Document Type : Original Articles


1 Department of Occupational Therapy, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

2 Department of Occupational Therapy, Shiraz University of Medical Science, Iran,Shiraz


Background: With respect to the significance of toys, playing, and the home environment on children’s development, the present study investigates the relationship between gross motor and fine motor toys existing athome and in the home environment, withchild cognitive skills such as problem-solving, communication, and personal–social skills.Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted with the participation of 140 mother–child couples (children between the ages of 18 and42 months of age) randomly selected from the healthcare centers of the city of Shiraz. Employing the questionnaire of the Affordance in the Home Environment for Motor Development-Self Report (AHEMD-SR) and the Ages & Stages Questionnaires®, Third Edition (ASQ-3™), both of which have validity and reliability in Iran, the required data were collected,the relationship between children’s cognitive development was evaluated by ASQ, and the toys and the home environment evaluated by AHEMD-SR was calculated by the Pearson correlation coefficient.Results:Studying the relationships revealed that playing with toys related to gross movement stimulation have weak correlations with all three skills of theASQ considered in the present study, i.e.,communication(r= 0.218, p-value=0.001), problem solving(r= 0.168,p-value=0.02), andpersonal­–social skills(r= 0.187, p-value=0.04). Nevertheless, toys related to fine movement stimulation had very low correlations.In addition, the final score of the AHEMD-SR, including toys and other aspects of the home environment, indicate an important relationship with the personal­–social skill item of the ASQ (r= 0.367, p-value=0.02).Conclusion: With regard to the findings of the present study, theinside-home space characteristic and playing with appropriate toys maymotivate the child’s cognitive development. Making parents and healthcare officials aware ofthe appropriate toys and the home environment, therefore, seems to be necessary.


  1. Bronfenbrenner U. Ecological models of human development. Readings on the development of children. 1994;2:37-43.
  2. Case-Smith J, O'Brien JC. Occupational therapy for children: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2013.
  3. Kim H, Carlson AG, Curby TW, Winsler A. Relations among motor, social, and cognitive skills in pre-kindergarten children with developmental disabilities. Research in developmental disabilities. 2016;53:43-60.
  4. Qian M, Clark KR. Game-based Learning and 21st century skills: A review of recent research. Computers in Human Behavior. 2016;63:50-8.
  5. Shute VJ, Wang L, Greiff S, Zhao W, Moore G. Measuring problem solving skills via stealth assessment in an engaging video game. Computers in Human Behavior. 2016;63:106-17.
  6. Roley SS, Barrows CJ, Susan Brownrigg OTR L, Sava DI, Vibeke Talley OTR L, Kristi Voelkerding B, et al. Occupational therapy practice framework: Domain & process 2nd edition. The American journal of occupational therapy. 2008;62(6):625.
  7. Cuesta MB, Budria S. Income deprivation and mental well-being: The role of non-cognitive skills. Economics & Human Biology. 2015;17:16-28.
  8. Tamis‐LeMonda CS, Shannon JD, Cabrera NJ, Lamb ME. Fathers and mothers at play with their 2‐and 3‐year‐olds: contributions to language and cognitive development. Child development. 2004;75(6):1806-20.
  9. Saccani R, Valentini NC, Pereira KR, Müller AB, Gabbard C. Associations of biological factors and affordances in the home with infant motor development. Pediatrics International. 2013 Apr 1; 55(2):197-203.
  10. Hsieh YH, Hwang AW, Liao HF, Chen PC, Hsieh WS, Chu PY. Psychometric properties of a Chinese version of the home environment measure for motor development. Disability and rehabilitation. 2011 Jan 1;33(25-26):2454-63.
  11. Haydari A, Askari P, Nezhad MZ. Relationship between affordances in the home environment and motor development in children age 18-42 months. Journal of Social Sciences. 2009; 5(4):319-28.
  12. Sajedi F, Vameghi R, Habibollahi A, Lornejad H, Delavar B. Standardization and validation of the ASQ developmental disorders screening tool in children of Tehran city. Tehran University of Medical Sciences. 2012;70(7).
  13. Kerstjens JM. Support for the global feasibility of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire as
  14. developmental screener. wwwelseviercom/locate/earlhumdev. 18 March 2009.
  15. Tomopoulos S, Dreyer BP, Tamis-LeMonda C, Flynn V, Rovira I, Tineo W, et al. Books, toys, parent-child interaction, and development in young Latino children. Ambulatory Pediatrics. 2006;6(2):72-8.
  16. Newland LA, Roggman LA, Boyce LK. The development of social toy play and language in infancy☆. Infant Behavior and Development. 2001;24(1):1-25.
  17. Murray LL, Dickerson S, Lichtenberger B, Cox C. Effects of toy stimulation on the cognitive, communicative, and emotional functioning of adults in the middle stages of Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of communication disorders. 2003;36(2):101-27.
  18. Bantz DL. Teaching families to evaluate age-appropriate toys. Journal of Pediatric Health Care. 1993;7(3):111-4.
  19. Clavio JCV, Fajardo AC. Toys as Instructional Tools in Developing Problem-Solving Skills in Children. Education Quarterly. 2010;66(1).
  20. Bussey K, Bandura A. Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological review. 1999;106(4):676.
  21. Goldberg S, Lewis M. Play behavior in the year-old infant: Early sex differences. Child development. 1969:21-31.
  22. Lytton H, Romney DM. Parents' differential socialization of boys and girls: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 1991;109(2):267.