The Mediating Role of Psychosocial Factors in Academic Performance in Higher Education: Characterization Based on the Adaptation of Teaching Due to COVID-19

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Full Title: The mediating role of psychosocial factors in academic performance in higher education: characterization based on the adaptation of teaching due to COVID-19

Objective: The present study aimed to examine the mediating role of psychosocial factors in academic performance in higher education based on the adaptation of teaching due to COVID-19. However, certain limitations should be considered.

The manuscript needs more work and effort in each section:

1.     The initial presentation and articulation of the problem are somewhat superficial and could benefit from a deeper exploration. Consider elaborating on the importance of the issue and clearly stating the contributions this study aims to make, particularly in addressing existing research gaps.

2.     It is advisable to dedicate a distinct section to hypothesis development, substantiated by recent literature, for each specific hypothesis. This will offer a structured and organized approach, ensuring that each hypothesis is well-grounded and supported by the latest scholarly works. The theoretical model presented in Figure 1 should be introduced in this section.

3.     Given the cross-sectional nature of this study, it is essential to conduct tests for common method bias and multicollinearity to ensure the robustness and accuracy of the findings.

4.     The instrument is formed by sociodemographic and academic data along with Likert-type items (e.g., AF-5 questionnaire was used for self-concept; EME-E for motivation, REIS for emotional intelligence, and CD-RISC for resilience). Before hypothesis testing, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) should be conducted: a. The reliability of the scales and subscales should be reported for this study. b. Convergent and discriminant validity should be tested. CR and AVE values should also be reported, along with HTMT results to test convergent and discriminant validity. c. The correlation matrix should be provided. e. The CFA should be conducted to test the measurement model and structural model. Model fit estimates, including χ2/DF, GFI, AGFI, CFI, TLI, IFI, RMSEA [LO90, HI90], and SRMR, should be reported.

5.     As the study delves into understanding the mediating influence of psychosocial factors on academic performance, it is crucial to perform a mediation analysis. I recommend employing bootstrapping for mediation analysis through Amos to ensure a comprehensive and statistically sound assessment of the mediating pathways.

6.     Best practices require the list of items used in the questionnaires, accompanied by subscales and item codes. Please reassess.

7.     Provide a high-resolution figure (TIFF images with a minimum of 300 dpi) for the models.

8.     The Discussion and Conclusion sections merit expansion to provide a more comprehensive interpretation of the results and a stronger justification of the conclusions drawn. It's essential to articulate the key findings in detail and discuss both theoretical and practical implications in depth, providing a thorough analysis that enriches the overall understanding of the research.

9.     In enhancing the study, it would be valuable to refer to relevant previous studies that have focused on academic performance:

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Proof reading is required.

Author Response

Dear the editor and reviewers,

We would like to express our gratitude for the time taken to review this manuscript and for the comments made, which we believe to be critical for producing rigorous and quality research. We have detailed below the changes made in the original article: “The mediating role of psychosocial factors in academic perfor-mance in higher education: characterization based on the ad-aptation of teaching due to COVID-19”

Modifications have been made in the original manuscript following the reviewers’ comments. For each modification we have written: the original comment as written by the reviewer in addition to the page and line number; and the change made in response to that comment. Changes have been made using the tool “Track changes” enabling editor and reviewers to identify modifications easily.

 

REVIEWER A:

Comment 1:

The initial presentation and articulation of the problem are somewhat superficial and could benefit from a deeper exploration. Consider elaborating on the importance of the issue and clearly stating the contributions this study aims to make, particularly in addressing existing research gaps.

Response 1:

First and foremost, we extend our gratitude for each of the comments mentioned, as they help us make promising improvements to the article. In this context, giving special consideration to the previous comment, we have expanded the introduction. This expansion highlights the significance of the subject matter and the research problem the study aims to address. Additionally, the study's contribution is defined, specifying that it aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of how various pertinent variables influence the academic performance of university students. Furthermore, it explores how these variables operate within the two educational modalities (covid and postcovid).

 

Comment 2:

It is advisable to dedicate a distinct section to hypothesis development, substantiated by recent literature, for each specific hypothesis. This will offer a structured and organized approach, ensuring that each hypothesis is well-grounded and supported by the latest scholarly works. The theoretical model presented in Figure 1 should be introduced in this section.

Response 2:

In light of the previous comment, we would like to express our gratitude for the specified improvements. Building upon this comment, we have introduced a subsection within the introduction, labelled as "Research Problem and Hypotheses." In this section, the study's hypotheses and research problem are detailed. However, with regard to the theoretical underpinning of the hypotheses, no changes have been made. This practice is consistent with other articles published in the journal. Therefore, we believe it is more appropriate to present the hypotheses in a subheading within the introduction to enhance reader comprehension, while also emphasizing that the substantiation of the hypotheses is substantial within the introduction. On a different note, regarding the comment about the theoretical model, we extend our appreciation for the input. However, the authors consider that the theoretical model and the types of variables comprising it should be included in the data analysis section, as is the practice in articles that utilize structural equation modeling. Consequently, this specific change has not been implemented in the article.

 

Comment 3:

Given the cross-sectional nature of this study, it is essential to conduct tests for common method bias and multicollinearity to ensure the robustness and accuracy of the findings.

Response 3:

Thanks for this suggestion for improvement. To diagnose the multicollinearity of the observed variables that we will enter into the models, the Bartlett sphericity test and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test are used. This information has been included in the results section, since these tests have been carried out for the scales used.

 

Comment 4:

The instrument is formed by sociodemographic and academic data along with Likert-type items (e.g., AF-5 questionnaire was used for self-concept; EME-E for motivation, REIS for emotional intelligence, and CD-RISC for resilience). Before hypothesis testing, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) should be conducted: a. The reliability of the scales and subscales should be reported for this study. b. Convergent and discriminant validity should be tested. CR and AVE values should also be reported, along with HTMT results to test convergent and discriminant validity. c. The correlation matrix should be provided. e. The CFA should be conducted to test the measurement model and structural model. Model fit estimates, including χ2/DF, GFI, AGFI, CFI, TLI, IFI, RMSEA [LO90, HI90], and SRMR, should be reported.

Response 4:

Thanks for these suggestions for improvement. Below we proceed to respond to them:

- The CFA has been carried out and a table with the adjustment values of the scales has been included (Table 2). Additionally, the internal consistency of the scales and subscales was already included in the instruments section, since the Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega values were provided for each one.

- The correlation matrix between the variables under study has been included in the proposed structural model.

- The values of the fit indices for the model indicated by the reviewer have been added.

 

 

Comment 5:

As the study delves into understanding the mediating influence of psychosocial factors on academic performance, it is crucial to perform a mediation analysis. I recommend employing bootstrapping for mediation analysis through Amos to ensure a comprehensive and statistically sound assessment of the mediating pathways.

Response 5:

Thanks for this indication of improvement. Standardized direct and indirect effects have been included for the two groupings of the model.

 

Comment 6:

Best practices require the list of items used in the questionnaires, accompanied by subscales and item codes. Please reassess.

Response 6:

We appreciate this suggestion for improvement. The questionnaire items can be obtained through the original scale validation studies, which are detailed and referenced in the instruments section.

Although this practice is common in Exploratory Factor Analysis studies, it is not common in studies with structural equations that bring together several validated scales. The reason is that including the items from all of them would extend the article too much and make it unparsimonious. Any reader who wishes could obtain them from the referenced studies.

 

Comment 7:

Provide a high-resolution figure (TIFF images with a minimum of 300 dpi) for the models.

Response 7:

Thanks for this indication. As the editorial team can verify, the figures were already uploaded in TIFF format, with a resolution higher than that indicated in the journal's regulations.

 

Comment 8:

The Discussion and Conclusion sections merit expansion to provide a more comprehensive interpretation of the results and a stronger justification of the conclusions drawn. It's essential to articulate the key findings in detail and discuss both theoretical and practical implications in depth, providing a thorough analysis that enriches the overall understanding of the research.

Response 8:

We would like to express our advance gratitude for the well-structured comment, aimed at enhancing the discussion and conclusions. In this context, the Discussion and Conclusion sections have been extended to provide a more thorough interpretation of the results and to offer a more robust rationale for the conclusions drawn.

 

Comment 9:

In enhancing the study, it would be valuable to refer to relevant previous studies that have focused on academic performance:

Response 9:

Building upon the previous comment and this one, we have expanded the discussion section, with a particular emphasis on academic performance. In this section, we incorporate scientifically rigorous studies that support the issues discussed. Furthermore, we want to emphasize that throughout the discussion, the findings of various variables are interconnected, and these findings are linked to academic performance, consistently supported by scientific articles grounded in this subject matter.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your research. My comments are:

  1. The introduction section is robust. The research assumptions are well-developed. However, the contribution of the study to the field is not underlined. 2. The method is well-described and constructed. 3. The results are well-presented. The discussion is based on the research assumptions. Nevertheless, it is not clear if the research questions are verified. I suggest that the results could emphasize the research questions' verification. 4. I suggest that the conclusions should be more general, and part of the text in the "Conclusion" section could be incorporated into the "Discussion" section to accentuate the research questions' validation. Comments on the Quality of English Language

Slight English proofreading is needed.

Author Response

REVIEWER B:

Comment 1:

1. The introduction section is robust. The research assumptions are well-developed. However, the contribution of the study to the field is not underlined.

Response 1:

First and foremost, we greatly appreciate the provided comment. In this context, we have integrated the research problem into the introduction section, along with providing specific details about the particular findings of the study.

 

Comment 2:

2. The method is well-described and constructed. 3. The results are well-presented. The discussion is based on the research assumptions. Nevertheless, it is not clear if the research questions are verified. I suggest that the results could emphasize the research questions' verification.

Response 2:

Thanks for this indication. The results have been improved following the instructions of reviewer 1 and 2 to be more robust in verifying the research question.

 

Comment 3:

4. I suggest that the conclusions should be more general, and part of the text in the "Conclusion" section could be incorporated into the "Discussion" section to accentuate the research questions' validation.

Response 3:

Thank you very much for the improvement comment. Based on this, we have included the conclusions in the discussion section to emphasize the research problem and the main findings.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made significant improvements in the revised version of the manuscript titled "The mediating role of psychosocial factors in academic performance in higher education: characterization based on the adaptation of teaching due to COVID-19" in response to my comments.