See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/370375630

Effects of mental toughness on athletic performance: a systematic review and

meta-analysis

Article in International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology · April 2023

DOI: 10.1080/1612197X.2023.2204312

CITATIONS READS

0 346

6 authors, including:

Frank Jing-Horng Lu Diane L Gill

48 PUBLICATIONS 625 CITATIONS

University of North Carolina at Greensboro
187 PUBLICATIONS 5,108 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Garry Kuan
Universiti Sains Malaysia
284 PUBLICATIONS 1,274 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Agility Training Aids Set View project

Psychobiotics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Garry Kuan on 29 April 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijs20

Effects of mental toughness on athletic

performance: a systematic review and meta-
analysis

Yun-Che Hsieh, Frank J. H. Lu, Diane L. Gill, Ya-Wen Hsu, Tzu-Lin Wong &
Garry Kuan

To cite this article: Yun-Che Hsieh, Frank J. H. Lu, Diane L. Gill, Ya-Wen Hsu, Tzu-Lin Wong
& Garry Kuan (2023): Effects of mental toughness on athletic performance: a systematic
review and meta-analysis, International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, DOI:
10.1080/1612197X.2023.2204312

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2023.2204312

Published online: 24 Apr 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rijs20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2023.2204312

REVIEW

Effects of mental toughness on athletic performance: a

systematic review and meta-analysis
Yun-Che Hsieha, Frank J. H. Lua, Diane L. Gillb, Ya-Wen Hsuc, Tzu-Lin Wongd and
Garry Kuane
a
Institute of Sport Coaching Science, Chinese Culture University, Taipei, Taiwan; bDepartment of Kinesiology,
University of North Carolina, Greensboro, NC, USA; cDepartment of Physical Education, Health, and
Recreation, National Chiayi University, Chiayi, Taiwan; dDepartment of Physical Education, National Taipei
University of Education, Taipei, Taiwan; eDepartment of Exercise and Sports Science, School of Health
Sciences, Universiti Sain Malaysia, Kelantan, Malaysia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Mental toughness (MT) is an important predictor of athletic Received 19 February 2022
performance with a growing number of studies examining the Accepted 14 April 2023
effects of MT on athletic performance. However, there is a lack of
KEYWORDS
clear understanding regarding the exact effects. Therefore, we Optimal mindset; psychology
aimed to synthesise the extant literature regarding the MT-athletic of elite performance;
performance effect by systematic review and meta-analysis. Using perseverance; hardiness
related keywords of mental toughness, sport, and performance, we
searched ten major academic databases from January 2000 to
August 2022. Results found that the 16 studies we examined
showed moderate to high publication quality, moderate
heterogeneity, low sensitivity, and low publication bias.
Furthermore, using a random effect estimate-r, we found a
moderate to a high correlation between MT and athletic
performance, yielding an overall effect size of r = 0.36. Moreover, we
found the MT-athletic performance relationship was moderated by
age group (r = 0.20 for adolescents and r = 0.41 for adults); sports
category (r = 0.73 for combat sports, r = 0.30 for ball sports, and r =
0.32 for endurance sports); sports type (r = 0.73 for individual sports
and r = 0.21 for team sports); athletic performance measure (r = 0.33
for objective measure and r = 0.62 for subjective measure); and
measure of MT (r = 0.56 for MTQ group, r = 0.32 for PPI-A group, r =
0.33 for MTI group, and r = 0.13 for others). We thus concluded that
MT is a broad and multi-factored concept with diverse components
in measures. We suggested future studies continuously examining
the MT-athletic performance effect with updated measures.

Introduction
To achieve outstanding athletic performance, athletes must possess unique psychological
attributes to cope with difficulties and challenges on their way to success (Gucciardi et al.,
2009; Lu et al., 2018). Tennis superstar Novak Djokovic is an example. Since the 2010s, he
has dominated the world’s tennis arena by winning 21 grand slams (up to the 2022

CONTACT Frank J. H. Lu frankjlu@gmail.com or ljh25@ulive.pccu.edu.tw Institute of Sport Coaching Science,

Chinese Culture University, # 55, Hua-Kang Road, Yang-Ming-Shan, Taipei 11114, Taiwan
© 2023 International Society of Sport Psychology
2 Y.-C. HSIEH ET AL.

Wimbledon Open) while competing with many outstanding players such as Roger
Federer, Rafael Nadal, and young tennis professionals Carlos Alcaraz and Stefanos Tsitsi-
pas. The 2019 Wimbledon Final provided an example of mental toughness. In this match,
he faced Roger Federer, one of the best players in men’s singles. The match lasted an
incredible 4 h and 57 minutes: the longest single’s final in Wimbledon history. In the
match, Djokovic continuously struggled to come back after he had lost in the second
and fourth sets. In the final fifth set, the game was a tie. Once Federer won one point, Djo-
kovic won it back. He almost lost the game, but with a “never give up” and “insist on the
last minute” attitude, he saved two match points and finally eked out a win by 7–6 (5), 1–6,
7–6 (4), 4–6, 13–12 (3) (Oxley, 2019, July 14). The game was unforgettable and also illus-
trated how important mental toughness is for athletes.
Mental toughness (MT) is identified as an important psychological resource to over-
come challenging and difficult circumstances. It is defined as the ability or a natural/devel-
opmental psychological attribute that enables athletes to cope better than their
opponents do with many demands in life or sports and to be more consistent and outper-
form their rivals under pressure while remaining determined, focused, confident, and
under control (Jones, 2002; Loehr, 1995). Some researchers defined MT as a stable trait
that enables athletes to confront and handle all kinds of physical, mental, and emotional
pressures in order to achieve optimal performance (e.g., Clough et al., 2002; Gucciardi
et al., 2009; Middleton et al., 2004). From a different perspective, Gucciardi (2017)
defined MT as a state-like psychological resource that is purposeful, flexible, and
efficient in nature for the achievement and maintenance of goal-directed pursuits. He
contended that a state-like MT can have varying properties across situations or times
and is open to development or change. With such diversified perspectives on MT,
many researchers (e.g., Farnsworth et al., 2022; Gordon et al., 2017; Gucciardi, 2017)
contend that MT is a broad and multi-factored concept with many diverse definitions
and conceptualizations. These definitions reflect researchers’ conceptualizations of MT
from different perspectives (trait vs. state), components (self-beliefs, motivation, attitudes,
coping and psychological skills, cognitions, and abilities), and how MT influences athletes’
behaviour (e.g., rebounding after failures, persistence or refusal to quit, coping effectively
with adversity and pressure, retaining concentration in the face of distractions, etc.).
Following the initial definitions and conceptualizations, many researchers have developed
sport-specific MT measures such as the Psychological Performance Inventory (PPI, Lohr, 1986),
4-factor Mental Toughness Questionnaire-48 (MTQ48; Clough et al., 2002), Mental Toughness
Questionnaire-18 (MTQ18; Clough et al., 2002), and Mental Toughness Index (Gucciardi et al.,
2015, MTI). Generally, these measures represent researchers’ core concepts and major com-
ponents of MT. They share some similarities but also several distinctions. For example, self-
related beliefs (e.g., high self-efficacy, the belief he/she can handle difficulties and perform
better than others even in a difficult situation) are the factors most researchers include in
their MT measures (e.g., Clough et al., 2002; Gucciardi et al., 2009; Lohr, 1986; Middleton
et al., 2012), while motivation (e.g., strong will to win, persistence when set-back, continuing
beyond one’s emotional and physical limits, desire to achieve success, determination, commit-
ment), and cognitive control (e.g., full attention, focus on the task at hand) are other factors in
most MT measures. Furthermore, some researchers have included distinct attributes such as
affective intelligence (e.g., Gucciardi & Gordon, 2009), visualisation and imagery (e.g., Lohr,
1986), and interpersonal skills (e.g., Behnke et al., 2019) as core components of MT measures.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY 3

In the past few decades, researchers have used MT measures to examine its relation-
ship with athletic performance but with only mixed results. Some found a significant
relationship between MT and athletic performance (e.g., Jones & Parker, 2019; Morais &
Gomes, 2019). In contrast, some studies failed to support the “MT-athletic performance
relationship” (e.g., Brace et al., 2020; Cowden et al., (2016). Although some qualitative
studies (e.g., Gould et al., 1987; 2002) contend that elite athletes ranked mental toughness
as one of the most important psychological factors linked to successful performance, it is
difficult to generalise the results for all athletes.
Further, some researchers examining the MT-athletic performance relationship mix
athletic performance with non-sports performance, such as the repetitions and weights
that an exerciser has lifted or a runner’s distance and time (e.g., Crust & Clough, 2005;
Gerber et al., 2012). Generally, athletic performance is referred to as engaging in compe-
tition with other opponents while under the supervision of organisational sports auth-
orities, written rules, and officiated by a legal entity (Law Insider, 2022). By adopting
this definition, the MT-athletic performance relationship reflects the true picture of sports.
Recently, several research syntheses attempted to examine the effects of MT on ath-
letic performance, but the results were incomplete. For example, Cowden (2017)
attempted to quantify the MT-athletic performance relationship from the literature
between 2006–2016. However, Cowden (2017) only reported that mentally tougher ath-
letes participate at higher levels of competition, and 77.8% of the included studies indi-
cated that mentally tougher athletes tend to achieve more or perform better. However, he
did not report the magnitude (i.e., overall effect size) of the MT-athletic performance
relationship, sensitivity and heterogeneity of the included studies, publication bias, or
potential moderators of the MT-athletic performance relationship. Similarly, Guszkowska
and Wojcik (2021) attempted to synthesise the MT-athletic performance relationship
using a systematic review and meta-analysis. However, Guszkowska and Wojcik (2021)
only examined two databases without report quality assessment, heterogeneity, sensi-
tivity, publication bias, and overall effect size.
Thus, although prior work has addressed some important questions related to the MT- ath-
letic performance relationship, some gaps remain. To better understand the MT-athletic
relationship, the first purpose of this study was to extend previous literature (i.e., Cowden,
2017; Guszkowska & Wojcik, 2021) by using systematic review and meta-analysis. Further,
recent studies (e.g., Pankow et al., 2021; Rogers & Werthner, 2022) reported that athletes’
experiences influence MT development. Also, there are diverse MT measures in the extant lit-
erature. Whether these variables moderate the MT-athletic performance relationship is worthy
of examination. Thus, the second purpose of the present study was to examine whether the
MT-athletic performance relationship is moderated by the participants’ age, sports type,
sports category, the measure of MT, and measures of athletic performance. By doing so, we
hope to advance our knowledge about the MT-athletic performance relationship.

Methods
Article search strategy
We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis
(PRISMA, Moher et al., 2009) statement to conduct our study. First, we carefully designed
4 Y.-C. HSIEH ET AL.

a comprehensive search strategy to select eligible studies that examined the relationship
between mental toughness and athletic performance in competitive situations. Ten aca-
demic databases were searched: Sportdiscus, Psyarticles, Psychology and behavioural
sciences, Psyinfo, Socindex, Academic Search Premier, Web of Science, Scopus, Eric, and
PubMed. Since the new millennium began in 2000, many researchers have called for
examinations of human behaviour from a positive psychology perspective (e.g., Gould,
2002; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Athletes’ mental toughness is one of the
popular topics in sport psychology. Thus, we have searched those germane studies
from January 2000 to August 2022. Three keywords were used to identify relevant articles
(adding a Boolean operator [OR and/or AND] to combine them): (1) “mental toughness”,
(2) “sport OR athlete* OR Competition*, and (3) Performance. Finally, only peer-reviewed
publications available in English were included.

Eligibility criteria and quality assessment

First, we screened the titles to determine relevant articles; then, we screened abstracts.
The first and second authors (Y.C.H and F.J.L) conducted their searches using the same
methodology. Additionally, we used reference lists from selected papers to search for
additional relevant articles on Google Scholar. Following this search, the two authors
independently evaluated the title, abstract, and full text of each article to determine
their relevance. The first and second authors double-checked the respective search
results to ensure that appropriate articles had been selected. Differences were resolved
by the fourth author (Y.W.H). After removing 862 duplicate articles, this process yielded
a total of 3,199 articles from online databases and one additional article from other
resources. We used the following criteria for article exclusions: (a) the article did not
refer to mental toughness in sports; (b) the article was a review, and (c) the sample in
the article was not athletes. Finally, the full texts of 102 articles were obtained and
evaluated.
In the second round of screening, we excluded articles based on the following criteria:
(i) the measure did not fit the definition of MT (e.g., resilience, hardiness); (ii) the MT was
evaluated by others (i.e., coach or sports fans); (iii) the article did not have an English
version; (iv) the sample mixed athletes, non-athletes, and recreational athletes; (v) the
article evaluated MT by a construct other than MT (e.g., emotion control); (vi) the MT
scale measure “was inappropriate” (i.e., measures were not sport-specific, and did not
report basic psychometric properties such as reliability and validity; as determined by
the fourth and fifth authors (Y.W.H and Z.L.W); (vii) the article provided incomplete
data (e.g., lack of the number of participants, mean, standard deviation, r-value, R2, p-
value); (viii) the article was a case study; (ix) the article did not fit the definition of athletic
performance; and (x) the article did not take place in a sports competition context. In the
third round of screening, we excluded articles that did not involve quantitative analysis.
Thus, seven articles from the previous review and nine articles from the screening process
were collected. Finally, 16 articles were included in the consolidated analysis (Figure 1).
For quality assessment, Glasziou et al. (2001) suggested that if the included studies
contain low-quality research, the results might be biased. So, we excluded those articles
with low scores (Glasziou et al., 2001). To evaluate all included studies, Kmet et al. (2004)
proposed “14 evaluation questions” to determine quality assessment. If included studies
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY 5

meet each criterion of the evaluation questions asked, they will score two points. If they
only partially meet the criteria, they will score one point. If they do not meet any criteria,
they will score zero point. Thus, we only included those studies that are above moderate
quality (i.e., meeting at least 60% of the criteria; Kmet et al., 2004). Two co-authors with
expertise in sports psychology (Y.W.H and F.J.L) independently coded the quality of the
meta-analysis according to the scheme adopted in this systematic review.

Meta-analytic strategies
We used Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) statistical software 4.0 to analyze the
MT-athletic performance relationship in the 16 included studies. CMA allows research-
ers to combine observational studies with experimental studies that have pre-test
and post-test designs. So, we used correlation coefficients, mean and standard devi-
ation, t-value, or Fisher’s z, and sample size values as model inputs. A random-
effects model was applied to the meta-analysis and generated the study findings
(Borenstein et al., 2021). Furthermore, if a single article report had multiple results,
those results were combined into one result for the analysis (Borenstein et al., 2021,
pages 225–238).
We performed our sensitivity analysis using the leave-one-out method (i.e., deleting
one study at a time and repeating the analysis) in order to assess the stability of the
meta-analysis. A Q-test was used to examine whether the true effect size varied
between studies when a random effect was applied (i.e., heterogeneity; Tufanaru et al.,
2015). A significant Q-value reflects heterogeneity between samples. The I 2 statistic indi-
cates different levels of heterogeneity at 25% (low degree), 50% (moderate degree), and
75% (high degree) (Higgins et al., 2003). As a result, we used I 2 to interpret the magnitude
of heterogeneity for significant Q-values.
Publication bias is a common concern in the meta-analysis because unpublished
articles are excluded from such analysis. We evaluated publication bias with the Fail-
Safe Number (N, Nf.s) t-test (Marks-Anglin et al., 2021, pp. 283–292), Funnel Plot, and
Egger’s t-test (Egger et al., 1997). A relatively high fail-safe number indicates that the cal-
culated effect size is unlikely to result from publication bias. We used a forest plot to rep-
resent the effect size and used 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to indicate the correlation
between the two variables (Verhagen & Ferreira, 2014). We adopted McGrath and Meyer’s
(2006) suggestion that values of .37, .24, and .10 represent large, medium, and small effect
sizes. The effect size was considered statistically significant at the p < .05 level if the CI did
not include zero.

Results
Descriptions of study characteristics
The 16 studies were published from January 2000 to August 2022. The studies were con-
ducted in eight different countries; six in Europe (United Kingdom = 3; Spain = 1; Serbia =
1; and Portugal = 1); five in the United States; three in Africa (i.e., Tunisia, South Africa, and
Egypt), and one in Australia. These articles included a total of 1,737 participants, of whom
398 were adolescents, and 1,339 were adults (see Table 1).
6 Y.-C. HSIEH ET AL.

Figure 1. PRISMA Flow Chart of the Studies Included in the Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Furthermore, we classified these 16 articles by their specific sports type: two were
combat sports (i.e., a competition involves one-on-one combat and wins determined
by scoring more points, disabling the opponent, or attacking the opponent with a
specific, designated technique; Bromley et al., 2018); seven were ball game sports; and
seven were endurance sports. Sports were also typed as individual vs. team; three were
team sports, and 13 were individual sports.
Athletic performance measures were classified as subjective or objective. Only one was
subjective (Meggs et al., 2019), and 15 were objective (Beattie et al., 2017; Brace et al.,
2020; Christensen et al., 2018; Cowden, 2014; Cowden, 2016; Hagag & Ali, 2014;
Haugen et al., 2016; Jones & Parker, 2019; Madrigal et al., 2013; Mahoney et al., 2014;
Méndez-Alonso et al., 2021; Morais & Gomes, 2019; Newland et al., 2013; Slimani et al.,
2016; Zarić et al., 2021). The MT measures also were classified into four types according
to their history in the literature. The MTQ (Clough et al., 2002; Sheard et al., 2009),
which was used in six articles; the PPI-A (Golby et al., 2007), which was used in three
studies; the MTI (Gucciardi et al., 2011, 2015), which was used in two studies; and the
others (Beattie et al., 2017; Chen & Cheesman, 2013; Madrigal et al., 2013; Middleton
et al., 2011; Morais & Gomes, 2019), which were used in six studies.

Quality assessment
Of all 16 included studies, all scored greater than 17 points (60%) in the scoring system.
According the scoring system, the highest score will be 28, and the lowest score will be
zero (Kmet et al., 2004). Two studies scored 22 points, one study scored 21 points, 5
studies scored 20 points, one study scored 19 points, 5 studies scored 18 points, and
one study scored 17 points. Thus, it is concluded that all 16 studies have a moderate to
high quality (see Table 2).
Table 1. Characteristics of the included studies.
N of
NO Author(s) Country Sports sample Age Group Measurement of MT Study Design Main findings
1 Slimani et al., Tunisia Kickboxing 32 22.4 ± 3.5 Adults SMTQ (α = .71∼ .80) Cross- (1) MT was associated with the outcome (r
2016 sectional = .85, p < .001)
study (2) The winners in kickboxing fights were
characterised by higher mental toughness
on all scales and total MT (r = 0.84, p < 0.00)
(3) MT was associated with medical ball
throwing
(4) (r = .73; p < 0.001)

MTI (ρ = .86 ∼ .89)

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY

2 Jones & Parker, England Triathlon 316 39.23 ± 8.93 Adults Cross- MT was associated with the Olympic triathlon
2019 sectional best time
study (r = −.44; p < .001)
3 Cowden, 2016 South Africa Tennis 43 13.6 ± 2.4 Adolescents MTI (α = .83 ∼ .93) Cross- (1) MT was associated with ranking (r = −.29, p
sectional < .05).
study (2) MT was associated with match outcome
(win-loss) (r = .52, p < .01).
(3) MT was associated with winning more
points per game (r = .39, p < .01)
(4) a better chance to get a break point as
receiver versus server (r = .36, p < .01)
(5) higher percentage of points won on serve (r
= .36, p < .01) and return (r = .28, p < .05)
(6) higher serve points won when ahead (r
= .27, p < .05)
(7) higher return points won when behind (r
= .31; p < .05)

4 Meggs et al., England Triathlon 114 28.8 ± 2.4 Adults MTQ18 (α = .75) Cross- MT was associated with subjective performance
2019 sectional (r = .72; p < .01)
study
5 Morais & Gomes, Portugal Tennis 11 12.09 ± 1.22 Adolescents Two indicators Quasi- (1) MT was associated with first-serve
2019 experiment percentage (r = .29, p < .05)

(Continued)

7
Table 1. Continued.

8
N of
NO Author(s) Country Sports sample Age Group Measurement of MT Study Design Main findings

Y.-C. HSIEH ET AL.

(2) MT associated with double-faults (%) (r =
−.43, p < .01)
(3) MT was associated with performance
efficacy (r = .45, p < .01)
(4) MT was associated with service routine (r
= .68; p < .001)

6 Brace et al., 2020 USA Ultra- 56 38.86 ± 9.23 Adults SMTQ (α = .71∼ .80) Cross- (1) MT–HURT100 ranking correlation was not
marathon sectional significant (r = .18, p > .05)
study (2) MT–HURT100- finish place correlation was
not significant (r = −.33, p > .05)
(3) MT–HURT100 race time correlation was not
significant (r = −.25; p > .05)

7 Mahoney et al., Australia Marathon 221 14.36 Adolescents The Mental Cross- MT was associated with race time
2014 Toughness Index sectional (r = −.21; p < .001)
study
8 Newland et al., USA Basketball 197 n/a Adults PPI-A (α = .72- .84) Cross- MT-basketball performance correlation was not
2013 sectional significant
study (r = .12, p > .05)
9 Christensen, USA Ultra- 141 41.23 ± 9.14 Adults SMTQ (α = .71- .80) Cross- MT was associated with race time
2018 marathon sectional (r = −.30; p < .005)
study
10 Méndez-Alonso Spain Ultra-trail 356 42.73 ± 7.44 Adults (PPI-A, α = .72∼ .84; Cross- Finishers in the Ultra-trail mountain race had
et al., 2021 mountain SMTQ, α = .71∼ .80) sectional high scores in MT than withdrawals
study (t = 4.25; p < .01)
11 Hagag & Ali, Egypt Fencing 18 n/a Adults PPI Cross- Medalists had higher scores in MT than non-
2014 sectional medalists
study (t = 2.59; p < .05)
12 Sheard, 2009 Australia, Rugby 49 21.7 ± 2.3 Adults PPI-A (α = .72∼ .84) Cross- Winners had significantly higher scores in MT
England sectional than losers
study (F = 9.44; p < .01)
13 Beattie et al., England Swimming 85 13.88 ± 1.90 Adolescents SMTI (α = .91) Cross- MT-swimming performance correlation was not
2017 sectional significant
study (r = .07; p = .570)
14 Madrigal et al., USA Basketball 44 19.98 Adults MTS (α = .86) Cross- MT-free throw correlation was not significant
2013 sectional (r = −.08; p = .400)
study
15 Cowden et al., USA Tennis 16 19.4 ± 1.2 Adults SMTQ in tennis (α Cross- MT-team ranking correlation was not significant
2014 = .65) sectional (r = .06; p > .01)
study
16 Zarić et al., 2021 Serbia Basketball 38 16 ± 1 Adolescents MTQ48 (α = .74∼ .92) Cross- MT was associated with performance index
sectional rating
study (r = .37, p < .024)
Note: SMTQ (Sheard et al., 2009): 14 items comprised of 3 factors (confidence, constancy, and control); MTI (Gucciardi et al., 2015): 8 items with one dimension (e.g., “I am able to regulate my
focus when performing tasks”); MTI (Middleton et al., 2011): 60 items comprised of 12 factors (perseverance, personal best, positivity, task focus, self-efficacy, value, mental self-concept,
positive comparison, goal commitment, stress minimisation, and task familiarity); MTQ18 (Clough et al., 2002): a shortened version of the Mental Toughness Questionnaire 48-item
(MTQ-48), assessing a global MT; Two indicators (Morais & Gomes, 2019): including two indicators: (1) the observed routines (including posture, body language prior to the serve, and physical
regulation); (2) error management (number of times players displayed negative body language after an error); The Mental Toughness Index (Gucciardi et al., 2011): 8 items with one dimen-
sion (e.g., “I am able to regulate my focus when performing tasks”); PPI-A (Golby et al., 2007): 14 items comprised of four factors (self-belief, determination, positive cognition, and visual-

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY

isation); MTI (Chen & Cheesman, 2013): 7-item MTI comprised of items from PPI-A and SMTQ; PPI (Lohr, 1986): 42 items comprised of four factors (self-confidence, negative energy, attention
control, visual and imagery control, motivation level, positive energy, attitude control); SMTI (Beattie et al., 2017): 11 items with one dimension; MTS (Madrigal et al., 2013): 11 items with one
dimension; SMTQ in tennis (Cowden et al., 2014): a revise version of SMTQ; MTQ48 (Clough et al., 2002): 48 items comprised of 4 factors (control, challenge, commitment, and confidence).

9
 10
Y.-C. HSIEH ET AL.
Table 2. Quality assessment of the 16 included studies
Score items (Yes [2]/partial [1]/no [0])
NO Author(s) A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Quality Assessment (greater than 60%=17)
1 Slimani et al., 2016 yes yes yes yes no no no yes yes yes no no yes yes 18
2 Jones & Parker, 2019 yes yes yes yes no no no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes 22
3 Cowden, 2016 yes yes yes yes no no no yes yes yes yes no yes partial 20
4 Meggs et al., 2019 yes yes yes yes no no no yes yes yes yes no yes yes 20
5 Morais & Gomes, 2019 yes yes yes yes partial no partial partial yes yes yes no yes yes 21
6 Brace et al., 2020 yes yes yes yes no no no yes yes yes yes no yes no 18
7 Mahoney et al., 2014 yes yes yes yes no no no yes yes yes yes no yes yes 20
8 Newland et al., 2013 yes yes yes yes no no no yes yes yes yes no yes no 18
9 Christensen et al., 2018 yes yes yes yes no no no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes 22
10 Méndez-Alonso et al., 2021 yes yes yes yes no no no yes yes yes yes no yes yes 20
11 Hagag & Ali, 2014 yes yes yes yes no no partial no partial yes yes no yes yes 18
12 Sheard, 2009 yes yes yes yes no no no yes no yes yes no yes yes 18
13 Beattie et al., 2017 yes yes yes yes no no no yes yes yes no yes yes no 18
14 Madrigal et al., 2013 yes yes yes partial no no no yes yes yes yes no yes no 17
15 Cowden et al., 2014 yes yes yes yes no no no partial yes yes yes no yes yes 19
16 Zarić et al., 2021 yes yes yes yes no no no yes yes yes yes no yes yes 20
Note: A: Question/objective sufficiently described?; B: Is the study design evident and appropriate?; C: Method of subject/comparison group selection or source of information/input variables
described and appropriate?; D: Subject (and comparison group, if applicable) characteristics sufficiently described?; E: Was the interventional and random allocation possible, was it described?;
F: Was interventional and blinding of investigators possible, was it reported?; G: Was interventional and blinding of subjects possible, was it reported?; H: Outcome and (if applicable) exposure
measure(s) well defined and robust to measurement/misclassification bias? Means of assessment reported? I: Is the sample size appropriate? J: Analytic methods described/justified and
appropriate? K: Some estimate of variance is reported for the main results? L: Controlled for confounding? M: Results reported in sufficient detail? N: Conclusions supported by the results?
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY 11

Heterogeneity analysis
The meta-analysis of these 16 studies indicated significant heterogeneity with the Q-value:
Q(15) = 101.54 (p < .001), and an I2 value of 85.23, indicating a medium level of heterogeneity.
Therefore, we adopted a random-effects model and conducted a further moderation analysis.

Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis determines the robustness of each contributing article’s results. We
removed one study at a time from the analysis to determine the change in overall
effect size when the study was removed. Our sensitivity analysis revealed that the exclu-
sion of studies individually led to I2 values that ranged from 81.22–86.21, showing little
change (values all fall into large heterogeneity) when compared with the overall analysis
I2 value of 85.23, confirming that each separate study contributed to these stable results.

Publication bias
Although the Funnel Plots indicated a degree of asymmetry, we identified no significant pub-
lication bias by Funnel Plot (Figure 2). This method of determining publication bias has always
been controversial and not particularly representative because it is difficult to judge the sym-
metry of the visual graph with only a few articles. Thus, we also conducted Egger’s t-test and
found no evidence of publication bias, with Egger: bias = 1.39 (95% CI = 1.02–4.95) (p = 0.18).
Finally, we also used the Fail-Safe Number t-test and found a Z-value of 12.96 (p < .001), indi-
cating no publication bias. The number of missing studies that would bring the p-value to
> .05 in order to overturn the conclusion of the positive effect of the study was 68.

Correlation between MT and athletic performance

A summary of the random effects meta-analysis presented in Figure 3 and corresponding
forest plots showed the estimated standardised mean difference and its 95% CI. The Point

Figure 2. Funnel plot showing publication bias for the 16 included studies.
12 Y.-C. HSIEH ET AL.

Figure 3. All 16 studies investigated the MT-athletic performance effect.

estimate r = 0.36 (p < .001), and 95% confidence interval (CI = 0.24–0.47) indicated that MT
had positive effects on athletic performance. From the results of the forest plots, each of
the 16 articles showed positive effects of MT on athletic performance. The results of the
meta-analysis found that r = 0.36; according to McGrath and Meyer’s (2006) suggestion,
this MT-athletic performance relationship was very close to high.

Moderation analyses
Under heterogeneous conditions, this research examined the moderation effects of the
MT-athletic performance relationship with these 16 articles separated into five different
subgroups by age (adults vs. adolescents), sports category (combat, ball, and endurance),
sports type (team vs. individual), athletic performance measure (subjective vs. objective),
and MT measure (MTQ, MTI, PPIA, Others). To analyze the moderating effects, we created a
moderator in CMA software (e.g., age). Then, we chose its category (e.g., adolescent or
adult) and ran the analyses. The results are as follows.
The moderating effects of the MT-athletic performance relationship by age are shown
in Figure 4. The correlation of the two age groups were low to medium effects (the ado-
lescent group: r = 0.20, and 95% confidence interval [CI = 0.11–0.30]; adult group: r = 0.41,
and 95% confidence interval [CI = 0.27–0.36]). It can be seen that the adult group was
higher than the adolescent group (p = 0.03). Thus, it is concluded that the MT-athletic per-
formance relationship is moderated by age.
The moderating effects of the MT-athletic performance relationship by sports category
are shown in Figure 5. The correlations of all three groups showed high to low effects
(combat group: r = 0.73, and 95% confidence interval [CI = 0.25–0.92]; ball group: r =
0.30, and 95% confidence interval [CI = 0.08–0.47]; endurance groups: r = 0.32, and 95%
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY 13

Figure 4. Meta-analysis of all 16 studies investigating the MT-athletic performance effect (grouped by
age).

confidence interval [CI = 0.18–0.44]). It can be seen that the combat sports group was
higher than the other two groups (p = 0.03). So, the MT-athletic performance relationship
is moderated by the sports category.
The moderating effects of the MT-athletic performance relationship by sports type are
shown in Figure 6. The correlations of these two groups were low to high effects. The

Figure 5. Meta-analysis of all 16 studies investigating the MT-athletic performance effect (grouped by
sports category).
14 Y.-C. HSIEH ET AL.

Figure 6. Meta-analysis of all 16 studies investigating the MT-athletic performance effect (grouped by
sports type).

individual group has a high effect (individual group: r = 0.73, and 95% confidence interval
[CI = 0.22–0.33)]; team group: r = 0.21, and 95% confidence interval [CI = −0.02–0.26)]. It
can be seen that the individual group is higher than the team group (p = 0.025). Thus, it
is concluded that the MT-athletic performance relationship is moderated by sports types.
The moderating effects of the MT-athletic performance relationship by athletic per-
formance measure are shown in Figure 7. The correlation of these two was divided into

Figure 7. Meta-analysis of all 16 studies investigating the MT-athletic performance effect (grouped by
athletic performance measures).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY 15

low and moderate correlation (objective group: r = 0.33, and 95% confidence interval [CI
= 0.21–0.44]; subjective group: r = 0.62, and 95% confidence interval [CI = 0.49–0.72]). It
can be seen that the subjective group was higher than the objective group (p = 0.001),
and the subjective measures group had more effect on the MT-athletic performance
relationship.
The moderating effects of the MT-athletic performance relationship by MT measure are
shown in Figure 8. The correlations of the MT-athletic performance relationship are as
follows: (MTQ group: r = 0.56, and 95% confidence interval [CI = 0.33–0.73]; PPI-A group:
r = 0.32, and 95% confidence interval [CI = 0.05–0.54]; MTI group: r = 0.33, and 95% confi-
dence interval [CI = 0.09–0.54]; Others group: r = 0.13, and 95% confidence interval [CI =
−0.04–0.28]). Also, there was a significant difference between the groups (p = 0.02),
showing that the MT-athletic performance relationship is moderated by MT measures.

Discussion
Mental toughness is viewed as a critical predicting factor in athletic performance (Devon-
port, 2006; Gould et al., 2002; Owusu-Sekyere & Gervis, 2016; Weissensteiner et al., 2009).
Through our systematic review and meta-analysis, we found the MT-athletic performance
relationship was r = 0.36. According to McGrath and Meyer’s (2006) suggestion, this
relationship was very close to high (i.e., small r = 0.10; medium r = 0.24; and large r =
0.37). Thus, our results confirm that MT has a significant effect on athletic performance.
Further, the MT-athletic performance relationship was moderated by age group (r = .20
for adolescents; and r = 0.41 for adults), sports category (r = 0.73 for combat sports, r =
0.30 for ball sports, and r = 0.32 for endurance sports), sports type (r = 0.73 for individual
sports; and r = 0.21 for team sports), athletic performance measure (r = 0.33 for objective
measure; and r = 0.62 for subjective measure), and measure of MT (r = 0.56 for MTQ group;

Figure 8. Meta-analysis of all 16 studies investigating the MT- athletic performance effect (grouped by
measures of MT).
16 Y.-C. HSIEH ET AL.

r = 0.32 for PPI-A group; r = 0.33 for MTI group; and r = 0.13 for others). The initial findings
provide several implications for research in the MT-athletic performance relationship.
In general, our results confirmed that there is a significant MT-athletic performance
relationship. The results support past research that MT links to athletic success (e.g.,
Jones & Parker, 2019; Morais & Gomes, 2019; Slimani et al., 2016). Furthermore, our
study offers more comprehensive and quantified evidence. Past qualitative results indi-
cated that MT contributed over 50% to athletes’ success when competing against
opponents (e.g., Gould et al., 2002), or MT accounted for 82% of success in wrestling
(e.g., Gould et al., 1987). Generally, the goal of qualitative research is to gain a deep under-
standing of a specific case, phenomenon, organisation, event, or individual’s life experi-
ences. So, qualitative researchers use small samples, non-representative samples, or
theoretical samples to collect data (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). In contrast, quantitative
research aims to test a theory or describe relationships or differences by using large
samples to collect numerical data, then generalising results to a larger group to explain
a phenomenon (Thomas et al., 2022).
Based on MT theory and past research, the MT-athletic performance relationship can
be explained in several ways, including motivation, self-related beliefs, exceptional
coping and psychological skills, and emotional intelligence. With strong motivation, ath-
letes mobilise their energy toward competition goals and maintain it to the end, even
when facing adversities and challenges. Many MT researchers describe athletes with
higher levels of mental toughness as having an insatiable desire and internalised
motive to succeed (Jones, 2002). Middleton et al. (2011) found that athletes with high
degrees of toughness are characterised by unshakeable perseverance toward some
goals despite pressure or adversity. Thus, motivation plays an important role in the MT-
athletic performance relationship.
Self-related beliefs such as self-efficacy and confidence are other possible explanations
for the MT-athletic performance relationship. Many MT researchers characterise mentally-
tough athletes as those who believe they can handle difficulties and perform better than
others, even in difficult situations. For example, Clough et al. (2002) found high mentally-
tough athletes have a high sense of self-belief and an unshakeable faith that they control
their own destiny; these individuals can remain relatively unaffected by competition or
adversity. Jones (2002) noted that mentally tough players have an unshakable self-
belief in their abilities to achieve competition goals or believe that they possess unique
qualities and abilities to perform better than their opponents can.
Exceptional coping and psychological skills can be another explanation of the MT-ath-
letic performance relationship. MT theorists contend that mentally-tough athletes possess
some exceptional psychological skills to handle competition pressure and daily life stres-
sors. Jones (2002) reported that highly mentally-tough athletes were coping better than
opponents and performing consistently under pressure in a focused and confident
manner. Similarly, Clough and Strycharczyk (2012) reported that such athletes are charac-
terised by their ability to deal effectively with challenges, stressors, and pressures, irre-
spective of prevailing circumstances. Further, Gucciardi et al. (2015) reported that
highly mentally-resilient athletes are more able to perform at a higher level despite chal-
lenges, stressors, and adversities in daily life and sports contexts.
Emotional intelligence is another explanation of why highly mentally-tough athletes
perform better than their less-tough counterparts do. Emotional intelligence refers to
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY 17

“a set of abilities that involve how people perceive, express, understand, and manage
their own emotions as well as the emotions of others” (Cherniss, 2004, p. 315). In
varied competitive contexts, athletes’ emotion plays an important role in on-site perform-
ance. Specifically, a heightened state of emotion (i.e., anxiety) is detrimental to athletes’
performance in fine motor skills such as archery, shooting, and golf but might facilitate
endurance and strength in sports such as weight-lifting, sprint, and shot-put (Doyle
et al., 2016). Thus, athletes must possess the emotional intelligence to perceive, under-
stand, express, and manage their emotions in competitive contexts. Jones (2002) con-
tended that athletes with high mental toughness understand that competition anxiety
is an inevitable part of the process, so they accept and cope with it. Similarly, Clough
et al. (2002, p. 38) stated that mentally tough athletes can monitor their emotional vari-
ations and remain calm and relaxed in many competitive situations. In the development
of the Cricket Mental Toughness Inventory (CMTI), Gucciardi and Gordon (2009) inter-
viewed 11 Indian and 5 Australian elite cricketers. They found that emotional intelligence
was the main theme. Participants reported that the ability to regulate one’s emotions and
moods in any circumstance to facilitate peak performance is one of the most important
keys to performing well in any competition.
The MT-performance relationship has subgroup differences in age, sports category,
sports type, athletic performance measures, and MT measures. The moderation can be
explained by extant literature in sport psychology. The moderation effects of age on the
MT-athletic performance relationship has a theoretical base in sport psychology literature.
Generally, older or veteran athletes have more experience handling daily stressors and
challenges. Rogers and Werthner (2022) interviewed 20 Canadian Olympic athletes
about their experiences in preparation and competition before and during the 2020
Tokyo Olympic Games. Participants reported that managing injuries during Olympic post-
ponement, accessing minimal resources and facilities under pandemic controls, and
seeking social support (e.g., family members, coaches, teammates, friends, psychology
practitioners) to handle daily stressors and engage routine training schedules were the
key factors that helped them smoothly complete in the 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games.
Further, Pankow et al. (2021) contended that athletes’ psychological skills and character-
istics (PSCs) could be cultivated in several stages. In the beginning, athletes develop inter-
personal (e.g., teamwork, leadership, and being a good teammate) and individual (e.g.,
work ethic, discipline, and commitment) psychological skills. During the junior stage,
they develop performance-oriented psychological characteristics such as dealing with
adversity, emotional regulation, and handling and reframing adversity. In the professional
stage, they develop and refine performance-oriented psychological skills such as visualisa-
tion, self-talk, and thought-stopping. Thus, older athletes have a stronger MT-athletic per-
formance relationship because it takes time to develop all these psychological qualities.
We found that the kind of sports category also played a large role in the MT-athletic per-
formance relationship. Specifically, we found combat sports had a higher effect size (r =
0.73) than ball games (r = 0.29), and endurance sports (r = 0.32). Combat sports are filled
with uncertainty and risk. Even brief inattention can lead to a knockout or something else
that can cause a serious injury or even death (Vaccaro et al., 2011). Thus, martial artists need
to develop psychological strategies to facilitate self-regulation, focus, and automatic reactions
to enhance performance (Massey et al., 2015). In such conditions, it is logical that combat sports
had a higher effect size for the MT-athletic performance relationship than do other sports.
18 Y.-C. HSIEH ET AL.

Stamatis et al. (2020) reported that using MT intervention can enhance athletes’ mental tough-
ness, and 83.33% were psychological-based programmes. Thus, coaches, athletes, and sports
professionals can build athletes’ mental toughness through effective programmes.
Further, MT measures moderated the MT-athletic performance relationship. Specifi-
cally, we found that MTQ had a higher effect size (r = 0.56) than PPI (r = 0.32) and MTI
(r = 0.33). The reasons for these differences are unknown, but the components of the
measures may explain such differences. First, each measure has a different combination
of motivational, affective, and cognitive factors. For example, MTQ is comprised of four
factors: commitment, control, challenge, and confidence. In contrast, PPI includes seven
factors: self-confidence, attention control, motivation, negative energy, attitude control,
positive energy, and visual and imagery control. Lastly, MTI is made up of 12 factors:
mental self-concept, potential self-efficacy, task familiarisation, personal bests, value,
goal commitment, task focus, perseverance, positive comparison, stress minimisation,
and positivity. As discussed earlier, the extant measures of mental toughness have simi-
larities and differences. Whether these different combinations of components affect effect
sizes in the meta-analysis needs further examination. In our study, we included seven
studies for MTQ, four for PPI, and three for MTI. The question of whether the number
of studies influenced the results is a matter for further examination. Future studies may
compare the MT-athletic performance relationship by considering MT measures’ develop-
ment history, psychometric properties, measurement factors, and target athletes.

Limitations and directions for future research

Several limitations of this research should be addressed. First, our study only includes
research published in English and thus excludes research in other languages. Further,
although we examined the psychometric properties of the included studies by internal
consistency indices, some measures might have other psychometric shortcomings (e.g.,
MTQ-48 has been questioned by Gucciardi et al., 2011). We suggest future studies that
examine MT-athletic performance use reliable and valid measures. Moreover, the extant
measures of MT have diverse components that represent the concept of MT. Which com-
ponent/factor of MT (e.g., motivation, self-related belief, or coping abilities) is the stron-
gest predictor of the MT-athletic performance relationship needs further examination.
Plus, although we adopted Kmet et al.’s (2004) suggestions for quality assessment, we
do not know whether all authors controlled confounding variables that might influence
the results of the meta-analysis. Future study on the quality of assessment of the systema-
tic review is needed. In addition, since 15 out of 16 included studies were cross-sectional
investigations, the results do not imply a causal relationship. We suggest that future
studies adopt an experimental or longitudinal design to investigate the MT-athletic per-
formance relationship. Finally, because we had only a limited number of studies for mod-
eration analyses, whether other potential moderators (e.g., gender, level of competition)
moderate the MT-athletic performance relationship should be investigated in the future.

Conclusion
MT is a broad and multi-factored concept. Although empirical studies have found a sig-
nificant MT-athletic relationship, with contradictory findings and inappropriate research
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY 19

synthesis, much of the MT-athletic performance relationship has remained unknown.

Our systematic review and meta-analysis offer solid, quantified answers. The results
advance our knowledge of the MT-athletic performance relationship and indicate
that the MT-athletic performance can be moderated by several factors. Further, the
extant measures of MT have diverse components, and the relative contributions of
the different components to the MT-athletic performance relationship need further
examination. We encourage researchers to continue to examine the MT-athletic per-
formance relationship with updated definitions, conceptualizations, and measures to
further our understanding of MT and its influences on athletes’ emotions, cognition,
and behaviour.

Disclosure statement
The named authors have no conflict of interest, financial or otherwiser.

References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis
*Beattie, S., Alqallaf, A., & Hardy, L. (2017). The effects of punishment and reward sensitivities on
mental toughness and performance in swimming. International Journal of Sport Psychology.
https://doi.org/10.7352/IJSP.2017.48.246
Behnke, M., Tomczak, M., Kaczmarek, L. D., Komar, M., & Gracz, J. (2019). The sport mental training
questionnaire: Development and validation. Current Psychology, 38(2), 504–516. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12144-017-9629-1
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021). Introduction to meta-analysis.
John Wiley & Sons.
*Brace, A. W., George, K., & Lovell, G. P. (2020). Mental toughness and self-efficacy of elite ultra-mara-
thon runners. Plos One, 15(11), e0241284. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241284
Bromley, S. J., Drew, M. K., Talpey, S., McIntosh, A. S., & Finch, C. F. (2018). A systematic review of
prospective epidemiological research into injury and illness in Olympic combat sport. British
Journal of Sports Medicine, 52(1), 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2016-097313
Chen, M. A., & Cheesman, D. J. (2013). Mental toughness of mixed martial arts athletes at different
levels of competition. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 116(3), 905–917. https://doi.org/10.2466/29.30.
PMS.116.3.905-917
Cherniss, C. (2004). Emotional intelligence. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed in chief), Encyclopaedia of applied
psychology (pp. 315–319). Elsevier Academic Press.
*Christensen, D. A., Brewer, B. W., & Hutchinson, J. C. (2018). Psychological predictors of performance
in a 161 km ultramarathon run. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 49(1), 74–90. https://doi.
org/10.7352/IJSP2018.49.074
Christensen, D. A., Brewer, B. W., & Hutchinson, J. C. (2018). Psychological predictors of performance
in a 161 km ultramarathon run. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 49(1), 74–90.
Clough, P., Earle, K., & Sewell, D. (2002). Mental toughness: The concept and its measurement. In I. M.
Cockerill (Ed.), Solutions in sport psychology (pp. 32–43). Cengage Learning.
Clough, P., & Strycharczyk, D. (2012). Developing mental toughness: Improving performance, wellbeing
and positive behaviour in others. Kogan Page Publishers.
*Cowden, R. G. (2016). Competitive performance correlates of mental toughness in tennis: A prelimi-
nary analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 123(1), 341–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0031512516659902
Cowden, R. G. (2017). Mental toughness and success in sport: A review and prospect. The Open
Sports Sciences Journal, 10(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.2174/1875399X01710010001
20 Y.-C. HSIEH ET AL.

*Cowden, R. G., Fuller, D. K., & Anshel, M. H. (2014). Psychological predictors of mental toughness in
elite tennis: An exploratory study in learned resourcefulness and competitive trait anxiety.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 119(3), 661–678. https://doi.org/10.2466/30.PMS.119c27z0
Crust, L., & Clough, P. J. (2005). Relationship between mental toughness and physical endurance.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 100(1), 192–194. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.100.1.192-194
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S., ed. (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research.
Devonport, T. J. (2006). Perceptions of the contribution of psychology to success in elite kickboxing.
Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 5(CSSI), 99–107. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC3863929/
Doyle, T. P., Lutz, R. S., Pellegrino, J. K., Sanders, D. J., & Arent, S. M. (2016). The effects of caffeine
on arousal, response time, accuracy, and performance in division-I fencers. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 30(11), 3228–3235. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001602
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple,
graphical test. BMJ, 315(7109), 629–634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
Farnsworth, J. L., Marshal, A., & Myers, N. L. (2022). Mental toughness measures: A systematic review
of measurement properties for practitioners. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 34(3), 479–494.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2020.1866710
Gerber, M., Kalak, N., Lemola, S., Clough, P. J., Pühse, U., Elliot, C., … Brand, S. (2012). Adolescents’
exercise and physical activity are associated with mental toughness. Mental Health and
Physical Activity, 5(1), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mhpa.2012.02.004
Glasziou, P., Irwig, L., Bain, C., & Colditz, G. (2001). Systematic reviews in health care: A practical guide.
Cambridge University Press.
Golby, J., Sheard, M., & Van Wersch, A. (2007). Evaluating the factor structure of the psychological
performance inventory. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 105(1), 309–325. https://doi.org/10.2466/
pms.105.1.309-325
Gordon, S., Anthony, D. R., & Gucciardi, D. F. (2017). A case study of strengths-based coaching of
mental toughness in cricket. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 48(3), 223–245. https://
doi.org/10.7352/IJSP.2017.48.223
Gould, D. (2002). Sport psychology in the new millennium: The psychology of athletic excellence
and beyond. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14(3), 137–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10413200290103455
Gould, D., Dieffenbach, K., & Moffett, A. (2002). Psychological characteristics and their development
in Olympic champions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14(3), 172–204. https://doi.org/10.
1080/10413200290103482
Gould, D., Hodge, K., Peterson, K., & Petlichkoff, L. (1987). Psychological foundations of coaching:
Similarities and differences among intercollegiate wrestling coaches. The Sport Psychologist, 1
(4), 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.1.4.293
Gucciardi, D. F. (2017). Mental toughness: Progress and prospects. Current Opinion in Psychology, 16,
17–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.03.010
Gucciardi, D. F., & Gordon, S. (2009). Development and preliminary validation of the Cricket Mental
Toughness Inventory (CMTI). Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(12), 1293–1310. https://doi.org/10.
1080/02640410903242306
Gucciardi, D. F., Gordon, S., & Dimmock, J. A. (2009). Advancing mental toughness research and
theory using personal construct psychology. International Review of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 2(1), 54–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/17509840802705938
Gucciardi, D. F., Hanton, S., Gordon, S., Mallett, C. J., & Temby, P. (2015). The concept of mental
toughness: Tests of dimensionality, nomological network, and traitness. Journal of Personality,
83(1), 26–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12079
Gucciardi, D. F., Mallett, C. J., Hanrahan, S. J., & Gordon, S. (2011). Measuring mental toughness in
sport. In Mental toughness in sports: Developments in theory and research (1st Ed, pp. 108–132).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Guszkowska, M., & Wojcik, K. (2021). Effect of mental toughness on sporting performance: Review of
studies. Baltic Journal of Health and Physical Activity, 13(7), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.29359/bjhpa.
2021.suppl.2.01
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY 21

*Hagag, H., & Ali, M. (2014). The relationship between mental toughness and results of the Egyptian
fencing team at the 9th all-Africa games. Ovidius University Annals, Series Physical Education and
Sport/Science, Movement and Health, 14, 85–90. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A417737968/
AONE?u = anon~4e6483a4&sid = googleScholar&xid = b64e3f7b
Haugen, T., Reinboth, M., Hetlelid, K. J., Peters, D. M., & Høigaard, R. (2016). Mental toughness mod-
erates social loafing in cycle time-trial performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 87
(3), 305–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2016.1149144
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in
meta-analyses. BMJ, 327(7414), 557–560. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
Jones, G. (2002). What is this thing called mental toughness? An investigation of elite sport perfor-
mers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14(3), 205–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200290
103509
*Jones, M. I., & Parker, J. K. (2019). An analysis of the size and direction of the association between
mental toughness and Olympic distance personal best triathlon times. Journal of Sport and Health
Science, 8(1), 71–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2017.05.005
Kmet, L. M., Lee, R. C., & Cook, L. S. (2004). Standard quality assessment criteria for evaluating primary
research papers from a variety of fields. Edmonton.
Law Insider. (2022). https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/organized-sport
Loehr, J. E. (1995). The new toughness training for sports. Plume.
Lohr, J. F. (1986). Mental toughness training for sports: Achieving athletic excellence. Stephen Greene
Press.
Lu, F. J., Gill, D. L., Yang, C., Lee, P. F., Chiu, Y. H., Hsu, Y. W., & Kuan, G. (2018). Measuring athletic
mental energy (AME): instrument development and validation. Frontiers in Psychology, 2363.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02363
*Madrigal, L., Hamill, S., & Gill, D. L. (2013). Mind over matter: The development of the Mental
Toughness Scale (MTS). The Sport Psychologist, 27(1), 62–77. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.27.1.62
*Mahoney, J. W., Gucciardi, D. F., Ntoumanis, N., & Mallet, C. J. (2014). Mental toughness in sport:
Motivational antecedents and associations with performance and psychological health. Journal
of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 36(3), 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2013-0260
Marks-Anglin, A., Duan, R., Chen, Y., Panagiotou, O., & Schmid, C. H. (2021). Publication and outcome
reporting bias. In C. H. Schmid, T. Theo, & I. R. White (Eds.), Handbook of meta-analysis (pp. 283–
292). CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Massey, W. V., Meyer, B. B., & Naylor, A. I. (2015). Self-regulation strategies in mixed martial arts.
Journal of Sport Behavior, 38(2), 192–211. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct =
true&db = rzh&AN = 103220907&lang = zh-tw&site = ehost-live. Acesso em: 30 mar. 2023
McGrath, R. E., & Meyer, G. J. (2006). When effect sizes disagree: The case of r and d. Psychological
Methods, 11(4), 386–401. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.4.386
*Meggs, J., Chen, M. A., & Koehn, S. (2019). Relationships between flow, mental toughness, and sub-
jective performance perception in various triathletes. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 126(2), 241–252.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0031512518803203
*Méndez-Alonso, D., Prieto-Saborit, J., Bahamonde, J. R., & Jiménez-Arberás, E. (2021). Influence of
psychological factors on the success of the ultra-trail runner. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(5), 2704. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052704
Middleton, S. C., Marsh, H. W., Martin, A. J., Richards, G. E., & Perry, C. (2004). Discovering mental
toughness: a qualitative study of mental toughness in elite athletes. In Self-Concept,
Motivation, And Identity, Where To From Here? Proceedings of The Third International Biennial
Self Research Conference, Berlin. http://self.uws.edu.au/Conferences/2004_Middleton_Marsh_
Martin_Richards_Perryb.pdf
Middleton, S. C., Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2012). Development and validation of the mental
toughness inventory (MTI): a construct validation approach. Mental Toughness in Sport:
Developments in Theory and Research, 91–107. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The, P. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for sys-
tematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLOS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
 22 Y.-C. HSIEH ET AL.

*Morais, C., & Gomes, A. R. (2019). Pre-service routines, mental toughness and performance
enhancement of young tennis athletes. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 50(2), 176–
192. https://doi.org/10.7352/IJSP.2019.50.176
*Newland, A., Newton, M., Finch, L., Harbke, C. R., & Podlog, L. (2013). Moderating variables in the
relationship between mental toughness and performance in basketball. Journal of Sport and
Health Science, 2(3), 184–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2012.09.002
Owusu-Sekyere, F., & Gervis, M. (2016). In the pursuit of mental toughness: Is creating mentally
tough players a disguise for emotional abuse? International Journal of Coaching Science, 10(1),
3–24.
Oxley, S. (2019, July 14). Novak Djokovic beats Roger Federer in the longest Wimbledon singles final.
BBC News: https://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/48981518
Pankow, K., Fraser, S. N., & Holt, N. L. (2021). A retrospective analysis of the development of psycho-
logical skills and characteristics among National Hockey League players. International Journal of
Sport and Exercise Psychology, 19(6), 988–1004. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2020.1827003
Rogers, M., & Werthner, P. (2022). Gathering narratives: Athletes’ experiences preparing for the
Tokyo summer Olympic games during a global pandemic. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,
35(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2022.2032477
Seligman, M. E., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction (Vol. 55, No. 1,
p. 5). American Psychological Association.
*Sheard, M. (2009). A cross-national analysis of mental toughness and hardiness in elite university
rugby league teams. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 109(1), 213–223. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.
109.1.213-223
Sheard, M., Golby, J., & van Wersch, A. (2009). Progress toward construct validation of the sports
mental toughness questionnaire (SMTQ). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25(3),
186–193. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.25.3.186
*Slimani, M., Miarka, B., Briki, W., & Cheour, F. (2016). Comparison of mental toughness and power
test performances in high-level kickboxers by competitive success. Asian Journal of Sports
Medicine, 7(2), e30840. https://doi.org/10.5812/asjsm.30840
Stamatis, A., Grandjean, P., Morgan, G., Padgett, R. N., Cowden, R., & Koutakis, P. (2020). Developing
and training mental toughness in sport: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational
studies and pre-test and post-test experiments. BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine, 6(1), e000747.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2020-000747
Thomas, J. R., Martin, P., Etnier, J., & Silverman, S. J. (2022). Research methods in physical activity.
Human kinetics.
Tufanaru, C., Munn, Z., Stephenson, M., & Aromataris, E. (2015). Fixed or random effects meta-analy-
sis? Common methodological issues in systematic reviews of effectiveness. International Journal
of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13(3), 196–207. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000065
Vaccaro, C. A., Schrock, D. P., & McCabe, J. M. (2011). Managing emotional manhood: Fighting and
fostering fear in mixed martial arts. Social Psychology Quarterly, 74(4), 414–437. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0190272511415554
Verhagen, A., & Ferreira, M. (2014). Forest plots. Journal of Physiotherapy, 60(3), 170–131. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jphys.2014.06.021
Weissensteiner, J., Abernethy, B., & Farrow, D. (2009). Towards the development of a conceptual
model of expertise in cricket batting: A grounded theory approach. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 21(3), 276–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200903018675
*Zarić, I., Milošević, M., Kukić, F., Dopsaj, M., Aminova, A. S., & Komkova, I. A. (2021). Association of
mental toughness with the competitive success of young female basketball players. Man, Sports,
and Medicine, 21(1), 86–93. https://doi.org/10.14529/hsm210111

View publication stats