Free-play behavior of atypical children: an approach to assessment.

Researchers watched kids play for ten minutes. The children had severe delays or autism.

The team scored how the kids used toys and space. They also gave IQ tests.

Two years later they checked which children had made the biggest gains in treatment.

Play scores lined up with IQ scores. Kids who explored more toys had higher IQs.

The play scores also showed who was most severe. Low scores meant more delays.

Ten minutes of free play predicted which kids would do best two years later.

Boudreau et al. (2015) looked at preschoolers with DCD. Free play hurt their well-being, not helped. The kids felt worse, not better, when the room was free-choice. The 1979 study used free play to judge severity; the 2015 study shows the same setting can stress some children.

Dolev et al. (2023) moved the lens to teachers. They found teacher “hands-off” style during one-on-one play boosted gains a year later. Friedling et al. (1979) watched the child alone; Smadar et al. show the adult still matters.

Luckett et al. (2007) warn that forcing play with external rewards backfires. The 1979 paper never used rewards; it just watched. Together they say: use free play as a window, not a work shift.

You can run a ten-minute free-play probe today. No materials beyond everyday toys. Note how many toys the child touches and how long each stays in play. Match those notes to later progress; kids with wider, longer play often need less intensive plans. If the child avoids or looks unhappy, remember Boudreau et al. (2015) and switch to adult-led or structured play before you decide severity.