A Preschool Rhythm and Movement Intervention: RCT Evidence for Improved Social and Behavioral Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read the paper 'Preschool Rhythm and Movement Intervention: RCT 2 Evidence for Improved Social and Behavioral Development'.

This is a very interesting study, building on the authors' previous research work, focusing on the effects of the RAMSR program on social development and behavioural problems.

 The below comments are suggestions for further strengthening the paper.

In the abstract, it would be beneficial to make clearer that all outcome measures are based on teacher report. In the way it is phrased now, this is only clear for the first outcome measure.

In section 1.2, you might find the work of Rabinowitch helpful in establishing strong links between rhythm, movement and social and behavioural development.

In the Introduction, it would be good to have a section where the hypotheses of the study are presented and contextualised.

In ‘Materials and methods’ it would be helpful to the reader to be given access to the activities or at least to more elaboration on the activities. (In the previous section you refer to a ‘total of 24 activities across 4 session plans with 6 components’, but it is unclear what this comprises of).

The Discussion is quite heavily focused on comparing this study’s results to your own prior work, when there is relevant work on musical play in the US and in Europe (e.g. Winsler; Rabinowitch) that you could have mentioned in your Introduction and returned to in the Discussion.

In the Discussion, in limitations, would it be possible that the results between intervention and control group had something to do with the initial differences between the two groups (e.g., the intervention group had a much lower percentage of ‘child aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander). How did you control for these differences? It would be good to read more about this.

Author Response

Please find our responses in document attached. We thank the reviewer for their time. Their comments have been very helpful in improving the paper. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled, A Preschool Rhythm and Movement Intervention: RCT Evidence for Improved Social and Behavioral Development. This manuscript addresses an important topic in early childhood education by examining the social and behavioral impacts of a rhythm and movement intervention implemented in disadvantaged preschool settings. Overall, the study was well designed and situated within the existing literature. Below, I presented my feedback for each major section of the paper.

Introduction: The introduction provided a rationale for examining rhythm and movement interventions in early childhood. The authors synthesized literature from developmental psychology, music education and music therapy to justify the focus on prosocial behavior and behavioral regulation particularly for children from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. The conceptual link between interpersonal synchrony, self-regulation and social–emotional development was compelling. The manuscript would have been strengthened by the following minor revision:

• More explicitly stating the specific hypotheses related to each outcome variable (prosocial skills, sociability, internalizing behaviors and externalizing behaviors) rather than presenting them implicitly.
• Clarifying how this paper uniquely extends prior RAMSR publications at the end of the introduction to help readers clearly distinguish this contribution from earlier reports on cognitive and self-regulatory outcomes.
• Adding a short summary paragraph at the end of the introduction to clearly restate the study aims and anticipated contributions.

Methods: The methods section described the clustered randomized controlled trial with ethical approval and trial registration. The sample was well characterized and the use of multiple assessment time points across the transition to school strengthened the developmental relevance of the design. The intervention procedures, teacher training and fidelity monitoring were described in sufficient detail to support replication and the analytic approach accounted for clustering, repeated measures and missing data. The manuscript would have been strengthened by the following revision:

• Providing a brief justification for the number of centers randomized and how this affected statistical power at the cluster level.
• Expanding slightly on how intervention dosage variability (16–20 sessions) was handled analytically.
• Clarifying whether teachers in the control condition received any alternative professional development or attention.
• More explicitly explaining the rationale for using POMS-transformed scores rather than raw or standardized scale scores.
• Including a short rationale for why effect sizes were estimated using general linear models rather than alternative approximations for multilevel models.

Results: The results were logically sequenced and aligned with the stated research aims. The use of descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations, and multilevel modeling allowed readers to understand both baseline relationships and intervention effects over time. The reporting of delayed intervention effects was cautious, and effect sizes were presented and interpreted. The manuscript would have been strengthened by the following improvements:

• Briefly reiterating the directionality of POMS scores when presenting adjusted means to support reader interpretation.
• Adding one or two sentences highlighting the practical significance of the observed small effect sizes particularly in the context of universal interventions.
• Clarifying whether any post hoc sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of findings given attrition at T3.

Discussion: The discussion provided a good interpretation of findings clearly linking results back to theoretical frameworks of interpersonal synchrony, self-regulation and developmental cascades. The authors contextualized the delayed intervention effects and offered plausible developmental explanations supported by prior literature. The discussion addressed the absence of effects for sociability without overstating conclusions. The manuscript would have been strengthened by the following revisions:

• Explicitly discussing how these findings may inform policy or curriculum decisions in early childhood settings serving disadvantaged communities.
• Adding a brief paragraph addressing the generalizability of findings beyond the Australian context.
• More clearly distinguishing between theoretical implications and practical implications to enhance clarity for applied audiences.

Author Response

Please find our responses in document attached. We thank the reviewer for their time. Their comments have been very helpful in improving the paper. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf