Dual-Path Model of Team Communication and Shared Mental Models in Entrepreneurial Education: Enhancing Team Efficacy in Higher Education Using PLS-SEM
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors!
I like the topic of the research. Find my comments attached!
All the best!
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
There are some formatting issues which have to be corrected:
Comments 1: There is no space between the sentences and citation numbers – e.g. “…challenge[1,2].”
Response 1: Thank you very much for reviewing my paper and pointing out the issue. Regarding the missing space between the period and citation number in the text, we have carefully checked and corrected the entire paper to ensure that all references are in the standard format. The corrected parts are marked with a green background.
Comments 2: You should avoid using abbreviations in (sub)chapters – e.g. 2.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.2 …etc.
Response 2: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. Regarding your comment about avoiding abbreviations in (sub)chapter titles, we have carefully reviewed and revised the manuscript to ensure that all chapter and subsection titles are written out in full, without any abbreviations. We have removed all abbreviations from the (sub)section headings to ensure that the titles are clear and descriptive, enhancing the readability and understanding of the paper.
Comments 3: Can’t see Figure 2. – editing issue only.
Response 3: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have checked and reinserted Figure 2 to ensure it appears correctly in the manuscript. We appreciate your patience and have double-checked all figures to prevent similar issues.
Comments 4: The names of the chapters shouldn’t be at the end of the pages – e.g. “3.4 Data analysis”, but this will change after the revision.
Response 4: Thank you for your comment. We have checked the manuscript and found that the issue with chapter names appearing at the end of pages is a formatting problem. We have adjusted the layout to ensure that chapter titles are properly positioned and do not appear at the bottom of pages. We appreciate your understanding and have made sure this is corrected in the revised version.
Comments 5: “Following Radomir. (2013)…” – unnecessary dot.
Response 5: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have reviewed the manuscript and removed the unnecessary dot in the citation. We have also double-checked all other citations to ensure consistency and adherence to the correct format.
Comments 6: “Incluination” instead of “Inclination” – Figure 3. – and maybe Figure 2 too (I can’t see the Figure 2)
Response 6: Thank you for pointing out the spelling error. We have corrected the misspelling of “Incluination” to “Inclination” in Figure 3. We have also checked Figure 2 carefully to ensure there are no similar issues. We appreciate your attention to detail.
Content issues:
Comments 1: The date of the response collection should be in the Abstract (it is mentioned in the Methodology chapter only).
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have revised the Abstract to include the date of the response collection as suggested. This ensures that key information about the study's timeline is accessible to readers from the beginning.
Comments 2 : I think there is no need to summarize the results at the end of “Introduction”. You should add the β and significance values at the abstract if you want.
Response 2: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We have revised the manuscript in response to your suggestions. We have removed the summary of results from the end of the “Introduction” section.
Comments 3: How did you get the database with students’ names? Please describe it in more details.
Response 3: We would like to address the reviewer's questions with the following explanations. Specifically, the Chinese government's education authority organizes a national college student entrepreneurship competition annually, where universities are required to form teams to participate and ultimately determine rankings. The authors of this study are all university faculty members who also led student teams in the competition. During the competition, we established professional connections and acquaintances with other participating teams and their faculty advisors from various universities. These connections laid the foundation for conducting this research.
This study was conducted with the support of the School of Economics and Management at Shandong University. Leveraging the professional network established through the competition, we invited members of other university teams (primarily through the faculty advisors we had previously met) to participate in the questionnaire survey designed by our research team. During the invitation process, we clearly informed participants that their participation was entirely voluntary and that we would strictly adhere to research ethics guidelines.
The data collection process consisted of two steps. First, we conducted a pilot study to confirm the clarity and validity of the measurement tools and to address minor item overlaps. Second, we formally collected the data. To improve response rates and data quality, we included cash incentives in the questionnaire and encouraged participants to forward the survey to other potential participants to expand the sample size and enhance the representativeness of the study.
