Best Practices in Play Assessment and Intervention

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Best Practices in School Psychology V In the PIECES assessment, children play freely for 30–45 minutes and can be videoed. They are not required to produce any specific behaviors with any specific toys. The procedures are dissimilar from Linder’s TPBA in that the child usually plays alone and without any facilitation on the part of adult observers. Parents and a session facilitator are present and free to praise the child and to repeat what the child says, but are instructed not to ask questions or suggest new play behaviors. Because the PIECES focuses exclusively on cognitive development, a multidisciplinary team of observers, while certainly allowable, is not necessary. With regard to the coding guidelines, Linder’s TPBA and the PIECES are similar in that the guidelines are broken down into multiple scales examining different domains of cognitive development, although the specific domains differ. The PIECES coding scheme contains one core subdomain (exploratory/pretend play) as well as several supplemental subdomains (see Table 1). The supplemental subdomains (e.g., problem-solving skills and planning, categorization, quantitative skills) are adapted versions of several of Linder’s subscales. The PIECES coding guidelines differ from TPBA in that the 13-item sequence that makes up the exploratory/pretend play core subdomain was drawn not from Linder but instead from the extensive empirical literature on the development of play (Belsky & Most, 1981; Fenson, 1984, Lyytinen, 1991; Tamis-LeMonda, Bornstein, Cyphers, Toda, & Ogino, 1992). In the PIECES coding system, every play behavior produced by the child can be classified on the core subdomain whereas the supplemental subdomains are reserved for specific types of behaviors (such as trial-and-error problem solving, sorting, and drawing), which may or may not occur in any given play session. The information obtained from this coding procedure is then compared to norms for typically developing children to determine if the child has specific areas that require intervention. Interventions are targeted at the core and/or supplemental subdomain skills found to be discrepant from peers. Research on Play Assessment Emerging evidence for the validity of various forms of play assessment has been reported in several studies. Support for the validity of PAS was established by Eisert and Lamorey (1996), Fewell and Rich (1987), and Finn and Fewell (1994). In these studies, PAS was found to correlate with standardized and nonstandardized measures of cognition, communication, motor skills, and adaptive behavior. Two published studies have reported on the validity of Linder’s TPBA model. The Myers et al. (1996) study of social validity found that parents and early childhood professionals preferred TPBA model to more traditional information yielded from standardized tests. Kelly-Vance, Needelman, et al. (1999) found a high correlation between scores from the Bayley Scales of Infant Development II and the cognitive development guidelines from Linder’s TPBA. In addition, one unpublished dissertation examined the concurrent and content validity and the test–retest and interrater reliability of TPBA and found it adequate (Friedli as cited in Athanasiou, 2007). A study of a more general form of play assessment found adequate validity when comparing a brief play assessment scale to measures of development (Farmer-Dougan & Kaszuba, 1999). Thus, while there is a smattering of publications on play assessment measures, much more work needs to be conducted to meet the current standards of reliability and validity, particularly in light of the fact that such techniques are explicitly listed as an alternative assessment method in the NASP Position Statement on Early Childhood Assessment (NASP, 2005). Table 1. Core Subdomain and Supplemental Subdomains Assessed in PIECES Subdomain Levels Description Core . Exploratory/pretend play 13 Ranges from mouthing and simple manipulation to extended sequences of pretense Supplemental . Problem-solving skills and planning 12 Ranges from simple search for a hidden object to complex means-end problem solving . Categorization skills 19 Ranges from simple combinations based on perceptual similarity to complex classification based on nonperceptual features . Quantitative skills 10 Ranges from counting 1–5 to recognizing and labeling all numbers 0–9 . Drawing skills 21 Ranges from scribbling to drawing and/or copying complex forms and shapes . Seriation abilities 11 Ranges from understanding of basic dimension terms (e.g., big) to seriation of four or more objects 552 Chapter 33, Volume 2
This lack of research motivated us to begin a systematic examination of the psychometric properties of play assessment. We began with the development of coding guidelines. Our goals in the development of these guidelines were to develop a system of assessment that would thoroughly evaluate a child’s skills in the cognitive domain, would lead directly to the development of appropriate interventions to be implemented in the context of play, and would easily allow for monitoring the effectiveness of these interventions. As discussed above, we began with the most popular form of play assessment, Linder’s TPBA, and adapted her coding guidelines to include information drawn from extensive basic research on play. The resulting PIECES guidelines have been evaluated empirically and found to have high interrater reliability (Kelly-Vance & Ryalls, 2005). In addition, this high interrater reliability was achieved with a relatively simple training procedure. That is, individuals with a background in observational techniques can be trained to accurately and reliably use these guidelines to assess play behavior with as little as a half day of training (Kelly-Vance, Gill, et al., 1999; Kelly-Vance et al., 2000). In addition to work developing psychometrically sound coding guidelines, we have also worked to develop a play assessment procedure that is both practical, from the perspective of practitioners and families, as well as valid and reliable. Our procedure, again initially based on Linder’s technique, was briefly described above. In developing this procedure, we have empirically examined a number of session characteristics and identified a process that is effective as well as easily and accurately reproduced. We have investigated numerous procedural aspects including toy selection (Cherney et al., 2003), facilitation versus nonfacilitation (King, McCaslin, Kelly-Vance, & Ryalls, 2003), the familiarity of the context (Drobny, 2003), and the impact of the presence of a peer (Fredenberg, 2004; Mendez, 2005). We have also examined other important attributes such as test–retest reliability (Kelly-Vance & Ryalls, 2005), correlations with other standardized measures (Fiscus, 2006), and use with special populations (Gill-Glover, McCaslin, Kelly-Vance, & Ryalls, 2001; Johnson, 2005; Kelly-Vance, Needelman, et al., 1999). How to Conduct a Play Assessment Because the PIECES is the only approach that has been empirically tested to this degree, we believe it to be best practice at this time. We have focused on developing a procedure that is both valid and reliable and is practitioner friendly. While we believe this method to be best practice, the model allows for flexibility in ensuring that the procedures are appropriate for each individual child. The basic structure described below should be used, but adaptations for specific referral concerns should be taken into account. Session Characteristics Play Assessment and Intervention Context One of the many positive characteristics of play assessment is that it can be conducted in a variety of settings such as home, daycare, preschool, or laboratory. We have consistent results when play assessments conducted in the home were compared to those in a laboratory setting (Drobny, 2003); however, the child’s comfort level should be considered when selecting the location and interpreting the findings. Selection and Organization of Toys When selecting toys for play assessment it is important to make sure that the toys are appropriate for the age, assumed developmental level, and gender of the child being assessed. While it is commonly recognized that children of different ages/developmental levels may choose to play with different types of toys, it is important to keep in mind that boys and girls also have preferences and these preferences may have an impact on the outcome of the assessment. By 2 years of age, children display preferences for certain types of toys (O’Brien & Huston, 1985). That is, boys and girls tend to prefer to play with toys that are stereotypically consistent with their own gender. While both boys and girls show this tendency, research has shown that this tendency is more pronounced for boys (Cherney et al., 2003). Specifically, Cherney and colleagues found that while boys played with predominantly male stereotyped toys (e.g., cars and trucks), girls played predominantly with neutral toys (e.g., puzzles and cash register). More importantly, for both boys and girls, it was found that the male stereotyped toys elicited the simplest forms of play and the female stereotyped toys (e.g., dolls and kitchen set) elicited the highest levels of play. Thus, when conducting a play assessment the school psychologist should ensure that a variety of toys that are gender appropriate are available and encourage children to play with toys that have the potential to elicit more complex forms of play. In addition to the types of toys present, the arrangement of the toys must also be considered. For Chapter 33, Volume 2 553
Page 1 and 2: 33 OVERVIEW Best Practices in Play
Page 3: practice. These three approaches ar
Page 7 and 8: RTI’s conceptual three-tiered mod
Page 9 and 10: feeding the dog, and then petting t
Page 11 and 12: Linder, T. W. (1993b). Transdiscipl

Best Practices in Play Assessment and Intervention

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?