PONE-D-24-53758Psychometric Properties of the Polish Version of the Dysfunctional Thoughts About Caregiving QuestionnairePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sanna,

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.

==============================

Dear Authors, Thank you for your paper. I invite you to revise it according to the reviewers' comments. Please provide point-by-point responses whenever you agree or disagree with the recommendations. I am eagerly awaiting for the emended paper, and I wish you a sunny day. Handling Editor,Paweł Larionow

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 20 2025 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,

Paweł Larionow, 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“The authors Katarzyna Sanna, Konrad Piotrowski, Maciej Kościelniak, Jarosław Michałowski received a research grant as part of the 6th call for grant proposals for financing research projects at the Institute of Psychology (6 konkurs na finansowanie projektów badawczych w Instytucie Psychologii), SWPS University, Warsaw, Poland. Grant number - 1268-11”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

4. We notice that your supplementary figures are uploaded with the file type 'Figure'. Please amend the file type to 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list.

[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: 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: I would like to express my gratitude to the PLOS ONE journal for the opportunity to review the article entitled “Psychometric properties of the Polish version of the Dysfunctional Thoughts about Caregiving Questionnaire.”

The article presents the adaptation of the Dysfunctional Thoughts About Caregiving Questionnaire into Polish, along with an analysis of its psychometric properties. It is well-structured and represents a significant and interesting contribution to the field. In my opinion, the article is suitable for publication after some modifications.

Below, I outline several suggestions for improving the manuscript, organized according to the sections of the paper.

Abstract

1. In line 30, I recommend replacing the term translation with adaptation, as this more accurately reflects the comprehensive scope of work undertaken, which extends beyond a straightforward translation.

Introduction

2. In the Introduction (lines 83–85), the authors mention various dysfunctional thought-related questionnaires used in caregiving research, identifying the Dysfunctional Thoughts About Caregiving Questionnaire (DTCQ) as one of these instruments. It would strengthen the manuscript to provide a clear justification for selecting this particular instrument for adaptation into Polish.

3. In lines 101–102, the authors state that the second objective of the study was to examine the relationships between the characteristics of family caregivers, contextual factors, and caregivers' quality of life. It would be helpful to clarify whether this objective is integrated into the analysis of the psychometric properties of the instrument and the search for evidence of validity, or if it represents an independent aim of the study.

4. In line 125, I suggest again replacing the term translation with adaptation for the reasons stated above.

5. In lines 132–135, the authors propose a hypothesis regarding the relationship between DTCQ scores, sense of identity in the caregiver role, and several contextual factors that influence caregiving. To enhance clarity, I recommend specifying the expected direction of these relationships.

Materials and Methods

Participants

6. It would be beneficial for the manuscript to specify the sampling procedure employed in the study.

7. In describing the participants' characteristics, some information is presented redundantly in both the text and Table 1 (e.g., gender and reasons for caregiving). I suggest removing the duplicate information from one of these locations. Additionally, within Table 1 itself, some rows contain repeated information, and the sample size is mentioned two times in the header. A thorough review of the table is recommended to address these issues.

Data Analysis

8. On lines 252–254, the authors should outline the procedures used to analyze the associations between DTCQ scores and sociodemographic variables, including the caregiver's age, education level, and relationship/role with the person needing care. I recommend also specifying the effect size indices associated with the relationships across all analyses performed.

Results and Discussion

9. In lines 277–279, the authors report that the internal consistency was calculated using Cronbach's Alpha, while in the Data Analysis section (lines 247–249), they state that McDonald's omega was used. This discrepancy should be resolved for consistency.

10. Effect sizes do not appear to have been adequately considered in the correlation analyses. For example, the correlation between the DTCQ general score and SCL-27 Depression, although statistically significant, is small. Similarly, the relationship with U-MICS In-Depth Exploration demonstrates a small effect size. It would be helpful to use and reference a guideline for interpreting the magnitude of such correlations.

This observation also applies to the effect sizes calculated in mean comparisons based on gender (Cohen’s d), where the effect size is small according to Cohen’s guidelines. Furthermore, I recommend calculating the corresponding effect sizes in pairwise comparisons of means within the ANOVA.

In general, all considerations regarding effect sizes should be reflected in the interpretation of the results and in the discussion derived from them.

I hope that the suggestions raised will be helpful to the authors in preparing another version of the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

Thank you for this paper.

The manuscript is well written. My suggestions are provided in the attached PDF file as comments.

In general, I suggest mediation analysis.

With best regards,

Reviewer

**********

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:  Ewelina Cichoń

**********

[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: PONE-D-24-53758_reviewer.pdf

PONE-D-24-53758R1Psychometric properties of the Polish version of the Dysfunctional Thoughts About Caregiving QuestionnairePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sanna,

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.

==============================

Dear Dr. Sanna,Thank you for your work on the revised version of the paper. I believe that all reviewers' comments were addressed properly, therefore, I do not strive to invite reviewers further. 1. Please indicate a sex/gender variable in Table 1. Please indicate an exact number of females, males, and if applicable non-binary people. Please do not treat this as a duplicate, as I would like to see these data in this table, not only in the main text, as the exact number of people from different gender groups is not mentioned.2. Procedure (lines 174-188). Please clarify what was the role of your professional Polish research and polling agency in data collection? What was the role of students who distributed the information of the study in their social media accounts? This is somewhat unclear. Please make this description very clear and transparent.3. Please delete "I" in lines 213-214. Here: "from 0 (I completely disagree) to 4 (I completely agree)."4. MSPSS: Please calculate internal consistency reliability for subscale scores. I find a Cronbach's alpha coefficient only for the total score. This is essential as subscale scores were used in this study. Please apply the idea of this comment to the U-MICS-IC. You can also indicate this reliability in the results section as this is a part of results.5. Please could you clarify whether you refer to your study results or to validation results published in other papers. Here and in similar cases/places: "The analysis was performed with AMOS 29 [46}. CFA had shown that the three-factor solution fit the data well, with CFI = .95, SRMR = .05, and RMSEA = .07 [47]. Cronbach's alpha was calculated, showing acceptable reliability (α = 0.75).". 6. Please indicate a specific date of IRB approval. Please indicate the name of institution.7. When comparing two CFA models, please consider using BIC as a criterion.8. Please prepare a supplementary table with item descriptive statistics (i.e., mean, standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis, min. and max. values).9. Please briefly mention factor loadings in the results section.10. I cannot find a table with descriptive statistics (i.e., mean and standard deviation) for all the study variables. Please incorporate these data into the table with correlation analysis. Please edit the paper according to these minor requests. I wish you an immaculate day!Paweł LarionowEditor

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 17 2025 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,

Paweł Larionow, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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:

[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.

Psychometric properties of the Polish version of the Dysfunctional Thoughts About Caregiving Questionnaire

PONE-D-24-53758R2

Dear Dr. Sanna,

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,

Paweł Larionow, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for your revisions. I am accepting the paper. These are several comments for consideration:

1. I would suggest adding an abbreviation of the tool (DTCQ) in the end of the title.

2. I would recommend providing the name of the ethical committee in English, instead of using its Polish name, as the journal uses the English language.

3. I would suggest adding the deleted phrase "All items were assessed on a 5-point Likert scale, from 0 (I 216 completely disagree) to 4 (I completely agree).", when describing the DTCQ in the Measures section. When I was reading this phrase at the second round of revisions, I misunderstood this phrase, and incorrectly suggested deleting "I" in this phrase. As such, the phrase was correct. Therefore, if possible, please add it as it was.

4. Please include the Rebuttal letter #2 in the journal system as it seems this rebuttal letter is not present in the system.

Academic Editor

Paweł Larionow

Reviewers' comments: