The effectiveness of pre-performance routines in sports: a meta-analysis

Figures & data

Figure 1. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) chart of search strategy.

Table 1. Summary of included studies.

Author(s)	Routine	Sport	Skill level	n^a	Study quality	Study design
						Pre–post	Experimental	Experimental (under pressure)
Gröpel et al. (2020)	Extensive (physical, self-talk, imagery, relaxation)	Air pistol	Elite	12	0.75	x		x
Wergin et al. (2020)	Dynamic handgrip	Beach volleyball	Mixed	13	0.50	x	x
Wergin et al. (2020)	Extensive (physical, relaxation, external focus)	Beach volleyball	Mixed	13	0.50	x	x
Wergin et al. (2020)	Extensive (physical, external focus, relaxation, dynamic handgrip)	Beach volleyball	Mixed	13	0.50	x	x
Yeemin et al. (2020), PPR Group 1	Extensive (physical, relaxation, external focus)	Golf	Subelite	5	0.50	x	x
Yeemin et al. (2020), PPR Group 2	Extensive (physical, relaxation, external focus)	Golf	Subelite	5	0.50	x	x
Morais and Gomes (2019)	Extensive (physical, self-talk, relaxation)	Tennis	Elite	11	0.50	x
Mesagno et al. (2019)	Dynamic handgrip	Bowling	Subelite	10	0.50	x	x	x
Mesagno et al. (2019)	Extensive (physical, relaxation, external focus)	Bowling	Subelite	10	0.50	x	x	x
Mesagno et al. (2019)	Extensive (physical, external focus, relaxation, dynamic handgrip)	Bowling	Subelite	10	0.50	x	x	x
Blumenstein et al. (2018), Group E1	Extensive (relaxation, imagery)	Basketball	Subelite	15	0.50	x	x
Blumenstein et al. (2018), Group E2	Extensive (imagery, relaxation)	Basketball	Subelite	15	0.50	x	x
Perry et al. (2018)	Physical	Golf	Novice	20	0.50		x
Perry et al. (2018)	Extensive (physical, imagery, external focus)	Golf	Novice	20	0.50		x
Perry et al. (2018)	Physical	Tennis	Novice	20	0.50		x
Perry et al. (2018)	Extensive (physical, imagery, external focus)	Tennis	Novice	20	0.50		x
Perry et al. (2018)	Physical	Volleyball	Novice	20	0.50		x
Perry et al. (2018)	Extensive (physical, imagery, external focus)	Volleyball	Novice	20	0.50		x
Perry et al. (2018)	Physical	Basketball	Novice	20	0.50		x
Perry et al. (2018)	Extensive (physical, imagery, external focus)	Basketball	Novice	20	0.50		x
Gröpel and Beckmann (2017), Study 1	Dynamic handgrip	Gymnastics	Elite	16	0.75	x		x
Gröpel and Beckmann (2017), Study 2	Dynamic handgrip	Gymnastics	Elite	11	0.75	x		x
Mesagno et al. (2015)	Extensive (physical, relaxation, external focus)	Bowling	Subelite	7	0.75	x	x	x
Phelps and Kulinna (2015)	Extensive (physical, relaxation)	Basketball	Subelite	34	0.75	x
Lautenbach et al. (2015)	Extensive (physical, relaxation, external focus)	Tennis	Elite	15	0.50	x	x	x
Hazell et al. (2014)	Extensive (physical, external focus, relaxation, self-talk, imagery)	Football	Subelite	10	0.50	x		x
Beckmann et al. (2013)	Dynamic handgrip	Football	Subelite	14	0.75	x		x
Beckmann et al. (2013)	Dynamic handgrip	Taekwondo	Elite	9	0.75	x	x
Beckmann et al. (2013)	Dynamic handgrip	Badminton	Subelite	9	0.75	x	x
Bergmann et al. (2013)	Imagery	Strength training	Novice	15	0.75	x
Moore et al. (2012)	Quiet eye	Golf	Novice	20	0.75	x	x	x
Vine et al. (2011)^b	Quiet eye	Golf	Elite	11	0.50	x	x	x
Wood and Wilson (2011)	Quiet eye	Football	Subelite	10	0.75	x	x	x
Mesagno and Mullane-Grant (2010)	Extensive (physical, relaxation, external focus)	Australian football	Subelite	15	0.50	x		x
Mesagno and Mullane-Grant (2010)	Relaxation	Australian football	Subelite	15	0.50	x		x
Mesagno and Mullane-Grant (2010)	External focus	Australian football	Subelite	15	0.50	x		x
Mesagno and Mullane-Grant (2010)	Temporal consistency	Australian football	Subelite	15	0.50	x		x
Thomas (2010)	Extensive (physical, relaxation, self-talk)	Golf	Subelite	3	1.00	x
Malouff et al. (2008)	Imagery	Tennis	Subelite	41	0.50		x
Malouff et al. (2008)	Self-talk	Tennis	Subelite	38	0.50		x
Mesagno et al. (2008)	Extensive (physical, relaxation, external focus)	Bowling	Subelite	3	1.00	x
Foster et al. (2006)	Extensive (physical, self-talk, imagery, relaxation)	Basketball	Subelite	14	0.50	x
Klug (2006)	Extensive (imagery, relaxation, external focus)	Basketball	Subelite	6	0.50	x
Kornspan et al. (2004)	Imagery	Golf	Mixed	10	0.50	x	x
Kornspan et al. (2004)	Self-talk	Golf	Mixed	10	0.50	x	x
McCann et al. (2001)	Extensive (physical, imagery, relaxation)	Golf	Novice	13	0.50	x	x
McCann et al. (2001)	Extensive (physical, imagery, relaxation)	Golf	Subelite	9	0.50	x	x
Hardy and Callow (1999)	Imagery (external)	Karate	Subelite	7	0.75	x	x
Hardy and Callow (1999)	Imagery (internal)	Karate	Subelite	7	0.75	x	x
Marlow et al. (1998)	Extensive (physical, self-talk, imagery, relaxation)	Water polo	Subelite	3	0.50	x
Hill and Borden (1995)	Extensive (self-talk, imagery, external focus)	Bowling	Subelite	14	0.50	x		x
Predebon and Docker (1992)	Physical	Basketball	Subelite	10	0.50	x	x
Predebon and Docker (1992)	Extensive (physical, imagery)	Basketball	Subelite	10	0.50	x	x
Gayton et al. (1989)	Not reported	Basketball	Subelite	25	0.50	x
Wrisberg and Anshel (1989)	Imagery	Basketball	Subelite	10	0.50	x	x
Wrisberg and Anshel (1989)	Relaxation	Basketball	Subelite	10	0.50	x	x
Wrisberg and Anshel (1989)	Extensive (imagery, relaxation)	Basketball	Subelite	10	0.50	x	x
Boutcher and Crews (1987), Female group	Extensive (self-talk, imagery, external focus)	Golf	Elite	3	0.50	x	x
Boutcher and Crews (1987), Male group	Extensive (self-talk, imagery, external focus)	Golf	Elite	3	0.50	x	x
Crews and Boutcher (1986), Female group	Extensive (self-talk, imagery, external focus)	Golf	Novice	8	0.50	x	x
Crews and Boutcher (1986), Male group	Extensive (self-talk, imagery, external focus)	Golf	Novice	7	0.50	x	x

^a n refers to the sample size of the intervention group.

^b Vine et al. (2011) report data from two separate pressurised conditions.

Figure 2. Summary forest plots for the pre–post data (a), low-pressure experimental data (b), and experimental data under pressure (c). The thickness of the grey confidence intervals is proportional to the number of effect sizes reported within studies (J).

Table 2. Model results.

Data	k	Main effect		Heterogeneity analysis
		Hedges’ g	95% CI	Q	p-value^a	I^2	p-value^b	τ^2	95% CI τ^2
Pre–post	51	0.31	[0.18, 0.44]	128.06	<0.001	61.99%
Level 2						47.88%	0.02	0.08	[0.00, 0.21]
Level 3						14.11%	0.32	0.02	[0.00, 0.16]
Experimental	42	0.64	[0.45, 0.83]	55.51	0.06	20.41%
Level 2						0%	0.50	0.00	[0.00, 0.07]
Level 3						20.41%	0.07	0.04	[0.00, 0.22]
Experimental (under pressure)	19	0.70	[0.24, 1.16]	49.92	<0.001	70.62%
Level 2						4.35%	0.33	0.03	[0.00, 0.47]
Level 3						66.27%	0.04	0.40	[0.00, 1.38]

Notes: k, number of included effect sizes; CI, confidence interval; Q, Cochran Q-test of effect size heterogeneity.

^a p-value of Q-test; I², percentage of variation across studies that is due to heterogeneity.

^b p-value of ANOVA comparing models with and without respective level (p-value was divided by 2 for one-sided testing).

Table 3. Results of meta-regressions.

Moderator	Pre–post		Experimental		Experimental (under pressure)
	Estimate (SE)	p	Estimate (SE)	p	Estimate (SE)	P
Year of publication	−0.01 (0.01)	0.33	0.00 (0.01)	0.90	0.02 (0.04)	0.65
Study quality	−0.24 (0.49)	0.63	1.50 (0.95)	0.12	1.71 (1.77)	0.35
Gender	0.00 (0.00)	0.83	0.00 (0.00)	0.30	0.00 (0.01)	0.64
Age	0.00 (0.01)	0.80	−0.01 (0.01)	0.57	−0.03 (0.03)	0.32
Learning time	0.00 (0.00)	0.76	0.00 (0.00)	0.89	0.00 (0.00)	0.63

Table 4. Results of subgroup analyses.

Moderator	Pre–post			Experimental			Experimental (under pressure)
	Estimate (SE)	QM (df)	p	Estimate (SE)	QM (df)	p	Estimate (SE)	QM (df)	p
Peer-review		0.65 (1)	0.42		0.62 (1)	0.43		–	–
Reviewed	0.32 (0.07)			0.66 (0.10)			only reviewed studies
Non-reviewed	0.14 (0.22)			0.35 (0.38)
Randomization		0.01 (1)	0.94		0.31 (1)	0.58		0.00 (1)	0.99
Randomized	0.31 (0.08)			0.65 (0.10)			0.70 (0.23)
Non-randomized	0.32 (0.15)			0.41 (0.43)			0.70 (0.48)
Individualisation		0.14 (1)	0.71		0.49 (1)	0.49		0.50 (1)	0.49
Individualised	0.35 (0.11)			0.51 (0.20)			0.82 (0.28)
Non-individualised	0.30 (0.08)			0.66 (0.10)			0.64 (0.24)
Type of routine		0.01 (1)	0.91		0.12 (1)	0.73		0.36 (1)	0.56
Extensive	0.30 (0.08)			0.66 (0.11)			0.62 (0.26)
Stand-alone	0.28 (0.10)			0.62 (0.11)			0.78 (0.25)
Skill level		0.68 (2)	0.51		0.42 (2)	0.66		0.42 (2)	0.67
Novice	0.41 (0.18)			0.74 (0.17)			1.34 (0.79)
Subelite	0.29 (0.07)			0.73 (0.13)			0.71 (0.31)
Elite	0.15 (0.14)			0.48 (0.26)			0.53 (0.40)

Notes: Q_M, test of moderators; df, degrees of freedom; p, p-value of Q_M test.

Figure 3. Funnel plots for the pre–post data (a), low-pressure experimental data (b), and experimental data under pressure (c).

*Gröpel, P., Mesagno, C., & Beckmann, J. (2020). Pre-shot routines to improve competition performance: A case study of a group of elite pistol shooters. Case Studies in Sport and Exercise Psychology, 4(1), 52–57. https://doi.org/10.1123/cssep.2019-0039

 Google Scholar

*Wergin, V. V., Beckmann, J., Gröpel, P., & Mesagno, C. (2020). Investigating cumulative effects of pre-performance routine interventions in beach volleyball serving. PLoS One, 15, e0228012. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228012

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Yeemin, W., Kemarat, S., & Theanthong, A. (2020). The effects of post activation potentiation warm-up and pre-shot routine programs on driving performance in amateur golfers. Plos One, 15(10), e0240881. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240881

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Morais, C., & Gomes, A. R. (2019). Pre-service routines, mental toughness and performance enhancement of young tennis athletes. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 50, 176–192. https://doi.org/10.7352/IJSP.2019.50.176

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Mesagno, C., Beckmann, J., Wergin, V. V., & Gröpel, P. (2019). Primed to perform: Comparing different pre-performance routine interventions to improve accuracy in closed, self-paced motor tasks. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 43, 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.01.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Blumenstein, B., Orbach, I., Gelinski, Y., Shemer, Y., Moran, D., & Weinstein, Y. (2018). The effect of mental relaxation and imagery on free throw shooting accuracy among young basketball players. Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics Annual, 33, 1–12.

 Google Scholar

*Perry, I. S., Chow, G. M., Tenenbaum, G., & Katz, Y. J. (2018). The effect of motor-mental preperformance routines on motor performance in novice learners. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 30(4), 402–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2017.1411404

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Gröpel, P., & Beckmann, J. (2017). A pre-performance routine to optimize competition performance in artistic gymnastics. The Sport Psychologist, 31(2), 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2016-0054

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Mesagno, C., Hill, D. M., & Larkin, P. (2015). Examining the accuracy and in-game performance effects between pre- and post-performance routines: A mixed methods study. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 19, 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.03.005

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Phelps, A., & Kulinna, P. (2015). Pre- performance routines followed by free throw shooting accuracy in secondary basketball players. Biomedical Human Kinetics, 7. https://doi.org/10.1515/bhk-2015-0025

 Google Scholar

*Lautenbach, F., Laborde, S., Mesagno, C., Lobinger, B. H., Achtzehn, S., & Arimond, F. (2015). Nonautomated pre-performance routine in tennis: An intervention study. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 27(2), 123–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2014.957364

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Hazell, J., Cotterill, S. T., & Hill, D. M. (2014). An exploration of pre-performance routines, self-efficacy, anxiety and performance in semi-professional soccer. European Journal of Sport Science, 14(6), 603–610. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2014.888484

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Beckmann, J., Gröpel, P., & Ehrenspiel, F. (2013). Preventing motor skill failure through hemisphere-specific priming: Cases from choking under pressure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(3), 679–691. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029852

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Bergmann, J., Kumpulainen, S., Avela, J., & Gruber, M. (2013). Acute effects of motor imagery on performance and neuromuscular control in maximal drop jumps. Journal of Imagery Research in Sport and Physical Activity, 8, 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1515/jirspa-2013-0001

 Google Scholar

*Moore, L. J., Vine, S. J., Cooke, A., Ring, C., & Wilson, M. R. (2012). Quiet eye training expedites motor learning and aids performance under heightened anxiety: The roles of response programming and external attention. Psychophysiology, 49(7), 1005–1015. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01379.x

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Vine, S. J., Moore, L. J., & Wilson, M. R. (2011). Quiet eye training facilitates competitive putting performance in elite golfers. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00008

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Wood, G., & Wilson, M. R. (2011). Quiet-eye training for soccer penalty kicks. Cognitive Processing, 12(3), 257–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-011-0393-0

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Mesagno, C., & Mullane-Grant, T. (2010). A comparison of different pre-performance routines as possible choking interventions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22(3), 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2010.491780

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Thomas, J. A. (2010). Considering intervention efficacy: The effect of a pre-shot routine on competitive youth golf performance [Doctoral thesis]. University of North Carolina., Chapel Hill, NC. Proquest Dissertations and Theses database. (Publication No. 3434198).

 Google Scholar

*Malouff, J. M., McGee, J. A., Halford, H. T., & Rooke, S. E. (2008). Effects of pre-competition positive imagery and self-instructions on accuracy of serving in tennis. Journal of Sport Behavior, 31, 264–275.

 Google Scholar

*Mesagno, C., Marchant, D., & Morris, T. (2008). A pre-performance routine to alleviate choking in “choking-susceptible” athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 22(4), 439–457. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.22.4.439

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Foster, D. J., Weigand, D. A., & Baines, D. (2006). The effect of removing superstitious behavior and introducing a pre-performance routine on basketball free-throw performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 18(2), 167–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200500471343

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Klug, J. J. (2006). Effects of an imagery training program on free throw self-efficacy and performance of high school basketball players [Doctoral thesis]. Miami University, Oxford, OH. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=miami1156375861&disposition=inline

 Google Scholar

*Kornspan, A. S., Overby, L., & Lerner, B. S. (2004). Analysis and performance of pre-performance imagery and other strategies on a golf putting task. Journal of Mental Imagery, 28, 59–74.

 Google Scholar

*McCann, P., Lavallee, D., & Lavallee, R. (2001). The effect of pre-shot routines on golf wedge shot performance. European Journal of Sport Science, 1(5), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461390100071503

 Google Scholar

*Hardy, L., & Callow, N. (1999). Efficacy of external and internal visual imagery perspectives for the enhancement of performance on tasks in which form is important. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 21(2), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.21.2.95

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Marlow, C., Bull, S. J., Heath, B., & Shambrook, C. J. (1998). The use of a single case design to investigate the effect of a pre-performance routine on the water polo penalty shot. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 1(3), 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1440-2440(98)80010-8

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

*Hill, K. L., & Borden, F. (1995). The effect of attentional cueing scripts on competitive bowling performance. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26, 503–512.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Predebon, J., & Docker, S. B. (1992). Free-throw shooting performance as a function of preshot routines. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75(1), 167–171. https://doi.org/10.2466/PMS.75.4.167-171

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Gayton, W. F., Cielinski, K. L., Francis-Keniston, W. J., & Hearns, J. F. (1989). Effects of preshot routine on free-throw shooting. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 68(1), 317–318. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1989.68.1.317

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Wrisberg, C. A., & Anshel, M. H. (1989). The effect of cognitive strategies on the free throw shooting performance. The Sport Psychologist, 3(2), 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.3.2.95

 Google Scholar

*Boutcher, S. H., & Crews, D. J. (1987). The effect of a preshot attentional routine on a well learned skill. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 18, 30–39.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Crews, D. J., & Boutcher, S. H. (1986). Effects of structured preshot behaviors on beginning golf performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 62(1), 291–294. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1986.62.1.291

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The meta-analysis data can be found at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14077091

 Google Scholar

. The meta-analysis code and Supplementary Tables S1 and S2 can be found at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14076065

 Google Scholar

.