Barriers to the Practice of Sport and Physical Activity from the Perspective of Self-Determination Theory
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Taking the self-determination theory as a framework, the study analyses the barriers to the practice of sport and physical activity. As it is said “ to assess the associations among the types of self-determined motivation, frustrated basic psychological needs (FBPNs), and the barriers to PSA”; and “to test how the types of self-determined motivation, FBPNs, and barriers to PSA differ according to age, gender, residential independence, academic/employment status and prior PSA”
Data were collected through a questionnaire applied online to 102 individuals from the city Badajoz (in Spain).
In my opinion, the methodology is insufficiently described, and some aspects need attention
The questionnaire was build up from adaptations from three different sources, but not had been validated. Nothing is said about the metric qualities of the questionnaire. This is an aspect that does not allow attributing validity and reliability to the results obtained.
Also, some problems are seen with the sample. How many people live in Badajoz?, how is the (18-25 years) population? Is a significant sample size? No information was provided to demonstrate that the 102 individuals constitute a representative sample.
Some others comments:
On page 2, line 67, Basic Psychological Needs (BPN)
On page 2, lines 73,74 and 75 it is said: “barriers to SPA and motives to practice should not be considered as opposing extremes of a single continuum, but instead, as a different way to evaluate the motivational profile of an individual related to SPA.” This is not clear for me, Do you mean that barriers to SPA are just a motivational issue?. Explain
On page 3, line 111, the heading is 3.2 Instrument, and then you describe the variables
On page 3, line 105, you assume that for been considered active, individuals need practice two days a week or 150 minutes per week… How did you know this? had been tested the accuracy of the answers? had you triangulated this data with other instruments?
On page 3, line 108-109, we can assume that more than 90% were students (part-time or full time), only 8.79 (roughly 9 individuals) were not students...too low sample for representativeness.
In table 1, Alpha Crombach for Amotivation is lower than 0.70 as well.
In table 7, lines 194-195 it is said that “None of the study variables presented significant differences as a function of academic/employment status (Table 7) but we can see that differences in obligations and lack of time are significant.
On page 8, line 215, you introduce teachers and parents responsible for overcoming SPA barriers. However, this must be addressed before discussion, as they look like important actors in the motivation for SPA.
Beware of the word “finally” all over de discussion section.
Author Response
First of all, we would like to thank all the comments and suggestions of the reviewer, which helps us to improve and give a higher quality to the work done and presented. Then each comment is answered point by point. We hope to answer cleary to the comments and suggestions of the editor and the reviewer. If it were necessary to clarify any concept or point, let us know.
Taking the self-determination theory as a framework, the study analyses the barriers to the practice of sport and physical activity. As it is said “ to assess the associations among the types of self-determined motivation, frustrated basic psychological needs (FBPNs), and the barriers to PSA”; and “to test how the types of self-determined motivation, FBPNs, and barriers to PSA differ according to age, gender, residential independence, academic/employment status and prior PSA”
Data were collected through a questionnaire applied online to 102 individuals from the city Badajoz (in Spain).
In my opinion, the methodology is insufficiently described, and some aspects need attention
The questionnaire was build up from adaptations from three different sources, but not had been validated. Nothing is said about the metric qualities of the questionnaire. This is an aspect that does not allow attributing validity and reliability to the results obtained.
Response: The questionnaires used have been previously validated. In addition to using validated questionnaires, we demonstrated the reliability of the questionnaires in our study through Cronbach´s Alpha analysis (Table 1, Line 174).
Below we describe the references of the validation of the 3 questionnaires both in their original version and in the Spanish context (this can be found in sections 2.3.1., 2.3.2., and 2.3.3.:
- Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire (BREQ-3) (Wilson, Rodgers, Loitz, & Scime,2003) validated for the Spanish context by González-Cutre, Sicilia, & Fernández (2010).
References:
Wilson, P. M., Rodgers, W. M., Loitz, C. C., & Scime, G. “It's Who I Am… Really!’ The Importance of Integrated Regulation in Exercise Contexts. J. Appl. Biobehav. Res. 2006, 11, 79-104.
González-Cutre, D., Sicilia, Á., & Fernández, A. Hacia una mayor comprensión de la motivación en el ejercicio físico: medición de la regulación integrada en el contexto español. Psicothema 2010, 22, 841-847.
- Frustration of Psychological Needs in Physical Exercise Scale (Vlachopoulos & Michailidou, 2006), validated for the Spanish context by Sánchez, J. M., & Núñez (2007).
References:
Sánchez, J. M., & Núñez, J. L. Análisis preliminar de las propiedades psicométricas de la versión española de la Escala de Necesidades Psicológicas Básicas en el Ejercicio Físico. Rev. iberoam. psicol. ejerc. Deporte 2007, 2, 83-92.
Vlachopoulos, S. P., & Michailidou, S. Development and initial validation of a measure of autonomy, competence, and relatedness in exercise: The Basic Psychological Needs in Exercise Scale. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci. 2006, 10, 179-201.
- Self-Perceived Barriers of Physical Activity (SPBPA) questionnaire (Capdevila, 2005) adapted by I Maymí, Ortís, & Bassets (2007).
References:
I Maymí, J. N., Ortís, L. C., & Bassets, M. P. Barreras percibidas y actividad física: el autoinforme de barreras para práctica de ejercicio físico. Rev. de Psicol. del Deporte 2007, 15, 53-69.
Capdevila, L. Actividad física y Salud; Miracle: Barcelona, España, 2005.
Also, some problems are seen with the sample. How many people live in Badajoz?, how is the (18-25 years) population? Is a significant sample size? No information was provided to demonstrate that the 102 individuals constitute a representative sample.
Response: The population of Badajoz is approximately 78.000 people, and with a confidence level of 80% the sample should be 164 people, we only get 102 people.
La población de Badajoz es de 78.000 personas aproximadamente, y con un nivel de confianza del 80% la muestra debería ser de 164 personas, sólo conseguimos 102 personas.
Some others comments:
On page 2, line 67, Basic Psychological Needs (BPN)
Response: It has been corrected.
On page 2, lines 73,74 and 75 it is said: “barriers to SPA and motives to practice should not be considered as opposing extremes of a single continuum, but instead, as a different way to evaluate the motivational profile of an individual related to SPA.” This is not clear for me, Do you mean that barriers to SPA are just a motivational issue?. Explain
Response: We have revised the sentence as it was not worded correctly. We refer to the fact that the barriers towards the practice of sport and physical activity can be associated with the continuum of self-determined motivation towards the practice, these barriers can be the result of demotivation or the lack of intrinsic motivation towards the practice. We have changed the wording on Line 75-76.
On page 3, line 111, the heading is 3.2 Instrument, and then you describe the variables
Response: We added “variables and instruments” in the heading 2.3. (Line 113).
On page 3, line 105, you assume that for been considered active, individuals need practice two days a week or 150 minutes per week… How did you know this? had been tested the accuracy of the answers? had you triangulated this data with other instruments?
Response: The responses have not been triangulated with other objective instruments. We will take it into account for further studies.
On page 3, line 108-109, we can assume that more than 90% were students (part-time or full time), only 8.79 (roughly 9 individuals) were not students...too low sample for representativeness.
In table 1, Alpha Crombach for Amotivation is lower than 0.70 as well.
Response: It is explained in the lines 169-171. “It was noteworthy that it was necessary to delete one item from the amotivation factor to achieve a level of reliability deemed marginally acceptable given the small number of items [26].”
In table 7, lines 194-195 it is said that “None of the study variables presented significant differences as a function of academic/employment status (Table 7) but we can see that differences in obligations and lack of time are significant.
Response: As seen in the table 7, the significance of the obligations and lack of time are not significant (p= 0.125) (Line 200).
On page 8, line 215, you introduce teachers and parents responsible for overcoming SPA barriers. However, this must be addressed before discussion, as they look like important actors in the motivation for SPA.
Response: In the introduction we define the barriers and what the mean. In the discussion we consider that talking about the social agents that can influence these barriers is important, as factors to be taken into account in future studies, since in our study we did not take it into account, therefore we have nor described in the introduction.
Beware of the word “finally” all over de discussion section.
Response: We have reduced the uso of “finally” in the discussion.
Reviewer 2 Report
I would like to thank the editor for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled "Barriers to the practice of sport and physical activity from the perspective of Self-Determination Theory". I congratulate with the authors for the very interesting paper and the well-written manuscript. This is a timely topic, as improving physical activity habits is mandatory for future generations and it represents one of the key actions of WHO and other organizations.
I have only a minor suggestion. The authors well-discuss how these barriers can be determined in general in healthy individuals. There is a large part of population with some chronic diseases who need physical activity to stay healthy, but they perceive several barriers (e.g., diabetes; Vilafranca Cartagena et al., Int J Environ Res Publ Health, 2021; Kennedy et al., BMJ Open, 2018, or Multiple Sclerosis; Buoite Stella et al., EJAP, 2020; Riemann-Lorenz et al., Disabil Rehabil, 2020).
Author Response
First of all, we would like to thank all the comments and suggestions of the reviewer, which helps us to improve and give a higher quality to the work done and presented. Then each comment is answered point by point. We hope to answer cleary to the comments and suggestions of the editor and the reviewer. If it were necessary to clarify any concept or point, let us know.
I would like to thank the editor for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled "Barriers to the practice of sport and physical activity from the perspective of Self-Determination Theory". I congratulate with the authors for the very interesting paper and the well-written manuscript. This is a timely topic, as improving physical activity habits is mandatory for future generations and it represents one of the key actions of WHO and other organizations.
I have only a minor suggestion. The authors well-discuss how these barriers can be determined in general in healthy individuals. There is a large part of population with some chronic diseases who need physical activity to stay healthy, but they perceive several barriers (e.g., diabetes; Vilafranca Cartagena et al., Int J Environ Res Publ Health, 2021; Kennedy et al., BMJ Open, 2018, or Multiple Sclerosis; Buoite Stella et al., EJAP, 2020; Riemann-Lorenz et al., Disabil Rehabil, 2020).
Response: We appreciate the reviewer´s input. Undoubtedly, we will take into account for further studies, since in this one we have focused on healthy people, and the barriers as well as the reasons for practicing physical activity differ completely between healthy people and people with chronic diseases.
Reviewer 3 Report
Review for Sustainability
Title: Barriers to the practice of sport and physical activity from the 2 perspective of Self Determination Theory
General comments
The study objectives were (1) to assess the associations among the types of self-determined motivation, frustrated basic psychological needs (FBPNs), and the barriers to PSA; and (2) to test how the types of self-determined motivation, FBPNs, and barriers to PSA differ according to age, gender (male vs. female), residential independence (living with parents or not), academic/employment status (studying vs. in employment), and prior PSA.
The authors' attempt to answer the first goal is not very interesting from a cognitive point of view, while the second goal is more interesting.
The advantage of this research is the wide range of questionnaires used in the research and their correct presentation and description in the results section.
The university students represent a particular set of individuals experiencing a difficult period for maintaining the practice of Sport and Physical Activity (SPA). Thus, this study is informing intervention strategies designed to help individuals continue or resume practicing SPA.
Specific comments
Abstract
Line 18 - study survey – be more specific, what kind, name?
Introduction
Line 67 – BPNs – please extend the shortcut, it is not understandable
the introduction is logical and the purpose is well-founded
Data analysis
I have no major reservations
Discussion
Line 219-221 - this is expected, proven long ago, and adds nothing to literature
Most of the references used in the text are correct and relatively new
Author Response
First of all, we would like to thank all the comments and suggestions of the reviewer, which helps us to improve and give a higher quality to the work done and presented. Then each comment is answered point by point. We hope to answer cleary to the comments and suggestions of the editor and the reviewer. If it were necessary to clarify any concept or point, let us know.
The study objectives were (1) to assess the associations among the types of self-determined motivation, frustrated basic psychological needs (FBPNs), and the barriers to PSA; and (2) to test how the types of self-determined motivation, FBPNs, and barriers to PSA differ according to age, gender (male vs. female), residential independence (living with parents or not), academic/employment status (studying vs. in employment), and prior PSA.
The authors' attempt to answer the first goal is not very interesting from a cognitive point of view, while the second goal is more interesting.
The advantage of this research is the wide range of questionnaires used in the research and their correct presentation and description in the results section.
The university students represent a particular set of individuals experiencing a difficult period for maintaining the practice of Sport and Physical Activity (SPA). Thus, this study is informing intervention strategies designed to help individuals continue or resume practicing SPA.
Specific comments
Abstract
Line 18 - study survey – be more specific, what kind, name?
Response: We added “who completed the Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire, the Frustration of Psychological Needs in Physical Exercise Scale, and the Self-Perceived Barriers of Physical Activity Questionnaire” (Line 18-20).
Introduction
Line 67 – BPNs – please extend the shortcut, it is not understandable
Response: We explained BPN in the Line 64 “the three Basic Psychological Needs (BPN)”. We also removed all “BPNs” to “BPN” in the manuscript.
the introduction is logical and the purpose is well-founded
Data analysis
I have no major reservations
Discussion
Line 219-221 - this is expected, proven long ago, and adds nothing to literature
Response: We appreciate your input.
Most of the references used in the text are correct and relatively new
