Development and First Validation of the Perceived Young Adult Lockdown Parental Relationship Scale (PYALPRS): An Italian Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the study and have the following suggestions and recommendations before the final acceptance.

1. The abstract should be divided into sections like background of the study, methods, results and general conclusion.

2. In the abstract, the percentages are presented with mean and SD which does not make statistical sense.  For example see the percentage of males and then the Mean and SD. 

3. There is a similar wrong pattern of presenting the statistical results in section 2.2. Do not mention percentages with mean and SD.

4. The percentages should be expressed with their numbers. Showing numbers with percentages like n (%) or % (n) is recommended.

5. The authors should present the flow chart that how sampling was performed. Which technique was used? either it was selective or random.? Justify your choice of selection.

6. The techniques used to validate the results like Goodness of Fit Index, Incremental Fit Index, Average Variance Extracted in section 2.3, should be expressed with their formulas in separate sections like accuracy or validity measures.

7. The statistical analysis section should be started from the line "Descriptive analyses were performed for scale items..."

8. There are too many abbreviations used in the study. It would be better to describe them separately or use them once.

9. What is the purpose of "Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of the Items of PYALPRS’ final version". What does mean, SD,... tell us about the scale of the questionnaire.

10. Similarly in Table 3, what is the purpose of presenting the mean and SD of scales?

11. The ANOVA is applied to the continuous variable based on more than two groups. Why ANOVA is applied here? The authors are comparing an average of which continuous variable based on which groups. There is too much bombardment of statistical tests which are only suitable for continuous variables not for the qualitative variables used in the present study. It is suggested to apply statistical test for the qualitative variables.

12. IT is suggested to minimize the limitations section.

13. The conclusions should be generalized rather than discussed. It is advised to remove references from the conclusion section and try to generalize it.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English language is fine

Author Response

Manuscript ID: future-3257284

Reviewer 1

I have reviewed the study and have the following suggestions and recommendations before the final acceptance.

1. The abstract should be divided into sections like background of the study, methods, results and general conclusion.

The abstract follows this scheme, but as reported in the authors’ guidelines: “The abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum. The abstract should be a single paragraph and should follow the style of structured abstracts, but without headings”.

2. In the abstract, the percentages are presented with mean and SD which does not make statistical sense.  For example see the percentage of males and then the Mean and SD. 

Thank you for your suggestion. We removed the percentage.

3. There is a similar wrong pattern of presenting the statistical results in section 2.2. Do not mention percentages with mean and SD.

We modified this section as requested.

4. The percentages should be expressed with their numbers. Showing numbers with percentages like n (%) or % (n) is recommended.

We included the numbers alongside the percentages as requested.

5. The authors should present the flow chart that how sampling was performed. Which technique was used? either it was selective or random.? Justify your choice of selection.

Thank you for your suggestion. We have included the sampling technique in section 2.1

6. The techniques used to validate the results like Goodness of Fit Index, Incremental Fit Index, Average Variance Extracted in section 2.3, should be expressed with their formulas in separate sections like accuracy or validity measures.

Thank you for your suggestion. We have rewritten the 'Statistical Analysis” section (2.5) to make it clearer. However, we preferred to maintain a single paragraph for greater coherence.

7. The statistical analysis section should be started from the line "Descriptive analyses were performed for scale items..."

In line with the previous comment, we have rewritten the section to make it clearer and have repositioned the subsection on descriptive analyses.

8. There are too many abbreviations used in the study. It would be better to describe them separately or use them once.

Thank you for the suggestion. We have reduced and more clearly specified the abbreviations in the text, both those related to the names of the dimensions and those associated with the statistical tests.

9. What is the purpose of "Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of the Items of PYALPRS’ final version". What does mean, SD,... tell us about the scale of the questionnaire.

Thank you for your suggestions. We included mean and standard deviation since they provide a comprehensive picture of the response distribution for each item, highlighting the average response and the degree of variation across participants. This information has been integrated into the instrument validation process as an integral part. A single table has been created for this purpose (new Table 2 in section 3.2).

10. Similarly in Table 3, what is the purpose of presenting the mean and SD of scales?

Thank you for your suggestions. Table 3 has been removed as it was redundant; the information it contained has been consolidated into a single table (see new Table 2 in section 3.2).

11. The ANOVA is applied to the continuous variable based on more than two groups. Why ANOVA is applied here? The authors are comparing an average of which continuous variable based on which groups. There is too much bombardment of statistical tests which are only suitable for continuous variables not for the qualitative variables used in the present study. It is suggested to apply statistical test for the qualitative variables.

Thank you for the suggestion. We have corrected the statistical inaccuracy regarding gender by performing a t-test. The other ANOVA analyses have been retained, as the other sociodemographic variables considered consisted of more than two groups.

12. IT is suggested to minimize the limitations section.

Thank you for your suggestions. We minimized the limitations section.

13. The conclusions should be generalized rather than discussed. It is advised to remove references from the conclusion section and try to generalize it.

Thank you for your suggestions. We removed the references and generalized the section.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English language is fine

Thank you for your feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript on the development and validation of the Perceived Young Adult Lockdown Parental Relationship Scale (PYALPRS). Your work addresses an important gap in understanding parent-child relationships during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the scale shows promise as a valuable measurement tool!

After careful review, I recommend major revisions to strengthen the paper’s potential impact. I do believe the core aspects of the research presented here is sound, with strengths like its novel contribution to understanding parent-child dynamics during lockdown, a methodologically sound two-phase validation approach, and practical implications for family research. However, unfortunately, relatively major elaborations would be needed to enhance this paper, especially along clarity, theoretical depth, and presentation.

Theoretical Foundation and Literature Review:

• The Introduction would benefit from consolidating overlapping references (e.g., [44-46]) into a cohesive narrative to help readers grasp key concepts more effectively. Pls don’t expect the readers to their own research!  Information should be presented in a more integrated manner, with synthesis and interpretation of the existing literature built into the theoretical foundations!
• Strengthen the theoretical framework by connecting existing literature more explicitly. This is especially problematic for dimensions of Oppression/Conflict and Closeness/Support. Expanding on relevant theoretical perspectives, such as attachment theory or family systems theory (or preferably more updated tenets!!!), will enrich the discussion and provide a deeper understanding of the dynamics being investigated.

Methods and Participants:

• Ensure transparency by providing clear justification for statistical thresholds and addressing any deviations from standard practice as appropriate.  I say this because the descriptions here left me a little confused…
• You need to acknowledge and contextualize the limitations of convenience sampling, including demographic biases such as gender and regional representation—which would be a core consideration in these studies. Harkness and Super’s notion of parental ethnotheory, for instance, would inform us that family dynamics cannot be meaningfully explored without knowing the context thoroughly. Providing more detail on the recruitment process, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and participant incentives will strengthen the section's clarity.

Results and Interpretation:

• Pls consider reorganizing the Results section to clearly separate statistical findings from interpretation. This will improve readability and ensure a clear distinction between objective data and subjective analysis.
• Since this manuscript is text-heavy and the language is a little dense, perhaps you could consider including a visual summary (e.g., a figure illustrating the final factor structure) to enhance comprehension of the scale's psychometric properties?
• Expand the discussion of Factor 2's lower AVE score, exploring potential explanations and implications for validity. Also, I find the table labeling frustrating! Pls create clearer table labeling to improve the presentation.

Discussion and Future Directions:

• A study of this nature would require that you broaden the analysis of practical applications, demonstrating the scale's utility beyond the pandemic context, such as in natural disasters or other crises. Without this discussion, the research remains “in a vacuum.”
• Expand the future research directions to address sampling limitations and suggest avenues for correlational or longitudinal studies.  Along the same vein, strengthen integration with the existing literature, linking findings to broader research on family dynamics, stress, and adolescent development. (This weakness is also related to the weak theoretical framework I mentioned earlier.)

 

Overall Verdict: Your research could make a valuable contribution to understanding family dynamics during crisis periods. With substantial revisions focusing on the theoretical framework, result presentation, and language clarity, this manuscript has the potential to advance the field significantly. I encourage you to undertake these revisions, as your work offers meaningful insights into parent-child relationships under extraordinary circumstances.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

• I would respectfully like to urge you to hire an English-language editor to improve the readability of this manuscript. Currently, the paper is somewhat difficult to follow due to issues with grammar, clarity, and overly complex sentence structures. Simplifying these sentences and addressing grammatical inconsistencies will greatly enhance clarity and readability. Some reviewers may reject the paper solely based on its lack of readability.
• Additionally, please ensure consistent use of terminology throughout the manuscript to avoid confusion. Polishing the language will also help better convey the significance of your findings.

Author Response

Manuscript ID: future-3257284

Reviewer 2

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript on the development and validation of the Perceived Young Adult Lockdown Parental Relationship Scale (PYALPRS). Your work addresses an important gap in understanding parent-child relationships during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the scale shows promise as a valuable measurement tool!

Thank you for your appreciation of our work.

After careful review, I recommend major revisions to strengthen the paper’s potential impact. I do believe the core aspects of the research presented here is sound, with strengths like its novel contribution to understanding parent-child dynamics during lockdown, a methodologically sound two-phase validation approach, and practical implications for family research. However, unfortunately, relatively major elaborations would be needed to enhance this paper, especially along clarity, theoretical depth, and presentation.

Theoretical Foundation and Literature Review:

• The Introduction would benefit from consolidating overlapping references (e.g., [44-46]) into a cohesive narrative to help readers grasp key concepts more effectively. Pls don’t expect the readers to their own research!  Information should be presented in a more integrated manner, with synthesis and interpretation of the existing literature built into the theoretical foundations!

Thank you for your suggestions. We described information in a more integrated manner.

• Strengthen the theoretical framework by connecting existing literature more explicitly. This is especially problematic for dimensions of Oppression/Conflict and Closeness/Support. Expanding on relevant theoretical perspectives, such as attachment theory or family systems theory (or preferably more updated tenets!!!), will enrich the discussion and provide a deeper understanding of the dynamics being investigated.

Thank you for your suggestions. We enriched the theoretical framework referring to different perspectives, such as attachment theory and family systems theory.

Methods and Participants:

• Ensure transparency by providing clear justification for statistical thresholds and addressing any deviations from standard practice as appropriate.  I say this because the descriptions here left me a little confused…

As stated in the paper, the process of constructing the PYALPRS followed the criteria outlined in the literature for developing instruments in the social sciences. The text includes references that guided the sample selection process (e.g., Mundfrom et al., 2005), the instrument development process (e.g., Spector, 1992), and the various cut-off thresholds considered for the different statistical analyses conducted (e.g., Hu & Bentler, 1999; McDonald & Ho, 2002). However, your comment allowed us to review the instrument development section and add the reference of Boateng et al. (2018), another key reference for the construction of the instrument. Thank you.

• You need to acknowledge and contextualize the limitations of convenience sampling, including demographic biases such as gender and regional representation—which would be a core consideration in these studies. Harkness and Super’s notion of parental ethnotheory, for instance, would inform us that family dynamics cannot be meaningfully explored without knowing the context thoroughly. Providing more detail on the recruitment process, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and participant incentives will strengthen the section's clarity.

Thank you for your suggestions. We described the recruitment process, the inclusion criteria and the absence of participant incentives. We also added information about convenience sampling and discussed the related limitations in the Limitations section.

Results and Interpretation:

• Pls consider reorganizing the Results section to clearly separate statistical findings from interpretation. This will improve readability and ensure a clear distinction between objective data and subjective analysis.

Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the manuscript and minimized any interpretations of the results, which are instead discussed in detail in the discussion section.

• Since this manuscript is text-heavy and the language is a little dense, perhaps you could consider including a visual summary (e.g., a figure illustrating the final factor structure) to enhance comprehension of the scale's psychometric properties?

Thank you for your suggestion. In Figure 1 the final factor structure is presented (paragraph 3.2)

• Expand the discussion of Factor 2's lower AVE score, exploring potential explanations and implications for validity. Also, I find the table labeling frustrating! Pls create clearer table labeling to improve the presentation.

We re-labeled the tables for clarity. We have replicated the analyses and, based on the standardized factor loadings, we have identified a calculation error. Both the AVE indices for the first and second factors are above the 0.50 cut-off. Specifically, the AVE for Factor 1 is 0.79 and the AVE for Factor 2 is 0.69. Thank you very much for your suggestion.

Discussion and Future Directions:

• A study of this nature would require that you broaden the analysis of practical applications, demonstrating the scale's utility beyond the pandemic context, such as in natural disasters or other crises. Without this discussion, the research remains “in a vacuum.”

Thank you for your suggestions. This is mentioned and further discussed in the Conclusions section (paragraph 5).

• Expand the future research directions to address sampling limitations and suggest avenues for correlational or longitudinal studies.  Along the same vein, strengthen integration with the existing literature, linking findings to broader research on family dynamics, stress, and adolescent development. (This weakness is also related to the weak theoretical framework I mentioned earlier.)

Thank you for your suggestions. We enriched the future directions section (paragraph 4.1).

 Overall Verdict: Your research could make a valuable contribution to understanding family dynamics during crisis periods. With substantial revisions focusing on the theoretical framework, result presentation, and language clarity, this manuscript has the potential to advance the field significantly. I encourage you to undertake these revisions, as your work offers meaningful insights into parent-child relationships under extraordinary circumstances.

Comments on the Quality of English Language 

• I would respectfully like to urge you to hire an English-language editor to improve the readability of this manuscript. Currently, the paper is somewhat difficult to follow due to issues with grammar, clarity, and overly complex sentence structures. Simplifying these sentences and addressing grammatical inconsistencies will greatly enhance clarity and readability. Some reviewers may reject the paper solely based on its lack of readability.

The manuscript was originally reviewed by a specialized reviewer and translator. We have had the manuscript reviewed again, addressing the requested revisions (improving the language and simplifying complex sentences)

• Additionally, please ensure consistent use of terminology throughout the manuscript to avoid confusion. Polishing the language will also help better convey the significance of your findings.

Thank you for your suggestions. We revised language and terminology throughout the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper provides a valuable contribution to understanding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on parent-young adult relationships, introducing a new scale—the Perceived Young Adult Lockdown Parental Relationship Scale (PYALPRS). This scale is designed to capture two key dimensions of the relationship: Oppression-Conflict and Closeness-Support—constructs grounded in attachment theory and family systems theory. While the paper makes significant strides in developing and validating this scale, a more comprehensive discussion of the statistical methodologies employed and the broader theoretical context would improve the rigor and generalizability of the findings.

The authors take a logical and systematic approach in developing the PYALPRS, beginning with the definition of constructs, followed by item generation, and concluding with psychometric validation. The use of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to test the factor structure of the scale is a clear strength, as it provides statistical support for the two hypothesized dimensions: Oppression-Conflict and Closeness-Support. High goodness-of-fit indices from the CFA are promising and indicate that the two factors are distinct, theoretically coherent, and statistically supported. The paper also provides convincing evidence for the scale’s internal consistency, as well as convergent and divergent validity, using established methods such as Cronbach's alpha, and Pearson's correlations.

Moreover, the ANOVA results showing significant differences based on cohabitation status and home space perception add a valuable layer to the analysis, linking the scale to real-world experiences and contextual factors during the lockdown. These findings underscore the importance of environmental factors, like living space and relationship proximity, in shaping the nature of parent-young adult relationships.

 

While the paper is strong in its foundational psychometrics, there are a few areas where the statistical analysis could be expanded or clarified to bolster the validity of the PYALPRS and its utility for future research:

1. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA): The study begins with CFA to confirm the factor structure of the PYALPRS, but it would benefit from an earlier Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) to identify the underlying latent factors. While CFA is excellent for confirming pre-specified structures, EFA allows for a more data-driven approach to uncover potential dimensions of the relationship that were not hypothesized. This would enhance the robustness of the proposed factor model, especially since the constructs of Oppression-Conflict and Closeness-Support may not fully capture the complexity of parent-young adult dynamics during lockdown.

2. Multi-group Analysis: The study could benefit from a multi-group analysis to explore whether the factor structure holds across different demographic groups. The current sample includes predominantly female participants (75%), which could limit the generalizability of the findings. Testing for gender invariance, as well as other demographic factors like socioeconomic status or cultural differences, would strengthen the external validity of the scale.

3. Longitudinal Data: Given that the COVID-19 lockdown was a temporal event, it would be useful to assess the temporal stability of the PYALPRS. A longitudinal study design, where participants are surveyed at multiple points during and after the lockdown, would offer insights into whether the relationships between parents and young adults evolved over time, and if so, how the scale could capture these shifts.

4. Predictive Validity: While the study demonstrates convergent and divergent validity, it would be valuable to establish predictive validity as well. For example, it would be interesting to test whether higher levels of Oppression-Conflict correlate with negative mental health outcomes, such as anxiety or depression, and whether Closeness-Support is linked to better psychological well-being or increased resilience. The authors could also investigate how parental conflict or support influences other domains of young adult development, such as academic performance or relationship satisfaction.

5. Additional Statistical Tests: The paper relies heavily on CFA and ANOVA. While these are powerful tools, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) could offer a more comprehensive analysis by examining relationships between multiple variables simultaneously, rather than isolating two key factors. SEM could also be used to investigate mediation or moderation effects, such as how variables like cohabitation status or perceptions of home space might mediate the relationship between the PYALPRS dimensions and mental health outcomes.

While the paper’s statistical analysis is solid, the theoretical discussion would benefit from a deeper engagement with the literature on parent-young adult relationships, particularly during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic. The Oppression-Conflict and Closeness-Support constructs are discussed within a broad framework of attachment theory, but this could be enriched by drawing on additional theoretical perspectives. For example, family systems theory could help explain how changes in family dynamics during the lockdown might impact communication, boundaries, and emotional closeness. Moreover, social support theory could be integrated to discuss the role of parental support in buffering stress and promoting well-being during times of crisis.

The psychosocial effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on young adults are already well-documented in existing research, with studies linking lockdown measures to increased stress, depression, and anxiety. However, the paper could situate its findings more explicitly within this context by discussing how the unique features of the pandemic—such as social isolation, remote learning, or employment disruptions—contributed to the changes in parent-young adult relationships observed in the study. Additionally, drawing on cross-cultural research on family relationships during crises could help contextualize the Italian sample, offering insights into how cultural values around family and autonomy may influence the parent-young adult dynamic during the lockdown.

The paper presents the PYALPRS as a reliable and valid tool, but it would be beneficial for future research to test its applicability in a broader range of populations. Given that the current sample is exclusively Italian, future studies should explore the scale's psychometric properties in other countries and cultural contexts, as family dynamics and perceptions of the pandemic may differ significantly across cultures.

Additionally, the authors could investigate how the parent-child relationship during lockdown influences long-term outcomes in young adults. Specifically, it would be interesting to explore whether young adults who experienced high levels of Oppression-Conflict or low Closeness-Support during the pandemic are at greater risk for interpersonal or mental health challenges post-lockdown. Longitudinal studies could provide critical insights into how the parental relationship during this formative time period shapes future adult functioning.

This study provides a valuable tool for understanding the impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on parent-young adult relationships. The PYALPRS appears to be a reliable and valid measure of the two key dimensions of Oppression-Conflict and Closeness-Support, offering new insights into the psychological and relational effects of the pandemic. However, additional statistical analyses, including exploratory factor analysis, multi-group comparisons, and longitudinal designs, would strengthen the scale’s psychometric properties and increase its applicability to diverse populations. A more thorough engagement with the literature on parent-child dynamics during crises and a deeper theoretical discussion would further enhance the paper’s contribution to the field. This study lays a strong foundation for future research on the long-term effects of the pandemic on family relationships, with the potential to inform interventions aimed at improving familial support and cohesion in times of crisis.

 

 

Author Response

Manuscript ID: future-3257284

Reviewer 3

The paper provides a valuable contribution to understanding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on parent-young adult relationships, introducing a new scale—the Perceived Young Adult Lockdown Parental Relationship Scale (PYALPRS). This scale is designed to capture two key dimensions of the relationship: Oppression-Conflict and Closeness-Support—constructs grounded in attachment theory and family systems theory. While the paper makes significant strides in developing and validating this scale, a more comprehensive discussion of the statistical methodologies employed and the broader theoretical context would improve the rigor and generalizability of the findings.

Thank you very much for your appreciation. We have made the revisions as indicated in the subsequent comments.

The authors take a logical and systematic approach in developing the PYALPRS, beginning with the definition of constructs, followed by item generation, and concluding with psychometric validation. The use of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to test the factor structure of the scale is a clear strength, as it provides statistical support for the two hypothesized dimensions: Oppression-Conflict and Closeness-Support. High goodness-of-fit indices from the CFA are promising and indicate that the two factors are distinct, theoretically coherent, and statistically supported. The paper also provides convincing evidence for the scale’s internal consistency, as well as convergent and divergent validity, using established methods such as Cronbach's alpha, and Pearson's correlations.

Moreover, the ANOVA results showing significant differences based on cohabitation status and home space perception add a valuable layer to the analysis, linking the scale to real-world experiences and contextual factors during the lockdown. These findings underscore the importance of environmental factors, like living space and relationship proximity, in shaping the nature of parent-young adult relationships.

Thank you very much for your feedback and for appreciating our methodological rigor.

While the paper is strong in its foundational psychometrics, there are a few areas where the statistical analysis could be expanded or clarified to bolster the validity of the PYALPRS and its utility for future research:

1. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA): The study begins with CFA to confirm the factor structure of the PYALPRS, but it would benefit from an earlier Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) to identify the underlying latent factors. While CFA is excellent for confirming pre-specified structures, EFA allows for a more data-driven approach to uncover potential dimensions of the relationship that were not hypothesized. This would enhance the robustness of the proposed factor model, especially since the constructs of Oppression-Conflict and Closeness-Support may not fully capture the complexity of parent-young adult dynamics during lockdown.

Thank you for your specific comment. However, the EFA is already included in the paper. As shown, we first conducted an EFA (Study I; N = 100) and then a CFA (Study II; N = 259) on a distinct sample. We have made this distinction more clearly visible.

1. Multi-group Analysis: The study could benefit from a multi-group analysis to explore whether the factor structure holds across different demographic groups. The current sample includes predominantly female participants (75%), which could limit the generalizability of the findings. Testing for gender invariance, as well as other demographic factors like socioeconomic status or cultural differences, would strengthen the external validity of the scale.

Thank you for the suggestion. We have included the gender invariance of the PYALPRS in the manuscript, thereby strengthening the external validity of the instrument.

1. Longitudinal Data: Given that the COVID-19 lockdown was a temporal event, it would be useful to assess the temporal stability of the PYALPRS. A longitudinal study design, where participants are surveyed at multiple points during and after the lockdown, would offer insights into whether the relationships between parents and young adults evolved over time, and if so, how the scale could capture these shifts.

Thank you for your suggestion. The present study is cross-sectional, and your feedback has been included in the future directions section.

1. Predictive Validity: While the study demonstrates convergent and divergent validity, it would be valuable to establish predictive validity as well. For example, it would be interesting to test whether higher levels of Oppression-Conflict correlate with negative mental health outcomes, such as anxiety or depression, and whether Closeness-Support is linked to better psychological well-being or increased resilience. The authors could also investigate how parental conflict or support influences other domains of young adult development, such as academic performance or relationship satisfaction.

Thank you very much for your suggestion, we greatly appreciate it. As advised, we have included correlational analyses with already validated instruments to also test the predictive validity of the tool. We selected the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), the Dispositional Optimism Scale (LOT-R), and the Lockdown Young Adults Concern Scale (LYACS) as instruments. The results of these analyses have been further discussed in the Discussion section (paragraph 4). The other aspects of this suggestion were included as directions for future research.

1. Additional Statistical Tests: The paper relies heavily on CFA and ANOVA. While these are powerful tools, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) could offer a more comprehensive analysis by examining relationships between multiple variables simultaneously, rather than isolating two key factors. SEM could also be used to investigate mediation or moderation effects, such as how variables like cohabitation status or perceptions of home space might mediate the relationship between the PYALPRS dimensions and mental health outcomes.

Thank you for your suggestions. We included this as part of the directions for future research.

While the paper’s statistical analysis is solid, the theoretical discussion would benefit from a deeper engagement with the literature on parent-young adult relationships, particularly during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic. The Oppression-Conflict and Closeness-Support constructs are discussed within a broad framework of attachment theory, but this could be enriched by drawing on additional theoretical perspectives. For example, family systems theory could help explain how changes in family dynamics during the lockdown might impact communication, boundaries, and emotional closeness. Moreover, social support theory could be integrated to discuss the role of parental support in buffering stress and promoting well-being during times of crisis.

We have enriched the Introduction and Discussion sections with more detailed theoretical references, thank you for your suggestion.        

The psychosocial effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on young adults are already well-documented in existing research, with studies linking lockdown measures to increased stress, depression, and anxiety. However, the paper could situate its findings more explicitly within this context by discussing how the unique features of the pandemic—such as social isolation, remote learning, or employment disruptions—contributed to the changes in parent-young adult relationships observed in the study. Additionally, drawing on cross-cultural research on family relationships during crises could help contextualize the Italian sample, offering insights into how cultural values around family and autonomy may influence the parent-young adult dynamic during the lockdown.

Thank you for your suggestions. We referred to the unique features of pandemic and their possible effects on parent-child relationships.

The paper presents the PYALPRS as a reliable and valid tool, but it would be beneficial for future research to test its applicability in a broader range of populations. Given that the current sample is exclusively Italian, future studies should explore the scale's psychometric properties in other countries and cultural contexts, as family dynamics and perceptions of the pandemic may differ significantly across cultures.

Thank you for your suggestions. We included this as part of the directions for future research. However, we have enriched our results by also considering other scientific studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Additionally, the authors could investigate how the parent-child relationship during lockdown influences long-term outcomes in young adults. Specifically, it would be interesting to explore whether young adults who experienced high levels of Oppression-Conflict or low Closeness-Support during the pandemic are at greater risk for interpersonal or mental health challenges post-lockdown. Longitudinal studies could provide critical insights into how the parental relationship during this formative time period shapes future adult functioning.

Thank you for your suggestions. We included this as part of the directions for future research.

This study provides a valuable tool for understanding the impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on parent-young adult relationships. The PYALPRS appears to be a reliable and valid measure of the two key dimensions of Oppression-Conflict and Closeness-Support, offering new insights into the psychological and relational effects of the pandemic. However, additional statistical analyses, including exploratory factor analysis, multi-group comparisons, and longitudinal designs, would strengthen the scale’s psychometric properties and increase its applicability to diverse populations. A more thorough engagement with the literature on parent-child dynamics during crises and a deeper theoretical discussion would further enhance the paper’s contribution to the field. This study lays a strong foundation for future research on the long-term effects of the pandemic on family relationships, with the potential to inform interventions aimed at improving familial support and cohesion in times of crisis.

Thank you very much for your feedback. We have made substantial revisions as suggested.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have responded to all the suggestions and improved the study. I recommend the study

Author Response

The authors have responded to all the suggestions and improved the study. I recommend the study

- Thank you for your positive feedback.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I hope this message finds you well. I've thoroughly reviewed your revised manuscript and would like to share my thoughts on how you've addressed the reviewers' feedback.

First, I appreciate the substantial work you've put into strengthening the manuscript!  The integration of attachment theory and family systems theory with the Oppression/Conflict and Closeness/Support dimensions has DEFINITELY enhanced the theoretical foundation!  It is still a bit basic, but I particularly found the addition of practical applications beyond the pandemic context compelling, especially regarding natural disasters!

The visual representation of the scale's factor structure in Figure 1 is effective - it really helps readers grasp the psychometric properties at a glance. I also noticed the improved organization of statistical findings, which makes the results section more accessible.

There are a few areas where I believe some further refinement would be valuable:

In the introduction, while you've made progress in consolidating references [44-46], some sections might benefit from additional synthesis to create an even more cohesive narrative.

Additionally, while the attachment theory framework is a step toward the right direction, the theoretical framework is a still a little on the “thin” and limited/basic side, in my opinion, compared to most papers of this nature. Incorporating a more contemporary theoretical perspective or two will definitely enrich the discussion. There are so many relevant theoretical tenets that can inform this study, and I feel that the authors can “sell” their work a lot better if they could take this tiny extra step to package this paper better!

Regarding methodology, the clarification of CFA and EFA parameters is certainly helpful. However, I wonder if you might elaborate on the rationale behind some of the chosen thresholds, as those details can make a paper more credible.

Your handling of the convenience sampling limitations is thorough - I particularly appreciated how you contextualized the demographic and regional representation issues.

Your discussion of Factor 2's AVE score and its implications for validity is comprehensive. The expanded future research directions, particularly the suggestions for longitudinal studies and cross-cultural validations, strengthen the manuscript's contribution to family dynamics research.

Overall, the manuscript has been enhanced and ALMOST aligns with the caliber expected in a reputable scholarly journal, in my opinion.

Would you be open to making these final refinements? The paper is “good enough,” perhaps, but it can be elevated to the next level with these easy fixes!

Author Response

Dear Authors,

I hope this message finds you well. I've thoroughly reviewed your revised manuscript and would like to share my thoughts on how you've addressed the reviewers' feedback.

First, I appreciate the substantial work you've put into strengthening the manuscript!  The integration of attachment theory and family systems theory with the Oppression/Conflict and Closeness/Support dimensions has DEFINITELY enhanced the theoretical foundation!  It is still a bit basic, but I particularly found the addition of practical applications beyond the pandemic context compelling, especially regarding natural disasters!

- We are glad that the theoretical integrations we made were appreciated, as they have added more substance to our work. Thank you!

The visual representation of the scale's factor structure in Figure 1 is effective - it really helps readers grasp the psychometric properties at a glance. I also noticed the improved organization of statistical findings, which makes the results section more accessible.

- Thank you very much for your positive feedback.

There are a few areas where I believe some further refinement would be valuable:

In the introduction, while you've made progress in consolidating references [44-46], some sections might benefit from additional synthesis to create an even more cohesive narrative.

- Thank you for your suggestion. We have further specified the theoretical framework, making the entire introduction more integrated.

Additionally, while the attachment theory framework is a step toward the right direction, the theoretical framework is a still a little on the “thin” and limited/basic side, in my opinion, compared to most papers of this nature. Incorporating a more contemporary theoretical perspective or two will definitely enrich the discussion. There are so many relevant theoretical tenets that can inform this study, and I feel that the authors can “sell” their work a lot better if they could take this tiny extra step to package this paper better!

- We have revised the introduction further by adding new theoretical perspectives to support our work. As mentioned within the introduction and in the final discussion interpreting the study results, we have incorporated new theoretical approaches that seemed aligned with the conceptualization of the tool and our study. We have included the Life Course Theory (Elder, 1998), the Family Stress Theory (Hill, 1949), and the recent COVID-19 Family Disruption Model (Prime et al., 2020). Thank you for your feedback, which has allowed us to further improve our work.

Regarding methodology, the clarification of CFA and EFA parameters is certainly helpful. However, I wonder if you might elaborate on the rationale behind some of the chosen thresholds, as those details can make a paper more credible.

- Thank you for your suggestion. We appreciate your request to provide further clarification on the rationale behind some of the thresholds chosen for the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

Your handling of the convenience sampling limitations is thorough - I particularly appreciated how you contextualized the demographic and regional representation issues.

- As stated in Section 2.5, Statistical Analyses, regarding the EFA, we selected a communality threshold of 0.35 to discriminate items that explain a satisfactory percentage of variance. In many studies, the recommended threshold is 0.30 (Hair et al., 2010). Prior to conducting the CFA, we also performed tests to assess—not only the communality and item saturations—but how well and accurately the specified factors were represented, using statistics such as the H-index and the FDI. These details are fully outlined in the analysis description section. Regarding the CFA, as with the EFA, we selected thresholds that are recommended for psychological disciplines. For example, we selected cut-off values of CFI and TLI > 0.90 and RMSEA < 0.08 (Brown, 2015; Hu & Bentler, 1999). We also considered existing literature and suggestions from leading authors in the field, who note that the use of overly stringent thresholds could hinder the ability to identify meaningful models. We believe that the thresholds we selected are appropriate for our research context and align with prevailing methodological standards.
We hope these additional details clarify the choices made and contribute to the transparency and credibility of our work. Once again, we thank you for your valuable feedback and the time you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript.

Your discussion of Factor 2's AVE score and its implications for validity is comprehensive. The expanded future research directions, particularly the suggestions for longitudinal studies and cross-cultural validations, strengthen the manuscript's contribution to family dynamics research.

- Thank you very much for your positive feedback, we truly appreciate it.

Overall, the manuscript has been enhanced and ALMOST aligns with the caliber expected in a reputable scholarly journal, in my opinion.      
Would you be open to making these final refinements? The paper is “good enough,” perhaps, but it can be elevated to the next level with these easy fixes!

- We have further improved our manuscript with the new suggestions you provided.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe the authors have addressed the issues raised sufficiently. Thank you.