anshel lidor - talent detection programs in sport - the questionable use of psychological measures

Talent Detection Programs in Sport:The Questionable Use of Psychological Measures

MarkRAnshelMiddle Tennessee State University

Ronnie LidorUniversity of Haifa

Recent empirical studies have questioned the use of tests assessing physical ability and skilllevel in talent detection (TD), also called talent identification (TID), and in early phases ofsport development, particularly in terms of predicting future ability/success of young pros-pects. The main purpose of this article is to question the efficacy of predicting future talent insport using psychological measures. It is contended that predicting future high qualityperformance in sport is based on psychological measures that have low validity, are basedon flawed research procedures, lack consistency in defining elite versus non-elite athletes,have inherent bias in the athlete selection process, and contain inaccuracies in measuringsport personality, among other concerns. From a philosophical perspective, issues are ad-dressed that reflect TD as an unethical procedure. Concerns about TD/TID programs in-clude philosophical issues that question the integrity and appropriateness of talent predic-tion programs are also discussed. Plausible options for replacing TD/TID programs withother approaches (e.g., talent development, performance profiling) are provided Recom-mendations include improved athlete selection for further skill development, availability ofhigh quality coaching to athletes of all skill levels (particularly in youth sports), and moreefficient use of limited financial resources for non-elite community sports programs.

Address correspondence to: Mark H. Anshel, Ph.D., Middle Tennessee State UniversityDepartment of Health and Human Performance, Box 96, Murfreeshoro, Tennessee 37132E-mail: [email protected], Fax: 1-615-898-5020

239

240/Journal of Sport Behavior, Vol. 35, No. 3

The pressure exerted by sports organizations, sponsors, and, in some countries, bygovernmental bodies (e.g.. Sport Authorities, Olympic Training Centers) on young athletes tobe successful sports competitors is greater than ever. Perhaps not surprisingly, there is alsoconsiderable pressure to predict future high quality sport performance in competitive settingsby 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 topredict future sport success, called talent detection (TD) or talent identification (TID) pro-grams, "are designed to identify young athletes who possess extraordinary potential for suc-cess 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 meansof 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 incompetitive sport. The intention of these programs is to allocate scarce resources towardindividual athletes whose test scores show "promising" talent, at least in the long-term. Arethese objectives met? Are the tests valid? Is this a good idea, at least from a philosophicalperspective?

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 offersuggested directions for enhancing the processes of TD/TID, and talent development (TDV).The existing evidence suggests that the use of psychological inventories to predict futuresuccess and achievement in elite-level competitive sport lacks validity and proper ethics. Thereview 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 thephilosophical arguments against the use of psychological measures in TD programs, andfinally, (5) providing recommendations and guidelines for initiating talent development pro-grams in sport.

Defining Terms and ConceptsBrown (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 informationon the prospects' physical, physiological, and technical abilities, either alone or in combina-tion, with measures of psychological aptitudes. TD has also been described as a process bywhich children are encouraged to participate in the sports in which they are most likely to

TALENT DETECTION IN SPORT. ../241

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 thosemost likely to succeed in sport and directing them towards the sports to which they are mostsuited" (p. 49).

To Hahn and Tumilty (1989), TD programs consist of the selection of individuals whohave shown to have the characteristics important for success at the highest levels of a particu-lar sport. Durand-Bush and Salmela (2001) contend that TD programs reflect the attempt tomatch various performer characteristics - innate, learned, or due to training - with task demandsof a given sport, to ensure the highest probability of maximum performance outcome. Williamsand Reilly (2000) define TD as the discovery of potential performers who are currently notinvolved in any sport program. Finally, Lidor, Côté, and Hackfort (2009) use the term talentidentification as "the process of recognizing individuals currently involved in sport with thepotential to become elite athletes/players" (p. 134). All of these definitions consider TD as anyconscious effort that recognizes individuals who have the potential to become elite athletes.

Two concepts that have been used interchangeably, but erroneously, with TD are talentselection (TS) and talent development (TDV). TS consists of the ongoing process of identify-ing athletes/players at various stages of the training program. To Lidor et al. (2009), TS pro-grams refer to specific tasks or tests that target an athlete's capability to demonstrate compe-tence in a particular sport or position within that sport. TDV, on the other hand, "implies thatthe athletes/players are being provided with the appropriate learning/practice conditions topromote and realize their potential in a specific sport" (Lidor et al, p. 134). TS does not includeattempts to predict future success based on identifying the athlete's psychological character-istics.

Ostensible Advantages of TD/TID ProgramsTID programs are often of great importance to select sporting bodies of governments

that seek national and international status in competitive sport and apply scarce financialresources toward developing potential champion athletes, so that they may achieve nationaland international recognition (Vaeyens et al., 2009). Effective use of these financial resourcesare compromised, however, if these efforts fail to accurately predict future success in competi-tive sport, particularly among younger competitors (Lidor et al., 2009). Ideally, therefore, theearly detection of talent provides the opportunity to obtain the best "retum," or "investment,"in giving potential elite level competitors the required resources in coaching expertise, equip-ment, facilities, practice time, and opportunities to reach their full sport potential. TID pro-grams have been attempted with respect to the testing of sport skills, as well as of physiologi-cal and anthropological parameters.


Proponents of TD programs claim that showing that sport skill tests are, in fact, effica-cious in predicting future sport skill performance adds credence to the examination of thepsychological dimension (Vaeyens et al., 2009). In fact, the results of selected studies haveindicated that measures of motor ability and motor skill proficiency predict future sport perfor-mance 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 First Serve TD program in-cludes measurements of skin-fold, bone diameter, body girth, and reaction times that, ostensi-bly, accurately predict an athlete's future sport skill level and the athlete's compatibility withthe demands of a particular sport (Leone, 1993). The program does not, however, includepsychological measures.

Another apparent advantage of TD programs is that they maximize the number of giftedindividuals participating in a given sport, resulting in stronger domestic competition and likelyincreasing the number of internationally competitive athletes (Durand-Bush & Salmela, 2001 ;Hahn, 1990). This is because TD programs ostensibly promote competitiveness and directathletes toward sports in which they are more likely to succeed, increasing the number ofathletes aiming for elite levels of sport (Abbott & Collins, 2002,2004; Bompa, 1999). Meetingpsychological needs reduces sport attrition, that is, the likelihood of dropping out of a sport atwhich the athlete is expected to succeed (Petlichkoff, 1993, 1996). As Petlichkoff noted, at-tempts to determine the sport that best represents a young athlete's skills might provide a moreefficient way than traditional trial-and-error approaches.

Along these lines, Bompa (1999), Hahn (1990), and Haskell (1983) contend that TDprograms profile the athletes' strengths and weaknesses, and provide them with relevantfeedback so that they can effectively monitor their progress throughout the entire trainingprogram. For example, Pethchkoff ( 1993,1996) contends that children who drift fi-om sport tosport in an attempt to fmd a satisfying and rewarding experience waste an enormous amount oftime and resources. As a result, many children with high quality sport talent do not find theirniche in sport, consuming considerable time in their search for a sport that is compatible withtheir skills and goals (Feldman, 1986). TD programs, therefore, can maximize the number ofchildren who have positive sport experiences and a greater likelihood of success, therebyreducing the rate of sport dropout (St-Aubin & Sidney, 1996). The productivity of elite coachesis also enhanced by ensuring that their time, energy, and resources are directed toward thedevelopment 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 fromnumerous studies, reviewed by Deaner and Silva (2002), in which discriminant function analy-sis has detected unique psychological characteristics that predict long-term sport success

TALENT DETECTION IN SPORT... /243

among young athletes. For example, athletes are categorized as "elite" and "non-elite" onmeasures of self-confidence (Andersen, 1976;Vealey, 1985,2002), ambition (Mahoney, 1989),self-motivation (Mahoney, 1989), emotional stability (Missoum & Laforestrie, 1981), and en-thusiasm (Missoum & Laforestrie, 1981).

When these advantages are considered together, an effective TD program will not onlyidentify (younger) athletes who already possess desirable psychological characteristics thatare commensurate with successful sport performance, but will also create a template againstwhich other athletes (and their coaches and parents) can aspire and leam over time (Renger,1993). Table 1 lists selected studies that discriminate between successful and less-successfulathletes.

The Case Against the Use of Psychological Measures in TD ProgramsThe case against the use of psychological measures in TD sports programs rests prima-

rily on three factors, failure to take into consideration the performers' physical maturation, thecoach's role in the athlete's skill development, and flaws in the scientific process.

The Performers ' Physical MaturationTD 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. Theseprograms, however, may not accurately predict future skill development and sport perfor-mance. Predicting future successful sport performance using physiological and anthropo-logical 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 distinguishingbetween highly-talented and less-talented athletes, Lidor et al. concluded that "no clear-cutevidence has been found to support the predictive value of physical tests in talent detectionand early development in sport" (p. 140). They cite numerous studies indicating "no correla-tion 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 anthropo-métrie, physiological, and selected characteristics in high performance junior rugby leagueplayers in the United Kingdom. The authors concluded that these results raise concems aboutthe ability of motor skill testing to identify characteristics of immediate and long-term playerselection and development. Similar concems have surfaced conceming the use of psychologi-cal testing for prediction purposes.


Table 1.

Psychological characteristics discriminating between successful and less successfid athletes

Study

Andersen(1976)

Hahn(1990)

Haskell(1983)

Ho(1987)

Hogg(1986)

N

152

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Sex

Male

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Age

18-22

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Sport

Swimming

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Instruments Used

Cattell 16 PFSocial skills

Review of Literature




Constructsdiscriminatingskill level

Self-confidence

StubbomnessSelf-confidenceGoal-orientationSelf-motivationAnxiety*

Self-confidenceGoal-orientation

. Self-controlEnthusiasmSelf-motivation

StubbomnessAmbitionSelf-controlIntelligence

StubbomnessSelf-confidenceGoal-orientationEmotional stabilityAmbitionSocial skillsSelf-motivation

* denotes a decrease in the designated trait


Table 1 Continued.

Psychological characteristics discriminating between successful and less successfid athletes

Study N Sex Age Sport Instruments UsedConstructsdiscriminatingskiU level

Jerome 273 Female 11-25 Synchronized(1993) Swimming

Cattell HSPQ 16 PF Happy-go-luckySCAT Anxiety*Rotto-I-E Exta-nalLOCBuss-Durkee HostilitySelf-Analysis TestMotivation AnalysisTest (MAT)

Kalinowski 24 Male & N/A Swimming(1985) Female

Komadel N/A N/A N/A N/A(1988)

Intaviews AmbitionSelf-motivation

Review of Literature Emotional stabilityIntelligenceSelf-motivation

Mahoney(1989")

Mahoney,Gabriel, &PeiHfin«

(1987)

Missoum &Laforestrie(1981)

67

713

220

Male

Male&Female

Male

14-20+

17-25

16-21

Weightlifting

Various

Various

SCL-90R

Mood (POMS)

Psychological Skillsin Sport (PSIS-P5)

Eysenck PersonalityInventory

Anxiety*Neuroticism*

Self-motivation

Neuroticism*

Anxiety*

Emotional stabilityAmbitionEnthusiasm

* denotes a decrease in the designated trait

246 / Journal of Sport Behavior, Vol. 35, No. 3

Along these lines, researchers and practitioners have examined the relationship be-tween TD and TDV in sport. For example, Gulbin, Oldenziel, Weissensteiner, and Gagne (2010)reviewed "key developmental experiences and insights" of 673 high performance Australianathletes (p. 149). They determined that elite athletes possess several selected characteristicsthat 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 psy-chological in nature. In addition, no personalify traits were listed.

In their review of related literature, Lidor et al. (2009) concluded that assessing physicalability and skill level in order to determine future talent of athletes offers no clear support of thepredictive value of these tests, either for individual or for team sports. Thus, while TD pro-grams may help a young athlete decide to which sport he or she is best suited, the capabilityof these programs to predict future sport success may not be as promising.

Coach Expertise and InfluenceThe 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 addressedwith respect to the coach's role in the use of psychological measures in detecting and predict-ing an athlete's talent. First, reliance on the use of psychological inventories in TID programsimdermines the coach's role in developing the athlete's talent. Predicting future performancefi-om inventories does not take into account a coach's expertise. Coaches are primarily respon-sible for each athlete's development and maturation, particularly at the elite level (Salmela &Régnier, 1985). The coach's expertise is far more likely to influence an athlete's performancepotential 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 thantheir less-skilled peers. This phenomenon, called an "expectancy effect," consists of a personin a subordinate position (e.g., child, student, athlete, experimental participant) responding toan authority figure (e.g., parent, teacher, parent, coach, experimenter) in a manner that isconsistent with the authority figure's expectations (Thomas, Nelson, & Silverman, 2011 ). Threefypes of expectancy effects include halo effect, Rosenthal effect, and Hawthorne effect (seeThomas et al., for descriptions). In the current context, this phenomenon might refer to as acoaching bias built into TID programs. Two studies lend credence to this view.

Christensen (2009) conducted in-depth interviews with eight elite soccer coaches, whoidentified the characteristics of highly-skilled soccer players. Christensen found that coachespredicted future success among highly-rated players who "were assumed to be willing toleam" 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 thatostensibly 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 dueto 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 meticu-lous planning. Thus, the degree of coach expertise is a mediating, but rarely controlled, vari-able in the attempt to validate the efficacy of TD/TID programs (Reilly, Williams Nevill &Franks, 2000).

Flaws in the Scientific ProcessFlaws in the scientific process, which represent particularly powerful issues in question-

ing the role of psychological factors in talent TD, include these 12 components: (1) vaguedefinitions of selected constructs, (2) inconsistency in defining an "elite" athlete, (3) invalidinventories/poor predictive validity, (4) poor research methodology and statistical procedures,(5) sample bias, (6) failure to use baseline measures, (7) extensive use of cross-sectionalcomparisons, (8) paucity of skill level comparisons, (9) poor inventory construction, (10)lhnitations in personality research, (11) inherent problems with self-report, and (12) overreli-ance on anecdotal evidence.

Vague Definitions of Selected ConstructsThe terms "mental toughness," "competitiveness," and "psychological readiness" are

often used when attempting to determine an athlete's potential for future success. Ahnostunknown, however, are their operational defmitions, and the extent to which these character-istics identify or predict sport skill level (Singer & Janelle, 1999). In addition, interpreting andapplying 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 refiect 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 psycho-logical characteristics in TD research (Durand-Bush & Salmela, 2001).

Inconsistency in Defining an "Elite" AthleteExamining 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 fimc-


tion of his or her current success or achievement (Matsudo, 1996). Traditionally, elite athleteshave been defined as individuals "who are eligible for competition at the national, intema-tional, 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 includesindividuals 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 sportcompetition at a particular level (Falk et al., 2004).

An additional concem 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 nationallevel in some studies, while in other studies the term "elite" is used for college students whoplayed on their high school sports teams. It is unlikely, therefore, that elite athletes, as identi-fied in various studies from different cultures will display the same characteristics in, forexample, Africa (Spamer & Coetzee, 2002), Asia (Gan et al., 2009), Europe (Williams & Reilly,2000), and North America (Brown, 2001). This inconsistency compromises the primary objec-tive of TD programs - to predict the future quality of sport performance.

Invalid Inventories: Poor Predictive ValidityPerhaps 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 ameasuring instrument or test yields information allowing prediction of actual behavior orperformance" (Myers & Hansen, 2012, p. 592). A plethora of published studies comparing eliteand non-elite or high and low-skilled sports competitors on selected psychological variablesdid 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 gym-nasts aged 7-10 yrs, and found a very low prediction rate. In their extensive review, Deaner andSilva (2002) concluded that "while some of these studies do show personality differencesbased on sport type and gender...many of these studies are old and focus only on a few selectsports or a few select characteristics" (p. 61).

Poor Research Methodology and Statistical ProceduresResearchers and theorists have noted inherent limitations of many studies concemed

with identifying current psychological characteristics of athletes, comparing athletes catego-rized as elite and non-elite or making cross cultural comparisons (Gauvin & Russell, 1993), andpredicting athletes' future achievement level in sport. Some of these issues have concemedthe use of inventories that were not intended for the current sample (Morgan, 1997), andimproper psychometric validation and statistical procedures that render the instrument invalid


(Schutz & Gessaroli, 1993). In his review of related literature concerning methodological re-search problems, Morgan lists "the absence of randomization, small sample size, inadequatepsychological measures, and experimenter expectancy effects, among other flaws" (p. 4).

Also problematic in this area is that researchers have labeled constructs interchange-ably, such as juxtaposing the athltts's personality traits with his or her orientations, styles,dispositions, and behavioral tendencies (Anshel, 2012). Each of these constructs differ; someare more amenable to change through counseling and treatment (e.g., orientations of mentaltoughness or competitiveness; behavioral tendencies such as pre-performance routines) thanothers (e.g., trait anxiefy, neuroticism, trait anger, stimulus-seeking). Failure to control formoderator variables such as gender and culture provides an additional concern. Gauvin andRussell contend, for instance, that "it is widely acknowledged that such cultural factors canpotentially produce major distortions and inaccuracies in test interpretation" (p. 892). Basedon their thorough review of related literature, Gauvin and Russell concluded that "the selec-tion of sport/exercise-specific tests and scales., .requires a careful conceptual analysis of theconstructs under investigation, an examination of the measurement assumptions of the theo-retical framework employed, and in some cases, a consideration of the amount of varianceexplained in the target variables" (p. 899). Clearly, future study is needed toward the continueddevelopment and validation of psychological measures that attempt to predict and identify thepotential 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 (Thomaset al., 2011). For instance, sample characteristics, or the psychological demands of specificsports in which "desirable" traits are being identified, are not taken into account when devel-oping inventory items (Andersen, 1976; Gauvin & Russell, 2003; Hahn, 1990). Consequently,one inherent limitation in the existing literature is the lack of consistency in determining forwhom the inventory was intended and to whom it may be applied (e.g., a universify athlete, ahighly talented competitor at the community level, a national or an international level competi-tor, 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 exhaus-tive 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 sepa-rate 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 itwas developed is inappropriate (Nesselroade & Baltes, 1979). While it is important to test forpredictive validity by cross-validating results (Renger, 1993), most studies have not included

250/Journal of Sport Behavior. Vol. 35, No. 3

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 inter-actions, and the failure to consider the complex network of factors underlying sport perfor-mance (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, andpreferably 6:1 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Instead, Salmela and Régnier (1985) propose usingdiscriminant function analyses (DFA) to determine if the selected variables discriminate amongthe members of each group, and specifically, to find variables that are appropriate for testingthe targeted population. DFA may identify athletes who are highly skilled, however, it does notpredict future performance (Régnier, Salmela, & Russell, 1993 ; Schutz & Gessaroli, 1993). Re-gression analyses more accurately predict outcomes within a targeted population. Yet anotherlimitation 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 statisticalprocedures (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 at-tempts to predict high quality sport performance (i.e., TID) among child or adolescent agegroups include sample bias, failure to use baseline measures, improper statistical procedures,extensive use of cross-sectional comparisons, a paucity of skill level comparisons, failure tocontrol for coach expertise, poor inventory construction, inherent limitations of self-report,and over-reliance on anecdotal evidence.

Sample BiasSelection 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 leveland pre-existing personal characteristics (Thomas et al , 2011). Selection bias may result instatistical regression or spontaneous remission, which may innate positive results. Collec-tively, these biases may contribute to an expectancy effect (Martinek, & Karper, 1984), alsocalled a self-fulfilling prophecy (Hom, Lox, & Labrador, 1998). This is because these athletesare usually labeled "elite" or "highly skilled," thereby influencing the coaches' (or research-ers') attitudes, expectations, and behaviors toward these pre-labeled players. Ostensibly, then,athletes with "superior" scores on selected psychological characteristics may excel becauseof 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 rela-tively lower expectations (Hom 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 previousexperience and current skill level, initial differences in group comparisons, and the use ofcognitive and behavioral strategies that influence the athletes' cognition, affect, and perfor-mance. Developmental research is a particular research method that requires the comparison ofinitial and subsequent performance over time as a function of interventions (e.g., fitnesstraining, skill development, coaching, and the use of mental skills). Consequently, researchersand practitioners in talent research are often unable to detect changes in performance inrelation to the inventory's initial (baseline) scores.

Extensive Use of Cross-Sectional ComparisonsMost 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 associatedwith 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 athleticpyramid narrows, athletes who do not exhibit the traits required for continued participation areoften eliminated (Jerome, 1993). Longitudinal studies are more sensitive to changes in psycho-logical characteristics than cross-sectional studies, thereby eliminating the pyramid effect(Bloom, 1985; Thomas et al., 2011). While cross-sectional studies should be viewed as merelya first step in TD programs (Poppleton & Salmoni, 1991), longitudinal research is needed toimprove prediction rates and accuracy (Matsudo, 1996).

In a rare longitudinal study in this area, Vaeyens et al. (2009) compared the performancecharacteristics of youth sports' athletes between world class and national level senior ath-letes, and found no significant differences between the two groups. One key finding of thisreview was that sporting success and intense discipline-specific training and competitionamong adolescents did not contribute to explaining or predicting long-term success as anadult. They concluded that "early sport specialization as a child does not appear to be aprerequisite for attaining expertise as an adult" (p. 13 74).

Paucity of Skill Level ComparisonsComparing elite and non-elite athletes allows the use of multivariate statistics to identify

traits that discriminate between these groups. Attempts to determine differences between eliteand non-elite athletes, necessary for examining the unique attributes of higher skilled competi-

252 /Journal of Sport Behavior, Vol. 35, No. 3

tors, 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 typi-cally designated as "successful" or "unsuccessful." The combined result has low discrimina-tory power.

Poor Inventory ConstructionThis section warrants a brief review based on the extent to which poor inventory con-

struction exists throughout the sport science literature. According to Schutz and Gessaroli(1993), inventories used in studies to identify psychological characteristics of athletes fordescriptive or predictive purposes have suffered from poor item construction and a paucify ofproper psychometric properties. The authors cite several inventories that did not include thenecessary psychometric data. Failing to control for sport type was apparent in most of thestudies. Schutz and Gessaroli contend that the pervasive absence of a conceptual basis foritem content, as well as low content and predictive validify, have been symptomatic of theseproblems.

Limitations in Personality ResearchAttempts to determine and predict the qualify of sports performance is rooted in sport

personalify research (see Anshel, 2012, and Vealey, 2002, for reviews). Perhaps nowhere through-out the sport and performance psychology literature is the case against TD programs strongerthan in the sport personalify research. TD studies are designed to predict the qualify of futuresport performance based on selected personalify traits or dispositions (Van den Auweele, Nys,Rzewnicki, & Van Mele, 2001). Contrary to this assumption, however, the sport personalifyliterature reflects a paucify of research supportive of trait personalify theory (Van den Auweeleet al., 2001). Personalify tests in general have a very low prediction rate - only 8-10% ofexplained variance - in determining future sport performance qualify (Anshel, 2012). In addi-tion, there has been an overall failure on most measures to associate "high" and "low" scoreswith athletic success in the majorify of psychological inventories (Deaner & Silva, 2002). Thishas direct implications for TD programs, which are predicated on the validify of psychologicalmeastires to predict future behavior, specifically, the qualify of sport skill performance.

Personalify testing as a predictor of performance success has been heavily criticized inthe 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 situ-ational 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 withvarious 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 Anxiefy Inventory (STAI; Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene,Vaag, & Jacobs, 1983), shows that no single measure or set of psychological characteristics issufiRcient for predicting the qualify of future athletic performance (Cox, 2012; Van den Auweeleet al., 1993, 2001). The lack of ecological validify of constructs and dependent measuresrepresents another inherent limitation of personalify research with respect to TD programs.

Schutz (1998), and more recently Deaner and Silva (2002), contend that personalifyresearch in sport psychology has failed to live up to its early promise of predictive abilify,particularly with respect to long-term predictions of future skill level in sport. The use ofpersonalify scales as relevant components of TD programs has generally not been supported(Schutz, 1998). While selected studies have shown the uniqueness of personalify traits sharedby most elite athletes, Deaner and Silva (2002) concluded that "studies showing a significantrelationship between personalify and sport performance carmot be considered reliable" due tonumerous methodological and theoretical limitations (p. 51). Finally, Davids and Baker (2007)contend that "the links between psychological traits and performance are not as clear (asphysiological traits)" (p. 968). Taken together, it is apparent that attempts to use psychologicaltests for predicting future success have been fraught with disappointing results.

Inherent Limitations of Self-ReportSelf-report has inherent limitations in psychological research, including the use of psy-

chological inventories for TID programs. For example, respondents, including athletes, caneasily 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 definedas "the tendency for a person to respond in a way that seems socially appealing, regardless ofhis or her true characteristics" (Furr & Bacharach, 2008, p. 246). As Morgan ( 1978) contends, inthe sport psychology literature "psychometricians are well aware of the problems associatedwith response distortion, and it is widely recognized that most self-report inventories areeasily faked" (p. 223). The use of corroborative measures related to the athlete's skill assess-ments by coaches and other experts might at least partially circumvent the limitations of self-report.

Overreliance on Anecdotal EvidenceThe empirical perspective of TD has traditionally relied primarily on anecdotal evidence

for providing standards of desirable psychological and behavioral characteristics. This iscalled the "bottom up solution," in which knowledge is gained from the collective wisdomobtained 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 ofone individual (see Anshel, 1993, for a description of the limitations of anecdotal evidence ondrugs in sport).

Anecdotal reports limit the generalizabilify of information and fail to account for indi-vidual differences (e.g., heritabilify, socialization) and task and situational factors inherent incompetitive sport (Anshel, 2012); it is not a research method (Thomas et al , 2011). While acompilation of anecdotal reports may provide justification for conducting further research, farmore problematic is the use of anecdotal reports to justify the efficacy of TD programs.

Philosophical IssuesPhilosophical issues address ethical considerations, such as the "appropriateness" of

TD programs or the allocation of communify financial and physical resources. Addressing,these issues requires recognizing that the main objectives of TD/TED programs are associatedwith discriminating between athletes who appear to have, as opposed to who do not have, thepotential to reach the status of "elite" sport. These objectives include: (a) attempting to matchindividuals to sport activities to which they are best suited based on physiological and psy-chological measures; (b) selecting or eliminating certain athletes for future participation at elitelevels of sport, and providing those "selected" competitors with optimal training and coachingconditions, and (c) allowing sports organizations, coaches, parents, and the athletes them-selves to determine the extent to which they are committed to the necessary time and fmancialresources 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 moralconsiderations of using psychological instruments to aid in making these decisions and todraw these conclusions.

Four issues are discussed in this section: (1) the Gatekeeper Syndrome, (2) the variedexpertise of sport psychologist and consultants, (3) limited fmancial resources, and (4) ques-tioning the validify of identifying pre-requisite characteristics.

The Gatekeeper SyndromeIndividuals or groups who claim to have the knowledge and power to make final deci-

sions that have long-term implications on the lives of others, such as determining an athlete'sfuture involvement in sport, exhibit the Gatekeeper Syndrome (MacNamara et al., 2010)."Gatekeepers" are individuals who regulate and monitor accepted knowledge in a field ofstudy 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 apsychological inventory. The philosophical question is whether a coach (or anyone else)


should act as gatekeepers in using psychological inventories to predict an individual's futuresport success.

Who are these "gatekeepers?" St-Aubin and Sidney (1996) described a TD gatekeepersystem in which "the expertise of... sport scientists is relied upon in the decision-makingprocess... particularly sport psychologists" (p. 10). Martindale et al. (2005) contend that recentadvances in sport psychology measurement techniques, advanced research, and more experi-ence in practice settings should be accompanied by less premature judging and predicting ofsport 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 anathlete's future - particularly in the absence of additional high quality coaching, training,mental skills, and sport experiences. The question is whether a gatekeeper can accuratelydetermine the desirable, or even the requisite, psychological characteristics of elite sportsparticipants, and then claim to accurately measure them in predicting future sport success.

Varied Expertise of Sport Psychologists and ConsultantsShould TD programs that are based on the administration of psychological inventories

be controlled by sport psychologists (individuals who are licensed psychologists, hence thetitle "psychologist") and sport psychology consultants (individuals who have expertise ad-ministering mental skills training but are not licensed psychologists and, therefore, may notuse the title "psychologist")? Several researchers over the years (e.g., Anshel, 1992) haveargued against the use of sport psychology practitioners in the use of inventories for predic-tion and even for diagnostic purposes. What would researchers and practitioners do withthese inventory scores? Do these professionals have sufficient training in generating, admin-istering, scoring, and interpreting the inventories? Is there training that instructs practitionerson proper ways to apply inventory data? While in recent years an increase has been seen inthe proper training and greater monitoring of certification and training procedures in thepractice of applied sport psychology (Lidor, Morris, Bardaxoglou, & Becker, 2001 ; Singer &Anshel, 2006), there has also been general disagreement - and even confusion - in detemiiningthe proper educational background, requisite skills, and training for effective practitioners inthis field.

It is important to acknowledge two factors conceming the influence of sport psychol-ogy on talent development. First, a thorough review ofthe related literature clearly indicatesthat sport psychology practitioners in many counfries have been highly effective in enhanc-ing mental skills and sport performance of male and female athletes in virtually all sports andskill levels (Alfermann & Lidor, 2005). Second, however, is that the field's current level ofdevelopment precludes any clear and consistent ability to identify and assess the requisite


mental skills and psychological characteristics that can accurately predict future skill level insport (Martindale et al., 2005). Previous attempts over the years to overcome these problemshave been met with serious fiaws.

Blanksby's (1980) work provides an historical perspective on the controversy of adopt-ing TID programs. He describes the Australian TD program for swimmers, and has proposedthat 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 thatmeasure 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). Localsporting club representatives would visit the schools at Grade 5 to engage in "a combinationof wise counseling, individual desire, and gravitation to areas of natural preference [that]would ensure greater participation and nurturing of talented youngsters..." (p. 18). The firstauthor's visit to the People's Republic of China revealed that this selection strategy occurstoday in China, as well as in many other countries.

However, there are limitations to these suggestions. The appropriateness of using onepersonalify construct (e.g., locus of control, trait confidence) or sociometric data (e.g., teammember interactions, attitudes toward teammates) is questionable. In addition, there are poten-tial "costs" to the communify 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 youthsport, it is plausible to surmise that many children will discontinue their participation in sportafter receiving this negative information.

Rather than fostering a culture-wide positive attitude of engaging in sport and otherforms of physical activify, many children will conclude they do not have the proper skills toplay sports and will feel unmotivated and lack confidence to leam and improve their sportskills. Also unknown is the number of children who will succumb to the self-fulfilling prophecy(Hom et al., 1998), in which the label "poor potential" nurtures low personal expectations andreduces the child's motivation to engage in regular exercise and other forms of physical activ-ify.

Limited Financial ResourcesAnother very important philosophical issue that strongly affects the decision to spon-

sor TD programs is the use of limited communify and regional financial resources, both public(i.e., government) and private (i.e., corporate sponsorships). The community must make judi-cious decisions about the appropriate allocation of these resources, and the ethical consider-ation of devoting limited communify 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 afar greater number will likely eradicate the aspirations of many sports participants who havethe capabilify of nurturing their talent through high qualify coaching, instruction, and practice.Existing frinds could be applied to recreational programs, improving fitness, learning newsport skills, and programs for high-risk individuals (i.e., adolescents involved in crime anddrug abuse). As Côté and Hay (2002) concluded from their review of socialization processes insport, these suggestions carry a significant influence in promoting involvement in children'ssport. It is an issue of ethics, then, whether communify resources should serve "the few" at theexpense of "the many" when it comes to the number of children and adolescents who wouldbenefit from competitive sport.

Questioning the Validity of Identifying Pre-Requisite CharacteristicsThe TD paradigm falsely assumes that the psychological factors that accompany high

qualify 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 charac-teristics of elite-level competitors. A plethora of studies have attempted to ascertain the psy-chological characteristics of highly skilled competitors, and some characteristics have beenconsistently identified (e.g., confidence, risk-taking, competitiveness, optimism, mental tough-ness). However, whether these characteristics - or the inventories used to measure them -predict an athlete's performance potential or discriminate between athletes who compete inelite and non-elite levels, remains questionable. As Abbott and Collins (2004) conclude, "...cur-rent 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 DevelopmentThere is ample evidence that psychological measures do not discriminate between ath-

letes of different skill levels. Various attempts at predicting future performance qualify, usuallyconducted as ex post facto research in which the personal histories and experiences of currentelite athletes at various levels of competition are compared, show relatively few differencesamong the athletes (Davids & Baker, 2007; Vaeyens et al., 2009). Attempts at predicting anathlete's future success is meaningless without adequate resources to follow up this processand to develop the athlete's potential (Martindale et al , 2005). The limited fmancial resourcesof 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 upthis activify to develop their talent" (p. 7).

The use of psychological inventories for detecting athletic talent has been less thanefficacious. There are altemative programs, however. Numerous authors have proposed thatefforts 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 "appro-priate development" of sport skills rather than the early selection of young prospects, andthen focus on meeting each athlete's individual needs through high qualify coaching andprogram opportunities. Instead of using psychological inventories to predict future sportsuccess, Tranckle and Cushion (2006) suggest that it is more important to improve our under-standing of an athlete's potential to perform sports skills based on the direct observations andassessments by skilled coaches, and to identify the physical and psychological characteris-tics of elite sport participants.

Hoare (1996), for example, described an Australian program called "Talent Search," whichconsists of three phases - school screening, sport specific testing, and talent developing.Hoare argues that the process of TD may be inherently flawed hecause "the successful selec-tion of athletic talent has relied upon experienced coaches, (a procedure that) is limited in thatit only selects athletes from within that particular sport. If the athlete is better suited to anothersport, this will not be determined" (p. 3). Consequently, psychological measures have beendropped 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 toprovide younger athletes with the opportunify to compete with older cricket players, "forcingthem to constantly adapt their behaviors and increase their level of performance" (p. 145).Again, behavioral strategies rather than psychological inventories appear to he more effica-cious in developing sport talent.

Another option, posited by Côté, Baker, and Abemethy (2007) and Côté, Lidor, andHackfort (2009), is a system of talent support and guidance rather than prediction. RofFey andGross (1991) contend that researchers and practitioners should attempt to help each athleteachieve his or her performance potential through the use of physical and mental skills training.They assert that "psychological skills appear to be leamed skills, and those who master skillssuch as mental blocking, intemalizing, goal setting, coping with pressure, and concentrationare those who will make it" (p. 3 71 ).

An additional, preferred, approach to identifying talent among younger athletes is aprogram called performance profiling (PP; Dale & Wrisberg, 1996; Jones, 1993). PP consists ofcognitive-behavioral interventions that help coaches and consultants identify an appropriate

TALENT DETECTION IN SPORT ../259

psychological intervention, enhance the competitor's self-motivation to conduct the interven-tion, and monitor performance changes during the intervention. Dale and Wrisberg (1996)used PP with a universify women's volleyball team for team goal-setting, resulting in "a moreopen atmosphere for communication" between the players and their coach (p. 261 ).

Finally, perhaps the approach to predicting or developing sports talent should be afunction of the old adage "practice makes perfect." Vaeyens et al. (2009) describe the "deliber-ate practice framework" in which "the level of attainment in any field is directly and monotoni-cally related to the accumulated amount of deliberate practice in that field" (p. 1368). Based ontheir review of related literature, the authors describe a "time economic framework" in whichathletic success is tied to accumulating "more hours of deliberate (high qualify) practice thanyour competitors" (p. 1369). The mechanism of this approach is to "accelerate talent develop-ment processes by extension and intensification of training time in the targeted sport disci-pline" (p. 1369). TDV remains a superior alternative to TD/TID because it is predicated on thecoach's systematic observation and assessment of each athlete's skills, followed by a plan ofaction for proper training and skill reassessment (Côté et al., 2009; Côté, Salmela, Trudel, Baria,& Russell, 1995).

It appears that rather than engage in attempts to predict future elite level performance ofrelatively few young athletes, limited fmancial and personal resources should be used: (a) toprovide athletes of .all ages the opportunify to select sports that interest them and in whichthey demonsfrate competence, (b) to allow the normal processes of growth, development, andemotional maturify to form an integral part of the TD process, and (c) to teach athletes thesports skills and the cognitive and behavioral strategies that are necessary for improved sportperformance (e.g., Abbott & Collins, 2004; Anshel, 2012).

In conclusion, it is apparent that the field of sport psychology is not, and has neverbeen, about the selection or elimination of younger performers whose responses to psycho-logical inventories may greatfy determine their future level of sport competition and perfor-mance. Woodman (1985) contends that sports administrators, coaches, parents, and sportpsychology consultants should focus on helping sports competitors of all ages reach theirperformance potential. To Woodman, "it is not enough just to identify talent, it must also bedeveloped through the provision of appropriate training programs, throughout the develop-ment stages" (p. 49). As Salmela and Régnier (1985) assert, "what the question of talentidentification 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 weinvest in the long-term solution or settle for the short-term fix; (and) whether we try to predictthe 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 practicein talent identification and development: considering the role of psychology. Journalof Sports Sciences, 22, 395-408.

Alfermann, D., & Lidor, R. (2005). Educational programs for sport psychologists - aninternational perspective. In D. Hackfort, J. L. Duda, & R. Lidor (Eds.), Handbook ofresearch in applied sport and exercise psychology: Intemational perspectives (pp.377-384). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Andersen, P. A. (1976). Personality differences in United States men's Olympics, nationaland non-national finalist swimmers and seven stroke classes. In F. Landry & W. A.Orban (Eds.), Motor learning, sport psychology, pedagogy and didactics of physicalactivity (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 thephantom 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 swim-ming. Sports Coach, 4, 13-19.

Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: BallantineBooks.

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 "practicalsense" of top-level soccer coaches. Sociology of Sport Journal, 26, 365-382.

Côté, J., Baker, J., & Abemethy, B. (2007). Practice and play in the development of sportexpertise. In G. Tenenbaum & R. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (3rded., pp. 184-202). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.


Coté, 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

Côté, J., Lidor, R., & Hackfort, D. (2009). To sample or to specialize? - Seven postulatesabout youth sport activities that lead to continued participation and elite performance.International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 7, 7-17.

Côté, J., Salmela, J., Trudel, P., Baria, A., & Russell, S. (1995). The coaching model: agrounded 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 ateam setting: Getting the athletes and coach on the "same page." The Sport Psycholo-gist, 10, 261-277.

Davids, K., & Baker, J. (2007). Genes, environment and sport performance: Why thenature-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: Ben-jamin-Cummings.

Duda, J., & Hayashi, C. T. (1998). Measurement issues in cross-cultural research withinsport and exercise psychology. In J. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercisepsychology measurement (pp. 471-483). Morgantown, WV: Fitness InformationTechnology.

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 (2nded., pp. 269-289). New York: Wiley.

Elliott, B. C , Ackland, T. R., Blanksby, B. A., & Bloomfield, J. (1990). A prospectivestudy 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 develop-ment 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 humanpotential. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Fun-, R. M., & Bacharach, V. R. (2008). Psychometric s : An introduction. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.


Gan, Q., Anshel, M.H., & Kim, J. (2009). Sources and cognitive appraisals of acute stress aspredictors of coping style among male and female Chinese athletes. IntemationaiJournal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 7, 68-88.

Gauvin, L., & Russell, S. J. (2003). Sport-specific and culturally adaptive measures in sportand 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 politicalpriorities. London: Routledge.

Gulbin, J. P., Oldenziel, K. E., Weissensteiner, J. R., & Gagne, F. (2010). A look through therear 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 Austrahan rowing. Excel, 6, 5-11.

Hahn, A. G., & Tumilty, D. (1989).The rowing talent identification program - an oudine.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: SportPsyche Editions.

Hoare, D. (Spring, 1996). The Australian national talent search programme. CoachingFocus, 31, 3-4.

Hogg, J. M. (1986). Developing talent among young athletes: Some psychologicalimplications. 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: Whencoaches' expectations become reality. In J. M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychol-ogy: Personal growth to peak performance (pp. 74-91). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Jarver, J. (1982). Do we need talent identification? Modem 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 WorldCongress of Sport Psychology (pp. 924-928). Lisbon, Portugal.

Jones, G. (1993). The role of performance profiling in cognitive behavioral interventionsin 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 (8thed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth Leaming.

Kerr, R., Booth, M., Dainty, D., & Gahorault, R. (1980). Talent identification from competi-tive diving. In P. Klavora & K. A. W. Wiper (Eds.), Psychological and sociologicalfactors in sport - Proceedings of the Canadian Society for Psychomotor Leaming andSport 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 far boys and girls ages 6 to 8.Toronto: Tennis Canada.

Lidor, R., Côté, J., & Hackfort, D. (2009). To test or not to test? - The use of physical skilltests in talent detection and in early phases of sport development. InternationalJournal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 7, 131-146.

Lidor, R., Morris, T., Bardaxoglou, N., & Becker, B. (2001). The world sport psychologysourcebook (3rd ed.). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

MacNamara, A., Button, A., & Collins, D. (2010). The role of psychological characteristicsin facilitating the pathway to elite performance: Part 1: Identifying mental skills andbehaviors. The Sport Psychologist, 24, 52-73.

Mahoney, M. J. (1989). Psychological predictors of elite and non-elite performance inOlympic weightlifting. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 20, 1-12.

Mahoney, M. J., Gabriel, T. J., & Perkins, T. S. (1987). Psychological skills and excep-tional athletic performance. The Sport Psychologist, 1, 181-199.

Martindale, R. J. J., Collins, D., & Dauhney, J. (2005). Talent development: A guide forpractice and research within sport. Quest, 57, 353-375.

Martinek, T. J., Crowe, P. B., & Rejeski, W. J. (1982). Pygmalion in the gym: Causes andeffects of expectations in coaching and teaching. West Point, NY: Leisure Press.

Martinek, T. J., & Karper, W. B. (1984). The effects of noncompetitive and competitiveinstructional climates on teacher expectancy effects in elementary physical educationclasses. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 408-421.

Matsudo, V. K. (1996). Prediction of future athletic excellence. In O. Bar-Or (Ed.), Thechild and adolescent athlete (pp. 92-109). New York: Blackwell Science.

McNair, D. M., Lorr, M., & Droppleman, L. F. (1992). Profile of mood state manual. SanDiego: Education and Industrial Testing Service.

264 / Journal of Sport Behavior, Vol. 35, No. 3

Miller, B. P., & Edgington, G. P. (1984). Psychological mood state distortion in a sportingcontext. Journal of Sport Behavior, 7, 91-94.

Missoum, G., & Laforestrie, R. (1981). Psychologie du sport: approche des mécanismespsychologiques liés à la détection des jeunes sportifs et à l'optimisation des perfor-mances. Bulletin de Psychologie, 37, 347-357.

Morgan, W. P. (1997). Methodological considerations. In W. P. Morgan (Ed.), Physicalactivity & mental health (pp. 3-32). London: Taylor & Francis.

Morgan, W. P. (1978). The credulous-skeptical argument in perspective. In W. F. Sträub(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 behaviorand 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.), Thechild and adolescent athlete (pp. 418-430). New York: Blackwell Science.

Phillips, E., Davids, K., Renshaw, I., & Portus, M. (2010). The development of fast bowlingexperts in Australian cricket. Talent Development & Excellence, 2, 137-148.

Poppleton, W. L., & Salmoni, A. W. (1991). Talent identification in swimming. Journal ofHuman Movement Studies, 20, 85-95.

Prescott, J. (1996). Talent identification and development in female gymnasts. CoachingFocus, 31, 12-13.

Régnier, G., Salmela, J. H., & Russell, S. L. (1993). Talent detection and development insport. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphy, & L. K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research onsport psychology (pp. 290-313). New York: MacMillan.

Reilly, T., Williams, A. M., Nevill, A., & Franks, A. (2000). A multidisciplinary approachto talent detection in soccer. Journal of Sports Sciences, 18, 695-702.

Renger, R. (1993). Predicting athletic success: issues related to analysis and interpretationof study findings. The Sport Psychologist, 7, 262-21 A.

Roetert, E. P., Brown, S. W., Piorkowski, P. A., & Woods, R. B. (1996). Fitness comparisonsamong three different levels of elite tennis players. Journal of Strength and Condition-ing Research, 10, 139-143.

Roffey, K., & Gross, J. B. (1991). A behavioural observation checklist for basketball talentidentification. The 18th ACHPER National/International Conference Proceedings(Vol. 2, pp. 368-373). Perth, Western Australia: Edith Cowan Universify Press.


Salmela, J. H., & Régnier, G. (1985). Justification for sport talent identification programs.In L. E. Unestahl (Ed.), Sport psychology in theory and practice - Proceedings ofthe6th 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: Eitness Information Technology.

Schutz, R. W., & Gessaroli, M. E. (1993). Use, misuse, and disuse of psychometrics in sportpsychology research. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L. K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbookof research on sport psychology (j)p. 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 tosuprêmes. Intemational Journal of Sport Psychology, 30, 117-150.

Spamer, E. J., & Coetzee, M. (2002). Variables which distinguish between talented and lesstalented 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). Manualfor 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). NewYork: HarperCollins.

Thomas, J. R., Nelson, J. K., & Silverman, S. J. (2011). Research methods in physicalactivity (6th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Till, K., Cobley, S., O'Hara, J., Chapman, C , & Cooke, C. (2010). Anthropométrie, physi-ological and selection characteristics In high performance UK junior rugby leagueplayers. 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 andpromotion programmes of Olympic athletes. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27, 1367-1380.

Van den Auweele, Y., Cuyper, B. D., Van Mele, V., & Rzewnicki, R. (1993). Talentdetection 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 theathlete. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sportpsychology (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. Hom (Ed.), Advances in sportpsychology (pp. 43-82). Champaign, DL: 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.

anshel lidor - talent detection programs in sport - the questionable use of psychological measures

Documents

talent detection programs

talent development

talent promotion programs

talent detection td

future talent insport

future sport success

sport authorities

senior elite sport