Examining Unified Physical Education from the Teacher’s Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See file attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

COMMENTS TO REVIEWER

Introduction

• Could the title omit the ‘Special Olympics’ reference and then explain this more fully in the article as suggested

WE DELETED SPECIAL OLYMPICS IN THE TITLE

• ‘General PE’ this needs to be explained briefly. Line 1 of the article launches into an assumption that general PE has benefits but needs a precursor to explain general PE…arguably not a term that has a universal definition? An interviewee refers to genEd underlining the importance of clarifying it at an early stage.

ADDED MORE DETAIL ON WHAT IS PE, WHAT IS GENERAL PE, AND WHAT IS ADAPTED PE

• The PE teacher, Special Ed teacher, adapted PE specialist…each of these needs explanation early in the introduction to set the context or contexts where so many variations exist. It is important to briefly explain these terms and roles.

WE DEFINED THESE TERMS

         Gender breakdown here, if possible, might help explain the representation of female/male in the study.

ADDED GENDER BREAKDOWN

         Furthermore, a little insight into how the teachers’ timetable is structured would be informative. Are additional lessons, in this case UPE, included in their timetable/as part of their workload? Is time allowed for planning these lessons? Are the teachers given credits/ incentives for teaching additional UPE lessons?

THIS WOULD COME OUT IN THE INTERVIEWS

• Generally, the term ‘student’ is used although children is used too. It is important to state the middle school/high school age early in the paper, acknowledging that there is a hint at this in Table 1. This is particularly important for the international readership of the journal.

WE EDITED THE PAPER TO USE STUDENTS THROUGHOUT WITH ONE EXCEPTION WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT PARENTS AND THEIR FEELINGS TOWARDS THEIR CHILDREN

         Useful glimpses unfolded on p. 11 line 453 and in the Discussion. Glimpses are also evident when reference is made to Paras line 384, licensed adapted PE teachers line 403, APE consult line 405, advanced training line 587

• The focus outlined in the abstract is to better understand how UPE was developed and implemented in select US schools. Yet it is hinted that a further focus is on the opportunity for social acceptance/interactions. This needs clarification throughout reminding the reader that how UPE was developed and implemented is being explored through the ‘social acceptance/interactions’ lens. Is that the key motivation for undertaking this study? Reference to quality PE and later to sport and fitness can confuse without the ‘social acceptance/inclusion’ being threaded throughout more strongly.

WE ADDED TO THE ABSTRACT THAT PART OF OUR GOAL WAS TO LEARN FROM PARTICIPANTS WHETHER THEY FELT UPE RESULTED IN MORE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS BETWEEN STUDENTS WITH AND WITHOUT DISABILITIES. WE BELIEVE WE DISCUSSED SOCIAL INCLUSION THROUGHOUT THE PAPER.

Unified Physical Education: for an international audience this explanation needs to be extended (acknowledging the piece lines 85-132) to answer some fundamental questions. Firstly, the link with Special Olympics needs to be explained. Is it important to use this in the title (see earlier comment on the title)? It is particularly important to provide the explanation of their ‘role’ in PE programmes (see line 91).

WE ADDED SOME MORE EXPLANATION OF HOW UPE FITS INTO THE BROADER SCOPE OF SPECIAL OLYMPICS

        The reference to their ‘Playbook’ is also interesting but might need to be mentioned in the introductory piece about UPE. Furthermore, it’s positioning related to State Standards/district curriculum needs further clarification.

WE ADDED A CLARIFYING SENTENCE HERE

        The Special Olympics calendar also requires explanation…what links this to ‘general’ PE/PE/UPE? Line 568 refers to Unified Sports…this too deserves a mention in the general UPE paragraph?

ADDED SENTENCE TO DEFINE UNIFIED SPORTS

        Consider how lines 694-696 could be useful inserted here. Unified Champion School should be included in this paragraph which needs to be more explicit and cover breadth of issues, acknowledging that wordcount will be challenging.

WE EXPLAINED AND DEFINED UNIFIED CHAMPTION SCHOOLS IN THE INTRODUCTION.

        Many countries link PE programmes to social, personal and particularly health agendas. Lines 89-90 hint at these agendas as part of UPE but there needs to be explicit reference to what a UPE programme ‘looks like’

I THINK WE COVERED THIS WITH THE BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO UPE AND THEN DETAILED THROUGH THE INTERVIEWS AND PARTICIPANTS DESCRIBING THEIR PROGRAMS.

        The findings will be more consistent with the typical UPE programmes, particularly sections on Physical and Health and Social benefits. Try to capture a sample (or typical if this can be ascertained from the study sample) UPE programme as described by a participant, a table might work?

WE THIINK OUR QUOTES CAPTURE THE EXPERIENCES OF OUR PARTICIPANTS WITH UPE. I DON’T SEE WHERE WE TALK ABOUT TYPICAL UPE PROGRAMS. IN ADDITION, WHILE THERE IS A GENERAL MODEL FOR IMPLEMENTING UPE, AS SEEN IN OUR SAMPLE. THERE IS A FAIR AMOUNT OF VARIABLITY IN HOW UPE IS EXACTLY IMPLEMENTED.

Section 2 and 3: Consider if it is necessary to use similar level headings for ‘2. ’ And ‘3’? Could these constitute sections of the introduction? Section 2, in particular, appears to be somewhat over emphasised here when the reference later appears to be more strongly on a broader understanding of social interaction. Peer tutoring seems to be just one aspect of a broader enquiry.

I THINK THE EDITORS ADDED THE NUMBERS 2 AND 3. BUT TO YOUR POINT ABOUT PEER TUTORING, WE FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN TRADITIONAL PEER TUTORING WHERE STUDENTS WITHOUT DISABILIITES ALWAYS TAKE ON THE ROLE OF TUTOR, WHILE UPE TRIES TO HAVE STUDENTS WITH AND WITHOUT DISABILITIES PARTICIPATING TOGETHER.

        Does your sentence on line 82/83 referencing Haegele and Maher represent your focus more closely later in the paper? This is an interesting question nevertheless.

YES, AS NOTED ABOVE, OUR QUESTIONING OF TRADITIONAL PEER TUTORING NOT MATCHING HAEGELE AND MAHAR IS SIMILAR TO WHAT I COMMENTED ABOVE. TRADITIONAL PEER TUTORING MAY NOT PROMOTE SOCIAL INCLUSION BUT RATHER AN UNEQUAL RELATIONSHIP OF STUDENTS WITHOUT DISABILITIES SERVING AS TUTORS.

Methodology

        Exploratory research and explanatory research: both are mentioned. Which is the most apt description for this research? Perhaps exploratory although it does veer towards that emphasis on explaining and providing relationships…? Line 127 and line 136 need careful consideration.

IT LOOKS LIKE WE DELETED ANY REFERENCE TO EXLANATORY RESEARCH AND ONLY REFERRED TO EXPLORATORY.

        Table 1: SPED has not been explained…line 151…add acronym.

DEFINED

        The students appeared to be segregated i.e. in self-contained special education classes in their schools, line 453. Is this the case with all the SWD? Maybe a further column is required in Table 1 shedding light on the placement of SWD for particular subjects and for PE before UPE is offered.

WE DEFINED AND EXPLAINED SELF-CONTAINED.

        The interview ‘guide’ is referenced. It is difficult to match this with the select interview questions. Consider how the guide and its role might be explained a little more.

WE CREATED THEMES BASED ON THE INTERVIEW RESULTS, AND OUR THEMES DID NOT DIRECLTY MATCH THE ORGANIZATION OF OUR QUESTIONS. THE QUESTIONS CAN HELP THE READER GET A SENSE OF WHAT WE WERE AFTER IN OUR INTERIVEWS, AND THAT IS WHY WE PROVIDED ALL QUESTIONS.

Results

        The four themes appear clear here (note the second would benefit from writing as a sentence to retain the style used in the other three, this can then be reflected in the abstract too).

IT LOOKS LIKE SOME THEMES ARE SENTENCES AND OTHER ARE NOT. I THINK IT IS OK TO LEAVE AS IS

        Check the numbering of themes/sub-themes: there is an error on line 483.

FIXED THE NUMBERING HERE

Discussion

        The statement on line 575 that the discussion will focus on three themes is confusing…it needs to tally with the results…four themes and discuss these four (it seems strange to omit one without explanation). As a reader reads the four themes it seems there are three discussion points emanating from the four themes rather than a discussion of the four themes.

CHANGED TO WORDING SUGGESTED BY REVIEWER.

        One omission from the discussion is the issue of class size. Arguably this has a significant impact on general PE and on UPE and is not raised again in the discussion despite being referred to earlier in the paper. Do your results suggest that class size is particularly significant in general or in UPE?

LINES 609-611 IN THE DISCUSSION ACTUALLY DOES ADDRESS CLASS SIZE IN GENERAL PE V UPE.

         Conclusion Reconsider lines 702-703: the broad program of sport and fitness development is referenced yet the core ‘values’ line 694-696 don’t appear to be as prominent being introduced ‘additionally’ in lines 710-711.

OUR CONCLUSION WAS MEANT TO BRIEFLY HIGHLIGHT THE KEY FINDINGS. I AM NOT SURE WHAT YOU ARE ASKING US TO DO HERE?

        Very minor typographical errors to review Line 179, line 285..formatting? line 311 ‘with’? 

DIDN’T SEE THESE. PERHAPS EDITORIAL STAFF FIXED THESE

line 330, line 713: neither scenario took place…replace with was evident? DONE Line 691: local Y …is that YMCA? Transcribing in

author contributions

CHANGED FROM Y TO FITNESS CLUB

Reference list. No. 4; Check spelling in no. 20

FIXED

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article offers one of the few empirical studies examining how Unified Physical Education (UPE) is actually put into practice, directly responding to questions raised by Lieberman and Houston-Wilson in 2018. Its research design is rigorous, the participant group is well chosen, and the results are presented using clear thematic analysis. The authors maintain a neutral tone, candidly discuss study limitations, and outline policy recommendations that are both practical and timely. Consequently, the paper is likely to engage Disabilities readers, particularly those committed to inclusive education and adapted physical activity initiatives.

Author Response

I did not see any feedback I needed to address

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to engage with your manuscript. The focus on Unified Physical Education (UPE) and its implementation from the teacher’s perspective is interesting and adds to inclusive research. The study's strengths include insights into practical application of UPE to an extent, as well as a several teachers with experiences approaches to this, using thematic approach to this makes it possible to connect differences in application.

There are, however, need for clarifications and improvements:

The research question(s) remains unclear throughout the introduction. the Abstract states that the purpose is “to better understand how UPE was developed and implemented in select U.S. schools,” this is not translated into a clear research question or set of questions in the main text, if so not explicit enough. This lack of clarity makes it difficult to assess the connection between the study’s purpose, design, and findings. In the text there are sometimes references to research questions in plural and sometimes in singular, increasing my uncertainty. 

In section 3. Unified Physical Education, particularly from line 110 onward, the structure becomes confusing. The section begins with what are described as “scenarios” where UPE is not properly implemented, as a list of bullet points and then a series of questions. However, these do not read as scenarios in a narrative or case-based sense, and the transition into questions is abrupt. What is the relation here? As a reader, I found this part difficult to follow. I would suggest reorganizing this section. One possible approach could be:

Begin with a framing sentence such as: “There have been many questions raised about UPE, for example…” Follow this with the concerns raised by Lieberman and Huston-Wilson. Then transition into the lack of research and the need for exploratory design.

Also there is a lack of explaining what is unique or specific about UPE in relation to other inclusive programmes. For example the calender mentioned later in the result. 

This would provide a clearer rationale for the study and better contextualize the questions that follow. Additionally, lines 129–132 are particularly ambiguous: are these questions posed to the teachers during interviews, or are they the research questions the study aims to answer? Clarifying this distinction is essential, despite being in introduction as you state a deductive design.

Methodology

The methodological framework is described in section 4.1 (line 135 onward), referencing Priya (2021) and Richards et al. (2023). However, the integration of these frameworks is not sufficiently explained. You state that Priya’s model is used for an explanatory case study, which implies a focus on understanding cause and effect. Priya recommends using multiple data sources, a clear theoretical framework, and strategies such as pattern identification, categorization, and thematic analysis. However, it is unclear whether the study employs a theoretical proposition strategy or relies more on pattern matching, which would be more consistent with the later parts of the manuscript.

The connection to Richards et al. (2023) is also vague. The phrase “Since qualitative studies capture the essence of lived experiences” suggests a phenomenological orientation, yet explanatory case studies typically align more with realism or post-positivism. If the study is mixing phenomenology with explanatory case study, this needs to be explicitly justified and methodologically grounded. As it stands, the rationale for combining these approaches is unclear.

On line 172, it is unclear whether the questions mentioned relate to those posed earlier or are new. There is an indication of theoretical framing, but the specific theory is not identified. Additionally, the themes listed on line 171 differ from those presented in Table 2 on page 5, which creates further confusion.

The use of Zoom for interviews is practical, but if the study aims to capture lived experiences (as in phenomenology), it would be important to reflect on whether this medium affects the depth or authenticity of responses. Are there studies supporting the use of Zoom in phenomenological research? If so, this should be addressed in the limitations section of the discussion, such a section is missing. 

If we connect the abstract to the methodology, the stated aim is “to explore and identify causal factors explaining the phenomenon (in this case, creating and directing a UPE program)”. This should be clearly reflected in section 4.1 and aligned with the questions raised in section 3, particularly around lines 102, 110, and 115–125. As the study relies on teachers’ perspectives, which are inherently subjective and potentially biased due to their investment in the program, it is worth considering whether this design can adequately answer the questions posed in section 3.

Under Data analysis you refer to Bingham 2023, however, I do not find it in your reference list. I assumed it was this one:

Bingham, A. J. (2023). From Data Management to Actionable Findings: A Five-Phase Process of Qualitative Data Analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, vol 22, p. 1–11. DOI: 10.1177/16094069231183620

Not more to say about this, the deductive-inductive analysis structure works well with Priya.

Results

The results section begins by stating that four major themes were identified. However, this is immediately contradicted by the structure that follows, which includes eight headings (5.1 to 5.8). It is unclear whether these are all themes, or if some are subthemes (e.g., 5.7 and 5.8 possibly belonging under 5.6). Similarly, the heading:

“5.3. Overall Focus of the Program”

is presented at the same level as the other themes, which adds to the confusion. I suggest clarifying the thematic structure—either by explicitly identifying subthemes or restructuring the headings to reflect their hierarchy.

Additionally, the themes presented in the results do not align with the a priori codes mentioned in the final paragraph of the method section (line 225). For example:

“Results were organized under each a priori code, such as ‘why you started the UPE Program.’ This organizational method was selected to provide a concise and engaging account of the data to best answer the research questions.” (lines 234–235). I do not either know if the a priori themes are the same as the a priori codes.

This inconsistency between codes, themes, and research questions creates uncertainty for the reader. These elements are foundational to qualitative analysis and should be clearly defined and consistently applied throughout the manuscript.

In Result: The first theme, “our children were not being served appropriately,” focuses heavily on modifications made to accommodate students. However, these modifications—such as adjusted activities or support—are not necessarily specific to UPE, but rather common to inclusive practices more broadly. This raises the question of what makes UPE distinct.

Interestingly, the UPE calendar is mentioned in passing:

“We’re doing soccer, bowling, and track and field. We do spend some time in September working on skills and gameplay for soccer so they’re ready for their Special Olympics event in October.” (lines 342–344)

This seems to point to a programmatic structure unique to UPE, yet it is not described or contextualized in section 3 of the introduction. If the calendar and alignment with Special Olympics events are central to UPE’s distinctiveness, this should be made explicit earlier in the manuscript.

Discussion

The discussion section (starting around line 603) begins to differentiate UPE from regular PE classes, noting smaller class sizes, additional professional support, and peer support. These are important mechanisms, but it is unclear whether the positive outcomes reported are due to UPE specifically or to these broader inclusive strategies. There is a need for stronger theoretical integration here. Another example, peer support is discussed in the introduction (section 2) as both beneficial and potentially problematic—particularly when relationships are hierarchical. The discussion should reflect the results of the study in which peer support seem to be a method incorporated into UPE. There are theoretical foundation in heading 2. in introduction to continue this, perhaps especially concerning Allport contact theory. 

Furthermore, the questions raised in section 3, particularly those from Lieberman and Huston-Wilson, are only partially addressed. This may be due to the unclear formulation of research questions or limitations in the data. If certain questions cannot be answered due to design constraints or participant responses, this should be mentioned.

In conclusion: 

Given the unclarity in method and used research questions, it is difficult to fully assess the theoretical coherence of the discussion. A deductive approach implies a connection to theory, yet the discussion does not consistently return to the theoretical framework outlined in the introduction. For example, the manuscript emphasizes social acceptance and interaction, and the duality of peer support, but these themes are not clearly revisited in the discussion.

Finally, while the study rightly focuses on teacher experiences of UPE, it would be valuable to reflect on how these experiences compare to other inclusion efforts. I agree with you that inclusion is not just being there, but I lack a bit of situating UPE in relation to other efforts, not just situating it in relation to nothing.

Author Response

The research question(s) remains unclear throughout the introduction. the Abstract states that the purpose is “to better understand how UPE was developed and implemented in select U.S. schools,” this is not translated into a clear research question or set of questions in the main text, if so not explicit enough. This lack of clarity makes it difficult to assess the connection between the study’s purpose, design, and findings. In the text there are sometimes references to research questions in plural and sometimes in singular, increasing my uncertainty. 

WE ARE NOT SURE HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS. WE FEEL WE ARTICULATED CLEAR QUESTIONS THAT WE WANTED TO ANSWER THROUGH OUR RESEARCH. HERE IS WHAT WE SAID AT THE END OF THE INTRODUCTION:

Does UPE create a more equal status and cooperative setting for students with and without disabilities and promote social interactions and even friendships between students with and without disabilities? Does UPE follow national and/or state PE standards, and is the class instructed by certified PE teachers? Does UPE count as fulfilling the state PE requirements, or is it used as an extra elective? Does UPE count as meeting a student’s IEP goals for adapted PE, or is UPE more of a supplement to adapted PE? Given the many questions about UPE and the lack of research, the purpose of this exploratory study is to gain a better understanding of UPE through interviews with PE and special education teachers who have created and have directed the programs. Questions focus on why and how teachers started the program, what the program looks like, how students are selected to participate in the program, and the effects the program has had on both students with and without disabilities.

In section 3. Unified Physical Education, particularly from line 110 onward, the structure becomes confusing. The section begins with what are described as “scenarios” where UPE is not properly implemented, as a list of bullet points and then a series of questions. However, these do not read as scenarios in a narrative or case-based sense, and the transition into questions is abrupt. What is the relation here? As a reader, I found this part difficult to follow. I would suggest reorganizing this section. One possible approach could be:

Begin with a framing sentence such as: “There have been many questions raised about UPE, for example…” Follow this with the concerns raised by Lieberman and Huston-Wilson. Then transition into the lack of research and the need for exploratory design.

Also there is a lack of explaining what is unique or specific about UPE in relation to other inclusive programmes. For example the calendar mentioned later in the result. 

This would provide a clearer rationale for the study and better contextualize the questions that follow. Additionally, lines 129–132 are particularly ambiguous: are these questions posed to the teachers during interviews, or are they the research questions the study aims to answer? Clarifying this distinction is essential, despite being in introduction as you state a deductive design.

AGAIN, WE HUMBLY DISAGREE. THE WAY WE ORGANIZED THIS SECTION SEEMED TO MAKE SENSE TO US:

1. WHAT IS UPE
2. SOME ANECDOTAL RESEARCH THAT SUPPORTS UPE
3. SOME (LIEBERMAN AND HOUSTON-WILSON) HAVE SOME ISSUES AND UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT UPE
4. GIVEN THE LACK OF RESEARCH AND QUESTIONS RAISED BY LIEBERMAN AND HOUSTON-WILSON, THE PURPOSE OF THIS EXPLORATORY STUDY …

Methodology

The methodological framework is described in section 4.1 (line 135 onward), referencing Priya (2021) and Richards et al. (2023). However, the integration of these frameworks is not sufficiently explained. You state that Priya’s model is used for an explanatory case study, which implies a focus on understanding cause and effect. Priya recommends using multiple data sources, a clear theoretical framework, and strategies such as pattern identification, categorization, and thematic analysis. However, it is unclear whether the study employs a theoretical proposition strategy or relies more on pattern matching, which would be more consistent with the later parts of the manuscript.

WE REVISED THIS SECTION INCLUDING DELETING THE REFERENCE TO PRIYA. WE AGREE WITH YOU THAT PRIYA’S RECOMMENDATIONS IS NOT WHAT WE DID IN THIS STUDY. WE RELIED MORE ON THE PATTERN MATCHING RATHER THAN A THEORETICAL PROPOSITION.

The connection to Richards et al. (2023) is also vague. The phrase “Since qualitative studies capture the essence of lived experiences” suggests a phenomenological orientation, yet explanatory case studies typically align more with realism or post-positivism. If the study is mixing phenomenology with explanatory case study, this needs to be explicitly justified and methodologically grounded. As it stands, the rationale for combining these approaches is unclear.

WE CHANGED THE WORDING IN THIS SECTION TO MAKE IT CLEARER:

The study utilized a relativist ontology [19]. which acknowledges the subjective nature of each participant’s understanding or reality. In other words, the research team understood that participants viewed their experiences in creating and directing their UPE program through their own individual lenses. It should be noted that rather than following a theoretical model to guide the analysis, we relied on a pattern matching model based on results from the interviews. Ethical approval was granted through the University of Virginia institutional review board.

On line 172, it is unclear whether the questions mentioned relate to those posed earlier or are new. There is an indication of theoretical framing, but the specific theory is not identified. Additionally, the themes listed on line 171 differ from those presented in Table 2 on page 5, which creates further confusion.

WE ARE NOT SURE WHAT YOU ARE ASKING HERE. THIS SECTION EXPLAINS HOW THE QUESTIONS WERE DRAFTED BY THE RESEARCH TEAM, HOW WE RECEIVED FEEDBACK ON THIS DRAFT, HOW WE MADE REVISIONS BASED ON FEEDABCK, AND THEN THE TABLE LISTS THE FINAL QUESTIONS THAT WERE USED IN THE STUDY.

The use of Zoom for interviews is practical, but if the study aims to capture lived experiences (as in phenomenology), it would be important to reflect on whether this medium affects the depth or authenticity of responses. Are there studies supporting the use of Zoom in phenomenological research? If so, this should be addressed in the limitations section of the discussion, such a section is missing. 

I DON’T KNOW IF THERE IS RESEARCH SPECIFIC TO ZOOM, BUT OUR RESEARCH TEAM AND MANY OTHER RESEARCHERS WHO HAVE CONDUCTED INTERVIEWS WITH PARTICIPANTS ACROSS LARGE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS HAVE USED ZOOM OR MICROSOFT TEAMS. THIS SEEMS TO BE COMMON PRACTICE IN QUALITATIVE RSEARCH IN OUR FIELD.

If we connect the abstract to the methodology, the stated aim is “to explore and identify causal factors explaining the phenomenon (in this case, creating and directing a UPE program)”. This should be clearly reflected in section 4.1 and aligned with the questions raised in section 3, particularly around lines 102, 110, and 115–125. As the study relies on teachers’ perspectives, which are inherently subjective and potentially biased due to their investment in the program, it is worth considering whether this design can adequately answer the questions posed in section 3.

REWORDED TH INTRODUCTION TO LIEBERMAN AND HOUSTON-WILSON’S QUESTIONS AS FOLLOWS:

There also have been some who have questioned how UPE should be positioned in schools. Most notably, Lieberman and Houston-Wilson [19], voiced the following concerns about the implementation of UPE: 

WE ADDED A STATEMENT IN CONCLUSION AS FOLLOWS:

Results should be viewed with caution as we acknowledge that our participants, while honestly describing their program, may be biased due to their investment in their programs.

Under Data analysis you refer to Bingham 2023, however, I do not find it in your reference list. I assumed it was this one:

Bingham, A. J. (2023). From Data Management to Actionable Findings: A Five-Phase Process of Qualitative Data Analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, vol 22, p. 1–11. DOI: 10.1177/16094069231183620

THANK YOU FOR THIS! WE ADDED THIS TO OUR REFERENCES.

Not more to say about this, the deductive-inductive analysis structure works well with Priya.

Results

The results section begins by stating that four major themes were identified. However, this is immediately contradicted by the structure that follows, which includes eight headings (5.1 to 5.8). It is unclear whether these are all themes, or if some are subthemes (e.g., 5.7 and 5.8 possibly belonging under 5.6). Similarly, the heading:

“5.3. Overall Focus of the Program”

is presented at the same level as the other themes, which adds to the confusion. I suggest clarifying the thematic structure—either by explicitly identifying subthemes or restructuring the headings to reflect their hierarchy.

Additionally, the themes presented in the results do not align with the a priori codes mentioned in the final paragraph of the method section (line 225). For example:

“Results were organized under each a priori code, such as ‘why you started the UPE Program.’ This organizational method was selected to provide a concise and engaging account of the data to best answer the research questions.” (lines 234–235). I do not either know if the a priori themes are the same as the a priori codes.

This inconsistency between codes, themes, and research questions creates uncertainty for the reader. These elements are foundational to qualitative analysis and should be clearly defined and consistently applied throughout the manuscript.

THANK YOU FOR CATCHING THIS. WE FIXED THIS WITH MAIN THEMES BEING 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, AND 5.4. THEN WE HAD SUBHEADINGS WHEN APPROPRIATE UNDER SELECT THEMES.

In Result: The first theme, “our children were not being served appropriately,” focuses heavily on modifications made to accommodate students. However, these modifications—such as adjusted activities or support—are not necessarily specific to UPE, but rather common to inclusive practices more broadly. This raises the question of what makes UPE distinct.

WE DON’T DISAGREE WITH YOUR POINT THAT THE MODIFICATIONS DESCRIBED IN UPE SHOULD BE COMMONLY USED IN GENERAL PE. HOWEVER, WHAT IS NOTABLE IS THAT THESE MODIFICATIONS DID NOT SEEM TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN GENRAL PE IN MANY OF OUR PARTICANTS’S SCHOOLS. SO, WHILE THE MODIFICATIONS ARE NOT UNIQUE TO UPE, THE FACT THAT THESE MODIFICATIONS ONLY SEEM TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN UPE IS WHAT IS UNIQUE.  WE THINK PARTICIPANT QUOTES CAPTURE THIS CONTRAST BETWEEN WHAT HAPPENED IN GENERAL PE V. UPE.

Interestingly, the UPE calendar is mentioned in passing:

“We’re doing soccer, bowling, and track and field. We do spend some time in September working on skills and gameplay for soccer so they’re ready for their Special Olympics event in October.” (lines 342–344)

This seems to point to a programmatic structure unique to UPE, yet it is not described or contextualized in section 3 of the introduction. If the calendar and alignment with Special Olympics events are central to UPE’s distinctiveness, this should be made explicit earlier in the manuscript.

WHAT THE QUOTES SHOW IS THAT SOME PARTICIPANTS SEEMED TO COMBINE UPE SESSIONS WITH SPECIAL OLMPICS UNIFIED SPORTS TRAINING. AS A RESULT, THEY ORGANIZED THEIR PROGRAM AROUND SPECIAL OLYMPICS COMPETITIONS RATHER THAN FOLLOWING THE SCHOOL’S PE CALENDAR. THAT IS WHAT WE GLEANED FROM THE PARTICPANTS’ INTERVIEWS.

Discussion

The discussion section (starting around line 603) begins to differentiate UPE from regular PE classes, noting smaller class sizes, additional professional support, and peer support. These are important mechanisms, but it is unclear whether the positive outcomes reported are due to UPE specifically or to these broader inclusive strategies. There is a need for stronger theoretical integration here. Another example, peer support is discussed in the introduction (section 2) as both beneficial and potentially problematic—particularly when relationships are hierarchical. The discussion should reflect the results of the study in which peer support seem to be a method incorporated into UPE. There are theoretical foundation in heading 2. in introduction to continue this, perhaps especially concerning Allport contact theory. 

Furthermore, the questions raised in section 3, particularly those from Lieberman and Huston-Wilson, are only partially addressed. This may be due to the unclear formulation of research questions or limitations in the data. If certain questions cannot be answered due to design constraints or participant responses, this should be mentioned.

THANK YOU FOR POINTING THIS OUT. WE ADDED A NEW SECTION TO THE DISCUSSION THAT SPECIFALLY ADDRESSES HOW UPE PROMOTES SOCIAL INCLUSION, AND WHY SOCIAL INCLUSION COULD BE DIFFICULT TO PROMOTE IN A GENERAL PE SETTING. (SEE 6.2 IN DISCUSSION SECTION).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As my major concern was the description of methodology, and I feel that this is clear. I have no further comments. 

Author Response

IN OUR FIRST REVISION, WE HIGHLIGHTED ALL CHANGES IN YELLOW THROUGHOUT THE PAPER, AND IN SOME PLACES WE NOTED PAGE AND LINE NUMBERS