Comments to the author:

The current manuscript presents an interesting and important investigation into the
factor structure of the posttraumatic growth (PTG) construct, and additionally
examines the relationship between PTG and cognitive processing styles. The
current study offers the advantage of examining PTG in a sample of Filipina IPA
survivors, a population in which such questions have not been previously
addressed. As the authors note, there is a lack of consensus on PTG factor structure
and there is a need to improve understanding of PTG across diverse groups exposed
to different types of the trauma. In addition, given advances in our understanding of
the impact of cognitive processes and appraisals of traumatic experiences on later
outcomes, it is important to examine relationships between these constructs and
such outcomes following trauma exposure (including both negative outcomes, such
as symptoms, and positive outcomes, such as PTG). The current study contributes
to advancements in this area. For these reasons, the current study makes a relevant
contribution to the field and likely warrants publication and dissemination. There
are, however, issues that should be addressed prior to publication. I have some
concerns and questions about how information from the study is presented in the
current manuscript, and the manuscript in general requires some editing and
language modifications. There are multiple aspects of the manuscript that require
clarification before a recommendation for publication can be made. In addition,
there are some limitations to the study that should be addressed. Therefore, my
recommendation is to revise and resubmit the current manuscript.. Specific
revisions, points to be clarified, and limitations to be acknowledged are described
below:

1. The article would benefit greatly from improvements in use of language. First,
the article would benefit from improved clarity of language. Throughout the
article, there are points and statements that require clarification and/or
elaboration. For example
The abstract opens with the statement of intention to find out which model
of posttraumatic growth best represents its latent structure. This
statement is confusing what does its refer to? The latent structure of
what? (further reading makes it clear that the authors refer to the latent
structure of PTG, but the sentence is confusing and unclear).
P. 3., line 35, what are the pre-diagnostic levels of functioning to which the
authors refer?
P. 3, line 48, replace appear with indicate.
P. 5, line 49, the study will off better conceptual understandingof what?
Please clarify/specify.
These are just some examples. The article requires a thorough review and
editing of language throughout (including correction of typographical errors)
before a recommendation for publication can be made.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Second, the authors need to soften causal language that implies direct
relationships and absolute generalizations. There are multiple points that
require a more conditional approach to statements being made. For example:
P. 3, line 10, should state that traumatic events, in general can cause certain
disorganization and emotional distress, as not all traumatic events
necessarily result in disorganization and distress.
P. 12, lines 30-32 state that The more survivors think about the abuse
situation, the more they will think of alternative scenarios. This is not
necessarily true, as in the case of rumination. The authors should soften this
statement, and perhaps mention rumination at this point.
At times, the manuscript reads like a presentation of two separate studies in
which one study examines the factor structure of the Posttraumatic Growth
Inventory and the other study examines the relationship between PTG factors
and cognitive processing. While the authors highlight how posttraumatic
growth and cognitive processing constructs are related in general, they dont
establish a connection between the specific questions being asked. The authors
should elaborate on this point. For example, how are relationships between PTG
and cognitive processing informed by knowing the factor structure of PTG? How
would this relationship be interpreted if there had been support for the 1-factor
(or 3-factor) model of PTG? Elaboration on these points would likely draw a
closer link between the questions being asked.
Are there other measures of posttraumatic growth in addition to the PTGI? Do
the authors believe that the factor models examined in the current study relate
to the PTGI specifically or are a reflection of the construct of posttraumatic
growth in general? An area of future study for the field may involve
confirmation of the 5-factor model of PTG using measures other than the PTGI.
In their review of literature and interpretation of results related to cognitive
processing and the impact of trauma-related appraisals following experiences
of IPA, the authors may wish to cite work by DePrince et al. and others utilizing
the Trauma Appraisal Questionnaire (e.g., DePrince, Chu, & Pineda, 2011). This
body of work may inform the authors interpretation of associations between
PTGI and CPOTS dimensions.
The authors report on administration of the Abusive Behavior Inventory (ABI)
in the Method section, but dont discuss how this instrument was used. No
statistics from the ABI are presented elsewhere in the manuscript, nor does it
appear that the ABI was used in analyses. Relatedly, what does it mean to have
a clinically significant abuse experience (P.7, line 16)? How did the authors
make use of the cutoff score? (I also question whether this cutoff score is valid
since certain types of abuse may be clinically significant even if they occur in
isolation, which could potentially result in an ABI score below the cutoff.)
In the limitations section, the authors should address the fact that they are
using a biased sample given the constructs in question. I.e., participants in the
study consisted of women seeking help at shelters and/or who presumably
agreed to participate in a research study about IPA (assuming this was made
clear during the consent process the authors may wish to state this).

Therefore, participants, by nature, were likely to be seeking posttraumatic

growth this may have biased responses on both the PTGI and CPOTS
measures in a positive fashion. While it is clearly difficult to recruit victims of
IPA who are not engaged in help-seeking or growth behaviors, this limitation
should nonetheless be noted in the interpretation of results, as this limitation
may explain some of the strong correlations detected in current analyses.
7. The authors should define and explain the constructs measured by the CPOTS
earlier in the paper (i.e., in Introduction or Methods section), so that readers
have a better sense of the specific cognitive processing dimensions examined in
the study prior to the Discussion section.
8. In the Methods section, please report on the time elapsed since the most recent
experience of IPA. While it was noted that IPA occurred within the last 6
months, it would be important to know whether participants were in acute
stages of recovery following IPA, particularly given the strategy to recruit from
shelters. Acuity to the trauma experience could influence PTG and cognitive
processing responses.
9. In the Methods section, please state how assessments were administered, i.e.,
self-report, via interview, etc.
10. In the Discussion section, the authors should summarize the results regarding
the LCA analysis of PTG in the context of the literature reviewed in the
Introduction. I.e., tie the current findings back to previous PTG factor analysis
research in order to highlight whether current results are consistent (or
inconsistent) with previous results. For example, what is the authors
explanation for the variable support for 3-factor versus 5-factor models of PTG?
How should we interpret current findings in the context of previous studies that
have supported the 3-factor model? Are these differences perhaps due to
differences in sample characteristics or trauma type?
11. The authors appear to be asserting that denial is an adaptive response to IPA
that provides respite from distress. This conclusion, while perhaps a valid
interpretation of current results, goes against the wide body of research
implicating avoidance as a primary factor associated with posttraumatic
distress, as well as the body of research highlighting the beneficial effects of
acceptance. The authors should acknowledge this conflict; this inconsistency
likely warrants further attention/exploration in the Discussion section.
12. Given the large participant age range, I am curious about examining age as a
covariate in current analyses. The authors did not appear to control for age,
and it is possible that PTG and cognitive processing responses following IPA
may vary as a function of age and may be different in older women than in
younger women.