Talent detection programs in sport: the questionable use of psychological measures.
Anshel, Mark H. ; Lidor, Ronnie
The pressure exerted by sports organizations, sponsors, and, in
some countries, by governmental bodies (e.g., Sport Authorities, Olympic
Training Centers) on young athletes to be successful sports competitors
is greater than ever. Perhaps not surprisingly, there is also
considerable pressure to predict future high quality sport performance
in competitive settings by using various physiological,
anthropometrical, and psychological tests on young athletes (see Abbott
& Collins, 2002, 2004; Martindale, Collins, & Daubney, 2005;
Tranckle & Cushion, 2006). Vaeyens, Gullich, Warr, and Philippaerts
(2009) contend that programs whose aim is to predict future sport
success, called talent detection (TD) or talent identification (TID)
programs, "are designed to identify young athletes who possess
extraordinary potential for success in senior elite sport, and to select
and recruit them into talent promotion programs" (p. 1367). The
purpose of these programs is, ostensibly, to "increase
athletes' potential by means of a variety of institutional measures
designed to accelerate talent development" (p. 1367). Another
purpose is to provide tests--motor, physiological, anthropological,
biomechanical, and psychological--during an athlete's
"early" years in order to predict long-term success in
competitive sport. The intention of these programs is to allocate scarce
resources toward individual athletes whose test scores show
"promising" talent, at least in the long-term. Are these
objectives met? Are the tests valid? Is this a good idea, at least from
a philosophical perspective?
The main purposes of this article are: (1) to critique, both
empirically and philosophically, the value of predicting future talent
in sport using psychological measures, and (2) to offer suggested
directions for enhancing the processes of TD/TID, and talent development
(TDV). The existing evidence suggests that the use of psychological
inventories to predict future success and achievement in elite-level
competitive sport lacks validity and proper ethics. The review will
include the following: (1) defining important concepts, such as talent
detection, also called talent identification, (2) providing empirical
arguments in favor of TD programs, (3) making a case against the use of
psychological measures in TD programs, (4) examining the philosophical
arguments against the use of psychological measures in TD programs, and
finally, (5) providing recommendations and guidelines for initiating
talent development programs in sport.
Defining Terms and Concepts
Brown (2001) and St-Aubin and Sidney (1996) have defined TD as the
methodological process of predicting sport performance over various
periods of time by obtaining information on the prospects'
physical, physiological, and technical abilities, either alone or in
combination, with measures of psychological aptitudes. TD has also been
described as a process by which children are encouraged to participate
in the sports in which they are most likely to succeed, based on the
results of testing selected parameters (Bompa, 1999). Woodman (1985)
defined TD programs (in Australia) as "the screening of young
athletes to determine those most likely to succeed in sport and
directing them towards the sports to which they are most suited"
(p. 49).
To Hahn and Tumilty (1989), TD programs consist of the selection of
individuals who have shown to have the characteristics important for
success at the highest levels of a particular sport. Durand-Bush and
Salmela (2001) contend that TD programs reflect the attempt to match
various performer characteristics--innate, learned, or due to training -
with task demands of a given sport, to ensure the highest probability of
maximum performance outcome. Williams and Reilly (2000) define TD as the
discovery of potential performers who are currently not involved in any
sport program. Finally, Lidor, Cote, and Hackfort (2009) use the term
talent identification as "the process of recognizing individuals
currently involved in sport with the potential to become elite
athletes/players" (p. 134). All of these definitions consider TD as
any conscious effort that recognizes individuals who have the potential
to become elite athletes.
Two concepts that have been used interchangeably, but erroneously,
with TD are talent selection (TS) and talent development (TDV). TS
consists of the ongoing process of identifying athletes/players at
various stages of the training program. To Lidor et al. (2009), TS
programs refer to specific tasks or tests that target an athlete's
capability to demonstrate competence in a particular sport or position
within that sport. TDV, on the other hand, "implies that the
athletes/players are being provided with the appropriate
learning/practice conditions to promote and realize their potential in a
specific sport" (Lidor et al., p. 134). TS does not include
attempts to predict future success based on identifying the
athlete's psychological characteristics.
Ostensible Advantages of TD/TID Programs
TID programs are often of great importance to select sporting
bodies of governments that seek national and international status in
competitive sport and apply scarce financial resources toward developing
potential champion athletes, so that they may achieve national and
international recognition (Vaeyens et al., 2009). Effective use of these
financial resources are compromised, however, if these efforts fail to
accurately predict future success in competitive sport, particularly
among younger competitors (Lidor et al., 2009). Ideally, therefore, the
early detection of talent provides the opportunity to obtain the best
"return," or "investment," in giving potential elite
level competitors the required resources in coaching expertise,
equipment, facilities, practice time, and opportunities to reach their
full sport potential. TID programs have been attempted with respect to
the testing of sport skills, as well as of physiological and
anthropological parameters.
Proponents of TD programs claim that showing that sport skill tests
are, in fact, efficacious in predicting future sport skill performance
adds credence to the examination of the psychological dimension (Vaeyens
et al., 2009). In fact, the results of selected studies have indicated
that measures of motor ability and motor skill proficiency predict
future sport performance to a relatively high degree, at least at the
elite level (e.g., Falk, Lidor, Lander, & Lang, 2004; Kerr, Booth,
Dainty, & Gaborault, 1980). Tennis Canada's FirstServe TD
program includes measurements of skin-fold, bone diameter, body girth,
and reaction times that, ostensibly, accurately predict an
athlete's future sport skill level and the athlete's
compatibility with the demands of a particular sport (Leone, 1993). The
program does not, however, include psychological measures.
Another apparent advantage of TD programs is that they maximize the
number of gifted individuals participating in a given sport, resulting
in stronger domestic competition and likely increasing the number of
internationally competitive athletes (Durand-Bush & Salrnela, 2001;
Hahn, 1990). This is because TD programs ostensibly promote
competitiveness and direct athletes toward sports in which they are more
likely to succeed, increasing the number of athletes aiming for elite
levels of sport (Abbott & Collins, 2002, 2004; Bompa, 1999). Meeting
psychological needs reduces sport attrition, that is, the likelihood of
dropping out of a sport at which the athlete is expected to succeed
(Petlichkoff, 1993, 1996). As Petlichkoff noted, attempts to determine
the sport that best represents a young athlete's skills might
provide a more efficient way than traditional trial-and-error
approaches.
Along these lines, Bompa (1999), Hahn (1990), and Haskell (1983)
contend that TD programs profile the athletes' strengths and
weaknesses, and provide them with relevant feedback so that they can
effectively monitor their progress throughout the entire training
program. For example, Petlichkoff (1993, 1996) contends that children
who drift from sport to sport in an attempt to find a satisfying and
rewarding experience waste an enormous amount of time and resources. As
a result, many children with high quality sport talent do not find their
niche in sport, consuming considerable time in their search for a sport
that is compatible with their skills and goals (Feldman, 1986). TD
programs, therefore, can maximize the number of children who have
positive sport experiences and a greater likelihood of success, thereby
reducing the rate of sport dropout (St-Aubin & Sidney, 1996). The
productivity of elite coaches is also enhanced by ensuring that their
time, energy, and resources are directed toward the development of
younger athletes who have the potential to succeed in elite sport
(Bloom, 2002; MacNamara, Button, & Collins, 2010).
One additional factor in favor of TD programs is the limited
statistical evidence from numerous studies, reviewed by Deaner and Silva
(2002), in which discriminant function analysis has detected unique
psychological characteristics that predict long-term sport success among
young athletes. For example, athletes are categorized as
"elite" and "non-elite" on measures of
self-confidence (Andersen, 1976; Vealey, 1985, 2002), ambition (Mahoney,
1989), self-motivation (Mahoney, 1989), emotional stability (Missoum
& Laforestrie, 1981), and enthusiasm (Missoum & Laforestrie,
1981).
When these advantages are considered together, an effective TD
program will not only identify (younger) athletes who already possess
desirable psychological characteristics that are commensurate with
successful sport performance, but will also create a template against
which other athletes (and their coaches and parents) can aspire and
learn over time (Renger, 1993). Table 1 lists selected studies that
discriminate between successful and less-successful athletes.
The Case Against the Use of Psychological Measures in TD Programs
The case against the use of psychological measures in TD sports
programs rests primarily on three factors, failure to take into
consideration the performers' physical maturation, the coach's
role in the athlete's skill development, and flaws in the
scientific process.
The Performers' Physical Maturation
TD programs may assist coaches, athletes, and the athletes'
parents in identifying the type of sport that is most compatible based
on the performer's physical attributes. These programs, however,
may not accurately predict future skill development and sport
performance. Predicting future successful sport performance using
physiological and anthropological measures has received uneven support
in the exercise science literature (Lidor et al., 2009). For example,
based on their review of 13 studies that were aimed at distinguishing
between highly-talented and less-talented athletes, Lidor et al.
concluded that "no clear-cut evidence has been found to support the
predictive value of physical tests in talent detection and early
development in sport" (p. 140). They cite numerous studies
indicating "no correlation of physical tests with final selection
and ranking of athletes" (p. 140). Along these lines, Till, Cobley,
O'Hara, Chapman, and Cooke (2010) found low relationships between
anthropometric, physiological, and selected characteristics in high
performance junior rugby league players in the United Kingdom. The
authors concluded that these results raise concerns about the ability of
motor skill testing to identify characteristics of immediate and
long-term player selection and development. Similar concerns have
surfaced concerning the use of psychological testing for prediction
purposes.
Along these lines, researchers and practitioners have examined the
relationship between TD and TDV in sport. For example, Gulbin,
Oldenziel, Weissensteiner, and Gagne (2010) reviewed "key
developmental experiences and insights" of 673 high performance
Australian athletes (p. 149). They determined that elite athletes
possess several selected characteristics that are not found in their
non-elite counterparts. All of the identified characteristics, however,
were behavioral (e.g., commitment to practice, access to high quality
coaching) and not psychological in nature. In addition, no personality
traits were listed.
In their review of related literature, Lidor et al. (2009)
concluded that assessing physical ability and skill level in order to
determine future talent of athletes offers no clear support of the
predictive value of these tests, either for individual or for team
sports. Thus, while TD programs may help a young athlete decide to which
sport he or she is best suited, the capability of these programs to
predict future sport success may not be as promising.
Coach Expertise and Influence
The athlete's coach is almost always the most important
external source that influences the development of physical and mental
skills (Bloom, 2002). Two issues must be addressed with respect to the
coach's role in the use of psychological measures in detecting and
predicting an athlete's talent. First, reliance on the use of
psychological inventories in TID programs undermines the coach's
role in developing the athlete's talent. Predicting future
performance from inventories does not take into account a coach's
expertise. Coaches are primarily responsible for each athlete's
development and maturation, particularly at the elite level (Salmela
& Regnier, 1985). The coach's expertise is far more likely to
influence an athlete's performance potential than psychological
testing, especially over the long-term (Bloom).
The second point related to coaches is that athletes who are
designated as having "high," or "good," potential to
achieve in sport are likely to receive far superior coaching than their
less-skilled peers. This phenomenon, called an "expectancy
effect," consists of a person in a subordinate position (e.g.,
child, student, athlete, experimental participant) responding to an
authority figure (e.g., parent, teacher, parent, coach, experimenter) in
a manner that is consistent with the authority figure's
expectations (Thomas, Nelson, & Silverman, 2011). Three types of
expectancy effects include halo effect, Rosenthal effect, and Hawthorne
effect (see Thomas et al., for descriptions). In the current context,
this phenomenon might refer to as a coaching bias built into TID
programs. Two studies lend credence to this view.
Christensen (2009) conducted in-depth interviews with eight elite
soccer coaches, who identified the characteristics of highly-skilled
soccer players. Christensen found that coaches predicted future success
among highly-rated players who "were assumed to be willing to
learn" and were "perceived to be hard working and
dedicated" by their coaches (p. 379). These qualities are derived
from good coaching rather than being generated from an inventory that
ostensibly predicts the level of future sport performance. In another
study, Davids and Baker (2007) found that highly-skilled coaches are
more likely to be associated with elite athletes due to their excellent
teaching and leadership skills. Specifically, better coaches (of elite
athletes) offer superior structure and content of practice, maximize
training time, and engage in meticulous planning. Thus, the degree of
coach expertise is a mediating, but rarely controlled, variable in the
attempt to validate the efficacy of TD/TID programs (Reilly, Williams,
Nevill, & Franks, 2000).
Flaws in the Scientific Process
Flaws in the scientific process, which represent particularly
powerful issues in questioning the role of psychological factors in
talent TD, include these 12 components: (I) vague definitions of
selected constructs, (2) inconsistency in defining an "elite"
athlete, (3) invalid inventories/poor predictive validity, (4) poor
research methodology and statistical procedures, (5) sample bias, (6)
failure to use baseline measures, (7) extensive use of cross-sectional
comparisons, (8) paucity of skill level comparisons, (9) poor inventory
construction, (10) limitations in personality research, (11) inherent
problems with self-report, and (12) over-reliance on anecdotal evidence.
Vague Definitions of Selected Constructs
The terms "mental toughness,"
"competitiveness," and "psychological readiness" are
often used when attempting to determine an athlete's potential for
future success. Almost unknown, however, are their operational
definitions, and the extent to which these characteristics identify or
predict sport skill level (Singer & Janelle, 1999). In addition,
interpreting and applying such arguments would challenge most sport
psychology consultants and coaches. It is not known, for example,
whether these measures are stable (i.e., trait) or situational (i.e.,
state) constructs, or whether they reflect relatively stable,
cross-situational dispositions (i.e., traits) and thus are open to
change through intervention and experience (i.e., state constructs), as
proposed by Anshel (2012). Similar limitations are inherent in examining
specific psychological characteristics in TD research (Durand-Bush &
Salmela, 2001).
Inconsistency in Defining an "Elite" Athlete
Examining psychological characteristics of athletes in predicting
future success has usually consisted of comparing "elite" and
"non-elite" athletes. Operationally defining an
"elite" sports competitor, however, has been markedly
inconsistent in the literature (Anshel, 2012). Often, researchers have
used statistical procedures to discriminate skill level as a function of
his or her current success or achievement (Matsudo, 1996).
Traditionally, elite athletes have been defined as individuals "who
are eligible for competition at the national, international, or Olympic
level, or who are professional sports persons" (Van den Auweele,
Cuyper, Van Mele, & Rzewnicki, 1993, p. 257). An additional
definition of the elite athlete includes individuals who are eligible
for such competition, but may not actually compete (e.g., Spamer &
Coetzee, 2002), while another definition refers to athletes who are
currently involved in sport competition at a particular level (Falk et
al., 2004).
An additional concern is that the term "elite" is often
culturally specific (Gan, Anshel, & Kim, 2009). For example, an
elite athlete may be defined as a sports competitor at the national
level in some studies, while in other studies the term "elite"
is used for college students who played on their high school sports
teams. It is unlikely, therefore, that elite athletes, as identified in
various studies from different cultures will display the same
characteristics in, for example, Africa (Spamer & Coetzee, 2002),
Asia (Gala et al., 2009), Europe (Williams & Reilly, 2000), and
North America (Brown, 2001). This inconsistency compromises the primary
objective of TD programs--to predict the future quality of sport
performance.
Invalid Inventories: Poor Predictive Validity
Perhaps one of the most compelling cases against the use of
psychological measures in TD programs is poor predictive validity.
Predictive validity reflects "the degree to which a measuring
instrument or test yields information allowing prediction of actual
behavior or performance" (Myers & Hansen, 2012, p. 592). A
plethora of published studies comparing elite and non-elite or high and
low-skilled sports competitors on selected psychological variables did
not have promising results. For example, Prescott (1996) attempted to
identify motivation, goal orientation, attribution, and locus of control
as predictors of talent among British gymnasts aged 7-10 yrs, and found
a very low prediction rate. In their extensive review, Deaner and Silva
(2002) concluded that "while some of these studies do show
personality differences based on sport type and gender ... many of these
studies are old and focus only on a few select sports or a few select
characteristics" (p. 61).
Poor Research Methodology and Statistical Procedures
Researchers and theorists have noted inherent limitations of many
studies concerned with identifying current psychological characteristics
of athletes, comparing athletes categorized as elite and non-elite or
making cross cultural comparisons (Gauvin & Russell, 1993), and
predicting athletes' future achievement level in sport. Some of
these issues have concerned the use of inventories that were not
intended for the current sample (Morgan, 1997), and improper
psychometric validation and statistical procedures that render the
instrument invalid (Schutz & Gessaroli, 1993). In his review of
related literature concerning methodological research problems, Morgan
lists "the absence of randomization, small sample size, inadequate
psychological measures, and experimenter expectancy effects, among other
flaws" (p. 4). Also problematic in this area is that researchers
have labeled constructs interchangeably, such as juxtaposing the
athlete's personality traits with his or her orientations, styles,
dispositions, and behavioral tendencies (Anshel, 2012). Each of these
constructs differ; some are more amenable to change through counseling
and treatment (e.g., orientations of mental toughness or
competitiveness; behavioral tendencies such as pre-performance routines)
than others (e.g., trait anxiety, neuroticism, trait anger,
stimulus-seeking). Failure to control for moderator variables such as
gender and culture provides an additional concern. Gauvin and Russell
contend, for instance, that "it is widely acknowledged that such
cultural factors can potentially produce major distortions and
inaccuracies in test interpretation" (p. 892). Based on their
thorough review of related literature, Gauvin and Russell concluded that
"the selection of sport/exercise-specific tests and scales ...
requires a careful conceptual analysis of the constructs under
investigation, an examination of the measurement assumptions of the
theoretical framework employed, and in some cases, a consideration of
the amount of variance explained in the target variables" (p. 899).
Clearly, future study is needed toward the continued development and
validation of psychological measures that attempt to predict and
identify the potential for future talent in sport.
Taken together, a common threat to internal and external validity
is the use of a self-report instrument that was neither constructed nor
validated for the intended sample (Thomas et al., 2011). For instance,
sample characteristics, or the psychological demands of specific sports
in which "desirable" traits are being identified, are not
taken into account when developing inventory items (Andersen, 1976;
Gauvin & Russell, 2003; Hahn, 1990). Consequently, one inherent
limitation in the existing literature is the lack of consistency in
determining for whom the inventory was intended and to whom it may be
applied (e.g., a university athlete, a highly talented competitor at the
community level, a national or an international level competitor, or an
Olympic or professional performer).
The use of improper statistical analyses in TD research has been
ubiquitous (see Renger, 1993; Schutz, 1998; Schutz & Gessaroli,
1993; and Vealey, 1985, for reviews). While an exhaustive review of
these limitations goes beyond the scope of this paper, specific examples
abound. For example, one statistical approach by researchers has been to
attempt to statistically separate elite from non-elite athletes using
multiple regression models and discriminant analyses. However, the use
of a regression equation on a different population from the one for
which it was developed is inappropriate (Nesselroade & Baltes,
1979). While it is important to test for predictive validity by
cross-validating results (Renger, 1993), most studies have not included
attempts at cross-validation.
Another statistical limitation in TD assessment is the frequent use
of univariate, not multivariate, statistics resulting in low predictive
power, the virtual absence of statistical interactions, and the failure
to consider the complex network of factors underlying sport performance
(Schutz, 1998). One misuse of multivariate statistics is the violation
of acceptable case-to-predictor ratios, resulting in a loss of
statistical power. An acceptable ratio is 5:1, and preferably 6:1
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Instead, Salmela and R6gnier (1985)
propose using discriminant function analyses (DFA) to determine if the
selected variables discriminate among the members of each group, and
specifically, to find variables that are appropriate for testing the
targeted population. DFA may identify athletes who are highly skilled,
however, it does not predict future performance (Regnier, Salmela, &
Russell, 1993; Schutz & Gessaroli, 1993). Regression analyses more
accurately predict outcomes within a targeted population. Yet another
limitation of TD research is the incorrect interpretation of
correlational data as cause and effect (Schutz & Gessaroli, 1993).
Studies of the TD literature report a lack of proper research
methods and statistical procedures (see Anshel, 2012; Durand-Bush &
Salmela, 2001; Lidor et al., 2009; Schutz & Gessaroli, 1993;
St-Aubin & Sidney, 1996; Van den Auweele et al., 1993; Vealey, 1985,
2002). According to these authors, the primary issues that have
compromised the integrity of attempts to predict high quality sport
performance (i.e., TID) among child or adolescent age groups include
sample bias, failure to use baseline measures, improper statistical
procedures, extensive use of cross-sectional comparisons, a paucity of
skill level comparisons, failure to control for coach expertise, poor
inventory construction, inherent limitations of self-report, and
over-reliance on anecdotal evidence.
Sample Bias
Selection bias for research purposes occurs in cases where the
participants in studies are recruited based on their availability, their
personal motivation to engage in the study, investigator coercion (i.e.,
participation not fully voluntary), or the athletes' current skill
level and pre-existing personal characteristics (Thomas et al., 2011).
Selection bias may result in statistical regression or spontaneous
remission, which may inflate positive results. Collectively, these
biases may contribute to an expectancy effect (Martinek, & Karper,
1984), also called a self-fulfilling prophecy (Horn, Lox, &
Labrador, 1998). This is because these athletes are usually labeled
"elite" or "highly skilled," thereby influencing the
coaches' (or researchers') attitudes, expectations, and
behaviors toward these pre-labeled players. Ostensibly, then, athletes
with "superior" scores on selected psychological
characteristics may excel because of the high expectations of their
coaches or researchers. Coaches with high expectations of athletes tend
to provide more positive and instructional feedback than do coaches with
relatively lower expectations (Horn et al., 1998; Martinek, Crowe, &
Rejeski, 1982).
Failure to Use Baseline Measures
TD studies have often failed to establish a baseline measure for
dependent variables (Spamer & Coetzee, 2002), which is important
when accounting for the athlete's previous experience and current
skill level, initial differences in group comparisons, and the use of
cognitive and behavioral strategies that influence the athletes'
cognition, affect, and performance. Developmental research is a
particular research method that requires the comparison of initial and
subsequent performance over time as a function of interventions (e.g.,
fitness training, skill development, coaching, and the use of mental
skills). Consequently, researchers and practitioners in talent research
are often unable to detect changes in performance in relation to the
inventory's initial (baseline) scores.
Extensive Use of Cross-Sectional Comparisons
Most TD studies have been cross-sectional, as opposed to
longitudinal (Lidor et al., 2009). Cross-sectional designs limit the
power to predict which traits, if any, are associated with the
athlete's long-term commitment to a given sport (Kantowitz,
Roediger, & Elmes, 2005). Cross-sectional designs are also limited
due to the pyramid effect, that is, as the athletic pyramid narrows,
athletes who do not exhibit the traits required for continued
participation are often eliminated (Jerome, 1993). Longitudinal studies
are more sensitive to changes in psychological characteristics than
cross-sectional studies, thereby eliminating the pyramid effect (Bloom,
1985; Thomas et al., 2011). While cross-sectional studies should be
viewed as merely a first step in TD programs (Poppleton & Salmoni,
1991), longitudinal research is needed to improve prediction rates and
accuracy (Matsudo, 1996).
In a rare longitudinal study in this area, Vaeyens et al. (2009)
compared the performance characteristics of youth sports' athletes
between world class and national level senior athletes, and found no
significant differences between the two groups. One key finding of this
review was that sporting success and intense discipline-specific
training and competition among adolescents did not contribute to
explaining or predicting long-term success as an adult. They concluded
that "early sport specialization as a child does not appear to be a
prerequisite for attaining expertise as an adult" (p. 1374).
Paucity of Skill Level Comparisons
Comparing elite and non-elite athletes allows the use of
multivariate statistics to identify traits that discriminate between
these groups. Attempts to determine differences between elite and
non-elite athletes, necessary for examining the unique attributes of
higher skilled competitors, are rarely compared in the same study (see
Elliott, Ackland, Blanksby, & Bloomfield, 1990; Roetert, Brown,
Piorkowski, & Woods, 1996). The authors contend that athletes are
not typically designated as "successful" or
"unsuccessful." The combined result has low discriminatory
power.
Poor Inventory Construction
This section warrants a brief review based on the extent to which
poor inventory construction exists throughout the sport science
literature. According to Schutz and Gessaroli (1993), inventories used
in studies to identify psychological characteristics of athletes for
descriptive or predictive purposes have suffered from poor item
construction and a paucity of proper psychometric properties. The
authors cite several inventories that did not include the necessary
psychometric data. Failing to control for sport type was apparent in
most of the studies. Schutz and Gessaroli contend that the pervasive
absence of a conceptual basis for item content, as well as low content
and predictive validity, have been symptomatic of these problems.
Limitations in Personality Research
Attempts to determine and predict the quality of sports performance
is rooted in sport personality research (see Anshel, 2012, and Vealey,
2002, for reviews). Perhaps nowhere throughout the sport and performance
psychology literature is the case against TD programs stronger than in
the sport personality research. TD studies are designed to predict the
quality of future sport performance based on selected personality traits
or dispositions (Van den Auweele, Nys, Rzewnicki, & Van Mele, 2001).
Contrary to this assumption, however, the sport personality literature
reflects a paucity of research supportive of trait personality theory
(Van den Auweele et al., 2001). Personality tests in general have a very
low prediction rate--only 8-10% of explained variance--in determining
future sport performance quality (Anshel, 2012). In addition, there has
been an overall failure on most measures to associate "high"
and "low" scores with athletic success in the majority of
psychological inventories (Deaner & Silva, 2002). This has direct
implications for TD programs, which are predicated on the validity of
psychological measures to predict future behavior, specifically, the
quality of sport skill performance.
Personality testing as a predictor of performance success has been
heavily criticized in the extant literature as inherently flawed, due in
part to the lack of psychometric support (Schutz, 1998). Common
limitations include response bias, failure to take into account
situational factors, sport-specific demands (see Van den Auweele et al.,
2001; Vealey, 1985, 2002), and not controlling for cultural differences
(Duda & Hayashi, 1998). Testing elite athletes with various
psychological inventories, such as the Profile of Mood States (POMS;
McNair, Lorr, & Droppleman, 1992), the Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory (MMPI; Hathaway & McKinley, 1970), or the
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene,
Vaag, & Jacobs, 1983), shows that no single measure or set of
psychological characteristics is sufficient for predicting the quality
of future athletic performance (Cox, 2012; Van den Auweele et al., 1993,
2001). The lack of ecological validity of constructs and dependent
measures represents another inherent limitation of personality research
with respect to TD programs.
Schutz (1998), and more recently Deaner and Silva (2002), contend
that personality research in sport psychology has failed to live up to
its early promise of predictive ability, particularly with respect to
long-term predictions of future skill level in sport. The use of
personality scales as relevant components of TD programs has generally
not been supported (Schutz, 1998). While selected studies have shown the
uniqueness of personality traits shared by most elite athletes, Deaner
and Silva (2002) concluded that "studies showing a significant
relationship between personality and sport performance cannot be
considered reliable" due to numerous methodological and theoretical
limitations (p. 51). Finally, Davids and Baker (2007) contend that
"the links between psychological traits and performance are not as
clear (as physiological traits)" (p. 968). Taken together, it is
apparent that attempts to use psychological tests for predicting future
success have been fraught with disappointing results.
Inherent Limitations of Self-Report
Self-report has inherent limitations in psychological research,
including the use of psychological inventories for TID programs. For
example, respondents, including athletes, can easily fake their answers
in accordance with the expectations or preferences of others (Miller
& Edgington, 1984). This practice, referred to as social
desirability response bias, is defined as "the tendency for a
person to respond in a way that seems socially appealing, regardless of
his or her true characteristics" (Furr & Bacharach, 2008, p.
246). As Morgan (1978) contends, in the sport psychology literature
"psychometricians are well aware of the problems associated with
response distortion, and it is widely recognized that most self-report
inventories are easily faked" (p. 223). The use of corroborative
measures related to the athlete's skill assessments by coaches and
other experts might at least partially circumvent the limitations of
self-report.
Overreliance on Anecdotal Evidence
The empirical perspective of TD has traditionally relied primarily
on anecdotal evidence for providing standards of desirable psychological
and behavioral characteristics. This is called the "bottom up
solution," in which knowledge is gained from the collective wisdom
obtained from individual interviews of sports competitors. Anecdotal
evidence has been shown to have poor predictive power because it
reflects an N of 1, that is, reporting the experiences of one individual
(see Anshel, 1993, for a description of the limitations of anecdotal
evidence on drugs in sport).
Anecdotal reports limit the generalizability of information and
fail to account for individual differences (e.g., heritability,
socialization) and task and situational factors inherent in competitive
sport (Anshel, 2012); it is not a research method (Thomas et al., 2011).
While a compilation of anecdotal reports may provide justification for
conducting further research, far more problematic is the use of
anecdotal reports to justify the efficacy of TD programs.
Philosophical Issues
Philosophical issues address ethical considerations, such as the
"appropriateness" of TD programs or the allocation of
community financial and physical resources. Addressing these issues
requires recognizing that the main objectives of TD/TID programs are
associated with discriminating between athletes who appear to have, as
opposed to who do not have, the potential to reach the status of
"elite" sport. These objectives include: (a) attempting to
match individuals to sport activities to which they are best suited
based on physiological and psychological measures; (b) selecting or
eliminating certain athletes for future participation at elite levels of
sport, and providing those "selected" competitors with optimal
training and coaching conditions, and (c) allowing sports organizations,
coaches, parents, and the athletes themselves to determine the extent to
which they are committed to the necessary time and financial resources
needed to reach the challenging goals of elite level sport (Abbott &
Collins, 2002; Brown, 2001; Williams & Reilly, 2000). Questions
remain, however, about the ethical and moral considerations of using
psychological instruments to aid in making these decisions and to draw
these conclusions.
Four issues are discussed in this section: (1) the Gatekeeper
Syndrome, (2) the varied expertise of sport psychologist and
consultants, (3) limited financial resources, and (4) questioning the
validity of identifying pre-requisite characteristics.
The Gatekeeper Syndrome
Individuals or groups who claim to have the knowledge and power to
make final decisions that have long-term implications on the lives of
others, such as determining an athlete's future involvement in
sport, exhibit the Gatekeeper Syndrome (MacNamara et al., 2010).
"Gatekeepers" are individuals who regulate and monitor
accepted knowledge in a field of study and practice (Christensen, 2009;
St-Aubin & Sidney, 1996). In the present context, the
"gatekeeper" determines the future status of an athlete based
on the athlete's score on a psychological inventory. The
philosophical question is whether a coach (or anyone else) should act as
gatekeepers in using psychological inventories to predict an
individual's future sport success.
Who are these "gatekeepers?" St-Aubin and Sidney (1996)
described a TD gatekeeper system in which "the expertise of ...
sport scientists is relied upon in the decision-making process ...
particularly sport psychologists" (p. 10). Martindale et al. (2005)
contend that recent advances in sport psychology measurement techniques,
advanced research, and more experience in practice settings should be
accompanied by less premature judging and predicting of sport talent.
From a philosophical perspective, the issue is whether researchers and
coaches, using psychological inventories as part of TD programs, should
be the gatekeepers of an athlete's future - particularly in the
absence of additional high quality coaching, training, mental skills,
and sport experiences. The question is whether a gatekeeper can
accurately determine the desirable, or even the requisite, psychological
characteristics of elite sports participants, and then claim to
accurately measure them in predicting future sport success.
Varied Expertise of Sport Psychologists and Consultants
Should TD programs that are based on the administration of
psychological inventories be controlled by sport psychologists
(individuals who are licensed psychologists, hence the title
"psychologist") and sport psychology consultants (individuals
who have expertise administering mental skills training but are not
licensed psychologists and, therefore, may not use the title
"psychologist")? Several researchers over the years (e.g.,
Anshel, 1992) have argued against the use of sport psychology
practitioners in the use of inventories for prediction and even for
diagnostic purposes. What would researchers and practitioners do with
these inventory scores? Do these professionals have sufficient training
in generating, administering, scoring, and interpreting the inventories?
Is there training that instructs practitioners on proper ways to apply
inventory data? While in recent years an increase has been seen in the
proper training and greater monitoring of certification and training
procedures in the practice of applied sport psychology (Lidor, Morris,
Bardaxoglou, & Becker, 2001; Singer & Anshel, 2006), there has
also been general disagreement--and even confusion--in determining the
proper educational background, requisite skills, and training for
effective practitioners in this field.
It is important to acknowledge two factors concerning the influence
of sport psychology on talent development. First, a thorough review of
the related literature clearly indicates that sport psychology
practitioners in many countries have been highly effective in enhancing
mental skills and sport performance of male and female athletes in
virtually all sports and skill levels (Alfermann & Lidor, 2005).
Second, however, is that the field's current level of development
precludes any clear and consistent ability to identify and assess the
requisite mental skills and psychological characteristics that can
accurately predict future skill level in sport (Martindale et al.,
2005). Previous attempts over the years to overcome these problems have
been met with serious flaws.
Blanksby's (1980) work provides an historical perspective on
the controversy of adopting TID programs. He describes the Australian TD
program for swimmers, and has proposed that identifying future elite
level swimmers could be accomplished through the school system; tests of
fundamental movement skill tests could be administered annually to all
students. Blanksby also suggested that psychological tests of locus of
control and sociograms that measure group dynamics be administered at
the same time. He argues that psychological tests "might help the
teacher to understand and counsel each child more adequately" (p.
18). Local sporting club representatives would visit the schools at
Grade 5 to engage in "a combination of wise counseling, individual
desire, and gravitation to areas of natural preference [that] would
ensure greater participation and nurturing of talented youngsters
..." (p. 18). The first author's visit to the People's
Republic of China revealed that this selection strategy occurs today in
China, as well as in many other countries.
However, there are limitations to these suggestions. The
appropriateness of using one personality construct (e.g., locus of
control, trait confidence) or sociometric data (e.g., team member
interactions, attitudes toward teammates) is questionable. In addition,
there are potential "costs" to the community of categorizing
children, as early as age 10 yrs, as having "poor" future
potential to succeed in sport. Based on the extensive rate of dropping
out of youth sport, it is plausible to surmise that many children will
discontinue their participation in sport after receiving this negative
information.
Rather than fostering a culture-wide positive attitude of engaging
in sport and other forms of physical activity, many children will
conclude they do not have the proper skills to play sports and will feel
unmotivated and lack confidence to learn and improve their sport skills.
Also unknown is the number of children who will succumb to the
self-fulfilling prophecy (Horn et al., 1998), in which the label
"poor potential" nurtures low personal expectations and
reduces the child's motivation to engage in regular exercise and
other forms of physical activity.
Limited Financial Resources
Another very important philosophical issue that strongly affects
the decision to sponsor TD programs is the use of limited community and
regional financial resources, both public (i.e., government) and private
(i.e., corporate sponsorships). The community must make judicious
decisions about the appropriate allocation of these resources, and the
ethical consideration of devoting limited community financial resources
toward a program in which relatively few individuals (i.e., young
athletes) will benefit (Green & Houlihan, 2005). Brown (2001)
asserts that serving relatively few athletes at the cost of eliminating
sport opportunities for a far greater number will likely eradicate the
aspirations of many sports participants who have the capability of
nurturing their talent through high quality coaching, instruction, and
practice. Existing funds could be applied to recreational programs,
improving fitness, learning new sport skills, and programs for high-risk
individuals (i.e., adolescents involved in crime and drug abuse). As
Cote and Hay (2002) concluded from their review of socialization
processes in sport, these suggestions carry a significant influence in
promoting involvement in children's sport. It is an issue of
ethics, then, whether community resources should serve "the
few" at the expense of "the many" when it comes to the
number of children and adolescents who would benefit from competitive
sport.
Questioning the Validity of Identifying Pre-Requisite
Characteristics
The TD paradigm falsely assumes that the psychological factors that
accompany high quality sports performance can be identified, or that
these requisite characteristics even exist. For example, Brown (2001),
Durand-Bush and Salmela (2001), and Tranckle and Cushion (2006) assert
that coaches and researchers disagree about the most desirable
psychological characteristics of elite-level competitors. A plethora of
studies have attempted to ascertain the psychological characteristics of
highly skilled competitors, and some characteristics have been
consistently identified (e.g., confidence, risk-taking, competitiveness,
optimism, mental toughness). However, whether these characteristics--or
the inventories used to measure them predict an athlete's
performance potential or discriminate between athletes who compete in
elite and non-elite levels, remains questionable. As Abbott and Collins
(2004) conclude, "... current talent identification and development
processes are likely to exclude many 'talented' children from
support programs while rare resources are 'misinvested' in
others" (p. 395).
Conclusions and Future Directions: Moving to Talent Development
There is ample evidence that psychological measures do not
discriminate between athletes of different skill levels. Various
attempts at predicting future performance quality, usually conducted as
ex post facto research in which the personal histories and experiences
of current elite athletes at various levels of competition are compared,
show relatively few differences among the athletes (Davids & Baker,
2007; Vaeyens et al., 2009). Attempts at predicting an athlete's
future success is meaningless without adequate resources to follow up
this process and to develop the athlete's potential (Martindale et
al., 2005). The limited financial resources of most communities,
however, make this suggestion unrealistic and unlikely. Jarver (1982)
contends that "even if it would be possible (to identify talent),
how many 12 to 13-year-olds, after being identified as hammer throwing
talent, for example, would be interested to take up this activity to
develop their talent" (p. 7).
The use of psychological inventories for detecting athletic talent
has been less than efficacious. There are alternative programs, however.
Numerous authors have proposed that efforts toward the early detection
and development of talent need to be re-conceptualized. Martindale et
al. (2005), for instance, contend that sports programs should stress the
"appropriate development" of sport skills rather than the
early selection of young prospects, and then focus on meeting each
athlete's individual needs through high quality coaching and
program opportunities. Instead of using psychological inventories to
predict future sport success, Tranckle and Cushion (2006) suggest that
it is more important to improve our understanding of an athlete's
potential to perform sports skills based on the direct observations and
assessments by skilled coaches, and to identify the physical and
psychological characteristics of elite sport participants.
Hoare (1996), for example, described an Australian program called
"Talent Search," which consists of three phases--school
screening, sport specific testing, and talent developing. Hoare argues
that the process of TD may be inherently flawed because "the
successful selection of athletic talent has relied upon experienced
coaches, (a procedure that) is limited in that it only selects athletes
from within that particular sport. If the athlete is better suited to
another sport, this will not be determined" (p. 3). Consequently,
psychological measures have been dropped from the current Australian TD
program. Phillips, Davids, Renshaw, and Portus (2010) examined the
factors that fostered skill development among fast bowlers in Australian
cricket. They found that instead of the use of psychological profiles,
it was of critical importance to provide younger athletes with the
opportunity to compete with older cricket players, "forcing them to
constantly adapt their behaviors and increase their level of
performance" (p. 145). Again, behavioral strategies rather than
psychological inventories appear to be more efficacious in developing
sport talent.
Another option, posited by Cote, Baker, and Abernethy (2007) and
Cote, Lidor, and Hackfort (2009), is a system of talent support and
guidance rather than prediction. Roffey and Gross (1991) contend that
researchers and practitioners should attempt to help each athlete
achieve his or her performance potential through the use of physical and
mental skills training. They assert that "psychological skills
appear to be learned skills, and those who master skills such as mental
blocking, internalizing, goal setting, coping with pressure, and
concentration are those who will make it" (p. 371).
An additional, preferred, approach to identifying talent among
younger athletes is a program called performance profiling (PP; Dale
& Wrisberg, 1996; Jones, 1993). PP consists of cognitive-behavioral
interventions that help coaches and consultants identify an appropriate
psychological intervention, enhance the competitor's
self-motivation to conduct the intervention, and monitor performance
changes during the intervention. Dale and Wrisberg (1996) used PP with a
university women's volleyball team for team goal-setting, resulting
in "a more open atmosphere for communication" between the
players and their coach (p. 261).
Finally, perhaps the approach to predicting or developing sports
talent should be a function of the old adage "practice makes
perfect." Vaeyens et al. (2009) describe the "deliberate
practice framework" in which "the level of attainment in any
field is directly and monotonically related to the accumulated amount of
deliberate practice in that field" (p. 1368). Based on their review
of related literature, the authors describe a "time economic
framework" in which athletic success is tied to accumulating
"more hours of deliberate (high quality) practice than your
competitors" (p. 1369). The mechanism of this approach is to
"accelerate talent development processes by extension and
intensification of training time in the targeted sport discipline"
(p. 1369). TDV remains a superior alternative to TD/TID because it is
predicated on the coach's systematic observation and assessment of
each athlete's skills, followed by a plan of action for proper
training and skill reassessment (Cote et al., 2009; Cote, Salmela,
Trudel, Baria, & Russell, 1995).
It appears that rather than engage in attempts to predict future
elite level performance of relatively few young athletes, limited
financial and personal resources should be used: (a) to provide athletes
of all ages the opportunity to select sports that interest them and in
which they demonstrate competence, (b) to allow the normal processes of
growth, development, and emotional maturity to form an integral part of
the TD process, and (c) to teach athletes the sports skills and the
cognitive and behavioral strategies that are necessary for improved
sport performance (e.g., Abbott & Collins, 2004; Anshel, 2012).
In conclusion, it is apparent that the field of sport psychology is
not, and has never been, about the selection or elimination of younger
performers whose responses to psychological inventories may greatly
determine their future level of sport competition and performance.
Woodman (1985) contends that sports administrators, coaches, parents,
and sport psychology consultants should focus on helping sports
competitors of all ages reach their performance potential. To Woodman,
"it is not enough just to identify talent, it must also be
developed through the provision of appropriate training programs
throughout the development stages" (p. 49). As Salmela and Regnier
(1985) assert, "what the question of talent identification comes
down to is whether we make our decisions (about an athlete's
potential) using all of the available information or whether we wish to
use partial hunches; whether we invest in the long-term solution or
settle for the short-term fix; (and) whether we try to predict the
somewhat predictable future or continue to predict the totally
predictable past" (p. 93).
References
Abbott, A., & Collins, D. (2002). A theoretical and empirical
analysis of a 'state of the art' talent identification model.
High Abilities Studies, 13, 157-278.
Abbott, A., & Collins, D. (2004). Eliminating the dichotomy
between theory and practice in talent identification and development:
considering the role of psychology. Journal of Sports Sciences, 22,
395-408.
Alfermann, D., & Lidor, R. (2005). Educational programs for
sport psychologists--an international perspective. In D. Hackfort, J. L.
Duda, & R. Lidor (Eds.), Handbook of research in applied sport and
exercise psychology: International perspectives (pp. 377-384).
Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Andersen, P. A. (1976). Personality differences in United States
men's Olympics, national and non-national finalist swimmers and
seven stroke classes. In F. Landry & W. A. Orban (Eds.), Motor
learning, sport psychology, pedagogy and didactics of physical activity
(pp. 327-336). Quebec: Symposia Specialists Inc.
Anshel, M. H. (2012). Sport psychology: From theory to practice
(5th ed.). San Francisco: Benjamin-Cummings.
Anshel, M. H. (1992). The case against certification in sport
psychology: In search of the phantom expert. The Sport Psychologist, 6,
265-286.
Anshel, M. H. (1993). Drugs in sport. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphy,
& L. K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology
(pp. 851-876). New York: Macmillan.
Blanksby, B. B. (Spring, 1980). Measures of talent identification
in competitive swimming. Sports Coach, 4, 13-19.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New
York: Ballantine Books.
Bloom, G. (2002). Role of the elite coach in the development of
talent. In J. M. Silva & E. E. Stevens (Eds.), Psychological
foundations of sport (pp. 466-483). San Francisco: Benjamin-Cummings.
Bompa, T. (1999). Periodization: The theory and methodology of
training (4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Brown, J. (2001). Sport talent: How to identify and develop
outstanding athletes. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Christensen, M. K. (2009). "An eye for talent": Talent
identification and the "practical sense" of top-level soccer
coaches. Sociology of Sport Journal, 26, 365-382.
Cote, J., Baker, J., & Abernethy, B. (2007). Practice and play
in the development of sport expertise. In G. Tenenbaum & R. Eklund
(Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (3rd ed., pp. 184-202). Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.
Cote, J., & Hay, J. (2002). Children's involvement in
sport: A developmental perspective. In J. M. Silva & E. E. Stevens
(Eds.), Psychological foundations of sport (pp. 484-502). San Francisco:
Benjamin-Cummings
Cote, J., Lidor, R., & Hackfort, D. (2009). 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, 7, 7-17.
Cote, J., Salmela, J., Trudel, P., Baria, A., & Russell, S.
(1995). The coaching model: a grounded assessment of expert gymnastic
coaches' knowledge. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 17,
1-17.
Cox, R. H. (2012). Sport psychology: Concepts and applications (7th
ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Dale, G. A., & Wrisberg, C. A. (1996). The use of a performance
profiling technique in a team setting: Getting the athletes and coach on
the "same page." The Sport Psychologist, 10, 261-277.
Davids, K., & Baker, J. (2007). Genes, environment and sport
performance: Why the nature-nurture dualism is no longer relevant.
Sports Medicine, 37, 961-980.
Deaner, H., & Silva, J. M. (2002). Personality and sport
performance. In J. M. Silva & E. E. Stevens (Eds.), Psychological
foundations of sport (pp. 48-65). San Francisco: Benjamin-Cummings.
Duda, J., & Hayashi, C. T. (1998). Measurement issues in
cross-cultural research within sport and exercise psychology. In J. Duda
(Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp.
471-483). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Durand-Bush, N., & Salmela, J. H. (2001). The development of
talent in sport. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle
(Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (2nd ed., pp. 269-289). New York:
Wiley.
Elliott, B. C., Ackland, T. R., Blanksby, B. A., & Bloomfield,
J. (1990). A prospective study of physiological and kinanthropometric
indicators of junior tennis performance. The Australian Journal of
Science and Medicine in Sport, 22, 87-92.
Falk, B., Lidor, R., Lander, Y., & Lang, B. (2004). Talent
identification and early development of elite water-polo players: a
2-year follow-up study. Journal of Sports Sciences, 22, 347-355.
Feldman, D. H. (1986). Nature's gambit: Child prodigies and
the development of human potential. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Furr, R. M., & Bacharach, V. R. (2008). Psychometrics: An
introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gan, Q., Anshel, M.H., & Kim, J. (2009). Sources and cognitive
appraisals of acute stress as predictors of coping style among male and
female Chinese athletes. International Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 7, 68-88.
Gauvin, L., & Russell, S. J. (2003). Sport-specific and
culturally adaptive measures in sport and exercise psychology research:
Issues and strategies. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphey, L. K. Tennant
(Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 891-900). New
York: Macmillan.
Green, M., & Houlihan, B. (2005). Elite sport
development--Policy learning and political priorities. London:
Routledge.
Gulbin, J. P., Oldenziel, K. E., Weissensteiner, J. R., &
Gagne, F. (2010). A look through the rear view mirror: Developmental
experiences and insights of high performance athletes. Talent
Development & Excellence, 2, 149-164.
Hahn, A. G. (1990). Identification and selection of talent in
Australian rowing. Excel, 6, 5-11.
Hahn, A. G., & Tumilty, D. (1989).The rowing talent
identification program--an outline. Excel, 5,12-14.
Haskell, W. L. (1983). Assessing the athletic potential of young
athletes. In N. J. Smith (Ed.), Sports medicine: health care for young
athletes (pp. 33-58). Evanston, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics.
Ho, R. (1987). Talent identification in China. In B. Petiot, J. H.
Salmela, & T. B. Hoshizaki (Eds.), World identification systems for
gymnastic talent (pp. 14-20). Montreal: Sport Psyche Editions.
Hoare, D. (Spring, 1996). The Australian national talent search
programme. Coaching Focus, 31, 3-4.
Hogg, J. M. (1986). Developing talent among young athletes: Some
psychological implications. In Proceedings of the Canadian Swim Coaches
Association Conference (pp. 142-151). Esterel, Quebec.
Horn, T. S., Lox, C., & Labrador, F. (1998). The
self-fulfilling prophecy theory: When coaches' expectations become
reality. In J. M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal
growth to peak performance (pp. 74-91). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Jarver, J. (1982). Do we need talent identification? Modern Athlete
and Coach, 20, 7-8.
Jerome, W. C. (1993). Using psychological variables to predict
athletic success. In S. Serpa, J. Alves, V. Ferreira, & A.
Paula-Brito (Eds.), Proceedings of the VIII World Congress of Sport
Psychology (pp. 924-928). Lisbon, Portugal.
Jones, G. (1993). The role of performance profiling in cognitive
behavioral interventions in sport. The Sport Psychologist, 7, 160-172.
Kalinowski, A. G. (1985). The development of Olympic swimmers. In
B. S. Bloom (Ed.), Developing talent in young people (pp. 139-192). New
York: Ballantine Books.
Kantowitz, B. H., Roediger, H. L., & Elmes, D. G. (2005).
Experimental psychology (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth
Learning.
Kerr, R., Booth, M., Dainty, D., & Gaborault, R. (1980). Talent
identification from competitive diving. In P. Klavora & K. A. W.
Wiper (Eds.), Psychological and sociological factors in
sport--Proceedings of the Canadian Society for Psychomotor Learning and
Sport Psychology Annual Congress (pp. 270-276). Canada: Toronto.
Komadel, L. (1988). The identification of performance potential. In
A. Drix, H. G. Knuttgen, & K. Tittel (Eds.), Olympic book of sports
medicine (pp. 275-285). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science.
Leone, M. (1993). First Serve: An introductory program for boys and
girls ages 6 to 8. Toronto: Tennis Canada.
Lidor, R., Cote, J., & Hackfort, D. (2009). To test or not to
test?--The use of physical skill tests in talent detection and in early
phases of sport development. International Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 7, 131-146.
Lidor, R., Morris, T., Bardaxoglou, N., & Becker, B. (2001).
The world sport psychology sourcebook (3rd ed.). Morgantown, WV: Fitness
Information Technology.
MacNamara, A., Button, A., & Collins, D. (2010). The role of
psychological characteristics in facilitating the pathway to elite
performance: Part I: Identifying mental skills and behaviors. The Sport
Psychologist, 24, 52-73.
Mahoney, M. J. (1989). Psychological predictors of elite and
non-elite performance in Olympic weightlifting. International Journal of
Sport Psychology, 20, 1-12.
Mahoney, M. J., Gabriel, T. J., & Perkins, T. S. (1987).
Psychological skills and exceptional athletic performance. The Sport
Psychologist, 1, 181-199.
Martindale, R. J. J., Collins, D., & Daubney, J. (2005). Talent
development: A guide for practice and research within sport. Quest, 57,
353-375.
Martinek, T. J., Crowe, P. B., & Rejeski, W. J. (1982).
Pygmalion in the gym: Causes and effects of expectations in coaching and
teaching. West Point, NY: Leisure Press.
Martinek, T. J., & Karper, W. B. (1984). The effects of
noncompetitive and competitive instructional climates on teacher
expectancy effects in elementary physical education classes. Journal of
Sport Psychology, 6, 408-421.
Matsudo, V. K. (1996). Prediction of future athletic excellence. In
O. Bar-Or (Ed.), The child and adolescent athlete (pp. 92-109). New
York: Blackwell Science.
McNair, D. M., Lorr, M., & Droppleman, L. F. (1992). Profile of
mood state manual. San Diego: Education and Industrial Testing Service.
Miller, B. P., & Edgington, G. P. (1984). Psychological mood
state distortion in a sporting context. Journal of Sport Behavior, 7,
91-94.
Missoum, G., & Laforestrie, R. (1981). Psychologie du sport:
approche des mecanismes psychologiques lies a la detection des jeunes
sportifs et a l'optimisation des performances. Bulletin de
Psychologie, 37, 347-357.
Morgan, W. P. (1997). Methodological considerations. In W. P.
Morgan (Ed.), Physical activity & mental health (pp. 3-32). London:
Taylor & Francis.
Morgan, W. P. (1978). The credulous-skeptical argument in
perspective. In W. F. Straub (Ed.), Sport psychology: An analysis of
athlete behavior (pp. 218-227). Ithaca, NY: Mouvement.
Myers, A., & Hansen, C. (2012). Experimental psychology (7th
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Nesselroade, J. R., & Baltes, P. B. (1979). Longitudinal
research in the study of behavior and development. New York: Academic
Press.
Petlichkoff, L. M. (1993). Coaching children: understanding the
motivational process. Sport Science Review, 5, 242-252.
Petlichkoff, L. M. (1996). The dropout dilemma in youth sports. In
O. Bar-Or (Ed.), The child and adolescent athlete (pp. 418-430). New
York: Blackwell Science.
Phillips, E., Davids, K., Renshaw, I., & Portus, M. (2010). The
development of fast bowling experts in Australian cricket. Talent
Development & Excellence, 2, 137-148.
Poppleton, W. L., & Salmoni, A. W. (1991). Talent
identification in swimming. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 20,
85-95.
Prescott, J. (1996). Talent identification and development in
female gymnasts. Coaching Focus, 31, 12-13.
Regnier, G., Salmela, J. H., & Russell, S. L. (1993). Talent
detection and development in sport. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphy, & L.
K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp.
290-313). New York: MacMillan.
Reilly, T., Williams, A. M., Nevill, A., & Franks, A. (2000). A
multidisciplinary approach to talent detection in soccer. Journal of
Sports Sciences, 18, 695-702.
Renger, R. (1993). Predicting athletic success: issues related to
analysis and interpretation of study findings. The Sport Psychologist,
7, 262-274.
Roetert, E. P., Brown, S. W., Piorkowski, P. A., & Woods, R. B.
(1996). Fitness comparisons among three different levels of elite tennis
players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 10, 139-143.
Roffey, K., & Gross, J. B. (1991). A behavioural observation
checklist for basketball talent identification. The 18th ACHPER
National/International Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2, pp. 368-373).
Perth, Western Australia: Edith Cowan University Press.
Salmela, J. H., & Regnier, G. (1985). Justification for sport
talent identification programs. In L. E. Unestahl (Ed.), Sport
psychology in theory and practice--Proceedings of the 6th World Congress
in Sport Psychology (pp. 90-98). Copenhagen, Denmark.
Schutz, R. W. (1998). Assessing the stability of psychological
traits and measures. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise
psychology measurement (pp. 393-408). Morgantown, WV: Fitness
Information Technology.
Schutz, R. W., & Gessaroli, M. E. (1993). Use, misuse, and
disuse of psychometrics in sport psychology research. In R. N. Singer,
M. Murphey, & L. K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport
psychology (pp. 901-917). New York: MacMillan.
Singer, R. N., & Anshel, M. H. (2006). An overview of
interventions in sport. In J. Dosil (Ed.), The sport psychologist's
handbook (pp. 63-88). West Sussex, UK: Wiley.
Singer, R. N., & Janelle, C. M. (1999). Determining sport
expertise: From genes to supremes. International Journal of Sport
Psychology, 30, 117-150.
Spamer, E. J., & Coetzee, M. (2002). Variables which
distinguish between talented and less talented participants in youth
sport--A comparative study. Kinesiology, 2, 141-152.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R., Vaag, P. R., &
Jacobs, G. A. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
St-Aubin, M. A., & Sidney, K. (1996). A rationale for talent
detection in youth sports. Canadian Association for Health, Physical
Education, Recreation & Dance Journal, 62, 9-12.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate
statistics (5th ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
Thomas, J. R., Nelson, J. K., & Silverman, S. J. (2011).
Research methods in physical activity (6th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Till, K., Cobley, S., O'Hara, J., Chapman, C., & Cooke, C.
(2010). Anthropometric, physiological and selection characteristics In
high performance UK junior rugby league players. Talent Development
& Excellence, 2, 193-207.
Tranckle, P., & Cushion, C. J. (2006). Rethinking giftedness
and talent in sport. Quest, 58, 265-282.
Vaeyens, R., Gullich, A., Warr, C. R., Philippaerts, R. (2009).
Talent identification and promotion programmes of Olympic athletes.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 27, 1367-1380.
Van den Auweele, Y., Cuyper, B. D., Van Mele, V., & Rzewnicki,
R. (1993). Talent detection and development in sport. In R. N. Singer,
M. Murphy, & L. K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport
psychology (pp. 257-289). New York: Macmillan.
Van den Auweele, Y., Nys, K., Rzewnicki, R., & Van Mele, V.
(2001). Personality and the athlete. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas,
& C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (2nd ed., pp.
239-268). New York: Wiley.
Vealey, R. S. (1985). Sport personology: A paradigmatic and
methodological analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11,
216-235.
Vealey, R. S. (2002). Personality and sport behavior. In T. Horn
(Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (pp. 43-82). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Williams, A. M., & Reilly, T. (2000). Talent identification and
development in soccer. Journal of Sports Sciences, 18, 657-667.
Woodman, L. (1985). Talent identification--Is competition enough?
Sports Coach, 9, 49-57.
Mark H. Anshel
Middle Tennessee State University
Ronnie Lidor
University of Haifa
Address correspondence to: Mark H. Anshel, Ph.D., Middle Tennessee
State University Department of Health and Human Performance, Box 96,
Murfreesboro, Tennessee 37132
E-mail:
[email protected], Fax: 1-615-898-5020
Table 1.
Psychological characteristics discriminating between
successful and less successful athletes
Study N Sex Age Sport
Andersen 152 Male 18-22 Swimming
(1976)
Hahn N/A N/A N/A N/A
(1990)
Haskell N/A N/A N/A N/A
(1983)
Ho N/A N/A N/A N/A
(1987)
Hogg N/A N/A N/A N/A
(1986)
Jerome 273 Female 11-25 Synchronized
(1993) Swimming
Kalinowski 24 Male & N/A Swimming
(1985) Female
Komadel N/A N/A N/A N/A
(1988)
Mahoney 67 Male 14-20+ Weightlifting
(1989)
Mahoney, 713 Male & 17-25 Various
Gabriel, & Female
Perkins
(1987)
Missoum & 220 Male 16-21 Various
Laforestrie
(1981)
Constructs
discriminating
Study Instruments Used skill level
Andersen Cattell 16 PF Self-confidence
(1976) Social skills
Hahn Review of Literature Stubbornness
(1990) Self-confidence
Goal-orientation
Self-motivation
Anxiety *
Haskell Review of Literature Self-confidence
(1983) Goal-orientation
Self-control
Enthusiasm
Self-motivation
Ho Review of Literature Stubbornness
(1987) Ambition
Self-control
Intelligence
Hogg Review of Literature Stubbornness
(1986) Self-confidence
Goal-orientation
Emotional stability
Ambition
Social skills
Self-motivation
Jerome Cattell HSPQ 16 PF Happy-go-lucky
(1993) SCAT Anxiety *
Rotter I-E External LOC
Buss-Durkee Hostility
Self-Analysis Test
Motivation Analysis
Test (MAT)
Kalinowski Interviews Ambition
(1985) Self-motivation
Komadel Review of Literature Emotional stability
(1988) Intelligence
Self-motivation
Anxiety *
Neuroticism *
Mahoney SCL-90R Self-motivation
(1989)
Mood (POMS) Neuroticism *
Mahoney, Psychological Skills Anxiety *
Gabriel, & in Sport (PSIS-P5)
Perkins
(1987)
Missoum & Eysenck Personality Emotional stability
Laforestrie Inventory Ambition
(1981) Enthusiasm
* denotes a decrease in the designated trait
