Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper entitled Perceptions of Interest/Enjoyment, Perceived Competence, and Value/Usefulness Among Young Football Players in an 11-Week Soccer Training Program: A Randomized Controlled Trial, aims to analyze the perceptions of Interest/Enjoyment, Perceived Competence, and Value/Usefulness Among Young Football Players in an 11-Week Soccer Training Program: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Besides the importance of the paper´s purpose, there are a lot of inconsistencies both in the conceptual and empirical points of view,  which limited the quality of the manuscript.

Below (i.e., next box), I´ll present my thoughts about the paper.

 

This article is based on Self-Determination Theory, according to the authors. However, the entire discussion lacks coherence and is overly descriptive. The constructs associated with pleasure/interest, perceived competence, and value/utility are defined in a descriptive and individualized manner, so there is no strong connection between them.  Additionally, there is no mention of the mechanisms that demonstrate the connection between the constructs or how they influence intervention.  For example, the paper does not show whether perceived competence can act as a mediator or moderator by altering pleasure, or whether value/utility represents a form of regulation that is more internalized according to the assumptions of Self-Determination Theory, in particular the theory of organismic integration (Ryan & Deci, 2017).

In this sense, a theoretical foundation does not lend strength to the hypotheses presented. As the authors know, Self-Determination Theory is a macro model of human motivation that focuses on studying motivational processes in a wide variety of contexts, including sports. According to its authors (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2017), this macro model of human motivation is composed of six micro theories (e.g., cognitive evaluation theory, basic psychological needs theory, organismic integration theory), each of which systematizes key aspects essential to motivational processes. However, this paper only mentions them very superficially, without demonstrating theoretically and empirically how they are incorporated into the intervention. As an example, see the following study (which is a good article demonstrating an intervention based on motivational theories):

Ntoumanis, N., Quested, E., Patterson, L., Kaffe, S., Backhouse, S. H., Pavlidis, G., Whitaker, L., Barkoukis, V., Smith, B. J., Staff, H. R., & Gucciardi, D. F. (2021). An intervention to optimise coach-created motivational climates and reduce athlete willingness to dope (CoachMADE): a three-country cluster randomised controlled trial. British journal of sports medicine, 55(4), 213–219. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2019-101963

Nevertheless, there is conceptual confusion between intrinsic motivation (defined by the pleasure and enjoyment associated with behavior) and its subcomponents. Specifically, the IMI subscales do not correspond to the constructs of psychological needs and different forms of motivational regulation, as offered by the micro theory of basic psychological needs and organismic integration, respectively (Ryan & Deci, 2017). In this sense, the variables used in the present study are not conceptually represented in light of the theoretical assumptions of SDT, which is why there is no conceptual robustness. This discrepancy between the variables used in the present study and the way they are assessed using the IMI presents major problems in terms of content validity.

In general, the introduction lacks greater conceptual coherence in terms of the variables used and the respective hypotheses, since this is a major weakness in an article that claims to be based on SDT.

Method

This study presents serious problems in terms of methodology.

The authors describe that the article uses an RCT design. However, at no point is it described how participants were distributed among the groups. It is only mentioned that 100 participants were grouped into the experimental group and 75 into the control group. According to CONSORT principles, true allocation must be demonstrated, not simple randomization, so the conditions for the study design to be an RCT do not appear to be met.

In addition, the inclusion or exclusion criteria are not presented, nor are the potential risks of bias. Furthermore, only 111 of the 175 children completed both stages of analysis. However, the reasons for the remaining children dropping out of the program are not described. Thus, the existence of selection and dropout biases invalidates the equivalence between the control and experimental groups.

To my surprise, I did not find the power of the sample size. According to several authors (e.g., Denis, 2019), the absence of a sample size calculation based on the statistical test to be used does not demonstrate whether or not the study had a sample large enough to detect significant differences. This limitation, combined with the small magnitude of the effects, increases the likelihood of type II errors.

In terms of the opinion of the ethics committee that approved the study, there are two different numbers: 449551 (page 4);  649454 (page 11). Furthermore, this study does not show the registration code on any platform (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN), which limits its reproducibility.

In terms of intervention, it is described exhaustively in terms of training tasks, but this is not the case in terms of motivation. In particular, the program design does not address basic psychological needs or support autonomy, as defined by SDT. In fact, the intervention is described as “instruction-based” and “strictly planned,” demonstrating little autonomy in the choice of activities, which is the opposite of an autonomy-centered approach.

As described in the introduction (where there are also conceptual inconsistencies), this part of the intervention also has a conceptual flaw, so the authors cannot claim that the program tests changes based on SDT assumptions. The control group is characterized in a superficial way, i.e., the authors only mention that the participants in the control group did not attend soccer school, but do not mention whether they were inactive or continued their usual training.

In addition, there is no evidence of the IMI for the Norwegian population.

This is one of the weakest areas of the manuscript. The analytical plan is inconsistent and inappropriate for the research design. Despite having a two-factor structure (Group × Time), the authors rely on a sequence of independent sample t-tests, Wilcoxon tests, and Mann–Whitney tests.

In terms of statistical analysis, there is a major error.  First, the statistical techniques used (e.g., Mann–Whitney U tests and Wilcoxon tests) are not appropriate for the study presented in terms of its design. The statistical technique to be applied should have been a repeated measures ANOVA (2 groups × 2 moments), which would calculate the differences between groups, moments, and the interaction between groups and moments. The use of repeated comparison tests increases type I errors. Furthermore, as this is an intervention, and to my surprise, the effect sizes are not reported. Confidence intervals should have been included.

Results and Discussion

Based on my previous comments, the results and discussion section must be completely modified.

Author Response

The editor asked us to rewrite the article according to his summed up comments from both reviers. Here they are.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This research is well constructed; the instrument used is valid; the problem statement is clear, the limitations are noted; basically, there is nothing wrong with this paper.

However, maybe there is much wrong with the paper.  The researchers examined the changes in players' interest/enjoyment, perceived competence, and value/usefulness through an 11-week footfall training program with one session a week.  Overall, 175 children aged 9-12 participated in this pretest, intervention, posttest design. The children scored high in their interest/enjoyment, perceived competence, and value/usefuless of the football training program, in BOTH the pretest and posttest, though the intervention group appeared to have a significant drop in interest/enjoyment.  In other words, there was no significant change in the other two variables.  The participants liked football when they started the 11-week program, they felt football training was valuable and saw themselves as competent on both ends of the 11- week program.  All of this, I would say, is positive information about the coaching experience in this specific program.  All is well.  However, if I were the researcher I would be concerned about the limitation that the researchers discussed concerning the age group - was the instrument adequate for the population?  Maybe, maybe not; would there be a better instrument; should a different instrument be found?  In my own personal experience, this age group may not be cognitively mature enough to make these sorts of decisions with this instrument.   These researchers did much good work and I do not doubt their competency, but I wonder why they are publishing now.  I would want better data.  Also, I wonder about the intervention, one training a session a week over 11 weeks is a rather small intervention program -why so small? Is the study worthy, yes in its own small way.  Does the sport experience, playing football and being coached one day a week, appears to have specific benefits?  Without any data, most people would say yes, depending on the quality of coaching. 

The references are not consistent in formatting. Reference number 3, 14, 28, 31, 35, and 39 needs to be edited to follow low case for titles and jour articles to follow the rest of the references.  Examples of questions in the survey instrument that were used would be helpful , and a discuss of reliability/validity of what occurs when only selected questions of the instrument are used. 

Author Response

The editor askes us to rewrite the artcle according to his summed up comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

A versão revisada do artigo intitulado: Percepções de Interesse/Prazer, Competência Percebida e Valor/Utilidade entre Jovens Jogadores de Futebol em um Programa de Treinamento de Futebol de 11 Semanas: Um Ensaio Clínico Randomizado Controlado.

De um modo geral, o artigo contém vários erros.

Introdução

Based on the authors' framing, this paper is supported by  Self-Determination Theory (SDT), but its discussion lacks coherence and is overly descriptive. Core constructs like pleasure/interest, perceived competence, and value/utility are defined in isolation without establishing strong theoretical connections between them. Crucially, the paper fails to articulate the mechanisms linking these constructs or how they influence the intervention, such as by exploring whether perceived competence mediates pleasure or if value/utility represents a more internalized form of regulation as outlined in SDT's organismic integration theory. Consequently, the theoretical foundation fails to strengthen the hypotheses, as the six micro-theories constituting SDT are only superficially mentioned rather than being systematically integrated to explain the study's design or outcomes. In the revised manuscript, these issues were not addressed.

The study suffers from a fundamental conceptual confusion, particularly regarding intrinsic motivation. The variables measured by the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) subscales do not align with the specific constructs of psychological needs and motivational regulations defined by SDT's micro-theories. This discrepancy means the selected variables lack a coherent theoretical representation, resulting in a lack of conceptual robustness. Ultimately, this misalignment poses a significant threat to the study's content validity, as the instrument is not adequately assessing the core tenets of the theory it claims to be based upon. In the revised manuscript, these issues were not addressed

 

Method

The study lacks specific details on the randomization method. To enhance transparency and credibility, the authors should describe the procedures for sequence generation and allocation concealment.

Additionally, the study cannot be considered a registered RCT, as no trial registration was completed. It is more accurately defined as an experimental study. The manuscript must clarify whether outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation and timepoint. If blinding was not feasible, the associated risk of bias and its potential impact on the results should be explicitly discussed in the Limitations section.

There is a lack of post-hoc analysis in terms of pairwise comparison. The analysis made (now) was an repeated measures ANOVA. Therefore, the pairwise comparisons and, of course, the partial eta-square of each of them must be reported and interpreted.

To enhance the manuscript's transparency and rigor, it should be expanded to address the potential for clustering effects, the lack of evaluator blinding, and the absence of follow-up measurements

Results and Discussion

Based on my previous comments, the results and discussion section must be completely modified, as I said in my previous report.

Em particular, os resultados devem incluir todas as análises realizadas e uma interpretação correta dos dados, considerando também os comentários fornecidos na seção de métodos.

A discussão é falha, pois carece de suporte tanto em termos de um arcabouço conceitual quanto de evidências empíricas.

 

Por favor, veja os comentários acima. 

Author Response

Please see our comments within the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Não há mais comentários. 

Não há mais comentários.