Katy M. Clark:<br />
<br />
We have reached a decision regarding your submission to Revista Interamericana de Psicologia/Interamerican Journal of Psychology, "Overall development influences performance on the Trier Social Stress Test for Children".<br />
<br />
Our decision is to: Resubmit for review.<br />
------------------------------------------------------<br />
Reviewer A:<br />
<br />
Review of manuscript 108-363-1-RV for Interamerican Journal of Psychology. Overall development influences performance on the Trier Social Stress Test for Children<br />
<br />
This manuscript, with a large sample size, has the potential to make a modest contribution to the psychological literature. The author examined the relation between performance on the TSST-C, a stress test for children, and the intelligence and achievement scores of 10 year old Chilean children. The results revealed a relation between cognitive developmental measures and various aspect of performance on the TSST-C, specifically in devising and telling a story and counting backwards by 7s, in a public setting. Those findings are not surprising. It seems likely that children who are more verbally and mathematically proficient would find those stress tasks less challenging. It would be expected that children with higher IQs would tell stories with more ideas and development of the story, as well as organization, unity and coherence. This would not make a major contribution to knowledge. More importantly, there are major problems with the literature review, data analysis, and interpretation of the findings. These would need to be fixed before publication. The most important is that your study is correlational. You are studying the relation between two sets of variables. Therefore, you cannot imply or infer causality. For example, you should not use words like influence, or effect (noun), etc. The nature of your research also implies the kind of data analysis that is appropriate. You used ratings on various scales on the TSST-C as independent variables and intelligence and other developmental variables as dvs. This is illogical. How does stress in a situation affect intelligence (presumed to be a stable trait). You need to do a data analysis that recognizes the correlational data of your data. You could just do a table of correlations (Pearson or Spearman, depending on whether you consider your data to be interval or ordinal). Or you could do a canonical correlation, a correlation between two sets of variables; One set could be all the variables derived from the TSST-C and the other set could include all the standardized test variables. Another possibility is to do regression analyses, using demographic and standardized test variables (such as intelligence) as predictor variables and then the stress test variables as criterion variables. However, even if you use this last method of analysis, you still need to be careful not to interpret your findings as causal. They are correlational, demonstrating relations between variables, nothing more. The entire introduction consists of two paragraphs. I am certain that there is a literature that is related to your research, even if the TSST-C was not used. Your basic question is whether intelligence and academic achievement are related to performance under stress. I think if you broaden your search for literature, you will find relevant articles. Finally, there are some mistakes with respect to APA style. For example, the names of journals should be spelled out, not abbreviated. I will attach an annotated version of your manuscript, with some comments. Overall, my opinion is that the manuscript needs major revisions. Good luck with this. (1) Originality. Unsurprising results, but could make a modest contribution to the literature. (2) Research. If the paper is based upon empirical evidence, does the quantitative or qualitative methodology fit the research question(s). Are the sampling techniques, systematic data collection, and data analysis appropriate for the study? Do the data support the findings? Are findings contextualized in light of previous literature? This is the greatest weakness of this study. The data analysis needs to be completely redone (see comments above). Then the findings need to be appropriately interpreted. (3) Theory. Not relevant. (4) Practice. The implications could be better laid out. For example, results from the TSST-C should not be over-interpreted without recognizing the child’s cognitive development. (5) Literature Review. Inadequate. See comments above. (6) Writing. Check some details of APA style.<br />
<br />
<br />
------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
------------------------------------------------------<br />
Reviewer B:<br />
<br />
Originality<br />
<br />
The manuscript does offer new and significant contribution to our understanding and future application of a widely used stress paradigm. The relationship between development and performance on the TTST-C has not been specifically studied previously to my knowledge. Even more broadly, most of the research looking at development and stress reactions has focused on the impact of stress on cognitive function, rather than the impact of development on stress reactions. Further, this study focuses on motor function as well, which has also been understudied in the literature. If these findings are confirmed in other future comparison studies, they stand to contribute significantly to various aspects of our understanding of this topic; the theoretical, empirical and practical application.<br />
<br />
 <br />
<br />
Research<br />
<br />
The paper is based on empirical evidence, with methodology that fits the research questions. The methods are concisely and adequately described with sufficient detail. The data collection techniques and instruments used are appropriate for the study. The data analysis strategies are also appropriate for the study, and produced data that support the findings. The authors have also done a good job at contextualizing the data in light of previous literature, though there is limited literature available that is directly related to their research questions.<br />
<br />
 <br />
<br />
Theory<br />
<br />
There is evidence of adequate reflection and critical examination of the literature available surrounding the topic.<br />
<br />
 <br />
<br />
Practice<br />
<br />
The implications for findings are primarily related to future research, likely to be associated with the newness of their specific topic and their recognition of the need for future comparison studies to confirm their findings. The authors have not provided implications for organizational and educational settings. However, the way in which the results are presented and the discussion section is written points to the ways in which the findings may be useful in a variety of settings, particularly with their use of the TTST-C as a social-emotional measure and exploring qualitative themes, as well as their focus on cognitive and motor development of the children.<br />
<br />
 <br />
<br />
Literature Review<br />
<br />
There is evidence, when looking at both the introduction and the discussion sections, that the authors critically reviewed the relevant literature. They do demonstrate current knowledge related to the topic. However, the summary of the literature is lacking in the paper. Though the literature on this topic is limited, the authors could have provided more information regarding the uses of the TTST and the TTST-C. Additionally, some of the studies mentioned in the discussion section could be used in the introduction section to help readers to more clearly see what the existing literature does say about development and stress reactions. The authors have, however, built on existing literature in formulating their ideas.<br />
<br />
Writing<br />
<br />
The manuscript is generally well written, cohesive and logically organized. However, there is some need for editing the document. There are no issues with grammar and spelling. However, some sentences require revision to improve clarity for readers. There could be some consideration of minor changes including the addition of punctuation to improve readability of some sentences and paragraphs. Additionally, there is some inconsistency in the handling of numbers that requires revision.<br />
<br />
 <br />
<br />
Results and conclusions are stated clearly. However, the paragraph in the results section that deals primarily with the demographic characteristics of the sample seems incomplete. Though the information is presented in Table 1, there seems to be inadequate textual description of the information in the table, especially some key characteristics of interest in this particular paper. In the Discussion section, the authors need to pay some attention to the way in which they speak about public speaking and performing mental arithmetic. More specifically, there is need to be very clear about whether authors are referring to 'general performance of mental arithmetic' or 'performing mental arithmetic while being observed' in their conclusions.<br />
<br />
<br />
------------------------------------------------------<br />
__________________________________________________________<br />
Edil Torres Rivera, Ph.D., Editor<br />
Interamerican Journal of Psychology<br />
http://journal.sipsych.org/index.php/IJP