Assessing the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test with Spanish Adolescents

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have very mixed feelings regarding this submission.

On the positive side, it is well-written, organized and contains no significant English language or grammatical errors.  The literature review is current and the methodology and statistical analyses are carefully described and appropriate. The Discussion section is also clear and directly follows from the derived analyses.

On the negative side, I am not certain the manuscript makes a notable addition to the extant literature.  The questionable reliability described in the present study has already been well-documented as well as the inconsistent factor structure.  For example, a literature review not cited in the manuscript (Higgins, W. C., Kaplan, D. M., Deschrijver, E., & Ross, R. M. (2024). Construct validity evidence reporting practices for the Reading the mind in the eyes test: A systematic scoping review. Clinical Psychology Review, 108, 102378.) described a number of studies that had already been completed that had examined the psychometric properties of the scale.

If this study is to go forward the author(s) should either expand their literature review so that the current findings can be better contextualized, or provide more emphasis that their findings with adolescents is somehow unique and adds to the scientific literature.

The Tables are clearly presented and need no additional editing.

Author Response

We want to thank the reviewers for their careful reading and their insightful comments and suggestions. We adapted the previous version of the paper by emphasizing the purpose of the study while providing more background regarding adolescence, collective application of the test and the sample nationality. 

In the following section we provide the specific changes we made according to the reviewers' suggestions.  

REVIEWER 1 

Comments 1: I have very mixed feelings regarding this submission. 

On the positive side, it is well-written, organized and contains no significant English language or grammatical errors.  The literature review is current and the methodology and statistical analyses are carefully described and appropriate. The Discussion section is also clear and directly follows from the derived analyses. 

On the negative side, I am not certain the manuscript makes a notable addition to the extant literature.  The questionable reliability described in the present study has already been well-documented as well as the inconsistent factor structure.  For example, a literature review not cited in the manuscript (Higgins, W. C., Kaplan, D. M., Deschrijver, E., & Ross, R. M. (2024). Construct validity evidence reporting practices for the Reading the mind in the eyes test: A systematic scoping review. Clinical Psychology Review, 108, 102378.) described a number of studies that had already been completed that had examined the psychometric properties of the scale. 

If this study is to go forward the author(s) should either expand their literature review so that the current findings can be better contextualized, or provide more emphasis that their findings with adolescents is somehow unique and adds to the scientific literature. 

Response 1: Thank you for your thoughtful suggestions. Based on your feedback, we have incorporated the review article you recommended (page 4, line139), which has contributed to enriching the theoretical framework and better contextualizing the current state of the literature in relation to our findings on the administration of the RMET in adolescents. Moreover, we contextualized more the paper focusing on the strengths which are Adolescense, Collective application and the fact that it is a Spanish sample which have scarce evidence. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

In my view, instrument validations should be thoroughly explained, both from a theoretical perspective and in terms of their relevance. The introduction needs to be more well-grounded and developed. The discussion should also be further elaborated. Consider conducting factor analyses of the scale. It is important to clarify whether the main objective is to validate the scale.

In Table 2, it would be important to present words in spanish and in english.

Author Response

Comments 1: Dear authors, In my view, instrument validations should be thoroughly explained, both from a theoretical perspective and in terms of their relevance. The introduction needs to be more well-grounded and developed. The discussion should also be further elaborated. Consider conducting factor analyses of the scale. It is important to clarify whether the main objective is to validate the scale. 

Response 1:Thank you for your suggestion, it is much appreciated. The main objective of the study, however, was not to conduct a full validation but to test its performance with a sample of Spanish-speaking adolescents.  

Nonetheless, validation procedures are certainly used to support the findings. We included the Parallel analysis in Figure 4 and EFA analysis in Supplementary Materials. 

Please note than in present study we defined the main objective:  
“... the purpose of the current study is to assess the psychometric properties of the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET), regarding its suitability for adolescent cohorts and its appropriateness in collective applications (Redondo & Herrero-Fernández, 2018). To enhance the understanding of the construct validity and reliability of the RMET, our study delves into evaluating the factorial structure of the test and the efficacy of several models and previously suggested methodologies aimed at maximizing the instrument psychometric properties. Additionally, we aim to validate the appropriateness of the collective application in an educational context and to provide new insights regarding the RMET performance in Spanish language. 

..” 

Comments 2:In Table 2, it would be important to present words in spanish and in english. 

Response 2:Thanks for the advice. We added the correct answers in English. (page 8, line 266)

Comments 3:TITLE: It would be important to include the nationality/country of the study, especially when it comes to validations. 

Response 3:Thanks for the advice. We included nationality in the title. (page 1, line 3)

Comments 4: INTRODUCTION: For me, it would be important to clarify the importance of this study, and it would also be important to present a more developed theoretical background.

Response 4: Thank you for your suggestions. They have been carefully considered, and the theoretical framework has been enriched by incorporating findings from key reference studies, including a recent systematic review. 

Comments 5: The conclusions are poor. 

Response 5: The conclusions have been reorganized and partially rewritten in the current version of the study. Thank you for your time and careful reading. Given the sample size we restricted the scope of the results to their basic implications and made few assumptions. However, we cited previous literature, including the systematic review, which is aligned with our findings. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have read the revised manuscript and can now support publication in Psychology International. The author(s) did a nice job incorporating my recommendations, specifically, the inclusion of the Higgins, et al., 2024 article greatly strengthens the literature review and better situates the results of the current study.  Further, the decision to put more focus on the two unique aspects of the study, the use of an adolescent population, in a Spanish speaking country, provides greater focus and context.  The overall tone of the manuscript, highlighting the psychometric limitations of the instrument, has also been sufficiently strengthened.  Overall, a very solid revision.

I have read the revised manuscript and can now support publication in Psychology International. The author(s) did a nice job incorporating my recommendations, specifically, the inclusion of the Higgins, et al., 2024 article greatly strengthens the literature review and better situates the results of the current study.  Further, the decision to put more focus on the two unique aspects of the study, the use of an adolescent population, in a Spanish speaking country, provides greater focus and context.  The overall tone of the manuscript, highlighting the psychometric limitations of the instrument, has also been sufficiently strengthened.  Overall, a very solid revision.