PONE-D-23-08354

Construct Validity of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale in patients with Schizophrenia in Indonesia

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chung,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we recommend reconsideration of your manuscript following major revision. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:Please respond to and address all the reviewers' recommendations before resubmission. The reviewers have pointed out that the introduction and methodology sections of the paper require improvement. Specifically, a sample of 260 subjects was used to perform an EFA and CFA.  It is crucial to take their suggestions and make the necessary revisions to ensure that the paper complies with quality standards of the instruments validation.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 09 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,

Silvia Escribano Cubas

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 note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Review of PONE-D-23-08354

The submission studies the psychometric properties of an Indonesian version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale using a sample of inpatients diagnosed with schizophrenia. The Introduction is brief and does not justify the approach of the study sufficiently. Some sentences are confusing, e.g., in the first paragraph when the authors state that SE plays a role in the development of mental illness (i.e., precedent) but also state that this is because SE is a key outcome of mental illnesses (i.e., subsequent).

Some results are confusing, e.g., using the same sample to conduct first an EFA and second a CFA, or describing the psychometric properties as validity. As a reader, I would expect reports of associations with other constructs typically related to SE and some sort of criterion validity. The authors also discuss the two-factor model without acknowledging previous studies on factor-solutions in relation to wording. What is however an interesting finding is the extremely small association between the positive and the negative factor which is not in line with previous research. It might be beneficial to study this further.

The sample is interesting and the psychometric test plausible, but I would expect such tests in such a sample as a first step of a paper on further relevant research questions. The psychometric tests alone do not seem like a substantial contribution to the literature.

Reviewer #2: 

ABSTRACT:

-The use of some terms when mentioning types of validity evidence, do not follow the current Standards. For example, the term "construct validity" should be replaced, according to the last versions of the Standards (AERA, APA, & NCME, 1999, 2014).

INTRODUCTION:

-"According to literature [6], self-esteem also plays a crucial role in developing various mental illnesses" -->Please determine the type and characteristics of mental illnesses.

-The use of some terms when mentioning types of validity evidence, do not follow the current Standards. For example, the term "construct validity" should be replaced, according to the last versions of the Standards (AERA, APA, & NCME, 1999, 2014).

METHODS:

-"This study employed a cross-sectional design"--> Please determine the correct type of study. This is an instrumental questionnaire validation study, not a cross-sectional study.

-"(e) provision of informed consent"-->The following element cannot be considered an inclusion criterion. This aspect should be considered in the ethics section.

-"The participants were informed before signing the written consent form that participation is voluntary and their confidentiality was carefully guarded. The purposes of the study, procedure for filling out questionnaires, potential risk or inconvenient, confidentiality issues and contact detail of the researcher were explained in the written consent forms and informs the participant directly. The researcher also gives an option to the participants to not participate in the study. The participants in this study was vulnerable group (psychiatric patients/ case with mental illness), therefore, additional protection was provided" --> Please review the flow of information in the methods section. From my humble point of view there are certain aspects that are not in the corresponding section (in this case ethics), besides repeating information.

-"The minimum number of participants recommended by Mundfrom, Shaw [29] was 20 times the number of variables, which in this case equaled 200 participants. In this study, data was missing from four questionnaires because they were not accurately completed, and 21 participants were excluded because their MMSE score was less than 24. Considering the response rate of 20%, the final sample comprised 260 participants"--> I seem to remember that the rule of 5 and 20 participants has long been out of use, it is calculated on the basis of expected communalities and items per factor, taking into account the work in statistical analysis under optimal conditions. I refer the authors to the citations of Ferrando-Piera et al. (2022) and Lloret-Segura et al. (2014).

-"Sinclair, Blais [9] found that the dependability of the RSES was satisfactory, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.91" -->Please determine internal consistency by scales or sub-dimensions, currently presenting internal consistency of total scale scores is a major methodological error. I refer the authors to the citation of Prinsen et al. (2018).

- "Franck, De Raedt [21] tested the construct validity by correlating the RSES score with the NEO Five-Factor Inventory subscales. In line with Tinakon and Nahathai [10], the RSES negatively correlated with the Thai Depression Inventory" --> Please determine the magnitude of the correlations in the different studies. The use of some terms when mentioning types of validity evidence, do not follow the current Standards.

-"In the last phase, the complete Indonesian version of the RSES scale was administered to the study sample, and its validity and reliability were determined" --> The use of some terms when mentioning types of validity evidence, do not follow the current Standards.

-"A Cronbach's alpha equal to or better than 0.70 demonstrates adequate internal consistency [33, 34]" --> From my humble point of view the authors should have calculated the ordinal alpha. The rest of the statistics in categorical response scales underestimate reliability. I refer the authors to the citation of Zumbo et al. (2007).

- "We carried out an EFA (exploratory factor analysis) to examine the construct validity of the scale using a principal component analysis [36, 37] with varimax rotation [38]" -->I seem to remember that the use of orthogonal rotations in highly correlated multidimensional constructs may deform the underlying structure of test item scores. I refer the authors to the citations of Ferrando-Piera et al. (2022), Lloret-Segura et al. (2014) and Prinsen et al. (2018).

- "to determine the number of components, an eigenvalue greater than 1.00 was utilized [43, 44]" --> According to the latest standards it is more correct to use parallel analysis to determine the number of factors. I refer the authors to the citations of Ferrando-Piera et al. (2022) and Lloret-Segura et al. (2014). Adequacy of EFA (KMO; Barteltt's test of sphericity and determinant) should come before "parallel analysis" or "number of factors" to determine the number of factors to be retained, not after as now appears in several places of the text.

-I do not observe the criteria used to retain or discard items in the EFA; the authors should provide scientific evidence in this regard.

-The authors do not make it clear whether they randomly segmented the sample into two halves to perform the CFA and EFA.

-Why do the authors perform an EFA and a CFA with the same sample, what does this contribute to the study?

-I still do not understand why with a sample of 260 participants and without segmenting it the authors perform an EFA and a CFA, taking into consideration that a sample of 130 to perform the different statistical methods would be unstable due to the small size. I refer the authors to the citations of Ferrando-Piera et al. (2022) and Lloret-Segura et al. (2014).

-From my humble point of view it would be more interesting to perform only a CFA with several adjustments: a) congeneric model, b) correlated error model if the modification rates are greater than or equal to 35000 and c) a second order model to assess the existence of a single underlying construct.

-"convergent validity"--> The use of some terms when mentioning types of validity evidence, do not follow the current Standards. I refer the authors to the citation of Prinsen et al. (2018).

RESULTS:

-There are variables that have not been described in the methodology section. The authors should include a section where readers can see all the sociodemographic variables collected. The authors should write the variables more clearly, specifically if they are continuous or categorical variables. In the case of categorical variables, they should include the response options in parentheses. The authors should describe the evaluation instruments more clearly. I recommend writing it with a hyphen, the name of the instrument and its psychometric properties.

-The authors should provide normative and performance data for the scale items (ceiling and floor effects). Based on the results found , if floor and ceiling effects are found, the authors should provide percentiles to facilitate the interpretation of the scores. Authors should explore differences between men and women and provide effect sizes. However, t-test for examining differences in direct score between ratings of men and women should be conducted after demonstrating measurement invariance across this variable, at least at the factor loadings level (weak o metric invariance) and item thresholds/intercepts level (strong or scalar invariance), to ensure that direct scores are operating in the same way and, therefore, are meaningfully comparable.

DISCUSSION:

-"In addition, evidence of the construct validity of the RSES was demonstrated through EFA and CFA, contrary to previous studies conducted in Indonesia" --> Is it appropriate to do this with a total sample of 260 participants?

