The Polish Version of the Parental Assistance with Child Emotion Regulation (PACER) Questionnaire: Preliminary Psychometric Properties and Links with Parental Burnout, Mental Health Outcomes, and Emotion Beliefs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction

1) The first paragraph does not provide sufficient literature coverage. The references cited (lines 47–54) are not strong enough to support the general statements made. Including more comprehensive and up-to-date sources would strengthen the rationale.

2) In lines 80–92, the same reference (Cohodes et al., 2022) is cited twice, which makes the paragraph unnecessarily long. The second mention could be streamlined with a transition such as “Cohodes et al. (2022) also found that …” to improve readability.

3) The introduction (lines 93–117) reiterates several elements (e.g., parental burnout, anxiety/depression, somatic complaints, well-being, and adaptive/maladaptive strategies). While these are important, the text would benefit from streamlining to reduce redundancy and enhance clarity.

4) The aims and hypotheses are clearly stated and align with the study rationale. However, given the relatively small sample size, the examination of latent structure and demographic associations should be explicitly framed as exploratory and interpreted with caution.

Methods

1) The inclusion of two participants who did not fully meet the predefined eligibility criteria (one with the youngest child over 18, and one with missing age data) is inconsistent with the stated inclusion/exclusion rules. While this may not substantially affect the findings given the pilot nature of the study, this deviation should be clearly acknowledged as a limitation to ensure transparency.

2) The data quality control procedures are generally appropriate, with multiple attention check items and clear exclusion criteria. However, the self-reported attention check item (“please indicate whether you have filled out the survey reliably and attentively”) may be prone to social desirability bias. While the overall approach is acceptable, this limitation should be noted for transparency.

3) In Section 2.2 (Participants), descriptive statistics (e.g., age ranges, means, child characteristics) are currently presented. These would be more appropriately reported in the Results section. The Methods section should focus on recruitment and inclusion criteria, while participant characteristics and distributions should be summarized under Results.

4) The manuscript currently mentions Dylan Gee by name in the Methods section. Journals generally prefer such acknowledgments to be placed in the Acknowledgments section (e.g., “We thank Dr. Dylan Gee for providing feedback on the back translation”). This would improve the stylistic clarity of the Methods.

Analytic Strategy
5) The analytic strategy is overall sound and clearly explained. That said, the sample is quite small, so the exploratory factor analyses (both for latent structure and discriminant validity) really need to be interpreted with caution. Also, the choice of varimax rotation assumes the factors are uncorrelated, but adaptive and maladaptive strategies are likely related—an oblique rotation might have been a better fit. Lastly, the demographic comparisons (e.g., age, education) are likely underpowered in this sample and should probably be described as exploratory only.

Results

1. While the reported descriptive and correlational findings are consistent with theoretical expectations, the small sample size (N = 74) substantially limits statistical power, particularly for the exploratory factor analyses (EFA) involving 10–14 variables. These results should therefore be interpreted as preliminary and exploratory, with stronger confirmation needed in larger samples.

2. The choice of varimax rotation in the factor analyses assumes orthogonal factors, whereas adaptive and maladaptive strategies are likely correlated. An oblique rotation (e.g., oblimin) would have been more appropriate. This could be acknowledged as a methodological limitation.

3. The rumination subscale demonstrated a relatively low factor loading (.36) and weak associations with external correlates. The authors should discuss whether this reflects cultural influences or potential measurement issues with this subscale.

4. The discriminant validity analysis (PACER + EBQ) revealed a notable cross-loading for the EBQ Negative-Usefulness subscale. This may indicate partial overlap between constructs and should be discussed. Again, conclusions should remain cautious given the limited sample size.

5. The reporting of both Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω is commendable. However, consistently high coefficients (≥ .83) may raise the possibility of item redundancy, which could be briefly acknowledged.

6. The relatively low reliability of some external measures (e.g., PHQ-4 Anxiety, α = .61) may have attenuated the observed correlations. This should be noted as a limitation.

7. The percentages of parents with clinically significant burnout are informative, but given the small absolute numbers (14 individuals), these findings should be interpreted with caution.

8. The demographic analyses (parent age, education) are underpowered, particularly given the very small number of fathers (n = 4). These results should be explicitly described as exploratory and not generalized.

   Discussion 

   1. The discussion effectively situates the Polish PACER findings within the broader international literature. However, the factor analytic results should be more explicitly framed as preliminary, given the small sample size.

   2. The cross-cultural comparisons emphasize similarities but do not consider potential cultural differences in emotion socialization practices. Reflecting on such nuances would enrich the discussion and highlight the unique contribution of the Polish context.

   3. The rumination subscale showed weaker psychometric properties (low factor loading, fewer significant associations). This warrants further attention, and the authors might discuss whether this reflects cultural influences or possible measurement limitations.

   4. The consistently high internal consistency values (≥ .83) may suggest potential item redundancy. This could be briefly acknowledged in the limitations.

   5. The relatively low reliability of some external measures (e.g., PHQ-4 Anxiety, EBQ Negative-Controllability) may have attenuated correlations with PACER subscales. This limitation should be noted.

   6. The average child age in the sample was approximately 8 years. As parental assistance strategies may vary by developmental stage, the absence of age-stratified analyses should be acknowledged as a limitation.

      TABLES

      1) Table 1 currently combines both categorical (e.g., gender, disability) and continuous variables (e.g., age, time spent with children), with means, SDs, and ranges presented in single cells. This presentation appears somewhat dense. The authors could consider either separating categorical and continuous variables into two different tables, or adding dedicated columns for M, SD, and Range, which would improve readability and align with common reporting practices.

Author Response

We would like to thank the editor and the five reviewers for their positive and encouraging feedback on our submission. The constructive comments of reviewers helped us to significantly improve the quality of this submission. We have been through all comments one by one, edited the manuscript in detail, and added new material where required. We hope the editor and reviewers find the revised version of the manuscript clear and suitable for publication in Children. All changes made are highlighted in red (in the replies and the revised paper).

 

 

Introduction

1) The first paragraph does not provide sufficient literature coverage. The references cited (lines 47–54) are not strong enough to support the general statements made. Including more comprehensive and up-to-date sources would strengthen the rationale.

 

Reply: Thank for this suggestion. We have now added 5 new references, including reviews and meta-analysis, to support our claims.

 

2) In lines 80–92, the same reference (Cohodes et al., 2022) is cited twice, which makes the paragraph unnecessarily long. The second mention could be streamlined with a transition such as “Cohodes et al. (2022) also found that …” to improve readability.

 

Reply: We agree that Cohodes et al. (2022) were cited twice. However, these are not side by side citations, because the space between two citations is relatively long. Citing Cohodes et al. (2022) in parentheses or as suggested by name does not change the size of the text, as the same information (i.e., name and year) should be placed. Therefore, at this moment, we would like to leave our text as it is. However, if the Editorial Board would like to have this text edited in another way, we would be happy to further edit our paper.

 

3) The introduction (lines 93–117) reiterates several elements (e.g., parental burnout, anxiety/depression, somatic complaints, well-being, and adaptive/maladaptive strategies). While these are important, the text would benefit from streamlining to reduce redundancy and enhance clarity.

 

Reply: We agree with this comment, and we have now streamlined the text as suggested.

 

4) The aims and hypotheses are clearly stated and align with the study rationale. However, given the relatively small sample size, the examination of latent structure and demographic associations should be explicitly framed as exploratory and interpreted with caution.

Reply: Thank you for your positive feedback on the aims and hypotheses. We have now explicitly framed these analyses as exploratory or hypothesis-generating and agenda-setting analyses, which should be interpreted with caution. Please see the last paragraph of the introduction.

 

Methods

1) The inclusion of two participants who did not fully meet the predefined eligibility criteria (one with the youngest child over 18, and one with missing age data) is inconsistent with the stated inclusion/exclusion rules. While this may not substantially affect the findings given the pilot nature of the study, this deviation should be clearly acknowledged as a limitation to ensure transparency.

Reply: In our study, we were as transparent as possible, therefore, we explicitly described these two exceptions when describing inclusion and exclusion criteria. We believed that it was enough to note this in the methodological section, however, after reading your comment, we deem that your request to add this piece of information in the limitations section is very helpful, as it will further ensure transparency. As such, we have now referred to this information in the limitations section too: “To further ensure transparency, we would like to highlight that we applied two reasonable minor exceptions to inclusion criteria, as described in Procedure section. Given the pilot nature of this study, we believe these exceptions are reasonable.”

 

2) The data quality control procedures are generally appropriate, with multiple attention check items and clear exclusion criteria. However, the self-reported attention check item (“please indicate whether you have filled out the survey reliably and attentively”) may be prone to social desirability bias. While the overall approach is acceptable, this limitation should be noted for transparency.

Reply: Thank you for your positive feedback. We have now noted this as a limitation.

 

3) In Section 2.2 (Participants), descriptive statistics (e.g., age ranges, means, child characteristics) are currently presented. These would be more appropriately reported in the Results section. The Methods section should focus on recruitment and inclusion criteria, while participant characteristics and distributions should be summarized under Results.

Reply: We described our participants in the Materials and Methods section. We understand that different authors prefer to post demographic characteristics in different places of a manuscript. We believe that participants should be described in the Materials and Methods section, not in the Results section, as participants refer to Materials. In our view, the results section should contain the effects of analyses done, not elements of participant descriptions. Overall, this is aligned with American Psychological Association (APA) standards. Therefore, we would not like to change the descriptions of participants. However, if the Editorial Board would like to have these descriptions in the Results section, we would be happy to further edit our paper.

 

4) The manuscript currently mentions Dylan Gee by name in the Methods section. Journals generally prefer such acknowledgments to be placed in the Acknowledgments section (e.g., “We thank Dr. Dylan Gee for providing feedback on the back translation”). This would improve the stylistic clarity of the Methods.

Reply: As for mentioning Dylan Gee in the Methods section, this was done to demonstrate the steps of translation procedures and who exactly analyzed the back translation: “This translation was sent to the developers of the English PACER to collate it with the original questionnaire. One of the PACER’s creators, Dylan Gee (Cohodes et al., 2022), reviewed this back translation, and suggested minor edits.”. At the same time, Dylan Gee was mentioned in the Acknowledgements section. Following these arguments, we would like to leave our text as it is as Dylan Gee is already included in the Acknowledgements section, and deleting her name from the Methods section would decrease transparency.

 

Analytic Strategy
5) The analytic strategy is overall sound and clearly explained. That said, the sample is quite small, so the exploratory factor analyses (both for latent structure and discriminant validity) really need to be interpreted with caution. Also, the choice of varimax rotation assumes the factors are uncorrelated, but adaptive and maladaptive strategies are likely related—an oblique rotation might have been a better fit. Lastly, the demographic comparisons (e.g., age, education) are likely underpowered in this sample and should probably be described as exploratory only.

Reply: Thank you for your general and positive comment on the Analytic Strategy. In your next comments and our replies to you, we have addressed all the above-indicated issues in detail, and explained our choices (i.e., varimax rotation).

 

Results

1. While the reported descriptive and correlational findings are consistent with theoretical expectations, the small sample size (N = 74) substantially limits statistical power, particularly for the exploratory factor analyses (EFA) involving 10–14 variables. These results should therefore be interpreted as preliminary and exploratory, with stronger confirmation needed in larger samples.

Reply: We have now further indicated the preliminary and exploratory nature of our analyses, adding several statements in the Discussion and Limitations sections. For instance, we have now added these arguments: “The sample size was relatively small, but still enough for the first examination of basic psychometric properties of the PACER (i.e., internal consistency reliability and convergent and divergent validity). While this sample size was enough for assessing these basic psychometric properties, our exploratory factor analyses may be less conclusive. By their nature, these analyses were preliminary, and we do not treat them as a central part of this study to provide definitive conclusions. We would like to highlight that the required sample size was determined based on the established criteria as described in our Analytic Strategy section. While some researchers may treat these criteria as liberal, we believe that they are reasonable for implementing preliminary exploratory factor analysis on a subscale level.”

 

2. The choice of varimax rotation in the factor analyses assumes orthogonal factors, whereas adaptive and maladaptive strategies are likely correlated. An oblique rotation (e.g., oblimin) would have been more appropriate. This could be acknowledged as a methodological limitation.

Reply: Thank you for this suggestion. We have recalculated EFA results with oblimin rotation, and the results are almost identical (differences are very minimal, they do not change substantially any findings). Oblimin or varimax rotations show almost the same results when patterns of correlations between variables are clear (Tabachnick & Fidell 2007). We have now added a note about this (“Changing rotation from varimax to oblimin does not change the results substantially”) as well as provided a correlation between the adaptive and maladaptive strategies composite scores, which was around 0 and statistically insignificant, which further suggesting the usage of varimax rotation in our analyses. We have now also added a statement: “For completeness and comparability reasons, we conducted the same set of exploratory factor analyses with the oblimin rotation, assuming factors were correlated. Nonetheless, changing rotation from varimax to oblimin did not change the results substantially; therefore, for parsimoniousness reasons, we decided to demonstrate the results with the varimax rotation only.”

 

3. The rumination subscale demonstrated a relatively low factor loading (.36) and weak associations with external correlates. The authors should discuss whether this reflects cultural influences or potential measurement issues with this subscale.

Reply: Thank you for your comment. Overall, we believe that the indicated pattern is rather related to a general trend in the data, with maladaptive strategies (vs adaptive ones) showing less significant associations with other correlated, rather than cultural influences or possible measurement limitations. We have now added several sentences explaining this:

“As for the rumination subscale, it demonstrated a somewhat lower factor loading (0.36), but this subscale was still associated with Factor 2 and had no cross-loadings on Factor 1. The descriptive analysis demonstrated that this was one of the least frequently used strategies across the ten PACER strategies. In our view, this is one of the possible explanations of such a lowered factor loading.”

 

“We would like to note that individual PACER subscales demonstrated less or more significant links with other correlates. For instance, behavioral disengagement, distraction, and rumination were the least connected strategies to the correlates used. In contrast, venting, reappraisal, and social support search were the most connected strategies to the correlates. These adaptive strategies seem to be the central strategies across the set of strategies, as measured with the PACER. Overall, the patterns of correlations may suggest the existence of a general trend, with adaptive strategies being the most clinically significant strategies compared to maladaptive strategies. A probable explanation of this trend may be the fact that parents less frequently used maladaptive strategies compared to adaptive strategies. Future studies should examine whether adaptive strategies demonstrate higher clinical relevance over maladaptive strategies.”

 

4. The discriminant validity analysis (PACER + EBQ) revealed a notable cross-loading for the EBQ Negative-Usefulness subscale. This may indicate partial overlap between constructs and should be discussed. Again, conclusions should remain cautious given the limited sample size.

Reply: We have now added a short sentence explaining this: “While this notable cross-loading is present, it may be a statistical artifact in this preliminary analysis rather than potential overlap between the constructs, given the EBQ Negative-Usefulness subscale loaded to a higher extent on its respective Factor 3 “Emotion beliefs”.

 

5. The reporting of both Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω is commendable. However, consistently high coefficients (≥ .83) may raise the possibility of item redundancy, which could be briefly acknowledged.

Reply: We have now discussed this in the Limitations section (please refer to the Limitations).

 

6. The relatively low reliability of some external measures (e.g., PHQ-4 Anxiety, α = .61) may have attenuated the observed correlations. This should be noted as a limitation.

Reply: We have now discussed this in the Limitations section (please refer to the Limitations).

 

7. The percentages of parents with clinically significant burnout are informative, but given the small absolute numbers (14 individuals), these findings should be interpreted with caution.

Reply: We have now added a sentence describing this limitation: “While these preliminary descriptive analyses should be interpreted with caution, these specific descriptions of the examined sample are informative and may be used for cross-cultural comparative analyses.”

 

8. The demographic analyses (parent age, education) are underpowered, particularly given the very small number of fathers (n = 4). These results should be explicitly described as exploratory and not generalized.

Reply: We have now added several statements describing these analyses as preliminary: “We preliminarily examined whether age and education were linked to PACER strategies. Age was associated with rumination (r = –0.24, p < 0.05), whereas other PACER strategies were not related to age (p > 0.05). Our multivariate analysis of variance indicated that education levels (secondary versus higher) did not differentiate the use of all PACER strategies (p > 0.05). The strong gender imbalance of the sample impeded comparisons between mothers and fathers. Overall, these preliminary demographic associations should be interpreted with caution.”

 

Discussion 

1. The discussion effectively situates the Polish PACER findings within the broader international literature. However, the factor analytic results should be more explicitly framed as preliminary, given the small sample size.

Reply: We have now further stressed that these were preliminary analyses. In the paragraph describing this analysis, we have now noted: “However, given the relatively small sample size, the results of our exploratory factor analysis should be considered tentative, not definitive. The observed patterns therefore should be investigated in future studies with larger samples using comprehensive analyses (e.g., a higher-order confirmatory factor analysis).”

 

2. The cross-cultural comparisons emphasize similarities but do not consider potential cultural differences in emotion socialization practices. Reflecting on such nuances would enrich the discussion and highlight the unique contribution of the Polish context.

Reply: We believe that our manuscript is a standard psychometric paper, describing preliminary psychometric properties of the PACER. The main results of our study are very similar to all available validation studies of the PACER across other languages. While we understand the intention of Reviewer 1 here, we believe that the number of studies on the PACER is so limited to discuss “potential cultural differences in emotion socialization practices”. In our view, this would be beyond the paper’s scope and its analyses. However, if the Editorial Board would like to have these speculations, we would be happy to further edit our paper to try to present them.

 

3. The rumination subscale showed weaker psychometric properties (low factor loading, fewer significant associations). This warrants further attention, and the authors might discuss whether this reflects cultural influences or possible measurement limitations.

Reply: Thank you for your comment. Overall, we believe that the indicated pattern is rather related to a general trend in the data, with maladaptive strategies (vs adaptive ones) showing less significant associations with other correlated, rather than cultural influences or possible measurement limitations. We have now added several sentences explaining this: “We would like to note that individual PACER subscales demonstrated less or more significant links with other correlates. For instance, behavioral disengagement, distraction, and rumination were the least connected strategies to the correlates used. In contrast, venting, reappraisal, and social support search were the most connected strategies to the correlates. These adaptive strategies seem to be the central strategies across the set of strategies, as measured with the PACER. Overall, the patterns of correlations may suggest the existence of a general trend, with adaptive strategies being the most clinically significant strategies compared to maladaptive strategies. A probable explanation of this trend may be the fact that parents less frequently used maladaptive strategies compared to adaptive strategies. Future studies should examine whether adaptive strategies demonstrate higher clinical relevance over maladaptive strategies.”

 

4. The consistently high internal consistency values (≥ .83) may suggest potential item redundancy. This could be briefly acknowledged in the limitations.

Reply: We have now discussed this: “It should be noted that several subscales of the Polish PACER had very high internal consistency reliability coefficients (≥0.90), which would have suggested item redundancy (see Panayides, 2013; Tavakol & Dennick, 2011). In our view, PACER subscales measure highly specific psychological constructs (i.e., clearly defined emotion regulation strategies). As such, we do not treat these high coefficients as an item redundancy issue.”

 

5. The relatively low reliability of some external measures (e.g., PHQ-4 Anxiety, EBQ Negative-Controllability) may have attenuated correlations with PACER subscales. This limitation should be noted.

Reply: Thank you for your comments. We have now indicated this in the Limitations section:

“We would like to notice that two subscales of our external measures had relatively low internal consistency reliability, with reliability coefficients of 0.61 and 0.67 for the 2-item PHQ-4 Anxiety subscale and 4-item EBQ Negative-Controllability subscale, respectively. While some psychometricians may treat these values as unacceptable, we believe that for research purposes these reliability coefficients are reasonable, given these subscales represent wide psychological constructs, which are being measured with only two to four items.”

 

6. The average child age in the sample was approximately 8 years. As parental assistance strategies may vary by developmental stage, the absence of age-stratified analyses should be acknowledged as a limitation.

Reply: Thank you for your helpful comment. We have now added this as a limitation: “In this study, the average age of the youngest (or only) child was around 8 years. While parental assistance with child emotion regulation can vary between children's developmental stages, due to the pilot nature of the study, we did not implement age-stratified analyses. Future studies should investigate which strategies are less or more frequently used during different developmental stages.”

 

TABLES

1) Table 1 currently combines both categorical (e.g., gender, disability) and continuous variables (e.g., age, time spent with children), with means, SDs, and ranges presented in single cells. This presentation appears somewhat dense. The authors could consider either separating categorical and continuous variables into two different tables, or adding dedicated columns for M, SD, and Range, which would improve readability and align with common reporting practices.

Reply: We have carefully analysed this suggestion. We believe that many papers use the same format of data presentation as we did. We deem that creating two different tables will decrease readability and make the paper unnecessary complex, taking into account that these scoiodemographic data are not the central part of the paper. As such, we would like to maintain the current format. However, if the Editorial Board would like to have these data separated in two tables, we would be happy to further edit our paper. Thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents a valuable contribution to the field of psychometrics and parental research. The following evaluation addresses the main sections of the manuscript, its theoretical and methodological contributions, as well as recommendations for improvement.

The abstract meets the standards of an empirical article as it clearly presents the central aim—preliminary validation of the Polish PACER version—, describes the sample (74 parents), and summarises the key findings on reliability and validity. The practical contribution is well stated, underlining the clinical relevance of the tool. However, the abstract could be enriched by explicitly mentioning the analytical methodology (exploratory factor analysis and tests of convergent/divergent validity) and by reporting more precise reliability indices. This would enhance scientific communication and provide greater accuracy.

The introduction is theoretically well-grounded. It reviews the contributions of Gross (1998, 2015) and Cohodes et al. (2022) to support the relevance of emotion regulation and the parental role. It also contextualises the research gap in Polish populations, thereby justifying the pertinence of the study. A strength lies in the integration of recent literature (2022–2024), showing up-to-date references. To improve the theoretical background included in the manuscript, I propose the following suggestions: First, strengthen the critical analysis of the literature, going beyond descriptive summaries of emotion regulation models to highlight tensions, inconsistencies, or emerging debates in this thematic field. This would allow the introduction to position the study not only as a replication, but as a contribution to ongoing theoretical discussions. Second, it is advisable to incorporate a more explicit cross-cultural perspective on parental emotion socialization, addressing how cultural norms can influence the use of adaptive and maladaptive strategies. Precisely for this reason, by situating the Polish validation within broader frameworks of cultural psychology, the study could better justify its relevance, scope, and originality. Third, the introduction should establish clearer conceptual links between parental burnout, beliefs about emotions, and emotion regulation practices, articulating a more integrative model. The above would enrich the theoretical justification and provide more solid bases for interpreting the associations evaluated in the empirical section.

The method section is transparent and ethically sound, meeting replication standards. The sample, however, is small (n = 74) and heavily skewed towards university-educated mothers, which reduces representativeness. Quality-control measures were applied (attention checks, exclusion of invalid cases), which is a methodological strength. The PACER translation process followed international standards (back-translation, pilot testing), ensuring linguistic and cultural validity. Statistical analysis, based on reliability (α and ω), correlations, and exploratory factor analysis, is consistent with the study aims. Nevertheless, the absence of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) or measurement invariance testing weakens the robustness of the evidence, even when recognising the limitations of sample size. Likewise, temporal stability (test-retest) was not examined, which is crucial for psychometric studies.

The results are presented in an organised and clear manner, with tables and statistical indices. All PACER subscales show acceptable to excellent reliability, convergent/divergent validity is confirmed, and adaptive versus maladaptive strategies are differentiated. The discriminant validity against emotion beliefs is also well reported. A critical observation is that the analyses rely exclusively on bivariate correlations, which restricts the understanding of more complex relations. Alternative approaches such as structural equation modelling could have captured mediation or indirect effects, thereby enriching the findings.

The discussion succeeds in contextualising the results in relation to previous studies, confirming cross-cultural comparability with English- and Turkish-speaking samples. Limitations are adequately acknowledged: small sample size, cross-sectional design, gender bias, and absence of child outcome measures. Practical implications are highlighted, especially the clinical relevance of reducing parental burnout. However, the discussion could offer a deeper reflection on the innovative contribution of the study. Although the importance of a Polish validation is emphasised, the text lacks a critical analysis of cultural differences in emotional socialisation, which narrows the scope of scientific novelty.

As a proposal, I share potential areas for improvement of the manuscript:Structure and writing:

1. Methodological expansion:
• Conduct confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and measurement invariance testing to reinforce structural validity.
• Include longitudinal or test-retest designs to evaluate temporal stability.
• Apply structural equation modelling to examine mediational pathways between emotion beliefs, burnout, and regulation strategies.
2. The inclusion of child outcomes (e.g., socio-emotional adjustment) would broaden explanatory and clinical relevance. Moreover, exploring socio-demographic factors such as socio-economic status or rural/urban contexts would allow for more differentiated analyses.
3. Scientific novelty: The contribution could be reinforced by problematising cultural influences on emotion regulation practices, discussing whether categories of “adaptive” and “maladaptive” strategies are equally applicable in the Polish context.

Given the relevance of the topics included in the manuscript, I would recommend enhancing the study's scope in terms of its writing and argumentative quality. First, I would propose broadening the scope of future applications by incorporating longitudinal and multi-informant designs. This would allow the PACER not only to capture parenting practices at a given time point but also to track their stability, change, and predictive value for children's socioemotional outcomes. Second, it is essential to enhance the instrument's clinical and preventive implications by projecting its use in intervention programs aimed at reducing parental burnout and promoting adaptive regulation strategies. For example, integrating the tool into parent training initiatives could strengthen its translational impact and demonstrate its utility beyond the research context. Third, the study should be designed toward cross-cultural and comparative validations, examining the Polish version alongside other linguistic adaptations. This would contribute to the creation of robust international norms, allowing for culturally sensitive interpretations of parenting assistance strategies, and consolidating the PACER as a globally relevant instrument.

Author Response

We would like to thank the editor and the five reviewers for their positive and encouraging feedback on our submission. The constructive comments of reviewers helped us to significantly improve the quality of this submission. We have been through all comments one by one, edited the manuscript in detail, and added new material where required. We hope the editor and reviewers find the revised version of the manuscript clear and suitable for publication in Children. All changes made are highlighted in red (in the replies and the revised paper).

The article presents a valuable contribution to the field of psychometrics and parental research. The following evaluation addresses the main sections of the manuscript, its theoretical and methodological contributions, as well as recommendations for improvement.

The abstract meets the standards of an empirical article as it clearly presents the central aim—preliminary validation of the Polish PACER version—, describes the sample (74 parents), and summarises the key findings on reliability and validity. The practical contribution is well stated, underlining the clinical relevance of the tool. However, the abstract could be enriched by explicitly mentioning the analytical methodology (exploratory factor analysis and tests of convergent/divergent validity) and by reporting more precise reliability indices. This would enhance scientific communication and provide greater accuracy.

Reply: We have now specified our internal consistency reliability coefficients (“e.g., Cronbach’s alpha of ≥0.83”) in the abstract. In terms of other elements like mentioning exploratory factor analysis and tests of convergent/divergent validity, we believe that due to the word limit in the abstract adding these elements means deleting other vital parts of the abstract. However, if the Editorial Board would like to have these analyses mentioned in the abstract, we would be happy to further edit our paper.

