In the CBPI condition, children are given dolls and miniature props to play with, aiming to promote positive thinking. Each session includes stories on health, emotional well-being, social activities, and school life. The researcher teaches problem-solving by modeling steps like identifying the problem, generating solutions, evaluating them, and choosing the best solution. In each session, the researcher models the process four times and makes positive affirmations.

The CBPI intervention and the free play control condition are similar, with both groups engaging in pretend play. The researcher uses standardized prompts and spends equal time and attention with each child. The key difference is that in the CBPI intervention, the researcher uses dolls to model positive thinking and problem-solving, while encouraging children's imagination and emotional expression. Techniques from play therapy are used to help children integrate their feelings into the stories

The free play (FP) control condition allows the researcher to assess the effects of pretend play and provide positive attention to children. Children in this condition receive the same dolls and props, and hear the same stories as those in the cognitive-behavioral play intervention. After each story, they are encouraged to create their own story, but are free to play as they wish, often engaging in play unrelated to the story prompt. The researcher follows the child's lead, offering positive attention and non-specific praise but does not guide the play. The main difference between the two conditions is that in the FP condition, the researcher provides attention without directing the play, while in the intervention condition, the researcher actively guides the child's play to model problem-solving and positive thinking.

In the CBPI condition, children use dolls and miniature props to engage in play aimed at fostering positive thinking, a key element of quality of life. Each session includes stories on health, emotional well-being, social interactions, and school activities. The researcher demonstrates problem-solving steps, such as identifying and evaluating solutions, repeating this process three times. In each session, the researcher models problem-solving four times and provides at least five positive affirmations. Both the CBPI intervention and the free play control condition are similar, with the researcher using standardized prompts and providing equal time and positive attention. The key difference is that in the CBPI condition, the researcher models positive thinking and problem-solving, while in the free play condition, the researcher follows the child's lead without guiding play.

To assess whether there is an improvement in the quality of life in children with epilepsy following a cognitive-behavioral play intervention , and whether these improvements are greater in this group compared to the control group.

The Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) Epilepsy Module will be used to measure the variable targeted by the intervention. The questionnaire uses a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (Never a problem) to 4 (Almost always a problem) for child and parent-report forms. For overall scores, it's possible to calculate a summary score with a range from 0 (worst possible health-related quality of life) to 100 (best possible health-related quality of life). Higher scores on the PedsQL Epilepsy Module indicate a better outcome, reflecting better health-related quality of life. Lower scores suggest a worse outcome.

To verify whether a cognitive-behavioral play intervention, structured according to the theoretical framework of Cognitive Behavioral Play Therapy, can lead to an improvement in using standardized questionnaire The Children's Coping Strategies Checklist-Revised (CCSC-R1). The CCSC-R1 uses a Likert-type scale, typically ranging from 1 (Never use this strategy) to 5 (Always use this strategy) for each individual item. The total score depends on how the individual items are scored, but overall, higher scores represent greater use of coping strategies.

Higher scores generally indicate greater use of coping strategies by the child. This is not necessarily a "better" or "worse" outcome in itself, but the effectiveness of coping strategies would depend on the context and type of coping used. For instance, adaptive coping strategies are generally considered positive, while maladaptive coping strategies might indicate poorer outcomes.