The purpose of the present study was to assess conditions of isolation, health and economic risk perception, affect, and participation in activities during the early days of lockdown among Spanish adults. The large sample and adequate alphas of the measures are strengths of the study.

The primary limitation, however, is that there is no control group nor pretest data. Therefore, it is impossible to infer that your findings were specifically related to the lockdown. The data were collected at a single point in time, making your study correlational (cross-sectional). Therefore please do not use causal language, such as effect or consequences (for example the heading on page 9, “Emotional and well-being effects….”. Not only that, but your data were collected during the second week of lockdown, extremely early, before all the effects could be realized. The data are not likely to representative of participants’ long term adjustment to the lockdown.

You chose to do only nonparametric tests with your data.  Typically, Likert-type scales (although technically ordinal) are treated as parametric data. Your analyses could be much more sophisticated had you subjected the scales to parametric analyses. For example, you could use regression to predict affect from housing, use of open air-spaces, and risk assessment. Regression can readily incorporate variables that are dichotomous (such as participating in activity or not). If they are the criterion (dependent) variable a binomial logistic regression is the appropriate procedure.  I also wondered if you have an implicit model of how your measured variables are related. If you do have a model, you might consider more advanced techniques such as mediation and moderation analyses via PROCESS (Hayes, 2018). 

In addition, please attend to the cultural validity of your measures. It seems that the CD-RISC has been adapted for use in Spain, but information about the cultural validity of the MLM-10 and the PANAS is missing.

Some details are:

You need to refer to your study and its findings in the past tense, e.g. on page 4 “The average number of people with whom participants lived WAS 2.44.” Or on page 12, “Results obtained SHOWED that the COVID-19 pandemic WAS perceived…”

Reporting Pearon’s r in APA style:
The APA has precise requirements for reporting the results of statistical tests, which means as well as getting the basic format right, you need to pay attention to the placing of brackets, punctuation, italics, and so on.The basic format for citing Pearson's r is not too complex, as you can see here (you substitute the appropriate value from your study).

r(degrees of freedom) = the r statistic, p = p value. 
Retrieved from https://www.socscistatistics.com/tutorials/correlation/default.aspx

I presume that the instruments and instructions were administered in Spanish. Was any translation needed?  If so, how was that carried out?

I am not certain about the policies or scope of RIP, but what are the implications of this study for psychology of the Americas?

In sum, the authors of this paper should re-think their analyses and their interpretation of their findings. I wish them good luck and good health.
