<p>Thanks for the opportunity to review this manuscript. Enclosed my comments and suggestions for improvement:</p>
<p>(1) <strong>Originality</strong>- Overall, the manuscript provides a sociodemographic profile of a sample that participated on a cultural adaptation of a parenting program in Capre Verde. Personally, I don't think a manuscript providing that information add much to the literature. The REAL contribution of this study will be the data regarding the effectiveness of the cultural adaptation of this program. I don't see the contribution of this manuscript to Interamerican psychology, but could see the global impact of the cultural adaptation, not the psychosocial profile of a sample. Overall, the manuscript lacks depth &amp; breadth.&nbsp; I wonder why the author (s) chose to submit the manuscript with only the sample description, to me, that is not the real impact of a study like this one. Furthermore, the manuscript felt short in expanding expands the theoretical, empirical, and practical understanding of the topic (prevention programs &amp; parenting). More specifics, will be provided later.&nbsp;</p>
<p>(2) <strong>Research-</strong>&nbsp; <strong>If the manuscript is based on empirical evidence, does the quantitative or qualitative methodology fit the research question(s)?</strong> First of, it is not clear to me what the research questions or hypotheses were in this study. Asumming this was an intervention study, they did pre/post design with a control group. However, the design description nor the specifics on how participants were assigned to the groups was not clear (Did they use random assignment?). I think, the main issue with this manuscript, is that the author (s) chose to present only demographic data that in my opnion does not contribute to the body of literature.&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Are the sampling techniques, systematic data collection, and data analysis appropriate for the</strong> <strong>study?</strong>- Sampling procedures need to be better described. Also the procedure are not clear and the intervention perse was not described in this section. It was described on the results (that is not the right place for that information). To me, one of the biggest issues with this manuscript is the lack of coherence in the writing and all the gaps related to missing information. Regarding the intervention. This program needs to be described in detail. For examplem, they say there were 12 sessions. What topics these sessions discussed? What was the format delivery? Also, they say this was a cultural adaptation, but they description was not thorough. What criteria they use for the adaptations? Conducting a translation, is not a cultural adaptation. That is a language translation. When you culturally adapt something, you take into account the sovial, political, &amp; cultural context of your population to make the adptations. That is not clear in this manuscript. Also, the instrument description needs to provide details about the psychometric properties of each one and the clear rationale for their use. In other words, what specific components of the intervention, these instruments addressed? Also, I noticed reliability coeficients were reported for some but not all the instruments. With the exception of one (.81), the rest of them were in the middle 50's, which suggest that for this population the instruments might not be as reliable. Cultural adaptations??? Lastly, regarding data analysis, this was mostly based on descriptive statistics. There was no pre/post data discussed. In my humble opinion, the authors should have waited to submit a complete manuscript rather than present a sample description. That does not add anything to the literature. I was hoping to see information on how effective this program was for the target population and that was not presented here.</p>
<p><strong>Do the data support the findings? Are findings contextualized in light of previous literature?</strong>-Technically, data support findings becuse the author (s) are only describing the. sample they use for a bigger study. I urge the author (s) to wait until the study is finalized to submit a full manuscrit. I insist, the true contribution here will be the data on the efficacy of this cultural adaptation, not the data that was presented here. Although they discuss findings and cite literature, the limitation section is almost non-existent and Future Reserach was not thoroughly addressed.&nbsp;</p>
<p>(3) <strong>Literature Review</strong>- One of the main issues with this manuscript, is that in my opnion, the literature was not thoroughly reviewed on this topic. For instance, there is no general discussion on interventions based on prevention and promotion (which it is a widely studied topic. Secondly, the literature on parenting and parenting styles was not addressed. Third, the description of the program FAF ewas minimal considering this was the focus of the manuscript. Fourth, although the authors made the point there is not enough literature on the topic for the population under study, there was no mention of evidence-based parenting programs. In sum, the literature review needs expansion and ellaboration, so the author (s) point of the need for the study could be better supported.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p>(4)<strong> Writing-</strong> There are grammar, spelling errors noted throughout. Also, the manuscript does not necessarily follow APA guidelines. The citations do not follow the guidelines of the 7th edition. My understanding is that all manuscript shouls follow these new guideliness correct. The author (s) are encouraged to edit the manuscript and incorportate the new APA guidelines.</p>
<p>(5) <strong>Are there are other papers by Interamerican authors, which are pertinent and might be cited in this manuscript-</strong> Yes, the manuscript fits this criteria.&nbsp;</p>