You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
by
  • Dennis Christian Hövel*,
  • Patrizia Röösli and
  • Ankica Jurkic
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Eirini Karakasidou Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a strong and relevant contribution that aligns well with Behavioral Sciences. It demonstrates rigorous methodology, a well-structured argument, and practical significance for teacher well-being and inclusive education. Addressing the comments above—especially regarding attrition, statistical transparency, and methodological clarification—will further enhance the manuscript’s clarity and impact.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

We would like to sincerely thank you for your constructive and insightful feedback on our manuscript. Your comments greatly contributed to improving the clarity, methodological transparency, and overall coherence of the paper.

All points raised in your review have been carefully addressed. We incorporated a recent meta-analysis (Durlak et al., 2022), defined the StaFF framework for first-time readers, clarified design-related attrition, and specified the monitoring of implementation fidelity. In addition, we elaborated on item selection and internal consistency, expanded the interpretation of pupil-level findings, and refined the discussion with stronger theoretical links, explicit limitations, and practical examples.

We are grateful for your detailed and thoughtful review, which significantly strengthened our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. The authors provided a succinct and contextualized introduction with connections to literature. The authors name the SEL programs that were available as part of the study, but do not provide any information about the curriculum besides a citation. It would be beneficial to include a sub-section in your literature review section about the SEL programs available for participants to choose to use. Besides knowing the programs are commercially available, it is unclear if they have been used in previous literature and have supported improved SEL outcomes. I was left wanting to know more about the programs used.

The authors provide a detailed description of the measures used that aligns nicely with the description of the results from the different measures. The authors really excelled at providing a coherent, balanced and compelling argument. I would recommend a figure to visually represent the findings described in the discussion. The conclusion is strong and is supported by the results and connections to secondary literature. It was clear to me as a reader what the findings are and the implications for practice and recommendations for future research. The limitations section aligned with the limitations that were evident from the study and aligned nicely with the recommendations section. Overall, this is a strong manuscript. I have left some recommendations for revision below.

 

Recommendations for authors:

  1. Abstract
    1. Please add the age range and/or grade levels of pupils.
  2. In-text citations:
    1. Please review formatting of in-text citations with three or more authors for the journal.
  3. Page 2, line 55
    1. “inclusive education”
    2. This term can have many different meanings in different education contexts. I would recommend defining what you mean by “inclusive education” because this is something you emphasize in your conclusion. Want to make sure your readers have a clear understanding of this key term.
  4. Page 4, lines 147-154
    1. Is it possible to add translations of the program names for context for an international readership? I was left wanting to know more about the programs.
  5. Page 4, lines 155-158
    1. Please add how often these support structures took place. For example, please provide the frequency and length of the group consultation meetings and individual consultation sessions.
    2. I would recommend providing more detailed information about the support structure provided, since this appears to have direct implications for your findings. I was left wanting to know more about what this looked like, because this is something that appeared to be an essential part of the study and would be important for replication.
  6. Page 5, line 203
    1. Please add a citation for this instrument.
  7. Word Choice for Results for Pupils
    1. Do the instruments use the terms “normal” and “abnormal” as part of the analysis and in related literature for the instruments used? The terms are rather deficit focused. If these are not the terms used in the measures for analysis, I would recommend using different terms, such as “typical” and “atypical” to provide a less deficit focus of pupils.
  8. Figure 4
    1. The figure is rather large. Perhaps consider reducing the size of the figure and enlarging the size of the text that is used in the text on the figure.
  9. Discussion
    1. Have you considered adding a figure to complement your description of the findings of your results? This could enhance your description of the teacher level and pupil level improvements based on the implementation of StaFF. This figure could really enhance the clarity of your results and provide a strong rationale for others to replicate.
  10. Future research directions
    1. I would also recommend qualitative research methods, such as focus groups or semi-structured interviews about the SEL curriculum and support provided would really add to this area of research.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2, 

We sincerely thank you for your encouraging and constructive review. Your thoughtful remarks helped us to further clarify the study design and make the manuscript more accessible for an international readership.

In response, we added the pupils’ age range to the abstract, clarified our use of the term inclusive education, provided English translations and short descriptions of all SEL programmes, and included detailed information on the frequency and structure of the teacher support sessions. We also confirmed that our Zotero citation style follows APA 7th edition, adjusted Figure 4 for improved readability, and added a clarifying note that all key analyses are already visually represented in the Results section. Finally, we acknowledged that qualitative interviews on teachers’ experiences with the SEL programmes, behavioural diagnostics, and support structures have already been conducted and will be reported in a forthcoming publication.

We truly appreciate your constructive feedback and the recognition of our work’s clarity and practical relevance.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your revised manuscript. I appreciated the specific and detailed responses to reviewer feedback. Your descriptions align with the revisions present in your manuscript. The revisions improve the overall quality and clarity of your manuscript. Below are some very minor recommendations. Overall, this manuscript is well written and makes a positive contribution to the field. 

 

Recommendations for authors:

  1. Page 3, Line 109
    1. You introduce the acronym for SEL earlier in the manuscript, so you don't need to write it out again.
  2. Page 11, lines 388-392
    1. I would recommend adding a citation for this statement.
  3. I would move the last paragraph of the discussion, about the interviews, to the discussion section, perhaps under Future Research Directions. It seems out of place as a conclusion to the current study. 

Author Response

Dear Editorial Team,

Thank you very much for your message and the additional revision requests.
All points have been reviewed and addressed as follows:

  1. Table 1 citation: The reference to Table 1 is already included in the main text (lines 221–222).

  2. Use of acronym “SEL”: From line 109 onward, “SEL” is consistently used as an abbreviation only.

  3. Citation (page 11, lines 388–392): A supporting reference (Durlak et al., 2011) has been added in this section.

  4. Qualitative study paragraph: The reference to the qualitative interviews previously placed in the Conclusions section has been moved to the end of the Discussion (Section 4.4, lines 518–522).

  5. Informed Consent Statement: The required sentence “Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.” has been added to lines 554–555.

I am confident that all requested revisions have been successfully implemented and thank you for the careful review process.

Kind regards,
Dennis