Therefore, in accordance with the reviewer's request, we have provided a more detailed description of the data collection process. The revised content is as follows:
3.3 Data collection and procedures
The annual entrepreneurship competition for college students, organized by China's Ministry of Education, is a key platform for fostering innovation and business acumen among youth. Our research team from Shandong University's School of Economics and Management participated in this competition, leveraging the event to engage with teams from across the nation. During the competition, we highlighted the purpose and importance of our study to other participating teams. With their consent and support, we invited them to take part in a questionnaire survey designed by our team to gather data for our research. The survey, accessible via a QR code or a URL (https://www.wjx.cn/vm/egdRYia.aspx# ), was designed to be completed electronically. To boost participation and data quality, we offered cash rewards and encouraged participants to forward the survey to others, enhancing our sample size and representativeness. Prior to the main survey, a pilot test with 61 participants ensured the measurement tool's clarity. Subsequent psychometric refinements addressed minor item overlaps. After obtaining ethical approval, we collected data from March to May 2024 through encrypted online forms, using snowball sampling via student networks (WeChat/QQ). We gathered 521 responses, of which 475 were valid (a 91.17% efficiency rate), meeting the threshold for structural equation modeling.
Comments 4: The actual sampling method should be named in the Methodology.
Response 4: Thank you for your comments. This issue is actually consistent with the one raised in Comment 3, which we have already addressed.
Comments 5: Some formulas should be added to the Methodology part.
Response 5: We understand the reviewer's intention and have made the following revisions in accordance with your suggestions.：
3.4 Data analysis
The SmartPLS 3.0 software was employed for data analysis using the Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) method. PLS-SEM was chosen over Covariance-Based Structural Equation Modeling (CB-SEM) for several reasons: (i) The study is exploratory in nature; (ii) the relationships among variables are complex, involving multiple latent constructs; (iii) PLS-SEM does not impose strict assumptions on the data distribution; and (iv) the method is suitable for testing mediating effects within the proposed theoretical framework [40].
PLS-SEM consists of two components: the inner model and the outer model. The inner model, similar to traditional regression analysis, is used to examine the causal relationships among latent variables. The relationships between variables can be interpreted as：
| Please see the manuscript |
(1) |
In the above equation, β0j​ is a constant matrix; βqj​ represents the general path coefficient matrix between the exogenous variable (also known as the explanatory variable) εq​ and the endogenous variable εj​; and ξj​ is the error term matrix. For example, in the structural model shown in Figure 5.1, "Installed vs. Not Installed Home PV" is an exogenous variable for Perceived Value and Perceived Risk. In turn, "Installed vs. Not Installed Home PV," Perceived Value, and Perceived Risk are exogenous variables for Green Self-Efficacy, and so on.
The outer model focuses on the relationship between observed indicators and latent variables. The relationship coefficient between indicators and variables is called the factor loading, which can be expressed as:
| Please see the manuscript |
(2) |
Here, wpi​ represents the factor loading matrix for each indicator on its respective latent variable εi​, and the error term ζpi​ represents the unconsidered potential random part of the measured indicator.
Following the two-stage procedure proposed by Hair et al. (2022), the analysis process was divided into two stages. The first stage focused on the measurement model (outer model), rigorously assessing the reliability and validity of the constructs [40]. This included evaluating key indicators such as Cronbach’s α, composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE), and factor loadings to ensure the robustness of the measurement model. The second stage concentrated on the structural model (inner model), which examined the hypothesized relationships among latent variables, covering direct effects, mediating effects, and total effects. To address potential common method bias, complete collinearity statistics were calculated, and all variance inflation factors (VIF) in the inner model were below the threshold of 3.3 [44], confirming the absence of multicollinearity issues.
Comments 6: In case of “Age” there is the category “Under 19”, which is quite strange. What was the minimal age of respondents? I think it should be not less than 18. Is there the opportunity to calculate average, mode, median and st.dev? Or it was categorical data?
Response 6: As mentioned in Response 3, the survey population for this study is participants in the National College Student Entrepreneurship Competition in China. It is necessary to explain the Chinese education system to the reviewer. In China, students can start primary school at the age of 6. The primary school lasts for 6 years, followed by 3 years of junior high school and 3 years of senior high school, making a total of 12 years. So, if a student starts primary school at 6 without any interruptions, they can enter university at the age of 18. There are also a few exceptional students who skip grades and enter university at an even younger age. Conversely, some students may enter university after 18 due to illness, dropping out, or repeating grades, etc. (Of course, there are also students who do not go to university at all.) Therefore, the typical age for Chinese students to enter university is around 18. The category of "Under 19" in our study is designed to cover these students, including those who are 18 or younger. These students can also participate in the National College Student Entrepreneurship Competition. Hence, we created the "Under 19" category based on the Chinese education system.
The reviewer asked whether it is possible to calculate the age distribution of Chinese college students. To be honest, this seems to be a separate issue from the main focus of our study. We did not conduct a sampling survey on the age distribution of Chinese college students in this paper. For the convenience of the participants in filling out the questionnaire, we designed three age options: A. Under 19, B. 20 to 22, and C. Over 23. The category of "Over 23" was mainly designed to account for students who may delay graduation due to academic, health, military service, or other reasons.
Comments 7: The “Results” chapter starts with the following: “The model assessment focuses on the measurement models to assess the convergent validity of the construct. It includes two types of indices: reliability and validity. For reliability assessment, Cronbach’s Alpha (α) and Composite Reliability (CR) are employed.” – it should be in the Methodology.
Response 7: Thank you for your feedback regarding the placement of the model assessment. We have carefully considered your suggestion and would like to provide the following explanation.
The model assessment, including the evaluation of convergent validity, reliability, and validity, is presented in the Results section because it directly relates to the empirical findings of the study. The Results section is not only about reporting the outcomes of the analysis but also about demonstrating the robustness and validity of those results. By including the model assessment in the Results section, we are able to provide a comprehensive and transparent account of the analytical process and the reliability of the findings.
This approach allows readers to see the direct connection between the measurement model and the results, ensuring that the validity of the constructs is established before interpreting the empirical outcomes. It also maintains the logical flow of the manuscript, where the methods describe the overall analytical strategy, and the results provide detailed evidence of the model's performance and the research hypotheses' tests.
We believe this placement is appropriate as it aligns with the purpose of the Results section to present all aspects of the study's findings, including the validity and reliability of the measurement model.
Comments 8: Hypotheses from “H2a” to “H2p” and “H3a – H3d” are not included in Figure 3. Also, the effects of “Gender”, “Age”, “Inclination” and “Grade” are not marked. These were not hypotheses?
Response 8: We understand the reviewer's point and would like to provide the following explanation regarding this issue. The purpose of designing Figure 3 is to allow readers to visually grasp the main results measured by the structural equation modeling in this study. In fact, the hypotheses "H1a" to "H1p" proposed in this paper are the foundational single-path hypotheses. The mediating effect hypotheses "H2a" to "H2p" are derived based on "H1a" to "H1p," and the total effect hypotheses "H3a" to "H3d" are further proposed based on both "H2a" to "H2p" and "H1a" to "H1p." While it is not feasible to display the mediating and total effect hypotheses in the figure, their results are listed in Table 6 and Table 7.
The effects of "Gender," "Age," "Inclination," and "Grade" are not part of the study's hypotheses but are control variables. Since control variables also exert single-path effects on the dependent variables, we have integrated them into Figure 3. In fact, all the results shown in Figure 3 can be found in Table 5 and Table 8. The reason for presenting them in a graphical format is to provide readers with a more intuitive perspective. Although we would also like to include the content from Table 6 and Table 7 in the figure, it is indeed challenging to do so.
Comments 9: The article lacks of “Discussion” chapter. This part is crucial – you need to mention previous studies and compare the results (highlighting the similarities and differences)
Response 9: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have fully addressed the need for a dedicated Discussion chapter. We have incorporated the discussion into Section 5.2, where we compare our findings with those of prior studies, highlighting both similarities and differences. This addition enriches the interpretation of our results and provides a more comprehensive understanding of the study's contributions to the field.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors:
Kind regards, I appreciate the opportunity to review your manuscript. It
presents an innovative and theoretically sound proposal. Below, I
present some areas for improvement, with emphasis on methodological
details and theoretical depth.
