Validity of the Jordanian Version of the Life Snapshot Inventory
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors examined the validity of the Jordanian Version of the Life Snapshot Inventory.
1) Abstract: (a) How FAP relates to LSI? (b) The full name for DASS-21 is needed (c) It's not clear what types of validity the authors are examining.
2) Introduction: (a) I believe its content can be divided into different subsections to ease understanding (e.g., FAP, LSI, Present Study, etc.) (b) Please provide justification for the 5 objectives stated. (c) With regards to Objectives 4 and 5, are the authors conducting another study? Please clarify and make the objectives clear (d) Since this study is a psychometric paper about LSI, please discuss the past psychometric evidence about LSI and why this study is needed (e) Kindly explain "Pearson’s correlations will be calculated through the item total correlation and Cronbach’s alpha if the item was excluded."
3) Participants: (a) Please mention the sampling method. (b) Why label the first table as "Table 3"? (b) "The study sample was recruited from Jordanian universities and workers in ministries and private companies." is repeated many times.
4) Instruments: (a) The full name for DASS-21 is needed (b) Why use RSES and DASS-21 to establish the validity, but not VLQ?
5) Procedure: (a) "was translated into Arabic by experts in both languages" How many experts? (b) "The questionnaire was presented to a small group" Who are they?
6) Results, 4.1. LSI Scale Construction: "To study the psychometric properties of the LSI, the original version was adopted (Tasee et al., 2009), the Spanish translation (Ruiz-García et al., 2021) was reviewed, and its possible factorial scale was initially verified through a varimax rotation." I don't understand. Are the authors examining Jordanian LSI or original version or Spanish version???
7) For the EFA, what is the estimation method?
8) Please report Cronbach's alpha for all the scales.
9) Discussion: (a) The implications of the study need to be elaborated (b) What are the limitations and suggestions for future research?
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Happy new year
I have gladly received your comments on the research arbitration, which were in their entirety scientific and consistent with the content of the research, and indicate a depth of reading. Once again, I offer you my thanks and appreciation for your reading of the research and your valuable efforts, and I will modify most of them.
Best and warm regards
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is very interesting because it shows how important psychohygiene and the cooperation of a psychotherapist are. Nowadays, stress is very common and leads to many other diseases, including depression. The authors' attitude towards this issue is very beneficial, as they translated from the English version into Arabic and at the same time tested the research tool and methodology in practice, created a good research design. The article is very important for Arabic speaking countries. I recommend the article for publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
I have gladly received your comments on the research arbitration, which were in their entirety positive and consistent with the content of the research. Once again, I offer you my thanks and appreciation for your reading of the research and your valuable efforts.
Regards
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks for revising, but some of my comments were not adequately addressed.
1) Abstract:
(a) Based on the revision, does it mean FAP and LSI are the same? If no, please clarify.
(b) It's still not clear what types of validity the authors are examining.
2) Introduction:
(a) "Depending on the prior justifications for the importance of LSI, this study came to adjust the psychometric characteristics of the scale on the Jordanian society." What does it mean "to adjust"?
(b) Since this study is a psychometric paper about LSI, please discuss the past psychometric evidence about LSI and why this study is needed.
3) Results, 4.1. LSI Scale Construction: "To study the psychometric properties of the LSI, the original version was adopted (Tasee et al., 2009), the Spanish translation (Ruiz-García et al., 2021) was reviewed, and its possible factorial scale was initially verified through a varimax rotation." I don't understand. Are the authors examining Jordanian LSI or original version or Spanish version???
4) For the EFA, what is the estimation method (e.g.,maximum likelihood, principal axis factoring, etc.)?
5) Please report Cronbach's alpha for all the scales (including DASS-21 and RSES).
Author Response
Dear Editor in chief,
Dear reviewer,
I gladly received the notes in the first round of arbitration, and I did everything I could to amend them and respond to all the notes you mentioned, and they were all of high value, scientific, useful, and pour into the depth of research and indicate a careful and in-depth reading. In the first round, I colored the edits in red, while in the second round, the edits were minor and I colored the edits in blue. I tracked all the notes and found that some of them are in the body of the research. For example, the psychometric characteristics of the original scale, LSI, are mentioned in the body of the research, and they have been explained in detail, and they have been colored in blue for further evidence. On the other hand, I added some clarifications in the abstract, in addition to notes related to the results and the Cronbach alpha coefficient for the DASS-21 scale and the RSES scale. Finally, I made a comparison between the original version of this research and the modern version to know the modifications that were made (Track changes), and the amount of effort that was made, with two copies attached, the amended version, which contains the red and blue color changes, and the other copy indicating the nature of the approved amendments.
Finally, I thank you again for your efforts, which contributed greatly to producing this research in a scientific way commensurate with the level of the internationally prestigious journal, which we hope to continue publishing in the future.
Best and warm regards
Happy new year
________________________________________________________________________
Dear reviewer
Thanks, very much please kindly see the below modifications due to your comments
1) Abstract:
(a) Based on the revision, does it mean FAP and LSI are the same? If no, please clarify.
the (LSI) as a self-report instrument to measure meaningful personal and social factors. It was created in the Functional Analytic Psychotherapy for use in various areas of life
(b) It's still not clear what types of validity the authors are examining.
and the convergent validity of
2) Introduction:
(a) "Depending on the prior justifications for the importance of LSI, this study came to adjust the psychometric characteristics of the scale on the Jordanian society." What does it mean "to adjust"?
Depending on the prior justifications for the importance of LSI, this study came to test and adapt the psychometric characteristics of the scale on the Jordanian society.
(b) Since this study is a psychometric paper about LSI, please discuss the past psychometric evidence about LSI and why this study is needed.
However, no standardized psychometric questionnaires have been published in Arabic or English, except for a study entitled the validity of the Spanish version of the LSI (Ruiz-García et al., 2021). The LSI possesses various psychometric properties, in addition to its ability to adapt according to the needs of specific therapeutic interventions. The LSI differentiates itself between people according to their individual problems and is im-portant for evaluating healthcare and treatment contexts. The questionnaire consists of a record assessing the values of the respondent and their life goals. Individuals are asked to rate their answers along a 10-point Likert scale, which relates to their satisfaction with the weekly counseling sessions or other events specified in the questionnaire. LSI includes individuals’ satisfaction with their lives, including their self-care, love, intimacy, health, sporting activities, discipline, family relationships, friendships, spiritual life, altruism, authenticity, emotional expression, gratitude, among others. This questionnaire reflects the LSI and evaluates how respondents perform these important daily tasks, in addition to it being used for the basic assessment of the client’s values and the extent of the positive changes that occur with respect to their goals during the psychotherapy sessions. This list is useful for quickly evaluating the development of the therapeutic process, as well as in measuring the effectiveness of the therapeutic methods being used as it records the changes that occur during the treatment process.
3) Results, 4.1. LSI Scale Construction: "To study the psychometric properties of the LSI, the original version was adopted (Tasee et al., 2009), the Spanish translation (Ruiz-García et al., 2021) was reviewed, and its possible factorial scale was initially verified through a varimax rotation." I don't understand. Are the authors examining Jordanian LSI or original version or Spanish version???
To study the psychometric properties of the Jordanian version of the LSI, the original version of Spanish version was adopted (Tasee et al., 2009), the Spanish translation (Ruiz-García et al., 2021) was reviewed, and to emphasize the development of the LSI scale suitable for the Jordanian society, and its possible factorial scale was initially verified through a varimax rotation
4) For the EFA, what is the estimation method (e.g.,maximum likelihood, principal axis factoring, etc.)?
. To determine the adequacy and suitability of the sample to conduct the construction validation procedures, The exploratory factor analysis (principal axis factoring method) and Kaiser-Meyer
5) Please report Cronbach's alpha for all the scales (including DASS-21 and RSES).
The total score ranges from 0 to 21, with higher scores indicating that the respondents are more likely to be anxious, depressed, and/or stressed. Previous studies have shown that the scale has good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .77, .82, .79, and .89 for depression, stress, anxiety, and the total scale score, respectively), construct validity, and criterion-related validity
