This paper followed the Australian Institute of Medicine's guide and developed a scale to measure the patient-reported experience of cancer patients. It is a meaningful instrument because it measures a different aspect of quality of care than the usual cancer patient quality of life scale. However, there are many areas that need improvement in the analysis methods and especially in the presentation of the results. It is very difficult to interpret the results in this presented results.

1. I am not sure how to answer each item; a 100-point Likert seems odd. What criteria were used to answer the questions?

2. I think that the results of Step 2 do not have to be shown at all since Step 2 seems to be a pilot study for Step 3.

3. For Phase 3 results, it would be better to show the patient background first, so that descriptive statistics of Tab7 can be included.

4. Fig2 is not necessary.

5. Tab4 results should be written in such a way that the names of the items can be identified. Tab 3 results could be included here. Descriptive statistics by domain should also be included.

6. Were Questions 10, 11, 13, and 24 finally omitted? If so, Tab4 should be the result of omitting these.

7. Tab 5 should also be written so that the name of the factor is known. AVE, MSV, and Factor Shared Variance do not need to be presented.

8. Fig4 is also unnecessary.

9. Tab6 could be included in Tab4.

10. Tab7 and Tab8 could be in one table, and the correlation coefficient of Tab7 should be shown by domain.

11. It is strange that the total score is included in the CFA in Fig3(a). I don't think Fig3 is necessary.

12. Fig4 is also unnecessary.

13. I think we should reconsider the domain name. As a result, it may be unreasonable to try to match the IOM.

Regarding Fig3b, is the total score a latent variable? If so, I don't think it is a problem. If you used the actual total score, it would be wrong for the model.