The Social Motivational Orientations in Sport Scale (SMOSS): Validation for Portuguese Physical Education Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

It is a pleasure to review this research. I see a significant effort to advance towards the validation of instruments and scales to assess variables that are typically studied in hegemonic languages such as English. Congratulations on this intention.

Regarding the article, I have some observations:

1. In the introduction, paragraph 1: I notice a disconnect between the presentation of the motivation variable and the Achievement Goal Theory. While it may seem evident, it is important to connect them theoretically.

2. In the introduction, paragraph 2: You immediately present the SMOSS instrument. However, it is reintroduced in paragraph 4 and once again in the methodology section.

3. In the introduction, paragraph 3: You present SMOSS as a novelty, despite it being an instrument that has been used for years.

4. In the introduction, paragraph 4: You present SMOSS in the same way as in the methodology section.

5. In the introduction, paragraph 5: There is repetition of words. Please review the writing.

I suggest revising the entire structure of the introduction. Provide more background on the theory underlying SMOSS before discussing the instrument itself.

In the "Materials and Methods" section, I suggest reviewing what is included in the introduction and the presentation of the instruments to avoid content duplication. Additionally, please describe why the variable "Social Cohesion" and its respective instrument were selected as a baseline in the validation of the SMOSS.

Also, Table 3 has formatting issues. Please review and correct them.

In the Discussion section, there is a lack of contrast with other research or authors discussing this variable or connected variables. I observe many assumptions without supporting arguments or citations. The definition of "Social Cohesion" should be placed earlier in the text, not in the discussion.

Please review the limitations. For example, you state in the title and objectives that the instrument will be validated for Portuguese students, so it cannot be considered a limitation that it is not applicable to Brazilian students, regardless of the language. I encourage you to reflect and identify more concrete limitations in your study.

Lastly, the references might be outdated. Please review recent research. The study of motivation has grown exponentially, and many publications in recent years could be useful.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the opportunity to review this article. The topic addressed in this article is highly relevant, as numerous studies focus on how social factors influence motivation for sports participation. However, it is important to note that this study is primarily limited to the translation and validation of a specific questionnaire. Although this contribution is valuable, especially for the Portuguese-speaking scientific community, the article could have been enriched by including a broader range of questionnaires with various analyses. This would have allowed for the exploration of motivational relationships in the context of achievement theory or self-determination theory. Nonetheless, despite this limitation, this study can be a valuable contribution to research in this field within the Portuguese-speaking context.

Introduction

The article would benefit from a clearer explanation of how achievement theory relates to social goals. It would be helpful to provide examples from studies conducted in other countries that have explored these relationships, as this would help contextualize and support the study’s conclusions. Additionally, while the translation of the questionnaire is a significant innovation, it would be beneficial to detail the potential practical benefits that this translation could offer. This could be included in a section on practical implications following the conclusions.

Furthermore, it would be valuable to include specific data obtained from the SMOSS in other populations. Comparing these data with the findings of this study in the discussion would allow for a more comprehensive and enriched interpretation of the results. This comparison would provide a broader context and help assess the applicability and generalizability of the findings in different contexts.

Materials and Methods

The materials and methods used are rigorous, as is the translation and validation of the questionnaire.

Results

The results are presented appropriately; there is nothing to contest.

Discussion

The discussion is correct but lacks comparison with different scientific articles. Without this, the article remains merely a validation of the questionnaire and does not offer anything beyond that. It would be interesting to highlight differences with other countries based on descriptive data obtained from the questionnaire. I believe the discussion is too brief. The limitations are included in the discussion, but in my opinion, they should be presented after the conclusions.

Practical Implications

The conclusions are correct, but as mentioned earlier, I believe a section on practical implications could be added. What will knowing this questionnaire be useful for beyond theoretical and scientific research? There are multiple studies that not only validate and translate a questionnaire but also perform analyses such as structural equation modeling with different variables.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations on the work done. In my opinion, the article is suitable for publication.