Developmental Assessment of Play:

A Model for Early Intervention

Michael W. Casby
Michigan State University

eliciting, observing, and describing the play of infants, tod-

This article is the second in a two-part series. It presents an in-
dlers, and young children, one is able to gain significant in-
tegrated overview of the construct of play and its development in
sight into the childs overall development that may provide
infants, toddlers, and young children. The author describes de-
information and direction for intervention efforts. Therefore,
velopmental levels of play ranging from early sensorimotor
professionals who work with infants, toddlers, or young chil-
exploratory to symbolic play involving complex and planned
dren need to become expert in aspects of play development,
multischeme sequences. In addition, functional components of
assessment, and intervention. This article focuses on sensori-
symbolic playagent, instrument, and schemeare specified.
motor manipulation and exploration to symbolic forms of
Finally, the author presents a developmentally based, descrip-
playsometimes referred to as object play. This construct of
tive, and criterion-referenced protocol for the dynamic assess-
play is contrasted with what has been referred to as social play,
ment of play in infants, toddlers, and young children.
which consists of such aspects as solitary, parallel, interactive,
and thematic/dramatic forms of play with (or without) others
The role of play in the development of infants, toddlers, and (Lifter & Bloom, 1998; Rossetti, 2001; Patterson & Westby,
young children is of great interest and utility to professionals 1994).
involved in early intervention. A number of professionals have The early play behavior of infants and toddlers is reflec-
noted that measuring play is a developmental domain that is tive of early cognitive development (Fenson, Kagan, Kears-
critical to early intervention (Casby, this issue; Lifter & Bloom, ley, & Zelazo, 1976; Lifter & Bloom, 1998; Nicolich, 1977;
1998; Rossetti, 1991, 2001). Much can be revealed about the Piaget, 1951; Rossetti, 2001). For example, the early levels of
developmental status of an infant, toddler, or young child sensorimotorexploratory play and nonfunctional relational
through the observation, assessment, and evaluation of his or play are reflective of the early stages of sensorimotor devel-
her play. The development of play demonstrates a strong re- opment, whereas later forms of play, such as functional
lationship with the constructs of the sensorimotor and pre- conventional and symbolic, are indicative of later stages of
operational periods of cognitive development, as well as with sensorimotor development and early aspects of preopera-
early communication and language (Bates, Benigni, Brether- tional development (Casby, this issue)
ton, Camaioni, & Volterra, 1977; Casby & Della Corte, 1987; Some researchers believe that symbolic play is an early
Lifter & Bloom, 1998; McCune, 1995). Play in and of itself can demonstration of young childrens developing mental repre-
be the basis of a valuable developmental assessment and in- sentation and symbolic capacity and functioning (McCune-
tervention strategy. Play activities, behaviors, and interactions Nicolich, 1981; Nicolich, 1977; Piaget, 1951; Sinclair, 1970;
are very often some of the only performances available for ob- Werner & Kaplan, 1963). It is contended here that the devel-
servation of infants, toddlers, and children suspected of hav- opment of symbolic play is indicative of the childs develop-
ing a developmental delay. Rossetti (2001) noted that by ment of symbolic functioning, and as such, it is a positive

