Not Just a Toy: Puppets for Autistic Teenagers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article addresses a very interesting and relevant topic for the development of educational intervention with autistic young people. Methodologically it is adequate, however the bibliographic search in a single source may have reduced the sample excessively, something that could perhaps have been overcome by using sources such as Scopus, ProQuest, WOS, etc.

The text includes numerous typos in graphics, mainly in the summary and bibliographic references. It is absolutely necessary to review this point. The text is attached with some of the typos underlined in yellow.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you  so much for drawing my attention to the errors in the Bibliography. I have made the corrections and am very grateful to you. I had a very difficult time formatting the references and appreciate the "fresh eye" and opportunity to make corrections.

Warmly,

Olivia

Reviewer 2 Report

The article "Not Just a Toy: Puppets For Autistic Teenagers" discusses the use of puppets in therapeutic interventions for adolescents with autism. It should be critically assessed before considering publication. The main concerns pertain to methodology, data selection, and language usage.

The article is presented as a review study; however, the methodology is inadequately defined. Specific information about data selection and the search engines utilized is missing. This significantly reduces the credibility and replicability of the results.

Clear information about how studies and sources discussed in the article were chosen is not provided. This lack of transparency raises questions about the validity and comprehensiveness of the review.

In its current form, the article does not meet the standards necessary for publication. It is crucial for the authors to revise and provide a more robust methodology, along with a transparent process for data selection. Additionally, it is strongly recommended, especially in the context of special education topics, that person-first language be utilized, which is not reflected even in the title.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your feedback and I agree in re-reading the methodology lacks clarity and the details about the selection of articles is lacking. I appreciate your attention to this important aspect of the genre-thank you.

I wonder if you were aware of the move towards identity first language when writing about Autism. It seems that appropriate disability language is constantly evolving. My language use was intentional and applied throughout the paper consistently.

This link may be informative:

https://www.autismcrc.com.au/language-choice

Warmly,

Olivia

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors and editor,

 

Thank you for allowing me to review this intriguing manuscript. The manuscript explores the benefits of puppetry for autistic children. This review delves into the value of puppetry for autistic teenagers and attempts to identify the potential advantages of using puppets for their learning and well-being. The study aims to investigate if puppetry remains relevant for older students leaving school and how puppets can complement the well-established benefits for younger children.

 

Here are some suggestions for clarification and expansion:

 

Introduction: The introduction could benefit from more depth, possibly by establishing a theoretical connection, particularly regarding children and youth with autism. This could include references to relevant theories, such as Biesta's (e.g., line 110, page 3), to emphasize the significance. Especially considering the study's objective, which is to examine whether puppetry maintains its relevance for older students as they transition out of school and how puppets can enhance the already established advantages seen in younger children.

 

Highlight Key Findings: Several key findings are identified, such as the importance of providing a sense of security, the ability to personify emotions, and the role of puppets in supporting inclusion and creating supportive learning environments. I suggest that the findings become more prominent throughout the text. Consider bringing out these points more prominently, perhaps in a thematic or structured manner.

 

Early Introduction of Crucial Aspects: Elements like the significance of the study (as mentioned in lines 57-58, page 2) and the importance of promoting diversity (lines 62-64) could be introduced earlier for better context.

 

Purpose: This paper explores the prevalence and effectiveness of puppetry for the education and wellbeing of autistic teenagers and examines the studies related to the use of puppetry in educational and therapeutic contexts with that specific population. (Lines 78-80, p. 2). Could the purpose and the significance of using puppets as support in education be strengthened through a connection to, for example, school curricula? Or, in terms of belonging to a social community (e.g., line 205, page 5) and Biesta?"

 

Materials and Methods:

-        Provide more details about choice of methodology, including its strengths and weaknesses. 

-        Several searches of digital peer-reviewed articles were conducted, but only a few articles (7+5) were located. The selection may require further examination and clearer delineation, such as whether the studies exclusively pertain to schools and education or if they encompass other therapeutic domains.

-        For example: Have there been any considerations regarding the timeframe of the studies? Are there older articles addressing the use of puppets as a means of supporting autistic teenagers? What databases were utilised?

-        Notably, there is a lack of limitations mentioned, including considerations related to age; presently, the focus is on ages 12-16 (although there is support for a broader range in the text, particularly from line 130-…, page 3). Is there any significance in including younger age groups and examining their use of puppets?

-        Additionally, it would be of interest to ascertain the countries from which these articles originate. What research methods were employed in the various studies? And how might a more expansive selection of studies impact the results of this research?

-        Furthermore, it could be valuable to gain insight into the methodologies applied in the various studies (lines 218-220, page 5). The absence of critical reflection or discussion is also acknowledged.

Methodological Challenges: Address the methodological challenges of combining studies from different paradigms. Explain how these challenges were considered in the study or how they might affect the results.

 

Results:

-        In the introductory chapter: The introduction could be sharpened further, perhaps by highlighting a theoretical connection. The link between method and results needs to be made explicit, for example, by presenting selected articles in some form of categories.

-        Theory: Could the study benefit from applying a broader theoretical framework related to the significance of puppets for autistic teenagers? For instance, Biesta (line 376, page 8), whose work is not specifically about puppets? Can a theoretical framework become a vital support for the coherence of the study and its result presentation, including the conclusions?

-        The methodology section needs further elaboration. There is a lack of studies specifically addressing the significance of puppets for autistic teenagers, while the importance of using puppets may need clarification. This should be followed up throughout the article.

Results: Consider presenting the texts in categories or themes to illustrate coherence and patterns in the material.

 

Conclusions:

-        Lack critical reflections on the choice of methodology. Can the coherence of the article be strengthened by connecting it to curriculum, selection criteria, and age ranges?

-        There is a missing discussion on the significance of limiting studies to younger children and the importance of puppets. Can the significance of puppets' ability to support social interaction be emphasized, as this could be crucial research finding for this study? What articles have been included, for example, from which countries, what methods have been applied, etc., and what significance does this have for the study's results? This needs to be considered.

-        Inclusion of Studies: It could be one of the main findings of the study, therefore explain the criteria for including studies, including the countries of origin, methods employed, and their significance for the study's results.

Conclusions: Include critical reflections on the choice of methodology. Discuss how the study's coherence could be strengthened through connections to school curricula, age ranges, and the importance of puppets in supporting social interaction.

 

Coherence: Ensure that the paper maintains coherence throughout, connecting theory, methodology, and findings effectively. Strengthen the introduction by establishing a more explicit theoretical connection. Consider using a theoretical framework, such as Biesta's, to provide a theoretical foundation for the study. Elaborate further on the methodology, specifying the strengths and weaknesses.

 

I wish the authors the best of luck and hope to see the paper published after these adjustments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your detailed suggestions. I see it is both specific as well as holistic. I was grateful to for the specific points to add to the search criteria as well as need to highlight the value of puppets in early years and justify the need for them (puppets) to transition to secondary school contexts.

Warmly,

Olivia

Reviewer 4 Report

A theoretical research on Puppets for Autistic Teenagers is presented. As the research is submitted as a Review, this approach is acceptable. I would suggest the author to reflect on the conclusions: 

1)     I consider the wording "The process of undertaking this literature review has connected and extended my appreciation of the benefits..." to be unsuccessful. 

2)     The conclusions should be the author's findings, so it is not advisable to use references. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I am so grateful to you and changed the conclusion- it was worded using a thinking routine that added  nothing! I

Warmly,

Olivia

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

So, in the evaluation, I would like to summarize: The article is significantly improved compared to its previous form. However, I still see an ethical issue with the use of identity-first language. I would recommend explaining in the article why the authors do not use person-first language, even in the title. Methodologically, the article has shown improvement, but I still lack an analysis of what keywords were searched for, how many articles the authors had to go through, then annotate, and subsequently read in full (if this was the methodology employed). The methodology still does not seem sufficiently conclusive to clearly demonstrate the authors' approach. On the other hand, I highly appreciate the focus of the article; it is a very interesting read and analysis, and I thank you for the opportunity to learn something different about this issue. Only a clarification of the methodology would enhance the overall impression of the study.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your kind and generous comments. I have added to the explanation of the review process and hope this makes for a more compelling case!

Warmly,

Olivia

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors and editor,

I would like to express my gratitude for allowing me to review this captivating manuscript.

The manuscript delves into how puppetry can be of benefit to children with autism, particularly adolescents. It aims to discern the advantages of utilizing puppets in their education and overall well-being. The study explores whether puppetry maintains its advantages as students grow older and how it complements the established benefits for younger children.

The content of the work is pertinent and highly engaging. The text's challenges lie in the choice of methodology and the selection of articles to enable replication by others. To enhance the credibility of the study in the use of "Multiple searches of digital peer-reviewed articles," there is a desire for further elucidation and ongoing work in areas such as:

• A clear definition of specific search criteria.

• The selection of databases, documentation of searches, and dates of searches.

• Clarification of the filters used during the search.

• Critical assessment of how the quality and relevance of articles were evaluated.

• The exploration of additional databases to ensure a more comprehensive coverage of different perspectives and aspects.

• Consideration of collaboration, for instance, with libraries.

Methodology and selection would also benefit from discussion and critical examination in Section 5, "Conclusions" (line 337). A point that may need improvement is the conciseness, for example, in the abstract and methodology. For instance, line 11 states: "An electronic study was conducted..." while in the "Materials and Methods" section on page 2, line 87, it is mentioned: "Multiple searches of digital peer-reviewed articles." The methodology needs to be clearly elucidated.

To provide a more in-depth description of the "multiple searches" method, it is advisable to reference sources such as:

Grant, Maria & Booth, Andrew. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26, 91-108. 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

Your text presents an intriguing contribution within its field. However, it may be perceived as lacking the support necessary for others to conduct a similar study, and there is room for improvement regarding the transparency of the work.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

My goodness- I am so grateful to you and have learned so much from this process.I hope you see the review process with clarity.

Warmly,

Olivia

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

I am writing to express my gratitude for the invaluable revisions provided throughout the three rounds of editing for our article. Your insights and explanations, especially regarding the implementation of identity-first language, have greatly enriched the quality of our work.

Given the thoroughness of our revisions and the attention to detail, I am confident that the article now stands at its best possible form. With this in mind, I highly recommend proceeding with the publication of the revised version.

I would like to take this opportunity to extend my heartfelt thanks for your dedication and expertise in this collaborative effort. I look forward to seeing our work in its final published state.

Should you have any further suggestions or if there are any additional steps required from my end, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Thank you once again for your invaluable contributions.

Author Response

Thank you - such a beautiful response. I would love to thank you for this learning and hope to connect with you one day.

Warmly,

Olivia

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for allowing me to review this manuscript and for providing the revised version for examination. The methodological content has been clarified, but the online/database search method does not appear entirely convincing. This lack of transparency raises questions about the validity and completeness of the review. The content of the article is interesting, and I appreciate the opportunity to access its material.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I am unclear as to the additional information you require and have added each step of the search process to this review. There are very few studies that document puppetry with autistic teenagers and few studies that have all three elements.

Warmly,

Olivia