Cited by 240Physical Activity and HealthChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentPhysical Education and Training Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 130 of the 130 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 28 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Effects of physical activity interventions on cognitive outcomes and academic performance in adolescents and young adults: A meta-analysis

Open access
Haverkamp, Barbara Franca, Wiersma, Rikstje, Vertessen, Karen, van Ewijk, Hanneke, Oosterlaan, Jaap, Hartman, Esther·2020·Journal of Sports Sciences

Abstract

The aim was to provide a meta-analysis of studies investigating the effects of physical activity interventions on cognitive outcomes and academic performance in adolescents or young adults. A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed using the following databases: Embase, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Web of Science. Studies had to meet the following criteria: controlled study design, investigating the effects of physical activity interventions on cognitive outcomes and academic performance in healthy adolescents or young adults (12–30 years). Results showed that acute interventions (n=44) significantly improved processing speed (ES=0.39), attention (ES=0.34) and, inhibition (ES=0.32). In a subsequent meta-regression, shorter duration of intervention was significantly associated with greater improvements in attention (β=−0.02) and cognitive flexibility (β=−0.04), whereas age, percentage of boys, intensity and dose were not. Chronic interventions (n=27) significantly improved processing speed (ES=0.30), attention (ES=0.50), cognitive flexibility (ES=0.19), working memory (ES=0.59) and language skills (ES=0.31). In the meta-regression, higher percentage of boys was significantly associated with greater improvements in attention (β=0.02) and working memory (β=0.01) whereas age, duration, frequency, dose and load were not. In conclusion, acute and chronic physical activity interventions might be a promising way to improve several cognitive outcomes and language skills in adolescents and young adults.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This meta-analysis found that acute and chronic physical activity interventions can improve several cognitive outcomes in adolescents and young adults, with chronic interventions also improving language skills. Chronic interventions showed broader and generally larger effects than acute interventions, but heterogeneity and possible publication bias warrant caution.

Key findings

  • Acute interventions (44 studies, k = 91) significantly improved overall cognitive outcomes (Hedges’ g = 0.31, 95% CI 0.22–0.41), including processing speed (g = 0.39), attention (g = 0.34), and inhibition (g = 0.32); effects were not significant for cognitive flexibility (g = 0.37, 95% CI −0.00–0.75) or working memory (g = 0.14, 95% CI −0.11–0.39).
  • Chronic interventions (27 studies; cognitive k = 52, academic k = 15) significantly improved overall cognitive outcomes (g = 0.36, 95% CI 0.25–0.47), including processing speed (g = 0.30), attention (g = 0.50), cognitive flexibility (g = 0.19), working memory (g = 0.59), and language (g = 0.31); effects were not significant for GPA (g = 0.20) or mathematics (g = 0.31).
  • In acute interventions, shorter duration was associated with greater improvements in attention (β = −0.021) and cognitive flexibility (β = −0.036); in chronic interventions, higher percentage of boys was associated with greater improvements in attention (β = 0.02) and working memory (β = 0.01).
  • Publication bias was indicated for chronic cognitive outcomes (Egger’s p = 0.007), but not for acute outcomes (p = 0.653) or chronic academic performance (p = 0.926).

Methods

  • Systematic review and meta-analysis registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019122030) and conducted per PRISMA; databases searched were Embase, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science through 27 March 2020.
  • Included controlled studies (RCT or cross-over; baseline adjustment required if non-randomized) of physical activity interventions with a sports or exercise component in healthy participants with mean age 12–30 years, reporting cognitive or academic outcomes; excluded special populations, reviews, and combined interventions.
  • Seventy-one papers were eligible: 44 acute studies (k = 91) and 27 chronic studies (k = 52 cognitive, k = 15 academic), including 3544 adolescents and 2397 young adults; random-effects Hedges’ g, heterogeneity, moderator/meta-regression, Cochrane risk of bias, and Egger/funnel publication bias analyses were used.

Limitations

  • Stated by the paper: not all subgroup and meta-regression analyses could be performed due to small numbers of studies; chronic total load and fitness improvement could not be analyzed because most studies did not report intensity; publication bias was possible for chronic cognitive outcomes; and cognitive outcomes were measured with a wide variety of instruments, which may have contributed to heterogeneity.
  • Evident from the text: heterogeneity was large or moderate in many analyses (e.g., acute cognitive outcomes I² = 64.9%; chronic cognitive outcomes I² = 62.1%), so findings should be interpreted cautiously.
  • Evident from the text: academic performance was only assessed in adolescents, not young adults, and the oldest mean age for academic outcomes was 15.3 years, limiting generalization; risk of bias was high or unclear in many domains (e.g., allocation concealment 65.8% high risk, blinding of researchers/personnel 91.8%/97.3% high risk, detection bias 84.9% high risk).

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02640414.2020.1794763

Cites

130 of 130 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

50 Own result · 30 Own method · 23 Not checked yet · 20 Own interpretation · 11 No basis given

Verify all 28 references — free account

Show all 67 claims

  • The quote only partly states this claim. 9
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 34
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 35
67 of 67
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    In particular these characteristics of exercises challenge the motor-cognition network and this might explain the different results found in working memory.

    “We assume that in particular these characteristics of exercises chal­ lenge the motor-cognition network and this might explain the different results found in working memory.”
1 of 1

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

3 of 3

Citations

Cites

Show all 129 references

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. 10.1016/j.physbeh.2011.06.005 · DOI
  2. Northey J. M., 2017, British Journal of Sports Medicine
  3. Pinto-Escalona T., 2019, Apunts: Educació Física I Esports, 138
  4. Sperlich B., 2018, Frontiers in Physiology, 9
  5. Subramanian S. K., 2015, Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research: JCDR, 9, CC04
  6. Tamnes C. K., 2017, Journal of Neuroscience, 3302
  7. Verburgh L., 2013, British Journal of Sports Medicine, 091441
  8. Whyte E. F., 2014, Journal of Sport Rehabilitation, 24, 4), 1-5
  9. Xue Y., 2019, British Journal of Sports Medicine, 099825

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Haverkamp, B. F., Wiersma, R., Vertessen, K., van Ewijk, H., Oosterlaan, J., & Hartman, E.
Affiliations
  • University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
  • Curium-LUMC, Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Leiden University Medical Center, Oegstgeest, The Netherlands
  • Emma Kinderziekenhuis (NL)
Corresponding author
Haverkamp, Barbara Franca
Venue
Journal of Sports Sciences
Published
2020-08-12
Volume
38
Issue
23
Pages
2637-2660
ISSN
  • 0264-0414 (ISSN-L)
  • 1466-447X
OpenAlex
W3048761467
Cited by
238
References
129
Citations by year
2026: 40 · 2025: 62 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 4
FWCI
2.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Sports Sciences (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Nationaal Regieorgaan Onderwijsonderzoek (405-16-411)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Physical Activity and Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Children's Physical and Motor Development
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Physical Education and Training Studies
Keywords
physical activity interventions, cognitive outcomes, academic performance, adolescents, young adults, processing speed, attention, inhibition, cognitive flexibility, working memory, language skills, sex differences
MeSH terms
Academic Performance, Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Cognition, Humans, Language, Memory, Short-Term, Exercise, Young Adult, Executive Function

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review