Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
KEY WORDS
evaluation
development
pediatrics
play
OBJECTIVE. Interrater agreement and construct validity of the Revised Knox Preschool Play Scale (RKPPS)
were examined.
METHOD. Two separately trained raters evaluated 38 typically developing children, ages 36 to 72 months.
For each child, the raters observed two 15-min free-play sessions.
RESULTS. For the overall play age, the scores of the two raters were within 8 months of each other 86.8% of
the time; for the 4 dimension scores, they were within 12 months of each other 91.7% to 100% of the time; and
for the 12 category scores, they were within one age level of each other 81.8% to 100% of the time. Construct
validity results showed a general match between the childrens chronological ages and their overall play age
scores.
CONCLUSIONS. Findings suggest that two raters can score the RKPPS with some consistency and that
scores on this measure progress developmentally, thus supporting its construct validity.
Jankovich, M., Mullen, J., Rinear, E., Tanta, K., & Deitz, J. (2008). Revised Knox Preschool Play Scale: Interrater agreement
and construct validity. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 221227.
221
Method
Participants
A convenience sample of children from the greater Seattle
area participated in this study. This sample consisted of 38
children, 17 boys and 21 girls. Seven boys and 7 girls were
36 to 48 months old; 6 boys and 11 girls were 48 to 60
months old; and 4 boys and 3 girls were 60 to 72 months
old. All children involved in the study were typically developing, had parental consent, and gave verbal assent to participate in the study. A child information form completed
by a parent was used to determine whether a child was
222
Procedure
Study Design and Scale Administrators
Figure 1. Dimensions and categories of the Revised Knox
Preschool Play Scale.
223
Results
Findings related to the first research question regarding the
interrater agreement for the RKPPS appear in Table 1 for
the overall play age score; in Table 2 for the four dimension
scores; and in Table 3 for the 12 category scores. Table 1
shows the magnitudes of difference in the RKPPS overall
play age scores assigned by the two raters and the cumulative
numbers and percentages according to the magnitudes of
difference in months. For the overall play age, the scores of
the two raters were within 8 months of each other almost
87% of the time.
Table 2 summarizes the cumulative number and percentage of children scored in each dimension according to
the magnitudes of difference in months. For example, in the
material management dimension, the two raters scored 36
children (94.7% agreement) within a magnitude of difference of 12 months or less.
Table 1. Magnitudes of Difference in Revised Knox Preschool
Play Scale Overall Play Age Scores Assigned by the Two Scale
Administrators
Magnitudes of Difference in Months
n
%
Cumulative n
Cumulative %
0.12.0
2.14.0
4.16.0
6.18.0
>8
1
2.6
1
2.6
11
28.9
12
31.5
9
23.7
21
55.2
7
18.4
28
73.6
5
13.2
33
86.8
5
13.2
38
100.0
Note. N = 38.
224
Table 2. Cumulative Magnitudes of Difference in Age Scores for Each Dimension of the Revised Knox Preschool Play Scale
Magnitudes of Difference in Months
Dimension
Space management (n = 38)
Cumulative n
Cumulative %
Material management (n = 38)
Cumulative n
Cumulative %
Pretensesymbolic (n = 36a)
Cumulative n
Cumulative %
Participation (n = 38)
Cumulative n
Cumulative %
0.12.0
2.14.0
4.16.0
6.18.0
8.112.0
>12
16
42.1
16
42.1
16
42.1
31
81.6
31
81.6
38
100.0
38
100.0
6
15.8
9
23.7
16
42.1
27
71.1
29
76.3
36
94.7
38
100.0
15
41.7
15
41.7
15
41.7
26
72.2
26
72.2
33
91.7
36
100.0
8
21.1
8
21.1
21
55.3
24
63.2
33
86.8
37
97.4
38
100.0
One rater gave one child an NA rating, and two raters gave one child an NA rating.
NA
22
57.9
37
97.4
38
100.0
38
100.0
14
63.6
22
100.0
22
100.0
22
100.0
16
17
48.6
34
97.1
35
100.0
35
100.0
17
60.7
25
89.3
28
100.0
28
100.0
10
11
50.0
22
100.0
22
100.0
22
100.0
16
15
39.5
35
92.1
37
97.4
38
100.0
17
47.2
32
88.9
36
100.0
36
100.0
23
63.9
35
97.2
36
100.0
36
100.0
21
55.3
38
100.0
38
100.0
38
100.0
22
57.9
38
100.0
38
100.0
38
100.0
9
81.8
9
81.8
10
90.9
11
100.0
27
25
65.8
38
100.0
38
100.0
38
100.0
0 = same age level; 1 = within 1 age level difference; 2 = within 2 age levels
difference; 3 = within 3 age levels difference.
a
Table 3 relates to the category scores within each separate dimension. It shows the number of times the two raters
scored participants in the same age level, within one age level
difference, within two age levels difference, or within three
age levels difference. The two raters agreed within one age
level difference between 81.8% and 100% of the time on all
12 categories in the RKPPS.
Table 4 summarizes the findings for the second research
question regarding how children who are developing typically score on the RKPPS and the relationship of these scores
to their chronological ages. This question examines one
aspect of construct validity, defined by Anastasi and Urbina
(1997, p. 126) as the extent to which the test may be said
to measure a theoretical construct or trait such as play.
According to these authors, Since abilities are expected to
increase with age during childhood, it is argued that the test
scores should likewise show such an increase, if the test is
valid (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997, p. 127). The findings
reported in Table 4 support the construct validity of the
RKPPS because the vast majority of the overall play ages
assigned by the two raters matched the childrens chronological ages. However, the match was stronger for the older age
groups than for those in the 36- to 47-month age range. For
that group, 6 of the 14 children earned play age scores that
were higher than their chronological ages.
3647
4859
6072
57.1
5
16
35.7
94.1
1
1
7
7.1
5.9
100.0
225
Discussion
This study focusing on the RKPPS resulted in two major
findings. First, two independently trained raters can generally score within 8 months of each other on the overall play
age, within 12 months on the 4 dimension scores, and within
one age level on the 12 category scores. Second, the construct
validity of the RKPPS was supported because there was a
general match between the childrens chronological ages and
their overall play ages. Because play is a developmental construct, a valid measure of it should produce scores that reflect
a developmental progression (Dunn, 1989).
Experiences associated with the data collection, combined with the research findings, resulted in three recommendations for improving the RKPPS. The first is to provide
more detail regarding interpreting play behaviors and scoring. Although the interrater agreement was acceptable, each
rater reported challenges in scoring whereby she often
debated between two scores for a single item. Therefore, it
is likely that interrater agreement could be improved by
providing more information with the measure. Specifically,
it would be helpful to have thorough descriptions of specific
behaviors and examples of play behaviors with their appropriate scores. These descriptions could provide a framework
for interpreting specific play behaviors and measuring these
behaviors consistently. Also, a scoring module could be developed that therapists could complete when learning to use the
RKPPS. It could include a practice video of a child playing
and a scoring key that the therapist could use to check his or
her scores against after completing the RKPPS.
A second recommendation is that the guidelines for the
use of an occasional open-ended question to the child to
clarify a play scenario (S. Knox, personal communication,
October 11, 2005) be adopted and included in future versions of the RKPPS. An example of an open-ended question
is What are you doing? The therapist might ask this question when he or she sees a boy sweeping with a broom. The
childs response might reveal that the boy is not just sweeping but pretending to clean his house for expected guests.
Knowing such information facilitates interpretation of the
behavior and accuracy in scoring.
Third, the possibility of allowing a rater to use an occasional prompt to encourage a child to engage in a type of
play the rater needs to observe should be explored. The raters
in the current study noted that some children engaged in the
same play activity for the duration of the observation.
Therefore, to encourage engagement in other types of play
so the childs play can be assessed accurately, prompts may
be useful. An example of a prompt might be to place blocks
in front of a child and ask, What can you do with these?
It would be necessary to outline a protocol for the use of such
226
Conclusion
Play is a challenging and important construct for occupational therapists to measure. The creation of an accurate
picture of a childs developmental play level and participation in play activities is integral to occupational therapy
evaluation and intervention planning. The RKPPS shows
promise for meeting this important need in that the current
research suggests that two raters can score this measure with
some consistency, and the scores on this measure progress
developmentally. It is only through continued refinement
and development of play assessments that the need for accurate and valid measurement of this key area of occupation
will be met. s
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the teachers, parents, and students who
made this project possible.
References
American Occupational Therapy Association. (2002). Occupational
therapy practice framework: Domain and process. American
Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56, 609639.
Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bergen, D. (1988). Stages of play development. In D. Bergen
(Ed.), Play as a medium for learning and development: A handbook of theory and practice (pp. 4966). Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann Educational.
Bledsoe, N., & Shepherd, J. (1982). A study of reliability and validity of a Preschool Play Scale. American Journal of Occupational
Therapy, 36, 783788.
Bundy, A. (1989). A comparison of the play skills of normal boys
with sensory integrative dysfunction. Occupational Therapy
Journal of Research, 9(2), 84100.
Bundy, A. C. (1991). Play theory and sensory integration. In
A.G. Fisher, E. A. Murray, & A. C. Bundy (Eds.), Sensoryintegration theory and practice. Philadelphia: F. A. Davis.
227