Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract
1. To add the country of the 204 nurses.

Introduction
1. The section must present the content of the whole article.
2. Include some articles as background:

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-020-00418-6

https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep11040075

https://doi.org/10.2196/20737

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11235-8

Current study
1. It needs to include in the hypotheses the mediation relationship between:
Job Demands Resources Profiles --> Work Capability Set --> Performance as a functioning 
and
Job Demands Resources Profiles --> Work Capability Set --> Intention to Leave as a functioning

Materials and Methods
1. The complete items must be in the appendix.

Results
1. It needs to show the factorial for each item.
2. Using tables to show more clearly the outcomes.
3. Please include the calculation of bootstrapping and mediation effects.

Author Response

Note: To be viewed in conjunction with the amended manuscript uploaded.

Abstract

Point 1: To add the country of the 204 nurses.

Response 1: Amended accordingly.

 

Introduction

Point 2: The section must present the content of the whole article. 2. Include some articles as background:

• https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-020-00418-6
• https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep11040075
• https://doi.org/10.2196/20737
• https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11235-8

Response 2: Thank you for the recommended articles. It has been incorporated in the introduction.

 

Current Study

Point 3: 1. It needs to include in the hypotheses the mediation relationship between:

• Job Demands Resources Profiles --> Work Capability Set --> Performance as a functioning; and
• Job Demands Resources Profiles --> Work Capability Set --> Intention to Leave as a functioning.

Response 3: We included tests for indirect affects as requested by the reviewer and included the results in the manuscript.

 

Material and Methods

Point 4: The complete items must be in the appendix.

Response 4: Complete items inserted in the appendix.

 

Results

Point 5: It needs to show the factorial for each item. Using tables to show more clearly the outcomes. Please include the calculation of bootstrapping and mediation effects.

Response 5: Factor loadings of each item reported in the appendix. Results of the mediation analysis reported.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to read your paper. This is a good and well-structured paper. I have four comments as follow:

1. The research contributions are not totally clear to me. Authors should revise the last paragraph on page 2 (lines 84 to 89) to highlight the contribution of this study 

2. In section 5.1, the results of CFA are pretty long and hard to follow without a table. I expect to have a table with the detailed results of CFA.

3. This study focuses on the relationship between job-demand resources profiles, work capability set, and performance or intention to leave. It is suggested to have a list of JD-R profiles in the appendix.

4. The in-text citation should be checked to comply with the journal regulations.  I think parentheses should be replaced by square brackets for the numbering in-text citations.

Author Response

Note: To be viewed in conjunction with the amended manuscript.

 

Point 1: The research contributions are not totally clear to me. Authors should revise the last paragraph on page 2 (lines 84 to 89) to highlight the contribution of this study.

 Response 1: We indicated that resources are regarded as less important than capabilities in the CA. We found only one study that was conducted using latent profile analysis (LPA) on job demands and resources in the African context. LPA makes it possible to consider different profiles of job demands and resources and to investigate the effects of specific combinations of job demands and resources on the capabilities of emergency nurses.

 

Point 2: In section 5.1, the results of CFA are pretty long and hard to follow without a table. I expect to have a table with the detailed results of CFA.

Response 2: Reported in the appendix.

 

Point 3: This study focuses on the relationship between job-demand resources profiles, work capability set, and performance or intention to leave. It is suggested to have a list of JD-R profiles in the appendix.

Response 3: Inserted accordingly.

 

Point 4: The in-text citation should be checked to comply with the journal regulations. I think parentheses should be replaced by square brackets for the numbering in-text citations.

Response 4: Amended accordingly.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

The model proposed in the MS was exciting, and there was a knowledge gap in the issue. However, I think there were a lot of flaws in the study designs.

 I have comments as follows:

1. The introduction part with all the CA and theories was so long that you lost it in the texts. The person-centered approach captured the attention. However, I would expect more exploration concerning JD-R.

Did you build a new framework between JD-R to performance and intention to leave? Or did you adopt them from somewhere else?

2. The method: how did you select the participants? Were they chosen randomly or purposive selection? or you used all emergency nurses; in this case, the total number of nurses was so small.

- Did you calculate the sample size and power needed for the statistical significance? Which hypothesis was the primary one?

- how did you inform participants, and did you obtain individual consent?

Individual consent would be mandatory if you conducted a survey study.

3. Result: In table 1, the missing values in some groups were so high that the participant sizes were smaller to almost 120 participants, weakening the effect sizes of the results.

4. Discussion: as a primary search through literature in the field, there were a lot of South African studies regarding JD-R. This lone or job-related investigation could be referenced and compared in this part.

Best regards,

 

 

Author Response

Note: To be viewed in conjunction with the amended manuscript.

 

Point 1: The method: how did you select the participants? Were they chosen randomly or purposive selection? or you used all emergency nurses; in this case, the total number of nurses was so small. Did you calculate the sample size and power needed for the statistical significance? Which hypothesis was the primary one? How did you inform participants, and did you obtain individual consent? Individual consent would be mandatory if you conducted a survey study.

Response 1: Sampling method inserted. Participants were informed via an informed consent form and face-to-face explanations where possible. Individual consent was obtained. Paragraph included under heading 4.4. Power analysis was done using G*Power software. Reported in section 4.2. Individual consent was obtained.

 

Point 2: Result: In table 1, the missing values in some groups were so high that the participant sizes were smaller to almost 120 participants, weakening the effect sizes of the results.

Response 2: These only reflect missing values on participants' reported biographical information and not on the measurement instruments. We did not run analyses on these demographic variables and therefore the effect size was not impacted on by the missing values reported in Table 1.

 

Point 3: Discussion: as a primary search through literature in the field, there were a lot of South African studies regarding JD-R. This lone or job-related investigation could be referenced and compared in this part.

Response 3: The study followed a person-centered approach to the JD-R of nurses in South Africa as opposed to previous variable-centered approaches. This has been included in the introduction and discussion.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for addressing and revising the MS.