A Contagious… Smile! Training Emotional Skills of Adults with Intellectual Disability in the Time of COVID-19
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
There are a number of minor grammatical, unclear statements, long sentences, tense and sentence structure issues throughout the article that need fine tuning.
This is an interesting topic and a good research study in a valuable area.
Some minor changes needed in the Absract and Introduction
Methods section quite brief (Inclusion and Exclusion criteria?)
Suggest using the term ...participants rather than users
Access to the service occurs following........unclear.......(needs further explanation)
Instruments described well - a good section here- but needs re reading as some statements not quite correct .......Italian version of the task (suggest tool)
It consists in a picture book (it consists of a picture book)
whose difficulty ( ...degree of difficulty)
...could be suitable ...(is consistent with....)
Was the Appreciation Survey read to them?
Is it a training programme? ......(rather than training)
Using the term .......conductors is confusing.....(trainers?)
The section ...Training 2.2.3 includes some vague terms (...eg many / and so on.../ things
Suggest using ...intended rather than meant)
the reference where (47) (46) is cited needs to acknowledge the authors names
Results
Good section suggest including the word Results and discussion (to be consistent with the Qualitative section heading)
in the performance at the (the performance of the)
Unclear as the why only LEAS-C results graphed (TEC?VAS?)
The Qualitative section interesting and original.
Why were qualitative methods included? While this is a very valuable approach it is not clear why it is included in this study. (Other than citing the word phenomenological evaluation - needs some support/explanation)
Suggest using the term participants rather than users
Suggest some discussion on Rigour for qual research included. How was Rigour ensured?
Conclusions .....(agree with Conclusions)
Author Response
We really want to thank the editor for having acknowledged the potentiality of our study, as well as all the reviewers who have devoted their time in carefully and critically reading our paper, providing meaningful suggestions to improve our work. We worked especially on the methods and discussion sections, without changing the main message and the structure of the paper. Also, the manuscript underwent English revision to promote clarity and readability.
We tried to address the reviewer’s suggestions (see the point-by-point comments below) and modified the paper accordingly.
There are a number of minor grammatical, unclear statements, long sentences, tense and sentence structure issues throughout the article that need fine tuning.
R: the paper underwent English revision
This is an interesting topic and a good research study in a valuable area.
Some minor changes needed in the Absract and Introduction
Methods section quite brief (Inclusion and Exclusion criteria?)
R: we extended this part and added inclusion and exclusion criteria
Suggest using the term ...participants rather than users
R: done!
Access to the service occurs following........unclear.......(needs further explanation)
R: the users of the education center can access the service voluntarily after the school and after the age of 18. We better explained this passage
Instruments described well - a good section here- but needs re reading as some statements not quite correct .......Italian version of the task (suggest tool)
R: sure, we checked these points
It consists in a picture book (it consists of a picture book)
whose difficulty ( ...degree of difficulty)
...could be suitable ...(is consistent with....)
R: done!
Was the Appreciation Survey read to them?
R: yes, it was administered individually by reading the different items to the participants. This detail has been added also in the text
Is it a training programme? ......(rather than training)
R: yes, much better. We switched to “training program” in the text as well
Using the term .......conductors is confusing.....(trainers?)
R: we modified the term according to the reviewer’s suggestion
The section ...Training 2.2.3 includes some vague terms (...eg many / and so on.../ things
R: we carefully checked this part and substituted vague terms with more appropriate ones
Suggest using ...intended rather than meant)
R: done, thank you!
the reference where (47) (46) is cited needs to acknowledge the authors names
R: done
Results. Good section suggest including the word Results and discussion (to be consistent with the Qualitative section heading)
R: done, thank you!
in the performance at the (the performance of the)
R: done
Unclear as the why only LEAS-C results graphed (TEC?VAS?)
R: we usually do not propose graphs for non-significant results. Also, considering the number of figures uploaded for the qualitative section, we opted not to produce them. If the reviewer and the editor believe it is better to add it, of course we will.
The Qualitative section interesting and original. Why were qualitative methods included? While this is a very valuable approach it is not clear why it is included in this study. (Other than citing the word phenomenological evaluation - needs some support/explanation)
R: we have followed an initial request by the facility to involve the users in significant actions and to collect data not only from a quantitative, but also a qualitative point of view to better address their experience, their needs, and potentialities without using verbal language. We agreed with this position, and we developed a mixed design that in fact allowed us to focus on different factors, even if convergent. Each part enriched the other and added meaning.
Suggest using the term participants rather than users
R: sure, done!
Suggest some discussion on Rigour for qual research included. How was Rigour ensured?
R: Also considering other reviewers’ suggestions, we added a “procedure” paragraph in the methods section to explain the experimental design. Here, we also added a part explaining how the rigor was ensured
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for submitting to Education Sciences. The research, analysis and presentation of the paper should be significantly improved and polished in order to make it publishable:
(1) The paper must have posed a clear and valid research question. The current version of the paper does not communicate the core claims of the research because readers cannot locate the clear questions the research intended to address.
(2) As a result, the core claims and arguments may not be clearly conveyed in the abstract and conclusions.
(3) By reconsidering the purpose, design and analysis of the research, the paper may show potential of making a contribution to the literature. Proposing an emotional training programme is not a primary goal of an academic research or paper.
(4) Another important aspect the author(s) need to reconsider is the research method and design. The paper is not methodologically sound at all as there is a lack of sufficient detail (for example sampling and its justification)
(5) The claims of the research therefore is not convincing or significant. Further evidence is needed to be robustly presented so as to support the claims fully by associated data.
(6) A theoretical framework can enhance the rigour of data analysis and development of key claims/ arguments. The claims should then be appropriately discussed in the context of previous literature.
(7) A section of discussion (integrating the qualitative and quantatative analyses) is required for an empirical paper. Other than that, the manuscript is basically clearly written and structured.
(8) Important terms, for example, "within-subjects design", "Covid representations need to be strongly and clearly defined at the outset of the paper.
Author Response
We really want to thank the editor for having acknowledged the potentiality of our study, as well as all the reviewers who have devoted their time in carefully and critically reading our paper, providing meaningful suggestions to improve our work, especially in the methods and discussion sections, without changing the main message and the structure of the paper. Also, the manuscript underwent English revision to promote clarity and readability.
We tried to address the reviewer’s suggestions (see the point-by-point comments below) and modified the paper accordingly.
Thank you for submitting to Education Sciences. The research, analysis and presentation of the paper should be significantly improved and polished in order to make it publishable:
(1) The paper must have posed a clear and valid research question. The current version of the paper does not communicate the core claims of the research because readers cannot locate the clear questions the research intended to address.
(2) As a result, the core claims and arguments may not be clearly conveyed in the abstract and conclusions.
(3) By reconsidering the purpose, design and analysis of the research, the paper may show potential of making a contribution to the literature. Proposing an emotional training programme is not a primary goal of an academic research or paper.
R: we added new sections to the paper. The research questions were better specified, as well as a procedure paragraph explaining how the rigor was ensured, also following another reviewer’s suggestion. In our research activity, we often project and implement action-research and prove the efficacy of different educational/psychological methods. In this case, this first study will allow us to extend our approach to other (wider) contexts.
(4) Another important aspect the author(s) need to reconsider is the research method and design. The paper is not methodologically sound at all as there is a lack of sufficient detail (for example sampling and its justification)
(5) The claims of the research therefore is not convincing or significant. Further evidence is needed to be robustly presented so as to support the claims fully by associated data.
R: our study presents an action-research targeted to a specific context, that is a socio-educational center. Taking into consideration reviewers’ 1 and 2 suggestions, we now added the inclusion/exclusion criteria in the methods section. Based on this first study, we will be able to extend the method to other facilities that got in touch with us.
(6) A theoretical framework can enhance the rigour of data analysis and development of key claims/ arguments. The claims should then be appropriately discussed in the context of previous literature.
R: we improved the theoretical framework by better contextualizing our approach within the academic literature
(7) A section of discussion (integrating the qualitative and quantatative analyses) is required for an empirical paper. Other than that, the manuscript is basically clearly written and structured.
R: thanks to reviewer 2 suggestions we added a general discussion integrating the results of both quantitative and qualitative approach
(8) Important terms, for example, "within-subjects design", "Covid representations need to be strongly and clearly defined at the outset of the paper.
R: done!
Reviewer 3 Report
The central topic of the research article: Training emotional skills of adults with Intellectual Disability in the time of COVID-19 is of great interest although it has been approached from a very particular context and the results are not discussed with previous studies in this regard.
The introduction has few significant references. In some places it seems more like a manifesto or an opinion piece than an element of support for the arguments presented below. Once again, the topic is quite relevant, but it lacks more support and a better connection between the different sections of the document. In the introduction authors can explain their motivations and why the issue is relevant.
The literature review must be orderly: ideas are not connected. I suggest to group ideas and create a logic discourse.
The methodology of the research is weak, mainly because of the size of the sample (8 participants). The justification of the methodology is not robust (too generic). This election must be explained properly with research criteria.
Data collection and analysis must provide more insight in how the drawings were analyzed.
In general, the feeling is that there was no clear objective for this paper, since it does not clearly present a methodology for studying, neither the results of a study with s strong scientific support. My suggestions would be for the authors to describe carefully all the procedures undertook and deeply assess the conclusions and the validity of the study itself, with the small sample of people it includes as representative of a broader population.
Author Response
We really want to thank the editor for having acknowledged the potentiality of our study, as well as all the reviewers who have devoted their time in carefully and critically reading our paper, providing meaningful suggestions to improve our work, especially in the methods and discussion sections, without changing the main message and the structure of the paper. Also, the manuscript underwent English revision to promote clarity and readability.
We tried to address the reviewer’s suggestions (see the point-by-point comments below) and modified the paper accordingly.
The central topic of the research article: Training emotional skills of adults with Intellectual Disability in the time of COVID-19 is of great interest although it has been approached from a very particular context and the results are not discussed with previous studies in this regard.
R: following the reviewers’ suggestions, we have now discussed our results also taking into consideration previous work on the topic
The introduction has few significant references. In some places it seems more like a manifesto or an opinion piece than an element of support for the arguments presented below. Once again, the topic is quite relevant, but it lacks more support and a better connection between the different sections of the document.
R: we extended the introduction by giving more space to some meaningful contribution to the topic
In the introduction authors can explain their motivations and why the issue is relevant.
R: following the reviewer’s suggestion, we added a specific section in the introduction where we discuss our research questions, aims and relevance of the study
The literature review must be orderly: ideas are not connected. I suggest to group ideas and create a logic discourse.
R: we tried to better connect the different sections in the introduction
The methodology of the research is weak, mainly because of the size of the sample (8 participants). The justification of the methodology is not robust (too generic). This election must be explained properly with research criteria.
R: We added more details about the experimental procedure and added a specific section in which we describe how rigor was ensured
Data collection and analysis must provide more insight in how the drawings were analyzed.
R: thank you for the opportunity to better explain this point. We now described better the approach used to analyze the drawings
In general, the feeling is that there was no clear objective for this paper, since it does not clearly present a methodology for studying, neither the results of a study with s strong scientific support. My suggestions would be for the authors to describe carefully all the procedures undertook and deeply assess the conclusions and the validity of the study itself, with the small sample of people it includes as representative of a broader population.
R: we focused our research in ensuring internal validity, by using standardized procedures and methods. Of course, from a sample of 8 participants is very difficult to generalize to the entire population of people with ID, considering how complex and heterogeneous it is. However, based on this first study, we will be able to extend our sample and, consequently, the external validity. We added this point at the end of the paper, as a limitation.
