Motor Function and Social Participation in Kindergarten Children

Motor Function and Social Participation 

in Kindergarten Children 

Yair Bar-Haim and Orit Bart, Tel-Aviv University 

Abstract 

This study focused on the associations between individual variations in children’s 

motor abilities and individual differences in social participation and play behavior. 

Indoor and outdoor play behavior patterns of 88 kindergarten children were observed, 

and a battery of standard assessments of basic motor functions was administered. The 

findings indicate significant associations between children’s motor abilities and social 

and nonsocial forms of play. Results are discussed in relation to existing conceptual 

models of the underlying causes for nonsocial behavior. 

Keywords: motor skills; motor ability; social play; reticence; solitary behavior 

Social play and peer interaction provide a framework for children to explore their 

physical and social environments. Conversely, lack of social interaction during childhood 

has been associated with a variety of social and emotional difficulties including 

behavior problems, peer rejection, depression, and low self-esteem (for reviews, see 

Cheah, Nelson & Rubin, 2001; Kupersmidt, Coie & Dodge, 1990; Rubin, Bukowski 

& Parker, 1998; Rubin, Burgess & Coplan, 2002). Noting the detrimental effect that 

lack of peer interaction may have on children’s psychological and behavioral adjustment, 

much research has focused on possible etiologic and mediating factors relating 

to solitary behavior. These include, among others, interpersonal relationships, temperamental 

tendencies, cultural influences, social-cognitive deficiencies, and biological 

markers (e.g., Coplan, Rubin, Fox, Calkins & Stewart, 1994; Fox, Henderson, 

Rubin, Calkins & Schmidt, 2001; Henderson, Marshall, Fox & Rubin, 2004; Hinde, 

Tamplin & Barrett, 1993; Kagan, Reznick & Snidman, 1987; Kochanska & Radke- 

Yarrow, 1992; Rubin & Asendorpf, 1993; Spinard, Eisenberg, Harris, Hanish, Fabes 

& Kupanoff, 2004). 

Interestingly, one rather obvious potential background factor in the development of 

social participation, that is, children’s motor abilities, has been relatively neglected in 

the research literature. The present study explored whether individual variations in 

children’s motor abilities are associated with individual differences in social and 

solitary play behavior. The logic behind this implied association relies on the fact 

that the processing and organization of external and internal sensory–motor input, 

and the coordination of motor output must be reflected in children’s social interactive 

style. 

Correspondence should be addressed to Yair Bar-Haim, Department of Psychology, Tel-Aviv 

University, Ramat Aviv, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel. Email: yair1@post.tau.ac.il 

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2006. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, 

Malden, MA 02148, USA.

Motor Function and Social Participation 297 

Individual variations in posture and movement control, motor planning and execution, 

and visual–motor coordination provide children with different types of movement 

challenges that they must solve in order to exercise efficient social engagement 

(Fogel, 1992). For example, the ability to maintain standing postures significantly 

increases the amount of social interaction in 8- to 12-month-olds (Gustafson, 1984). 

Locomotor experience has been shown to facilitate the development of children’s 

social referencing skills (Campos, Kermoian, Witherington, Chen & Dong, 1997). 

And, upright locomotion has been shown to play a significant role in the affective 

organization of mother–infant interaction (Biringen, Emde, Campos & Appelbaum, 

1995). However, if age-related motor capabilities are not achieved, a child’s social 

behavior may be compromised. For instance, Smyth and Anderson (2000) reported 

that 6- to 10-year-olds with Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) spent more 

time alone and were onlookers more often during school playground activity compared 

with normally coordinated children. These authors suggest that children with 

impaired coordination can become isolated or solitary on the school playground. 

Difficulties in processing and integrating motor actions can occur in children who 

have no diagnostically identifiable neuromotor impairment. Nevertheless, such difficulties 

may result in play dysfunction. During play, children are required to retain static 

postures that demand efficient balance control. Children also need to move freely in and 

out of postural positions in order to take part in peer play. Likewise, normal muscle tone 

is essential for executing and maintaining such motor actions and movements. Hypotonic 

children (i.e., children with low muscle tone) typically find it difficult to stay 

engaged in motor action for prolonged periods of time and therefore tend to avoid gross 

motor activities that involve continuous muscle endurance (Ayres, 1980a; Lane, 2002). 

In addition, children’s play behavior is highly dependent on the ability to motor plan 

activities in an efficient way. The motor planning of a play task involves generating 

an idea of the motor task to be performed, sequencing the idea, and executing the 

sequence efficiently. If these complex neurobehavioral processes are successful, the 

child is able to produce an adaptive behavior and a goal-directed action that meets 

the environmental challenges of social activity. However, poor integration and processing 

of sensory–motor information may adversely affect play behavior and limit a 

child’s choice of play activities. It has been suggested that children characterized by 

poor motor planning abilities tend to have poor play skills and often fail to participate 

in activities or tasks performed in a group setting (e.g., Ayres, 1980a; Schaaf, Merril 

& Kinsella, 1987). Clinical observations suggest that such children tend to move 

slowly and fearfully and may avoid gross motor activity (e.g., Parham & Fazio, 1997). 

In conclusion, despite the intuitively expected association between sensory–motor 

capabilities and social behavior, mainstream experimental and developmental psychology 

have traditionally considered the question of how children plan and execute 

movement to be of relatively little interest to the field of social and emotional 

development (cf. Campos, Anderson, Barbu-Roth, Hubbard, Hertenstein & 

Witherington, 2000; Pellegrini & Smith, 1998; Smyth & Anderson, 2000). Therefore, 

the objective of the present study was to provide an analysis of the associations 

between individual differences in children’s motor abilities and individual differences 

in social and solitary behavior. 

Children may play alone for different reasons. Researchers have identified at 

least three distinct forms of solitary behavior that appear to differ in terms of their 

behavioral manifestation and motivational underpinnings (e.g., Coplan et al., 1994; 

Coplan, Prakash, O’Neil & Armer, 2004; Rubin & Asendorpf, 1993). 

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2006 Social Development, 15, 2, 2006

298 Yair Bar-Haim and Orit Bart 

Social reticence is characterized by a cluster of solitary behaviors consisting of prolonged 

onlooking at other children’s play without making attempts to join in, and of 

being unoccupied (Coplan et al., 1994). Children who engage in reticent behavior 

appear socially motivated but are wary, vigilant, and socially anxious (Rubin & 

Asendorpf, 1993). Reticent behaviors are readily detected as problematic by parents, 

teachers, and peers, and have been related to overt indicators of anxiety, poor performance 

on cooperative tasks, poor social skills, and deficiencies in the ability to 

regulate negative emotions (Coplan, Gavinski-Molina, Lagace-Seguin & Wichmann, 

2001; Rubin, Coplan, Fox & Calkins, 1995). We hypothesize that part of the variance 

in children’s reticent behavior may be explained by deficiencies in their motor ability. 

Specifically, children with suboptimal motor performance may feel more anxious and 

disadvantaged in sequencing and performing the motor tasks associated with social 

interaction. 

A second cluster of social withdrawal behaviors detected in children has been 

labeled solitary–passive play (Rubin, 1982). This behavioral pattern involves the quiet 

solitary exploration of objects and constructive play activities (e.g., drawing, building 

with blocks, dressing dolls). It has been hypothesized that these behaviors indicate low 

motivation to approach or avoid others (Asendorpf, 1990, 1991), and therefore reflect 

social disinterest. In general, solitary—passive play has not been associated with maladjustment 

(e.g., Coplan & Rubin, 1998; Coplan et al., 1994; Rubin, 1982). It is not 

entirely clear, however, that solitary–passive play is never associated with social or 

emotional difficulties. For example, Coplan et al. (2001) reported that observed solitary–passive 

play in kindergarteners was associated with temperamental shyness and 

indices of maladjustment for boys but not for girls. Henderson et al. (2004) also 

reported an association between a high frequency of solitary–passive play and maternal 

reports of temperamental shyness. Such findings may suggest that solitary–passive 

play is not always a matter of preference for solitude. However, because it has been 

suggested that solitary–passive behavior is more a function of low social interest, 

rather than inability for social interaction; and because solitary–passive play involves 

high frequencies of constructive and exploratory behavior, both requiring good posture 

control, motor planning, and coordination, no specific associations were expected 

between high frequency of solitary–passive play and motor abilities. 

Another form of solitary play that has been described in the literature is solitary– 

functional play (Rubin, 1982). 1 This form of solitary behavior involves simple motor 

activities and repetitive motor movements performed with or without objects (e.g., 

repeatedly banging two blocks together, jumping on and off a chair, swinging on a 

swing). It has been suggested that solitary–functional play is the first structural category 

of play to appear in infancy and that through functional play, children come to 

acquire basic motor skills inherent in their daily activities (Piaget, 1962; Smilansky, 

1968). From a motor development perspective, solitary–functional behavior requires 

only low levels of motor planning and execution. In contrast to the expected high 

occurrence of solitary–functional behavior in infants and toddlers, high frequencies 

of solitary–functional play in kindergarten children may imply low levels of play 

development and an increased need for simple motor practice. We hypothesized that 

suboptimal motor development in kindergarten children may induce an increased need 

for simple sensory–motor exploration in the form of solitary–functional play. 

In summary, we expected to find an interaction between motor ability and type of 

play behavior. Specifically, we expected that children with high motor ability would 

display a higher frequency of social play compared with children of low motor ability, 



reflecting the efficient physical support that good motor abilities may provide for social 

interaction. Conversely, children with low motor ability were expected to display a 

higher frequency of social reticence and solitary–functional play compared with children 

with high motor ability. Unlike the expected associations between motor ability 

and social play, solitary–functional play, and reticent behavior, no specific associations 

were expected between solitary–passive play and motor abilities, as solitary–passive 

play involves constructive and exploratory behavior, both requiring good posture 

control, motor planning, and coordination. 

In addition, it is possible that there are effects of context (indoor versus outdoor) 

and gender on children’s frequencies of social and solitary play behavior. For example, 

Spinard et al. (2004) suggested that solitary play exhibited during outdoor activities 

may be less appropriate and less voluntary than this type of behavior during quiet 

indoor activities. With respect to gender differences, there is a growing literature 

indicating that social withdrawal is a greater risk factor for boys than for girls (Caspi, 

Elder & Bem, 1988; Coplan et al., 2001; Dettling, Gunnar & Donzella, 1999; Rubin, 

Chen & Hymel, 1993; Stevenson-Hinde & Glover, 1996). In that respect, an interaction 

between motor ability and gender in predicting solitary behavior may be of 

interest. However, given the scant research data about gender differences and context 

influence on social and nonsocial behavior, and the lack of previous studies on the 

association between motor abilities and nonsocial behavior, hypotheses concerning 

possible context and gender differences were largely exploratory in nature. 

Method 

Participants 

Participants were 88 children (53 girls, 35 boys), recruited from seven randomly 

selected mainstream public kindergarten classes situated in the greater Tel Aviv area, 

Israel. Their mean age was 5.83 years (SD = 0.46; Range = 5.04 to 6.36 years). 

Although approximately half the children in the selected kindergarten classes were 

4-year-olds, age-related norms for several of the motor measures used in the study were 

available starting from five years of age. Therefore, an age of five years or higher was 

set as an inclusion criterion for the study. Parents of all eligible children in each of 

the selected classes were contacted, of whom 68 percent agreed to participate in the 

study. Excluded from the study were four children who, based on their parent reports, 

had auditory or visual impairments, or received treatment for sensory–motor problems. 

By virtue of attending mainstream public kindergartens, none of the children 

included in the study had a major developmental disorder such as Autism or Cerebral 

Palsy. Fifty-six percent of the participants were first-borns. Ninety-five percent of participants’ 

fathers and 98 percent of their mothers reported high school or higher levels 

of education. Eighty-eight percent of the parents were married and living together. 

Procedure and Measures 

Assessment of Social Behavior. Children’s indoor and outdoors behavior was coded 

using selected codes from Rubin’s (2001) Play Observation Scale. Data were collected 

through eight visits to each kindergarten over a period of three months. Observations 

were scheduled for the second semester of the school year to ensure that the children 

had a fair opportunity to adjust to their kindergarten settings, their classmates, and 



their teachers. This provided a familiar context against which to assess children’s social 

behavior. During each visit, each child’s predominant free play behavior was recorded 

for a series of ten-second intervals, summing up to one minute of unstructured play 

indoors and one minute of unstructured play outdoors. Accordingly, a total of 16 

minutes of play data were collected for each child, eight minutes indoors and eight 

minutes outdoors, yielding 96 ten-second coding intervals per child (48 intervals of 

indoor and 48 intervals of outdoor activity). To ensure good understanding of the 

context of the observed activity, each ten-second interval of coding was preceded by 

30 seconds of free observation. A stopwatch was used to beep-signal the initiation and 

termination of the coding interval and behaviors were coded online into standard 

coding sheets. 

During each visit, children were observed in a random order by one of three graduate 

students trained by the first author, who has been trained in use of the Play Observation 

Scale in K. H. Rubin’s laboratory, and achieved criterion levels of reliability. 

Inter-coder reliabilities were calculated on a randomly selected set of coding intervals 

totaling 20 percent of the sampled behavior. Percent agreement for the total variable 

matrix ranged between 93 and 96 percent; Cohen’s kappa ranged between .88 and .95. 

Of specific interest to the present study were the sampled codes of social play (i.e., 

group play and conversation with peers), reticent behavior (i.e., unoccupied and 

onlooking behaviors), solitary–passive play (i.e., solitary–constructive and solitary– 

exploratory behaviors), and solitary–functional play. These raw scores were proportionalized 

by dividing by the total number of coding intervals. 

Assessment of Motor Function. Three trained occupational therapy students, who 

were blind to the study’s hypotheses and goals, administered a battery of motor skills 

assessment at each child’s home. This home visit included standardized assessments 

of balance, kinesthesia, imitation of postures, muscle tone, and visual–motor integration. 

The selected motor tests were chosen so that collectively, they provided a comprehensive 

representation of children’s core motor abilities. That is, the combination 

of posture control (balance and muscle tone), motor planning and execution (kinesthesia 

and imitation of postures), and visual–motor integration. Each home visit lasted 

approximately 60 minutes. 

Balance. The balance subscale of the Bruninks–Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency 

(Bruninks, 1978) is a widely used measure that consists of eight items: (1) standing on 

one foot on the floor with eyes open; (2) standing on a balance beam with eyes open; 

(3) standing with eyes closed; (4) walking forward on a line on the floor; (5) walking 

on a balance beam; (6) heel-to-toe walking on a line; (7) heel-to-toe walking on a 

balance beam; (8) stepping over a stick while walking on a balance beam. The test has 

established age-related norms and shows adequate internal consistency. 

Kinesthesia. The kinesthetic sense arises from joints, tendons, and muscle receptors, 

and provides awareness of body position and movement. Kinesthesia was measured 

using the kinesthesia test (KIN; Ayres, 1980b). In this test, the experimenter 

moves the child’s hand from one predetermined point on a paper chart to another while 

the child’s hands remain out of his or her visual field. The child is then asked to repeat 

the motion on the kinesthesia chart, again without seeing his or her hands. The KIN 

test consists of ten test items, five for each hand. Hands are tested in an alternated 

sequence. 



The KIN score is based on how accurately the child replicates the rehearsed motion, 

measured as the distance in millimeters of the child’s finger from the predetermined 

target points. The raw score is then converted to a standard age-related score. 

Imitation of postures. Children’s ability to perceive and replicate different body 

positions was determined by the Imitation of Postures test (Ayres, 1980b). This test 

requires the child to assume a series of twelve positions or postures demonstrated by 

the examiner. The completion of each task requires motor planning of a familiar or 

unfamiliar motor act. Two points are given for postures that are imitated correctly 

within three seconds after the examiner has assumed the posture. One point is noted if 

the child imitates the posture correctly within four to ten seconds. No points are scored 

if the correct posture is assumed after ten seconds or if it does not meet the criteria for 

a score of one or two points. The raw score of the test is the total number of points noted 

for the 12 items. Raw scores are converted to standard age-related scores. 

Muscle tone (prone extension and supine flexion). To obtain an index of the participants’ 

muscle tone and strength, the children were asked to assume and maintain 

prone extension and supine flexion positions. The prone extension assessment measures 

the child’s ability simultaneously to lift the head, flexed arms, upper trunk, and extended 

legs from a prone–lying position. For the supine flexion assessment, the children were 

asked to assume a position of simultaneous flexion against gravity of the knees, hips, 

trunk, and neck from a supine–lying position, where the top of the head had to 

approximate the knees. The number of seconds a child maintained in each of these 

positions was noted as the raw score. Children’s raw scores of the prone extension and 

supine flexion tests were highly correlated, r = .62; p < .0001. Therefore, the scores of 

the two measures were summed to create an aggregate index referred to as muscle tone. 

The developmental test of visual–motor integration (VMI). The VMI (Beery, 1989) 

consists of 24 geometric forms to be copied in sequence from a test booklet. The 

geometric forms become progressively more complex, and the score continues to 

accumulate until all 24 forms have been successfully copied or until three consecutive 

forms are copied incorrectly. The VMI is designed for children ranging from 2 to 15 

years of age and comes with age-specific norms. 

The VMI contains two supplemental standardized subtests. The first is the 

Visual–Spatial Perception Test assessing visual–spatial perception components 

without the requirement of motor action. On this test, the child is shown a target figure 

and is asked to select a matching figure from a set of two to seven alternatives. The 

test consists of 24 figures that become progressively more complex. A child’s score 

on this test continues to accumulate until all 24 figures have been matched or until 

three consecutive failures in matching occur. The second test is the Fine Motor Accuracy 

Test, in which the child is required to draw a clear, dark line while staying inside 

a set of defined lines. There are 24 configurations that require progressively refined 

motor accuracy and control. 

Because the three subtests of the VMI were significantly correlated with rs ranging 

from .38 to .43, ps < .001, their z-scores were aggregated to form a visual–motor coordination 

index. 

