Understanding the Relationship Between Educational Leadership Preparation Program Features and Graduates’ Career Intentions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your submission. Your study makes a valuable contribution to the field of Educational Leadership Preparation Programs (ELPPs) by empirically examining how program features influence graduates’ career intentions using Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT). The study is well-structured, employs strong methodological rigor (large sample size, SEM analysis, validated survey instruments), and provides important insights for policymakers and program designers. Below are my comments and suggestions for improvement:

Your study fills a research gap by quantitatively exploring ELPP outcomes, an area that has been largely qualitative in past research. The arguments are well-structured, and the findings are compelling and well-supported by the data. The sample size (n=2,994) and use of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) provide strong empirical evidence for your claims.

Areas for Improvement

• Your manuscript correctly identifies the lack of longitudinal studies on ELPP outcomes. Instead of stating that past research has been primarily qualitative, you could further emphasize how this study uniquely advances the field by filling that gap. Consider briefly discussing any tangentially related longitudinal studies (e.g., research on leadership development programs) to provide additional context.
• Since ELPP admissions often select highly motivated candidates, there may be a self-selection bias in the findings. Addressing this in the limitations section would improve the study’s credibility. If possible, discussing a potential control group (e.g., educators who did not complete ELPPs) could enhance the robustness of your conclusions.
• While the study effectively highlights the importance of internship experience in shaping graduates' career intentions, the analysis does not fully explore internship quality indicators. Given that internship experiences serve as a key mediating factor, further elaboration on what constitutes a "high-quality internship" would strengthen the discussion and provide practical recommendations for ELPP improvement. Consider elaborating on internship quality indicators (e.g., mentor effectiveness, project-based learning) to provide more granular insights into their impact on career intentions.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

We sincerely thank the editor and reviewers for their thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled “Leadership Preparation Program Quality and Graduates’ Career Intention: A Multi-Institutional Analysis Using Social Cognitive Career Theory.” We found the reviews to be insightful and helpful in strengthening the clarity, theoretical framing, and practical implications of our work.

In the revised manuscript, we have addressed all reviewer comments carefully. Our detailed point-by-point responses appear below, with references to the revised manuscript (page numbers indicated) where appropriate. All revisions and responses are marked in red text for ease of review. We believe these revisions have significantly improved the quality and contribution of the study.

 

Reviewer 1’s comments and our responses

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your submission. Your study makes a valuable contribution to the field of Educational Leadership Preparation Programs (ELPPs) by empirically examining how program features influence graduates’ career intentions using Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT). The study is well-structured, employs strong methodological rigor (large sample size, SEM analysis, validated survey instruments), and provides important insights for policymakers and program designers. Below are my comments and suggestions for improvement:

Your study fills a research gap by quantitatively exploring ELPP outcomes, an area that has been largely qualitative in past research. The arguments are well-structured, and the findings are compelling and well-supported by the data. The sample size (n=2,994) and use of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) provide strong empirical evidence for your claims.

Areas for Improvement

• Your manuscript correctly identifies the lack of longitudinal studies on ELPP outcomes. Instead of stating that past research has been primarily qualitative, you could further emphasize how this study uniquely advances the field by filling that gap. Consider briefly discussing any tangentially related longitudinal studies (e.g., research on leadership development programs) to provide additional context.

Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful suggestion. In response, we revised the Introduction to more clearly position our study as addressing a critical gap in ELPP outcome research. Specifically, we now acknowledge that while some longitudinal studies have examined leadership development and post-placement career trajectories (e.g., Orr & Barber, 2007; Fuller, Hollingworth, & An, 2016), few have explored how preparation program features influence graduates’ career intentions—an earlier, yet essential, outcome of interest.

To reflect this, we now state:

“Although some longitudinal studies have explored leadership development and career placements (e.g., Orr & Barber, 2007; Fuller, Hollingworth, & An, 2016), these tend to focus on career outcomes post-placement and rarely examine how preparation program features shape career intentions during or immediately after program completion.”

This revision more accurately situates our study within the current literature and highlights its unique contribution: a large-scale, multi-institutional, quantitative examination of program effects on leadership career intention—an outcome not often addressed in prior longitudinal or qualitative studies.

(See revised Introduction, pages 4-5, paragraph beginning “In addition, many ELPP studies are qualitative…”)

 

• Since ELPP admissions often select highly motivated candidates, there may be a self-selection bias in the findings. Addressing this in the limitations section would improve the study’s credibility. If possible, discussing a potential control group (e.g., educators who did not complete ELPPs) could enhance the robustness of your conclusions.

Response:

We appreciate this thoughtful comment and the opportunity to clarify our approach. We agree that individuals who enroll in ELPPs are typically highly motivated to pursue leadership roles. However, we do not view this as a limitation or source of bias unique to this context. Similar to other professional preparation programs, ELPP participants self-select into a pathway that aligns with their career goals—a common and expected feature of program-based research. In our view, studying the variation within this population—rather than comparing to those who have not entered a program—is most appropriate for understanding how program design influences graduates’ career intentions.

While a control group of non-ELPP educators might seem ideal for isolating program effects, such a comparison is not feasible in this context. The constructs central to our study (e.g., faculty quality, program rigor, internship experience) are only meaningful within the ELPP context and would not be measurable among those who have not participated in such programs. Therefore, including a control group would introduce more conceptual and methodological challenges than it would resolve.

Importantly, our analytical approach accounts for potential variation in motivation and readiness by controlling for key demographic and professional background variables such as gender, prior leadership experience, and years of professional service. This allows us to estimate the added value of program features on career intention beyond pre-existing characteristics.

• While the study effectively highlights the importance of internship experience in shaping graduates' career intentions, the analysis does not fully explore internship quality indicators. Given that internship experiences serve as a key mediating factor, further elaboration on what constitutes a "high-quality internship" would strengthen the discussion and provide practical recommendations for ELPP improvement. Consider elaborating on internship quality indicators (e.g., mentor effectiveness, project-based learning) to provide more granular insights into their impact on career intentions.

 Response:

We appreciate this insightful comment and have responded by expanding the manuscript’s description of not only the Internship/Residency Quality construct but also the other latent program features to enhance clarity and transparency. In the Methods section, we now provide brief conceptual summaries of the full set of indicators used to measure each construct. This includes:

• Faculty Quality: Instructor knowledge, competence, responsiveness to students, and respect for diversity;
  
  
• Program Rigor and Relevance: Coherence, intellectual stimulation, integration of theory and practice, reflection, and career orientation;
  
  
• Internship/Residency Quality: Authentic leadership responsibilities, collaboration with peers, supervision by school leaders, evaluation by faculty, and placement in socioeconomically diverse schools;
  
  
• Peer Relationships: Close, supportive interactions with fellow students that contribute to personal and professional growth.

We retained the representative items in line with the original survey framework but added a paragraph summarizing these underlying dimensions to provide readers with a clearer understanding of how each construct was operationalized in the study.

Additionally, in the Implications section, we elaborated on how these features—particularly those tied to Internship Quality—can be translated into actionable guidance for program design and policy. These enhancements not only respond to your comment but also improve the methodological transparency and practical utility of the study.

(See revised Methods section, page 17, paragraph beginning “Each latent construct captures a set of theoretically grounded…”)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

Congratulations on successfully completing this manuscript. I have read the entire manuscript with great interest. After reading this manuscript, I must admit that the theoretical contribution of this manuscript is still lacking, but this manuscript has a fairly large practical contribution. Therefore, this manuscript needs to be strengthened in several parts.

First, in the abstract section. In this section, it is necessary to briefly describe the global issues related to the importance of career choices to become school leaders. In this section I did not find samples and criteria for determining the sample. In this section, it is also important to explicitly describe the theoretical implications and especially the practical implications of this study.

Second, in the introduction section. This section is still very weak and not well structured. I am sure there are many programs related to principal leadership, but the next question is why was ELPP chosen to be studied? This section also needs to get strengthening of primary data and/or secondary data related to what the output of this program was like before. or it could also be related to initial data regarding what the graduates' interests are in becoming school leaders. In this section, you also have not explained why SCCT was chosen as the main theoretical perspective. Another important thing that you have not explained is what distinguishes your research from previous research that you have mentioned, especially from a theoretical perspective.

