Visitors   Views   Downloads
NOT PEER-REVIEWED
"PeerJ Preprints" is a venue for early communication or feedback before peer review. Data may be preliminary.

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

View peer-reviewed version

Supplemental Information

Supplemental materials: Methods, supplemental Data, Figures and Tables

The Supplemental Materials file contains details, unsuitable to be presented in the manuscript, about the following subjects: Foundations of the chosen methodological approach - Technical documentation (research guidelines and protocol, the employed questionnaire and so on) - Analysis of the collected data suitability - Added materials aimed to a further check of our hypothesis.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.358v4/supp-1

Additional Information

Competing Interests

The authors declare they have no competing interests.

Author Contributions

Roberto Maffei conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper, carried out the pilot sessions.

Livia S Convertini performed the experiments, analyzed the data, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper, carried out the pilot sessions; Carried out data entry; Controlled and harmonized the entered texts.

Sabrina Quatraro performed the experiments, analyzed the data, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper, carried out the pilot sessions; Carried out data entry; Controlled and harmonized the entered texts.

Stefania Ressa performed the experiments, analyzed the data, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper, carried out the pilot sessions; Carried out data entry; Controlled and harmonized the entered texts.

Annalisa Velasco performed the experiments, analyzed the data, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper, carried out the pilot sessions; Carried out data entry; Controlled and harmonized the entered texts.

Ethics

The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):

1. Internal Ethics Committee for the Scientific Research of the Association ARPA-Firenze.

2. Even though we think our research does not touch any critical ethics subject (it is extensively explained in our Method section), we requested the Committee's approval. The Committee held a dedicated session to our research (April 2, 2012) and its approval was given through a formal decision documented by the session's official report, signed by all the Committee's members and filed in the Association's archives.

Funding

The authors declare there was no funding for this work.


Add your feedback

Before adding feedback, consider if it can be asked as a question instead, and if so then use the Question tab. Pointing out typos is fine, but authors are encouraged to accept only substantially helpful feedback.

Some Markdown syntax is allowed: _italic_ **bold** ^superscript^ ~subscript~ %%blockquote%% [link text](link URL)
 
By posting this you agree to PeerJ's commenting policies