Parents’ roles in young learners’ motivation and task engagement in Indonesian primary schools: Questionnaire development and validation

Parents’ roles in young learners’... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1127" }, "headline": "Parents’ roles in young learners’ motivation and task engagement in Indonesian primary schools:...", "datePublished": "2025-10-17T13:19:34", "dateModified": "2025-12-24T06:13:45", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Mai Sri Lena" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Marianne Nikolov" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background Parental involvement in a child’s second language learning is important because it affects the process and outcomes. Limited research has been conducted in the Indonesian context on what roles parents play in their children’s motivation and task engagement. Therefore, the study aims to develop, pilot, and validate a questionnaire on the roles of parents in motivating and engaging young learners with English tasks assigned by teachers. Methods This study was quantitative in nature. Participants were 270 parents of fifth graders learning English at nine public and private schools in Padang. The instrument was developed by analysing the literature and existing tools and creating new items. After getting expert feedback and piloting the survey, we assessed its validity and reliability. Research questions examined factors affecting its effectiveness. Results The questionnaire was analysed through EFA and CFA via Jamovi. EFA identified five dimensions: (1) parental involvement, (2) expectations, (3) access to resources, (4) enrichment and (5) extracurricular activities. The CFA fit indices (CFI = .945, TLI = .934, SRMR = .045, RMSEA = .059) confirmed the model’s suitability. The questionnaire showed strong validity and reliability, with measures exceeding.70, making it effective for gathering data on parental roles in Indonesian children’s learning of English. Conclusions This validation study offers an effective diagnostic tool for teachers, administrators, and policymakers to pinpoint the particular dimensions of parental involvement that affect children’s motivation and task engagement as they learn English. The findings highlight the critical roles of recognising parents as active collaborators along the language learning journey. The study adds to the theoretical understanding of the impact of parental behaviour in educational psychology and motivation studies. The findings are consistent with self-determination theory, providing a more nuanced perspective to explore how different forms of parental participation influence student motivation and task engagement in learning English. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1127/v2", "name": "Parents’ roles in young learners’ motivation and task engagement in..." } } ] } Home Browse Parents’ roles in young learners’ motivation and task engagement in... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Lena MS and Nikolov M. Parents’ roles in young learners’ motivation and task engagement in Indonesian primary schools: Questionnaire development and validation [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1127 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.170391.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Revised Parents’ roles in young learners’ motivation and task engagement in Indonesian primary schools: Questionnaire development and validation [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] Mai Sri Lena https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1835-1963 1,2 , Marianne Nikolov 3 Mai Sri Lena https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1835-1963 1,2 , Marianne Nikolov 3 PUBLISHED 24 Dec 2025 Author details Author details 1 Doctoral school of education, University of Szeged, Szeged, H-6720, Hungary 2 Department of Elementary School Teacher Education, Universitas Negeri Padang, Padang, 25171, Indonesia 3 Institute of English Studies, University of Pécs, Pécs, H-7622, Hungary Mai Sri Lena Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Marianne Nikolov Roles: Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Developmental Psychology and Cognition gateway. Abstract Background Parental involvement in a child’s second language learning is important because it affects the process and outcomes. Limited research has been conducted in the Indonesian context on what roles parents play in their children’s motivation and task engagement. Therefore, the study aims to develop, pilot, and validate a questionnaire on the roles of parents in motivating and engaging young learners with English tasks assigned by teachers. Methods This study was quantitative in nature. Participants were 270 parents of fifth graders learning English at nine public and private schools in Padang. The instrument was developed by analysing the literature and existing tools and creating new items. After getting expert feedback and piloting the survey, we assessed its validity and reliability. Research questions examined factors affecting its effectiveness. Results The questionnaire was analysed through EFA and CFA via Jamovi. EFA identified five dimensions: (1) parental involvement, (2) expectations, (3) access to resources, (4) enrichment and (5) extracurricular activities. The CFA fit indices (CFI = .945, TLI = .934, SRMR = .045, RMSEA = .059) confirmed the model’s suitability. The questionnaire showed strong validity and reliability, with measures exceeding.70, making it effective for gathering data on parental roles in Indonesian children’s learning of English. Conclusions This validation study offers an effective diagnostic tool for teachers, administrators, and policymakers to pinpoint the particular dimensions of parental involvement that affect children’s motivation and task engagement as they learn English. The findings highlight the critical roles of recognising parents as active collaborators along the language learning journey. The study adds to the theoretical understanding of the impact of parental behaviour in educational psychology and motivation studies. The findings are consistent with self-determination theory, providing a more nuanced perspective to explore how different forms of parental participation influence student motivation and task engagement in learning English. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Parents’ role, young learners, motivation, task engagement, primary school, validation Corresponding Author(s) Mai Sri Lena ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Mai Sri Lena Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2025 Lena MS and Nikolov M. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Lena MS and Nikolov M. Parents’ roles in young learners’ motivation and task engagement in Indonesian primary schools: Questionnaire development and validation [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1127 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.170391.2 ) First published: 17 Oct 2025, 14 :1127 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.170391.1 ) Latest published: 24 Dec 2025, 14 :1127 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.170391.2 ) Revised Amendments from Version 1 We added the data analysis section. We added an explanation about discriminant validity (Table 8). We added interpretation and theoretical insight into our discussion. We added the data analysis section. We added an explanation about discriminant validity (Table 8). We added interpretation and theoretical insight into our discussion. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Ümit Ünsal Kaya See the authors' detailed response to the review by Panaoura Rita See the authors' detailed response to the review by Pawel Larionow READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction Young learners’ (YLs) motivation to learn English is influenced by internal and external factors. These include their interest in English, interactions with teachers, peers, and parents, the classroom environment, and the societal value of English. In Indonesia, where English is a foreign language, it is crucial for YLs to enjoy learning and use all learning opportunities despite limited exposure outside of school. Indonesian children often start learning English early, making it vital to nurture motivation for long-term language development. Understanding how children’s motivation develops is key to forming effective teaching methods and addressing challenges such as unequal access to instruction and varying levels of parental involvement. Research shows that motivation significantly affects learners’ engagement, persistence, and achievement in language learning ( Lamb, 2017 ), making it essential for improving English education in Indonesia. Furthermore, according to the Ministry of Education and Culture Regulation Number 51 of 2018 on the admission of new students to primary schools in Indonesia, YLs are 7-12-year-old pupils in primary schools ( Minister of Education and Culture, 2018 ). Given English’s status as a global language, introducing it to young learners at an early stage is seen as advantageous for their exposure to the language. Therefore, English is a compulsory subject for students in elementary schools starting from grade three, based on Ministerial Regulation Number 12 of 2024 concerning the curriculum in early childhood education, elementary and secondary education ( Minister of Education Culture Research and Technology, 2024 ). Some schools provide English as a subject from grade one to six, and some others from grade three to six, depending on the school’s decision. However, little research has been conducted on YLs’ needs, who and what motivates them to learn English at the primary school level. Therefore, there is a need to investigate this topic further. Multiple publications revealed that parental involvement in a child’s second language learning is important because it affects children’s motivation (e.g., Choi et al., 2024 ; Liang et al., 2024 ; Mihaljević Djigunović & Nikolov, 2019 ) and engagement (e.g., Fan & Williams, 2010 ; Liang et al., 2024 ). However, no empirical studies have explored how parents perceive their roles in their children’s learning of English at the primary school level. Previously used questionnaires focus on students ( Butler & Le, 2018 ; Liu et al., 2016 ; Oga-Baldwin et al., 2017 ; Wang & Bai, 2023 ) and teachers ( Kalayci & Ergül, 2020 ) and were designed for Western contexts, making them less suitable for use with Indonesian parents of young learners. Therefore, this research introduces a novel approach by bridging a contextual and methodological gap, presenting the first validated survey tailored to capture Indonesian parents’ views on their roles in enhancing their children’s motivation and task engagement in learning English. This research, by anchoring the instrument in the specific educational and cultural context, delivers unique data at a crucial moment—right before English is mandated as a core subject from an early age in all Indonesian primary schools. The results aim to academically augment motivation studies in less-explored settings and to practically guide improvements in English education by promoting greater family participation, especially the involvement of parents. This study aimed to answer two research questions: 1. What underlying factors structure the questionnaire measuring parents’ roles in their children’s English learning motivation and task engagement? 2. How valid and reliable is the questionnaire piloted with parents of fifth-grade learners of English? Before designing the questionnaire, we reviewed the literature. In the first section, we explain how we decided which working definitions to use for various constructs related to how parents impact their children’s English language learning motivation and task engagement, how these were researched, and what the main findings were. Then, we outline the key variables we assumed to impact Indonesian young learners’ motivation and engagement, how we developed a survey for their parents, and how the data collection instrument worked with 270 participants in a pilot study. Literature review Parents’ roles in English language learning Parental involvement is crucial in children’s English learning, influencing motivation and engagement ( Liang et al., 2024 ) and enhancing academic interest and passion, study habits, and grades ( Shebani et al., 2025 ). Research indicates that parental socioeconomic status (SES) combind as their education, income, and occupation ( Ma et al., 2023 ; Sirin, 2005 ) positively correlates with L2 achievements ( Ma et al., 2023 ), academic results ( Balsa et al., 2018 ), and English learning ability ( Butler & Le, 2018 ). University-educated mothers positively influenced their children’s English proficiency ( Jalili, 2017 ; Tan & Caleon, 2022 ). Low parental education correlated with higher primary education drop-out rates in D.G.Khan ( Ahsan et al., 2015 ). Family income affected children’s English learning engagement in elementary schools Hong Kong: low-income children were less engaged than those from middle-income families ( Poon, 2020 ). Various research papers have assessed the role of parental involvement in enhancing children’s academic achievements. The engagement of Chinese parents in their children’s English studies shows a significant link to the children’s proficiency in the target language ( Butler & Le, 2018 ). Support provided by parents at home plays a crucial role in boosting students’ academic performance ( Tan & Caleon, 2022 ; Torrecilla & Hernández-Castilla, 2020 ). According to Kim et al. (2020) , the psychological and behavioral participation of parents has a more profound effect on the motivation and accomplishments of their children than the parents’ educational background. Communication between parents and teachers has also been shown to augment students’ achievements ( Tan & Caleon, 2022 ) as well as their engagement and motivation to master English ( Fan & Williams, 2010 ). Involvement of parents in extracurricular activities and attendance at parent meetings has a notable influence on student performance in elementary schools in Latin America ( Torrecilla & Hernández-Castilla, 2020 ). Additionally, parental guidance is a positive predictor of students’ intrinsic motivation to advance their English skills ( Fan & Williams, 2010 ), while parents’ academic expectations also align positively with students’ English proficiency ( Butler & Le, 2018 ), achievements ( Tan & Caleon, 2022 ), engagement levels, and intrinsic motivation in English ( Fan & Williams, 2010 ). Figure 1 illustrates some parents’ roles in young learners’ English learning based on the literature. Figure 1. Parents’ roles construct. Motivation and task engagement in EFL contexts Motivation is identified as a complex entity, consisting of three components: the aspiration to learn the language, perceptions regarding language learning, and the intensity of motivation demonstrated by continued effort in language acquisition ( Gardner, 2010 ). In English language learning, especially at the primary school level, motivation has been shown to influence learners’ persistence, participation, and language outcomes ( Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011 ). Motivation plays a pivotal role in language learning; it determines the rate and success of acquiring a new language ( Gardner, 1985 ). This study conceptualizes motivation as the learners’ willingness, interest, and enthusiasm toward learning English. It is based on self-determination in which motivation is divided into two types: intrinsic and extrinsic motivation ( Deci & Ryan, 1985 ; Ryan & Deci, 2020 ). Intrinsic motivation is defined as the interest or enjoyment in English tasks, while extrinsic motivation is encouraged by external rewards, pressures, or outcomes. These types of motivation are widely used in educational psychology and are appropriate for young learners’ development. Task engagement refers to students’ involvement in completing tasks during the process of language learning ( Philp & Duchesne, 2016 ). It is understood as a construct with four distinct dimensions: behavioral, cognitive, emotional, and social engagement ( Philp & Duchesne, 2016 ). Behavioral engagement involves learners actively participating in tasks ( Philp & Duchesne, 2016 ), which can be assessed through factors like time dedicated to tasks and responding to questions ( Dörnyei & Kormos, 2000 ; Oga-Baldwin, 2019 ). Emotional engagement encompasses learners’ emotional connections and reactions to class activities ( Sang & Hiver, 2021 ). Cognitive engagement relates to alertness, continuous attention, active mental processes, mental effort, and self-regulation techniques ( Dao, 2021 ). Agentic engagement is defined by learners’ actions aimed at influencing classroom instruction ( Oga-Baldwin, 2019 ). Social engagement refers to the extent to which a student follows written and unwritten classroom rules of behavior, for example, coming to school and class on time, interacting appropriately with teachers and peers ( Finn & Zimmer, 2012 ). Parents play a significant role in motivating young learners to learn English and in their engagement with tasks. Research indicates that parental involvement has a notable effect on children’s motivation ( Choi et al., 2024 ; Liang et al., 2024 ; Sumanti & Muljani, 2021 ; Tong et al., 2021 ) and engagement ( Liang et al., 2024 ). Interaction between parents and teachers is shown to enhance students’ motivation and engagement in English learning ( Finn & Zimmer, 2012 ). Parental questionnaires on young learners’ motivation and task engagement Self-report questionnaires are the most frequently used tools to assess motivation and engagement in tasks. Some prior studies developed and adapted questionnaires to investigate motivation and engagement in tasks. For instance, Butler (2015b) and Butler and Le (2018) in China used parental a survey comprising various aspects related to their children’s learning of the English language. They included: (a) the socioeconomic status (SES) of parents, indicated by household income and level of education; (b) indirect actions by parents aimed at supporting English learning, for instance, fostering a literacy-rich home environment and using English at part of their jobs; (c) direct parental actions to facilitate English education, for example, engaging in their children’s study process and arranging for private English tutoring post-school hours; (d) parental beliefs regarding English education, including the significance of English; and (e) specific beliefs parents have about their own child, like their expectation concerning the child’s success in learning English. Butler (2015b) found that higher SES parents adjusted their parenting to children’s changing needs and, through their ability to provide more frequent English use outside the classroom, increasingly fostered their children’s competence and self-determined motivation. In contrast, lower SES parents tended to remain controlling and often failed to cultivate such competence and self-determined motivation. Butler and Le (2018) revealed strong correlations between SES and parents’ views on English, parenting styles, number of Chinese books at home, involvement in children’s English learning, and beliefs and expectations about their children’s English ability. Parents’ autonomous (rather than controlled) parenting, beliefs, and expectations all positively related to their children’s English achievement. Torrecilla and Hernández-Castilla (2020) in Latin America used a parental survey on household assets, their connection with the student and school, and their general contentment with the school. They found that parents’ engagement in school and learning directly improved YLs’ academic performance. Third-grade students whose parents helped with homework, especially when the mother provided support, achieved higher results, and parents’ attendance at meetings with the principal and teachers, as well as participation in extracurricular activities, also positively affected achievements. Wang et al. (2023) used the Chinese version of a parental involvement scale from a previous study covering three aspects: personal, cognitive, and behavioral involvement. Personal involvement measured perceived care about school life and emotions (e.g., easing emotions during learning difficulties). Cognitive involvement assessed exposure to stimulating activities and materials (e.g., buying study materials). Behavioral involvement evaluated parents’ participation in school activities (e.g., controlling online time). Their study showed that parents’ involvement directly increased children’s learning engagement and indirectly did so through children’s perceptions of that involvement, with learning engagement mediating the link between parental involvement and academic achievement. Parental involvement significantly predicted children’s English performance through its effect on engagement. However, no research has been conducted in the Indonesian context on the development and validation of instruments to measure parents’ involvement in their children’s motivation and engagement with English tasks. Therefore, it is necessary to develop and validate a questionnaire on young learners’ motivation and task engagement from the perspectives of their parents. By doing so, we aim to enhance local educational practices and add to the existing body of knowledge in English language learning research in a new context. Method Research design The study was quantitative in nature. It involved the measurement and analysis of numerical data ( Creswell & Creswell, 2018 ). Its focus was on the development and validation of a new instrument in primary schools in Indonesia. Context of the study The research was carried out in Padang elementary schools, where English is taught as a foreign language and is a required subject for YLs at elementary school from grade three. Children in both private and public elementary schools learn English for 70 minutes a week with English teachers who have an English educational background. Participants Participants were a large sample parents of fifth graders. We used a convenience sampling technique in selecting them, as this offers quick access to willing participants, enabling fast, efficient data collection while reducing financial and logistical costs ( Cohen et al., 2018 ). It is especially useful for testing instruments and convenience sampling allows researchers to collect data in naturalistic settings. However, we acknowledge that convenience sampling may limit the generalizability of the findings to other populations, but this was the feasible way forward. The study involved 270 parents of fifth-grade students, and their characteristics can be found in Table 1 . Most respondents were female (88.5%), with 48.9% aged between 38 and 44. Many parents (46.3%) reported their English proficiency to be at the intermediate level, and every fifth respondent used English regularly. They used it primarily for entertainment purposes (46.96%). More than half of the participants had high-school education (60.4%) and were housewives (64.4%). Furthermore, 43% of respondents had a monthly income between IDR 1.000.000 and 5.000.000, while 38.1% chose not to disclose their incomes. Table 1. Description of participants in this study. Personal information Category Frequency Percentage (%) Gender Male 31 11.5 Female 239 88.5 Age 31-37 78 37.1 38-44 132 48.9 45-51 48 17.8 52-58 8 3 59-65 4 1.5 English proficiency Low 64 23.7 Beginner-intermediate 73 37 Intermediate 125 46.3 Advanced 8 3 Using English Regularly 58 21.5 Sometimes 107 39.6 Rarely 101 37.4 Never 4 1.5 What for Use it in my job 13 19.69 Use it for entertainment 31 46.96 Use it for my interest 12 18.18 Use it for travel 10 15.15 Education background High school 163 60.4 Diploma degree 25 9.3 Bachelor degree 60 22.2 Master degree 13 4.8 Others 9 3.3 Occupation Housewife 174 64.4 Laborer 15 5.6 Private sector employee 37 13.7 Civil servant 44 16.3 Monthly income IRD 1.000.000 – 5.000.000 116 43 IRD 6.000.000 – 10.000.000 13 4.8 IRD 11.000.000 –15.000.000 2 0.7 IRD >15.000.000 4 1.5 NA 103 38.1 Others 32 11.9 Data collection instrument A questionnaire was developed for gathering data, as previously used instruments did not meet the purpose of the present study. It focused on parents’ roles by drawing on empirical research concerning parental influence on YLs’ motivation and engagement in tasks ( Butler, 2015a ; Tan & Caleon, 2022 ; Torrecilla & Hernández-Castilla, 2020 ; Tseng, 2021 ) to ensure construct validity. The instrument included five dimensions: 1) parental involvement (e.g., assisting with homework, attending school meeting, and actively engaging in their child’s educational journey), 2) parental expectations (e.g., setting high academic aspirations, offering encouragement), 3) access to educational resources (such as books, educational technology, and a study-friendly environment), and 4) exposure to enrichment activities (e.g., providing diverse experiences like travel, cultural events, and 5) access to extracurricular programs. Table 2 presents the 19 items on the roles of parents. We used a 4-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 4, to avoid a middle choice and to make sure respondents took sides. Table 2. Items of the parents’ questionnaire. Construct Dimensions Items Parents’ roles Parental involvement 1. I ask the teacher regularly about my child’s progress in English. 2. I help my child with the English tasks at home. 3. I read English story books with my child. 4. I attend parental meetings with my child’s English teacher. Parental expectations 5. It is important for my child to be good at English. 6. I expect my child to do well in their English lessons. 7. I expect my child to get a good grade in English lesson. 8. I want my child to speak English fluently. 9. I want my child to enjoy learning English. Access to resources 10. I provide English books for my child to learn English at home. 11. I provide my child with access to the Internet. 12. I provide access to games in English. 13. My child has access to English language apps. 14. My child can watch movies in English at home. Enrichment activities 15. My child reads English story books at home. 16. My child learns English at a language center. 17. I pay for private tutoring in English. Extracurricular activities 18. I encourage my child to participate in activities in English outside school. 19. I support my child to participate in an English competition such as “spelling bee”. Procedure Ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the Doctoral School of Education at the University of Szeged (Reference number: 24/2023) was secured prior to data collection. All participants were informed about the study’s objectives, and written consent forms were signed by all parents prior to participating in this survey. The development and validation of the questionnaire concerning the roles of parents involved multiple phases: initially, all existing instruments in publications were reviewed; next, items were formulated based on the literature with input from experts. The questionnaire was evaluated by three experts (the co-author and two Indonesian teachers of English). Experts evaluated the content, clarity, and readability of the survey. They agreed that the questionnaire was clear and covered the content related to the roles of parents in motivating young learners to learn English and engage in English tasks. Then the instrument was compiled and subjected to pilot testing to assess its validity and reliability. The text was translated to Indonesian language by two bilingual experts who were fluent in the English and Indonesian languages and had expertise in teaching English to children. Piloting took place in November 2024 with parents of fifth graders. The online questionnaire in Google Forms was distributed via WhatsApp to the English teachers at primary schools, who forwarded it to parents. Data analysis Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA and CFA) were conducted with the help of the Jamovi app (version 2.3.28.0; The Jamovi project, 2022 ). This tool assists in performing complex data analyses and deriving meaningful conclusions from the collected data. Before the main analysis, we conducted descriptive analysis. Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics for the dimensions of parental roles: they indicate generally high levels of agreement across all items between 3.06 and 3.73 on a 4-point scale. The highest mean scores were found in parental expectations (M = 3.65 to 3.73), reflecting strong convictions regarding the importance of English and parents’ significant aspirations for their children’s English proficiency. This dimension exhibited significant negative skewness and high kurtosis, implying a tendency for responses to cluster toward strong agreement. Parental involvement and access to resources displayed relatively high mean scores (between 3.15 to 3.35), accompanied by mild negative skewness and low to moderate kurtosis, indicating slightly skewed but closer to normally distributed responses. Mean scores for enrichment and extracurricular activities were somewhat lower (between 3.06 to 3.28), with more even distributions and less skewness, pointing to greater variability in the frequency of these activities. In conclusion, while parental expectations are consistently high, there is more variation in the level of actual involvement in enrichment and extracurricular activities. Table 3. Descriptive statistics of the parents’ roles. Dimension/Items Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error Parental involvement 1. I ask the teacher regularly about my child’s progress in English. 3.15 .703 -.221 .148 -.960 .295 2. I help my child with the English tasks at home. 3.30 .665 -.433 .148 -.761 .295 3. I read English story books with my child. 3.17 .764 -.306 .148 -1.227 .295 4. I attend parental meetings with my child’s English teacher. 3.15 .711 -.222 .148 -1.004 .295 Parental expectation 5. It is important for my child to be good at English. 3.65 .570 -1.408 .148 1.005 .295 6. I expect my child to do well in their English lessons. 3.72 .512 -1.625 .148 1.768 .295 7. I expect my child to get a good grade in English lesson. 3.69 .558 -1.626 .148 1.686 .295 8. I want my child to speak English fluently. 3.71 .544 -1.741 .148 2.110 .295 9. I want my child to enjoy learning English. 3.73 .494 -1.563 .148 1.526 .295 Access to resources 10. I provide English books for my child to learn English at home. 3.29 .694 -.457 .148 -.862 .295 11. I provide my child with access to the Internet. 3.35 .667 -.543 .148 -.715 .295 12. I provide access to games in English. 3.22 .681 -.310 .148 -.847 .295 13. My child has access to English language apps. 3.13 .721 -.193 .148 -1.056 .295 14. My child can watch movies in English at home. 3.29 .644 -.353 .148 -.702 .295 Enrichment activities 15. My child reads English story books at home. 3.08 .740 -.125 .148 -1.161 .295 16. My child learns English at a language center. 3.06 .767 -.095 .148 -1.290 .295 17. I pay for private tutoring in English. 3.09 .793 -.153 .148 -1.392 .295 Extracurricular activities 18. I encourage my child to participate in activities in English outside of school. 3.28 .674 -.399 .148 -.803 .295 19. I support my child to participate in an English competition such as “spelling bee”. 3.22 .697 -.333 .148 -.918 .295 Results To address the research question regarding the underlying factors that structure the questionnaire measuring parents’ roles in their children’s English learning motivation and task engagement, in this section we present the results of EFA and CFA. Furthermore, we present the reliability, convergent, and divergent validity of the questionnaire. EFA of the parents’ questionnaire Before conducting EFA analysis, we ran the KMO of Measurement of Sampling Adequacy (MSA) and Bartlett’s sphericity test to make sure that these data are appropriate for factor analysis. The results showed that the data were appropriate for factor analysis ( Kaiser, 1974 ) with MSA KMO = .911, and Bartlett’s sphericity test was chi-square = 2534, df = 171, and p = < .001. The fit indices showed that Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI = .976) and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA = .034), indicating a good fit ( Hu & Bentler, 1999 ). Model test (χ 2 = 114, df = 86, p = .025). The result of the EFA showed that there were five factors in the parents’ questionnaire, along the five dimensions. The five factors accounted for 58.1% of the total variance. Factor 1 (parental expectation) explains 16.03%, while factors 2 (access to resources), 3 (parental involvement), 4 (enrichment activities), and 5 (extracurricular activities) contribute 13.54%, 10.87%, 10.45%, and 7.25%, respectively. See details in Table 4 . Table 4. Result of factor analysis. Factor SS Loadings % of variance Cumulative % 1 3.05 16.03 16.0 2 2.57 13.54 29.6 3 2.07 10.87 40.4 4 1.99 10.45 50.9 5 1.38 7.25 58.1 Figure 2 presents the scree plot supporting the decision on five factors, displaying eigenvalues from a factor analysis. A steep initial decline and subsequent leveling indicate the optimal number of factors to retain, or eigenvalue > 1, due to their significant contribution to variance explanation ( Kaiser, 1974 ). Figure 2. Screen plot of factor analysis. When conducting the EFA, we applied the Maximum Likelihood extraction method accompanied by a varimax rotation. The factor loadings span from.496 to.881. Each item’s loadings are classified into five distinct factors: parental involvement, parental expectation, access to resources, enrichment activities, and extracurricular activities. Parental involvement encompassed direct support behaviors, including, for example, helping children with the English tasks and communicating with the English teachers about the child’s progress. Item 2 exhibited the weakest loading, signifying a minimal contribution to the parental involvement factor. Parental expectations represented the aspirations and academic performance levels that parents set for their children, for example, expecting the child to do well in English and to speak English fluently. Access to resources included access to learning materials and tools at home, such as English books, the internet, games, and English language apps. Enrichment activities reflected parents’ efforts to broaden their children’s learning through non-formal learning opportunities at English language centres or with private tutors. Extracurricular activities were organized skill-building programs after typical school hours. Notably, the strongest indicator of the extracurricular activities construct is the factor loading associated with encouraging children to engage in activities outside of school (item 18, factor loading = .881) ( Hair et al., 2019 ). Together, these factors demonstrate the multifaceted nature of parental engagement in children’s English learning environments. Table 5 presents the EFA results. Table 5. Exploratory factor analysis of the parents’ questionnaire. Factor Dimensions/items 1 2 3 4 5 Parental involvement 1. I ask the teacher regularly about my child’s progress in English. .651 2. I help my child with the English tasks at home. .496 3. I read English story books with my child. .585 4. I attend parental meetings with my child’s English teacher. .502 Parental expectation 5. It is important for my child to be good at English. .683 6. I expect my child to do well in their English lessons. .840 7. I expect my child to get a good grade in English lesson. .632 8. I want my child to speak English fluently. .761 9. I want my child to enjoy learning English. .686 Access to resources 10. I provide English books for my child to learn English at home. .514 11. I provide my child with access to the Internet. .724 12. I provide access to games in English. .660 13. My child has access to English language apps. .593 14. My child can watch movies in English at home .563 Enrichment activities 15. My child reads English story books at home. .566 16. My child learns English at a language center. .757 17. I pay for private tutoring in English. .617 Extracurricular activities 18. I encourage my child to participate in activities in English outside school. .881 19. I support my child to participate in an English competition such as “spelling bee”. .515 CFA of the parents’ questionnaire A confirmatory factor analysis examined various constructs associated with the parental influence on students’ motivation and engagement with tasks. Constructs assessed included the same five dimension in the EFA. Each construct was evaluated through multiple items, with factor loadings demonstrating the strength of association between items and their respective constructs. For example, item loadings for parental expectation ranged from .646 to .869, indicating its moderate to strong representation in the construct ( Hair et al., 2019 ). The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values span from .41 to .71, highlighting how much variance is captured by the construct in relation to measurement error, with higher values (such as .71 for extracurricular activities) signifying better convergent validity ( Fornell & Larcker, 1981 ). Reliability is assessed for each construct using Cronbach’s alpha (α) and Composite Reliability (CR), with values above .70 deemed acceptable. Most constructs exhibit strong reliability, such as parental expectation (α = .86, CR = .87) and access to resources (α = .86, CR = .86) ( Tavakol & Dennick, 2011 ). Even a construct like parental involvement with a slightly lower AVE of .41 had acceptable reliability (α = .73, CR = .74) ( Fornell & Larcker, 1981 ), indicating that the items reliably measure the underlying concept of each construct. Table 6. Factor loadings of constructs. Constructs Items Factor loadings AVE α CR Parental Involvement Item1 .713 .41 .73 .74 Item2 .563 Item3 .652 Item4 .633 Parental Expectation Item5 .714 .57 .86 .87 Item6 .869 Item7 .646 Item8 .793 Item9 .722 Access to Resources Item10 .704 .56 .86 .86 Item11 .757 Item12 .768 Item13 .762 Item14 .741 Enrichment Activities Item15 .777 .57 .80 .80 Item16 .804 Item17 .678 Extracurricular Activities Item18 .837 .71 .83 .83 Item19 .854 Overall, the results indicate that the measurement model is valid and reliable for evaluating the impact of parent-related factors on their children’s motivation and task engagement. Table 6 provides factor loadings of the five dimension constructs. The chi-square statistic (χ 2 = 276, df = 142, p < .001) for testing exact model fit reveals a statistically significant outcome, implying an imperfect data-model fit. Nonetheless, given the chi-square test’s sensitivity to large sample sizes, researchers frequently evaluate model adequacy using alternative fit indices. The Comparative Fit Index (CFI = .945) and TLI = .934 both surpass the standard threshold of .90, suggesting an adequate fit ( Hu & Bentler, 1999 ). Furthermore, the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR = .045) and RMSEA = .059 fall within acceptable ranges (SRMR < .08 and RMSEA between .06 and .08), affirming that the model is reasonably well-fitting overall, despite the chi-square result. The correlations among the five dimensions represent different aspects of support (parental involvement, parental expectations, access to resources, enrichment activities, and extracurricular activities) were all positive. This result indicates that improvement in one area generally corresponds to enhancements in others. Access to resource availability reveals strong correlations with both parental involvement (r = .798) and enrichment activities (r = .756), implying that families with greater resources are more likely to be involved in their child’s education and they tend to offer more enriching experiences. Additionally, extracurricular activities are strongly associated with access to resources (r = .728) and enrichment activities (r = .705), again emphasizing the interrelated nature of these supportive actions. However, parental expectations show more moderate correlations with the other constructs (ranging from .351 to .531), suggesting that although expectations are linked to other supportive behaviors, they may represent a distinct dimension of parental influence. Table 7 presents the relationships among these factors reflecting the parents’ roles. The √AVE for each factor, show satisfactory convergent validity, as all five √AVE values on the diagonal exceed the .50 cutoff. However, several inter-factor correlations involving parental involvement, access to resources, and enrichment activities exceed their respective √AVE values, partially violating the Fornell–Larcker criterion and weakening discriminant validity. Thus, although each factor is measured reliably, some constructs may not be fully distinct. Parental involvement overlaps conceptually with access to resources and enrichment activities, suggesting that these dimensions may be closely related facets of parental support for children’s learning rather than clearly separate constructs. Table 7. The relationship among the factors of the parents’ roles. Parental involvement Parental expectation Access to resources Enrichment activities Extracurricular Parental involvement .643 Parental expectation .369 .755 Access to resources .798 .531 .748 Enrichment activities .718 .351 .756 755 Extracurricular .654 .430 .728 .705 .849 Furthermore, we evaluated discriminant validity using the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations. The HTMT values ranged from .377 to .748, remaining comfortably below both the conservative .85 threshold and the more liberal .90 cut-off ( Henseler et al., 2015 ). These findings suggest that the constructs have adequate discriminant validity and are statistically distinguishable from each other. Table 8 presents the HTMT ratio of correlations. Table 8. The HTMT ratio of correlations. Parental involvement Parental expectation Access to resources Enrichment activities Extracurricular Parental involvement 1.000 .404 .733 .733 .663 Parental expectation .404 1.000 .538 .377 .432 Access to resources .733 .538 1.000 .748 .732 Enrichment activities .733 .377 .748 1.000 .705 Extracurricular .663 .404 .732 .705 1.000 Figure 3 illustrates the five latent variables as factors: parental involvement, parental expectations, access to resources, enrichment activities, and extracurricular activities. These factors are connected to various observed variables or indicators such as items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The arrows leading from latent variables to observed variables represent factor loadings, indicating the degree to which each indicator supports the underlying construct. For instance, item 6 exhibits a strong association with the factor of parental expectations, possessing a standardized estimate of .869. Similarly, items 18 and 19 show strong correlations with the extracurricular activities factor, with standardized estimates of .837 and .854, respectively. Double-headed arrows connecting the five multiple latent variables signify relationships among the constructs, for example, showing the strong association between extracurricular activities and access to resources. Figure 3. Structure of parents’ roles. Discussion Considering EFA and CFA, the questionnaire assessing parents’ roles comprises five components: parental involvement, parental expectations, access to resources, enrichment activities, and extracurricular activities. These five factors exhibit a strong correspondence with theoretical foundations that shape children’s intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. When parents are involved and resources are available, children receive structured guidance and support that reinforces their extrinsic motivation, helping them meet academic demands and lowering obstacles to staying engaged with tasks. These results align with previous studies that showed that parental guidance is a positive predictor of students’ intrinsic motivation to enhance their English proficiency ( Fan & Williams, 2010 ). Additionally, parents’ emotional and behavioral involvement has a deeper impact on children’s motivation and achievements ( Kim et al., 2020 ). Parents’ involvement in their children’s English learning is strongly associated with the children’s English proficiency ( Butler & Le, 2018 ). Support provided by parents at home plays a crucial role in boosting YLs’ academic performance ( Tan & Caleon, 2022 ; Torrecilla & Hernández-Castilla, 2020 ). Furthermore, research has demonstrated that teacher-parent communication improves students’ academic performance ( Tan & Caleon, 2022 ), English learning motivation and engagement ( Fan & Williams, 2010 ). Thus, our findings are aligned with the results of these previous studies. Conversely, enrichment and extracurricular activities provide meaningful, autonomy-supportive experiences that can ignite curiosity and enjoyment, thereby fostering intrinsic motivation. These results are in line with a previous study that found that higher SES parents can provide more frequent English use outside the classroom, which increasingly fostered their children’s competence and self-determined motivation ( Butler, 2015b ). Parental expectations connect the two motivational dimensions: when expectations are high yet supportive, they can strengthen extrinsic goals while also conveying trust in the child’s abilities, which is a central source of intrinsic motivation. Parental expectations were positively correlated to learners’ English proficiency ( Butler & Le, 2018 ), achievements ( Tan & Caleon, 2022 ), engagement levels, and intrinsic motivation in English ( Fan & Williams, 2010 ). Overall, the identified factors show how parental engagement functions across both motivational dimensions, influencing children’s willingness to learn, their confidence, and their ongoing interest in English learning. The CFA results suggest the model fits well, as indicated by fit indices: CFI = .945, TLI = .934, SRMR = .045, RMSEA = .059 ( Hu & Bentler, 1999 ). Despite a lower figure of AVE of parental expectation, it suggests adequate convergent validity ( Fornell & Larcker, 1981 ). With Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability generally over .70 ( Tavakol & Dennick, 2011 ), the questionnaire demonstrates reliability, especially in the parental expectations construct. This includes high correlations among the items, effectively capturing their respective factors. Thus, the questionnaire is both valid and reliable for measuring parents’ roles in influencing children’s motivation and task engagement and provides a strong basis for its interpretation and use. Grounded in self-determination theory ( Ryan & Deci, 2020 ), it captures how parents shape intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In primary school English learning, where parental involvement, resources, enrichment, and expectations may differ, the questionnaire measured how engagement patterns support or hinder children’s motivation and task engagement. In summary, the results can guide practice. Schools can design family engagement programs that strengthen motivational support. Policymakers can develop guidelines to promote equitable access to learning resources and extracurricular activities. Integrating assessment accuracy with theoretical and practical relevance, this questionnaire can become a powerful instrument for research and targeted interventions in children’s motivation and engagement. Conclusions The new questionnaire intended to evaluate what roles parents play in their children’s English language learning motivation and task engagement. The instrument we validated shows robust psychometric qualities in both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. The five-factor model comprising (1) parental involvement in their offsprings’ language learning, (2) parents’ expectations about their success, and three additional factors related to what parents make available to their children, including access (3) to resources, (4) enrichment activities, and (5) extracurricular activities was validated by satisfactory model fit indices, suggesting a well-fitting measurement model. Strong convergent validity and consistently high reliability measures also confirm that the constructs are assessed both accurately and reliably. These results indicate that the questionnaire can serve as a valid and reliable instrument for investigating the impact of different aspects of parental support on fifth graders’ language learning motivation and engagement with various tasks related to learning English. Furthermore, the model is in line with what authors of theoretical models (e.g., Lamb, 2017 ; Mihaljević Djigunović & Nikolov, 2019 ; Ryan & Deci, 2020 ) practical advice for stakeholders (e.g., Butler, 2015a ), and teachers’ handbooks recommended as well as with empirical research included in our literature review on the ways in which parents can support their children during their language learning journey. Although the instrument demonstrated both validity and reliability within Indonesian primary schools, it has some limitations. First, its broader applicability may be constrained due to differing parental roles and expectations across various cultural, socio-economic, and educational backgrounds. Additionally, the use of self-reported data introduces the potential for social desirability bias. To enhance its cross-cultural relevance, future research should involve a range of viewpoints and pilot the instrument in new contexts with a wider range of age groups of YLs. Implications This study has some implications. First, for practice and language policies, this research provides an effective diagnostic tool for teachers, school leaders, and policymakers to pinpoint and understand the particular dimensions of parental involvement that affect children’s motivation and engagement activities that are conducive to their learning of English. By identifying strengths and weaknesses in parental involvement, resources, or expectations, targeted interventions and family engagement initiatives can be designed to improve student success. Schools can create workshops or allocate resources that align with parents’ contributions to supporting their children’s English learning. Pedagogically, the study highlights the critical roles of recognising parents as active collaborators in the educational journey. Educators can modify communication methods and classroom activities to better align with the most influential types of parental support, like promoting enrichment activities or engaging parents in extracurricular events. Additionally, awareness of the differing parental expectations can help educators improve student learning experiences, foster motivation and engagement. Theoretically, the study improves our understanding of the impact of parental behaviour in educational psychology and motivation studies. By supporting a multidimensional view of parental roles, findings underscore that family support is diverse, consisting of separate yet interconnected aspects. The outcomes are consistent with self-determination theory, as it provides a more nuanced perspective to explore how different forms of parental participation may impact student motivation and task engagement in learning English. Ethical approval We obtained ethical approval from The Doctoral School of Education’s Institutional Review Board at the University of Szeged (Reference number: 24/2023). Informed consent All adult participants gave written informed and voluntary consent. Consent for publication This manuscript is unpublished and not under review by another journal. Data availability statement Underlying data The data cannot be shared publicly due to restrictions for ethical and security reasons. The IRB of the doctoral school of education at the University of Szeged did not allow us to share our data with a third party. The datasets from this study can be requested from the corresponding author at [email protected] Extended data Figshare: Parents’ roles in young learners’ motivation and task engagement in Indonesian primary schools : Questionnaire development and validation. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.30302089 ( Lena, 2025a ). The project contains the following extended data: - Parents’ questionnaire Data are available under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 Figshare: Parents’ roles in young learners’ motivation and task engagement in Indonesian primary schools : Questionnaire development and validation. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.30302086 ( Lena, 2025b ). The project contains the following extended data: - Consent form for participation Data are available under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 Acknowledgements We thank the study participants. References Ahsan S, Iqbal N, Farooq N: The impact of parents education, parents income, teacher education and locality of school on students relinquish school during primary level in DG Khan District. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences. 2015; 54 : 40–44. Publisher Full Text Balsa A, Gandelman N, Roldán F: Peer and parental influence in academic performance and alcohol use. Labour Econ. 2018; 55 : 41–55. Publisher Full Text Butler YG: English language education among young learners in East Asia: A review of current research (2004-2014). Lang. Teach. 2015a; 48 (3): 303–342. Publisher Full Text Butler YG: Parental factors in children’s motivation for learning English: A case in China. Res. Pap. Educ. 2015b; 30 (2): 164–191. Publisher Full Text Butler YG, Le VN: A longitudinal investigation of parental social-economic status (SES) and young students’ learning of English as a foreign language. System. 2018; 73 : 4–15. Publisher Full Text Choi N, Jung S, No B: Learning a foreign language under the influence of parents: Parental involvement and children’s English learning motivational profiles. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2024; 33 (1): 237–252. Publisher Full Text Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison KRB, et al. : Research methods in education. 8th ed.Taylor & Francis; 2018. Creswell JW, Creswell JD: Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 5th ed.SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2018. Dao P: Effects of task goal orientation on learner engagement in task performance. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. 2021; 59 (3): 315–334. Publisher Full Text Deci EL, Ryan RM: Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer Science & Business Media; 1985. Dörnyei Z, Kormos J: The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance. Lang. Teach. Res. 2000; 4 (3): 275–300. Publisher Full Text Dörnyei Z, Ushioda E: Teaching and researching motivation. 2nd ed.Pearson; 2011. Fan W, Williams CM: The effects of parental involvement on students’ academic self-efficacy, engagement and intrinsic motivation. Educ. Psychol. 2010; 30 (1): 53–74. Publisher Full Text Finn JD, Zimmer KS: Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? Christenson SL, Reschly AL, Wylie C, editors. Handbook of research on student engagement. Springer; 2012; pp. 97–131. Fornell C, Larcker DF: Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981; 18 (1): 39–50. Publisher Full Text Gardner RC: Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. Edward Arnold; 1985. Gardner RC: Motivation and second language acquisition: The socio-educational model. Peter Lang; 2010. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, et al. : Multivariate data analysis. 8th ed.Cengage; 2019. Reference Source Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M: A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015; 43 (1): 115–135. Publisher Full Text Hu LT, Bentler PM: Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. 1999; 6 (1): 1–55. Publisher Full Text Jalili S: Parents’ Educational Level and Children’s English Language Proficiency. Language Teaching Research Quarterly. 2017; 3 : 25–39. Publisher Full Text Kaiser HF: An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika. 1974; 39 (1): 31–36. Publisher Full Text Kalayci G, Ergül H: Teachers’ perceptions of the role of parental involvement in teaching English to young learners. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies. 2020; 16 (3): 1167–1176. Publisher Full Text Kim Y, Mok SY, Seidel T: Parental influences on immigrant students’ achievement-related motivation and achievement: A meta-analysis. Educ. Res. Rev. 2020; 30 (February): 100327. Publisher Full Text Lamb M: The motivational dimension of language teaching. Lang. Teach. 2017; 50 (3): 301–346. Publisher Full Text Liang C, Zhou N, Yu S: Parental involvement and children’s L2 learning motivation and engagement: A person-centered approach. Lang. Teach. Res. 2024. Publisher Full Text Liu CC, Wang PC, Tai SJD: An analysis of student engagement patterns in language learning facilitated by Web 2.0 technologies. ReCALL. 2016; 28 (2): 104–122. Publisher Full Text Lena MS: Parents’ roles in young learners’ motivation and task engagement in Indonesian primary schools: Questionnaire development and validation. figshare. Journal Contribution. 2025a. Publisher Full Text Lena MS: Parents’ roles in young learners’ motivation and task engagement in Indonesian primary schools: Questionnaire development and validation. figshare. Journal Contribution. 2025b. Publisher Full Text Ma L, Jiao Y, Xiao L, et al. : The association between socioeconomic status and Chinese secondary students’ English achievement: mediation of self- efficacy and moderation of gender. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. 2023; 3301 : 1–26. Publisher Full Text Mihaljević Djigunović J, Nikolov M: Motivation of young learners of foreign languages. Lamb M, Csizér K, Henry A, et al. , editors. The Palgrave handbook of motivation for language learning. Palgrave Macmillan; 2019; pp. 515–533. Publisher Full Text Minister of Education and Culture: Regulation of the Minister of Education and Culture of the Republic of Indonesia Number 51 of 2018 concerning Admission of New Students to Kindergartens, Elementary Schools, Junior High Schools, High Schools and Vocational High Schools. Permendikbud. 2018; 1–25. Reference Source Minister of Education Culture Research and Technology: Regulation of the Minister of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia Number 12 of 2024 concerning the Curriculum of Early Childhood Education, Elementary Education, and Secondary Education. Permendikbudristek. 2024; 1–57. Reference Source Oga-Baldwin WLQ: Acting, thinking, feeling, making, collaborating: The engagement process in foreign language learning. System. 2019; 86 (August): 102128. Publisher Full Text Oga-Baldwin WLQ, Nakata Y, Parker P, et al. : Motivating young language learners: A longitudinal model of self-determined motivation in elementary school foreign language classes. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2017; 49 : 140–150. Publisher Full Text Philp J, Duchesne S: Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annu. Rev. Appl. Linguist. 2016; 36 : 50–72. Publisher Full Text Poon K: The impact of socioeconomic status on parental factors in promoting academic achievement in Chinese children. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 2020; 75 (September 2019): 102175. Publisher Full Text Ryan RM, Deci EL: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2020; 61 (April): 101860. Publisher Full Text Sang Y, Hiver P: Engagement and companion constructs in language learning: Conceptualizing learners’ involvement in the L2 classroom.Hiver P, Al-Hoorie AH, Mercer S, editors. Student engagement in the language classroom. Multilingual Matters; 2021; pp. 17–37. Shebani Z, Aldhafri S, Alsaidi F: The effect of parental involvement on academic passion: the mediating role of student motivation in learning English online. Int. J. Adolesc. Youth. 2025; 30 (1). Publisher Full Text Sirin SR: Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Rev. Educ. Res. 2005; 75 (3): 417–453. Publisher Full Text Sumanti CT, Muljani R: Parents’ involvement and its effects on English young learners’ self-efficacy. Celtic: A Journal of Culture. 2021; 8 (1): 78–89. Publisher Full Text Tan YSM, Caleon IS: “It’s not just about grades”: Teachers’ alternative perceptions of students performing at a low level and of these students’ academic success. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2022; 118 : 103816. Publisher Full Text Tavakol M, Dennick R: Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2011; 2 : 53–55. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text The jamovi project: The jamovi project (Version 2.3).2022. Reference Source Tong F, Zhang H, Zhen F, et al. : Supporting home literacy practices in promoting Chinese parents’ engagement in their children’s English education in low-SES families: An experimental study. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2021; 109 (April): 101816. Publisher Full Text Torrecilla FJM, Hernández-Castilla R: Does parental involvement matter in children’s performance? A Latin American primary school study. Revista de Psicodidáctica (English Ed.). 2020; 25 (1): 13–22. Publisher Full Text Tseng YH: Exploring motivation in EFL learning: A case study of elementary students in a rural area. Taiwan Journal of TESOL. 2021; 18 (2): 93–124. Publisher Full Text Wang H, Chen Y, Yang X, et al. : Different associations of parental involvement with children’s learning of Chinese, English, and math: a three-wave longitudinal study. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 2023; 38 (1): 269–285. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Wang J, Bai B: Whose goal emphases play a more important role in ESL/EFL learners’ motivation, self-regulated learning and achievement?: Teachers’ or parents’. Res. Pap. Educ. 2023; 38 (4): 520–542. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 17 Oct 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Doctoral school of education, University of Szeged, Szeged, H-6720, Hungary 2 Department of Elementary School Teacher Education, Universitas Negeri Padang, Padang, 25171, Indonesia 3 Institute of English Studies, University of Pécs, Pécs, H-7622, Hungary Mai Sri Lena Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Marianne Nikolov Roles: Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (2) version 2 Revised Published: 24 Dec 2025, 14:1127 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.170391.2 version 1 Published: 17 Oct 2025, 14:1127 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.170391.1 Copyright © 2025 Lena MS and Nikolov M. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Lena MS and Nikolov M. Parents’ roles in young learners’ motivation and task engagement in Indonesian primary schools: Questionnaire development and validation [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1127 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.170391.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 17 Oct 2025 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Kaya ÜÜ. Reviewer Report For: Parents’ roles in young learners’ motivation and task engagement in Indonesian primary schools: Questionnaire development and validation [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1127 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.187839.r427999 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1127/v1#referee-response-427999 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 01 Dec 2025 Ümit Ünsal Kaya , Afyon Kocatepe University, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.187839.r427999 Evaluation of the Article 1. Scientific Soundness The research is methodologically rigorous and theoretically grounded in self-determination theory. The factor analyses are appropriately applied and clearly reported. The reliability coefficients and fit indices demonstrate that the instrument is ... Continue reading READ ALL Evaluation of the Article 1. Scientific Soundness The research is methodologically rigorous and theoretically grounded in self-determination theory. The factor analyses are appropriately applied and clearly reported. The reliability coefficients and fit indices demonstrate that the instrument is both valid and reliable for its intended purpose. The study aligns with best practices in educational measurement and questionnaire development. 2. Originality and Contribution This work provides an important contribution to the field of language education and parental involvement studies by developing the first validated instrument tailored to the Indonesian context. The focus on parents of primary school children learning English as a foreign language is both timely and valuable, particularly in light of recent curricular changes in Indonesia. The study has both theoretical implications—by extending motivation research into underrepresented contexts—and practical applications for educators and policymakers. 3. Writing and Structure The article is well-structured and clearly written. The academic tone is appropriate, and the progression of ideas is logical and coherent. The introduction thoroughly reviews relevant literature, the methodology section is detailed and transparent, and the discussion links findings back to theoretical and practical concerns. Tables and figures are informative and well-integrated into the text. 4. Language Quality The language is clear and fluent, with no notable grammatical or typographical issues. Terminology is used appropriately throughout, and the academic register is consistently maintained. Final Recommendation This article is scientifically sound, well-written, and makes a valuable contribution to the field. I find no weaknesses that require correction or revision. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: child development, early childhood education I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Kaya ÜÜ. Reviewer Report For: Parents’ roles in young learners’ motivation and task engagement in Indonesian primary schools: Questionnaire development and validation [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1127 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.187839.r427999 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1127/v1#referee-response-427999 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 31 Dec 2025 Mai Sri Lena , Doctoral school of education, University of Szeged, Szeged, H-6720, Hungary 31 Dec 2025 Author Response We are grateful for your positive review and delighted that you found the manuscript acceptable. Competing Interests: No competing interests. We are grateful for your positive review and delighted that you found the manuscript acceptable. We are grateful for your positive review and delighted that you found the manuscript acceptable. Competing Interests: No competing interests. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 31 Dec 2025 Mai Sri Lena , Doctoral school of education, University of Szeged, Szeged, H-6720, Hungary 31 Dec 2025 Author Response We are grateful for your positive review and delighted that you found the manuscript acceptable. Competing Interests: No competing interests. We are grateful for your positive review and delighted that you found the manuscript acceptable. We are grateful for your positive review and delighted that you found the manuscript acceptable. Competing Interests: No competing interests. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Larionow P. Reviewer Report For: Parents’ roles in young learners’ motivation and task engagement in Indonesian primary schools: Questionnaire development and validation [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1127 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.187839.r428006 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1127/v1#referee-response-428006 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 11 Nov 2025 Pawel Larionow , University College of Professional Education, Wrocław, Poland Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.187839.r428006 Dear authors, I have reviewed your paper and I am providing my comments below: Abstract 1. I think this statement is too strong. "No research has been conducted in the Indonesian context on what roles parents play ... Continue reading READ ALL Dear authors, I have reviewed your paper and I am providing my comments below: Abstract 1. I think this statement is too strong. "No research has been conducted in the Indonesian context on what roles parents play in their children’s motivation and task engagement.". In the background section, there is no aim of the study. 2. I believe that this statement is unclear. "Research questions examined factors affecting its effectiveness.". 3. Jamovi is a statistical program. It is a name, and it should be written with a capital letter. 4. The Conclusions are too broad and specifying them seems to be a good choice. Introduction 5. I think that starting the introduction with the sentence "The study aims to develop, pilot, and validate a questionnaire on the role of parents in motivating and engaging young learners with the tasks assigned by teachers in their English classes." is uncommon. 6. I am not very familiar with the theory of this particular topic, and I would prefer to ask editors and other more experienced reviewers to analyze this section. 7. I find this sentence unclear "1. What are the underlying factors that structure the questionnaire measuring parents’ roles in their children’s English learning motivation and task engagement?". Method 8. Several sections are overlapping. For instance, Context of the study, Research design and Procedure can be combined. Please carefully reconsider the paper structure. 9. Several statements are vague. For instance, "We developed the parents’ role questionnaire because the existing questionnaire did not relate to the study’s purposes." 10. English should be edited as there are several difficult to read statements. 11. The development of a questionnaire and its all standards procedures were not described sufficiently. Please elaborate on these, and indicate details. For instance, how many parents did participate in a pilot testing? And other aspects. 12. The description of statistical analyses was not provided in the Method section. The authors added several description in the Results section, but this should have been done in the Methods section. Results 13. All factor loadings for all items were not mentioned. Please add these to assess potential cross-loadings. 14. The sentences below may indicate that the scale does not have sufficient discriminative power as all items have values above 3 and even around the maximum value of 4. "Table 7 presents the descriptive statistics for the dimensions of parental roles, indicating generally high levels of agreement across all items, with means fluctuating between 3.06 and 3.73 on a 4-point scale. The highest mean scores were found in parental expectations (M = 3.65 to 3.73), reflecting strong convictions regarding the importance of English and significant aspirations for their children’s English proficiency.". 15. The convergent and divergent validity seems not to have been assessed. Discussion 16. The Discussion is very short, basically repeating the results from the Results section. The discussion should be elaborated. Please discuss theoretical and practical value of this study. Limitations of the study were not indicated. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: psychological assessment, psychopathology, emotion, emotion regulation, psychometrics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Larionow P. Reviewer Report For: Parents’ roles in young learners’ motivation and task engagement in Indonesian primary schools: Questionnaire development and validation [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1127 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.187839.r428006 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1127/v1#referee-response-428006 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 12 Jan 2026 Mai Sri Lena , Doctoral school of education, University of Szeged, Szeged, H-6720, Hungary 12 Jan 2026 Author Response Dear Reviewer 2, Thank you very much for your helpful comments on our paper. In this text, we respond to them one by one. We are grateful to you for ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer 2, Thank you very much for your helpful comments on our paper. In this text, we respond to them one by one. We are grateful to you for your work on our manuscript. We hope we have addressed all points and have revised the text to meet the standards of the journal. In addition to your comments, we have carefully revised the manuscript to make all points clear and the wording appropriate. Yours, Authors Reviewer 2 Approved With Reservations Dear authors, I have reviewed your paper and I am providing my comments below: Comment Abstract 1. I think this statement is too strong. "No research has been conducted in the Indonesian context on what roles parents play in their children’s motivation and task engagement." In the background section, there is no aim of the study. Response Thank you for your comments. We revised the text along them. Comment 2. I believe that this statement is unclear. "Research questions examined factors affecting its effectiveness.". Response The statement is now reworded. Comment 3. Jamovi is a statistical program. It is a name, and it should be written with a capital letter. Response Thank you for pointing this out. 4. The Conclusions are too broad and specifying them seems to be a good choice. Response We revised this section carefully. Comment Introduction 5. I think that starting the introduction with the sentence "The study aims to develop, pilot, and validate a questionnaire on the role of parents in motivating and engaging young learners with the tasks assigned by teachers in their English classes." is uncommon. Response We revised this intro. Comment 6. I am not very familiar with the theory of this particular topic, and I would prefer to ask editors and other more experienced reviewers to analyze this section. Response None. Comment 7. I find this sentence unclear "1. What are the underlying factors that structure the questionnaire measuring parents’ roles in their children’s English learning motivation and task engagement?". Response The sentence is revised. Comment Method 8. Several sections are overlapping. For instance, Context of the study, Research design and Procedure can be combined. Please carefully reconsider the paper structure. Response We reconsidered these sections. Comment 9. Several statements are vague. For instance, "We developed the parents’ role questionnaire because the existing questionnaire did not relate to the study’s purposes." Response We revised this sentence as well as the rest of the manuscript. Comment 10. English should be edited as there are several difficult to read statements. Response The whole text has been revised for clarity. Comment 11. The development of a questionnaire and its all standards procedures were not described sufficiently. Please elaborate on these, and indicate details. For instance, how many parents did participate in a pilot testing? And other aspects. Response We provided additional information in the participants section. Comment 12. The description of statistical analyses was not provided in the Method section. The authors added several description in the Results section, but this should have been done in the Methods section. Response We moved the descriptive statistics analysis to the methods section under instrument. Comment Results 13. All factor loadings for all items were not mentioned. Please add these to assess potential cross-loadings. Response We mentioned the factor loading of each item both in EFA on Table 2 and CFA on Table 6. Comment 14. The sentences below may indicate that the scale does not have sufficient discriminative power as all items have values above 3 and even around the maximum value of 4. "Table 7 presents the descriptive statistics for the dimensions of parental roles, indicating generally high levels of agreement across all items, with means fluctuating between 3.06 and 3.73 on a 4-point scale. The highest mean scores were found in parental expectations (M = 3.65 to 3.73), reflecting strong convictions regarding the importance of English and significant aspirations for their children’s English proficiency.". Response Thank you for your comment. We do not think that high means imply poor discrimination. On a 4-point scale, high scores indicate generally positive parental attitudes, consistent with previous research. Discrimination depends on variability and psychometric indices (item–total correlations, factor loadings, CR, AVE), not on means alone. In this study, these indices were acceptable (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), showing that items differentiated among respondents despite high means. There was no substantial ceiling effect, as means were below the maximum. We assessed discriminant validity using the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio correlation (Table 8). The HTMT values ranged from .377 to .748, remaining comfortably below both the conservative .85 threshold and the more liberal .90 cut-off. Comment 15. The convergent and divergent validity seems not to have been assessed. Response We did assess convergent validity by providing EVA, CR, and loadings. We added divergent validity, √AVE on diagonals, along correlations among factors in Table 7. We also assessed discriminant validity using the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio correlation (Table 8) Comment Discussion 16. The Discussion is very short, basically repeating the results from the Results section. The discussion should be elaborated. Please discuss theoretical and practical value of this study. Limitations of the study were not indicated. Response Along the lines you suggested we revised the discussion and addressed all the points, including the limitations. Finally, let us thank you again for helping us revise the paper. Authors Dear Reviewer 2, Thank you very much for your helpful comments on our paper. In this text, we respond to them one by one. We are grateful to you for your work on our manuscript. We hope we have addressed all points and have revised the text to meet the standards of the journal. In addition to your comments, we have carefully revised the manuscript to make all points clear and the wording appropriate. Yours, Authors Reviewer 2 Approved With Reservations Dear authors, I have reviewed your paper and I am providing my comments below: Comment Abstract 1. I think this statement is too strong. "No research has been conducted in the Indonesian context on what roles parents play in their children’s motivation and task engagement." In the background section, there is no aim of the study. Response Thank you for your comments. We revised the text along them. Comment 2. I believe that this statement is unclear. "Research questions examined factors affecting its effectiveness.". Response The statement is now reworded. Comment 3. Jamovi is a statistical program. It is a name, and it should be written with a capital letter. Response Thank you for pointing this out. 4. The Conclusions are too broad and specifying them seems to be a good choice. Response We revised this section carefully. Comment Introduction 5. I think that starting the introduction with the sentence "The study aims to develop, pilot, and validate a questionnaire on the role of parents in motivating and engaging young learners with the tasks assigned by teachers in their English classes." is uncommon. Response We revised this intro. Comment 6. I am not very familiar with the theory of this particular topic, and I would prefer to ask editors and other more experienced reviewers to analyze this section. Response None. Comment 7. I find this sentence unclear "1. What are the underlying factors that structure the questionnaire measuring parents’ roles in their children’s English learning motivation and task engagement?". Response The sentence is revised. Comment Method 8. Several sections are overlapping. For instance, Context of the study, Research design and Procedure can be combined. Please carefully reconsider the paper structure. Response We reconsidered these sections. Comment 9. Several statements are vague. For instance, "We developed the parents’ role questionnaire because the existing questionnaire did not relate to the study’s purposes." Response We revised this sentence as well as the rest of the manuscript. Comment 10. English should be edited as there are several difficult to read statements. Response The whole text has been revised for clarity. Comment 11. The development of a questionnaire and its all standards procedures were not described sufficiently. Please elaborate on these, and indicate details. For instance, how many parents did participate in a pilot testing? And other aspects. Response We provided additional information in the participants section. Comment 12. The description of statistical analyses was not provided in the Method section. The authors added several description in the Results section, but this should have been done in the Methods section. Response We moved the descriptive statistics analysis to the methods section under instrument. Comment Results 13. All factor loadings for all items were not mentioned. Please add these to assess potential cross-loadings. Response We mentioned the factor loading of each item both in EFA on Table 2 and CFA on Table 6. Comment 14. The sentences below may indicate that the scale does not have sufficient discriminative power as all items have values above 3 and even around the maximum value of 4. "Table 7 presents the descriptive statistics for the dimensions of parental roles, indicating generally high levels of agreement across all items, with means fluctuating between 3.06 and 3.73 on a 4-point scale. The highest mean scores were found in parental expectations (M = 3.65 to 3.73), reflecting strong convictions regarding the importance of English and significant aspirations for their children’s English proficiency.". Response Thank you for your comment. We do not think that high means imply poor discrimination. On a 4-point scale, high scores indicate generally positive parental attitudes, consistent with previous research. Discrimination depends on variability and psychometric indices (item–total correlations, factor loadings, CR, AVE), not on means alone. In this study, these indices were acceptable (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), showing that items differentiated among respondents despite high means. There was no substantial ceiling effect, as means were below the maximum. We assessed discriminant validity using the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio correlation (Table 8). The HTMT values ranged from .377 to .748, remaining comfortably below both the conservative .85 threshold and the more liberal .90 cut-off. Comment 15. The convergent and divergent validity seems not to have been assessed. Response We did assess convergent validity by providing EVA, CR, and loadings. We added divergent validity, √AVE on diagonals, along correlations among factors in Table 7. We also assessed discriminant validity using the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio correlation (Table 8) Comment Discussion 16. The Discussion is very short, basically repeating the results from the Results section. The discussion should be elaborated. Please discuss theoretical and practical value of this study. Limitations of the study were not indicated. Response Along the lines you suggested we revised the discussion and addressed all the points, including the limitations. Finally, let us thank you again for helping us revise the paper. Authors Competing Interests: No competing interests. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 12 Jan 2026 Mai Sri Lena , Doctoral school of education, University of Szeged, Szeged, H-6720, Hungary 12 Jan 2026 Author Response Dear Reviewer 2, Thank you very much for your helpful comments on our paper. In this text, we respond to them one by one. We are grateful to you for ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer 2, Thank you very much for your helpful comments on our paper. In this text, we respond to them one by one. We are grateful to you for your work on our manuscript. We hope we have addressed all points and have revised the text to meet the standards of the journal. In addition to your comments, we have carefully revised the manuscript to make all points clear and the wording appropriate. Yours, Authors Reviewer 2 Approved With Reservations Dear authors, I have reviewed your paper and I am providing my comments below: Comment Abstract 1. I think this statement is too strong. "No research has been conducted in the Indonesian context on what roles parents play in their children’s motivation and task engagement." In the background section, there is no aim of the study. Response Thank you for your comments. We revised the text along them. Comment 2. I believe that this statement is unclear. "Research questions examined factors affecting its effectiveness.". Response The statement is now reworded. Comment 3. Jamovi is a statistical program. It is a name, and it should be written with a capital letter. Response Thank you for pointing this out. 4. The Conclusions are too broad and specifying them seems to be a good choice. Response We revised this section carefully. Comment Introduction 5. I think that starting the introduction with the sentence "The study aims to develop, pilot, and validate a questionnaire on the role of parents in motivating and engaging young learners with the tasks assigned by teachers in their English classes." is uncommon. Response We revised this intro. Comment 6. I am not very familiar with the theory of this particular topic, and I would prefer to ask editors and other more experienced reviewers to analyze this section. Response None. Comment 7. I find this sentence unclear "1. What are the underlying factors that structure the questionnaire measuring parents’ roles in their children’s English learning motivation and task engagement?". Response The sentence is revised. Comment Method 8. Several sections are overlapping. For instance, Context of the study, Research design and Procedure can be combined. Please carefully reconsider the paper structure. Response We reconsidered these sections. Comment 9. Several statements are vague. For instance, "We developed the parents’ role questionnaire because the existing questionnaire did not relate to the study’s purposes." Response We revised this sentence as well as the rest of the manuscript. Comment 10. English should be edited as there are several difficult to read statements. Response The whole text has been revised for clarity. Comment 11. The development of a questionnaire and its all standards procedures were not described sufficiently. Please elaborate on these, and indicate details. For instance, how many parents did participate in a pilot testing? And other aspects. Response We provided additional information in the participants section. Comment 12. The description of statistical analyses was not provided in the Method section. The authors added several description in the Results section, but this should have been done in the Methods section. Response We moved the descriptive statistics analysis to the methods section under instrument. Comment Results 13. All factor loadings for all items were not mentioned. Please add these to assess potential cross-loadings. Response We mentioned the factor loading of each item both in EFA on Table 2 and CFA on Table 6. Comment 14. The sentences below may indicate that the scale does not have sufficient discriminative power as all items have values above 3 and even around the maximum value of 4. "Table 7 presents the descriptive statistics for the dimensions of parental roles, indicating generally high levels of agreement across all items, with means fluctuating between 3.06 and 3.73 on a 4-point scale. The highest mean scores were found in parental expectations (M = 3.65 to 3.73), reflecting strong convictions regarding the importance of English and significant aspirations for their children’s English proficiency.". Response Thank you for your comment. We do not think that high means imply poor discrimination. On a 4-point scale, high scores indicate generally positive parental attitudes, consistent with previous research. Discrimination depends on variability and psychometric indices (item–total correlations, factor loadings, CR, AVE), not on means alone. In this study, these indices were acceptable (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), showing that items differentiated among respondents despite high means. There was no substantial ceiling effect, as means were below the maximum. We assessed discriminant validity using the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio correlation (Table 8). The HTMT values ranged from .377 to .748, remaining comfortably below both the conservative .85 threshold and the more liberal .90 cut-off. Comment 15. The convergent and divergent validity seems not to have been assessed. Response We did assess convergent validity by providing EVA, CR, and loadings. We added divergent validity, √AVE on diagonals, along correlations among factors in Table 7. We also assessed discriminant validity using the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio correlation (Table 8) Comment Discussion 16. The Discussion is very short, basically repeating the results from the Results section. The discussion should be elaborated. Please discuss theoretical and practical value of this study. Limitations of the study were not indicated. Response Along the lines you suggested we revised the discussion and addressed all the points, including the limitations. Finally, let us thank you again for helping us revise the paper. Authors Dear Reviewer 2, Thank you very much for your helpful comments on our paper. In this text, we respond to them one by one. We are grateful to you for your work on our manuscript. We hope we have addressed all points and have revised the text to meet the standards of the journal. In addition to your comments, we have carefully revised the manuscript to make all points clear and the wording appropriate. Yours, Authors Reviewer 2 Approved With Reservations Dear authors, I have reviewed your paper and I am providing my comments below: Comment Abstract 1. I think this statement is too strong. "No research has been conducted in the Indonesian context on what roles parents play in their children’s motivation and task engagement." In the background section, there is no aim of the study. Response Thank you for your comments. We revised the text along them. Comment 2. I believe that this statement is unclear. "Research questions examined factors affecting its effectiveness.". Response The statement is now reworded. Comment 3. Jamovi is a statistical program. It is a name, and it should be written with a capital letter. Response Thank you for pointing this out. 4. The Conclusions are too broad and specifying them seems to be a good choice. Response We revised this section carefully. Comment Introduction 5. I think that starting the introduction with the sentence "The study aims to develop, pilot, and validate a questionnaire on the role of parents in motivating and engaging young learners with the tasks assigned by teachers in their English classes." is uncommon. Response We revised this intro. Comment 6. I am not very familiar with the theory of this particular topic, and I would prefer to ask editors and other more experienced reviewers to analyze this section. Response None. Comment 7. I find this sentence unclear "1. What are the underlying factors that structure the questionnaire measuring parents’ roles in their children’s English learning motivation and task engagement?". Response The sentence is revised. Comment Method 8. Several sections are overlapping. For instance, Context of the study, Research design and Procedure can be combined. Please carefully reconsider the paper structure. Response We reconsidered these sections. Comment 9. Several statements are vague. For instance, "We developed the parents’ role questionnaire because the existing questionnaire did not relate to the study’s purposes." Response We revised this sentence as well as the rest of the manuscript. Comment 10. English should be edited as there are several difficult to read statements. Response The whole text has been revised for clarity. Comment 11. The development of a questionnaire and its all standards procedures were not described sufficiently. Please elaborate on these, and indicate details. For instance, how many parents did participate in a pilot testing? And other aspects. Response We provided additional information in the participants section. Comment 12. The description of statistical analyses was not provided in the Method section. The authors added several description in the Results section, but this should have been done in the Methods section. Response We moved the descriptive statistics analysis to the methods section under instrument. Comment Results 13. All factor loadings for all items were not mentioned. Please add these to assess potential cross-loadings. Response We mentioned the factor loading of each item both in EFA on Table 2 and CFA on Table 6. Comment 14. The sentences below may indicate that the scale does not have sufficient discriminative power as all items have values above 3 and even around the maximum value of 4. "Table 7 presents the descriptive statistics for the dimensions of parental roles, indicating generally high levels of agreement across all items, with means fluctuating between 3.06 and 3.73 on a 4-point scale. The highest mean scores were found in parental expectations (M = 3.65 to 3.73), reflecting strong convictions regarding the importance of English and significant aspirations for their children’s English proficiency.". Response Thank you for your comment. We do not think that high means imply poor discrimination. On a 4-point scale, high scores indicate generally positive parental attitudes, consistent with previous research. Discrimination depends on variability and psychometric indices (item–total correlations, factor loadings, CR, AVE), not on means alone. In this study, these indices were acceptable (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), showing that items differentiated among respondents despite high means. There was no substantial ceiling effect, as means were below the maximum. We assessed discriminant validity using the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio correlation (Table 8). The HTMT values ranged from .377 to .748, remaining comfortably below both the conservative .85 threshold and the more liberal .90 cut-off. Comment 15. The convergent and divergent validity seems not to have been assessed. Response We did assess convergent validity by providing EVA, CR, and loadings. We added divergent validity, √AVE on diagonals, along correlations among factors in Table 7. We also assessed discriminant validity using the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio correlation (Table 8) Comment Discussion 16. The Discussion is very short, basically repeating the results from the Results section. The discussion should be elaborated. Please discuss theoretical and practical value of this study. Limitations of the study were not indicated. Response Along the lines you suggested we revised the discussion and addressed all the points, including the limitations. Finally, let us thank you again for helping us revise the paper. Authors Competing Interests: No competing interests. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Rita P. Reviewer Report For: Parents’ roles in young learners’ motivation and task engagement in Indonesian primary schools: Questionnaire development and validation [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1127 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.187839.r425669 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1127/v1#referee-response-425669 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 11 Nov 2025 Panaoura Rita , Frederick University, Nicosia, Cyprus Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.187839.r425669 Introduction 1. The abstract is generally clear and well structured, effectively presenting the study’s rationale, methods, results, and implications. It highlights a relevant gap—the lack of validated tools assessing parents’ influence on children’s motivation and task engagement in ... Continue reading READ ALL Introduction 1. The abstract is generally clear and well structured, effectively presenting the study’s rationale, methods, results, and implications. It highlights a relevant gap—the lack of validated tools assessing parents’ influence on children’s motivation and task engagement in Indonesia—and clearly describes the process of instrument development and validation. Introduction 2. The introduction provides a solid and logically organized foundation for the study. It effectively establishes the educational and policy context of English language learning in Indonesian primary schools and clearly articulates the relevance of investigating parental influence on young learners’ motivation and task engagement. The integration of national regulations and curricular details strengthens the argument’s contextual grounding. In my opinion, the section could benefit from a smoother narrative flow. Some parts read as a list of facts rather than a cohesive argument leading to the research gap. 3. The final paragraphs clearly define the study’s novelty and research questions, providing a convincing rationale for the questionnaire’s development. Literature review 4. The literature review is comprehensive and demonstrates strong engagement with recent and relevant sources. The discussion of socioeconomic and educational factors provides useful empirical grounding, while the integration of self-determination theory and engagement constructs shows theoretical awareness. The section tends to summarize studies descriptively rather than critically, offering limited synthesis or comparison among findings. It could better highlight inconsistencies or contextual differences between Western and Asian research traditions, reinforcing the need for a culturally adapted Indonesian instrument. 5. The explanation of existing questionnaires is informative but somewhat detailed; summarizing overlapping methodological information would improve conciseness. Method 6. The Method section is well-structured and provides sufficient procedural detail for replication. The section could be strengthened by briefly justifying the use of convenience sampling and discussing its potential implications for generalizability. Additionally, the authors might clarify how expert feedback specifically informed item revision and whether any items were removed or reworded after piloting. 7. A table can be presented at the end of a paragraph. Do not split the paragraph or the sentence by introducing a table. Results 8. An introduction paragraph is needed to explain the presentation of the results in respect to the posed research questions. 9. The section reads somewhat mechanically, with limited interpretation of what the numerical outcomes imply in practical or conceptual terms. For instance, brief comments linking the five extracted factors to parental behaviours or engagement mechanisms would help readers connect results to real-world meaning. 10.Some redundancy could be reduced by merging overlapping explanations of fit indices in EFA and CFA. Discussion 11. I have been disappointed by the specific section. It is not a section, it is only a paragraph. The Discussion section is notably underdeveloped, as it offers only a brief restatement of statistical results without providing genuine interpretation or theoretical insight. Rather than simply confirming that the instrument is valid and reliable, this section should have explored what the findings reveal about the multifaceted roles of Indonesian parents in supporting their children’s English learning. 12. The study’s alignment with self-determination theory could have been elaborated to explain how different parental behaviours foster intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. 13. Expanding the discussion to include theoretical interpretation, contextual relevance, and implications for educators and policymakers would transform it from a descriptive summary into a meaningful scholarly dialogue. Conclusions 14. The Conclusions section provides a clear summary of the study’s outcomes, confirming the questionnaire’s validity and reliability and restating its five-factor structure. However, it primarily reiterates statistical findings rather than synthesizing their broader significance. A stronger conclusion would integrate theoretical, practical, and contextual implications, emphasizing how the validated tool advances understanding of parental roles in children’s motivation and task engagement, particularly within Indonesia’s evolving English education landscape. 15. The authors could also highlight how the instrument may inform teacher training, parental engagement programs, or policy decisions aimed at fostering home–school collaboration Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Mathematics Education, self-regulation, parental involvement, inquiry based methods, digital tools in education I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Rita P. Reviewer Report For: Parents’ roles in young learners’ motivation and task engagement in Indonesian primary schools: Questionnaire development and validation [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1127 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.187839.r425669 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1127/v1#referee-response-425669 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 12 Jan 2026 Mai Sri Lena , Doctoral school of education, University of Szeged, Szeged, H-6720, Hungary 12 Jan 2026 Author Response Dear Reviewer 1, Thank you very much for your helpful comments on our paper. In this text, we respond to them one by one. We are grateful to you for ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer 1, Thank you very much for your helpful comments on our paper. In this text, we respond to them one by one. We are grateful to you for your work on our manuscript. We hope we have addressed all points and have revised the text to meet the standards of the journal. In addition to your comments, we have carefully revised the manuscript to make all points clear and the wording appropriate. Yours, Authors Reviewer 1 Approved With Reservations Comment Introduction 1. The abstract is generally clear and well structured, effectively presenting the study’s rationale, methods, results, and implications. It highlights a relevant gap—the lack of validated tools assessing parents’ influence on children’s motivation and task engagement in Indonesia—and clearly describes the process of instrument development and validation. Response Thank you for your comment. We appreciate it. Comment Introduction 2. The introduction provides a solid and logically organized foundation for the study. It effectively establishes the educational and policy context of English language learning in Indonesian primary schools and clearly articulates the relevance of investigating parental influence on young learners’ motivation and task engagement. The integration of national regulations and curricular details strengthens the argument’s contextual grounding. In my opinion, the section could benefit from a smoother narrative flow. Some parts read as a list of facts rather than a cohesive argument leading to the research gap. Response Thank you for your comment. We revised the introduction along the lines you suggested. Comment 3. The final paragraphs clearly define the study’s novelty and research questions, providing a convincing rationale for the questionnaire’s development. Response Thank you for your comment. Comment Literature review 4. The literature review is comprehensive and demonstrates strong engagement with recent and relevant sources. The discussion of socioeconomic and educational factors provides useful empirical grounding, while the integration of self-determination theory and engagement constructs shows theoretical awareness. The section tends to summarize studies descriptively rather than critically, offering limited synthesis or comparison among findings. It could better highlight inconsistencies or contextual differences between Western and Asian research traditions, reinforcing the need for a culturally adapted Indonesian instrument. Response We revised this section of the text. Comment 5. The explanation of existing questionnaires is informative but somewhat detailed; summarizing overlapping methodological information would improve conciseness. Response This section is also revised. Comment Method 6. The Method section is well-structured and provides sufficient procedural detail for replication. The section could be strengthened by briefly justifying the use of convenience sampling and discussing its potential implications for generalizability. Additionally, the authors might clarify how expert feedback specifically informed item revision and whether any items were removed or reworded after piloting. Response We added justification for the use of convenience sampling and its implications for generalizability. Also, an explanation about the feedback from the experts is revised. Comment 7. A table can be presented at the end of a paragraph. Do not split the paragraph or the sentence by introducing a table. Response We rearranged the text and the table. Comment Results 8. An introduction paragraph is needed to explain the presentation of the results in respect to the posed research questions. Response Thank you for your comment. We added an introduction paragraph to the results section. Comment 9. The section reads somewhat mechanically, with limited interpretation of what the numerical outcomes imply in practical or conceptual terms. For instance, brief comments linking the five extracted factors to parental behaviours or engagement mechanisms would help readers connect results to real-world meaning. Response Thank you for your comment. We added the interpretation. Comment 10.Some redundancy could be reduced by merging overlapping explanations of fit indices in EFA and CFA. Response We revised those sections to reduce redundancy. Comment Discussion 11. I have been disappointed by the specific section. It is not a section, it is only a paragraph. The Discussion section is notably underdeveloped, as it offers only a brief restatement of statistical results without providing genuine interpretation or theoretical insight. Rather than simply confirming that the instrument is valid and reliable, this section should have explored what the findings reveal about the multifaceted roles of Indonesian parents in supporting their children’s English learning. Response The discussion section was revised. Comment 12. The study’s alignment with self-determination theory could have been elaborated to explain how different parental behaviours foster intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. Response We added an explanation on these points. Comment 13. Expanding the discussion to include theoretical interpretation, contextual relevance, and implications for educators and policymakers would transform it from a descriptive summary into a meaningful scholarly dialogue. Response Along the lines you suggested, we revised the discussion section. Comment Conclusions 14. The Conclusions section provides a clear summary of the study’s outcomes, confirming the questionnaire’s validity and reliability and restating its five-factor structure. However, it primarily reiterates statistical findings rather than synthesizing their broader significance. A stronger conclusion would integrate theoretical, practical, and contextual implications, emphasizing how the validated tool advances understanding of parental roles in children’s motivation and task engagement, particularly within Indonesia’s evolving English education landscape. Response The conclusions are now revised. Comment 15. The authors could also highlight how the instrument may inform teacher training, parental engagement programs, or policy decisions aimed at fostering home–school collaboration Response Thank you for these suggestions, which we added to the implications section. Finally, let us thank you again for helping us revise the paper. Authors Dear Reviewer 1, Thank you very much for your helpful comments on our paper. In this text, we respond to them one by one. We are grateful to you for your work on our manuscript. We hope we have addressed all points and have revised the text to meet the standards of the journal. In addition to your comments, we have carefully revised the manuscript to make all points clear and the wording appropriate. Yours, Authors Reviewer 1 Approved With Reservations Comment Introduction 1. The abstract is generally clear and well structured, effectively presenting the study’s rationale, methods, results, and implications. It highlights a relevant gap—the lack of validated tools assessing parents’ influence on children’s motivation and task engagement in Indonesia—and clearly describes the process of instrument development and validation. Response Thank you for your comment. We appreciate it. Comment Introduction 2. The introduction provides a solid and logically organized foundation for the study. It effectively establishes the educational and policy context of English language learning in Indonesian primary schools and clearly articulates the relevance of investigating parental influence on young learners’ motivation and task engagement. The integration of national regulations and curricular details strengthens the argument’s contextual grounding. In my opinion, the section could benefit from a smoother narrative flow. Some parts read as a list of facts rather than a cohesive argument leading to the research gap. Response Thank you for your comment. We revised the introduction along the lines you suggested. Comment 3. The final paragraphs clearly define the study’s novelty and research questions, providing a convincing rationale for the questionnaire’s development. Response Thank you for your comment. Comment Literature review 4. The literature review is comprehensive and demonstrates strong engagement with recent and relevant sources. The discussion of socioeconomic and educational factors provides useful empirical grounding, while the integration of self-determination theory and engagement constructs shows theoretical awareness. The section tends to summarize studies descriptively rather than critically, offering limited synthesis or comparison among findings. It could better highlight inconsistencies or contextual differences between Western and Asian research traditions, reinforcing the need for a culturally adapted Indonesian instrument. Response We revised this section of the text. Comment 5. The explanation of existing questionnaires is informative but somewhat detailed; summarizing overlapping methodological information would improve conciseness. Response This section is also revised. Comment Method 6. The Method section is well-structured and provides sufficient procedural detail for replication. The section could be strengthened by briefly justifying the use of convenience sampling and discussing its potential implications for generalizability. Additionally, the authors might clarify how expert feedback specifically informed item revision and whether any items were removed or reworded after piloting. Response We added justification for the use of convenience sampling and its implications for generalizability. Also, an explanation about the feedback from the experts is revised. Comment 7. A table can be presented at the end of a paragraph. Do not split the paragraph or the sentence by introducing a table. Response We rearranged the text and the table. Comment Results 8. An introduction paragraph is needed to explain the presentation of the results in respect to the posed research questions. Response Thank you for your comment. We added an introduction paragraph to the results section. Comment 9. The section reads somewhat mechanically, with limited interpretation of what the numerical outcomes imply in practical or conceptual terms. For instance, brief comments linking the five extracted factors to parental behaviours or engagement mechanisms would help readers connect results to real-world meaning. Response Thank you for your comment. We added the interpretation. Comment 10.Some redundancy could be reduced by merging overlapping explanations of fit indices in EFA and CFA. Response We revised those sections to reduce redundancy. Comment Discussion 11. I have been disappointed by the specific section. It is not a section, it is only a paragraph. The Discussion section is notably underdeveloped, as it offers only a brief restatement of statistical results without providing genuine interpretation or theoretical insight. Rather than simply confirming that the instrument is valid and reliable, this section should have explored what the findings reveal about the multifaceted roles of Indonesian parents in supporting their children’s English learning. Response The discussion section was revised. Comment 12. The study’s alignment with self-determination theory could have been elaborated to explain how different parental behaviours foster intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. Response We added an explanation on these points. Comment 13. Expanding the discussion to include theoretical interpretation, contextual relevance, and implications for educators and policymakers would transform it from a descriptive summary into a meaningful scholarly dialogue. Response Along the lines you suggested, we revised the discussion section. Comment Conclusions 14. The Conclusions section provides a clear summary of the study’s outcomes, confirming the questionnaire’s validity and reliability and restating its five-factor structure. However, it primarily reiterates statistical findings rather than synthesizing their broader significance. A stronger conclusion would integrate theoretical, practical, and contextual implications, emphasizing how the validated tool advances understanding of parental roles in children’s motivation and task engagement, particularly within Indonesia’s evolving English education landscape. Response The conclusions are now revised. Comment 15. The authors could also highlight how the instrument may inform teacher training, parental engagement programs, or policy decisions aimed at fostering home–school collaboration Response Thank you for these suggestions, which we added to the implications section. Finally, let us thank you again for helping us revise the paper. Authors Competing Interests: No competing interests. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 12 Jan 2026 Mai Sri Lena , Doctoral school of education, University of Szeged, Szeged, H-6720, Hungary 12 Jan 2026 Author Response Dear Reviewer 1, Thank you very much for your helpful comments on our paper. In this text, we respond to them one by one. We are grateful to you for ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer 1, Thank you very much for your helpful comments on our paper. In this text, we respond to them one by one. We are grateful to you for your work on our manuscript. We hope we have addressed all points and have revised the text to meet the standards of the journal. In addition to your comments, we have carefully revised the manuscript to make all points clear and the wording appropriate. Yours, Authors Reviewer 1 Approved With Reservations Comment Introduction 1. The abstract is generally clear and well structured, effectively presenting the study’s rationale, methods, results, and implications. It highlights a relevant gap—the lack of validated tools assessing parents’ influence on children’s motivation and task engagement in Indonesia—and clearly describes the process of instrument development and validation. Response Thank you for your comment. We appreciate it. Comment Introduction 2. The introduction provides a solid and logically organized foundation for the study. It effectively establishes the educational and policy context of English language learning in Indonesian primary schools and clearly articulates the relevance of investigating parental influence on young learners’ motivation and task engagement. The integration of national regulations and curricular details strengthens the argument’s contextual grounding. In my opinion, the section could benefit from a smoother narrative flow. Some parts read as a list of facts rather than a cohesive argument leading to the research gap. Response Thank you for your comment. We revised the introduction along the lines you suggested. Comment 3. The final paragraphs clearly define the study’s novelty and research questions, providing a convincing rationale for the questionnaire’s development. Response Thank you for your comment. Comment Literature review 4. The literature review is comprehensive and demonstrates strong engagement with recent and relevant sources. The discussion of socioeconomic and educational factors provides useful empirical grounding, while the integration of self-determination theory and engagement constructs shows theoretical awareness. The section tends to summarize studies descriptively rather than critically, offering limited synthesis or comparison among findings. It could better highlight inconsistencies or contextual differences between Western and Asian research traditions, reinforcing the need for a culturally adapted Indonesian instrument. Response We revised this section of the text. Comment 5. The explanation of existing questionnaires is informative but somewhat detailed; summarizing overlapping methodological information would improve conciseness. Response This section is also revised. Comment Method 6. The Method section is well-structured and provides sufficient procedural detail for replication. The section could be strengthened by briefly justifying the use of convenience sampling and discussing its potential implications for generalizability. Additionally, the authors might clarify how expert feedback specifically informed item revision and whether any items were removed or reworded after piloting. Response We added justification for the use of convenience sampling and its implications for generalizability. Also, an explanation about the feedback from the experts is revised. Comment 7. A table can be presented at the end of a paragraph. Do not split the paragraph or the sentence by introducing a table. Response We rearranged the text and the table. Comment Results 8. An introduction paragraph is needed to explain the presentation of the results in respect to the posed research questions. Response Thank you for your comment. We added an introduction paragraph to the results section. Comment 9. The section reads somewhat mechanically, with limited interpretation of what the numerical outcomes imply in practical or conceptual terms. For instance, brief comments linking the five extracted factors to parental behaviours or engagement mechanisms would help readers connect results to real-world meaning. Response Thank you for your comment. We added the interpretation. Comment 10.Some redundancy could be reduced by merging overlapping explanations of fit indices in EFA and CFA. Response We revised those sections to reduce redundancy. Comment Discussion 11. I have been disappointed by the specific section. It is not a section, it is only a paragraph. The Discussion section is notably underdeveloped, as it offers only a brief restatement of statistical results without providing genuine interpretation or theoretical insight. Rather than simply confirming that the instrument is valid and reliable, this section should have explored what the findings reveal about the multifaceted roles of Indonesian parents in supporting their children’s English learning. Response The discussion section was revised. Comment 12. The study’s alignment with self-determination theory could have been elaborated to explain how different parental behaviours foster intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. Response We added an explanation on these points. Comment 13. Expanding the discussion to include theoretical interpretation, contextual relevance, and implications for educators and policymakers would transform it from a descriptive summary into a meaningful scholarly dialogue. Response Along the lines you suggested, we revised the discussion section. Comment Conclusions 14. The Conclusions section provides a clear summary of the study’s outcomes, confirming the questionnaire’s validity and reliability and restating its five-factor structure. However, it primarily reiterates statistical findings rather than synthesizing their broader significance. A stronger conclusion would integrate theoretical, practical, and contextual implications, emphasizing how the validated tool advances understanding of parental roles in children’s motivation and task engagement, particularly within Indonesia’s evolving English education landscape. Response The conclusions are now revised. Comment 15. The authors could also highlight how the instrument may inform teacher training, parental engagement programs, or policy decisions aimed at fostering home–school collaboration Response Thank you for these suggestions, which we added to the implications section. Finally, let us thank you again for helping us revise the paper. Authors Dear Reviewer 1, Thank you very much for your helpful comments on our paper. In this text, we respond to them one by one. We are grateful to you for your work on our manuscript. We hope we have addressed all points and have revised the text to meet the standards of the journal. In addition to your comments, we have carefully revised the manuscript to make all points clear and the wording appropriate. Yours, Authors Reviewer 1 Approved With Reservations Comment Introduction 1. The abstract is generally clear and well structured, effectively presenting the study’s rationale, methods, results, and implications. It highlights a relevant gap—the lack of validated tools assessing parents’ influence on children’s motivation and task engagement in Indonesia—and clearly describes the process of instrument development and validation. Response Thank you for your comment. We appreciate it. Comment Introduction 2. The introduction provides a solid and logically organized foundation for the study. It effectively establishes the educational and policy context of English language learning in Indonesian primary schools and clearly articulates the relevance of investigating parental influence on young learners’ motivation and task engagement. The integration of national regulations and curricular details strengthens the argument’s contextual grounding. In my opinion, the section could benefit from a smoother narrative flow. Some parts read as a list of facts rather than a cohesive argument leading to the research gap. Response Thank you for your comment. We revised the introduction along the lines you suggested. Comment 3. The final paragraphs clearly define the study’s novelty and research questions, providing a convincing rationale for the questionnaire’s development. Response Thank you for your comment. Comment Literature review 4. The literature review is comprehensive and demonstrates strong engagement with recent and relevant sources. The discussion of socioeconomic and educational factors provides useful empirical grounding, while the integration of self-determination theory and engagement constructs shows theoretical awareness. The section tends to summarize studies descriptively rather than critically, offering limited synthesis or comparison among findings. It could better highlight inconsistencies or contextual differences between Western and Asian research traditions, reinforcing the need for a culturally adapted Indonesian instrument. Response We revised this section of the text. Comment 5. The explanation of existing questionnaires is informative but somewhat detailed; summarizing overlapping methodological information would improve conciseness. Response This section is also revised. Comment Method 6. The Method section is well-structured and provides sufficient procedural detail for replication. The section could be strengthened by briefly justifying the use of convenience sampling and discussing its potential implications for generalizability. Additionally, the authors might clarify how expert feedback specifically informed item revision and whether any items were removed or reworded after piloting. Response We added justification for the use of convenience sampling and its implications for generalizability. Also, an explanation about the feedback from the experts is revised. Comment 7. A table can be presented at the end of a paragraph. Do not split the paragraph or the sentence by introducing a table. Response We rearranged the text and the table. Comment Results 8. An introduction paragraph is needed to explain the presentation of the results in respect to the posed research questions. Response Thank you for your comment. We added an introduction paragraph to the results section. Comment 9. The section reads somewhat mechanically, with limited interpretation of what the numerical outcomes imply in practical or conceptual terms. For instance, brief comments linking the five extracted factors to parental behaviours or engagement mechanisms would help readers connect results to real-world meaning. Response Thank you for your comment. We added the interpretation. Comment 10.Some redundancy could be reduced by merging overlapping explanations of fit indices in EFA and CFA. Response We revised those sections to reduce redundancy. Comment Discussion 11. I have been disappointed by the specific section. It is not a section, it is only a paragraph. The Discussion section is notably underdeveloped, as it offers only a brief restatement of statistical results without providing genuine interpretation or theoretical insight. Rather than simply confirming that the instrument is valid and reliable, this section should have explored what the findings reveal about the multifaceted roles of Indonesian parents in supporting their children’s English learning. Response The discussion section was revised. Comment 12. The study’s alignment with self-determination theory could have been elaborated to explain how different parental behaviours foster intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. Response We added an explanation on these points. Comment 13. Expanding the discussion to include theoretical interpretation, contextual relevance, and implications for educators and policymakers would transform it from a descriptive summary into a meaningful scholarly dialogue. Response Along the lines you suggested, we revised the discussion section. Comment Conclusions 14. The Conclusions section provides a clear summary of the study’s outcomes, confirming the questionnaire’s validity and reliability and restating its five-factor structure. However, it primarily reiterates statistical findings rather than synthesizing their broader significance. A stronger conclusion would integrate theoretical, practical, and contextual implications, emphasizing how the validated tool advances understanding of parental roles in children’s motivation and task engagement, particularly within Indonesia’s evolving English education landscape. Response The conclusions are now revised. Comment 15. The authors could also highlight how the instrument may inform teacher training, parental engagement programs, or policy decisions aimed at fostering home–school collaboration Response Thank you for these suggestions, which we added to the implications section. Finally, let us thank you again for helping us revise the paper. Authors Competing Interests: No competing interests. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 17 Oct 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 Version 2 (revision) 24 Dec 25 Version 1 17 Oct 25 read read read Panaoura Rita , Frederick University, Nicosia, Cyprus Pawel Larionow , University College of Professional Education, Wrocław, Poland Ümit Ünsal Kaya , Afyon Kocatepe University, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Kaya Ü. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 01 Dec 2025 | for Version 1 Ümit Ünsal Kaya , Afyon Kocatepe University, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey 0 Views copyright © 2025 Kaya Ü. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Evaluation of the Article 1. Scientific Soundness The research is methodologically rigorous and theoretically grounded in self-determination theory. The factor analyses are appropriately applied and clearly reported. The reliability coefficients and fit indices demonstrate that the instrument is both valid and reliable for its intended purpose. The study aligns with best practices in educational measurement and questionnaire development. 2. Originality and Contribution This work provides an important contribution to the field of language education and parental involvement studies by developing the first validated instrument tailored to the Indonesian context. The focus on parents of primary school children learning English as a foreign language is both timely and valuable, particularly in light of recent curricular changes in Indonesia. The study has both theoretical implications—by extending motivation research into underrepresented contexts—and practical applications for educators and policymakers. 3. Writing and Structure The article is well-structured and clearly written. The academic tone is appropriate, and the progression of ideas is logical and coherent. The introduction thoroughly reviews relevant literature, the methodology section is detailed and transparent, and the discussion links findings back to theoretical and practical concerns. Tables and figures are informative and well-integrated into the text. 4. Language Quality The language is clear and fluent, with no notable grammatical or typographical issues. Terminology is used appropriately throughout, and the academic register is consistently maintained. Final Recommendation This article is scientifically sound, well-written, and makes a valuable contribution to the field. I find no weaknesses that require correction or revision. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise child development, early childhood education I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 31 Dec 2025 Mai Sri Lena, Doctoral school of education, University of Szeged, Szeged, H-6720, Hungary We are grateful for your positive review and delighted that you found the manuscript acceptable. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests. reply Respond Report a concern Kaya ÜÜ. Peer Review Report For: Parents’ roles in young learners’ motivation and task engagement in Indonesian primary schools: Questionnaire development and validation [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1127 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.187839.r427999) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1127/v1#referee-response-427999 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Larionow P. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 11 Nov 2025 | for Version 1 Pawel Larionow , University College of Professional Education, Wrocław, Poland 0 Views copyright © 2025 Larionow P. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Dear authors, I have reviewed your paper and I am providing my comments below: Abstract 1. I think this statement is too strong. "No research has been conducted in the Indonesian context on what roles parents play in their children’s motivation and task engagement.". In the background section, there is no aim of the study. 2. I believe that this statement is unclear. "Research questions examined factors affecting its effectiveness.". 3. Jamovi is a statistical program. It is a name, and it should be written with a capital letter. 4. The Conclusions are too broad and specifying them seems to be a good choice. Introduction 5. I think that starting the introduction with the sentence "The study aims to develop, pilot, and validate a questionnaire on the role of parents in motivating and engaging young learners with the tasks assigned by teachers in their English classes." is uncommon. 6. I am not very familiar with the theory of this particular topic, and I would prefer to ask editors and other more experienced reviewers to analyze this section. 7. I find this sentence unclear "1. What are the underlying factors that structure the questionnaire measuring parents’ roles in their children’s English learning motivation and task engagement?". Method 8. Several sections are overlapping. For instance, Context of the study, Research design and Procedure can be combined. Please carefully reconsider the paper structure. 9. Several statements are vague. For instance, "We developed the parents’ role questionnaire because the existing questionnaire did not relate to the study’s purposes." 10. English should be edited as there are several difficult to read statements. 11. The development of a questionnaire and its all standards procedures were not described sufficiently. Please elaborate on these, and indicate details. For instance, how many parents did participate in a pilot testing? And other aspects. 12. The description of statistical analyses was not provided in the Method section. The authors added several description in the Results section, but this should have been done in the Methods section. Results 13. All factor loadings for all items were not mentioned. Please add these to assess potential cross-loadings. 14. The sentences below may indicate that the scale does not have sufficient discriminative power as all items have values above 3 and even around the maximum value of 4. "Table 7 presents the descriptive statistics for the dimensions of parental roles, indicating generally high levels of agreement across all items, with means fluctuating between 3.06 and 3.73 on a 4-point scale. The highest mean scores were found in parental expectations (M = 3.65 to 3.73), reflecting strong convictions regarding the importance of English and significant aspirations for their children’s English proficiency.". 15. The convergent and divergent validity seems not to have been assessed. Discussion 16. The Discussion is very short, basically repeating the results from the Results section. The discussion should be elaborated. Please discuss theoretical and practical value of this study. Limitations of the study were not indicated. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise psychological assessment, psychopathology, emotion, emotion regulation, psychometrics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 12 Jan 2026 Mai Sri Lena, Doctoral school of education, University of Szeged, Szeged, H-6720, Hungary Dear Reviewer 2, Thank you very much for your helpful comments on our paper. In this text, we respond to them one by one. We are grateful to you for your work on our manuscript. We hope we have addressed all points and have revised the text to meet the standards of the journal. In addition to your comments, we have carefully revised the manuscript to make all points clear and the wording appropriate. Yours, Authors Reviewer 2 Approved With Reservations Dear authors, I have reviewed your paper and I am providing my comments below: Comment Abstract 1. I think this statement is too strong. "No research has been conducted in the Indonesian context on what roles parents play in their children’s motivation and task engagement." In the background section, there is no aim of the study. Response Thank you for your comments. We revised the text along them. Comment 2. I believe that this statement is unclear. "Research questions examined factors affecting its effectiveness.". Response The statement is now reworded. Comment 3. Jamovi is a statistical program. It is a name, and it should be written with a capital letter. Response Thank you for pointing this out. 4. The Conclusions are too broad and specifying them seems to be a good choice. Response We revised this section carefully. Comment Introduction 5. I think that starting the introduction with the sentence "The study aims to develop, pilot, and validate a questionnaire on the role of parents in motivating and engaging young learners with the tasks assigned by teachers in their English classes." is uncommon. Response We revised this intro. Comment 6. I am not very familiar with the theory of this particular topic, and I would prefer to ask editors and other more experienced reviewers to analyze this section. Response None. Comment 7. I find this sentence unclear "1. What are the underlying factors that structure the questionnaire measuring parents’ roles in their children’s English learning motivation and task engagement?". Response The sentence is revised. Comment Method 8. Several sections are overlapping. For instance, Context of the study, Research design and Procedure can be combined. Please carefully reconsider the paper structure. Response We reconsidered these sections. Comment 9. Several statements are vague. For instance, "We developed the parents’ role questionnaire because the existing questionnaire did not relate to the study’s purposes." Response We revised this sentence as well as the rest of the manuscript. Comment 10. English should be edited as there are several difficult to read statements. Response The whole text has been revised for clarity. Comment 11. The development of a questionnaire and its all standards procedures were not described sufficiently. Please elaborate on these, and indicate details. For instance, how many parents did participate in a pilot testing? And other aspects. Response We provided additional information in the participants section. Comment 12. The description of statistical analyses was not provided in the Method section. The authors added several description in the Results section, but this should have been done in the Methods section. Response We moved the descriptive statistics analysis to the methods section under instrument. Comment Results 13. All factor loadings for all items were not mentioned. Please add these to assess potential cross-loadings. Response We mentioned the factor loading of each item both in EFA on Table 2 and CFA on Table 6. Comment 14. The sentences below may indicate that the scale does not have sufficient discriminative power as all items have values above 3 and even around the maximum value of 4. "Table 7 presents the descriptive statistics for the dimensions of parental roles, indicating generally high levels of agreement across all items, with means fluctuating between 3.06 and 3.73 on a 4-point scale. The highest mean scores were found in parental expectations (M = 3.65 to 3.73), reflecting strong convictions regarding the importance of English and significant aspirations for their children’s English proficiency.". Response Thank you for your comment. We do not think that high means imply poor discrimination. On a 4-point scale, high scores indicate generally positive parental attitudes, consistent with previous research. Discrimination depends on variability and psychometric indices (item–total correlations, factor loadings, CR, AVE), not on means alone. In this study, these indices were acceptable (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), showing that items differentiated among respondents despite high means. There was no substantial ceiling effect, as means were below the maximum. We assessed discriminant validity using the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio correlation (Table 8). The HTMT values ranged from .377 to .748, remaining comfortably below both the conservative .85 threshold and the more liberal .90 cut-off. Comment 15. The convergent and divergent validity seems not to have been assessed. Response We did assess convergent validity by providing EVA, CR, and loadings. We added divergent validity, √AVE on diagonals, along correlations among factors in Table 7. We also assessed discriminant validity using the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio correlation (Table 8) Comment Discussion 16. The Discussion is very short, basically repeating the results from the Results section. The discussion should be elaborated. Please discuss theoretical and practical value of this study. Limitations of the study were not indicated. Response Along the lines you suggested we revised the discussion and addressed all the points, including the limitations. Finally, let us thank you again for helping us revise the paper. Authors View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests. reply Respond Report a concern Larionow P. Peer Review Report For: Parents’ roles in young learners’ motivation and task engagement in Indonesian primary schools: Questionnaire development and validation [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1127 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.187839.r428006) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1127/v1#referee-response-428006 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Rita P. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 11 Nov 2025 | for Version 1 Panaoura Rita , Frederick University, Nicosia, Cyprus 0 Views copyright © 2025 Rita P. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Introduction 1. The abstract is generally clear and well structured, effectively presenting the study’s rationale, methods, results, and implications. It highlights a relevant gap—the lack of validated tools assessing parents’ influence on children’s motivation and task engagement in Indonesia—and clearly describes the process of instrument development and validation. Introduction 2. The introduction provides a solid and logically organized foundation for the study. It effectively establishes the educational and policy context of English language learning in Indonesian primary schools and clearly articulates the relevance of investigating parental influence on young learners’ motivation and task engagement. The integration of national regulations and curricular details strengthens the argument’s contextual grounding. In my opinion, the section could benefit from a smoother narrative flow. Some parts read as a list of facts rather than a cohesive argument leading to the research gap. 3. The final paragraphs clearly define the study’s novelty and research questions, providing a convincing rationale for the questionnaire’s development. Literature review 4. The literature review is comprehensive and demonstrates strong engagement with recent and relevant sources. The discussion of socioeconomic and educational factors provides useful empirical grounding, while the integration of self-determination theory and engagement constructs shows theoretical awareness. The section tends to summarize studies descriptively rather than critically, offering limited synthesis or comparison among findings. It could better highlight inconsistencies or contextual differences between Western and Asian research traditions, reinforcing the need for a culturally adapted Indonesian instrument. 5. The explanation of existing questionnaires is informative but somewhat detailed; summarizing overlapping methodological information would improve conciseness. Method 6. The Method section is well-structured and provides sufficient procedural detail for replication. The section could be strengthened by briefly justifying the use of convenience sampling and discussing its potential implications for generalizability. Additionally, the authors might clarify how expert feedback specifically informed item revision and whether any items were removed or reworded after piloting. 7. A table can be presented at the end of a paragraph. Do not split the paragraph or the sentence by introducing a table. Results 8. An introduction paragraph is needed to explain the presentation of the results in respect to the posed research questions. 9. The section reads somewhat mechanically, with limited interpretation of what the numerical outcomes imply in practical or conceptual terms. For instance, brief comments linking the five extracted factors to parental behaviours or engagement mechanisms would help readers connect results to real-world meaning. 10.Some redundancy could be reduced by merging overlapping explanations of fit indices in EFA and CFA. Discussion 11. I have been disappointed by the specific section. It is not a section, it is only a paragraph. The Discussion section is notably underdeveloped, as it offers only a brief restatement of statistical results without providing genuine interpretation or theoretical insight. Rather than simply confirming that the instrument is valid and reliable, this section should have explored what the findings reveal about the multifaceted roles of Indonesian parents in supporting their children’s English learning. 12. The study’s alignment with self-determination theory could have been elaborated to explain how different parental behaviours foster intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. 13. Expanding the discussion to include theoretical interpretation, contextual relevance, and implications for educators and policymakers would transform it from a descriptive summary into a meaningful scholarly dialogue. Conclusions 14. The Conclusions section provides a clear summary of the study’s outcomes, confirming the questionnaire’s validity and reliability and restating its five-factor structure. However, it primarily reiterates statistical findings rather than synthesizing their broader significance. A stronger conclusion would integrate theoretical, practical, and contextual implications, emphasizing how the validated tool advances understanding of parental roles in children’s motivation and task engagement, particularly within Indonesia’s evolving English education landscape. 15. The authors could also highlight how the instrument may inform teacher training, parental engagement programs, or policy decisions aimed at fostering home–school collaboration Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Mathematics Education, self-regulation, parental involvement, inquiry based methods, digital tools in education I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 12 Jan 2026 Mai Sri Lena, Doctoral school of education, University of Szeged, Szeged, H-6720, Hungary Dear Reviewer 1, Thank you very much for your helpful comments on our paper. In this text, we respond to them one by one. We are grateful to you for your work on our manuscript. We hope we have addressed all points and have revised the text to meet the standards of the journal. In addition to your comments, we have carefully revised the manuscript to make all points clear and the wording appropriate. Yours, Authors Reviewer 1 Approved With Reservations Comment Introduction 1. The abstract is generally clear and well structured, effectively presenting the study’s rationale, methods, results, and implications. It highlights a relevant gap—the lack of validated tools assessing parents’ influence on children’s motivation and task engagement in Indonesia—and clearly describes the process of instrument development and validation. Response Thank you for your comment. We appreciate it. Comment Introduction 2. The introduction provides a solid and logically organized foundation for the study. It effectively establishes the educational and policy context of English language learning in Indonesian primary schools and clearly articulates the relevance of investigating parental influence on young learners’ motivation and task engagement. The integration of national regulations and curricular details strengthens the argument’s contextual grounding. In my opinion, the section could benefit from a smoother narrative flow. Some parts read as a list of facts rather than a cohesive argument leading to the research gap. Response Thank you for your comment. We revised the introduction along the lines you suggested. Comment 3. The final paragraphs clearly define the study’s novelty and research questions, providing a convincing rationale for the questionnaire’s development. Response Thank you for your comment. Comment Literature review 4. The literature review is comprehensive and demonstrates strong engagement with recent and relevant sources. The discussion of socioeconomic and educational factors provides useful empirical grounding, while the integration of self-determination theory and engagement constructs shows theoretical awareness. The section tends to summarize studies descriptively rather than critically, offering limited synthesis or comparison among findings. It could better highlight inconsistencies or contextual differences between Western and Asian research traditions, reinforcing the need for a culturally adapted Indonesian instrument. Response We revised this section of the text. Comment 5. The explanation of existing questionnaires is informative but somewhat detailed; summarizing overlapping methodological information would improve conciseness. Response This section is also revised. Comment Method 6. The Method section is well-structured and provides sufficient procedural detail for replication. The section could be strengthened by briefly justifying the use of convenience sampling and discussing its potential implications for generalizability. Additionally, the authors might clarify how expert feedback specifically informed item revision and whether any items were removed or reworded after piloting. Response We added justification for the use of convenience sampling and its implications for generalizability. Also, an explanation about the feedback from the experts is revised. Comment 7. A table can be presented at the end of a paragraph. Do not split the paragraph or the sentence by introducing a table. Response We rearranged the text and the table. Comment Results 8. An introduction paragraph is needed to explain the presentation of the results in respect to the posed research questions. Response Thank you for your comment. We added an introduction paragraph to the results section. Comment 9. The section reads somewhat mechanically, with limited interpretation of what the numerical outcomes imply in practical or conceptual terms. For instance, brief comments linking the five extracted factors to parental behaviours or engagement mechanisms would help readers connect results to real-world meaning. Response Thank you for your comment. We added the interpretation. Comment 10.Some redundancy could be reduced by merging overlapping explanations of fit indices in EFA and CFA. Response We revised those sections to reduce redundancy. Comment Discussion 11. I have been disappointed by the specific section. It is not a section, it is only a paragraph. The Discussion section is notably underdeveloped, as it offers only a brief restatement of statistical results without providing genuine interpretation or theoretical insight. Rather than simply confirming that the instrument is valid and reliable, this section should have explored what the findings reveal about the multifaceted roles of Indonesian parents in supporting their children’s English learning. Response The discussion section was revised. Comment 12. The study’s alignment with self-determination theory could have been elaborated to explain how different parental behaviours foster intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. Response We added an explanation on these points. Comment 13. Expanding the discussion to include theoretical interpretation, contextual relevance, and implications for educators and policymakers would transform it from a descriptive summary into a meaningful scholarly dialogue. Response Along the lines you suggested, we revised the discussion section. Comment Conclusions 14. The Conclusions section provides a clear summary of the study’s outcomes, confirming the questionnaire’s validity and reliability and restating its five-factor structure. However, it primarily reiterates statistical findings rather than synthesizing their broader significance. A stronger conclusion would integrate theoretical, practical, and contextual implications, emphasizing how the validated tool advances understanding of parental roles in children’s motivation and task engagement, particularly within Indonesia’s evolving English education landscape. Response The conclusions are now revised. Comment 15. The authors could also highlight how the instrument may inform teacher training, parental engagement programs, or policy decisions aimed at fostering home–school collaboration Response Thank you for these suggestions, which we added to the implications section. Finally, let us thank you again for helping us revise the paper. Authors View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests. reply Respond Report a concern Rita P. Peer Review Report For: Parents’ roles in young learners’ motivation and task engagement in Indonesian primary schools: Questionnaire development and validation [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1127 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.187839.r425669) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1127/v1#referee-response-425669 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Parents\’ roles in young learners\’...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1127/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1127/v2&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1127/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Lena MS and Nikolov M'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1127/v2/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1127", templates : { twitter : "Parents\’ roles in young learners\’ motivation and task.... Lena MS and Nikolov M, published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1127/v2" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/170391/193779") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "193779"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "425670": 0, "428006": 15, "444487": 0, "425671": 0, "428007": 0, "425668": 0, "428004": 0, "425669": 10, "428005": 0, "425666": 0, "428002": 0, "425667": 0, "428003": 0, "428000": 0, "428001": 0, "425674": 0, "425675": 0, "444488": 0, "425672": 0, "428008": 0, "444489": 0, "425673": 0, "427999": 18, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "906906db-5b0b-4c35-aac0-53c777ade768"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });