Tai Chi Training and Pre-Competition Anxiety in High-Level Competitive Athletes: A Chain Mediation Model of Flow and Mental Toughness

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, 

Thanks for your submission. 

Please see the attached file.

Best

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We sincerely thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript and for your insightful and constructive comments. We greatly appreciate your recognition of the novelty, conceptual clarity, and statistical rigor of our study. In response to your suggestions, we have carefully revised the manuscript. All changes have been highlighted in the revised version. Below, we address each of your comments point by point.

 

1. CSAI-2 was administered within 24 hours prior to scheduled competition events. Those 86

athletes are from various sports. They may compete in various level of tournaments. I wonder

if the competitions they were facing over three points (T0-T2) may indeed exert different level

of anxiety to them.

Thank you for raising this important methodological concern. We agree that competitive context may influence anxiety intensity. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified that the CSAI-2 assesses athletes’ subjective pre-competition anxiety responses, which reflect individual psychological perceptions rather than objective competition difficulty. Although athletes participated in different sports and competitive events, all measurements were conducted using a consistent temporal criterion (within 24 hours prior to competition) across T0–T2, allowing us to focus on within-subject changes over time.

To further address this issue, we have explicitly acknowledged competition heterogeneity as a limitation in the Discussion and suggested that future studies may further control or stratify competitive contexts to enhance ecological precision.

 

2. The relationship between Taichi and mindfulness or even anxiety for athletes are well

addressed (e.g., Kee, 2019; Su & Sumarnpat Brady, 2025). I wonder if there is reason authors

pick Taichi, flow, mental toughness, pre-competition anxiety, but not mindfulness as a

variable in this chain model.

We appreciate this thoughtful theoretical question. We fully acknowledge the important role of mindfulness in Tai Chi research and have cited relevant studies accordingly. In the present study, however, our intention was to focus on performance-oriented psychological mechanisms that are more directly relevant to competitive sport contexts.

In the revised Introduction and Discussion, we have clarified that mindfulness may serve as a foundational attentional mechanism, whereas flow experience represents a situational, performance-specific psychological state, and mental toughness reflects a relatively stable resilience-related trait. By integrating flow experience and mental toughness into a serial mediation model, our study aims to elucidate a competition-relevant pathway through which Tai Chi training alleviates pre-competition anxiety.

We have also acknowledged the exclusion of mindfulness as a limitation and suggested that future studies integrate mindfulness, flow, and mental toughness into a more comprehensive psychological framework.

 

3. For the design, there are intervention group and control groups. The athletes in intervention

groups received 8 weeks of Taichi training, while those in control groups continues to

training, but not receiving any form of intervention or replacement. I wonder does it mean

those in control groups indeed received more physical training or just more rest time. If they

are receiving more physical training, could it mean that the reduction of training does have

some effect too. Thanks for explanation.

Thank you for this important clarification request. In the revised Methods section, we have explicitly stated that athletes in the control group were instructed to maintain their habitual training routines throughout the study period, without any intentional increase or decrease in training volume or rest time. No additional physical training, psychological intervention, or structured recovery program was introduced.

We agree that objective monitoring of training load would further strengthen methodological rigor. Accordingly, we have acknowledged the absence of quantitative training-load indicators as a limitation and suggested that future research incorporate objective workload measures to better isolate intervention effects.

 

4.Spelling and reference issues (missing text and incomplete references).

Thank you very much for pointing out these issues. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and made the following corrections:

The missing text before “In modern society…” has been corrected.

Incomplete or missing references (Chan et al., 2012; Naden et al., 2023; Hayes, 2018; Han et al., 2022) have been fully added to the reference list.

The incorrect in-text citation format (Guangxue Li, Yongxing Bi & Xuanchong Xu, 2017) has been corrected.

All references have been cross-checked for accuracy and consistency.

 

Kee, Y. H. (2019). Looking East for Mindfulness: A Glimpse of Practices and Research on Shaolin

Martial Arts and Related Practices to Advance Sport Psychology. Psych, 1(1), 76-91.

https://doi.org/10.3390/psych1010006

Su, R., & Sumranpat Brady, W. (2025). Psychological characteristics of pre-match competitive Tai Chi

athletes. Journal of Human Sport and Exercise, 20(3), 1076-1085. https://doi.org/10.55860/9c7hnk46

 

We unanimously agree that these references are highly appropriate and have been added.

 

Once again, we sincerely thank you for your valuable comments, which have significantly improved the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. We hope that the revisions adequately address your concerns and that the revised version meets your expectations.

Kind regards,
The Authors

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review Report

1. Title and Author Information

The title accurately reflects the study’s focus on Tai Chi’s effects on pre-competition anxiety in elite athletes and the mediating psychological mechanisms. However, it may benefit from slight simplification for clarity. Consider shortening for broader audience accessibility without losing key components.

2. Abstract

The abstract succinctly summarizes background, methods, results, and conclusions. To improve clarity, please explicitly state sample size and confirm statistical significance levels for all key findings. Also, briefly note limitations and future research directions to enhance completeness.

3. Introduction

The introduction effectively presents the research gap and theoretical background linking Tai Chi to anxiety reduction. It would be beneficial to:

Expand on the rationale for selecting "flow experience" and "mental toughness" as mediators with more recent citations…

Clarify the novelty of the chain-mediating model compared to existing literature.

Discuss potential practical applications in sport psychology settings briefly

 

4. Methodology

The selection criteria for elite athletes are clearly defined, including national registration, continuous training for over 8 years, weekly training exceeding 20 hours, and participation in at least three national competitions within the past two years. These criteria ensure the validity of the sample. To enhance transparency and reproducibility, it is recommended to provide additional details such as: (1) variability in training intensity (e.g., range and average of weekly training hours), (2) specific competitive levels (e.g., national team membership, top rankings in national championships), and (3) reasons for participant dropout (e.g., percentage and statistical analysis of injuries, illnesses, and personal reasons). This information would help exclude potential selection bias and strengthen the generalizability of the findings.

 

The application of hierarchical regression and bootstrap mediation analysis (5,000 resamples) complies with standard practices for testing chain mediation effects. To reinforce the scientific validity, the following should be elaborated: (1) justification for covariate selection (e.g., demographic variables or baseline group differences supported by preliminary tests or existing literature), and (2) detailed results of the a priori power analysis (e.g., specifying effect size f² = 0.15, α = 0.05, power = 0.85, and confirmation that sample size meets requirements). These additions clearly demonstrate sample adequacy and statistical power.

 

5. Results

Results are clearly presented with supporting tables and figures. Suggestions for enhancement include:

Adding effect sizes alongside p-values for practical significance.

Clarifying non-significant findings with possible explanations.

Including confidence intervals in tables for transparency.

 

The manuscript is well-organized with clear structure and logical flow throughout. To polish the final presentation, the authors should address the following minor issues: (1) proofread for typographical errors and ensure consistent formatting, particularly in scale names (e.g., uniform presentation of "CSAI-2", "FSS-2", "SMTQ") and reference list entries; (2) improve figure quality by enhancing resolution and label clarity, ensuring all axes, legends, and annotations are fully legible; and (3) standardize the first use of acronyms by providing full definitions followed by abbreviations in parentheses consistently across all sections. These are straightforward formatting improvements that will elevate the manuscript's professional presentation.

Author Response

Review Report

Title and Author Information

The title accurately reflects the study’s focus on Tai Chi’s effects on pre-competition anxiety in elite athletes and the mediating psychological mechanisms. However, it may benefit from slight simplification for clarity. Consider shortening for broader audience accessibility without losing key components.

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have revised the title to make it more concise while preserving its core theoretical and empirical components.

 

Abstract

The abstract succinctly summarizes background, methods, results, and conclusions. To improve clarity, please explicitly state sample size and confirm statistical significance levels for all key findings. Also, briefly note limitations and future research directions to enhance completeness.

We appreciate this valuable recommendation. The abstract has been revised to explicitly report the sample size and to clearly indicate the statistical significance of all major findings.

 

Introduction

The introduction effectively presents the research gap and theoretical background linking Tai Chi to anxiety reduction. It would be beneficial to:

Expand on the rationale for selecting "flow experience" and "mental toughness" as mediators with more recent citations…

Clarify the novelty of the chain-mediating model compared to existing literature.

Discuss potential practical applications in sport psychology settings briefly

Thank you for this important suggestion. We have expanded the theoretical justification for selecting flow experience and mental toughness as mediators by incorporating recent empirical and theoretical studies in sport psychology.

The revised introduction explicitly highlights how the present study advances existing research by testing a theoretically grounded chain mediation model that explains how Tai Chi.

Finally, we have briefly expanded the discussion of practical implications in sport psychology settings. The revised manuscript now outlines how Tai Chi may be applied as a low-cost, culturally adaptable psychological regulation strategy within elite sport training and pre-competition routines. These practical considerations help bridge theory and application and underscore the relevance of the present findings for practitioners working with high-level athletes.

 

Methodology

The selection criteria for elite athletes are clearly defined, including national registration, continuous training for over 8 years, weekly training exceeding 20 hours, and participation in at least three national competitions within the past two years. These criteria ensure the validity of the sample. To enhance transparency and reproducibility, it is recommended to provide additional details such as: (1) variability in training intensity (e.g., range and average of weekly training hours), (2) specific competitive levels (e.g., national team membership, top rankings in national championships), and (3) reasons for participant dropout (e.g., percentage and statistical analysis of injuries, illnesses, and personal reasons). This information would help exclude potential selection bias and strengthen the generalizability of the findings.

 

The application of hierarchical regression and bootstrap mediation analysis (5,000 resamples) complies with standard practices for testing chain mediation effects. To reinforce the scientific validity, the following should be elaborated: (1) justification for covariate selection (e.g., demographic variables or baseline group differences supported by preliminary tests or existing literature), and (2) detailed results of the a priori power analysis (e.g., specifying effect size f² = 0.15, α = 0.05, power = 0.85, and confirmation that sample size meets requirements). These additions clearly demonstrate sample adequacy and statistical power.

Thank you for this constructive comment.To enhance transparency and reproducibility, we have added detailed information regarding participants’ training characteristics, including the range and mean of weekly training hours, specific competitive levels, and reasons for participant dropout (e.g., injuries, illnesses, and personal reasons).

In response to the reviewer’s suggestion regarding statistical analysis, we have clarified the rationale for covariate selection by referencing both preliminary analyses and relevant literature. This explanation supports the appropriateness of the selected covariates and ensures that potential confounding variables were adequately controlled in the hierarchical regression and mediation analyses.

Finally, we have expanded the description of the a priori power analysis. The revised manuscript now reports the assumed effect size, significance level, desired statistical power, and required sample size, confirming that the final sample was sufficient to detect the hypothesized effects. These revisions further strengthen the methodological rigor and statistical validity of the study.

 

Results

Results are clearly presented with supporting tables and figures. Suggestions for enhancement include:

Adding effect sizes alongside p-values for practical significance.

Clarifying non-significant findings with possible explanations.

Including confidence intervals in tables for transparency.

Thank you for these constructive suggestions. Effect sizes have been added. Non-significant findings are now accompanied by brief explanatory discussion, and confidence intervals have been included in tables to improve statistical transparency.

 

The manuscript is well-organized with clear structure and logical flow throughout. To polish the final presentation, the authors should address the following minor issues: (1) proofread for typographical errors and ensure consistent formatting, particularly in scale names (e.g., uniform presentation of "CSAI-2", "FSS-2", "SMTQ") and reference list entries; (2) improve figure quality by enhancing resolution and label clarity, ensuring all axes, legends, and annotations are fully legible; and (3) standardize the first use of acronyms by providing full definitions followed by abbreviations in parentheses consistently across all sections. These are straightforward formatting improvements that will elevate the manuscript's professional presentation.

We appreciate the reviewer’s attention to these important details. The manuscript has been carefully proofread to correct typographical errors and ensure consistent formatting, particularly for scale names and references. Figures have been revised to improve resolution and label clarity. All acronyms are now consistently defined at first use and standardized throughout the manuscript.

 

Once again, we sincerely thank you for your valuable comments, which have significantly improved the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. We hope that the revisions adequately address your concerns and that the revised version meets your expectations.

Kind regards,
The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript reports an 8-week randomized controlled trial examining whether Tai Chi reduces pre-competition anxiety in athletes and whether this relationship is mediated by flow experience and mental toughness. The study is ambitious and addresses an increasingly relevant area in sport psychology. The sample size is reasonable, the intervention is well described, and the authors attempt to build a theoretically informed chain-mediated model.

However, several substantial conceptual, methodological, and interpretive issues limit confidence in the present conclusions. Major revisions are required to strengthen the theoretical foundations, ensure methodological transparency, and temper the causal claims.

1. Theoretical Framing and the Use of Multidimensional Anxiety Theory

The manuscript treats “pre-competition anxiety” as a single construct, yet the CSAI-2 is explicitly grounded in Multidimensional Anxiety Theory (MAT), comprising cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence. The authors report Cronbach’s alphas for these subscales but subsequently aggregate them into a single composite score. This is conceptually inconsistent with MAT, which predicts distinct temporal patterns and performance implications for each dimension. Somatic anxiety, for example, is highly time-sensitive, while self-confidence is not an anxiety component at all. Collapsing these dimensions risks obscuring meaningful and theoretically important differences. The manuscript would be significantly strengthened by analysing each CSAI-2 subscale separately and interpreting the findings within the MAT framework.

2. Controversy Over the Validity of the CSAI-2

The manuscript should also engage with the long-standing debate concerning the construct validity of the CSAI-2, as this is directly relevant to the authors’ analytic choices. Numerous studies have questioned the stability of its three-factor structure, the cross-loading of items, and the appropriateness of including self-confidence within an anxiety instrument.  

3. Use of Causal Language

Although random allocation was used, the mediation analysis is based solely on post-intervention cross-sectional data. Mediation cannot be causally interpreted under such conditions. Nevertheless, the manuscript frequently uses causal language, e.g., that Tai Chi induces, enhances, builds, or promotes psychological capacities. These claims should be reframed to reflect associative relationships unless a longitudinal or experimental mediation design is employed.

4. Classification of Participants as “Elite Athletes”

The authors describe participants as “elite athletes,” but the inclusion criteria indicate they are more accurately characterised as competitive or national-level athletes. Elite status in sport science typically refers to international or world-class performers, and this sample, drawn from track and field, swimming, Wushu, and gymnastics is not shown to meet such criteria. Because the manuscript draws conclusions for elite sport, accurate terminology is essential. The authors should either provide justification based on accepted definitions or revise their descriptors.

5. Timing of Anxiety Measurement

The CSAI-2 was administered “within 24 hours” before competition. This presents significant methodological challenges:

• Somatic anxiety fluctuates markedly as competition approaches.
• Even cognitive anxiety varies based on travel, training load, and recovery.
• A 24-hour window is too broad to ensure comparability across pre-test and post-test conditions.

The authors should clarify whether measurements were taken at the exact same relative time before competition for each athlete, and whether the competitions  were comparable in significance. Without this, observed changes, particularly in somatic anxiety, may reflect timing differences rather than intervention effects.

6. Missing Randomisation Details

The manuscript states that the athletes were “randomly assigned,” but provides no information about the procedure. To appraise internal validity, the authors must report:

• whether simple, block, or stratified randomisation was used;
• whether individuals or entire training groups were randomised (cluster effects);
• whether allocation was concealed;
• whether randomisation preceded baseline assessments.

Given the diversity of sports represented, stratified randomisation would have been preferable; if not used, this should be acknowledged.

7. Attrition and Sampling Issues

Attrition was high (120 recruited, 86 retained), yet dropout rates by group are not reported. This omission limits trust in group equivalence. Additionally, the sample spans four sports with distinct anxiety profiles, training cultures, and performance demands. At minimum, this heterogeneity should be acknowledged as a limitation; ideally, exploratory subgroup analyses would be conducted.

8. Active Ingredients of Tai Chi: What Mechanisms Are Operating?

The manuscript does not clearly articulate which components of Tai Chi are hypothesised to be responsible for psychological improvements. Tai Chi includes multiple elements; slow coordinated movements, controlled breathing, meditative focus, embodied mindfulness, relaxation, challenge–skill balance, and philosophical framing. Without specifying which components are theoretically active, it is difficult to determine whether Tai Chi is uniquely effective or whether the effects could be reproduced by simpler interventions such as paced breathing, mindfulness training, or low-intensity movement. The authors should clarify which mechanisms they believe drive changes in flow, mental toughness, and anxiety, and connect these mechanisms more explicitly to established theory in sport psychology and contemplative science.

9. Statistical and Analytical Considerations

• Effect sizes in Tables 3 and 4 appear inconsistent and require verification.
• The chain-mediating effect size (≈0.01) is very small and should be interpreted cautiously.

10. Practical and Theoretical Interpretation

Claims regarding neuroplasticity and philosophical influences of Tai Chi, while interesting, require stronger empirical grounding.

The manuscript addresses an important topic and contains promising elements, but substantial revision is necessary. Addressing issues related to the alignment with multidimensional anxiety theory, CSAI-2 validity debates, timing of measurement, randomisation procedures, conceptual clarity on the active ingredients of Tai Chi, and cautious interpretation of mediation will meaningfully strengthen the manuscript.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We sincerely thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript and for your insightful and constructive comments. We greatly appreciate your recognition of the novelty, conceptual clarity, and statistical rigor of our study. In response to your suggestions, we have carefully revised the manuscript. All changes have been highlighted in the revised version. Below, we address each of your comments point by point.

 

This manuscript reports an 8-week randomized controlled trial examining whether Tai Chi reduces pre-competition anxiety in athletes and whether this relationship is mediated by flow experience and mental toughness. The study is ambitious and addresses an increasingly relevant area in sport psychology. The sample size is reasonable, the intervention is well described, and the authors attempt to build a theoretically informed chain-mediated model.

However, several substantial conceptual, methodological, and interpretive issues limit confidence in the present conclusions. Major revisions are required to strengthen the theoretical foundations, ensure methodological transparency, and temper the causal claims.

 

Theoretical Framing and the Use of Multidimensional Anxiety Theory

The manuscript treats “pre-competition anxiety” as a single construct, yet the CSAI-2 is explicitly grounded in Multidimensional Anxiety Theory (MAT), comprising cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence. The authors report Cronbach’s alphas for these subscales but subsequently aggregate them into a single composite score. This is conceptually inconsistent with MAT, which predicts distinct temporal patterns and performance implications for each dimension. Somatic anxiety, for example, is highly time-sensitive, while self-confidence is not an anxiety component at all. Collapsing these dimensions risks obscuring meaningful and theoretically important differences. The manuscript would be significantly strengthened by analysing each CSAI-2 subscale separately and interpreting the findings within the MAT framework.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the insightful and constructive feedback regarding the theoretical framing of our study and the use of the Multidimensional Anxiety Theory (MAT). We agree that a more nuanced analysis of the CSAI-2 subscales can significantly strengthen the manuscript. Below, we provide a detailed point-by-point response and outline the specific modifications we will make to the manuscript to address this valuable comment.

1. Acknowledgment of the Comment's Validity

We fully acknowledge the reviewer's valid point. The CSAI-2 is indeed grounded in Multidimensional Anxiety Theory (MAT), which posits distinct characteristics and functional roles for cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and state self-confidence (Martens, Vealey, & Burton, 1990). As the reviewer correctly notes, these dimensions exhibit different temporal dynamics (e.g., somatic anxiety often peaks closer to performance than cognitive anxiety) and have unique relationships with athletic performance. Our initial approach of aggregating the subscales into a single composite score for the primary mediation analysis was primarily undertaken to present a parsimonious model for the chain-mediating effect, which was the central novel hypothesis of our study (H4). However, we recognize that this approach risks oversimplifying the rich, multidimensional nature of pre-competition anxiety and may obscure differential effects of Tai Chi training on these distinct components.

Response to Reviewer Comments

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the insightful and constructive feedback regarding the theoretical framing of our study and the use of the Multidimensional Anxiety Theory (MAT). We agree that a more nuanced analysis of the CSAI-2 subscales can significantly strengthen the manuscript. Below, we provide a detailed point-by-point response and outline the specific modifications we will make to the manuscript to address this valuable comment.

1. Acknowledgment of the Comment's Validity

We fully acknowledge the reviewer's valid point. The CSAI-2 is indeed grounded in Multidimensional Anxiety Theory (MAT), which posits distinct characteristics and functional roles for cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and state self-confidence (Martens, Vealey, & Burton, 1990). As the reviewer correctly notes, these dimensions exhibit different temporal dynamics (e.g., somatic anxiety often peaks closer to performance than cognitive anxiety) and have unique relationships with athletic performance. Our initial approach of aggregating the subscales into a single composite score for the primary mediation analysis was primarily undertaken to present a parsimonious model for the chain-mediating effect, which was the central novel hypothesis of our study (H4). However, we recognize that this approach risks oversimplifying the rich, multidimensional nature of pre-competition anxiety and may obscure differential effects of Tai Chi training on these distinct components.

2. Detailed Explanation and Planned Revisions

To address this comment thoroughly while minimizing disruptive changes to the core findings, we will make the following revisions to the manuscript:

1. Revision in the Introduction and Theoretical Framework:

We will revise the introduction to more explicitly frame our study within the MAT framework from the outset. We will clarify that while we examine the overarching construct of pre-competition anxiety, we are mindful of its multidimensional nature.

1. Revision in the Method Section:

We will clarify our analytical strategy regarding the CSAI-2 in the Method section.

1. Major Expansion in the Results Section:

This is the core of our revision. We will add a new subsection dedicated to analyzing the effects on each CSAI-2 subscale. We will re-analyze our data to include:

Pre-test homogeneity tests for each of the three CSAI-2 subscales between the experimental and control groups.

Correlation analyses including the three subscales.

Separate repeated-measures ANOVAs or ANCOVAs to examine the Time (T0, T1, T2) x Group (Experimental, Control) interaction effects for cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and state self-confidence. This will directly test the differential impact of Tai Chi on each dimension.

1. Revision in the Discussion Section:

We will significantly expand the discussion to interpret the findings through the lens of MAT. We will explicitly discuss why Tai Chi might have had similar or differential effects on the various anxiety dimensions, linking this back to the proposed mechanisms of Tai Chi (e.g., mindfulness for cognitive anxiety, physiological regulation for somatic anxiety).

 

Controversy Over the Validity of the CSAI-2

The manuscript should also engage with the long-standing debate concerning the construct validity of the CSAI-2, as this is directly relevant to the authors’ analytic choices. Numerous studies have questioned the stability of its three-factor structure, the cross-loading of items, and the appropriateness of including self-confidence within an anxiety instrument.  

We sincerely thank the reviewer for raising this critical point regarding the construct validity of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2). Engaging with this longstanding debate is indeed essential for justifying our analytical choices and strengthening the methodological rigor of our manuscript. We appreciate the opportunity to address this in detail.

Below is our point-by-point response and the specific modifications we will make to the ma1.

1、Acknowledgment and Engagement with the Debate

We completely agree with the reviewer that the scholarly discourse surrounding the CSAI-2's factor structure is a vital aspect of the methodological context. Our manuscript will be significantly improved by explicitly acknowledging this debate, which demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the instrument's strengths and limitations.

Our Position and Rationale:​ While alternatives and criticisms exist, the CSAI-2 remains one of the most widely used and validated instruments for measuring multidimensional competitive anxiety in sport psychology research. Its extensive use provides a common framework for comparing findings across studies. Our decision to employ it was based on its established reliability, its direct grounding in Multidimensional Anxiety Theory (MAT)—which aligns with our study's theoretical scope—and its proven applicability to athletic populations, including elite athletes similar to our sample.nuscript.

2、Detailed Explanation and Planned Revisions

To address this comment thoroughly, we will integrate a discussion of the CSAI-2's validity debate into the manuscript, primarily within the Method​ section, and briefly reflect on it in the Limitations​ section. These additions will demonstrate scholarly rigor without disrupting the core narrative of our findings.

1. Revision in the Method Section (Research Tools - Pre-competition anxiety):

We will add a paragraph that acknowledges the debate, cites key literature on both sides, and explains our specific steps to ensure the instrument's validity in the context of our study.

1. Revision in the Discussion/Limitations Section:

We will add a sentence to the "Research Limitations and Future Directions" subsection to frame the use of the CSAI-2 as a considered choice within the field's methodological landscape.

 

 

Use of Causal Language

Although random allocation was used, the mediation analysis is based solely on post-intervention cross-sectional data. Mediation cannot be causally interpreted under such conditions. Nevertheless, the manuscript frequently uses causal language, e.g., that Tai Chi induces, enhances, builds, or promotes psychological capacities. These claims should be reframed to reflect associative relationships unless a longitudinal or experimental mediation design is employed.

Response to Reviewer Comments

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this astute and critically important methodological comment regarding the use of causal language in our manuscript. We agree entirely that the interpretation of mediation analyses must be carefully aligned with the research design, and we appreciate the opportunity to clarify and refine our language to enhance the scholarly rigor of the paper.

Below, we provide a detailed point-by-point response and outline the specific modifications we will make throughout the manuscript to address this concern.

1. Acknowledgment and Agreement with the Reviewer's Point

We fully acknowledge the validity of the reviewer's comment. Although our study employed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design, which allows for causal inferences regarding the direct effectof the Tai Chi intervention on the outcome variable (pre-competition anxiety), the mediator variables (flow experience and mental toughness) were measured concurrently with the outcome variable at the same post-intervention time points (T1 and T2). As correctly noted by the reviewer, and in line with established methodological literature (e.g., Maxwell & Cole, 2007), mediation analysis based on such cross-sectional mediator-outcome data cannot definitively establish causality in the mediation pathways themselves. The temporal precedence of the mediator over the outcome is a key requirement for causal mediation inference, which our design cannot firmly establish. Therefore, the use of strong causal language (e.g., "induces," "enhances," "promotes") to describe the relationships within the mediation chain is indeed an overstatement for our specific analytical setup.

Here are specific examples of revisions we will make, drawn directly from the manuscript:

1. Revisions in the Abstract:

Original Text:​ "Conclusion: Tai Chi training could alleviate pre-competition anxiety in elite athletes through the chain-mediating mechanism of enhancing flow experience and mental toughness."

Revised Text:​ "Conclusion: Tai Chi training was associated with a reduction in pre-competition anxiety in elite athletes, and this relationship was statistically mediated by a sequential pathway involving flow experience and mental toughness."

Justification:Replaces the causal "through the mechanism of enhancing" with the associative "was associated with" and the statistically descriptive "statistically mediated by a sequential pathway."

1. Revisions in the Results Section (and similar instances in the text):

Original Text (inference from results):​ "This result... indicating that Tai Chi training indirectly reduces pre-competition anxiety through the chain path of 'enhancing flow experience→ improving psychological resilience'..."

Revised Text:​ "This result is consistent with a model in which the effect of Tai Chi training on pre-competition anxiety is indirectly conveyed through a chain pathway involving flow experience and mental toughness."

Justification:Replaces "reduces through" with "is indirectly conveyed through," which describes the statistical model without asserting a causal mechanism.

1. Revisions in the Discussion Section (Multiple Instances):

This section requires the most careful revision, as it is where interpretation is most prominent.

Example 1:

Original Text:​ "Tai Chi induces physiological calmness by affecting the activity of the autonomic nervous system."

Revised Text:​ "The practice of Tai Chi was associated with physiological calmness, which may be explained by its observed effects on the autonomic nervous system."

Justification:Changes the strong causal verb "induces" to the observed association "was associated with" and softens the explanation to "may be explained by."

Example 2:

Original Text:​ "By promoting deep focus, challenge and self-mastery, Tai Chi will not only improve performance, but also increase athletes' emotional resilience..."

Revised Text:​ "The deep focus, challenge, and self-mastery involved in Tai Chi practice were associated with improved performance and greater emotional resilience among athletes..."

Justification:Replaces the predictive "will improve/increase" with the descriptive "were associated with."

Example 3 (Crucial for the mediation finding):

Original Text:​ "The most important finding was that a serial mediation pathway passing through flow experience and mental toughness was confirmed... This serial mediation pathway explains the enduring effects of Tai Chi training interventions..."

Revised Text:​ "A key finding was that the data were consistent with a serial mediation model in which flow experience and mental toughness sequentially linked Tai Chi training to pre-competition anxiety. This proposed pathway offers a plausible explanation for the enduring effects observed following the Tai Chi intervention."

Classification of Participants as “Elite Athletes”

The authors describe participants as “elite athletes,” but the inclusion criteria indicate they are more accurately characterised as competitive or national-level athletes. Elite status in sport science typically refers to international or world-class performers, and this sample, drawn from track and field, swimming, Wushu, and gymnastics is not shown to meet such criteria. Because the manuscript draws conclusions for elite sport, accurate terminology is essential. The authors should either provide justification based on accepted definitions or revise their descriptors.

Planned Revisions to Address the Comment

To address this comment thoroughly and accurately, we will implement the following revisions, which prioritize terminological precision over a potentially contentious defense of the original wording.

Revision of Terminology Throughout the Manuscript:

We will replace the term "elite athletes" with a more accurate descriptor in the Title, Abstract, Keywords, and the main text​ (Introduction, Method, Results, Discussion).

Primary Replacement Term:​ We will use "High-level competitive Athletes" as the primary terms. These are widely recognized and accurately reflect our inclusion criteria.

Timing of Anxiety Measurement

The CSAI-2 was administered “within 24 hours” before competition. This presents significant methodological challenges:

Somatic anxiety fluctuates markedly as competition approaches.

Even cognitive anxiety varies based on travel, training load, and recovery.

A 24-hour window is too broad to ensure comparability across pre-test and post-test conditions.

The authors should clarify whether measurements were taken at the exact same relative time before competition for each athlete, and whether the competitions  were comparable in significance. Without this, observed changes, particularly in somatic anxiety, may reflect timing differences rather than intervention effects.

1. Acknowledgment and Agreement with the Reviewer's Point

We fully agree with the reviewer that the 24-hour measurement window for the CSAI-2 presents a potential confounding factor. The reviewer is absolutely correct that somatic anxiety, in particular, exhibits significant fluctuations in the immediate hours leading up to competition, and even cognitive anxiety can be influenced by final preparations and situational factors. Without stringent control over the exact timing of measurement relative to the competition start, observed changes could indeed reflect differences in assessment timing rather than the true effect of the Tai Chi intervention. This is a recognized challenge in field-based sport psychology research.

2. Detailed Explanation of Original Procedure and Its Rationale

In our study, we aimed to measure pre-competitionstate anxiety, which is conceptually distinct from general trait anxiety. The instruction for the CSAI-2 is to assess "how you feel right now" in relation to an upcoming competition. To balance ecological validity (capturing anxiety in a real competitive context) with practical feasibility in a group of athletes with varying competition schedules, we designated the 24-hour period prior to each athlete's scheduled event as the assessment window.

However, we acknowledge that stating "within 24 hours" was an oversimplification. In practice, we implemented a more structured protocol to enhance consistency, which was not adequately described in the original manuscript. For all participants, across all measurement timepoints (T0, T1, T2), the CSAI-2 was administered during a standardized team meeting held at the competition venue on the day before the event, approximately 12-16 hours​ before the start of the athlete's specific competition. The competitions themselves were all official, scheduled national-level events of similar significance (e.g., National Athletics Championships, National Swimming Championships), as required by our inclusion criterion of participating in national-level competitions.

Missing Randomisation Details

The manuscript states that the athletes were “randomly assigned,” but provides no information about the procedure. To appraise internal validity, the authors must report:

whether simple, block, or stratified randomisation was used;

whether individuals or entire training groups were randomised (cluster effects);

whether allocation was concealed;

whether randomisation preceded baseline assessments.

Given the diversity of sports represented, stratified randomisation would have been preferable; if not used, this should be acknowledged.

We acknowledge that the original statement "randomly assigned" was insufficiently detailed. The reviewer's request for specific information about the randomization type, unit, concealment, and timing is entirely justified by the CONSORT guidelines for reporting RCTs. We will rectify this by adding a new subsection within the Method​ section, titled "Randomization Procedure," to provide full transparency.

Attrition and Sampling Issues

Attrition was high (120 recruited, 86 retained), yet dropout rates by group are not reported. This omission limits trust in group equivalence. Additionally, the sample spans four sports with distinct anxiety profiles, training cultures, and performance demands. At minimum, this heterogeneity should be acknowledged as a limitation; ideally, exploratory subgroup analyses would be conducted.

The reviewer is correct that we recruited 120 participants and retained 86 for analysis, resulting in an overall attrition rate of 28.3%. We will now report the specific dropout numbers and reasons for each group.

Active Ingredients of Tai Chi: What Mechanisms Are Operating?

The manuscript does not clearly articulate which components of Tai Chi are hypothesised to be responsible for psychological improvements. Tai Chi includes multiple elements; slow coordinated movements, controlled breathing, meditative focus, embodied mindfulness, relaxation, challenge–skill balance, and philosophical framing. Without specifying which components are theoretically active, it is difficult to determine whether Tai Chi is uniquely effective or whether the effects could be reproduced by simpler interventions such as paced breathing, mindfulness training, or low-intensity movement. The authors should clarify which mechanisms they believe drive changes in flow, mental toughness, and anxiety, and connect these mechanisms more explicitly to established theory in sport psychology and contemplative science.

We will integrate this elaborated theoretical framing into the manuscript, primarily in the Introduction​ and Discussion​ sections, with more precise language throughout.

We will add a new paragraph specifically dedicated to hypothesizing the active components.

Statistical and Analytical Considerations

Effect sizes in Tables 3 and 4 appear inconsistent and require verification.

The chain-mediating effect size (≈0.01) is very small and should be interpreted cautiously.

Practical and Theoretical Interpretation

Claims regarding neuroplasticity and philosophical influences of Tai Chi, while interesting, require stronger empirical grounding.

The manuscript addresses an important topic and contains promising elements, but substantial revision is necessary. Addressing issues related to the alignment with multidimensional anxiety theory, CSAI-2 validity debates, timing of measurement, randomisation procedures, conceptual clarity on the active ingredients of Tai Chi, and cautious interpretation of mediation will meaningfully strengthen the manuscript.

Thank you for your feedback. We have reviewed and revised Tables 3 and 4. Additionally, although the mediating effect size is small, a significant difference remains, indicating that the chain mediating effect is still meaningful.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

1. Strengths

1. The article presents a well-designed randomized controlled trial, clearly exposing sample characteristics, measurement instruments, and analytic procedures.
2. The manuscript contains a strong theoretical foundation, integrating concepts of Tai Chi, flow experience, mental toughness, and anxiety.
3. The statistical analyses are robust and follow established mediation testing procedures (Baron & Kenny; Hayes).
4. The literature review is comprehensive and updated, reflecting recent studies (2021–2025).

 

2. Areas for Improvement

1. Discussion section could be more succinct. Although thorough, it occasionally repeats concepts already stated in earlier sections.
2. The distinction between flow experience and fluency experience appears inconsistent in wording and may confuse readers. Standardizing terminology is recommended.
3. The manuscript references psychological resilience, but the construct actually measured is mental toughness. This conceptual overlap may require clarification.
4. The serial mediation effect found is statistically significant but very small. The authors should explicitly discuss practical significance and effect size implications.
5. In Methods, the timeline for the SMTQ (baseline, 6 weeks, 12 weeks) differs from the intervention timeline (8 weeks). This may require explanation to avoid methodological ambiguity.

3. Minor Observations

1. A few formatting inconsistencies in tables (alignment, spacing).
2. Figures could benefit from updated captions clarifying variable flow.

 

Overall, the article is scientifically sound, methodologically rigorous and clearly written, requiring only moderate refinement.

I Remain at your Disposal

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

The article presents a well-designed randomized controlled trial, clearly exposing sample characteristics, measurement instruments, and analytic procedures.

The manuscript contains a strong theoretical foundation, integrating concepts of Tai Chi, flow experience, mental toughness, and anxiety.

The statistical analyses are robust and follow established mediation testing procedures (Baron & Kenny; Hayes).

The literature review is comprehensive and updated, reflecting recent studies (2021–2025).

We sincerely thank Reviewer for the positive evaluation of our manuscript and for the thoughtful, constructive comments. We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s recognition of the study’s theoretical grounding, methodological rigor, and statistical procedures. Below, we respond to each point raised and describe how the manuscript has been refined accordingly.

 

2. Areas for Improvement

Discussion section could be more succinct. Although thorough, it occasionally repeats concepts already stated in earlier sections.

Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have carefully revised the Discussion section to improve conciseness and readability. Redundant explanations of theoretical concepts already introduced in the Introduction have been reduced, while the focus has been shifted toward interpretation of findings, integration with prior research, and practical implications.

 

The distinction between flow experience and fluency experience appears inconsistent in wording and may confuse readers. Standardizing terminology is recommended.

We appreciate the reviewer for identifying this important issue. The manuscript has been revised to standardize terminology throughout.

 

The manuscript references psychological resilience, but the construct actually measured is mental toughness. This conceptual overlap may require clarification.

Thank you for this insightful observation. We have clarified this conceptual distinction in the revised manuscript. While psychological resilience and mental toughness share overlapping characteristics, the present study specifically operationalizes mental toughness as measured by the SMTQ. References to psychological resilience have been revised or contextualized to ensure conceptual precision and consistency with the measurement instrument used.

The serial mediation effect found is statistically significant but very small. The authors should explicitly discuss practical significance and effect size implications.

In the revised Discussion, we now explicitly address the small effect size of the serial mediation pathway and discuss its practical significance. We emphasize that, in elite sport contexts where performance and psychological outcomes are influenced by multiple interacting factors, even small effects may hold practical relevance when interventions are low-risk, low-cost, and scalable.

 

In Methods, the timeline for the SMTQ (baseline, 6 weeks, 12 weeks) differs from the intervention timeline (8 weeks). This may require explanation to avoid methodological ambiguity.

Thank you for noting this potential ambiguity. We have added a clear explanation in the Methods section.

 

3. Minor Observations

A few formatting inconsistencies in tables (alignment, spacing).

Figures could benefit from updated captions clarifying variable flow.

We appreciate these helpful suggestions. All tables have been reformatted to ensure consistent alignment and spacing, and figure captions have been revised to more clearly describe variable flow and analytic structure.

 

Overall, the article is scientifically sound, methodologically rigorous and clearly written, requiring only moderate refinement.

I Remain at your Disposal

Once again, we sincerely thank Reviewer for the positive assessment and constructive feedback. The suggested refinements have helped us further improve the clarity, conceptual precision, and interpretability of the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has improved substantially since the first submission. The authors have engaged seriously with the previous critiques and have strengthened the paper conceptually, methodologically, and analytically. In particular, they have clarified the theoretical framework, improved transparency around randomisation and attrition, addressed long-standing concerns about the CSAI-2, and articulated the hypothesised active ingredients of Tai Chi. This is now a credible and thoughtful contribution to the sport psychology literature.

That said, a small number of conceptual and methodological clarifications remain, primarily around (a) the operationalisation of anxiety, and (b) the administration of the CSAI-2 within the 24-hour pre-competition window. These issues do not undermine the study, but they should be addressed to maximise clarity and rigour.

Remaining Issues Requiring Clarification

1. How Is “Anxiety” Ultimately Operationalised?

The manuscript now uses two parallel operationalisations of anxiety:

• A multidimensional approach, analysing cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence separately (consistent with MAT).
• A composite “pre-competition anxiety” score (derived from CSAI-2 subscales) used in the chain-mediation model for parsimony.

While the authors now justify this choice, the conceptual tension remains. Self-confidence is not an anxiety component, and summing it with cognitive and somatic anxiety is theoretically debatable. This is not uncommon in the literature, but it does require clear explanation.

The authors should:

• Explicitly state how the composite score was constructed, including whether self-confidence was reverse-scored.
• More clearly explain why the composite score is theoretically meaningful in addition to the MAT-consistent subscale analyses, rather than appearing to override them.

2. Administration of the CSAI-2 Within the 24-Hour Window

The manuscript states that the CSAI-2 was administered within 24 hours prior to competition, and that athletes were given instructions to report their current state of anxiety. However, it remains unclear how this was operationalised in practice.

Specifically, the paper does not state:

• whether the CSAI-2 was completed online or in person,
• whether completion was supervised or unsupervised,
• whether responses were time-stamped or monitored to ensure adherence to the 24-hour window,
• whether completion conditions (location, distractions, proximity to training) were standardised.

This matters because context and timing strongly influence CSAI-2 responses, particularly somatic anxiety.

Please clarify in the Methods:

• the mode of administration (online survey vs. paper-based),
• how athletes received instructions,
• whether completion conditions were standardised or verified,
• how compliance with the 24-hour criterion was ensured.

3. “Elite” vs High-Level Competitive Athletes

The authors have improved their operational definition of “elite” and occasionally soften the language to “high-level competitive athletes.” However, the term “elite” is still used throughout, despite the sample being national-level competitors across multiple sports.

This is now more a terminological precision issue than a substantive flaw.

• The authors should consistently adopt “high-level competitive athletes” to align with international conventions.

Interpretation and Causal Language

The discussion is more measured than in Version 1, and the authors appropriately acknowledge small effect sizes and the gradual nature of trait-level change. Some mediation language should still be softened.

The manuscript has improved markedly and now demonstrates theoretical awareness, methodological transparency, and analytical competence. The remaining issues are primarily clarificatory and conceptual rather than fundamental. Addressing them will strengthen an already solid revised submission.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We sincerely thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript and for your insightful and constructive comments. We greatly appreciate your recognition of the novelty, conceptual clarity, and statistical rigor of our study. In response to your suggestions, we have carefully revised the manuscript. All changes have been highlighted in the revised version. Below, we address each of your comments point by point.

 

1. Operational Definition of Anxiety

We used the composite score of CSAI-2 as the dependent variable. This score was calculated by summing the scores of the cognitive and somatic anxiety subscales, and incorporating the reverse-scored state confidence subscale to reflect overall anxiety levels (higher scores indicate higher anxiety). This operationalization aligns with the multidimensional anxiety model, as state confidence serves as a negative indicator of anxiety.

2. Details of CSAI-2 administration within 24 hours prior to the competition

The CSAI-2 was administered via paper-based questionnaires, completed on-site by trained research assistants within 24 hours prior to the competition. Athletes filled out the questionnaires in a quiet, undisturbed room, with completion time recorded to ensure compliance with the time window requirements. All participants received identical verbal instructions to report their current anxiety status.

3. On the Unification of the Term "Elite Athletes"

Replace 'elite athletes' with 'high-level competitive athletes' throughout the text (e.g., abstract, introduction, methods), while retaining the original operational definitions in the methods section (e.g., registered athletes, training duration, etc.) to ensure terminological consistency.

4. On the Softening of Causal Language

We revised key statements in the discussion. For example, we changed the original sentence 'Tai Chi training reduces pre-competition anxiety...' to 'Tai Chi training is associated with a reduction in pre-competition anxiety...'. Similarly, we revised 'flow experience mediates the relationship' to 'flow experience serves as a mediator in the relationship' to emphasize relevance rather than causality.

Once again, we sincerely thank you for your valuable comments, which have significantly improved the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. We hope that the revisions adequately address your concerns and that the revised version meets your expectations.

Kind regards,
The Authors