Development of a Pre-Retirement Planning Program on Subjective Well-Being for Informal Sector Workers in Songkhla Province, Thailand

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments: Thank you for the constructive and insightful comments. These suggestions helped us strengthen the manuscript’s theoretical integration, improve methodological transparency, moderate interpretive claims in line with the pilot design, and clarify the conceptual structure and current validation status of the study-specific SWB measure.

1. Summary

Thank you

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

Thank you for this positive evaluation. We retained the introduction structure and further strengthened citation support where needed.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

Thank you. We reviewed the full reference list, removed duplicated entries, and ensured consistency between in-text citations and the bibliography.

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Thank you for recognizing the appropriateness of the multi-phase R&D design. We retained the design and clarified its pilot nature where relevant.

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

Thank you. We further clarified participant recruitment by phase, instrument development, and the conceptual structure of the SWB measure.

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

Thank you for this observation. We improved presentation of the results by retaining the phase-based structure, reporting effect sizes, and refining wording to align with the pilot nature of the study.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes

Thank you for this positive evaluation. We also revised the conclusions to ensure that the final interpretation remains proportionate to the pilot design.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: While key frameworks (e.g., Continuity Theory, Active Ageing, SWB theory) are mentioned, the integration is somewhat descriptive rather than analytical. Consider strengthening the theoretical contribution by clarifying how this study advances existing retirement planning literature (beyond stating multidimensionality).

Response 1:  Thank you for this important suggestion. We have strengthened the theoretical contribution by explicitly linking theoretical frameworks to the program’s mechanisms of change. Specifically:

·        We clarified how subjective well-being theory (Diener) informs the cognitive and affective outcome structure.

·        We explicitly linked Continuity Theory (Atchley) to the concept of adaptive retirement transition through maintaining and reorganizing roles and resources.

·        We connected Active Ageing (WHO) to the role of social participation and engagement.

·        We incorporated self-efficacy theory (Bandura) to explain capability enhancement and perceived control.

Importantly, we revised the Discussion (Sections 4.1 and 4.3) to move beyond description by showing how the SWRP Program operationalizes three mechanisms—capability enhancement, affect regulation, and social reinforcement—as pathways linking intervention components to outcomes. We also clarified how this study advances retirement planning literature by integrating psychosocial mechanisms into retirement preparation, particularly for informal workers.

Comments 2: Some references are duplicated (e.g., Bank of Thailand, NESDC, Ministry of Public Health appear multiple times). Please carefully proofread and ensure consistency and remove redundancy..

Response 2:  Thank you for noting this. We carefully reviewed the reference list and removed duplicated entries (e.g., Bank of Thailand, NESDC, Ministry of Public Health). We ensured that each reference appears only once and that all in-text citations correspond accurately to the revised reference list.

Comments 3: The pilot sample (n = 15) is appropriate for feasibility, but this draft occasionally overstates effectiveness. Claims such as “effective” or “evidence-based” should be softened to “preliminary evidence” or “promising results”.

Response 3:  We agree and have revised the manuscript to ensure consistent positioning of the study as a pilot R&D evaluation. Specifically:

• Terms such as “effectiveness” and “impact” were replaced with “preliminary evidence,” “short-term improvements,” or “findings consistent with program-related change.”
• This revision was applied throughout the Abstract, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions.
• We further emphasized interpretive caution in Section 4.5 (Methodological Limitations).

Comments 4: This study introduces a newly developed SWB instrument, which is a strength of this draft. However, reporting internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) is insufficient to establish construct validity. The authors should clarify how the seven domains collectively represent SWB, whether the scale reflects a coherent theoretical structure (e.g., cognitive, affective, and contextual dimensions), and how closely related constructs are conceptually distinguished. In addition, no factor analysis is reported, which is typically expected for new scales; the authors are encouraged to include an exploratory (EFA) or confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) if data permit, or otherwise acknowledge this as a limitation. Finally, new SWB lacks evidence of convergent and discriminant validity; examining correlations with related constructs (e.g., retirement preparedness or stress) would strengthen the measurement rigor, or this limitation should be noted.

Response 4:  Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have strengthened the reporting and conceptual clarity of the SWB instrument as follows:

• We clarified that the instrument is structured around three theoretical dimensions:
• Cognitive-evaluative (life satisfaction, meaning in life)
• Affective (positive and negative affect)
• Contextual-relational (social connectedness, security, health)
• We explicitly linked these domains to established frameworks (SWLS, PANAS, OECD guidelines).
• We added Appendix A (Table A1) to present domain mapping and representative items.
• We clarified that the instrument should be interpreted as an exploratory, context-specific measure, rather than a fully validated scale.
• We acknowledged key limitations, including:
• Lack of factor analysis (EFA/CFA)
• Absence of convergent and discriminant validity testing

These limitations are now explicitly discussed in Section 4.5 and 4.6.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: "The English could be improved to more clearly express the research."

Response 1: Thank you. We have performed a final proofread to ensure clarity and academic tone.

5. Additional clarifications

Not at this time

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments: Thank you for the careful review and constructive suggestions. In response, we strengthened citation support throughout the Introduction and Discussion, clarified participant recruitment and instrument authorship, corrected citation numbering, and improved the overall clarity and consistency of the manuscript.

1. Summary

Thank you

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

Thank you. We reviewed the Introduction carefully and added citations where empirical or conceptual support was needed.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Can be improved

Thank you for this helpful observation. We reviewed the reference list, removed duplicated sources, and ensured that all references directly support the study context, theory, methods, or interpretation.

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Thank you for this positive evaluation. We retained the R&D framework and clarified the distinction between the needs assessment and pilot implementation phases.

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

Thank you. We clarified participant recruitment, instrument authorship, and the purpose of the study-specific SWB outcome measure.

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes

Thank you. We retained the structure of the Results section and ensured that the findings are reported clearly and consistently.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes

Thank you for this positive evaluation. We also ensured that the conclusions remain aligned with the pilot design and short-term findings.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Some paragraphs are missing bibliographic citations/justifications (lines 44-48), (lines 69-73), (lines 102-103), (120-121), (lines 128-129), (131-132), and (134-135). Please review.

Response 1:  Thank you. We carefully reviewed the Introduction and added appropriate citations to all statements requiring empirical or conceptual support. This includes sections related to:

·        Population ageing trends

·        Retirement preparedness in Thailand

·        Informal worker vulnerabilities

·        Subjective well-being and quality of life

These revisions strengthen the evidentiary foundation of the manuscript.

Comments 2:  In paragraph 2.1. Participants and Setting, before discussing phase 1, introduce a sentence or change this paragraph to another section (lines 210-202)

Response 2:  We revised Section 2.1 by adding a clear introductory sentence explaining that participant recruitment differed across research phases due to the multi-phase R&D design. This improves clarity and logical flow.

Comments 3: Needs Assessment Questionnaire Who is the author? Please indicate 

Response 3:  We clarified in Section 2.2 that the Needs Assessment Questionnaire was developed by the researchers, based on literature review, study objectives, and the conceptual framework. We also retained details on expert validation and reliability testing.

Comments 4: The discussion lacks bibliographic citations. Please review. [lines 470-472] 

Response 4:  We revised the Discussion section to include appropriate citations throughout, particularly in Sections 4.1–4.4. Theoretical interpretations are now supported by references to:

• Subjective well-being theory
• Continuity Theory
• Active Ageing framework
• Retirement planning literature

Comments 5:  Include the corresponding number according to the bibliographic list. According to Diener’s framework.

Response 5:  We corrected this by inserting the appropriate reference numbers ([14,15]) directly after mentions of Diener’s framework in the Discussion.

Comments 6:  In section 4.2, several bibliographic citations are missing (e.g., lines 492-494), line 498. Review.

Response 6:  We reviewed and revised Section 4.2 by adding relevant citations related to:

• Social security systems
• Informal worker vulnerability
• Retirement planning theory

This ensures that all interpretations are adequately supported by existing literature.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: "The English could be improved to more clearly express the research."

Response 1: Thank you. We have performed a final proofread to ensure clarity and academic tone.

