Dear Dr. Cuartas,

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 16 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,

Alejandro Botero Carvajal, 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:

“Grants from the PanAmerican Health Association and Parenting for Lifelong Health”

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. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: 

“No”

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

 This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4.  We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

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

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly.

5. In the online submission form you indicate that your data is not available for proprietary reasons and have provided a contact point for accessing this data. Please note that your current contact point is a co-author on this manuscript. According to our Data Policy, the contact point must not be an author on the manuscript and must be an institutional contact, ideally not an individual. Please revise your data statement to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, and send this to us via return email. Please also include contact information for the third party organization, and please include the full citation of where the data can be found.

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

“This work was supported by the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) and The Lego Foundation. The funders had no role in the conceptualization of the study or the interpretation of results.”

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

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

“Grants from the PanAmerican Health Association and Parenting for Lifelong Health”

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

7. Please upload a copy of Figure 4, to which you refer in your text on page 18. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text

8. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

[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: 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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript that examines the influence of parenting beliefs, distress, and behaviors on child behavioral outcomes in a sample of parents in Colombia. This paper makes an important contribution to the literature, with the limitations appropriately acknowledged. I believe the findings would be of interest to readers of the PLOS ONE, however, there are several methodological and analytical clarifications that would help strengthen the manuscript if addressed and would be necessary for publication.

Methods and results:

- Given the lack of pre-registration of the analysis plan, have the authors considered sharing their survey instrument, data, analytical code, and/or analytic sample on an open science platform (with the understanding that the survey instrument was done in Spanish, I’m not suggesting that the authors translate the full instrument into English; for discussion, see Gennetian, Frank, Tamis-LeMonda, 2022)? Regarding transparency, is this the first manuscript using the data collected?

- How was the survey instrument developed? Were validated scales used? Were validated scales available in Spanish or did the authors translate them? If validated scales were translated, what was the process used for translation?

o For the CESD, can the authors provide a bit more context about why the IRB and ICBF did not approve the excluded item’s use in the population?

o The reliability for the violent punishment scale and effortful control subscale of the child behavior scales are not great. If the scales have not been previously validated in Spanish, this calls into question the use of the items as an aggregated scale. Were there items that did not hang together well with the other items that, if removed, would have improved the scale reliability? Were there mean differences (particularly for the violent punishment items) in the reporting of these behaviors? Are the findings with violent punishment being driven by one of the items?

- Were there specific inclusion/exclusion criteria for this study?

- References to the literature supporting the inclusion of the covariates missing from the introduction.

- RQ1 – Can more descriptives for the parental behaviors be provided (similar to details provided about beliefs and distress; e.g., which stimulating activities were most prevalent? Which form of violent punishment was most prevalent?)? This would provide a comprehensive answer to RQ1.

- RQ2 – Why was a measurement model conducted for beliefs and distress but not for stimulation, violent punishment, or child behavior?

- Figure 4 is missing

Typos:

- Funding disclosure lists different organizations on the cover page and title page: Lego Foundation is listed in one and Parenting for Lifelong Health is listed on another.

- Abstract: “…use of violent punishment, with in turn predicted lower effortful control…” should be “…use of violent punishment, which in turn predicted lower effortful control…”

- p. 4 last sentence of first full paragraph: “Therefore, sit remains…” should be “Therefore, it remains…”

- p. 7 first paragraph, “…or educate a child property…” should be “or educate a child properly…”

- p. 9 “…exposure to violence may children felt threaten…” I’m not sure what was meant here

- p. 11 “(Family Modality or home-based care.” is missing the closed parentheses

- p. 18 “Therefore, we Model 1 as the analytical model” is missing a verb after ‘we’

- p. 20 “…may be more authoritative and exhibit les warmth…” – where “les” should be “less”

- p. 21 “Activities such as reading, storytelling, and singing have been found not only [to] enhance children's…”

- p. 21 “…the current findings aligns with evidence…” should be “…the current findings align with evidence…”

- p. 22 the last sentence in the Implications for Intervention Work section is missing a period.

- p. 22 the first sentence in the Limitations and Future Directions section, “reserve causality” should be “reverse causality”. The third sentence in the same section should say “…given the non-representative small…”

- references – Asparouhov et al., 2013 – “Computing the stricly…” should be “Computing the strictly…”; Conger et al., 2000 is missing part of the reference (e.g., book or journal title, page numbers); There are numerous instances throughout the references where there is an extra https://doi.org in the link; the Suntheimer reference can be updated with the current year and, journal volume/issue, and page numbers; Ward et al., 2021 is missing the journal volume/issue and page number

References:

Gennetian, L. A., Frank, M. C., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (2022). Open Science in developmental science. Annual Review of Developmental Psychology, 4(1), 377-397.

Reviewer #2: The study aimed to understand the influence of parental beliefs and psychological well-being on parenting behaviours and their consequential impacts on children’s behavioural outcomes. My observations are given below:

(1) The study title is okay.

(2) The abstract needs revision. A timely and pertinent study that addresses parenting beliefs, psychological distress, and child outcomes in an LMIC setting in Colombia is presented in the abstract. The objectives, sample, and important findings are stated in clear terms. However, it pays little attention to theoretical underpinnings or novelty and instead reads more like a condensed results section. The language is a little repetitive, especially when it comes to affectivity and effortful control. Transparency is decreased by the absence of methodological details (design, measurements, and analytical approach). Its impact would be increased by a more concise expression of the contribution that goes beyond context.

(3) The introduction also needs minor revision. The introduction successfully connects parenting beliefs, psychological distress, and child outcomes. It is comprehensive and contextualized within Colombian and international policy frameworks. It is overly long, though, and contains overlapping conversations that make it harder to concentrate. Although the theoretical framework is sound, the story could be condensed to better emphasize the study's distinctive contribution. Its applicability to psychology audiences would be enhanced by a deeper incorporation of psychological viewpoints beyond the focus on policy. Reducing redundancy and filling in empirical evidence gaps would increase accuracy, coherence, and the overall scholarly impact. Please enrich the review and the arguments on how parents influence the life outcomes of children based on the following studies:

Tiwari, G. K., Pandey, R., Sharma, D. N., Ray, B., Dwivedi, A., Singh, A. K., Suman, S., Singh, P., & Mishra, R. N. (2024). Understanding the protective roles of Indian joint families for children during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Qualitative Research in Health Sciences, 13(3), 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.22062/JQR.2024.199370.1382

Tiwari, G. K., Singh, A. K., Parihar, P., Pandey, R., Sharma, D. N., & Rai, P. K. (2023). Understanding the perceived psychological distress and health outcomes of children during COVID-19 pandemic. Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 40(1), 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/20590776.2021.1899749

Tiwari, G. K., Tiwari, R. P., Pandey, R., Ray, B., Dwivedi, A., Sharma, D. N., Singh, P., Tiwari, A. K., & Singh, A. K. (2024). Perceived Life Outcomes of Indian Children During the Early Phase of the COVID-19 Lockdown: The Protective Roles of Joint and Nuclear Families. Journal of Research and Health, 14(1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.32598/JRH.14.1.1992.4

(4) The method again needs minor amendments. Positionality, ethics, sampling, measurements, and analytical techniques are all integrated in the comprehensive methods section. Although positionality and transparency are added to increase credibility, social desirability bias is a concern due to the use of self-report data. Additional justification for item removal and validity implications are warranted for the modified CES-D-10. Generalizability is limited by the unequal gender representation of caregivers (mothers are overwhelmingly dominant). SEM is suitable, but it would be better to address the presumptions and possible drawbacks of clustered sampling. Methodological rigor would be further strengthened by providing a clearer justification for reliability thresholds and measure selection.

(5) The results may be improved. The results section is thorough and rationally organised, successfully tying together measurement validation, structural modelling, and descriptive findings. However, readers who are not familiar with SEM may find the presentation overwhelming due to its denseness and excessive statistical detail. Accessibility would be improved by placing more focus on practical interpretation, such as the implications of high distress prevalence for parenting and child outcomes. Furthermore, there is little discussion of non-significant results, which runs the risk of favouring positive findings over others. Coherence would be strengthened and more significant psychological insights would be supported by a clearer integration of descriptive and inferential results.

(6) The discussion needs minor improvements. It is thorough, theoretically supported, and skilfully connects research results to more general policy and developmental ramifications. Nevertheless, it occasionally restates findings without offering enough critical synthesis, which reduces the depth of interpretation. Clarity would be enhanced by a stronger focus on elucidating surprising results, especially the coexistence of stimulation and harsh punishment. Although the section acknowledges its limitations, it could do a better job of balancing its strengths and limitations. Furthermore, while encouraging, the implications for interventions are still rather broad; more culturally specific approaches would increase the discussion's usefulness.

**********

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:  Gyanesh Kumar Tiwari

**********

[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.

Parenting Beliefs and Psychological Distress -> Stimulation and Punishment-> Young Children’s Behavior: A Descriptive Study in Colombia

PONE-D-25-30848R1

Dear Dr. Cuartas,

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,

Alejandro Botero Carvajal, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

Reviewer #2: The revised manuscript is now more readable and technically sound. It is now more suitable for the journal and now thus may contribute the the rea of scietific knowledge.

Well done. No furtner amendments are needed.

**********

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 #2: Yes:  Gyanesh Kumar Tiwari

**********