The Impact of Organizational Commitment and Work Motivation on Retention Intention: Evidence from Long-Term Care Institution Caregivers Based on Expectancy Theory

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is interesting and demonstrates a solid theoretical foundation. I have only minor concerns.

I suggest that the authors include a bit more background information on Expectancy Theory in the Introduction section.

It would also be helpful to present the socio-demographic characteristics of respondents in a summary table for easier interpretation. Additionally, I recommend including organizational tenure and work experience as control variables in the analysis as these factors may influence employees’ retention.

The authors should also address potential common method bias (CMB) by reporting a test such as Harman’s single-factor test or an equivalent procedure. Fi

Finally, it would be beneficial to clarify how the value-based cognitive mechanism aligns with the valence component of Expectancy Theory.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I had the pleasure of review the manuscript titled “The Impact of Organizational Commitment and Work Motivation on Retention Intention: Evidence from Long-Term Care Institution Caregivers Based on Expectancy Theory” to be considered for publishing in " Healthcare ". The research seems sound and provides fairly interesting findings, yet it requires some substantial improvements. Specifics are below:

1- The title: The title is well-formulated and appropriate. It effectively captures the key variables examined in the study, specifies the empirical context in which the research was conducted, and clearly reflects the theoretical framework underpinning the proposed model.

1- The abstract: The abstract is well-prepared.

2- The introduction:

• Although the introduction is well-structured and clearly written, the research gap on which the authors build the originality of their study is not sufficiently supported by relevant references to substantiate its existence.
• If the authors could support their identified research gap with recent statistics illustrating the voluntary turnover rates in these institutions over the past few years, it would substantially strengthen the justification and credibility of the stated research gap.

3- Literature: the literature looks sufficient but has some defects:

• There are statements such as “However, existing research has primarily focused on the direct effects of organizational commitment on performance and turnover intention, while its indirect mechanisms remain underexplored.” However, such claims are not supported by appropriate references to substantiate them. Providing relevant empirical or theoretical citations would enhance the credibility and scholarly grounding of these assertions.
• The statement “However, few studies have examined this psychological process in the LTC context” is rather vague, as it does not specify which studies are being referred to. The authors are encouraged to cite or briefly mention the limited studies that have addressed this issue in the LTC context to substantiate their claim and enhance the transparency and credibility of the argument.
• Although the authors indicated that their model is primarily grounded in Expectancy Theory, they also drew upon other theoretical frameworks to justify certain relationships. It is therefore recommended to include a separate subsection titled “Theoretical Foundation of the Study” to clearly present how the different theories are integrated and applied. Relying on multiple theoretical perspectives in social and behavioral sciences can, in fact, provide richer insights and more accurate interpretations of the studied relationships.
• I believe that using the terms “mediate” and “moderate” when formulating the hypotheses related to mediation and moderation effects would be more precise and convincing. These terms clearly reflect the nature of the proposed relationships and align with the standard academic phrasing used in international publications.
• I suggest that the mediating hypotheses (H9–H12) be illustrated in Figure 1 using dotted arrows, while removing their separate listing below the table.
• Overall, the literature review section is well-organized, clearly structured, and logically sequenced. The presentation is coherent and accessible.

4- Methodology and Results: seem to be thorough. Yet, it can be improved by addressing some points:

• It is recommended to include a table summarizing the demographic characteristics of the respondents to provide a clearer overview of the sample profile.
• Additionally, the authors should explicitly explain how common method bias (CMB) was addressed both procedurally and statistically, to demonstrate the rigor and reliability of the data collection and analysis processes.
• The manuscript would benefit from a clearer explanation of the type of sampling method used, along with a justification for its selection and a discussion of its potential limitations. Additionally, the authors should describe in detail the questionnaire translation procedure, clarifying how the instrument was adapted to ensure linguistic accuracy and cultural appropriateness within the local context.
• The authors should clarify why AMOS was chosen for data analysis instead of other available structural equation modeling software (e.g., SmartPLS, Mplus, or LISREL).
• The authors are advised to include a note below each table explaining the meaning of all abbreviations and symbols used.

5- Discussion:

• Overall, the discussion and its related sections are well-prepared and coherent. However, the practical implications could be further strengthened by providing more realistic and context-specific recommendations that highlight the human and ethical value of the work performed by employees in long-term care institutions. In formulating each recommendation, the authors are encouraged to critically ask themselves “how?” — that is, how each suggestion can be realistically implemented to enhance the study’s practical contribution.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Indeed, I would like to express my appreciation to the authors for their considerable effort in addressing almost all of the reviewers’ comments, which, in my view, has had a clearly positive impact on the overall quality of the manuscript.

However, Table 4 (Path Coefficients and Significances) contains some truncated and unclear parts that require correction. In addition, Figure 2 should follow the same format and structure as Figure 1, with the corresponding results incorporated into it to enhance clarity and facilitate readers’ understanding.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf