Development and Preliminary Validation of the Planetary Empathy Scale: An International Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript focuses on a topic of scientific and even greater social relevance. In the introduction, the authors clearly approach the topic. The methodology is presented in detail and clearly aligns with the objectives of the work.

However, it seems to me that there are some aspects that the authors should consider in order to improve the manuscript:

1 - The introduction, which constitutes the theoretical part of the text, requires greater theoretical development, namely highlighting what has been produced by anthropology and sociology regarding the environment.
2 - This greater theoretical development would certainly allow the discussion of the results to engage more consistently with broader theoretical approaches.
3 - Some results need to be explained in more detail, namely:
- "This study found that older, female, and well-educated participants exhibited higher levels of planetary empathy."
- "Younger participants in our sample had lower planetary empathy scores."

4 - Finally, it would be interesting to have a more in-depth dialogue with “tribal societies”, particularly studied by anthropologists, in which “Planetary Empathy” can often be found.

Author Response

please see attached file 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s), 

 

Your manuscript is interesting and approaches a very actual topic. 

Kindly, see below some suggestions of improvement:

• There are some items which have uploaded below the desired 0.40 recommended value, as for instance Reflection subscale with item 4 and the Recognition scale with the items 15-20. It would be highly recommended to acknowledge and to explain these loadings in the limitations section.
• I think that Table 1 can also be included into the Suplemental material section;
• Please explain again why it is important for the sample to be healthcare students and professionals. I think it is appropriate in the context of empathy, but you need a stronger connection with environmental or pro-environmental behavior. 
• The discussion should be extended to other categories of respondents and not necessarily to healthcare participants. 
• The Statistical analysis may be improved by also adding a common method bias analysis (Hartman method)

 

Thank you and good luck!

Author Response

please see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents the development and preliminary validation of the Planetary Empathy Scale (PES)—a novel instrument designed to measure healthcare professionals’ and students’ affective and behavioral orientation toward planetary health and sustainability. Based on a robust concept analysis, the authors followed COSMIN guidelines and applied exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on data from 231 participants. The study provides an important and timely contribution to the emerging field of planetary health and empathy-based education.

Strengths:

Rigorous conceptual foundation and alignment with COSMIN standards.

Adequate sample size for psychometric testing.

Excellent internal consistency and clear description of analytical procedures.

International sample and relevance to the global healthcare community.

Areas for improvement:

The sample is highly skewed (predominantly female, highly educated, and from Australia); please elaborate more on how this limits generalizability.

The Resilience subscale shows low internal consistency (α = .261); consider discussing whether it should be revised or merged in future validation studies.

Several items exhibit strong negative skewness (ceiling effect). It would be useful to comment on whether item rewording might capture greater response variance.

Discuss potential social desirability bias, given the ethically loaded nature of the items.

Clarify whether linguistic or cultural adaptation (forward–back translation) was conducted for non-English participants.

For future work, mention plans for confirmatory factor analysis or Rasch modeling to further verify construct validity.

Language and presentation:
The English is clear and professional, requiring only minor stylistic polishing. Figures and tables are well structured and easy to follow.

This is a well-executed and innovative study addressing an emerging construct of significant importance to health education and sustainability. After minor methodological clarifications and extended discussion of sample limitations, the paper will make a valuable contribution to Challenges and to the broader planetary health literature.

Author Response

please see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All the improvement suggestions have been addressed. 

Thank you!