Technical Note

Mood and Performance Anxiety in High School Basketball Players:

A Pilot Study

STEFFEN J. HOOVER*1, RACHEL K. WINNER*1, HOLLY MCCUTCHAN1,

CHRISTINA C. BEAUDOIN2, LAWRENCE W. JUDGE3, LANI M. JONES4,
BRIANNA LEITZELAR*3, and DONALD L. HOOVER5

1Heritage Hills High School, Lincoln City, IN, USA; 2Grand Valley State
University, Allendale, MI, USA; 3Ball State University, Muncie, IN, USA;
4Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA; 5Western Kentucky University,

Bowling Green, KY, USA

*Denotes undergraduate student author, Denotes professional author

ABSTRACT
International Journal of Exercise Science 10(4): 604-618, 2017. Participation in
competitive sport may impact psychological measures, such as mood and performance anxiety,
which in turn may impact enjoyment, adherence, continued participation, and so on. This study
assessed the feasibility in terms of process, resources, management, and potential scientific
value of measuring the effect of varying competitive challenges upon the mood and
performance anxiety measures of high school athletes. The participants (n=12) consisted of the
boys varsity basketball team at a high school in a rural Midwestern community. Participants
completed the Profile of Mood States (POMS) to assess mood and the Sport Anxiety Scale-2 (SAS-
2) to assess performance anxiety, respectively. Survey administration occurred at baseline and
prior to games designated as non-conference, conference, and state tournament. A-priori feasibility
measures were achieved in this prospective design. Significant correlations on the subscale
measures were found on the POMS and SAS-2 administered before the four conditions in this
study; Chronbachs alpha ranged from 0.54- 0.94 across conditions for POMS subscales, and
Chronbachs alpha ranged from 0.73-0.97 across all conditions for SAS-2 subscales, respectively.
Significant differences were found across conditions in the POMS subscale confusion [F(3,33) =
5.71, p = 0.01] and in the SAS-2 subscale worry [F(3,33) = 6.13, p=0.01]. These preliminary findings
suggest that the competitive conditions in this study significantly affected some measures of
mood and performance anxiety in high school basketball players. These findings warrant further
investigation, as well as suggest coaches could gather such information from their players,
ultimately aiding in player development and team performance.

KEY WORDS: Scholastic sport, coaching, evidence-based teaching

INTRODUCTION
 Int J Exerc Sci 10(4): 604-618, 2017

It is widely acknowledged that sport participation promotes healthier lifestyles (14), increases
self-esteem (38), and enhances peer acceptance (44). Sport participation has also been
positively linked to psychological development (10). Scholastic sport participation represents
one community-based environment for adolescents to engage in competitive activity.
However, participation in competitive sport may also adversely affect psychological measures
(25, 42). Thus more study on the influence of competition upon sport participants is warranted.

Numerous authors have reported that sport participation promotes healthy lifestyles in
adolescents. For example, in one study assessing the impact of organized leisure-time activities
upon the physical and mental health of 10,503 European adolescents, researchers found that
participants reported higher self-rated health and life satisfaction measures regardless of sex or
age (2). A study on US adolescents similarly found a positive relationship between number of
physical activity modes and measures of perceived enjoyment and participation (24). The
impact of sport participation upon self-esteem has also been widely reported in the scientific
literature. To illustrate, Wagnsson et al., found in a longitudinal study conducted from a
developmental perspective that sport participation, self-esteem, and perceived sport
competence were all positively related in adolescents (42). Balaguer et al., similarly found that
higher levels of sport participation were positively associated with self-perceptions,
particularly among adolescent boys (4). These and other studies suggest that sport
participation often has positive implications in the social development of youth.

However, participation in competitive sports such as basketball may also impact psychological
measures, such as mood and performance anxiety, which in turn may affect aspects like
enjoyment, continued participation, self-efficacy, and so on. Anxiety is one of the more
frequently measured variables within sport psychology. This variable is typically
conceptualized as a negative emotional state characterized by apprehension, nervousness, and
worry, and it is associated with physiological arousal (43). Anxiety is therefore also recognized
as a multidimensional construct consisting of cognitive and somatic components (23), and it
also can be viewed as a rather stable personality characteristic (i.e., trait anxiety) or as a
response to a given situation (i.e., state anxiety). Previous research has suggested that
performance anxiety, defined as the tendency to respond to competitive situations as
threatening or anxiety-producing (22), may be greater in individual sports (e.g., diving) than in
team sports (e.g., basketball) (47). Although several measures exist for measuring trait and
state anxiety within sport and adults, validated measures of performance anxiety within
children and adolescents are limited (13, 33, 36).

Interscholastic competition may present overlays that influence the sport participation
experience in nuanced ways (19, 21, 41). For example, the locker room represents a sports
culture where adolescent behaviors, such as teasing, can take on highly unique characteristics
(1, 5, 34), which ultimately may influence the satisfaction derived from sport participation (25,
42). The cultural influences of scholastic sport participation may be further impacted in rural
communities in which high school teams are highly encouraged to beat school teams from
neighboring communities. The pressures exerted by coaches and family in such environments
can influence the youth sport experience (26). Such environmental pressures may subtly

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

605
 Int J Exerc Sci 10(4): 604-618, 2017

influence the experiences of athletes engaging in scholastic sport participation. Lastly, it also is
recognized that the event importance (e.g., practice, conference game, state tournament game)
is a variable potentially impacting anxiety and mood responses within participants.

Consequently, the purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility -- in respect to process,
resources, management, and potential scientific value -- of collecting relevant psychometric
data on scholastic athletes during their competitive season (9, 40). A related purpose was to
investigate the influence of varying competitive challenges upon the mood and performance
anxiety measures within high school athletes. More specifically, this investigation was
accomplished by assessing mood and performance anxiety measures of varsity basketball
players at key points during the competitive season. It was hypothesized that such measures
reasonably could be collected on high school athletes, which is an under-studied population,
and such measures gathered via validated psychometric instruments collected at key points
during the competitive season may have value for coaches working with high school athletes.

METHODS

Participants
This study used a quasi-experimental design, as it compared measures gathered on one group
of participants on multiple occasions. The participants (n=12) in this study were comprised of
a sample of convenience. The boys varsity basketball team at a high school in a rural
Midwestern community was asked to complete validated surveys for assessment of mood and
performance anxiety, respectively. The implemented design was evaluated regarding its
feasibility toward the larger goal of implementing a similar study with a larger participant
pool (9,40). Chronbachs alpha was used to evaluate internal consistency of the POMS and
SAS-2 subscales within and across conditions, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to
assess significant differences within and across conditions, as well as for relevance in practical
application.

Protocol
Mood state of the participants was assessed using the Profile of Mood States (POMS).
Research suggests that the 65-item POMS is a valid and reliable questionnaire for assessing
changes in mood in a variety of populations (39). This instrument assesses six mood states
from the participants: tension, depression, anger, vigor, fatigue, and confusion. Each is assessed
using a five-point scoring system from 0 (not at all) to 4 (extremely). Total Mood Disturbance
(TMD) is calculated by adding the five negative mood states (i.e., tension, depression, anger,
fatigue, confusion), subtracting the one positive mood state (i.e., vigor) and adding 100.
Participants were prompted to complete the POMS based on how you feel right now. This
instrument was administered immediately before the selected basketball practice and games to
assess participant mood states as their team progressed through the competitive season.

Performance anxiety of the participants was assessed using the Sport Anxiety Scale-2 (SAS-2).
Research suggests that the SAS-2 is a valid and reliable questionnaire for assessing
performance anxiety (36) and has been validated for use with youth ranging from 7-18 years of

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

606
 Int J Exerc Sci 10(4): 604-618, 2017

age (31). This instrument consists of 15 questions that assess anxiety that participants may
experience during competition. Each question is assessed using a scoring system from 1 (not at
all) to 4 (very much). The multidimensional SAS-2 consists of three subscales measuring somatic
anxiety, worry, and concentration disruption. A total performance anxiety score can be obtained
by summing scores from each of the three subscales. This instrument was also used before the
selected basketball practice and games to assess participant performance anxiety as their team
moved through the competitive season. Participants were prompted to also complete the SAS-
2 based upon how you feel right now.

Times for administration of the instruments used were identified and verified through
discussion with the coaching staff of the boys basketball team who agreed to participate in
this study. Baseline data collection occurred before a practice scheduled early in the week,
given that boys high school basketball games in this Midwestern state are typically scheduled
on Friday and/or Saturday evenings.

All participants had an informed consent signed by a parent or guardian on file before data
collection began. The informed consent complied with the guidelines set forth by the
administrators of the Tri-State Science Fair hosted by the University of Southern Indiana.
Members of the research team gave copies of the informed consent to the head basketball
coach to distribute to all team members, who then took these copies home for signature by a
parent or guardian and subsequently returned them to the head basketball coach. The
participants (and their parents) were notified via the informed consent that their participation
in the study was voluntary, they would not receive any compensation for their participation,
and they were free to withdraw from the study at any time without retribution.

Administration of each survey took five minutes or less to complete. Each team member was
asked to take the test on four occasions: 1) baseline, prior to a practice, 2) prior to a game
against a non-conference opponent (e.g. high stakes competition), 3) prior to a game against a
conference opponent (e.g. higher stakes competition), and 4) prior to the first game of the
Indiana state tournament, or Sectional (e.g. highest stakes competition). Participants were
prompted to complete each survey based upon how you feel right now (36). All surveys
were administered to the varsity basketball team in the locker room thirty minutes prior to the
practice or game conditions over the duration of the final month of the 2015-2016 season.

The rationale for this study was assessed using the following feasibility criteria recommended
in the scientific literature: process, resources, management, and scientific value (9,40). Process
measures pertain to the feasibility steps that need to take place as part of the main study (40),
and in the present study included the following: 1) Recruiting one or more high school varsity
basketball teams to participate in the pilot; 2) 75% or more of all participants on the state
tournament roster (i.e., at least 9 of 12) completing all surveys administered; and 3) Retaining
75% or more of all participants (i.e., at least 9 of 12) throughout the duration of the entire
study. Resource measures pertain to assessing time and budget issues that might occur as part
of the main study (40) and in the present study included determining the minimum amount of
time necessary to administer the surveys prior to practice and games so as to minimize the

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

607
 Int J Exerc Sci 10(4): 604-618, 2017

potential of intrusion upon team preparations for the impending competition. Management
measures pertain to assessing potential human and data optimization issues that might occur
as part of the main study (40) and in the present study included the following: 1) Printing an
adequate number of surveys prior to each administration; 2) properly coding the completed
surveys following administration; and 3) entering the data into a spreadsheet for use in a data
analysis software application. Scientific measures pertain to assessing potential design issues
necessary to implement the main study (40), and in the present study included the following:
1) Examining the varsity basketball schedule of the participating team so as to coordinate data
collection with the four conditions used in this prospective study; 2) analyzing the collected
data using widely accepted statistical tests of difference and correlation; and 3) assessing the
results for statistical significance and potential practical meaningfulness.

Statistical Analysis
Data collected from each administration of the POMS and SAS-2 was entered into a data
analysis software application (Google Sheets, Google, Mountain View, CA). All data collected
within this study used standard methods to ensure confidentiality of participants. Code
numbers were used to de-identify the participants. Statistical analysis was conducted using
SPSS 21.0 (IBM SPSS, Armonk, New York). Chronbachs alpha was used to assess for internal
consistency of POMS and SAS-2 subscale measures. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to
assess for differences in player responses between and within the four conditions in this study
(e.g. baseline, non-conference game, conference game, state tournament game). When significant main
effects were found in the ANOVA, post hoc testing was done with pairwise comparisons using
the Bonferroni correction. Statistical significance was set at the customary level (p 0.05).

RESULTS

All a-priori feasibility measures developed prior to implementation were achieved in this
prospective design. More specifically, regarding the process feasibility measures, one high
school basketball team was recruited to participate in this study, 12 athletes on the state
tournament roster (100%) completed the surveys for the 4 conditions within this pilot, and
zero participants dropped out of the study (100% retention). As for the resource feasibility
measure, many participants demonstrated a capacity to complete both surveys in 5 minutes or
less, and all participants required less than 10 minutes to complete both surveys. Regarding
the management feasibility measure, the research team which included secondary school
students successfully administered the surveys, coded the data, and entered it into a
spreadsheet application as needed for statistical analysis. As for the potential scientific value
feasibility measure, the collected data underwent analysis for statistical significance, practical
meaningfulness, and potential value if the study were to be implemented on a broader sample
of high school basketball players.

More specifically regarding the potential scientific value, reliability analyses were conducted
for each of the measures and respective subscales across the four conditions used in this study
(i.e., baseline, non-conference game, conference game, and state tournament game). Table 1 includes
Cronbachs alpha/ICC and 95% confidence intervals for POMS subscales (i.e., tension,

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

608
 Int J Exerc Sci 10(4): 604-618, 2017

depression, anger, vigor, fatigue, confusion, and total mood disturbance [TMD]) across each
condition. Cronbachs alpha values ranged from 0.54-0.94 across all conditions for POMS
subscales. Table 2 includes Cronbach alphas/ICC and 95% confidence intervals for SAS-2
subscales (i.e. somatic, worry, and concentration disruption). Cronbach alpha values ranged from
0.73-0.97 across all conditions for SAS-2 subscales. Because the Cronbachs alpha values were
acceptable, subsequent parametric analyses using repeated measures ANOVA were used to
examine differences in POMS and SAS-2 subscales across conditions (8).

Table 1. POMS Reliability: Cronbachs Alpha/Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and 95% confidence
intervals (CI) by condition.
Subscale Baseline Non-Conference Conference Game State Tournament
Game Game
ICC(95% CI) ICC(95% CI) ICC(95% CI) ICC(95% CI)
Profile of Tension 0.809 0.698 0.839 0.775
Mood (0.591, 0.936) (0.353, 0.898) (0.655, 0.946) (0.519, 0.924)
States Vigor 0.757 0.542 0.867 0.792
(0.475, 0.919) (0.009, 0.846) (0.712, 0.955) (0.550, 0.930)
Confusion 0.617 0.657 0.656 0.665
(0.160, 0.872) (0.248, 0.886) (0.245, 0.885) (0.265, 0.88)
Depression 0.920 0.942 0.926 0.829
(0.833, 0.973) (0.880, 0.980) (0.846, 0.975) (0.644, 0.942)
Fatigue 0.871 0.922 0.894 0.853
(0.717, 0.957) (0.829, 0.974) (0.768, 0.965) (0.677, 0.951)
Anger 0.894 0.927 0.872 0.800
(0.77, 0.964) (0.847, 0.975) (0.731, 0.957) (0.581, 0.932)

Table 2. Sport Anxiety Scale -2 Reliability: Cronbachs Alpha/Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and 95%
confidence intervals (CI) by condition.
Subscale Baseline Non-Conference Conference Game State Tournament
Game Game

ICC(95% CI) ICC(95% CI) ICC(95% CI) ICC(95% CI)

Sports Concentration 0.967 0.907 0.973 0.949
Anxiety disruption (0.646, 0.933) (0.785, 0.969) (0.938, 0.991) (0.600, 0.921)
Scale 2
Somatic anxiety 0.788 0.878 0.910 0.856
(0.512, 0.930) (0.720, 0.960) (0.792, 0.970) (0.669, 0.953)
Worry 0.747 0.727 0.735 0.841
(0.418, 0.917) (0.371, 0.910) (0.391, 0.913) (0.634, 0.948)

Repeated measures ANOVA were conducted to examine POMS differences within and across
each condition. Table 3 presents POMS subscale scores within and across each condition.
Mauchlys test indicated acceptance of sphericity X2(5) = 5.33, p = 0.38. Repeated measures
ANOVA (sphericity assumed) revealed no significant differences in tension, anger, depression,
fatigue, or vigor across conditions. However, there were differences in confusion across
conditions [F(3,33) = 5.71, p = 0.01], post hoc tests revealed the state tournament game (9.08
2.68) differed from the non-conference game (11.25 3.17) and the baseline (11.83 4.02).

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

609
 Int J Exerc Sci 10(4): 604-618, 2017

Table 3. Profile of Mood States (POMS) by condition.

Baseline Non-Conference Conference Game State Tournament F p
Mean SD Game Mean SD Game
Mean SD Mean SD
Fatigue 12.75 4.69 13.00 5.43 11.42 4.91 10.92 3.47 0.982 0.413
Anger 20.17 6.65 22.42 7.59 19.25 7.46 19.00 5.10 1.582 0.212
Vigor 22.67 5.03 19.67 5.83 20.67 3.63 19.08 4.98 2.553 0.072
Confusion* 11.83 4.02 11.25 3.17 10.08 3.17 9.08 2.68 5.708 0.003
Depression 22.08 7.81 23.00 7.87 21.08 9.80 19.75 4.67 0.805 0.500
Tension 16.67 4.65 16.92 3.87 18.67 6.12 17.42 4.66 0.85 0.48
Total Mood 60.83 23.43 66.92 20.62 59.83 25.99 57.08 15.25 0.44 0.73
Disturbance
(TMD)
Note: Comparison of dependent measures by condition (n=12). * Significant at the p 0.05 level.

Table 4. Sport Anxiety Scale-2 (SAS-2) across conditions.

Baseline Non-Conference Conference Game State Tournament F P
Mean Game Mean SD Game
SD Mean SD Mean SD
Somatic anxiety 9.25 2.89 8.42 2.78 9.33 3.39 8.00 2.73 2.002 0.133
Worry* 12.83 10.92 4.23 12.25 3.86 11.50 3.98 6.133 0.002
3.99
Concentration 5.92 1.38 6.33 1.67 6.08 1.56 6.00 1.51 0.379 0.769
Disruption
SAS-2 Total 28.00 + 25.67 + 5.43 27.67 + 5.29 25.50 + 5.04 0.690 0.563
6.00
Note: Comparison of dependent measures by condition (n=12). * Significant at the p 0.05 level.

Repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted to examine SAS-2 differences within and across
each condition (Table 4). Examining SAS-2 subscales within conditions, ANOVA revealed
numerous significant differences. Within the baseline condition [F (2,22) = 20.14, p = 0.01] post
hoc comparisons revealed that concentration disruption differed significantly from somatic and
worry subscales, and the somatic subscale differed from the worry. Within the conference game
condition there were also differences among the SAS-2 subscales [F(2,22) = 11.69, p = 0.01];
post hoc comparisons revealed that the concentration disruption subscale differed from the
somatic and worry subscales. Within the non-conference game condition there were differences
among SAS-2 subscales [F (2,22) = 6.81 p = 0.01]; post hoc comparisons revealed that the
concentration disruption subscale differed from the worry subscale. Lastly within the state
tournament game condition, the concentration disruption subscale differed from the worry and
somatic subscales and the somatic differed from worry, [F(2,22) = 10.66, p = 0.01]. These
differences between SAS-2 subscales within the conditions support the notion that this
instrument measured distinct dimensions of anxiety within this sample of participants.

Examining SAS-2 subscales across conditions, Mauchlys test indicated acceptance of

sphericity X2(20) = 25.37, p = 0.21. Repeated measures ANOVA (sphericity assumed) revealed
no significant differences in concentration disruption or somatic subscales. However, there were
differences in worry across conditions [F(3,33) = 6.13, p=0.01], with post hoc tests revealing

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

610
 Int J Exerc Sci 10(4): 604-618, 2017

worry differed between the baseline (12.83 3.99) and non-conference game (10.92 4.23)
conditions.

DISCUSSION

The primary purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility of measuring the mood and
performance anxiety of scholastic athletes under competitive conditions commonly
experienced during the course of a typical high school basketball season. This study suggests
that these characteristics can be assessed in light of criteria noted in the scientific literature
(9,40). Given that the present findings suggest that competitive conditions had a statistically
significant impact upon subscale measures of mood and performance anxiety, the findings
also suggest that implementation of a similar design on a larger sample of high school players
may have clinical meaningfulness for coaches working with scholastic athletes. These findings
also enable the researchers to hypothesize that these athletes may have high levels of
enjoyment and self-efficacy based on previous research (43), which demonstrates a positive
implication for this direct sample.

As noted above, all a-priori feasibility measures developed prior to implementation were
achieved in this prospective design. The process feasibility measures may be attributed, either
partially or wholly, to the cooperation of the coaching staff who agreed to open participation
in this study to their players. In addition, participants were able to complete both surveys in 10
minutes or less. Therefore, the coaching staff likely viewed the data collection aspects of this
study to possess few, if any, negative drawbacks to their overall goals for leading the team.
This consideration is important for extending this type of investigation to a broader sample of
teams, as there may be poorer participation and attrition by varsity players if their coaches
perceive the time set aside for survey administration in a negative manner.

Turning to the statistical analysis of this prospective study, the results of the Chronbachs
alpha analyses suggest that the acceptable levels of internal consistency (.70 and above) were
evident within the present findings (29). These results support the notion that these validated
psychometric instruments adequately differentiated and consistently measured mood and
performance anxiety measures within the participants in this sample.

Results of this pilot study suggest the high school basketball players reports showed
significant differences between the four conditions, as measured by subscales on the POMS
and the SAS-2. Specifically, the participants in the present study showed significant differences
between conditions for the confusion subscale on the POMS and worry subscale on the SAS-2,
respectively. These results are dissimilar to a study involving adolescent swimmers, in which
Papadopoulas and his colleagues (2014) found no differences between SAS-2 scores at the
different time points during a competitive season (28). In that investigation, the adolescent
swimmers completed the SAS-2 one time during a week with no competition and again during
a week where they had a competition (28). However, the disparity between the study
Papadopoulas et al. noted above and the present findings of differences in the confusion and
worry subscales is intriguing, particularly in light of the stark differences in decision-making

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

611
 Int J Exerc Sci 10(4): 604-618, 2017

required of basketball players during competition and those of swimmers. Gentiles Taxonomy
of Motor Activities (11) helps to explain that high school basketball is a highly complex
neuromotor activity, one of the most complex neuromotor activities possible in interscholastic
sports. In basketball, the environmental context as defined by Gentile is highly dynamic,
given that the regulatory conditions and inter-trial variability are constantly changing for each
of the ten competitors on the court. Similarly, in basketball the function of action as defined by
Gentile is also constantly changing, as each player is moving within the environment and he or
she may or may not manipulate an object (i.e. the basketball) while doing so. In other words,
basketball players need to make countless instantaneous decisions during the course of a high
school game, and the present findings of differences in the confusion and worry subscales
between the competitive conditions in this study is something most high school basketball
coaches likely would find interesting, given the relationship of these two subscales to on-court
decision-making during the course of a game. In short, wins and losses matter in scholastic
sports, and thus it stands to reason that most high school coaches likely would have interest in
instruments that may detect differences in these psychometric subscales from game to game,
based on the notion that identification of a given psychological state is the first step in further
shaping it, or extinguishing it.

Nonetheless, a review of electronic databases found no previous studies on mood and anxiety
among adolescent basketball players for further comparison within this age group. This
limitation in the existing literature presents challenges toward the goal of placing the current
findings within a larger context. However, some authors have studied performance anxiety
among adult basketball players. Leon-Prados et al., (2012) investigated the correlation between
intensity and direction of anxiety and self-confidence and competitive performance in adult
basketball teams using the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2). These authors
found an inverted-U-shaped curvilinear relationship between somatic anxiety intensity and
individual performance in women basketball players and a negative linear relationship
between cognitive anxiety and individual performance in men basketball players. They found
no correlation between directional perceptions of anxiety and self-confidence and individual
performance in either women or men players. While differences in age group and instruments
make direct comparison difficult between this previous study and the present one, some
evidence exists in the literature that perceived anxiety may have an impact upon performance
in basketball. More specifically, theoretically speaking perceived anxiety may also have an
impact upon decision-making during a basketball game (15,20), as well as efficacy of somatic
execution of sport-specific skills (27,45). However, the lack of significant findings between
perceived anxiety and basketball in previous studies and the current study may be explained
by previous research stating that performance anxiety is likely greater in individual sports
than in team sports (47). Thus, because this study measured a basketball team and their mood
and performance anxiety measures, previous researchers suggest that no significant scores
may be expected. Again, further research is needed to potentially better explain the role of
performance anxiety measures in team sports such as basketball.

While the term anxiety is commonly associated with unpleasantness and considered a
pejorative term, some athletes experience positive rather than negative pre-performance

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

612
 Int J Exerc Sci 10(4): 604-618, 2017

psychological stress. Prior to games, athletes have time to compare themselves to their
competitors. If players are confident that they can win the game, such comparisons can
increase their assurances and the resultant psychological stress works in their favor (6).
Conversely, if the player evaluates the situation and determines that he or she may not be able
to handle the task, the competitive endeavor may be viewed as a threat. In the latter situations,
the player reacts in ways that are debilitative to high intensity performance, both physically
and cognitively. An understanding of such psychological mechanisms within an individual
player or larger team is clearly valuable information for any coach intent on maximizing the
performance of his players.

Given the importance of balancing the stressors of training and competition with athletes
ability to recover physiologically (16), the present findings suggest that scholastic coaches
should consider using the POMS and SAS-2 on a consistent basis throughout the competitive
season as a means of monitoring mood and anxiety states. More specifically, these instruments
might be used by coaches to assess measures of psychological fatigue exhibited by individuals
or the team. This process would likely aid in the tapering process many coaches employ as the
regular season draws to a close and the team transitions to the state tournament. However,
more research is needed to best help coaches interpret data they might gather through such
means.

Similarly, coaches who might regularly use the POMS or the SAS-2 to monitor their teams may
reasonably develop a competitive advantage in player development that they might otherwise
not enjoy, given the premise that at a foundational level effective coaching depends heavily
upon effective teaching strategies (12,30). To illustrate more fully, the sport science literature
clearly shows that instruction based in positive feedback consistently leads to performance
improvements to a greater extent than does negative feedback (17,46). Thus, coaches are
generally encouraged to utilize positive reinforcement across the board when working with
their players (35). In turn, there is evidence in the literature that suggests coaches who are able
to regularly use more positive teaching methods tend to demonstrate higher outcome
measures (e.g. wins, conference championships, player satisfaction ratings)(3). Thus, another
way of viewing the relationships between positive versus negative feedback and effective
sport-specific teaching is the real possibility that -- given the tendency of all athletes to
respond better to positive reinforcement -- some athletes may be more negatively affected
cognitively by negative feedback from coaches than others on the team (37). In the present
study involving twelve members of a high school varsity basketball team, qualitative
assessment of the collected data suggested that three individuals consistently demonstrated a
positive skew in their scores on the POMS and SAS-2 across the four conditions included in
this study. These results suggest that these three players (or 25% of the team) may possess
higher mood and anxiety sensitivity than their teammates. Practically speaking, these three
athletes may be even more negatively affected than their teammates by commonly used
coaching techniques clearly rooted in negative feedback methods (e.g., a quick hook upon a
mistake on the floor and followed by subsequent bench time, yelling at the player
immediately following a mistake, running sprints for mistakes made during scrimmages,

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

613
 Int J Exerc Sci 10(4): 604-618, 2017

and so on). At first glance, some coaches, based upon their respective personal clinical gestalts
(7,18), might bristle that negative feedback methods tend to lead to lesser performance
outcomes in general, as well as the notion that some individuals who make up any given team
may tend to respond even less well to such coaching methods. Nonetheless, the present
findings suggest that more research studies are needed to help coaches better identify the
mood and anxiety profiles of their athletes and select instructional methods more likely to lead
to the desired educational outcomes (e.g., heightened individual performance, wins,
conference championships, etc.).

This pilot study is novel in several ways based upon the population and design. High school
athletes are an understudied population, and this study adds to the wider body of knowledge
on their mood and performance anxiety during practice and competition. Further, the
researchers could find no other published study which compared mood states to different
levels of competition within the same athletes. These unique attributes in design
notwithstanding, the current results suggest a difference in subscale measures of mood or
anxiety states across the varying levels of competition as has been shown in previous research
(26). The present findings warrant further study in a larger sample, as scholastic coaches might
collect these measures and reasonably work the results into the overall coaching curriculum
without undue burden. To illustrate more fully the link between this study and practical
application, the present findings demonstrated a significant difference in the confusion subscale
on the POMS across conditions, as well as with worry subscale on the SAS-2. A coach who
discovers that his or her athletes are confused or worried may decide to ask the athletes about
these associated emotions, as the present findings suggest these attributes may be present in
conjunction with each other. Such discovery may help the athletes mental health, strengthen
the athlete-coach relationship, foster a more positive sporting culture, and perhaps lead to
greater performance outcomes.

This prospective study also has limitations. The present findings may not be generalizable
beyond the current sample of a high school basketball team from a small, rural, Midwestern
community. Further, the small number of participants in this study may have lowered the
power of the study and thus may not have been able to detect significant differences in all
measures, again suggesting that the study may prove insightful if replicated on a larger
sample. Since the participants completed the surveys several times within a month (due to the
logistical challenge of designing and implementing a study around the typical holiday break
afforded to secondary school students), it is possible they became habituated to the
instruments, or perhaps experienced heighted anxiety related to the completion of the surveys,
consequently making it difficult to get a true score from the participants. Lastly, there may
be other confounding variables in the coaching environment that may have impacted the
results of the study that were not accounted for during data collection. For example, it is
possible the athletes were given strategies by the coaches through individual and team
counselling to best deal with their emotions/anxiety throughout the season since they were
preparing for high level performance in scholastic competition.

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

614
 Int J Exerc Sci 10(4): 604-618, 2017

In future research, it may be important to take a baseline measure prior to the first game of the
season. This step may ensure a more accurate measure of the players baseline measures on
mood and anxiety instruments and provide stronger comparisons during the competitive
season, which typically lasts four months for varsity basketball. Assessing baseline prior to the
first game of the season would also afford a longer timeline, perhaps assisting in gaining a
more accurate picture of how high school athletes may vary in mood and anxiety over the
course of an entire season. Further, it may be of some utility to assess sex differences in the
measured topics as previous research has indicated that females tend to demonstrate higher
variability in psychometric measures, including anxiety disorders, when compared to males
(32). Finally, it may be beneficial to utilize additional schools, as this may help to add
necessary statistical power, better account for confounding variables that may exist in a single
coaching environment, and add depth to the research findings.

Participation in scholastic sport has been linked to many positive attributes of psychosocial
development. However, participation may also negatively impact psychological measures
such as mood and performance anxiety. Coaches working with scholastic athletes may use the
findings from this prospective study to benefit their athletes success in their respective sports.
More specifically, basketball coaches may use psychometric instruments to monitor the mood
and performance anxiety of their athletes. Using these instruments may help coaches identify
correlates between self-reported measures of fatigue and other indices of mood and anxiety.
Coaches then may adjust instructional methods and/or the training and competitive
environments as needed so as to facilitate attainment of individual and team outcome goals.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The researchers note the generosity of the coaches and players of the varsity basketball
program who participated. This study would not have been possible without their cooperation
and participation.

REFERENCES

1. Alexander SE, Storm DW, Cooper CS. Teasing in school locker rooms regarding penile appearance. J Urol
193(3): 983-987, 2015.

2. Badura P, Geckova AM, Sigmundova D, van Dijk JP, Reijneveld SA. When children play, they feel better:
organized activity participation and health in adolescents. BMC Public Health 15:1090, 2015.

3. Baker J, Ct J, Hawes R. The relationship between coaching behaviours and sport anxiety in athletes. J Sci Med
Sport 3(2):110-119, 2000.

4. Balaguer I, Atienza FL, Duda JL. Self-perceptions, self-worth and sport participation in adolescents. Span J
Psychol 15(2):624-630, 2012.

5. Berg P, Neumark-Sztainer D, Eisenberg ME, Haines J. Racial/ethnic differences in weight-related teasing in

adolescents. Obesity (Silver Spring) 16 Suppl 2:S3-10, 2008.

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

615
 Int J Exerc Sci 10(4): 604-618, 2017

6. Blascovich J. Challenge and threat. In: Elliot AJ, ed. Handbook of Approach and Avoidance Motivation. 1
edition. New York: Psychology Press; 431-446, 2008.

7. Cook C. Is clinical gestalt good enough? J Man Manip Ther 17(1):6-7, 2009.

8. Cortina JM. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J Appl Psychol 78(1):98-104,
1993.

9. Eldridge SM, Lancaster GA, Campbell MJ. Defining Feasibility and Pilot Studies in Preparation for Randomised
Controlled Trials: Development of a Conceptual Framework. PLoS One 11(3): 1-22, 2016.

10. Fraser-Thomas JL, Ct J, Deakin J. Youth sport programs: an avenue to foster positive youth development.
Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy 10(1):19-40, 2005.

11. Gentile AM. A working model of skill acquisition with application to teaching. Quest 17(1):3-23, 1972.

12. Gilbert W, Nater S, Siwik M, Gallimore R. The Pyramid of Teaching Success in Sport: Lessons from Applied
Science and Effective Coaches. J Sport Psychol Action 1(2):86-94, 2010.

13. Grossbard JR, Smith RE, Smoll FL, Cumming SP. Competitive anxiety in young athletes: differentiating
somatic anxiety, worry, and concentration disruption. Anxiety Stress Coping 22(2):153-166, 2009.

14. Haskell WL, Lee I-M, Pate RR. Physical activity and public health: updated recommendation for adults from
the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association. Med Sci Sports Exerc 39(8):1423-
1434, 2007.

15. Hepler TJ. Can self-efficacy pave the way for successful decision-making in sport? J Sport Behav 39(2):147-159,
2016.

16. Hoover DL, VanWye WR, Judge LW. Periodization and physical therapy: Bridging the gap between training
and rehabilitation. Phys Ther Sport 18:1-20, 2016.

17. Horn TS. Advances in Sport Psychology. 3rd ed. Champaign IL: Human Kinetics, 2008.

18. Kabrhel C, Camargo CA, Goldhaber SZ. Clinical gestalt and the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: does
experience matter? Chest 127(5):1627-1630, 2005.

19. Kanters MA, Bocarro JN, Edwards MB, Casper JM, Floyd MF. School sport participation under two school
sport policies: comparisons by race/ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status. Ann Behav Med 45 Suppl
1:S113-121, 2013.

20. Kinrade NP, Jackson RC, Ashford KJ. Reinvestment, task complexity and decision making under pressure in
basketball. Psychol Sport Exerc 20:11-19, 2015.

21. Landis MJ, Peppard PP, Remington PL. Characteristics of school-sanctioned sports: participation and attrition
in Wisconsin public high schools. WMJ 106(6):312-318, 2007.

22. Lawrence GP, Gottwald VM, Khan MA, Kramer RSS. The movement kinematics and learning strategies
associated with adopting different foci of attention during both acquisition and anxious performance. Front
Psychol 3:468, 2012.

23. Martens R, Vealey RS, Burton D, Bump L, Smith DE. Development and validation of the Competitive Sports
Anxiety Inventory 2. In: Competitive Anxiety in Sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics 117-178, 1990.

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

616
 Int J Exerc Sci 10(4): 604-618, 2017

24. Michael SL, Coffield E, Lee SM, Fulton JE. Variety, enjoyment, and physical activity participation among high
school students. J Phys Act Health 13(2): 223-230, 2016.

25. Olive LS, Telford RM, Byrne DG, Abhayaratna WP, Telford RD. Psychological distress leads to reduced
physical activity and fitness in children: the Australian longitudinal LOOK study. J Behav Med 39(4): 587-98,
2016.

26. Ommundsen Y, Roberts GC, Lemyre P-N, Miller BW. Parental and coach support or pressure on psychosocial
outcomes of pediatric athletes in soccer. Clin J Sport Med 16(6):522-526, 2006.

27. Otten M. Choking vs. clutch performance: A study of sport performance under pressure. J Sport Exerc Psychol
31(5):583-601, 2009.

28. Papadopoulos E, Muir C, Russell C, Timmons BW, Falk B, Klentrou P. Markers of biological stress and
mucosal immunity during a week leading to competition in adolescent swimmers. J Immunol Res 2014: 1-7, 2014.

29. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle
River, N.J: Pearson/Prentice Hall; 2009.

30. Qing Wang. Structure and characteristics of effective coaching practice. Coaching Psychologist 9(1):7-17, 2013.

31. Ramis Y, Viladrich C, Sousa C, Jannes C. Exploring the factorial structure of the Sport Anxiety Scale-2:
invariance across language, gender, age and type of sport. Psicothema 27(2):174-181, 2015.

32. Schaal K, Tafflet M, Nassif H. Psychological balance in high level athletes: gender-based differences and sport-
specific patterns. PLoS ONE 6(5): e19007, 2011.

33. Schwebel FJ, Smith RE, Smoll FL. Measurement of perceived parental success standards in sport and relations
with athletes self-esteem, performance anxiety, and achievement goal orientation: Comparing parental and coach
influences. Child Dev Res 2016: e7056075, 2016.

34. Slater A, Tiggemann M. Gender differences in adolescent sport participation, teasing, self-objectification and
body image concerns. J Adolesc. 34(3):455-463, 2011.

35. Smith RE, Smoll FL, Cumming SP. Effects of a motivational climate inntervention for coaches on young
athletes sport performance anxiety. J Sport Exerc Psychol 29(1):39-59, 2007.

36. Smith RE, Smoll FL, Cumming SP, Grossbard JR. Measurement of Multidimensional Sport Performance
Anxiety in Children and Adults: The Sport Anxiety Scale-2. J Sport Exerc Psychol 28(4):479-501, 2006.

37. Stenling A, Hassmn P, Holmstrm S. Implicit beliefs of ability, approach-avoidance goals and cognitive
anxiety among team sport athletes. Eur J Sport Sci 14(7):720-729, 2014.

38. Steptoe A, Butler N. Sports participation and emotional wellbeing in adolescents. Lancet 347(9018):1789-1792,
1996.

39. Terry PC, Lane AM, Lane HJ, Keohane L. Development and validation of a mood measure for adolescents. J
Sports Sci 17(11):861-872, 1999.

40. Thabane L, Ma J, Chu R. A tutorial on pilot studies: the what, why and how. BMC Med Res Methodol 10(1): 1-
10, 2010.

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

617
 Int J Exerc Sci 10(4): 604-618, 2017

41. Veliz P, Shakib S. Gender, Academics and interscholastic sports participation at the school level: A gender-
specific analysis of the relationship between interscholastic sports participation and AP enrollment. Sociol Focus
47(2):101-120, 2014.

42. Wagnsson S, Lindwall M, Gustafsson H. Participation in organized sport and self-esteem across adolescence:
the mediating role of perceived sport competence. J Sport Exerc Psychol 36(6):584-594, 2014.

43. Weinberg RS, Gould D. Foundations of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 6th ed. Champaign IL: Human
Kinetics; 2014.

44. Weiss MR, Duncan SC. The relationship between physical competence and peer acceptance in the context of
childrens sports participation. Journal Sport Exerc Psychol 14(2):177-191, 1992.

45. Wilson MR, Vine SJ, Wood G. The influence of anxiety on visual attentional control in basketball free throw
shooting. Journal Sport Exerc Psychol 31(2):152-168, 2009.

46. Yukhymenko-Lescroart MA, Brown ME, Paskus TS. The relationship between ethical and abusive coaching
behaviors and student-athlete well-being. Sport Exerc Perform Psychol 4(1):36-49, 2015.

47. Zamani AR, Moradi A. The comparison of the trait anxiety, state anxiety, and confidence in three sport teams
and three individual sports. Knowl Res in Appl Psycholol 11(40):63-73, 2009.

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

618