Structured PREreview of Occupational Resilience Measure (ORM 1.0): Justification, Development, and Possible Applications of a Novel Multidimensional Assessment

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Yes

The introduction effectively defined occupational Resilience (OR) and justified its relevance for health outcomes by highlighting the gaps and building a rationale for developing ORM 1.0. The objectives were stated clearly.

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Somewhat appropriate

The sample size (6 participants) is relatively small, which may limit the generalizability of the findings and reliance on descriptive statistics provided. Also, the tool was tested using students and expert clinicians, but it was not tested across the general population.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Highly supported

The conclusions were within the scope of the study, and it is consistent with their survey responses.

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Highly appropriate and clear

The Tables and Figures clearly convey the results.

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Very clearly

The study was logically sectioned. The citations were appropriate, and the narration was detailed. The authors also acknowledged the limitations and the need for further psychometric testing.

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Highly likely

It filled the gap that was identified, though the outcome was a basis for OR

Would it benefit from language editing?

Yes

Some of the sentences were lengthy and could have been shortened. Reading it too well, one might notice that there were some repetitions across the sections

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, but it needs to be improved

Based on the issues we have highlighted (non-generalisation), the manuscript needs to be improved

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

Yes, after minor changes

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.