The PPSQ: assessing parental, child, and partner’s playfulness in the preschool and early school years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Developmental research has traditionally focused on parenting behaviors such as nurturance and care, due to a focus on mothers’ behaviors. Other parenting dimensions such as parental playfulness (i.e., use of creativity, imagination, and humor during parent–child interactions) have comparatively received little attention. Although some measures tap into parents’ and children’s playfulness, these measures are limited. Indeed, they do not assess multiple domains of playfulness (i.e., both parents’ and the child’s playfulness) or focus on one specific setting such as children’s play with peers. Additionally, existing measures do not consider parents’ reactions to their partners’ playfulness. To address this gap, we created the Playful Parenting Style Questionnaire (PPSQ), which assesses three domains of playfulness: (a) parental domain, (b) child domain, and (c) partner domain. The current study is part of a validation effort of the PPSQ using a quantitative design. We aimed to explore the structure of the PPSQ by conducting an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) for each domain of playfulness; and assess the construct validity of the PPSQ factors by examining the association between factors and existing measures of playful parenting, child playfulness, and co-parenting. Method The sample includes 347 parents (294 mothers and 53 fathers) of preschool/school-age children ( M = 5.10 years; 182 girls, 127 boys). Parents were mostly White (76%) and from a low socioeconomic risk background. Parents completed a series of online questionnaires including the PPSQ, 3 existing measures of parent playfulness (Parental Playfulness Questionnaire; Adult Playfulness Scale; Challenging Parenting Behavior Scale), 2 existing measures of child playfulness (Child Behavior Inventory; Children’s Playfulness Scale), a coparenting instrument (Co-parenting Relationship Scale), and sociodemographic information. Results The EFA revealed 4 factors for parental playfulness, 1 factor for child playfulness, and 3 factors for partner’s playfulness. The construct validity analyses identified multiple associations indicating convergence with existing measures for the parent and partners domain but not the child factor. Discussion This study allowed for a better understanding of the playful dynamics that occur within a family.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".