Self-Concept and Self-Esteem: Relevant Variables in the Life Satisfaction of Teachers
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSampling Issues
The sampling size is more than satisfactory and accurately reflects the target population. Research instruments were administered individually via the Google platform (Google LLC).
Measurement Problems
The study incorporated the use of the Self-Concept-Scale-AF5, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Questionnaire and the Satisfaction with Life Scale as instruments. These are viable tools and applicable for the study. Variables are clearly defined. The instruments used provided for consistent outcome measures and there are no measurement errors as far as I can determine. No human error, instrumental limitations, or environmental factors were presented or noticeable that may lead to creating inaccuracies in the measurement process. A structural equation model PLS-SEM was developed based on the theoretical framework analyzed, with an explanatory-predictive approach. The data is easy to interpret and understand and is interpreted appropriately and consistently throughout the manuscript. The manuscript’s results appear to be reproducible based on the details given in the methods section.
Methodological Flaws
Insufficient attention to methodological rigor, such as inadequate blinding or randomization, can introduce bias and reduce the validity of the findings. That is not the case in the study. The study includes adequate rigor. Researchers' own biases or expectations can inadvertently influence the study's design, data collection, or interpretation of results. The researcher provided several points as to how bias was avoided and controlled/limited.
Controls
Missing or inadequate controls in research can lead to unreliable or misleading conclusions, as it makes it difficult to determine if observed changes are due to the intervention or other factor. There are not missing controls. Bias was minimized, validity ensured, a baseline was clearly established, results are reliable, tools and methodology are accurate, and there are no misleading conclusions.
General Comments
The manuscript is clear and relevant for the education field and is presented in a well-structured manner. Self-concept, self-esteem, and life satisfaction are clearly defined and relevant/recent cited references are used. There is no evidence of self-citations.
The manuscript is scientifically sound and is the experimental design appropriate to test the hypothesis. The four hypotheses are well articulated and measurable.
The figures/tables/images/schemes are appropriate and easy to interpret. They properly show the data and there are references to the line numbers/tables/figures within the text.
The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented. The researchers clearly established ethical procedures/ethics statements.
Very well written and detailed manuscript.
Author Response
Comments 1: Sampling Issues. The sampling size is more than satisfactory and accurately reflects the target population. Research instruments were administered individually via the Google platform (Google LLC).
Response 1: Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate the positive appraisal of our study, which serves as a valuable reinforcement for our work.
Comments 2: Measurement Problems. The study incorporated the use of the Self-Concept-Scale-AF5, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Questionnaire and the Satisfaction with Life Scale as instruments. These are viable tools and applicable for the study. Variables are clearly defined. The instruments used provided for consistent outcome measures and there are no measurement errors as far as I can determine. No human error, instrumental limitations, or environmental factors were presented or noticeable that may lead to creating inaccuracies in the measurement process. A structural equation model PLS-SEM was developed based on the theoretical framework analyzed, with an explanatory-predictive approach. The data is easy to interpret and understand and is interpreted appropriately and consistently throughout the manuscript. The manuscript’s results appear to be reproducible based on the details given in the methods section.
Response 2: Thank you for your feedback. We understand that no changes are required in response to this comment.
Comments 3: Methodological Flaws. Insufficient attention to methodological rigor, such as inadequate blinding or randomization, can introduce bias and reduce the validity of the findings. That is not the case in the study. The study includes adequate rigor. Researchers' own biases or expectations can inadvertently influence the study's design, data collection, or interpretation of results. The researcher provided several points as to how bias was avoided and controlled/limited.
Response 3: Thank you for your detailed comment and positive assessment of our study. Thank you for your feedback.
Comments 4: Controls. Missing or inadequate controls in research can lead to unreliable or misleading conclusions, as it makes it difficult to determine if observed changes are due to the intervention or other factor. There are not missing controls. Bias was minimized, validity ensured, a baseline was clearly established, results are reliable, tools and methodology are accurate, and there are no misleading conclusions.
Response 4: Thank you for your feedback. We understand that no changes are required in response to this comment.
Comments 5: General Comments.
The manuscript is clear and relevant for the education field and is presented in a well-structured manner. Self-concept, self-esteem, and life satisfaction are clearly defined and relevant/recent cited references are used. There is no evidence of self-citations.
The manuscript is scientifically sound and is the experimental design appropriate to test the hypothesis. The four hypotheses are well articulated and measurable.
The figures/tables/images/schemes are appropriate and easy to interpret. They properly show the data and there are references to the line numbers/tables/figures within the text.
The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented. The researchers clearly established ethical procedures/ethics statements.
Very well written and detailed manuscript.
Response 5:
Dear Editor, we sincerely thank you for your comprehensive assessment and for recognizing the strengths of our submission. Your constructive feedback is invaluable and significantly motivates the authors, fostering continued dedication to our work.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe theoretical section is well-structured, coherently presenting the thematic context and research objectives.
The hypotheses are clearly formulated and are accompanied by a brief explanation of the reasoning behind each, which helps enhance understanding of how they were developed.
The data analysis is well-executed, employing a rigorous combination of statistical methods.
The results are presented clearly, with significant path coefficients and reliability and validity indicators reported transparently. R² and Q² values indicate good predictive capacity.
In conclusion, the article has a solid theoretical foundation, a well-argued statistical analysis, and a clear presentation of results.
Author Response
Comments 1: The theoretical section is well-structured, coherently presenting the thematic context and research objectives.
Response 1: Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate the positive appraisal of our study, which serves as a valuable reinforcement for our work. We understand that no changes are required in response to this comment.
Comments 2: The hypotheses are clearly formulated and are accompanied by a brief explanation of the reasoning behind each, which helps enhance understanding of how they were developed.
Response 2: Thank you for your feedback We understand that no changes are required in response to this comment.
Comments 3: The data analysis is well-executed, employing a rigorous combination of statistical methods.
Response 3: Thank you for your rating. We understand that no changes are required in response to this comment.
Comments 4: The results are presented clearly, with significant path coefficients and reliability and validity indicators reported transparently. R² and Q² values indicate good predictive capacity.
Response 4: Thank you for your rating.
Comments 5: In conclusion, the article has a solid theoretical foundation, a well-argued statistical analysis, and a clear presentation of results.
Response 5: Thank you for your rating. It's a great help to us. We understand that no changes are required in response to this comment.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI would like to congratulate the authors on this excellent work. In general terms, the paper makes a significant contribution to the field of teacher education by addressing the relationship between self-concept, self-esteem, and life satisfaction among 788 trainers from Special Regime Sports Education (EDRE).
Surprisingly, I have not found any suggestions to make to the authors, as this paper is well-structured, presenting a logical progression from the introduction to the conclusion. The application of rigorous statistical methodologies, combined with a substantial sample size, significantly enhances the reliability and validity of the findings. Moreover, the discussion section offers a nuanced analysis and provides valuable implications for practice and future research.
< !--a=1-->Author Response
Comments 1: I would like to congratulate the authors on this excellent work. In general terms, the paper makes a significant contribution to the field of teacher education by addressing the relationship between self-concept, self-esteem, and life satisfaction among 788 trainers from Special Regime Sports Education.
Response 1: Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate the positive appraisal of our study, which serves as a valuable reinforcement for our work. We understand that no changes are required in response to this comment.
Comments 2: Surprisingly, I have not found any suggestions to make to the authors, as this paper is well-structured, presenting a logical progression from the introduction to the conclusion. The application of rigorous statistical methodologies, combined with a substantial sample size, significantly enhances the reliability and validity of the findings. Moreover, the discussion section offers a nuanced analysis and provides valuable implications for practice and future research.
Response 2: Thank you for your feedback. We understand that no changes are required in response to this comment.