The Volunteer Motivation Scale (VMS): Adaptation and Psychometric Properties among a Portuguese Sample of Volunteers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Dear Authors,

after careful review and incorporation of suggested changes, your article is much improved and seems to lend itself well to this journal. 

The thorough revisions have strengthened the content, addressing concerns raised during the previous review process.

 In particular, the revisions have greatly enhanced the discussion of sample size limitations and data nonnormality, helping to give greater robustness to your results and to continue research in the same field so that increasingly reliable data can be obtained.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for the careful reading and comments.

Best regards

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Understand that this is a resubmission work, this article has addressed most of my concerns from last review. Some suggestions are as follows:

The reason for bring in the “autonomy support” is not clear. It is not included in any of the discussion. Also, it is not related with the research aim.

Follow up on last review:

I still cannot actually see how the authors bring a test of 4-factor and 2-factor model while the reference they take for VMS-C test about 6-factor and 5-factor model, with a confirmatory factor analysis.

The authors may highlight some special points to note for the Portuguese context to increase the significance of this research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your careful reading and comments.
Regarding autonomy support, in the introduction (lines 232-235) we refer to the study by Li, Wu, and Knee, which reported the association between an autonomy-supportive climate and more intrinsic or internal regulations. In the discussion (lines 495-497) we also indicate these results.
Regarding the models tested, we are grateful for the attention, but we would like to highlight that the instrument used is based on the initial study by Millette and Gagé (2008) and not on the Chinese form of the VMS, therefore the 4-factor model and the 2-factor (intrinsic/extrinsic) recommended by the authors were tested.
Regarding the last comment, we added reinforcement to the discussion and conclusions.

Again, thank you for your comments.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

I enjoyed reading this paper.   Greatly improved over the previous version. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your careful reading and comments.

Best regards

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author,

I have read your study on the psychometric properties of the Volunteer Motivation Scale (VMS) for the Portuguese sample of volunteers. Overall, your research is well-conducted and provides valuable insights into assessing volunteers' motivation. The findings regarding the four regulatory styles and their associations with basic psychological needs and causality orientations are quite interesting.

However, I noticed a couple of areas that could be further addressed or clarified. First, the sample size seems relatively small, which might affect the generalizability of the results. It would be beneficial to discuss the implications of this limitation and suggest directions for future studies with larger and more diverse samples.

Additionally, the non-normality of the data is an important consideration for the analysis. I appreciate your use of the robust DWLS estimation method to handle this issue, but it might be helpful to provide further discussion on the potential impact of non-normality on the study's results and interpretations.

Despite these points, your study offers valuable contributions to the field of volunteer motivation assessment, and the adaptation of VMS for the Portuguese context is commendable. I encourage you to continue exploring this area and to consider addressing the mentioned points to enhance the robustness of your findings.

The quality of English language in the manuscript is generally good. The authors effectively convey their research findings and present a coherent narrative throughout the paper. The writing style is clear and easy to follow, allowing readers to understand the research objectives and results.

However, there are a few areas that could be improved. Firstly, there are some instances of awkward phrasing and word choices that could be revised for better readability. Secondly, in some sections, the sentences are quite lengthy and complex, which might make it challenging for readers to grasp the main points easily. Simplifying the language and breaking down complex sentences could enhance the manuscript's clarity.'

Overall, with some minor improvements to language clarity and grammar, the manuscript will be even more effective in communicating the research findings to a broader audience.

Reviewer 2 Report

This study explored the use of VMS among a Portuguese sample. Overall speaking, the writing style is clear. Some suggestions and concerns are as follows:

In the introduction, perhaps the authors should clearly state the research gap and why it is necessary to explore the VMS with a Portuguese sample.

The description for section 1.1 SDT is too general and is hard for readers to understand the complex conception in table 6.

The section 1.2 explores different instruments in different language. It is perhaps in too detailed in explain each of their results (not findings). How is it related to the current study?

A lot of the instruments were stated in section 2 measures. What is their role? Are they supposed to validate the VMS being translated or to bring further research insights? Is WCQ measuring the “level of autonomy” theoretically related to the BPNS’s autonomy scale?

For section 3.2, why 2 factor model is considered? It is stated in line 439 that “some studies had also tested a two-factors model…”, is it referring to any studies in section 1.2? Also, please check if the 90% CI for 2-factor model in table 2 “0.06-0.0” is the correct expression.

If the authors is trying to validate the VMS translated into Portuguese, shall they review the question to avoid the inadequate AVE for factor 2 in the table 4?

The implications of results should be further stated for section 4?

The writing style is alright.

Reviewer 3 Report

Please see attached. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The current study aimed to develop a Volunteer Motivation Scale, which is valuable for understanding the content of volunteer motivations and measuring them. However, there are some issues that need to be addressed:

1. In the introduction, the third paragraph emphasizes the importance of motivation but lacks critical analysis. It is essential to discuss the limitations of the construct of motivation from functionalist theory and explain why it is necessary to introduce the self-determination theory and how it can address these limitations.

2. Section 1.2 needs further clarification. The current section only provides an overview of volunteer motivation measurement tools but lacks a critical evaluation of these instruments. It is essential to identify the shortcomings of the current tools and explain why the revision using the self-determination theory is needed.

3. It is important to investigate whether there are significant gender differences in volunteer motivation and if the measurement structure might be influenced by gender. Including a measurement invariance test will help to address this issue.