Qualitative analysis from the social referents perspective of the multidimensional construct of schoolchildren’s motor competence

Manuel Segura-Berges; Carlos Peñarrubia-Lozano; Manuel Lizalde-Gil; Juan Carlos Bustamante

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0275196

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 1, 2022
19 Jul 2022 Decision Letter - Thomas Tischer, Editor PONE-D-22-00018 Qualitative analysis from the social referents perspective of the multidimensional construct of schoolchildren’s motor competence PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Bustamante, 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 note that we have only been able to secure a single reviewer to assess your manuscript. We are issuing a decision on your manuscript at this point to prevent further delays in the evaluation of your manuscript. Please be aware that the editor who handles your revised manuscript might find it necessary to invite additional reviewers to assess this work once the revised manuscript is submitted. However, we will aim to proceed on the basis of this single review if possible. The reviewer raises several concerns about the study design and request clarifications. Their comments are attached below. Would you please revise the manuscript to address their questions? Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 02 2022 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: https://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, Thomas Tischer Staff 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. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. 3. Please change "female” or "male" to "woman” or "man" as appropriate, when used as a noun (see for instance https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/gender). 4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 5. Please amend your manuscript to include your abstract after the title page. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): We noticed that limitations of the study, like the low number of participants or potential sources of bias, have not been discussed. Please include a paragraph addressing these concerns. [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: First, I would like to congratulate the authors for the efforts done in the manuscript. I think that it is very interesting and It will be a good starting point for other researchers that focus on this field of motor competence. The paper is well structured although the English grammar must be reviewed. For example, “conducted” instead of “carry out”. The introduction is well written but a little short. I miss more information related to previous research motor competence related. Which evidence exist? It would be important to highlight why this study is new and why it is important that is published. What does this study add to the already published before? About the methodology, I have some concerns that I would like to ask to the authors: • Why did you choose 4, 5 and 6 grade? • Why did you choose an ethnographic approach? Justify. • How did you check the grade in which the teachers work? • How did you create the interview? Was it validated? Was it reviewed by experts? About the results, it would be interesting to show a table with examples of quotations of each subtheme. In the discussion section, you mention one quotation of each theme and subtheme. I would recommend using more quotations. Finally, the conclusions must be written without references, please remove. Moreover, the strengths, limitations and prospective must be changed to the end of discussion. And last, when you say “joint collaboration between families and teachers as education community members seems necessary to promote schoolchildren to develop their motor competence both inside and outside schools”, please could you make some examples in that sense? ****** 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: No ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275196.r001
Revision 1
2 Sep 2022 Author Response Dear Editor. It is a pleasure for us to receive the opportunity to improve our manuscript by taking into account the Editor’s useful comments and the Reviewer’s interesting comments. We would like to thank both the Editor for making the revision of our manuscript possible and the Reviewer for all his/her comments and suggestions, which have undoubtedly improved the writing and quality of the study. Below we list our replies to each comment and suggestion made. Changes are highlighted and included in the manuscript. EDITOR´S COMMENTS 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 Response: We have ensured that the revised version meets PLOS ONE’s style requirements. 2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. Response: In the ethics statement in the Methods and the online submission information we have specified what type of consent form we obtained. It was obtained in writing. Likewise in the Data collection procedure section, we have indicated that this informed consent was again recalled verbally at the beginning of both the interviews (family members) and focus groups (teachers). Our study did not include minors. 3. Please change "female" or "male" to "woman" or "man" as appropriate, when used as a noun (see for instance https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/gender). Response: We have modified “female” or “male” to “woman” or “man”. 4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Response: We have specified where the dataset and transcripts that underlie the results described in our manuscript can be found. The dataset has been deposited in the Figshare data repository. 5. Please amend your manuscript to include your abstract after the title page. Response: We have included the Abstract after the title page. Additional Editor Comments: We noticed that limitations of the study, like the low number of participants or potential sources of bias, have not been discussed. Please include a paragraph addressing these concerns. Response: These concerns have been discussed, and we have also added some methodological aspects regarding saturation. REVIEWER’S COMMENTS Reviewer #1: First, I would like to congratulate the authors for the efforts done in the manuscript. I think that it is very interesting and It will be a good starting point for other researchers that focus on this field of motor competence. The paper is well structured although the English grammar must be reviewed. For example, "conducted" instead of "carry out". The introduction is well written but a little short. I miss more information related to previous research motor competence related. Which evidence exist? It would be important to highlight why this study is new and why it is important that is published. What does this study add to the already published before? Response: We would like to thank the Reviewer for his/her comments, which improved the manuscript. The manuscript has been revised by a native English proofreader before submission. However, a second revision has been conducted (see the certificate below). Likewise, the proposed change has been made. Regarding the Introduction, information related to motor competence research has been added. In this way, the different variables that define the new model of motor competence and the relations found between them have been shown. With all this, the novelty of this work lies in not only the relations between the variables, but also in the incorporation of social agents into the study because they are considered a key element in the development of motor competence in the Primary Education stage on which this study focuses. About the methodology, I have some concerns that I would like to ask to the authors: • Why did you choose 4, 5 and 6 grade? Response: In the Spanish education system, grades 4, 5 and 6 correspond to 9- to 12-year olds. As stated in the Introduction, previous studies refer to the importance of the perception of schoolchildren’s significant and close people to deal with these children’s motor competence concept at pre-adolescent ages between 9 and 12 years old. Moreover according to previous studies, the stage between 9e and 12 years old is when the greatest motor development occurs from the evolutionary and structural points of view. It is also a time when cognitive and emotional aspects are especially important in personality development, when physical and psychological changes take place which, in turn, transform their biology, behavior and social relationships. • Why did you choose an ethnographic approach? Justify. Response: We agree with the Reviewer that this issue needs clarifying. We have adjusted this concern in the manuscript. • How did you check the grade in which the teachers work? Response: A convenience sampling process was used to set up the sample and age was one of the variables included in the inclusion criteria. Thus when presenting the informed consent form, the participants were asked to indicate the course in which they were taught. • How did you create the interview? Was it validated? Was it reviewed by experts? Response: The entire categorization process (generation of the system of categories at the three indicated levels, together with their definitions; S1 File) was reviewed by an external person, an expert in qualitative methodology with training and experience in the Physical Education area. Once the system of categories was revised, the semistructured interview and discussion group scripts were prepared in an attempt to generate questions that would allow all the indicators (the system’s third level of concreteness) to be agglutinated in the answers provided by the different groups of participants. These questions were also reviewed by the expert in qualitative methodology, whose contributions (change in the order and wording of some questions) were considered. In the S2 File, we present the final version of the script used in the study. All this information has been included in the Data collection procedure section. About the results, it would be interesting to show a table with examples of quotations of each subtheme. Response: Table 3 has been added, which includes the different employed quotations. In the discussion section, you mention one quotation of each theme and subtheme. I would recommend using more quotations. Response: We did not include quotations in the Discussion section. Quotations were included in the Results section, but more references have been included. Finally, the conclusions must be written without references, please remove. Response: The requested change has been made. Thank you very much. Likewise, the references have been included in the Discussion section. Moreover, the strengths, limitations and prospective must be changed to the end of discussion. Response: The requested change has been made by adding the specific comment on the limitations suggested by the journal's Editors. And last, when you say "joint collaboration between families and teachers as education community members seems necessary to promote schoolchildren to develop their motor competence both inside and outside schools", please could you make some examples in that sense? Response: Some examples have been included in the Conclusions section. As you can see, we have considered all the advice offered and concerns raised by the Editor and Reviewer. We hope that you receive our change proposals optimistically with a view to publish this manuscript. Yours faithfully, The authors. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Letter_Response_Revision_PlosOne_Final_Version.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275196.r002
12 Sep 2022 Decision Letter - Ender Senel, Editor Qualitative analysis from the social referents perspective of the multidimensional construct of schoolchildren’s motor competence PONE-D-22-00018R1 Dear Dr. Bustamante, 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, Ender Senel, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275196.r003
Formally Accepted
8 Dec 2022 Acceptance Letter - Ender Senel, Editor PONE-D-22-00018R1 Qualitative analysis from the social referents perspective of the multidimensional construct of schoolchildren’s motor competence Dear Dr. Bustamante: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Ender Senel Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275196.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .