8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
1/126
CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF THE AFFECT IN PLAY SCALE BRIEF
RATING (APS-BR)
by
TORI J. SACHA CORDIANO
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Dissertation Advisor: Dr. Sandra Russ
Department of Psychology
CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY
August, 2009
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
2/126
CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
We hereby approve the thesis/ dissertation of
_____________________________________________________
candidate for the ______________________degree *.
(signed)_______________________________________________ (chair of the committee)
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
(date) _______________________
*We also certify that written approval has been obtained for any proprietary material contained therein.
Tori Sacha Cordiano
Doctor of Philosophy
Sandra Russ, Ph.D.
Anastasia Dimitropoulos, Ph.D.
Elizabeth Short, Ph.D.
H. Lester Kirchner, Ph.D.
4/11/2008
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
3/126
1
Table of Contents
List of Tables...........................2
List of Figures..................................4
Acknowledgements..5
Abstract....................................6
Introduction.8
Method...24
Results............................35Discussion..48
Tables.............................69
Figures82
Appendix A: Measures..............................83
Scoring manual for the Affect in Play Scale Brief Rating (APS-BR)83
Adapted NEO PI-R Self-report..93
Adapted NEO PI-R Parent-report..96
Childrens Pretend Play Scale..107
Childrens Emotional Intensity Scale..108
Childrens Imagination Scale...........................109
References110
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
4/126
2
List of Tables
Table 1 Sample demographics 69
Table 2 Means and standard deviations of the APS-BR
variables 70
Table 3 Means and standard deviations of the Alternate Uses Test and
parent- and self-report adaptations of the NEO PI-R 71
Table 4 Correlations between APS-BR variables, divergent thinking, and
verbal intelligence 73
Table 5 Standardized and unstandardized regression coefficients for APS-BR variables as predictors of divergent thinking 74
Table 6 Correlations between APS-BR variables, openness to experience,
and verbal intelligence 75
Table 7 Standardized and unstandardized regression coefficients for APS-
BR variables as predictors of parent-report openness to experience
77
Table 8 Standardized and unstandardized regression coefficients for
Imagination and parent-report openness to experience predicting
divergent thinking 78
Table 9 Discriminant validity correlations between APS-BR variables and
NEO PI-R variables 79
Table 10 Correlations between APS-BR variables and parent-report pretend
play ability, parent-report affect expression, and teacher-report
imagination 80
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
5/126
3
Table 11 Intercorrelations between the APS-BR variables for the current and
2008 studies 81
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
6/126
4
List of Figures
Figure 1 Convergent and discriminant validity measures 82
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
7/126
5
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the many people who made it possible for me to complete
this project:
Betsy Short, Les Kirchner, and Anastasia Dimitropoulos for their feedback
throughout this project, which helped to strengthen the study and the APS-BR,
Goldwood Primary School and Principal Marianne Winemiller for welcoming me
into their school community,
Sarah Cain Spannagel and Beth Pearson for helping to score the supplement to the
2008 study, which strengthened the construct validity of the APS-BR and playedan important role in the current study,
My graduate school cohort, for supplying many laughs and study breaks
throughout this project,
My family, particularly Regina and Richard Sacha, for their unconditional love
and support my entire life,
Joseph Cordiano, for his encouragement and devotion, which has sustained me
throughout graduate school,
And finally, Sandra Russ, for her outstanding mentorship not only through this
project, but over the past six years. I hope to be involved with her research for
many more years to come.
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
8/126
6
Construct Validity of the Affect in Play Scale Brief Rating (APS-BR)
Abstract
by
TORI J. SACHA CORDIANO
The aim of this study was to enhance the construct validity of the Affect in
Play Scale Brief Rating (APS-BR) by investigating both convergent and
discriminant validity. The APS-BR is an adaptation of the Affect in Play Scale(APS) that allows an observer to score childrens cognitive and affective
processes in pretend play without the use of videotape. Convergent validity was
assessed through relationships between pretend play and both divergent thinking
and the personality variable of openness to experience. Openness to experience
was assessed via self- and parent-report adaptations of Costa and McCraes NEO
Personality Inventory Revised (NEO PI-R; 1992). Discriminant validity was
assessed by examining relationships between pretend play and the personality
variables of agreeableness and conscientiousness on the NEO PI-R. It was
hypothesized that organization, imagination, and affect expression in play on the
APS-BR would relate to divergent thinking, and that imagination, affect
expression, and comfort in play would relate to openness to experience. No
significant relationships were expected between pretend play and either
agreeableness or conscientiousness. 81 first- and second-grade children were
assessed using the APS-BR, the Alternate Uses Test (a measure of divergent
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
9/126
7
thinking), and a self-report adaptation of the NEO PI-R. Parents reported on
aspects of their childrens personality using a second adaptation of the NEO PI-R.
The main findings were that organization and imagination in play significantly
related to divergent thinking, as hypothesized. Also as hypothesized, imagination,
affect expression, and comfort in play significantly related to parent-report
openness to experience. As expected, no significant relationships were found
between pretend play and either agreeableness or conscientiousness. The results
of this study contribute to the construct validity of the APS-BR and support its use
in clinical and research settings. In addition, results also support the theory that play processes would relate to both divergent thinking and openness to
experience.
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
10/126
8
Construct Validity of the Affect in Play Scale Brief Rating
Pretend play is a valuable window into childrens affective and cognitive
processes. For this reason, pretend play is an important tool in assessment and
psychotherapy. One way of measuring pretend play is with the Affect in Play
Scale (APS; Russ, 1987, 2004). Recently, a brief rating measure of the APS was
developed (Sacha Cordiano, Russ, & Short, 2008). The Affect in Play Scale
Brief Rating version (APS-BR) was designed to be clinician-friendly and
eliminate videotaping to increase its use in research and therapy settings. This
study attempted to develop the construct validity of the APS-BR by investigatingits utility with a live sample of school-based children. In order to strengthen the
construct validity of the APS-BR, this study examined relationships between the
APS-BR and theoretically relevant convergent and discriminant criterion
measures.
Pretend play
The development of play is an important childhood milestone. Piaget
posited that pretend play emerged at two years of age and increased until about
age six (1967). By age 4-5, children are able to engage in imaginative play (Russ,
2004). Pretend play differs from other types of play in that the child uses
symbolism to pretend that one thing is something else (Fein, 1987). Fantasy is
involved, in the sense that children act out imaginary stories with imaginary
characters (Singer, 1981). Pretend play is important in the development of
cognition (Berk, 1994), literacy (Miller, 1998), social skills (von Rossberg-
Gempton, Dickinson, & Poole, 1999), and problem solving skills (Russ, 2004). In
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
11/126
9
addition, play helps to develop components of affect such as emotion regulation
(Russ, 2004), coping and well-being (Moore & Russ, 2006), exploration of
feelings, lessening fears and anxieties (Harris, 2000), and understanding
confusing events (Millar, 1968). Affect is an important part of pretend play, as
the play often lends itself to emotion-laden exchanges between characters.
Pretend play is an integration of cognitive skills and affect expression and
understanding. Cognitively during play, the child is engaging in organization,
divergent thinking, symbolism, and fantasy (Russ, 2004). Organization arises
through the structuring of the pretend play story and utilizes cause and effectthinking. Divergent thinking is strongly related to creativity and involves
generating new ideas, themes, and symbols. Symbolism is the process of
transforming ordinary objects into imagined or other objects. Fantasy is the
process of make-believe, which is essentially the type of behavior the child is
engaging in during pretend play. Affectively during play, the child engages in
emotion expression, and emotion regulation (Russ, 2004). Both positive and
negative emotions are expressed through the characters in the play. Emotion
regulation is practiced through the childs ability to modulate the characters
positive and negative emotions. Though similar in nature to some of the more
cognitive variables of pretend play, comfort in play cannot be defined in terms of
cognition or affect alone. Comfort in play is expressed via the childs
engagement in the play and the ease with which he/she plays. Finally, affect and
cognition come together through the cognitive integration of affect into the
organization of the story.
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
12/126
10
Therapists of differing orientations have long used play in psychotherapy
(Axline, 1947; Chethik, 1989; Erickson, 1963; Knell, 1993). Russ (2004)
identifies ways in which play is used in psychotherapy. Play is useful because it
is a natural form of communication between the therapist and the child.
Especially with younger children who have difficulties verbalizing their feelings,
play is a more natural form of expression. Also, the repetition that exists during
play allows children to resolve conflicts that stem from traumatic feelings and
events until they become more comfortable with those feelings. Finally, because
play is non-threatening to the child, he or she can use it to experiment with newways of approaching and solving problems.
Play assessment
The observation of pretend play is vital to certain forms of child therapy.
In addition, it can be an important component of child-directed research. Some
forms of play assessment include Perry and Landreths (1991) adaptation of The
Play Therapy Observation Instrument (Howe & Silvern, 1981), the NOVA
Assessment of Psychotherapy (Faust & Burns, 1991), the Test of Pretend Play
(Lewis & Boucher, 1998), and the Symbolic Play Test (Lowe & Costello, 1989).
While many play assessment measures focus on cognition, the Affect in
Play Scale (APS; Russ, 1987, 2004) is one of the few play assessment tools that
measures both cognitive and affective aspects of pretend play. The APS has
shown high interrater reliability, consistently in the .80s and .90s using Cohens
kappa measure of interrater reliability. Using the Spearman-Brown split-half
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
13/126
11
reliability formula, internal consistency on the APS for frequency of affect has
been found to be strong (.85; Seja & Russ, 1999a).
The APS has been well-validated over many studies with numerous
populations, looking mainly at criteria of creativity, coping, emotional
understanding, and interpersonal functioning. For example, Russ and Grossman-
McKee (1990) found that affective expression on the APS was related to
divergent thinking among first- and second-grade children. Russ and Peterson
(1990) replicated these findings with a larger sample of children. Kaugars and
Russ adapted the APS to a preschool population, and found similar relationships between play and divergent thinking (2000). In the area of coping, Christiano and
Russ (1996) found a positive relationship between play and coping during dental
visits. Niec and Russ found relationships between quality of fantasy and self-
report empathy (2002), and between quality of fantasy and access to interpersonal
representations (1996). The majority of the validation studies have found play to
be independent of IQ.
The structure of the APS reflects the separate cognitive and affective
processes present in pretend play. Two previous factor analyses with the APS
have shown two distinct factors (DAngelo 1995; Russ, 1993; Russ & Peterson,
1990). The dominant factor is a cognitive factor, which encompasses
Organization and Imagination. Comfort typically loads with this cognitive factor,
although it is not as closely related with Organization and Imagination. A second
factor is an affective factor, encompassing Frequency of Affect Expression and
Variety of Affect Expression. In addition, the APS has been validated on a large
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
14/126
12
sample of prenatally cocaine exposed children (Russ, Min, Singer, Minnes, &
Sacha, 2004). A confirmatory factor analysis with this sample verified a similar
two-factor structure with this different at-risk population. The Affect in Play
Scale Brief Rating version (APS-BR; Sacha Cordiano et al., 2008) is the newest
adaptation of the APS.
Affect in Play Scale Brief Rating
While structurally similar to the APS, the APS-BR was designed to be
used in a broader range of clinical and research settings. The APS-BR is a
standardized five-minute puppet play task that uses the same instructions and toysas the APS. Children are given one boy and one girl puppet and three blocks and
are instructed to play any way they like for five minutes. The specific instructions
and prompts are outlined in the Method section. Cognitive fantasy and affect
variables are scored. The cognitive scores obtained are Organization and
Imagination in play. The two main affect scores obtained are the Frequency of
Affect Expression and the Tone of Affect Expression. Comfort with the play task
is also rated. Each category is scored on a 1-4 Likert scale. A comprehensive
explanation of each category is given the Method section.
There are several main differences between the original APS and the APS-
BR. The most critical difference is that the APS-BR does not require videotaping
the play task, which makes the assessment more manageable and increases
confidentiality. In addition, Frequency of Affect Expression is scored differently
on the APS-BR than the APS. On the original APS, the rater counts the total
frequency units of affective expression to obtain the Frequency of Affect
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
15/126
13
Expression score. The rater then classifies the content of the affect according to
the eleven categories to obtain a Variety of Affect score. While feasible for the
videotaped version of the APS, classifying the content of affect in terms of 11
categories is not practical during a live five-minute observation. Therefore,
instead of a total frequency count, the rater is instead asked to rate the total
frequency from low to high, using the 1-4 Likert scale. Third, the Variety of
Affect score on the APS was replaced with the Tone of Affect Expression score
on the APS-BR. These two scores are quite different, in that the variety score
divided the affect units into 11 distinct positive or negative categories, while thetone score assesses the overall positive/negative tone of affect. The APS-BR asks
the observer to rate the overall tone of affect in the story, based on the average
amount of positive or negative affect expression in the affect units in the childs
play, instead of focusing on the specific affect categories. Finally, it was
determined to be too difficult for the rater of the APS-BR to distinguish between
the finer gradients of the 1-5 rating scale used on the APS without the opportunity
to review the videotape. Instead, the APS-BR utilizes a 1-4 Likert scale to score
Organization, Imagination, and Comfort.
In the first study with this adapted measure, Sacha Cordiano et al. (2008)
compared the APS-BR to the original APS and found support for the similarity
between the two. The study examined videotapes from a previous study in which
46 children were administered the APS (Russ & Schafer, 2006). The tapes were
then scored using the APS-BR method of scoring. The APS-BR scores were
compared with the original APS scoring from the videotapes. All scores on the
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
16/126
14
APS-BR significantly positively correlated with those on the APS at p < .001. In
addition, these correlations all met Cohens (1995) criteria for a large effect size.
The correlations were as follows: Organization, r = .80; Imagination, r = .81;
Comfort, r = .77; Frequency, r = .79; and Tone, r = .75.
Interrater reliability was assessed in the 2008 study and was found to be
high for the APS-BR (Sacha Cordiano et al.). When using intraclass correlation
coefficients (ICC) testing for absolute agreement, each score on the APS-BR had
an ICC of .86. These scores all fall above Cicchettis (1994) guideline for
excellent reliability.The 2008 study also began to establish construct validity for the APS-BR
by examining associations between the APS-BR and the measures of divergent
thinking and emotional memories in the Russ and Schafer (2006) study. The
pattern of correlations between the APS and criterion measures and the APS-BR
and criterion measures were similar. This study provided preliminary support for
a similar relationship for the APS and the APS-BR with theoretically relevant
criterion.
As a supplement to the 2008 study, the APS-BR was administered to a
sample of 28 first- and second-grade children from a local parochial elementary
school. The play task in this pilot study was scored in vivo using the APS-BR
and videotaped for scoring using the original APS. In addition, interrater
reliability was assessed using 20 of the 28 children by having a second rater in the
room to score the play in vivo using the APS-BR. Using intraclass correlation
coefficients testing for absolute agreement, interrater reliability for all of the main
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
17/126
15
APS-BR scores fell above Cicchettis guideline for excellent reliability (Cicchetti,
1994). It was determined that having a second rater present in the small room
available for the current study would be unnecessarily obtrusive, so these
interrater reliability results functioned as the interrater reliability for the present
study, as well. A more thorough review of interrater reliability for this pilot study
can be found in the Results section.
The pilot in vivo study also examined the correlations between scores on
the APS-BR from in vivo rating of the 28 children and scores obtained from
videotape of the same 28 children using the APS scoring system. The correlations between APS and APS-BR scores for this sample of 28 children were similar to
the correlations between APS and APS-BR scores found in the primary study,
providing further support for the APS-BR as providing similar measurement of
pretend play as the APS. In fact, the correlations in this pilot study were slightly
higher than in the primary study. Organization (r = .88), Imagination (r = .92),
Comfort (r = .90), Frequency of Affect Expression (r = .88), and Tone of Affect
Expression (r = .79) were all significantly correlated at the p .001 level. These
correlations all meet Cohens criteria for a large effect size (1995).
This first study with the APS-BR began to establish its validity by
demonstrating that it measures play in the same way as the APS and
demonstrating similar relationships with theoretically relevant criterion measures
of divergent thinking and emotion in memories. These results support the
potential use of this instrument in future research as an assessment tool
comparable to the APS. Possible uses for the APS-BR include use by a clinician
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
18/126
16
wanting a brief rating of a childs play, or in research aimed at assessing play
without videotaping.
Construct validity of the APS-BR
To build construct validity, Cronbach and Meehl (1955) suggested
defining a network of associations, or a nomological network. The nomological
network is an interlocking system of laws which constitute a theory (Cronbach
& Meehl, 1955, p. 65). The network forms a web of associations that connect the
construct being measured to a number of other constructs, theories, and
theoretically relevant criterion. The nomological network is dynamic, and asmore is learned about the construct, the web will expand. Each new study adds
new supporting or differing information to the existing network. In this way, the
network is constantly changing as more is learned about childrens pretend play.
The network, and as a result, the construct validity, grows stronger the more its
pieces are supported by the new evidence. Cronbach and Meehls work on
construct validity has had a lasting impact on the field. Recently, Smith (2005)
has adapted their nomological network as a five-step model for construct validity.
Smiths steps include specifying the theoretical constructs, developing hypotheses
from the theory, designing appropriate research studies to test the hypothesis,
assessing the level of confirmation of the hypotheses, and revising the theory and
the construct(s) accordingly.
Smith (2005) also highlights the development of multitrait multimethod
(MTMM) design in construct validity. Campbell and Fiske (1959) first proposed
MTMM theory as a way to examine both convergent and discriminant validity.
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
19/126
17
This method involves correlating scores of the test with measures of the trait or
construct the test is designed to assess (monotrait correlations) and those which
it is not designed to assess (heterotrait correlations). Measurement processes
are also addressed in MTMM theory, and the MTMM matrix includes
monomethod correlations (those involving similar methods of measurement)
and heteromethod correlations (those involving different methods of
measurement). MTMM allows for a more comprehensive assessment and
addresses systematic methods variance (Pitoniak, Sireci, & Luecht, 2002).
The present study was informed by Cronbach and Meehls (1955)approach to construct validity, taking into account Smiths (2005) recent
developments in this area. Using Cronbach and Meehls approach, the
nomological network for the APS-BR begins with the test itself. The test (the
APS-BR) was designed to measure the underlying constructs of pretend play,
including imagination and access to affect. To strengthen the construct validity of
the APS-BR, links to other existing constructs such as openness to experience,
divergent thinking, and affect expression were investigated. These constructs
were chosen because of their theoretical relationship to the underlying processes
in pretend play. In addition, links to constructs that should theoretically not relate
were also investigated. These constructs include personality variables of
agreeableness and conscientiousness. Adding discriminant validity to the
nomological network helps to strengthen the construct validity of the APS-BR.
This approach follows Smiths (2005) outline for ongoing construct validity. In
addition, MTMM theory was also considered in choosing how the constructs
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
20/126
18
would be assessed. As outlined below, monotrait and heterotrait assessment were
considered in the choice of both convergent and discriminant validity measures.
In addition, monomethod and heteromethod assessment was applied in the way
these constructs were assessed.
Creativity
Creativity is a cognitive ability that is related to and facilitated by play
(Dansky, 1999; Singer & Singer, 1990). The relationship between play and
creativity has been well studied (Dansky & Silverman, 1973, 1975; Pellegrini,
1992). For example, Seja and Russ (1999b) found that cognitive and affective processes in play are related to creativity in children. Divergent thinking is a
cognitive process important in creativity. Guilford (1968) defines divergent
thinking as thinking that generates a variety of ideas and associations to a
problem. Divergent thinking involves fluency, or speed of ideas; flexibility, or
ability to switch focus; and originality, or ability to generate unusual ideas are key
aspects of divergent thinking (Mumford, 2000-2001). Divergent thinking is an
effective indicator of creativity in children, because it does not penalize them for
their lack of experience (Charles & Runco, 2000-2001).
Divergent thinking has been shown to relate to pretend play ability
(Dansky, 1980; Lieberman, 1977). Singer and Singer (1990) state that engaging
in pretend play offers an opportunity to practice divergent thinking skills.
Divergent thinking also relates to playfulness (Christie & Johnson, 1983;
Lieberman, 1977). Dansky (1980) found that pretend play facilitated divergent
thinking in preschool children. Because of its relationship to pretend play,
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
21/126
19
divergent thinking is an appropriate criterion measure for establishing convergent
validity of the APS-BR. The APS has related to divergent thinking in a number
of previous studies (Russ, 2004). Wallach and Kogans (1965) adaptation of
Guilfords Alternate Uses Test was used for this purpose in the present study.
The Alternate Uses Test is a commonly used measure of divergent thinking in
children (Runco, 1991), and was chosen for the extensive reliability and validity
studies that have been conducted using the test with children (Kogan, 1983).
Imagination is a cognitive intrapersonal factor that facilitates creativity
(Carson, Peterson, & Higgins, 2005). Imagination is also highly important in pretend play. By definition, pretend play involves imagination, through the act of
treating one object as if it were something else (Fein, 1987). Imagination is an
important score on both the APS and the APS-BR. Imagination in play has been
shown to relate to better coping strategies (Goldstein & Russ, 2000-2001) and
divergent thinking (Russ, Robins, & Christiano, 1999). To examine the validity
of the imagination score on the APS-BR in this study, a teacher report of the
childs imagination was used.
Openness to experience
Though never before used with pre-adolescent children, the NEO
Personality Inventory (NEO PI), first developed by McCrae and Costa in 1983
(McCrae & Costa, 1983a) has been widely used to measure broad dimensions of
personality in adults. Openness to experience is defined as a willingness to make
adjustments to existing attitudes and behaviors once they have been exposed to
new ideas or situations (Digman, 1990). The NEO PI is based upon Normans
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
22/126
20
(1963) adaptation of Tupes and Christals (1961) five-factor model of personality.
The original five-factor model was comprised of extraversion, agreeableness,
conscientiousness, emotional stability, and culture. Costa and McCraes NEO PI
(1985) kept the dimensions of extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness,
but substituted neuroticism for emotional stability and openness to experience for
culture. In this study, openness to experience was used as a measure of
convergent validity for the APS-BR. The variable of openness to experience
includes intellectual curiosity, aesthetic sensitivity, liberal values, and emotional
differentiation (McCrae, 1987).There are theoretical reasons to hypothesize why openness to experience
should relate to pretend play ability. First, though no research has studied the
relationship between openness to experience and pretend play, the relationship
between openness to experience and creativity has been well-researched in adults.
McCrae (1987) found that divergent thinking related to openness to experience,
but not with any of the other four personality variables. McCrae suggests that
openness to experience may serve as the catalyst for creative expression and
exploration. In addition, in validating the Creative Achievement Questionnaire,
Carson et al. (2005) found that it related strongly to both divergent thinking and
openness to experience. King et al. (1996) also found relationships between
verbal creative ability and openness to experience, and Zhiyan and Singer (1997)
found relationships between daydreaming and openness to experience. The well-
studied relationship between openness to experience and creativity establishes a
theoretical framework for the relationship between openness to experience and
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
23/126
21
pretend play ability. Because of the strong relationship between creativity and
play, it is plausible to hypothesize that a similar relationship might exist between
play and openness to experience.
Second, openness to experience should relate to the affect expression
aspect of pretend play. A key component of openness to experience is a
willingness to accept change and welcome new experiences (McCrae & Costa,
1997). Kang and Shaver (2004) credit acquiring new experiences with
contributing to a more elaborate emotional life. In this way, children who are able
to access and express more affect in their play, as reflected through the Frequencyof Affect Expression score, should also be more open to new experiences. In
addition, children who are open to expressing affect within the confines of the
play task should also be open to other experiences outside of pretend play.
Finally, openness to experience is theoretically similar to the variable of
comfort on the APS-BR. A certain degree of openness is required to be
comfortable with and engaged in the APS-BR play task. Individuals low in
openness to experience are not as comfortable trying new things and are therefore
less motivated to be creative (McCrae, 1987). Motivation to try new things
should relate to ones ability to lose oneself in the play task. In the present study,
two different adaptations of the NEO PI-R were used to assess openness to
experience a modified self-report version that was administered to the children
and an adaptation that the parents completed about their children.
Discriminant validity
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
24/126
22
An important part of construct validity is discriminant validity, or what
should theoretically not relate to the construct being studied (Cronbach & Meehl,
1955). This is the first study examining discriminant validity of the APS-BR. In
this study, discriminant validity was represented by personality variables from the
NEO PI-R.
Theoretically, the NEO PI-R variables of agreeableness and
conscientiousness should not relate to a childs pretend play ability as measured
by the APS-BR. An agreeable person is characterized by trust, caring, and
altruism, versus manipulation, ruthlessness, and suspicion (Costa & McCrae,1992). Whether a child is irritable or good natured, or serious or cheerful, should
not relate to his/her ability to engage in pretend play. A childs level of
agreeableness may relate to the positive/negative tone of affect expressed
throughout the play, but it should not relate to any other aspect of the play.
McCrae and Costa (1990) describe individuals high in agreeableness as eager to
cooperate and avoid conflict, suggesting that they might also be eager to conform.
This is in direct contrast with key aspects of creativity such as independence and
autonomy, and King, Walker, and Broyles (1996) found a negative correlation
between agreeableness and creative accomplishments.
Conscientiousness is defined as including the three separate but
overlapping dimensions of being methodical or orderly, dependable and reliable,
and ambitious and driven to succeed (Paunonen & Jackson, 1996). Whether a
child is careless or careful, or negligent or conscientious, should not relate to
his/her ability to engage in pretend play. Conscientious individuals are less likely
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
25/126
23
to engage in fantasy or daydream (McCrae, Costa, & Busch, 1986), which are
essential parts of creativity. King et al. (1996, p. 191) suggest that the open-
mindedness associated with creativity is in direct contrast with the no-nonsense
approach of conscientious people. McCrae (1987) found no relationship between
creativity and conscientiousness.
Summary and general hypotheses
This study attempted to strengthen the construct validity of the APS-BR
by demonstrating both convergent and discriminant validity (see Figure 1).
Convergent validity of the APS-BR was investigated by comparing scores on theAPS-BR to scores on theoretically relevant criterion measures. These included a
measure of divergent thinking, the NEO PI-R variable of openness to experience,
parent ratings of pretend play and affect expression, and a teacher rating of
imagination. This is the first study to examine the relationship between pretend
play and openness to experience, and one of only a few studies to examine
personality traits on the NEO PI in children. This study also began to establish
discriminant validity of the APS-BR by comparing scores on the APS-BR to
scores on theoretically unrelated criterion measures of agreeableness and
conscientiousness as measured by the NEO PI-R.
This study was informed by Campbell and Fiskes (1959) MTMM theory
to strengthen the construct validity and tease apart sources of method variance.
Monotrait assessment came from using multiple measures of affect expression
and imagination (both the childs play and the parent and teacher reports).
Heterotrait assessment came from using both theoretically related and unrelated
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
26/126
24
constructs, and from using a number of diverse constructs. In addition,
heteromethod assessment came in the form of using both parent and teacher report
of the child.
Method
Description of sample
Participants in this study included 81 first- and second-grade students from
a local public elementary school in a middle to upper-middle class suburb of
Cleveland (median income of the suburb is $59, 302). An a priori power analysis
revealed that 64 participants were needed to achieve power of .80. The samplewas 53% female (43 girls and 38 boys). The average age was approximately
seven years and six months ( M = 90.17 months, SD = 8.14 months). The sample
demographics are presented in Table 1. The sample was overwhelmingly
Caucasian, and representative of both the school (97% Caucasian) and the
community. Parental consent was obtained from the parents of all children, and
verbal and written assent was obtained from all children.
Procedure
The children were administered the measures at their school during class
time. All children were administered the measures in the same order. The APS-
BR was given first, followed by the Alternate Uses Test. A modified self-report
version of the NEO PI-R was given next. The Vocabulary subtest of the WISC-
IV was the last measure given. The time for administration of the measures was
approximately 25 minutes per child. The parents of all children in the study were
asked to complete an adaptation of the NEO PI-R about their children. They were
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
27/126
25
also asked to complete a brief measure of affect expression and a brief measure of
pretend play ability about their children. The primary teachers of all children in
the study were asked to complete a measure of imagination about the children.
The teachers were compensated for their time at the rate of $15/hour. It should be
noted aside that from the APS-BR, all measures were scored blind at a later time
than they were administered; subject numbers, instead of the childrens names,
were used on all measures, so that the rater would have no knowledge of which
child the measure was about. This study was approved by the Institutional
Review Board of Case Western Reserve University on September 5, 2006. Measures
The measures used in this study included five measures of convergent
validity and two measures of discriminant validity. Figure 1 outlines these
measures.
Affect in Play Scale Brief Rating The Affect in Play Scale Brief
Rating (APS-BR) was the measure of pretend play used. The APS-BR involves
the observation of a standardized five-minute puppet play task. The observer
rates the childs pretend play on five dimensions, including organization of the
play, imagination in the play, comfort during the play, frequency of affect
expression during the play, and positive/negative tone of affect expression in the
play. The child is given two puppets, one boy and one girl, and three small
building blocks. The instructions for the task are:
Im here to learn about how children play. I have here two puppets and
would
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
28/126
26
like you to play with them anyway you like for five minutes. For
example, you
can have the puppets do something together. I also have some blocks that
you
can use. Be sure to have the puppets talk out loud. Ill tell you when to
stop.
The child is told when there is one minute left with the instruction, You
have one minute left. In addition, several prompts may be given if the child is
having difficulty with the play task. If the child has not started to play after 30seconds, the examiner gives the prompt, Go ahead, have the puppets do
something together. If the child plays silently, the examiner gives the prompt,
Have the puppets talk out loud so I can hear. Finally, if a child stops playing
before the five minutes have expired, the examiner gives the prompt, You still
have time left, keep on playing. Each of these prompts may be given twice
throughout the play task, spaced approximately one minute apart. After two
minutes of no play, the task is discontinued.
While observing the child, the rater is scoring both the cognitive and
affective aspects of her play. The cognitive aspects that are being scored are the
organization, imagination, and comfort of the play. The frequency and tone of the
affective expressions comprise the affective aspects of the play. Each category is
scored on a 1-4 Likert scale. The scoring categories of the APS-BR are described
in more detail below. The full APS-BR manual is located in Appendix A.
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
29/126
27
The Organization score is designed to measure the quality of the plot and
the story complexity. Play can range in organization from being a series of
unrelated, disjointed events with no cause and effect (1), to an integrated plot with
a beginning, a middle, and an end (4). Examples of a lower Organization score
include a story with no real events occurring, or events that have no linkage, and
are completely unrelated (1), or sets of events that have consistency within each
other, but are not joined together as a whole (2). Examples of a higher
Organization score include a story with events that are joined into a somewhat
consistent storyline, with a more structure plot and events that would follownaturally (3), or events that are very detailed and all interconnected within a
highly structured plot that is consistent throughout (4).
The Imagination score is designed to measure the novelty and uniqueness
of the play, as well as the childs ability to use pretend and fantasy. Play can
range from having no symbolism, transformations, or fantasy (1), to having many
transformations, novel fantasy events, and the addition of other characters or
unusual plot twists (4). Examples of a lower Imagination score include no real
action happening with the puppets or blocks, with little verbalization or
description (1), or building simple things with the blocks and simple
conversations, but with nothing especially different or unique occurring (2).
Examples of a higher Imagination score include having the puppets build many
things with the blocks, some of which are different or unique (3), or the building
of many unique and different things, with a wide variety of transformations and
events and the introduction of outside characters into the story (4).
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
30/126
28
The Comfort score is designed as a global rating for the childs level of
overall comfort in playing, encompassing both the ability to play and the level of
immersion in the play. A child can range from being reticent, distressed, and
stopping and starting throughout the play (1), to being comfortable, involved, and
enjoying the play (4). Examples of a lower Comfort score include a child who
cannot really begin or does not want to play, and expresses this to the examiner
(1), or a child who is hesitant or reluctant to play, and frequently stops and starts
after eventually beginning to play (2). Examples of a higher Comfort score
include a child who may take a little time to get started, but then is somewhatinvolved and enjoying the play and doesnt stop or need encouragement from the
examiner (3), or a child who is eager and enthusiastic to play, and is able to
quickly begin and play throughout the observation (4).
The affective domains refer more to the emotional expression of the play.
The Frequency of Affect Expression score is designed to measure the amount of
affect expression, defined in affective units, displayed within the play session. An
affect unit is defined as one scorable expression by a single puppet. The unit can
be expressed verbally, such as one puppet saying, I am very happy, or
nonverbally, such as one puppet hitting another puppet. The rater is instructed not
to tally each unit of affect expression, but to produce an estimation of the number
of affect units present. The eleven affect categories of Aggression,
Nurturance/Affection, Happiness/Pleasure, Anxiety/Fear, Sadness/Hurt,
Frustration/Disappointment/Dislike, Competition, Oral, Oral Aggression, Anal,
and Sexual are defined to familiarize the rater with what constitutes a unit of
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
31/126
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
32/126
30
In summary, the five scores from the APS-BR are Organization,
Imagination, Comfort, Frequency of Affect Expression, and Tone of Affect
Expression. The reliability and validity of this measure was previously presented
in the literature review.
Alternate Uses Test - The construct of creativity was measured using a
divergent thinking task, Wallach and Kogans adaptation of the Guilford
Alternate Uses Test (1965). Divergent thinking is the most common means of
measuring creativity in children (Runco & Albert, 1985). Wallach and Kogans
adaptation of Guilfords Alternate Uses Test is a widely used measure in studyingthis concept and has been used in a variety of studies of creative ideas, creative
potential, emotion in childrens play and problem solving, and primary process
thinking and coping (Godwin & Moran, 1990; Runco & Vega, 1990; Russ, 1988;
Russ & Kaugars, 2001). It has been used to measure divergent thinking in other
countries, as well (Chan et al., 2000-2001; Milgram, Moran, Sawyers, & Fu,
1987). Wallach and Kogans Alternate Uses Test has shown good reliability and
construct validity (Runco, 1991; Runco & Albert, 1985; Wallbrown, Wallbrown,
& Wherry, 1975).
Children in this study were presented with the names of six household
objects and asked to think of as many uses as possible for each. The words were
newspaper, knife, automobile tire, button, shoe, and key. Responses were coded
in the usual fashion for the number of plausible uses (fluency) and for originality.
An original response was defined in this study as one that appears only one other
time in the sample (Runco, 1991). The instructions for the task are:
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
33/126
31
Now, I am going to name an object, any kind of object, like a light bulb, and it
will be your job to tell me all the different ways that the object could be used.
Any object can be used in a lot of different ways. For example, think about
string. What are some of the ways you might use string? (Child tries) Yes, those
are fine. You can also use string to attach a fish hook, to jump rope, to sew with,
to hang clothes on, and to pull shades. There are lots more, too, and yours were
good examples. Now Im going to name different objects and I want you to tell
me all the different ways you could use the object that I name.
Certain prompts are given throughout the task. On the first and seconditems (newspaper and knife), the examiner gives the prompt, Can you think of
anything else? after the child responds. After one minute of silence, or if the
child indicates that he/she has no more responses, the examiner moves to the next
item. If a child is not able to begin the task, the examiner gives the prompt, all
the different ways you can use a newspaper, after one minute of silence.
NEO PI-R Two separate adaptations of the NEO Personality Inventory -
Revised (NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992) were used to measure specific
aspects of the childs personality, including openness to experience,
agreeableness, and conscientiousness. First, a modified self-report version of the
NEO PI-R was developed to administer to the children (see Appendix A). This
self-report version of the NEO PI-R consisted of only a portion of those original
statements representing the constructs of openness to experience, agreeableness,
and conscientiousness. In addition, the language and nature of these statements
were modified to the level of the first- and second-grade children. Ten items were
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
34/126
32
selected, and the children were asked to rate how much each item sounded like
them, on a 3-point Likert scale (Never, Sometimes, Always). The total score on
this measure was a sum of the individual items, and the total possible score was a
30 for each variable of openness to experience, agreeableness, and
conscientiousness.
Second, an adapted version of the NEO PI-R was given to the parents to
complete about their children. Again, only those statements representing
openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness were used. In
addition, the nature of the statements was adapted to be relevant to first- andsecond-grade children, and those statements that would not apply to young
children were eliminated. The wording of these statements was adapted from the
original self-report format to allow for the parent to report about his/her child. 30
items were selected for both openness to experience and agreeableness, and 41
items were selected for conscientiousness. The total possible score was a 150 for
openness to experience, a 150 for agreeableness, and a 205 for conscientiousness.
Both the self- and parent-report adaptations were developed with the
permission and consultation of Paul Costa, and trial versions were discussed
amongst collaborators familiar with the study.
Supplemental measures
In addition to the main measures, three supplemental rating scales were
created for face validity purposes for the current study. These measures include a
parent-report measure of childrens pretend play, a parent-report measure of
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
35/126
33
childrens affect expression, and a teacher-report measure of childrens
imagination.
Childrens Pretend Play Scale A parent report of pretend play ability
was used as an additional measure of pretend play and to strengthen the
convergent validity of the APS-BR (see Appendix A). The Childrens Pretend
Play Scale consisted of five questions regarding childrens pretend play. Parents
were asked to answer the questions based on a 5-point Likert scale, making the
total possible score a 25. This measure asked parents about the childs ability to
engage in and use imagination and fantasy in pretend play and was previouslyused by Seja and Russ (1999b) to assess teachers observations of preschoolers
pretend play.
Childrens Emotional Intensity Scale The Childrens Emotional Intensity
Scale consisted of five statements regarding childrens level of affect expression.
Parents were asked to rate how much each statement described their children on a
5-point Likert scale, making the total possible score a 25. This affect expression
measure focused on the amount of affect the child typically expresses (See
Appendix A). The affect expression measure was adapted from Larsen and
Dieners Affective Intensity Scale (1987), and similar to one used by Perez and
Gauvain (2005). It asked parents to rate their childrens emotional reactions on a
5-point scale.
Childrens Imagination Scale The Childrens Imagination Scale
consisted of five statements regarding childrens level of imagination in a
classroom setting. Teachers were asked to rate how much each statement
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
36/126
34
described the child using a 5-point Likert scale, making the total possible score a
25. The imagination measure focused on the childs ability to use imagination
both in pretend play and in the classroom (See Appendix A). The imagination
measure asked teachers to rate their students imagination on a 5-point scale based
on their observations of their students classroom behavior.
Verbal intelligence
The Vocabulary subtest of the Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children
Fourth Edition (WISC-IV; Psychological Corporation, 2003) was administered as
a measure of verbal intelligence to control for any differences in verbalintelligence during the analyses. The Vocabulary subtest of the WISC-IV has a
mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 3.
Specific hypotheses
1. It was hypothesized that scores on the APS-BR would be significantly
positively correlated with scores on the measure of divergent thinking.
Specifically, it was hypothesized that Organization, Imagination, and Frequency
of Affect Expression on the APS-BR would be significantly positively correlated
with the total number of plausible uses and the originality score on the divergent
thinking task.
2. It was hypothesized that scores on the APS-BR would be significantly
positively correlated with scores on the personality variable of openness to
experience. Specifically, it was hypothesized that Imagination, Comfort, and
Frequency of Affect Expression on the APS-BR would be significantly positively
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
37/126
35
correlated with openness to experience on the self- and parent-report adaptations
of the NEO PI-R.
3. It was hypothesized that Organization, Imagination, Comfort, and
Frequency of Affect Expression on the APS-BR would be significantly positively
correlated with scores on the parent report of pretend play ability.
4. It was hypothesized that Frequency of Affect Expression and Tone of
Affect Expression on the APS-BR would be significantly positively correlated
with scores on the parent report of affect expression.
5.
It was hypothesized that Imagination on the APS-BR would besignificantly positive correlated with scores on the teacher report of imagination.
In addition to the above hypotheses, there were also expectations related to
the discriminant validity of the APS-BR. It was not expected that there would be
any significant relationships between scores on the APS-BR and the variables of
agreeableness and conscientiousness on the self- or parent-report adaptations of
the NEO PI-R.
Results
Methods of analysis
Cronbachs alpha was used to assess the internal consistency of the new
and adapted measures used in the current study. Independent samples t-tests were
used to assess for mean differences in gender or grade for each of the measures.
Pearson bivariate correlations were used to assess the relationships between the
variables. One-tailed tests of significance were used for the relationships between
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
38/126
36
variables for which a priori hypotheses was specified. Hierarchical regression
analyses were used to further assess the relationships between certain variables.
Reliability analyses
APS-BR interrater reliability
In a previous study (Sacha, Cordiano, Russ, & Short, 2008), the author
was the primary rater using the APS-BR scoring system. The author scored the
childrens pretend play in vivo using the APS-BR scoring method. A second rater
scored 20 of the 28 children in vivo using the APS-BR scoring system for
purposes of interrater reliability. This rater sat quietly in the room and observedthe actual administration of the APS-BR. Interrater reliability was assessed using
a rigorous form of intraclass correlation coefficient that measures absolute
agreement, rather than just consistency between raters (Shrout & Fleiss, 1979). A
two-way random effects model was used, testing for absolute agreement using a
95% confidence interval. The average scores for the intraclass coefficients were
.89 for Organization, .93 for Imagination, .97 for Comfort, .77 for Frequency of
Affect Expression, and .91 for Tone of Affect Expression. These correlations all
meet Cohens criteria for a large effect size (1995). In addition, these ICC
values all fall above Cicchettis .74 guideline for excellent reliability (Cicchetti,
1994).
For several reasons, the interrater reliability from this previous study was
used to address interrater reliability in the current study. First, the same rater (the
author) was the primary rater for both studies, and her interrater reliability was
already obtained in the previous study. Second, because the sample in the current
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
39/126
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
40/126
38
The means and standard deviations of the APS-BR variables are reported
in Table 2. These descriptive statistics are compared with the means and standard
deviations of the APS-BR from the in vivo sample for the Sacha Cordiano et al.
(2008) study in Table 2. Out of 81 children, 6 children were unable to engage in
the play task, and the task was discontinued. This rate of discontinuation (7%) is
similar to the rate of discontinuation found in other studies with the APS (Russ,
2004).
Looking at gender differences, no mean differences were found between
boys and girls in Organization, Imagination, Comfort, or Frequency of AffectExpression, using an independent samples t-test. A trend toward significance was
found for Tone of Affect Expression (p = .05), in that boys demonstrated lower
scores (more negative affect).
Age differences were examined by assessing the correlation between age
in months at the start of data collection and APS-BR scores. No significant
correlations were found for any of the APS-BR scores. Grade differences in play
were also examined using an independent samples t-test to assess mean
differences between grades. No significant differences between first- and second-
graders were found on any play variables.
The means and standard deviations of the Alternate Uses Test variables of
number of plausible uses and originality are reported in Table 3. Using separate
independent samples t-tests, no significant gender or grade differences were found
for the number of plausible uses or originality in this sample.
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
41/126
39
The means and standard deviations for both the parent- and self-report
versions of the adapted NEO PI-R are reported in Table 3. Using separate
independent samples t-tests, no significant gender or grade differences were found
for self- or parent-report openness to experience. Using independent samples t-
tests, no gender differences were found for self- or parent-report agreeableness. A
significant mean difference was found between first- and second-graders in self-
report agreeableness (p < .05) and a trend toward significance was found between
first- and second-graders in parent-report agreeableness (p = .06), in that older
children were more agreeable than younger children. Using an independentsamples t-test, a trend toward significance for gender differences was found for
parent-report conscientiousness (p = .06), in that girls were rated as more
conscientiousness than boys; no gender differences were found for self-report
conscientiousness. No significant grade differences were found for either self- or
parent-report conscientiousness.
The Vocabulary subtest of the Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children
Fourth Edition (WISC-IV; Psychological Corporation, 2003) was administered as
a measure of verbal intelligence. The Vocabulary subtest of the WISC-IV has a
mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 3. This sample had a slightly higher mean
score on the Vocabulary subtest ( M = 12.48, SD = 2.82).
Main hypotheses
Pearson bivariate correlations were used to assess the relationships
between play, divergent thinking, and NEO PI-R variables. One-tailed tests of
significance were used for all hypothesized relationships. Multiple regression
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
42/126
40
analyses were also used to better understand the relationships between the
variables. Analysis of the data revealed that the originality score on the Alternate
Uses Tests was positively skewed and that Comfort on the APS-BR was
negatively skewed. To account for the skewness in originality, a square root
transformation was used to examine the effect of reducing the skewness in the
data on the hypothesized correlations (Munro, 2004). For the Comfort score, a z-
score transformation was used to determine if reducing the skewness in the data
altered the relationships with Comfort. For each of these variables, performing a
transformation did not significantly alter the hypothesized relationships.Therefore, to maintain the integrity of the data, transformed originality and
Comfort data are not reported in the results (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2006).
Correlations between APS-BR and divergent thinking
The relationships between variables on the APS-BR and variables of
divergent thinking are presented in Table 4. As predicted, significant positive
correlations were found for Organization and both fluency and originality.
Specifically, a significant positive correlation of r = .29 (p < .01) was found
between Organization and the number of plausible uses, and a significant positive
correlation of r = .27 (p < .01) was found between Organization and originality.
For Imagination, a significant positive correlation of r = .26 (p < .01) was found
between Imagination and the number of plausible uses. No significant
relationship was found between Imagination and originality. The demonstrated
relationships all reflect small effect sizes using Cohens (1995) benchmarks for
small, medium, and large effect sizes. The hypothesized relationships between
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
43/126
41
Frequency of Affect Expression and the divergent thinking variables were not
supported, as Frequency of Affect Expression did not significantly relate to either
the number of plausible uses or originality.
Examination of the relationship between WISC-IV Vocabulary scores and
the APS-BR scores revealed no significant relationships between play and verbal
intelligence. A significant positive correlation was found between the Vocabulary
scaled score and the fluency score on the Alternate Uses Test (r = .27, p < .01).
For this reason, partial correlations were used to investigate the relationships
between play and divergent thinking while controlling for verbal intelligence (seeTable 4). Controlling for verbal intelligence did not significantly alter the
correlations between divergent thinking and play.
A multiple regression was used to further examine the relationship
between pretend play and divergent thinking. The results of this analysis are
presented in Table 5. Divergent thinking (number of acceptable uses) was entered
as the dependent variable. The APS-BR variables of Organization, Imagination,
and Frequency of Affect Expression were entered first, second, and third,
respectively, as predictor variables. R was significantly different from zero after
adding Organization [R = .29, R 2 = .08, F (1, 79) = 7.09]. Organization alone
predicted 8% of the variance. Adding Imagination and Frequency of Affect
Expression did not significantly predict more variance than Organization alone.
Correlations between APS-BR and openness to experience
The relationships between variables on the APS-BR and openness to
experience are presented in Table 6. It was hypothesized that significant
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
44/126
42
relationships would exist between Imagination, Frequency of Affect Expression,
and Comfort on the APS-BR and openness to experience on both the self-report
and parent-report versions of the NEO PI-R. Using the child self-report
adaptation of the NEO PI-R, no significant relationships were found between
openness to experience and either Imagination or Frequency of Affect Expression.
A significant positive correlation (r = .21, p < .05) was found between self-report
openness to experience and Comfort on the APS-BR, as hypothesized.
Stronger relationships were found using the parent-report adaptation of the
NEO PI-R. As hypothesized, the strongest relationship existed betweenImagination and parent-report openness to experience (r = .29, p < .01).
Significant relationships were also found between openness to experience and
both Frequency of Affect Expression (r = .23, p < .05) and Comfort (r = .21, p 15 affect units present)
TONE OF AFFECT EXPRESSION
Measures overall tone of affect in the story, based on the average amount of
positive or negative affect expression in the affect units in the childs play. If
there is no affect present, do not give the child a score for this category.
4-POINT LIKERT SCALE
:
1- Predominately negative affect dominates the play; overall negative tone to
play and negative affect units
2- Somewhat negative affect dominates the play; there is a mix of negative and
positive affect units, but there is a generally negative affect tone to the play
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
94/126
92
3- Somewhat positive affect dominates the play; there is a mix of positive and
negative affect units, but there is a generally positive affect tone to the play
4- Predominately positive affect dominates the play; overall positive tone to play
and positive affect units
EXAMPLES:
1- Almost all of the affect revolves around events that are sad, frustrating,
disappointing, or upsetting; puppets are predominately angry, aggressive, and
upset; fighting, crying, or anger is present
2-
Most of the affect revolves around negative events, but there are some positive events mixed in; the negative events dominate the story, and fighting or
other aggression may occur; the story may end on a negative note
3- Most of the affect revolves around positive events, but there are some
negative events mixed in; the positive events dominate the story, and affection or
other happy events may occur; the story may end on a positive note
4- Almost all of the affect revolves around events that are happy,
affectionate, pleasurable, enjoyable, or fun; puppets are predominately happy,
affectionate, and having a good time; physical affection, verbal praise, or
evidence of enjoyment is present.
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
95/126
93
Adapted NEO PI-R Self-report
Please listen carefully to the statement I say and then tell me how much that
statement is like you. You can point to the circles to help you answer the
question. Please say if you are like that, never, sometimes, or always.
Lets practice:
If I said, my name is ____, you would point to (always), because your name is
always, every single day, ____.
If I said, I can fly in the sky all by myself, you would point to (never), because
that is not something you can ever do.If I said, I come to school, which one would you point to? (Correct/practice as
needed)
NEO PI-R: Child self-report of Openness to Experience
1. Im good at pretending (when I play). N S A
2. I dont like art and music. N S A
3. I like learning new games and things to do. N S A
4. I like doing puzzles. N S A
5. I like trying new and different foods. N S A
6. I like to make changes to my room just to try something
different. N S A
7. I dont really like games of make-believe. N S A
8. I want to learn about lots of different things at school. N S A
9. I like to do things the same way all the time. N S A
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
96/126
94
10. I like exploring things outside. N S A
NEO PI-R: Child self-report of Agreeableness
1. I would rather get along with other kids than beat them
at a game. N S A
2. I like telling people about the things I can do. N S A
3. I try to be nice to everyone I meet. N S A
4. When someone is mean to me, I just try to forgive and let it go.
N S A 5. I dont like people to know when Im mad. N S A
6. If I dont like people, I let them know it. N S A
7. I dont like to talk about myself and the things I can do. N S A
8. Sometimes I trick people into doing what I want. N S A
9. If someone starts a fight, Im ready to fight back. N S A
10. I go out of my way to help other people if I can. N S A
NEO PI-R: Child self-report of Conscientiousness
1. I try to do all my schoolwork carefully. N S A
2. Im pretty good about getting things done on time. N S A
3. I keep my things neat and clean. N S A
4. Sometimes I dont think before I do things. N S A
5. I like to keep everything in its place so I know just where it is.
N S A
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
97/126
95
6. Sometimes I cheat when I play games. N S A
7. I try to be great at everything I do. N S A
8. I am good at getting my work done. N S A
9. I spend a lot of time looking for things I lose. N S A
10. I think carefully before I answer a question. N S A
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
98/126
96
Adapted NEO PI-R Parent-report
Please read each item carefully and circle the one answer that best describes your
child as he/she typically behaves.
Circle SD if the statement is definitely false or if you strongly disagree .
Circle D if the statement is mostly false or if you disagree .
Circle N if the statement is about equally true or false, if you cannot
decide, or if you are neutral on the subject.
Circle A if the statement is mostly true or if you agree .
Circle SA if the statement is definitely true or if you strongly agree .
NEO PI-R: Parent report of Openness to Experience
1. My child has a very active imagination.
SD D N A SA
2. My child is not very interested in aesthetic and artistic projects .
SD D N A SA
3. My child is pretty set in his/her ways.
SD D N A SA
4. My child tends to keep his/her thoughts directed along realistic lines and
avoids flights of fancy.
SD D N A SA
5. My child sometimes gets completely absorbed in music
he/she listens to.
SD D N A SA
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
99/126
97
6. My child rarely experiences strong emotions.
SD D N A SA
7. My child finds it interesting to learn and develop new hobbies.
SD D N A SA
8. My child has an active fantasy life.
SD D N A SA
9. Watching dance or other artistic endeavors bores my child.
SD D N A SA
10. Once my child finds the right way to do something, he/she sticks to it.SD D N A SA
11. My child enjoys solving problems or puzzles.
SD D N A SA
12. My child doesnt like to daydream.
SD D N A SA
13. My child seems intrigued by patterns he/she finds in art and nature.
SD D N A SA
14. My child often tries new and foreign foods.
SD D N A SA
15. My child enjoys concentrating on a fantasy or daydream and exploring all its
possibilities.
SD D N A SA
16. Poetry has little or no effect on my child.
SD D N A SA
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
100/126
98
17. My child experiences a wide range of emotions or feelings.
SD D N A SA
18. My child prefers to spend his/her time in familiar surroundings.
SD D N A SA
19. My child enjoys working on mind-twister type puzzles.
SD D N A SA
20. Certain kinds of music seem to have an endless fascination for my child.
SD D N A SA
21. My child seldom notices the moods or feelings that different environments produce.
SD D N A SA
22. Sometimes my child makes changes around his/her room just to try
something different.
SD D N A SA
23. My child is broad-minded and tolerant of other people.
SD D N A SA
24. My child rarely enjoys games of make believe.
SD D N A SA
25. Sometimes my child gets excited when reading or being read poetry, or when
looking at a work of art.
SD D N A SA
26. My child finds it easy to empathize to feel him/herself what others are
feeling.
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
101/126
99
SD D N A SA
27. My child has a lot of intellectual curiosity.
SD D N A SA
28. My child has difficulty just letting his/her mind wander without control or
guidance.
SD D N A SA
29. My child follows the same route when accomplishing tasks.
SD D N A SA
30. My child has a wide range of intellectual interests.SD D N A SA
NEO PI-R: Parent report of Agreeableness
1. My child tends to be cynical and skeptical of others intentions.
SD D N A SA
2. My child is not crafty or sly.
SD D N A SA
3. Some people think my child is selfish or egotistical.
SD D N A SA
4. My child would rather cooperate with others than compete with them.
SD D N A SA
5. My child doesnt mind bragging about my talents and accomplishments.
SD D N A SA
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
102/126
100
6. If necessary, my child is willing to manipulate people to get what he/she
wants.
SD D N A SA
7. My child tries to be courteous to everyone he/she needs.
SD D N A SA
8. My child can be sarcastic and cutting when he/she needs to be.
SD D N A SA
9. My child would rather not talk about his/herself and his/her achievements.
SD D N A SA 10. My child is hard-headed and touch-minded in her attitudes and actions.
SD D N A SA
11. My child couldnt deceive anyone even if he/she wanted to.
SD D N A SA
12. My child hesitates to express his/her anger even when its justified.
SD D N A SA
13. My child generally tries to be thoughtful and considerate.
SD D N A SA
14. If my child doesnt like people, he/she lets them know it.
SD D N A SA
15. My child tries to be humble.
SD D N A SA
16. My child is not known for his/her generosity.
SD D N A SA
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
103/126
101
17. When my child has been insulted, he/she just tries to forgive and forget.
SD D N A SA
18. My child has a very high opinion of him/herself.
SD D N A SA
19. My childs first reaction is to trust people.
SD D N A SA
20. Sometimes my child tricks people into doing what he/she wants.
SD D N A SA
21. Most people who know my child like him/her.SD D N A SA
22. If someone starts a fight, my child is ready to fight back.
SD D N A SA
23. My child tends to assume the best about people.
SD D N A SA
24. At times my child bullies or flatters people into doing what he/she wants
them to do.
SD D N A SA
25. My child is a charitable person.
SD D N A SA
26. My child is hard-headed and stubborn.
SD D N A SA
27. My child would rather praise others than be praised him/herself.
SD D N A SA
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
104/126
102
28. My child has sympathy for others less fortunate than him/herself.
SD D N A SA
29. My child goes out of his/her way to help others if he/she can.
SD D N A SA
30. My child often gets into arguments with family and friends.
SD D N A SA
NEO PI-R: Parent report of Conscientiousness
1. My child is known for his/her prudence and common sense.SD D N A SA
2. My child would rather keep his/her options open than plan everything in
advance.
SD D N A SA
3. My child tries to perform all the tasks assigned to him/her conscientiously.
SD D N A SA
4. My child is easy-going and lackadaisical.
SD D N A SA
6. My child is pretty good about pacing him/herself so as to get things done
on time.
SD D N A SA
6. My child keeps his/her belongings neat and clean.
SD D N A SA
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
105/126
103
7. Sometimes my child is not as dependable or reliable as he/she should be.
SD D N A SA
8. My child has a clear set of goals and works toward them in an orderly fashion.
SD D N A SA
9. My child wastes a lot of time before settling down to work.
SD D N A SA
10. My child thinks things through before coming to a decision.
SD D N A SA
11. My child usually makes intelligent and informed decisions.SD D N A SA
12. My child is not a very methodical person.
SD D N A SA
13. My child is a productive person who always gets the job done.
SD D N A SA
14. Occasionally my child acts first and thinks later.
SD D N A SA
15. My child often comes into situations without being fully prepared.
SD D N A SA
16. My child likes to keep everything in its place so he/she knows just where it is.
SD D N A SA
17. Sometimes my child cheats when he/she plays games.
SD D N A SA
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
106/126
104
18. My child works hard to accomplish his/her goals.
SD D N A SA
19. My child has trouble making him/herself doing what he/she should.
SD D N A SA
20. My child always considers the consequences before he/she takes action.
SD D N A SA
21. My child has sound judgment.
SD D N A SA
22. My child never seems to be able to get organized.SD D N A SA
23. When my child makes a commitment, he/she can always be counted on to
follow through.
SD D N A SA
24. My child doesnt seem driven to get ahead.
SD D N A SA
25. Once he/she starts a project, my child almost always finishes it.
SD D N A SA
26. My child often does things on the spur of the moment.
SD D N A SA
27. My child doesnt seem to be completely successful at anything.
SD D N A SA
28. My child tends to be somewhat particular or exacting.
SD D N A SA
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
107/126
105
29. My child adheres strictly to his/her ethical principles.
SD D N A SA
30. My child strives to achieve all he/she can.
SD D N A SA
31. When a project gets too difficult, my child is inclined to start a new one.
SD D N A SA
32. My child rarely makes hasty decisions.
SD D N A SA
33. My child is a very competent person.SD D N A SA
34. My child tries to do jobs carefully, so they wont have to be done again.
SD D N A SA
35. My child strives for excellence in everything he/she does.
SD D N A SA
36. My child is efficient and effective at his/her work.
SD D N A SA
37. My child spends a lot of time looking for things he/she has misplaced.
SD D N A SA
38. My child would really have to be sick before he/she would miss a day of
school.
SD D N A SA
39. My child is something of a workaholic.
SD D N A SA
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
108/126
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
109/126
107
Childrens Pretend Play Scale
Please answer the following questions about your child using the 1-5 anchors
provided. Please rate your child as he/she typically behaves.
1. How imaginative is your childs play?
1 2 3 4 5
not at all somewhat average above average extremely
2. How often does your child use make-believe in his/her play?
1 2 3 4 5
not at all somewhat average above average extremely3. How much does your child enjoy playing?
1 2 3 4 5
not at all somewhat average above average extremely
4. How much does your child express emotions when he/she plays?
1 2 3 4 5
not at all somewhat average above average extremely
5. D uring d ramatic pl ay, how w ell doe s your child us e hi s/her m ake-believe
ability?
1 2 3 4 5
not at all somewhat average above average extremely
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
110/126
108
Childrens Emotional Intensity Scale
Please rate your child on the 1-5 scale for the following statements. Please rate
your child as he/she typically behaves.
1. My child feels positive emotions more strongly than other children.
1 2 3 4 5
never rarely sometimes usually always
2. My child feels negative emotions more strongly than other children.
1 2 3 4 5
never rarely sometimes us ually a lways3. My child responds emotionally to books, stories, and movies he/she sees.
1 2 3 4 5
never rarely sometimes usually always
4. My child exhibits a lot of positive emotion during his/her play.
1 2 3 4 5
never rarely sometimes usually always
5. My child exhibits a lot of negative emotion during his/her play.
1 2 3 4 5
never rarely sometimes usually always
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
111/126
109
Childrens Imagination Scale
Please rate your student on the 1-5 scale for the following statements. Please rate
your student as he/she typically behaves in your class.
1. He/she exhibits imagination and creativity during class discussion.
1 2 3 4 5
not at all somewhat average above average extremely
2. He/she exhibits imagination and creativity during free play.
1 2 3 4 5
not at all somewhat average above average extremely3. He/she has a well-developed sense of imagination.
1 2 3 4 5
not at all somewhat average above average extremely
4. He/she exhibits imagination and creativity in class assignments.
1 2 3 4 5
not at all somewhat average above average extremely
5. He/she seems to use imagination and creativity during solitary time.
1 2 3 4 5
not at all somewhat average above average extremely
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
112/126
110
References
Abe, J.A.A. (2005). The predictive validity of the Five-Factor Model of
personality with preschool age children: A nine year follow-up study.
Journal of Research in Personality, 39, 423-442.
Achenbach, T.M., McConaughy, S.H., & Howell, C.T. (1987). Child/adolescent
behavioral and emotional problems: Implications of cross-informant
correlations for situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 213-
232.
Arseneault, L., Kim-Cohen, J., Taylor, A., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T.E. (2005).Psychometric evaluation of 5- and 7-year old childrens self-reports of
conduct problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 537-550.
Asendorpf, J.B., & van Aken, M.A.G. (2003). Validity of Big Five personality
judgments in childhood: A 9 year longitudinal study. European Journal of
Personality, 17, 1-17.
Axline, V.M. (1947). Play therapy . Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G.V., Rabasca, A., & Pastorelli, C. (2003). A
questionnaire for measuring the Big Five in late childhood. Personality
and Individual Differences, 34, 645-664.
Berk, L.E. (1994). Vygotskys theory: The importance of make-believe play.
Young Children, 50, 30-38.
Block, J., & Block, J.H. (1980a). The California Child Q-Set. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press. (Original work published 1969).
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
113/126
111
Block, J. (1993). Studying personality the long way. In D.C. Funder, R.D.
Parke, C. Tomlinson-Keasey, & K. Widaman (Eds.), Studying lives
through time: Personality and development (pp. 9-41). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Boling, S.E., & Boling, J.L. (1993). Creativity and birth order/sex differences in
children. Education, 114, 224-226.
Burns, M.K. (2002). Self-report objective measures of personality for children:
A review of psychometric properties for RQC. Psychology in the Schools,
39, 221-234.Butcher, J.N., Williams, C.L., Graham, J.R., Archer, R.P., Tellegen, A., Ben-
Porath, Y.S., Hathaway, S.R., & McKinley, J.C. (1992). Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory Adolescent: Manual for
administration, scoring, and interpretation. Minneapolis, MN: University
of Minnesota Press.
Campbell, D.T., & Fiske, D.W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation
by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
Carson, S.H., Peterson, J.B., & Higgins, D.M. (2005). Reliability, validity, and
factor structure of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire. Creativity
Research Journal, 17, 37-50.
Chan, D.W., Cheung, P.C., Lau, S., Wu, W.Y.H., Kwong, J.M.L., & Li, W.L.
(2000-2001). Assessing ideational fluency in primary students in Hong
Kong. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 359-365.
8/8/2019 Cordiano Tori Jo
114/126
112
Charles, R.E., & Runco, M.A. (2000-2001). Developmental trends in the
evaluative and divergent thinking of children. Creativity Research
Journal, 13, 417-437.
Chethik, M. (1989). Techniques of child therapy: Psychodynamic strategies .
New York: Guilford.
Christiano, B., & Russ, S. (1996). Play as a predictor of coping and distress in
children during an invasive dental procedure. Journal of Clinical Child
Psychology, 25, 130-138.
Christie, J., & Johnson, E. (1983). The role of play in social-intellectualdevelopment. Review of Educational Research, 53, 93-115.