PONE-D-22-31483The relationships between children’s motor competence, physical activity, perceived motor competence, physical fitness and weight status in relation to agePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. den Uil,

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 see the reviewers suggestions to revise your paper. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 16 2023 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,

Ender Senel, PhD

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 indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. 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.

4. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a) You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) [#] to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. 

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b) If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: 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: This large-scale cross-sectional study examined correlations among five variables noted in the Stodden et al., conceptual model in children from 4-13 yrs, noting changes (or lack thereof) in the strength of correlations each year. The writing is generally clear and to the point.

This is the largest study to date that addresses all aspects of the model, which is a strength of the study. Specifically addressing the notion of hypothesized changes in the strength of associations across childhood and into adolescence is important as most studies in this area have not addressed this critical aspect of the model hypotheses and have not covered this wide of an age span.

While the cross-sectional nature of the data limits the generalizability of the conclusions, the data generally support other longitudinal data from studies that have examined a limited number of variables in the model. It might be useful to address the results of these studies to corroborate or refute the results of the current study as the age ranges of the below studies are within the age range of the current study.

Jaakkola, T., Yli‐Piipari, S., Huotari, P., Watt, A., & Liukkonen, J. (2016). Fundamental movement skills and physical fitness as predictors of physical activity: A 6‐year follow‐up study. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 26(1), 74-81.

Lima, R.A., Pfeiffer, K.A., Bugge, A., Møller, N.C., Andersen, L.B., Stodden, D.F. (2017). Motor competence and cardiorespiratory fitness have greater influence on body fatness than physical activity across time. Scand J Med Sci Sport, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12850

Lima, R. A., Bugge, A., Ersbøll, A. K., Stodden, D. F., & Andersen, L. B. (2019). The longitudinal relationship between motor competence and measures of fatness and fitness from childhood into adolescence. Jornal de Pediatria, 95, 482-488.

While the individual correlations among variables at each age is important in its own right, I am left wondering if it would be possible to analyze the data at each age as a collective system (e.g., using SEM/path analyses) as it would provide understanding of whether the data collectively “fit” the Stodden et al model as a whole (i.e., as a more comprehensive system of individual factors of development). This would provide a stronger conceptual understanding (while still providing an understanding of the individual strength of correlation coefficients in the models) of the overall fit of the conceptual model across ages, which was the intent of including all the different variables that have, historically, been examined individually. If the ”fit” of the individual age models strengthen (or do not) across time, then the central research question would still be answered (in addition to examining how individual correlations changed across time). As can be seen from the suggested “tipping point” time frames in Table 3, potentially demonstrating a non-significant model fit in younger ages would still address the central research question and account for the original hypotheses of the model, which suggests correlations among variables in the model (and the overall model fit) would be weaker in early childhood. However, based on the range of sample sizes at each age, and the number of variables that would need to be entered into each model, I am not sure if this suggestion is feasible from a statistical standpoint.

Another potential limitation of the current statistical analyses is the assumption of linear relationships between variables. The authors address this idea indirectly when referencing a proficiency barrier, but it is still a potential avenue for exploration, perhaps in a subsequent paper.

While the “motor age” variable partially addresses how motor skill scores generally increase with each age group, would it be useful to provide supplementary data to see the changes in raw motor skill scores across age groups? The authors noted a potential ceiling effect for the motor skill measures; thus, it might be useful to provide the raw data to better show the how motor skill levels change across time.

One important limitation in the data is based on the measure of PA. I believe it is important to note the limitations of these data more concretely. Specifically, the overestimation of PA with questionnaires should be noted.

Lastly, addressing maturation and how that impact gender-specific differences in the relationships (specifically during the adolescent transition) also is an important notion that was not explored in the data. Controlling for gender in the correlations might be a useful endeavor from a statistical standpoint.

Reviewer #2: Review_PONE-D-22-31483

Overview

The manuscript is excellent, the subject matter is current, and it is straightforward and objective. The research covers a significant information gap about the association between motor competence, physical activity, and related factors by using a well-designed approach and a large sample. Although I provide some suggestions for the authors' consideration, I firmly recommend publication of this article.

Introduction

Update the reference [2]

Materials and Method

• Give more information about the socioeconomic status of the sample or the population from which the sample was drawn.

• Give more details of excluded participants (exclusion percentage, gender, age group)

• Give more details on how the sampling was done; explain how the sample size was estimated.

Discussion

• Lines 300-302 - “Although we cannot draw conclusions on causality, our findings do not support the proposed pathway in which physical activity stimulates motor competence in early childhood.”

This sentence, unfortunately, is poorly constructed and may lead the reader into a misunderstanding. The authors are asked to consider rewriting it, bearing in mind that the data in this article preclude any stimulus/cause-effect inference. The choice of terms here must be very careful.

It is also suggested that the authors reflect a little more on the results of physical activity and possible biases in data collection, as it is precisely at younger ages that n is the lowest for the physical activity variable.

• Line 302-305: at this point, it should be considered that the present study used indirect measures of physical activity;

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes: Maria Teresa Cattuzzo

**********

[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.

The relationships between children’s motor competence, physical activity, perceived motor competence, physical fitness and weight status in relation to age

PONE-D-22-31483R1

Dear Dr. den Uil,

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:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. 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

**********

5. 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

**********

6. 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: The authors have adequately addressed all my suggestions.

A suggestion for future work with these data... Cluster analyses... A different approach to address the data more from a person-centered (vs. a variable-centered) perspective.

**********

7. 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

**********