All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The authors answered all the comments appropriately.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Mike Climstein, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors did not answer my concern (In addition, the threshold of significance should be reconsidered elaborately because you conducted follow-up ANOVA after MANOVA. You have to discuss the necessity of correction of significance level caused by multiple testing. In my opinion, at least any correction would be desirable and some of the significant results would be insignificant due to correction. If that is the case, "Discussion" should also be revised according to the updated results) at all.
In addition, it is too late for submitting a revision after three months have passed from the day of revision. Delays in resubmission may result in the loss of original reviewers, so it should be avoided. I hope the authors to resubmit the manuscript after responding my own comment within a week.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please note that thisrevision has only been reviewed by the Academic Editor at this point. Once you have addressed their comments, it will still need to be sent out for peer review.
Both reviewers raised constructive suggestions to the manuscript and basically I agree with their point. Especially, Reviewer 2 pointed out major concerns about your methodology. Sample size calculation would be necessary in such studies, especially, in case only small number of participants were included (in other words, you need to justify that your small sample size was enough for examining your hypotheses).
In addition, the threshold of significance should be reconsidered elaborately because you conducted follow-up ANOVA after MANOVA. You have to discuss the necessity of correction of significance level caused by multiple testing. In my opinion, at least any correction would be desirable and some of the significant results would be insignificant due to correction. If that is the case, "Discussion" should also be revised according to the updated results.
This manuscript addresses an important topic, and I commend the authors for conducting a longitudinal study on motor competence development among young children. I believe the topic is likely to be of interest to readers of PeerJ. However, several relevant issues need to be carefully addressed, and additional details are necessary before the manuscript can be considered for publication.
- Stodden et al. (2008) proposed a framework that hypothesizes the relationships between motor competence, physical activity, perceived motor competence, health-related fitness, and weight status in children. Including this model when discussing the “correlates of motor competence” would provide a more comprehensive background for readers.
- Although the authors mention several important studies, the “Motor development across time” section would benefit from a summary of the overall findings from the referenced studies. What are the key takeaways from these studies?
- It is understandable that there are fewer studies investigating motor competence development in Southeast Asia compared to Western regions. However, is there any evidence or speculation regarding differences in motor competence development between Western and Eastern countries that could help contextualize the rationale for this study? What unique factors might contribute to these differences?
- The way age is presented in this study raises some concerns. Although age is generally considered a continuous variable, it has been categorized into discrete increments (e.g., 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, and 4.5 years). It would be helpful for the authors to clarify whether age was measured continuously or collected in these specific categories. If age was measured continuously, the rationale for categorizing it into half-year increments should be provided, as this could impact the statistical analysis and interpretation of the results. Alternatively, if age was collected categorically, please justify the choice of these particular intervals and discuss any potential implications for the study’s findings.
- Please specify which statistical software was used for the analysis.
Lines 226-232: In the “Children’s Motor Competence – A Longitudinal Perspective” section, the paragraph discussing the lack of longitudinal improvement in jumping on the mat (BAL3) presents valuable insights, but it could benefit from clarification and refinement. The redundancy in mentioning "challenges with postural control" twice affects the clarity and conciseness of the argument. Consider revising this section to avoid repetition and provide a more streamlined explanation. Additionally, while the rationale for using six-month intervals is well-supported, further elaboration on why jumping (BAL3) specifically may not align with developmental trajectories in young children would strengthen the discussion. Providing more context or referencing studies that have encountered similar challenges with jump-based assessments could enhance the credibility of this claim.
Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript titled "Motor competence development of children in Singapore: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study." Overall, the study is well-structured and addresses an important topic; however, some sections need to be strengthened with more detailed explanations. It is believed that the manuscript will be stronger and make a more substantial academic contribution once the revisions listed below are made.
Language and Expression: The manuscript is generally written in an academic style, using clear and understandable language. However, in some sections, sentence structures are overly long, and more concise and precise expressions could be preferred to improve readability. Additionally, there are some minor grammatical errors in the text, particularly regarding the use of words such as "effect" and "affect," which should be carefully reviewed.
For example;
• Line 12-15 (Abstract):
"Understanding the motor competence development of young children requires both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. This is crucial for identifying relative age effects and tracking individual developmental trajectories. However, data is limited in Southeast Asia, particularly Singapore."
Suggestion: The phrase “However, data is limited” could be improved to “However, there is limited data” for smoother flow.
• Line 42-43 (Introduction):
"As children enter middle childhood, their developing cognitive abilities enable them to evaluate their motor skills, leading actual motor competence to influence perceived competence and, subsequently, physical activity levels (den Uil et al., 2023)."
Suggestion: The phrase "leading actual motor competence to influence perceived competence and, subsequently, physical activity levels" is quite complex. It could be restructured with shorter and clearer expressions.
• Line 221-223 (Discussion - Longitudinal Perspective):
"Significant changes in motor competence were found, with all but one task (BAL3: jumping on mats) improving at least once during the 18-month period."
Suggestion: Instead of "all but one task improving," using "all tasks except one improved" would sound more natural.
In line with these examples, other long and complex expressions in the manuscript can be simplified and made clearer.
The correct usage of "effect" and "affect" in the manuscript should be verified in their respective contexts.
Introduction:
1) The Introduction section provides a good context for the topic. However, more references could be added to clearly highlight the gap in the literature. In particular, it would be beneficial to discuss more previous studies on motor skill development in the context of Southeast Asia.
2) It appears that the Introduction section is structured under seven different subheadings, including theoretical information and relevant studies. However, rather than using numerous subheadings, presenting the topic under a single heading in a cohesive manner (introduction, development, and conclusion) could help express the rationale and aim of the research more clearly and understandably.
3) In the Introduction section, the identified gaps in the existing literature regarding the topic of your research, the contributions this study will make to the field, and the aspects that distinguish your research from the current literature are not sufficiently emphasized.
4) In your research text, the terms "motor competence" and "motor skills" are used interchangeably. Although these two terms are closely related, they refer to different constructs. To maintain consistency, it would be beneficial to determine the term that best reflects your measurement and use it consistently throughout the manuscript. Moreover, when both terms need to be included, providing a transition that explains the relationship between them can help the reader follow the text more smoothly and cohesively.
References:
The study includes current references, but some sources appear to be quite dated (e.g., Malina, 2004; Brooks-Gunn et al., 2002). It is recommended to include more recent studies published within the last 10 years in the references.
Figures and Tables:
Figures and tables are clear and well organized. However, some statistical results for Table 2 and Table 3 may need to be explained in more detail.
A table number should be provided for the findings described in the first paragraph.
1) Research Design: The study's inclusion of both cross-sectional and longitudinal designs is considered a strong point. However, the research design should be clearly stated at the beginning of the "Method" section. It is suggested that this be elaborated under a "Research Model" subheading, placed before the "Participants" section.
2) Participant Selection and Sample Size: The study was conducted with 75 participants. However, there is a lack of detailed explanation regarding how the sample size was determined. It should be specified whether a G*Power analysis or another statistical method was used. Information on how the adequacy and appropriateness of the sample size were determined should be clearly presented under the "Participants" heading.
1) Appropriate statistical analyses, such as Repeated Measures MANOVA and two-way ANOVA, have been used. However, some effect sizes should be discussed in more detail. For example, the interpretation of Cohen's d or eta-squared values could be added to the text.
For instance, in the statistical analysis results presented in lines 166-178 (Results), instead of simply presenting effect sizes numerically, brief comments on their practical significance should be included. This will help the reader better understand the results.
2) The Discussion section addresses each finding separately, and this structure facilitates the reader's understanding of the results. However, stronger comparisons with the existing literature should be made. As it stands, this section seems limited in its connection to the literature.
3) The unique aspects of the study are not sufficiently emphasized. The innovations brought by this study to the literature should be more strongly articulated. For example, clear comparisons could be made, such as "This study used the Y method, which differs from the X study."
General Comments and Recommendations
• The Introduction section should be reorganized to more clearly highlight the contribution of the research to the literature.
• The research design and sample selection process should be explained in more detail in the Method section.
• Older references should be updated, and recent developments in the literature should be discussed more thoroughly.
• The results of the statistical analyses should be interpreted in more detail, and effect sizes should be explained.
• The Discussion section should be expanded by increasing comparisons with other studies in the literature.
With my best wishes
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.