Play Therapy Outcomes
Jensen et al. (2017) stated that, according to research, play therapy is a powerful tool that has been used in therapy for decades. Play therapy was traditionally used to help build rapport between the therapist and client. Play therapy can use a large variety of tools including (a) a sand tray, (b) puppets, (c) storytelling, or (d) roleplaying. However, significant research into the efficacy of play therapy has not emerged until recently. According to the article, prior meta-analytical reviews on play therapy did not include a clear identification of the play therapy interventions used; more so the outcome of said interventions (Jensen et al., 2017). The purpose of this study was to: analyze the literature related to outcomes of play therapy; provide a discussion on the quality and types of outcome measures; provide results of analysis; and conclude with future direction of play therapy research.
The authors described the method that was used to obtain the data. According to the article, the author used a meta-analysis of 100 studies about play therapy intervention outcomes. The aim was to analyze the overall effect of the therapy interventions used in the studies. The authors described the selection process of the literature. According to the authors, “using the key terms play therapy, filial therapy, family play therapy, therapeutic play, and play in therapy,” they researched different sources online that were both unpublished and published about interventions on play therapy (Jensen et al., 2017). According to the authors, the Play Therapy Outcome Research Database is the offline research tool that was used in this study to find unpublished investigations of play therapy interventions used on children. According to the article, there were five series of meta-analysis testing: (1) the first meta-analysis analyzed the overall effect of the play therapy interventions; (2) the second meta-analysis measured the treatment effect for only the five most commonly noted treatment outcomes; (3) the third metal-analysis coded the outcome measures into separate categories; (4) the fourth meta-analysis was created based on the reporting scores (Jensen et al., 2017).
Results from the study produced several outcomes. According to the author, the overall quality of the studies being analyzed were poor dues to the follow: (1) none of the studies fit the criteria of being a Type 1 study; (2) 21% of the studies met only Type 2 criteria; and (3) 79% of the studies meet only the criteria for a Type 3 study. According to the results, the following is the breakdown of the categories of study: (a) 58% accounted for randomization; (b) 30% accounted for blinded assessment; (c) 66% accounted for clear inclusion/exclusion criteria; (d) 2% accounted for diagnostic criteria; (e) 10% accounted for adequate sample sizing for a statistical power analysis; and (f) 9% accounted for described statistics. According to the results, overall, play therapy accounted for a small to moderate effect on outcome measures (Jensen et al., 2017).
There is more to learn about the effectiveness of play therapy. Thus, future research should start to focus on the intent and purpose of said play therapy interventions. Also, future research should continue to put an emphasis on the use of (a) randomization, (b) larger sample sizes, and (c) blinded assessments. According to the study play therapy may be a legitimate tool in child therapy (Jensen et al., 2017).
References
Jensen, S. A., Biesen, J. N., & Graham, E. R. (2017). A meta-analytic review of play therapy with emphasis on outcome measures. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 48(5), 390-400.
https://doi.orgtcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/10.1037/pro0000148
