Situational and Dispositional Achievement Goals’ Relationships with Measures of State and Trait Sport Confidence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, this is a solid, methodologically rigorous manuscript that offers a meaningful contribution to the field of sport psychology. However, it requires certain adjustments in methodological clarity, interpretative caution, and narrative presentation in order to reach its full potential. From an editorial perspective, the most suitable recommendation would be to accept the article after minor revisions aimed at strengthening these aspects.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a systematic review with meta-analysis on the relationships between situational and dispositional achievement goal involvement, within the framework of the dichotomous Achievement Goal Theory, and self-confidence in competitive athletes. The topic is relevant and timely for sport psychology, the prior registration in PROSPERO and the PRISMA-aligned reporting are clear strengths, and the meta-analytic work is technically competent. The number of included studies is reasonable, the samples are large, and the use of prediction intervals, study quality assessment, and different bias diagnostics shows methodological care.

At the same time, several important aspects require improvement before the manuscript is ready for publication. The main weakness, in my view, is conceptual clarity around what you call “confidence” or “self-confidence”. There are moments when confidence, self-confidence, and self-efficacy seem to be treated as quite similar, whereas the instruments used in the included studies are not conceptually identical. It would be helpful to define the construct of self-confidence more precisely in this review, to explain how it differs from related constructs such as self-efficacy, perceived competence, and self-esteem, and to indicate more explicitly which measures were grouped under this label. A brief mapping between the main instruments employed for confidence (for example, the CSAI-2 confidence subscale, Vealey-type sport confidence measures, and other confidence-related scales) and the concept that guides the meta-analysis would enable the reader to judge the conceptual coherence of the outcome better.

The introduction is informative and well-grounded, but it feels long and redundant. There are repetitions of basic principles of Achievement Goal Theory and of information on previous meta-analyses that could be condensed without loss of content. I suggest reducing the literature review to what is strictly necessary to motivate the present study and making the specific gap more explicit. For example, stating early on that there was still no meta-analysis explicitly focused on confidence, in competitive athletes, within the dichotomous AGT framework would give the reader a more immediate sense of the originality of the work.

The methods are generally clearly described, but a few points would benefit from greater precision. In particular, there is not enough detail on how “competitive athletes” were operationalized. It would be essential to clarify whether there were any minimum criteria related to competitive level, type of competition, or training frequency, and how studies with mixed samples were handled in such cases. It would also be useful to present, perhaps in a table, the distribution of competitive levels in the included samples, since this has direct implications for the generalizability of the findings. Still within the methodological domain, the search strategy appears adequate; however, the treatment of language and literature types could be presented in a more integrated manner. You already note that studies not written in English were translated using Google Translate and, in the limitations, that you did not specifically search for foreign-language articles; it may help readers if these points, along with whether grey literature such as theses and conference proceedings was included or excluded, are pulled together and made fully explicit.

The study quality assessment, based on Kmet et al., is a welcome addition; however, I would have appreciated a more direct integration of these scores into the interpretation of the results. The quality ratings were used essentially in a descriptive way. It would be helpful to clearly state whether these scores informed any sensitivity analyses and, if not, to discuss the reasons and potential implications. Even a simple comparison of pooled effects with and without the lowest-quality studies could provide additional information to qualify the conclusions. It would also be helpful to summarize the overall quality profile of the studies in the text, for example, by reporting the median and range of scores, so that the reader is not dependent solely on the figure.

Another methodological aspect that deserves more detail is the classification of measures into state and trait confidence. You report interesting results showing stronger associations for trait measures, but it is not entirely clear how this classification was made for each instrument. Explain more explicitly the rationale used to classify the measures, indicating, for instance, how CSAI-2 subscales and more general sport confidence scales were treated, and clarifying how more contextual or situational instruments were handled. It would be beneficial to include in the supplementary material a list of all confidence measures used in the included studies, with their respective classification.

In the results section, the structure is clear and informative, with an appropriate description of effect sizes, confidence intervals, heterogeneity, and different complementary analyses. However, the narrative should give more prominence to the fact that the prediction intervals cross zero in many cases, indicating that in a substantial number of future samples, the association may be weak or even negligible. The correlations you report are mainly small to moderate in magnitude, and this information should be more prominent, especially in the abstract and in the discussion, to avoid giving the impression of more robust and uniform effects than the data actually support.

The discussion as a whole effectively engages with the literature and attempts to integrate the findings into a broader framework of sport psychology. Even so, I see two central issues that need more careful revision. The first is the use of language that suggests causality when the underlying evidence is essentially correlational. In several passages, the reader may infer that operating in a task-oriented climate “increases” or “builds” confidence, or that an ego-oriented environment is directly “harmful” to confidence, when the available data mainly do not allow such causal inferences. I recommend systematically rephrasing these parts to emphasize associations and to avoid causal extrapolations. The same care is needed when implying that increasing confidence necessarily improves performance or well-being, especially if these outcomes were not directly assessed in the included studies.

