Pre-Competition Stress in Female Volleyball Players: The Role of Experience, Sleep, and Coping

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript explores an important and timely topic related to pre-competition stress, sleep quality, and coping strategies in female volleyball players. The subject is highly relevant to sports psychology and athlete mental health, and the work provides interesting results with practical value. That said, several sections could be clarified or expanded in order to strengthen the scientific rigor and improve the overall readability of the paper. Below, I outline a number of suggestions point-by-point that may help refine the manuscript.

Table 1 – Numerical inconsistencies and formatting

Some of the descriptive values in Table 1 appear unusual or incorrect (the age mean reported as M = 6.67, for example). It would be helpful to thoroughly review all values, check decimal positioning, and correct any transcription or formatting errors. Presenting results with consistent decimal precision would also make the table clearer and easier to interpret.

Statistical reporting

Important statistical information is currently missing. Reporting effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals would greatly improve interpretation of the findings, as these indices indicate the strength and reliability of effects. Please consider adding ηp² for ANOVA outcomes and standardized β with CIs for regression results.

Correlation structure between variables

Because the regression analysis forms a key part of the results, adding a correlation matrix between the main variables (stress, sleep quality, coping strategies, and experience) would make the statistical reasoning more transparent. A simple Pearson/Spearman correlation table or graphical heatmap would help readers visualize how variables relate to one another and confirm that multicollinearity is not an issue.

Methodological clarity

The methods section could be expanded to improve understanding of how data were collected. It would be useful to specify how participants were recruited, whether they completed questionnaires individually or in a team context, and whether a researcher supervised data collection. Clarifying whether contextual factors such as match importance, training load, academic pressure, time of season, or even menstrual cycle were recorded or considered would also add valuable context. A short note on how common response biases (self-report tendencies, fatigue, social desirability) were minimized would further strengthen this section.

It is also unclear whether the menstrual cycle phase was taken into consideration during data collection. Since hormonal fluctuations across the cycle can influence sleep patterns, perceived stress, emotional reactivity, fatigue, and cognitive functioning in female athletes, this factor may have had an impact on the measured outcomes. If menstrual status was not monitored, it would be important to state this clearly and discuss its potential effects on the results. Including a brief reflection in the Discussion or Limitations section on how different cycle phases (e.g., follicular vs. luteal) might alter sleep quality, stress perception, or coping behaviors would provide greater methodological transparency and strengthen the interpretation of findings.

Interpretation of the “seeking support” finding

The association between support-seeking and higher stress levels is one of the more interesting results in the paper, but it deserves a deeper interpretation. It may be useful to consider whether athletes seek support because they feel stressed (reactive coping), to distinguish emotional versus instrumental support, or to discuss whether support quality is more relevant than frequency. It could also be explored whether less experienced players depend more strongly on external reassurance, which could help explain this relationship.

Practical applications

The practical relevance of the study could be enhanced by adding a short section in the conclusion with concrete recommendations for practitioners. Ideas might include implementing sleep hygiene routines before competition, using coping-skills training programs, monitoring sleep and stress throughout the season, or offering additional psychological support to younger athletes. Such additions would make the paper more actionable for coaches and sport psychologists.

Writing quality and reference formatting

The manuscript is generally well written, but a light language edit could improve flow, sentence clarity, and overall readability. I also encourage a careful review of the reference list to ensure consistent formatting (punctuation, DOI style, journal name formatting, etc.).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is clear overall, although some sentences are quite long and could be shortened or restructured for smoother reading. A light to moderate language edit would help improve clarity and flow across the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

The manuscript addresses an important topic in female athlete health and is generally well structured. However, several methodological clarifications and corrections, especially regarding descriptive statistics and regression outputs, are required before the study can be adequately evaluated. I recommend Major Revision.

Introduction

1. The introduction is generally well structured, but some paragraphs are overly descriptive. I recommend sharpening the conceptual rationale by explicitly outlining:

• why combining sleep, coping, and sport experience is theoretically important.
• why female volleyball players represent a particularly relevant population.

2. Several key statements rely on studies older than 10 years. Please integrate more recent evidence (2022–2025), especially on:

• pre-competition anxiety in female athletes,
• sleep–stress interactions,
• coping in team sports.
• The author may consider integrating recent evidence as: https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17182946 , DOI:https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2024-0160 , https://doi.org/10.1080/07420528.2021.1927072

3. A few paragraphs are repetitive (e.g., sleep–stress bidirectionality is discussed twice). Please condense redundant areas to improve readability.
4. Sport experience is introduced but not theoretically justified enough. Please articulate why experience is expected to predict stress, referencing cognitive appraisal and coping development theories.
5. The aim is clear, but the Introduction could end with a short paragraph summarizing:

• gaps in existing literature,
• how this study addresses them,
• and the specific hypotheses.

Methods

1. Table 1 contains numeric errors: There appear to be clear typographical/data inconsistencies (e.g., age values “6.67 ± 2.34”). Please check and correct all values. Otherwise, the descriptive statistics cannot be interpreted reliably.
2. The recruitment strategy is described briefly. Please specify:

• how many clubs were contacted,
• approximate response rate,
• whether participation was voluntary or mediated by coaches.

3. Because the survey was completed three days before a match, the authors should clarify:

• whether this was standardized across teams,
• whether match importance (league game vs. decisive match) was controlled.

4. Please provide a short justification for using PSS-4 and PSQI in athletes, referencing their limitations (mentioned in Discussion but needed here).
5. More detail needed in statistical analysis. I recommend reporting:

• how missing data were handled,
• whether ANOVA assumptions (homogeneity of variance) were tested,
• rationale for stepwise regression vs. hierarchical or theory-driven models.

6. Control variables: given the topic, you may need to clarify whether: training load, recent travel, injuries or illness were recorded or controlled.

Results

1. As noted, Table 1 contains inconsistencies and must be corrected before interpreting results.
2. For each ANOVA, please specify: degrees of freedom, effect size (η²p) in standardized format, and check whether assumptions were met.
3. In Table 2:

• the β coefficients and t-values should have consistent decimal formatting,
• please check whether the sign for the “seeking support” β is correctly reported (in text, one line says β = .23 but with negative t).

This inconsistency must be corrected.

4. For all regression coefficients, 95% CI would improve interpretability, as recommended by MDPI guidelines.

Discussion

1. The result that support-seeking predicts higher stress deserves deeper analysis. Please discuss:

• reactive vs. proactive support-seeking,
• the potential for reverse causality,
• quality and availability of social support within teams,
• how this aligns or conflicts with existing literature.

2. Current comparisons are present but could be expanded to include recent findings on:

• female athletes’ vulnerability to sleep disruption,
• experience-dependent coping development,
• psychological skills in elite vs. sub-elite players.

3. The manuscript would benefit from clearer applied implications relevant to:

• sport psychologists,
• coaches,
• medical/health staff.

For example, explain how sleep monitoring or coping skills training could be integrated in pre-competition routines.

4. Some paragraphs slightly overlap (e.g., sleep prevalence and its implications). Consider reorganizing around themes:

• stress and experience,
• sleep and stress,
• coping patterns,
• integrative interpretation.

You mention some limitations, but this section needs stronger emphasis:

• cross-sectional design (no causality),
• self-report bias,
• lack of sport-specific measurement tools,
• possible sampling bias (voluntary participation and purposive sampling),
• no control for training load or match importance.

     Conclusions

1. The conclusions are reasonable but still somewhat general. Please link each major conclusion explicitly to the key findings (experience → stress; sleep quality → stress; support-seeking → stress).
2. Please consider to add one sentence on how sports organisations could implement psychological and sleep-related interventions.
3. Could be useful add suggestions such as: longitudinal monitoring, combining objective sleep measures (actigraphy), intervention-based designs.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript Title: Pre-Competition Stress in FemaleVolleyball Players: The Role of Experience, Sleep, andCoping.

Overall Assessment:

This study is valuable for its simultaneous examination of thecomplex relationships between pre-competition stress, sleepquality, experience, and coping strategies in professionalfemale volleyball players. The finding that approximately 60% of players, even in top leagues, suffer from poor sleep qualityis a significant clinical implication. However, the cross-sectional nature of the study and the general validity of thepsychometric tools used create major limitations that requirecareful interpretation of the results.

Abstract

• Causal Language: The abstract states that athleticexperience, sleep quality, and the coping strategy of seeking social support "predicted" perceived stress. A cross-sectional design can only demonstrate associationsor correlations between variables; it cannot establishdefinitive causality. Therefore, it is recommended to usemore cautious terms such as "associated with" or"explained variance in" instead of "predicted". • Social Support Interpretation (Critical Point): Thefinding that the coping strategy of seeking social supportis associated with higher stress is highly significant andinitially counterintuitive. The abstract shouldimmediately clarify that this relationship does not implythat seeking support increases stress, but rather reflects a bidirectional process where athletes experiencing highstress tend to seek support.

2. Materials and Methods

• Study Design and Data Collection: o Lack of Power Analysis (Critical Deficiency):Although a regression analysis was conducted withN=91 participants, there is no information indicatingthat a power analysis was performed to determinethe sample size. This deficiency calls into questionthe risk of Type II error and the statistical power of the findings. This issue should be stated morestrongly in the limitations section. o Timing and Context: Data were collected three daysbefore the match. While this is an appropriatewindow to capture acute stress, the use of thePittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), whichassesses sleep quality over the past month, creates a discrepancy between the timing of measurement andthe nature of the scale. This scale may not be ideal for measuring acute pre-competition sleepdisturbances. • Measurement Tools (Critique of PSS-4 and PSQI): o Lack of Sport-Specificity: The authors noted as a limitation that the PSS-4 and PSQI are not specificto the sport context. However, a extremely shortgeneral stress scale like the Perceived Stress Scale(PSS-4), consisting of only four items, will struggleto distinguish with sufficient sensitivity the nuancedstressors of competitive sport, such as evaluativepressure, role conflicts, and technical coordination. It should be explained why more widely used sport-specific anxiety scales (e.g., CSAI-2R or SCAT) were not preferred.

4. Discussion

• Lack of Stress and Sleep Differences Between Leagues:The findings showed no significant difference in perceived stress or sleep quality between top-tier leagues(Tauron) and lower leagues. The discussion attributes thisto athletes in higher leagues using mental techniquesmore frequently (cognitive reframing, relaxation, etc.), suggesting that advanced coping strategiescounterbalance increased competitive pressures. This is one of the paper's strongest theoretical implications. • Relationship Between Support Seeking and Stress: Thediscussion thoroughly addresses why seeking socialsupport is positively associated with high stress. Theauthors' cautious interpretation that this may be a sign of increased tension or a consequence of high stress, ratherthan an effective coping strategy per se, should be supported. This critical distinction must be emphasized toprevent readers from making causal errors.

Additional Notes: Use of AI (For the Editor)

• The Acknowledgements section clearly states that theauthor used AI tools such as ChatGPT, DeepL, Grammarly, Elicit AI, and Scite Assistant during thewriting, language editing, and literature review processes. • The author's statement that they verified the output andtook full responsibility for the content is ethicallycommendable. However, the editor should verify whetherthis information should remain only in the"Acknowledgements" section or if, according to journalpolicies, it requires more visible reporting under a specific subheading in the "Materials and Methods" section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful revisions. All previously raised concerns have been adequately addressed, including corrections to descriptive statistics, clarification of methodological procedures, expanded theoretical rationale, and deeper interpretation of coping and sleep findings. The manuscript is now clearer, more rigorous, and well aligned with MDPI Healthcare standards. I have no further scientific concerns and I support publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your revisions.