Early and Dynamic Socio-Academic Variables Related to Dropout Intention: A Predictive Model Made during the Pandemic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author,

Thanks for providing me this opportunity to review this manuscript. I believe the findings of this cross-sectional study are not convincing for the readers of this journal and the associations found could be confounded by many confounder factors.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We really appreciate this comment. We consider that, just like the data presented in the discussion is not clear enough, it is likely that the findings will not be well presented to the reader, which we appreciate the reviewer's consideration in order to improve the manuscript. 

Taking this into consideration, the distribution of the headings in the discussion has been changed as well as the information in the first part of the discussion of the model, so that the reader can follow the same line of findings that is explained in the theoretical part of the introduction.

The findings show that there is a model in which all the variables are integrated, although it is true that the authors of this article wanted to talk about them more specifically in the discussion as proposed in the structure of the introduction. Thus, it has been decided to include an explanation on how social and academic variables affect university dropout, including an explanation on engagement in each of these sections. Also, we included mediation analysis in the results section, and some additional explanations about it in the discussion section.

We hope that these corrections can help to better understand the body of work.

All the changes was made in the corrected manuscript.

Best regards.

Reviewer 2 Report

Paper of my interest, relevant to the contribution of the doctrinal body on the subject.
I can not find remarkable deficiencies to point out.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We really appreciate your positive comments and evaluation.

Best regards.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript presents a relevant and actual topic, is very well written and the objective is clearly presented. Methodological aspects are correct and the results are relevant for future researches and interventions measures.

The literature revision is very well redacted and is very informative, giving the audience the relevant information to understand the methodology used and the statistical analysis performed.

Data analysis is complex, well done, and presented. The results are interesting and allow the deepening of evidence about dropout intentions and the variables that are related. The discussion allows thinking about the implications for practice and for future research. 

In order to contribute to the overall quality of the article, some suggestions are made.

In the sentence at line 42, beyond the fact that dropout intentions are important to anticipate dropout, it could be included the idea that even if students do not drop out, the psychological experience of thinking of leaving could be, somewhat, an indicator of uneasiness which, certainly has an impact on well being and academic performance. 

The idea presented in line 205 is interesting. The previous academic performance reflects the academic abilities; it could also be related to self-efficacy, and also impact the performance?

The word COVID-19 should be revised at lines 61, 63.

In line 75, the word between parenthesis "(or context)" should be corrected.

If possible, figures should be improved and the size could be enlarged.

In Table 1 "N" could be erased and mentioned at the header of the table. 

In line 305, it is important to mention the description of values 1 and 7.

In Bibliography please revise the capital letter at references in lines 4-6, 13, 15-17, 20-24, 35, 39-40, 44-47, 50, 53, 55-58, 63-66, 72, 74, 77-78, 80-82, 87, 89, 91, 94-95, 107, 111, 113. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We appreciate your comments. We have responded to his suggestions including:

1. The suggested idea was incorporated: “since the psychological experience of the intention to abandonment can negatively impact well-being and academic performance”
2. Regarding the suggestion: "The idea presented in line 205 is interesting. Previous academic performance reflects academic abilities; Could it also be related to self-efficacy and also affect performance?" It seems to us an interesting suggestion, however, we thought about it a posteriori. In the discussion you can see that we mentioned this idea.
3. Fixed the word COVID-19.
4. On line 75, the word in parentheses "(or context)" was corrected, replacing with (or context).

5.The figures were enlarged.

6. In Table 1, "N" was deleted and mentioned in the table header.
7. Description of values 1 and 7 was mentioned.
8. In Bibliography, the capital letters was revised in the references in lines 4-6, 13, 15-17, 20-24, 35, 39-40, 44-47, 50, 53, 55-58, 63-66, 72, 74, 77-78, 80-82, 87, 89, 91, 94-95, 107, 111, 113. 

We hope to comply with his recommendations.

Best regards.

Reviewer 4 Report

The research is a contribution to the explanation of the dropout in higher education. According to the manuscript's structure: (1) The research problem is clearly described, making a coherent construction of the object of study, (2) A methodological strategy adequately supported from the theory is observed to achieve the proposed objectives, (3) The discussion and conclusions are based on the results.

However, for the acceptance of the manuscript, I suggest considering the test of mediation models for the variables study engagement and sense of belonging. Important mediating relationships are observed in the fit of the model, therefore it's suggested to contrast them with the empirical data, in order to deepen the explanation of the relationships that constitute the model.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We really appreciate your comments. We have responded to your comment including your suggestion. We made and added the mediation analysis for study engagement and dropout intention as dependent variables separately on section 3.3. We added a short explanation of the estimator applied for it in the analysis section. Finally, we included in the discussion section an explanation of the direct effect observed (perceived social support on study engagement).

For the extension normative we did it shortly. Relationships observed in the main model were preserved and therefore the analysis proposal.

We thank you for your comments and expect to fulfil these recommendations.

Best regards.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have no further comments.