The Relationship between Technological Capabilities and Organizational Impact: Direct and Indirect Routes for Employed and Self-Employed Personal Fitness Trainers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Congratulations on the original theme and the way you handled your results. Some minor suggestions follow:

1. line 58: "Self-employed professionals are characterized by having greater autonomy that employees.
2. line 61-62: this aspect nees to be investigated in greater depth sine self-employed report their lack or weakness of skills to a lesser extent than the self-employed. One of the two should be changed!
3. line 123: most - make it "more"
4. line 229: which are the "other modalities"? Offer some examples
5. Sample: I believe that a table presenting sample's demographics would be more comprehensive. 
6. line 240: the TIC -I suppose you mean TC. Please correct.
7. Measeurements: please provide some more information about the evaluation tools. For example, have they ever beeen used in spanish in the past? Did you need to translate them? Let the readers know that you'll provide their construct's validity and reliability results, in the Results' Section. 
8. line 393: wich - which

Author Response

Congratulations on the original theme and the way you handled your results. Some minor suggestions follow:

We are grateful for the reviewer’s comments and improvement suggestions.

1. Line 58: "Self-employed professionals are characterized by havinggreater autonomy that employees.

Mistake has been corrected.

2. Line 61-62: this aspect nees to be investigated in greater depth sine self-employedreport their lack or weakness of skills to a lesser extent than the self-employed.One of the two should be changed!

Thanks for identifying the mistake, it has been corrected.

3. Line 123: most - make it "more"

The suggestion has been accepted.

4. Line 229: which are the "other modalities"? Offer some examples

We have included some examples. Thanks for the comment.

5. Sample: I believe that a table presenting sample's demographics would be more comprehensive. 

We have tried to transfer the sociodemographic data to tables, but the disparity of response categories forced us to build more tables than those recommended. In this way, we have chosen to include a table that, we believe, makes it easier to understand some data and leave the rest of the data in text. In any case, thanks for the suggestion, which we found very appropriate.

6. Line 240: the TIC -I suppose you mean TC. Please correct.

The mistake has been corrected.

7. Measeurements: please provide some more information about the evaluation tools. For example, have they ever been used in Spanish in the past? Did you need to translate them? Let the readers know that you'll provide their construct's validity and reliability results, in the Results' Section. 

The tools were created and validated in spanish languaje so no adaptations were necessary. For replications, who interested in, the cite includes the whole instrument. Table 2 shows the description of the items used. The scales used can be found in the following references:

Correa, M.L.; Díaz, B.H. Information technologies capacities and organizational performance: A study of the Colombian context. Innovar, 2018, 28, 99–116.

Skok, W.; Kophamel, A.; Richardson, I. Diagnosing information systems success: Importance-performance maps in the health club industry. Inf. Manag., 2001, 38, 409–419.

Lu, Y.; Ramamurthy, K. Understanding the link between information technology capability and organizational agility: An empirical examination. MIS Q. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2011, 35, 931–954.

8. Line 393: wich – which

Mistake has been corrected. Thanks.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,
Congratulations for the work that you had presented. It have important management implications for the fitness internal organizations context.
Some suggestions:
(1) - Need to clarify TI, TIC and TC. In some cases, is not clear, for instance, paragraph 341;
(2) - It´s not clear that the individual impact it is about employees, in the literature review;
(3) – It´s not clear the participants in the sample. 259 personal trainers: 91 employees + 116 self-employed personal trainers + 52 other modalities. The question is: Are all personal trainers? The employees and self-employed? Can you describe/clarify the others modalities?
(4) – Measurements: Can identify the name pf all items like you did in TC? Missing individual impact, organizational impact and market agility;
(5) – You need to incorpore the tables to understand the results please. Missing table I, II and III (i did´t see any one);
(6) – Confirm all the results, for structural model, that you already writing with the figure 2. This is a multi-group analysis and it´s important to present the z-value to better understand the differences between the 2 groups;
(7) –It´s important to uniformed the writing. Paragraph 400, for instance, coaches or personal trainers? Can be the same but for the readers will easier read the same word.

Author Response

The relationship between technological capabilities and organizational impact: direct and indirect routes for employed and self-employed personal fitness trainers

A quite an interesting study.

Thank you for your comment.

No fundamental errors or disagreements, besides the paper organization and quality of results.

The major concern is the way of the organization of the paper. In my opinion, the introduction needs a reorganization, the methodology should discuss the methods applied in a broader context, development of the hypotheses needs at least the verification of the research gap (or extension of the paper limitation).

Thanks for the suggestion. The introduction, the methodology and the verification of the hypotheses in the results have been improved.

The introduction missing the contribution to the existing literature, a clear message on the methodology and sample size, and the period of the research. The research question, goal, and research gap are not linked together. The development of the hypotheses. The formulation of the hypothesis misses the research gap testing. The methodology is not sufficiently discussed to convince the reader that the selection of it is plausible against other choices. The results lack the stability check or at least the check of the assumption behind each method applied.

Thanks for the suggestions. Changes and improvements have been made in the commented sections.

A few minor recommendations for improvements:

1. I would expect the electronic appendix with the questionaries applied for the research. At the moment I am not able to replicate the research from the data provided.

Thanks for the suggestion. In Table 2 you can see the description of all dimensions and items.

2. The methodlogy is not discussed against the available portfolio of methodologies, the basis for selection is not elaborated.

In the present study, a justified and solid methodological structure was followed. After selecting the tool, an exploratory factor analysis was performed as suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). A structural equation model was tested in two steps (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Byrne, 2006). First, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to assess the measurement model proposed; the second step was a structural model that analyzed the predicted hypothesized relationships among the variables for the present study. Each indicator was connected to its theoretical construct in a reflective manner as well as linked accordingly to the hypothesis. In addition, the normality of the data was checked and the relevant reliability and validity tests were carried out, that is, composite reliability, average variance extracted, convergent and discriminant validity. We estimate our model using Analysis of Moments Structures (AMOS), software whose main motivation is the teaching of the analysis of structural equations in the area of ​​social and human sciences; furthermore, ease of use and understanding are a fundamental objective. This information is contained in the methodology section of this work, where all the steps carried out to respond at a statistical level to the objectives of the study are detailed in detail.

References:

Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommend two-step approach. Psychol. Bull., 1988, 103, 411-423.

Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling with EQS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc: Mahwah, NT, USA, 2006.

3. The method you use is sensitive to the sample size and brings forward several assumptions e.g. the transformation of common or all variability. No discussion of the sensitivity of the validity of the assumptions presented. A nice overview of the potential robustness testing presents Lu and White [1].

According to Kahn (2006), performing CFA requires relatively large samples, however some authors specifically refer to a minimum absolute number: n≥200 (Barrett, 2007), 100 <n <150 (Hair et al., 2006; Markland, 2007). Another commonly used criterion is based on the number of parameters, so taking into account low complexity models, the sample size used is adequate as it exceeds the recommended 5: 1 minimum ratio (Bentler and Chou, 1987; Worthington and Whittaker, 2006), being for our case greater than the 7: 1 ratio. Continuing with this idea, Maroco (2014, p. 28) indicate that a way to guarantee sufficient variability to estimate the parameters of the model must have at least 5 observations per parameter to estimate, detailing that there are other recommendations for the dimension of the sample necessary for the analysis of structural equations, including samples of at least 100-150 observations (Kline, 2005, p.12). Furthermore, the results presented in this work use different adjustment indices for the global evaluation of the model, since the χ² index is sensitive to the sample size following the indications of Abad et al. (2011, p. 363) on samples greater than 250. Thus, following the indications of Hoyle (1995, p. 15), indices of multiple classes were used as a defensive strategy: absolute indices (for example χ² / gl), relative indices (for example CFI and TLI), parsimony indices (for example PCFI), population discrepancy indices (for example RMSEA) (see Marôco, 2014, p. 46).

References:

Abad, F.J.; Olea, J.; Ponsoda, V.; García, C. Medición en Ciencias Sociales y de la Salud; Síntesis: Madrid, 2011.

Barrett, P. Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Pers. Indiv. Differ., 2007, 42, 815-824.

Bentler, P.; Chou, C. Practical issues in structural modeling Sociol. Method. Res., 1986, 16, 78-117.

Hair, J.; Black, W.; Babin, B.; Anderson, R.; Tatham, R. Multivariate data analysis; Pearson Educational, Inc: New Yersey, 2006.

Hoyle, R. The structural equation modeling approach. Basic concepts and fundamental issues. In Structural equation modeling approach. Concepts, issues, and applications, Hoyle, R., ed.; Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 1995; pp. 1-15.

Kahn, J. Factor analysis in counseling psychology. Research, training, and practice: Principles, advances and applications. Couns. Psychol., 2006, 34, 684-718.

Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling; Guildford Press: New York, 2005.

Markland, D. The golden rule is that there are no golden rules: A commentary on Paul Barrett’s recommendations for reporting model fit in structural equation modelling. Pers. Indiv. Differ., 2007, 42, 851-858.

Marôco, J. Análise de Equações Estruturais. Fundamentos teóricos, Software & Applicações, 2ª ed.; Report Number: Pêro Pinheiro, Portugal, 2014.

Worthington, R.; Whittaker, T. Scale development research. A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. Couns. Psychol., 2006, 34, 806-838.

4. P5,l.218 your selection of the literature is somehow judgemental there is no proof for completeness compare Staszkiewicz [2] for citation count regression for completeness or Sasaki et al. [3] for the network application. At least the limitation of lack of testing should be noted.

Thanks for the interesting suggestion. The citations and references included in the theoretical foundation and that help to create the model of relationships, have a considerable degree of references.

5. You might consider borrowing from Bulut Sürdü et a [4] the way they summarize their results in a nice table (see Table 9, p. 16).

Thanks for the suggestion. A summary table of the accepted and rejected hypotheses has been included.

6. Section 5.2 the limitation of the Covid scenario I would rather recommend shifting at Introduction, as this is the general social framework, and probably the better way could be a general statement in more board picture consider Staszkiewicz invocation, that COVID is a huge stress test to the entire global setting [5].

We agree with your suggestion, however, the data collection for this research took place before the COVID-19 sanitary crisis. For this reason, it would not be coherent to attend to the particular circumstances that have occurred or will continue to occur, beyond indicating that the digitization that has occurred may change the results of a possible replication.

7. Consider a more specific statement on the policy implication of the study, at the moment it is an ultimate recommendation to line manager, but how about the governmental agencies and macro policy, especially that COVID hist the trainers heavily?

Thanks for the suggestion. Specific text has been included in the suggestion.

Misseleniours

8. P1. l.22 – double dot.

Corrected.

9. P5. L.220 – country/region in Spain distribution of participants missing.

Thanks for the suggestion. We have included in "participants" that the personal trainers are Spanish. The sample could not be distributed by Spanish regions since they were not asked. However, we have included information on the size of the city in which they work.

10. P8, l. 331 – it's just the confirmative analysis, how robustness it is. Any robustness test for the methods or the research gap e.g.

Thanks for the suggestion. In this sense, the information on the normality of the data has been incorporated following the indications of several authors (Byrne, 1994; Hoyle and Panter, 1995; West, Finch, and Curran, 1995). This statistical test is related to the estimation method used for the CFA. In this case, when assuming the normal multivariate distribution of the variables, a maximum likelihood estimation method was used (Cuttance, 1987; Kahn, 2006; Kline, 2005; Marôco, 2010).

References

Byrne, B. Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows. Basic concepts, applications, and programming; SAGE Publications: SAGE Publications, 1994.

Cuttance, P. Issues and problems in the application of structural equation models. In Structural modeling by example: Applications in educational, sociological, and behavioral research; Cuttance, P., Ecob, R., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1987, pp. 241-279.

Hoyle, R.; Panter, A. Writing about structural equation models. In Structural equation modeling. Concepts, issues, and applications; Hoyle, R., ed.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, 1995, pp. 158-176.

Kahn, J. Factor analysis in counseling psychology. Research, training, and practice: Principles, advances and applications. Couns. Psychol., 2006, 34, 684-718.

Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling; Guildford Press: New York, 2005.

Marôco, J. Análise de Equações Estruturais. Fundamentos teóricos, Software & Applicações, 2ª ed.; Report Number: Pêro Pinheiro, Portugal, 2014.

Muthén, B.; Kaplan, D. A comparison of some Methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol., 1985, 38, 171-189.

West, S.; Finch, J.; Curran, P. Structural equation models with non-normal variables: Problems and remedies. In Structural equation modeling. Concepts, issues, and applications; Hoyle, R., ed.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, 1995; pp. 56-75.

Reviewer 3 Report

Review of the paper: The relationship between technological capabilities  and organizational impact: direct and indirect routes for employed and self-employed personal fitness trainers

A quite an interesting study.

No fundamental errors or disagreements, besides the paper organization and quality of results.

The major concern is the way of the organization of the paper. In my opinion, the introduction needs a reorganization, the methodology should discuss the methods applied in a broader context, development of the hypotheses needs at least the verification of the research gap (or extension of the paper limitation).

The introduction missing the contribution to the existing literature, a clear message on the methodology and sample size, and the period of the research. The research question, goal, and research gap are not linked together. The development of the hypotheses. The formulation of the hypothesis misses the research gap testing. The methodology is not sufficiently discussed to convince the reader that the selection of it is plausible against other choices. The results lack the stability check or at least the check of the assumption behind each method applied.

A few minor recommendations for improvements:

I would expect the electronic appendix with the questionaries applied for the research. At the moment I am not able to replicate the research from the data provided.

The methodology is not discussed against the available portfolio of methodologies, the basis for selection is not elaborated.

The method you use is sensitive to the sample size and brings forward several assumptions e.g. the transformation of common or all variability. No discussion of the sensitivity of the validity of the assumptions presented. A nice overview of the potential robustness testing presents Lu and White [1].

P5,l.218 your selection of the literature is somehow judgemental there is no proof for completeness compare Staszkiewicz  [2] for citation count regression for completeness or Sasaki et al. [3] for the network application. At least the limitation of lack of testing should be noted.

You might consider borrowing from Bulut Sürdü et a [4] the way they summarize their results in a nice table (see Table 9, p. 16).

Section 5.2 the limitation of the Covid scenario I would rather recommend shifting at Introduction, as this is the general social framework, and probably the better way could be a general statement in more board picture consider Staszkiewicz invocation, that  COVID is a huge stress test to the entire global setting [5].

Consider a more specific statement on the policy implication of the study, at the moment it is an ultimate recommendation to line manager, but how about the governmental agencies and macro policy, especially that COVID hist the trainers heavily?

Misseleniours

P1. l.22 – double dot.

P5. L.220 – country/region in Spain distribution of participants missing.

P8, l. 331 – it's just the confirmative analysis, how robustness it is. Any robustness test for the methods or the research gap e.g.

I hope it will help.

References

[1]        X. Lu and H. White, ‘Robustness checks and robustness tests in applied economics ✩’, J. Econom., vol. 178, pp. 194–206, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2013.08.016.

[2]        P. Staszkiewicz, ‘The application of citation count regression to identify important papers in the literature on non-audit fees’, Manag. Audit. J., vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 96–115, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.1108/MAJ-05-2017-1552.

[3]        H. Sasaki, B. Fugetsu, and I. Sakata, ‘Emerging Scientific Field Detection Using Citation Networks and Topic Models — A Case Study of the Nanocarbon Field’, Appl. Syst. Innov., pp. 1–17, 2020, doi: 10.3390/asi3030040.

[4]        F. Bulut Sürdü, A. Özsözgün Çalışkan, and E. Esen, ‘Human Resource Disclosures in Corporate Annual Reports of Insurance Companies: A Case of Developing Country’, Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 8, p. 3452, Apr. 2020, doi: 10.3390/su12083452.

[5]        P. Staszkiewicz, I. Chomiak-Orsa, and I. Staszkiewicz, ‘Dynamics of the COVID-19 Contagion and Mortality: Country Factors, Social Media, and Market Response Evidence From a Global Panel Analysis’, IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 106009–106022, 2020, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2999614.

Author Response

This is a well-conceived and executed study. Adequate rationale is provided for conducting the investigation, with an extensive review of literature. Information are logically and progressively presented. The research findings are theoretically and practically sound. Overall, a good study. Very easy to follow.

Thank you so much for your comments.

Reviewer 4 Report

This is a well-conceived and executed study. Adequate rationale is provided for conducting the investigation, with an extensive review of literature. Information are logically and progressively presented. The research findings are theoretically and practically sound. Overall, a good study. Very easy to follow.

Author Response

Dear authors,

Congratulations for the work that you had presented. It have important management implications for the fitness internal organizations context.

Thank you for your comments.

Some suggestions:

1. Need to clarify TI, TIC and TC. In some cases, is not clear, for instance, paragraph 341;

The acronyms have been unified. Thanks for identifying this bug.

2. It´s not clear that the individual impact it is about employees, in the literature review;

Information has been included in order to clarify this point.

3. It´s not clear the participants in the sample. 259 personal trainers: 91 employees + 116 self-employed personal trainers + 52 other modalities. The question is: Are all personal trainers? The employees and self-employed? Can you describe/clarify the others modalities?

Thanks for the suggestion. The description of the sample has been rewritten to respond to the suggestions made.

4. Measurements: Can identify the name of all items like you did in TC? Missing individual impact, organizational impact and market agility;

Thanks for the suggestion. The description of all items has been included.

5. You need to incorpore the tables to understand the results please. Missing table I, II and III (i did´t see any one);

The tables have been incorporated according to the rules of the journal. Thank you for your suggestion.

6. Confirm all the results, for structural model, that you already writing with the figure 2. This is a multi-group analysis and it´s important to present the z-value to better understand the differences between the 2 groups;

Table 4 has been modified including the z-values, thus following the reviewer’s suggestion.

7. It´s important to uniformed the writing. Paragraph 400, for instance, coaches or personal trainers? Can be the same but for the readers will easier read the same word.

Thank you for your comment. The terms have been unified.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

No more issue, good luck with your study.