Communication Disorders Quarterly 24:4 pp. 175183 175

176 Communication Disorders Quarterly vol. 24, no. 4 / Summer 2003

developmental characteristic of the preoperational period of tent and sequence similar to that seen in young typically de-
cognitive development, traditionally defined by its lack of veloping children, although with a significant delay in onset
concrete operational abilities on the part of the child (Brain- and a significantly protracted course of development. Ken-
erd, 1978; Casby, this issue; Flavell, 1963). nedy, Sheridan, Radlinski, and Beeghly (1991) reported that
A number of investigators have explored the develop- although they did observe correspondences between play and
mental relationship between symbolic play and language language that had been previously noted for typically devel-
(Bates, Benigni, Bretherton, Camaioni, & Volterra, 1977, oping children, their study participants with developmental
1979; Bates, Bretherton, Snyder, Shore, & Volterra, 1980; Bel- delays demonstrated considerably more variability with re-
sky & Most, 1981; Casby & Della Corte, 1987; Casby & Ruder, gard to the two domains. Interesting gender differences in the
1983; Lifter & Bloom, 1998; McCune, 1995; McCune-Nicolich, play behavior of preschool children with cognitive delays
1981; Nicolich, 1977; Ogura, 1991; Shore, OConnell, & Bates, were reported by Malone and Langone (1995). They found
1984; Veneziano, 1981). The general consensus of this line of that young boys engaged in more repetitive motor move-
inquiry has been that early language developments and sym- ments, whereas young girls demonstrated more actions of or-
bolic play are closely correlated developmentally. The two do- ganization and arranging.
mains have been shown to be related in time, content, and
structure. The contemporary perspective is that symbolic play
and early language are related to one another in a local
DEVELOPMENTAL FRAMEWORK OF PLAY
homologue manner (Bates et al., 1977, 1979). I propose that Play develops along ordinal levels that range from early
the local homologuethe shared basis/structure/system sensorimotorexploratory and adaptive interactions with ob-
from which different domains emergeis the childs capacity jects to fairly elaborated scripted sequences of events. The
for mental representation and symbolic functioning. developmental framework of play described in this article
The observation and assessment of playin particular, consists of the following four major ordinal levels:
symbolic playhave been of interest as they relate to a num-
ber of populations of children with developmental disabili- 1. sensorimotorexploratory,
ties, including autism (Tilton & Ottinger, 1964; Ungerer & 2. relationalnonfunctional,
Sigman, 1981); mental retardation (Casby & Ruder, 1983; 3. functionalconventional, and
Hulme & Lunzer, 1966); hearing impairment (Casby & Mc- 4. symbolic.
Cormack, 1985); developmental/specific language impair-
ment (Casby, 1997; Lovell, Hoyle, & Siddall, 1968; Rescorla & Within this framework, symbolic play has a number of differ-
Goosens, 1992; Roth & Clark, 1987; Terrell, & Schwartz, 1988; ent nominal types. These different types of symbolic play are
Terrell, Schwartz, Prelock, & Messick, 1984); and Down syn- related to the major functional components of symbolic
drome (Hill & McCune-Nicolich, 1981). playthe agent, the instrument, and the schemes components
Research has shown that the noted special populations (Casby, 1991a, 1991b). The framework and functional com-
have delays in symbolic play. One consensus finding has been ponents presented herein are based upon a sizable body of
that the younger the children with developmental disabilities, basic and applied research that has addressed the nature, con-
the more likely it is that they will demonstrate difficulties in tent, development, role, and methods of observation of play
play, in particular, symbolic play. The type of developmental of infants, toddlers, and young children (Casby, this issue; see
disability apparently also has an effect on young childrens de- Figure 1).
velopment of symbolic play (Terrell et al., 1984; Tilton & Ot-
tinger, 1964; Wing, Gould, Yeates, & Brierley, 1977). For
example, research has shown that children with autism who SensorimotorExploratory Play
are at equivalent cognitive levels demonstrate more restrictive Sensorimotorexploratory play consists of the physical ma-
play patterns, play less, and spend more time in off-task be- nipulation and inspection of objects, such as grasping, hold-
haviors than do typically developing children or children with ing, mouthing, licking, banging, and rubbing, by infants. This
mental retardation or Down syndrome (Riguet, Taylor, Bena- is the attempt of an infant to assimilate the objects into his or
roya, & Klein, 1981; Tilton & Ottinger, 1964; Wing et al., her existing cognitive structures while also attempting to
1977). Children with developmental/specific language im- adapt to the world by making accommodations to the objects.
pairment have demonstrated play performances that are su- In further Piagetian terms, it can be viewed as the infants
perior to those of their linguistically matched (and thus demonstration of secondary circular reactionsthat is, the
younger) typically developing peers (Casby, 1997; Terrell & repetition of interesting events without regard to the social
Schwartz, 1988; Terrell et al., 1984). The former perform at conventional function of the object. Sensorimotorexploratory
the same level of complexity as their chronologically age- play emerges and is prevalent around the ages of 2 to
matched peers, but they tend to produce fewer symbolic play 4 months, extending to the age of approximately 10 to
acts (Roth & Clark, 1987). Casby and Ruder (1983) found 12 months (Lezine, 1973; Sinclair, 1970; Rosenblatt, 1977).
that children with mental retardation demonstrated play con- Thereafter, it declines and is replaced by other, more advanced
 Communication Disorders Quarterly vol. 24, no. 4 / Summer 2003 177

forms of play. Piaget (1951) noted that with the development

of sensorimotor Stage IVcoordination of secondary circu- SensorimotorExploratory
lar reactionsthe childs sensorimotorexploratory actions RelationalNonfunctional
develop into something else with the emergence of the childs FunctionalConventional
relating of objects one to another. In the domain of play, that Symbolic
something else is relationalnonfunctional play. Change in Agent
Self-as-Agent
Passive-Other-as-Agent
RelationalNonfunctional Play Active-Other-as-Agent
In relationalnonfunctional play, infants and toddlers begin
Change in Instrument
to relate objects one to another, albeit in a nonfunctional or Realistic Object
nonconventional manner that is void of socialconventional Substitute Object
knowledge or typical use of the objects. This is very similar to Imaginary Object
what Piaget observed as the coordination of secondary circu-
Schemes
lar reactions during sensorimotor Stage IV. It consists of the
Single Scheme
child stacking, bumping, nesting, touching, and pushing ob-
Multiple Schemes
jects together. During the earlier level of sensorimotor Complex/Planned Schemes
exploratory play, the childs actions were performed on single
objects. A notable change with the emergence of relational
nonfunctional play is that now the child is actively engaging FIGURE 1. Developmental framework of play.
and acting on more than a single object at a time. A number
of investigators have reliably identified such a level of play
as emerging around the ages of 5 to 10 months and being oped by Lowe and Costello (1976) presents children with sets
prevalent during the age period of approximately 6 months of miniature objects, such as a doll, cup, spoon, plate, and
through 12 months (Fenson et al., 1976; Rosenblatt, 1977; hairbrush, that allow for little else than typical, functional
Sinclair, 1970). conventional play. There are no designed possibilities within
the framework of this test for the child to substitute one ob-
ject for another or to engage another level of agentness in
FunctionalConventional Play his or her play. The scoring system only denotes typical func-
When children demonstrate functionalconventional play, tionalconventional acts, such as discriminate handling of
they begin using objects in play in manners consistent with doll, places cup on saucer, and relates spoon to cup or
these objects socialconventional typical uses (e.g., holding a saucer. The score on this test of symbolic play is the total
doll, stirring a spoon in a bowl, pushing a car, kissing a teddy number of typical functionalconventional actions per-
bear). This is known as typical, conventional, social, and formed with different sets of toys. There are no conventions
functional use of objects in context. Piaget (1951) viewed this for scoring the content or quality of the symbolic nature of
level of play as one in which the child defines objects by their the childs play.
use through ritualizedconventionalized schemes and through
recognition of objects. At this level, the child reproduces
typical actions with familiar objects; that is, the child repro- Symbolic Play
duces functional, although fixed, recognition actions on ob- Decontextualization, Decentration, and Symboliza-
jects with little sense of representation or pretense activity. tion. For play to be considered symbolic, it must possess as-
This level of play is viewed as presymbolic and a demonstra- pects of decontexualization, decentration, and symbolization
tion of the childs knowledge of the socialconventional use (Casby, 1991a). The determination of the symbolic nature of
of familiar objects rather than symbolic behavior per se a childs play is based upon the triangulation of these three
(Casby, 1991a; McCune, 1993; Rocissano, 1982). According to aspects, which generally are missing from the previously spec-
Bates et al. (1979), this level of play may be viewed as presen- ified level of functionalconventional play. Decontextualiza-
tational rather than representational in that the child is capa- tion is the dissociation of actions from typical settings and
ble of presenting highly specific and contextually supported contexts. It is evident in the childs representation of actions
actions but is as yet incapable of representing such actions removed in time and/or space from their routine environs. An
within less similar contexts. Zukow (1984) and Casby (1991b) example would be the child pretending to sleep when it is nei-
also cautioned that there is little that is symbolic in the play ther nap time nor nighttime.
of children at this level. Decentration is a childs moving of actions away from his
Certain research reports and assessment procedures or her self. In Piagetian psychology, it is viewed as the decrease
have interpreted and classified such functionalconventional in egocentrism as development proceeds (Brainerd, 1978).
play as symbolic. For example, the Symbolic Play Test devel- Decentration involves young children performing actions they
178 Communication Disorders Quarterly vol. 24, no. 4 / Summer 2003

do not typically perform by themselves (e.g., writing a check, ferent ordinal levels of the instrument component in chil-
feeding a baby, drinking tea). Decentration is also apparent in drens symbolic play other than the realistic instruments
childrens engagement of other agents in their play. This is re- themselves (Casby, 1991b; Casby & Della Corte, 1987; Casby
flected in the change-in-agent aspect of the agent component & Ruder, 1983; Elder & Pederson, 1978; Fein, 1975; Jackowitz
of symbolic play, where children cause a doll or teddy bear to & Watson, 1980; Overton & Jackson, 1973). They are the real
perform actions. or realistic toy objects, substitute objects that have no rela-
Symbolization involves the active, purposeful use of tionship to the real instrument, and imaginary objects that fill
symbolssomething standing in for and representing some- in for the absent real instrument (see the appendix for exam-
thing else. There is a signifier representing a signified. ples). The changing instrument component of symbolic play
Nascent symbolization is apparent in childrens use of other is an aspect of the Piagetian preoperational cognitive content
agents in their play schemes (e.g., pretending to have a teddy of identity. The cognitive content of identify maintains the in-
bear drink tea). It becomes more apparent as children at- herent, invariable, and defining properties of a concept in the
tribute more animacy to another (i.e., surrogate) agent. It is face of transformations (cf. Brainerd, 1978, p. 130).
clearly apparent when young children use substitute objects The scheme component. In Piagetian developmental
or instruments in play schemes (e.g., using a block for a cup psychology, the term scheme refers to observable actions that
or for a comb or using a piece of paper for a doll blanket). infants, toddlers, or children perform. For example, during
the sensorimotor period of development, there are occur-
Components of Symbolic Play. In addition to the cri- rences of the sensorimotor action schemes of reaching, grasp-
terial aspects of symbolic play, three critical components can ing, holding, and so forth. When engaged in play, children
be distilled from the literature on play (Casby, 1991a, 1991b; perform various play schemes or play actions, for example,
Casby, this issue; Casby & Ruder, 1983; Corrigan, 1987; Fen- pretending to feed a doll, pretending to drink from a block,
son et al., 1976; Lezine, 1973; Lowe, 1975; Nicolich, 1977; Pi- pretending to have a doll cry. The scheme component of sym-
aget, 1951; Rosenblatt, 1977; Sinclair, 1970; Watson & Fischer, bolic play concerns: (a) childrens production of single play
1977, 1980). As noted previously, they are the agent, the in- schemes, (b) the combining/sequencing of multiple schemes,
strument, and the scheme. Each of these components is seen and (c) the relative degree of complexity and apparent plan-
as important to symbolic play in that each is a readily identi- ning involved in the sequencing of play schemes (Casby,
fiable and integral aspect of symbolic play that undergoes 1991b; McCune, 1995; McCune-Nicolich, 1981; Nicolich,
changes that are reflective of childrens developmental pro- 1977; see the appendix for examples).
gression in symbolic play.
The agent component. The agent component of sym-
DEVELOPMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF PLAY
bolic play is the animate or pretend-animate being that is in-
volved in the instigation of the play actions. It can be broken The preceding has concerned the development, content, and
down into three ordinal levelsself-as-agent, passive-other- framework of play and, in particular, the construct of sym-
agent, and active-other-agent (Casby, 1991b; Watson & Fis- bolic play. Such information is of significant value and im-
cher, 1977, 1980). In self-as-agent symbolic play, the child is portance to professionals involved in early intervention. In
the instigating agent of the play actions, as in pretending to this section, a criterion-referenced, descriptive, and develop-
pour and drink juice in a pretend snack script or pretending mentally based protocol for the dynamic observation and as-
to speak on a play telephone. In passive-other-agent symbolic sessment of the play behavior of infants, toddlers, and young
play, the child uses a substitute agent but does not assign it children will be presented. The recommended assessment
animism. For example, the child might hold the play tele- form is presented in the appendix, and suggested materials
phone to a dolls ear but not have the doll pretend to speak. are listed in Figure 2. Prior to using this form, the professional
With active-other-agent symbolic play, the child does assign should familiarize him- or herself with the information and
animism to the substitute agent, such as having a doll pretend references presented in the earlier sections of this article.
to walk, talk, and eat. Interestingly, the changing agent com- Related research upon which the protocol is based has dem-
ponent of symbolic play emanates from the Piagetian preop- onstrated a high level of validity and reliability in such mea-
erational cognitive content of animismthe attribution of surement of play (Casby & McCormack, 1985; Casby &
life to inanimate objects (Brainerd, 1978). Ruder, 1983; Elder & Pederson, 1978; Fenson & Ramsay, 1980;
The instrument component. The instrument in sym- Nicolich, 1977; Watson & Fischer, 1980).
bolic play is the object that the agent of the play uses in car- Although other instruments and procedures for the as-
rying out the play actions. It is integral to the play act. For sessment of play and/or symbolic play may exist, none have as
example, instruments in a play snack-time script would be the broad a scope as the form covered herein. Reflecting a differ-
cups, plates, and pitcher; those in a clean and dress the baby ent state of knowledge and/or perspective at the time of their
script would be the washcloth, comb/brush, and so forth. As development, earlier protocols or procedures did not address
with the agent component, research on the development of levels of play ranging from sensorimotorexploratory
childrens symbolic play has demonstrated that there are dif- through complex/planned multiple scheme symbolic play,
 Communication Disorders Quarterly vol. 24, no. 4 / Summer 2003 179

nor did they address the important components of symbolic

play, such as agent, instrument, and scheme, as does the pro- An assortment of play blocks and dowels, balls,
cedure presented here (Lowe & Costello, 1976; Nicolich, 1977; rattle, and sheet of paper
Westby, 1980). Also, given the state of knowledge at the time (Always presented with each set of materials for

of their development, earlier scales incorporated other varied the potential of object-transformation, changing
aspects of sensorimotor development (e.g., object perma- instrument symbolic play to occur.)
nence) that do not lead to a valid or parsimonious approach Baby doll and/or teddy bear with blanket, bed,
to the assessment of the construct of play (Westby, 1980). The bottle, washcloth, comb, hairbrush
Play silverware, plate, bowl, pitcher, and cups
procedure presented here is a clear, concise, practical, and
(presented along with teddy bear and/or doll)
parsimonious one with high construct and content validity, Colorful crayons, pencil, and paper (presented along
reliability, and applied significance. with teddy bear and/or doll)
The recommended form of interaction for the assess- Toy telephone (presented along with teddy bear
ment of play behavior is naturalisticinteractive play involv- and/or doll)
ing the examiner, the child (and a parent or significant other,
if available), and materials, as opposed to a more regimented
FIGURE 2. Recommended materials for use in the
presentation to the child of materials, tasks, and trials by the assessment of play behaviors in infants, toddlers, and
examiner. As noted earlier, the child should be presented with young children.
objects that have the potential of being transformed in play,
that is, capable of standing in or substituting for other ob-
jects, when assessing symbolic play (Casby, 1991a, 1991b; Ter- set of objects alone. In this manner, one may ascertain a childs
rell & Schwartz, 1988). To this end, an assortment of objects level and quality of play alone, play with others, and play
(e.g., small play blocks, dowels, balls, and paper) is always pre- when provided various forms of scaffolding (e.g., prompting,
sented, along with the standard sets of objects. An example modeling, imitation).
would be presenting the baby doll with blanket, bed, bottle, When scoring childrens play behavior with this proto-
washcloth, and hairbrush, along with blocks, dowels, sheet of col, it is recommended that their highest level of demon-
paper, and balls that might be substituted for the bottle, blan- strated play be the primary concern vis--vis a descriptive,
ket, or hairbrush, for example. criterion-referenced assessment strategy. This index of chil-
The basic procedure is to present a toy set comfortably drens level, quality, and content of play is more important
in front of the child with the examiner (or parent or signifi- and revealing than is a frequency-based index, such as num-
cant other) near the child with the intention of encouraging ber of play schemes/actions or frequency of play episodes.
the child to begin and complete a play themefor example, Given that young children with developmental delays demon-
washing, feeding, and putting the baby to bed or calling the strate more variability in their play performances than has
teddy bear on the telephone. The examiner might use parallel been reported for normally developing children (Kennedy
and interactive play with the child, modeling and encourag- et al., 1991), the evaluation and assessment of childrens play
ing the use of the standard and nonstandard objects in the performances and abilities should be based on repeated ob-
play actions, occasionally encouraging/eliciting the childs use servations over a short time. The evaluation could also be
of one object to substitute for another (e.g., giving the child a videotaped for later off-line scoring.
dowel to use to pretend to color or write on a sheet of paper,
giving the child a block to pretend to be talking with the ex-
CONCLUSION
aminer on the telephone, giving the child a sheet of paper to
use to cover the baby doll in the bed). The use and impact of This article has presented a research literaturebased over-
modeling on the play performance of young children has view of the construct of the development of play, ranging
been explored in a number of investigations with typically de- from early sensorimotorexploratory play that emerges
veloping children and with children with developmental dis- around 2 to 4 months through the appearance of complex
abilities (Fenson & Ramsay, 1980; Kennedy et al., 1991; Riguet and planned multischeme symbolic play centered on social
et al., 1981; Watson & Fischer, 1977, 1980). The general con- scripts, which appears at about 30 months. The applied sig-
clusion of this research has been that the utilization of mod- nificance of this information was demonstrated with the pre-
eling of play performances by examiners is an effective and sentation of a developmentally based, criterion-referenced
efficient way of eliciting valid and reliable play behavior from protocol for the assessment of play in infants, toddlers, and
both typically developing children as well as children with young children.
various developmental delays. The use of such a modeling or Certainly, childrens development along the levels of play
imitative strategy is a way of examining a childs zone of prox- presented in this article is an important aspect to be consid-
imal development (Vygotsky, 1978) for the domain of play. In ered in early intervention. However, as important and useful
addition, it is also recommended that the children be ob- as they are, such developments cannot be claimed to be suffi-
served for a period of time as they play with and act upon the cient or necessary in the development of young children. Oth-
180 Communication Disorders Quarterly vol. 24, no. 4 / Summer 2003

ers have noted that children with motor impairments who are East Lansing. His current interests include language development
incapable of manipulating objects and creating physical ac- and disorders in infancy through adolescence, developmental dis-
tions nevertheless can develop normal cognition, mental rep- abilities, and emergent literacy. Address: Michael W. Casby, Audiol-
resentation, and language (Bishop & Mogford, 1988; DeCarie, ogy and Speech Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
MI 48824-1220; e-mail: [email protected]
1969; Lewis, 1987). As stated earlier in this article, such devel-
opments in play are reflective of underlying developments.
Developmental relationships in important domains such as
play, mental representation, symbolic functioning, and lan- REFERENCES
guage are best viewed within a local homologue model of de- Bates, E., Benigni, L., Bretherton, I., Camaioni, L., & Volterra, V. (1977).
velopment. Following from this, then, the claims made here From gesture to the first word: On cognitive and social prerequisites. In
for the importance of play in early intervention are based not M. Lewis & L. Rosenblum (Eds.), Interaction, conversation, and the de-
on a presumed causal relationship but rather on an important velopment of language (pp. 247307). New York: Wiley.
Bates, E., Benigni, L., Bretherton, I., Camaioni, L., & Volterra, V. (1979). The
parallelinteractivesupportive homologue relationship with emergence of symbols: Cognition and communication in infancy. New
other early social, cognitive, representational, communicative, York: Academic Press.
and linguistic aspects of development. Bates, E., Bretherton, I., Snyder, L., Shore, C., & Volterra, V. (1980). Vocal and
Although not directly addressed in this article, the util- gestural symbols at 13 months. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 26, 407423.
ity of the developmental framework and the assessment pro- Belsky, J., & Most, R. (1981). From exploration to play: A cross-sectional
study of infant free play behavior. Developmental Psychology, 17, 603
tocol for intervention efforts for play seems clear. Each of the 639.
levels of play may serve as criteria/mastery levels for play- Bishop, D., & Mogford, K. (Eds.). (1988). Language acquisition in exceptional
based early intervention. Furthermore, these components of circumstances. Edinburgh, Scotland: Churchill Livingstone.
play and their forms as presented herein should become crit- Brainerd, C. (1978). Piagets theory of intelligence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren-
ical aspects of dynamic play-based early intervention. As fur- tice Hall.
Casby, M. W. (1991a). Symbolic play: I. A developmental framework. Infant-
ther regards intervention for play, it is interesting to note that Toddler Intervention, 1, 219231.
McCune (1992, p. 331) reported that very young children ex- Casby, M. W. (1991b). Symbolic play: II. A unified model. Infant-Toddler In-
hibit early forms of symbolic play more frequently in the tervention, 1, 233243.
presence of significant others than in their absence (Dunn & Casby, M. W. (1997). Symbolic play of children with language impairment: A
Wooding, 1977; Slade, 1987). McCune went on to suggest that critical review. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40,
468479.
such forms of play serve an early communicative function: to Casby, M. W., & Della Corte, M. (1987). Symbolic play performance and early
create shared meanings between mother and child. And, as language development. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 16, 3142.
noted by Bates et al. (1979), McCune (1992), and Terrell et al. Casby, M. W., & McCormack, S. M. (1985). Symbolic play and early commu-
(1984), the meanings expressed by young children in their nication development in hearing-impaired children. Journal of Commu-
early play (i.e., agents, actions, objects, locations) often in- nication Disorders, 18, 6778.
Casby, M. W., & Ruder, K. (1983). Symbolic play and early language develop-
clude many of the same meanings expressed later in their ment in normal and mentally retarded children. Journal of Speech and
early verbal expressions. Hearing Research, 26, 404411.
The procedure for the developmental assessment of play Corrigan, R. (1987). A developmental sequence of actor-object pretend play
set forth in this article adheres to and emanates from classic in young children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33, 87106.
and timeless perspectives. Siegle (1975) observed that the best DeCarie, T. (1969). A study of the mental and emotional development of the
thalidomide child. In B. Moss (Ed.), Determinants of infant behavior
assessment instrument available is a professional who has (Vol. 4, pp. 167188). London: Methuen.
knowledge of an area and the ability to observe, describe, and Dunn, J., & Wooding, B. (1977). Play in the home and its implications for
evaluate important behaviors/areas of development. Leonard, learning. In B. Tizard & D. Harvey (Eds.), The biology of play. Philadel-
Prutting, Perozzi, and Berkley (1978) provided a rationale for phia: Lippincott.
the use of criterion-referenced, descriptive measures for use Elder, J., & Pederson, D. (1978). Preschool childrens use of objects in sym-
bolic play. Child Development, 49, 500504.
in the assessment of young children. All manner of early in- Fein, G. (1975). A transformational analysis of pretending. Developmental
terventionists require a high degree of knowledge and com- Psychology, 11, 292296.
petence in the assessment of play in infants, toddlers, and Fenson, L., Kagan, J., Kearsley, R., & Zelazo, P. (1976). The developmental
young children. It is hoped that the information and proce- progression of manipulative play in the first two years. Child Develop-
dures presented in this article will assist in the assessment of ment, 47, 232236.
Fenson, L., & Ramsey, D. (1980). Decentration and integration of the childs
young children and in the amelioration of their developmen- play in the second year. Child Development, 51, 171178.
tal disabilities. Flavell, J. (1963). The developmental psychology of Jean Piaget. New York: Van
Nostrand.
Hill, P., & McCune-Nicolich, L. (1981). Pretend play and patterns of cogni-
tion in Downs syndrome children. Child Development, 52, 611617.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Hulme, I., & Lunzer, E. (1966). Play, language, and reasoning in subnormal
children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 7, 107123.
Michael W. Casby, PhD, CCC-SLP, is a professor in the Department Jackowitz, E., & Watson, M. (1980). The development of object transforma-
of Audiology and Speech Sciences at Michigan State University in tions in early pretend play. Developmental Psychology, 16, 543549.
 Communication Disorders Quarterly vol. 24, no. 4 / Summer 2003 181

Kennedy, M., Sheridan, M., Radlinski, S., & Beeghly, M. (1991). Play-language Rocissano, L. (1982). The emergence of social conventional behavior: Evi-
relationships in young children with developmental delays: Implications dence from early object play (pp. 3344). Social Cognition, 1, 5069.
for assessment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 112122. Rosenblatt, D. (1977). Developmental trends in infant play. In B. Tizard &
Leonard, L., Prutting, C., Perozzi, J., & Berkley, R. (1978). Nonstandardized D. Harvey (Eds.), The biology of play (pp. 3344). Philadelphia: Lippin-
approaches to the assessment of language behaviors. Asha, 20, 371379. cott.
Lewis, V. (1987). Development and handicap. Oxford: Blackwell. Rossetti, L. (1991). Infant-toddler assessment: A clinical perspective. Infant-
Lezine, I. (1973). The transition from sensorimotor to earliest symbolic func- Toddler Intervention, 1, 1125.
tion in early development. Research Publication for the Association for Rossetti, L. (2001). Communication intervention: Birth to three (2nd ed.). San
Research in Nervous and Mental Disease, 51, 221232. Diego, CA: Singular.
Lifter, K., & Bloom, L. (1998). Intention and the role of play in the transition Roth, F., & Clark, D. (1987). Symbolic play and social participation abili-
to language. In A. Wetherby, S. Warren, & J. Reichle (Eds.). Transitions in ties of language impaired and normally developing children. Journal of
prelinguistic communication (Vol. 7, pp. 161196). Baltimore: Brookes. Speech and Hearing Disorders, 52, 1729.
Lovell, K., Hoyle, H., & Siddall, M. (1968). A study of some aspects of the play
Shore, C., OConnell, B., & Bates, E. (1984). First sentences in language and
and language of young children with delayed speech. Journal of Child
symbolic play. Developmental Psychology, 20, 872880.
Psychology and Psychiatry, 9, 4150.
Siegle, G. (1975). The use of language tests. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Lowe, M. (1975). Trends in the development of representational play in in-
Services in Schools, 4, 211217.
fants from one to three years: An observational study. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 16, 3348. Sinclair, H. (1970). The transition from sensory-motor behavior to symbolic
Lowe, M., & Costello, A. (1976). The symbolic play test: Experimental version. activity. Interchange, 1, 119125.
Windsor, England: NFER-Nelson. Slade, A. (1987). A longitudinal study of maternal involvement and symbolic
Malone, D., & Langone, J. (1995). Gender differences in the object-oriented play during the toddler period. Child Development, 58, 367375.
play of preschoolers with cognitive delays. Journal of Early Intervention, Terrell, B., & Schwartz, R. (1988). Object transformations in the play of
19, 302314. language-impaired children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 53,
McCune, L. (1992). First words: A dynamic systems view. In C. Ferguson, 459466.
L. Menn, & C. Stoel-Gammon (Eds.), Phonological development: Models, Terrell, B., Schwartz, R., Prelock, P., & Messick, C. (1984). Symbolic play in
research, implications (pp. 313336). Timonium, MD: York Press. normal and language-impaired children. Journal of Speech and Hearing
McCune, L. (1993). The development of play as the development of con- Research, 27, 424429.
sciousness. In M. Bornstein & A. OReilly (Eds.), The role of play in the Tilton, J., & Ottinger, D. (1964). Comparison of the toy play behavior of
development of thought (pp. 6779). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. autistic, retarded, and normal children. Psychological Bulletin, 15, 967
McCune, L. (1995). A normative study of representational play at the transi- 975.
tion to language. Developmental Psychology, 31, 198206. Ungerer, J., & Sigman, M. (1981). Symbolic play and language comprehen-
McCune-Nicolich, L. (1981). Toward symbolic functioning: Structure of sion in autistic children. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psy-
early pretend games and potential parallels with language. Child Devel- chiatry, 20, 318337.
opment, 52, 785797. Veneziano, E. (1981). Early language and nonverbal representation: A re-
Nicolich, L. (1977). Beyond sensorimotor intelligence: Assessment of sym- assessment. Journal of Child Language, 8, 541563.
bolic maturity through analysis of pretend play. Merrill-Palmer Quar- Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
terly, 23, 8999. processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ogura, T. (1991). A longitudinal study of the relationship between early lan-
Watson, M., & Fischer, K. (1977). A developmental sequence of agent use in
guage development and play development. Journal of Child Language,
late infancy. Child Development, 48, 828836.
18, 273294.
Watson, M., & Fischer, K. (1980). Development of social roles in elicited and
Overton, W., & Jackson, J. (1973). The representation of imagined objects in
spontaneous behavior during the preschool years. Developmental Psy-
action sequences: A developmental study. Child Development, 44, 309
chology, 16, 483494.
314.
Patterson, J. L., & Westby, C. (1994). The development of play. In W. Haynes Werner, H., & Kaplan, B. (1963). Symbol formation: An organismic-
& B. Shulman (Eds.), Communication development: Foundations, developmental approach to language and the expression of thought. New
processes, and clinical applications (pp. 136163). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: York: Wiley.
Prentice Hall. Westby, C. (1980). Assessment of cognition and language abilities through
Piaget, J. (1951). Play, dreams and imitation. Melbourne, Australia: Heine- play. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 11, 154168.
man. Wing, L., Gould, J., Yeates, S., & Brierley, L. (1977). Symbolic play in severely
Rescorla, L., & Goosens, M. (1992). Symbolic play development in toddlers mentally retarded and in autistic children. Journal of Child Psychology &
with expressive specific language impairment. Journal of Speech and Psychiatry, 18, 167178.
Hearing Research, 35, 12901302. Zukow, P. (1984). Criteria for the emergence of symbolic conduct: When
Riguet, C., Taylor, N., Benaroya, S., & Klein, L. (1981). Symbolic play in autis- words refer and play is symbolic. In L. Feagans, C. Garvey, & R. Go-
tic, Down, and normal children of equivalent mental age. Journal of linkoff (Eds.), The origins and growth of communication (pp. 162175).
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 11, 439448. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
182 Communication Disorders Quarterly vol. 24, no. 4 / Summer 2003

APPENDIX: DEVELOPMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF PLAY

Name: __________________________________________ Parents: ___________________________________________

Date: __________________________________________ Cognition: _________________________________________

DOB: __________________________________________ Language: _________________________________________

CA: ____________________________________________

Other: _______________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

I. SensorimotorExploratory (emerging 24 months) Observations/Comments

Reaching, grasping, holding, rubbing, mouthing objects
Holding and looking at objects
Repetitive pounding/hitting of objects

II. RelationalNonfunctional (emerging 610 months)

Relating objects one to another without regard for their
socialconventional use
Holding two or more objects
Stacking, bumping, nesting, touching, pushing objects together
Offering objects to, and taking objects from, others

III. FunctionalConventional (emerging 1012 months)

Relating objects one to another in a socialconventional
manner (e.g., putting cup on a saucer, stirring bowl with
spoon, holding bottle)
Typical, functional, conventional, social use of objects in
settings not decontextualized from the typical settings in
which the objects are typically used (e.g., drinking from a cup,
pushing a toy car, feeding a doll from a toy bottle, scribbling
with a real crayon)

IV. Symbolic (emerging 1218 months)

Agent
Self (emerging 1218 months)
Child is the initiating agent of the play actionspretends to
drink from a cup during pretend snack time, pretends to talk
on play telephone, brushes own hair during play cleaning and
dressing script
Passive-Other (emerging 1824 months)
Child acts on nonanimated substitute agentsputs cup to
dolls or teddy bears mouth and pretends to have it drink, puts
telephone up to dolls or teddy bears ear and pretends to have it
talk on the telephone, pretends to brush dolls or teddy bears hair

(appendix continues)
 Communication Disorders Quarterly vol. 24, no. 4 / Summer 2003 183

(Appendix continued)

Active-Other (emerging 2430 months)

Child adds animacy to substitute agentsputs cup to dolls or
teddy bears mouth and, while pretending to have it drink, may
attempt to have the doll or teddy bear hold the cup, may
make drinking sounds for the substitute agent; attempts to
have doll or teddy bear hold and speak on the telephone

Instrument
Realistic Object (emerging 1012 months)
Relating objects one to another in a socialconventional manner
(e.g., putting cup on saucer, stirring bowl with spoon, holding
bottle)
Typical, functional, conventional, social use of objects in settings
not decontextualized from the typical settings in which the
objects are typically used (e.g., drinking from cup, pushing a toy
car, feeding a doll from a toy bottle, coloring with a real crayon)
Substitute Object (emerging 18-24 months)
Use of another object as a substitute for the standard one in the
play actionfor example, pretending to use a block as a
telephone, pretending to use a block as a cup, pretending to use
a dowel as a crayon
Imaginary Object (emerging 2430 months)
Performance of an object-action scheme without the use of an
actual objectpretending to hold and talk on an imaginary
telephone, pretending to drink from an imaginary cup

Scheme
Single (emerging 1218 months)
Child carries out a single play act, such as putting bottle to dolls
mouth, pretending to drink from a cup, putting comb to
teddy bears head
Multiple (emerging 1824 months)
Child carries out a sequence of two or more play acts, such as
putting a comb to a teddy bears head and pretending to comb
its hair, pretending to drink from a cup and eat off of a plate
with a fork, pretending to comb own hair and then the hair of
another
Complex/Planned (emerging 30 months)
Laying out the dishes and doll for a pretend snack time and
carrying out a sequence of theme-related play acts; pretending
to build a house with play tools

Other Comments: