The performance and psychological effects of goal setting in sport: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Figures & data

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram of results from the literature search.

Table 1. Contextual information of studies included in the final synthesis.

ID	Author (year)	Total sample (Females, Males) (more information on sample) Mean age (SD) or age range	Study design	Goal conditions	Comparison	Sporting task/measure	Psychological/psychophysiological measure/s
1	Bar-Eli et al. (1997)	97 (0/97) (military high school students) 19.3 years (0.72).	Within-subjects design, 6 sessions	Competition/pairs; mastery/single; mastery/pairs; competition plus mastery/pairs	Baseline	1600 m running	Goal commitment; how hard they tried; how hard the goal was to accomplish; the importance of competition vs. mastery goals during performance; attributions for perceived success and failure.
2	Bieleke et al. (2019)	62 (27/35) (volleyball players) 13.9 years (1.0)	Within-subjects design, one session	Process goal	Baseline	Volleyball service	Motivation
3	Burton (1989)	65 (30/35) (experienced swimmers) Goal setting group 20.1 years and non- goal-setting group 20.4 years	Mixed-design, five months	Specific, short-term, individual, performance goal	No goal	Swimming performance during competitive swimming meets	Expectancy accuracy; cognitive anxiety; self-confidence; concentration; effort; perceived success; success attributions; satisfaction; perceived ability
4	Dewar et al. (2013)	120 (60/60) (undergraduate students competing in various sports) 20.6 years (1.56).	Mixed-design, one session	Task-goal; ego-goal	No goal	Quickness ladder performance time	Anxiety; happiness; anxiety; perceived importance
5	Dutra et al. (2017)	36 (0/36) (experienced volleyball players) 15.3 years (SD =  0.4)	Mixed-design, 2–3 weeks	Specific goals with moderate difficulty; specific goals with high difficulty	No goal	Volleyball receive	Commitment
6	Filby et al. (1999)	40 (17/23) (university students) 21.6 years (2.36)	Mixed-design, two-three weeks	Outcome goal; outcome and process goal; process goal; outcome, process and performance goal	No goal	Soccer volleying accuracy	Goal commitment; semi-structured interviews
7	Frierman et al. (1990)	72 (41/31) (university students, 45 were novices and 27 were intermediate bowlers) 18–22 years.	Mixed-design, 13 weeks	Short-term; long-term; short- and long-term	‘Do-your-best’	Bowling score	Goal difficulty; effort; confidence; acceptance; reality of the assigned goal
8	Johnson et al. (1997)	36 (0/36) (undergraduate students) 21.6 years	Mixed-design five weeks	Group goal; individual goal	‘Do-your-best’	Bowling score	Perceived goal difficulty
9	Kavussanu et al. (2009)	102 (63/39) (undergraduate students)	Within- subjects design, one session	Mastery goal; performance approach goal; performance avoidance goal	Baseline	Golf-putting	Enjoyment; practice
10	Kingston and Hardy (1997)	37 (0/37) (golfers) 44.1 years (10.87)	Mixed design, 54 weeks	Process goal; performance goal	No goal	Golf handicap	State anxiety; confidence; psychological skills
11	Kolovelonis et al. (2010)	72 (44/28) (elementary school students) 11.1 years	Between- subjects design, one session	Social feedback and process goal and self-recording; process goal and self-recording	Practice-only control	Darts-throwing	Self-efficacy; satisfaction; intrinsic motivation
12	Kolovelonis et al. (2011)	105 (49/56) (elementary school students) 11 years (0.65)	Between- subjects design, one session	Process goal and self-recording; process goal; performance outcome goal and self-recording; performance outcome goal; process and performance outcome goal and self-recording; process, performance and outcome goal	‘Do-your-best’	Darts-throwing	Self-efficacy; attributions; adaptive influences; satisfaction; effort; enjoyment
13	Kolovelonis et al. (2012)	85 (45/40) (elementary school students) 10.5 years (0.43)	Between- subjects design, one session	Process goal; performance goal	‘Do-your-best’	Darts-throwing	Self-efficacy; attributions; enjoyment
14	Lane and Streeter (2003)	72 (0/72) (experienced basketball players) 15.4 years (1.3)	Between- subjects design, four weeks	Easy goal; difficult goal; unrealistic goal	No goal	Basketball shooting	Perceptions of goal difficulty; intended effort; confidence
15	Liu et al. (2012)	60 (60/0) (table tennis players) experimental group mean age 12.9 years (2.5) control group mean age 13.6 years (2.78)	Mixed-design, one session	Easy goal; moderate goal; difficult goal	No goal.	Table tennis serving	Self-regulation
16	Meggs and Chen (2019)	49 (N/A) (swimmers) 10.8 years (1.25)	Mixed-design, six weeks	Goal setting model comprising of qualitative, technical goals and quantitative performance goals	No goal	200 m swimming	Engagement and attendance
17	Mulvenna et al. (2020)	114 novice (52/62) (basketballers) 23.5 years (4.56)	Between- subjects design, one session	Task-approach, autonomy supportive; task-approach controlling; self-approach, autonomy supportive; self-approach controlling; other-approach, autonomy supportive; other-approach controlling	Baseline	Basketball shooting	Cardiovascular reactivity; cognitive appraisal of stress; competitive state anxiety; enjoyment; competence; goal attainment
18	Neumann and Honke (2018)	30 (0/30) (basketball players) 24.6 years (0.97)	Mixed-design, four days	Performance and outcome goal	‘As-man-as-possible’	Basketball shooting	State anxiety; perceived exertion
19	Neumann and Thomas (2011)	50 (17/33) (18 participants were novices, 16 were experienced and 16 were elite) 23.4 years (5.81)	Between-subjects design, one session	Process goal; performance goal; outcome goal	‘make each putt’ baseline	Golf-putting	Attentional focus; cardiac reactivity
20	Ntoumanis et al. (2009)	138 (87/51) (undergraduate students) 19.3 years (1.15)	Within- subjects’, one session	Mastery-approach; mastery-avoidance; performance-approach; performance-avoidance	Baseline	Darts-throwing	Self-handicapping; perceived confidence
21	O’Brien et al. (2009)	6 (0/6) (3 elite, 3 non-elite boxers) 16 years (1)	Single-subject, one season	Goal setting intervention that comprised of goal-determination, goal setting and goal reviewing	Baseline	Boxing performance	Anxiety; importance of performance improvement; significance of the changes; acceptance of the procedure
22	Palao et al. (2016)	14 (0/14) male (volleyball players) 23.3 years	Single-subject, one season	‘SMART’ performance goals	Baseline	Volleyball match performance	Qualitative perceptions of effectiveness of the intervention
23	Steinberg et al. (2000)	72 (36/36) (college students) 20.5 years	Mixed design, six weeks	Mastery-competitive; mastery; competitive;	No goal	Golf-putting	Intrinsic motivation; persistence; acceptance; commitment
24	Theodorakis (1995)	42 (N/A) (university students)	Within-subjects design, one session	Personal performance goal	‘To achieve the greatest number of meters swimming in a time of 20 s’	Swimming performance	Self-efficacy; self-satisfaction
25	Theodorakis (1996)	48 (26/22) (university students) 21.2 years.	Within-subjects design, one session	Personal performance goal	‘To achieve the greatest number of correct service’	Tennis serving	Trait self-efficacy; self-efficacy expectations; self-satisfaction; goal commitment
26	Zimmerman and Kitsantas (1996)	50 (50/0) (students from four ninth and tenth grade physical education classes) 15.8 years	Between- subjects design, one session	Product goal and no self-recording; product goal-plus self-recording; process goal and no self-recording; process goal- plus self-recording	No goal	Darts-throwing	Self-efficacy; self-reaction; intrinsic interest
27	Zimmerman and Kitsantas (1997)	90 (90/0) (students from four ninth and tenth grade physical education classes) 15.4 years	Between- subjects design, one session	Outcome goal; outcome goal with self-recording; process goal; process goal with self-recording; transformed goal; transformed goal with self-recording; shifting goal; shifting goal with self-recording	No goal	Darts-throwing	Self-efficacy; self-reaction; intrinsic interest

Table 2. Study quality assessment based on the mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT; Hong et al., 2018).

Author(s)	Category of study design	Assessment criteria
		1	2	3	4	5
Bar-Eli et al. (1997)	Quantitative non-randomised	Can’t tell	Yes	No	No	Yes
Bieleke et al. (2019)	Quantitative non-randomised	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Burton (1989)	Quantitative non-randomised	Yes	Yes	No	No	No
Dewar et al. (2013)	Quantitative non-randomised	Can’t tell	Yes	No	No	Yes
Dutra et al. (2017)	Quantitative non-randomised	Can’t tell	Can’t tell	Yes	Can’t tell	Can’t tell
Filby et al. (1999)	Mixed methods	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Can’t tell
Frierman et al. (1990)	Quantitative non-randomised	Can’t tell	Yes	No	No	Yes
Johnson et al. (1997)	Quantitative non-randomised	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Kavussanu et al. (2009)	Quantitative non-randomised	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Kingston and Hardy (1997)	Quantitative non-randomised	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Kolovelonis et al. (2010)	Quantitative non-randomised	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Kolovelonis et al. (2011)	Quantitative non-randomised	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Kolovelonis et al. (2012)	Quantitative non-randomised	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Lane and Streeter (2003)	Randomised	Can’t tell	Yes	Yes	No	Can’t tell
Liu et al. (2012)	Randomised	Can’t tell	Can’t tell	Yes	Can’t tell	Can’t tell
Meggs and Chen (2019)	Quantitative non-randomised	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Mulvenna et al. (2020)	Quantitative non-randomised	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Neumann and Honke (2018)	Randomised	Can’t tell	Can’t tell	Yes	No	Can’t tell
Neumann and Thomas (2011)	Quantitative non-randomised	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Ntoumanis et al. (2009)	Quantitative non-randomised	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
O’Brien et al. (2009)	Quantitative non-randomised	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes
Palao et al. (2016)	Mixed methods	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Steinberg et al. (2000)	Quantitative non-randomised	Can’t tell	Yes	Can’t tell	Can’t tell	Yes
Theodorakis (1995)	Quantitative non-randomised	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Theodorakis (1996)	Quantitative non-randomised	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Zimmerman and Kitsantas (1996)	Randomised	Can’t tell	Can’t tell	Yes	No	Can’t tell
Zimmerman and Kitsantas (1997)	Randomised	Can’t tell	Can’t tell	Yes	No	Can’t tell

Table 3. Results of the meta-analysis.

Study	Weight (%)	Effect size	95% CI (lower, upper)	z-value	p-value
Bar-Eli and Tenenbaum (1997)	5.42	–0.16	–0.36, 0.04	–1.54	.123
Bieleke et al. (2019)	4.55	0.03	–0.33, 0.40	0.17	.863
Burton (1989)	3.56	0.43	–0.11, 0.98	1.56	.120
Dewar et al. (2013)	4.40	0.22	–0.17, 0.61	1.09	.275
Dutra et al. (2017)	2.86	0.18	–0.52, 0.87	0.50	.618
Filby et al. (1999)	2.53	0.17	–0.60, 0.95	0.44	.660
Frierman et al. (1990)	3.61	0.32	–0.22, 0.85	1.17	.244
Johnson et al. (1997)	2.80	0.59	–0.12, 1.30	1.62	.105
Kavussanu et al. (2009)	5.42	0.28	0.08, 0.50	2.74	.006
Kingston and Hardy (1997)	2.62	0.17	–0.58, 0.92	0.45	.655
Kolovelonis et al. (2010)	3.22	1.25	0.64, 1.86	3.99	<.001
Kolovelonis et al. (2011)	3.45	1.23	0.56, 1.70	3.90	<.001
Kolovelonis et al. (2012)	3.21	1.02	0.41, 1.64	3.26	<.001
Lane and Streeter (2003)	3.62	0.10	–0.43, 0.64	0.38	.705
Liu et al. (2012)	3.71	0.59	0.07, 1.11	2.23	.026
Meggs and Chen (2019)	2.78	0.99	0.27, 1.70	2.72	.007
Mulvenna et al. (2020)	5.47	0.26	0.07, 0.44	2.69	.007
Neumann and Honke (2018)	5.03	0.82	0.08, 1.57	2.16	.030
Neumann and Thomas (2011)	2.65	0.16	–0.12, 0.43	1.09	.275
Ntoumanis et al. (2009)	5.53	0.36	0.19, 0.53	4.08	<.001
O'Brien et al. (2009)	1.48	1.49	0.33, 2.65	2.51	.012
Paloa et al. (2016)	3.50	0.02	–0.53, 0.58	0.08	.937
Steinberg et al. (2001)	3.61	0.25	–0.28, 0.79	0.92	.357
Theodorakis (1995)	4.90	0.07	–0.24, 0.37	0.42	.674
Theodorakis (1996)	4.98	0.27	–0.02, 0.56	1.85	.065
Zimmerman and Kitsantas (1996)	2.43	2.09	1.29, 2.90	5.09	<.001
Zimmerman and Kitsantas (1997)	2.66	2.37	1.63, 3.11	6.25	<.001
Overall	100	0.47	0.30, 0.63	5.59	<.001
						–2.00	0.00	2.00
						Effect size

Note: CI = confidence interval.

Table 4. Results of the moderator analysis.

Moderator	k	Effect size (SE)	95% CI	Z-value	p-value	Q-value (df), p-value
Theoretical framework						23.70[4], p<.001
Goal-setting theory	4	0.32 (0.14)	0.04, 0.60	2.21	p =.027
Achievement goal theory	4	0.31 (0.06)	0.19, 0.43	5.06	p<.001
Self-regulation theory	5	1.53 (0.26)	1.02, 2.04	5.90	p<.001
Combination of theories	2	0.05 (0.21)	−0.36, 0.46	0.25	p =.805
Other/none	12	0.28 (0.09)	0.10, 0.45	3.16	p =.002
Goal type						14.10[4], p=.007
Process	9	1.36 (0.41)	0.57, 2.16	3.35	p<.001
Performance	16	0.44 (0.11)	0.22, 0.66	3.94	p<.001
Outcome	2	0.09 (0.20)	−0.29, 0.47	0.47	p =.636
Mastery	6	0.06 (0.11)	−0.15, 0.28	0.57	p=.572
Ego	6	0.20 (0.11)	−0.01, 0.42	1.86	p=.062
Goal proximity						6.78[2], p=.034
Short-term	23	0.43 (0.10)	0.24, 0.63	4.42	p<.001
Long-term	4	−0.08 (0.18)	−0.43, 0.28	−0.42	p=.675
Combination	5	0.47 (0.16)	0.15, 0.80	2.89	p=.004
Goal specificity						2.69[1], p=.101
Specific	24	0.37 (0.09)	0.19, 0.56	4.01	p<.001
Non-specific	14	0.72 (0.19)	0.35, 1.08	3.84	p<.001
Active control removed						0.01[1], p=.936
Yes	19	0.47 (0.11)	0.26, 0.68	4.44	p<.001
No	8	0.46 (0.13)	0.20, 0.72	3.44	p<.001
Setting						0.03[1], p=.856
Laboratory	22	0.46 (0.09)	0.28, 0.64	5.10	p<.001
Field	5	0.51 (0.23)	0.06, 0.95	2.23	p=.026
Sex						6.06[1], p=.014
Males	9	0.23 (0.15)	−0.05, 0.52	1.61	p=.108
Females	4	1.50 (0.47)	0.52, 2.37	3.07	p=.002
Age						10.34[1], p<.001
Youths	11	0.97 (0.23)	0.55, 1.43	4.22	p<.001
Adults	16	0.21 (0.05)	0.11, 0.32	4.01	p<.001
Level of experience						8.04[1], p=.017
Experienced	14	0.24 (0.09)	0.06, 0.43	2.64	p=.008
Novice	12	0.71 (0.14)	0.44, 0.98	5.18	p<.001
Goal determination						4.97[2], p=.083
Participant set	3	0.21 (0.10)	0.01, 0.40	2.08	p=.038
Researcher set	19	0.52 (0.10)	0.32, 0.73	5.02	p<.001
Collaboratively set	5	0.47 (0.25)	−0.02, 0.96	1.87	p=.061
Feedback on progress						1.98[1], p=.159
Yes	25	0.49 (0.09)	0.32, 0.66	5.54	p<.001
No	2	0.21 (0.18)	−0.14, 0.56	1.17	p=.241

*Bar-Eli, M., Tenenbaum, G., Pie, J. S., & Kudar, K. (1997). Aerobic performance under different goal orientations and different goal conditions. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20(1), 3–15.

 Google Scholar

*Bieleke, M., Kriech, C., & Wolff, W. (2019). Served well? A pilot field study on the effects of conveying self-control strategies on volleyball service performance. Behavioral Sciences, 9(9), 93–105. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs9090093

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Burton, D. (1989). Winning isn’t everything: Examining the impact of performance goals on collegiate swimmers’ cognitions and performance. The Sport Psychologist, 3(2), 105–132. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.3.2.105

 Google Scholar

*Dewar, A. J., Kavussanu, M., & Ring, C. (2013). The effects of achievement goals on emotions and performance in a competitive agility task. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 2(4), 250–264. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032291

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Dutra, L., Novellino Benda, R., Menezes Lage, G. & Ugrinowitsch, H. (2017). Difficult group goal improves serve reception of experienced volleyball players. Journal of Human Sport and Exercise, 12(2), 276-285. https://doi.org/10.14198/jhse.2017.122.04

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Filby, W. C., Maynard, I. W., & Graydon, J. K. (1999). The effect of multiple-goal strategies on performance outcomes in training and competition. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 11(2), 230–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413209908404202

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Frierman, S. H., Weinberg, R. S., & Jackson, A. (1990). The relationship between goal proximity and specificity in bowling: A field experiment. The Sport Psychologist, 4(2), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.4.2.145

 Google Scholar

*Johnson, S. R., Ostrow, A. C., Perna, F. M., & Etzel, E. F. (1997). The effects of group versus individual goal setting on bowling performance. The Sport Psychologist, 11(2), 190–200. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.11.2.190

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Kavussanu, M., Morris, R. L., & Ring, C. (2009). The effects of achievement goals on performance, enjoyment, and practice of a novel motor task. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(12), 1281–1292. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410903229287

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Kingston, K. M., & Hardy, L. (1997). Effects of different types of goals on processes that support performance. The Sport Psychologist, 11(3), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.11.3.277

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Kolovelonis, A., Goudas, M., & Dermitzaki, I. (2010). Self-regulated learning of a motor skill through emulation and self-control levels in a physical education setting. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22(2), 198–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413201003664681

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Kolovelonis, A., Goudas, M., & Dermitzaki, I. (2011). The effect of different goals and self-recording on self-regulation of learning a motor skill in a physical education setting. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 355–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.04.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Kolovelonis, A., Goudas, M., & Dermitzaki, I. (2012). The effects of self-talk and goal setting on self-regulation of learning a new motor skill in physical education. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10(3), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2012.671592

 Google Scholar

*Lane, A., & Streeter, B. (2003). The effectiveness of goal setting as a strategy to improve basketball shooting performance. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 34(2), 138–150.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Liu, W., Zhou, C., Ji, L., & Watson, J. C. (2012). The effect of goal setting difficulty on serving success in table tennis and the mediating mechanism of self-regulation. Journal of Human Kinetics, 33(2012), 173–185. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10078-012-0056-y

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

*Meggs, J., & Chen, M. A. (2019). Competitive performance effects of psychological skill training for youth swimmers. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 126(5), 886–903. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031512519852533

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Mulvenna, M., Adie, J. W., Sage, L. D., Wilson, N. E., & Howat, D. (2020). Approach-achievement goals and motivational context on psychophysiological functioning and performance among novice basketball players. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 51, 101714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101714

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Neumann, D. L., & Honke, E. (2018). Practice using performance goals enhances basketball free throw accuracy when tested under competition in elite players. Journal of Human Sport and Exercise, 13(2), 296–304. https://doi.org/10.14198/jhse.2018.132.05

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Neumann, D. L., & Thomas, P. R. (2011). Cardiac and respiratory activity and golf putting performance under attentional focus instructions. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12(4), 451–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.02.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Ntoumanis, N., Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., & Smith, A. L. (2009). Achievement goals, self-handicapping, and performance: A 2 ( 2 achievement goal perspective. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(13), 1471–1482. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410903150459

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*O’Brien, M., Mellalieu, S., & Hanton, S. (2009). Goal-setting effects in elite and non-elite boxers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21(3), 293–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200903030894

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Palao, J. M., Gareía-de-Alcaraz, A., Hernández-Hernández, E., & Ortega, E. (2016). A case study of applying collective technical-tactical performance goals in elite men's volleyball team. International Journal of Applied Sports Sciences, 28(2), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.24985/ijass.2016.28.2.68

 Google Scholar

*Steinberg, G. M., Singer, R. N., & Murphey, M. (2000). The benefits to sport achievement when a multiple goal orientation is emphasized. Journal of Sport Behavior, 23(4), 407–422.

 Google Scholar

*Theodorakis, Y. (1995). Effects of self-efficacy, satisfaction, and personal goals on swimming performance. The Sport Psychologist, 9(3), 245–253. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.9.3.245

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Theodorakis, Y. (1996). The influence of goals, commitment, self-efficacy and self-satisfaction on motor performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 8(2), 171–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413209608406475

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1996). Self-regulated learning of a motoric skill: The role of goal setting and self-monitoring. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 8(1), 60–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413209608406308

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1997). Developmental phases in self-regulation: Shifting from process goals to outcome goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.29

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hong, Q. N., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., Gagnon, M. P., Griffiths, F., Nicolau, B., O’Cathin, A., Rousseau, M., Vedel, I., & Pluye, P. (2018). The mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Education for Information, 34(4), 285–291. doi:10.3233/EFI-180221

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar