Analyzing the Associations between Facets of Physical Literacy, Physical Fitness, and Physical Activity Levels: Gender- and Age-Specific Cross-Sectional Study in Preadolescent Children

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you to the authors for their contributions to the literature on associations between PL domains and physical fitness in adolescents. Below are my comments to be addressed:

P1, Line 31–34: "Finally, studies have confirmed the positive association between PF, quality of life, and health of children and adolescents, while there is a strong body of evidence that the level of PF and academic success are positively related." The 'while' seems out of place and I recommend revising the sentence for clarity (e.g., "in addition to a strong body of evidence demonstrating a positive relationship between PF & academic success").

P2, Line 57–58: The references cited for the sentence "there is no consensus on which is most appropriate" require revision; particularly 24 & 25. There are much more relevant publications that offer the same narrative. See Liu & Chen, 2020 https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X20925502 for example.

P2, Line 59–60: Revise "the most popular and commonly used tools..." to "one of the most popular and commonly used tools..."

P2, Line 61–63: Support this sentence with relevant research such as Cairney et al. 2019 http://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-019-01063-3

P3, Line 110: You begin with a parantheses around (PLAYbasic.... but do not include another to close it. There should also be a citation here for the PLAYself.

P3, Line 113–115: The authors state the self-report of PL assesses "a number of affective and cognitive segments (e.g., motivation, confidence, and self-esteem). One of my primary concerns is the description of PLAYself as a 'physical literacy assessment'. Following the definition authors' described earlier on P2, Line 54–56 ("PL is the motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge, and understanding to value and take responsibility for engagement in physical activities for life”), it is evident the PLAYself only measures self-efficacy and does not measure PL holistically. The environment section of the PLAYself manual specifically states, "This section of the PLAYself form helps to observe each child’s degree of confidence in most environments (land, water, ice and snow)." Then, the 'Physical Literacy Self-Description Score' is used to determine the child's self-efficacy as it relates to participation in physical activity. The disconnect between the stated definition and measures of PL is concerning as PL research has recently advocated for a more cohesive link between research aims and assessments (e.g., Carl et al. 2022 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2021.102091; Carl et al. 2023 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-023-01423-3). As such, it advised that the authors need to recognize their study does not measure PL and therefore can only state the study assesses particular domains of PL (affective & cognitive). Revisions are required to comprehensively address this issue when discussing their aim of the study, study limitations, and language surrounding measured relationships to "PL" throughout– including the title.

P8, Line 279: "logical correlations between difference anthropometric indices in both genders" – should this be 'different'?

P12 Limitations: Make note here of the limitations of the PLAYself when compared to other measures of PL, particularly in regard to its' inability to measure PL holistically.

Author Response

Thank you to the authors for their contributions to the literature on associations between PL domains and physical fitness in adolescents. Below are my comments to be addressed:

RESPONSE: Thank you for recognizing the potential of our work. Also, thank you for providing us with valuable comments. We tried to follow it and amended the manuscript accordingly. All changes are indicated by text highlighted in yellow. Please see bellow for responses. Staying at your disposal.

P1, Line 31–34: "Finally, studies have confirmed the positive association between PF, quality of life, and health of children and adolescents, while there is a strong body of evidence that the level of PF and academic success are positively related." The 'while' seems out of place and I recommend revising the sentence for clarity (e.g., "in addition to a strong body of evidence demonstrating a positive relationship between PF & academic success").

RESPONSE: It is now replaced and added.

P2, Line 57–58: The references cited for the sentence "there is no consensus on which is most appropriate" require revision; particularly 24 & 25. There are much more relevant publications that offer the same narrative. See Liu & Chen, 2020 https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X20925502 for example.

RESPONSE: Thank you, the reference is added as suggested (Liu, Y. and S.L. Chen, Physical literacy in children and adolescents: Definitions, assessments, and interventions. European Physical Education Review, 2021. 27(1): p. 96-112.)

P2, Line 59–60: Revise "the most popular and commonly used tools..." to "one of the most popular and commonly used tools..."

RESPONSE: It is now replaced.

P2, Line 61–63: Support this sentence with relevant research such as Cairney et al. 2019 http://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-019-01063-3

RESPONSE: Thank you, the reference is added as suggested (Cairney, J., et al., Physical Literacy, Physical Activity and Health: Toward an Evidence-Informed Conceptual Model. Sports Medicine, 2019. 49(3): p. 371-383. )

P3, Line 110: You begin with a parantheses around (PLAYbasic.... but do not include another to close it. There should also be a citation here for the PLAYself.

RESPONSE: It is closed now and citation is added. Thank you.

P3, Line 113–115: The authors state the self-report of PL assesses "a number of affective and cognitive segments (e.g., motivation, confidence, and self-esteem). One of my primary concerns is the description of PLAYself as a 'physical literacy assessment'. Following the definition authors' described earlier on P2, Line 54–56 ("PL is the motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge, and understanding to value and take responsibility for engagement in physical activities for life”), it is evident the PLAYself only measures self-efficacy and does not measure PL holistically. The environment section of the PLAYself manual specifically states, "This section of the PLAYself form helps to observe each child’s degree of confidence in most environments (land, water, ice and snow)." Then, the 'Physical Literacy Self-Description Score' is used to determine the child's self-efficacy as it relates to participation in physical activity. The disconnect between the stated definition and measures of PL is concerning as PL research has recently advocated for a more cohesive link between research aims and assessments (e.g., Carl et al. 2022 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2021.102091; Carl et al. 2023 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-023-01423-3). As such, it advised that the authors need to recognize their study does not measure PL and therefore can only state the study assesses particular domains of PL (affective & cognitive). Revisions are required to comprehensively address this issue when discussing their aim of the study, study limitations, and language surrounding measured relationships to "PL" throughout– including the title.

RESPONSE: Thank you for your suggestion and explanation. Indeed, it the origirinal version of the manuscript we tried to oversimplify the problem for better understanding. In this version of the manuscript, following your suggestion, we directly specified that we observed affective and cognitive domains of PL, and this concept is later followed in the whole manuscript including title which now reads. “Analyzing the associations between facets of physical literacy, physical fitness, and physical activity levels; gender- and age-specific cross-sectional study in preadolescent children”. Therefore, the abbreviation PL_AC is also used throughout the manuscript. Thank you!

P8, Line 279: "logical correlations between difference anthropometric indices in both genders" – should this be 'different'?

RESPONSE: It is now replaced, thank you.

P12 Limitations: Make note here of the limitations of the PLAYself when compared to other measures of PL, particularly in regard to its' inability to measure PL holistically.

RESPONSE: As suggested we specified our approach as one of the study limitations, and txt reads: “Finally, this study examined only affective and cognitive domains of PL, and therefore more holistic approach is needed in order to evaluate the associations between observed factors in more details.” (please see Limitations and Strengths subsection, thank you!)

Staying at your disposal.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. I commend the authors for conducting research that deepens the evidence base of Physical Literacy. The research questions addressed in this paper are interesting to the field and their rationale is soundly presented throughout the Introduction section. I'd also like to commend the authors for such a thorough and rigorous approach to reliability testing of the different fitness tests.

In my opinion, it is overall clear and logically structured. However, there are areas within the paper that could be improved before publication to make this work more robust regarding the disclosure of data collection details and the validity and reliability of the PL measures used, which I detail in the enclosed annotated manuscript, along with some other suggestions and comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

As mentioned in my overall comment above, the level of English used in the manuscript is generally good and doesn't impact the comprehension of most of the points made. I would, nonetheless, advise the authors to perform a thorough review to ensure that all sentences are grammatically sound. I've left some comments regarding some sentences that I found could be improved.

Author Response

Dear authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. I commend the authors for conducting research that deepens the evidence base of Physical Literacy. The research questions addressed in this paper are interesting to the field and their rationale is soundly presented throughout the Introduction section. I'd also like to commend the authors for such a thorough and rigorous approach to reliability testing of the different fitness tests.

In my opinion, it is overall clear and logically structured. However, there are areas within the paper that could be improved before publication to make this work more robust regarding the disclosure of data collection details and the validity and reliability of the PL measures used, which I detail in the enclosed annotated manuscript, along with some other suggestions and comments.

 As mentioned in my overall comment above, the level of English used in the manuscript is generally good and doesn't impact the comprehension of most of the points made. I would, nonetheless, advise the authors to perform a thorough review to ensure that all sentences are grammatically sound. I've left some comments regarding some sentences that I found could be improved.

RESPONSE: Thank you for your support and for recognizing the potential of our work. We tried to follow all your comments and amended the manuscript accordingly. Please see following responses.

