Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Congratulations to the authors for the initiative to synthesize the evidence about interventions regarding the theory of self-determination and motivation in physical education classes. Considering my theoretical and practical knowledge about this topic, which was also a part of my doctoral thesis, the main suggestion I have is referring to the method of quantitative analysis of the review.

I don't see the logic in presenting the meta analysis because of 2 reasons:

1) the high statistical heterogeneity presented by the authors

2) And the reduced number of studies.

I had the same problem with my thesis which featured a systematic review in its first chapter. The  psychological area of ​​the sciences of physical activity and sport has a large number of names for the same variables, which makes it difficult to perform a numerical synthesis. This variability is reflected in the few studies included in the reviews and leads us to a large bias. It is a very strong limitation which prevents a quantitative analysis.

In accordance with these aspects, I strongly suggest that the authors keep the line of this manuscript as a systematic review only.

This does not remove the relevance of the research, it only strengthens it as a qualitative synthesis which brings us important contributions.

After this is done, I think the article is ready to be accepted.

Author Response

The authors thank the suggestion. However, we think that a systematic review only removes the relevance of the study.

Regarding the heterogeneity, is very high, which is also mentioned in the limitations and conclusions. We have also added new details on how to handle high heterogeneity in the discussion.

Regarding the reduced number of studies, the number is small.  However, we think that eleven studies are enough to brings interesting quantitative contributions with a meta-analysis. The analysis is statistically significant and, additionally, there are previous metanalysis with a similar number of studies. For example:

 

Castellano-Aguilera, A.; Biviá-Roig, G.; Cuenca-Martínez, F.; Suso-Martí, L.; Calatayud, J.; Blanco-Díaz, M.; Casaña, J. Effectiveness of Virtual Reality on Balance and Risk of Falls in People with Multiple Sclerosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 14192. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192114192

Abad Robles, M.T.; Collado-Mateo, D.; Fernández-Espínola, C.; Castillo Viera, E.; Giménez Fuentes-Guerra, F.J. Effects of Teaching Games on Decision Making and Skill Execution: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 505. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17020505

Reviewer 2 Report

Congratulations to the authors for their work. The review is methodologically well presented and the results are organized in a clear way that allows to reach very useful conclusions.

Author Response

The authors thank for the congratulations. 

Reviewer 3 Report

This study reviewed the effects of interventions based on self-determination theory and achievement goal theory on intention to be physically active in the future in physical education students and put forward the corresponding strategy. It has important reference significance for promoting children and adolescents to participate in physical activities.

I note that the heterogeneity  is very high, which is also mentioned by the authors in the limitations.

Please add details on how to handle high heterogeneity and add discussion.

Author Response

The authors have accepted the suggestion and we added these

details in the discussion:

Although, in some cases, testing for heterogeneity can addresses an unimportant question and heterogeneity is allowed for in a meta-analysis using random-effects model [54] like in this study, the results should be viewed with caution. All articles included in this me-ta-analysis have been analyzed to study heterogeneity. The most notable differences be-tween the studies can be observed in the characteristics of the type of the strategies used in each intervention. In this sense, the interventions based on AGT used similar strategies and presented a medium heterogeneity (I² = 49%), and the interventions based on SDT used different strategies and presented a large heterogeneity (I² = 75%).

 

54. Higgins, J.P.T.; Thompson, S.G.; Spiegelhalter, D.J. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J. R. Stat. Soc. 2009, 172, 137–159.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have revised and improved their paper.

Congratulations.