# What Children with Neuromotor Disabilities Need to Play with Technological Games
## 3 Results
### Section 1: Child Profiling

Table 1: Percentage of children with neurological impairments able to use a tablet, mouse, tray, and bicycle. The percentage of those who find these objects easy or difficult to use is also specified. Figure 4: Distribution of children reached by the survey according to their GMFCS. Child profiling also included the investigation of which skills parents would like to be improved/experimented by their children through the game. With this aim, five categories were proposed: bi-manual training, precision gripping, balance improvement, gait improvement, and dynamic coordination development (e.g., jumping, stairs, height differences). Parents could select more than one option and add other skills not reported in the survey. The answers showed that 80% of them would like to practice bi-manual activities, followed by training precision gripping (71%), improving balance (68%), developing dynamic coordination (68%), and improving gait (45%). In addition, the answers to the open-ended questions highlighted the wish to train attention and concentration and to stimulate problem-solving using alternative enjoyable cognitive exercises. Finally, since the aim of this manuscript was to analyze how children deal with technology-based games, the questionnaire evaluated the importance of technologies for children with neurological impairments in acquiring motor skills, being entertained, being included in a group, and strengthening cognitive aspects. Figure 5 analyzes the technology relevance for each activity, reporting the median score of the 5 point scale and its IQR. Parents consider the technologies an important support for improving the level of life quality, as demonstrated by the median score always being equal to 4. Indeed, results of the chi-square test (chi\({}^{2}\) ranging between 11.9 and 41.9, \(p<0.05\)) show that the distributions in Figure 5 are non-equidistributed in a statistically significant way with respect to the 5 point Likert scale but have a prevalence of positive scores (\(\geq\)3). In addition, the results of the Kruskal-Wallis test, which was performed to establish whether the technology \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Tool** & **Graspable** & **Not Graspable** & **Graspable** & **Graspable with Medium** & **Graspable with High Difficulty** \\ \hline Pencil/marker & 91\% & 4\% & 65\% & 31\% & 2\% \\ Table tennis bat & 88\% & 7\% & 71\% & 27\% & 0\% \\ Table tennis ball & 93\% & 2\% & 69\% & 29\% & 0\% \\ Tennis ball & 86\% & 9\% & 75\% & 23\% & 0\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Percentage of children with neurological impairments able or not in grasping a pencil/marker, table tennis bat, table tennis ball, and tennis ball. Without difficulty corresponds to score 1 in the 5-point Likert scale, high difficulty to score 5, and medium difficulty to scores 2, 3, and 4. The percentage sums are not 100% because not all the parents answered the questions. Figure 5: Relevance of the technology in acquiring motor skills, entertaining, being included in a group, and strengthening cognitive aspects. Chi\({}^{2}\) test: \({}^{*}\)\(p<0.05\), \({}^{**}\)\(p<0.0001\). Null hypothesis: the scores referred to the technology relevance regarding the four proposed quality life enhancements are equidistributed with respect to the 5 point Likert scale. relevance has the same distribution for the different considered groups (i.e., children with different CP form, CP type, and GMFCS) show \(p\)-values always \(>\)0.05 (\(p\)-value\({}_{\text{min}}\) = 0.09, \(p\)-value\({}_{\text{max}}\) = 0.91). This means that the importance of technology in acquiring one of the proposed competences is not dependent on children's CP form, CP type, or functional level (GMFCS).