The results of the study showed a significant difference between the control and the treatment group for The Strengths and Difficulties questionnaire (SDQ). Using an independent samples t-test, which is designed to show the difference between groups based on a comparison of the means of both groups. The results for the experimental group was mean=26.29 and standard deviation=6.06, the control group had a mean=16.08 and a standard deviation =4.37. The't statistic =5.18 and it was significant. The researchers also determined that there was a significant difference between Diary entry times. This was demonstrated using multivariate analysis of variance. The researchers also looked at the frequency of attendance at the study and determined that for the group one children there was a significant reduction in SDQ scores from the baseline values t statistic =4.14 and p< .05. However, there was not similar result for the children from group two. The study also determined that there was no significant difference in participant scores for the time intervals based on the frequency of attendance. The researchers were able to demonstrate that the intervention had a significant effect on reducing SDQ but they could not statistically demonstrate that the manipulation of frequency of attendance would enhance the treatment effect. Attending sessions, more frequently did not appear to influence the children who were already experiencing benefits. This study was very interesting in both the subject matter and the design. The challenge faced by children with AD/HD and their parents is a difficult. Any intervention that could make the experience better is a step in the correct direction. What makes this additionally beneficial is that it explores a non-pharmaceutical alternative. In this regard, I think that the study is very useful. It clearly opens new windows for continued empirical exploration.

The procedures engaged by the researcher were very clear and the design a correct fit of the question that the researchers sought answers to. However, there are some design flaws that are impediments in the work and the researchers could not adequately compensate for those weaknesses. The first is that there was an...

Random assignment is a critical component of the design that effectively reduces systematic error in the design (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000). Consequently, any difference that is demonstrated between the groups based on frequency of attendance cannot be considered as entirely valid.
Additionally, there is the challenge of the control group the researcher controlled for the presence of the disease. The control group was a group of children who did not have AD/HD, the control group is supposed to be similar to the treatment group in all key characteristics (Trochim 2007). In this instance, the researcher applied the treatment to both groups. This is a weakness in the design. The researcher cannot demonstrate causation since there was no true control group (Nachmias & Nachmias 2008). The final concern with the work is the use of parametric statistics with samples of small sizes. Parametric statistics in particular ANOVA assumes that the sample is normal in its distribution (Nor-sis, 2008). The researchers sought to correct for this deficiency by doing non-parametric tests to support the parametric results. This correction would be unnecessary if they had secured an adequate sample size that allowed them to deploy parametric statistics effectively.

These three areas are aspects of the study that could be addressed if the study is to be redone at another occasion. Determining the success of the study was difficult since while it successful tested the hypotheses offered by the researcher, one of the hypotheses was not supported. Secondly, as noted previously there were several design flaws. Consequently, I would consider the study marginally successful and a better design may create results that are more robust.