The aim of this study was to develop and validate a shortened version of the Profile of Mood States suitable for use with adolescents.The Profile of Mood States-Adolescents (POMS-A) was administered to 1693 participants from two populations: school children and young athletes. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the factorial validity of a 24-item six-factor model using both independent and multi-sample analyses. Correlations of POMS-A scores with previously validated inventories, which were consistent with theoretical predictions, provided evidence of criterion validity. It is proposed that the POMS-A is a valid instrument for the assessment of mood in adolescents.

This study investigated relationships between self-efficacy, self-esteem, previous performance accomplishments, and academic performance among a sample of 205 postgraduate students. Participants completed measures of past performance accomplishments, self-esteem, and self-efficacy at the start of a 15-week course. Each student's average grade from modules studied was used as the performance measure. Correlation results indicated significant relationships between self-efficacy and self-esteem. Multiple regression results indicated that self-efficacy mediated the relationship between performance accomplishments and academic performance. Findings lend support to the predictive effectiveness of self-efficacy measures in academic settings.

Emotions experienced before and during sports competition have been found to influence sports performance. Emotion regulation is defined as the automatic or deliberate use of strategies to initiate, maintain, modify or display emotions (Gross & Thompson, 2007) and is proposed to occur when a discrepancy exists between current and desired emotions. Two distinct motivations to regulate emotion – hedonic and instrumental (in short, for pleasure or for purpose) – have been proposed (Tamir, 2009). The instrumental approach might provide a more fruitful area of investigation for sports researchers as some athletes hold beliefs that supposedly pleasant emotions such as happiness and calmness associate with poor performance and supposedly unpleasant emotions such as anxiety and anger associate with good performance (Hanin, 2010). Athletes are more likely to try to regulate an emotion if they believe that doing so will facilitate performance. Strategies that encourage re-appraisal of factors that trigger emotions are proposed to be preferable. In this British Association of Sport and Exercise Sciences (BASES) expert statement, a summary of the key theoretical issues are offered leading to evidence-based recommendations for practitioners and researchers.

Objectives:To establish injury rates among a population of elite athletes, to provide normative data for psychological variables hypothesised to be predictive of sport injuries, and to establish relations between measures of mood, perceived life stress, and injury characteristics as a precursor to introducing a psychological intervention to ameliorate the injury problem.Methods:As part of annual screening procedures, athletes at the Queensland Academy of Sport report medical and psychological status. Data from 845 screenings (433 female and 412 male athletes) were reviewed. Population specific tables of normative data were established for the Brunel mood scale and the perceived stress scale.Results:About 67% of athletes were injured each year, and about 18% were injured at the time of screening. Fifty percent of variance in stress scores could be predicted from mood scores, especially for vigour, depression, and tension. Mood and stress scores collectively had significant utility in predicting injury characteristics. Injury status (current, healed, no injury) was correctly classified with 39% accuracy, and back pain with 48% accuracy. Among a subset of 233 uninjured athletes (116 female and 117 male), five mood dimensions (anger, confusion, fatigue, tension, depression) were significantly related to orthopaedic incidents over the preceding 12 months, with each mood dimension explaining 6–7% of the variance. No sex differences in these relations were found.Conclusions:The findings support suggestions that psychological measures have utility in predicting athletic injury, although the relatively modest explained variance highlights the need to also include underlying physiological indicators of allostatic load, such as stress hormones, in predictive models.

The aim of this review was to determine the magnitude of the placebo and nocebo effect on sport performance. Articles published before March 2019 were located using Medline, Web of Science, PubMed, EBSCO, Science Direct, and Scopus. Studies that examined placebo and nocebo effects of an objective dependent variable on sports performance, which included a control or baseline condition, were included in the analysis. Studies were classified into two categories of ergogenic aids: (1) nutritional and (2) mechanical. Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated from 32 studies involving 1513 participants. Small to moderate placebo effects were found for both placebo (d = 0.36) and nocebo (d = 0.37) effects and when separated by nutritional (d = 0.35) and mechanical (d = 0.47) ergogenic aids. The pooled effect size revealed a small to moderate effect size across all studies (d = 0.38). Results suggest that placebo and nocebo effects can exert a small to moderate effect on sports performance.

Self-confidence is a common research topic, and most applied textbooks include interventions designed to enhance athlete confidence. Our purpose was to quantify the self-confidence and sport performance literature using meta-analytic techniques. We also examined potential risk of bias indicators, and the moderation effects of study quality, sport characteristics, timing of confidence measurement, and individual differences among participants. Following a review of two past meta-analyses, a systematic search of APA PsycArticles, ERIC, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, PsychINFO, and SPORTDiscus within the EBSCOhost platform, and some hand searching, 41 articles published between 1986 and 2020 met the inclusion criteria. Collectively, the included studies investigated 3711 athletes from 15 countries across 24 sports. The overall random effects estimate of the relationship (expressed as r) between self-confidence and performance was 0.25 (95% CI 0.19, 0.30), with little evidence of publication bias. The summed total risk of the individual study bias score did not moderate the confidence–performance relationship, whereas significant moderator effects emerged for individual sports (0.29) compared with team sports (0.14), objective (0.29) compared to subjective (0.14) performance measures, and 100% male (0.35) compared to 100% female (0.07) samples. In conclusion, the confidence–performance relationship is small in magnitude, nearly free of bias, and moderated by sport type, performance objectivity, and athlete sex.