PREreview structurée de Occupational Resilience Measure (ORM 1.0): Justification, Development, and Possible Applications of a Novel Multidimensional Assessment
- Publié
- DOI
- 10.5281/zenodo.17904849
- Licence
- CC BY 4.0
- Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?
- Yes
- Are the methods well-suited for this research?
- Somewhat appropriate
- The study has strong theoretical grounding and connection to existing constructs but the sample size for validation is very small (n=6). They can add rationale or attempt wider validation.
- Are the conclusions supported by the data?
- Highly supported
- Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?
- Highly appropriate and clear
- How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?
- Somewhat clearly
- * They should expand comparison with existing tools * Also highlight what ORM measures that others don’t. * Include roadmap for large-scale validation studies (test-retest reliability, construct validity etc0
- Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?
- Highly likely
- It highlights and proffers high potential for occupational therapy and research
- Would it benefit from language editing?
- No
- It is clear and easy to understand, the instruments used are well explained
- Would you recommend this preprint to others?
- Yes, it’s of high quality
- Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?
- Yes, after minor changes
- The writers should consider shortening background and improving flow for reader engagement.
Competing interests
The author declares that they have no competing interests.
Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)
The author declares that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.