The second issue concerns how limitations and heterogeneity are incorporated into the conclusions. You already mentioned that there is heterogeneity and that the prediction intervals cross zero. Still, this observation does not occupy the central place that, in my view, it should have in formulating practical implications. It is essential to make it very clear, in the conclusions and in the applied messages aimed at coaches and practitioners, that the observed effects are modest, that they vary across contexts, and that one cannot assume that task climates and orientations will produce substantial increases in confidence in every case. I recommend revisiting, especially the final paragraphs and the abstract, so that the tone of the conclusions is rigorously aligned with the strength and the uncertainty of the available evidence.

Regarding structure and writing style, the manuscript is well-organized into sections, but it would benefit from a slightly leaner and more direct approach. There is some repetition of information and several long sentences with many embedded clauses that can make reading more demanding. A revision oriented toward concision, with division of very long sentences and elimination of redundancies, would make the text more fluent without compromising rigor. I also suggest revising the transitions between different parts of the discussion so that it becomes more apparent to the reader when you are summarizing results, discussing implications, pointing out limitations, or outlining future directions.

Overall, this study has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to the literature on motivation and confidence in sport, supported by a registered protocol, transparent systematic review practices, and a meta-analysis conducted with care. With greater conceptual precision regarding the construct of confidence, more cautious causal language, a stronger integration of heterogeneity and study quality into the interpretation of findings, and some adjustments to the writing for concision and clarity, the manuscript can become considerably more solid and convincing.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is globally understandable, but I recommend a language edit by someone with high proficiency or a professional service to strengthen clarity and style. There are minor terminological inconsistencies, some passages with slightly awkward formulations, and some unnecessary repetition. A revision focused on concision, consistency of key terms, and sentence clarity would help the manuscript communicate the work's merits more effectively.

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 submitting the revised manuscript. In my reading, the revision is more focused and conceptually more precise in positioning sport confidence as the central outcome, explicitly addressing the distinction between state and trait measures, and highlighting the potential role of goal orientation instruments, such as TEOSQ versus POSQ, as a meaningful source of variability across studies.

Despite these improvements, several issues still need to be addressed for a high-impact outlet. One is internal consistency regarding the covered time frame and the search update. The abstract states that included studies were “published between 1988 and 2026”, whereas the Results section reports that publication years spanned 1988 to 2024. Additionally, the Methods describe a supplemental search covering the period from May 1 to December 10, 2025. This makes it essential to clarify whether no eligible studies were identified in that window, or whether the year range, PRISMA flow, and tables require updating to reflect the supplemental search.

The manuscript should also be fully explicit about the language strategy. In the Methods section, you state that Google Translate was used to identify and translate non-English articles; however, the Limitations note that the search was conducted “only in English” in the selected databases. These statements can be compatible, but only if the manuscript clearly explains whether searches were performed using English terms and selected databases, while still allowing the inclusion of non-English studies when retrieved, or whether operational constraints likely reduced the capture of studies without English keywords or abstracts.

From an inferential perspective, the most sensitive issue is aligning the moderator narrative with the multiplicity decision adopted. In the Results, you report statistically significant moderators at p < 0.05, including state versus trait differences, TEOSQ versus POSQ differences, and study quality categories. However, the Discussion notes that, with an alpha correction (0.05/14 = 0.003), none of the moderator tests reach the corrected threshold. For a high-impact journal, I recommend adopting one consistent stance throughout: either treat moderator analyses explicitly as exploratory and avoid confirmatory language, or formally implement a multiple testing control approach and revise the text accordingly.

The meaning of the prediction intervals should be made more central. In the Results, you report that prediction intervals cross zero for AGT and sport confidence relationships, and the Discussion reiterates that this aligns with high heterogeneity. The abstract similarly notes that nearly all prediction intervals cross zero, with some exceptions in moderator analyses. I suggest making the substantive implication explicit for readers: average effects may be minor to moderate, but between-context variability is large enough that near-zero effects remain plausible in some settings.

An additional editorial methodological point should be addressed. A section is titled “Summary Statistics, Planned Analyses, and Certainty Assessment”, but in the provided text, it is not clear how “certainty assessment” was operationalized and reported. To avoid overstatement, I recommend either describing the certainty assessment method and presenting its results, or removing that label if it was not conducted and reported.

One wording issue should be corrected for precision: the Methods state that multiple correlations were combined for “task orientation and sport performance”, whereas the manuscript scope indicates this should be “sport confidence”. Correcting this would prevent confusion and avoid suggesting a different outcome.

Because study quality is used as a potential moderator, the categorization should be fully transparent. The Results indicate that three distinct quality groups emerged, and these categories are referenced in the abstract and moderator reporting. I recommend stating the cut points defining “lowest”, “medium”, and “highest”, even if in the supplement, and ensuring the interpretation reflects that overall quality scores appear generally high.

Overall, the revision is significantly more substantial, particularly in terms of framing and transparency regarding heterogeneity. At the same time, it is essential to correct the date and search scope inconsistencies, make the language strategy technically unambiguous, and rewrite the moderator narrative to be entirely consistent with the multiple comparison correction and with the message conveyed by prediction intervals.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is globally understandable, but I recommend a language edit by someone with high proficiency or a professional service to strengthen clarity and style. There are minor terminological inconsistencies, some passages with slightly awkward formulations, and some unnecessary repetition. A revision focused on concision, consistency of key terms, and sentence clarity would help the manuscript communicate the work's merits more effectively.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I read Version 3 carefully and still consider the topic timely and relevant for Sport Psychology. I see clear value in the effort to quantitatively integrate evidence on situational and dispositional achievement goals and their relationships with sport confidence in both state and trait forms, especially because it helps consolidate a body of studies that often remains scattered across the literature.

I also acknowledge clear improvements in transparency, including the use of PRISMA guidance and the indication of a registry record (PROSPERO), as well as a more organized presentation of the selection and synthesis process. It is particularly positive that you emphasize heterogeneity and prediction intervals, because this signals to readers the expected variability across contexts and prevents overly simplistic interpretations of average effects.

That said, there remains an internal consistency issue that should be addressed before a final decision is made. The abstract and Table 1 indicate that the included studies were published up to 2026, whereas the methods describe a supplementary search that ended in December 2025. I recommend aligning, unambiguously, the search end date, the eligibility window, and the “latest publication year” included, and updating every part of the manuscript that refers to this time frame. In addition, there is a specific discrepancy in the year assigned to the Zmora study: 2026 in Table 1 and 2025 in the forest plots. I suggest standardizing this information throughout the manuscript and checking whether similar mismatches exist between tables, figures, and the narrative text.

A second key issue is to harmonize the final message across the manuscript. In the abstract, the wording reads as a strong conclusion that meaningful relationships are no longer plausible, supported by the fact that most prediction intervals cross zero. At the same time, the conclusion includes more practice-oriented statements, such as the idea that athletes with a task orientation or a task-involving climate are more likely to report higher sport confidence. I understand that these ideas can coexist, but I recommend making that reconciliation explicit: positive mean effects can occur alongside substantial between-study and contextual variability, which makes it plausible that, in some settings, the relationship is null or even different from what is expected. Aligning tone and wording across the abstract, discussion, and conclusion will make the contribution clearer and more defensible.

I also suggest refining the bridge between results and practical implications. If you adopt a more conservative interpretation, it would help to state explicitly that implications should be probabilistic and context-dependent rather than universal. If you intend to support more direct recommendations for coaches, athletes, and practitioners, I recommend qualifying those recommendations using your own findings, emphasizing differences associated with the measurement instrument (for example, TEOSQ versus POSQ) and potential variation by sport type and competitive level, rather than presenting a single message for all settings.

Regarding moderator analyses, I find it useful that these explorations are included. Still, I recommend greater caution in reporting and interpreting statistical significance, given the number of tests and the risk of unstable findings. If you do not plan to apply a formal multiple-comparisons correction, I suggest adding a clear statement that moderator findings should be treated as exploratory and hypothesis-generating rather than confirmatory evidence.

There is also an editorial adjustment I consider important for the final version: the passage justifying the avoidance of self-plagiarism by stating that certain elements are difficult to rewrite does not read appropriately within the manuscript body. I recommend removing that sentence and keeping only the objective description of methods and analytic decisions.

I also recommend a careful review of references and DOIs. Some links use an institutional proxy (domains such as “doi-org…oclc…”), which should not appear in the final version and reduces standardization. I suggest replacing them with the “https://doi.org/…” format, checking entries where the DOI seems broken across lines, and ensuring consistent reference formatting throughout.

I also see room for a final language edit, particularly in discussion passages with long sentences and limited punctuation, which can make the argument harder to follow and introduce interpretive ambiguity. A more direct style should improve readability without requiring substantive changes to the content.

Overall, I believe the manuscript is well advanced and can be ready for publication with minor revisions, provided that you correct the date and year inconsistencies, align the concluding message throughout the text, and standardize the references, while keeping interpretations proportional to the variability reflected in the prediction intervals.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is globally understandable, but I recommend a language edit by someone with high proficiency or a professional service to strengthen clarity and style. There are minor terminological inconsistencies, some passages with slightly awkward formulations, and some unnecessary repetition. A revision focused on concision, consistency of key terms, and sentence clarity would help the manuscript communicate the work's merits more effectively.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf