**2. Method**

This systematic review was drafted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations [21].

#### **2.1 Search strategy**

A search was made without time or language filters in December 2020 in the Web of Science, MedLine (via PubMed), ScienceDirect, and Scopus databases. We used the keywords "exergames", "motor education", and "children". The search phrase was obtained using the Boolean operators OR (between the synonyms) and AND (between the descriptors). Two independent evaluators performed the search. Any disagreements were solved by a consensus meeting or decided by a supervisor.

#### **2.2 Inclusion and exclusion criteria**

We included peer-reviewed articles that investigated the use of exergames on the acquisition and development of at least one type of locomotor skill or object control both in Physical Education classes and in non-formal educational contexts (clubs, gyms, residences) in school-aged individuals. The exclusion criteria consisted of: (1) opinion articles, reviews, case reports, annals of congresses, books, book chapters, theses, dissertations, and technical reports; (2) games unsuitable for residential or educational use, as well as computer games; (3) research related to the rehabilitation of special groups.

#### **2.3 Data collection process**

Data extracted from included studies comprised the following analytical matrices: (1) author, year of publication, and country of the study; (2) purpose of the study; (3) descriptive characteristics of the participants; (4) methodological aspects; (5) results.

#### **2.4 Methodological quality evaluation and epistemological diagnosis**

The methodological quality of the studies was evaluated by the Jadad scale [22], which consists of the punctuation of the scores from 11 domains, namely: 1a) the study was reported as randomized; 1b) the randomization was properly performed; 2a) the study was a double-blind trial; 2b) the blinding was properly performed; 3) the sample loss was described. If items 1a, 2a, and 3 were performed, the study got 1 point per item. If items 1b and 2b were observed, the study received another point per item. In the case of items 1b and 2b were not met, the study lost 1 point concerning items 1a and 2a, respectively. On this scale, the scores ranged

from 0 to 5. Studies with scores equal to or lower than 3 points were considered at a high risk of bias. Two independent and qualified researchers applied this instrument. A third author was consulted in case of any divergence.

The epistemological evaluation of the surveyed material occurred through the Systematization for Research Approaches in Sports Sciences (SRASS) instrument [23]. The SRASS aims to determine the epistemic approaches of studies regarding their guiding paradigms (empirical-experimental paradigm; critical-dialectic paradigm; hermeneutic-phenomenological paradigm); nature of the study (intervention study; cross-sectional study; case study; laboratory study); support theories (theories of human movement; game theories; theories of sports training; theories of didactics applied to sport) and subareas of linkage to Sport Sciences (Sports Medicine; Biomechanics applied to Sport; Sport Psychology; Sport Pedagogy); Sociology of Sport; History of Sport; Philosophy of Sport; Sport and Health; Sport for Special Groups; Sport and Media; Sport of Participation) [23, 24].
