Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses a relevant and timely topic, providing original data on ADHD knowledge among kindergarten and primary school teachers in Hungary. The research design is solid and well described, and the data analysis is rigorous. However, it is recommended to improve the clarity and conciseness of the introductory section by avoiding redundancies and enhancing the flow between cited sources and the arguments developed. Additionally, the theoretical discussion could be strengthened to better highlight the study’s innovative contribution to the existing literature. Overall, the study represents a valuable contribution with practical implications for teacher training.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. The manuscript addresses an interesting topic, especially concerning the education domain. The paper has many merits. However, I have some comments that the authors should address.

1)Rather than offering a synthesized thematic analysis of the existing literature, the text tends to present findings in a sequential or study-by-study format, which results in a disjointed “laundry list” effect. For instance, the statement “Several studies (Bardi et al., 2023; Ohan et al., 2008; Saad et al., 2022) stated that teachers generally have a moderate understanding of ADHD...” is subsequently followed by a redundant sentence: “Regarding the findings from the review of different previous studies, it was found that there are several differences in teachers’ ADHD knowledge...” Instead of reiterating prior points, the second section should synthesize and build upon the initial evidence by identifying patterns, contradictions, or gaps in the literature.

2) The section titled “Teachers’ Knowledge and Awareness of ADHD” (line 48) functions as an extension of the general introduction, but its content is subsequently duplicated in the section “Findings from the Review of Previous Literature” (line 75). This results in unnecessary repetition and fragmentation. To improve clarity and coherence, these two sections should be merged and reorganized into a single, cohesive literature review that synthesizes existing research more effectively.

3) While the gap in Hungary is mentioned, the unique value proposition of this study, beyond just being "the first in Hungary," could be slightly amplified. What specific nuance or insight will this study contribute that others might miss?

4) The study questions address the teachers’ ADHD knowledge. However, in lines 156-57, the authors stated that: "In our cross-sectional, quantitative research Hungarian teachers' knowledge and attitude towards children with ADHD behavior were assessed.

5) Revise the second study question: "RQ2: Is there any significant difference in ADHD knowledge across teachers, SEN training, and teaching experience?" It seems that something is missing after across teachers.

6) I recommend providing items from the different scales of the instrument.

7) The Data Collection and Analysis section should be removed to the Methods section.

8) Some of the figures are not clear and hard to follow. I think in this manuscript it is more adequate tp present them in tables or one table (comparison between subgroups). 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. PRESENTATION AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE JOURNAL'S GUIDELINES (CLARITY AND LEGIBILITY)

1.1. Title:

The title is direct and concise. It clearly conveys the topic of the study: teachers' knowledge of ADHD. The title has a clear focus. It is also informative because it directly indicates the population (early childhood and primary school teachers) and the topic (knowledge of ADHD). In terms of accuracy, the title reflects the content of the article very well. The title is also effective because it aligns with the research focus highlighted in the introduction and conclusion sections.

1.2. Abstract:

The abstract meets quality standards and effectively communicates the purpose, methods, key results, and implications of the research. It is informative and well-structured, making it accessible to a wide audience, from educators to researchers within the field of study. It provides all the context necessary to understand the scope and impact of the study, while highlighting areas that may require further professional development.

1.3. Keywords:

The keywords are concise and directly related to the study's focus. They are effective in terms of their length and simplicity. In this regard, it's worth mentioning that their simplicity doesn't compromise the study's depth, as they effectively encapsulate the main elements (the role of teachers and their understanding of ADHD), both of which are explored in detail in the article.

1.4. Length:

The length of the article is appropriate and allows for a thorough development of the topic.

1.5. Structure:

The article follows a logical and coherent structure: abstract, introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusions.

1.6. Terminology and Nomenclature:

Technical terms and symbols are used correctly and consistently throughout the article.

1.7. Figures, Tables, and Graphs:

Tables are relevant and clearly presented. The paper adopts standard academic conventions by including visual aids like figures and tables as supplementary evidence to support its statistical findings and analyses.

1.8. Footnotes:

No unnecessary footnotes were found.

1.9. References:

The bibliography is extensive, up-to-date, and relevant. It is recommended to double-check that all in-text citations are included in the reference list and vice versa.

2. ORIGINALITY

This study specifically investigates ADHD knowledge among Hungarian preschool and primary school teachers. This distinguishes it from previous studies, as teacher knowledge had not been assessed in Hungary. Hence its originality: it fills a gap in the literature by examining a population where such research was lacking, offering insights tailored to Hungarian educational policies and practices.

The study uses the ASKAT research tool, originally developed by Mulholland, Cumming, and Jung (2016), and adapts it to the Hungarian context. This adaptation, which includes the translation and validation of the questionnaire, represents an innovative application of an established instrument to a new cultural and educational setting. The researchers have ensured its psychometric robustness in this context. This is especially important because it confirms the tool's reliability in measuring ADHD knowledge in a non-Western setting.

The article does not limit itself to assessing superficial knowledge of ADHD but delves into various aspects such as etiology, symptoms, treatment, and knowledge about diagnosis and prevalence. This breadth of evaluation highlights both strengths and weaknesses in teacher understanding.

Ultimately, the article's originality is demonstrated by its focus on an underexplored educational context, the innovative adaptation of an established measurement tool, the comprehensive analysis of multiple dimensions of knowledge, and in-depth statistical analyses that lead to practical recommendations for improving teacher training and student support in Hungary.

3. RELEVANCE OF THE ARTICLE

The study is relevant because it fills a research gap, provides information for better educational practices, supports inclusive education, and guides policy changes.

Understanding this disorder is vital for teachers, as early recognition of its symptoms can lead to better support for children facing learning and behavioral difficulties. The study's focus on different areas of ADHD knowledge highlights teachers' strengths and areas that need further training. This comprehensive assessment helps identify specific areas, such as knowledge about treatment and diagnosis, that require greater attention in teacher training programs.

One of the key findings is the important role of special educational needs (SEN) training in improving teachers' knowledge about ADHD. The study reveals that teachers who have received such training demonstrate a better understanding of various aspects of ADHD.

In today's classrooms, inclusive education takes on greater importance. The relevance of the study is clear: it provides data that can help schools better support these students by ensuring that teachers are well-prepared and knowledgeable.

Policymakers could use the results of this study to develop specific, evidence-based strategies that not only improve teacher knowledge but also contribute to creating strong support mechanisms in schools. This is especially crucial to ensure that children with ADHD receive timely and effective support in their learning process.

4. CURRENCY OF THE LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The literature review is current and well-founded. Recent and relevant sources are included. The theoretical framework could be strengthened by comparing the study's findings more explicitly with similar empirical research.

5. QUALITY OR ADEQUACY OF OTHER TECHNICAL-SCIENTIFIC ASPECTS

5.1. Design:

The study employs a cross-sectional, quantitative research design. This approach is useful for assessing teachers' knowledge of ADHD at a given point in time, providing an overview of the current understanding of preschool and primary school teachers. By using a self-report questionnaire, the design is structured to efficiently collect data from many participants (n = 732), which improves representativeness and facilitates the generalization of the findings, although it should be noted that this is only true for the Hungarian educational context.

5.2. Methods and Techniques:

The study used the ASKAT questionnaire, translated and adapted to the Hungarian context. This demonstrates an effort to develop a consolidated tool for measuring ADHD knowledge, which supports the instrument's content and construct validity. The removal of one item due to a low factor loading, revealed through exploratory factor analysis (EFA), demonstrates the concern to ensure that the questionnaire accurately captures key dimensions such as etiology, symptoms, treatment, and diagnosis/prevalence.

Confirmatory factor analysis was used to confirm that the items were closely related to the underlying factors measured, thus ensuring the instrument's reliability and validity for its intended purpose.

Sampling was exhaustive and focused on public educational institutions throughout Hungary. However, the article notes that the willingness to participate was low, which could affect representativeness or introduce self-selection bias into the results.

Data collection was conducted using an online questionnaire distributed through official educational channels. This method could have limited the participation of teachers with less interaction with digital platforms. It is also worth mentioning that reliance on self-reported data could introduce bias, as participants could overestimate or underestimate their own knowledge levels. Future studies could benefit from a longitudinal design to monitor changes in ADHD knowledge over time or to account for these sampling issues.

5.3. Results:

Results are clearly presented and well statistically analyzed. The interpretation is consistent with the data.

The results section is robust, detailed, and transparent, enhancing our understanding of teachers’ ADHD related knowledge while clearly indicating areas that require further attention or training initiatives.

5.4. Conclusions:

Conclusions are aligned with the objectives and findings. They are relevant and sufficiently developed.

5.5. Limitations:

Limitations are recognized.

5.6. Future Directions:

The article suggests as implications that educational policymakers and school administrators should focus on continuous training opportunities for teachers in kindergarten and primary schools.

5.7. Tables and Graphs:

The tables are adequate and informative.

5.8. Other Relevant Aspects:

The study adheres to ethical standards and ensures participant confidentiality.

 

OVERALL ASSESSMENT

Recommendation: Publishable.

Contribution Level: High.

Writing Quality: Good and technical in relation to the subject.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revision. 

The authors have addressed all my comments and cocerns.

Well-done