Table 2.
Results of the included studies.
| Study | Outcome Assessment | Theory of Mind | Emotion Recognition | Social decision-making | Perspective Taking | Other | Follow-up |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age group: 0–18 years, children and adolescents | |||||||
| Bianco et al. (2019) | Theory of mind (strange stories) | ↑* | / | ||||
| Bianco et al. (2021) | Theory of mind (strange stories) | ↑* | / | ||||
| Caputi et al. (2021) | Theory of mind (strange stories) | ↑* | Subgroup analysis for gender | / | |||
| Carbonero Martin et al. (2013) | Theory of mind task (false belief) | ↑* | / | ||||
| Mentalist skills register | ↑* | / | |||||
| Guajardo and Watson et al. (2002), study 1 | Composite theory of mind score (unexpected change task, unexpected content task, deception task, perceptual appearance-reality distinction tasks) | x | 4–5 w | ||||
| Auditory comprehension of language-revised test | n.r | 4–5 w | |||||
| Hale and Tager-Flusberg (2003) | False belief test | ↑* (both groups: false belief & sentential complement) | / | ||||
| Sentential complement test | ↑* (only sentential complement group) | / | |||||
| Relative clause test | ↑* (only relative clause group) | / | |||||
| Lecce et al. (2014) | Theory of mind (two second-order false belief tasks, two belief–desire–reasoning tasks, and a selection of the theory-of-mind test components) | ↑* | 2 m | ||||
| Metamemory (metamemory vignette task) | ↑* | 2 m | |||||
| Lu et al. (2008), study 2 | Composite theory of mind score (four false belief tasks, two deception tasks) | ↑* | / | ||||
| Ornaghi et al. (2021) | False-belief understanding | ↑* | / | ||||
| Emotion comprehension | ↑* | / | |||||
| Peskin et al. (2004) | False-belief explanation battery | ↑* | / | ||||
| False-belief prediction battery | x | / | |||||
| Qu et al. (2015) | Composite theory of mind score (false belief, location false belief, belief emotion) | Prediction analysis | / | ||||
| Language (PPVT-IV) | Prediction analysis | / | |||||
| Executive function composite (forward digit, backward digit, flexible item selection task) | Prediction analysis | / | |||||
| Rostan et al. (2014) | Unexpected content task | ↑ | 1.5 m | ||||
| Change of location task | ↑ | 1.5 m | |||||
| Appearance-reality task | ↑* | 1.5 m | |||||
| Serrat et al. (2013) | Unexpected content task | ↑ | / | ||||
| Change of location task | ↑ (in DIS and LAB) | / | |||||
| Appearance-reality task | ↑* | / | |||||
| Age group: 18–60 years: young and middle aged adults | |||||||
| Alkozei et al. (2018) | Iowa gambling task | x | / | ||||
| Emotional intelligence composite (bar-on emotional quotient inventory, The Mayer–Salovey–Caruso emotional intelligence test) | ↑* | / | |||||
| Haut et al. (2019) | Empathic accuracy task | ↑* | / | ||||
| Intrinsic motivation inventory | Prediction analysis | / | |||||
| Kemney et al. (2012) | Recognizing microexpressions of emotion on the face | ↑* | 5 m | ||||
| Meyer et al. (2016) | Perspective-taking task | ↑* | / | ||||
| Working memory task | ↑* | / | |||||
| Santiesteban et al. (2012) | Imitation-inhibition task | ↑* | / | ||||
| Strange story task | x | / | |||||
| Director task | x | / | |||||
| Valk et al. (2017) | Theory of mind | ↑ | / | ||||
| Age group: older than 60 years: older adults | |||||||
| Cavallini et al. (2015) | Theory of mind stories | ↑* | / | ||||
| Theory of mind animations | x | / | |||||
| Lecce et al. (2015) | Strange story task | x (compared to passive control) | |||||
| Metarepresentational verbs task | ↑* (compared to passive control) | / | |||||
| Metamemory questionnaire | ↑* (compared to passive control) | / | |||||
| Lecce et al. (2019) | Composite of strange story task and metarepresentational verbs task | ↑* | / | ||||
| Composite score of vocal test on mental states and animation task | ↑* | / | |||||
| Rosi et al. (2016) | Strange story task | ↑* | / | ||||
| Animation task | ↑* | / | |||||
The table shows the results of the direct post-test assessment of the studies.
Follow-up results were not reported as follow-up lengths were too heterogeneous and not all studies conducted follow-ups.
↑ = experimental group performed better than control group. ↓ = experimental group performed worse than control group. * = significant results. X = no difference between experimental and control group. n.r. = not reported. w = weeks. m = months.