Teaching Object Play to Young Children With Disabilities: A Systematic Review of Methods and Rigor.
Toy-play teaching helps toddlers with delays, but most studies skip the checks you need for real evidence.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Granieri et al. (2020) hunted for every single-case study that taught object play to young children with disabilities.
They found 27 papers. All used single-case designs. Kids had delays, autism, or mixed diagnoses.
The team then scored each study for rigor: things like blind raters, clear definitions, and proof the toy gains came from the teaching.
What they found
Every study said the child played more after the intervention. No study reported failure.
Yet most studies were weak to moderate in quality. Few showed the play lasted or moved to new toys.
How this fits with other research
Putnam et al. (2003) and Robertson et al. (2014) are inside this review. Both got good play gains with simple steps: start with child-chosen toys, add light prompts only if needed.
Glugatch et al. (2021) also fits. They taught siblings to use the same child-first style and saw big jumps in shared play.
Ruggeri et al. (2020) looked at motor, not play, but told the same story: kids improved, yet study quality was low. The pattern repeats across early-childhood reviews.
Why it matters
You can trust that toy-play teaching works, but you must build the proof yourself. Run brief probes after you stop prompting. Test new toys and new rooms. One solid graph in your file beats 27 weak ones in a journal.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →After your next play session, pull the prompt and time how long the child stays engaged—one quick probe for maintenance.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
In this systematic review, we examined the rigor and outcomes across 27 object play intervention studies using single-case research methodology. We focused on studies including children age 5 years or younger and examined several descriptive characteristics including materials, instructional packages, and settings. We also analyzed the facilitation and measurement of generalized play and several methodological features including quality, rigor, and visual analysis procedures. Overall, the identified studies demonstrated positive outcomes, although quality and rigor limited interpretations of the outcomes. Previous reviews also have noted strong outcomes and weak to moderate quality for single-case studies. Our results should be interpreted with caution given previous reviews of play intervention studies identified strong outcomes and quality from group-design studies. Additional replications testing robust interventions using single-case research with strong methodological rigor are warranted.
American journal on intellectual and developmental disabilities, 2020 · doi:10.1352/1944-7558-125.1.14