Effects of Psychological and Psychosocial Interventions on Sport Performance: A Meta-Analysis
- 2.8k Downloads
Psychologists are increasingly supporting the quest for performance enhancement in sport and there is a need to evaluate the evidence base underpinning their work.
To synthesize the most rigorous available research that has evaluated psychological, social, and psychosocial interventions with sport performers on variables relating to their athletic performance, and to address some of the perplexing issues in the sport psychology intervention literature (e.g., do interventions have a lasting effect on sport performance?).
Randomized controlled trials were identified through electronic databases, hand-searching volumes of pertinent journals, scrutinizing reference lists of previous reviews, and contacting experts in the evaluation of interventions in this field. Included studies were required to evaluate the effects of psychological, social, or psychosocial interventions on sport performance in athletes when compared to a no-treatment or placebo-controlled treatment comparison group. A random effects meta-analysis calculating the standardized mean difference (Hedges’ g), meta-regressions, and trim and fill analyses were conducted. Data were analyzed at post-test and follow-up (ranging from 1 to 4 weeks after the intervention finished) assessments.
Psychological and psychosocial interventions were shown to enhance sport performance at post-test (k = 35, n = 997, Hedges’ g = 0.57, 95 % CI = 0.22–0.92) and follow-up assessments (k = 8, n = 189, Hedges’ g = 1.16, 95 % CI = 0.25–2.08); no social interventions were included or evaluated. Larger effects were found for psychosocial interventions and there was some evidence that effects were greatest in coach-delivered interventions and in samples with a greater proportion of male participants.
Psychological and psychosocial interventions have a moderate positive effect on sport performance, and this effect may last at least a month following the end of the intervention. Future research would benefit from following guidelines for intervention reporting.
KeywordsPsychosocial Intervention Covariate Model Intervention Provider Effect Size Estimate Unexplained Variance
The authors thank Thomas Curran for his advice about the statistical analysis and for his comments on an earlier version of this paper.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
No sources of funding were used in the preparation of this review.
Conflict of interest
Daniel J. Brown and David Fletcher declare that they have no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this review.
- 1.Gardner F, Moore Z. Clinical sport psychology. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2006.Google Scholar
- 2.Hackfort D, editor. Psycho-social issues and interventions in elite sport. Frankfurt: Lang; 1994.Google Scholar
- 4.Meyers AW, Whelan JP, Murphy SM. Cognitive behavioral strategies in athletic performance enhancement. In: Hersen M, Eisler RM, Miller PM, editors. Progress in behavior modification. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole; 1996. p. 137–64.Google Scholar
- 5.Murphy SM, editor. Sport psychology interventions. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 1995.Google Scholar
- 7.Vealey RS. Mental skills training in sports. In: Tenenbaum G, Eklund RC, editors. Handbook of sport psychology. New York City: Wiley; 2007. p. 287–309.Google Scholar
- 8.Whelan JP, Meyers AW, Berman JS. Cognitive-behavior interventions for athletic performance enhancement. In: Annual meeting of the American Psychological Association; New Orleans, LA, 1989.Google Scholar
- 15.Martin GL, Thompson K, Regehr K. Studies using single-subject designs in sport psychology: 30 years of research. Behav Analyst. 2004;27:263–80.Google Scholar
- 18.Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking review in health care. York: York Publishing Services Ltd; 2009.Google Scholar
- 24.Martin LJ, Carron AV, Burke SM. Team building interventions in sport: a meta-analysis. Sport Exerc Psychol Rev. 2009;5:3–18.Google Scholar
- 25.Rovio E, Arvinen-Barrow M, Weigand DA, et al. Team building in sport: a narrative review of the program effectiveness, current methods, and theoretical underpinnings. Athl Insight Online J Sport Psychol. 2010;12:147–64.Google Scholar
- 30.Egger M, Jüni P, Bartlett C, et al. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Asses. 2003;7:1–76.Google Scholar
- 31.Reeves BC, Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, et al. Including non-randomized studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.Google Scholar
- 32.Campbell DT, Stanley JC. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. In: Gage NL, editor. Handbook of research on teaching. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company; 1963. p. 1–76.Google Scholar
- 34.Gresham FM, Gansle KA, Noell GH, et al. Treatment integrity of school-based behavioral intervention studies: 1980–1990. Sch Psychol Rev. 1993;22:254–72.Google Scholar
- 37.Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC. Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.Google Scholar
- 38.Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Special topics in statistics. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.Google Scholar
- 39.Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, et al. Comprehensive meta-analysis: a computer program for research synthesis. 3.0th ed. Englewood: Biostat; 2014.Google Scholar
- 41.Gleser LJ, Olkin I. Stochastically dependent effect sizes. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV, editors. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. 2nd ed. New York City: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. p. 357–76.Google Scholar
- 43.Deeks JJ, Altman DG, Bradburn MJ. Statistical methods for examining heterogeneity and combining results from several studies in meta-analysis. In: Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG, editors. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. London: BMJ Books; 2001. p. 285–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 44.Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Erlbaum; 1988.Google Scholar
- 48.Hedges LV, Olkin I. Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York City: Academic Press; 1985.Google Scholar
- 49.Borenstein M. Effect sizes for continuous data. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC, editors. Handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. 2nd ed. New York City: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. p. 221–35.Google Scholar
- 58.Burroughs WA. Visual simulation training of baseball batters. Int J Sport Psychol. 1984;15:117–26.Google Scholar
- 63.Hill KL, Borden F. The effect of attentional cueing scripts on competitive bowling performance. Int J Sport Psychol. 1995;26:503–12.Google Scholar
- 65.Kress J, Schroeder J, Potteiger JA, et al. The use of psychological skills training to increase 10 KM cycling performance: an exploratory investigation. Int Sports J. 1999;3:44–54.Google Scholar
- 66.Lane A, Streeter B. The effectiveness of goal setting as a strategy to improve basketball shooting performance. Int J Sport Psychol. 2003;34:138–50.Google Scholar
- 69.Madden G, McGown C. The effect of hemisphericity, imagery, and relaxation on volleyball performance. J Hum Movement Stud. 1988;14:197–204.Google Scholar
- 70.Malouff JM, McGee JA, Halford HT, et al. Effects of pre-competition positive imagery and self-instructions on accuracy of serving in tennis. J Sport Behav. 2008;31:264–75.Google Scholar
- 83.Ramsey R, Cumming J, Edwards MG, et al. Examining the emotion aspect of PETTLEP-based imagery with penalty taking in soccer. J Sport Behav. 2010;33:295–314.Google Scholar
- 94.Bushman BJ, Wang MC. Vote counting methods in meta-analysis. In: Cooper HM, Hedges LV, Valentine JC, editors. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. 2nd ed. New York City: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. p. 207–20.Google Scholar
- 96.American Psychological Association. Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. 6th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2010.Google Scholar