Data Reduction of Motor Function Measures. Table 1 presents the intercorrelations 

among the z-scores of the different motor function measures. Principal component 



Table 1. Intercorrelations (N = 88) between the Different Motor Function 

Measures 

Balance Kinesthesia Imitation Muscle Tone 

Kinesthesia .16 — — — 

Imitation .36*** .56*** — — 

Muscle Tone .31** .22* .17 

VMI .26** .47*** .29** .25* 

*p < .05, **p < .01,***p < .001. 

analysis indicated that all the motor function measures loaded on a single factor with 

Eigen value = 2.25, which explains 44.92 percent of the existing variance. Based on 

the results of the intercorrelations and the factor analysis, we created a global index 

of motor ability by aggregating the z-scores of all tested motor skills (i.e., balance, 

kinesthesia, imitation of postures, muscle tone, and visual–motor coordination). Based 

on their scores on the aggregated motor function index, children were assigned to one 

of three groups. One group consisted of 22 children (11 girls) representing the bottom 

quartile of the distribution on the combined motor aggregate. A second group consisted 

of 22 well-coordinated children (16 girls), featuring in the top quartile of the 

distribution. A third group consisted of 44 children (26 girls) whose scores on the 

combined motor aggregate were in the middle quartiles of the distribution. 

Results 

Effects of Motor Ability, Gender, and Context on Frequencies of Social 

and Solitary Play 

A repeated-measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was computed with Motor 

Ability (low, average, high) and Gender (Male, Female) as ‘between-group’ factors 

and Play Type (Solitary–Passive, Social Play, Social Reticence) as a ‘within-subject’ 

factor. Context (Indoor, Outdoor) served as a repeated ‘within-subject’ factor. 

Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations of social play, solitary–passive 

play, and social reticence proportional frequencies by motor ability group and context. 

Significant main effects of play type and motor ability were qualified by a play-typeby-motor-ability 

interaction, F(4,164) = 3.72, p < .01. In addition, a play-type-bycontext 

interaction was found, F(2,164) = 19.94, p < .0001. Main or interaction effects 

involving gender were nonsignificant. 2 To further assess the above interactions, 

separate follow-up ANOVAs for each play type were performed with motor ability 

(low, average, high) as a ‘between-groups’ factor and context (indoor, outdoor) as a 

repeated ‘within-subject’ factor. 

Social Play. Children displayed higher frequency of social play outdoors (M = .62, 

SD = .21) than indoors (M = .51, SD = .22), F(1,85) = 28.54, p < .001. In addition, 

children with low motor abilities showed lower frequencies of social play (M = .47, 

SD = .37) than children with average and high motor abilities (Ms = .57 and .66, 



Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations (in parentheses) of Social Play, 

Solitary–Passive Play, and Social Reticence Proportional Frequencies by Motor 

Ability Group and Context 

High Motor Mid Motor Low Motor 

Outdoor Indoor Outdoor Indoor Outdoor Indoor 

.74 (.17) .57 (.18) .62 (.20) .52 (.24) .50 (.21) .44 (.20) Social Play 

.10 (.11) .15 (.13) .12 (.10) .13 (.16) .17 (.10) .21 (.15) Social Reticence 

.03 (.06) .11 (.11) .08 (.10) .17 (.18) .05 (.07) .15 (.15) Solitary Passive 

SDs = .26 and .37, respectively), F(1,85) = 5.15, p < .01. The interaction between 

motor ability and context was nonsignificant. 

Social Reticence. Higher frequency of social reticence was displayed indoors (M = 

.16, SD = .15) than outdoors (M = .13, SD = .11), F(1,85) = 4.64, p < .05. Children 

with low motor ability showed a higher frequency of social reticence (M = .19, SD = 

.22) than children with average and high motor abilities (Ms = .12 and .13, SDs = .15 

and .22, respectively), F(1,85) = 3.11, p < .05. The interaction between motor ability 

and context was again nonsignificant. 

Solitary–Passive Play. Higher frequency of solitary–passive play was displayed 

indoors (M = .15, SD = .16) than outdoors (M = .06, SD = .08), F(1,85) = 25.79, 

p < .001. Children in the three motor ability groups did not differ in their frequency 

of solitary–passive play, and no interaction between motor ability and context was 

found. 

Solitary–Functional Play. Because solitary–functional play occurred in less than 3 

percent of coding intervals, and because many children did not display this behavior 

at all, this variable was recoded to create two groups of children (see Coplan et al., 

2001). One group consisted of children who did not demonstrate any solitary– 

functional behaviors (n = 40), the other group consisted of children who demonstrated 

any number of solitary–functional behaviors (n = 48). 

To assess the effect of context (indoor versus outdoor) on the occurrence of 

solitary–functional behavior (‘none’ versus ‘any’), a Chi-square analysis was performed. 

The results show that when solitary–functional play occurred, it occurred 

more outdoors (46 percent) than indoors (31 percent), c 2 = 9.75, p < .01. More importantly, 

additional Chi-square analyses revealed that during outdoor free play, 68 percent 

of the children with low motor ability displayed solitary–functional behavior, whereas 

only 23 percent of children with high motor ability showed this behavior, c 2 = 9.17, 

p < .01 (see Table 3 for cross-tabulations of indoor and outdoor solitary–functional 

behavior by motor ability). During indoors free play, children with low motor ability 

again displayed higher occurrence of solitary–functional behavior (46 percent) compared 

with children with high motor ability (18 percent). This difference however did 

not reach statistical significance, c 2 = 3.90, p = .14. 



Table 3. Cross-tabulations of Indoor and Outdoor Occurrence of Solitary– 

Functional Behavior by Motor Ability 

Indoors Outdoors 

Solitary–Functional Solitary–Functional 

‘none’ ‘any’ ‘none’ ‘any’ 

Low Motor 12 10 7 15 

Mid Motor 31 13 24 20 

High Motor 18 4 17 5 

Consistency of Play Behavior Across Context 

Pearson correlations between indoor and outdoor frequencies of social play, solitary– 

passive play, social reticence, and solitary–functional play revealed significant consistency 

of these play behaviors across context, rs = .63, .34, .47, and .34, respectively, 

ps < .001. 

Discussion 

Taken together, the findings from the present study indicate significant associations 

between social engagement and motor adeptness. Specifically, in accord with predictions, 

children with low motor abilities displayed a lower frequency of social play and 

a higher frequency of social reticence compared with children of average or high motor 

abilities. In addition, children with low motor abilities displayed a higher frequency 

of solitary–functional play compared with children with high motor abilities. Finally, 

as expected, motor abilities were not significantly associated with solitary–passive 

play, suggesting that motor function may not be a major factor in the development of 

this pattern of solitary play behavior. 

High frequency of solitary–functional play typically characterizes infants and young 

toddlers (Piaget, 1962; Smilansky, 1968). Functional play provides young children 

with the opportunity to manipulate objects in a sensory–motor fashion that informs 

them about the physical qualities of objects (Cheah et al., 2001; Hutt, 1970). In 

addition, repetitive sensory–motor behavior normally provides sensory–motor feedback 

that is important to the planning of goal-directed movement (Bundy, Lane & 

Murray, 2002). Developmental deficiencies in motor function may therefore result in 

difficulties obtaining good information about objects as well as poor feedback on body 

motion. From a motor function perspective, children displaying a high frequency of 

solitary–functional play may use repetitive movements to increase their diminished 

sensory–motor feedback and to practice simple motor actions. 

Poor motor ability also makes the physical activity associated with social engagement 

more demanding, and may reduce a child’s capacity to deal with the social 

environment (Smyth & Anderson, 2000). The association between high frequency of 

social reticence and poor motor abilities fits well with the documented links between 

poor balance control and anxiety on the one hand (Balaban & Thayer, 2001; Balaban, 

2002; Sklare, Konrad, Maser & Jacob, 2001), and social reticence and anxiety symp- 



toms on the other (e.g., Rubin & Asendorpf, 1993; Rubin, Chen, McDougall, Bowker, 

& McKinnon, 1995). It may be the case that the observed anxious behavior typically 

tied with social reticence partly reflects low motor abilities. The child with poor motor 

abilities may be motivated towards social interaction, but at the same time may feel 

anxious about the motor challenges posed by social engagement. Such children may 

find themselves onlooking at other children’s play without the ability to motor plan 

and execute the required actions for joining in. Alternatively, they may avoid the motor 

challenges of goal-oriented social behavior and wander about unoccupied. Thinking 

about approach–withdrawal motivational conflicts (e.g., Asendorpf, 1990) from the 

viewpoint of motor development may provide a new and viable approach to the assessment 

and understanding of the factors that drive reticent behavior. 

Neurophysiologic studies also suggest possible links between motor abilities and 

social behavior. It is widely recognized that there are extensive reciprocal connections 

between the pre-frontal cortex (PFC) and the amygdala, and that these two brain structures 

form a circuitry that is highly involved in various aspects of social behavior (for 

reviews, see Amaral, Price, Pitkanen & Carmichael, 1992; Davidson, 2002; Fox, 1991; 

Kagan, 1994). The PFC/amygdala circuitry is also tightly connected to motor planning 

and execution areas in the brain. For example, there is evidence suggesting functional 

associations between the PFC, amygdala, and nucleus accumbens (NAc), the 

latter being described as the brain’s motor-limbic interface (e.g., Goto & O’Donnell, 

2002). These associations seem to play an important role in integrating emotional and 

contextual cues with frontal motor planning, to determine response selection in social 

or otherwise challenging contexts (e.g., Burns, Annett, Kelley, Everitt & Robbins, 

1996; Grace, 2000; Jackson & Moghaddam, 2001). Such transactions between these 

brain structures may be compromised in some clinical conditions. 

One example of a clinical condition that involves both motor and social deficiencies 

is the spectrum of autistic disorders. The clinical profile of these disorders contains, 

among other difficulties, disturbances in reciprocal social interaction (APA, 

1994), and clinically significant motor impairments (e.g., Ghaziuddin, Butler, Tsai & 

Ghaziuddin, 1994; Manjiviona & Prior, 1995; Rinehart, Bradshaw, Brereton & Tonge, 

2001). It should be noted however, that motor difficulties in autism are typically considered 

secondary to abnormal communication and interpersonal relationships. In contrast, 

in DCD, motor difficulties and clumsiness are the defining features. Compared 

with normally coordinated children, children with DCD are reported to display high 

frequencies of onlooking and unoccupied behavior in the playground (e.g., Smyth & 

Anderson, 2000, 2001), higher levels of anxiety (Skinner & Piek, 2001), and poor psychosocial 

adjustment (Dewey, Kaplan, Crawford & Wilson, 2002). Such differences 

in clinical focus may suggest that the comorbidity between social and motor 

deficiencies does not necessarily involve a similar etiology. The findings from the 

present study further suggest that even in a normative population, a mild and nonclinical 

deficiency in motor function may be associated with a significant reduction in 

social engagement. 

The association between motor abilities and reticent behavior and solitary– 

functional play may also imply the possible application of motor-oriented interventions 

for socially withdrawn children. Teachers, parents, and clinicians may wish to 

consider a standard motor evaluation for children displaying excessive frequencies of 

these solitary behaviors. Based on the results of such assessment, sensory–motor intervention 

(e.g., occupational therapy, physiotherapy) may be applied along with conventional 

psychotherapy. For example, a preliminary study in our laboratory revealed 



that twelve sessions of sensory–motor therapy can significantly reduce anxiety symptoms 

in highly anxious children with balance deficiencies (Karmon-Weisman, 2003). 

It is important to note, however, that the design of the present study does not allow 

the inference of causality in the interplay between motor function and social participation. 

Some motor abilities may be regarded as prerequisites for the participation 

in certain social activities. Alternatively, however, social play provides children with 

the opportunity to practice and perfect motor skills. Increased social participation may 

therefore account for the increased motor proficiency in highly sociable children. 

In addition, social behaviors are also influenced by other skills such as language, 

self-regulation, problem-solving ability, and interpersonal cooperation. Normally 

developing children who are poor in motor skills may find alternative strategies, such 

as verbal communication, to achieve social engagement. A more accurate description 

of these elements in relation to motor ability awaits further research attention. 

The present findings also revealed interesting simple main effects of context on play 

behavior. Considerable consistency of play behavior was found across context, 

indicating that children are likely to maintain their relative ranking within the peer 

group in terms of indoor and outdoor frequencies of social and solitary behavior. 

However, children also displayed higher frequencies of social play and solitary– 

functional play outdoors than indoors, and higher frequencies of social reticence and 

solitary–passive play indoors than outdoors. These findings suggest that different 

physical settings may elicit different types of play behavior (Barbour, 1999). 

Spinard et al. (2004) speculated that solitary play exhibited during outdoor 

activities may be less appropriate than this type of behavior during quiet indoor activities. 

Our data indicate that indeed solitary–passive play and reticent behavior were 

more frequent during indoor than outdoor activity. However, in contrast to Spinard, 

Eisenberg, Harris, Hanish, Fabes, and Kupanoff’s (2004) suggestion, solitary– 

functional play was significantly more frequent outdoors than indoors. It could be that 

solitary–functional play, when enacted outdoors, is in fact perceived as appropriate 

and functional. For example, we coded the rather normative actions of solitary swinging 

or bouncing a ball outdoors as solitary–functional play. 

Another aspect of the associations between motor abilities and social and solitary 

behavior is gender differences. Similar to previous studies (e.g., Coplan & Rubin, 

1998; Coplan et al., 1994, 2001; Rubin, 1982) the present study found no gender differences 

in the occurrence of social play, solitary–passive play, reticent behavior, and 

solitary–functional play. In addition, we found no gender differences in the tested 

motor abilities. Furthermore, in the present study, no significant gender differences 

were observed in the pattern of associations between motor ability and social or solitary 

behavior. We therefore conclude that, based on the present data, gender may not 

be a significant contributor to the association between motor ability and social behavior. 

However, the present findings should be interpreted with caution, because sample 

size may have limited the power for detecting gender differences. Fabes, Martin, and 

Hanish (2003) showed that boys’ play is more active, forceful, and stereotyped compared 

to girls’ play, and that this pattern is even more exaggerated in group settings. 

Therefore, boys with low motor abilities may find it more difficult than girls with low 

motor abilities do to participate in active group play. Further research is needed in 

order to clarify this issue. 

In summary, the results of the present study provide preliminary evidence for an 

association between individual differences in children’s motor ability and variations 

in their social and solitary behavior. Specifically, stable individual differences in motor 



capabilities may be viewed as a temperamental factor contributing to the maintenance 

of individual variations in social behavior. An important issue for future research 

would be to assess the neural substrates of the associations between brain areas linked 

with nonsocial and inhibited temperament (e.g., Fox et al., 2001; Fox, Schmidt, 

Calkins, Rubin & Coplan, 1996; Kagan et al., 1988) and activity in specific motor 

control areas. In addition, it would be of interest to assess the relative and combined 

contributions of motor abilities and other important factors that also explain 

individual differences in children’s social and solitary behavior. Specifically, motor 

capabilities should be considered along with more traditionally cited factors such as 

temperament (e.g., Burgess, Marshall, Rubin & Fox, 2003; Fox & Calkins, 1993; Fox 

& Henderson, 1999; Fox et al., 2001; Henderson et al., 2004; Kagan, 1989), parental 

behavior (e.g., Ladd & Golter, 1988; Ladd & Hart, 1992; Rubin, 1995), parent–child 

relationships (e.g., Booth, Rose-Krasnor, McKinnon & Rubin, 1994; Rose-Krasnor, 

Rubin, Booth & Coplan, 1996), cultural beliefs and norms (e.g., Chen, Hastings, 

Rubin, Chen, Cen & Stewart, 1998; Chen, Rubin & Li, 1995; Rubin, 1998), and status 

within the peer group (e.g., Harrist, Zaia, Bates, Dodge & Pettit, 1997; Rubin et al., 

1993). 

References 

Amaral, D. G., Price, J. L., Pitkanen, A. & Carmichael, S. T. (1992). Anatomical organization 

of the primate amygdaloid complex. In J. P. Aggleton (Ed.), The Amygdala: Neurobiological 

Aspects of Emotion, Memory and Mental Dysfunction (pp. 1–66). New York: Wiley. 

APA (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edn). DSM-IV. 

Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association. 

Asendorpf, J. (1990). Development of inhibition during childhood: Evidence for situational 

specificity and a two-factor model. Developmental Psychology, 26, 721–730. 

Asendorpf, J. (1991). Development of inhibited children’s coping with unfamiliarity. Child 

Development, 62, 1460–1474. 

Ayres, A. J. (1980a). Sensory Integration and the Child. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological 

Services. 

Ayres, A. J. (1980b). Southern California Sensory Integration Tests: Manual. Los Angeles, CA: 

Western Psychological Services. 

Balaban, C. D. (2002). Neural substrates linking balance control and anxiety. Physiology and 

Behavior, 77, 469–475. 

Balaban, C. D. & Thayer, J. F. (2001). Neurological bases for balance–anxiety links. Journal 

of Anxiety Disorders, 15, 53–79. 

Barbour, A. C. (1999). The impact of playground design on the play behaviors of children with 

different levels of physical competence. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 14, 75–98. 

Beery, K. E. (1989). The Developmental Test of Visual–Motor Integration (3rd edn). Cleveland, 

OH: Modern Curriculum Press. 

Biringen, Z., Emde, R. N., Campos, J. J. & Appelbaum, M. I. (1995). Affective reorganization 

in the infant, the mother, and the dyad: The role of upright locomotion and its timing. Child 

Development, 66, 499–514. 

Booth, C. L., Rose-Krasnor, L., McKinnon, J. A. & Rubin, K. H. (1994). Predicting 

social-adjustment in middle childhood—the role of preschool attachment security and 

maternal style. Social Development, 3, 189–204. 

Bruninks, R. H. (1978). The Bruninks–Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency. Circle Pines, MN: 

American Guidance Service. 

Bundy, A. C., Lane, S. J. & Murray, E. A. (2002). Sensory Integration: Theory and Practice 

(2nd edn). Philadelphia, PA: F.A. Davis. 

Burgess, K. B., Marshall, P. J., Rubin, K. H. & Fox, N. A. (2003). Infant attachment and temperament 

as predictors of subsequent externalizing problems and cardiac physiology. Journal 

of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 44, 819–831. 



Burns, L. H., Annett, L., Kelley, A. E., Everitt, B. J. & Robbins, T. W. (1996). Effects of lesions 

to amygdala, ventral subiculum, medial prefrontal cortex, and nucleus accumbens on the 

reaction to novelty: Implication for limbic-striatal interactions. Behavioral Neuroscience, 

110, 60–73. 

Campos, J. J., Kermoian, R., Witherington, D., Chen, H. & Dong, Q. (1997). Activity, attention, 

and developmental transitions in infancy. In P. J. Lang & R. F. Simons (Eds.). 

Attention and Orienting: Sensory and Motivational Processes (pp. 393–415). Mahwah, NJ: 

Erlbaum. 

Campos, J. J., Anderson, D. I., Barbu-Roth, M. A., Hubbard, E. M., Hertenstein, M. J. & 

Witherington, D. (2000). Travel broadens the mind. Infancy, 1, 149–219. 

Caspi, A., Elder, G. H. & Bem, D. J. (1988). Moving away from the world: Life-course 

patterns of shy children. Developmental Psychology, 24, 824–831. 

Cheah, C. S., L., Nelson, L. J. & Rubin, K. H. (2001). Nonsocial play as a risk factor in social 

development. In A. Goncu & E. L. Klein (Eds.). Children in Play, Story, and School 

(pp. 39–71). New York: Guilford Press. 

Chen, X. Y., Rubin, K. H. & Li, B. S. (1995). Social and school adjustment of shy and aggressive-children 

in China. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 337–349. 

Chen, X. Y., Hastings, P. D., Rubin, K. H., Chen, H. C., Cen, G. Z. & Stewart, S. L. (1998). 

Child-rearing attitudes and behavioral inhibition in Chinese and Canadian toddlers: A crosscultural 

study. Developmental Psychology, 34, 677–686. 

Coplan, R. J. & Rubin, K. H. (1998). Exploring and assessing nonsocial play in the preschool: 

The development and validation of the preschool play behavior scale. Social Development, 

7, 72–91. 

Coplan, R. J., Gavinski-Molina, M. H., Lagace-Seguin, D. G. & Wichmann, C. (2001). When 

girls versus boys play alone: Nonsocial play and adjustment in kindergarten. Developmental 

Psychology, 37, 464–474. 

Coplan, R. J., Prakash, K., O’Neil, K. & Armer, M. (2004). Do you ‘want’ to play? Distinguishing 

between conflicted shyness and social disinterest in early childhood. Developmental 


Coplan, R. J., Rubin, K. H., Fox, N. A., Calkins, S. D. & Stewart, S. L. (1994). Being alone, 

playing alone, and acting alone—distinguishing among reticence and passive and active 

solitude in young-children. Child Development, 65, 129–137. 

Davidson, R. J. (2002). Anxiety and affective style: Role of prefrontal cortex and amygdala. 

Biological Psychiatry, 51, 68–80. 

Dettling, A. C., Gunnar, M. R. & Donzella, B. (1999). Cortisol levels of young children in fullday 

childcare centers: Relations with age and temperament. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 24, 

519–536. 

Dewey, D., Kaplan, B. J., Crawford, S. G. & Wilson, B. N. (2002). Developmental coordination 

disorder: Associated problems in attention, learning, and psychosocial adjustment. Human 

Movement Science, 21, 905–918. 

Fabes, R. A., Martin, C. L. & Hanish, L. D. (2003). Young children’s play qualities in same- , 

other- and mixed-sex peer groups. Child Development, 74, 921–932. 

Fogel, A. (1992). Movement and communication in human infancy: The social dynamics of 

development. Human Movement Science, 11, 387–423. 

Fox, N. A. (1991). If its not left, its right—electroencephalograph asymmetry and the 

development of emotion. American Psychologist, 46, 863–872. 

Fox, N. A. & Calkins, S. D. (1993). Pathways to aggression and social withdrawal: Interactions 

among temperament, attachment and regulation. In K. H. Rubin & J. B. Asendorpf (Eds.). 

Social Withdrawal, Inhibition and Shyness in Childhood (pp. 81–100). Hillsdale, NJ: 

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

Fox, N. A. & Henderson, H. A. (1999). Does infancy matter? Predicting social behavior from 

infant temperament. Infant Behavior & Development, 22, 445–455. 

Fox, N. A., Henderson, H. A., Rubin, K. H., Calkins, S. D. & Schmidt, L. A. (2001). Continuity 

and discontinuity of behavioral inhibition and exuberance: Psychophysiological and behavioral 

influences across the first four years of life. Child Development, 72, 1–21. 

Fox, N. A., Schmidt, L. A., Calkins, S. D., Rubin, K. H. & Coplan, R. J. (1996). The role of 

frontal activation in the regulation and dysregulation of social behavior during the preschool 

years. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 89–102. 



Ghaziuddin, M., Butler, E., Tsai, L. & Ghaziuddin, N. (1994). Is clumsiness a marker for 

Asperger syndrome?. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 38, 519–527. 

Goto, Y. & O’Donnell, P. (2002). Timing-dependent limbic-motor synaptic integration in 

the nucleus accambens. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 99, 

13189–13193. 

Grace, A. A. (2000). Gating of information flow within the limbic system and the 

pathophysiology of schizophrenia. Brain Research Brain Research Reviews, 31, 330–341. 

Gustafson, G. E. (1984). Effects of the ability to locomote on infant’s social and exploratory 

behavior: An experimental study. Developmental Psychology, 20, 397–405. 

Harrist, A. W., Zaia, A. F., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A. & Pettit, G. S. (1997). Subtypes of social 

withdrawal in early childhood: Sociometric status and social-cognitive differences across four 

years. Child Development, 68, 278–294. 

Henderson, H. A., Marshall, P. J., Fox, N. A. & Rubin, K. H. (2004). Psychophysiological and 

behavioral evidence for varying forms and functions of nonsocial behavior in preschoolers. 

Child Development, 75, 251–263. 

Hinde, R. A., Tamplin, A. & Barrett, J. (1993). Social isolation in 4-year-olds. British Journal 

of Developmental Psychology, 11, 211–236. 

Hutt, C. (1970). Specific and diverse exploration. In H. Reese & L. Lipsitt (Eds.), Advances in 

Child Development and Behavior (pp. 119–181). New York: Academic Press. 

Jackson, M. E. & Moghaddam, B. (2001). Amygdala regulation of nucleus accumbens 

dopamine output is governed by the prefrontal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 21, 676–681. 

Kagan, J. (1989). Temperamental contributions to social-behavior. American Psychologist, 44, 

668–674. 

Kagan, J. (1994). Galen’s Prophecy: Temperament in Human Nature. New York: Basic Books. 

Kagan, J., Reznick, J. S. & Snidman, N. (1987). The physiology and psychology of behavioral 

inhibition in children. Child Development, 58, 1459–1473. 

Kagan, J., Reznick, J. S. & Snidman, N. (1988). Biological bases of childhood shyness. Science, 

240, 167–171. 

Karmon-Weisman, E. (2003). Treatment of Balance Deficiency and its Effect on Children’s 

Anxiety and Self-esteem. Unpublished MA thesis, Tel Aviv University. 

Kochanska, G. & Radke-Yarrow, M. (1992). Inhibition in toddlerhood and the dynamics of 

the child’s interaction with an unfamiliar peer at age five. Child Development, 63, 

325–335. 

Kupersmidt, J. B., Coie, J. D. & Dodge, K. A. (1990). The role of poor peer relationships in 

the development of disorder. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer Rejection in Childhood 

(pp. 274–305). New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Ladd, G. W. & Golter, B. S. (1988). Parents’ management of preschooler’s peer relations: Is it 

related to children’s social competence? Developmental Psychology, 24, 109–117. 

Ladd, G. W. & Hart, C. H. (1992). Creating informal play opportunities: Are parents’ and 

preschoolers’ initiations related to children’s competence with peers? Developmental Psychology, 

28, 1179–1187. 

Lane, S. J. (2002). Structure and function of the sensory system. In A. C. Bundy, S. J. Lane & 

E. A. Murray (Eds.), Sensory Integration Theory and Practice (2nd edn, pp. 35–69). Philadelphia, 

PA: F. A. Davis Company. 

Manjiviona, J. & Prior, M. (1995). Comparison of Asperger syndrome and high-functioning 

autistic children on a test of motor impairment. Journal of Autism and Developmental 

Disorders, 25, 23–29. 

Parham, L. D. & Fazio, L. S. (1997). Play in Occupational Therapy for Children. London: 

Mosby. 

Pellegrini, A. D. & Smith, P. K. (1998). Physical activity play: The nature and function of a 

neglected aspect of playing. Child Development, 69, 577–598. 

Piaget, J. (1962). Play, Dreams, and Imitation in Childhood. New York: Norton. 

Rinehart, N. J., Bradshaw, J. L., Brereton, A. V. & Tonge, B. J. (2001). Movement preparation 

in high-functioning autism and Asperger disorder: A serial choice reaction time task involving 

motor reprogramming. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31, 79–88. 

Rose-Krasnor, L., Rubin, K. H., Booth, C. L. & Coplan, R. (1996). The relation of maternal 

directiveness and child attachment security to social competence in preschoolers. International 

Journal of Behavioral Development, 19, 309–325. 



Rubin, K. H. (1982). Nonsocial play in preschoolers: Necessarily evil?. Child Development, 

53, 651–657. 

Rubin, K. H. (1995). Parents of aggressive and withdrawn children. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), 

Handbook of Parenting, Vol. 1: Children and Parenting (pp. 255–284). Mahwah, NJ: 

Erlbaum. 

Rubin, K. H. (1998). Social and emotional development from a cultural perspective. Developmental 


Rubin, K. H. (2001). The Play Observation Scale (POS). Unpublished Manual, University of 

Maryland. 

Rubin, K. H. & Asendorpf, J. B. (1993). Social withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness in childhood: 

Conceptual and definitional issues. In K. H. Rubin & J. B. Asendorpf (Eds.). Social 

Withdrawal, Inhibition, and Shyness in Childhood (pp. 3–17). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence 

Erlbaum. 

Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. (1998). Peer interaction, relationships, and groups. 

In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Social, Emotional, and Personality 

Development (5th edn, pp. 619–700). New York: Wiley. 

Rubin, K. H., Burgess, K. B. & Coplan, R. J. (2002). Social withdrawal and shyness. In P. K. 

Smith & C. H. Hart (Eds.), Blackwell’s Handbook of Childhood Social Development (pp. 

329–352). London: Blackwell. 

Rubin, K. H., Chen, X. Y. & Hymel, S. (1993). Socioemotional characteristics of withdrawn 

and aggressive children. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 39, 518–534. 

Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R. J., Fox, N. A. & Calkins, S. D. (1995). Emotionality, emotion 

regulation, and preschoolers social adaptation. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 49–62. 

Rubin, K. H., Chen, X. Y., McDongall, P., Bowker, A. & Mckinnon, J. (1995). The Waterloo 

longitudinal propect – predicting internalizing and externalizing problems in adolescence. 

Development and Psychopathology, 7, 751–764. 

Schaaf, R., Merril, S. & Kinsella, N. (1987). Sensory integration and play behavior: A 

case study of the effectiveness of occupational therapy using sensory integrative techniques. 

Occupational Therapy in Health Care, 4, 61–75. 

Skinner, R. A. & Piek, J. P. (2001). Psychosocial implications of poor motor coordination in 

children and adolescents. Human Movement Science, 20, 73–94. 

Sklare, D. A., Konrad, H. R., Maser, J. D. & Jacob, R. G. (2001). Special issue on the interface 

of balance disorders and anxiety: An introduction and overview. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 

15, 1–7. 

Smilansky, S. (1968). The Effects of Sociodramatic Play on Disadvantaged Preschool Children. 

New York: Wiley. 

Smyth, M. M. & Anderson, H. I. (2000). Coping with clumsiness in school playground: Social 

and physical play in children with coordination impairments. British Journal of Developmental 


Smyth, M.M. & Anderson, H.I. (2001). Football participation in the primary school 

playground: The role of coordination impairments. British Journal of Developmental 


Spinard, T. L., Eisenberg, N., Harris, E., Hanish, L., Fabes, R. A., Kupanoff, K., Ringwald, S. 

& Holmes, J. (2004). The relation of children’s everyday nonsocial peer play behavior to their 

emotionality, regulation, and social functioning. Developmental Psychology, 40, 67–80. 

Stevenson-Hinde, J. & Glover, A. (1996). Shy girls and boys: A new look. Journal of Child 

Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 37, 181–187. 

Notes 

1. Solitary–functional play is typically aggregated with solitary–dramatic play to form a category 

labeled solitary–active behavior. In the present study however, we observed practically no incidence of 

dramatizing while playing alone in the company of peers. Therefore, we treated solitary–functional play 

as a separate category. 

2. Although we entered Gender into the analysis as a between-subjects factor, it is important to note 

that the sample size may have prevented a fully adequate assessment of the effect of this variable. We reran 

the above-described analysis with Gender entered as a covariate. The results were practically the same as 

those reported in the text.

Motor Function and Social Participation in Kindergarten Children

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?