Table 1.
Characteristics of included studies.
| Study | Design | Participants | Intervention | Outcome | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Author, year and country | n | Age M (SD) | Sex | Name | Description (training content, overall number of sessions, training length per session, delivery mode ) | Theory of mind | Emotion recognition | Social decision-making | Perspective taking | Others | |
| Age group: 0–18 years, children and adolescents | |||||||||||
|
Bianco et al. (2019) Italy |
Cluster-RCT |
Group 1: 27 Group 2: 22 |
Overall: 7.60 years (3.98 months) |
Group 1: 59.25%♀ Group 2: 68.18♀ |
Group 1: advanced theory of mind Group 2: control condition |
Group 1: two misunderstandings, two sarcasms, two faux-pas und two double-bluff stories in increasing complexity Group 2: narratives and language exercises referred not to mental, but to physical states 4 sessions, twice a week, 50 min each Face to face group setting |
x | Verbal ability, working memory, interference control, shifting, reading comprehension, metacognition | |||
|
Bianco et al. (2021) Italy |
Cluster-RCT |
Group 1: 28 Group 2: 36 Group 3: 27 |
Overall: 7.59 years (3.97 months) |
Group 1: 53.57%♀ Group 2: 50.00%♀ Group 3: 59.26%♀ |
Group 1: second-order reaction time Group 2: advanced theory of mind Group 3: control condition |
Group 1: group conversations about narratives & two language exercises Group 2: two misunderstandings, two sarcasms, two faux-pas und two double-bluff stories in increasing complexity Group 3: narratives and language exercises referred not to mental, but to physical states 4 sessions, twice a week, 50 min each Face to face group setting |
x | Verbal ability, working memory, interference control, shifting, reading comprehension, metacognition | |||
|
Caputi et al. (2021) Italy |
RCT | Overall: 210 | Overall: 9.66 years (0.85) | Overall:48.00%♀ |
Group 1: theory of mind training Group 2: no-theory of mind training |
Group 1: group discussion about mentalistic stories which were similar to target strange stories Group 2: group discussion about physical stories which were similar to target strange stories 5 weekly sessions, 50 min each Face to face group setting |
x | Loneliness, verbal abilities, socio-economic status | |||
|
Carbonero Martin et al. (2013) Spain |
Quasi-experimental |
Group 1: 10 Group 2: 10 |
n.a |
Group 1: 50.0% ♀ Group 2: 50.0% ♀ |
Group 1: mentalist skills Group 2: control group |
Group 1: metacognitive intervention program in which children learn to talk about other people’s mental states, weekly 45 min sessions for 3 months Group 2: no treatment Face to face group setting |
x | Mentalist skills | |||
|
Guajardo and Watson et al. (2002) USA |
RCT |
Group 1: 19 Group 2: 18 |
Overall: 46.0 (n.a.)a |
Group 1: 45.0% ♀ Group 2: 33.3% ♀ |
Group 1: storytelling training Group 2: control group |
Group 1: stories about maxi and his mother in different everyday situations with false-belief tasks in 12–15 sessions each lasting 15–25 min over a period of 5 weeks Group 2: no treatment Face to face group setting |
x | Language | |||
|
Hale and Tager-Flusberg (2003) USA |
RCT |
Group 1: 20 Group 2: 20 Group 3: 20 |
Group 1: 47.0 (5.1)a Group 2: 48.4 (5.9)a Group 3: 45.6 (6.3)a |
Overall: 41.6% ♀ |
Group 1: false belief Group 2: sentential complements Group 3: relative clauses |
Group 1: location change story Group 2: story about action towards a Sesame street character and questions about it Group 3: two twin characters performed tasks, children had to say which character did what Two training sessions Face to face group setting |
x | Sentential complements, relative clauses | |||
|
Lecce et al. (2014) Italy |
RCT |
Group 1: 33 Group 2: 29 |
Overall: between 4 and 5 years |
Group 1: 51.5% ♀ Group 2: 34.4% ♀ |
Group 1: theory of mind training Group 2: control-physical condition |
Group 1: ToM training focused on first-order false-belief tasks Group 2: participants practiced on control-physical stories (stories about events in the physical domains e.g. logical consequences involving humans and animals) Both training consisted of three 20 min sessions Face to face individual setting |
x | Metamemory | |||
|
Lu et al. (2008) China |
RCT |
Group 1: 26 Group 2: 25 |
Group 1: 43.9 (4.4)a Group 2: 43.9 (4.9)a |
Group 1: 46.1% ♀ Group 2: 56.0% ♀ |
Group 1: theory of mind training Group 2: control training |
Group 1: storytelling with questions regarding characters of the story Group 2: storytelling with questions regarding physical features Four sessions, 10–15 min each Face to face individual setting |
x | ||||
|
Ornaghi et al. (2021) Italy |
RCT | Overall: 70 | Overall: 3.10 years (5.96 months) |
Group 1: 50.00% ♀ Group 2: 50.00% ♀ |
Group 1: theory of mind training Group 2: control training |
Group 1: storytelling enriched with metal state language and language games Group 2: storytelling, but free play afterwards 2-month intervention, twice weekly sessions, 20 min each Face to face group setting |
x | Metacognition, language, Pragmatic competence | |||
|
Peskin et al. (2004) Canada |
RCT | Overall: 48 |
Group 1: 4.5 (n.a.) Group 2: 4.7 (n.a.) |
Group 1: 41.66%♀ Group 2: 45.83%♀ |
Group 1: theory of mind training Group 2: control training |
Group 1: books with test rich in explicit metacognitive terms Group 2: same books without metacognitive language 4-week intervention Face to face group setting |
x | Language, metacognition | |||
|
Qu et al. (2015) Singapore |
RCT | Overall: 71 |
Group 1: 59.4 (5.4)a Group 2: 60.6 (5.6)a Group 3: 60.2(6.1)a |
Overall: 47.8% |
Group 1: free play Group 2: sociodramatic play Group 3: sociodramatic play and theory of mind coaching |
Group 1: books and several toys were provided for free play Group 2: ToM story, participants pretended to be in the story Group 3: similar to Group 2, with additional support Four weekly 45 min sessions Face to face group setting |
x | Language, executive functions | |||
|
Rostan et al. (2014) Spain |
RCT | Overall: 78 |
Group 1: 43.8 (1.7)a Group 2: 42.9 (1.6)a Group 3: 43.2 (1.9)a |
Group 1: 65.0% ♀ Group 2: 58.0% ♀ Group 3: 58.0% ♀ |
Group 1: SDO training Group 2: SDN training Group 3: LAB training |
Group 1: sentential complements with deceptive objects (e.g. a candle in the shape of a tomato, children have to talk about what the object is) Group 2: sentential complements with non-deceptive objects Group 3: labelling of objects according to characteristics 3 training sessions, each 5–10 min Face to face group setting |
x | Vocabulary | |||
|
Serrat Sellabona et al. (2013) Spain |
RCT | Overall: 104, 26 per group | Overall: 3.70 (n.a.) | n.a |
Group 1: discourse training (DIS) Group 2: labelling training (LAB) Group 3: sentential complements with non-deceptive objects (SDN) Group 4: control group (CON) |
Group 1: children needed to talk with a puppet about deceptive objects they saw Group 2: labelling of objects according to characteristics Group 3: sentential complements with deceptive objects (e.g. a candle in the shape of a tomato, children have to talk about what the object is) Group 4: deceptive objects were shown but nobody talked Three training sessions, 10 min each Face to face group setting |
x | ||||
| Age group: 18–60 years: young and middle aged adults | |||||||||||
|
Alkozei et al. (2018) USA |
RCT |
Group 1: 31 Group 2: 31 |
Group 1: 27.1 (6.7) Group 2: 26.8 (8.1) |
Group 1: 58.6% ♀ Group 2: 50.0% ♀ |
Group 1: internal awareness training Group 2: external awareness training |
Group 1: program focused on understanding, perceiving, managing and using emotions Group 2: program focused on learning about external environment (e.g. plants). Both programs consisted of 6 lessons, twice a week for 3 weeks, each session lasting 30–45 min Online individual setting |
x | Emotional intelligence | |||
|
Haut et al. (2019) USA |
RCT |
Group 1: 24 Group 2: 21 |
Group 1: 24.5 (2.9) Group 2: 24.6 (2.9) |
Group 1: 41.7% ♀ Group 2: 53.0% ♀ |
Group 1: social cognitive training Group 2: computer game control |
