Face, content, criterion and construct validity assessment of a newly developed tool to assess and classify work–related stress (TAWS– 16)

Runalika Roy; Gautham Melur Sukumar; Mariamma Philip; Gururaj Gopalakrishna

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0280189

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 21, 2022
10 Nov 2022 Decision Letter - Sebsibe Tadesse, Editor PONE-D-22-20570Face, content, criterion and construct validity assessment of a newly developed tool to assess and classify work–related stress (TAWS – 16)PLOS ONE Dear Dr.Gautham Melur Sukumar, 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 December 10, 2022; 11:59. 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: https://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, Sebsibe Tadesse, 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 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 provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information. 3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. 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. 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: No ****** 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: Thank you for the research, I have comments and questions as follow: 1- please report the CVR for content validity. 2- for data collection(items) what do you do? interview ? in which method? qualitative research in which method? is it mixed method? this part is ambiguous 3- likelihood is better than PCA please explain why PCA selected 4- Table 2 can be eliminated and the data report in the text Good Luck ****** 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: Dr Malahat Akbarfahimi ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280189.r001
Revision 1
9 Dec 2022 Author Response Journal Requirements comments (1, 2 and 3 are addressed). Reviewer 1 A. please report the CVR for content validity CVI and Modified Kappa are reported as measure of content validity in our study as CVI and Kappa are reported as better and commonly used measure of content validity [1]. We reported Modified Kappa to eliminate chance agreement Based on the study by Ayre and Scally [2], the critical value of CVR for 8 experts would be 0.75. Our experts ranged from diverse occupational health backgrounds (occupational health experts, public health experts, psychiatrists, psychologists, IT professionals) due to which CVR critical value was difficult to achieve for items which were otherwise found appropriate with CVI and Modified Kappa. Hence, we did not use CVR as a measure of content validity in our analysis. 1. Wynd CA, Schmidt B, Schaefer MA. Two quantitative approaches for estimating content validity. Vol. 25, Western Journal of Nursing Research. 2003. p. 508–18. 2. Ayre C, Scally A. Critical Values for Lawshe’s Content Validity Ratio. Meas Eval Couns Dev. 2013 Dec 13;47:79–86. B. For data collection(items) what do you do? interview? in which method? qualitative research in which method? is it mixed method? this part is ambiguous. For face validity and content validity – Hard copy of the study instrument was personally handed over to the experts and context was explained to them. For experts staying outside Bengaluru city, the form was emailed, and context was explained over telephone. The experts filled out the form and provided it back to the investigator For assessment of criterion and construct validity, the investigator made a phone call to random IT employees and sought verbal consent for participation. For employees who were willing to participate, a web-link to TAWS-16 was emailed to them. The participating employees created a login and password and provided informed consent before filling out the questionnaire in email (self-reporting). No qualitative research techniques were employed in this study. Same is mentioned in the materials and methods C. likelihood is better than PCA please explain why PCA selected We used EFA and likelihood for construct validity analysis. The same is mentioned in the materials and methods. PCA was not done. D. Table 2 can be eliminated and the data report in the text The previous one has been eliminated and data reported in the text and renamed Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280189.r002
22 Dec 2022 Decision Letter - Sebsibe Tadesse, Editor Face, content, criterion and construct validity assessment of a newly developed tool to assess and classify work–related stress (TAWS – 16) PONE-D-22-20570R1 Dear Dr. Gautham Melur Sukumar, 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, Sebsibe Tadesse, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280189.r003
Formally Accepted
29 Dec 2022 Acceptance Letter - Sebsibe Tadesse, Editor PONE-D-22-20570R1 Face, content, criterion and construct validity assessment of a newly developed tool to assess and classify work–related stress (TAWS – 16) Dear Dr. Sukumar: I'm 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 let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Sebsibe Tadesse Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280189.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 .