Deconstructing the Parent–Child Relationship during the COVID-19 Pandemic through Tech-Wise Outlets Such as the Internet and Media Consumption

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Name of the Paper:  Deconstructing the Parent-Child Relationship during the COVID-19 Pandemic through Tech Wise Outlets such as Internet and Media Consumption

The paper attempts to reveal the post covid pandemic parent-child relationship. The research further attempts to investigate three main influencers i.e. parenting, media consumption, and technology on parent-child relationships. The authors further employ a structural equation model (SEM) to establish the correlation between the influencers. The study finds that permissive parenting and parents' use of technology, as well as democratic parenting and parents' relationships with their children, were significantly correlated. The study will help in building a good parent-child relationship in the era of the digital world. The other stakeholders like government and educational bodies may also revise their governing policies to help students, teachers, and parents.

General Observation:

1)      Please refer to the abstract “A structural equation model (SEM) incorporating the three principles was then run. “which may be referred to as parenting style (parenting styles could be permissive, authoritative, neglectful, and authoritarian)

2)      Authors may also refer to the following paper, which investigates ‘COVID-19 Impact’ through intermediate ‘Parenting Stress’ leading to ‘Harsh Parenting’ and ‘Parent-Child Relationship’.

·         Chung, G., Lanier, P. and Wong, P.Y.J., 2020. Mediating effects of parental stress on harsh parenting and parent-child relationship during coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in Singapore. Journal of family violence, pp.1-12.

3)      Please refer to lines no.156-157, which may be modified as: “The survey was based on a “Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ)” [44]  and “Parental Authority Questionnaire “[45] but took into…..” This will provide more clarity to the questionnaire construct.

4)      Please refer to line 174 “For about 8 to 10 minutes, this assignment was completed in a digital  (online) environment.” Considering the number of questions to be answered, it seems impossible to complete them in the stated time.

Total items to read, understand & provide answers = 43 questions x 3  (minimum multiple-choice answers) = 129 in 8 minutes may invite inaccuracy in responses. Hence, how feedback accuracy has been ensured must be clarified.

5)      Please refer to line 154: “In 131 families there were females, thus in our survey, we collected 131 answers from women.” and line 166: “131 of whom were women (95.62%).” The authors' stress on “female respondents “ is unclear. Further, will it not be leading to gender bias?  What if there were 95.62% be male respondents, will it affect the outcome?

6)      Several phrases have been capitalized hence careful reading is needed to revert them. For instance, please refer to line 195: “The Relationship with Technology section of” may be changed to “The relationship with technology section of”

7)       Please refer to "Table 1. Variable analyzed' some of the variables need clarity for understanding, hence they may be discussed clearly for good readability. The authors may also provide a footnote clarifying them underneath Table 1.

8)      Please refer to “Since PLS-SEM is a non-parametric technique…” and “….PLS-SEM instead uses a non-parametric bootstrap approach [47,48].’ The repetition may be deleted.

9)      Please refer to “6. Recommendations” of  “Establish Limits”, “Set an example for others” etc. The results of “detrimental effects of parents' problematic mobile phone involvement (PMPI) on children’s PMPI” may also be considered.

·         Hefner, D., Knop, K., Schmitt, S. and Vorderer, P., 2019. Rules? Role model? Relationship? The impact of parents on their children’s problematic mobile phone involvement. Media Psychology, 22(1), pp.82-108.

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, I have attached the document in word format in which I answered point by point the requirements. 

Thank you very much for the recommandations. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a very interesting topic and interesting research. Here are some comments and suggestions:

1. The description of the variables (items) in Table 1 is not clear. 

2. The hypotheses are very general - maybe it would be better to refer to specific variables in them? There is no clear information that the hypotheses have been positively / negatively verified.

3. The recommendations do not seem to be linked to the research results. This feeling may be due to the lack of access to the questionnaire.

4. The limitations of the studies are described in general terms, while the drawbacks that were discovered during the conduct of the studies can be mentioned.

5. Please check the punctuation, e.g. no dots at the end of the sentence, sentences ending with a colon.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, I have attached the document in word format in which I answered point by point the requirements.

Thank you very much for the recommendations.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for sending clarifications and making corrections. The only drawback of the manuscript is the lack of an explicit statement in the text that the hypotheses have been positively verified, which is actually shown by the model. I think the research described gives an interesting look at the parent-child relationship during the COVID-19 pandemic and I accept the manuscript as it stands. Good luck with the publication of the manuscript and with further research.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your appreciation.

I made the requested corrections including the English language.

I am attaching the article with improved. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf