S1 Systematic Review Methodology Parenting Influences on Executive Function
Children (Basel). 2021 May; viii(v): 389.
A Systematic Review of Father–Child Play Interactions and the Impacts on Child Development
Received 2021 April xviii; Accepted 2021 May 10.
Abstract
Father–child play date has been linked to a variety of kid developmental outcomes. Yet, the nearly prevalent types of play and kid developmental outcomes utilised in enquiry remains unclear. The aim of this report was to systematically review the literature on male parent–child play interactions and the association with child developmental outcomes for children anile 0–10 years. Database searches generated 1622 abstracts that matched the specified search criteria. Abstract screening and full-text review resulted in 39 included publications. The systematic review revealed that while some paternal play behaviours resulted in dissimilar impacts across play types, others reported like impacts. The findings of this review have implications for potential interventions and parenting resources.
Keywords: parenting, child development, systematic review, cognition, behaviour, emotion, social, father, child, dyads
1. Introduction
From nascency, children engage in playful social interactions with their caregivers [i]. Play interactions are typically reciprocal in nature and are based around the idea that parents and their children can work together to seek shared goals [2]. These interactions let parents to positively foster their children's cultural learning [3] and provide an avenue for young children to proceeds a variety of cognitive, emotional, social and behavioural skills [four].
Compared to mother–child interactions, play is more than characteristic of the father–child relationship in Western cultures [iv]. It has been suggested that fathers spend a greater portion of their time playing with their children than doing any other activity [5]. While both mothers and fathers engage in play with their children [6,7], past inquiry has primarily focussed on maternal influences on child development [8], with only 1-third of parent–child play interaction inquiry existence conducted with fathers [four]. However, in contempo decades, the social motion of involved fatherhood has stimulated a enquiry focus on fathers [9,10]. This has led to an increase in the body of evidence examining the paternal contributions, detail through play, to child development [11,12,13].
Fathers play more often while engaging in caregiving tasks, than do mothers, and their play tends to exist more concrete, spontaneous and playful [4,xiv]. Through these challenging play interactions, fathers are able to provide new experiences to their child that mothers might avert every bit unsafe (due to differences in parental perceptions of crude-play), while serving as a familiar and safe companion [xv,sixteen]. Due to these differences in how parents engage with their children through play, it is unsurprising that enquiry has documented that father–kid play makes unique contributions to development, compared with mother–child play interactions [10,17]. These contributions differ particularly in the areas of academic achievement, behavioural and emotional regulation, and cerebral development [xviii,19].
Although the effects of father–kid play interactions seem to be additive, in that both parents make independent contributions to their child's development [4], there is all the same much to acquire about the specific features of the father–child relationship during play that near strongly impact upon child development. Furthermore, as society pushes for fathers to be more involved in their kid'south life [20], a broader knowledge base of operations well-nigh the psychological resources a father tin can provide their children will let for the facilitation and optimisation of male parent–kid involvement [21].
There are few systematic reviews that take focussed on father–child play. A recent study explored the frequency of play [22], while other research focussed on involvement [23] or chose to focus on a specific play type (i.e., rough-and-tumble play) [24]. However, there has even so to be a systematic review that adopts a broad perspective on the impacts of different kinds of play on child developmental outcomes. By broadening this approach, we stand to gain a more complete picture of the role that father–kid play has in child development.
The aim of the present research was to investigate the relationship between father–kid play interactions and child developmental outcomes via a systematic review. In addition, we had three research questions of interest:
-
Firstly, nosotros aimed to gain a wide view on the types of play fathers and their children engage in, and past doing and so, increment knowledge on the near utilised forms of play throughout paternal inquiry.
-
Secondly, we sought to obtain an agreement of how play is being measured in terms of objective and self-written report forms of measurement. Prior research has demonstrated that self-report measures, relative to objective measures, are limited by the responder'southward introspective ability, honesty and nigh notably by response biases [25]. Thus, the purpose of obtaining this data was to determine whether the findings of the reviewed manufactures should be interpreted with caution
-
Finally, we wanted to meliorate understand which babyhood outcomes have been the focal point across these studies.
Based on previous enquiry [10,17], we predicted that when fathers engage in positive parenting behaviours, where they are proactively meeting their children's needs during play, there would be positive relationships with child developmental outcomes. Conversely, when fathers engage in negative parenting behaviours, consisting of more than parent-centred approaches to play where behaviour is not modulated to meet children's needs [26], it was predicted that this would show negative relationships with child developmental outcomes. The objectives of this research were preregistered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). Further protocol information can be found below.
ii. Method
2.ii. Search Strategy
The PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science electronic peer-reviewed databases were searched. The search strategy used included central terms relating to father–kid play ("father", "child" and "play) and development ("development"). The key terms were adult within the PsycINFO database and adapted to exist used inside the other two databases. The search was limited to human studies, with no boosted limits used.
ii.iii. Study Choice and Data Extraction
The titles and abstracts obtained from the database searches were screened by 2 independent reviewers to identify studies that included the following elements: (1) a male parent and child, (2) a child anile between 0 and 10 years of age, (3) a form of play, and (four) a child developmental upshot. Where there was disparity between the reviewer's assessments during the review procedure, a third reviewer was employed for resolution. Inter-rater reliability for this stage was 89%, indicative of a strong level of agreement between reviewers.
Afterward abstract reviews, eligible studies were retrieved for full-text reviews. Two contained reviewers assessed the eligibility of each full-text article for inclusion in the final full-text review. An additional eligibility criterion was included at this stage (5) typically developing children. Nonetheless, studies that contained not-typically developing children, but contained a command group, were also included. The reason for this inclusion criteria (5) being added for the total-text stage, and not for the abstract phase, was to allow for full-text screening of not-typical developmental studies, where a control group may not have been mentioned in the abstract lonely. Alike to the title and abstract review stages, where there was disparity between the reviewer's assessments during the review process a third reviewer was employed for resolution. Inter-rater reliability for this stage was 94% indicative of a strong level of agreement between reviewers. Reviewers' reasons for written report exclusion were documented during the review procedure.
Data extraction included details of the sample, methodology and measurement objectivity (child consequence measure and measurement of play) and results (due east.1000., descriptive and inferential statistics). Play types were categorised based upon the interactions described within each publication. In circumstances where data were non reported in an included written report, the author was contacted. Of the three authors contacted, none were able to provide additional data. Data extraction was completed past two reviewers to permit for concurrent resolutions of disagreements.
2.iv. Cess of Report Quality
Quality assessment for each included publication was completed by ii reviewers. The criteria used included (1) utilise of a valid and objective measure of the play interaction, (2) utilize of a valid and objective measure of child development, and (3) sample size acceptable for the statistical analyses utilised. For this enquiry, objective measures were defined as those delivered by the researchers. Thus, cocky-report measures were not classified every bit objective. Valid measures were divers as those that had been scientifically validated. Thus, measures that were designed specifically for their respective paper were not classified as valid measures. A score of 0, ane, or ii was utilised for each criterion (a score of 0 indicated that the criteria were "not satisfied", a score of ane indicated that the criteria were "partially satisfied" and a score of ii indicated that the criteria were "fully satisfied" (see Table 1 for details). An aggregate score was given out of a maximum of 8 points. Quality scores were allocated into categories based upon the post-obit standards: poor = 0–2; fFair = 3–five; skilful = six–8.
