Exploring the Impact of Mindfulness on Athletic Performance and Functional Movement in Collegiate Athletes

Stationary Free-throw Accuracy

Time Frame: From enrollment to the end of intervention at 8 weeks, and a 3 months follow up

To evaluate the basic shooting accuracy without the influence of defensive pressure and fatigue, this study will adopt a standardized static free throw test. According to the process of Pojskic, Sisic, Separovic, \& Sekulic (2018), after completing the designated warm-up procedure, participants will take three sets of free throws on the standard free-throw line, with 10 consecutive attempts in each set, and a complete 3-minute break between each set. During the test, two researchers will be responsible for picking up the backboard under the basket and quickly passing the ball back to the participants to maintain a stable test rhythm. The study will record and calculate the average shooting percentage of the participants in all three groups (a total of 30 shots), which will be used as a reference indicator to evaluate their basic free throw skills.

1-Minute Shooting Test

Time Frame: From enrollment to the end of intervention at 8 weeks, and a 3 months follow up

To quantify the shooting efficiency and stability of athletes under combined movement, this study will adopt a one-minute shooting test, and the specific process will refer to the research of Kumari, Singh, \& Varghese (2023). Before the test, researchers will set shooting points at five angles of 0°, 45°, 90°, 135° and 180° at a distance of 4.54 meters from the center of the basket. After the test begins, a one-minute timer is set. Participants need to move their shots in a loop between five points. After each shot, regardless of whether it is successful or not, the participants must rush for the rebound by themselves and then dribble to the next position to shoot again. This test adopts a special scoring system: 2 points are awarded for each successful shot. A shot that misses but the ball touches the rim earns one point. The final score is the total score obtained by the participants within one minute.

Stationary 2-Point Shooting Accuracy

Time Frame: From enrollment to the end of intervention at 8 weeks, and a 3 months follow up

To evaluate the basic shooting accuracy at mid-range and without fatigue, this study will adopt a standardized static two-point shot test. According to the protocol of Pojskic, Sisic, Separovic, \& Sekulic (2018), after standardized warm-up, participants will undergo three sets of shooting tests, with a complete 3-minute rest between each set. In each set of tests, participants need to take two jump shots from five different positions 5 meters away from the center point of the basket. That is, each group takes a total of 10 shots. The test will be conducted without any time limit, and two researchers will be responsible for picking up the backboard and passing the ball under the basket to ensure a smooth process. Ultimately, the study will record and calculate the average shooting percentage of the participants across all three groups (a total of 30 shots) as an indicator of their static two-point shooting ability.

Stationary 3-Point Shooting Accuracy

Time Frame: From enrollment to the end of intervention at 8 weeks, and a 3 months follow up

To evaluate the basic shooting accuracy at a long distance and without fatigue, this study will adopt a standardized static three-point shot test. To ensure methodological consistency, the process of this test is exactly the same as that of the static two-point shot test, with only the shooting distance changed to outside the standard three-point line (Pojskic, Sisic, Separovic, \& Sekulic, 2018). Participants also need to complete three sets of tests. In each set, they take two shots from five different positions outside the three-point line (a total of 10 shots), with a three-minute break between sets. The test was also conducted without time limit, with two researchers assisting in passing the ball. Ultimately, the study will record and calculate the average shooting percentage of the participants across all three groups (a total of 30 shots) as an indicator of their static three-point shooting ability.

"I" Dribble Test

Time Frame: From enrollment to the end of intervention at 8 weeks, and a 3 months follow up

The site layout includes five marker cones: Cone 1 is 8 meters away from the starting line, Cone 2 to Cone 5 are placed every 3 meters in sequence, with the farthest distance being 20 meters. The test uses the Witty SEM, Microgate system for precise timing. The test process is as follows: The participant holds the ball and stands behind the starting line. Upon hearing the signal, they first dribble and sprint to Cone 1 and then return to the starting line. They then continue dribbling around Cone 1 to Cone 5, and finally dribble and sprint 20 meters in a straight line from Cone 5 back to the starting line. The timing ends. If the ball is lost during the process (the ball rolls more than two steps away from the body), this test is invalid. Each participant should complete two valid tests with at least a five-minute break in between. The shortest time (in seconds) will be taken as the final score.

Control Dribble Test

Time Frame: From enrollment to the end of intervention at 8 weeks, and a 3 months follow up

To assess the ball control ability of athletes on complex routes, this study will adopt the controlled dribbling test. According to the setup of Kumari, Singh, \& Varghese (2023), researchers will use five marker cones to arrange a specific dribbling route within a 5.8-meter x 3.6-meter area. At the beginning of the test, participants need to dribble the ball with their non-dominant hand and go around all the marker cones as quickly as possible along the preset complex route. The entire process will use a timer to record the time (in seconds) required to complete the entire course. Each participant will take three tests, and the one with the shortest time taken will be the final score.