Third, in the literature review section. I have seen the references you use in this section, and I feel that the references are too old. I see that there are many recent references that you can use; remember, this is social research. In this section, the hypothesis is made in a general manner, which has an impact on the blurring of the objectives to be achieved. I suggest that in this section each hypothesis is developed into several subsections that discuss in detail the alleged relationship between variables.

Fourth, in the method section. Why is the data collected only a maximum of 2020? Please describe the reasons for this determination.

Fifth, in the discussion section. This section is very weak. The author only compares the results with previous findings. Create a more critical discussion in this section by linking your findings to the SCCT theoretical perspective. The elements of "why" and "how" must be answered in this section.

Sixth, in the implications section. Policy implications are only written in general and normative terms and not operationally. The policy implications are on quality internships. However, the author does not describe operationally how quality internships are.

Good luck.

Author Response

Response to Reviewers Comments

Dear reviewers,

We sincerely thank the editor and reviewers for their thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled “Leadership Preparation Program Quality and Graduates’ Career Intention: A Multi-Institutional Analysis Using Social Cognitive Career Theory.” We found the reviews to be insightful and helpful in strengthening the clarity, theoretical framing, and practical implications of our work.

In the revised manuscript, we have addressed all reviewer comments carefully. Our detailed point-by-point responses appear below, with references to the revised manuscript (page numbers indicated) where appropriate. All revisions and responses are marked in red text for ease of review. We believe these revisions have significantly improved the quality and contribution of the study.

 

Reviewer 2’s comments and our responses

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

Congratulations on successfully completing this manuscript. I have read the entire manuscript with great interest. After reading this manuscript, I must admit that the theoretical contribution of this manuscript is still lacking, but this manuscript has a fairly large practical contribution. Therefore, this manuscript needs to be strengthened in several parts.

First, in the abstract section. In this section, it is necessary to briefly describe the global issues related to the importance of career choices to become school leaders. In this section I did not find samples and criteria for determining the sample. In this section, it is also important to explicitly describe the theoretical implications and especially the practical implications of this study.

Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful feedback on the abstract. In response, we have revised the abstract to more fully address the requested elements. Specifically, we:

• Added a brief statement on the global importance of leadership career pathways by noting widespread principal shortages and leadership pipeline challenges;
• Clarified the sample characteristics by stating that the study analyzed data from 2,994 graduates across 51 U.S.-based ELPPs collected between 2016 and 2020;
• Strengthened the description of theoretical implications by explicitly stating that the study extends Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) to the context of leadership preparation;
• Refined the practical implications by emphasizing how findings offer insights for policy and program design aimed at strengthening leadership pathways.
  
  

To better integrate both theoretical and practical contributions, we also replaced the final sentence of the abstract with the following:

“This study extends SCCT by demonstrating how ELPP features shape candidates’ career intentions through interconnected pathways, offering insights that inform policy and program design aimed at strengthening pathways into school leadership.”

(See revised Abstract, page 2.)

Second, in the introduction section. This section is still very weak and not well structured. I am sure there are many programs related to principal leadership, but the next question is why was ELPP chosen to be studied? This section also needs to get strengthening of primary data and/or secondary data related to what the output of this program was like before. or it could also be related to initial data regarding what the graduates' interests are in becoming school leaders. In this section, you also have not explained why SCCT was chosen as the main theoretical perspective. Another important thing that you have not explained is what distinguishes your research from previous research that you have mentioned, especially from a theoretical perspective.

Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s detailed feedback on the Introduction section. In response, we have made several important revisions to improve its structure and strengthen the rationale for the study. Specifically:

• We clarified why ELPPs were chosen as the focus by emphasizing their role as the dominant formal pathway for principal preparation in the U.S. and their critical role in addressing leadership pipeline challenges.
  
  
• We added national context by citing reports from Darling-Hammond et al. (2022) and the Wallace Foundation (2021), which document persistent principal shortages and raise concerns about leadership career interest among graduates.
  
  
• We introduced Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) explicitly as the theoretical foundation for the study, explaining its relevance to understanding how program experiences shape career intentions, particularly through self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and contextual supports.
  
  
• We clarified theoretical contribution by highlighting that our study extends SCCT into the ELPP context and models both direct and mediated effects of program features on graduates' career intentions—an approach not widely applied in previous research.

These revisions aim to provide a more coherent and compelling justification for the study and its theoretical framework.

(See revised Introduction, pages 3–5.)

Third, in the literature review section. I have seen the references you use in this section, and I feel that the references are too old. I see that there are many recent references that you can use; remember, this is social research. In this section, the hypothesis is made in a general manner, which has an impact on the blurring of the objectives to be achieved. I suggest that in this section each hypothesis is developed into several subsections that discuss in detail the alleged relationship between variables.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for these thoughtful suggestions to strengthen the Literature Review. In response, we made substantial revisions:

• We updated the references to incorporate more recent studies (e.g., Drake & Bastian, 2024; Aldridge & McLure, 2024; Karakose, Leithwood, & Tülübaş, 2024; Tingle, Corrales, & Peters, 2017) and better situate our study within current social research.
  
  
• We restructured the development of hypotheses, explicitly connecting each ELPP feature (Faculty Quality, Program Rigor and Relevance, Peer Relationships, Internship, and Cohort) to graduates’ Career Intentions, following a clear and logical flow.
  
  
• We clarified the hypothesized direct and indirect relationships between variables, guided by Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) and prior empirical findings.
  
  
• We explicitly framed how our study builds on but extends prior research by examining mediated pathways linking ELPP features to career intentions—an approach not previously tested systematically.
  
  

These changes enhance the clarity, theoretical rigor, and contemporary relevance of the Literature Review.

(See revised Literature Review, pages 6–14.)

 

Fourth, in the method section. Why is the data collected only a maximum of 2020? Please describe the reasons for this determination.

Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s attention to the data collection timeline. In response, we have clarified in the Methods section that the 2019–20 cohort represents the most recent group for which complete and comparable data were available across participating programs. We noted that subsequent years were affected by COVID-19 disruptions in program delivery and data collection, which limited the availability and consistency of newer data. Therefore, the study relies on data collected through 2020 to ensure quality and comparability across institutions.

(See revised Methods section, page 15, paragraph beginning “This study used four years of INSPIRE-G data…”)

Fifth, in the discussion section. This section is very weak. The author only compares the results with previous findings. Create a more critical discussion in this section by linking your findings to the SCCT theoretical perspective. The elements of "why" and "how" must be answered in this section.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. In response, we have significantly revised the Discussion section to go beyond comparing findings with previous studies by more explicitly grounding our interpretations in Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) and addressing the mechanisms through which program features shape career intentions.

We now explain why internships had the strongest influence—framing them as sites for building leadership self-efficacy through mastery experiences and social persuasion, as emphasized in SCCT. We also elaborate on how other features (e.g., Faculty Quality and Peer Relationships) influence Career Intention indirectly by shaping candidates’ beliefs about program quality and relevance, which aligns with SCCT’s focus on outcome expectations. Additionally, we highlight the importance of prior leadership experience as a form of personal input—consistent with SCCT’s recognition of individual differences in background and readiness. These changes collectively provide a more critical and theory-driven interpretation of our findings and demonstrate how SCCT can be extended to adult learners in mid-career leadership preparation contexts.

(See revised pages 30–32, especially the paragraph beginning “Finally, our findings extend the application of SCCT…” in the Discussion section.)

Sixth, in the implications section. Policy implications are only written in general and normative terms and not operationally. The policy implications are on quality internships. However, the author does not describe operationally how quality internships are. (Orr, 2023- discussion on internships)

Response:

We appreciate this comment and agree that our original Implications section could be more operational. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the section on internship policy implications to clearly describe what constitutes a high-quality internship in our study, including specific features such as mentoring, leadership responsibilities, and structured feedback. Additionally, we provide actionable recommendations for state policymakers and accrediting bodies to support the development and monitoring of high-quality internships (e.g., formal mentorship plans, placement incentives, and evaluation metrics). These additions make the implications more concrete and actionable for both practitioners and policymakers.

(See revised pages 32–34, especially the paragraph beginning “To enhance program effectiveness…” in the Implications section.)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author.

Thank you for the corrections you have made to improve the quality of this manuscript.