# Mental health and officiating performance

## TL;DR

This study shows that mental wellbeing significantly affects how well sports officials perform, while psychological distress does not.

## Contribution

The study identifies mental wellbeing as a key predictor of officiating performance, distinct from psychological distress.

## Key findings

- Mental wellbeing significantly predicts officiating performance.
- Psychological distress does not directly influence performance.
- The model explains 19% of the variation in officials' performance.

## Abstract

Mental health challenges have been recognized as factors that can influence sport officials’ ability to perform effectively. For example, 90% of soccer officials believed common mental disorders could negatively affect refereeing performance. Therefore, this study aimed to uncover if mental health affects officiating performance.

This study used a subjective rating of officiating performance (e.g., positioning, rule application, communication, etc.) and measures of mental health outcomes using the Kessler K10 psychological distress scale and the Warwick-Edinburgh mental wellbeing scale to determine the relationship between mental health and performance. A sample of 274 referees (85% male, 84% Caucasian, Mage = 47.3, Mexperience = 19.0) from Canada Basketball participated in this study.

A Hierarchical Linear Regression predicting performance from psychological distress and wellbeing, after controlling for experience, was significant [F(3, 235) = 22.60, p < 0.001], accounting for 19% of the variation in officials’ performance.

This study demonstrates that the wellbeing of sport officials is a significant predictor of perceived performance, whereas psychological distress does not appear to directly influence performance.