Children’s Utilization of Toys is Moderated by Age-Appropriateness, Toy Category, and Child Age

Abstract

Play during childhood is essential to growth and learning. Little is known about whether categories of toys moderate play behaviors at different ages, or how children interact with toys that are simple, appropriate, or complex for their developmental level. Two hundred and forty-three children between the ages of 1 and 8 years, divided into four age groups, played with toys that were targeted to their age group as well as toys aimed at one age group younger and older. Toys fell into nine different categories. Whether children fully utilized each toy was evaluated. Analyses examined how children’s utilization of toys was affected by the age-appropriateness of the toy, the category of toy, and the child’s age. Considering all age groups and toys, children were less likely to fully utilize toys targeted toward older children than age-appropriate toys, but this effect was moderated by the toy category and the child’s age.

From building a tower of blocks, to playing “house” with a doll, to sharing a game of checkers with a friend, children’s play has historically been described as a “leading source of development” (Vygotsky, 1967, p. 6) and is implicated consistently as a crucial component of children’s healthy cognitive and social growth (Bergen, 2002; Bornstein, 2007; Ginsburg, 2007; Scarlett, 2005; Trawick-Smith & Dziurgot, 2011). Much of the time that children devote to play involves toys and other child-directed products (Glassy & Romano, 2003). A systematic study of children’s play with a variety of toys that are age-appropriate compared with toys that are intended for younger or older children has not yet been undertaken. Understanding how children play with different categories of toys of varying developmental levels has implications for developmental theory as well as for how caregivers select toys. Research of this nature can also yield valuable safety information about toys; if children of a certain age can fully utilize a toy that is intended for older children, manufacturers and government safety regulators should take note to ensure that the toy is constructed to withstand reasonably foreseeable uses and abuses by younger children.

Why Study Age Appropriateness

Developmental theory.

Piaget (1962) long ago proposed three broad stages in the development of play—sensorimotor play, symbolic play, and games with rules, which are widely accepted as the standard progression of play complexity across childhood. Sensorimotor play lasts throughout infancy and early toddlerhood and entails manipulating objects for the purpose of exploration (e.g., mouthing, fingering, hitting, shaking objects). During the second year, children enter into symbolic play, or play that is more abstract in nature. In imaginary play, a toy can represent a real-world object, and gestures can represent real-life actions. Symbolic play peaks in prevalence around 4 years of age, starting to decline after age 7 (Lillard, 2015). Between 7 to 12 years of age, children begin to set their own a priori rules and regulations, and engage in games with rules, such as board games or basketball (Scarlett, 2005).

No research documents what children do during Piaget’s stages of development when given a toy that may be appropriate for a child of a different age. For example, if given a tea set, presumably a 4-year-old would play with it in the symbolic play Piaget suggests, but would an 8-year-old make the tea set into a game with rules? Furthermore, it is unclear whether children of different ages regularly utilize toys designed for their own or another age group in their intended ways.

In addition, current developmental theory does not focus on the moderating effect that toy category may have on children’s play. A toy category can be described as a group of toys that have similar functions and uses. For example, consider the multitude of toys available in the current U.S. marketplace; The Toy Industry Association (2017) categorizes toys into the following groups when tabulating yearly sales data: Building, Vehicles, Games/Puzzles, Outdoor & Sports, Arts & Crafts, Dolls, Action Figures, Plush, Infant/Toddler/Preschool, and Other. An online search of toy retailers yields an astounding variety of options available in each of these categories for children over a range of ages. The traditional progression of play during childhood outlined by Piaget disregards the categories of toys that children have, particularly given the variety of toys available today. Hence, it is likely that children’s play complexity at different ages is moderated by the category of toy with which they play.

Depending on the goal of the research, prior studies of play have typically provided children with either (a) toys from one chosen category or (b) a standard set of toys from a variety of categories. Regarding toys from one category, Corter and Jamieson (1977) gave 14- to 16-month-olds bug-shaped figurines with different degrees of movable parts; Kimmerle and colleagues conducted a similar study with 7- to 13-month-olds. Similarly, Robinson and Jackson (1987) provided 4-year-olds with small wheeled vehicles with varying degrees of detail; Olzweski and Fuson (1982) gave 3- to 5-year-olds dolls that were either simple (wooden cylinders) or complex (eyes, nose, mouth, eyebrows, etc.). Likewise, another study aimed to determine age differences in behavior sequences with a tea set in children from 7 to 20 months, with the authors documenting the progression and growth of symbolic play with the tea set during this time frame (Fenson, Kagan, Kearsley, & Zelazo, 1976). These studies aimed to measure how these same-category toys affected and changed children’s play behaviors.

Regarding a standard set of toys, one play scale used in numerous studies to trace the progression of nonsymbolic to symbolic play from infancy to toddlerhood simultaneously provided participants with a tea set, doll, telephone, book, ball, blocks, nesting cups, and a vehicle (Bornstein, 2007; Bornstein, DiPietro, Hahn, Painter, Haynes, Costigan, 2002; Bornstein, Selmi, Haynes, Painter, & Marx, 1999; Tamis-LeMonda & Bornstein, 1991). Another coding scheme measuring affect expression during play with elementary school children provided participants with two puppets and three blocks (Russ, 2014). When adapting this coding scheme for preschool-age children, the authors used different toys determined as “age-appropriate … easy for young children to manipulate and play with” (Kaugars & Russ, 2009, p. 741). The toys included stuffed animals, plastic animals, a car, and a rubber ball. Overall, these studies aimed to understand how children played with a mix of toys from a variety of categories. Yet, no research to date in the field of developmental science has teased apart play with toys from a standard set of categories while controlling for differing age appropriateness.

Toy safety.

Each year, approximately 260,000 children under the age of 12 in the United States visit emergency rooms with injuries resulting from playing with a toy (EPHA; Tu, 2012). One organization that is involved in efforts to ensure the safety of children’s products is the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The U.S. Congress charged the CPSC, as well as manufacturers and third-party testing laboratory partners, with guaranteeing that all products and toys are constructed to withstand use by children to whom a product will appeal and for whom it is purchased, providing some protection and prevention of physical injury. Before testing is performed to identify potential safety hazards to children, however, CPSC staff from the Division of Human Factors (ESHF) first determine the appropriate ages of potential users. For example, toys for children younger than 3 years of age must meet the testing requirements under the Small Parts Regulation (1979), which essentially bans toys with small parts that pose choking, ingestion, or aspiration hazards. In addition, the Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Toy Safety (ASTM F963-11) sets safety requirements for different age groups during testing—such as limiting cord length and magnet strength. Given the importance of child age in determining toy safety standards, research should be done on children’s play with toys from a variety of categories that are age appropriate and age mismatched to further explore what categories of toys are appropriate in different age groups.

In addition to implications for government regulation of toy safety, this study has implications for parents, teachers, and caregivers when providing toys to children. Children are often around toys that are not perfectly age appropriate for them due to the presence of their sibling’s toys, mixed-age child care settings, or toys that are never put away after the child passes through the manufacturers’ suggested age range. This research could make some suggestions about toys that are able to be used by children across a large range of development safely.

The Current Study

The aim of the present study was to better understand how children in varying age groups use age-appropriate and age-inappropriate toys from various categories. As such, we were particularly interested in whether children used toys as intended by the manufacturer during their play. Given our interest in determining how category of toy moderates children’s play at different ages, the current study included nine categories of toys, presented one category at a time, to investigate toy play in a controlled and systematic manner.

It is likely that child play differs by both toy category and child age. One method for teasing apart relations between toy category and child age in resulting play is to observe children when playing with age-appropriate toys as well as toys appropriate for younger and older children from a single toy category. Doing so makes it possible to identify differences in the way children play with age-appropriate versus age-inappropriate (younger or older) toys.

Taking this design a step further, we conceptualized a matrix where the age of the child constitutes the columns, and rows represent categories of toys (see Table 1). As Kaugars and Russ (2009) alluded when adapting a play scale for a different age group, age-appropriateness of toys is also relevant to how children play. Within each cell of this matrix, there is a multitude of toys appropriate for any given age group and toy category. We observed children’s play with a toy from one cell of the matrix within their age column, one from the younger age column, and one from the older age column, holding toy category constant. Doing so, we aimed to map how play behaviors differ by toy category and age, noting significant differences in play complexity that emerge when children play with toys that are less mature, age appropriate, or more mature for them.

Table 1.

Toy category by age category matrix with example toys

	6-11 months	1-1.5 years	1.6-2 years	3-5 years	6-8 years	9-12 years
Exploratory Toys	Plastic keys; Soft manipulative cube	Wooden toy with flapping flower petals; Manipulative with nylon cords and moveable beads	Board with detachable magnet gears; Bubble gun	Moldable Styrofoam; Wooden flaps secured in a line with a ribbon	--	--
Building Toys	Soft cube blocks; Rubber suction cups	Large foam blocks; Wooden magnetic building blocks	Small rubber suction cup building toys; Wooden train with stackable pieces	Building brick set with figurines; Plastic building rods and dowels	Carnival ride building set with figurines; Robotic magnetic building cubes	Motorized amusement park ride building set; Animal tiny brick building set with multi-animal options
Games & Puzzles	Shape sorter; Soft tacker with rainbow colored rings	Large wooden knob puzzle; Soft fishing game	Plastic nesting cups with rattle ball; Wooden peg board shape sorter	Magnet puzzle; Handheld water game with button and ball-in-baskets objective	Light up follow the light pattern game; 3D plastic maze ball	Battery-powered trivia game; 3D building puzzles
Instructional Toys	Orange flip phone with buttons; Soft peek-a-boo book with lift-able flaps	Spinning letter/number/animal learning toy; Play touch screen phone	Board book; Large activity cube	Wooden abacus; Foam letter magnets with white board	Science kit; Wipeable crayons and learning mats	Electronic circuit board; Architecture kit
Sports, Recreational, & Outdoor Equipment	Textured rubber balls; Tiny basketball hoop	Push toy; Small indoor slide	Bowling set; Spiked light up balls	Velcro throw and catch mitts; Crawl-through tunnel	Bean bags with target; Stomp rocket	Ping pong set; Slingshot
Imaginative Play	Baby doll; Stuffed dog	Play vacuum; Plastic tea set	Dinosaur toy; Doll and stroller	Play fruit; Dancing yellow figurine	Puppet theater; Animatronic interactive animal	--
Small Vehicles	Plastic train with removeable pieces; Rollable figure with squeaky head	Wooden cars with plastic wheels; Talking truck	Remote control truck; Firetruck with moveable ladder, siren, and bubble blower	Wind up figurines; Large plastic airplane with cargo carrier	Plastic motorcycle with figurine rider; Race track with crank that propels car	--
Arts & Crafts	--	Chunky animal marker; Gel writable boards	Finger paint; Tack board	Moldable clay; Coloring book and crayons	Wooden yarn loom; Magnetic art board	Origami kit; Learn to draw booklet
Musical Toys	Chime ball; Musical touch pad	Wooden xylophone with mallet; Plastic musical guitar	Plastic horn; Whistle	Battery powered drum pad; Floor piano	Wooden ukulele; Karaoke machine	Wooden violin with bow and carrying case; Keyboard with multi-instrument and effects buttons

Note. Shaded cells consist of toys that fell outside of the age groups of children in this study. These toys were used as “younger” toys for the youngest age group and “older” toys for the oldest age group.

-- = No toys were appropriate for the age group and toy category.

