Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In general, the article represents a solid and well-executed work of cross-cultural adaptation. Nevertheless, a number of comments, observations, and suggestions are listed below. Some of them, due to the nature of the work and the current state of the art, cannot be corrected during the revision process. In any case, I comment on them so that the authors can reflect on them and the editor can make the appropriate decisions.

1. The study follows a multi-step process, including forward translation, back translation, expert review, and pre-testing with pilot participants. This methodology follows the guidelines of the International Test Commission (ITC), which emphasizes these steps to ensure content, semantic, and functional equivalence across cultures. While this approach is solid, some best practices were omitted, such as utilizing dual translators in both forward and backward translation stages. Including multiple translators could reduce biases and align the methodology more closely with current standards (Hambleton, 2001)​​. The adaptation closely adheres to ITC guidelines and recommendations from Beaton et al. (2000), yet lacks specificity in operational equivalence. Ensuring that questionnaire administration procedures remain consistent across cultural contexts is essential. Providing clear procedures for all equivalence types (conceptual, item, semantic, operational, and functional) would further strengthen the adaptation process (Epstein et al., 2015)​​.

2. The study aims for conceptual equivalence, a vital factor in cross-cultural adaptation as defined by Herdman et al. (1998), and successfully addressed semantic and conceptual elements, such as the Japanese emphasis on greetings and introductions (Beaton et al., 2000)​. However, it lacks detail on operational and functional equivalence—ensuring consistency in how the questionnaire is administered and interpreted across cultures. For example, it would be beneficial to explore how different Japanese social contexts were considered in these adaptations (Gjersing et al., 2010)​.

3. The study’s sample of Japanese adults aged 18-40 is appropriate for validating the ICQ-15 in its intended population, and a sample size of 209 offers reasonable power for psychometric analysis. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results are robust, with acceptable fit indices. However, limiting the sample to university students could constrain generalizability. In this sense, the authors should make clear in the conclusions as well as in the limitations the effect of the participants in the adaptation, understanding that the instrument should only be used in this age group and limiting its generalization to the general population.

4. The authors report satisfactory internal consistency and reliability, supporting the validity of the ICQ-15 in Japanese. This is consistent with Hambleton's (2005) guidelines, which emphasize the importance of assessing these properties in the target language for functional equivalence. However, reporting item-level analyses (e.g., item-total correlations) could reveal subtle biases in specific items, thereby increasing the cultural sensitivity of the adaptation, as recommended by Gjersing et al. (2010).

5. Although the study touches on Japanese cultural norms relevant to interpersonal competence, it could benefit from further contextualization. Drawing on culturally specific literature or empirical studies of social behaviors in Japan would enhance the cultural relevance of each ICQ-15 item and be consistent with the broader guidance for contextual adaptation (Vallejo-Medina et al., 2017).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for sharing your manuscript! I find the aim of your study—translating and developing a Japanese version of the Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire (ICQ-15)—to be both clear and a significant contribution to the field. Below are a few comments that could enhance your manuscript, as well as a suggestion for the Discussion section.

On page 2 (lines 48-55), you differentiate between homogeneous and heterogeneous societies. While you provided several examples on the previous page, including specific examples of societies would further clarify this distinction for readers.

Please note, around lines 222-229, that the items (e.g., ITEM 2, ITEM 7, etc.) listed in Table 1 can be found in the supplementary materials.

Social competence is central to the ICQ. There are research streams that delve into the dynamics of interaction. For example, a study published in 2012 highlighted that in Western cultures, the context of a clinical interview provides interviewers with the opportunity to regulate the pressure they exert on their interviewees, thereby facilitating the interviewees’ social competence. Such findings offer detailed insights into the nuances of interaction, including how interactions are initiated, how conversations progress, and how emotions are managed.

In the Discussion section, consider directing the reader's focus toward how Japanese culture may influence mutual regulation processes regarding competence in interaction. You could suggest that future studies explore these regulation processes in cross-cultural contexts.

Reference

Simonen, M. Mutual negotiation of the interviewee’s competence in interview interaction. In Evaluating ‘Cognitive’ Competences in Interaction. Rasmussen, G., Brouwer, C. E., Day, D. (eds.). John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 2012, pp.119-143.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please ensure that the supplementary materials are translated into English. I also noticed some typographical errors (e.g., on lines 248 and 316) that should be addressed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After the second round in reviewing this the manuscript, I am still not convinced about its contribution to the field. While the statistical analyses have been conducted well, and the results are good, it is the purpose of the study that is the main shortcoming. I can appreciate the fact that the authors want to come up with a measurement that can compare competence across cultures, but in order for this to be done, you need to take the appropriate steps to derive a common measure from the cultures you intend to compare, such that the common components have been addressed, and those which are unique to only one culture have been omitted. May I direct the authors to the following literature for reference.

Berry, J. W. (1990). Imposed etics, emics, and derived etics: Their conceptual and operational status in cross-cultural psychology. In T. N. Headland, K. L. Pike, & M. Harris (Eds.), Emics and etics: The insider/outsider debate (pp. 84–99). Sage Publications

Other than that, cross-validation with similar scales have not been done. When this UCLA measure is being "tested" in Japan, those who are high on the ICQ must be similarly high on native scales, which I have suggested in the first review. Only the factor structure has been tested, but not the validity (i.e. those high on ICQ are also high on Japanese measures).  Sure we know this scale is reliable with Japanese, but that does not mean it is capable of indicating one's social competence in Japanese interpersonal contexts.

The sampling issue of student-centeredness has been addressed a bit, but this is a crucial issue especially when we are dealing with the Japanese population. Cross-cultural research involving Japanese student samples have repeatedly failed in attaining the expected cultural tendencies, because they did not sample the adult working people. "Real" Japanese culture is found in the hierarchical and implicitly ruled organizations, to which students are acculturated into, to fit in with. To that, students are footloose and fancy free, with no need to commit to a lifelong membership within the workplace.

Overall, I cannot recommend this manuscript for publication due to fatal flaws inherent, but I do encourage the authors to address some of the issues I have raised (I am certain that other cross-cultural psychologists share these) by adding samples to the already obtained student group. In addition, other existing competence scales can be taken in the second round. If the current data is fortified with the additional data, you can make this study more convincing. 

The authors seem to be competent researchers, with good knowledge of statistics and research methods. I hope you take into consideration my suggestions for improvement, and resubmit.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The newly added text seems a bit odd at times. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,   Thank you very much for the opportunity to correct our work. Taking into account your suggestions and corrections and having taken the time to introduce the changes, please find attached the new version of our manuscript with the highlighted aspects included, along with the change control option of the Word document to differentiate it from previous changes in which you will also find the explanation for the changes. We hope that with the inclusion of the new data referring to the instrument's validity, the document has improved in quality and that we have adjusted to the journal's requirements. We remain at your disposal for any further modifications.   Kind regards.