The following message is being delivered on behalf of Interamerican Journal of Psychology.
_____________________________________________________________
Santiago Cueto:

We have reached a decision regarding your submission to Revista Interamericana de Psicologia/Interamerican Journal of Psychology, "Early sexual initiation among adolescents in Peru: A longitudinal analysis among 15-year-olds".

Our decision is to: Revisions are Requiere.

Dr. Edil Torres Rivera
etorresrivera@gmail.com
------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer A:

Introduction:

The introduction is relatively well designed and the problematic of early initiation is address along the text. However, the references could be more up to date. It is important to understand if the inexistence of recent references is due to the inexistence of recent studies or due to a necessity of extend the parameters of the research.

Also, it all seems to be treat as exploratory as indeed there are an enormous amount of studies that address the problematic of early initiation, sex risk behavior and other health risk behaviors in adolescents and young adults. Therefore, for me, it would enrich the study the existence of theoretical predictions instead of research questions. Although it is comprehensible since the nature of the study, is not uncommon to predict relations upon variables.

 

Method:

The method is extendedly described and I was very pleased to see a very good presentation of variables which is uncommon in nowadays studies.

 

Results:

Results are well presented and all tables are informative. There is a good amount of information retrieved from data that seems to be important to further the knowledge in the field of study. Data analysis is well conducted.

 

Discussion:

The discussion is undermined comparing to other parts of the manuscript. The results are poorly discussed although they comprise the pertinence of study effectively.

For instance, there are parts of the discussion that are not address in the introduction, as is “Thus, understanding what factors predict sexual behaviour might help design or reorient programs for this age group.  In what follows we will concentrate mostly on the results from the more robust models (#2 in Table 2).” – Prevention programs design was never introduced or explained as a general objective of this study.

The discussion has contours of conclusion. My suggestion is to clearly separate the discussion of results from the implications and limitations of the study, in order to make it more clear.

 

Congratulations on your work.


------------------------------------------------------

This paper, which assesses the issue of factors that impact adolescents' sexual decision making process is important and can be a useful addition to the literature. It is very timely given the growing (or at best stagnant) statistics regarding adolescents' level of sexual activity, pregnancy and incidence of HIV for this age group. Particularly commendable is the inclusion of factors at multiple levels. Despite this, I have some comments that I think will make the manuscript more logically consist and understandable.  I recommend that it be published after the issues outlined below are addressed. 
Below are the issues the researchers should address to make the manuscript publishable: 
1.	The researchers need to include literature about the factors used in the model; this is most needed for the factors collected in rounds 2 & 3 of the dataset. For instance, the variables related to geographical location (i.e., urban, jungles), "excluded by friends", and "socio-emotional skills". This is the major disconnect in the manuscript. The review of the factors affecting adolescents' early sexual initiation is fine and addresses issues at the individual, family, and societal level as proposed by the researchers but the disconnect between those examined in the literature review and those included in the model is too stark.  
2.	The theoretical component should be better enveloped into the manuscript. Currently, it almost seems like an 'add-on' and is not central to the research. The researchers should explain how the factors that are finally included in the model are 'related' and together affect adolescents' decision-making.

3.	To further build the rationale of the study the researchers should (i) discuss the benefits of longitudinal data; and (ii) explain why 15 years is an appropriate age for assessing sexual initiation. 

4.	The Moore, Miller, Glei, & Morrison, 1995 is an old reference and should be replaced.

5.	Include citations for the report that "young people subjectively assess potential partners as "clean" or "unclean", and act correspondingly" (p. 4).
6.	Clarify the countries referred to in the work by Dimbuene and Defo (2011) as it is unlikely that they covered an entire continent of 54 countries.
7.	The manuscript has some writing issues which weakens it. For instance:
i.	The literature review, especially at the start, needs to be better organised. For instance, the flow in the 2nd paragraph is poor and the topic focus shifts several times in the paragraph leading to confusion for the reader. The placement of the theory also seems misplaced. Some of the information included in the 3rd paragraph may be more useful if presented earlier;
ii.	The first sentence in the first full paragraph on p. 4 is incomplete and therefore incomprehensible;
iii.	The Uchudi et al. (2011) citation about social norms should be moved to the section of the review that discusses contextual issues; it does not belong in the section about contributing individual factors.
iv.	The report in the results on the solitary variable of adolescents' use of contraceptives (p. 15) is oddly placed as it follows the discussion of the models; it should come earlier. Additionally the word "contraceptive" is missing.
v.	Minor language corrections are needed such as using a word like "address" instead of "present" when listing the research questions. The entire manuscript should be read carefully for errors like wrong word usage and missing words as this is a problem that runs throughout the manuscript. Some examples are "Adolescents were explained what they had to do by a field worker" (p. 7), 

8.	In the method section, the researchers or entity responsible for the Young Lives dataset should be cited.
 
9.	From the measures section address three things:
i.	greater details are needed about some of the measures (e.g., the relationship measures). In particular who developed them, any information about their reliability and/or validity, and examples of some of the items;
ii.	clarify what "about the overall mean" means for each meaure, e.g., good relationship with parents, good relationship with friends; and

iii.	indicate the time period used to report the number of hours an adolescent spends without adult supervision. For instance, is this in an average day, week; and

iv.	 The reported Cronbach alpha for the subscale from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire is low and the implications of this should be addressed in the discussion.

10.	Clarify why the variables from Round 3 - used in Model 2 - are referred to as covariates.
11.	Indicate the need for Model 1 since the focus of the discussion is (almost) entirely on Model 2 which makes sense since this includes all 3 levels of factors on which the researchers want to focus. The analyses as done are appropriate for the research questions and data; the sole weakness is the high number of dichotomous variables. The researchers may want to discuss the implications of this aspect of the model.
12.	Check the analyses for "Wealth Index" in the Changes over Time section as it is contradictory that for the whole sample the factor was significant at the .01 level but it was not significant for males only and only tended to significance for females only. If these results are correct the researchers should highlight this contradictory finding and discuss potential interpretations of same.
13.	Two areas in the discussion require further interrogation, namely:
i.	the discussion about sexual education interventions (p. 21-22) should be expanded in light of the findings in the current study that this information did not help in delaying sexual initiation; and 
ii.	a discussion of the findings in terms of gender differences is warranted. This was the second research question and the results indicate they exist but the discussion of what this means in terms of why they might exist and implications for educational interventions is absent.
It is reported on p. that Model 2 consists of literature should be restructured so it has a better flow. The focus shifts around from paragraph to paragraph and even sometimes within one paragraph. For instance, the paragraph that starts on page 1, line 52 first speaks about stress for SADVA workers in having to continuously meet with traumatized clients but then shifts to general workplace stressors for these workers. 
14.	Two minor points in the discussion which should be addressed:
i.	indicate at the start of the discussion that this study was of Peruvian adolescents only;
ii.	after stating that model 2 will be the focus of the discussion results related to Model 1 only (i.e., age variant on p. ) is included. This should be placed elsewhere.
_____________________________________________________________
Edil Torres Rivera, Ph.D., Editor
Interamerican Journal of Psychology
http://journal.sipsych.org/index.php/IJP