Title: Relationship Between Psychological empowerment, Physical Activity Enjoyment, and
Response to a HIIT Program in Physically Inactive Young Women: A Prospective Multicentre
Study
Version: 2 Date: 22 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
I hope the comments that follow are constructive.
Abstract
Self-empowerment is not a concept that is widely known, and in fact can be defined in numerous
ways. As such, it is important to operationalize this term at first use if only briefly.
The full scale name is spelled out for PACES and HLPCQ but not PSQI. Consistency in approach
is recommended.
ES and p-values are not consistently listed in the same order.
Introduction
Reference to 45% of people ‘never’ exercising seems inconceivable. Please confirm the
precision of this wording.
The ‘while exercise is….’ statement requires a citation and reference.
HIIT: This term is defined in a multitude of ways. It seems good to operationalize this concept
early and clearly, perhaps both in the introduction and also within the methods.
The description of self-empowerment should be elaborated to make clear why it is important
and thus a primary variable of interest for this study design.
The ‘when exercise is perceived as enjoyable….’ statement likely requires citation and reference.
Methods
Participants: I believe that the WHO has separate classifications for ‘sedentary’ and
‘insufficiently active.’
Participants: I presume the reference should be to COVID ‘19’ not ‘1.’
Videos: Greater detail regarding the contents and instructions for these videos should be
provided.
Motivational Activities: These activities should be described with more detail.
Sleep Scale: The last phrase after referencing the Servian version seems to reference that version
only. A separate sentence would likely eliminate confusion.
Self-Empowerment: I continue to desire more clarification related to this scale. The second
sentence notes that the scale assesses lifestyle habits, but how does the scale evaluate personal
control. Please carefully explicate how this scale works and how this important measure is being
operationalized. That is, does this scale simply measure habits or some aspect of self-control
and/or behavioral regulation capacity?
Self-Empowerment: The final sentence note domains to suggest multiple domains, but the prior
description does not suggest plural domains.
PACES: The version of the PACES that is most commonly cited in the literature has 18 items
with reverse scoring of several items.
PACES: The primary measure utilizes a semantic differential response style, rather than the
likert-type scale described in the manuscript.
PACES: Here you also report a measure of temporal agreement but do not provide similar
information for the other scales. It would seem good to more consistently report this information
for all variables, or to perhaps eliminate this reference from the PACES description.
Results
Physical activity change: Perhaps I have misunderstood some aspect of the design but it seems
odd to report an increase in activity during an activity intervention. That is, such an increase
would presumably be assumed. As such, it could be more appropriate to report this increase as
a manipulation check that demonstrates the effectiveness of the intervention.
Physical activity change: mean values are reported for 3 and 6 months, but it would also be good
to report the baseline amount of activity, and perhaps to calculate an effect size of the change.
Physical activity covariates: were the other potential covariates also evaluation, or only PACES?
Sleep: Perhaps this section would benefit from some elaboration. Means could be noted as above
for activity.
Muscular Endurance: Inclusion of means would be useful. I understand that means are included
in the table and so this could be considered redundant, but means were included for physical
activity and so consistency would seem to be a good thing.
General Note: Consider inclusion of effect sizes throughout the results.
Discussion
First paragraph: The measurements made within the design are good, but given that the
intervention was HIIT, it would seem that other measurements would also be valuable. Consider
articulating why a measure of strength or aerobic endurance was not provided. And this issue
links back to the value in clearly articulating the precise nature of the HIIT intervention. Without
added description most readers will believe HIIT includes significant cardiovascular work.
Third paragraph: Your results demonstrate the PACES as a covariate but not the HLPCQ, but
a statement within this paragraph suggests both are influential. This statement should be made
more clearly given the result presented previously.
Self-empowerment: You mention exploration of the interaction of enjoyment and self-
empowerment, and I wonder why you did not explore this issue within the current data set.
Frontiers of Psychology: It is extremely unusual to name a journal within the discussion section
of a paper.
Enjoyment (last paragraph): Here you mention the importance of enjoyment in increasing
physical activity. Much of this literature makes clear that in-task responses, most often affective
valence, are critical and that post-exercise ratings are less important. The current design
measured enjoyment post-exercise. Be sure to describe this distinction between in-task and post-
exercise ratings as it relates to future exercise behavior and adherence.
Strengths & Limitations: I am not sure that a statement indicating that self-empowerment was
important can be supported by the study findings.
Strengths & Limitations: Regarding sample size, it would be good to indicate why the sample
size might be smaller than is needed, which raises the question of whether a power calculation
was performed to justify the current sample.
Strengths & Limitations: Generalizability is also a consideration given the narrow nature of the
sample.
References
There is inconsistency with the referencing style. For example, some journals are capitalized
and/or abbreviated and others are not. Seek uniformity and adherence to journal specifications.
Tables
Table 1 would be improved by more description of the contents. That is, I am not sure how to
read this table, including the numerical conventions.
Tables 2 & 3: Consider the possibility that table 2 is not required because much of that
information is provided in Table 3.