Predictors of loneliness among middle childhood and adolescence during the COVID-19 pandemic

Ashley Benhayoun; Anna Olsavsky; Terrah Foster Akard; Cynthia Gerhardt; Micah A. Skeens

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0308091

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 18, 2024
14 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Silvana Mula, Editor PONE-D-24-14891 Predictors of Loneliness among Middle Childhood and Adolescence during the COVID-19 Pandemic PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Skeens, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. I have now received evaluations of your manuscript from two expert reviewers, both of whom are well-qualified to review the work. After careful consideration, we believe the manuscript has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria in its current form. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. As you will see from the attached comments, both reviewers recognize the significant potential of your manuscript. However, they have also identified some issues that need to be addressed. I am hopeful that you will be able to revise the work to address these concerns. Both reviewers are very clear about their points, so I won’t repeat them here. Many of the comments are relatively minor and could easily be addressed by carefully revising the paper to increase clarity. Other issues might require more careful consideration. I will try to summarize the main points you need to focus on: Both reviewers highlight the issue of the small sample size. I do not agree with increasing the sample size, given the nature of the data and the historical period during which they were collected. Expanding the sample now and retesting the same analyses would undermine the results. Instead, I suggest conducting a post-hoc power analysis to demonstrate whether your sample is sufficient (or is not) to test your hypotheses and justify your results. Reviewer #1 recommends conducting additional analyses, such as testing the interaction between the impact of COVID-19 and some predictors of loneliness, like family functioning. However, the correlation between these two variables (-.42) would violate one of the assumptions of moderation models, which is that the predictor and moderator should not (preferably) be correlated. Nonetheless, I agree with the reviewer's suggestion to conduct additional analyses to provide a more comprehensive picture of your study. Therefore, I suggest evaluating possible longitudinal mediation effects (e.g., predictor and mediator at T1 and outcome at T2). Last but not least, I strongly encourage you to upload your data to a data repository, such as the Open Science Framework (OSF). This is a necessary condition for your manuscript to be accepted for publication. See the PLOS ONE submission guidelines for more information (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-guidelines-for-specific-study-types). Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 29 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, Silvana Mula, 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. In this instance it seems there may be acceptable restrictions in place that prevent the public sharing of your minimal data. However, in line with our goal of ensuring long-term data availability to all interested researchers, PLOS’ Data Policy states that authors cannot be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-acceptable-data-sharing-methods). Data requests to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, helps guarantee long term stability and availability of data. Providing interested researchers with a durable point of contact ensures data will be accessible even if an author changes email addresses, institutions, or becomes unavailable to answer requests. Before we proceed with your manuscript, please also provide non-author contact information (phone/email/hyperlink) for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If no institutional body is available to respond to requests for your minimal data, please consider if there any institutional representatives who did not collaborate in the study, and are not listed as authors on the manuscript, who would be able to hold the data and respond to external requests for data access? If so, please provide their contact information (i.e., email address). Please also provide details on how you will ensure persistent or long-term data storage and availability. 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: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No 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: No 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 Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper that examined the predictors of middle childhood and adolescent loneliness during the Covid-19 pandemic. However, I have some major concerns with the current paper. These are described below. My biggest issue with the paper concerns the sample size. I am concerned that the authors did not have an adequate sample size to estimate the hypothesized model, even including children and adolescents. Therefore, it is crucial that the authors test the robustness of the results with a sensitivity analysis. In the 'Regression Analyses' section, it appears that the authors reported unstandardized coefficients instead of β coefficients. * Why did the authors not test the interaction effect between the impact of COVID-19 and social predictors of loneliness (e.g., family functioning) * Using the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic as a covariate in the model does not seem to provide novel evidence about the predictors of loneliness during childhood and adolescence. While controlling for this variable may confirm the relationship between the predictors and the independent variable during the health crisis, it does not provide information on how the pandemic affected social contexts that influence feelings of loneliness. Therefore, according to a previous cross-sectional study (Skeens et al., 2023), I suggest to investigate how social relationships may have mitigated or exacerbated the impact of the pandemic on loneliness in middle children and adolescents. Reviewer #2: This paper investigates the predictors of loneliness among middle childhood (8-12 years) and adolescent (13-17 years) populations during the COVID-19 pandemic through a longitudinal study, with a focus on social background and pandemic impact. The paper employs a rigorous research design and appropriate data analysis methods, yielding conclusions with practical significance. Overall, this paper features a novel topic, rigorous methodology, and results that hold significant theoretical and practical implications. While there are areas that could be further optimized, it remains a high-quality research paper. Here are some specific suggestions for improvement: 1. Abstract: The abstract lacks a detailed description of the research methods, such as the types of questionnaires used. 2. Sample Size: The study includes a relatively small sample size. It is recommended to expand the sample size. 3. Sample Selection: Apply stricter criteria for sample selection, such as excluding participants with psychological disorders. 4. Data Collection Process: Provide more details about the data collection process. Specify how the questionnaires were distributed (online or offline) and the timeframe for participants to complete them. 5. Data Cleaning and Processing: Explain whether data cleaning and processing were performed prior to analysis, including handling outliers and missing values. 6. Control Variables: Indicate whether control variables were included in the linear regression model, and if so, list the variables controlled for. 7. Practical Implications: In the conclusion section, highlight the practical applications of the findings. For instance, "The results support future interventions focusing on optimizing family functioning to alleviate loneliness among middle childhood and adolescent populations during the pandemic." ******** 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: Wenfei Zhu ******** [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.0308091.r001
Revision 1
26 Jun 2024 Author Response Thank you for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript, “Predictors of Loneliness among Middle Childhood and Adolescence during the COVID-19 Pandemic.” We found the comments very useful and that they strengthened the paper, especially methodologically! Please see our point-by-point response to reviewers’ feedback below. As you will see from the attached comments, both reviewers recognize the significant potential of your manuscript. However, they have also identified some issues that need to be addressed. I am hopeful that you will be able to revise the work to address these concerns. Both reviewers are very clear about their points, so I won’t repeat them here. Many of the comments are relatively minor and could easily be addressed by carefully revising the paper to increase clarity. Other issues might require more careful consideration. We appreciate the kind words regarding the potential of our manuscript. We are happy to respond to reviewer feedback. I will try to summarize the main points you need to focus on: 1. Both reviewers highlight the issue of the small sample size. I do not agree with increasing the sample size, given the nature of the data and the historical period during which they were collected. Expanding the sample now and retesting the same analyses would undermine the results. Instead, I suggest conducting a post-hoc power analysis to demonstrate whether your sample is sufficient (or is not) to test your hypotheses and justify your results. Thank you for this suggestion. Separate power analyses were conducted in GPower to determine our achieved power given our sample size and identified effect sizes across focal regression models in MC children, adolescents, and the full sample, including interaction terms. The analyses revealed power was adequate, above 95%, for all regressions. Further explanation has been added to the end of the methods section. 2. Reviewer #1 recommends conducting additional analyses, such as testing the interaction between the impact of COVID-19 and some predictors of loneliness, like family functioning. However, the correlation between these two variables (-.42) would violate one of the assumptions of moderation models, which is that the predictor and moderator should not (preferably) be correlated. Nonetheless, I agree with the reviewer's suggestion to conduct additional analyses to provide a more comprehensive picture of your study. Therefore, I suggest evaluating possible longitudinal mediation effects (e.g., predictor and mediator at T1 and outcome at T2). Mediations and moderations are reported in methods and results. We conducted mediation and moderation analyses using Hayes (2017) SPSS PROCESS Macro (version 4.3.1). The PROCESS macro does not allow for binary mediators, so we opted to conduct moderation instead of mediation for in-person and virtual communication. Only the mediation models that explored T1 family functioning as a mediator between T1 COVID-19 Impact and T2 Loneliness were significant in the full sample and MC children. This same model for adolescents, as well as all moderation analyses examining both communication methods as moderators between T1 COVID-19 Impact and T2 Loneliness for the full sample, MC children, and adolescents were not significant. We have attached mediation figures in “S1, S2, S3 figures.pptx” 3. Last but not least, I strongly encourage you to upload your data to a data repository, such as the Open Science Framework (OSF). This is a necessary condition for your manuscript to be accepted for publication. See the PLOS ONE submission guidelines for more information (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-guidelines-for-specific-study-types). Thank you for this recommendation. We uploaded our data to OSF, which includes a datafile and data dictionary. The link is here: https://osf.io/8fec4/ Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper that examined the predictors of middle childhood and adolescent loneliness during the Covid-19 pandemic. However, I have some major concerns with the current paper. These are described below. My biggest issue with the paper concerns the sample size. I am concerned that the authors did not have an adequate sample size to estimate the hypothesized model, even including children and adolescents. Therefore, it is crucial that the authors test the robustness of the results with a sensitivity analysis. Thank you for the opportunity to further investigate our sample size. Based on the recommendation of the editor, we conducted post hoc power analyses in GPower, which are now reported in the methods section. The analyses found greater than 95% power across all analyses. Sensitivity analyses are attached to the submission as “S1 Table, S2 Table, and S3 Table.” In the 'Regression Analyses' section, it appears that the authors reported unstandardized coefficients instead of β coefficients. Both have now been reported in the updated Table 3, and the notation has been updated to reflect unstandardized coefficients in-text in the ‘Regression Analyses’ section. * Why did the authors not test the interaction effect between the impact of COVID-19 and social predictors of loneliness (e.g., family functioning) Thank you for the suggestion. We performed and now have included mediation analyses of family functioning as a mediator between COVID-19 impact and T2 loneliness. This is further explained at the end of the results section and can be seen in the new file, “S1, S2, S3 figures.” * Using the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic as a covariate in the model does not seem to provide novel evidence about the predictors of loneliness during childhood and adolescence. While controlling for this variable may confirm the relationship between the predictors and the independent variable during the health crisis, it does not provide information on how the pandemic affected social contexts that influence feelings of loneliness. Therefore, according to a previous cross-sectional study (Skeens et al., 2023), I suggest to investigate how social relationships may have mitigated or exacerbated the impact of the pandemic on loneliness in middle children and adolescents. To explore how social relationships may have mitigated or exacerbated the impact of the pandemic on loneliness, we have performed and reported mediation and moderation analyses in the methods and results sections. More specifically, we explored family functioning as a mediator and both in-person communication and virtual communication as moderators in the full sample, and MC children and adolescents separately as well. Reviewer #2: This paper investigates the predictors of loneliness among middle childhood (8-12 years) and adolescent (13-17 years) populations during the COVID-19 pandemic through a longitudinal study, with a focus on social background and pandemic impact. The paper employs a rigorous research design and appropriate data analysis methods, yielding conclusions with practical significance. Overall, this paper features a novel topic, rigorous methodology, and results that hold significant theoretical and practical implications. While there are areas that could be further optimized, it remains a high-quality research paper. Thank you for your positive feedback on our manuscript. Here are some specific suggestions for improvement: 1. Abstract: The abstract lacks a detailed description of the research methods, such as the types of questionnaires used. Information on questionnaires used has now been added to the abstract 2. Sample Size: The study includes a relatively small sample size. It is recommended to expand the sample size. Unfortunately, we are unable to collect more data given that the period of time data was collected is so central to the study’s interpretation. Therefore, based on the recommendation of the editor, we have performed and reported on power analyses in the methods section. 3. Sample Selection: Apply stricter criteria for sample selection, such as excluding participants with psychological disorders. Thank you for raising this issue. Our screening criteria for this study included: MC children and adolescents being 8-17 years of age, fluent in English, and enrolled in school outside the home. In future studies we will make sure to include stricter criteria, such as excluding individuals with psychological disorders and neurodevelopmental delays as you mentioned. We have addressed this in our limitations section. 4. Data Collection Process: Provide more details about the data collection process. Specify how the questionnaires were distributed (online or offline) and the timeframe for participants to complete them. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. We agree our language could have been clearer. We have updated the text in the procedures section in the methods section to include details on questionnaires being distributed online and the time given to participants to complete surveys. 5. Data Cleaning and Processing: Explain whether data cleaning and processing were performed prior to analysis, including handling outliers and missing values. An explanation has been added to the beginning of the analysis plan section in methods: “Data cleaning and processing were performed prior to all analyses, including handling outliers, missing values, and testing all assumptions for regression.” 6. Control Variables: Indicate whether control variables were included in the linear regression model, and if so, list the variables controlled for. A clarification of control variables used has been added to the methods section, as well as a note under table 3. 7. Practical Implications: In the conclusion section, highlight the practical applications of the findings. For instance, “The results support future interventions focusing on optimizing family functioning to alleviate loneliness among middle childhood and adolescent populations during the pandemic.” Thank you for your comment. We agree with your practical assessment of our findings and have added your sentence to the conclusion section. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reponse to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308091.r002
17 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Silvana Mula, Editor Predictors of Loneliness among Middle Childhood and Adolescence during the COVID-19 Pandemic PONE-D-24-14891R1 Dear Dr. Skeens, We are 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. As you can see, both reviewers are satisfied with the integrations made and with your responses to their comments. Within one week, you will 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, Silvana Mula, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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 #1: All comments have been addressed 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 #1: Yes 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 #1: Yes 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 #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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 #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes: Wenfei Zhu ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308091.r003
Formally Accepted
6 Aug 2024 Acceptance Letter - Silvana Mula, Editor PONE-D-24-14891R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Skeens, 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 Dr. Silvana Mula Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308091.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 .