Lochbaum Marc, Zanatta Thaís, Kirschling Deylon, May Emily
Department of Kinesiology and Sport Management, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA.
Education Academy, Vytautas Magnus University, 44248 Kaunas, Lithuania.
Eur J Investig Health Psychol Educ. 2021 Jan 13;11(1):50-70. doi: 10.3390/ejihpe11010005.
Researchers have extensively examined and reviewed the relationship of the profile of mood states (POMS) with sport performance since the 1970s. Two decades have passed since the last POMS quantitative review. Our overall objective was to quantify the POMS research with competitive athletes with a prospective measured POMS and a sport performance outcome in the published literature. Additionally, we tested potential moderators of the mental health model (i.e., sport duration, type, and skill) with meta-analytic techniques while considering potential risk bias across study sources. Based on a systematic review, the articles were found using EBSCO and comparing these articles with extensive past POMS in sport and exercise bibliographies. Search terms included profile of mood states (POMS) or iceberg profile or the mental health model with sport and performance or sports performance. For selection, articles must have reported data on competitive athletes, an athletic performance outcome, and a valid form of the POMS measured prospectively. After screening more than 600 articles for inclusion, 25 articles provided sufficient data for effect size calculations. The included articles spanned from 1975 to 2011, with 1497 unique participants. Hedges' g values were generally small for the six POMS scales: tension (-0.21), depression (-0.43), anger (-0.08), vigor (0.38), fatigue (-0.13), and confusion (-0.41). However, the total mood disturbance (TMD) score effect size was medium in magnitude at -0.53. When corrected for potential publication bias, the effect size values increased in magnitude for tension (-0.47), depression (-0.64), vigor (0.44), fatigue (-0.34), and TMD (-0.84). Moderator analyses for Terry's (1995) propositions and for risk of bias across studies, statistically, resulted in few differences based on conventional statistical significance ( < 0.05). Measured before performance, most of the POMS scales and TMD are reliable predictors of sport performance in competitive athletes across a wide variety of sports and athletic performance outcomes. Morgan's (1980, 1985) mental health model or iceberg profile minus anger is still a viable method for understanding and improving athletic performances.
自20世纪70年代以来，研究人员对情绪状态剖面图（POMS）与运动表现之间的关系进行了广泛的研究和综述。自上次对POMS进行定量综述以来，已经过去了二十年。我们的总体目标是在已发表的文献中，对使用前瞻性测量的POMS和运动表现结果的竞技运动员的POMS研究进行量化。此外，我们使用荟萃分析技术测试了心理健康模型的潜在调节因素（即运动持续时间、类型和技能），同时考虑了不同研究来源的潜在风险偏差。基于系统综述，通过EBSCO查找文章，并将这些文章与体育和运动文献中过去大量的POMS文献进行比较。搜索词包括情绪状态剖面图（POMS）或冰山剖面图或心理健康模型与运动和表现或运动成绩。入选的文章必须报告了竞技运动员的数据、运动表现结果以及前瞻性测量的有效POMS形式。在筛选了600多篇文章以确定是否纳入后，25篇文章提供了足够的数据用于效应量计算。纳入的文章涵盖了1975年至2011年，共有1497名独特的参与者。对于POMS的六个量表，赫奇斯g值通常较小：紧张（-0.21）、抑郁（-0.43）、愤怒（-0.08）、活力（0.38）、疲劳（-0.13）和困惑（-0.41）。然而，总情绪紊乱（TMD）得分的效应量中等，为-0.53。在对潜在的发表偏倚进行校正后，紧张（-0.47）、抑郁（-0.64）、活力（0.44）、疲劳（-0.34）和TMD（-0.84）的效应量值在大小上有所增加。对特里（1995年）的命题以及不同研究的偏差风险进行的调节因素分析，从统计学角度来看，基于传统的统计显著性（<0.05）差异不大。在运动表现之前进行测量时，大多数POMS量表和TMD是各种运动和运动表现结果的竞技运动员运动表现的可靠预测指标。摩根（1980年、1985年）的心理健康模型或减去愤怒的冰山剖面图仍然是理解和提高运动表现的可行方法。
