Effects of Different Movement Programs on Motor Competence: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Background: To use the meta-analytic approach to assess the effectiveness of different types of movement programs on motor competence (MC) in participants of all ages. Methods: Studies were retrieved by searching 13 databases and included when criteria were met. Studies were selected, and data were extracted by 2 authors. Random effects models using the standardized mean difference effect size (ES) were used to pool results. Risk of bias, heterogeneity, and inconsistency were examined. Results: Thirty-six studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 374 ESs were calculated and partitioned into 4 groups (motor intervention, free play, physical education classes, and control group). Statistically significant improvements in MC were observed for the motor intervention (ES = 1.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18 to 1.82; n = 36), as well as for free play (ES = 0.33; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.57; n = 5), physical education classes (ES = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.97; n = 15), and smaller statistically significant differences in MC were observed for the control groups (ES = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.31; n = 6). Conclusions: All 4 groups analyzed improved MC in children, adolescents, and young adults. However, motor interventions were superior to all other groups for improving MC.

The Effects of Physical Education on Motor Competence in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…The results of the current meta-analysis, and those of previous meta-analytical studies investigating the effect of various type of interventions on motor competence, clearly suggest that structured programs are effective in influencing the development of motor competence in children and adolescents [13,14,[29][30][31]. It has been claimed, however, that interventions defined under the term "movement programs" have a better and more consistent effect on motor competence compared to physical education.…”

“…Given that the studies included in the meta-analysis originate from 13 different countries, it is difficult to assess the specific content of the physical education conducted by participants in the comparison groups. This may explain why physical education studies have reported somewhat lower effect sizes compared to other movement programs, as these latter studies typically have a waitlist, non-active, control group [31]. It should come as no surprise that active-movement-based programs introduce substantial effects above what might be general motor-development effects observed in a non-active control group.…”

“…It has been claimed, however, that interventions defined under the term "movement programs" have a better and more consistent effect on motor competence compared to physical education. According to Jimenez-Diaz et al [31], these consist of structured programs with specific and age-appropriate motor activities and teaching. At first sight, these programs are difficult to distinguish from physical education classes as, typically, they are also teacher-led and age-appropriate according to national curricula.…”

“…None of these reviews included studies on physical education, however. In a recent meta-analysis by Jimenez-Diaz et al [31], the authors reported statistically significant improvements in motor competence following physical education classes (standardized mean effect size = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.97). A close examination of the included studies, however, reveals that the data originated from various sub-samples (e.g., normally developing children vs. clinical samples) and different ages (early preschool vs. late adolescence/young adults) that were pooled together.…”

Changes in Motor Competence after a Brief Physical Education Intervention Program in 4 and 5-Year-Old Preschool Children

“…These planned interventions are effective both in programs performed in the short term (4–8 weeks) and in the long term (≥6 months) [ 33 , 42 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 ], although shorter duration (4 weeks to 5 months) showed better results compared to longer duration (>6 months) [ 53 ] to improve the MC. In addition, the specific programs are most effective when taught by highly trained PE specialists [ 51 ], due to these interventions representing a high improvement in MC [ 54 ]. For these reasons, it is considered important to identify the type and duration of interventions so that they can help to improve MC in preschool children because there is no consensus [ 54 ].…”