Effects of Academic Self-Regulatory Behaviors and Attention Difficulties on Reading Achievement of First-Grade Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction

1. The introduction clearly stated the gap in the current research field and the purpose of this study. However, it is missing a definition or examples of self-regulatory behaviors, especially what it means for young children.
2. The last two sentences in the last paragraph (These findings regarding the sociodemographic... to the end) seem inappropriate for an introduction, as the findings have not yet been presented. I suggest revising them or moving them to a section after the findings.

Literature Review

1. The study is focusing on early childhood students, but the current literature review is unclear regarding the levels or ages of the students. If the current review of literature did focus on early childhood students, more clarification in the texts is needed.
2. A lack of a clear definition of self-regulatory behaviors in both introduction and literature review sections. Authors are recommended to provide a clear explanation for this term and clarify what it means for young children.
3. The literature review has several subtitles on Literacy Development, but the text only focused on reading comprehension, and other literacy formats, such as writing and speaking, were not discussed. This is a mismatch between the titles and content created confusion for readers.
4. The first section of the literature review should expand a bit to thoroughly review the literature on the different aspects of self-regulatory behaviors, especially the factors used in the SEM model. The current version is too general.
5. A summary of the literature review to the end of the section is necessary to provide a brief explanation of the gaps that have been identified.

Methods

1. The "literacy achievement" in the research questions should be clearly defined before presenting the RQs. What does it mean by literacy achievement? Does it include reading, writing, language arts, or just one aspect?
2. This study utilized a dataset collected from 2010 to 2011, with updates continuing through 2016 or so. A justification of why selecting this dataset is needed because the results have an almost 10-year gap to reality. Is there any newer dataset available? If not, please explain how this dataset and results still provide valuable information for the current field, and how more recent studies have or have not addressed a similar issue as the present study.
3. There are insufficient explanations of the instruments and data that were used in this study. For example, what are the three levels for assessing students' reading skills? How were students’ self-regulatory behaviors and attention difficulties assessed? Did it through the teacher's report from the questionnaire? How reliable or accurate of teachers' reports on students' self-regulatory and attention difficulties? 

Results & Discussion

1. Both sections are well-written with the necessary details. However, according to the methods section, the IRT-scaled items examined the READING skills of students; no other literacy formats were included. So, it is more appropriate to use reading achievement rather than literacy achievement in these sections.
2. A short summary of the results at the end of the section would be helpful for readers to comprehend the entire results.
3. More recent studies (published after 2020) should be discussed in the discussion section. Please articulate how the current study results add new insights to the field.

Author Response

Please find the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article under review investigates the relationship between cognitive and affective determinants of pupils’ academic performance, with particular emphasis on the literacy outcomes of first-grade students. The research topic is both valuable and timely within the current scientific discourse in the field. It is especially relevant to inclusive education and to considerations of differentiated and individualized instructional approaches at the initial stages of schooling. The study highlights important aspects of students’ executive functioning that contribute to their academic success. The article also identifies its own originality by examining self-regulatory constructs jointly and in their interrelations.

The literature review is extensive and current; however, at times the exposition becomes overly broad, focusing on summarizing a large number of studies at the expense of deeper analytical engagement.
I have no fundamental concerns regarding the research methodology. The results are presented clearly, the tables are comprehensible, and the effects are interpreted appropriately. The discussion is well-developed and offers realistic interpretations. The study also identifies findings of practical significance (e.g., the influence of linguistic background on cognitive variables, the role of self-regulation in learning, and the impact of the home environment on school performance).

Recommendations for improving the manuscript:
The abstract, although informative, is somewhat lengthy and occasionally descriptive. I recommend shortening the section describing the dataset, incorporating specific numerical results (e.g., effect sizes, key mediations), and explicitly stating the novel contribution of the study.

It would also be beneficial to reduce the length of the literature review, which is, at points, highly descriptive. A greater emphasis on synthesizing key theoretical lines rather than enumerating numerous partial findings would strengthen the text. There are several redundancies throughout the manuscript that should be consolidated. In the discussion section, similar arguments are repeated; thus, a clearer distinction between the interpretation of results and their comparison with the literature is needed. Terms such as “attention difficulties,” “task-avoidant behavior,” and “effortful control” are used interchangeably without a precise delineation of their conceptual relationships. It may be helpful to articulate the hierarchical relationships among these constructs—for instance: executive functions → inhibitory control → attention.

The methodological rigor of the study would be enhanced by explicitly stating the hypotheses, particularly prior to the SEM analysis (e.g., low attention levels negatively predict literacy outcomes). I also recommend providing information regarding the distribution and normality of the data. Although the authors state that the data are “normally distributed,” no supporting statistics are presented. Reporting diagnostic criteria (e.g., skewness, kurtosis, robustness of maximum likelihood estimation) would strengthen the transparency of the analysis.

The manuscript would further benefit from a more explicit discussion of causality. While the model incorporates mediation pathways, causal inferences cannot be drawn from the available data. It should therefore be clearly emphasized that the model is associational rather than causal. Additionally, the interpretation of effects in the structural equation model (SEM) is largely based on statistical significance. Including comments on the magnitude of effects would enhance the substantive interpretation of the findings.

The discussion section is relatively extensive and occasionally reiterates the results instead of offering deeper critical reflection. A clearer emphasis on effect sizes and on the distinction between practical and statistical significance is warranted.

 

Author Response

Please find the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your effort on the revisions. I am satisfied with the present version of your manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments on the manuscript.