Routines and Daily Dynamics of Young People with Borderline Intelligence: An Ethnomethodological Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I found this a very interesting topic and commend you on the work you have done to date. However I do feel this manuscript needs significant reworking. While I understand that English may not be the authors first language, the structure of the paper needs improving throughout. I have some detailed comments on each section of the manuscript which I hope the authors will find helpful. 

Section	Line Number	Comment
Introduction	22	Using the word ‘normal’ to describe intellectual ability will be very offensive to many. Perhaps consider using the IQ classification for normal intellect which you later refer to in the Diagnosis section.
	27	I would suggest a full stop after experiences, otherwise this sentence is too long.
	89-96	This section makes some very important points. However it is not very well expressed. Can I suggest you keep the content but perhaps review how you have worded it to make it more succinct (starts with ‘Regarding what Garcia and Soto…’ and ends with Luckasson et al reference).
	97	You state that it is well known that there are different assessment tools available. You are making an assumption about your reader which should be avoided. I would remove the wording ‘as it is well known’.
	112	The sentence beginning ‘There is a difficulty…’ is poorly constructed. Please revise.
	170-176	I’m not clear if this entire section is a direct quote from Molinero. If it is, it needs to put in quotation marks. If it is not, you need to indicate how much of the section is advice from that author.
	186	Again lazy is a term some readers may find offensive. If this term has been used in the literature, please reference it to illustrate the commonly used terminology. If not, please replace with something more socially acceptable.
	205	You use the abbreviation FIL. What does this mean? It has not been used previously so the full wording should be used with the abbreviation in brackets .
	254	The reference to expert patient seems to come out of nowhere. If you are going to use this analogy you need to explain why it is a helpful comparison and provide a reference for readers who may not be familiar with this concept.
	273	Until this point you have clearly been talking about mental health. However, this final paragraph appears to be about healthcare provision more generally. Can you specify if you are still focusing on mental healthcare provision or talking about healthcare in general so that it is clear to the reader.
	290	You state ‘there are cases’. Can you provide a reference to back this up please.
	295-296	This first line makes quite a sweeping statement. I would suggest you provide evidence to support it or reframe it in less confrontational language.
	317	I am concerned that you are using a very old reference to support your argument about abilities and preferences. I would suggest that if this is still really the case you need to find a more recent source to support it.
	342 - 353	I would restructure this paragraph by moving your first line to Line 349  - before the sentence beginning ‘If work conditions do not align…’ This will make it read better and avoids having to provide a reference for that initial sweeping statement.
Methods	360-367	I would suggest you keep the first 4 lines of this paragraph then remove the rest. You have explained these concepts very well in lines 386-407 so this feels repetitive.
	380	This first line needs revised to make sense.
	382	You refer to Thalib 2022 then state ‘as we have read in the previous lines…’ what are you referring to? The previous lines refer to Harper 2008.
		Section 2.2 needs to be revised. You need to be clear what you mean by ‘practice’.  You also need to clearly define the role of the 13 students as data collectors and the 30 young people and their families as study participants. You have also included a lot of information about the context, in terms of a third party association. I would suggest this would be more useful at the start of the section before you get into the study methods.
	438	I’m not clear what you mean by ‘The information derived from the conversations was collected by the students in a field diary  but was not recorded, in order to elicit spontaneous responses in their natural context.’ Are you suggesting that this information was written in field diaries but not audio recorded? You need to make this much clearer.
		The Methods section needs to be revised. You state that the analysis was carried out using participant observations, semi-structured interviews  and field diaries.  This is incorrect as these are methods of data collection not data analysis. In the methods section itself (Section 2.2.) the only data collection method detailed is the field diaries. No where in this section is there a clear description of how and where the interviews were carried out.
Results		In each finding within this section, you need to provide some evidence to support your findings. You do this for some of the findings but not all.  Linking your findings to the data ensures that we are seeing what the data revealed, not just your interpretation of it.
Discussion	655	You state in your discussion that you have revealing evidence of some people with BI seeking recognition as people with disabilities. You go on to describe how this may occur through exaggeration of reports and diagnoses. This is an extremely serious claim to make and I see no evidence of this finding anywhere in your results section.
References		Many of your references are very old. While some are appropriate as key works, I would suggest you should be able to find much more recent literature to support your arguments. I would also suggest you review all the references as I couldn’t find several of them and I think readers may be disappointed at the number of papers which are not translatable. This is important if readers which to read further on this topic.
General		You need to review the manuscript as each time you use the abbreviation BI you do not leave a space before the next word. You also need to review the formatting of your references within the text.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I think overall the quality of English in this paper is good. The most obvious issue is the structure of the paper and hopefully my comments will help you with that. It may also be helpful to ask someone within your organisation who has published English-language papers previously to review this for you once you have made the necessary changes. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for all the provided guidance. I believe that, considering the indicated changes and modifications, the document has improved in quality. I am very grateful for the interest shown in the thorough review you have conducted. Below, I will comment on the modifications made, point by point. In the attached document, you will find the file with the changes visible in yellow for additions and strikethrough for deleted information Best regards!

• Introduction (22) : Using the word ‘normal’ to describe intellectual ability will be very offensive to many. Perhaps consider using the IQ classification for normal intellect which you later refer to in the Diagnosis section.DONE: Changed "those considered neurotypical"

• (27) I would suggest a full stop after experiences, otherwise this sentence is too long: DONE!
• (89-96) This section makes some very important points. However it is not very well expressed. Can I suggest you keep the content but perhaps review how you have worded it to make it more succinct (starts with ‘Regarding what Garcia and Soto…’ and ends with Luckasson et al reference).DONE!
• (97) You state that it is well known that there are different assessment tools available. You are making an assumption about your reader which should be avoided. I would remove the wording ‘as it is well known’ DONE
• (112) The sentence beginning ‘There is a difficulty…’ is poorly constructed. Please revise DONE
• (170-1176) I’m not clear if this entire section is a direct quote from Molinero. If it is, it needs to put in quotation marks. If it is not, you need to indicate how much of the section is advice from that author DONE
• (186) Again lazy is a term some readers may find offensive. If this term has been used in the literature, please reference it to illustrate the commonly used terminology. If not, please replace with something more socially acceptable. DONE
• (205) You use the abbreviation FIL. What does this mean? It has not been used previously so the full wording should be used with the abbreviation in brackets  DONE
• (254) The reference to expert patient seems to come out of nowhere. If you are going to use this analogy you need to explain why it is a helpful comparison and provide a reference for readers who may not be familiar with this concept DONE
• (273) Until this point you have clearly been talking about mental health. However, this final paragraph appears to be about healthcare provision more generally. Can you specify if you are still focusing on mental healthcare provision or talking about healthcare in general so that it is clear to the reader DONE
• (290) You state ‘there are cases’. Can you provide a reference to back this up please. DONE
• (295-296) This first line makes quite a sweeping statement. I would suggest you provide evidence to support it or reframe it in less confrontational language DONE
• (317) I am concerned that you are using a very old reference to support your argument about abilities and preferences. I would suggest that if this is still really the case you need to find a more recent source to support it. DONE
• (342-353) I would restructure this paragraph by moving your first line to Line 349  - before the sentence beginning ‘If work conditions do not align…’ This will make it read better and avoids having to provide a reference for that initial sweeping statement. DONE
• (360-367) I would suggest you keep the first 4 lines of this paragraph then remove the rest. You have explained these concepts very well in lines 386-407 so this feels repetitive. DONE
• (380) This first line needs revised to make sense DONE
• (382) You refer to Thalib 2022 then state ‘as we have read in the previous lines…’ what are you referring to? The previous lines refer to Harper 2008 DONE It was responding to a previous version of the text where this author was indeed mentioned, but in the last version, he disappeared. 
• (438) I’m not clear what you mean by ‘The information derived from the conversations was collected by the students in a field diary  but was not recorded, in order to elicit spontaneous responses in their natural context.’ Are you suggesting that this information was written in field diaries but not audio recorded? You need to make this much clearer DONE
•  REsults: In each finding within this section, you need to provide some evidence to support your findings. You do this for some of the findings but not all.  Linking your findings to the data ensures that we are seeing what the data revealed, not just your interpretation of it DONE (A greater number of verbatim quotes have been introduced to evidence the findings)
• (655) YDiscussion: You state in your discussion that you have revealing evidence of some people with BI seeking recognition as people with disabilities. You go on to describe how this may occur through exaggeration of reports and diagnoses. This is an extremely serious claim to make and I see no evidence of this finding anywhere in your results section. DONE Indeed, the evidence was not initially included, but it was revealed through the students' interactions with the professionals and documented by the students in their field journals. Evidence presented in the Results section
• REferences: DONE. 10 new current international references introduced in the review
• General: DONE

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion, this paper is interesting, because it addresses a topic to which scarce attention has been paid both by research and social policies: the specific needs and circumstances of persons with borderline intellectual functioning. However, it has serious methodological and conceptual weaknesses that in my opinion require it to be fully rewritten:

1) The paper rests almost exclusively on literature in Spanish. There are lots of studies on Borderline Intellectual Functioning that have been published in English and by scholars from different countries, which should be considered by the authors, among other reasons to enlarge the international background and interest of the paper.

2) The introduction of the paper is too long: from a total of 15 pages of the paper (excluding references), the introduction comprises a total of 7 pages, more than the half. Moreover, this introduction does not add much to existing research, as it only contains an extensive description of the main features and difficulties of persons with borderline intellectual functioning already studied by literature.

3) On the opposite, the description of the qualitative research that has been carried out is clearly insufficient and does not provide a clear idea of what has been done and how have the results been obtained. The correlation between the qualitative research and the results described in section 3 of the paper is not evident and is not supported by specific experiences or inputs of the qualitative research. Only some quotations of participants in the research are provided, without providing the context in which these declarations have been made. Therefore, the conclusions are insufficiently supported by the empirical research.

4) The authors of the paper insist several times on the importance of recognizing persons with borderline intellectual functioning as persons with disabilities, and even refer to “the difficulty of recognizing rights and resources due to not meeting the minimum requirement of 33 percent (disability certificate)” (lines 101-102). In my opinion, this is a specific problem of Spanish Law -which indeed requires a disability degree of 33% to access to certain benefits-, which does not appear -or at least does not appear in the same terms and with the same relevance- in other countries and legal orders. In a paper published in English and which should have international relevance, the question of whether persons with border intellectual functioning can be considered persons with disabilities should be studied from a completely different perspective: article 1 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which provides a definition of persons with disabilities, and which strangely is not even mentioned in the paper.

5) It seems to me that the papers give an extraordinary relevance to intellectual quotient, as it were a sure and definitive measure of intellectual and learning abilities. Although I am not a specialist in this matter, I know that recent studies have challenged the validity of such quantitative measurements (for example, Howard Gardner´s theory of multiple intelligences), and even the recent definition of intellectual disabilities refers not only to limitations in intellectual functioning but also in adaptive skills and behavior. I think these approaches should also be considered and mentioned in the paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language is fine, but a thorough revision would be needed to improve the style, for example the frequent repetition of the same word several times in the same paragraph, and above all the quotation marks. 

I will give only two examples from the first page, but many other examples can be found throughout the paper:

1) Lack of quotation marks:

"This study aims to fill this gap in knowledge by focusing on their daily routines and dynamics by exploring their everyday lives through ethnomethodological approach, which focuses on their own interpretations and experiences, this study can reveal unrecognized needs that might not be apparent through traditional research methods" (lines 24-27).

Maybe it should be:

"This study aims to fill this gap in knowledge by focusing on their daily routines and dynamics and exploring their everyday lives through an ethnomethodological approach, which focuses on their own interpretations and experience. This study can reveal unrecognized needs that might not be apparent through traditional research methods.

2) Repetition of words: In lines 24-37, the phrase "this study" is repeated 5 times. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for all the provided guidance. I believe that, considering the indicated changes and modifications, the document has improved in quality. I am very grateful for the interest shown in the thorough review you have conducted. Below, I will comment on the modifications made, point by point.

In the attached document, you will find the file with the changes visible in yellow for additions and strikethrough for deleted information.

Best regards. 

1) The paper rests almost exclusively on literature in Spanish. There are lots of studies on Borderline Intellectual Functioning that have been published in English and by scholars from different countries, which should be considered by the authors, among other reasons to enlarge the international background and interest of the paper. 10 new current international references introduced in the review

2) The introduction of the paper is too long: from a total of 15 pages of the paper (excluding references), the introduction comprises a total of 7 pages, more than the half. Moreover, this introduction does not add much to existing research, as it only contains an extensive description of the main features and difficulties of persons with borderline intellectual functioning already studied by literature. DONE

3) On the opposite, the description of the qualitative research that has been carried out is clearly insufficient and does not provide a clear idea of what has been done and how have the results been obtained. The correlation between the qualitative research and the results described in section 3 of the paper is not evident and is not supported by specific experiences or inputs of the qualitative research. Only some quotations of participants in the research are provided, without providing the context in which these declarations have been made. Therefore, the conclusions are insufficiently supported by the empirical research.DONE completely reformulated

4) The authors of the paper insist several times on the importance of recognizing persons with borderline intellectual functioning as persons with disabilities, and even refer to “the difficulty of recognizing rights and resources due to not meeting the minimum requirement of 33 percent (disability certificate)” (lines 101-102). In my opinion, this is a specific problem of Spanish Law -which indeed requires a disability degree of 33% to access to certain benefits-, which does not appear -or at least does not appear in the same terms and with the same relevance- in other countries and legal orders. In a paper published in English and which should have international relevance, the question of whether persons with border intellectual functioning can be considered persons with disabilities should be studied from a completely different perspective: article 1 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which provides a definition of persons with disabilities, and which strangely is not even mentioned in the paper. DONE  REFORMULATED

5) It seems to me that the papers give an extraordinary relevance to intellectual quotient, as it were a sure and definitive measure of intellectual and learning abilities. Although I am not a specialist in this matter, I know that recent studies have challenged the validity of such quantitative measurements (for example, Howard Gardner´s theory of multiple intelligences), and even the recent definition of intellectual disabilities refers not only to limitations in intellectual functioning but also in adaptive skills and behavior. I think these approaches should also be considered and mentioned in the paper . DONE A very interesting contribution that I had overlooked and that I appreciate

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting these revisions so promptly. The paper is significantly improved. I just have a few further comments which I think would improve it further.

Section 2: Borderline intellectual functioning:

Line 69: The 1st line needs revising for better English. I would suggest either: 'While IQ is nowadays commonly used as a measure for assessing intelligence...' OR ' Nowadays, IQ is a commonly used measure for assessing intelligence, but it is not the only measure...'

Line 88: Replace 'By the other hand...' with 'On the other hand...'

Line 151: You have revised this as advised. However, I would suggest that since you mention there are different assessment or diagnostic tools, you should add in some specific references for the reader.

Line 175: You need a space between BI and 'by age.'

Line 489: I still don't understand what you mean by: 'as we have read in the previous lines...' It remains unclear what you are referring to. I would suggest removing that phrase.

Materials and Methods: Section 2.2: Description of the practice:

Lines 520-527: This section is much clearer now. The introduction needs a little bit of further revision - 

What do you mean by 'practice'?

Should read : 'a teaching methodology of service-learning is developed for the academic year 2023-2024

By 'sample' do you mean the researchers or the participants?  You need to differentiate between the people who undertook the data collection and the people who were being observed/interviewed. Currently everyone seems to be referred to as students, which is confusing.

Should read: 'The experience took place within a Third Sector entity.'

Point 3 of Qualitative Data Analysis has spelling mistakes

Results: 

Line 677: There is a spelling mistake in the 1st line

Line 689: I would suggest a better linking sentence between this quote and the one above, linking navigating social and work environments to the strong dependence on family and social support

Lines 728-734: This feels more like commentary and might be better placed in the Discussion section

Discussion:

Line 954: Spelling mistake in 1st line of this section

Line 978: Should read: 'The results emphasize...'

References:

The link to the 1st reference is not working

The link to Emerson et al 2010 is incorrect

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are just a few minor corrections needed for better English.

Author Response

I am immensely grateful for the meticulous review you have provided for this article. Your genuine interest in assisting me in enhancing the structure and style is deeply appreciated. I have endeavored to meticulously incorporate all of your suggested revisions and have reformulated the sections that required modifications. My sincere gratitude extends to you. Thank you once again

Line 69: The 1st line needs revising for better English. I would suggest either: 'While IQ is nowadays commonly used as a measure for assessing intelligence...' OR ' Nowadays, IQ is a commonly used measure for assessing intelligence, but it is not the only measure...'DONE

Line 88: Replace 'By the other hand...' with 'On the other hand...'DONE

Line 151: You have revised this as advised. However, I would suggest that since you mention there are different assessment or diagnostic tools, you should add in some specific references for the reader.DONE

Line 175: You need a space between BI and 'by age.'DONE

Line 489: I still don't understand what you mean by: 'as we have read in the previous lines...' It remains unclear what you are referring to. I would suggest removing that phrase. DONE

Materials and Methods: Section 2.2: Description of the practice:

Lines 520-527: This section is much clearer now. The introduction needs a little bit of further revision - DONE

By 'sample' do you mean the researchers or the participants?  You need to differentiate between the people who undertook the data collection and the people who were being observed/interviewed. Currently everyone seems to be referred to as students, which is confusing.DONE

Should read: 'The experience took place within a Third Sector entity.'DONE

Point 3 of Qualitative Data Analysis has spelling mistakesDONE

Results: 

Line 677: There is a spelling mistake in the 1st line DONE

Line 689: I would suggest a better linking sentence between this quote and the one above, linking navigating social and work environments to the strong dependence on family and social support DONE

Lines 728-734: This feels more like commentary and might be better placed in the Discussion section  I wholeheartedly agree with this observation. However, this clarification was requested by another reviewer who asked for further elaboration in that context to enhance the comprehension of the discussion section where I address this issue. Upon deliberation, I have decided to retain the current placement, though I concur that, as an explanation, it could also be relocated to a different section, as you propose

Discussion:

Line 954: Spelling mistake in 1st line of this section DONE

Line 978: Should read: 'The results emphasize...'DONE

References:

The link to the 1st reference is not working DONE

The link to Emerson et al 2010 is incorrect DONE

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion, this paper has improved substantially after its revision, and most of the suggestions I made have been considered and implemented. I would add only two small remarks:

a) At least one reference to 33% percentage has been kept in the manuscript (line 155). This should be eliminated, because such a measurement of disability and the requirement to reach a degree of 33% to obtain the certificate of disability is specific of the Spanish legislation.

b) No mention is done of the definitions of disability and of person with disabilities contained in the Preamble and in article 1 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. As I already suggested in my first review, being one of the main problems discussed in the article the difficulties of persons with BIF to be considered as persons with disabilities, I think this definition should be mentioned, as, in my opinion, persons with BIF meet the requirements of this definition and should be considered persons with disabilities according to the Convention.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language and style have also been improved, but I think a new revision is necessary, specially of the new paragraphs that have been added to the article.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the effort you have put into reviewing the article. Taking into account the suggestions, the article has improved substantially. I appreciate it.

a) At least one reference to 33% percentage has been kept in the manuscript (line 155). This should be eliminated, because such a measurement of disability and the requirement to reach a degree of 33% to obtain the certificate of disability is specific of the Spanish legislation. DONE An attempt has been made to generalize the meaning of the sentence so as not to limit it to the Spanish state alone. Indeed, this is a more appropriate approach. Thank you.

b) No mention is done of the definitions of disability and of person with disabilities contained in the Preamble and in article 1 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. As I already suggested in my first review, being one of the main problems discussed in the article the difficulties of persons with BIF to be considered as persons with disabilities, I think this definition should be mentioned, as, in my opinion, persons with BIF meet the requirements of this definition and should be considered persons with disabilities according to the Convention.DONE

The definitions of disability and person with disability as outlined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities have been incorporated into the definition of disability provided by the American Psychiatric Association, 2013

English language and style have also been improved, but I think a new revision is necessary, specially of the new paragraphs that have been added to the article. Some paragraphs have been modified to revise the English style. They are marked in yellow. Thank you.