Inculcating Resilience through Physical Activity among Children


P Sindhuja Manisha Kamini

Department of Psychology, PSG College of Arts &Science, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India

Peer Review Report

Received Date

16.03.2019

Accepted Date

30.03.2019

Published Date

02.04.2019

Plagiarism

Accepted Level

Reviewer’s Comments to Authors

The paper on ‘inculcating resilience through physical activity among children’ has made an attempt with the primary objective of finding out whether resilience can be inculcated through physical activity among children. It has been conducted to find out the level of physical activity among children, to find out the level of resilience among children, to find out the relationship between the physical activity and resilience among children and to analyse the gender difference between the physical activity and resilience among children. Study based on both primary and secondary sources of data collections. Primary data have been collected from ‘Physical Activity Questionnaire for Children (PAQ-C)’ and ‘Child and Youth Resilience Measure (CYRM12)’. Totally 157 respondents have been selected for the study.

Major Comments

  1. Author needs to justify why the sample selection according to the gender is unequal (80 males and 77 females). When the comparison made according to the primary aim/objective of the study is ‘to analyse the difference between physical activity and resilience between boys and girls’ the gender of the respondents must be equal to give correct result. Why the unequal contribution f male and female child. Here author’s justification for this is needed.
  2. And it is also important to the contribution of two different areas of the study (Dindigul and Coimbatore districts) to the number of respondents. Whether it is equal or unequal should be mentioned clearly.
  3. It is important to mention is that a comparative study between two different areas of the study (Dindigul and Coimbatore districts). When two or more area of study given in the paper it is needed to be clear.
  4. There is no detail on the period of the study. It is important to add for knowing to which period the study and the result of the study will be adopted.

Minor Comments

  1. For every reference there should be a footnote in the relevant pages.

Associate Editor’s Critique

The study has much strength where there was some weakness also. It is highly important clarifications are needed in the sample population, inequality in the gender of the respondents, missing information on period of the study and the samples selected from two different areas of the study. The author should include all the needed information for the study to strengthen the value of the paper.

Constructiveness of Comments

The review committee has given the constructive comments to the author /researcher.

Level of Detail of the Review

The review is fairly detailed, but the reviewer missed data inconsistence in the required field. There are minor corrections to be taken place before the final review.

Substantiation of Comments

The reviewer made comments on the paper with references.

Was the Review Biased?

The study was reviewed under ‘nil’ biased basis.

Recommendation from the Reviewer

I recommend that, this paper be accepted after the above mentioned minor revisions.