Table i
Point allocations for study quality criterion.
| Criterion | 0 Points | 1 Points | ii Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| (one) Play interaction measure | Neither objective nor validated | Objective or validated | Objective and validated |
| (2) Child outcome measure | Neither objective nor validated | Objective or validated | Objective and validated |
| (3) Sample size advisable for the assay? | |||
| Means Regression Correlation | <fifteen per group <10 per predictor <30 | 15–30 per grouping ten–twenty per predictor 30–fifty | >xxx per group >twenty per predictor >50 |
| (4) Sufficient data reported | Insufficient for meta-analysis AND not provided by author on request | Insufficient for meta-assay just provided by author on request | Sufficient data for meta- assay included in the publication |
3. Results
3.1. Literature Search Procedure
A PRISMA flowchart illustrating the selection process for the systematic review is presented in Figure i. The initial search contained 1622 abstracts (1196 were unique). During abstract screening, 1024 publications were excluded due to the following reasons: being a case report, a review, a chapter summary, a briefing abstruse, an animal study, no begetter child play, no kid related outcomes or written in a non-English language language. This resulted in 172 publications beingness retrieved for full-text review. During full-text review, 133 publications were excluded due to the following reasons: inappropriate report pattern (i.e., example study or meta-analysis), no English version available (where authors were contacted prior to exclusion), no father–child play, commodity unable to be retrieved (where the article was published some years ago and authors could not provide a full-text version), child beyond the age range of the study (i.eastward., <0 or >10 years of age), the commodity was a summary/review (chapter or special issue with no numerical information), clinical population with no control group, triadic mother/father/child interaction with no dyadic interaction betwixt begetter and child, and outcomes outside scope of the present study (i.e., outcomes were not child focussed or child outcomes not analysed in terms of father interest or interactions). This resulted in 39 publications containing 39 samples and 246 outcomes being included in this systematic review. All included publications received a total quality score betwixt 6 and 8, indicative of skillful study quality (see reference list for respective report quality criterion scores).
PRISMA flowchart outlining the pick process for the systematic review.
The play types were examined alphabetically. For this systematic review, child outcome measures were classified as being either positive or negative. Positive child developmental outcomes of interest such equally prosocial behaviour, academic achievement and school readiness, emotional regulation and cognitive evolution were classified equally positive outcome measures. Negative child developmental outcomes of interest such as anxiety/withdrawal, anger/aggression, behaviour problems, peer problems and avoidance behaviours were classified as negative outcome measures. Thus, the associations will be presented equally a office of the type of outcomes, whereby negative result measures and negative associations indicate positive impacts on child development. The results of the included publications are presented in Tabular array two, Tabular array iii, Table 4, Tabular array 5, Tabular array half dozen, Tabular array 7, Tabular array eight, Table 9 and Tabular array 10.
Tabular array 2
Creative play—result measure out descriptions and results summary.
| Study | Sample Size | Outcome Mensurate | Consequence Category | Number of Reported Positive Associations | Number of Reported Negative Associations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [7] | 73 | Positive | A | 1 | 0 |
| Positive | EB | 1 | 0 | ||
| [29] | 87 | Negative | EB | 0 | 2 |
| [28] | 13,717 | Positive | SB | 2 | 0 |
| Negative | EB | 0 | 2 |
Table three
Combined play—outcome measure descriptions and results summary.
| Written report | Sample Size | Combined Play Types | Outcome Mensurate | Outcome Category | Number of Reported Positive Associations | Number of Reported Negative Associations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [32] | 727 | P-T | Positive | SB | 1 | 0 |
| Positive | EB | 1 | i | |||
| [31] | 14 | P-T | Positive | C | ii | 0 |
| [33] | 112 | P-T | Positive | SB | 0 | three |
| Negative | EB | 2 | 10 | |||
| [30] | 97 | F-T | Positive | A | 1 | 0 |
| Positive | C | 1 | 0 |
Table 4
Free play—outcome measure out descriptions and results summary.
| Study | Sample Size | Outcome Mensurate | Result Category | Number of Reported Positive Associations | Number of Reported Negative Associations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [34] | 175 | Positive | A | i | 0 |
| [35] | 34 | Positive | A | two | 0 |
| [36] | 90 | Positive | EB | 1 | 0 |
Tabular array 5
Locomotor play—event measure descriptions and results summary.
| Written report | Sample Size | Outcome Measure | Outcome Category | Number of Reported Positive Associations | Number of Reported Negative Associations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [half dozen] | 103 | Negative | EB | 0 | 1 |
| [twoscore] | 750 | Positive | A | 2 | 0 |
| [28] | xiii,717 | Positive | SB | ii | 0 |
| Negative | EB | 0 | 2 | ||
| [38] | 3770 | Positive | C | 1 | 1 |
| EB | 0 | six | |||
| [37] | 89 | Positive | A | 2 | 4 |
| C | ane | 1 | |||
| [39] | 295 | Positive | SB | 1 | 0 |
| Negative * | EB | 0 | 3 |
Tabular array half dozen
Puzzle play—outcome measure descriptions and results summary.
| Study | Sample Size | Event Measure | Outcome Category | Number of Reported Positive Associations | Number of Reported Negative Associations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [41] | 110 | Positive | A | ane | 1 |
| C | 2 | four | |||
| [37] | 89 | Positive | A | 7 | 4 |
| C | iv | 0 |
Table 7
Band-aid play—outcome measure descriptions and results summary.
| Study | Sample Size | Outcome Measure | Outcome Category | Number of Reported Positive Associations | Number of Reported Negative Associations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [47] | 42 | Negative | EB | 0 | two |
| [42] | 1099 | Positive | C | 1 | 0 |
| [43] | 41 | Positive | SB | 0 | 2 |
| Negative | EB | 4 | 0 | ||
| [44] | 85 | Negative | EB | ane | 2 |
| [45] | 34 | Positive | EB | 1 | 2 |
| Negative | EB | 2 | four | ||
| [49] | 26 | Positive | SB | 0 | i |
| Negative | EB | 0 | 5 | ||
| [48] | 116 | Positive | SB | 15 | nine |
| [46] | 132 | Negative | EB | 1 | iii |
| [39] | 295 | Positive | SB | 0 | 1 |
| Negative | EB | 0 | 2 |
Tabular array 8
Structured and semi-structured play—effect measure descriptions and results summary.
| Report | Sample Size | Outcome Measure | Outcome Category | Number of Reported Positive Associations | Number of Reported Negative Associations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [51] | 107 | Positive | EB | one | i |
| Negative | EB | 2 | i | ||
| [50] | 229 | Positive | C | 2 | 0 |
| A | 6 | 0 |
Table 9
Toy play—outcome measure descriptions and results summary.
| Report | Sample Size | Event Mensurate | Outcome Category | Number of Reported Positive Associations | Number of Reported Negative Associations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [52] | 62 | Positive | C | 1 | 0 |
| [sixty] | 70 | Positive | EB | 1 | 0 |
| [59] | 80 | Positive | A | 6 | 0 |
| Positive | EB | 0 | 2 | ||
| Negative | SB | 0 | 4 | ||
| [57] | 88 | Positive | SB | 2 | 0 |
| Negative | SB | 0 | 2 | ||
| [55] | lx | Positive | A | one | 0 |
| [12] | 111 | Negative | SB | 0 | 4 |
| [58] | 200 | Positive | A | 2 | 0 |
| [61] | 32 | Positive | SB | iii | 0 |
| Negative | SB | 1 | 0 | ||
| [56] | 74 | Positive | A | two | 0 |
| C | ii | 0 | |||
| EB | two | 0 | |||
| [53] | 65 | Positive | C | 2 | 0 |
| [54] | 111 | Positive | A | viii | 4 |
| C | nine | 8 | |||
| [62] | 620 | Positive | C | 2 | 0 |
Table x
Video game play—outcome measure descriptions and results summary.
| Report | Sample Size | Result Measure out | Outcome Category | Number of Reported Positive Associations | Number of Reported Negative Associations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [63] | 24 | Positive | EB | two | vi |
| SB | 5 | 3 | |||
| Negative | SB | 6 | 2 |
3.2. Arrangement Review: Characteristics and Summary of Results by Play Type
The systematic review resulted in the identification of ix play types: Creative Play, Combined Play (which consisted of the combination of two play types), Gratis Play, Locomotor Play, Puzzle Play, Rough-and-tumble Play, Structured and Semi-Structured Play, Toy Play and Video Game Play. The 246 outcomes were separated into their respective play types, where characteristics and results summaries were examined (See Table 2, Table 3, Table iv, Table 5, Tabular array half dozen, Tabular array 7, Tabular array viii, Table 9 and Table 10). An overview of the activities plant within each play blazon is provided in Figure 2.
