Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Highly rank journals request highly research methodology. Methodology of this manuscript is not lege artis, because:

 -  dependent variables are on ordinal scale - descriptive  statistic missing (skew, kurt, Cv...)

 -  what about testing  a normality of sampling distribution (DV)

 - according a testing a difference why parametric or non parametric test not used -  there is just f??  

• population is not defined -  what kind of sample you use?            

   

Author Response

• Define population with respect to samples (R1)2. Included in table 2 in L294-L304
• Calculate skewness, kurtosis and K/S (R1). Included in new table 2 and in L294-L304

Reviewer 2 Report

In the attached document 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

• Ln 118-133, I do not understand these paragraphs, are they examples of educational leisure? There is no further mention in the whole text of sporting leisure, active leisure or outdoor leisure (R2). Thank you for your comment. A text has been added to clarify the idea; indeed they were examples (L92-119).
• P2L43 Leisure is a complex phenomenon. Please use another word than complex. (R3). The adjective has been removed as the sentence is descriptive (L37).
• It is understood that schools in general are included as participants, so it is necessary to indicate that they are school professionals (ln 200). In addition, throughout the text there is sometimes doubt as to whether the sample is composed of 4 groups or 3. (R2). Included in the L212 schools as participant teams and clarified by the added figure 1.
• (Ln 203-216), the explanation of the 25 school principals is missing (R2). We have included a description (L214-217).
• In the reviewer's opinion, the sampling carried out is a non-probabilistic convenience sampling in all cases, since it tries to cover the largest possible population without establishing, initially, those strata or necessary sample quantities typical of probabilistic sampling. It is necessary to correct and/or clarify this aspect (R2). Corrected in L198.
• Ln 281, specify that it refers to the questionnaire C (R2) Rectified in L258.
• There is no mention of ethical principles and ethical approval of the study, it is necessary to describe the process and approval. (R2) Included in L189-197.
• The discussion should be related to the stated objectives, to help the reader and give coherence to the research. (R2). Now the discussion is related by the stated objectives.
• Ln 419 four groups? (R2). Clarified in L524
• Limitations are missing (R2). Limitations are included in L567-572
• We speak of a descriptive study but the characteristics of the sample incite to an inferential study, justify this aspect (R2). Clarified throughout the section 2
• As the whole text is related to 4 types of samples (or even 2, considering the objectives set: professionals and young people), it is advisable to divide table 1 from these subgroups, showing a statistical test that specifies the independence of samples (chi2 for example) (R2). We included table 5 that shows a statistical test that specifies the independence of samples.
• Table 2 actually shows objective 1 and 2, it would be necessary to unify the objective and separate the table to facilitate the reader the procedure carried out in the article. Objective one and two have been integrated according to the reviewer's suggestion. Furthermore, although it is a descriptive study (the reviewer considers that it is not), it is advisable to use another type of analysis since the objective is to observe the differences and there is no indicator to explain what these differences are, whether they are real or due to chance. In other words, it is necessary to redo the analysis (an ANOVA for example) or to justify the absence of such an indicator. (R2). We consider that with Spearman's correlation coefficient at T5 these differences are observed.
• Ln 292, the analysis does not refer to the second objective but to the third. (R2).
• Table 3 does not take into account the different groups but the sample as a whole. The chi 2 test to see the relationship is usually done in a table of frequencies and not the table observed, typical of a Spearman and Pearson correlation. In this table it is not possible to see in which groups this relationship is interfering, as it is commented and starting from it (the reviewer believes that these comments come from table 2 and not from table 3, ln 316-329). It is necessary to adapt the analysis to the stated objective. (R2). Table 5 has been created with Spearman's correlation detailing the cross-sectional contents with the response of the 4 populations and clarified in L403 to L431.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, 
Thank you for the paper. Most of the paper is ok for me but there are some comments in the methods part that are really important for the paper. Please find some comments below:

The abstract was written in general. Please add some results.

Introduction:

It needs more modifying and improvement sometimes I miss following the idea.

P2L43 Leisure is a complex phenomenon. Please use another word than complex.

Methods:

Can you provide a graph to explain the exact steps of the study?

To prove the validity I think it will be better to use Spearman’s correlation coefficient between the score for the items and the total score of each field of the questionnaire to which it belongs as well as the total sum of the questionnaire. 

Or use Cronbach's alpha as a measure of internal consistency.

 

Results:
In Table 2. Means and standard deviations according to study participants. 
Please, provide also Skewness/SE and Kurtosis/SE 

The discussion section is ok.

Author Response

• El resumen fue escrito en general. Agregue algunos resultados (R3).
• Intro: Necesita más modificaciones y mejoras, a veces echo de menos seguir la idea. (R3).
• Al principio se habla mucho de un ocio más consumista y fugaz, siendo lo más importante en el artículo el ocio educativo, la primera vez que se menciona en el texto (ln 56-59) no empieza a hacer mención especial hasta el n. 70. De hecho, en la discusión ni siquiera se menciona este ocio consumista del que se habla hasta el n. 69 en la introducción. G ood puntos, gracias por traer a nuestra atención. Retirado del argumento sobre la base de que no estábamos discutiendo este tema.
• ¿Puede proporcionar un gráfico para explicar los pasos exactos del estudio? (R3). Figura 1 incluida.
• Para probar la validez, creo que será mejor utilizar el coeficiente de correlación de Spearman entre la puntuación de los ítems y la puntuación total de cada campo del cuestionario al que pertenece, así como la suma total del cuestionario. O utilice el alfa de Cronbach como medida de consistencia interna. (R3). Incluimos el coeficiente de correlación de Spearman (379) y el alfa de Cronbach (L288)
• En la Tabla 2. Medias y desviaciones estándar según los participantes del estudio. 
  Por favor, proporcione también Sesgo / SE y Curtosis / SE (R3). Incluido en la nueva tabla 2 y en L294.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Ok, little improved! 

Reviewer 2 Report

The article has been improved considerably, congratulations!