Play is a universal behavior of children that has been documented since ancient times (Janssen & Janssen, 1996;Lowenfeld, 1939). It is estimated that by 6 years of age, children are likely to have engaged in more than 15,000 hours of play (Schaefer, 1993). The benefits of play for healthy cognitive development

The Child ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) Multimodal Program (CAMP) is an empirically supported intervention program for young children diagnosed with ADHD (8.5 years and younger). CAMP is designed to treat children, parents, and teachers and is conducted in 90minute, weekly training sessions. Children and their parents are separately and concurrently trained in a group context for 10 consecutive weeks. The children's training group includes behavioral management techniques, Preparation for this chapter was partially supported by grants 2-022627 and 2-022682 from the Society for the Study of School Psychology and a university faculty research grant awarded to Linda A. Reddy.

The goal of this book is to offer a comprehensive reference that highlights empirically validated interventions that use play as an integral component in treating an array of childhood disorders and problems. The highlighted programs are a sample of the many innovative play interventions that are available. This chapter has three objectives. First, we critically review the current outcome literature on play interventions. We conceptualized the outcome literature, including the interventions in this book, as the "first generation" of play interventions. Second, new frameworks for designing the "second generation" of play interventions and conducting outcome assessment are proposed. Finally, directions for future research and training are presented.

No abstract

in relation to a widely used behavior rating scale, the Teacher Report Form (TRF;Achenbach, 1991), in children and adolescents with emotional disturbance (ED). A matched sample of 148 children and adolescents, 74 in regular education and 74 in special education settings for ED, were rated by teachers using the DSMD and TRF. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) analyses and d-ratios yielded statistically significant differences (p < .01) between groups and moderate to large effect sizes. Receiver operator characteristic analyses indicated that in general the TRF produced higher area under the curve (AUC) estimates than the DSMD across age groups for the total and composite scale scores. Classification efficiency statistics at the recommended cutoff T-score of 60 for the total scale revealed that the DSMD performed as well as the TRF. Results generalized well across base rates, with the DSMD producing slightly higher positive predictive power than the TRF, and the TRF exhibiting a greater negative predictive power than the DSMD.