Search

Sport psychology embraced the study of athletic identity in the 1990s. The Athletic Identity Measurement Scale (AIMS) is at the forefront of athletic identity measurement. This quantitative review examined two hypotheses: individual who are most engaged in sports identify most as athletes and thus score higher on the AIMS, and athletic identity relates to positive (e.g., intrinsic motivation) and negative (negative emotions) factors. In addition to our two hypotheses, we explored whether the AIMS subscales influenced our two hypotheses. After completing a systematic search of SPORTDiscus, APA PsycINFO, ERIC, and Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection APA within the EBSCOhost platform along with some hand searching, 101 articles published between 1993 and our end date of August 2021 met the inclusion criteria. The included studies investigated 20,498 athletes competing in a variety of sports from the following continents: Australia, Asia, Europe, and North America. We based all analyses on random- and mixed-effects statistics. Higher-achieving athletes, as expected, self-reported a higher degree of athletic identity. The differences between athlete groups were significant (p < 0.001) and meaningful (g values ranged from 1.55 to 1.93). The AIMS total score correlations with positive and negative factors (correlates) were small in magnitude (r = 0.22 and 0.17). However, the relationships differed across correlate subcategories (e.g., intrinsic motivation/commitment, r = 0.51, and body issues, r = 0.14). Minimal AIMS subscale reporting occurred across the 101 studies; thus, we could not assess their importance with certainty. In conclusion, a higher degree of athletic identity related to valued sport correlates such as intrinsic motivation/commitment and the mastery goal orientation. These correlations were small in relation to negative or less desirable factors in sport such as body disorder issues and negative emotions. We recommend future research of greater complexity and the reporting of athletes’ competitive backgrounds to understand athletic identity. In addition, researchers should report AIMS subscale data.

MMA is a global sport with a growing body of psychological literature. Our main objective was to replicate and extend a past review concerning the sport psychology literature with MMA participants. We conducted our electronic search in EBSCO with the following databases: SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, ERIC, and Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection. Our eligibility criteria were research articles (a) found in academic journals, (b) with MMA participants, and (c) at least one topic found in sport psychology literature. After conducting a PRISMA-guided search, 16 studies met our inclusion criteria. The studies spanned from 2011 to 2021, with 795 MMA participants from the USA (n = 7), Brazil (n = 4), and one study each from Czechia, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. From studies reporting mean ages, MMA participants were in their mid-20s (M = 26.55 ± 2.38 years of age). The results section includes risk of bias ratings across five areas (i.e., subject selection, sample’s MMA background, participant anonymity, data collection procedures, and questionnaire or qualitative theme reporting). More risk of bias concerns resulted with the quantitative than qualitative articles. To best represent the studies, we presented separate results tables with many specifics for both the quantitative (i.e., topic, main analysis, time frame, summary of results, and meaningfulness) and qualitative studies (topic, main analysis, time frame, and main themes). The included studies covered a variety of historic and meta-analyzed topics such as confidence, mood, motivations, and social facilitation. Based on our review, we discussed the literature strengths and limitations, and suggested future research directions. Last, we provided practical points for both MMA participants and their trainers.

The relationship between self-efficacy and performance exclusively within the sports environment is yet to be quantified. Hence, we meta-analysed this relationship by following the PRISMA guidelines. Two previous meta-analyses, five relevant databases, and Google Scholar were searched. Forty-four articles published between 1983 and 2021 met the inclusion criteria, with 55 independent samples. Comprehensive meta-analysis software version 4 was used for all meta-analytic calculations using a random-effects model to calculate the mean effect size, and a mixed-effects model was used for moderation analyses. The mean pre-event self-efficacy and performance effect size was r = 0.31 (95% CI 0.22, 0.40). For moderation analyses, notable mean differences (p values ≥ 0.08) resulted for concordance [concordant (r = 0.37), nonconcordant (r = 0.22)], sports skill [closed (r = 0.37), open (r = 0.23)], and athlete level [elite (r = 0.40), sub-elite (r = 0.28)]. The true effect prediction interval ranged from negative (i.e., self-efficacy impairing performance) to positive (self-efficacy improving performance) for all moderator variables except self-referenced vs. other-referenced performance. In conclusion, the relationship between pre-event self-efficacy and performance is positive and moderate in magnitude, although with prediction intervals ranging from debilitating to facilitating performance. Researchers and practitioners should note that high athlete-rated self-efficacy might not always improve impending competitive sports performance.

Background and Study Aim. Researchers since the late 1970s have been interested in finding out the reasons attributed to outcomes. To facilitate attribution research in Croatia we translated and validated The Revised Causal Dimension Scale (CDS-II) and examined its invariance when attributing most and least successful competition performances. Materials and methods. To achieve our stated aim, 384 kinesiology students completed the translated CDS-II. To test the latent structure of the questionnaire, we used CFA and tested two alternative models (orthogonal solution and model with correlated latent variables). Additionally, we examined the CDS-II invariance when attributing the most and the least successful competition performance in sport using longitudinal CFA. The reliability was tested using Cronbach alpha coefficients. Lastly, we tested differences in latent means between most and least successful performance using pairwise t-test. Results. Similar to the originally published findings, CFA indicated the CDS-II structure with correlated latent variables had an adequate and better fit than the orthogonal solution in both situations. Furthermore, we confirmed configural, metric and scalar invariance, as well as partial strict invariance since one item’s residuals differed significantly from the others. Cronbach alpha coefficients were adequate across both situations. Lastly, athletes attributed their most successful performances to more internal, stable and controllable reasons than their least successful performances. Conclusions. We confirmed that the Croatian version of the CDS-II has adequate psychometric properties and is therefore suitable for research in sport situations.

Sport psychology as an academic pursuit is nearly two centuries old. An enduring goal since inception has been to understand how psychological techniques can improve athletic performance. Although much evidence exists in the form of meta-analytic reviews related to sport psychology and performance, a systematic review of these meta-analyses is absent from the literature. We aimed to synthesize the extant literature to gain insights into the overall impact of sport psychology on athletic performance. Guided by the PRISMA statement for systematic reviews, we reviewed relevant articles identified via the EBSCOhost interface. Thirty meta-analyses published between 1983 and 2021 met the inclusion criteria, covering 16 distinct sport psychology constructs. Overall, sport psychology interventions/variables hypothesized to enhance performance (e.g., cohesion, confidence, mindfulness) were shown to have a moderate beneficial effect (d = 0.51), whereas variables hypothesized to be detrimental to performance (e.g., cognitive anxiety, depression, ego climate) had a small negative effect (d = -0.21). The quality rating of meta-analyses did not significantly moderate the magnitude of observed effects, nor did the research design (i.e., intervention vs. correlation) of the primary studies included in the meta-analyses. Our review strengthens the evidence base for sport psychology techniques and may be of great practical value to practitioners. We provide recommendations for future research in the area.