Flexibility Competence Assessment: A Systematic Literature Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well-prepared as a systematic review, with no evidence of plagiarism or the use of artificial intelligence. Methodologically, the application of the PRISMA model is clearly and correctly presented, accompanied by sufficient tables to enable the reader to understand the review results. Some elements of the theoretical framework and the discussion need to be expanded for the article to be published, which is recommended with minor changes.

The general framework refers to the European LifeComp framework, and the bibliography is current and well-described. However, it would be useful to explain the origin of this general model of competencies, especially emotional competence, and the flexibility within it from a more historical perspective, including references to the DESECO model. The development of a general model of key competencies throughout the lifespan, which began in the 1990s based on the DESECO group’s work, should be mentioned.

 It would also be advisable to include references to other models (for example, the OECD’s SEL model —Social and Emotional Learning—, which has also been used for research on the development of emotional and social competence in the last decade, including flexibility competence. This inclusion in the theoretical framework will provide the reader with a clearer understanding of the starting point.

Regarding the methodological aspect is well explained using the PRISMA model, which is clearly and sufficiently applied to the search, selection, and analysis of the referenced texts and instruments used.

References to DESECO or the SEL model should be brought back to the Discussion or Conclusion section, which will enrich these parts of the article.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. I fully agree with the importance of the DESECO model and the need to expand the historical dimension of the discussion on competences. In response to your suggestions, I have revised the introduction to include a broader perspective on OECD frameworks (see lines 56–69). Additionally, I have clarified, from lines 70 to 95, why I chose not to rely on these theoretical frameworks to discuss flexibility competence, opting instead for the European LifeComp framework.

Furthermore, I have integrated the SEL model to complement the concept of life skills (see lines 124–138 and 312–316). I hope these additions to the introduction and the state of the art provide a clearer rationale for focusing on the LifeComp framework.

Regarding the DESECO model and the subsequent OECD Learning Framework 2030, I have noted that flexibility is primarily addressed in its cognitive dimension, whereas this paper aims to approach flexibility as a multidimensional competence. Similarly, I have excluded the SEL model due to its theoretical foundation in the Big Five personality traits, as the concept of competence I refer to does not treat competence as personality trait.

Finally, I have enriched the discussion section based on the comments of the second reviewer, incorporating empirical findings from the papers analyzed in the systematic literature review (see lines 803–869) and integrating these insights into the conclusions (see lines 912–927).

I hope these revisions address your concerns and enhance the clarity and depth of the article. Thank you again for your valuable input.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• It would be nice if the paper emphasized and made a stronger connection between the need for assessment tools and the importance of lifelong learning/how it supports it. 
• Along the same lines, what is the need for exploring various assessment tools based on the LifeComp framework? Authors make an argument but it remains unclear.
• The paper should define "competences." There is a difference between "competences" and "competencies." I understand that the LifeComp framework uses competences, but as the paper focuses on the ability, it may be misleading.
•  Is there another reason for selecting flexibility other than that it is relevant? Also, as the paper discusses increased empirical studies, citations may be helpful.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your insightful feedback. I greatly appreciate your comments, especially your theoretical note regarding the distinction between "competences" and "competencies," which I believe adds significant value to the paper. Below, I address each of your comments in detail:

 

Comment 1: It would be nice if the paper emphasized and made a stronger connection between the need for assessment tools and the importance of lifelong learning/how it supports it.

Response 1: I have expanded the introduction to make this connection clearer (see lines 214–222). I hope this addition better highlights how assessment tools can support lifelong learning and its development.

 

Comment 2: What is the need for exploring various assessment tools based on the LifeComp framework? Authors make an argument but it remains unclear.

Response 2: I explained more on the rationale for selecting the LifeComp framework over other frameworks, such as the OECD framework (see lines 75–90) or the SEL model (see lines 312–316). The European LifeComp framework offers a more complex and multidimensional perspective compared to the primarily cognitive focus of the OECD framework. Additionally, I have emphasized the multidimensionality of flexibility competence by expanding the description of the descriptors within the LifeComp framework (see lines 324–340).

 

Comment 3: The paper should define "competences." There is a difference between "competences" and "competencies." I understand that the LifeComp framework uses competences, but as the paper focuses on the ability, it may be misleading.

Response 3: I have integrated this reflection into the paper (see lines 47–55). Additionally, I have clarified that the LifeComp framework interprets competences not only as abilities but also as dispositions and attitudes. For this reason, I use "competences" rather than "competencies." I hope this distinction is now clearer.

 

Comment 4: Is there another reason for selecting flexibility other than that it is relevant? Also, as the paper discusses increased empirical studies, citations may be helpful.

Response 4: I have further emphasized the relevance of focusing on flexibility competence by expanding the introduction (see lines 214–221). Additionally, I clarified the statement regarding the significant growth of studies on flexibility competence, specifying that it refers to the publication years of the articles included in the dataset analyzed (see lines 485–486 and 879–880).

Finally, I have added significant references, including those suggested by the first reviewer (e.g., regarding the OECD and SEL models), and expanded the arguments in the discussion and conclusion sections. I have also incorporated empirical findings from the articles included in the systematic literature review to further clarify the relevance of this competence.

I hope these revisions address your concerns. Thank you again for your valuable input, which has greatly contributed to improving the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for thoroughly addressing the feedback. The work clearly outlines assessments for flexibility.

Author Response

Thank you for your kind feedback and for taking the time to review this paper. I am glad to hear that the revisions have addressed your concerns.