Maternal Psychopathology and Family Functioning as Predictors of Externalizing Behavior in Adolescents: A Cross-Sectional Study in Greece

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting article. Some points for a major revision are below:

The research question/hypothesis is not clearly presented. Please add in a separate paragraph.

The inclusion/exclusion criteria must be presented in more detail.

Authors need to mention relevant prior research from Greece on this or similar topics on mother - child dyads from Greece (e.g. https://psyct.swu.bg/index.php/psyct/article/view/86).

Effect sizes must be calculated for all applied statistics.

In the discussion authors have to discuss some missing factors/variables for future research as indicated in https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1039856217749055 and https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/development-and-psychopathology/article/bidirectional-associations-between-parenting-stress-and-child-psychopathology-the-moderating-role-of-maternal-affection/0741691FD30B360367BDC1933B2EE273  and https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jcpp.13394

and https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cdev.13402

 

Author Response

Comment 1:
“The research question/hypothesis is not clearly presented. Please add in a separate paragraph.”

 

Response:
Thank you for this valuable suggestion. In response, we have added a distinct paragraph at the end of the Introduction section explicitly stating the research question and study hypotheses. This addition aims to improve clarity and guide readers through the study’s objectives and theoretical framework. We hope this addition adequately addresses your comment.

 

Comment 2:
“The inclusion/exclusion criteria must be presented in more detail.”

 

Response:
Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the Participants subsection of the Materials and Methods section to provide a more detailed description of the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

 

Comment 3:

“Authors need to mention relevant prior research from Greece on this or similar topics on mother–child dyads from Greece (e.g. https://psyct.swu.bg/index.php/psyct/article/view/86).”

 

Response:

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have revised the Introduction section to include a reference to prior research on mother–child dyads conducted in Greece. Specifically, we incorporated findings from Giannouli and Stoyanova (2014), which examined how depressive symptomatology in mothers and adolescents affects perceptions of the doctor–patient relationship. This study highlights the emotional interdependence between Greek mothers and their children, reinforcing the importance of the dyadic perspective in understanding psychological outcomes. We believe this addition strengthens the cultural grounding and relevance of our research.

 

Comment 4:

“Effect sizes must be calculated for all applied statistics.”

 

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable and constructive comment. In response, we have revised the manuscript to include appropriate effect size measures for all applied statistical analyses, in accordance with APA guidelines and best practices in psychological research. Specific changes include the following: 1) We updated the Statistical Analysis section (Section 2.5) to explicitly state that effect sizes were calculated and interpreted for all inferential tests. This includes: Cohen’s d for independent samples t-tests, Cramér’s V for chi-square tests, Eta squared (η²) for ANOVA comparisons (noting limitations when variance assumptions were unmet), Standardized beta coefficients (β) and Adjusted R² for hierarchical regression 2) In Section 3.1, we added effect sizes to the group comparisons of demographics and revised Table 1 to include exact p-values and corresponding Cohen’s d or Cramér’s V values. In Section 3.2, we reported Cohen’s d values for gender differences in YSR, CBCL, DASS-21, and FAD–GF scores. A new column was added to Table 2 to reflect these effect sizes. In Section 3.3, we included Cramér’s V for each chi-square comparison in both Table 3 (boys) and Table 4 (girls), along with exact p-values. In Section 3.4, we reported standardized β coefficients and adjusted R² at each step of the regression analysis. Table 5 was fully revised to present these values alongside exact p-values, serving as effect size indicators. In Section 3.5, correlation strength was described in terms of small, moderate, and strong effects, and we now refer to Table 6, which presents all Spearman correlation coefficients. We also updated all relevant tables to include effect sizes and clarified these in footnotes (e.g., thresholds for interpretation, p-value reporting, and abbreviations). We hope these additions improve the clarity, transparency, and interpretability of our findings. Thank you again for encouraging us to strengthen the statistical rigor of the manuscript.

 

Comment 5:

"In the discussion authors have to discuss some missing factors/variables for future research as indicated in https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1039856217749055 and https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/development-and-psychopathology/article/bidirectional-associations-between-parenting-stress-and-child-psychopathology-the-moderating-role-of-maternal-affection/0741691FD30B360367BDC1933B2EE273  and https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jcpp.13394

and https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cdev.13402"

 

Response:

We appreciate this insightful suggestion and thank the reviewer for highlighting these important references. In response, we have expanded the Discussion section to address several theoretically and empirically significant variables that were not included in our study but are crucial for future research. This addition strengthens the theoretical grounding of our work and clarifies directions for future research. We are grateful for the opportunity to enhance the manuscript accordingly.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study examined an interesting and important theme, And I have some suggestions for the improvement:

(1) the abstract could be re-orginized abd streamlined so as to hightlight the mian points and present the mian findings;

(2) the research gap question could be clearly stated, and the significance of focusing on Greece participants could be stated;

(3) subheadings are suggested in the introduction and discussion;

(4) the theoretical evidences for the relations between the variables could be expanded, for example the Parental Transmission Theory could ne adopted; at I strongly suggest that the family function could act as a mediating role, which should be hypothesized and tested;

(5) in the method and results, tahe contents should be shortened and streamlined, especially the descriptive results are not the main fidings, which should be shoetened and integarted; 

(6) the relations among the variables could be expanded, and a mediating model should be tested; 

Author Response

Comment 1:

“The abstract could be reorganized and streamlined so as to highlight the main points and present the main findings.”

 

Response:

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. In response, we have revised the abstract to improve clarity and structure, while maintaining the required unstructured format. The updated version highlights the study’s aims, methods, and main findings more explicitly, including key statistical results and effect sizes to reflect the core contributions of the paper. We believe this revised abstract provides a more informative and concise summary of the study’s purpose and outcomes.

 

Comment 2:

“The research gap/question could be clearly stated, and the significance of focusing on Greek participants could be stated.”

 

Response:

Thank you for this thoughtful comment. In response, we have clarified the research gap and rationale for the study in the Introduction section. We now more explicitly state the research question and emphasize the significance of examining maternal psychopathology, family functioning, and adolescent externalizing behavior within the Greek sociocultural context.

 

Comment 3:

“Subheadings are suggested in the Introduction and Discussion.”

 

Response:

Thank you for this useful recommendation. We have revised the manuscript to include subheadings in both the Introduction and Discussion sections in order to improve clarity, organization, and readability.

 

Comment 4:

“The theoretical evidence for the relations between the variables could be expanded, for example the Parental Transmission Theory could be adopted. I strongly suggest that the family function could act as a mediating role, which should be hypothesized and tested.”

 

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this insightful and valuable recommendation. In response, we have strengthened the theoretical framework in the Introduction by incorporating the well-established concept of intergenerational transmission of psychopathology. This perspective, as discussed by Branje et al. (2020), provides a coherent explanation for how maternal psychological distress may influence adolescent externalizing behavior both directly and indirectly, through its impact on the quality of family functioning. We have revised the relevant section of the Introduction to better articulate this model, replacing the previously vague reference to “Parental Transmission Theory” with a more precise and widely accepted theoretical basis.

Additionally, following the reviewer’s suggestion, we extended our data analysis to formally test whether adolescent-perceived family functioning mediates the relationship between maternal depression and adolescent externalizing behavior. We conducted a mediation analysis using the classic Baron and Kenny framework and tested the significance of the indirect effect using the Sobel test. The analysis showed that family functioning partially mediated this relationship, with a significant indirect effect (a × b = 0.088, Sobel z = 2.90, p = .004), supporting the hypothesized pathway. These results are now presented in a new subsection (Section 3.6) of the Results and are also referenced in the revised Statistical Analysis section. In the Discussion, we have added a paragraph interpreting the mediation findings and highlighting their theoretical and clinical implications. Specifically, we note that the result reinforces the importance of addressing family-level relational processes in interventions designed to mitigate the effects of parental distress on adolescent adjustment.

We appreciate the reviewer’s recommendation, which helped us deepen the theoretical grounding and empirical contributions of the study.

 

Comment 5:

“In the method and results, the contents should be shortened and streamlined, especially the descriptive results are not the main findings, which should be shortened and integrated.”

Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s comment regarding the length and structure of the Methods and Results sections. In response, we have streamlined the presentation of some descriptive statistics and wording to improve clarity and reduce length without omitting important context. However, we have opted to retain the essential descriptive content, as this provides necessary background on the sample characteristics and variable distributions—particularly important given the cultural focus of the study and the use of both adolescent and maternal reports. We also considered the expectations of other reviewers and the journal’s emphasis on methodological transparency. We believe the revised version better balances conciseness with completeness, and clearly emphasizes the primary findings related to predictive and mediating relationships.

 

Comment 6:

“The relations among the variables could be expanded, and a mediating model should be tested.”

 

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this important suggestion. As noted in response to an earlier comment, we have now conducted and reported a mediation analysis to examine whether adolescent-perceived family functioning mediates the relationship between maternal depression and adolescent externalizing behavior. This analysis has been integrated into both the Statistical Analysis and Results sections, and its implications are discussed in the revised Discussion. We believe this addition substantially expands the investigation of the relations among the key variables and strengthens the theoretical and empirical contribution of the study.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study presents a well-structured and clinically relevant exploration of how maternal mental health and family functioning predict externalizing behaviors among adolescents in Greece. The methodology is generally sound, and the discussion is well-integrated with existing literature. However, there are several areas where clarification, expansion, or revision would enhance the paper's clarity, methodological rigor, and impact.

Major Issue:

1. The low participation rate (30%) raises concerns about selection bias and limits external validity, which could be better addressed by providing more detail on how schools were approached and selected to clarify sampling representativeness.
2. The authors may wish to specify whether maternal DASS-21 scores were treated as continuous or categorical variables in the regression analysis, as this impacts the interpretation of the findings. Also, it is important to let us know whether both adolescent and mother reports on family functioning were included in the analysis; if only one informant's report was used, a justification should be provided to explain this decision.
3. The authors should provide a clear justification for the use of hierarchical regression, particularly the theoretical rationale guiding the order in which variable blocks were entered into the model. Furthermore, the choice to handle missing values through median imputation (line 231) warrants explanation, especially given the potential impact on results in the context of multivariate analysis.
4. The results section should more prominently highlight potential sex differences (e.g., girls scoring higher on aggressive behavior in Table 2), include confidence intervals for all coefficients in the Table 5 regression model, and clearly state which variables remained significant in the final model and which dropped out, such as employment status.
5. The discussion claims that maternal stress and depression were significant predictors (line 340), but this contrasts with the regression, where they were not independently significant. This needs reconciliation or more explicit wording (lines 306–308).
6. The discussion should address the relatively modest R² value (18%) more critically by considering the influence of unmeasured variables, such as peer dynamics, cognitive factors, or school climate, that may also contribute to adolescent externalizing behavior. References for your information: Dishion et al. "Peer contagion in child and adolescent social and emotional development." Annual review of psychology 62.1 (2011): 189-214.; Yu & Ko. "Cognitive determinants of MDMA use among college students in Southern Taiwan." Addictive behaviors 31.12 (2006): 2199-2211. ; Li et al. "Areca quid chewing by Taiwanese adolescents: application of the Attitudes Social Influence Self‐efficacy (ASE) model." Addiction 98.12 (2003): 1723-1729.; Wang et al., "School climate: A review of the construct, measurement, and impact on student outcomes." Educational psychology review 28.2 (2016): 315-352.; Espelage et al. "Understanding school climate, aggression, peer victimization, and bully perpetration: contemporary science, practice, and policy." School psychology quarterly 29.3 (2014): 233.

Minor issue: Please correct minor typographical issues (e.g., inconsistent use of en dash vs. hyphen, missing p-values or df in some tests). Moreover, please adjust redundant phrasings, such as “the final sample consisted of 563 adolescent–mother dyads” (line 122) repeated similarly in line 236.

Author Response

Comment 1:

“The low participation rate (30%) raises concerns about selection bias and limits external validity, which could be better addressed by providing more detail on how schools were approached and selected to clarify sampling representativeness.”

 

Response:

We thank the reviewer for raising this important concern regarding participation rate and sampling procedures. In response, we have expanded the Participants subsection of the Method to provide greater detail on the recruitment process and school selection. Specifically, we now explain that a stratified sample of public middle and high schools across urban, suburban, and semi-rural regions in Greece was invited to participate through formal collaboration with local school administrations and regional education authorities. The overall participation rate reflects parental consent procedures typical of school-based psychological research in Greece, where return rates for opt-in consent can be modest. However, efforts were made to minimize bias by ensuring a diverse pool of participating schools and consistent data collection protocols across sites.

While we acknowledge that the 30% participation rate limits generalizability and introduces the possibility of selection bias, we also note that the final sample was demographically broad in terms of geographic location, socioeconomic background, and educational level. We have addressed these points in the revised manuscript and further emphasized this limitation in the Discussion section.

 

Comment 2:

“The authors may wish to specify whether maternal DASS-21 scores were treated as continuous or categorical variables in the regression analysis, as this impacts the interpretation of the findings. Also, it is important to let us know whether both adolescent and mother reports on family functioning were included in the analysis; if only one informant's report was used, a justification should be provided to explain this decision.”

 

Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s attention to the analytic details. In the hierarchical regression and mediation analyses, the maternal DASS-21 subscale scores (depression, anxiety, and stress) were treated as continuous variables. This approach allowed us to retain the full variability of maternal symptomatology and is consistent with prior studies using the DASS-21 in community-based samples. We have clarified this point in the revised Statistical Analysis section.

Regarding the assessment of family functioning, although both mothers and adolescents completed the FAD–GF, only the adolescent-reported scores were included in the inferential analyses, including regression and mediation models. This decision was based on theoretical and empirical considerations suggesting that adolescents’ perceptions of family dynamics may be more proximally related to their own behavioral outcomes, especially for externalizing symptoms. We now provide this rationale in the Methods section under Measures and clarify the informant used in each analysis. Nonetheless, we continue to report descriptive statistics for both informants to provide a broader picture of perceived family functioning.

 

Comment 3:

“The authors should provide a clear justification for the use of hierarchical regression, particularly the theoretical rationale guiding the order in which variable blocks were entered into the model. Furthermore, the choice to handle missing values through median imputation (line 231) warrants explanation, especially given the potential impact on results in the context of multivariate analysis.”

 

Response:

We thank the reviewer for raising these important methodological points. We have now clarified the rationale for using hierarchical regression and the order of entry for variable blocks in the Statistical Analysis section. Specifically, we employed hierarchical regression to allow for stepwise modeling of theoretically distinct predictors. In Step 1, we entered demographic variables (e.g., adolescent and maternal age, education, socioeconomic status, employment, and health status) to account for background characteristics known to influence adolescent behavior. In Step 2, we added maternal psychological distress (DASS-21 subscales), reflecting proximal psychological factors hypothesized to affect adolescent outcomes. In Step 3, we included adolescent-reported family functioning (FAD–GF), conceptualized as the most immediate relational factor with direct implications for behavioral regulation. This structure follows a theoretical progression from distal (demographic) to proximal (psychological and relational) influences, consistent with ecological and developmental frameworks.

Regarding missing data, we used median imputation for a small proportion of missing values in quantitative variables. This decision was based on the limited extent of missingness (generally <5% per variable) and our aim to preserve the full sample for multivariate analyses. Median imputation was chosen over mean substitution to reduce the influence of outliers and maintain robustness in variables with non-normal distributions. We acknowledge that more advanced imputation methods (e.g., multiple imputation) are preferable when missingness is more substantial; however, given the minimal missing data in our case, the median approach was deemed appropriate. This explanation has been added to the Statistical Analysis section.

 

Comment 4:

“The results section should more prominently highlight potential sex differences (e.g., girls scoring higher on aggressive behavior in Table 2), include confidence intervals for all coefficients in the Table 5 regression model, and clearly state which variables remained significant in the final model and which dropped out, such as employment status.”

 

Response:

We thank the reviewer for these thoughtful suggestions. In response, we have revised the Results section to more clearly highlight the significant gender difference observed in adolescent self-reported aggression. This finding is now emphasized in Section 3.2, with an explicit comment on its potential relevance for gender-sensitive interpretations of externalizing behavior.

Additionally, we have updated Table 5 to include 95% confidence intervals for all regression coefficients, thereby enhancing the interpretability and precision of the reported estimates. Corresponding clarifications were also made in the note below the table.

Finally, we have clarified in the text of Section 3.4 which predictors remained significant in the final step of the hierarchical regression model (i.e., maternal health problems and adolescent-perceived family functioning), and which variables lost significance once more proximal factors were added (e.g., maternal employment and adolescent health problems). These changes provide greater clarity on the dynamics of the model and the relative contribution of each variable block.

We hope these revisions improve both the clarity and transparency of the results.

 

Comment 6:

“The discussion claims that maternal stress and depression were significant predictors (line 340), but this contrasts with the regression, where they were not independently significant. This needs reconciliation or more explicit wording (lines 306–308).”

 

Response:

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this important discrepancy. We have revised the relevant paragraph in the Discussion section to more accurately reflect the findings from our regression analysis. Specifically, we now clarify that while maternal depression and stress were positively correlated with adolescent externalizing behaviors, they did not remain independently significant predictors in the final regression model after accounting for other variables, including family functioning. This updated wording reconciles the correlational findings with the multivariate results and emphasizes that maternal psychological distress may exert its effects indirectly—particularly through its impact on the family environment.

 

Comment 7:

“The discussion should address the relatively modest R² value (18%) more critically by considering the influence of unmeasured variables, such as peer dynamics, cognitive factors, or school climate, that may also contribute to adolescent externalizing behavior.”

 

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. In response, we have revised the "Limitations and Future Directions" section to explicitly acknowledge the modest proportion of variance explained by our final regression model (18%). As suggested, we now highlight the likely influence of additional, unmeasured factors—such as peer dynamics, cognitive variables, and the broader school climate—which are well-established contributors to adolescent externalizing behavior. Relevant references (e.g., Dishion et al., Yu & Ko, Wang et al., Espelage et al.) have been cited to support this point. This addition provides a more critical interpretation of the model's explanatory power and underscores the need for future studies to adopt a more comprehensive, multi-level design.

 

Comment 8:
“Minor issue: Please correct minor typographical issues (e.g., inconsistent use of en dash vs. hyphen, missing p-values or df in some tests). Moreover, please adjust redundant phrasings, such as ‘the final sample consisted of 563 adolescent–mother dyads’ (line 122) repeated similarly in line 236.”

 

Response:
We appreciate the reviewer’s careful attention to detail. We have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript and corrected minor typographical inconsistencies, including the use of en dashes and hyphens, and ensured consistent reporting of p-values and degrees of freedom in all relevant statistical tests. Additionally, the redundant phrasing referring to the final sample size has been revised for clarity and to avoid repetition. Thank you for helping us improve the manuscript’s precision and readability.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study is a great example of how a paper should be written, specifically the introduction provides all the necessary data, and from there the paper continues to be a good insight into how the study was conducted, making it easy for the reader to understand the whole process.

However, when addressing the adolescents and their mothers nationality the options listed are Greek and "other". It would be better if the writers specified which other nationalities were included, for a more diverse inclusion and to refrain from described someones nationality as "the other" since it gives of an insensitive appeal.

Although it is not the subject of the study, the role of the father is not even mentioned. In the Discussion it is stated: "Most of the participating mothers were employed, which 356
may point to the dual burden of balancing professional responsibilities with the demands 357
of parenting. Although it is common in modern societies for women to be both working 358
and primary caregivers, the double responsibility can strain maternal resources and 359. exacerbate stress levels [52]. Such parental stress may, in turn, compromise the quality of 360
maternal care and diminish the availability of emotional support, thereby increasing the 361
risk of externalizing behaviors in adolescents. These findings resonate with previous work 362
that emphasizes the stress associated with managing dual roles and its potential impact 363
on family dynamics [53]." . This part of the text seems to give off the impression that mothers are the only person responsible for raising children and seems to imply that are to blamed for not being able to balance work and family. Thus, this should be reworded differently or the fathers role should also be mentioned.

Author Response

Comment 1:

This study is a great example of how a paper should be written, specifically the introduction provides all the necessary data, and from there the paper continues to be a good insight into how the study was conducted, making it easy for the reader to understand the whole process. However, when addressing the adolescents and their mothers nationality the options listed are Greek and "other". It would be better if the writers specified which other nationalities were included, for a more diverse inclusion and to refrain from described someones nationality as "the other" since it gives of an insensitive appeal. 

 

Response:

Thank you for this thoughtful comment. We fully agree that the phrasing could be improved to reflect greater sensitivity and inclusivity. In response, we have revised the manuscript to explicitly state the specific national backgrounds of the non-Greek participants (i.e., Albanian and Middle Eastern descent), rather than using the generic term “other.” This change has been made both in the main text and in the relevant tables to ensure clarity and respect for participant identity.

 

Comment 2:

Although it is not the subject of the study, the role of the father is not even mentioned. In the Discussion it is stated: "Most of the participating mothers were employed, which 356
may point to the dual burden of balancing professional responsibilities with the demands 357
of parenting. Although it is common in modern societies for women to be both working 358
and primary caregivers, the double responsibility can strain maternal resources and 359. exacerbate stress levels [52]. Such parental stress may, in turn, compromise the quality of 360
maternal care and diminish the availability of emotional support, thereby increasing the 361
risk of externalizing behaviors in adolescents. These findings resonate with previous work 362
that emphasizes the stress associated with managing dual roles and its potential impact 363
on family dynamics [53]." . This part of the text seems to give off the impression that mothers are the only person responsible for raising children and seems to imply that are to blamed for not being able to balance work and family. Thus, this should be reworded differently or the fathers role should also be mentioned.

 

Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful observation regarding the role of fathers. While the current study focused specifically on maternal psychological distress due to its well-documented association with adolescent behavioral outcomes and the need to maintain a clear analytic scope, we agree that the role of fathers and other caregivers is equally important in shaping family dynamics and adolescent development. In response, we have revised the Discussion section to explicitly acknowledge the significance of paternal involvement and clarified that the exclusive focus on mothers represents a limitation of the present study rather than an implication of sole responsibility. Additionally, we have added a statement in the Limitations section emphasizing the need for future research to incorporate multi-informant and more inclusive models that account for the roles of all caregivers.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors need to check the reference section so it conforms to the guidelines of the journal and correct minor mistakes.

Author Response

Comment: “Authors need to check the reference section so it conforms to the guidelines of the journal and correct minor mistakes.”

Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We used EndNote to manage our references, and during the export of the .enw files we identified and corrected several formatting errors. We have then carefully reviewed and revised the entire reference list to ensure full compliance with the journal’s formatting requirements. All journal titles have been s appropriately abbreviated. DOIs have been added for all articles where available. Incorrect capitalization has been corrected. We believe the reference section now adheres precisely to the journal’s style guidelines.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your careful revisions, I still have some suggestions for you to further improve your manuscript:

(1) in the introduction, the resarch background and research question should be clearly stated; for example, why it's nessary to focus on Maternal Psychopathology , as well the underlying mechanism;

(2) the contents in the introduction should be streamlined ans shortened, at the same time, the evidences supporting the mediating model should be expanded and clearly stated;

(3) regading the culture differences, there is no necessary references in this part, and I think this part mainly state the necessity to conduct this study among Greece adolescents, this could be brieflt stated in the inttroduction rather than a independent part;

(4) I suggest that the analysis shoudl be streamlined and integrated, for example the descriptive statistics are not the mian research question of the study, which should be shortened; and the Hierarchical Regression Analysis is repetitive with the correlation and mediating effect analysis, which coudl be deleted;

(5) the contents in the procedure and measurements should be streamlinedn and shortened;

(6) the contents in the limitation part should be streamlined, the current are too long;

(7) the mian findings in the abstract should be be re-orginized 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I suggest that you could further improve the readability of the manuscript

Author Response

Comment 1: “In the introduction, the research background and research question should be clearly stated; for example, why it’s necessary to focus on maternal psychopathology, as well as the underlying mechanism.”

Response: Thank you for this important suggestion. We have made the following two changes: 1) At the end of the opening Introduction section (just before sub‐heading “1.1. Maternal Psychopathology and Family Functioning”), we inserted a new paragraph to clarify why maternal—and not general parental—psychopathology is our focus and to introduce the proposed mechanism. 2) In Section 1.3 (“Research Question and Hypotheses”), we replaced the original opening sentence with the following, mechanism‑focused wording: To what extent and by what mechanisms do maternal psychological distress and family functioning predict externalizing behavior problems in Greek adolescents, and does family functioning mediate this relationship? The remainder of the hypotheses paragraph has been left unchanged. We believe these edits more clearly articulate the study’s background, the necessity of focusing on maternal psychopathology, and the underlying mediating mechanism.

Comment 2: “The contents in the introduction should be streamlined and shortened, at the same time, the evidences supporting the mediating model should be expanded and clearly stated.”

Response: Thank you for this insightful comment. Initially, the introduction was more concise; however, in response to prior reviewer feedback, we expanded this section to provide a clearer conceptual framework and added subheadings to improve clarity and structure. Regarding the mediating model, we have now added a clarifying sentence at the end of Section 1.1 to explicitly state the rationale for testing family functioning as a mediator between maternal distress and adolescent externalizing behavior. This addition makes the theoretical basis for the mediation analysis more transparent, in line with your helpful suggestion.

Comment 3: “Regarding the culture differences, there is no necessary references in this part, and I think this part mainly states the necessity to conduct this study among Greek adolescents. This could be briefly stated in the introduction rather than as an independent part.”

 Response: Thank you for this observation. While we understand your concern regarding the length and placement of the cultural context section, we would like to clarify that this subsection was added in response to suggestions from other reviewers who emphasized the importance of situating the study within the specific sociocultural framework of Greek families. Given the scarcity of related research in Southern European contexts, particularly regarding family functioning and adolescent behavior, we felt that a brief, stand-alone subsection was warranted to contextualize the study’s contribution and relevance.

Comment 4: “I suggest that the analysis should be streamlined and integrated, for example the descriptive statistics are not the main research question of the study, which should be shortened; and the Hierarchical Regression Analysis is repetitive with the correlation and mediating effect analysis, which could be deleted.”

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We agree that focusing on the main research questions is important, and we have reviewed the statistical sections with that in mind. However, the current structure and level of detail in the analysis plan — including the presentation of descriptive statistics and the hierarchical regression model — were developed and retained in response to specific requests from reviewers during the first round of peer review. The descriptive statistics help contextualize key variables such as symptom levels and demographic distributions, and were considered important for transparency. The hierarchical regression analysis, although related to the correlational and mediation analyses, serves a distinct purpose: it establishes the incremental predictive value of maternal distress and family functioning after adjusting for background variables. It also provides a necessary precursor to the mediation model by confirming associations in a multivariate context. For these reasons, we have chosen to retain the existing analytic structure

Comment 5: “The contents in the procedure and measurements should be streamlined and shortened.”

 Response: Thank you for this helpful comment. In response, we have shortened the Procedure section and the description of the Demographic Questionnaire to improve readability and focus. However, we retained the full descriptions of the remaining measures, as they are essential for understanding the study’s findings, particularly given the multi-informant design and the role of measurement instruments in our regression and mediation analyses. These sections were also shaped by feedback from the first review round, where detailed reporting of psychometric properties and scoring procedures was explicitly requested. We hope this strikes an appropriate balance between brevity and methodological transparency.

Comment 6: “The contents in the limitation part should be streamlined, the current are too long.”

 Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We understand the importance of keeping the discussion concise. However, the current length and level of detail in the Limitations section reflect revisions made after the first round of peer review, where reviewers explicitly asked for a more comprehensive and analytically framed discussion of the study’s constraints. For this reason, we have chosen to retain the full section, as it ensures transparency and addresses key issues regarding generalizability, design limitations, and unmeasured variables. We hope this is acceptable in the context of earlier reviewer guidance.

Comment 7: “The main findings in the abstract should be reorganized.”

Response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. In response, we have revised the abstract to improve clarity, flow, and emphasis on the main findings.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has addressed all of my questions, and the manuscript has improved. However, the reference formatting does not appear to comply with the journal’s guidelines, and there are inconsistencies among the individual references.

Author Response

Comment: The author has addressed all of my questions, and the manuscript has improved. However, the reference formatting does not appear to comply with the journal’s guidelines, and there are inconsistencies among the individual references.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We used EndNote to manage our references, and during the export of the .enw files we identified and corrected several formatting errors. We have then carefully reviewed and revised the entire reference list to ensure full compliance with the journal’s formatting requirements. All journal titles have been s appropriately abbreviated. DOIs have been added for all articles where available. Incorrect capitalization has been corrected. We believe the reference section now adheres precisely to the journal’s style guidelines.