Reviewer’s report
Title: 
A Pilot Study Adapting and Validating the Harvard Trauma Questionnaire
(HTQ) and PTSD Checklist-5 (PCL-5) with Indian Women from Slums
Reporting Gender-Based Violence
Version: 
2 
Date: 
24 Aug 2021
Reviewer's report:
This paper reports on a process to adapt the HTQ scale of adverse events and
potential symptoms of ptsd, among a group of poor women from slums in India.
Overall, the paper is generally well written and easy to follow. My concerns
revolve around providing a slightly clearer set of guidance in the methods, and
some of the discussion points seem to appear from nowhere - and clarifying
these is just required. 
In the methods section, I just wondered if an initial overview (table /diagram)
would help readers understand the flow of the adaptation process. As I expected
to see: review relevant literature -> engagement with participants on meaning -
>translation, back translation -> piloting with survey (or similar). But the
structure of the section did not do this, so it was not clear the steps, although all
information was there. 
In the methods section there were data reported on the sample (age, education
etc.) this needs moving to the results section.
In the discussion, there is the sentence: "The hypervigilance item evinced nearly
zero correlation with the remaining items on its arousal subscale, suggesting that
it was not measuring PTSD-related arousal in this sample." I did not see this in
the results, nor any reporting on subscales, nor where the zero correlation was. It
could be me (as this isn't my top subject). If it is not there, please can these be
added into the results. 
Similarly: "Trauma-related amnesia also evinced nearly zero correlation with the
remaining items
on the NACM subscale." NACM is not described anywhere, nor the NACM
subscale. 
Minor issues
Not sure this sentence is needed: "Variation in the prevalence of GBV is partly
attributable to how GBV is defined and assessed."
Sentence: "but they could not validate the measure externally because only 3.4%
of PTSD
cases were diagnosed." Needs a few more words for people to clearly understand
what is meant
Scales - there are the PHQ9 and PHQ15 - the difference needs to be clearly spelt
out, as I just thought they were variations of each other.
Under PHQ9, the authors have left information relating to GAD7
In the results, all Tables need referencing in the text. Table 1 for instance is not. 
In all Tables, could we get the n for each percentage. Important especially for
Table 3, but needed for all.
There was no Table for: HTQ-III: Ongoing stressors, and I think it would be
helpful to include one. 
In Table 5, I wondered whether it was possible to put in which scales were used
e.g. Depression (PHQ9) etc. so readers can follow through
In discussion: "14% of participants rating it at or above '2' on a 0 to 4 scale."
Need a few more words so we can understand what is being said. 
Overall, the paper is well written and provides a clear process of the authors
work and with a bit of revision should be suitable for publication. 
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
No
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing
interests, considering the following questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 I agree for my report to be made available
under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY License (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes