PONE-D-21-01391

Rapid and sound assessment of well-being within a multi-dimensional approach: The Well-being Numerical Rating Scales (WB-NRSs)

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chiesi,

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 May 22 2021 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Paola Gremigni, 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

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 review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

3. We noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere:

'To test responsiveness, we employed data that were partially published in a conference proceeding and in a paper. We re-used these pre-post data in a different perspective to provide evidence of the psychometric properties of the scale, i.e., the ability to detect changes.'

Please clarify whether this conference proceeding  was peer-reviewed and formally published.

If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript.

[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 review is intended to indicate some minor modifications listed below

1 – rows 99 and 114. Two different goals are presented. It is advisable to unify the presentation of the aim.

2 – row 129 – I would suggest clarifying that the proposed interventions are based on the literature, which attests to their effectiveness. Such reinforcement would be a clarification indicating the effectiveness of the proposed measure, as the intervention must bring about such a change.

3 – In study 1 – methods - clarify the use of such a heterogeneous sample. And how this choice of sample could be positive for the study.

4 – row 176 - who was the convenience group? Does it represent the cognitive capacity of the target sample of the Scale?

5 – In study 1 - Design and procedure - indicate when it was carried out the data collection. Having been in the period of the pandemic, if there was a need to change the form of the collection.

6 - Whereas the scales have different scores. Was a procedure used to standardize the score to ensure compatibility between the measurements? Especially in the discriminant validity?

7 - Could the absence of a common measure (in addition to the WB-NRS) in the sample subgroups hinder the analysis of discriminant validities?

8 - Has the normality of the distribution of data for statistical tests that require this premise been guaranteed?

9 – Study 2 – row 532 - indicate when it was carried out the data collection, and the collection server (e.g. googleforms, surveymonkey…)

10 - It is suggested to update the references.

Reviewer #2: Dear respectful

Prof. Paola Gremigni

Thank you for choosing me as reviewer for paper entitled “Rapid and sound assessment of well-being within a multi-dimensional approach: The Well-being Numerical Rating Scales (WB-NRSs).

In brief, Overall, the current study provides evidence that the Italian and English versions of the

WB-NRSs offer added value in research focused on well-being and in assessing well-

being changes prompted by intervention programs.

As you see my work as reviewer for Plose one, evaluating many articles, I accepted some of them with modification. I rejected some of them. Regarding the current paper, I recommend this paper as best paper for 2021 in your esteemed journal from point of empirical paper.

Major advantages and merits of paper as follow as

1)Authorities used nine scales to validate the established wellbeing. We cannot find this number of scales in past studies. Even if there, it is few.

2)Two studies are presented in one paper.

Clinical sample and non-clinical sample (students with their families).

Canadian and Italian samples.

3) Intervention based on Music

4) Scare and modern statistics have been precisely used in paper. Such as MacDonald reliability, Bayesian correlation, parallel analysis, item response theory (differential item functioning). Obtained results were in consistent with logic, theory, two samples and past studies. I am familiar with all kinds of statistics.

5) Written Language of paper is accurately scientific understandable

6) High concentration in presentation of theories as well as discussion.

Finally I recommended this research team to be continuous for doing researches together (cross field –epidemiology and psychology= cross culture –Canadian and Italy).

Minor points

I accepted the article without modification. However,

Demographic variables (countries) are not presented in Study one, why?

Factor loadings for Canadian are higher than Italian? Please, give interpretation for this result?

Factor loadings discovered difference between two nations, while differential item functioning confirmed similarities. Please why results are discrepant? Please interpret?

Best regards

DR. Nasser Alareqe

Malaysia

**********

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: Victor Zaia

Reviewer #2: Yes: DR. Nasser Alareqe Malaysia

[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.

Rapid and sound assessment of well-being within a multi-dimensional approach: The Well-being Numerical Rating Scales (WB-NRSs)

PONE-D-21-01391R1

Dear Prof. Chiesi,

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. This Academic Editor also appreciated your competent answers to all the Reviewers' suggestions.

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,

Prof. Paola Gremigni, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: