Response to Reviewer 1

Introduction

Reviewer 1. Line 39~43, Page 8: There are several issues here: (1) You give very detailed information about the scale here, and this part should be moved to the introduction section; (2) In fact, this section includes two aspects, the background part on the one hand and the aim aspect on the other, and I suggest to separate the two aspects into two subtitles.

Response:

Background

Satisfaction of fundamental needs is an important concept in sport, but currently there is no tool in Arabic to measure this construct. Basic needs are often linked to high rates of motivation and performance. It is necessary to develop tools to assess psychological needs in the sport context.

Aim

This study aimed to validate the Basic Needs Satisfaction in Sport Scale (BNSSS) in Arabic language across Tunisian athletes, and to test its psychometric properties (factorial structure, internal reliability, construct validity, and sensitivity).

Reviewer 1. Line 44~47, Page 8: I think the presentation of your method section is incomplete, did you only do exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses? Besides, I suggest you supplement the sample sizes of EFA and CFA with the gender ratio expressed as a percentage and the age distribution.

Response: Athletes in various sports participated in this study (370 men, 146 women; mean age 18.35) and voluntarily completed the Arabic version of the BNSSS-20. Both exploratory (EFA, N = 294; males: 68%; females: 32%; [14-18] = 182; [19-28] = 112) and confirmatory (CFA; N = 222; males: 76.6%; females: 23.4%; [14-18] = 103; [19-28] = 119) factor analyses were examined.

Reviewer 1. Line 64, Page 9: “SDT indicates that an intrinsically motivated individual is always seeking to satisfy three basic and universal needs”, which sub-theory speaks to this? I suggest you state this more precisely.

Response: Cognitive evaluation theory indicates that an intrinsically motivated individual is always seeking to satisfy three basic and universal needs (i.e., autonomy, competence, and relatedness) [3, 7].

Reviewer 1. Line 72~75, Page 9: I suggest that the description of the need for autonomy can also be integrated with the thematic physical activity of this study.

Response: Second, Reeve, Nix [13] proposed merging the autonomy-internal perceived locus of causality and autonomy-volition aspects in the education context. Ng, Lonsdale [14] initially suggested three-factor type of autonomy model because the relations between autonomy concepts may change in the sport context. First, the internal locus of perceived causality (IPLOC) refers to whether an individual believes that his or her actions are initiated and regulated by a personal force. Second, volition indicates an unpressured willingness to embark in an activity. Finally, perceived choice relates to the perception of having decision-making flexibility to choose whether to participate in an activity.

Reviewer 1. Line 92~93, Page 10: “This instrument consists of 12 subscales, four items for each of three dimensions”, aren't there some problems here, the scale has three dimensions with four items each, why are there twelve subscales in total?

Response: This instrument consists of 12 items - four items for each of three dimensions (autonomy, competency, and affiliation).

Reviewer 1. Line 87~101, Page 10: What is the significance of the description in this paragraph? I do not think this section is closely related to this study, and I suggest you shorten the background description of this section.

Response: I have shortened the background description of this section (Several authors have made progress in producing measures of needs satisfaction in a variety of life domains, including work, exercise and sport. Gagné [23] studied the factors that influence motivation and assessed satisfaction needs by developing the Basic Psychological Needs at Work Scale (BPNWS). An adaptation was also made in the area of physical activity - Vlachopoulos and Michailidou [12] created the Basic Psychological Needs in Exercise Scale (BPNES). This instrument consists of 12 items - four items for each of three dimensions (autonomy, competency, and affiliation). The internal consistency of the scale acceptable, with good results determined a valid fit for the hypothesized model. Similarly, Wilson, Rogers [24] established the Psychological Needs Satisfaction in Exercise Scale. This tool includes 18 items - six items for each dimension (autonomy, competence, and relatedness). The internal consistency of the instrument is excellent, with good model fit indices).

Reviewer 1. Line 129, Page 12: “Research on basic needs in sports is currently limited in Arabic-speaking countries”, I suggest you expand this section’s literature review and add a description of why Arabic-speaking countries need a scale in terms of sport’s needs.

Response: Research on basic needs in sports is currently limited in Arabic-speaking countries. The work of basic needs in the sport context by insisting on each aspect of this basic needs might help coaches and researchers in Arab countries to identify effective interventions that could enhance the motivation, performance, and experiences of athletes. We will thus try to better understand the aspects that explain his needs (i.e., autonomy, competence and affiliation) among the athlete. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to adapt an Arabic version of the BNSSS and test its psychometric properties in a large sample of male and female Tunisian athletes in multiple sports. To test reliability of the translated and adapted scale, we followed a subset of athletes across four weeks.

Methods and equipment

Reviewer 1. Line 139~147, Page 12: Did your study have exact inclusion and exclusion criteria when including the sample population?

Response: 516 responses (males: 71.7%; females: 28.3%) of the 530 responses were retained for the final analysis; 14 were excluded for missing responses.

Reviewer 1. Line 148~150, Page 12: One thing I’m confused about: what method was used to draw these 37 athletes from the 516 athletes?

Response: A minimum sample size of 22 participants is required to detect an ICC value of 0.50 for 80% power with alpha fixed at 0.05 [56]. In case of possible dropout in the retest phase, an additional twenty percent of the minimum sample is suggested, resulting in a target number of 27 participants. Hence, the number of 37 participants in this work was sufficient to determine the instrument’s temporal stability. Therefore, the intraclass coefficient (ICC) was 0.847, indicating excellent temporal stability of the tool.

Reviewer 1. Wouldn't the gender composition of these 37 athletes, which is quite different from the baseline sample, have an impact on the test-retest reliability values?

Response: 37 athletes (16 males, 21 females; mean age 19.51 ± 3.95 years; 14 to 25) responded to the measurement scale. After four weeks, the same group completed the same instrument. The test-retest sample is part of the overall study population. This was a homogeneous population regarding age and gender.

Reviewer 1. Line 151~154, Page 13: This section gives too little explanation: you should at least give the number of this scale’s items, what it measures, the range of total scores, and what higher scores represent.

Response: The Basic Needs Satisfaction in Sport Scale (BNSSS) consists of twenty items that measure five factors of basic needs in sport: five items for each of the two dimensions (competence (COMP) and relatedness (RELAT)) and 10 items for the three forms of autonomy (four items for autonomy-choice (Auto.choice), three items for autonomy-volition (Auto.volition), and three items for autonomy-internal perceived locus of causality (Auto.IPLOC). The BNSSS was created by Ng, Lonsdale [14]. This instrument’s items use Likert scales ranging from 1 (Not true at all) to 7 (Very true). The highest numerical level corresponds the highest level of satisfaction, with the exception of the item five: “In my sport, I feel that I am being forced to do things that I don’t want to do” (belongs to autonomy-volition) which was formulated inversely (i.e., the highest numerical index corresponds the lowest value of satisfaction).

Reviewer 1. Line 187~188, Page 14: “Internal consistency indicates the degree of intercorrelation between items on the BNSSS-20”, I think there is some problems with the order of sentences here. You should give the definition of internal consistency first, and then the indicators of internal consistency.

Response: Internal consistency indicates the degree of inter-correlation between items on the BNSSS-20 [36]. The recommended reliability threshold for these indices is set at 0.70 for acceptability and 0.80 for good reliability.

Reviewer 1. Line 196~206, Page 15: I propose you to account for the cutoff values of these fitted indicators.

Response: The analyses included various indices measuring the fit of the evaluated model. To test the fit of the models, the following indices were emphasized: the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) [47], and the Adjusted goodness of fit statistic (AGFI), which must be equal to or higher than 0.85 and 0.90, respectively [48], the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is a normed fit index between 0 and 1, the most accepted measure of good fit is a CFI ≥ 0.95 [49], the Not Normed Fit Index (NNFI) is based on the Tucker-Lewis Index, which was created through factor analysis, an index value of 0.9 or above indicated a good or excellent fit for both fit indices [50], Hu and Bentler [51] suggest that a good fit for the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) is less than 0.08, the Parsimony Normed Fit Index (PNFI), and the Parsimony Comparative Fit Index (PCFI) greater than 0.5 [52], for the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), MacCallum, Browne [53] selected 0.01, 0.05, and 0.08 to indicate excellent, good, and mediocre fit respectively, and commonly applied χ 2 statistic (χ 2/ df ratio of 3 or less). The model fit of the retained data depends on a non-significant value of χ 2 [54].

Results

Reviewer 1. Overall: I suggest you add a table to describe the basic characteristics of the sample population.

Table 1. Basic characteristics of the sample population.

Reviewer 1. Overall: How are you grouped? Why are 294 athletes included in the EFA and the others in the CFA? I don’t see the explanation you related.

Response:

Before EFA, is necessary to verify adequate sample size. The applied criterion for an adequate sample size for EFA is a subjects-to-variables ratio of 4:1 or 5:1 [37, 38]. Our study population was 14 times larger than the number of items (294 athletes vs. 20 items), which is determined to be "good" [39].

We used the widely recommended criterion for sample size measure for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), which is sample size of participants to number of parameters ratio with a minimum of 5:1 and a maximum of 10:1 [46]. Our sample size passed the maximum requirement of 200 (222 athletes vs. 20 items).

Reviewer 1. Table 7: This table is missing an explanation of the abbreviations, please add the relevant content.

Response:

Note. χ2/df, relative chi-square; AGFI, Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index; GFI, Goodness of Fit Index; NFI, Normed Fit Index; IFI, Incremental Fil Index; TLI, Tucker Lewis Index; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; PNFI, Parsimony Normed Fit Index; PCFI, Parsimony Comparative Fit Index; SRMR, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; RMSEA, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.

Discussion

Reviewer 1. Line 297~301, Page 16: I suggest that you start the discussion section with a brief summary of the main findings of your study. As it stands, your summary of the results section is not comprehensive.

Response: Our results suggested that the Arabic version of the BNSSS is a valid and reliable scale for assessing the level of satisfaction of basic needs in sport for athletes from different sport type (whether individual or collective) and both sexes. Overall, we found very good psychometric properties for this adapted scale. Moreover, the results obtained by the EFA suggested that this SBNNN-20 scale well reflected the expected theoretical model, with good internal consistency for all the adopted factors. The 20 BNSSS items showed excellent reliability (McDonald's omega = 0.773, Cronbach's α = 0.886, Gutmann's λ6 = 0.970) and good temporal stability (ICC = 0.847). Similarly, the CFA fit indices were perfect (CFI = 0.99; NFI =0.96; CFI = NNFI (TLI) = IFI = 0.99; GFI = 0.93; AGFI = 0.91, and SRMR = RMSEA = 0.02).

Reviewer 1. Line 319~329, Page 17~18: This section should be organized more in the results section than in the discussion section.

Response: This section is organized more in the results section than in the discussion section (The CFA performed multiple model fit indices according to the criteria of several researchers. According to critical standards, the ideal standardized χ 2 (Chi-Square) value over the number of degrees of freedom (χ 2/df) should be placed between 2 and 3 (2 ≤ χ 2/df ≥ 3) Wheaton, Muthen [64] and Tabachnick and Fidell [65]. Consequently, for the Chi-Square and normalized χ 2 (χ 2/df) statistics, the collected indices were satisfactory for the model; see [66-68]. We calculated various fit indices (AGFI, GFI, CFI, NNFI (TLI), NFI, PNFI, PCFI, RMSEA, and SRMR), and the critical values for indices AGFI, GFI (see Tabachnick and Fidell [65]), NFI, CFI, and the NNFI (TLI) (see, Bryant and Yarnold [69], Hu and Bentler [49], Fan, Thompson [70], and Byrne [71]) must be greater than 0.95. However, the AGFI and GFI of the current scale were between 0.90 and 0.93; see, Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger [48]. Some researchers consider the critical value above 0.90. PNFI and PCFI were greater than the adaptive value of 0.50 (PNFI = 0.81; PCFI = 0.83). Also, for RMSEA and SRMR, the value should not exceed 0.05; see Byrne [72]. In conclusion, the 20-item model showed for all tested indices an excellent fit to the theoretical model, justifying the factor structure for the Tunisian sport sample).

Reviewer 1. Overall: Your results section speaks to: “Some exceptions occurred between the correlations of item 2 and item 1, and item 2 and item 10, where there was no apparent correlation. Item 2 refers to autonomy-volition”, I think there needs to be more discussion on this section.

Response: Autonomy appears to be the most important factor, due to its high association with intrinsic motivation [58]. A social context that enhances the feeling of need for autonomy allows for choices to be selected and initiative to be taken [9]. According to Reeve, Nix [13], autonomy-volition refers to a choice of action without pressure. Therefore, the experience should be characterized by great flexibility and light pressure during action. In addition, coaches who foster a performance climate have a negative impact on athletes' basic needs and motivation [59]. Instead of simply offering imposed directives, athletes may also need to feel free and initiative in their action in order to promote optimal motivation and maximum performance towards their sport.

Reviewer 1. Overall: I'm glad to see you mentioned the limitations of the study at the moment, and would also like to know more about what the future outlook of this study is?

Response: There is a need to develop tools related to the assessment of psychological needs in sport contexts. Basic needs affect the motivation and performance of athletes in sport development [58]. In the Arab world, studies that focus on basic needs in the context of sport remain rare. It is advisable to use this instrument to learn about the importance of meeting the needs of athletes from different cultural backgrounds and skill to various degrees.

Reviewer 1. Overall: A general remark that I have is that the discussion lacks more in-depth conclusions. Instead, it is rich in data repeated from the Results sections.

Response: Finally, the results of the present study verify that there is a Tunisian version of the BNSSS with good psychometric properties, maintaining the five-dimensional factor structure suggested by Ng, Lonsdale [14] to assess the level of satisfaction of basic needs in sport in Tunisia, which is a step forward for sport psychology in creating a measurement instrument for all kinds of sports.

Response to Reviewer 2

Reviewer 2. It is unclear on what basis the authors selected the 516 participants out of 530 who participated in the study.

Response: 516 responses (males: 71.7%; females: 28.3%) of the 530 responses were retained for the final analysis; 14 were excluded for missing responses.

Reviewer 2. It's also unclear whether these participants represent all athletes or a subset of the population.

Response: these participants represent a subset of the population.

Reviewer 2. The authors did not specify how they identified the sample.

Response:

Before EFA, is necessary to verify adequate sample size. The applied criterion for an adequate sample size for EFA is a subjects-to-variables ratio of 4:1 or 5:1 [37, 38]. Our study population was 14 times larger than the number of items (294 athletes vs. 20 items), which is determined to be "good" [39].

We used the widely recommended criterion for sample size measure for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), which is sample size of participants to number of parameters ratio with a minimum of 5:1 and a maximum of 10:1 [46]. Our sample size passed the maximum requirement of 200 (222 athletes vs. 20 items).

A minimum sample size of 22 participants is required to detect an ICC value of 0.50 for 80% power with alpha fixed at 0.05 [56]. In case of possible dropout in the retest phase, an additional twenty percent of the minimum sample is suggested, resulting in a target number of 27 participants. Hence, the number of 37 participants in this work was sufficient to determine the instrument’s temporal stability. Therefore, the intraclass coefficient (ICC) was 0.847, indicating excellent temporal stability of the tool.

Reviewer 2. Additionally, the discussion of the tool's reliability through testing should be included under the instrument instead of population and sample section.

Response: this section is included under the instrument.

Reviewer 2. It's unclear whether participants who underwent test - retest procedure were excluded from the total sample or not.

Response: Participants who underwent a test-retest procedure were not excluded from the total sample. The test-retest sample is part of the overall study population. This was a homogeneous population regarding age and gender.

Note: We corrected the scale dimensions (Figure 2: Auto.volition was replaced by Auto IPLOC (Item 2 refers to autonomy-volition); values in Tables 3, 9, and ω BNSSS are slightly changed).

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Response to Reviewer 1

Introduction

Reviewer 1. Line 39~43, Page 12: I still don’t think the Abstract needs to describe the scale characteristics in such detail, could you shorten this section to two sentences?

Response:

Background

Athletes in various sports participated in this study (370 men, 146 women; mean age 18.35) and voluntarily completed the Arabic version of the BNSSS-20. Both exploratory (EFA, N = 294) and confirmatory (CFA; N = 222) factor analyses were examined.

Reviewer 1. Line 44~47, Page 12: Aren’t tests for internal consistency and temporal stability part of your research methodology?

Response: The researchers suggest that the BNSSS scale reflects the theoretical model well, with good internal consistency for all factors. All 20 items of BNSSS revealed excellent reliability and good temporal stability.

Reviewer 1. Line 48~53, Page 12: This is an illogical statement, why do your account for the EFA results at the very beginning but not the CFA results until the very end?

Response: The results of EFA indicated that the BNSSS in the Tunisian context could be measured using five dimensions. The researchers suggest that the BNSSS scale reflects the theoretical model well, with good internal consistency for all factors. All 20 items of BNSSS revealed excellent reliability and good temporal stability. Afterward, confirmatory factor analysis assessed the validity and reliability of the measurement model. This research found out that the Tunisian version of SBNNN measurement is reliable and valid. the CFA fit indices were excellent.

Reviewer 1. Line 62~81, Page 3~4: What is the basis for the segmentation here?

Response: We've grouped together all the paragraphs that summarize the scale descriptions.

Reviewer 1. Line 92~93, Page 10: “This instrument consists of 12 subscales, four items for each of three dimensions”, aren't there some problems here, the scale has three dimensions with four items each, why are there twelve subscales in total?

Response: This instrument consists of 12 items - four items for each of three dimensions (autonomy, competency, and affiliation).

Reviewer 1. Line 87~88, Page 4: How did you come to that conclusion? I don't see any references to support it.

Response: In Tunisia, initiatives to study basic needs have been carried out using to other contexts to assess basic needs [38-42]. However, studies using this theoretical perspective are still rare in sport, and one reason may be the lack of appropriate and validated instruments for the Tunisian sports context. Research on basic needs in sports is currently limited in Tunisia. The work of basic needs in the sport context by insisting on each aspect of this basic needs might help coaches and researchers in Arab countries to identify effective interventions that could enhance the motivation, performance, and experiences of athletes. We will thus try to better understand the aspects that explain his needs (i.e., autonomy, competence and affiliation) among the athlete. For this reason, the purpose of this study was to adapt an Arabic version of the BNSSS and test its psychometric properties in a large sample of male and female Tunisian athletes in multiple sports. To test reliability of the translated and adapted scale, we followed a subset of athletes across four weeks. In conclusion, the BNSSS scale shows robust psychometric properties that can be used for further research. Overall, results from this study showed that the BNSSS produced reliable scores, with construct validity for subscales designed to measure perceived basic needs satisfaction of competence, autonomy, and relatedness specific to the sport context.

Reviewer 1. Overall: For several of the scales you listed: why did you describe several others in detail? Is there a rationale for this?

Overall: I still think you need to shorten the introduction; many parts don't need to be described in such detail.

Response:

Sustained by the interventions of Reeve, Nix [19] and Ng, Lonsdale [20], a five-factor model is supposed (competence, relationship, volition, perceived choice and IPLOC). The last three are first-order factors that are specialized as characteristics of autonomy. Then, according of the basic psychological needs theory (BPN), a three-factor model is conceived (i.e., autonomy, competence, and relatedness). Autonomy satisfaction is a construct latent in the three characteristics identified (volition, perceived choice, and IPLOC).

However, under this issue, Ng, Lonsdale [20] detailed the need for autonomy by developing the Basic Needs Satisfaction in Sport Scale (BNSSS) specifically for the field of competitive sport with affiliated athletes. The BNSSS comprises 20 items, including five for each of the two dimensions (competence (COMP) and relationship (RELAT)), while autonomy comprises only 10 items. On the basis of expert opinion in the sporting context, these authors divided autonomy into three subscales: four items for autonomy-choice (Auto.choice), three items for autonomy-volition (Auto.volition) and three items for autonomy-locus of perceived internal causality (IPLOC) justifying good temporal stability of the scale. Model fit indices confirmed the good results. Recently, the original BNSSS version has been validated by some authors. For example, Nascimento Junior, Nickening Vissoci [35] validated the new Brazilian version of the 12-item Basic Sport Needs Scale, which showed acceptable psychometric properties. In addition, Pineda-Espejel, López Gaspar [36] developed a Mexican adaptation of the BNSSS in Spanish that demonstrated good psychometric properties after removing one item. Likewise, Gümüşay and Argan [37] constructed a 14-item version of the BNSSS in Turkish, which exhibited favorable measurement fit indices.

Methods and equipment

Reviewer 1. Line 148~150, Page 6: How was the four-week retest interval determined? Is it supported by references?

Response: The use of robust measuring tools provides it possible to acquire quality data and to ensure reliable results. BNSSS-20 sample (test-retest) was retained on several guidelines recommending a minimum of 30 participants for this study (e.g., Hill and Hill [79]). Several studies [18, 80, 81] have investigated the reliability (test-retest) of the scales over a 4-week period. However, previous studies have demonstrated variations in the time intervals between survey administrations, ranging from 1 to 4 weeks [82, 83]. In conclusion, the interval employed in this study was standardized at 4 weeks.

Reviewer 1. Page 6: Are there no inclusion and exclusion criteria?

Response: This study recommends several criteria for selecting participants, including inclusion and exclusion criteria: age between 14 and 28, able to read and understand Arabic at a minimum primary level grade 6, family situation (parents not divorced; medium or high social status), more than 3 years’ experience in a club affiliated annually to the federation, and exclusion of athletes who have frequent ruptures (justified or unjustified) during their training period. Exclude all smokers and alcoholics (alcohol intake within 12 hours of the participation). All athletes who met the inclusion/exclusion criteria were included in the work. Through an intentional non-probabilistic sampling, 516 population national- and international-caliber athletes of both genders participated (370 male athletes, 146 female athletes; mean age 18.35 ± 3.43 years; 14 to 28).

Reviewer 1. Line 153~154, Page 7: The introduction to the scale is too brief and I suggest you read some quality literature to reorganize the language.

Response: In spite of the role of the satisfaction of basic needs in sport, the creation of a specific measure for assessing basic needs satisfaction within the sports domain has been delayed. Various scales designed to measure the satisfaction of basic needs in different areas have been used in the sporting context (e.g., work; Gagne [43], Ntoumanis [44], education; Kowal & Fortier, 2000). Fundamental needs affect the individual's psychological state in various areas (e.g., Work; Deci, Ryan [25] medicine; Uysal, Ascigil [45], education; Diseth, Breidablik [46], Ebersold, Rahm [47], marketing; Zhu and Chen [48], teacher training; Aelterman, Vansteenkiste [49], physical activity; Vlachopoulos and Michailidou [18], Lanoue, Grenon [50], Sarrazin, Vallerand [51]). For this reason, it is necessary to create a scale specific to sport. On the one hand, Gillet, Rosnet [22] have developed a scale for the satisfaction of fundamental requirements in sporting context, which includes three dimensions (autonomy, competence, and relatedness), with five elements for each dimension. This tool does not detail the different types of autonomy. More recently, on the other hand, the Basic Needs Satisfaction in Sport Scale (BNSSS) consists of twenty items that measure five factors of basic needs in sport: five items for each of the two dimensions (competence (e.g., “I have the ability to perform well in my sport.”), and relatedness (e.g., “I have close relationships with people in my sport.”)) and 10 items for the three forms of autonomy (four items for autonomy-choice (e.g., “In my sport, I get opportunities to make decisions.”), three items for autonomy-volition (e.g., “In my sport, I feel I am doing what I want to be doing.”), and three items for autonomy-internal perceived locus of causality (e.g., “I choose to participate in my sport according to my own free will.”). The BNSSS was created by Ng, Lonsdale [20]. This instrument’s items use Likert scales ranging from 1 (Not true at all) to 7 (Very true). The highest numerical level corresponds the highest level of satisfaction, with the exception of the item five: “In my sport, I feel that I am being forced to do things that I don’t want to do” (belongs to autonomy-volition) which was formulated inversely (i.e., the highest numerical index corresponds the lowest value of satisfaction).

Reviewer 1. Line 163~165, Page 7: What changes have been made to the completed version compared to the original version?

Response: Finally, the completed version was compared with the original scale. In conclusion, no changes were made in Arabic version.

Reviewer 1. Overall: For the sampling method of respondents, I think it needs to be expressed.

Response: Through an intentional non-probabilistic sampling, 516 population national- and international-caliber athletes of both genders participated (370 male athletes, 146 female athletes; mean age 18.35 ± 3.43 years; 14 to 28).

Reviewer 1. Line 177~179, Page 8: You used three pieces of statistical software, please describe what investigation each of these three pieces of software were used for?

Response: EFA was carried out by means of the software programs JASP (Version 0.16.3.0) and the "Statistical Package for Social Sciences" SPSS (Version 24, IBM, Armonk, NY, USA), whereas CFA was conducted with AMOS (Version 24, IBM, Armonk, NY, USA).

Results

Reviewer 1. Table 1~2: What is the presentation of each of these two tables trying to convey? Please write the corresponding results in the body of the text at the same time.

Response: The basic characteristics of the sample population (effective, and percentage) are present in Table 1. Our population is distributed of 516 athletes (370 male athletes, 146 female athletes; mean age 18.35 ± 3.43 years; 14 to 28). This population includes 378 athletes were in team sports and 138 athletes were in individual sports. In terms of geographical distribution, the participants were distributed as follows: Tunis (22.1%), Sfax (19.8%), Kairouan (19.6%), Gafsa (21.3%), and Gabes (17.2%).

Table 2 examines the descriptive characteristics of the 20-item BNSSS. The means, standard deviations, kurtosis, and skewness of the items are reported in this table. The data were normally distributed in terms of Sk (between -0.157 and -1.198), and Kr (between -0.010 and 1.454). All values are between +2 and -2, which is considered acceptable for a normal distribution.

Reviewer 1. Overall: You show a lot of tables, and I suggest you merge some of the tables that provide less information.

Response:

Table 4. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the BNSSS-20.

Scale Internal consistency (N = 294) Test-retest reliability (n = 37)

Cronbach alpha McDonald's omega Gutmann’s λ6 Bivariate correlations Intra-class correlation

BNSSS (Normal-Scaled Items) 0.886 0.754 0.970 0.79*** 0.840

CI 95% 0.865-0. 905 0.715-0.794 0.965-0.977 0.64-0.89 0.55-0.93

BNSSS (Reverse-Scaled Items) 0.849 0.773 0.964 _ _

CI 95% 0.822-0.872 0.736-0.810 0.958-0.973 _ _

Discussion

Reviewer 1. Overall: Is it possible to do some side-by-side comparisons with similar literature based on the results obtained?

Response: The 20 BNSSS items showed excellent reliability (McDonald's omega = 0.773, Cronbach's α = 0.886, Gutmann's λ6 = 0.970) and good temporal stability (ICC = 0.847), with similar results to the findings by Costa, Maroco [101] and Ng, Lonsdale [20]. Similarly, the CFA fit indices were perfect (CFI = 0.99; NFI =0.96; CFI = NNFI (TLI) = IFI = 0.99; GFI = 0.93; AGFI = 0.91, and SRMR = RMSEA = 0.02), which is consistent with those obtained by Costa, Maroco [101] and Iraji Noghondar and Poorsoltani Zarandi [102].

In addition, the results of the EFA showed that this scale well reproduced the expected theoretical model (concerning homogeneity of the items) with an interesting internal consistency for all the extracted factors. Furthermore, the results of the CFA indicated a good fit to the theoretical model, validating in a satisfactory way the five-dimensional factor structure in a population of Tunisian athletes, with those determined by Pineda-Espejel, López Gaspar [36], Francisco, Parra-Plaza [104]. Our results of the CFA differed from this study that retained only 12 of the 20 original version items [105].

Reviewer 1. Overall: I suggest you merge the limitations into the discussion and add a description of strengths and future research directions.

Response: This study has some limitations. It is necessary to evaluate this measurement tool with more heterogeneous populations in additional Arabic-speaking countries in order to determine the general extensibility of the results and to examine the social factors affecting the satisfaction of basic needs in sports. However, as well cross-cultural comparisons to test equivalence between the various languages, are essential to further validate this tool. Also, this sample was restrained to a cohort of very young athletes. Athletes after age 30 have different motivations, and it appears that motivations for engagement in sport may change throughout the lifespan [106]. likewise, basic needs persist over throughout lifetime, although their relative interest, and the ways in which they are met vary the lifespan and across cultures [6]. There is a need to develop tools related to the assessment of psychological needs in sport contexts. Basic needs affect the motivation and performance of athletes in sport development [87]. The validation of the BNSSS in Arabic constitutes a recent development in the field of sport psychology in Tunisia, because we have created a single tool for these three needs, specific to sport, which was not available in this context. One of the highlights is that an both team and individual sports sample was used, which will further give Arabic language researchers and psychologists an instrument to evaluate the level of BNSSS satisfaction and how these relate to other variables (e.g., performance, experiences, sport type). This study also has other limitations, such as the low sample size. In particular, the results cannot be applied to all sports. The sample comprised adolescent athletes, which does not ensure their comprehension of the items as compared to adults. However, construct validation is an evolving process, and future studies are still needed to demonstrate the validity of BNSSS scores. It is advisable to use this instrument to learn about the importance of meeting the needs of athletes from different cultural backgrounds and skill to various degrees. The conclusion is that there is a clear need to create a robust instrument, in Arabic, to develop the satisfaction of basic psychological needs in the context of athlete sports. Taking this in consideration, there has been some necessity for adapting and validate questionnaires to evaluate this specific measuring tool for competitive sports will enable us to build theoretical and practical skills in the field of competitive sport in the Arabic-speaking world.

Response to Reviewer 2

Reviewer 2. - The authors adequately addressed the comments and suggestions I raised in the previous round of review.

- I believe it would be highly beneficial to include the validated Arabic version of the BNSSS-20 scale in the manuscript. This addition will not only contribute to the comprehensiveness of the study but also facilitate the understanding and applicability of your findings for Arabic-speaking populations.

Response: The validated Arabic version of the BNSSS-20 scale is included in S1 File as this table is very large (the corrections suggest that I merge the tables as there are so many in this work).

Note: The figure file (Fig 2. Tif) was downloaded by the digital diagnostic tool Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE), https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers..docx