<p>The paper is very relevant and interesting, mostly for México a country suffering of so much violence and with not enough research being conducted. I will proceed to provide some comments to improve the quality of the paper:</p>
<p>In the abstract :</p>
<p>1007 + 1525 is not 2500</p>
<p>The results sections is expected to find statistical results, not so general results.</p>
<p>The conclusions are very vague.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Introduction:</p>
<p>Several of the references that the authors include are not from journals in Scopus nor JCR. This makes the review of the literature very weak.</p>
<p>What is a POW? if you don´t mention before what it means the abbreviation then it get´&nbsp; s very difficult to understand the paper.</p>
<p>(Southwick and Charney, 2014). This reference is done so wrongly. It just includes the names of the authors and the name of the book. No editorial, no year. This a basi element that is learned since the first levels of college. Please check the other references too.</p>
<p>There are strange writting parts, I recommed to re check.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The work in general needs a grammar review. Several of the sentences are strangely written.</p>
<p>I could not open the source of Poire, although the link was provided it does not work.</p>
<p>At the end of the introduction the literature review is so open and wants to cover so many elements that gets vague. I recommend to the author(s) to close up with more focus.</p>
<p>In the method it has to be better described how you contacted the sample, which schools are involved, not just to mention Mexican University studens from Puebla, Chihuahua and Guadalajara.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Method:</p>
<p>The instruments sections is so vague, the instruments are not clearly described. I could not understand them properly.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Results:</p>
<p>It seems like the results were copied paste from the statistical program, but are not clearly explained. Where are the freedom degress? Why is not explained the range of the RMSEA?</p>
<p>I find the discussion very vague and unclear</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Also why they use a so old version of SPSS?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>