Review Reports - Adaptation and Validation of the Perceived Restorativeness Scale (PRS) for the Portuguese Population: A Study on the Assessment of the Restorative Effect of Environments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript reports two studies aimed at validating the Portuguese version of the Perceived Restorativeness Scale (PRS), an instrument developed by Hartig et al. (1997) and frequently employed in research on the restorative effects of environments. Overall, the research is well-executed, the paper is well-written and easy to follow. My comments mainly concern parts that could be more specific or detailed, which I hope will further enhance the quality of the manuscript.

My major concern relates to the environment participants were asked to think about when completing the PRS. This is not reported in the manuscript. Since the authors stated that in Study 2 aesthetic evaluation and PANAS referred to “the most beautiful and pleasant landscape they know”, I assume that the PRS referred to this landscape as well. If this is the case, I suggest clarifying this choice, as it is uncommon in the literature. Moreover, participants may have thought of very different places, natural or urban, which may confound the results. I also wonder why authors did not ask participants to think specifically about natural environments, given that they included a scale measuring emotion toward nature in Study 2. I suggest discussing this issue, perhaps acknowledging it in the limitation section.
In the Section 1.1, I recommend expanding the theoretical background of restoration studies and the PRS. In particular, I suggest the authors consider the following aspects.
1. Since the PRS is based on ART, the authors may expand the presentation of this theory, especially highlighting the mechanism linking ART dimensions (being-away, fascination…) to restoration, namely the recovery of directed attention.
2. I found the following sentence unclear (line 109): “While researchers acknowledge that environments with these characteristics may be restorative, they also note that natural environments tend to score higher on these dimensions than urban settings, which often impose greater cognitive demands”. It may be clearer to first state that natural environments typically score higher on these dimensions, followed by the idea that other environments may also be restorative if they exhibit these characteristics.
3. The core concept of SRT, that is, the evolutionary basis of nature’s restorative potential, is missing from the theory's description.
On page 4 (starting at line 153) the authors present the Hartig et al. (1997) version of the PRS, with five subscales: being-away, fascination, coherence, scope and compatibility. However, in the method section, they refer to the legibility subscale rather than scope. I recommend verifying and clarifying this inconsistency.
On page 4 (line 181) authors write: “The lack of tools that allow for the analysis of how environmental settings influence individuals' recovery processes in their daily lives led us to the adaptation and validation of the Perceived Restorativeness Scale (PRS) for the Portuguese population, carried out through two studies”. Since the authors did not introduce a new tool nor directly study the relationship between environmental settings and recovery processes, but rather validated an existing instrument in a new language, I suggest rephrasing this sentence more cautiously.
More detail should be provided in the methodology sections of both Study 1 and 2:
1. Given the aim of the studies (validation), further details on the sampling procedure would be helpful.
2. An explanation of the legibility subscale should be provided (see also my third comment).
3. Examples of items for each subscale would help readers better understand the instrument.
4. Typically, PRS is administered in reference to a specific environment, either presented in person, through audiovisual representation, or via instructions to imagine it. I wonder how this was handled, as the methodology section for both studies does not address this (see also my first comment).
Study 1 - Results:
1. To improve readability, Table 1 and Table 2 could clearly indicate which items correspond to which subscale, perhaps by using subheadings for each dimension.
2. On page 6 (line 270) the authors state: “Cronbach’s alpha if the item were deleted ranged from 0.885 to 0.903, with all values above the acceptable threshold of 0.70, confirming good internal consistency across all items.” To be meaningful, this value should be compared with the overall alpha (including all items), which I suggest reporting here rather than only in the table caption.
3. The sentence: “Table 2 shows that items 11 and 13 loaded on Factor 5 instead of Factor 2, as proposed in the original version.” is unclear: What did the original version propose exactly?
4. I suggest further exploring and presenting the findings on gender differences, including a description of how they differ and possible explanations.
In the introduction to Study 2, references should be added for the sentence on lines 332-333 (“These emotions reflect a deep and positive connection with the natural environment and have been associated with the perception of psychological restoration.”) as well as for the instruments cited (e.g. line 331).
Study 2 – Methodology: Did the Restoration Outcome Scale (ROS) refer to the same landscape as the other scales? Did the PRS also refer to the same one? Moreover, information about the order of the administration of the scales is also missing.
Study 2 - Results: I suggest the authors provide more information about the multiple regression analysis reported in Section 5.2. Since it is a multiple regression, I assume that other predictors were included. What were these predictors, and what were the corresponding results?
Discussion: I recommend being more cautious when stating that the study provide “empirical validation of ART within the Portuguese population” (line 427) given that the sample is not representative.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Response: Thank you for your positive assessment of our manuscript and for recognizing the quality and clarity of our work. We appreciate your thoughtful comments and suggestions aimed at improving the specificity and detail of certain sections. We have carefully addressed all your points to further strengthen the clarity, depth, and overall quality of the manuscript.

