↓ Skip to main content

Psychological skills training and a mindfulness-based intervention to enhance functional athletic performance: design of a randomized controlled trial using ambulatory assessment

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
184 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Psychological skills training and a mindfulness-based intervention to enhance functional athletic performance: design of a randomized controlled trial using ambulatory assessment
Published in
BMC Psychology, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40359-016-0147-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philipp Röthlin, Daniel Birrer, Stephan Horvath, Martin grosse Holtforth

Abstract

Struggling to deliver performance in competitions is one of the main reasons why athletes seek the advice of sport psychologists. Psychologists apply a variety of intervention techniques, many of which are not evidence-based. Evidence-based techniques promote quality management and could help athletes, for example, to increase and maintain functional athletic behavior in competitions/games (i.e., being focused on task relevant cues and executing movements and actions in high quality). However, well-designed trials investigating the effectiveness of sport psychological interventions for performance enhancement are scarce. The planed study is founded by the Swiss National Science Foundation and examines the effectiveness of two interventions with elite and sub-elite athletes. A psychological skills training (PST) and a mindfulness-based intervention (MI), administered as group-program, will be compared to a waiting-list control group concerning how they enhance functional athletic behavior - which is a prerequisite for optimal performance. Furthermore, we will investigate underlying mechanisms (mediators) and moderators (e.g., task difficulty, individual characteristics, intervention-expectancy and intervention-integrity). The presented trial uses a randomized controlled design with three groups, comparing PST, MI and a waiting list control condition. Both group interventions will last 5 weeks, consist of four 2 h sessions and will be administered by a trained sport psychologist. Primary outcome is functional athletic behavior assessed using ambulatory assessment in a competition/game. As secondary outcomes competition anxiety, cognitive interference and negative outcome expectations will be assessed. Assessments are held at pre- and post-intervention as well as at 2 months follow up. The study has been approved by the ethical committee of the Swiss Federal Institute of Sport. Both PST and MI are expected to help improve functional behavior in athletes. By examining potential mechanisms of change and moderators of outcome we will not only be able to answer the question whether the interventions work, but also how, under what conditions, and for whom. This study may also fill a gap in sport psychology research, considering the current lack of randomized controlled trials. In the future, researchers could use the presented study protocol as template to investigate similar topics in sport psychology. ISRCTN11147748 , date of registration: 11 July 2016.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 184 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 182 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 18%
Student > Bachelor 30 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 26 14%
Unspecified 22 12%
Other 43 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 81 44%
Unspecified 30 16%
Sports and Recreations 28 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 8%
Social Sciences 9 5%
Other 22 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 December 2016.
All research outputs
#3,783,031
of 8,834,354 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychology
#114
of 196 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,282
of 262,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychology
#4
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,834,354 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 56th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 196 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.8. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 262,572 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.