Development and Validation of a Nursing Work Interruption Scale
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is professional work. The authors have followed the rule book and the final instrument has good psychometric properties.
I lack a more extensive discussion regarding the potential future use of this instrument. I imagine that the analysis of the prevalence of different items will be a good starting point. If the scores are generally high for all items in a work place it indicates that the whole work environment is bad and needs to be re-organized and perhaps resources will have to be added. But in most units it will be either the doctors or the number of patients or relatives that constitute the worst problem.
I feel that the authors could have added more about noise because that specific problem has been studied for instance in the following study
Influence of intensive coronary care acoustics on the quality of care and physiological state of patients.
Int J Cardiol. 2005 Feb 15;98(2):267-70. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2003.11.006.Author Response
I attached response to reviewer' comments as a file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
First of all, congratulations for the work carried out, it is a very interesting research and the methodology of the study is very well defined and developed. After reviewing the manuscript, it could be improved in the following points:
The introduction does not address two issues of interest related to the subject under study.
1. Due to the subject matter, the introduction should show the concept of burnout as an occupational problem related to work interruptions. Questionnaires such as Maslach's MBI, which are frequently used in research, can be used to determine the level of burnout. This level may be a variable that can determine biases in your new questionnaire.
2. Due to the period of the study, the introduction should address the changes in the workplace as a consequence of the pandemic, which are also not discussed in the limitations of the study.
Best regards.
Author Response
I attached the response to reviewer's comments as a file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Congratulations on the topic, it is a problem that nurses struggle with on a daily basis and in order to intervene it is necessary to know the extent of the problem.
Well-structured, clear framework that allows you to know the scope of the issue under study objectively.
In content validation it is important to define the inclusion criteria for the experts and the justification for the number of participating experts. The rest of the explanation is a bit ambiguous, it should be better explained.
In the Pilot Survey the minimum number of participants according to the bibliography must be presented and justified. The inclusion criteria are missing and justified according to the scope of the scale. This sub-chapter should be better presented, it is not very developed or clear.
In the Validation of the scale (line 172) the minimum number of participants according to the bibliography should be presented and justified. The inclusion criteria are not clear or well organized and should be justified according to the scope of the scale. This sub-chapter should be better presented, it is not very developed or clear.
The conclusion could be more developed, namely regarding the answer to the study's objective and the most relevant findings and limitations.
Author Response
I attached the response to reviewer's comments as a file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors!
I think that the changes you have made to the article have responded to my suggestions for improvement. Thus, I consider that the work has quality for publication.
With best regards