My major concern relates to the environment participants were asked to think about when completing the PRS. This is not reported in the manuscript. Since the authors stated that in Study 2 aesthetic evaluation and PANAS referred to “the most beautiful and pleasant landscape they know”, I assume that the PRS referred to this landscape as well. If this is the case, I suggest clarifying this choice, as it is uncommon in the literature. Moreover, participants may have thought of very different places, natural or urban, which may confound the results. I also wonder why authors did not ask participants to think specifically about natural environments, given that they included a scale measuring emotion toward nature in Study 2. I suggest discussing this issue, perhaps acknowledging it in the limitation section.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We have now clarified in the manuscript that participants were instructed to think about the most beautiful and pleasant landscape they know when completing the PRS. This choice was intended to capture participants’ perceptions of restoration across a variety of personally meaningful environments, encompassing both natural and urban settings. We acknowledge that this approach may have introduced heterogeneity in the environments considered, and we have addressed this point in the limitations section. Specifically, we now note that the inclusion of diverse environments may have affected the consistency of responses and suggest that future research could benefit from focusing specifically on either natural or urban settings to better isolate the effects of particular environmental characteristics on perceived restorativeness.

In the Section 1.1, I recommend expanding the theoretical background of restoration studies and the PRS. In particular, I suggest the authors consider the following aspects.

Since the PRS is based on ART, the authors may expand the presentation of this theory, especially highlighting the mechanism linking ART dimensions (being-away, fascination…) to restoration, namely the recovery of directed attention.

I found the following sentence unclear (line 109): “While researchers acknowledge that environments with these characteristics may be restorative, they also note that natural environments tend to score higher on these dimensions than urban settings, which often impose greater cognitive demands”. It may be clearer to first state that natural environments typically score higher on these dimensions, followed by the idea that other environments may also be restorative if they exhibit these characteristics.

The core concept of SRT, that is, the evolutionary basis of nature’s restorative potential, is missing from the theory's description.

Response:We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. Following the recommendation, we have expanded the theoretical background in Section 1.1 by providing a more detailed explanation of the Attention Restoration Theory (ART), including the mechanism of directed attention recovery and the role of soft fascination in this process. We have also reformulated the sentence on line 109 to first emphasize that natural environments typically score higher on ART dimensions, followed by the idea that other environments may also be restorative if they exhibit these characteristics. Additionally, we have included the core concept of Stress Recovery Theory (SRT), namely its evolutionary perspective on nature’s restorative potential, highlighting the innate adaptive responses humans have developed toward natural environments. We believe these additions improve the theoretical depth and clarity of the manuscript.

On page 4 (starting at line 153) the authors present the Hartig et al. (1997) version of the PRS, with five subscales: being-away, fascination, coherence, scope and compatibility. However, in the method section, they refer to the legibility subscale rather than scope. I recommend verifying and clarifying this inconsistency.

Response:We thank the reviewer for pointing out this inconsistency. We have carefully revised the manuscript to ensure consistency between the theoretical description and the methodological section. Specifically, we clarified that the version of the PRS used in this study included the legibility dimension rather than scope, in line with some later adaptations of the scale. We have also adjusted the description in the theoretical background to reflect this and added a brief explanation of the legibility dimension, which refers to the perceived coherence and navigability of the environment.

On page 4 (line 181) authors write: “The lack of tools that allow for the analysis of how environmental settings influence individuals' recovery processes in their daily lives led us to the adaptation and validation of the Perceived Restorativeness Scale (PRS) for the Portuguese population, carried out through two studies”. Since the authors did not introduce a new tool nor directly study the relationship between environmental settings and recovery processes, but rather validated an existing instrument in a new language, I suggest rephrasing this sentence more cautiously.

Response:We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We have revised the sentence to more cautiously reflect the aims of the study, clarifying that we did not introduce a new tool or directly investigate the relationship between environmental settings and recovery processes, but rather adapted and validated the existing Perceived Restorativeness Scale (PRS) for use with the Portuguese population.

More detail should be provided in the methodology sections of both Study 1 and 2:

Given the aim of the studies (validation), further details on the sampling procedure would be helpful.

An explanation of the legibility subscale should be provided (see also my third comment).

Examples of items for each subscale would help readers better understand the instrument.

Typically, PRS is administered in reference to a specific environment, either presented in person, through audiovisual representation, or via instructions to imagine it. I wonder how this was handled, as the methodology section for both studies does not address this (see also my first comment).

Response:We have now added more detailed information on the sampling procedure, specifying that participants were recruited through convenience sampling, using both online platforms and in-person distribution, and that no compensation or incentives were provided for participation. We have also clarified that participants were instructed to complete the PRS while thinking about the most beautiful and pleasant landscape they know, to assess perceived restorativeness across personally meaningful environments.

Furthermore, we have included a brief explanation of the legibility subscale, describing it as the perceived clarity, coherence, and navigability of the environment. Finally, we have provided example items for each PRS subscale to help readers better understand the instrument. We believe these additions enhance the transparency and completeness of the methodological description.

Study 1 - Results:

To improve readability, Table 1 and Table 2 could clearly indicate which items correspond to which subscale, perhaps by using subheadings for each dimension.

Response: To improve clarity, we have added a note below Table 2 indicating the theoretical subscale associated with each item according to the original PRS model. We opted to keep the statistical order of the items in the table because reordering by subscale would create confusion, given that the empirical factor loadings did not fully align with the theoretical structure.

On page 6 (line 270) the authors state: “Cronbach’s alpha if the item were deleted ranged from 0.885 to 0.903, with all values above the acceptable threshold of 0.70, confirming good internal consistency across all items.” To be meaningful, this value should be compared with the overall alpha (including all items), which I suggest reporting here rather than only in the table caption.

Response: We have now included the overall Cronbach’s alpha value (0.895) in the main text, in addition to reporting it in the table caption, to improve clarity and ensure that this key information is easily accessible to readers.

The sentence: “Table 2 shows that items 11 and 13 loaded on Factor 5 instead of Factor 2, as proposed in the original version.” is unclear: What did the original version propose exactly?

Response: We thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. We have clarified in the manuscript that, in the original version, items 11 and 13 were intended to load on Factor 2 (Fascination), but in our analysis, they loaded on Factor 5. We believe this clarification improves the clarity of the results and addresses the reviewer’s concern.

I suggest further exploring and presenting the findings on gender differences, including a description of how they differ and possible explanations.

Response: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have expanded the results section to include the descriptive statistics and independent samples t-tests comparing the mean scores of the PRS dimensions between male and female participants. In the discussion section, we now describe these gender differences in detail, highlighting that women reported higher scores in dimensions such as Being Away, Compatibility, and Legibility, while men reported slightly higher values in Coherence. We also provide possible explanations for these patterns, referring to prior studies that suggest women may experience and value restorative qualities, particularly affective and social aspects, more strongly than men. These additions help contextualize the gender differences observed in our study and offer potential theoretical interpretations.

In the introduction to Study 2, references should be added for the sentence on lines 332-333 (“These emotions reflect a deep and positive connection with the natural environment and have been associated with the perception of psychological restoration.”) as well as for the instruments cited (e.g. line 331).