Regarding the title, although it adequately presents the key concepts,
it is suggested to consider the method used or the population studied to
orient the reader from the beginning.
Regarding the abstract, although it adequately contextualizes, it
mentions the methodology, the participants and the main findings. I
suggest mentioning the location of the study, since it is only mentioned
in the body of the text.
The theoretical framework is solidly structured and uses up-to-date and
relevant sources. Some key concepts, such as readiness to learn and
sharing, require a more operational and empirical definition.
The methodology is adequately detailed and incorporates population
background, sample sizes, techniques employed and instrument
validations. It remains to be seen how informed consent was used, how
anonymity was guaranteed, and whether the opportunity for feedback was
provided. Was any cultural or linguistic adaptation made to the scales
validated in the manuscript? It would be interesting to elaborate on
this point if it is relevant to the study.
The results section is robust. However, in the implications of the
manuscript, I point out how universities can implement the suggestions
identified.
Regarding the wording of the manuscript, please ensure the fluency of
some sections that are conceptually too complex and make it difficult
for all readers to understand.
Sincerely,
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: Regarding the title, although it adequately presents the key concepts, it is suggested to consider the method used or the population studied to orient the reader from the beginning.
Response 1: We would like to express our gratitude to the reviewer for the valuable feedback regarding our title. We have carefully considered the suggestion to include the method used in order to provide a clearer orientation for the reader. In light of this feedback, we have revised our title to "Dual-Path Model of Team Communication and Shared Mental Models in Entrepreneurial Education: Enhancing Team Efficacy in Higher Education Using PLS-SEM." We believe this revision better reflects the key aspects of our research and provides a more comprehensive understanding of the study's focus from the outset.
Comments 2: Regarding the abstract, although it adequately contextualizes, it mentions the methodology, the participants and the main findings. I suggest mentioning the location of the study, since it is only mentioned in the body of the text.
Response 2: We are grateful for your insightful feedback regarding our abstract. You are absolutely right that specifying the location of the study is important for readers to quickly grasp the contextual background of our research. In response to your suggestion, we have revised the abstract to include the location of the study (China). The updated abstract now clearly states that the research was conducted within the context of Chinese higher education and specifies that the data were collected from university-based questionnaires in China.
Comments 3: The theoretical framework is solidly structured and uses up-to-date and relevant sources. Some key concepts, such as readiness to learn and sharing, require a more operational and empirical definition.
Response 3: Thank you for your positive assessment of our theoretical framework and for bringing to our attention the need to clarify the operational and empirical definitions of key concepts such as "learning willingness sharing" and "task understanding sharing." Upon reflection, we realized that these concepts are indeed clearly defined in Appendix A.
Comments 4: The methodology is adequately detailed and incorporates population background, sample sizes, techniques employed and instrument validations. It remains to be seen how informed consent was used, how anonymity was guaranteed, and whether the opportunity for feedback was provided. Was any cultural or linguistic adaptation made to the scales validated in the manuscript? It would be interesting to elaborate on this point if it is relevant to the study.
Response 4: Thank you very much for your feedback. You've raised two main concerns. The first one is about how participants were informed and consented in our study, as well as the anonymity of their responses. The second one is about the piloting of the questionnaire.
In response to the first concern, let me first explain the context in which we collected the data for this study.
Specifically, the Chinese government's education authority organizes a national college student entrepreneurship competition annually, where universities are required to form teams to participate and ultimately determine rankings. The authors of this study are all university faculty members who also led student teams in the competition. During the competition, we established professional connections and acquaintances with other participating teams and their faculty advisors from various universities. These connections laid the foundation for conducting this research.
This study was conducted with the support of the School of Economics and Management at Shandong University. Leveraging the professional network established through the competition, we invited members of other university teams (primarily through the faculty advisors we had previously met) to participate in the questionnaire survey designed by our research team. During the invitation process, we clearly informed participants that their participation was entirely voluntary and that we would strictly adhere to research ethics guidelines.
The data collection process consisted of two steps. First, we conducted a pilot study to confirm the clarity and validity of the measurement tools and to address minor item overlaps. Second, we formally collected the data. To improve response rates and data quality, we included cash incentives in the questionnaire and encouraged participants to forward the survey to other potential participants to expand the sample size and enhance the representativeness of the study.
Therefore, in accordance with the reviewer's request, we have provided a more detailed description of the data collection process. The revised content is as follows:
3.3 Data collection and procedures
The annual entrepreneurship competition for college students, organized by China's Ministry of Education, is a key platform for fostering innovation and business acumen among youth. Our research team from Shandong University's School of Economics and Management participated in this competition, leveraging the event to engage with teams from across the nation. During the competition, we highlighted the purpose and importance of our study to other participating teams. With their consent and support, we invited them to take part in a questionnaire survey designed by our team to gather data for our research. The survey, accessible via a QR code or a URL (https://www.wjx.cn/vm/egdRYia.aspx# ), was designed to be completed electronically. To boost participation and data quality, we offered cash rewards and encouraged participants to forward the survey to others, enhancing our sample size and representativeness. Prior to the main survey, a pilot test with 61 participants ensured the measurement tool's clarity. Subsequent psychometric refinements addressed minor item overlaps. After obtaining ethical approval, we collected data from March to May 2024 through encrypted online forms, using snowball sampling via student networks (WeChat/QQ). We gathered 521 responses, of which 475 were valid (a 91.17% efficiency rate), meeting the threshold for structural equation modeling.
Therefore, the first step of our survey was actually conducted indirectly through group instructors, rather than directly targeting students. In the second step, since the target was a special group, we used cash incentives to encourage respondents to forward the questionnaire and gather more participants.
Regarding the issue of ensuring anonymity, we relied on the unique features of the electronic questionnaire. Firstly, the questionnaire does not collect any information regarding the respondents' names or identities. At the beginning of the questionnaire, we clearly stated the following points:1.The purpose of the questionnaire.2.The questionnaire is answered anonymously.3.Respondents have the option to choose whether or not to answer.4。A cash incentive of 10 RMB via electronic payment will be provided for those who complete the survey.The specific wording is as follows:
Hello, we are a research team from Shandong University, currently conducting a survey on the performance of entrepreneurial teams. The purpose is to understand how the operational model of these teams can assist you in your studies. Your responses will be anonymous, and there are no right or wrong answers; we simply want to reflect your situation and opinions accurately, which will serve the purpose of this survey. We hope you can actively participate. Your responses will be completely confidential, and the survey content is only for academic exchange purposes. The survey will take a bit of your time, and after you complete it, you will receive a 10 yuan red envelope as a token of appreciation. Thank you for your support and cooperation!
In response to the second concern, here is our reply:
In fact, the questionnaire scales referenced in this paper are primarily derived from English-language literature. Given that the survey targets Chinese students, it is certainly necessary to translate them into Chinese. Therefore, the localization process mentioned by the reviewer was carried out simultaneously when we translated the scales into Chinese. However, after discussion within our team, we felt that a detailed elaboration of the translation and localization process in the main text might be overly lengthy and could potentially overshadow the main information of this paper. Hence, we chose to streamline this part. Upon the reviewer's reminder, we will now incorporate this content into the paper to enhance the transparency and scientific rigor of our study.
This study operationalizes entrepreneurial team efficacy (ETE) through eight core constructs (see Appendix A) and systematically measures performance outcomes and their antecedents. The measurement framework includes: Internal Team Communication (ITC), which assesses the frequency of information exchange among team members; External Team Communication (TEC), which evaluates the team's ability to obtain resources from external stakeholders; Learning Willingness Sharing (LWS), which captures the enthusiasm for knowledge dissemination; Task Understanding Sharing (TUS), which measures the clarity of goal alignment; Teammate Cognitive Sharing (TCS), which assesses mutual awareness of capabilities; Activity Status Sharing (ASS), which tracks the transparency of task progress; Team Task Efficacy (TTE), which evaluates the quality of goal achievement; and Team Relationship Efficacy (TRE), which examines the dynamics of trust-building and conflict resolution. The scales are primarily derived from existing validated instruments in the fields of team communication and entrepreneurship education. To adapt to the context of Chinese higher education, the research team localized the scales through pilot testing and expert consultation, making them more suitable for the Chinese educational environment and easier for the research subjects to understand. The adjusted scales passed reliability (Cronbach’s α) and validity tests (including convergent and discriminant validity), ensuring their applicability and reliability in this study.
Comments 5: The results section is robust. However, in the implications of the manuscript, I point out how universities can implement the suggestions identified.
Response 5: Thank you very much for the positive feedback on the data analysis in our manuscript. We understand that you feel the insights section of our study could be more polished and that the suggestions provided could benefit from being more actionable. In light of your valuable comments, we have revised Section "5.3 Policy Implications" to make the policy implications more practical and actionable. We truly appreciate your guidance and look forward to your further suggestions.
5.3 Policy implications
To address the youth unemployment crisis and enhance entrepreneurial education outcomes, policymakers and educators should prioritize structured communication protocols and implement targeted strategies.
(1) Enhancing Communication Training and Channels
Internal Communication Training: Universities should integrate internal team communication (ITC) training into entrepreneurial education curricula, focusing on regular team debriefings and role-based feedback loops to strengthen shared learning willingness (LWS) and teammate cognitive sharing (TCS), ensuring alignment between communication intensity and task clarity.
External Communication Channels: Education authorities should collaborate with industry associations to establish mentorship platforms connecting universities and enterprises. These platforms should provide access to experienced entrepreneurial mentors and facilitate cross-university innovation hubs to enhance activity status sharing (ASS) and external resource utilization.
(2) Tailored Interventions for Different Demographic Groups
Strategies for Senior Students: Universities should customize entrepreneurial education courses for senior students, incorporating advanced modules on complex project management and team leadership. Additionally, specialized incubation funds should be established to support senior student entrepreneurial projects, leveraging their accumulated collaborative experience to optimize knowledge transfer and task coordination.
Strategies for Junior Students: For junior students, universities should design courses that focus on innovative thinking and basic team collaboration skills, incorporating immersive learning modules such as simulated entrepreneurial games. Mentorship programs should also be established to provide personalized guidance and support for junior students.
(3) Promoting Interdisciplinary Team Collaboration
Interdisciplinary Team Formation and Incentives: Universities should encourage the formation of interdisciplinary entrepreneurial teams and provide incentives such as cash rewards and priority access to resources for outstanding teams. Interdisciplinary practice bases should also be established to support these teams.
Interdisciplinary Curriculum and Faculty Development: Universities should develop interdisciplinary entrepreneurial courses and strengthen faculty training in this area to provide robust support for interdisciplinary team collaboration.
(4) Improving Policy Support and Evaluation Mechanisms
Policy Integration and Resource Allocation: The development of shared mental models (SMM) should be incorporated into the "Mass Entrepreneurship and Innovation" policy framework, with a clear mandate for universities to allocate a portion of entrepreneurial coursework to team cognition synchronization exercises. Education authorities should provide funding support for universities actively implementing these training programs.
Effectiveness Evaluation and Dynamic Adjustment: A comprehensive evaluation mechanism should be established to assess the implementation of entrepreneurial education in universities, focusing on key indicators such as team communication and team efficacy. Based on the assessment results, policies should be dynamically adjusted to ensure their effectiveness in driving entrepreneurial education development and addressing youth unemployment.
Comments 6: Regarding the wording of the manuscript, please ensure the fluency of some sections that are conceptually too complex and make it difficult for all readers to understand.
Response 6: We are very grateful for your advice on the wording of the manuscript. We understand that some sections may be conceptually complex and difficult for readers to understand. In response to your comments, we have carefully reviewed and revised these sections to enhance their fluency and clarity. Specifically, we have:
Simplified complex sentences and broken them into shorter, more manageable ones.
Added transitional phrases to improve the flow of ideas.
Used more straightforward language to convey complex concepts.
We have paid particular attention to ensuring that the theoretical framework and results discussion are accessible to a broader audience, while maintaining the academic rigor of the manuscript.