Group 1: training focused on training facial emotion recognition, emotional prosody, perspective-taking Group 2: participants completed common computer games Both trainings consisted of 15 sessions, each 45 min Online individual setting |
x | Empathy, intrinsic motivation | |||
|
Kemney et al. (2012) USA |
RCT |
Group 1: 41 Group 2: 41 |
Overall: 41.1 (10.4) |
Group 1: 100% ♀ Group 2: 100% ♀ |
Group 1: meditation/emotion training Group 2: waitlist control group |
Group 1: concentration training, mindfulness, promotion of empathy, yoga, emotion recognition Group 2: waitlist control Training lasting 8 weeks (42 h) Face to face group setting |
x | Mood, stress | |||
|
Meyer et al. (2016) USA |
RCT |
Group 1: 27 Group 2: 27 |
Group 1: 21.4 (3.5) Group 2: 21.1 (2.1) |
Group 1: 51.8% ♀ Group 2: 51.8% ♀ |
Group 1: social working memory training Group 2: cognitive working memory training |
Group 1: ranking of friends in working memory training Group 2: alphabetical ranking in working memory training Both training consisted of twelve 20 min sessions Online individual setting |
x | Working memory | |||
|
Santiesteban et al. (2012) UK |
RCT |
Group 1: 19 Group 2: 17 Group 3: 17 |
Overall: 26.7(6.6) | n.a. |
Group 1: imitation training Group 2: imitation-inhibition training Group 3: inhibitory control training |
Group 1: training focuses on imitation of videos in which either an index or middle finger performed a lifting movement Group 2: training focuses on not imitating moves from a video, but rather do the opposite (lift the middle finger when the video shows the index finger) Group 3: stroop-task training Two training sessions, 40 min each Face to face individual setting |
x | x | |||
|
Valk et al. (2017) Germany |
RCT |
Group 1: 80 Group 2: 81 Group 3: 81 |
Overall: 40.7(9.2) | Overall: 59.3% ♀ |
Group 1 and 2: affect, presence and perspective module Group 3: only affect module |
Group 1 and 2 attended all three modules in a different order. Group 3 only attended the affect training. Trainings lasted 39 weeks, divided in 3 modules, each lasting 12 weeks Face to face group setting |
x | Compassion, selective attention | |||
| Age group: older than 60 years: older adults | |||||||||||
|
Cavallini et al. (2015) Italy |
RCT |
Group 1: 37 Group 2: 26 |
Group 1: 71.4 (5.1) Group 2: 71.5 (5.6) |
Group 1: 86.5% ♀ Group 2: 85.5% ♀ |
Group 1: theory of mind training Group 2: physical-conversation training |
Group 1: ToM training focused on tasks and conversations about mental states Group 2: participants practiced and discussed material about physical occurrences Both trainings consisted of 4 sessions. No information on training frequency Face to face group setting |
x | ||||
|
Lecce et al. (2015) Italy |
RCT |
Group 1: 24 Group 2: 24 Group 3: 24 |
Group 1: 69.6 (7.3) Group 2: 65.5 (5.3) Group 3: 67.7 (5.9) |
Group 1: 79.2% ♀ Group 2: 79.2% ♀ Group 3: 70.8% ♀ |
Group 1: theory of mind training Group 2: physical conversion training Group 3: social contact group |
Group 1: ToM training focused on tasks and conversations about mental states Group 2: participants practiced and discussed material about physical occurrences Group 3: group conversations Two weekly 2-h training sessions Face to face group setting |
x | Metamemory | |||
|
Lecce et al. (2019) Italy |
Quasi-experiment | Group 1: 43 | Group 1: 68.3 (6.4) | Group 1: 66.6% ♀ | Group 1: theory of mind training |
Group 1: ToM training focused on tasks and conversations about mental states Three weekly 2-h training sessions Face to face group setting |
x | Updating, set-shifting, verbal knowledge | |||
|
Rosi et al. (2016) Italy |
RCT |
Group 1: 85 Group 2: 83 |
Group 1: 70.5 (6.9) Group 2: 68.4 (6.1) |
n.a. |
Group 1: theory of mind training Group 2: control group |
Group 1: ToM training focused on tasks and conversations about mental states Group 2: participants practiced and discussed material about physical occurrences Four 2-h sessions. No information on training frequency Face to face group setting |
x | Animation task | |||
RCT randomized controlled trial, ToM theory of mind.
aAge of children was displayed in months.