Talent detection programs in sport: the questionable use ofpsychological measures.

The pressure exerted by sports organizations, sponsors, and, in some countries, by governmentalbodies (e.g., Sport Authorities, Olympic Training Centers) on young athletes to be successful sportscompetitors is greater than ever. Perhaps not surprisingly, there is also considerable pressure topredict 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, andPhilippaerts (2009) contend that programs whose aim is to predict future sport success, called talentdetection (TD) or talent identification (TID) programs, "are designed to identify young athletes whopossess extraordinary potential for success in senior elite sport, and to select and recruit them intotalent promotion programs" (p. 1367). The purpose of these programs is, ostensibly, to "increaseathletes' potential by means of a variety of institutional measures designed to accelerate talentdevelopment" (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-termsuccess in competitive 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. Are theseobjectives 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 valueof predicting future talent in sport using psychological measures, and (2) to offer suggesteddirections for enhancing the processes of TD/TID, and talent development (TDV). The existingevidence suggests that the use of psychological inventories to predict future success andachievement in elite-level competitive sport lacks validity and proper ethics. The review will includethe following: (1) defining important concepts, such as talent detection, also called talentidentification, (2) providing empirical arguments in favor of TD programs, (3) making a case againstthe use of psychological measures in TD programs, (4) examining the philosophical argumentsagainst the use of psychological measures in TD programs, and finally, (5) providingrecommendations 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 ofpredicting 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 ofpsychological aptitudes. TD has also been described as a process by which children are encouragedto participate in the sports in which they are most likely to succeed, based on the results of testingselected parameters (Bompa, 1999). Woodman (1985) defined TD programs (in Australia) as "thescreening of young athletes to determine those most likely to succeed in sport and directing themtowards 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 tohave 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 performercharacteristics--innate, learned, or due to training - with task demands of a given sport, to ensurethe 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 recognizingindividuals 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 thepotential 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/playersat various stages of the training program. To Lidor et al. (2009), TS programs refer to specific tasksor tests that target an athlete's capability to demonstrate competence in a particular sport orposition within that sport. TDV, on the other hand, "implies that the athletes/players are beingprovided with the appropriate learning/practice conditions to promote and realize their potential in aspecific sport" (Lidor et al., p. 134). TS does not include attempts to predict future success based onidentifying 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 seeknational and international status in competitive sport and apply scarce financial resources towarddeveloping potential champion athletes, so that they may achieve national and internationalrecognition (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, particularlyamong younger competitors (Lidor et al., 2009). Ideally, therefore, the early detection of talentprovides the opportunity to obtain the best "return," or "investment," in giving potential elite levelcompetitors the required resources in coaching expertise, equipment, facilities, practice time, andopportunities to reach their full sport potential. TID programs have been attempted with respect tothe 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 inpredicting future sport skill performance adds credence to the examination of the psychologicaldimension (Vaeyens et al., 2009). In fact, the results of selected studies have indicated thatmeasures of motor ability and motor skill proficiency predict future sport performance to a relativelyhigh 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 futuresport 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 individualsparticipating in a given sport, resulting in stronger domestic competition and likely increasing thenumber of internationally competitive athletes (Durand-Bush & Salrnela, 2001; Hahn, 1990). This isbecause TD programs ostensibly promote competitiveness and direct athletes toward sports in whichthey 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 representsa young athlete's skills might provide a more efficient way than traditional trial-and-errorapproaches.

Along these lines, Bompa (1999), Hahn(1990), and Haskell (1983) contend that TDprograms profile the athletes' strengths andweaknesses, and provide them with relevantfeedback so that they can effectively monitortheir progress throughout the entire trainingprogram. For example, Petlichkoff (1993,1996) contends that children who drift fromsport to sport in an attempt to find asatisfying and rewarding experience waste anenormous amount of time and resources. As aresult, many children with high quality sporttalent do not find their niche in sport,consuming considerable time in their searchfor a sport that is compatible with their skillsand goals (Feldman, 1986). TD programs,therefore, can maximize the number ofchildren who have positive sport experiencesand a greater likelihood of success, therebyreducing the rate of sport dropout (St-Aubin& Sidney, 1996). The productivity of elitecoaches is 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 from numerousstudies, reviewed by Deaner and Silva (2002), in which discriminant function analysis has detectedunique psychological characteristics that predict long-term sport success among young athletes. Forexample, 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 arecommensurate with successful sport performance, but will also create a template against whichother athletes (and their coaches and parents) can aspire and learn over time (Renger, 1993). Table1 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 threefactors, failure to take into consideration the performers' physical maturation, the coach's role in theathlete'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 sportthat is most compatible based on the performer's physical attributes. These programs, however, maynot accurately predict future skill development and sport performance. Predicting future successful

sport performance using physiological and anthropological measures has received uneven support inthe exercise science literature (Lidor et al., 2009). For example, based on their review of 13 studiesthat 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 physicaltests in talent detection and early development in sport" (p. 140). They cite numerous studiesindicating "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 betweenanthropometric, physiological, and selected characteristics in high performance junior rugby leagueplayers in the United Kingdom. The authors concluded that these results raise concerns about theability of motor skill testing to identify characteristics of immediate and long-term player selectionand development. Similar concerns have surfaced concerning the use of psychological testing forprediction purposes.

Along these lines, researchers and practitioners have examined the relationship between TD andTDV in sport. For example, Gulbin, Oldenziel, Weissensteiner, and Gagne (2010) reviewed "keydevelopmental experiences and insights" of 673 high performance Australian athletes (p. 149). Theydetermined that elite athletes possess several selected characteristics that are not found in theirnon-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. Inaddition, no personality traits were listed.

In their review of related literature, Lidor et al. (2009) concluded that assessing physical ability andskill level in order to determine future talent of athletes offers no clear support of the predictivevalue of these tests, either for individual or for team sports. Thus, while TD programs may help ayoung athlete decide to which sport he or she is best suited, the capability of these programs topredict 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 thedevelopment of physical and mental skills (Bloom, 2002). Two issues must be addressed with respectto the coach's role in the use of psychological measures in detecting and predicting an athlete'stalent. First, reliance on the use of psychological inventories in TID programs undermines thecoach's role in developing the athlete's talent. Predicting future performance from inventories doesnot take into account a coach's expertise. Coaches are primarily responsible for each athlete'sdevelopment and maturation, particularly at the elite level (Salmela & Regnier, 1985). The coach'sexpertise is far more likely to influence an athlete's performance potential than psychologicaltesting, 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'sexpectations (Thomas, Nelson, & Silverman, 2011). Three types of expectancy effects include haloeffect, Rosenthal effect, and Hawthorne effect (see Thomas et al., for descriptions). In the currentcontext, this phenomenon might refer to as a coaching bias built into TID programs. Two studieslend credence to this view.

Christensen (2009) conducted in-depth interviews with eight elite soccer coaches, who identified thecharacteristics 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 "perceivedto be hard working and dedicated" by their coaches (p. 379). These qualities are derived from goodcoaching rather than being generated from an inventory that ostensibly predicts the level of futuresport performance. In another study, Davids and Baker (2007) found that highly-skilled coaches aremore 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 amediating, 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 roleof psychological factors in talent TD, include these 12 components: (I) vague definitions of selectedconstructs, (2) inconsistency in defining an "elite" athlete, (3) invalid inventories/poor predictivevalidity, (4) poor research methodology and statistical procedures, (5) sample bias, (6) failure to usebaseline measures, (7) extensive use of cross-sectional comparisons, (8) paucity of skill levelcomparisons, (9) poor inventory construction, (10) limitations in personality research, (11) inherentproblems 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 usedwhen 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 predictsport skill level (Singer & Janelle, 1999). In addition, interpreting and applying such argumentswould 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 theyreflect relatively stable, cross-situational dispositions (i.e., traits) and thus are open to changethrough intervention and experience (i.e., state constructs), as proposed by Anshel (2012). Similarlimitations 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 usuallyconsisted of comparing "elite" and "non-elite" athletes. Operationally defining an "elite" sportscompetitor, 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 hercurrent success or achievement (Matsudo, 1996). Traditionally, elite athletes have been defined asindividuals "who are eligible for competition at the national, international, or Olympic level, or whoare 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 suchcompetition, but may not actually compete (e.g., Spamer & Coetzee, 2002), while another definitionrefers 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 somestudies, while in other studies the term "elite" is used for college students who played on their highschool 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 qualityof sport performance.

Invalid Inventories: Poor Predictive Validity

Perhaps one of the most compelling cases against the use of psychological measures in TD programsis poor predictive validity. Predictive validity reflects "the degree to which a measuring instrumentor 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-skilledsports 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 aspredictors of talent among British gymnasts aged 7-10 yrs, and found a very low prediction rate. Intheir extensive review, Deaner and Silva (2002) concluded that "while some of these studies do showpersonality differences based on sport type and gender ... many of these studies are old and focusonly 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 withidentifying current psychological characteristics of athletes, comparing athletes categorized as eliteand non-elite or making cross cultural comparisons (Gauvin & Russell, 1993), and predictingathletes' future achievement level in sport. Some of these issues have concerned the use ofinventories that were not intended for the current sample (Morgan, 1997), and improperpsychometric 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 thatresearchers have labeled constructs interchangeably, such as juxtaposing the athlete's personalitytraits 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 andtreatment (e.g., orientations of mental toughness or competitiveness; behavioral tendencies such aspre-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 anadditional concern. Gauvin and Russell contend, for instance, that "it is widely acknowledged thatsuch cultural factors can potentially produce major distortions and inaccuracies in testinterpretation" (p. 892). Based on their thorough review of related literature, Gauvin and Russellconcluded that "the selection of sport/exercise-specific tests and scales ... requires a carefulconceptual analysis of the constructs under investigation, an examination of the measurementassumptions of the theoretical framework employed, and in some cases, a consideration of theamount of variance explained in the target variables" (p. 899). Clearly, future study is needed towardthe continued development and validation of psychological measures that attempt to predict andidentify the potential for future talent in sport.

Taken together, a common threat to internal and external validity is the use of a self-reportinstrument 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 theexisting 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 communitylevel, 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 reviewof these limitations goes beyond the scope of this paper, specific examples abound. For example, onestatistical approach by researchers has been to attempt to statistically separate elite from non-eliteathletes using multiple regression models and discriminant analyses. However, the use of aregression equation on a different population from the one for which it was developed isinappropriate (Nesselroade & Baltes, 1979). While it is important to test for predictive validity bycross-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 thefailure to consider the complex network of factors underlying sport performance (Schutz, 1998). Onemisuse of multivariate statistics is the violation of acceptable case-to-predictor ratios, resulting in aloss 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) todetermine 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 athleteswho are highly skilled, however, it does not predict future performance (Regnier, Salmela, &Russell, 1993; Schutz & Gessaroli, 1993). Regression analyses more accurately predict outcomeswithin a targeted population. Yet another limitation of TD research is the incorrect interpretation ofcorrelational data as cause and effect (Schutz & Gessaroli, 1993).

