Talk:Mental toughness

Mental strength
I want about mental strength in general via biology Praveen22300 (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Its the same, both are non-scientific terms made popular by online coaching. ToddGrande (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You could be right and appear to know about psychology. The important however is to find a decent source to use as citation to support the criticism.  Wikipedia is a tertiary source that attempts to reflect mostly secondary reliable sources (sometimes primary sources are also acceptable, depending on the publisher and author).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 16:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

|The Mental Toughness Questionniare-48: A Re-examination of Factorial Validity casts some doubt specifically on the MTQ48 model, which might be of interest for the article. 90.155.73.34 (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Sources and thorough editing needed
Entire sections do not even contain a single citation. Coincidentally, the sections that lack citations are lacking in linguistic complexity, further indicating that they might not stem from a trustworthy, peer reviewed source. 2A0A:A543:E2F3:0:DC7:5FCB:D45C:29C3 (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the above sentiment as a general statement. One specific note: the final paragraph in the "Similar constructs" section is confusing. It references resilience, which is not cohesive in the flow of the section (resilience was in the first paragraph; hardiness is the subject of the preceding one). "If mental toughness exists as a valid construct it may on occasion be maladaptive," In my opinion, should be removed, if not the entire paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlottercrane (talk • contribs) 04:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

There may be a need for a new section on criticisms. The listed authors are few of many who have several different definitions of "mental toughness." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlottercrane (talk • contribs) 03:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)