Dear editor

We would like to thank Mr. Xu Bai for his thoughtful reading of our article and for his constructive comments. We appreciate the opportunity to respond and clarify several points raised in the letter. Our responses to each of his observations are provided below.

Regarding the Novelty and Contextual Specificity of the Module

We agree with Mr. Bai that the five life skills identified in our study are indeed widely recognized components of adolescent prevention programs. We did not claim to have discovered new life skills, nor do we consider that to be the primary contribution of our work. Rather, the novelty of our study lies in the process of contextual development and validation for Indonesian adolescents, particularly those in high-risk areas. Our needs assessment was conducted in three senior high schools in West Bandung Regency, an area classified as a drug-prone region. The module was developed based on direct input from local adolescents, teachers, and school counselors, ensuring that the content resonated with the lived experiences of students in this specific setting. Expert validation involved five Indonesian experts in adolescent psychology, education, drug abuse prevention, language, and media, which adds a layer of contextual relevance that cannot be captured by simply adopting generic life skills curricula.

We acknowledge, however, that our manuscript could have more explicitly articulated how the Indonesian socio-cultural context shaped the module content. This will be addressed in future publications as we continue to refine the module.

Regarding the Mapping of Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) Constructs

We thank Mr. Bai for this important observation. We agree that our manuscript could have provided a more detailed mapping of each module activity to specific SCT constructs. This is a valuable suggestion for strengthening the theoretical rigor of the module.

We wish to clarify, however, that the current study represents the initial development and validation phase of the module. At this stage, our primary objective was to identify the content areas that local stakeholders deemed most relevant for prevention and to establish the module’s content validity through expert review. The explicit mapping of activities to theoretical constructs, such as which activity specifically targets refusal self-efficacy, outcome expectations, or social reinforcement was not the primary focus of this phase.

We fully agree that such mapping is essential for establishing the module’s theoretical integrity and will be a central focus of the next stage of research, which involves pilot implementation and process evaluation. We will ensure that each activity is explicitly linked to its corresponding SCT construct in future iterations.

Regarding the Interpretation of Expert Validation Results

Mr. Bai raises a fair point regarding the interpretation of the expert validation scores. While we reported an overall feasibility score of 82%, we acknowledge that this single percentage does not fully capture the nuance of the validation process.

To Address This, We Would Like to Clarify the Following Expert disagreements were discussed during a consensus meeting where the primary investigator facilitated a discussion to reconcile differing views. Revisions were made based on the majority consensus and the most critical safety and quality concerns. Concrete revisions: For instance, one expert suggested simplifying the language in the modules and increasing the use of visual aids, which we immediately implemented. Another expert recommended adding more interactive elements, which we incorporated into the revised module. Scoring criteria were adapted from established content validity frameworks and tailored to the Indonesian context. We agree, however, that future validation should include direct input from adolescents regarding usability and readability, which we plan to conduct in the pilot phase.

We also agree that the relatively lower score for language and readability deserves serious attention. Readability is indeed critical for youth prevention materials. We have since revised the module to improve language clarity and will conduct further readability testing with adolescent target users in the next phase.

Regarding the Emphasis on Lived Social Moments of Drug-Related Pressure

We find this to be the most valuable suggestion in Mr. Bai’s letter. We fully agree that prevention is most effective when it addresses the concrete, emotionally charged moments in which adolescents actually experience drug-related pressure.

Our module currently includes role-play exercises and case studies, which were designed to simulate such situations. However, we acknowledge that these exercises could be enriched with more realistic scripts, branching scenarios, and peer-dialogue exercises that capture the emotional and social complexity of high-risk moments, such as the fear of losing friendships, the difficulty of refusing an offer in a group setting, or the embarrassment of seeking help.

We have taken this suggestion seriously and plan to incorporate more detailed, contextually grounded scenarios in the next phase of module refinement. This will involve working with adolescents and school counselors to co-develop scenarios that reflect their actual experiences.

We also plan to assess the module’s effectiveness not only in terms of knowledge gain or feasibility, but also in terms of its ability to equip students with rehearsed, meaningful, and socially realistic protective responses, a dimension we fully agree is essential.

Conclusion

We are grateful to Mr. Bai for his thoughtful critique, which we believe will strengthen the module and our future research. His comments have helped us identify areas for improvement, particularly regarding:

More explicit articulation of contextual contributions, Detailed mapping of activities to SCT constructs, More nuanced interpretation of validation results, and Greater emphasis on the lived social moments of risk.

We hope this response clarifies our position and demonstrates our commitment to advancing the quality of drug abuse prevention research for Indonesian adolescents.