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 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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".