REF-1649 · Lochbaum et al., 2021 · European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, · Paper · PubMed

Mood measured before competing went with the result: across 25 studies of 1497 competitive athletes, more vigor before the event went with better performance (g = 0.38) and a higher total mood disturbance with worse (g = −0.53, and −0.84 after a correction for publication bias), while anger barely mattered (g = −0.08)

Main caveat: Correlational: mood was measured, not manipulated; a third factor (illness, preparation, expectations) may drive both mood and the result.
moderate evidenceMeasured on trained to highly trained athletesRead from the abstract only

Lochbaum and colleagues updated the quantitative evidence on the Profile of Mood States and sport performance, two decades after the last review. They searched EBSCO and compared the hits with earlier POMS bibliographies, keeping studies of competitive athletes that measured a valid form of the POMS beforehand and then recorded an athletic performance outcome.

Of more than 600 articles screened, 25 (1975-2011, 1497 participants) gave enough data for effect sizes. Effects for the six scales were mostly small: tension −0.21, depression −0.43, anger −0.08, vigor 0.38, fatigue −0.13 and confusion −0.41; total mood disturbance reached a medium −0.53.

A correction for possible publication bias made several effects larger (total mood disturbance −0.84). Moderator analyses, including sport type, duration and skill and the studies' risk of bias, found few significant differences.

The authors conclude that mood measured before performance predicts sport performance across many sports and outcomes, and that Morgan's iceberg profile, without the anger scale, remains a useful model.

Participants

1497 participants from 25 published articles, all competitive athletes (inclusion rule); sports varied.
Sex, age, sport mix and competition level: not in the abstract.

Methods

Search: EBSCO, cross-checked against extensive earlier POMS bibliographies in sport and exercise. Terms: profile of mood states (POMS), iceberg profile or mental health model, with sport and performance.
Inclusion: competitive athletes, an athletic performance outcome, and a valid POMS form measured before the performance.
Screening: more than 600 articles screened; 25 included.
Analysis: Hedges' g per POMS scale and for total mood disturbance (TMD); correction for potential publication bias; moderators from Terry's (1995) propositions (sport duration, type, skill) and risk of bias across studies.
Quality assessment: risk of bias was used as a moderator; how studies were rated, and how many were at high risk, is not in the abstract.
Not in the abstract: whether the studies compared athletes with each other or the same athlete across events, the time between the mood test and the performance, and the performance measures used.

Key Results

POMS scaleHedges' gAfter correction for publication bias
Tension−0.21−0.47
Depression−0.43−0.64
Anger−0.08not given in the abstract
Vigor0.380.44
Fatigue−0.13−0.34
Confusion−0.41not given in the abstract
Total mood disturbance−0.53 (medium)−0.84
Moderators (Terry's propositions, risk of bias): few differences at p < 0.05.
Our reading of the signs: they follow the iceberg profile, which the authors endorse without anger — more vigor goes with better performance, more tension, depression, fatigue, confusion and total disturbance with worse. The abstract does not spell out the sign convention.

Practical Application

How an athlete feels before a race or test is a real signal, though a modest one. Across 25 studies, low vigor and a high total mood disturbance measured beforehand went with a worse result (g 0.38 and −0.53); inference, not tested here: asking about mood before a key effort is worth doing.
Vigor, depression and confusion carried more than anger or fatigue. Anger was close to zero (−0.08) and pre-event fatigue small (−0.13) before correction (−0.34 after); inference, not tested here: one "tired" rating says less than the whole profile, whose total mood disturbance score carried the largest effect (−0.53).
Inference, not tested here: on a training day, a flat, low-vigor mood is a reason to ask what lies behind it (sleep, life stress, illness, load) before deciding on the session; the base's ladder for a low morning is SYNTH-30.
Not settled by this design: whether mood causes the result or both share a cause; whether the same athlete's mood predicts their own next performance (the abstract does not say whether the comparisons were within or between athletes); whether training through a low-mood day costs anything; and studies after 2011, none of which were included.

Limitations

Correlational: mood was measured, not manipulated; a third factor (illness, preparation, expectations) may drive both mood and the result.
The newest included study is from 2011; the search used one database host plus bibliographies.
Effects are mostly small, and the publication-bias correction changed several of them noticeably (TMD −0.53 to −0.84), so the true sizes are uncertain.
How the studies were rated for risk of bias, and the populations, sports and outcomes, are not in the abstract.
An erratum (Eur J Investig Health Psychol Educ 11(2): 513-514; PMID 34708823) corrects Section 2.6; the PubMed record shows only that heading, so the change was not read.
Written from the abstract and the PubMed record; full text not read.
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

risk of bias not read (abstract only): the abstract says a risk-of-bias moderator analysis changed little but gives no rating of the studies; the pooled data relate measured mood to later performance, so they are correlational, not controlled trials, and the A rows would not apply even with the risk of bias read

Content correction 2026-11-07
2026-11-07: added from the abstract and the PubMed record; level B+ (meta-analysis of correlational studies, risk of bias not read; abstract only).