Measuring childhood maltreatment: Psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the Maltreatment and Abuse Chronology of Exposure (MACE) scale

Roar Fosse; Dag Vegard Skjelstad; Inga Schalinski; Dorothea Thekkumthala; Thomas Elbert; Chris Margaret Aanondsen; Hanne Klæboe Greger; Thomas Jozefiak

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0229661

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 30, 2019
16 Jan 2020 Decision Letter - Torsten Klengel, Editor PONE-D-19-31983 Measuring childhood maltreatment: psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the Maltreatment and Abuse Chronology of Exposure (MACE) scale PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Fosse, I wish you a Happy New Year! 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. As you can see from the reviewers comments, only minor modifications are required. Please make sure that your article confirms with the publication policies of PLOS ONE, in particular in regard to data availability to the community. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Mar 01 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, Torsten Klengel, MD PhD 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 [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 Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 Reviewer #2: 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 Reviewer #2: 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 would like to congratulate you on this effort. It is becoming rare to come across manuscripts which are so nicely and succinctly written, and statistically sound. While I very much like the manuscript, there is one question I would like to ask in relation to the manuscript. Although it comes across as such but its not clearly stated that the scale was developed as a self-report measure. I am sure you are aware that there is no consensus on whether self-report measures are superior to interview based measures or the other way around. For instance, studies suggest the most common type of misreporting of child abuse is underreporting – that is, individuals who experienced childhood abuse report not having been abused in childhood (Fergusson, Horwood, & Woodward, 2000; Hardt & Rutter, 2004; Widom & Shepard, 1996). Individuals abused in childhood may not disclose such a history for a variety of reasons. They may not divulge information on this sensitive topic to an interviewer they do not know or with whom they do not feel comfortable (Della Femina, Yeager, & Lewis, 1990). Furthermore, a study by Negriff et al., reported that their results showed that an average of 48% of maltreatment found by the Maltreatment Case Record Abstraction Instrument (MCRAI) for each type of maltreatment were unique cases not captured by the Comprehensive Trauma Interview (CTI), whereas an average of 40% self-reported maltreatment (CTI) was not indicated by the MCRAI. I am just curious that since the original MACE was developed as a self-report measure while the German MACE (KERF) was an interviewer based measure and although you used the German version for translation purposes, it looks like you decided to go with the self-report method. Your psychometrics align well with both the original version and the German version but I would like to know a little bit more about your chosen method. Kind Regards Reviewer #2: This is a very interesting article, well-written and methodologically well performed. The aim was to develop a Norwegian MACE and to investigate its psychometric properties. The authors did assess test-retest reliability of the resulting MACE version, convergent validity between MACE and the gold standard CTQ, and predictive validity of MACE compared to CTQ for patients’ psychiatric symptoms. Overall all analysis are adequate, however since the authors reduced the original scale from 75 to 55 itens, they built a new version of the instrument. Therefore I strongly suggest to called this new instrument brief MACE, or modified MACE or something that could identify that the authors are working with a modified instrument (including the title). The total score and the other scores will be different and even the direct comparison with the other versions would not be possible. ****** 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: Alaptagin Khan Reviewer #2: No [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229661.r001
Revision 1
29 Jan 2020 Author Response Response to reviewers PONE-D-19-31983 Fosse et al: Measuring childhood maltreatment: psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the Maltreatment and Abuse Chronology of Exposure (MACE) scale. Dear Editor, Below, please find our response to the comments from the reviewers. Sincerely yours Roar Fosse Reviewer 1 R1.1 “Although it comes across as such but its not clearly stated that the scale was developed as a self-report measure.” Author response: We have added specifications that we administered the instrument as a self-report measure. See p. 2 (line 30), p. 5 (line 100), p. 31 (line 516). Reviewer 2 R2.1 “…since the authors reduced the original scale from 75 to 55 items, they built a new version of the instrument. Therefore I strongly suggest to called this new instrument brief MACE, or modified MACE or something that could identify that the authors are working with a modified instrument (including the title).” Author response: We have discussed this issue thoroughly within our group, and we find it best to continue with the wording/ labeling for MACE instruments that were used by the original developers and in subsequent US/ German publications. Here, the complete, initial, 75-item experimental version of the Maltreatment and Abuse Chronology of Exposure Scale is denoted as “MACE-X”, and subsequent versions, extracted from the MACE-X, have simply been labeled “MACE”. Our 55-item version lies very close to the “main” American 52-item version of MACE, and by being slightly more extensive than this version, we cannot justifiably label it as “brief”. On this basis, to denote the Norwegian version of MACE that we have developed, we now consistently write “Norwegian MACE” or “Norwegian MACE-55”, and some places only “MACE-55” or “MACE” if the context makes it clear that we talk about the Norwegian version. Furthermore, we denote the original, complete, experimental 75-item version as “MACE-X”. In addition, we have made changes to the manuscript at places where we ourselves had used the term “brief” to denote the Norwegian MACE. See R2.1. on: p. 2 (lines 27-30), p. 4 (lines 77-78 and 88-94), p. 5 (lines 100-105, 116), p. 6 (line 122, 129), p. 7 (line 159), p. 10 (lines 229, 233), p. 11 (line 255), p. 22 (lines 381-382), p. 24 (line 396). Other changes We have changed the affiliation of our third author on the paper, Inga Schalinski, to: “Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health (BIH), Institute of Medical Psychology, Berlin, Germany” Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229661.r002
12 Feb 2020 Decision Letter - Torsten Klengel, Editor Measuring childhood maltreatment: psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the Maltreatment and Abuse Chronology of Exposure (MACE) scale PONE-D-19-31983R1 Dear Dr. Fosse, 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. As you can see from the comments below, reviewer #2 was not available at this point to re-assess your response to her/his comments. However, I believe that the minor comments raised during the first revision are adequately addressed and thus proceeded with my decision. 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, Torsten Klengel, MD PhD 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: Thank you for your response, and for making the necessary revisions. The manuscript looks set for publication. ****** 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: Alaptagin Khan https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229661.r003
Formally Accepted
21 Feb 2020 Acceptance Letter - Torsten Klengel, Editor PONE-D-19-31983R1 Measuring childhood maltreatment: psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the Maltreatment and Abuse Chronology of Exposure (MACE) scale Dear Dr. Fosse: I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE. With kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Torsten Klengel Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229661.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .