Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The topic is relevant to the field of Physical Education and Motor Development, especially in the context of validating instruments for specific populations.

The contribution is important because it involves the adaptation/validation of an existing instrument (MOBAK-KG), but with practical value for Colombia.

Below are some comments and suggestions that may improve the understanding of the manuscript for readers:

Methodological Quality
It presents recognized limitations (sample restricted to one city, cross-sectional study).

Points to improve:
- There is no calculation of statistical power or justification of the sample size.

- How was inter-rater consistency ensured in the application of the MOBAK-KG battery?

- Were there any criteria to exclude children with special needs or motor delays?

- Indicate whether there was control for contextual variables (differences between schools).

Results
Clear presentation of the fit indices (CFI, RMSEA), but a consolidated table with the two models is missing.

Figures (CFA) are poorly explained in the text; Suggest more detailed captions.

Could include confidence intervals for factor loadings.

Discussion
- Well-founded, with updated references.

- Lacks exploration of practical implications for teachers and educational policies (this should also be included in the abstract).

I could include suggestions for the use of MOBAK-KG in curricular programs.

Conclusion - Conclusion consistent with the results, but could emphasize more the pedagogical applicability and recommendations for future research.

Some questions:

Why was invariance testing not performed for sex and age?
Do you intend to propose normative values ​​for Colombia? If so, how?

Summary of suggestions:

Summarize the introduction, highlighting the scientific gap objectively.
Add a table with fit indices for the two models.
Detail evaluator training and control of contextual variables.
Include practical implications at the end of the discussion.
Update references with recent studies on motor assessment in preschoolers.

Good work

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review Report

Title: Construct Validity of the MOBAK-KG Battery for the Assessment of Basic Motor Competencies in Colombian Preschoolers

Dear Authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. The following comments are offered in response to the text that was submitted. They are specific to each section. The present author's approach is twofold: first, to identify and address significant methodological issues; and second, to resolve minor ambiguities that could be remedied to enhance the presentation of the article.

Abstract

Comment 1. Lines 21–25: The phrase “significant associations in basic motor competencies” is vague. It is unclear which covariates (sex, age, BMI) were significant and in which dimension (object control or self-movement). Please specify the exact associations to improve transparency.

 

Introduction

Comment 2. Lines 49–56: This paragraph is overly long and repeats concepts already introduced.  I suggest you to consider condensing the text in order to maintain clarity and avoid redundancy.

Comment 3. Lines 59-61: This contextual information is useful, but it could be condensed into fewer sentences to maintain focus on the research gap. The introduction should emphasize more directly the need for a valid and pedagogically applicable assessment of motor competence in preschool education, while keeping the background concise.

Materials and Methods

Comment 4. Lines 129–130: The use of convenience sampling substantially limits generalizability. This limitation should be explicitly acknowledged in the Limitations section, with justification for why random sampling was not feasible.

Comment 5. Lines 173–175: Eight evaluators were involved, but no information is provided on inter-rater reliability. Without evidence of training or agreement checks, measurement consistency is uncertain. I suggest you to clarify whether inter-rater reliability was assessed.

Comment 6. Lines 188–189: Nonparametric tests are appropriate given non-normality, but there is no mention of correction for multiple comparisons. This omission increases risk of Type I error. Please state whether adjustments (e.g., Bonferroni) were applied.

Comment 7. Lines 193-202: The reporting of fit criteria is correct, but essential CFA details are missing. Factor loadings (per item), standard errors, and statistical significance are only partially shown in Figure 1 and not fully reported in the text. Please add a table with item loadings and factor correlations for Model 1, as well as standardized coefficients for the covariate associations in Model 2. This will ensure that results are fully interpretable without relying solely on the figures.

 

Results

Comment 8. Lines 209–214: The phrase “This section may be divided…” is template residue and should be removed. In addition, factor loadings are reported only briefly. Please provide a table with detailed loadings, SE, and p‑values for each item.

Comment 9. Lines 224–226: The term “weak correlation” is imprecise without exact values. Please report standardized coefficients and p‑values (or confidence intervals) for each association to allow quantitative evaluation of the strength of relationships.

Comment 10. Lines 259-261: The tables are informative, but nonparametric tests lack effect sizes (e.g., r or ε²) and there is no clear mention of multiple comparison correction. Please add effect sizes to demonstrate practical significance and clarify whether p‑values are adjusted.

Discussion

Comment 11. Lines 317–319: The discussion cites relevant literature but does not provide quantitative comparison. In order to enhance the interpretive rigor of the study, I suggest you to incorporate effect sizes or percentages that demonstrate the alignment or discrepancy between the present findings and those of prior studies.

Comment 12. Lines 326-329: The interpretation provided here is speculative and not directly supported by the data collected in this study. Please frame this statement more cautiously as a possible explanation, and strengthen it with empirical evidence or relevant references. Otherwise, acknowledge it explicitly as a limitation of the current dataset to avoid over‑interpretation.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction

Please, define the age interval included in Colombia “early education”.

The authors justify the need to study a Colombian sample on the bases that biological and sociocultural factors are related to MC. There has been similar studies that have compared motor skills of children from different countries, (i.e. Ruiz et al (2003) MABC Japan vs Spain).

The authors can take advantage of this kind of studies to support their research.

The authors must mention which batteries are usually administered to assess MC in the preschool setting. Then, explain the origin of the MOBAK and provide a rationale for selecting it for the present research.

Methods

Participants

Did all children that met inclusion criteria finish the study?

Instruments

Provide data on the psychometric properties of the MOBAK. Also, inform how total object control, total self-movement and total basic motor competences are obtained.

Procedure

Provide more information on the evaluators’ characteristics (professional qualification, familiarization/experience level administering the MOBAK, where they authors of this research?).

Stats

It seems that the authors intend to analyze the validity of the MOBAK. If so, this should be justified in the introduction section, and should also be mentioned as a secondary outcome of the research.

Results

A table providing the participants characteristics and classifying them according to the WHO BMI categories is strongly needed, to better understand table 3 as well as to understand the total sample size by sex.

Line 229, what is “self-movement performance”?

Table 1. First column should be Total, then girls and then boys. Then provide a column with p values indicating significant differences between sex.

Table 2 indicates an age cut-off point around 65-66 months and an age interval between 49 and 83 months. A justification for this is needed and should be better explained in the methods section.

Table 3 does not include total motor competence. Why is that?

Discussion

The authors did not validate a battery, they merely confirmed their construct validity. This should be cleared out.

I am sure that there must be investigations no MC in preschoolers in which sex was not a differential factor (line 320). Some studies, like the one by Venetsanou (2016) using the Bruininks battery can be of help in this matter.

Line 339, BMI influence must be discussed within the context of the present research. How many boys and girls were obese or overweight? The obtained data is similar or different from other countries?

The authors only mention one limitation. Since this is a cross-sectional research, that provides descriptive data on MC, the second limitation is not such.

Lines 365-367, I do not understand what the authors are trying to say, but this might not be a limitation.

A conclusion informing about the validity of the battery and the MC level of the sample, taking into account differences by age, sex and BMI is mandatory.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer Report – Revised Manuscript

Manuscript ID: behavsci‑3968815

Title: Construct Validity of the MOBAK‑KG Battery for the Assessment of Basic Motor Competencies in Colombian Preschoolers

Journal: Behavioral Sciences

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised version of your manuscript. I have carefully examined the updated text and the modifications introduced since the first submission. The comments that follow are organized by section and aim to support further improvement of the manuscript. My intention is to help strengthen methodological clarity, interpretive precision, and structural completeness so that the study can fully reflect its scientific contribution.

 

Μy second Report

Comment 1 (Abstract)

Exact text in the article: “The MOBAK-KG battery thus provides a pedagogically relevant and reliable tool for diagnosing and evaluating preschoolers’ motor competence…”
I suggest you add a clear concluding sentence summarizing the main contribution of the study. The abstract currently ends abruptly with an implication rather than a conclusion. A final statement highlighting the significance of validating the MOBAK-KG in the Colombian context would improve clarity and completeness.

Comment 2 (Introduction)

Exact text in the article: Lines 55-57. “In Colombia, early education is a fundamental right for children under six years of age…”
I suggest you shorten this section. The introduction includes extensive contextual information about Colombian educational policy that is not directly relevant to the construct validation of the MOBAK-KG. A more concise introduction focused on motor competence, the MOBAK framework, and the gap in Colombian data would strengthen the narrative.

Comment 3 (Introduction)

Exact text in the article: Lines 75-78. “Several factors influence the development of MC, such as sex, age and body mass index (BMI)… ”
I suggest you include quantitative ranges or effect sizes from previous studies to contextualize the expected magnitude of these associations. This will allow readers to better understand how your findings compare to established literature.

Comment 4 (Introduction)

Exact text in the article: lines 93-106. “In preschool populations, studies have shown differences according to sex…”
I suggest you clarify the inconsistency in previous findings by briefly explaining whether differences may depend on measurement tools, cultural context, or sample characteristics. This will help justify the need for examining these correlates in the Colombian population.

Comment 5 (Methods – Participants)

Exact text in the article: “Four hundred ninety-five preschoolers aged 4 to 6 years… were evaluated using convenience sampling.”
Comment – I suggest you acknowledge in the limitations that convenience sampling restricts generalizability. Although this is mentioned later, it would be helpful to explicitly state it here as well.

Comment 6 (Methods – Instruments)

Exact text in the article: Lines 126 -129. “A group of eight trained evaluators… conducted the MOBAK-KG battery test.”
I suggest you report inter-rater reliability or calibration procedures. Since the MOBAK-KG relies on observational scoring, the absence of reliability data limits confidence in measurement consistency.

Comment 7 (Methods – Data Analysis)

Exact text in the article: Lines 190-193. “The present analysis further sought to compare the differences between two independent groups…”
I suggest you justify the choice of non-parametric tests beyond the mention of non-normality. For large samples, parametric tests are often robust. A brief rationale would improve methodological transparency.

Comment 8 (Methods – CFA Models)

Exact text in the article: Lines 206 -210. “Two models were developed. Model 1 aimed to validate the two-factor structure…”
I suggest you specify whether modification indices were examined and whether any alternative models were considered. This would strengthen the argument for the chosen structure.

Comment 9 (Results – CFA)

Exact text in the article: Lines 228 – 230. “The factor loadings fluctuated between 0.34 and 0.60…”
I suggest you comment on the relatively low loading of the running item (0.34). A brief interpretation in the Discussion regarding why this item loads weakly would be beneficial.

Comment 10 (Results – Covariates)

Exact text in the article: Lines 243 – 246. “BMI exhibited a negative correlation only with self-movement…”
I suggest you report the exact standardized coefficients in the text, not only in the table. This improves readability and interpretability.

Comment 11 (Results – Sex Differences)

Exact text in the article: Lines 265 – 267. “There was a significant difference (p = .017) in the total score on the object control factor…”
I suggest you emphasize in the Discussion that the effect sizes were small, reinforcing that statistical significance does not imply practical significance.

Comment 12 (Results – Age Differences)

Exact text in the article: Lines 281 – 282. “Older children showed better performance in total object control, self-movement and total MC…”
I suggest you include effect sizes for age differences in the text to complement the p-values.

Comment 13 (Results – BMI Groups)

Exact text in the article: Lines 294 – 295. “No statistically significant differences were found between the groups in the object control factor.”
I suggest you discuss why BMI might affect self-movement but not object control. This distinction is important and deserves interpretation.

Comment 14 (Discussion)

Exact text in the article: Lines 335 – 338. “These contrasting findings suggest that sex-related patterns… may depend on contextual factors…”
I suggest you explicitly state that these contextual explanations are hypothetical, as the study did not measure practice opportunities or cultural influences.

Comment 15 (Discussion)

Exact text in the article: Lines 343 – 345. “A possible explanation for the lower performance observed among girls…”
I suggest you clarify that this explanation is speculative. The dataset does not include variables related to participation opportunities.

Comment 16 (Discussion)

Exact text in the article: Lines 369 – 371. “When contrasting international studies with the results of the present study…”
I suggest you add effect sizes or standardized differences when comparing Colombian children to Swiss and Spanish samples. This would strengthen the cross-cultural interpretation.

Comment 17 (Discussion – Limitations)

Exact text in the article: Lines 382 – 385. “The sample of participants… is not representative of the population.”
I suggest you add that the absence of inter-rater reliability assessment is an additional methodological limitation.

Comment 18 (Discussion – Practical Implications)

Exact text in the article: Lines 413 – 417. “The validation of the MOBAK-KG test for the Colombian preschool population has important practical implications…”
I suggest you condense this section slightly. It is informative but somewhat repetitive.

Comment 19 (Missing Conclusions)

Exact text in the article: There is no Conclusions section.
I suggest you add a dedicated Conclusions section summarizing the main findings, the contribution to the field, and the implications for future research. This is required by MDPI guidelines for empirical studies.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No further comments

Author Response

We did not receive any comments from Reviewer 3 in the second round.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My Third Review
Summarizing manuscript updates

I’m going through the updates based on each comment. Most of the issues seem well addressed. For example, the ordinal scale justification in the abstract (Comment 7) and factor loading explanation in the discussion (Comment 9) look good. There’s still the issue from Comment 8, though, about discussing MI/alternative models, which they're missing. Some sections could use slight trimming, but they’re mostly acceptable. I’d say the paper is improved and only needs very minor tweaks.

Overall assessment

The revised manuscript shows clear and substantial improvement. Almost all of my original comments have been addressed thoughtfully and with appropriate textual modifications. The structure is now complete (including a Conclusions section), the discussion is more cautious and precise, and several methodological and interpretive issues have been clarified.

What remains are small points of clarification and some stylistic tightening, not issues that undermine the validity or coherence of the work.

Below I summarise only the remaining points that, in my opinion, still merit attention, organised by section.

 

Abstract

Current status:
The abstract now ends with a clear, concluding sentence highlighting the validation of MOBAK-KG in Colombian preschoolers and the role of sex, BMI, and age. This directly addresses my original Comment 1 (second review).

Minor suggestion: Consider adding one short clause to underscore the practical contribution, e.g. that the MOBAK-KG offers a feasible, educationally oriented assessment tool for preschool settings in Colombia. This is already implied but could be made slightly more explicit in one phrase.

 

Introduction

Current strengths: The conceptualisation of motor competence and its links to cognitive, psychological, and social outcomes is clearer and well framed.

The section on determinants (sex, age, BMI) now includes qualitative descriptors of effect sizes (small, medium, strong), which satisfactorily contextualises expected magnitudes.

The inconsistency in sex differences is now explicitly linked to potential differences in tools, context, and samples, as you had requested.

Remaining minor issues:

1. Length and focus of Colombian policy context

The paragraph on Colombian early education and curricular policy remains slightly long relative to its direct relevance to the psychometric validation aim.

My Suggestion: Condense this by 2–3 sentences, focusing on: Early education as a right. Inclusion of the physical dimension in national curricula. The resulting need for a valid, school-based assessment tool. This will further sharpen the narrative around the measurement gap you aim to address.

2. Transition to the specific research gap

The objectives are clearly stated, but the transition from general MC literature and Colombian policy to “Why MOBAK-KG in Colombia?” could be made slightly more explicit.

My Suggestion: Add one bridging sentence that states explicitly that, despite Colombia’s curricular emphasis on movement, no validated, educationally oriented MC instrument was available for Colombian preschoolers, thus justifying your study more directly.

 

Methods

Participants

Current status: Convenience sampling is clearly stated. In the Discussion, you now explicitly acknowledge that this limits generalisability. This addresses your earlier concern (Comment 5 – second review).

Minor suggestion: Consider adding a short, explicit sentence at the end of the Participants subsection: “Given the convenience sampling from public schools in Bogotá, the findings should not be generalized to all Colombian preschoolers.”
This mirrors what is already stated in Limitations and reinforces transparency.

Instruments and Procedure

Current strengths: The description of the MOBAK-KG items and scoring is clear and complete. The description of the evaluator training, use of reference videos, and the 85% concordance criterion is a significant improvement. This directly addresses my Comment 6.

In the Discussion, you now clearly name the absence of formal inter-rater reliability as a limitation, partially mitigated by training.

Remaining minor issue:

Inter-rater reliability wording: You describe evaluators’ “level of agreement” and “85% concordance”, but it is not completely clear whether this refers to percentage agreement or a more formal index.

My Suggestion: Clarify explicitly that this was percentage agreement based on video-based scoring relative to expert raters. Optionally, specify the number of videos/performances used in the calibration. This does not solve the absence of formal IRR, but it improves methodological transparency.

Data analysis and CFA models

Current strengths: Justification for non-parametric tests is now clearer: non-normality combined with ordinal treatment of MC variables. This is acceptable for applied work and addresses Comment 7 adequately. The description of Model 1 and Model 2, including covariates, estimation method (WLSMV), and fit indices is clear and aligned with standard practice.

Remaining moderate (but still “minor”) issue:

Consideration of modification indices / alternative models: Your previous Comment 8 has not been fully addressed. The manuscript does not state whether modification indices were inspected or whether alternative models (e.g. one-factor, higher-order, or residual correlations) were considered.

My Suggestion: Add a brief methodological clarification such as:

“Modification indices were inspected, but no theoretically justifiable modifications were introduced, and alternative factor structures (e.g. one-factor model) showed inferior fit compared with the two-factor solution.”

If no alternative models were tested, then instead: “In line with previous MOBAK validation studies, we focused on testing the theoretically derived two-factor model and its extension with covariates; no post hoc model modifications were introduced.”
A short, honest statement (either way) would strengthen he argument that the final model is theory-driven rather than data-driven.

 

Results

Current strengths: Fit indices and factor loadings are clearly reported, and the relatively low loading of the running item is now explicitly addressed in the Discussion, as requested. The standardized coefficient for BMI in self-movement is reported in the text (−0.17), not only in the table, which improves interpretability and addresses your earlier concern. Sex and age effects are presented with p-values and effect sizes (r), and you later emphasise that these effects are small. This is good practice.

Remaining minor issues:

Text–table integration for age effects: The text notes that older children perform better, and the Discussion mentions small effect sizes, but the exact r values for key outcomes (e.g. total MC) are only visible in Table 5.

My Suggestion: In the Results text, add one sentence explicitly mentioning the approximate magnitude of the effect size for the age difference in total MC (e.g. “with a small-to-moderate effect size, r ≈ 0.28”). This makes the narrative more self-contained.

1. Small editorial details

There are a few minor typographical inconsistencies in tables (commas vs dots for decimals, occasional missing spaces, and one “< 0.001'” type artefact in Table 5).

My Suggestion: A careful technical proofread of the tables (decimal separators, p-value formatting, consistent notation of significance levels) before final submission.

Discussion

Current strengths: You now explicitly acknowledge that contextual explanations regarding sex differences and girls’ lower performance in object control are hypothetical and not directly measured. This is exactly the kind of epistemic caution needed. The pattern of BMI relationships (neutral/weak in object control, negative in self-movement) is interpreted in a biomechanically plausible way, and you make a good link to the “negative spiral” framework. Cross-country comparisons now include approximate Cohen’s d values and a clear disclaimer that these are rough estimates due to missing SDs in the Swiss data. This is very good practice and directly addresses my Comment 16. Limitations now explicitly include convenience sampling and the absence of formal inter-rater reliability assessment, both clearly explained.

Remaining minor issues:

Length and redundancy in practical implications: The practical implications section is rich and useful, but still somewhat verbose and partially repetitive (e.g. several times: standardized, low-cost, easy-to-use; monitoring; policy relevance).

My Suggestion: Condense by removing repeated phrases and merging overlapping sentences (for instance, the benefits for teachers and the monitoring/evaluation aspects can be expressed in fewer, denser sentences). Aim to keep the strongest points: (a) diagnostic function, (b) monitoring over time, (c) informing curriculum and policy. This will make the end of the Discussion more impactful and less diffuse.

Cross-sectional limitations: You correctly mention that the cross-sectional design does not allow examination of trajectories.

My Suggestion: Consider adding a very short forward-looking sentence about how longitudinal data could also support the establishment of Colombian age- and sex-specific normative values for MC, strengthening the applied relevance.

 

Conclusions

Current status: A dedicated Conclusions section is now present and clearly summarises: Construct validity (two-factor structure). General pattern of competence (slightly better self-movement). Age as a positive correlate, minimal sex differences, BMI linked specifically to self-movement. Relevance for diagnosis and evaluation of movement- and PA-promotion initiatives. This responds directly to your Comment 19 and aligns with MDPI expectations.

Minor suggestion: The Conclusions are solid; my only suggestion would be to avoid reintroducing too much methodological detail and focus strictly on: Key empirical findings. Core contribution (validation in Colombian context). Main implication (availability of a pedagogically oriented tool). One concise sentence on future research directions (longitudinal, contextual variables). As it stands, it already largely does this; any further change would be purely stylistic.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf