PONE-D-23-09910A validation of the Dutch version of the Awareness of Narrative Identity Questionnaire (ANIQ-NL)PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dierdorp,

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 Jul 10 2023 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: 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,

Yuh-Yuh Li, 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.

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: A Review of PONE-D-23-09910 "A validation of the Dutch version of the Awareness of Narrative Identity Questionnaire (ANIQ-NL)."

I recommend minor revision on the manuscript. I only have 2 minor suggestions that the authors may consider including in their revision.

In the review section and/or in the description of the ANIQ original measure, it would be informative to include reliability values and validity assessment found in the other versions. In “Hallford and Mellor found that the ANIQ has good validity and reliability [1]. The Polish [45] and Turkish [46] translations of the ANIQ have also demonstrated good psychometric properties”, specific reliability values and validity assessment details can be included there.

Something the authors might consider addressing in the discussion, was there any previous mixed-method research that investigating autobiographical life narratives together with using this developed quantitative measure? The authors may address further about the different natures of information derived from these two approaches.

Reviewer #2: Review comments on PONE-D-23-09910

Overall comments

The study design, data analysis, and presentation of the findings are scientifically rigorous. The outcome of the research is justifiable and it can benefit practitioners/researchers in the future. The four-factor model of Awareness of Narrative Identity Questionnaire-NL seems best fit as per the CFA parameters. The statistical procedures and data analysis process was adequately followed to confirm the validation of the tool.

Shortcomings: areas to be improved

- The translation of the tool and validation process was not adequately followed. From the narrative of the steps followed, a few steps such as forward translation from independent experts, consultations with experts in receiving feedback (Panel discussion with national experts on the subject), and pilot testing before the final data collection were not followed. Check more detailed procedures guided by Sousa and Rojjanasrirat (2011), and Van Ommeren et al. (1999). Such limitations are better highlighted in the limitation section so that future researchers and clinicians become aware of such caveats.

- Were there any missing data? How about the outliers?

– It is worth mentioning the data cleaning process and exclusion criteria of any data before analysis.

- Normality tests of the data are important before applying SEM. Authors are requested to describe the assurance of normality (normal distribution) of the presented data.

- Page 21: insert Fig 1.

- As authors have used CFA rather than EFA, it is advisable to present composite reliability (i.e. construct reliability) scores with average variance extracted from each sub-scale (Wang, French, & Clay, 2015). It is also recommended to add convergent validity scores as CFA is done for validation of this tool.

I thank you for this opportunity to review this interesting paper. I wish the authors may find my comments useful to improve the quality of this paper.

References:

Van Ommeren, M., Sharma, B., Thapa, S., Makaju, R., Prasain, D., Bhattarai, R., & de Jong, J. (1999). Preparing instruments for transcultural research: Use of the translation monitoring form with Nepali-speaking Bhutanese refugees. Transcultural Psychiatry, 36(3), 285-301. https://doi.org/10.1177/136346159903600304

Sousa, V. D., & Rojjanasrirat, W. (2011). Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: A clear and user-friendly guideline. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17(2), 268–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x

Wang, X., French, B. F., & Clay, P. F. (2015). Convergent and discriminant validity with formative measurement: A mediator perspective. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 14(1), 83-106. https://researchportal.murdoch.edu.au/esploro/outputs/journalArticle/Convergent-and-discriminant-validity-with-formative/991005544679607891

**********

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: Nipat Pichayayothin

Reviewer #2: Yes: Yubaraj Adhikari, PhD

**********

[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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review comments on PONE.docx

A validation of the Dutch version of the Awareness of Narrative Identity Questionnaire (ANIQ-NL)

PONE-D-23-09910R1

Dear Dr. Dierdorp,

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,

Yuh-Yuh Li, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: