Learning Infant Development and Surveillance Through a Series of Board Games Designed for Psychology Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript, “Learning Infant Development and Surveillance through Series of Board Games Designed for Psychology Students.” Considering the importance of expertise in child development, especially when working with young children, exploring various instructional methods to determine their effectiveness in helping students learn about development and across developmental domains seems valuable. I was intrigued by your investigation into board games to teach about development as it not only promotes active engagement with the materials but has the possibility of doing so in an enjoyable way. I did, however, have a few questions and concerns that I think would be beneficial for you to consider as you continue to work towards publication.

As psychologists perform different roles and in different settings, which I realize could be at least partly due to the location of services (e.g., region, country, etc.) as well, I think it would be helpful to further clarify the role of the psychologist you are discussing in your article. For example, do all psychologists in the country in which the study was carried out (Thailand?) pursue occupation in healthcare settings? Further, do all psychologists in your country, or at least those in healthcare settings, engage in infant surveillance? And, as a school psychologist with an extensive background in child development, I am not clear on what exactly is mean by infant surveillance, meaning what it all entails, and believe that others will have the same questions. It SEEMS that it involves ongoing assessment of a child’s development to determine any developmental delay and therefore need for additional supports and services? Further elaborating more upon these two ideas/questions, and early in the paper, seems to be important.

Going along with the above questions, I am curious as to why the specific undergraduate courses/students were selected for the study. While I realize they are in a psychology course, are all of the undergraduate students participating in your study presumed to go into healthcare? Will they all engage in infant surveillance? Or, are there particular classes for students interested in becoming a psychologist within a healthcare setting and performing infant surveillance? Elaborating on the WHY behind the course/participant selection for your study seems needed.

I appreciate your creativity in considering an alternative instructional method and that support from the literature was brought in for support of its (board games) use in instructional settings; and, that there was also an acknowledgement of limitations/gaps in the literature for their use in this particular content area. I do wonder if a strict focus on developmental milestones  within the games is the most beneficial way for teaching development. While it is clear that you used the CDC milestones, they are still only markers of development, influenced by multiple factors, including inherent limitations based upon how they were originally developed. Understanding and “using” development goes past knowledge of milestones, rather it involves determining the child’s current skills and abilities and then the professional using his or her knowledge of development to determine next steps and how to plan to help a child “get there.” I am curious how “application” of developmental knowledge, as well as on critical factors that influence child development, is integrated into the board games/particular method. OR, if it was a intentional decision to focus only on developmental milestones for some particular purpose (e.g., memory of milestones/concepts), that would be helpful to know as well.

For the actual games, I appreciated the table in which you provided some detail on the description of the different games, what developmental domain/skill they each were designed to broadly cover, and what more popular game they were based off of. However, I think that more information on game development is needed. Specifically, how did you choose the specific content area (developmental domain/skill) to cover? How did you choose the “mainstream” games that the study board games were based upon? What was the process followed for the actual construction of the game? How did you use existing information (i.e., literature, purpose of the game type, etc.) to develop each of the games? The ”why” and “how” behind the development of each of the games is lacking. I did read about the ADDIE model being utilized, but more procedural information would be helpful. Further, I think it would be helpful to discuss why you decided to combine fine motor with cognitive problem-solving in one game.

As far as procedures, how often did the students play the games each week? Was it one 50-minute period for each game per week—so each game was played only 1 time? How was this decided upon?

Information on the Development Surveillance and Promotion Manual (DSPM) is needed. As it appears that this tool is widely used when working with infants AND it was used to develop the pre- and post-test for this study, providing a description of what it entails/includes and how it is used for infant surveillance seems important. There shouldn’t be an assumption that your readers use it, or are even familiar with it.

In regard to the pre- and post-test, while it was stated that the selected experts confirmed both their accuracy and alignment with both the CDC milestones and the DSPM, how specifically were items chosen for the test? Were the items RIGHT FROM the DSPM or were they “inspired by” the DSPM?

For Figure 1, I think the 2^nd “pre-test” diamond should actually say “post-test.”

Finally, within the Discussion section, it was stated that “gains were observed immediately after all the games were played at the post-test…” Does this mean gains were observed based upon performance on the post-test? It reads as if the gains were seen immediately after EACH game was played AND at the post-test (and at follow-up). But, in the procedures section, it was stated that the pre-test was taken before the games were played and the post-test was given after ALL games were played, so after the 5 weeks of the study. If the statement is to read that gains were observed after each game (and the post-test), were the gains determined based upon student journals? Some other measure? Clarifying this would be helpful.

I do hope that this feedback is helpful as you continue to work towards publication. Good luck to you!

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments and insightful suggestions. Your feedback has been extremely helpful in improving the quality of our manuscript. We appreciate your time and effort in providing such detailed and constructive recommendations.

I have carefully revised the manuscript step by step to address each of your concerns. Below, we outline the specific changes made in response to your suggestions and a revised version was attached with highlights:

1. Clarification of Psychologist Roles

   • I have provided a clearer explanation of the role of psychologists in Thailand, particularly their involvement in healthcare settings and infant surveillance. This study focuses on psychology undergraduate students, who are required to learn about infant development as part of their training to ensure they acquire the necessary knowledge before graduation and becoming professional psychologists.
     
     I have explained that Psychology education programs should incorporate principles of infant and early childhood developmental healthcare, including the understanding of milestones and red flags to better equip students in this essential field (Osofsky & Lieberman, 2011). Additionally, undergraduate Thai psychology students' expectations of skill development in psychology majors, finding alignment with American Psychological Association (APA) tasks. It highlights the multifaceted nature of psychology education, from infant development to curriculum or intervention design for children and their parents, emphasizing the importance of practical developmental surveillance skills and adherence to professional guidelines in preparing students for future careers or further specialized psychology education (Lertgrai & Rhein, 2024).

2. Define infant surveillance and its practice

   • We have elaborated on defining the surveillance as Additionally, developmental surveillance is an ongoing process that monitors child development to identify potential delays at an early stage. In Thailand, the national developmental screening program, to enhance the early identification of developmental disorders and to promote early stimulation of child development from infancy up to 6 years old, utilizes the Developmental Surveillance and Promotion Manual (DSPM) with five developmental domains, namely, gross motor (GM), fine motor (FM), expressive language (EL), receptive language (RL), and personal and social (PS) aspects (http://thaichilddevelopment.com). The DSPM surveillence guidelines can also be used to assess a child’s progress across each developmental domain or early signs of developmental delays or disorders, aligned with their developmental age. Evaluator receives assessments based on their performance in each domain, providing parents, healthcare workers or educators with valuable insights into developmental areas that may need further stimulation or improvement. 

3. Board Game Content and Design Rationale

   • Additional details have been included regarding the development process of the games, selection criteria for developmental domains, and integration of application-based learning. I have added the information as The ADDIE Model, consisting of five steps (i.e., analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation), was employed to develop a learning model using board games (Trust & Pektas, 2018), along with the creation of storyboards for five board games. During the Analysis phase, learning needs, objectives, and the target audience were identified to ensure the games addressed key developmental domains through expert consultation, senior students’ feedback, and iterative design. The Design phase involved structuring the card game mechanics and content through mainstream games with interaction between peers. A mnemonic device (such as rhymes, visual image or acronyms) was partially applied as a helping tool for students to robust the memory during the card games. They were adapted for their engaging mechanics to known board games as exemplary recommendation from the study of Nordin & Omar (2022) and Revelle (2013). Game construction involved prototype development, pilot testing, and refinement informed by literature and expert insights for improving the quality of the games. 
     
     I have changed the information of Game 2 that covers on FM as the key for catching over the previous use of problem-solving. This is the language difference. The whole paragraph was presented as and to ensure coverage of five developmental domains of DSPM concepts.  The board games were as follows: Board Game 1 (GM covered): Let’s move together! (Infants and GM development: the essence of movement), Board Game 2 (FM covered): Help me catch it (Infants and FM development: the key for catching), Board Game 3 (PS covered): Come closer and win my heart! (Infants and socioemotional development: the foundation of bonding), Board Game 4 (EL & RL covered): Let’s understand my language! (Language and comprehension: predictors of infant intelligence), and Board Game 5 (DSPM surveillance guidelines covered): Keep an eye on me! (Monitoring infant development: a critical focus area). 

4. Study Procedures and Implementation

   • The frequency and duration of gameplay sessions have been clarified as The members of the group played each game in line with their assigned role and the rules of the game, in groups of approximately 5–6 people. The students in each group were not required to compete to win the game, but instead needed to work collaboratively to complete it. Each student was allocated a role in advance and took on different roles when playing each game three to four times within 50 minutes. 
     
     I applied 50 minutes because this duration is normal for learning hours, thus, it will fit when the game is applied in the real-classroom.

5. Details on DSPM and Pre/Post-Test

   • A more detailed description of the Developmental Surveillance and Promotion Manual (DSPM) and the process of pre/post-test item selection has been added. I have added as 

     In this study, pretests and posttests were administered to assess the students’ understanding of infant developmental milestones and surveillance. The tests covered four developmental milestone concepts and one screening and surveillance concept, adopting the concepts from DSPM. The test pool of 80 items, originally developed in the areas of infants’ GM development, FM development, socioemotional development, receptive and expressive language, and infant surveillance (aged 0–24 months), was validated by three learning and psychology experts using an Index of item Objective Congruence (IOC). In this study, all experts confirmed the accuracy of items, ensuring alignment with infant developmental milestones and the adoption of DSPM screening and surveillance guidelines.

6. Correction of Figure 1

   • The labeling error has been corrected. 

7. Clarification of Learning Gains in Discussion Section

   • We have specified how learning gains were measured and clarified whether they were observed after each game or only at post-test. I have changed as This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of the designed series of board games for learning about infant development and surveillance among psychology students using a convergent mixed-method approach. The quantitative study showed significantly higher knowledge scores in the experimental group than in the control group. The gains were observed at the posttest and at the follow-up phase. 

We sincerely appreciate your contribution to enhancing our study. Thank you once again for your thoughtful review.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper explores a board game-based teaching approach aimed at enhancing undergraduate psychology students’ understanding of infant development and surveillance. The study employs a mixed-method design, combining quantitative and qualitative methods, to validate the effectiveness of this teaching strategy compared to traditional methods. The paper provides a detailed description of the design rationale, game rules, and implementation process of the board games, and demonstrates the teaching effects through statistical analysis and qualitative feedback. However, the reviewer has the following concerns:

1. The literature review extensively cites studies on gamification and the use of board games in education; however, there is a relative scarcity of literature specifically evaluating the application of a series of board games to enhance psychology students' understanding of infant development and surveillance. The author primarily draws on research from other fields related to board games or gamification to infer the potential efficacy of this teaching tool in the realm of infant developmental surveillance. As a result, while the review provides a theoretical and practical basis for the study, it falls short in examining existing research directly related to this specific topic.

2. The paper acknowledges the limitations of traditional teaching methods and the potential advantages of gamification, the discussion on the research gap is somewhat lacking. The author mainly references literature on board games and gamification to justify the study’s necessity, but does not thoroughly analyze the shortcomings in previous research within this specific field. A clearer identification of the unresolved issues and gaps in earlier studies would have strengthened the argument for the study's innovation and necessity.

3. The discussion of the study’s contributions is rather generalized and lacks an in-depth exploration of specific points. Although the paper mentions the innovative teaching method, empirical support, and positive implications for educational practice, it fails to detail how these aspects concretely address gaps in the existing literature or provide unique improvements.

4. The sample consists of only 60 participants, all from a single university, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Future research should consider expanding the sample size and including participants from multiple institutions or regions to enhance external validity. If improving sample diversity is challenging, the author should at least discuss the limitations imposed by the current sample and offer suggestions for future sample selection.

5. While numerous factors can influence learning outcomes, the author only considers a limited set of these factors. It would be beneficial for the paper to discuss the potential impact of this selective focus, address the resulting limitations, and provide recommendations for future research to explore additional influencing factors.

6. The description of the coding process, inter-coder reliability, and the execution of reliability tests is insufficient. More detailed explanations of the steps involved in the content analysis and how data analysis credibility was ensured are necessary. Additionally, the experimental procedure should be elaborated upon to facilitate replication by other researchers. Moreover, the description of the conventional teaching intervention received by the control group should be more specific to enable a clear comparison between the two teaching methods.

7. The explanation of the statistical test results is somewhat brief and lacks an in-depth discussion of the effect sizes and their practical significance. This brevity makes it difficult for readers to fully understand the real-world impact behind the numerical findings. Furthermore, for some non-significant comparisons (e.g., the lack of significant differences between certain phases), there is insufficient discussion regarding potential reasons or underlying implications, and the analysis of marginal effects is notably absent.

8. While the results section includes detailed tables, the presentation of data in more intuitive formats—such as graphs or charts—is lacking. Such visual aids would facilitate easier comprehension and comparison of the information.

Author Response

I sincerely appreciate your valuable comments and insightful suggestions, which have significantly contributed to improving the quality of our manuscript. Your detailed feedback has provided us with clear directions for refinement, and we have carefully revised the paper step by step to address each of your concerns.  Track change has been attached. 

The key amendments include:

1. Enhanced Literature Review – Included more relevant studies directly related to psychology students' understanding of infant development and surveillance using board games. However, the board game for learning infant development was limited as the gap of the study. I have added the content as 

   However, as the gap of the study, the development of educational board games for developmental psychology for psychology students, as well as students in health-related fields such as medicine or nursing, is not yet widespread or has not been developed and validated through formal research processes (Abdulmajed et al., 2015). Developmental psychology has generated a vast amount of theory and research on the physical, cognitive, social, and emotional growth of children. However, this extensive body of knowledge has yet to be widely utilized by game developers creating content for learners (Revelle, 2013).

2. Clarified Research Gaps – Provided a more detailed analysis of previous research limitations to strengthen the study’s justification. I have added information for reasons of creating a board game with other methods in learning development psychology as Direct in-person observation of infants may be more suitable for institutions with medical schools or may have limitations due to the increased costs associated with site visits. With the growing number of students, coordinating conventional, in-person observation sessions has become increasingly difficult. Additionally, alternative approaches like closed-circuit television now face issues regarding personal data protection for children (Birnhack et al., 2018). Thus, previous studies suggested that integrating active learning approaches, such as the use of educational games in psychology education, may enhance students’ understanding and improve the overall effectiveness of learning (Connolly et al., 2012; Saracho, 2023; Subhash & Cudney, 2018).
3. Elaborated on Study Contributions – Expanded discussions on how our study addresses research gaps and offers unique contributions to psychology education. I have serious concerns then providing the content added as 

   Despite the above limitations, the findings of this research are promising. The use of board games, rather than a single teaching method, creates a dynamic and immersive learning environment, blending creativity with engagement. This approach transforms developmental psychology concepts into experiential learning through storytelling, role-playing, and problem-solving. By incorporating scenario-based challenges and collaborative missions as future direction for improvement, educators can design board games that foster critical reflection of delayed development, and real-world application of DSPM guideline. In addition to traditional methods like anchored instruction and small-group observation of infant assessments, board games offer a unique, interactive tool to reinforce concepts, such as those in the DSPM assessment. This innovative approach complements existing methods, enhances engagement, and improves content retention, addressing gaps in the literature.

4. Acknowledged Sample Size Limitations – Recognized the constraints of our sample and suggested future studies with larger and more diverse participants. To answer this concern, this study uses 60 samples for testing (30 samples for each group), which is a huge number of psychology students in a course per year (80 enrolled on the program each year - this study uses 60 students from 80 students). This study uses the biggest psychology program in the western region in Thailand as the example. However, I have provided limitation and suggestion as this study primarily focused on a specific demographic—undergraduate psychology students—limiting the generalizability of the results to other populations or educational contexts. The results may be more applicable to health-related students, such as nurses or medical students, learning about the DSPM, rather than parents using it for infant development understanding and monitoring. 
5. Considered Additional Learning Factors – Addressed the scope of influencing factors and recommended future research directions. I have added as 

   Additionally, board games may be better suited for reinforcing previously learned material than for generating new knowledge, particularly in complex topics (Martin et al., 2021). However, the findings of this study present the opposite view, showing that board games can be used to foster the development of new knowledge, rather than being limited to retention purposes alone. Additionally, previous research may support the idea that infant development is not a particularly complex topic that cannot be developed into a board game mechanism, as it follows a chronological order, age-based developmental progression.

   Effective educational board games should meet several key pedagogical and psychological criteria, including alignment with learning objectives, suitability for the target age group, inclusivity, relevance to the course content, and the integration of new concepts. Additionally,

   well-crafted games can promote critical thinking, problem-solving, creativity, and teamwork. These insights highlight the potential of board games as valuable tools for enriching the teaching of developmental psychology in higher education settings. The findings of this study align with previous research, confirming that games enhance enjoyment and motivation, particularly in group settings and over multiple sessions (Mangundjaya & Wicaksana, 2022; Revelle, 2013; Strode, 2019). Adaptability and inclusivity ensure that educational board games cater to diverse learning styles, abilities, and social interactions, making them more accessible (Ranuharja et al., 2021). Additionally, integrating board games with traditional teaching methods enhances knowledge retention and application, reinforcing learning outcomes (Gunbas & Eger Aydogmus, 2022; Zulkifli et al., 2023). This study further highlights that well-designed educational board games can effectively support learning when they incorporate engaging mechanics, structured play patterns, enjoyment and motivational elements for longer outcome as shown in post-game and follow-up phases.

6. Detailed Qualitative Analysis and Experimental Procedures – Improved descriptions of the coding process, inter-coder reliability, and control group methodology. I have provided detail as 

   Notably, conventional teaching, where the learner is a passive listener, involves delivering a sequential lecture on each developmental domain, similar to the experimental group. However, there was no interactive game or practical activitie for monitoring engagement.

   Before the experiment, only in the first week, all students completed a 30-min pretest before being allocated to groups. An experimenter then explained the rules and introduced the procedure depending on allocation to the experimental or control group. Subjects in the experimental group engaged in game-based learning, with their progress in each concept of infant development being recorded throughout the process, while the control group underwent conventional learning. Each week, students participated in a 50-min session playing one board game each week as follows: Week 1: Infants and GM development; Week 2: Infants and FM development; Week 3: Infants and socioemotional development; Week 4: Language and comprehension, and Week 5: Monitoring infant development. After each game, the participants in both the experimental and the control groups were required to write a reflective journal to reflect on what they had learned and experienced immediately to prevent forgetting, up to 10 minutes. At the conclusion of learning, the subjects took the 30-min posttest after the board game in week 5 to assess their knowledge and understanding of infant development and surveillance. The follow-up phase required 30-minute test to complete at week 8, then the answers to the test were provided to all subjects after the follow-up test. 
   
   and added as 

   As qualitative analysis, the reflective journals were analyzed qualitatively using content analysis. To ensure trustworthiness in this study, multiple strategies were employed, addressing credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability, and reflexivity. Credibility was established through prolonged engagement, persistent observation from researcher and assistances, triangulation of qualitative data sources, and member checking. The analysis involved two coders, including the researcher and trained assistances, who independently reviewed the data and assigned codes based on emerging themes. Predefined categories and coding instructions were created to ensure inter-coder reliability, and the coders were trained to maintain consistency. A reliability test was then conducted to compare the coders' results and assess their level of agreement. Transferability was supported by providing detailed descriptions of each game details, participants, and learning experiences to use as a psychologist use or recommendation section. Dependability was reinforced by maintaining an audit trail documenting the research process in each game in each week. Confirmability was ensured through researcher and assistances’ reflexivity, peer debriefing, and maintaining a reflexive journal to track biases and decisions. Continuous reflexivity was practiced through self-reflection and engagement to contextualize findings. These measures collectively strengthened the study’s qualitive reliability and validity in exploring board games as a learning tool for infant developmental psychology.

7. Expanded  Analysis – Discussed effect sizes, practical significance, and non-significant results in greater depth. I have added as As expected, in this study the scores of tests on development and surveillance in infants improved after completing all board games. As the large effect size, the experimental group's consistent improvement over time is not only statistically significant but also practically significant, with effect sizes indicating strong to moderate relationships, accounting for 94% of the variance, between the intervention across different phases of testing. The substantial differences in scores between groups across both the posttest and follow-up phases emphasize the practical importance of using this learning method to support infants’ developmental milestones and surveillance, while the effect size for the follow-up phase is medium, indicating that the difference in scores remained meaningful but less pronounced after a longer period. Future development should prioritize Infants and Socioemotional Development, which has seen a notable decline in scores over time, alongside Infants and Fine Motor Development, which has also experienced significant reductions. In contrast, the control group using traditional learning methods showed less decline in these areas, indicating that their strategies merit further investigation for potential integration into future program enhancements for psychology students.
8. Enhanced Data Presentation – Added visual aids such as graphs and charts for improved readability and comparison. As the number of the tests is large and important, I have decided to keep the table to show the number applied for the analysis. However, I have taken your suggestion to create the figure for clarifying the contribution of the present study, as shown in Figure 2. 
   
   

A revised version of the manuscript is attached, with key changes highlighted for your reference. We sincerely appreciate your contribution to refining our work and look forward to your further insights.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, it is my pleasure to review your research article for the MDPI Education Sciences journal.

I hope that you will receive my comments with enthusiasm and that they will serve to improve the final paper.

I consider that their work has a good methodological framework and that the study, although it can be improved, however, the sample is the biggest problem, and what makes me hesitate....My recommendation is to send it to a different magazine than this one.

But for that process not to be unsuccessful again. Here are some general recommendations.

Check the quality of the images of the included games as well as the framing, in the first game the PDF places the image on top of one of the lines of the box.

Extend the limitations of the study, emphasizing that the sample size is low and therefore, the conclusions are not extrapolable. Keep in mind that you are comparing 30 students. Within a specific training context, adults and with games that are completely textual and theoretical content. For some it gives the feeling that you have to study the lesson before playing. And that the information on the cards is the same as in the class notes. In this sense the game mechanics add nothing to the learning. Any more than sitting down to read the cards would.

All games share the same mechanics. They are still cards with information, which somewhat limits their consideration as various board games. And the playable contribution of the same. It is convenient in future designs and games to try to generate mechanics or learning tools associated with the pure game, especially if you want to study something like this.

The explanation of some board games, such as 3. They clarify very well that this is not so much a game, but an activity in which you have to read cards and learn information to associate it.

Les invito a reflexionar sobre el diseño de juegos de mesa y sus componentes... (El aspecto lúdico, mecánicas de juego, interacción y contenido. En este estudio algunos tienen tanta información que parecen apuntes y no juegos).

With great regret and taking into account not only the problems of the study, but also the high Q index of this journal, my decision is to reject the article.

 

 

Author Response

I sincerely appreciate your valuable comments, which have greatly contributed to improving the quality of our manuscript. I have carefully revised the paper step by step, addressing your suggestions as well as the feedback from Reviewers 1 and 2. I truly appreciate your contribution to refining our work.

Although my manuscript was initially rejected, I have made substantial improvements based on your recommendations. I would like to clarify that our study included 60 participants (30 in each group), which represents a significant proportion of psychology students, given that only 30–40 students are admitted to the program annually. Additionally, the game has been defined as a card game following expert and student recommendations, and I have incorporated this into the revised manuscript.

The game is designed to enhance students' retention by fostering interaction through peer collaboration or competition, depending on the game’s structure. I have attached a summary of the key improvements along with the revised manuscript as following:

I have made substantial revisions to enhance the manuscript based on the feedback received. The literature review now includes more relevant studies on psychology students' understanding of infant development through board games, highlighting the lack of systematic validation in this area. To strengthen the study’s justification, I have elaborated on research gaps, particularly the limitations of conventional teaching methods and the ethical concerns surrounding direct infant observation. Additionally, I have clarified the study's contributions, emphasizing how board games can transform developmental psychology education by promoting experiential learning through storytelling, problem-solving, and peer interaction. The sample size limitations have also been addressed, contextualizing the study within the largest psychology program in western Thailand and discussing the potential applicability of findings to health-related fields.

Further improvements include a detailed exploration of learning factors, emphasizing how board games can introduce new knowledge rather than merely reinforcing prior learning. The revised manuscript now provides a clearer explanation of the experimental procedures, qualitative coding methods, and statistical analyses. The updated statistical section highlights effect sizes, knowledge retention trends, and variations in learning outcomes, particularly in socioemotional development and fine motor skills. Additionally, I have improved data presentation by integrating visual elements, including a new figure summarizing the study’s contributions. These refinements collectively strengthen the manuscript’s clarity, rigor, and practical implications for psychology education.

A revised version of the manuscript is attached, with key changes highlighted. I sincerely appreciate your time and expertise in refining our work and look forward to your further insights.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your quick response to my earlier comments and suggestions on revising your manuscript. The response document was detailed and very helpful in seeing what you had addressed, how and why. The colored paragraphs in the manuscript were also helpful in this regard. I think that in most cases, my questions and suggestions for content have been addressed. My only note is about the paragraph highlighted and right before the "Designing Board Games" paragraph--there are no citations in that paragraph but it seems as if there should be. If the information is NOT from the literature, that should be stated.

My other comments are language-related and will be included in the "Comments on the Quality of English Language" section.

Good luck as you continue to work on your paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Below there are several English-related suggestions that I found ONLY IN THE COLORED/HIGHLIGHTED  PARAGRAPHS. However, as there are several language errors, or things that could be changed to increase understanding, I would recommend having someone(s) proof the entire article one more time.

1. In the first highlighted paragraph, on pg. 1, and in the sentence starting with "Additionally..." a word seems to be missing.
2. An "s" is missing in the heading of "Direct Board GameS for Developmental Psychology"
3. In the highlighted green paragraph on the bottom of pg. 2, the first sentence is a bit difficult to follow. Perhaps rewording to something like... "However, one gap in the literature in regard to the development of educational board games for teaching undergraduate students in the field of developmental psychology..."
4. On pg. 3 in the yellow paragraph, "...the national developmental screening program, with THE GOAL OF enhancing the early identification of..."
5. Also in the yellow paragraph on pg. 3, "The" should be included before "Evaluator" when starting the sentence.
6. In the yellow paragraph on pg. 7, it is unclear what "to robust the memory" means?
7. In the first green paragraph on pg. 8, "...there was no interactive game of practical activitY..." (rather than activitie)
8. In the second green paragraph on pg. 8, "The follow-up phase required A 3-minute test..."
9. In the third green paragraph on pg. 8, "assistances" should be "assistants."
10. in the last green paragraph on pg. 12, "As the large effect size SHOWS..."
11. In the second green paragraph on pg. 13, "longer outcomes" is stated. But, within the context of the paragraph it seems like it should say either "longer periods" or "more significant outcomes?'
12. Within figure 2, the second column includes some overlapping text so it isn't all clear.
13. In the last paragraph on pg. 15, it should say "... DSPM guidelineS..."

Author Response

Thank you for your review and valuable feedback. I have made all the necessary corrections as per your suggestions. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has effectively addressed my concerns, and it is time to proceed to next step.

Author Response

Thank you for your review and valuable feedback. I have made all the necessary corrections as per your suggestions. I have also improved my language for the publication. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors and editors of the journal

My initial decision is and remains to reject the article. As a reviewer, when I issue a rejection, I do so because I consider that it is not possible to publish it in the journal indicated, for reasons that could not be rectified.

Had I considered that the article could be published with changes, I would have marked this option. 

It so happens that problems of methodological approach, samples and the like are not something that can be rectified. Of course, as a reviewer I provide the authors with indications to improve the way they have tried to improve the paper, but when I do so I indicate rejection. It is because these improvements will be useful in the future or elsewhere.

This journal has a high impact index and therefore high academic quality is expected, which in this case was not entirely possible to achieve.

I appreciate the letter and the corrections (which by the way have a somewhat depersonalised language, sometimes I felt I was talking to an AI). I think you have responded adequately to several of the issues. But this is not enough to publish the article here.

Thank you for sending your article to MDPI.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your review and valuable feedback.