Playground Usability: What Do Playground Users Say?

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Playground Usability: What Do Playground Users Say?Jacquie Ripat1*† & Pam Becker2

1Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Manitoba, Canada2Rehabilitation Centre for Children, Canada

Abstract

Play, specifically outdoor play, is crucial for a child’s development. However, not all playgrounds are designed to

provide usable space for children with disabilities. The aim of the study was to gain an understanding of the experi-

ences of playground use for children with disabilities and their caregivers. Using a qualitative descriptive design,

interviews were conducted with children with disabilities and their caregivers. Interview transcripts were reviewed

and coded. The analysis process resulted in three overarching themes. Playground Experiences addressed the sen-

sory experiences that children seek at playgrounds, the importance of creating environments that promote imagi-

native play and the need to provide an appropriate level of challenge. In the second theme, Playground Usability,

participants described barriers that prevent access and features that promote use. The third theme, Inclusivity, fo-

cused on equal access and the importance of providing options in design. The Person–Environment–Occupation

model was used to frame the findings and to identify practice and research recommendations. Outdoor play is a

key occupation of children, and occupational therapists have a role in promoting usable environments for all

children. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 10 November 2011; Revised 24 April 2012; Accepted 30 April 2012

Keywords

accessibility; playground; usability; inclusivity; disability

*Correspondence

Jacquie Ripat, Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Manitoba R131-771 McDermot Avenue, Winnipeg, MB, R3E 0T6,

Canada.†Email: [email protected]

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/oti.1331

Introduction

Play has been identified as a right of all children (Office of

the United Nations High Commissioner for Human

Rights, 2002). It is not only crucial for a child’s develop-

ment (Titman, 1994; Isenberg and Quisenberry, 2002;

Stagnitti, 2004; Ginsburg, 2007), but it is also a key

occupation of children (Case-Smith, 2005; Miller and

Kuhaneck, 2008). In the past two decades, the literature

has highlighted a decrease in opportunities for all

children to play, with an increased focus on children’s in-

volvement in academics, scheduled activities (Isenberg

and Quisenberry, 2002; The USA Affiliate of the

Occup. Ther. Int. (2012) © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

International Play Association, 2010) and passive play op-

portunities, such as playing computer and video games

(Burdette and Whitaker, 2005; Ginsburg, 2007; Turner

et al., 2009).

Although play can occur anywhere, community and

school playgrounds are common settings for children

to engage in play (Nabors et al., 2001, Rigby and Gaik,

2007). In playgrounds, children are able to develop

motor skills, take risks and push their limits, interact

with each other, learn social norms and values, and

discover their environment (Shaw, 1987; Fjortoft, 2001;

Isenberg and Quisenberry, 2002; Turner et al., 2009).

Playground Usability: What Do Playground Users Say? Ripat and Becker

Over the past 20 years, there have been research

efforts undertaken to better understand how children

with disabilities play. The findings highlight that chil-

dren with physical disabilities engage in fewer activities

and interact less often with peers than other children

(Tamm and Skar, 2000). Furthermore, children with

disabilities are often excluded from, or restricted in,

play activities because of the physical barriers of play

structures and the surrounding environment (Law

et al., 1999; Tamm and Skar, 2000; Nabors et al.,

2001). In fact, some researchers have suggested that

playground design often does not meet the needs of

typically developing children, and few playgrounds

are accessible and usable for children with physical

disabilities (Prellwitz and Tamm, 1999; Prellwitz and

Tamm, 2000; Prellwitz et al., 2001; Veitch et al., 2006;

Prellwitz and Skar, 2007). When opportunities for play

by children with disabilities are limited, their develop-

ment falters behind other children (Missiuna and

Pollock, 1991; Tamm and Skar, 2000; McCarty and

Morress, 2009). Building play spaces that create oppor-

tunities for all children to play and develop their

skills with peers is essential (Tamm and Skar, 2000).

In recognition of the importance of environmental

factors in enabling or creating barriers to play, there

has been increased attention given to creating or

adapting play areas that facilitate participation and

inclusion (Letts et al., 2003). Accessible playgrounds have

been suggested as a means of providing children with

disabilities independence, easy access to play, and a safe,

challenging and fun environment by providing a play

area in which typically developing children and children

with disabilities can socialize, play and learn together

(Stout, 1988; Christoph, 1997). Universal design is a

specific design approach that promotes accessibility for

all individuals, regardless of ability (Iwarsson and Stahl,

2003). Universally designed playgrounds have been

identified as a means of addressing accessibility

inequalities and providing all children with greater op-

portunities to be physically active, socialize, play and

learn (Stout, 1988).

Usability is a functional concept that promotes

the ability to access and use the built environment

(Iwarsson and Stahl, 2003). Recently, occupational

therapists have focused not only on accessibility or

universal design but also on the inclusive concept of us-

ability (Prellwitz and Skar, 2006; Prellwitz and Skar

2007). Application of this concept suggests that chil-

dren should be able not only to access a space but also

to use the play space in the same way as other children

(Iwarsson and Stahl, 2003).

Thus, the purpose of this study was to add to our

understanding of the experience of playground use by

children with disabilities and their caregivers in one

geographical location. Ultimately, our aim was to

generate ideas that would improve the usability of

future playground constructions. This research report

addresses the experience aspect, whereas the specific

ideas generated are available in a report from the

first author upon request. The study was conducted

in Manitoba, Canada, which has a population of

approximately 1,240,000. Canada has an overall disabil-

ity rate estimated at 14% (Statistics Canada, 2008). In

Manitoba, school playgrounds are funded provincially

through school divisions, whereas community play-

grounds are generally funded through a combination of

municipal funding, grants and private donors.

Methods

As we were interested in gaining the thoughts, experi-

ences and meaning from the individuals who encoun-

ter a particular event or phenomenon (Creswell,

2003), qualitative inquiry was selected as the research

approach. Specifically, a qualitative descriptive design

as described by Sandelowski (2000, 2010) was used

to gain an in-depth understanding of the playground

experience for participants. By using qualitative de-

scription, a descriptive summary of the findings was

generated, predominate meanings and patterns in the

data were retrieved, and results were not subject to a

high level of interpretation. In addition, we drew from

the perspective of Burbank and Martins (2009) who

discussed how a more comprehensive understanding

of complex social phenomena can be gained by com-

bining learning from the individual (insider perspec-

tive) with an understanding at a macro or societal

perspective (outsider perspective). This combined

way of examining a phenomenon can be useful for

addressing social change (Burbank and Martins,

2009), as is the goal in the development of useable

public spaces.

Ethical approval to conduct the study was obtained

from the Health Research Ethics Board at the Univer-

sity of Manitoba, and all participants signed informed

consent prior to engaging in the interviews. Parental

consent was required for child participants, and assent

was requested from the child. Each study participant


Ripat and Becker Playground Usability: What Do Playground Users Say?

received a small honorarium to recognize their time

and commitment to the study.

Participants

Sampling occurred to recruit children with disabilities,

the children’s caregivers and other caregivers who

had a disability. Participants were selected that could

provide their perspective on playground experiences

and discuss features that impact the usability of a

playground by children with disabilities. Purposive

sampling methods were employed to ensure that

participants varied with respect to gender, age, nature

of disability and role (e.g. child playground user and

caregiver) and selected for their ability to provide rich,

detailed information (Patton, 2002). The final sample

size was determined by inductive analysis and category

saturation.

Procedures

A total of 20 participants were involved in 11 interviews

(Table I). Each interview consisted of one in-depth

interview session lasting from 30 to 90minutes. All

interviews were digitally audio-recorded, and field notes

were completed after each interview to capture the

context of the interview and additional ideas. A semi-

structured question guide was used in each of the

interviews. Sample questions asked included the follow-

ing: “What do you love to do at the playground?” and

“What would you put in a playground if you built it?”

Prompts were used to explore and further understand

the reasons behind participant responses. Participants

were also offered the use of age-appropriate expressive

materials such as building blocks, clay, felt and miniature

Table I. Participant demographics

Interview number Interviewed Gender

1 Child, mother, father and sibling F

2 Mother M

3 Father F

4 Child and mother F

5 Child and mother F

6 Caregiver with a disability N/A

7 Caregiver with a disability N/A

8 Child, educational assistant and mother M

9 Mother M

10 Mother and father F

11 Mother and father F


figures to depict their ideas about elements that they would

like to access in a playground (Dell Clark, 2011). Use of

the expressive materials encouraged participation from

children who were not able to communicate verbally,

prompted further discussion and ideas for playground

design, and engaged them in the research process.

Analysis

Interviews were transcribed verbatim, with personal

identifiers removed during transcription to maintain

participants’ anonymity. Content analysis (Graneheim

and Lundman, 2003) was used to inductively analyze

the data collected in this study. Two researchers

independently reviewed interview transcripts and coded

interview transcripts to identify key phrases, ideas and

concepts. Researchers then met to discuss and develop

consensus on the coding. The researchers worked to-

gether to cluster related codes into categories and then

to construct overarching themes from the emergent

categories. Interviews were analyzed singularly, as well

as across participants, to gain a sense of individual needs,

suggestions, and commonly expressed ideas and

patterns. The final analysis process resulted in the devel-

opment of three overarching themes. Finally, the induc-

tively derived themes were reviewed in light of

the Person–Environment–Occupation (P–E–O) model

described by Law et al. (1996). Thus, although the

findings of this study are presented using the words of

the individual participants, the overall themes derived

were contextualized and interpreted within a societal

perspective (Burbank and Martins, 2009).

Several methods were employed to ensure rigour in

this study. The use of various methods to collect

of child Age Equipment and mobility

14 Manual wheelchair for all mobility

12 Independent

12 Manual wheelchair for all mobility

9 Manual wheelchair and walker

10 Wheelchair for all mobility (power and manual)

N/A Wheelchair (power) and scooter

N/A Manual wheelchair for all mobility

9 Wheelchair (power and manual)

15 Walks with assistance and mobility aid

12 Wheelchair manual

7 Mobility aid and manual wheelchair


data (interview and creative expression) added to the

credibility of findings (in particular from the child

participants). The varying perspectives sought through

the sampling methods (i.e. speaking with a variety of

users of playgrounds including children, parents and

caregivers) addressed triangulation (Law andMcDermid,

2008). An audit trail was kept throughout the process

of analysis, and peer debriefing occurred between

researchers to ensure an accurate representation of the

data and consensus in analysis. The process was both

reflexive and interactive. Member checking occurred

with a summary of the analysis being returned to seven

of the 11 families to ensure accuracy.

Findings

Analysis of the interview data resulted in the develop-

ment of three primary themes. The first theme, Play-

ground Experiences, focused on the reasons why

children and families go to playgrounds and the types

of play that children and families sought while in that

environment. The second theme, Playground Usabil-

ity, addressed the functional use of playgrounds. Par-

ticipants discussed playground barriers they had

experienced and the ways that they or others had

attempted to overcome those barriers. The third

theme, Inclusivity, addressed the reasons why partici-

pants felt it was important that playgrounds were us-

able by all children.

Playground experiences

The importance of using the playground as a venue for

promoting child development in physical, emotional

and social realms was emphasized by participants. For

instance, parents identified the value of experiencing

movement when swinging and walking over moving

bridges, the opportunity to touch items consisting of

different textures and the sense of being up high. A

mother of a 12-year-old boy emphasized this, stating

“He likes just the normal swing the very best. He can

swing for half an hour. And we did this in the snow.

So I actually had to dig the snow out so he could

swing”. Children reported enjoying touching grass,

flowers, sand and other textures. The sensation of

height and being up above others was frequently dis-

cussed by participants and was described by the father

of a 12-year-old girl when he said, “I mean all kids like

to be up top on something, so [in the playground] you

need height”. Playground play has been termed “sen-

sory rich” (Malkusak, 2002), supporting the current

study findings that child participants sought varied sen-

sory and motor experiences when playing at a play-

ground. Playgrounds were also identified as important

spaces for imaginative play development, as discussed

by the mother of a 14-year-old girl: “Having a play-

house that you can go in that would have things

for opening and closing, and sliding, and turn-

ing. . .basically an exploring house. . .you could actually

use it as a puppet house. . .just different kind of ah

imaginary things”. The children and parents spoke

frequently about playing in a house and using wheels

and other objects attached to structures to manipulate

and pretend with friends, for example pretending to

be on a ship.

The playground was viewed as part of an overall

social and family experience, serving as a community

and social environment where the family could go

together, neighbourhood children could play together

and parents could meet other families in their commu-

nity. As one parent expressed, “It was for me to meet

other families and parents, and to get Anna (pseudonym)

introduced to other families and parents in the neighbor-

hood. It’s a meeting place. . .it’s that social, social

networking”. School playgrounds that provided an

important social context for children to engage with

peers without adult supervision were also addressed. As

one participant shared,

So recess is really the time where they can do

whatever they want right, chat and vent and so

you’re going to have a lot of kids again, who

aren’t interested in doing the soccer or the big

physical stuff but just want to be, and just want

to wander around and talk this was, like I said

that’s the social network place.

Participants discussed how it was important for children

to have the opportunity to use his or her abilities

through challenges and options available in the design

of various aspects of the playground: “Yeah, and that’s

it, the opportunity has to be there so that she can use

it to whatever her ability is”. Overall, the playground

served multiple purposes for participants; it was an

environment that offered the potential for children to

engage in age-appropriate occupations that promoted

the child’s development, autonomy, and social and

motor skills.



Playground usability

Within the theme of playground usability, participants

discussed the specific features of a playground that

prevented or limited access, the general lack of access

in the outdoor environment and what prevented them

from getting onto or into a play space. Ground surfaces

such as sand, gravel, grass and boards/railway ties were

highlighted as the primary barrier that precluded access

to playground space or parts of the structure: as one

caregiver stated, “sand is just our enemy”. Our findings

echo those of Prellwitz et al. (2001), who identified

limitations in access due to inaccessible ground

cover materials. In comparison, participants identified

specific features that promoted access; in particular,

accessible surfacing, ramps and pathways were high-

lighted as integral to access. “But what you want is

paths going to each area of function. So you can get

to each space” (caregiver with a disability).

To facilitate playground access within an inaccessible

environment, participants described enlisting the use

of available resources, such as family members carrying

the child up to the top of the structure. A father of a

12-year-old girl described his way of creating playground

access for his child: “So silly me, I pick her up and I put

her on the ledge and I carry her up to the slide and let her

slide down. So I do all that personally. . .so I carry the old

120 pounder up there and then we slide down together

and somehow we get down that slide together”. Similar

to Prellwitz and Tamm (1999) where they identified a

theme of “assistance is a prerequisite for accessibility”

(p. 170), these choices were not pre-existing but spoke

to families’ resourcefulness in accessing personal

resources or supports.

Participants in our study differentiated the concepts of

accessibility and usability: although many playgrounds

were described as having one or more accessible features,

they were not necessarily usable. For these participants,

the term usability referred to the Iwarsson and Stahl’s

(2003) functional concept that describes the ability to

access and use the built environment. For instance,

participants described how play structures were not

able to be used in a functional way in situations where

a ramp might exist, but there were no play opportunities

at the top of the ramp. Within the theme of Playground

Usability, safety considerations were also highlighted, in

particular participants discussed the importance of

access to shade when children had difficulty with tem-

perature regulation.


Similar to the reports of others (Phelan, 2011),

parents who had been involved in developing accessible

playgrounds in their children’s schools were often

frustrated by the lack of awareness of this critical

distinction between accessible and usable. As one

parent recalled, “And what looks good on paper and

what works are two entirely different things”. User

involvement in design and development of usable spaces

has been advocated (Bjork, 2009; Phelan, 2011), and

children have been found to enjoy the equipment more

when they were consulted on their preferences (Titman,

1994). It is clear from the current study that families,

children and caregivers have valuable information to

share about designing usable playground space.

Inclusivity

The theme of inclusivity addressed the reasons partici-

pants shared for why it was important to have

usable playgrounds. They described the value placed

on inclusive and usable playgrounds that promoted

equal access and equity amongst children, as described

by a father of a 12-year-old girl with a disability:

Well to be honest, I mean the way the playgrounds

are now, if you took that and just made them

accessible. Get her up in there so she can be. . .as

the kids do their laps they always touch her. . .it’s

like a big home base. . . And she can kind of

scream at them or ‘Hey what are you doing’ or

‘look at this look at me I’m up here. I’m the king

of the castle’ that sort of shpeel you know. That’s

what you need to do. It’s not so much their actions.

Like for my daughter, it’s that she is being a part of

it to an extent. . . I think it is just the full including

of them that’s all.

Children and parents talked about the inequality that

was apparent when their child had limited access. The

meaning imbued by inaccessible spaces went beyond

a physical inability to navigate the space to a sense of

exclusion, as discussed by one participant: “Those

visible barriers (railway ties) that just say to me ‘sorry

you can’t really come in unless you can step over this’ ”.

A 10-year-old girl with a disability spoke about the

sense of inequity and separation that occurs between

friends when you have dual methods of accessing

spaces (e.g. a ramp alongside a set of stairs) rather than

a singular usable method:


It’s wheelchair accessible all right, but you have

to take this thing on a long, long, long path to

go down, down. . .it’s a long ways. . .when you

can just make a little dent in the curb and then

you can go with your class rather than going all

the way around the building to try and get to

the wheelchair accessible spot.

Participants voiced their concerns about providing all

children with choices and options for play and the fact

that many, if not most, of the playgrounds did not offer

this to their child. Some participants suggested a lack of

social opportunities on the playgrounds when they

spoke about the inequality and the limited opportuni-

ties for their children to be a part of the playground

experience: “The biggest one is giving her that opportu-

nity to be there first. . .but when you are sitting out

back completely excluded from everything. It’s not

fair”. Similarly, Tamm and Skär’s (2000) research

demonstrated that children with disabilities have fewer

opportunities to engage in social play with peers.

If a child’s occupation is play but some children are

unable to access a play space, the unspoken message to

the children is that they are not welcome in that play

space; this may be framed as an occupational injustice.

Correspondingly, in the research by Prellwitz et al.

(2001), the authors noted, “the insufficient accessibility

of playgrounds also indicates that children with re-

stricted mobility are treated in a discriminatory

way. . .and. . .excluded from a section of society that is

important to them” (p. 65).

A usable space was viewed by participants as a means

to bring children together to play in a way that

promoted social inclusion through increasing other

children’s, and society’s in general, awareness of

disability-related issues. The playground was viewed

as a place where this could occur.

Lets buy both of them (piece of playground

equipment) and side by side. . .they could be

playing away. . .and together the two of them

would be integrated but its, its not just our child

that should be integrated, it’s in a sense the

other ones.

This finding is echoed in the reports of others (Furey

et al., 2009; Talay et al., 2010) that support the impor-

tance of the playground as a site for the development of

disability awareness and social integration, where all

children will benefit from mutual peer learning. Peer

interactions are key to social skill development, and

limited accessibility to play spaces for children with

restricted mobility will hamper their development of

social skills. Tamm and Skar’s (2000) research highlight

the importance of building play spaces that allow

all children access to play and develop their skills

with peers.

Participants suggested that the idea of inclusivity

could be actualized in a playground by considering

design-for-disability, that is, that by considering dis-

ability-first in design, it would necessarily be inclusive

of everyone. Participants shared this idea, for example

a 10-year-old girl stated, “and again, it’s quite opposite,

cause like kids that can walk can go up ramps, where

kids that can’t walk, and there is stairs, can’t go”, and

a caregiver with a disability suggested,

So whatever is accessible to disability is usually

always very functional for the general public.

So if you would start with the disabilities instead

of the general public then everybody can use it.

It’s that simple and basic. None of my accessibil-

ity ever interferes with the general public. And

they usually find bonuses in it themselves. . ..

There is, you know, if everything started from

disability.

The idea of design-for-disability described by partici-

pants is clearly distinct from the concept of develop-

ment of disability-specific space, the latter supporting

concepts of isolation and segregation (Talay et al.,

2010).

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to understand the

experience of playground use by children with disabil-

ities. Data from this study demonstrated the many

limitations of playgrounds for children with disabilities.

Although some existing playgrounds were described

as accessible, participants did not identify a single

usable playground.

Following development of our inductively derived

themes, we examined whether our findings could be

framed using the P–E–O model (Law et al., 1996).

The resultant analysis is depicted in Figure 1. The

Person aspect in our model is illustrated by the

theme Playground Experiences that emphasizes the


Figure 1. Playground experiences, play and usability as transactive and overlapping concepts to promote inclusivity


importance of the playground and the person-based

experiences including physical, developmental and

social aspects of the person gained through their expe-

rience in a playground. The Occupation aspect of the

model relates to the importance of play as a primary

occupation of all children, the meaning ascribed to play

by children and caregivers in the study, and the right to

play asserted by the United Nations Convention on the

rights of the child (Office of the United Nations High

Commissioner for Human Rights, 2002). The Environ-

ment aspect of the P–E–O model was addressed in the

Playground Usability theme of the current study, where

usability focused on the barriers and supports within,

and extending beyond, the playground. At the conver-

gence and overlap of these three areas, a transactive

component is depicted where there is an increased

opportunity to engage in social and play occupations

leading to an experience of inclusivity. Overall, the theme

of inclusivity was consistent with the principles of

universal design, specifically the principle of “equitable

use”, and the idea of universal design as a social move-

ment (Iwarsson and Stahl, 2003).

Important in this model is the area and amount of

overlap. Consistent with the P–E–O model, when there

is a relatively small area of overlap, there is limited

opportunity to experience inclusivity. By enhancing

the usability of a playground or space, the convergence


between the person–environment–occupation can be

maximized (Law et al., 1996), increasing opportunity

and potential for engaging in inclusive play.

Framing the study results in this way provides

multiple opportunities for clinicians and researchers:

1. Clinicians may use the model to depict areas of

consideration when advocating for usable playgrounds

or to describe the importance of creating usable space

that promotes playground experiences to promote

inclusiveness.

2. Clinicians may use the model and study findings as

justification for their own work at the environmental

rather than the individual level. Occupational

therapists promote play as a child’s occupation and

believe that creating functionally usable places for

play is crucial when designing spaces for children

(Prellwitz and Skar, 2007). Occupational therapists

are integrally important in promoting play and devel-

opment of skills that effect play and, in turn, are

affected by play. Given these are areas of skill and

knowledge for occupational therapists, it is within

the scope of the profession to support the develop-

ment of usable spaces for children to play.

3. Researchers are offered themodel to study whether the

assumptions behind the model hold true. Although

the model supports the assumption that usable spaces


for children with disabilities actually improve outdoor

play opportunities and social opportunities for

children and adults with disabilities (Furey et al.,

2009), this assumption has not yet been tested. Future

research needs to examine whether and how usable

spaces influence inclusion, play and social opportuni-

ties from a child-centred perspective.

Limitations and future research

Although the study provided a description of playground

play based on participants’ experiences, the findings may

be limited by the small number of participants in the

study. Although children with disabilities were recruited

to participate in the interviews, many had communica-

tion difficulties. Furthermore, this study addressed un-

structured playground play; playground experiences

during recess or a school day may be quite different.

Some of the older children had not played in play-

grounds within the last year, and this may have impacted

their recall of their experience. Future research might

consider interviewing children while at the playground.

The strength of this study is with the insights that users

of playgrounds have provided for both limitations of

playgrounds and suggestions for design of usable

playground space. Further research should include

exploration of the topics of justice, equal access and

the idea of designing for disability, which began to

emerge in this study.

Conclusion

Many environments continue to remain inaccessible for

many individuals (Imrie and Wells, 1993). The current

study is consistent with international research showing

that few playgrounds are accessible to children with

restricted mobility (Prellwitz et al., 2001; Talay et al.,

2010). The ability to consult with children about design

of playgrounds has been shown to increase children’s

enjoyment of the space (Titman, 1994). Participants

in this study offered many creative ideas to improve

usability of a playground. Creating usable outdoor play

environments for all children will provide them with a

venue to develop physically, socially and emotionally.

Play for children has been described as a “means of

learning to live” (The USA affiliate of the International

Play Association, 2010, p. 1), and the United Nations

High Commissioner for Human Rights has recognized

play as a right of all children (Office of the United

Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2002).

Occupational therapists can play a role in advocating

for the development of usable playgrounds. Playgrounds

can create an environment of inclusion or exclusion;

thus, addressing the factors that influence the usability

of playgrounds is paramount.

REFERENCES

Björk E (2009). Many become losers when the universal

design perspective is neglected: exploring the true cost

of ignoring universal design principles. Technology

and Disability 21(4): 117–125.

Burbank PM, Martins D (2009). Symbolic interactionism

and critical perspective: divergent or synergistic? Nursing

Philosophy 11: 25–41.

Burdette H, Whitaker R (2005). Resurrecting free play in

young children – looking beyond fitness and fatness to

attention, affiliation, and affect. Archives of Pediatric

& Adolescent Medicine 159(1): 46–50. DOI: 10.1001/

archpedi.159.1.46

Case-Smith J (2005). Occupational Therapy for Children

(5th edn). St. Louis: Mosby, Inc.

Christoph NJ (1997, April 1). Planning accessible play

facilities. American School & University 69(8): 22.

Creswell JW (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantita-

tive and Mixed Methods Approaches (2nd edn). Thousand

Oaks: Sage Publications.

Dell Clark C (2011). In a Younger Voice: Doing Child-

centered Qualitative Research. Toronto: Oxford University

Press Inc.

Fjortoft I (2001). The natural environment as a playground

for children: the impact of outdoor play activities in pre-

school children. Early Childhood Education Journal 29

(2): 111–117. DOI: 10.1023/A:1012576913074

Furey M, Tedder C, Welsh J, Wilson E (2009, August

31). Promoting accessible playgrounds. OT Practice

14(15): 8–12.

Ginsburg K (2007). The importance of play in promoting

healthy child development and maintaining strong

parent–child bonds. Pediatrics 119(1): 182–191. DOI:

10.1542/peds.2006-2697

Graneheim UH, Lundman B (2003). Qualitative content

analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures, and

measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education

Today 24(2): 105–112. DOI: 10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001

Imrie R, Wells P (1993). Disablism, planning, and the built

environment. Environment and Planning C: Government

and Policy 11(2): 213–231. DOI: 10.1068/c110213

Isenberg J, Quisenberry N (2002). Play: essential for all chil-

dren. A position paper of the Association for Childhood

Education International. (Available at: http://www/acei.

org/playpaper.htm) (Accessed 18 January 2010).


http://www/acei.org/playpaper.htm

http://www/acei.org/playpaper.htm


Iwarsson S, Stahl A (2003). Accessibility, usability and

universal design positioning and definition of concepts

describing person–environment relationships. Disabil-

ity and Rehabilitation 25(2): 57–66. DOI: 10.1080/

dre.25.2.57.66

Law M, Cooper B, Strong S, Stewart D, Rigby P,

Letts L (1996). The person–environment–occupation

model: a transactive approach to occupational per-

formance. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy

63(1): 9–23.

Law M, Haight M, Milroy B, Willms D, Stewart D,

Rosenbaum P (1999). Environmental factors affecting

the occupations of children with physical disabilities.

Journal of Occupational Science 6(3): 102–110.

Law M, McDermid J (2008). Evidence-based Rehabilitation:

A Guide to Practice (2nd edn). Thorofare: NJ: Slack, Inc.

Letts L, Rigby P, Stewart D (2003). Using Environments

to Enable Occupational Performance. Thorofare, NJ:

Slack, Inc.

Malkusak T (2002, April). Turning accessible playgrounds

into fully integrated playgrounds: just add a little essence.

Parks and Recreation 37(4): 66–71.

McCarty E, Morress C (2009). Establishing access to tech-

nology: an evaluation and intervention model to increase

the participation of children with cerebral palsy. Physical

Medicine and Rehabilitation 20(3): 523–534.

Miller E, Kuhaneck H (2008). Children’s perceptions of

play experiences and play preferences: a qualitative

study. American Journal of Occupational Therapy 62

(4): 407–415. DOI: 10.5014/ajot.62.4.407

Missiuna C, Pollock N (1991). Play deprivation in

children with physical disabilities: the role of the

occupational therapist in preventing secondary disability.

American Journal of Occupational Therapy 45(10):

882–888.

Nabors L, Willoughby J, Leff S, McMenamin S (2001).

Promoting inclusion for young children with special

needs on playgrounds. Journal of Developmental and

Physical Disabilities 13(2): 179–190. DOI: 10.1023/

A:1016665409366

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for

Human Rights (2002, November 18). Convention on

the rights of the child: General Assembly Resolution

44/25 of 20 November 1989. (Available at: http://

www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm) (Accessed 8 De-

cember 2008).

Patton MQ (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation

Methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE publications.

Phelan SK (2011). Constructions of disability: a call for

critical reflexivity in occupational therapy. Canadian

Journal of Occupational Therapy. Revue Canadienne

d’Ergotherapie 78(3): 164–172. doi:10.2182/

cjot.2011.78.3.4


Prellwitz M, Tamm M (1999). Attitudes of key persons to

accessibility problems in playgrounds for children with

restricted mobility: a study in a medium-sized munici-

pality in northern Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Oc-

cupational Therapy 6(4): 166–173. DOI: 10.1080/

110381299443645

Prellwitz M, TammM (2000). How children with restricted

mobility perceive their school environment. Scandinavian

Journal of Occupational Therapy 7(4): 165–173. DOI:

10.1080/110381200300008706

Prellwitz M, Tamm M, Lindqvist R (2001). Are play-

grounds in Norrland (northern Sweden) accessible to

children with restricted mobility? Scandinavian Journal

of Disability Research 3(1): 56–68. DOI: 10.1080/

15017410109510768

Prellwitz M, Skar L (2006). How children with re-

stricted mobility perceive the accessibility and

usability of their home environment. Occupational

Therapy International 13(4): 193–206. DOI:

10.1002/oti.216

Prellwitz M, Skar L (2007). Usability of playgrounds

for children with different abilities. Occupational

Therapy International 14(3): 144–155. DOI: 10.1002/

oti.230

Rigby P, Gaik S (2007). Stability of playfulness across envi-

ronmental settings: a pilot study. Physical & Occupational

Therapy in Pediatrics 27(1): 27–43. DOI: 10.1300/

J006v27n01_03

Sandelowski M (2000). Whatever happened to qualitative

description? Research in Nursing & Health 23(4):

334–340. DOI: 10.1002/1098-240X(200008)23:4< 334::

AID-NUR9> 3.0.CO;2-G

Sandelowski M (2010). What’s in a name? Qualitative

description revisited. Research in Nursing & Health 33

(1): 77–84. DOI: 10.1002/nur.20362

Shaw L (1987). Designing playgrounds for able and

disabled children. In: Weinstein CS, David TG

(eds). Spaces for Children: The Built Environment

and Child Development (pp. 187–213). New York:

Plenum Press.

Stagnitti K (2004). Understanding play: the implica-

tions for play assessment. Australian Occupational

Therapy Journal 51(1): 3–12. DOI: 10.1046/j.1440-

1630.2003.00387.x

Statistics Canada (2008). Prevalence of disability in

Canada 2006. (Available at: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/

pub/89-628-x/2007002/4125019-eng.htm) (Accessed 3

October 2011).

Stout J (1988). Planning playgrounds for children with

disabilities. American Journal of Occupational Therapy

42(10): 653–657.

Talay L, Akpinar N, Belkayali N (2010). Barriers to play-

ground use for children with disabilities: a case

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-628-x/2007002/4125019-eng.htm

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-628-x/2007002/4125019-eng.htm


from Ankara-Turkey. African Journal of Agricultural

Research 5(9): 848–855.

Tamm M, Skär L (2000). How I play: roles and

relations in the play situations of children

with restricted mobility. Scandinavian Journal of

Occupational Therapy 7(4): 174–182. DOI: 10.1080/

110381200300008715

The USA Affiliate of the International Play Association

(2010). Promoting the child’s right to play. (Available

at: http://www.ipausa.org%22 %5Ct %22l) (Accessed

17 January 2010).

Titman W (1994). Special Places, Special People: The

Hidden Curriculum of School Grounds. Surrey, UK: World

Wide Fund for Nature/Learning through Landscapes.

Turner J, Newman-Bennett K, Fralic J, Skinner L (2009).

Everybody needs a break! Responses to a playgarden

survey. Pediatric Nursing 35(1): 27–34.

Veitch J, Bagley S, Ball K, Salmon J (2006). Where do

children usually play? A qualitative study of parents’

perceptions of influences on children’s active free-play.

Health & Place 12(4): 383–393. DOI: doi:10.1016/

j.healthplace.2005.02.009


http://www.ipausa.org%22

Documents

Playground Usability: What Do Playground Users Say?