Assistive technology to facilitate children’s play: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Play is a fundamental human right and one of the most important occupations in children's lives. Fewer opportunities exist for children with physical disabilities (CWPD) to play. This study aimed to conduct a scoping review of published peer-reviewed literature on using AT to enable "play-for-the-sake-of-play" by CWPD. METHOD: The review was conducted using a widely accepted scoping review methodology. Literature searches were conducted from January 2000 to March 2022 using MEDLINE, Central, CINAHL, ERIC, Scopus, and EMBASE. Pairs of reviewers used an online systematic review system to manage title, abstract, and full-text screening. Excel was used for data extraction and charting. Data was charted based on type of AT, play types according to LUDI definitions, and level of evidence. RESULTS: The search yielded 5250 papers after the removal of duplicates. Title and abstract screening identified 58 studies for full-text screening. The final sample included 31 papers. Seven types of AT were identified in studies: power mobility, virtual reality, robots, adaptations for upper limb differences, switch-adapted games, augmentative and alternative communication devices, and mobility aids. Twenty-three papers addressed cognitive play, seven addressed social play, and one addressed both cognitive and social play. Most studies used case study, descriptive, or repeated measures designs. CONCLUSION: There is limited evidence regarding the use of AT to support play-for-the-sake-of-play in CWPD. Given the importance of play, further research using rigorous methodologies and the development of assistive technology dedicated to promoting play-for-the-sake-of-play is warranted.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".