit model. In fact, one of the conditions for a good fit model is p greater than 0.05. Please see line 178-180 and line 188-189.
- Also, to apply the scales of internal employability and age discrimination, the composite alpha and AVE must be calculated. However, the reviewer cannot find the results of composite alpha and AVE.
- Because the authors’ scales, internal employability and age discrimination, must be adapted, hence, the research results may show big shortcomings.
- From Table 2 to Table 6, they have the same shortcomings as above mentioned. Hence, the authors must adjust the results, otherwise, the results may have big bias.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. As we explained in the analysis section the χ2 values are not considered to be reliable due to the large sample size (Bentler, 1990). Therefore, we decided to look at the other indicators. We do agree that it is important to compare a two factor structure with a one factor structure. This analysis confirms the two factor structure at both time moments. We have added the following information in the analysis section on page 14:
‘We have also compared a two- factor structure (employability and age discrimination as two separate factors) to a one-factor structure. The confirmatory factor analysis suggested that the two factor structure (i.e., employability and age discrimination are two separate factors) fit the data appropriately at T1 χ2(34) = 165.121, p < .001, RMSEA = .051, TLI = .954, CFI = .965, SRMR = .032 and T2 χ2(34) = 140.144, p < .001, RMSEA = .046, TLI = .962, CFI = .972, SRMR = .031, and significantly better in comparison to a one-factor model at T1 χ2(35) = 1358.851 p < .001, RMSEA = .160, CFI = .645, TLI = .544, SRMR = .125 and T2 χ2(35) = 1364.064 p < .001, RMSEA = .160, CFI = .645, TLI = .543, SRMR = .125.’
Reviewer 2 Report
I suggest the authors rewrite in a more organized way the introduction, describing the purposes of the research.
When listing the results I suggest starting from the objectives and hyphothesis described in the introduction.
Line 159 following the APA guidelines the wording “sample” is incorrect, I suggest use “participants”.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. We have accordingly re-written the introduction and made a more consistent formulation of the goals and hypotheses throughout the manuscript. See lines 13-55. We agree that this increases the clarity and readability of this section. In line with your suggestions we have replaced sample with participants. Moreover, we have more explicitly referred to the hypotheses in the results section (see changes in the document with track changes).
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript entitled "Age Discrimination and Employability in Healthcare Work: A Double-Edged Sword for Older Workers?" Is interesting and well prepared. I recommend the authors comments and recommendations, which should be incorporated before publication.
- The main goal of the paper stated in the abstract and in the discussion is not the same. Lines 15-17: (In this study, we examined (a) the causal direction of the relationship between age discrimination and internal employability and (b) differences between age groups (young (≤30), middle ‐ aged (31–44)) , and older (≥45) healthcare workers) in this relationship.) a lines 302-303: (This study aimed to examine the reverse longitudinal relationships between age discrimination and internal employability in the context of aging in healthcare.) the same throughout the submitted manuscript.
- 1. Age Discrimination - must be improved ... authors need to complete the definition of age discrimination; you can use for example: (https://doi.org/10.2478/rput-2019-0038 and https://doi.org/10.52534/ msu-pp.7 (4) .2021.76-85). I recommend adding a text dealing with age management.
- I recommend editing part 3. Results. The authors of the paper must explicitly write a conclusion on the established hypotheses (H1 to H4). In its current form, it is problematic to look for (check) the results of established research hypotheses.
- The last recommendation concern’s part 4. Discussion I recommend changing the title to 4. Discussion and conclusions or the authors should add 5. Conclusions as a separate part.
- Formal recommendations: remove free lines: 224 and 238. There are small errors in the paper in English.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. In line with your suggestions we have made sure that we consistently state the same goal of the paper throughout the paper (see track changes). Moreover, we have added a definition on age discrimination and elaborated on age management. More specifically, we added the following text in the introduction: ‘The concept “ageism” and age discrimination refers to biased behavior, attitudes at the workplace based on one’s calendar age (Babeľová, Z. G., Stareček, A., Vraňaková, N., Császár, M., Šarmír, M., Sakál, P., & Cagáňová, D. 2019; Palmore, 2003)’. Furthermore, we have now explicitly referred to the hypotheses in section 3 in line with your suggestions. We have adapted the heading of Part 4 to Discussion and conclusions. Finally, we have removed the free lines and did a thorough English check.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors still cannot reply the reviewer's suggestions.
Author Response
Comments Reviewer 1:
- The results of CFAs for internal employability and age discrimination showed that the scales, internal employability and age discrimination, must be adapted because of p less than or equal to 0.05. However, the authors considered that p less than 0.01 is fit for a good fit model. In fact, one of the conditions for a good fit model is p greater than 0.05. Please see line 178-180 and line 188-189.
- Also, to apply the scales of internal employability and age discrimination, the composite alpha and AVE must be calculated. However, the reviewer cannot find the results of composite alpha and AVE.
- Because the authors’ scales, internal employability and age discrimination, must be adapted, hence, the research results may show big shortcomings.
- From Table 2 to Table 6, they have the same shortcomings as above mentioned. Hence, the authors must adjust the results, otherwise, the results may have big bias.
Response of the authors:
We are sorry that you felt that we did not adequately address your comments. As explained in the previous response the χ2 values are not considered to be reliable due to the large sample size (Bentler, 1990). Therefore, in line with previous research we decided to look at the other indicators. We added a sentence on this closer to the CFA to make this easier to find for the reader.
The composite reliability and AVE are not custom to report in our discipline. Therefore, we misinterpreted this comment the first time. Our apologies! We have added a table (Table 2) in which the composite reliability and AVE can be found. All composite reliability values are above .7 and all AVE values are above .5 and are therefore in line with the standards as set out by Hair (1997) and Fornell and Lacker (1991).
As both the CFA, cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability, and AVE suggest that our scales meet the standards we hope you agree with us that adjustments are not needed in Table 2-6.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper can be published in Sustainability