5. Additional clarifications

Not at this time

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We appreciate your critical feedback regarding the scientific rigor and structure of the paper. We have taken your comments seriously and have significantly restructured the article to emphasize the scientific methodology and empirical findings while reducing administrative details. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

We have rewritten the introduction to include a clear research hypothesis (H₁) and integrated theoretical frameworks (Continuity Theory) to ground the study scientifically.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

Thank you

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

We have clarified that this was a pilot study (n=15) within an R&D framework and added a section explicitly acknowledging the limitations of the sample size.

Are the methods adequately described?

Can be improved

We have condensed the methodology to focus on scientific rigor and removed the administrative evaluation sections (formerly 3.2.3 and 3.4).

Are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

We have restructured the results to strictly report statistical findings regarding subjective well-being improvements, removing administrative evaluations to ensure scientific originality.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Must be improved

We have revised the conclusion to ensure it is directly supported by the empirical data and linked to the theoretical improvement of well-being.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: "The methodology is described correctly, but a small number of respondents in phase 3 of the research does not allow the results to be regarded as representative."

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree that the sample size in Phase 3 (n=15) is small and limits generalizability. We have clarified in the revised manuscript that Phase 3 was a pilot implementation within a broader Research and Development (R&D) framework, intended to test preliminary efficacy and feasibility rather than population-level representativeness. We have also added a "Methodological Limitations" section to explicitly acknowledge this.

“Note: As a pilot implementation within an R&D framework, this small sample size was intended to test feasibility and initial impact size rather than to provide population-level generalization.” [See Section 2.2]

Comments 2: "Unfortunately, the article has only administrative significance and does not demonstrate any scientific originality. Sections 3.2.3 and 3.4 are not relevant to the research, such expert analyses are needed only for managerial decision-making."

Response 2: Agree. We have extensively revised the manuscript to focus on scientific contribution. We have condensed and removed the administrative details in the original Sections 3.2.3 and 3.4. The Results section now focuses primarily on the empirical needs assessment (Phase 1) and the statistical changes in Subjective Well-being scores (Phase 3).

“[We have removed the detailed administrative tables and focused the Results section on the statistical outcomes of the intervention.]” [See Section 3]

Comments 3: "To improve the article, it should be rewritten according to the requirements for scientific research: describe the hypothesis clearly, present the results in a more informative manner and demonstrate their connection to the expected improvement in well-being..."

Response 3: Agree. We have rewritten the Introduction to include a clear research hypothesis (H₁) and integrated theoretical frameworks (Continuity Theory) to ground the study scientifically. We have also rewritten the Results to strictly report the statistical data regarding well-being improvements.

“Hypothesis H1: Participants completing the SWRP Program will demonstrate statistically significant improvements in Subjective Well-being (SWB) scores across all measured dimensions...” [See Section 1, end of Introduction]

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: "The English is fine and does not require any improvement."

Response 1: Thank you. We have performed a final proofread to ensure clarity and academic tone.

5. Additional clarifications

We have ensured that all statistical data regarding the N=500 survey participants and the N=15 pilot participants matches the raw data files exactly.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for your constructive and detailed review. We appreciate your recognition of the study's relevance to aging societies. We have addressed your concerns regarding the theoretical framework, the limitations of the study design, and the interpretation of the statistics. Please find the detailed responses below.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Can be improved

We have streamlined the demographic background for conciseness and explicitly integrated Continuity Theory and Active Aging frameworks to provide a stronger theoretical basis.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

Thank you.

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Thank you. We have further clarified the use of the one-group pretest-posttest design in the text.

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

Thank you.

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes

Thank you.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Can be improved

We have added specific directions for future research, including the recommendation for Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and longitudinal studies.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: "The introduction... would benefit from greater conciseness... the manuscript would be strengthened by more explicit integration of relevant theoretical frameworks (e.g., life-course theory, continuity theory...)."

Response 1: Agree. We have streamlined the demographic statistics in the introduction and explicitly integrated Continuity Theory and Active Aging concepts to explain the program design.

“Theoretical frameworks such as Continuity Theory [7] and Active Aging [8] suggest that maintaining lifestyle patterns... is crucial for successful adaptation to retirement.” [See Section 1, Paragraph 3]

Comments 2: "The manuscript would benefit from Clear, explicitly stated research questions or objectives, preferably at the end of the introduction. More explicit acknowledgment... that the intervention evaluation used a one-group pretest–posttest design, with its inherent limitations."

