A Systematic Review of Volunteer Motivation and Satisfaction in Disability Sports Organizations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study is very important and it will be a reference for future studies. It is very well writen and in an interesting way as it is clear and direct. It is a very complete review and raises pertinent questions. The most important question is the big conclusion of the lack of studies that analyze volunteering in sports for people with disabilities.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Line 14

 

 disabled sports it should be used sports for people with disabilities, Para sports

 

 In Europe, the European Union [4], through the Eurobarometer, reported that the 41 intention to engage as a sports volunteer in the next two months was 10%.

 In Europe, the European Union Commission [4], through the Eurobarometer, reported that the 41 intention to engage as a sports volunteer in the next two months was 10%.

It should refer first to the percentage of volunteers in general and after specify for sports volunteers.

 

Line 51 -> it should be [7] instead of [1]

 

Line 79 -> “Volunteer motivation can vary over time, changing as they develop their own work.”

Specify who are “they”.

 

Line 85 and 86 -> One of the first instruments developed was the Volunteer Functions Inventory (VFI) 85 [22]. -> it should be [18]. Verify.

 

Line 650

Angosto, Salvador; Vegara-Ferri, José Miguel; Bravo, Gonzalo A Motivational profiles of

Angosto, Salvador; Vegara-Ferri, José Miguel; Bravo, Gonzalo A. Motivational profiles of

 

Line 139

Prisma in Exercise, Rehabilitation, Sport medicine and SporTs science) guideLine s [56].

It should de:

Prisma in Exercise, Rehabilitation, Sport Medicine and SporTs Science) guideLine s [56].

 

Line 148

Table 2 instead of Table 2

Line 149

Verify if the use of “” and * is necessary, and make proper adjustments

Line 151

Verify if the use of “” and * and (), is necessary, and make proper adjustments

Line 157 and 162

“disabled sports” use “sports for people with disabilities” or “adapted sports” or “Para sports”

disabled people it should be used people with disabilities

Line 206

“disabled and non-disabled sports” use “adapted sports and non-adapted sports”

Line 530

Supplementary Materials: PRISMA checklist can be downloaded at: www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1.

The link does not work.

Line 225

“disabled and non-disabled sports” use“adapted sports and non-adapted sports”

Line 233

“Oceania and Africa each had one publication.”

“Oceania and Africa had one publication each.”

Line 352

“disabled and adapted sports” use “adapted sports”

Line 740

Nichols, G Volunteering in Community Sports Organisations and Associations. In The

Nichols, G. Volunteering in Community Sports Organisations and Associations. In The

Line 477

“and the intellectually disabled population” use “and people with mental disabilities”

Line 497

“disabled and/or sport organizations”  use  “organizations with sports for people with disabilities”

Line 500

“intellectual disabilities” use “mental disabilities”

Line 508

 

“disability studies” use “studies about disabilities”

Line 141

(https://osf.io/z3wsp). It is not necessary as it is in Line 541

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your kind words and your suggestion about this research, we are glad to hear that other experienced researchers find this study useful. We will try to answer all your comments and concerns about our manuscript, quoting your words and indicating the changes made and the location in the revised manuscript (or the reason why we did not make any modification). The specific lines will be included regarding the pdf document. You can see all the changes made in the manuscript, they have been made with track changes option.

• Line 14. disabled sports it should be used sports for people with disabilities, Para sports

The term “disabled sports” has been replaced throughout the manuscript by “sports for people with disabilities”.

• In Europe, the European Union [4], through the Eurobarometer, reported that the 41 intention to engage as a sports volunteer in the next two months was 10%.
• In Europe, the European Union Commission [4], through the Eurobarometer, reported that the 41 intention to engage as a sports volunteer in the next two months was 10%.
• It should refer first to the percentage of volunteers in general and after specify for sports volunteers.

Change in the redaction of EU Commission has been made (Line 41). However, this document does not refer to general volunteering. Therefore, we cannot include the percentage of general volunteering as requested. General volunteering percentages are shown previously in the manuscript.

• Line 51 -> it should be [7] instead of [1]

This reference refers to Ortiz & Henriques Veiga (2013), which is [1] and not [7]. Therefore, we do not consider it appropriate to be changed.

• Line 79 -> “Volunteer motivation can vary over time, changing as they develop their own work.” Specify who are “they”.

It referred to volunteers. The specification has been made in line 79.

• Line 85 and 86 -> One of the first instruments developed was the Volunteer Functions Inventory (VFI) 85 [22]. -> it should be [18].

We have checked, and reference [22] (Clary et al., 1998) is correct. Chacón et al. [18] refer to a systematic review on VFI, but the original one is [22].

• Line 650
• Angosto, Salvador; Vegara-Ferri, José Miguel; Bravo, Gonzalo A Motivational profiles of
• Angosto, Salvador; Vegara-Ferri, José Miguel; Bravo, Gonzalo A. Motivational profiles of

Correction has been made in the References section of this reference (line 780).

• Line 139
• Prisma in Exercise, Rehabilitation, Sport medicine and SporTs science) guideLine s [56].
• It should de:
• Prisma in Exercise, Rehabilitation, Sport Medicine and SporTs Science) guideLine s [56].

The correction has been made (line 177).

• Line 148
• Table 2 instead of Table 2

The correction has been made (line 185).

• Line 149
• Verify if the use of “” and * is necessary, and make proper adjustments

The use of “” and * is appropriate, since you need to use “” in databases to search for specific terms of 2+ words and * to search all possible finalizations of the base word root.

• Line 151
• Verify if the use of “” and * and (), is necessary, and make proper adjustments

Search protocols have been directly copy-pasted from the different databases, in order to facilitate future replications of this review. Therefore, the operators “”, * and () are correct.

• Line 157 and 162
• “disabled sports” use “sports for people with disabilities” or “adapted sports” or “Para sports”
• disabled people it should be used people with disabilities

The term “disabled sports” has been replaced throughout the manuscript by “sports for people with disabilities”.

• Line 206
• “disabled and non-disabled sports” use “adapted sports and non-adapted sports”

The correction has been made in line 247.

• Line 530
• Supplementary Materials: PRISMA checklist can be downloaded at: www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1.
• The link does not work.

The correct link will be included by the editorial team in the production stage. PRISMA checklist can be checked as supplementary material in the review process.

• Line 225
• “disabled and non-disabled sports” use“adapted sports and non-adapted sports”

PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1) has been corrected in the “reports excluded” section (line 266)

• Line 233
• “Oceania and Africa each had one publication.”
• “Oceania and Africa had one publication each.”

The correction has been made (line 274)

• Line 352
• “disabled and adapted sports” use “adapted sports”

The correction has been made in line 457.

• Line 740
• Nichols, G Volunteering in Community Sports Organisations and Associations. In The
• Nichols, G. Volunteering in Community Sports Organisations and Associations. In The

Correction has been made in the References section of this reference (line 900).

• Line 477
• “and the intellectually disabled population” use “and people with mental disabilities”

The correction has been made (line 582)

• Line 497
• “disabled and/or sport organizations” use  “organizations with sports for people with disabilities”

The correction has been made (line 626-627)

• Line 500
• “intellectual disabilities” use “mental disabilities”

The correction has been made (line 629)

• Line 508
• “disability studies” use “studies about disabilities”

The correction has been made (line 639)

• Line 141
• (https://osf.io/z3wsp). It is not necessary as it is in Line 541

The link has been deleted.

We hope we have answered all your considerations. Again, thank you very much for your time and effort reviewing our manuscript. Best regards.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article appears well-structured and offers a theoretical contribution. In particular, I was glad to see that the systematic review was relevant (from the year 2000 onward) and the detailed description of the review process the authors conducted. The theoretical background is consistent with the literature. Two issues, however, are still missing:

1. The authors list the topic of satisfaction in their keywords but do not address this concept at all in the theoretical background. They appear to conflate motivation with satisfaction, although empirically, they are distinct. A concise subsection on satisfaction needs to be added, and the relationship between motivation and satisfaction should be explained at the end of the theoretical background together with the reasoning behind integrating the two concepts in the review.

2. There is a need to point out the contribution of the manuscript and how it goes beyond the literature. The discussion is phrased rather generically, without critically engaging with the existing body of work. It is also important to explain why one should study or distinguish the motivation related to people with disabilities from the general literature on motivation. Otherwise, why even conduct this study? What is there that is lacking in the general motivation literature, which is already quite extensive?

I liked the recommendations section although it is somewhat disconnected from the manuscript. Many of the points mentioned do not appear in the results at all. Therefore, it is unclear how these recommendations are based on the empirical literature. If possible (given the word limit), even partial integration of some of the elements mentioned here (like cultural sensitivity, and unique barriers before people with disabilities) should appear in the results. The review provides an opportunity to address these aspects

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your kind words and your suggestion about this research, we are glad to hear that other experienced researchers find this study useful. We will try to answer all your comments and concerns about our manuscript, quoting your words and indicating the changes made and the location in the revised manuscript (or the reason why we did not make any modification). The specific lines will be included regarding the pdf document. You can see all the changes made in the manuscript in the Microsoft Word document, they have been made with track changes option.

1. The authors list the topic of satisfaction in their keywords but do not address this concept at all in the theoretical background. They appear to conflate motivation with satisfaction, although empirically, they are distinct. A concise subsection on satisfaction needs to be added, and the relationship between motivation and satisfaction should be explained at the end of the theoretical background together with the reasoning behind integrating the two concepts in the review.

A specific subsection (1.3 Volunteer satisfaction) has been included in the introduction. This section addresses the definition of satisfaction, the relationship between satisfaction and motivation, and their importance for volunteering (lines 102-139).

2. There is a need to point out the contribution of the manuscript and how it goes beyond the literature. The discussion is phrased rather generically, without critically engaging with the existing body of work. It is also important to explain why one should study or distinguish the motivation related to people with disabilities from the general literature on motivation. Otherwise, why even conduct this study? What is there that is lacking in the general motivation literature, which is already quite extensive?

 A section of theoretical implications (5.1, lines 595-617) has been included to address this comment.

3. I liked the recommendations section although it is somewhat disconnected from the manuscript. Many of the points mentioned do not appear in the results at all. Therefore, it is unclear how these recommendations are based on the empirical literature. If possible (given the word limit), even partial integration of some of the elements mentioned here (like cultural sensitivity, and unique barriers before people with disabilities) should appear in the results. The review provides an opportunity to address these aspects

You are right, we did not specify in the results how the analyzed studies are related to the practical implications. Therefore, the results section has been modified to include the relation with the practical implications. Please check lines 280-285, 299-309, 330-338, 351-364, 367-384, 424-425, and 436-446.

We hope we have answered all your considerations. Again, thank you very much for your time and effort reviewing our manuscript. Best regards.