Introduction
Method
Search strategy
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Categorization of studies
Study | Sport | Participants | Instrumentation/procedure | Main findings |
---|---|---|---|---|
Gucciardi & Gordon (2009) | Cricket | Study 1—16 cricketers (5 currently involved in international cricket, 11 in administration or coaching roles) Study 2—9 Australian cricketers Study 3—International leagues: 570 cricketers from various cricket playing countries, and 433 Australian cricketers, from U17 to National level Study 4—433 Australian cricketers from Study 3 | Study 1—Model generation Semi-structured face-to-face interviews lasting 30–120 min, all were recorded in their entirety and transcribed verbatim Study 2—Item generation Two focus groups conducted to pilot test the 42 item questionnaire for clarity, conciseness and intelligibility. Study 3—Within-network properties 50 items mental toughness inventory for cricket Factor structure of the scores was evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis Study 4—Between-network properties | Six factors mental toughness model emerged in cricket; affective intelligence, attentional control, self-belief, resilience, desire to achieve, and Cricket smarts |
Minor modifications to the wording | ||||
First focus group added six specific questions to original 42-item pool, second focus group added two producing a list of 50 items | ||||
CFA procedures resulted in the deletion of 25 items due to poor model fit and low factor loadings and a further 10 items due to cross-loadings displayed | ||||
Resulted in a 15-item model, the Cricket Mental Toughness Inventory (CMTI) | ||||
CMTI subscales showed negative correlations with all three burnout subscales and positive correlations with dispositional flow, resilience and hardiness | ||||
Provided some support that MT is conceptually related but distinct from psychological constructs such as flow, resilience and hardiness | ||||
Provided preliminary support for the factor structure, internal reliability and construct validity of the CMTI | ||||
Gucciardi, Gordon, & Dimmock (2009) | Australian football | Study 1—418 elite and subelite Australian footballers Study 2—120 players aged 15–16, 5 coaches, 120 parents from 5 youth aged football teams | Study 1: Preliminary Australian football Mental Toughness Inventory (PAfMTI); Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Reynolds, 1982); Dispositional Resilience Scale (Bartone, Ursano, Wright & Ingraham, 1989); Dispositional Flow Scale-2 (Jackson & Eklund, 2002); Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to examine the 11-factor, 60 item model | Inadequate fit for the initially hypothesized model (PAfMTI) via CFA, items were deleted resulting in an 11-factor 33-item model |
Following EFA, a final four-factor (thrive through challenge, sport awareness, tough attitude, desire success) solution that contained 24 items known as the Australian football Mental Toughness Inventory (AfMTI) | ||||
Study 2: Australian football Mental Toughness Inventory (AfMTI)—three versions were used, self, coach and parent to provide multi-source ratings of mental toughness | Preliminary factor structure, internal reliability and construct validity of the AfMTI were encouraging | |||
Sheard, Golby, & van Wersch (2009) | Multiple sports | 633 competitive athletes (427 male and 206 female) | Study 1: Utilized item development and exploratory factor analytic techniques to establish the psychometric properties of the Sport Mental Toughness Questionnaire (SMTQ) Study 2: Employed CFA techniques; CFA using structural equation modeling confirmed the overall structure | The principal axis factoring analysis (PFA) produced a 14-item, three factor solution including confidence, constancy and control dimensions, which explained 40.7% of the variance |
509 athletes (351 male and 158 female) | Satisfying absolute and incremental fit-index benchmarks, the inventory was shown to possess satisfactory psychometric properties, with adequate reliability, divergent validity, and discriminative power | |||
Gucciardi, Gordon, & Dimmock (2008) | Australian football | 11 male elite coaches from Western Australian and Australian Football Leagues | Semi-structured face to face interviews lasting 30–90 min were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Interviews later sent a list detailing major mental toughness characteristics and situations requiring mental toughness identified through the interviews. Each was requested to list and describe the contrasting pole for each characteristic, rank each characteristic in order of importance to Australian Football Leagues and list all situations for which each characteristic was applicable | Three independent categories (characteristics, situations, behaviours) were inductively derived and integrated into a model in which the importance of understanding each component was emphasized |
The relationship between the three categories was also highlighted | ||||
Results identified the key mental toughness characteristics and their contrasts, situations that demands mental toughness and the behaviours commonly displayed by mental toughness footballers | ||||
As well as a buffer against adversity, it was proposed that mental toughness may also be a collection of enabling factors that promote and maintain adaption to other challenging situations | ||||
Whilst majority of characteristics identified were consistent with previous research suggesting the presence of several global mental toughness characteristics exist, evidence was provided for unique characteristics specific to Australian football | ||||
Golby, Sheard, & Wersch (2007) | Roller skating, basketball, canoeing, golf, rugby league, rugby union, soccer and swimming | 408 United Kingdom sport performers, (303 male and 105 female) ranged from club and regional to international level | Psychological Performance Inventory (PPI) I (Loehr, 1986)—Test of factorial validity | Principle components analysis provided minimal support for the factor structure |
Psychological Performance Inventory-A (PPI-A)—Construction of a revised model and CFA of the PPI-A | Exploratory analysis yielded a 4-factor 14 item model (PPI-A) and a single factor underlying mental toughness (GMT) was identified with higher-order exploratory analysis | |||
Psychometric analysis of the model using CFA fitted the data well, collectively satisfying absolute and incremental fit index benchmarks with adequate reliability and convergent and discriminant validity | ||||
Jones, Hanton, & Connaughton (2007) | Boxing, swimming, athletics, judo, triathlon, rowing, pentathlon, squash, cricket and rugby union from Australia, England, Canada, & Wales | 8 Olympic/world champions athletes (5 male and 3 female) | Stage 1—Focus groups involved 3 sport performers, the session was audio taped and transcribed verbatim | Results verified Jones et al.’s (2002) definition of mental toughness |
3 male coaches | Stage 2—Individual interviews, face-to-face or via telephone with remaining participants, lasting between 75–95 min, all were recorded and transcribed verbatim | 30 mental toughness attributes were identified as essential to being mentally tough | ||
4 male sport psychologists | Stage 3—Follow-up interview involving rating of agreement of mental toughness definition, confirmation of mental toughness framework, and rank of attributes in terms of importance | Attributes were clustered under 4 separate dimensions; a general dimension (attitude/mindset) and three time-specific dimensions (training, competition and postcompetition) within an overall framework of mental toughness | ||
A question emerged as a result around whether performers must acquire the correct mental toughness attitude/mindset in order to become mentally tough in situations such as training, competition and post-competition or do they need to develop mental toughness in any or all of the three time-specific dimension before they can develop the mental toughness attitude/mindset | ||||
Bull, Shambrook, James, & Brooks (2005) | Cricket | A list of the mentally toughest England cricketers was gathered by 101 cricket coaches | Focus group meetings with follow-up semi-structured interviews with each participant | Presents a systematically constructed framework of mental toughness specific for cricketers |
12 of the 15 most mentally tough cricketers were recruited | Global mental toughness themes were organized under general dimensions of ‘Developmental factors’, ‘Personal responsibility’, ‘Dedication and commitment’, ‘Belief’ and ‘Coping with pressure’ | |||
Identified the critical role of the player’s environment in influencing ‘Tough Character’, ‘Tough Attitudes’ and ‘Tough Thinking’ | ||||
Middleton, Marsh, Martin, Richards, & Perry (2005) | Multiple sports | 438 aspiring elite athletes (274 male and 164 female) | The MTI is constructed based on the mental toughness model developed earlier through the qualitative study. Instrument construction follows the path of item development, then q‑sort and talk aloud responses to examine initial validity and reliability, followed by a pilot administration of the instrument such that statistical analysis of the MTI is carried out, allowing the refinement of the final version of the instrument | Reliability estimates for each of the factors, across both samples, were well above the acceptable level of 0.8. Confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated that solutions based on the qualitatively derived model of mental toughness fitted the data well |
392 elite athletes (202 male and 190 female) | A series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) produced a 36-item MTI measuring all 12 factors of mental toughness. The reliability coefficients for each of the factors ranged from 0.82 to 0.94 across both subelite and elite athlete samples Goodness of fit for the CFA was good for each sample individually, but also multi-group CFA proved the MTI factor structure to be stable across both groups | |||
Thelwell, Weston, & Greenlees (2005) | Soccer | Study 1—6 professional male players Study 2—43 professional male players | Study 1—Interviewed in order to define mental toughness and examine the characteristics of mentally tough soccer players Study 2—Participants requested to rate their level of agreement with the definition of mental toughness and rank a list of mental toughness attributes in order of importance that were generated by the first study | General consensus with the mental toughness definition forward by Jones et al. (2002) with the variation that the mental toughness player should ‘always’ cope better than their opponent |
General categories as forwarded by Jones et al. (2002) were supported with self-belief ranking as the most important attribute for mental toughness, slight variations were presented | ||||
Highlighted the role significance of the environment in mental toughness development | ||||
Identified ten attributes as opposed to Jones et al.’s (2002) twelve | ||||
Clough, Earle, & Sewell (2002) | General population | 963 participants (619 students, 163 athletes, 136 administrators and 42 engineers) | Mental Toughness Questionnaire 48 (MTQ 48) contains 48 items, the authors redefined their conceptualization of mental toughness from hardiness by adding the fourth component of “confidence” to propose a 4C-model | MTQ 48 has an overall test–retest coefficient of 0.9, with the internal consistency of the subscales (Control, Commitment, Challenge and Confidence) found to be 0.73, 0.71, 0.71, and 0.8 respectively |
Significant relationships with optimism, self-image, life satisfaction, self-efficacy, and trait anxiety (cf. Crust & Clough, 2005 for further details) | ||||
Found support for the criterion validity of the MTQ 48, with participants who had high as opposed to low mental toughness, reporting lower ratings of exertion during a 30-min cycle ride at 70% VO2 Max | ||||
Jones, Hanton, & Connaughton (2002) | Swimming, sprinting, artistic and rhythmic gymnastics, trampolining, middle-distance running, triathlon, golf, rugby union and netball | 10 international athletes (7 male and 3 female) | Based on the general framework of Personal Construct Psychology (Kelly, 1955); Stage 1—Focus groups involving 3 athletes, the session was audio taped and transcribed verbatim Stage 2—Individual interviews, face-to-face or via telephone with remaining participants, lasting between 60–90 min, all were recorded and transcribed verbatim Stage 3—Follow-up interview involving rating of agreement of mental toughness definition and rank of attributes in terms of importance | A conceptual definition of mental toughness emerged from the results which emphasized natural and developed aspects of its development, and general and specific dimension to mental toughness (not just about competition but training and general lifestyle) |
12 attributes of mental toughness emerged which related to self-belief, desire/motivation, dealing with pressure and anxiety, focus (performance and lifestyle related), and pain/hardship factors | ||||
Fourie & Potgieter (2001) | Multiple sports | 131 expert coaches from 30 different sport bodies (93 male and 38 female) | Questionnaire requiring to list the characteristics of an athlete who is mentally tough, rank the first three factors in order of importance and rate the extent to which the coach and psychologist could strengthen these characteristics in an athlete | 12 components of mental toughness were identified |
160 elite athletes from university to international level (87 male and 73 female) | Coaches viewed concentration as the most important characteristic, while the athletes regarded perseverance as the most important | |||
Used inductive content analysis to identify emergent themes and patterns in the data and arranged and sorted under key title | Coaches rated the effectiveness of coaches and sport psychologists in strengthening the characteristics of mental toughness more highly than athletes did | |||
Loehr (1986) | Multiple sports | Interviewed hundreds of athletes | Psychological Performance Inventory (PPI) contains 42 items and measures mental toughness via the seven subscales of self-confidence, negative energy, attention control, visualization and imagery control, motivation, positive energy, and attitude control | |
Each subscale contains six items, each scored on a 5-point Likert scale, with scores for each subscale ranging from 6 to 30, and for total mental toughness ranging from 42 to 210 | Middleton et al. (2004) revealed inadequate fit between the hypothesized seven-factor model and the data as well as an improper solution (i.e. factor correlations >1) using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) | |||
Dennis (1978) | Multiple sports | 238 undergraduate physical education students | Mental toughness subscale of Motivation Rating Scale (Tutko & Richards, 1972) | No significant interaction between mental toughness and success/failure was reported |
No difference between mental toughness level and success level was reported | ||||
Choice reaction time with manipulation on task success/failure feedback | Mental toughness as an important personality attribute underlying behaviour in athletics could not be suggested | |||
Reliability and validity of the scale was unknown |
Early conceptualization of mental toughness
Qualitative approaches to the study of mental toughness
Mental toughness research using quantitative approaches
Research on mental toughness and other psychological variables
Hardiness
Coping skills
Optimism
Resilience
Results
Sample Size (n) | Gender (n) | ||
<15 | 4 | Male only | 4 |
16–50 | 1 | Female only | – |
51–100 | – | Male and female | 7 |
101–200 | – | Not identified | 3 |
201–400 | 2 | Country (n) | |
401–500 | 1 | Australia | 3 |
>501 | 5 | UK | 6 |
Not specified | 1 | USA | 1 |
Age (Mean) (n) | Other | 1 | |
<18 | 4 | Mixed | 3 |
19–25 | 8 | Type of sport (n) | |
26–35 | 2 | Sport general | 7 |
36–45 | 2 | Sport specific | 5 |
>46 | – | Team only | 5 |
Not specified | 6 | Individual only | – |
Participant (n) | Combination | 7 | |
Athlete | 12 | Not identified | 2 |
Coach | 5 | Design (n) | |
Student | 2 | Qualitative | 8 |
Sport psychologist | 1 | Interview | 7 |
Other | 2 | Focus group | 4 |
Competition level (n) | Mixed-method | 5 | |
Club/University | – | Quantitative | 11 |
Country/Regional | 3 | Questionnaire | 8 |
Elite/Professional | 5 | Correlation | 5 |
Multiple levels | 3 | Experimental | 1 |
Not identified | 3 | Questionnaire development and validation | 7 |