Primary Image

RehabMeasures Database

Test of Playfulness

Last Updated

Purpose

To assess a child's playfulness during free play and capture four important aspects of play: intrinsic motivation, suspension of reality, and internal locus of control, and framing. Measures children’s engagement, motivation, social interactions, affect, and creativity during play.

Link to Instrument

Instrument Details

Acronym ToP

Area of Assessment

Assertiveness

Assessment Type

Observer

Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil

Cost

Not Free

Actual Cost

$36.53

Cost Description

https://www.amazon.com/Test-Playfulness-ToP-zur-Spielfähigkeit/dp/3824808706/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?keywords=test+of+playfulness+bundy&qid=1552182421&s=gateway&sr=8-1-fkmr0

or it is included in the following book:
https://www.amazon.com/Occupational-Therapy-Children-Diane-Parham/dp/032302954X/ref=pd_sbs_14_1/140-0245544-0162228?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=032302954X&pd_rd_r=92e2d12d-e4d2-42b8-b987-e7a557f97233&pd_rd_w=lvnUS&pd_rd_wg=zFPN7&pf_rd_p=1c11b7ff-9ffb-4ba6-8036-be1b0afa79bb&pf_rd_r=WKR4FW2JDVBT8AP9R17M&psc=1&refRID=WKR4FW2JDVBT8AP9R17M

Key Descriptions

  • ToP Version 4: 29 Items in the Instrument

    Brief Description of Item Scoring
    Scales
    ● EXTENT
    ○ 3 = Almost always
    ○ 2 = Much of the time
    ○ 1 = Some of the time
    ○ 0 = Rarely or never
    ○ NA = Not Applicable
    ● INTENSITY
    ○ 3 = Highly
    ○ 2 = Moderately
    ○ 1 = Mildly
    ○ 0 = Not
    ○ NA = Not Applicable
    ● SKILLFULNESS
    ○ 3 = Highly skilled
    ○ 2 = Moderately skilled
    ○ 1 = Slightly skilled
    ○ 0 = Unskilled
    ○ NA = Not Applicable

    Minimum and Maximum Scores
    ● Min Total = 0

    Administration Instructions
    ● The ToP Protocol is scored after free play is observed, preferably in both indoor and outdoor play situations. The ToP Keyform may be used to score a child’s playfulness. The ToP Keyform shows the relative difficulty of each item plotted against the means and standard deviations for the items, called the measure score. This interval level score can then be entered into a statistical calculation (Skard & Bundy, 2008).

Number of Items

29 items (Version 4)

Equipment Required

  • ToP Protocol Sheet

Time to Administer

15 minutes

Most reliable at 15 minute observations (Brentnall, 2005)

Required Training

Reading an Article/Manual

Age Ranges

Infant

0 - 2

years

Instrument Reviewers

Christine Carrion, OTS; Katie Clendenin, OTS; Jillian Hazlett, OTS; Mary Needham, OTS

ICF Domain

Activity
Participation

Measurement Domain

Cognition
Emotion

Considerations

Context/environment are not assessed with respect to playfulness

Mixed Populations

back to Populations

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Special Needs (Ambulatory and Verbal) & No Developmental Concerns: (Bundy, Nelson, Metzger, & Bingaman, 2001; n = 77 children (42 males, 35 females); age range = 22 - 118 months; mean age = 63.8 months; n = 68; no developmental concerns, n=9; special needs (ambulatory and verbal))

  • ToP Research Version 1/Study Group 1: All 12 raters’ scoring fit the measurement model. 96% of ratings were expected by the Rasch model, indicating interrater reliability after rater training

 

Special Education & No Developmental Concerns: (Bundy et al., 2001; n = 124 children (69 males, 55 females); age range = 15 - 118 months; mean age = 55 months; enrolled in special education, n = 16; no developmental concerns, n = 108)

  • ToP Research Version 2/Study Group 2: All 26 raters’ scoring fit the measurement model. 96% of ratings were expected by the Rasch model

 

Able-bodied; Physical Disability; Cerebral Palsy, Spina Bifida; Below-knee Amputation from Birth Anomaly; Hemiplegia from CVA; Stickler’s Syndrome: (Harkness & Bundy, 2001; n = 50; age range = 2 to 12 years; mean age = 83.8 months (7 years); able-bodied children, n = 25; children with physical disabilities, n = 25; cerebral palsy, n =14; spina bifida, n = 7; below-knee amputation from birth anomaly, n = 2; hemiplegia from CVA, n = 1; Stickler’s Syndrome, n = 1)

  • ToP Version 3: Data from all raters (100%) matched predictions of a Rasch model, so authors concluded high interrater reliability

 

No Delays; Cerebral Palsy; Hemiplegia; Diplegia; Quadriplegia; Mild, Moderate and Severe Developmental Impairments: (Okimoto, Bundy, & Hanzlik, 2000, p.78; n = 38 (26 males, 12 females; age range 3 - 32 months); n = 19 children with no delays (chronological age range 3 - 18 months); n = 19 children with cerebral palsy (chronological age range 8 - 32 months); mean chronological age of children with no delays = 9 months; mean chronological age of children with cerebral palsy = 18 months; n = 5 children with hemiplegia; n = 3 children with diplegia; n =11 children with quadriplegia; n = 7 children with mild developmental impairments; n = 4 children with moderate developmental impairments; n = 6 children with severe developmental impairments)

ToP Version 3: Data from all raters conformed to the expectations of the Rasch model: of 1,296 scores assigned (24 items x 54 tests), 2.5% were unexpected (22 for the item “Shares”; 7 for the item “Decides”).

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Predictive Validity

No Developmental Concerns; Special Needs (Ambulatory and Verbal): (Bundy et al., 2001; n = 89 children (49 males, 40 females); age range = 15 months - 118 months; n = 80; no developmental concerns, n = 9; special needs (ambulatory and verbal)

ToP Research Version 3/Study 3: Adequate predictive validity: The ToP and Children’s Playfulness Scale (CPS) correlate with a Pearson Product Moment coefficient of r = .46 (p = .0001)

Construct Validity

Construct Validity/Convergent

No developmental concerns; Special Needs (Ambulatory and Verbal):(Bundy et al., 2001)

  • ToP Research Version 3/Study 3: Adequate correlation was found between the ToP and the Children’s Playfulness Scale (r = .46)

 

Children with no delays; children with cerebral palsy and developmental delays: (Okimoto et al., 2000; n = 38 (26 males, 12 females); age range 3 - 32 months; n = 19 children with no delays (chronological age range 3 - 18 months; mean chronological age = 9 months); n = 19 children with cerebral palsy and mild to severe developmental impairments (chronological age range 8 - 32 months; mean chronological age = 18 months)

ToP Version 3: Goodness-of-fit for items measuring relative playfulness and difficulty of items for typically developing young children and young children with cerebral palsy conformed to expectations of Rasch measurement model: t values ranged from ≤ 2 to ≥ -2 and MnSq values ranged from .6 to 1.4; paired t test indicated that mean score of typically developing children was significantly higher than mean score of matched counterparts with cerebral palsy and developmental delays (t = 3.938; p = .0005)

Content Validity

Item Response

Special Needs (Ambulatory and Verbal) & No Developmental Concerns:

  • ToP Research Version 1/Study 1: 93% of items fit the measurement model (4 of 60 did not fit), suggesting playfulness is unidimensional. A 95% fit was desired but not met (Bundy et al., 2001)

 

Special Education & No Developmental Concerns:

  • ToP Research Version 2/Study 2: 93% items fit the measurement model (5 of 68 did not fit), suggesting unidimensional playfulness  (Bundy et al., 2001)

 

Typically Developing; Autism; Developmentally Delayed; Cerebral Palsy; Abused; Other; Missing Data: (Bundy, Waugh, & Brentnall, 2008, p. 138-139; n = 265; age range = 15 months - 12 years; mean age = 57 months; typically developing, n = 78; autism, n = 73; developmentally delayed, n = 47; cerebral palsy, n = 14;, abused, n = 10; other, n = 29; missing data, n = 14)

  • ToP Version 4: “Because this study was performed to illustrate a process for test development rather than to present a test for use in practice, we employed a generous cutoff criterion of infit mean square statistics of 2.00 or less . . .Goodness of Fit mean square statistics from all 29 ToP items were within the limits set for the study. Data from 92% of the participants (n = 244) were within the limits.”

 

Person Response

Special Needs (Ambulatory and Verbal) & No Developmental Concerns:  (Bundy et al., 2001)

  • ToP Research Version 1/Study 1: 10% of subjects (8) did not fit the measurement model; the percentage of children who did not fit the model was higher among children with special needs (44%, 4 children) than among typically developing children (5%, 4 children)

 

Special Education & No Developmental Concerns: (Bundy et al. 2001)

  • ToP Research Version 2/Study 2: 98% of children’s response patterns fit the measurement model

 

Able-bodied; Physical Disability; Cerebral Palsy, Spina Bifida; Below-knee Amputation from Birth Anomaly; Hemiplegia from CVA; Stickler’s Syndrome: (Harkness & Bundy, 2001)

ToP Version 3: The ToP’s item hierarchy may differ for children with and without physical disabilities. Person-response validity for children with physical disabilities did not meet the 95% fit to the Rasch model (only 92% fit). Most unexpected ratings stemmed from 4 items. Future research is needed on how the environment impacts playfulness scores

Non-Specific Patient Population

back to Populations

Test/Retest Reliability

Typically Developing Children: (Brentnall, Bundy, & Scott Key, 2008, p.138; n = 20 (8 males, 12 females; age range 2 years, 8 months - 6 years; mean age 48 months; standard deviation 9 months; typically developing children from six childcare centers in Toronto)

Moderate test-retest reliability: interclass correlations between scores for Time 1 and Time 2 from each observation period: first 15 minutes: ICC = 0.668; 95% confidence interval = 0.331 to 0.584; p (2-tailed) = ﹤.001; last 15 minutes: ICC = 0.408; 95% confidence interval = -0.30 to 0.715; p (two-tailed) = .033; entire 30 minutes: ICC = 0.033; 95% confidence interval = -0.405 to 0.460; p (two-tailed) = .433

Responsiveness

Typically Developing Children: (Brentnall, Bundy, & Scott Key, 2008)

  • Unspecified ToP Version: Statistically significant differences between pre and post 6-week non-specific play materials intervention means (Z = -1.94; p = .025, one tailed; Cohen’s d effect size of .55 (95% confidence interval, -0.08 to 1.19 with the approximate test mean at 0)) (Brentnall et al., 2008; n = 20; age range = 5 - 7 years)
  • Unspecified ToP Version: Statistically significant differences between pre- and post-intervention means of a 6-week non-specific play materials intervention, (Z = -1.94; p = .025, one tailed; Cohen’s d effect size of .55 (95% confidence interval, -0.08 to 1.19 with the approximate test mean at 0) (Bundy, Luckett, Naughton, Tranter, Wyver, Ragen, ... Spies, 2008; n = 20; age range = 3 5 - 7 years)

Pediatric Disorders

back to Populations

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Interrater Reliability

Developmental Disabilities; No Developmental Disabilities: (Hamm, 2006, p. 92; n = 40; age range = 6 - 38 months)

  • ToP Version 4: “To determine inter-rater reliability, rater calibrations were examined for fit to the measurement model. Both raters fit the measurement model for the ToP . . .indicating that the scales were used in a consistent manner. For this sample, 100% of the ratings assigned conformed to the Rasch model supporting reliability of the scale when scored by trained raters”

 

Interrater & Intrarater Reliability

Autism; Pervasive Developmental Disorder:  (O’Brien, Coker, Lynn, Suppinger, Pearigen, Rabon … Ward, 2000, p. 43; n = 4 children with diagnosis of autism; n = 2 children with dual diagnosis of pervasive developmental disorder; n = 2 children receiving medication; n = 3 children receiving additional occupational therapy services; range of age = four to six years; mean age = 55 months

Unspecified ToP Version:Intrarater and interrater reliability was established for the seven student researchers in the use of the Test of Playfulness (TOP)”

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Concurrent Validity

Autism: (Muys, Roger, & Bundy, 2006; n = 24 (17 males, 7 females); age range = 41 - 86 months; mean age = 63.4 months)

  • ToP Version 4: Excellent concurrent validity, comparing the ToP, Version 4, with the Children’s Playfulness Scale (CPS) with Pearson correlation coefficients, both for unstructured play (r = .814, p < .01) and structured play (r = .799, p < .01)

Construct Validity

Convergent Validity

Sensory Processing Disorder: (Bundy, Shia, Qi, & Miller, 2007, p. 204; n = 20 with deficits in SPD (4 girls, 16 boys); age range = 4.4 years to 9.8 years, mean age = 6.9; n = 20 typically developing (9 girls, 11 boys); age range = 4.7 years - 11.7 years; mean age = 7.5 years)

  • Unspecified ToP Version: “The Rasch analysis provided two pairs of goodness-of-fit statistics for each child...data from 30% of the children with SPD (n = 6) feel outside the acceptable range”

 

Autism: (Muys et al., 2006)

  • ToP Version 4: Excellent convergent validity with the Children’s Playfulness Scale for unstructured and structured play settings (r = .814, .799 respectively)

Content Validity

Item Response

Developmental Disabilities; No Developmental Disabilities: (Hamm, 2006, p. 92)

  • ToP Version 4: “All items (100%) fit the model supporting that the ToP reflects a unidimensional construct of playfulness.”

 

Person-response

Developmental Disabilities; No Developmental Disabilities: (Hamm, 2006, p. 92)

  • ToP Version 4: “Data from 100% of the participants and raters conformed to the Rasch model.”

Responsiveness

Typically Developing: (Bundy et al., 2008; n = 20; age range = 3 5 - 7 years)

  • Unspecified ToP Version: Statistically significant differences between pre- and post-intervention means of a 6-week non-specific play materials intervention, (Z = -1.94; p = .025, one tailed; Cohen’s d effect size of .55 (95% confidence interval, -0.08 to 1.19 with the approximate test mean at 0)

 

Sensory Processing Disorder: (Bundy et al., 2007; n = 20 (16 boys, 4 girls); age range = 4.4 - 9.8 years; mean age = 6.9 years, SD = 1.6 years; all children had sensory modulation dysfunction, some also had dyspraxia)

  • Unspecified ToP Version: ToP scores pre and post a 20-session sensory-integration intervention were not statistically significantly different between a pre- and post-intervention measurements (p = 0.43, 0.41, 0.21)

 

Developmental/Communication/Autism Disorders:  (O’Brien et al., 2000; n = 8 (TX, n = 4, CO, n = 4); age range = 4 - 6 years; mean age = 55 months)

Unspecified ToP Version: Two children in the control group and two in the treatment group demonstrated a significant increase in ToP scores pre- and post a 10-week OT intervention designed to increase playfulness; no significant changes in scores for the remaining children

Cerebral Palsy

back to Populations

Responsiveness

Cerebral Palsy: (Reid, 2004; n = 13 (male = 7; female = 6); wheelchair users = 7; ambulatory with and without assistive devices = 6; age range = 8 - 12 years; mean age = 10 years, 5 months; SD = 1 year, 3 months)

Unspecified ToP Version: means and standard deviations from ToP subscales for 3 of 8 randomly selected video-recorded sessions of 13 participants in 12 virtual reality environments during an intervention designed to stimulate playfulness demonstrated playfulness in 4 categories (moderate levels of playfulness in motivation, control and framing; lower than moderate scores in suspension from reality)

Bibliography

Brentnall, J., Bundy, A. C., Catherine, F., & Kay, S. (2008). The effect of the length of observation on Test of Playfulness scores. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health,28(3), 133-140. doi:10.3928/15394492-20080601-02

Bundy, A. C., Luckett, T., Naughton, G. A. , Tranter, P. J., Wyver, S. R., Ragen, J., Singleton, E., & Spies, G. (2008). Playful interaction: Occupational therapy for all children on the school playground. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 522-527. doi: 10.5014/ajot.62.5.522

Bundy, A. C., Nelson, L., Metzger, M., & Bingaman, K. (2001). Validity and reliability of a test of playfulness. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 21(4), 276-292. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/153944920102100405

Bundy, A. C., Shia, S., Qi, L., & Miller, L. J. (2007). How does sensory processing dysfunction affect play? The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61(2), 201-208. doi: 10.5014/ajot.61.2. 201

Bundy, A. C., Waugh, K., & Brentnall, J. (2009). Developing assessments that account for the role of the environment: An example using the Test of Playfulness and Test of Environmental Supportiveness. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 29, 135-143. doi: https://doi.org/10.3928/15394492-20090611-06

Hamm, E. M. (2006). Playfulness and the environmental support of play in children with and without developmental disabilities. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 26(3), 88-96. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/153944920602600302

Harkness, L., & Bundy, A.C. (2001). The test of playfulness and children with disabilities. The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 21(2), 73-89. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/153944920102100203

Muys, V., Rodger, S., & Bundy, A. C. (2006). Assessment of playfulness in children with autistic disorder: A comparison of the Children’s Playfulness Scale and the Test of Playfulness. OTJR: Occupation, Participation, & Health, 26(4), 159-170. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/153944920602600406

O'Brien, J., Coker, P., Lynn, R., Suppinger, R., Pearigen, T., Rabon, S., . . . Thompson Ward, A. (2000). The Impact of occupational therapy on a child's playfulness. Occupational Therapy in Health Care,12(2-3), 39-51. doi:10.1080/J003v12n02_03

Okimoto, A. M., Bundy, A., & Hanzlik, J. (2000). Playfulness in children with and without disability: Measurement and intervention. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 54(1), 73-82. doi:10.5014/ajot.54.1.73

Reid, D. (2004). The influence of virtual reality on playfulness in children with cerebral palsy: A pilot study. Occupational Therapy International,11(3), 131-144. doi:10.1002/oti.202

Skard, G. & Bundy, A. C. (2008). Test of playfulness. In L. D. Parham & L. S. Fazio (Eds.), Play in occupational therapy for children (71-93). Maryland Heights, MO: Mosby Elsevier.

Save now, read later.