All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The paper can be accepted. Congratulations.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jafri Abdullah, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
This manuscript has been appropriately revised. Thank you for your hard work.
No comment.
No comment.
No comment
No comment
No comment
The dissertation was revised appropriately.
The reviewers still have some lingering comments. Please address them and submit a revised version. Thanks.
The author has made appropriate improvements to the manuscript. However, this manuscript needs minor revisions.
Authors need to clearly state the research hypothesis in the introduction. The research hypothesis is a statement explaining the relationship between the independent and dependent variables based on previous research. In the introduction, please mention the research hypothesis that the author theoretically derived from previous studies. The research hypothesis should be presented after the research objectives.
Example;
Hypothesis 1: Individuals with higher anxiety states tend to have higher occupational dysfunction, negative emotion, and stress response.
Hypothesis 2:
Hypothesis 3:
The discussion should clearly mention whether the results supported the research hypothesis or differed from the research hypothesis.
The authors need to report reliability coefficients for the five rating scales based on previous studies.
no comment.
No comment
No comment
Discussion ( L.285~308)
Your argument in this paragraph relies 90% on previous research.
The only discussion in this study was "There was a moderate correlation between occupational dysfunction, negative emotion, and stress responses (299-300)."
In the discussion, you will develop a discussion based on your research results.
Previous research is a supplement to your research results.
There have been improvements since the first manuscript.
Please make minor corrections to the discussion.
A major revision is needed to address the comments raised by the reviewers.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
This manuscript is an important report on the state of health during a pandemic and is relevant to the purpose and scope of PeerJ. However, the manuscript should be improved using the following comments.
I would recommend the authors to improve the title. The title does not conform to the manuscript. The author is investigating trait anxiety, state anxiety, and occupational dysfunction, as well as health literacy, stress response, and positive/negative emotions.
The introduction is a logical leap and lacks the content to be discussed. Four main improvements are needed. First, the author needs to present an argument linking mental health (e.g., stress response, burnout syndrome, and depression) and occupational dysfunction in order to correct a logical leap. Several previous studies have suggested a link between mental health and occupational dysfunction. The authors need to clearly demonstrate the link between mental health and occupational dysfunction.
Second, the authors should present a discussion related to COVID-19 and occupational dysfunction. In occupational therapy, function and performance are interchangeable concepts (Law, Baum, and Dunn ed, 2016; ASIN: B086Z5M916). Problems related to occupational performance and occupational participation need to be recognized as the same as occupational dysfunction. Therefore, the authors should clearly indicate previous studies that examined the association of COVID-19 with occupational performance and occupational participation as well as occupational dysfunction. The current manuscript is limited to a conceptual description of occupational dysfunction and needs to be substantially revised.
Third, the author should clearly state the hypothesis to be tested in this study. The introduction indicates the purpose of the study, but it is unclear what hypothesis will be tested by this study. The hypothesis should be clearly presented.
Fourth, the author needs to match the introduction with the methods and results. In this manuscript, the methods and results are presented in excess of the introduction. For example, the results and methods show the prevalence of occupational dysfunction, its association with health literacy, stress response, and positive/negative emotions. These findings are important. However, the need to validate them is not indicated in the introduction. The introduction needs a major revision overall.
The authors provide sufficient explanation to reproduce. However, this manuscript needs some improvements.
This manuscript contains the names of the universities that were surveyed. Therefore, this manuscript does not guarantee complete anonymity. The authors need to revise the description to guarantee complete anonymity.
The authors need to clearly indicate the social conditions at the time of the survey. Was the country under a declared state of emergency during the period of the survey? Had the pandemic been contained? The authors need to explain the context related to the pandemic during the study period.
The authors used a cross-sectional study, but stated that there were two measurement points. The design is difficult to understand. It needs to be improved by using figures to explain in detail.
This manuscript has major problems with the introduction, so I cannot judge the appropriateness of the scale used. The authors need to revise the introduction substantially or narrow the focus of the methods to match the introduction.
The STAI divides them into four groups, but the method needs to be clearly explained.
The authors report the results in detail. However, the author needs to improve some things.
The authors indicate the prevalence of occupational dysfunction in the results. However, the authors do not explain how to calculate the prevalence.
In the discussion, it is stated that the overall prevalence of occupational dysfunction was 47%. However, this 47% is not shown in the results. Also, this method does not show how to calculate the prevalence of occupational dysfunction. The authors should distinguish between results and discussion, and clearly explain the method used.
The authors include in the discussion what should be discussed in the introduction. The authors should distinguish between the introduction and the discussion.
The conclusion is excessive for the research question presented in the introduction. The author needs to improve the introduction significantly.
This manuscript is a valuable report on the association between COVID-19 and occupational dysfunction. If there are any weaknesses in this manuscript, they are mainly in the introduction, which should be improved together with the methods, results, and discussion.
Nothing
1. Title
The title of your dissertation is different from the content. Please give a title according to the research result
2.Purpose of research
The research purpose and the actual content do not match. Please change the purpose according to the actual situation of the research. Or you should perform a statistical analysis that suits your research objectives.
1. Design
"Each measurement was performed twice within two weeks to account for participant fatigue; CAOD and HLS-EU-Q47 were measured the first time, and STAI, POMS-2, and SRS-18 were measured the second time."(153-155)
Why did you ask participants to answer STAI, POMS and SRS-18 two weeks later? When treated as cross-sectional data, the correlation analysis between these and CAOD and HLS-EU-Q47 is not valid.
2. Statistical analysis
You write in the analysis normality test, cutoff, multiple comparison test, and correlation analysis.
However, the risk of occupational dysfunction appears in the results.
Also, there is a description such as odds ratio in the discussion.
You should clearly describe the analysis method.
3. Results
As mentioned earlier, you are describing results that are not listed in the statistical analysis.
You need to describe the entire analysis and reflect it in the results.
4. Discussion
"The evaluation of occupational dysfunction may thus be more effective if the degree of state and trait anxiety is taken into account."(251-252)
"Therefore, college students with high trait anxiety, state anxiety, negative emotions, and stress response scores are more likely to have occupational dysfunction. "(254-256)
These sentences cannot be derived from the results. For example, the sentences on lines 254 to 256 cannot be stated unless the odds ratio is calculated. You need to review the whole thing and write a thought that fits the result
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.