Scale of Perceptions of Future Primary School Teachers on Unaccompanied Foreign Minors: Exploratory and Confirmatory Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the paper uses field research data in a very scientific and undiscursive manner. It would be desirable to better show what can be communicated to improve teacher training.

1. What is the main question addressed by the research?   the central aspect of the research is the analysis of primary school teachers' perceptions and stereotypes of unaccompanied foreign minors.
2. What parts do you consider original or relevant for the field? What specific gap in the field does the paper address?   I consider the statistical-descriptive method of analysing stereotypes to be original. I know of no other similar studies   3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?   attention for lower school teachers with regard to stereotypes of foreign children 
4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?   As I wrote, I do not have sufficient statistical expertise to evaluate the regressions performed
5. Please describe how the conclusions are or are not consistent with the evidence and arguments presented. Please also indicate if all main questions posed were addressed and by which specific experiments.   the paper explains very well how the information collected was statistically processed. I see no limits to the work done.
6. Are the references appropriate?   Yes, very appropriate   7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures and quality of the data.   I have not a specific expertise.
8. Which part of the manuscript could be more improved?   the text is very focused on the methodology used, perhaps the explanation of the results could be expanded

 

Author Response

First of all, I would like to thank you for taking the time to review the article and contribute to the improvement of the quality of the article:

Changes made:
Comments: [8. Which part of the manuscript could be more improved?   the text is very focused on the methodology used, perhaps the explanation of the results could be expanded]
Response: [ In the methodological design, a typo has been changed (32-27 to 32-37 years old). On the other hand, a brief explanation is given as to what the prior training received by the studies refers to, which in this case, is the prior knowledge they have regarding the population of unaccompanied foreign minors. For the rest, the information is complete (characteristics of the study, population, sampling, characteristics of the population).]

Changes NOT made:

Comments: [8. Which part of the manuscript could be more improved?   the text is very focused on the methodology used, perhaps the explanation of the results could be expanded]Responde: [The explanation of the results has not been changed, as the main reasons lie in consistency with the data, where the interpretation made is directly supported by the objective findings. However, it is considered that any modification could lead to inconsistencies or interpretations that are not supported by the objective results. On the other hand, a thorough review of the literature and results has been carried out to ensure that they are fully aligned with previous studies mentioned in the study, so any changes could decontextualise the results. And finally, scientific integrity, which is important within the scientific community, i.e. presenting the findings as they have been found, without bias or alteration.]

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript “Scale of Future Primary School Teachers' Perceptions of Unaccompanied Foreign Minors: Exploratory and Confirmatory Analysis” offers valuable insight into new scale construction to identify the latent structure of trainee teachers' perceptions of unaccompanied foreign minors. The manuscript is clearly written and corresponds to the usual structure of scientific publishing. The abstract and title correspond to the article content, however, some information listed in the abstract does not provide significant information about the article – precisely the sentence: “Likewise, items 9, 25 and 21 stood out in confirmatory analysis as the most relevant items for measuring trainee teachers' perceptions of UFM, whilst items 1, 20 and 17 exhibited the lowest regression weights for all three dimensions, showing them to be less relevant in this context.” It would be better to list the exact content of these items.

There are also some suggestions which could contribute to the even more relevant contribution of the researched subject.

Firstly the authors stress that they initially hypothesised 5 distinct latent scale dimensions. It would be valuable to see the initial structure of the items analysed according to this distribution. Also lacking is the better theoretical grounding of the constructed scale and these initial dimensions. Starting from this we could see the change in the structure and combination of items in three new factors.

What is the exact number of items in the scale? In the Instruments and Results sections initially, we see 27 items, then in the CFA analysis (as well as in Discussion and Abstract) there is the notion of 26 items. The authors state that no items have been omitted.

I would suggest authors consider omitting item 6 from the scale, which has low and similar loadings on two distinct factors, especially due to including it in factor 1 because of the better content fit. In that way, the scale would be clearer even though the authors justify preserving all the items with factor loadings over .300.

After the latent factors have been extracted and confirmed, some general description of the content of each of the latent dimensions would be appreciated also indicating students' results on these scales. Composite indicators of obtained factors could also be created and described.

Finally, I suggest replacing the terms influence/influencing and impact with effect/effecting/affecting since this is not an experimental study in which concrete impacts and influences could be detected and checked.

Minor error:

 

In the “Desing and participants section the age category 32-27 should be changed to 32-37. Also in this section, it is not clear what the sample designation “prior training received by students” means.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No issues were detected.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank you for each of your comments. We value your remarks and take your considerations into account in order to improve the quality of the article:

Comments 1: [“Likewise, items 9, 25 and 21 stood out in confirmatory analysis as the most relevant items for measuring trainee teachers' perceptions of UFM, whilst items 1, 20 and 17 exhibited the lowest regression weights for all three dimensions, showing them to be less relevant in this context.” It would be better to list the exact content of these items.]

Response 1: [ In the methodological design, a typographical error has been changed (32-27 for 32-37 years). On the other hand, there is a brief explanation of what the prior training received by the studies refers to, which in this case, is the prior knowledge they have regarding the population of unaccompanied foreign minors. Otherwise, the information is complete (characteristics of the study, population, sampling, characteristics of the population). Included in the abstract.]

Comments 2: [Firstly the authors stress that they initially hypothesised 5 distinct latent scale dimensions. It would be valuable to see the initial structure of the items analysed according to this distribution. Also lacking is the better theoretical grounding of the constructed scale and these initial dimensions. Starting from this we could see the change in the structure and combination of items in three new factors.]

Response 2: [Firstly, regarding your suggestion to present the initial structure of the analysed items according to the five dimensions initially proposed, we believe that this information, although interesting, may not be necessary for the objectives and focus of the present study. Our main focus was to validate a robust and reliable scale to assess prospective teachers' perceptions of unaccompanied foreign minors, and during the analysis process, we determined that a three-factor structure provided a more appropriate and meaningful fit.The decision to reduce from five to three dimensions was not taken lightly; it was based on a rigorous exploratory and confirmatory analysis that showed that the resulting three factors best represented the latent characteristics of the construct we are measuring. The three-factor structure not only simplifies the model, but also improves its applicability and understanding by the end users of the scale.

On the other hand, further explanation of the issue is included in the theoretical background of the study.]

Comments 3: [What is the exact number of items in the scale? In the Instruments and Results sections initially, we see 27 items, then in the CFA analysis (as well as in Discussion and Abstract) there is the notion of 26 items. The authors state that no items have been omitted.]

Response 3: [After validation, the total number of items in the scale is 26. In the results section, before Table 2, the commission of item 27 is explicitly noted: "Factor loads less than 0.300 are omitted as is the case with item 27".]

Comments 4: [I would suggest that the authors consider omitting item 6 from the scale, which has low and similar factor loadings on two different factors, especially since it was included in factor 1 because it better fits the content. This would make the scale clearer, although the authors justify retaining all items with factor loadings above .300.]

Response 4: [We value your observation and take your considerations into account in order to improve the clarity and precision of our instrument. However, we consider it relevant to keep item 6 in the factor "socio-educational characteristics" because it is more coherent with the content of this factor. We do not contemplate its elimination, as it is a fundamental item in this scale and its factor loadings are above 0.300.

We appreciate your comment and will explore the possibility of further studies to assess the impact of the omission of item 6 on the overall validity and reliability of the scale.]

Comments 5: [Finally, I suggest replacing the terms influence/influencing and impact by effect/effecting/affecting as this is not an experimental study in which concrete impacts and influences can be detected and tested.]

Response 5: [Modification made, in conclusions section.]

Comments 6: [After the latent factors have been extracted and confirmed, some general description of the content of each of the latent dimensions would be appreciated also indicating students' results on these scales. Composite indicators of obtained factors could also be created and described.]

Response 6: [The explanation of the results has not been changed, as the main reasons lie in consistency with the data, where the interpretation made is directly supported by the objective findings. However, it is considered that any modification could lead to inconsistencies or interpretations that are not supported by the objective results. On the other hand, a thorough review of the literature and results has been conducted to ensure that they are fully aligned with previous studies mentioned in the study, so any changes could decontextualise the results. And finally, scientific integrity, which is important within the scientific community, i.e. presenting the findings as found, without any signs or alterations.]

Comments 7: [In the section "Design and participants" the age category 32-27 should be changed to 32-37. Furthermore, it is not clear in this section what is meant by the sample designation "prior learning received by students".]

Response 7: [Changes made to the Design and Participants section.]

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I enjoyed reading your analysis and can offer several perceptions for your consideration. First, you come closest to articulating a clear rationale for your article at the close of your abstract but even there your reason for selecting this population, rather than say, current teachers, is implicit and not explicit. I suggest you clarify why knowing trainee views is important. For my part, I gather there are two reasons? The first is that they will soon be encountering unaccompanied minors in their classrooms and the second, and more important reason seems to be that surveying them while still in school will allow opportunities to help them understand state and EU policy toward the population and to assuage any uninformed prejudice and stigma the group may have developed before they enter classrooms? A second observation I can share is that you complete the first sentence of your abstract to make clear what trainee perceptions are of interest. I also suggest you clarify in the first sentence of your article that your focus is Spain and the trend of which you speak specifically concerns Spain. Third, I believe you mean in line 36 that migration "manifests" or "exhibits" diversity? Fourth, your discussion highlights an interesting point that likely deserves more attention, namely, how to overcome the  ignorance and stigmatization of this population with the target group for your analysis. While this was not your focus, everything depends on success in addressing it and it may be worthwhile pointing that up more clearly?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please my comments on English and writing in my observations to the editors.

Author Response

Changes made:

Comments 1: [I suggest you clarify why knowing trainee views is important. For my part, I gather there are two reasons? The first is that they will soon be encountering unaccompanied minors in their classrooms and the second, and more important reason seems to be that surveying them while still in school will allow opportunities to help them understand state and EU policy toward the population and to assuage any uninformed prejudice and stigma the group may have developed before they enter classrooms? A second observation I can share is that you complete the first sentence of your abstract to make clear what trainee perceptions are of interest. I also suggest you clarify in the first sentence of your article that your focus is Spain and the trend of which you speak specifically concerns Spain]

Response 1: [Further and better explanation of the issue is included in the theoretical background of the study.]

Comments 2: [Moderate editing of English language required]

Response 2: [The wording of the English article has been revised]

Changes NOT made:

Comments 1:  [Third, I believe you mean in line 36 that migration "manifests" or "exhibits" diversity? Fourth, your discussion highlights an interesting point that likely deserves more attention, namely, how to overcome the  ignorance and stigmatization of this population with the target group for your analysis. While this was not your focus, everything depends on success in addressing it and it may be worthwhile pointing that up more clearly?]

Response 1: [Thank you for your comments and suggestions. We have reviewed your comment on the importance of addressing in our analysis how to overcome ignorance and stigmatisation of the population in question. However, we would like to point out that this specific aspect was not the main focus of our study. This comment will therefore be considered in future research.]