Applying and Extending the Conservation of Resources (COR) Model to Trauma in U.S. Veterans

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

traumacare-2748928

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled: “Applying and Extending Conservation of Resources (COR) Model to U.S. Veterans: A Brief Report.” This brief report presents a study that applied the COR model to veterans by examining the relationship between PTSD symptoms (and presence of PTSD diagnosis) and resource gain/loss. Overall, I found the manuscript to be well-written, concise, methodologically sound, and appropriate in scope and aims. I have noted some questions and edits below which I believe would strengthen the manuscript if addressed.

1. The overarching question that arose for me, as someone who was not familiar with the COR model, was how this approach accounts for some of the fundamental changes in PTSD that might be hard to quantify. For example, is it possible to assign a number to losing the “resource” of believing oneself to be a good person within the same framework in which one might rate the loss of money or time? I appreciated that the article noted that “Personal characteristic resources are self and worldviews.” However, I think the manuscript would benefit from addressing this a bit more fully. My initial question was reinforced by section 4.4, in which the open-ended response seemed to be aligned along themes in which participants were attempting to emphasize these sorts of losses. At the very least, I would encourage providing more detail on line 153-157 about how the scale is rated and adding a few sample items.

2. Line 17: Suggest editing to clarify that “medium” refers to an effect size.

3. Lines 42-43: Recommend clarifying a bit about how value and resources relate (e.g., Are all resources are valued – and if so, equally?).

4. Line 168: I was unclear on the meaning of the statement that “This finding similar to previous findings.” Does this refer to the absence of a statistically significant finding, or to the medium (but not significant) effect size? Also I would suggest moving this point to the discussion.

5. Lines181 and 184: Recommend moving the r-squared values out of the figure headings and into the text, along with p-values.

Author Response

1. The overarching question that arose for me, as someone who was not familiar with the COR model, was how this approach accounts for some of the fundamental changes in PTSD that might be hard to quantify. For example, is it possible to assign a number to losing the “resource” of believing oneself to be a good person within the same framework in which one might rate the loss of money or time? I appreciated that the article noted that “Personal characteristic resources are self and worldviews.” However, I think the manuscript would benefit from addressing this a bit more fully. My initial question was reinforced by section 4.4, in which the open-ended response seemed to be aligned along themes in which participants were attempting to emphasize these sorts of losses. At the very least, I would encourage providing more detail on line 153-157 about how the scale is rated and adding a few sample items.

Thank you for your feedback & comment - the recommended changes have been addressed in the manuscript (page 4-5).

 

2. Line 17: Suggest editing to clarify that “medium” refers to an effect size.

Thank you for your feedback & comment - the recommended changes have been addressed in the manuscript (abstract).

 

3. Lines 42-43: Recommend clarifying a bit about how value and resources relate (e.g., Are all resources are valued – and if so, equally?).

Thank you for your feedback & comment - the recommended changes have been addressed in the manuscript (page 1).

 

4. Line 168: I was unclear on the meaning of the statement that “This finding similar to previous findings.” Does this refer to the absence of a statistically significant finding, or to the medium (but not significant) effect size? Also I would suggest moving this point to the discussion.

Thank you for your feedback & comment - the recommended changes have been addressed in the manuscript (pages 5 & 6)

 

5. Lines181 and 184: Recommend moving the r-squared values out of the figure headings and into the text, along with p-values.

Thank you for your feedback & comment - the recommended changes have been addressed in the manuscript (page 5).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very simple paper with the correct analyses. Please improve the paper following these comments: 

1. Please calculate internal consistency reliability for your study variables.

2. The discussion section should be expanded, and the results should be analysed shortly.

3. Please correct grammatical errors.

4. Please see the journal's requirements on using zeroes before points in numbers.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please correct grammatical errors.

Author Response

1. Please calculate internal consistency reliability for your study variables.

Thank you for your feedback & comment – the recommended changes have been added to the manuscript (page 4 & 8).

 

2. The discussion section should be expanded, and the results should be analysed shortly.

Thank you for your feedback & comment – the recommended changes have been added to the manuscript (pages 6-7).

 

3. Please correct grammatical errors.

Thank you for your feedback & comment - the recommended changes have been addressed in the manuscript.

 

4. Please see the journal's requirements on using zeroes before points in numbers.

Thank you for your feedback & comment - the recommended changes have been addressed in the manuscript (pages 1, 5, & 6).

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have sufficiently addressed the comments in my original review.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback, time, and effort. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please find some comments for further improvements:

1. "A statistically significant negative medium effect size was found between PTSD diagnosis and resource gain, 16 r(17) = -.42, p = .039, one-tailed.". Do you mean that effect size was found or correlation? 

Lines 17-18: It seems that you did not find statistically significant difference, but the effect size of this difference is large.

2. The authors noted internal consistency reliability coefficinets obtained in valudation studies, however, please laso calculate internal consistency reliability coefficinets in your data. This are basic calculations for empirical psychological paper.

3. It seems that zeroes before full stops in numbers should be used. Please correct this.

Author Response

1. "A statistically significant negative medium effect size was found between PTSD diagnosis and resource gain, 16 r(17) = -.42, p = .039, one-tailed.". Do you mean that effect size was found or correlation? 

Thank you for your comment. Effect size of a correlation is a measure of how strong the relationship is between two variables. So, in this case both, since effect size describes the correlation.

2. Lines 17-18: It seems that you did not find statistically significant difference, but the effect size of this difference is large.

Thank you for your comment. That is correct - P = 0.077 though close to statistical significance it is not. Cohen’s D was built for this lack of power but still large effect size. This finding stipulates that if N size were larger p would be <.05 and the data trend would continue.

3. The authors noted internal consistency reliability coefficinets obtained in valudation studies, however, please laso calculate internal consistency reliability coefficinets in your data. This are basic calculations for empirical psychological paper.

Thank you for providing further clarification – this change has been added to the manuscript (page 6).

4. It seems that zeroes before full stops in numbers should be used. Please correct this.

Thank you for providing further clarification – changes have been made throughout the manuscript.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for improvements. 

Very minor comments:

Zeroes before full stops in numbers should be corrected more attentively (e.g., line 206).

Extremely high and somewhat unbelievable internal consistency reliability ("COR-E Gain Scale (α = 0.98), and COR-E Loss Scale (α = 0.99)."). Please check. If it is correct, so it is so strange, but in general it is possible, with no more problems.

Author Response

Zeroes before full stops in numbers should be corrected more attentively (e.g., line 206).

Thank you for your feedback – this change has been applied to the manuscript (page 6).

 

Extremely high and somewhat unbelievable internal consistency reliability ("COR-E Gain Scale (α = 0.98), and COR-E Loss Scale (α = 0.99)."). Please check. If it is correct, so it is so strange, but in general it is possible, with no more problems.

Thank you for your feedback – this statistical analysis has been checked and confirmed.