This paper addresses an important issue, preparing nurses to respond to IPV in Saudi Arabia. While there is a body of literature related to this topic in the US, there far less work done in other countries. This paper provides excellent baseline data to guide the development of future educational initiatives on this topic in this region. This paper can be strengthened by addressing the following issues:
Abstract: capitalize the name of the instrument in the methods section.
Impact - What are the key findings: The first bullet indicates that the students possessed "strong" views but later in the manuscript it indicates "moderate" views... this should be the same..
Impact - What are the key findings: The last bullet ends without a full sentence. A phrase is missing.
Background page 6: "They can help to break the violence wheel..." What is the violence "wheel" - does this mean cycle? I understand the sentence but not the term so I assume other readers will struggle with this.
Sample/Participants: The minimum sample size indicates it's the size needed to run the analysis. That's not quite accurate. You can always run the analysis, it just won't be powered to detect the difference you hypothesized. I recommend just striking "to run the statistical analysis was" so that it reads ..."the minimum sample size needed was determined to be..."
Measurement: Is the Abuser Responsible for Violence subscale reverse scored? If so, that should be noted.
Translation Process: The alpha for reliability should not be here unless this was specifically for the pilot. There is another alpha reported in the results. I would strike this one.
Results: Are the means reported the item means? The subscales would have added up to more I think. This is not clear so the results, including tables, should be either updated to subscale score means or make it clear that it is the item means and explain why that is valuable as compared to subscale scores.
Results: Table 4 does not include the regression results. Those should be reported somewhere in more detail (e.g., what other variables were included in the model and the parameters).
Discussion: There is mention of the a previous study "which reported that female students had more positive attitudes toward IPV" ... what are more positive attitudes? They thought IPV was acceptable? or did they think it was wrong? Make that clear.