Work–Family Conflict and Its Sustainability Implications among Married Immigrants Working in the USA

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Sustainability

Work – family conflicts in the U.S.

The paper ads on an ever interesting topic of work and family relations providing more evidence that work affects the family in several ways, ussualy to the negative effects towards the family time and family dynamnics.

The case of immigrants workers and the whole population is similar, but with a distinction of more complex situation of the immigrants. As shown in the paper immigrants face job burnout, burnout related to work-family conflict, marital agreements, marital happiness, and job satisfaction.

Results confirmed the overall known influence of work on the family, providing direct and  indirect impacts.

 Major changes to be made:

The text should be technically revised through the diminishment of spaces between rows (single space).

The text letters size are to small (10, it should be 11), see technical guidelines.

In the methodology, the items should be described – each item -  from job intensity to job satisfaction.

Especially for “acculturation” which is mentioned in conclusion as very important in the model.

What would it be considered by job intensity (over work, more ours daily then 8 ours, deadlines ?)

Explain how some of the constructs had 9 variables and some 1, how did You equalize their effects through the statistics?.

Factor analysis requires the same scales for all variables – explain how did you equalized them – transformed them ? since some variables had 4 points, (1-4) some 7 points (1-7)

How did you equalized it – transformed it to fit in the AMOS  statistical procedures ?

It might be helpful to provide a table with the Anova finding between the groups – the differences according to 9  and 15 years of work in the U.S.

Show which type of work – occupation participants had.

Show differences among family size and marital status of participants.

Author Response

1) The text should be technically revised through the diminishment of spaces between rows (single space).

RESPONSE: Thank you for this advice. We believe that we have taken care of the spaces. We did follow the format provided by the journal.

2) The text letters size are to small (10, it should be 11), see technical guidelines.

RESPONSE: We changed the letter (font) size to 11 everywhere, except the tables/figures and references.

3) In the methodology, the items should be described – each item -  from job intensity to job satisfaction.

RESPONSE: Thank you. We have explained each of the variables, with references, in the ‘introduction’ section. At your suggestion, we have added all scale items under description for each scale in the method section.

4) Especially for “acculturation” which is mentioned in conclusion as very important in the model.

RESPONSE: We have added more information on acculturation highlighted in the text.

5) What would it be considered by job intensity (over work, more ours daily then 8 ours, deadlines ?)

RESPONSE: You pose an interesting and important questions about job intensity. We have added (Job Intensity section) references 21 and 22 in response to you query. As you suggest, job intensity is shaped by numerous factors including overworking, extended work hours, and relentless deadlines. Although a typical workday is 8 hours, constantly working beyond this, especially involuntarily, can increase job intensity. The nature of tasks also has an impact on job intensity, with high-stakes or physically demanding activities increasing job intensity compared to repetitive, simple tasks. Also, constantly facing tight deadlines for work completion can increase job intensity. The overall work environment, encompassing workplace culture, support from colleagues, resource availability, and job security, can influence job intensity perceptions. Individual traits and personal situations outside work further influence these perceptions, with some thriving in high-intensity settings, while others may experience burnout.

6) Explain how some of the constructs had 9 variables and some 1, how did You equalize their effects through the statistics?

RESPONSE: This is an important question. The level of analysis for our study was scales and not scale items. As such, the number of scale items are not believed to be an issue when using factor analysis or confirmatory factor analysis. Each of these techniques adjusts for the number of scale items.

7) Factor analysis requires the same scales for all variables – explain how did you equalized them – transformed them? since some variables had 4 points, (1-4) some 7 points (1-7)  

RESPONSE: Factor analysis is not an analysis of variables but is an eigen decomposition of the correlation matrix of the variables with the diagonal identity vector replaces with communality (shared variance) estimates. Also, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) adjusts for variables measured on different scales. CFA is often used in the context of latent variable modeling, where observed variables can have different measurement units or scales.

8) How did you equalized it – transformed it to fit in the AMOS statistical procedures? 

RESPONSE: The data did not require transformation to be analyzed in AMOS as noted above.

9) It might be helpful to provide a table with the Anova finding between the groups – the differences according to 9  and 15 years of work in the U.S.

RESPONSE: Thank you for this suggestion. We did the analyses in two ways. First we did a median split and test for the significance of major study variables using ANOVA. This analysis revealed no significant differences. Next, we repeated the analysis by splitting the sample into three groups (thirds). This analysis showed significant differences for work-life support and job satisfaction. For each of those variables, those is the U.S. for 9 – 11 years were significantly higher than immigrants that had been in the U.S. 12 or more years but not different from those who had been in the U.S. from 2 – 8 years.

10) Show which type of work – occupation participants had.

RESPONSE: Thank you. We have included this information in Table 1 and in the text. The respondents were employed in a range of fields: 37.9% in management or related professions, 24.7% in service, 14.3% in sales, 8.2% in construction, 5.5% in government, 8.2% in production, and the remainder in various other areas.

11) Show differences among family size and marital status of participants.

All of the respondents were married. Here is the analysis for number of children:

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper investigates how work variables (job intensity and work-life support) affect burnout among green card holders in the US. Specifically, the authors investigate, how burnout may be related to work-family conflict and how these variables influence marital agreement, marital happiness, and job satisfaction. Results collected from 182 participants suggests that job factors had direct as well as indirect impact through burnout, on work and family outcomes. Overall, it is a well-designed study with interesting findings. However, I have some suggestions that I would like the authors to consider/address to improve the quality of the manuscript.

·       In a few sentences’ authors make a claim without citing prior studies. Please address this

o   Lines 44-45, add a reference

o   Lines 55-56

o   Line 61

o   Etc.

·       Line 247 mentions, 59% were male, with a median age of 32 years. Was the rest female? What’s their mean age? Also report standard deviation for the age.

·       I would recommend adding a Table with all the demographics

·       Line 256, authors mention “After pilot testing,” What did authors do during this pilot testing? Please add details.

·       Line 268 – Authors mention “Reliability of this scale was .81” Is this Cronbach’s Alpha? Please clarify

·       Line 271, the scale was used in a study based in Qatar. Are there studies that have used this in the US? If not, how can authors validate ensure that this tool/scale can be used in any country.

·       For the Burnout, is there any particular reason why only emotional exhaustion was considered and not depersonalization and personal accomplishment.

·       Line 346, rather than reporting p < .02, please report the exact values. Only use < when p-values are less than .01.

·       From Table 2 please remove “ns”

No major concerns

Author Response

1) In a few sentences’ authors make a claim without citing prior studies. Please address this.

o   Lines 44-45, add a reference

RESPONSE: Reference 5 has been added.

o   Lines 55-56

RESPONSE: Reference 7 has been added.

o   Line 61

RESPONSE: Reference 8 has been added.

2)  Line 247 mentions, 59% were male, with a median age of 32 years. Was the rest female? What’s their mean age? Also report standard deviation for the age.

RESPONSE: Yes, the remaining participants were female. We have entered means and standard deviations for age of men and women. Table 1 reports an overview of sample demographics.

3) I would recommend adding a Table with all the demographics

RESPONSE: We have constructed Table 1 showing the demographics.

4)  Line 256, authors mention “After pilot testing,” What did authors do during this pilot testing? Please add details.

RESPONSE: Thank you. We have added additional information. The pilot test was used to make sure that participants understood the questionnaire.

5)  Line 268 – Authors mention “Reliability of this scale was .81” Is this Cronbach’s Alpha? Please clarify

RESPONSE: Yes, this is Cronbach’s Alpha.

6)  Line 271, the scale was used in a study based in Qatar. Are there studies that have used this in the US? If not, how can authors validate ensure that this tool/scale can be used in any country.

RESPONSE: Thank you for this thought-provoking question. To the best knowledge of all the researchers in this study, no study was done in the United States and hence we were not able to use a scale used in the U.S. Our study is the first of its kind, so we adopted the scale used in the Qatar study. Such adoption of scales developed or used in other countries are very common, especially in studying a research topic that is novel. Once again, thank you for your question.

7)  For the Burnout, is there any particular reason why only emotional exhaustion was considered and not depersonalization and personal accomplishment.

RESPONSE: Thank you for this important question. This was a preliminary study of the sample, and we chose the most appropriate dimension of burnout, which was ‘emotional exhaustion.’ Survey length was another reason. By focusing on the most central dimension of burnout, we attempted to make the interpretation of the results most straightforward. However, we do fully agree that future studies should encompass all the three dimensions of burnout. We have indicated this in ‘limitations’ and ‘future directions’ sections.

8) Line 346, rather than reporting p < .02, please report the exact values. Only use < when p-values are less than .01.

RESPONSE: Thank you for this comment. This has been corrected.

9) From Table 2 please remove “ns”.

RESPONSE: We have removed the instances of “ns” in Table 2 (now Table 3).

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

dear authors,

thank you for providing an upgraded text according to the two reviewers

the text is now technically and textually much better and ready for publishing

the introduction, methodology and results section have now better quality and clarity