Learning Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-L): Psychometric and Measurement Invariance Evidence in Peruvian Undergraduate Students

Specific observations

Changes

The purpose of the study is not comprehensible. It is not explicit, whether you found inconsistencies or shortcomings in the implementation of the previous edition of the questionnaire. Or do you think that traditional way is hopelessly outdated?

The justification of the study already appears in two places in the original manuscript:

Introduction:

… The objective of the present study is to contribute to a more rigorous evaluation of the construct validity through a validated Self-Regulation of Learning Questionnaire (SRQ-L) by considering two aspects: the internal structure and the measurement invariance, overcoming the gaps from previous studies…

Discussion (we added a modification):

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the internal structure of the psychometric properties of the SRQ-L [12] in a group of Peruvian university students. The motivation was to explore its psychometric functioning in greater depth, given that the trend of previous studies in moderately similar groups [17] did not seem to identify some of its properties and failed to evaluate other important ones, specifically, measurement invariance, response scaling performance, divergent item-factor relationships, and correlated errors….

To emphasize the gap in the psychometric literature on SRQ-L, we added the following statement in the Introduction section  (line 126):

"These properties were not previouslyinvestigated or were performed with outdated analysis strategies, so this situation suggests a source of potential inconsistency with future studies from an updated view of the internal structure of the SRQ-L."

It is quite questionable whether some statements should be retracted based on the only one study. It may happen that these items will show satisfactory results in another sample. We propose to moderate your conclusion that the questionnaire improved without 4 items.

We appreciate this observation. We have made a small modification to our conclusions (line 501):

Although these results point to a more complete and optimal psychometric characterization of SRQ-L, the possible intercultural variability should be evaluated and avoid inducing its validity from one or more studies (Merino-Soto, Calderón-De la Cruz, 2018; Merino-Soto & Angulo-Ramos, 2021a, 2021b).

The authors' position regarding invariance is not entirely obvious. After all, its (invariance) value depends on the purpose of the study, doesn't it?

We appreciate this remark. However, we don't know exactly how to interpret "The authors' position regarding invariance is not entirely obvious." In the study, we tested measurement invariance, and it was satisfactory. However, we made the following clarification in the manuscript (line 466):

The small differences in structural  invariance (e.g., means, variances, and latent correlations) are not tests of measurement invariance because the differences, even slight, are related to the latent attribute once it has been controlled for differences in measurement (i.e., measurement invariance).

We would ask you to write more clearly what is the novelty of your research results. What new things did you discover regarding self-regulation of learning?

We appreciate this remark. At the end of the Introduction, we added a small text regarding the novelty of the results (line 129):

Due to the importance of adapting and using tests in education, this instrument in its Spanish version (SRQ-L) demonstrated solid psychometric properties, with the methodological strength necessary to interpret the results in the desired way. It is a useful, valid, reliable, and culturally relevant scale for higher education students, replicating these findings in other contexts and populations.

Specific observations

Changes

The title of the paper is far too long and do dot reflect that this is a research on a country.

Thank you for this observation. We made the following modification:

Learning Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-L): Psychometric and Measurement Invariance Evidence in Peruvian Undergraduate Students

The abstract do not emphasizes the aim of the study, but talks about results.

Thank you for this observation. We made the following change in the Abstract:

Abstract: Given the theoretical and applied importance of self-regulation in learning, our study aimed to report the internal structure of the psychometric properties of the Learning Self-Regulation Questionnaire. Five hundred ninety-six Peruvian university students in their first to tenth semesters on campuses in Lima, Trujillo, and Cajamarca participated. Non-parametric scalability, dimensionality, reliability (score and item levels), and latent invariance were analyzed.

…

As to see appropriate no of option in the survey I suggest the authors to tray o CFA-Path Analysis  in which to emphasize  the loading factor for each subitem of Autonomy and control. 

Dear reviewer, thank you for this observation. However, we have evaluated this recommendation, and we believe that the information that would be contained in this path diagram of the SRQ-L measurement model would not be different from the information contained in the corresponding table. Therefore, we have considered dispensing with this chart.

The references are relevant. Some other recent papers might by cited (2019-2022). The introduction  evaluates the state  of art, but the research questions or aim are is not presented in this section.

Thank you very much for your comment. We agree that it was necessary to have more updated references, so we added 12 new relevant citations, published between 2019 and 2022:

Alonso-Tapia, J.; Abello, D.M.; Panadero, E. Regulating emotions and learning motivation in higher education students. Int. J. Emot. Educ. 2020, 12, 73-89.

Chen, P.-Y.; Hwang, G.-J. An empirical examination of the effect of self-regulation and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) factors on the online learning behavioural intention of college students. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 2019, 39, 79-95, doi:10.1080/02188791.2019.1575184

Xu, W.; Shen, Z.-Y.; Lin, S.-J.; Chen, J.-C. Improving the Behavioral Intention of Continuous Online Learning Among Learners in Higher Education During COVID-19. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.857709.

Doo, M.Y.; Bonk, C.J.; Shin, C.H.; Woo, B.-D. Structural relationships among self-regulation, transactional distance, and learning engagement in a large university class using flipped learning. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 2021, 41, 609-625, doi:10.1080/02188791.2020.1832020

Doo, M.Y.; Bonk, C.J. The effects of self-efficacy, self-regulation and social presence on learning engagement in a large university class using flipped Learning. J. Comput. Assisted Learn. 2020, 36, 997-1010, doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12455.

Duchatelet, D.; Donche, V. Fostering self-efficacy and self-regulation in higher education: a matter of autonomy support or academic motivation? Higher Education Research & Development 2019, 38, 733-747, doi:10.1080/07294360.2019.1581143

Koh, J.; Farruggia, S.P.; Back, L.T.; Han, C.-w. Self-efficacy and academic success among diverse first-generation college students: The mediating role of self-regulation. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 2022, doi:10.1007/s11218-022-09713-7.

von Keyserlingk, L.; Rubach, C.; Lee, H.R.; Eccles, J.S.; Heckhausen, J. College Students' motivational beliefs and use of goal-oriented control strategies: Integrating two theories of motivated behavior. Motiv. Emotion 2022, doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-022-09957-y.

Mujica, A.D.; Villalobos, M.V.P.; Gutierrez, A.B.B.; Fernandez-Castanon, A.C.; Gonzalez-Pienda, J.A. Affective and cognitive variables involved in structural prediction of university dropout. Psicothema 2019, 31, 429–436, doi:https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2019.124.

Beekman, K.; Joosten-Ten Brinke, D.; Boshuizen, E. Sustainability of Developed Self-Regulation by Means of Formative Assessment Among Young Adolescents: A Longitudinal Study. Front. Educ. 2021, 6, doi:10.3389/feduc.2021.746819.

Sáez-Delgado, F.; Mella-Norambuena, J.; López-Angulo, Y.; Olea-González, C.; García-Vásquez, H.; Porter, B. Association Between Self-Regulation of Learning, Forced Labor Insertion, Technological Barriers, and Dropout Intention in Chile. Front. Educ. 2021, 6, doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.801865.

Bernardo, A.; Esteban, M.; Cervero, A.; Cerezo, R.; Herrero, F.J. The Influence of Self-Regulation Behaviors on University Students' Intentions of Persistence. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02284.

The process of subject selection is clear, and the methodology is well implemented, variables are clear and appropriately measured.

Thank you very much for the observation of accuracy.

Figure 1. Distribution of the thresholds of the items in their dimensions is very intersecting for the conclusions. 

In the amended manuscript, we made the following statements:

The new scaling with three response options effectively maintained the ordering of the thresholds, except in items 7 and 14 of the F2 scale (Control). Without making other modifications, these items were kept for the following analyses to evaluate their effect on parameterization with factor analysis.

Method section examines the main aspects considered relevant for the purposes of this research.

Thank you very much for this observation.

The authors do not present enough details to replicate the study.

Thank you very much for the observation of accuracy. However, we do not see clearly what details may be those that the reviewer points out because we have reported in great detail the parameters obtained. In the manuscript, a limitation regarding replicability appears:

…. we did not evaluate the replicability of the results since a similar-sized sample was not available in this study phase. Although the replicability of the results can be partially concluded from the invariance study [73], a complete study with a larger sample size is required."

The Tables and Figures relevant and clearly presented with correct labelling and appropriate units. 

Thank you very much for the accuracy observation

The results are very clear and presented from multiple perspective.

Thank you very much for this observation.

The conclusions are relevant. 

Thank you very much for this observation.

The authors should study other papers on this topic (published after 2019)   

Thank you very much. 12 new references have been added, as mentioned above.