An experimental design that systematically compares play with different toy categories across several ages with toys matched and mismatched for age appropriateness is unique. The current study filled this gap in the literature. Children aged 1–8 years played with toys from nine toy categories that were (a) young for their age group, (b) age appropriate, and (c) old for their age group. We hypothesized that children would be more likely to use age-appropriate toys as intended than those geared toward older children. Although in some cases it could be possible for children to use a toy not as intended, for the purposes of our study, we aimed to understand toy usage as intended to fully elucidate age-appropriate behavior with different categories of toys.

Regarding the contrast between age appropriate toys and toys geared toward younger children, we did not have a directional hypothesis. Considering only the motor and cognitive demands of toys, children of any age should be able to use toys as intended that were designed for younger children. However, toys suitable to younger children may be less interesting to them than age-appropriate toys, and children may lose interest before they fully utilize them. This line of thinking yielded a subsidiary research question of whether children playing with toys meant for younger children are equally, more, or less likely to fully utilize these toys than age-appropriate toys.

Method

Participants

Participants were 243 healthy, typically developing children, aged 1-8 years, grouped into the following four age brackets: 1-1.5 years (12-18 months; 43% female), n = 60; 1.6-2 years (19-35 months; 54% female), n = 61; 3-5 years (36-71 months; 50% female) n = 62; and 6-8 years (72-107 months; 47% female), n = 60. Child age groups were chosen to conform to current safety guidelines for children’s play with toys (e.g., children under 18 months cannot have long strings on their toys (ASTM Standard F963, 2011); children under 36 months are at-risk of choking on small parts (The Small Parts Regulation, 1979)), as well as play progression throughout childhood (e.g., exploratory play is common through age 18 months, moving into pretense play through the toddler and preschool years, and then rule-based play around age 6 (Lillard, 2015; Piaget, 1962). The children in the sample were 49% female and 58% White, Non-Hispanic, 18% two or more races, 9% African American, 8% Asian American, and 7% White, Hispanic. About half (48%) of children were first/only children in their families at the time of the study. Up to two children per family could participate in the study. Parents (93% mothers) completed questionnaires about family and child characteristics. All families lived in a large mid-Atlantic America metropolitan area, and children came from largely intact (89% married) families with highly educated mothers (95% earned a bachelor’s degree or higher). Prior to the conduct of these studies, Institutional Review Board approval was received at [institution blinded] under protocol #15-CH-N196: “Determining Age Appropriateness of Children’s Products and Toys”.

Toy Selection

Four developmental scientists chose the toys for the study and categorized them into 9 toy categories and 6 age groups, the middle 4 of which cover the age range of the children in this study. The two additional age groups (6-11 months and 9-12 years) were included to have toys appropriate for children younger than the youngest and older than the oldest in the study. Toys in each age group were selected to include classic and novel exemplars in each toy category based on (1) developmental theory, (2) children’s motor, cognitive, and socioemotional capabilities in each age group, and (3) the toy manufacturers’ suggested age. In addition, the authors had to ensure that there were not too many toys that were similar to each other in any given toy category and age group (e.g., all of the 3-5 age group of pretend category toys could not consist entirely of play food). There was no interrater reliability process for choosing specific toys because there needed to be some flexibility in the choice of the toys to ensure not only a variety within the categories as noted above, but also a mixture of classic and more contemporary toys (e.g., wood blocks vs. magnetic blocks).

Toys were assigned to one of nine toy categories according to the primary function of the toy: (1) exploratory, (2) construction, (3) games and puzzles, (4) instructional, (5) sports and recreational equipment, (6) imaginative play, (7) small vehicles, (8) arts and crafts, and (9) musical (see Table 1 for examples of each category by age group). Six of these categories are very similar to those used by the Toy Industry Association (2017); in addition, we identified three additional categories of toys in the marketplace through extensive research online, through toy safety regulations, and in toy catalogs: musical, instructional, and exploratory toys. Each toy type identified by the Toy Industry Association was represented in the study and given to the participants. These nine categories also span the standard sets of toys used in most studies on play. For example, the tea set, doll, telephone, book, ball, blocks, nesting cups, and vehicle used by Bornstein and colleagues (1999) are encompassed in these categories. Toys were chosen to represent classic as well as contemporary options from each category to more fully represent the toys children may encounter in their play environments (e.g., the games & puzzles category included a standard 12-piece wooden puzzle and three-dimensional plastic puzzle maze).

A matrix of child age group x toy category was formed by assigning toys to categories and age groups (Table 1). Within each cell of this matrix, three toys were chosen to represent the expected age for which the toy would be appropriate. We chose 3 potential toys for each category because each category could be represented by many different toys and we did not want a single idiosyncratic toy to skew the results. One cell in the matrix for children aged 1-8 years is empty because, for the exploratory toys category for the 6- to 8-year age group, it was determined that there were no age-appropriate toys. The result was a 35-cell matrix (9 categories x 4 age groups, minus 1 cell for 6- to 8-year exploratory toys). Extensive discussion and research resulted in the total selection of 105 toys that were age-appropriate to 1- to 8-year-old children (35 cells X 3 toys each).

When possible, children in the youngest (1-1.5 years) and oldest (6-8 years) age groups were given toys that were appropriate for younger (6-12 months) and older (9-12 years) children, respectively (shaded cells in Table 1). If no such toys were available (e.g., there were no appropriate arts and crafts toys for 6- to 12-month-olds or small vehicles or imaginative play toys for 9- to 12-year-olds), one additional age-appropriate toy was substituted so that three toys were presented in each condition. These additional 25 toys for 6 to 12 months and 20 toys for 9 to 12 years were selected in the same manner as those above. After these additional toys were added to the matrix, the study included 150 toys.

About 19% of toys were placed outside of their manufacturer’s suggested age range because they were determined to be developmentally appropriate for a different age. Of these, several (7%) were labeled by toy manufacturers as appropriate for 3 years or older, possibly because of potential for choking on small parts. Toy manufacturers may consider information other than developmental age-appropriateness (e.g., marketing data, manufacturing issues, safety concerns, etc.) to develop age guidelines for particular toys. When toys were placed in a younger age group than recommended by the manufacturer, potential hazards (long cords, small parts, magnets) were removed, and toys were fully functional without these potential hazards. If a hazard was removed from a toy, the toy without hazards was given to all age groups using the toy so that the toy was uniform across the age groups. Each toy was rated on two, 6-point continuous Likert-type scales for both masculinity and femininity (35% double coded for reliability; masculinity ICC=.89, femininity ICC= .95). Ninety-five percent of toys were rated as having little masculine or feminine stereotyping.

Planned Missing Data Design

Because young children have a limited attention span (even for toys), and we wanted to test a large number of diverse toys, we employed a three-form planned missing data design (Graham, Taylor, Olchowski, & Cumsille, 2006; Little & Rhemtulla, 2013) that limited the number of toy categories tested with each child. In this design, data are collected in four blocks (X, A, B, and C), and each participant is assigned one of three forms (XAB, XAC, or XBC). The X block is collected from all participants, and two of the three A, B, and C blocks are collected across a portion of participants in a counterbalanced fashion. Parents of all participants completed demographic information and questionnaires (see below), which became the X block (see Little & Rhemtulla, 2013). In this study, the toy categories were grouped into three blocks of three (A = construction, instructional, and imaginative, B = exploratory, sports, and musical, and C = games and puzzles, small vehicles, arts and crafts). Each child was randomly assigned two of the three toy blocks (AB, AC, or BC), and therefore each child was tested on six of the nine toy categories. Planned missing data were handled using multiple imputation. More details follow in the Preliminary Analyses and Analytic Plan.

Procedure

Families learned about the study through mailings, flyers posted on community boards, and snowball recruiting. Before visiting the laboratory, mothers completed a packet of questionnaires about family demographic information and the child’s temperament, motor skills, and language development. When families arrived, two experimenters spent time with the parent and child in a waiting area until parent and child were comfortable. Once all parties were ready to begin, the experimenters lead the dyad into a laboratory play room outfitted with a low table and chair (with one exception: the table was removed for 1- to 1.5-year-olds). Toys were presented at this table (or on the floor for 1- to 1.5-year-olds), but children were told that they could play anywhere in the 248-square foot room. Play was audio and video recorded through one-way glass and a ceiling camera.

Children older than 1.5 years played by themselves with one category of toy at a time from each of the six toy categories (either the AB, AC, or BC toy blocks) they were assigned. During this child solitary play session, the mother sat nearby, refrained from interacting with the child, and completed questionnaires. Children aged 1 to 1.5 years old were permitted to play with their parent (all mothers) during the play session, and they were instructed to play as they would normally play together. This difference in methods was adopted because (a) at this age, it is difficult to have mothers stay uninvolved in play but still reassuringly close by and (b) it is rare for 1- to 1.5-year-olds to play without adult participation in naturalistic settings. In addition, children at this age were only permitted to play with their mothers because children’s play with mothers has been shown to be markedly different than with fathers during infancy (Crawley & Sherrod, 1984; Lindsey & Mize, 2001; MacDonald & Parke, 1986; Power, 1985; Power & Parke, 1983) and by eliminating this difference in the sample, we could ensure more consistency during the play session.

For each of the six toy categories within the two toy blocks, children were given a 5-min trial to play with three toys: one from the age group just younger than their age, one from their own age group, and one from the age group just older than their age. For example, in the construction category, a 30-month-old child was given one construction toy that was assigned to the 1- to 1.5-year-old age group, one that was assigned to the 1.6- to 2-year-old age group, and one that was assigned to the 3- to 5-year age group. One min before the end of the trial, the experimenter gave the child a verbal warning that this set of toys would be removed and another set presented. This procedure was repeated for six toy sets. The toys were counterbalanced within categories so that any set of three toys in a given category was presented the same number of times throughout data collection (e.g., plain wood blocks were not always presented with the plastic interlocking bricks). The order of presentation of each of the six toy categories was also randomized across participants (e.g., an equal number of children received sports toys as their first trial, an equal number received games and puzzles as their second trial, etc.).

Behavioral Coding

The aim of this research was to categorize toys by the appropriate age group for the child. As such, we were particularly interested in whether children could use the toys as intended during their play at the session. Of course, it is possible that children benefit from using toys not as intended, but when gauging age appropriate play, we focused on toy use that was intended when the toy was designed. As such, we do not focus in this paper on how children may use toys unconventionally (e.g., using a toy car as a boat).

Intended use of toys.

For each toy, researchers composed three written narrative statements: (a) behaviors indicating that the child “fully utilized” the toy as intended, (b) behaviors that “partially utilized” the toy, and (c) behaviors that “did not utilize” the toy. For example, when playing with a puzzle with knobs, fully utilizing would necessitate putting the pieces back in the correct wells; partially utilizing would involve attempting to put pieces back in wells, but failing; and not utilizing would entail picking up pieces of the puzzle and throwing them like a ball. In total, there were 450 use-of-toy statements (3 statements for 150 toys). Each toy statement was formulated to be able to be achievable in approximately 1 to 2 min.

To ensure that toy intended use statements were complete and accurate, two independent coders assessed each of the 450 statements on a scale of 1-6 (1 = inaccurate, 6 = accurate). Coders agreed that toy descriptions were accurate (a score of 5 or 6) on 431 (96%) of the statements. The remaining 19 (4%) statements received a score of 3 or 4 by one or both coders, and these toy descriptions were revisited and amended to achieve 100% agreement.

Utilization of toy.

After the intended use of toy statements were determined and validated, they were printed and put in a binder for coders to reference when watching the videos. Each play session was watched by the coders, and children’s play with each of the toys was categorized into one of the toy’s three intended use statements (i.e., fully utilizing (2), partially utilizing (1), or not utilizing (0), according to the intended use statements in the binder. Coders also noted if the child did not play with the toy for more than 5 s. Two independent coders were first trained to reliability on 8% of the sample, then double-coded an additional 14% of the sample, evenly distributed across the four age groups. Reliability cases were checked periodically throughout behavioral coding. Reliability in categorizing level of utilization was good, Cohen’s κ=.81.

Because we were primarily interested in whether the child could fully utilize the toy, we recoded the utilization of toy code to either fully utilized (1) or not fully utilized (0; this category included children who were previously coded as partially utilizing and not utilizing). We also constructed a variable to indicate whether the child played with the toy (1) or did not play with the toy (0) so that we could circumscribe analyses to children who played with the toys.

Covariates

To supplement behavioral coding, we collected information from parents through surveys and interviews to gather a more comprehensive picture of the child’s characteristics that could affect their utilization of the toys. In addition to family demographics, parents completed the following questionnaires.

Temperament.

Parents of 1- to 2-year-old children filled out the Early Childhood Behavior Questionnaire—Very Short Form (ECBQ-VSF; Putnam, Jacobs, Gartstein, & Rothbart, 2010), and parents of 3- to 8-year-old children filled out the Children’s Behavior Questionnaire—Very Short Form (CBQ-VSF; Putnam & Rothbart, 2006). Both temperament questionnaires assess three elements of temperament: Surgency (activity level, lack of shyness), Negative Affect (fear, anger), and Effortful Control (inhibitory control, attention focusing). Items are rated on a 7-point array, and each scale is computed as the average of the 12 items that make up the scale. The three factors of temperament measured by the ECBQ and CBQ have satisfactory internal consistency and criterion validity for children in the age range of our sample (Putnam et al., 2010; Putnam & Rothbart, 2006). Cronbach’s alphas in our sample exceeded .70 for all scales (except negative affectivity on the ECBQ, which had an α = .55).

Motor skills and communication level.

Parents completed two portions of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales—Second Edition (VABS-II) Parent/Caregiver Rating Form (Sparrow, Cicchetti, & Balla, 2005), yielding two domains—communication skills and motor skills. Each domain has high internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and convergent validity (Sparrow et al., 2005). The VABS is approved for use for ages 0 to 90 years, and as such, provides age-standardized scores. Standardized scores were calculated for each participant based on reference groups surveyed during development of the measure (Sparrow et al., 2005).

Familiarity with toy.

At the end of the testing session, all the toys the child played with were presented again to parents to report on whether (1) or not (0) their child had previously played with that particular toy before their toy play session.

Preliminary Analyses and Analytic Plan

All missing data (i.e., both planned and unplanned missing data) were multiply imputed using the R (R Core Team, 2017) package PcAux (Lang, Little, & PcAux Development Team, 2017). The PcAux package implements the methods of Howard, Rhemtulla, and Little (2015) to create principled multiple imputations via sequential regression imputation that uses principal components regression (PCR) as the elementary imputation method. Because of the large proportion of missing information in our planned missing data design, 100 datasets were imputed using PCR (Graham, Olchowski, & Gilreath, 2007). Detailed discussions of the algorithms implemented by PcAux is beyond the scope of this manuscript; interested readers are referred to Enders (2010), Little, Jorgensen, Lang, and Moore (2014), and Lang and Little (2016) for reviews of multiple imputation (MI) and its relative strengths, to Van Buuren (2012) and Van Buuren, Brand, Goothuis-Oudshoorn, and Rubin (2006) for further information about the sequential regression approach for MI, and Hastie, Tibshirani, and Friedman (2009) for an introduction to PCR.

In all analyses that follow, we considered maternal education and child gender, temperament (negativity, surgency, effortful control), communication and motor skills, and familiarity with the toy as potential covariates. However, none of these variables had significant or practically important relations with fully utilizing the toys, r_pooled (11,827) = −.01 to .07, ps = .450 to .000, so we did not control these variables in the analyses. Some correlations lacked practical importance because the effect sizes were very small. For example, the largest correlation was .07, which was statistically significant because of the large number of toys explored across age groups. However, even the largest covariate correlation (r = .07) shared less than 1% of the variance with fully utilizing the toys, so the covariates were deemed inconsequential in the analyses.

For the main analyses, the multiply imputed dataset was exported from R into SPSS 24 (IBM, 2016). First, we explored the proportions of children who played with toys appropriate to younger children, children their age, or older children, by age group and toy category. Then, we excluded toys that were not played with and assessed whether children were more likely to fully utilize toys that were age appropriate versus appropriate to younger and older children. We computed a Toy Category (9) x Age Group (4) x Age-appropriateness (3) generalized linear model with logit link function. Within-subject variance was accounted for by modeling each participant’s toy trials as a repeated effect. Because some sibling pairs participated in the study and they may have similar toy experiences at home, we also included a repeated effect for family to account for within-family variance. Significant interactions were exposed by exploring age-appropriateness effects within toy categories and age groups. SPSS reports statistics that pool across multiply imputed datasets for most statistical analyses, but pooled statistics are not available for Wald’s tests in generalized linear models. Hence, we report the range of those statistics across imputations.

Results

Playing with the Toys

Table 2 shows the proportions of children who played with toys in younger, age appropriate, and older categories for 5 s or more by child age group and toy category. Overall, nearly two-thirds of children played with the toys. With a few exceptions, at least half of the children played with the toys in each category. Overall children were slightly more likely to play with age appropriate toys than those designed for younger children, Wald χ²s(1) = 248.16 - 524.89, ps < .001, but play varied across age groups, age appropriateness of toys, and toy categories, Wald χ²s(41) = 275.75 - 593.22, ps < .001. In other words, most toys were played with for 5 seconds or more by the child participants and had a high utilization rate.

Table 2.

Proportions of children who played with toys by age group and age-appropriateness of the toys

	Age-appropriateness	1-1.5 yrs	1.6-2 yrs	3-5 yrs	6-8 yrs	All children
Exploratory	Younger	.54	.71	.57	--	.61
	Age appropriate	.73	.60	.64	--	.66
	Older	.57	.55	--	--	.56
Construction	Younger	.61	.52	.48	.49	.52
	Age appropriate	.60	.59	.51	.56	.56
	Older	.64	.62	.61	.55	.61
Games & Puzzles	Younger	.73	.70	.58	.72	.68
	Age appropriate	.69	.56	.72	.61	.65
	Older	.56	.74	.57	.58	.61
Instructional	Younger	.58	.59	.67	.58	.61
	Age appropriate	.58	.72	.55	.74	.65
	Older	.77	.58	.73	.85	.73
Sports & Recreation	Younger	1.00	.76	.73	.54	.76
	Age appropriate	.76	.72	.60	.71	.70
	Older	.71	.55	.74	.73	.68
Imaginative	Younger	.56	.58	.54	.57	.56
	Age appropriate	.59	.58	.62	.74	.64
	Older	.59	.59	.67	--	.62
Small Vehicles	Younger	.58	.57	.55	.71	.60
	Age appropriate	.57	.55	.75	.66	.63
	Older	.60	.72	.59	--	.63
Arts & Crafts	Younger	--	.72	.55	.55	.61
	Age appropriate	.78	.54	.60	.58	.62
	Older	.58	.61	.56	.49	.56
Musical	Younger	.70	.75	.60	.58	.66
	Age appropriate	.73	.58	.58	.58	.62
	Older	.58	.60	.60	.75	.63
All Toys	Younger	.66	.66	.59	.59	.62
	Age appropriate	.67	.61	.62	.65	.64
	Older	.62	.61	.63	.66	.63

Note. -- = No toys were appropriate for the condition.

Fully Utilizing the Toys

To standardize comparison of play, we only analyzed children who had a utilization score on each toy, which meant that the child played with the toy for 5 s or more. After excluding toys that were not played with for at least 5 s, the 9 Toy category X 4 Age group X 3 Age-appropriateness generalized linear model revealed a significant 3-way interaction, Wald χ²s(42) = 303.48 - 765.72, ps < .001, as well as significant 2-way interactions between Toy category and Age-appropriateness, Wald χ²s(16) = 96.63 - 229.88, ps < .001, and Age group and Age-appropriateness, Wald χ²s(6) = 78.91 - 206.76, ps < .001, in each of the 100 imputed datasets. Hence, we computed separate generalized linear models for each toy category and age group to assess the contrasts between older vs. age appropriate toys and younger vs. age appropriate toys. Proportions of children who fully utilized toys by age group and toy category appear in Table 3, and pooled unstandardized regression coefficients and standard errors are presented in Supplementary Table S1.

Table 3.

Of children who played with the toys, the proportions of children who fully utilized toys by age group and age-appropriateness of the toys

	Age-appropriateness	1-1.5 yrs	1.6-2 yrs	3-5 yrs	6-8 yrs	All children
Exploratory	Younger	.49a	.70a	.47	--	.56
	Age appropriate	.71ab	.41a	.54	--	.56a
	Older	.29b	.29	--	--	.29a
Construction	Younger	.15a	.41	.50	.38	.35
	Age appropriate	.44a	.43	.36	.34	.40a
	Older	.39	.28	.31	.21	.30a
Games & Puzzles	Younger	.13	.27a	.58	.66	.40
	Age appropriate	.20	.55ab	.45	.55a	.43a
	Older	.37	.32b	.32	.10a	.28a
Instructional	Younger	.36a	.60	.66	.59a	.56
	Age appropriate	.60a	.67a	.62a	.37ab	.56a
	Older	.68	.34a	.19a	.06b	.31a
Sports & Recreation	Younger	.69a	.47	.60	.49	.57
	Age appropriate	.39a	.59	.50	.59a	.52a
	Older	.55	.40	.55	.21a	.43a
Imaginative	Younger	.48	.41	.63	.62	.53
	Age appropriate	.36	.53	.66	.74	.59
	Older	.52	.48	.60	--	.54
Small Vehicles	Younger	.41	.49	.49	.52	.47
	Age appropriate	.50	.45	.48	.53	.52a
	Older	.38	.42	.39	--	.40a
Arts & Crafts	Younger	--	.34	.41	.60a	.44
	Age appropriate	.42	.37	.48a	.34a	.41 a
	Older	.40	.34	.29a	.20	.31a
Musical	Younger	.49	.43	.47	.56	.48
	Age appropriate	.40	.32	.45	.51	.42
	Older	.32	.36	.48	.65	.47
All Toys	Younger	.41	.46	.54	.56	.49
	Age appropriate	.45	.49a	.50a	.53a	.49a
	Older	.44	.36a	.40a	.24a	.37a

Note. -- = No toys were appropriate for the condition. Bolded proportions that share subscripts within age group and toy category conditions were significantly different.

Utilizing age appropriate toys vs. older toys.

We hypothesized that children would fully utilize age appropriate toys significantly more than those judged to be appropriate for older children. Aggregating across all age groups, children were more likely to fully utilize age appropriate toys than toys appropriate for older children in every toy category except imaginative and musical toys (last column in Table 3). When aggregating across all toy categories, children were more likely to fully utilize age appropriate toys than toys appropriate for older children in every age group except the 1- to 1.5-year-olds (last row in Table 3). Therefore, when aggregating across age group and toy category, children were more likely to use toys as intended if the toy was aimed at their age group compared to toys aimed at an older age group. However, these effects were moderated by age group and toy category.

Individual cells of the matrix in Table 3 indicate that the pattern of relations differs by age group and toy category. Children were more likely to fully utilize age-appropriate toys than toys meant for older children for only 8 out of 32 individual contrasts (otherwise, there were no differences in level of utilization between age-appropriate and older toys). Across age groups, there were no differences in the likelihood of fully utilizing age-appropriate and older construction, imaginative, small vehicle, or musical toys (see rows in Table 3). However, 1- to 1.5-year-old children were more likely to fully utilize age-appropriate exploratory toys than those appropriate to older children; 1.6- to 2-year-olds were more likely to fully utilize age-appropriate games and puzzles and instructional toys than those appropriate to older children; 3- to 5-year-old children were more likely to fully utilize instructional and arts and crafts toys than those for older children; and 6- to 8-year-old children were more likely to fully utilize age-appropriate games and puzzles, instructional, and sports and recreation toys than those appropriate to older children. Thus, results revealed that children’s ability to utilize toys aimed at an older age group is highly dependent on the category of toy with which the child is playing. Additionally, in some cases, the age of the child will also make a difference when making the leap to playing with a toy for the subsequent age group. Overall, our hypothesis was partially supported.

Utilizing age appropriate toys vs. younger toys.

We inquired whether children would be more, equally, or less likely to fully utilize toys that are geared toward younger children compared to age-appropriate toys. Collapsing across both toy category (last row in Table 3) and age group (last column in Table 3), there was never a significant difference in the proportions of children who fully utilized an age appropriate toy than a younger toy. In other words, collapsing across toy category and age group, children were just as likely to fully utilize toys for younger children as age-appropriate toys.

When disaggregating age groups and toy category and looking at the individual cells inside of the matrix of Table 3, the pattern of age appropriate = younger utilization held for 26 out of the 34 contrasts (76%). The pattern was particularly consistent for the imaginative, small vehicles, and musical toy categories, as it held within all the contrasts in these categories regardless of age group.

Out of the eight contrasts that showed a difference in utilization between age appropriate and younger toys, four indicated that children were less likely to fully utilize younger toys than age-appropriate ones and four indicated that children were more likely to fully utilize younger toys than age-appropriate ones. Specifically, 1- to 1.5-year-old children were more likely to fully utilize age-appropriate exploratory, construction, and instructional toys than those appropriate to younger children, but they were more likely to fully utilize sports toys appropriate to younger children than their own age group; 1.6- to 2-year-old children were less likely to fully utilize age-appropriate exploratory toys than younger toys, yet they were more likely to fully utilize age-appropriate games and puzzles than those appropriate to younger children; and 6- to 8-year-old children were less likely to fully utilize age appropriate instructional and arts and craft toys than those appropriate to younger children. Overall, then, when there was a difference in usage between age appropriate and younger toys, half of the time children were more likely to use the younger toys as intended, and the other half of the time children were more likely to use the age appropriate toys as intended, depending on the category of toy and the child’s age.

Discussion

Our study systematically investigated how children play with nine categories of age- appropriate and inappropriate toys from infancy into the school-age years. Previous research has never before fully investigated how children play with toys across so many categories and so many age groups. Children’s play appears to depend on the child’s age, the age appropriateness of the toy, and the category of toy with which the child plays.

There was partial support for our main hypothesis that children would fully utilize age-appropriate toys more than toys appropriate for older children. When collapsing across age groups and toy categories, age-appropriate toys were more likely to be fully utilized than toys appropriate for older children. For example, 2-year-olds had difficulty completing games and puzzles appropriate for 3- to 5-year-olds. However, this effect was also moderated by age group and toy category, indicating that the developmental level of the child and the categories of toys engaged with influence the child’s ability to fully utilize a toy. For example, in three toy categories – imaginative, small vehicles, and musical instruments – age-appropriateness of the toy had no bearing on the likelihood of children in any age group fully utilizing the toy. As another example, for the youngest age group (1 to 1.5 years), there was no difference in the likelihood of fully utilizing toys that were age appropriate and appropriate for older children (except for exploratory toys).

From the perspective of developmental theory, the study results suggest that play is not a purely developmental phenomenon that unfolds in the child independent of the categories of toys children play with as Piaget (1962) and Vygotsky (1967) proposed. Although children are more likely to fully utilize toys that are age appropriate rather than appropriate to older children, when aggregating across age groups, child play appeared to be moderated by the toys played with. Some categories of toys, like imaginative ones, are equally likely to be fully utilized, regardless of their age-appropriateness or child age. Perhaps fully utilizing imaginative toys is related more to individual differences in pretense abilities or preference for pretense play than age-appropriateness per se. Other toy categories, like instructional toys, had relatively strong age-appropriateness effects across age groups. Instructional toys likely have the highest cognitive requirements of all toy categories, which may limit abilities of children of a given age to fully utilize instructional toys that are appropriate for older children.

Regarding how children would utilize toys that were meant for younger children, aggregate data indicated no differences in the level of utilization between age-appropriate and younger toys. One exception to this general trend emerged among the 1- to 1.5-year-olds, where exploratory, construction, and instructional toys appropriate for younger (6- to 11-month-old) children were less likely to be fully utilized than age-appropriate toys. Perhaps more rudimentary younger toys are less appealing and quickly abandoned for more age-appropriate toys in this age group, particularly if the mother playing with her child in this age group steered her child away from toys she may have assessed as too babyish for her child. It is also possible that children in this age group were especially good at using age-appropriate toys in the exploratory, construction, and instructional categories because those toys have features that are especially attractive to them, such as sound potential and moving parts (Corter & Jamieson, 1997), when compared to the 6- to 11-month-old toys.

Applications and Implications

Children’s play with various categories of toys across development is important from scholarly and theoretical perspectives, as well as to parents, toy manufacturers, and government stakeholders, such as the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). CPSC staff first decide what age a potential user may be, then conduct testing for safety hazards to that age group. Toys intended for children younger than 3 years cannot have small parts that can cause choking. Playing with toys that are too young for oneself generally holds few safety consequences because toys intended for younger children are subject to strict safety regulations. The more important finding is that in most cases (24 of 32 individual contrasts) children are able to fully utilize toys that are aimed at the age group above them at the same rate as an age-appropriate toy, particularly within imaginative toys, small vehicles, and musical toys. Whereas the proportion of children who fully utilized older toys was never greater than that for age-appropriate toys, the proportions of children who fully utilized the age-appropriate and older toys were similar in 75% of the cases. Even though a doll with accessories is rated for children ages 3+, children 1.6 to 2 years of age still play with the toy and are able to use it as intended. This is somewhat alarming, especially because many of our toys had hazards removed for the experiment. However, children are realistically potentially experiencing these hazards when playing with their toys, especially if parents or caregivers were unaware of toy safety hazards, or are around toys that belong to older siblings, classmates, or friends.

The way that children play with age appropriate and inappropriate toys is also useful for parents, teachers, and caregivers curating toys for children. Children are often placed in different-age toy environments, whether at home with siblings, in mixed-age child care arrangements, or when adults do not put away toys after the child passes through the age suggested on a label of any given toy (if the manufacturers’ suggested age can even be recalled). Prior research suggests that parents with children from toddlerhood to the elementary school years are looking to increase learning, creativity, social skills, and problem solving during play with toys (Fisher, Hirsh-Pasek, Golinkoff, & Gryfe, 2008; Gallup, 2017). Our research suggests if parents or caregivers are looking for toys that will be able to be used by children from a wide span of ages, then small vehicle, imaginative, and musical instrument toys may be the most versatile.

Limitations and Future Directions

This study is one of the first to comprehensively assess play across a wide age range of children with a large variety of contemporary toys. The study has some limitations nonetheless. Because we used three toys to represent each toy category in each age group, and children received only six of the nine toy categories, there was a high proportion of missing information. However, using a planned missing data design with principal components regression and 100 imputed datasets, the relative efficiency of the parameter estimates was always greater than 99%, suggesting that the number of imputations was sufficient. Planned missing designs are controlled to ensure that the data are missing completely at random (MCAR), and MCAR data are very well recovered with multiple imputation (Graham et al., 2006; Little & Rhemtulla, 2013). Children could not be presented with all the toys in the study, but our method allowed inclusion of 150 toys in nine categories. Another potential limitation of the study is the relatively high socioeconomic status (SES) of the families. Children varied in age and ethnicity, but they were recruited from a mid-Atlantic metropolitan area in the USA that has a high average level of education. Studies of children in lower-SES families may yield different results regarding the age-appropriateness of toys. Additionally, children the results of this study could be completely different in populations of children who are not typically developing, and should be studied further. Likewise, it is possible that the children in our study had individual differences that were not measured in our temperament, communication, and motor skill questionnaires that could have an effect on the way the child played with the toy. In addition, children in the study had only a fixed amount of time to play with each toy, even though we accommodated time limitations by ensuring utilization statements could be completed in less than 5 min. Also, we coded for using toys as intended to answer the research questions of the study, but it is possible that other useful and advantageous behaviors can occur when children are not using toys as intended. Our coding system did not differentiate between unconventional use of toys and not being able to utilize the toy, and additional coding could reveal some unconventional uses of toys that can be associated with learning and creativity. It is also possible that the age appropriateness statements that were used to judge full utilization of the toy missed some still age-appropriate behaviors that could also happen when children play with the toy, as several behaviors can occur outside of the toy intended use statements. Additionally, this study was conducted in a laboratory setting with a specific procedure which could limit generalizability to naturalistic play settings (e.g., only being able to choose between three toys for play; not having any peers or siblings with whom to play). Finally, the 1- to 1.5-year-olds were the only age group to play with a parent. Hence, it is possible that parents moderated the toy interactions, allowing this age group to play similarly with toys that were age appropriate and geared toward older children. Future research could investigate this possibility within the framework of Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (1978), particularly how parents may help children fully utilize toys that are relatively more difficult to use.

Upcoming research should continue to examine the age-appropriateness of toys given to children. We gave children toys that were intended for the age group just above them. Our research suggested that in many cases children were just as capable of utilizing toys that were meant for children an age group older as they were an age-appropriate toy. It is possible that starker contrasts would appear when children play with toys that are two or more age groupings above them. In addition, this study researched how children played with three toys from the same category, but differing age appropriateness, but other results could have surfaced if children played with three toys from different categories but similar age appropriateness.

In addition, future research should operationalize the qualities of the toys themselves (e.g., sound potential, moving parts) and analyze relations between these features and children’s toy utilization, the amount of time children spend with the toys, or whether children combine toys when playing with them. It is possible that certain age groups of children are particularly drawn to noisemaking toys, or toys that have many pieces, and as such, are more likely to utilize them. In addition, some children did not spend any time at all with a toy, while others spent the entire 5-minute session on a single toy. Understanding why children spent so much time (or no time at all) with any given toy warrants additional consideration. Children who do not play with toys may be doing so because the toy is age inappropriate for them (either too boring, or too frustrating for them) or also because the other toys they were given during that trial were more novel to them and something they had never seen before. Toys have unique qualities that may lend themselves to different degrees of utilization, and their features should be studied further.

Conclusions

Toys are ubiquitous in the lives of children, and clear information about how child age and toy category affect children’s play is sorely needed for researchers, parents, caregivers, toy manufacturers, and safety regulators. This study is the first to demonstrate that children often play with and can fully use toys that were designed for both older and younger children but that child play is heavily dependent on the toy category. These results advance scholarly knowledge and contribute to the health, safety, and development of children.