Integrating Human Values Theory and Self-Determination Theory: Parental Influences on Preschoolers’ Sustained Sport Participation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript, which presents a timely and well-structured study examining how parents’ sport values influence their support for children’s continued participation in balance bike activities. The integration of Rokeach’s Human Values Theory with Self-Determination Theory (SDT) is thoughtfully applied here and offers a meaningful contribution to the literature on early childhood physical activity and parental influence.

The manuscript is clear and organized throughout, with a strong methodological approach. The sample size is robust, and the use of SmartPLS for structural equation modeling is appropriate. The author/s also do a nice job articulating their hypotheses and demonstrating how motivation acts as a full mediator between parental sport values and continued participation intention. The findings offer both theoretical and practical insight, particularly in emphasizing that sport values alone are not enough - sustained support depends heavily on the internalization of motivation.

That said, there are a few areas where the manuscript could be strengthened. First, the theoretical discussion around value internalization would benefit from deeper engagement, especially considering cultural context. Since the study is based in Taiwan, it might be helpful to reflect briefly on how value systems specific to that context shape parenting practices or motivational processes. Additionally, while the SDT framework is well-integrated, the manuscript doesn’t fully explore how specific types of values (such as moral vs. competence) may differentially relate to intrinsic or extrinsic motivation. That connection feels assumed rather than articulated.

The sampling approach, while understandable, deserves more reflection. Snowball sampling through online groups may introduce bias (e.g., more engaged or tech-savvy parents), and the authors might consider how this impacts generalizability. Similarly, some terminology (like “3C products”) may not translate well to an international audience and could use clarification.

The measures are solid overall, though I wonder if the “continued participation intention” scale captures the full picture. As it stands, it seems to focus largely on the parent’s willingness to provide support - less so on child-led motivation or real-world constraints like time, cost, or competing priorities.

Lastly, even though the paper states IRB approval was not applicable, it would be good to clarify how confidentiality and informed consent were addressed, particularly given the online nature of recruitment.

In all, this is a well-designed and relevant piece of scholarship that contributes both conceptually and practically to the field. I recommend minor revisions aimed at strengthening the theoretical framing, refining some language for broader clarity, and addressing a few methodological details.

Happy to provide further suggestions if helpful. Again, thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript.

Author Response

請參閱附件中的更正說明。

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting study.  There is very little resear

 

It appears the study does not meet the ethical requirements for publication in Societies.  Author contribution guidelines state "For non-interventional studies (e.g. surveys, questionnaires, social media research), all participants must be fully informed whether their anonymity is assured, why the research is being conducted, how their data will be used, and if there are any risks involved in participating. As with all research involving humans, ethical approval from an appropriate ethics committee must be obtained prior to conducting the study. If ethical approval is not required, authors must either provide an exemption from the ethics committee or cite the local or national legislation that indicates ethics approval is not required for this type of study. When a study has been granted exemption, the name of the ethics committee that provided this should be stated in the ‘Institutional Review Board Statement’ Section with a full explanation for the rejection of ethical approval."  Lines 454 and 455 indicate there was no ethics approval or consenting of participants.

Other points

Participants in the study are parents, but the age of their children is not clear.  This information should be included in the abstract and the method section.

Section 1 needs more citations.  There are numerous claims that are stated without citation.

Section 1: Explain what 3C products are.

Section 1: It would help to provide a larger international context for the research in the opening paragraph before moving to discussion of the situation in Taiwan.

Line 456: This seems to be a mistake.  New data were created.  Please provide details of data availability.

Author Response

Please see the attached file for the correction instructions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf