Motivational Context and Perfectionism Traits in Pediatric Sports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I had a pleasure to review the article

“Motivational context and perfectionism traits in pediatric sport

which I found very interesting and valuable.

It might be a strong voice in the discussion

about perfectionism in youth sport and 

specially interesting as practical advice for

coaches, teachers and parents of young sportsman’s 

 Small minor improvement can be done 

the beginning of the introduction where there

is a lack of stronger opening to the theme of the article. Some data and evidence of the role of the coach in sport of adolescent s in general might be useful.

 

Author Response

We appreciate the opportunity to review in detail the manuscript entitled “Motivational context and perfectionism traits in pediatric sport”. We greatly appreciate your insightful comments, and we are convinced that the work has benefited greatly from your review.
In accordance with the suggested recommendations, we have made changes to the document, considering each and every one of the indicated suggestions.
Responses to comments are systematically described below.
At the beginning of the introduction some data was added that evidence of the role of the coach in sport of adolescents. Lines 35-40. We hope with this to solve your valuable suggestion.

The english language was revised.

Reviewer 2 Report

1. If it is not because of the "special issue", I would suggest that the author switch to another journal, such as IJERPH. At least, the author should explain the relationship with "sustainability" at the beginning or end of the article.
2. In the display of SEM, the square represents item, and the circle represents construct.
3. Line 137-141, hypotheses and Figure 1 cannot correspond.
4. In Figures 1 and 2, the positive and negative of the coefficients are inconsistent, please explain.
5. Please list the coefficients of the items.
6. In SEM, when dealing with mediation, there are relevant theoretical recommendations and operating procedures, which should be referred to.
7. It is recommended to use a table to explain the items in each construct in the questionnaire.

Author Response

We appreciate the opportunity to review in detail the manuscript entitled “Motivational context and perfectionism traits in pediatric sport”. We greatly appreciate your insightful comments, and we are convinced that the work has benefited greatly from your review.
In accordance with the suggested recommendations, we have made changes to the document, considering each and every one of the indicated suggestions.
Responses to comments are systematically described below.

1. We appreciate such a valuable comment, since we had omitted that information. Now, lines 411-417 have been added to the end of the document, hoping to solve the indicated absence.
   2. The path analysis was done with observed variables, therefore rectangles were used in the figures. We want to clarify this in the line 233.
   3. We honestly do not find disparity between the hypotheses and Figure 1. Perhaps it is our lack of humility that does not allow us to find the lack of correspondence. However, we are open to your expert comments.            4. The fact that in figure 1 a negative association between autonomy support and perceived coach pressure was expected, and that the result was the opposite, this is now mentioned in the discussion, line 345. And in general we also say that the results partially confirm the first hypothesis. Line 315.
   5. and 7. Considering these two observations, a Table 2 was added, where the results of the CFAs were transferred, and the factorial weights of the items each construct in the questionnaire are shown, intending to reduce the extension of said table as much as possible. The description of the items was not included, since the length of the table would be considerably long, in addition to not being part of the objective of the study. Examples of the items are mentioned in the instruments section.     6. On the theoretical recommendations and operating procedures of mediation, we refer to the bootstrap and the confidence interval. Now added “The estimation for the confidence intervals was performed using the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) and Maximum Likelihood (ML) methods. The total effects of the mediation model were also calculated. “Lines 247-252. Hoping thereby to solve such a valuable observation.

Reviewer 3 Report

Well done - really enjoyed your article

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We appreciate the opportunity to review in detail the manuscript entitled “Motivational context and perfectionism traits in pediatric sport”. We greatly appreciate your insightful comments, and we are convinced that the work has benefited greatly from your review.
In accordance with the suggested recommendations, we have made changes to the document, considering each and every one of the indicated suggestions.
Responses to comments are systematically described below.
At the beginning of the introduction some data was added that evidence of the role of the coach in sport of adolescents. Lines 35-40. We hope with this to solve your valuable suggestion.

Regarding figure 3, a note has been added in the title of this figure, line 305. In addition, an attempt was made to improve its explanation, lines 294-300; hoping thereby to solve his valuable observation.

The english language has been revised.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate authors’ hard work of the. Some suggestions are as follows:

1. When choosing SEM as the main analysis tool for this research, authors should understand the core purpose, rules, and limitations of SEM. As far as the current analysis method is concerned, there are obvious problems:

(a) Many SEM books mention the number of "observed" variables suitable for a "latent" variable. This has its purpose in solving equations. The authors put in a large number of observed variables, which is problematic and unacceptable. This is a basic concept.

(b) In addition, because of the aforementioned reasons, I guess that authors cannot obtain the desired statistical results. Therefore, you have to compress a large number of “raw” observed variables (called compound score? LINE 221) into become a “new” observed variable. This is obviously contrary to the basic principles of SEM. Unless the authors cite SEM-related theories, or some well-known journal works, to support your approach.

(c) Since the above-mentioned deficiencies are too obvious, I cannot agree with the authors' results.

(d) Authors may be possible to use a 2nd order SEM, or use traditional statistical methods instead.

2. As far as emprical studies is concerned, sometimes it does not meet expectations in statistics, but it does not matter, as long as they are truthful. It is less appropriate to play with numbers.

3. Negative coefficients violate the author's hypothesis. At this time, the authors should cite some other well-known theories and discuss the possibilities in depth, so as to strengthen the surface validity of the research results. It is not appropriate to use only the author's own guess.

4.This is an international journal published in English. Is it possible to explain why the relevant information of the authors is presented in Spanish?

Author Response

We greatly and sincerely appreciate the thorough and in-depth review of the document, as well, we appreciate the valuable comments to improve the quality of the manuscript. Your comments amply illustrate the areas for improvement. We then respond to the points made. 

1. Based on specialized English literature (i.e. Kelloway, 2015), we have modified the text. We think that it is appropriate to speak of a path analysis with observed variables. We hope with this to solve the deficiency indicated.

Kelloway, E.K. (2015). Using Mplus for structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

3. We try to discuss this result, supported, for example, in paradigms represented by parental control theory, and Baumrind's configural approach to parental authority (cite 47), as well as in works supported by the SDT (cites 48, 50-54). May be considered insufficient, however, we think that it is quite attached to our study.

4. In Mexico, the names of higher education institutions constitute a proper name, so the name of the universities has an official and legal registry, which is expected to be respected internationally. Making a rough comparison, it is as if someone called Antonio Romero (in Spanish), his name changed to Anthony Rosemary. Although the translation is the same, legally it is not the same person.
In short, respecting the official name of Mexican universities favors the indicators and metrics of research and citation for them.

 

Once again, we appreciate your valuable comments.

 

 

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The author completely misunderstood the basic concepts of observation variables and latent variables in SEM. Sorry, I even wonder if the author did this deliberately for the purpose of getting better statistical results. For any reader who has some common sense of SEM, he or she will suspect that the research results may be problematic.
2. If the author disagrees with my argument, why not just cite the theory of SEM to refute it?

Author Response

We are very grateful for the comments and suggestions made to the manuscript, which will undoubtedly help us improve its quality. Likewise, we appreciate the time taken for the review.

For the main author, the observations encourage him to broaden his awareness, and continue training on the subject of SEM