Perception of the Special Troops (Commando) Soldiers Regarding Physical Fitness, Motor Control and Psychological Skills

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments

Some expressions start with upper-case letters where no need is to write this way. Change throughout the manuscript.

The Introduction, the Results and the Discussion are very lengthy and could be condensed to the essential

Delete results repeated in the discussion since they should already be presented in the results section

Specific comments

Line 22: start with what is known and what is not known to justify the study

Line 23: Thirty-five

Line 43: add a reference

Line 45: add a reference

Line 52: add a reference

Line 77: add a reference

Line 80: add a reference

Line 83: add a reference

Line 88: add a reference

Line 91: add a reference

Line 107: add a reference

Line 114: add a reference

Line 143: explain how the subjects were recruited and add the criteria for inclusion and exclusion

Lines 144-154: this could be presented in a table

Line 184: the results must be presented in a clear way

Line 273: Can you present the main findings and then discuss step-by-step and explain whether you can confirm your hypothesis/hypotheses or not

Line 358: add a reference

Line 362: add a reference

Line 500: what are the strengths, the weaknesses, the implications for future research and the practical applications?

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for the opportunity under the reviewers’ recommendations.   

 We have made significant changes to the manuscript according to the reviewers’ suggestions. New changes in the revised manuscript are in review track mode highlighted in yellow.

(Reviewer 1)

General comments

Some expressions start with upper-case letters where no need is to write this way. Change throughout the manuscript.

Authors’ answer: Upper case letters were corrected

The Introduction, the Results and the Discussion are very lengthy and could be condensed to the essential

Authors’ answer: The Introduction, the Results and the Discussion were shortened.

Delete results repeated in the discussion since they should already be presented in the results section

 Authors’ answer: Repeated results were deleted.

Specific comments

Line 22: start with what is known and what is not known to justify the study

 Authors’ answer: We agree with the reviewer. It can now be read:

Physical fitness and motor skills are considered important attributes for the military affecting their professional performance. The high physical and psychological demand that the special forces are subjected to requires the acquisition of a set of volitional skills such as resilience, effort, perseverance, or resistance to frustration, which are worthy of further research.

Line 23: Thirty-five

 Authors’ answer: It was corrected.

Line 43: add a reference

Authors’ answer: It was added.

Line 45: add a reference

Authors’ answer: It was added.

Line 52: add a reference

Authors’ answer: It was added.

Line 77: add a reference

Authors’ answer: It was added.

Line 80: add a reference

Authors’ answer: It was added.

Line 83: add a reference

Authors’ answer: It was added.

Line 88: add a reference

Authors’ answer: It was added.

Line 91: add a reference

Authors’ answer: It was added.

Line 107: add a reference

Authors’ answer: It was added.

Line 114: add a reference

Authors’ answer: It was added.

Line 143: explain how the subjects were recruited and add the criteria for inclusion and exclusion

 Authors’ answer: We add eligibility criteria. It can now be read:

All participants were adult, male, volunteers and signed a university-approved ethical consent form. Sample characteristics are presented in Table 1

Eligibility criteria included being a soldier of one of the two Commando Course under analysis, aged 18 or over and having physical and psychological robustness to perform the tests applied. The non-probabilistic sample selected by convenience consisted of 22 of the 27 soldiers who successfully completed one Commando Course and 13 soldiers who successfully completed the other, with a total of 35 elements.

Lines 144-154: this could be presented in a table

 Authors’ answer: We followed the reviewer's suggestion and add a table with Participant’s characteristics. Eligibility criteria were also added.

Line 184: the results must be presented in a clear way

Authors’ answer: a deep reformulation of this section was performed with the introduction of several tables and unnecessary text deleted.

Line 273: Can you present the main findings and then discuss step-by-step and explain whether you can confirm your hypothesis/hypotheses or not

Authors’ answer: the section was reformulated so that each of the hypotheses was confirmed or rejected.

Line 358: add a reference

 Authors’ answer: It was added.

Line 362: add a reference

Authors’ answer: It was added.

Line 500: what are the strengths, the weaknesses, the implications for future research and the practical applications?

Authors’ answer: It can now be read:

It is central to note that this study shows only a trend of skills and psychological abilities in the context of military training, deserving further investigation with a more robust and abundant sample, that can be evaluated and several moments, throughout the tests to which the participants are subjected. Furthermore, it is important to associate psychological skills with physiological aspects, such as VO2 max, among other indicators that can make this study more interdisciplinary. On the other hand, taking into account that the participants may “miss the truth” or not respond following what they “really think” in terms of responses to the questionnaires, it is important to cross-reference the results of this instrument with focus group techniques, which effectively allow for the assessment of the ecological validity of their experiences and responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The purpose of this study was to analyse (through questionnaires) the perception of the special troops in physical fitness, motor control and psychological skills.

It is an interesting work, and methodologically could be supported by the validated questionnaires, and widely used in the scientific literature, but some recommendations are proposed for a better understanding, reading or publishing.

It is recommended that the possible applications of the study be presented in the Conclusions section.

1) Regarding formal aspects, it is recommended to review the entire text to correct typographical errors, especially at the end of the line (eg, lines 26,32, 35, 47, 79, etc, and many more that I will no longer quote).

2) It is absolutely necessary to review the bibliography in its entirety in order to present each document exactly as specified in the journal standards, also including the correction of punctuation marks.

3) It is recommended to include a large part of the data related to the information in section 2.1 (sample) in a table (just like other data, since no table is presented, and that would help to see the results of the work more clearly).

4) In a study of these characteristics, a sample of 35 subjects is very small, which is a major methodological issue.

5) Section 2.3 (Data analysis) needs to be described in greater depth; the statistical tests used, the distribution of tests for each objective, etc. Nothing is explained about the statistical analysis referred to each objective of the title (physical fitness, motor control and psychological skills).

6. The analysis of the results referred to the study objectives (and title) is presented exclusively in descriptive, being the sample only 35 subjects.
The rest of the statistical analyzes do not refer to the objectives of the study (title).

7. Due to the situation described above, the discussion section is affected by the limitation of the results, and its orientation is not linked to the established objectives.

8. The authors establish, as limitations of the study, the use of questionnaires. The use of questionnaires should not be a limitation to the studies, as long as their selection, validation and implementation, among other aspects, are correct. The authors should establish and specify other possible limitations in the present study.

9. Finally, although one could agree with the conclusions, the truth is that they cannot be extracted from the results obtained. If they can be extracted, they must be specified and referenced.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for the opportunity under the reviewers’ recommendations.   

 We have made significant changes to the manuscript according to the reviewers’ suggestions. New changes in the revised manuscript are in review track mode highlighted in yellow.

The purpose of this study was to analyse (through questionnaires) the perception of the special troops in physical fitness, motor control and psychological skills.

It is an interesting work, and methodologically could be supported by the validated questionnaires, and widely used in the scientific literature, but some recommendations are proposed for a better understanding, reading or publishing.

It is recommended that the possible applications of the study be presented in the Conclusions section.

Authors’ answer: Text was moved for the conclusions

1) Regarding formal aspects, it is recommended to review the entire text to correct typographical errors, especially at the end of the line (eg, lines 26,32, 35, 47, 79, etc, and many more that I will no longer quote).

Authors’ answer: Text was reviewed, and errors corrected.

2) It is absolutely necessary to review the bibliography in its entirety in order to present each document exactly as specified in the journal standards, also including the correction of punctuation marks.

Authors’ answer: we apologize for this mistake. The bibliography was reformulated.

3) It is recommended to include a large part of the data related to the information in section 2.1 (sample) in a table (just like other data, since no table is presented, and that would help to see the results of the work more clearly).

Authors’ answer: a deep reformulation of this section was performed with the introduction of several tables and deleted unnecessary text.

4) In a study of these characteristics, a sample of 35 subjects is very small, which is a major methodological issue.

Authors’ answer: reviewer is right but as it concerns special troops the number of military trainees is scarce each year, which is the reason for only including 35 subjects. The sample dimension was added in the study limitations.

5) Section 2.3 (Data analysis) needs to be described in greater depth; the statistical tests used, the distribution of tests for each objective, etc. Nothing is explained about the statistical analysis referred to each objective of the title (physical fitness, motor control and psychological skills).

Authors’ answer: The following description was added.

Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the participants (absolute frequency and percentage), measures of central tendency (average) and measures of dispersion (amplitude and standard deviation), when applicable. The nonparametric chi-square test was used to compare the groups concerning age, education, prior work experience and prior sports experience at the dependent variables, perception of physical fitness, motor capacity and training given their qualitative nature [28].

6. The analysis of the results referred to the study objectives (and title) is presented exclusively in descriptive, being the sample only 35 subjects.
   The rest of the statistical analyzes do not refer to the objectives of the study (title).

Authors’ answer: The objectives of the study were updated, and it can be read now:

Taking this into consideration, this study aimed to analyze the perception of the special troops [Commandos] in physical fitness, motor control and psychological skills and verify if they are different according to age, academic qualifications, and soldiers' previous jobs. Finally, it was important to understand the degree of satisfaction of the sample regarding the military training during recruit and if most of the sample considered it essential that the instructors were graduated in physical education, to train them in a military context.

7. Due to the situation described above, the discussion section is affected by the limitation of the results, and its orientation is not linked to the established objectives.

Can you present the main findings and then discuss step-by-step and explain whether you can confirm your hypothesis/hypotheses or not

Authors’ answer: the discussion was reformulated so that it is oriented by the objectives.

8. The authors establish, as limitations of the study, the use of questionnaires. The use of questionnaires should not be a limitation to the studies, as long as their selection, validation and implementation, among other aspects, are correct. The authors should establish and specify other possible limitations in the present study.

Authors’ answer: limitations of the study were reformulated, and the sample dimension was added.

Although the present study concerns special troops, that admit each year, a scarce number of military trainees the sample dimension is a limitation of this study.

9. Finally, although one could agree with the conclusions, the truth is that they cannot be extracted from the results obtained. If they can be extracted, they must be specified and referenced.

Authors’ answer: the conclusions were reformulated

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1. Why there are special troops in the title when I realized that it is one special troupe with 35 participants?
2. Lines 23, 118, 187, 211, 213, 215, 217, 219 - it is not good practice to begin sentence in the number.
3.  Lines 66-67 - "dynamic balance over obstacles", "balancing over obstacles" - are they the same exercises?
4. Lines 144-148 - why the term troops is used in the whole paper when the sample of respondents consists of 35 soldiers of different age?
5. Why are there no tables or figures in the paper? If there are any in the additional material, then they cannot be downloaded from the site. They are not even quoted through the paper.
6. Lines 168-171 - What is this division into 2 groups, explain it?
7. Commandos course should be explained in detail.
8. 3.6; 3.7; 3.8; 3.9 are parts of subchapter 3.5 and cannot be marked as such
9. Lines 274-276 - The aim of the research is repeated 2 times, to correct the sentence.
10. Line 338 - why 2 times the same quote (29)
11. Line 394 - “Coordinative skills. Motor control” - why the point between?

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for the opportunity under the reviewers’ recommendations.   

 We have made significant changes to the manuscript according to the reviewers’ suggestions. New changes in the revised manuscript are in review track mode highlighted in yellow.

• Why there are special troops in the title when I realized that it is one special troupe with 35 participants?

Authors’ answer: Commandos are considered special troops. For the present study militaries of two editions of the Commandos’ course volunteered to participate.

• Lines 23, 118, 187, 211, 213, 215, 217, 219 - it is not good practice to begin sentence in the number.

Authors’ answer: It was corrected.

• Lines 66-67 - "dynamic balance over obstacles", "balancing over obstacles" - are they the same exercises? Authors’ answer: The reviewer is right. The two expressions mean the same. In this case, we corrected it to "dynamic balance over obstacles" throughout the article. We apologize for the lapse.
• Lines 144-148 - why the term troops is used in the whole paper when the sample of respondents consists of 35 soldiers of different age?

Authors’ answer: the sample was recruited from two different editions of commandos courses which are special troops. When applicable “troops” was replaced by soldiers or military

.

• Why are there no tables or figures in the paper? If there are any in the additional material, then they cannot be downloaded from the site. They are not even quoted through the paper.

Authors’ answer: Tables were added in the methods and results section to turn it clearer.

• Lines 168-171 - What is this division into 2 groups, explain it?

Authors’ answer: The two groups correspond to the military of the two editions of the Commandos courses included in the study.

• Commandos course should be explained in detail.

Authors’ answer: it can be read now:

The first group was composed of the 13 soldiers that finished one edition of the Commandos course and the second group was composed of 22 soldiers that finished a different edition of the Commandos course.

• 3.6; 3.7; 3.8; 3.9 are parts of subchapter 3.5 and cannot be marked as such

Authors’ answer: Thank you for pointing out this mistake. It was corrected.

• Lines 274-276 - The aim of the research is repeated 2 times, to correct the sentence.

Authors’ answer: it was deleted

This study aimed to analyse the perception of the special troops [Commandos] in physical fitness, motor control and psychological skills.

• Line 338 - why 2 times the same quote (29)

Authors’ answer: it was deleted

• Line 394 - “Coordinative skills. Motor control” - why the point between?

Authors’ answer: it was corrected

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

no further comments

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to thank the authors for their effort to improve the manuscript and for having followed the recommendations proposed in the review.

The updates and modifications allow a more orderly and structured reading, also increasing the scientific soundness.

The topic can be interesting for the analysis and improvement of the selection and training of the target population.

Certain aspects related to the proposal and application of the design, and with the material and method used, do not allow the scientific robustness that the authors intended and desired.

However, I repeat that the efforts of the authors to improve the document have made it possible to provide higher quality work, and other improvements desired by the authors are not possible if we start from the current design.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors corrected all errors required by the reviewer. Manuscript now is fine for publishing.