Cordiano Tori Jo

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


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


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


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


5/126

3

Table 11 Intercorrelations between the APS-BR variables for the current and

2008 studies 81


6/126

4

List of Figures

Figure 1 Convergent and discriminant validity measures 82


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.


8/126

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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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,


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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).


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


31/126


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:


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


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


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


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


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


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


39/126


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.


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


108/126


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


4. How much does your child express emotions when he/she plays?

1 2 3 4 5


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



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


4. My child exhibits a lot of positive emotion during his/her play.

1 2 3 4 5


5. My child exhibits a lot of negative emotion during his/her play.

1 2 3 4 5



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


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


4. He/she exhibits imagination and creativity in class assignments.

1 2 3 4 5


5. He/she seems to use imagination and creativity during solitary time.

1 2 3 4 5



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).


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.


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.

Documents

Cordiano Tori Jo