Table 1.
Characteristic and psychometric reporting of individual studies.
| Author | Year | Instrument | Objective | Study design | Country | Participant | Rater | Finding |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dender & Stagnitti [108] | 2017 | IPPS | To explore the content and cultural validity for social aspect of the instrument | Qualitative | Australia | 6 pairs of indigenous children (i.e., 12 children) 14 community elders and mothers |
— | The extension instrument is culturally accepted and nonjudgmental. |
| Golchin et al. [109] | 2017 | ChIPPA | To establish the reliabilities, content, and cross-cultural validity of the translated Persian version of the instrument | Cross-sectional (validity) Cohort (reliabilities) |
Iran | 5 occupational therapists 31 typical children |
2 researchers | Internal consistency is α = 0.752. Reliability is excellent for intrarater (ICC = 0.99), interrater (ICC = 0.98) and moderate to strong for test-retest (ICC = 0.69–0.99). Content validity is strong (CVR = 0.81–1.00). |
| Stagnitti & Lewis [129] | 2015 | ChIPPA | To investigate the predictive validity of the instrument on semantic organization and narrative retelling skills using SAOLA | Cross-sectional | Australia | 48 typical and at risk of learning difficulty children | 3 examiners | The instruments predicted 23.8% of semantic organization and 18.2% of narrative retelling skills. |
| Dender & Stagnitti [107] | 2011 | I-ChIPPA | To investigate the cultural appropriateness of the adapted instrument and its reliability | Qualitative Cross-sectional |
Australia | 23 indigenous Australian children (i.e., 12 pairs) | 4 indigenous children | Cultural adaptation is satisfactory. The toys were found to be gender-neutral (p > 0.05). Overall, interrater reliability on toy use is moderate (ICC = −0.33–1.00). |
| Pfeifer et al. [120] | 2011 | ChIPPA | To establish the cross-cultural validity and reliability of the translated Portuguese version of the instrument | Cross-sectional | Brazil | 14 typical children | 1 occupational therapy student and 1 supervisor | Validity is established where the play material and duration are appropriate with the Brazilian context. Intrarater reliability is good (r = 0.90–0.97). Interrater reliability is moderate (r = 0.13–0.76). |
| McAloney & Stagnitti [117] | 2009 | ChIPPA | To investigate the concurrent validity of the instrument | Cross-sectional | Australia | 53 typical children | 1 researcher | Significant negative correlation was found between play and social. |
| Uren & Stagnitti [128] | 2009 | ChIPPA | To investigate the construct validity of the instrument | Cross-sectional | Australia | 41 children of typical or minor disabilities | 5 teachers | There is probable evidence on construct validity of the instrument Penn Interactive Peer Play Scale (PIPPS) and Leuven Involvement Scale for Young Children (LIS-YC) where several components were significantly moderately correlated. |
| Swindells & Stagnitti [127] | 2006 | ChIPPA | To investigate the construct validity of the instrument | Cross-sectional | Australia | 35 typical children | 2 researchers | Interrater reliability is strong (k = 0.7). There is probable evidence on construct validity of the instrument with Vineland Social-Emotional Early Childhood Scales; overall not significant but certain aspects were found significantly correlated. |
| Stagnitti & Unsworth [124] | 2004 | ChIPPA | To establish test-retest reliability of the instrument | Longitudinal | Australia | 38 typical and developmental delay children | 1 researcher | Test-retest reliability is moderate to strong (ICC = 0.57–0.85). |
| Stagnitti et al. [125] | 2000 | ChIPPA | To ascertain the discriminant validity and interrater reliability of the instrument | Cross-sectional | Australia | 82 typical and preacademic problem children | 3 occupational therapists | Interrater reliability is excellent (k = 0.96–1.00). Discriminant validity is established (p < 0.001) |
| Sposito et al. [123] | 2019 | Knox PPS | To verify the reliabilities of the Brazilian version of the instrument | Cross-sectional | Brazil | 135 typical children | 2 undergraduate occupational therapy students | Overall, the internal consistency is good (α = 0.48–0.95). Overall intrarater reliability (k = 0.18–0.99) is reported to be moderate to excellent and interrater reliability (k = −0.03–0.71) is moderate. |
| Pacciulio et al. [119] | 2010 | Knox PPS | To investigate the reliability and repeatability of the Brazilian version | Cohort | Brazil | 18 typical children | 2 examiners (one is the researcher; no further detail) | Strong intrarater correlation between the two occasions (r = 0.87–1.00). Strong interrater correlation between the two examiners (r = 0.78–0.99). |
| Lee & Hinojosa [116] | 2010 | Knox PPS | To establish the interrater and concurrent validity of the revised version of the instrument | Cross-sectional | United States of America | 61 children with autism | 2 researchers | Interrater reliability is excellent (ICC = 0.94) and construct validity with VABS is moderate (r = 0.52, p < 0.01). |
| Jankovich et al. [112] | 2008 | Knox PPS | To establish the interrater and construct validity of the revised version of the instrument | Cross-sectional | United States of America | 38 typically developing children | 2 occupational therapy students | Interrater agreement is high (81.8%–100%). Higher agreement was achieved on observation of older than younger children. Construct validity showed higher agreement between chronological and average play age for older than younger children. |
| Harrison & Keilhofner [111] | 1986 | Knox PPS | To determine the interrater and test-retest reliability and validity of the original instrument | Cross-sectional (interrater; concurrent validity) Longitudinal (test-retest) |
United States of America | 60 disabled preschool children | 3 observers (detail not mentioned) | Overall interrater reliability is substantial (ICC ≈ 0.67). Overall test-retest correlation is strong (r = 0.55–0.97). Concurrent validity indicates that the instrument correlates moderately with Parten's Social Play Hierarchy (kTau = 0.60–0.64) and Lunzer's Scale on Organization of Play Behavior (kTau = 0.50–0.89). The instrument correlated moderately with age (r = 0.01–0.91) for disabled children but strongly with typical children. |
| Bledsoe & Sheperd [102] | 1982 | Knox PPS | To determine the inter-rater, test-retest reliability and validity of the revised instrument | Cross-sectional (inter-rater; concurrent validity) Longitudinal (test-retest) |
United States of America | 90 typical children | 2 researchers cum observers | Overall, the inter-rater and test-retest yielded satisfactory correlation. Concurrent validity indicates that the instrument correlates moderately with Parten's Social Play Hierarchy and Lunzer's Scale on Organization of Play Behavior. The construct validity indicates that the instrument is correlated strongly with age. |
| McDonald & Vigen [118] | 2012 | McDonald Play Inventory | To examine the content, construct and discriminative, validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability of the instrument | Cross-sectional (validities, internal consistency) Longitudinal (test-retest) |
United States of America | 124 children 17 parents |
Self/proxy-rating 7 children (test-retest) |
Content validity is overall moderately correlated between items. Construct validity found that the instrument can discriminate between typical and disabled children. Concurrent validity between parent-child rating has low to moderate correlation (r = 0.04–0.49). Test-retest was strongly correlated (r = 0.69–0.82) between two time points. Internal consistency: α = 0.79–0.84. |
| Schneider & Rosenblum [122] | 2014 | My Child's Play | To describes the development, reliability, and validity of the instrument | Cross-sectional | Israel | 334 mothers | — | Concurrent validity with Parent as a Teacher Inventory is fair (r = 0.33; p < 0.001). Factor analysis established construct validity (αs = 0.63–0.81). Gender (girls>boys) and age were significantly different in score. Internal consistency: α = 0.86. |
| Lautamo & Heikkilä [113] | 2011 | PAGS | To investigate the interrater reliability of the instrument | Cross-sectional | Finland | 78 typical and atypical children | 12 professionals (teachers, occupational therapist, physiotherapist) | MFR on expected agreement (44.1%) and the observed agreement (50.8%) with Rasch kappa of 0.12. |
| Lautamo et al. [115] | 2011 | PAGS | To evaluate the validity of the instrument for use with children with language impairment over typical children | Cross-sectional | Finland | 156 typical and language impairment children | Proxy-rating (teachers, special education teachers, nurses, physiotherapist, occupational therapist) | The analysis found significant difference between the two groups, but 80% of the items are considered stable. |
| Lautamo et al. [114] | 2005 | PAGS | To determine the construct validity of the instrument | Cross-sectional | Finland | 93 typical and atypical children | Proxy-rating (teachers, special education teachers, nurses, occupational therapist) | The construct validity of the instrument is established by internal scale validity, and person response validity achieved strong goodness of fit value. |
| Behnke & Fetkovich [101] | 1984 | Play History Interview | To determine reliability in terms of interrater and test-retest and validity of the Play History Interview | Cross-sectional (interrater; concurrent validity) Longitudinal (test-retest) |
United States of America | 30 parents with nondisabled or disabled children | 2 researchers cum raters | Concurrent validity with Minnesota Child Development Inventory is overall moderate to strong. Known-group validity is able to discriminate between disabled and nondisabled children (p < 0.01). Interrater reliability is moderate to strong while test-retest has fair to strong correlation. |
| Sturgess & Ziviani [126] | 1995 | Playform | To explore the consistency on rating the instrument between three groups of rater | Cross-sectional | Australia | 13 children 13 parents 1 teacher |
— | Qualitatively, the rating between the three groups is relatively similar; parents scored slightly more positive than the children, but teachers are the most positive. |
| Bundy et al. [106] | 2009 | T-TUM | To investigate the translatability of the instrument to practice known as T-TUM (ToP+TOES Unifying Measure) | Cross-sectional | United States of America | 265 atypical children | — | At least 92% of the outcomes were within the limit for goodness of fit. The reliability enhanced to α = 0.96 for T-TUM. |
| Brentnall et al. [103] | 2008 | ToP | To evaluate the validity of instrument rating over different lengths and point of time | Cross-sectional | United States of America | 20 typical children | 3 researchers cum raters | Different time points have no significantly different observation outcome (p = 0.204) but significantly different than longer observation time (p < 0.001) but provide no added information. Longer observation time has poorer test-retest value (ICC = 0.033) compared to shorter time (ICC = 0.408–0.668). |
| Rigby & Gaik [121] | 2007 | ToP | To investigate the stability of the instruments over three different settings | Cohort | United States of America | 16 children with cerebral palsy | 1 researcher | The score showed significant difference across the three settings (i.e., home, community, and school) (p < 0.05). The children are most playful at home and least playful at school. |
| Hamm [110] | 2006 | ToP + TOES | To examine the validity and reliability of the instruments with children with and without disabilities | Cross-sectional | United States of America | 40 children with and without disabilities | 2 trained raters | Interrater agreement is 100%. Item response validity is 100%, and internal scale validity is 100%. There is less playfulness but higher correlation of the instrument with children with disabilities than without disabilities. |
| Bronson & Bundy [104] | 2001 | ToP + TOES | To evaluate the validity of the two instruments | Cross-sectional | United States of America | 160 children with and without disabilities | 10 raters (not specified) | The reliability is acceptable: α = 0.77. TOES construct validity is acceptable (94% fit). The environment (i.e., TOES) is correlated significantly with playfulness (i.e., ToP) (r = 0.401; p = 0.01). The TOES has significant difference between typical and disabled children (z = 2.96; p = 0.05). |
| Bundy et al. [105] | 2001 | ToP | To investigate the construct and concurrent validity and interrater reliability of the instrument | Cross-sectional | United States of America | 124 children (typical and special education) in total | 26 occupational therapists | Construct validity explained 93% of the items unidimensional construct on playfulness. Concurrent validity with Children's Playfulness Scale was found to be moderate (r = 0.46; p < 0.001). Interrater reliability achieved 96% consensus. |
| Okimoto et al. [130] | 1999 | ToP | To investigate the reliability and validity of the instrument | Cross-sectional | United States of America | 54 videotaped mother-CP-child dyad | 3 occupational therapists | The reliability is 97.5% fit within the acceptable range. The instrument was found to be sensitive to change. |
ChIPPA: Child-Initiated Pretend Play Assessment; I-ChIPPA: Indigenous ChIPPA; IPPS: Indigenous Play Partner Scale; Knox PPS: Revised Knox Preschool Play Scale; PAGS: Play Assessment for Group Setting; ToP: Test of Playfulness; TOES: Test of Environmental Supportiveness; T-TUM: ToP-TOES Unifying Measure.