Common Issues and Differences in Motivational Support and the Effects of Rugby for the U-15 and U-16 National Teams

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General commentsThe study investigated the motivation of Romanian young rugby players and their perceived benefit from this sport practice. To pursued this aim, Authors used a  questionnaire specifically created to study the target groups of players (rugby players in the U-15 and U-16 teams).The study seems rather interesting, however, some points should be addressed more extensively as clarified by the specific comments below.Specific comments- Improve the scientific English for clarity.- I suggest the Authors to organize and distinguish two sections/parts in the manuscript: the first one focused on the creation and the validation of the Questionnaire, the second one focused on the comparison between the two groups of rugby players, comparing (in the Discussion section) these results  with results of other studies, in order to identify similar or divergent points. This organization could facilitate the reading and the understanding of the manuscript.Introduction:

- The Introduction is very complex. Authors showed rugby panorama in the world, distinguishing young and elite players, showing gender differences in the rugby practice, distinguishing psychological components and physical qualities of the players. I suggest to the Authors to  reorganize the introduction section to facilitate the reading.

- Authors should distinguish two different aims: the first aim is to create (and to validate) the Questionnaire, the second aim is to investigate the motivation of Romanian young rugby players and their perceived benefit from this sport practice.

- In relation to my previous comment, the introduction should also lead towards the necessity of a specific questionnaire that needs to be created.

Materials and Methods:

Participants- Did Authors obtain written informed consent to study participation by participants and/or their parents? Please, specify.- Please provide more information regarding sample characteristics.

Statistical analysis

- Why did the Authors use the ANOVA to compare the data obtained by the two groups of player instead of an unpaired t-test comparison?- In the statistical analysis section Authors should specify that the differences between the mean values of the U-15 and U-16 group were calculated. Results:- Results of the questionnaire for each group of players (mean ± SD) should be reported in a table.- In the Results section, Authors should report the results alone. Related comments should be included in the following Discussions section.Discussion:- See my previous comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.doc

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

English language and style

( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
(x) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

 

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your patience to read our study and for the helpful recommendations and suggestions. We hereby attach the answers to your suggestions in order to improve the article, by mentioning that the article lines and references do no longer have the same number / indicator due to the changes made in the text. All the changes/modifications requested by you and the other reviewer are in blue font in the new version of the article.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments

The study investigated the motivation of Romanian young rugby players and their perceived benefit from this sport practice. To pursued this aim, Authors used a questionnaire specifically created to study the target groups of players (rugby players in the U-15 and U-16 teams). The study seems rather interesting, however, some points should be addressed more extensively as clarified by the specific comments below.

Specific comments

- Improve the scientific English for clarity.

A: Thank you for the recommendation. In order to improve the writing standard, I sent the paper for verification to another licensed translator. If, however, problems arise again from this point of view, please indicate the relevant paragraphs / lines in order to be able to solve these unwanted issues in a timely manner.

- I suggest the Authors to organize and distinguish two sections/parts in the manuscript: the first one focused on the creation and the validation of the Questionnaire, the second one focused on the comparison between the two groups of rugby players, comparing (in the Discussion section) these results with results of other studies, in order to identify similar or divergent points. This organization could facilitate the reading and the understanding of the manuscript.

A: Thank you for the recommendation. We have divided the chapters (introduction, purpose and hypotheses, results) so that they are clearer and there is a logical coherence between the parts of the article ......... we are going to detail for each of them differentiated.

Introduction:

- The Introduction is very complex. Authors showed rugby panorama in the world, distinguishing young and elite players, showing gender differences in the rugby practice, distinguishing psychological components and physical qualities of the players. I suggest to the Authors to reorganize the introduction section to facilitate the reading.

A: Thanks for the suggestion. The introduction was divided into 3 parts with a distinct analysed theme, with the reorganization and introduction of new sources. We consider that this structuring is in accordance with the title of the paper and with the factors of the analysed questionnaire:

1. Brief analysis of the national and international rugby context
2. Aspects of motivational support in the game of rugby
3. Issues related to physical performance and the effects / problems of specific rugby training

 

- Authors should distinguish two different aims: the first aim is to create (and to validate) the Questionnaire, the second aim is to investigate the motivation of Romanian young rugby players and their perceived benefit from this sport practice.

A: Thank you for the suggestion. We have redefined the research purpose on two complementary research directions (a. Construction and scientific substantiation of the questionnaire + b. Analysis of data provided from the investigation of the two groups for the two factors and items with free answers). In this sense, the working hypotheses were renumbered: H1.1, H1.2, H1.3 and target the factor analysis, the internal consistency of the questionnaire and the variations in the players' answers, and H2.1 and H2.2 which target or aim at the significance of the differences between the averages of the results of the 2 lots (separately on the items of each factor), respectively the existence of differences between groups for the percentages resulting from the items with free answers.

- In relation to my previous comment, the introduction should also lead towards the necessity of a specific questionnaire that needs to be created.

A: Thanks for the suggestion. After analysing the sources and before the purpose of the research, we introduced a sentence that would justify the motivation of the study and the need to develop / apply a questionnaire for the target group.

Materials and Methods:

Participants

- Did Authors obtain written informed consent to study participation by participants and/or their parents? Please, specify.

A: Thanks for the question. The participants were informed regarding the purpose of this study, gave their consent and the University Ethics Commission recently issued a certificate for the agreement to publish this study in MDPI journals. The study took place following the invitation addressed to the main author to participate in the reunion of the U-15 and U16 teams in Galați, on the occasion of the Regional Training and Improvement Internship for the U-15 and U-15 teams, organized by the Romanian Rugby Federation, at the end of the year 2019. We can send you the invitation and the agreement of the Ethics Commission.

- Please provide more information regarding sample characteristics.

A: Thanks for the recommendation. We don't think it's about anthropometric data. Are you referring to the clubs of origin? If so, then I mentioned in the paper the sports clubs and high schools with a sports program where the participants come from. There are 8 different units: SCM Gloria Buzău, CSS Rugby Tecuci, CSS Focșani, LPS Focșani, CSS Bârlad, CSS Gura Humorului, CSS Unirea Iași, LTATV Galați. We also attach links that can be verified in connection with their rugby activity:

https://rugbyromania.ro/30-de-ani-de-rugby-la-css-tecuci/#

https://scm-gloriabuzau.ro/rugby/directory/juniori-u15/

https://www.cssfocsani.ro/despre-noi

https://www.lpsfocsani.ro/oferta-educationala-lps-focsani.html

https://cssbarlad.ro/rugby/  and  https://www.rugbybarlad.ro/

https://ro-ro.facebook.com/rugbycssgurahumorului/  and https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_Club_Gura_Humorului#Centrul_de_copii_%C8%99i_juniori

https://www.css-unirea-iasi.ro/index.php/gallery/rugby/

https://www.facebook.com/pg/Rugby-Regiunea-Moldova-Sud-Departament-Dezvoltare-108605390566233/posts/ și https://rugbyromania.ro/festivalul-de-rugby-galatean-la-50-de-ani-de-la-infiintarea-liceului-de-transporturi-auto-traian-vuia/

Statistical analysis

- Why did the Authors use the ANOVA to compare the data obtained by the two groups of player instead of an unpaired t-test comparison?

A: Thanks for the question. However, ANOVA / MANOVA provides more relevant data compared to the student test: the global influence of the independent variable on the dependent variable / multivariate test (being insignificant we have not presented it), the influence of the independent variable on each dependent variable / in our case item questionnaire, the effect size value expressed by Ƞ2p (and which in the t test must be calculated separately / Cohen d - SPSS software does not provide it directly), the possibility of applying post-hoc tests (if the independent variable has more than 3 steps) etc. Multivariate test also provides data from test t: averages and differences between them (on data pairs), SD, Std. error, the Levene test for equality of variance, and the significance thresholds are identical to those of the t test. Whitney U / based on ranks, to test for differences between independent samples. We will export the tables with these results / Excel format (for Manova, t test and Mann-Whitney U test). The values ​​of Z / nonparametric are also significant for the 2 items, ie F1 / MS5 and F2 / EB8, are respectively insignificant for the rest of the items.

- In the statistical analysis section Authors should specify that the differences between the mean values of the U-15 and U-16 group were calculated.

A: Thanks for the suggestion. This idea was already formulated in the statistical analysis, now we have mentioned that the averages of the answers to the items have been calculated.

Results:

- Results of the questionnaire for each group of players (mean ± SD) should be reported in a table.

A: Thanks for the valuable suggestion. We entered the SD values in Tables 6 and 7 in the results, between the Mean and Std columns error. The results of the study were presented in 2 sections, according to the aims and hypotheses formulated: 3.1 (Results of factor analysis and internal consistency for the items of the constructed questionnaire) and 3.2 (Results of analysis of results obtained in processing and interpreting closed-ended items - for both factors- and open-ended items). Also, here it is highlighted the total or partial confirmation of the working hypotheses.

- In the Results section, Authors should report the results alone. Related comments should be included in the following Discussions section.

A: Thank you for your suggestion. However, we have preferred to make some comments about the results obtained, without them the section would have been just a ternary sequence of tables, graphs and data. Please leave them in this format. However, these data are compared in discussions with other similar research.

Discussion:

- See my previous comments.

A: Thanks for the comment. We have marked in green font the comparison of our results with the studies found and analysed, they were already in the text, but this highlight makes them clearer. In the event that you consider these comparisons to be insufficient, please do provide us with other relevant studies on these age groups in rugby .......... we have found both in the various databases consulted.

Thank you for your guidance and directions provided.

  Best regards,

  Corresponding author

  Professor Murariu Gabriel.

  Date: 25.03.2022

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Introduction
1.   This is an interesting paper and, in large part, I found it enjoyable to read. However, like the other reviewer, I found substantial holes in the paper overall, which will require a thorough re-write and re-conceptualization.
   In the main, areas to develop fall under:
a) The introduction must be expanded and restructured in order to highlight the conceptual delimitation mentioned in the article. We recommend highlighting the novelty of the study according to the evidence of previous studies.
b) There is a lack of importance literature review which makes it difficult to evaluate where this research sits within the field.
Conclusion and Discussion
As the theoretical foundation in introduction and literature review was not solid enough, part of the conclusion could not correspond to the subject. 
I recommend extending and revising the conclusions to underline more clearly your main findings related to your hypothesis and topic  and not just for data analysis. I wish you the best of luck in your research!  

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

English language and style

( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
(x) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	( )	( )	(x)	( )

 

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your patience in reading our study and for your helpful recommendations. We present the answers of your suggestions for improving our article. Please note that the article lines and references no longer have the same number / indicator, as a result of changes made to the text. All changes requested by you and the other reviewers are in blue font in the new version of the article.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction

1.  This is an interesting paper and, in large part, I found it enjoyable to read. However, like the other reviewer, I found substantial holes in the paper overall, which will require a thorough re-write and re-conceptualization.
    In the main, areas to develop fall under:
   a) The introduction must be expanded and restructured in order to highlight the conceptual delimitation mentioned in the article. We recommend highlighting the novelty of the study according to the evidence of previous studies.

 

A: Thanks for the recommendation. The introduction was divided into 3 parts with a distinct analyzed theme, with the reorganization of the sources. We consider that this structuring is in accordance with the title of the paper and with the factors of the analyzed questionnaire:

1. Brief analysis of the national and international rugby context
2. Aspects of motivational support in the game of rugby
3. Issues related to physical performance and the effects / problems of specific rugby training

 

After analyzing the sources and before the purpose of the research, we introduced a phrase that would justify the motivation of the study and the need to develop / apply a questionnaire for the target group, as a novelty of our research.

 

1. b) There is a lack of importance literature review which makes it difficult to evaluate where this research sits within the field.

A: Thanks for the recommendation. The following sources have been detailed or found and used in the introduction, in the subsections mentioned, according to the current version of the article: 11, 12, 13, 17, 26, 27, 28, 29, 39, 40, 41, 42, 42, 43. We hope that this information complements the existing sources and provides a clearer picture of the state of the problems investigated.

We redefined the research purpose on two complementary research directions (a. Construction and scientific substantiation of the questionnaire + b. Analysis of data provided from the investigation of the two groups for the two factors and items with free answers). In this sense, the working hypotheses were renumbered: H1.1, H1.2, H1.3 concern the factor analysis, the internal consistency of the questionnaire and the variations in the players' answers, and H2.1 and H2.2 aim at the significance of the differences between the averages of the results of the 2 lots (separately on the items of each factor), respectively the existence of differences between groups for the percentages resulting from the items with free answers.

The results of the study were presented in 2 sections, according to the aims and hypotheses formulated: 3.1 (Results of factor analysis and internal consistency for the items of the constructed questionnaire) and 3.2 (Results of analysis of results obtained in processing and interpreting closed-ended items - for both factors- and open-ended items). Also here is highlighted the total or partial confirmation of the working hypotheses.

 

Conclusion and Discussion

As the theoretical foundation in introduction and literature review was not solid enough, part of the conclusion could not correspond to the subject. I recommend extending and revising the conclusions to underline more clearly your main findings related to your hypothesis and topic and not just for data analysis.

Thanks for the comment. We marked in green font the comparison of our results with the studies found and analyzed, they were already in the text, but this highlight makes them clearer. If you consider these comparisons to be insufficient, please provide us with other relevant studies on these age groups in rugby. We found both in the various consulted databases.

  Some ideas have been added to the conclusions section, which relate to the working hypotheses stated and other relevant data from the research, omitted from the first submission of the manuscript.

 I wish you the best of luck in your research!  

Thank you for your guidance.

  Best regards,

  Corresponding author

  Professor Murariu Gabriel.

  Data 25.03.2022

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors addressed my comments and the manuscript was well improved.