Participant Development in Sport: An Academic Review

Participant Development in Sport: An Academic Review

Richard Bailey, Dave Collins, Paul Ford,

ine MacNamara, Martin Toms, Gemma Pearce

March 2010

Participant Development in Sport: An Academic Review

Acknowledgements The project was conceived by sports coach UK, and funded by sports coach UK and Sport Northern Ireland. The review team: Richard Bailey, PhD, RBES Ltd (Co-director) Dave Collins, PhD, University of Central Lancashire/Independent Consultant (Co-director) Paul Ford, PhD, University of East London ine MacNamara, MSc, University of Limerick Martin Toms, PhD, University of Birmingham Gemma Pearce, MSc, University of Birmingham The approach adopted in this Academic Review sought to gain the advantages of collaborative research, while benefitting from the specialist expertise within the group. Bailey and Collins directed the project and developed the overall strategy adopted in the analysis. Bailey coordinated the process of literature searching and reviewing, and led the writing of sections other than the domain-based sections; Collins provided the structure of the sections through development of certain key definitions and constructs. Pearce acted as project manager and was responsible for searching for and disseminating literature among the team. Ford led the writing of the biological domain section. MacNamara and Collins led the writing of the psychological domain section. Toms led the writing of the social domain section. All members of the Review Team participated in the process of gathering and sharing of literature, reading and critiquing sections and preparing the final report. All take ownership of the final document. Internal reviewers and/or advisers:

Jon Royce, Kingston Grammar School/Former GB Hockey Coach Dr Ian Boardley, University of Birmingham Dr David Morley, ESP Ltd Associate Professor Craig Williams, University of Exeter Dr Jon Oliver, University of Wales Institute Cardiff Julian North, sports coach UK Melina Timson-Katch, sports coach UK Sue Jolly, sports coach UK Paul Donnelly, Sport Northern Ireland Ian Stafford, Independent Consultant Editing/proofreading Abi Masha, Coachwise Ltd Sincere thanks to all involved. Julian North Head of Research sports coach UK March 2010

Participant Development in Sport: An Academic Review

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1Biological Domain 1 Psychological Domain 1 Social Domain 2 Moving Forwards 3 Recommendations 4 Section One: Introduction 5 Aim and Structure of the Review 5 The Approach Adopted in this Review 5 Biopsychosocial Model of Development 6 Section Two: Underpinning Philosophy and Operational Definitions 7 Reasons for Involvement 7 The Need for a Continuum between these Objectives 8 Critical and Sensitive Periods 9 Capacities, Competencies and Characteristics 10 Section Three: Models of Participant Development 12 Why Models? 12 The Traditional Model of Participant Development 13 Pyramid Thinking 14 Participant Development as Talent Development 16 Unitary Development 17 Potential and Performance 18 Development as a Continuum 18 Formal Models of Participant Development 19 Balyis Long-Term Athlete Development (LTAD) 19 Cts Developmental Model of Sport Participation (DMSP) 24 Abbott et als Psychological Characteristics of Developing Excellence (PCDE) 26 Bailey and Morleys Model of Talent Development 27 Key Elements of the Models 30 Mechanism-based Models 32 Summary 32 Section Four: The Biological Domain 33 Structural Breakdown of Physical Development 34 Developmental Pathways and Stages 37 Physical Fitness Constructs 39 Critical Periods of Development and Trainability 44 Additional Considerations 46 Summary 48 Section Five: The Psychological Domain 49 Dual Pathway versus Continuum Approaches 49 Ability 50 Other Precursive Factors in Talent Identification and Development 51 Emphasising Development Over Identification 52 Determinants of Participation in Sport and Physical Activity 53 Fundamental Movement Skills 57 Perceptions of Competence 59 The Importance of Appropriate Early Involvement Avoiding Drop-Out and Staleness 60 Identifying and Promoting Causation 62 Psychological Characteristics of Participation and Development 62

Participant Development in Sport: An Academic Review

Psychological Characteristics of Excellence 62 A Psychological Exemplar: Developing the Potential of Young People in Sport 64 Psychological Characteristics Underpinning PRE 65 Self-determination Theory 65 Developmental Differences in PCDEs 67 Transitions: A Critical Consideration? 68 Summary 70 Section Six: The Social Domain 74 Identity 74 Family 75 Socioeconomic Factors 81 Schooling/Education 82 Participation and Performance 84 Gender and Ethnicity 86 Summary 88 Section Seven: Summary of Findings and Ways Forward 89 Table 7.1: Summary of Generic Findings 90 Table 7.2: Sumary of the Biological Domain 90 Table 7.3: Sumary of the Psychological Domain 91 Table 7.4: Sumary of the Social Domain 92 Models for Further Progress: Design Parameters and Considerations 93 From Two- to Three-Dimensional Modelling of Participant Development 96 In Conclusion 98 Section Eight: Recommendations 99 Participant development ought to remain a central feature of the coaching

framework for the UK 99 Interdisciplinary research should become the norm, rather than the exception,

in sports coaching research 99 Models, research and proposals should be continually and

independently evaluated 99 Participant development should be based upon the concept of the development

of excellence in different contexts 100 The relationship between performance and participation is synergistic 100 There is a clear and present need for joined-up thinking 100 Policy and practice need immediate revision and future changes

should be informed by a purpose-driven research agenda 100 Section Nine: References and Bibliography 101

E

Participant Development in Sport: An Academic Review 1

xecutive Summary

Participant development is a central aspect of any sports development framework as it is concerned with the activities experienced, the pathways followed and the obstacles encountered by players during their sporting and/or physical activity careers. This review seeks to identify the main findings/principles associated with participant development, the methods used to generate this information, and the strengths and weaknesses of the supporting research. It does so by focusing on three broad areas of inquiry: the biological domain, the psychological domain and the social domain. Biological Domain During childhood and adolescence there are measurable changes in body shape and structure. These changes relate to an integrated natural development of genes, hormones, nutrients and environmental factors that bring anatomical, neurological, muscular and metabolic/hormonal adaptations. Consequently, this has a direct impact upon the development of specific fitness components. A significant amount of evidence shows that this biological maturation is non-linear and dynamic, meaning an active variance in the development of fitness components between individuals. At present, the application of such information by practitioners to enhance athletic performance is poor. To date, the best-known model to include such considerations is the Long-Term Athlete Development (LTAD) model. Participant development models must have the flexibility to account for individualised growth rates and by using physical measures, such as peak height velocity and peak weight velocity, the LTAD model advances practitioner understanding to some degree. It uses successful training ethos alongside a greater scientific basis for children and adolescents, and moves away from early specialisation in sport and physical activity to optimise athletic development. The model also acknowledges the need for a balanced training load and competition reflective of the stage of maturation. It is commonly accepted that training can bring changes in athletic performance. It appears there are natural accelerated improvements in overall athletic performance in young people aged 59 years old, as well as specialised fitness-component developments during adolescent biological maturation. Moreover, from conducting training at appropriate maturational time periods, some research suggests accelerated development of athletic performance, known as windows of opportunity. However, participant development should not be driven by windows of opportunity as there is a lack of cause-and-effect evidence; therefore, practitioners should also be aware of the importance of training to advance all fitness components throughout biological maturation during non-critical training periods. There is a need for long-term training studies to determine whether windows of opportunity actually occur. There is no evidence that failure to exploit these windows of opportunity with appropriate training will result in inhibited development and ceiling limitations later on. A fundamental question is whether these critical periods are included to help develop elite performa