Cognitive Subjective Well-Being during the Second Lockdown in Portugal: The Predictive Role of Sociodemographic and Psychopathological Dimensions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

M.M. Peixoto et al. Cognitive Subjective Well-Being During the 2nd Lockdown in Portugal: The Predictive Role Of Sociodemographic and Psychopathological Dimensions

The paper explores the effect of social and demographic factors, COVID related experiences as well as psychopathological symptoms on cognitive subjective well being. The results indicate that psychopathological symptoms have a significant effect on cognitive subjective wellbeing, even if socio-demographic and covid related experiences are accounted for.

However, the research gap and academic relevance of the research is not well articulated; why is Portugal an interesting case to study the research question,  how can this study add to the academic literature. Moreover, the research question and research objective are not well articulated. What is the main focus of the research? I assume it is not the impact of socio-demographic characteristics. Is it the covid related experiences or the psychopathological symptoms, and how does this focus relate to the research gap and contribution to academic literature. In the introduction it seems as if the focus of the research is on cultural characteristics (bottom page 2) but in my opinion no cultural factors are investigated (cultural factors are defined at a macro level and all variables included in the research are defined at the micro (individual) level). The same counts for heterogeneity of virus mitigation measures across countries. Variations in mitigation measures are not included in the research (experiences are).

 

Main comments:

1.       Defining the research problem:

a.       The research gap is not well defined. What is the research problem to be investigated, what knowledge is missing in the academic literature and why is that a relevant problem (academic and/or societal). What is the exact kernel of the problem so the focus of the research is well articulated.

b.       The research question (as stated at the bottom of p 2) is stated as an aim of the research. The relationship between cultural characteristics that affect the experiences of the lockdown and sociodemographic variables and psychopathological dimensions (?) is not elaborated on and in my opinion not the focus of this research.

c.       The objective of the research is not mentioned: how can the information gathered in the research be used and by whom. In the discussion this topic is touched upon.

d.       The dependent variable, cognitive subjective wellbeing or life satisfaction (and even quality of life), are not well elaborated on. They are not the same, although the authors use the two terms interchangeable.

e.       The independent variables, socio-demographic variables and psychopathological symptoms are not well elaborated on; what is their role in the research. The effects of socio-demographic variables is already well researched upon, so why are they still of interest? The focus on specific psychopathological symptoms is not elaborated on (so why are depression, anxiety and stress symptoms important in this study, and is it stress or PTSS). In section 1.2 experiences with Covid is not elaborated on as an important factor that affects the dependent variable.

f.        To what extent is there conceptual and/or empirical overlap between life satisfaction and the psychopathological symptoms mentioned.

g.       No description of the lockdown mitigating measures in Portugal is given.  

2.       Methodology.

a.       Sampling strategy is not well described. So what is exactly the sampling strategy (convenience as well as snowballing?) what are the advantages and disadvantages of this strategy and please give a step by step description of sampling procedure.

b.       Please go into the representativeness of the sample, so statistically test the sample characteristics in order to about conclude representatives

c.       Prior power analysis is valid for random samples, and you do not have a random sample. You could also apply rules of thumb (such as: at least 10 observations per variable included in the regression or look at Green 1991 Green, S. B. (1991). How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis. Multivariate behavioral research, 26(3), 499-510 ).

d.       Using a mental health scale is always associated with the risk of doing harm. How did the research take account of this effect of the questionnaire

e.       The Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) used was developed to assess satisfaction with the respondent's life as a whole. How does this very global measure relate to  cognitive subjective wellbeing.

f.        The relationships between the different measure of psychopathological symptoms is not elaborated on. So do the DASS-21, Persistent and Intrusive Negative Thoughts Scale, Coronavirus Anxiety Scale,  Fear of COVID-19 Scale, relate to the research question, what additional information does a specific scale give and why is that important for the research question. In my opinion general (not covid specific) and covid specific measures are used which could have a very different role in the conceptual model regarding the effects of life satisfaction.

g.       Vaccination status against the COVID-19, infection with the SARS-CoV-2, isolation due to the COVID-19, and psychiatric history (i.e., history of previous mental illness and use of psychiatric drugs) are in my opinion not socio demographic variables, but covid related variables. They need some elaboration (how are they measures)

 

 

3.       Results.

a.       In section 3.1 the statistics of only the psychopathological symptoms is given and not the other variables.

b.       Table 2 does not read well, please make clear what statistic is presented were in the table.

c.       The correlation of table 2 suggest multicollinearity. And that is a big problem for the reported regression analyses!

d.       The correlation reposted in table 2 suggest that explicit covid related symptoms have a weak correlation with life satisfaction. This suggests that general predispositions (so not related to Covid) affect life satisfaction more. Please go into this issues (in the analyses as well as the discussion of the results)

e.       In the hierarchical regression three blocks of variables are used. Why are specific variables groups into a specific block. And how do these blocks of variables relate to the (implicit) conceptual model that is developed in the introduction of the study, so how do the blocks of variables help in answering the research question.

f.        Please report multicollinearity statistics in table 3

 

4.        Discussion

a.       The first section of the discussion (p 12) suggest that the study is about the effect of Covid (as an event) of life satisfaction. The study does not go into changes in life satisfaction (pre test-post-test design). So to make such claims, the specific covid related variables should be elaborated on. This introduction of the discussion also mention diversity of covid measures across countries, which is also not investigated in this research.

b.       Why discussing the successive steps of the regression analyses. Gender for example has no significant effect on life satisfaction in the last analyses. This suggests that the predictive ‘power’ of gender is weakened when other variables are included in the analyses. This sheds a very different light on the supposed gender imbalance. In my opinion the last regression gives the most complete (within this research) picture of the effects of the variables included. The same counts for the negative predictive role of a prior psychiatric diagnosis on cognitive subjective well-being. That effect disappears in the last analyses.

c.       No claims can be made about the relative effect of specific variables on life satisfaction due to multicollinearity!

d.       In my opinion this study suggests that also during Covid life satisfaction is mainly affected by socio demographic variables and general psychopathological symptoms, since the more covid specific variables have only a minor effect of life satisfaction. Please elaborate on this issue.

e.       You indicate that Covid-19 anxiety and covid-19 fear score rather low, indicating that covid-19 related anxiety and fear have a rather low means score. In my opinion this confirms the suggestion I made in the above point. If you assume the lack of effect is due to the skewness of these variables, you should redo the analyses (create a dummy) to explore that suggestion.

f.        The major limitation of the study is not the sampling size but the sampling procedure!

g.       Why are other (sociodemographic) variables also important given your research question. Does the literature indicate that you missed important variables (given the focus of your research)?

h.       Why is an online questionnaire (assuming you can fix the sampling procedure) problematic?

i.         Since the study goes into factors that affect life satisfaction, the study does not give guidelines to design health policy and practices. It only indicates what variables could be considered, not how they can be changed effectively.

 

More detail comments and suggestions are added as comments in the paper.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

 

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Point 1: The research gap is not well defined. What is the research problem to be investigated, what knowledge is missing in the academic literature and why is that a relevant problem (academic and/or societal). What is the exact kernel of the problem so the focus of the research is well articulated.

Thank you for the insightful and detailed comments, as well as forattentive reading of the manuscript. We presented a clearer formulation of the research problem, the gap this study contributes to fill, highlighting its social and political relevance. We believe that the articulation of the theoretical framework with the research problem and its relevance is more consistent in this revised version of the manuscript.

 

 

Point 2: The research question (as stated at the bottom of p 2) is stated as an aim of the research. The relationship between cultural characteristics that affect the experiences of the lockdown and sociodemographic variables and psychopathological dimensions (?) is not elaborated on and in my opinion not the focus of this research.

Thank you for pointing this out. We revised the formulation of the research question and added hypotheses to make them clearer.

 

Point 3: The objective of the research is not mentioned: how can the information gathered in the research be used and by whom. In the discussion this topic is touched upon.

Thank you. We have revised  the research aim, by highlighting its implications for social and political practices.

 

Point 4: The dependent variable, cognitive subjective wellbeing or life satisfaction (and even quality of life), are not well elaborated on. They are not the same, although the authors use the two terms interchangeable.

Thank you for your detailed revision. We replaced the terms ‘life satisfaction’ and ‘quality of life’ by ‘cognitive subjective well being’, to increase the paper’ theoretical consistency

 

Point 5: The independent variables, socio-demographic variables and psychopathological symptoms are not well elaborated on; what is their role in the research. The effects of socio-demographic variables is already well researched upon, so why are they still of interest? The focus on specific psychopathological symptoms is not elaborated on (so why are depression, anxiety and stress symptoms important in this study, and is it stress or PTSS). In section 1.2 experiences with Covid is not elaborated on as an important factor that affects the dependent variable.

Thank you for your comment. We have included a more detailed reflection on the sociodemographic variables and psychopathological synmptoms, to justify the relevance of their study during the second wave of COVID-19.

 

Point 6: To what extent is there conceptual and/or empirical overlap between life satisfaction and the psychopathological symptoms mentioned.

Thank you for your relevant reflections on our work. We stated that cognitive subjective well-being and psychopathological symptoms are associated, based on  longitudinal studies showing that psychopathology negatively predicts cognitive subjective well-being (this is not the same as overlapping). However, we do not assume that there is an overlap between these two constructs.

 

Point 7: No description of the lockdown mitigating measures in Portugal is given.  

Thank you for pointing this out. We added information on the lockdown mitigation measures in Portugal.

 

Point 8: Sampling strategy is not well described. So what is exactly the sampling strategy (convenience as well as snowballing?) what are the advantages and disadvantages of this strategy and please give a step by step description of sampling procedure.

Thank you for your useful comment. We added information on the  sampling procedure in the method, as well as in the limitation section Unfortunately, it is very difficult to collect random or representative samples. Nonetheless, we consider that our sample is quite diverse and presents  some heterogeneity in some particular variables (e.g., sexual orientation).

 

 

Point 9: Please go into the representativeness of the sample, so statistically test the sample characteristics in order to about conclude representatives

Thank you for the detailed revision of our manuscript. In line with the response to the point 8, the sample was non-random and, therefore, not representative of the Portuguese community.  We considered this as a limitation of the study.

 

Point 10: Prior power analysis is valid for random samples, and you do not have a random sample. You could also apply rules of thumb (such as: at least 10 observations per variable included in the regression or look at Green 1991 Green, S. B. (1991). How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis. Multivariate behavioral research, 26(3), 499-510 ).

Thank you for your comment. In line with your recommendation, wee made the required correction concerning the assumptions referring to the prior power analyis. . Considering the rules of thumb, with 10 observations per variable included in the regression, 190 participants are neeeded. As  number of participants are over 300. Therefore, we consider that the sample allows us to conduct the statistical procedure.

 

Point 11: Using a mental health scale is always associated with the risk of doing harm. How did the research take account of this effect of the questionnaire

Thank you for alerting us to this important ethical issue.Weadded information on the strategies to mitigate the potential negative effects associated with the questionnaires completion.

 

Point 12: The Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) used was developed to assess satisfaction with the respondent's life as a whole. How does this very global measure relate to  cognitive subjective wellbeing.

Thank you. We included an additional explanation on how the SWLS is often used for assessing

 cognitive subjective well-being.

Point 13: The relationships between the different measures of psychopathological symptoms is not elaborated on. So do the DASS-21, Persistent and Intrusive Negative Thoughts Scale, Coronavirus Anxiety Scale,  Fear of COVID-19 Scale, relate to the research question, what additional information does a specific scale give and why is that important for the research question. In my opinion general (not covid specific) and covid specific measures are used which could have a very different role in the conceptual model regarding the effects of life satisfaction.

Thank you. We revised the introduction to make the associations of the psychopathological dimensions assessed by the scales used with subjective cognitive well-being clearer, and to articulate them with the research question and hypotheses. We also tried to make clearer the differential effects of COVID-19 specific and nonspecific variables on cognitive subjective well-being.

 

Point 14: Vaccination status against the COVID-19, infection with the SARS-CoV-2, isolation due to the COVID-19, and psychiatric history (i.e., history of previous mental illness and use of psychiatric drugs) are in my opinion not socio demographic variables, but covid related variables. They need some elaboration (how are they measures)

Thank you for your careful analyis of the manuscript. Due to the study purpose, we included specific questions concerning COVID-19 related variables in the sociodemographic questionnaire, although being aware that they are distinct dimensions. We included additional information in the description of this instrument, in the Method’s section, to make this clear.

 

 

Point 15: In section 3.1 the statistics of only the psychopathological symptoms is given and not the other variables.

Thank you. Information on  sociodemographic characteristics is presented in table 1, in the Method section.Table 2, which is part of the Results section, only includes information onthe scales used.

 

Point 16: Table 2 does not read well, please make clear what statistic is presented were in the table.

Thank you. We revised table 2 to make it clearer.

 

Point 17: The correlation of table 2 suggest multicollinearity. And that is a big problem for the reported regression analyses!

Thank you for your careful revision. We understand your concern.  However, multicollinearity values were acceptable. We added them in Table 3, as requested.

 

Point 18: The correlation reposted in table 2 suggest that explicit covid related symptoms have a weak correlation with life satisfaction. This suggests that general predispositions (so not related to Covid) affect life satisfaction more. Please go into this issues (in the analyses as well as the discussion of the results)

Thank you. This isnow properly addressed in the discussion section

 

Point 19: In the hierarchical regression three blocks of variables are used. Why are specific variables groups into a specific block. And how do these blocks of variables relate to the (implicit) conceptual model that is developed in the introduction of the study, so how do the blocks of variables help in answering the research question.

Thank you for your insightful comment. The construction of the hierarchical model was based on the theoretical framework on the sociodemographic, psychopathological, and COVID-19 related  predictors of cognitive subjective well-being presented in the introduction. We considered sociodemographic characteristics as intra individual ones, which are usually introduced firstly. The COVID-19 related ones are associated not only with COVID-19, but also with individual experiences. Hence, they were introduced next. The last variables introduced are the ones that may be affected by the previous variables.

 

Point 20: Please report multicollinearity statistics in table 3

Thank you for your suggestion. We added the multicollinearity statistics in Table 3.

 

Point 21: The first section of the discussion (p 12) suggest that the study is about the effect of Covid (as an event) of life satisfaction. The study does not go into changes in life satisfaction (pre test-post-test design). So to make such claims, the specific covid related variables should be elaborated on. This introduction of the discussion also mention diversity of covid measures across countries, which is also not investigated in this research.

Thank you for your comment. The discussion was revised accordingly.

 

Point 22: Why discussing the successive steps of the regression analyses. Gender for example has no significant effect on life satisfaction in the last analyses. This suggests that the predictive ‘power’ of gender is weakened when other variables are included in the analyses. This sheds a very different light on the supposed gender imbalance. In my opinion the last regression gives the most complete (within this research) picture of the effects of the variables included. The same counts for the negative predictive role of a prior psychiatric diagnosis on cognitive subjective well-being. That effect disappears in the last analyses.

Thank you for the suggestion We revised thediscussion and only the final step of the regression analysis was included in the revised version of this section.

 

Point 23: No claims can be made about the relative effect of specific variables on life satisfaction due to multicollinearity!

Thank you for your careful analysis of our paper. In line with the response to point 17, considering the multicollinearity results are acceptable, we believe that the hierarchical regression analysis is feasible.

 

Point 24: In my opinion this study suggests that also during Covid life satisfaction is mainly affected by socio demographic variables and general psychopathological symptoms, since the more covid specific variables have only a minor effect of life satisfaction. Please elaborate on this issue.

Thank you. We revised the discussion, and added information on this topic.

 

Point 25: You indicate that Covid-19 anxiety and covid-19 fear score rather low, indicating that covid-19 related anxiety and fear have a rather low means score. In my opinion this confirms the suggestion I made in the above point. If you assume the lack of effect is due to the skewness of these variables, you should redo the analyses (create a dummy) to explore that suggestion.

Thank you for your detailed revision of our manuscript. We  revised the discussion to make this point clearer. We do not consider to redo the analyses to explore that question, as this is not the key point of the manuscript.

 

Point 26: The major limitation of the study is not the sampling size but the sampling procedure!

Thank you for your insightful comment. We revised the study’s limitations and included the sample procedure as a limitation, instead of the sampling size, as suggested.

 

Point 27: Why are other (sociodemographic) variables also important given your research question. Does the literature indicate that you missed important variables (given the focus of your research)?

Thank you for your attentive reading of the manuscript. Although we recognize that there are other sociodemographic variables which may be related to  cognitive subjective well-being during COVID-19 pandemic, these are the variables which are more often reported in the literature, which highlight the relevance of analysing their effects on a specific cultural context (i.e,  a Portuguese adult sample).

 

Point 28: Why is an online questionnaire (assuming you can fix the sampling procedure) problematic?

Thank you. Despiste their numerous advantages, on-line questionnaires can be problematic, as they are not available to individuals who do not have access to the Internet and who are not familiar and/or do not feel safe/confortable with web surveys. In addtion, this kind of data collection does not allow the research team to provide a close support during the questionnaires completion. We are aware of the limitations of the sampling procedure, as previously stated, but also of the difficulties of achieving a representative sample, even when using an on-line questionnaire.

 

Point 29: Since the study goes into factors that affect life satisfaction, the study does not give guidelines to design health policy and practices. It only indicates what variables could be considered, not how they can be changed effectively.

Thank you for your useful comment. We included an additional reflection on the pratical implications of the study, namely in what concerns health policy and intervention strategies.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

My congratulations this work is well constructed. The article focuses on a very interesting topic. The paper is well-written structured. 

The followings are my concerns on the paper.

(1) The authors should theoretically propose the research hypotheses.

(2) The authors should discuss the theoretical implications, managerial implications, and social implications according to the research findings in the manuscript. 

 (3) I suggest adding a part relating to the conclusion and its limitations.

(4) Lines 239 to 292 are the version from the journal template. They have not been edited therefore require extensive rewriting. 

(5) No access to data to verify the results presented. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

My congratulations this work is well constructed. The article focuses on a very interesting topic. The paper is well-written structured. 

Thank you for your careful analysis of the manuscript, as well as for the useful suggestions which significantly helped us to improve its quality.

 

Point 1: The authors should theoretically propose the research hypotheses.

Thank you for your detailed revision on the manuscript. We included additional theoretical considerations to support in a more robust and consistent way our research hypotheses.

 

Point 2: The authors should discuss the theoretical implications, managerial implications, and social implications according to the research findings in the manuscript. 

Thank you for your insightful comment. We included a more detailed reflection on the  theoretical and practical implications of the study.

 

Point 3: I suggest adding a part relating to the conclusion and its limitations.

Thank you for the suggestion. We added a conclusion section.

 

Point 4: Lines 239 to 292 are the version from the journal template. They have not been edited therefore require extensive rewriting.

 The identified lines were edited accordingly.

Point 5: No access to data to verify the results presented. 

Thank you for pointing out this. We understand your concern. However, as this is part of an ongoing project and due to ethical issues, data is only available upon reasonable request.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

M.M. Peixoto et al. Cognitive Subjective Well-Being During the 2nd Lockdown in Portugal: The Predictive Role Of Sociodemographic and Psychopathological Dimensions

Congratulations, you did a good job in revising the paper.

But still there are some inconsistencies, I like to mention. And in my opinion these should be address.

The first one is the relations between the variables you describe in the introduction (paragraph 1 and its subparagraphs). Especially the role of sociodemographic variables need attention. In the introduction you often state that sociodemographic variables affect psychopathological variables, which in their turn affect subjective life satisfaction. So sociodemographic variables have (also) an indirect effect. This indirect effect is not tested in the regressions. Indirect effects relate to multicollinearity (of the sociodemographic variables and the psychopathological variables). In your reply to my comments you state that multicollinearity is not a problem. That is an opinion, and should be made explicit. Reporting the tolerance is the first step, you should state, with a reference why you think multicollinearity is not a problem (please use different statistics, the correlations, changes in the beta coeffecients in the successive regressions as well as the theoretical conceptual model that suggests indirect effects of the sociodemographic variables). Whether multicollinearity is problematic is you regression analyses is an opinion as I state in a comment mentioned in the paper.

In stating the hypotheses (p 3), blocks of variables are used (It is also expected that COVID-19 infection significantly predicts poor cognitive subjective well-being [25,26]. Finally, it is expected that psychopathological symptoms predict poor cognitive subjective well-being). This suggests that you are less interested in the effects of specific indicators of these blocks of variables, and more interested in the effect of this kind (this block) of variables, that corresponds very well with the use of hierarchical regression analyses. However, in that case the R-square change is of more importance than the R-square. Please elaborate on this issue.

 

More detailed comments and suggestions are added as comments in the paper.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Congratulations, you did a good job in revising the paper.

 

But still there are some inconsistencies, I like to mention. And in my opinion these should be address.

 

Point 1: The first one is the relations between the variables you describe in the introduction (paragraph 1 and its subparagraphs). Especially the role of sociodemographic variables need attention. In the introduction you often state that sociodemographic variables affect psychopathological variables, which in their turn affect subjective life satisfaction. So sociodemographic variables have (also) an indirect effect. This indirect effect is not tested in the regressions. Indirect effects relate to multicollinearity (of the sociodemographic variables and the psychopathological variables). In your reply to my comments you state that multicollinearity is not a problem. That is an opinion, and should be made explicit. Reporting the tolerance is the first step, you should state, with a reference why you think multicollinearity is not a problem (please use different statistics, the correlations, changes in the beta coeffecients in the successive regressions as well as the theoretical conceptual model that suggests indirect effects of the sociodemographic variables). Whether multicollinearity is problematic is you regression analyses is an opinion as I state in a comment mentioned in the paper.

 

Thank you for the detailed revision of the paper which significantly helped us to improve its quality. We are also grateful for the opportunity to review the manuscript. We made several modifications in the introduction, which were duly highlighted with a different colour, considering this particular comment and the other comments that you added directly in the paper. The paragraphs suggesting indirect effects were rewritten, as this is not the main goal of the current study. We also reflected on the collinearity assumption  and we have adopted a more conservative perspective on this issue in this second revision of the manuscript (cf., results’ and discussion’ sections, p. 1 and p. 5, respectively).

 

 

Point 2: In stating the hypotheses (p 3), blocks of variables are used (It is also expected that COVID-19 infection significantly predicts poor cognitive subjective well-being [25,26]. Finally, it is expected that psychopathological symptoms predict poor cognitive subjective well-being). This suggests that you are less interested in the effects of specific indicators of these blocks of variables, and more interested in the effect of this kind (this block) of variables, that corresponds very well with the use of hierarchical regression analyses. However, in that case the R-square change is of more importance than the R-square. Please elaborate on this issue.

 

Thank you for that remarkable comment. We add that information (r-square change) directly in the text, and highlighted this issue in the discussion section. We believe this will clearly improve the manuscript.

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Third review M.M. Peixoto et al. Cognitive Subjective Well-Being During the 2nd Lockdown in Portugal: The Predictive Role Of Sociodemographic and Psychopathological Dimensions

 

Remark second review: The first one is the relations between the variables you describe in the introduction (paragraph 1 and its subparagraphs). Especially the role of sociodemographic variables need attention. In the introduction you often state that sociodemographic variables affect psychopathological variables, which in their turn affect subjective life satisfaction. So sociodemographic variables have (also) an indirect effect.

19-9 this comment is  addressed well.

Remark second review: This indirect effect is not tested in the regressions. Indirect effects relate to multicollinearity (of the sociodemographic variables and the psychopathological variables). In your reply to my comments you state that multicollinearity is not a problem. That is an opinion, and should be made explicit. Reporting the tolerance is the first step, you should state, with a reference why you think multicollinearity is not a problem (please use different statistics, the correlations, changes in the beta coeffecients in the successive regressions as well as the theoretical conceptual model that suggests indirect effects of the sociodemographic variables). Whether multicollinearity is problematic is you regression analyses is an opinion as I state in a comment mentioned in the paper.

19-9 a comment about the ‘significance’ of multicollinearity is provided. But no reference is given for the conclusion that the levels do not affect the validity of the regression coefficients. As I indicated, it is a highly subjective evaluation, and the evaluation whether the values do affect the estimated coefficients, differs depending on who you like to cite (and differ between scientific domains). So I really need a reference that backs up your opinion that multicollinearity is not a problem.

 

Remark second review: In stating the hypotheses (p 3), blocks of variables are used (It is also expected that COVID-19 infection significantly predicts poor cognitive subjective well-being [25,26]. Finally, it is expected that psychopathological symptoms predict poor cognitive subjective well-being). This suggests that you are less interested in the effects of specific indicators of these blocks of variables, and more interested in the effect of this kind (this block) of variables, that corresponds very well with the use of hierarchical regression analyses. However, in that case the R-square change is of more importance than the R-square. Please elaborate on this issue.

 

19-9 this comment is addressed well.

 

19-9 the discussion of the third version can be made stronger by being explicit that the reported significant effects of the independent variables are even significant is other blocks of variables are accounted for. The reported significant effects in the discussion all pertain to the last analyses (all variables included). The remark about the significant effect when other blocks of variables are included is important, since literature suggests that sociodemographic variables, Covid specific variables and psychopathological variables are intercorrelated. Even in the discussion you mention this point frequently. So, in the discussion quite a lot of attention is paid to the indirect effect (which is not tested, so not your research) and that makes the discussion weak in my opinion, since the indirect effects are not tested and the direct effects, when controlled for the other blocks of variables, are not well elaborated on.

 

Detailed comments and suggestions regarding this topic are added as comments in the paper.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Point 1: 19-9 this comment is  addressed well.

Thank you. We are glad to have addressed your issues of concern.

 

Point 2:  a comment about the ‘significance’ of multicollinearity is provided. But no reference is given for the conclusion that the levels do not affect the validity of the regression coefficients. As I indicated, it is a highly subjective evaluation, and the evaluation whether the values do affect the estimated coefficients, differs depending on who you like to cite (and differ between scientific domains). So I really need a reference that backs up your opinion that multicollinearity is not a problem.

Thank you for the careful analysis of the revised version of the manuscript. We added references in the manuscript  supporting our decision to assume that multicollinearity is not a significant problem. This does not mean that we do not  consider multicollinearity a problem, but only that the values of tolerance and VIF achieved allow to perform the regression analyses.

 

Point 3: this comment is addressed well.

Thank you for your feedback. We are glad to have responded to your concerns.

 

 

Point 4: the discussion of the third version can be made stronger by being explicit that the reported significant effects of the independent variables are even significant is other blocks of variables are accounted for. The reported significant effects in the discussion all pertain to the last analyses (all variables included). The remark about the significant effect when other blocks of variables are included is important, since literature suggests that sociodemographic variables, Covid specific variables and psychopathological variables are intercorrelated. Even in the discussion you mention this point frequently. So, in the discussion quite a lot of attention is paid to the indirect effect (which is not tested, so not your research) and that makes the discussion weak in my opinion, since the indirect effects are not tested and the direct effects, when controlled for the other blocks of variables, are not well elaborated on.

We are grateful for your detailed revision of the paper. We have made some changes in the discussion section to highlight that the reported significant effects of the independent variables are significant even when other blocks of variables are considered. We also added some information on the higher correlation between some variables and the impact this might have on our results. Finally, we included both a limitation and a suggestion for future studies to address possible indirect effects, because that was not our goal with this study. We sincerely hope that the discussion is now more accurate and clear.

 

 

Point 5: Detailed comments and suggestions regarding this topic are added as comments in the paper.

Thank you once again for all the work you put into our manuscript.. The comments in the paper have been carefully analysed and considered in the revision. However, we think that there may be some misunderstanding regarding this issue, as the reviewer seems to be referring to the results of previous studies, and not to our current data. Most comments referred to as the authors' indirect effects concern to data from previous research studies. We hope this is clearer now.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx