Experimental studies of psychological interventions with athletes in competitions: why so few?

The authors hunted for true experiments that test psychological help for athletes during real meets. They scanned 30 years of journals and found only 15 studies that met basic rules.

Most papers were tossed out because they lacked control groups or measured only thoughts, not visible behavior.

Only 15 solid experiments exist. That is less than one usable study every two years.

The gap is huge: coaches use plenty of mental tricks, but almost none have been checked with gold-standard trials.

Simó-Pinatella et al. (2013) also found just 31 good experiments across 20 years when they looked at school kids with ID. Both reviews show the same problem: rigorous behavior studies are rare outside clinics.

Wang et al. (2024) and Fradet et al. (2025) prove the point from another angle. Each team ran one clean RCT showing exercise boosts ADHD and schizophrenia outcomes. Their success highlights how precious single trials are when the pool is tiny.

The 2005 sport review and the 2013 MO review differ in population, yet both scream the same message: we need more controlled tests, not more opinion pieces.

If you consult with teams, you are flying almost blind. Lean on single-subject designs from other fields until better group data arrive. Track simple behaviors like sprint start reaction time or free-throw accuracy. Share your data so the next review is not another empty shelf.