Dear Dr. Akrawi,

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.

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

Concerns:

• The manuscript fails to clearly indicate where Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, and Figure 1 should be inserted in the main text.
• The RMSEA value of 0.099 exceeds the commonly accepted threshold for good model fit (<0.08). This raises concerns about the robustness of the confirmatory factor analysis model, especially given the small sample size (N=129).
• The authors should explain in advance the criteria used for considering item deletion.
• The terms like "instructor" and "teacher" may be interpreted differently in digital learning. This ambiguity could be mitigated by clarifying in the methods or providing alternative wording tested during pilot phases.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 07 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.

• 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,

Mohd Ismail Ibrahim, MCom.Med

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. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

3. 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?

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: the manuscript is titles The Validity and Reliability of the Dutch Version of the Student Satisfaction and Self Confidence in Learning Scale (SCLC) for Pharmacy Technicians.

THIS IS NOT noval work AND authors used old data. references must be added of 2025. there are no figures and diagrams presented in the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: The paper is aimed at assessing the validity and reliability of Dutch adapted SCLC. The paper is well written. Nevertheless, some methodological aspects have drawn my concern.

1. The authors used Cronbach’s alpha (CA) for assessing reliability and CFA-loading factor for validity. CA assumes a tau-equivalent measurement model in which factor loadings are equal and the measurement errors are not correlated. These contrast with the CFA results. Thus, the CA use is invalid. I suggest that the authors further use the CFA results for deriving composite reliability (CR) or construct reliability index. The authors may refer to Hair et al. (2019).

2. The authors calculated Cronbach’s alpha of total questionnaire. This is meaningless, since a reliability index is associated only to one latent construct, dimension, or subdimension.

3. The authors treated the Likert scale data as continuous normal data. Likert scale data has a limited number of distinct values. Naturally, it is ordinal data. And by the equidistance assumption, it can be upgraded into discrete interval data which is not a normal data. To improve the validity of the analysis, I suggest the author to use polychoric correlation matrix supplemented by its asymptotic covariance matrix as the inputs and robust maximum likelihood as the estimation method and corrected chi-square statistics for non-normality in the CFA analysis.

4. The reported main fit indices indicate an insufficient model fit. I suggest the authors to accommodate modification indices higher than 5 or 6 instead of 20 step-wisely. Report the CFA results after the estimates provide a good model fit. Please refer for Hair et al. (2019) for the criteria of a good model fit.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate Data Analysis (8th ed.). Cengage.

**********

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:  Yusep Suparman

**********

[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.

The Validity and Reliability of the Dutch Version of the Student Satisfaction and Self-Confidence in Learning Scale (SCLC) for Pharmacy Technicians

PONE-D-25-23816R1

Dear Dr. Akrawi,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Mohd Ismail Ibrahim, MCom.Med

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The revised manuscript demonstrates that the authors have thoroughly addressed all reviewer and editorial comments, resulting in notable improvements to the clarity, structure, and methodological rigor of the study. The peer reviewers concur with the decision to accept, acknowledging the work’s methodological soundness and contribution to the field.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: This study suggests that the Dutch version of the SCLC is a moderately reliable and valid tool

for assessing pharmacy technicians’ satisfaction with education and self-confidence in learning. Given

the absence of other validated instruments in this context, this scale offers a useful starting point for

evaluating and improving educational programs. However, as the psychometric properties indicated

room for improvement and the model fit was moderate,.Further research with larger samples is needed to refine and confirm the suitability of this questionnaire.This conclusion seems good for acceptance.

**********

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

**********