CODAT with Ball

Time Frame: From enrollment to the end of intervention at 8 weeks, and a 3 months follow up

This study will adopt the ball-holding Direction Change Acceleration Test (CODAT) (Puente et al., 2017). Before the test, researchers will use marker cones to lay out a standardized route. The test will use the electronic timing gate system (Witty SEM, Microgate, Bolzano, Italy) for precise timing. Participants hold the ball and stand behind the starting line. Upon hearing the signal, they complete the designated route at the fastest speed, including forward dash, sudden stop, 45-degree and 90-degree turn dribbling, etc. Throughout the entire process, participants must always maintain control of the ball. If a goal is conceded or the test is not completed along the prescribed route during the process, the test will be invalid. Each participant will take two tests, with at least a three-minute complete break in between. The shortest recorded time (in seconds) will be taken as the final score.

Linear Sprints with Dribbling

Time Frame: From enrollment to the end of intervention at 8 weeks, and a 3 months follow up

To measure the maximum speed of an athlete when dribbling and advancing with full force without the interference of changing direction, this study will adopt a 20-meter straight-line sprint test with the ball. This test also uses an electronic timing gate system. A pair of photoelectric sensors are set at the starting point and the 20-meter finish line respectively to ensure the accuracy of the data (Scanlan et al., 2019). Participants start from a position 30 centimeters behind the starting line with the ball in hand. Upon hearing the signal, they dribble forward with all their might and sprint forward. The study will record the time (in seconds) required for participants to complete the entire 20-meter course. Each participant will take two valid tests, with at least a three-minute complete break in between. The shortest recorded time will be taken as the final score.

Wall Passing Test

Time Frame: From enrollment to the end of intervention at 8 weeks, and a 3 months follow up

Participants perform chest passes against a wall with 6 target squares (3 high, 3 low) from a 2.5m distance for 30 seconds, using slide steps to move between targets. Scoring: 2 points for hitting the target, 1 point for hitting the wall between targets.

In-Game Performance Statistics

Time Frame: From enrollment to the end of intervention at 8 weeks, and a 3 months follow up

Performance in a standardized 5-on-5 full-court game is recorded by two independent observers. Statistics (points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, fouls, turnovers, etc.) are converted into a Performance Index Rating (PIR) using the FIBA formula.

Change in Functional Movement Control

Time Frame: From enrollment to the end of intervention at 8 weeks, and a 3 months follow up

Assessed using the Functional Movement Screen (FMS™). This tool evaluates seven fundamental movement patterns: Deep Squat, Hurdle Step, Inline Lunge, Shoulder Mobility, Active Straight-Leg Raise, Trunk Stability Push-up, and Rotary Stability. Each pattern is scored from 0 to 3 based on execution quality and pain presence, with a maximum total score of 21.

Athlete Psychological Strain Questionnaire (APSQ)

Time Frame: From enrollment to the end of intervention at 8 weeks, and a 3 months follow up

The APSQ consists of 10 items, aiming to quickly assess the degree of psychological tension and distress of athletes in sports-related situations (such as "In the past four weeks, I couldn't stop worrying about injuries or performance"). Participants are required to rate the frequency of each item based on their feelings over the past four weeks using a five-point Likert scale (1= never, 5= always). The scoring method is to directly add up the scores of all items, with the total score ranging from 10 to 50 points. According to the official guidelines of SMHAT-1, if the total score is equal to or higher than 17 points, it indicates that the athlete may have a relatively high risk of psychological distress and requires further attention or assessment. The Chinese version of this tool has been verified for reliability and validity among Chinese elite athletes (HKSI, 2021).

Beck Anxiety Inventory, BAI

Time Frame: From enrollment to the end of intervention at 8 weeks, and a 3 months follow up

The BAI scale consists of 21 items and requires participants to rate the severity of each anxiety symptom (such as "accelerated heartbeat", "fear", "tension", etc.) based on their feelings over the past week. The scale is scored using the Likert four-point scale (0= none, 1= mild, 2= moderate, 3= severe), and the total score is the sum of the scores of all items, ranging from 0 to 63 points. According to the standard interpretation, a score of 0 to 7 indicates extremely mild anxiety, 8 to 15 indicates mild anxiety, 16 to 25 indicates moderate anxiety, and 26 to 63 indicates severe anxiety. BAI is a widely used anxiety assessment tool in clinical practice and research. Its Chinese version has been proven to have excellent reliability and validity. In the study conducted by Zheng Yuyu et al. (2002) on a Taiwanese community sample, its internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's α) was as high as 0.94.

Sport Anxiety Scale-2, SAS-2

Time Frame: From enrollment to the end of intervention at 8 weeks, and a 3 months follow up

SAS-2 consists of 15 items and is scored using the Likert Four-point Scale (1= not at all, 4= very serious), with a total score ranging from 15 to 60 points. This scale can assess competitive Trait Anxiety from three core dimensions: (a) Somatic Trait Anxiety, which includes five items, is used to measure the physiological tension responses (such as accelerated heart rate and muscle tightness) that athletes usually feel during competitions; (b) Worry, which consists of five items, is used to measure the degree of athletes' concern about their own poor performance and negative evaluations from others; And (c) Concentration Disruption, which consists of five items, is used to measure the tendency of athletes to have difficulty concentrating during competitions. The Chinese version of SARS-2 also demonstrated excellent psychometric characteristics among the Chinese athlete community, with an internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's α) of.89 (Huang Chongru, 2009).

Beck Depression Inventory-II, BDI-II

Time Frame: From enrollment to the end of intervention at 8 weeks, and a 3 months follow up

This scale consists of 21 items, each corresponding to a specific category of depressive symptoms (such as "sadness", "loss of interest", "fatigue", etc.). Participants are required to select the most appropriate sentence from each group of four statements describing different degrees of severity based on their feelings over the past two weeks. The scale is scored on a four-point scale (0 to 3 points), with the total score being the sum of all item scores, ranging from 0 to 63 points. According to the standard interpretation, a score of 0 to 13 indicates no or very mild depression, 14 to 19 indicates mild depression, 20 to 28 indicates moderate depression, and 29 to 63 indicates severe depression. The Chinese version of BDI-II has been widely used and has proved to have excellent reliability and validity. In the study conducted by The Chinese University of Hong Kong (2005), the internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's α) of the Chinese version was as high as 0.92.

Perceived Stress Scale, PSS-10

Time Frame: From enrollment to the end of intervention at 8 weeks, and a 3 months follow up

This study adopted its simplified version (PSS-10) consisting of 10 items, asking participants to assess the frequency of specific feelings or thoughts occurring in the past month. The scale is scored using the Likert five-point scale (0= never, 4= very frequent). Among them, the four items with positive expressions (#4, 5, 7, 8) need to be processed in reverse when scoring. The total score is obtained by adding up the scores of all items, ranging from 0 to 40 points. The higher the score, the higher the perceived stress level of the individual. Its reliability and validity were good in the Chinese sample. In the study in Taiwan region, the internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's α) of the Chinese version of PSS-10 was.85 (Chu, 2010).

Recovery-Stress Questionnaire for Athletes, RESTQ-Sport

Time Frame: From enrollment to the end of intervention at 8 weeks, and a 3 months follow up

This study adopts a version consisting of 76 items, corresponding to 19 different sub-dimensions (with 4 items in each sub-dimension). These sub-dimensions can be classified into two major categories: general stress dimensions (such as "general stress", "emotional exhaustion", "injury"), general recovery dimensions (such as "success", "physical recovery", "sleep quality"), specific stress dimensions (such as "training stress", "competition anxiety"), and specific recovery dimensions (such as "personal responsibility", "self-efficacy"). Participants are required to assess the frequency of their feelings over the past three days based on the Likert seven-point scale (0= never, 6= always). The scoring method is to calculate the average score of the 19 sub-dimensions respectively, thereby providing a detailed profile of the athlete's current stress-recovery status.

Athlete Burnout Questionnaire, ABQ

Time Frame: From enrollment to the end of intervention at 8 weeks, and a 3 months follow up

The ABQ consists of 15 items and is scored using the Likert five-point Scale (1= almost never, 5= almost always). These three dimensions are evaluated respectively: (a) Emotional/Physical Exhaustion, which consists of five items, is used to measure the fatigue and energy depletion that athletes feel due to training and competition; (b) Reduced Sense of Accomplishment, which consists of five items, is used to measure the tendency of athletes to negatively evaluate their athletic ability and achievements; And (c) Sport Devaluation, which consists of five items, is used to measure athletes' negative and cynical attitudes towards the meaning and value of the sports they are engaged in. When scoring, the average score of each of the three sub-dimensions is calculated separately. The higher the score, the more severe the degree of burnout in that dimension. The internal consistency reliability (α) of each subscale of the original scale ranged from.89 to.93.