Developing Intercultural Efficiency: The Relationship between Cultural Intelligence and Self-Efficacy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
I find your proposal quite interesting. The relation you establish between cultural intelligence and self-efficacy in the context of international experience in students gives an enriching perspective. The methodology you offer to approach your fieldwork is also sufficient and pertinent.
I would like to point out some aspects:
-Why did you focus on these two universities? Following the line of (self) efficacy, I understand that you may have an “easy” access to data in these two universities, so this explains your focus. But, I would suggest to give some justification on the differences between public and private universities. In which one do students have more opportunities to develop international experience (and so, intercultural intelligence)? Maybe it is significant to give some brief thoughts on the differences between public and private universities, and how these differences condition students cultural intelligence. I mean, it may be a phenomenon individual (students) but also structural (type of university, students background; familiar) and not only a question of gender.
-In line 507 you said 4.2. Measures, and also 4.2. for Model estimations in line 542.
-I would suggest to review Table 4. The format may be uneasy for readers.
Congratulations for your work.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you for your valuable comments. We made based them following changes (all changes are highlighted by yellow color):
row 485: explanation whether private and public universities in both counties differ and if it can affect our results
row 550: the number of the chapter was changed.
row 687: formal changes in Table 4.
The authors
Reviewer 2 Report
1) In methodology part under sample and data collection in line 502-506 you are mentioning “However, for the second examined vari-502 able GENDER, the division into groups of men and women is uneven χ2(1, n = 190) = 503 16.51, p < 0.05. However, this is not a problem, because the PLS-SEM method and the 504 SmartPLS-SEM software (v. 3.3.2) were used for data analysis, which can also work with proportionally unbalanced groups”, however, however in book Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2021). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications. it is stated that groups should be proportional.
2) I would erase sentence in 511 line, it is unnecessary (either write all question or none – or you can put all questions in apendix)
3) Line 520: shouldn’t loading level be more than 0.7?
4) Section Model estimation is to detail, I advise to cut technical details (not all but there are definitively to many of them)
5) In construct CQ you have 5 items lower than 0.7. three of them you expelled and two you left in construct. What is a reasonable explanation for that? Ang & Van Dyne (2015) theoretical underpinnings of CQ construct is based on used 9 items – do you find a problem that 5 items are statistically unreliable while building a CQ construct in your paper.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you for your valuable comments. We made based them following changes (all changes are highlighted by yellow color):
row 506: explanation of the used methods in the case when the number of female and male respondents differs
row 528: correction of the mistake - wrong value 0,6 was changed to 0,7
row 631: the text was changed; it, from our point of view, better explains why we retain or remove some indicators
row 789: emphasizing that our results depend on the selected sample
The authors