P2, Line  54-56: “I'd advise using the original Whitehead/IPLA source as reference here.”

Response: Thank you, the reference is added as suggested (Whitehead, M., Definition of physical literacy and clarification of related issues. Icsspe Bulletin, 2013. 65(1.2).

P2, Line 60: “I believe the author(s) meant "level of PL"”

RESPONSE: It is now corrected, we apologize for this error.

P2, Line 68-70: “To provide a clearer picture as to whether they consider PF as part of PL, I believe the authors should: 1. briefly address the discussion on whether PF should be part of PL at all; 2. ensure that they stick with the same conceptualisation throughout, i.e., on lines 68-74, after having referred to PF as part of Physical Competence, and PL itself, they refer to PF and associated variables as an external construct to PL; as a suggestion, they should refer to which domains are being assessed in each of the cited studies (as they did in the conclusion).”

RESPONSE. Indeed, originally, we missed to specify that we actually “measured” cognitive and affective domains of PL. We hope this is now clearly elaborated. The newly added text in Introduction now reads: “Indeed, PL is a holistic concept and consists of numerous domains including PA behavior, physical competence, motivation, confidence, knowledge, and understanding, which emphasizes affective, physical and cognitive predispositions necessary to take part in PA throughout the life course [24, 25]. When it comes to the affective domain, it includes confidence, motivation, enjoyment, commitment, autonomy, self-esteem and perceived physical competence, which, according to the PL definition, makes it one of the most important domains responsible for lifelong participation in PA [25].” (please see 5^th paragraph of the Introduction section, thank you)

On line 69, I believe the authors meant "[...] cardiorespiratory fitness (aerobic fitness) and PL".

RESPONSE: Thank you, it is corrected.

P2, Line 85: “I'd advise uniformising the language used, unless a specific nuance is intended: either preadolescent or pre-pubescent.”

RESPONSE: Thank you for your suggestion. We used term “preadolescent” exclusively.

P2, Line 87: “The same argument made earlier regarding PF should be addressed for PAL: from the authors' position, is PAL part of PL (as the CAPL conceptualisation deems to be)? I'd encourage this to be addressed earlier in the Introduction.”

RESPONSE: Thank you for your suggestion. We believe that the changes we made and explained previously correspond to this specific ask also.

P2, Line 91: “I'd advise replacing this for "53 girls" to keep it in line with the Abstract, or vice-versa.”

RESPONSE: It is now replaced. Thank you for your suggestion.

P3, Line 98-99: “Retest period? Justification for the size of retest sample.”

RESPONSE: Thank you, it is now explained. Text reads: “For the reliability study, a subsample of 21 randomly selected children was tested across test and retest trial, within the time frame of 7-10 days. The number of participants tested in reliability study assured sufficient number of observations for achieving normal distributions of the result, while at the same time allowed similar testing conditions in relative short time period, which was crucial for stability of testing.” (please see end of Participants subsection).

Line 110: PLAYinventory)

RESPONSE: Corrected, thank you.

P3, Line 127: “Same as above. TP”

RESPONSE: It is now replaced. Thank you.

P3, Line 127-129: “Upon examination of the cited paper, I'd advise the authors to hedge their own results and inferences on this paper, given that the provided source does not provide credible structural/construct evidence of the validity of the use of a single PLAYself score other than known-groups validity. I.e., in said article, only a Exploratory Factor Analysis is performed to obtain evidence of the adequacy of summing all items under the same dimension, and upon obtain evidence for the existence of two possible latent dimensions (sub-constructs), no discussion ensues of these results; resulting the the final sum score being used regardless.”

RESPONSE: Thank you for your suggestion. Indeed, the previous study evidenced two latent dimensions, and therefore “summarizing” of scores as “single result” could be questioned. We will certainly pay attention on this problem in future. For a moment we noted is as one of the study limitations and highlighted necessity of the more in depth analysis of questionnaire validity in local languages. Also, we avoided statement on “validity” in the subsection on Variables. Text reads: “ Third, only one study examined the validity of the PLAC questionnaire in local languages in the region (i.e. territory of former Yugoslavia) so far, and we don’t have definite proofs of validity of this measurement tool.” (please see Limitations)

P4, Line 140-144: “I'd encourage the authors to provide details on test appraisers, e.g., number of appraisers, training and/or experience of said appraisers. Other relevant methodological details include application setting (of both the survey-based methods and fitness tests).”

