SynthesisPloS one2024
Tactical games model in physical education: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- How do students learn to move? A systematic review of collaborative and game-based pedagogies in physical education.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Pooled it
- Systemic relationships between ecological-dynamic approach and active reflection: psycho-neuro-motor, cognitive, and physiological interactions in rugby pedagogy.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since the Tactical Games Model (TGM) was adopted and popularised by Oslin, Griffin, and Mitchell, research interest in this model has surged, increasing its application in teaching and research. However, much-existing research is fragmented and lacks a comprehensive review. This systematic review aims to fill that gap by thoroughly analysing the literature on TGM within the context of physical education, highlighting current trends and developments. We systematically searched four online databases, identifying 38 relevant articles for inclusion, which were then evaluated across eight domains following PRISMA guidelines. The analysis indicates a steady increase in TGM-focused research within physical education, particularly at the K-12 level. However, there is a notable absence of studies addressing higher education, as well as teachers and coaches. The review also found that the majority of TGM research is concentrated on team sports and invasion games, with limited exploration of other sports. The research objectives often centred on extrinsic factors, such as game performance, skill level, and physical activity (PA) level, as well as intrinsic factors, intrinsic motivation, stress, and enjoyment. The TGM has shown varying levels of success in improving these factors. Despite the recognised benefits of TGM in physical education, its impact on cognitive aspects and decision-making remains underexplored. This systematic review may serve as a valuable resource for educators and researchers, supporting the broader application of TGM across different areas of physical education and potentially leading to enhanced student outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.