Title: Spanish version of the ICIQ-Bowel questionnaire among colorectal cancer patients:
Construct and criterion validity
Version: 1 Date: 15 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This paper presents novel data about the Spanish version of the
International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Anal Incontinence Symptoms and
Quality of Life Module (ICIQ-B) among patients with colorectal cancer. The paper is generally
well-written. The authors use reasonable, accepted approaches to evaluating the measure’s
psychometric properties, with the exception of the use of exploratory factor analysis (noted
in detail below). The authors should specifically state their hypotheses for evaluating known
groups validity.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The authors say the questionnaires were collected on paper by physical therapists. Does this
mean that the questionnaire administration was interviewer-assisted? If so, this should be stated
explicitly.
For known groups validity (construct validity), I expected to see hypotheses stating expected
relationships. The authors say “hypothesis testing” and the discussion uses “as expected”
language, but I did not see the hypotheses clearly stated in the methods section.
Since this is a scale with previous psychometric evaluations, why was exploratory factor analysis
used to assess dimensionality? I expected the authors would test whether the existing factor
(subscale) structure held in their population using confirmatory factor analysis. I found this
problematic, especially as the authors effectively ignore their results in favor of the original 3
factor structure.
The methods section species a threshold of 0.7 for alpha, while the results all exceed that, they
are listed as fair when below 0.9 (though in the discussion they call these same values “good”).
I agree that 0.9 is a more stringent threshold (suitable for individual comparisons while 0.7
is suitable for group comparisons), but the authors should be consistent between the different
sections of the paper.
A final conclusion paragraph is needed rather than ending with the limitations paragraph.
Title: Spanish version of the ICIQ-Bowel questionnaire among colorectal cancer patients:
Construct and criterion validity
Version: 1 Date: 15 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This paper presents novel data about the Spanish version of the
International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Anal Incontinence Symptoms and
Quality of Life Module (ICIQ-B) among patients with colorectal cancer. The paper is generally
well-written. The authors use reasonable, accepted approaches to evaluating the measure’s
psychometric properties, with the exception of the use of exploratory factor analysis (noted
in detail below). The authors should specifically state their hypotheses for evaluating known
groups validity.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The authors say the questionnaires were collected on paper by physical therapists. Does this
mean that the questionnaire administration was interviewer-assisted? If so, this should be stated
explicitly.
For known groups validity (construct validity), I expected to see hypotheses stating expected
relationships. The authors say “hypothesis testing” and the discussion uses “as expected”
language, but I did not see the hypotheses clearly stated in the methods section.
Since this is a scale with previous psychometric evaluations, why was exploratory factor analysis
used to assess dimensionality? I expected the authors would test whether the existing factor
(subscale) structure held in their population using confirmatory factor analysis. I found this
problematic, especially as the authors effectively ignore their results in favor of the original 3
factor structure.
The methods section species a threshold of 0.7 for alpha, while the results all exceed that, they
are listed as fair when below 0.9 (though in the discussion they call these same values “good”).
I agree that 0.9 is a more stringent threshold (suitable for individual comparisons while 0.7
is suitable for group comparisons), but the authors should be consistent between the different
sections of the paper.
A final conclusion paragraph is needed rather than ending with the limitations paragraph.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Spanish version of the ICIQ-Bowel questionnaire among colorectal cancer patients:
Construct and criterion validity
Version: 1 Date: 15 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This paper presents novel data about the Spanish version of the
International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Anal Incontinence Symptoms and
Quality of Life Module (ICIQ-B) among patients with colorectal cancer. The paper is generally
well-written. The authors use reasonable, accepted approaches to evaluating the measure’s
psychometric properties, with the exception of the use of exploratory factor analysis (noted
in detail below). The authors should specifically state their hypotheses for evaluating known
groups validity.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The authors say the questionnaires were collected on paper by physical therapists. Does this
mean that the questionnaire administration was interviewer-assisted? If so, this should be stated
explicitly.
For known groups validity (construct validity), I expected to see hypotheses stating expected
relationships. The authors say “hypothesis testing” and the discussion uses “as expected”
language, but I did not see the hypotheses clearly stated in the methods section.
Since this is a scale with previous psychometric evaluations, why was exploratory factor analysis
used to assess dimensionality? I expected the authors would test whether the existing factor
(subscale) structure held in their population using confirmatory factor analysis. I found this
problematic, especially as the authors effectively ignore their results in favor of the original 3
factor structure.
The methods section species a threshold of 0.7 for alpha, while the results all exceed that, they
are listed as fair when below 0.9 (though in the discussion they call these same values “good”).
I agree that 0.9 is a more stringent threshold (suitable for individual comparisons while 0.7
is suitable for group comparisons), but the authors should be consistent between the different
sections of the paper.
A final conclusion paragraph is needed rather than ending with the limitations paragraph.
assistant