ARTICLE REVIEW 1

Journal Article Review-Play

Sherlyn Y. Robles-Aguilar

Early Childhood & Education Department, Germanna Community College

CHD120: Introduction to Early Childhood Education

Teresa Conour

October 12, 2021

ARTICLE REVIEW 2

Journal Article Review-Play

In the article,” Social Validation of Symbolic Play Training for Children with Autism,”

authors Aubyn C. Stahmer, Laura Schreibman, and Nicole Palardy Powell (2006) believed “the

outcomes of behavioral interventions should be socially important and practically relevant.”

They state that the use of social validation procedures is “particularly important for evaluating

the effects of behavior therapy in children with autism” (Stahmer et al., 2006). A primary feature

of children with autism are symbolic play deficits. This disorder could lead children to never

develop these skills. Stahmer et al. (2006), continues to explain how this deficit has implications

for other areas of development as symbolic play is correlated with language ability. Children

with autism face another drawback due to their symbolic play being closely linked to social

development and peer interaction. Their deficits in this area can lead to them being less accepted

by peers in social situations. To improve symbolic play, Stahmer used a naturalistic, behavioral

technique called Pivotal Response Training (PRT). In the study PRT was adapted to teach

symbolic play skills to children with autism as this technique can be used to increase motivation

and responsivity in children with this disorder.

The main goal of the study was to “systematically assess the social importance of

treatment effects resulting from the PRT symbolic play intervention implemented by Stahmer”

(Stahmer et al., 2006). Important aspects of training for the study included “child’s choice of

activity, turn taking, the use of multiple exemplars, reinforcing attempts at correct responding,

interspersing maintenance tasks and using natural consequences” (Stahmer et al., 2006). This

method that the Stahmer study examined, consisted of various participants. First there were the

naïve judges. They were undergraduate psychology students that were recruited to “obtain a

judgement that would more closely approximate that of the general public” (Stahmer et al.,
ARTICLE REVIEW 3

2006). Then there was the first group of six children with autism who had expressive language

age. Stahmer et al, (2006) stated that in this group, “All of the children exhibited deficits in

symbolic play as determined by parental report and behavioral observation.” Lastly there were

the normative comparison group of six typically developing children that matched with the

experimental group. The training program the children went through involved using PRT to

teach symbolic play and included the steps to “increase motivation included shared control,

frequent variation of stimuli, modeling appropriate behavior, reinforcing attempts at correct

responding, and interspersing maintenance tasks the child had already mastered” (Stahmer et al,

2006). During their symbolic play, before and after the training, each child was videotaped.

Stahmer et al. (2006) clarifies these tapes “consisted of 7-min segments of the child and the same

adult [Stahmer] interacting in play with a variety of toys at each time period.” The observers

rated each child involved in the training based on three stimulus tapes that Stahmer et al. (2006)

mentions each of which “included two segments of children with autism before play training;

two segments of different children with autism after play training; and two segments of typically

developing children.”

At the end of the method of PRT, the children with autism benefitted in that they

“performed a higher number of symbolic play actions, had greater play complexity (as evidenced

by linking actions together in a sequence), made more initiations to their play partners and

responded to an increased number of their partners initiations” (Stahmer et al., 2006). In the

evaluation of the tapes, the judges rated the children with autism significantly higher after

training than before training. The article explains how the results of the study demonstrated that

changes affected by PRT symbolic play training are evident and meaningful to people in the

environment.
ARTICLE REVIEW 4

Adapting Pivotal Response Training had a significant positive impact in the play ability

of children with autism. Challenges the study in the article showed was that, following the

intervention, quantitative measures indicated children with autism engaged in levels of symbolic

play equivalent to those of typically developing children, which suggest that while the “quantity

of symbolic play of children with autism improved to typical levels, the quality of their play

remained deficient” (Stahmer et al., 2006). Stahmer et al. (2006) discovers that teaching

symbolic play actions and complexity is not enough to ensure typical play behavior. The judges

had also stated that even after intervention the group consisting of children with autism did not

play as well as typical children.

This information can help me as a future teacher in the way that it allows me to see it

really is possible to affect qualitative changes in the play behavior of children with autism.

Although, according to the judges, after PRT children with autism didn’t play as well as typical

children, it does not mean that no change occurred. The children with autism scores came closer

to typical levels after training. They made “noticeable improvement in overall play ability”

(Stahmer et al. 2006), like the typically developing group. The article also explains that children

might not respond to intervention in a similar manner and how some might have an improved

response to intervention if they begin this type of program at a younger age. Seeing the results of

the study in the article prompts me to believe there are a lot more approaches for teaching play

skills, which could cause even better results and lead to children’s success. It will be my job to

find the best strategies and interventions to apply that will allow all my children, with or without

autism, opportunities to thrive. Like Stahmer et al. (2006) stated, “If children are viewed as more

typical, they are more likely to be treated as such.”

ARTICLE REVIEW 5

Reference

Stahmer, A. C., Schreibman, L., & Powell, N. P. (2006). Social validation of Symbolic Play

Training for Children with Autism. Journal of Early & Intensive Behavior Intervention,

3(2), 196–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100332