Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article presents a study on an intervention using a Program for Changing Attitudes towards Persons with Disabilities on 770 students with a control group of only 105 students. A pre- post-survey was used as the evaluation instrument.  There was a literature review that helped set up the study. The participants are not well described, and there was a lopsided presentation of people in control v intervention group. It would help learn more about who the participants were (demographic information) and how the numbers were decided upon. The questionnaire was described, and reliability and validity were presented. There were three phases, with the first phase being the collection of the questionnaire.  The second phase was the intervention. This phase lacked the detail to determine if any confounding variables may have impacted the study results. The final phase was the post-survey which was identical to the survey in phase one. As for calling this a quasi-experimental study, the authors need to be more clear upfront that the sample is convenient and not randomized and why that is the case. The limitation section highlights and I would underscore the importance of the non-randomized groups and the lack of control over the variables. While this study is important, at the current presentation, it lacks structure.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

We would like to thank you all for considering our manuscript and for your careful review. We are pleased to submit a revised version of our article, which has been substantially improved as a result of your comments and suggestions. We have tried to modify every aspect that has been pointed out (see changes in red). The manuscript has also been checked by a professional translator, native speaker of English. We hope that you will consider this new version acceptable for publication.

We remain at your disposal for any questions you may have.

Sincerely,

The authors appreciate all the recommendations made to improve the final manuscript.

RESPONSE: In order to guarantee the representativeness of the sample with respect to the socio-demographic variables (rural and urban centers, size of the center, socio-economic level of the students…) and to control the influence of extraneous variables, the 20 participating schools were selected at random from the total of 120 centers that exist in the Region of Extremadura.

As for the participants themselves, information has been added concerning the composition of both groups (experimental and control) and Student t and Chi Square tests with respect to age and gender have been carried out in order to reinforce the equivalence between them.

The sample is, therefore, not one of convenience. However, although the centers were chosen at random, the subjects from each classroom group were not, as they were formed naturally and the explanation of this has been improved.

A quasi-experimental methodology was used with group control and pre- and post- measures for both groups in order to control precisely whether some confusing variable could have affected the results of the study. This is, in fact, one of the most commonly used methodologies in educational research. Quasi-experimental methods have taken on a great importance in most empirical studies carried out in the educational sphere due to the organizational and ethical difficulties involved and to the desire to effectively explain the cause-effect relationships of the said method. The goal of the quasi-experimental method, as with the experimental one, is to find causal relationships between certain variables or phenomena. The difference lies in the fact that the experimenter cannot fulfill all the strict requirements of the experimental control: different values cannot be assigned to the independent variable at will, and nor is it possible to randomly assign subjects to the different groups, etc.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article presents the results of an intervention program to improve attitudes towards disability in compulsory secondary education students in the Extremadura region (Spain).
One of the main strengths of the article is that the intervention program is implemented by people with disabilities. This provides credibility and value to the intervention.

The design is correct and the statistical analyzes seem well conducted.

I consider that the article, in its entirety, is a good work, but I think that the authors should take into account some issues so that it can be published:

1. A thorough linguistic review of the manuscript should be carried out by a native English-speaking translator. It is not merely a formal issue. This is a revision that must be carried out inexcusably.

2. One of the main limitations of the design is the possible influence of the social desirability bias in the responses to the questionnaire of the participants.
Quantitative self-report instruments are subject to this bias, especially on sensitive topics like this one. This should be noted in the limitations of the study.
In addition, it should be explained what steps have been taken to minimize the impact of this bias. Distancing the second application of the questionnaire from the time of completion of the program is a good one.

3. Analysis of results.
Has it been analyzed whether the intervention program produced a differential impact on the participants according to their gender or grade? Even according to their high school?
If there are differences in the results according to these variables, they would be very valuable data that would improve the content of the article.

4. Bibliographic references.
A thorough effort should be made to review the recent literature on attitudes towards disability.
There are very few references to the latest advances in this area.

Next, I present some other relevant questions, although of less importance than the previous ones.

5. The introduction should briefly mention the position of the Spanish educational system with respect to inclusive education and the proportion of students with disabilities who are enrolled in mainstream and specific special education schools.
This is a relevant factor to contextualize the intervention program and its effects.

6. The Cronbach's Alpha value is not a good indicator of the reliability of the instrument and its subscales.

Subsequent analyzes do provide positive results in this regard. Despite this, the authors should warn of the low values ​​of Cronbach's Alpha in the study limitations.

7. When the instrument is described, the meaning of the scores must be reported. In other words, it should be noted that a lower score implies more positive attitudes.

8. Lines 276-282.
This content is not appropriate for discussion. It is basically a repetition of a precondition to ensure the validity of the research that has already been reported previously.
But it is not content that adds value to the discussion.

