What Moves Youth?—A Survey to Explore the Motivation and Barriers of Dutch Young Adolescents (12–15 Years) to Participate in Sports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study is qualitative and represents a cross sectional study. Background and references are sufficiently identified. The sample is numerically adequate as well as the questionnaire and the variables described. The results and tables clearly describe the collected results and there is a complete discussion of them. In conclusion this study reinforces that enjoyment/pleasure is the most important motive for young adolescents to participate in sports and that coaches are a linchpin within the context of organized youth sport

Author Response

Reviewer #1:

The study is qualitative and represents a cross sectional study. Background and references are sufficiently identified. The sample is numerically adequate as well as the questionnaire and the variables described. The results and tables clearly describe the collected results and there is a complete discussion of them. In conclusion this study reinforces that enjoyment/pleasure is the most important motive for young adolescents to participate in sports and that coaches are a linchpin within the context of organized youth sport.

Response

Thank you for your positive response regarding our paper and recommendation for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review the article titled What moves youth? - A survey to explore the motivation and barriers of Dutch young adolescents (12-15 years) to participate in sports. This article explore the important topic of motivations and barriers to youth sport participation. Overall, this article was well-written and clear. Suggestions are outlined below to help strengthen the contribution of the article.

General

This article would benefit from a guiding theoretical or conceptual model. This would help tighten up flow and help contribute to a more impactful discussion.

A suggested reading to help strengthen the rationale and discussion is:

Taks, M., & Scheerder, J. (2006). Youth sports participation styles and market segmentation profiles: evidence and applications. European sport management quarterly, 6(2), 85-121.

Introduction

Paragraph 2: We see in many contexts that youth switch from organized to non-organized sport. Non-organized sport can yield similar benefits to the ones cited in paragraph 1. Providing rationale for only considering organized sport would help strengthen the argument of the paper.

Line 67: Rationale for age group is good, but evidence to support this claim would be beneficial. Also, this point can be moved to method section.

Line 71: Defining these contexts along with previous findings on each to suggest why there might be differences would strengthen the paper.

Line 72: last part of the sentence is unclear.

Methods

Line 80: middle and eastern part of the Netherlands: does this have any implications for the sample?

Line 90-91: were motives also on 1 5-point Likert scale?

Analysis

It is well established that motives and barriers for youth sport participation vary by gender and age. Testing differences between gender and age (12 years old vs 15 years old is a very large gap) would strengthen this contribution.   

Results

Table 3: it looks like differences were only examined between club sports and the other contexts. Were differences among the other contexts examined?

Discussion

Line 205-209: this point should be reflected upon further. If participation rates are so low in the Netherlands, there must be a reason for this. Stating that there are not many berries might be too simplistic. Perhaps the barriers examined were not important, but other barriers might exist? Or perhaps the sample is narrow in particular ways?

3^rd paragraph. There are all important and valid points, but it could be clearer how this links to the data. Youth in organized settings cited positive atmospheres are being important, but they did not highly rate negative atmospheres in barriers. The reader could be guided though the thought process more clearly.

4^th paragraph of the discussion offers suggestions for clubs to alter their practices. It seems that the other contexts address the issues brought up for clubs. Is there something more novel to be suggested?  

Overall, the discussion is quite club specific. Are there any suggestions for how all contexts considered can complement each other to help increase participation?

Overall, the discussion does not offer suggestions for future interventions, while the introduction claimed such contributions to be important.

Author Response

Reviewer #2:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the article titled What moves youth? - A survey to explore the motivation and barriers of Dutch young adolescents (12-15 years) to participate in sports. This article explore the important topic of motivations and barriers to youth sport participation. Overall, this article was well-written and clear. Suggestions are outlined below to help strengthen the contribution of the article.

Response

Thank you for your positive response regarding our paper and the points that were raised to improve the paper. We hope that all comments are addressed to your satisfaction within the revised manuscript.

General

This article would benefit from a guiding theoretical or conceptual model. This would help tighten up flow and help contribute to a more impactful discussion.

A suggested reading to help strengthen the rationale and discussion is:

Taks, M., & Scheerder, J. (2006). Youth sports participation styles and market segmentation profiles: evidence and applications. European sport management quarterly, 6(2), 85-121.

Response

Thank you for this suggestion, we tried to integrate this into the manuscript. .

Introduction

Paragraph 2: We see in many contexts that youth switch from organized to non-organized sport. Non-organized sport can yield similar benefits to the ones cited in paragraph 1. Providing rationale for only considering organized sport would help strengthen the argument of the paper.

Response

The rationale is now added to the third paragraph of the introduction.

Line 67: Rationale for age group is good, but evidence to support this claim would be beneficial. Also, this point can be moved to method section.

Response

Evidence has been added to this line.

Line 71: Defining these contexts along with previous findings on each to suggest why there might be differences would strengthen the paper.

Response

More details have been added about the various contexts and the possible differences between the subsamples within this population.

Line 72: last part of the sentence is unclear.

Response

This line has been revised.

Methods

Line 80: middle and eastern part of the Netherlands: does this have any implications for the sample?

Response

This information is provided to be as transparent as possible. It might have influenced that we found a rather high rate of sport participation within the sample. We added this now the limitation section as well.  

Line 90-91: were motives also on 1 5-point Likert scale?

Response

Yes, they were. This information is now added to the sentence to be more clear on this matter.

Analysis

It is well established that motives and barriers for youth sport participation vary by gender and age. Testing differences between gender and age (12 years old vs 15 years old is a very large gap) would strengthen this contribution.  

Response

Indeed, we agree with the reviewer’s comment and reconsidered our analysis. We came to the following conclusions:

• Since our questionnaire uses mean scores based on five to eight a Likert scale items and the sample is relatively large, it appears legitimate to analyse the data as interval data. As such, an ANCOVA would fit here while including age and gender as covariates.
• However, due to imposed ethical standards and accompanying data collection procedures, information about age was collected as categorical data (12-13 year, 13-14 year and 14-15 year) and it was not obliged for the young adolescents to fill in this question. This unfortunately yielded not the exact age data and a lot of missing values (27.3%). Due to these reason, and especially the missing values, we feel constrained to treat the sample as one age category from 12-15 years.
• So finally, an ANCOVA including gender as covariate is included in the study including references to the underlying statistical background (Sullivan, G. M. and A. R. Artino Jr. "Analyzing and interpreting data from likert-type scales." Journal of graduate medical education 5 (2013): 541-42.). Changes were made to the methods and results sections.
• Additionally, this comment is also addressed within the limitation paragraph.

Results

Table 3: it looks like differences were only examined between club sports and the other contexts. Were differences among the other contexts examined?

Response

All pairwise comparisons have been taken into account, while presenting only the significant findings. This information is now added to the table to be more transparent.

Discussion

Line 205-209: this point should be reflected upon further. If participation rates are so low in the Netherlands, there must be a reason for this. Stating that there are not many berries might be too simplistic. Perhaps the barriers examined were not important, but other barriers might exist? Or perhaps the sample is narrow in particular ways?

Response

This point is added to the first paragraph of the discussion and the conclusions.

3rd paragraph. There are all important and valid points, but it could be clearer how this links to the data. Youth in organized settings cited positive atmospheres are being important, but they did not highly rate negative atmospheres in barriers. The reader could be guided though the thought process more clearly.

Response

The third paragraphs builds on the second paragraph, mainly focusing on what the target actually motivates to actively engage in a sport club. The connection is made more explicitly to the data by including examples from the results. The rational is pointed out by the explicit positioning of a more holistic and pedagogical approach in youth sports as a precondition to gain the beneficial effects of sports. .

4th paragraph of the discussion offers suggestions for clubs to alter their practices. It seems that the other contexts address the issues brought up for clubs. Is there something more novel to be suggested? 

Response

Good suggestion, we added more input for practice with a special focus on making plans together with the young adolescents themselves. This is considered a new direction for solutions.

Overall, the discussion is quite club specific. Are there any suggestions for how all contexts considered can complement each other to help increase participation?

Response

Actually, the intention was mainly to see how organized sports could be innovated to better connect to the wishes and needs of young adolescents. For that reason, we focused merely on the club sports. Nevertheless, the same recommendations could be helpful for the other sport context as well. This is added to the discussion section.

Overall, the discussion does not offer suggestions for future interventions, while the introduction claimed such contributions to be important.

Response

The discussion part includes several recommendations for the implications for practice. In addition to these, we added more specific examples of tools/interventions to be more concrete for practice.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

I hope this letter finds you well. I have had the opportunity to review your manuscript. Overall, I found your work to be engaging and insightful. However, I have a few suggestions to improve the manuscript:

1.     Clarify the purpose of the study: The introduction does not clearly state the objective of the study. It would be helpful to explicitly mention that the study aims to explore the motives and barriers of Dutch young adolescents in order to improve sport participation and prevent drop-out.

2.     Provide more context and references: The article could benefit from providing more background information and citing relevant studies to support the statements made. For example, when mentioning the 33% participation rate, it would be helpful to provide context on the significance of this statistic and compare it to previous studies or national averages.

3.     Revise sentence structure: Some sentences are lengthy and complex, making them difficult to follow. Consider breaking them down into shorter, clearer sentences to enhance readability.

4.     Use consistent formatting: Ensure that the formatting of numbers and percentages is consistent throughout the article. For example, in Table 1, percentages are represented as decimals, while in the main text, they are presented as whole numbers.

5.     Provide more details about the online survey: In the methods section, provide more information about the online survey, such as the number of items, the response scale used, and any measures taken to ensure the validity and reliability of the questionnaire.

6.     Clarify statistical analyses: In the data analysis section, provide more details about the statistical tests used, including why they were chosen and how they were interpreted. Additionally, consider providing effect sizes for the significant differences found between the sport context subgroups.

7.     Improve organization and structure: The article would benefit from clearer section headings and subheadings to enhance the flow and organization of the manuscript. This will make it easier for readers to navigate through the content.

8.     Proofread for grammatical errors: Some sentences contain grammatical errors or awkward phrasing. It is important to carefully proofread the manuscript to ensure correct grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure.

Should you have any questions or require further clarification, please do not hesitate to reach out to me. I am here to assist you.

Best regards,

Reviewer

Proofread of typos can be usefull

Author Response

Reviewer #3:

Dear Authors,

I hope this letter finds you well. I have had the opportunity to review your manuscript. Overall, I found your work to be engaging and insightful. However, I have a few suggestions to improve the manuscript:

Response

Thank you for your positive response regarding our paper and the points that were raised to improve the paper. We hope that all comments are addressed to your satisfaction within the revised manuscript.

1. Clarify the purpose of the study: The introduction does not clearly state the objective of the study. It would be helpful to explicitly mention that the study aims to explore the motives and barriers of Dutch young adolescents in order to improve sport participation and prevent drop-out.

Response

We revised the aim at the end of the introduction section as proposed.

2. Provide more context and references: The article could benefit from providing more background information and citing relevant studies to support the statements made. For example, when mentioning the 33% participation rate, it would be helpful to provide context on the significance of this statistic and compare it to previous studies or national averages.

Response

The introduction has been revised including a slightly different structure and more contextual details. However, we intend to also keep the introduction concise as the guidelines request us to briefly place the study in a broad context.

3. Revise sentence structure: Some sentences are lengthy and complex, making them difficult to follow. Consider breaking them down into shorter, clearer sentences to enhance readability.

Response

We went through the article to correct sentences structures and improve readability. If there are still sentences that need revision, please let us know.

4. Use consistent formatting: Ensure that the formatting of numbers and percentages is consistent throughout the article. For example, in Table 1, percentages are represented as decimals, while in the main text, they are presented as whole numbers.

Response

The whole article has been checked using the following guidelines:

• Introduction
  • Percentages are full numbers; this is how they are provided within the sources.
• Methods
  • All numbers are provided with two decimals.
• Results (text and tables):
  • Numbers are written as full numbers
  • Percentages are written in tables and text with one decimal.
  • Means and SD are written in tables and text with two decimals.
  • F-values, p-values, partial eta squared and Hedges’ g values are written in tables and text with three decimals.

5. Provide more details about the online survey: In the methods section, provide more information about the online survey, such as the number of items, the response scale used, and any measures taken to ensure the validity and reliability of the questionnaire.

Response

The following information is included in the revised version:

• Table 2 presents all statements that are included in the questionnaire. A clear references to table 2 concerning the statements is included at the beginning of paragraph 2.2.
• The number of items are now included in the text for the whole questionnaire and per section.
• The scale is mentioned in 2.2; a Likert scale is used for all items.
• The questionnaire is based on valid and reproducible questionnaire for adults. Moreover, it follows the widely-used COM-B model, a framework for understanding behavior widely used to identify what needs to change in order for a behavior change intervention to be effective. Consistency was checked within this study by means of a Chronbach’s alpha. This information is available within paragraph 2.2.

6. Clarify statistical analyses: In the data analysis section, provide more details about the statistical tests used, including why they were chosen and how they were interpreted. Additionally, consider providing effect sizes for the significant differences found between the sport context subgroups.

Response

Based on the feedback of reviewer 2 and this comment, the statistical procedures have been revised. This information can be found in paragraph 2.3. Effect sizes are available for the ANCOVA that was conducted per construct. We added Hedges’ g as an effect size measure for the pairwise comparison in Table 3.

7. Improve organization and structure: The article would benefit from clearer section headings and subheadings to enhance the flow and organization of the manuscript. This will make it easier for readers to navigate through the content.

Response

Section headings of the results section have been revised. Please let us know whether other headings would be useful.

8. Proofread for grammatical errors: Some sentences contain grammatical errors or awkward phrasing. It is important to carefully proofread the manuscript to ensure correct grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure.

Response

We reconsidered the whole manuscript. Please let us know whether specific errors still exist.

Should you have any questions or require further clarification, please do not hesitate to reach out to me. I am here to assist you.

Response

Thank you for this opportunity.  

Best regards,

Reviewer

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to re-review this manuscript.

I would like to thank the authors for their careful consideration of my previous suggestions. Overall, my suggestions were well considered and address or justified appropriately. I provide a few minor points for consideration/clarification below.

Methods

·       The age categories constraint is reasonably justified. If space permits, including this rationale in the manuscript would increase transparency.

·       Between now and my previous review, I’ve been reminded of the importance of stating the timescale of data collection, particularly around youth and the pandemic. I suggest adding in a line of when data were collected, and if relevant, if the pandemic could have influenced responses.

Results

·       Table 3—table says capability and note says capacity

Discussion

·       Line 297: great suggestion! Adding in some of the co-production education literature as a support would strengthen the suggestion

Author Response

Point-by-point response

Reviewer #2:

Thank you for the opportunity to re-review this manuscript.

I would like to thank the authors for their careful consideration of my previous suggestions. Overall, my suggestions were well considered and address or justified appropriately. I provide a few minor points for consideration/clarification below.

Response

Thank you again for your consideration of our manuscript. We are very pleased to read that the revised version was well received. We attempted to address the minor points that were raised to improve the paper. We hope again that these are all addressed to your satisfaction within the second revision.

Methods

• The age categories constraint is reasonably justified. If space permits, including this rationale in the manuscript would increase transparency.
• Between now and my previous review, I’ve been reminded of the importance of stating the timescale of data collection, particularly around youth and the pandemic. I suggest adding in a line of when data were collected, and if relevant, if the pandemic could have influenced responses.

Response

The information about the age category constraint is now added to paragraph 2.3.

The timing of data collection is added to paragraph 2.2. The influence of the pandemic on the results is discussed within the limitation paragraph of the discussion section.

Results

• Table 3—table says capability and note says capacity

Response

Thanks for noticing this ‘slip of the pen’. It has been corrected.  

Discussion

• Line 297: great suggestion! Adding in some of the co-production education literature as a support would strengthen the suggestion

Response

A references has now been included (i.e., Murphy, J., WOODS, C., DIJK, D., & SEGHERS, J. (2018). Factors and actions to prevent dropout in youth sport: results of a rapid review and expert opinions. Journal Of Physical Activity & Health, 15(10), 123-124).