Validation and Standardization of a Questionnaire for the Self-Assessment of Service-Learning Experiences in Higher Education (QaSLu-27)
, Pilar Aramburuzabala, Rosario Cerrillo and Roberto Sánchez-Cabrero *Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this article, a validation and standardization of a questionnaire for the self-assessment of service-learning experiences in higher education (QaSLu-27) is performed.
The paper is well organized. The research is well designed and a clear objective is set. The authors give enough details regarding their approach. It is scientifically thorough in description and properly cites literature where needed. Finally, the references are up-to-date.
I think this article has good potential but, before being considered ready for publication, some aspects need to be clarified and improved. Specifically, I have to note the following:
1)Difine in the abstract the acronym QaSLu.
2)In the introduction the authors should mention briefly the main contribution of the work, and describe the adopted methodology step by step.
3)Please note at the end of the Introduction section the structure of the submission.
4)In the discussion section the authors should note the limitations and the potential issues of this study, emphasizing the application nature of the proposed method in practice.
5)I recommend the authors discuss the merits of the proposed approach.
6)Conclusions can discuss future research directions and extensions of the study.
7)The biggest weakness of this submission is the use of the English language.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Extensive editing of the English language is required.
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
Thank you very much for your positive feedback on our manuscript. It was very important for us that you found our work interesting and important.
We have improved each section to provide an enhanced manuscript with a superior writing quality. We greatly appreciate these suggestions. In total, the changes and improvements made resulted in the addition of around 530 words. We have made a simple modification in the abstract, we have added two new paragraphs in the introduction, we have given some explanations and analysis in the procedure and results, we have rewritten some paragraphs of discussion and conclusions, we have elaborated a new table (Table 4), and we have put in two new references.
In attachments, we provide a point-by-point summary of our response to your comments. These improvements are clearly highlighted with the change control and underlined them in yellow. These modifications have substantially enhanced our work, and we are very grateful for your valuable input.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for a very interesting manuscript, and for doing important work.
I would find the validation more solid if the manuscript also included Confirmatory Factor Analysis and measurement invariance analysis.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNo specific comment other than the manuscript should be proof read, at least for grammar.
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
Thank you very much for your positive feedback on our manuscript. It was very important for us that you found our work interesting and important.
We have improved each section to provide an enhanced manuscript with a superior writing quality. We greatly appreciate these suggestions. In total, the changes and improvements made resulted in the addition of around 530 words. We have made a simple modification in the abstract, we have added two new paragraphs in the introduction, we have given some explanations and analysis in the procedure and results, we have rewritten some paragraphs of discussion and conclusions, we have elaborated a new table (Table 4), and we have put in two new references.
In attachments, we provide a point-by-point summary of our response to your comments. These improvements are clearly highlighted with the change control and underlined them in yellow. These modifications have substantially enhanced our work, and we are very grateful for your valuable input.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCongratulations for the work done.
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
Thank you very much for your positive feedback on our manuscript. It was very important for us that you found our work interesting and important.
We have improved each section to provide an enhanced manuscript with a superior writing quality. We greatly appreciate these suggestions. In total, the changes and improvements made resulted in the addition of around 530 words. We have made a simple modification in the abstract, we have added two new paragraphs in the introduction, we have given some explanations and analysis in the procedure and results, we have rewritten some paragraphs of discussion and conclusions, we have elaborated a new table (Table 4), and we have put in two new references.
In attachments, we provide a point-by-point summary of our response to your comments. These improvements are clearly highlighted with the change control and underlined them in yellow. These modifications have substantially enhanced our work, and we are very grateful for your valuable input.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