RESPONSE: As you suggested, we gave more details on testers, and procedures. For PF and anthropometrics text reads: “Body composition and anthropometrics were evaluated by highly skilled technician, with long term experience in testing. Fitness tests were evaluated by physical education teachers, and one examiner tested all children at one test. Altogether five examiners tested all children. All evaluators were experienced and specifically instructed for performing the tests before the study. However, we must mention that some of the PF tests were well known to all evaluators (please see later for details), because they are regularly used in schools in Croatia.” (please see first paragraph of the Variables subsection). For the PL and PAL text reads: “For the testing of the PAL and PLAC, online testing platform was used, and children were tested in school classroom in small groups. One of the examiners was available if the children needed help during the test, but the examiner was positioned behind the computer screen and could not see the answers. testing was carried out in small groups, up to 10 children, and the children could not see the other participants’ answers.” (please see end of the 3^rd paragraph of the Variables subsection)

Line 159-160: Why have the authors chosen to use the number of laps instead of a VO2 max estimate? This would be crucial, given that two differently-aged children could attain the same degree of VO2max with different number of laps.

RESPONSE: Indeed, we simply reported the number of laps, but this was mostly because we examined relatively small age-span, and did age-stratified analyses. However, in this version of the manuscript we calculated VO2 as suggested, and used these data in analyses as you suggested (please see Tables). Thank you.

P4, Line 185-186: “Please report these results.”

And please ensure you refer readers to Supplementary table 1 for descriptive statistics.

Please ensure you refer to how many children were in each group (3rd and 4th graders). I believe this information is not disclosed in the manuscript. This detail will also impact the choice between different types of factorial ANOVA (balanced vs unbalanced designs).

Also, please ensure you disclose: the n for each variable, missing data percentage and the means used to account for that data in the different tests ran.

RESPONSE: Results of the KS test are now presented in the Supplementary table where statistics for the total sample are also included. Also, number of participants in each subgroup is presented in Participants subsection, and later in Tables when necessary. The “n” for all variables is noted in the descriptive statistics table (supplementary file). Thank you!

P5, Line 210: “Why are ICC being reported separately for test and retest? If the interest is on test-retest reliability/stability, I'd advise the authors to simplify and only present ICC results pertinent to the comparison of test and retest (and its CI).”

RESPONSE: Thank you. In this version of the manuscript we presented test-retest ICC as suggested, and discussed it accordingly.

P7, Line 257-268: I'd advise the authors to also assess the magnitude of the correlation instead of focusing solely on statistical significance--in line with current guidelines exhorting the use of effect sizes along with NSHT. Also, in lines 265-268 I would encourage the authors to note that positive statistically significant moderate correlations were present in the data between BH and PL, BM and PL in 3rd graders; and discuss it further in the discussion section. Finally, I'd encourage the authors to provide a 95%CI for the Pearson correlations presented to provide a sense of spread of these correlations.

RESPONSE: Thank you for your suggestions.

First, with regard to 95%CI for correlations; we included it, but now the correlation tables do not fit into manuscript template so we moved it into Supplementary tables) However, in this version of the manuscript we presented “magnitudes of correlation” in (newly added) correlation tables.

As you suggested, the correlation between BH and PL, and BM and PL in 3^rd graders is now presented in Results section and text now reads “In 3rd graders pacer test was negatively correlated with body mass index, and fat mass, while PLAC was negatively correlated to body mass, body height and BMI.” However, we must note that we didn’t discuss these correlations in details later on simply because these analyses included both genders, and each gender specified “within-gender PL”.

P10, Line 333-334: “Please review the grammar on this sentence.”

RESPONSE: Thank you for your suggestion. We restructured the statement and it reads: “Since motor fitness in children is highly influenced by their biological maturity, it is possible that variations in biological maturity increased the variance of fitness tests, resulting in: (i) high correlation between test and retest, and (ii) high reliability in studied fitness tests [49].” (please see end of 3^rd paragraph of the subsection 4.1 Reliability)

P12, Line 417-425: “I'd encourage the authors to expand on the role of Physical Education classes in Croatia as an eventual equaliser in terms of structured participation in PA and as an eventual determinant of higher levels of PL as well. This could include summarising whether PE is mandatory during this age range and whether this could impact the observed results.”

RESPONSE: Thank you for your suggestion. Indeed, PE could be important determinant of PL, but in this study we were not in position to define its eventual influence. Namely, we examined only children who were regularly involved in PE, and therefore couldn’t determine possible differences between groups of interest. However, it is now specified, and text reads: “One could argue that PE could also positively influence the PL in children. However, in this study we are not able to discuss such influence in more details. In brief, PE is mandatory school-subject for all (healthy) children, and we observed only children who regularly participated in PE classes (please see Methods section for inclusion criteria). Therefore, we couldn’t calculate eventual differences between groups of interest (included vs. non-included in PE).” (please see 4^th paragraph of the subheading 4.3. Correlations between physical literacy and physical activity levels; thank you!)

P12, Line 439: “Based on a previous comment of mine, I'd encourage the authors to hedge their results and consider the paucity of structural validity evidence for the PLAYself total score for this population as a limitation, which could have biased the results obtained. Also, I would also encourage the authors to discuss their understanding of the impact of statistical analyses chosen, i.e., a multiple regression would enable the authors to consider/account for both gender and age at the same time (for each of the study variables) and discuss the impact of possible interactions.”

RESPONSE: Thank you for your suggestion. Indeed, we performed relatively simple statistical procedures, and in future we will definitively follow your suggestion. Therefore, in the Limitation subsection we highlighted both issues (i.e. validity and “multiple regression approach”), and text reads: “Third, since only one study examined the validity of the PLAC questionnaire in local languages in the region (i.e. territory of former Yugoslavia) so far, and we don’t have definite proofs of validity of this measurement tool. Also, in this study we performed gen-der-specific and age-stratified correlation analyses while using simple univariate procedures. Therefore, in further studies more complex (multiple) regression analyses are needed to consider possible interactions between variables of interest.” (please see Limitations and strengths subsection)

Staying at your disposal, and thank you once again.

Reviewer 3 Report

Short summary
The aim of the study is to evaluate both age- and genderstratified correlations between the concept of physical literacy PL, Physical Fitness PF and physical activity levels PAL among children age span 9-11 years old.

Added to this aim is also to examine the reliability of the test-resets of the used tests for PF in their studied user-group (children 9-11 years). The authors share that they had two hypothesis for the outcome of their research; that PL will be positively associated with PF and that PL will be positively associated with PAL in the studied groups.

PAL was found to have significant correlations to PL for girls of mixed ages and for mixed gender participants in the 4th grades, whereas no correlations was found in the studied groups between PF and PAL. The reliability of the test-retest of the selected tests for PF was from statistic perspective, appropriate to high (highest for the broad-jump and sit-and-reach test).

The authors of the manuscript present in a clear way how they performed the study. The design of the study is straightforward and followed. The results are presented in figures and tables and analysed through the use of statistic methods.

The authors of the manuscript present themselves as long-time professionals in PE and actively involved in school and after school activities and they make use of this experience in their discussion and interpretation of causality between variables. At the same time the authors point towards the design of this study being cross-sectional and as such does not allow for a deeper interpretation of causality between variables. They point towards intervention study design.

Maybe the authors could save their interpretation based on their experience as prof in PE and for future research design and undertake a intervention study where their experience may have a greater opportunity to discuss outcome.

This study does what it set out to do - explore correlations between some tests and surveys in PL PF and PAL. 

line 440-442 here an explanation related to the study-design and the results are provided. In order to provide an interpretation of the possible relationships between Pl, PF and PAL the authors points towards an intervention study. During heading Limitations and strengths and heading Discussion 

line 433-437 the authors describes themselves as familiar and actively involved in school activities and also in activities performed after-school. Due to this situation they witness from this experience that the situation from a perspective of activities during free time among boys is more vigorous than among girls.

The language is clear and easy to follow. Under heading Discussion it makes use of more everyday spoken language - which is fine during that heading.

Author Response

Short summary

The aim of the study is to evaluate both age- and gender-stratified correlations between the concept of physical literacy PL, Physical Fitness PF and physical activity levels PAL among children age span 9-11 years old.

Added to this aim is also to examine the reliability of the test-resets of the used tests for PF in their studied user-group (children 9-11 years). The authors share that they had two hypothesis for the outcome of their research; that PL will be positively associated with PF and that PL will be positively associated with PAL in the studied groups.

PAL was found to have significant correlations to PL for girls of mixed ages and for mixed gender participants in the 4th grades, whereas no correlations was found in the studied groups between PF and PAL. The reliability of the test-retest of the selected tests for PF was from statistic perspective, appropriate to high (highest for the broad-jump and sit-and-reach test).

RESPONSE: Thank you for recognizing the quality of our work

The authors of the manuscript present in a clear way how they performed the study. The design of the study is straightforward and followed. The results are presented in figures and tables and analysed through the use of statistic methods.

The authors of the manuscript present themselves as long-time professionals in PE and actively involved in school and after school activities and they make use of this experience in their discussion and interpretation of causality between variables. At the same time the authors point towards the design of this study being cross-sectional and as such does not allow for a deeper interpretation of causality between variables. They point towards intervention study design.

RESPONSE: Indeed, we tried to highlight the practical issues of the investigation. Thank you for recognizing it.

Maybe the authors could save their interpretation based on their experience as prof in PE and for future research design and undertake a intervention study where their experience may have a greater opportunity to discuss outcome.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We followed your comment and added notation about future studies in the Conclusion section. Text reads: “While this study intended to define correlations between fitness, physical activity and PL indices, further intervention studies are needed. Specifically, it will be important to identify effects of targeted interventions which will aim specific factors (i.e. PL) on changes of PL, but also corresponding changes of PF and PAL.” (please see Conclusion section)

This study does what it set out to do - explore correlations between some tests and surveys in PL PF and PAL.

RESPONSE: Yes, the main intention was to evidence the correlations between PF, PL and PAL. In this version of the paper we tried to improve the writing, but also made changes in statistical methods. For example, correlations are presented in more “figurative” way in order to assure better understanding. For this reason, we used coloured table for presenting the magnitude of the correlations, rather then “numerical table”.

line 440-442 here an explanation related to the study-design and the results are provided. In order to provide an interpretation of the possible relationships between Pl, PF and PAL the authors points towards an intervention study. During heading Limitations and strengths and heading Discussion

RESPONSE: The intervention study will definitively be the next step in our investigation. It is now included in the Conclusion as you suggested later on. Thank you!

line 433-437 the authors describes themselves as familiar and actively involved in school activities and also in activities performed after-school. Due to this situation they witness from this experience that the situation from a perspective of activities during free time among boys is more vigorous than among girls.

The language is clear and easy to follow. Under heading Discussion it makes use of more everyday spoken language - which is fine during that heading.

REPONSE: Once again, we must thank you for recognizing the potential of our work. We hope that changes we made improved the readability and quality of the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for your application of major revisions, I believe your paper makes a strong contribution to PL research. I recommend acceptance once minor revisions are made. 

Considering the changes made to the paper in regard to facets of PL, I recommend changes to the second hypothesis on Page 2 Lines 95-96. "PL will be positively associated with..." Should this not be "Facets of PL will be positively associated with..." ? 

Some revisions are required to ensure sentence structure/grammar is refined:

Page 3 lines 108-109, "The number of participants tested in reliability study" – there should be 'the' after 'in' ("in the reliability study...")

Page 3 lines 121-122, "Body composition and anthropometrics were evaluated by highly skilled technician" –  there should be an 'a' after 'by' ("by a highly...").

Author Response

Thank you for your application of major revisions, I believe your paper makes a strong contribution to PL research. I recommend acceptance once minor revisions are made.

Response: Dear Sir/Madam, thank you for the feedback and valuable suggestions that have contributed to strengthening the quality of this paper. Your comments have been valuable and have enabled us to further improve the content. Thank you for your recommendation, We endeavored to implement the changes promptly.

Considering the changes made to the paper in regard to facets of PL, I recommend changes to the second hypothesis on Page 2 Lines 95-96. "PL will be positively associated with..." Should this not be "Facets of PL will be positively associated with..." ? 

Response: Thank you for providing your observations and suggestions. It is  now remade (please see line 95)

Some revisions are required to ensure sentence structure/grammar is refined:

Page 3 lines 108-109, "The number of participants tested in reliability study" – there should be 'the' after 'in' ("in the reliability study...")

Response: Thank you. It is added now. (please see line 109)

Page 3 lines 121-122, "Body composition and anthropometrics were evaluated by highly skilled technician" –  there should be an 'a' after 'by' ("by a highly...").

Response: Thank you. It is added now. (please see line 122)

Staying at your disposal.