Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 19, 2024
Decision Letter - Amir Pakpour, Editor

PONE-D-24-02434English version of the Computer Vision Symptom Scale (CVSS17): translation and Rasch analysis-based cultural adaptationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. González-Pérez,

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 Jun 14 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,

Amir H. Pakpour, Ph.D.

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 the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

[This study was supported by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III through Project “PI18/00374” (co-funded by European Regional Development Fund “A way to make Europe”).]

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

 [BA, AB, MGP and RS received a grant by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (https://www.isciii.es/Paginas/Inicio.aspx)  through Project “PI18/00374” (co-funded by European Regional Development Fund “A way to make

Europe”). The funders didn't play any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript]

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for uploading your study's underlying data set. Unfortunately, the repository you have noted in your Data Availability statement does not qualify as an acceptable data repository according to PLOS's standards.

At this time, please upload the minimal data set necessary to replicate your study's findings to a stable, public repository (such as figshare or Dryad) and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. For a list of recommended repositories and additional information on PLOS standards for data deposition, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

4. 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. 

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********

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

**********

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

**********

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: comments to improve the paper.

provide more details on the translation and cross-cultural adaptation process. specifically, describe the steps taken to ensure cultural equivalence and appropriateness of the translated items.

clarify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the participants in the two stages of the study.

provide more information on the recruitment process, especially for the online panel used in stage 2. Justify sample size for each.

statistical analyses need major rework for explanations. the rationale for choosing the partial credit model (pcm) over the rating scale model (rsm) for rasch analysis should be explained in more detail. I am confused if this is irt or mirt?

the method used to assess unidimensionality should be described more clearly. the authors mention using the disattenuated correlation coefficient, but it would be helpful to provide a brief explanation of this approach. Use updated refs.

the authors should consider providing more details on the assessment of differential item functioning (dif) and the interpretation of the dif contrast values. I am lost in present manuscript.

the interpretation of the person separation index (psi) and the levels of performance should be clarified for readers who may be less familiar with rasch analysis.

the authors should explain the criteria used to determine acceptable fit statistics (e.g., the recommended range for infit and outfit mean square values).

provide more information on the methods used to assess convergent validity, specifically the rationale for choosing the visual discomfort scale (vds) and the ocular comfort index (oci) as comparison measures.

the authors should consider presenting the correlation coefficients between cvss17eng and vds/oci with their corresponding confidence intervals.

results and discussion it would be helpful to include a table summarizing the demographic characteristics of the participants in both stages of the study.

the results for the convergent validity assessment with vds and oci could be presented more clearly, perhaps with additional figures or tables. better visually.

the authors should consider discussing the clinical significance or implications of the observed differences in dif between the english and spanish versions.

**********

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

**********

[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.

Revision 1

Response to 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.

According to your advice, we revised file naming and addressed some minor formatting issues, such as changing parentheses to brackets in the references.

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

[This study was supported by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III through Project “PI18/00374” (co-funded by European

Regional Development Fund “A way to make Europe”).]

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement.

However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript.

We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

[BA, AB, MGP and RS received a grant by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (https://www.isciii.es/Paginas/Inicio.aspx) through Project “PI18/00374” (co-funded by European Regional Development Fund “A way to make

Europe”). The funders didn't play any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript]

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Thank you for your advice. We have omitted this information from the acknowledgements section and are providing a new Funding Statement along with the cover letter. The new Funding Statement remains at follows: “This study was supported by a grant by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (https://www.isciii.es/Paginas/Inicio.aspx) through Project “PI18/00374” (co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund “A way to make Europe”). The funders didn't play any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript”

3. Thank you for uploading your study's underlying data set. Unfortunately, the repository you have noted in your DataAvailability statement does not qualify as an acceptable data repository according to PLOS's standards.

At this time, please upload the minimal data set necessary to replicate your study's findings to a stable, public repository (such as figshare or Dryad) and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. For a list of recommended repositories and additional information on PLOS standards for data deposition, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

Thank you. According to your advice, we’ve uploaded to FigShare the minimal dataset necessary to replicate our study findings. The new dataset’s DOI (10.6084/m9.figshare.25909171) is provided in the corresponding submission section.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-textcitations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Thank you. We missed including it in the first version, so in the new version of the manuscript, a list of the Supporting Information captions is provided at the end of the manuscript in a section titled 'Supporting Information'

1. Response to 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: comments to improve the paper.

• provide more details on the translation and cross-cultural adaptation process. specifically, describe the steps taken to ensure cultural equivalence and appropriateness of the translated items.

Thank you for your suggestion. Based on it we have provided this information in lines 121-127

• clarify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the participants in the two stages of the study.

According to your recommendation, we’ve clarified the inclusion criteria for stage 1 (lines 149-160) and for stage 2 (lines 177-187)

• provide more information on the recruitment process, especially for the online panel used in stage 2.

Thank you for your suggestion. Based on it we have provided more information about the online panel used in stage 2. (lines 169-174)

• Justify sample size for each

Thank you for your feedback. Regarding sample size justification:

The justification for sample size used in Stage 1 is described in lines 146-150

Justification for sample size used in the validation of the CVSS17ENG and in DIF analysis is described in lines 189-191

Justification for sample size used in the convergent validity and test-retest reliability assessment is displayed in lines 198-202.

statistical analyses need major rework for explanations.

• the rationale for choosing the partial credit model (pcm) over the rating scale model (rsm) for rasch analysis should be explained in more detail.

Thank you for your suggestion. Based on your feedback, we have provided a more detailed explanation (lines 230-241) of the rationale for choosing the Partial Credit Model (PCM) over the Rating Scale Model (RSM).

• I am confused if this is irt or mirt?

Thank you for your observation. In the revised manuscript (lines 225-228), we have clarified that we used a unidimensional Item Response Theory (IRT) model.

• the method used to assess unidimensionality should be described more clearly. the authors mention using the disattenuated correlation coefficient, but it would be helpful to provide a brief explanation of this approach. Use updated refs.

Thank you. Following your recommendation, we have added a brief explanation (lines 258-262) about the use of the disattenuated correlation coefficient for assessing unidimensionality when the PCA analysis suggests multidimensionality.

• the authors should consider providing more details on the assessment of differential item functioning (dif) and the interpretation of the dif contrast values. I am lost in present manuscript.

Thank you for your observation. Based on your feedback, we have included I the new manuscript more details abaut the DIF assessment and its interpretation (lines 273-283)

• the interpretation of the person separation index (psi) and the levels of performance should be clarified for readers who may be less familiar with rasch analysis.

According to your suggestion, we have included in the new manuscript a comment in line 264, and a brief section in the discussion (lines 437-455).

• the authors should explain the criteria used to determine acceptable fit statistics (e.g., the recommended range for infit and outfit mean square values).

Based on your feedback, the recommended range for infit and outfit mean square values are now described in the methods section of the manuscript (lines 248-250).

• provide more information on the methods used to assess convergent validity, specifically the rationale for choosing the visual discomfort scale (vds) and the ocular comfort index (oci) as comparison measures.

According to your observation, we discuss it in the new manuscript (482-489).

• the authors should consider presenting the correlation coefficients between cvss17eng and vds/oci with their corresponding confidence intervals.

Thank you for the suggestion. According to it, we have included a new table (Table 5) in the manuscript (lines 411-415) that summarizes the results of the convergent validity assessment, including the confidence intervals of the correlation coefficients.

results and discussion

• it would be helpful to include a table summarizing the demographic characteristics of the participants in both stages of the study.

Based on your feedback, we have modified Table 3 and know it provides the demographic characteristics of all the samples used in the study

• the results for the convergent validity assessment with vds and oci could be presented more clearly, perhaps with additional figures or tables. better visually.

According to your suggestion, we have included a new table (Table 5) in the manuscript (lines 411-415) that summarizes the results of the convergent validity assessment and completes the information displayed in Fig 2 and Fig 4. Thank you

• the authors should consider discussing the clinical significance or implications of the observed differences in dif between the english and spanish versions.

Thank you very much for your suggestions to improve the paper, according to your feedback we’ve added a paragraph in the discussion (lines 498-507) about the implications of the DIF analysis results.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Marianne Clemence, Editor

English version of the Computer Vision Symptom Scale (CVSS17): translation and Rasch analysis-based cultural adaptation

PONE-D-24-02434R1

Dear Dr. González-Pérez,

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,

Marianne Clemence

Staff 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: Thank you for addressing all raised concerns during the peer review.

Thank you for addressing all raised concerns during the peer review.

Reviewer #2: "The authors have demonstrated a thorough and thoughtful approach in addressing all the comments and concerns raised by the previous reviewer. They have carefully considered each point of feedback and have made significant revisions, clarifications, and improvements to the manuscript. These revisions include refining the structure and clarity of the writing, enhancing the methodological explanations, and providing more robust justifications for the choices made in their study.

The authors have also strengthened the theoretical framework by incorporating additional references and discussing their research in the context of the latest developments in the field. Furthermore, they have addressed concerns regarding the data analysis by providing clearer explanations, revisiting certain analytical steps, and including supplementary material to ensure transparency and rigor.

In response to concerns regarding the presentation of results, the authors have reorganized the relevant sections, added clearer visuals (e.g., figures, tables), and provided more detailed explanations to ensure that their findings are presented in a way that is both accessible and comprehensive for readers. These changes significantly improve the overall readability and scholarly quality of the paper.

Upon reviewing the updated manuscript, I am confident that the authors have adequately resolved all previous issues and that the paper now meets the necessary standards for publication. The improvements made reflect a high level of academic diligence, and the paper is now far stronger in terms of clarity, methodological rigor, and overall contribution to the field. Therefore, I am pleased to recommend that the paper be accepted for publication."

**********

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:  Dr. Ragni Kumari

**********

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Marianne Clemence, Editor

PONE-D-24-02434R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. González-Pérez,

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. Amir H. Pakpour

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .