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.
Since most of the points were fixed in proper way, the manuscript has reached the level of publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Mike Climstein, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
No comment.
The authors responded appropriately to the points raised. Thank you.
However, when SEM, which assumes latent variables, is used in the medical and rehabilitation sciences, I consider it necessary to compare multiple models, even for hypothesis testing. When latent variables that cannot be directly observed are assumed, we consider that this has different implications from hypothesis testing in medical and rehabilitation science research. In hypothesis testing in humanities research, I have a different view.
No comment.
No comment.
Thank you for taking time to add information based on feedback, I appreciate your efforts. All previous concerns have been addressed.
Thank you for considering my comments.
I have no more comment for the experimental design of this paper.
Thank you for considering my comments.
I have no more comment for the validity of the findings of this paper.
no comment
After rigorous reviews by three peer reviewers, I have decided to request a major revision from the authors.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout - English writing of this article is very good, clear and used in simple enough language that could help understanding.
Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided. - I think this is good, however some additinal information about Kiken Yochi in general and the time-senstitive kiken yochi information is lacking in introduction. Additional information maybe 2-3 sentences could provide a little more context for this tool/method.
Professional article structure, figures, tables. Raw data shared. - yes
Self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses. - yes
Original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal. - Yes
Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap. - yes
Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard. - yes
Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate. - Mostly yes, but the scoring and correction method may need to improve its explanation
Meaningful replication encouraged where rationale & benefit to literature is clearly stated. - justification clearly provided and limitation to use has been included.
All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled. - yes
Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results. - yes
This is a really good study focusing on fall prediction risks which will be beneficial for the discipline and will tremendously benefit patients/persons with disabilities in future. There are several implications of the findings which was clearly discussed/included in the study, among others is the need to improve on the training contents for the students to better prepare them for their professional services later.
Kiken Yochi method is interesting in safety discipline and there are limited research incorporating this method especially elsewhere from Japan. Please find several comments for improvements which are minor in nature.
1. From the abstract I read, I was unsure if this study focuses on person with disabilities/accidents, I initially thought it was for older age people, maybe because I am not from the clinical setting. May be good to improve the abstract write up to make it clear.
2. In abstract, I know there is limited space but I think it would be good to address on what is Kiken Yochi.
3. SImilarly, in introduction, a very minimal explanation has been used to explain kiken yochi, this may need to improve as to help provide context and understanding to others in the field about kiken yochi.
4. Captions of tables/diagram are not self explanatory, to improve on these.
5. Add on how this can be used to people outside Japan in Discussion.
Thank you.
No comment.
1. Please describe the 24 items and the reasons for categorisation. Why was categorisation necessary?
1. It cannot be determined that Model 1 is the optimal model as multiple models are not presented. Present the results of other models to make model comparisons.
2. Related to the comment above, I believe that the validity of the categories made by qualitative analysis can be examined by comparing models.
3.Did adding other variables to the model reduce the goodness of fit? Why did you create the model included years of experience only?
In clinical practice, improving the predictive ability of falls is an urgent issue. This study identified Fall risk prediction ability factors for falls in the newly developed TP-KYT. In particular, we believe that the fact that human environment (HE) was extracted is clinically significant. I commented on several issues.
introduction
Lines 65-67: It is also necessary to consider external factors of falls.
Lines 80-84: Falls prevention interventions are mentioned. Please clarify whether the intervention is targeted at the community or facility (hospital).
Discussion: HE will be the most distinctive keyword in this study. Please give further consideration regarding “The therapist’s position is far away” and “The therapist is not observing the patient” In addition, since falls are caused by a complex interplay of many factors, a discussion involving all three of these factors is also necessary.
abstract
Lines 37,38: Please describe the methodology about "qualitatively analyzed.”
Methods
Line 142: What is “familiar with the measurement procedures”? (regarding what?)
Lines 144,145: Because some of the data from previous studies are used, it is necessary to state in detail which data were used.
Lines 153-156: Are there any criteria for years of experience for rehabilitation professionals? If TP-KYT reflects clinical experience, shouldn't it also take into account years of experience?
Line 157-: The implementation procedures in previous studies have been described in considerable detail. Arihisa et al. are cited here and there in the sentence. I think it would be better to write it more concisely.
Results
Line 224: Is the term “tools” appropriate? I think tool is appropriate when checking Table 2, but does it not include lighting, floor surfaces, etc.? Does TP-KYT take into account external factors related to falls?
no comment
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.