Comparative effects of physical education teaching models on motor skill development in school-aged children and adolescents: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
- 1College of Physical Education, Chengdu University, Chengdu, China.
- 2Department of Sports Science, Hanyang University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
- 3College of Sports, Sejong University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
Background
Motor skill development is a central objective of school physical education, yet the comparative effectiveness of teaching models remains unclear.Objective
This systematic review and network meta-analysis compared physical education teaching models for motor skill development in school-aged children and adolescents.Methods
Records were identified from Scopus (n = 300), Web of Science (n = 41), OpenAlex (n = 63), and PubMed (n = 33). After removal of 42 duplicates, 395 records were screened, 65 full texts were assessed, and 21 studies were retained in the systematic review. Thirteen studies contributed to the under-18 primary network restricted to school-based physical motor execution or sport-specific performance outcomes; 19 contributed to a broader sensitivity network. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261417609). Random-effects models estimated standardized mean differences (SMD) relative to Control and P-score rankings.Results
The primary network contained nine treatment nodes. Hybrid Teaching Games for Understanding-Sport Education (TGfU-SE), Nonlinear pedagogy, and Functional games showed the most favorable relative effect estimates in the primary network. However, the treatment ordering was sensitive to outcome definition, participant age, and individual studies, while substantial heterogeneity, network inconsistency, sparse comparisons, and risk of bias remained. In the broad sensitivity network, Cooperative had the highest P-score and estimated effect only while the single Akil visual-motor integration study was included; the node disappeared when that study was removed.Conclusion
Restricting the primary network to participants younger than 18 years improved population and outcome comparability and reduced heterogeneity, but significant inconsistency, sparse comparisons, and risk of bias preclude a definitive hierarchy. The P-score ordering should therefore be interpreted as a set of conditional effect estimates rather than proof that one teaching model is universally superior. In practice, physical education teachers should select and implement structured teaching models according to student age, learning objectives, sport content, and teaching context.Systematic review registration
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261417609, identifier PROSPERO (CRD420261417609).
Related
- School-based mindfulness interventions in children and adolescents: an umbrella review of systematic reviews, with implications for physical education
- Combined nutrition and physical activity education for early adolescents with malnutrition: A systematic review of overweight interventions and the undernutrition evidence gap
- Development and validation of a health education e-book on scoliosis for adolescents.
- Effects of an eight-week mindfulness-informed psychoeducational intervention delivered during physical education lessons on self-reported aggression and impulsivity in adolescents
- Comparative effectiveness of exercise and self-management interventions delivered through different modes of digital support on pain and patient-reported physical function in people with knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
BibTeX
@article{tian2026comparative,
title = {{Comparative effects of physical education teaching models on motor skill development in school-aged children and adolescents: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.}},
author = {Qi Tian and Yaowen Liu and Ziyu Wang and Gang Qin},
journal = {Frontiers in public health},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3389/fpubh.2026.1905122},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42903190},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Comparative effects of physical education teaching models on motor skill development in school-aged children and adolescents: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
AU - Qi Tian
AU - Yaowen Liu
AU - Ziyu Wang
AU - Gang Qin
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/06
JO - Frontiers in public health
DO - 10.3389/fpubh.2026.1905122
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42903190
AB - Background Motor skill development is a central objective of school physical education, yet the comparative effectiveness of teaching models remains unclear.Objective This systematic review and network meta-analysis compared physical education teaching models for motor skill development in school-aged children and adolescents.Methods Records were identified from Scopus (n = 300), Web of Science (n = 41), OpenAlex (n = 63), and PubMed (n = 33). After removal of 42 duplicates, 395 records were screened, 65 full texts were assessed, and 21 studies were retained in the systematic review. Thirteen studies contributed to the under-18 primary network restricted to school-based physical motor execution or sport-specific performance outcomes; 19 contributed to a broader sensitivity network. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261417609). Random-effects models estimated standardized mean differences (SMD) relative to Control and P-score rankings.Results The primary network contained nine treatment nodes. Hybrid Teaching Games for Understanding-Sport Education (TGfU-SE), Nonlinear pedagogy, and Functional games showed the most favorable relative effect estimates in the primary network. However, the treatment ordering was sensitive to outcome definition, participant age, and individual studies, while substantial heterogeneity, network inconsistency, sparse comparisons, and risk of bias remained. In the broad sensitivity network, Cooperative had the highest P-score and estimated effect only while the single Akil visual-motor integration study was included; the node disappeared when that study was removed.Conclusion Restricting the primary network to participants younger than 18 years improved population and outcome comparability and reduced heterogeneity, but significant inconsistency, sparse comparisons, and risk of bias preclude a definitive hierarchy. The P-score ordering should therefore be interpreted as a set of conditional effect estimates rather than proof that one teaching model is universally superior. In practice, physical education teachers should select and implement structured teaching models according to student age, learning objectives, sport content, and teaching context.Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261417609, identifier PROSPERO (CRD420261417609).
SN - 2296-2565
ER -