The Effects of an Inclusive Badminton Program on Static Postural Control for Individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review a topic, namely, The Effects of an Inclusive Badminton Program on Static Postural Control for Individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. The study aimed to to examine static postural control/balance in young adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) and typically developing (TD) young adults before, during, and after an inclusive badminton intervention.

The article could be interesting. However, there are some aspects that definitely need to be revised.

1. The methodology section proposes that authors draw up a table clearly identifying dependent, independent and controlled variables.

2. Consider whether did you conducted the study in a controlled environment such as a laboratory or if you used a natural setting.

3. How was the sample size required for the study calculated? How many participants are necessary for you to make any conclusive or statistically significant judgements?

4. Did the authors perform randomisation procedure? If not, this study is just a quasi-experiment in design.

5. For the sake of clarity, it seems necessary for authors to depict the experiment design as a flow chart.

6. It seems necessary to clarify the description of the statistical analysis section.

7. For the sake of clarity for future readers, it would be optimal for authors to combine the results of Tables 1 and 2 into a single table.

8. The manuscript seems to contain many abbreviations. It is proposed that authors draw up a list of abbreviations and submit it after the conclusions section.

9. The information in the discussion section largely reproduces the results of the study. The authors are only invited to discuss the substantive results of this study in the context of the results of studies published by other authors. A significant correction is needed in the discussion section.

10. What are the suggestions for future experiments?

11. What are possible experimental errors?

12. What are the suggestions for practical applications of experiment?

13. It is recommended that authors match the references to the required citation style.

Kind regards

Author Response

The author's would like to thank you for your valued time in the process of providing comments for our manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

An interesting study with novel information on static postural control for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. I have several observations as follows:

1)      The abbreviations APA, AAIDD and DD have been used in the text once only, I suggest you delete them

2)      In Methodology, you state that 16 participants completed the study. How many participants started the study? Please include the information.

3)      When was the study conducted? Please clarify in more detail.

4)      If I understand correctly, typically developing (TD) are individuals without medical limitations. However, in Methodology under inclusion criteria in point 2, you state that participants were students in a comprehensive transition program for intellectual disabilities at a southeastern university. Does it imply that TD groups also attended the same school?

5)      I suggest you add to Methodology the way participants were selected for the intervention and control groups.

6)      Also, please add if at any time in the past the participants had practiced badminton, or any other sport that affects static posture

7)      In Methodology you indicate that the control groups did not participate in the badminton intervention. Did you investigate whether they performed any other activity during the follow-up period? Please clarify.

8)      Please supplement Methodology with a more detailed description of the badminton intervention programme

9)      In Results, please edit (correct) Table 1 and Table 2 - currently the rows in each column are offset.

10)  In Discussion you conclude that the average decrease in the COP A/P shift could be related to the developmental structure of the students in the class. You further state that one (?) of the TD-BADMs started teaching after six weeks of intervention, instead of participating in the adapted PE classes. In such case though, he should have been excluded from the group...

11)  Please add the strengths and weaknesses of the study that you mention only marginally in Conclusion.

Author Response

Attached is a PDF document of the comments and responses. Thank you for your valued feedback during this process. All the authors appreciate your time and effort for providing your comments on our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Introduction

ü  Please provide a clear definition of IDD in the opening paragraph and highlight the characteristics that may be responsible for deficits in static postural control.

ü  The authors state in the second paragraph that: ‘Postural control is the ability to maintain postural equilibrium by ........’. Does postural control encompass only postural equilibrium? Please rewrite this paragraph, providing a concise explanation of postural control, its constituent elements, and the brain mechanisms responsible for generating appropriate motor activity to maintain a regulated upright posture. Then turn your attention to static postural control, which is the main subject of your study.

ü  The third paragraph presents yet another instance of confusion regarding the distinction between static and dynamic posture. Kindly provide more precise details and include research studies that have investigated the impact of various sports on static posture, both in the general population and specifically in individuals with IDD.

Materials and Methods

ü  Does a sample size of sixteen individuals, divided into four groups, provide enough data to establish robust conclusions? Did the authors determine the statistical power of the sample?

ü  Please provide a concise description of the Par-Q+ and its utility in the "Experimental procedures" section.

ü  Please include a flow diagram illustrating the sequential arrangement of the experimental procedures.

ü  Please explain each test briefly.

ü  Irrespective of disability, physical ability, or gender, all participants were provided with identical training programs. Is this statement accurate?

ü  Please provide a description of the training sessions' content.

ü  During the intervention sessions 16-24, the authors stated that participants in the TD-BADM group were more engaged in providing coaching and instructions to participants with IDD, rather than focusing on the badminton drills themselves. Kindly provide justifications for this selection.

ü  Within each testing period, what is the frequency at which each participant conducts each test?

ü  Have the authors verified that the measurements were taken accurately?

ü  Please provided benchmarks used to define the effect sizes.

Statistical Analysis

ü  The authors employed a 2 × 3 (group x time) repeated measures analysis of variance, applying a Greenhouse Geisser adjustment, to analyze the data. Please provide a rationale for this decision (assumptions).

Results

ü  Tables should have a clear, descriptive title, which functions as the “topic sentence” of the table.

ü  Information regarding abbreviations or symbols used in each table must be located in a Note below the table.

Discussion

ü  There were no notable variations in postural control between the TD-BADM group and the TD-CONTR group. It is possible that the increased involvement of TD-BADM participants in coaching and directing IDD participants, rather than focusing on badminton activities, throughout sessions 16 to 24 of the intervention, contributed to this outcome. In the TD-BADM group, the post-tests occurred 5 weeks after the last training session, and the participants had only undergone 7 weeks of effective training. Therefore, it is expected that no significant differences were seen in this group. The authors should consider this aspect when analyzing the findings and acknowledge it as a study limitation in the concluding part of the 'Discussion' section.

 

ü  Study limitations?

Author Response

The authors would like to thank you for your valued feedback. We would also like to thank you for your time and effort through this process. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf