Soccer is a high-intensity intermittent team sport that requires technical, tactical and physical skills (Stolen et al., 2005), as well as psychological (Gledhill et al., 2017; Olmedilla et al., 2018b) for optimal performance. Soccer is one of the most researched sports in the scientific literature (Reilly et al., 2000; Datson et al., 2014). However, most of studies have been conducted traditionally with male soccer player samples, and only recent studies have analyzed female soccer player cohorts (Vescovi and McGuigan, 2008). Nowadays, female soccer has a great participation in United States (Markovits and Hellerman, 2003) and begins to be considered an attractive sport by women athletes in Europe and other countries around the world (Wright, 2014). Therefore, a greater research about the main factors related to the female soccer players’ performance is clearly required.

Starting from the theoretical model of Gagné (2004) (Differentiated Model of Gift and Talent, GMGT) to work simultaneously with personality traits, acquired skills and psychology requirements for the sports competition, it has been considered that the psychological disposition is one of the factors that have been strongly added to this analysis (Olmedilla and Dominguez-Igual, 2016; González, 2017). Considered as intermediary between players’ physical, technical and tactical abilities (Morris, 2000; Castilla and Ramos, 2012; Abdullah et al., 2016; Swann et al., 2017), psychological disposition is one of the keys for the sport performance due to the influence that it would have in the player’s competitive success (Anderson et al., 2014; Arthur et al., 2017). In this sense, some studies have found that physiological variables represent between 45 and 48% of the sport performance, and when the psychological variables were added, the proportion of variance explained increased around 79–85% in certain sports like wrestling (Nagle et al., 1975; Silva et al., 1981; Bali, 2015; Abdullah et al., 2016; Olmedilla et al., 2017a).

One of the approaches for studying the role of the psychological variables in sport performance is based on the personality traits (Mahoney and Avener, 1977; Gould et al., 1981; Burnik et al., 2005; Rasmus and Kocur, 2006; Cabrita et al., 2014), as the recent published study by Danielsen et al. (2017) where a relationship was found between the influence of mental toughness and the level of competition in female soccer players. Another approach studies differences between athletes and non-athlete population. For instance, Malinauskas et al. (2014) found higher scores in Consciousness in athletes than in non-athlete population, and greater Extraversion in team sportspeople in comparison with athletes from individual sports. Steca et al. (2018) found that athletes with better success in their careers revealed higher punctuations in all the Big-Five personality dimensions.

Given that these results do not show clearly a specific personality profile to distinguish between athletes and non-athlete population (Weinberg and Gould, 2014), neither result really useful for the sport performance, researchers have focused on the study of the relationship between athletes’ mental strategies, abilities and behaviors, and their subsequent performance (Romero et al., 2010; Álvarez et al., 2014; García-Naveira et al., 2015). This approach has been able to provide a better knowledge of the most relevant psychological characteristics for athletes, as well as to explain the differences between diverse sport participants and/or tactical positions in the same sport (Olmedilla et al., 2015). Also as they indicate Baillie et al. (2014, p. 406) “personality may also play a central role in determining the goodness of the fit between an athlete or team and a (psychologist) practitioner,” it could serve to distinguish male soccer players from female soccer players, and thus establish working hypotheses about the most appropriated psychological intervention to assist the sport performance; the knowledge of an athlete’s psychological profile enables a better understanding, the improvement of the communication procedures with himself and the increase in training effectivity (Martínez-Ferreiro, 2016), and it will result in better mental preparation and better psychological skills acquisition related to the sport success (Bahrololoum et al., 2012; Olmedilla et al., 2018c).

In recent years the number of works that show an especial attention in the study of the relationship between psychological factors and sport performance in female soccer has increased considerably (Danielsen et al., 2017). Specifically, the main psychological factors studied have been self-esteem and anxiety control (Williams, 2017), the prediction of the goal orientations suggesting coach’s specific actions (Granero-Gallegos et al., 2015; Domínguez-Escribano et al., 2017), some mental health indicators as depression and anxiety (Junge and Feddermann-Demont, 2016; Olmedilla et al., 2018a), and mood states (Arroyo del Bosque et al., 2016). Thus, it seems interesting the suggestion made by Rutkowska and Bergier (2015), who emphasized the importance of examining the women soccer players’ psychological profile due to the relevant information derived from this evaluation for improving training programs, primarily in mental training and in soccer players close to the professional level of performance (Martín-García, 2003).

In summary, sport performance is determined by a physical, technical and tactical systematic practice, necessary to achieve an elite level in soccer (Haugaasen et al., 2014). The same practice should be applied to the psychological training, strengthening the psychological resources for the sport competition; in this sense, the review published by Gledhill et al. (2017) stated 48 social and psychological factors linked to the talent development in soccer (e.g., adaptive lifestyle choices, practice and play behaviors). Similarly, there is a clear need to use women soccer players given the lack of studies that analyze this population in comparison with their male counterparts. Therefore, the main purposes of the current study were: (1) to describe the psychological characteristics of a Spanish sample of female young soccer players, and (2) to determine the differences between under-16 and under-18 age-groups, as well as their relation and congruence with perception of performance by the soccer player herself and her coach.

Table 1 shows the descriptive analysis of the total sample of soccer players, and the application of the normality test (Kolmogorov–Smirnov) for the five factors, of which Team Cohesion (p < 0.001) and Motivation (p < 0.01) are not distributed normally.

Figure 1 shows the scores obtained by the players in each of the factors of the CPRD, compared with and the average scores of a general sample of athletes in the study from Gimeno (1999) with the same tool. It is noteworthy that in all the factors, the scores coming from the group of female soccer players are higher than to those from the general sample, highlighting the Motivation factor (c = 85, M = 23.86, SD = 4.04), Stress Control (c = 65; M = 51.26, SD = 11.15), and Team Cohesion (c = 65, M = 19.94, SD = 2.85), while the Influence of the Performance Evaluation (c = 55, M = 25.83, SD = 6.70) and Mental Ability (c = 55, M = 21.37, SD = 4.09) values are on the average.

Table 2 shows the descriptive values from the players’ self-evaluation of the performance in match 1. The answer rate was 81.5% (n = 88), while it was 82.4% for the second match (n = 89). When observing the coaches evaluations, it was initially of 83.3% (n = 90) in the first game, and of 84.3% (n = 91) in the second one. Of these last two evaluation, only 66.67% (n = 72) and 66.76% (n = 73) of valid cases have been finally considered, due to the elimination of 18 evaluations of match 1 and 18 from the match 2 due to observed answers biases (extreme scores given without discrimination of variability in scores).

We may observe also that the players’ self-evaluations are very similar between the two games, although this short difference is significant in favor of the first match (z = -3.606, p < 0.001). Regarding the evaluations made by the coaches, they are somewhat higher than those made by the athletes, finding significant differences between the performance evaluations made between the first and second match (z = -2.295, p < 0.05). Unlike athletes, coaches give a better rating to the performance obtained in the 2nd game than the one from the first game.

Table 3 shows the descriptive values and the differences of means between the under-16 and under-18 categories.

The under-16 category players obtain higher scores than the players of the under-18 category in all the factors, although only statistically significant differences appears in Team Cohesion (p < 0.05.), and a tendency toward significance in the Motivation factor (p < 0.05).

Table 4 shows the players’ performance self-evaluations, the coaches’ evaluations and the scores obtained in the five factors of the CPRD, considering independently the under-16 category and the under-18 category.

In the under-16 category, only correlations are found between the two coaches’ evaluations (match 1 and match 2; rho = 0.500, p < 0.01), and a tendency to statistical significance (p < 0.10) between the perception of the players in match 1 and the Mental Ability factor. On the contrary, in the under-18 category multiple results with statistical significance appears. There are important correlations between the perception of the players’ performance in match 1 and match 2 (rho = 0.702, p < 0.001). Also, significant correlations –with medium values- were found between the player’s perception of their performance in game 1 and the coaches’ perception in that same game (rho = 0.405; p < 0.05), obtaining values significantly higher when considering the second match (rho = 0.445; p < 0.01).

Regarding to the CPRD factors, the Team Cohesion obtains significant inverse correlations of medium values when correlated with the players’ perception in matches 1 (rho = -0.479; p < 0.001) and 2 (rho = -0.402; p < 0.01). The same factor have a significant negative tendency (rho = -0.273; p < 0.10) correlated with coaches’ evaluation in match 2. Added to this, there is a positive correlation with tendency to the significance between the Motivation factor and the coach’s evaluation in the first game (rho = -0.264; p < 0.10).

Studying the psychological profile of female soccer players, as was indicated by Rutkowska and Bergier (2015), is extremely important, and also can provide many interesting ideas about the specific nature of women’s youth soccer.

It can also show where improvements can be made in sports training programs, specifically in mental training, especially in those players who will soon become part of professional football (MacNamara and Collins, 2017). In this vein, the objectives of this study have been to describe the psychological characteristics of young female soccer players, determine the differences between the under-16 and under-18 categories, showing their relationship and congruence with the perception of performance, from both the players and coaches.

The results show that the scores of the young soccer players in the CPRD are higher than those of the general sample of athletes, especially in the scales of M, SC, and TCOH. Specifically in M they have a score that can be considered as quite high, that is, the players in the sample studied seem to have an adequate motivational state to meet the demanding requirements of sports practice and the competition, which coincides with other studies on female soccer players (Muñoz et al., 2018), in which the basic motivation found was intrinsical, related to the game itself and by being part of a team, although these features have fluctuations depending on the competition level (Domínguez-Escribano et al., 2017).

Both in the SC and in TCOH subscales the scores obtained are moderately high, which in principle seems to indicate that the players tend to control well the potential stress inherent to the competition, and that they have a good disposition to work with the team. Regarding the scores obtained in IPE and MSK, the results indicate that they are on the average, which in the first case indicates that the players can be negatively affected by the evaluation that other people (or indeed themselves) make of their performance, and in the second case indicates that the players do not have full consolidated psychological skills, needed for to perform optimally. This last factor affects the need to propose psychological intervention programs tailored to the specific needs and characteristics of athletes, depending on the competition level, gender, etc. In the same vein, Slimani et al. (2016) performed a systematic review finding some very interesting data showing the differences in cognitive/psychological training interventions, and their effectiveness, depending on whether they are directed toward practices or competition, age, competition level and the players’ position.

Considering that the players have a similar level of performance in their respective categories, it is clear they show some overestimation of their skills (mainly perceived in the under-16 category), perhaps due to a fewer competitive experience, a lower self-awareness of psychological limitations, and less exposure to experiences related to the performance in competition demands. Also, from an evolutionary perspective, players of 14 and 15 years old are in the middle of the adolescence, where variables such as self-concept and self-knowledge are under construction, and therefore, may have a minor adjustment of their psychological skills to deal with situations of stress and promote self-confidence (Sarkar and Fletcher, 2014; González-Campos et al., 2015; Gómez-Espejo et al., 2017).

On the other hand, with respect to the second objective, the results indicate that the under-16 players obtain higher scores than the under-18 players in all the factors, showing statistically significant differences in TCOH and a tendency to statistical significance in M. In any case, the most relevant differences are in the TCOH scale, where perhaps the younger players have a better disposition to work inside the team, while the U18 players have other aspects of personal competence could work against the teamwork; and on the M scale, which in this case may be better understandable due to other major competitive factors, such as being near the end of the youth stage in the case of the U-18, when some of the players could to be thinking about alternatives outside the practice of competitive football, or that the perceived pressure is inadequately managed, generating anxiety and worry. These data are in accord with what other found in other studies (Pan and Zhu, 2003), where at a higher level of psychological competitiveness, lower is the level of worry and anxiety and better the performance.

Finally, regarding the third objective, and taking into account the whole sample, the results indicate that the players’ self-evaluations are very similar between match 1 and match 2, although this difference is significant in favor of match 1. In other words, they perceived that they have played the first match better than the second. Interestingly, the evaluations made by the coaches are somewhat higher than those made by the players themselves, finding significant differences between the assessments made between the match 1 and 2; unlike the players, the coaches give a better rating to the performance obtained in match 2. In this sense, some studies (Møllerløkken et al., 2017) have also found differences between the perception of players and coaches regarding the motivational climate, meaning that players of both sexes perceived that the motivational climate was more oriented toward the performance and less toward the domain compared to coaches. In both cases, these findings may improve our understanding of the coach-player relationship, and may be important in understanding the players’ motivational style. Indeed, Reid and Crust (2012) examined the perceptions of elite soccer players and coaches about the psychological drive and how it relates to objective performance, finding that teammates and spectators can have a greater impact on the momentum in female football than with the male soccer.

When analyzing the data by categories, the results indicate that in the under-16 category, only correlations are found between the coaches’ evaluation of first and second matches. On the other hand, in the under-18 category there are quite relevant correlations between the perception of the player’s performance between the two matches; between the players’ and coach performance perception match 1 and the perception, indeed reaching higher significant values when considering the second game. In this last case, the under-18 players’ great experience could explain, in part, the correlation of their performance perception with that of their coach, since in the under-16 category that lack of experience could play against a more realistic self-evaluation, differing more with the most experienced coach evaluation.

Furthermore, this fact supports the fact that the TCOH factor obtains significant inverse correlations -of medium values- when is correlated with the player’s self-perception both in the first and second matches, and when at the same time obtain a significant negative tendency with the coach’s evaluation in the second game. In short, these results indicate that the under-18 players have performance perceptions more adjusted to the expert criterion (from the coaches) than the under-16; the higher experience in the under-18 players’ sport practice could explain these differences between these both groups.

Finally, the CPRD questionnaire seems to be a very appropriate instrument to describe the relevant psychological characteristics related to sports performance, and to provide very valuable information, both from a group and individual point of view, serving as a basis for implementing training programs and specific psychological training for the team or individual level. As indicated by Olmedilla et al. (2017a) the knowledge of the psychological characteristics of young athletes can be very valuable so that, together with the physical and anthropometric indicators, they allow their coaches to individualize the training processes and thus optimize them.

The present study provides fundamentally some knowledge about the psychological variables of women’s competitive soccer, showing psychological differences in two youth sports categories where the player’s experience and age may have great relevance (Ruiz, 2005), as well as the relationships between the load of practice and/or competitions regarding players’ mood, psychological well-being and physiological well-being (Lowe, 2017; McFadden et al., 2017; Tharawadeepimuk and Wongsawat, 2017), especially in view of the possibility of evaluating and intervening on a psychological level in women’s football teams (Olmedilla et al., 2018b).

The results of this study can help to establish the differences between different constellations of psychological characteristics related with performance levels and their relationship with the subjective perception of performance. This knowledge can be used by sports professionals: coaches, psychologists, physical educators, etc., to help athletes achieve their maximum performance, and to implement effective intervention programs for sports performance (MacNamara et al., 2010; Bennett and Maynard, 2016; Gledhill et al., 2017); personal growth and athletes’ dual-career (Llames and García-Dantas, 2017), or even athletes’ injury prevention (Olmedilla et al., 2017b).

The scores of the young soccer players in the CPRD are higher than those of the general sample of athletes, especially in the scales of M, SC, and TCOH.

The under-16 category players’ obtained higher scores than the under-18 category players’ in all factors, showing statistically significant differences in TCOH, and a tendency to statistical significance in M.

The players’ self-perception of their performance is very similar between match 1 and match 2, although the small difference is significant in favor of match 1.

The players’ performance made by their coaches is somewhat higher than those made by the players themselves.

This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Declaration of Helsinki. The protocol was approved by the Comité de Ética de la Universidad de Murcia (reference: UM 1551/2017). All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

AO and AG-M contributed with the conception and design of the study. AO and RR-B organized the database. RR-B and FP performed the statistical analysis. AO wrote the first draft of the manuscript. FP, AG-M, RR-B, and FR-P wrote the sections of the manuscript. FR-P was in charge of the formal aspects of the work. All authors contributed to the revision of the manuscript, and read and approved the presented version.

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.