Meta-analysis finds selective physical-activity benefits in children aged 6–12

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials found that physical-activity interventions produced statistically significant improvements in selected measures of executive function and academic performance among children aged 6–12. Mathematics performance showed the most stable benefit, while improvements in inhibitory-control reaction time and working-memory span were less certain under conservative sensitivity analyses. No significant effects were detected for several other tested outcomes, and the certainty of evidence across the meta-analyzed results was low to very low.

Researchers searched MEDLINE through PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library and APA PsycInfo for randomized controlled trials published from January 1, 2006, through June 11, 2026. The review examined three components of executive function—inhibitory control, working memory and cognitive flexibility—and academic performance in language and mathematics. Thirty-one studies met the systematic-review criteria, of which 18 were eligible for quantitative meta-analysis.

The methodological quality of the included studies ranged from fair to good. For the pooled analysis, the team applied a DerSimonian–Laird random-effects model in Stata 18.0. Results were reported as standardized mean differences with 95% confidence intervals, and statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Heterogeneity was assessed using I². The researchers also conducted Hartung–Knapp-adjusted sensitivity analyses, leave-one-out analyses, publication-bias assessments, subgroup analyses and exploratory univariable meta-regression analyses where appropriate. The meta-analysis identified a significant improvement in inhibitory-control reaction time following physical-activity interventions, with a standardized mean difference of −0.55, a 95% confidence interval of −0.89 to −0.22, and p = 0.001.

Working-memory span also improved, with a standardized mean difference of 1.66, a 95% confidence interval of 1.00 to 2.46, and p = 0.001. These results did not extend to all dimensions of the measured executive functions: inhibitory-control accuracy, working-memory accuracy, working-memory reaction time and cognitive flexibility did not show statistically significant effects. Because the evidence came from randomized interventions, the pooled differences concerned outcomes reported after physical-activity programs rather than observational associations alone.

Mathematics performance produced a statistically significant improvement with a standardized mean difference of 0.94, a 95% confidence interval of 0.57 to 1.30, and p = 0.001. Hartung–Knapp-adjusted sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of this mathematics result. In contrast, the effects on inhibitory-control reaction time and working-memory span were less stable under the more conservative model, showing that those estimates were more sensitive to the statistical approach.

Language performance did not show a statistically significant effect. The pattern therefore supports selective rather than uniform benefits across the executive-function and academic outcomes assessed. Despite the significant pooled results, the authors cautioned that the certainty of evidence was low to very low for the meta-analyzed outcomes.

The main limitations were risk of bias, substantial heterogeneity, imprecision and potential publication bias. The review also notes that subgroup analyses and exploratory univariable meta-regressions were performed where appropriate, but the supplied abstract does not report which intervention characteristics accounted for variation among studies. Overall, the analysis indicates that physical activity may offer measurable benefits for particular capacities in school-age children, with mathematics-related performance having the strongest supporting evidence.

The apparent improvements in inhibitory-control speed and working-memory span are more tentative because they were less stable in conservative sensitivity analyses. The study does not establish broad gains across executive function, language performance or all academic skills; instead, it points to a differentiated pattern of outcomes, alongside substantial uncertainty that limits the precision of the pooled estimates.

Subject of Research: Effects of physical activity on executive-function components and academic performance in children aged 6–12

Article Title: Effects of physical activity on executive function components and academic performance in children aged 6–12 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Article References: Qiu, P., Zhou, T., Wu, J., Liu, Y., Guo, X., & Wang, H. (2026). Effects of physical activity on executive function components and academic performance in children aged 6–12 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Public Health. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-026-29845-1

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12889-026-29845-1

Keywords: physical activity, children aged 6–12, executive function, academic performance, mathematics, working memory, inhibitory control, randomized trials, systematic review, meta-analysis, Effects, physical