Development and Validation of an Assessment Tool for Physical Education for Sustainable Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The text is very interesting, it deals with the relationship between PE and the SDGs. In this introductionxbiographical review demonstrates the importance of PE in various actions to achieve the SDG. The sample space proposed by the authors is good, the text is very clear. The statistical study was able to make it clear that the proposed questionnaires are valid and can be useful in carrying out actions in different circumstances.

The only significant thing that I suggest at least a convincing explanation for is why the sample space only deals with teachers from countries with a Latin language (Spanish and/or Spanish)? I wonder, would it be applicable in countries whose mother tongue is another language other than Spanish? Does this influence?

Author Response

The text is very interesting, it deals with the relationship between PE and the SDGs. In this introduction biographical review demonstrates the importance of PE in various actions to achieve the SDG. The sample space proposed by the authors is good, the text is very clear. The statistical study was able to make it clear that the proposed questionnaires are valid and can be useful in carrying out actions in different circumstances.

Thank you very much for your comment.

The only significant thing that I suggest at least a convincing explanation for is why the sample space only deals with teachers from countries with a Latin language (Spanish and/or Spanish)? I wonder, would it be applicable in countries whose mother tongue is another language other than Spanish? Does this influence?

The teachers were from countries with a Latin language because the questionnaire was in the Spanish language. However, we think that the next step in this process with the tool must be to translate it into other languages. It will allow us to expand the tool to other countries.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

The present research provides a detailed overview of the development and validation of the PESD (Physical Education for Sustainable Development) tool for assessing the teaching interventions of physical education teachers in the context of sustainable development. It is evident that you aim to fill a research gap by providing a specific and valid instrument to measure how physical education teachers support the development of sustainable attitudes in students.

However, I believe the paper has some shortcomings, which I would like to mention below:

1.    I consider that the title should be reformulated in a way that does not contain abbreviations and is sufficiently conclusive. For example, "Development and Validation of an Assessment Tool for Physical Education for Sustainable Development."

2.    Introduction

·        Line 25 – "....the past year, 2020...," I believe that the past year was 2022!!! Please correct!

·        Lines 43-44 - I think references supporting the statement should be added.

·        Lines 50-52 - References supporting the statement should be added.

·        Lines 59-60 – I believe you should synthetically present why all these 17 objectives are generated by education. Also, the source behind this statement should be mentioned.

·        Lines 79-80 - What were those documents? Please mention a few of them.

·        Line 85 – "other institutions have pointed...," which are those institutions? Please specify a bit more clearly.

·        Table 1 – In the text, 24 goals to help PE teachers were mentioned, but the table only contains 22. Please explain this difference! Is it a writing error?

·        Lines 122 – 124 – Please elaborate on the statement, presenting at each source what dimensions it addresses.

·        Lines 128-129 – Please mention some of this evidence.

·        I believe the introduction chapter should mention if there are other assessment tools like this and if so, briefly present them. Also, highlight the benefits this instrument can bring to both teachers and the educational system in general. How can it contribute to improving the quality of education and shaping responsible future citizens?

3.    Methods

·        Was there an agreement or project under which this scientific endeavor was carried out? Please specify this aspect! Additionally, was the consent of the study participants obtained?

·        Specify the criteria for participant selection (both inclusion and exclusion criteria).

·        How did you access the contact data of the participants?

·        I notice that participants are from countries where Spanish is the official language. Why did you choose Spain, a European country, and the rest from the American continent???

4.    Results

·        I believe the results are incompletely presented. What were the results obtained from the questionnaire? I think the analysis should be presented separately for the countries involved in the research (results obtained in more developed countries may influence those in less developed countries).

5.    Discussion

·        Line 300 – What are the other validated tools? Please mention them along with the source!

·        Lines 337 – 340 – To make this claim, the interpretation of the obtained responses should be presented to see how effective they are and where teaching deficiencies regarding sustainability are encountered in the countries involved.

·        Line 360 – "....the results found in this study...." – What results?

Author Response

The present research provides a detailed overview of the development and validation of the PESD (Physical Education for Sustainable Development) tool for assessing the teaching interventions of physical education teachers in the context of sustainable development. It is evident that you aim to fill a research gap by providing a specific and valid instrument to measure how physical education teachers support the development of sustainable attitudes in students.

Thank you very much for your comment.

However, I believe the paper has some shortcomings, which I would like to mention below:

1. I consider that the title should be reformulated in a way that does not contain abbreviations and is sufficiently conclusive. For example, "Development and Validation of an Assessment Tool for Physical Education for Sustainable Development."

The title has been changed according to the reviewer suggestion.

2. Introduction

• Line 25 – "....the past year, 2020...," I believe that the past year was 2022!!! Please correct!

OK, it has been changed.

• Lines 43-44 - I think references supporting the statement should be added.

      Authors have been added

• Lines 50-52 - References supporting the statement should be added.

      Authors have been added

• Lines 59-60 – I believe you should synthetically present why all these 17 objectives are generated by education. Also, the source behind this statement should be mentioned.

      It has been briefly explained why SDG 4 is key to education. The source of this assertion has also been mentioned.

• Lines 79-80 - What were those documents? Please mention a few of them.

           Ok.

• Line 85 – "other institutions have pointed...," which are those institutions? Please specify a bit more clearly.

      Ok.

• Table 1 – In the text, 24 goals to help PE teachers were mentioned, but the table only contains 22. Please explain this difference! Is it a writing error?

      Thank you for your appreciation, it has been corrected. But in fact, it is 21, not 22. You can see how it has been modified.

• Lines 122 – 124 – Please elaborate on the statement, presenting at each source what dimensions it addresses.

      It has been explained with each dimension in consideration. Thank you very much for your comment.

• Lines 128-129 – Please mention some of this evidence.

      Ok.

• I believe the introduction chapter should mention if there are other assessment tools like this and if so, briefly present them. Also, highlight the benefits this instrument can bring to both teachers and the educational system in general. How can it contribute to improving the quality of education and shaping responsible future citizens?

           Please review the final paragraphs of the introduction where we have embedded the idea you request. Thank you very much for your valuable feedback

3. Methods

• Was there an agreement or project under which this scientific endeavor was carried out? Please specify this aspect! Additionally, was the consent of the study participants obtained?

There was no project under which this study was conducted. Following the suggestion of the reviewer, a statement in relation with the informed consent has been added at the end of the procedure section: “All the participants were of legal age and they gave their informed consent about their participation in this study”.

• Specify the criteria for participant selection (both inclusion and exclusion criteria).

The criteria for participant selection were to be a Physical Education teacher. Adicionally, we add this text: “To validate the questions of this qualitative instrument, we have previously consulted experts in the educational field and sustainable development, specifically recognized researchers in physical education and the integration of the SDGs in this area”

• How did you access the contact data of the participants?

          We have added the following text to resolve your pertinent comment:” In the process of selecting teachers for the study, the educational institution's official email was used as the primary means of contact. Additionally, we encouraged participation from known teachers in the research, aiming to enhance the study's scope and depth. This strategy was intended to ensure an adequate representation of the teachers' perspective in the findings.”

• I notice that participants are from countries where Spanish is the official language. Why did you choose Spain, a European country, and the rest from the American continent???

The teachers were from countries with a Latin language because the questionnaire was in the Spanish language. However, we think that the next step in this process with the tool must be to translate it into other languages. It will allow us to expand the tool to other countries.

4. Results

• I believe the results are incompletely presented. What were the results obtained from the questionnaire? I think the analysis should be presented separately for the countries involved in the research (results obtained in more developed countries may influence those in less developed countries).

      We thought about the possibility of presenting the results obtained separately by countries. However, due to our objective was to validate the questionnaire, we decided to present the general results with all the countries which took part. Thus, we have the validation of the questionnaire in the Spanish language. The next step will be to validate the questionnaire by translating it into other languages.

5. Discussion

• Line 300 – What are the other validated tools? Please mention them along with the source!

      We have added the different references associated with the instruments.

• Lines 337 – 340 – To make this claim, the interpretation of the obtained responses should be presented to see how effective they are and where teaching deficiencies regarding sustainability are encountered in the countries involved.

      Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your comment. We find your suggestion appropriate, and for this reason, we have changed the affirmative wording of the sentence to a more cautious phrasing.

• Line 360 – "....the results found in this study...." – What results?

The sentence has been improved: “whether the good index of validity and reliability of the questionnaire found in this study”.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Author, I congratulate you for your work. I have studied your work carefully. There are some questions that need to be answered, especially in the method section, and the answers to these questions should be stated in the method section. What is the systematics of sample selection? Seems like a random choice. How were the items determined during the preparation phase of the scale? Among how many items were 25 items chosen? What is the purpose of using 8-point Likert? What advantage does the 8-point Likert have over the 7-point Likert in this study? As I stated in my peer review report, I believe that a reader should see the answers to these questions in the method section.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Author, I congratulate you for your work. I have studied your work carefully. There are some questions that need to be answered, especially in the method section, and the answers to these questions should be stated in the method section.

Thank you very much for your feedback. We firmly believe that your feedback will improve the quality of the manuscript.

What is the systematics of sample selection? Seems like a random choice.

The systematic sample selection was for convenience.

How were the items determined during the preparation phase of the scale?

The items selected were chosen after a literature review on this topic. After this selection phase, seven experts checked the content validity.

Among how many items were 25 items chosen?

The initial list of items was composed of 26 items.

What is the purpose of using 8-point Likert? What advantage does the 8-point Likert have over the 7-point Likert in this study?

The 8-point Likert scale avoids the tendency to centre on the participants.

As I stated in my peer review report, I believe that a reader should see the answers to these questions in the method section.

Thank you very much for all your comments. We firmly believe that the manuscript has improved significantly, especially in the method section.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Thanks for taking the suggestions I made into account. However, I still have a small concern regarding the results section. I understood the purpose of the research, but I would like to know if the results obtained for each country involved validated this tool. There is a possibility that the results obtained in a more developed country will annihilate those in a less developed one. That was why I requested the breakdown of the results!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your feedback and for highlighting the importance of a detailed breakdown of the results by country. I would like to clarify that the tool has been validated for the Spanish language exclusively, rather than for any specific country. This distinction is crucial as it allows the tool to be applied across various Spanish-speaking regions, irrespective of the country's level of development.

However, your point regarding the potential disparities in results between more and less developed countries is both valid and a challenge for us.

It's an aspect that we acknowledge as significant and certainly worthy of in-depth exploration. To address this, we are considering specifying that the current validation is primarily for Spanish-speaking countries.

This approach would help delineate the scope of our current research while acknowledging the limitations inherent in not including a broader, more international sample.

In future research, we plan to expand our validation to include a more diverse set of countries, including European nations. This will allow us to explore the nuances and variations in tool effectiveness across different cultural and developmental contexts. Your suggestion will be a valuable addition to our future research agenda, offering a more comprehensive understanding of the tool's applicability and effectiveness.

In the limitations and future research section of the manuscript, we have added this idea (lines 306-310). The new paragraph added is in red.

We appreciate your insightful comments and are committed to incorporating them into our ongoing and future research efforts.

Best regards,

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Author, thank you for your explanations and revision.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments about the manuscript.