Methodology
How Was This Research Done?
How Was This Research Done?
This study used a qualitative rapid review; a method for gathering and analyzing a wide range of existing research in an efficient and structured way.
Embedded Files
- The Right Approach
A qualitative methodology was chosen because the study was trying to understand the meaning behind how and why children develop social-emotional skills outdoors (Creswell & Creswell, 2023). A rapid review design allowed a thorough look at a wide range of literature within the time available (Dobbins, 2017). Thematic analysis then allowed for themes to be revealed within the literature reviewed.
- Eligibility Criteria
Before searching, clear guidelines were established to determine which studies could be included. This kept the research focused and relevant.
Published between 2015 and 2025
Peer-reviewed articles only
Focused on children ages 0–5
Must include social-emotional development in outdoor or nature settings
Written in English
Conducted anywhere in the world
- Searching the Databases
Two major academic databases were used to find relevant studies:
Academic Search Complete — Primary database; easy to filter and access full articles
ERIC — Database used to widen the search
Search terms included: "early childhood," "nature-based play," "outdoor play," "social-emotional development," "social-emotional learning" and excluded "school age" or "kindergarten" to keep the focus on young children.
- Screening Articles with Covidence
All retrieved articles were uploaded to Covidence, which is a digital screening platform. This tool helped organize, remove duplicates, and track decisions. Articles were reviewed first by title and abstract, then in full, to decide whether they should be included in the study.
- Extracting Data Using PRISMA
The PRISMA framework (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guided how information was extracted from each included article; making sure nothing important was missed and the process was fully transparent (Page et al., 2020). Key details recorded: author, year, location, method, participants, purpose, and key findings.
- Thematic Analysis
Using an inductive thematic analysis approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006), patterns were identified by reading and re-reading the included studies, coding the findings, and grouping similar codes into broader themes. This is how the four main themes were discovered and documented.
Study Selection Summary
Study Selection Summary
22
Studies identified
14
Full texts reviewed
18
Studies excluded
4
Studies included
How exclusions happened: Of the 14 full texts assessed, 10 were excluded — wrong intervention (n = 5), wrong study design (n = 3), wrong outcomes (n = 1), and wrong patient population (n = 1). The 4 remaining studies, from Canada, the United States, and Singapore, were included in the final thematic analysis. Search strings were refined during the process to capture relevant literature, which is standard practice in rapid reviews (Dobbins, 2017).
Ethical Considerations
Ethical Considerations
- Peer-Reviewed Sources Only
All articles used were publicly available, peer-reviewed, and accessed through academic databases. No unpublished or private materials were used.
Honest Reporting
The researcher made sure personal opinions did not influence the findings that were highlighted. Themes came from the data, not from what was expected.
Clear Process
Covidence software created a clear audit trail of all screening decisions so the entire research process could be reviewed and verified at any point.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse