PONE-D-20-14199

Validation of the Polish version of the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS)

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Konaszewski,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 23 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're 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.

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). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Frantisek Sudzina

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

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. We do appreciate that you have a title page document uploaded as a separate file, however, as per our author guidelines (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-title-page) we do require this to be part of the manuscript file itself and not uploaded separately.

Could you therefore please include the title page into the beginning of your manuscript file itself, listing all authors and affiliations.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[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: This is an interesting article that introduced new scientific value and deserves to be published in PLOS One.

The article consists of three independent studies on large cohorts. It deals with the subject of resilience and focuses on the Polish adaptation of the scale to measure this construct. I recommend accepting the manuscript after minor corrections:

- The authors should systematize the name of the variable. Currently, two terms are used in the work: resilience and resiliency. Consistent terminology would allow for better understanding of the text.

- My suggestions is that the "Data Analysis" section should not indicate hypotheses ("we expected..."). This section should focus primarily on the description of data analysis methods. Please consider describing the study objectives and hypotheses in a different place of the text – e.g. in the first paragraph describing the study.

- The authors should translate foreign literature items into English.

Reviewer #2: The authors have produced an excellent manuscript. The chosen topic contributes significantly to the scientific field of psychology, positive psychology, psychometry and psychology. Furthermore, it is important to note that it makes an important contribution, presenting a scale to measure resilience in a specific population.

Next, all those aspects that give quality to the work are indicated:

- Appropriate title. Descriptive and simple. Suitable for a manuscript.

- Very complete and well written introduction. It includes the most relevant aspects of the theoretical field of resilience. The writing is good.

- The object of the study is well defined.

- The studios are designed correctly. The results show the usefulness of said adaptation.

- The analysis carried out is adequate for the research question and the stated objectives.

- The discussion is elaborated correctly, although it is one of the aspects that requires more attention.

- The References are written in the correct format. Although it is recommended to include more current references.

Specifically, some of the aspects that deserve attention have to do with:

Introduction: On the one hand, authors should include more citations to support the different definitions they propose. Evidence that has no scientific support is made in the first paragraph of the introduction. The same happens in the third paragraph section that refers to "Researching abilities" the authors should complete with current references that accompany and give value to the statements they present. On the other hand, the authors should refer to the theory of coping strategies, being these relevant to understand the definition of resilience presented here. The authors could quote:

- Lazarus, R. S., y Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York, NY: Springer.

- Cantero-García, M., & Alonso-Tapia, J. (2018). Coping and Resilience in Families With Children With Behavioral Problems. Revista de Psicodidáctica (English ed.), 23(2), 153-159.

- Alonso-Tapia, J., Rodríguez-Rey, R., Garrido-Hernansaiz, H., Ruiz, M., y Nieto, C. (2016). Coping assessment from the perspective of the person-situation interaction development and validation of the Situated Coping Questionnaire for Adults (SCQA). Psicothema, 28(4), 479-486. http://dx.doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016:19

- Villasana, M., Alonso-Tapia, J., y Ruiz, M. (2016). A model for assessing coping and its relation to resilience in adolescence from the perspective of “person–situation interaction”. Personality and Individual Differences, 98, 250–256.

- http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.053

Methodology: Authors should delve further into sociodemographic characteristics. As well as clarifying why one works with such a wide age range. Furthermore, it would be advisable to expand the n of the study 2. In addition, it is necessary to clarify how the data collection was carried out. The fit indexes of the model are very good, although it is not clear why the choice is made to separate the positive and negative items. Better justify the structural model. It is unclear whether the item scores were treated as categorical-ordered or continuous variables. The choice of estimation procedure should be justified.

Discussion. You point out the methodological and theoretical limitations in a clearer way.

**********

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: Sebastian Skalski

Reviewer #2: Yes: María Cantero García

[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.]

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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Validation of the Polish version of the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS)

PONE-D-20-14199R1

Dear Dr. Konaszewski,

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

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- 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.

Kind regards,

Frantisek Sudzina

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: