Improving International-Level Chess Players’ Performance with an Acceptance-Based Protocol: Preliminary Findings

Development and experiences of an internet-based acceptance and commitment training (I-ACT) intervention in ice hockey players: a qualitative feasibility study

Internet-based psychological interventions have increased the accessibility of evidence-based treatments in clinical psychology but are still an unexplored delivery format in sport psychology research. This study describes the development and evaluates the experiences of an internet-based acceptance and commitment therapy/training (I-ACT) intervention in ice hockey players focusing on performance enhancement and a sustainable sport participation. I-ACT consisted of seven weekly modules and the feasibility of the intervention was investigated using a qualitative research design. Four national level ice hockey players took part of I-ACT and were interviewed about their experiences using a semi-structured protocol. Interview transcripts were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Findings suggest that the content of I-ACT was comprehensible, relevant, and that it was possible to put the psychological skills into practice. I-ACT was described as helpful to the ice hockey players either in their sport performance or in their life outside of sport. The internet-format was generally perceived as positive, flexible, and a feasible option for delivering psychological interventions in an elite sport context. Some concerns were raised regarding the timing of the intervention at the end of the season, and some players also wished for more time to complete I-ACT. It was also expressed that some of the exercises could have been better adapted for goaltenders. Further trials are needed to evaluate the effects of I-ACT on performance and mental health outcomes in various sport populations using robust quantitative research methodology. Internet-based psychological interventions are a potential future opportunity to make evidence-based practices more accessible for athletes.

Effects of Psychological Interventions to Enhance Athletic Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Psychological interventions are commonly applied in sports to help athletes enhance their performance, but the effect psychological interventions have on actual performance is unclear despite decades of research.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systematic review with meta-analyses to investigate the effects of a wide range of psychological interventions on performance in competitive athletes.

METHODS

A study protocol was preregistered in PROSPERO, and a literary search was performed in the MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus databases. Psychological intervention studies were eligible by using a group design and a quantitative performance outcome with athletes competing at a regional or university level or higher. Included studies were assessed regarding intervention characteristics, research methodology, and risk of bias. A multi-level meta-analysis framework with cluster robust variance estimation was used to quantitatively synthesize the results.

RESULTS

A total of 111 studies met the inclusion criteria, and 25 of these studies (37 effects) could be synthesized into five meta-analyses in which there were similarities in the type of psychological intervention, comparator, and experimental design. Meta-analyses I (multimodal psychological skills training vs control), II (mindfulness- and acceptance-based approaches vs control), and III (imagery vs control) consisted of parallel-group studies, and random-effects models were used to calculate the standardized mean difference. Meta-analyses IV (attentional focus strategies, external vs internal) and V (regulatory focus performance instructions, prevention vs promotion) consisted of counterbalanced crossover design studies, and random-effects models were used to calculate the standardized mean change using change score standardization. Significant results were found in three of the meta-analyses (I, II, and III). Psychological skills training (g = 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.21-1.45), mindfulness- and acceptance-based approaches (g = 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.01-1.32), and imagery (g = 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.14-1.36) outperformed controls with moderate effects. However, when non-randomized trials and subjective performance outcomes were removed in sensitivity analyses, the overall estimates of the effect size were no longer significant in any of the syntheses.

CONCLUSIONS

The significant moderate effects for psychological skills training, mindfulness- and acceptance-based approaches, and imagery are not stable, and further trials with robust research methodology, such as randomized controlled trials, are requested for all types of psychological interventions aiming to enhance performance in athletes. Moreover, improved reporting standards and the provision of datasets in open science repositories are important to consider in future trials in sport psychology.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42017056677.

Acceptance and Commitment Coaching for Music Performance Anxiety: Piloting a 6-Week Group Course With Undergraduate Dance and Musical Theatre Students

Treatments for students with problematic levels of music performance anxiety (MPA) commonly rely on approaches in which students are referred to psychotherapists or other clinical professionals for individual care that falls outside of their music training experience. However, a more transdisciplinary approach in which MPA treatment is effectively integrated into students' training in music/performing arts colleges by teachers who work in consultation with clinical psychologists may prove more beneficial, given the resistance students often experience toward psychotherapy. Training singing teachers, and perhaps music teachers at large, to use an evidence-based coaching strategy like Acceptance and Commitment Coaching (ACC) to directly manage students' MPA is one such approach. Building on the work of a previous study in which ACC was administered by a singing teacher to a musical theatre student with problematic MPA, we piloted the effectiveness of a six-session, group ACC course for a sample of performing arts students (N = 6) with MPA related to vocal performances, using a mixed-methods design. The coach here was also a singing teacher without a clinical background, and her training in ACC by a clinical psychologist was of a similar duration (8 h) as the previous teacher's (7 h). Similar to the musical theatre student, the students reported being significantly less fused with their MPA-related cognitions, more accepting of their MPA-related physiological symptoms, and more psychologically flexible while performing in general, and these improvements were maintained after 3 months. Furthermore, they appeared to lower their shame over having MPA and change how they thought in relation to one another. Of note, these improvements were similar to those shown by seven vocal students with MPA after they received Acceptance and Commitment Therapy from a clinical psychologist, but with larger reductions in shame and better acceptance of MPA, which suggests a non-clinical, group ACC intervention that includes supportive discussions to normalize MPA and challenges attempts to control it may be more helpful than individual psychotherapy. These results are promising and indicate a brief training in ACC (<10 h) may be sufficient for singing teachers to provide significant benefit for students with problematic MPA.

Collaborating on evolving the future

We thank the commentators for an extraordinarily diverse and constructive set of comments. Nearly all applaud our goal of sketching a unified science of change, even while raising substantive points that we look forward to addressing in our reply, which we group into the following categories: (1) What counts as evolutionary; (2) Ethical considerations; (3) Complexity; (4) Symbotypes, culture, and the future; (5) What intentional cultural change might look like; (6) An evolving science of cultural change; and (7) Who decides?