PONE-D-23-00472Development and application of a questionnaire, the REST-Q, to identify teamwork-related resources and stressors in firefighting operationsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Heinemann,

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 Apr 28 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,

Boshra Ismael Ahmed Arnout

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. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

“This work was supported by the German Social Accident Insurance (DGUV) [grant number FP-433]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

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

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Author

The paper PONE-D-23-00472 has been reviewed by experts in the field who consider that the paper can publish after major revision. For your guidance, you can benefit from the reviewer's comments are appended below.

We wish you a meaningful day.

Yours Sincerely

[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: Yes

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: - Revise the title to reflect objects of the manuscript, Suggestion title: Development and Validation of the REST-Q in firefighting operations.

-REST-Q can be RSTF-Q.

-Abstract conclusion is recommended to include something about: sample mean, standard deviation and Statistical results.

- It is best to do an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) first before confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

-All the participants of this study approximately are male. This need to be included in the limitation and could add recommendation for including more female in the future.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript described a technically sound piece of scientific research about :Development and application of a questionnaire, the REST-Q, to identify teamwork-related resources and stressors in firefighting operations

with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions had been drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

The research topic , please see attachement.

Reviewer #3: This manuscript aims to develop a measurement tool to identify teamwork-related resources and stressors in firefighting operations. The authors interviewed firefighters, then did a document analysis to indicate an overview of the teamwork stressors and resources. Next, they developed the REST-Q questionnaires and conducted them with 491 firefighters. A study like this is important, given the public health implications of the duty-related stresses in fire service personnel.

The title and abstract are appropriate, clear, and informative. Research problems are clear and concise. In the introduction section, the authors provided the rationale and the urgency of tool development.

The method section is well-described. The sample size and participants are clearly explained and serve the purpose of this study. However, I would like the authors to clarify participant selection's inclusion and exclusion criteria. For example, in the interview process (Page 6, line 138), the authors stated, "experienced professional, volunteer and industrial firefighters." Please define experienced. Would anyone with work experience higher than three years be included in the study since among those who participated in the interview, their years of work experience varied from 3 to 35 years, regardless of their profession (Page 7, lines 158-167)? Would the gap of years of experience affect their points of view on firefighting operations? Similarly, in the review of the REST-Q, 491 firefighters completed the questionnaire, and they were different in demographics and years of working experience. For example, participants were approximately 95% male and 5% female and had experienced between 1 and 7500 firefighting operations. Would these variables, such as gender or firefighting operations, affect the outcomes of the tools? And this should be included and addressed in the discussion section.

The authors stated on Page 11, lines 256-257 that only those participants who completed the respective category in full were used in the CFA. Did 491 participants complete all categories, and were all 491 included in the CFA? Please clarify. Also, please specify the N in Tables 2, 3, and 4. I would also like the authors to explain and define rank frequency and intensity. How do the authors utilize these terms if the rank numbers are different? What is the underly meaning of the mean frequency and mean intensity? They only explained the results from Tables 3 and 4 without further details (Pages 16 and 17).

Some content in the discussion section should move to the result section. Since the study is more into tools development, the authors clearly explained and discussed their findings. Overall, this is a nicely written paper presenting valuable data on information regarding tools that can be used to identify teamwork-related resources and stressors in firefighting operations. It will significantly contribute to the literature in these critical public health and fire service areas.

**********

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: Yes: Dr. Mohamed A. Gharib

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.

PONE-D-23-00472R1Development and validation of a questionnaire, the REST-Q, to identify teamwork-related resources and stressors in firefighting operationsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Heinemann,

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 Mar 21 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,

Roghieh Nooripour, Ph.D

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 #4: 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 #4: No

**********

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

Reviewer #4: No

**********

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 #4: No

**********

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 #4: No

**********

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 #4: I recommend incorporating these suggestions to enhance clarity and overall effectiveness. Once the revisions are applied, I look forward to reviewing the updated version.

1. Strengthen transition sentences between paragraphs to ensure a seamless flow of ideas. For example, consider using transitional phrases to connect the discussion of environmental stressors to the introduction of teamwork skills.

2. Elaborate further on the challenges faced by firefighters beyond the statistical data. Providing real-life examples or scenarios can help readers relate more deeply to the issues discussed.

3. While FUK is explained upon its first mention, consider providing a brief reminder or explanation if the acronym is used later in the text to aid reader comprehension.

4. Ensure consistent use of terminology throughout the introduction. For instance, check that "teamwork stressors and resources" is consistently referred to by the same terminology.

5. Depending on the nature of your document, consider incorporating visual aids such as charts or graphs to illustrate the statistical data or complex concepts, enhancing reader understanding.

6. Introduce variety in sentence structure to maintain reader engagement. Mix shorter, impactful sentences with more complex ones for a balanced rhythm.

7. While the objectives are stated clearly, briefly clarify how the developed questionnaire will address the identified gaps and contribute to the existing body of knowledge.

8. Be mindful of word choice, opting for the most precise and impactful terms. This can contribute to a more polished and sophisticated writing style.

9. While detailed information is important, consider condensing certain sections for better readability. For example, the paragraph at the beginning of Step 2 could be concise.

10. Some sentences are lengthy and could be broken down to enhance clarity.

11. Explicitly mention the sampling strategy used for participant selection. This ensures transparency and helps readers understand the generalizability of your findings.

12. Include information about the response rate in the sample description to provide insights into potential biases.

13. Provide more details about the pretesting process, such as the feedback received, and how it informed modifications to the questionnaire.

14. When discussing the scales used for frequency and intensity, consider providing a brief rationale for choosing these specific scales.

15. Consider breaking down complex sentences into simpler ones for improved clarity.

16. Consider grouping related findings together to enhance readability.

17. While the strengths are well-highlighted, there could be a more detailed exploration of the limitations, particularly in terms of potential biases and their impact on the study's outcomes.

18. consider addressing potential alternative explanations or confounding stressors, resources, and other variables.

19. Expand on the suggestions for future research. Provide more specific recommendations for researchers who might want to build on this study.

20. Provide additional details on how exactly the REST-Q could be implemented in a training or evaluation setting. Offer examples or scenarios to illustrate its practical use.

**********

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 #4: 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.

Development and validation of a questionnaire, the REST-Q Fire, to identify teamwork-related resources and stressors in firefighting operations

PONE-D-23-00472R2

Dear Dr. Heinemann,

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,

Steve Zimmerman, PhD

Senior Editor, PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Please note that reviewer 5 has some suggestions for improvements to your paper. I think that some of these suggestions are outside the scope of the manuscript (e.g., a description of content analysis; discussing a study on "predicting aggression among Iranian athletic adolescent girls"). If you would like to incorporate any of the reviewer's other suggestions into your final manuscript you may, but acceptance is not contingent on doing so.

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 #4: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

**********

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 #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: No

**********

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 #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: No

**********

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 #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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 #4: I am pleased to inform you that the revisions to your manuscript have been meticulously incorporated, resulting in a thoroughly corrected and now deemed acceptable document. I extend my sincere appreciation for your committed efforts and collaborative approach, which have significantly enhanced the overall quality of your article.

Reviewer #5: 1- Strengthen the statement of the problem by referring to the following studies and emphasizing the existing research gap.

2- Revise the introduction and deal more coherently with your research problem and the current research literature.

3- On what basis are the interview questions designed?

4- On what basis was the sample size of the interviewees determined? Did you use the theoretical saturation method? Explain.

5- Describe the method of content analysis.

6- State the validity and reliability of your tool clearly.

7- What was the sampling method in the second stage? Provide the sampling formula.

8- State the software used.

9- With what psychometric methods was your tool approved?

10- In order to explain your results, refer to the possible explanations of previous studies.

11-Explain the obtained factor loading more clearly.

12-12- To strengthen your study, you can refer to the link below.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40359-022-00852-2

**********

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 #4: Yes: Roghieh Nooripour

Reviewer #5: No

**********