Adaptation and Distribution of a Complex Sensitivity-Training Program in the Eastern European Region
, Viktória Pázmány 2, Zsuzsanna Sáringerné Szilárd 3, Judit Farkas 4, Csaba Ökrös 5 and Glenn M. Roswal 6
Miklós Bánhidi
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic of the research deals with the effects of training and event organized for professionals and students dealing with disabled athletes. It can be interesting for readers, who want to know about the effects of training and events.
The article should be improved a little bit, answering my questions.
Introduction
The authors do not write about how the socio-economic background affects the attitude of the coaches. Unfortunately, most of the professionals don't want to work in the social sector, because financially they can't earn that much than in other educational system. In this regard, I propose a short analytical description.
Methods
The sample size of educators is 26 isn't that big, their results represent only the opinion of a small group. When examining the influencing role of social demographic parameters, the authors didn't find relationship with family status or education, but they didn't mention if there is any relationships with age, gender or time of working experience. We would like an explanation for this. By the way, for higher education, I recommend using the name BSc instead of college and MSc instead of university.
Results
The analysis of 26 professionals have shown differences in a positive direction, but it is not clear how different the answers of the respondents were. For this reason, I also recommend indicating and explaining the standard deviation values.
When examining the influencing role of social demographic parameters, the authors found no relationship with family status or education, but at the same time, I miss the analysis of relationships with age, gender and work experience. We would like an explanation for this. By the way, for higher education, I recommend using the name BSc instead of college and MSc instead of university.
If the authors examined the teachers' students, did the survey reveal whether the teachers had previously informed them about the problems of people with disabilities? Also it can't be seen how different did the students respond the questions. I assume also the selected students had different cognitive skills, emotional and intellectual characters before the experiment, which could cause some analytic errors. What is your opinion about this?
Conclusion
Why do you mention about the disinterested people, that they are afraid of the unknown? Maybe there are many other reasons.
References
The designation of the reference must be standardized.
Author Response
Adaptation and Distribution of a Complex Sensitivity Training Program in the Eastern European Region
Katalin Orbán-Sebestyén
Summary of Revisions Addressing Reviewer Comments
Revisions were made to the editor’s manuscript to address all changes as suggested by the two reviewers. Specific changes follow.
No changes were made to the original Tables or Figures.
Reviewer’s Comment: The authors do not write about how the socio-economic background affects the attitude of the coaches. Unfortunately, most of the professionals don't want to work in the social sector, because financially they can't earn that much than in other educational system. In this regard, I propose a short analytical description.
In lines 44-49, information and a reference were added addressing how the socio-economic background of coaches likely effected their attitudes toward individuals with ID.
Reviewer’s Comment: It should be tested whether the Intervention program is applied in accordance with the purpose. For example, how was its validity and reliability tested? Was expert credibility applied or had the relevant foundation done this before? A literature-supported explanation should be made on this subject.
In lines 123-128, information and a reference on the validity and reliability of the CATCH instrument were added.
Reviewer’s Comment: The analysis of 26 professionals have shown differences in a positive direction, but it is not clear how different the answers of the respondents were. For this reason, I also recommend indicating and explaining the standard deviation values.
In lines 199-200, a statement explaining the difference in the answers of respondents can be explained by the CATCH Likert scale.
Reviewer’s Comment: When examining the influencing role of social demographic parameters, the authors found no relationship with family status or education, but at the same time, I miss the analysis of relationships with age, gender and work experience. We would like an explanation for this. By the way, for higher education, I recommend using the name BSc instead of college and MSc instead of university.
No meaningful difference was found among the variables of age, gender and work experience and therefore was not discussed in the manuscript.
We chose not to change BSc instead of college and MSc instead of university as we think college and university is more appropriate.
Reviewer’s Comment: If the authors examined the teachers' students, did the survey reveal whether the teachers had previously informed them about the problems of people with disabilities? Also it can't be seen how different did the students respond the questions. I assume also the selected students had different cognitive skills, emotional and intellectual characters before the experiment, which could cause some analytic errors. What is your opinion about this?
Initial differences in cognitive, emotional, and intellectual characteristics were not addressed in this study.
Reviewer’s Comment: Why do you mention about the disinterested people, that they are afraid of the unknown? Maybe there are many other reasons.
The reviewer’s comment is noted and the sentence in the conclusion section (previously line 352) raising this tangential question has been deleted to avoid confusion.
Deleted sentence: “The results of this research seem to support the hypothesis that the CST program is suitable for bringing about attitude change among athletic professionals who are apathetic and remain disinterested because of the fear of the unknown.”
Reviewer’s Comment: There is a lack of current resources. In this context, recent research results should also be included in the discussion section. In addition, books and information resources are included in the text rather than articles. However, a sufficient number of research results should be included in research articles.
This was addressed by translating the Hungarian references into English.
Reviewer’s Comment: The designation of the reference must be standardized.
The original Hungarian references were not in standard reference format. Those resources have been translated into English and re-formatted.
The references citations to Kron 2006 and Kron 2012 (line 55) and reference list were deleted due to insufficient citation information.
Reviewer 2 Report
982 / 5.000
Çeviri sonuçları
1. The development of the attitude during this course should be stated in the Introduction with the support of the literature. What justification and change explains this? This will strengthen the justification. 2. It should be tested whether the Intervention program is applied in accordance with the purpose. For example, how was its validity and reliability tested? Was expert credibility applied or had the relevant foundation done this before? A literature-supported explanation should be made on this subject. 3. There is a lack of current resources. In this context, recent research results should also be included in the discussion section. In addition, books and information resources are included in the text rather than articles. However, a sufficient number of research results should be included in research articles. In this context, the discussion section should be enriched. Similar and different results should be compared, the analytical thinking powers of the author(s) should be reflected in the discussion, and a stronger discussion should be made with their evaluation and synthesis skills.
Author Response
Adaptation and Distribution of a Complex Sensitivity Training Program in the Eastern European Region
Katalin Orbán-Sebestyén
Summary of Revisions Addressing Reviewer Comments
Revisions were made to the editor’s manuscript to address all changes as suggested by the two reviewers. Specific changes follow.
No changes were made to the original Tables or Figures.
Reviewer’s Comment: The authors do not write about how the socio-economic background affects the attitude of the coaches. Unfortunately, most of the professionals don't want to work in the social sector, because financially they can't earn that much than in other educational system. In this regard, I propose a short analytical description.
In lines 44-49, information and a reference were added addressing how the socio-economic background of coaches likely effected their attitudes toward individuals with ID.
Reviewer’s Comment: It should be tested whether the Intervention program is applied in accordance with the purpose. For example, how was its validity and reliability tested? Was expert credibility applied or had the relevant foundation done this before? A literature-supported explanation should be made on this subject.
In lines 123-128, information and a reference on the validity and reliability of the CATCH instrument were added.
Reviewer’s Comment: The analysis of 26 professionals have shown differences in a positive direction, but it is not clear how different the answers of the respondents were. For this reason, I also recommend indicating and explaining the standard deviation values.
In lines 199-200, a statement explaining the difference in the answers of respondents can be explained by the CATCH Likert scale.
Reviewer’s Comment: When examining the influencing role of social demographic parameters, the authors found no relationship with family status or education, but at the same time, I miss the analysis of relationships with age, gender and work experience. We would like an explanation for this. By the way, for higher education, I recommend using the name BSc instead of college and MSc instead of university.
No meaningful difference was found among the variables of age, gender and work experience and therefore was not discussed in the manuscript.
We chose not to change BSc instead of college and MSc instead of university as we think college and university is more appropriate.
Reviewer’s Comment: If the authors examined the teachers' students, did the survey reveal whether the teachers had previously informed them about the problems of people with disabilities? Also it can't be seen how different did the students respond the questions. I assume also the selected students had different cognitive skills, emotional and intellectual characters before the experiment, which could cause some analytic errors. What is your opinion about this?
Initial differences in cognitive, emotional, and intellectual characteristics were not addressed in this study.
Reviewer’s Comment: Why do you mention about the disinterested people, that they are afraid of the unknown? Maybe there are many other reasons.
The reviewer’s comment is noted and the sentence in the conclusion section (previously line 352) raising this tangential question has been deleted to avoid confusion.
Deleted sentence: “The results of this research seem to support the hypothesis that the CST program is suitable for bringing about attitude change among athletic professionals who are apathetic and remain disinterested because of the fear of the unknown.”
Reviewer’s Comment: There is a lack of current resources. In this context, recent research results should also be included in the discussion section. In addition, books and information resources are included in the text rather than articles. However, a sufficient number of research results should be included in research articles.
This was addressed by translating the Hungarian references into English.
Reviewer’s Comment: The designation of the reference must be standardized.
The original Hungarian references were not in standard reference format. Those resources have been translated into English and re-formatted.
The references citations to Kron 2006 and Kron 2012 (line 55) and reference list were deleted due to insufficient citation information.