-"In line with this finding, a previous investigation found satisfactory levels of internal consistency, as measured by a Cronbach's alpha coefficient that ranged from 0.81 to 0.91 [9, 10, 21, 25]" --> What are the implications of obtaining an internal consistency greater than 0.90?

-"Another study indicated that a two-factor model considerably increases the fit compared to a one-factor model [58]" -->The following statement supports my humble opinion of performing a CFA with several adjustments, specifically congeneric and a second-order model.

-Authors should include in the limitations section that the majority of the sample on which we can interpret the item scores are men.

CONCLUSIONS:

-The authors' statements in the conclusions section should be based on the statistical recommendations provided. Are we sure that the structure has not been influenced by orthogonal rotation?

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

-"Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of the Study (n = 260)" --> The sum of the percentages exceeds or does not reach 100%, the authors should check the sum of the tables.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Ferrando-Piera, P. J., Lorenzo-Seva, U., Hernández-Dorado, A., & Muñiz-Fernández, J. (2022). Decálogo para el Análisis Factorial de los Ítems de un Test. Psicothema. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/11162/217964.

Lloret-Segura, S., Ferreres-Traver, A., Hernández-Baeza, A., & Tomás-Marco, I. (2014). El análisis factorial exploratorio de los ítems: una guía práctica, revisada y actualizada. Psicothema. https://doi.org/6018/analesps.30.3.199361

Prinsen, C. A., Mokkink, L. B., Bouter, L. M., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., De Vet, H. C., & Terwee, C.

B. (2018). COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of life research, 27(5), 1147-1157. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11136-018-1798-3

Zumbo, B.D., Gadermann, A.M., & Zeisser, C. (2007). Ordinal versions of coecients alpha and theta for Likert rating scales. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods,6, 21-29. https://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1177992180

Reviewer #3: 

It is a ver straightforward article in which the construct validity of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale for schizophrenia patients in Indonesia is assessed.

I have to admit that I was not expecting the length of this article and I received it with great pleasure. Nowadays articles this long are not that easy to find. It is very easy to read and very straightforward as well, which is one of its strong points, in my humble opinion.

However, the introduction section is lacking some depth. Authors state that "self-steem plays a crucial role in developing various mental illnesses" (page 3, line 7). This affirmation makes me think that self-steem triggers some mental disorders. But then, following the previous sentence: "this is because low self-esteem has been postulated to be one of the primary outcomes of mental illness". This part needs some clarification. Also, in the last paragraph of the introduction (page 4, line 2), authors state: "Additionally, some previous studies have shown that self-esteem has been associated with schizophrenia". In which way? In general, although I can guess the intention of the authors of making a short paper, I think the introduction section would benefit from a deeper research.

Methods, results and discussion sections are great. They are short and straightforward, like the rest of the paper.

My main concern is the fact that references do not follow the APA format. Please revise it carefully.

==============================

[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.

PONE-D-23-08354R1Construct Validity of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale in patients with Schizophrenia in IndonesiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chung,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we recommend reconsideration of your manuscript following major revision. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: Please insert comments here and delete this placeholder text when finished. Be sure to:

• Please note that the discussion, as it is now, is confusing. On the one hand they state that the scale is unidimensional, but then conclude that the best structure is the two-factor model. Furthermore, in order to reach a conclusion on this, other parameters, such as factor loadings, should be taken into consideration. Factor loadings below 0.30 should not be included in these items because they do not explain enough variance. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 04 2024 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,

Silvia Escribano Cubas

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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 #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. 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 #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. 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 #2: I appreciate the authors' time spent in enhancing the manuscript. Statistically, it seems they have done an acceptable job. Nevertheless, there are still certain concerns I have regarding the manuscript's writing (Attached is a PDF where I've highlighted in red the elements that strike me as discordant in the text):

INTRODUCTION

1. In summary, self-esteem is a pivotal psychological construct that controls several facets of an individual's existence,

encompassing mental well-being, accomplishments, interpersonal engagements, and coping abilities-->Evidence is needed for this statement.

2. There exists a reciprocal relationship between self-esteem and mental illnesses. A previous study found that self-esteem plays a pivotal role in developing diverse mental illnesses and social problems encompassing a range of internalizing issues, such as depression, suicidal tendencies, eating disorders, and anxiety, as well as externalizing problems, including violence and substance abuse -->Evidence is needed for this statement. A visual representation or diagram displaying the relationship between constructs/variables would be interesting for the reader.

3. Researchers often use the RSES to measure self-esteem in the clinical population [15]--> Please add the characteristics of the population, diagnosis...

General Overview: The repetition of some ideas and the lack of a smooth transition between paragraphs make it difficult to read. Ensure that the citations are correctly referenced and that there is coherence in the bibliography throughout the text. Some key statements lack specific citations or references, which compromises the credibility of the text. Through a brief search, I find a large number of validations, such as those in Spanish, which the authors have not included in the relevant section of the introduction. An exposition of the structural differences and psychometric properties of the tool in the target population of the study should be made, in this case, in patients with schizophrenia.

METHODS

2.2. Instruments-->Remove the numbering from the categorical variables. Is the instruments section appropriate to discuss the known evidence of internal consistency?

2.3. Translation procedure-->Include an explanatory diagram/figure of the process.

2.4 Statistical Analysis--> Please remove the sub-sections and write in a simpler manner.

2.4.3 Validity evidence--> What estimator have you used for the CFA? ULS, WLSMV?

General Overview: Please present structural validity section before reliability and internal consistency. I refer you to COSMIN. The data on internal consistency cannot be interpreted before data on structural validity.

RESULTS:

General Overview: Please provide the evidence for structural validity before internal consistency and reliability. According to COSMIN (reference provided in the first review), internal consistency and reliability cannot be interpreted without first having evidence of structural validity.

DISCUSSION

General Overview: The discussion still requires further development. Currently, the flow of information is disorganized. I also encourage the authors to delve into the results they have obtained and provide an explanation and reasoning behind their findings. They do not discuss the advantages of obtaining a single factor or the disadvantages of not obtaining it... I'm also unsure whether the studies they are comparing with have clinical or non-clinical samples. There is anthropomorphic language that should be removed. The writing needs to be revised as it still does not adhere to AERA, APA, NMCE, COSMIN standards.

Next, I copy fragments of the discussion that bother me when reading:

"Surprisingly", "can be conceptualized as comprising two distinct constructs", "In short, the evidence from our study shows that the RSES scale construct fits well", Our sample size was adequate to perform factor analysis", "Our results were consistent with a previous study by [54], conducted in", "individuals with severe mental illnesses, not specific only to patients with schizophrenia and reported strong internal consistency".......

Reviewer #3: Authors have successfully adressed all of my concerns. The manuscript can be considered for its publication now.

**********

7. 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 #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-08354_R1.pdf

PONE-D-23-08354R2Structural Validity of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale in Patients with Schizophrenia in IndonesiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chung,

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 Feb 23 2024 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,

Silvia Escribano Cubas

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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 #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. 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 #2: Yes

**********

5. 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 #2: Yes

**********

6. 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 #2: In the attached document I make some recommendations to improve the scientific quality of the article.

The authors argued in previous reviews that the use of ordinal alpha was inadequate, using a critique by Chalmers. I provide a reference for you to reflect on and assess whether it would be relevant to modify the internal consistency estimator.

Zumbo, B. D., & Kroc, E. (2019). A Measurement Is a Choice and Stevens' Scales of Measurement Do Not Help Make It: A Response to Chalmers. Educational and psychological measurement, 79(6), 1184–1197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164419844305

**********

7. 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 #2: 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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-08354_R2_reviewer.pdf

Structural Validity of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale in Patients with Schizophrenia in Indonesia

PONE-D-23-08354R3

Dear Dr. Chung,

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,

Silvia Escribano Cubas

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: