Beyond the Xs and Os: Investigating Predictors of College Athlete Mental Health

Background and Purpose: Sport social workers (SSWs) are professionals responding to rising mental health (MH) concerns among collegiate student-athletes (Moore et al., in press). Suicide rates among college athletes have doubled over the past decade (Whelan et al., 2024), underscoring an urgent need to examine how sport environments may be contributing to worsening MH outcomes—and, more importantly, how they can be improved. This study applied ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1974) and self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) to explore how modifiable factors within the sport context— coaching behaviors, coach-athlete relationships (CAR), athlete grit, and experiences of sport-related burnout—may shape college athlete MH outcomes.

Methods: National data were collected via an online survey from U.S. college athletes and included validated measures of grit (Grit-S; Duckworth & Quinn, 2009), CAR (CART-Q; Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2004), coach behaviors (CBSQ-16; Van Meervelt et al., 2024), sport-related burnout (ABQ; Raedeke & Smith, 2001), depression, and anxiety (DASS-21; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). Data (N = 295) were analyzed using structural equation modeling (SEM) in Mplus.

Results: The SEM predicting college athlete depression demonstrated good fit (RMSEA = .06; CFI = .97; TLI = .97) and predicted 39% variance in this variable. Findings from the SEM predicting college athlete depression revealed that CAR (β = -.29; p < .001) and perseverance of effort (grit; β = -.32; p < .001) negatively predict sport-related burnout (R² = .66). Sport-related burnout positively predicted college athlete depression (β = .69; p < .001), and college athlete depression positively predicted sport-related burnout (β = .17; p = .04). Furthermore, a significant indirect relationship emerged, suggesting that better CAR predict lower sport-related burnout and lower college athlete depression.

The SEM predicting college athlete anxiety demonstrated good fit (RMSEA = .05; CFI = .97; TLI = .97) and predicted 27% variance in this variable. CAR (β = -.30; p < .001) and perseverance of effort (grit; β = -.31; p < .001) were negatively related to sport-related burnout (R² = .58). Sport-related burnout directly and positively predicts college athlete anxiety (β = .38; p < .001). Finally, significant pathways indicate stronger, more positive CAR are associated with lower sport-related burnout, and in turn, lower sport-related burnout is associated with fewer college athlete anxiety symptoms.

Conclusions and Implications: Findings reveal that CAR can impact sport-related burnout and, in turn, symptoms of clinical depression and anxiety in college athletes, shedding light on areas for SSW intervention. SSWs are uniquely positioned to intervene at multiple levels: individual (athlete MH), interpersonal (CAR), and systemic (MH policy and training). Social work’s emphasis on prevention, relationship-building, and systemic change aligns directly with the types of resilience-building interventions that are emerging as both needed and viable in sport-based environments (Moore et al., in press). Given that sport-related burnout clearly exacerbates college athlete MH concerns, SSWs can intervene with college athlete MH by advocating for improved MH screening to include screening for sport-related burnout and implementing resilience-building efforts to prevent sport-related burnout among college athletes.