Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for your paper.

These types of articles are of great utility for researchers in the field.

 

Please improve the introduction part with information related to the initial questionnaire and of previous translations in other languages of the questionnaire.

Please better point out the limits of the study.

Also, point out the potential practical implications of the results of your research.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers.

First of all, we would like to thank everyone for their contribution and the pertinence of the reviews.

We try to respond to all requests, they are in yellow in the text.

Undoubtedly the requested changes contributed to the final text of the manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Your article is interesting and certainly needed. However, I have some comments on it.

Measurable results should be added to the summary (for example, p’’).

There is no clearly defined purpose at the outset. It needs to be written better. The purpose of the research cannot be: ,,, this study aimed to adapt the EDMCQ-C to the Portuguese language spoken in Brazil with technical rigor in''.

In scientific research, there must be a research problem, hypotheses, etc.

With such several results, only the most important ones should be indicated.

The discussion is in many places a repetition of the results and their discussion, not a comparison with other scientists and concluding. It is therefore chaotic.

I propose to list the most important results (in short), discuss them, evaluate them and draw conclusions. As in a classic discussion. This applies to the entire chapter.

The conclusions should indicate items useful in the assessment of such phenomena, this is the most important thing in the whole article.

In my opinion, the aim, results, discussion, and conclusions should be improved according to the comments. Rewrite the discussion according to general standards. It's only good in places.

Kind regards,

 

Reviewer

Author Response

Point 1: Measurable results should be added to the summary (for example, p’’).  

Response 1: Measurable results have been added to the summary. The Goodness-of-fit are underlined (in this case, there is no p-value).

Point 2: There is no clearly defined purpose at the outset. It needs to be written better. The purpose of the research cannot be: this study aimed to adapt the EDMCQ-C to the Portuguese language spoken in Brazil with technical rigor in''.

Response 2: The objective of the research was reformulated; we believe that it is now clearer. see in yellow in the introduction

Point 3: The discussion is in many places a repetition of the results and their discussion, not a comparison with other scientists and concluding. It is therefore chaotic.

Response 3:   repeat results were excluded from the discussion and have been completely reworked.

 Point 4: I propose to list the most important results (in short), discuss them, evaluate them and draw conclusions. As in a classic discussion. This applies to the entire chapter.

Response 4: done

Point 5: The conclusions should indicate items useful in the assessment of such phenomena, this is the most important thing in the whole article.

Response 5: done

Point 6 In my opinion, the aim, results, discussion, and conclusions should be improved according to the comments. Rewrite the discussion according to general standards. It's only good in places

Response 6: done

Reviewer 3 Report

The submitted manuscript is interesting, however it presents a series of aspects that could be improved, which I list below: INTRODUCTION: - The references and theoretical framework must be updated, using more current citations over time - This section must end not only with the purpose of the investigation but also with the formulation of the hypotheses and the questions that this investigation intends to answer. METHOD: - As for the sample, I recommend including a type of crosstab that shows the main sociodemographic characteristics of the sample. This will make the section much more complete. DISCUSSION: - I recommend structuring the discussion in the following sections: objectives and hypotheses that have been met or have not been met. Main findings of the investigation. Main implications of the results. Future lines of research. And, limitations of the research. CONCLUSION: - This section needs further development and precision of the conclusions obtained from this research.

Author Response

Point 1: The references and theoretical framework must be updated, using more current citations over time – This section must end not only with the purpose of the investigation but also with the formulation of the hypotheses and the questions that this investigation intends to answer.

Response:The references 3, 4, 5, and 22, despite the year of publication are original references of the scales used or statistical criteria adopted, and therefore there are no original updated references. The following references have been updated and are underlined in yellow in the text. Introdution has been reworked.

 

 

Point 3:METHOD: - As for the sample, I recommend including a type of crosstab that shows the main sociodemographic characteristics of the sample. This will make the section much more complete

 Response 3. We chose to describe the sociodemographic variables in the body of the text. See below the subtopic: 2.1. Participants and recruitment

 

 

Point 4.5.6 DISCUSSION: - I recommend structuring the discussion in the following sections:  objectives and hypotheses that have been met or have not been met.  Main findings of the investigation. Main implications of the results. Future lines of research. And, limitations of the research.

Resposta 4, 5, 6) foi completamente reformulada. o subtópico foi incluído no texto: Limitações do estudo e direções futuras de pesquisa

 

Ponto 7: CONCLUSÃO: - Esta seção precisa de maior desenvolvimento e precisão das conclusões obtidas com esta pesquisa.

A conclusão da resposta 7 foi completamente reformulada.

Reviewer 4 Report

1) It is quite strange to define the dimensions as climatic. I suggest renaming. Also 'global' is not fully adequate.

2) I would suggest to include in the abstract some ideas on why this specific questionnaire was used. If it is coach created, I suggest to include the need for such questionnaire.

3) The use of ego is somehow confusing.  I would suggest to use for example, self-perception, self-understanding, auto-involving, or one-self involving, ...

4) The section 2.2. is missing. This is strange!

5) Figure 1 is hard to read in detail.

6) In Table 1, could you substitute 'My coach' by simply 'The coach'. The use iof 'my' is very confusing to me. It not denotes synergistic interactions but imposed ones, which is not desirable in a feedback based interaction.

7) In CO2, the 'see things' is very confusing.

 

 

 

Author Response

Point 1: It is quite strange to define the dimensions as climatic. I suggest renaming. Also 'global' is not fully adequate.

Response 1: the word climatic in the abstract was replaced by climate and it is underlined. Regarding the two latent variables empowering and disempowering, the word "global" is used by the authors of the original instrument (see Appleton et al., 2016)

 

Point 2:I would suggest to include in the abstract some ideas on why this specific questionnaire was used. If it is coach created, I suggest to include the need for such questionnaire.

Response 2:  included in the abstract and are underlined in yellow for better visualization.

 

Point 3:The use of ego is somehow confusing.  I would suggest to use for example, self-perception, self-understanding, auto-involving, or one-self involving.

Response 3: The Empowering and Disempowering Motivational Theory was developed considering The Self Determination Theory, and Task and Ego Orientation (see Duda, J. L., 1989 for more details). These two theories are well documented in the literature. Again, the word ego is the one used by the authors of the original theory.

 

Point 4 The section 2.2. is missing. This is strange!

Response 4: It was a bug that has been fixed! thank you for noticing

 

Point 5 Figure 1 is hard to read in detail.  

Response 5: Figure 1 was excluded because it would be impossible to clearly visualize the figure with the large number of results. The results are presented in the tables

 

Point 6 In Table 1, could you substitute 'My coach' by simply 'The coach'. The use of 'my' is very confusing to me. It not denotes synergistic interactions but imposed ones, which is not desirable in a feedback based interaction.

Resposta 6:  Fizemos a adaptação cultural de um instrumento, reconhecido na literatura de psicologia do esporte, seguindo os procedimentos recomendados por Beaton et al. (2000), portanto, os itens estão de acordo com o instrumento original.

 

Ponto 7:  No CO2, o 'ver coisas' é muito confuso.

Resposta 7: Nós a reformulamos. Veja em amarelo na discussão

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors significantly improved the manuscript, which deserves a positive comment. Still, the discussion would require improvement, adding additional citations, and references. In this form, it is a discussion of the results, but not a discussion and substantive assessment. I recommend finding about 15 other similar studies and referencing them.

Kind regards,

Reviewer

Author Response

REVIEWER 2 - 2o ROUND

Point: The authors significantly improved the manuscript, which deserves a positive comment. Still, the discussion would require improvement, adding additional citations, and references. In this form, it is a discussion of the results, but not a discussion and substantive assessment. I recommend finding about 15 other similar studies and referencing them.

Response: First of all, thank you for carefully reading the article. This is the first research that tested the psychometric properties of the EDMCQ in Brazilian athletes and the results indicate that it is a promising instrument, but we are still in the initial validation process, and to have a more substantial response, other studies will be necessary, with a greater number of athletes, a broader age group, greater diversity of sports, evaluation of other variables, etc., so that we can establish norms for the Brazilian population of athletes. However, we can highlight the positive and important aspects of the study:

1. The adoption of the EDMCQ-C as a measure is advantageous because it recognizes the broad spectrum of climate dimensions central to AGT and SDT [45] simultaneously and their implications for athletes’ motivation, well-being [18], and sustained engagement in sports.
2. EDMCQ-C (BR) could be used by coaches and researchers to establish the empowering and disempowering climate being created in training sessions and competition.
3. The scale could be employed, for example, to determine the extent to which coaches (based on self-report and/or athletes’ perceptions) are (or are not) utilizing motivational strategies that are known to foster or hinder athletes’ autonomous motivation, engagement, and psychological health.
4. the administration and sharing of findings from the EDMCQ-C could enhance coaches’ understanding of the motivational climate they create (in the eyes of their athletes) and potentially provide further insight into specific empowering and disempowering strategies impacting their athletes.

            As for the recommendation to find similar studies and reference them, new relevant references have been added to the discussion.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have not responded to all my comments

 

Author Response

Point: The authors have not responded to all my comments

 

Response: First of all, thanks for the suggestions and contributions given. Actually, not all the points listed were answered in the 1st round. We hope that all points will be clarified in the 2nd round of this review.

 

1o ROUND

Point 1: INTRODUCTION: - The references and theoretical framework must be updated, using more current citations over time - This section must end not only with the purpose of the investigation but also with the formulation of the hypotheses and the questions that this investigation intends to answer.

Response 1: We agree that the article has to be with the most up-to-date reference possible, which has been our concern since we started writing the article. In this article there are 44 references, 35 references (ie 80%) were from articles published in the last 10 years, and of these, 23 references (ie 52%) were from articles published in the last 5 years. References 4, 5, 11, 26, 28, 28, 31, 39, and 41 are classic references of the theories that were used as a basis for the research. The formulation of hypotheses and the questions that this investigation intends to answer were included in the text in the copy below to facilitate the reviewer:

The objectives of this study were to assess the psychometric properties of the Coach-created Empowering and Disempowering Motivational Climate Questionnaire (EDMCQ-C) by testing four different hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1: The Brazilian version would be consistent with the structure of the EDMCQ-C as supported in previous research [20]. Namely, we tested the hierarchical structure originally proposed by Duda [21], but expected that an over-arching empowering climate dimension (marked by task-involving, autonomy-supportive, and socially-supportive features), and a disempowering climate dimension (characterized by ego-involving and controlling features) would be supported; 

Hypothesis 2: The empowering climate is expected to be significantly and positively correlated with the three BPNs (autonomy, relatedness, and competence), and a disempowering climate correlated negatively with each BPNs [7, 22].

Hypothesis 3: Empowering and disempowering climates are expected to be independent from one another; indicative of discriminant validity [25].

Hypothesis 4: The measurement model will be invariant (or equivalent) across gender, in the sense that the same construct is measured equally in different groups of males and females [20].

 

Point 2 METHOD: - As for the sample, I recommend including a type of crosstab that shows the main sociodemographic characteristics of the sample. This will make the section much more complete. 

Response 2. We chose to describe the sociodemographic variables in the body of the text. the requests were answered and are in the text in the copy below to facilitate the work of the reviewer:

A total of 350 athletes (110 girls and 240 boys) participated in the study, with a mean age of 17.0 years (SD=1.7). The young athletes participated in basketball (n=147), volleyball (n=166), or indoor soccer (n=37). All participants were competitive at the national level. On average, their training lasted for the duration of 3 hours (SD=0.9) and they engaged in training 4 times a week (SD=1.0). The athletes had an average of 4 years of experience participating in their sport (SD=2.3). Data collection took place in sports clubs and training centers located in the cities of São Paulo and Belo Horizonte. The current study’s procedures respected ethical requirements inherent to scientific research, and the Ethics Council of the São Judas Tadeu University approved this study.

 

 

Point 3 DISCUSSION: - I recommend structuring the discussion in the following sections: objectives and hypotheses that have been met or have not been met. Main findings of the investigation. Main implications of the results. Future lines of research. And, limitations of the research. 

Response 3: The discussion was overhauled according to the recommendations. The requests were ALL met and are in the text.

Ponto 4: CONCLUSION: - This section needs further development and precision of the conclusions obtained from this research.

Response 4 Conclusion has been completely overhauled. the requests were answered and are in the text in the copy below to facilitate the work of the reviewer:

     The purpose of the current study was to examine the initial psychometric properties of the EDMCQ when translated into Portuguese and completed by Brazilian sports athletes. The evidence from this study is aligned with the findings of previous research (e.g., [18, 20, 24]) that supports a two-factor first-order model. Moreover, the research provides additional evidence regarding indicators of validity and reliability of the scale. This evidence suggests the EDMCQ-C (BR) can be used in future research to examine the antecedents and consequences of athletes’ perceptions of empowering and disempowering features of the coach-created motivational climate in Brazilian sport.