Does Support Meet the Need? A Focus Group Study on Parental Support and Students’ Psychological Need Satisfaction in a Minority School Context

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor,

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The study aims to explore how parental support contributes to the satisfaction of students’ basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence, and relatedness) within a minority educational context, specifically among Greek minority students in Gökçeada, Türkiye. Using a qualitative focus group design, the authors report that parental support plays a generally positive and protective role in students’ psychological need satisfaction, while also highlighting the influence of sociocultural and institutional factors such as bilingual education and minority status on students’ well-being.

Despite addressing a relevant topic, I recommend that the manuscript be rejected in its current form due to several substantive concerns. First, the study suffers from significant methodological limitations, particularly the very small and non-representative sample (N = 17 across three focus groups), which severely restricts the credibility and transferability of the findings. Although the authors claim data saturation, this is not sufficiently justified given the limited participant diversity and single-site design. Second, there is a lack of clear theoretical integration: while both Basic Psychological Needs Theory and intersectionality are mentioned, the latter remains underdeveloped and is not meaningfully operationalized in the analysis. Third, the results are largely descriptive and confirmatory of existing literature rather than offering novel theoretical or empirical contributions; many findings reiterate well-established links between parental support and psychological need satisfaction without sufficient depth or critical analysis. Additionally, issues related to analytical rigor arise, as the extremely high inter-coder agreement (κ = .98) is reported without adequate explanation, raising concerns about potential over-standardization or lack of interpretive depth in qualitative coding. Finally, the manuscript contains several conceptual repetitions, language issues, and structural redundancies that weaken its academic quality. Taken together, these concerns limit the manuscript’s contribution and warrant rejection rather than revision.

Best regards.

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

Comments 1: First, the study suffers from significant methodological limitations, particularly the very small and non-representative sample (N = 17 across three focus groups), which severely restricts the credibility and transferability of the findings.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful and important comment. We acknowledge that the relatively small and context-specific sample may limit the transferability of the findings. However, we would like to clarify that the study follows an exploratory qualitative design, which prioritizes depth of understanding over statistical representativeness.

The participants were sampled from Gökçeada, a Greek-speaking minority community of approximately 300 inhabitants, with around 50 individuals connected to the lower and upper secondary school, comprising both the school's teaching staff and students. The 17 participants included in this study represent a substantial proportion of the accessible population, which strengthens the contextual relevance of the findings.

The use of focus groups within a small, culturally close-knit minority community was intentional, allowing for the exploration of shared meanings, social interactions, and collective experiences that may not emerge through larger-scale or individual data collection methods. In this context, the sample is appropriate for capturing contextually grounded insights. (see Data Analysis section, 3^rd paragraph).

We have further clarified this rationale by making explicit that each of the three focus groups (parents, lower secondary students, upper secondary students) constitutes a distinct perspective unit, and that the frequency data reported in the revised Table 2 are indexed to these three groups rather than to individuals.

Comments 2: Although the authors claim data saturation, this is not sufficiently justified given the limited participant diversity and single-site design.

Response 2: Regarding data saturation, we have revised the manuscript to provide clearer justification. Specifically, saturation was determined through an iterative process of data collection and analysis, where no new themes or meaningful variations emerged across the three focus groups, and thematic patterns became repetitive. We also note that the relative homogeneity of the participant group contributed to the early identification of recurring themes. (see Data Analysis section, 1^st paragraph)

In response to the reviewer’s comment, we have further strengthened the manuscript by explicitly acknowledging the limitations related to sample size, diversity, and single-site design, and by framing the findings in terms of contextual relevance and potential transferability rather than generalizability. (see Limitations section)

Comments 3: Second, there is a lack of clear theoretical integration: while both Basic Psychological Needs Theory and intersectionality are mentioned, the latter remains underdeveloped and is not meaningfully operationalized in the analysis.

Response 3: We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. In the revised manuscript, we have strengthened both the theoretical integration of Basic Psychological Needs Theory (BPNT) and intersectionality, as well as the operationalization of the intersectional framework throughout the study.

First, we enhanced the theoretical framework by explicitly articulating how an intersectional lens extends BPNT. Specifically, we now clarify that psychological need satisfaction (autonomy, competence, and relatedness) is not experienced uniformly but is shaped by students’ positioning within intersecting sociocultural contexts and structural conditions. (see “The Current Study” Section, 2^nd paragraph)

Second, we improved the operationalization of intersectionality in the analysis. In the Results section addressing RQ2, we now frame barriers and facilitators as emerging from the interplay of students’ sociocultural positions (e.g., language background, and community context), rather than as uniform experiences. In RQ3, we further extend this analysis by examining minority status as a key structural and contextual condition that shapes students’ experiences of need satisfaction and frustration. This distinction clarifies the analytical progression from identifying factors (RQ2) to interpreting them through an intersectional lens (RQ3).

The revised Table 2 makes this operationalization visible by showing which focus group(s) reported each factor, enabling readers to trace how the S-M and S-H student groups diverge in their experience of specific barriers and facilitators alongside parental accounts.

Third, we strengthened the Discussion section by explicitly linking our findings to intersectionality, highlighting how students’ experiences are co-shaped by family practices, institutional constraints, and broader sociocultural dynamics. We also emphasize that parental support should be understood within these intersecting contexts, rather than as isolated behavioral practices.

Overall, these revisions ensure a clearer and more consistent integration of intersectionality across the theoretical framework, analysis, and interpretation of findings, addressing the reviewer’s concern.

Comments 4: Third, the results are largely descriptive and confirmatory of existing literature rather than offering novel theoretical or empirical contributions; many findings reiterate well-established links between parental support and psychological need satisfaction without sufficient depth or critical analysis.

Response 4: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We agree that earlier versions of the manuscript placed greater emphasis on describing supportive parental practices than on making explicit the study’s distinctive empirical and theoretical contribution. In response, we revised the manuscript to strengthen the analytical interpretation of the findings and to clarify more precisely what this study contributes beyond confirming established links between parental support and students’ psychological need satisfaction. 

More specifically, we now emphasize that the contribution of the study does not lie in claiming that parental support matters in general, which is already well established in the literature, but in showing how need-supportive parenting is experienced, negotiated, and sometimes constrained within a minority bilingual educational context. The revised manuscript clarifies that, in this setting, parental support is not simply a direct interpersonal resource; rather, it operates within linguistic demands, institutional asymmetries, limited resources, and community dynamics that shape how autonomy, competence, and relatedness are experienced by students.

We also strengthened the Discussion by moving beyond descriptive restatement of findings and developing a more interpretive account of three key contributions: (a) parental support in this context functions as a contextually mediated rather than universal process, (b) the same parental practices may be experienced as both supportive and constraining depending on minority-related pressures, and (c) minority status is not treated merely as background, but as a structural condition that reshapes the meaning and enactment of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. 

Accordingly, we revised the Results and Discussion sections to sharpen distinctions between established knowledge and the present study’s added contribution, and to make the contextual and analytical value of the findings more explicit. 

The new analytical paragraphs in Sections 3.2.1–3.2.3 go beyond parental accounts by systematically identifying which student group (S-M or S-H) raised each barrier and facilitator, revealing developmental differences: for example, middle school students were more likely to report autonomy barriers and social connection difficulties, while high school students more prominently voiced competence-related encouragement and the importance of family climate. These patterns are interpreted in relation to BPNT and intersectionality rather than simply described. (see Results sections 3.2.1–3.2.3; Discussion sections 4.1-4.3)

Comments 5: Additionally, issues related to analytical rigor arise, as the extremely high inter-coder agreement (κ = .98) is reported without adequate explanation, raising concerns about potential over-standardization or lack of interpretive depth in qualitative coding.

Response 5: Regarding the reported Cohen’s κ, we acknowledge the reviewer’s concern. In line with contemporary reflexive thematic analysis guidelines, we have removed the κ statistic from the manuscript and strengthened the description of the coding process, emphasizing its iterative, collaborative, and reflexive nature, including multiple rounds of coding and discussion among researchers. This approach ensures analytical rigor and interpretive depth, prioritizing transparency and reflexivity over statistical agreement measures. (See Data Analysis section)

Comments 6: Finally, the manuscript contains several conceptual repetitions, language issues, and structural redundancies that weaken its academic quality. Taken together, these concerns limit the manuscript’s contribution and warrant rejection rather than revision.

Response 6: Thank you for your time and for the thoughtful and detailed feedback you provided on our manuscript.

In response to the comments, we have carefully revised the manuscript to address the concerns raised. Specifically, we have worked to reduce conceptual repetitions, improve the clarity and consistency of the language, and streamline the overall structure to eliminate redundancies. We have also clarified the distinctions between the research questions and strengthened the theoretical framing where needed.

We believe that these revisions have substantially improved the quality, coherence, and contribution of the manuscript. We hope that the revised version addresses the concerns raised and meets the standards for publication.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: Does Support Meet the Need? A Focus Group Study on Paren- 2tal Support and Students’ Psychological Need Satisfaction in a 3Minority School Context

 

## Review Comments

 

• Introduction
• It is necessary to separate the introduction from the theoretical background. The introduction can address the necessity and purpose of the research as well as the research question. Since the introduction and literature review are integrated, it is difficult to convey the necessity of the research.
• How does this study differ from previous research? The introduction should highlight the limitations and gaps of prior studies and describe how this research contributes to the advancement of this field.
• Three research questions have been presented. The introduction must present the direct content for deriving these three research questions.
• Various theories appear in the introduction. The paper should be led by focusing on the theories that are primarily applied among these.

 

2. Method

• Although it is a qualitative study, the issue of the representativeness of the research subjects is raised. Can the research results obtained from subjects sampled in Gökçeada ensure representativeness?
• It is stated that semi-structured interviews were conducted with 267 students and parents to obtain rich and in-depth stories. It is also explained that parents (N=5, 3 fathers, 2 mothers), middle school students (N=6), and high school students (N=6) were sampled. The reason for surveying 267 people and specific details must be presented. Furthermore, how were these results applied to the parents and students? A detailed explanation regarding this will be necessary.
• Did the unique characteristics and results of the research subjects not emerge through individual interviews? Is the method adopted in this study valid?
• Data saturation is being mentioned, but standards and grounds for this must be presented.
• Cohen’s κ was found to be .98, which is close to perfect agreement. Is this possible?

 

3. Result

- How do the results of this study differ from existing prior research? Are the results not at a predictable level? There is a need to reinforce insights from new perspectives or theoretical aspects.

- The research results should go beyond merely listing cases and focus on interpretation through analysis. Also, there are too many citations regarding the research subjects.

 

4. Discussion

- The discussion appears to require significant supplementation. It should not merely repeat the results but should explain why these outcomes were obtained, based on the researcher's insights.

- The discussion should utilize the theories borrowed from the introduction of this study.

- A comparative discussion with prior research is necessary, specifically regarding how the results of this study contribute to filling gaps in previous research. Furthermore, a comparative discussion regarding the similarities and differences with prior studies is required.

 

5. Implications and Future Directions

- It is necessary to elaborate on the implications. For example, what kind of parental education is required? And what policies are needed? It is necessary to present implementation strategies or measures for parental education or policies.

- The academic contribution of this study needs to be strengthened. It is recommended to explain how the theories presented in the introduction were applied in this study and how they contributed to the usefulness or expansion of those theories.

 

6. Conclusion

• The conclusion should present the academic contribution of this study.

Total Comments

- How is this study related to healthcare? To strengthen its relevance to healthcare, it is necessary to supplement the relevant content in the introduction, theoretical background, results, discussion, and implications.

- Many areas for improvement are found in the introduction, research methods, results, and discussion.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Expert proofreading is required.

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

 

Comments 1: Introduction

• It is necessary to separate the introduction from the theoretical background. The introduction can address the necessity and purpose of the research as well as the research question. Since the introduction and literature review are integrated, it is difficult to convey the necessity of the research.
• How does this study differ from previous research? The introduction should highlight the limitations and gaps of prior studies and describe how this research contributes to the advancement of this field.
• Three research questions have been presented. The introduction must present the direct content for deriving these three research questions.

 

Response 1: Thank you for these insightful comments. In response, we have revised the structure of the manuscript by clearly separating the Introduction from the Theoretical Background section. The more extensive review of the literature and theoretical framework has been moved to a newly defined Theoretical Background section.

In addition, we have revised the Introduction to more clearly articulate the limitations of previous research and to highlight the specific gap addressed by the present study.

More specifically, we now emphasize that prior studies have predominantly focused on majority populations and have largely relied on quantitative methodologies, leaving limited understanding of how parental support is experienced within minority contexts. We also clarify the added value of our qualitative approach in capturing the complexity of participants’ perspectives.

Furthermore, we have strengthened the description of the study’s contribution by explicitly outlining how it advances existing knowledge, particularly by examining parental support and psychological need satisfaction within a minority educational context and by incorporating both students’ and parents’ perspectives.

The Introduction has been substantially streamlined to clearly present the aim of the study and the research questions, which have been relocated from the “The current study” section.

 

We believe that this restructuring improves the clarity of the manuscript and more effectively highlights the contribution and necessity of the present study.

 

Comments 2: Various theories appear in the introduction. The paper should be led by focusing on the theories that are primarily applied among these.

Response 2: Thank you for this important comment. In response, we have revised the Introduction to ensure a clearer theoretical focus. Specifically, we have positioned Basic Psychological Needs Theory as the primary guiding framework of the study, as it directly informs the examination of parental support and students’ psychological need satisfaction.

At the same time, intersectionality theory is now more explicitly presented as a complementary perspective that helps contextualize students’ experiences within minority settings, rather than as an additional competing framework.

We believe that this revision improves the conceptual clarity of the manuscript and ensures a more coherent theoretical grounding.

 

Comments 3: Method

Although it is a qualitative study, the issue of the representativeness of the research subjects is raised. Can the research results obtained from subjects sampled in Gökçeada ensure representativeness?

Response 3: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We would like to clarify that the study does not aim for statistical representativeness, as it follows an exploratory qualitative design. Instead, the focus is on generating in-depth, contextually grounded insights, within a culturally specific minority community.

The participants were sampled from Gökçeada, a Greek-speaking minority community of approximately 300 inhabitants, with around 50 individuals connected to the lower and upper secondary school, comprising both the school's teaching staff and students. The 17 participants included in this study represent a substantial proportion of the accessible population, which strengthens the contextual relevance of the findings.

While the study does not claim statistical generalizability, it provides rich information about shared experiences, social dynamics, and context-specific factors shaping psychological well-being. These findings are intended to offer conceptually transferable insights to similar minority contexts rather than to generalize to all populations.

This limitation is now explicitly acknowledged in the manuscript, clarifying that the findings reflect contextual depth and thematic insights rather than broad population representativeness (see Participants and Limitations sections).

 

Comments 4: It is stated that semi-structured interviews were conducted with 267 students and parents to obtain rich and in-depth stories. It is also explained that parents (N=5, 3 fathers, 2 mothers), middle school students (N=6), and high school students (N=6) were sampled. The reason for surveying 267 people and specific details must be presented. Furthermore, how were these results applied to the parents and students? A detailed explanation regarding this will be necessary.

Response 4: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We would like to clarify that the total number of participants in the present study is 17, derived from three focus groups (parents N=5, middle school students N=6, high school students N=6). The reference to a larger number of participants (N=267) does not apply to this study and appears to have resulted from a misunderstanding.

To prevent any potential confusion, we have revised the manuscript to ensure that the sample size is described clearly and consistently throughout. We have also further emphasized that this study follows an exploratory qualitative design, aiming to provide in-depth contextual insights rather than statistically generalizable findings. (see Participants section, 2^nd paragraph)

 

Comments 5: Did the unique characteristics and results of the research subjects not emerge through individual interviews? Is the method adopted in this study valid?

Response 5: We thank the reviewer for this important comment. The use of focus groups was a deliberate methodological choice, as the study aimed to explore shared meanings, collective experiences, and social dynamics related to parental support within a minority community context.

At the same time, we acknowledge that this method may limit the expression of highly personal or critical views. This limitation has now been more explicitly addressed in the manuscript. (see Limitation section).

 

Comments 6: Data saturation is being mentioned, but standards and grounds for this must be presented.

Response 6: We appreciate the reviewer’s comment regarding data saturation. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified the criteria used to determine saturation. (see Data Analysis section, 1^st paragraph)

 

Comments 7: Cohen’s κ was found to be .98, which is close to perfect agreement. Is this possible?

Response 7: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We agree that the use of inter-coder agreement statistics, such as Cohen’s κ, is not always appropriate in reflexive thematic analysis. In response, we have removed the reference to Cohen’s κ from the manuscript. Instead, we have strengthened the description of the coding process, emphasizing its iterative and collaborative nature, including multiple rounds of coding and discussion among researchers. This approach enhances analytical rigor through reflexivity and transparency rather than reliance on statistical indicators. (see Data Analysis section, 3^rd paragraph)

 

Comments 8: Result

• How do the results of this study differ from existing prior research? Are the results not at a predictable level? There is a need to reinforce insights from new perspectives or theoretical aspects.
• The research results should go beyond merely listing cases and focus on interpretation through analysis. Also, there are too many citations regarding the research subjects.

Response 8: Thank you for this important comment. We revised the manuscript to clarify the distinctive contribution of the findings beyond prior research. In particular, we now emphasize that the study does not merely confirm that parental support is associated with autonomy, competence, and relatedness, as already established in BPNT research, but shows how parental support is experienced within a minority bilingual educational context. We highlight that the same parental practices may be interpreted differently by students depending on sociocultural and institutional conditions, such as bilingual demands, limited educational resources, and close-knit community dynamics. In this way, the manuscript now offers a more context-sensitive and theoretically grounded interpretation of parental support.

In addition, we revised the Results section to improve its structure and analytical progression by organizing findings into three research-question-driven sections and three summary tables. We also reduced unnecessary theoretical repetition in the Results and strengthened interpretive discussion in the Discussion section, where the findings are now more explicitly linked to BPNT and intersectionality.

Comments 9: Discussion

• The discussion appears to require significant supplementation. It should not merely repeat the results but should explain why these outcomes were obtained, based on the researcher's insights.
• The discussion should utilize the theories borrowed from the introduction of this study.
• A comparative discussion with prior research is necessary, specifically regarding how the results of this study contribute to filling gaps in previous research. Furthermore, a comparative discussion regarding the similarities and differences with prior studies is required.

Response 9: We appreciate this insightful recommendation and substantially expanded the Discussion section. The revised discussion now moves beyond restating findings and instead explains why parental support was experienced as both supportive and, at times, restrictive within this minority context. Specifically, we interpret these patterns through Basic Psychological Needs Theory (BPNT) and an intersectionality-informed lens, both of which were introduced earlier in the manuscript.

We also strengthened the comparative discussion with prior studies by situating the findings alongside previous BPNT-informed work on parental autonomy support, competence support, and relatedness, as well as research on minority, multilingual, and culturally complex educational environments. The revised discussion now clarifies both the similarities of our findings with prior work and their distinctive contribution, namely that need-supportive parenting in minority schooling must be understood in relation to structural and sociocultural conditions rather than as a decontextualized family process.

Comments 10: Implications and Future Directions

• It is necessary to elaborate on the implications. For example, what kind of parental education is required? And what policies are needed? It is necessary to present implementation strategies or measures for parental education or policies.
• The academic contribution of this study needs to be strengthened. It is recommended to explain how the theories presented in the introduction were applied in this study and how they contributed to the usefulness or expansion of those theories.

Response 10: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We revised the Implications and Future Directions section to provide more developed practical implications for educators, policymakers, parents, and school-based mental health professionals. The revised text now includes examples such as parental engagement programs, culturally relevant educational practices, teacher professional development, school-based psychological support, peer support networks, mentorship opportunities, and culturally responsive counseling.

We also strengthened the academic contribution of the study by clarifying more explicitly how BPNT and intersectionality were used together in the analysis. In the revised manuscript, we explain that BPNT provided the primary framework for understanding autonomy, competence, and relatedness, while intersectionality helped us interpret how these needs are shaped by minority status, language, and sociocultural context. In this sense, the study extends BPNT by showing that need satisfaction is not only influenced by parenting practices themselves, but also by the structural and contextual conditions through which such practices are enacted and interpreted.

 Comments 11: Conclusion

The conclusion should present the academic contribution of this study.

Response 11: Thank you. We revised the Conclusion section to state the academic contribution more explicitly. The revised conclusion now emphasizes that the study contributes a more context-sensitive understanding of psychological need satisfaction by showing that minority status is not merely a background characteristic, but a structural condition shaping how parental support is enacted and experienced in bilingual minority education.

Comments 12: Total Comments

- How is this study related to healthcare? To strengthen its relevance to healthcare, it is necessary to supplement the relevant content in the introduction, theoretical background, results, discussion, and implications. Many areas for improvement are found in the introduction, research methods, results, and discussion.

Response 12: We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. In response, we have strengthened the manuscript’s relevance to healthcare by explicitly integrating mental health and well-being perspectives across multiple sections, including the introduction, theoretical framework, results, discussion, and implications.

Specifically, we highlight how psychological need satisfaction is closely linked to mental health outcomes and how parental support may function as a protective factor, particularly in minority contexts. We also elaborate on the implications of our findings for preventive interventions, mental health promotion, and collaboration between educational and healthcare systems.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript investigates how parental support contributes to the satisfaction of students’ basic psychological needs autonomy, competence, and relatedness within a minority educational context. The study focuses on the Greek-speaking minority community in Gökçeada (Türkiye), where students attend a bilingual school operating within the Turkish educational system. The attempt to combine Self-Determination Theory with intersectionality perspectives in a minority schooling context is conceptually interesting.

However, the manuscript’s theoretical contribution is modest rather than groundbreaking. Similar links between parental support and psychological need satisfaction are already well established in the SDT literature. The novelty lies mainly in the specific cultural context (Greek minority students in Türkiye) rather than in theoretical advancement. In my view, the manuscript’s main contribution is contextual insight, not conceptual innovation.

 

1. The manuscript oscillates between three conceptual frames:

1. Self-Determination Theory / Basic Psychological Needs Theory
2. Intersectionality
3. Minority education / sociocultural stress

The authors should explicitly address questions such as:

• How does minority status modify the mechanisms proposed by BPNT?
• Does parental autonomy support function differently in minority vs majority settings?
• Are the psychological needs experienced differently due to language politics or identity negotiation?

At present, intersectionality appears largely conceptual decoration rather than analytical framework.

2. The total sample size is 17 participants across three focus groups.

While qualitative research does not require large samples, the authors make relatively broad claims about minority education dynamics.

The problem is not the sample size itself but the level of inference drawn from it.

The manuscript should clearly state that the findings represent exploratory insights rather than generalizable patterns.

In addition, the authors should discuss:

• community power dynamics
• possible homogeneity among participants
• whether dissenting views emerged but were suppressed in the group setting

 

3. Using focus groups for sensitive topics such as parenting practices has limitations.

In small minority communities, participants may hesitate to express criticism of parents or schools publicly. This could lead to social desirability bias.

The manuscript acknowledges social desirability briefly in the limitations section, but this issue likely affects the results more strongly than suggested.

The authors should clarify:

• whether the parent and student groups were conducted separately (they were)
• whether teachers or school staff were present
• whether participants knew each other
• whether any dissent or disagreement occurred in the discussions

Including examples of conflicting narratives would strengthen credibility.

 

4. The paper reports Cohen’s Kappa = 0.98.

In qualitative thematic analysis, such extremely high agreement is rare unless:

• the coding scheme is extremely simple, or
• coders coded a very small subset of the data.

From my experience reviewing qualitative papers, a κ of 0.98 usually indicates one of two issues: Coders discussed coding extensively beforehand (which reduces independence) or Reliability was calculated on a very limited dataset

The authors should specify:

• how many transcripts were used for reliability
• whether coding was independent or consensus-based
• the number of coded segments

Without this clarification, the reliability estimate appears methodologically questionable.

5. The results include multiple participant quotes illustrating themes such as:

• autonomy boundaries
• parental encouragement
• family climate
• comparison with others

However, the section reads largely as extended storytelling rather than structured analytical reporting.

For example:

• themes sometimes overlap conceptually
• the distinction between practice vs perception vs contextual factor is blurred

6 Sections 4.1–4.3 largely restate findings rather than interpret them theoretically.

This is a common issue in qualitative manuscripts.

The discussion should go further by addressing:

• what this case reveals about minority educational systems
• how bilingual schooling influences need satisfaction dynamics
• implications for parent–school collaboration

Table 1 (Theme hierarchy)

This table is useful but incomplete analytically. I would suggest the following

1. Add a column showing example quotes
2. Clarify which group generated the theme (parent or student)

Table 2 Include a column indicating how often each factor appeared across groups.

I strongly recommend adding one conceptual figure.

For example:

Parental Support → Need Satisfaction → Student Well-being
moderated by
Minority Context (language demands, institutional constraints)

1. Several sentences are overly long and would benefit from editing for clarity.
2. The introduction repeats concepts related to psychological need satisfaction multiple times.
3. Some references are very recent (2024–2025), which is positive, but foundational SDT studies could be discussed more critically.
4. The discussion occasionally uses cautious language excessively (e.g., “may influence,” “could contribute”), reducing argumentative clarity.
5. The results occasionally mix interpretation with description, which should be separated.

Author Response

Reviewer 3:

Comments 1: The attempt to combine Self-Determination Theory with intersectionality perspectives in a minority schooling context is conceptually interesting. However, the manuscript’s theoretical contribution is modest rather than groundbreaking. Similar links between parental support and psychological need satisfaction are already well established in the SDT literature. The novelty lies mainly in the specific cultural context (Greek minority students in Türkiye) rather than in theoretical advancement. In my view, the manuscript’s main contribution is contextual insight, not conceptual innovation.

1. The manuscript oscillates between three conceptual frames:

1. Self-Determination Theory / Basic Psychological Needs Theory
2. Intersectionality
3. Minority education / sociocultural stress

The authors should explicitly address questions such as:

• How does minority status modify the mechanisms proposed by BPNT?
• Does parental autonomy support function differently in minority vs majority settings?
• Are the psychological needs experienced differently due to language politics or identity negotiation?

At present, intersectionality appears largely conceptual decoration rather than analytical framework.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful and constructive comment. In response, we have revised the manuscript to establish a clearer and more coherent theoretical focus. Specifically, we now position Basic Psychological Needs Theory (BPNT) as the primary guiding framework of the study, as it directly informs our examination of parental support and students’ psychological need satisfaction. At the same time, intersectionality is more explicitly presented as a complementary analytical lens that helps contextualize how these psychological processes are shaped within a minority setting, rather than as a separate competing framework.

The revised Table 2 operationalises this directly: by distinguishing which barriers and facilitators were raised by parents, middle school students, and high school students separately, the table shows how intersecting identity dimensions (age/school level, minority status, language context) shape which aspects of parental support are experienced as need-supporting or need-thwarting. This disaggregation by focus group is a concrete analytical move informed by the intersectional lens.

In addition, we have strengthened the manuscript by clarifying that the satisfaction and frustration of autonomy, competence, and relatedness are not experienced uniformly, but are mediated by students’ sociocultural positioning and the structural conditions of minority life. In the revised analysis and discussion, we therefore interpret parental support not as a universal process detached from context, but as one that is shaped by factors such as language background, community context, and minority status. This revision allows us to more explicitly address how minority status may modify the operation and meaning of BPNT-related processes in this setting. 

We have also strengthened the operationalization of intersectionality across the Results and Discussion sections. More specifically, barriers and facilitators are now interpreted as emerging from the interplay of sociocultural and contextual positions, and minority status is discussed as a key structural condition shaping experiences of need satisfaction and frustration. We believe these revisions provide a more analytically grounded and conceptually coherent framework. 

Comments 2: The total sample size is 17 participants across three focus groups.

While qualitative research does not require large samples, the authors make relatively broad claims about minority education dynamics.

The problem is not the sample size itself but the level of inference drawn from it.

The manuscript should clearly state that the findings represent exploratory insights rather than generalizable patterns.

In addition, the authors should discuss:

• community power dynamics
• possible homogeneity among participants
• whether dissenting views emerged but were suppressed in the group setting

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this important comment. We agree that the key issue is not the absolute sample size itself, but the level of inference drawn from it. In response, we have revised the manuscript to more clearly state that the study follows an exploratory qualitative design, aiming to generate in-depth, contextually grounded insights rather than statistically generalizable findings. 

We further clarify that the participants were drawn from a small and culturally specific Greek-speaking minority community in Gökçeada, and that the 17 participants represent a substantial proportion of the accessible population connected to the school context. Accordingly, we now frame the findings in terms of contextual relevance and potential transferability, rather than broad generalizability. This limitation has also been made more explicit in the revised manuscript.

Comments 3: Using focus groups for sensitive topics such as parenting practices has limitations.

In small minority communities, participants may hesitate to express criticism of parents or schools publicly. This could lead to social desirability bias.

The manuscript acknowledges social desirability briefly in the limitations section, but this issue likely affects the results more strongly than suggested.

The authors should clarify:

• whether the parent and student groups were conducted separately (they were)
• whether teachers or school staff were present
• whether participants knew each other
• whether any dissent or disagreement occurred in the discussions

Including examples of conflicting narratives would strengthen credibility.

Response 3: We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment regarding the limitations of focus groups in small and close-knit minority communities. We agree that issues such as social desirability and reluctance to express criticism may have influenced participants’ responses.

To address this concern, we have clarified several methodological aspects in the revised manuscript (see Participants section):

• Parent and student focus groups were conducted separately to reduce power dynamics and facilitate more open discussion.
• No teachers or school staff were present during the focus group discussions.

We have added clarification regarding the presence of both convergence and divergence in participants’ narratives. Importantly, while social desirability may have shaped some responses, the data also included instances of tension, ambivalence, and disagreement (e.g., differences between parental intentions and students’ interpretations), which suggests that participants expressed critical perspectives within the group context. (see 3.1. “Parental support to satisfy students’ basic psychological needs QR1” section, 2^nd paragraph)

Given the small size of the community, it is likely that some participants were familiar with each other; this has now been explicitly acknowledged as a potential influence on data openness. We have strengthened the limitations section to more explicitly reflect the potential impact of social desirability bias and the constraints of conducting focus groups in small communities. (see Limitations section)

Comments 4: The paper reports Cohen’s Kappa = 0.98.

In qualitative thematic analysis, such extremely high agreement is rare unless:

• the coding scheme is extremely simple, or
• coders coded a very small subset of the data.

From my experience reviewing qualitative papers, a κ of 0.98 usually indicates one of two issues: Coders discussed coding extensively beforehand (which reduces independence) or Reliability was calculated on a very limited dataset

The authors should specify:

• how many transcripts were used for reliability
• whether coding was independent or consensus-based
• the number of coded segments

Without this clarification, the reliability estimate appears methodologically questionable.

Response 4: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We agree that the use of inter-coder agreement statistics such as Cohen’s κ is not always appropriate within reflexive thematic analysis, particularly when coding is developed through iterative and collaborative interpretation. In response, we have removed the reference to Cohen’s κ from the manuscript. 

Instead, we have strengthened the description of the data analysis process by emphasizing its iterative, collaborative, and reflexive nature, including multiple rounds of coding and discussion among researchers. In this way, the revised manuscript now presents analytical rigor through reflexivity, transparency, and interpretive depth rather than through a statistical reliability coefficient. 

Comments 5: The results include multiple participant quotes illustrating themes such as:

• autonomy boundaries
• parental encouragement
• family climate
• comparison with others

However, the section reads largely as extended storytelling rather than structured analytical reporting.

For example:

• themes sometimes overlap conceptually
• the distinction between practice vs perception vs contextual factor is blurred

Response 5: Thank you for this careful methodological observation. In response, we revised the Results section to improve its structure and analytical clarity. Specifically, we reorganized the findings according to the three research questions, added summary tables to present the hierarchy of themes and the distinction between barriers/facilitators and minority-status-related influences, and clarified the analytical progression from parental practices (RQ1) to barriers/facilitators (RQ2) and then to the structural role of minority status (RQ3).

We also revised the accompanying narrative to make clearer when we are referring to (a) parental practices, (b) students’ perceptions of those practices, and (c) the contextual conditions shaping their meaning. Although the findings remain qualitative and illustrative by design, we aimed to ensure a more structured and analytically coherent presentation.

Comments 6: Sections 4.1–4.3 largely restate findings rather than interpret them theoretically.

This is a common issue in qualitative manuscripts.

The discussion should go further by addressing:

• what this case reveals about minority educational systems
• how bilingual schooling influences need satisfaction dynamics
• implications for parent–school collaboration

Response 6: We agree and revised the Discussion accordingly. The revised sections now address what the case reveals about minority educational systems by showing how bilingual schooling, limited educational resources, and community-level pressures shape the experience of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. We also discuss how these conditions influence students’ perceptions of parental support and why this has implications for family-school collaboration, school psychology practice, and minority education policy.

Comments 7: Table 1 (Theme hierarchy)

This table is useful but incomplete analytically. I would suggest the following

1. Add a column showing example quotes
2. Clarify which group generated the theme (parent or student)

Response 7: We thank the reviewer for these constructive suggestions regarding Table 1. In response, Table 1 has been revised and expanded with the following additions.

First, an “Example Quotes” column has been added, presenting representative excerpts from participant accounts for each theme. Quotes are drawn from both parent (P) and student (S) accounts and appear alongside each subtheme, making the empirical basis of the thematic structure directly visible to the reader.

Second, a “Theme Generator Group” column has been added, indicating whether each theme was identified by parents only, students only, or by both groups. This addition substantially enhances the analytical completeness of the table. In particular, it reveals an important asymmetry: while most themes were reported across both groups, two themes — “Comparison with Other People” and “Empathy & Resources” — emerged exclusively from student accounts, pointing to experiences that parents did not recognize or articulate. This asymmetry is now explicitly discussed in the main text. (see Section 3.1, paragraph following Table 1)

In addition, a new introductory paragraph has been added in the main text before Table 1, explicitly describing the table’s structure: the three overarching themes, the twelve distinct themes identified, the meaning of the example quotes, and the interpretation of the group attribution column. The paragraph following Table 1 has also been extended to draw analytical attention to the divergence between parent and student perspectives revealed by the new column. (see Section 3.1, paragraphs preceding and following Table 1)

Comments 8: Table 2 Include a column indicating how often each factor appeared across groups.

I strongly recommend adding one conceptual figure.

For example:

Parental Support → Need Satisfaction → Student Well-being
moderated by Minority Context (language demands, institutional constraints)

Response 8: We thank the reviewer for these recommendations. Both have been fully implemented in the revised manuscript, as described below.

Regarding Table 2, a “Frequency (No. of Groups)” column has been added, indicating how consistently each barrier and facilitator appeared across the three focus groups (parents, lower secondary students, upper secondary students). Factors identified by all three groups (3/3) — such as parental control and lack of trust, institutional constraints of minority status, lack of educational resources, parental encouragement and positive reinforcement, and cultural and linguistic barriers — reflect high cross-group salience. Factors appearing in two of the three groups (2/3) indicate more context-specific or age-related expression. A sentence explaining the frequency column has been added in the main text before Table 2. (see Section 3.2, paragraph preceding Table 2)

Figure 1 has been added to the manuscript. In the current revision, the figure and its accompanying interpretation have been repositioned to Section 4.4 (General Discussion). The figure has also been simplified to present a two-box moderation model: Parental Support (left) predicts Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction (right), with Minority Context (bottom) as the moderating variable. The reference to Student Well-being as a separate outcome box has been removed, as this outcome is not directly measured in the present qualitative study. The figure caption and the corresponding in-text discussion in Section 4. 4 (General Discussion) have been revised accordingly.

Comments 9: Several sentences are overly long and would benefit from editing for clarity.

Response 9: We thank the reviewer for these helpful comments. In response, we have carefully revised the manuscript to improve the overall clarity, concision, and structure of the text. Specifically, we have worked to reduce conceptual repetition, streamline overly long or redundant passages, and improve the consistency and precision of the language throughout the manuscript. 

We have also clarified the distinctions among the research questions and strengthened the theoretical framing where needed, which has helped improve the overall coherence of the manuscript. In addition, we have revised sections of the text to better separate descriptive presentation from interpretive discussion, thereby improving readability and argumentative clarity. 

Comments 10: The introduction repeats concepts related to psychological need satisfaction multiple times.

Response 10: We thank the reviewer for this helpful observation. We acknowledge that the previous version of the introduction included some repetition of concepts related to psychological need satisfaction. In the revised manuscript, the introduction has been carefully edited to reduce redundancy and improve clarity and flow. Repetitive descriptions have been streamlined, and key concepts are now presented more concisely and cohesively. The current version reflects these revisions.

Comments 11: Some references are very recent (2024–2025), which is positive, but foundational SDT studies could be discussed more critically.

Response 11: We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. We agree that, while recent literature has been adequately incorporated, further critical engagement with foundational Self-Determination Theory (SDT) studies strengthens the theoretical grounding of the manuscript. In the revised version, we have expanded the discussion of foundational SDT work. (see Introduction, 1^st paragraph) 

Comments 12: The discussion occasionally uses cautious language excessively (e.g., “may influence,” “could contribute”), reducing argumentative clarity.

Response 12: Thank you. We carefully revised the language throughout the Discussion and Conclusion to improve argumentative clarity and to state the contribution more directly, while still maintaining appropriate caution consistent with qualitative research.

Comments 13: The results occasionally mix interpretation with description, which should be separated.

Response 13: We appreciate this methodological point. We revised the Results to improve the separation between descriptive thematic reporting and broader interpretation. In the revised manuscript, the Results section now focuses more clearly on reporting the thematic patterns and illustrative participant accounts, while the Discussion section is used more explicitly for theoretical interpretation and explanation.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

reject

Comments on the Quality of English Language

reject

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their time and careful evaluation of our manuscript. 

We respectfully note that we have carefully considered each of the reviewer’s previous concerns and have revised the manuscript accordingly, aiming to improve clarity, coherence, and theoretical contribution.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

## Review Comments

 

• Introduction

- Most of it has been well modified and supplemented based on the review comments.

- However, the contents requiring improvement have been identified. Although the introduction and the Theoretical Background have been separated, the content of the introduction is too short. While the limitations of prior research have been explained, what are the differences between this study and existing prior research? This needs to be explained in detail.

 

2. Theoretical Background

- Is it impossible to explain BPNT and Intersectionality theory by integrating them?

- It is necessary to supplement the explanation regarding why BPNT is necessary to solve the problem of this study and how this study contributes to the expansion of this theory.

- What is the relevance of this study to healthcare journals? This is a very important issue. This has not been supplemented. Connecting content should be included in the introduction, theoretical background, results, discussion, implications, and conclusion.

 

2. Method

- Overall, the review comments were well reflected.

- It was suggested that an explanation was needed regarding why the sample size differed. However, the revised version deleted the content regarding the sample size of 267 people; an explanation is required as to why this was deleted.

- Furthermore, the issue of representativeness still remains due to the small sample size.

- The explanation regarding Cohen’s κ = .98 was not reflected.

 

3. Results

- Overall, there are parts that have been revised, and parts that have not yet been revised.

- The organization of the results, specifically the way they are listed, needs improvement. Additionally, how do the derived research findings differ from existing prior studies?

 

4. Discussion

- There has been some progress in the discussion. However, areas requiring improvement are still being identified.

- There is a tendency to repeat results, and researchers' insights into why these outcomes occurred need to be supplemented.

 

5. Implications and Future Directions

- It was confirmed that it was partially reflected in accordance with the review report.

- The policies or strategies presented in the implications need to be further specified. Additionally, there is a need to further strengthen the explanation regarding the theoretical contribution of BPNT.

 

6. Conclusion

- The content of the research has been summarized well. However, the academic contribution needs further improvement.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Expert proofreading is required.

Author Response

1. Introduction

Most of it has been well modified and supplemented based on the review comments.

Comment a- However, the contents requiring improvement have been identified. Although the introduction and the Theoretical Background have been separated, the content of the introduction is too short. While the limitations of prior research have been explained, what are the differences between this study and existing prior research? This needs to be explained in detail.

Response: Following the reviewer’s comment, we added the paragraph below in the Introduction section.

Notably, the study differs from prior research in three important ways. First, it adopts a qualitative approach, allowing for an in-depth exploration of how parental support is experienced and interpreted by both students and parents. Second, it focuses on a minority bilingual school context, where students navigate multiple linguistic and cultural demands. Third, it integrates BPNS with an intersectionality-informed perspective, in order to capture how psychological need satisfaction is shaped by overlapping sociocultural conditions.

 

2. Theoretical Background

Comment a- Is it impossible to explain BPNT and Intersectionality theory by integrating them?

Response: Following the reviewer’s comment, we added the paragraph below in the Theoretical Background section.

While BPNT provides a robust framework for understanding universal psychological needs, its application in minority contexts remains underexplored. In such settings, the satisfaction of autonomy, competence, and relatedness may be shaped not only by interpersonal factors, but also by structural (such as limited access to educational resources and institutional support) and sociocultural (such as linguistic diversity, cultural expectations, and minority status-related pressures) constraints. Therefore, applying BPNT in this study allows for the examination of how universal psychological processes operate under context-specific conditions.

Comment b- It is necessary to supplement the explanation regarding why BPNT is necessary to solve the problem of this study and how this study contributes to the expansion of this theory.

Response: Following the reviewer’s comment, we added the paragraph below in the Current Study section.

Specifically, BPNT explains what psychological needs are essential for well-being, while intersectionality helps explain how these needs are differentially experienced depending on individuals’ sociocultural positioning. In this sense, intersectionality does not replace BPNT but extends it by situating psychological need satisfaction within systems of social relations, inequalities, and institutional constraints.

Comment c- What is the relevance of this study to healthcare journals? This is a very important issue. This has not been supplemented. Connecting content should be included in the introduction, theoretical background, results, discussion, implications, and conclusion.

Response: We thank the reviewer for highlighting the importance of clarifying the relevance of this study to healthcare research. In response, we have now systematically strengthened the manuscript by explicitly integrating connections to healthcare and youth mental health throughout all sections, including the Introduction, Theoretical Background, Results, Discussion, Implications, and Conclusion (highlighted in yellow). Specifically, we emphasize the role of psychological need satisfaction as a key determinant of students’ mental health and well-being, as well as its relevance for prevention, early intervention, and school-based mental health support, particularly in minority contexts where students may be exposed to additional stressors. These revisions aim to clearly position the study within a broader healthcare framework and to highlight its contribution to understanding the social and contextual determinants of youth mental health.

 

3. Method

- Overall, the review comments were well reflected.

Comment a- It was suggested that an explanation was needed regarding why the sample size differed. However, the revised version deleted the content regarding the sample size of 267 people; an explanation is required as to why this was deleted.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We would like to clarify that the total number of participants in the present study is 17, derived from three focus groups (parents N=5, middle school students N=6, high school students N=6).

The reference to a larger number of participants (N = 267) does not pertain to the present study and may reflect a possible misunderstanding.

To prevent any potential confusion, we have revised the manuscript to ensure that the sample size is described clearly and consistently throughout. (see Participants section, 2^nd paragraph)

 

Comment b- Furthermore, the issue of representativeness still remains due to the small sample size.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We added the following paragraphs (see Participants section)

 

In line with qualitative research principles, the aim of this study is not statistical generalization but to provide an in-depth, contextually grounded understanding of participants’ experiences; therefore, sample adequacy was evaluated based on information richness and the capacity to generate meaningful themes rather than representativeness (Elmholdt et al., 2026).

The participants were drawn from the Greek-speaking minority community of approximately 300 inhabitants, with around 50 individuals connected to the lower and upper secondary school, comprising both the school's teaching staff and students. While the sample is small, it represents a substantial proportion of the accessible population and is sufficient for generating in-depth, contextually grounded insights within this minority community.

 

Comment c - The explanation regarding Cohen’s κ = .98 was not reflected.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We agree that the use of inter-coder agreement statistics, such as Cohen’s κ, is not always appropriate in reflexive thematic analysis.

In response, we have removed the reference to Cohen’s κ from the manuscript. Instead, we have strengthened the description of the coding process, emphasizing its iterative and collaborative nature, including multiple rounds of coding and discussion among researchers. This approach enhances analytical rigor through reflexivity and transparency rather than reliance on statistical indicators. (see Data Analysis section, 3^rd paragraph)

 

4. Results

- Overall, there are parts that have been revised, and parts that have not yet been revised.

Comment a- The organization of the results, specifically the way they are listed, needs improvement. Additionally, how do the derived research findings differ from existing prior studies?

Response: Following the reviewer’s comment, we added the paragraphs below to the Results section.

The results are organized in a hierarchical and theory-driven structure, aligned with Basic Psychological Needs Theory (BPNT). First, data from focus groups were coded inductively and then deductively mapped onto the three basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence, relatedness). Within each need, findings are further structured into (a) parental practices and students’ experiences (RQ1), (b) barriers and facilitators across contexts (RQ2), and (c) the specific influence of minority status (RQ3).

The way the results are organised makes an important contribution to the overall interpretation of the findings, as it goes beyond a simple thematic presentation of the data and instead builds a clear, multi-level analytical framework grounded in BPNT. The findings are structured around the three basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence, and relatedness) and are then developed across three interconnected levels: (a) parental practices and students’ lived experiences, (b) contextual barriers and facilitators, and (c) the specific role of minority status as a structural factor shaping these experiences. This structure makes it possible to clearly see where parents’ and students’ perspectives converge or diverge, while also moving the analysis from everyday inter-actions within the family to broader sociocultural and institutional conditions. In this way, the key contribution of this organization lies in transforming the results from a descriptive thematic account into a more integrated and interpretive understanding of how BPNS is shaped within a minority educational context, thereby informing preventive and school-based mental health interventions.

 

5. Discussion

- There has been some progress in the discussion. However, areas requiring improvement are still being identified.

Comment a- There is a tendency to repeat results, and researchers' insights into why these outcomes occurred need to be supplemented.

Response: We have followed the reviewer’s suggestion regarding the tendency to repeat results and the need to further supplement researchers’ interpretations of why these outcomes occurred. In the revised Discussion section, we reduced repetition of findings across subsections and strengthened the analytic depth by more explicitly integrating interpretative explanations grounded in the sociocultural and educational context of minority settings. Specifically, we expanded the discussion on why certain parental practices and student experiences emerge in this context, emphasizing mechanisms such as cultural preservation, linguistic demands, perceived social vulnerability, and structural educational constraints. This allowed us to move beyond restating results and to provide a more theoretically informed explanation of how and why need-supportive or need-thwarting processes operate differently in minority environments.

 

6. Implications and Future Directions

- It was confirmed that it was partially reflected in accordance with the review report.

Comment a- The policies or strategies presented in the implications need to be further specified. Additionally, there is a need to further strengthen the explanation regarding the theoretical contribution of BPNT.

Response: Following the reviewer’s comment, we added the paragraphs below in the Implications and Future Directions section.

Overall, the study contributes to BPNT by demonstrating that psychological need satisfaction [1] should be understood not only as an interpersonal process, but also as a contextually embedded phenomenon shaped by multiple identity dimensions, such as ethnicity, language, and minority status [7]. (…)

The results of this study have several practical implications. Schools could adopt a more integrated and context-sensitive approach by implementing structured parental training programs that promote autonomy-supportive communication, helping parents balance guidance with independence. In parallel, the provision of support services, such as language scaffolding programs and cultural facilitators, could enhance students’ sense of competence and relatedness by addressing the specific challenges of dual-language learning and small minority contexts.

 

7. Conclusion

Comment a- The content of the research has been summarized well. However, the academic contribution needs further improvement.

Response: Following the reviewer’s comment, we added the paragraph below in the Conclusion section.

In this way, the study advances current literature by moving beyond universalist interpretations of psychological need satisfaction and proposing a context-sensitive framework that integrates individual, relational, and structural dimensions. This contribution is particularly relevant for both educational and healthcare research concerned with promoting well-being in culturally diverse populations.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing my comments

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their positive feedback and for acknowledging the revisions.

We greatly appreciate your time and constructive input, which have helped us improve the quality of the manuscript.