Teachers’ Attitudes toward Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, I find the article very enriching and interesting for the scientific community. However, some sections have some details to be considered.
- INTRODUCTION
- Section 1.1. is presented in an orderly way and gives a clear picture of the needs of children with ASD and the worldwide prevalence.
I feel that section 1.2. is too brief and could be put together with 1.1.
- I feel that there are too many sub-sections, but the information presented in each is very important and clarifying. I am not suggesting deleting sections, it is just a comment.
- Section 1.5 could be expanded to include a table or wording of the different instruments that exist worldwide to assess teachers' attitudes towards the education of students with ASD (only if there are enough studies). Could these studies be included in Table 1? There is confusion between the studies in this section and those shown in Table 1.
- The explanation provided by the studies [55-58] is not sufficient to close this section. More information from these studies is needed.
Overall, the introduction is very well structured and well-founded.
- MATERIALS AND METHODS
- Sufficient information is provided to understand the review process undertaken. This facilitates the understanding of the phenomenon.
- In the inclusion criteria the word "asperger's" is used, but were any of the studies reviewed finally focused on children with asperger's? It only states in Table 1 in a general way ASD or autism.
- RESULTS
- In the different tables of this section, the word ASD is used, but the type of ASD present in each study should be further elaborated and detailed. Currently, ASD includes autism, asperger's, Rett syndrome, childhood disintegrative disorder and pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified. Each disorder is different and I do not know whether the studies reviewed say "ASD" in a general way or specify which "ASD".
In some tables they talk about ASD and autism, would it be possible to be more precise? I think that if it is not possible to indicate which type of ASD has been worked out in each study, this should be indicated as a limitation in section 4.2.
- Taba 1 does not have a title.
- In study [78] in table 1, the date is not indicated.
- In study [93] in table 1, the author's name is given instead of the country.
- In table 2 there are two studies that are not properly understood (I attach image). Instead of putting the study number in square brackets [], n = 6 and n = 4 are given.
The rest of the information is clear and well organised.
- DISCUSSION
- I feel that there are too many sub-sections, but as I said in the introduction, I do not suggest eliminating them, as this information presented is very well understood and helps to better understand teaching attitudes.
- The limitations, future lines of research and practical implications suggested are very good and well justified. These sections bring the discussion of the article to a good conclusion.
- CONCLUSIONS
All very coherent with the information provided in the introduction and in the discussion of the results. Well-elaborated conclusions.
- REFERENCES
The references follow the standards of the journal and the studies are current.
After reading this article, a better understanding of teachers' attitudes towards students with ASD in different countries has been gained.
After these suggestions for improvement, the article could be published, but they need to be carefully considered. All suggested improvements will add value to the article.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Attached we send the response letter.
Sincerely.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript could be strengthened by expanding the rationale for doing a literature review about the topic. It seems that examining teachers' attitudes about students with ASD has been done before and a case for conducting this search of the literature hasn't been sufficiently made. Otherwise, it is well-done.
Author Response
Attached we send the response letter.
Sincerely.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper presents a systematic review about teachers’ attitudes toward ASD based on the PRISMA declaration. The paper is clear and presented in a well-structured manner. The cited references are current. The paper is scientifically sound and is the experimental design appropriate. The figures and tables are appropriate and show properly the data. The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.
Aspects that need to be reviewed:
- Reference [60] is missing from the text.
- In Table 5: it is recommended to include the acronyms of the Instruments instead of the number of the citations [83] and [72].
Author Response
Attached we send the response letter.
Sincerely.
