Conceptualizing, measuring, and training mental toughness in sport: Perspectives of master strength and conditioning coaches

Figures & data

Table 2. The research/emergent questions per research category per phase.

Research questions per phase	Research category
Phase 1
1. Does MT exist in the sports domain?	C
2. How is MT defined in sport?	C
3. Is MT inherited, developed, or both?	C
4. Is MT transferable to academic and/or social life and vice versa?	C
5. What is the value of MT in Sport overall?	T
6. Are MSCCs practicing MT training?	T
7. Do gender differences exist with respect to MT in Sport?	C
8. Do MSCCs know how to measure MT?	M
9. Do differences exist between views of SCCs and HC^bs when it comes to MT training?	C
Phase 2
1. Why do MSCCs tend to have different conceptualizations of MT?	C
2. Why do MSCCs tend to think that a high level of MT would not affect student-athletes in a negative way?	C
3. Why do MSCCs tend to have a general view of MT rather than being specific to some context, sport, or position?	C
4. Why do MSCCs tend to think that developing MT at the age of 18–22 is not too late?	T
5. Why do MSCCs tend to place a distinct emphasis on physical and not on psychological strategies when training MT?	T
6. How do MSCCs measure the effectiveness of their interventions?	M
7. Why do MSCCs tend to train MT less than they would like?	T
8. What type of future MT research would be beneficial for MSCCs?	N/A^a

C: Conceptualization; M: Measurement, T: Training.

^a N/A: Not Applicable.

^b HC: Head Coach.

Figure 1. Diagram of the two phases of the research design.

Table 4. The STAM II items per research question per research category and their corresponding reliability estimates.

Research category	Research questions	Item(s)	Reliability estimate (λ2)
C	Existence of MT	1	N/A^a
C	Definition/Characteristics of MT	2, 10–16, and 18–19	0.75
C	Development of MT	3–5, 39, and 40–41	0.84^b
C	Is MT transferable?	7–9	0.86
T	Value of MT	6, 17, 20, and 36–37	0.87
T	Practicing MT	25–34	0.67^c
C	Gender differences in MT	42–45	0.34^d
M	Measurement of MT	35 and 38	Not estimated^e
C	Head Coaches vs. MSCCs	21–24	0.57
N/A	N/A	46–52	N/A^f

C: Conceptualization; M: Measurement; T: Training; N/A: Not Applicable.

^a Only one item was used for this RQ.

^b Item 5 was excluded from the reliability calculation because it was dimensionally different from the other items.

^c Items 33 and 34, Matrix Table items, were excluded from the reliability calculation.

^d There was very little variability in the responses.

^e There was very little variability in the responses.

^f Items that collected demographic information.

Figure 2. Layers of analysis for definition of MT (n = 57).

Figure 3. Layers of analysis for characteristics of student-athletes who lack mental toughness (n = 56).

Figure 4. Layers of analysis for examples of MT training (n = 54).

Figure 5. Layers of analysis for reasons for no consensus on the conceptualization of MT (n = 28).

Figure 6. Layers of analysis for reasons for MT perceived as positive only (n = 28).

Figure 7. Layers of analysis for reasons for having a general view of MT (n = 28).

Figure 8. Layers of analysis for measuring MT (n = 28).

Figure 9. Layers of analysis for reasons for perceived ability to develop MT in student-athletes (n = 28).

Figure 10. Layers of analysis for reasons for training MT mainly through physiological protocols (n = 28).

Figure 11. Layers of analysis for training MT less than desired (n = 28).

Figure 12. Layers of analysis for useful future MT research (n = 28).