PONE-D-23-08553Self-report assessment of Positive Appraisal Style (PAS): development of a process-focused and a content-focused questionnaire for use in mental health and resilience researchPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Petri-Romão,

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 13 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,

Paulo Moreira, 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. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. 

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

a) The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript.

b) A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file).

c) A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file).

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: 

"I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: RK has received advisory honoraria from JoyVentures, Herzlia, Israel. The other authors report no conflicts of interest." 

We note that you received funding from a commercial source: JoyVentures, Herzlia, Israel

Please provide an amended Competing Interests Statement that explicitly states this commercial funder, along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, marketed products, etc. 

Within this Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  

If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. 

Please include your amended Competing Interests Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Please upload a new copy of Figure S1 and S2 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information:

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/

Additional Editor Comments:

Reviewer 1 describes some issues that requires your attention, and I agree with Reviewer 1 about the need of adressing those issues in a revised version of your manuscript. 

Also, and from my own reading of the manuscript, my main concern refers to the construct validity, and the meaning of your proposed two independent scales to theory building.

For example, your aknowledge that "The two questionnaires, PASS-process and PASS-content, measure two different, but 703 related facets of PAS. Frequent use of positive appraisal processes, or strategies, in stressful 704 circumstances (PASS-process) can be assumed to generate more positive stressor appraisals 705 (PASS-content). This interpretation is supported by the high correlation between PASS- POSITIVE APPRAISAL STYLE SCALES 35 706 process and PASS-content observed in the GBS sample. Nevertheless, the two scales 707 measure distinct constructs".

On the other hand, you aknowledge that PASS-Process and PASS-Content are diferent dimensions, they are dimensions from the same construct of PASS. In fract, in pag. 29 you state that "Concurrent validity was moderate as indicated by 571 the correlation with wellbeing (r = -.46, 95% CI [-.42,.5]). The scale had a substantial 572 correlation with PASS-process (r = .54, 95% CI [.50,.60])." What the correlation of .54 tells us about these 2 dimensions? 

So, did you considerer a model where you would have two higher order correlated factors (PASS-Content and PASS-Process)?  

I would invite you to expand and elaborate on this issue, as it would help the readers to better undertand the meaning of these psychometric results to theory building. 

In insure you that this decision is based on the PLOS ONE's publication criteria and not in others such as novelty or perceived impact. 

[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

**********

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: 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: Summary

The study presents valuable contributions to the field by developing two self-report questionnaires, PASS-process and PASS-content, which measure individual appraisal and coping with stressors and positive appraisal contents, respectively. With good construct validity and internal consistency, the scales demonstrate potential for various mental health and resilience research applications.

Introduction

- The introduction is informative and provides a comprehensive background. However, it could benefit from some streamlining. The word count is considerable. The authors should consider simplifying details and summarizing non-essential parts, maintaining direct relevance to the PAS scales. For example, the definition of resilience (page 3, paragraph 1) and appraisal styles and examples (page 3, paragraph 2) could be summarized and shortened. Similarly, details before the subheading of Positive appraisal style and resilience on page 5 appear less relevant to the main topic and may be summarized or removed.

- There are many instances where statements are made without supporting references. This lapse in citation might leave readers uncertain about the origins of these assertions. For instance, on page 4, paragraph 2, it is unclear which previous studies or papers support the three main reasons for PAS being an "interesting construct for resilience research".

- On page 6, line 129, the term "general need for more informative self-report instrument" is vague. A clearer explanation would be helpful, including how this new instrument is more informative than previous ones and whether there might be potential disadvantages, such as increased dropout rates for longer instruments.

- Contexts about the details of approach implemented in the study in the introduction can be better placed in the method section.

Methods

- The methods section covers the analysis of items from existing questionnaires (Brief COPE and CERQ-short) for PASS-process development and the creation of a new item pool for PASS-content. According to page 12, paragraph 1, there are existing measures of certain dimensions of positive appraisal. What motivated the decision to create a new pool of items rather than leveraging these existing measures, as was done for the PASS-process scale?

- On page 19, line 404, the authors state, "Additionally, the models were evaluated qualitatively", without specifying the methods and criteria used.

Results and Data

- In general, the results are well presented. However, the completion rate for each sample was not reported (page 17, line 380). I would suggest the authors to specify the percentage of participants in each sample whose data was included as complete.

- The reason for excluding participants who did not specify their gender should be clarified (Page 18, Table 1).

- On page 23, table 2: is CERQ-COPE a typo? And is it correct that the last 8 items showed identical loading coefficients to other items belonging to the same factor? For instance, the loadings of the Rumination items (CERQ-short, 3, 12 and 21) are all 0.73.

- On page 23, Table 2, there might be a typo: "CERQ-COPE." Additionally, it appears that the last eight items showed identical loading coefficients to other items belonging to the same factor, which is unusual. To illustrate, the Rumination items from the CERQ-short (items 3, 12, and 21) all showed a factor loading of 0.73. Is this indeed accurate, or could there have been a potential error in the reported values?

- Please specify the reason to drop all negatively worded items in the PASS-content scale as the CFA model fit is acceptable. Interestingly, the author chose to keep items with relatively low loading (e.g. "For my goals and my ideals, I accept inconvenience. loading = 0.33)" in the final version of the scale.

- Minor errors in the supporting material, such as the phrase "approach one" on page 48, line 1021, need to be corrected to "approach two". The term "approach one and two" are not used consistently throughout the manuscript.

**********

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: 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.]

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.

Self-report assessment of Positive Appraisal Style (PAS): development of a process-focused and a content-focused questionnaire for use in mental health and resilience research

PONE-D-23-08553R1

Dear Dr. Petri-Romão,

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,

Paulo Alexandre Soares Moreira, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: