Mental Health, Subjective Well-Being, and Academic Performance in Chilean Schoolchildren Who Are Part and Are Not Part of the School Inclusion Program

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I believe that this study has significant potential. However, the language issues and clarity prevent me from providing detailed comments on the content. The authors need to thoroughly review the article for grammar and it I recommend that the manuscript be reviewed by an English editor. At times, I think that the authors had valid points and important descriptions/explanations, but there was simply too much of the manuscript that I did not understand due to issues with the English and clarity of the writing. I should note that these problems begin with the abstract, where there are incomplete sentences and grammatical errors. 

As noted, there are such serious concerns with English grammar and clarity that the points are often lost. 

Author Response

Comment 1: I believe that this study has significant potential. However, the language issues and clarity prevent me from providing detailed comments on the content. The authors need to thoroughly review the article for grammar and it I recommend that the manuscript be reviewed by an English editor. At times, I think that the authors had valid points and important descriptions/explanations, but there was simply too much of the manuscript that I did not understand due to issues with the English and clarity of the writing. I should note that these problems begin with the abstract, where there are incomplete sentences and grammatical errors. 

Answer 1: Thank you very much for the comment. The complete manuscript has been thoroughly reviewed, corrected, and proofread by a native English speaker. Added text is highlighted in yellow and the English review was highlighted in green in the text.

Reviewer 2 Report

The subject of this article is topical and important in the light of international trends. The article is comprehensive, coherent and well-structured, making it easy to read.

However, the introduction and discussion really need to be improved. The research question can be answered without any research because it is quite obvious. In other words, what makes the authors say (based on the literature and the Chilean context) that they could have come up with different results? The authors therefore need to improve the argumentation, both in the introduction to arrive at the research question (and the empirical research that follows from it; a research hypothesis would be in order) and in the discussion in order to go further into the interpretation of the results and the issues to which they relate.

More comments in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The subject of this article is topical and important in the light of international trends. The article is comprehensive, coherent and well-structured, making it easy to read.

General Comment: However, the introduction and discussion really need to be improved. The research question can be answered without any research because it is quite obvious. In other words, what makes the authors say (based on the literature and the Chilean context) that they could have come up with different results? The authors therefore need to improve the argumentation, both in the introduction to arrive at the research question (and the empirical research that follows from it; a research hypothesis would be in order) and in the discussion in order to go further into the interpretation of the results and the issues to which they relate.

Answer 1: Thank you very much for the comment. The manuscript has been thoroughly reviewed, corrected, and proofread by a native English speaker. Added text is highlighted in yellow and the English review was highlighted in green in the text.

 More comments in the attached file.

General comments: The theme of the article is relevant to the international movement towards inclusive education. Associating data relating to mental health with academic achievement is relevant in view of the reciprocal influence of these variables. Nevertheless, on reading the abstract and introduction, I had in mind a comparison of SEN pupils in SIPs and SEN pupils 'not in SIPs', i.e., in special classes or special schools, to support the benefits of inclusive school policies. When comparing SEN pupils with non-SEN pupils (mainstream) in ordinary schools, it seems quite normal to obtain these results (better indicators for non-SEN pupils). Did the authors really expect SEN pupils to perform as well as non-SEN pupils? If we rely on the results of references 40 and 41 brought up for discussion, then the authors could have anticipated this result at the outset and opted for a different type of comparison. In my opinion, the authors should argue this better from the outset and discuss it, because their results are not at all surprising, even if they may seem disappointing, I understand that. On the other hand, the conclusion makes it easy to grasp the issues involved in the study and its relevance.

Answer 2: We appreciate the reviewers’ feedback and comment. However, we respectfully disagree with the assertion that the results are self-evident or predictable. Firstly, there is limited scientific literature that has delved into the mental health of schoolchildren with special educational needs. Specifically, in Latin America, this study represents the first of its kind on this subject, which explains the paucity of comparative articles. Secondly, given the content and assessment adaptations made for students with special educational needs, it was unexpected to observe such pronounced differences in academic performance. The introduction and discussion sections of the manuscript emphasize the novelty and originality of this research.

 

Abstract: the abstract could be better written. For example, it would be a good idea to write a sentence with the words "Analytic, cross-sectional study" rather than putting it like that. Otherwise, it contains the necessary information.

Answer 2: The abstract hass been completely revised.

 

Introduction: The international and national political and legal context for inclusive education is clearly presented. On line 53, the sentence "Additional resources to fund extra support are regulated through [9]" seems unfinished: it would be interesting to name decree 170 here rather than just the reference number. It could also be specified whether special classes or schools still exist and, if so, for what types of pupils (with what type of SEN). This would make it possible to set the context of the study even more precisely.

L.76-77: « to respond to the studies that correlate psycho-social aspects, such as mental health and subjective well-being, with academic performance [14–16], » only references specific to the country or language of the study are mentioned; it would have been interesting here to open up to other (international) research results.

Answer 3a: International references are added at this point.

L.86-92: A better explanation is needed here of why self-esteem rather than the (academic) self-concept was chosen, bearing in mind that « Stronger relationships [with academic achievement] have been found with the academic self-concept than with self-esteem (Hoge et al. 1995; Lyon 1993; Marsh 1987; Muijs 1997; Skaalvik and Hagtvet 1990). Low correlation coefficients between self-esteem and academic achievement can be explained in different ways. For example, when a student exhibits low academic achievement, this does not necessarily imply feelings of personal devaluation. On the other hand, positive self-esteem is a more global perception and influenced by all the daily domains of performance (Branscombe and Wann 1994; Covington 1984; Leary et al. 1995), and sometimes a low academic self-concept can activate mechanisms which will protect self-esteem » (Peixoto & Almeida, 2010, p. 158).

Answer 3b: A better explanation was added to this paragraph.

While self-esteem is well recognized as affecting a person's overall functioning, the authors of the study implicitly link it to academic performance (as a protective factor for achievement). The authors could therefore better explain why they chose this variable of interest rather than self-concept (or why not both). See also the article by Marsh, H. W., & Martin, A. J. (2011). Academic self-concept and academic achievement: Relations and causal ordering. British journal of educational psychology, 81(1), 59-77, in particular on p.60 : « Selfconcept enhancement is seen as a central goal of education and an important vehicle for addressing social inequities experienced by disadvantaged groups » or even p. 62 : “ Marsh and Craven (2006; also see Byrne, 1996a, b; Marsh,1993) reviewed a large body of research showing that diverse academic outcomes were systematically related to Academic SelfConcept but nearly unrelated (or even negatively related) to global self-esteem and other non-academic components of self-concept. […] Although specific components of selfconcept explained substantial amounts of variance in the personality factors, very little variance was uniquely due to self-esteem”.

Answer 3c: A better explanation was added to this paragraph.

This type of article would also allow the authors to justify why they chose self-esteem rather than self-concept by referring to the authors of reference, or at least to discuss this choice in the discussion/conclusion.

The research objective is clear, and the arguments chosen to justify it are coherent even if it can be improved. If, according to the authors, there is little (or no) literature that integrates the three variables of interest to the study (mental health, subjective well-being, and academic performance), it would have been interesting to report some research results that report links between 2 of these variables (bearing in mind that well-being is part of mental health) or between similar variables. (p. ex. Suldo et al., 2011, hIps://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2010.536774; Bücker et al., 2018, hIps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.02.007; etc.).

Answer 3d: A better explanation was added to this paragraph.

This would perhaps make it possible to formulate a research hypothesis and justify the comparison between SEN and non-SEN pupils on these variables, knowing that it goes without saying that SEN pupils will have lower scores than non-SEN pupils on the various variables of interest (or alternatively present a sufficient argument justifying the choice of comparing these two populations). In this sense, the relevance of the research should be better demonstrated.

Answer 3e: A better argument is provided that justifies this manuscript.

 

Methods: The method is complete and well described, as are the instruments. It would have been interesting to support the choice of CSR (or CSESR depending on the study) with a reference (line 155; p. ex. Donnellan, M, B., Trzesniewski, K, H., & Robins, R, W. (2015). Measures of self-esteem. In G. J. Boyle, D. H. Saklofske, & G. MaIhews (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological constructs (pp. 131–157). Elsevier. hIps://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12- 386915-9.00006-1.). In that sense, the authors are right to say that it is a widely used scale, but this could be backed up by a scientific reference.

1. 174: rephrase the sentence « internal consistency … and a reliability of…”

Would it have been appropriate to support the choice of grades and GPAs with one or more references? Evaluating academic performance or achievement using grades has also been criticized. This could also be discussed within the limits of the study (why use grades rather than standardized academic performance tests?).

l.204: to establish?

Answer 4: The methodology section is corrected. References are added to strengthen the choice of measurement instruments.

 

Results: Overall, the results are clearly presented. However, the sentence « These results suggest that students who participate in SIPs do not see an improvement in their academic performance, despite the personalized support provided” (l. 247-249) is not clear: why talk about a perception of improvement, there aren't two measurement points that could show an evolution. This sentence seems strange given the research question. Could it be reworded?

Answer 5: Thank you very much for the comment, the phrase was not appropriate and has been removed.

 

The discussion and conclusion are interesting, the former proposing some welcome concrete avenues; nevertheless, the limitations of the study could be better developed and discussed (study populations, use of grades, etc.). Furthermore, the sentence "considering the clear relationship between psycho-social factors and learning measured in this study" (l.310-311) raises questions: there are no results presented in section 3 that demonstrate the link between these variables. The results reported demonstrate the differences between the two studied populations but not the links between the variables of interest (e.g., impact of anxiety and subjective well-being variables on academic outcomes). Finally, in view of the results, if teaching practices are discussed, the question of support (form, quantity, quality, etc.) for SEN pupils could have been developed or discussed. For example, in what way might the support provided to SEN pupils generate stigmatization (10–15-year-old pupils, in their adolescent phase, want to be like the others), or even a certain anxiety? Nor is the paradox of support discussed (how might it influence results). Nor are the issues associated with the adolescent phase addressed: difference from the norm, the needs of these pupils, etc.

Answer 6: Comments are appreciated. the discussion is strengthened. particularly in the limitations of the study and in the contributions and implications of the results.

 

Norms/format: Check citation norms (l.105, direct citation without page number; references in bibliography); check requirements for tables (norms). L. 258/l.271: the "p" in p-value should be in lower case, in my opinion. Review everywhere, p-values are not always indicated with the "p" in italics (sometimes yes, sometimes no).

Answer 7: The format of the tables, citation format and the way of presenting the p value was corrected.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have largely considered the comments from the first review phase. The revisions made are relevant and improve the first version of the submitted article (abstract and main text).

There are still several typos, so please check and correct them (especially the punctuation):

-       L35: Is a capital letter after a semicolon justified? Shouldn't it be lower-case? (…; Additionally, … => …; additionally)

-       L54: there seems to be an extra dot before the reference [8] (“disabilities. [8]. Additional resources…”)

-       L54: the following sentence has not been changed and still appears unfinished (a word seems to be missing): "Additional resources to fund extra support are regulated through [9]". Furthermore, since the first version, reference 9 has changed (highlighted in yellow in the bibliography). Is this still the correct reference?

-       L66: Please a dot after reference [10].

-       L99: there is a space missing between "shown" and "positive".

-       L124: there is a double space (instead of a single space) (“on this topic.  Furthermore,…”)

-       L139: It is not clear whether "and" instead of "or" should be used in the sentence: “A total of 67 students were excluded from the study as they were not present on the day of data collection and their parent or legal tutors did not provide consent.”  I would use “or” (Exclusion is for either reason, not both?).

-       L212 & L549-555: there are two different "47" references in the bibliography (same number). Please check all references and numbers.

-       L244: use of n vs N => if 730 represent the global sample, N should be used and not n. Please check.

-       Table 2 (L250): Self-esteem is referenced as "10-40 points", but a low perception of self-esteem is referenced as "0-25". This is not consistent.

-       Table 2 (L250): The subjective perception of happiness is indicated from 1 to 7 points. The authors then differentiate the scores into a high, moderate, or low perception. There is no indication of how these categories (high, moderate, and low) were decided/calculated (no indicators). Please clarify this point in the "Variables and evaluation instruments" section or in table 2.

-       L253: again, n or N for global sample? Please, check norms.

-       L280: please check if it is “participation ins SIPs” or “participation in SIP” (without the s in “in”).

-       L303: please check the norms ("Journal norms") to quote a reference and page number directly.

-       L330: double “in” (“differences in in psycho-social…”).

-       L395: Please add a capital letter in the beginning of the sentence “it’s important” (capital letter needed after the dot).

-       L399: Please add a dot after reference [57], before the following sentence

Author Response

The authors have largely considered the comments from the first review phase. The revisions made are relevant and improve the first version of the submitted article (abstract and main text).

There are still several typos, so please check and correct them (especially the punctuation):

• L35: Is a capital letter after a semicolon justified? Shouldn't it be lower-case? (…; Additionally, … => …; additionally)

Answer: Thank you very much for the comment. The sentence was amended.

-       L54: there seems to be an extra dot before the reference [8] (“disabilities. [8]. Additional resources…”)

Answer: The dot was removed.

-       L54: the following sentence has not been changed and still appears unfinished (a word seems to be missing): "Additional resources to fund extra support are regulated through [9]". Furthermore, since the first version, reference 9 has changed (highlighted in yellow in the bibliography). Is this still the correct reference?

Answer: The sentence has been completed. The reference is correct.

-       L66: Please a dot after reference [10].

Answer: The missing dot has been added.

-       L99: there is a space missing between "shown" and "positive".

Answer: Added space between "show" and "positive".

-       L124: there is a double space (instead of a single space) (“on this topic.  Furthermore,…”)

Answer: The double space was removed and now a single space is observed.

-       L139: It is not clear whether "and" instead of "or" should be used in the sentence: “A total of 67 students were excluded from the study as they were not present on the day of data collection and their parent or legal tutors did not provide consent.”  I would use “or” (Exclusion is for either reason, not both?).

Answer: We agree with the comment. "and" is replaced instead of "or".

 

-       L212 & L549-555: there are two different "47" references in the bibliography (same number). Please check all references and numbers.

Answer: References are reviewed, and the citation number is corrected.

-       L244: use of n vs N => if 730 represent the global sample, N should be used and not n. Please check.

Answer: It is reviewed and corrected. Now it reads "N"

-       Table 2 (L250): Self-esteem is referenced as "10-40 points", but a low perception of self-esteem is referenced as "0-25". This is not consistent.

Answer: Thank you very much for the comment. It is corrected. now the low perception of self-esteem reads "0-40".

-       Table 2 (L250): The subjective perception of happiness is indicated from 1 to 7 points. The authors then differentiate the scores into a high, moderate, or low perception. There is no indication of how these categories (high, moderate, and low) were decided/calculated (no indicators). Please clarify this point in the "Variables and evaluation instruments" section or in table 2.

Answer: Thank you very much for the comment. Category calculation is added.

-       L253: again, n or N for global sample? Please, check norms.

Answer: It is reviewed and corrected. Now it reads "N"

 

-       L280: please check if it is “participation ins SIPs” or “participation in SIP” (without the s in “in”).

Answer: The text is reviewed and amended.

-       L303: please check the norms ("Journal norms") to quote a reference and page number directly.

Answer: The quote is reviewed and amended.

-       L330: double “in” (“differences in in psycho-social…”).

Answer: The sentence is reviewed and amended.

-       L395: Please add a capital letter in the beginning of the sentence “it’s important” (capital letter needed after the dot).

Answer: The sentence is reviewed and amended.

-       L399: Please add a dot after reference [57], before the following sentence

Answer: The dot is added.