Response 2: Agree. We have added a clear "Objectives and Hypothesis" subsection at the end of the Introduction. We also explicitly stated the design as a "quasi-experimental one-group pretest-posttest design" in the Methods section.

“The specific objectives of this study were: 1. To assess the priority needs... 2. To develop a multidimensional retirement planning program... 3. To evaluate the preliminary effectiveness...” [See Section 1, final paragraph]

Comments 3: "Authors reported strong statistical significance... should be interpreted more cautiously... In discussion section, more explicitly discuss methodological limitations..."

Response 3: Agree. We have tempered the language in the Results section to be more objective. In the Discussion, we added a dedicated "Methodological Limitations" section addressing sample size (n=15), lack of control group, and short follow-up duration.

“4.5. Methodological Limitations: Several limitations must be acknowledged. First, the sample size in Phase 3 was small (n=15)... Second, the use of a one-group pretest-posttest design without a control group means that threats to internal validity... cannot be ruled out.” [See Section 4.5]

Comments 4: "Conclusion section... Including specific directions for future research (such as randomized controlled trials...)"

Response 4: Agree. We have added specific recommendations for future research in the Discussion and Conclusion, specifically calling for Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs).

“Future research should employ a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) design with a larger sample size to rigorously test the program's efficacy.” [See Section 4.6]

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: "The English could be improved... Occasional grammatical errors, long and repetitive sentences."

Response 1: We have carefully proofread the manuscript, broken down long sentences, and corrected grammatical errors to improve flow and readability.

5. Additional clarifications

None.

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for your thorough review of the manuscript's formatting, citations, and flow. We have addressed all your technical requirements, including adding missing citations, specifying software versions, and refining the results section to be more objective. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Can be improved

We have added the necessary bibliographic citations (specifically [1]) to support claims regarding Thailand's aging society and informal workers. We also improved the text flow with transitional phrases.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Must be improved

We have reviewed all citations to ensure they are relevant and have added missing references to support the statistical claims in the introduction.

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

We have added details regarding the validation of the research instruments (IOC scores) and the specific software used for analysis.

Are the methods adequately described?

Can be improved

We have specified the instrument development process and included the manufacturer details for the software used (IBM SPSS v26.0).

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

We have removed interpretive language (e.g., "This shows that...") from the results section to ensure it is concise and objective.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Can be improved

We have ensured the conclusions are strictly based on the objective data presented and have added visual tables to better communicate the findings.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: "In the Introduction... lines 56-60, and lines 68-73 do not include the bibliographic citation [1] in the text. Include previous studies and bibliographic citations..."

Response 1 Thank you for pointing this out. We agree and have inserted the necessary citations to support the claims regarding Thailand's aging society and the status of informal workers.

“[We have ensured all statistical claims in the first two paragraphs are supported by citations 1-6].” [See Section 1]

Comments 2: "Use connectors and transitions to improve the flow of the text."

Response 2: Agree. We have reviewed the text and added transitional phrases (e.g., "However," "Despite this," "To address this gap") to ensure better logical flow between paragraphs.

Comments 3: "In the materials and methods section, measuring instruments must include the names of their manufacturers. It is necessary to indicate which version of SPSS was used."

Response 3: Agree. We have specified that the instrument was developed by the researchers and validated by experts. We have also specified the software used.

“Quantitative data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).” [See Section 2.5]

Comments 4: "Results. Review the wording of the results section. Explanations and interpretations of the results should be omitted. They must be concise and objective."

Response 4: Agree. We have moved all interpretation of the data to the Discussion section. The Results section now strictly reports the statistical findings (Means, SD, t-values, and p-values).

“[We have removed phrases like 'This shows that...' from the Results section and moved them to the Discussion.]” [See Section 3.3]

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: "The English could be improved to more clearly express the research."

Response 1: We have revised the wording in the Introduction and Results to be more academic, concise, and objective, removing colloquialisms and improving sentence structure.

5. Additional clarifications

We have included the statistical tables as requested to provide visual aids for the results.

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We appreciate your positive assessment of the revised version and your confirmation that the authors have adequately addressed the previous comments. Your feedback indicated that the revisions were satisfactory and that no further changes were required. We are grateful for your careful evaluation and encouragement, which helped confirm the clarity and completeness of the revised manuscript.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Can be improved

The Results section has been reorganized to improve clarity and readability. Explanatory text has been placed before all tables (Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2) to clearly introduce the purpose and interpretation of the data prior to presentation

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

Thank you

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Thank you

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

Thank you

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes

Thank you

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Can be improved

The Conclusions section has been revised to strengthen alignment with the empirical findings. Statements were clarified to ensure that all conclusions are directly supported by the reported results and appropriately reflect the pilot nature of the study. Overgeneralized claims were moderated, and interpretive language was refined using modal verbs to distinguish preliminary evidence from causal inference. These revisions improve consistency between the results, discussion, and conclusions. All changes are highlighted in the revised manuscript.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

*Authors have revised the draft as suggested. The revisions are satisfactory, and there are no further comments

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: " The English is fine and does not require any improvement "

Response 1: Thank you.

5. Additional clarifications

Not at this time.

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for your detailed and constructive review of this manuscript. We greatly appreciate your insightful comments aimed at improving the clarity, coherence, and academic rigor of the paper. In response, we carefully revised the manuscript to address all points raised, including clarifying contextual statements in the introduction, strengthening the description of measurement instruments, ensuring correct reference ordering, restructuring the presentation of results tables, and improving the coherence of the discussion through enhanced use of contrastive language and modal expressions. All revisions have been implemented and highlighted in the revised manuscript.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

The Introduction has been revised to provide clearer contextualization of the study within global and national aging trends. Vague references to “several developing countries”

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

Thank you

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Thank you

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

Thank you

Are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

The Results section has been reorganized to improve clarity and readability. Explanatory text has been placed before all tables (Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2) to clearly introduce the purpose and interpretation of the data prior to presentation

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes

Thank you

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: "Line 46 refers to several developing countries. Please specify further."

Response 1: We have revised the sentence in the Introduction to specify relevant regions and examples. The phrase “several developing countries” has been replaced with a clearer description referring to middle-income and developing countries in Southeast Asia, including Thailand and comparable contexts.

Comments 2: "In the instruments section, measurement instruments must include the authors' names. (e.g., Subjective Well-being Assessment) Indicate that it has been adapted for the study (indicate the author(s)). Review"

Response 2: This comment has been fully addressed through the following revisions:

1.      In Section 2.3 (Instruments), we now explicitly identify the original authors of standardized instruments used as references for item development, including:

o   Diener et al. (Satisfaction with Life Scale)

o   Watson et al. (Positive and Negative Affect Schedule)

2.      We clearly state that the Subjective Well-Being Evaluation Form was adapted for the Thai cultural context and the specific objectives of the SWRP program.

Comments 3: " Sources are numbered consecutively (1, 2, 3…) as they are first cited in the text. The reference list is presented in the same numerical order, not alphabetically."

Response 3: All references have been renumbered and reordered to ensure they appear consecutively according to their first citation in the text, in compliance with journal guidelines.

Comments 4: " Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2: The explanatory text should be placed before the tables."

Response 4: We have reorganized Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 so that explanatory and interpretive text now precedes Table 1 and Table 2, respectively. This improves readability and ensures that tables are introduced and contextualized before presentation.

Comments 5: "Discussion. Review the writing and improve the coherence of the content. Use linguistic resources such as contrastive conjunctions and modal verbs to present multiple perspectives"

Response 5: The entire Discussion section (Sections 4.1–4.6) has been carefully revised to improve coherence, balance, and academic tone. Specifically:

• Contrastive conjunctions (e.g., however, while, although, nevertheless) were added to enhance argumentative flow.
• Modal verbs (e.g., may, could, appears to, suggests) were incorporated to appropriately reflect the pilot nature of the study and avoid overgeneralization.
• Interpretations were expanded to explicitly acknowledge alternative explanations and methodological constraints.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: "The English could be improved to more clearly express the research."

Response 1: Thank you. We have performed a final proofread to ensure clarity and academic tone.

5. Additional clarifications

Not at this time