Relevant Variables in the Stimulation of Psychological Well-Being in Physical Education: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study has a potential interest. Psychological well-being (PW) and physical education (PE) are topics that could be considered necessary. On the other hand, the hedonic and eudaimonic currents are two positive research lines and convenience. At his point, it would be appropriate to explain better the difference between these two psychological currents. 

From now on, I will comment on some further improvement aspects. There are different topics in the articles, and the authors have centered their research on some of them as self-acceptance, personal growth, or purpose in life (Ryff & Singer). Still, these questions are not easy to achieve for children and youth people (I mean, are words of adults and researchers). Otherwise, aspects such as "learn through new experiences" are essential for their well-being. The authors of this study do not comment or analyze anything on this question. It would be convenient to include references related to this topic and explain their importance to his subject. 

On the other hand, in a study of well-being and physical education is necessary that appears the word "body". The word and references about the body, mobility, performance, etc., are required. These two topics (learn through new experiences and body performance) would be convenient to include in the discussion and conclusion chapter. Furthermore, this section could be improved by dealing with these two concepts mentioned above, connecting them with psychological well-being and physical activity, and rewriting the discussion and conclusion chapter. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are grateful for your comments, which will undoubtedly help to improve the reception and dissemination of the study.

Below are the replies to your comments (your comments are underlined).

Moderate English changes required.

The manuscript was sent to a specialised translation company before submission to the magazine. We have asked the company again to make a further revision in order to fine-tune the required changes. In the version now attached, this revision has already been carried out.

This study has a potential interest. Psychological well-being (PW) and physical education (PE) are topics that could be considered necessary. On the other hand, the hedonic and eudaimonic currents are two positive research lines and convenience. At his point, it would be appropriate to explain better the difference between these two psychological currents.

We consider the reviewer's observation, however, in the manuscript there are several paragraphs that are oriented to make that definition. In the introduction, there are definitions of well-being and the distinction between subjective and psychological perspective.

From now on, I will comment on some further improvement aspects. There are different topics in the articles, and the authors have centered their research on some of them as self-acceptance, personal growth, or purpose in life (Ryff & Singer). Still, these questions are not easy to achieve for children and youth people (I mean, are words of adults and researchers). Otherwise, aspects such as "learn through new experiences" are essential for their well-being. The authors of this study do not comment or analyze anything on this question. It would be convenient to include references related to this topic and explain their importance to his subject.

The review looked for research linked to well-being issues, studies where the study variables are different depending on the researchers. Like the reviewer, we believe that variables such as "learn through new experiences" are very important, but we have only presented them according to the different authors.

On the other hand, in a study of well-being and physical education is necessary that appears the word "body". The word and references about the body, mobility, performance, etc., are required. These two topics (learn through new experiences and body performance) would be convenient to include in the discussion and conclusion chapter. Furthermore, this section could be improved by dealing with these two concepts mentioned above, connecting them with psychological well-being and physical activity, and rewriting the discussion and conclusion chapter.

We are aware that there are certain constructs such as self-acceptance, personal growth, or purpose in life that are not easy to assess and intervene with children and adolescents, and that the assessments may be more typical of adults and the researchers themselves. However, when working with this type of population, that is, children and adolescents, we must pay attention to the importance of learning through new experiences. In this sense, as shown in the study by Bagøien et al., 2010 [50], there is an association between teacher support for autonomy in PE classes and student BPN satisfaction which is related to autonomous motivation for participation in PE. Like the study by Schmidt et al., 2020 [69] shows how a multicomponent school program emphasizes the use of active physical learning with positive changes in school-based PA levels.

On the other hand, it is essential to point out how physical education influences the psychological well-being of children and adolescents, showing positive results in academic performance [57, 58] and in their independent mobility to go to school [68]. As well as positive changes are seen in young adolescents' physical fitness, vitality and health-related quality of life [69].

Thank you again for your comments and for taking the time to review our contribution.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Here are some things to keep in mind:

 

In relation to the format, the line spacing of the text in the first part of the table (page 7) is different from the rest of the table (page 8-14), in addition to being, this last line spacing (page 8-14) different from the rest of the text. In addition, continuing with the format of the table, both the Study, Journal and Population/sample size columns, the names appear cut off. This aspect is not formal. In addition to this, in many of the selected documents, the table does not show the age of the participants specifically, in document 12, 14, 17,19 and 23. In addition to this, in study 10, only the number of subjects not knowing which group they belong to.

 

In the aim of the work, it is stated that, in addition to analyzing the students, teachers, parents and institutions are also analyzed, but, reviewing the selected documents, most of them only work with students, being very few in the discussed with teachers, parents and institutions. Of the 23 studies, only 2 looks at parents, one at teachers, and one at staff. It would be appropriate for more documents to appear in which these last figures are analyzed since there is a great difference in the number of documents that analyze the students.  Finally, in one of the studies (study 7) 19-year-old subjects appear, and this age is not the aim of the study. They should check the citations in the text.

 

On line 119, 120 the citation of APA standards appears. In Table 1, the authors appear, but the number they occupy, said documents, does not appear in the references section. In line 114 appears the name and surname of the author. Tables two and five show the year of the documents. Finally, Perhaps there are too many references

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are grateful for your comments, which will undoubtedly help to improve the reception and dissemination of the study.

Below are the replies to your comments (your comments are underlined).

In relation to the format, the line spacing of the text in the first part of the table (page 7) is different from the rest of the table (page 8-14), in addition to being, this last line spacing (page 8-14) different from the rest of the text.

The line spacing in table 2 is already the same as in the rest of the text, and the text in table 1 is already spaced the same way.

In addition, continuing with the format of the table, both the Study, Journal and Population/sample size columns, the names appear cut off. This aspect is not formal.

With the new layout of the table there are no longer any names cut off in the indicated columns.

In addition to this, in many of the selected documents, the table does not show the age of the participants specifically, in document 12, 14, 17, 19 and 23.

Thank you for your suggestion. We have checked the age of the participants in each of the documents in table 2 and have made the following changes:

• Document 12: Mage=14
• Document 14: We have not found any data on age.
• Paper 17: Mage=10.20
• Document 19: mostly in kindergarten to grade 8
• Document 23: Mage=41.54

In addition to this, in study 10, only the number of subjects not knowing which group they belong to.

In this case, we have made the following changes in table 2:

• Document 10: High school students, n=1022 (Mage=16.13)

In the aim of the work, it is stated that, in addition to analyzing the students, teachers, parents and institutions are also analyzed, but, reviewing the selected documents, most of them only work with students, being very few in the discussed with teachers, parents and institutions. Of the 23 studies, only 2 looks at parents, one at teachers, and one at staff. It would be appropriate for more documents to appear in which these last figures are analyzed since there is a great difference in the number of documents that analyze the students.

The aim is to investigate pupils, but some studies include teachers and families in the study. The reason why there are few studies with teachers and families is that the existing studies in the scientific literature focus mostly on pupils and not on the other subjects. This is the reason why the data appear in this way in the analysis.

Finally, in one of the studies (study 7) 19-year-old subjects appear, and this age is not the aim of the study.

There was indeed an error in the abstract which has now been corrected, since, as indicated in the first section of the results: "The age of the students studied ranged from the youngest, between 9 and 12 years old [67], to the oldest, between 14 and 19 years old [56]".

 

On line 119, 120 the citation of APA standards appears. In Table 1, the authors appear, but the number they occupy, said documents, does not appear in the references section.

The APA citation to which it refers is already conveniently referenced. And table 1 already contains the reference numbers that can be consulted in the final list.

In line 114 appears the name and surname of the author.

Line 114 of the manuscript submitted for review does not seem to contain the author's name and surname ("-inance and competence); autonomy (having self-determination, independent judgment"). It does appear on line 104. We assume that it refers to this name. We delete the name "Carol" in that line. If it is not this name, please let us know so that we can make the change.

Tables two and five show the year of the documents.

The years are already removed. We have also removed those in table 3.

Finally, perhaps there are too many references.

We are aware that the research has been extensive and so has the article. We believe that this is due to the ambiguity or breadth of the term welfare and therefore felt it necessary to include the references.

Thank you again for your comments and for taking the time to review our contribution.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I believe this manuscript has a potential for this journal. It has an extensive literature review. However, abstract of the manuscript should be organized again with a better language and structure. In addition, although this is a review study, validity and reliability of the study should be reported. Finally, a practical suggestion section should be written including future research suggestions. Thank you...

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are grateful for your comments, which will undoubtedly help to improve the reception and dissemination of the study.

Below are the replies to your comments (your comments are underlined).

I believe this manuscript has a potential for this journal. It has an extensive literature review. However, abstract of the manuscript should be organized again with a better language and structure.

We do agree with this suggestion and we have rewrote the abstract for better understanding.

In addition, although this is a review study, validity and reliability of the study should be reported.

Entendemos que la fiabilidad en este estudio se encuentra en el rigor de la metodología aplicada en esta revisión sistemática, en la que también se realiza una evaluación de la calidad de los estudios a partir del Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement (apartados 2.1, 2.2 y 2.3.).

En relación con la validez, habría que aceptar un cierto sesgo implícito que entendemos se asume en este tipo de estudios pues las poblaciones de los diferentes estudios no son exactamente iguales (algo prácticamente imposible en este tipo de estudios) así como las intervenciones se que aplican para lograr resultados en cada caso, que no son idénticas.

Finally, a practical suggestion section should be written including future research suggestions.

We do agree with this suggestion and we add a practical suggestion section in the last paragraph or the manuscritp.

Thank you again for your comments and for taking the time to review our contribution.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I believe that current version of the manuscript acceptable. Authors made all necessary edits and requirements. Best Regards.