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