Design and Psychometric Properties of the Student Perception of Teacher Care Scale in University Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is interesting and proposes a topic rarely seen in education. Most studies focus on analyzing how good a methodology is or how students learn, but the issue of the students' emotional state is not analyzed.

Although the text is interesting, there is too much statistics and little descriptive content. This makes the document difficult to understand. Possibly, the text needs more description of the sample, more description of the process, and more description of the results. Although it is understood that it is the validation of a scale, more description of the items and their justification is recommended. Also, more description of the results and how this scale can help improve students' moods is recommended.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 

Thank you for your thorough review of our manuscript. We appreciate your insightful feedback and have diligently addressed the concerns you raised in the introduction and discussion of the manuscript.  

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback. 

Best regards, 

Corresponding author. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

p.1.6 "a significant social action" = What does this mean? 

p.1.8/9 Depending on your reference format, you need to place the M and SD in italics.

p.1.17 I would start a new sentence with "In addition". Throughout your manuscript, you use very long sentences. In combination with the high informational density, it becomes difficult to read. Please revise accordingly. I would really stress that you work on this aspect. It would benefit your manuscript.  

Abstract But what about the interpretation? The development per se does not warrant sufficient arguments to conduct the research. 

Key words Why use "university professors" as a key word? 

p.1.44 I do not understand the link to--specifically--Christian education. 

p.2.49-55 Why is this relevant? 

p.2.57 Write numbers up till twenty completely. Thus, 5 = five. 

p.2 Overall, aim for more coherence on this page. The text is quite fragmented. You can make use of signaling words or repeat information to create coherence. Looking at the complexity of the sentences, you have a good understanding what information you have to convey. 

p.2.79-90 This is an example to split the long(er) sentences in two. You already have an indication in each sentence where to split them (e.g., Likewise, However, In addition).

p.3.104 There is an extra space inserted here. Idem for p.3.110; p.3.114; p.3.117.

p.3.122 "has also been proposed" = By whom?

p.3.125 "that is" = New sentence. The two words are redundant (or replace them with a more formal alternative). 

p.3.132 "his or her".

p.3.140 "reporting" = reporting on.

p.3.131-142 What is the take home message?

p.Table1 Keep an eye on the borders (the current version is lacking the outside border). Maybe with additional revisions, this is not necessary anymore.

p.5.176-182 Depending on the reference format, the anchor points of a Likert-scale should be presented differently.

p.6 I would suggest to move Table 2 to the Appendix. There is a lot of information that the reader does not necessarily know. A concise description with the main pieces of information will suffice. 

p.7 The use of spaces surrounding the statistics in inconsistent. Compare "P < .001" versus ">0.9". Revise accordingly. 

p.Figure 1 The figure is very small and a bit pixelated. Can you insert an image with a better quality?

p.7.272 Avoid back-to-back brackets. Thus (y)(x) = (y; x). 

p.Table3 Move to appendix to increase the readability of your manuscript. 

p.Figure 2 The figure is rather small. I can barely read the numbers. 

p.10.283 You used a comma to separate statistics, whereas you use a semicolon in this table. 

p.12.352-360 But the premise of  this is that you expect a baseline of care. Is this universal? With the high working load of teachers, this might not be feasible. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See above. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 

Thank you for your thorough review of our manuscript. We appreciate your insightful feedback and have diligently addressed the concerns you raised in the introduction and discussion of the manuscript.  

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback. 

Best regards, 

Corresponding author. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article begins with a solid introduction that establishes the importance of teacher care perception in the university educational context, referring to previous theories and relevant empirical studies. However, there are moments when it could benefit from deeper exploration into specific studies or examples that directly connect with the constructs to be measured. As an improvement, it could be enriched with a more detailed discussion on how the perception of teacher care has been addressed in different fields or educational contexts, including a comparison with the outcomes of previous research and how this study fills specific gaps left by other research, particularly in terms of practical application in different educational settings.

The study presents a clear methodological design, with a detailed description of the sample, instruments, and statistical analysis. Despite this, the justification for the sample selection could be more robust. Moreover, a limiting aspect of the study is the inability to generalize the results due to the lack of sample representativeness. As an improvement: Expand the justification for the non-probabilistic sample selection and how this may influence the generalization of the results.

The discussion integrates well the results with the existing literature, though at some points, a greater critique or exploration of possible alternative explanations for certain findings could be done. To this end, including a discussion section that more directly addresses the study's limitations and how these may have influenced the results is advised.

The study tackles an important area with a new instrument, although the concept of "teacher care" is not new in itself. It would improve with a discussion on how it compares and contrasts with existing instruments, which could highlight its originality more.

It is a solid study with some aspects that could be improved for greater analytical and critical depth. Although the article is of high merit, recognizing and addressing its limitations more critically could strengthen its overall contribution.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 

Thank you for your thorough review of our manuscript. We appreciate your insightful feedback and have diligently addressed the concerns you raised in the introduction and discussion of the manuscript.  

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback. 

Best regards, 

Corresponding author.