The introduction is theoretically well-grounded. It reviews the contributions of Gross (1998, 2015) and Cohodes et al. (2022) to support the relevance of emotion regulation and the parental role. It also contextualises the research gap in Polish populations, thereby justifying the pertinence of the study. A strength lies in the integration of recent literature (2022–2024), showing up-to-date references. To improve the theoretical background included in the manuscript, I propose the following suggestions:

First, strengthen the critical analysis of the literature, going beyond descriptive summaries of emotion regulation models to highlight tensions, inconsistencies, or emerging debates in this thematic field. This would allow the introduction to position the study not only as a replication, but as a contribution to ongoing theoretical discussions. Second, it is advisable to incorporate a more explicit cross-cultural perspective on parental emotion socialization, addressing how cultural norms can influence the use of adaptive and maladaptive strategies. Precisely for this reason, by situating the Polish validation within broader frameworks of cultural psychology, the study could better justify its relevance, scope, and originality.

Reply: Thank you for your very positive evaluation of our introduction. We have carefully analysed your proposal regarding going beyond descriptive summaries of emotion regulation models to highlight tensions, inconsistencies, or emerging debates in this thematic field. We deem that this suggestion is relevant for review papers but might be somewhat less pertinent for a basic psychometric paper like our one. As per our experience, psychometric papers do not contain such pieces of information. We confirm the basic theoretical model, on which the PACER is based, is already described in the paper (i.e, the process model of emotion regulation). Going beyond these data will make the paper unnecessary complex. We would like to focus on the main aim of the study and provide data/information, which explain and justify this aim. However, if the Editorial Board would like to have other theoretical models not related to the PACER mentioned in the paper, we would be happy to further edit our paper.

Third, the introduction should establish clearer conceptual links between parental burnout, beliefs about emotions, and emotion regulation practices, articulating a more integrative model. The above would enrich the theoretical justification and provide more solid bases for interpreting the associations evaluated in the empirical section.

Reply: We have now added several statements to the introduction, which help to clarify conceptual links between parental assistance with child emotion regulation and other correlates used in the study (e.g., parental burnout): “Emotion regulation is one of the most important emotion-based constructs, theoretically associated with a lot of other emotional constructs (e.g., beliefs about emotions) or psychological outcomes (Ford & Gross, 2018). As such, there is a need to further explore links between the PACER and parental mental health outcomes, such as parental burnout, anxiety and depression symptoms, somatic complaints, and well-being, as well as parents’ beliefs about emotions. Based on the Ford and Gross’s (2018) framework, theorizing that maladaptive beliefs about emotions can lead to worse psychological outcomes through impairments in emotion regulation processes, we found the examination of these links theoretically justified and practically useful. Such relationships may provide clinically relevant insights into the interplay between parents’ well-being and the ways in which they guide their children’s emotion regulation.”

The method section is transparent and ethically sound, meeting replication standards. The sample, however, is small (n = 74) and heavily skewed towards university-educated mothers, which reduces representativeness. Quality-control measures were applied (attention checks, exclusion of invalid cases), which is a methodological strength. The PACER translation process followed international standards (back-translation, pilot testing), ensuring linguistic and cultural validity. Statistical analysis, based on reliability (α and ω), correlations, and exploratory factor analysis, is consistent with the study aims. Nevertheless, the absence of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) or measurement invariance testing weakens the robustness of the evidence, even when recognising the limitations of sample size. Likewise, temporal stability (test-retest) was not examined, which is crucial for psychometric studies. The results are presented in an organised and clear manner, with tables and statistical indices. All PACER subscales show acceptable to excellent reliability, convergent/divergent validity is confirmed, and adaptive versus maladaptive strategies are differentiated. The discriminant validity against emotion beliefs is also well reported. A critical observation is that the analyses rely exclusively on bivariate correlations, which restricts the understanding of more complex relations. Alternative approaches such as structural equation modelling could have captured mediation or indirect effects, thereby enriching the findings. The discussion succeeds in contextualising the results in relation to previous studies, confirming cross-cultural comparability with English- and Turkish-speaking samples. Limitations are adequately acknowledged: small sample size, cross-sectional design, gender bias, and absence of child outcome measures. Practical implications are highlighted, especially the clinical relevance of reducing parental burnout. However, the discussion could offer a deeper reflection on the innovative contribution of the study. Although the importance of a Polish validation is emphasised, the text lacks a critical analysis of cultural differences in emotional socialisation, which narrows the scope of scientific novelty.

As a proposal, I share potential areas for improvement of the manuscript:

Structure and writing:

1. Methodological expansion:

Conduct confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and measurement invariance testing to reinforce structural validity.

Include longitudinal or test-retest designs to evaluate temporal stability.

Apply structural equation modelling to examine mediational pathways between emotion beliefs, burnout, and regulation strategies.

2. The inclusion of child outcomes (e.g., socio-emotional adjustment) would broaden explanatory and clinical relevance. Moreover, exploring socio-demographic factors such as socio-economic status or rural/urban contexts would allow for more differentiated analyses.

Reply: Thank you for your positive evaluation of the entire paper. Regarding the suggestions of using CFA, measurement invariance and SEM, we believe that we cannot apply these methods due to our sample size, which is too small to conduct such analyses. In our pilot study, these analyses as well as test-retest analysis were not supposed to be conducted. Our main aim was to evaluate basic psychometric properties of the PACER; that is internal consistency reliability and convergent and divergent validity. We have now expanded the Limitations section, and mentioned a lack of these analyses as limitations.

3. Scientific novelty: The contribution could be reinforced by problematising cultural influences on emotion regulation practices, discussing whether categories of “adaptive” and “maladaptive” strategies are equally applicable in the Polish context.

Reply: We have now added several statements to the paper regarding how adaptive and maladaptive strategies are used by Polish parents: “We would like to note that individual PACER subscales demonstrated less or more significant links with other correlates. For instance, behavioral disengagement, distraction, and rumination were the least connected strategies to the correlates used. In contrast, venting, reappraisal, and social support search were the most connected strategies to the correlates. These adaptive strategies seem to be the central strategies across the set of strategies, as measured with the PACER. Overall, the patterns of correlations may suggest the existence of a general trend, with adaptive strategies being the most clinically significant strategies compared to maladaptive strategies. A probable explanation of this trend may be the fact that parents less frequently used maladaptive strategies compared to adaptive strategies. Future studies should examine whether adaptive strategies demonstrate higher clinical relevance over maladaptive strategies.”

Given the relevance of the topics included in the manuscript, I would recommend enhancing the study's scope in terms of its writing and argumentative quality.

First, I would propose broadening the scope of future applications by incorporating longitudinal and multi-informant designs. This would allow the PACER not only to capture parenting practices at a given time point but also to track their stability, change, and predictive value for children's socioemotional outcomes. Second, it is essential to enhance the instrument's clinical and preventive implications by projecting its use in intervention programs aimed at reducing parental burnout and promoting adaptive regulation strategies. For example, integrating the tool into parent training initiatives could strengthen its translational impact and demonstrate its utility beyond the research context. Third, the study should be designed toward cross-cultural and comparative validations, examining the Polish version alongside other linguistic adaptations. This would contribute to the creation of robust international norms, allowing for culturally sensitive interpretations of parenting assistance strategies, and consolidating the PACER as a globally relevant instrument.

Reply: Thank you for your comment. We have now included the suggested applications into the paper (please refer to our Limitations and Practical Implications, and Future Directions sections). Thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

We would like to thank you for the work carried out in this study, which is of great interest to the scientific community. Overall, the manuscript is well-documented and clearly explained, with up-to-date references and a significant contribution to the field of study. Below, we provide a series of suggestions for improving the manuscript that may be considered for future publication.

