Stealth Literacy Assessments via Educational Games

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article appears well structured and thorough in the first part and in the description of the procedure. However, it lacks an explanation regarding Cronbach's alpha used for the analyses, it would be necessary to add it by reporting its formulation as well. At the same time, the tables of results require further and more thorough reporting, they are in fact unreadable and unclear. In Table 1, it is unclear how to interpret the numbering present in the first row versus the indicated numbers in the first column, as well as the definitions of the terms M and SD used. It is also necessary to specify what the reference values are for determining whether reliability is good or not. Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5 should also be clarified, detailing the meaning of the terms used in the columns and the results of the correlations obtained, interpreting more extensively the values in the tables. In general, the tables are very unclear to non-experts in the field and do not communicate the information and inferences made in a clear way, decreasing the impact of the work. Alternative systems for communicating and comparing results, such as employing graphs or charts, should also be found.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Stealth literacy assessments via Educational Games

In general, authors have made considerable efforts to formulate non-traditional (stealth) literacy assessments using ICT and educational games. Any new contribution to this topic that provides new insights into literacy assessment using ICT is greatly appreciated at this point.

 

To further strengthen the manuscript, here are some thoughts on this topic:

-             Introduction: stealth assessment needs a clear definition in which the contextual structure of the procedure should be elaborated... how the items are designed and what literacy domains they can address.(competency model, evidence model, task model)…

-             Since most of the participants in this study had a bachelor's degree or higher, future studies should also be targeted to individuals with lower levels of education to increase the generalizability of the model(s). Consider this point also with this manuscript.

-             What was the reason for choosing exact the games, e.g. VF, DE and AL? Give a rationale...

-             3.1 were the authors testing McDonald's Omega rather than Cronbach Alpha?

-             3.2 was age or gender a determining factor in predicting reading proficiency? Or perhaps the ICT literacy of the participants...?

-             5. the concluding paragraph claims, "Serious games and intelligent tutors may act as a scaffolding for less skilled readers to receive..." Clarify that since the majority of participants in the model are highly educated... what does less proficient reader mean?

The quality of the English language used in the manuscript is high. The language is clear, precise, and appropriate to the context. The level of language used in this manuscript is appropriate for the audience with whom the authors are communicating.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx