Dear Laura, hi again! So.. I have two articles in the works that are from my dissertation research study. This one, Phase I, was returned with significant revisions. The publishing journal was not going to consider it a revised document but I can resubmit as "new." My Phase II (not revised yet) was received much better and I will submit it to you once I have revised it! So... I have worked this past week to significantly revise Phase I and ready for it to be edited and polished. The major issues that I need your help with now: <br />-Clear, concise language<br />-APA citations and in-text citations are correct<br />-Understandable text regarding how the study was conducted and how those steps led to the results. -- these reflect the majority of comments from the reviewers (7 pages worth of criticism). I think it needs to be polished and correctly formatted. Then I think the reviewers just could not follow my writing which was why it was so negatively received. <br /><br />A little background on my dissertation study, it was a two phase, mixed methods experimental study. Phase I was a quantitative survey which I report descriptively in the article and then used correalations to determine relationships between the IV and DVs. The last step was using multiple regressions to see if an IV could predict a DV (the only significant finding here was that a participants age was a predictor of lowered self-confidence, lowered knowledge and skills and lowered ability to implement iPads as Assistive Technology). Phase II was an intervention online module that was shown to significantly improve participant confidence. *Please note, in the Phase I article, I mention Phase II, but it should be downplayed since the reviewers do not want too much mention of what is "not" included. <br /><br />Also, note that in the field of visual impairment, everything must be person-first language, i.e. person with a visual impairment. I believe the writing reflects this but just in case you did not know how important this is, whenever I mention disability, etc., it must be the person first (not the disability). I think using the phrase "older participants" is okay, but if that does not sound good to you, a different way to refer to that group may be better. <br /><br />I am currently under the 5,000 word count, so if there is an area that is too short, feel free to flag it for me to add more information. There are two figures, don't worry about those, I will revise them after I polish up the writing. <br /><br />Thank you Laura! <br /><br />Sincerely, Tara