ReviewChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Early Childhood Movement- and Arts-Based Experiences and Executive Functions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesMovement- 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.
methodsThis 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.
resultsThe 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 (
conclusionsFavourable 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.
fundingThere was no external funding.
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.