Bence Kelemen
Renátó Tóth
Ottó Benczenleitner2
László Tóth- 1School of Doctoral Studies, Hungarian University of Sports Science, Budapest, Hungary
- 2Institute of Sports Sciences, Eszterházy Károly Catholic University, Eger, Hungary
- 3Department of Psychology and Sport Psychology, Hungarian University of Sports Science, Budapest, Hungary
- 4Teacher Training Institute, Hungarian University of Sports Science, Budapest, Hungary
Introduction: The present study aimed to investigate the mental and sports psychological preparation, as well as tactical preparation, of distance runners for competition. We examined whether there are differences based on gender, competition level and various race disciplines, as well as how mental preparation influences sports skills applicable in different competitive situations.
Methods: The sample consisted of 201 distance runners who completed the Sports Mental Training Questionnaire (SMTQ) alongside assessments of their sports psychology and race tactics.
Results: The results indicated that neither gender, competition level, nor race discipline had a significant impact on mental preparedness. However, women demonstrated notably higher scores in the use of self-talk as a mental technique. Additionally, participants who received training in sports psychology scored significantly higher across several mental skills, as well as on the overall mental preparedness score.
Discussion: This article validates the SMTQ and its association with mental readiness, as confirmatory factor analysis demonstrates adequate validity. Additionally, mental preparation was found to enhance performance and well-being among distance runners. Further research is needed to explore the impact of group interventions to broaden the reach of mental training programs.
Introduction
Achieving peak performance in sports is a complex, multidimensional process that involves the integration of various disciplines and factors. The optimization of human performance necessitates a thorough and methodical evaluation aimed at identifying both facilitators and potential barriers to success. The three primary domains of sports preparation encompass physical and technical training, tactical development, and mental or sports psychology-based preparation (1). Each of these elements plays a critical role in shaping overall performance outcomes, requiring a holistic approach to reach the highest levels of athletic achievement (2). The emphasis on scientific studies concerning physical preparation has often overshadowed the equally vital aspects of tactical strategy and mental preparation, despite their considerable impact on performance outcomes in endurance sports. This research aims to address this gap by specifically focusing on the mental preparation of distance runners.
Since the 1970s, researchers and coaches have identified the physiological factors that best predict distance running performance, specifically running times, including maximum oxygen uptake (VO2 max), associated speed (vVO2 max), velocity at lactate threshold (vLT2), and running economy (RE) (3–5). Established protocols exist for the testing and monitoring of these physiological variables (6–8), and training plans designed to enhance these factors are increasingly grounded in scientific principles. These areas of focus have garnered considerable attention in both academic literature and coaching practice. Distance runners cover 120–180 km per week at their highest level, while marathon runners can average 200–220 km per week (9–11). This consists of 11–14 weekly running sessions but often includes strength training in a gym. The training of modern distance runners is characterized primarily by an emphasis on aerobic capacity development (12, 13). Training methods now include systematically developing anaerobic threshold speed (vLT2), mainly through interval training, using lactate measurement and heart rate monitoring to maintain appropriate intensity zones (14). Since the 2010s, two prominent endurance training methods have emerged: the Norwegian double-threshold and Stephen Seiler's polarized training (12). The Norwegian method combines a high volume of aerobic running with four interval sessions weekly, performed at intensities between the aerobic (vLT1) and anaerobic thresholds (vLT2) (15–17). Seiler's polarized model uses an “80:20” approach, where 80% of training is low-intensity, and 20% consists of two higher-intensity sessions—one longer near vLT2 and one shorter, faster (18). Both methods include race-specific fatigue simulations in the final 1–2 months before key competitions (11).
In distance running, different tactical scenarios—such as record-breaking strategies in Grand Prix races and winning tactics in national and global championships—demand varied responses from athletes to achieve success (19–24). During international and national championships, the distribution of effort through multiple rounds and different changes of pace largely determine the fate of medals. In longer race distances (marathons and ultramarathons), the right pace and the ability to cope with physical and mental fatigue (e.g., the so-called “marathon wall”) are critical to completing the distance successfully (25–27). Due to the high stakes, the unpredictable behavior of the runners and the high pain levels, these events require complex mental skills from the runners (24, 28, 29). As summed up by successful Polish running coach Tomasz Lewandowski: “A championship is not like a Gold meet or the Diamond League, where you have pacers, and you go after them, or you follow the wavelight. A championship is something different; it is about energy distribution over a few rounds, it is about tactics, and it is about reading the race. It is really about performance, not about time trials. It is completely different” (30).
While tactical analyses, physiological training and testing have a strong tradition and a scientifically based system in distance running, the mental and psychological aspects of the sport have only started to catch up in recent decades. Most of the literature on distance runners focuses on the motivation of recreational runners and the impact of running on mental well-being (31–34). There are relatively few studies on higher-level national or international competitors, and those that exist are more recent, primarily addressing the general psychological traits of these athletes (35, 36). The significance of mental preparation raises important questions in several respects. Historical examples abound of runners who achieve outstanding season-best performances (37), yet struggle to replicate these results in world competitions, or fail to translate their training success into competitive settings due to anxiety, commonly referred to in the literature as “choking” (38–40). Recent research and practical insights indicate that various psychological factors, as outlined in the Central Governing Model, contribute to fatigue, and optimizing these factors can lead to improved performance outcomes (41). Research into the core elements of mental training is ongoing (42, 43), and understanding these elements is critical for effective psychological assessment and preparation for sports performance. Behnke and colleagues drew on previous work to identify the most vital factors: Foundation Skills, Performance Skills, Interpersonal Skills, and mental techniques. Based on these factors, they developed the Sport Mental Training Questionnaire (SMTQ), a psychological assessment tool (44). Self-talk and mental imagery were considered the most typical mental techniques athletes use (45, 46). Mental training has been based on the assumption that psychological factors enhance or inhibit physical performance (47). Stress interferes with cognitive focus on the task and increases self-focus, leading to lower levels of sports performance (48, 49). Excessive stress and the regulation of negative emotions can enhance performance (50, 51). The general theoretical rationale for using mental training is to equip athletes with new skills that effectively foster a stronger mindset. For example, this includes utilizing mental resources to reduce negative states, such as anxiety through positive self-talk (52), or enhancing positive states through relaxation routines that improve focus (53). Several components of mental training have been validated, e.g., mental imagery techniques (54), self-talk techniques (55) and pre-performance routines (56).
Research aims
The present study seeks to address a gap in the literature on mental preparation in sports. Our primary research question investigates whether the 20-item English-language Sports Mental Training Questionnaire (SMTQ) serves as a brief and valid measure of mental preparedness in distance runners. Additionally, we aim to examine potential differences across genders, competition levels, and various race disciplines. We also explore how mental preparation impacts the sports skills applicable in diverse competitive situations. Ultimately, this research aims to enhance scientific understanding of the mental, psychological, and tactical preparation of distance runners for competition while evaluating a practical measurement tool for use in coaching contexts.
Material and methods
Participants and procedure
The sample comprised 201 athletes (110 men, 54.7%, and 91 women, 45.3%) invited to complete an online questionnaire via email through various sports clubs. During recruitment, we informed athletes that the language of the study was English; therefore, only athletes with at least an advanced level of English participated. The mean age for the male participants was 35.05 years (SD = 12.57), while the mean age for female participants was 35.98 years (SD = 10.87). Participants included recreational athletes (n = 112), national-level athletes (n = 56), and international-level athletes (n = 33). The athletes competed in a range of running events, including middle-distance running (800–1,500 m; n = 44), long-distance running (5,000–10,000 m; n = 36), half marathon and marathon (n = 79), and ultra running (distances longer than 42.2 km; n = 42). The respondents hailed from multiple countries, with the highest representation from Hungary (n = 71), followed by the United States (n = 33), the United Kingdom (n = 29), Italy (n = 14), Australia (n = 14), and New Zealand (n = 11), as well as smaller numbers from Kenya (n = 7), Norway (n = 4), Sweden, Canada, and Germany. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Hungarian University of Sport Science Research Ethics Committee, and written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to the study.
Measures
Participants were initially prompted to provide demographic data, including their age, nationality, competition level (categorized as recreational, national, or international), and race discipline (middle distances; long distances; half marathon, and marathon; ultra distances). Subsequently, they responded to questions pertaining to both mental and race-specific tactical preparation. To assess mental preparation, they were asked: “Do you incorporate any mental preparation into your training process?” This was a straightforward binary (yes/no) question. Based on their responses, participants were divided into two groups: those who engaged in mental preparation, referred to as the Mental Preparation (M.P.) group, and those who did not engage in such techniques, categorized as the No Mental Preparation (N.M.P.) group. For those who answered affirmatively, additional inquiries probed the context in which mental preparation was utilized, as well as the specific techniques employed. Respondents were permitted to select multiple techniques from the options provided. Concerning tactical preparation, the following question was posed: “How do you prepare for the tactical aspects of a race, such as adjusting pace or responding to the strategies of potential opponents?” Again, participants were allowed to select multiple responses to capture the breadth of their tactical approaches.
Mental skills in sports were measured using a validated sport psychology questionnaire, Sport Mental Training Questionnaire (SMTQ) (44), administered in English. This 20-item inventory provided an overall mental training score, as well as scores for five subscales: Foundational Skills (F.S.), Performance Skills (P.S.), Interpersonal Skills (I.S.), and mental techniques, including Self-Talk (S.T.) and Imagery (I.M.). Participants responded using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = “strongly disagree”, 5 = “strongly agree”). Example items from the questionnaire included statements such as: “I am able to “bounce back” and overcome any failure; it does not discourage me from further action” (Foundational Skills); “During a competition, I am able to adapt quickly to changes in the performance situation and to distracting factors” (Performance Skills); “I know and I follow the rules established in the training group” (Interpersonal Skills); and “Before the start, I rehearse my performance in my mind, imagining it exactly as I want it to unfold during the actual competition” (Imagery).
Statistical data analyses
Normality was checked for each measurement, and all showed a normal distribution. Descriptive statistics and Pearson's intercorrelations were then calculated. We calculated point-biserial correlations to examine the relationship between gender and various psychological skills, assessing whether gender influences these performance factors among athletes. Gender and groups doing and not doing mental training were compared using an independent samples t-test, while participation level and different competitive events were compared using one-way ANOVA. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to test the instrument's construct (factor) validity, which, in our case, is the SMTQ. There are no uniform guidelines for confirmatory factor analysis on which goodness-of-fit indicators better predict the model under study. Therefore, it is recommended to use a combination of indicators in the Analysis (57). In the present study, the chi-square to the degree of freedom ratio (χ2/pdf), root mean square error of the mean square error (RMSEA), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) and comparative fit index (CFI) were used, to interpret confirmatory factor analysis. For the χ2/df index, there is no generally accepted cut-off value, and we follow the suggestion of (57) that a value lower than 3 is acceptable. For the RMSEA and SMR indices, a value lower than 0.08 is acceptable. In their earlier study, Hu and Bentler (58) found that a CFI value above 0.90 is acceptable, but later, based on their analyses, van Laar and Braeken suggested that a value above 0.95 should be considered acceptable (59). To explore the reliability, an internal consistency test was performed, with Cronbach's alpha coefficient greater than 0.60 considered acceptable (60). In addition, McDonald's omega was also calculated to assess the internal consistency of the subscales using JAMOVI 2.4.11 software (61, 62). For all statistical analyses, we used IBM SPSS version 27, except for the CFA, where we used JAMOVI version 2.4.11. In the case of the CFA, we used Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) estimation. During the analyses no error terms between items were allowed to correlate.
Results
Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations
Before running the primary analyses, we checked the normal distribution of the sample, which shows that for all variables, the skewness is between −2 and 2, the peak is between −7 and +7, and there are no extreme outliers. This suggests that the normal condition is fulfilled, so robustness tests are unnecessary (63, 64). All subscales and the total values of the scales showed internal consistency values of acceptable (α > 0.70) and sound (α > 0.80), respectively (65). McDonald's Omega scores ranged from 0.69 to 0.95. Scores below 0.6 are not acceptable, but McDonald's Omega scores above 0.7 and 0.8 can be interpreted as good estimates of internal consistency (66). All subscales showed a close significant positive correlation (p < 0.001) with each other. The point-biserial correlation between gender and self-talk (r = 0.179, p = 0.011) indicates a significant, positive relationship, suggesting that women tend to report higher self-talk scores than men, while no other significant positive correlations were found between gender and the remaining variables. The descriptive statistics, reliability and correlation matrix of the scales are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
Results of confirmatory factor analysis
The results of the confirmatory factor analysis indicate a significant model (p < 0.001), with values [χ2(246) = 160, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, SRMR = 0.06, RMSEA = 0.05], confirming the construct validity of the 20-item English-language Sports Mental Training Questionnaire (SMTQ) (see Table 2). The factor loadings of all items were examined in the Analysis, all of which show significant results (p < 0.001) and are shown in Table 3. Figure 1 illustrates the factor loadings of the items and the correlations between the scales, which are significant in all cases (p < 0.001). Our results suggest that the structure and reliability of the SMTQ factor structure are as predicted.
Table 2. Results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
Table 3. Factor loadings.
Figure 1. Item and factor loadings of the Sports Mental Training Questionnaire (SMTQ).
Differences between groups
The one-way ANOVA results indicated that there were no statistically significant differences between runners specializing in different distances (Middle-distance vs. Long-distance vs. Half-marathon and Marathon vs. Ultramarathon) across all the measured skills. For Foundation Skills, no significant difference was found [F(3, 197) = 0.268, p = 0.848]. Similarly, Performance Skills showed no significant difference [F(3, 197) = 0.510, p = 0.676]. The same was true for Interpersonal Skills [F(3, 197) = 0.820, p = 0.484]. For Self-Talk, the results were also not significant [F(3, 197) = 0.610, p = 0.609]. Imaginary Skills showed no significant differences either [F(3, 197) = 0.801, p = 0.495]. Finally, for the overall Total score, the ANOVA did not reveal any significant differences [F(3, 197) = 0.092, p = 0.964].
The results of the ANOVA analysis indicate that there were no statistically significant differences among the groups based on the competition level (Recreational Level vs. National Level vs. International Level). For Foundation Skills, the analysis yielded F(2, 198) = 1.019, p = 0.363, suggesting no significant differences between groups. Similarly, Performance Skills showed F(2, 198) = 1.882, p = 0.155, indicating that any differences in means were not statistically significant. The Interpersonal Skills category approached significance with F(2, 198) = 2.743, p = 0.067, but did not reach the conventional threshold for significance. Self-Talk exhibited no significant differences as well, F(2, 198) = 0.162, p = 0.851. Imaginary skills and the overall total also reflected non-significant results, with F(2, 198) = 0.542, p = 0.582 and F(2, 200) = 1.289, p = 0.278, respectively. Overall, the findings indicate that the skill categories assessed do not differ significantly among the groups analyzed.
Furthermore, no significant differences were found when comparing low-level (Recreational level) and higher-level (National and International level) groups as reported in the literature (67, 68) using independent samples t-tests. For Foundation Skills, assuming equal variances, no significant difference was found [t(199) = 0.383, p = 0.702], with a mean difference of 0.156 (95% CI: −0.644–0.956). For Performance Skills, equal variances were assumed, and no significant difference was observed [t(199) = −0.443, p = 0.658], with a mean difference of −0.256 (95% CI: −1.397–0.884). In the case of Interpersonal Skills, there was a marginal significance when equal variances were assumed [t(199) = 1.972, p = 0.050], with a mean difference of 0.840 (95% CI: 0.000–1.680). For Self-Talk, the test indicated no significant difference [t(199) = 0.567, p = 0.571], with a mean difference of 0.210 (95% CI: −0.519–0.938). Similarly, for Imaginary Skills, no significant difference was found [t(199) = 0.986, p = 0.325], with a mean difference of 0.400 (95% CI: −0.400–1.201). Finally, the Total score did not show significant differences [t(199) = 0.878, p = 0.381], with a mean difference of 1.350 (95% CI: −1.681–4.380).
When comparing those who performed mental preparation as part of the training process (M.P., n = 136) with those who did not (N.M.P., n = 65), the Independent Samples t-test revealed statistically significant differences between the groups for several skills. For Foundation Skills, no significant difference was found [t(199) = 0.324, p = 0.747], with a mean difference of 0.140 (95% CI: −0.711–0.990). Similarly, for Performance Skills, there was no significant difference [t(199) = −0.202, p = 0.840], with a mean difference of −0.124 (95% CI: −1.337–1.088). However, for Interpersonal Skills, a significant difference was observed [t(199) = −2.610, p = 0.010], with a mean difference of −1.174 (95% CI: −2.061 to −0.287). The non-preparation group (M = 14.23, SD = 3.18) scored lower than the preparation group (M = 15.40, SD = 2.88). The Self-Talk dimension also showed a significant difference [t(199) = −3.303, p = 0.001], with a mean difference of −1.264 (95% CI: −2.018 to −0.509). The non-preparation group (M = 11.18, SD = 3.15) scored lower than the preparation group (M = 12.45, SD = 2.18). In the case of Imaginary Skills, a significant difference was found [t(199) = −3.180, p = 0.002], with a mean difference of −1.342 (95% CI: −2.174 to −0.510). The non-preparation group (M = 9.42, SD = 2.88) again scored lower than the preparation group (M = 10.76, SD = 2.75). Lastly, the Total score revealed a significant difference [t(199) = −2.331, p = 0.021], with a mean difference of −3.764 (95% CI: −6.949 to −0.579). The non-preparation group (M = 71.51, SD = 11.32) scored lower than the preparation group (M = 75.27, SD = 10.40).
The effect sizes (Cohen's d) were calculated for the significant results. The Interpersonal Skills effect size was d = 0.39, indicating a medium effect. For Self-Talk, the effect size was d = 0.49, and for Imaginary Skills, d = 0.47, both reflecting medium effects. Finally, for the Total Score, the effect size was d = 0.37, also suggesting a medium effect size. The differences between athletes who engage in mental preparation and those who do not are illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Comparison of mental preparation (M.P.) and No Mental Preparation (N.P.) groups. * indicates p < 0.05; ** indicates p < 0.01.
Gender differences were tested using an independent samples t-test. The results indicated significant differences in the Self-Talk category, revealing a notable gender effect [t(199) = −2.61, p = 0.011], where men (M = 11.62, SD = 2.77) scored lower than women (M = 12.55, SD = 2.28), resulting in a medium effect size (Cohen's d = −0.36). In contrast, no significant differences were found in the Foundation Skills [t(199) = 1.696, p = 0.091], Performance Skills [t(199) = 1.244, p = 0.215], Interpersonal Skills [t(199) = −1.018, p = 0.310], Imaginary Skills [t(199) = 1.311, p = 0.191], or Total Score [t(199) = 0.365, p = 0.715] categories. These findings suggest that the Self-Talk intervention had a notable impact, particularly regarding gender differences, while the other skills did not exhibit statistically significant differences (see Figure 3).
Figure 3. Comparison of gender differences. *indicates p < 0.05; ** indicates p < 0.01.
Characteristics of mental and sports tactical preparation
To investigate the techniques employed during mental training, athletes were prompted with the question, “What mental preparation techniques do you use, if any?” Respondents were allowed to select multiple techniques. The most frequently reported method was Mental Training, utilized by 73 participants (36%). This category encompassed Inner Mental Training, Psychological Skills Training, goal-setting, and imagination exercises. The second most common approach was Relaxation Techniques, indicated by 56 participants (27%), which included Autogenic Training, Jacobson's Progressive Relaxation Technique, breathwork techniques, and biofeedback. Mindfulness-based techniques were identified by 47 respondents (23%). Less commonly employed techniques included Attention and Concentration Techniques (e.g., Thought-Stopping technique, Flashlight technique, and keyword utilization), reported by 39 respondents (19%), Cognitive Techniques, utilized by 16 respondents (7%), and Psychotherapeutic Techniques (e.g., Systematic Desensitization, Neuro-linguistic Programming), used by 5 respondents (2%). Additionally, general psychological and life coaching emerged as a prominent method, reported by 65 participants (32%).
Regarding the mental training approaches employed, 65 athletes indicated that they did not engage in any form of structured mental training (Group N.M.P.). Seventy-nine athletes reported self-directed preparation without professional oversight. Of the remaining participants, 37 trained independently with the support of their running coach, 7 worked under the guidance of a mental skills trainer, and 13 sought the expertise of a sports psychologist. Notably, no participants reported engaging in mental training within a group setting.
Regarding tactical preparation for races, athletes were asked, “How do you prepare for the tactical specifics? These can include pace changes and the tactics of potential opponents”. The most frequent responses indicated that 104 participants (51%) practiced different tempo changes during training, while 51 participants (25%) engaged in various tactical behaviors during preparatory races, such as leading or running in a pack. Furthermore, video analysis and the examination of race split times and positional data were conducted by 74 participants (36%). Additionally, 57 respondents (27%) reported preparing for tactical challenges during mental preparation. Participants could provide multiple responses to this question.
Discussion
A key finding of this study is the validation of the Sport Mental Training Questionnaire, which demonstrated good internal consistency (69). This establishes it as a reliable tool for assessing mental preparedness in distance runners and facilitates better monitoring of changes in training effects. The focus on a shorter questionnaire that includes universal components applicable across multiple sports may be particularly useful in early testing phases, group assessments, or situations with limited trainer time resources (70).
The Sports Mental Training Questionnaire (SMTQ) serves as a valuable complement to existing assessment tools by providing a focused measure of mental skills—key psychological attributes that significantly influence athletic performance. While Mahoney's Psychological Skills Inventory for Sport (PSIS) evaluates broader constructs such as motivation, self-confidence, concentration, mental preparation, and anxiety control (71), it may not thoroughly explore the specific mental skills that can be developed through targeted training. Similarly, Orlick's work emphasizes commitment, belief, and mental readiness, primarily concentrating on distraction control and constructive evaluation (72), yet it may not offer a systematic approach to assessing the nuanced aspects of mental skills. Bull and colleagues’ Mental Skills Questionnaire expands on this by evaluating imagery, mental preparation, self-confidence, relaxation, and anxiety management (73), but it may not fully address the importance of pinpointing specific mental attributes that can be directly influenced through training. The Test of Performance Strategies (TOPS) provides insights into goal-setting, emotional control, and attentional strategies (68, 74), while the Ottawa Mental Skills Assessment Tool (OMSAT-3) integrates foundational, psychosomatic, and cognitive skills, including imagery and competition planning (75). Additionally, the Psychological Performance Inventory – A (PPI-A) by Golby emphasizes determination and positive cognition (76), but it may not specifically isolate mental skills for targeted development. In this context, the SMTQ fills a vital niche by providing a comprehensive measure of mental preparedness in distance runners, facilitating a nuanced understanding of how specific mental skills influence performance outcomes. Its brevity and reliability enhance its practicality for both sports psychologists and coaches, allowing for efficient assessment and the development of targeted interventions that effectively address athletes’ unique psychological needs, ultimately optimizing performance in competitive sports.
This study also highlights critical aspects of mental preparation among distance runners, particularly focusing on gender differences. The results indicate that female participants reported significantly higher levels of Self-Talk compared to their male counterparts (77, 78). This finding may align with previous research suggesting that women tend to use different strategies, such as relying more on internal dialogue to overcome obstacles, which may enhance their mental resilience during competitions (45, 52, 79). Furthermore, athletes participating in mental training scored significantly higher in both mental techniques (Self-Talk and Imagery), Interpersonal Skills and Total Scores, supporting the hypothesis that mental preparation can be critical to success (71, 80). In terms of competition level, the study did not find significant differences based on event types or competition levels. This finding contrasts with existing literature, which suggests that elite athletes engage in more advanced mental preparation strategies (67, 81). This discrepancy may be attributed to non-directly guided mental learning during preparation (82–84).
Adequate sport psychology training and monitoring of current preparedness are particularly important in high-stress situations, such as middle-distance running races characterized by uncertain outcomes and frequent tactical competitions with multiple pace shifts. In these contexts, high concentration, along with emotional and decision-making response readiness, significantly influences success (24, 85–87). Furthermore, marathons and longer ultra-distance races present challenges associated with extreme durations. In these longer races, the literature indicates that selecting the appropriate pace can prevent the phenomenon of “hitting the wall”, which is associated with a sudden onset of very high fatigue occurring in the last third of the distance (27, 88–90). In these situations, mental techniques like positive self-talk, mental reframing, and focusing on external or internal objects can help overcome challenges (42, 91). Additionally, various other sport psychology techniques can help manage pre-competition anxiety and cope with post-competition results, thereby enabling athletes to maintain their mental well-being and remain engaged in the sport (92).
Group sport psychology sessions in which runners learn to apply performance enhancement skills could reach more people, thus improving athletes’ sports performance and enjoyment of sports and mental well-being (93). Examples of such closed-ended group intervention techniques include REBT or Mindfulness-based interventions (e.g., MSPE) (94, 95). The latter emphasizes a heightened sense of “meta-awareness” or impartial contemplation of negative thoughts, which are often effectively utilized today, as it facilitates not only emotion and attention regulation but also the flow state (96–98). In this context, assessing and monitoring athletes’ mental abilities can be highly rewarding. Shorter questionnaires that focus on critical components facilitate easier repeated measurements and enhance monitoring of training effects. The Sport Mental Training Questionnaire is a concise, valid instrument suitable for measuring the mental preparation of distance runners. The findings indicate good internal consistency across all subscales, making it effective for quick and repeatable assessments of mental preparedness.
Strengths of the research
One of the primary strengths of this study lies in its large sample size, which includes a substantial number of elite athletes competing at both national and international levels. This is particularly noteworthy, as similar research typically focuses solely on amateur athletes, making this study a rare and valuable contribution. The diversity of the participants enhances the external validity of the findings, allowing for broader generalizations regarding mental and tactical preparation among long-distance runners. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to validate a tool specifically designed to assess both the tactical and mental skills of runners, offering critical insights into the dynamics of mental readiness across various competitive contexts.
Limitations
This study has several limitations that may affect the interpretation of the findings. The reliance on self-reported data introduces the potential for bias, as participants might overestimate their use of mental preparation techniques; however, anonymity was ensured to encourage honest responses. Additionally, the cross-sectional design restricts the ability to establish causal relationships between mental preparation and performance outcomes. Future research could benefit from longitudinal studies to address this issue.
Further research directions
Future research opportunities should focus on testing tools to measure tactical preparation and awareness, as well as assessing the effectiveness of various training methods, including individual, mentored, and sports psychologist-led approaches. Furthermore, exploring the impact of cognitive and mindfulness-based group interventions presents a promising area for further study, as these group interventions can reach a broader audience. Ultimately, this research contributes to the growing body of literature that emphasizes the critical role of mental preparation in athletic performance, encouraging coaches and sports psychologists to integrate psychological training into their athletes’ preparation regimens.
Conclusion
The investigation into the mental preparation of distance runners and the associated assessment tools remains underexplored. Our research demonstrated that the 20-item Sports Mental Training Questionnaire serves as a reliable and efficient measure of distance runners’ mental capabilities and their influence on performance. A significant finding was that mental preparedness did not differ across gender, competition level, or event; however, sport psychological training had a notable positive impact. Women were more inclined to use internal dialogue techniques. Limitations of this questionnaire-based study include potential self-report biases, as participants might exaggerate their use of mental preparation techniques or their perceived readiness. Furthermore, the cross-sectional design limits the ability to establish causal relationships between mental preparation and performance outcomes. The Sports Mental Training Questionnaire is a concise and validated instrument for assessing the mental skills essential for success, as well as for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions aimed at developing these skills during the training process.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by Hungarian University of Sport Sciences, Research ethics committee, (License Number: TE-KEB/09/2023). The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
BK: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. RT: Data curation, Formal Analysis, Software, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. OB: Conceptualization, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. LT: Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
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.
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
1. Sinclair GD, Sinclair DA. Developing reflective performers by integrating mental management skills with the learning process. Sport Psychol. (1994) 8(1):13–27. doi: 10.1123/tsp.8.1.13
3. Conley DL, Krahenbuhl GS. Running economy and distance running performance of highly trained athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc. (1980) 12(5):357–60. doi: 10.1249/00005768-198025000-00010
4. Noakes TD, Myburgh KH, Schall R. Peak treadmill running velocity during the VO2 max test predicts running performance. J Sports Sci. (1990) 8(1):35–45. doi: 10.1080/02640419008732129
5. Tjelta LI, Tjelta AR. Relationship between velocity at anaerobic threshold and factors affecting velocity at anaerobic threshold in elite distance runners. IJASS. (2012) 24(1):8–17. doi: 10.24985/ijass.2012.24.1.8
6. Barnes KR, Kilding AE. Running economy: measurement, norms, and determining factors. Sports Med Open. (2015) 1(1):8. doi: 10.1186/s40798-015-0007-y
7. Goodwin ML, Harris JE, Hernández A, Gladden LB. Blood lactate measurements and analysis during exercise: a guide for clinicians. J Diabetes Sci Technol. (2007) 1(4):558–69. doi: 10.1177/193229680700100414
8. McConnell TR. Practical considerations in the testing of VO2 max in runners. Sports Med. (1988) 5(1):57–68. doi: 10.2165/00007256-198805010-00005
9. Casado A, González-Mohíno F, González-Ravé JM, Foster C. Training periodization, methods, intensity distribution, and volume in highly trained and elite distance runners: a systematic review. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. (2022) 17(6):820–33. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2021-0435
10. Haugen T, Sandbakk Ø, Enoksen E, Seiler S, Tønnessen E. Crossing the golden training divide: the science and practice of training world-class 800- and 1500-m runners. Sports Med. (2021) 51(9):1835–54. doi: 10.1007/s40279-021-01481-2
11. Haugen T, Sandbakk Ø, Seiler S, Tønnessen E. The training characteristics of world-class distance runners: an integration of scientific literature and results-proven practice. Sports Med Open. (2022) 8(1):46. doi: 10.1186/s40798-022-00438-7
12. Kelemen B, Benczenleitner O, Tóth L. Polarized and pyramidal training intensity distributions in distance running: an integrative literature review. Testnevelés Sport Tudomány. (2022) 7(3–4):40–9. doi: 10.21846/TST.2022.3-4.3
13. Tjelta LI. The training of international level distance runners. Int J Sports Sci Coach. (2016) 11(1):122–34. doi: 10.1177/1747954115624813
14. Casado A, Foster C, Bakken M, Tjelta LI. Does lactate-guided threshold interval training within a high-volume low-intensity approach represent the “next step” in the evolution of distance running training? Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2023) 20(5):3782. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20053782
15. Kelemen B, Benczenleitner O, Tóth L. Norwegian double-threshold method in distance running: systematic literature review. Sci J Sport Perform. (2023) 3(1):38–46. doi: 10.55860/NBXV4075
16. Tjelta LI. A longitudinal case study of the training of the 2012 European 1500 m track champion. IJASS. (2013) 25(1):11–8. doi: 10.24985/ijass.2013.25.1.11
17. Tjelta LI. Three Norwegian brothers all European 1500 m champions: what is the secret? Int J Sports Sci Coach. (2019) 14(5):694–700. doi: 10.1177/1747954119872321
18. Seiler S. What is best practice for training intensity and duration distribution in endurance athletes? Int J Sports Physiol Perform. (2010) 5(3):276–91. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.5.3.276
19. Casado A, Renfree A. Fortune favors the brave: tactical behaviors in the middle-distance running events at the 2017 IAAF world championships. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. (2018) 13(10):1386–91. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2018-0055
20. Filipas L, La Torre A, Hanley B. Pacing profiles of Olympic and IAAF world championship long-distance runners. J Strength Cond Res. (2021) 35(4):1134–40. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002873
21. Hanley B, Hettinga FJ. Champions are racers, not pacers: an analysis of qualification patterns of Olympic and IAAF world championship middle distance runners. J Sports Sci. (2018) 36(22):2614–20. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2018.1472200
22. Hettinga FJ, Edwards AM, Hanley B. The science behind competition and winning in athletics: using world-level competition data to explore pacing and tactics. Front Sports Act Living. (2019) 1:11. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2019.00011
23. Kelemen B, Benczenleitner O, Tóth L. Comparison of winning and record tactics in elite-level male middle-distance running. J Phys Educ Sport. (2023) 23(2):469–75. doi: 10.7752/jpes.2023.02058
24. Renfree A, Casado A. Athletic races represent complex systems, and pacing behavior should be viewed as an emergent phenomenon. Front Physiol. (2018) 9:1432. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2018.01432
25. Nikolaidis PT, Ćuk I, Knechtle B. Pacing of women and men in half-marathon and marathon races. Medicina (B Aires). (2019) 55(1):14. doi: 10.3390/medicina55010014
26. Ristanović L, Cuk I, Villiger E, Stojiljković S, Nikolaidis PT, Weiss K, et al. The pacing differences in performance levels of marathon and half-marathon runners. Front Psychol. (2023) 14:1273451. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1273451
27. Smyth B. How recreational marathon runners hit the wall: a large-scale data analysis of late-race pacing collapse in the marathon. PLoS One. (2021) 16(5):e0251513. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251513
28. Renfree A, Martin L, Micklewright D, St Clair Gibson A. Application of decision-making theory to the regulation of muscular work rate during self-paced competitive endurance activity. Sports Med. (2014) 44(2):147–58. doi: 10.1007/s40279-013-0107-0
29. Renfree A, Mytton GJ, Skorski S, Gibson ASC. Tactical considerations in the middle-distance running events at the 2012 Olympic games: a case study. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. (2014) 9(2):362–4. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2013-0020
30. Lewandovski M. (Director). (2024). Niels Laros wil stunten in Parijs. Available online at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILxE9d6IFZA&t=248s (Video recording) (accessed June 28, 2024).
31. León-Guereño P, Tapia-Serrano MA, Castañeda-Babarro A, Malchrowicz-Mośko E. Do sex, age, and marital status influence the motivations of amateur marathon runners? The Poznan marathon case study. Front Psychol. (2020) 11:2151. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02151
32. Nikolaidis PT, Chalabaev A, Rosemann T, Knechtle B. Motivation in the Athens classic marathon: the role of sex, age, and performance level in Greek recreational marathon runners. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2019) 16(14):2549. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16142549
33. Oswald F, Campbell J, Williamson C, Richards J, Kelly P. A scoping review of the relationship between running and mental health. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2020) 17(21):8059. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17218059
34. Partyka A, Waśkiewicz Z. Motivation of marathon and ultra-marathon runners. A narrative review. Psychol Res Behav Manag. (2024) 17:2519–31. doi: 10.2147/PRBM.S464053
35. Morgan WP, Costill DL. Psychological characteristics of the marathon runner. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. (1972) 12(1):42–6.5053526
36. Morgan WP, Pollock ML. Psychologic characterization of the elite distance runner. Ann N Y Acad Sci. (1977) 301(1):382–403. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1977.tb38215.x
37. Kelemen B, Benczenleitner O, Tóth L. Are 800-m runners getting faster? Global competition performance trends between 1999 and 2021. J Phys Educ Sport. (2022) 22(9):2231–7. doi: 10.7752/jpes.2022.09284
38. Baumeister RF. Choking under pressure: self-consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful performance. J Pers Soc Psychol. (1984) 46(3):610–20. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.610
39. Gröpel P, Mesagno C. Choking interventions in sports: a systematic review. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. (2019) 12(1):176–201. doi: 10.1080/1750984X.2017.1408134
40. Jackson RC, Beilock SL, Kinrade N. “Choking” in sport: research and implications. In: Farrow D, editor. Developing Sport Expertise. Oxfordshire: Routledge (2013). p. 175–92. doi: 10.4324/9780203119914
41. Noakes TD. The central governor model of exercise regulation applied to the marathon. Sports Med. (2007) 37(4):374–7. doi: 10.2165/00007256-200737040-00026
42. Jaenes JC, Wilczyńska D, Alarcón D, Peñaloza R, Casado A, Trujillo M. The effectiveness of the psychological intervention in amateur male marathon runners. Front Psychol. (2021) 12:605130. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.605130
43. Park I, Jeon J. Psychological skills training for athletes in sports: web of science bibliometric analysis. Healthcare. (2023) 11(2):259. doi: 10.3390/healthcare11020259
44. Behnke M, Tomczak M, Kaczmarek LD, Komar M, Gracz J. The sport mental training questionnaire: development and validation. Curr Psychol. (2019) 38(2):504–16. doi: 10.1007/s12144-017-9629-1
45. Hatzigeorgiadis A, Galanis E, Zourbanos N, Theodorakis Y. Self-talk and competitive sport performance. J Appl Sport Psychol. (2014) 26(1):82–95. doi: 10.1080/10413200.2013.790095
46. MacIntyre T, Moran A, Collet C, Guillot A, Campbell M, Matthews J, et al. The BASES expert statement on the use of mental imagery in sport, exercise and rehabilitation contexts. Sport Exerc Sci. (2013) 38:10–1.
47. Vealey RS. Mental skills training in sport. In: Tenenbaum G, Eklund RC, editors. Handbook of Sport Psychology. 1st ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley (2007). p. 285–309. doi: 10.1002/9781118270011.ch13
48. Hill DM, Hanton S, Matthews N, Fleming S. A qualitative exploration of choking in elite golf. J Clin Sport Psychol. (2010) 4(3):221–40. doi: 10.1123/jcsp.4.3.221
49. Mesagno C, Harvey JT, Janelle CM. Choking under pressure: the role of fear of negative evaluation. Psychol Sport Exerc. (2012) 13(1):60–8. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.07.007
50. Anshel M, Anderson D. Coping with acute stress in sport: linking Athletes’ coping style, coping strategies, affect, and motor performance. Anxiety Stress Coping. (2002) 15(2):193–209. doi: 10.1080/10615800290028486
51. Lane AM, Beedie CJ, Devonport TJ, Stanley DM. Instrumental emotion regulation in sport: relationships between beliefs about emotion and emotion regulation strategies used by athletes. Scand J Med Sci Sports. (2011) 21(6):e445–51. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2011.01364.x
52. Hatzigeorgiadis A, Zourbanos N, Mpoumpaki S, Theodorakis Y. Mechanisms underlying the self-talk–performance relationship: the effects of motivational self-talk on self-confidence and anxiety. Psychol Sport Exerc. (2009) 10(1):186–92. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2008.07.009
53. Lutz A, Slagter HA, Rawlings NB, Francis AD, Greischar LL, Davidson RJ. Mental training enhances attentional stability: neural and behavioral evidence. J Neurosci. (2009) 29(42):13418–27. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1614-09.2009
54. Gentili R, Han CE, Schweighofer N, Papaxanthis C. Motor learning without doing: trial-by-trial improvement in motor performance during mental training. J Neurophysiol. (2010) 104(2):774–83. doi: 10.1152/jn.00257.2010
55. Hatzigeorgiadis A, Theodorakis Y, Zourbanos N. Self-talk in the swimming pool: the effects of self-talk on thought content and performance on water-polo tasks. J Appl Sport Psychol. (2004) 16(2):138–50. doi: 10.1080/10413200490437886
56. Velentzas K, Heinen T, Schack T. Routine integration strategies and their effects on volleyball serve performance and Players’ movement mental representation. J Appl Sport Psychol. (2011) 23(2):209–22. doi: 10.1080/10413200.2010.546826
57. Kline RB. Questionable practices in statistical analysis. In: Cooper H, Coutanche MN, McMullen LM, Panter AT, Rindskopf D, Sher KJ, editors. APA handbook of Rresearch Mmethods in Ppsychology: Data Aanalysis and Rresearch Ppublication. Vol. 3. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association (2023). p. 579–95. doi: 10.1037/0000320-026
58. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling. (1999) 6(1):1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
59. van Laar S, Braeken J. Understanding the comparative fit index: it's all about the base! Pract Assess Res Eval. (2021) 26(1):26. doi: 10.7275/23663996
60. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. (1951) 16(3):297–334. doi: 10.1007/BF02310555
61. Hayes AF, Coutts JJ. Use Omega rather than cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability. But…. Commun Methods Meas. (2020) 14(1):1–24. doi: 10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629
62. McDonald RP. Test Theory: A Unified Treatment. New York, NY: Psychology Press (2013). doi: 10.4324/9781410601087
63. Byrne BM. Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, Second Edition. Oxfordshire: Routledge (2013). doi: 10.4324/9780203805534
64. Hair J, Sarstedt M, Hopkins L, Kuppelwieser VG. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): an emerging tool in business research. Eur Bus Rev. (2014) 26(2):106–21. doi: 10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128
65. Cortina JM. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J Appl Psychol. (1993) 78(1):98–104. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98
66. Edwards AA, Joyner KJ, Schatschneider C. A simulation study on the performance of different reliability estimation methods. Educ Psychol Meas. (2021) 81(6):1089–117. doi: 10.1177/0013164421994184
67. Gould D, Dieffenbach K, Moffett A. Psychological characteristics and their development in Olympic champions. J Appl Sport Psychol. (2002) 14(3):172–204. doi: 10.1080/10413200290103482
68. Thomas PR, Murphy SM, Hardy L. Test of performance strategies: development and preliminary validation of a comprehensive measure of athletes’ psychological skills. J Sports Sci. (1999) 17(9):697–711. doi: 10.1080/026404199365560
69. Terwee CB, Bot SDM, De Boer MR, Van Der Windt DAWM, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. (2007) 60(1):34–42. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012
70. Cid L, Monteiro D, Teixeira DS, Evmenenko A, Andrade A, Bento T, et al. Assessment in sport and exercise psychology: considerations and recommendations for translation and validation of questionnaires. Front Psychol. (2022) 13:806176. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.806176
71. Mahoney MJ, Gabriel TJ, Perkins TS. Psychological skills and exceptional athletic performance. Sport Psychol. (1987) 1(3):181–99. doi: 10.1123/tsp.1.3.181
72. Orlick T. The psychology of personal excellence. Contemp Thought Perform Enhance. (1992) 1:109–22.
73. Bull SJ, Albinson JG, Shambrook CJ. The Mental Game Plan: Getting Psyched for Sport. 1st ed. Eastbourne: Sports Dynamics (1996).
74. Hardy L, Roberts R, Thomas PR, Murphy SM. Test of performance strategies (TOPS): instrument refinement using confirmatory factor analysis. Psychol Sport Exerc. (2010) 11(1):27–35. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.04.007
75. Durand-Bush N, Salmela JH, Green-Demers I. The Ottawa mental skills assessment tool (OMSAT-3*). Sport Psychol. (2001) 15(1):1–19. doi: 10.1123/tsp.15.1.1
76. Golby J. Evaluating the factor structure of the psychological performance inventory. Percept Mot Skills. (2007) 105(5):309. doi: 10.2466/PMS.105.5.309-325
77. Hammermeister JJ, Burton D. Gender differences in coping with endurance sport stress: are men from Mars and women from Venus? J Sport Behav. (2004) 27:148.
78. Kaiseler MH. Gender and personality differences in coping in sport. [doctoral dissertation]. University of Hull (2010). Available online at: https://eprints.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/id/eprint/589/1/Gender%20and%20personality%20differences%20in%20coping%20in%20sport.pdf
79. Correia ME, Rosado A. Anxiety in athletes: gender and type of sport differences. Int J Psychol Res (Medellin). (2019) 12(1):9–17. doi: 10.21500/20112084.3552
80. Lochbaum M, Stoner E, Hefner T, Cooper S, Lane AM, Terry PC. Sport psychology and performance meta-analyses: a systematic review of the literature. PLoS One. (2022) 17(2):e0263408. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263408
81. Craft LL, Magyar TM, Becker BJ, Feltz DL. The relationship between the competitive state anxiety inventory-2 and sport performance: a meta-analysis. J Sport Exerc Psychol. (2003) 25(1):44–65. doi: 10.1123/jsep.25.1.44
82. Casado A, Hanley B, Ruiz-Pérez LM. Deliberate practice in training differentiates the best Kenyan and spanish long-distance runners. Eur J Sport Sci. (2020) 20(7):887–95. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2019.1694077
83. Ericsson KA. Training history, deliberate practice and elite sports performance: an analysis in response to tucker and collins review—what makes champions? Br J Sports Med. (2013) 47(9):533–5. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2012-091767
84. Young BW, Salmela JH. Examination of practice activities related to the acquisition of elite performance in Canadian middle distance running. Int J Sport Psychol. (2010) 41(1):73–90.
85. Abbiss CR, Laursen PB. Describing and understanding pacing strategies during athletic competition. Sports Med. (2008) 38(3):239–52. doi: 10.2165/00007256-200838030-00004
86. Aragón S, Lapresa D, Arana J, Anguera MT, Garzón B. Tactical behaviour of winning athletes in major championship 1500-m and 5000-m track finals. Eur J Sport Sci. (2016) 16(3):279–86. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2015.1009494
87. Thiel C, Foster C, Banzer W, De Koning J. Pacing in Olympic track races: competitive tactics versus best performance strategy. J Sports Sci. (2012) 30(11):1107–15. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2012.701759
88. Kerhervé HA, Cole-Hunter T, Wiegand AN, Solomon C. Pacing during an ultramarathon running event in hilly terrain. PeerJ. (2016) 4:e2591. doi: 10.7717/peerj.2591
89. Takayama F, Aoyagi A, Nabekura Y. Pacing strategy in a 24-hour ultramarathon race. Int J Perform Anal Sport. (2016) 16(2):498–507. doi: 10.1080/24748668.2016.11868904
90. Takayama F, Mori H. The relationship between 24 h ultramarathon performance and the “big three” strategies of training, nutrition, and pacing. Sports. (2022) 10(10):162. doi: 10.3390/sports10100162
91. McCormick A, Meijen C, Marcora S. Psychological determinants of whole-body endurance performance. Sports Med. (2015) 45(7):997–1015. doi: 10.1007/s40279-015-0319-6
92. Hanton S, Neil R, Mellalieu SD. Recent developments in competitive anxiety direction and competition stress research. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. (2008) 1(1):45–57. doi: 10.1080/17509840701827445
93. Purcell R, Gwyther K, Rice SM. Mental health in elite athletes: increased awareness requires an early intervention framework to respond to athlete needs. Sports Med Open. (2019) 5(1):46. doi: 10.1186/s40798-019-0220-1
94. Tóth R, Turner MJ, Mannion J, Tóth L. The effectiveness of rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT) and mindfulness-based intervention (MBI) on psychological, physiological and executive functions as a proxy for sports performance. BMC Psychol. (2023) 11(1):442. doi: 10.1186/s40359-023-01486-8
95. Tóth R, Resperger V, Tóth L. Optimizing athletes’ mindsets: application of rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT) in sport. SPRINT. (2024) 1(1):25–9. doi: 10.1556/1020.2024.00008
96. Bühlmayer L, Birrer D, Röthlin P, Faude O, Donath L. Effects of mindfulness practice on performance-relevant parameters and performance outcomes in sports: a meta-analytical review. Sports Med. (2017) 47(11):2309–21. doi: 10.1007/s40279-017-0752-9
97. De Petrillo LA, Kaufman KA, Glass CR, Arnkoff DB. Mindfulness for long-distance runners: an open trial using mindful sport performance enhancement (MSPE). J Clin Sport Psychol. (2009) 3(4):357–76. doi: 10.1123/jcsp.3.4.357
Keywords: distance running, sport psychology, mental training, mental skills, race tactics
Citation: Kelemen B, Tóth R, Benczenleitner O and Tóth L (2024) Mental preparation in runners: gender differences, competition levels, and psychological training effects on performance. Front. Sports Act. Living 6:1456504. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2024.1456504
Received: 28 June 2024; Accepted: 29 October 2024;
Published: 15 November 2024.
Edited by:
Donatella Di Corrado, Kore University of Enna, ItalyReviewed by:
Gerasimos V. Grivas, Hellenic Naval Academy, GreeceLuuk Van Iperen, Maastricht University, Netherlands
Copyright: © 2024 Kelemen, Tóth, Benczenleitner and Tóth. 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: Bence Kelemen, bencekelemen95@gmail.com