Talk:WikiJournal Preprints/Parenting stress
Abidin, R; Smith, L; Kim, H.
Comments by Dr. Jason Dixon
The article focuses on establishing ""Parenting stress"" as a statistical construct (i.e. and depending on the scope of the research by the authors), should rely and clearly state the methodology used to establish ""Face validity"" then ""construct validity"" of the statistical factor in your work.
If the authors have a data set related directly to this work, there's no ethical problem to do an ad hoc Confirmatory Factor Analysis or similar SEM to confirm if there is evidence of construct validity. Please note you can not conduct an exploratory factor analysis and if it looks good conduct a CFA. It's bordering on unethical conduct and what I consider scholarly cheating. So choose one or the other wisely. As a peer reviewer I'm not in a position to prescribe such advise you, because this is your research, and I believe there's a boundary to recognise between your role and mine in this capacity. However I do think it's fair to suggest that you conduct a Principal Components Analysis to see if your construct could be bidimensional or have multidimensional properties. If so then your CFA can assist in detecting if any of these dimensions are orthogonal. If they look to be oblique, then this is perfectly relevant to state to your audience. The statistical construct could be unidimensional and your ad hoc analysis can assist in clarifying this as well. These are suggestions for you to consider if they are possible and appropriate given your research design and how your data was collected.
The language of the article should also clearly state that eg, that ""Parenting stress"" is a ""statistical construct"" etc. This will improve your work by clarifying to the reader that there is some (I assume), statistically significant results on the ""Parenting stress"" as a statistical construct rather than a general statement about the stress of parenting. These matters are your limitations and delimitations of your research. Please state them as they add to the scholarly rigorous of your work, and are interesting for audience and to other researchers who wish to build upon your work. These are the comments have to offer at this point in time. I hope this assists you with what is a worthy topic for research and very attractive to epidemiology researcher psyshometricians. As an example your future work could look at the association between ""Study burden"" and ""Parenting stress""! That would be good stuff indeed! Your article could benefit by having a future research section before your conclusion.