<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Originality</span></p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Research</span></p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Theory</span></p><p>There is evidence of adequate reflection and critical examination of the literature available surrounding the topic.</p><p> </p><p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Practice</span></p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Literature Review</span></p><p>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.</p><p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Writing</span></p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p>