94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
Marjorie Bernier1*
Pierre Bagot1
Nadia Sondt1
Guillaume Levillain2,3,4
Philippe Vacher1
Julie Doron5
Guillaume Martinent6
Jean F. Fournier7
Gilles Kermarrec1- 1Univ Brest, Centre de Recherche sur l'Education les Apprentissages et la Didactique, CREAD, EA 3875, Brest, France
- 2Complexité, Innovation, Activités Motrices et Sportives (CIAMS), Paris-Saclay University, Orsay, France
- 3Complexité, Innovation, Activités Motrices et Sportives (CIAMS), Orleans University, Orléans, France
- 4Sport, Activité Physique, Rééducation et Motricité (SAPRéM), Orleans University, Orléans, France
- 5Nantes Université, Movement - Interactions - Performance, MIP, UR 4334, Nantes, France
- 6Laboratoire sur les Vulnérabilités et l'Innovation dans le Sport (EA 7428), Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 – Université de Lyon, Lyon, France
- 7Université Paris Nanterre, Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire en Neurosciences, Physiologie et Psychologie (LINP2), Nanterre, France
1 Introduction
The evaluation of the effects of sport psychology interventions on performance and related outcomes is a central issue in evidence-based practice. Although there is an extensive literature in the domain of sport psychology, recent meta-analyses have only identified a few interventional studies that test the effects of different psychological interventions on performance (Brown and Fletcher, 2017; Lochbaum et al., 2022). While Brown and Fletcher (2017) identified 35 randomized controlled trials, Lochbaum et al. (2022) reviewed 13 meta-analyses examining the effects of various types of psychological interventions on sport performance. Although positive effects have been reported, effect sizes are heterogeneous and depend on the type of intervention (psychological or psychosocial), the techniques used (single or multi-component), and population characteristics (e.g., sex). Thus, there is a clear lack of evidence, and greater efforts need to be made to provide professional practitioners with support that is based on reliable research.
This issue is even more critical when focusing on elite performance. “Elite” can be defined in various ways, and the literature proposes different taxonomies (e.g., Swann et al., 2015; McKay et al., 2022). In particular, McKay et al. (2022) suggest a classification system that ranges from “sedentary” (Tier 0) to “world-class” (Tier 5). Tiers 4 and 5 describe groups of athletes who perform within 7% of world-record performance, with maximum or near-maximum training loads. All athletes in these tiers compete at international level, are ranked in the top 300 in their respective sport, and represent 0.003% of the global population. Their best performance relies on tiny, yet key details. Thus, it is crucial to better understand the impact of psychological interventions on performance in this specific population. Against this background, Brown and Fletcher (2017) evaluated the effects of sport psychology interventions on performance; their meta-analysis found that only one of the 35 included studies was conducted with “international” athletes. Thus, evidence regarding the effectiveness of sport psychology interventions on performance in elite athletes seems very weak.
2 Interventional research designs in elite sport: a brief review from 2012 to 2024
We conducted a brief review to understand how researchers evaluate and gather empirical evidence on the effectiveness of sport psychology interventions in elite athletes. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched SportDiscuss for studies, using the keywords: (Elite OR Expert) AND Athlete AND Sport AND (Intervention OR Program) AND Psychology NOT (Amateur OR Junior OR Adolescent). Studies were included if they met the following criteria: (a) they were interventional studies, (b) they were conducted with elite athletes (Tiers 4 or 5, as defined by McKay et al., 2022), and (c) they were published in peer-reviewed journals within the past 12 years. Initially, 652 articles were screened by an independent rater, resulting in the exclusion of 571 studies that were either meta-analyses, theses, or did not involve a psychological intervention. Of the 81 remaining articles, we assessed participant “eliteness” (score >8) using the taxonomy of Swann et al. (2015), which categorizes athletes as “semi-elite”, “competitive elite”, “successful elite”, or “world-class elite”. This assessment was based on a modified equation proposed by Gupta et al. (2017). Ultimately, only 11 studies were retained (see Table 1). Four designs were identified: single or multiple case studies (n = 6), pre-posttest with one group (n = 2), control group (n = 1), and randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a waitlist (n = 2). Measures were based on qualitative (n = 1), quantitative (n = 6), and mixed (n = 4) methods. Two studies measured objective effects on performance as a shooting score (Bortoli et al., 2012; Gröpel et al., 2020), while both studies used global performance (i.e., selection, medals) (Dupee et al., 2016; Takeuchi et al., 2023).
Table 1
Table 1. Interventional studies with elite athletes published between 2012 and 2024.
This brief review highlights that very few studies have been published over the past 12 years. We identify two main methodological boundaries, related to the specificities of elite performance, which limit interventional research studies. First, the population of elite athletes is very small, and training constraints mean that they are seldom available to take part in a time-consuming interventional study (McKay et al., 2022). In these conditions, implementing an RCT, recognized as the gold standard in psychology or health research, is not only almost impossible, but also inappropriate. Second, researchers face the difficulty of capturing the effects of psychological interventions on actual performance. The multifactorial nature of sport performance (where psychological, physical, and social factors are interwoven), and the complexity of the environment (luck, variable and uncertain conditions, etc.) make it very difficult to demonstrate the specific effects of psychological interventions. Moreover, the “plateau” phenomena is well-known among elite athletes, which means that any improvement is not only extremely tiny, but also not statistically significant (Lochbaum et al., 2022).
3 Methodological opportunities to strengthen the evidence base
Given these boundaries, sport psychology researchers must address the question of methodological standards in the field. They should also consider alternative ways to strengthen the evidence base and reinforce the effectiveness of sport psychology within this particular population.
3.1 Consider or reconsider alternative designs
Two types of design—single-case, and one group longitudinal—merit more attention as potential alternatives to the RCT. Based on an idiographic approach, single-case, or n-of-one designs are an opportunity to implement and evaluate the effects of a tailored intervention in one, or a few elite cases (e.g., one or a few athletes, coaches, or teams), while respecting real-life contextual and cultural specificities. Initially promoted in the domain of sport psychology by Hrycaiko and Martin (1996), and later Barker et al. (2013), the approach deserves renewed consideration. In particular, recent criticism of the RCT standard (Diener et al., 2022; Deaton and Cartwright, 2018; Cook, 2018) has driven substantial progress in the development of single-case designs and data analysis, and the approach could be a promising alternative to approximating causal inference in intervention research with elite athletes (Levin and Ferron, 2021; Manolov and Moeyaert, 2017).
One group longitudinal designs are another particularly interesting approach to overcoming the specific boundaries of research in elite sport. They consist in implementing an intervention in one group, and multiplying outcome variable measures at baseline, and throughout the intervention (Cece et al., 2022, 2023; Levillain et al., 2023). An ecological (e.g., a single-item definitional) approach, which emphasizes studying phenomena in their natural settings and accounting for the real-world constraints faced by elite athletes, can be particularly valuable. When combined with an innovative, multilevel statistical approach, such methods can provide new insights into the effects of interventions on psychological variables and performance.
3.2 Measuring effects on actual performance
As noted above, the effects of psychological interventions on actual performance have been insufficiently evaluated (Brown and Fletcher, 2017). However, this should be a primary goal, in order to validate professional practice. While scores, times, or distances may be meaningful indicators in some sports, they are not applicable in others. Building upon previous contributions on performance analysis (e.g., Araújo and Davids, 2016; Sarmento et al., 2022), it is important to develop and apply individual and team performance assessment methods in real-world conditions, based on an integrated, holistic approach (i.e., considering physical, technical, tactical, and psychosocial aspects). Rather than considering performance in terms of sports results (which depend on others' outcomes, luck, refereeing...), performance can be evaluated by assessing the quality of the execution of procedures or behaviors underlying sport performance. Notational analysis, athlete position analysis, or biomechanical analysis are all possible ways to measure performance, and these can also be combined.
3.3 Potential contributions of mixed methods
Mixed methods, which involve using both quantitative and qualitative methods within the same design, can help identify and explain the effects of interventions in elite populations (Mertens and Tarsilla, 2015). They allow researchers to take advantage of the strengths of both qualitative research (e.g., to describe the experience of athletes or coaches taking part in the intervention), and quantitative research, which uses outcome variables to determine effects (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2017). More specifically, a parallel and convergent mixed method might provide a more complete, contextual, and complex understanding of the effects, mechanisms, and underlying processes at play in a psychological intervention.
4 Conclusion
Three key challenges warrant attention to develop a reliable corpus of evidence regarding the effectiveness of psychological interventions in elite sport: (a) designing interventional studies with an optimal trade-off between rigor and relevance; (b) documenting mediating and moderating variables that strengthen effects of the intervention (e.g., the quality of the relation with the intervener, see Levillain et al., 2023); and (c) collaborating with practitioners to encourage implementation and transfer into real-life elite sport contexts. Addressing these three challenges may help researchers to improve both the quality and utility of interventional studies in elite sport.
Author contributions
MB: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. PB: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – review & editing. NS: Conceptualization, Project administration, Writing – review & editing. GL: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. PV: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. JD: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. GM: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. JF: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. GK: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by the French National Research Agency (ANR) with a grant from the Programme d'Investissements d'Avenir [ref. ANR-20-STHP-005].
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Araújo, D., and Davids, K. (2016). Team synergies in sport: theory and measures. Front. Psychol. 7:1449. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01449
Barker, J. B., Mellalieu, S. D., McCarthy, P. J., Jones, M. V., and Moran, A. (2013). A review of single-case research in sport psychology 1997–2012: Research trends and future directions. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 25, 4–32. doi: 10.1080/10413200.2012.709579
Bortoli, L., Bertollo, M., Hanion, Y., and Robazza, C. (2012). Striving for excellence: a multi-action plan intervention model for Shooters. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 13, 693–701. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.04.006
Brown, D. J., and Fletcher, D. (2017). Effects of psychological and psychosocial interventions on sport performance: a meta-analysis. Sports Med. 47, 77–99. doi: 10.1007/s40279-016-0552-7
Cece, V., Gulliet-Descas, E., Nicolas, M., Saby, Y., and Martinenet, G. (2023). Emotional intelligence training program for adolescents involved in intensive training centers. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 35, 1026–1049. doi: 10.1080/10413200.2023.2176565
Cece, V., Gulliet-Descas, E., Tessier, D., and Martinenet, G. (2022). Athletes' motivational and emotional outcomes related to a Need-Supportive intervention in intensive training centers. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 34, 1206–1226. doi: 10.1080/10413200.2021.1941425
Cook, T. D. (2018). Twenty-six assumptions that have to be met if single random assignment experiments are to warrant ‘gold standard' status: a commentary on Deaton and Cartwright. Social Sci. Med. 210, 37–40. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.04.031
Creswell, J. W., and Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Deaton, A., and Cartwright, N. (2018). Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials. Social Sci. Med. 210, 2–21. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.12.005
Demarzo, M., Julião de Oliveira, R. M., Araújo Silva, D. F., and Lessa-Moreno, I. (2015). Mindfulness applied to high performance athletes: a case report. Actas espanholas de psiquiatria. 43, 1–90.
Diener, E., Northcott, R., Zyphur, M. J., and West, S. G. (2022). Beyond experiments. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 17, 1101–1119. doi: 10.1177/17456916211037670
Dupee, M., Forneris, T., and Werthner, P. (2016). Perceived outcomes of a biofeedback and neurofeedback training intervention for optimal performance: learning to enhance self-awareness and self-regulation with Olympic athletes. Sport Psychol. 30, 339–349. doi: 10.1123/tsp.2016-0028
Gröpel, P., Mesagno, C., and Beckmann, J. (2020). Preshot routines to improve competition performance: a case study of a group of elite pistol shooters. Case stud. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 4, 52–57. doi: 10.1123/cssep.2019-0039
Gupta, L., Morgan, K., and Gilchrist, S. (2017). Does elite sport degrade sleep quality? A systematic review. Sports Med. 47, 1317–1333. doi: 10.1007/s40279-016-0650-6
Haase, L., May, A. C., Falahpour, M., Isakovic, S., Simmons, A. N., Hickman, S. D., et al. (2015). A pilot study investigating changes in neural processing after mindfulness training in elite athletes. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 9:229. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00229
Hrycaiko, D., and Martin, G. L. (1996). Applied research studies with single-subject designs: Why so few?. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 8, 183–199. doi: 10.1080/10413209608406476
Jouper, J., and Gustafsson, H. (2013). Mindful recovery: A case study of a burned-out elite shooter. Sport Psychol. 27, 92–102. doi: 10.1123/tsp.27.1.92
Levillain, G., Martinent, G., Laborde, S., Vacher, P., Saby, Y., and Nicolas, M. (2023). Emotional competencies training for tennis players: effectiveness of an online individualised psychological support program. Int. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 22, 1298–1316. doi: 10.1080/1612197X.2023.2193957
Levin, J. R., and Ferron, J. M. (2021). Different randomized multiple-baseline models for different situations: a practical guide for single-case intervention researchers. J. Sch. Psychol. 86, 169–177. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2021.03.003
Lochbaum, M., Stoner, E., Hefner, T., Cooper, S., Lane, A. M., and Terry, P. C. (2022). Sport psychology and performance meta-analyses: a systematic review of the literature. PLoS ONE 17:e0263408. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263408
Lundgren, T., Reinebo, G., Näslund, M., and Parling, T. (2020). Acceptance and commitment training to promote psychological flexibility in ice hockey performance: a controlled group feasibility study. J. Clin. Sport Psychol. 14, 170–181. doi: 10.1123/jcsp.2018-0081
Macdougall, H., O'Halloran, P., Sherry, E., and Shields, N. (2019). A pilot randomised controlled trial to enhance well-being and performance of athletes in para sports. Eur. J. Adapt. Phys. activity 12, 1–19. doi: 10.5507/euj.2019.006
Manolov, R., and Moeyaert, M. (2017). Recommendations for choosing single-case data analytical techniques. Behav. Ther. 48, 97–114. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2016.04.008
McKay, A. K. A., Stellingwerff, T., Smith, E. S., Martin, D. T., Mujika, I., Goosey-Tolfrey, V. L., et al. (2022). Defining training and performance caliber: a participant classification framework. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 17, 317–331. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2021-0451
Mehrsafar, A. H., Strahler, J., Gazerani, P., Khabiri, M., Sánchez, J. C. J., Moosakhani, A., et al. (2019).” The effects of mindfulness training on competition-induced anxiety and salivary stress markers in elite Wushu athletes: a pilot study. Physiol. Behav. 210. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2019.112655
Mertens, D. M., and Tarsilla, M. (2015). Mixed Methods Evaluation, eds. S. N. Hesse-Biber and R. B. Johnson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sarmento, H., Clemente, F. M., Afonso, J., Araújo, D., Fachada, M., Nobre, P., et al. (2022). Match analysis in team ball sports: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Sports med. Open 8:66. doi: 10.1186/s40798-022-00454-7
Swann, C., Moran, A., and Piggott, D. (2015). Defining elite athletes: issues in the study of expert performance in sport psychology. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 16, 3–14. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.07.004
Takeuchi, E., Lacerda, S., Brech, G. C., and Kozasa, E. (2023). An integrated Mind–Body Training intervention on an elite surfing athlete: a case study. Case stud. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 7, 1–7. doi: 10.1123/cssep.2022-0006
Keywords: elite sport, psychological interventions, evidence, methods, performance
Citation: Bernier M, Bagot P, Sondt N, Levillain G, Vacher P, Doron J, Martinent G, Fournier JF and Kermarrec G (2025) The effectiveness of psychological interventions in elite sport: methodological issues and opportunities to gather evidence. Front. Psychol. 16:1516760. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1516760
Received: 24 October 2024; Accepted: 14 January 2025;
Published: 29 January 2025.
Edited by:
Gerasimos V. Grivas, Hellenic Naval Academy, GreeceReviewed by:
Andrew Cooke, Bangor University, United KingdomCopyright © 2025 Bernier, Bagot, Sondt, Levillain, Vacher, Doron, Martinent, Fournier and Kermarrec. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Marjorie Bernier, bWFyam9yaWUuYmVybmllckB1bml2LWJyZXN0LmZy