The Benefits of Drama and Therapeutic Theatre for Children with Disabilities: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Intervention-Based Studies
Description
Theatre-based interventions are active psychotherapeutic approaches involving the intentional and systematic use of theatrical processes to primarily promote self-expression, enhance social interaction and facilitate emotional, cognitive and social development. They have increasingly been applied to support individuals with disabilities, yet evidence remains fragmented and inconsistent. This review systematically reviewed and synthesized findings from 15 intervention-based studies (n = 453 participants; 103 effect sizes) examining the developmental, social, emotional, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes of drama and therapeutic theatre programs for children with disabilities. Results indicated significant overall benefits of drama and therapeutic theatre interventions, particularly in enhancing social engagement, emotional regulation, and self-expression, with moderate effects observed in cognitive and behavioral domains. Moderator analyses suggested that intervention duration, group format, and type of disability influenced the magnitude of outcomes, with stronger effects reported for children with autism spectrum disorder and in programs of longer duration. Despite methodological variability, the overall quality of evidence was rated as moderate. Findings provide robust support for the inclusion of drama and therapeutic theatre in educational and therapeutic contexts for children with disabilities. However, challenges remain regarding intervention standardization, fidelity, and outcome measurement. Future research should prioritize larger randomized controlled trials, clearer theoretical frameworks, and systematic integration of theatre-based interventions into inclusive education and mental health policies.
Files
Steps to reproduce
A meta-analysis was conducted in R using the metafor package to synthesize quantitative outcomes. Effect sizes were calculated as Hedges’ g (bias-corrected standardized mean differences), derived from reported statistics or computed from pre–post intervention data when available. Only outcomes with sufficient statistical information were included. Given anticipated clinical and methodological heterogeneity, random-effects models using restricted maximum likelihood estimation were applied. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran’s Q, τ², and I² statistics. Sensitivity analyses included outlier detection, influence diagnostics, and leave-one-out analyses. Publication bias was evaluated using Egger’s test and, when indicated, trim-and-fill procedures. Prespecified subgroup analyses and meta-regressions were conducted to explore potential moderators of effect sizes.