Assessment of Pretend Play in Preschool-Aged Children: Validation and Factor Analysis of the Affect in Play Scale–Preschool Version

Abstract

The Affect in Play Scale-Preschool (APS-P) and Affect in Play Scale-Preschool-Brief Rating (APS-P-BR) versions assess cognitive and affective play processes during a 5-min standardized play task. In this study, construct validity, external validity, and factor analyses for each scale were examined in 107 preschoolers. Reliability and validity were supported. Unlike results found with school-aged samples, positive affect loaded with the cognitive variables on factor analyses of the APS-P and APS-P-BR, suggesting that negative and undefined affect might represent a separate factor in preschool-aged children. Developmental significance and implications for use of the 2 scoring versions are discussed.

Pretend Play in Italian Children: Validation of the Affect in Play Scale-Preschool Version

“…Internal consistency for the APS-P scores was also established (split-half r = .88; Kaugars and Russ 2009). In the only available EFA study, Fehr and Russ' (2014) results did not replicate the original theoretical model comprising the cognitive (Organization, Elaboration, Imagination, Comfort) and affective (frequency and variety of affective themes) factors. They found a two correlated-factors model, with imagination, organization, elaboration, comfort and positive affect loading on the primary factor and negative affect, undefined affect, and variety of affect loading on the second factor which explained the highest percentage of variance (72.76 %).…”

“…They found a two correlated-factors model, with imagination, organization, elaboration, comfort and positive affect loading on the primary factor and negative affect, undefined affect, and variety of affect loading on the second factor which explained the highest percentage of variance (72.76 %). Furthermore, Fehr and Russ (2014) reported a one factor-model that explained 64.98 % of the variance. Few studies also examined the external validity of APS-P showing correlations between children's pretend play and their classroom behavior (e.g., prosocial or aggressive behavior), as well as their social competence and adjustment Russ 2013, 2014;Kaugars and Russ 2009;Marcelo and Yates 2014).…”

“…Furthermore, via pretend play children begin to join peer activities and learn how to resolve conflicts (Uren and Stagnitti 2009). A large body of research related pretend play to a diverse set of measures of creativity (Fisher 1992;Russ and Schafer 2006;Singer and Singer 1990), the growing capacity to self-regulate (Berk et al 2006), coping ability (Christiano and Russ 1996;Goldstein andRuss 2000-2001), problem solving and adjustment (Russ 2004(Russ , 2006Singer and Singer 1990), perspective taking and emotional understanding (Fehr and Russ 2014;Fisher 1992;Seja and Russ 1999). Moreover, the ability to pretend and make believe represents the integration of cognitive, affective and interpersonal competencies for preschool children (Christian et al 2011;Russ 2004Russ , 2006Russ and Dillon 2011).…”

“…In addition, most of the existing tools failed in their attempt to assess the interplay among the different developmental domains which are involved in playing activities (Russ 2012;Russ and Niec 2012). For instance, the Child-Initiated Pretend Play Assessment (ChIPPA; Stagnitti et al 2000), even if considered as a well validated measure of pretend play in preschool years, measures only cognitive processes such as child's capacity to spontaneously self-initiate pretend play (Fehr and Russ 2014). To date, the Affect in Play Scale Preschool (APS-P; Kaugars and Russ 2009;Russ 2004) is the only standardized measure that assesses simultaneously cognitive and affective themes in pretend play, leading to a better understanding of how these aspects interact in the domain of child development (see Kaugars 2011, for a thorough review of assessment of pretend play).…”

“…The first purpose of the current research was to assess the structural validity of APS-P trough Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), a more robust method than EFA carried out by Fehr and Russ (2014). Since the first EFA was carried out on a small sample of US preschool children and results did not replicate the theoretical model proposed by the authors (Kaugars and Russ 2009), the first aim was to compare three different models: the theoretical model, in which the four cognitive scores load on the cognitive factor whereas frequency and variety of affective themes load on the affective one, Fehr and Russ' (2014) two-factors model, and Fehr and Russ' (2014) one factor solution. Furthermore, the structural invariance across age groups was investigated through the multiple confirmatory factor analysis (MCFA) approach.…”