Andreia Dias Rodrigues
Ana Cruz-Ferreira
José Marmeleira
Guida Veiga- 1Escola de Saúde e Desenvolvimento Humano, Departamento de Desporto e Saúde, Universidade de Évora, Évora, Portugal
- 2Comprehensive Health Research Centre, University of Évora, Évora, Portugal
Objective: A growing body of evidence supports the effectiveness of body-oriented interventions (BOI) in educational contexts, showing positive influences on social-emotional competence. Nevertheless, there is a lack of systematization of the evidence regarding preschool years. This is a two-part systematic review. In this first part, we aim to examine the effects of BOI on preschoolers' social-emotional competence outcomes.
Data Sources: Searches were conducted in Pubmed, Scopus, PsycInfo, ERIC, Web of Science, Portal Regional da BVS and CINAHL.
Eligibility Criteria: English, French and Portuguese language articles published between January 2000 and October 2020, that evaluated the effects of BOI implemented in educational contexts on social-emotional competence of preschool children. Only randomized controlled trials (RCT) or quasi-RCT were included.
Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently completed data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment. The level of scientific evidence was measured through the Best Evidence Synthesis.
Results: Nineteen studies were included. There was strong evidence that BOI do not improve anger/aggression, delay of gratification and altruism. Nevertheless, there was moderate evidence that BOI effectively improve other social-emotional outcomes, such as empathy, social interaction, social independence, general internalizing behaviors, and general externalizing behaviors. The lack of scientific evidence was compromised by the methodological quality of the studies.
Conclusion: BOI effectively improve specific social-emotional competences of preschool children.
Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, identifier CRD42020172248.
Introduction
Early childhood is a foundational period of life for children to accomplish important milestones. In particular, during this period, there is a significant development of social-emotional competence, which is an important foundation for children's short- and long-term health, wellbeing, and success (Adela et al., 2011; Denham et al., 2012). Social-emotional competence is also crucial for children to cope with current and future stressors and challenges (Cornell et al., 2017), and contributes to academic achievement (Durlak et al., 2011).
Emotional competence refers to the adequate understanding, regulation, and expression of emotions, while social competence involves the ability of solving problems and adjusting behaviors in social situations (Denham et al., 2003). Hence, referring to social-emotional competence indicates that emotional competence and social competence work together toward adaptive behavior (Alzahrani et al., 2019).
Social-emotional competence is generally used as an umbrella term, which includes a constellation of competences that enables the expression, regulation, and comprehension of our own and others' emotions, thoughts, and behaviors in different situations, enabling the construction and maintenance of positive interpersonal relationships, and to adapt to challenge conditions (Denham et al., 2003; Denham, 2006; Alzahrani et al., 2019). The constellation of social-emotional competences has been grouped according to different models (e.g., The CASEL Model, The Big Five Model). According to the Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL) model, there are five core competences: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision making (Collaborative for Academic Social and Emotional Learning, 2013). Self-awareness integrates a range of competences that allows the recognition of one's emotions, thoughts, and values that influence behaviors, and the accurate assessment of one's strengths and limitations, such as emotion expression, emotion identification, and emotion attribution (Denham, 2006; Collaborative for Academic Social and Emotional Learning, 2013; Schoon, 2021). Self-management allows the successful regulation of one's thoughts, emotions, and behaviors in various situations, and integrates competences such as self-regulation, delay of gratification, and inhibitory control (Denham, 2006; Collaborative for Academic Social and Emotional Learning, 2013; Schoon, 2021). Social awareness represents the ability of be able to understand different perspectives, empathize with others, and understand social and ethical norms for behavior, integrating competences such as empathy, peer acceptance and respect for others (Denham, 2006; Collaborative for Academic Social and Emotional Learning, 2013). Relationship skills integrate a range of competences that allows the establishment and maintenance of healthy and positive relationships, such as social competence, social interaction, and social cooperation (Denham, 2006; Collaborative for Academic Social and Emotional Learning, 2013). Lastly, responsible decision-making comprises the capacity to make constructive and positive choices about personal behavior and social interactions based on ethical and social norms, such as problem-solving skills (Denham, 2006; Collaborative for Academic Social and Emotional Learning, 2013), optimism, and purpose (Schoon, 2021).
Social-emotional competence is developed from an early age through the so-called emotion socialization process, that is, through modeling, observation, and communication about emotions with knowledgeable others (Rieffe et al., 2015). However, contexts (such as educational) that are specifically structured in the light of children's social-emotional development are also of paramount importance. Indeed, in the last few decades, several intervention programs have been implemented in educational contexts aiming to promote children's social-emotional competence (Durlak et al., 2011; Luo et al., 2020), involving different approaches, such as cognitive and behavioral (Romero-López et al., 2020; Martinsen et al., 2021), educational (Blewitt et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2019), or body-oriented (Waters et al., 2015; Gibson et al., 2017).
Body-oriented interventions (BOI) assume that bodily and emotional experiences are biologically and experientially associated. The term BOI is used in the literature, and in this review, as an umbrella term that integrates a broader range of body-oriented approaches, such as psychomotricity, play, dance, relaxation, physical activity, and exercise interventions. In general, BOI aim to provide opportunities to become aware of the body, the body in relation to others, and the connection between body and emotions (Röhricht, 2009; Probst et al., 2010; European Forum of Psychomotricity, 2012; Bellemans et al., 2017).
A growing body of evidence supports the effectiveness of BOI in the educational context, showing positive influences on social-emotional competence (Durlak et al., 2011), such as self-awareness (Chinekesh et al., 2014), self-regulation (White, 2012), social skills (Loukatari et al., 2019), as well as play behaviors (Ryalls et al., 2016).
Despite the increase of scientific evidence regarding the effects of BOI in educational contexts on children's social-emotional competence, there is a lack of systematization of the evidence regarding preschool years. The current paper is the first of a two-part systematic review. This first part aims to examine the effects of BOI on preschoolers' social-emotional competence outcomes.
Method
The current systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement (PRISMA; Moher et al., 2009) and was registered with PROSPERO, the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, on July 17th, 2020 (CRD42020172248).
Eligibility Criteria
Studies were included if they were conducted as a randomized controlled trial (RCT) or quasi-RCT, written in English, French or Portuguese, and had to be published between January 2000 and October 2020. The study participants had to attend preschool education, be between 3 and 7 years old and have typical development. The study had to focus on BOI with a minimum duration of 1 week. The study had to involve at least one comparison group, had to be delivered by humans (not computers) and implemented at school (not at home). The effects of the interventions had to be focused on participants' social-emotional competence.
Search Strategy and Information Sources
The studies were selected for review on October 10, 2020, by searching the following databases: Pubmed, Scopus, PsycInfo, ERIC, Web of Science, Portal Regional da BVS and CINAHL. In order to identify additional potentially relevant articles, the bibliography of the selected studies was further searched by hand. The term BOI is used in the literature and in this review as an umbrella term that integrates a wider scope of therapeutic approaches (Röhricht, 2009). Search terms related to BOI (i.e., “body-oriented,” “psychomotor,” “dance movement,” “psychomotor physiotherapy,” “mind-body,” “movement oriented,” “body awareness,” and “body psychotherapy”) as well as terms associated with a broader collection of physiological interventions regularly used by psychomotor therapists (Probst et al., 2010; European Forum of Psychomotricity, 2012; Bellemans et al., 2017) (i.e., “exercise,” “physical training,” “sport,” “running,” “physiotherapy,” “yoga,” “relaxation,” and “play”) were paired with terms related to social-emotional competence (i.e., “socio-emotional,” “socioemotional,” “social-emotional,” “social,” “emotion,” “soft,” and “non-cognitive”) and terms concerning preschool age (i.e., “school,” “preschool,” “kindergarten,” “nursery,” “pre-K,” and “playgroup”).
Study Selection
The study selection process followed PRISMA guidelines. First, two reviewers (ADR and GV) independently read all abstracts and classified them as excluded or potentially included. A third reviewer (JM) was consulted if there was disagreement between the two reviewers. To increase the chances of finding important information, the search team also checked through the included studies' reference lists to verify whether these references included other studies that could be eligible for the review. Reviewers applied the inclusion criteria after reading the full texts of the potentially included studies. The research team contacted the corresponding author if there was any lack of clarity regarding the information provided in any article, or if there was a lack of information.
Data Extraction
Two researchers (ADR and GV) extracted the data from the selected papers. The extracted data included authors, year of publication, study type and design, subjects, intervention used, outcomes measures and key outcomes results. The third reviewer (JM) was consulted to resolve disagreements between the two reviewers.
Risk of Bias Assessment
The methodological quality of the studies was assessed independently by two reviewers (ADR and ACF), using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale (de Morton, 2009), with the third (JM) reviewer consulted to resolve disagreements (11%). The PEDro scale is based on the Delphi list developed by Verhagen et al. (1998). It consists of 11 items, including specified eligibility criteria, random allocation, concealed allocation, baseline comparability, blinding of subjects, blinding of therapists, blinding of assessors, adequate follow-up, intention-to-treat analysis, between-group statistical comparisons, and point estimates and variability. The eligibility criterion is related to external validity and is not used to calculate the PEDro score. For each study included, a PEDro sum score ranging from 1 to 10 could be obtained, with higher scores indicating better methodological quality. To the best of our knowledge, there are no published validated cutoff scores for the PEDro scale. Therefore, the following criteria were used to rate method quality: a score of <5 indicates “low quality”, and a score of 5 or higher indicates “high quality” (Silva et al., 2012; Martins et al., 2016; Pastora-Bernal et al., 2017).
Data Synthesis
The level of the scientific evidence was measured through the Best Evidence Synthesis (BES) (Slavin, 1986) by two researchers (ADR and ACF). BES is an alternative to meta-analysis and seeks to apply consistent, well-justified standards to identify unbiased, meaningful information from experimental studies (Slavin, 1986). The following criteria were used to grade the strength of the evidence: strong evidence, obtained in multiple high-quality RCTs; moderate evidence, obtained in one high-quality RCT and one or more low-quality RCTs; limited evidence, obtained in one high-quality or multiple low-quality RCTs; and no evidence, trough one low-quality RCT or contradictory outcomes (Van Tulder et al., 1997).
Results
Study Selection
We summarized the flow of literature search and study selection in Figure 1. Electronic and reference searches generated 2,991 records, including 563 duplicate articles that were removed. The remaining 2,428 articles were further screened (title and abstract), and among these, 2392 were excluded based on not meeting our study criteria. When 38 full-text articles were further assessed for eligibility, we read each article, and found 19 articles that did not meet the predetermined inclusion criteria: the intervention program combines body-oriented intervention with non-body oriented intervention (n = 5); no body-oriented intervention (n = 4); no comparison group (n = 3); dissertation (n = 2); population does not meet the inclusion criteria (n = 2); study protocol (n = 1); unclear description of procedures (sample, intervention, outcomes, measures, results) (n = 1), and no immediate post-test after intervention (n = 1). In total, 19 studies were considered for the qualitative synthesis.
Figure 1. Flow diagram.
Study Characteristics
We summarized all the eligible studies of this systematic review in Table 1. These 19 selected studies (English = 17 and French = 2) were published between 2006 and 2020. Study types included RCTs (n = 14) and quasi-RCT (n = 5). The most frequent study design was the pre-post test (n = 17). One study included follow-up (Cheng and Ray, 2016), and another used an additional measurement during the study intervention (Solomon et al., 2018). Study sample sizes ranged from 19 to 372 participants. Participants' ages ranged from 3 to 7 years. All the studies included 2 groups (experimental and control groups), except in the studies by Goldstein and Lerner (2017), Murray et al. (2018), in which 3 groups were used (1 experimental group and 2 active control groups, and 1 experimental group, 1 active and 1 inactive control groups, respectively). All the studies used BOI as the study intervention. Control groups were inactive in 17 studies (Lobo and Winsler, 2006; Ortega et al., 2009; Hashemi et al., 2012; Chinekesh et al., 2014; Flook et al., 2015; Ozyurek et al., 2015; Anna et al., 2016; Biber, 2016; Cheng and Ray, 2016; Robinson et al., 2016; Murray et al., 2018; Duman and Ozkur, 2019; Loukatari et al., 2019; Richard et al., 2019; Deneault et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2020; Tersi and Matsouka, 2020). In the remaining 2 studies, the BOI was compared with block building and story time reading activities (Goldstein and Lerner, 2017), and a play-based program following a teacher-directed approach (Solomon et al., 2018).
Table 1. Characteristics of the included studies in the review.
BOI Characteristics
The BOI duration and frequency ranged from 5 days to 60 weeks and from a 1 to a 5 times per week basis. The duration of the BOI sessions ranged from 11 to 300 mins. As we mentioned, BOI is an umbrella term that integrates a wider range of therapeutic approaches (Röhricht, 2009). The types of BOI in the included studies were creative dance/movement (Lobo and Winsler, 2006), group play activities (Ortega et al., 2009), gymnastics (Hashemi et al., 2012), group play therapy (Chinekesh et al., 2014), mindfulness-based activities (Flook et al., 2015), game-based activities (Ozyurek et al., 2015), psychomotor program (Anna et al., 2016), folk dance (Biber, 2016), child-centered group play (Cheng and Ray, 2016), motor skills intervention (Robinson et al., 2016), pretend play games (Goldstein and Lerner, 2017), progressive muscle relaxation (Murray et al., 2018), play-based activities using a teacher-centered approach (Solomon et al., 2018), embedded learning-based movement education (Duman and Ozkur, 2019), structured playful activities (Loukatari et al., 2019), pretend play-based (Richard et al., 2019), symbolic sand play (Deneault et al., 2020), loose parts play and mindfulness activities (Lee et al., 2020), and structured play activities (Tersi and Matsouka, 2020).
Effects of BOI on Social-Emotional Competence Outcomes
Outcomes measures are noted in Table 1 in the “Measures/Outcomes” column. Following Mayo-Wilson et al. (2017), Saldanha et al. (2020) and colleagues' suggestions, the organization of the outcomes (see Table 2) took into consideration the respective measure and definition. For a better systematization of the findings, the outcomes were grouped into the following categories: social-emotional outcomes; child's play; and child's behaviors.
Table 2. Summary of the outcomes of the studies.
Social-Emotional Outcomes
Improvements were found for social-emotional competence (Chinekesh et al., 2014; Flook et al., 2015; Cheng and Ray, 2016), specifically on self-awareness (Chinekesh et al., 2014), empathy (Chinekesh et al., 2014; Cheng and Ray, 2016), emotion recognition (Richard et al., 2019), and dysfunctional emotion regulation strategies (Richard et al., 2019). Improvements were also found for social interaction (Hashemi et al., 2012; Goldstein and Lerner, 2017; Tersi and Matsouka, 2020), social cooperation (Hashemi et al., 2012; Loukatari et al., 2019; Tersi and Matsouka, 2020), social independence (Hashemi et al., 2012; Tersi and Matsouka, 2020), social assertion (Loukatari et al., 2019), friendship skills (Ozyurek et al., 2015), sharing (Flook et al., 2015), and peer relations problems (Deneault et al., 2020). No differences were found in Theory of Mind (Goldstein and Lerner, 2017), emotion expression (Lee et al., 2020), emotion identification (Richard et al., 2019), functional emotion regulation strategies (Richard et al., 2019), delay of gratification (Flook et al., 2015; Robinson et al., 2016; Murray et al., 2018), cognitive flexibility (Flook et al., 2015), altruism (Goldstein and Lerner, 2017; Richard et al., 2019), peer acceptance (Anna et al., 2016), and social avoidance (Richard et al., 2019). Contradictory results were found for emotion attribution (Goldstein and Lerner, 2017; Richard et al., 2019), emotion regulation (Flook et al., 2015; Ozyurek et al., 2015; Goldstein and Lerner, 2017; Richard et al., 2019), self-regulation (Chinekesh et al., 2014; Cheng and Ray, 2016; Duman and Ozkur, 2019; Loukatari et al., 2019), inhibitory control (Flook et al., 2015; Murray et al., 2018; Solomon et al., 2018), social competence (Lobo and Winsler, 2006; Hashemi et al., 2012; Chinekesh et al., 2014; Flook et al., 2015; Biber, 2016; Cheng and Ray, 2016; Solomon et al., 2018; Loukatari et al., 2019; Tersi and Matsouka, 2020), and prosocial behavior (Flook et al., 2015; Goldstein and Lerner, 2017; Richard et al., 2019; Deneault et al., 2020).
Child's Play
Improvements were found regarding play (Ortega et al., 2009), specifically on interaction with communication on child-directed play (Ortega et al., 2009), number of groups on teacher-directed play (Ortega et al., 2009), interaction with communication on teacher-directed play (Ortega et al., 2009), play disruption (Lee et al., 2020), play disconnection (Lee et al., 2020), play interaction (Lee et al., 2020), happiness after play (Lee et al., 2020), play extent (Lee et al., 2020), play intensity (Lee et al., 2020), and play skill (Lee et al., 2020). No differences were found in the group composition on child-directed play (Ortega et al., 2009), number of groups on child-directed play (Ortega et al., 2009), group size on child-directed play (Ortega et al., 2009), group size on teacher-directed play (Ortega et al., 2009), and group composition on teacher-directed play (Ortega et al., 2009).
Child's Behaviors
Improvements were reported in general internalizing behaviors (Lobo and Winsler, 2006; Loukatari et al., 2019; Deneault et al., 2020; Tersi and Matsouka, 2020), and general externalizing behaviors (Lobo and Winsler, 2006; Loukatari et al., 2019; Tersi and Matsouka, 2020), specifically on behavior problems (Deneault et al., 2020; Tersi and Matsouka, 2020), and hyperactivity (Loukatari et al., 2019; Deneault et al., 2020). No differences were found on anxiety/withdrawal (Solomon et al., 2018) and anger/aggression (Solomon et al., 2018; Richard et al., 2019).
Methodological Quality of Selected Studies
Detailed information on methodological quality is presented on Table 3. Of the overall study assessments conducted with the PEDro scale (n = 19), which scores ranged from 3 to 7 (mean score, 4.5), 53% of studies (n = 10) were rated with a low quality of rigor (scored <5) (Ortega et al., 2009; Hashemi et al., 2012; Chinekesh et al., 2014; Flook et al., 2015; Ozyurek et al., 2015; Biber, 2016; Duman and Ozkur, 2019; Loukatari et al., 2019; Deneault et al., 2020; Tersi and Matsouka, 2020), and the rest (47%, n = 9) were rated with a high quality of rigor (scored 5 or higher) (Anna et al., 2016; Cheng and Ray, 2016; Robinson et al., 2016; Goldstein and Lerner, 2017; Murray et al., 2018; Solomon et al., 2018; Richard et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2020). All the studies met the criteria “groups similar at baseline” and “point measures and variability.” More than half of the studies satisfied the criteria “random allocation,” “follow-up,” and “between-group comparisons.” Only 3 studies met the criterion “blind assessor.” Two studies satisfied the criteria “blind therapist” and “intention-to-treat analysis,” and 1 study fulfilled the criteria “concealed allocation.” The criterion “blind subject” was not satisfied in any study.
Table 3. Methodological quality of the studies.
Level of the Scientific Evidence
Figure 2 shows the strong and moderate level of the scientific evidence of key outcomes in BOI.
Figure 2. Key outcomes in strong and moderate level of strength evidence. +, positive results; =, no differences.
Regarding social-emotional outcomes, strong evidence was found for the lack of effects: in delay of gratification comparing with inactive (Flook et al., 2015; Robinson et al., 2016) and both inactive and active groups (Murray et al., 2018), provided by 1 low-quality RCT and 2 high-quality RCTs; and altruism comparing with two active (Goldstein and Lerner, 2017) and 1 inactive (Richard et al., 2019) groups, provided by 2 high-quality RCTs. Moderate evidence was found for improving: social-emotional competence comparing with inactive groups (Chinekesh et al., 2014; Flook et al., 2015; Cheng and Ray, 2016), provided by 2 low-quality RCTs and 1 high-quality RCT; empathy comparing with inactive groups (Chinekesh et al., 2014; Cheng and Ray, 2016), provided by 1 low-quality RCT and 1 high-quality RCT; and social interaction comparing with inactive (Hashemi et al., 2012; Tersi and Matsouka, 2020) and 2 active groups (Goldstein and Lerner, 2017), provided by 2 low-quality RCTs and 1 high-quality RCT. Limited evidence was found for improving emotion recognition and dysfunctional emotion regulation strategies comparing with an inactive group (Richard et al., 2019), provided by 1 high-quality RCT; for improving social cooperation comparing with inactive groups (Hashemi et al., 2012; Loukatari et al., 2019; Tersi and Matsouka, 2020), provided by 3 low-quality RCTs; and social independence comparing with inactive groups (Hashemi et al., 2012; Tersi and Matsouka, 2020), provided by 2 low-quality RCTs. Limited evidence was also found for the lack of effects in: Theory of Mind comparing with 2 active groups (Goldstein and Lerner, 2017), provided by 1 high-quality RCT; emotion expression comparing with an inactive group (Lee et al., 2020), provided by 1 high-quality RCT; emotion identification and functional emotion regulation strategies comparing with an inactive group (Richard et al., 2019), provided by 1 high-quality RCT; peer acceptance comparing with an inactive group (Anna et al., 2016), provided by 1 high-quality RCT; and social avoidance comparing with an inactive group (Richard et al., 2019), provided by 1 high-quality RCT. No evidence was found for the rest of the outcomes. Detailed information is presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Level of the scientific evidence of the effects of BOI on social-emotional competence.
Concerning child's play, limited evidence was found for improving play disruption, play disconnection, play interaction, happiness after play, play extent, play intensity, and play skill, comparing with an inactive group (Lee et al., 2020), provided by 1 high-quality RCT. No evidence was found for improving play, interaction with communication on child-directed play, number of groups on teacher-directed play, and interaction with communication on teacher-directed play (Ortega et al., 2009). No evidence was also found for the lack of effects in group composition on child-directed play, number of groups on child-directed play, group size on child-directed and teacher-directed play, and group composition on teacher-directed play comparing with an inactive group (Ortega et al., 2009), provided by 1 low-quality RCT.
Regarding child's behavior's, strong evidence was found for the lack of effects in anger/aggression, comparing with an active control group (Solomon et al., 2018) or with an inactive group (Richard et al., 2019), provided by 2 high-quality RCTs. Moderate evidence was found for: decreased general internalizing behaviors comparing with inactive groups (Lobo and Winsler, 2006; Loukatari et al., 2019; Deneault et al., 2020; Tersi and Matsouka, 2020), provided by 1 high-quality RCT and 3 low-quality RCTs; and decreased general externalizing behaviors comparing with inactive groups (Lobo and Winsler, 2006; Loukatari et al., 2019; Tersi and Matsouka, 2020), provided by 1 high-quality RCT and 2 low-quality RCTs. Limited evidence was found for: decreased behavior problems comparing with inactive groups (Deneault et al., 2020; Tersi and Matsouka, 2020), provided by 2 low-quality RCTs; decreased hyperactivity comparing with inactive groups (Loukatari et al., 2019; Deneault et al., 2020), provided by 2 low-quality RCTs; and for the lack of effects in anxiety/withdrawal comparing with an active group (Solomon et al., 2018), provided by 1 high-quality RCT.