Flowchart providing a brief overview of the various activities found within each play blazon.
Creative Play was examined by three studies, making upward iii% of the systematic review outcomes. Kid ages within these studies ranged from two to 7 years. Half of the Creative Play studies used objective play and child outcome measures, with the other half drawn from parent cocky-report information (Table two). The Artistic Play studies focussed on the following childhood outcomes: Achievement, in terms of children's receptive vocabulary (N = one); Emotional/Behavioural, with outcomes inclusive of emotional regulation, withdrawn behaviour, behaviour problems and ambitious behaviours (N = 5); and Social/Behavioural, encompassing prosocial behaviours (Due north = 2). Of the viii outcomes, 4 were interested in negative child outcome measures including kid withdrawn behaviour and behaviour problems. Positive associations were constitute between Artistic Play and all Achievement, Emotional/Behavioural and Social/Behavioural outcomes.
Creative Play findings indicated that when fathers undertook positive behaviours during play such equally actively engaging their kid during the play or being playful, their children showed fewer behaviour problems [28], less aggression [29], better emotional regulation (Emotional/Behavioural) and higher receptive vocabulary (Achievement) [vii]. Furthermore, when fathers undertook Creative Play by and large, this was positively related to children's displays of prosocial behaviour (Social/Behavioural) [28].
Within Combined Play, three studies examined Physical and Toy Play interactions, while one report used Gratis Play and Toy Play, making up 9% of the systematic review outcomes (Table three). Child ages within this study ranged from 10 months to 5 years. Within combined play, researchers were more likely to utilize parental self-report to obtain measures of play and teacher reports for kid outcomes, with cocky-report information accounting for 18 of the 22 play measures and 15 of the 22 child issue measures. The remainder were objective measurements. Five childhood outcomes were explored: Achievement, in terms of language development (N = 1); Cognitive, encompassing children's intelligence and cognitive development (North = three); Cognitive and Social/Behavioural combined outcome (North = i); Emotional/Behavioural, with a comprehensive test of emotionality and kid internalising/externalising behaviours (Northward = xiv); and Social/Behavioural outcomes which explored social competency equally rated by teachers (N = 3), with 10 of the 22 outcomes interested in positive child outcomes.
The study that examined Combined Play and child Accomplishment [thirty] found a positive outcome, every bit did the study interested in Cognitive outcomes [31]. Positive associations were found for Combined Play and child Emotional/Behavioural outcomes for 12 of the 15 outcomes, with 3 finding a non-significant negative issue. The results indicated that fathers' physically active play, within combined play interactions, predicted children's emotional regulation (Emotional/Behavioural) for loftier-emotionality children (more sensitive or more emotionally reactive) only did non predict emotional regulation for low-emotionality children (less emotionally reactive to a stimulus) [32].
When considering Social/Behavioural outcomes and Combined Play, ane study reported that father play positively predicted children'southward social outcomes [32], while three outcomes suggested that begetter interest was negatively associated with child social competency [33]. These negative findings indicated that the more that the begetter was involved in play, the less social competency the child showed.
Complimentary Play deemed for the smallest portion of outcomes of the systematic review data, with simply 3 studies examining this type of play, making up ii% of the systematic review outcomes (Table iv). Child ages within this study ranged from one to 3 years. All of the studies used objective measurements for both play and child outcomes measurements and were interested in positive child outcomes. Costless Play researchers were interested in child Achievement and Emotional/Behavioural outcomes, with all studies finding positive associations. Achievement outcomes encompassed receptive and general language, while the Emotional/Behavioural event involved child emotional regulation.
Free Play findings demonstrated that father positive parenting behaviour during play was positively associated with kid outcomes; nurturance was positively associated with kid receptive linguistic communication (Achievement) [34], and sensitive regulation was positively associated with child-regulation compliance (Emotional/Behavioural) [36]. Further positive associations were establish for begetter didactics (father instruction his kid) and his child'south language development (concurrently and predictive of) [35].
Six studies examined Locomotor Play in their research, making upwards 11% of the systematic review outcomes (Table v). Kid ages within this study ranged from 9 months to 7 years. Researchers gathered parent self-report information to obtain Locomotor Play measurements for 17 of the 26 studies, with the residual obtained from objective measurements. Nonetheless, for child issue measurements, 73% of outcomes came from objective measures, while the rest were obtained from parental self-written report. A big portion of outcome measures were focussed on Emotional/Behavioural child outcomes (North = 11), with the other areas of interest spread betwixt Achievement (North = 8), Cognitive (N = 4), and Social/Behavioural outcomes (Due north = three). The Emotional/Behavioural outcomes explored behavioural problems, kid anxiety/withdrawal, anger-assailment, internalising behaviours, child temperament, self-regulation, behaviour problems and socio-emotional functioning. Achievement outcomes included literacy, mathematics and schoolhouse readiness. Cognitive child outcomes incorporated executive functioning and cognitive development and Social/Behavioural outcomes explored prosocial behavioural and social competence. The vast majority of outcomes were concerned with positive kid outcome measures (N = 22).
Within the study interested in child achievement, negative associations were institute for four of the viii outcomes, with begetter overstimulation during play resulting in negative childhood achievement outcomes [37]. For Locomotor Play and child Cognitive outcomes, there were an equal number of positive (N = 2) and negative associations (Northward = ii) reported, with one written report suggesting that begetter overstimulation during Locomotor Play resulted in poorer scores of executive functioning [37], while another reported mixed findings between paternal Locomotor Play and child cognitive development [38].
Positive associations were establish in all studies that measured child Social/Behavioural outcomes [28,39]. Of the 12 Emotional/Behavioural kid outcomes, associations were mixed—1 constitute no consequence, while five reported negative associations and 6 reported positive associations. Quality of play was positively associated with lower internalising scores [half-dozen], while father'due south involvement in play was positively associated with lower risks of behaviour problems [28] and aggression (Emotional/Behavioural) [39]. Negative associations were reported between paternal Locomotor Play and socio-emotional functioning, child temperament and self-regulation [38].
Puzzle play was examined past ii studies, making upwardly 9% of the systematic review outcomes (Table half dozen). Child ages inside this report ranged from iii to v years. Objective measures were obtained for all play and child outcomes. These studies focussed on child Accomplishment (Northward = 13) and Cognitive outcomes (Northward = 10). All outcomes were positive child consequence measures (Northward = 23). The Achievement outcomes were interested in literacy, school readiness and mathematics and the Cognitive outcome of involvement was kid executive performance.
For child Accomplishment, positive associations were institute for 8 of the thirteen outcomes, with father control (negative parenting behaviour) during puzzle play resulting in negative childhood achievement outcomes [37,41]. Results showed a positive association between fathers who supported child autonomy during play (positive parenting behaviour) and child vocabulary [37,41], mathematic achievement and schoolhouse readiness [37]. For child Knowledge, positive associations were found for 6 of the 10 outcomes, with father command during puzzle play resulting in negative childhood executive functioning outcomes [41]. Father autonomy support (positive parenting behaviour) was associated with positive executive functioning outcomes [37]. Results demonstrate that the way in which fathers cull to engage positively by fostering their children's autonomy or negatively by inhibiting their autonomy (control), results in different developmental outcomes for children.
Band-aid Play (RTP) was examined in ix studies, making up 24% of the systematic review outcomes (Table 7). Child ages inside this study ranged from 9 months to 8 years. Objective measures were gathered for 46 of the 58 rough-and-tumble play measures, with the remainder obtained from parent self-report measurements. However, for kid outcome measurements, the reverse was seen with 82.76% of child outcomes caused through instructor, peer and parent cocky-written report, with just 17.four% of child outcomes measured objectively. Within the RTP literature, the largest portion of outcomes were focussed on child Social/Behavioural functioning (N = 31), followed by Emotional/Behavioural outcomes (N = 26), with only one reported kid Noesis upshot (1). There was a similar spread of positive (N = 32) and negative child outcome measures (Northward = 26). For Cognitive outcomes, in that location was a positive event between child cognitive scores and male parent–child RTP [42]. The Emotional/Behavioural outcomes of involvement fell broadly beyond child physical aggression, verbal assailment, conduct problems, total emotional/behavioural problems, emotional problems, hyperactivity issues, acrimony/aggression, emotional regulation and anxiety/withdrawal. Of these, the studies reported xvi positive associations between RTP and child outcomes and 8 negative associations. Inside the negative associations RTP frequency was positively correlated with kid concrete aggression when fathers were less directive in play [43,44], and negatively correlated with emotional regulation when fathers were less ascendant in play [45]. Furthermore, negative associations were plant for challenging parenting behaviours and child anxiety [46], and reciprocal negative affect during play was positively associated to children's verbal assailment [43]. Nonetheless, other findings reported that involvement in RTP reduced anger/aggression [45,47] and anxiety/withdrawal [39].
The Social/Behavioural child outcomes of interest were social competence, social acceptance, prosocial behaviour, sharing, abstention and peer problems. A greater number of negative associations were reported between RTP and Social/Behavioural child outcomes, with 19 negative associations compared with 12 positive associations. Of the negative associations, 68% reported that negative affect during RTP (male parent negative affect or reciprocal negative affect) resulted in various poor Social/Behavioural outcomes such as lower peer rating, social acceptance, and sharing [48]. Interestingly father positive affect during play was associated with negative teacher and peer ratings of social credence for girls, and negatively associated with instructor ratings of social acceptance for boys [48]. In addition, begetter RTP scores and begetter interest in RTP were negatively associated with prosocial behaviour and social competence, respectively [48]. A further negative clan was found between quality of RTP and kid prosocial behaviour [49].
Structured and Semi-Structured Play was examined past 2 studies, making up iv% of the systematic review outcomes (Table viii). Child ages inside this study ranged from ii to x years. Objective measures were gathered for all play outcomes and eight of the 13 kid outcomes. The remaining five child outcomes were acquired through parent cocky-written report measures. Across the Structured and Semi-Structured Play studies, 3 outcome categories of interest were identified: Achievement (Due north = half dozen), Cognitive (North = 2) and Emotional/Behavioural outcomes (North = v). The Achievement outcomes were concerned with kid literacy and numeracy, with positive associations existence institute between paternal cognitive stimulation (attempting to further their kid'south learning and agreement) during semi-structured play and all Accomplishment outcomes [50]. For Cognitive outcomes, kid cognitive ability was investigated, with paternal cognitive stimulation during semi-structured play showing positive associations for knowledge [50]. The Emotional/Behavioural outcomes were child negative affect, conduct bug, emotional symptoms, surgency and effortful control with three negative and 2 positive associations reported. Of the negative child outcomes, parental sensitivity during play was positively associated with kid negative bear on and emotional symptoms, and negatively associated with kid conduct problems. For the positive child outcomes, a positive upshot was constitute between male parent sensitivity during play kid effortful control, while father sensitivity during play was negatively associated with child surgency [51]. This conveys that while sensitivity seemed to positively bear on child emotions, information technology conversely negatively impacted child temperament, which establishes how we react to that emotion. Furthermore, as surgency is a personality trait which conveys cheerfulness, spontaneity and extraversion, and effortful control dictates how well a child has cocky-regulation over their emotional reactivity and behaviour, sensitivity appears to improve children's skills in controlling their reactions, which results in lowering impulsiveness and outgoingness.
Twelve studies examined Toy Play in their research, making upwardly 28% of the systematic review outcomes (Table nine). Child ages within this study ranged from 1 to 4 years. Objective measures were obtained for all 68 Toy Play measures and 63 of the children's outcome measures, while 5 self-report measures of children'due south outcomes were utilised. Within the Toy Play literature, the largest portion of outcomes were focussed on Cognitive Outcomes (N = 24), closely followed past child Achievement Outcomes (N = 23) and Emotional/Behavioural outcomes (N = xv), with half dozen reported kid Social/Behavioural outcomes (Northward = 6). There were more than positive (N = 57) than negative child result measures of interest (Due north = 11).
The Cerebral outcomes of interest were cognitive development and cerebral flexibility components of executive functioning and mental development. A total of 16 positive associations and eight negative associations were found. Fathers' engagement in Toy Play [52], paternal sensitivity [12], fathers responsive-didactic behaviour [53] and paternal positive regard [54] were all associated with positive outcomes, while begetter disengagement, negative regard and negative intrusiveness were associated with negative outcomes in terms of children'due south mental developmental index scores [54].
Achievement outcomes of interest were language complexity, expressive communicative compliance, receptive language ability, math achievement, linguistic communication development, receptive vocabulary, with more positive associations (N = 17) found than negative associations (Northward = 6). Fathers' play behaviour [55,56], common compliance [57], loftier supportiveness [58], dyadic reciprocity [59], sensitivity, cerebral stimulation and positive regard [54] were all associated with positive associations. Negative associations were found between father detachment, intrusiveness and negative regard, and children'due south receptive vocabulary [54].
The Emotional/Behavioural outcomes were concerned with child minimum engagement of self-control with forbidden toys and child agile engagement of self-control (interacted with forbidden toys less), child aggression, percentage of nighttime sleep, emotional regulation and child negativity. Thirteen of the Emotional/Behavioural associations were positive while two were negative. Shared positive emotion, mutual compliance [59], playfulness [12], quality of interactions [lx] and date in toy play [56] were factors associated with positive associations. Of the negative associations, dyadic reciprocity during toy play was negatively associated with children's minimum and agile appointment of cocky-control (showed less cocky-command with forbidden toys) [59]. Thus, regardless of the positive shared experiences during Toy Play, children withal ignored experimenter instructions and engaged in a play with a forbidden toy but were likely to follow their fathers' exact instructions. This demonstrates the impact that these dyadic experiences have on the relationship betwixt father and child but may signal this compliance does not extend to outside parties.
The Social/Behavioural child outcomes of interest were prosocial behaviour, child-friend interactions, friendship quality and false belief understanding. Positive associations were institute for all outcomes. Father–kid dyads who engaged in more than mutual compliance (dyadic measure) and shared more positive emotion during play had children who were more prosocial [57] and father sensitivity showed positive outcomes for child-friend interactions, friendship quality and fake conventionalities understanding [61]. Furthermore, mutual compliance and sharing positive emotions during toy Play were negatively associated with kid aggression and positively associated with prosocial behaviours (Social/Behavioural) [57].
One report [63] used Video Game Play to examined childhood outcomes, making upwards 10% of the outcomes within this systematic review (Tabular array 10). Kid ages inside this study ranged from four to 6 years. Objective measures were gathered for all video game play measures and child consequence measurements. Inside this study, outcomes were focussed on Social/Behavioural outcomes (N = xvi) and Emotional/Behavioural outcomes (N = eight). The Social/Behavioural outcomes of involvement included eight positive kid outcomes and focussed on positive parallel play with peers, while the eight negative child outcomes, focussed on negative peer play (a negative atmosphere with one play partner dissatisfied with the play). For the Social/Behavioural outcomes there were seven positive associations reported. V positive associations were reported between father factors in Video Game Play inclusive of derisive humour (mocking/ridicule during play), criticism, enthusiasm, amore and father engagement and child outcome of positive parallel play with peers (side-past-side play where both parties are playing separately with neutral bear on), while both engagement and cheeky humor were negatively associated with negative peer play. Of the nine negative associations reported for Social/Behavioural outcomes, father enthusiasm, amore, intrusiveness, commands, responsiveness and criticism during play were positively related to negative peer play, while intrusiveness, commands and responsiveness also showed negative associations for positive parallel play with peers. The Emotional/Behavioural outcome of interest was positive affect during peer play. Researchers reported two positive associations and half dozen negative associations. The positive associations were establish between begetter amore and father responsiveness and child outcomes of positive affect during peer play. Male parent engagement, commands, intrusiveness, derisive humour, criticism, and enthusiasm during play were associated with negative associations on positive bear on during peer play.
4. Discussion
The systematic review revealed that there were nine play types that fathers engaged in with their children: Creative Play, Combined Play, Free Play, Locomotor Play, Puzzle Play, Rough-and-tumble Play, Structured and Semi-Structured Play, Toy Play and Video Game Play. Upon further investigation, it was apparent that the well-nigh utilised forms of play throughout the studies fell across two play types: Toy Play and RTP, with twelve and nine studies, respectively, focussing on these types of play. These two play types deemed for over half of the studies included in the systematic review. This play blazon bias, may exist representative of the types of play that researchers themselves believe to be the well-nigh utilised by fathers, perpetuating the idea that the scope of father–child interactions are express.
This systematic review likewise uncovered the babyhood outcomes that were the focal points of these studies. Emotional/Behavioural outcomes were included in 22 studies, Cognitive and Achievement outcomes were each included in 12 studies and Social/Behavioural outcomes were included in 10 studies. Consequently, information technology is credible that past research has primarily focussed on how play impacts children's emotional and behavioural evolution. This highlights the demand to explore how paternal play impacts cognition, achievement and their social interactions, equally these areas have been overlooked.
It was found that the vast majority of included publications focussed on positive child developmental outcomes (75%). While some play types had a relatively even spread of positive vs. negative outcomes of involvement (Artistic Play, Combined Play and RTP) others focussed largely (Locomotor Play, Structured and Semi-Structured Play, Toy and Video Game Play) or completely (Gratuitous Play and Puzzle Play) on positive child developmental outcomes. This may be indicative of a research tendency to illuminate how paternal behaviour is related to positive outcomes for children, rather than determining what paternal behaviours contribute to negative developmental outcomes.
The ages inside this systematic review varied beyond the play types (come across Effigy iii). What stands out is the general trend towards investigating the younger years of child evolution. All play types considered the development of children aged 3 years. Iv of the play types included samples of children over the age of 5 and only two included children over 7 years. Given these publications investigated father–child play and child evolution, there may be a neurological rationale for the focus on younger children. Neurological development is critical within the first 5 years of life, where experiences and practice requite rise to rapid modify and growth (neuroplasticity) [64]. Research targeting a time of rapid development and paternal behaviour may stand to positively inform parenting practices, thus providing opportunities to benefit child evolution. In line with this, the Structured and Semi-Structured Play report that considered 10-year-old children was examining the longitudinal developmental effects of play at age two. Additionally, the RTP report that considered 8-twelvemonth-old children was a v-yr follow-up report from play at historic period 3. Therefore, it appears that when older samples were included, this was to examine the enduring impacts of father–kid play, non the concurrent impacts.
Child age ranges across play types for included publications.
Information technology was also establish that the measures used for play outcomes were comprised mostly of objective measures (79.27%), while the remainder came from parental self-report. This is reassuring as it indicates that the play outcomes measured within this systematic review have utilised primarily objective measures, which indicates the outcomes are an authentic and unbiased reflection of the diverse components of these dyadic interactions [65,66]. The kid developmental outcomes also utilised a high percent of objective measures (65.45%), with parent ratings the subsequently nearly common measure out (19.ninety%), followed by instructor ratings (12.20%) and combined parent-teacher ratings (2.45%). This is indicative of the reports needed for the outcomes themselves, as some outcomes can be obtained objectively in one inquiry session, whilst others unavoidably crave parental input to obtain a holistic view of the kid'south operation [67].
Artistic Play, Combined Play, Costless Play, Structured and Semi-structured Play and Toy Play were all found to be related to child academic accomplishment outcomes. These different play types, while focussed on unique paternal and dyadic elements of the play, held a common undertone of positive interaction elements. For example, positive relationships were plant between Paternal Playfulness (Creative Play), Sensitivity (Combined Play), Nurturance and Dyadic interactions (Free Play), Cognitive stimulation (Structured and Semi-Structured) and dyadic reciprocity, shared positive emotion, mutual compliance, supportiveness, positive regard (Toy Play) and achievement outcomes. This is encouraging equally it demonstrates that positive accomplishment outcomes are not exclusive to a single play blazon, but instead bear witness that fathers existence attuned to their children'due south needs, interacting in a playful and stimulating manner, and being supportive of their children'due south needs, consistently foster positive relationships. This could be utilised in futurity parenting interventions. For example, by encouraging positive play interactions inside father–child dyads, there is the potential for schoolhouse bookish event improvement.
RTP, Locomotor Play and Puzzle Play were all related to positive Cognitive outcomes. General play involvement (RTP and Locomotor Play), Father involvement and autonomy support (Puzzle Play) were play elements of interest that showed positive relationships with child Cognition outcomes. All these types of play share a mutual cistron in terms of gross and fine motor skills. As motor development impacts on child exploration of their physical surroundings, which in plough effects noesis, this is an instinctual connection [68,69]. These findings are promising as at that place has been no inquiry linking puzzle play to the physical elements of RTP or Locomotor Play, which are physical in nature. These findings provide prospective benefits for low-income families, where access to puzzles may not exist possible, allowing them to derive comparable cognitive developmental outcomes for their children through more vigorous play activities. Beyond the 58 RTP outcome measures, only 1 outcome looked at knowledge. Thus, given these findings and that enquiry into RTP has primarily focussed on behavioural outcomes, information technology is paramount that further research is invested into exploring the cognitive benefits of RTP.
The systematic review suggested that Video Game Play, along with Creative Play and Toy Play, was related to child social/behavioural outcomes. Father enthusiasm, affection, engagement, responsiveness (Video Game Play), general play involvement (Creative Play), sensitivity and mutual compliance were all positively related to child social/behavioural outcomes in terms of positive interactions with their friends and general prosocial behaviours. This demonstrates the importance of modelling the appropriate ways of engaging in social situations. By being amenable, sensitive and responsive to their child's needs during play, fathers demonstrate the correct ways for their children to appoint with their peers. Furthermore, by fathers showing enthusiasm and engagement in what their play companion (kid) is doing, children appear to transfer the same reverence to their peers. Thus, while these three types of play differ in terms of the activities that they involve, it is apparent that strong translational learning can occur during dyadic play, which can foster positive social relationships for children. This modelling has been well described in Bandura'south social learning theory whereby children observe models (people), translate this behaviour and afterward imitate this learning behaviour [70]. The importance of this is that both positive and negative behaviours can be imitated, thus it is important that fathers are fostering positive social interactions for their children to model.
Creative Play, Free Play, Structured and Semi-Structured Play and Toy Play were all found to be related to child emotional/behavioural outcomes. Sensitivity (Structured and Semi-Structured Play, Free Play), general play (Toy Play) and playfulness (Creative Play) all attained positive outcomes, notably in the area of emotional regulation. This is interestingly contrasted with RTP and Locomotor Play, which showed that general play (Locomotor) and play frequency (RTP) were negatively associated with emotional regulation. This poses the question as to whether in that location is more nuance in physical play than other play types? Past research has suggested that it is not simply enough to engage in RTP, but instead it needs to exist a quality interaction [49]. For instance, sharing the winning and losing, sharing of authorization during play and, every bit in that location is an element of competition within RTP, fathers praising the child for their efforts. Thus, it is possible that these concrete interactions obtained in this review were non quality interactions. Furthermore, as RTP has focussed mainly on behavioural outcomes information technology is evident that additional exploration is needed to better sympathize the elements of play that constitute high quality play and thus provide positive impacts to children. By gaining this understanding, we can generate resources for parents, educating them on the positive ways to engage in concrete play to ensure benign outcomes for their children.
The directions of the relationships between paternal play and child developmental outcomes were in the trend we would await and in line with our predictions, with the majority of negative outcomes having negative associations reported (77.27%), indicative of positive impacts on kid development. For positive outcomes 64.25% found positive impacts on kid development. Information technology is important to note that of the negative associations reported, 71% came from negative parenting behaviours such as paternal overstimulation, negative affect, detachment, negative regard, intrusiveness, control, criticism and commands. Thus, consistent with what we would anticipate from these relationships. The positive parenting behaviours that were negatively associated included play involvement, play frequency, date, responsiveness, enthusiasm and dyadic reciprocity. As previously stated but being involved in play does non constitute loftier quality play [49], thus other unmeasured aspects of the play could exist impacting on these associations.
This study has potential limitations. Firstly, due to the broad age ranges considered within this review, the variance in age ranges found for each play blazon may exist problematic. Some play types demonstrated relatively narrow age ranges (Gratis Play ane–iii years, Puzzle Play 3–five years, Toy Play one–four years, Video Game Play 4–6 years) while others displayed large age ranges (Artistic Play ii–7 years, Combined Play ten months–iv years, Locomotor Play 9 months–seven years, RTP 9 months–eight years, Structured and Semi-Structured Play 2–10 years). As participation in play interactions accept been shown to differ across child developmental periods [71] the different age ranges shown hither may affect the generalisability of these findings. While this review does not consider findings within a particular developmental lens, future reviews may consider limiting their searches to a more than focussed developmental catamenia.
Secondly, the decision to consider all play types inside this review after resulted in a pocket-sized sample of studies inside each play type. Consequently, relatively few studies explored the aforementioned play/upshot relationships. Despite this, the consideration of all play types immune for a comprehensive exploration of how father–child play influences kid development. It enabled us to answer our enquiry question regarding the types of play fathers and their children engage in, thus providing data about what forms of play are utilised throughout paternal research (Locomotor Play, RTP and Toy Play). A narrower approach for hereafter enquiry may highlight important event similarities and/or differences in specific play types. This could let researchers to form stronger conclusions about the relationship between a chosen play type and a particular developmental outcome.
In addition, there remain opportunities to explore father–kid play from a cross-cultural perspective. The majority of this research has been conducted in Western-individualist populations [21,44] and has not explored these interactions in individualist cultures where father–child interactions may differ [72].
Limitations of systematic reviews more broadly are publication biases (less likely to publish no effect findings) and result reporting biases (reporting favourable relationships) [73]. However, the manufactures obtained reported both favourable and unfavourable results. Thus, while potential publication biases herein may have implications in distorting the true movie of the paternal play/child outcome relationship, result reporting bias has not surfaced as a concern for the present inquiry.
The results of this systematic review provide support for a relationship between father–child play interactions and child developmental outcomes. Information technology highlighted the broad range of play types utilised throughout father–child play research (Creative Play, Combined Play, Free Play, Locomotor Play, Puzzle Play, Band-aid Play, Structured and Semi-Structured Play, Toy Play and Video Game Play) and identified that play outcomes were measured primarily objectively within the reviewed articles. It was made apparent that the principal outcome of involvement in these articles was Emotional/Behavioural outcomes, followed by Cerebral and Achievement outcomes and finally Social/Behavioural outcomes.
The results also demonstrated how the same paternal behaviour can have vastly different associations with child outcomes, both within the same play type and across play types. Additionally, the findings highlighted the need to broaden our understanding about seemingly positive and negative parenting behaviours, as the directions of the relationships were at times unexpected, emphasizing the complication of dyadic interactions and their associated outcomes. They demonstrated that while particular paternal behaviours may have negative impacts for sure childhood outcomes, the aforementioned behaviour tin can have various positive impacts also. Nonetheless, the overall directions of the relationships between paternal play and kid developmental outcomes were in the direction nosotros would expect for both positive and negative parenting behaviours. These findings encourage the further exploration of different types of paternal play interactions.
Acknowledgments
Nosotros would like to give thanks all the authors included with this systematic review and Sophia Georgas who assisted with article selection. This research contributes to the doctoral work of Erin Robinson.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, E.L.R. and E.East.F; methodology, E.L.R. and E.E.F.; formal assay, Due east.L.R.; writing—original draft preparation, E.Fifty.R.; writing—review and editing, E.Fifty.R, E.E.F and J.South.; supervision, E.Eastward.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This project was supported by an Australian Government Inquiry Training Program scholarship.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Information Availability Statement
Results are based on public data from the included studies.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Publisher'south Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
1. Sethna V., Perry E., Domoney J., Iles J., Psychogiou L., Rowbotham N.East., Stein A., Murray L., Ramchandani P.G. Father-Kid Interactions At three Months And 24 Months: Contributions to Children'south Cognitive Development at 24 Months. Child Adolesc. Soc. Work. J. 2017;38:378–390. doi: ten.1002/imhj.21642. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
2. John A., Halliburton A., Humphrey J. Child–mother and child–father play interaction patterns with preschoolers. Early Child Dev. Care. 2013;183:483–497. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2012.711595. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
3. Tomasello Thou. Origins of Human Advice. Orig. Hum. Commun. 2008;1:166–170. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/7551.001.0001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
4. Cabrera Due north.J., Roggman L. Father Play: Is tt Special? Child Adolesc. Soc. Work. J. 2017;38:706–708. doi: 10.1002/imhj.21680. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
v. Mehall Thousand.G., Spinrad T.Fifty., Eisenberg North., Gaertner B.M. Examining the Relations of Infant Temperament and Couples' Marital Satisfaction to Mother and Father Involvement: A Longitudinal Report. Begetter. A J. Theory Res. Pr. about Men Father. 2009;vii:23–48. doi: 10.3149/fth.0701.23. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
6. Ahnert L., Teufl L., Ruiz N., Piskernik B., Supper B., Remiorz South., Gesing A., Nowacki K. Male parent-Child Play During the Preschool Years and Child Internalizing Behaviors: Between Robustness and Vulnerability. Kid Adolesc. Soc. Work. J. 2017;38:743–756. doi: 10.1002/imhj.21679. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
7. Cabrera N.J., Karberg Eastward., Malin J.Fifty., Aldoney D. The Magic of Play: Depression-Income Mothers' and Fathers' Playfulness and Children's Emotion Regulation and Vocabulary Skills. Child Adolesc. Soc. Work. J. 2017;38:757–771. doi: 10.1002/imhj.21682. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
8. Majdandžić Thou. Commentary on Fathers' Play: Measurement, Conceptualization, Civilisation, and Connections with Child Development. Child Adolesc. Soc. Work. J. 2017;38:789–794. doi: 10.1002/imhj.21677. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
9. Amato P.R., Rivera F. Paternal Interest and Children's Behavior Problems. J. Marriage Fam. 1999;61:375. doi: 10.2307/353755. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
10. Popp J.M., St Jerne Thomsen B. A Commentary on the Importance of Father-Child Play and Children's Development: Father-Kid Play and Children'due south Development. Baby Mental Health J. 2017;38:785–788. doi: 10.1002/imhj.21681. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
eleven. Bronte-Tinkew J., Carrano J., Horowitz A., Kinukawa A. Involvement among Resident Fathers and Links to Infant Cognitive Outcomes. J. Fam. Issues. 2008;29:1211–1244. doi: 10.1177/0192513X08318145. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
12. Menashe-Grinberg A., Atzaba-Poria N. Mother-Kid and Father-Child Play Interaction: The Importance of Parental Playfulness as a Moderator of the Links between Parental Behavior and Kid Negativity. Child Adolesc. Soc. Piece of work. J. 2017;38:772–784. doi: 10.1002/imhj.21678. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
xiii. Yogman K.Due west., Kindlon D., Earls F. Begetter Involvement and Cognitive/Behavioral Outcomes of Preterm Infants. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry. 1995;34:58–66. doi: 10.1097/00004583-199501000-00015. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
14. Kokkinaki T., Vasdekis V.G.S. Comparing emotional coordination in early on spontaneous mother–infant and father–infant interactions. Eur. J. Dev. Psychol. 2015;12:69–84. doi: 10.1080/17405629.2014.950220. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
15. Grossmann K., Grossmann 1000.E., Fremmer-Bombik East., Kindler H., Scheuerer-Englisch H., Zimmermann A.P. The Uniqueness of the Child-Father Attachment Human relationship: Fathers' Sensitive and Challenging Play as a Pivotal Variable in a 16-year Longitudinal Written report. Soc. Dev. 2002;eleven:301–337. doi: 10.1111/1467-9507.00202. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
sixteen. Murphy 50.B. Fathers. Aught TO Iii. 1997;xviii:9. [Google Scholar]
17. Majdandžić K., Möller E.Fifty., De Vente Westward., Bögels Due south.Yard., Smash D.C.V.D. Fathers' Challenging Parenting Behavior Prevents Social Anxiety Development in Their 4-Year-Old Children: A Longitudinal Observational Report. J. Abnorm. Kid Psychol. 2013;42:301–310. doi: 10.1007/s10802-013-9774-iv. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
18. Lamb M.E., Pleck J.H., Levine J.A. The Role of the Male parent in Child Development. fifth ed. John Wiley & Sons Inc; Hoboken, NJ, USA: 2010. [Google Scholar]
19. Tamis-LeMonda C.South., Cabrera N. Handbook of Father Interest: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Erlbaum; Mahwah, NJ, USA: 2002. [Google Scholar]
xx. Milkie G.A., Denny Thousand.Eastward. Changes in the Cultural Model of Father Involvement. J. Fam. Issues. 2012;35:223–253. doi: ten.1177/0192513X12462566. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
21. George J.S., Fletcher R., Palazzi Thousand. Comparing Fathers' Concrete and Toy Play and Links to Child Behaviour: An Exploratory Report. Infant Kid Dev. 2016;26:e1958. doi: 10.1002/icd.1958. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
22. Amodia-Bidakowska A., Laverty C., Ramchandani P.G. Begetter-child play: A systematic review of its frequency, characteristics and potential impact on children's evolution. Dev. Rev. 2020;57:100924. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2020.100924. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
23. Rollè Fifty., Gullotta G., Trombetta T., Curti L., Gerino E., Brustia P., Caldarera A.One thousand. Father Interest and Cognitive Development in Early and Middle Childhood: A Systematic Review. Front. Psychol. 2019;ten:2405. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02405. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
24. StGeorge J., Freeman E. Measurement of Male parent-Kid Rough-and-tumble Play and its Relations to Child Beliefs. Child Adolesc. Soc. Piece of work. J. 2017;38:709–725. doi: 10.1002/imhj.21676. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
25. Althubaiti A. Information bias in health research: Definition, pitfalls, and adjustment methods. J. Multidiscip. Healthc. 2016;9:211–217. doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S104807. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
26. Stevenson M., Crnic K. Intrusive fathering, children'southward self-regulation and social skills: A mediation analysis. J. Intellect. Disabil. Res. 2012;57:500–512. doi: x.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01549.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
28. Kroll Yard.Due east., Carson C., Redshaw M., Quigley M.A. Early Male parent Involvement and Subsequent Child Behaviour at Ages three, 5 and seven Years: Prospective Analysis of the UK Millennium Accomplice Study. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0162339. doi: x.1371/journal.pone.0162339. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
29. DiLallo Grand. Family Represented: Mother and Male parent--Child Co-Constructed Narratives most Families. PsycEXTRA Dataset. 2003 doi: 10.1037/e341312004-001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
30. Malmberg L.-East., Lewis S., Due west A., Murray Due east., Sylva K., Stein A. The influence of mothers' and fathers' sensitivity in the outset twelvemonth of life on children's cognitive outcomes at eighteen and 36 months. Kid: Intendance Heal. Dev. 2016;42:1–7. doi: ten.1111/cch.12294. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
31. Clarke-Stewart K.A. And Daddy Makes Three: The Male parent's Bear on on Female parent and Young Child. Child Dev. 1978;49:466. doi: ten.2307/1128712. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
32. Bocknek E.L., Dayton C., Raveau H.A., Richardson P., Brophy-Herb H.Eastward., Fitzgerald H.E. Routine Agile Playtime With Fathers Is Associated With Cocky-Regulation in Early Childhood. Merrill-Palmer Q. 2017;63:105. doi: 10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.63.i.0105. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
33. Jia R., Kotila L.E., Schoppe-Sullivan Due south.J. Transactional relations between father involvement and preschoolers' socioemotional adjustment. J. Fam. Psychol. 2012;26:848–857. doi: 10.1037/a0030245. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
34. Blackness 1000.M., Dubowitz H., Starr J.R.H. African American Fathers in Low Income, Urban Families: Development, Behavior, and Home Environment of Their Three-Twelvemonth-Old Children. Child Dev. 1999;70:967–978. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00070. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
35. Bornstein Thou.H., Vibbert M., Tal J., O'Donnell K. Toddler language and play in the second year: Stability, covariation and influences of parenting. Start Lang. 1992;12:323–338. doi: ten.1177/014272379201203607. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
36. Feldman R., Klein P.S. Toddlers' cocky-regulated compliance to mothers, caregivers, and fathers: Implications for theories of socialization. Dev. Psychol. 2003;39:680–692. doi: x.1037/0012-1649.39.4.680. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
37. Meuwissen A.S., Carlson Due south.M. The role of father parenting in children'southward school readiness: A longitudinal follow-up. J. Fam. Psychol. 2018;32:588–598. doi: 10.1037/fam0000418. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
38. Head-Reeves D.M. Ph.D. Thesis. University of North Carolina; Chapel Hill, CA, USA: 2010. Paternal Interest amid African-American Fathers in Two-Parent Families: Influences in Early Child De-velopment. [Google Scholar]
39. Torres Due north., Verissimo Thou., Monteiro Fifty., Ribeiro O., Santos A.J. Domains of father involvement, social competence and problem behavior in preschool children. J. Fam. Stud. 2014;20:188–203. doi: 10.1080/13229400.2014.11082006. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
40. Baker C.E. African American Fathers' Contributions to Children'due south Early Academic Achievement: Evidence from Ii-Parent Families from the Early Babyhood Longitudinal Study–Birth Cohort. Early Educ. Dev. 2013;25:xix–35. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2013.764225. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
41. Meuwissen A.S., Carlson Southward.G. Fathers matter: The role of father parenting in preschoolers' executive function development. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 2015;140:one–xv. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2015.06.010. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
42. Cabrera North.J., Shannon J.D., West J., Brooks-Gunn J. Parental Interactions with Latino Infants: Variation by Country of Origin and English language Proficiency. Child Dev. 2006;77:1190–1207. doi: x.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00928.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
43. Carson J.Fifty., Parke R.D. Reciprocal Negative Affect in Parent-Child Interactions and Children's Peer Competency. Child Dev. 1996;67:2217–2226. doi: ten.2307/1131619. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
44. Flemish region J.L., Leo V., Paquette D., Pihl R.O., Séguin J.R. Crude-and-tumble play and the regulation of aggression: An observational study of begetter-kid play dyads. Aggress. Behav. 2009;35:285–295. doi: 10.1002/ab.20309. [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
45. Flanders J.L., Simard M., Paquette D., Parent Due south., Vitaro F., Pihl R.O., Séguin J.R. Rough-and-tumble Play and the Evolution of Concrete Aggression and Emotion Regulation: A Five-Year Follow-Up Report. J. Fam. Violence. 2009;25:357–367. doi: 10.1007/s10896-009-9297-5. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
46. Majdandžić Grand., de Vente Westward., Colonnesi C., Bögels S.M. Fathers' challenging parenting beliefs predicts less subsequent anxiety symptoms in early childhood. Behav. Res. Ther. 2018;109:18–28. doi: 10.1016/j.deviling.2018.07.007. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
47. Anderson Due south., Qiu W., Wheeler S.J. The Quality of Father-Child Rough-and-Tumble Play and Toddlers' Aggressive Behavior in China. Kid Adolesc. Soc. Piece of work. J. 2017;38:726–742. doi: ten.1002/imhj.21675. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
48. Isley Due south., O'Neil R., Parke R.D. The Relation of Parental Affect and Control Behaviors to Children's Classroom Credence: A Concurrent and Predictive Assay. Early Educ. Dev. 1996;7:7–23. doi: ten.1207/s15566935eed0701_2. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
49. Fletcher R., StGeorge J., Freeman East. Rough and tumble play quality: Theoretical foundations for a new measure out of father–child interaction. Early Child Dev. Intendance. 2013;183:746–759. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2012.723439. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
50. Cook 1000.A., Roggman L.A., Boyce L.Grand. Fathers' and mothers' cerebral stimulation in early play with toddlers: Predictors of fifth form reading and math. Fam. Sci. 2011;ii:131–145. doi: ten.1080/19424620.2011.640559. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
51. Agency J.-F., Martin J., Yurkowski K., Schmiedel Southward., Quan J., Moss E., Deneault A.-A., Pallanca D. Correlates of child–male parent and child–female parent attachment in the preschool years. Attach. Hum. Dev. 2016;nineteen:130–150. doi: ten.1080/14616734.2016.1263350. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
52. Bernier A., Carlson Southward.M., Deschênes M., Matte-Gagné C. Social factors in the development of early executive operation: A closer look at the caregiving environment. Dev. Sci. 2011;fifteen:12–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01093.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
53. Shannon J.D., Tamis-LeMonda C.S., London Grand., Cabrera N. Beyond Rough and Tumble: Low-Income Fathers' Interactions and Children's Cognitive Development at 24 Months. Parenting. 2002;2:77–104. doi: 10.1207/S15327922PAR0202_01. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
54. Tamis-LeMonda C.Due south., Shannon J.D., Cabrera N.J., Lamb M.E. Fathers and Mothers at Play with Their two- and iii-Year-Olds: Contributions to Language and Cognitive Development. Child Dev. 2004;75:1806–1820. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00818.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
55. Kwon K.-A., Bingham 1000.Eastward., Lewsader J., Jeon H.-J., Elicker J. Structured Task Versus Free Play: The Influence of Social Context on Parenting Quality, Toddlers' Engagement with Parents and Play Behaviors, and Parent–Toddler Language Employ. Kid Youth Care Forum. 2013;42:207–224. doi: 10.1007/s10566-013-9198-x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
56. Roggman 50., Boyce L., Cook G., Christiansen K., Jones D. Playing With Daddy: Social Toy Play, Early on Caput Start, and Developmental Outcomes. Begetter. A J. Theory Res. Pract. Men Father. 2004;two:83–108. doi: ten.3149/fth.0201.83. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
57. Lindsey Due east.West., Cremeens P.R., Caldera Y.G. Mother-kid and male parent-child mutuality in two contexts: Consequences for immature children's peer relationships. Infant Child Dev. 2009;19:142–160. doi: 10.1002/icd.645. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
58. Martin A., Ryan R.K., Brooks-Gunn J. The joint influence of mother and male parent parenting on child cerebral outcomes at age 5. Early on Child. Res. Q. 2007;22:423–439. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.07.001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
59. Lindsey E.W., Cremeens P.R., Colwell M.J., Caldera Y.M. The Structure of Parent-Child Dyadic Synchrony in Toddlerhood and Children's Advice Competence and Cocky-control. Soc. Dev. 2009;18:375–396. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00489.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
lx. Bordeleau S., Bernier A., Carrier J. Longitudinal Associations between Quality of Mother-Infant Interactions and Children's Sleep at Preschool Age. Sleep Med. 2011;12:S126. doi: x.1016/s1389-9457(11)70469-5. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
61. McElwain N.L., Volling B.50. Attachment security and parental sensitivity during infancy: Associations with friendship quality and false-belief understanding at historic period 4. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 2004;21:639–667. doi: 10.1177/0265407504045892. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
62. Towe-Goodman N.R., Willoughby M., Blair C., Gustafsson H.C., Mills-Koonce W.R., Cox Grand.J. Fathers' sensitive parenting and the development of early executive functioning. J. Fam. Psychol. 2014;28:867–876. doi: 10.1037/a0038128. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
63. Kahen Five., Katz L.F., Gottman J.Thou. Linkages between parent-child interaction and conversations of friends. Soc. Dev. 1994;3:238–254. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.1994.tb00043.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
64. Kleim J.A., Jones T.A. Principles of Experience-Dependent Neural Plasticity: Implications for Rehabilitation after Brain Damage. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 2008;51:S225–S239. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2008/018). [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
65. Freedson P., Bowles H.R., Troiano R., Haskell W. Assessment of Concrete Activity Using Wearable Monitors. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2012;44:S1–S4. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182399b7e. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
66. Prince South.A., Adamo One thousand.B., Hamel Yard.E., Hardt J., Gorber S.C., Tremblay M. A comparing of straight versus self-study measures for assessing concrete activity in adults: A systematic review. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Human activity. 2008;5:56. doi: x.1186/1479-5868-five-56. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
67. Muckler F.A., Vii S.A. Selecting Performance Measures: "Objective" versus "Subjective" Measurement. Hum. Factors: J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 1992;34:441–455. doi: ten.1177/001872089203400406. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
68. Libertus K., Hauf P. Editorial: Motor Skills and Their Foundational Role for Perceptual, Social, and Cognitive Development. Front. Psychol. 2017;8:301. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00301. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
69. Needham A., Barrett T., Peterman K. A choice-me-up for infants' exploratory skills: Early simulated experiences reaching for objects using 'sticky mittens' enhances young infants' object exploration skills. Babe Behav. Dev. 2002;25:279–295. doi: x.1016/S0163-6383(02)00097-8. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
70. Bandurra A. Social Learning Theory. Prentice Hall; Englewood Cliffs, NJ, The states: 1977. [Google Scholar]
71. Hughes F.P. Children, Play and Evolution. SAGE Publishing; Newbury Park, CA, United states: 2009. [Google Scholar]
72. Ho D.Y.F. Fatherhood in Chinese civilisation. In: Lamb Yard.East., editor. The Father's Role: Cross-Cultural Perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc; Hillsdale, MA, Usa: 1987. pp. 227–245. [Google Scholar]
73. Ayorinde A.A., Williams I., Mannion R., Song F., Skrybant One thousand., Lilford R.J., Chen Y.-F. Cess of publication bias and upshot reporting bias in systematic reviews of health services and delivery enquiry: A meta-epidemiological study. PLoS ONE. 2020;15:e0227580. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227580. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Articles from Children are provided hither courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Plant (MDPI)
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8153002/
0 Response to "S1 Systematic Review Methodology Parenting Influences on Executive Function"
Post a Comment