Title: Development and Validation of a 13-Item Short Version of the Inflammatory Bowel
Disease Self-Efficacy Scale
Version: 0 Date: 11 Dec 2023
Reviewer:  Welmoed K. van Deen
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript, the authors describe the development of a shorter version of the IBD-
SES. The study is generally well-described. However, I have some questions regarding the
methodology as described below (among others).
1. Introduction: A couple of key-considerations are missing in the introduction that would
strengthen the rationale for this study.
- What is the relation between self-management (first paragraph) and self-efficacy (second
paragraph)
- What is the impact of reductions in self-management on relevant (patient) outcomes?
- When and why do you need to measure self-efficacy levels. What can you do with this
information?
- In what context would a shorter instrument be useful?
2. Introduction line 55-60: unclear why the authors discuss ways to measure success of treatment,
while discussing self-management. I believe this part can be removed.
3. Methods – study design: more information is needed about the data used. Was this longitudinal
or cross-sectional data? Was an intervention tested in the study?
4. Methods – Item reduction: why were these three steps chosen to reduce the items and not other
quality measures of the sub-items (e.g., content validity, factorial validity)? How was it ensured
that various domains within the broader concept of self-efficacy remained covered? Were there
any requirements as for the number of items that remained within each sub-scale?
5. Methods line 95-96: “If the mean ± standard deviation (SD) of the scores for an item exceeded
the scale’s range” – this step is unclear, how can the mean exceed the range?
6. Methods line 99-100: “items that were less relevant to the main concept of the subscale were
eliminated.” – how was ‘relevance’ determined? Who determined this?
7. Methods line 100-103: how was data collected to do this? Did all participants fill out the
survey twice? A subset? What happened in between these two weeks? Also see comment #3.
8. Results – descriptive characteristics: I am missing an overview of the IBD-SES, subdomains
and subitems (mean, SD, range, etc). I would also like to see the results of the item reduction
steps (e.g., correlation coefficients, ICC’s, etc.)
9. Results p130-131: it’s stated that “on the basis of our interpretation of the main concepts
contained within each subscale of the original IBD-SES”. How did you determine what these
main concepts were?
10. Discussion: I am missing a reflection regarding limitations due to the methods selected for
item-reduction (also see comment 4)
Title: Development and Validation of a 13-Item Short Version of the Inflammatory Bowel
Disease Self-Efficacy Scale
Version: 0 Date: 11 Dec 2023
Reviewer:  Welmoed K. van Deen
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript, the authors describe the development of a shorter version of the IBD-
SES. The study is generally well-described. However, I have some questions regarding the
methodology as described below (among others).
1. Introduction: A couple of key-considerations are missing in the introduction that would
strengthen the rationale for this study.
- What is the relation between self-management (first paragraph) and self-efficacy (second
paragraph)
- What is the impact of reductions in self-management on relevant (patient) outcomes?
- When and why do you need to measure self-efficacy levels. What can you do with this
information?
- In what context would a shorter instrument be useful?
2. Introduction line 55-60: unclear why the authors discuss ways to measure success of treatment,
while discussing self-management. I believe this part can be removed.
3. Methods – study design: more information is needed about the data used. Was this longitudinal
or cross-sectional data? Was an intervention tested in the study?
4. Methods – Item reduction: why were these three steps chosen to reduce the items and not other
quality measures of the sub-items (e.g., content validity, factorial validity)? How was it ensured
that various domains within the broader concept of self-efficacy remained covered? Were there
any requirements as for the number of items that remained within each sub-scale?
5. Methods line 95-96: “If the mean ± standard deviation (SD) of the scores for an item exceeded
the scale’s range” – this step is unclear, how can the mean exceed the range?
6. Methods line 99-100: “items that were less relevant to the main concept of the subscale were
eliminated.” – how was ‘relevance’ determined? Who determined this?
7. Methods line 100-103: how was data collected to do this? Did all participants fill out the
survey twice? A subset? What happened in between these two weeks? Also see comment #3.
8. Results – descriptive characteristics: I am missing an overview of the IBD-SES, subdomains
and subitems (mean, SD, range, etc). I would also like to see the results of the item reduction
steps (e.g., correlation coefficients, ICC’s, etc.)
9. Results p130-131: it’s stated that “on the basis of our interpretation of the main concepts
contained within each subscale of the original IBD-SES”. How did you determine what these
main concepts were?
10. Discussion: I am missing a reflection regarding limitations due to the methods selected for
item-reduction (also see comment 4)
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Development and Validation of a 13-Item Short Version of the Inflammatory Bowel
Disease Self-Efficacy Scale
Version: 0 Date: 11 Dec 2023
Reviewer:  Welmoed K. van Deen
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript, the authors describe the development of a shorter version of the IBD-
SES. The study is generally well-described. However, I have some questions regarding the
methodology as described below (among others).
1. Introduction: A couple of key-considerations are missing in the introduction that would
strengthen the rationale for this study.
- What is the relation between self-management (first paragraph) and self-efficacy (second
paragraph)
- What is the impact of reductions in self-management on relevant (patient) outcomes?
- When and why do you need to measure self-efficacy levels. What can you do with this
information?
- In what context would a shorter instrument be useful?
2. Introduction line 55-60: unclear why the authors discuss ways to measure success of treatment,
while discussing self-management. I believe this part can be removed.
3. Methods – study design: more information is needed about the data used. Was this longitudinal
or cross-sectional data? Was an intervention tested in the study?
4. Methods – Item reduction: why were these three steps chosen to reduce the items and not other
quality measures of the sub-items (e.g., content validity, factorial validity)? How was it ensured
that various domains within the broader concept of self-efficacy remained covered? Were there
any requirements as for the number of items that remained within each sub-scale?
5. Methods line 95-96: “If the mean ± standard deviation (SD) of the scores for an item exceeded
the scale’s range” – this step is unclear, how can the mean exceed the range?
6. Methods line 99-100: “items that were less relevant to the main concept of the subscale were
eliminated.” – how was ‘relevance’ determined? Who determined this?
7. Methods line 100-103: how was data collected to do this? Did all participants fill out the
survey twice? A subset? What happened in between these two weeks? Also see comment #3.
8. Results – descriptive characteristics: I am missing an overview of the IBD-SES, subdomains
and subitems (mean, SD, range, etc). I would also like to see the results of the item reduction
steps (e.g., correlation coefficients, ICC’s, etc.)
9. Results p130-131: it’s stated that “on the basis of our interpretation of the main concepts
contained within each subscale of the original IBD-SES”. How did you determine what these
main concepts were?
10. Discussion: I am missing a reflection regarding limitations due to the methods selected for
item-reduction (also see comment 4)
assistant