Exploratory Factor Analysis, Criterion and Psychometric Properties of a Proposed Scale to Measure the Risk of Eating Disorders in Adolescents (PETCA)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall comments:

The manuscript with the title “Exploratory factor analysis, criterion and psychometric properties of a proposed scale to measure the Risk of Eating Disorders in Adolescents (PETCA). Results and future considerations” presents an interesting and actual issue concerning with adolescents health and well-being. The topic is appropriate for publication in Societies journal.

The text (or the study) reveals several weaknesses that are strongly recommend for improvement.

Detailed comments:

For the title I suggest to remove the last sentence or subtitle “Results and future considerations” since it is part of all articles.

The abstract doesn’t present neither the aim of the study nor the methodology for data collection. Also, it should be shorter and more limited to the results than to what authors believe and suggest for future improvements. More precisely the second and separated paragraph needs to be reviewed. The last phrase of the first paragraph seems more appropriate to end the abstract.

Introduction:

The final of the first paragraph should explicit the several factors found in the literature and avoid the statement “among others”.

The reference 10 is too old to explain actual adolescent crisis and problems of identity. In addition, many references are indicated but not explored the idea of each one, and it is not the best way to present references. Also, considering this problem or disorder as multifactorial, in line 26 authors present references (2,3,7,8) but after in line 82 referred (5,6,7,8). Since it is the same idea a revision of the references is suggested, as well as a clarification of who referred what.

Methodology:

The type of methodology is not presented and it is highly recommended. It is noted a concern with the supportive literature for the type of scales and tests, but the construction of the instrument used is not clear.

Results:

In the final of the first paragraph, lines 160-161, when saying that the statement were based on … “literature review”, references should be presented here. Still in this paragraph, the acronym PETCA-PRE needs to be clarified previously to be used, and it was not done before. Perhaps, methodology could be a good place to explicit what instrument is it and how it was carried out. It seems that table 1 is more appropriate to be presented in methodology than in results section, since is doesn’t present results. Moreover, the signs “T” and “F” in the two right columns need to be clarified with a legend or in text.

Table 2 presents a number of valid cases of 33. Since the described sample included 605 participants, many information is missing here and it should be clearly presented.

In page 5, line 179 PIA is not clarified and it need to be done previously. Also, the title of the table, now with only 14 items, as the acronym PETCA, but nothing is explained about this.

Following, page 6, line 186, the same happen with PFA, and it is mentioned that it “was carried out again”, but nothing before referred to carry out PFA. Verify and replace.  

Page 8, line 211, VTE needs to be verified.

Page 10, line 237, mentioning “supported by literature”, at least one reference is need to support it; line 242 refers to a final scale with 20 items, but the table 8 presents 21 items. Verify and replace for the correct.

Page 11, table 9 presents “T.D.” in the last column but its meaning is not clarified.

Page 12, line 260, table 7 seems not the correct in respect to the phrase. It needs to be verified.

When using SCOFF (line 244) and SOFF (line 263) authors should pay attention if they are using the instrument described in methodology that has a different acronym. In contrary, these should be clarified. In addition, it is not understandable the use of SOFF, as mentioned in lines 262-265. Why to compare with it? Needs explanation.

Discussion:

Page 12: see line 275, if “5-factor factor structure” is the correct you want to refer.

Discussion reports to the effectiveness of the scale for EDs and several risk factors detection and authors affirm that their predictions were confirmed. Nevertheless, it is not in line with the whole text. First, the empirical component of the study is focused on the reliability of the scale, trying to reduce and add again several items and testing it, not approaching the risks presented by the sample; second, several limitations can invalid these predictions. In this sense, it is recommended to adjust to the focus of the study.

References:

References, in general, are well written according MDPI norms and many of it are actual. A weakness is that only less than 20% of the references are in English language, being the other in Spanish language. Some attention should be payed to this point, since the journal language is English and it is for international publication.

All the tables are not according to the template norms and it should be previously cared in order to show a better appearance of the text.

With a good reformulation considering the suggestions given, it can be a publishable article for the journal Societies.

Author Response

The text has been revised by a professional English team from our university.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

There is definitely scope for an eating disorders risk scale, and I think this is a good venture. The analysis is well conducted but the intro and discussion need to be revised in the context of peer reviewed science.

The introduction did not have enough peer-reviewed science to critically inform me about what has been done before that relates to this scale. It had, instead, too much conceptual theorising using undefined terms of art. The evidence base demonstrating that the items included were risk factors for eating disorders was absent.

The methods/results are adequate. The "SCOFF" questionnaire is misspelled. Some tables look like they are pasted from SPSS and poorly presented.

The discussion should critically evaluate this scale with other screening tools and relate back to peer-reviewed literature.

Author Response

The text has been revised by a professional English team from our university.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf