Assessment of Psychological Zone of Optimal Performance among Professional Athletes: EGA and Item Response Theory Analysis
Hans Luyten
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I enjoyed reading this manuscript. The authors have succeeded in creating a useful tool that allows for a quick psychological state assessment of professional athletes.
In the discussion section, I would like to read a bit more about how this assessment tool could be used in practice. E.g., in what ways could coaches use this tool to help athletes improve their performance? Could it be applied for other purposes as well(besides performance improvement)?
The authors also claim that the assessment tool could be used for frequent monitoring. However, there must be a limit to this. I expect that after two or three times, respondents are familiar with the items. In that case, the risk of providing socially desirable answers may become unacceptably high.
The information about the DIF analysis is extremely limited. I would like to see a little more information (perhaps as an appendix or in supplementary materials).
Finally, I would like some more explanation regarding figure 1. Exactly how does the figure show there is only one dimension to PZOP scale?
Author Response
In the discussion section, I would like to read a bit more about how this assessment tool could be used in practice. E.g., in what ways could coaches use this tool to help athletes improve their performance? Could it be applied for other purposes as well (besides performance improvement)?
Response: Thank you for the suggestion. In the discussion section, we added a brief paragraph about the potential use of the short scale (see lines 420 – 427).
The authors also claim that the assessment tool could be used for frequent monitoring. However, there must be a limit to this. I expect that after two or three times, respondents are familiar with the items. In that case, the risk of providing socially desirable answers may become unacceptably high.
Response: This is a good point. We discussed this point as a limitation in the discussion section (see lines 434 – 437). Also, we changed the wording “frequent” to “regular” monitoring to tone down the timing of the assessment.
The information about the DIF analysis is extremely limited. I would like to see a little more information (perhaps as an appendix or in supplementary materials).
Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We added a table (Table 3) and a figure (Figure 5) to provide more information about the results of the DIF analysis.
Finally, I would like some more explanation regarding figure 1. Exactly how does the figure show there is only one dimension to PZOP scale?
Response: We added a note in Figure 1 to explain the graphic representation of the factor structure.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Abstract
The sample group and the findings should be mentioned in the abstract section.
Response: We added sample features such as sex percentage, age range, and sports types in the abstract. We also added a summary of the results.
Introduction
The introduction should be tidied up regarding subject integrity and transitions.
Response: We are not sure what you meant. If more specifics can be given, we are happy to make changes.
Please explain how emotions affect athletes physiologically or metabolically at peak performance levels.
Responses: The whole introduction discussed how emotions affect athlete performance, and that was why we developed a short scale to assess optimal emotional or psychological states that can lead to optimal performance. As the other reviewer indicated, the introduction was already long enough, so we did not expand it further.
Materials and Methods
Please detail the sample group.
Response: Thank you. We described the major features of our sample, including sex, age, sports type, years in sports, weight category, and elite status. Such descriptions were in line with those reported in other studies.
Please correct any errors found in Line 216.
Response: We corrected all the errors in Line 216.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Editor and Authors,
I thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting paper. The paper describes an worthwhile study which appears to make a worthwhile contribution to the literature. The study implemented a seemingly sound methodology and analysis procedure. I have only a few concerns that I believe should be addressed before this paper can be considered further for publication
All the sections are really long, which gives the reader the feeling that they are reading a review article. In the introduction section, the study exceeds the word limit of the journal.
Page 2, The 2 and 3 sentences should be rewritten. They are not clear. New hypotheses need to add to this section.
It is necessary to put the original source of the questionnaire in the PZOP questionnaire section
Which is the impact of this study?
Which are the practical implications of these results (according to the short version of scale in sport)?
Author Response
All the sections are really long, which gives the reader the feeling that they are reading a review article. In the introduction section, the study exceeds the word limit of the journal.
Response: Thanks for the comment. Since a large volume existed, we tried to include as much relevant literature as possible in our introduction. Also, previous reviewers suggested including the studies we cited in our study. Therefore, the introduction was long. The manuscript included two studies, qualitative and psychometric studies. We attempted to describe them in sufficient detail so that the studies could be better understood, particularly the qualitative part and the part describing IRT model.
Page 2, The 2 and 3 sentences should be rewritten. They are not clear. New hypotheses need to add to this section.
Response: We are not sure which sentences you referred to. We can locate and correct the problematic sentences if you provide the line number.
Since this was a psychometric study, we developed an instrument. Therefore, we did not test any hypothesis. If you can be more specific about the hypothesis we should test, we can do so.
It is necessary to put the original source of the questionnaire in the PZOP questionnaire section
Response: We added a supplemental table to show all the original 13 items.
Which is the impact of this study?
Which are the practical implications of these results (according to the short version of scale in sport)?
Response: Thank you for the suggestion. In the discussion section, we added a section that discussed the potential use of the developed instrument (see lines 420 to 427).
Reviewer 4 Report
General Evaluation:
Dear Writer,
Although the study sounds good, before accepting your work you need to perform this suggestions:
Title and Abstract:
"The title is Appropriate.
The abstract is sufficient.
Introduction:
Appropriate.
Material - Metod:
In the participants section, the branches and types of the athletes should be detailed. Ex: Team-Individual sports,
How was the sample size calculated? or decided? It should be explained more detailed.
Tables:
The tables and figures are quite obvious.
Result:
In order to draw a conclusion from the results of the study, we may need to know that relationship between individual and team athletes in terms of Psychological Zone of Optimal Performance.
Discussion:
The discussion provide specific information and satisfactory comments about the results of the study.
Author Response
Material - Metod:
In the participants section, the branches and types of the athletes should be detailed. Ex: Team-Individual sports,
Response: Thanks for the suggestion. We added sports types included in this study in the participant section (see lines 204 – 205).
How was the sample size calculated? or decided? It should be explained more detailed.
Response: We added the sentence to indicate how we decided on the sample size (see lines 209 – 211).
Result:
In order to draw a conclusion from the results of the study, we may need to know that relationship between individual and team athletes in terms of Psychological Zone of Optimal Performance.
Response: Although we acknowledged their differences, we assume that the zone-like states should be similar across all sports types. As we indicated in the introduction, no one optimal psychological state for excellent performance exists for all situations, and our purpose was not to capture all. However, we argued that the psychological zone of optimal performance provided fundamental elements necessary for optimal performance. We discussed this issue as a limitation in the discussion section (see lines 437 – 441).
