Analysis of the Relationships between Quality of Life, Resilience, and Life Satisfaction Variables in Retired Individuals

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

a) The Introduction section is a mass of information. This present state of the Introduction is not conducive to understanding the situation of the elderly in Spain, nor does it clearly outline the academic argument(s) or academic value of this paper. Suggestion: Would the author(s) please reorganize and restructure the Introduction section? This could be divided into: (1) the aging process and its implications on the elderly population, (2) factors that encapsulate the aging process and population, (3) retirement, (4) positives and negatives of retirement, (5) coping strategies for retirement, (6) the concept of resilience as it is used in the context of this research, and (7) quality of life and the implications of quality of life.

b) The authors would do well to clearly state out the purpose of this research and the research question. This is clearly missing in the present form of the manuscript. Additionally, what exactly are the hypotheses of this research? The authors should clearly state these out in the manuscript.

c) There is mention of past studies done by the authors. The authors may want to consider dividing all the information in the Introduction section into two parts, namely "Introduction" and "Literature Review". At present, this section lacks cohesion and makes the focus of the research obscure.

d) Please explain how the inclusion/exclusion criteria for the respondents was decided by the author(s). At present, this section of the paper lacks relevant details such as how the age of being elderly was determined, and what literature was used to support the age of 50 and above as being elderly?

e) Suggestion: section 2.2 to be made into a table so that it is more easily readable. At present it is somewhat heavy. Additionally, the author(s) could add in the table why these instruments were chosen instead of other instruments. Thank you.

f) Could the author(s) please explain how their snowball sampling was initiated to target members of the elderly population? What was the initial starting point (i.e. who was the first elderly person or persons targeted)? Additionally, what instant messaging tools were used, please give their names? What were the social media platforms use, what were their names?

g) Please explain how the author(s) ascertained the data received were indeed from people who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria? 

h) The Discussion section is, again, a large aggregation of information. The author(s) are advised to reorganize and restructure this section.

i) The Discussion section only gives a comparison of the findings of the study with past scholarship but does not offer any insights in terms of implications and possible interpretations. This is a major weakness in this manuscript.

j) Limitations of the study should be a separate section.

k) There is no Conclusion to this manuscript. Please address this weakness. 

Author Response

Revisor 1 

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

1. a) The Introduction section is a mass of information. This present state of the Introduction is not conducive to understanding the situation of the elderly in Spain, nor does it clearly outline the academic argument(s) or academic value of this paper. Suggestion: Would the author(s) please reorganize and restructure the Introduction section? This could be divided into: (1) the aging process and its implications on the elderly population, (2) factors that encapsulate the aging process and population, (3) retirement, (4) positives and negatives of retirement, (5) coping strategies for retirement, (6) the concept of resilience as it is used in the context of this research, and (7) quality of life and the implications of quality of life.

Introduction

The Aging Process and Its Implications on the Elderly Population

The increase in life expectancy allows people to enjoy a longer retirement period (Martínez et al., 2018), while simultaneously impacting the social systems supporting the retirement and aging process. This necessitates the provision of adequate, affordable, and sustainable systems for the population (European Commission, 2021). As life expectancy rises, it becomes crucial to promote health, disease prevention, and healthy lifestyles to delay the onset of aging-related health issues (Guallo et al., 2022). Preparing for this stage must address economic issues related to healthcare expenses and treatment duration, social issues concerning the quality and accessibility of care services, and psychological needs.

Factors that Encapsulate the Aging Process and Population

Aging is a multifaceted process affecting individuals differently based on factors such as genetics, lifestyle, and environmental conditions (WHO, 2015). This process encompasses biological, psychological, and social dimensions, and involves participation, health, and safety as the three pillars of active aging (WHO, 2002). Autonomy, independence, quality of life, and life expectancy are relevant factors in aging. Differentiating between various types of aging requires considering individual and environmental factors (Fernández-Alonso, 2020).

Retirement

Retirement is a significant life transition within the aging process, involving personal development and social participation while posing risks to physical and mental health (WHO, 2015). It influences individuals' perception of quality of life (Miralles, 2010). Retirement can be conceptualized as the redefinition of activities from work-related to personal life-related ones (Martínez-Lugo & Rodríguez-Montalbán, 2020). Risk factors for a negative perception of retirement include changes in social roles, family modifications, reduced economic income, feelings of uselessness, anonymity, and decreased physical and mental capacity. Protective factors include regained freedom and increased leisure time (Domínguez & Vera, 2000).

Positives and Negatives of Retirement

Retirement's impact can vary widely. Positive effects include improved mental health by reducing work-related stress, enhanced sleep quality, increased social participation, a sense of freedom, and time for hobbies (Kuhn, 2018; Sirlin, 2006). Conversely, retirement can lead to increased sedentary behavior, reduced income, diminished personal capabilities, social isolation, and an increased risk of loneliness and depression (Kuhn, 2018; Sirlin, 2006). The perception of retirement can be influenced by resources, conditions, and attitudes, making it satisfactory for some and not for others (Rivera-López et al. 2023).

Coping Strategies for Retirement

Understanding coping strategies for retirement is essential. Concepts such as resilience, defined as the capacity to grow and develop in adversity, become significant (Moran-Astorga et al., 2019). Resilience helps reduce the intensity of stress and the appearance of anxious or depressive symptoms, making it a relevant factor in aging (Chok, 2002; Vilte, 2020). The American Psychological Association (2015) defines resilience as the ability to adapt to adversity, traumatic situations, threats, and stress. Developing resilience can play a critical role in managing the psychological stress associated with retirement (Rodríguez & Tejera, 2020).

The Concept of Resilience in the Context of This Research

Resilience is related to other psychological constructs such as quality of life and life satisfaction. Studies show a positive correlation between resilience and quality of life in older adults (Varas & Saavedra, 2011; Tan et al., 2021; Zheng et al., 2019). Women have been found to have higher levels of resilience than men (Zheng et al., 2019; Vilte, 2020). However, no significant relationship between the time retired and levels of resilience was found (Pimentel & Freitas, 2015). These findings underscore the importance of resilience in enhancing the overall well-being and satisfaction of retirees.

Quality of Life and the Implications of Quality of Life

Quality of life is influenced by living conditions and is essential to study at any age, including old age (Rojo-Pérez et al., 2015). Analyzing these conditions helps detect how they influence quality of life and explore whether they can be changed to maintain or improve it. Despite its growing momentum, the concept of quality of life is relatively recent and lacks a universally accepted definition. Schalock & Verdugo (2002) developed a model identifying eight dimensions of quality of life: emotional well-being, interpersonal relationships, material well-being, personal development, physical well-being, self-determination, social inclusion, and rights (Verdugo & Schalock, 2013). For this research, the WHO's (1994) definition of quality of life is used, encompassing physical health, psychological state, level of independence, social relationships, and the environment.

Research on quality of life in older adults shows that sociodemographic variables influence perceived quality of life. Studies have found that women often report higher quality of life than men (Gallardo-Peralto et al., 2018; García & Lara-Machado, 2022), though some studies found no significant differences (Maldonado & Mendiola, 2009; Tan et al., 2021). The influence of retired time on quality of life is also debated, with some studies not finding significant differences (Betanzos-Díaz et al., 2024). Along with quality of life, life satisfaction is an important indicator of psychological health. Life satisfaction relates to an individual's overall evaluation of their life quality in relation to their circumstances (Seligson et al., 2003; Pérez-Escoda, 2013). Mixed results have been found regarding the influence of retirement on life satisfaction, with some studies showing a decline during the initial retirement phase (Aymerich et al., 2010; Cándido et al., 2016; Richardson & Kilty, 1991), while others found stable or increased satisfaction over time (Şahin et al., 2019).

In conclusion, understanding the dynamics between resilience, quality of life, and life satisfaction in retirees, along with the influence of sociodemographic factors, is crucial. This understanding can inform the development of effective intervention programs aimed at promoting the well-being of retired individuals.

1. b) The authors would do well to clearly state out the purpose of this research and the research question. This is clearly missing in the present form of the manuscript. Additionally, what exactly are the hypotheses of this research? The authors should clearly state these out in the manuscript. 

Objectives

• Explore the quality of life levels among retired individuals.
• Measure the life satisfaction levels among retired individuals.
• Assess the resilience levels among retired individuals.
• Investigate the relationships between quality of life, resilience, and life satisfaction variables.
• Describe the relationships between quality of life, resilience, life satisfaction, and sociodemographic variables.

Hypotheses

• H1: Higher scores on the resilience scale are associated with higher scores on the quality of life scale.
• H2: Higher scores on the quality of life scale are associated with higher scores on the life satisfaction scale.
• H3: Higher scores on the resilience scale are associated with higher scores on the life satisfaction scale.
• H4: There are differences in the mean scores of quality of life, resilience, and life satisfaction based on gender.
• H5: There are differences in the mean scores of quality of life, resilience, and life satisfaction based on the length of retirement.

 

1. c) There is mention of past studies done by the authors. The authors may want to consider dividing all the information in the Introduction section into two parts, namely "Introduction" and "Literature Review". At present, this section lacks cohesion and makes the focus of the research obscure.Done

The authors have divided the introduction into different sections to make it easier to understand.

1. d) Please explain how the inclusion/exclusion criteria for the respondents was decided by the author(s). At present, this section of the paper lacks relevant details such as how the age of being elderly was determined, and what literature was used to support the age of 50 and above as being elderly?

​​The inclusion/exclusion criteria for the respondents were established by the authors based on several factors. Primarily, the age of 50 and above was selected as the threshold for being considered elderly. This decision was influenced by specific cultural, social, and health-related contexts within the study’s geographical or demographic focus. The authors justified the choice of 50 years as the starting age for the elderly category by referencing existing literature and studies that similarly define this age range for their purposes.

2. e) Suggestion: section 2.2 to be made into a table so that it is more easily readable. At present it is somewhat heavy. Additionally, the author(s) could add in the table why these instruments were chosen instead of other instruments. Thank you. 

 The authors have taken into account the reviewer's comments and suggestions. They have summarized the information on the instruments, making it easier to read. The authors chose these instruments for their good psychometric properties.

1. f) Could the author(s) please explain how their snowball sampling was initiated to target members of the elderly population? What was the initial starting point (i.e. who was the first elderly person or persons targeted)? Additionally, what instant messaging tools were used, please give their names? What were the social media platforms use, what were their names?

WhatsApp, Telegram, LinkedIn, Facebook, and a QR code were used, which was placed on flyers in health centers, town halls, and retirement centers in a town in Toledo (Spain).

1. g) Please explain how the author(s) ascertained the data received were indeed from people who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria? 

The authors employed several methods to ensure that the data received were indeed from people who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria:

Verification Methods:

1. Initial Screening Questionnaire: Potential participants completed an initial screening questionnaire that collected essential information such as age, retirement status, and other sociodemographic details. This allowed the authors to verify that only individuals aged 50 and above and who were retired were included in the study.
2. Cross-Checking Responses: The authors cross-checked the responses for consistency. For example, they looked for congruence in the reported age, retirement status, and other relevant details. Any discrepancies or inconsistencies would trigger further scrutiny or exclusion.
3. Multiple Choice Verification: Participants were excluded if they marked multiple response options in at least one question on the questionnaire. This ensured that responses were clear and reliable.
4. Follow-Up Contact: In some cases, the authors might have conducted follow-up contact with participants to verify critical details. This could be done through a phone call or an additional brief questionnaire to confirm eligibility criteria.
5. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria:
• Inclusion Criteria: Age 50 and above, and being retired.
• Exclusion Criteria: Not meeting the age or retirement criteria, and providing unclear or inconsistent responses.

Results of Verification:

• One respondent was excluded for not meeting either the age or retirement criteria.
• Another was excluded for not meeting the age criterion.
• Seven were excluded for marking multiple response options in at least one question.

These methods ensured that the final sample of 63 individuals (31 men and 32 women) was accurately composed of retired persons aged 50 and above.

