Review Reports - A Review of Generic Frameworks and Scales for Measuring Quality of Life and Well-Being: Toward Finding the Right Ruler

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have read your full text, “A Review of Generic Frameworks and Scales for Measuring Quality of Life and Well-Being: Toward Getting the Right Ruler” (Behav. Sci. 2025 draft), and provided an overview of its major strengths and weaknesses.

Strengths:
(1) The author clearly articulates the motivation for creating SigQOLM and addresses gaps in previous scales—particularly in construct validity and domain depth—thereby providing transparency about the design rationale (pp. 6–7).
(2) The discussion effectively connects psychometric development to policy and healthcare applications. The linkage between instrument design and its use in clinical, relational, and survival contexts demonstrates strong interdisciplinary thinking.
(3) The author openly declares potential conflicts of interest (as the developer of SigQOLM) and clarifies impartiality measures. Ethical transparency and data-sharing statements align with open-science standards (p. 10).

Weaknesses:
(1) Excessive Self-Citation and Limited External Validation (pp. 6–9): Roughly half of the cited evidence in the discussion (e.g., Bujang et al., 2015, 2018, 2023, 2024, 2025) derives from the same research group. This creates circular reasoning and limits the credibility of claims regarding generalizability.
(2) The “Materials and Methods” section is too brief and lacks sufficient clarity.
(3) While the table is detailed, there is an imbalance in the comparative analysis (pp. 4–7); the textual discussion focuses disproportionately on SigQOLM’s strengths and minimally critiques the limitations of QOLS or WHOQOL-BREF in light of recent literature.
(4) Figure 1 lacks an explanatory legend for the arrows or stakeholder relationships, making it difficult for readers to follow the conceptual flow.
(5) Several sentences exceed 40 words, reducing readability. Consider splitting long sentences for clarity (e.g., p. 8, lines 197–203).

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Reply: Thank you so much. I am truly appreciating it.

Reply:

SigQOLM is a newly developed scale, and publications using this instrument are still very limited. At present, only our research group has conducted empirical studies employing the SigQOLM to establish its psychometric properties and practical applications. These studies were published in peer-reviewed journals indexed in Scopus and Web of Science. Therefore, the citations included in the manuscript are not intended for self-promotion but rather reflect the reality that no independent studies on SigQOLM are yet available.

In addition,

Article “Bujang, M.A., Musa, R., Wen, J.L., Chew, T.F., Lim, C.T.S., & Morad, Z. (2015). Depression, anxiety and stress among patients with dialysis and the association with quality of life. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 18, 49–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2015.10.004”

was cited for this statement “Besides descriptive analysis in determining excellent or poor QOL and well-being, researchers can determine the associated factors toward overall QOL and well-being or with all respective elements and domains”.

This paper performed an association between IVs toward QOL and therefor the citation is relevant.

Similarly, article “Bujang, M.A., Adnan, T.H., Mohd-Hatta, N.K.B., Ismail, M., & Lim, C.J. (2018). A revised version of Diabetes Quality of Life Instrument maintaining domains for satisfaction, impact, and worry. Journal of Diabetes Research, 2018, 5804687. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5804687”

was cited for this statement “For this reason, the SigQOLM did not incorporate any domains or items related to sexual life to avoid inadvertently introducing 'missing values' and inappropriate findings”

This is because in the revised DQOL, item on sexual was dropped and therefore the citation is relevant. Hence, the author is humbly request for the references to be retained. Thank you so much.

(2) The “Materials and Methods” section is too brief and lacks sufficient clarity.

Reply:

Noted and agree. The author had revised this section to address the activities involve in the process. Kindly see the revised paragraphs highlighted in blue. Thank you.

(3) While the table is detailed, there is an imbalance in the comparative analysis (pp. 4–7); the textual discussion focuses disproportionately on SigQOLM’s strengths and minimally critiques the limitations of QOLS or WHOQOL-BREF in light of recent literature.

Reply:

Noted and agree. First of all, the author omits the term comparative analysis. Then, the author had added one new paragraph with new sub-heading “Important note” in the discussion to create a more balance statements. Kindly see the revised paragraphs highlighted in blue. Thank you.

(4) Figure 1 lacks an explanatory legend for the arrows or stakeholder relationships, making it difficult for readers to follow the conceptual flow.

Reply:

Noted and agree. The author had added description on the arrow for clarity. Kindly see the revised Figure 1. Thank you.

(5) Several sentences exceed 40 words, reducing readability. Consider splitting long sentences for clarity (e.g., p. 8, lines 197–203).

Noted and agree. The author had shortened the sentences. Kindly see the amendment in blue. Thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article systematically compares three commonly used quality of life and well-being assessment scales (QOLS, WHOQOL-BREF, and SigQOLM), focusing on domain coverage, structural design, and measurement characteristics, with a clear research purpose and practical significance. The authors clearly explain the theoretical framework and development logic of SigQOLM, particularly highlighting its advantages in multi-item measurement, domain integrity, and the inclusion of non-health dimensions (such as religious life, dietary patterns, and living conditions), reflecting efforts toward a more comprehensive, human-centered assessment system. The overall structure is reasonable, and the integration of information is relatively thorough, providing valuable reference for researchers and policymakers.

However, there is room for improvement in the methodological transparency of the article. For instance, the literature search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and data extraction process are not detailed, which weakens the reproducibility and systematic nature of the review. Additionally, while the article claims to conduct a "comparative analysis," it lacks quantitative integration or weighting assessments and is more of a descriptive comparison, without delving into the applicability differences of the scales across different populations or cultural contexts. A horizontal comparison of psychometric properties (such as reliability, validity, and responsiveness) would significantly strengthen the argument.

Overall, the article introduces a promising new tool, SigQOLM, and provides preliminary support for its structural validity, with certain innovation and application value. However, as a review, its breadth is limited to the comparison of only three scales, without covering other emerging comprehensive well-being frameworks in recent years (such as the OECD Better Life Index, PERMA, etc.). It is recommended that the article expands the scope of comparison to include cross-cultural and cross-group applicability and superiority, in order to promote its adoption and dissemination globally.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reply:

First of all, the author omits in using phrase such as “comparative analysis” since this study is only a narrative review. Secondly, the author had revised a paragraph in the “Materials and Methods” section. Kindly see the revised paragraphs in blue.

Reply:

The OECD Better Life Index (BLI) was not included in this review because it is not a questionnaire in the traditional sense. Instead, it relies on a set of objective and subjective indicators to assess various life dimensions across populations. In contrast, PERMA focuses on the subjective experience of well-being, measuring how individuals feel about aspects of their lives, including positive emotions, engagement, relationships, meaning, and accomplishment, rather than specific life circumstances such as sleep quality, social support, or family relationships. Given these differences in approach and measurement, thus this review focuses only on instruments that are self-report questionnaires capable of capturing both subjective and domain-specific aspects of quality of life. Consequently, only QOLS, WHOQOL-BREF, and SigQOLM were selected for inclusion in the review. Thank you so much.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the author’s reply.