Hazardous Fun: Assessing the Hazards of Kids’ Meal Toys

1. Hazardous Fun: Assessing the Hazards of Kids’ Meal Toys Nia Jordan

2. Introduction • Over 100,000 children ages 4 and under were hospitalized due to toy-related injuries • Children under the age of three are more prone to these injuries (CHOP, 2011)

3. Rationale:Would you rather? or

4. Purpose & Hypothesis • Assess the hazards of numerous kids’ meal toys based on an original safety rubric • Create a unique and effective safety standard for toys made for children ages three years old and younger • Most of the toys assessed against the standard created will not meet safety requirements

5. Background • Toys play an integral part in the learning process • Help towards child development (Daniel, 2003) • U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) creates safety standards for toys

6. Recalls • Request to return to the maker a batch or an entire production run of a product, usually due to the discovery of safety issues • 14% of toys distributed in the U.S. in 2009 were recalled (Toy Industry Association) • < 20% of recalled toys make it back to the manufacturer for proper disposal or repair (Elvesier, 2010) • Voluntary or compulsory

7. Voluntary Recall Leap Frog Learn Around playground (Quarrie, 2009)

8. Compulsory Recall Last Airbender Katara figurine & bracelet (Podsada, 2010)

9. Experimental Design Diagram DV: toy safety/grade based on safety rubric Constants: testing methods, safety rubric graded against, etc. Control: safety requirements

10. Procedural Overview Put signs up asking for kids’ meal toys Compare against safety rubric Create script Score them Record data Distribute scripts to people asking for toys

11. Script My name is Nia Jordan and I am requesting your participation in my research project. My project involves creating a safety rubric for kids’ meal toys made for children under the age of three. To do this, I must obtain as many kids’ meal toys as possible—and that’s where you come in. Whenever you go to a fast food restaurant, follow these simple steps to help me out. Please & thank you  1. Order your kids’ meal as you would normally, except ask the question below. • May I please have a kids’ meal toy for a child ages three and under? 2. Leave the toy in its packaging. 3. Document the information below for each toy you turn in. 4. Turn in this sheet along with the toys you documented above to Mrs. Baskett in annex room 817 or directly to Nia Jordan, if possible.

12. Procedural Overview Put signs up asking for kids’ meal toys Compare against safety rubric Create script Score them Record data Distribute scripts to people asking for toys

13. Procedural Overview Put signs up asking for kids’ meal toys Compare against safety rubric Create script Score them Record data Distribute scripts to people asking for toys

14. Toy HazardRubric • Name of toy, date retrieved, restaurant from which the toy was obtained • Scale of 0 to 5 • Size • Sharp edges • Sturdiness • Unique Features • Warning label

15. Procedural Overview Put signs up asking for kids’ meal toys Compare against safety rubric Create script Score them Record data Distribute scripts to people asking for toys

16. Procedural Overview Put signs up asking for kids’ meal toys Compare against safety rubric Create script Record data Score them Distribute scripts to people asking for toys

17. Results The average total rubric score for all toys was 4.852. The highest group averages were for the warning label and sturdiness. Size had the least identified problems on the rubric. Variation between individual rubric scores was highest for sturdiness and the unique category.

18. Results

19. Inferential Statistics • Total rubric score did not have a statistically significant difference based on restaurant type • F=.73 , df=2 , P=0.495 • Sharp edges score had a statistically significant difference based on restaurant type • F=39.38, df=2, P=<0.001 • Chick-fil-A mean sharp edges score was statistically higher than that for McDonald’s and Wendy’s

20. Conclusion & Future Research • Research hypothesis was supported. • Overall rubric score by restaurant was not statistically significant. • Size • Sturdiness • Unique features • Warning label • Sharp edges was significant • McDonald’s had the lowest average score, while Popeye’s had the highest. • More objective standards • Chemical hazards

21. References • Elvesier, R. (2010, December 24) Avoid Recalled Toys; gift card problems. Retrieved March 27, 2011 from AllBusiness: http://www.allbusiness.com/society-social/families-children-family/15396792-1.html • Podsada, J. (2010, July 28). Consumer Protection: Take Happy Meal Toy Away From Kids. Retrieved February 17, 2011, from http://articles.courant.com/2010-07-28/business/hc-dangerous-happy-meal-toy-20100728_1_figurine-and-bracelet-ledyard-mother-farrell • Quarrie, M. (2009, November 23) Toy Safety Checklist. Retrieved April 25, 2011, from The Noise on Toys: http://thenoiseontoys.com/articles/2009/11/23/toy-safety-checklist • Toy Industry Association. (n.d.) SKU Recalls Drop 36% in 3rd Quarter 2009, comparison vs. 3rd Quarter 2008, Item Count Higher. Retrieved April 25, 2011 from Toy Industry Association, Inc: http://ww.toysassociation.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Industry_Statistics&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=10972

22. ? Hazardous Fun: Assessing the Hazards of Kids’ Meal Toys