Parent assessment of their child’s play: A psychometric study on the Pretend Play Enjoyment Developmental Checklist
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Play is a crucial occupation of children's that requires reliable and valid assessment. This study aimed to investigate validity and reliability of the parent version of the Pretend Play Enjoyment Developmental Checklist (PPE-DC). Methods: This cross-sectional psychometric study included 10 Iranian occupational therapists from paediatric clinical practice (mean age of 36.5 years) with an average of 14.5 years of experience. Thirty parents and their neurodivergent children (6 girls; mean = 55.90 months; SD = 14.25) and 30 parents and their neurotypical children (14 girls; mean age = 53.4 months; SD = 20.45) participated. Parents filled in the PPE-DC, and a trained therapist assessed children with the Child-Initiated Pretend Play Assessment (ChIPPA) within 10 days of parents filling in the PPE-DC. Results: < 0.001). For concurrent validity, there were moderate significant relationships between the ChIPPA and PPE-DC items. Test-retest reliability was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.99). Conclusion: The PPE-DC Parent version is a reliable and valid parent's measurement of their child's level of complexity of play skills.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".