Next Article in Journal
Spanish Paediatricians’ Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Regarding Oral Health of Children under 6 Years of Age: A Cross-Sectional Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Prevalence, Predictors, and Experience of Moral Suffering in Nursing and Care Home Staff during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review
Previous Article in Journal
What Does It Take to Get Somebody Back to Work after Severe Acquired Brain Injury? Service Actions within the Vocational Intervention Program (VIP 2.0)
Previous Article in Special Issue
The North Italian Longitudinal Study Assessing the Mental Health Effects of SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic on Health Care Workers—Part I: Study Design and Psychometric Structural Validity of the HSE Indicator Tool and Work Satisfaction Scale
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 15
10.3390/ijerph19159541
Review Report
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

The North Italian Longitudinal Study Assessing the Mental Health Effects of SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic Health Care Workers—Part II: Structural Validity of Scales Assessing Mental Health

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(15), 9541; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159541
by Emanuele Maria Giusti 1,2, Giovanni Veronesi 3, Camilla Callegari 4, Gianluca Castelnuovo 2,5, Licia Iacoviello 3,6 and Marco Mario Ferrario 3,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(15), 9541; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159541
Submission received: 21 June 2022 / Revised: 29 July 2022 / Accepted: 29 July 2022 / Published: 3 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Mental Health at the Workplace)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

thank you for considering that Covid 19 may have implications for the factor structure of a number of well-known instruments.

However,

it is unfortunate that the details regarding the method need to be read from paper 22, which is not publicly available. How to assess the quality of method and sample when this information is missing? 

Furthermore, changing an existing and well-tested scale based (MBI) on one data set is a bit risky. I would expect a more through proof that the scale needs to be adjusted. Also, quite a nyumber of respondents from the first wave did not respond the secondd time. But with an anonymous sample, it is not possible to link respondents from both waves, that does not improve the reliability of the second wave. I would consider this to be but the first indication, not a final proof. The analysis itself is fine, but changingexisting instruments should always be researched carefully,  I would say that your conclusions are rather too confident.

However, 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I have read the article carefully, although it is part of a larger study I think it is interesting and will be of help to readers even at an international level, it deserves to be published.

I only have a few comments.

I believe that the authors could also insert the limits of the present study not just the limits of the external questionnaires.

A brief reference to the Italian legislation for the protection of workers in the covid era could be included (DOI: 10.3390 / healthcare9010017)

Authors should review editorial rules for citations and imagery.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop