Correcting the Correction: A Revised Formula to Estimate Partial Correlations between True Scores
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled by “Correcting the Correction: A Revised Formula to Estimate Partial Correlations between True Scores” is a relatively comprehensive research method based on partial correlation coefficient and attenuation. The authors have attempted to study the psycho-metrics evaluations and verified potential corrections for results. The proposed design has been well introduced. For further improving the quality of research, there are some minor concerns:
- Lines 112-114, please indicate if uncertainty needs to be identify/evaluated.
- Missing discussions. The authors can also provide examples to further verify the methodology. It can be clinical database available on websites for downloading and utilization.
- Please add a new table to summarize potential measurement in psychological research field, e.g. gender/sex differences.
For ease of reference, I have numbered Reviewer 1's comments (1-3) and provided my response to each, according to its number, below. Please note that lines identified in these points may differ from those originally identified by the reviewers as a result of recent additions to and deletions from the text.
- Based upon the context of the passage that Reviewer 1 noted, I assume that the "uncertainty" he or she mentions relates to the use of estimates, rather than exact values. I have added text (lines 144-150) to address this issue.
- Lines 114-138 now consist of a section entitled, "Example." The example provides verification of the derived formula's effectiveness.
- The table requested by Reviewer 1 does not appear in the text. I am unable to discern exactly what "potential measurement" variables would appear in such a table, even given his or her example of "gender/sex differences." Lines 151-160 (added in response to a comment from Reviewer 2) MIGHT provide a bit of this information. However, if Reviewer 1 strongly believes that additional information is needed, and can clarify his or her comment, I can provide further revisions.
Reviewer 2 Report
See the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
For ease of reference, I have numbered Reviewer 2's comments (1-8) and provided my response to each, according to its number, below. Please note that lines identified in these points may differ from those originally identified by the reviewers as a result of recent additions to and deletions from the text.
- An explanation of the prime notation now appears in lines 35-39. Additionally, this explanation now appears before the relevant equation so that readers understand the notation before encountering the equation.
- As suggested, Equation 3 was removed and adjustments were made, evident in lines 70-71, to provide a logical transition from Equation 2 to the new Equation 3 (formerly Equation 4). Numbers of following equations were changed to reflect the removal of Equation 3.
- Equations. 6 and 7 (formerly Equations 7 and 8) have been corrected.
- Equation 10 (formerly Equation 11) now contains the "=" symbol suggested by Reviewer 2.
- As suggested, the former Equation 14 was removed. Reference to Equation 9, which is identical to the removed equation, appears in lines 104-107. Numbers of following equations were changed to reflect the removal of the former Equation 14.
- Equation 14 (formerly equation 16) has been corrected.
- The requested explanation appears in lines 144-150.
- The requested explanation appears in lines 151-160.