Effects of storytelling-based motor interventions: a systematic review

Background Early childhood represents a critical period for motor, cognitive and language development. Storytelling-based motor interventions integrate narrative with physical movement and have potential to support children’s development across these domains. However, evidence of their effects is fragmented and not systematically synthesised.Purpose This systematic review examined the effects of storytelling-based motor interventions on children’s motor competence, cognitive, language, psychosocial and physical fitness outcomes. It also considered the main characteristics of storytelling-based motor interventions.Method Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, four databases were searched from inception to October 2025. Peer-reviewed studies were appraised as eligible if they evaluated a structured, multi-session storytelling-based motor intervention in children, used a pre–post design with a comparison group and reported quantitative outcomes. Findings were synthesised narratively.Findings Fifteen studies involving 896 children aged 2–8 met the eligibility criteria: six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and nine quasi-experimental design (QED) studies. The most consistent evidence concerned motor outcomes: storytelling-based interventions generally produced greater improvements than comparison conditions in motor competence, locomotor and object control skills and aquatic competence. Several studies also reported benefits for physical fitness and language, executive function and self-regulation, and favourable psychosocial outcomes, including greater enjoyment, self-efficacy and participation and lower anxiety. However, these outcomes were examined less frequently, and findings were not uniformly positive.Conclusion Storytelling-based motor interventions show promise as a flexible educational strategy for supporting multiple areas of child development, particularly motor competence, although heterogeneity and variable methodological quality limit the strength of the conclusions. Future research should use adequately powered RCTs, standardised outcomes and longer follow-up periods.