PONE-D-25-01019Adaptation and Psychometric Properties of Psychological Skills Inventory for Sport (PSIS-R5) in Latvian Athletes: Insights and Implications for PracticePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Volgemute,

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 01 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,

Rogis Baker, 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 author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This research is funded under the Grant No. RSU/LSPA-PA-2024/1-0010 of the project No. 5.2.1.1.i.0/2/24/I/CFLA/005 “RSU Internal and RSU with LASE External Consolidation” (funded by the European Union Recovery and Resilience Facility and the budget of the Republic of Latvia).” 

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. In this instance it seems there may be acceptable restrictions in place that prevent the public sharing of your minimal data. However, in line with our goal of ensuring long-term data availability to all interested researchers, PLOS’ Data Policy states that authors cannot be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-acceptable-data-sharing-methods).

Data requests to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, helps guarantee long term stability and availability of data. Providing interested researchers with a durable point of contact ensures data will be accessible even if an author changes email addresses, institutions, or becomes unavailable to answer requests.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please also provide non-author contact information (phone/email/hyperlink) for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If no institutional body is available to respond to requests for your minimal data, please consider if there any institutional representatives who did not collaborate in the study, and are not listed as authors on the manuscript, who would be able to hold the data and respond to external requests for data access? If so, please provide their contact information (i.e., email address). Please also provide details on how you will ensure persistent or long-term data storage and availability.

4. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF.

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: The article is well-written, with clear objectives aligned with the proposed theme.

The statistical analyses were conducted robustly, using well-established criteria for cross-cultural adaptation and instrument validation. The methodology follows major international standards for psychometric studies, which strengthens the reliability of the presented results. Therefore, the study has the potential for publication, given its relevance and technical quality.

Strengths:

�The methodological rigor adopted, with attention to cross-cultural adaptation criteria and robust statistical analyses.

�The practical and theoretical contribution of the study to the field of sports psychology, particularly regarding the assessment of psychological skills in sports contexts.

�The clear and well-structured writing, which facilitates the understanding of the study for readers from different fields.

The original version of the instrument was developed over 15 years ago. Over time, instruments often undergo adaptations to maintain their validity and practical utility. I understand that the reduction of items aimed to align the instrument with more contemporary approaches to assessing psychological skills. However, I consider that there was a significant change from the original instrument to the version presented in this adaptation, with item reduction, exclusion, and renaming of factors. As a result, the cross-cultural adaptation seems more like the construction of a new instrument. I suggest making clearer which items were excluded and which changed factors, rather than presenting only the remaining items.

The authors mention that previous versions had psychometric issues. I suggest comparing the reliability and validity indices of the current version with those of previous versions. This could clarify whether the exclusion of items compromised or maintained the instrument’s internal consistency and discriminant and convergent validity.

The justification for the exclusion of items and factors should be explicitly discussed based not only on the statistical results presented (e.g., low factor loadings, items with low discrimination) but also on theoretical arguments, demonstrating that the eliminated items no longer reflect psychological skills considered fundamental in contemporary sports, if applicable. The authors should reinforce that this adaptation retains the strengths of previous versions while optimizing the instrument for current contexts. I recommend that the authors include a table or a comparative section explicitly showing how the psychometric indices and factors of the current version compare with previous versions. Additionally, I suggest detailing the theoretical and practical impact of these changes, using studies or references that support the need for the instrument’s update.

Although the article follows rigorous standards for cross-cultural and psychometric adaptation, the stated objective of validating the instrument exclusively for the Latvian context is a limitation, as Latvia is a small country with limited participation in elite sports. This could restrict the practical and theoretical impact of the study. I suggest that the authors more clearly present the sports landscape in Latvia and broaden the potential of this adaptation by reformulating the objective. This would allow the instrument to become a reference not only for sports practice but also for scientific research in international settings. Limiting the study to Latvia may hinder the generalization of the results. It would be interesting to discuss how the findings could be applied to other cultural and sports realities or how future studies could replicate this adaptation in countries with different sports contexts.

The adapted instrument has the potential to be useful not only in Latvia—especially since the article is published in English in this journal, which further emphasizes its potential for international use—considering the growing need for standardized assessments of psychological skills in sports. Expanding the scope could be further discussed as a next step in the research. Rather than limiting the objective to the Latvian context, the authors could discuss how the study contributes to advancing the theory of psychological skills in sports and to sports practice in general, regardless of national context.

Therefore, I recommend that the authors revise the objective to highlight the broader applicability of the instrument, emphasizing its theoretical and practical value in global sports contexts. This would not only strengthen the study’s relevance but also increase interest from the international scientific community.

Reviewer #2: TITLE:

Overview

• The title adequately reflects what was accomplished in the study.

• It clearly addresses the two main points of the research: the adaptation of the Psychological Skills Inventory for Sport (PSIS-R5) for Latvian athletes, and the evaluation of its psychometric properties.

ABSTRACT:

Overview

• Appropriate contextualization, clear objective, detailed methodology, relevant results, and solid conclusions.

Suggestions:

1. Focus on Practical Implications: The abstract could place more emphasis on the practical implications of the study, perhaps by mentioning how the adaptation of the PSIS-R5 could benefit coaches and psychologists in the Latvian sports context.

2. More Concise Summary: Although the abstract is well-written, it could be a bit more concise, focusing primarily on the key conclusions and practical implications.