9. Finally, I indicate some merely formal questions:

9.1. Keywords must be in alphabetic order.
9.2. Line 162. Missing the word "disabilities" after "physical and organic"?
9.3. There is some information repeated in the "Procedure" and "Design" sections. The authors have made a good effort to describe each step followed in their research. But it is suggested to review these two sections to avoid this specific repetition of information.
9.4. When reporting p-values, only the decimal part of the numbers should be reported. In other words, "0.003" should not be indicated, but ".003".
9.5. Reporting p-values ​​= .000 should be avoided. Must be used p> ​​.001.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

We would like to thank you all for considering our manuscript and for your careful review. We are pleased to submit a revised version of our article, which has been substantially improved as a result of your comments and suggestions. We have tried to modify every aspect that has been pointed out (see changes in red). The manuscript has also been checked by a professional translator, native speaker of English. We hope that you will consider this new version acceptable for publication.

We remain at your disposal for any questions you may have.

Sincerely,

The authors appreciate all the recommendations made to improve the final manuscript.

The authors appreciate all the recommendations made to improve the final manuscript.

1. A thorough linguistic review of the manuscript should be carried out by a native English-speaking translator. It is not merely a formal issue. This is a revision that must be carried out inexcusably.

RESPONSE: The manuscript has been checked by a professional translator.

2. One of the main limitations of the design is the possible influence of the social desirability bias in the responses to the questionnaire of the participants. Quantitative self-report instruments are subject to this bias, especially on sensitive topics like this one. This should be noted in the limitations of the study. In addition, it should be explained what steps have been taken to minimize the impact of this bias. Distancing the second application of the questionnaire from the time of completion of the program is a good one.

RESPONSE: These limitations and explanations have been included in the section on limitations.

3. Analysis of results.

Has it been analyzed whether the intervention program produced a differential impact on the participants according to their gender or grade? Even according to their high school? If there are differences in the results according to these variables, they would be very valuable data that would improve the content of the article.

RESPONSE: Although these variables are not the object under study in this research, they would be part of a wider study being carried out by us in which different variables that can influence the results of the intervention will be analyzed. Among these are gender, school year, age, modality of the intervention, and contact with persons with a disability…

We would like to thank you for this suggestion and we can already say that we have found no differential impact with respect to gender or age and their interaction.

4. Bibliographic references.

A thorough effort should be made to review the recent literature on attitudes towards disability. There are very few references to the latest advances in this area. Next, I present some other relevant questions, although of less importance than the previous ones.

RESPONSE: New references have been added concerning the new advances in this sphere.

5. The introduction should briefly mention the position of the Spanish educational system with respect to inclusive education and the proportion of students with disabilities who are enrolled in mainstream and specific special education schools. This is a relevant factor to contextualize the intervention program and its effects.

RESPONSE: Page 1 now includes contents relating to the Spanish educational system and the schooling of persons with a disability.

6. The Cronbach's Alpha value is not a good indicator of the reliability of the instrument and its subscales. Subsequent analyzes do provide positive results in this regard. Despite this, the authors should warn of the low values of Cronbach's Alpha in the study limitations.

RESPONSE: This has been done.

7. When the instrument is described, the meaning of the scores must be reported. In other words, it should be noted that a lower score implies more positive attitudes.

RESPONSE: We would like to thank the reviewer for this suggestion. New content has been included in the instruments section concerning the meaning of the scores.

We have added: “In this sense, higher scores in the three factors indicate more negative attitudes towards persons with a disability, i.e., attitudes that suffer from more stereotypes, prejudice and discriminatory behavior patterns towards the said collective”.

8. Lines 276-282.

This content is not appropriate for discussion. It is basically a repetition of a precondition to ensure the validity of the research that has already been reported previously.

But it is not content that adds value to the discussion.

RESPONSE: We would like to thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have, consequently, reduced this paragraph. However, we still include it as we believe it is important to mention the equivalence of the experimental and control groups in order to validate the effects of the intervention.

The paragraph has been modified as follows: “We carried out an inter-group comparison (GC and GE) to check that the changes in the measurements obtained from the pre-test and post-test were due to the program and not to other factors. The equivalence of the two groups was verified with respect to the attitudes shown towards disabled persons”.

9. Finally, I indicate some merely formal questions:

RESPONSE: The suggestions concerning formality are welcomed and have been modified.

9.1. Keywords must be in alphabetic order.

RESPONSE: This has been done.

9.2. Line 162. Missing the word "disabilities" after "physical and organic"?

RESPONSE: This has been rectified.

9.3. There is some information repeated in the "Procedure" and "Design" sections. The authors have made a good effort to describe each step followed in their research. But it is suggested to review these two sections to avoid this specific repetition of information.

RESPONSE: The design section has been modified to eliminate the repetitions.

9.4. When reporting p-values, only the decimal part of the numbers should be reported. In other words, "0.003" should not be indicated, but ".003".

RESPONSE: This has been corrected.

9.5. Reporting p-values = .000 should be avoided. Must be used p> .001.

RESPONSE: This has been corrected.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I think the article has significantly improved its content.
I congratulate the authors for this.
I raise only two formal questions:
1. Although I am not a native English speaker, I believe that significant changes are still needed from a linguistic point of view.
2. In table 3, "," should be changed to "."

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

We are pleased to submit a revised version of our article.  The manuscript has been re-checked by a professional translator, native speaker of English. The change in table 3 has been done.

We truly appreciate your time and help. Your comments and suggestions definitely have improved the quality of this manuscript. We remain at your disposal for any questions you may have.

 Sincerely,

The authors.