Table 4.

FAB sub-score outcome measures.

		Basline mean (±SD)	Baseline range	Follow–up mean (±SD)	Follow–up range	Change in score	Within group p-value	Between group p-value
Concept	Intervention	2.17(±0.41)	2–3	2.33 (±0.52)	2–3	0.08 (±0.20)	0.1585	0.5#
	Control	2.5 (±0.58)	2–3	2.25 (±0.5)	2–3	−0.08 (±0.17)	0.1585
Mental Flexibility	Intervention	2.17 (±0.75)	1–3	2.5 (±0.84)	1–3	0.125 (±0.25)	0.0785	0.5#
	Control	2.5 (±0.58)	2–3	2.75 (±0.26)	2–3	0.17 (±0.26)	0.1585
Motor programming	Intervention	0.83 (±0.41)	0–1	2.17 (±0.98)	1–3	0.83 (±0.98)	0.0095*	0.0195*
	Control	1.25 (±1.5)	0–3	1.5 (±1.73)	0–3	−0.25 (±0.5)	0.376
Interferance	Intervention	2.83 (±0.41)	2–3	2.83 (±0.41)	2–3	0 (±0.00)	0.5#	0.5#
	Control	1.25 (±1.5)	0–3	2.5 (±1)	1–3	0.125 (±0.25)	0.108
Inhibtory control	Intervention	2.33 (±1.03)	1–3	2.17 (±0.98)	1–3	−0.06 (±0.14)	0.3575	0.5#
	Control	2.25 (±0.96)	1–3	1.5 (±1)	1–3	−0.29 (±0.34)	0.134
Environmental autonomy	Intervention	3 (±0.00)	3–3	3 (±0.00)	3–3	0 (±0.00)	NA	0.5#
	Control	3 (±0.00)	3–3	3 (±0.00)	3–3	0 (±0.00)	NA

The FAB consists of six sub-score measures: concept, mental flexibility, motor programming, interference, inhibitory control, and environmental autonomy. Within-group analysis conducted by Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and between-group analysis conducted by ANCOVA with permutation test. There was a significant improvement in the intervention group FAB motor programming sub-score compared to controls (0.0195). There was also a significant improvement in the FAB motor programming sub-score within the intervention group comparing baseline to follow-up (0.0095), and not in the control group (n = 0386).

^*The significance level was set at p < 0.05.

^#The statistical value is close to zero which resulted in a two-tailed p-value of 1.0 (1-tail p-value is 0.5).