Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction and Literature Review

Strengths:

• The manuscript clearly defines key constructs (self-confidence, Solution-Focused Brief Counseling).
• It references prior empirical studies linking self-confidence with various psychological variables.
• It includes both theoretical background (e.g., de Shazer, Berg, core SFBT principles) and empirical research.
• The gap in literature is explicitly stated (lack of direct studies on SFBT, grief, and self-confidence).

Areas for Improvement:

1. Succinctness
• The literature review is overly long and repetitive in places.
• Many citations are listed consecutively without synthesis, or listed but are not associated with a sentence, see line 87 – this is mainly a grammatical issue but might be worth exploring  
• The section could be tightened substantially while maintaining rigor.
2. Theoretical Integration
• Theoretical background is described, but not deeply integrated.
• The link between SFBT mechanisms (e.g., miracle question, scaling, strengths focus) and self-confidence development is implied rather than clearly theorized. Tell us more explicitly how the mechanisms of SFBT as a theory and practice creates change
• There is limited conceptual framing connecting self-confidence to broader developmental or psychological theories.
3. Empirical Contextualization
• The argument would be stronger if the author grouped prior findings into conceptual categories (e.g., SFBT and internalizing symptoms; SFBT and self-related constructs).
4. Clarity and Academic Tone
• Some phrasing is redundant or loosely structured.
• Minor grammatical inconsistencies reduce clarity.
• The claim that “lack of self-confidence is the most important problem in adolescence” is not adequately justified I would add a citation to that claim see line 38.

 

Research & Design

Minor Note: While clearly stated, some sections are overly detailed (e.g., lengthy assumption testing tables), and the hypothesis statements could be phrased more concisely for clarity.

 

Arguments & Discussion

Strengths:

• Logical Flow
• The discussion clearly returns to the primary hypothesis.
• Results are summarized accurately.
• Findings are compared with prior studies on SFBT, self-esteem, and self-efficacy.

Areas for Improvement

The limitations section is minimal and could be strengthened 

There is no meaningful discussion of:

• Small sample size (n=48 total; n=12 per subgroup)
• Single-site sampling (one high school in one province)
• Potential expectancy or researcher effects
• Lack of active control group
• Cultural specificity

A more balanced discussion would strengthen credibility.

At times, the language implies strong causal certainty (e.g., suggesting SFBT is effective rather than was associated with improvements under these conditions).

More cautious scientific phrasing would improve rigor. For example, line 532 “provided a permanent change…”

While prior studies are listed, the discussion summarizes supporting findings, but does not deeply analyze why SFBT may enhance self-confidence.

There is little conceptual unpacking of:

• Mechanisms of change
• Group dynamics effects
• Developmental factors in adolescence

This reduces how compelling the argument feels at a theoretical level.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, it was good but there is a lot of redundancy and grammatical issues that makes the flow of the paper difficult to understand at times. I would work through the edits one more time and consider using a few more headers throughout the manuscript to help the ready follow the path of the manuscript. 

Author Response

Please refer to the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study appears to compare 2 control and 2 experimental groups, with the experimental group receiving solution-focused brief therapy. I was unclear what the control group received.  Was there no intervention? I didn't see a clear listing of primary and secondary hypotheses up front to know what was being studied. Randomness was established using a drawing method?  Explain this. Is it drawing from a hat? 

 

The article notes that the solution-oriented approach has been effective in multiple prior studies. What makes your study unique? 

The manuscript doesn't flow smoothly.  After reading the manuscript, I should be able to replicate your study to determine whether your results would work in my facility.  I didn't understand there was a scale for the concept until later, and I still don't know what a good score means. I would add more detail. 

There was a lot of redundancy in terms.  Solution-focused was mentioned frequently, but you need to be consistent in hyphenating the term.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There could be some improvement in hyphenation (consistency) and in reducing redundancy in the use of terms throughout the document. There were a few typos and grammatical errors that can be easily addressed.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Much improved.