Review Reports - Enhancing Parent–Child Psychosocial Support in Youth Tennis: The Development, Evaluation, and Evolution of the 5Cs Sport Parenting Workshop

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Enhancing Parent-Child Psychosocial Support in Youth Tennis The Development, Evaluation and Evolution of the 5Cs Sport Parenting Workshop.

The purpose of this paper was to illustrate how two scientist-practitioners developed, implemented, evaluated, and evolved a parent support workshop based on the 5Cs framework. Overall, I found the manuscript very well written and systematically structured. The authors provide a clear account of the different stages followed in the development, implementation, evaluation, and subsequent refinement of the workshop. The manuscript also demonstrates the authors’ considerable expertise in applied sport psychology and, more specifically, in working with young tennis players and their parents. The focus on translating sport psychology knowledge into a practical parent-support intervention is highly relevant, and the paper makes a valuable contribution to the applied sport psychology literature. In my view, the manuscript has clear potential for publication.

I have, however, a few comments that I believe could further strengthen the manuscript:

Earlier introduction of the 5Cs framework

The manuscript introduces the 5Cs framework at the beginning, but a more detailed description of the framework is not provided until much later in the manuscript (p. 3, lines 133 onwards). Given that the entire workshop and intervention are grounded in this framework, I believe that readers would benefit from a clearer and more comprehensive description of the 5Cs at an earlier stage of the Introduction. In particular, it would be useful to briefly explain the five components, their theoretical rationale, and the evidence supporting the effectiveness or utility of the framework. This would provide readers with a stronger conceptual foundation for understanding the subsequent development and evaluation of the workshop.

Clarification of “values” and “beliefs” in Figure 1

In Figure 1, the authors use the terms “values” and “beliefs.” However, the distinction and meaning of these concepts are not entirely clear to me in the context in which they are presented. I recommend that the authors clarify how these terms are conceptualized and how they relate to the 5Cs framework and the workshop content. Providing a brief definition or appropriate theoretical references would make Figure 1 easier to understand and would strengthen the conceptual clarity of the manuscript.

Psychological variables assessed in the workshop evaluation

On page 10 (lines 353–374), the authors describe several psychological variables that were assessed, including “enjoyment,” “satisfaction,” “intention,” and “perceived values.” However, I could not identify sufficient information regarding the instruments used to assess these variables, particularly information concerning their psychometric properties and reliability. I would therefore encourage the authors to provide additional information about the measures, including the source of the instruments, the number of items, response format, and, where appropriate, reliability estimates.

Furthermore, I could not clearly identify subsequent results or discussion specifically addressing these psychological variables. If these variables were included in the evaluation, the authors should clarify their role in the study and report the relevant findings. Alternatively, if these variables were collected only for exploratory or practical purposes and are not part of the main evaluation, this should be explicitly stated.

Perspectives of the young athletes

Finally, given that the ultimate purpose of the workshop is to enhance parents’ ability to provide psychosocial support to their child-athletes, it would be valuable to include some discussion of how the workshop was perceived by the young tennis players themselves. In particular, the authors could discuss whether any information was obtained regarding the children’s/athletes’ acceptance of the workshop, their perceptions of changes in parental behaviour, or the potential influence of the workshop on their sporting experiences and psychosocial development.

If such data were not collected, the authors could acknowledge this as an important limitation and identify the inclusion of young athletes’ perspectives as an important direction for future research. This would also align well with the authors’ recommendation for longitudinal interventions involving parents, coaches, and athletes together.

Overall, I consider this to be a well-designed and practically relevant contribution. The manuscript demonstrates a strong connection between sport psychology theory and applied practice, and the iterative development of the workshop provides a particularly useful contribution to the literature on parent support in youth sport.

Author Response

Please see attached file for a detailed pt by pt response and many thanks for your diligent review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear editor and authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review this article. This manuscript presents a relevant and practically valuable contribution to youth sport psychology by describing the development, implementation, evaluation, and evolution of the 5Cs Sport Parenting Workshop. This manuscript is well presented and provides a valuable contribution to the field. I have a few suggestions that may help further improve its methodological rigor and quality.

Kind Regards,

Page	Lines	Suggestion
1	11–29	Please identify the study design more explicitly in the Abstract.
1	21–27	The Abstract reports quantitative and qualitative findings from 101 parents and refers to the “utility value and impact” of the framework. Please distinguish perceived utility from demonstrated intervention effectiveness or behavioural impact, as no controlled or longitudinal effectiveness assessment was conducted.
4	146–156	The objectives are generally clear. However, please differentiate the objectives associated with workshop development, programme evaluation, and subsequent stakeholder research. If hypotheses were not specified a priori, this should also be stated.
4	157–159	The heading “Methodology & Results” combines methodological and outcome information. Consider separating Methods and Results more clearly, or provide a strong rationale for integrating them within the EDR framework. This would improve reporting transparency.
4	159–183	The pragmatic philosophy and EDR framework are well explained, but the epidemiological/empirical design of each phase remains unclear. Please explicitly classify Phases 1, 2, and 3 (e.g., formative development, observational post-workshop programme evaluation, and qualitative stakeholder study).
4–5	184–195	The first author was deeply involved in programme development, delivery, data collection and analysis. Please discuss researcher allegiance and potential social-desirability effects, as well as the procedures used to minimise these potential biases.
5	196–216	The LTA context is adequately described. However, please provide clearer eligibility and recruitment criteria for participants in each phase, including how potential participants were identified and approached.
5	210–216	Ethical approval is explicitly described for Phase 3. Please clarify separately the ethical status of Phases 1 and 2, including whether they were considered service/programme evaluation, whether ethics approval or exemption was obtained, and how consent for publication/secondary analysis of evaluation data was addressed.
5	217–223	The intervention-development pathway is useful, but a flowchart summarising the three phases, participants, procedures, outcomes, and resulting modifications would greatly improve reproducibility and readability.
5	224–230	The workshop learning outcomes are described, but these should be distinguished from the research outcomes. Please clearly define which variables were actually measured in the empirical evaluation.
8	282–297	Phase 1 - Please provide inclusion criteria and explain why nine participants were considered adequate for formative stakeholder evaluation. No formal power calculation is expected for this phase, but the pragmatic sampling rationale should be stated.
8	283–289	Parents were recruited through the primary author's practitioner connections. Please acknowledge the potential for convenience bias and explain why this sampling strategy was appropriate for formative EDR work.
8	290–297	Parents provided feedback during and after the pilot. Please describe how this feedback was recorded, stored, analysed and translated into workshop modifications. Was feedback collected systematically or informally?
8	298–320	The manuscript describes several modifications arising from parent feedback. Consider presenting an explicit “feedback - modification - rationale” table to demonstrate the iterative EDR process more transparently.
10	346–351	The authors report that 255 parents registered for 10 workshops. Please provide the number who actually attended, number invited to complete the evaluation, number responding, and number included in analysis.
10	346–351	I strongly recommend a participant flow diagram: registered - attended - invited for evaluation - responded - included in quantitative analysis - provided qualitative responses.
10	353–370	Please specify whether the evaluation items were validated, adapted from previous instruments, or purpose-developed for the LTA programme. If adapted, provide the source and describe modifications.

10	359–369	Several constructs are based on two items, whereas perceived value for coaches is assessed by one item. Please explain how the multi-item scores were calculated and, where appropriate, report an inter-item correlation or reliability estimate.
10	364–370	The Theory of Planned Behavior is used to justify transfer intention. Please consistently distinguish intention to use workshop strategies from actual subsequent behaviour. The current study does not appear to measure behavioural transfer longitudinally.
10	372–381	Please explain how the Phase 2 sample size was determined. If all available respondents within the predefined implementation period were included, state this explicitly and note that no a priori sample-size calculation was performed.
10	372–381	Of 255 registrants, 101 completed the evaluation. Based on registrants this is approximately 39.6%, although attendance data are needed for the true response rate. Please report the appropriate response rate and discuss non-response bias.
10	373–376	Participant characteristics are provided, but consider presenting them in a concise table and report missing demographic data, if any. Information on previous workshop exposure or other relevant tennis-parent characteristics could also be useful if available.
10	376–381	The means and SDs are clearly reported. However, please state the denominator (n) for each outcome, particularly if there were missing responses.
10	376–381	The phrase “exceptionally well-received” is interpretative. Consider reporting the numerical results objectively and reserving interpretation for the Discussion. More importantly, high ratings should not be presented as evidence of intervention efficacy.
10–11	383–399	The template-analysis procedure is described, but please identify who performed each stage of coding and analysis, whether coding involved both authors, and how alternative interpretations were resolved.
11	388–399	Given the first author's involvement in intervention development and delivery, please add a reflexivity statement explaining how researcher assumptions and programme involvement were considered during qualitative analysis.
11	400–436	The quotations are useful and increase interpretability. Please clarify how representative quotations were selected and whether all identified themes are reported or only those most relevant to workshop development.
11	425–436	Parent recommendations for child and coach involvement are valuable, but they represent participant perceptions, not evidence that extending the programme to these groups would improve outcomes. Please maintain this distinction.
12	449–465	The evolution of workshop resources based on feedback is a strength. Consider explicitly linking each new component to the specific evaluation finding that prompted its introduction, reinforcing the EDR logic.
12	466–481	For the Phase 3 Parent Insights Project, please report eligibility criteria, number of parents invited, number consenting, response rate, and recruitment period.
12–13	482–494	Phase 3 again uses template analysis. Please provide the same methodological details requested for Phase 2: coders, coding procedure, reflexivity, critical-friend involvement, and management of disagreement/alternative interpretations.
12–13	482–494	The Phase 3 sample includes 20 parents. Please explain the sampling rationale and whether recruitment ceased for pragmatic reasons, information sufficiency, or another predefined criterion.
13–14	Table 3	Table 3 provides useful examples of 5C behavioural clusters. Consider indicating whether these represent all categories/themes or selected examples, and how many responses contributed to each cluster if such quantification is methodologically appropriate.
14	496–504	The subsequent joint parent-child workshop and its reach are important implementation outcomes. However, distinguish programme reach adoption from intervention effectiveness. The delivery of workshops to >150 families does not itself demonstrate psychosocial benefit.
14	505 onward	Integration of the 5Cs into coach development represents an important organisational/knowledge-translation outcome. I recommend explicitly describing it as implementation/adoption rather than evidence of individual-level effectiveness.
Discussion	Discussion section	Begin the Discussion by summarising findings in relation to the stated objectives, distinguishing workshop acceptability, perceived utility, transfer intentions, stakeholder insights, and organisational evolution.
Discussion	Discussion section	Please add a dedicated Strengths and Limitations subsection addressing the absence of baseline measures and control group, self-report outcomes, non-response or selection bias, social desirability, researcher allegiance, lack of direct child outcomes, and limited longitudinal behavioural assessment.
Discussion	Discussion section	Moderate causal language. The present design supports conclusions regarding acceptability, perceived utility and implementation, but does not establish that the workshop caused improvements in parenting behaviour or children's psychosocial development.
Discussion	Discussion section	Discuss the external validity of findings beyond competitive junior tennis within the British LTA context, including other countries, sports, participation levels, and sociocultural contexts.
Conclusion	Conclusion section	Ensure that the conclusion does not imply efficacy beyond the study design. A suitable conclusion would emphasize feasibility, acceptability, perceived utility, stakeholder-informed refinement, and implementation, while identifying behavioural effectiveness as a question for future controlled longitudinal research.

Author Response

Please see attached our pt by pt responses and many thanks for your diligent review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript reports the EDR-informed development, delivery, and extension of a 5Cs parent workshop in British junior tennis; the partnership with the national governing body is valuable, but the evidence supports acceptability and reach rather than impact.

The Abstract should omit references and report the key numerical findings.
Claims of “impact” in the Abstract and Discussion should be reframed as acceptability, perceived utility, and intentions, since the evaluation is post-only, uncontrolled, and reaction-level, and transfer intention does not constitute Kirkpatrick Level 2.
The EDR cycles and their evaluations should be specified in the Methods rather than reconstructed in the Discussion, with the resulting design principles stated explicitly and the unevaluated Phase 3 changes acknowledged.
The inter-item correlation for each two-item composite should be reported.
Given the evident ceiling effects, medians or the percentage of responses ≥ 6 would be more informative than means and standard deviations.
Actual attendance, response rate, and timing of survey completion should be reported.
The child-age SD of 3.57 for a 7-15 range is statistically implausible and should be verified, and the inclusion of children outside the 9-14 target range should be explained.
Selection bias should be discussed in light of the 39.6% Phase 2 response rate, the network-recruited pilot group, and the unreported number of parents invited in Phase 3.
Both template analyses should report who coded the data, the a priori themes, how the template was revised, and reflexivity, particularly as the authors designed, delivered, and analyzed the workshop.
Table 3 is organized by C, whereas the Phase 3 analysis describes contextual clusters, and the two should be reconciled.
A limitations section should be added addressing reaction-only data, self-selection, researcher allegiance, dated data, and the absence of child and coach outcomes.
Structuring the Phase 3 organizational outcomes with RE-AIM would add rigor and maintain continuity with the authors’ previous evaluation of the Competition Parenting Workshop.
Methods and Results should be presented as separate sections, and section numbering should be corrected throughout.
Tables 1-3 should be reformatted, as their cells are fragmented and the red font referred to in Table 2 is not visible.
References should follow the journal’s numbered style rather than APA.
The Cronin source cited in Table 1 is absent from the reference list, and the Cronin et al. paper cited in the text is a scale-validation study rather than a life-skills taxonomy.
Inconsistencies between in-text citations and the reference list (Davis/Davies; Kramer/Kramers) should be corrected.
Horne et al. appears in the reference list but is not cited in the text and should be either cited or removed.
Knight et al. appears to be a conference abstract that does not support the Introduction’s claim about young athletes’ perceptions of parental involvement and should be replaced.
Duda is cited in the Introduction as a source for achievement goal orientations, for which it is not appropriate, and should be replaced with a foundational achievement goal source.
The in-text citation “Research Excellence Framework, 2024” refers to the REF 2029 guidance listed in the references and should be clarified.
More recent literature should be incorporated, as only about 15% of references are from the last five years.

Author Response

Please see attached our pt by pt responses and many thanks for your diligent review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses an important gap in the practical application of psychosocial development frameworks within youth sport. The integration of the 5Cs into a national parent education strategy is relevant, and the iterative approach offers useful insights for researchers and practitioners. However, several methodological and interpretative issues require further attention. In particular, the manuscript would benefit from greater transparency regarding participant recruitment, workshop attendance, evaluation procedures, and qualitative analysis. The distinction between parental satisfaction, intentions to apply workshop content, and demonstrated changes in parental or child behaviour should also be strengthened. The conclusions concerning the workshop's impact and the broader effectiveness of the 5Cs should remain consistent with the descriptive, post-workshop nature of the evidence. Addressing these issues, alongside a more explicit discussion of study limitations, would substantially improve the scientific clarity and contribution of the manuscript.

Specific Comments

Major Comments

1. Lines 173–183 and 217–321: Operationalisation of Educational Design Research. Although the authors provide a clear theoretical justification for adopting Educational Design Research (EDR), the implementation of its iterative principles could be described more systematically. The manuscript identifies several phases of development and refinement, but the connections between stakeholder feedback, specific design decisions, and subsequent modifications are not always sufficiently explicit. The authors are encouraged to provide a concise overview of the research process, including the chronology of the phases, the stakeholders involved, the information collected, and the decisions informing each iteration. A summary table could help readers understand how the EDR approach was operationalised and support the transferability of the educational design process to other sport settings.

