The study is described as a qualitative, exploratory, cross-sectional, and preexperimental design with a comparison group. The inclusion of a comparison group (TAU) and the use of phrases like degree of significant change and effectiveness imply causal or quantitative comparisons. How do you justify this methodological hybrid, and can you clarify whether the study is truly qualitative or a quasi-experimental quantitative design? The mismatch in terminology raises concerns about the study’s rigor and the validity of the conclusions drawn regarding the effectiveness of CBAT versus TAU.
The Results section presents highly granular claims about CBAT strategies (e.g., “girls aged 11-14… drawing a person they knew or an imagined figure…”). However, there are no tables or figures summarizing the specific strategies, developmental stages, and outcomes in a coherent, replicable format. How was this complex qualitative data systematically analyzed and structured to ensure these specific conclusions are valid, rather than being subjective interpretations by the researchers? The absence of a clear data structure makes it impossible to verify the study’s core findings.
The paper cites an attendance rate of 87% for the intervention group versus 70% for TAU. Typically, attendance and dropout are reported as percentages of total participants, not as a higher percentage. These figures imply that the intervention group had an 87% attendance rate, but this also means a 13% dropout, while TAU had a 30% dropout, which is a significant difference. The discussion states that the dropout rate was notably lower for CBAT. To confirm this, can you provide the exact dropout and completion numbers for both groups? Presenting these as raw numbers would be much more transparent and informative for replication.