The Childhood Resilience Study: Resilience and emotional and behavioural wellbeing experienced by Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander boys and girls aged 5–9 years

Deirdre Gartland; Arwen Nikolof; Fiona Mensah; Graham Gee; Karen Glover; Cathy Leane; Heather Carter; Stephanie Janne Brown

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0301620

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 16, 2023
23 Jan 2024 Decision Letter - Inge Roggen, Editor PONE-D-23-26018Resilience and emotional and behavioural wellbeing in boys and girls aged 5-9 years: the Child Resilience Questionnaire in an Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cohort study.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gartland, 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 find some minor remarks and questions by the reviewers. Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 08 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, Inge Roggen, M.D., 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. Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data). 3. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met. Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript. 4. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement. 5. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. 6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 7. 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: 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: The concept and study of child resilience is most important particularly as we continue to flesh out the mental health needs of children and young adults. In regions of the world where indigenous populations have faced colonial violence, racism, and dispossession of land and culture, the concept of resilience is critical to understanding the impacts of those kinds of change on child development. I commend the authors for taking on that topic. I accept the rationale presented by the authors in choosing or developing a definition for resilience. I am curious whether this definition is broadly accepted or if it is more novel? There are three citations provided in support of the definition, but my cursory reading of those papers suggest that the definition blends concepts from those three. I ask because further down, the authors highlight how resilience is sometimes defined in terms of positive functioning. And their definition points to resilience being a process that bridges experience of adversity and wellbeing. So is this defining approach new, and if it is what are the advantages over other approaches? In the methods section, I have not had the opportunity to use the Tobit model, and so reading its application, and the clear explanation for the choice of this analytic approach has been informative. I assume of course that the data will be made available through PLOSOne on publication? With Figure 1 and 2, I assume the number reported is the scale mean score, and not the upper or lower CI of the estimate? The position of the number is a bit confusing. Perhaps clarify in the figure legend at the bottom? Finally, in the discussion, the finding that Aboriginal girls scored higher than boys is fascinating to me. The authors put forward the notion that the observed result may be attributed to some social or cultural "scaffolding". Are there other studies into indigenous populations that support this point? Or are the authors basing this on their knowledge and interactions with the Australian indigenous population they are working with? Thank you for this opportunity to review your work. Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. I learned a lot from reviewing this research. This was a well done and well written study. I appreciate your attention to detail and your transparency. It made the research easy to follow. Notes I had: Are there any psychometrics (e.g. chronbachs’ alpha) that have been previously reported on the measures that were used in this study? If yes, would you be able to report the reliability and validity of these measures? I was wondering if there were other similar findings in this population or in other populations who may face similar life experiences or who emphasize family, traditions, and self-identity in their children. For example the Inuit in Canada, or those who belong to Native American tribes in America. These are just somethings that may bolster the external validity of these findings. I can see areas where the findings from your paper may translate to other populations. ****** 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 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301620.r001
Revision 1
5 Mar 2024 Author Response Response to reviewers. Reviewer #1 I accept the rationale presented by the authors in choosing or developing a definition for resilience. I am curious whether this definition is broadly accepted or if it is more novel? There are three citations provided in support of the definition, but my cursory reading of those papers suggest that the definition blends concepts from those three. I ask because further down, the authors highlight how resilience is sometimes defined in terms of positive functioning. And their definition points to resilience being a process that bridges experience of adversity and wellbeing. So is this defining approach new, and if it is what are the advantages over other approaches? Our definition is the latest approach that is widely accepted but also highlights the ‘sociocultural context’ which can be overlooked by some researchers. We have tried to make this clearer in the text by adding a preamble to our definition. “These descriptions encompass the two common factors frequently cited as necessary for defining resilience: first, the experience of adversity or stress, and second, the achievement of positive outcomes during or following the exposure to adversity. More recent definitions including the Kickett definition, also encompass the key role of culture, and the potential for growth through adversity. ...” In the methods section, I have not had the opportunity to use the Tobit model, and so reading its application, and the clear explanation for the choice of this analytic approach has been informative. Thank you. I assume of course that the data will be made available through PLOSOne on publication? We are not able to make our data publicly available as the conditions of our ethics approval preclude release of study data. Our data sharing statement is as follows: Under the conditions of the ethics approval, the Principal Investigator of the Aboriginal Families Study (SB) acts as the custodian for study data and the Intergenerational Health group at Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia, as the co-ordinating unit. Study participants retain ownership of their data and may withdraw consent for their data to be included prior to study outputs. Data sharing via a public repository is precluded under conditions of ethics approval. However, the Aboriginal Families Study Investigator Team and Aboriginal Governance Group welcome inquiries about the data and proposals for collaboration, please contact Lead Investigators, Karen Glover (karen.glover@sahmri.com) and Stephanie Brown (stephanie.brown@mcri.edu.au). With Figure 1 and 2, I assume the number reported is the scale mean score, and not the upper or lower CI of the estimate? The position of the number is a bit confusing. Perhaps clarify in the figure legend at the bottom? Yes, it is the mean that is reported. We have added this into the figure legend at the bottom for Figure 1 & 2 as follows: e.g. Figure 1. Mean CRQ-P/C scale and domain scores (reported in figure) with 95% confidence interval bars Finally, in the discussion, the finding that Aboriginal girls scored higher than boys is fascinating to me. The authors put forward the notion that the observed result may be attributed to some social or cultural "scaffolding". Are there other studies into indigenous populations that support this point? Or are the authors basing this on their knowledge and interactions with the Australian indigenous population they are working with? This came from consultations with our Aboriginal Governance Group and input from our Aboriginal authors. We are suggesting that the boys may require greater scaffolding to build their resilience resources at school from the early school years. There is not much literature available to explore this finding and we have added the following to make this clearer. “No comparative Australian or international research examining child resilience by gender was identified. A 2009 paper described an analysis conducted to explore gender differences in protective factors using the US Longitudinal Survey of Youth study Waves 3-6 (1986-1996).[37] Notably, the findings apply to youth rather than children, and resilience was defined in terms of not having a negative outcome (rather than as a process as is used in this study). The authors reported that having a positive school environment (in secondary school) was associated with resilience against delinquency and drug use for girls but not for boys. Further research reflecting the current understanding of resilience as a process is imperative.” Reviewer #2: Are there any psychometrics (e.g. cronbachs’ alpha) that have been previously reported on the measures that were used in this study? If yes, would you be able to report the reliability and validity of these measures? We have added Cronbach alphas to the measures section as follows: “Excellent to very good scale reliability has been observed with Cronbach alphas ranging from 0.88 (Connectedness to language) to 0.73 (Family guidance). The Family basic needs scale had good reliability with a Cronbach alpha of 0.61.[17]” I was wondering if there were other similar findings in this population or in other populations who may face similar life experiences or who emphasize family, traditions, and self-identity in their children. For example the Inuit in Canada, or those who belong to Native American tribes in America. These are just somethings that may bolster the external validity of these findings. I can see areas where the findings from your paper may translate to other populations. This is the first measure of child resilience, and the first developed with Australian Aboriginal community. The only other validated measure of child resilience is the Child and Youth Resilience Measure which was developed with and for ‘general population’ youth and has been primarily used with adolescents. (A validation study of the CYRM with Aboriginal boarding school students indicated the CYRM model of resilience did not work for Aboriginal adolescents). Thus findings in other populations tend to be qualitative and difficult to compare. We have tried to better situate our findings in the literature as follows: “While most of the resilience research in Australia and internationally is focused on youth or adults, the importance of these particular strengths is reflected in the literature. For example, in one interview study, Aboriginal community members identified that the key to child resilience was “knowledge and self-belief that encouraged positive decision making despite challenges”.[24] A recent scoping review of Australian programs, processes, and practices to promote individual and/or collective Indigenous resilience or wellbeing reported that most of the eight publications identified emphasized the need for strategies to strengthen individual or community connection to culture.[12] Finally, a Canadian study utilising Indigenous methodologies reported that strengthening cultural identity and family connections was one of three intersecting processes that facilitate youth resilience and wellness.[25]” EDITOR COMMENTS 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 We have edited our manuscript to match the style requirements. 2. Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data). This option is not available to us - see below. 3. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met. Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript. We have completed and uploaded. 4. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement. We have included a data availability statement in the submission form including a reason for why we are unable to make your data freely accessible. 5. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. Ethics is included in the methods only. 6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. We have included a caption for out S1 Table. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301620.r002
20 Mar 2024 Decision Letter - Inge Roggen, Editor The Childhood Resilience Study: Resilience and emotional and behavioural wellbeing experienced by Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander boys and girls aged 5-9 years. PONE-D-23-26018R1 Dear Dr. Gartland, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Inge Roggen, M.D., Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301620.r003
Formally Accepted
5 Apr 2024 Acceptance Letter - Inge Roggen, Editor PONE-D-23-26018R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gartland, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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 Prof. Inge Roggen Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301620.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 .