Standardization and Validation of the Personality Disorder Inventory PSGP-IPDI


K Abilash

Department of Psychology, PSG College of Arts and Science, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India

P Sindhuja Manisha Kamini

Department of Psychology, PSG College of Arts and Science, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India

T Jothimani

Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, PSG College of Arts and Science, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India

Peer Review Report

Received Date

13.05.2019

Accepted Date

29.06.2019

Published Date

01.07.2019

Plagiarism

Accepted Level

Reviewer’s Comments to Authors

Major Comments

  1. The descriptive part of the study is having clumsy of information which does not highlights what is the most important point to be discussed in the study. And the reviews highlighted can be summarize only observed reviews of previous studies it does not require to give all the points discussed in the paper in detail.
  2. The aim of the study focusing on ‘clinical population’ but there was no any information on clinical population. Author should clear by eliminating this confusion point and give correct word of completion.
  3. Given conclusion is highlighting only the major findings of the study. The conclusion is incomplete one. Author is advised to conclude the title properly based on the analysis.
  4. The study is between the age group of 28-58 years but the inclusion and exclusion criteria are pointing about the age group of 18. And in abstract part the age group is given 24-58. So the author should concentrate on this part.
  5. There is no information on period when the present study has been done. It is important to add period of the study in the paper.

Minor Comments

  1. For every table given the source detail (whether the table derived from primary data/secondary data) should be given.
  2. Some tables are only given its header. It does not have any details of analysis. It is strongly advised to the author to give proper details of analysis or remove that header content of the table.
  3. Too many information has given randomly which is not particularly meet out the need for the study. The author should eliminate some data which is not relevant to the study.
  4. Researcher can be highlight the research gap and pave the way for future research.
  5. For every reference there should be a footnote in the relevant pages.