Response: We have now added appropriate references to support the sentence describing the relationship between nature-related emotions and psychological restoration (Bethelmy & Corraliza, 2019; Korpela et al., 2008). Additionally, we have cited the original sources for the instruments used, including the SEN scale (Bethelmy & Corraliza, 2019), Aesthetic Evaluation of the Landscape (Sevenant & Antrop, 2009), and the PANAS (Watson et al., 1988), ensuring proper attribution and clarity for the reader.

Study 2 – Methodology: Did the Restoration Outcome Scale (ROS) refer to the same landscape as the other scales? Did the PRS also refer to the same one? Moreover, information about the order of the administration of the scales is also missing.

Response: We have reformulated the methodological section to clearly describe all the instruments used in Study 2, specifying their purpose and the order of administration. We have also clarified that all scales referred to the same imagined environment—the most beautiful and pleasant landscape known to each participant. These revisions improve the clarity and coherence of the methodological presentation.

Study 2 - Results: I suggest the authors provide more information about the multiple regression analysis reported in Section 5.2. Since it is a multiple regression, I assume that other predictors were included. What were these predictors, and what were the corresponding results?

Response: We have clarified in the manuscript that the predictive validity analysis was conducted using a simple linear regression, with the global PRS score as the predictor of the global ROS score. We have also explicitly reported that the R² value corresponds to approximately 33% of the explained variance, alongside the standardized beta coefficient, t-value, and significance level, to ensure the results are presented as clearly and transparently as possible.

Discussion: I recommend being more cautious when stating that the study provide “empirical validation of ART within the Portuguese population” (line 427) given that the sample is not representative.

Response: We have revised the Discussion section to adopt a more cautious formulation, now stating that the findings provide preliminary empirical support for ART within this cultural context or within this sample, rather than claiming empirical validation at the population level. We believe this adjustment appropriately reflects the limitations of the sample and strengthens the overall balance of the discussion.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study presents a valuable contribution to cross-cultural validation of psychological measurement tools. While the research design is generally rigorous, several aspects require clarification and elaboration to strengthen the scientific validity and contextual relevance of the findings:

1. Insufficient Empirical Support for Research Context

The authors should provide evidence of systematic searches in Portuguese-language databases and local journals to substantiate the claim that " there is no validated version of the PRS in Portuguese". Clarify whether existing Portuguese scales measuring similar constructs (e.g., environmental restoration) were excluded to avoid redundant development.

2. Unclear Practical Necessity in the Portuguese Context

Further, please clarify how the PRS has been used in prior Portuguese research (e.g., reliance on English versions) and address potential cultural biases. Link the adaptation to Portugal’s policy needs (e.g., mental health or urban planning) to emphasize its practical relevance.

3. Strengthen Logical Integration of Two Study Design

Please clearly articulate Study 2’s purpose: if Study 1 validates structural validity, Study 2 should focus on predictive validity. Cite established validation frameworks (e.g., two-stage psychometric protocols) to justify the dual-study design and address potential biases from differing samples.

4. Lack of Sampling Transparency

Detail the sample’s demographic distribution (e.g., urban/rural ratios, age/occupation) and recruitment criteria (e.g., geographic coverage of Portugal). For online recruitment, explain how selection bias was mitigated (e.g., gender/education balancing) and compare sample demographics with national census data.

5. Instrument Documentation
Please include the full Portuguese PRS items, translation protocols (e.g., back-translation documentation), and cultural adaptations in appendices or manuscripts where appropriate.

6. Others

Some recent publications (i.e., 2024 and 2025 ) should be referenced and compared as well.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Response: Thank you for recognizing the value of this study and its contribution to the cross-cultural validation of psychological measurement tools. We appreciate your constructive feedback and have carefully addressed all points raised to clarify and elaborate on the aspects identified, thereby strengthening both the scientific validity and the contextual relevance of our findings.

Insufficient Empirical Support for Research Context

Response: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We have now clarified in Section 1.2 that a systematic search was conducted in Portuguese-language scientific databases (B-on, SciELO Portugal, RCAAP) using relevant keywords, and that no validated Portuguese version of the PRS or equivalent instruments were identified. We believe this clarification strengthens the empirical basis of the research context and supports the need for the present validation study.

Unclear Practical Necessity in the Portuguese Context

Response: We have clarified in the manuscript that, although the PRS has been used in some Portuguese studies, these typically relied on the English version or non-validated translations, raising potential linguistic and cultural concerns. We also emphasized the practical relevance of adapting the PRS to the Portuguese context, highlighting its applications in urban planning, environmental design, and mental health policy. We believe this strengthens the practical justification and societal relevance of the study.

Strengthen Logical Integration of Two Study Design

Response: We have clarified in Section 1.3 that Study 1 focused on construct validity and Study 2 on predictive, convergent, and discriminant validity. We have also justified the two-study design by referencing established psychometric validation frameworks (Boateng et al., 2018; Worthington & Whittaker, 2006) and by explaining that the use of partially independent samples reduces sample-specific bias and enhances the generalizability of the findings. We believe this strengthens the logical coherence of the manuscript.

Lack of Sampling Transparency

Response: We have added detailed demographic information, including gender, age, marital status, education, current and childhood residence (urban/rural/semi-urban), and occupational distribution. We also clarified the online recruitment strategy and the absence of compensation. Furthermore, we included a brief comparison with national census data (INE, 2021) to contextualize the representativeness of the sample.

Instrument Documentation
Please include the full Portuguese PRS items, translation protocols (e.g., back-translation documentation), and cultural adaptations in appendices or manuscripts where appropriate.

Response: We have elaborated in the methods section that the full Portuguese version of the PRS is provided in Appendix A. Additionally, we have clarified that no major cultural adaptations were required, as the items were deemed appropriate for the Portuguese context. We believe these additions improve the transparency and replicability of the translation and adaptation process.

Others

Some recent publications (i.e., 2024 and 2025 ) should be referenced and compared as well.

Response: We have updated the manuscript by incorporating recent publications from 2024 and 2025, including Menardo et al. (2024), Wen et al. (2025), and Tashkov and Pasca (2025), which address context-specific adaptations of restoration instruments, the restorative effects of university environments, and the role of environmental meaning attribution in psychological restoration. These references have been added to Section 1.2 to strengthen the theoretical background and ensure the manuscript is aligned with the most current research in the field.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

a well conducted study which accomplishes it goal of validating the PRS for Portuguese application. Proper inclusion/analysis of background theories

60 -add cronbach's alpha for PRS

Ethics info 235-244 might be better positioned before description of first experiment

192 data collection- what was recruitment procedure/ sampling method? how recruited? incentives/compensation for participation?

more detail on demographics. What % single, divorced, widowed

age range breakdown might be telling

same for exp. 2 if diff

limitations properly addressed

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

a well conducted study which accomplishes it goal of validating the PRS for Portuguese application. Proper inclusion/analysis of background theories

Response: We thank the reviewer for this positive evaluation and for recognizing the quality of the study and the appropriate inclusion and analysis of the theoretical background.

60 -add cronbach's alpha for PRS

Response: We confirm that the overall Cronbach’s alpha value for the PRS has already been included in the manuscript.

Ethics info 235-244 might be better positioned before description of first experimente

Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion regarding the positioning of the ethics information. After consideration, we have chosen to keep the ethics statement in its current location, as we believe it fits well within the methodological description and follows the conventions of the target journal. We appreciate the reviewer’s input on this point.

192 data collection- what was recruitment procedure/ sampling method? how recruited? incentives/compensation for participation?

Response: The description of the data collection procedures, including recruitment method, sampling strategy, and the absence of incentives or compensation, is already provided in the manuscript.

more detail on demographics. What % single, divorced, widowed

age range breakdown might be telling . same for exp. 2 if diff

Response:We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. While we agree that a detailed age breakdown might provide additional descriptive insights, we have decided to report age using the minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation, which is consistent with standard reporting practices in psychometric validation studies. We believe this level of detail is sufficient for the aims of the present study.

limitations properly addressed

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s acknowledgment that the study’s limitations were properly addressed.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Adaptation and Validation of the Perceived Restorativeness Scale (PRS) for the Portuguese Population: A Study on the Assessment of the Restorative Effect of Environments, is an interesting topic
The abstract is well written and has all required sections to write a good abstract
“In recent years, there has been a remarkable increase in research highlighting the psychological benefits of nature (Capaldi et al., 2015; Kaplan, 1995)”. We are in 2025, are you sure that argument still valid?
Please update your list of references
This sentence “Despite its frequent use in the literature on restorative environments, Pasini et al. (2014) emphasize that the psychometric properties of the scale have not been firmly established.” Needs strong evidence as it declares the research gap.
The literature review section is adequate and merits from a critical review of previous studies. However, you need to update your references again.
Please justify the adequacy of sample size (410-212) for your tow studies
Please attach the scale at the end of your manuscript
The results of EFA are well presented with no issues, however item no. 6,11,12 ,13, and 14 should be removed due to low factor loading
The GoF results of the CFA (CFI-NFI, and TLI ) are below the cutoff point (0.90), not satisfactory, please elaborate and justify
Section 3.5. Measurement Invariance Across Gender (the GoF are not good) , these values (NFI = 0.75; CFI = 0.83; TLI = 0.79) are below the threshold value of 0.9 , please justify and support your argument with references.
I miss convergent and discriminant validity results
You have to show the results of scale validity (AVE, CR. ..)

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Adaptation and Validation of the Perceived Restorativeness Scale (PRS) for the Portuguese Population: A Study on the Assessment of the Restorative Effect of Environments, is an interesting topic

The abstract is well written and has all required sections to write a good abstract.

Thank you for your positive feedback on the abstract. We are pleased that you found it well written and complete.

“In recent years, there has been a remarkable increase in research highlighting the psychological benefits of nature (Capaldi et al., 2015; Kaplan, 1995)”. We are in 2025, are you sure that argument still valid? Please update your list of references

Response: We have updated the Introduction and the theoretical background by incorporating recent references (2024–2025) to strengthen the argument regarding the psychological benefits of nature. These updates ensure that the manuscript reflects the most current research in the field.

This sentence “Despite its frequent use in the literature on restorative environments, Pasini et al. (2014) emphasize that the psychometric properties of the scale have not been firmly established.” Needs strong evidence as it declares the research gap.

Response: We have strengthened the statement regarding the research gap by explicitly citing additional sources (Bodin & Hartig, 2003; Lehto, 2013; Pals et al., 2009) alongside Pasini et al. (2014) to show that multiple authors have noted the need for more rigorous psychometric evaluation of the PRS. We believe this revision provides a stronger and more evidence-based justification for the present study.

The literature review section is adequate and merits from a critical review of previous studies. However, you need to update your references again.

Response: Thank you for this observation. We have carefully reviewed and updated the literature review section, incorporating more recent references from 2023, 2024, and 2025 to ensure the manuscript reflects the current state of research. We have also critically integrated these newer studies into the discussion to strengthen the theoretical and empirical context of the work. We trust this addresses the reviewer’s concern and enhances the overall quality of the manuscript.

Please justify the adequacy of sample size (410-212) for your tow studies

Response: We have added a detailed justification for the adequacy of the sample sizes in both studies, referencing established guidelines for factor analyses and statistical power (Costello & Osborne, 2005; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2019; Cohen, 1992). We believe this addition strengthens the methodological rigor and transparency of the manuscript.

Please attach the scale at the end of your manuscript

Response: the full Portuguese version of the PRS is provided in Appendix A.

The results of EFA are well presented with no issues, however item no. 6,11,12 ,13, and 14 should be removed due to low factor loading.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful observation. While we acknowledge that items 6, 11, 12, 13, and 14 showed lower factor loadings in the EFA, we have decided to retain them due to their theoretical importance and to preserve comparability with the original PRS and prior international validations. Additionally, the overall internal consistency of the scale remained satisfactory, and removing these items would not substantially improve the psychometric properties. We have included a note discussing this decision and its implications in the Discussion section.

