PONE-D-19-21400

Cross-cultural adaptation and measurement properties of the French version of the Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scales - Revised (TAPES-R)

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Luthi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

First of all, let me apologize for the delay in the review of your manuscript. Finding reviewers willing to evaluate this manuscript has been very hard. In any case, I was able to collect a review from just one reviewer, who recommends a minor revision of your study. Because the manuscript has been under review for too long, I think that a review could be undertaken at this point with the current study. However, and after my own reading of the manuscript, I would consider this as a major revision.

Therefore, please notice that a resubmission will require an additional round of reviews, and that the final outcome of the process cannot be predicted at this point. If you decide to resubmit a revised version of your manuscript, please provide either a proper answer or rebuttal to each of the suggestions that were raised by the Reviewers.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jan 18 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Angel Blanch, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors,

I am grateful for the efforts to validate TAPES-R in the French language. The design of the research, collection and analysis of data, and presentation of the findings are straightforward and scientifically rigor. The steps of cultural adaptation and validation process are thoroughly followed by the authors. The reviewer acknowledges the practical relevance and research advancements of this research, which will allow many practitioners to measure the outcomes of their support and understand the overall wellbeing of the people affected by amputation.

The reviewer recommends publishing this research, after reviewing and adjusting a few methodological and practical comments outlined below.

1. To date, there is no validated version of the TAPES-R in another language, as all previous translations in German, Persian and Turkish have been made from the first version of the TAPES. (Page 11)

- Kind request to review a recent study of Massarweh and Sobuh (2019) for TAPES-R Arabic version and adjust accordingly.

2. Conversely, the inability to read or understand French, being a resident in a health or retirement home was the only exclusion criteria. (page 11)

- The reasons for excluding the participants from retirement homes should have been mentioned. Mostly the people living in retirement homes are single and without family/social support. The studies have explored a higher level of anxiety and depression in people with amputation who are alone (Parkes, 1976; Hawamdeh, Othman, & Ibrahim, 2008).

3. In any validation studies of a psychological tool, the sample size remains crucial. The authors could not explain the nature of the sample size, it seems, a convenience sample was used. The sample size determination techniques would have been better explained either in the main section or in limitations (Etikan, Musa, & Alkassim, 2016). For the factor analysis, a minimum of 6-10 samples per item of measure is required to draw complete factor loads and measurement fits of the data. As confirmatory factor analysis was not carried out, the EFA and Rasch analysis were presented. The results received from Rasch analysis, for less than 100 samples, have inadequate and sometimes opposite conclusions (Chen et al., 2014). Therefore, the reviewer recommends the authors to address the sample methods, sample size, and interrelated issues. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) sampling adequacy test results would have been best to present if possible.

4. The researchers are also requested to state/describe the normality test outcomes of the data, because the result section does not include it. However, the data analysis section of methodology outlines it.

5. All the five items should be associated with general adjustment. Construct validity is considered acceptable if at least 75% of the results are in correspondence with our hypotheses, which would here correspond to 34/46 (Page 17)

- The presentation of construct validity outcomes seems very vague, cannot be well understandable. The sentence, ‘Construct validity is considered acceptable if at least 75% of the results are in correspondence with our hypotheses, which would here correspond to 34/46’, needs further elaboration.

6. It would be better to provide factor loadings of all items of each measure, so that the readers will understand better (Page 21 under the factor analysis).

7. The present result would rather suggest to further reduce the rating to three categories for the general adjustment subscale, but leave it as is all other subscales. Nevertheless, since the three subscales on psychosocial adjustment share the same section of the questionnaire, it seems wiser to leave all items as is.

- I would have deleted the highlighted text in Yellow.

References:

Massarweh, R., & Sobuh, M. M. (2019). The Arabic Version of Trinity Amputation and Prosthetic Experience Scale-Revised (TAPES-R) for Lower Limb Amputees: Reliability and Validity. Disability, CBR & Inclusive Development, 30(1), 44-56. doi: 10.5463/dcid.v30i1.718

Gallagher, P., & MacLachlan, M. (2004). The Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scales and quality of life in people with lower-limb amputation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 85(5), 730-736. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2003.07.009

Arafat, S. (2016). Cross cultural adaptation & psychometric validation of instruments: Step-wise description. International Journal of Psychiatry, 1(1), 1-4. doi: 10.33140/IJP/01/01/00001

Parkes, C. M. (1976). The psychological reaction to loss of a limb: the first year after amputation. In Modern perspectives in the psychiatric aspects of surgery (pp. 515-532). Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Hawamdeh, Z. M., Othman, Y. S., & Ibrahim, A. I. (2008). Assessment of anxiety and depression after lower limb amputation in Jordanian patients. Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment, 4(3), 627-633. doi: 10.2147/NDT.S2541

Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American journal of theoretical and applied statistics, 5(1), 1-4. doi: 10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11

Chen, W. H., Lenderking, W., Jin, Y., Wyrwich, K. W., Gelhorn, H., & Revicki, D. A. (2014). Is Rasch model analysis applicable in small sample size pilot studies for assessing item characteristics? An example using PROMIS pain behavior item bank data. Quality of life research, 23(2), 485-493. doi: 10.1007/s11136-013-0487-5

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Yubaraj Adhikari

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments_Cross-cultural adaptation and measurement properties of the French version of the Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scales -Revised (TAPES-R).docx

Cross-cultural adaptation and measurement properties of the French version of the Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scales - Revised (TAPES-R)

PONE-D-19-21400R1

Dear Dr. Luthi,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Angel Blanch, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I am grateful for the authors who went through the comments and recommendations of the reviewer. All relevant recommendations were addressed in a scientific and statistically sound manner. I agree with the authors that the quality of the paper is improved. This article and tool deserve to be published so that the end-users can benefit from it.

During my over a decade long career in International Red Cross, I can assure, our colleagues from the physical rehabilitation programme unit can also benefit from this tool in measuring the psychosocial wellbeing of the amputated beneficiaries who receive technical assistance. After reviewing the revised text, I have no further comments to the authors. I would like to provide my gratitude to the authors and the board of editors for providing this opportunity.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Yubaraj Adhikari (Ph.D. Scholar at University of Nicosia, MSc in Mental Health Psychology from University of Liverpool)