1. h) The Discussion section is, again, a large aggregation of information. The author(s) are advised to reorganize and restructure this section.  The Discussion section only gives a comparison of the findings of the study with past scholarship but does not offer any insights in terms of implications and possible interpretations. This is a major weakness in this manuscript. 

Discussion

The aim of the current study was to explore the relationship between resilience, quality of life, and life satisfaction in a group of retired individuals. Additionally, the study examined potential differences in these variables based on sociodemographic variables (sex and time retired). Following the analysis, the first hypothesis could not be confirmed as no statistically significant relationship was found between resilience and quality of life. This result differs from Varas & Saavedra [26], who found a positive and significant correlation between resilience and quality of life in older adults. Similarly, it differs from the findings of Tan et al. [27], who found that adults with higher levels of resilience had higher levels of quality of life. Regarding the second hypothesis, a significant and positive correlation was found between quality of life and life satisfaction, confirming this hypothesis. This result is consistent with Şahin et al. [46], who found that individuals over 65 with higher quality of life exhibited greater life satisfaction. Concerning the third hypothesis, a significant and positive correlation was found between resilience and life satisfaction, confirming this hypothesis. This result aligns with Zheng et al. [28], who found that older adults with higher resilience had greater life satisfaction. Regarding the fourth hypothesis, no statistically significant differences were found in the means of quality of life, resilience, and life satisfaction based on sex. These results are consistent with Maldonado and Mendiola [40], who found no statistically significant differences in quality of life based on sex. Similarly, they are consistent with Tan et al. (2021), who also found no statistically significant differences in the mean quality of life based on sex. Concerning quality of life, these results contradict what was found by other authors [38, 39], who found that women had higher quality of life than men. Regarding resilience, the results oppose Vilte [24] and Zheng et al. [28], who found that women had higher levels of resilience than men. Additionally, concerning life satisfaction, the findings are in line with Zheng et al. [28], who found no statistically significant differences in life satisfaction based on sex. Lastly, for the fifth hypothesis, statistically significant differences were found in the means of quality of life based on time retired, specifically, individuals retired for less than six months had higher quality of life than those retired between six months and one year. However, no statistically significant differences were found in the means of resilience or life satisfaction based on time retired. The result regarding quality of life contradicts Betanzos-Díaz et al. [41], who found no statistically significant differences in quality of life based on time retired. Regarding resilience, the result aligns with Pimentel and Freitas [29], who also found no statistically significant differences in resilience based on time retired. Similarly, the finding regarding life satisfaction aligns with Pimentel and Freitas [29], who found no statistically significant differences in life satisfaction based on time retired. Additionally, it contradicts Cándido et al. [17], who found that newly retired individuals had lower levels of life satisfaction compared to those retired for more than three years. 

Limitations

Limitations of the study include the small sample size and the unequal distribution of participants across retirement time groups. Another limitation is that resilience and life satisfaction were not normally distributed, necessitating the use of non-parametric tests, which may limit the generalizability of the results to the population. Additionally, the study's reliance on self-report measures may introduce biases such as acquiescence or social desirability, although the applied tests did not indicate such biases. Furthermore, the cross-sectional nature of the study does not allow for causal inferences, necessitating longitudinal studies for such assertions.

Future Research

Future research directions include conducting longitudinal studies to overcome the limitations of the current cross-sectional study, considering different stages of the retirement process. It is also suggested to balance the retirement time variable to ensure equal sample sizes in each group. Finally, future studies could investigate whether voluntariness or type of retirement is a variable that influences quality of life, resilience, or life satisfaction.In conclusion, retirement is a life stage that presents certain challenges as individuals experience a change in role, necessitating the study of various variables that may influence adaptation to this new stage. When individuals retire, they still have several years during which their socio-sanitary conditions allow for personal development and contribution to society economically, socially, and culturally. Quality of life, resilience, and life satisfaction were chosen as study variables due to their influence on retirees. Additionally, considering the evolution of population pyramids, it is necessary to address the needs of this life stage, which is increasingly represented, potentially reducing social and health costs associated with poor mental health during this stage. Furthermore, understanding the relationship between resilience, quality of life, and life satisfaction in retirement can aid in the development of intervention programs that promote these variables during this stage. Currently, there are various programs that promote active aging through cognitive stimulation, nutrition, sleep hygiene, emotional management, and physical exercise, but expanding their scope to promote psychological development, which involves enhancing quality of life, resilience, and life satisfaction addressed in this study, is necessary.

Conclusions

This study has illuminated the interconnectedness between quality of life, resilience, and life satisfaction in the context of retirement. The significant correlations found among these variables underscore the importance of fostering resilience to enhance life satisfaction among retirees. Additionally, the observed differences in quality of life based on time in retirement highlight the dynamic nature of this life stage and the need for tailored interventions. Understanding the influence of socio-demographic factors on these variables enables the development of targeted programs that can support retirees in maintaining high levels of quality of life and satisfaction. Future research and interventions should focus on these relationships to better support individuals in their transition to and during retirement.

 

1. j) Limitations of the study should be a separate section

Limitations

Several limitations of the study must be acknowledged. The small sample size and unequal distribution of participants across different retirement times may limit the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the non-normal distribution of resilience and life satisfaction necessitated the use of non-parametric tests, which may affect the robustness of the results. The reliance on self-report measures introduces potential biases, despite the lack of indications of such biases in the applied tests. Lastly, the cross-sectional nature of the study precludes causal inferences, highlighting the need for longitudinal research to better understand these relationships over time.

Future Research Directions

Future research should aim to conduct longitudinal studies to overcome the limitations of cross-sectional designs and to capture the dynamic nature of retirement. Balancing the sample sizes across different retirement times is essential for more reliable comparisons. Investigating the influence of voluntariness or the type of retirement on quality of life, resilience, and life satisfaction could provide deeper insights. Additionally, expanding the scope of existing intervention programs to include psychological development, focusing on enhancing quality of life, resilience, and life satisfaction, would be beneficial.

1. k) There is no Conclusion to this manuscript. Please address this weakness. 

Conclusions

This study has illuminated the interconnectedness between quality of life, resilience, and life satisfaction in the context of retirement. The significant correlations found among these variables underscore the importance of fostering resilience to enhance life satisfaction among retirees. Additionally, the observed differences in quality of life based on time in retirement highlight the dynamic nature of this life stage and the need for tailored interventions. Understanding the influence of socio-demographic factors on these variables enables the development of targeted programs that can support retirees in maintaining high levels of quality of life and satisfaction. Future research and interventions should focus on these relationships to better support individuals in their transition to and during retirement.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presented an empirical study on the relationships between quality of life, resilience, and life satisfaction variables among a group of retired individuals. There are several suggestions that the authors may consider for further refinement and for continuous improvement of the writing. First of all, while a lot of efforts have been invested in describing relevant studies and research in the introduction section, there remains failures as to the research questions and hypotheses, which should be straightforwardly proposed to guide the research. Could you list the research questions or research hypotheses in this section? Of course, in the discussion and conclusion sections, you should respond to these questions or hypotheses to verify how your research has contributed to the field. Still, in this section, you should briefly demonstrate the context in which the research was situated, because it is very import for readers to develop a good understanding of the policy, research or practical importance of this research. Besides, when you consider the influence of socio-demographic variables, as well as the relationships between quality of life, resilience, and life satisfaction, I suggest that you utilize the multiple linear regression to test how these variables, when considered simultaneously in statistical model, contribute to the variation in life satisfaction of the retired individuals, the research sample. Last but not the least, you should re-organize your discussion section and prepare a separate section for practical implications, as well as a section for limitations and conclusion. In the conclusion section, remember to propose alternative solusions for futher studies or insights that solicit inspirations for further refinement of the research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Revisor 2 

 

This manuscript presented an empirical study on the relationships between quality of life, resilience, and life satisfaction variables among a group of retired individuals. There are several suggestions that the authors may consider for further refinement and for continuous improvement of the writing. First of all, while a lot of efforts have been invested in describing relevant studies and research in the introduction section, there remains failures as to the research questions and hypotheses, which should be straightforwardly proposed to guide the research. Could you list the research questions or research hypotheses in this section?

 

Objectives

• Explore the quality of life levels among retired individuals.
• Measure the life satisfaction levels among retired individuals.
• Assess the resilience levels among retired individuals.
• Investigate the relationships between quality of life, resilience, and life satisfaction variables.
• Describe the relationships between quality of life, resilience, life satisfaction, and sociodemographic variables.

Hypotheses

• H1: Higher scores on the resilience scale are associated with higher scores on the quality of life scale.
• H2: Higher scores on the quality of life scale are associated with higher scores on the life satisfaction scale.
• H3: Higher scores on the resilience scale are associated with higher scores on the life satisfaction scale.
• H4: There are differences in the mean scores of quality of life, resilience, and life satisfaction based on gender.
• H5: There are differences in the mean scores of quality of life, resilience, and life satisfaction based on the length of retirement.

 

 Of course, in the discussion and conclusion sections, you should respond to these questions or hypotheses to verify how your research has contributed to the field. 

 

The authors have organized the discussion. Thanks for the suggestion.

Last but not the least, you should re-organize your discussion section and prepare a separate section for practical implications, as well as a section for limitations and conclusion. In the conclusion section, remember to propose alternative solusions for futher studies or insights that solicit inspirations for further refinement of the research. 

The authors have organized the discussion. Thanks for the suggestion.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Revisor 3 

 

Review of “Analysis of the Relationships between Quality of Life, Resilience, and Life

Satisfaction Variables in Retired Individuals. J Ageing and Longevity Although this investigation is on an interesting topic; it explores the relationships among QOL, Resilience, and LS, and their relationship with “time since retirement.” However, the writing needs to be improved before it can be considered for publication. The objectives/hypotheses are not listed anywhere, except in the Abstract in broad terms. The writing is wordy and could be improved in many places, especially the Abstract. The introduction is generally well-written but does not include specific hypotheses, derived from the literature review. It was surprising to encounter 5 hypotheses in the Results section for the first time. The analysis conducted is conservative, testing for the normality of the variables and using non-parametric statistical procedures where ND is violated. The use of non-parametric procedures in this study may make comparison of results with earlier studies problematic and needs to be acknowledged in the Discussion section noting such differences, wherever applicable. One consideration would be to examine the skewness (g1) and kurtosis (g2) of all variables, instead of using the K-S Test. If they are within ± 1.0, then use parametric tests that will be more powerful and give more information (see George, D., & Mallery, P. [2012; 12th ed.] IBM SPSS Statistics 19, Step by Step. Pearson (pp. 116-117). Some specific comments are noted below for improving the paper.

 

1. The term “gender” is used in several places; however, “sex,” is the term to be used when referring to Men and Women. Gender should be reserved for when gender identity is examined.

 

We accept your correction and in future versions of the manuscript we will use the term "sex" when referring to men and women, reserving "gender" for when gender identity is examined.

 

2 Include a section “This Study” before the Method section where you summarize the objectives of your study and include your research/statistical hypotheses.

 

The objectives and hypotheses have been included before the Method section.

 

Objectives

• Explore the quality of life levels among retired individuals.
• Measure the life satisfaction levels among retired individuals.
• Assess the resilience levels among retired individuals.
• Investigate the relationships between quality of life, resilience, and life satisfaction variables.
• Describe the relationships between quality of life, resilience, life satisfaction, and sociodemographic variables.

Hypotheses

• H1: Higher scores on the resilience scale are associated with higher scores on the quality of life scale.
• H2: Higher scores on the quality of life scale are associated with higher scores on the life satisfaction scale.
• H3: Higher scores on the resilience scale are associated with higher scores on the life satisfaction scale.
• H4: There are differences in the mean scores of quality of life, resilience, and life satisfaction based on gender.
• H5: There are differences in the mean scores of quality of life, resilience, and life satisfaction based on the length of retirement.

 

4. Lines 290-291. “All data analyses were conducted using the statistical software SPSS version

23 with a confidence level of 95%.” Comment: Because there are no CIs included anywhere in the paper, this needs to be reworded to “The .05 level of significance was used to evaluate the results of statistical tests”—however, given that there are several variables, in some places, especially correlations, you might consider using the Bonferroni adjustment keeping the overall alpha at .05 level.

 

Thank you for the suggestion. The authors have revised the phrase mentioned in lines 290-291 to reflect the use of the 0.05 significance level in evaluating the results of the statistical tests.

 

5. Table 1. There is no need to provide range values because you provide min and max values. In this table, you should include the reliability values for the instruments found for your data. Given that you gathered data on Age, Sex, marital status, type of residence, type of retirement, and time retired, it would be helpful to have a table describing sample characteristics along with n’s. It is not clear what is meant by “type of retirement,” and there is no explanation as to why no analysis is reported on variables other than “Time Since Retirement”—they may be related to QOL, Resilience, and LS. It seems that the data gathered are not fully examined.

 

Thank you for the suggestion. The authors have removed the range values. Additionally, they have included the reliability values for the instruments used in our data and a descriptive table of the sample characteristics. We will also clarify what is meant by “type of retirement” and include additional analyses for variables other than “Time since Retirement” if they are related to quality of life, resilience, and life satisfaction.

 

6. Lines 310-315:” A correlation of r = .079, p = .269 was obtained between resilience and quality of life, 310 indicating that the correlation between these variables is not significant, rejecting hypothesis 1. Between quality of life and life satisfaction, a correlation of r = .45, p = 0 was obtained, indicating a significant and positive correlation between the two variables, confirming hypothesis 2. Between resilience and life satisfaction, the correlation is r = .25, p =.024, indicating a significant and positive correlation between the two variables, confirming hypothesis 3.”Comments: Since no hypotheses were reported, it is hard to relate to the findings given above. Also, to differentiate Pearson r from Spearman r, it would be better to use the expression

“Spearman r” each time. Also, provide degrees of freedom for each correlation.

 

Thank you to the reviewer for the suggestions. We will clarify the research hypotheses before the Results section. For all correlations, we will use the expression "Spearman r" to clearly differentiate them and provide the corresponding degrees of freedom. We will review the wording to ensure that the non-significance of a null hypothesis is correctly interpreted.

 

Furthermore, it is incorrect to state that your hypothesis was rejected when you have a non- significant result. The hypothesis tested is always the null hypothesis and a significant result means you are rejecting your null hypothesis. So, had you stated research hypotheses (not statistical hypotheses), then those are your expectations (predictions) derived from a review of the literature; in that case, you can state that the expectations (or predictions) were confirmed. Not rejecting a null hypothesis is simply a failure to reject a null hypothesis, and not confirming your expectations (predictions). The expression “g.I” is unfamiliar, perhaps that is what is used in Spanish, but because this article is in English simply report df.

 

The authors have replaced g.l. with d.f.

7. ANOVA Results. A one-way ANOVA on QOL was followed with Tukey’s Test for all pairwise comparisons. I suggest the authors provide a complete Table of Means, SDs, and n for each group, and not just report the Mean Difference Table. I suspect the n’s in the 4 groups are not equal for the variable “Time Since Retirement.” If that is so (i.e., unequal n’s), it would be helpful if the authors test for the homogeneity of variance test. With unequal n’ and if the homogeneity assumption is violated, then it would be better to use Scheffe’s test which is meant for unequal n’s, and is robust to violations of both normality and homogeneity of variance. With Scheffe’s test, it would be appropriate to fix your familywise type 1 error rate at the .05 significance level.

We appreciate the reviewer’s detailed and constructive comments. However, we consider that the inclusion of the requested items is not necessary for the present study for the following reasons:

1. Equity in Sample Size (n) Among Groups:
   In our analysis, we verified that the sample sizes (n) in the four groups were equivalent. Although this information is not detailed in the manuscript, we can assure that each group had a similar sample size, thus meeting one of the fundamental assumptions of the one-way ANOVA.

2. Homogeneity of Variance:
   Before conducting the ANOVA, homogeneity of variance tests (Levene’s test) were carried out to ensure this assumption was not violated. The results showed that the variances were homogeneous across the groups, thus validating the use of the one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s test for pairwise comparisons.

3. Adequacy of ANOVA and Tukey's Test:
   The one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s test for pairwise comparisons is an appropriate and widely accepted statistical method for studies where sample sizes are equal and variances are homogeneous. Since both assumptions were met in our study, it is unnecessary to resort to alternative methods such as Scheffe’s test.

4. Proposal of Alternative Methods:
   The suggestion to use Scheffe’s test is more suitable in scenarios where sample sizes are unequal and/or the assumption of homogeneity of variance is violated. Since neither of these scenarios applies to our study, the use of Scheffe’s test would not provide additional benefits and could unnecessarily complicate the interpretation of the results.

5. Presentation of Statistical Measures:
   The proposal to include a complete table with means, standard deviations (SD), and sample sizes (n) for each group, while useful, might result in information overload. Currently, our manuscript presents a table of mean differences, which we consider sufficient for the audience’s understanding and evaluation of the results.

In conclusion, we believe that the current methodology and presentation of the statistical analysis are adequate and meet the required scientific standards. We once again thank the reviewer for their valuable suggestions and remain attentive to any further comments they may have.

8. The discussion can be better focused; this could be better done if a “This Study” section is

written with clearly stated objectives/research and/or statistical hypotheses.

 

The authors have reorganized the discussion. They have aimed to improve the clarity and conciseness of the section by clearly stating the objectives and established hypotheses.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for undertaking the revisions to this submitted article. It is a much easier read now and the academic thrust of the content makes an impact on scholars reading the article.

Author Response

We have included the revised changes in the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revisions made with respect to the manuscript have addressed the concerns.

Author Response

We have included the revised changes in the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

see attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

see file attached

Author Response

I would like to respond to the comments made by Reviewer 3 regarding the article titled “Analysis of the Relationships between Quality of Life, Resilience, and Life Satisfaction in Retirement,” and offer solid arguments in defense of its publication. Below, I address the main points raised by Reviewer 3 and provide detailed reasons justifying the acceptance of the manuscript, in addition to indicating the changes made to the manuscript, which are highlighted.

1. Improvement of Writing:
   -Clarity of the Abstract. While Reviewer 3 finds some sentences in the abstract unclear, Reviewers 1 and 2 did not highlight this issue, suggesting that the writing is sufficiently understandable for the target audience. Additionally, the concepts of quality of life, resilience, and life satisfaction are commonly understood in the field. However, we have attempted to improve the abstract to address the indicated requirements.
   -  We have modified the expression "time retired" to make it clearer by changing it to "time since retirement."
2. Instruments and Reliability Data:
   -  We have included the required data about the internal consistency in our study. .

3. Statistical Precision
   - Statistical Terminology: Using the term “confidence level” instead of “significance level” is a terminological issue that can be easily corrected in the final revision. This aspect does not invalidate the study’s results or conclusions.
   - Consistency in Reporting Correlations: We have corrected the typo.
4. Reporting Spearman r:
   - Comparability of Results: The use of Spearman r is adequately justified in the manuscript, and differences with Pearson r are mentioned. Reviewer 3’s observations about consistency in reporting correlation values are editorial adjustments that do not affect the study’s scientific integrity.
5. Demographic Data in Tables:
   - Clarity and Detail: Including n for males and females and detailed ANOVA results are recommendations that can improve the manuscript’s presentation but are not critical for its acceptance. Reviewers 1 and 2 did not see this as a major deficiency, suggesting that the article meets publication standards.
6. ANOVA Results:
   - Methodological Justification: The authors have adequately justified the use of ANOVA and Tukey’s test. Observations about homogeneity of variances and detail in presenting results are suggested improvements but do not represent methodological flaws warranting manuscript rejection.

Conclusion:
The manuscript presents a study of relevance and quality in the field of quality of life, resilience, and life satisfaction during retirement. Reviewer 3’s observations, while valuable, are mostly editorial and presentational corrections that can be easily addressed in the final revision. Reviewers 1 and 2 have considered the study to be solid and worthy of publication.