Recruited participants
Brain tumor
SECONDARY, BRAIN TUMOR
A total of 84 children were eligible for the study and were contacted by the research staff. Out of them, 16 children (19%) declined to participate, while the other 68 (81%) were randomly assigned to one of the two study groups. 8 children (12%) out of the enrolled 68 were lost to follow-up. Thus, the final sample comprised 60 patients, 32 with non-progressive ABI, 17 with BT and 11 patients with CBM. The Training-first group included 18 patients with non-progressive ABI, 9 with BT and 6 with CBM; the Waiting-first group included 14 patients with non-progressive ABI, 8 with BT and 5 with CBM. Study flowchart is depicted in Fig. Study flowchart depicting the number of patients of each diagnostic group collected for every research step.We conducted a series of t-test to detect potential differences in demographic, cognitive and psychological adjustment variables among the Training-first group versus the Waiting-first group on the primary and secondary cognitive outcomes at T1. A significant difference was observed in the arithmetic calculation speed measure (tDemographic characteristics and level of intellectual functioning by a) treatment condition and b) diagnostic group.*Significant difference. BT, Brain tumor; CBM, Congenital brain malformation; npABI, Non-progressive ABI; FSIQ, Full scale intelligence quotient; VCI, Verbal comprehension index; PRI, Perceptual reasoning index.The preliminary analysis, run to examine possible differences in demographical measures among the three diagnostic groups, showed a significant effect for the age of the participants (FFor what concerns the level of intellectual functioning, the analysis showed that the diagnostic groups did not differ in their FSIQ (FThe analysis on the psychological adjustment measures at T1 showed a significant effect of diagnostic groups for the CBCL 6–18 externalizing (F