Development of an assessment to identify play behaviours that discriminate between the play of typical preschoolers and preschoolers with pre-academic problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Occupational therapists regard play as the primary occupation of childhood. However, many authors of play assessments have viewed play either as a functional outcome of other skills or as an indication of the child's developmental level. While such views of play are valid, these approaches to play are broad and do not fully consider the cognitive value of play. A study was undertaken with 82 preschoolers to see if a new play assessment which considers cognitive play skills, called the Child-Initiated Pretend Play Assessment, (ChIPPA), possessed acceptable inter-rater reliability, and could discriminate between the play of typically developing preschoolers and preschoolers with pre-academic problems. This assessment evaluates preschoolers’ elaborate imaginative actions, number of imitative actions, and number of object substitutions. The ChIPPA was found to have excellent inter-rater reliability and did discriminate between children who were typically developing and children who experienced pre-academic problems. In particular, the elaborateness of a child's play actions and the child's ability to substitute objects were strong discriminators of preschoolers with and without pre-academic problems. Three play profiles which emerged from the research are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".