Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
Early Childhood Movement- and Arts-Based Experiences and Executive Functions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Vega-Fernandez Gustavo, Valenzuela-Fuenzalida Juan José, Jeria-Pizarro Yasna, Oyanedel-Amaro Gustavo, Orellana-Donoso Mathias, Cifuentes-Suazo Gloria, Cabezas-Salgado Juan J, Blackwood-Espinoza Christopher, León-Rojas José E, Sanchis-Gimeno Juan, Bruna-Mejias Alejandro
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Movement- and arts-based experiences are frequently promoted as developmentally appropriate contexts for supporting cognition in early childhood, but effects may differ across executive-function domains, pedagogical formats and study contexts.
METHODS: This PRISMA 2020 systematic review and meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261363924). PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, ERIC, PSICODOC, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus were searched from inception through April 2026. One immediate-post effect per Study ID and core domain was retained. Random-effects models used restricted maximum likelihood with Hartung-Knapp adjustment. Study-level risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2 or ROBINS-I, missing-evidence risk with ROB-ME and certainty with GRADE. Intervention content, pedagogical format and embedded cognitive demands were also coded descriptively.
RESULTS: The review included 130 reports representing 125 unique studies. Fifteen Study IDs contributed 29 core effects: 10 for inhibition (n = 675), 10 for working memory (n = 697) and nine for cognitive flexibility (n = 642). Twelve core programmes were primarily structured, and three used guided-play/structured-hybrid formats; no free/unstructured-play intervention entered the meta-analysis. Mean effects favoured the intervention for inhibition (Hedges' g = 0.52, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.90), working memory (g = 0.42, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.75) and cognitive flexibility (g = 0.60, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.98). Heterogeneity was substantial, and all 95% prediction intervals crossed the null. Estimates remained favourable after excluding Serious risk-of-bias judgments. Age-exclusion and ICC-sensitivity analyses retained positive effects; a worst-case exclusion of unadjusted class- or cluster-assigned studies reduced precision for inhibition and working memory. SMD-specific modified-precision regressions did not indicate small-study associations for inhibition (p = 0.529) or working memory (p = 0.619); cognitive flexibility was not formally tested because k = 9. ROB-ME indicated some concerns, and GRADE certainty was low for all three domains.
CONCLUSIONS: Favourable average effects should not be attributed to movement or arts participation per se. Pedagogical structure and embedded cognitive demands may influence outcomes, but substantial inconsistency, unit-of-analysis uncertainty and low certainty preclude identification of a superior model.
FUNDING: There was no external funding.
METHODS: This PRISMA 2020 systematic review and meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261363924). PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, ERIC, PSICODOC, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus were searched from inception through April 2026. One immediate-post effect per Study ID and core domain was retained. Random-effects models used restricted maximum likelihood with Hartung-Knapp adjustment. Study-level risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2 or ROBINS-I, missing-evidence risk with ROB-ME and certainty with GRADE. Intervention content, pedagogical format and embedded cognitive demands were also coded descriptively.
RESULTS: The review included 130 reports representing 125 unique studies. Fifteen Study IDs contributed 29 core effects: 10 for inhibition (n = 675), 10 for working memory (n = 697) and nine for cognitive flexibility (n = 642). Twelve core programmes were primarily structured, and three used guided-play/structured-hybrid formats; no free/unstructured-play intervention entered the meta-analysis. Mean effects favoured the intervention for inhibition (Hedges' g = 0.52, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.90), working memory (g = 0.42, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.75) and cognitive flexibility (g = 0.60, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.98). Heterogeneity was substantial, and all 95% prediction intervals crossed the null. Estimates remained favourable after excluding Serious risk-of-bias judgments. Age-exclusion and ICC-sensitivity analyses retained positive effects; a worst-case exclusion of unadjusted class- or cluster-assigned studies reduced precision for inhibition and working memory. SMD-specific modified-precision regressions did not indicate small-study associations for inhibition (p = 0.529) or working memory (p = 0.619); cognitive flexibility was not formally tested because k = 9. ROB-ME indicated some concerns, and GRADE certainty was low for all three domains.
CONCLUSIONS: Favourable average effects should not be attributed to movement or arts participation per se. Pedagogical structure and embedded cognitive demands may influence outcomes, but substantial inconsistency, unit-of-analysis uncertainty and low certainty preclude identification of a superior model.
FUNDING: There was no external funding.