PONE-D-21-19108

Exploring the use of the Psychological Characteristics of Developing Excellence (PCDEs) in younger age groups: first steps in the validation process of the PCDE Questionnaire for Children (PCDEQ-C)

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Laureys,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 17 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Frantisek Sudzina

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

3. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear authors,

The work carried out represents an important contribution to the field of knowledge. However, in the opinion of the reviewer, a series of modifications is necessary for the paper to be published.

Thanks for your effort

The research carried out is adequate and well justified.

The keywords are well selected.

Line 38.- The year is missing in Gagné

Line 47 and 48.- “Researchers have repeatedly recognized psychology as a key determinant in TD 48 (4-6)” It is recommended to include references from MacNamara and Collins 2011 (PCDEQ).

Reflection: Can talent be detected with 7-year-old athletes? Are these children ready for a self-report assessment?

Such a low age range is not adequately justified for self-report psychological tests. Most of the tests used in Sports Psychology are for athletes aged 12 years or older due to: intellectual abilities developed close to adulthood; development of self-concept (among others).

Specify that the PCDEQ questionnaire is a self-perception and self-report questionnaire, not based on an objective analysis of the reality that surrounds the athlete (evaluation by experts, such as coaches; evaluation of the family, parents or guardians; not based on aptitude tests) .

Does the test have the capacity to detect inappropriate or maladaptive behaviors such as perfectionism or burnout?

Is the adaptation created for both individual and collective sports valid?

Isn't it too long a test with 87 items for validation?

164.- “Results Based on the cognitive interviews and back-translation”. To include references.

171.- Method

The characteristics of the participants are not sufficiently specified. Indicate the type of sport practiced, the weekly practice time, the sporting experience, if they are competitors or not, how many are federated

The distribution of the sample by age and sex is not shown.

It is important to specify that the questionnaire refers to your experiences a few weeks ago, and not considering the total time as an athlete.

The statistics used are correct.

It is not understood why an exploratory factorial study has not been carried out to observe the resulting number of factors. The criterion of factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 and the analysis of the slope of the factors has not been included.

The test with such a different number of factors is not well understood.

It is not understood why the reduction of the items was not carried out before the administration of the test, and they are eliminated afterwards.

The factors extracted are very far from the theoretical model initially proposed by the PCDEQ questionnaire (it does not include factors related to anxiety, but it does include factors related to coping).

The Imaginary factor is not well understood in 7-year-olds. Self-assessment of visualization ability in a 7-year-old and a 13-year-old cannot be equipped.

What level of control and clarity does the 7-year-old have to visualize a game or training action?

It is not clear how many compete, at what level they compete, and what performance is achieved.

The administration of questionnaires to gymnastics and soccer participants is not representative of the rest of the sports (there are not combat sports; there are not racket sports; there are not sports such as athletics).

Two weeks in the test-retest is a very short period of time. The adapted questionnaire is a questionnaire based on a perception of the situational athlete. This data makes it difficult to establish long-term performance predictions. 

Why is the Omega reliability index used and not the Cronbach's Alpha coefficient?

Test-rest correlations obtained below .70 are not adequate. They are small, and should be considered a limitation in the study. This data indicates the low temporal stability of the scores obtained, limiting the ability to establish medium and long-term predictions. With test-restest administrations lasting approximately one month, it is very likely that the correlations were much lower.

Further development of the limitations of the study is lacking.

Further development of the practical implications of the study for sports coaches and psychologists is lacking.

Further development of future researchlines to follow is lacking.

Important bibliographic references are missing in the paper.

Differences in scores have not been established based on age, sport age category, performance level and category by sex. The discriminatory ability of the test cannot be determined.

It is not understood why the test has been administered to athletes aged less than 11-12 years. There are basic theoretical and methodological factors that indicate the inappropriateness of administering self-report questionnaires with ages less than 12 years.

It is not understood why psychopathological factors are introduced when the test does not measure psychopathological constructs or other psychopathological questionnaires have been administered.

It is noteworthy how the authors, knowing the importance of the evolution of talent and not talent at a specific moment, have not carried out a longitudinal study (with fewer participants and with a relatively short time).

Why is the factorial structure not maintained with respect to the previous tests?

The implications of the test for a sports psychologist are not included at any time, and yet psychopathological terms are included.

The reviewer considers that for the publication of the article the following should be included:

1.- The initial and final test items.

2.- With such a high number of athletes evaluated, it would be advisable to include the corresponding scales.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Roberto Ruiz-Barquín (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid; Spain)

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Exploring the use of the Psychological Characteristics of Developing Excellence (PCDEs) in younger age groups: first steps in the validation process of the PCDE Questionnaire for Children (PCDEQ-C)

PONE-D-21-19108R1

Dear Dr. Laureys,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Frantisek Sudzina

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: