PONE-D-24-25645Psychometric Properties of the Bangla Version of the Sense of Coherence Scale among University Students in BangladeshPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hayashi,

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 13 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,

Taro Matsuki, Ph.D.

Guest 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.  Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

3. We note that there is identifying data in the Supporting Information file <S1_Table >. Due to the inclusion of these potentially identifying data, we have removed this file from your file inventory. Prior to sharing human research participant data, authors should consult with an ethics committee to ensure data are shared in accordance with participant consent and all applicable local laws.

Data sharing should never compromise participant privacy. It is therefore not appropriate to publicly share personally identifiable data on human research participants. The following are examples of data that should not be shared:

-Name, initials, physical address

-Ages more specific than whole numbers

-Internet protocol (IP) address

-Specific dates (birth dates, death dates, examination dates, etc.)

-Contact information such as phone number or email address

-Location data

-ID numbers that seem specific (long numbers, include initials, titled “Hospital ID”) rather than random (small numbers in numerical order)

Data that are not directly identifying may also be inappropriate to share, as in combination they can become identifying. For example, data collected from a small group of participants, vulnerable populations, or private groups should not be shared if they involve indirect identifiers (such as sex, ethnicity, location, etc.) that may risk the identification of study participants.

Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long.

Please remove or anonymize all personal information (<specific identifying information in file to be removed>), ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set. Please note that spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file.

[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

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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: No

**********

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: In order to maintain and improve mental health, it is very important to understand the health aspects of the subject. Therefore, creating a scale that captures sense of coherence would be an important research topic.

However, there are some unclear sections in it, and we cannot recommend publication it at present. My comments are shown below, so please deal specifically with each one.

[Major comments]

1. (Introduction) Please provide a detailed review of the relationship between the three variables used as indicators of construct validity (self-esteem, well-being, and psychological distress) and SOC, and then state your hypothesis. For example, what kind of relationships have been shown in previous studies?

This information is necessary to determine whether each indicator is appropriate as an indicator of construct validity.

2. (Instruments) Please use a consistent description for [Instruments].

Please indicate the internal consistency coefficient for K6 and WHO-5, and for K6, explain what higher scores mean. Also, please include demographic information (what was listened to and how).

3. (Results) Please provide descriptive statistics for each measure.

In SOC-13, correlations between each factor are reported as [internal consistency reliability], which I do not think is suitable as an indicator of reliability. In CFA, correlations between each factor are calculated, which can cope with the issue of attenuation of correlation coefficients (i.e., values close to the true correlation coefficient are calculated). I think it would be better to report the correlation coefficients between factors based on the CFA results in the chapter [Factorial validity]. Please consider this.

[Minor comments]

1. Translation process of the SOC-13 scale (p.5, l.101~)

MS, TRT, and MKU refer to authors?

It is unclear what they stand for, so please add a note or state "first author" etc.

2.Sample description and Table1

Please make sure the statistics in Table 1 are consistent with those in the text (gender percentage). The total number of students in the grade is 319. Is there one unknown? If that's so, please add it.

３. Figure1

Please provide an explanation for the numbers and arrows in Figure 1.

Reviewer #2: The authors have attempted to determine the psychometric properties of the Bangla version of the SOC-13 scale. The findings will contribute to the existing literature on the measurement of SOC by adding a version of the SOC-13 in a different language and context. However, several aspects of the manuscript need to be refined to present the findings more scientifically and enhance readability. The authors are encouraged to consider the following suggestions and revise their manuscript accordingly:

General Comments:

• The authors should use consistent terminology throughout the manuscript. Factor analysis is a method for establishing construct validity, while testing against similar and dissimilar constructs is also a method of establishing construct validity. In some literature, this is referred to as testing criterion validity. It appears that the authors have assessed convergent and discriminant validity by examining correlations with other constructs, such as self-esteem, psychological distress, and mental well-being. One could also argue that criterion validity has been established. Therefore, it would be best for the authors to clarify their intentions and ensure the readers have a clear understanding. Please revise the methods section in the abstract, the aim in the introduction (page 5, lines 89–90), the data analysis in the methods section (page 9, line 182), and the relevant sections in the discussion and conclusion accordingly.

• Please include keywords in the abstract that use Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) to facilitate indexing and searching in MEDLINE/PubMed and other databases.

• The authors should address grammatical errors and improve the English writing to enhance readability and comprehension.

Introduction:

• Lines 55-56: The health model of salutogenesis involves a complex interplay between two key concepts: Sense of Coherence (SOC) and Generalized Resistance Resources (GRRs). The authors should provide readers with information about SOC, including its interaction with GRRs.

• Lines 58-59: SOC is defined as the ability to appropriately utilize GRRs to promote one's own health. The statement in the mentioned lines should be rephrased for better clarity.

• Lines 62-66: Please break down this sentence into shorter, more meaningful sentences to improve readability.

• Line 72: The statement could be rephrased as, "SOC-13 has been translated and cross-culturally adapted." As noted in the literature, the SOC scale has been tested for its validity and reliability in various contexts, not merely translated.

• Lines 76-88: The third paragraph of the introduction should be rephrased and realigned. Clearly justify how the health model of salutogenesis and a tool to measure SOC can be utilized to promote mental health and support efforts to mitigate the current mental disease burden in Bangladesh.

• Lines 77-79: The authors mention limitations in human resources for mental health and health services separately. These two are undoubtedly interrelated, so please rephrase for better clarity.

• Line 89: It would be helpful if the authors justified in the second and third paragraphs of the introduction why they decided to adapt the shorter version of SOC-13 rather than the original SOC-29.

Methods:

• Line 104: Did the authors mean to say "back-translated into English"? Please rephrase for clarity.

• Line 116: Please provide information about the sample size. How was the sample size determined, and what sampling method was used?

• Line 182: It appears that the authors have tested for convergent and discriminant validity. Did you use a multitrait-multimethod matrix for this analysis? The analysis could also be interpreted as testing for criterion validity. The authors should use precise terminology and provide detailed descriptions of the analysis methods to avoid any ambiguity for the readers.

Results:

• Line 200: In Table 1, it appears the row corresponding to "Females" is missing. Please ensure this is included.

• Line 203: Ensure consistent terminology throughout the manuscript. Ensure that the most appropriate term is used

• Table 2: It is unclear what the authors aim to convey by reporting item means and standard deviations. While it is statistically valid to report these, what do they signify in the context of the study? According to Antonovsky’s original concept, SOC is considered a single construct, and he was critical of reporting scores under three different domains due to his belief in its unified nature. Although modern statistical techniques have led to such analyses in the literature, interpreting single-item statistics may not provide meaningful insights for this construct. Therefore, this Table may be redundant. The authors may consider to replace it with a Table that includes factor loadings for each item, which would be more informative. However, authors may accept or decline this suggestion based on valid reasons.

• Table 3: It would be best to add footnotes indicating the cut-off levels you considered for a good fit. For example, "CFI – Comparative Fit Index (desired >0.9)."

• Line 241: While "test-retest reliability" is a commonly used term, "internal consistency reliability" might not be as widely recognized. Consider revising the sub-title to "Reliability of the Bangla Version of SOC-13" and simply provide the relevant values. Additionally, in the methods section (lines 184-185), clearly state that reliability was measured through internal consistency.

Discussion:

In general, the discussion should be strengthened to provide a meaningful analysis based on the current study's findings. Therefore, I suggest the authors rewrite the discussion section using the following sub-themes:

• Summary of principal findings: Provide a concise summary without reiterating the results.

• Strengths and weaknesses of the study: Discuss the key strengths and any limitations encountered during the study.

• Comparison with existing evidence: Explain how the current study's findings compare or contrast with the existing literature. This should include evidence that both supports and contradicts the study's findings. When discussing similarities or differences with previous research, base the arguments on the strengths and weaknesses of the methodologies and contexts of the studies rather than personal opinions.

• Implications for future research: Discuss the potential impact of the findings on future research directions.

Specific Comments:

• Lines 255-256: I suggest that the authors provide a brief summary of the findings here. What do the authors mean by "good construct validity"?

• Second Paragraph, Line 260: The authors mention that they considered certain pairs of items to share similar concepts during the analysis. What evidence led to this conclusion? According to Table 4, there is a weak correlation between manageability and meaningfulness in the study population. The authors paired items 4 and 10, assuming these two items share similar constructs. It would be beneficial to justify this analysis and provide evidence for and against these methods from the literature.

Additionally, since these items, which were modified to share covariances, belong to different domains, does this also suggest that, even though the study identified a three-factor model, there is some interchange of items between different domains? There is existing literature on modified SOC scales that supports this idea. It is well established that there is a correlation between different domains and each domain with the total SOC score, as the authors have mentioned. Have the authors considered assessing a one-factor model? Several studies have proposed a one-factor model with a good fit, which aligns with Antonovsky’s original hypothesis. Regional studies from India and Sri Lanka among young cohorts have also suggested such findings. A more in-depth discussion on this aspect would be valuable.

• Lines 271-272: The authors suggest using the SOC score as a total score. What specific findings of this study support this recommendation? Please elaborate.

• Lines 283-284: The statement, "Therefore, the results of this study are sufficient to demonstrate high construct validity," is unclear. Is this conclusion referring to the original SOC scale or the Bangla version? This statement needs to be rephrased for clarity.

• Lines 290-291: The authors claim that the sample size of the present study was inadequate and consider this a weakness. However, based on the literature on sample size determination for factor analysis, a sample size of 320 is generally considered adequate for a questionnaire with only 13 items.

• Limitations: One of the limitations of this study could be that the authors did not investigate item and conceptual validity (conceptual equivalence). Conceptual equivalence assesses whether the constructs and domains in the original instrument are equally relevant and appropriate in the target culture. This is an important step that researchers often overlook during the adaptation of study instruments.

• Lines 295-296: The intended meaning of this statement is unclear. Please rephrase for clarity.

• Lines 298-302: This section appears to be repeated in the conclusion section. The authors can omit this section.

Conclusions:

The conclusion needs to be rephrased to provide a proper summary of the study findings using appropriate terms.

**********

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.

<div>PONE-D-24-25645R1Psychometric properties of the Bangla version of the sense of coherence scale among university students in BangladeshPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hayashi,

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 address the following comments to ensure the manuscript's quality and acceptability:

Line 106- 108; “Therefore, this study aimed to translate the original English SOC-13 into Bangla and examine its construct validity and reliability based on its internal consistency among Bangladeshi university students

Comment: The sentence above implies that both construct validity and reliability were assessed using internal consistency. To improve clarity, the authors should rephrase this. Additionally, since the latter part of the manuscript specifies that both structural and convergent validity were tested, it would be more accurate to state that "validity and reliability" were assessed at this stage. Now that the methods section includes detailed descriptions of the types of validity measurements conducted, this will provide clearer information for the readers.

Line 138-140- The authors' sample size calculation and their decision to include a larger sample size are not aligned. It is rather speculative than scientifically convincing. Both smaller and larger sample sizes than calculated have limitations regarding methodological rigor and ethical considerations.

Line 207-208; convergent validity was examined using correlations with self-esteem, well-being, and psychological distress

Comment: Isn’t it discriminant validity that the authors wish to test between SOC and psychological distress?

Line 329-330- ‘Second, there was a lack of assessment of the items and cross-cultural validity’.

I assume that authors meant to say that items and concept of the questionnaire was not tested for its’ conceptual validity. Would suggest the authors to rephrase according to their intention.

Line 340-341—what about the convergent and discriminant validity? The study has shown significant positive correlation between SOC and similar construct as well as significant negative correlations between SOC and dissimilar construct. Perhaps the authors can state that in the conclusion. 

Authors should discuss the study's implications in the conclusion section, considering its originality.

• During the revision process, please use track changes or a distinct color for text modifications.
• The article's language must adhere to the journal's standards.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 02 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,

Md. Fouad Hossain Sarker, MSS

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Dr. Yuta Hayashi

I am delighted to inform you that the review report from the reviewers has been received. Reviewer 1 accepted your manuscript, while Reviewer 2 provided comments for further development. Please address the following comments to ensure the manuscript's quality and acceptability: 

Line 106- 108; “Therefore, this study aimed to translate the original English SOC-13 into Bangla and examine its construct validity and reliability based on its internal consistency among Bangladeshi university students

Comment: The sentence above implies that both construct validity and reliability were assessed using internal consistency. To improve clarity, the authors should rephrase this. Additionally, since the latter part of the manuscript specifies that both structural and convergent validity were tested, it would be more accurate to state that "validity and reliability" were assessed at this stage. Now that the methods section includes detailed descriptions of the types of validity measurements conducted, this will provide clearer information for the readers.

Line 138-140- The authors' sample size calculation and their decision to include a larger sample size are not aligned. It is rather speculative than scientifically convincing. Both smaller and larger sample sizes than calculated have limitations regarding methodological rigor and ethical considerations.

Line 207-208; convergent validity was examined using correlations with self-esteem, well-being, and psychological distress

Comment: Isn’t it discriminant validity that the authors wish to test between SOC and psychological distress?

Line 329-330- ‘Second, there was a lack of assessment of the items and cross-cultural validity’.

I assume that authors meant to say that items and concept of the questionnaire was not tested for its’ conceptual validity. Would suggest the authors to rephrase according to their intention.

Line 340-341- what about the convergent and discriminant validity? The study has shown significant positive correlation between SOC and similar construct as well as significant negative correlations between SOC and dissimilar construct. Perhaps the authors can state that in the conclusion.

[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 #2: (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 #2: Partly

**********

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: We have reviewed the contents.

Thank you for addressing the feedback provided throughout the review process.

Reviewer #2: The authors have significantly improved the manuscript by addressing each of the reviewers' comments. However, a few minor revisions are still needed to enhance the clarity and quality of the manuscript. The authors are encouraged to consider the following suggestions and revise their manuscript accordingly,

Line 106- 108; “Therefore, this study aimed to translate the original English SOC-13 into Bangla and examine its construct validity and reliability based on its internal consistency among Bangladeshi university students

Comment; The sentence above implies that both construct validity and reliability were assessed using internal consistency. To improve clarity, the authors should rephrase this. Additionally, since the latter part of the manuscript specifies that both structural and convergent validity were tested, it would be more accurate to state that "validity and reliability" were assessed at this stage. Now that the methods section includes detailed descriptions of the types of validity measurements conducted, this will provide clearer information for the readers.

Line 138-140- The authors' sample size calculation and their decision to include a larger sample size are not aligned. It is rather speculative than scientifically convincing. Both smaller and larger sample sizes than calculated have limitations regarding methodological rigor and ethical considerations.

Line 207-208; convergent validity was examined using correlations with self-esteem, well-being, and psychological distress

Comment: Isn’t it discriminant validity that the authors wish to test between SOC and psychological distress?

Line 329-330- ‘Second, there was a lack of assessment of the items and cross-cultural validity’.

I assume that authors meant to say that items and concept of the questionnaire was not tested for its’ conceptual validity. Would suggest the authors to rephrase according to their intention.

Line 340-341- what about the convergent and discriminant validity? The study has shown significant positive correlation between SOC and similar construct as well as significant negative correlations between SOC and dissimilar construct. Perhaps the authors can state that in the conclusion.

**********

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

**********

[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: Comments_ Academic Editor.docx

Psychometric properties of the Bangla version of the sense of coherence scale among university students in Bangladesh

PONE-D-24-25645R2

Dear Dr. Yuta Hayashi 

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,

Maria José Nogueira, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Authors

All concerns and suggestions for improving the manuscript were provided.

Therefore, the manuscript is ready for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********