How Do Gender and Previous Contact with People with Disabilities Affect Students’ Attitudes Towards Inclusion in Physical Education? A Chilean–Spanish Experience

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The article addresses a topic of great relevance in the field of educational and social inclusion and does so through a very clear structure that facilitates the logical progression of the study. The introduction effectively contextualizes the problem; the methodology section applies current statistical techniques appropriately; and the results are presented in an orderly manner consistent with the study’s objective. Overall, this is an interesting, well-articulated piece of work with valid statistical analyses that will undoubtedly contribute to the advancement of knowledge, provided that the formal adjustments noted in the following sections are addressed.

1. Although the abstract briefly states the purpose of the study, the introduction does not end with an explicit statement of the main research objective. This omission makes it difficult for readers to assess the appropriateness of the design and the logical coherence among the background, methods, and results. I recommend adding a concluding paragraph to the introduction that clearly articulates both the identified knowledge gap and the overall objective. Doing so will enhance the manuscript’s transparency and argumentative strength.

1. Reference formatting

1. Reference 4 The article is missing both the volume and the issue number.
2. Reference 5 The volume is absent; include the issue as well if the journal uses one.
3. Reference 6 The parenthetical number “(1985)” appears to be incorrect and should be verified. A DOI (or a URL if no DOI is available) must also be provided.
4. Reference 7 The book title should be in sentence case (only the first word and proper nouns capitalized). The edition should be abbreviated and placed in parentheses: (4th ).
5. Reference 8 The word “From” should be lowercase. The DOI listed does not correspond to this publication (it belongs to Qi & Ha, 2012); it needs to be replaced with the correct DOI.
6. Reference 9 The article title must appear in sentence case.
7. Reference 13 The journal name is incorrect; it should read Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation.
8. Reference 15 The correct format is Children, 10(6), Article 
9. Reference 17 Adjust the journal title capitalization to Diversitas: Perspectivas en Psicologí
10. Reference 55 There is a duplicated DOI prefix (“https://doi.org/https://doi.org/…”). The correct format is International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19, 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments; they have been a great contribution to our work.
I have attached a document with the requested corrections.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s)

Your work is very interesting, and I believe it can make a meaningful contribution to the existing body of knowledge. Please find my comments below:

Tables

For accessibility purposes, all tables must be clearly described in the accompanying text.

Methodology

At line 237, the statement “Our first aim was CAIPER-S validation..” is not clearly integrated into the methodology section. The same issue applies to the second aim. It would strengthen the paper if a separate subsection were added to the methodology explicitly outlining the research questions.

Results

It would be highly beneficial if the results were structured according to each research question. This organization would enhance clarity and make the findings easier to follow.

References

Please ensure that all references consistently include their unique DOI number to facilitate accessibility and verification.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments; they have been a great contribution to our work.
I have attached a document with the requested corrections.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Peer Review

1. Introduction
   -There is a mismatch between the research title, objectives, and actual variables analyzed.
   -The study is highly similar to Reina et al. (2019), yet lacks a clear explanation of its distinct contribution.
   -The extensive description of national legislation (Chile and Spain) disrupts the structure and focus of the introduction.
   -The Inclusive Sport at School (ISS) program is central to the study but insufficiently explained.

2. Materials and Methods
   -The manuscript omits the institutional review board (IRB) approval number and details of the approving institution.
   -The connection between the ISS program and the timing or rationale of the survey is insufficiently addressed.
   -The structure of the measurement tool (CAIPER-S) and rationale for item deletion are not sufficiently explained.

3. Results and Discussion
   -The conditional regression tree (CART) analysis in Figure 1 lacks adequate visual and textual interpretation.
   -The interpretation of regional differences as policy outcomes is not empirically substantiated.
   -Although effect sizes are reported for each factor, the discussion lacks integrative interpretation across variables.

4. Conclusion
   -The claim that "recent generations are more inclusive" is a causal inference unsupported by the cross-sectional design.
   -Policy and educational implications are not sufficiently concrete.
   -The study lacks practical recommendations based on its empirical findings.
   -Suggestions for future research are vague and lack clear direction.
   
   
5. General Evaluation
   This study contributes meaningfully to the field by examining students’ attitudes toward inclusion in physical education across two national contexts—Spain and Chile. Its methodological strengths are evident in the use of validated measurement tools, thorough testing for cross-cultural measurement invariance, and the application of a non-parametric CART model. Nonetheless, several structural issues limit the clarity and coherence of the manuscript. These include misalignment between the stated aims and the actual scope of analysis, insufficient explanation of key components such as the ISS program, and interpretive claims that extend beyond what the data can reasonably support. For the manuscript to meet the standards of academic publication, it will require closer consistency between its objectives and analytical content, clearer contextual framing, and more focused, evidence-based conclusions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript demonstrates a generally competent command of English, and its key messages are conveyed with sufficient clarity. However, from the perspective of academic writing standards, the expression throughout the paper would benefit from further refinement. In particular, issues such as repetitive phrasing, the use of informal or vague terms (e.g., “deal with”), and occasional grammatical inaccuracies (especially in article usage and preposition choice) detract from the professional tone expected in scholarly work. While these do not obstruct comprehension, they do weaken the precision and authority of the argument. A careful round of academic proofreading, with attention to conciseness, lexical variation, and syntactic polish, is strongly recommended to enhance the manuscript’s readability and suitability for publication in an international journal.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments; they have been a great contribution to our work.
I have attached a document with the requested corrections.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments; they have been a great contribution to our work.
I have attached a document with the requested corrections.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This scientifically rigorous article makes a valuable contribution to the literature on inclusion in Physical Education (PE). The study is well-grounded theoretically, methodologically robust, and has clear implications for educational practice. Below are several detailed observations and suggestions aimed at further strengthening your work.

1. Originality and Relevance

The article demonstrates a high level of originality by offering a comparison between four Spanish-speaking regions (Extremadura, Ibiza, Madrid, and Santiago de Chile), an approach rarely found in the literature. Moreover, the use and adaptation of CAIPER-S in a transnational context is innovative.

Suggestion: It would be helpful to emphasize the novelty of this cross-cultural comparison more clearly in the Introduction. For example, you might highlight that “to our knowledge, no studies to date have directly compared students’ attitudes towards inclusion in PE between Chile and various Spanish regions” (see Line 302).

2. Methodological Clarity

The research design is explained, and the statistical procedures are presented in detail.

Strength: Split-sample validation with both EFA and CFA is relatively uncommon in educational research and demonstrates a high level of scientific rigor.

Suggestion: You can clarify the rationale for removing item 4 from the paragraph at line 238. What specifically did this “cross-loader” item measure, and why was it problematic? This would improve the transparency of your methodological decisions.

3. Strength of Argumentation and Discussion of Results

The arguments are well-founded, and the discussion is anchored in relevant and up-to-date sources. A strong example is the analysis of gender differences (line 305), which is linked to the existing literature (e.g., Hutzler, 2003; Reina et al., 2019) and interpreted coherently.

Suggestion: In the section on “Previous Contact with People with Disabilities” (line 318), consider expanding the explanation of why the lack of significant differences is an important finding. For instance, it may indicate the effectiveness of current educational strategies or a generally increased level of social awareness. This point is mentioned, but could benefit from deeper argumentation supported by comparative data or literature.

4. Engagement with Sources and Recent Scholarship

This article demonstrates the extensive and appropriate use of both foundational and recent references, including studies published in 2023–2024. The integration of national policy documents from Chile and Spain (e.g., Ley 20845, Ley Orgánica 3/2020) adds a strong local context.

Suggestion: It would be helpful to include a brief critical reflection on how differences in policy implementation, despite similar legislative frameworks, might affect student attitudes (lines 343–350).

5. Conclusions and Practical Implications

The conclusions are well supported by the data, and the emphasis on ongoing teacher training is highly relevant (lines 372–382).

Suggestion: Consider adding a short section with concrete recommendations for teachers or policymakers based on your findings. For example, “ISS-type programs should be tailored to different settings (urban vs. rural) given the contrasts observed between Extremadura and Santiago” (lines 343–350).

6. Minor Observations

• Terminology: In line 298, the phrase “Our The primary aim” appears to contain a typographical error and should be corrected.

• Tables: While the tables are clear, they would benefit from a brief interpretive caption to aid readers less familiar with statistics (e.g., Tables 3 and 4).

This is a well-structured, coherent paper that makes a real contribution to the field of inclusive physical education. With minor revisions and enhancements, it has the potential to become a key reference in the international literature on inclusive education.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments; they have been a great contribution to our work.
I have attached a document with the requested corrections.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revision substantially improves the manuscript’s structure and clarity—strengthening the alignment among the research rationale, hypotheses, methods, and principal findings; clarifying the CAIPER-R validation and measurement invariance procedures; and sharpening the interpretation of CART outputs alongside practice-oriented implications. Before publication, a small set of targeted edits will further enhance transparency, parsimony, and international readability.

1. Present the ethics information concisely by naming the approving institution and inserting the formal IRB approval number in the Participants or Ethics paragraph; for a school-age sample, retain a single sentence confirming parental consent, anonymity, and the right to withdraw.
2. Streamline the introduction by summarizing ISS/PSD in three to four sentences (purpose, core activities, teacher role, frequency) and linking this summary directly to the stated hypotheses; compress the legislation section to two or three sentences that cite only provisions that bear on the analytic variables (e.g., reasonable accommodations, teacher professional development, resource allocation), moving descriptive details to an appendix.
3. Consolidate the measures and validation reporting by stating, in one paragraph, the CAIPER-R subscales, item counts, response scale, scoring (including any reverse-coded items); justify the removal of item 4 in a single line with EFA/CFA thresholds (e.g., low loading/cross-loading); and present multi-group invariance as a compact table indicating configural/metric/scalar/strict decisions together with the Δ-index criteria (e.g., ΔCFI, ΔRMSEA). Where relevant, report Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω in the same table and reserve bootstrap confidence intervals for a brief footnote.
4. Report the core results succinctly by stating the main effect of gender, the city differences, and the null effect of prior contact with the corresponding key statistics; add one integrative paragraph that translates the magnitude of r into educational meaning for lesson design (monitor and observe → adjust task composition → consider structural changes). Improve the CART figure caption with one or two sentences that state the root variable, split thresholds, and terminal-node interpretation, and keep the textual interpretation explicitly correlational rather than causal.
5. Conclude without inferring policy effects, framing city variation as differences in local implementation and resource distribution; limit practitioner guidance to two sentences (structured contact activities and targeted teacher professional development), and restrict future-research pointers to a single sentence recommending longitudinal or mixed-methods designs and measurement of the quality of prior contact (reciprocity, emotional tone, frequency).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Apply a final language edit focused on articles, prepositions, subject–verb agreement, elimination of stacked discourse markers, and replacement of colloquial verbs with precise academic verbs; ensure consistent terminology and uniform table/figure captions aligned with journal style.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. They have made a great contribution to our study.
I have attached a document with the requested modifications.

These are the responses to your comments:

1. Present the ethics information concisely by naming the approving institution and inserting the formal IRB approval number in the Participants or Ethics paragraph; for a school-age sample, retain a single sentence confirming parental consent, anonymity, and the right to withdraw.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment; we believe it is very important. The information regarding the ethics committee has been presented in accordance with reviewer 3's suggestions, and the registration number of the

2. Streamline the introduction by summarizing ISS/PSD in three to four sentences (purpose, core activities, teacher role, frequency) and linking this summary directly to the stated hypotheses; compress the legislation section to two or three sentences that cite only provisions that bear on the analytic variables (e.g., reasonable accommodations, teacher professional development, resource allocation), moving descriptive details to an appendix.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment; we believe it is very important. The ISS program description has been summarized; it is highlighted in red in the document. Educational legislation has been summarised so that it is in line with the essentials for each country

3. Consolidate the measures and validation reporting by stating, in one paragraph, the CAIPER-R subscales, item counts, response scale, scoring (including any reverse-coded items); justify the removal of item 4 in a single line with EFA/CFA thresholds (e.g., low loading/cross-loading); and present multi-group invariance as a compact table indicating configural/metric/scalar/strict decisions together with the Δ-index criteria (e.g., ΔCFI, ΔRMSEA). Where relevant, report Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω in the same table and reserve bootstrap confidence intervals for a brief footnote.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. We believe it contributes to the summary of the document.Your suggestion was taken into consideration, and the paragraph explaining the instrument was reduced.

Regarding this comment:

"and present multi-group invariance as a compact table indicating configural/metric/scalar/strict decisions along with the Δ-index criteria (e.g., ΔCFI, ΔRMSEA). Where relevant, report Cronbach's α and McDonald's ω in the same table and reserve bootstrap confidence intervals for a brief footnote."

4. Report the core results succinctly by stating the main effect of gender, the city differences, and the null effect of prior contact with the corresponding key statistics; add one integrative paragraph that translates the magnitude of r into educational meaning for lesson design (monitor and observe → adjust task composition → consider structural changes).

Answer: We appreciate the comment; once again, we believe it contributes to the writing and understanding of the document. The paragraph and information requested are adjusted as requested. We believe that Tables 2 and 3 provide a concise representation of the information, so we would like to leave these tables as they appear.

5. Improve the CART figure caption with one or two sentences that state the root variable, split thresholds, and terminal-node interpretation, and keep the textual interpretation explicitly correlational rather than causal.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. Based on your proposal, the caption has been adjusted to make the figure clearer.

Based on your request, a summary paragraph of the results is prepared, providing insight into the main findings to facilitate analysis.

6. Conclude without inferring policy effects, framing city variation as differences in local implementation and resource distribution; limit practitioner guidance to two sentences (structured contact activities and targeted teacher professional development), and restrict future-research pointers to a single sentence recommending longitudinal or mixed-methods designs and measurement of the quality of prior contact (reciprocity, emotional tone, frequency).

Answer: Conclusions have been summarized following the reviewer’s 3 suggestions.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revisions requested in the first review were not fully incorporated. Furthermore, the author’s response addressed only part of the required changes. Despite this, it appears that no substantive revisions have been made to the manuscript. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. They have made a great contribution to our study.
I have attached a document with the requested modifications.

These are the responses to your comments:

The revisions requested in the first review were not fully incorporated. Furthermore, the author’s response addressed only part of the required changes. Despite this, it appears that no substantive revisions have been made to the manuscript.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment; it's very important to us as a research team. We respond to each of them for your consideration.

1. The background of the study is appropriately presented in the introduction. However, the necessity of the research is not clearly articulated. Specifically, the question, "Why should this research be conducted?" should be explicitly addressed. Please provide a clear rationale for the necessity of the study.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comments. We have adjusted the introduction to consider your proposal.

2. While the purpose of the study has been stated, a specific research hypothesis has not yet been presented. Please formulate and include a clear hypothesis.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comments. We have adjusted the introduction to consider your proposal.

3. The specific demographic characteristics of the research participants are not presented. Please provide a detailed table outlining the characteristics of the 3,732 participants, including data such as gender, age, region, type of educational institution, education level, and previous experience with individuals with disabilities.

Answer: We find this comment very important. In the results section, we have included a table indicating all the characteristics of the sample.

4. Additional clarification is required regarding the measurement scales. First, the background of the “CAIPER-S” scale is not explained. Please provide a detailed description of the constructs GP and SP. Second, the rationale for selecting 10 out of the original 12 items is not provided. This should be clearly justified. Moreover, issues related to validity and reliability must be addressed in the research methods section. The study reports the use of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) for validity testing, which is not appropriate in this context. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) should be used instead. Additionally, include appropriate measures of convergent validity, such as Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and Composite Reliability (CR). It is also noted that some of the reported reliability coefficients fall below the acceptable threshold of 0.70. Since reliability values of 0.70 or higher are generally considered acceptable, this should be reviewed and revised accordingly. Please ensure that the above concerns regarding validity and reliability are thoroughly addressed.

Answer: We greatly appreciate the comments; we believe they provide an insightful and accurate understanding of the study.

• Regarding suggestions for further explanation of the CAIPER-R instrument, a paragraph was added that elaborates on its values and validation structure. This is in the "Measures" section.
• As for clarifying why item 4 was removed, it is explained in the "results" section.
• To clarify the use of the analysis processes, we believe it is an appropriate procedure, and we have adjusted it for better understanding. However, we believe it is important to point out that we maintain that its use is appropriate. For this analysis, the process is essential due to two specific circumstances:

1. The instrument is specifically validated for the Spanish population, so creating a validation model that includes the Chilean population is essential.
2. In addition, it is important to know if there are differences within the groups, since the different countries may create difficulties related to social or idiosyncratic factors. Therefore, a group invariance analysis is justified.
3. Adequacy and Consistency

The process follows a logical and rigorous flow. It begins with dividing the data into training and test sets, an essential practice for cross-validation. This prevents overfitting and ensures that the instrument's structure is replicable in new data. Exploratory and Confirmatory Analysis: A combination of EFA and CFA is used, representing a two-stage approach. EFA is used to "discover" the structure in the training set, while CFA "confirms" it in the test set, demonstrating that the model is stable and generalizable. Handling Non-Normality: The decision to use Principal Axis Factor Extraction in the case of multivariate non-normality is a sound and appropriate methodological choice for non-normal data, overcoming the limitations of the Maximum Likelihood method.

Assessing Invariance: The inclusion of Multiple Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFA) is critical. It allows for verification of whether the instrument measures the same construct comparably across different groups, which is critical for making meaningful comparisons between populations.

2. Updating Standards

The process aligns with the most recent recommendations in psychometrics and psychological assessment:

Use of Omega: The use of Total Omega in addition to Cronbach's Alpha is a sign of updating. Many authors have criticized Cronbach's Alpha for its reliance on tau equivalence (i.e., the assumption that all factor loadings are equal), which is often not met in practice. Omega is a more robust measure of internal consistency.

Bootstrap Methods: The use of 1,000 bootstrap iterations to calculate confidence intervals for factor loadings and internal consistency is an advanced and reliable technique. It provides a more accurate estimate of parameter variability, which is superior to traditional asymptotic approaches.

Exhaustive Assessment of Invariance: The assessment of the four levels of invariance (configural, weak, strong, strict) is a standard in current research. It comprehensively addresses the question of whether the construct is equivalent across groups.

3. Use of References

The text explicitly relies on academic literature, demonstrating that the approach is not arbitrary but based on scientific consensus.

Parallel Analysis: Hayton et al., 2004, and Raîche et al., 2013, are cited as key references for this method of determining the number of factors.

Factor Extraction: The choice of extraction method for non-normal data is supported by Costello & Osborne, 2005, and Winter & Dodou, 2012.

Criticisms of Cronbach's Alpha: The inclusion of Omega is justified by citing Dunn et al., 2014; Peters, 2014; Sijtsma, 2009, demonstrating an awareness of current debates in psychometric measurement.

Measurement Invariance: The procedures and levels of invariance are supported by Hirschfeld & Von Brachel, 2014, and Putnick & Bornstein, 2016, authoritative sources in this field. The interpretation of marginal differences is based on Cheung & Rensvold, 2002.

In conclusion, the text presents a validation protocol that meets the highest standards of methodological rigor in psychometrics, demonstrating its validity and reliability through a comprehensive process well-grounded in the literature.

5. The discussion section includes analysis of variables such as gender, urban/rural area, disability status, and previous contact experience. However, the most critical context that should be addressed in the discussion is the development of inclusive attitudes toward individuals with disabilities in physical education. This core element is missing. A more focused and detailed discussion aligned with the central research topic is strongly recommended. Overall, substantial revision and supplementation of the discussion section are required. The researcher is advised to conduct a comprehensive review in this regard

Answer: Thank you very much for your comments. We have adjusted the discussion to consider your proposal.

Best regards

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I acknowledge the researcher's stated position on the research methodology in response to the initial review. However, although the researcher claims to have revised the manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments, these revisions are not reflected in the actual content of the paper. I am unable to verify that the revisions have been implemented as stated. In particular, the reviewer’s comments have not been incorporated at all in the introduction and discussion sections. Therefore, I am unable to recommend this manuscript for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
We appreciate your feedback and hope this opportunity will clarify the process, allowing you to see the adjustments and responses we have provided.

I am sharing with you the revised document (version 1) with its corresponding letter, which details all the adjustments made, and the revised document (version 2) with the letter outlining the new adjustments.

You can find the documents at this link.

If you agree, we can make some more adjustments based on your request to better meet your needs and optimize our work.

Our intention was not to disregard your comments during the review; rather, they were considered and incorporated along with those of the other reviewers, so they may be included in other adjustments.

In any case, we want to reiterate that your requests are valid and important, so if they were not addressed at any point, we sincerely apologize and hope that they have been adequately addressed this time.

Thank you in advance. Best regards.