Relationship between Student’s Self-Determination, Parental Involvement, Special Education Teachers’ Support, and College and Career Readiness among Secondary Students with Learning Disabilities in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for doing this study. You address a valuable question; however, the manuscript needs major revisions before publication.
1. Modify the title; the current title is too long; if you used secondary one time, then no need to use secondary school again.
2. Please modify your abstract; the first two sentences are similar and repeated (L13-16, 17-19). First, revise your manuscript and rewrite your abstract. An abstract should include the following sections: background/motivation, aim, methodology, principal findings, and conclusion/significance. Avoid repetition of the same information again and again.
3. The introduction also needs modifications, e.g., L42-49, no citation. Is this your viewpoint? Whenever we claim something, we need to support our claim with reference—much repletion in the introduction.
4. L 53; you cited 2 & 3, but why did you segregate both? From L138-149, you did not cite a reference to support it.
Mention your research questions. If you have hypotheses, please also mention them earlier; I found some hypotheses in the result section.
5. Methods need extensive revisions. 209-218, repetition. Line 226-239, you discussed population and sampling. However, it is confusing to understand. Moreover, I didn't find table 3.1. – I suggest dividing your methods into multiple subheadings. Write information under each heading.
6. Add your questionnaires as supplementary; otherwise, it is difficult to find the questionnaire items. What do you mean by Questionnaire grade in table 2? How did you check the Reliability & validity? How did you collect the data? Explain in detail how did you deliver questionnaires? Were they printed one? How did you approach parents and teachers? …
7. Line 298, SPS 26? SPSS?
8. Ethics? Remove unnecessary information about the questionnaire
9. Results, table 3? Incomplete, values are mean? Present your results under the Research questions headings.
10. Discussion: It is an integral part of any research paper. In this part, you need to interpret the relationships between the various findings described in the results. In addition, you have to clearly explain how your research agrees with or contradicts previously published work. Please present your same discussion Results (under the research questions headings).
Conclusion: You have to modify this section as well. Do not put everything in conclusion. Remove unnecessary information.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to submit a revised draft of my manuscript titled: Relationship between student's self-determination, parental involvement, Special Education teachers' support, and college and career readiness among secondary students with learning disabilities in Riyadh, Kingdome of Saudi Arabia to Sustainability Journal. We appreciate the time and effort you and the other reviewers took to offer your insightful comments on our work. We appreciate the reviewers' insightful criticism of our paper. To reflect the majority of the reviewers' recommendations, we were able to make improvements. The changes made to the manuscript have been marked.
Here is a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments
|
Reviewer (1) |
|
|
Comment (1) |
Modify the title; the current title is too long; if you used secondary one time, then no need to use secondary school again. |
|
Response |
The title has been updated, removed all repeated words. L1,2,3,4 The paragraph highlighted in green color under a review -Reviewer 1 comment1 |
|
Comment (2) |
Please modify your abstract; the first two sentences are similar and repeated (L13-16, 17-19). First, revise your manuscript and rewrite your abstract. An abstract should include the following sections: background/motivation, aim, methodology, principal findings, and /significance. Avoid repetition of the same information again and again |
|
Response |
The title has been updated, removed all repeated words. L1,2,3,4 The paragraph highlighted in green color under a review -Reviewer 1 comment2 |
|
Comment (3) |
The introduction also needs modifications, e.g., L42-49, no citation. Is this your viewpoint? Whenever we claim something, we need to support our claim with reference—much repletion in the introduction.
|
|
Response |
The introduction has been updated; all citations have been referred L49-54. The paragraph highlighted in green color under a review -Reviewer 1 comment3 |
|
Comment (4) |
L 53; you cited 2 & 3, but why did you segregate both? From L138-149, you did not cite a reference to support it. |
|
Response |
L53 is referred to [7,2] was mentioned for the previous paragraph, it was corrected. L133-148, citation has been referred to support it The paragraph highlighted in green color under a review -Reviewer 1 comment4 |
|
Comment (5) |
Mention your research questions. If you have hypotheses, please also mention them earlier; I found some hypotheses in the result section. |
|
Response |
research questions and hypotheses has been added. L200-L215. The paragraphs highlighted in green color under a review -Reviewer 1 comment5 |
|
Comment (6) |
Methods need extensive revisions. 209-218, repetition. Line 226-239, you discussed population and sampling. However, it is confusing to understand. Moreover, I didn't find table 3.1. – I suggest dividing your methods into multiple subheadings. Write information under each heading. |
|
Response |
Thank you for pointing this out. The methodology part has been divided into subheadings as recommended L 217-L312 The paragraphs highlighted in green color under a review -Reviewer 1 comment 6 |
|
Comment (7) |
Add your questionnaires as supplementary; otherwise, it is difficult to find the questionnaire items. What do you mean by Questionnaire grade in table 2? How did you check the Reliability & validity? How did you collect the data? Explain in detail how did you deliver questionnaires? Were they printed one? How did you approach parents and teachers? |
|
Response |
The questionnaires have attached as a supplementary. Appendix A L1001, Appendix B L1047, Appendix C L 1110 Grade mean school level I have added " Reliability & validity, data collect, deliver questionnaires details, all details I have added in L 265-L312 The paragraphs highlighted in green color under a review -Reviewer 1 comment7 |
|
Comment (8) |
Line 298, SPS 26? SPSS? |
|
Response |
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 26 L 319 The paragraph highlighted in green color under a review -Reviewer 1 comment8 |
|
Comment (9) |
Ethics? Remove unnecessary information about the questionnaire |
|
Response |
unnecessary information has been deleted L328-333. The paragraph highlighted in green color under a review -Reviewer 1 comment9 |
|
Comment (10) |
Results, table 3? Incomplete, values are mean? Present your results under the Research questions headings. |
|
Response |
The table 3 has been deleted, because the figure 1 contains the details about the results for all constructs across the three groups of the respondents (students, parents, and teachers) L 344-377. Results under the Research questions headings have been added L336-L424 The paragraph highlighted in green color under a review -Reviewer 1 comment10 |
|
Comment (11) |
Discussion: It is an integral part of any research paper. In this part, you need to interpret the relationships between the various findings described in the results. In addition, you have to clearly explain how your research agrees with or contradicts previously published work. Please present your same discussion Results (under the research questions headings). |
|
Response |
The discussion has been presented under the questions headings L888-L950. The paragraphs highlighted in green color under a review -Reviewer 1 comment11 |
|
Comment (12) |
Conclusion: You have to modify this section as well. Do not put everything in conclusion. Remove unnecessary information |
|
Response |
The conclusion has been edited accordingly; only important information has been presented L953-963. The paragraph highlighted in green color under a review -Reviewer 1 comment12 |
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Remove Table 1 and 4. You give all the information in the reading, so needlessly redundant.
How did you select questions on the instruments? Did you pilot the instruments? The SDS scales score might be problematic, with a Cronbach's alpha above .90. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4205511/
Line 431 should say confirmatory not conformity.
I understand you used SEM, but did you consider exploratory factor analysis for the instruments? EFA is recommended before CFA.
Three issues need cleared up:
1. How did you construct the instruments and evaluate suitability? This issue is theoretical and is beyond pure statistics. Did you pilot? Cognitive interviews? Relate to previous surveys and constructs? With the Cronbach's alpha on the SD scale so high, did you examine redundancy? Can you give some examples of questions? Dropping a question on the CCR in the CFA, should you reevaluate previous CCR results?
2. Provide one section to explain your actual sample and demographics. Were any surveys eliminated? Did you impute any missing values, and if so, how? Did you have any student information beyond male/female, which is highly imbalanced? Interesting, too, is worldwide 2/3rds of all LD students are male, but this statistic is reversed in Riyadh. Any parent or teacher demographics? Were parents and teachers mirroring the students in location?
3. Your Cronbach's alpha and CR for SD appear problematic and needs reevaluated. Most likely questions are redundant. Hair, which you cite, can confirm this as well as.
Author Response
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to submit a revised draft of my manuscript titled: Relationship between student's self-determination, parental involvement, Special Education teachers' support, and college and career readiness among secondary students with learning disabilities in Riyadh, Kingdome of Saudi Arabia to Sustainability Journal. We appreciate the time and effort you and the other reviewers took to offer your insightful comments on our work. We appreciate the reviewers' insightful criticism of our paper. To reflect the majority of the reviewers' recommendations, we were able to make improvements. The changes made to the manuscript have been marked.
Here is a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments
|
Reviewer (2) |
|
|
Comment (1) |
Remove Table 1 and 4. You give all the information in the reading, so needlessly redundant. |
|
Response |
Table 1 and 4 has been removed |
|
Comment (2) |
How did you select questions on the instruments? Did you pilot the instruments? The SDS scales score might be problematic, with a Cronbach's alpha above .90. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4205511/ |
|
Response |
How the questionnaire was selected, pilot the instrument have explained in the section of the study instrument L248-291.Justification about Cronbach's alpha above .90 L278-l285 The paragraphs highlighted in blue color under a review -Reviewer 2 comment2 |
|
Comment (3) |
Line 431 should say confirmatory not conformity. |
|
Response |
Thank you for pointing this out, I have rectified L441 The paragraphs highlighted in blue color under a review -Reviewer 2 comment3 |
|
Comment (4) |
I understand you used SEM, but did you consider exploratory factor analysis for the instruments? EFA is recommended before CFA. |
|
Response |
How the questionnaire was selected was explained under study instrument L264-285. The paragraphs highlighted in blue color under a review -Reviewer 2 comment 4 |
|
Comment (5) |
How did you construct the instruments and evaluate suitability? This issue is theoretical and is beyond pure statistics. Did you pilot? Cognitive interviews? Relate to previous surveys and constructs? With the Cronbach's alpha on the SD scale so high, did you examine redundancy? Can you give some examples of questions? Dropping a question on the CCR in the CFA, should you reevaluate previous CCR results? |
|
Response |
I have added under study instrument L248-291, and under data analysis section L313-L326. The paragraphs highlighted in blue color under a review -Reviewer 2 comment5 |
|
Comment (6) |
Provide one section to explain your actual sample and demographics. Were any surveys eliminated? Did you impute any missing values, and if so, how? Did you have any student information beyond male/female, which is highly imbalanced? Interesting, too, is worldwide 2/3rds of all LD students are male, but this statistic is reversed in Riyadh. Any parent or teacher demographics? Were parents and teachers mirroring the students in location? |
|
Response |
I have added under Research Design and participants section L217-245, also under Data analysis L313-324, and Results (Figure1 L357-376). The paragraphs highlighted in blue color under a review -Reviewer 2 comment 6 |
|
Comment (7) |
Your Cronbach's alpha and CR for SD appear problematic and needs reevaluated. Most likely questions are redundant. Hair, which you cite, can confirm this as well as. |
|
Response |
I have added the justification about L280-287 The paragraph highlighted in blue color under a review -Reviewer 2 comment7 |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the revisions. The manuscript needs modifications.
When making changes, please use the track changes option or color. Your changes in the current version were difficult to understand.
There are still a lot of language errors; extensive proofreading is required. E.g., in your title Kingdome (Kingdom). Data was (Data were) etc.
You mentioned 'adopted and adapted' 3 questionnaires, later mentioned SD items were formulated from (51, 53). In my opinion, things are still confusing. Make it clear you adopted or adapted. OR did you develop your versions from past literature?
My suggestions are: Use subheadings, Questionnaire 1(name), and Questionnaire 2 …. Then, explain how you adopted, adapted, or developed the questionnaires under each subheading. Try to provide all details, instrument dimensions, number of items etc.
Line # 315 Pilot study: How did you do? What about the sample? Was it from the main sample or a separate one recruited? Line 342-343 are unnecessary.
You mentioned, 'To gather the required data, the link of the online Arabic version of this study's questionnaire was distributed to SLDs, parents of students with learning disabilities, and special education teachers in secondary school in Riyadh city, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.' Another significant issue is how you ensured that converting your instruments from English to Arabic would not affect their meaning. Furthermore, you mentioned three questionnaires, but later in data collection, there was only one; why? Neither an example nor supplementary material was provided for the Arabic version.
Figure 1: Why did you use mean for the main heading? A related one should be added.
A t-test was used; was it one-tailed or two-tailed? P value? The current discussion is short. Add more to it. You may find these papers helpful in understanding the mentioned parts (e.g., introduction, methods, results, etc.). https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/12531, https://peerj.com/articles/12061/
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
Thanks for giving me the chance to revise and resubmit our manuscript to the Sustainability Journal, which is titled: Relationship between student self-determination, parental involvement, special education teachers' support, and college and career readiness among secondary students with learning disabilities in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. We appreciate the time and effort you and the other reviewers put into providing thoughtful feedback on our work. The reviewers' intelligent criticism of our paper is something we value. We were able to make changes to reflect the majority of the reviewers' suggestions. The manuscript has undergone significant revisions
Here is a point-by-point response to your comments.
|
Reviewer (1) |
|
|
Comment (1) |
Extensive editing of English language and style required There are still a lot of language errors; extensive proofreading is required. E.g., in your title Kingdome (Kingdom). Data was (Data were) etc
|
|
Response |
The manuscript has undergone extensive English editing; attached is the proof. |
|
Comment (2) |
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated? |
|
Response |
Questions have been clarified, L 211 -215.The section is written in a blue color. Hypotheses have been clarified, L 216 – 225. The section is written in an orange color Research design have been clarified, L 233-235, The sentence is written in a purple color The characteristics of each questionnaire sample have been clarified, L 238-310. The sections are written in a blue color. Methods have been clarified, L235. This point is written in a green color. |
|
Comment (3) |
When making changes, please use the track changes option or color. Your changes in the current version were difficult to understand. |
|
Response |
It is good suggestions, thank you, the edited in a different color. |
|
Comment (4) |
You mentioned 'adopted and adapted' 3 questionnaires, later mentioned SD items were formulated from (51, 53). In my opinion, things are still confusing. Make it clear you adopted or adapted. OR did you develop your versions from past literature? |
|
Response |
3 Questionnaires were developed by the researcher from previous literature, L312. The word "developed" is written in a purple color |
|
Comment (5) |
My suggestions are: Use subheadings, Questionnaire 1(name), and Questionnaire 2 …. Then, explain how you adopted, adapted, or developed the questionnaires under each subheading. Try to provide all details, instrument dimensions, number of items etc. |
|
Response |
The three questionnaires have been clarified, explained in detail " L 327-377". The sections are written in an orange color |
|
Comment (6) |
Line # 315 Pilot study: How did you do? What about the sample? Was it from the main sample or a separate one recruited? Line 342-343 are unnecessary.
|
|
Response |
Pilot study has been clarified in line 379-404. The section is written in a green color |
|
Comment (7) |
You mentioned, 'To gather the required data, the link of the online Arabic version of this study's questionnaire was distributed to SLDs, parents of students with learning disabilities, and special education teachers in secondary school in Riyadh city, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.' Another significant issue is how you ensured that converting your instruments from English to Arabic would not affect their meaning. Furthermore, you mentioned three questionnaires, but later in data collection, there was only one; why? Neither an example nor supplementary material was provided for the Arabic version. |
|
Response |
The answer is explained in the section on collection data in Line 407-411, The section is written in a red color. As for the translation of questionnaires, a paragraph was created to clarify this point in line 373 -477. The section is written in an orange color. All questionnaires in English, and Arabic versions are attached in a separate document. |
|
Comment (8) |
Figure 1: Why did you use mean for the main heading? A related one should be added. |
|
Response |
The heading of the Figure 1 has been changed accordingly in line 453-467. |
|
Comment (9) |
A t-test was used; was it one-tailed or two-tailed? P value? The current discussion is short. Add more to it. You may find these papers helpful in understanding the mentioned parts (e.g., introduction, methods, results, etc.). https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/12531, https://peerj.com/articles/12061/ |
|
Response |
It was stated specifically that t-test used was two-tailed with consideration p-value < 0.05, L 472. The word " two-tailed" is written in a green color. |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
High Cronbach's alpha and CR are possible with unidimensionality. As long as proven and theoretically sound, it is possible. Nice updates.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2
Thanks for giving me the chance to revise and resubmit our manuscript to the Sustainability Journal, which is titled: Relationship between student self-determination, parental involvement, special education teachers' support, and college and career readiness among secondary students with learning disabilities in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. We appreciate the time and effort you and the other reviewers put into providing thoughtful feedback on our work. The reviewers' intelligent criticism of our paper is something we value. We were able to make changes to reflect the majority of the reviewers' suggestions. The manuscript has undergone significant revisions
Here is a point-by-point response to reviewers’ 2 comments
|
Reviewer (2) |
|
|
English language and style are fine/minor spell check required |
|
|
The manuscript has undergone extensive English editing; attached is the proof. |
|
|
High Cronbach's alpha and CR are possible with unidimensionality. As long as proven and theoretically sound, it is possible. Nice updates.
|
|
|
Thank you indeed. |
|
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
