Technology in Play for Children With Physical Disabilities: the Dice Model of Play

April 28, 2026 updated by: Minoo Dabiri Golchin, University of Manitoba

The Role of Technology in Facilitating Play for Children With Physical Disabilities: Development of the Dice Model of Play

Play is an important activity for children. Almost all children play, but what is play? It is not easy to define play. In the past, people believed that children played to burn their energy. Now, it is known that play is important for children's growth. Some kids with disabilities cannot play. Many experts use play to teach children specific skills. People often forget that play is a child's right. It is important to help all children play. The first step is to define play and find what features are important in helping a child with a disability play.

There are some models of play. But they are not complete. They do not look at play as a whole. Some models are just about playfulness, and some are about playing with others. Having a model that defines play helps researchers and clinicians think about play and the different parts of it. Then, when a child cannot play, experts can fix the part that is not working. Investigators want to introduce a model of play in this project. Investigators want to edit and complete it in three steps. First, Investigators will ask parents and children with disabilities about things that help or do not help them play; then, investigators will give Lego robots to children that they will build with help and play with them for a few weeks. And at the end, investigators will ask therapists and other experts about our model of play. This model will be edited during the study.

Study Overview

Status

Recruiting

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

The study is designed in three phases, employing a mixed-method approach that integrates qualitative and quantitative methods. Phase 1 involves exploring the alignment of the Dice Model of Play with the experiences of 10 children (aged 3-9, diagnosed with different abilities, and typically developed) and their guardians through semi-structured interviews and content analysis; Phase 2 examines the practical application of the model with a cross-over design. Up to 20 children with different abilities will build their Lego robots within a co-design and will play with that robot for four sessions. The other group will play with conventional toys for four sessions. They will switch after finishing those sessions. Sessions will be directed by a master of occupational therapy student supervised by Dr. Jacquie Ripat, a registered occupational therapist in Manitoba. Assessments will be Test of Playfulness (TOP), enjoyment (PPE_DC), and play skills (ChIPPA-2) three times at the start, switching point, and last session. A go-along interview will be conducted in the co-design. Lastly, Phase 3 seeks expert opinions on the revised Dice Model of Play's clarity, relevance, and applicability, using online focus groups with professionals in occupational therapy, psychology, and computer science. The study aims to modify and enhance the model based on the findings from these phases.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Estimated)

20

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Locations

  • Canada
    • Manitoba
      • Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, R3E 3G1
        • Recruiting
        • Rehabilitation Centre for Children
        • Contact:
          • Liz Hammond

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Child

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Having a disability or typically developed
  • Between 3 to 9 years old
  • Speaking and understanding English or Persian
  • Living in Winnipeg

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Not receiving play therapy within the last three months

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Other
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Crossover Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: robots
Participants will be randomly allocated to groups A or B. Those in group A will co-design and build their LEGO™ robot, using the researcher's assistance, as led by the child. A go-along interview will be conducted during the co-design with the child . The co-design session will be video recorded to provide context, visual data, and to inform the qualitative analysis. Videos will be deleted right after analysis. A research assistant (RA) will visit the participant's home twice a week for 30 to 45 minutes (after school or on the weekend) to play with the child and their built LEGO™ robots for four weeks (4 sessions total).
Other: robots
LEGO robots with adaptation according to child's age and developmental skills.
Experimental: conventional toys
Group B will engage in the same process of 4 play intervention sessions over four weeks with the research assistant; however, they will receive conventional play tools. The RA will carry a prepared play pack for the play intervention session.
Other: conventional
A pack of conventional play tools consists of dolls, teddy bears, miniature wild animals, and small cars. All are available, and the child can choose to play with them.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Test of Playfulness
Time Frame: before the session 1, after session 8, after session 16, each time 10 to 20 minutes.
The Test of playfulness (TOP) version 4 (Bundy, 1998) is an observational test that covers four main elements of playfulness: intrinsic motivation, internal control, freedom of reality, and framing within 29 Likert scale related to extent, intensity, and skillfulness and is used for children between 15 months and 18 years old. Upper scores means better play skills, no cut-off score.
before the session 1, after session 8, after session 16, each time 10 to 20 minutes.
The Child Initiated Pretend Play Assessment (ChIPPA-2)
Time Frame: before the session 1, after session 8, after session 16, each time 18 minutes for 3 years old children and 30 minutes for 4-8 years old children.
The Child Initiated Pretend Play Assessment (ChIPPA-2) provides a play tool pack consisting of two different sets: conventional and symbolic play tools. Percentage of Elaborated Play Actions (PEPA), Number of Object Substitutions (NOS), and Number of Imitations (NIA) are reported for conventional, symbolic, and general pretend play. Higher PEPA and NOS and lower NIA scores show better play skills. There are Z-scores for each age range that child can be compared with typically developed children.
before the session 1, after session 8, after session 16, each time 18 minutes for 3 years old children and 30 minutes for 4-8 years old children.
The Pretend Play Enjoyment-Developmental Checklist (PPE-DC)
Time Frame: before the session 1, after session 8, after session 16, each time almost 10 minutes for parents and 10 minutes for researcher.
The Pretend Play Enjoyment-Developmental Checklist (PPE-DC) measures play enjoyment and covers some aspects of pretend play, such as sequences, storytelling, playing with dolls, object substitution, roleplay, and social interaction, from parents and experts prospectives within two different scoresheets, items are defined for different developmental ages and by choosing one item, the play developmental age in each subcategory can be estimated. Play enjoyment score is better when is higher.
before the session 1, after session 8, after session 16, each time almost 10 minutes for parents and 10 minutes for researcher.

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

University of Manitoba

Collaborators

Rehabilitation Centre for Children, Canada

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

February 6, 2025

Primary Completion (Estimated)

April 30, 2026

Study Completion (Estimated)

May 28, 2026

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

February 21, 2024

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

March 12, 2024

First Posted (Actual)

March 20, 2024

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

May 5, 2026

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

April 28, 2026

Last Verified

October 1, 2025

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

  • HS26236(H2023:343)

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Disability Physical

Clinical Trials on robots

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

CROs by country

CROs in Latvia

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

Subscribe