CAS 330 CSUF Fisher Price Laugh & Learn Magic Color Mixing Bowl Essay

User Generated

ygpownqr18

Writing

CAS 330

California State University - Fullerton

CAS

Description

cite a minimum of 3 relevant, peer-reviewed research articles. The paper will be 7, double-spaced pages and include three major sections: Title Page (1 page), Main Body (5 pages), and References (1 page).

No direct quotes are to be used in the paper and ALL statements that are made must be backed up by evidence. Only use the sources that I provided Please. I provided an outline of how each paragraph should look and please only use my topic sentences and thesis statement. I also provided the rubric and an example paper.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341493608 Children’s utilization of toys is moderated by age-appropriateness, toy category, and child age Article in Applied Developmental Science · May 2020 DOI: 10.1080/10888691.2020.1760868 CITATION READS 1 198 7 authors, including: Diane L. Putnick Kyle M. Lang Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Utrecht University 132 PUBLICATIONS 4,429 CITATIONS 33 PUBLICATIONS 707 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Todd D. Little Texas Tech University 332 PUBLICATIONS 27,011 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Music Perception View project CFDA # 84.324A: Goal Three: Efficacy and Replication Implementing an Emergent Literacy Curriculum for Students With Intellectual Disabilities in General Education Classrooms View project All content following this page was uploaded by Diane L. Putnick on 03 March 2021. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Applied Developmental Science ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hads20 Children’s utilization of toys is moderated by ageappropriateness, toy category, and child age Melissa N. Richards , Diane L. Putnick , Laura P. Bradley , Kyle M. Lang , Todd D. Little , Joan T. D. Suwalsky & Marc H. Bornstein To cite this article: Melissa N. Richards , Diane L. Putnick , Laura P. Bradley , Kyle M. Lang , Todd D. Little , Joan T. D. Suwalsky & Marc H. Bornstein (2020): Children’s utilization of toys is moderated by age-appropriateness, toy category, and child age, Applied Developmental Science, DOI: 10.1080/10888691.2020.1760868 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2020.1760868 View supplementary material Published online: 19 May 2020. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 106 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hads20 APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2020.1760868 Children’s utilization of toys is moderated by age-appropriateness, toy category, and child age Melissa N. Richardsa , Diane L. Putnicka, Laura P. Bradleya, Kyle M. Langb, Todd D. Littlec Joan T. D. Suwalskya, and Marc H. Bornsteina,d,e , a Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health; bTilburg University; Texas Technical University; dInstitute for Fiscal Studies; eUNICEF c ABSTRACT Play during childhood is essential to growth and learning. Little is known about whether categories of toys moderate play behaviors at different ages, or how children interact with toys that are simple, appropriate, or complex for their developmental level. Two hundred and forty-three children between the ages of 1 and 8 years, divided into four age groups, played with toys that were targeted to their age group as well as toys aimed at one age group younger and older. Toys fell into nine different categories. Whether children fully utilized each toy was evaluated. Analyses examined how children’s utilization of toys was affected by the age-appropriateness of the toy, the category of toy, and the child’s age. Considering all age groups and toys, children were less likely to fully utilize toys targeted toward older children than age-appropriate toys, but this effect was moderated by the toy category and the child’s age. From building a tower of blocks, to playing “house” with a doll, to sharing a game of checkers with a friend, children’s play has historically been described as a “leading source of development” (Vygotsky, 1967, p. 6) and is implicated consistently as a crucial component of children’s healthy cognitive and social growth (Bergen, 2002; Bornstein, 2007; Ginsburg, 2007; Scarlett, 2005; Trawick-Smith & Dziurgot, 2011). Much of the time that children devote to play involves toys and other child-directed products (Glassy et al., 2003). A systematic study of children’s play with a variety of toys that are age-appropriate compared with toys that are intended for younger or older children has not yet been undertaken. Understanding how children play with different categories of toys of varying developmental levels has implications for developmental theory as well as for how caregivers select toys. Research of this nature can also yield valuable safety information about toys; if children of a certain age can fully utilize a toy that is intended for older children, manufacturers and government safety regulators should take note to ensure that the toy is constructed to withstand reasonably foreseeable uses and abuses by younger children. Why study age appropriateness Developmental theory Piaget (1962) long ago proposed three broad stages in the development of play—sensorimotor play, symbolic play, and games with rules, which are widely accepted as the standard progression of play complexity across childhood. Sensorimotor play lasts throughout infancy and early toddlerhood and entails manipulating objects for the purpose of exploration (e.g., mouthing, fingering, hitting, shaking objects). During the second year, children enter into symbolic play, or play that is more abstract in nature. In imaginary play, a toy can represent a real-world object, and gestures can represent real-life actions. Symbolic play peaks in prevalence around 4 years of age, starting to decline after age 7 (Lillard, 2015). Between 7 to 12 years of age, children begin to set their own a priori rules and regulations, and engage in games with rules, such as board games or basketball (Scarlett, 2005). No research documents what children do during Piaget’s stages of development when given a toy that may be appropriate for a child of a different age. For example, if given a tea set, presumably a 4-year-old would play with it in the symbolic play Piaget CONTACT Diane L. Putnick putnickd@mail.nih.gov Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, 6710B Rockledge Drive, 3159B, Bethesda, MD 20817, USA. Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2020.1760868. This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article. ß 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 2 M. N. RICHARDS ET AL. suggests, but would an 8-year-old make the tea set into a game with rules? Furthermore, it is unclear whether children of different ages regularly utilize toys designed for their own or another age group in their intended ways. In addition, current developmental theory does not focus on the moderating effect that toy category may have on children’s play. A toy category can be described as a group of toys that have similar functions and uses. For example, consider the multitude of toys available in the current U.S. marketplace; The Toy Industry Association (2017) categorizes toys into the following groups when tabulating yearly sales data: Building, Vehicles, Games/Puzzles, Outdoor & Sports, Arts & Crafts, Dolls, Action Figures, Plush, Infant/Toddler/Preschool, and Other. An online search of toy retailers yields an astounding variety of options available in each of these categories for children over a range of ages. The traditional progression of play during childhood outlined by Piaget disregards the categories of toys that children have, particularly given the variety of toys available today. Hence, it is likely that children’s play complexity at different ages is moderated by the category of toy with which they play. Depending on the goal of the research, prior studies of play have typically provided children with either (a) toys from one chosen category or (b) a standard set of toys from a variety of categories. Regarding toys from one category, Corter and Jamieson (1977) gave 14- to 16-month-olds bug-shaped figurines with different degrees of movable parts; Kimmerle and colleagues (1995) conducted a similar study with 7- to 13-month-olds. Similarly, Robinson and Jackson (1987) provided 4-year-olds with small wheeled vehicles with varying degrees of detail; Olzweski and Fuson (1982) gave 3- to 5-year-olds dolls that were either simple (wooden cylinders) or complex (eyes, nose, mouth, eyebrows, etc.). Likewise, another study aimed to determine age differences in behavior sequences with a tea set in children from 7 to 20 months, with the authors documenting the progression and growth of symbolic play with the tea set during this time frame (Fenson et al., 1976). These studies aimed to measure how these same-category toys affected and changed children’s play behaviors. Regarding a standard set of toys, one play scale used in numerous studies to trace the progression of nonsymbolic to symbolic play from infancy to toddlerhood simultaneously provided participants with a tea set, doll, telephone, book, ball, blocks, nesting cups, and a vehicle (Bornstein, 2007; Bornstein et al., 1999, 2002; Tamis-LeMonda & Bornstein, 1991). Another coding scheme measuring affect expression during play with elementary school children provided participants with two puppets and three blocks (Russ, 2014). When adapting this coding scheme for preschool-age children, the authors used different toys determined as “age-appropriate … easy for young children to manipulate and play with” (Kaugars & Russ, 2009, p. 741). The toys included stuffed animals, plastic animals, a car, and a rubber ball. Overall, these studies aimed to understand how children played with a mix of toys from a variety of categories. Yet, no research to date in the field of developmental science has teased apart play with toys from a standard set of categories while controlling for differing age appropriateness. Toy safety Each year, approximately 260,000 children under the age of 12 in the United States visit emergency rooms with injuries resulting from playing with a toy (EPHA; Tu, 2012). One organization that is involved in efforts to ensure the safety of children’s products is the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The U.S. Congress charged the CPSC, as well as manufacturers and third-party testing laboratory partners, with guaranteeing that all products and toys are constructed to withstand use by children to whom a product will appeal and for whom it is purchased, providing some protection and prevention of physical injury. Before testing is performed to identify potential safety hazards to children, however, CPSC staff from the Division of Human Factors (ESHF) first determine the appropriate ages of potential users. For example, toys for children younger than 3 years of age must meet the testing requirements under The Small Parts Regulation (1979), which essentially bans toys with small parts that pose choking, ingestion, or aspiration hazards. In addition, the Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Toy Safety (ASTM F963-11) sets safety requirements for different age groups during testing—such as limiting cord length and magnet strength. Given the importance of child age in determining toy safety standards, research should be done on children’s play with toys from a variety of categories that are age appropriate and age mismatched to further explore what categories of toys are appropriate in different age groups. In addition to implications for government regulation of toy safety, this study has implications for parents, teachers, and caregivers when providing toys to children. Children are often around toys that are APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE not perfectly age appropriate for them due to the presence of their sibling’s toys, mixed-age child care settings, or toys that are never put away after the child passes through the manufacturers’ suggested age range. This research could make some suggestions about toys that are able to be used by children across a large range of development safely. The current study The aim of the present study was to better understand how children in varying age groups use age-appropriate and age-inappropriate toys from various categories. As such, we were particularly interested in whether children used toys as intended by the manufacturer during their play. Given our interest in determining how category of toy moderates children’s play at different ages, the current study included nine categories of toys, presented one category at a time, to investigate toy play in a controlled and systematic manner. It is likely that child play differs by both toy category and child age. One method for teasing apart relations between toy category and child age in resulting play is to observe children when playing with ageappropriate toys as well as toys appropriate for younger and older children from a single toy category. Doing so makes it possible to identify differences in the way children play with age-appropriate versus age-inappropriate (younger or older) toys. Taking this design a step further, we conceptualized a matrix where the age of the child constitutes the columns, and rows represent categories of toys (see Table 1). As Kaugars and Russ (2009) alluded when adapting a play scale for a different age group, ageappropriateness of toys is also relevant to how children play. Within each cell of this matrix, there is a multitude of toys appropriate for any given age group and toy category. We observed children’s play with a toy from one cell of the matrix within their age column, one from the younger age column, and one from the older age column, holding toy category constant. Doing so, we aimed to map how play behaviors differ by toy category and age, noting significant differences in play complexity that emerge when children play with toys that are less mature, age appropriate, or more mature for them. An experimental design that systematically compares play with different toy categories across several ages with toys matched and mismatched for age appropriateness is unique. The current study filled this gap in the literature. Children aged 1–8 years played with toys from nine toy categories that were (a) young for their age group, (b) age appropriate, 3 and (c) old for their age group. We hypothesized that children would be more likely to use age-appropriate toys as intended than those geared toward older children. Although in some cases it could be possible for children to use a toy not as intended, for the purposes of our study, we aimed to understand toy usage as intended to fully elucidate age-appropriate behavior with different categories of toys. Regarding the contrast between age appropriate toys and toys geared toward younger children, we did not have a directional hypothesis. Considering only the motor and cognitive demands of toys, children of any age should be able to use toys as intended that were designed for younger children. However, toys suitable to younger children may be less interesting to them than age-appropriate toys, and children may lose interest before they fully utilize them. This line of thinking yielded a subsidiary research question of whether children playing with toys meant for younger children are equally, more, or less likely to fully utilize these toys than age-appropriate toys. Method Participants Participants were 243 healthy, typically developing children, aged 1-8 years, grouped into the following four age brackets: 1-1.5 years (12-18 months; 43% female, 57% male), n ¼ 60; 1.6-2 years (19-35 months; 54% female, 46% male), n ¼ 61; 3-5 years (3671 months; 50% female, 50% male) n ¼ 62; and 68 years (72-107 months; 47% female, 53% male), n ¼ 60. Child age groups were chosen to conform to current safety guidelines for children’s play with toys (e.g., children under 18 months cannot have long strings on their toys (ASTM Standard F963,963, 2011); children under 36 months are at-risk of choking on small parts (The Small Parts Regulation, 1979), as well as play progression throughout childhood (e.g., exploratory play is common through age 18 months, moving into pretense play through the toddler and preschool years, and then rule-based play around age 6 (Lillard, 2015; Piaget, 1962). The children in the sample were 49% female, 51% male and 58% White, Non-Hispanic, 18% two or more races, 9% African American, 8% Asian American, and 7% White, Hispanic. About half (48%) of children were first/only children in their families at the time of the study. Up to two children per family could participate in the study. Parents (93% mothers) completed questionnaires about family and child characteristics. All families lived in a large mid-Atlantic American 4 M. N. RICHARDS ET AL. metropolitan area, and children came from largely intact (89% married) families with highly educated mothers (95% earned a bachelor’s degree or higher). Prior to the conduct of these studies, Institutional Review Board approval was received at The National Institutes of Health under protocol #15-CH-N196: “Determining Age Appropriateness of Children’s Products and Toys”. Toy selection Four developmental scientists chose the toys for the study and categorized them into 9 toy categories and 6 age groups, the middle 4 of which cover the age range of the children in this study. The two additional age groups (6–11 months and 9–12 years) were included to have toys appropriate for children younger than the youngest and older than the oldest in the study. Toys in each age group were selected to include classic and novel exemplars in each toy category based on (1) developmental theory, (2) children’s motor, cognitive, and socioemotional capabilities in each age group, and (3) the toy manufacturers’ suggested age. In addition, the authors had to ensure that there were not too many toys that were similar to each other in any given toy category and age group (e.g., all of the 3–5 age group of pretend category toys could not consist entirely of play food). There was no interrater reliability process for choosing specific toys because there needed to be some flexibility in the choice of the toys to ensure not only a variety within the categories as noted above, but also a mixture of classic and more contemporary toys (e.g., wood blocks vs. magnetic blocks). Toys were assigned to one of nine toy categories according to the primary function of the toy: (1) exploratory, (2) construction, (3) games and puzzles, (4) instructional, (5) sports and recreational equipment, (6) imaginative play, (7) small vehicles, (8) arts and crafts, and (9) musical (see Table 1 for examples of each category by age group). Six of these categories are very similar to those used by the Toy Industry Association (2017); in addition, we identified three additional categories of toys in the marketplace through extensive research online, through toy safety regulations, and in toy catalogs: musical, instructional, and exploratory toys. Each toy type identified by the Toy Industry Association was represented in the study and given to the participants. These nine categories also span the standard sets of toys used in most studies on play. For example, the tea set, doll, telephone, book, ball, blocks, nesting cups, and vehicle used by Bornstein et al. (1999) are encompassed in these categories. Toys were chosen to represent classic as well as contemporary options from each category to more fully represent the toys children may encounter in their play environments (e.g., the games & puzzles category included a standard 12-piece wooden puzzle and three-dimensional plastic puzzle maze). A matrix of child age group x toy category was formed by assigning toys to categories and age groups (Table 1). Within each cell of this matrix, three toys were chosen to represent the expected age for which the toy would be appropriate. We chose 3 potential toys for each category because each category could be represented by many different toys and we did not want a single idiosyncratic toy to skew the results. One cell in the matrix for children aged 1-8 years is empty because, for the exploratory toys category for the 6- to 8-year age group, it was determined that there were no age-appropriate toys. The result was a 35-cell matrix (9 categories x 4 age groups, minus 1 cell for 6- to 8-year exploratory toys). Extensive discussion and research resulted in the total selection of 105 toys that were age-appropriate to 1- to 8-year-old children (35 cells X 3 toys each). When possible, children in the youngest (1–1.5 years) and oldest (6–8 years) age groups were given toys that were appropriate for younger (6-12 months) and older (9–12 years) children, respectively (shaded cells in Table 1). If no such toys were available (e.g., there were no appropriate arts and crafts toys for 6- to 12-month-olds or small vehicles or imaginative play toys for 9- to 12-year-olds), one additional age-appropriate toy was substituted so that three toys were presented in each condition. These additional 25 toys for 6 to 12 months and 20 toys for 9 to 12 years were selected in the same manner as those above. After these additional toys were added to the matrix, the study included 150 toys. About 19% of toys were placed outside of their manufacturer’s suggested age range because they were determined to be developmentally appropriate for a different age. Of these, several (7%) were labeled by toy manufacturers as appropriate for 3 years or older, possibly because of potential for choking on small parts. Toy manufacturers may consider information other than developmental age-appropriateness (e.g., marketing data, manufacturing issues, safety concerns, etc.) to develop age guidelines for particular toys. When toys were placed in a younger age group than recommended by the manufacturer, potential hazards (small parts, magnets, long cords) were removed, and toys were functional without these components, however, some play patterns intended by the manufacturer may have been affected with this hazard removal. If a hazard was removed from a toy, the toy without hazards was given to all age groups using the toy so that the toy APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE 5 Table 1. Toy category by age category matrix with example toys. 6-11 months 1-1.5 years 1.6-2 years 3-5 years 6-8 years 9-12 years Wooden toy with flapping flower petals; Manipulative with nylon cords and moveable beads Large foam blocks; Wooden magnetic building blocks Board with detachable magnet gears; Bubble gun Moldable Styrofoam; Wooden flaps secured in a line with a ribbon – – Small rubber suction cup building toys; Wooden train with stackable pieces Building brick set with figurines; Plastic building rods and dowels Carnival ride building set with figurines; Robotic magnetic building cubes Shape sorter; Soft stacker with rainbow colored rings Large wooden knob puzzle; Soft fishing game Plastic nesting cups with rattle ball; Wooden peg board shape sorter Light up follow the light pattern game; 3D plastic maze ball Orange flip phone with buttons; Soft peek-a-boo book with liftable flaps Textured rubber balls; Tiny basketball hoop Spinning letter/ number/animal learning toy; Play touch screen phone Push toy; Small indoor slide Board book; Large activity cube Magnet puzzle; Handheld water game with button and ballinbaskets objective Wooden abacus; Foam letter magnets with white board Motorized amusement park ride building set; Animal tiny brick building set with multianimal options Battery-powered trivia game; 3D building puzzles Science kit; Wipeable crayons and learning mats Electronic circuit board; Architecture kit Bean bags with target; Stomp rocket Ping pong set; Slingshot Imaginative Play Baby doll; Stuffed dog Play vacuum; Plastic tea set Dinosaur toy; Doll and stroller Velcro throw and catch mitts; Crawlthrough tunnel Play fruit; Dancing yellow figurine – Small Vehicles Plastic train with removeable pieces; Rollable figure with squeaky head Wooden cars with plastic wheels; Talking truck Arts & Crafts – Chime ball; Musical touch pad Wooden yarn loom; Magnetic art board Wooden ukulele; Karaoke machine Origami kit; Learn to draw booklet Musical Toys Chunky animal marker; Gel writable boards Wooden xylophone with mallet; Plastic musical guitar Remote control truck; Firetruck with moveable ladder, siren, and bubble blower Finger paint; Tack board Puppet theater; Animatronic interactive animal Plastic motorcycle with figurine rider; Race track with crank that propels car Exploratory Toys Plastic keys; Soft manipulative cube Construction Toys Soft cube blocks; Rubber suction cups Games & Puzzles Instructional Toys Sports & Recreation Bowling set; Spiked light up balls Plastic horn; Whistle Wind up figurines; Large plastic airplane with cargo carrier Moldable clay; Coloring book and crayons Battery powered drum pad; Floor piano – Wooden violin with bow and carrying case; Keyboard with multiinstrument and effects buttons Note. Bolded cells consist of toys that fell outside of the age groups of children in this study. These toys were used as “younger” toys for the youngest age group and “older” toys for the oldest age group. – ¼ No toys were appropriate for the age group and toy category. was uniform across the age groups. Each toy was rated on two, 6-point continuous Likert-type scales for both masculinity and femininity (35% double coded for reliability; masculinity ICC¼.89, femininity ICC¼ .95). Ninety-five percent of toys were rated as having little masculine or feminine stereotyping. Planned missing data design Because young children have a limited attention span (even for toys), and we wanted to test a large number of diverse toys, we employed a three-form planned missing data design (Graham et al., 2006; Little & Rhemtulla, 2013) that limited the number of toy categories tested with each child. In this design, data are collected in four blocks (X, A, B, and C), and each participant is assigned one of three forms (XAB, XAC, or XBC). The X block is collected from all participants, and two of the three A, B, and C blocks are collected across a portion of participants in a counterbalanced fashion. Parents of all participants completed demographic information and questionnaires (see 6 M. N. RICHARDS ET AL. below), which became the X block (see Little & Rhemtulla, 2013). In this study, the toy categories were grouped into three blocks of three (A ¼ construction, instructional, and imaginative, B ¼ exploratory, sports, and musical, and C ¼ games and puzzles, small vehicles, arts and crafts). Each child was randomly assigned two of the three toy blocks (AB, AC, or BC), and therefore each child was tested on six of the nine toy categories. Planned missing data were handled using multiple imputation. More details follow in the Preliminary Analyses and Analytic Plan. Procedure Families learned about the study through mailings, flyers posted on community boards, and snowball recruiting. Before visiting the laboratory, mothers completed a packet of questionnaires about family demographic information and the child’s temperament, motor skills, and language development. When families arrived, two experimenters spent time with the parent and child in a waiting area until parent and child were comfortable. Once all parties were ready to begin, the experimenters lead the dyad into a laboratory play room outfitted with a low table and chair (with one exception: the table was removed for 1- to 1.5-year-olds). Toys were presented at this table (or on the floor for 1- to 1.5-year-olds), but children were told that they could play anywhere in the 248square foot room. Play was audio and video recorded through one-way glass and a ceiling camera. Children older than 1.5 years played by themselves with one category of toy at a time from each of the six toy categories (either the AB, AC, or BC toy blocks) they were assigned. During this child solitary play session, the mother sat nearby, refrained from interacting with the child, and completed questionnaires. Children aged 1 to 1.5 years old were permitted to play with their parent (all mothers) during the play session, and they were instructed to play as they would normally play together. This difference in methods was adopted because (a) at this age, it is difficult to have mothers stay uninvolved in play but still reassuringly close by and (b) it is rare for 1- to 1.5-year-olds to play without adult participation in naturalistic settings. In addition, children at this age were only permitted to play with their mothers because children’s play with mothers has been shown to be markedly different than with fathers during infancy (Crawley & Sherrod, 1984; Lindsey & Mize, 2001; MacDonald & Parke, 1986; Power, 1985; Power & Parke, 1983) and by eliminating this difference in the sample, we could ensure more consistency during the play session. For each of the six toy categories within the two toy blocks, children were given a 5-min trial to play with three toys: one from the age group just younger than their age, one from their own age group, and one from the age group just older than their age. For example, in the construction category, a 30-month-old child was given one construction toy that was assigned to the 1- to 1.5-year-old age group, one that was assigned to the 1.6- to 2-year-old age group, and one that was assigned to the 3- to 5-year age group. One min before the end of the trial, the experimenter gave the child a verbal warning that this set of toys would be removed and another set presented. This procedure was repeated for six toy sets. The toys were counterbalanced within categories so that any set of three toys in a given category was presented the same number of times throughout data collection (e.g., plain wood blocks were not always presented with the plastic interlocking bricks). The order of presentation of each of the six toy categories was also randomized across participants (e.g., an equal number of children received sports toys as their first trial, an equal number received games and puzzles as their second trial, etc.). Behavioral coding The aim of this research was to categorize toys by the appropriate age group for the child. As such, we were particularly interested in whether children could use the toys as intended during their play at the session. Of course, it is possible that children benefit from using toys not as intended, but when gauging age appropriate play, we focused on toy use that was intended when the toy was designed. As such, we do not focus in this paper on how children may use toys unconventionally (e.g., using a toy car as a boat). Intended use of toys For each toy, researchers composed three written narrative statements: (a) behaviors indicating that the child “fully utilized” the toy as intended, (b) behaviors that “partially utilized” the toy, and (c) behaviors that “did not utilize” the toy. For example, when playing with a puzzle with knobs, fully utilizing would necessitate putting the pieces back in the correct wells; partially utilizing would involve attempting to put pieces back in wells, but failing; and not utilizing would entail picking up pieces of the puzzle and throwing them like a ball. In total, there were 450 use-of-toy statements (3 statements for 150 toys). Each toy APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE statement was formulated to be able to be achievable in approximately 1 to 2 min. To ensure that toy intended use statements were complete and accurate, two independent coders assessed each of the 450 statements on a scale of 1-6 (1 ¼ inaccurate, 6 ¼ accurate). Coders agreed that toy descriptions were accurate (a score of 5 or 6) on 431 (96%) of the statements. The remaining 19 (4%) statements received a score of 3 or 4 by one or both coders, and these toy descriptions were revisited and amended to achieve 100% agreement. Utilization of toy After the intended use of toy statements were determined and validated, they were printed and put in a binder for coders to reference when watching the videos. Each play session was watched by the coders, and children’s play with each of the toys was categorized into one of the toy’s three intended use statements (i.e., fully utilizing (2), partially utilizing (1), or not utilizing (0), according to the intended use statements in the binder. Coders also noted if the child did not play with the toy for more than 5 s. Two independent coders were first trained to reliability on 8% of the sample, then double-coded an additional 14% of the sample, evenly distributed across the four age groups. Reliability cases were checked periodically throughout behavioral coding. Reliability in categorizing level of utilization was good, Cohen’s j¼.81. Because we were primarily interested in whether the child could fully utilize the toy, we recoded the utilization of toy code to either fully utilized (1) or not fully utilized (0; this category included children who were previously coded as partially utilizing and not utilizing). We also constructed a variable to indicate whether the child played with the toy (1) or did not play with the toy (0) so that we could circumscribe analyses to children who played with the toys. Covariates To supplement behavioral coding, we collected information from parents through surveys and interviews to gather a more comprehensive picture of the child’s characteristics that could affect their utilization of the toys. In addition to family demographics, parents completed the following questionnaires. Temperament Parents of 1- to 2-year-old children filled out the Early Childhood Behavior Questionnaire—Very Short Form (ECBQ-VSF; Putnam et al., 2010), and parents 7 of 3- to 8-year-old children filled out the Children’s Behavior Questionnaire—Very Short Form (CBQ-VSF; Putnam & Rothbart, 2006). Both temperament questionnaires assess three elements of temperament: Surgency (activity level, lack of shyness), Negative Affect (fear, anger), and Effortful Control (inhibitory control, attention focusing). Items are rated on a 7-point array, and each scale is computed as the average of the 12 items that make up the scale. The three factors of temperament measured by the ECBQ and CBQ have satisfactory internal consistency and criterion validity for children in the age range of our sample (Putnam et al., 2010; Putnam & Rothbart, 2006). Cronbach’s alphas in our sample exceeded .70 for all scales (except negative affectivity on the ECBQ, which had an a ¼ .55). Motor skills and communication level Parents completed two portions of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales—Second Edition (VABS-II) Parent/Caregiver Rating Form (Sparrow et al., 2005), yielding two domains—communication skills and motor skills. Each domain has high internal consistency, testretest reliability, and convergent validity (Sparrow et al., 2005). The VABS is approved for use for ages 0 to 90 years, and as such, provides age-standardized scores. Standardized scores were calculated for each participant based on reference groups surveyed during development of the measure (Sparrow et al., 2005). Familiarity with toy At the end of the testing session, all the toys the child played with were presented again to parents to report on whether (1) or not (0) their child had previously played with that particular toy before their toy play session. Preliminary analyses and analytic plan All missing data (i.e., both planned and unplanned missing data) were multiply imputed using the R (R Core Team, 2017) package PcAux (Lang, Little, & PcAux Development Team, 2017). The PcAux package implements the methods of Howard et al. (2015) to create principled multiple imputations via sequential regression imputation that uses principal components regression (PCR) as the elementary imputation method. Because of the large proportion of missing information in our planned missing data design, 100 datasets were imputed using PCR (Graham, Olchowski, & Gilreath, 2007). Detailed discussions of the algorithms implemented by PcAux is beyond the scope of this manuscript; interested readers are referred 8 M. N. RICHARDS ET AL. Table 2. Proportions of children who played with toys by age group and age-appropriateness of the toys. Age-appropriateness Exploratory Construction Games & Puzzles Instructional Sports & Recreation Imaginative Small Vehicles Arts & Crafts Musical All Toys Younger Age appropriate Older Younger Age appropriate Older Younger Age appropriate Older Younger Age appropriate Older Younger Age appropriate Older Younger Age appropriate Older Younger Age appropriate Older Younger Age appropriate Older Younger Age appropriate Older Younger Age appropriate Older 1-1.5 yrs 1.6-2 yrs 3-5 yrs 6-8 yrs All children .54 .73 .57 .61 .60 .64 .73 .69 .56 .58 .58 .77 1.00 .76 .71 .56 .59 .59 .58 .57 .60 – .78 .58 .70 .73 .58 .66 .67 .62 .71 .60 .55 .52 .59 .62 .70 .56 .74 .59 .72 .58 .76 .72 .55 .58 .58 .59 .57 .55 .72 .72 .54 .61 .75 .58 .60 .66 .61 .61 .57 .64 – – – .49 .56 .55 .72 .61 .58 .58 .74 .85 .54 .71 .73 .57 .74 – .71 .66 – .55 .58 .49 .58 .58 .75 .59 .65 .66 .61 .66 .56 .52 .56 .61 .68 .65 .61 .61 .65 .73 .76 .70 .68 .56 .64 .62 .60 .63 .63 .61 .62 .56 .66 .62 .63 .62 .64 .63 – .48 .51 .61 .58 .72 .57 .67 .55 .73 .73 .60 .74 .54 .62 .67 .55 .75 .59 .55 .60 .56 .60 .58 .60 .59 .62 .63 Note. – ¼ No toys were appropriate for the condition. to Enders (2010), Little et al. (2014), and Lang and Little (2018) for reviews of multiple imputation (MI) and its relative strengths, to Van Buuren (2012) and Van Buuren et al. (2006) for further information about the sequential regression approach for MI, and Hastie et al. (2009) for an introduction to PCR. In all analyses that follow, we considered maternal education and child gender, temperament (negativity, surgency, effortful control), communication and motor skills, and familiarity with the toy as potential covariates. However, none of these variables had significant or practically important relations with fully utilizing the toys, rpooled (11,827) ¼ .01 to .07, ps ¼ .450 to .000, so we did not control these variables in the analyses. Some correlations lacked practical importance because the effect sizes were very small. For example, the largest correlation was .07, which was statistically significant because of the large number of toys explored across age groups. However, even the largest covariate correlation (r ¼ .07) shared less than 1% of the variance with fully utilizing the toys, so the covariates were deemed inconsequential in the analyses. For the main analyses, the multiply imputed dataset was exported from R into SPSS 24 (IBM, 2016). First, we explored the proportions of children who played with toys appropriate to younger children, children their age, or older children, by age group and toy category. Then, we excluded toys that were not played with and assessed whether children were more likely to fully utilize toys that were age appropriate versus appropriate to younger and older children. We computed a Toy Category (9) x Age Group (4) x Ageappropriateness (3) generalized linear model with logit link function. Within-subject variance was accounted for by modeling each participant’s toy trials as a repeated effect. Because some sibling pairs participated in the study and they may have similar toy experiences at home, we also included a repeated effect for family to account for within-family variance. Significant interactions were exposed by exploring age-appropriateness effects within toy categories and age groups. SPSS reports statistics that pool across multiply imputed datasets for most statistical analyses, but pooled statistics are not available for Wald’s tests in generalized linear models. Hence, we report the range of those statistics across imputations. Results Playing with the toys Table 2 shows the proportions of children who played with toys in younger, age appropriate, and older categories for 5 s or more by child age group and toy category. Overall, nearly two-thirds of children played with the toys. With a few exceptions, at least half of APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE 9 Table 3. Of children who played with the toys, the proportions of children who fully utilized toys by age group and age-appropriateness of the toys. Age-appropriateness Exploratory Construction Games & Puzzles Instructional Sports & Recreation Imaginative Small Vehicles Arts & Crafts Musical All Toys Younger Age appropriate Older Younger Age appropriate Older Younger Age appropriate Older Younger Age appropriate Older Younger Age appropriate Older Younger Age appropriate Older Younger Age appropriate Older Younger Age appropriate Older Younger Age appropriate Older Younger Age appropriate Older 1-1.5 yrs 1.6-2 yrs 3-5 yrs .49a .71ab .29b .15a .44a .39 .13 .20 .37 .36a .60a .68 .69a .39a .55 .48 .36 .52 .41 .50 .38 .70a .41a .29 .41 .43 .28 .27a .55ab .32b .60 .67a .34a .47 .59 .40 .41 .53 .48 .49 .45 .42 .34 .37 .34 .43 .32 .36 .46 .49a .36a .47 .54 – .42 .40 .49 .40 .32 .41 .45 .44 – .50 .36 .31 .58 .45 .32 .66 .62a .19a .60 .50 .55 .63 .66 .60 .49 .48 .39 .41 .48a .29a .47 .45 .48 .54 .50a .40a 6-8 yrs – – – – – .38 .34 .21 .66 .55a .10a .59a .37ab .06b .49 .59a .21a .62 .74 .52 .53 .60a .34a .20 .56 .51 .65 .56 .53a .24a All children .56 .56a .29a .35 .40a .30a .40 .43a .28a .56 .56a .31a .57 .52a .43a .53 .59 .54 .47 .52a .40a .44 .41a .31a .48 .42 .47 .49 .49a .37a Note. – ¼ No toys were appropriate for the condition. Bolded proportions that share subscripts within age group and toy category conditions were significantly different. the children played with the toys in each category. Overall children were slightly more likely to play with age appropriate toys than those designed for younger children, Wald v2s(1) ¼ 248.16 -524.89, ps < .001, but play varied across age groups, age appropriateness of toys, and toy categories, Wald v2s(41) ¼ 275.75 – 593.22, ps < .001. In other words, most toys were played with for 5 seconds or more by the child participants and had a high utilization rate. Fully utilizing the toys To standardize comparison of play, we only analyzed children who had a utilization score on each toy, which meant that the child played with the toy for 5 s or more. After excluding toys that were not played with for at least 5 s, the 9 Toy category X 4 Age group X 3 Age-appropriateness generalized linear model revealed a significant 3-way interaction, Wald v2s(42) ¼ 303.48 – 765.72, ps < .001, as well as significant 2way interactions between Toy category and Ageappropriateness, Wald v2s(16) ¼ 96.63 – 229.88, ps < .001, and Age group and Age-appropriateness, Wald v2s(6) ¼ 78.91 – 206.76, ps < .001, in each of the 100 imputed datasets. Hence, we computed separate generalized linear models for each toy category and age group to assess the contrasts between older vs. age appropriate toys and younger vs. age appropriate toys. Proportions of children who fully utilized toys by age group and toy category appear in Table 3, and pooled unstandardized regression coefficients and standard errors are presented in Supplementary Table S1. Utilizing age appropriate toys vs. older toys We hypothesized that children would fully utilize age appropriate toys significantly more than those judged to be appropriate for older children. Aggregating across all age groups, children were more likely to fully utilize age appropriate toys than toys appropriate for older children in every toy category except imaginative and musical toys (last column in Table 3). When aggregating across all toy categories, children were more likely to fully utilize age appropriate toys than toys appropriate for older children in every age group except the 1- to 1.5-year-olds (last row in Table 3). Therefore, when aggregating across age group and toy category, children were more likely to use toys as intended if the toy was aimed at their age group compared to toys aimed at an older age group. However, these effects were moderated by age group and toy category. 10 M. N. RICHARDS ET AL. Individual cells of the matrix in Table 3 indicate that the pattern of relations differs by age group and toy category. Children were more likely to fully utilize age-appropriate toys than toys meant for older children for only 8 out of 32 individual contrasts (otherwise, there were no differences in level of utilization between age-appropriate and older toys). Across age groups, there were no differences in the likelihood of fully utilizing age-appropriate and older construction, imaginative, small vehicle, or musical toys (see rows in Table 3). However, 1- to 1.5-year-old children were more likely to fully utilize age-appropriate exploratory toys than those appropriate to older children; 1.6- to 2-year-olds were more likely to fully utilize age-appropriate games and puzzles and instructional toys than those appropriate to older children; 3- to 5-year-old children were more likely to fully utilize instructional and arts and crafts toys than those for older children; and 6- to 8-year-old children were more likely to fully utilize age-appropriate games and puzzles, instructional, and sports and recreation toys than those appropriate to older children. Thus, results revealed that children’s ability to utilize toys aimed at an older age group is highly dependent on the category of toy with which the child is playing. Additionally, in some cases, the age of the child will also make a difference when making the leap to playing with a toy for the subsequent age group. Overall, our hypothesis was partially supported. Utilizing age appropriate toys vs. younger toys We inquired whether children would be more, equally, or less likely to fully utilize toys that are geared toward younger children compared to ageappropriate toys. Collapsing across both toy category (last row in Table 3) and age group (last column in Table 3), there was never a significant difference in the proportions of children who fully utilized an age appropriate toy than a younger toy. In other words, collapsing across toy category and age group, children were just as likely to fully utilize toys for younger children as age-appropriate toys. When disaggregating age groups and toy category and looking at the individual cells inside of the matrix of Table 3, the pattern of age appropriate ¼ younger utilization held for 26 out of the 34 contrasts (76%). The pattern was particularly consistent for the imaginative, small vehicles, and musical toy categories, as it held within all the contrasts in these categories regardless of age group. Out of the eight contrasts that showed a difference in utilization between age appropriate and younger toys, four indicated that children were less likely to fully utilize younger toys than age-appropriate ones and four indicated that children were more likely to fully utilize younger toys than age-appropriate ones. Specifically, 1- to 1.5-year-old children were more likely to fully utilize age-appropriate exploratory, construction, and instructional toys than those appropriate to younger children, but they were more likely to fully utilize sports toys appropriate to younger children than their own age group; 1.6- to 2-year-old children were less likely to fully utilize age-appropriate exploratory toys than younger toys, yet they were more likely to fully utilize age-appropriate games and puzzles than those appropriate to younger children; and 6- to 8year-old children were less likely to fully utilize age appropriate instructional and arts and craft toys than those appropriate to younger children. Overall, then, when there was a difference in usage between age appropriate and younger toys, half of the time children were more likely to use the younger toys as intended, and the other half of the time children were more likely to use the age appropriate toys as intended, depending on the category of toy and the child’s age. Discussion Our study systematically investigated how children play with nine categories of age- appropriate and inappropriate toys from infancy into the school-age years. Previous research has never before fully investigated how children play with toys across so many categories and so many age groups. Children’s play appears to depend on the child’s age, the age appropriateness of the toy, and the category of toy with which the child plays. There was partial support for our main hypothesis that children would fully utilize (as we defined it in our study) age-appropriate toys more than toys appropriate for older children. When collapsing across age groups and toy categories, age-appropriate toys were more likely to be fully utilized than toys appropriate for older children. For example, 2-year-olds had difficulty completing games and puzzles appropriate for 3to 5-year-olds. However, this effect was also moderated by age group and toy category, indicating that the developmental level of the child and the categories of toys engaged with influence the child’s ability to fully utilize a toy. For example, in three toy categories – imaginative, small vehicles, and musical instruments – age-appropriateness of the toy had no bearing on the likelihood of children in any age group fully utilizing the toy. As another example, for the youngest age APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE group (1 to 1.5 years), there was no difference in the likelihood of fully utilizing toys that were age appropriate and appropriate for older children (except for exploratory toys). However, these results should be interpreted with caution, as the younger children’s abilities to fully utilize toys that were age appropriate and appropriate for older children could have been affected by removing the small parts of the toy, thus eliminating the more complex features of the toy and making it easier to use. From the perspective of developmental theory, the study results suggest that play is not a purely developmental phenomenon that unfolds in the child independent of the categories of toys children play with as Piaget (1962) and Vygotsky (1967) proposed. Although children are more likely to fully utilize toys that are age appropriate rather than appropriate to older children, when aggregating across age groups, child play appeared to be moderated by the toys played with. Some categories of toys, like imaginative ones, are equally likely to be fully utilized, regardless of their age-appropriateness or child age. Perhaps fully utilizing imaginative toys is related more to individual differences in pretense abilities or preference for pretense play than age-appropriateness per se. Other toy categories, like instructional toys, had relatively strong age-appropriateness effects across age groups. Instructional toys likely have the highest cognitive requirements of all toy categories, which may limit abilities of children of a given age to fully utilize instructional toys that are appropriate for older children. Regarding how children would utilize toys that were meant for younger children, aggregate data indicated no differences in the level of utilization between age-appropriate and younger toys. One exception to this general trend emerged among the 1- to 1.5-yearolds, where exploratory, construction, and instructional toys appropriate for younger (6- to 11-monthold) children were less likely to be fully utilized than age-appropriate toys. Perhaps more rudimentary younger toys are less appealing and quickly abandoned for more age-appropriate toys in this age group, particularly if the mother playing with her child in this age group steered her child away from toys she may have assessed as too babyish for her child. It is also possible that children in this age group were especially good at using age-appropriate toys in the exploratory, construction, and instructional categories because those toys have features that are especially attractive to them, such as sound potential and moving parts (Corter & Jamieson, 1977), when compared to the 6- to 11-month-old toys. 11 Applications and implications Children’s play with various categories of toys across development is important from scholarly and theoretical perspectives, as well as to parents, toy manufacturers, and government stakeholders, such as the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). CPSC staff first decide what age a potential user may be, then conduct testing for safety hazards to that age group. Toys intended for children younger than 3 years cannot have small parts that can cause choking. Playing with toys that are too young for oneself generally holds few safety consequences because toys intended for younger children are subject to strict safety regulations. The more important finding is that in most cases (24 of 32 individual contrasts) children were able to fully utilize (as defined by our study) toys that are aimed at the age group above them at the same rate as an age-appropriate toy, particularly within imaginative toys, small vehicles, and musical toys. Whereas the proportion of children who fully utilized older toys was never greater than that for ageappropriate toys, the proportions of children who fully utilized the age-appropriate and older toys were similar in 75% of the cases. This is somewhat alarming, especially because some of our toys had hazards removed for the experiment. However, children are realistically potentially experiencing these hazards when playing with their toys, especially if parents or caregivers were unaware of toy safety hazards, or are around toys that belong to older siblings, classmates, or friends. Nonetheless, it should be noted that removal of hazards, such as small parts, may eliminate play patterns that require more complex and refined fine motor and other skills. The way that children play with age appropriate and inappropriate toys is also useful for parents, teachers, and caregivers curating toys for children. Children are often placed in different-age toy environments, whether at home with siblings, in mixed-age child care arrangements, or when adults do not put away toys after the child passes through the age suggested on a label of any given toy (if the manufacturers’ suggested age can even be recalled). Prior research suggests that parents with children from toddlerhood to the elementary school years are looking to increase learning, creativity, social skills, and problem solving during play with toys (Fisher et al., 2008; Gallup, 2017). Our research suggests if parents or caregivers are looking for toys that will be able to be used by children to achieve these skills from a wide span of ages, then small vehicle, imaginative, and musical instrument toys may be the most versatile. 12 M. N. RICHARDS ET AL. Limitations and future directions This study is one of the first to comprehensively assess play across a wide age range of children with a large variety of contemporary toys. The study has some limitations nonetheless. Because we used three toys to represent each toy category in each age group, and children received only six of the nine toy categories, there was a high proportion of missing information. However, using a planned missing data design with principal components regression and 100 imputed datasets, the relative efficiency of the parameter estimates was always greater than 99%, suggesting that the number of imputations was sufficient. Planned missing designs are controlled to ensure that the data are missing completely at random (MCAR), and MCAR data are very well recovered with multiple imputation (Graham et al., 2006; Little & Rhemtulla, 2013). Children could not be presented with all the toys in the study, but our method allowed inclusion of 150 toys in nine categories. Another potential limitation of the study is the relatively high socioeconomic status (SES) of the families. Children varied in age and ethnicity, but they were recruited from a mid-Atlantic metropolitan area in the USA that has a high average level of education. Studies of children in lower-SES families may yield different results regarding the ageappropriateness of toys. Additionally, children the results of this study could be completely different in populations of children who are not typically developing, and should be studied further. Likewise, it is possible that the children in our study had individual differences that were not measured in our temperament, communication, and motor skill questionnaires that could have an effect on the way the child played with the toy. In addition, children in the study had only a fixed amount of time to play with each toy, even though we accommodated time limitations by ensuring utilization statements could be completed in less than 5 min. Also, we coded for using toys as intended to answer the research questions of the study, but it is possible that other useful and advantageous behaviors can occur when children are not using toys as intended. Our coding system did not differentiate between unconventional use of toys and not being able to utilize the toy, and additional coding could reveal some unconventional uses of toys that can be associated with learning and creativity. It is also possible that the age appropriateness statements that were used to judge full utilization of the toy missed some still ageappropriate behaviors that could also happen when children play with the toy, as several behaviors can occur outside of the toy intended use statements. Likewise, another limitation of the study was the removal of hazards such as small parts for the younger age groups. The removal of hazards may have resulted in a toy that required lower cognitive and motor skills, and "fully utilizing" a toy with hazards removed may be markedly different than fully utilizing a toy with hazards intact as originally provided by the manufacturer. This may have contributed to the similarities that were observed in being able to fully utilize toys between age appropriate and older toys in the younger age groups. Additionally, this study was conducted in a laboratory setting with a specific procedure which could limit generalizability to naturalistic play settings (e.g., only being able to choose between three toys for play; not having any peers or siblings with whom to play). Finally, the 1- to 1.5-year-olds were the only age group to play with a parent. Hence, it is possible that parents moderated the toy interactions, allowing this age group to play similarly with toys that were age appropriate and geared toward older children. Future research could investigate this possibility within the framework of Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (1978), particularly how parents may help children fully utilize toys that are relatively more difficult to use. Upcoming research should continue to examine the age-appropriateness of toys given to children. We gave children toys that were intended for the age group just above them. Our research suggested that in many cases children were just as capable of utilizing toys that were meant for children an age group older as they were an age-appropriate toy. It is possible that starker contrasts would appear when children play with toys that are two or more age groupings above them. In addition, this study researched how children played with three toys from the same category, but differing age appropriateness, but other results could have surfaced if children played with three toys from different categories but similar age appropriateness. In addition, future research should operationalize the qualities of the toys themselves (e.g., sound potential, moving parts) and analyze relations between these features and children’s toy utilization, the amount of time children spend with the toys, or whether children combine toys when playing with them. It is possible that certain age groups of children are particularly drawn to noisemaking toys, or toys that have many pieces, and as such, are more likely to utilize them. In addition, some children did not spend any time at all with a toy, while others spent the entire 5-minute session on a single toy. Understanding why children spent so much time (or no time at all) with any given toy warrants additional APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE consideration. Children who do not play with toys may be doing so because the toy is age inappropriate for them (either too boring, or too frustrating for them) or also because the other toys they were given during that trial were more novel to them and something they had never seen before. Toys have unique qualities that may lend themselves to different degrees of utilization, and their features should be studied further. Conclusions Toys are ubiquitous in the lives of children, and clear information about how child age and toy category affect children’s play is sorely needed for researchers, parents, caregivers, toy manufacturers, and safety regulators. This study is the first to demonstrate that child play is heavily dependent on the particular toy, the toy category, and the child’s age. These results advance scholarly knowledge and contribute to the health, safety, and development of children. Acknowledgements We thank all the families and children who were kind enough to take time out of their very busy schedules to take part in the study. We are also grateful to all the research assistants throughout the course of this project, particularly Shyneice Porter. Furthermore, we want to thank Dr. Khalisa Phillips at the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) for her guidance throughout the project. Author note This study was not funded by a toy manufacturer or group who could financially benefit from the results or by a company that had toys in the study. Funding This project has been funded with federal funds from the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission under agreement number CPSC-I-14-0016. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the Commission. This research also was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH/NICHD, USA, and an International Research Fellowship at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), London, UK, funded by the European Research Council (ERC) under the Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement No 695300-HKADeC-ERC-2015-AdG). 13 ORCID Melissa N. Richards http://orcid.org/0000-00025942-3249 Todd D. Little http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4146-4712 References ASTM Standard F963. (2011). Standard consumer safety specification for toy safety, 1986. ASTM International. www. astm.org. Bergen, D. (2002). The role of pretend play in children’s cognitive development. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 4, 1–13. Bornstein, M. H. (2007). On the significance of social relationships in the development of children’s earliest symbolic play: An ecological perspective. In A. G€ onç€ u & S. Gaskins (Eds.), Play and development: Evolutionary, sociocultural, and functional perspectives (pp. 101–129). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Bornstein, M. H., DiPietro, J. A., Hahn, C., Painter, K. M., Haynes, O. M., & Costigan, K. A. (2002). Prenatal cardiac function and postnatal cognitive development: An exploratory study. Infancy, 3(4), 475–494. https://doi.org/ 10.1207/S15327078IN0304_04 Bornstein, M. H., Selmi, A. M., Haynes, O. M., Painter, K. M., & Marx, E. S. (1999). Representational abilities and the hearing status of child/mother dyads. Child Development, 70(4), 833–852. https://doi.org/10.1111/ 1467-8624.00060 Core Team, R. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software manual]. http:// www.R-project.org/ Corter, C., & Jamieson, N. (1977). Infants’ toy preferences and mothers’ predictions. Developmental Psychology, 13(4), 413–414. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.13.4.413 Crawley, S. B., & Sherrod, K. B. (1984). Parent-infant play during the first year of life. Infant Behavior and Development, 7(1), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S01636383(84)80023-5 Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. The Guilford Press. Fenson, L., Kagan, J., Kearsley, R. B., & Zelazo, P. R. (1976). The developmental progression of manipulative play in the first two years. Child Development, 47(1), 232–236. https://doi.org/10.2307/1128304 Fisher, K. R., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., & Gryfe, S. G. (2008). Conceptual split? Parents’ and experts; perceptions of play in the 21st century. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(4), 305–316. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.appdev.2008.04.006 Gallup. (2017). Time to play– A study on children’s free time: How it is spent, prioritized, and valued. Gallup. Ginsburg, K. R. (2007). The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong parent-child bonds. PEDIATRICS, 119(1), 182–191. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2006-2697 Glassy, D., Romano, J., & Committee on Early Childhood. (2003). Selecting appropriate toys for young children: The pediatrician’s role. PEDIATRICS, 111(4), 911–913. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.111.4.911 14 M. N. RICHARDS ET AL. Graham, J. W., Olchowski, A. E., & Gilreath, T. D. (2007). How many imputations are really needed? Some practical clarifications of multiple imputation theory. Prevention Science, 8(3), 206–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-007-0070-9 Graham, J. W., Taylor, B. J., Olchowski, A. E., & Cumsille, P. E. (2006). Planned missing data designs in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 11(4), 323–343. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.4.323 Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., & Friedman, J. (2009). The elements of statistical learning (2nd ed.). Springer. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7 Howard, W., Rhemtulla, M., & Little, T. D. (2015). Using principal components as auxiliary variables in missing data estimation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50(3), 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.999267 IBM. (2016). IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 24.0 [Computer software]. IBM Corp. Kaugars, A. S., & Russ, S. W. (2009). Assessing preschool children’s pretend play: Preliminary validation of the Affect in Play Scale—Preschool version. Early Education and Development, 20(5), 733–755. https://doi.org/10. 1080/10409280802545388 Kimmerle, M., Mick, L. A., & Michel, G. F. (1995). Bimanual role-differentiated toy play during infancy. Infant Behavior and Development, 18(3), 299–307. Lang, K. M., & Little, T. D. (2018). Principled missing data treatments. Prevention Science, 19(3), 284–294. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11121-016-0644-5 Lang, K. M., Little, T. D., & PcAux Development Team. (2017). PcAux: Automatically extract auxiliary features for simple, principled missing data analysis (R package version 0.0.0.9004). http://github.com/PcAux-Package/PcAux/ Lillard, A. S. (2015). The development of play. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), The handbook of child psychology and developmental science (pp. 425–468). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy211 Lindsey, E. W., & Mize, J. (2001). Contextual differences in parent–child play: Implications for children’s gender role development. Sex Roles, 44(3/4), 155–176. Little, T. D., Jorgensen, T. D., Lang, K. M., & Moore, E. W. G. (2014). On the joys of missing data. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 39(2), 151–112. https://doi.org/10. 1093/jpepsy/jsto48 Little, T. D., & Rhemtulla, M. (2013). Planned missing data designs for developmental researchers. Child Development Perspectives, 7(4), 199–204. https://doi.org/10.111/cdep.12043 MacDonald, K., & Parke, R. D. (1986). Parent-child physical play: The effects of sex and age of children and parents. Sex Roles, 15(7-8), 367–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF00287978 Olszewski, P., & Fuson, K. C. (1982). Verbally expressed fantasy play of preschoolers as a function of toy structure. Developmental Psychology, 18(1), 57–61. https://doi. org/10.1037/0012-1649.18.1.57 Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. Norton. View publication stats Power, T. G. (1985). Mother-and father-infant play: A developmental analysis. Child Development, 56(6), 1514–1524. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130470 Power, T. G., & Parke, R. D. (1983). Patterns of mother and father play with their 8-month-old infant: A multiple analyses approach. Infant Behavior and Development, 6(4), 453–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(83)90256-4 Putnam, S. P., & Rothbart, M. K. (2006). Development of Short and Very Short forms of the Children’s Behavior Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87(1), 102–113. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8701_09 Putnam, S. P., Jacobs, J., Gartstein, M. A., & Rothbart, M. K. (2010, March). Development and Assessment of Short and Very Short Forms of the Early Childhood Behavior Questionnaire. Poster presented at International Conference on Infant Studies, Baltimore, MD. Robinson, C. C., & Jackson, R. (1987). The effects of varying toy detail within a prototypical play object on the solitary pretend play of preschool children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 8(2), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/0193-3973(87)90015-3 Russ, S. W. (2014). Pretend play in childhood. American Psychological Association. Scarlett, W. G. (2005). Children’s play. SAGE Publications, Inc. Sparrow, S. S., Cicchetti, D. V., & Balla, D. A. (2005). Vineland-II: Vineland adaptive behavior scales (2nd Ed.). Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., & Bornstein, M. H. (1991). Individual variation, correspondence, stability, and change in mother and toddler play. Infant Behavior and Development, 14(2), 143–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0163-6383(91)90002-A The Small Parts Regulation, 16 C.F.R. §1501 (1979). U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Toy Industry Association. (2017). Annual sales data. http:// www.toyassociation.org/TIA/Industry_Facts/salesdata/Industry Facts/Sales_Data/Sales_Data.aspx?hkey=6381a73a-ce46-4caf8bc1-72b99567df1e#.VTFwciHBzRY Trawick-Smith, J., & Dziurgot, T. (2011). Good-fit" teacherchild play interactions and subsequent autonomous play in preschool. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(1), 110–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.04.005 Tu, Y. (2012). Toy-related deaths and injuries: Calendar year 2012. Directorate for Epidemiology, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Van Buuren, S. (2012). Flexible imputation of missing data. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b11826 Van Buuren, S., Brand, J. P. L., Groothuis-Oudshoorn, C. G. M., & Rubin, D. B. (2006). Fully conditional specification in multivariate imputation. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 76(12), 1049–1064. https:// doi.org/10.1080/10629360600810434 Vygotsky, L. S. (1967). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Soviet Psychology, 5(3), 6–18. https://doi.org/10.2753/RPO1061-040505036 Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Harvard University Press. CLINICAL REPORT Guidance for the Clinician in Rendering Pediatric Care Selecting Appropriate Toys for Young Children in the Digital Era Aleeya Healey, MD, FAAP,​a,​b Alan Mendelsohn, MD, FAAP,​a,​c COUNCIL ON EARLY CHILDHOOD Play is essential to optimal child development because it contributes to the cognitive, physical, social, and emotional well-being of children and youth. It also offers an ideal and significant opportunity for parents and other caregivers to engage fully with children using toys as an instrument of play and interaction. The evolution of societal perceptions of toys from children’s playthings to critical facilitators of early brain and child development has challenged caregivers in deciding which toys are most appropriate for their children. This clinical report strives to provide pediatric health care providers with evidence-based information that can be used to support caregivers as they choose toys for their children. The report highlights the broad definition of a toy; consideration of potential benefits and possible harmful effects of toy choices on child development; and the promotion of positive caregiving and development when toys are used to engage caregivers in play-based interactions with their children that are rich in language, pretending, problem-solving, and creativity. The report aims to address the evolving replacement of more traditional toys with digital media–based virtual “toys” and the lack of evidence for similar benefits in child development. Furthermore, this report briefly addresses the role of toys in advertising and/or incentive programs and aims to bring awareness regarding safety and health hazards associated with toy availability and accessibility in public settings, including some health care settings. RATIONALE FOR CLINICAL REPORT The last 20 years have brought a shift in parental and societal perception of toys, with parents and other caregivers increasingly likely to view toys as being important for children’s development, self-regulation, and executive functioning.‍1,​2‍ A number of interrelated underlying factors have contributed to this shift, including: (1) increased recognition of early brain and child development as critical to educational success; (2) increased recognition of early experiences in the home and in child care settings as facilitating early brain and child development‍3; (3) increased marketing of so-called “educational” toys as critical for enhancing early abstract aNew York University Langone Health, New York City, New York; and Millie Duker Children’s Hospital at Albany Medical Center, Albany, New York; and cBellevue Hospital Center, New York City, New York bBernard Drs Healey and Mendelsohn conducted a thorough literature review on all topics, integrated the most up-to-date data, and synthesized this evidence to create an original authorship with cited references of recommendations for the use of toys in promoting optimal child development; and all authors approved the final manuscript as submitted. This document is copyrighted and is property of the American Academy of Pediatrics and its Board of Directors. All authors have filed conflict of interest statements with the American Academy of Pediatrics. Any conflicts have been resolved through a process approved by the Board of Directors. The American Academy of Pediatrics has neither solicited nor accepted any commercial involvement in the development of the content of this publication. Clinical reports from the American Academy of Pediatrics benefit from expertise and resources of liaisons and internal (AAP) and external reviewers. However, clinical reports from the American Academy of Pediatrics may not reflect the views of the liaisons or the organizations or government agencies that they represent. The guidance in this report does not indicate an exclusive course of treatment or serve as a standard of medical care. Variations, taking into account individual circumstances, may be appropriate. All clinical reports from the American Academy of Pediatrics automatically expire 5 years after publication unless reaffirmed, revised, or retired at or before that time. DOI: https://​doi.​org/​10.​1542/​peds.​2018-​3348 Address correspondence to Alan Mendelsohn, MD, FAAP. E-mail: alm5@ nyu.edu PEDIATRICS (ISSN Numbers: Print, 0031-4005; Online, 1098-4275). Copyright © 2019 by the American Academy of Pediatrics To cite: Healey A, Mendelsohn A, AAP COUNCIL ON EARLY CHILDHOOD. Selecting Appropriate Toys for Young Children in the Digital Era. Pediatrics. 2019;143(1):e20183348 Downloaded from www.aappublications.org/news at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV on October 18, 2021 FROM THE AMERICAN ACADEMY PEDIATRICS Volume 143, number 1, January 2019:e20183348 OF PEDIATRICS experiences; (4) the perception (perhaps misperception) of toy play rather than interaction with caregivers around toys as important for the child’s development, inclusive of self-regulation‍3; and (5) increasing sophistication of digital media–based virtual “toys” replacing physical toys and often incorrectly perceived by caregivers as having educational benefit.4,​5‍ Although high-quality toys facilitate child development when they lead to the engagement of caregivers in play-based interactions that are rich in language, pretending, problemsolving, reciprocity, cooperation, and creativity‍4 (and potentially for older children in solitary play‍1), many of the claims advertised for toys are not based on scientific evidence. Additionally, there has been increasing recognition of potential for harm in the context of exposure to electronic media, environmental toxins, and safety hazards. In particular, electronic media have been associated with displacement of play-based caregiver-child interactions and reductions in cognitive and/or language‍6–‍‍ 10 ‍ and gross motor activities,​‍11 with implications for child development‍7 and health outcomes (eg, obesity).11 This clinical report addresses the pediatric health care providers’ role in advising caregivers about toys in the context of changes in caregivers’ perceptions of toys and the evolution of what now constitutes a toy. It complements existing policy from the American Academy of Pediatrics related to play,​‍4 media,​‍12,​13 ‍ school readiness,​‍14 toxic stress,​15,​16 ‍ injury prevention,​‍17 toxicology,​‍18 and poverty.‍4 AN EVOLVING DEFINITION OF TOYS In this report, a toy is defined as an object (whether made, purchased, or found in nature) intended for children’s play. Developmentally, the importance of toys is strongly 2 supported by the large body of research documenting the role of play in fostering development across all domains (including cognitive, language, social-emotional, and physical).‍1,​4,​ ‍ 19 ‍ Although the concept of play has not changed over time, what constitutes a toy at the time of this report is substantially different than what it was during the previous century.‍20 This difference is attributable in part to the proliferation of electronic, sensorystimulating noise and light toys and digital media–based platforms with child-oriented software and mobile applications1,​21 ‍ that can be perceived by parents as necessary for developmental progress despite the lack of supporting evidence and, perhaps most importantly, with the potential for the disruption of caregiver-child interactions.‍22 Traditional (physical) toys can be categorized in a variety of ways: (1) symbolic and/or pretend (eg, dolls, action figures, cars, cooking and/ or feeding implements, etc); (2) fine motor, adaptive, and/or manipulative (eg, blocks, shapes, puzzles, trains, etc); (3) art (eg, clay and coloring); (4) language and/or concepts (eg, card games, toy letters, and board games); and (5) gross motor and/or physical (eg, large toy cars, tricycles, and push and pull toys).‍23 High-quality toys in each of these categories can facilitate caregiverchild interactions, peer play, and the growth of imagination. It should be emphasized that high-quality toys need not be expensive. For example, toy blocks, in addition to household objects, can be interesting for a child to examine and explore, especially if the child observes adults using them. Unfortunately, many caregivers believe that expensive electronic toys (eg, sensory-stimulating noise and light toys for infants and toddlers) and tablet-based toys are essential for their children’s healthy development‍2; however, evidence suggests that core elements of such toys (eg, lights and sounds emanating from a robot) detract from social engagement that might otherwise take place through facial expressions, gestures, and vocalizations and that may be important for social development.‍24,​25 ‍ Over the past 2 decades, a number of core elements of traditional toys have been adapted to electronic (virtual) versions, such as laptops, tablets, phones, other mobile devices, and stand-alone electronic game devices, and to toys that substitute for human interaction (eg, toy bear that can read a story aloud).‍2,​5‍ In many cases, these have been integrated with new elements not previously available within traditional toys, such as sensory-stimulating toys (especially for infants, for whom the strong visual engagement and neurodevelopmental consequences are not presently known‍2). This blurring of the line between physical and virtual toys has greatly complicated caregiver decisionmaking when selecting toys, especially because mobile device applications for children have proliferated at an extraordinary pace.‍1,​21 As a result, pediatric health care providers have an important role in providing guidance for selecting appropriate applications‍21 and toys. TOYS AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT General Considerations Toys are important in early child development in relation to their facilitation of cognitive development, language interactions, symbolic and pretend play, problem-solving, social interactions, and physical activity, with increasing importance as children move from infancy into toddlerhood.‍1 Pretending through toy characters (eg, dolls, animals, and figures) and associated toy objects (eg, food, utensils, cars, planes, and buildings) can promote the use of words and narratives to Downloaded from www.aappublications.org/news at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV on October 18, 2021 FROM THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS imitate, describe, and cope with actual circumstances and feelings. Such imaginative play ultimately facilitates language development, self-regulation, symbolic thinking, and social-emotional development.‍26 Problem-solving through play with the “traditional favorites,​” such as blocks and puzzles, can support fine motor skills and language and cognitive development and predicts both spatial and early mathematics skills.‍27,​28 ‍ The use of toys in physical activity (such as playing with balls) has the potential to facilitate gross motor development together with self-regulation and peer interaction because of the negotiations regarding rules that typically take place. The aforementioned are only a few examples of skill development associated with toy play. Play with caregivers is most likely necessary to support skill development. However, solitary play can also have a role (especially for older children, for whom exploration and play with toys on their own time and pace can foster their independent creativity, investigation, and assimilation skills1). In general, the best toys are those that match children’s developmental skills and abilities and further encourage the development of new skills. Developmentally advanced toys can be appropriate too, especially when caregivers scaffold (eg, setting up a storyline for pretending together or providing support for the child’s learning of a new skill) children in their play. Some toys have the ability to “grow” with the child, in that they can be used differently as children advance developmentally. For example, an 18-month-old child might try to use blocks functionally (eg, stack them), whereas a 2-year-old might use the same blocks to engage in sophisticated symbolic play (eg, by feeding the doll with a block that represents a bottle‍1) or use the same blocks to construct a bridge, demonstrating the development of spatial awareness. Notably, data in support of a developmental role for toys primarily come from studies of activities in which children play with caregivers‍3 rather than alone.‍4,​27,​ ‍ 29 ‍ In particular, toys that are most likely to facilitate development are those that are most enjoyably and productively used for play together with an engaged caregiver, because in such contexts play with toys is likely to include rich language experiences, reciprocal (“serve and return”15,​16 ‍ ) verbal interactions, and scaffolding. Toys can play an especially important role in the promotion of learning and discovery in “guided play,​” in which children take the lead, but caregivers support their exploration in the context of learning goals.‍1,​30 ‍ The idea that play with toys is enriched by use with a caregiver is consistent with the many studies of early childhood documenting that learning takes place optimally in the context of serve-and-return conversations that build on the child’s focus‍31 (and are analogous to shared book reading). In general, toys that facilitate imaginative play and problemsolving are most likely to enable such engagement by caregivers, whereas toys that are electronically based (whether traditional or media based) are less likely to do so.10,​32 ‍ Therefore, when pediatric health care providers advise parents and caregivers, it is important to stress that toys can serve an important but supportive role in enhancing a child’s social development in addition to other domains, such as language, primarily through engaging caregivers in responsive interactions‍3 and pretend play. The pace of life in today’s society provides limited time available to many caregivers, and solitary play with toys should not be a substitute for caregiver-child interactions during play or other contexts, such as reading aloud. Electronic toys by themselves will not provide children with the interaction and parental engagement that are critical for the healthy development. Appropriateness of Toys for Children With Special Needs Children with developmental delays or disabilities may face a variety of difficulties or obstacles in their play because of factors such as intellectual limitations or physical restrictions. One of the greatest difficulties is when the play itself becomes atypical in nature. For example, they may play with objects repetitively (eg, stacking blocks in the same way over and over again but not constructing anything per se) or nonfunctionally (eg, tapping a toy phone on the floor versus talking into it) or engage with toys at a significantly different developmental level than that of peers of a similar age (eg, 3 toddlers are having their toy dinosaurs chase one another, whereas a fourth is standing aside chewing on the toy dinosaur’s tail). Furthermore, atypical behaviors among children with disabilities may themselves disrupt social interactions in addition to the play itself. These differences in developmental capacities are exhibited across domains,​‍3 and in turn, how children play with their toys may limit their ability to learn and develop maximally from parentchild and peer play opportunities. The choice of toys may be especially complex for children with special needs given that recommendations on packaging are usually based on age and not developmental capacities. For instance, caregivers of children with special needs may be more likely to choose functional toys (eg, toys that are easily activated and often respond with lights and sounds)‍33 over symbolic toys that encourage pretend play, creativity, and interactions (eg, toy animal farm).‍34 Thus, caregivers of children with special needs may benefit from additional guidance from specialty therapists (eg, speech, Downloaded from www.aappublications.org/news at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV on October 18, 2021 PEDIATRICS Volume 143, number 1, January 2019 3 occupational, or physical therapists) in choosing which toys, activities, and interactions are most appropriate for the developmental age of their child to ensure continued growth and skill mastery. Adaptations of toys to accommodate a motor, visual, or other disability can be important for children with special needs. This can be accomplished by combining easy access with multisensory feedback,​‍35 such as light and sound when a toy is powered on. Examples of adaptations in design include Velcro strips to help a child hold a toy,​‍36 adding a piece of foam around a marker or paintbrush to make the art utensil easier to hold for a child with an inability to grasp the utensil independently,​‍37 and the use of a larger push button to activate a toy for a child with fine motor difficulties who cannot easily manipulate a small switch.‍35 Technology has played a particularly important role in supporting the use of toys, and it is anticipated that the role of technology in addressing developmental interventions will increase over time with the guidance of research. As with children who are typically developing, children with special needs maximally benefit from play with toys in the context of caregiver interaction. Toys can be used as a mode of incentive in the context of early intervention services and physical therapy more generally. For example, therapists often use toys to stimulate the use of a nondominant hand by placing the toy on that side of the body. Alternatively, using a toy as a reward may help elicit verbalizations in a child with a language disability. Novel or preferred toys can be held near an adult’s face to encourage eye contact for a child with autism spectrum disorder.‍38,​39 ‍ Toys and the Promotion of Parenting, Positive Caregiving, and Child Development There has been a broad range of scientific- and policy-based efforts 4 to enhance early development by promoting caregivers and children to play together with toys. These efforts are especially important for children growing up in poverty, for whom there is both reduced access to developmentally appropriate toys and barriers to caregiver-child interaction.‍4,​14,​ ‍ 15 ‍ Such initiatives complement existing programs seeking to enhance early literacy within the pediatric medical home (eg, Reach Out and Read‍40). Efforts to promote play with toys have taken place across diverse platforms, including in (1) preschools (eg, Tools of the Mind41), (2) home visiting (eg, Parent-Child Home Program and Play and Learning Strategies‍42), (3) public health (eg, Building Blocks‍29 and Blocktivities‍43), and (4) pediatric primary care (eg, Video Interaction Project‍29), to name a few. Findings from these programs strongly suggest that toys are most likely to facilitate developmental advances in the context of interactions3 with and support by caregivers (including scaffolding and guided play rather than as a result of the toy itself‍31), early childhood educators, and other providers.‍44 Pediatric health care providers’ knowledge and awareness of these programs can inform anticipatory guidance to parents, provide opportunities for integration within the medical home enhancement, and function as potential sources of referral depending on availability within the communities they serve. Furthermore, the selection of toys offered to children should reflect the diverse and multicultural world we live in (ie, selecting dolls of various ethnicities in the pediatric office waiting area).‍45 ELECTRONIC MEDIA EXPOSURE AND PLAY WITH TOYS A 2013 study revealed that 38% of US children younger than 2 years and 80% of 2 to 4 year-old children‍11,​46 ‍ have used a mobile electronic media device; this has more than doubled when compared with data collected in 2011.‍4,​11,​ ‍ 32 More recent data presented in 2015 suggests that 96.9% of children have used mobile devices, and most started using them before 1 year of age.‍47 For young children, the increase in screen time, which has evolved over the past decade, has taken place in association with a decrease in play, including both active play and play with toys.‍11 This is especially significant for young children’s development because screen time directly interferes with both play activities and parent-child interactions,​‍48 and even educational media is typically watched without caregiver input.‍11,​21,​48 ‍ Furthermore, virtual toys (ie, screen games and/or applications) are increasingly designed to emulate and even replace physical toys. This potentially increases known risks of electronic media exposure, such as the promotion of aggressive behavior‍49 and obesity.‍50 The potential for these risks is especially great in the context of violence portrayed as humorous or justified, which can reinforce aggressive behavior and desensitize children to violence and its consequences.‍51 Although it has been suggested that there may be learning benefits in association with interactive media,​46,​52,​ ‍ 53 ‍ there is presently no evidence to suggest that possible benefits of interactive media match those of active, creative, hands-on, and pretend play with more traditional toys.‍4,​9‍ In particular, children need to use their hands to explore and manipulate to strengthen those areas in the brain associated with spatial and mathematical learning.54,​55 ‍ Recent investigations have revealed that during children’s play with electronic toys, there were fewer adult words, fewer conversational turns, fewer parental responses, and fewer productions of content-specific words than during play with traditional toys or books. Children, themselves vocalized Downloaded from www.aappublications.org/news at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV on October 18, 2021 FROM THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS less during play with electronic toys than with books.‍8 Newer smartphone applications are focused on addressing the lack of social and physical interactivity; however, longterm risk and benefit studies are necessary to determine their actual impact and sustainability.‍56 It is ironic that at a time when psychologists and other developmental scientists are recognizing the role of the body in learning, toys for children are becoming increasingly two-dimensional.‍57 ADVERTISING AND TOYS A great deal of marketing in both traditional and new media is used to encourage caregivers to view technologically driven toys as critical for development. Such marketing has led to increasing exposure by children to enrichment videos, computer programs, specialized books with voice-recorded reading, and “developmental” toys beginning in early infancy.‍4,​58 ‍ It is important to note that claims for such toys on packaging and advertising are largely unsubstantiated‍59–61 ‍ by credible studies, and thus, it is important for pediatric health care providers to aid caregivers in deciphering such advertisements. Toys are also used extensively as a mechanism for marketing. For example, there has been a trend over the past decade of coupling food consumption with a toy incentive. Many fast food restaurants offer a toy incentive with particular meal purchases (many of which are energy dense and nutrient poor) to increase sales; such incentives are thought to have contributed to childhood obesity.‍62 Promotions and incentives are an especially important consideration for children younger than 8 years, who are unaware that promotions and advertisements are actually designed to persuade them to have their caregivers buy specific products.‍59 Recent initiatives at the federal (Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission) and local levels have sought and continue to develop regulations to guide and reduce such suggestive content in advertisements. One example is the US toy ordinance piloted in Santa Clara County, California, which prohibited the distribution of toys and other incentives to children in conjunction with meals, foods, or beverages that do not meet minimal nutritional criteria. This ordinance, in turn, positively influenced the marketing of healthful menu items with the toy incentive, and children then requested their parents to purchase the healthier meal options. The trial period provided data revealing the effects of marketing through toy incentives on children’s food choices and, furthermore, the effects of their requests on the parental purchase of the meal.‍62 The initiative was later expanded to similar changes in a number of major US cities (San Francisco and New York City). TOY SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS Government regulations, improved safety standards for the manufacture and use of toys, and product testing have made most toys safe when used appropriately for recommended ages and stages of development. However, just because a product is on the market does not mean that it is safe. In determining toy safety, the characteristics of the toy should be considered as well as how the toy might be used or abused and the amount of supervision or help needed for safe play. In a recent example of potential dangers, ingestion of high-powered magnetic objects (eg, rare earth magnets and strong permanent magnets) sometimes used in toys resulted in significant child morbidity.‍63 Button batteries are ubiquitous as energy sources in electronic toys and have been associated with gastrointestinal hemorrhage and death when ingested.‍60 The US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Web site (www.​ cpsc.​gov/​) contains information regarding toy safety and can be a resource for pediatric providers and caregivers.‍17,​64 ‍ Two CPSC initiatives of particular relevance are SaferProducts (www.​saferproducts.​ gov/​), which allows anyone to report safety concerns, and the Recalls. gov Web site (www.​recalls.​gov), which provides information about safety recalls. In addition to physical safety characteristics, close attention should be paid to a toy’s contact with harmful substances that may be used to treat its materials (eg, arsenic used to treat some wood products, lead paint, or chemicals such as bisphenol A18). Caring for Our Children, Third Edition, includes detailed information regarding potential hazards.‍65 TOYS AND THE OUTPATIENT PEDIATRIC SETTING Toys provided in the waiting rooms of pediatric offices and other medical settings can serve as a model for caregivers and thereby aid in their decisionmaking about toys. Such toys can also help reduce child anxiety regarding visits and procedures. However, toys in pediatric settings also have the potential to become a vehicle for transmitting viruses and other pathogens among pediatric patients. Clear, easy-to-follow recommendations for the use and cleaning of toys in the pediatric office have been made by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and others.‍66–‍‍ 69 ‍ For example, the sanitization of toys can be safely accomplished by washing with soap and water and then disinfecting by using a freshly prepared solution (1:100 dilution of household bleach; soak for at least 2 minutes) or by using an Environmental Protection Agency–registered sanitizing solution (according to the manufacturer’s Downloaded from www.aappublications.org/news at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV on October 18, 2021 PEDIATRICS Volume 143, number 1, January 2019 5 instructions) and then rinsing and air drying.66–‍ 68 ‍ Toys should be cleaned between uses to avoid the transfer of infectious agents.‍67 Also, caregivers can be given the option to bring their child’s own toys for office visits to minimize the sharing and transmission of infectious disease. Although some available toys are marketed as incorporating antibacterial agents in their construction, it is important to note that such construction is currently unproven to be “antibacterial.”‍66 Further guidance of cleaning and disinfectin...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Explanation & Answer:
7 pages
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

View attached explanation and answer. Let me know if you have any questions.Here you go, thanks!

MAGIC COLOR MIXING BOWL

Fisher-Price Laugh & Learn Magic Color Mixing Bowl

[Author Name(s), First M. Last, Omit Titles and Degrees]
[Institutional Affiliation(s)]
CAS 325A
Dr. N. Atagi
November 1, 2021

1
Fisher-Price Laugh & Learn Magic Color Mixing Bowl
The toy industry and the products that it creates have an enormous influence on the
children that interact with them. This influence and the resulting cognitive skills that develop as a
result can have lifelong effects on the child. In a largely unregulated industry, what assurances
guarantee toys are engineered to best serve the child’s developmental growth? Motivated by
sales and profits, often toys are simply copied and sold with minor consideration for the
behavioral benefits or cognitive influences they may produce (Chase, 1992). Age-appropriate
toys that are designed and engineered to enhance cognitive development in the child require
careful consideration and development. The focus of this analysis is the Fisher-Price Laugh &
Learn Magic Color Mixing Bowl and how it is shown to effect cognitive and physical
development in the children exposed to it. The toy, an electronic bowl that responds to the fake
ingredients being added, is produced by parent company Mattel under the brand Fisher-Price. In
their promotional material on their website it states that the toy aids in early academic
development, enhances fine motor skills as well as rational thinking processes (Fisher-Price,
n.d.). With the help of recent research and Piaget's Theory of Cognitive Development principles
in the textbook, I will attempt to refute these claims made by the manufacturer. Although there
are some advantages to children playing with the Magic Color Mixing Bowl, I contend that there
are also challenges with using the product. Critiques of the product claims will be supported by
empirical evidence and established theories of cognitive development.
Product Information
The Fisher-price: Magic Color Mixing Bowl claims the product supports infant’s
cognitive development. The Fisher-Price Laugh & Learn Magic Color Mixing Bowl toy is an
electronic mixing bowl toy that includes 6 play pieces, including ingredients comprising; a rattle

2
egg, a milk bottle, plastic cherries, a chocolate bar that doubles as a teething chewy, along with a
set of 2 measuring cups and spoon for mixing (Fisher-Price, n.d.). The toy is designed to imitate
the mixing stage of baking. Therefore, as ingredients or the utensils are placed within the bowl, it
lights up and makes sounds, plays songs, phrases besides reciting the alphabet, numbers, and
colors. The bowl also has two buttons that will activate the random audio which are at the bottom
of the bowl. Essentially, the parent will place this toy and accompanying pieces in front of the
child and he or she will pretend to be mixing up a cake or pie filling. The child, by placing the
imaginary milk, egg, chocolate, and cherries in the bowl, will be rewarded with lights and song
or other educational audio tracks as stated. Removing the items from the Magical Mixing Bowl
will also earn the child a reward. Fisher-Price has recommended this toy for ages 6 months to 3
years of age and claims that it can positively foment several domains of cognitive and physical
development. According to the website, the songs, phrases, colors, numbers, and alphabet will
develop early academic skills in the child (Fisher-Price, n.d.). Through the physical act of
playing and interacting with the bowl, the child will gain hand-eye coordination and dexterity.
They will grasp, move, insert, and remove the pieces from the bowl and measuring the
ingredients then using the included spoon to stir it all together (Fisher-Price, n.d.). Finally, the
child will develop and improve thinking skills as they learn how the action of inserting items in
the bowl or pushing the buttons manually result in lights and cheerful audio rewards (FisherPrice, n.d.). This final claim is in alignment with Piaget’s first stage, the sensorimotor stage, in
which the child discovers their actions bring about the desired rewards (Berk, 2018). Similarly,
older children will, according to Piaget, demonstrate his preoperational stage of cognitive
development through their make-believe/pretend play as a baker mixing the batter (Berk, 2018).
Regarding the lower end of the age recommendation, the toy will promote physical development

3
as the infant will need to sit up to fully enjoy the bowl’s options, thus strengthening the back and
improving balance. Likewise, the grasping, stirring, and adding/removing of the pieces will
encourage development of motor skills and dexterit...


Anonymous
This is great! Exactly what I wanted.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags