Browsing by Subject "Psicología del deporte"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Open Access
    Herramientas y escalas de evaluación en Psicología del deporte. Una revisión sistemática de revisiones
    (Universidad de Murcia : servicio de publicaciones, 2026) Rodriguez, Sabina Tamara; Morales-Sánchez, Verónica; VelascoAlonso, Pedro; Hernández-Mendo, Antonio; Sin departamento asociado
    Sport Psychology has experienced sustained growth in its scientific production in recent years, increasing the need to rigorously evaluate the quality of the available evidence. The objective of this umbrella review was to identify and analyze the methodological critical appraisal tools used in reviews applied to Sport Psychology. To this end, the guidelines of the PRISMA Statement were followed, and a comprehensive search was conducted in international databases (Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, among others). The protocol was prospectively registered in OSF (2025). Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to select reviews published between 2015 and 2025 that met standards of methodological quality and transparency. Data extraction was carried out using an ad hoc extraction matrix, and methodological quality was assessed using established tools such as AMSTAR 2, GRADE, CASP, and the JBI Checklist.A total of 128 reviews were included, and 45 critical appraisal tools were identified, the most frequent being MMAT, JBI, and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The results indicated that, although there is widespread use of critical appraisal tools, the overall methodological quality was predominantly low or critically low, whereas scoping reviews showed higher levels of quality. In the meta-analyses, small to moderate effect sizes were observed for variables such as flow and sport performance (r = 0.31), mindfulness-based interventions (g = 0.49; 95% CI: 0.28–0.69), and reduction of burnout in athletes (d = −0.87; 95% CI: −1.25 to −0.48).Finally, a complementary analysis was conducted focusing on 13 reviews with higher methodological quality and clearly estimated effects, considered the most robust for guiding the interpretation of the findings