Infants & Young Children Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 225–245 C ... · Caley Arzamarski, MS; Jacquelyn Briesch, MS; Ellen McClure, MS Play is a natural activity of early childhood, which

LWW/IYC IYC200074 June 3, 2011 11:53

Infants & Young Children

Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 225–245Copyright C© 2011 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Overview of PlayIts Uses and Importance in EarlyIntervention/Early ChildhoodSpecial Education

Karin Lifter, PhD; Suzanne Foster-Sanda, MS;Caley Arzamarski, MS; Jacquelyn Briesch, MS;Ellen McClure, MS

Play is a natural activity of early childhood, which has great relevance to the fields of early inter-vention, early childhood special education, and early childhood education. Within these fields,ongoing tensions persist in how play is described and used. These tensions compromise activitiesof assessment, intervention, and curriculum development and their connections to research andpractice. This article presents a review about the importance of play in early intervention, earlychildhood special education and early childhood education and how play is regarded and usedwithin these contexts. In an attempt to clarify the literature on play in early intervention and earlychildhood special education, particular emphasis is placed on distinguishing 2 divergent uses ofplay: (a) play as a developmental domain and (b) play as an activity base in the service of othergoals. Recommendations, implications, and future directions are discussed with respect to prac-titioners, policymakers, and researchers. Key words: children’s play, developmental domain,play assessment, play intervention, play curriculum

THERE is considerable attention in con-temporary research, policy, and practice

to the importance of children’s play in theirdevelopment and learning; however, this at-tention is confounded in practice. There areongoing tensions between ensuring time forchildren to play versus increased time focusedon academic activities.

Author Affiliation: Department of Counseling andApplied Educational Psychology, NortheasternUniversity, Boston, Massachusetts.

The authors express sincere appreciation to AlisonCobb, Rachel Horvitz, Bridget Ritter, and Sarah LaelWertheim for their contributions to this article.

Portions of this article were presented at DEC 2009,Albuquerque, NM, October 17, 2009.

Correspondence: Karin Lifter, PhD, Departmentof Counseling and Applied Educational Psychology,

Northeastern University, 404 International Village,Boston, MA 02115. ([email protected]).

DOI: 10.1097/IYC.0b013e31821e995c

On the one hand, researchers, policymak-ers, and practitioners generally agree that playfacilitates school readiness, literacy develop-ment, and self-regulation. This perspectiveis supported by research demonstrating con-nections of play to reading (Zigler, Singer,& Bishop-Joseph, 2004); to literacy skills(Banerjee & Horn, 2005; Roskos & Christie,2001); to self-regulation (Diamond, Barnett,Thomas, & Munro, 2007; Matthews, 2008);to social interaction skills (Odom, McConnell,& Chandler, 1993); and to development ingeneral (Elkind, 2001). On the other hand,there is a competing emphasis in preschooland kindergarten on strengthening the pre-academic components of literacy and math-ematics skills. The report from the Alliance

for Childhood (Miller & Almon, 2009) notedthat an emphasis on preacademic skills is asso-ciated with an increasing use of prescriptivecurricula linked to state standards, especiallyin the kindergarten years; as a result, little timeis left for young children to play. The report

Copyright © 2011 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

225

LWW/IYC IYC200074 June 3, 2011 11:53

226 INFANTS & YOUNG CHILDREN/JULY–SEPTEMBER 2011

criticized practices that reduced time for re-cess and free time for young children, withconcomitant increases in time for academicactivities.

The focus of curricula on preacademic skillsis especially concerning because of the impor-tance of play for young children from theoret-ical, research, and policy perspectives. Manytheoreticians conceptualized children’s playas central to their cognitive and emotional de-velopment (eg, Axline, 1964; Piaget, 1962; Vy-gotsky, 1978; see also Rubin, Fein, & Vanden-berg, 1983). Countless researchers describeddevelopments in children’s play—what chil-dren do with toys and other objects—from infancy through the preschool years(eg, Belsky & Most, 1981; Bloom, 1993; Bloom& Tinker, 2001; Fenson, Kagan, Kearsley, &Zelazo, 1976; Fenson & Ramsay, 1980; Gar-vey, 1977; Lifter & Bloom, 1989; Lowe, 1975;McCune, 1995; Nicolich, 1977; Smilansky,1968; Ungerer & Sigman, 1981; Watson &Fischer, 1977). Finally, professional organiza-tions such as the National Association for theEducation of Young Children, which guidepractitioners in their work with young chil-dren, emphasized the importance of play forlearning in their position statements (NationalAssociation for the Education of Young Chil-dren [NAEYC], 2009).

Although the foregoing issues—timefor play versus attention to preacademicsubjects—are especially relevant for youngchildren in general, 2 additional concerns areintroduced when considering the importanceof play for young children who are develop-ing with delays, or who are at risk for delays.First, children served through early interven-tion and early childhood special education(EI/ECSE) usually have delays in play. As aresult, they may benefit from interventionsin play to facilitate the development of moreadvanced play skills. Second, a variety ofassessments, interventions, and curriculause play activities for implementing a widevariety of developmental goals (eg, language,social, and motor goals) because of thenatural context that play provides. Delays inplay, however, may compromise assessment

and intervention planning for these children.Such delays may not be taken into accountwhen formulating goals in other domains.

The purpose of this review is an attempt toclarify the literature in EI/ECSE and early child-hood education in terms of how play is used inthese contexts and how it is described. Partic-ular emphasis is placed on distinguishing 2 di-vergent uses of play. First, play can be consid-ered a developmental domain in its own right.Conversely, play can be regarded as an activitybase in the service of the 5 domains indicatedby federal law: physical development; cog-nitive development; communication develop-ment; social and emotional development; andadaptive development (IDEIA 2004, Section300.25). The review is organized around thetopics of description, assessment, interven-tion, and curricula to demonstrate how thesedichotomous perspectives of play affect pro-gramming in EI/ECSE. This organization alsoreveals a central concern for play in EI/ECSE:the considerable variability seen in the imple-mentation of the foregoing activities.

The first section of the review provides anoverview of the theoretical, research, and pol-icy background that underlies what is knownabout developments in children’s play. Thesecond and largest section centers on playin EI/ECSE in terms of description, assess-ment, intervention, and curriculum, whichillustrates the 2 perspectives. The final sec-tion discusses implications of this review andoffers recommendations for the use of play inEI/ECSE.

OVERVIEW OF PLAY: THEORY,RESEARCH, AND POLICY

Theoretical perspectives on play

Most contemporary studies on children’splay relate directly or indirectly to the per-spectives and terms put forth by Piaget(1962), Montessori (1967), and Vygotsky (inRubin et al., 1983). Piaget described play asa “happy display of known actions” (Piaget,1962, p. 93), derived from his concept of playas assimilation, whereby children incorporate


LWW/IYC IYC200074 June 3, 2011 11:53

Overview of Play 227

new experiences onto existing frameworksof understanding. Similarly, Axline (1947) de-scribed play as “the child’s natural mediumof self-expression,” which is an opportunityfor the child to “play out his feelings andproblems” (p. 8). Through this process, thechild experiences “himself as a capable, re-sponsible person” and comes to develop “self-respect . . . a sense of dignity . . . and increas-ing self-understanding” (Axline, 1964, p. 67).Alternatively, Montessori regarded play as“the child’s work” (1967, p. 180), which paral-lels Piaget’s concept of accommodation. Sim-ilar to Montessori, Vygotsky regarded play as“an adaptive mechanism promoting cogni-

tive growth” (in Rubin et al., 1983, p. 709).Piaget (1962) proposed a developmental se-

quence in play activities, but in global terms.Children begin with “practice games,” alsodescribed as “sensorimotor play” or “manip-ulative play.” “Symbolic play,” also known as“pretend play,” develops toward the end ofthe second year and continues through thepreschool period. The final stage, “games withrules,” generally emerges toward the end ofthe preschool period and continues throughthe stage of concrete operations. Smilansky(1968) provided specifications and analysesof “sociodramatic play,” which typically de-velops during the preschool period. This termintroduces a social component whereby chil-dren engage with peers by adopting dra-matic roles to play out everyday themes,and later, fantasy themes. These theoreti-cal perspectives provided the foundation forthe importance of play in early childhoodeducation.

Although the historical terms identifiedabove describe play and qualitative differ-ences in play, they are general and global.Terms such as “manipulative play” and “sym-bolic play” represent large and diverse kindsof play activities, which lack the specificityneeded in using play in EI/ECSE for assess-ment and intervention purposes. The generaland global quality of these categories will berevealed in the following overview of empir-ical studies, in which more specific develop-ments in play were identified.

Research studies on developmentsin play

A brief overview of relevant research is pre-sented here to support the claim of play as adevelopmental domain. This overview beginswith a definition of play, followed by a sum-mary of developments in play for young chil-dren. It concludes with studies that supportrelationships between developments in playand developments in other domains.

Definition of play

Researchers and clinicians have used var-ious definitions and terms to describe play.The definition of play for this review refersto play with objects during early childhood(ie, late infancy through the preschool years).In general, researchers who described devel-opments in children’s play focused on whatchildren do with available objects (ie, toys).They did not focus on the social interactionsthat may occur with peers or caregivers inthe context of play. Although very important,developments in social engagement can con-found an understanding of developments inplay with objects. Accordingly, terms such as“cooperative play” (Parten, 1932) and “turn-taking,” which include social components intheir descriptions of play, are excluded fromthis review. In addition, rough-and-tumbleplay (eg, play often seen on the playground)and games with rules (eg, games children playcustomarily beyond the preschool years) arenot included.

Lifter and Bloom (1998) provided a defini-tion of play that sets the scope for the presentpaper:

Play is the expression of intentional states—therepresentations in consciousness constructed fromwhat children know about and are learning fromongoing events—and consists of spontaneous, nat-urally occurring activities with objects that engageattention and interest. Play may or may not involvecaregivers or peers, may or may not involve a dis-play of affect, and may or may not involve pretense(p. 164).

This definition considers play, first, as ademonstration of what children know, and


LWW/IYC IYC200074 June 3, 2011 11:53


second, a demonstration of what they arecurrently thinking about. Through play, chil-dren actively construct new knowledge aboutobjects, people, and events by integratingnew experiences with what they alreadyknow. This definition sets the stage for play asa domain. If play is an expression of what chil-dren know, then an evaluation of children’splay behaviors can be used for an assessmentof knowledge. If play is an activity for learn-ing, then interventions in play can be used tohelp children learn.

Developments in play

Developments in children’s play with ob-jects were identified in longitudinal and cross-sectional descriptive studies primarily duringthe 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s (eg, Belsky &Most, 1981; Bloom, 1993; Bloom & Tinker,2001; Fenson et al., 1976; Fenson & Ramsay,1980; Garvey, 1977; Lifter & Bloom, 1989;Lowe, 1975; McCune, 1995; Nicolich, 1977;Smilansky, 1968; Watson & Fischer, 1977).These studies were conducted predominantlywithin the cognitive-developmental tradition.They expanded upon the global categoriesput forth by Piaget and provided considerabledetail on developments in play.

The results revealed the presence of quali-tatively different play activities from infancythrough the preschool period. Children’searly play begins with indiscriminate actionson objects—picking up and dropping, bang-ing, and/or mouthing all objects. Infants alsotake configurations of objects apart to takehold of objects. In late infancy, children beginto put configurations of objects back togetheragain, and move objects from place to place(eg, in and out of containers).

As early toddlers, children begin to con-struct relationships that exploit the uniquephysical properties of objects (eg, stackingcups and blocks). They begin to relate objectsto themselves in a pretend manner (eg, “drink-ing” from a cup). Eventually, they extend pre-tend activities to dolls and caregivers, whilestill exploiting the conventional properties ofobjects and people in the relationships theyconstruct (eg, extending spoon to caregiver’smouth). They also learn to link activities into

chains of events that demonstrate increasinglevels of planning (eg, feeding a doll, wash-ing a doll, and then putting it to bed). Aspreschoolers, children typically attribute an-imacy to doll figures (eg, moving figures toload goods into truck), and they engage insociodramatic and fantasy play.

These foregoing studies provided evidenceof developmental sequences in children’splay, leading to the description and organi-zation of play into taxonomies (see Barton,2010; Garfinkle, 2004; and Lifter, 1996, 2008for reviews). These taxonomies revealedmore detailed subcategories of play comparedto the global descriptors of manipulative andsymbolic play. Identifying progress in playand setting goals in play require greater speci-ficity. For example, “manipulative play” canbe subdivided into the following qualitativelydifferent play activities: indiscriminative ac-tions on objects (eg, mouthing all objects); ac-tions of taking configurations of objects apartto take hold of objects (eg, taking a set ofnesting cups apart); actions of creating simpleconfigurations of objects (eg, putting the nest-ing cups back together; dropping beads intoa nesting cup); and actions in which childrenbegin to exploit the unique physical proper-ties of objects in the relationships they con-struct (eg, stacking the nesting cups; puttinga bead on a string). (See Lifter, 2000, for de-scriptions of detailed sequences of categoriesof play).

Similarly, symbolic play can be subdividedinto qualitatively different play activities: ac-tions which relate objects to the self in a pre-tend manner (eg, pretending to drink from anempty cup); actions which relate pretend ac-tivities to dolls and caregivers (eg, giving dolla drink from a cup); actions displaying theunique conventional properties of objects andpeople (eg, putting pretend food items into apot to cook); and actions linking the sameor different schemes together into chains ofevents that demonstrate increasing levels ofplanning (eg, first cooking food and then feed-ing it to a doll). Symbolic play also includesactions in which children attribute animacyto doll figures (eg, walks a truck driver figureto load cargo into a truck). Barton (2010) and


LWW/IYC IYC200074 June 3, 2011 11:53


Vig (2007) noted that studies differ on whatconstitutes symbolic play, which complicatescomparability across studies.

Developments in play in relation toother domains

Play can be considered a distinct domain be-cause of its systematic relationships to otherdevelopmental domains, such as the language,cognitive, and social domains. Researchershave demonstrated these relationships in chil-dren with and without disabilities (see Vig,2007 for a review).

Relationships between play and language

Correlations have been found between playand language development. Children with dis-abilities who showed higher levels of com-munication skills demonstrated more pretendand symbolic play than children who showedlower levels of communication skills (Pizzo& Bruce, 2010). Barton and Wolery (2010)found that as preschool children progressedthrough an intervention to develop their playskills, their vocalizations also increased. Thiseffect occurred even though vocalizationswere not prompted or reinforced through-out the play intervention. Finally, longitudinalstudies by Lifter and Bloom (1989) demon-strated that similar transitions in play and lan-guage emerge at the same time. For example,the emergence of constructing relationshipsbetween objects in play coincided with theemergence of first words. In addition, the vo-cabulary spurt occurred when children werelearning specific relations between objects inplay, such as using a toy spoon to feed a doll.Furthermore, they found that these develop-ments occurred simultaneously despite thevariability in chronological ages at which thechildren reached these developmental points.These findings of similar developmental tra-jectories between play and language werealso supported by other studies (eg, McCune-Nicolich, 1981; McCune, 1995), which in-dicated that language and symbolic playmilestones reflected similar developments inmental representation.

Relationships between playand cognition

The developmental progression demon-strated by Lifter and Bloom (1989) also sug-gests that play and cognition develop with asystematic relationship. Specifically, as chil-dren learn more about objects (eg, objectpermanence) they demonstrate more sophis-ticated play skills. Play development has alsobeen compared to the development of othercognitive skills, such as self-regulation, meta-cognition, and problem-solving (Whitebread,Coltman, Jameson, & Lander, 2009). Specifi-cally, symbolic or pretend play was found tobe related to planning, creativity, and sym-bolic representation.

Relationships between play andsocial/emotional development

Studies also have supported a correlationbetween play and social development. In fact,a child’s attachment style has been corre-lated with symbolic play skills. Specifically,preschool boys with autism spectrum disor-ders who had organized attachments to theirparents demonstrated higher scores on sym-bolic play measures than those who had dis-organized attachments (Marcu, Oppenheim,Koren-Karie, Dolev, & Yirmiya, 2009).

Furthermore, research has also suggestedan inverse relationship between play andsocial interaction. Pierce-Jordan and Lifter(2005) observed the naturally occurring playof children with and without pervasive devel-opmental disorder (PDD) in preschool pro-grams. The Developmental Play Assessment(DPA: Lifter, 2000) was used to determineeach child’s level of emerging play (ie, theplay activities in the developmental sequencethat the child is in the process of learning) andeach child’s level of mastered play. Regardlessof diagnosis, children who were engaged indevelopmentally difficult, or emerging, playactivities were less likely to be engaged in so-cial interaction. The inverse was also found;when children were engaged in social inter-action, they were less likely to be engaged inchallenging play behaviors and more likely to


LWW/IYC IYC200074 June 3, 2011 11:53


be engaged in play activities they had mas-tered.

In Head Start preschool classrooms, Craig-Unkefer and Kaiser (2003) demonstrated thatinvolvement in a plan-play-report interven-tion increased social-communicative behav-iors (eg, peer-directed verbalizations such asdescriptive statements and requests), lengthand complexity of verbalizations, and playof preschool children with delayed expres-sive language, as evidenced by scores on thePreschool Language Scale-3 (PLS-3: Zimmer-man, Steiner, & Pond, 1992). The participantsalso generalized these skills in their interac-tions with new peers.

Summary

The foregoing descriptive studies providesupport of developments in play per se. Re-searchers identified and specified develop-mental sequences; they revealed a progres-sion in children’s development of knowl-edge of objects and events, which occurs inand through children’s play activities. Severalstudies provided evidence of systematic rela-tionships between developments in play anddevelopments in other domains. Such studiessupport our claim: play is a developmentaldomain that can be described in considerabledetail. Attention to this claim contributes toan analysis of how play is used in EI/ECSE.

Policy statements on the importanceof play

The importance of play is central to pol-icy statements put forth by the National Asso-ciation for the Education of Young Children(NAEYC, 2009). In their 2009 Position State-ment on Developmentally Appropriate Prac-tice, NAEYC stated in their “Key Messages ofthe Position Statement:”

. . . Play promotes key abilities that enable chil-dren to learn successfully. In high-level dramatic

play . . . the collaborative planning of roles and sce-narios and the impulse control required to staywithin the play’s constraints develop children’sself-regulation, symbolic thinking, memory, andlanguage—capacities critical to later learning, so-cial competence, and school success.

. . . It is vital for early childhood settings to provideopportunities for sustained high-level play and forteachers to actively support children’s progress to-ward such play.

. . . Besides embedding significant learning in

play, routines, and interest areas, strong programsalso provide carefully planned curriculum that fo-cuses children’s attention on a particular conceptor topic (p.2). (Italics added).

Again, such policy statements emphasizethe importance of play for young childrenand their translation to practice. Such descrip-tions (eg, “sustained high-level play”), how-ever, may not be useful for personnel whoserve children in EI/ECSE. Increased speci-ficity in terminology is required, in addition toinformation about developments in play thatlead up to “high-level play.” Indeed, the re-search on developments in children’s play ex-panded upon the global categories put forthby Piaget (1962); researchers provided evi-dence of how play develops before childrenare able to engage in the “high-level dra-matic play” and “sustained high-level play”described above in the NAEYC’s PositionStatement (2009). Knowledge about playfrom theory, research, and policy must be ex-tended to children served through EI/ECSE.Bridging this gap requires an integration ofwhat is known about developments in playand how play is described and used inEI/ECSE, which is the central purpose of thisarticle.

PLAY IN EI/ECSE: DESCRIPTION,ASSESSMENT, INTERVENTION,AND CURRICULA

The following is an overview of how play isused in EI/ECSE, and how these uses are orga-nized in various activities. Studies that regardplay as a domain are distinguished from stud-ies in which play is used as an activity base insupport of other developmental domains.

Play in EI/ECSE: descriptive studies

Many researchers have described play inchildren with various delays and disabilities,


LWW/IYC IYC200074 June 3, 2011 11:53


concluding that they tend to exhibit delays inplay as well as in other domains. Researcherswho examined play activities in children withDown syndrome demonstrated that level ofplay is more highly correlated with measuresof mental age than with chronological age(Hill & McCune-Nicolich, 1981). Other stud-ies of children with Down syndrome revealedsimilar results, while also demonstrating lessexploratory behavior during play than typi-cally developing children and a tendency toelaborate on the same play themes repeatedly(Cunningham, Glenn, Wilkinson, & Sloper,1985). The play of children of mothers whohave abused substances has been character-ized in terms of continued persistence of im-mature play strategies and delayed develop-ment of more complex play (Beckwith et al.,1994). Similarly, children with visual impair-ments demonstrate limited exploration, moresolitary play, and less symbolic play (Troster& Brambring, 1994).

A number of descriptive studies found de-lays in the play of children with autism spec-trum disorders (eg, Hobson, Lee, & Hobson,2009; Libby, Powell, Messer, & Jordan,1998; McDonough, Stahmer, Schreibman, &Thompson, 1997). These studies revealed de-lays in developing pretend/symbolic play; lessfrequent spontaneous play; high frequency ofrepetitive play; limited imitation skills; andlimited cooperative play and turn-taking be-havior. In addition, children with autism dis-played more sensorimotor play and less sym-bolic play compared to typically developingchildren, but engaged in the same amount offunctional and relational play.

Overall, these findings demonstrate, first,that play can be described, and second, thatdelays in play are revealed in ways similar toother delays these children experience. Theyuphold the perspective of considering playas a domain for assessment, intervention, andcurriculum activities.

Play in EI/ECSE: assessment

Various assessment instruments used inEI/ECSE are presented in Table 1. These as-sessments are organized in terms of those that

focus on (1) play as an activity base; (2) playas a domain; and (3) assessment of some otherplay-related domain (eg, social play), in addi-tion to the children’s age ranges and the kindsof play activities examined. Citations for reli-ability and validity of these assessments areincluded where possible.

Use of play as an activity basein assessment

Given children’s delays in play, there is con-siderable attention to play assessment in thefields of EI and ECSE. Fewell and Glick (1993),Linder (1993, 2008), and Vig (2007) describedthe need to provide alternatives to traditional,standardized assessments based on contrivedand elicited behaviors. This focus is consistentwith the predominant use of play in EI/ECSE:play-based assessment, which is the use ofnaturally occurring play behaviors to measuredevelopments in the 5 domains specified infederal law (IDEIA 2004, Section 300.25). Toassess young children in the context of theireveryday activities, rather than with contrivedtasks in artificial situations, is a major con-tribution to EI/ECSE assessment. Within thecontext of naturally occurring play activities,a child’s abilities across domains are revealedand can be evaluated. For example, with theTransdisciplinary Play-Based Assessment, Sec-ond Edition (TPBA-2, Linder, 2008), evalua-tors gain information about a child’s senso-rimotor, emotional and social, communica-tion and language, and cognitive function-ing by observing how they play with a fa-miliar adult and how they behave in a playenvironment.

Assessment of play as a developmentaldomain

There is considerable attention to the as-sessment of play as something that can bemeasured. A list of instruments is presentedin the second part of Table 1.

Three instruments focus on developmentsin play that cover the toddler to preschool pe-riod: the Westby Symbolic Playscale (Westby,2000; 1980); the Play in Early Childhood


LWW/IYC IYC200074 June 3, 2011 11:53


Tab

le1

.Su

mm

ary

of

Pla

yA

sses

smen

tIn

stru

men

ts

Ass

essm

ent

Rel

iab

ilit

yR

epo

rted

Val

idit

yR

epo

rted

Age

Ran

geT

yp

eo

fP

lay

Use

of

pla

ya

sa

na

ctiv

ity

ba

sein

ass

ess

men

t

Tra

nsd

isci

plin

ary

Pla

y-B

ased

Ass

essm

ent

(TP

A;L

ind

er,

1990

,200

8)

Frie

dli

(199

5)Fr

ied

li(1

995)

Mye

rs,M

cBri

de,

and

Pet

erso

n(1

996)

0-72

mo

nth

sU

seo

fa

pla

yen

viro

nm

ent

too

bse

rve

alld

om

ain

so

fd

evel

op

men

t

Ass

ess

men

tof

pla

ya

sa

develo

pm

en

taldom

ain

Ass

essi

ng

Pla

yan

dEx

plo

rato

ryB

ehav

iors

of

Infa

nts

and

To

dd

lers

(Wag

ner

&Fr

ost

,19

86)

Wag

ner

and

Fro

st(1

986)

Wag

ner

and

Fro

st(1

986)

0-36

mo

nth

sSy

mb

olic

pla

y

Ch

ildIn

itia

ted

Pre

ten

dP

lay

Ass

essm

ent

(Ch

IPP

A;S

tagn

itti

&U

nsw

ort

h,2

004)

Stag

nit

tian

dU

nsw

ort

h(2

004)

Swin

del

lsan

dSt

agn

itti

(200

6)U

ren

and

Stag

nit

ti(2

009)

McA

lon

eyan

dSt

agn

itti

(200

9)

36-8

4m

on

ths

Co

nve

nti

on

al-im

agin

ativ

ep

lay

Sym

bo

licp

lay

Pre

ten

dp

lay

Dev

elo

pm

enta

lPla

yA

sses

smen

t(D

PA

;Lif

ter,

2000

)Li

fter

,Elli

s,C

ann

on

,A

nd

erso

n(2

005)

8-60

mo

nth

s15

cate

gori

es

Pla

yA

sses

smen

tSc

ale

(Few

ell,

1986

)St

on

ean

dY

od

er(2

001)

Fin

nan

dFe

wel

l(19

94)

2-36

mo

nth

sM

anip

ula

tio

no

fto

ysin

ase

nso

ry,f

un

ctio

nal

,or

sym

bo

licm

ann

erFo

cuse

do

nm

ore

cogn

itiv

eas

pec

tso

fp

lay

Pla

yin

Earl

yC

hild

ho

od

Eval

uat

ion

Syst

em(K

elly

-Van

cean

dR

yalls

,200

5)

Kel

ly-V

ance

and

Rya

lls(2

005)

19-4

6m

on

ths

13ex

plo

rato

ryan

dp

rete

nd

pla

yb

ehav

iors

Sym

bo

licP

lay

Tes

t(L

ow

e&

Co

stel

lo,1

988)

Git

lin-W

ein

er,S

and

gru

nd

,an

dSc

hae

fer

(200

0)G

itlin

-Wei

ner

,San

dgr

un

d,

and

Sch

aefe

r(2

000)

Po

wer

and

Rad

clif

fe(1

989)

Cu

nn

ingh

am,G

len

n,

Wilk

inso

n,a

nd

Slo

per

(198

5)

12-3

6m

on

ths

Fun

ctio

nal

-Co

nve

nti

on

alp

lay

Sym

bo

licp

lay

(con

tin

ues)


LWW/IYC IYC200074 June 3, 2011 11:53

Overview of Play 233T

able

1.

Sum

mar

yo

fP

lay

Ass

essm

ent

Inst

rum

ents

(Con

tin

ued

)

Ass

essm

ent

Rel

iab

ilit

yR

epo

rted

Val

idit

yR

epo

rted

Age

Ran

geT

yp

eo

fP

lay

Tes

to

fP

rete

nd

Pla

y(T

oP

P;L

ewis

&B

ou

cher

,199

7)

Clif

t,St

agn

itti

and

DeM

ello

(199

8)36

mo

nth

san

dab

ove

(ver

bal

asse

ssm

ent)

Up

to8

year

s(n

on

verb

al)

Sym

bo

licp

lay

(1.s

ub

stit

uti

ng

ob

ject

for

ano

ther

ob

ject

/p

erso

n;2

.att

rib

uti

ng

imag

ined

pro

per

tyto

ob

ject

/per

son

;3.

mak

ing

refe

ren

ceto

abse

nt

ob

ject

/per

son

/su

bst

ance

)P

rete

nd

pla

yT

ran

sdis

cip

linar

yP

lay-

Bas

edA

sses

smen

t(L

ind

er,1

990;

2008

)

Frie

dli

(199

5)Sw

ind

ells

and

Stag

nit

ti(2

006)

Ure

nan

dSt

agn

itti

(200

9)M

cAlo

ney

and

Stag

nit

ti(2

009)

0-72

mo

nth

sIn

terp

erso

nal

Exp

lora

tory

/Sen

sori

mo

tor

Fun

ctio

nal

-rel

atio

nal

Co

nst

ruct

ive

Dra

mat

icG

ames

wit

hru

les

Ph

ysic

alac

tivi

ty/r

ou

ghan

dtu

mb

leW

estb

ySy

mb

olic

Pla

ySc

ale

(Wes

tby,

2000

)9-

60m

on

ths

Co

nsi

der

scu

ltu

rala

nd

envi

ron

men

talf

acto

rsth

ataf

fect

typ

ean

dth

emes

of

sym

bo

licp

lay

Ass

ess

men

tof

soci

alpla

y

Par

ten

-Sm

ilan

sky

Pla

ySc

ale

(Ru

bin

,Wat

son

,&

Jam

bo

r,19

78)

36-7

2m

on

ths

Solit

ary,

asso

ciat

ive,

par

alle

lan

dco

ord

inat

edp

lay

Pen

nIn

tera

ctiv

eP

eer

Pla

ySc

ale

(Fan

tuzz

o&

Ham

pto

n,2

000)

Git

lin-W

ein

er,

San

dgr

un

dan

dSc

hae

fer

(200

0)Fa

ntu

zzo

etal

.(1

995)

Co

ola

han

,Fan

tuzz

o,M

end

ezan

dM

cDer

mo

tt(1

998)

Gre

sham

and

Ellio

t(1

990)

Ham

pto

nan

dFa

ntu

zzo

(200

3)Fa

ntu

zzo

,Co

ola

han

,Men

dez

,M

cDer

mo

tt,a

nd

Sutt

on

-Sm

ith

(199

8)Fa

ntu

zzo

etal

(199

5)Fa

ntu

zzo

,Men

dez

,an

dT

igh

e,19

88

Pre

sch

oo

lch

ildre

nT

hre

esu

bsc

ales

:1.

Pla

yIn

tera

ctio

nSc

ale

(so

cial

pla

yst

ren

gth

s)2.

Pla

yD

isru

pti

veSc

ale

(agg

ress

ive

and

anti

soci

alb

ehav

iors

)3.

Pla

yD

isco

nn

ecti

on

Scal

e(w

ith

dra

wn

beh

avio

rsan

dn

on

par

tici

pat

ion

inp

eer

pla

y)P

resc

ho

olP

lay

Beh

avio

rSc

ale

(PP

BS;

Co

pla

n&

Ru

bin

,199

8)

Co

pla

nan

dR

ub

in(1

998)

Co

pla

nan

dR

ub

in(1

998)


LWW/IYC IYC200074 June 3, 2011 11:53


Evaluation System (Kelly-Vance & Ryalls,2005); and the Developmental Play Assess-

ment (DPA: Lifter, 2000). Of these instru-ments, the DPA provides a considerableamount of differentiation in play develop-ment; a child’s play is evaluated againstprogress in 15 categories. Similarly, the Play

in Early Childhood Evaluation System in-strument evaluates a child’s play in termsof 13 core categories. The Westby Symbolic

Playscale evaluates a child’s play in terms ofbroader categories.

Other instruments are available, but restricttheir age range of interest to less than 8to 60 months (eg, Assessing Play and Ex-

ploratory Behaviors of Infants and Toddlers:Wagner & Frost, 1986; Symbolic Play Test:Lowe & Costello, 1988, described in Power& Radcliffe, 2000; Play Assessment Scale:Fewell, 1986; see also Rutherford & Rogers,2003).

Some instruments focus on pretend/symbolic play alone (eg, Child Initiated Pre-

tend Play Assessment: Stagnitti & Unsworth,2004; Pretend Play Scale, as cited in Blanc,Adrien, Roux, & Barthelemy, 2005; Test of

Pretend Play: Lewis & Boucher, 1997).

Assessment of social play

Play assessment instruments that focus onthe social components of play activities arepresented in the third part of Table 1. Theseinstruments are used to examine how wella child interacts with other children in thecontext of play activities. They include thePenn Interactive Peer Play Scale (eg, Fan-tuzzo & Hampton, 2000); the Preschool Play

Behavior Scale (Coplan & Rubin, 1998); andthe Parten-Smilansky Play Scale (see Rubin,Watson, & Jambor, 1978). Although very use-ful, such assessments confound an evaluationof play as a domain with an evaluation of socialdevelopment.

In summary, although many play assess-ment instruments are available, distinctionsbetween their uses and purposes should betaken into account. These instruments alsovary in terms of the age range of interest andthe levels of specificity for developments in

play against which children are evaluated. Stilladditional instruments focus on social devel-opment in play, which may confound devel-opments in play. These distinctions should beconsidered when selecting a play assessmentfor use in EI/ECSE.

Play in EI/ECSE: intervention

Play also is used widely for intervention pur-poses. Table 2 provides examples of studiesthat used play as an activity base in support ofgoals in other domains, and Table 3 focuseson interventions in play as a domain. Theinformation provided is illustrative and notexhaustive.

Use of play as an activity base insupport of other domains

The Division for Early Childhood (DEC)

Recommended Practices (Sandall, Hemme-ter, McLean, & Smith, 2005) for child-focusedinterventions (Wolery, 2005) highlights theimportance of implementing goals in naturalcontexts, of which play activities are of pri-mary importance. Play activities have beenused to implement goals in a variety of de-velopmental domains. The studies presentedin Table 2 are organized in terms of the partic-ipating children, the goals of the intervention(by domain), and the kind of play activitiesused to implement the intervention.

Language goals implemented in aplay context

Play provides an environment in which chil-dren frequently use language (Hart & Risley,1975; Lifter & Bloom, 1998). Much researchhas centered on the free-play design in whichlanguage interventions are implemented dur-ing play with preschoolers and toddlers ina natural context (Rytter, 2008; Hart &Risley, 1975; Hemmeter, Ault, Collins, &Meyer, 1996; Girolametto, Pearce, & Weitz-man, 1997).

Girolametto et al. (1997) found thattoddlers’ communication improved duringa “free play interaction,” an interven-tion program aimed to enhance parent


LWW/IYC IYC200074 June 3, 2011 11:53


Tab

le2

.U

seo

fP

lay

asan

Act

ivit

yB

ase

inSu

pp

ort

of

Inte

rven

tio

ns

inV

ario

us

Do

mai

ns

Stu

dy

Ch

ild

ren

Go

als

Pla

yA

ctiv

itie

sU

sed

Gir

ola

met

to,P

earc

e,an

dW

eitz

man

(199

7)25

child

ren

wit

hex

pre

ssiv

evo

cab

ula

ryd

elay

s(a

ged

23-3

3m

on

ths)

Lan

guag

e(i

e,p

ho

no

logi

cals

kills

)Fr

eep

lay

wit

hm

oth

erat

ho

me

Hem

met

eret

al,(

1996

)4

stu

den

tsw

ith

men

tal

reta

rdat

ion

(age

d5-

8ye

ars)

Lan

guag

e(i

e,sp

on

tan

eou

sla

ngu

age)

Pla

yac

tivi

ties

wit

hte

ach

erin

sch

oo

l

Cra

ig-U

nke

fer

and

Kai

ser

(200

3)6

stu

den

tsw

ith

lan

guag

ean

dso

cial

del

ays

(age

d3

year

s)So

cial

(ie,

des

crip

tive

stat

emen

ts,

req

ues

ts,a

nd

lan

guag

eco

mp

lex

ity

and

div

ersi

ty)

Par

alle

l,as

soci

ativ

e,an

dco

op

erat

ive

pla

yw

ith

pee

rsan

dad

ult

inte

rven

tio

nal

ist

insc

ho

ol

Del

ano

and

Snel

l(20

06)

3st

ud

ents

wit

hau

tism

(age

d6-

9ye

ars)

Soci

al(i

e,se

ekin

gat

ten

tio

n,

init

iati

ng

com

men

ts,i

nit

iati

ng

req

ues

ts,a

nd

mak

ing

con

tin

gen

tre

spo

nse

s)

Soci

alst

ory

read

ing,

com

pre

hen

sio

nch

eck,

and

un

pro

mp

ted

pla

yw

ith

pee

rin

sch

oo

l

Ko

egel

etal

,(20

05)

2ch

ildre

nw

ith

auti

sm(a

ged

8-9

year

s)So

cial

(ie,

syn

chro

no

us

reci

pro

cal

inte

ract

ion

s)C

on

tex

tual

lysu

pp

ort

edp

lay

acti

viti

es(i

e,ga

mes

that

wer

een

joya

ble

for

bo

thch

ildre

nan

din

volv

edco

op

erat

ion

,su

chas

bo

ard

gam

es)

and

no

nco

nte

xtu

ally

sup

po

rted

pla

yac

tivi

ties

(ie,

cho

sen

by

the

child

ren

bas

edo

nu

sual

acti

viti

es,s

uch

asp

layi

ng

wit

hd

olls

)w

ith

ap

eer

inp

resc

ho

ol

Ko

hle

ret

al,(

2001

)4

pre

sch

oo

lers

wit

hau

tism

/PD

Dan

d35

typ

ical

lyd

evel

op

ing

pee

rs(a

ged

4-5

year

s)

Soci

al(i

e,so

cial

exch

ange

s,o

vert

ure

s,an

din

tera

ctio

ns

wit

hte

ach

ers

and

/or

pee

rs)

Free

pla

yw

ith

pee

rs(e

g,gr

oss

mo

tor

pla

y,ta

ble

gam

es,b

lock

s,b

oo

ks,a

rt)

inp

resc

ho

ol

Ch

iare

lloan

dP

alis

ano

(199

8)38

child

ren

wit

hm

oto

rd

elay

s(a

ged

6-34

mo

nth

s)M

oto

r(i

e,gr

oss

and

fin

em

oto

rsk

ills,

stan

din

g,ra

nge

of

mo

tio

n,w

eigh

t-b

eari

ng)

Free

pla

yw

ith

mo

ther

ath

om

e

Hea

thco

ckan

dG

allo

way

(200

9)26

pre

term

infa

nts

(age

d2-

4m

on

ths)

Mo

tor

(ie,

con

tact

ing

toys

wit

hfe

etan

dh

and

s)P

hys

ical

lyin

tera

ctiv

eto

yp

lay

wit

ha

care

give

rat

ho

me

Note

.Sa

mp

leo

fst

ud

ies.


LWW/IYC IYC200074 June 3, 2011 11:53

236 INFANTS & YOUNG CHILDREN/JULY–SEPTEMBER 2011T

able

3.

Inte

rven

tio

nSt

ud

ies

tosu

pp

ort

Dev

elo

pm

ents

inP

lay

asa

Do

mai

n

Stu

dy

Ch

ild

ren

Pla

yT

arge

tsD

eriv

atio

no

fP

lay

Tar

gets

DiC

arlo

and

Rei

d(2

004)

5ch

ildre

nw

ith

dis

abili

ties

(age

d26

-30

mo

nth

s)P

rete

nd

pla

ySt

aff

rep

ort

and

pre

bas

elin

ep

lay

ob

serv

atio

ns

sugg

esti

ng

pre

ten

dp

lay

freq

uen

cies

bel

ow

pee

rs(f

or

bas

elin

e/in

clu

sio

n)

Go

ldst

ein

and

Cis

ar(1

992)

3ch

ildre

nw

ith

auti

sman

d6

typ

ical

lyd

evel

op

ing

child

ren

(age

d3-

5ye

ars)

Soci

od

ram

atic

pla

yN

ot

rep

ort

ed

Kas

ari,

Free

man

,Pap

arel

la(2

006)

58ch

ildre

nw

ith

auti

sm(a

ged

3-4

year

s)Fu

nct

ion

alp

lay

Sym

bo

licp

lay

Sin

gle

sch

eme

seq

uen

ces

Soci

od

ram

atic

pla

yP

hys

ical

com

bin

atio

ns

Co

nve

nti

on

alco

mb

inat

ion

sT

hem

atic

fan

tasy

pla

y

Stru

ctu

red

Pla

yA

sses

smen

t(U

nge

rer

&Si

gman

,198

1)an

dca

regi

ver-

child

pla

yin

tera

ctio

n(f

or

targ

ets)

Lift

eret

al,(

1993

)

Lift

eret

al.(

2005

)

3p

resc

ho

ole

rsw

ith

auti

sm

3p

resc

ho

ole

rsw

ith

auti

sm

Ch

ild-a

sA

gen

t,D

oll-

as-A

gen

t

Pre

ten

dse

lf,S

pec

ific

Ph

ysic

al,

Ch

ild-a

s-A

gen

t,Sp

ecifi

cC

on

ven

tio

nal

,

Dev

elo

pm

enta

lPla

yA

sses

smen

t(D

PA

;Li

fter

,200

0)D

evel

op

men

talP

lay

Ass

essm

ent

(DP

A;

Lift

er,2

000)

Mac

Do

nal

d,C

lark

,Gar

riga

n,

and

Van

gala

(200

5)2

bo

ysw

ith

per

vasi

ved

evel

op

men

tald

elay

s/au

tism

(age

d4-

7ye

ars)

Pre

ten

dp

lay

No

tre

po

rted

Ro

gers

etal

.(19

86)

26ch

ildre

nw

ith

auti

sm,

per

vasi

ved

evel

op

men

tal

dis

ord

ers,

or

oth

erd

iagn

ose

s(m

ean

age

48m

on

ths)

Sym

bo

licp

lay

Pla

yO

bse

rvat

ion

Scal

e(R

oge

rset

al.,

1986

)(t

od

eter

min

ed

evel

op

men

tal

leve

lan

dta

rget

)

Sher

ratt

(200

2)5

child

ren

wit

hau

tism

and

lear

nin

gd

iffi

cult

ies

(age

d5-

6ye

ars)

Sym

bo

licp

lay

(ie,

ob

ject

sub

stit

uti

on

,at

trib

uti

on

,rea

pp

eara

nce

/d

isap

pea

ran

ce)

Tes

to

fP

rete

nd

Pla

y(T

oP

P;L

ewis

&B

ou

cher

,199

7)Sy

mb

olic

Pla

yT

est

(SP

T;L

ow

e&

Co

stel

lo,1

988)

(to

det

erm

ine

dev

elo

pm

enta

llev

el)

(con

tin

ues)


LWW/IYC IYC200074 June 3, 2011 11:53


Tab

le3

.In

terv

enti

on

Stu

die

sto

sup

po

rtD

evel

op

men

tsin

Pla

yas

aD

om

ain

a(C

on

tin

ued

)

Stu

dy

Ch

ild

ren

Pla

yT

arge

tsD

eriv

atio

no

fP

lay

Tar

gets

Stah

mer

(199

5)7

child

ren

wit

hau

tism

(age

d4-

7ye

ars)

Sym

bo

licp

lay

Pea

bo

dy

Pic

ture

Vo

cab

ula

ryT

est—

Rev

ised

(PP

VT

)Ex

pre

ssiv

eO

ne-

Wo

rdP

ictu

reV

oca

bu

lary

Tes

t—R

evis

ed(E

OW

PV

T)

Mac

Art

hu

rC

om

mu

nic

ativ

eD

evel

op

men

tIn

ven

tory

(CD

I)(f

or

incl

usi

on

,bec

ause

of

corr

elat

ion

bet

wee

nla

ngu

age

and

pla

ysk

ills)

Th

orp

etal

.(19

95)

3b

oys

wit

hau

tism

(age

d7-

9ye

ars)

Soci

od

ram

atic

pla

yP

lay

His

tory

Inte

rvie

w(R

oge

rset

al.,

1986

)(f

or

bas

elin

e)

a Th

est

ud

ies

rep

ort

edh

ere

rep

rese

nt

asa

mp

leo

fp

lay

inte

rven

tio

nst

ud

ies,

give

nth

atth

elit

erat

ure

isla

rge

and

incr

easi

ng.

Ple

ase

see

Bar

ton

&W

ole

ry(2

008)

and

Ro

gers

(200

5)fo

rre

view

s.

communication with their toddlers with lan-guage delays. Hemmeter et al. (1996) foundan increase in preschoolers’ communicationwhen teachers applied a language interven-tion within “play activities.” These findingssupport the use of play as a language-learningcontext. Despite the success of these inter-ventions, however, concerns center on thekind of play used given that language devel-opment is correlated positively with the ac-quisition of more sophisticated play behaviors(Lifter & Bloom, 1998; Neeley, Neeley, Justen,& Tipton-Sumner, 2001).

Social goals implemented in a play context

Several studies have examined the use ofplay to promote social skills and increase ap-propriate social interactions in children at-risk for, and exhibiting delays in, this do-main (Craig-Unkefer & Kaiser, 2003; Delano& Snell, 2006; Koegel, Werner, Vismara, &Koegel, 2005; Kohler, Anthony, Steigher, &Hoyson, 2001). Research generally involvesusing different play contexts (ie, activity cen-ters, group play) and different play activi-ties (eg, socio-dramatic play) as the setting inwhich social interventions take place. Craig-Unkefer and Kaiser (2003) examined the ef-fects of a play intervention on preschoolerswith social delays. The researchers used role-play (eg, playing doctor), dramatic play (eg,playing dress-up), and manipulative play ac-tivities (ie, construction, airport, camping)to successfully increase social-communicativeinteractions, measured by children’s descrip-tive statements (eg, peer-directed commentsand acknowledgement responses) and re-quest utterances (eg, information requests,yes-no questions, and clarification requests).

Using play to increase social behaviors isintegral to EI/ECSE research because playcontexts easily generalize to naturalistic,least-restrictive environments in which socialinterventions may be implemented. Furtherresearch is necessary to determine whetherthe quality of play used in the interventionsis developmentally appropriate for the partic-ipating children.


LWW/IYC IYC200074 June 3, 2011 11:53


Motor goals implemented in a play context

Physical therapists use play activities toaddress many motor goals (Ritter & Cobb,2010). Research supports the use of move-ment training, positioning, and conditioningwithin the context of play activities. For exam-ple, Chiarello and Palisano (1998) instructedmothers on the use of physical therapy strate-gies, especially for positioning and locomo-tion, using play activities. Heathcock andGalloway (2009) used toys to stimulate footmovements in infants who were born prema-turely. Similarly, Heathcock, Lobo, and Gal-loway (2010) used toys to stimulate reachingin preterm infants.

In summary, the strengths of using play tosupport developments in other domains re-volve around the use of play as a natural ac-tivity. As can be seen in Table 2, a variety ofdifferent goals were targeted, and very differ-ent kinds of play activities were used to sup-port these goals. A potential limitation whenusing play to support developments in otherdomains is that the requirements of the playcontext may compromise the success of learn-ing the target goals (ie, the use of activitiesbeyond the child’s level of understanding).Because research has demonstrated that playdevelops according to its own developmen-tal sequence, attention to a child’s progressin play should be considered to increase thelikelihood that the child will understand theplay requirements of the intervention.

Intervention studies to supportdevelopments in play

Many researchers and practitioners have fo-cused on ways to facilitate and support chil-dren learning new play skills. Researchershave shown that teaching play to childrenwith autism and PDD can lead to significantincreases in play skills, as well as skills inother domains (Ingersoll & Schreibman, 2006;Kasari, Freeman, Paparella, 2006; Lifter, Ellis,Cannon, & Anderson, 2005; Lifter, Sulzer-Azaroff, Anderson, & Cowdery, 1993; Stah-mer, 1995; Wong, Kasari, Freeman, & Papar-ella, 2007). Other studies focused on increas-

ing pretend play skills, spontaneous imita-tion skills, verbalization, and cooperative play(MacDonald, Sacramone, Mansfield, Wiltz, &Ahearn, 2009). The finding that children withPDD were able to complete targeted play ac-tivities only when given direct play instruc-tion supports the early teaching of play skillsto children with developmental delays (Lifteret al., 2005).

Not all children with autism will respondpositively to the same types of interventions,suggesting the need for individualized in-tervention programs. For example, Ingersolland Schreibman (2006) demonstrated thatalthough successful in improving the playskills of some children, not all children ben-efited from the Reciprocal Imitation Train-ing method. Wong et al. (2007) suggestedthat because of the links demonstrated indescriptive studies between play skills andthese areas, practitioners should take the“mental age,” “receptive language age,” and“chronological age” of children with autisminto consideration when designing skills in-terventions (p. 104). More research in thisarea should be conducted so practitioners canchoose the evidence-based intervention thatbest suits a child’s level of development inplay.

A sample of these studies is presented inTable 3. Several studies used a play assessmentinstrument to evaluate a child’s progress inplay to identify target play goals (eg, Kasari etal., 2006; Lifter et al., 1993, 2005; Rogers et al.,1986; Sherratt, 2002). Of these studies, Kasariet al. (2006) and Lifter et al., (1993, 2005) usedassessments that evaluated children againsthighly differentiated categories of play thatspanned a large age range. The Rogers et al.(1986) and Sherratt (2002) studies focused onsymbolic play. Still other studies focused onbroad categories of play, including symbolicplay (Rogers et al. 1986; Stahmer, 1995), andalso on sociodramatic play (Goldstein & Cisar,1992; Thorp, Stahmer, & Schreibman, 1995).In several cases, it is not clear how these tar-get activities were identified, except throughobserving children’s delays or deficits in theseareas of play.


LWW/IYC IYC200074 June 3, 2011 11:53


In summary, the strengths of these inter-vention studies include teaching children playactivities, given their delays in play. In somecases, the research also provided evidence forthe intervention success at follow-up. Nev-ertheless, limitations include the inconsisten-cies in methods to assess a child’s progress inplay to identify goals in play. Please see Bar-ton and Wolery (2008) and Rogers (2005) forreviews of intervention studies in play.

Play in EI/ECSE: curricula centered onplay for young children

Play is an optimal learning medium foryoung children, resulting in its frequent useas the basis of many curricula in EI/ECSE andin early childhood education. As with assess-ment and intervention activities, curricula ei-ther regard play as a general activity base or asa domain per se. Indeed these divergent per-spectives and uses of play are implicit in theNAEYC’s 2009 Position Statement on Devel-

opmentally Appropriate Practice, presentedearlier, contributing to the confusion on usesof play. One segment appears to focus on playto embed opportunities for learning:

. . . Besides embedding significant learning in

play, routines, and interest areas, strong programsalso provide carefully planned curriculum that fo-cuses children’s attention on a particular conceptor topic (italics added).

Another segment appears to attend to playper se:

. . . It is vital for early childhood settings to provideopportunities for sustained high-level play andfor teachers to actively support children’s progresstoward such play (italics added).

The distinction between play as an activitybase and play as a domain for learning con-tributes to clarifying the different meaningsbetween the foregoing statements.

Curriculum as a natural activity base

Curricula that regard play as a natural ac-tivity base are classified as (a) curriculum-generated play and (b) play-generated or play-based curricula (Johnson, Christie, & Yawkey,

1999; Linder, 2008; Widerstrom, 2005). Withcurriculum-generated play, teachers arrangeplay experiences to teach concepts and skillsfrom areas such as literacy, mathematics, andsciences. For example, children can prac-tice early numeracy skills such as countingor single-digit addition while playing at asupermarket play center. In contrast, withplay-generated curriculum, teachers organizelearning experiences around themes and in-terests that children demonstrate in their play.For example, they may design a curricular unitacross subjects around students’ interest infarm animals. These kinds of curricula main-tain the use of play to support a variety oflearning goals.

Curriculum centered on learning to play

Curricula also are available that focus onlearning to play (Widerstrom, 2005; Linder,2008). With play-focused curricula, certainlearning goals are developed around learningto play, such as learning sequences of play.The ultimate objective of a play-focused cur-riculum is to help children develop more com-plex levels of play through their involvementin different play stations, including block,sand, and water centers. Accordingly, thesekinds of curricula focus on learning to play.

Concerns exist with this approach in termsof how a child’s progress in play is determinedso that the child benefits from the selectedplay activities. If play is regarded as a devel-opmental domain, then it is important to linka child’s progress in play to the goals deter-mined for intervention per se, or targeted witha curriculum centered on learning to play.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONSFOR PLAY IN EI/ECSE

Contemporary attention to play in generalcenters on the importance of play in policyand practice, in addition to the threats im-posed by increased attention to learning stan-dards rather than play. Research and practicein EI/ECSE, however, centers on (a) identify-ing delays in play for children served throughEI/ECSE, (b) supporting developments in play


LWW/IYC IYC200074 June 3, 2011 11:53


for children with delays, and (c) using thenatural context of play activities for interven-tion purposes. Despite the current empha-sis on promoting the systematic, evidence-based use-of-play for a variety of purposes inEI/ECSE, contrasting efforts remain problem-atic because of the continued use of globaldescriptions of play, inattention to identifyingdevelopmental progress, and confounding in-terventions in play per se with the use of playas an activity base with other domains.

This review attempted to contribute clar-ity to the literature on play in EI/ECSE, giventhe confusions about how play is describedand used. The distinctions offered here arediscussed later in the contexts of play as adomain and of differentiated descriptions ofplay.

Play as a developmental domain

This perspective—play as a developmentaldomain—influences the 2 major uses of play:(1) play as a domain to be developed and (2)play as a natural context for supporting goalsin other domains. Developments in play cor-relate with developments in other domains(eg, language, cognition) and vary systemati-cally with these domains (eg, social domain).Therefore, it can be argued that play is a do-main in its own right, and assessments andinterventions for play should be established.Because play is a domain to be developed foryoung children with delays and disabilities,systematic attention to children’s progress inplay is needed for (a) determining goals forintervention and (b) using play in the serviceof other domains.

As was revealed in the descriptive studiesof their play, children with delays and disabil-ities often have trouble learning, which in-cludes learning to play. They have difficultiesengaging with objects and events in ways thathelp them move their knowledge forward inplay. These difficulties have implications forinterventions.

An assessment of developmental progressin play should be considered for interventionsin play, as well as the use of play in the ser-vice of other domains. Such an assessment

would help identify categories of play activi-ties that are at the leading edge of a child’s de-velopment, in addition to categories the childknows well and categories that are too diffi-cult for a child at that time. Examples of inter-vention studies in which target activities werelinked to assessment are presented in Table 3.

Assessment of progress in play also couldcontribute to the use of play in support ofother domains. For example, using the DPA,

Pierce-Jordan and Lifter (2005) provided ev-idence of an inverse relationship betweencomplexity of play, assessed on a child-by-child basis, and complexity of social coordi-nation. Complex social coordination occurredmore often in play activities that were familiarto the children as opposed to play activitiesthey were in the process of learning. The re-sults indicated that play activities to supportcomplex social coordination should be activi-ties that the child knows well (ie, play activi-ties evaluated as “mastered”).

Research also supports developments inlanguage and play as occurring simultaneously(eg, Lifter & Bloom, 1989; McCune, 1995).Such results suggest that goals of an inter-vention in language should be implementedin the context of play activities the child isin the process of learning (ie, play activitiesevaluated as “emerging”).

The importance of play as a natural activ-ity cannot be overstated. Its use to supportthe implementation of goals in other domainsis extremely important in EI/ECSE. If play isregarded as a developmental domain, whichis suggested here, then attention to a child’sprogress in play can be used to enhance, andnot compete with, goals in other domains.Obviously, studies are needed to support thisapproach, but the implications of play as adomain provide support for it.

Differentiated categories ofdevelopments in play

Ongoing tensions between time for playversus an increased focus on preacademic ac-tivities have raised several concerns regard-ing the use of play in EI/ECSE; the descrip-tions centered on fairly complex levels of play


LWW/IYC IYC200074 June 3, 2011 11:53


such as high-level (dramatic) play, imaginaryplay, and sociodramatic play. Although theseterms refer to more advanced levels of play,it is not clear what they mean and how theyoverlap with one another. More importantly,they do not account for developments thatprecede these levels, and the importance ofthese earlier levels to developments in playfor children with delays and disabilities. Manychildren who are served through EI/ECSE donot progress to these high levels of play.Consequently, a comprehensive understand-ing of play should include detailed informa-tion about how play typically develops inyoung children and eventually results in thesemore advanced levels of play.

Furthermore, practitioners and policy mak-ers in EI/ECSE should be wary of using globaldescriptors of play categories, such as us-ing “manipulative or functional play” to de-scribe any instances of children making con-nections between objects, and such as using“symbolic play” to refer to any play activi-ties with elements of pretense. The descrip-tive studies provided a high level of detailand specificity with respect to categories ofplay that develop sequentially throughout in-fancy and early childhood. These more finelydifferentiated descriptions of categories ofplay are needed to inform programming ef-forts in EI/ECSE, and thus to work effectivelywith young children with delays and disabili-

ties. Several play assessment instruments, pre-sented in Table 1, are available that providedifferentiated categories of developments inplay, which allow for a more precise determi-nation of a child’s progress in play.

Although research studies have providedmore detailed descriptions for work inEI/ECSE, which resulted in the developmentof assessment instruments, the descriptionsare variable. Future research is needed todisambiguate these descriptions (eg, Barton,2010).

This article emphasized the importance ofknowing why and how play is being usedto serve children with delays and disabili-ties. In using play in EI/ECSE, the distinc-tion between interventions in play per seand using play in the service of other do-mains is helpful; they are for different pur-poses and require different approaches. Bothuses require the perspective of play as a de-velopmental domain, which requires atten-tion to developmental progress in play. Italso is important to take into account theresearch base that describes developmentsin play in more detail than the global de-scriptors. These distinctions, and with partic-ular attention to the child’s progress in play,will enhance the use of play for fun and forlearning. They argue for the importance andvalue of maintaining time for play in EI/ECSEcurricula.

REFERENCES

Axline, V. (1947). Play therapy. New York, NY: BallantineBooks.

Axline, V. (1964). Dibs: In search of self. New York, NY:Ballantine Books.

Banerjee, R., & Horn, E. (2005). Use of socio-dramaticplay to develop literacy skills in early childhood set-tings. In E. Horn, & H. Jones (Eds.), YEC mono-

graph No. 7, supporting early literacy development

in young children (pp. 101–112). Longmont, CO:Sopris-West.

Barton, E. E. (2010). Development of a taxonomy of pre-tend play for children with disabilities. Infants &

Young Children, 23(4), 247–261.Barton, E. E., & Wolery, M. (2008). Teaching pretend play

to children with disabilities: A review of the litera-ture. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education,

28(2), 109–125.

Barton, E. E., & Wolery, M. (2010). Training teachers topromote pretend play in young children with disabil-ities. Exceptional Children, 77(1), 85–106.

Beckwith, L., Rodning, C., Norris, D., Phillipsen, L.,Khandabi, P., & Howard, J. (1994). Spontaneous playin two-year-olds born to substance-abusing mothers.Infant Mental Health Journal, 15, 189–201.

Belsky, J., & Most, R. K. (1981). From exploration to play:A cross-sectional study of infant free-play behavior.Developmental Psychology, 17, 630–639.

Blanc, R., Adrien, J.-L., Roux, S., & Barthelemy, C. (2005).Dysregulation of pretend play and communicationdevelopment in children with autism. Autism, 9(3),229–245.

Bloom, L. (1993). The transition from infancy to lan-

guage: Acquiring the power of expression. NewYork, NY: Cambridge University Press.


LWW/IYC IYC200074 June 3, 2011 11:53


Bloom, L., & Tinker, E. (2001). The intentionality modeland language acquisition: Engagement, effort, andthe essential tension in development. Monographs

of the Society for Research in Child Development,

80(1, Serial No. 609).Chiarello, L., & Palisano, R. (1998). Investigation of the ef-

fects of a model of physical therapy on mother-childinteractions and the motor behaviors of children withmotor delay. Physical Therapy, 78(2), 180–194.

Clift, S., Stagnitti, K., & DeMello, L. (1998). A validationstudy of the Test of Pretend Play (ToPP) using corre-lational and classificational analyses. Child Language

Teaching & Therapy 14(2), 199–209.Coolahan, K., Fantuzzo, J., Mendez, J., & McDermott,

P. (2000). Preschool peer interactions and readinessto learn: Relationships between classroom peer playand learning behaviors and conduct. Journal of Ed-

ucational Psychology, 92(3), 458–465.Coplan, R. J., & Rubin, K. H. (1998). Exploring and as-

sessing nonsocial play in the preschool: The devel-opment of the preschool play behavior scale. Social

Development, 7, 72–91.Craig-Unkefer, L., & Kaiser, A. P. (2003). Increasing peer-

directed social-communication skills of children en-rolled in head start. Journal of Early Intervention,

25(40), 229–247.Cunningham, C. C., Glenn, S. M., Wilkinson, P., & Sloper,

P. (1985). Mental ability, symbolic play and receptiveexpressive language of young children with Downsyndrome. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychi-

atry, 26(2), 255–265.Delano, M., & Snell, M. (2006). The effects of social stories

on the social engagement of children with autism.Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8(1),29–42.

Diamond, A., Barnett, W., Thomas, J., & Munro, S. (2007).Preschool program improves cognitive control. Sci-

ence, 318, 1387–1388.DiCarlo, C. F., & Reid, D. H. (2004). Increasing pretend

toy play of toddlers with disabilities in an inclu-sive setting. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,

37(2), 197–207.Elkind, D. (2001). The hurried child. Reading, MA:

Addison-Wesley.Fantuzzo, J. W., Coolahan, K., Mendez, J., McDermott,

P., & Sutton-Smith, B. (1998). Contextually-relevantvalidation of peer play constructs with African Amer-ican Head Start children: Penn interactive peer playscale. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12(3),411–431.

Fantuzzo, J. W., & Hampton, V. R. (2000). Penn inter-active peer play scale: A parent and teacher ratingsystem for young children. In K. Gitlin-Weiner, A.Sandgrund, & C. E. Schaefer (Eds.), Play diagnosis

and assessment (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.Fantuzzo, J., Mendez, J., & Tighe, E. (1998). Parental as-

sessment of peer play: Development and validation ofthe parent version of the Penn interactive peer play

scale. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13(4),659–676.

Fantuzzo, J. W., Sutton-Smith, B., Coolahan, K., Manz, P.,Canning, S., & Debnam, D. (1995). Assessment ofpreschool play interaction behaviors in young low-income children: Penn interactive peer play scale.Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 10(1), 105–120.

Fenson, L., Kagan, J., Kearsley, R. B., & Zelazo, P. R.(1976). The developmental progression of manipula-tive play in the first two years. Child Development,

47, 232–235.Fenson, L., & Ramsay, D. (1980). Decentralization and

integration of the child’s play in the second year.Child Development, 51, 171–178.

Fewell, R. R. (1986). Play assessment scale (5th rev.).Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

Fewell, R., & Glick, M. (1993). Observing play: An appli-cation process for learning and assessment. Infants

& Young Children, 5(4), 35–43.Finn, D. M., & Fewell, R. R. (1994). The use of play as-

sessment to examine the development of communi-cation skills in children who are deaf-blind. Journal

of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 88(4), 349.Friedli, C. R. (1995). Transdisciplinary play-based assess-

ment: A study of reliability and validity. Dissertation

Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and

Social Sciences, 55(11), 3405.Garfinkle, A. N. (2004). Assessing play skills. In M.

McLean, M. Wolery, & D. Bailey (Eds.), Assessing in-

fants and preschoolers with special needs (3rd ed.,pp. 451–486). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Garvey, C. (1977). Play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-sity Press.

Girolametto, L., Pearce, P., & Weitzman, E. (1997). In-teractive focused stimulation for toddlers with ex-pressive vocabulary delays. Journal of Speech and

Hearing Research, 39, 1274–1283.Gitlin-Weiner, K., Sandgrund, A., & Schaefer, C. E. (2000).

Play diagnosis & assessment (2nd ed.). New York,NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Goldstein, H., & Cisar, C. L. (1992). Promoting interac-tion during sociodramatic play: Teaching scripts totypical preschoolers and classmates with disabilities.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25(2), 265–280.

Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social skills rating

system manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guid-ance Service.

Hampton, V. R., & Fantuzzo, J. W. (2003). The validityof the Penn interactive peer play scale with urban,low-income kindergarten children. School Psychol-

ogy Review, 32(1), 77–91.Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1975). Incidental teaching of lan-

guage in the pre-school. Journal of Applied Behav-

ior Analysis, 8, 411–420.Heathcock, J. C., & Galloway, J. C. (2009). Exploring ob-

jects with feet advances movement in infants born


LWW/IYC IYC200074 June 3, 2011 11:53


preterm: A randomized control trial. Physical Ther-

apy, 89(10), 1027–1038.Heathcock, J. C., Lobo, M., & Galloway, J. C. (2008).

Movement training advances the emergence ofreaching in infants born at less than 33 weeks of ges-tational age: A randomized controlled trial. Physical

Therapy, 88(3), 310–322.Hemmeter, M. L., Ault, M., Collins, B., & Meyer, S. (1996).

The effects of teacher implemented language instruc-tion within free time activities. Education and Train-

ing in Mental Retardation and Developmental Dis-

abilities, 31, 203–212.Hill, P. M., & McCune-Nicolich, L. (1981). Pretend play

and patterns of cognition in Down’s syndrome chil-dren. Child Development, 52, 611–617.

Hobson, R. P., Lee, A., & Hobson, J. A. (2009). Qualities ofsymbolic play among children with autism: A social-developmental perspective. Journal of Autism and

Developmental Disorders, 39(1), 12–22.Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement

Act (IDEIA). (2004). Public Law 108-446 (Section300.25).

Ingersoll, B., & Schreibman, L. (2006). Teaching recip-rocal imitation skills to young children with autismusing a naturalistic behavioral approach: Effects onlanguage, pretend play, and joint attention. Journal

of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36, 487–505.

Johnson, J. E., Christie, J. F., & Yawkey, T. D. (1999).Play and early childhood development (2nd ed.).New York, NY: Longman.

Kasari, C., Freeman, S., & Paparella, T. (2006). Joint at-tention and symbolic play in young children withautism: A randomized controlled intervention study.Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47(6),611–620.

Kelly-Vance, L., & Ryalls, B. O. (2005). A systematic, re-liable approach to play assessment in preschoolers.School Psychology International, 26, 398–412.

Koegel, R. L., Werner, G. A., Vismara, L. A., & Koegel,L. K. (2005). The effectiveness of contextually sup-ported play date interactions between children withautism and typically developing peers. Research and

Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30(2),93–102.

Kohler, F. W., Anthony, L. J., Steighner, S. A., & Hoyson,M. (2001). Teaching social interaction skills in theintegrated preschool: An examination of naturalistictactics. Topics in Early Childhood Special Educa-

tion, 21(2), 93–103.Lewis, V., & Boucher, J. (1997). Test of pretend play:

Manual. London, England: Psychological Corp.Libby, S., Powell, S., Messer, D., & Jordan, R. (1998). Spon-

taneous play in children with autism: A reappraisal.Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,

28(6), 487–498.Lifter, K. (1996). Assessing play skills. In M. McLean, D.

Bailey, Jr., & M. Wolery (Eds.), Assessing infants and

preschoolers with special needs (2nd ed., pp. 435–461). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.

Lifter, K. (2000). Linking assessment to intervention forchildren with developmental disabilities or at-risk fordevelopmental delay: The developmental play assess-ment (DPA) instrument. In K. Gitlin-Weiner, A. Sand-grund, & C. E. Schaefer (Eds.), Play diagnosis and

assessment (2nd ed., pp. 228–261). New York, NY:Wiley.

Lifter, K. (2008). Developmental play assessment andteaching. In J. Luiselli, D.C. Russo, & W.P. Christian(Eds.), Effective practices for children with autism:

Educational and behavior support interventions

that work (pp. 299–324). New York, NY: OxfordUniversity Press.

Lifter, K., & Bloom, L. (1989). Object knowledge andthe emergence of language. Infant Behavior and

Development, 12, 395–423.Lifter, K., & Bloom, L. (1998). Intentionality and the role

of play in the transition to language. In A. Wetherby,S. Warren, & J. Reichle (Eds.), Transitions in prelin-

guistic communication (Vol. 7, pp. 161–196). Balti-more, MD: Brookes.

Lifter, K., Ellis, J., Cannon, B., & Anderson, S. R. (2005).Developmental specificity in targeting and teach-ing play activities to children with pervasive devel-opmental disorders. Journal of Early Intervention,

27(4), 247–267.Lifter, K., Sulzer-Azaroff, B., Anderson, S., & Cowdery, G.

(1993). Teaching play activities to preschool childrenwith disabilities: The importance of developmentalconsiderations. Journal of Early Intervention, 17

(2), 139–159.Linder, T. W. (1990). Transdisciplinary play-based as-

sessment. Baltimore: Brookes.Linder, T. W. (1993). Transdisciplinary play-based as-

sessment: A functional approach to working with

young children (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.Linder, T. W. (2008). Transdisciplinary play-based as-

sessment 2. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publish-ing Co.

Lowe, M. (1975). Trends in the development of repre-sentational play in infants from one to three years:An observational study. Journal of Child Psychology

and Psychiatry, 16, 33–47.Lowe, M., & Costello, A. J. (1988). Symbolic Play

Test (2nd ed.). Windsor, Berkshire, England: NFER-Nelson.

MacDonald, R., Sacramone, S., Mansfield, R., Wiltz, K., &Ahearn, W. H. (2009). Using video modeling to teachreciprocal pretend play to children with autism. Jour-

nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(1), 43–55.MacDonald, R., Clark, M., Garrigan, E., & Vangala, M.

(2005). Using video modeling to teach pretend playto children with autism. Behavioral Interventions,

20(4), 225–238.Marcu, I., Oppenheim, D., Koren-Karie, N., Dolev, S., &

Yirmiya, N. (2009). Attachment and symbolic play in


LWW/IYC IYC200074 June 3, 2011 11:53


preschoolers with autism spectrum disorders. Jour-

nal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39(9),1321–1328.

Matthews, S. B. (2008). The relationship among self-regulation, sociodramatic play, and preschoolers’readiness for kindergarten. Dissertation Abstracts

International Section A: Humanities and Social Sci-

ences, 69(12-A), 4632.McAloney, K., & Stagnitti, K. (2009). Pretend play and so-

cial play: The concurrent validity of the child-initiatedpretend play assessment. International Journal of

Play Therapy, 18, (2), 99–113.McCune, L. (1995). A normative study of representational

play at the transition to language. Developmental

Psychology, 31(2), 198–206.McCune-Nicolich, L. (1981). Toward symbolic function-

ing: Structure of early pretend games and poten-tial parallels with language. Child Development, 52,785–797.

McDonough, L., Stahmer, A., Schreibman, L., & Thomp-son, S. J. (1997). Deficits, delays and distractions: Anevaluation of symbolic play and memory in childrenwith autism. Development and Psychopathology, 9,17–41.

Myers, C. L., McBride, S. L., & Peterson, C. A. (1996).Transdisciplinary, play-based assessment in earlychildhood special education: An examination of so-cial validity. Topics in Early Childhood Special Edu-

cation, 16(1), 102–126.Miller, E., & Almon, J. (2009). Crisis in the kindergarten:

Why children need to play in school. College Park,MD: Alliance for Childhood.

Montessori, M. (1967). The absorbent mind. New York,NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

National Association for the Education of Young Chil-dren (NAEYC). (2009). Position statement: Develop-

mentally appropriate practice in early childhood

programs serving children from birth through

age 8. Retrieved from http://www.naeyc.org/positionstatements/dap

Neeley, P. M., Neeley, R. A., Justen, J. E., & Tipton-Sumner, C. (2001). Scripted play as a language inter-vention strategy for preschoolers with developmen-tal disabilities. Early Childhood Education Journal,

28, (4), 243–246.Nicolich, L. (1977). Beyond sensorimotor intelligence:

Assessment of symbolic maturity through analy-sis of pretend play. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 23,89–99.

Odom, S. L., McConnell, S. R., & Chandler, L. K. (1993).Acceptability and feasibility of classroom-based so-cial interaction interventions for young children withdisabilities. Exceptional Children, 60, 226–236.

Parten, M. (1932). Social participation among preschoolchildren. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychol-

ogy, 27, 243–269.Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams, and imitation in child-

hood. New York, NY: Norton.

Pierce-Jordan, S., & Lifter, K. (2005). Interaction of socialand play behaviors in preschoolers with and withoutpervasive developmental disorder. Topics in Early

Childhood Special Education, 25(1), 34–47.Pizzo, L., & Bruce, S. M. (2010). Language and play in

students with multiple disabilities and visual impair-ments or deaf-blindness. Journal of Visual Impair-

ment & Blindness, 104(5), 287–297.Power, T. J., & Radcliffe, J. (1989). The relationship of

play behavior to cognitive ability in developmentallydisabled preschoolers. Journal of Autism and De-

velopmental Disorders, 19(1), 97–107.Power, T. J., & Radcliffe, J. (2000). Assessing the cognitive

ability of infants and toddlers through play: The sym-bolic play test. In K. Gitlin-Weiner, A. Sandgrund, &C. E. Schaefer (Eds.), Play diagnosis and assessment

(2nd ed., pp. 228–261). New York, NY: Wiley.Ritter, B., & Cobb, A. (2010). Play as an assessment

and treatment strategy in the early intervention

population. Unpublished manuscript, NortheasternUniversity, Boston, MA.

Rogers, S. J. (2005). Play interventions for young chil-dren with autism spectrum disorders. In L. A. Reddy,T. M. Files-Hall, & C. E. Schaefer (Eds.), Empirically

based play interventions for children (pp. 215–239). Washington, DC: American Psychological As-sociation.

Rogers, S. J., Herbison, J. M., Lewis, H. C., Pantone, J., &Reis, K. (1986). An approach for enhancing the sym-bolic, communicative, and interpersonal functionsof young children with autism or severe emotionalhandicaps. Journal of Early Intervention, 10(2),135–148.

Roskos, K., & Christie, J. (2001). Examining the play-literacy interface: A critical review and future direc-tions. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 1(1), 59–89.

Rubin, K., Fein, G., & Vandenberg, B. (1983). Play. InE. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psy-

chology: Socialization, personality, social devel-

opment: Socialization, personality, social develop-

ment (Vol. 4, pp. 694–759). New York, NY: Wiley.Rubin, K. H., Watson, K. S., & Jambor, T. W. (1978).

Free play behaviors in preschool and kindergartenchildren. Child Development, 49, 534–536.

Rutherford, M. D., & Rogers, S. J. (2003). The cog-nitive underpinnings of pretend play. Journal of

Autism and Developmental Disorders, 33(3), 289–302.

Rytter, K. M. (2008). Improving pre-literacy experiencesof toddlers with disabilities. Dissertation Abstracts

International: Section B: The Sciences and Engi-

neering, 68(7-B), 4868.Sandall, S., Hemmeter, M. L., McLean, M. E., & Smith,

B. J. (Eds.). (2005). DEC recommended practices: A

comprehensive guide for practical application in

early intervention/early childhood special educa-

tion. (pp. 71–106). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.


LWW/IYC IYC200074 June 3, 2011 11:53


Sherratt, D. (2002). Devoloping pretend play in childrenwith autism: A case study. The International Journal

of Research & Practice, 6(2), 169–179.Smilansky, S. (1968). The effects of sociodramatic play

on disadvantaged preschool children. New York,NY: Wiley.

Stagnitti, K., & Unsworth, C. (2004). The test-retest reli-ability of the child-initiated pretend play assessment.American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 58(1),93–99.

Stahmer, A. C. (1995). Teaching symbolic play skills tochildren with autism using pivotal response training.Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,

25, 123–141.Stone, K., & Yoder, L. (2001). Predicting spoken language

level in children with autism spectrum disorders. Spe-

cial Issue: Early Interventions, 341–361.Swindells, D., & Stagnitti, K. (2006). Pretend play and par-

ents’ view of social competence: The construct va-lidity of the child-initiated pretend play assessment.Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 53(4),314–324.

Thorp, D. M., Stahmer, A. C., & Schreibman, L. (1995).Effects of sociodramatic play training on childrenwith autism. Journal of Autism and Developmen-

tal Disorders, 25(3), 265–282.Troster, H., & Brambring, M. (1994). The play behaviour

and play materials in blind and sighted infants andpreschoolers. Journal of Visual Impairment and

Blindness, 88, 421–432.Uren, N., & Stagnitti, K. (2009). Pretend play, social com-

petence, and involvement in children aged 5-7 years:The concurrent validity of the Child-Initiated PretendPlay Assessment. Australian Occupational Therapy

Journal, 56, 33–40.Ungerer, J. A., & Sigman, M. (1981). Symbolic play and

language comprehension in autistic children. Amer-

ican Academy of Child Psychiatry, 20, 318–337.Vig, S. (2007). Young children’s object play: A window on

development. Journal of Developmental and Phys-

ical Disabilities, 19, 201–215.Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development

of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Wagner, B. S., & Frost, J. L. (1986). Assessing play andexploratory behaviors of infants and toddlers. Jour-

nal of Research in Childhood Education, 1, 27–36.Watson, M. W., & Fischer, K. W. (1977). A developmental

sequence of agent use in late infancy. Child Develop-

ment, 48, 828–836.Westby, C. (1980). Assessment of cognitive and language

abilities through play. Language Speech and Hear-

ing Sciences in the Schools, 11, 154–158.Westby, C. (2000). A scale for assessing children’s play.

In K. Gitlin-Weiner, A. Sandgrund & C. E. Schaefer(Eds.), Play diagnosis and assessment (2nd ed., pp.15–57). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Whitebread, D., Coltman, P., Jameson, H., & Lander, R.(2009). Play, cognition and self-regulation: What ex-actly are children learning when they learn throughplay? Educational and Child Psychology, 26(2), 40–52.

Widerstrom, A. H. (2005). Achieving learning goals

through play: Teaching young children with spe-

cial needs (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MA: Paul H. BrookesPublishing Co.

Wolery, M. W. (2005). DEC recommended practices:Child-focused practices. In S. Sandall, M. L. Hemme-ter, M. E. McLean, & B. J. Smith (Eds.). DEC recom-

mended practices: A comprehensive guide for prac-

tical application in early intervention/early child-

hood special education (pp. 71–106). Longmont,CO: Sopris West.

Wong, C. S., Kasari, C., Freeman, S., & Paparella, T.(2007). The acquisition and generalization of jointattention and symbolic play skills in young childrenwith autism. Research and Practice for Persons with

Severe Disabilities, 32,101–109.Zigler, E., Singer, D., & Bishop-Josef, S. (Eds.). (2004).

Children’s play: The roots of reading. Washington,DC: Zero to Three Press.

Zimmerman, I. L., Steiner, V. G., & Pond, R. E. (1992).PLS-3: Preschool Language Scale-3. San Antonio, TX:The Psychological Corporation.


Documents

Infants & Young Children Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 225–245 C ... · Caley Arzamarski, MS; Jacquelyn Briesch, MS; Ellen McClure, MS Play is a natural activity of early childhood, which