Situational and Dispositional Achievement Goals and Measures of Sport Performance: A Systematic Review with a Meta-Analysis

Abstract

The purposes of this systematic review (PROSPERO ID: CRD42024510614, no funding source) were to quantify relationships between situational and dispositional dichotomous achievement goals and sport performance and explore potential relationship moderators. Published studies that reported at least one situational or dispositional achievement goal and a performance score were included. Studies without performance scores or based in a non-sport context were excluded. Information sources consisted of studies found in relevant published meta-analyses and EBSCOhost databases (finalized September 2024). The following statistics were conducted to assess the risk of bias: class-fail-safe n, Orwin’s fail-safe n, and funnel plots with trim and fill estimates. The summary statistics were r and d. Thirty studies from 1994 to 2024 met all inclusion criteria with 8708 participants from Europe, Asia, North America, and Oceania. The majority of samples were non-elite male youths and adolescents. The random-effects relationships (r) between task climate, 0.20 [0.14, 0.25], task orientation, 0.17 [0.12, 0.23], ego orientation, 0.09 [0.03, 0.16], and sport performance were small and significantly different (p < 0.05) from zero, while the ego motivational climate relationship was not, −0.00 [−0.48, 0.05]. The random-effects standard differences in means (d) for both the task orientation, 0.08 [0.02, 0.14], and ego orientation, 0.11 [−0.05, 0.26] were minimal in meaningfulness. Mixed-effects moderator analyses resulted in the following significant (p < 0.05) sub-group differences: subjective compared to objective performance measures (task orientation), elite compared to non-elite samples (task climate), and athlete-completed compared to coach-completed performance measures and performance records (task orientation). Finding only 30 studies meeting the inclusion criteria, which limited sub-group samples for moderation analyses, was the main limitation. Despite this limitation, AGT provides athletes and practitioners performance enhancement strategies. However, caution is warranted regarding relationship expectations given the small mean effect size values and the true prediction interval ranging from negative to positive, perhaps as a result of the heterogeneous samples and performance measures. A clear line of future research, considering the reviewed studies, with elite athletes is needed to verify the performance benefits of the task climate and ego orientation as well as the use of the ego goal orientation in selection decisions.