<p>Domitila Shizue Gonzaga, Larissa Fukuda, Carla Guanaes-Lorenzi, Ottar Ness:<br><br>We have reached a decision regarding your submission to Revista Interamericana de Psicología/Interamerican Journal of Psychology, "Preparatory conversations with adolescents for group participation on sexuality".<br><br></p>
<p>Thank you for your submission to <em>Revista Interamerican de Psicologia</em> (RIP). We have reached a decision regarding your submission titled "Perceived, desired and reachable academic self-efficacy in university students comparisons by gender".&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;<br>I received evaluations from experts and although the reviewers thought that the topic of your study is potentially important and contained several strengths, they also thought that the manuscript still contained significant limitations. I conducted an independent review of the revised manuscript to carefully weigh the merits of the paper and its limitations. Given this backdrop, I regret to inform you that the paper cannot be published in RIP.<br><br>The reviewers have provided well-considered comments and suggestions and they are included below. I realize that a great deal of effort was put into completing this manuscript and this is a difficult decision to receive. However, please know that I do believe this is an important topic that should be further pursued. I would very much welcome submissions based on your future work.<br><br>I want to thank you for submitting your manuscript to RIP. Again, I do hope that you will consider the journal as an outlet for your work in the future.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Sincerely,</p>
<p>Melissa L. Morgan, Ph.D.</p>
<p>Associate Editor</p>
<p><br><br><br><br></p>
<p>Melissa L. Morgan</p>
<p><br><br>------------------------------------------------------<br>Reviewer A:<br>Recommendation: See Comments<br><br>------------------------------------------------------<br><br></p>
<p>Does the abstract provide the main purposes of the study?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the abstract provide what conditions, if any, were participants exposed?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the abstract provide what type of design was used?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the abstract provide main findings and conclusions?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is your overall rating of the abstract?</p>
<blockquote>Poor</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide the background and context for the study?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide what in current theory, research, or clinical work makes this study useful, important, or of interest?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide what is different or special about the study in focus, methods, or design to address a need in the area?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide a clear the rationale regarding the constructs to be assessed?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide what specifically were the purposes, predictions, or hypotheses?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is you overall rating of the introduction?</p>
<blockquote>Poor</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide who were the participants and how many of them were there in this study?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide why was this sample selected in light of the research goals?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how was this sample obtained, recruited, and selected?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what are the participant (s) demographic characteristics of the sample (e.g., gender, age, ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status)? What if any inclusion and exclusion criteria were invoked (i.e., selection rules to obtain participants)?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how many of those participants eligible or recruited actually were selected and participated in the study?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide if and it was informed consent solicited? How and from whom, if special populations were used?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what is the design (e.g., longitudinal, cross-sectional, relationship, comparison) and how does the design relate to the goals of the study?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide&nbsp;how were participants assigned to groups or conditions?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how many groups were included in the design?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how were the groups similar and different in how they were treated in the study?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide why were these groups critical to address the questions of interest?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide the constructs of interest and how were they measured?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide the relevant reliability and validity data from previous research (and from the present study) that support the use of these measures for the present purposes?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide multiple measures and methods used to assess the constructs?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide response sets or styles relevant to the use and interpretation of the measures?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how was the assessment conducted? By whom (as assessors/observers)? In what order were the measures administered?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide if raters were used in any facet of assessment, what is the reliability (inter- or intrajudge consistency) in rendering their judgments/ratings?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide where was the study conducted (setting)?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what materials, equipment, or apparatuses were used in the study?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what was the chronological sequence of events to which participants were exposed?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what intervals elapsed between different aspects of the study (e.g., assessment occasions)?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what procedural checks were completed to avert potential sources of bias in implementation of the manipulation and assessments?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what checks were made to ensure that the conditions were carried out as intended?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what other information does the reader need to know to understand how participants were treated and what conditions were provided?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is your overall rating of the methodology?</p>
<blockquote>Good</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the primary measures and data on which the predictions depend?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the scores on the measures of interest for the different groups and sample as a whole (e.g., measures of central tendency and variability)?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide how the scores compare with those of other study, normative, or standardization samples?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the groups of interest within the study similar on measures and variables that could interfere with interpretation of the hypotheses?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the analyses were used and how specifically did these address the original hypotheses and purposes?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the assumptions of the data analyses met?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide if multiple tests were used, what means were provided to control error rates?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide if more than one group was delineated, were they similar on variables that might otherwise explain the results (e.g., diagnosis, age)?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide if data was missing due to incomplete measures (not filled out completely by the participants) or due to loss of participants? If so, how were these handled in the data analyses?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide ancillary analyses that might further inform the primary analyses or exploratory analyses that might stimulate further work?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is your overall rating of the results?</p>
<blockquote>Good</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the discussion provide what were the major findings of the study?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide how do these findings add to research and how do they support, refute, or inform current theory? What alternative interpretations can be placed on the data?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide what limitations or qualifiers must be placed on the study given methodology and design issues? What research follows from the study to move the field forward?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is your overall rating of the Discussion?</p>
<blockquote>Poor</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Is the manuscript well written, grammatically correct, free of spelling errors, cohesive, and logically organized?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Are conclusions stated clearly?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Do the author(s) appropriately reference primary and secondary sources using the APA publication manual?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; What a fascinating study. It has potential but many changes would need to be made before publication. First, the focus of the study must be clear - it seems about sexuality and challenging sexual discussions within a group. If this is the heart or focus, most of the introduction and other writing must be focused on this focus/theme with review of the literature, discussion of challenging related to adolescent sexuality, WHY such group discussions and education are so important? The theoretical background, which seems to be the majority of the Introduction, should be a brief discussion within methods or within introduction as a theoretical background. social constructionism is a lens not the focus of the study, it seems. I also would clarify then specific methodology. Is it within focus group framework with social constructionism lens. In reading the manuscript, I feel confused about both the methods and then, the results. I would like to understand better, thematically, what it is that the study really found - what can be applied and shared with the readers and the community? Thus, the discussion offers very very little in terms of this summary or interpretation. How are these findings applicable? What is their contribution? How are they new or different than what is known? What must be done next? Lastly, most of the paper is not written in APA style.</p>
<p>Based on the answers to these questions what is your&nbsp;disposition&nbsp;for the manuscript?</p>
<blockquote>Rewrite and resubmit:</blockquote>
<p><br>------------------------------------------------------<br><br><br><br>------------------------------------------------------<br>Reviewer B:</p>
<p>I submit this review with respect for the work that the authors invested in writing it. The manuscript proposes to deliver a description of conversations conducted with a group of teenagers in order to help them prepare for active participation in a group about sexuality and in order to make the group a safe and welcoming place in which the participants can freely discuss sexuality. I found that the authors did deliver an adequate description of the process, but a major problem I detected with the manuscript is lack of clarity as to the relevance and effectiveness of such preparatory conversations. I believe this problem is connected to the core issue with the manuscript and that is lack of focus. The authors provide an extensive theoretical review of social constructionism as well as collaborative practices but there is little in the way of showing how these approaches improve psychological interventions. Indeed it is unclear if improvement of psychological interventions is at all the aim of the authors. With that in mind, I find it impossible to offer constructive ways in which the manuscript could be further improved.</p>
<p>Methodologically speaking, I would like to understand why these particular adolescents were selected for participation in the study; what was the method of data analysis, and how do the data relate to social constructionism. Some connections to collaborative practices were offered by the authors.</p>
<p>There are problems in the manuscript with APA style and its consistent application.</p>
<p>Several references and at least one in-text citation are missing. Missing references include: Guanes (2006), Aragaki et al. (2014), Spink et al. (2014). Missing in text citation for Harlene Anderson and Harry Goolishian (p. 1).</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Recommendation: Decline Submission<br><br>------------------------------------------------------<br><br><br></p><br/><p>The following message is being delivered on behalf of Revista Interamericana de Psicología/Interamerican Journal of Psychology. ______________________________________</p>
<div>
<div id="Zm-_Id_-Sgn" data-zbluepencil-ignore="true">
<div><strong><span class="size">Dr. Fernando Andres Polanco</span></strong></div>
<div><em>Editor</em></div>
<div><a href="mailto:fernando.polanco@sipsych.org" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fernando.polanco@sipsych.org</a>&nbsp;</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Sociedad Interamericana de Psicología</div>
<div>Web:&nbsp;<a href="http://sipsych.org" target="_blank" rel="noopener">http://sipsych.org</a>&nbsp;</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div><a href="https://www.facebook.com/sipsych/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Facebook</a>&nbsp; |&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/sipsych" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitter</a> &nbsp;|&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.instagram.com/sipsych/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Instagram</a>&nbsp; |&nbsp; <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/SIPChannel2013" target="_blank" rel="noopener">YouTube</a></div>
</div>
</div>