The Sport Psychologist, 2021, 35, 155-167

https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2020-0113
© 2021 Human Kinetics, Inc. PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

Developing and Implementing an App-Based Blended

Psychological Skills Training: A Case Study
Lukas Stenzel Melissa Röcken
Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg University Leipzig

Simon Borgmann Oliver Stoll

University Rostock Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg

The present case study describes the content and implementation of a blended psychological skills training, consisting of an app
and workshops, with a group of athletes (N = 44) from a Bundesliga soccer academy in Germany. In a pre–post design, athletes
completed different questionnaires at two measurement points. There was a significant increase in concentration and self-efficacy
and more frequent recovery after the intervention. However, athletes showed equal competition anxiety levels and more frequent
stress after the intervention. The app’s training time was brief (M = 14.36 min, SD = 18.17 min) over 9 weeks and did not
moderate the intervention’s effects. A comparison between active users and nonusers indicates that the results found were due to
the workshops. The qualitative feedback indicates that motivational functions should be added to a psychological skills training
app and time slots should be created in athletes’ demanding schedules to ensure high user engagement.

Keywords: blended interventions, blended learning, digitalization, user engagement

Psychological skills training (PST), also known as mental skills
training, refers to the systematic and consistent practice of psycho-
logical/mental skills to improve performance, increase enjoyment,
and/or achieve greater self‐satisfaction (Weinberg & Gould, 2019).
Vealey (2007) differentiated between psychological skills as
desired abilities or outcomes (e.g., attentional focus) and mental
techniques (e.g., imagery) as procedures employed to develop those
skills. A mental technique can develop different psychological
skills, depending on the specific content and application. PST trains
either single skills or is implemented as a multimodal intervention,
which combines several mental training techniques into an inte-
grated strategy that targets several predefined outcomes. Compre-
hensive reviews have supported PST’s effectiveness in improving
abilities like relaxation, attentional focus, and general performance
(e.g., Weinberg & Gould, 2019 or Vealey, 2007). For this case
study, the effects of multimodal interventions, which use at least
two or more techniques, are particularly interesting. Randomized
controlled trials (RCTs), considered as the gold standard in PST
intervention research, have found positive effects on subjective
(e.g., blinded coach ratings of performance in cricket) and objective
(e.g., neuromuscular performance in weightlifters) measures (De
Witt, 1980; Howard & Reardon, 1986; Röthlin et al., 2016;
Thelwell & Maynard, 2003). However, there are also RCTs, which
resulted in no effects (e.g., on pass efficiency in volleyball) or only
marginal significant effects (e.g., on tennis service performance;
Madden & McGown, 1988; Noel, 1980).
In the current literature, PST, mainly if it encompasses the
techniques of self-talk, imagery, goal-setting, and arousal regulation,
Stenzel is with the Inst. of Sport Science, Sport Psychology, and Stoll, Sport
Psychology, Sport Education, and Sport Sociology, Martin Luther University
Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany. Röcken is with University Leipzig,
Leipzig, Germany. Borgmann is with University Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Stenzel (lukas.stenzel@student.uni-halle.de) is corresponding author.
is often designated as the traditional approach based on a cognitive-
behavioral perspective (CBT; Beck, 2011) in distinction to mind-
fulness interventions as an alternative approach (e.g., Gross et al.,
2018; Röthlin et al., 2016). From our perspective, it is not useful to
separate PST and mindfulness into different categories. According
to the definition of PST of Vealey (2007), who differentiated
between psychological skills and techniques, we specify mindful-
ness exercises as a technique to improve psychological skills like
attention (Chiesa et al., 2011; Jekauc et al., 2017) or stress manage-
ment (Chiesa & Serretti, 2009). Based on Chiesa et al., (2013), we
further specify mindfulness as a top–down process, which facilitates
the application of other mental techniques (see also Berking &
Whitley, 2014).
Most of the PST programs have been coordinated by sports
psychologists through face-to-face interventions. The sports psy-
chologist’s technical and interpersonal skills have been shown to be
critical for PST’s success (Tod & Andersen, 2005). For example,
technical skills refer to the ability to adapt mental techniques to
specific competitive demands. Concerning interpersonal skills,
results indicated that athletes consider listening skills and the
opportunity to express themselves as particularly important for PST
success (Lloyd & Trudel, 1999; Vealey, 2007). Interpersonal skills
further enable sports psychologists to develop a sports psycholo-
gist–athlete relationship characterized by empathy, warmth, and
congruence, which is a significant factor for intervention outcomes
(Dunn & Holt, 2003; Lambert & Barley, 2001; Petitpas et al.,
1999).
However, there are barriers to seeking help through face-to-
face PST, such as time and availability (Gulliver et al., 2012;
Moreland et al., 2018). The emergence of the Internet and smart-
phones with their downloadable software applications (apps) can
help to overcome the aforementioned barriers by delivering PST
to athletes at any time and place (Farres & Strodel, 2003; Watson II
& Halbrook, 2014; Watson II et al., 2014; Zizzi & Perna, 2002).
155
156 Stenzel et al.
Sports psychologists are already using apps, for example, the
mindfulness app Headspace, to support their PST (Cogan, 2019).
Several specific sport psychology apps are available in the stores
(e.g., Champion’s Mind—Think Gold). Coaches and athletes also
seem to accept the new way of work that includes technology. A
consumer marketing approach demonstrated that more than two-
thirds of head coaches of the National Collegiate Athletic Associa-
tion would purchase a PST app if the app cost <$200, included
daily functions, provided the ability to track the athlete, came with
an internal recommendation, were used by other teams, and were
created by credible content creators (Prior, 2014). Currently, sports
psychologists work with athletes, most of whom are smartphone
app users (Durand-Bush & DesClouds, 2018). In particular, in-
dividuals between the ages of 18 and 34 reported that they check
their smartphones every hour, even when they wake up in the
middle of the night (Lookout Mobile Security, 2012).
Nevertheless, results indicated that mental health and mindful-
ness apps have high attrition and low user-engagement rates
(Torous et al., 2018). For example, Baumel, Muench, Edan, and
Kane (2019) reported approximately 4% of daily active users (open
rate) for mindfulness apps. A way to increase user engagement with
mental health apps can be blended learning or blended interven-
tions (Tighe et al., 2017; Torous et al., 2018). Blended interventions
combine digital and online media with traditional analogous meth-
ods, like workshops or face-to-face meetings (Friesen, 2012; Villani
et al., 2017). Besides user engagement, blended learning can im-
prove the motivation, mood, and overall educational experience and
allow conventionally taught material, such as mental techniques,
to be revisited whenever and wherever the athlete wishes (Bonk &
Graham, 2005; Lozano-Lozano et al., 2020).
In sum, given the widespread usage of smartphones and the
opportunity to avoid barriers to seeking help, apps seem to be a
promising way to deliver PST and are already used by practitioners.
However, there is a lack of scientific literature and knowledge
concerning apps in sports psychology. First, we aim to describe a
sports psychology app’s multimodal content and the blended im-
plementation process. The app is combined with analogous work-
shops to a group of male soccer players of a German Bundesliga
club. Second, we aim to report quantitative and qualitative data of
user engagement with the app in a real-life setting to understand
why the PST app is used or why it is not used, and derive practical
suggestions for future app development and implementation. Third,
the case study includes evaluating the provided app-based blended
PST in testing skill improvement from before to after the interven-
tion. We calculated a moderation analysis, with the app’s training
time as moderator, based on that data. In addition, a comparison
between active users and nonusers, an exploratory analysis, is used
to elaborate on the app’s influence on the effects found herein.
Background to the Athletes
and Consultancy Context
The PST took place in a youth performance academy of a Bundes-
liga soccer club. The 36 licensed clubs in the first Bundesliga and
second Bundesliga are obliged to set up a performance academy
for talents. The academies serve as a contact point for top regional
talents. They shall ensure the talent pool’s optimum exploitation to
educate and train world-class players for licensing and upper
amateur sectors (see DFL, 2020 for more information and detailed
German-language guidelines). The intervention’s target group was
44 male players from the U19 and U17 teams from the academy.
TSP Vol. 35, No. 2, 2021
The participants had an average age of 17.24 years (SD = 1.22), and
every athlete owned a smartphone. All athletes and their parents
provided informed consent to participate in the study. Participation
in the study could be ended at any time, with no need to give
reasons. Collected data have been anonymized so that no un-
ambiguous conclusions can be drawn about the athletes’ identities.
All procedures followed the ethical standards of the responsible
institution and the American Psychological Association’s ethical
principles of psychologists and code of conduct and its later amend-
ments or comparable ethical standards (American Psychological
Association, 2017).
The third author is the responsible sports psychologist at the
academy. Before the start of the PST, he worked there for 1 month of
20 hr per week. At this time, he had regular one-to-one coaching
sessions voluntarily with athletes from the U19 and U17 teams.
Mainly, three players were engaged in these sessions. The topics of
these sessions were never PST, but nonsport topics, like problems in
school. There was also a workshop with the U19 team about team
spirit and roles before the intervention. It is to assume that there was
already an established (therapeutic) relationship between the sports
psychologist and athletes and that this relationship influenced the
blended PST (Lambert & Barley, 2001; Petitpas et al., 1999).
Case Formulation and Intervention Plan
We followed Vealey’s (2007) process to develop the intervention,
which includes the objectives, philosophy and model, strategies,
and techniques.
Objectives
The responsible sports psychologist of the academy was in contact
with the athletes (see “Background to the Athletes and Consultancy
Context” section). He was in regular conversation with the coaches
and support team and gathered observation data from training and
competition.1 The whole set of information converged into the
following needs: regeneration, attention, self-efficacy, dealing with
competition anxiety, and mental competition preparation.
Philosophy and Model
The first author is a Ph.D. candidate at the Martin Luther University
Halle-Wittenberg. He holds a Bachelor’s and Master’s degree in
Psychology and completed the official and certified education in
sports psychology with the German Society for Sports Psychology
e.V. Furthermore, he is a co-founder of the German mental training
company Mindance. Mindance offers a PST app to employees to
help them deal with work-related stress and increase well-being.
The app is commonly used in occupational health management and
focuses on psychological well-being (not illness).
The third author, the responsible sports psychologist of the
soccer academy, holds a Bachelor’s degree both in Sports Science
and Psychology, a scientific Master’s degree in Psychology, and is
a Ph.D. candidate at Sports & Exercise Psychology Unit at the
Department of Sport Science at the University of Rostock. The
second author helped with data analysis, and the fourth author
mentored the whole project.
The aspired intervention philosophy focuses on the holistic
development of people, believing that performance and health are
inescapably linked (Brady & Maynard, 2010). When working with
athletes, we always balance performance improvement with the
individual athlete’s well-being (Stambulova et al., 2006). Our

working model is influenced by a CBT perspective (Beck, 2011)
and third-wave CBTs (Hayes, 2004). CBT interventions build on
the rationale of intentionally activating, controlling, or changing the
specific content of thoughts and emotions. Third-wave CBT inter-
ventions focus more on the athlete’s relationship to thoughts and
emotions by integrating mindfulness as a core concept. Athletes
primarily learn to observe emotions and thoughts mindfully without
attempting to change or control them (De Petrillo et al., 2009;
Gardner & Moore, 2007). However, our understanding is that CBT
and mindfulness do not contradict each other (see the second
paragraph in the introduction).
Furthermore, we assume that it is currently not possible to
develop or imitate a powerful sports psychologist–athlete relation-
ship through digital technology alone (Dunn & Holt, 2003; Lambert
& Barley, 2001; Petitpas et al., 1999). Thus, in our view, a PST app
and other digital technologies should be integrated into face-to-face
support, for example, via blended learning, rather than a stand-alone
service. Blended interventions can account for the relationship
between sports psychologists and clients, particularly in analogous
meetings. This advantage of the analog component can be coupled
with flexible access to digital solutions (see the introduction).
Strategies
We decided to use an app-based blended PST based on our
philosophy and model, which combined an app with workshops.
The workshops served the purpose of psychoeducation, motiva-
tion, asking questions, and developing (or strengthening the
already established) relationship. Concerning the relationship,
we created an interactive atmosphere in the workshops to enable
the athletes to express themselves. For example, we asked the
athletes about the personal characteristics of good recovery or self-
confidence instead of merely listing them. We also requested ath-
letes which measures they already use, for example, “What are you
already doing for recovery?”2 We admit that one-to-one meetings
seem to be a better setting to develop a therapeutic relationship.
However, based on our and the athletes’ demanding schedules and
time constraints, this was not possible.
For the intervention, we designed five 45-min workshops.
The athletes received clear instructions about participating in all
workshops, which included the third author and the coaches
creating time slots in the athletes’ demanding schedules. In the
first workshop, the preintervention measurement was carried out
(see “Method” section). The athletes downloaded the app and set
up a username for the app. The username for the app was a code that
ensured an anonymous match between app usage and dependent
variables. Moreover, the athletes obtained information about using
the exercise Mental Prep (see “Techniques” section) to prepare for
their competitions. One week later, the second workshop took
place; here, the players obtained information about recovery and
which techniques help support the process (Kellmann & Kallus,
2007). Three weeks later, the psychoeducation workshop addres-
sing attention occurred. In this instance, the players received
information about mindfulness (Kaufman et al., 2017), selective
attention (Memmert, 2009), and how to direct attention differently
(Engbert et al., 2017). Three weeks later, there was a workshop on
self-efficacy and emotion regulation. Athletes learned about tech-
niques to increase self-efficacy (Furley et al., 2012; Garza & Feltz,
1998; Gould et al., 1989; Moritz et al., 1996) and how to manage
competition anxiety (Gould & Udry, 1994; Hanin, 2000). Two
weeks later, the fifth workshop occurred. In this last workshop, the
quantitative posttest was carried out, and qualitative data were
TSP Vol. 35, No. 2, 2021
App-Based Blended Psychological Skills Training 157
collected (see “Method” section). In the workshops, we used prac-
tical role models and online videos, for example, an online video
of Kobe Bryant about mindfulness and attention. In total, the
intervention took 9 weeks.
The app should facilitate the regular practice of the techniques
that the athletes have learned in the workshops. We used the digital
infrastructure of the Mindance app, which is commonly used in
occupational health management in Germany, and we adapted the
app to competitive sports to improve the objectives: regeneration,
competition anxiety, attention, self-efficacy, competition anxiety
management, and mental competition preparation. The user en-
gagement with the app was completely free, and the athletes
received no instructions about how often they were supposed to
practice the techniques within the app between workshops. How-
ever, the athletes could set up a push notification as a reminder of
their training with the app.
Techniques
The app consisted of approximately 10-min long audio-guided
techniques that were structured to develop the objectives as men-
tioned above. Every exercise starts and ends with mindful and
relaxing breathing instructions.3
Regeneration. The following relaxation techniques were avail-
able in the app (Kellmann et al., 2018; Kudlackova et al., 2013):
Progressive Muscle Relaxation (PMR; Jacobson, 2006), Autogenic
Training (Schultz et al., 2010), Compassionate Body Scan (Neff &
Germer, 2018), and Fresh, which is a combination of abdominal
breathing and a very short PMR (Engbert et al., 2017).
Competition Anxiety. The following exercises were available in
the app to learn to manage competition anxiety (Pineschi & di
Pietro, 2013). In the exercise Image of Calm, athletes create a
mental image of a calm and relaxed place (Gould et al., 2013). The
Problem Box is an imagination exercise in which athletes learn to
capture overwhelming thoughts and emotions in a box to save it for
later when there is more capacity to deal with them (Engbert et al.,
2017; Tesarz et al., 2016). In the exercise relaxation mantra,
athletes are asked to develop self-talk to reduce intense emotions
(Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2009; Walter et al., 2019). Moreover, the
athletes had access to two breathing techniques in that exhalation is
more extended than inhalation (Berking & Whitley, 2014).
Self-Efficacy. The following exercises were available in the app
to improve self-efficacy (Garza & Feltz, 1998; Gould et al., 1989;
Moritz et al., 1996). In the exercise Moment of Excellence, athletes
first create a mental image of a past successful sports action, re-
consider what skills they used to create this situation (Berking &
Whitley, 2014; Vealey & Greenleaf, 2001), and then find a symbol
for the reactivated emotions and thoughts (Hanin & Stambulova,
2002; Robazza et al., 2004). In the exercise Mantra, athletes develop
strength-related self-talk (Engbert et al., 2017; Hatzigeorgiadis et al.,
2009). In the exercise self-efficacy, athletes create strategies for
facing challenging situations in sports: they first remember a
problematic situation from the past (Vealey & Greenleaf, 2001) and
then are asked how a role model would have behaved in this
situation (Engbert et al., 2017).
Attention. Attention can be split into four distinct subprocesses:
orienting, selective, divided, and sustained attention (Memmert,
2009). In the app, we used the more familiar word “focus” to
describe this construct. The regulation of attentional subprocesses
is an essential characteristic of mindfulness exercises, in which
158 Stenzel et al.
attention is directed unjudgmentally on a particular sensation,
object, thought, or emotion (Jekauc et al., 2017; Kaufman et al.,
2017). The following mindfulness exercises to strengthen attention
were available in the app (Chiesa et al., 2011; Lutz et al., 2008).
In Breath Counting Meditation, athletes can observe breathing in
different regions (e.g., nose and abdomen) and mentally count
breaths (Kaufman et al., 2017). In Body Scan, sensations in the
various body parts are mindfully perceived (Kaufman et al., 2017).
In Sensual Meditation, athletes direct their attention to different
sensory channels (Kabat-Zinn, 1994; Kabat-Zinn, 2003; Tesarz
et al., 2016). In Object Mediation, athletes look at a selected object
mindfully (Kabat-Zinn, 1994; Kabat-Zinn, 2003). The Optimal
Focus allows athletes to learn how to switch between different
attention directions (Engbert et al., 2017).
Mental Competition Preparation. We designed one exercise
called Mental Prep with a duration of approximately 5 min. This
exercise enables athletes to imagine a personal best performance
(Gould et al., 2013) and to set process goals (Kingston & Hardy,
1997).
Evaluation of Intervention
Based on the objectives, the techniques in the app, and the
engagement in the workshops, we hypothesized that the blended
PST approach would improve recovery–stress states (Kellmann
et al., 2018; Kudlackova et al. 2013), self-efficacy (Garza & Feltz,
1998; Gould et al., 1989; Moritz et al., 1996), attention (Lutz et al.,
2008), and reduce competition anxiety (Pineschi & di Pietro, 2013;
Walter et al., 2019). The techniques offered in the app require
systematic and consistent repetition (Weinberg & Gould, 2019).
Therefore, we hypothesized that training time with the app would
amplify the intervention’s effects: if the training time was higher,
the effects mentioned above were stronger. Finally, we compared
active users with nonusers to further disentangle the app’s influence
on the founded outcomes. This comparison was an exploratory
analysis, which was not planned, and we do not present a hypothe-
sis for this analysis.
Method
Participants were presented with paper-and-pencil measures before
and after the intervention to record and compare psychological skill
changes. The pretest was conducted at the beginning of the first
workshop and the posttest at the end of the last workshop. In the last
workshop, also qualitative feedback was collected.
Quantitative
For the measurement of attention, we used the German version of
the d2-R (Brickenkamp et al., 2010). The d2-R test of attention is
a paper-and-pencil test that assesses concentration, speed, and
accuracy. Participants must cross out target stimuli among similar
nontarget stimuli. The target variables are d’s with two dashes
above or below them. Nontarget characters are d’s with one, three,
or four dashes above or below them and p’s with one, two, three,
or four dashes above or below them. The test consists of 14 con-
secutive lines of 47 items. The time limit is 20 s for each line.
We evaluated concentration, which is the number of characters
correctly crossed out minus the number of confusion errors.
We calculated an internal consistency of α = .94 for the pre- and
posttest for the present data set.
TSP Vol. 35, No. 2, 2021
For the measurement of competition anxiety, we used the
German Wettkampfangstinventar (Brand et al., 2009). The concept
is based on the English version of the Sport Anxiety Scale (Smith
et al., 1990). This questionnaire assesses the competitive trait
anxiety experienced by athletes before or during competition. The
scale uses a 4-point Likert scale for the responses ranging from
1 (not at all) to 4 (very much). The scale assesses three factors
with four items each: worry (e.g., “I have self-doubt before
competitions”), somatic anxiety (e.g., “I feel nervous before com-
petitions”), and concentration disruption (e.g., “I pay attention to
audience reactions before competitions”). For the present data set,
we calculated an internal consistency of α = .74 for the pretest and
α = .81 for the posttest.
For the measurement of self-efficacy expectations, we used the
German version of the General Self-Efficacy Scale (Schwarzer &
Jerusalem, 1995), the so-called Allgemeine Selbstwirksamkeitser-
wartungsskala (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1999). This scale mea-
sures a person’s confidence in mastering a difficult situation and
the extent to which they attribute their success to their competence.
The 10 items are answered on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from
1 (do not agree) to 4 (agree exactly). An example item is “I can
always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough.”
We calculated an internal consistency of α = .66 for the pretest and
α = .78 for the posttest for the present data set.
For the measurement of recovery and perceived stress of
the athletes, we used the German version of the short form of the
Recovery-Stress Questionnaires (Kellmann & Kallus, 2016), the
so-called Erholungs-Belastungs-Fragebogen 24/B (Kallus, 1995).
On this questionnaire, 24 items are used to assess the frequency of
stress and recoveries within the last 3–4 days, on a 7-point Likert
scale ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (all the time). The stress scale
covers the following seven areas: general stress, emotional stress,
social stress, unresolved conflicts, overtiredness, lack of energy,
and physical complaints. One example item for the stress scale,
which belongs to overtiredness, is “In the last few days, my work
has made me very tired.” The recovery scale consists of five sub-
scales: success, social recovery, physical recovery, general recov-
ery, and sleep. Two items are assigned to each of these subscales.
For the recovery scale, an example item, which belongs to physical
recovery, is “In the last days, I have relaxed physically.” For the
stress scale, we calculated an internal consistency of α = .71 for
the pretest and α = .86 for the posttest. For the recovery scale, we
calculated an internal consistency of α = .63 for the pretest and
α = .80 for the posttest.
Qualitative
For the qualitative evaluation of the intervention, the participants
were asked about the app (e.g., Were there any features in the app that
facilitate training? If so, name them), the training with the app (e.g.,
Did you train at certain times of the day or in certain situations?), and
the workshops (e.g., What did you like about the workshops?).4
Feedback was collected on flipcharts at the end of the last workshop.
Athletes were motivated to answer at least one question in every main
category (app, training with the app, and workshops).
Results
User Engagement
All athletes participated in the five 45-min workshops, and atten-
dance was 100%. The athletes trained for an average of 14.36 min
 App-Based Blended Psychological Skills Training 159

(SD = 18.17, Min = 0, Max = 76) and performed an average of 1.54 We conducted a moderation analysis for each scale that
exercises (SD = 1.89, Min = 0, Max = 8) over 9 weeks.5 On average, showed a significant change between pre- and postintervention.
they did 0.21 exercises per week (SD = 0.28). About 14 people did Training time did not moderate the intervention’s effect on any of
not train with the app at all. The 30 people who used the app trained the scales (Tables 2–5).
for an average of 21.07 min (SD = 18.54, Min = 0, Max = 76) over Besides, we used a mixed multivariate analysis of variance
9 weeks. On average, athletes who used the app did 0.31 exercises with time as a within-subject variable (pre vs. post) and training
per week (SD = 0.21). Every 35.39 days (SD = 23.02), they per- (active user vs. nonuser) as a between-subject factor to further
formed a new exercise. The most frequently used exercises belong disentangle the effects of the app on the criterion variables. We
to the categories of regeneration (among the 30 active users, PMR detected two outliers for the nonusers and three for the active users,
was exercised in total 18 times, Autogenic Training 12 times, Fresh which were retained for further analysis. There were differences
nine times, and Compassionate Body Scan five times), as well as in the results. Here, we only report the results of the complete
focus (among the 30 active users, The Optimal Focus was exercised sample.7 Descriptive statistics of users and nonusers are shown in
in total 10 times, Object Meditation 11 times, Breath Counting
Meditation two times, Sensual Meditation one time, and Body Scan
one time). Other exercises that the active user trained include
Moment of Excellence (in total eight times), Mantra (in total one
time), and Self-efficacy (in total two times), all of which relate to
self-efficacy, as well as Image of Calm (in total four times) and two
breathing techniques (in total four times), which relate to anxiety
management. Participants did not use the Problem Box and Relax-
ation Mantra exercises, which relate to anxiety management, and
they did not use the Mental Prep exercise.

Quantitative
We conducted a paired t test for each criterion variable to compare
the mean values of the pretest with the mean values of the posttest.
Missing values are due to 11 athletes with incomplete question-
naires (pre- or posttest), and at the d2-R, one participant misunder- Figure 1 — Pre- and posttest score for competition anxiety. Note. There
stood the instructions and crossed p’s instead of d’s. The data was no significant change in the competition anxiety scores of the athletes.
were examined for outliers in the difference between the pre- and
posttest values using box plots. Outliers were defined as values
below the lower quartile minus 1.5 × interquartile range or above
the upper quartile plus 1.5 × interquartile. We detected two outliers
for the competition anxiety scale and one outlier for the recovery
scale. We ran our analyses twice: first with all participants and then
without outliers. There was no difference in the results. This report
only describes the results with all participants as the overall sample
size was very small.6 The normal distribution of the difference
between pre- and posttest was not provided for the stress scale. The
paired t test is considered a robust method, even for nonnormally
distributed data (Pagano, 2010).
The results show higher concentration, self-efficacy levels, and
more frequent stress and recovery at the second measurement time
(Table 1; Figures 1–4). There was no significant change in competi-
tion anxiety (Table 1; Figure 5). The effect sizes were either large
(d > 0.8 for concentration and stress, Table 1) or medium (d > 0.5 Figure 2 — Pre- and posttest score for concentration. Note. There was a
for self-efficacy expectation and recovery, Table 1). significant change in the concentration scores of the athletes.

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Results of the Paired T Tests

Test Scale n Mpre SDpre Mpost SDpost t d
d2-R Concentration 43 135.58 25.58 159.72 26.06 −11.21** 1.71
WAI-T Competition anxiety 42 1.63 0.35 1.62 0.37 0.18 0.03
SWE Self-efficacy expectation 39 3.08 0.31 3.23 0.33 −3.25* 0.52
EBF-24/B Recovery 39 4.02 0.69 4.51 0.96 −3.33* 0.53
Stress 39 1.46 0.52 2.24 0.85 −6.21** 0.99
Note. Due to multiple comparisons, alpha was adjusted according to the Bonferroni–Holm method. WAI-T = Wettkampfangstinventar; SWE = Selbstwirksamkeitser-
wartungsskala; EBF-24/B = Erholungs-Belastungs-Fragebogen. n includes active users and nonusers; based on incomplete questionnaires, there were <44 participants for
analysis.
*p < .05. **p < .001.

TSP Vol. 35, No. 2, 2021

160 Stenzel et al.
Figure 3 — Pre- and posttest score for recovery. Note. There was a
significant change in the recovery scores of the athletes.
Figure 4 — Pre- and posttest score for self-efficacy expectations. Note.
There was a significant change in the self-efficacy expectations scores of
the athletes.
Figure 5 — Pre- and posttest score for stress. Note. There was a sig-
nificant change in the stress scores of the athletes.
Table 6. The Levene test was significant for the competition
anxiety scale and the recovery scale. For this reason, we used
Wilks’s lambda for the interpretation of the results. Other require-
ments were met. The results demonstrated a significant main effect
for time. There were significant differences in the scales self-
efficacy, stress, recovery, and concentration (Table 7). Its direction
followed the paired t tests (Figures 1–4). There was also a
TSP Vol. 35, No. 2, 2021
significant main effect of training (Table 7). Pairwise comparisons
revealed that nonusers reported significantly less competition
anxiety in both pre- and posttest than active users (Table 8).
Nonusers had significantly less frequent stress and lower levels
of self-efficacy in the pretest (Table 8). In the posttest, there was no
difference in stress and self-efficacy anymore. Results showed a
marginally significant overall interaction effect of time and training
(Table 7). There is a significant interaction for concentration and a
marginally significant interaction for recovery. Nonusers had
significantly more frequent recovery at the posttest than in the
pretest, whereas there is no difference between pre- and posttest by
active users. Both groups showed improvements in concentration
between pre- and posttest. However, the progress for active users
was descriptively higher than for nonusers (Table 9).
Qualitative
Following Kuckartz’s (2018), we employed inductive content
analysis and created subcategories for the main categories (app,
training with the app, and workshops). The subcategories were not
created a-priori. Instead, they were based on the answers of the
athletes. For this purpose, similar responses were summarized into
a subcategory. For the main category app, the subcategories
structure, content, and technical features were created. The main
category training with the app was divided into two subcategories:
training time and missed training. For the training time, the
subcategories were game-related training and training in their
free time. For the missed training, the subcategories were internal
and external resistances. For the main category workshop, the
subcategories structure, content, media, and influence on training
with the app were defined. We only state feedback if it was
mentioned more than once.
Concerning the app structure, participants mentioned that the
app was arranged clearly (six times) and easy to use (six times).
Additionally, particpants stated that there were no features that
facilitate training with the app (four times). Concerning the content
of the app, athletes criticized the lack of variety within the exercises
(two times) and missed pictures and video content (two times).
Concerning the app’s training time, participants stated that
they trained before a match to stay focused (two times) and after a
match for regeneration (two times). In their free time, athletes used
the app before going to bed (two times). As inner resistance, the
lack of motivation (six times) and forgetfulness (two times;
however, the athletes could schedule push notifications in the app)
was mentioned by the athletes. The athletes said no time (10 times)
or other hobbies (three times) as external resistance for training
with the app.
Concerning the content of the workshops, the athletes per-
ceived practical examples as beneficial (20 times). The workshops’
topics, which were aligned to the PST objectives, were positively
mentioned (six times). Athletes suggested relating the topics of the
workshops more to soccer (two times). Concerning the app’s
influence on training, more athletes stated that the workshops did
not influence the practice with the app (five times no impact vs. two
times positive).
Discussion and Implications
The present case study describes the content and implementation of
a blended PST, consisting of an app and workshops, with a group of
athletes (N = 44) from a Bundesliga soccer academy in Germany.
We used quantitative and qualitative data to report and understand
 App-Based Blended Psychological Skills Training 161

Table 2 Results of the Moderation Analyses for Concentration

Postintervention concentration
Regression model 1 Regression model 2
Variable Bx SE (Bx) Bx SE (Bx)
Preintervention concentration 0.84** 0.08** 0.83** 0.09**
Training time 0.18 0.12 0.15 0.14
Preintervention Concentration × Training Time 0.00 0.01
R2 .74 .74
F 56.42** 36.93**
**p < .001.

Table 3 Results of the Moderation Analyses for Self-Efficacy Expectations

Postintervention self-efficacy expectations
Regression model 1 Regression model 2
Variable Bx SE (Bx) Bx SE (Bx)
Preintervention self-efficacy expectations 0.61** 0.15** 0.61** 0.15**
Training time −0.00 0.00 −0.00 0.00
Preintervention Self-Efficacy Expectations × −0.00 0.01
Training Time
R2 .33 .33
F 8.82** 5.72**
**p < .001.

Table 4 Results of the Moderation Analyses for Stress

Postintervention stress
Regression model 1 Regression model 2
Variable Bx SE (Bx) Bx SE (Bx)
Preintervention stress 0.80* 0.25* 0.81* 0.26*
Training time −0.01 0.01 −0.01 0.01
Preintervention Stress × Training Time 0.00 0.02
R2 .22 .22
F 5.16* 3.35*
*p < .05. **p < .001.

Table 5 Results of the Moderation Analyses for Recovery

Postintervention recovery
Regression model 1 Regression model 2
Variable Bx SE (Bx) Bx SE (Bx)
Preintervention recovery 0.56* 0.20* 0.58* 0.21*
Training time −0.01 0.01 −0.01 0.01
Preintervention Recovery × Training Time 0.01 0.01
R2 .22 .23
F 4.94* 3.44*
*p < .05.

user engagement and evaluate the intervention in a within-subject competition anxiety, and the frequency of stress was even higher
pre- to posttest design. The results showed higher levels of after the intervention. In a total of 9 weeks, the athletes trained with
concentration, self-efficacy expectations, and more frequent recov- the app only briefly or not at all. The training time with the app did
ery after the intervention. However, no changes were recorded to not moderate the effect of the intervention on the outcomes. In the
TSP Vol. 35, No. 2, 2021
162 Stenzel et al.

Table 6 Descriptive Statistics Users Versus Nonusers

Users Nonusers
Variable Mpre SDpre Mpost SDpost Mpre SDpre Mpost SDpost
Concentration 136.84 30.02 164.88 28.71 139.00 17.74 151.63 14.59
Competition anxiety 1.67 0.38 1.68 0.41 1.36 0.18 1.30 0.13
Self-efficacy expectations 3.13 0.32 3.26 0.37 2.85 0.16 3.13 0.18
Recovery 4.04 0.64 4.32 1.04 3.64 0.74 4.64 0.42
Stress 1.59 0.51 2.23 0.89 1.08 0.41 1.85 0.73
Note. nactive user = 25, nnonuser = 8; based on incomplete questionnaires, there were <30 active users and 14 nonusers.

Table 7 Results of the Repeated-Measure MANOVA

Effect Wilks’s Λ df F η2 p
Main effect time .23 5 18.53 .77 <.001
Concentration 1 52.90 .63 <.001
Competition anxiety 1 0.36 .01 .554
Self-efficacy expectations 1 10.65 .26 .003
Recovery 1 12.11 .28 .002
Stress 1 19.20 .38 <.001
Main effect training .59 5 3.72 .41 .011
Concentration 1 0.27 .01 .604
Competition anxiety 1 6.07 .16 .019
Self-efficacy expectations 1 3.41 .10 .075
Recovery 1 0.02 .00 .884
Stress 1 3.62 .11 .066
Interaction effect Time × Training .72 5 2.10 .28 .096
Concentration 1 7.60 .20 .010
Competition anxiety 1 0.68 .02 .415
Self-efficacy expectations 1 1.42 .04 .243
Recovery 1 3.90 .11 .057
Stress 1 0.16 .01 .693
Note. Due to multiple comparisons, alpha was adjusted according to the Bonferroni–Holm method. MANOVA = multivariate
analysis of variance. nactive user = 25, nnonuser = 8; based on incomplete questionnaires, there were <30 active users and 14
nonusers.

pretest, nonusers showed lower self-efficacy expectations and less
frequent stress than active users. Furthermore, nonusers reported
less competition anxiety in pre- and posttest than active users.
Nonusers had significantly more frequent recovery after the inter-
vention, whereas active users showed no changes between pre- and
posttest concerning recovery. There is a significant concentration
improvement between pre- and posttest for both groups; however,
the improvement for active users was descriptively greater.
The low user engagement, coupled with the moderation
analysis results and the comparison between active and nonusers,
indicate that the significant effects found herein were actually due
to the workshops, which had an attendance of 100%. Mainly, the
app seems redundant for the improvement of recovery because
nonusers reported more frequent recovery after the intervention. In
contrast, active users did not show any changes between pre- and
posttest concerning recovery. In the regeneration workshop, ath-
letes also received hints to regenerate themselves without the app. It
is possible that nonusers use these techniques instead of the app and
that these techniques were more effective. Nevertheless, the most
frequently used exercises within the app were relaxation techniques
TSP Vol. 35, No. 2, 2021
such as PMR (18 times), which athletes stated that they use in their
recovery process after a game and to fall asleep. At least two
athletes said they use the app for regeneration after a game and two
before going to sleep (see “Qualitative” feedback section). We
assume that the relaxation techniques might help active users to
attenuate the frequency of perceived stress. Because at the begin-
ning of the intervention, the active users had more frequent stress
than nonusers. After the intervention, users and nonusers experi-
enced more often stress, but they did not differ significantly.
Active users showed higher competition anxiety than non-
users in the pretest. In the posttest, active users still have a higher
level of competition anxiety, which indicates that the use of the app
was not appropriate to reduce competition anxiety. This could be
based on the fact that only three exercises in the app were used eight
times, and the other two exercises related to anxiety management
were not used at all. Moreover, active users had a higher level of
self-efficacy expectations in the pretest than nonusers. After the
intervention, there was no difference in self-efficacy expectations
anymore, indicating that the app was not suitable for improving
self-efficacy.
 App-Based Blended Psychological Skills Training 163

Table 8 Pairwise Comparisons via Group the regulation of attentional subprocesses was an essential charac-
teristic of every technique, for example, selective attention on
Mdiff sensation (PMR), an object (Object Meditation), or emotion (Image
Time (users − nonusers) 95% CI p of Calm).
Concentration Concerning the quantitative data, a limitation is that the
Pre −2.16 [−25.13, 20.81] .849 measures General Self-Efficacy Scale and the recovery scale of
Post 13.26 [−8.45, 34.96] .222 the Erholungs-Belastungs-Fragebogen have low internal consis-
Competition
tencies for the pretests (α < .70), which questioned the procedure of
anxiety computing scores. However, we have already used validated
scales. Moreover, we have not assessed additional factors, such
Pre 0.30 [0.02, 0.59] .038
as a competition win, personnel problems, practice effects, and test
Post 0.38 [0.07, 0.68] .017 familiarization (especially for d2-R), which could explain the
Self-efficacy effects. In total, it is difficult to disentangle the influence of the
expectations different parts (app and workshop) in detail with the current study
Pre 0.28 [0.04, 0.53] .025 design. Future research should use an RCT study design, which
Post 0.14 [−0.15, 0.42] .333 includes four groups: control group, app-only group, workshops
Recovery only group, and blended group, to answer that question.
Pre 0.40 [−0.15, 0.95] .146 The user-engagement data revealed that the exercises Problem
Box and Relaxation Mantra, which related to anxiety management,
Post −0.32 [−1.10, 0.46] .406
and Mental Prep, were not used. Interestingly, the qualitative
Stress feedback indicates that two athletes engaged with the app before
Pre 0.51 [0.10, 0.91] .016 a game to stay focused, but they did not use the exercise Mental
Post 0.38 [−0.33, 1.09] .285 Prep, although it was the shortest exercise. The same mental
Note. Due to multiple comparisons, alpha was adjusted according to the Bonfer- technique can develop different psychological skills, depending
roni–Holm method. CI = confidence interval. nactive user = 25, nnonuser = 8; based on on the individual and the specific content and application of the
incomplete questionnaires, there were <30 active users and 14 nonusers. technique (Vealey, 2007). It could be that athletes just use relaxa-
tion techniques intending to decrease anxiety (with no outcome)
before a game and concentration techniques to stay focused before
Table 9 Pairwise Comparisons via Time a game. A limitation we did not check was whether the athletes
Mdiff were already familiar with some of the app’s techniques, which
Training (Post − Pre) 95% CI p may influence user engagement, for example, whether they used
Concentration
the app in search of a known or new technique. If the athletes were
already familiar with exercises of that kind, this was not coordi-
Users 28.04 [22.43, 33.65] <.001 nated by the responsible sports psychologist (see “Background to
Nonusers 12.63 [2.70, 22.55] .014 the Athletes and Consultancy Context” section).
Competition anxiety Even the active users (n = 30) trained briefly (M = 21.07 min,
Users 0.01 [−0.08, 0.10] .818 SD = 18.54) over 9 weeks. On average, athletes who used the app
Nonusers −0.06 [−0.22, 0.09] .419 only did 0.31 exercises per week (SD = 0.21). Active users showed
Self-efficacy expectations
higher competition anxiety, self-efficacy expectations, and more
frequent stress in the pretest than nonusers. This may have influ-
Users 0.13 [0.00, 0.25] .043
enced user engagement. Athletes who are more stressed and
Nonusers 0.28 [0.06, 0.49] .016 anxious about the competition may be more likely to use apps.
Recovery The athletes’ self-efficacy expectation could be included in this
Users 0.28 [−0.09, 0.64] .137 assumption to the extent that persons with high self-efficacy
Nonusers 1.00 [0.35, 1.65] .004 expectations are more likely to have confidence in making im-
Stress provements with the help of the app. It could be that some active
users expected immediate improvements in terms of a “quick fix”
Users 0.64 [0.32, 0.96] <.001
(Wyatt et al., 2014). However, PST is based on consistent and
Nonusers 0.77 [0.20, 1.34] .010 frequent training (Weinberg & Gould, 2019). Considering that the
Note. Due to multiple comparisons, alpha was adjusted according to the results emphasize the workshops’ crucial role, some athletes could
Bonferroni–Holm method. CI = confidence interval. nactive user = 25, nnonuser = 8; gather no app training outcomes. The unrealistically high expecta-
based on incomplete questionnaires, there were <30 active users and 14 nonusers.
tions (e.g., hoping for a quick fix) and possibility of no effects may
lead to disappointment, resulting in decreased motivation for
The largest effect size of the intervention was on the improve- continuing training.
ment of concentration (d = 1.71). The concentration improvement The qualitative feedback about the workshops indicates that
between pre- and posttest was descriptively greater for active users the practical examples and the choice of topics, which suggests that
than for nonusers, indicating that the app could be handy to support the right objectives have been selected, were perceived positively
blended PST for concentration development. The concentration by the participants. In the future, it could be beneficial to relate the
exercises were the second most performed exercises. In general, examples more to soccer. According to the current literature, apps
every technique starts and ends with mindful and relaxing breath- have high user engagement if implemented via a blended learning
ing instructions, which may improve concentration regardless of approach (Tighe et al., 2017; Torous et al., 2018). Here, more
the technique’s central part (imagination, PMR, etc.). Moreover, athletes stated that the workshops did not influence their training
TSP Vol. 35, No. 2, 2021
164 Stenzel et al.
time with the app. It would be interesting to investigate the optimal
balance between workshops and user engagement and which other
services, such as individual meetings via face-to-face and/or via
instant messaging services, can foster high user engagement rates.
The qualitative feedback suggests that the app was user
friendly. Nevertheless, the case study demonstrated that access
to an app does not mean that athletes will also use it. This is critical
because it does not matter how useful an app is. If our clients do not
engage sufficiently with apps, apps will ultimately fail. Apps that
can be flexibly utilized at any time and place do not solve athletes’
time demand issues (10 athletes stated that they simply had no time
to use the app). Considering the 100% attendance of the work-
shops, apps should be implemented by actively creating time slots
in the athletes’ demanding schedules.
A lack of motivation was mentioned as inner resistance that
kept athletes from training. In the workshops, athletes found
practical examples and role models very beneficial. Thus, it seems
promising to add these examples in the app, for instance, via
multimedia material such as pictures and videos. Motivation may
also increase by involving peers or using gamification approaches
(Sardi et al., 2017), such as arranging a small competition within
the team (Torous et al., 2018).
A limitation of the present case study is that we did not
systematically collect qualitative feedback: every athlete should
answer at least one question in every main category. For this
reason, only a category-based evaluation of the responses was
possible. Correlations between different categories, as well as case-
based connections, were not able to be investigated. The answers
were collected on flipcharts, which can create peer-pressure, social
desirability, and stigma. Future research should focus on fewer
questions, especially on user engagement, and ensure that all
participants answer all questions.
The presented case study has some limitations, and following
its approach, it states lessons from the particular rather than the
general. This also includes the theoretically based reflection of the
researchers, who are personally involved in the intervention
(Cotterill & Schinke, 2017). Thus, the generalizability of the pre-
sented results beyond the current case is limited. Part of the
challenge is that the findings cannot prove that the app-based PST
intervention was responsible for the specific changes in the criterium
variables. Nevertheless, by collecting and evaluating the qualitative
and quantitative data, we provided a holistic picture of the interven-
tion to facilitate future research questions and improvements to
develop and implement app-based blended PST.
Conclusion
The present case study describes the content and implementation of
a blended PST. The main finding was a significant increase in
concentration, self-efficacy, and more frequent recovery after the
intervention. However, athletes showed equal competition anxiety
levels and more frequent stress after the intervention. Based on
voluntary use, the user engagement with the app was low, but
attendance at the workshops was 100%. The low user engagement
with the app, the moderation analysis results, and the comparison
between active and nonusers indicate that the effects found herein
were actually due to the blended PST workshops and that the study
app, as it is designed, is not very helpful. The effect sizes of the
improvements in concentration were large. Moreover, the improve-
ments were descriptively greater for active users than for nonusers,
which suggests that apps seem to be promising to support future
app-based blended PST to improve concentration. The qualitative
TSP Vol. 35, No. 2, 2021
feedback recommends adding motivational functions to a PST app
and creating time slots in the athletes’ demanding schedules for
using the app. For future research, more case and RCTs studies
with large samples are needed to develop evidence-based app
interventions in sports psychology.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Robin Maier, David Schumann, and Florian Stenzel
from Mindance for coding and providing the Sport Psychology app we
used in this study. The authors are also thankful to the editor and two
anonymous referees for their comments and suggestions. L. Stenzel and
M. Röcken have a professional and financial relationship with Mindance
that could influence or bias the content of the paper. L. Stenzel is Chief
Scientific Officer of Mindance and works part time on his dissertation at
the Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg. At the time of the study,
M. Röcken was a student at the University of Leipzig and worked as a
working student at Mindance. To reduce possible conflicts of interest,
L. Stenzel and M. Röcken were not involved in data collection. Moreover,
O. Stoll and S. Borgmann have supervised the project; both have no
professional or financial relationship to Mindance. There were no money
exchanges between the persons and institutions involved, nor was there
any financial support. The presented app is also available to other research
teams on request for (empirical) study purposes.
Notes
1. We do not share this nonanonymized information and collected data,
because defining the objectives took place before the case study started and
athletes have not agreed to participate in the case study.
2. You can find English translations of the workshops here: https://osf.io/
4rcb8/?view_only=f25f42826f17475682588a867d364762
3. You can find the English translations of the exercises and the app
descriptions here: https://osf.io/4rcb8/?view_only=f25f42826f17475682
588a867d364762
4. You can find all questions, answers, categories, and overviews of the
qualitative analysis here: https://osf.io/4rcb8/?view_only=f25f42826f174
75682588a867d364762
5. You can find data and all analyses here: https://osf.io/4rcb8/?view_
only=f25f42826f17475682588a867d364762
6. You can find analyses without outliers here. The results were similar to
the results with all subjects. The effect sizes were slightly higher than in the
reported analysis. https://osf.io/4rcb8/?view_only=f25f42826f17475682
588a867d364762
7. You can find analyses without outliers here: https://osf.io/4rcb8/?
view_only=f25f42826f17475682588a867d364762. The results were dif-
ferent from the results with all participants. There was no significant main
effect training for self-efficacy expectations and stress. Further there was
no significant overall interaction effect.
References
American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psy-
chologists and code of conduct (2002, amended effective June 1,
2010, and January 1, 2017). https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/
Baumel, A., Muench, F., Edan, S., & Kane, J.M. (2019). Objective user
engagement with mental health apps: Systematic search and panel-
based usage analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(9),
e14567. PubMed ID: 31573916 https://doi.org/10.2196/14567

Beck, J.S. (2011). Cognitive behavior therapy: Basics and beyond (2nd
ed.). Guilford Press.
Berking, M., & Whitley, B. (2014). Affect regulation training. Springer.
Bonk, C.J., & Graham, C.R. (2005). The handbook of blended learning:
Global perspectives, local designs. Pfeiffer Publishing.
Brady, A., & Maynard, I. (2010). At an elite level the role of a sport
psychologist is entirely about performance enhancement. Sport &
Exercise Psychology Review, 6(1), 59–65.
Brand, R., Ehrlenspiel, F., & Graf, K. (2009). Das Wettkampfangst-
Inventar (WAI) [The Competition Anxiety Inventory (WAI)]. Sport-
verlag Strauß.
Brickenkamp, R., Schmidt-Atzert, L., & Liepmann, D. (2010). Test d2-
Revision: Aufmerksamkeits-und Konzentrationstest [Test d2-revi-
sion: Attention and concentration test]. Hogrefe.
Chiesa, A., & Serretti, A. (2009). Mindfulness-based stress reduction for
stress management in healthy people: A review and meta-analysis. The
Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 15(5), 593–600.
PubMed ID: 19432513 https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2008.0495
Chiesa, A., Calati, R., & Serretti, A. (2011). Does mindfulness training
improve cognitive abilities? A systematic review of neuropsycholog-
ical findings. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(3), 449–464. PubMed
ID: 21183265 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.11.003
Chiesa, A., Serretti, A., & Jakobson, J.C. (2013). Mindfulness: Top-down
or bottom-up emotion regulation strategy? Clinical Psychology
Review, 33(1), 82–96. PubMed ID: 23142788 https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.cpr.2012.10.006
Cogan, K.D. (2019). Coaching olympic athletes with sport psychology.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 71(2),
86–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000129
Cotterill, S.T., & Schinke, R.J. (2017). Conducting and publishing case
study research in sport and exercise psychology. Case Studies in
Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1(1), 79–82. https://doi.org/10.1123/
cssep.2017-0012
De Petrillo, L., Kaufman, K., Glass, C., & Arnkoff, D. (2009). Mindfulness
for long-distance runners: An open trial using mindful sport perfor-
mance enhancement (MSPE). Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology,
3(4) 357–376. https://doi.org/10.1123/jcsp.3.4.357
De Witt, D.J. (1980). Cognitive and biofeedback training for stress
reduction with university athletes. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2(4),
288–294. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsp.2.4.288
Deutsche Fußball Liga DFL (2020, October 9). Anhang V: Richtlinien für
die Errichtung und Unterhaltung von Leistungszentren der Teilneh-
mer der Lizenzligen. https://media.dfl.de/sites/2/2020/04/Anhang-V-
zur-LO-2021-01-01-Stand-Geltung-ab-1.-Januar-2021.pdf
Dunn, J.G.H., & Holt, N.L. (2003). Collegiate Ice Hockey Players’ Per-
ceptions of the Delivery of an Applied Sport Psychology Program.
The Sport Psychologist, 17(3), 351–368. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.
17.3.351
Durand-Bush, N., & DesClouds, P. (2018). Smartphones: How can mental
performance consultants help athletes and coaches leverage their use
to generate more benefits than drawbacks? Journal of Sport Psychol-
ogy in Action, 9(4), 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/21520704.
2018.1496211
Engbert, K., Droste, A., Werts, T., & Zier, E. (2017). Mentales Training im
Leistungssport: Ein Übungsbuch für den Schüler- und Jugendbereich
[Mental training in competitive sports: An exercise book for students
and young people]. Neuer Sportverlag.
Farres, L.G., & Stodel, E.J. (2003). Webexcellence in mental skills edu-
cation: A framework for designing quality web-based mental skills
education environments. International Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 1(4), 353–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2003.
9671725
TSP Vol. 35, No. 2, 2021
App-Based Blended Psychological Skills Training 165
Friesen, N. (2012, October 9). Report: Defining Blended. https://www.
normfriesen.info/papers/Defining_Blended_Learning_NF.pdf
Furley, P., Dicks, M., & Memmert, D. (2012). Nonverbal behavior in
soccer: The influence of dominant and submissive body language on
the impression formation and expectancy of success of soccer players.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 34(1), 61–82. https://doi.
org/10.1123/jsep.34.1.61
Gardner, F.L., & Moore, Z.E. (2007). The psychology of enhancing human
performance: The mindfulness-acceptance-commitment approach.
Springer.
Garza, D.L., & Feltz, D.L. (1998). Effects of selected mental practice on
performance, self-efficacy, and competition confidence of figure
skaters. The Sport Psychologist, 12(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.
1123/tsp.12.1.1
Gould, D., & Udry, E. (1994). Psychological skills for enhancing perfor-
mance: Arousal regulation strategies. Medicine and Science in Sports
and Exercise, 26(4), 478–485. PubMed ID: 8201905 https://doi.org/
10.1249/00005768-199404000-00013
Gould, D., Hedge, K., Peterson, K., & Giannini, J. (1989). An exploratory
examination of strategies used by elite coaches to enhance self-
efficacy in athletes. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,
11(2), 128–140. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.11.2.128
Gould, D., Voelker, D.K., Damarjian, N., & Greenleaf, C. (2013). Imagery
training for peak performance. In J.L. Van Raalte & Britton W.
Brewer (Eds.), Exploring sport and exercise psychology (3rd ed.,
pp. 55–82). American Psychological Association.
Gross, M., Moore, Z.E., Gardner, F.L., Wolanin, A.T., Pess, R., &
Marks, D.R. (2018). An empirical examination comparing the
mindfulness-acceptance-commitment approach and psychological
skills training for the mental health and sport performance of female
student athletes. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psy-
chology, 16(4), 431–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2016.
1250802
Gulliver, A., Griffiths, K., & Christensen, H. (2012). Barriers and facil-
itators to mental health help-seeking for young elite athletes: A
qualitative study. BMC Psychiatry, 12(1), 157–157. https://doi.org/
10.1186/1471-244X-12-157
Hanin, Y.L. (2000). Individual Zones of Optimal Functioning (IZOF)
Model: Emotion-performance relationship in sport. In Y.L. Hanin
(Ed.), Emotions in sport (pp. 65–89). Human Kinetics
Hanin, Y.L., & Stambulova, N.B. (2002). Metaphoric description of
performance states: An application of the IZOF model. The Sport
Psychologist, 16(4), 396–415. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.16.4.396
Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Zourbanos, N., Mpoumpaki, S., & Theodorakis, Y.
(2009). Mechanisms underlying the self-talk-performance relation-
ship: The effects of motivational self-talk on self-confidence and
anxiety. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10(1), 186–192. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2008.07.009
Hayes, S.C. (2004). Acceptance and commitment therapy, relational frame
theory, and the third wave of behavioral and cognitive therapies.
Behavior Therapy, 35(4), 639–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-
7894(04)80013-3
Howard, W.L., & Reardon, J.P. (1986). Changes in the self concept and
athletic performance of weight lifters through a cognitive-hypnotic
approach: An empirical study. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis,
28(4), 248–257 https://doi.org/10.1080/00029157.1986.10402661
Jacobson, E. (2006). Entspannung als Therapie. Progressive Relaxation in
Theorie und Praxis [Relaxation as therapy. Progressive relaxation
in theory and practice]. Klett-Cotta.
Jekauc, D., Kittler, C., & Schlagheck, M. (2017). Effectiveness of a
mindfulness-based intervention for athletes. Psychology, 8(1) 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2017.81001
166 Stenzel et al.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1994). Wherever you go, there you are: Mindfulness
meditation in everyday life. Hyperion.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past,
present, and future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(2),
144–156.
Kallus, K.W. (1995). Erholungs-Belastungs-Fragebogen (EBF) [Recovery
stress questionnaire]. Swets.
Kaufman, K.A., Glass, C.R., & Pineau, T.R. (2017). Mindful sport
performance enhancement: Mental training for athletes and coaches.
American Psychological Association.
Kellmann, M., & Kallus, K.W. (2007). Mood, Recovery-Stress State, and
Regeneration. In M. Lehmann, C. Foster, U. Gastmann, H. Keizer, &
J.M. Steinacker (Eds.), Overload, performance incompetence, and
regeneration in sport (pp. 101–117). Springer.
Kellmann, M., & Kallus, K.W. (2016). The recovery-stress question-
naires: User manual. Pearson Assessment.
Kellmann, M., Pelka, M., & Beckmann, J. (2018). Psychological relaxa-
tion techniques to enhance recovery in sports. In M. Kellmann, &
J. Beckmann (Eds.), Sport, Recovery, and Performance: Interdisci-
plinary Insights (pp. 247–259). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Kingston, K.M., & Hardy, L. (1997). Effects of different types of goals on
processes that support performance. The Sport Psychologist, 11(3),
277–293. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.11.3.277
Kuckartz, U. (2018). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Com-
puterunterstützung. [Qualitative content analysis. Methods, practice,
computer support]. Beltz Juventa.
Kudlackova, K., Eccles, D.W., & Dieffenbach, K. (2013). Use of relaxa-
tion skills in differentially skilled athletes. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 14(4), 468–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.
01.007
Lambert, M.J., & Barley, D.E. (2001). Research summary on the thera-
peutic relationship and psychotherapy outcome. Psychotherapy:
Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 38(4), 357–361. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0033-3204.38.4.357
Lloyd, R.J., & Trudel, P. (1999). Verbal interactions between an eminent
mental training consultant and elite level athletes: A case study. Sport
Psychologist, 13(4), 418–443. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.13.4.418
Lookout Mobile Security. (2012). Mobile mindset study. Lookout, Inc.
Lozano-Lozano, M., Fernández-Lao, C., Cantarero-Villanueva, I., Noguerol,
I., Álvarez-Salvago, F., Cruz-Fernández, M., : : : Galiano-Castillo, N.
(2020). A blended learning system to improve motivation, mood state,
and satisfaction in undergraduate students: Randomized controlled
trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(5), e17101. PubMed
ID: 32441655 https://doi.org/10.2196/17101
Lutz, A., Slagter, H.A., Dunne, J.D., & Davidson, R.J. (2008). Attention
regulation and monitoring in meditation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
12(4), 163–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.01.005
Madden, G., & McGown, C. (1988). The effect of hemispericity, imagery,
and relaxation on volleyball performance. Journal of Human Move-
ment Studies, 14, 197–204.
Memmert, D. (2009). Pay attention! A review of visual attentional expertise
in sport. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2(2),
119–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/17509840802641372
Moreland, J.J., Coxe, K.A., & Yang, J. (2018). Collegiate athletes’ mental
health services utilization: A systematic review of conceptualiza-
tions, operationalizations, facilitators, and barriers. Journal of Sport
and Health Science, 7(1), 58–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.
2017.04.009
Moritz, S.E., Hall, C.R., Martin, K.A., & Vadocz, E. (1996). What are
confident athletes imaging? An examination of image content. The
Sport Psychologist, 10(2), 171–179. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.10.
2.171
TSP Vol. 35, No. 2, 2021
Neff, K., & Germer, C. (2018). The Mindful Self-Compassion Workbook:
A Proven Way to Accept Yourself, Build Inner Strength, and Thrive.
Guilford Publications.
Noel, R.C. (1980). The effect of visuo-motor behavior rehearsal on tennis
performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2(3), 221–226. https://doi.
org/10.1123/jsp.2.3.221
Pagano, R.R. (2010). Understanding statistics in the behavioral sciences
(9th ed.). Thomson Wadsworth.
Petitpas, A.J., Giges, B., & Danish, S.J. (1999). The sport psychologist-
athlete relationship: Implications for training. Sport Psychologist,
13(3), 344–357. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.13.3.344
Pineschi, G. & di Pietro, A. (2013). Anxiety management through
psychophysiological techniques: Relaxation and psyching-up in
Sport. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 4(3), 181–190.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21520704.2013.820247
Prior, R.F. (2014). Sport Psychology “App” lication: NCAA coaches’
preferences for a mental training mobile app [Graduate Theses,
Dissertations, and Problem Reports]. https://researchrepository.
wvu.edu/etd/6453
Robazza, C, Pellizzari, M., & Hanin, Y.L. (2004). Emotion self-regulation
and athletic performance: An application of the IZOF model. Psy-
chology of Sport and Exercise, 5(4), 379–404. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S1469-0292(03)00034-7
Röthlin, P., Birrer, D., Horvath, S., & Holtforth (2016). Psychological skills
training and a mindfulness-based intervention to enhance functional
athletic performance: Design of a randomized controlled trial using
ambulatory assessment. BMC Psychology, 4(1) 39. PubMed ID:
27457721 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-016-0147-y
Sardi, L., Idri, A., & Fernández-Alemán, J.L. (2017). A systematic review of
gamification in e-Health. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 71, 31–
48. PubMed ID: 28536062 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2017.05.011
Schultz, J.H., Thomas, K. & Stephan, S. (2010). Autogenes Training:
Das Original-Übungsheft. Die Anleitung vom Begründer der Selb-
stentspannung [Autogenic training: The original exercise booklet.
The instruction from the founder of self relaxation]. Georg Thieme
Verlag.
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy scale.
In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Ed.), Measures in health
psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37).
nferNelson.
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (Hrsg.). (1999). Skalen zur Erfassung
von Lehrer- und Schülermerkmalen. Dokumentation der psychome-
trischen Verfahren im Rahmen der Wissenschaftlichen Begleitung
des Modellversuchs Selbstwirksame Schulen [Scales for recording
teacher and student characteristics. Documentation of the psychometric
procedures within the framework of the scientific monitoring of the pilot
project Self-effective schools]. Freie Universität Berlin.
Smith, R.E., Smoll, F.L., & Schutz, R.W. (1990). Measurement and
correlates of sport-specific cognitive and somatic trait anxiety: The
Sport Anxiety Scale. Anxiety Research, 2(4), 263–280. https://doi.
org/10.1080/08917779008248733
Stambulova, N.B., Wrisberg, C.A., & Ryba, T.V. (2006). A tale of two
traditions in applied sport psychology: The heyday of Soviet sport and
wake up calls for North America. Journal of Applied Sport Psychol-
ogy, 18(3), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200600830182
Tesarz, J., Seidler, G.H., & Eich, W. (2016). Schmerzen behandeln
mit EMDR: Das Praxishandbuch [Treating pain with EMDR: The
practical manual]. Klett-Cotta.
Thelwell, R.C., & Maynard, I.W. (2003). The effects of a mental skills
package on ‘repeatable good performance’ in cricketers. Psychology
of Sport and Exercise, 4(4), 377–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1469-
0292(02)00036-5

Tighe, J., Shand, F., Ridani, R., MacKinnon, A., De La Mata, N., &
Christensen, H. (2017). Ibobbly mobile health intervention for sui-
cide prevention in Australian Indigenous youth: A pilot randomised
controlled trial. BMJ Open, 7(1), e013518.
Tod, D., & Andersen, M. (2005). Success in sport psych: Effective
sport psychologists. In S. Murphy (Ed.), The sport psych handbook
(pp. 305–314). Human Kinetics
Torous, J., Nicholas, J., Larsen, M.E., Firth, J., & Christensen, H. (2018).
Clinical review of user engagement with mental health smartphone
apps: Evidence, theory and improvements. Evidence-Based Mental
Health, 21(3), 116–119. PubMed ID: 29871870 https://doi.org/10.
1136/eb-2018-102891
Vealey, R.S. (2007). Mental skills training in sport. In G. Tenenbaum &
R.C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (3rd ed.,
pp. 285–309). John Wiley & Sons.
Vealey, R.S., & Greenleaf, C.A. (2001). Seeing is believing: Understand-
ing and using imagery in sport. In J.M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport
psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (pp. 306–348).
McGraw-Hill.
Villani, D., Caputo, M., Balzarotti, S., & Riva, G. (2017). Enhancing self-
efficacy through a blended training: A pilot study with basketball
players. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,
15(2), 160–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2015.1079921
TSP Vol. 35, No. 2, 2021
App-Based Blended Psychological Skills Training 167
Walter, N., Nikoleizig, L., & Alfermann, D. (2019). Effects of self-talk
training on competitive anxiety, self-efficacy, volitional skills, and per-
formance: An intervention study with junior sub-elite athletes. Sports
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI), 7(6), e148.
Watson II, J.C., & Halbrook, M. (2014). Incorporating technology into
practice: A service delivery approach. In G. Cremades, & L. Tashman
(Eds.), Becoming a sport, exercise, and performance psychology
professional: A global approach (pp. 152–159). Taylor & Francis
Group.
Watson II, J.C., Schinke, R., & Sampson, J. (2014). Ethical issues affecting
the use of teletherapy in sport and exercise psychology. In Etzel, E., &
Watson II, J.C. (Eds.), Ethical issues in sport, exercise and perfor-
mance psychology, fitness information technology (pp. 139–150).
Fitness Information Technology
Weinberg, R.S., & Gould, D. (2019). Foundations of sport and exercise
psychology (7th ed.). Human Kinetics.
Wyatt, C., Harper, B., & Weatherhead, S. (2014). The experience of
group mindfulness-based interventions for individuals with mental
health difficulties: A meta-synthesis. Psychotherapy Research, 24(2),
214–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2013.864788
Zizzi, S. & Perna, F. (2002). Integrating webpages and email into sport
psychology consultations. The Sport Psychologist, 16(4), 416–431.
https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.16.4.416
Copyright of Sport Psychologist is the property of Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.