Evaluating the Impact of a Laboratory-Based Program on Children’s Coordination Skills Using the MABC-2

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of "Children movement assessment in Italian preschool and primary school: education and research by Movement ABC-2 testing"

 

This manuscript presents an attempt to evaluate the impact of a movement program implemented by generalist teachers on children's motor skills. While the authors' intention to empower teachers in this area is commendable, the manuscript in its current form requires substantial revision before it can be considered for publication. The language barrier significantly hinders comprehension and necessitates professional proofreading. Furthermore, several key methodological and interpretative issues need to be addressed.

 

Title: The title is misleading. The study's focus is not a general assessment of movement, but rather the evaluation of a specific intervention program's effect on coordination. A more accurate title, such as "Evaluating the Impact of a Laboratory-Based Program on Children's Coordination Skills Using the MABC-2," would be more appropriate.

 

Introduction: The rationale for a laboratory-based learning program instead of conducting in an ecological, naturalistic educational setting is unclear. The manuscript fails to adequately justify the chosen methodology and its potential advantages over existing approaches. The literature review does not sufficiently establish the research gap. The stated aim does not fully align with the presented results, which extend beyond pure coordination skills. The introduction needs to clearly articulate the study's purpose, its theoretical underpinnings, and its contribution to the existing body of knowledge.

 

Methods: The methods section is presented in a fragmented, point-form style, hindering readability. Crucially, the manuscript lacks information regarding tester reliability training and procedures to ensure data accuracy. Ethical considerations, specifically whether child assent was obtained, must be addressed. The intervention program's details, including duration, session frequency, and a clear description of the activities and their progression, are insufficient. A detailed explanation of the phases of the program, including the flow of activities, is required.

 

Results: The presentation of the results needs improvement. The bar graph arrangement for MABC scores should follow conventional practice (green to red, with yellow in the middle) or provide a clear justification for the chosen order. The data presented in the table are unclear. Are these raw MABC scores, derived scores, or some other statistical metric? This must be explicitly stated. The inclusion of "posture" as an outcome measure, without prior mention in the Methods or as a standard component of the MABC protocol, is confusing and requires immediate clarification.

 

Discussion: The discussion section primarily summarizes the findings without engaging in a meaningful comparison with existing literature. The authors claim improvements in multiple areas within the intervention program (Table 2), yet they fail to adequately explain how these improvements, as measured by the MABC, specifically relate to enhanced coordination. The discussion needs to be significantly expanded to address these points and provide a more in-depth interpretation of the results in the context of previous research.

 

Conclusion: The authors acknowledge sample size as a limitation. However, they fail to justify why a larger sample was not obtained before publication. A power analysis or sample size calculation should be included in the methods section. The conclusion section should succinctly summarize the study's key findings, its limitations, and its implications for practice and future research. The practical significance and usefulness of this research need to be explicitly stated.

 

Overall Recommendation: This manuscript requires major revisions, including substantial improvements to the writing, clarification of the methodology, and a more robust interpretation of the results. I recommend rejection in its current form but would reconsider a resubmitted version that addresses these concerns.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please see attached for my suggestions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your suggestions. We have highligthed all the revisions using word tracking.

 

Title: The title is misleading. The study's focus is not a general assessment of movement, but rather the evaluation of a specific intervention program's effect on coordination. A more accurate title, such as "Evaluating the Impact of a Laboratory-Based Program on Children's Coordination Skills Using the MABC-2," would be more appropriate.

 Answer: Thank you for your feedback. We have revised the title according to your suggestion.

 

Introduction: The rationale for a laboratory-based learning program instead of conducting in an ecological, naturalistic educational setting is unclear. The manuscript fails to adequately justify the chosen methodology and its potential advantages over existing approaches. The literature review does not sufficiently establish the research gap. The stated aim does not fully align with the presented results, which extend beyond pure coordination skills. The introduction needs to clearly articulate the study's purpose, its theoretical underpinnings, and its contribution to the existing body of knowledge.

