Construction of Questionnaire-Scale USOTIC “Social Networks in Primary and Secondary School Students: Use and Digital Coexistence”
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
OK
Author Response
Respuesta a sus comentarios
Reviewer 2 Report
First of all, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to review the paper entitled Construction Questionnaire-Scale USOTIC “Social Networks in Primary and Secondary School Students: Use and Digital Co-existence”
The paper discussed the process of validating a questionnaire-scale to explore the digital coexistence of primary and secondary school pupils with social networks, analysing the means, uses and risks, as well as the sources of training and advice they have for interacting with them.
Several comments are provided.
- Abstract should be rewritten – typically there are no citations in the abstract, while also not customary to mention that the purpose of the paper is to fulfill the goal of a thesis. Please see these two papers https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/11/11/671 and https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/11/5/250 for examples of abstract of papers focusing on scale validation
- Same with 3rd paragraph – line 39 to 43 – recommend that author to remove this part
- “This transformation triggers a break with the linear form of communication, giving birth to a new form of interaction and communication through ICTs, opening a window to the digital world, transferring young people to scenarios where they are the protagonists of their own actions, which are reflected in their attitudes through the way they adhere to the diversity of media content, which they share, disseminate and comment on with other users (3).” This paragraph is quite confusing, “which” was used twice. Unsure what the author/s meant.
- Author should clarify – within the literature only adolescence was mentioned, how about primary students (meaning elementary students) – since the scale / instrument is for both primary and secondary students. My other concern – should primary and secondary students use the same instrument?
- Table 1 number convention is different, should be 0.93 and not 0,93. Explain what is coefficient of expert competence?
- Expert validation need to be further explained, who did the validation, what are the background of the experts? How many?
- Table 3 is in Spanish
- Many errors in the presentation of numbers
- Table 5 is also in Spanish – should also explain the cutoff values for the confirmatory factor analysis
- instruments or measures section - this should be rewritten and expanded, only limited information provided. What are the demographics provided? Why? Should also clarify the resulting factors/sub-scales – there be some sort of definition and description for each of the factors/variables used. There are many sample papers that the authors can looked into. For instance see: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/11/9/481
- Statistical analysis should be improved. Many commonly used criteria and practice for EFA and CFA were not used. For instance, please go over: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149/full
This paper might be too detailed. However, author/s can have a look on the various cutoff values and necessary test.
Alternatively, please check this paper:
Schreiber, J. B., Stage, F. K., King, J., Nora, A., & Barlow, E. A. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323-337. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338
(This is one of the most highly cited paper on how to report CFA using SEM).
- In addition, common practice now for CFA are at the least these should be reported, construct validity and reliability should be computed. Composite reliability, convergent validity (using the average variance extracted, AVE), discriminant validity (computed by taking the square root of AVE), and heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) of the variables/factors should be accomplish. Since, you are using AMOS you can incorporate Gaskin’s estimand for these computations
(see: estimands and plugins - Google Drive
estimands and plugins - Google Drive
For the macros that can be incorporated into AMOS)
Did you test for skewness and kurtosis? How about normality of the data? – This is important.
Recommend remedy by using bootstrapping method, which is easily available in AMOS.
Correlation of the covariances should also be reported, if any (should include the changes of Chi-square values). Missing values? Should be clear on how were missing values treated.
See the following references for more information, this should be incorporated into the paper:
Ho, R. Handbook of univariate and multivariate data analysis and interpretation with IBM SPSS; Taylor and Francis: New York, 2006.
Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 1981, 18, 39-50, doi:10.2307/3151312.
Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 1988, 103, 411-423, doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411.
Bollen, K.A. Structural equations with latent variables; Wiley-Interscience: New York, NY, 1989.
Hu, L.-T.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 1999, 6, 1-55, doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.
- Furthermore, since the author is focusing on the validation of the instrument, further analysis should also be done. Such as the model should also consider presenting the “single factor” and the model with the “higher order factor”.
In general the paper seems interesting, however the presentation needs to be revisit and reformat, and recheck for the various technical errors.
Author Response
Respuesta a su comentario
Muchísimas gracias
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article submitted addresses the construction process of a questionnaire scale used to evaluate the attitude and interaction of primary and secondary students with social networks. The author highlights the possible impact of a lack of digital training and critical thinking development for children using technology to routinely engage social networks, including the possibility of risk incurred via these interactions. The author addresses possible unintended consequences for students in and out of school environments when engaging on social networks without appropriate education and awareness.
Some minor revisions suggested:
The wording (word choice and syntax) of the abstract and the introduction could be somewhat improved for clarity. In lines 15-16, one of the four dimensions is missing (only three listed), and the wording in lines 15-16 conflicts somewhat with what is stated in line 331. Defining or referencing information and communication technologies would provide clarity for the acronym ICT. Clarity is much-improved beginning with line 67.
Necessary to revise/delete some text in lines 103-105 and 106-108 where it appears the text was revised but repeated in error.
The topic of the doctoral thesis research is timely, current, and relevant. The introduction of this paper states the purpose and references study particulars, as well as presents a process for constructing and validating the reliability and validity of the questionnaire.
Materials and methods and participants are clearly described in detail.
Review section on instrument lines 167-187.
Questionnaire development and specific dimensions are clearly explained as well as how validity and reliability were established. Results specific and conclusions logical.
Author Response
Respuesta a sus comentarios
Muchísimas gracias
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The author/s provided in the cover letter stating the revisions done on the paper, however, track changes were seen on formatting changes only. Can not tell which areas were revised or if revision were really accomplished.
Was not able to see quote 51? or line 51?
Authors still used "," instead of "." for decimal points, revisions were not reflected.
point 6 - the author just mentioned see lines 249 - 451, was not able to point out were the necessary changes were reflected.
point 8 - was not able to revised as mentioned earlier, same error
Table 3 is NOT a report for test for the skewness and kurtosis? How about normality of the data?
