he most promising and original aspect of the study is the examination of cross-cultural invariance and differences in the psychological functioning of the developmental crisis across the three countries. However, despite the study's interesting and novel direction, I would like to offer a few comments—some of which are recommendations—aimed at improving the work's structure and content.
The sample is not representative of "emerging adults" as a whole, given that all participants live in urban areas and are pursuing higher education; thus, it is not a general sample of young adults, but rather a specific sample of urban university students.
In describing the sample, the authors note that the participants are focused on career development. How exactly did the authors determine this? Which specific questionnaire item allows for this to be tracked and substantiated?
The significant disparity in group sizes is noteworthy; more critically, however, the gender imbalance—34 men out of 250 in the Chinese sample, and 58 men out of 335 in the Russian sample—introduces statistical inaccuracy into the comparisons.
The authors acknowledge several study limitations, primarily regarding sample characteristics, specifically the predominance of women.
However, they fail to note that this limitation could influence findings related to the perception and experience of the crisis, the sense of meaning in life, and various other questionnaire items. Consequently, the observed differences might reflect gender-based distinctions linked to the specific nature of the sample, rather than cultural differences.
Participant recruitment. Participation in the study. The authors limited themselves to mentioning only voluntary participation; they failed to specify the questionnaire distribution method, the platform used, the total number of participants, the screening process (exclusion criteria), the incentives offered, or whether the students came from various universities or a single institution. Most importantly, the identity of those who performed the translations (Russian, Armenian, Chinese) remains unclear; while the text mentions "researchers in each country," it does not specify who they were—the article's authors or independent experts. It is also unclear whether an expert assessment for translation errors was conducted following the initial machine translation, or how the semantic equivalence of terms was verified. A 2026 study covering eight countries (https://pure.jgu.edu.in/id/eprint/11245/1/The%20Relationship%20Between%20Developmental%20Crisis%20and%20Meaning%20in%20Life%20in%20Emerging%20Adulthood.pdf) employed a rigorous protocol involving two independent forward translations, a reconciliation phase, two back-translations, and an additional expert review; replicating this protocol for your study might be advisable.
The study addresses a cross-cultural topic, yet "country of residence" is an insufficient indicator of the participants' cultural background, as this category encompasses migrants, international students, ethnic minorities, and others. If the authors claim to identify cross-cultural differences, they should report citizenship, length of residence, and the language in which the questionnaire was completed.
Furthermore, the questionnaire omits data on marital status, employment, and economic (in)dependence—factors that may have a greater impact on the experience of a crisis than mere residence in a particular country. The authors note that "achieving financial independence, leaving the parental home, and establishing one's own family are significant milestones in the transition to adulthood"; however, the primary emphasis is placed on political instability.
The text asserts that differences between Armenia and Russia may be attributed to socioeconomic conditions, whereas China is characterized by greater stability. This claim lacks empirical substantiation and represents a speculative conclusion.
It should be noted that the study covers only Armenia, China, and Russia; therefore, findings based on these three countries cannot be generalized to all collectivist nations, countries prioritizing survival values, or nations with varying levels of political and economic stability. This may stem from an interpretive error—specifically, the overgeneralization of specific results—or it might be framed as a hypothesis rather than a proven finding. Furthermore, the study lacks a "survival values" scale; an operationalization of this term—defining a scale for survival values—is warranted.
In light of these comments, the article could be reconsidered should the authors wish to revise it.