Search and Selection of Articles

The electronic database searches returned 1708 results and additional article searches (excluding citation based searches) returned 51 results. Of these 51 additional articles, 45 were identified via manual journal searches, four via a previous review [23, 30,31,32] and two via existing knowledge and discussions with the research team [22, 25]. After deduplication in Covidence, 695 articles were removed, leaving 1064 articles for title and abstract screening. Following title and abstract screening, 972 articles were excluded from the review because of not meeting the eligibility criteria, resulting in 92 articles being left for full-text screening. Most articles were removed at title and abstract screening because of the search query returning unrelated results in disciplines such as engineering and drug efficacy. Full texts for two articles could not be retrieved and were therefore excluded from full-text screening. After full-text screening, 46 articles were excluded resulting in 46 articles being retained for data charting. Two additional articles were identified via “cited by” searches [33, 34], resulting in a total of 48 articles being identified and charted (See Fig. 1 for details of the identification and screening progress).

Fig. 1

Flowchart of search process

Characteristics of Psychological Research Examining Taper

Included articles were published between 1989 and 2020, with 75% being published after 2005. Most (52%) articles were published in Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise (n = 6), Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (n = 6), International Journal of Sports Medicine (n = 5), Journal of Sports Sciences (n = 4) and Journal of Applied Sport Psychology (n = 4). Most (79%) articles collected quantitative data (n = 38); however, qualitative (n = 7) and mixed method (n = 3) were also collected.

Of the quantitative research conducted, most (95%) used a longitudinal design (n = 36), with the remaining studies using a cross-sectional design (n = 2). Longitudinal quantitative research consisted of experimental (n = 20), field-based (n = 12) and quasi-experimental (n = 2) research. Of the experimental research conducted, both with (n = 11) and without (n = 9) control group methodologies were reported. Of the qualitative research conducted, most (71%) did not report or make explicit the specific methodological (e.g. grounded theory) or philosophical framework (e.g. interpretivism) used. Two qualitative studies did report their philosophical approach, using interpretive constructionism and pragmatism, respectively.

Most (92%) articles used an athlete sample (n = 44), with only three articles examining coaches and one article examining both athletes and coaches. In total, the articles included 1531 athletes, of which 1062 (69%) were male and 496 were female (31%). Three studies [17, 35, 36], equating to 30 participants, did not report or make explicit the gender of the participants. A total of 34 coaches were included in studies (28 were male and six were female). In one article using both an athlete and coach sample, 15 were female and eight were male [37]. The gender of the individual athlete and coach groups was not reported.

To report participant descriptors and sports more coherently, participant descriptors and sports that shared similar semantic meanings were combined (e.g. participants described as “Elite”, “Olympic and Paralympic” and “World Class” were categorised together as “Elite” and “Rugby League”, “Rugby Sevens” and “Rugby Union” were categorised as “Rugby”). Where participants were given a dual description by the original authors (e.g. regional-national), the lowest descriptor was used. Articles that used athletes from multiple sports were categorised as “multi-sport”. Using this classification system, the most (27%) reported participant descriptor was elite (n = 13) [38]. However, overall, most (52%) psychological research used a non-elite sample consisting of university- (n = 12), regional- (n = 7) or national-level (n = 6) athletes. The most reported sport of participants were swimming (n = 11), multi-sport (n = 7) and triathlon (n = 6). One article did not report or make explicit the sport of participants to protect their anonymity [22].

Taper durations ranged from 2 [39] to 70 [40] days. However, the most reported taper durations were 7 (n = 10), 14 (n = 8) and 21 (n = 6) days. Two articles reported multiple tapers with varying lengths [41, 42]. Five articles did not report or make explicit the duration of taper [24, 25, 31, 43, 44]. A summary of the characteristics of psychological research examining taper can be found in Table 2.

Table 2 Study characteristics of psychologically related taper researchSummary of Psychological Research Examining Taper

In total, eight themes were developed via content analysis [29]: Mood, Perception of Effort, Perceived Fatigue and Wellness, Recovery-Stress, Taper as a Stressor, Stress Tolerance, Psychological Preparation and Cognitive Functioning. Themes are presented in order of the volume of research underpinning them, with larger themes first. See Table 3 for a summary of independent articles’ main findings.

Table 3 Main findings from psychologically related taper researchMood

Mood was the most studied psychological construct in the identified articles (n = 20). Most articles (n = 18) measured mood via the Profile of Mood States (POMS) [69], a 65-item questionnaire measuring anger, confusion, depression, fatigue, tension and vigour. Alongside the individual subscales, a total mood disturbance score is also typically calculated. In addition to the Profile of Mood States, two studies used the Brunel Mood Scale [70], a shortened (24-item) version of the Profile of Mood States utilising identical mood dimensions.

Most (85%) research shows mood improves or returns to baseline levels following taper. This effect is consistent across research designs (e.g. experimental or field based), sports (e.g. swimming, triathlon, canoeing, Australian rules, rowing and cycling), and competitive levels (e.g. regional, trained, university, professional, international and elite) [43, 44]. Improvements in total mood disturbance following taper is mostly due to increases in vigour and decreases in fatigue [55], likely mirroring improvements in physiological fatigue and recovery (or cognitive appraisals of these).

A minority of research reported unchanged (5%) or deteriorated (10%) mood following taper [20, 24]. Unchanged mood could be related to training load being reduced too much during taper leading to a reduction in fitness [20], overtraining prior to taper leading to significant psychophysiological disruption, which is not reduced during taper [47], or a lack of aerobic exercise leading to increased depression or exercise addiction causing withdrawal [24]. However, an alternative psychological explanation could be that athletes are negatively appraising their performance capabilities during taper, therefore leading to disrupted mood [71].

Mood scales other than vigour and fatigue (i.e. Anger, Confusion and Depression) remain relatively stable throughout taper [25, 45]. Exceptions to this is the subscale tension, which can remain elevated following taper [24, 45]. For instance, despite total mood disturbance significantly improving following a 28-day taper, tension was found to be significantly elevated above baseline in 22 female collegiate and university swimmers [45]. Elevated tension could be due to anxiety related to the upcoming competition [31]. Another possible explanation is differences in levels of athletic experience influencing symptom appraisal. For example, less experienced athletes may lack the emotional regulation skills needed to positively appraise physiological symptoms [72]. Consequently, less experienced athletes may be more likely to appraise physiological symptoms as tension, rather than a potentially similar psychophysiological symptom such as excitement.

Some research suggests individual differences influence mood responses during taper [31, 54]. For example, a cross-sectional study found trait anxiety to influence the types and intensity of certain mood responses during taper. Specifically, significant group differences (i.e. high vs low trait anxiety) or group × time interactions were found for anger, depression, tension, confusion and vigour [54]. However, as this study used the State Trait Anxiety Inventory [73], which is a unidimensional measure, it is unknown whether cognitive or somatic anxiety exerts a greater influence on mood responses during taper. Another potentially important individual difference is gender. For example, another cross-sectional study found gender to consistently influence tension scores, with female individuals scoring higher than male individuals during taper [31]. Additionally, gender also influenced vigour and confusion scores across certain swim seasons during taper. Overall, these findings suggest trait anxiety and gender may influence the taper-mood relationship. However, further experimental or longitudinal research is required to confirm the nature and robustness of these findings.

Perception of Effort

Eleven articles measured perception of effort-related constructs during taper. The most used scale was the Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE; n = 10), or a derivative. The RPE [74] is a subjective evaluation of physical task difficulty [75], usually measured on a 6–20 scale before and after taper. Other scales used to measure perception of effort-related constructs include the Form Scale [76], Feeling Scale [77], Felt Arousal Scale [78], Action Crisis Scale [79] and short Flow State Scale [80], each of which was used once.

Research suggests perception of effort, as measured via RPE, remains unchanged (62%) or improves (38%) following taper [17, 46]. Improvements in RPE following taper have been attributed to physiological recovery and an increased tolerance of higher intensity training [10]. For instance, research has found the RPE-power relationship to significantly improve following taper, suggesting a given power output post-taper resulted in a lower RPE compared with pre-taper [10]. Comparatively, unchanged RPE following taper could be due to low levels of pre-taper fatigue, persistent fatigue during taper or increased motivation due to positive appraisals of recovery, consequently leading to increased effort (and subsequent RPE) during training [10, 17, 19].

In addition to changes in RPE, other perception of effort-related constructs can improve during taper [39, 41]. For example, significant improvements in perceived form (i.e. the perceived current performance level of the individual), energy and feeling (i.e. how “heavy” or “light” limbs felt) were found with 25 collegiate swimmers after taper [41]. In another study, local runners doing a short-term 2-day taper had significantly less perceived physical strain, negative valence (i.e. negative arousal) and perceived action crises (i.e. conflict between continuation in achieving ones goals and task disengagement) and significantly more flow states compared with participants taking part in a lactate accumulation test [39]. Overall, these findings suggest taper enhances proprioception and facilitates the development of more positive arousal, task engagement and flow states. However, given the limited research in this area, future research needs to confirm the generalisability of these findings. Equally, the study by Venhorst et al. [39] used a relatively untrained sample and an unsupervised short-term (2-day) taper. Consequently, the ecological validity of these findings in relation to trained athletes undergoing a competition taper is questionable.

Perceived Fatigue and Wellness

Nine articles measured perceived fatigue and wellness, using a variety of scales. One commonly used and/or adapted scale is an eight-item questionnaire developed from recommendations by Hooper and Mackinnon [81] measuring perceptions of training, sleep, leg pain, infection, concentration, efficacy, anxiety, irritability and general stress [48, 60, 61]. With this measure, a cumulative total score of fatigue is also calculated. Other researchers have used three- [57], five- [33] or seven-item questionnaires [16] measuring similar constructs, or measured perceived well-being of the legs [42, 63]. To the authors’ knowledge, the psychometric properties of perceived fatigue and wellness questionnaires have not been formally examined (e.g. exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses). Consequently, the validity and reliability of these measures is unclear.

Most (78%) articles show perceived fatigue and wellness improve after taper [42, 61]. However, two articles (22%) reported unchanged perceived fatigue and wellness scores following taper. Low participant sizes and use of overload training phases may have underpowered the statistical test or overtrained participants, respectively, therefore explaining the unchanged perceived fatigue and wellness scores [16, 57].

Research has also found fatigue and wellness to be correlated with physiological variables [48, 60]. For instance, changes in the total score of fatigue from intense training to taper were moderately negatively correlated (r = −0.58) [82] with high-frequency heart-rate variability and moderately positively correlated (r = 0.64) with the low-frequency: high-frequency ratio in 13 (male = 9, female = 4) national-international swimmers [48]. In another study, the total score of fatigue was moderately positively correlated (r = 0.61) with the cortisol:cortisone ratio in 16 male elite Rugby Sevens players [60]. These findings suggest improvements in perceived fatigue and wellness during taper are associated with increased parasympathetic influence of the autonomic nervous system and reduced physiological stress.

Recovery-Stress Balance

Eight articles measured recovery-stress using the Recovery-Stress Questionnaire-Sport [83], or its derivatives [84]. Recovery-stress balance is theoretically grounded in a biopsychosocial conceptualisation of athlete fatigue and recovery, therefore distinguishing it from other themes in this review that have measured subjective fatigue (e.g. Perceived Fatigue and Wellness) but are not theoretically based. Most (63%) articles used the original RESTQ-Sport, which is a 76-item, 19-factor questionnaire measuring perceived stress and recovery. The 19 subscales are hierarchically organised into seven general stress subscales (general stress, emotional stress, social stress, conflicts/pressure, fatigue, lack of energy, physical complaints), five general recovery subscales (success, social recovery, physical recovery, general well-being, sleep quality), three sport-specific stress subscales (disturbed breaks, emotional exhaustion, injury) and four sport-specific recovery subscales (being in shape, personal accomplishment, self-efficacy, self-regulation). Researchers have also used shorter 52-item (25%) and eight-item (12%) versions [40, 66].

Most (88%) research shows that stress decreases and recovery increases after taper [9, 62]. Of this research, 71% used an experimental design, but often without a control group (66%). Consequently, the research lacks ecological validity and the influence of confounding and extraneous variables cannot be excluded. Only one article reported unchanged or increased stress/reduced recovery after taper [40]. This article also found that burnout dimensions of sport devaluation and reduced accomplishment increased after taper, compared with baseline. No explanation for the contradictory nature of these findings compared with other taper studies was offered; however, they could be due to the length of taper reported in the study (i.e. a 10-week period, which is substantially longer than most articles in this review). Consequently, this extensive taper period could have led to detraining [85], which may have negatively impacted perceived stress, recovery and burnout.

Taper as a Stressor

Six qualitative studies have findings suggesting taper may be a stressor for athletes and coaches [18, 22, 35, 51, 58, 67]. For example, transitioning from taper to fitness training was highlighted as a source of burnout in 15 professional Rugby Union players [35]. Additionally, when interviewing international athletes about competitive and organisational stressors, Hanton et al. [22] found that athletes wanted to have a good start at competition as this told them their taper was “right”. These findings suggest athletes consider taper an important performance indicator for their upcoming competition, and that when done poorly, it may be perceived to be a stressor.

Similar findings have been reported by coaches [18, 51]. In one study, 12 world class coaches (male = 6, female = 6) reported the preparation phase for major events as a challenge [51]. Specifically, one coach noted that “making sure the taper is right” (p. 453) was a stressor when preparing athletes for competition. Additionally, coaches also noted that managing athletes psychologically becomes more challenging closer to competition, as they do not behave or think in the same way they normally do [51]. Extending this, another study identified specific challenges coaches face during taper, including being negatively affected by the environment and having to maintain their composure and emotions around athletes [