Studies of the TD literature report a lack of proper research methods and statistical procedures (seeAnshel, 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, theprimary issues that have compromised the integrity of attempts to predict high quality sportperformance (i.e., TID) among child or adolescent age groups include sample bias, failure to usebaseline measures, improper statistical procedures, extensive use of cross-sectional comparisons, apaucity 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 recruitedbased 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 personalcharacteristics (Thomas et al., 2011). Selection bias may result in statistical regression orspontaneous remission, which may inflate positive results. Collectively, these biases may contributeto 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 towardthese pre-labeled players. Ostensibly, then, athletes with "superior" scores on selected psychologicalcharacteristics may excel because of the high expectations of their coaches or researchers. Coacheswith high expectations of athletes tend to provide more positive and instructional feedback than docoaches 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 andcurrent skill level, initial differences in group comparisons, and the use of cognitive and behavioralstrategies that influence the athletes' cognition, affect, and performance. Developmental research isa particular research method that requires the comparison of initial and subsequent performanceover time as a function of interventions (e.g., fitness training, skill development, coaching, and theuse of mental skills). Consequently, researchers and practitioners in talent research are often unableto 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'slong-term commitment to a given sport (Kantowitz, Roediger, & Elmes, 2005). Cross-sectionaldesigns are also limited due to the pyramid effect, that is, as the athletic pyramid narrows, athleteswho do not exhibit the traits required for continued participation are often eliminated (Jerome,1993). Longitudinal studies are more sensitive to changes in psychological characteristics thancross-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 performancecharacteristics of youth sports' athletes between world class and national level senior athletes, andfound no significant differences between the two groups. One key finding of this review was thatsporting success and intense discipline-specific training and competition among adolescents did notcontribute to explaining or predicting long-term success as an adult. They concluded that "earlysport specialization as a child does not appear to be a prerequisite for attaining expertise as anadult" (p. 1374).

Paucity of Skill Level Comparisons

Comparing elite and non-elite athletes allows the use of multivariate statistics to identify traits thatdiscriminate between these groups. Attempts to determine differences between elite and non-eliteathletes, necessary for examining the unique attributes of higher skilled competitors, are rarelycompared 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 existsthroughout the sport science literature. According to Schutz and Gessaroli (1993), inventories usedin studies to identify psychological characteristics of athletes for descriptive or predictive purposeshave suffered from poor item construction and a paucity of proper psychometric properties. Theauthors cite several inventories that did not include the necessary psychometric data. Failing tocontrol for sport type was apparent in most of the studies. Schutz and Gessaroli contend that thepervasive absence of a conceptual basis for item content, as well as low content and predictivevalidity, have been symptomatic of these problems.

Limitations in Personality Research

Attempts to determine and predict the quality of sports performance is rooted in sport personalityresearch (see Anshel, 2012, and Vealey, 2002, for reviews). Perhaps nowhere throughout the sportand performance psychology literature is the case against TD programs stronger than in the sportpersonality research. TD studies are designed to predict the quality of future sport performancebased 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 ofresearch supportive of trait personality theory (Van den Auweele et al., 2001). Personality tests ingeneral have a very low prediction rate--only 8-10% of explained variance--in determining futuresport performance quality (Anshel, 2012). In addition, there has been an overall failure on mostmeasures to associate "high" and "low" scores with athletic success in the majority of psychologicalinventories (Deaner & Silva, 2002). This has direct implications for TD programs, which arepredicated on the validity of psychological measures to predict future behavior, specifically, thequality of sport skill performance.

Personality testing as a predictor of performance success has been heavily criticized in the extantliterature 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 forcultural differences (Duda & Hayashi, 1998). Testing elite athletes with various psychologicalinventories, such as the Profile of Mood States (POMS; McNair, Lorr, & Droppleman, 1992), theMinnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI; Hathaway & McKinley, 1970), or the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene, Vaag, & Jacobs, 1983), shows that nosingle measure or set of psychological characteristics is sufficient for predicting the quality of futureathletic performance (Cox, 2012; Van den Auweele et al., 1993, 2001). The lack of ecological validityof constructs and dependent measures represents another inherent limitation of personalityresearch with respect to TD programs.

Schutz (1998), and more recently Deaner and Silva (2002), contend that personality research insport psychology has failed to live up to its early promise of predictive ability, particularly withrespect to long-term predictions of future skill level in sport. The use of personality scales asrelevant components of TD programs has generally not been supported (Schutz, 1998). Whileselected studies have shown the uniqueness of personality traits shared by most elite athletes,Deaner and Silva (2002) concluded that "studies showing a significant relationship betweenpersonality and sport performance cannot be considered reliable" due to numerous methodologicaland theoretical limitations (p. 51). Finally, Davids and Baker (2007) contend that "the links betweenpsychological traits and performance are not as clear (as physiological traits)" (p. 968). Takentogether, it is apparent that attempts to use psychological tests for predicting future success havebeen fraught with disappointing results.

