## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Age** & **N** & **Mean** & **Std. Deviation** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Total without prosthesis} & Preschool & 13 & 22.31 & 6.486 \\ \cline{2-5}  & School & 16 & 27.19 & 6.997 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Total with prosthesis} & Preschool & 6 & 21.00 & 4.290 \\ \cline{2-5}  & School & 6 & 26.33 & 6.713 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: UBET comparison for age groups. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Task 1** & **Task 2** & **Task 3** & **Task 4** & **Task 5** & **Task 6** & **Task 7** & **Task 8** & **Task 9** \\ \hline A & 41.4\% & 37.9\% & 41.4\% & 44.8\% & 37.9\% & 51.7\% & 41.4\% & 41.4\% \\ \hline P & 37.9\% & 27.6\% & 27.6\% & 27.6\% & 27.6\% & 34.5\% & 34.5\% & 41.4\% \\ \hline E & 13.8\% & 24.1\% & 20.7\% & 20.7\% & 27.6\% & 20.7\% & 20.7\% & 10.3\% \\ \hline N & 6.9\% & 10.3\% & 10.3\% & 6.9\% & 6.9\% & 0\% & 3.4\% & 3.4\% & 6.9\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: UBET Method of use scale results without prosthesis evaluation. A: Manipulation and/or stabilization via the stump end; P: Forearm stabilization; E: Grip through the elbow or trunk; N: No use of the affected limb. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Aug** & **N** & **Mean** & **Std. Deviation** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Total without prosthesis} & Preschool & 13 & 22.31 & 6.486 \\ \cline{2-5}  & School & 16 & 27.19 & 6.997 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Total with prosthesis} & Preschool & 6 & 21.00 & 4.290 \\ \cline{2-5}  & School & 6 & 26.33 & 6.713 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: UBET comparison for amputation level. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Task 1** & **Task 2** & **Task 3** & **Task 4** & **Task 5** & **Task 6** & **Task 7** & **Task 8** & **Task 9** \\ \hline A & 41.4\% & 37.9\% & 41.4\% & 44.8\% & 37.9\% & 51.7\% & 41.4\% & 41.4\% & 41.4\% \\ \hline P & 37.9\% & 27.6\% & 27.6\% & 27.6\% & 27.6\% & 27.6\% & 34.5\% & 34.5\% & 41.4\% \\ \hline E & 13.8\% & 24.1\% & 20.7\% & 20.7\% & 27.6\% & 20.7\% & 20.7\% & 20.7\% & 10.3\% \\ \hline N & 6.9\% & 10.3\% & 10.3\% & 6.9\% & 6.9\% & 0\% & 3.4\% & 3.4\% & 6.9\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: UBET Method of use scale results without prosthesis evaluation. A: Manipulation and/or stabilization via the stump end; P: Forearm stabilization; E: Grip through the elbow or trunk; N: No use of the affected limb. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Task 1** & **Task 2** & **Task 3** & **Task 4** & **Task 5** & **Task 6** & **Task 7** & **Task 8** & **Task 9** \\ \hline A & 33.3\% & 0.3\% & 41.7\% & 24.9\% & 24.9\% & 50\% & 41.5\% & 41.5\% & 41.5\% \\ \hline P & 16.7\% & 24.9\% & 16.7\% & 33.3\% & 24.9\% & 33.3\% & 16.7\% & 41.5\% & 41.5\% \\ \hline E & 50\% & 41.5\% & 24.9\% & 41.5\% & 16.9\% & 16.7\% & 41.5\% & 16.7\% & 16 These data show a difference in motor skills without the use of the prosthesis in the school-age population compared to the preschool population, even considering age-adjusted performance as already established by the UBET. Table 8 (overall results) and Table 9 (Difference according to the age of the child) report data from the CAPP-PSI scale for prosthesis satisfaction. Mean results show that families and children were quite satisfied with the prescribed prosthesis and very satisfied with the service (delivery time of the prosthesis, instructions/indications given, manufacturing/repair time, rehabilitation/training activities with respect to the use of the prosthesis). Results were also comparable when preschool and school differences were analyzed. _Data from Follow-Up at 12 Months of Single Child_  
Table 10 (without prosthesis) and Table 11 (with prosthesis) report data on the UBET Method of use scale of the single child who received a second assessment at a 12-month time point.