Overall, the study designed was appropriate to answer the aim. What this study did added to what was already known on this topic. Overall, no flaw in the Methods, Discussion and Conclusions Sections. The major improvement was recommended in adding the aim in the abstract, adding definitions of terms and outlining the research question more clearly. The article was consistent within itself.

Strengths in the first section of abstract, title and references: abstract, what the study found and how they did it were clear, the title informative and relevant, the references were relevant, recent, referenced correctly, appropriate key studies were included. 1. In the Introduction Section, the research question was justified given what was already known about the topic. 2. In the Methods Section, the process of subject selection was clear. The variables were defined and measured appropriately, although more quantitative measures of social skills could be designed. The study methods were valid and reliable, although the first author was aware of the limitation of the researcher to be the practitioner and to measure outcome at the same time. There was enough detail in order to replicate the study. 3. In the Results Section, the data was presented in an appropriate way - Tables and figures relevant and clearly presented - Appropriate units, rounding, and number of decimals (all 2 decimals except p. 1951 2 = 0.844 and p.1953 z = -2.770, p. 1954 z = -1.988) - Titles, columns, and rows labelled correctly and clearly - Categories grouped appropriately The text in the results added to the data and not repetitive. You were clear about what was a statistically significant result. You were clear about what was practically meaningful result. 4. In the Discussion and Conclusions Section, the results were discussed from multiple angles and placed into context without being overinterpreted. The conclusions answered the aims of the study. The conclusions were supported by references or results. The limitations of the study were not fatal. They were opportunities to inform future research.

Major points in the article which needs clarification, refinement, reanalysis, rewrites and/or additional information and suggestions for what could be done to improve the article.
1. In the abstract, the aim was clear. But it was only stated in Discussion. Would be better to add the aim in the abstract “carry out an independent evaluation of the effectiveness of LEGO therapy and the SULP as social skills interventions for 6–11 year olds with HFA/AS.” 2. In the Introduction, what was already know about this was clear, yet to include definitions of specific terms such as Autism, high functioning autism (HFA) and Asperger Syndrome (AS) would be better. 3. In the Introduction, the research question could be more clearly outlined, instead of “The present study independently evaluates the effectiveness of LEGO therapy (LeGoff 2004) in comparison to another social skills programme called the Social Use of Language Programme (SULP; Rinaldi 2004).”

Minor points like figures/tables not being mentioned in the text, a missing reference, typos, and other inconsistencies. 1. In the Results Section, appropriate number of decimals should be used (all 2 decimals except p. 1951 z = 0.844 and p.1953 z = -2.770, p. 1954 z = -1.988).