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.
Based upon your satisfactory response to the reviewers' comments, your paper is now suitable for publication in PeerJ.
Please revise your manuscript in response to the reviewer suggestions, and respond to each point that has been raised.
No comments
Since the study has two aims and a four part research question, it would be helpful in the methods section to identify which question each section is designed to address. For example, construct validity and factor analysis section (study aim 2 part c) of something similar to help with organization and flow.
Analyses address the proposed aims and study questions adequately. Tables are well organized and informative.
Please clarify the response rate of 100%. Does this mean that 114 consecutive patients agreed to participation before undergoing the operation and that 111 postoperative patients agreed to study participation? How were missing data handled?
Literature review is thorough. The study purpose and research questions are clearly stated.
The discussion is well-written. Limitations of cross-sectional measurement are addressed. No definitive conclusions regarding improvement in eating self-efficacy from pre to post weight loss surgery can be derived from this study. However, this is an acceptable limitation given the primary aim of translating the American English language WEL-SF to Norwegian and to provide preliminary validation data on the translated version of the questionnaire. This study also addresses limitations of the American English Language WEL-SF that should be considered in future validation studies. For example, in item 4 the double-wording problem was addressed. In this sample, the authors found that adding a PC-item was clinically irrelevant.
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.