Effects of a Nonviolent Communication-Based Empathy Education Program for Nursing Students: A Quasi-Experimental Pilot Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The interpersonal and communication skills must be present in health professionals, being essential to help nurses to enhance their empathy, both for themselves and their organizations. In this sense, the authors are to be congratulated on the theme of the manuscript, which is relevant to nursing and more specifically to the development of relationship skills and empathic communication with nursing students.

 In the introduction, the history of research on the subject is described, the definition of key concepts, the fundamental theoretical perspectives, and the important studies to understand where the research problem fits within the current state of knowledge. The literature review is moderately current, with 41% of the references from last five years.

 I send some Comments and Suggestions towards improving the manuscript:

 In lines 374-376, the authors state that “This study developed an empathy education program for nursing students from a theoretical perspective and investigated its effects, thus contributing to a body of humanistic nursing knowledge that realizes the purpose of human dignity.” I suggest clarifying the method of how the authors arrived at the program, and the time and number of sessions. What came out of the interviews with the practice nurses? What was the rationale for choosing these four nurses and what were the inclusion criteria.

 Still in terms of methods, it is suggested to clarify who implements the program, the training of the facilitator and who carried out the evaluation before and after the program. If they were different people or if they were the same people who applied the program. Knowing that it was the same investigators who evaluated and streamlined the program, there may be a bias in the results and in this case, it would be important to present this as a limitation of the study.

 In my opinion, this article qualifies for publication in Nursing Reports, after minor revision (program clarifications in the methodological part).

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for the constructive reading, and the detailed comments on our manuscript. The recommendations and suggested changes have helped us to thoroughly revise our previous version, significantly improving its quality.  

In our revision we have followed each reviewer separately, considering all their respective suggestions.

Please see the attached file with the responses to the reviewers and the file with the manuscript edited and modified according to your suggestions.   

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

 

After reviewing your manuscript I have some questions to ask you:

 

1.- Could you indicate if the tool used to measure empathy was validated for the Korean population? 

 The same is true for interpersonal skills.

 Can you indicate whether the tool used to measure communication skills is validated for the Korean population?

(It is important to note that tools that are not validated for the target population in the study do not initially fit the cultural, social, etc., characteristics of the population. Therefore, their conclusions may not be correct.

 

Please explain and defend the use of non validated questionnaires to Korean population.

2.- When reviewing the sample size calculation, using the G*Power software:

2.1- why you have assumed the normality of the sample distribution, but you have not used the Mann Whitney U test?

Using Mann Whiteny U test, the value needed would be 54 people (27 per group).

2.2- Can you assure the normality? Or have you assumed the central limit theorem and the "n" that is required to assume normality.

2.3- Furthermore, when you explain the sample calculation with G*Power,  for the convenience of future readers, I suggest that include the following information:

a) Indicate the statistical test used:

T-test"means: Difference between two independent means (two Groups)". or Wilcoxon Mann Whiteney test (2 groups)

b) ratio between groups.

 

3.-The limitations of their study were never included in your manuscript.

Please include them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Could you explain why you have decided to use a Student's t-test without knowing if the put already had a normal distribution?

 

You have assumed the normality of the distribution, which could be misleading, since you have used a statistical test that is not appropriate for the sample to which you would apply it

 

3.- I don't use a t-test without check the distribution's normality and homocedasticity of your sample.

PLease, explain why you use this test.

 

4-

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for the constructive reading, and the detailed comments on our manuscript. The recommendations and suggested changes have helped us to thoroughly revise our previous version, significantly improving its quality.  

In our revision we have followed each reviewer separately, considering all their respective suggestions.

Please see the attached file with the responses to the reviewers and the file with the manuscript edited and modified according to your suggestions.   

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf