The Predictive Role of Perceived Autonomy Support in Elementary School Children Physical Activity
, Miguel Ángel Tapia-Serrano 1,*, Pedro Antonio Sánchez-Miguel 1, Rubén Llanos-Muñoz 2 and Miguel Angel López-Gajardo 2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper entitled “The predictive role of perceived autonomy support in elementary school children physical activity” is consistent with the profile of the Journal “Children”.
1. The paper covers up-to-date scientific topic related to the children’s perceived autonomy support of PE teachers.
2. Abstract is well prepared.
3. The introduction explains thoroughly the scientific background. Therefore I am convinced why this context is important. The authors use up-to-date literature to present the discussed problem in the paper. The rationale for the study is well presented.
4. Material and methods section is well prepared. The information on the reliability and validity of the Spanish versions of the used tools is provided. The procedure and data analysis is thoroughly explained.
5. The results section is clear. The presentation of the results is well prepared. In the discussion contributions of other studies that have looked at essentially the same topic of research are provided. The limitations of the study are also presented. In the conclusions the authors provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and future research.
Author Response
Comment 1. We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her opinion on the preparation of the manuscript and its adequacy.
Reviewer 2 Report
Title: The predictive role of perceived autonomy support in elementary school children physical activity
Article Type: Article
Summary
The purpose of the present study was to test a predictive model based on children's perception of autonomy support from physical education teachers in establishing a state of high motivational quality, which in turn leads to greater intention and physical activity. Participants were 502 9 to 11 years elementary school children. They were asked to completed some questioners such as perceived autonomy support, self-determination, intention to be physically active and physical activity. The findings of this study indicated that perceived autonomy support was positively related to autonomous motivation, which in turn was associated with intention and physical activity. The authors concluded that the motivational state acquired in physical education classes can be translated into intention and practice of physical activity outside the school context.
Evaluation
The topic of this study is interesting for publication in the Journal. The design for the study is appropriate to answer the research questions, and the paper is well written. For an original article, the manuscript is quite straightforward and so I think that can be acceptable for publication. However, some points and suggestions should be addressed by the authors, in order to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Minor points and suggestions
- In methods section, the authors said” Schools were selected by simple random sampling”. How did you do this? Means did you have all schools and their student names and then you did a simple random sampling? Most research like your used non-random sampling.
- How the authors calculated sample size?
- Please add inclusion criteria to the method section.
- Given the age of the participants, how did the authors ensure that the answers were correct? Did the children understand the questions well
Author Response
“The predictive role of perceived autonomy support in elementary school children physical activity”
We would like to thank the editor and reviewers for the opportunity to respond their suggestions for improvement the quality of the manuscript. Below are the point-by-point responses to the thoughtful comments made by the reviewers. In this document, we indicate the modifications develop in the new version of the manuscript, in addition to specifying the page(s) where these modifications can be found.
Reviewer 2
First of all, we would like to thank you for your reviews, as they help to improve the quality of the article. We will respond each of the comments below.
Comment 1. In methods section, the authors said” Schools were selected by simple random sampling”. How did you do this? Means did you have all schools and their student names and then you did a simple random sampling? Most research like your used non-random sampling.
Answer. Thanks to the reviewer for his/her comments. We apologize for the mistake in the description of the study design. The sampling was purposive because of the proximity of the school to the university where the study was conducted. In addition, the anonymity of the participants was maintained at all times. This information has been modified in the paper.
Page 3, lines 111 – 112: “Schools were selected by purposive sampling based on the proximity of the researchers' work to the schools.”
Comment 2. How the authors calculated sample size?
Answer. Thanks to the reviewer for the contributions.
Page 3, lines 115 – 120: “In this regard, the sample was calculated through the following formula: n = n = (Z)2 (p (1-p) e2), where "n" is the sample size, Z = 1.96 (95% confidence interval), p = number of 4th and 5th grade students in the city where the study was conducted (3,344 students), and e = margin of error (3%), the minimum sample size (considering a 10% non-response) will be 345. This information has been added in the manuscript.”
Comment 3 Please add inclusion criteria to the method section.
Answer. Thanks to reviewer for his/her comment. According to this, the following information has been added:
Page 3, lines 120-125: “Finally, the inclusion criteria used for sample selection were as follows: (i) Primary school located in the region of Extremadura, specifically in Cáceres; ii) Permission granted by the director and the head of studies of Physical Education to participate in the project; iii) Students enrolled in Primary Education in the 4th and 5th grades; iv) Consent of the parents and the students to participate; v) Not to be participating in a program of similar characteristics during the intervention.”
Comment 4 Given the age of the participants, how did the authors ensure that the answers were correct? Did the children understand the questions well
Answer. Thanks to reviewer for his/her suggestion. Thus, it is important to note that all the instruments used are valid and reliable in the population studied. In addition, throughout the process, a member of the research team was present to answer any doubts or questions the students might have.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