Answer: We thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have better justified the methodology of the laboratorium approach, clarified how stuidium is useful in filling the lack of specific training of teachers on physical education, and better specified the objective of the study in accordance with the results obtained. 

 

Methods: The methods section is presented in a fragmented, point-form style, hindering readability. Crucially, the manuscript lacks information regarding tester reliability training and procedures to ensure data accuracy. Ethical considerations, specifically whether child assent was obtained, must be addressed. The intervention program's details, including duration, session frequency, and a clear description of the activities and their progression, are insufficient. A detailed explanation of the phases of the program, including the flow of activities, is required.

 Answer: We thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have explicitly detailed the informed consent process obtained from parents, we have restructured the protocol section and specified the reliability of the test data.

 

 

Results: The presentation of the results needs improvement. The bar graph arrangement for MABC scores should follow conventional practice (green to red, with yellow in the middle) or provide a clear justification for the chosen order. The data presented in the table are unclear. Are these raw MABC scores, derived scores, or some other statistical metric? This must be explicitly stated. The inclusion of "posture" as an outcome measure, without prior mention in the Methods or as a standard component of the MABC protocol, is confusing and requires immediate clarification.

 Answer: We thank you for your valuable suggestions. The scores presented in Table 3 are the standard scores obtained during the MABC test assessments. We omitted posture as a separate measure in the data analysis to avoid confusion. The change in the graphs was made to follow standard convention, with green representing better performance, yellow for moderate difficulty, and red for significant difficulty.

 

Discussion: The discussion section primarily summarizes the findings without engaging in a meaningful comparison with existing literature. The authors claim improvements in multiple areas within the intervention program (Table 2), yet they fail to adequately explain how these improvements, as measured by the MABC, specifically relate to enhanced coordination. The discussion needs to be significantly expanded to address these points and provide a more in-depth interpretation of the results in the context of previous research.

 Answer: We thank you for your valuable suggestions. We revised and expanded the “Discussion” section by incorporating references to previous studies to contextualize our results. We have clarified the significance of the improvements in the 3 tests and discussed the threshold effect phenomenon for some tests. We added a more detailed discussion of limited results in preschoolers, explaining that they may need different teaching methodologies or longer intervention periods to achieve significant improvements. Finally, further directions for research were provided.

 

Conclusion: The authors acknowledge sample size as a limitation. However, they fail to justify why a larger sample was not obtained before publication. A power analysis or sample size calculation should be included in the methods section. The conclusion section should succinctly summarize the study's key findings, its limitations, and its implications for practice and future research. The practical significance and usefulness of this research need to be explicitly stated.

Answer: We thank you for your valuable suggestions.We revised the conclusion section to respond to your comments.We have justified the sample size , repudiated its small sample size and indicated the need for statistical power analysis in future studies.In addition, we indicated that the methodology will be improved in subsequent studies to ensure greater sample representativeness. Implications and implications for future research were specified.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper on movement assessment in Italian preschool and primary schools. Overall the manuscript provides value to the literature but does need some revisions before acceptance. Of major concerns, there is no context in the introduction for audiences unfamiliar with the education system in Italy.  Provide a background for the education system including physical education in the schools and training for educators. This should be defined for both early educators and primary educators as it is likely they are very different.

 

Specific concerns:

Page 2, lines 44 and 45 Describe who you are talking about rather than "they" which can lead to confusion. Add references for the assertion that "they" are often physically inactive and another reference for inadequately trained in physical activities. 

page 2, first paragraph - it is unclear who you are referring to and mention preschool children at one point. Is this entire paragraph only referring to preschool teachers then? 

Page 2, 2nd paragraph - define what level for generalist teachers - preschool, primary, primary and secondary? Avoid using "this" as it leads to confusion... what are you referring to? Should be clarified in both lines 53 and 56. Are they PE? early educators? Primary educators?

page 2, line 80 - "harmonious" development? What is meant here?

page 3 - more description of the 'laboratory methodology"

Participants - aren't the teachers participants too?  Weren't they also recruited and trained?  Need to include their information in your participants. Also how were they recruited and did they receive any compensation

page 3, line 103 - what is the 88.9%?

Page 4 - need test rater and reliability scores for the assessment trainings; also duration of the sessions; did the teachers work with the children during these trainings?  Need a lot more detail here.

page 5, define the zones 

page 6 - indicate significance in your graph; what are the scores in table 3 - are they total scores across all participants? Add effect sizes for each assessment; was there a gender effect?

page 7, line 221 - what is meant here by developmental nature - seems as if this wasn't the case as more preschool children were in the green, so it would there is less room for improvement

page 8 first paragraph - there is no data or assessment conducted on sitting posture yet this paragraph asserts there was... if there is data on sitting posture, it must be added to the methods and results. If not, remove these claims that are not supported by this study.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

For the most part the English is fine but there are some grammar that could be improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your suggestions. We have highligthed all the revisions using word tracking.

 

Page 2, lines 44 and 45 Describe who you are talking about rather than "they" which can lead to confusion. Add references for the assertion that "they" are often physically inactive and another reference for inadequately trained in physical activities.

page 2, first paragraph - it is unclear who you are referring to and mention preschool children at one point. Is this entire paragraph only referring to preschool teachers then?

Answer: Thank you for your suggestions. We have revised the entire paragraph for a better comprehension.

 

Page 2, 2nd paragraph - define what level for generalist teachers - preschool, primary, primary and secondary? Avoid using "this" as it leads to confusion... what are you referring to? Should be clarified in both lines 53 and 56. Are they PE? early educators? Primary educators?

Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. We have explicitly defined the level of generalist teachers, replaced the term “this” and clarified it in the method’s section.

 

page 2, line 80 - "harmonious" development? What is meant here?

Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. By harmonious we meant comprehensive and inclusive, however upon rereading the paragraph there in order to improve fluency and understanding, we realized that this sentence would be better omitted.

 

page 3 - more description of the 'laboratory methodology"

Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. We have explained more in Section 2.3 about the way and timing of the laboratory. Hopefully, it will go more clearly now.

 

Participants - aren't the teachers participants too?  Weren't they also recruited and trained?  Need to include their information in your participants. Also how were they recruited and did they receive any compensation

Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. Teachers who were teaching in the surveyed institution also participated in the training. They received no reward other than a certificate of participation. We have added more info about this.

 

 

page 3, line 103 - what is the 88.9%?

Answer: Thanks for pointing that out to us. It was an error and has been removed.

 

Page 4 - need test rater and reliability scores for the assessment trainings; also duration of the sessions; did the teachers work with the children during these trainings?  Need a lot more detail here.

Answer: We have added more information on training sessions.

 

page 5, define the zones

Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. We have done it.

 

page 6 - indicate significance in your graph; what are the scores in table 3 - are they total scores across all participants? Add effect sizes for each assessment; was there a gender effect?

Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. The graphs simply report the percentages of children placed in the 3 zones both pre and post, while the significances are reported in the corresponding table, where the standard scores are given following the guidance in the Official Handbook. We have added the effect size for more specific results. Gender differences is not an aim of our study.

 

page 7, line 221 - what is meant here by developmental nature - seems as if this wasn't the case as more preschool children were in the green, so it would there is less room for improvement

Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. We have clarified the statement regarding the "developmental nature" of the findings, ensuring alignment with the results. Since more preschool children were already in the green zone, we have adjusted the interpretation to reflect the limited room for improvement.

 

page 8 first paragraph - there is no data or assessment conducted on sitting posture yet this paragraph asserts there was... if there is data on sitting posture, it must be added to the methods and results. If not, remove these claims that are not supported by this study.

Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. We have removed any statement about posture.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of "Evaluating the Impact of a Laboratory-Based Program on Children's Coordination Skills Using the MABC-2 "

The revised manuscript demonstrates improved readability, and I commend the authors for their efforts to enhance clarity. Upon re-reading, I believe the authors are attempting to address two interconnected issues: the lack of competency among general teachers and the increasing prevalence of movement challenges in young children. As I understand it, the proposed solution involves training general teachers, with the assistance of sports science graduates, in both administering the MABC-2 assessment and delivering the intervention program itself. Please correct me if this understanding is inaccurate.

Consequently, it appears the study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of this teacher-led intervention. This is achieved by comparing an experimental group, whose teachers received training and subsequently delivered the intervention, with a control group receiving no intervention. However, the part on having a lab-based intervention instead of an authentic learning environment that is more natural for the children is not explained.

Methodological Concerns

Despite the improved clarity of the manuscript, I have concerns regarding the robustness of the methodology in its current form. My primary concerns are outlined below:

• Clarity of Research Question: My statement above, "Please correct me if I’m wrong about this," highlights a key issue: even after revisions, the core research question and underlying rationale remain somewhat unclear. This is a significant methodological weakness, as a well-defined research question is fundamental to any study. If the aims are not precisely articulated, the chosen methodology may not be appropriately designed to address them.

 

• Complexity of the Intervention and Teacher Role: The intervention, as described, is multi-layered and complex. It encompasses:
  • Two Underlying Problems: Addressing both general teacher competency and children's movement challenges.
  • Proposed Solution: Training general teachers via sports science graduates to use the MABC-2 and implement the intervention.
  • Study Aim: Evaluating the effectiveness of this intervention by comparing a trained-teacher intervention group to a no-intervention control. Therefore, the intervention is not solely about the "laboratory-based program" itself. It crucially involves the program content, the teacher training process, and the practical implementation of the program by teachers in real-world settings. The methodology must fully account for this complexity. Simply labeling it a "laboratory-based program" risks oversimplifying what is actually being evaluated.
  • Potential Overemphasis on MABC-2 Administration: Describing the teacher training as focused on "administering the MABC-2" raises concerns about a potential overemphasis on the assessment tool itself. While using the MABC-2 to evaluate the intervention's impact is appropriate, the phrasing also implies that the validity of measuring intervention effectiveness is highly dependent on the rigor of teacher training in MABC-2 administration.

 

Recommendations

In summary, I recommend the authors address these concerns by clarifying the study's introduction and research questions. Reangle by rewriting the whole introduction if necessary as it lacks focus and relevance to the aim of study in its current state. Specifically, I would suggest considering a more robust methodology that could differentiate the impact of the intervention itself from the impact of the teacher training. For instance, the authors should consider collecting data from three groups:

1. Experimental Group 1: Intervention delivered by trained general teachers.
2. Experimental Group 2: Intervention delivered by untrained general teachers.
3. Control Group: No intervention.

 

Only after these clarifications and potential methodological revisions are made, will I be able to fully understand the study and determine if a third revision is necessary. Otherwise, the manuscript, in its current state, may require more substantial reworking with additional data and a revised methodology, potentially leading to a recommendation for rejection.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Thank you for your efforts in revising the manuscript. The English and grammar have noticeably improved, and the text is now much clearer. I appreciate the progress you've made.  While there's still potential for further refinement to ensure complete clarity and precision, this revision is a significant and positive step forward.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate the opportunity to revise our manuscript titled “Evaluating the Impact of a Laboratory-Based Program on Children's Coordination Skills Using the MABC-2.” Below, we provide a point-by-point response to each comment.

1. clarity of the research question: we have revised the Introduction to explicitly clarify that the primary aim of the study is to assess the effectiveness of the motor intervention program on children's coordination skills. The training of generalist teachers is essential, but it is not the primary focus of the study.
2. Justification for using two groups instead of three: we acknowledge the potential value of a third group, our study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a structured motor intervention when implemented by adequately trained teachers. We have justified this methodological choice in the discussion.
3. Laboratory-based learning vs. natural learning environments: we have revised the Methods section to clarify that the laboratory-based intervention was implemented within the school environment (classrooms and gym).
4. Potential overemphasis on MABC-2 Administration: we have clarified in the Methods section that teacher training was not limited to MABC-2 administration, but also to movement-based educational strategies to enhance children’s coordination and motor skills.

Thank you for your time.