Regarding the manuscript’s writing, it is recommended to use formal passive voice to enhance the formal expression of the study. For example, instead of writing:

“We assessed its internal consistency and latent structure, and we explored associations with parents’ parental burnout, mental and somatic health indicators, well-being, as well as beliefs about emotions in a sample of Polish parents”,

write:

“Internal consistency and latent structure were assessed, and associations with parental burnout, mental and somatic health indicators, well-being, as well as beliefs about emotions, were explored in a sample of Polish parents.”

Similarly, instead of writing “We have formulated the following hypotheses”, write: “The following hypotheses have been formulated.”

In the introduction, it is recommended to include more theoretical content, especially regarding the term “emotional regulation.” Specifically, it is suggested to add pioneering definitions of this concept. Additionally, it is advisable to mention other psychometric instruments that measure the same construct and to emphasize the relevance of the instrument used in the assessment of emotional regulation. It is also recommended to highlight the specific contribution of this instrument compared to others that exist.

In the design and procedure section, it is recommended to include the data protection law applicable to the country under study.

Regarding practical implications, it is suggested to further elaborate on the ideas presented, such as the contexts in which the instrument could be applied and how it could support the emotional regulation of minors.

Author Response

We would like to thank the editor and the five reviewers for their positive and encouraging feedback on our submission. The constructive comments of reviewers helped us to significantly improve the quality of this submission. We have been through all comments one by one, edited the manuscript in detail, and added new material where required. We hope the editor and reviewers find the revised version of the manuscript clear and suitable for publication in Children. All changes made are highlighted in red (in the replies and the revised paper).

We would like to thank you for the work carried out in this study, which is of great interest to the scientific community. Overall, the manuscript is well-documented and clearly explained, with up-to-date references and a significant contribution to the field of study. Below, we provide a series of suggestions for improving the manuscript that may be considered for future publication.

Reply: Thank you for your very positive evaluation of our paper.

Regarding the manuscript’s writing, it is recommended to use formal passive voice to enhance the formal expression of the study. For example, instead of writing: “We assessed its internal consistency and latent structure, and we explored associations with parents’ parental burnout, mental and somatic health indicators, well-being, as well as beliefs about emotions in a sample of Polish parents”,

write: “Internal consistency and latent structure were assessed, and associations with parental burnout, mental and somatic health indicators, well-being, as well as beliefs about emotions, were explored in a sample of Polish parents.” Similarly, instead of writing “We have formulated the following hypotheses”, write: “The following hypotheses have been formulated.”

Reply: We understand that different authors prefer to use different language contructions. In our paper, we use active voice, as recommended by APA7 guidelines. https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/grammar/first-person-pronouns

As these APA guidelines are widely recognized in the field, we would like to follow them in our paper.

In the introduction, it is recommended to include more theoretical content, especially regarding the term “emotional regulation.” Specifically, it is suggested to add pioneering definitions of this concept. Additionally, it is advisable to mention other psychometric instruments that measure the same construct and to emphasize the relevance of the instrument used in the assessment of emotional regulation. It is also recommended to highlight the specific contribution of this instrument compared to others that exist.

Reply: Thank you for your comment. In our paper, we did not develop a new questionnaire for measuring parental assistance, instead we have validated in Polish a recently developed tool, i.e., the PACER. Therefore, in our view, mentioning other instruments that measuring the same construct and indicating its pros and cons compared to the others would be more common for a paper, which describes a development of a new questionnaire rather than a paper describing validation of the existing tool. Following this argumentation, in our paper, we would rather prefer to refer to Cohodes et al.’s (2022) article which clearly articulates pros and cons of the PACER: “For measuring parental assistance with child emotion regulation, several questionnaires were developed (for review, see Cohodes et al., 2022). In this study, we focus on the Parental Assistance with Child Emotion Regulation (PACER) Questionnaire, a 50-item self-report questionnaire aimed at assessing how parents support their children in managing negative emotions (i.e., what emotion regulation strategies they try to help their children to implement; Cohodes et al., 2022).”

In the design and procedure section, it is recommended to include the data protection law applicable to the country under study.

Reply: We have now added a statement about data protection law: “Collected data were secured according to the requirements of the above ethics committee.”

Regarding practical implications, it is suggested to further elaborate on the ideas presented, such as the contexts in which the instrument could be applied and how it could support the emotional regulation of minors.

Reply: We have now provided more details on the potential PACER use (please refer to Practical Implications and Future Directions. Thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our paper.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. I found your work on the adaptation of the PACER into Polish both timely and valuable. The paper is clearly written, methodologically transparent, and contributes meaningfully to the growing literature on parental support of children’s emotion regulation. The rigorous translation process (including back-translation, multiple translators, and pilot testing) and the use of validated Polish instruments for convergent and divergent validity represent notable strengths. I also appreciate the thorough reporting of reliability indices (omega, alpha with CIs) and the transparent discussion of limitations.

That said, there are some aspects that could further strengthen the manuscript:

Sample and recruitment

• The small and highly homogeneous sample (n=74, predominantly mothers, university-based recruitment) substantially limits the generalizability and stability of the findings. A clearer justification of the sample and stronger emphasis on this limitation would be valuable. Future studies should aim for larger and more diverse samples, including more fathers, to support factor structure and invariance testing.

Measures and psychometrics

• Some correlates used show relatively low internal consistencies (e.g., PHQ-4 anxiety, EBQ subscales). Acknowledging these limitations more explicitly and, where possible, considering stronger alternatives would increase confidence in the validity analyses.

• The exploratory factor analysis was conducted at the subscale level using varimax (orthogonal) rotation. Given the theoretical plausibility of correlations between adaptive and maladaptive strategies, an oblique rotation would likely be more appropriate. For future validation, CFA at the item level with larger samples would be strongly recommended.

Statistical reporting

• Rumination showed consistently low factor loadings, suggesting ambiguity that warrants further exploration.

• Multiple correlational analyses were conducted without mention of corrections for multiple comparisons. I suggest clarifying the rationale and, if feasible, applying adjustments (e.g., FDR, Bonferroni) or at least reporting effect sizes and confidence intervals more systematically.

Discussion and conclusions

• The discussion is well-grounded in current literature, but some phrasing suggests causal interpretations despite the cross-sectional design. Strengthening the emphasis on correlational nature would avoid potential overstatement.

• The conclusions are promising, but I recommend framing them more cautiously given the pilot nature of the study. Replications with larger, more heterogeneous samples, longitudinal or multi-informant designs, and test-retest reliability would add considerable robustness.

Overall, this is a well-prepared and valuable first step toward validating the PACER in Polish. With the above revisions and clarifications, the manuscript would be significantly strengthened and more impactful for the field.

Thank you again for the opportunity to review this work.

Author Response

We would like to thank the editor and the five reviewers for their positive and encouraging feedback on our submission. The constructive comments of reviewers helped us to significantly improve the quality of this submission. We have been through all comments one by one, edited the manuscript in detail, and added new material where required. We hope the editor and reviewers find the revised version of the manuscript clear and suitable for publication in Children. All changes made are highlighted in red (in the replies and the revised paper).

 

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. I found your work on the adaptation of the PACER into Polish both timely and valuable. The paper is clearly written, methodologically transparent, and contributes meaningfully to the growing literature on parental support of children’s emotion regulation. The rigorous translation process (including back-translation, multiple translators, and pilot testing) and the use of validated Polish instruments for convergent and divergent validity represent notable strengths. I also appreciate the thorough reporting of reliability indices (omega, alpha with CIs) and the transparent discussion of limitations.

That said, there are some aspects that could further strengthen the manuscript:

Sample and recruitment

The small and highly homogeneous sample (n=74, predominantly mothers, university-based recruitment) substantially limits the generalizability and stability of the findings. A clearer justification of the sample and stronger emphasis on this limitation would be valuable. Future studies should aim for larger and more diverse samples, including more fathers, to support factor structure and invariance testing.

Reply: Thank you for your very positive evaluation of the entire paper, and the indicated limitations. We have now included more pieces of information regarding study limitations in the Limitations sections, including limitations suggested by Reviewer 4.

Measures and psychometrics

Some correlates used show relatively low internal consistencies (e.g., PHQ-4 anxiety, EBQ subscales). Acknowledging these limitations more explicitly and, where possible, considering stronger alternatives would increase confidence in the validity analyses.

Reply: We have now added several statements stressing this limitation: “We would like to notice that two subscales of our external measures had relatively low internal consistency reliability, with reliability coefficients of 0.61 and 0.67 for the 2-item PHQ-4 Anxiety subscale and 4-item EBQ Negative-Controllability subscale, respectively. While some psychometricians may treat these values as unacceptable, we believe that for research purposes these reliability coefficients are reasonable, given these subscales represent wide psychological constructs, which are being measured with only two to four items.”

The exploratory factor analysis was conducted at the subscale level using varimax (orthogonal) rotation. Given the theoretical plausibility of correlations between adaptive and maladaptive strategies, an oblique rotation would likely be more appropriate. For future validation, CFA at the item level with larger samples would be strongly recommended.

Reply: Thank you for this suggestion. We have recalculated EFA results with oblimin rotation, and the results are almost identical (differences are very minimal, they do not change substantially any findings). Oblimin or varimax rotations show almost the same results when patterns of correlations between variables are clear (Tabachnick & Fidell 2007). We have now added a note about this (“Changing rotation from varimax to oblimin does not change the results substantially”) as well as provided a correlation between the adaptive and maladaptive strategies composite scores, which was around 0 and statistically insignificant, which further suggesting the usage of varimax rotation in our analyses. We have now also added a statement: “For completeness and comparability reasons, we conducted the same set of exploratory factor analyses with the oblimin rotation, assuming factors were correlated. Nonetheless, changing rotation from varimax to oblimin did not change the results substantially; therefore, for parsimoniousness reasons, we decided to demonstrate the results with the varimax rotation only.”

Statistical reporting

Rumination showed consistently low factor loadings, suggesting ambiguity that warrants further exploration.

Reply: Thank you for your comment. Overall, we believe that the indicated pattern is rather related to a general trend in the data, with maladaptive strategies (vs adaptive ones) showing less significant associations with other correlated, rather than cultural influences or possible measurement limitations.

We have now added several sentences explaining this: “As for the rumination subscale, it demonstrated a somewhat lower factor loading (0.36), but this subscale was still associated with Factor 2 and had no cross-loadings on Factor 1. The descriptive analysis demonstrated that this was one of the least frequently used strategies across the ten PACER strategies. In our view, this is one of the possible explanations of such a lowered factor loading.”

AND “We would like to note that individual PACER subscales demonstrated less or more significant links with other correlates. For instance, behavioral disengagement, distraction, and rumination were the least connected strategies to the correlates used. In contrast, venting, reappraisal, and social support search were the most connected strategies to the correlates. These adaptive strategies seem to be the central strategies across the set of strategies, as measured with the PACER. Overall, the patterns of correlations may suggest the existence of a general trend, with adaptive strategies being the most clinically significant strategies compared to maladaptive strategies. A probable explanation of this trend may be the fact that parents less frequently used maladaptive strategies compared to adaptive strategies. Future studies should examine whether adaptive strategies demonstrate higher clinical relevance over maladaptive strategies.”

Multiple correlational analyses were conducted without mention of corrections for multiple comparisons. I suggest clarifying the rationale and, if feasible, applying adjustments (e.g., FDR, Bonferroni) or at least reporting effect sizes and confidence intervals more systematically.

Reply: Thank you for your comment. Bonferroni correction was not applied because we have preplanned hypotheses regarding the links between the correlates (see Armstrong, 2014). We have now added a statement in the Analytic strategy section describing this argument: “As we had preplanned hypotheses with planned correlations, we did not apply any correction for multiple correlations (see Armstrong, 2014).”

Discussion and conclusions

The discussion is well-grounded in current literature, but some phrasing suggests causal interpretations despite the cross-sectional design. Strengthening the emphasis on correlational nature would avoid potential overstatement.

Reply: We have now analysed our paper to eliminate any causal interpretations. In the Limitations section, there are several statements which stress the cross-sectional nature of this study and specificity of causal interpretations: “This was a cross-sectional study; therefore, we cannot speculate about cause-and-effect relationships. Speculation about any directionality in relationships is therefore based on theoretical predictions here.”.

The conclusions are promising, but I recommend framing them more cautiously given the pilot nature of the study. Replications with larger, more heterogeneous samples, longitudinal or multi-informant designs, and test-retest reliability would add considerable robustness.

Reply: Thank you for your comment. We have now edited our conclusions based on the above comment, stressing the pilot nature of our study and its preliminary results. We have now also added the suggested limitations and future directions.

Overall, this is a well-prepared and valuable first step toward validating the PACER in Polish. With the above revisions and clarifications, the manuscript would be significantly strengthened and more impactful for the field. Thank you again for the opportunity to review this work.

Reply: Thank you once again for your positive evaluation of the entire paper. Thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our paper.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for letting me review this study.

Methodological Concerns Regarding Sample and Structural Validation

The sample size of 74 is critically insufficient, even though the authors describe the work as "preliminary." This number is simply inadequate for validating a questionnaire with 50 items (PACER) and 10 subscales. The justification that it suffices for an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) only on the 10 subscale scores (rather than the individual items) is a weak defense. For stable structural validation, recommendations call for at least 5 to 10 participants per item, or a minimum of N>200 in initial validation studies. This severely limits the stability and generalizability of any findings.

The sample is also highly biased. It consists of 70 mothers and only 4 fathers (94.59% women), primarily recruited from universities, which suggests an educational bias. The validation process, therefore, lacks gender invariance and certainly doesn't represent the general parental population. The near-total exclusion of fathers compromises the instrument's effectiveness in assessing parental involvement across the full dyad. Regarding the inclusion criteria, permitting two exceptions (like including a parent with a 22-year-old child, outside the ≤18 age limit) introduces unnecessary variance in an already small sample, which could negatively impact data quality.

Strength: Translation and Cultural Adaptation

Translation Process

A rigorous procedure was implemented: three independent translations into Polish, followed by merging, back-translation, and final review with editing suggestions from Dylan Gee, the creator of the original PACER. This methodology is excellent. The process, involving double translation, back-translation, and validation by a source expert, adheres to the highest standards for cross-cultural adaptation of psychometric instruments.

Cognitive Review

The pre-final version was distributed to 10 Polish-speaking parents to gather feedback on clarity and comprehensibility. This practice, known as cognitive debriefing, is commendable as it helps ensure that items are understood within the local context, thereby enhancing face and content validity.

Decision and Recommendation

The study presents promising work in an important area, but the methodological limitations currently outweigh the strengths for a definitive validation publication.

Key Points for Publication/Major Revision:

• Sample (Mandatory): The main criticism remains the sample size (N=74) and the severe gender imbalance. An urgent replication with a significantly larger N (ideally N>200) is required, along with a dedicated sampling effort to include more fathers, or at least a thorough discussion of the implications of the gender bias for the generalization of the results.

• Structural Validity (Mandatory): The study must include a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) or an item-level EFA (50 items), not just an analysis at the subscale level, to confirm that the proposed 10-factor structure (5 items each) is replicated in the Polish population. The second-order structure is an interesting hypothesis, but the first-order structure must be verified first.

• Detailed Results: Reliability coefficients (α and ω) and complete correlation matrices should be presented in the text and tables (e.g., Table 2) so the reader can verify the validity claims themselves.

Recommendation: The article, as it stands, should be considered a Pilot Report or Feasibility Study that strongly supports the need for a full validation study. The criterion validity tests are solid and encouraging, but the structural basis of the scale requires verification with an adequate sample.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I am not an English native to valuate the English writing. 

Author Response

We would like to thank the editor and the five reviewers for their positive and encouraging feedback on our submission. The constructive comments of reviewers helped us to significantly improve the quality of this submission. We have been through all comments one by one, edited the manuscript in detail, and added new material where required. We hope the editor and reviewers find the revised version of the manuscript clear and suitable for publication in Children. All changes made are highlighted in red (in the replies and the revised paper).

Methodological Concerns Regarding Sample and Structural Validation

The sample size of 74 is critically insufficient, even though the authors describe the work as "preliminary." This number is simply inadequate for validating a questionnaire with 50 items (PACER) and 10 subscales. The justification that it suffices for an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) only on the 10 subscale scores (rather than the individual items) is a weak defense. For stable structural validation, recommendations call for at least 5 to 10 participants per item, or a minimum of N>200 in initial validation studies. This severely limits the stability and generalizability of any findings.

Reply: Thank you for your comment. We would like to note that we did not conduct an EFA at an item level but did this at a subscale level. As we indicated in the paper, the sample size was sufficient (based on the commonly used criteria cited in the manuscript) to conduct an EFA at a subscale level (i.e., 5 participant per variable, in our case per subscale). EFA was not the main analysis in our pilot study, therefore, we believe that that the use of EFA with our sample size was sufficient for hypothesis-generating and agenda-setting analyses. All these limitations have been now acknowledged.

The sample is also highly biased. It consists of 70 mothers and only 4 fathers (94.59% women), primarily recruited from universities, which suggests an educational bias. The validation process, therefore, lacks gender invariance and certainly doesn't represent the general parental population. The near-total exclusion of fathers compromises the instrument's effectiveness in assessing parental involvement across the full dyad. Regarding the inclusion criteria, permitting two exceptions (like including a parent with a 22-year-old child, outside the ≤18 age limit) introduces unnecessary variance in an already small sample, which could negatively impact data quality.

Reply: Thank you for mentioning these limitations. We have now expanded our Limitations section to mention the relevant limitations indicated by Reviewer 5 and added several explanations.

Strength: Translation and Cultural Adaptation

Translation Process

A rigorous procedure was implemented: three independent translations into Polish, followed by merging, back-translation, and final review with editing suggestions from Dylan Gee, the creator of the original PACER. This methodology is excellent. The process, involving double translation, back-translation, and validation by a source expert, adheres to the highest standards for cross-cultural adaptation of psychometric instruments.

Reply: Thank you for your very positive feedback.

Cognitive Review

The pre-final version was distributed to 10 Polish-speaking parents to gather feedback on clarity and comprehensibility. This practice, known as cognitive debriefing, is commendable as it helps ensure that items are understood within the local context, thereby enhancing face and content validity.

Reply: Thank you once again for your positive evaluation of our work.

Decision and Recommendation

The study presents promising work in an important area, but the methodological limitations currently outweigh the strengths for a definitive validation publication.

Key Points for Publication/Major Revision:

Sample (Mandatory): The main criticism remains the sample size (N=74) and the severe gender imbalance. An urgent replication with a significantly larger N (ideally N>200) is required, along with a dedicated sampling effort to include more fathers, or at least a thorough discussion of the implications of the gender bias for the generalization of the results.

Structural Validity (Mandatory): The study must include a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) or an item-level EFA (50 items), not just an analysis at the subscale level, to confirm that the proposed 10-factor structure (5 items each) is replicated in the Polish population. The second-order structure is an interesting hypothesis, but the first-order structure must be verified first.

Reply: Thank you for your comment. Our main aim was to evaluate basic psychometric properties of the PACER; that is internal consistency reliability and convergent and divergent validity. We agree that our sample is characterised by gender imbalance, and we have now discussed this as a limitation. However, we did not believe that gender (fathers versus mothers) would substantially change the internal consistency reliability or patterns of correlations with external correlates (i.e., convergent and divergent validity). In many papers, internal consistency reliability and convergent and divergent validity are examined based on the whole sample, without gender differentiation. We also agree that our sample is small to conduct CFA or and EFA at an item level in our pilot study, however, these analyses were not supposed to be conducted. All these limitations have been now acknowledged and discussed.

Detailed Results: Reliability coefficients (α and ω) and complete correlation matrices should be presented in the text and tables (e.g., Table 2) so the reader can verify the validity claims themselves.

Thank you for your comment. We would like to note that internal consistency reliability coefficients and correlations are presented in our paper in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. In the text, we briefly synthesized these results. Due to a large number of variables and following APA guidelines on reporting statistical results, we would not like to duplicate the same information in the text and tables, as this would lead to decreased readability.

Recommendation: The article, as it stands, should be considered a Pilot Report or Feasibility Study that strongly supports the need for a full validation study. The criterion validity tests are solid and encouraging, but the structural basis of the scale requires verification with an adequate sample.

Reply: Our main aim was to evaluate basic and preliminary psychometric properties of the PACER (i.e., internal consistency reliability and convergent and divergent validity). While we recognise that our small sample size did not allow us to conduct more complex analysis like CFA, we believe our sample was sufficient for testing these basic psychometric properties. All these limitations have been acknowledged. Thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our paper.

Round 2

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the improvement, the paper has reached the JARS (Journal Article Research Standards), best wishes

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I am not an English native