Measuring four facets of emotion beliefs in Germany: A German-language adaptation of the EBQ and its comparability across gender and different emotion abilities

Raphael Gutzweiler; David J. Grüning

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0316007

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 31, 2024
12 Sep 2024 Decision Letter - Henri Tilga, Editor PONE-D-24-31699Measuring four facets of emotion beliefs in Germany: A German-language adaptation of the EBQ and its comparability across gender and different emotion abilitiesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gutzweiler, 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 Oct 27 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, Henri Tilga, PhD 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. 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. 3. 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: 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 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 giving me the opportunity to review this study in the field of emotion regulation. This study presents alot of valuable work. However, it needs some alterations before it gets published. From my perspective, there is some work to be done and alot of alterations which although many are managable... INTRODUCTION Please, start with a brief review linking otgether all of the variables used in the study. Do not use stats in the Introduction and Discussion sections. Keep a consistent way in the presentation of findings of previous studies- think of the most appropriate way to present previous studies and stick to it (e.g. refer to specific coefficients, refer to the problematic ones, refer to validity or/and reliability coefficients and any other relevant coefficients…). The aim of the study to be rewritten in a clear and straightforward way. Mention the contribution of the present study as (a), (b), (c), (d)… after reporting the limitations of previous studies. Factorial Validity: Give more information about “we deem TLI = .883 acceptable”. Measurement invariance: Start this section with the test you use Discussion: the first paragraph should give the strong findings of the present study. Then you can discuss the findings of your stats analysis in a story telling way. Each section should start with your findings and then discuss them in relation to other studies e.g. Becerra et al … Check the use of the APA across the document, the tables as well… Reviewer #2: In the introduction (L. 105 to 108), the authors summarised the studies validating the EBQ. They neglected to include this study: Kashimura, M., Ishizu, K., & Becerra, R. (2023). Psychometric Examination of the Japanese Version of the Emotion Beliefs Questionnaire 1 2 3 4. Japanese Psychological Research. (Ok, I see now this paper was been brought up in the discussion)Change "...of the below-depicted study" (L.152) to "...of the present study" At the end of the introduction (L. 153 to 155), the authors state "By using multiple measures to validate the EBQ, we hope to show a broader picture of the EBQ and its abilities to measure beliefs about emotions". Don't say "we hope", just state that you will show. Also, I'm not sure what a "broader picture is". Operationalise this more precisely. L175 "(EBQ; (18); German translation: (34))", check this journal and APA guidelines for the use of brackets within brackets. L. 396, change from "For self-efficacy, we only find one difference:..." to "...found..." (past tense). L. 406 to 409 "a finding that led Becerra et al. (18) to suggest that distinguishing between the two controllability subscales is unnecessary. In our opinion, this assumption is too strong and leads to loss of information. Therefore, we support the examination of all four subscales". Good finding and I agree with the authors' interpretation. L. 460. "The other EBQ subscales did not predict any symptoms". In the context of this section, I'm not sure what this sentence refers to. Sometimes the subscale "General controllability" is referred to as "General Controllability" and other times as "General Control". Make this consistent. L. 517. "...we found individual with..." change to "...individuals..." Good job! ****** 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.0316007.r001
Revision 1
16 Oct 2024 Author Response Response to Reviewers We thank the reviewers for their helpful comments which allows a higher quality of the manuscript (PONE-D-24-31699). Please find enclosed the revision of our submission to PLOS ONE. We have carefully considered each comment and have implemented the suggested changes or responded to comments. In the following sections, we respond on a point-by-point basis to the issues raised by the reviewers. We hope that we have dealt satisfactorily with all concerns. Reviewer #1: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this study in the field of emotion regulation. This study presents a lot of valuable work. However, it needs some alterations before it gets published. From my perspective, there is some work to be done and a lot of alterations which although many are managable... INTRODUCTION Please, start with a brief review linking otgether all of the variables used in the study. We included a brief review linking all relevant variables used in this study. Do not use stats in the Introduction and Discussion sections. We removed the stats in the Introduction and Discussion section. Keep a consistent way in the presentation of findings of previous studies- think of the most appropriate way to present previous studies and stick to it (e.g. refer to specific coefficients, refer to the problematic ones, refer to validity or/and reliability coefficients and any other relevant coefficients…). We adjusted parts of the Introduction section. The aim of the study to be rewritten in a clear and straightforward way. Mention the contribution of the present study as (a), (b), (c), (d)… after reporting the limitations of previous studies. We adjusted our presentation of the aims of the study. Factorial Validity: Give more information about “we deem TLI = .883 acceptable”. We added following more information about this in L 322-327. At this point, TLI is sensitive to overfit, which is due to complex models that run the risk to overfit the present data. But it is far from any negative value like below .800. Measurement invariance: Start this section with the test you use We included additional information in L 392-393. Discussion: the first paragraph should give the strong findings of the present study. Then you can discuss the findings of your stats analysis in a story telling way. Each section should start with your findings and then discuss them in relation to other studies e.g. Becerra et al … We included a short introduction of the strong findings in the Discussion and adjusted the way, we discussed the findings. Check the use of the APA across the document, the tables as well… We have checked the document (and tables) for deviations from APA, however, we could not find any substantial ones. Would you mind pointing us to specific lines so that we can adjust the manuscript? Reviewer #2: In the introduction (L. 105 to 108), the authors summarised the studies validating the EBQ. They neglected to include this study: Kashimura, M., Ishizu, K., & Becerra, R. (2023). Psychometric Examination of the Japanese Version of the Emotion Beliefs Questionnaire 1 2 3 4. Japanese Psychological Research. (Ok, I see now this paper was been brought up in the discussion)Change "...of the below-depicted study" (L.152) to "...of the present study" We now included the study by Kashimura et al. (2023) in the introduction. At the end of the introduction (L. 153 to 155), the authors state "By using multiple measures to validate the EBQ, we hope to show a broader picture of the EBQ and its abilities to measure beliefs about emotions". Don't say "we hope", just state that you will show. Also, I'm not sure what a "broader picture is". Operationalise this more precisely. We rewrote this section (L. 170). L175 "(EBQ; (18); German translation: (34))", check this journal and APA guidelines for the use of brackets within brackets. We rewrote this section. L. 396, change from "For self-efficacy, we only find one difference:..." to "...found..." (past tense). We adjusted the expression. L. 406 to 409 "a finding that led Becerra et al. (18) to suggest that distinguishing between the two controllability subscales is unnecessary. In our opinion, this assumption is too strong and leads to loss of information. Therefore, we support the examination of all four subscales". Good finding and I agree with the authors' interpretation. Thank you! L. 460. "The other EBQ subscales did not predict any symptoms". In the context of this section, I'm not sure what this sentence refers to. We described these finding in more detail (L. 499). Sometimes the subscale "General controllability" is referred to as "General Controllability" and other times as "General Control". Make this consistent. We adjusted the expression throughout the manuscript. L. 517. "...we found individual with..." change to "...individuals..." We adjusted the expression. Good job! Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316007.r002
31 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - Henri Tilga, Editor PONE-D-24-31699R1Measuring four facets of emotion beliefs in Germany: A German-language adaptation of the EBQ and its comparability across gender and different emotion abilitiesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gutzweiler, 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 Dec 15 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, Henri Tilga, PhD 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 #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: (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 #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The authors have taken account of all of my comments and thy seem to have throughtfully revised the paper. Reviewer #3: It seems that adolescents (min. age was 14) participated in this study. Did you receive the inform consent from parents in such cases? Statistical programs and their versions with corresponding analyses should be indicated. Table 2: TLI values in some cases are above 1, and RMSEA values are 0. Please explain such values. Overall, what is the reason of testing separate subscales with CFA? It is uncommon practice. This is a sign of model misspecification error. Please test all the models used in Becerra et al. Please examine whether the 4-factor solution is the best one across all possible solutions presented in the original and other validation studies. I feel the authors can extensively reconsider their paper based on these comments. In the current form, the analyses conducted are definitely insufficient, and even misleading in some cased. For instance, the sentence "The most appropriate solution for our data set was a four-factor model." suggests that other models were tested. It is not truth, as only the 4-factor model was tested. Testing separate subscales with CFA could not be considered as testing of the whole questionnaire (moreover, such practices are uncommon and should be justified). ****** 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: Yes: Prof. Evangelia Karagiannopoulou University of Ioannina, Greece Honorary Professor University College London, UCL, UK 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316007.r003
Revision 2
2 Dec 2024 Author Response Reviewer 1 1. The authors have taken account of all of my comments and thy seem to have throughtfully revised the paper. We very much appreciate this evaluation and thank the reviewer again for their insightful comments in the review process. Reviewer 3 1. It seems that adolescents (min. age was 14) participated in this study. Did you receive the inform consent from parents in such cases? Yes we did, as mentioned in lines 177-178: “In the case of underage participants, the written consent of their legal guardians was obtained.” 2. Statistical programs and their versions with corresponding analyses should be indicated. We have now included the statistical program used (i.e., R), its version, and indicated that all analyses were done in R (p. 12): “All analyses were conducted in the statistical language R, version 4.3.2.” 3. Table 2: TLI values in some cases are above 1, and RMSEA values are 0. Please explain such values. For more complex models TLIs > 1.00 can point to misspecification and/or overfitting. As it is occurring here, it’s not uncommon, though, for small item sets with simple (i.e., one-factor) models like the structure we usually encounter for subscales exactly as the ones presented in the present mansucript. We now added a note on this in the revised manuscript (p. 16): “We note that a TLI above 1.00 is not uncommon for small item sets and simple models, which subscales tend to be (e.g., Goretzko et al., 2023; Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003). Given that it was developed by Tucker and Lewis (1973) specifically as a Nonnormed Fit Index (NNFI), values above 1.00 are not implausible.” We thank the reviewer for noting the indication of RMSEA being exactly 0. We revised this to now indicate RMSEA < .001, as the R-analysis has indicated it as 0 due to simplifying after three decimal points. 4. Overall, what is the reason of testing separate subscales with CFA? It is uncommon practice. The idea behind testing the fit of independent factors besides testing the whole model is to test if the different factors fall apart if they are not contrasted with the other factors in one model (i.e., dissimilarity in responses to the other items). To use the different subscales of the model independently, their model fit has to be evaluated independently. We have added a note on this to the revised manuscript (p. 15 to 16): “In addition, we tested the model fit of the four subscales independently, in case researchers want to assess a selected subfactor independently (see for another example, Grüning & Lechner, 2022). This can be understood as an extension of why researchers also consider the internal consistency of subscales, testing whether items are not only acceptably similar, but also load unidimensional.” In this paragraph, we now also revised “factors” to “subscales” to further make clear what the intention of single subscale model fit testing is. 5. Please test all the models used in Becerra et al. Please examine whether the 4-factor solution is the best one across all possible solutions presented in the original and other validation studies. We have now also tested all alternative models by Becerra et al. (2018) showing that the four-factor model shows the best fit across all of them. Thank you very much for this critical suggestion which added substantial support to the proposed four-factor model of EBQ. We have added the results of these analyses to Table 2 and commented on the comparisons in the revised manuscript (p. 15): "To further support the model’s fit, we compared it with the fit of all six alternative models proposed and tested by Becerra et al. (18). The four-factor model showed the best fit in this array of alternative models, fitting the data significantly better than the second best model, Δx2 = 23.44, p < .001, ΔAIC = 17, ΔBIC = 6).” Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response letter to reviewers, PlosOne_December 2024.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316007.r004
5 Dec 2024 Decision Letter - Henri Tilga, Editor Measuring four facets of emotion beliefs in Germany: A German-language adaptation of the EBQ and its comparability across gender and different emotion abilities PONE-D-24-31699R2 Dear Dr. Gutzweiler, 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, Henri Tilga, PhD 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 #3: (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 #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #3: The authors must not ignore the previous comments in the reviewer's review report. The authors did not address this comment: "I feel the authors can extensively reconsider their paper based on these comments. In the current form, the analyses conducted are definitely insufficient, and even misleading in some cased. For instance, the sentence "The most appropriate solution for our data set was a four-factor model." suggests that other models were tested. It is not truth, as only the 4-factor model was tested. Testing separate subscales with CFA could not be considered as testing of the whole questionnaire (moreover, such practices are uncommon and should be justified).". Despite this fact, the paper can be accepted. ****** 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 #3: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316007.r005
Formally Accepted
9 Dec 2024 Acceptance Letter - Henri Tilga, Editor PONE-D-24-31699R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gutzweiler, 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. Henri Tilga Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316007.r006

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 .