INTRODUCTION:

Overview

The text explains the importance of psychological preparation in sports, emphasizing that athletes must be well-prepared not only physically and technically, but also psychologically. It clearly and objectively mentions the need for valid and adapted psychometric instruments to assess these psychological skills in the sports context. This ensures that the introduction follows a logically coherent line, with a clear direction focused on the challenges of sports psychology and the need for more modern and validated tools. It also highlights the need to adapt psychological assessment instruments to specific cultural contexts. The PSIS-R5 has been used in various populations, justifying the ongoing adaptation of the tool.

Suggestions:

1. The text could perhaps provide more details about the specific characteristics of the Latvian athlete population or how these characteristics might influence the development of psychological skills. Although the text mentions that the adaptation of the PSIS-R5 to Latvia is necessary, the section "there is a significant gap due to a lack of culturally relevant and modern instruments for accurately assessing psychological factors without the risk of outdated findings" [lines 130-131] does not deeply explain what the specific characteristics of the Latvian population are or the challenges these athletes face in relation to psychological assessment. It is suggested that more information about the target population could better contextualize the relevance of the study.

METHOD

Overview

The "Methods and Materials" section describes in detail the methodology adopted in the study, including the participant sample, the adaptation of the PSIS-R5 psychometric instrument to the Latvian sports context, the translation and validation procedures, and the statistical analysis methods applied to the data. The sample comprises 444 athletes from various sports, with a smaller sample of 40 athletes used for the test-retest reliability. The process of adapting the Latvian version of the PSIS-R5 involved translating the instrument, reviewing it by experts, and performing a face validity check with athletes. Furthermore, the statistical methods used to validate the instrument include principal component analysis, structural equation modeling, and verification of internal consistency and temporal reliability.

Suggestions:

1. Face validity is a simpler and initial form of validation. While it is a useful step, it does not guarantee that the instrument is truly measuring the construct in a robust and accurate manner. Was any other form of validation conducted? Given the response, would it not be more prudent to consider this as an initial validation of the instrument?

2. The sample of 444 athletes is sufficiently large, but it could be more detailed regarding the representation of different skill levels (elite, pre-elite, and amateur). Based on this, can the elite group be considered representative? 25 x 219 x 200? A more balanced sample in relation to skill level would be necessary to ensure the robustness and reliability of the conclusions.

3. Are the 40 individuals in the test-retest sample representative of the overall sample (elite, pre-elite, and amateur)?

RESULTS

Overview

The study showed adequate internal consistency most of the time, with coefficients above 0.7, indicating reliability for assessing psychological skills in athletes. Temporal stability was confirmed by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), especially in the scales of confidence and motivation. The factor analysis revealed good structural validity, with stable and consistent factor loadings. Comparisons between elite, pre-elite, and amateur groups showed significant differences in psychological skills, such as motivation and self-esteem. The study also explored how demographic factors (age, gender, and type of sport) influence psychological skills, broadening the understanding of the sports context.

Suggestions:

1. Would it not be appropriate to give special attention to the visualization scale (Cronbach’s alpha of 0.5)? As it stands, could this limit the reliability of the visualization measure? The cited reference (22) does not claim that 0.50 is acceptable; rather, it states that improper use of these coefficients may lead to incorrect interpretations about the homogeneity and internal consistency of the tests. Therefore, the authors could reference a source that supports the 0.50 value. Reference 22 itself points out:

“The range of reliability measures are rated as follows: a) Less than 0.50, the reliability is low, b) Between 0.50 and 0.80, the reliability is moderate, and c) Greater than 0.80, the reliability is high” (Salvucci, Walter, Conley, Fink, & Saba, 1997: 115).

2. The sample of 444 athletes may not reflect the full diversity of the athletic population in terms of age, ethnic background, and number of sports represented. It is suggested that the authors detail how many athletes from each skill level are represented in each of the subgroups. For example: Were all elite athletes from the same sport? Age? Gender? Such information could directly influence the results obtained, such as self-esteem.

DISCUSSION

Overview

In the discussion, the study highlights the differences between athletes at different levels, reinforcing the relevance of the instrument in the Latvian context. The discussion on the complexity of the items and the need for adjustments for different age groups and contexts is likely to ensure practical effectiveness. The validation conducted by psychologists, comparing athletes' self-assessments with professional evaluations, can enrich the study; however, their perceptions may interfere with the assessment.

Suggestions:

1. The absence of Anxiety Control and Concentration scales, which are essential psychological skills at any level of sports performance, was mentioned but without a deeper exploration of the impact of this omission. It is suggested that this point be explored.

2. Although the study examines the applicability of the PSIS-R5-L, the discussion could delve deeper into the specific challenges faced by psychologists in real-world training and competition contexts, considering the different types of sports and competitive levels.

3. The sample of elite athletes, which limits the depth of the analysis, could be further explored. The study acknowledges this limitation, but it could provide more information on how this might affect the results.

CONCLUSION

Overview

The research highlights the need for specific psychological training for athletes, suggesting that the PSIS-R5-L can be useful in identifying areas for development. This emphasizes the value of the instrument in planning interventions to improve athletes’ mental performance.

Suggestions:

1. It is recommended that the authors emphasize the need for further studies that address the limitations outlined in this study in order to refine the instrument even more.

2. The study may not be generalizable, and therefore, it is crucial to point this out in the conclusion, as different sports may require adjustments in the assessment of psychological skills, depending on the type of sport.

**********

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.

Adaptation and Psychometric Properties of Psychological Skills Inventory for Sport (PSIS-R5) in Latvian Athletes: Insights and Implications for Practice

PONE-D-25-01019R1

Dear Volgemute,

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,

Rogis Baker, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: