Promoting the Wellbeing of Youth with Disabilities through Music Mentoring

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

• A brief summary This article describe a novel teaching opportunity for disabled youth to teach music in a school and how these pupils responded. 
• General concept comments
  Article: In the abstract could the authors make it clear if the school pupils that this musical  intervention was carried out with were typically developing ?
• Weakness: Research question is not clear and should come before the aims. Section 2.2 could the statement about public perceptions of disabled youth be supported by a reference? Suggest work by Curran and Runswick-Cole. Trustworthiness of methods needs further clarity by adding a sentence in 2.4 - evaluation of mixed methods- suggest considering the how triangulation of these different data sources adds value to the study- rigour/ trustworthiness. Tables need further clarity- suggest both tables use P<0.01** as in Table 2, rather than T column. Suggest 3.4 that the pseudonyms are stated and more information about the participants here, to give context. Very little detail is given here about the coding here to arrive at the themes, more detail would increase the  transparency. Themes would benefit from being outlined at the start of each section, possibly in a table. 
• Review: Section 2.2 very good detail of training of music mentors. The multiple perspectives give a rounded view of this novel approach which enhances the quality of the study this needs to be highlighted. The references are up to date and relevant. Relevant study limitations acknowledged.  
• Specific comments Stronger emphasis should be given to the benefit of mixed methods and how this enhances the study's trustworthiness/ rigour to increase the credibility.

Author Response

• General concept comments
  Article: In the abstract could the authors make it clear if the school pupils that this musical  intervention was carried out with were typically developing ?

This has been added.

• Weakness: Research question is not clear and should come before the aims.

This has been done.

• Section 2.2 could the statement about public perceptions of disabled youth be supported by a reference? Suggest work by Curran and Runswick-Cole.

Reference 25 (blinded) covers this point.

• Trustworthiness of methods needs further clarity by adding a sentence in 2.4 - evaluation of mixed methods- suggest considering the how triangulation of these different data sources adds value to the study- rigour/ trustworthiness.

This has been done.

• Tables need further clarity- suggest both tables use P<0.01** as in Table 2, rather than T column.

Tables 1 and 2 are consistent in how p values are reported.

• Suggest 3.4 that the pseudonyms are stated and more information about the participants here, to give context.

This detail is given in a previous section.

• Very little detail is given here about the coding here to arrive at the themes, more detail would increase the  transparency. Themes would benefit from being outlined at the start of each section, possibly in a table. 

The brevity of the section did not warrant additional details,

• Review: Section 2.2 very good detail of training of music mentors. The multiple perspectives give a rounded view of this novel approach which enhances the quality of the study this needs to be highlighted. The references are up to date and relevant. Relevant study limitations acknowledged.  
• Specific comments Stronger emphasis should be given to the benefit of mixed methods and how this enhances the study's trustworthiness/ rigour to increase the credibility.

Thanks for your helpful suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report

This an interesting paper of moderate value. The findings are valuable and could be used as starting point for further research. The paper, however, has little generalizing power due to the limited numbers of participants (N = 12). There are also some methodological weaknesses which do not make the paper very strong in terms of academic standards. I would not object to accept of the paper for publication, though I consider this paper not to add substantial value to the field.

 

General comments

 

• The language use is OK.
• The theoretical background is rather limited.
• The referencing style could be stronger to meet academic standards. The reference list is also not very impressive. Many claims and contents are rather gratuitous and unmotivated without strong grounding background.
• The number of participants (N = 12) is quite limited, which makes it difficult to generalize the results.
• The methodology of the paper is in general OK but some aspects could be elaborated more in depth. This holds especially for the assessment criteria and the measurement scales, which should be explained more in detail and also in more intuitive terms. Not all of them are well motivated and described in operational terms.
• Some major concepts should be explained more clearly. Example: CMO.
• The conclusion is very short.

