PONE-D-24-04494How childhood psychological abuse affects adolescent cyberbullying: The chain mediating role of self-efficacy and psychological resiliencePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ying,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 22 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,

Amgad Muneer

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

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 the following in your Competing Interests section:  

[46301]. 

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state ""The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now 

 This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. In the online submission form, you indicated that [Data are available from the Hohai University Ethics Committee (contact via Haihua Ying) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.]. 

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 

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: No

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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: Review of Manuscript PONE-D-24-04494

Dear Authors,

Firstly, I would like to congratulate you on your significant contribution to the literature through this insightful article. The topic of understanding the underlying mechanisms linking childhood psychological abuse to adolescent cyberbullying is indeed crucial. Your work sheds light on potential pathways for targeted interventions and support programs aimed at promoting the well-being of adolescents facing early adversity.

Introduction:

While the introduction provides a clear argument about the study context and literature gaps, it can be further enhanced by addressing the following key points:

Positioning the Study:

The introduction should position the study within the broader context of existing literature. This involves not only identifying the gaps but also explaining why it is necessary to explore the specific objectives of this study. Highlight the importance of the study by discussing the practical and theoretical implications briefly in the introduction section. Explain how this research can contribute to the existing body of knowledge and why it is critical to understand the mechanisms linking childhood psychological abuse to cyberbullying.

Literature Gaps:

Provide a more in-depth discussion on the specific gaps in the literature that this article aims to address. Detail how your research will close some of these gaps, contributing to the field in a novel way.

Research Questions (Objectives) and Contributions and Beneficiaries:

Clearly state the research questions (RQs) and outline the principal contributions of the study. This helps in setting the expectations for the readers and provides a roadmap for the rest of the article.

Discuss the objectives of the study explicitly and identify the primary beneficiaries. For instance, mention how authorities, parents, educators, and policymakers can benefit from the findings of this research.

Article Structure:

Include a brief overview of the article’s structure at the end of the introduction. This should give the readers an idea of what to expect in the subsequent sections, making it easier for them to follow the narrative.

In summary, the introduction should provide a comprehensive snapshot of the entire article. It should encapsulate the study’s significance, objectives, research questions, literature gaps, and potential beneficiaries. An effective introduction captures the reader's attention and compels them to read further, providing them with a clear understanding of what the article entails.

Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development:

To enhance the clarity and depth of the theoretical framework, I suggest renaming this section to "Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development." This section should comprehensively cover the approaches and theories relevant to the article's context, along with a precise justification for the selection of the studied variables and their explicit definitions. Below are specific recommendations for improving this section:

Discussion of the Theory and its importance:

Begin with a thorough discussion of the chosen theory, highlighting its significance in enhancing our understanding of the topic. Explain why this particular theory is more suitable compared to other theories in the context of this study. This will provide readers with a strong rationale for the theoretical foundation of your research.

Elaborate on the importance of the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) in understanding cyberbullying behaviors. Discuss its relevance and how it helps in explaining the mechanisms linking childhood psychological abuse to cyberbullying through self-efficacy and psychological resilience.

In the following points, researchers have written some of the parts I have mentioned in my comments, so they should read my comments and add the missing parts only:

Justification of Variable Selection:

Provide a more precise justification for selecting the studied variables, such as childhood psychological abuse, self-efficacy, psychological resilience, and cyberbullying. Explicitly define each variable and explain its relevance to the study. This helps in establishing a clear connection between the theory and the research variables.

Definition and Impact of Childhood Psychological Abuse:

Enhance the discussion on childhood psychological abuse by incorporating insights from psychology literature. Explain how childhood psychological abuse influences psychological development and brain function. This can include references to studies on the neurological and psychological impacts of such abuse, providing a more rigorous and enriched discussion.

Linking Theory to Hypothesis Development:

After establishing the theoretical foundation and defining the variables, proceed with discussing the relationships that lead to hypothesis development. Ensure that each hypothesis is clearly derived from the theoretical framework and supported by relevant literature. This logical flow will strengthen the argumentation and coherence of your hypothesis development.

By restructuring and enriching this section, you will provide a more robust theoretical foundation for your study. It will also make the rationale for your hypotheses clearer and more compelling, thus enhancing the overall quality of your manuscript.

Methodology:

The methodology section is crucial for validating the robustness and reliability of the study. Below are my suggestions for enhancing this section:

Justification of Participant Number:

Provide a detailed justification for the total number of participants. Explain how the number of 891 participants was determined. This should include considerations such as the study’s objectives, the expected effect size, and the desired power of the study.

Sampling Design:

Elaborate on the sampling design used in the study. Describe the sampling method (e.g., random sampling, stratified sampling) and justify why this method was chosen. Include information about how participants were selected from the four public secondary schools in Jiangsu Province and how this sampling design helps achieve a representative sample of the population.

Sample Size Determination:

Discuss the methods used to determine the sample size before conducting the study. This could include power analysis or other statistical methods to ensure that the sample size is adequate for detecting the expected effects. Provide details on the calculations or criteria used to arrive at the required sample size.

Data Analysis Process:

Clearly describe the data analysis process and procedures used in the study without presenting the results in this section. Explain the steps taken for data cleaning, handling missing data, and the statistical techniques used for analyzing the data (e.g., descriptive statistics, reliability testing, Pearson correlation analysis, structural equation modeling). Discuss the rationale for choosing these techniques and how they align with the study’s objectives.

Relocation of Results:

Move the results currently presented in the "2.3 Questionnaire Design" section to the Results section. This ensures a clear distinction between the methodology and the findings of the study. The methodology should focus on how the data was collected and analyzed, while the Results section should present the outcomes of these analyses.

By incorporating these elements, the methodology section will provide a clearer, more comprehensive explanation of the study’s design and execution. This will help in establishing the credibility and reliability of the research findings.

Results:

Before delving into the assessment of the structural equation model, it is essential to discuss the assessment of the measurement model. This involves evaluating the model fit, factor loadings, reliability, and validity of the constructs used in the study.

Assessment of Measurement Model:

Model Fit:

Report the fit indices for the measurement model, including chi-square (χ²), degrees of freedom (df), chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio (χ²/df), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Normed Fit Index (NFI), Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), and Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI). These indices provide an overall assessment of how well the model fits the data.

Factor Loadings:

Present the factor loadings for each item. Factor loadings should be significant and ideally above 0.50, indicating that the items are good indicators of their respective constructs.

Reliability:

Cronbach's α: Report the Cronbach's alpha values for each construct to assess internal consistency. Values above 0.70 are generally considered acceptable.

Composite Reliability (CR): Provide the composite reliability values for each construct. CR values above 0.70 indicate good reliability.

MaxR(H): Discuss the MaxR(H) values, which provide an additional measure of construct reliability.

Validity:

Average Variance Extracted (AVE): Report the AVE values for each construct. AVE values above 0.50 suggest that the construct explains more than half of the variance of its indicators.

Discriminant Validity: Ensure discriminant validity by comparing the square root of the AVE for each construct with the inter-construct correlations. The square root of the AVE should be greater than the correlations with other constructs, indicating that the constructs are distinct from each other.

By providing a thorough assessment of the measurement model, the study can demonstrate the reliability and validity of the constructs used in the analysis. This foundational step ensures that the subsequent assessment of the structural equation model is based on a solid measurement framework.

Assessment of Structural Equation Modeling:

Proceed with the assessment of the structural equation model. This includes testing the hypothesized relationships between childhood psychological abuse, self-efficacy, psychological resilience, and cyberbullying.

Present the path coefficients, significance levels, and fit indices for the structural model.

Discuss the indirect, and total effects as hypothesized in the study. Use bootstrap analysis to confirm the significance of indirect effects.

By structuring the results section in this manner, the study provides a clear and comprehensive evaluation of both the measurement and structural models, ensuring the robustness and reliability of the findings.

Findings and Discussion:

The findings and discussion sections of the manuscript are sound. However, there should be a more detailed discussion on the theoretical contributions and how this research enhances existing knowledge. Additionally, the limitations section should be moved to the end, just before the conclusion. Furthermore, the article would benefit from a concluding remarks section that effectively summarizes the key points of the study.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for allowing me to review this research.

This research provides a compelling analysis of how childhood psychological abuse affects adolescent cyberbullying: The chain mediating role of self-efficacy and psychological resilience.

This work significantly contributes to the literature, underscoring the critical roles of usability, utility, and trust in technology acceptance. However, I have to admit that several concerns arose while reading the paper. Below, I elaborate on these issues in the hope that they will help the authors further strengthen the manuscript:

1. The authors should address the literature gap more.

2. The theoretical foundation for the four research hypotheses appears overly concise. Specifically, the explanation of the moderating effect in the fourth hypothesis needs further elaboration and strengthening.

3. The authors should provide more specific operational definitions and the theoretical foundations for the five research dimensions.

4. The authors should include the complete questionnaire items for the five research dimensions and explain their theoretical foundations.

5. The authors should present the test results for common method bias.

Overall, I hope these comments will help the authors in their future efforts to revise the manuscript. Furthermore, I would like to encourage the authors to continue their efforts in this area.

**********

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review of Manuscript PONE.docx

How childhood psychological abuse affects adolescent cyberbullying: The chain mediating role of self-efficacy and psychological resilience

PONE-D-24-04494R1

Dear Dr. Ying,

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,

Amgad Muneer

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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: Thank you for addressing my previous comments and suggestions. I have reviewed the revised manuscript, and I am pleased with the improvements made. The changes have been well-executed, and I believe the manuscript is now in good shape. No further revisions are required from my side.

Congratulations on the successful revision.

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: No

**********