Evidence Hub

Early Childhood Movement- and Arts-Based Experiences and Executive Functions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Vega-Fernandez G, Valenzuela-Fuenzalida JJ, Jeria-Pizarro Y, Oyanedel-Amaro G, Orellana-Donoso M, Cifuentes-Suazo G, Cabezas-Salgado JJ, Blackwood-Espinoza C et al.

Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2026

697 participants

Abstract

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…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 697 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free