PONE-D-24-26769Effects of soccer instruction on the executive functions and agility of children in early childhoodPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Aoyama,

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 06 2024 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,

Mário André da Cunha Espada, 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. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: This work was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Early-Career Scientists Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [Grant Number 24K20638].

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.""

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please upload a copy of Supporting Information Figure/Table/etc. S1 which you refer to in your text on page 13.

5. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

Please consider the recommendations of reviewer 1 and 2 regarding the initial version of the manuscript

Thank you.

Best regards.

[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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

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: No

**********

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: Overall, the study is an interesting idea but for better readability it needs improvements in writing and improve particularly in the study's methodology and results that will be discussed in the relevant section.

Abstract:

The abstract could be better structured to enhance readability.

The abstract does not mention the outcome related to agility, even though it is a central focus of the study.

In the results sentences: Clarify the comparison of pre- and post-test scores within the intervention and control groups, as the current phrasing might confuse readers.

In overall, by improving the clarity, structure, and inclusion of all relevant results, the abstract would be more comprehensive and aligned with the standards of the journal.

Introduction:

The introduction provides a comprehensive overview of the relevance of exercise, particularly open-skill sports like soccer, in enhancing executive function and agility in children. Meanwhile, there are some comments for improving clarity and the flow:

The introduction repeats some information, particularly regarding inhibition and the advantages of open-skill sports. Condensing these points would improve readability, e.g., the paragraph discussing the benefits of open-skill sports (line 86-97) could be streamlined by merging similar ideas and avoiding redundancy in discussing inhibition tasks across different studies.

The section discussing the limitations of previous studies in establishing a causal relationship between soccer participation and improved executive function could be more precise (line:64-70 and 79-85). It might help to explicitly state that the lack of baseline measures is a significant limitation in previous research.

The purpose of the study is clear, but it could be emphasized more by separating it into its own paragraph and explicitly stating the research questions or hypotheses.

Method:

To report average and mean of the age for five years old, by months or year ±SD, Refer to the PLOS one priority format (line 110- 114).

The methodology is well-structured and covers essential aspects of the study, but it has several weaknesses that could affect the study's validity, reliability, and generalizability. Addressing these issues would support the study design and improve the strength of the findings, e.g.,:

As a Small Sample Size study: The intervention group consists of only 31 children, and the control group has 39. While this might be sufficient for a pilot study, the small sample size limits the generalizability of the findings. The results may not be representative of the broader population of five-year-old children. Then it needs to be considered as the study limitation.

As a Single Study Location: All participants are from the same kindergarten in the same prefecture, which further limits generalizability. The study’s findings might not apply to children in different geographical locations, cultural settings, or educational environments. If there is not any confidential conflict, it is better to write fully name of kindergarten (line 110 and 113).

It needs to clarify the randomization. Since the decision to participate in soccer instruction was made by the parents, leading to a potential self-selection bias. Then, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design would be stronger, if children were randomly assigned to either the intervention or control group to minimize selection bias.

To control group activity, it needs to provide a detailed description of the control group’s activities or consider using an active control group that participates in another structured, non-soccer activity.

Blinding the researcher to group allocation during the assessment and analysis phases would support lessen the study bias.

Outcome Measures: The study measures inhibition and working memory, but other aspects of executive function, such as cognitive flexibility and planning, are not assessed that can be considered as limitation of the study findings.

Statistical Analysis: Lack of Detail on Statistical Methods: Include a more detailed description of the statistical methods used, such as the type of tests (e.g., t-tests, ANOVA, regression analysis), how assumptions were checked, and how missing data were handled. While the methodology mentions using a two-way ANOVA, it’s important to ensure that the assumptions of ANOVA (e.g., homogeneity of variances, normality) are met.

No Mention of Effect Size or Power Analysis: The section does not mention whether effect sizes were calculated or whether a power analysis was conducted to determine the appropriate sample size.

Ethic: Include the name of the institution, the approval number, and the date of approval.

Results:

The results section provides a solid foundation for presenting the study's findings, but there are several areas where clarity and detail could be improved.

Clarify the interpretation of the interaction effect. Explain what the significant interaction means in the context of the study. For example, discuss whether the intervention was more effective for certain groups or conditions and how this relates to the overall study objectives.

Provide a brief interpretation of the effect sizes, explaining whether they are small, medium, or large according to conventional benchmarks. This will help readers understand the practical significance of the findings. Ensure that the comparison between pre and post-intervention within the control group is clearly stated, without unnecessary repetition or ambiguity

Discussion

Discussion is well-structured and provides a comprehensive analysis of the study's findings. However, I have a few suggestions to improve clarity, coherence, and flow:

The discussion touches on the practical implications of the findings, particularly for early childhood education, but these points could be more clearly articulated.

Improvement: Expanding on how these findings could influence the design of physical education programs, or how educators and parents might apply these insights, would strengthen the practical relevance of the study.

Reviewer #2: Abstract (line 30-32): is this correct” In the intervention group, the “post-” score was significantly higher than the “pre-” score, whereas in the control group, the “post-” score was significantly higher than of the “pre-” score. Please reword.

Study needs a hypothesis.

Did participants in the intervention group have any previous experience in playing soccer---this is briefly mention in the Discussion (line 224)? Were they naïve to soccer playing until this study started? Was this performed on a regular sized soccer field? What about the size of the goal posts—same as in adult soccer?

Unclear if both or only the control group played indoor soccer?

The description of the statistics used is very limited. What is “T-value”? How was effect size calculated? The results section should better describe the two groups in terms of their characteristics. What were the inclusion / exclusion criteria sued when recruiting participants?

What are the implications of these findings for professional vs amateur teams, and also for different divisions in professional leagues?

**********

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: Fariba Hossein Abadi

Reviewer #2: 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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS ONE article Comments.docx

Effects of soccer instruction on the executive functions and agility of children in early childhood

PONE-D-24-26769R1

Dear Dr. Sho Aoyama,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Mario André da Cunha Espada, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

Congratulations on the work carried out in the review process.

I propose that the authors consider the suggestions in this last phase of revision (e.g. English details improvement).

Thank you.

Best regards.

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 #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Please edit the manuscript for English language and grammar. Perhaps recruit assistance from a native English language speaker

Reviewer #3: Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript with the title - Effects of soccer instruction on the executive functions and agility of children in early childhood.

The article is well structured, and the improvements made are opportune and contribute to increasing the scientific value of the manuscript.

Recommendations: - The article is well structured and meets the scientific requirements of the journal in order to be accepted.

**********

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 #2: Yes: Ismail Laher

Reviewer #3: No

**********