MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2787567670

Should preschoolers participate in organized sport? A systematic review of psychosocial outcomes of young children's sport participation

2017· review· en· W2787567670 on OpenAlexaffabout
Meghan Harlow, Lauren Wolman, Jessica Fraser‐Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Exercise, Movement, and Sport (SCAPPS refereed abstracts repository) · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPsychosocialContext (archaeology)Developmental psychologyApplied psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Organized sport is being offered to children at increasingly younger ages, with many programs now geared towards preschoolers, toddlers, and even infants (AAP, 2001). While sport is promoted as an amendable context to advance the healthy development of school-age children (CA´tA© & Fraser-Thomas, 2016; Holt et al., 2017), little is empirically known about the potential benefits or risks associated with organized sport participation in early childhood. A systematic review of nine electronic databases was conducted to identify English-language, peer-reviewed, original research articles which address psychological, social, and cognitive developmental outcomes of organized sport involvement of children between 2 and 5 years of age. Studies included in the review were appraised for quality. Results suggest only limited research has been conducted in this area, with all study designs including parent or teacher proxy-report or assessment. Findings of these studies offer some evidence that early sport participation is related to positive outcomes such as self-regulation, pro-social behavior, social cooperation, and classroom engagement. This review reinforces the notion that little is known about preschooler organized sport participation as a distinct form of physical activity, despite the pervasive availability of preschooler organized sport programming, and positive parental perceptions of early sport enrollment (Nonis, 2015). Additional research with stronger methodological design and rigor is needed; it is suggested that a greater understanding of this context could be gleaned through interview and observational data collection techniques. Further recommendations to enhance the quality of future studies with young children in sport are discussed.Acknowledgments: This work was supported by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada under Grant #435-2016-1630

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.007
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Exercise, Movement, and Sport (SCAPPS refereed abstracts repository)Same topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207