Discussion
To date, this is the first systematic review to locate and synthesize the effects of BOI implemented in educational contexts on preschoolers' social-emotional competence. Over the past 14 years, research in this area has been growing, evidencing the relevance of implementing BOI in preschool education contexts regarding social-emotional competence. Although the first RCT was published in 2006, most RCTs were carried out between 2016 and 2020, showing that research on the implementation of this type of intervention in the educational context is relatively recent.
This systematic review analyzed different BOI programs with different lengths, frequencies, and durations of sessions. Despite the difficulty to identify the ideal intervention dosage, the emerging consensus among researchers is that children who received more dosage exhibited greater increases in treatment outcomes (Lochman et al., 2006; Zhai et al., 2010; Yazejian et al., 2015). However, the findings of this systematic review do not support these conclusions. For example, in the study conducted by Lee et al. (2020) the BOI program lasted for 1 week, 5 days/week with a duration of 70 mins each session, and significant effects were observed in most of the outcomes (e.g., happiness after play, play disruption, play disconnection). Otherwise, in the study conducted by Solomon et al. (2018), the 60-week BOI program integrated into the preschool curriculum showed positive effects only in one of the analyzed outcomes. Nevertheless, we should consider that the participants' age and the outcomes analyzed in each study may have influenced these findings.
Regarding the social-emotional outcomes, one should note that, so far, many of the competences previously investigated with older children (Denham, 2006; Collaborative for Academic Social and Emotional Learning, 2013) have not been studied regarding preschool-aged children, including problem-solving skills (Ramani and Brownell, 2014), self-efficacy (Bistagani and Najafi, 2017), and self-confidence (Liu et al., 2015).
Some of the assessment instruments used in the included studies were parent and teacher reported. The use of parent reports is based on the idea that parents see and know children in various contexts and situations; therefore, they can observe their children's behaviors across multiple situations (Crozier and Badawood, 2009). However, parents may be biased when reporting their children's behaviors (e.g., they may be motivated to positively portray their children's behavior) (Gartstein et al., 2012). Regarding teachers' reported measures, this might not have such bias because teachers can observe children's behaviors in the school context and compare a particular child's behavior with children of the same age (Crozier and Badawood, 2009). Otherwise, teachers' perspectives on children's behaviors were foremost based on their interactions in the classroom, which means that some relevant behaviors that occur in other contexts (e.g., recess time) may go unnoticed.
On average, the methodological quality of studies was low, which goes against what was expected since most studies are recent (after the year 2016). One of the items less satisfied was criterion related to blinding, where the person (assessor, therapist, and/or subjects) in question must not know which group the subject had been allocated (de Morton, 2009). In experimental studies, where the therapists must implement a particular intervention program, it is difficult to achieve this criterion, often because blinding the therapist and subject to treatment is non-feasible (Park, 2013; Armijo-Olivo et al., 2017; Renjith, 2017). In the two studies that reported blinding of the therapist, the same therapist implemented different intervention programs, and he/she was blind to the study's hypothesis (Goldstein and Lerner, 2017; Murray et al., 2018). Since BOI integrates different therapeutic approaches such as exercise and physical activity, the blinding of subjects is difficult (Wahbeh et al., 2008; Renjith, 2017; Hecksteden et al., 2018). Despite this, this criterion was omitted by the authors of the studies and therefore was not satisfied. Regarding assessors blinding, only three studies explicitly state that the assessors were blind to the condition of the assessed child. This criterion was not satisfied in the remaining studies, probably because measures were teacher- and/or parent-reported.
Regarding social-emotional outcomes, there was strong evidence that BOI have no effects in delay of gratification (Flook et al., 2015; Robinson et al., 2016; Murray et al., 2018), and altruism (Goldstein and Lerner, 2017; Richard et al., 2019). The literature suggests that delay of gratification is related to altruism (Osiński et al., 2017; Gruen et al., 2020; Koomen et al., 2020), demonstrating that altruistic children are capable of delaying gratification for a cooperative goal (Koomen et al., 2020). Since children under 5 years old demonstrate a marked lack of this ability, and only throughout the fifth year they exhibit cognitive strategies needed for delaying gratification (Twito et al., 2019), in Flook et al.'s (2015) and Robinson et al.'s (2016) studies the average age of the children was 4 years old, which explains the lack of positive effects. Otherwise, in Murray et al. (2018) study the mean age of the participants was 6.24, but the lack of positive effects may be due to the short intervention duration and frequency (1 week, 3 ×11′ per week).
There was moderate evidence that BOI improve social-emotional competence (Chinekesh et al., 2014; Flook et al., 2015; Cheng and Ray, 2016), such as empathy (Chinekesh et al., 2014; Cheng and Ray, 2016), and social interaction (Hashemi et al., 2012; Goldstein and Lerner, 2017; Tersi and Matsouka, 2020). These results were expected since more empathic children exhibit better social behaviors (Findlay et al., 2006; Paulus and Leitherer, 2017; Hirn et al., 2019).
There was limited evidence for the positive effects of BOI in emotion recognition (Richard et al., 2019), dysfunctional emotion regulation strategies (Richard et al., 2019), social cooperation (Hashemi et al., 2012; Loukatari et al., 2019; Tersi and Matsouka, 2020), and social independence (Hashemi et al., 2012; Tersi and Matsouka, 2020). Possibly, the significant body and emotional experiences provided by BOI (Probst et al., 2010; Mehling et al., 2011; Robins et al., 2012), facilitate the development of emotion recognition and regulation. These abilities are essential to social interactions (Oerlemans et al., 2014), and are predictors of cooperative social behaviors (Denham et al., 2003; Cole et al., 2009). Besides, there was limited evidence for the lack of effects in Theory of Mind (Goldstein and Lerner, 2017), emotion expression (Lee et al., 2020), emotion identification (Richard et al., 2019), functional emotion regulation strategies (Richard et al., 2019), peer acceptance (Anna et al., 2016), and social avoidance (Richard et al., 2019). The nonexistence of positive effects may be due to the intervention programs characteristics (e.g., type of BOI, and duration or frequency of intervention program), the age of participants, or the assessment instruments used in each study (as teacher- or parent-reported measures may lead to different outcomes). There was no evidence for BOI to improve self-awareness (Chinekesh et al., 2014), and for the lack of effects regarding cognitive flexibility (Flook et al., 2015).
No evidence was found for outcomes with contradictory results, such as emotion attribution, emotion regulation, self-regulation, inhibitory control, social competence, and prosocial behavior, which calls into question the effectiveness of BOI in some important social-emotional outcomes. Regarding emotion attribution, improvements were found by Richard et al. (2019) in two different assessments and no differences in other assessment. In the study conducted by Goldstein and Lerner (2017), a decreased in this outcome was observed. Richard et al. (2019) implemented an 11-week intervention program with 1 session of 60 mins per week, compared with an inactive group. In contrast, Goldstein and Lerner (2017) implemented an 8-week intervention program with 3 sessions of 30 mins per week, comparing with 2 active groups. Therefore, these inconsistencies in outcomes may be due to the different characteristics of the intervention programs and/or comparison groups.
The study of Richard et al. (2019) showed no differences in emotion regulation. Otherwise, Flook et al. (2015), Ozyurek et al. (2015), Goldstein and Lerner (2017), and colleagues found improvements in this outcome after the intervention programs. These contradictory results may be due to the sample sizes of the studies since in the study where no differences were observed, the sample size was the smallest (n = 19 vs. n > 42).
In the study conducted by Cheng and Ray (2016), no differences were found in self-regulation after 8 weeks of BOI program. In contrast, the studies of Chinekesh et al. (2014), Duman and Ozkur (2019), and Loukatari et al. (2019), found improvements in self-regulation after 5, 12 and 4 weeks, respectively, of BOI programs. Cheng and Ray (2016) study involved two 30-mins sessions per week, whereas the other studies involved three 90-mins sessions, five 45–60-min sessions, and three 30-mins sessions per week, respectively. These differences in the frequency and duration of the sessions suggest that the dosage of intervention is critical for self-regulation improvements.
Solomon et al. (2018) found improvements in inhibitory control in one of the 2 different assessments used to evaluate this outcome. In turn, Flook et al. (2015) and Murray et al. (2018) also measured inhibitory control but found no differences. These contradictory results may be related to sample sizes and/or the age of the participants' differences. In the studies conducted by Flook et al. (2015), Murray et al. (2018), and colleagues, the sample sizes were 68 and 101, and the mean age of the participants was 4.67 and 6.24, respectively, whereas in the study conducted by Solomon et al. (2018) participated 256 children with 3–4 years of age, which represents the largest sample among these studies, as well as with younger participants. Moreover, the contradictory findings for the same outcome found by Solomon et al. (2018) may be explained by the different assessment instruments. The improvements on inhibitory control detected by an instrument (Ponitz et al., 2009) that involved more physical activity and fewer test trials suggests that this instrument may be more optimally suited to tap early, subtle improvements in inhibitory control. These characteristics may be noteworthy to consider when choosing an assessment instrument for preschoolers.
Improvements were found for social competence in eight of the nine studies that assessed this outcome (Lobo and Winsler, 2006; Hashemi et al., 2012; Chinekesh et al., 2014; Flook et al., 2015; Biber, 2016; Cheng and Ray, 2016; Loukatari et al., 2019; Tersi and Matsouka, 2020). In the study conducted by Solomon et al. (2018), where no differences were found in social competence, the lack of positive changes may be due to the similarity of the experimental condition and active control group. However, according to Karlsson and Bergmark (2014), this cannot be interpreted as a lack of treatment efficacy.
Finally, contradictory results were also found for prosocial behavior. While improvements were observed by Flook et al. (2015) and Deneault et al. (2020), no improvements were found by Goldstein and Lerner (2017) and Richard et al. (2019). Such differences may be due to the different assessment instruments used. That is, in Flook et al.'s (2015) and Deneault et al.'s (2020) studies, the instruments were reported by teachers, whereas in Goldstein and Lerner (2017) and Richard et al. (2019), the measures were reported by the researchers or applied to children, respectively.
Regarding child's play, there was limited evidence that BOI improves play disruption, play disconnection, play interaction, happiness after play, play extent, play intensity, and play skill (Lee et al., 2020). There was no evidence for the improvements in play, interaction with communication in child-directed play, number of groups and interaction with communication in teacher-directed play (Ortega et al., 2009). Likewise, there was no evidence for the lack of effects in group composition, number of groups and group size in child-directed play, and in group size and group composition in teacher-directed play (Ortega et al., 2009). This lack of scientific evidence of these outcomes is related to the low quality of the RCT that provided these outcomes, supporting the need for new studies to clearly understand the scientific evidence of the effects of BOI on children's play.
Regarding child's behaviors, there was strong evidence that BOI have no effects in anger/aggression (Solomon et al., 2018; Richard et al., 2019). Instead, we found moderate evidence for the decrease in general externalizing behaviors (Lobo and Winsler, 2006; Loukatari et al., 2019; Tersi and Matsouka, 2020). As we observed positive results in general externalizing behaviors, a decrease in anger/aggression was expected (Achenbach et al., 2016; Willner et al., 2016). Contrary to these results, there was limited evidence for the decrease of behavior problems (Deneault et al., 2020; Tersi and Matsouka, 2020), and hyperactivity (Loukatari et al., 2019; Deneault et al., 2020), as expected since these variables fit into the general externalizing behaviors.
There was moderate evidence for the positive effects of BOI in general internalizing behaviors (Lobo and Winsler, 2006; Loukatari et al., 2019; Deneault et al., 2020; Tersi and Matsouka, 2020). However, when specific internalizing behaviors were examined, it was found limited evidence for the lack of effects of BOI in anxiety/withdrawal (Solomon et al., 2018). This lack of positive changes may be due to the similarity of the experimental condition and active control group, which cannot be interpreted as a lack of treatment efficacy (Karlsson and Bergmark, 2014).
Study Limitations
There are several limitations in this systematic review: the inclusion criteria requiring a BOI implemented in the school context limited the number of selected studies. We did not determine the validity and reliability of the instruments, the qualifications of BOI therapists, or the appropriateness of statistical analyses. The methodological quality assessment can also be considered a limitation since the items are only satisfied when the study clearly states whether the criterion is satisfied or not. Levels of evidence measured by BES may also be a limitation. There may be studies of high methodological quality showing positive effects in the analyzed outcome, but the existence of 1 low-quality study with contradictory results take to no evidence of the effects in this outcome.
Conclusions
The part I of this systematic review showed that there was strong evidence that BOI do not improve delay of gratification, altruism, and anger/aggression. Besides, there was moderate evidence that BOI improve social-emotional competence, empathy, social interaction, internalizing and externalizing behaviors. There was limited evidence that BOI improve emotion recognition, dysfunctional emotion regulation strategies, social cooperation, social independence, play disruption, play disconnection, play interaction, happiness after play, play extent, play intensity, play skill, behavior problems, and hyperactivity. There was also limited evidence that BOI do not improve Theory of Mind, emotion expression, emotion identification, functional emotion regulation strategies, peer acceptance, social avoidance, and anxiety/withdrawal. There was no evidence of the effectiveness of BOI in the remaining social-emotional outcomes.
The present systematic review supports the need for further experimental studies that evaluate the effectiveness of BOI in preschoolers' social-emotional competence, with a greater methodological quality (e.g., blinding of subjects, therapists, and assessors). Future investigations must not omit important data such as eligibility criteria, whether the allocation was random, whether the subjects, therapists, and assessors were blind to the study hypotheses, or whether there was an intention-to-treat. Further research must establish the optimal frequency, duration, and intensity of BOI programs to lead to effective interventions. Overall, the first part of this systematic review showed that BOI might be an effective intervention to improve specific social-emotional competences in preschool children. However, knowing the effectiveness of which type of BOI on preschoolers' social-emotional competence is also of paramount importance. That is the aim of the second part of this systematic review.
Data Availability Statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.
Author Contributions
AD, JM, and GV contributed to the conception and design of the study. AD and GV selected the studies and extracted the data. AD and AC-F assessed independently the methodological quality and the level of scientific evidence of the studies. The third reviewer (JM) was consulted to resolve disagreements. AD wrote the first draft of the manuscript. GV supervised the study. All authors contributed to manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted version.
Funding
This work is funded by national funds through the Foundation for Science and Technology, under the project UIDP/04923/2020.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's Note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Achenbach, T. M., Ivanova, M. Y., Rescorla, L. A., Turner, L. V., and Althoff, R. R. (2016). Internalizing/externalizing problems: review and recommendations for clinical and research applications. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry. 55, 647–656. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2016.05.012
Adela, M., Mihaela, S., Elena-Adriana, T., and Monica, F. (2011). Evaluation of a program for developing socio-emotional competencies in preschool children. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 30, 2161–2164. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.419
Alzahrani, M., Alharbi, M., and Alodwani, A. (2019). The effect of social-emotional competence on children academic achievement and behavioral development. Int. Educ. Stud. 12, 141–149. doi: 10.5539/ies.v12n12p141
Anna, M., Glykeria-Erato, P., Aspasia, D., and Fotini, V. (2016). Effect of a psychomotor program on the motor proficiency and self-perceptions of preschool children. J. Phys. Educ. Sport. 16, 1365–1371. doi: 10.7752/jpes.2016.04218
Armijo-Olivo, S., Fuentes, J., da Costa, B. R., Saltaji, H., Ha, C., and Cummings, G. C. (2017). Blinding in physical therapy trials and its association with treatment effects: a meta-epidemiological study. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 96, 34–44. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000000521
Bauminger, N. (2002). The facilitation of social-emotional understanding and social interaction in high-functioning children with autism: intervention outcomes. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 32, 283–298. doi: 10.1023/A:1016378718278
Bellemans, T., Didden, R., Busschbach, J. T., Hoek, P., Scheffers, M., Lang, R., and Lindsay, W. R. (2017). Psychomotor therapy targeting anger and aggressive behaviour in individuals with mild or borderline intellectual disabilities: a systematic review. J. Intellect. Dev. Disabil. 44, 1–10. doi: 10.3109/13668250.2017.1326590
Biber, K. (2016). The effects of folk dance training on 5-6 years children's physical and social development. J. Educ. Train. Stud. 4, 213–226. doi: 10.11114/jets.v4i11.1820
Bistagani, M. G., and Najafi, F. M. (2017). Effectiveness of child-centered mindfulness on social skills and self-efficacy of children with learning disabilities. J. Soc. Behav. Commun. Health 1, 91–99.
Blake, P. R., and Rand, D. G. (2010). Currency value moderates equity preference among young children. Evol. Hum. Behav. 31, 210–218. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.06.012
Blewitt, C., Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M., Nolan, A., Bergmeier, H., Vicary, D., Huang, T., et al. (2018). Social and emotional learning associated with universal curriculum-based interventions in early childhood education and care centers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw. Open. 1:e185727. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.5727
Bryan, C. J., Master, A., and Walton, G. M. (2014). “Helping” versus “being a helper:” invoking the self to increase helping in young children. Child Dev. 85, 1836–1842. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12244
Bryant, B. K. (1982). An index of empathy for children and adolescents. Child Dev. 53, 413–425. doi: 10.2307/1128984
Bundy, A. C. (1997). “Play and playfulness: What to look for,” in Play in Occupational Therapy for Children, eds. Parham, L. D. and Fazio, L. S. (St. Louis, MO: Mosby), 56–62.
Cheng, Y., and Ray, D. C. (2016). Child-centered group play therapy: impact on social-emotional assets of kindergarten children. J. Spec. Group Work. 41, 209–237. doi: 10.1080/01933922.2016.1197350
Chinekesh, A., Kamalian, M., Eltemasi, M., Chinekesh, S., and Alavi, M. (2014). The effect of group play therapy on social-emotional skills in pre-school children. Glob. J. Health Sci. 6, 163–167. doi: 10.5539/gjhs.v6n2p163
Cole, P. M., Dennis, T. A., Smith-Simon, K. E., and Cohen, L. H. (2009). Preschoolers' emotion regulation strategy understanding: relations with emotion socialization and child self-regulation. Soc. Dev. 18, 324–352. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00503.x
Collaborative for Academic Social and Emotional Learning (2013). The 2013 CASEL Guide: Effective Social and Emotional Learning Programs-Preschool and Elementary School Edition. Chicago, IL: CASEL.
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (1995). Teacher—Social Competence Scale. Available online at: http://www.fasttrackproject.org (accessed December 17, 2020).
Cornell, C., Kiernan, N., Kaufman, D., Dobee, P., Frydenberg, E., and Deans, J. (2017). “Developing social emotional competence in the early years,” in Social and Emotional Learning in Australia and the Asia-Pacific: Perspectives, Programs and Approaches. ed. E. Frydenberg, A. Martin, and R. Collie (Springer Science and Business Media), 391–411.
Crozier, W. R., and Badawood, A. (2009). Shyness, vocabulary and children's reticence in saudi arabian preschools. Infant Child Dev. 18, 255–270. doi: 10.1002/icd.623
de Morton, N. A. (2009). The PEDro scale is a valid measure of the methodological quality of clinical trials: a demographic study. Aust. J. Physiother. 55, 129–133. doi: 10.1016/s0004-9514(09)70043-1
Deneault, J., Lefebvre, O., and Rousseau, C. (2020). Le jeu symbolique permet-il de se < < préparer à l'école>>? Les effets des ateliers d'expression Jeu dans le sable sur le développement d'enfants de 4 à 6 ans [Can symbolic play improve school readiness? Impact of sandplay expression workshops on the development of preschoolers]. Rev. Psychoeduc. 43, 299–321. doi: 10.7202/1061186ar
Denham, S. A. (2006). Social–emotional competence as support for school readiness: what is it and how do we assess it? Early Educ. Dev. 17, 57–89. doi: 10.1207/s15566935eed1701_4
Denham, S. A., Bassett, H. H., Thayer, S. K., Mincic, M. S., Sirotkin, Y. S., and Zinsser, K. (2012). Observing preschoolers' social-emotional behavior: structure, foundations, and prediction of early school success. J.Genet. Psychol. 173, 246–278. doi: 10.1080/00221325.2011.597457
Denham, S. A., Blair, K. A., DeMulder, E., Levitas, J., Sawyer, K., Auerbach-Major, S., et al. (2003). Preschool emotional competence: pathway to social competence? Child Dev. 74, 238–256. doi: 10.0009-3920/2003/7401-0017
Denham, S. A., Bouril, B., and Belouad, F. (1994). Preschoolers' affect and cognition about challenging peer situations. Child Study J. 24, 1–21.
Duman, G., and Ozkur, F. (2019). Analysing the embedded learning-based movement education program's effects on preschool children's visual-motor coordination and self-regulation. J. Educ. Learn. 8, 193–202. doi: 10.5539/jel.v8n5p193
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., and Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students' social and emotional learning: a meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Dev. 82, 405–432. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x
European Forum of Psychomotricity (2012). Research Methodology and the Different Types of Evidence in Psychomotor Development, Education and Therapy. Available online at: www.psychomotor.org (accessed February 14, 2020).
Fantuzzo, J., Mendez, J., and Tighe, E. (1998). Parental assessment of peer play: development and validation of the parent version of the Penn Interactive Peer Play Scale. Early Child. Res. Q. 13, 659–676. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2006(99)80066-0
Findlay, L. C., Girardi, A., and Coplan, R. J. (2006). Links between empathy, social behavior, and social understanding in early childhood. Early Child. Res. Q. 21, 347–359. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.07.009
Flook, L., Goldberg, S. B., Pinger, L., and Davidson, R. J. (2015). Promoting prosocial behavior and self-regulatory skills in preschool children through a mindfulness-based kindness curriculum. Dev. Psychol. 51, 44–51. doi: 10.1037/a0038256
Garon, N., Bryson, S. E., and Smith, I. M. (2008). Executive function in preschoolers: a review using an integrative framework. Psychol. Bull. 134, 31–60. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.31
Gartstein, M. A., Bridgett, D. J., and Low, C. M. (2012). “Asking questions about temperament: self- and other-report measures across the lifespan,” in Handbook of Temperament, eds. Zentner, M. and Shiner, R. L. (New York: The Guilford Press), 183–208.
Gerstadt, C. L., Hong, Y. J., and Diamond, A. (1994). The relationship between cognition and action: performance of children 3–7 years old on a Stroop-like Day-Night Test. Cognition. 53, 129–153. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(94)90068-x
Gibson, J. L., Cornell, M., and Gill, T. (2017). A systematic review of research into the impact of loose parts play on children's cognitive, social and emotional development. School Ment. Health. 9, 295–309. doi: 10.1007/s12310-017-9220-9
Goldstein, T. R., and Lerner, M. D. (2017). Dramatic pretend play games uniquely improve emotional control in young. Dev. Sci. 21:e12603. doi: 10.1111/desc.12603
Goodman, R. (2001). Psychometric properties of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry. 40, 1337–1345. doi: 10.1097/00004583-200111000-00015
Gresham, F. M., and Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social Skills Rating System. Cedar Pines: American Guidance Service.
Gruen, R. L., Esfand, S. M., and Kibbe, M. (2020). Altruistic self-regulation in young children. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 189:104700. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2019.104700
Hall, L., Hume, C., and Tazzyman, S. (2016). “Five degrees of happiness: effective Smiley Face Likert Scales for evaluating with children,” in Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (Manchester, UK: ACM), 311–321.
Hashemi, M., Roonasi, A., Saboonchi, R., and Salehian, M. H. (2012). Effects of selected physical activities on social skills among 3–6 years old children. Life Sci. J. 9, 4267–4271.
Hecksteden, A., Faude, O., Meyer, T., and Donath, L. (2018). How to construct, conduct and analyze an exercise training study? Front. Physiol. 9:1007. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2018.01007
Hirn, S. L., Thomas, J., and Zoelch, C. (2019). The role of empathy in the development of social competence: a study of German school leavers. Int. J. Adolesc. Youth. 24, 395–407. doi: 10.1080/02673843.2018.1548361
Karlsson, P., and Bergmark, A. (2014). Compared with what? An analysis of control-group types in Cochrane and Campbell reviews of psychosocial treatment efficacy with substance use disorders. Addiction. 110, 420–428. doi: 10.1111/add.12799
Koomen, R., Grueneisen, S., and Herrmann, E. (2020). Children delay gratification for cooperative ends. Psychol. Sci. 31, 139–148. doi: 10.1177/0956797619894205
Korkman, M., Kirk, U., and Kemp, S. (2012). Bilan neuropsychologique de l'enfant, Seconde Edition: NEPSY II [Neuropsychological Assessment of the Child, Second Edittion: NEPSY II]. Paris: Les Éditions du Centre de Psychologie Appliquée.
LaFreniere, P. J., and Dumas, J. E. (1995). Social Competence and Behavior Evaluation: Preschool Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
Lee, R. L., Lane, S. J., Tang, A. C., Leung, C., Louie, L. H., Bowne, G., et al. (2020). Effects of an unstructured free play and mindfulness intervention on wellbeing in kindergarten students. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 17:5382. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17155382
Li, H. C., and Lopez, V. (2005). Children's Emotional Manifestation Scale: development and testing. J. Clin. Nurs. 14, 223–229. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2004.01031.x
Liu, M., Wu, L., and Ming, Q. (2015). How does physical activity intervention improve self-esteem and self-concept in children and adolescents? Evidence from a meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE. 10:e0134804. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0134804
Lobo, Y. B., and Winsler, A. (2006). The effects of a creative dance and movement program on the social competence of head start preschoolers. Soc. Dev. 15, 501–519. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2006.00353.x
Lochman, J. E., Boxmeyer, C., Powell, N., Roth, D. L., and Windle, M. (2006). Masked intervention effects: analytic methods for addressing low dosage of intervention. New Dir. Eval. 110, 19–32. doi: 10.1002/ev.184
López-Pérez, B., Gummerum, M., Wilson, E., and Dellaria, G. (2017). Studying children's intrapersonal emotion regulation strategies from the process model of emotion regulation. J. Genet. Psychol. 178, 73–88. doi: 10.1080/00221325.2016.1230085
Loukatari, P., Matsouka, O., Papadimitriou, K., Nani, S., and Grammatikopoulos, V. (2019). The effect of a structured playfulness program on social skills in kindergarten children. Int. J. Instruc. 12, 237–252. doi: 10.29333/iji.2019.12315a
Luo, L., Reichow, B., Snyder, P., Harrington, J., and Polignano, J. (2020). Systematic review and meta-analysis of classroom-wide social–emotional interventions for preschool children. Topics Early Child. Spec. Educ. 0, 1–16. doi: 10.1177/0271121420935579
Martins, E., Cordovil, R., Oliveira, R., Letras, S., Lourenço, S., Pereira, I., et al. (2016). Efficacy of suit therapy on functioning in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 58, 1–13. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.12988
Martinsen, K. D., Rasmussen, L. P., Wentzel-Larsen, T., Holen, S., Sund, A. H., Pedersen, M. L., et al. (2021). Change in quality of life and self-esteem in a randomized controlled CBT study for anxious and sad children: can targeting anxious and depressive symptoms improve functional domains in school children? BMC Psychol. 9:8. doi: 10.1186/s40359-021-00511-y
Mayo-Wilson, E., Fusco, N., Li, T., Hong, H., Canner, J. K., and Dickersin, K. (2017). Multiple outcomes and analyses in clinical trials create challenges for interpretation and research synthesis. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 86, 39–50. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.007
Mehling, W. E., Wrubel, J., Daubenmier, J. J., Price, C. J., Kerr, C. E., Silow, T., et al. (2011). Body awareness: a phenomenological inquiry into the common ground of mind-body therapies. Philos. Ethics Humanit. Med. 6:6. doi: 10.1186/1747-5341-6-6
Merrell, K. W. (2011). Social Emotional Assets and Resilience Scales: Professional Manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Miller, A. R., Johnston, C., Klassen, A. F., Fine, S., and Papsdorf, M. (2005). Family physicians' involvement and self-reported comfort and skill in care of children with behavioral and emotional problems: a population-based survey. BMC Fam. Pract. 6:12. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-6-12
Mischel, W., and Ebbesen, E. B. (1970). Attention in delay of gratification. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 16, 329–337. doi: 10.1037/h0029815
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., and Alktman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 6:e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed1000097
Murray, J., Scott, H., Connolly, C., and Wells, A. (2018). The attention training technique improves children's ability to delay gratification: a controlled comparison with progressive relaxation. Behav. Res. Ther. 104, 1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2018.02.003
Nader-Grosbois, N., and Mazzone, S. (2015). Validation de la version francophone de l'Emotion Regulation Checklist (ERC-vf) [Validation of the French version of the Emotion Regulation Checklist (ERC-vf)]. Eur. Rev. Appl. Psychol. 65, 29–41. doi: 10.1016/j.erap.2014.10.002
Oerlemans, A. M., van der Meer, J. M., van Steijn, D. J., de Ruiter, S. W., de Bruijn, Y. G., de Sonneville, L. M., et al. (2014). Recognition of facial emotion and affective prosody in children with ASD (+ADHD) and their unaffected siblings. Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry. 23, 257–271. doi: 10.1007/s00787-013-0446-2
Omeroglu, E., Buyukozturk, S., Aydogan, Y., Cakan, M., Kilic Cakmak, E., Ozyurek, A., et al. (2015). Determination and Interpretation of the norm values of PreSchool Social Skills Rating Teacher Form. Educ. Sci. Theory Pract. 15, 1–16. doi: 10.12738/estp.2015.4.2514
Omeroglu, E., and Kandir, A. (2005). Bilişsel Gelişim [Cognitive Development]. Istanbul: Morpa Yayinlari.
Ortega, R., Romera, E. M., and Monks, C. P. (2009). The impact of group activities on social relations in an early education setting in Spain. Eur. Early Child. Educ. Res. J. 17, 343–361. doi: 10.1080/13502930903101545
Osiński, J., Karbowski, A., and Rusek, J. (2017). The relationship between self-control and altruism in the light of discounting literature. Polish Psychol. Bull. 48, 433–439. doi: 10.1515/ppb-2017-0049
Ozyurek, A., Ozkan, I., Begde, Z., and Yavuz, N. F. (2015). Effects of physical training on social skill levels of preschool children. J. Sports Sci. 3, 282–289. doi: 10.17265/2332-7839/2015.06.003
Park, C. (2013). Mind-body CAM Interventions: current status and considerations for integration into clinical health psychology. J. Clin. Psychol. 69, 45–63. doi: 10.1002/jclp.21910
Pastora-Bernal, J. M., Martín-Valero, R., Barón-López, F. J., and Estebanez-Pérez, M. J. (2017). Evidence of benefit of telerehabitation after orthopedic surgery: a systematic review. J. Med. Internet Res. 19:e142. doi: 10.2196/jmir.6836
Paulus, M., and Leitherer, M. (2017). Preschoolers' social experiences and empathy-based responding relate to their fair resource allocation. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 161, 202–210. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2017.03.005
Ponitz, C. C., McClelland, M. M., Matthews, J. S., and Morrison, F. J. (2009). A structured observation of behavioral self-regulation and its contribution to kindergarten outcomes. Dev. Psychol. 3, 605–619. doi: 10.1037/a0015365
Prencipe, A., and Zelazo, P. D. (2005). Development of affective decision making for self and other: evidence for the integration of first- and third-person perspectives. Psychol. Sci. 16, 501–505. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01564.x
Probst, M., Knapen, J., Poot, G., and Vancampfort, D. (2010). Psychomotor therapy and psychiatry: what's in a name? Open Complement. Med. J. 2, 105–113. doi: 10.2174/1876391X010020010105
Ramani, G. B., and Brownell, C. A. (2014). Preschoolers' cooperative problem solving: integrating play and problem solving. J. Early Child. Res. 12, 92–108. doi: 10.1177/1476718X13498337
Renjith, V. (2017). Blinding in randomized controlled trials: what researchers need to know? Manipal J. Nurs. Health Sci. 3, 45–50.
Richard, S., Gay, P., Clerc-Georgy, A., and Gentaz, E. (2019). Évaluation d'un entraînement base sur le jeu faire semblant destine à favoriser le développement des compétences socio-émotionnelles ches les enfants de cinq ans: étude exploratoire [Evaluation of a training based on pretend play designed to promote the development of socio-emotional competence in 5-year-olds: exploratory study]. L'année Psychol. 119, 291–332. doi: 10.3917/anpsy1.193.0291
Rieffe, C., Netten, A. P., Broekhof, E., and Veiga, G. (2015). “The role of the environment in children's emotion socialization: the case of deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) children,” in Educating Deaf Students: Creating a Global Evidence Base, ed. M. Marschark and H. Knoors. (New York: Oxford University Press). doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190215194.003.0016
Robins, C. J., Keng, S., Ekblad, A. G., and Brantley, J. G. (2012). Effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction on emotional experience and expression: a randomized controlled trial. J. Clin. Psychol. 68, 117–131. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20857
Robinson, L. E., Palmer, K. K., and Bub, K. L. (2016). Effect of the children's health activity motor program on motor skills and self-regulation in head start preschoolers: an efficacy trial. Front. Public Health. 4, 1–9. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00173
Röhricht, F. (2009). Body oriented psychotherapy. The state of the art in empirical research and evidence-based practice: a clinical perspective. Body Mov. Dance Psychother. 4, 135–156. doi: 10.1080/17432970902857263
Romero-López, M., Pichardo, M. C., Bembibre-Serrano, J., and García-Berbén, T. (2020). Promoting social competence in preschool with an executive functions program conducted by teachers. Sustainability 12:4408. doi: 10.3390/su12114408
Ryalls, B. O., Harbourne, R., Kelly-Vance, L., Wickstrom, J., Stergiou, N., and Kyvelidou, A. (2016). A perceptual motor intervention improves play behavior in children with moderate to severe cerebral palsy. Front. Psychol. 7:643. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00643
Saldanha, I. J., Lindsley, K. B., Money, S., Kimmel, H. J., Smith, B. T., and Dickersin, K. (2020). Outcome choice and definition in systematic reviews leads to few eligible studies included in meta-analyses: a case study. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 20:30. doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-0898-2
Schoon, I. (2021). Towards an integrative taxonomy of social-emotional competences. Front. Psychol. 12:515313. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.515313
Sezgin, E. (2016). An Investigation of the Effect Of play-Based Education on Behavioral Self-Regulation Skills of Children. Doctoral thesis. Ankara (TR): Gazi Üniversitesi.
Silva, A., Serrão, P. R., Driusso, P., and Mattiello, S. M. (2012). The effects of therapeutic exercise on the balance of women with knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Rev. Bras. Fisioter. 16, 1–9. doi: 10.1590/S1413-35552012000100002
Slavin, R. E. (1986). Best-evidence synthesis: an alternative to meta-analytic and traditional reviews. Educ. Res. 15, 5–11. doi: 10.3102/0013189X015009005
Smith-Donald, R., Raver, C. C., Hayes, T., and Richardson, B. (2007). Preliminary construct and concurrent validity of the Preschool Self-regulation Assessment (PSRA) for field-based research. Early Child. Res. Q. 22, 173–187. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.01.002
Solomon, T., Plamondon, A., O'Hara, A., Finch, H., Goco, G., Chaban, P., et al. (2018). A cluster randomized-controlled trial of the impact of the tools of the mind curriculum on self-regulation in canadian preschoolers. Front. Psychol. 8:2366. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02366
Tersi, M., and Matsouka, O. (2020). Improving social skills through structured playfulness program in preschool children. Int. J. Instruc. 13, 259–274. doi: 10.29333/iji.2020.13318a
Theurel, A., and Gentaz, É. (2015). Entraîner les compétences émotionnelles à l'école [The training of emotional competences in school]. App. Neuropsychol. Apprent. chez l'enfant. 139, 545–555.
Theurel, A., Witt, A., Malsert, J., Lejeune, F., Fiorentini, C., Barisnikov, K., et al. (2016). The integration of visual context information in facial emotion recognition in 5- to 15-year-olds. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 150, 252–271. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2016.06.004
Twito, L., Israel, S., Simonson, I., and Knafo-Noam, A. (2019). The motivational aspect of children's delayed gratification: values and decision making in middle childhood. Front. Psychol. 10:1649. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01649
Van Tulder, M. W., Koes, B. W., and Bouter, L. M. (1997). Conservative treatment of acute and chronic nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials of the most common interventions. Spine. 22, 2128–2156. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199709150-00012
Verhagen, A. P., de Vet, H. C., de Bie, R. A., Kessels, A. G., Boers, M., Bouter, L. M., et al. (1998). The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 51, 1235–1241. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00131-0
Wahbeh, H., Elsas, S., and Oken, B. S. (2008). Mind-body interventions: applications in neurology. Neurology. 70, 2321–2328. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000314667.16386.5e
Waters, L., Barsky, A., Ridd, A., and Allen, K. (2015). Contemplative education: a systematic, evidence-based review of the effect of meditation interventions in schools. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 27, 103–134. doi: 10.1007/s10648-014-9258-2
Wellman, H. M., and Liu, D. (2004). Scaling of theory-of-mind tasks. Child Dev. 75, 523–541. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00691.x
White, L. S. (2012). Reducing stress in school-age girls through mindful yoga. J. Pediatr. Health Care. 26, 45–56. doi: 10.1016/j.pedhc.2011.01.002
Willner, C. J., Gatzke-Kopp, L. M., and Bray, B. C. (2016). The dynamics of internalizing and externalizing comorbidity across the early school years. Dev. Psychopathol. 28, 1033–1052. doi: 10.1017/S0954579416000687
Yang, W., Datu, J. A., Lin, X., Lau, M. M., and Li, H. (2019). Can early childhood curriculum enhance social-emotional competence in low-income children? A meta-analysis of the educational effects. Early Educ. Dev. 30, 36–59. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2018.1539557
Yazejian, N., Bryant, D., Freel, K., Burchinal, M., and Educare Learning Network (ELN) Investigative Team. (2015). High-quality early education: age of entry and time in care differences in student outcomes for english-only and dual language learners. Early Child. Res. Q. 32, 23–39. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.02.002
Zelazo, P. D., Anderson, J. E., Richler, J., Wallner-Allen, K., Beaumont, J. L., and Weintraub, S. (2013). II. NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (CB): measuring executive function and attention. Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Dev. 78, 16–33. doi: 10.1111/mono.12032
Keywords: play, relaxation, preschool education, children, body-mind, social-emotional development
Citation: Dias Rodrigues A, Cruz-Ferreira A, Marmeleira J and Veiga G (2022) Effects of Body-Oriented Interventions on Preschoolers' Social-Emotional Competence: A Systematic Review. Front. Psychol. 12:752930. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.752930
Received: 03 August 2021; Accepted: 21 December 2021;
Published: 14 January 2022.
Edited by:
Marco Carotenuto, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, ItalyReviewed by:
Isabel Piñeiro, University of A Coruña, SpainSpyridoula Vazou, Iowa State University, United States
Copyright © 2022 Dias Rodrigues, Cruz-Ferreira, Marmeleira and Veiga. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Andreia Dias Rodrigues, andreia.s.rodri@gmail.com