The GoF results of the CFA (CFI-NFI, and TLI ) are below the cutoff point (0.90), not satisfactory, please elaborate and justify. Section 3.5. Measurement Invariance Across Gender (the GoF are not good) , these values (NFI = 0.75; CFI = 0.83; TLI = 0.79) are below the threshold value of 0.9 , please justify and support your argument with references.

Response: We have added explanations to the Results and Discussion sections to address the lower-than-recommended goodness-of-fit indices (CFI, NFI, TLI) for both the CFA and the measurement invariance analysis. While the reported values fall below the conventional 0.90 cutoff, previous research (e.g., Hu & Bentler, 1999; Marsh et al., 2004; Cheung & Rensvold, 2002; Chen, 2007) has shown that such indices may still indicate acceptable fit, particularly in complex and multidimensional models or cross-cultural adaptations. We have included these references to support our interpretation and highlighted this point as a limitation.

I miss convergent and discriminant validity results

Response: Convergent and discriminant validity results are reported in Section 5.1 and are also explicitly addressed in the Discussion section, where we interpret the significant correlations and highlight their consistency with the literature.

You have to show the results of scale validity (AVE, CR. ..)

Response: Thank you for this valuable comment. We have now included the results of scale validity, including Composite Reliability (CR), Average Variance Extracted (AVE), Maximum Shared Variance (MSV), and Maximum Reliability (MaxR(H)), for each PRS subscale. These results are presented in a new table following the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) section. We also discuss the implications of these validity and reliability indices in the discussion section, noting concerns related to convergent and discriminant validity in some dimensions. We believe these additions strengthen the psychometric evaluation of the scale and address the reviewer’s suggestion comprehensively.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have adequately addressed my comments/suggestions. I have noticed a few typos:

- line 440: "Models fit indexes", should be "indices"

- line 533: "Additionally, a multiple regression analysis was performed". Authors should change the text according to the analysis they performed.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their positive evaluation and careful attention to detail.

The term “indexes” on line 440 has been corrected to “indices.”
Regarding line 533, we acknowledge the imprecise terminology. The sentence was revised to accurately reflect the statistical procedure conducted, which was a moderation analysis (as specified in the corresponding section of the results).
All suggested corrections have been implemented in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all of my concerns.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the positive feedback and for acknowledging that all concerns have been addressed. We appreciate your valuable contribution to the improvement of this manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

still, the GoF values are below the acceptable threshold values

The discriminant and convergent validity are not supported with most C.R and AVE values below the cutoff point

Both the criteria for GoF of the structural model and the values for the measurement model are below expectation; therefore, we can not accept the results

Author Response

We appreciate your continued engagement with the manuscript and thank you for your comments.

Regarding the goodness-of-fit (GoF) indices and the psychometric properties of the scale, we would like to clarify that the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and scale validity indices (CR, AVE, MSV) were reviewed and addressed in the first round of revisions. As shown in the revised manuscript (Section 3.4 and Table 5), while some values (e.g., CR < 0.70 or AVE < 0.50) fall slightly below conventional thresholds for specific subscales (e.g., Being Away, Fascination, and Coherence), we acknowledge and explicitly discuss these limitations in the manuscript (Discussion section).

As highlighted in the literature, small deviations from ideal thresholds are not uncommon in complex multidimensional models, especially in cross-cultural adaptation studies [63,64], and should be interpreted in light of theoretical relevance, model complexity, and the goal of preserving cross-study comparability. We have therefore opted to retain the original five-factor structure proposed by Hartig et al. [9], which continues to demonstrate conceptual coherence and theoretical consistency across contexts.

We also emphasize that these aspects are now more thoroughly integrated into the discussion of limitations and directions for future research, where we clearly state that some subscales may benefit from further refinement or from the development of a short version of the PRS for the Portuguese context.

We hope this clarification supports our position and demonstrates our commitment to methodological transparency and theoretical rigor.