PLAP SAFE, STAY SAFE 1

Play Safe, Stay Safe

Vivian Nguyen

Theodora Papachristou

HSC 405

Tuesday/Thursday 9:00 a.m.

February 27, 2020

PLAP SAFE, STAY SAFE 2

Table Of Contents

Specific Aims​………………………………………………………………………………page 3

Background and Significance​……………………………………………………………..page 3

Importance of Topic ​………..………………....…………………...…………...….page 3

Critical Reviews on Similar Programs​………………………………….….……..page 5

Linking Goals and Objectives to Their Theoretical Relevance​……………..…..page 8

Hypotheses To Be ExaminedHypotheses To Be Examined​…………………...page 10

Methods​…………………………………………………………………………………..page 11

Description of Population and Method Sample Selection​…………….………page 11

Design of Experimental Methodology​…………………………………….……page 12

Operation of Concepts​……………………………………………………...……page 15

Formative Evaluation Methods - Pilot Testing Procedures​…………………...page 17

Process Evaluation - Monitoring of Program Implementation​………………page 19

Timeline​…………………………………………………………………………..page 19

Appendix​………………………………………………………………………………....page 20

References​……………………………………………………………………………….page 23
PLAP SAFE, STAY SAFE 3

Specific Aims

Unintentional injuries in infants, children, and adolescents have consistently stayed

within the top 10 leading causes of death among children from the ages of 0 to 18 years old. The

mortality rate continues to increase yearly, therefore there is a need for risk reduction programs

and easy steps that can be implemented on the playground itself to provide a safer, yet still

enjoyable environment.

Play Safe, Stay Safe is a school based program injury prevention program created for

children in the age range of 5 to 11 years old. The program will cater to 4 types of learners:

visual, auditory, reading/writing, and kinesthetic and strives to reinforce healthy awareness and

behaviors. The duration of the program will be 6 months and within that time, participants will

engage in activities that will promote and encourage healthy behavior change. Play Safe, Stay

Safe will use methods such as the Social Cognitive Theory and a pretest/posttest to measure its

effectiveness and progress. This program will focus on children within the 5-11 year old age

range because during the years of elementary school, they will consistently have a playground in

their school environment. At this age range, children are still developing their behaviors, which

would be the best time to increase their awareness to reduce the risk of concussions and possible

mortality.

Background and Significance

A. Importance of the Topic

PLAP SAFE, STAY SAFE 4

Unintentional injuries are so common that many times, it can easily go unnoticed or taken

lightly. According to Healthy People 2020 (2020), one of the top 15 biggest killers to Americans

is death by injury. In the United States, there are around 200,000 children each year who need

emergency medical attention for playground-related injuries (CDC, 2020). Out of the 200,000

emergency room visits, an average of 15,000 of those cases are fatal and can lead to death (CDC,

2020). Some playground injuries may not be as visible as a cut or a broken bone, but could lead

to a variety of internal issues such as concussions or a traumatic brain injury (TBI). Every year in

the United States, there are over 200,000 children who get treated for TBIs from playground

equipment falls (CDC, 2020). From 2000 to 2010, the Consumer Product Safety Commission

reported a total of 40 playground-related deaths, with the average age of the victims being 6

years old. From these cases, 68% were caused by strangulation and 15% were caused from falls

on a playground platform (CDC, 2020).

According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2020), around 75% of all

playground-related injuries are due to equipment in playgrounds located in schools and public

recreation areas and 56% of those injuries result in fractures or abrasions (CDC, 2020). It’s

common for kids to stumble or fall when they play and many parents are not worried about the

possibility of serious injuries. However, 79% of all playground injuries are due to falls and of

those cases, 90% account for the more serious and severe fatalities (Brainline, 2011). Playground

equipment, although intended to be safe for kids, have been the cause of several casualties.

Around 45% of playground injuries result in internal injuries, concussions, fractures,

dislocations, and amputations (Denning et al., 2018). Reports show that from 2001 to 2008,

falling from or hard contact with monkey bars have caused the most unintentional injuries with a
PLAP SAFE, STAY SAFE 5

total of 644,932 victims, which is just 36% of all playground-related injuries (Children’s Safety

Network, 2014).

Reports show that from 2010 to 2014 there were 7,795 hospitalizations due to children

sustaining injuries for playground-related falls (Bierbaum et al., 2017). From these cases, 18% of

injuries occurred at schools, while 14% of the incidents occurred on home playground

equipment. More than half of these playground-related falls resulted in fractures in the wrists and

elbows, with medical costs of $18 million within those 4 years (Bierbaum et al., 2017).

According to BrainLine (2011), the medical cost for school-related injuries have exceeded $74

billion for children age 14 and under.

B. Critical Review on Similar Programs

With children’s health being an ongoing concern, there have been numerous programs

implemented to improve the awareness of participants and ensure safety on the playgrounds.

There are many programs that have been implemented towards this issue that utilize different

populations and interventions. A search of applicable literature produced 10 completed

playground-related injury prevention interventions and programs for kids between the ages of

5-11 years old.

Fuselli et al. (2012) successfully created a policy program that would lower the height of

playground equipment and add protective barriers to the equipment. His research concluded that

falls from a height of 4 feet can quadruple the risk of playground-related injuries. This began the

initiative for others like Cheng et al. (2016) and Howard (2010) to commence in research of the

significance of traumatic brain injuries (TBI) on playgrounds and certain modifications that
PLAP SAFE, STAY SAFE 6

could reduce those risks. Macpherson et al. (2010) developed a similar program to completely

remove and replace equipment that had previously been known to be at increased risk of TBII.

Machpherson et al. (2010), Fulselli et al. (2012), and Oslen et al. (2013) have concluded that

protective surfacing, such as wood chips, rubber, or pea gravel, on the playgrounds were a

necessity because they showed to significantly reduce the risk of harm if a child were to fall. His

overall intervention showed positive results in reducing the rates of playground-related injuries

by 2,000 students in 3 years.

Given that younger children are participating in playground activity, Huynh et al. (2009)

and Fuselli et al. (2012) concluded that the incidents result from a lack of supervision by adults.

Through self-reported surveys, Huynh et al. (2009) show that a little more than half of the

children’s guardians practice appropriate supervision skills and attentiveness during playground

activities. Fuselli et al. (2021) emphasize the need for parents and the supervising adults to check

all playground equipment and provide safety guidelines for the children to follow before they

begin to play. Given that only half of the adults are vigilantly watching their kids, it is important

to provide them safety information that can potentially reduce injuries on the playground.

Huynh et al. (2009) concluded that after providing educational readings and workshops for the

adults, about 25% reported to have a positive change in their behaviors.

Although playground equipment safety is a large factor towards the cause of

playground-related injuries, another key component that Brussoni et al. (2015) and Howard

(2010) researched was risky outdoor play due to behavior. While Brussoni el al. (2015) stated

that it is developmentally appropriate for kids to have risky play, others like Howard (2010) and

Huynh et al. (2009) disagreed. Howard (2010) and Huynh (2009) believed that it was more
PLAP SAFE, STAY SAFE 7

effective to eliminate the risky behavior by creating a safe outdoors environment. Brussoni et al.

(2015) concluded that allowing children to have that risky outdoor behavior at a young age will

result in significant reduction in potential harm as the child gets older due to the opportunities of

behavioral development.

While training parents and other adults to appropriately supervise children on the

playground, Chelvakumar et al. (2010), Janssen et al. (2011), and Oslen et al. (2013), agree that

teachers and school staff need the most training for prevention of playground-related injuries.

Many of the children spend a majority of their days at school, therefore these individuals will be

the ones who would need to be the most informed and observant while supervising.

Chelvakumar et al. (2010) and Janssen et al. (2011), although did not primarily focus on school

staff, they believed that school staff needed to be properly educated on child-risk taking

behaviors in order to detect risky behavior in children. Oslen et al. (2013) conducted a 3-year

program that included a 4-step strategy plan for health educators to educate school staff on the

physical, mental, and behavioral developments of children, and how to detect unsafe behaviors

on the playground. Within the first year of the program, there was a 46% decrease in major

playground injuries.

There is an emphasis that adults need to be vigilant when supervising children in the

playground setting, however Janssen et al. (2011), Brussoni et al. (2015), and Schaap et al.

(2018) say that focusing on the children themselves is the best approach. Brussoni et al. (2015)

noted that while children are still developing in all aspects, risky play is healthy to release

feelings of aggression. With this as a base, Janssen et al. (2011) and Schaap et al. (2018) were

able to develop programs that strongly focused on children’s behavior on the playground. The
PLAP SAFE, STAY SAFE 8

PLAYground study (Janssen et al., 2011) was a 9-month intervention that observed and provided

safe group activities for children to participate in that will ease the feelings of aggression. On the

other hand, the Cool 2 Be Safe program (Schaap et al., 2018) acknowledged the feelings of

aggression and used effective strategies that targeted injury beliefs to predict risk behaviors for a

playground setting. Using pre/post-test questionnaires showed the program’s desired outcomes

of significant positive change in injury-risk beliefs on playground risk taking.

C. Linking Goals and Objectives to Their Theoretical Relevance

Play Safe, Stay Safe is a school-based intervention that will target children between the

ages 5 to 11 years old in the Long Beach community, in an effort to increase awareness and

knowledge of playground safety and injury prevention. This program will be utilizing the Social

Cognitive Theory (SCT) for its theoretical framework. This theoretical model best fits the

program due to how it assesses the positive changes from the dynamic interactions of people,

their behavior, and environment. Play Safe, Stay Safe will use the three main cognitive learning

styles of visual, auditory, and kinesthetic, in hopes of resulting in a greater positive outcome. The

SCT is a model that focuses on five constructs that work together to influence behavior change.

These constructs include reinforcement, behavior capability, expectations, expectancies, and

self-efficacy. These 5 constructs work together to create the possibility for participants to learn

through observational learning and modeling.

The reinforcement construct is defined as a system of promoting incentives and rewards

for the targeted behavior change (BUSPH, 2009). The Play Safe, Stay Safe program will utilize

this construct by implementing incentives for children to be aware of certain safety hazards on
PLAP SAFE, STAY SAFE 9

the playground to avoid serious injuries. Play Safe, Stay Safe will partner with different

businesses in the community in order to obtain vouchers and coupons such as homework passes,

free ice cream, kids meals, or movie tickets. With the help of program volunteers and staff from

participating schools, vouchers will be handed out at the end of every week. Volunteers and staff

will have the ability to ask the children observational and hypothetical questions about

playground safety and injury prevention to receive a coupon. At the end of every month,

participating schools in the program will have an extra hour of playground time for students who

successfully answered the questions and received a voucher.

The behavior capability construct is defined as an individual’s understanding of the

appropriate skills to perform a behavior (BUSPH, 2009). The Play Safe, Stay Safe program will

utilize this construct during its first month by showing short videos on playground safety and

injuries before recess time. The students will watch the videos at the beginning of every school

week for the whole month of August. Participants will then be asked questions by supervising

staff and volunteers during recess about the videos to measure their increased awareness and

knowledge.

The determination of the outcomes to come as a result of the individual’s behavior

change is defined as the expectations construct (BUSPH, 2009). Within the first 4 weeks of the

intervention, participants will learn about the possible outcomes for having and not having the

behavior change. Students will be taught lessons and provided with children books in order to

learn about the expectations in regards to playground injury prevention. These activities will

mention facts and statistics about traumatic brain injuries and broken or fractured bones to help
PLAP SAFE, STAY SAFE 10

children understand the consequences from playground falls and hazards. Along the way, more

expectations will be added onto the program for children to consider.

The expectancies construct is defined as attaching values and beliefs to the outcomes that

result in the behavior change (BUSPH, 2009). Participants will have time at the end of every

month to discuss why they think playground safety is important. As each month goes by, the

participants will have an increased knowledge in the importances of playground safety and will

be given a chance to rank what they believe is most crucial with a list of 5 points. This will allow

the participants to create a strong belief that the program is providing them with important skills

based on their values for safety.

Lastly, the self-efficacy construct is defined as an individual’s belief to have control over

and the ability to execute the desired behavior change on their own (BUSPH, 2009).

Self-efficacy allows individuals to demonstrate their internal strength to carry out a specific task,

behavior, or action that was being practiced. During the 5th month of the program, the

participants will have the opportunity to discuss with the volunteers and peers if they feel they

have self-efficacy with playground safety from the program. The volunteers who have partaken

in the discussions will also be the ones teaching the participants about self-efficacy, as well as

providing the children with motivational support so that they may live a happy and healthy life.

The desired outcome for children is to be given positive feedback for having awareness and

using their knowledge to make safe decisions even after the duration of the program.

D. Hypotheses To Be Examined
PLAP SAFE, STAY SAFE 11

With completion of the Play Safe, Stay Safe program, the hypothesized outcomes are as

followed:

1). The Experimental group will increase their knowledge on playground safety by 35%

as measured at posttest through a self-administered questionnaire (Q8-Q15).

2). The Experimental group will increase their positive attitudes towards playground

safety by 26% as measured at posttest through a self-administered questionnaire (Q16-Q20).

3). The Experimental group will have a positive attitudinal change towards assessing all

playground equipment before playing by 17% as measured at posttest through a

self-administered questionnaire (Q21-Q25).

Methods

a) Description of Population and Method of Sample Selection

The target population for the Play Safe, Stay Safe program will be school children from

the ages of 5 to 11 years old in the Long Beach School District. Being in a school-based setting

allows the program to quickly obtain its targeted audience and to initiate participation

immediately. Play Safe, Stay Safe will not exclude any student based on their race, ethnicity, or

religion due to schools being open to the general public, therefore the program will welcome

them with a similar approach. The program, although open to all students within the age range,

will mainly focus on those who are at a disadvantage economically and fall in the lower rankings

of socioeconomic status (SES). The program will specifically target 2 different public

elementary schools within the Long Beach School District. The participating schools will be
PLAP SAFE, STAY SAFE 12

urban schools that are located at a minimum of 10 miles away. The participating schools will be

Charles S. Kettering Elementary School and John Muir Elementary School.

For the Play Safe, Stay Safe program, the sampling will focus on schools that have a

majority of students who are lower in SES and are at a higher economic disadvantage. With

families that have a lower SES, it is more of a financial hardship to seek out and pay off medical

assistance and treatments, therefore increasing awareness for injury prevention is most valuable

to this population. Increasing the awareness for this population can release some of the potential

hardships of playground-related injuries. Play Safe, Stay Safe will collect its sample group by

using the nonequivalent comparison group cluster sample in hopes to get positive outcomes such

as (Janssen et al., 2011), which showed successful results for its population. The cluster samples

will be provided from local Long Beach elementary schools and will contain 2 groups: the

experimental group, which will receive the program, and a comparison group, which will not

receive the program. The main goal from cluster sampling is to record data from schools that are

located farther from one other to verify that the program is effective and shows that there is a

positive change in behavior with an increase in awareness among those participants.

b) Design of Experimental Methodology

The Play Safe, Stay Safe program will utilize a nonequivalent comparison group

experimental design with cluster sample and pretest/posttest to accurately measure the outcomes

of the interventions. This design differs from other research designs because it lacks randomized

selection of the sample. Due to this characteristic, there may be possible concerns in bias when

making comparisons between the experimental and the control groups. However, this design was
PLAP SAFE, STAY SAFE 13

determined to be the best fit for the particular program. With the component of cluster sampling

taking place for the lack of randomization for both groups, the desired outcomes of the program

remain possible and if the methods are firmly implemented: achievable. The possible major

threats to internal validity for a quasi-experimental group: nonequivalent comparison groups that

need to be controlled include history, instrumentation, and maturation. History pertains to

outside factors or foreseeable events that occur during or near the time of the program that may

cause an influence on the individuals. Instrumentation includes the testing materials that the

participants will use to know their progress in the program. The program will want to make sure

that the instruments used will not cause any confusion and will allow progress from the

interventions to be shown. Maturation is the progression of the individual's maturity without the

duration of the program, which will need to be considered and taken into account throughout the

whole program process.

For this program, there will be two groups: the experimental group and the comparison

group. Both groups will include participants with the same or similar characteristics derived from

students who fit the targeted population qualities. Both groups will be of elementary school

students within the Long Beach School District. Another threat that needs to be taken into

consideration is the regression to the mean, attrition, and interaction, which cannot be controlled.

In the case of having extreme outliers, or students who refuse to participate and drop out, they

will be eliminated from statistical analysis. A method to control the threats of attrition includes

providing the children with incentives, assessing barriers for the population, and making distance

within the two groups. To further control the drop-out rates, Play Safe, Stay Safe will occur

during school hours, therefore providing a sense of convenience, instead of being an

PLAP SAFE, STAY SAFE 14

inconvenience to participate. Another method to assist with these threats is to recruit more

participants than needed, ensuring the results won’t be skewed from the extreme outliers or any

misinterpretation of the data.

Additional threats that could not be controlled by the program, regardless of the design,

were diffusion, compensation, compensatory rivalry, and demoralization. Due to the Play Safe,

Stay Safe program having the experimental and comparison groups being separated

geographically, diffusion can possibly be controlled. The program has selected two schools that

are within the Long Beach school district, but will be at least 10 miles apart. This will eliminate

the possibility of the teachers and staff from the respective schools to interact with one another.

Another strategy the program will use to overcome diffusion, along with the other 3 threats will

be to conduct blind studies. For a blind-study, the participants will not have any knowledge

pertaining to whether they are in the experimental or comparison group. If needed to go further,

the program will also conduct a double and triple blind study. In a double-blind study, the

students or school teachers/administrators will have no knowledge of which group they are in. If

a triple-blind study needs to be conducted, the students, school staff, and the program evaluators

will have no knowledge of which individuals are part of the experimental or comparison groups.

In doing so, this will allow less room for bias or obtaining skewed data.

Some threats to external validity may include ethical issues and the environment. Where

it concerns the environment, the program is only able to assess the participants on the playground

equipment located on the school property, which may be different than those at public parks.

Therefore, some specific equipment may feel more foreign and out of their comfort zone. The

ethical issues that may confront the Play Safe, Stay Safe program are the potential harm to the
PLAP SAFE, STAY SAFE 15

experimental group and potential benefits to the control group, which will be measured through a

questionnaire designed by program coordinators.

c) Operation of Concepts

Data for the Play Safe, Stay Safe program will be collected and calculated through

in-person self-administered questionnaires. These self-evaluations will be passed out by the

teachers in a classroom setting with a program staff present to supervise, assist the younger

participants who may struggle with reading skills, and collect the questionnaires after

completion. The pre/post-tests will be distributed and administered first before the initial

educational video or discussion is introduced and again after the 6 month duration of the

program. The method of using a self-administered questionnaire was the best fit for the

program’s evaluation because it is the quickest procedure and most inclusive way to collect data

from a larger group of participants. This method is also low in cost, therefore allowing more of

the funds to be allocated towards the programs’ needs such as compensation for the participating

schools. The goal for this testing design is to provide little room for confusion with easy

written-in answers and boxes to check off, which will eliminate skewed data for the desired

outcomes. The supervising program staff will also emphasize the importance of answering each

question honestly since the evaluations are self-reported, it will be difficult to verify accuracy in

the data.

Although the Play Safe, Stay Safe program’s target population is inclusive regardless of

the students’ age, gender, race, and ethnicity, it is important to include demographic questions in

the pre/post-test questionnaires. The first few questions, (Q1-Q4), will indicate the age, gender,
PLAP SAFE, STAY SAFE 16

race/ethnicity, and school of the participant. These questions will provide nominal data, except

for Q2, about age, which will be interval. The next few questions, (Q5-Q7), will ask about

background experience on the playground before the participation of the program. These

questions, being nominal, will regard having any prior knowledge to playground safety and

having past playground-related injuries.

The first objective of Play Safe, Stay Safe is to increase the experimental group’s

knowledge on playground safety, which will be measured in 8 questions (Q8-Q15). These

questions will produce nominal data and include 1 true/false and 3 multiple choice questions

related to safely playing with peers, and 2 true/false and 2 multiple choice questions about

general playgroup equipment safety, which was adopted by Pawlowski et al., (2016).

The second objective of the program is to increase the experimental group’s positive

attitudes towards playground safety through 5 questions (Q16-Q20). This will include 2 multiple

choice, and 1 true/false questions about the general importance of playground safety. There will

also be 2 questions towards the participants’ attitude measured by the 4-point Likert scale. This

scale ranges from strongly agree to strongly disagree. This will allow for ordinal data to be

collected and was adopted by Miller, et al., (2017) and Pawlowski, et al., (2016).

The third objective for the Play Safe, Stay Safe program is to measure the experimental

group’s positive attitudinal change towards assessing all playground equipment before playing

within 5 questions (Q21-Q25). This will include 2 true/false questions about when and how often

playground assessment is necessary, and 3 questions using the Likert scale to encourage

participants’ attitudes to be positive about frequently assessing playgrounds through their learned
PLAP SAFE, STAY SAFE 17

knowledge from the program. The answers for these questions will produce ordinal data and was

adopted by Miller, et al., (2017).

d) Formative Evaluation Methods - Pilot Testing Procedures

To ensure that the program is successful in implementation for the general population, a

pilot test will be conducted between the selected elementary schools in the Long Beach School

District that fit the low SES qualifications: Charles S. Kettering Elementary School and John

Muir Elementary School. Pilot testing will include data collection throughout the duration,

informal testing, and data analysis for successful implementation within the selected community.

The pilot test will utilize volunteers, health educators, and certified program staff who are

experts in prevention of playground-related injury to assist and ensure that testing runs steadily.

Pilot testing will begin the first day of school in August, where the participating students

will be watching videos about playground safety in their respective classrooms. Following each

video, there will be a discussion with the program’s volunteers and health educators that will

include simple scenarios and incentives for participating. This will occur for the first 4 weeks of

the program at the beginning of every week right before recess.

For the second month, September, assigned volunteers will read short stories that have an

overall theme of playing safe and being respectful of others. The selected children’s books were

chosen with the help of health educators and school teachers. While this appeals to those who

learn best through auditory senses, there will be additional interns to act out the storyline for

those who may be more visual learners. This will allow the students to be more drawn to the

story and retain the message that is being portrayed. Students will then be called on to answer
PLAP SAFE, STAY SAFE 18

simple questions about the events that occurred in the story to ensure that the message was

portrayed through. This will occur twice a week for 5 weeks.

For the month of October, within the same allocated time as the previous activities,

program volunteers will begin testing the participants’ knowledge. They will be given a certain

scenario that must be acted out and explained to the classroom. Students will have the

opportunity to direct the acting staff to the safe decision. This activity will have 4 occurrences,

once a week at the end of each week. If the students get the scenario correct by using their

knowledge of injury prevention and playground safety, they will be given a raffle ticket.

Raffles will occur biweekly on Fridays throughout the duration of the program, however

for the month of November, additional incentives will be provided daily during recess. During

recess, assigned program staff and teachers will approach participants on the playground and ask

knowledge questions about playground safety and prevention. If the answer is correct, the

participant will immediately receive a free homework pass or free scoop of ice cream from a

local parenting company in addition to the movie passes, kids meals and other incentives they

can win at the raffle.

At the end of November and beginning of December, the program will begin to wrap up

concluding with individual classroom discussions where the participants will document their

likes, dislikes, and suggestions for the program. There will also be an additional meeting with all

staff to take into consideration those suggestions as well as feedback made by staff. The program

will officially end in January, after the students come back from holiday break to determine that

the objectives were effectively learned and implemented into their behaviors and attitudes for the
PLAP SAFE, STAY SAFE 19

remainder of the school year. After the program ends, the program will host an organized event

to celebrate the completion of the program for the participants and their families.

e) Process Evaluation - Monitoring of Program Implementation

During process evaluation, Play Safe, Stay Safe will monitor the program’s progress to

analyze if it is reaching its set goals. If there are any complications that occur during

implementation, it will be documented and taken under consideration by the program evaluator

for possible adjustments. In order to monitor participant recruitment and retention, students will

be signed out at the door for recess by giving their name to the volunteer that will be recording it.

During recess, school and program staff will ask students simple questions about playground

safety; for giving right answers, they will be submitted in a raffle to win prizes. Providing several

opportunities to be in the raffle will help with retention.

For the first 3 months of the program, the program coordinators, evaluators, and staff will

meet bi-weekly to discuss the procedure of the implementation process. This will allow for the

opportunity to communicate any difficulties, concerns, or recommendations to be addressed for

the improvement of the program. All members of the program staff will have personal goals that

must be met for the progression of the implementation as well as the overall objective of the

program. To monitor this, an Excel sheet will be developed, listing all members’ tasks and must

be checked as soon as the task is completed. This will provide transparency and awareness of

everyone’s responsibility.

f) Timeline

Activity June/ July/ Aug/ Sept/ Oct/ Nov/ Dec/ Jan

PLAP SAFE, STAY SAFE 20

M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8

Needs Assessment x

Program x
Development

Pilot Testing x

Sampling x

Pretest x

Program x x x
Implementation

Process Evaluation x x x

Posttest x

Data Analysis x

Report Writing x x

Appendix

EVALUATION OF PLAY SAFE, STAY SAFE

1) To which gender identity do you ⃞ American Indian or Alaska

most identify? Native
⃞ Female ⃞ Asian
⃞ Male ⃞ Black or African American
⃞ Decline to state ⃞ Native Hawaiian or Other
Pacific Islander
2) How old are you?
⃞ White
_______ years old
⃞ Other
3) What is your school’s name? ____________________
___________________________
5) Have you been told to be safe on the
4) How would you describe yourself? playground before?

⃞ Yes
PLAP SAFE, STAY SAFE 21

⃞ No 13) Is it ever okay to throw stuff at

someone on the monkey bars?
6) If so, who tells you to play safe the ⃞ Yes
most?
⃞ No
⃞ Parent
⃞ Teacher 14) How many people can sit in ONE
⃞ Other family members swing chair at one time.
⃞ Friends ⃞ 1
⃞ 2
7) Have you been hurt on the ⃞ 5
playground before?
⃞ 10
⃞ Yes
⃞ No 15) It is NEVER okay to push someone
down the slide.
8) How many people should sit on the ⃞ True
slide at one time?
⃞ False
⃞ 1
⃞ 2 16) If I know playground safety, I will
⃞ 10 get hurt less when I play.
⃞ 50 ⃞ True
⃞ False
9) Is it okay to lay on your tummy on
the swing? 17) Why is playground safety important?
⃞ Yes ⃞ To be safe
⃞ No ⃞ To get good grades
⃞ Sometimes ⃞ To have ice cream for dinner

10) You are allowed to run on wood 18) I like getting hurt from falling at the
chips. playground.
⃞ True ⃞ Strongly agree
⃞ False ⃞ Agree
⃞ Disagree
11) It is okay to jump off the swings. ⃞ Strongly Disagree
⃞ True
⃞ False 19) I like to play on the playground and
not get hurt.
12) It is not safe to run on:
⃞ Strongly agree
⃞ Wood chips
⃞ Agree
⃞ Rubber surface
⃞ Disagree
⃞ Cement
⃞ Strongly Disagree
PLAP SAFE, STAY SAFE 22

⃞ Disagree
20) I will NOT get hurt if: ⃞ Strongly Disagree
⃞ I jump off the slide
⃞ I know how to be safe 24) If I do not assess the playground, I
⃞ I get pushed off the swing can get hurt easier.
⃞ Strongly agree
21) I should assess the playground ⃞ Agree
BEFORE I play.
⃞ Disagree
⃞ True
⃞ Strongly Disagree
⃞ False
25) I will use my knowledge every time I
22) I can use my playground safety go to a playground.
knowledge at all playgrounds.
⃞ Strongly agree
⃞ True
⃞ Agree
⃞ False
⃞ Disagree
23) I will tell my friends how to be safe ⃞ Strongly Disagree
when they play at the playground.
⃞ Strongly agree
⃞ Agree
PLAP SAFE, STAY SAFE 23

References
Bierbaum, M., Curtis, K., & Mitchell, R. (2017). Incidence and cost of hospitalisation of children

with injuries from playground equipment falls in New South Wales, Australia. ​Journal of

Paediatrics and Child Health,​ ​54(​ 5), 556–562. doi: 10.1111/jpc.13777

Boston University School of Public Health. (2009, April). Social Cognitive Theory Model -

Rural Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Toolkit. Retrieved from

https://www.ruralhealthinfo.org/toolkits/health-promotion/2/theories-and-models/social-c

ognitive

BrainLine. (2018, August 23). Playground Safety. Retrieved from

https://www.brainline.org/article/playground-safety

Brussoni, M., Gibbons, R., Gray, C., Ishikawa, T., Hansen, E. B., Bienenstock, A., … Tremblay,

M. S. (2015, June 8). What is the Relationship between Risky Outdoor Play and Health in

Children? A Systematic Review. Retrieved from

https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/6/6423

Chelvakumar, G., Sheehan, K., Hill, A. L., Lowe, D., Mandich, N., & Schwebel, D. C. (2010,

October 1). The Stamp-in-Safety programme, an intervention to promote better

supervision of children on child care centre playgrounds: an evaluation in an urban

setting. Retrieved from ​https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/16/5/352.short

PLAP SAFE, STAY SAFE 24

Center For Disease Control and Prevention. (2019, February 6). Playground Safety. Retrieved

from ​https://www.cdc.gov/safechild/playground/index.html

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019, February 13). HEADS UP to Parents.

Retrieved from ​https://www.cdc.gov/headsup/parents/index.html

Cheng, T. A., Bell, J. M., Haileyesus, T., Gilchrist, J., Sugerman, D. E., & Coronado, V. G.

(2016, June 1). Nonfatal Playground-Related Traumatic Brain Injuries Among Children,

2001–2013. Retrieved from

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/137/6/e20152721

Children's Safety Network. (n.d.). Children's Safety Network. Retrieved from

https://www.childrenssafetynetwork.org/infographics/playground-infographic

Fuselli, Yanchar, & Nl. (2012, June 1). Preventing playground injuries. Retrieved from

https://academic.oup.com/pch/article/17/6/328/2638927

Galderisi, S., Heinz, A., Kastrup, M., Beezhold, J., & Sartorius, N. (2015, June). Toward a new

definition of mental health. Retrieved from

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4471980/

Howard, A. W. (2010, April 6). Keeping children safe: rethinking how we design our

surroundings. Retrieved from ​https://www.cmaj.ca/content/182/6/573.short

Huynh, H., Lao, Z., Gifford, M., Dalal, K., Rivara, Vavilala, M. S., … Gary. (2009, January 1).

The Role of Adult Perceptions and Supervision Behavior in Preventing Child Injury.

Retrieved from ​https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10900-016-0300-9

PLAP SAFE, STAY SAFE 25

Janssen, M., Toussaint, H. M., Willem, M. V., & Verhagen, E. A. (2011). PLAYgrounds: Effect

of a PE playground program in primary schools on PA levels during recess in 6 to 12

year old children. Design of a prospective controlled trial. ​BMC Public Health​, ​11​(1).

doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-282

Jennissen, C. A., Koos, M., & Denning, G. (2018, April 10). Playground slide-related injuries in

preschool children: increased risk of lower extremity injuries when riding on laps.

Retrieved from ​https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5893512/

Macpherson, A. K., Jones, J., Rothman, L., Macarthur, C., & Howard, A. W. (2010). Safety

standards and socioeconomic disparities in school playground injuries: a retrospective

cohort study. BMC Public Health, 10(1). doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-542

Miller, L. J., Schoen, S. A., Camarata, S. M., Mcconkey, J., Kanics, I. M., Valdez, A., &

Hampton, S. (2017). Play in Natural Environments: A Pilot Study Quantifying the

Behavior of Children on Playground Equipment. ​Journal of Occupational Therapy,

Schools, & Early Intervention​, ​10​(3), 213–231. doi: 10.1080/19411243.2017.1325818

National Safety Council. (n.d.). Safety at Home. Retrieved from

https://www.nsc.org/home-safety/safety-topics/child-safety/playgrounds

Oslen, H., Hudson, S. D., & Thompson, D. (2013, February 11). Strategies for Playground Injury

Prevention. Retrieved from

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19325037.2010.10598861?casa_token=D3

gnPkwieKAAAAAA:9swOSHN3gvbAIore067UeDt5yHVBU8ATNycahJRVHc5aYZgV

1wWPqjbCKL7jvXwtTZ0Aarkfc68&
PLAP SAFE, STAY SAFE 26

Pawlowski, C. S., Andersen, H. B., Troelsen, J., & Schipperijn, J. (2016, February 9). Children's

Physical Activity Behavior during School Recess: A Pilot Study Using GPS,

Accelerometer, Participant Observation, and Go-Along Interview. Retrieved from

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0148786

Safe Kids Worldwide. (n.d.). Playground. Retrieved from

https://www.safekids.org/safetytips/field_risks/playground?gclid=CjwKCAiAhc7yBRAd

EiwAplGxXzkWIs1j1Cnu29TzuVuYrSYvRHbngkWGiJx6qHDU19Fn0KSWAGnikBoC

qbEQAvD_BwE

Schaap, R., Bessems, K., Otten, R., Kremers, S., & van Nassau, F. (2018, August 13). Measuring

implementation fidelity of school-based obesity prevention programmes: a systematic

review. Retrieved from ​https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6088402/