Validation and Adaptation of Questionnaires on Interest, Effort, Progression and Learning Support in Chilean Adolescents

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work is excellent, just indicate some proposals for improvement.

A viable proposal is to indicate the response options of the validated scales in the section where the instrument is described, and not wait until the results section (line 188).

On the other hand, a non-modifiable issue, but that must be taken into account for future research, is to use a stratified sample so that it is more representative of the population. For example, including centers belonging to different neighborhoods, sectors, socio-cultural and economic levels, could have resulted in other values.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, I would like to greet and thank you for all your comments and suggestions.
Responses 
Resp. 1 Regarding your suggestion "A viable proposal is to indicate the response options of the validated scales in the section where the instrument is described, and not to wait until the results section (line 188)". This is quite correct and we thank you for your suggestion and have added it as indicated in lines 146-147.
Resp. 2 "Regarding future research" We consider your contribution to be very relevant and have incorporated it as future perspectives in lines 327-334. 
It is appreciated as all reviewers have very gratifying comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper seems interesting, where it adresses the validation and adaptation of the IEPA and AYES for Chilean adolescents. Following are some comments. 

1- English is not strong here. For example, the following sentence: "The study 72 by Jara et al. [23], indicates that when the student body has leadership skills".

2- Authors should argue why it is worth to perform the research, i.e. whether it is enough for an article to perform the validation and adaptation of the IEPA and AYES for Chilean adolescents.

3- Some references are not written in a consistent way like "14,15,16,17,5,18,19,2,20,21,22]".

4- Some formulations are not clear. For example, the following: "Expanding on the concepts, Jara et al. [23], corroborate the scope of school leadership in the learning of Chilean students". It is not clear what concepts you are reffering to!!

5- Table 4 should be divided into two tables according to the two scales.

6- You should use more references in the discussion section. 

English language is an issue here. You should improve it. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, I would like to greet and thank you for all your comments and suggestions.
Responses 
Resp. 1 In relation to your 1st suggestion we have improved the English in the article.  
Resp. 2 "Authors should argue why the research is worth doing", we added a paragraph in the introduction where we argue in a better way to your suggestion. Lines 111-118. 
Resp. 3 Some references are not written in a consistent way such as "14,15,16,17,5,18,19,2,20,21,22]". We felt that your suggestion was very important and have detailed it for consistency as indicated. Lines 62-69.  
4 Some formulations are not clear. For example, the following: "Expanding the concepts, Jara et al. [23], corroborates the scope of school leadership in the learning of Chilean students". We incorporate their suggestions as reflected in paragraphs 71-76.
5- Table 4 should be divided into two tables according to the two scales. Although what you suggest is a very enriching suggestion. We consider as a team, to incorporate them together to allow to appreciate and compare the values according to factors and validation phases. Also, in several scientific articles, they have been presented in the same way, so we consider that this format of presentation of results is optimal and clear. But we will certainly consider it in a following article of these characteristicsResp. 6- "You should use more references in the discussion section". Your suggestion is undoubtedly very appropriate, but as a team we decided to make the discussion fair and synthetic with the objective of the study. Considering that these instruments are not very well known or used, in the discussion and part of the introduction we incorporated all the articles that have used and/or validated them, thus designing the discussion only according to the objective and the justification of the importance of their validation in the Chilean context. We also did not want to incorporate results, since this article is part of a doctoral project, which has several stages.   
We hope we have responded correctly to all your contributions and suggestions. Thank you very much.
It is appreciated that all reviewers have very gratifying comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper delineates a research endeavour aimed at understanding the intricate dynamics of interest, effort, and progress as dispositional and contextual variables within the realm of education. The overarching goal is to illuminate the pivotal role of student motivation in fostering the development of diverse competencies and skills, thereby contributing to the enhancement of citizenship skills. It is noteworthy that this study aligns with the global aspirations outlined in Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 3, pertaining to health and well-being, and SDG 4, focusing on quality education, as articulated by the United Nations. The specific focus of this investigation revolves around the validation and adaptation of two distinct questionnaires: the Interest, Effort, and Progress in Learning (IEPA) and the contextual Student Assistance (AYES). Targeting the adolescent population in Chile, the study unfolds in two sequential phases. Initially, a sample comprising 339 schoolchildren undergoes the questionnaire application, followed by a second phase involving the replication of the study with a substantially expanded cohort of 3,172 students. The methodological approach to data analysis involves the construction of a comprehensive data matrix, wherein various distribution and dispersion tests, including mean, standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis, and range, are conducted employing the IBM SPSS statistical program. Subsequently, the dimensionality of the scale is explored through an exploratory factor analysis facilitated by the FACTOR program, version 11, updated in 2021. To further corroborate the findings, a confirmatory factor analysis is undertaken utilizing the M-PLUS 7.3 program.

The paper is well-written, with a clear and logical structure. The use of sources is appropriate. 

I have noticed that some minor formatting issues in the reference section. Please revise before the final submission.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, I would like to greet and thank you for all your comments and suggestions.
Resp. 1. "I have noticed some minor formatting issues in the reference section." Dear reviewer, we have made some modifications throughout the article as requested. Thank you.
It is appreciated that all reviewers have very gratifying comments.

Reviewer 4 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper. While I recognize its high potential for a broader international readership, I have identified some major issues that need attention for further development.

1. 1. Introduction: The introduction appears relatively lengthy, possibly due to the inclusion of the literature review. I recommend creating a separate literature review section to enhance clarity. This way, readers can obtain a clearer overview of your research by reading the introduction and gain a better understanding of the concepts employed in the paper.

2. 2. Research Questions & Hypotheses: Given the use of quantitative research methodology, explicitly providing research questions and hypotheses would better guide readers in following your argument and understanding the significance of your research.

3. 3. Discussion: The discussion appears to incorporate implications and suggestions for future studies, which can be more appropriately addressed in the conclusion section.

4. 4. Conclusion: The conclusion section is currently underdeveloped and requires further elaboration to strengthen its overall impact.

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear reviewer, I would like to greet and thank you for all your comments and suggestions.
Resp. 1 "I recommend creating a review section...". Undoubtedly your recommendations are very accurate, but we follow the recommendations and format of the journal itself. 

Resp. 2 To raise hypotheses, although it is a quantitative research and it is advisable to incorporate hypotheses. As a team we have considered, due to the characteristics of this particular study, not to incorporate them, since in most validations they are not usually used due to their scope. However, we will certainly consider your suggestions in future articles, when we present the results, since this research is part of a doctoral project, which includes several stages. 
Resp. 3 "incorporate implications and suggestions for future studies..." according to your suggestions we have added future perspectives in lines 327-334. 
Resp. 4. The conclusion section is currently underdeveloped and requires further elaboration to strengthen its overall impact. we made some adjustments. 
It is appreciated that all reviewers have very gratifying comments.

Reviewer 5 Report

The work is very well supported scientifically. It works with an excellent sample. The instruments used have proved to be valid and scientific. The results are very positive for motivating adolescent students and helping them in their academic and personal improvement. The references are relevant and very up to date.

Author Response

Dear reviewer we appreciate all your comments and it is appreciated as all reviewers have very gratifying comments.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your performing some of the comments, but you have not done two of the most important improvements requested from you. 

Not bad. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we would like to greet you and comment that we have made your suggestions indicated in the first revision, such as incorporating more discussion and more citations, 10 citations. We also modified the conclusions and incorporated Strengths, limitations and future perspectives. And we also separated table 4 as you suggested.

We thank you for all your suggestions and recommendations, which undoubtedly contributed to strengthen the article.

Reviewer 4 Report

Thank you for providing the opportunity to evaluate your manuscript. It appears that the document has undergone revisions in response to the feedback from reviewers. While overall improvements are evident, I would like to highlight the need for further refinement in the conclusion section. My specific observations on this aspect are outlined below.

The conclusion is generally well-structured and comprehensive, but a few additional points could be considered for further clarity and depth:

1. Methodological Details: The study highlights that the IEPA and AYES instruments adhere to validation and reliability procedures. Offering a detailed overview of the specific methodologies or statistical tests used in the validation process can enhance transparency. This would also better illustrate the robustness of the instruments.

2. Practical Application of Results: The conclusion suggests that the validated instruments could be useful for planning interventions to sustain Chilean education. To reinforce this point, it would be beneficial to briefly discuss potential practical applications of the assessment results. For example, how might the insights gained from interest, effort, and learning progression assessments be translated into practical educational interventions or policies?

3. Long-Term Impact: While the focus is on the potential success and guarantee in the entire population, the conclusion could touch upon the long-term impact of implementing these instruments in the education system. Consider discussing how the continuous use of IEPA and AYES might contribute to Chile's ongoing improvement and evolution of educational strategies.

4. Addressing Potential Limitations: It's essential to acknowledge the limitations of any research. If identified during the study, acknowledging the potential limitations of the IEPA and AYES instruments can offer a more balanced perspective. Potential limitations may include cultural bias, possible variations across different regions in Chile, and challenges in capturing subtle nuances of interest, effort, and progression.

By addressing these points, the conclusion can offer a more comprehensive and nuanced view of the study's findings and their potential implications for the future of education in Chile.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we would like to greet you and let you know that we have made your suggestions. 

In point 1 we wrote and incorporated more specifically some data that could help to strengthen the methodology (statistical analysis). And more specific details on the step by step are in results.

In point 2 practices of the results, we made modifications to the text.

Point 3 long-term impact, we made some modifications, according to your suggestion.

Point 4 limitations, we also considered your suggestion and incorporated them in the Strengths, limitations and future perspectives, specifically in paragraph 3.

We thank you for all your suggestions and recommendations, which undoubtedly contributed to strengthen the article.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for changing according to the first comments, I think that the paper can now be accepted as is.

O.K.