Detailed remarks

• Page 1, 3^rd paragraph from bottom, last line: strange wording of the sentence: …persons with disabilities “were” described medications?
• Page 2, 2^nd “By contrast…” The contrast with what precedes is not very clear. Please explain better.
• Page 3, last paragraph. “Various methods …” Is there some motivation behind the choice for these methods, or is this just an arbitrary enumeration?
• Page 5, 3^rd The description of the lessons follows a certain pattern. Is there a rationale behind this pattern, a kind of motivation? Are there possible references which could be used as a background here?
• Page 5, 5^th from bottom: “specially devised scale”. Is it possible to comment a little on this scale, and to describe what is measured in particular?
• Page 5, 2^nd from bottom: is the rating of the mentors objective if the teaching assistant is helping? Is there not a problem of bias here?
• Page 5, last par. Codes were assigned… What about the reliability of the codes? How were they assigned? What were the objective criteria? This seems to be methodologically rather weak.
• Page 6, 1^st Same remark with respect to the validation by the project staff. On which basis was the validation done?
• Page 7, 2^nd: please explain better the cut-off for low self-esteem. What was the critical score here? And what is the motivation for this cut-off value?
• Page 9, last par.: … disabilities “as” teachers 
• Page 11, 2^nd: Explain somewhat more in detail the concept of “context-mechanism-outcome”

Author Response

Detailed remarks

Our response to the reviewer's comments is given in red on the page refrences cited by the reviewer.  We are grateful for his/her siggestions. 

• Page 1, 3^rd paragraph from bottom, last line: strange wording of the sentence: …persons with disabilities “were” described medications?
• Page 2, 2^nd “By contrast…” The contrast with what precedes is not very clear. Please explain better.
• Page 3, last paragraph. “Various methods …” Is there some motivation behind the choice for these methods, or is this just an arbitrary enumeration?
• Page 5, 3^rd The description of the lessons follows a certain pattern. Is there a rationale behind this pattern, a kind of motivation? Are there possible references which could be used as a background here?
• Page 5, 5^th from bottom: “specially devised scale”. Is it possible to comment a little on this scale, and to describe what is measured in particular?
• Page 5, 2^nd from bottom: is the rating of the mentors objective if the teaching assistant is helping? Is there not a problem of bias here?
• Page 5, last par. Codes were assigned… What about the reliability of the codes? How were they assigned? What were the objective criteria? This seems to be methodologically rather weak.
• Page 6, 1^st Same remark with respect to the validation by the project staff. On which basis was the validation done?
• Page 7, 2^nd: please explain better the cut-off for low self-esteem. What was the critical score here? And what is the motivation for this cut-off value?
• Page 9, last par.: … disabilities “as” teachers 
• Page 11, 2^nd: Explain somewhat more in detail the concept of “context-mechanism-outcome”

Reviewer 3 Report

I read the article carefully. I think the article has some strengths, among them: the presentation of the intervention through music, the test before and after the intervention and the combination of qualitative methodology and quantitative methodology. I have a number of suggestions for improving the article, in the current format.

 First, I think that the theoretical models underlying the research should be addressed earlier in the literature review. Especially the theoretical model of personal growth, which stems from the theory of positive psychology.Below I offer a number of articles through which one can see a reference to personal growth following non-traumatic events and it is advisable to cite them, or alternatively use the information within them to describe the process that both the mentors and the students went through.

The reference to music as an intervention tool is one of the strengths of the present study, but it is worth emphasizing both in the literature review and in the discussion the fact that the effectiveness of other art-based interventions should be examined.

The study was conducted in Ireland, it is recommended to address more extensively the cultural context and perception of people with disabilities both in legislation and in everyday life.

In the same context the literature review should address more extensively the issue of prejudices that children have about people with disabilities.

The third objective of the study, which relates to teachers has not been addressed in the literature review, the authors should expand the topic examined.

The method chapter describes in detail the mentors and participants, I recommend to add sociodemographic aspects of the participants, if there is data it is recommended to present a comparative table between the boys who served as mentors and the girls.

The findings section is well written.

The weak section of the article is the discussion section that does not address extensively enough the issues raised in the findings. Personal growth should be considered See suggested articles:

1.Taubman – Ben-Ari, O., Ben Shlomo, S., & Findler, L. (2014). First-time parents’ and grandparents’ perceptions of growth and their associations with self-esteem, cognitive appraisal, and social support: A dyadic approach. Journal of Family Social Work.17, 229 – 250. DOI: 10.1080/10522158.2014.888695

2.Ben Shlomo, S., & Taubman – Ben-Ari O. (2017). Child adjustment to first grade as perceived by the parents - The role of parent’s personal growth. Stress & Health. 33, 102-110. DOI: 10.1002/smi.2678

Findings about belonging to the community can also be addressed. See suggested studies:

1.Davidson, W. B., & Cotter, P. R. (1986). Measurement of sense of community within the sphere of city. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16(7), 608-619. doi.org/ 10.1111 /j.1559-1816.1986.tb01162.x.

2.Davidson, W. B., & Cotter, P. R. (1991). The relationship between sense of community and subjective well-being: A first look. Journal of Community Psychology, 19(3), 246–253. doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629.

This chapter can be expanded on about prejudices and the possibility of changing them, as well as adolescence and adolescence as developmental stages of identity search. The limitations of research should also be written more clearly.

Author Response

I read the article carefully. I think the article has some strengths, among them: the presentation of the intervention through music, the test before and after the intervention and the combination of qualitative methodology and quantitative methodology. I have a number of suggestions for improving the article, in the current format.

 First, I think that the theoretical models underlying the research should be addressed earlier in the literature review. Especially the theoretical model of personal growth, which stems from the theory of positive psychology. Below I offer a number of articles through which one can see a reference to personal growth following non-traumatic events and it is advisable to cite them, or alternatively use the information within them to describe the process that both the mentors and the students went through.

We have added the reference to personal growth.

The reference to music as an intervention tool is one of the strengths of the present study, but it is worth emphasizing both in the literature review and in the discussion the fact that the effectiveness of other art-based interventions should be examined.

We have noted this.

The study was conducted in Ireland, it is recommended to address more extensively the cultural context and perception of people with disabilities both in legislation and in everyday life.

This issue is addressed in a related article (refernce 25 which was blinded for the review) which also covers the next point.

In the same context the literature review should address more extensively the issue of prejudices that children have about people with disabilities.

The third objective of the study, which relates to teachers has not been addressed in the literature review, the authors should expand the topic examined.

Teacher and pupil attitudes to the mentors are reported in sections 3.5 and 3.6

The method chapter describes in detail the mentors and participants, I recommend to add sociodemographic aspects of the participants, if there is data it is recommended to present a comparative table between the boys who served as mentors and the girls.

These details are given in section  2.1 and the small number precluded a useful comparison by gender.

The findings section is well written.

The weak section of the article is the discussion section that does not address extensively enough the issues raised in the findings. Personal growth should be considered See suggested articles:

1.Taubman – Ben-Ari, O., Ben Shlomo, S., & Findler, L. (2014). First-time parents’ and grandparents’ perceptions of growth and their associations with self-esteem, cognitive appraisal, and social support: A dyadic approach. Journal of Family Social Work.17, 229 – 250. DOI: 10.1080/10522158.2014.888695

2.Ben Shlomo, S., & Taubman – Ben-Ari O. (2017). Child adjustment to first grade as perceived by the parents - The role of parent’s personal growth. Stress & Health. 33, 102-110. DOI: 10.1002/smi.2678

We cannot see the relvance of these articles to our study.

Findings about belonging to the community can also be addressed. See suggested studies:

1.Davidson, W. B., & Cotter, P. R. (1986). Measurement of sense of community within the sphere of city. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16(7), 608-619. doi.org/ 10.1111 /j.1559-1816.1986.tb01162.x.

2.Davidson, W. B., & Cotter, P. R. (1991). The relationship between sense of community and subjective well-being: A first look. Journal of Community Psychology, 19(3), 246–253. doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629.

These are outdated articles which the literature we cited have superceded.

This chapter can be expanded on about prejudices and the possibility of changing them, as well as adolescence and adolescence as developmental stages of identity search. The limitations of research should also be written more clearly.

As this was a relatively modest study with a small sample we were reluctant to broaden the discussion.