The relationship between youth sport specialization, reasons for participation, and youth sport participation motivations: a retrospective study.

Russell, William D.

Early youth sport specialization is a growing trend (Baker, 2003; Landers, Carson, & Tjeerdsma-Blankenship, 2010; Wiersma, 2000) and has been defined as the "limiting of participation to one sport that is practiced, trained for, and competed in on a year-round basis" (Hill & Hansen, 1988, p.76). As more youth participate in sports, these settings are becoming more structured and adult-organized (Ewing & Seefedlt, 1996), and participation is beginning at earlier ages (Callendar, 2010). Specialization in a single sport before adolescence has been discouraged by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP, 2000) yet research indicates that among youth who specialize, the majority do so before adolescence (Russell & Limle, 2013). Parents often believe early specialization increases the odds that the child will obtain a college athletic scholarship or even become an elite athlete (Coakley, 2010; Gould 2010; Gould & Carson, 2004), yet this is not supported by data. For example, National Collegiate Athletic Association data (NCAA, 2004) indicate that high school seniors' probability of playing varsity collegiate sports ranges from 2.9% (basketball) to 12.9% (ice hockey), while the odds of transitioning from college to professional sports are even lower. Yet despite such odds, many youth are still pressured to specialize in one sport (Landers et al., 2010).

The Developmental Model of Sport Participation (DMSP; Cote, 1999; Cote & Fraser-Thomas, 2007) provides a framework to study youth sport progressions within three trajectories: (1) recreational participation through sampling, (2) elite performance through sampling, and (3) elite performance through early specialization. According to this model, during the sampling years (6-12 years of age) youth participate in different activities emphasizing motor development and fun (Cote, 1999). Deliberate play activities, involving minimal adult supervision (e.g., driveway basketball games, backyard soccer) are aimed at increasing intrinsic motivation and enjoyment, and are often emphasized in this period (Cote, 1999; Cote, Baker, & Abernathy, 2003). Sampling various sports is thought to stimulate intrinsic motivation (Cote & Fraser-Thomas, 2007), thus enhancing enjoyment which is related to sport commitment (Scanlan, Carpenter, Schmidt, Simons, & Keeler, 1993). Conversely, early specialization implies the youth does not sample various sports, but specializes immediately and begins greater sport investment at an earlier age. In contrast to deliberate play, Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Romer (1993) posited that expert sport performance resulted from long-term systematic involvement in specialized training termed deliberate practice. Specifically, deliberate practice is defined as "a highly structured activity, the explicit goal of which is to improve performance" (Ericsson et al., p. 368). This training involves practice activities that are effortful, low in enjoyment, designed to address weaknesses, extrinsically motivated and focused on outcomes instead of processes (Cote et al., 2003). Ericsson et al. (1993) noted that expert performance was the product of extensive deliberate practice rather than innate abilities, and suggested that deliberate practice had to be sustained over a period of at least 10 years to achieve expert performance. Specialization is often characterized by less deliberate play and high amounts of deliberate practice, where enjoyment of the activity may have a lower priority.

Various concerns exist regarding the physical and psychosocial development of youth who specialize in one sport. So-called "specializers" (Strachan, Cote, & Deakin, 2009, p. 77) may be at greater risk for physical, psychological, and developmental issues including, burnout (Baker, 2003; Coakley, 2009; Gould, 2010; Gould, Tuffey, Udry, & Loehr, 1996; Strachan et ah, 2009), overuse injuries (Kaleth & Mikesky, 2010), and social isolation (Coakley, 2010; Gould, 2010). Specialization also may limit long-term motor skill development (Branta, 2010; Wiersma, 2000), and inhibit identity (Coakley, 2010) and psychological development (Baker, 2003; Fraser-Thomas & Cote, 2006; Gould, 2010). Finally, sport dropout is a major concern with early specialization (AAP, 2000; Butcher, Lindner, & Johns, 2002; Fraser-Thomas, Cote, & Deakin, 2005; Strachan et al., 2009; Wall & Cote, 2007). A lack of enjoyment is a main reason for withdrawal in early stages of youth sport participation (Butcher et al., 2002) and the structure of early specialized sport may be at odds with enhancing enjoyment necessary for long-term involvement (Baker, 2003; Weiss, 2000). For example, research examining adolescent dropouts in swimming indicated that dropouts were involved in less unstructured swimming play and started intensive training earlier than engaged swimmers (Fraser-Thomas, Cote, & Deakin, 2008). Less is known regarding youth sport involvement influences on motivations to be physically active in exercise and sport activities as a young adult. Since little research has explored long-term physical, social, and psychological effects of organized sport involvement during childhood and adolescence, research is needed to understand the role of youth sport in adopting a physically active lifestyle in young adulthood. Russell and Limle (2013) recently examined whether young adults' sport and physical activity participation was related to perceptions of their youth sport experience and whether or not they specialized. While young adults' physical activity patterns and enjoyment were not related to whether they specialized in one youth sport or sampled multiple sports, "specializers" were less likely to participate in organized sports as young adults.

Motivational Considerations of Youth Sport Settings

Deci and Ryan's Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985; 1991) asserts that competence, autonomy, and relatedness are basic human needs, and the extent to which they are satisfied determines one's intrinsic motivation for an activity. Factors that facilitate one's perceived autonomy, competence, and relatedness enhance motivation, whereas events that negatively influence perceptions of autonomy, competence and relatedness may lessen it (Deci & Ryan, 1985; 1991; Vallerand & Losier, 1999). Deci and Ryan (1985) proposed that a motivational continuum is formed where various types of intrinsically-and extrinsically-regulated behaviors can be identified. Four types of extrinsic motivation are proposed: external, introjected, identified, and integrated regulations. These reflect behaviors associated with external pressures (external regulation), internal pressures to avoid guilt (introjected regulation), and self-determined motivation associated with personal goals (identified regulation). Integrated regulation reflects behaviors "fully assimilated to the self, which means they have been evaluated and brought into congruence with one's other values and needs" (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p.73). Self-determination and autonomy increase as one goes from external to integrated regulation. Intrinsic motivation refers to doing activity for itself and for the pleasure and satisfaction derived from participation. For example, intrinsic motivation is characterized when a youth athlete plays soccer because he or she finds it interesting and satisfying to learn new moves with the ball. Vallerand and Losier (1999) proposed that there are at least three types of intrinsic motivation: intrinsic motivation to know (doing the activity for the pleasure of learning), intrinsic motivation toward accomplishments (for the pleasure of trying to surpass oneself) and intrinsic motivation to experience stimulation (for sensory and aesthetic pleasure). Intrinsic motivation, which reflects enjoyment, interest, and personal satisfaction is the clearest form of autonomy and demonstrates true self-determination (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

Experiences of learning and improving skills, exerting effort, and excitement associated with youth sport are consistently reported as enjoyable (Bakker, DeKonning, Schenau, & DeGroot, 1993; Boyd & Yin, 1996), and evidence indicates specialized youth sport settings may undermine intrinsic motivation and enjoyment (Deci & Olsen, 1989; Law, Cote, & Ericsson, 2007; Strachan et al., 2009; Wall & Cote, 2007). Athletes participating in sport for self-determined reasons are more likely to experience positive affect from their involvement, whereas athletes participating for less self-determined motives may be more likely to experience negative affect (Vallerand & Losier, 1999). Many sport factors are related to intrinsic motivation such motivational climates and coaching styles (Weinberg & Gould, 2011). For example, dropout swimmers and football players (Pelletier et al., 2001; Robinson & Carron, 1982) perceived their coaches as less encouraging and supportive, and more controlling and autocratic than non-dropouts. Therefore, features of many organized sport settings (e.g., less perceived control over one's participation) may diminish self-determination, thus decreasing intrinsic motivation over time. In fact, predictors of negative personal development within youth sports are an ego climate and other-referenced competencies (MacDonald, Cote, Eys, & Deakin, 2011) which are often more prominent within specialized sport settings.

To the extent that youth sport specialization is related to negative risks such as burnout, lower perceived autonomy and higher dropout, youth sport motivation may decrease. Perceptions of low autonomy can result in emotional exhaustion and burnout (Baker, 2003; Coakley, 1992, 2009; Gould, 2010; Gould et al., 1996; Raedke, 1997; Strachan et al., 2009), and since lower autonomy may be more evident in specialized sport settings, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation levels may be different in specializers compared to nonspecializers. Youth physical activity research has found that youth forced into exercise in childhood are less likely to continue physical activity in adulthood (Taylor, Blair, Cummings, Wun, & Malina, 1999). Lower personal autonomy for sport participation could have a similar effect on decreasing adult sport participation. In short, self-determined motivational patterns are likely to promote long-term sport and physical activity participation (Brustad, Vilhjalmsson, & Fonseca, 2008; Vallerand, Donahue, & Lafreniere, 2012).

While some research has been done on youth sport specialization in general (Baker, Cobley, & Fraser-Thomas, 2009) less is known about psychological aspects of sport specialization (Gould, 2010). Baker et al. (2009) reviewed the extant literature and concluded that inadequate evidence exists to resolve the issue in favor of either a specialization or diversification approach. Unfortunately, conclusions about benefits or detriments of specialization are often based on indirect data from coaches rather than direct examination of participants who specialize versus those who play multiple sports (Baker et al., 2009). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine how former youth athletes' sport motivation was related to whether they specialized in one sport as a youth athlete. Since early youth specialization may weaken intrinsic motivation (Boyd & Yin, 1996; Ewing & Seefeldt, 1996; Gould, 2010; Law et al., 2007), and participation motivations may be transformed from intrinsic into more extrinsic when youth specialize (Fraser-Thomas & Cote, 2006), it was hypothesized that young adults who specialized in one sport as youth ("specializers") would report lower intrinsic motivation and higher extrinsic motivation for their youth sport participation compared to young adults who participated in multiple youth sports ("non-specializers"). Second, it was hypothesized that specializers would report less physical activity enjoyment as young adults compared to non-specializers. Finally, it was hypothesized that specializers would report lower sport participation as young adults compared to non-specializers.

Method

Participants

A sample of 200 participants consisting of 93 males (M age = 19.41 years, SD = 1.36) and 107 females (M age = 18.81 years, SD = 1.09 years) was surveyed through general education wellness courses at a mid-size Midwestern university. Participants ranged in age from 17 to 22, with a mean age of 19.09 (SD=1.26). The sample was largely Caucasian (78%) followed by African-American (16%), Asian (4%), American Indian (2%), and Hispanic (1%). The rationale for surveying students from general education courses was to obtain a more representative sample; all students, regardless of major, are required to enroll in these courses, therefore minimizing selection bias due to over-representation of majors with a larger percentage of college athletes (e.g. physical education). Participants signed consent forms before completing surveys and names were not included on the surveys, thus maintaining their anonymity.

Measures

Demographic questionnaire. Participants completed a survey packet which included demographic information, whether they specialized in a single youth sport (in response to whether or not they limited their athletic participation to one sport which was practiced, trained for and competed in throughout the year), their current general sport participation classification (competitive, recreational, do not participate), and questions about current aerobic exercise and resistance training frequency. In addition, a set of items was developed which examined participants' reasons for participating in youth sport. The scope of these items was based on noted reasons for youth sport participation and withdrawal (Hecimovich, 2004; NASPE, 2010). These nine items, which were set to a five-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, to 5=strongly agree), were (1) to have fun, (2) to win, (3) to do something I was good at, (4) to stay in shape, (5) to learn and improve skills, (6) to play as part of a team, (7) to be recognized as an athlete by my peers, (8) to be promoted to the next level in my sport, and (9) to feel competent about my physical abilities. A Cronbach's alpha conducted to determine the internal consistency of these items in assessing participants' reasons for youth sport participation ([alpha] = .86) indicated acceptable internal reliability (Nunnaly, 1978).

Physical activity enjoyment scale (PACES). The Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (Kendzierski & DeCarlo, 1991) is an 18-item scale with bipolar adjectives in a 7-point semantic differential format and assesses the degree to which an individual experiences physical activity as enjoyable. For example, participants are asked to respond to how they feel about physical activity using bipolar adjectives such as "I enjoy it--I hate it"; "It's very invigorating--it's not at all invigorating"; and "it's very pleasant--it's very unpleasant." Validity and reliability evidence exists for the PACES (Kendzierski & DeCarlo, 1991), and acceptable Cronbach alpha coefficients of .93 to .96 have been reported (Crocker, Bouffard, & Gessaroli, 1995).

The sport motivation scale (SMS). The Sport Motivation Scale (Pelletier et al., 1995) assesses intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and amotivation in sports. Three types of intrinsic motivation (IM) are measured with the SMS: IM to Know, IM to Accomplish Things, and IM to Experience Stimulation. IM to know refers to performing an activity for the pleasure and satisfaction gained while learning, exploring or understanding something new. Motivation towards accomplishments is similar to mastery motivation and task-orientation. IM to experience stimulation refers to engaging in an activity to experience stimulating sensations (Pelletier et al., 1995). The three types of extrinsic motivation (EM) assessed with the SMS are: EM--External Regulation, EM--Introjection, and EM--Identification. External regulation refers to behaviors that are controlled by external factors such as rewards. Introjection refers to behaviors that are regulated by internal pressures such as guilt or anxiety. Lastly, identification refers to behaviors that are internally regulated and self-determined because one views the behavior as important, yet it is still performed for extrinsic reasons. The SMS consists of 28 items and participants responded to items based on a 7-point likert scale ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." Pelletier et al. (1995) found acceptable reliability for SMS subscales (Cronbach's alphas ranging from .74 to .80). Additionally, the SMS has demonstrated strong logical validity and adequate content validity (Pelletier et al., 1995). The original SMS contains the anchor statement "Why do you practice your sport?" Since, however, this study measured retrospective recall of why young adults participated in youth sport, the SMS anchor was modified to read "Why did you practice your youth sport(s)?"

Procedures

Upon institutional review board approval and instructors' permission, students who agreed to participate, met age requirements, and participated in organized youth sport prior to 15 years of age completed a survey packet. Since youth sport has been distinguished from interscholastic sport (Coakley, 2009), youth sport was defined as organized sport programs for children age 14 and younger, based on a National Association for Sport and Physical Education position statement (NASPE, 2010) on youth sport guidelines. Youth sport specialization was defined as youth athletes limiting their athletic participation to one sport which was practiced, trained for, and competed in throughout the year, to the exclusion of other activities (Wiersma, 2000). Surveys were directly administered and took under ten minutes to complete.

Data Analysis

All data analysis was performed using SPSS (Version 20.0) for Windows. Descriptive statistics were computed to examine reasons for participation, PACES, and SMS subscale scores for the entire sample and by specialization status. Separate independent t-tests were conducted to compare specializers and non-specializers on their frequency of current sport participation, aerobic, and resistance training exercise, and physical activity enjoyment as young adults. Chi-square procedures were used to examine whether there were differences between whether young adults specialized in one sport and their current self-reported sport participation classification (non-participation, recreational, or competitive participant). A one-way MANOVA was conducted to examine differences in reasons for youth sport participation (as measured by the nine items assessing youth sport participation reasons) between specializers and non-specializers. Finally, a separate one-way MANOVA was conducted to examine differences in sport motivation (SMS) between specializers and non-specializers. The a priori significance level for all analyses was set at the p = .05 level.

Results

A majority (113 or 56%) of participants reported specializing in a single youth sport, and the sports of basketball (n = 25), softball (n = 17), soccer (n = 14) and football (n = 12) accounted for 73% of all sports that participants reported they specialized in as youth athletes (Table 1). Specializers also were asked to recall the age they began specializing and 101 (89%) indicated they began specializing before adolescence. In fact, 72 (71%) of all self-reported specializers reported beginning their specialization before the age of ten and the most frequent self-reported age of specialization was six years old (21%). When asked to classify their current participation status in sport, 30 participants (15%) were currently competitive participants, 67 participants (33.5%) were recreational participants, and 103 participants (51.5%) no longer participated in sport. Those participants who indicated they were no longer active in their sport participation were asked to provide the reasons for their sport discontinuation. As shown in Table 2, of 103 participants who reported they no longer participated in sport as young adults, specializers' main reasons were (1) lack of time (n = 17), (2) lost interest (n = 12), and (3) lack of fun (n = 10), whereas nonspecializers' main reasons were (1) lost interest (n = 10) and (2) lack of time (n = 8). Independent t-tests comparing specialization status on physical activity enjoyment were nonsignificant, (t(198) = -.866, p >.05, [r.sup.2] = .004). In addition, separate independent t-tests comparing current exercise frequency between specializers and non-specializers also were nonsignificant for both aerobic exercise frequency (t(198) = -1.46, p >.05, [r.sup.2] = .01) and strength training frequency (t(198)= -.957, p >.05, [r.sup.2] = .005) as young adults.

Table 3 presents means and standard deviations of self-reported reasons for youth sport participation for the overall sample and for specializers and non-specializers. MANOVA results examining the effect of specialization status on reported reasons young adults participated in youth sports indicated a significant effect for specialization status (Wilk's [??] = .872; F(9,190) = 3.10, p <.05, [[eta].sup.2.sub.p] = .13), and follow-up univariate ANOVAs indicated specializers participated in youth sport significantly more to stay in shape (F(1, 198) = 5.08, p <.05, [[eta].sup.2.sub.p] = .03), learn or improve skills (F(1,198) = 10.20, p <.01, [[eta].sup.2.sub.p] = .05), and feel competent about physical abilities (F(1,198) = 10.49, p <.01, [[eta].sup.2.sub.p] = .05) compared to non-specializers. Chi square results examining the relationship between whether young adults specialized in one sport as a youth and current sport participation status also were significant ([X.sup.2] (2) = 6.43, p <.05), with specializers more likely to report they did not participate in sport as young adults (59%) compared to non-specializers (41%).

PACES and SMS scores for the entire sample and specializers and non-specializers are presented in Table 4. MANOVA results examining the effect of youth sport specialization status on SMS scores were significant (Wilk's [??] = .924; F (7,192) = 2.27, p <.05, [[eta].sup.2.sub.p] = .08), and follow-up univariate ANOVAs indicated that specializers were significantly higher on their IM-know (F(1,198)= 4.83, p <.05, [[eta].sup.2.sub.p] = .03) as well as EM-introjected regulation (F(1,198)= 4.18, p <.05, [[eta].sup.2.sub.p] = .02) compared to non-specializers.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between former youth sport athletes' sport motivation in youth sport and whether or not they specialized in one sport as a youth athlete. The first hypothesis that specializers would report lower intrinsic motivation and higher extrinsic motivation than non-specializers was partially supported. Specializers were significantly higher on EM-introjected regulation compared to non-specializers, but were also significantly higher on IM to know than non-specializers, which was unexpected. The second hypothesis that specializers would report lower physical activity enjoyment compared to non-specializers was not supported, as there were no differences on physical activity patterns or enjoyment levels between specializers and non-specializers. The third hypothesis that specializers would be more likely to report they did not actively participate in sport as young adults compared to non-specializers was supported, indicating youth sport specializers were less active in sport participation as young adults compared to non-specializers. This finding supports that youth sport specialization may have negative effects on long-term sport participation (Gould et al., 1996; Wall & Cote, 2007; Wiersma, 2000). In addition, this finding may be more insightful when examined in the context of motivational differences between specializers and non-specializers.

Results indicated that specializers were higher on their EM-Introjected Regulation and IM-Know compared to non-specializers. When considering types of motivation on the self-determination continuum, introjected regulation occurs when one internalizes the reasons for one's actions and the source of control is internal, such as through self-imposed guilt or anxiety. Therefore, identification with the behavior is perceived as self-chosen and leads to an internalization of the extrinsic motive (Vallerand & Perreault, 2007). Since burnout has been referred to as "the long-term end result of emotional and/or physical exhaustion" (Henschen, 1998, p.399), specializers' regulation of sport participation through self-imposed anxiety/guilt over not doing so, as is characteristic of introjected regulation, may have led to burnout and dropout, thus lower sport participation as young adults. Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand, and Briere (2001) reasoned that because introjected regulation represents a form of internal motivation, it may be associated with short-term persistence. However, because introjected regulation also is a more controlled form of regulation in which behaviors are performed to avoid guilt and is not associated with enjoyment, it may be negatively associated with long-term persistence. An emphasis on single-sport participation to improve, advance and compete at one's highest level could drive many youth to daily, lengthy, regimented participation. If such participation also is characterized by high volumes of deliberate practice over time and is regulated by guilt or anxiety, participation could be negatively influenced, resulting in decreases in interest and eventual burnout. Interestingly, "Lack of fun" was one of three most commonly reported reasons for sport discontinuation among specializers (Table 2), whereas this reason was not reported at all by non-specializers as a reason for sport discontinuation.

While this may explain higher EM-introjected regulation of specializers, it does not explain the findings that specializers also were higher on IM to know (engaging in an activity for the pleasure of learning) compared to non-specializers. According to achievement goal theory (Nicholls, 1989), athletes may interpret their success with respect to either a task or ego orientation. A task orientation, or a sense of success when displaying task mastery, is related to adaptive outcomes such as positive affect, perceived effort, persistence, and intrinsic motivation (Duda, Chi, Newton, Walling, & Catley, 1995; Ferrer-Casa & Weiss, 2000; Ntoumanis & Biddle, 1999; Sarrazin, Roberts, Cury, Biddle, & Famose, 2002). Individuals with an ego orientation tend to define success as performing well in comparison with others (Ames, 1992). Coaches' emphases on learning, improvement, effort, and promoting cooperation among team members constitute a task-involving climate. In contrast, a focus on competition, winning, social comparison and public evaluation establishes an ego-involving climate (Ames, 1992; Duda, 2001; Nicholls, 1989). Higher intrinsic motivation of specializes may indicate that specialized sport settings may not necessarily be more detrimental, especially if high levels of intrinsic motivation maintain the athlete's self-determination. Specifically, specializes' higher intrinsic motivation to know (IM-know), such as when an athlete learns a new skill, could have been due to more task-involved sport climates created by a combination of increased task-involving peer-, parent-, or coach-climates. The current sample of former specializes was not from former elite-level, specialized programs, but simply former youth athletes who chose to specialize in a single sport. Therefore, while they specialized, the motivational climate within their sport may have been sufficiently task-involved so as to result in higher IM-know compared to non-specializers. This is speculative since motivational climate was not measured, however, future research should examine this social environment variable in comparing youth sport experiences of specializers and non-specializers.

Specializers reported participating significantly more than nonspecializers to stay in shape, learn/improve skills, and feel competent about their physical abilities. These reasons appear to support a specializer's mindset in terms of greater volumes of deliberate practice and greater time investments within their sport (Strachan et al., 2009). In addition, research on sport burnout (Gould et al., 1996; Raedeke, 1997) has shown that exhaustion is a component of burnout and dropout. Burnout may occur along a continuum; exhaustion, the start of the burnout process, is followed by a reduced sense of accomplishment and finally by sport devaluation (Cresswell & Eklund, 2007). Each of these self-reported reasons for youth sport participation may have been higher in specializers because they viewed the need to stay conditioned, continually improve skills, and feel competent in their abilities as necessary to advance within their sport and effectively compete with others.

The finding that specializers were less active in sports as young adults compared to non-specializers reinforces a previous finding (Russell & Limle, 2013) and indirectly supports that one possible negative consequence associated with specialization, may be dropout (Baker et al., 2009; Wall & Cote, 2007). For example, in youth hockey those sport environments characterized by more deliberate practice at younger ages were associated with greater dropout rates (Wall & Cote, 2007). Over time, as indicated by Pelletier et al. (2001), specializers' self-regulation of their sport participation through introjected regulation may have been associated with greater conflict and internal pressure, ultimately leading to lower sport participation as young adults. Finally, a disconcerting finding was the self-reported ages at which sport specialization began. While the American Academy of Pediatrics (2000) discourages single-sport specialization before adolescence (age 13) due to musculoskeletal and psychosocial concerns, 89% (101 out of 113) of self-reported specializers reported beginning their specialization before adolescence (Figure 1). Thus, it appears that actual youth sport specialization practices contradict pediatric recommendations.

Several limitations in this study should be noted. First, the sample was not ethnically diverse, as 78% of the sample was Caucasian. Examining more ethnically diverse samples is necessary to ascertain if motivational influences of youth sport perceptions are affected by one's cultural context. Second, the majority (73%) of specializers came from team sports. Specializes' youth sport experiences and motivations may be different according to team or individual sports due to varying factors such social dynamics and parental involvement patterns. Therefore, future research needs to examine samples of specializers who are more representative of various individual sports. Third, while this sample was categorized into specializers and non-specializers based on whether they limited participation to a single sport as youth athletes, the intensity and volume of their sport participation (e.g., total weekly hours invested into training) was not measured. Inclusion of such a measure could have provided insight into the exact nature of youth sport climates, deliberate practice volumes, and potential differences across specialized / non-specialized settings as they pertain to more elite samples of youth athletes. Since higher volumes of deliberate practice are associated with greater dropout rates (Wall & Cote, 2007) and high amounts of deliberate play in youth sport build a solid foundation of intrinsic regulation and promote intrinsic motivation (Cote, Lidor, & Hackfort, 2009), obtaining more exact indices of these training practices may provide further insight into differences in motivational climates and long-term participation patterns. Finally, there are inherent limitations of retrospective recall in such a cross-sectional design. A clearer understanding of specialization influences on long-term participation and motivation may stem from longitudinal studies in which specializers' participation patterns, motivations, and affective outcomes are directly tracked from youth into young adulthood.

In conclusion, the present study examined former youth athletes' sport motivation and current sport and physical activity patterns (as well as enjoyment) as a function of whether they specialized in one youth sport. While specializers did not differ from non-specializers on physical activity patterns or enjoyment as young adults, they were less likely to be active in sports as young adults. In terms of sport motivations, specializers were significantly higher on IM-know and EM-introjected regulation than non-specializers. Although limitations exist in this investigation, results indicate that specialized sport settings may not necessarily be more detrimental per se, but only when an athlete's self-determination is compromised. Future research is necessary to determine what specific youth sport motivational climates determine whether early sport specialization has negative outcomes.

References

American Academy of Pediatrics. (2000). Intensive training and sports specialization in young athletes. Pediatrics, 106, 154-157.

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.

Baker, J. (2003). Early specialization in youth sport: A requirement for adult expertise? High Ability Studies, 14, 85-94.

Baker, J., Cobley, S., & Fraser-Thomas, J. (2009). What do we know about early sport specialization? Not much! High Ability Studies, 20, 77-89.

Bakker, F. C., DeKonnig, J. J., Schenau, G. J., & DeGroot, G. (1993). Motivation of young elite speed skaters. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 432-442.

Boyd, M. P., & Yin, Z. (1996). Cognitive-affective sources of sport enjoyment in adolescent sport participants. Adolescence, 31, 383-395.

Branta, C. (2010). Sport specialization: Developmental and learning issues. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 81, 19-28.

Brustad, R., Vilhjalmsson, R., & Fonseca, A. (2008). Organized sport and physical activity promotion. In A. Smith and S. Biddle (Eds.), Youth physical activity and sedentary behavior: Challenges and solutions (pp. 351-375). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Butcher, J., Lindner, K., & Johns, D. (2002). Withdrawal from competitive youth sport: A retrospective ten-year study. Journal of Sport Behavior, 25, 145-163.

Callender, S.S. (2010). The early specialization of youth in sports. Athletic Training & Sport Health Care, 2, 255-257.

Coakley, J. (1992). Burnout among adolescent athletes: A personal failure or social problem? Sociology of Sport Journal, 9, 20-35.

Coakley, J. (2009). Sports in society: Issues and controversies (10th Ed.) McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Coakley, J. (2010). The "logic" of specialization: Using children for adult purposes. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 81, 16-25.

Cote, J. (1999). The influence of the family in the development of talent in sport. The Sport Psychologist, 13, 395-417.

Cote, J., Baker, J., & Abernathy, B. (2003). From play to practice: A developmental framework for the acquisition of expertise in team sport. In J. Starkes & K. Ericsson (Eds.) Recent advances in research on sport expertise (pp. 89-114). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Cote, J., & Fraser-Thomas, J. (2007). Youth involvement in sport. In P. Crocker (Ed.), Sport Psychology: A Canadian Perspective (pp. 270-298/ Toronto, Canada: Pearson.

Cote, J., Lidor, R., & Hackfort, D. (2009). ISSP position stand: To sample or to specialize? Seven postulates about youth sport activities that lead to continued participation and elite performance. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 9, 7-17.

Cresswell, S. L., & Eklund, R. C. (2007). Athlete burnout: A longitudinal qualitative study. The Sport Psychologist, 21, 1-20.

Crocker, R, Bouffard, M., & Gessaroli, M. (1995). Measuring enjoyment in youth sport settings: A confirmatory factor analysis of the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 17, 200-205.

Deci, E. L., & Olsen, B. C. (1989). Motivation and competition: Their role in sports. In J. H. Goldstein (Ed.), Sport, games and play: Social and psychological viewpoints (2nd ed., pp. 83-110). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality [Monograph], Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1990: Perspectives on motivation, 38, 237-288. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination theory. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.

Duda, J. (2001). Achievement goal research in sport: pushing the boundaries and clarifying some misunderstandings. In G.C. Roberts (Ed.), Advances in motivation in sport and exercise, (pp. 129-182). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Duda, J. L., Chi, L., Newton, M. L., Walling, M., & Catley, D. (1995). Task and ego orientation and intrinsic motivation in sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26, 40-63.

Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363-406.

Ewing, M., & Seefedlt, V. (1996). Patterns of sport participation and attrition in American agency-sponsored sports. In F. Smoll & R. Smith (Eds.), Children and youth in sport: A biopsychosocial perspective (pp. 31-45). Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.

Ferrer-Caja, E., & Weiss, M. R. (2000). Predictors of intrinsic motivation among adolescent students in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 267-279.

Fraser-Thomas, J., & Cote, J. (2006). Youth sports: Implementing findings and moving forward with research. Athletic Insight, 8, 12-27.

Fraser-Thomas, J., Cote, J., & Deakin, J. (2005). Youth sport programs: An avenue to foster positive youth development. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10, 19-40.

Fraser-Thomas, J., Cote, J., & Deakin, J. (2008). Examining adolescent sport dropout and prolonged engagement from a developmental perspective. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 20, 318-333.

Gould, D. (2010). Early sport specialization: A psychological perspective. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 81, 33-36.

Gould, D., & Carson, S. (2004). Myths surrounding the role of youth sports in developing Olympic champions. Youth Studies Australia, 23, 19-26.

Gould, D., Tuffey, S., Udry, E., & Loehr, J. (1996). Burnout in competitive junior tennis players: II Qualitative Analysis. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 322-340.

Hecimovich, M. (2004). Sport specialization in youth: A literature review. Journal of the American Chiropractic Association, 41, 32-41.

Henschen, K. P. (1998). Athletic staleness and burnout: Diagnosis, prevention, and treatment. In J.M. Williams (Ed.), Applied Sport Psychology: Personal Growth to Peak Performance (3rd Ed., pp. 398-408). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Hill, G. M., & Hansen, G. F. (1988). Specialization in high school sports--the pros and cons. The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance, 59, 76-79.

Kaleth, A., & Mikesky, A. (2010). Impact of early sport specialization: A physiological perspective. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 81, 29-32.

Kendzierski, D., & DeCarlo, K. (1991). Physical activity enjoyment scale: Two validation studies. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 13, 50-64.

Landers, R. Q., Carson, R. L., & Tjeerdsma-Blankenship, B. (2010). The promises and pitfalls of sport specialization in youth sport. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 81, 14-15.

Law, M., Cote, J., & Ericsson, K. A. (2007). Characteristics of expert development in rhythmic gymnastics: A retrospective study. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 5, 82-103.

MacDonald, D.J., Cote, J., Eys, M., & Deakin, J. (2011). The role of enjoyment and motivational climate in relation to personal development of team sport athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 25, 32-46.

National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (2010). Guidelines for participation in youth sport programs: Specialization versus multi-sport participation [Position Statement], Reston, VA: Author.

National Collegiate Athletic Association (2004). A Career in Professional Sports: A Guide for Making the Transition. Indianapolis, IN: NCAA.

Nicholls, J. C. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ntoumanis, N., & Biddle, S. J. H. (1999). Affect and achievement goals in physical activity: A meta-analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 9, 333-343.

Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pelletier, L., Fortier, M., Vallerand, R., & Briere, N. (2001). Associations among perceived autonomy support, forms of self-regulation, and persistence: A prospective study. Motivation and Emotion, 25, 279-306.

Pelletier, L., Fortier, M., Vallerand, R., Tuson, K., Briere, N., & Blais, M. (1995). Towards a new measure of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation in sports: The Sport Motivation Scale (SMS). Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 17, 35-53.

Raedeke, T. (1997). Is athlete burnout more than just stress? A sport commitment perspective. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 19, 396-417.

Robinson, T.T., & Carron, A.V. (1982). Personal and situational factors associated with dropping out versus maintaining participating in competitive sport. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 364-378.

Russell, W. D., & Limle, A. N. (2013). The relationship between youth sport specialization and involvement in sport and physical activity in young adulthood. The Journal of Sport Behavior, 36, 82-98.

Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.

Sarrazin, R, Roberts, G. C., Cury, E, Biddle, S. J. H., & Famose, J. P. (2002). Exerted effort and performance in climbing among boys: the influence of achievement goals, perceived ability, and task difficulty. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73, 425-436.

Scanlan, T. K., Carpenter, P. J., Schmidt, G. W., Simons, J. P., & Keeler, B. (1993). An introduction to the sport commitment model. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 15, 1-15.

Strachan, L., Cote, J., & Deakin, J. (2009). "Specializes" versus "samplers" in youth sport: Comparing experiences and outcomes. The Sport Psychologist, 23, 77-92.

Taylor, W., Blair, S., Cummings, S., Wun, C., & Malina, R. (1999). Childhood and adolescent physical activity patterns and adult physical activity. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 31, 118-123.

Vallerand, R. J., Donahue, E. G, & Lafreniere, M. K. (2012). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport and exercise. In G. Tenenbaum, R. Eklund, & A. Kamata (Eds.), Measurement in Sport and Exercise Psychology (pp. 279-292). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Vallerand, R., & Losier, G. (1999). An integrative analysis of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, II, 142-169.

Vallerand, R. J., & Perreault, S. (2007). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport: Toward a hierarchical model. In D. Smith, & M. Bar-Eli (Eds.), Essential Readings in Sport and Exercise Psychology (pp. 155-164). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Wall, M., & Cote, J. (2007). Developmental activities that lead to drop out and investment in sport. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 12, 77-87.

Weinberg, R., & Gould, D. (2011). Foundations of sport and exercise psychology. (5th Ed.) Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Weiss, M. (2000). Motivating kids in physical activity. President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports Research, 3, 1-8.

Wiersma, L. (2000). Risks and benefits of youth sport specialization. Pediatric Exercise Science, 12, 13-22.

William D. Russell

Missouri Western State University

Address correspondence to: William D. Russell, PhD Dept, of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, Missouri Western State University.

Email: [email protected]

Table 1
Frequency sports that specializers reported specializing
in as youth athletes

Sport                Frequency *    %

Basketball               25        22.1
Softball                 17        15.0
Soccer                   14        12.3
Football                 12        10.6
Baseball                  8        7.1
Volleyball                7        6.2
Tennis                    5        4.4
Track                     5        4.4
Cheerleading              4        3.5
Gymnastics                4        3.5
Dance                     2        1.8
Swimming                  2        1.8
Wrestling                 2        1.8
Badminton                 1        0.9
Bowling                   1        0.9
Boxing                    1        0.9
Hockey                    1        0.9
Mixed Martial Arts        1        0.9
Tae Kwan Do               1        0.9

* Out of 113 respondents who reported specializing
in a single sport as youth athletes.

Table 2
Self-Reported Reasons for Sport Discontinuation
as Young Adults

Specializes
Reason                       (n = 67)

Lack of time (school/work)      17
Lost interest                   12
Lack of fun *                   10
Injury                          5
Lack of skill                   4
Burnout                         2
Coach                           2
No team available               2
No reason given                 4
Other                           9

Non-Specializers             (n = 36)
Reason

Lack of time (school/work)      8
Lost interest                   10
Not good enough                 3
Injury                          3
No access                       2
No reason given                 2
Too short                       1
Other                           7

* "Lack of fun" was not reported as a reason
for sport discontinuation by Non-Specializers.

Table 3
Self-Reported Reasons for Participation for All Participants
and Specializers and Non-Specializers

                                                  Non-
                        All      Specializers Specializers
Reason             Participants    (N=113)       (N=87)

                   M      SD     M      SD     M      SD

Have fun          4.57   .70    4.56   .71    4.6    .71

Win               4.01   1.11   3.92   1.17   4.13   1.03

Do something      4.17   1.04   4.25   1.00   4.06   1.09
I was good at

Stay in Shape *   3.82   1.17   3.98   1.13   3.61   1.19

Learn/improve     4.17   1.02   4.36   .85    3.91   1.17
skills **

Play as part      4.06   1.08   4.10   1.09   4.01   1.07
of a team

Be recognized     3.66   1.29   3.75   1.35   3.54   1.20
by peers

Be promoted to    3.77   1.39   3.89   1.38   3.61   1.40
next level

Feel competent    4.02   1.16   4.25   1.01   3.72   1.27
about abilities
** 4.02 1.16

* p <.05

** p < .01

Table 4
PACES and SMS Scores for All Participants and
Specializers and Non-Specializers

                  All          Specializers  Non-Specializers
Variable       Participants     (N = 113)        (N = 87)

                M      SD       M      SD        M      SD

PACES        99.86   19.79   98.80   20.45   101.24   18.92
IM Know *    19.35   5.86    20.14   5.54    18.32    6.14
IM Acc       20.78   5.86    21.84   5.67    20.43    6.13
IM Stim      20.94   5.41    21.35   5.29    20.39    5.54
EM Iden      19.11   6.16    19.17   5.90    19.03    6.51
EM Intro *   14.31   6.30    15.10   6.24    13.28    6.26
EM Ext Reg   17.14   6.38    17.52   6.29    16.63    6.49
Amot         11.69   5.94    12.40   6.11    10.78    5.61

 * p <.05