The Effects of Coaching Techniques on Well-Being of Digital-Technology Users
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
First, I would like to thank authors for important issue they focused on in their paper. The use of digital instruments increases every day and their effects on human well-being remain understudied.
Still, there are some questions that need to be clarified.
1. Sample. The description of the sample is weird and based on current description I would say that you can't interpret any results since you compare uncomparable people. In the first study major part of the sample were aged 20 - 30, while in the second - 40 - 50. I would speculate that all the results could be purely the effect of this disbalance and have nothing to do with coaching process. Again, we havr no ides about the rest of these groups, and even the mean age within the most represented age periods. This sample problem makes all the rest results unsolid and pure speculation.
2. The description of the coaching technique is not clear. Starting line 320. Why 5 experts used different techniques? Did all particiapnts of experimental group receive the same scenario or combination of those techniques? Was there any retionalle for such scenario?
3.Figure 4 (line 514) shows dynamics of perma components for experimental and control groups. Even if we forgot about the problems with the sample, this picture suggests that those, who didn't participate in the coaching program would descrease generally in all components of well-being. This strange results might make readers think that well-being is only for those who undergo coaching. To me it sounds totally irrealistic.
Author Response
Point 1: Sample. The description of the sample is weird and based on current description I would say that you can't interpret any results since you compare uncomparable people. In the first study major part of the sample were aged 20 - 30, while in the second - 40 - 50. I would speculate that all the results could be purely the effect of this disbalance and have nothing to do with coaching process. Again, we have no ideas about the rest of these groups, and even the mean age within the most represented age periods. This sample problem makes all the rest results unsolid and pure speculation.
Response 1:
To clarify the details of our sample selection methods, we add the basic inclusion criteria that the study focused on digital technology users who have 7 hours or more screentime usage a day, and experienced mental problems, since these two criteria were the significant concerns of our study in line 283 to 285.
Also, we showed the additional demographic data as shown in Table 1 in line 292. This would provide more comprehensible of our samples.
Point 2: The description of the coaching technique is not clear. Starting line 320. Why 5 experts used different techniques? Did all participants of experimental group receive the same scenario or combination of those techniques? Was there any retionalle for such scenario?
Response 2:
We rewrote the vague sentence of our coaching procedure, starting line 335, that we invited 5 coaches who possess ICF competences, and process the coaching session by a coach to a group of 11 coaches with same sequences.
Point 3: Figure 4 (line 514) shows dynamics of perma components for experimental and control groups. Even if we forgot about the problems with the sample, this picture suggests that those, who didn't participate in the coaching program would descrease generally in all components of well-being. This strange results might make readers think that well-being is only for those who undergo coaching. To me it sounds totally irrealistic.
Response 3:
This research did not aim to claim that coaching technique is the only procedure that can enhance well-being, but the results confirmed that coaching technique is and effective method that help raising the well-being for digital users, and it would be generalized to the other cases. We explained this idea from line 586 to 590.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Dear authors
Thank you for this work and the effort you put into it
Frankly, the research is complete and needs only some minor modifications and a linguistic review of the research before publishing.
Best Regards
Author Response
Point 1: The research is complete and needs only some minor modifications and a linguistic review of the research before publishing.
Response 1: We have already been edited the manuscript based on the English editing services of MDPI version (english-edited-49749).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Thank you for your clarifications
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article examines a very interesting topic that should be published, as achieving welfare through this proposed model can lead to benefits for society.
I give some suggestions in my review:
The abstract is long, I suggest shortening it.
The article is long especially in the introduction, there is information that could be deleted.
It should be made clear what kind of ethical protocol has been followed.
Table 2 is of low relevance and I would consider deleting it from the article.
Good development of the discussion and limitations of the study.
Reviewer 2 Report
You address very important issue: the approaches to deal with mental problems that can be caused by using digital technologies. Nowadays this problem is challenging nad both researchers and practitioners need to deel with it. Still some aspects need clarification.
The title of the paper do not quite address the problems presented in the paper. I would suggest to add digital aspects to the title.
It looks like sections are mixed up. Section 2 "Methods and Materials" for some reason include theoretical background. I would suggest that whole 2.1 section would go to Section 1. And probably paper would benefit if you would put some conclusion to all theoretical background (maybe, you could re-organize section 1 and 2.1).
The description of the sample needs more clarification. I found no information on age, sex, education, professions of the participants in both groups. These variables could impact the results. Without this information it is hard to estimate the results and their soundness.
Reviewer 3 Report
This study examined the effects of coaching techniques on well-being. However, in considering this manuscript for possibility of publication, new and creative knowledge was barely generated through the study.
The statements of the authors are contradictory. The authors stated that “there is a lack of studies exploring whether coaching is more effective for individual well-being. (p. 2)” However, Table 2 lists many studies on benefits of coaching associated with well-being. Given these studies, what is the contribution of this study?
What are eligibility criteria to recruit participants?
Participants were not randomly allocated. How were they allocated?
The manuscript needs general editing throughout to improve readability.
