Validation of the Generative Acts Scale-Chinese Version (GAS-C) among Middle-Aged and Older Adults as Grandparents in Mainland China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article is on an important and timely topic. There is great variation in subjective well-being in custodial grandparents. Generativity is a potentially an important variable to understanding this variation. This manuscript appears to be nearly ready for publication. I suggest a few minor comments/clarifications as follows:

 

1. line 75-77 I would like to hear more about the reasoning for distinguishing                                         concerns from actions
2. line 94-103 I see that the difference between Hong Kong and mainland China is very                          This information section be contained in the section 1.1 for                            emphasis, it is a bit confusing in the specific aims section. Similarly,                                    references in the manuscript to 'China' might be changed to 'mainland                              China' to remind non-Chinese readers of the importance of this                                          distinction
3. line 112-116 The added hypothesis (?) about grandparent caregiving and generativity                           is misleading to the central focus of this paper as scale validation. It                             should  be deleted
4. line 130-131 Grandparent coresidence is different from living nearby. It would be                                  helpful if you reported the number of grandparents in each category.
5. line 143 The end of this line appears to be missing something. Do you mean to say                         that participants completed the informed consent process before taking                               the survey?
6. line 154-155 Readers will need more information about the translation of this scale                              into Mandarin.  Was it backtranslated?
7. line 163-164 This scale is referred to as PANAS
8. line 281 Should the title of this section be "Reliability?'
9. The results section of this paper is an excellent example of a scale                                      validation paper
10. line 430 It would be appropriate to add level of rurality to this limiation section

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Kindly find the attachment below.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf