Preliminary Study on Enhancing Literacy Skills Through Intervention Targeting Inhibitory Control, Cognitive Flexibility, Working Memory, and Attentional Control

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript explores the impact of an intervention designed to enhance executive functions—specifically inhibition, cognitive flexibility, working memory, and attentional control—on literacy skills in children aged 6 to 8.However, there are several major concerns that I recommend the authors to consider.

 

 -          The introduction has attempted to establish a connection between executive function and literacy skills. However, several parts of the discussion fail to expand on the link in a meaningful way. For example, on line 108-113, while the authors highlight key reading processes might be influenced by WM (e.g. phonological awareness, fluent reading, grapheme-phoneme conversion, the explanation lacks depth. It does not sufficiently clarify how WM facilitates these processes

-          The manuscript presents an intervention study aiming to enhance literacy skills by enhancing EF. However, the literature review fails to adequately support the intervention design. It lacks references to prior studies or theoretical frameworks that informed the intervention's structure, content, and methods.

-          Furthermore, the Procedure section does not clearly describe the specific activities in the intervention programme, , leaving readers with an incomplete understanding of how it was developed and implemented.

-          The study design raises critical concerns regarding its ability to attribute observed changes to the intervention. Specifically, the authors aimed to enhance inhibition, cognitive flexibility, working memory, and attentional control, at the same time. However, this approach does not sufficiently delineate the specific effects of the intervention on these variables.

-          Additionally, it is noteworthy that the pre-test scores for certain measures (e.g., EF and CF) show substantial disparities between the control and experimental groups, which may undermine the validity of the findings.

-          Finally, the authors need to have language editing as the writing is very difficult to follow

There are some typos

-          (p1line33) The present study addresses specific learning disorders related to literacy, …. This sentence is unclear

-          (p1 line 35, line 37, line 39) “Such abilities…” “These skills…” “these skills (line 390…” It is unclear what “such abilities” / “these skills” are referring to. Do the author refer them to the executive function? But this term has only appeared on p2.

-          (p2 line 63) “attentional control” has not been mentioned in the “tripartite taxonomy” the authors mentioned (citing Diamond, 2013; 2020)

Comments on the Quality of English Language

the authors need to have language editing as the writing is very difficult to follow

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors.

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. Below is my feedback.

Introduction

Each paragraph commences with defining terms and concepts and then provides surface knowledge on research relating to the term or concept. I ask that each paragraph has a greater emphasis on previous research and delves into the research that has been conducted in the past, providing gaps and suggestions that support the need for your research.  Lines 172-176 try to go in this direction. Provide less emphasis on teaching the content.

Method

In the note section under the table provide what the abbreviations are. For example, what does F, M, SD represent.

Fix Line 231 "(REY (Rey, A., 2009))."

Fix Line 246 "(α = 0·86)·"

Lines 293-311 Provide citations here that support the approach used as being valid and also reliable. This affirms that the approach has been replicated. 

Lines 335-337 are subjective and unnecessary. 

 Results

Table 3-5, place a 0 in front of the decimal point.

Discussion

This section effectively highlights the significant improvements in reading and writing abilities in the experimental group, attributed to the intervention program, while also detailing the shifting correlations between executive functions and literacy performance. However, it lacks critical details on the intervention methodology and statistical measures. The limitations also lack the emphasis on the potential confounding variables.

Lines 584- 605, condense this into one paragraph. 

Kindest regards

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the opportunity to review the work. The revised version has improved a lot compared to the last draft. However, I recommend the authors to consider the following suggestions

 1) the instruments need to indicate the maximum score to let the readers understand the tasks

2) More details are needed for the literacy analysis test. the authors mentioned a range of reading abilities. how are the scores distributed? how are these items being tested? any sample items? any measure on the interrater reliability?

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for making the significant changes to enhance the paper. In addition you have carefully considered the feedback provided.

Kindest regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your kind words and for your valuable feedback throughout the review process. Your insights have been instrumental in improving the quality of our paper. We truly appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work.

Kindest regards.