2. Lines 282–321 and 466–495: Participant recruitment and stakeholder involvement. The pilot workshop involved nine parents recruited through the first author's professional connections, whereas the subsequent Parental Insights Project involved 20 parents who had previously attended a workshop. Although both samples are appropriate for exploratory stakeholder engagement, additional information is needed regarding recruitment procedures, participant characteristics, and the rationale for their inclusion. It would also be useful to clarify whether the pilot feedback was systematically documented, how suggestions were prioritised, and whether the perspectives of less experienced or less engaged tennis parents were considered. Greater transparency would help readers assess the extent to which the resulting resources reflect the diversity of parental experiences within junior tennis.

3. Lines 196–216 and 346–375: Workshop participation and evaluation sample. The manuscript reports that 255 parents registered for the ten workshops and that 101 completed the post-workshop evaluation. However, the number of parents who actually attended the workshops is not clearly specified, preventing an accurate assessment of the evaluation response rate. Please report the number of attendees, the proportion completing the evaluation, and, where available, relevant characteristics of respondents and non-respondents. Furthermore, the programme is described as targeting parents of children aged 9–14 years, whereas the evaluation sample includes children aged 7–15 years. This discrepancy should be clarified. These details are important for assessing potential self-selection bias and the representativeness of the evaluation findings.

4. Lines 353–382: Quantitative measures and statistical reporting. The evaluation uses brief sets of Likert-scale items to assess workshop satisfaction, perceived utility, tutor delivery, transfer intentions, and perceived value for coaches. However, the manuscript provides limited information regarding the measurement properties and scoring procedures of these indicators. The authors should clarify whether the reported means represent individual items or composite scores and explain how the latter were calculated. Where appropriate, internal consistency estimates or item-level descriptive statistics should be provided. Given the relatively high mean scores, the possibility of ceiling effects should also be acknowledged. These clarifications would improve the interpretability of the quantitative findings without requiring additional inferential analyses.

5. Lines 365–382 and 543–563: Distinction between perceived benefits and demonstrated effectiveness. The evaluation provides evidence of positive parental perceptions and intentions to apply the strategies introduced during the workshop. However, the design does not include pre-workshop measurements, a comparison group, behavioural follow-up, or direct assessments of children's psychosocial development. Consequently, statements concerning the workshop's impact on parental actions or the improvement of psychosocial behaviours should be interpreted cautiously. The authors should consistently distinguish satisfaction and behavioural intentions from demonstrated behavioural change and avoid attributing developmental outcomes to the workshop without direct supporting evidence. The manuscript would be strengthened by explicitly positioning the findings as an initial evaluation of acceptability, perceived utility, and intended application.

6. Lines 383–442: Transparency of the qualitative analysis. The use of template analysis is appropriate for exploring parental feedback within an applied educational setting. Nevertheless, additional methodological detail is needed to understand how the final categories and interpretations were developed. Please clarify who conducted the coding, whether coding decisions were discussed between researchers, how the initial template was refined, and whether divergent or contradictory responses were identified. It would also be helpful to explain the criteria used to select the illustrative quotations and to distinguish clearly between observations expressed by individual participants and patterns identified across the 45 qualitative responses. This information would strengthen the credibility and transparency of the qualitative findings.

7. Lines 466–495 and Table 3: Development and interpretation of the behavioural clusters. The Parental Insights Project represents a valuable attempt to translate the 5Cs into tennis-specific behaviours. However, the process through which the proposed behaviours were organised into the final clusters requires further explanation. The authors should clarify how overlapping behaviours were handled, how decisions regarding their allocation to individual Cs were made, and whether alternative interpretations were considered. It is also important to distinguish between behaviours perceived as relevant by parents and behaviours that have been empirically observed or shown to enhance psychosocial development. A more explicit description of the analytical decisions underlying Table 3 would improve its methodological transparency and practical utility.

8. Lines 203–216 and 603–611: Ethical procedures and data governance. The manuscript reports ethical approval and informed consent for the Parental Insights Project in Phase 3. However, the ethical and data governance procedures associated with the pilot workshop and the anonymous post-workshop evaluations are less clearly described. Please clarify whether these activities were conducted as routine organisational evaluation, whether institutional ethical approval or an exemption was applicable, and how participants were informed about the subsequent research use of their responses. Additionally, the ethics approval identifier appears in slightly different formats in the Methods and Institutional Review Board Statement and should be checked for consistency. Addressing these points would strengthen the transparency of the research process.

9. Lines 496–514: Organisational outcomes and broader impact. The development of the joint parent–child workshop and the integration of the 5Cs into coach education are relevant outcomes of the collaboration with the Lawn Tennis Association. However, the manuscript should distinguish more clearly between organisational implementation, programme reach, and demonstrated educational effectiveness. For example, the reported engagement of more than 150 families and 1,300 coaches provides useful information about the scale of dissemination, but does not establish changes in knowledge, behaviour, or psychosocial outcomes. The authors should clarify the sources of these participation figures and consider presenting the initiatives primarily as organisational and implementation outcomes, rather than evidence of intervention effectiveness.

10. Lines 515–598: Discussion of limitations and transferability. Although the authors identify important directions for future research, the manuscript would benefit from a more explicit and consolidated discussion of the limitations of the present work. Relevant considerations include the absence of baseline and follow-up assessments, potential self-selection and social desirability biases, the reliance on parental self-report, the relatively small qualitative samples, and the involvement of the first author in both workshop delivery and evaluation. The single-sport and national governing body context should also be considered when discussing transferability. Incorporating these limitations would provide a more balanced interpretation of the findings and help define the conditions under which the educational approach might be adapted to other settings.

Minor Comments

11. Lines 244–259, 275, 321–345, and 536–542: Figures, tables, and conceptual consistency. Please review the consistency of figure and table references throughout the manuscript and ensure that all visual materials are correctly identified. In particular, Table 1 refers to Figure 2 in relation to the tennis journey, whereas the corresponding illustration is presented as Figure 1. The discussion also refers to Figures 1 and 3 when describing workshop refinements, and these references should be checked. Additionally, the citations associated with Cronin's life skills taxonomy should be reviewed to ensure that the conceptual source is consistently and accurately identified.

12. Lines 164, 496–514, 562, and References: Editorial and referencing consistency. Several minor inconsistencies should be corrected before publication. The citation to Creswell and Creswell (2019) does not match the 2017 publication year in the reference list, and the surname Kramers appears as Kramer in the Discussion. The statement concerning the recommencement of online workshops in October 2026 should also be phrased consistently with the manuscript's submission date and the actual implementation status. A final review of referencing, terminology, formatting, and grammatical accuracy is recommended.

The manuscript offers a relevant and practice-oriented contribution to sport psychology, particularly through its integration of stakeholder engagement and educational resource development within a national sport organisation. However, important clarifications are required regarding methodological transparency, evaluation procedures, qualitative analysis, and the interpretation of the reported outcomes. These issues appear potentially addressable through more detailed reporting, clearer distinctions between perceived benefits and demonstrated effects, and a more balanced discussion of limitations. Addressing them would substantially strengthen the manuscript's scientific contribution and the credibility of its conclusions.

Author Response

Please see attached our pt by pt responses and many thanks for your diligent review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a strong, good-faith revision. The main first-round problem is fixed: reaction-level data are no longer called “impact.” The abstract and conclusions now sit at Kirkpatrick Level 1, transfer is treated as intention rather than behavior change, and there is a proper limitations section. Methods and results are now separate, and Table 3 adds medians and inter-item correlations. Attendance, response rate, and the phase 3 pool are reported, and the child-age SD is now plausible. The template analysis names its coder, a priori themes, and reflexivity check. The Duda, Davies, and Kramers errors are corrected; the non-existent Figure 3 and uncited Horne reference are gone.

Still needs attention.

The abstract still carries four citations (Dorsch et al., 2021; Harwood et al., 2019; Harwood, 2008; McKenney & Reeves, 2019). Delete them. The numerical findings they used to sit beside are now present.
Table 4 contradicts its own description. Section 3.2.4 says the phase 3 behaviors were grouped into contextual clusters (home, training, pre-/during/post-competition), but the table is laid out by the five Cs. Re-cut the table by context, or change the text to say the template was organized by C. This was raised last round and is still open.
Two citations do not match their claims. Knight et al. (2014), a one-page conference abstract on parents’ experiences, supports a claim about young athletes’ perceptions of parental involvement; replace it with a primary study. Cronin & Allen (2017) is now in the reference list, but the text and tables 1-2 still call it a “life skills taxonomy.” It validates the Life Skills Scale for Sport, so describe it as a scale or framework.
“Research Excellence Framework (REF, 2024)” still points to the REF 2029 guidance in the list. Correct the year or clarify.
Reference recency is better: roughly a quarter are now from the last five years, up from about 15%. A few more recent empirical sources would still help.
Minor points: the limitations do not mention that the data are now several years old (collected 2020-2022); the inter-item r of .98 for tutor delivery and transfer intentions points to near-redundant items at ceiling and is worth a line; and the ethics basis for the 101-parent evaluation survey is unstated, whereas the phase 3 project carries an approval ID. Please state whether the survey had ethical approval or was an organizational service evaluation.

Author Response

Thank you for your continued support and review comments.

In response to these and housed, where appropriate, in the revision:


The abstract still carries four citations (Dorsch et al., 2021; Harwood et al., 2019; Harwood, 2008; McKenney & Reeves, 2019). Delete them. The numerical findings they used to sit beside are now present.	We have now removed the four references from the abstract.
Table 4 contradicts its own description. Section 3.2.4 says the phase 3 behaviors were grouped into contextual clusters (home, training, pre-/during/post-competition), but the table is laid out by the five Cs. Re-cut the table by context, or change the text to say the template was organized by C. This was raised last round and is still open.	We have now made the organisation of the clusters by each C clearer. We had added in the first revision that analysis was first done pertaining to each C, but have explained this further in the following sentence so it is clear.
Two citations do not match their claims. Knight et al. (2014), a one-page conference abstract on parents’ experiences, supports a claim about young athletes’ perceptions of parental involvement; replace it with a primary study. Cronin & Allen (2017) is now in the reference list, but the text and tables 1-2 still call it a “life skills taxonomy.” It validates the Life Skills Scale for Sport, so describe it as a scale or framework.	Thanks for noting the Knight paper. We agree and have replaced it with another relevant published study. Knight, C. J., Boden, C. M., & Holt, N. L. (2010). Junior Tennis Players’ Preferences for Parental Behaviors. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22(4), 377–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2010.495324 We have revised the wording to refer to life skills framework as opposed to taxonomy so that the citations are relevant. Thanks for noting this
“Research Excellence Framework (REF, 2024)” still points to the REF 2029 guidance in the list. Correct the year or clarify.	For the point we are making that “Research Impact within the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF, 2024) are directly associated with the awarding of quality-related (QR) research funding in the UK system”, this is the appropriate reference because Research Impact is measured in the ‘REF 2029 assessment exercise’ (which we have clarified in the article) and the document published in 2024 is the source for information on Research Impact. There is no more current source. This is a UK issue and those academics in the UK and those who read the REF 2024 document for the ‘REF 2029 assessment exercise’ will see the role played by research impact. As such there is no better reference to the point that Research impact is important and measured next in the REF 2029 exercise.
Reference recency is better: roughly a quarter are now from the last five years, up from about 15%. A few more recent empirical sources would still help.	A very recent (yesterday) systematic review came out of sport parent interventions which reinforces our intro and discussion points. We have cited this now. Teixeira, M., Morais, C., Gomes, A. R., Gonzalez, R., & Seixas, A. (2026). Who Benefits from Parental Intervention Programs in Youth Sport? A Systematic Review. Psychology of sport and exercise, 103273. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2026.103273
Minor points: the limitations do not mention that the data are now several years old (collected 2020-2022); the inter-item r of .98 for tutor delivery and transfer intentions points to near-redundant items at ceiling and is worth a line; and the ethics basis for the 101-parent evaluation survey is unstated, whereas the phase 3 project carries an approval ID. Please state whether the survey had ethical approval or was an organizational service evaluation	We have now made note of how ceiling effects were evident for a number of items used to evaluate workshop content, process and delivery in the limitations section. We have reinforced how this study/process post-COVID did serve as an impetus for a further study (Harwood & Porter, 2026) so we don’t necessarily feel that the data from 2020-22 is overly dated or a limitation as such in the context of sport parents and their knowledge of this space (which to date still remains underdeveloped in our professional opinion). We had noted the phase 3 workshop feedback evaluation in ethical points in the back-end information at the end of the manuscript in the last revision, but have further clarified this as organisational service evaluation here and also in section 3.2.1 where we have further clarified it. Hopefully, this is clear in both parts now.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made substantial efforts to address the previous review comments. The revised manuscript provides clearer information regarding participant recruitment, workshop evaluation, quantitative reporting, qualitative analysis, and study limitations. These improvements have strengthened the transparency and contribution of the paper. Nevertheless, a few issues require further attention before publication.

Ethical Procedures and Institutional Review Board Statement: Please clarify the ethical approval and exemption procedures associated with each phase of the project. In particular, the final ethical statements appear to attribute both formal approval and exemption to Phase 3. These should be clearly distinguished and accurately aligned with the procedures described in the Methods section.
Interpretation of Workshop Outcomes: Although the conclusions have been improved, please ensure that all statements concerning the impact of the workshop consistently distinguish parental satisfaction, perceived utility, and intended behavioural application from demonstrated changes in parental or child behaviour.
Manuscript Presentation and Editorial Consistency: The revised PDF contains numerous overlapping revisions, duplicated words, inconsistent section headings, and unresolved figure or table references. Please provide a clean, carefully proofread version of the manuscript with consistent numbering, citations, and terminology.

Overall, the revisions satisfactorily address most of the substantive concerns raised in the previous review. I recommend minor revision to resolve the remaining issues.

Author Response

Thank you for your continued support and review comments.

In response to these and housed, where appropriate, in the revision:

Ethical Procedures and Institutional Review Board Statement: Please clarify the ethical approval and exemption procedures associated with each phase of the project. In particular, the final ethical statements appear to attribute both formal approval and exemption to Phase 3. These should be clearly distinguished and accurately aligned with the procedures described in the Methods section.

Phase 1 had no ethical implications, and re: phase 2 (design and pilot phase) we had noted the pilot study exemption of IRB in the last revision comments but have noted this in the back-end material (with Phase 3 workshop exemption). Further, we had noted the phase 3 ‘workshop evaluation’ in informed consent points in the back-end information at the end of the manuscript in the last revision, but have moved this to the IRB section, and further clarified this as organisational service evaluation as per another reviewer’s suggestion for clarity. We have also now referred to this as organisational service evaluation in section 3.2.1 where procedures are clarified. Hopefully, this is clear in as many necessary parts in the article now.

2. Interpretation of Workshop Outcomes: Although the conclusions have been improved, please ensure that all statements concerning the impact of the workshop consistently distinguish parental satisfaction, perceived utility, and intended behavioural application from demonstrated changes in parental or child behaviour.

We feel that we have done this throughout and have removed mention of any demonstrated changes in parental or child behaviour, because these were never assessed nor set as objectives. We only note this in the context of future research requirements and recommendations.

3. Manuscript Presentation and Editorial Consistency: The revised PDF contains numerous overlapping revisions, duplicated words, inconsistent section headings, and unresolved figure or table references. Please provide a clean, carefully proofread version of the manuscript with consistent numbering, citations, and terminology.

We have corrected and/or added several (new) references, updated Cronin & Allen correctly to a Life skills framework (in the Figure), corrected and proofed the Figure and Table labels and mentions in text. We are unsure what the overlapping revisions/duplicated words are, but we have taken care to ensure headings are clear and understandable to the reader while working with the MDPI format as best as we can.