Inherent Limitations of Self-Report

Self-report has inherent limitations in psychological research, including the use of psychologicalinventories for TID programs. For example, respondents, including athletes, can easily fake theiranswers 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 aperson to respond in a way that seems socially appealing, regardless of his or her truecharacteristics" (Furr & Bacharach, 2008, p. 246). As Morgan (1978) contends, in the sportpsychology literature "psychometricians are well aware of the problems associated with responsedistortion, and it is widely recognized that most self-report inventories are easily faked" (p. 223). Theuse of corroborative measures related to the athlete's skill assessments by coaches and otherexperts 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 forproviding standards of desirable psychological and behavioral characteristics. This is called the"bottom up solution," in which knowledge is gained from the collective wisdom obtained fromindividual interviews of sports competitors. Anecdotal evidence has been shown to have poorpredictive 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 individualdifferences (e.g., heritability, socialization) and task and situational factors inherent in competitivesport (Anshel, 2012); it is not a research method (Thomas et al., 2011). While a compilation ofanecdotal reports may provide justification for conducting further research, far more problematic isthe 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 orthe allocation of community financial and physical resources. Addressing these issues requiresrecognizing that the main objectives of TD/TID programs are associated with discriminating betweenathletes 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 towhich they are best suited based on physiological and psychological measures; (b) selecting oreliminating certain athletes for future participation at elite levels of sport, and providing those"selected" competitors with optimal training and coaching conditions, and (c) allowing sportsorganizations, coaches, parents, and the athletes themselves to determine the extent to which theyare committed to the necessary time and financial resources needed to reach the challenging goalsof 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 inmaking these decisions and to draw these conclusions.

Four issues are discussed in this section: (1) the Gatekeeper Syndrome, (2) the varied expertise ofsport psychologist and consultants, (3) limited financial resources, and (4) questioning the validity ofidentifying pre-requisite characteristics.

The Gatekeeper Syndrome

Individuals or groups who claim to have the knowledge and power to make final decisions that havelong-term implications on the lives of others, such as determining an athlete's future involvement insport, exhibit the Gatekeeper Syndrome (MacNamara et al., 2010). "Gatekeepers" are individualswho 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 ofan athlete based on the athlete's score on a psychological inventory. The philosophical question iswhether a coach (or anyone else) should act as gatekeepers in using psychological inventories topredict an individual's future sport success.

Who are these "gatekeepers?" St-Aubin and Sidney (1996) described a TD gatekeeper system inwhich "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 insport psychology measurement techniques, advanced research, and more experience in practicesettings should be accompanied by less premature judging and predicting of sport talent. From a

philosophical perspective, the issue is whether researchers and coaches, using psychologicalinventories as part of TD programs, should be the gatekeepers of an athlete's future - particularly inthe absence of additional high quality coaching, training, mental skills, and sport experiences. Thequestion 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 themin predicting future sport success.

Varied Expertise of Sport Psychologists and Consultants

Should TD programs that are based on the administration of psychological inventories be controlledby sport psychologists (individuals who are licensed psychologists, hence the title "psychologist")and sport psychology consultants (individuals who have expertise administering mental skillstraining 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 sportpsychology 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 professionalshave sufficient training in generating, administering, scoring, and interpreting the inventories? Isthere training that instructs practitioners on proper ways to apply inventory data? While in recentyears an increase has been seen in the proper training and greater monitoring of certification andtraining procedures in the practice of applied sport psychology (Lidor, Morris, Bardaxoglou, &Becker, 2001; Singer & Anshel, 2006), there has also been general disagreement--and evenconfusion--in determining the proper educational background, requisite skills, and training foreffective practitioners in this field.

It is important to acknowledge two factors concerning the influence of sport psychology on talentdevelopment. First, a thorough review of the related literature clearly indicates that sportpsychology practitioners in many countries have been highly effective in enhancing mental skills andsport 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 clearand consistent ability to identify and assess the requisite mental skills and psychologicalcharacteristics 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 TIDprograms. He describes the Australian TD program for swimmers, and has proposed that identifyingfuture elite level swimmers could be accomplished through the school system; tests of fundamentalmovement skill tests could be administered annually to all students. Blanksby also suggested thatpsychological tests of locus of control and sociograms that measure group dynamics be administeredat the same time. He argues that psychological tests "might help the teacher to understand andcounsel each child more adequately" (p. 18). Local sporting club representatives would visit theschools at Grade 5 to engage in "a combination of wise counseling, individual desire, and gravitationto areas of natural preference [that] would ensure greater participation and nurturing of talentedyoungsters ..." (p. 18). The first author's visit to the People's Republic of China revealed that thisselection strategy occurs today in China, as well as in many other countries.

However, there are limitations to these suggestions. The appropriateness of using one personalityconstruct (e.g., locus of control, trait confidence) or sociometric data (e.g., team memberinteractions, attitudes toward teammates) is questionable. In addition, there are potential "costs" tothe community of categorizing children, as early as age 10 yrs, as having "poor" future potential tosucceed in sport. Based on the extensive rate of dropping out of youth sport, it is plausible tosurmise 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 ofphysical activity, many children will conclude they do not have the proper skills to play sports andwill feel unmotivated and lack confidence to learn and improve their sport skills. Also unknown is thenumber of children who will succumb to the self-fulfilling prophecy (Horn et al., 1998), in which thelabel "poor potential" nurtures low personal expectations and reduces the child's motivation toengage 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 programsis the use of limited community and regional financial resources, both public (i.e., government) andprivate (i.e., corporate sponsorships). The community must make judicious decisions about theappropriate allocation of these resources, and the ethical consideration of devoting limitedcommunity financial resources toward a program in which relatively few individuals (i.e., youngathletes) will benefit (Green & Houlihan, 2005). Brown (2001) asserts that serving relatively fewathletes at the cost of eliminating sport opportunities for a far greater number will likely eradicatethe aspirations of many sports participants who have the capability of nurturing their talent throughhigh quality coaching, instruction, and practice. Existing funds could be applied to recreationalprograms, 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 reviewof socialization processes in sport, these suggestions carry a significant influence in promotinginvolvement in children's sport. It is an issue of ethics, then, whether community resources shouldserve "the few" at the expense of "the many" when it comes to the number of children andadolescents 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 sportsperformance 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 andresearchers disagree about the most desirable psychological characteristics of elite-levelcompetitors. A plethora of studies have attempted to ascertain the psychological characteristics ofhighly skilled competitors, and some characteristics have been consistently identified (e.g.,confidence, risk-taking, competitiveness, optimism, mental toughness). However, whether thesecharacteristics--or the inventories used to measure them predict an athlete's performance potentialor discriminate between athletes who compete in elite and non-elite levels, remains questionable. AsAbbott and Collins (2004) conclude, "... current talent identification and development processes arelikely 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 ofdifferent skill levels. Various attempts at predicting future performance quality, usually conducted asex post facto research in which the personal histories and experiences of current elite athletes atvarious 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 ismeaningless without adequate resources to follow up this process and to develop the athlete'spotential (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 bepossible (to identify talent), how many 12 to 13-year-olds, after being identified as hammer throwingtalent, 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 theearly detection and development of talent need to be re-conceptualized. Martindale et al. (2005), forinstance, contend that sports programs should stress the "appropriate development" of sport skillsrather than the early selection of young prospects, and then focus on meeting each athlete'sindividual needs through high quality coaching and program opportunities. Instead of usingpsychological inventories to predict future sport success, Tranckle and Cushion (2006) suggest thatit is more important to improve our understanding of an athlete's potential to perform sports skillsbased on the direct observations and assessments by skilled coaches, and to identify the physicaland psychological characteristics of elite sport participants.

Hoare (1996), for example, described an Australian program called "Talent Search," which consistsof three phases--school screening, sport specific testing, and talent developing. Hoare argues thatthe process of TD may be inherently flawed because "the successful selection of athletic talent hasrelied upon experienced coaches, (a procedure that) is limited in that it only selects athletes fromwithin that particular sport. If the athlete is better suited to another sport, this will not bedetermined" (p. 3). Consequently, psychological measures have been dropped from the currentAustralian TD program. Phillips, Davids, Renshaw, and Portus (2010) examined the factors thatfostered skill development among fast bowlers in Australian cricket. They found that instead of theuse of psychological profiles, it was of critical importance to provide younger athletes with theopportunity to compete with older cricket players, "forcing them to constantly adapt their behaviorsand increase their level of performance" (p. 145). Again, behavioral strategies rather thanpsychological 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) contendthat researchers and practitioners should attempt to help each athlete achieve his or herperformance 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 mentalblocking, internalizing, goal setting, coping with pressure, and concentration are those who willmake it" (p. 371).

An additional, preferred, approach to identifying talent among younger athletes is a program calledperformance profiling (PP; Dale & Wrisberg, 1996; Jones, 1993). PP consists of cognitive-behavioralinterventions that help coaches and consultants identify an appropriate psychological intervention,enhance the competitor's self-motivation to conduct the intervention, and monitor performancechanges during the intervention. Dale and Wrisberg (1996) used PP with a university women'svolleyball 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 theold adage "practice makes perfect." Vaeyens et al. (2009) describe the "deliberate practiceframework" in which "the level of attainment in any field is directly and monotonically related to theaccumulated amount of deliberate practice in that field" (p. 1368). Based on their review of relatedliterature, the authors describe a "time economic framework" in which athletic success is tied toaccumulating "more hours of deliberate (high quality) practice than your competitors" (p. 1369). Themechanism 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 superioralternative to TD/TID because it is predicated on the coach's systematic observation and assessmentof each athlete's skills, followed by a plan of action for proper training and skill reassessment (Coteet al., 2009; Cote, Salmela, Trudel, Baria, & Russell, 1995).

It appears that rather than engage in attempts to predict future elite level performance of relativelyfew young athletes, limited financial and personal resources should be used: (a) to provide athletesof all ages the opportunity to select sports that interest them and in which they demonstratecompetence, (b) to allow the normal processes of growth, development, and emotional maturity toform an integral part of the TD process, and (c) to teach athletes the sports skills and the cognitiveand 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 theselection or elimination of younger performers whose responses to psychological inventories maygreatly determine their future level of sport competition and performance. Woodman (1985)contends that sports administrators, coaches, parents, and sport psychology consultants shouldfocus on helping sports competitors of all ages reach their performance potential. To Woodman, "itis not enough just to identify talent, it must also be developed through the provision of appropriatetraining 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 partialhunches; whether we invest in the long-term solution or settle for the short-term fix; (and) whetherwe 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' talentidentification model. High Abilities Studies, 13, 157-278.

Abbott, A., & Collins, D. (2004). Eliminating the dichotomy between theory and practice in talentidentification 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 internationalperspective. In D. Hackfort, J. L. Duda, & R. Lidor (Eds.), Handbook of research in applied sport andexercise psychology: International perspectives (pp. 377-384). Morgantown, WV: Fitness InformationTechnology.

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.), Motorlearning, 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 phantomexpert. The Sport Psychologist, 6, 265-286.

Anshel, M. H. (1993). Drugs in sport. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphy, & L. K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbookof research on sport psychology (pp. 851-876). New York: Macmillan.

Blanksby, B. B. (Spring, 1980). Measures oftalent identification in competitiveswimming. Sports Coach, 4, 13-19.

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

Bloom, G. (2002). Role of the elite coach inthe development of talent. In J. M. Silva &E. E. Stevens (Eds.), Psychologicalfoundations of sport (pp. 466-483). SanFrancisco: Benjamin-Cummings.

Bompa, T. (1999). Periodization: The theoryand 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 youthsport activities that lead to continued participation and elite performance. International Journal ofSport and Exercise Psychology, 7, 7-17.

Cote, J., Salmela, J., Trudel, P., Baria, A., & Russell, S. (1995). The coaching model: a groundedassessment 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 andexercise 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 ofphysiological and kinanthropometric indicators of junior tennis performance. The Australian Journalof Science and Medicine in Sport, 22, 87-92.

Falk, B., Lidor, R., Lander, Y., & Lang, B. (2004). Talent identification and early development of elitewater-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 aspredictors of coping style among male and female Chinese athletes. International Journal of Sportand Exercise Psychology, 7, 68-88.

Gauvin, L., & Russell, S. J. (2003). Sport-specific and culturally adaptive measures in sport andexercise 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 viewmirror: 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.), Sportsmedicine: 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. InProceedings 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 topeak 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. TheSport Psychologist, 7, 160-172.

Kalinowski, A. G. (1985). The development of Olympic swimmers. In B. S. Bloom (Ed.), Developingtalent 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 ofthe 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 intalent detection and in early phases of sport development. International Journal of Sport andExercise 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 infacilitating the pathway to elite performance: Part I: Identifying mental skills and behaviors. TheSport Psychologist, 24, 52-73.

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

Mahoney, M. J., Gabriel, T. J., & Perkins, T. S. (1987). Psychological skills and exceptional athleticperformance. The Sport Psychologist, 1, 181-199.

Martindale, R. J. J., Collins, D., & Daubney, J. (2005). Talent development: A guide for practice andresearch within sport. Quest, 57, 353-375.

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

Martinek, T. J., & Karper, W. B. (1984). The effects of noncompetitive and competitive instructionalclimates on teacher expectancy effects in elementary physical education classes. Journal of SportPsychology, 6, 408-421.

Matsudo, V. K. (1996). Prediction of future athletic excellence. In O. Bar-Or (Ed.), The child andadolescent 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 mecanismespsychologiques lies a la detection des jeunes sportifs et a l'optimisation des performances. Bulletinde 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.), Sportpsychology: 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 anddevelopment. New York: Academic Press.

Petlichkoff, L. M. (1993). Coaching children: understanding the motivational process. Sport ScienceReview, 5, 242-252.

Petlichkoff, L. M. (1996). The dropout dilemma in youth sports. In O. Bar-Or (Ed.), The child andadolescent athlete (pp. 418-430). New York: Blackwell Science.

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

Poppleton, W. L., & Salmoni, A. W. (1991). Talentidentification in swimming. Journal of HumanMovement Studies, 20, 85-95.

Prescott, J. (1996). Talent identification anddevelopment 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 talentdetection in soccer. Journal of Sports Sciences, 18, 695-702.

Renger, R. (1993). Predicting athletic success: issues related to analysis and interpretation of studyfindings. The Sport Psychologist, 7, 262-274.

Roetert, E. P., Brown, S. W., Piorkowski, P. A., & Woods, R. B. (1996). Fitness comparisons amongthree 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 talentidentification. 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 inSport 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: FitnessInformation 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.), Handbook of research onsport psychology (pp. 901-917). New York: MacMillan.

Singer, R. N., & Anshel, M. H. (2006). An overview of interventions in sport. In J. Dosil (Ed.), Thesport 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 talentedparticipants 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 theState-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

St-Aubin, M. A., & Sidney, K. (1996). A rationale for talent detection in youth sports. CanadianAssociation 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 (6thed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Till, K., Cobley, S., O'Hara, J., Chapman, C., & Cooke, C. (2010). Anthropometric, physiological andselection 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 promotionprogrammes 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 anddevelopment in sport. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphy, & L. K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research onsport psychology (pp. 257-289). New York: Macmillan.

Van den Auweele, Y., Nys, K., Rzewnicki, R., & Van Mele, V. (2001). Personality and the athlete. InR. 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 ofSport 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 ofSports 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 Departmentof Health and Human Performance, Box 96, Murfreesboro, Tennessee 37132

E-mail: Mark.Anshel@Antsu.edu, 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

COPYRIGHT 2012 University of South Alabama

No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from thecopyright holder.

Copyright 2012 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.