Review Reports - Young Norwegian Football Players’ Cross-Sectional Experiences of Coach Recognition: A Quantitative Survey Study Related to the Pedagogical Approach of Being Seen

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

This revision shows a marked improvement in both theoretical grounding and methodological transparency. By bridging Honneth’s recognition theory with Self-Determination Theory (SDT), the authors have moved beyond a simple survey analysis to offer a genuine contribution to sports pedagogy. The transition of the "being seen" concept from a purely PE-driven framework to the competitive youth football landscape is well-justified in this version. I appreciate the rigor applied to the statistical validation of the adapted instrument; it addresses my previous concerns regarding the internal validity of shifting pedagogical tools across different social contexts.

Abstract and Introduction: The narrative flow is much tighter. The introduction effectively highlights the research gap concerning gender-specific experiences in coach-athlete "dialogue." This sets a clear stage for the quantitative findings that follow.

Methodology: The decision to provide explicit power calculations and the rationale for the 212-player sample size adds necessary weight to the study's claims. Notably, the reported Cronbach’s alpha values ($0.872$ to $0.938$) are impressive, confirming that the adapted questionnaire holds up well within a sporting environment. The PCA checks further bolster confidence in the factor structure.

Results: The presentation of data is systematic and precise. Utilizing Friedman and Wilcoxon tests was the correct path given the Likert-scale distribution. The finding that "assessment and goal setting" lags behind "good dialogue" is a critical takeaway, as it suggests a practical imbalance in how coaches engage with player development.

Discussion: I found the integration of the findings with existing PE literature to be balanced. The authors avoided over-extending their conclusions while still identifying meaningful parallels. Admitting the lack of a formal pilot test as a limitation is an honest touch that reflects academic integrity.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments!

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The study is currently a "copy-paste" of PE research into a football setting. To be taken seriously, you must:

Conduct a more robust statistical validation of the adapted instrument.
Address the age confounding variable in your discussion. You cannot claim "gender differences" (or lack thereof) when the boys are nearly two years older on average.
Provide a more critical interpretation of the results. The 83-87% satisfaction rate seems suspiciously high for youth sports; you need to discuss the possibility of social desirability bias.

You have taken a questionnaire designed for Physical Education (PE) and applied it to a competitive football environment with only "minor wording changes". While you admit this could influence construct validity, performing five separate, targeted PCAs rather than a full Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) is statistically insufficient for a "new" context. A competitive sports team is fundamentally different from a mandatory PE class.
There is a glaring age discrepancy between your cohorts. The girls' sample is significantly younger (average 15.8) than the boys' sample (average 17.3). Specifically, 81 girls are aged 15-16, while only 16 boys fall into that range. This age gap likely confounds your gender-based results.
The manuscript frequently flips between "PE teacher" and "coach" in its theoretical sections. While you argue the roles are similar, the paper needs to be strictly written for the sports context it claims to investigate.
For the "Good Dialogue" finding, what was the Cohen’s d? With a p-value of .042, is this difference practically meaningful in a coaching session, or is it just a statistical artifact?
Why is there no mention in the conclusion that the "gender" findings are essentially inseparable from the "age" findings? You are comparing 15-year-old girls to 17-year-old boys.
Why should a reader care that football players feel seen in the same way PE students do? You need to explain what is different about being seen in a high-stakes football match versus a mandatory gym class.

Author Response

The article is rewritten according to all of the comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

No further comments

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments:

The present study explores young football players’ experiences of being seen by their head coach, addressing a significant and potentially impactful area within youth sport research. While the topic is relevant and the study shows promise, several issues need to be addressed before the work can be considered for publication. There are concerns regarding the clarity and strength of the study’s rationale, especially in the introduction, where the theoretical grounding and justification for the research could be articulated more clearly. Additionally, there are methodological issues that warrant careful attention, including aspects related to study design, data collection, and the interpretation of findings. These concerns may limit the study’s overall rigour and the validity of its conclusions. Please see the specific comments provided below for further details and suggestions for improvement.

Specific comments:

Introduction:

I found the references are relatively weak and not directly scientific. Furthermore, did Bergin and Lagestad conclude in their study that "...and participation in organised sports may therefore contribute to increased quality of life and personal development "?
Is Helsedirektoratet a valid scientific reference?
In “This research consists of three studies focusing on upper secondary school students…” which research are the authors referring to?
In “Lyngstad et al. (2019) was a qualitative…” I cannot find this reference in the reference list!
Towards the end of the introduction and in the research questions: The rationale for the study is not clearly articulated, making it difficult to understand the specific gap in the literature the research aims to address. The introduction does not effectively build toward the study's importance or relevance, resulting in a weak justification for the research. Moreover, the references used in this section are relatively weak, as they rely heavily on non-scientific or non-peer-reviewed sources. Strengthening the scholarly foundation with more robust, research-based literature would improve the argument's credibility and coherence.
Maybe combining the theory with the introduction could build a better case.

Methods:

Participants: When calculating the sample size, what was the purpose of the study? As I don't see that the calculation is in line with the purpose!
Participants: random selection of what? Why not collect from all available in the area? How was this random selection representative of all clubs?
Participants: Has the study been ethically approved? what was the number of the ethical approval? Considering that there are underage participants?
Questionnaire: What was the language of the validated questionnaire? What was the results of the original validation from Andresen et al. (2023)?
Questionnaire: Was the questionnaire validated after those changes? (i.e., replacing terms such as “PE teacher” with “head coach” and “physical education” with “football training/match.”)
Analyses: why not provide the complete correlation table?
Table 3: Was a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) conducted? What was the name of this instrument used in this study?
Table 4: What were the results of the model fit? does it confirm with the results reported in the original validation? Did the original validation use a model assessment?
Table 4: It is very well known that a very high alpha is not preferable to a very low alpha. The complete correlation table should be provided, maybe as a supplement. the model fit parameters from a CFA should also be provided.

Results:

The data from the questionnaire should be reported based on the fact that the data in this study are ordinal and not a scale. Therefore, mean, and SD are not the correct choices...
Figure 1 and Figure 2: How were the differences analysed? Was it a proportionate analysis? and how? Did the authors use chi-statistics?
The statistical approach to measure the outcomes should be reconsidered.
Figure 2 explanation text: the results should be supplied with the n value for each analysis. See APA for how to report such data.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments. Please see our response attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer Report for Authors

General Assessment

This study tackles an interesting pedagogical question by investigating how youth football players experience "being seen" by their coaches. While the topic is relevant, I have significant concerns about the methodology that affect the validity of the results. The transition of a questionnaire from a PE setting to a competitive sports setting without proper validation is the main issue, along with some statistical inconsistencies that need addressing.

Major Concerns

Validity of the Construct My primary concern is the use of the Andresen et al. (2023) questionnaire. You have taken an instrument validated for Physical Education and applied it to competitive football without establishing that it works in this new context. The relationship between a PE teacher and a student is fundamentally different from a coach and an athlete. PE is mandatory and curriculum-based, while club football is voluntary, performance-driven, and selective. You cannot assume the five-factor structure from PE holds up here. You need to demonstrate factorial invariance; otherwise, we don't know if you are measuring what you think you are measuring.

Theoretical Alignment The theoretical framework feels retrofitted. It seems like Honneth’s recognition theory and Self-Determination Theory (SDT) were brought in to explain the results after the fact, rather than driving the study design. These theories didn't seem to inform your sampling or questionnaire development. As it stands, the discussion relies on these theories, but the study design doesn't actually test their propositions.

Statistical Approach There is a disconnect in your analysis. You are using non-parametric tests (Mann-Whitney U, Friedman) which implies your data isn't normally distributed or is ordinal, yet you extensively report means and standard deviations, which are parametric statistics. You need to be consistent with your assumptions. Furthermore, you haven't accounted for the hierarchical nature of the data. Players are nested within teams, and teams within clubs. Treating them as independent observations likely inflates your Type I error rate.

Sample and Gender Comparison There is a confound in your sample composition. The boys (Mean age 17.3) are roughly 1.5 years older than the girls (Mean age 15.8). At this developmental stage, that is a massive difference in maturity and cognitive sophistication. Any gender difference you find (or don't find) could simply be due to age. This makes the gender comparison largely uninterpretable.

Missing Context You haven't provided enough detail about the context. I am missing information on coach characteristics (age, experience, certification), training frequency, and the competitive level of these leagues. Without this, the reproducibility of the study is limited.

Specific Comments

Title: It needs to be more specific. I suggest something like: "Young Norwegian Football Players' Cross-Sectional Experiences of Coach Recognition: A Quantitative Survey Study".

Abstract (Lines 8-10): You claim this hasn't been explored in sport, but that isn't accurate. There is a lot of literature on coach-athlete relationships and recognition (e.g., Jowett & Ntoumanis, LaVoi). Please refine this to accurately reflect the gap you are filling.

Abstract (Lines 15-17): You mention percentages of players who "felt seen" but don't define what that means here. Later we learn this aggregates "agree" responses, but the abstract should be clear about this metric.

Abstract (Lines 18-20): You state conclusions about high/low factors without effect sizes. Statistical significance alone isn't enough; we need to know the magnitude.

Introduction (Lines 23-27): You suggest a causal link between sport and quality of life, but be careful. There is a lot of selection bias involved here. Don't present correlation as causation.

Introduction (Lines 29-32): The definition of "being seen" seems circular. You define it using "acknowledged," but then treat it as distinct from recognition. This needs conceptual tightening.

Introduction (Lines 50-56): You discuss Lagestad et al. (2020) having four factors, but your study has five. You need to clarify where the fifth factor ("assessment and goal setting") came from—did Andresen et al. find it, or was it theoretical?.

Introduction (Lines 66-73): The section on gender differences brings in literature on leadership styles without clearly linking it to the concept of "being seen". Also, watch the grammar: "coaches leading style" should be "coaches' leadership style".

Research Questions: Q2 and Q4 are redundant as they both deal with gender. Combine them. Also, Q1 is too vague ("To what extent...")—are you looking for descriptive stats or a benchmark comparison?.

Theory (Lines 89-100): Just because Honneth has been used before doesn't mean it fits here. Critical theory seems a bit far removed from a survey on voluntary sports participation. You need to explain exactly how the questionnaire items map onto Honneth’s three forms of recognition.

Theory (Lines 133-149): You focus only on "relatedness" in SDT. What about autonomy and competence? Ignoring them weakens the theoretical basis.

Methods (Power Calculation): You used data from Bjørklimark & Lagestad (2025) for your power calc, but that study is on PE students. Why assume the effect size is the same? Also, that study appears to be published after your data collection, which is confusing for a priori power analysis.

Methods (Lines 162-167): You only got about 50-56% of teams to agree. This suggests selection bias—maybe teams with bad coaches refused? This needs to be discussed as a limitation.

Methods (Questionnaire): You say the questionnaire was "validated" by Andresen, but they did EFA. That is scale development, not full psychometric validation. Also, you cite Lawson (2005) to justify the PE-to-Sport adaptation, but Lawson writes about PE, not sport. The contexts are different.

Methods (Items): The math doesn't add up. You mention 51 items, with items 7-51 being Likert. That's 45 items. But the factors only account for 30 items. What are the other 15 items measuring?.

Methods (Pre-test): Using one 15-year-old boy to review the questions is not a pilot test. You need a proper pre-test with a diverse group to check comprehension.

Analysis (Lines 214-220): You mention "Component Matrix factor analysis." This is confusing. PCA (Principal Components) and Factor Analysis are different. If you are looking at latent constructs, EFA/CFA is better than PCA.

Analysis (Lines 238-242): Please report the extraction method and rotation used. Also, keeping item 24 with a loading of 0.692 because it is "close to 0.7" is arbitrary. Loadings under 0.7 suggest the item explains less than 50% of the variance.

Results (Table 5): Your means and medians are very close, suggesting the data might actually be normal. Did you run Shapiro-Wilk? If it is normal, why use non-parametric tests?.

Figure 1: This is a single-item measure. How does this correlate with your multi-factor scale? Convergent validity is missing here.

Figure 2: The standard deviations are quite large (>1.0). This heterogeneity suggests you should look at moderators (e.g., playing time, team performance) rather than just averages.

Results (Lines 308-311): You say "Good Dialogue" was significantly higher. How much higher? Please report effect sizes (e.g., rank-biserial correlation).

Discussion: Organize this section by your research questions for clarity.

Discussion (Lines 322-332): You assume high ratings mean coaches are skilled. It could just be selection bias (unhappy players quit) or social desirability.

Discussion (Lines 360-371): Comparing your results to Andresen et al. (PE context) is difficult because of the many confounding variables (class size, voluntariness, assessment). You can't just attribute differences to group size.

Discussion (Lines 373-385): The argument here is circular. You are conflating the predictor (recognition) with the outcome (participation) without longitudinal data to back it up.

Discussion (Gender): You interpret no significant difference as "positive." Remember, a null result just means you didn't find a difference, not that the groups are equivalent. To claim equivalence, you would need TOST procedures.

Limitations: This section is too brief. You need to acknowledge the lack of validation for the sport context, the age confound, the cross-sectional design, and the nested data structure.

Conclusion: It summarizes but doesn't offer enough practical application. How should coach education change based on this?. Also, avoid claiming that feeling unseen leads to dropout—you don't have the longitudinal data to prove that.

References: Several citations in the text are missing from the list (Carson, Biddle, Bronikowski), and vice-versa. Please cross-check.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments. Please see our response attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a well-executed and clearly written manuscript that addresses an important and underexplored concept in youth sport. The idea of “being seen” is convincingly motivated, theoretically grounded, and relevant for both research and practice. I particularly appreciate the attempt to move this concept beyond PE and into organized football, as well as the use of a validated questionnaire and appropriate non-parametric statistics.

That said, the paper sometimes feels a bit too confident in the transferability of concepts and instruments from PE to competitive youth football. While the authors acknowledge similarities between teachers and coaches, the football context also introduces selection, performance evaluation, and competition in ways that likely shape recognition differently. This does not undermine the study, but it does require more critical reflection, especially in the methodology and limitations.

The analyses are generally sound, but the factor-analytic approach is unconventional and needs clearer justification. Likewise, the interpretation of “no gender differences” would benefit from a more cautious tone, given the age and league differences between boys and girls. These are not fatal issues, but they should be addressed to strengthen the manuscript’s credibility and interpretive depth.

Please see the attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments. Please see our response attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has multiple methodological and reporting issues. The introduction relies heavily on secondary and non–peer–reviewed sources without examining primary evidence, and the organisations and terminology cited are vague. Sources, such as Fredheim 2018, do not specify whether they are peer-reviewed. Although the study aims to examine coach behaviour, the research questions and methods do not clearly measure this aspect. Major methodological problems include an inappropriate sample size calculation for the survey, unclear random selection procedures, missing ethical approval documentation, and the absence of raw data and complete correlation tables.

Feedback to the authors based on the comments provided in round 1:

Regarding the use of the secondary sources in the introduction (i.e., the Norwegian Directorate of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and Helsedirektoratet). First, I believe the authors refuse to assess the accuracy of those secondary sources because they do not cite the primary sources. Furthermore, what does Helsedirektoratet mean? Is it the same as the Norwegian Directorate of Health? In which language is the article submitted?
Is Fredheim 2018 a peer-reviewed source? Or is it a news source?
It was requested that the entire correlation table be provided. Why was it not?
Did the authors submit the raw data of their study? This can be done as a supplementary file.
Still, the introduction contains several non-peer-reviewed sources.
The purpose of the study: Did the authors assess the coaches’ behaviour in this study? How?
None of the research questions provided examines the coach's behaviour. How come the study aims to investigate coach behaviour, yet the research questions do not cover this aspect?
Sample size calculation: Is the sample size calculation method for an intervention study, or for survey studies? I don’t see these methods of calculation used in survey studies! The main instrument in this study was a questionnaire.
Random selection: since random selection is used, what is the correct random selection method to be used to ensure that all clubs are represented? (i.e., Stratified randomisation).
Regarding ethical approval, the authors answered regarding data protection approval. The question was regarding ethical approval. Was the study ethically approved?
Regarding the instrument, have the authors conducted any prior assessment to ensure that participants would understand the questions after conducting changes?
Table 3: I cannot see the complete correlation table, as the author responded to the comment!
Regarding CFA: The PCA or EFA is a step conducted during the initial validation of a questionnaire. Since the authors already indicate that the instrument used was validated, and decided to use it. Then a CFA must be conducted, not a PCA or an EFA. Why? because “CFA is an essential tool in the toolkit of researchers aiming to validate the structure of their measurement instruments. It provides a rigorous method to ensure that the data aligns with expected theoretical constructs, enhancing the reliability and validity of subsequent analyses based on these measurements...” in plain words: the CFA examine if the validated instrument (prior validity evidence) is suitable for the sample applied to and should be provided for any subsequent use of the instrument on any new sample.
See: Rogers, P. Best practices for your confirmatory factor analysis: A JASP and lavaanBehav Res 56, 6634–6654 (2024). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-024-02375-7
Read carefully page 15 in Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Regarding reporting of the results, it was stated in the former feedback that the results should be reported as median and IRQ. The argument that the mean is acceptable based on “common practice, not scientific fact, is unacceptable. Therefore, the mean does not represent the truth value of the results.
Statistical analyses in the methods section: incomplete. It should state all analyses conducted on the data, and which analyses were used to measure what?
In the former comments regarding chi-square, what was meant is using the Mann-Whitney U test. As it is the most appropriate test if the data fulfils the pre-assumptions, as the authors indicated.
The discussion should be rewritten according to the new results.

END

Reviewer 2 Report

Revised Peer-Review Report

Title: Young football players' cross-sectional experiences of coach recognition: A quantitative survey study related to the pedagogical approach of being seen by their head football coach

1. General Comments

This revised paper explores the concept of "being seen" among youth football players in Norway. The use of a validated questionnaire adapted from Physical Education (PE) is an interesting approach to quantifying player-coach relationships.

The authors have clearly put work into this revision, particularly by integrating Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and Honneth’s theory. However, the manuscript still feels "unpolished" in several areas. There are lingering technical errors, formatting leftovers from the revision process, and a significant demographic imbalance in the sample that needs a more critical look. While the study has merit, the following points need to be addressed before it is ready for publication.

Major Issues:

Validity Concerns: You have checked the component matrix, which is a good start, but applying an instrument to a new population (sports vs. PE) usually warrants a full Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Without this, the structural validity of the adapted scale remains a bit shaky.

Sample Imbalance: There is a notable age gap between the male (avg. 17.3 years) and female (avg. 15.8 years) groups. Since developmental maturity affects how players perceive "recognition," this is a major confounding variable. The interpretation of gender differences should be much more cautious because of this.

Minor Issues:

Proofreading: The text is currently cluttered with "Track Changes" remnants and "Field Code" errors. These must be cleaned up.

Terminology: Some non-parametric test descriptions and effect size reporting are inconsistent.

Specific Comments

Abstract

Lines 13-14: There is a typo: "felt-being seen seen." Please fix this to "perceived being seen" or "experienced being seen."

Introduction & Theory

Line 432: Check the citation for "Andresen et al. (2023)" for consistent formatting throughout.

Line 559: You have misspelled "Deci and Ryan" as "Deel and Ryan." This is a fundamental error in a paper using SDT and must be fixed.

Methodology

Line 594: The power calculation section is a mess. It shows subscript errors and strange artifacts like "d \pm = 0.81" and "0.8O_2". Clean up the mathematical notation.

Line 607: Spelling error: "teames 8-16" should be "teams."

Line 616: This section about SIKT regulations is fragmented. Please rewrite it so it flows naturally with the rest of the paragraph.

Line 629: Grammar error: "byfrom Andresen et al." Choose one preposition.

Line 105: Item 24 has a loading of 0.692. Since you are keeping it, explicitly state that it was retained because it was part of the original validated instrument.

Line 138: You mention "Mann-Whitney UChi-square tests" as if it’s one test. These are different. Specify which was used for Likert data and which for categorical data.

Results

Line 148: Phrases like "mean scores were relatively high" are subjective. Just state the scores or use a more neutral description.

Table 3: Check the header "Nr.23." and fix the alignment for "Involvement in assessment..." It looks sloppy compared to the other columns.

Discussion

Line 245: The age/competitive level difference (U19 vs. U17) is a big deal. It belongs in your "Limitations" section, not just as a passing mention.

Line 283: You mention "not forcing" dialogue with boys. What does this mean in practice? Add a brief example or a citation to support this coaching strategy.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have satisfactorily responded to my comments. Best of wishes!

No more detailed comments