13

TAKATA

PLAY EPOCHS

Grounded in the assumption that play progresses in a predictable developmental fashion,

Takata constructed a taxonomy of six developmental phases of childhood play, which she
called “play epochs.”

Table 1 TAKATA’S PLAY EPOCHS

EPOCH AGE DESCRIPTION
0–2 Purely autotelic play with sensations and motion in first 18 months:
peek-a-boo, pat-a-cake, hide and chase, and imitation with caregivers;
Sensorimotor
dropping objects; container play; exploration of object properties;
practice of new motor skills; simple problem solving.
2–4 Symbolic play: beginning make believe and pretend play; experiences
Symbolic and
represented in play. Shift from solitary play to parallel play. Build simple
simple
constructions that represent another object or situation. Climbing and
constructive
running are honed.
4–7 Expansion of social participation: shift from parallel to associative
Dramatic,
play; dramatic role play enacting child’s daily experiences, social roles,
complex
and fairy tales and myths. Skill in activities requiring hand dexterity.
constructive, and
Daredevil activities involving strength and skill outdoors. Constructions
pregame
are realistic, complex. Verbal humor, creates rhymes.
7 – 12 Games with rules: fascination with rules; masters established rules and
makes up new ones; risk taking in games; concern with peer status;
Game
friendship groups important; interest in sports and formal groups (e.g.,
scouts); cooperative play. Interest in how things work, nature, crafts.
12 – 16 Formal peer group orientation: teamwork and cooperation; respect for
Recreational rules; games that challenge skills; competitive sports; service clubs.
Realistic constructive projects and complex manual skills.
From Takata N. (1974) cited in Parham, L.D. & Fazio, L.S. (1997:14).

Using her play epochs as a guide, Takata constructed a Play History instrument to be used
as an assessment tool by occupational therapists.

Copyright
Contact Ria Botha, Occupational Therapy Department, University of the Free State
 14

THE PLAY HISTORY

 The Play History was developed on the premise that play and development are
intertwined and that assessment of, and intervention for, play dysfunction is vital to the
continued development of the child.
 The instrument is designed to elicit information related to identifying a child’s play
experiences, interactions, environments, and opportunities across the time progression
of his or her life.
 The instrument consists of an interview schedule; it is semi-structured, qualitative,
and open ended in format. It includes a basic set of questions that the interviewer may
ask in a meaningful order, depending on the progression of the interview and the
content, or depth, of the information provided by the child’s parent(s) or primary care-
giver(s).

In a interview, themes emerge that reflect a child’s early and current dominant play behaviours or
schemas. Because the emerging themes and specific play patterns paint a unique portrait of the child
being assessed, they provide essential information for planning treatment. Therefore the interpretation of
interview material is critical in the assessment process.

 The instrument relates information about the quality and quantity of a child’s play to
each of five developmental phases or epochs: (a) sensorimotor, (b) symbolic and
simple constructive, (c) dramatic and complex constructive, (d) games, and (e)
recreational.
 In each of these epochs, the following four categories are analyzed: (a) materials –
with what does the child play? (b) action – how does the child play? (c) people – how
does the child play with others? and (d) setting – where and when does the child play?
 The therapist uses the information obtained from the interview to identify whether the
particular criterion under each question has been answered with supporting “evidence,”
“no evidence,” or “no opportunity” in each of the categories within each epoch. The
therapist then interprets the results of the interview using a taxonomy of play (see
table 2).
 The content of the Play History is seen as important for the clinical purposes of both
diagnosis and planning and implementation of treatment.

Copyright
Contact Ria Botha, Occupational Therapy Department, University of the Free State
 15

Box 1 THE PLAY HISTORY

1. General information

Name Birthdate: Sex:

Date: Informant(s):
Presenting problem:

2. Previous play experiences

A. Solitary play
B. Play with others: mother / father / sisters / brothers / playmates / other family members / pets
C. Play with toys and material (earliest preferences)
D. Gross physical play
E. Pretend and make-believe play
F. Sports and games: group collaboration / group competition
G. Creative interests: arts / crafts
H. Hobbies, collections, other leisure time activities
I. Recreation / social activities

3. Actual play examination

A. With what does the child play? Toys / materials / pets

B. How does the child play with toys and other materials?
C. What type of play is avoided or liked least?
D. With whom does the child play? Self / parents / brothers / sisters / peers / others
E. How does the child play with others?
F. What body postures does the child use during play?
G. How long does the child play with objects? With people?
H. Where does the child play? Home: indoors / outdoors
Community: park / school / church / other areas
I. When does the child play? Daily schedule for weekday and weekend

4. Play description

5. Play prescription

From Takata N. (1974) cited in Parham, L.D. & Fazio, L.S. (1997:26).

Copyright
Contact Ria Botha, Occupational Therapy Department, University of the Free State
 16

TAKATA’S TAXONOMY OF PLAY

The taxonomy is based on the play epochs outline by Takata (see Table 1 on page X) and
has been designed to allow the child’s play to be analyzed in comparison to the typical
development of play.

Copyright
Contact Ria Botha, Occupational Therapy Department, University of the Free State
 17

Table 2 CHART: THE USE OF A PLAY MILIEU AND TAXONOMY FOR DIAGNOSIS
EPOCHS ELEMENTS DESCRIPTION
Materials Toys, objects for sensory experiences (see, mouth, touch, hear, smell), rattles, Evidence: Encouraged:
ball, nesting blocks, straddle toys, chimes, simple pictures, colour cones, large
blocks
Action Gross: stand/fall, walk, pull, sit on, climb, open/close
Sensorimotor Fine: touch, mouth, hold, throw/pick up, bang, shake, carry
0 to 2 years Motoric imitation of domestic actions No evidence: Discouraged
People Parents and immediate family
Setting Home: crib, playpen, floor, yard, immediate surroundings
EMPHASIS: INDEPENDENT PLAY WITH EXPLORATION HABITS EXPRESSED IN TRIAL
AND ERROR
Materials Toys, objects, raw materials (water, sand, clay, paints, crayons) for fine motor Evidence: Encouraged:
manipulation and simple combining and taking apart; wheeled vehicles and
adventure toys to practice gross motor actions
Action Gross: climb, run, jump, balance, drag, dump, throw
Fine: empty/fill, scribble/draw, squeeze/pull, combine/take apart, arrange in
Symbolic and simple
spatial dimensions
constructive No evidence: Discouraged
Imagination w/storytelling, fantasy; objects represent events/things
2 to 4 years
People Parents, peers, other adults
Setting Outdoors: playground, play equipment, immediate neighbourhood
Indoors: home, “nursery”
EMPHASIS: PARALLEL AND BEGINNING TO SHARE; SYMBOLIC PLAY EXPRESSED IN
SIMPLE PRETENCE AND SIMPLE CONSTRUCTIONAL USE OF MATERIALS
Materials Objects, toys, raw materials for fine motor actions and role playing; large Evidence: Encouraged:
adventure toys for refining gross actions for speed and coordination; pets, non-
selective collections
Action Gross: “daredevil” feats of hopping, skipping, turning somersaults; dance
Fine: combining materials and making products to do well, to use tools, to copy
Dramatic and complex reality
constructive and Dramatic role playing: imitating reality in part/whole costumes; story telling
pre-grame People Peer group (2 to 5 members), “imaginary friends” No evidence: Discouraged
4 – 7 years Parents, immediate family, other adults
Setting School, neighbourhood and extended surroundings (excursions); upper space
and off the ground
EMPHASIS: COOPERATIVE PLAY WITH PURPOSEFUL USE OF MATERIALS FOR
CONSTRUCTIONS, DRAMATIZATION OF REALITY AND BUILDING HABITS OF SKILL
AND TOOL USE

Copyright
Contact Ria Botha, Occupational Therapy Department, University of the Free State
 18

Table 2 (Cont.) CHART: THE USE OF A PLAY MILIEU AND TAXONOMY FOR DIAGNOSIS
EPOCHS ELEMENTS DESCRIPTION
Materials Games played with rules (dominoes, checkers, table card games, Ping-Pong); Evidence: Encouraged:
raw materials and tools for making complex products (weaving, woodwork,
carving, needlework)
Gross muscle sports: hopscotch, kite flying, skating, basketball
Books: puzzles, “things to do,” biography, adventure, sports
Selective collection or hobby
Pet
Games Action Gross: refining and combining skills of jumping, hopping, running
7 to 12 years Fine: precision in using variety of tools, finer object manipulation and No evidence: Discouraged
construction
Making, following, breaking rules; competition and compromise with peers
People Peer group of same sex; organized groups, e.g., scouts, parents, other adults
Setting Neighbourhood, playground, school, home
EMPHASIS: ENHANCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTIONAL AND SPORTS SKILLS AS
EXPRESSED IN RULE-BOUND BEHAVIOUR, COMPETITION, AND APPRECIATION OF
PROCESS COOPERATIVE PLAY
Materials Team games and sports and special interest groups for music, dancing, singing, Evidence: Encouraged:
discussing. Collections and hobbies; parties, books, table games
Action Gross: team sports and individual precision sports (tennis, golf)
Fine: applying and practicing fine manipulative skills to develop craftsmanship,
Recreation special talents
12 to 16 years Organized group work No evidence: Discouraged
People Peer group of same and opposite sex; parents and other adults
Setting School, neighbourhood, extended community, home
EMPHASIS: TEAM PARTICIPATION AND INDEPENDENT ACTION EXPRESSED IN
ORGANIZED SPORTS, INTEREST GROUPS AND HOBBIES DURING LEISURE TIME
Overall status High risk

Acceptable

From Takata N. (1974) cited in Parham, L.D. & Fazio, L.S. (1997:27 – 28).

Copyright
Contact Ria Botha, Occupational Therapy Department, University of the Free State