ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Differences in judgments on the importance of performance psychological factors among Korean and Chinese football experts.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to assess the importance of performance psychological factors (PPF) among Korean and Chinese football experts (FE) and to identify differences in their judgments regarding PPF. Methods: In this study, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was conducted with 60 participants, including Ph.D. holders in sports psychology with player experience and football coaches with over 10 years of combined experience as players, coaches, and researchers. The standardized scores from the AHP results were used to determine the differences in judgments regarding the importance of PPF between the two countries. Results: First, Korean FE make judgments on the importance of PPF in the order of factors such as game intelligence and fundamentals, and in the subfactors, practical intelligence, anxiety control, and confidence. Second, Chinese FE make judgments on the importance of PPF in the order of factors such as fundamentals and game intelligence, and in the subfactors, practical intelligence, confidence, and fighting spirit. Third, PPF judged by Korean FE range from confidence (0.050), which is the closest, to pressure control (0.792), which is the farthest. PPF judged by Chinese FE range from analyzing abilities (0.106), the closest, to fighting spirit (0.919), the farthest. Conclusions: The differences in judgments regarding the importance of PPF in Korean and Chinese FE may reflect varying evaluations of psychological factors influenced by each country's football culture. Overall, this study can serve as a resource for mutual understanding and communication between the two countries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.