Peer Reviewed Experimental Research of Current Biomechanical Research of Tennis Sport

Introduction

Scientific written report of infrequent individuals tin can be traced to the mid-1800's and the work of Francis Galton. Among the samples he considered in his piece of work were wrestlers and rowers (oarsmen), making this the first known study of talent in sport (Galton, 1869). While Galton showed strong family clustering for eminence in several other areas of achievement, he indicated that the data for sport were less conclusive. Since this initial foray, public and scientific discourse on the notion of talent and innate power has increased considerably. In add-on to this interest amid the scientific community to understand the predictors of exceptional achievement, strong global involvement in sport as a source of revenue (eastward.g., in the example of professional person sports; Heitner, 2019) and/or political capital (e.yard., for nations to succeed at the international competitions such as the Olympics; Houlihan and Green, 2008) has created additional incentive for national policies on athlete development and talent identification (eastward.g., Canada's "Sport for Life' Model; Higgs et al., 2019). The notion of talent is central to many models and policies relating to athlete development, as reflected in the practice of identifying and selecting talented athletes at early ages, in gild for them to develop in the most beneficial environments. These practices presuppose that talent is an innate feature, something that exists and can be identified early in an athlete's career, and that if identified, will predict afterwards success and expertise (Howe et al., 1998; Baker et al., 2018).

The assumption that early identification and selection will lead to more positive athlete development outcomes and subsequently meliorate sport outcomes makes talent identification, selection, and development critical areas of research for researchers and sport practitioners. Perhaps more notably, ineffective or inaccurate decisions have important repercussions for all stakeholders involved (eastward.g., dropout, decreased motivation, misplaced resource, and investment). Despite the increased attention, all the same, research suggests that the ability to recognize, capture, and develop talent is imperfect at best (Baker and Wattie, 2018). Still, for amend or worse, the concept of talent remains a central element of how coaches, practitioners, and scientists recall about athlete evolution.

Several recent reviews (see beneath) have highlighted the limitations in our cognition regarding talent in sport (Bakery and Wattie, 2018). This limited agreement is reflected in the inconsistent definitions and operationalizations of talent, which accept led to a wide range of methodologies used (Baker and Wattie, 2018; Bakery et al., 2019; Collins et al., 2019), depression predictive validity in talent selections (Koz et al., 2012), and poor quality of existing evidence (Johnston et al., 2018). Ultimately, these inconsistencies and gaps in cognition trickle down to practitioners attempting to make bear witness-informed decisions. In the absence of relevant, specific knowledge, gaps may be filled with untested assumptions and inaccurate data.

Given the lack of research in many areas of talent science (east.grand., accurateness of early on talent decisions, Johnston et al., 2018), high-quality scientific research is needed in order to (a) decide the reliability and validity of talent identification and pick initiatives, (b) inform evidence-based models of athlete development, and (c) identify gaps in electric current agreement and directions for hereafter work. This scoping review focuses on the final element, with the goal of providing a comprehensive overview of the current torso of evidence for talent in sport to better understand where researchers accept focused their attention and to indicate gaps requiring farther attention. This objective is particularly suited to a scoping review. Previous systematic reviews have explored talent in sport by and large (due east.g., Issurin, 2017), soccer specifically (Bergkamp et al., 2019), and used longitudinal methods to explore the topic of talent by comparing skilled and less skilled athletes (Johnston et al., 2018). Collectively, these authors take noted the lack of a strong evidentiary foundation for understanding talent in sport and/or the implications of this absence for explaining the processes and limitations of human potential. These reviews (amongst others) are important contributions to the literature. For example, the recent review by Sarmento et al. (2018) provides an excellent synthesis of talent identification and evolution in male person soccer. Similarly, Johnston et al. (2018) examined longitudinal and retrospective studies from 1990 to 2015 and provided descriptive trends for that sub-sample of manufactures. While such specificity in systematic reviews and meta-analyses is a necessity for detailed syntheses of research findings, this approach cannot provide a comprehensive understanding of the broader context of talent research. An understanding of the "landscape" of the literature to date would exist helpful for researchers and practitioners to substantiate and emphasize where gaps in knowledge are present. If nosotros use the analogy of a woods to stand for research on talent in sport, at present we practice not know how large that forest is, its shape, in what means is it growing, or, importantly, what species (i.east., sports) are present. A scoping review of talent inquiry is valuable for understanding where overgeneralizations, as well as over-/underestimates of knowledge exist.

Broadly, this review aims to (a) ameliorate understand what others have done in the field of research (e.g., what groups accept been examined using what enquiry designs and in what areas), (b) summarize the constituent areas of enquiry in a meaningful way, (c) help identify gaps in the research, and (d) encourage time to come inquiry to address these gaps. Specifically, this review endeavors to illuminate the types and frequencies of study designs (i.e., the methodological approaches), the areas of focus (relative age, physiology, genetics, etc.), and the samples examined (historic period, size of sample, sport, sex, competition level, and location) for a wide range of studies on talent and talent related inquiry.

Methods

Scoping Review

The aim of a scoping review is to aggregate bachelor information on a specific topic by exploring the existing literature to better understand electric current trends and identify gaps. Scoping reviews are particularly useful for understanding circuitous and/or diverse bug in an area and are commonly used to include literature with a range of different study designs and methods (Davis et al., 2009; Peters et al., 2015). Scoping reviews typically precede systematic reviews because they identify and summarize the cardinal characteristics/parameters worth consideration (Sucharew and Macaluso, 2019). In this case, a range of systematic reviews accept proceeded, examining specific questions related to talent identification with no understanding of the literature every bit a whole, making a scoping review the ideal next step in addressing this gap (Sucharew and Macaluso, 2019).

PRISMA-ScR and Inclusion Criteria

A broad but customized search was completed to identify relevant studies of talent in sport according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) statement guidelines (Moher et al., 2009; Tricco et al., 2018). Although the intention was to include as broad a profile of talent research every bit possible, some restrictions were made. Studies were excluded from the final review for the following reasons:

1. Non-sport focus: for instance, studies of talent in music, physical education, and trip the light fantastic toe.

2. Non-athlete focus: studies of coach or referee expertise and/or development.

3. Not empirical studies: all non-data-driven studies (i.e., reviews, position statements, instrument blueprint, and methodological papers).

4. Non-peer-reviewed studies: theses, dissertations, conference abstracts, and other not-peer-reviewed outputs (east.k., commentaries).

5. Not-English studies: due to limited linguistic communication capabilities of the inquiry team, but research articles written in English were included in the analyses.

Fundamental Search Terms and Search Strategy

In accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines, the search strategy for identifying articles was broken down into 2 phases. Phase 1 consisted of searching three electronic databases—Web of Scientific discipline, PsychInfo, and SPORTDiscus—in the time period of January 1990–December 2018¹. Studies were identified using the following search terms to search in the title and abstract of the manufactures identified: "talent AND sport," "expertise AND sport," "giftedness AND sport," "good functioning" AND "sport," "elite performance" AND "sport," and "talent" AND "athletes." In club to decide the search terms, the researchers completed a preliminary-scoping review to identify the common linguistic communication used in the literature when exploring "talent" in sport. This immune for a relatively broad search without losing focus for the aims of this review. Phase two consisted of a secondary search of external sources such as the reference list of articles institute in phase one and reference lists in books and book chapters. On completion of these phases, the study'due south author(s), title, and yr of publication were recorded, and manufactures were sorted to eliminate duplicates. From the list of unique entries, the publication's title was read to discern whether the commodity was written in English and was in the form of a complete, peer-reviewed periodical study. From this refined list, a more than intensive assessment took place, which required obtaining the abstracts and the full-text manufactures.

Groupings

Each article in this refined list was evaluated past an independent assessor for the following attributes: publication yr, participants' sexual activity (grouped every bit male person, female, mixed), participants' age [grouped as kid (historic period 3–five), youth (age half dozen–11), adolescent (historic period 12–17), adult (age 18+)²], participants' nationality, sample size (<20 participants, 20–50 participants, 51–100 participants, 101–200 participants, 201–500 participants, >500 participants), and sport. In addition, the skill level of participants in each study was grouped according to three categories: beginner, developing, and adept. Any unskilled participants (such as novices in expert vs. novice paradigms) were considered beginners, while expert participants were adamant using the criteria noted by Baker et al. (2015) and Swann et al. (2015). Any samples not categorized every bit beginner or expert (due east.chiliad., athletes recruited to a talent evolution plan or those at levels of skill lower than adept) were categorized every bit developing. Farther, study design was categorized as cross-sectional (e.thousand., Buxens et al., 2011; Roca et al., 2014), intervention/brusque tracking (e.k., Tallir et al., 2005; Foskett et al., 2009), longitudinal/prospective (Lidor et al., 2007; Vink et al., 2015), retrospective (i.e., whatever written report tracking historical patterns such as studies of athletes' time spent in deliberate practice, Baker et al., 2003; Young and Salmela, 2010), or some combination of these categories (e.1000., a combined retrospective and longitudinal design, Güllich and Emrich, 2014). Finally, efforts were made to categorize the focus of each study relative to the following wide categories: anthropometric characteristics, biomechanical–technical skills, developmental pathways, physiological characteristics, perceptual–cognitive characteristics, psychological characteristics, relative age effects, training/exercise, and otherⁱⁱⁱ.

Reliability of Coding

Coding of each report was performed by all members of the authorship team. To ensure the reliability of coding for each study, sub-samples of 200 randomly selected studies were evaluated by 2 or three independent reviewers at the start of the coding procedure. Any disagreements in coding were discussed and clarified among the research team to ensure coding was consistent. In one case all manufactures were coded, one researcher reviewed and amalgamated the work of all researchers, ensuring consistency of coding terminology and checking a further 200 randomly selected studies for coding accuracy.

A descriptive analysis of all studies coming together our inclusion criteria is presented below. In add-on, nosotros were especially interested in the characteristics of research among studies focusing on male and female person athletes exclusively and, to this stop, we examined age, sample size, skill level, and study blueprint in each of these groups separately.

Results

The initial search identified 4,060 articles, of which 1,899 met the inclusion criteria and were considered for analyses (see Figure 1). Articles with multiple experiments/studies that included different samples were considered separately but treated as 1 article in the overall profile. Figure 2 illustrates the profile of study publication dates, strongly reflecting the growing interest in this area of inquiry.^four Descriptive information for sexual activity, age, sample size, skill level, and study design are presented in Table 1. Similarly, descriptive results for country and sport are presented in Table 2. A summary of the research foci explored in the total list of studies is presented in Tabular array iii followed by male- and female person-specific results.

Figure one. PRISMA flow nautical chart showing number of records nerveless and number of eligible records after the screening process.

Figure 2. Number of studies by publication year.

Tabular array ane. Descriptive statistics for sex, historic period, sample size, skill level, and study design for the overall sample, males, and females.

Table 2. Most pop sports and countries.

Table iii. Elevation categories identified in talent analysis for overall, male-but, and female person-only samples.

Sex

The majority of studies (43.8%) focused on male-only participants with just 10.iii% examining female-only samples. Just over 31% of studies in the review included mixed samples of males and females. Surprisingly, almost 14.8% of studies did non explicitly report the sex activity of their participants, although in virtually cases, authors likely believed sexual activity was implied through the populations nether investigation (e.g., professional teams or samples associated with athlete development "academies").

Age

Most talent research investigated adult samples (41.viii%), followed by mixed samples of adults and adolescents (19.0%), and adolescents only (xviii.1%). A pregnant proportion of research (28.vi%) used mixed samples (i.due east., two or more than age categories). Very few studies examined children or youth and ~viii% did non report the age groups in their study.

Sample Size

Sample sizes ranged from single participant studies (e.g., Jones, 2006) to virtually half a 1000000 participants (i.e., 4,742,321 participants in Del Campo et al., 2010). The largest proportion of studies were in the smaller sample size categories, that is, the 20–50 category (29.3%) and the <twenty category (21.0%). At the other end of the size range, a meaningful proportion of studies (13.7%) had samples larger than 500 participants.

Participant Nationality

Athletes from 54 countries were represented among the reviewed studies. The country with the greatest number of studies conducted upon its athletes was Australia (n = 173 studies or ~9% of all studies) followed closely by the Britain with 172 studies (eight.8%) and Federal republic of germany with 116 studies (~6%).⁵ As noted in Tabular array i, there are 23 countries with >10 studies focusing on athletes from these nations. The international distribution of these samples is illustrated in Figure 3. Approximately viii% of studies included mixed land samples and 22% of studies did not report the nationality of their participants.

Figure 3. Distribution of athlete samples from around the world. Darker shaded areas denote a greater number of studies.

Sport

Seventy-v sports were represented in the studies reviewed (see Table 2). The largest group of studies involved soccer players (due north = 442 studies) comprising ~22% of the overall sample. The adjacent largest was basketball, with 102 studies (5%) forth with tennis, handball, rugby, and combat sports with 81, 81, eighty, and 74 studies, respectively.

Skill Level

For the skill level comparing, the greatest number of studies examined participants who were "developing" (43.6%), followed by proficient-but (15.6%), and beginner-simply (~three%). Approximately 36% of studies used mixed groups, which is non surprising given the potency of comparison-based designs. Among the mixed groups, the largest group was a mix of developing and expert athletes (16.5%), followed by beginner and developing athletes (eleven.3%). Surprisingly, given the perceived dominance of the expert vs. novice prototype in expertise research (Abernethy et al., 1993; Baker et al., 2015), only 3.four% of enquiry reviewed included beginners compared with experts according to our classifications.

Written report Pattern and Research Foci

The vast majority of research in this area (68.2%) utilized cross-sectional research designs (meet Table 1). The next virtually common arroyo was retrospective designs (14.0%) followed by intervention/short-tracking, and longitudinal designs, which made up 9.0 and 7.4% of the sample, respectively. The remaining 2.6% of studies utilized combinations of the above designs (run across Table 1).

Assay of the research topic resulted in 2,845 private text codes, which were grouped into nine general themes (meet Table 3). The largest category of studies was for examinations of perceptual–cognitive factors (n = 727 studies, 25.5%), followed past physiological characteristics (n = 518 studies, eighteen.ii%), psychological characteristics (due north = 300 studies, 10.v%), and anthropometrics (due north = 279 studies, 9.8%).

Sub-Assay: Male vs. Females

Comparisons of studies with male person- and female-simply samples (Table 1) suggested very similar profiles across the groups for the study designs used (i.e., predominately cross-exclusive for both groups). However, there was some evidence that, compared with males-only studies, females-simply studies more oft utilized a mix of groups, including adolescents and adults, with fewer adult-only samples. Males-only studies likewise reflected a larger proportion of studies with mixed youth and adolescent samples compared to the females-merely group. There were also notable differences in sample sizes with a greater proportion of females-simply studies using smaller samples (i.east., <20 participants) and a lower proportion of studies with big samples (i.due east., 501+) compared to males-simply studies. Further, there was a greater proportion of males-only studies that focused on developing athletes compared to females-just studies (i.e., 48 vs. 41%, respectively). Finally, although there were some differences between males and females in the research topics examined (e.chiliad., greater per centum of studies for males than females), these differences were more often than not minor, suggesting a similar profile of enquiry exploration in both groups.

Discussion

Having a broad understanding of gaps in our understanding of sporting talent is essential for making evidence-based and noesis-informed decisions. Our goal in this descriptive assay was to place these gaps. Results highlight the considerable scope and depth of enquiry done by scientists in fields ranging from physiology and biomechanics, to developmental and sport psychology. Moreover, there was testify of considerable growth in this field over the last 30 years. However, despite the wide range of samples and topics used in prior research, at that place was articulate evidence of imbalances in where research efforts accept been focused.

The descriptive data signal a large focus on perceptual–cognitive enquiry, although this may exist due to our search terms. For example, our search may have missed studies in fields such as physiology and biomechanics because these fields are less likely to utilise words like talent, expertise, and giftedness. In particular, the rapid growth of the scientific field of expertise, which is strongly rooted in psychology, might explain the dominance of perceptual–cerebral work in our assay. That said, the large amount of perceptual–cognitive work being done highlights the considerable evidence available in this area. The big number of studies in this surface area (and others such as physiological and psychological characteristics) suggests some potential value in further, more targeted systematic reviews or meta-analyses.

Outside of, or in combination with, the traditional expertise discipline on cognitive psychology, this scoping review suggests a range of other opportunities for time to come piece of work. In particular, researchers are encouraged to devote greater attention to female person athletes since the constraints and developmental models may differ from their male counterparts (e.g., females physically mature earlier and operate in a system with fewer financial incentives and less support, Handelsman, 2017; Curran et al., 2019). The historical discrepancy of funding for female sports could explain the express available research; however, with the growth of female sports, information technology is imperative to better understand factors related to female-specific talent development.

Further, nigh a quarter of studies in this area focused on soccer. While this suggests soccer may be ameliorate suited for an evidence-based understanding of talent, the applicability of non-sport-specific research to a specific sport (i.e., soccer enquiry to basketball) may exist limited given the unique developmental constraints associated with each sport and the domain specificity of perceptual–cognitive skills and expertise attainment (Loffing et al., 2012). Moreover, asymmetries in the sports studied may negatively touch our power to accurately parse the sport-specific influences of talent (i.e., innate qualities) from those that result from domain-specific practice. As proposed by Baker et al. (2019), talent may emerge through the interaction of person, surround and task, making the characteristics of how it presents in a given domain potentially specific to that situation. While the volume of research on soccer highlights the global significance of the sport and its associated funding, more enquiry in other sports tin parse out similarities and differences beyond sports to improve empathise the concept of talent.

A similar concern relates to research conducted in dissimilar countries, such every bit the relevance of research exploring the development of German athletes (e.g., Güllich and Emrich, 2014) to athletes in other countries, especially those with fundamentally different athlete development systems (e.g., Kenya or Jamaica). While some of the developmental factors and relationships may be mutual (e.g., the value of early on diversification and later deliberate practise as advocated in models such equally the Developmental Model of Sport Participation has been constitute in some instances to apply beyond countries and sports; run into Côté and Vierimaa, 2014), there is also the potential that the unique athlete development systems found in dissimilar countries may affect the relevance of these results exterior of the context in which they were measured. Greater enquiry attention is needed to explore the generalizability of much of this inquiry across contexts. In item, the results of the electric current review (come across Table 2) highlight the under-representation of enquiry from countries within South America, Asia, and Africa. Certainly, the volume of enquiry from these regions is not reflective of the socio-cultural popularity of sport or the sporting talent in these regions. This finding may reflect a smaller book of research emanating from those regions and/or our exclusion of non-English language publications from our review (see limitations below). Either mode, it is very likely our understanding of talent identification and development largely reflects the systems and sports from Europe, Due north America, and Australia (run across Henrich et al., 2010). One measure to navigate through language or funding barriers is increasing international collaborations between inquiry teams from various regions. For case, it may exist worth pursuing a large-calibration international project that purposefully includes enquiry and practitioners from around the world to document diversity in (1) definitions and concepts of talent, (2) bear witness for and against talent, and (3) different applied talent identification and development models. Such global connections tin can have a broad range of benefits including added knowledge in the field in the form of theoretical contributions, and empirical data from cross-regional comparisons of athletes and sports.

The vast majority of research examined utilized cross-sectional designs with adult samples. Equally noted elsewhere (Johnston et al., 2018), the lack of longitudinal studies in talent scientific discipline is problematic, only perchance not surprising given the logistical and administrative costs of this type of research. All the same, the concluding decade has seen an increasing focus on work of a longitudinal nature (e.g., Elferink-Gemser et al., 2007; Till et al., 2013; Schorer et al., 2017; Williams et al., 2020). This is critical given that talent, in its essence, is a time-constrained variable. I could argue that it is not possible to infer or evaluate talent with a cross-sectional approach or from looking retrospectively with adult samples. Furthermore, given the importance of sport participation toward achieving the health benefits associated with the recommended daily physical activity levels (Kjønniksen et al., 2009; Janssen and LeBlanc, 2010), and the considerable resources dedicated to identifying and developing talent in sport, it might be necessary to consider ways to facilitate the longitudinal tracking of athletes. For case, a national registry, which assigns unique identifiers to each athlete independent of individual sport organizations, would provide a means to track athlete participation and progression across a sport or multiple sports. This blazon of comprehensive tracking system could also expand the potential questions and methods that could be explored in talent enquiry. For instance, Baker et al. (2019) proposed talent as innate, multi-dimensional, emergenic, dynamic, and symbiotic. A registry for longitudinal tracking, supplemented with something akin to a multidisciplinary "talent census," would permit us to test the veracity of these proposed elements/definitions of talent, likewise as others (due east.thousand., Howe et al., 1998). A talent demography could too positively contribute to talent transfer initiatives (Rea and Lavallee, 2017), equally well as a improve understanding of constraints on talent–environment relationships (i.e., the dynamic and symbiotic features of innate talent).

There were likewise some differences betwixt the samples of males-just studies and females-only studies, although what this variation means for the quality of evidence for males vs. females is debatable. Research with males utilized larger sample sizes than research with females, which may ultimately affect the stability and longevity of the study results since research designs with pocket-sized samples may have been statistically underpowered. Notably, at that place were no sex activity differences in the types of study designs used, every bit both male- and female-based studies predominantly employed cantankerous-exclusive approaches. Understandably, the cost of longitudinal research may impede some researchers in conducting optimally designed studies; withal, if one of the goals of talent enquiry is to identify key factors contributing to athlete evolution, when long-term tracking is not feasible or possible, cross-exclusive approaches should consider more various groups.

It is noteworthy that only ~36% of the studies included whatsoever comparison groups featuring whatsoever combination of beginner, developing, and elite athletes. Similarly, about of the studies examined adult athletes only, and again, very few studies compared athletes of unlike historic period-cohort groups. This suggests, beyond retrospective study designs, that in that location is a lack of lifespan developmental data on talent in sport. Given that sport organizations are required to brand selections relatively early on in athletes' careers (e.g., to select athletes for "representative" teams), it would be vital to examine cardinal performance- and development-related variables to determine how they alter over time and how they relate to future attainment. The current, predominantly, adult-only focus does picayune to shed light on these relationships and may mislead those developing policies for long-term athlete development past suggesting a greater evidence base than actually exists. Similarly, without detailed developmental information, it is difficult for research to adequately inform practitioners regarding how to identify talent. There may also be a need to consider the taxonomy and nomenclature used within the talent literature, specifically concerning how athlete samples are described and categorized. An anecdotal observation and business concern that arose during the coding of information was the description of some samples as "elite youth athletes" or "talented athletes," and that the skill level of some youth samples could exist overinflated in the literature. For example, in some countries and specific sports, participating in at the college/university level constitutes the highest, most aristocracy level of participation for that developmental stage. Yet, this is not true of all countries and sports, and even differs within countries. As such, one challenge is to navigate a type of relativism that exists in classifying athletes (at any age) as "elite." Given cultural and contextual differences, in that location may be a do good to more explicitly justifying and validating the classification/description of developing athletes.

Based on our observations, very few studies explored variation among elite level athletes. The implicit notion that "development stops" at the aristocracy level is problematic, and it limits our agreement of talent and expertise development. Indeed, with the exception of the theory of deliberate do and Australia'south Foundations, Talent, Elite, Mastery (FTEM) model, there is little information about how athletes go on to develop once they reach elite levels, and what factors distinguish "expertise" from "eminence" (see Baker et al., 2015). Still, differentiating athletes at the same level of participation is challenging. Outcomes such equally number of games played, or years played, tin can be confounded past age (come across Collins et al., 2016). Matching participants based on age can help to accost this limitation (encounter Güllich et al., 2017) but brings the added challenge of potentially modest sample sizes. Small samples are a reality of studying talent (Bakery and Wattie, 2018), which forces us to confront some research conventions. Equally Ploutz-Snyder et al. (2014, p. 1251) advise, in "scientifically amazing settings," we may demand to challenge the precept that just "big-n" studies are worthwhile. As such, when considering athletes in the highest echelons of expertise, it may be necessary to appraise our criteria of statistical significance, ability, effect size metrics, and "acceptable" levels of tolerances for type I and Ii error rates (Bacchetti, 2010; Bacchetti et al., 2011; Abt et al., 2020).

Furthermore, information technology was surprising to meet the large number of studies that did not study key descriptive variables. For instance, virtually 15% did not conspicuously report the sexual activity of the athletes in their written report, and while the sex activity may have been obvious to those knowledgeable near the sport (e.m., Baker et al., 2005; Deprez et al., 2015), if this data was non explicitly stated, it was deemed "not reported." A similar result was constitute for the country the samples were fatigued from, where 22% did not clearly report this information (e.thou., Farrow and Abernethy, 2002; Bishop et al., 2014). Again, it may have been possible to infer this data from the authors of the studies, but it is often inappropriate to practise so given the international makeup of many research teams and the propensity for researchers to move or work across countries and institutions during their careers. Researchers are encouraged to diligently report this information in time to come work as these data are necessary for larger belittling approaches (e.m., systematic reviews and meta-analysis) for the development of audio, evidence-based policy.

Limitations

While this review provides insight into gaps in our noesis of talent in sport, there were some limitations to our arroyo. An important limitation that future reviews should consider is collating the definition of talent used in the reviewed studies. While this would require tremendous resources, it would greatly contribute to our understanding of a wide range of definitions of talent and how this is conceptualized in research. Furthermore, due to the large number of studies in this review and our objectives, we were not able to assess the quality of the papers reviewed. It would have been valuable to determine whether the same studies that did not explicitly mention their sample's sex were the same that did not mention the country of the athletes, suggesting that a proportion of depression-quality studies are having an overall influence on the profile of work in this expanse. Finally, our review was restricted to English-speaking articles simply and, therefore, any talent enquiry in other languages was missed. More more often than not, the exclusion of work from non-English-speaking researchers is a meaning limitation to our agreement of talent, athlete development, and sport expertise; incorporating piece of work from other regions of the globe in different languages may contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of "talent."

Concluding Thoughts

To conclude, this scoping review emphasizes the imbalance in our sources of information and understanding of sporting talent. Generally, research in this field is overrepresented by relatively small samples of male person adults, using cross-sectional designs of developing soccer players. This contour of research suggests several important areas for future work in lodge to better sympathize the complication of sporting talent. Future enquiry would benefit from identifying longitudinal variables to track in a wide range of sports considering participants from across competitive levels (preferably comparing amateur to elite) and sexes.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the written report are included in the commodity/supplementary cloth, further inquiries can be directed to the respective author/s.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to the creation of this manuscript, involved in the all-encompassing article review, and reviewed versions of the final manuscript prior to submission.

Conflict of Involvement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Footnotes

one. ^This timeframe was chosen to ensure the majority of articles published in that twelvemonth would have made it into these search engines/databases to allow for tracking growth in this area over time.

2. ^Notation: Studies of Masters athletes were not included.

three. ^These categories were generated through a uncomplicated text-based analysis of study keywords and article titles, and reflect the most common foci identified. A study could have multiple areas of focus.

4. ^The depression number of studies for 2019–2020 is undoubtedly due to more recent studies not beingness reflected in current search databases.

five. ^Annotation: If we include studies identifying participants from England with those specifying the Great britain, this grouping would make up vii% of all studies (second but to Commonwealth of australia). Designation of England or Britain was based on the data provided in the authors' original study.

References

Abernethy, B., Thomas, Grand. T., and Thomas, J. T. (1993). "Strategies for improving understanding of motor expertise [or mistakes we have made and things nosotros have learned!!]," in Advances in Psychology, Vol. 102 (Due north-Holland: Elsevier), 317–356.

Google Scholar

Abt, G., Boreham, C., Davison, G., Jackson, R., Nevill, N., Wallace, E., and Williams, G. (2020). Power, precision, and sample size estimation in sport and exercise science research. J. Sports Sci. 38, 1933–1935. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2020.1776002

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bacchetti, P., Deeks, South. G., and McCune, J. K. (2011). Breaking free of sample size dogma to perform innovative translational research. Sci. Transl. Med. iii, 1–iv. doi: x.1126/scitranslmed.3001628

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text

Baker, J., Côté, J., and Abernethy, B. (2003). Sport specific training, deliberate practice and the development of expertise in team ball sports. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 15, 12–25. doi: 10.1080/10413200305400

CrossRef Full Text

Baker, J., Côté, J., and Deakin, J. (2005). Cognitive characteristics of proficient, middle of the pack, and dorsum of the pack ultra-endurance triathletes. Psychol. Sport Exerc. half-dozen, 551–558. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2004.04.005

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Bakery, J., Schorer, J., and Wattie, North. (2015). "Defining expertise: a taxonomy for researchers in skill acquisition and expertise," in The Routledge Handbook of Sport Expertise, eds J. Bakery and D. Farrow (London: Routledge), 145–155. doi: 10.4324/9781315776675-13

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Baker, J., Schorer, J., and Wattie, N. (2018). Compromising talent: Issues in identifying and selecting talent in sport. Quest 70, 48–63. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2017.1333438

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Bakery, J. and Wattie, N. (2018). Innate talent in sport: Separating myth from reality. Curr. Problems Sport Sci. iii:six. doi: 10.15203/CISS_2018.006

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Baker, J., Wattie, North., and Schorer, J. (2019). A proposed conceptualization of talent in sport: the first pace in a long and winding road. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 43, 27–33. doi: x.1016/j.psychsport.2018.12.016

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bergkamp, T. Fifty. G., Niessen, A. S. M., den Hartigh, R. J. R., Frencken, Westward. G. P., and Meijer, R. J. (2019). Methodological issues in soccer talent identification research. Sports Med. 49, 1317–1335. doi: 10.1007/s40279-019-01113-w

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bishop, D. T., Moore, Southward., Horne, Southward., and Teszka, R. (2014). Attentional capture by spoken language: furnishings on netballers' visual job operation. J. Sports Sci. 32, 1611–1620. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2014.908323

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Buxens, A., Ruiz, J. R., Arteta, D., Artieda, M., Santiago, C., et al. (2011). Can nosotros predict top-level sports performance in power vs endurance events? A genetic approach. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 21, 570–579. doi: ten.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.01079.10

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Côté, J., and Vierimaa, Thou. (2014). The developmental model of sport participation: xv years subsequently its outset conceptualization. Sci. Sports 29, S63–S69. doi: 10.1016/j.scispo.2014.08.133

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Collins, D., MacNamara, Á., and McCarthy, N. (2016). Super champions, champions, and almosts: important differences and commonalities on the rocky route. Front. Psychol. 6:2009. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02009

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Collins, D., McNamara, A., and Cruickshank, A. (2019). Inquiry and exercise in talent identification and development – some thoughts on the country of play. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 31, 340–351. doi: 10.1080/10413200.2018.1475430

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Curran, O., MacNamara, A., and Passmore, D. (2019). What near the girls? Exploring the gender data gap in talent development. Front. Sports Agile Living i:3. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2019.00003

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Davis, Grand., Drey, N., and Gould, D. (2009). What are scoping studies? A review of the nursing literature. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 46, 1386–1400. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.02.010

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Del Campo, D. G. D., Vicedo, J. C. P., Villora, Southward. G., and Jordan, O. R. C. (2010). The relative age result in youth soccer players from Kingdom of spain. J. Sports Sci. Med. nine, 190–198.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Deprez, D., Fransen, J., Boone, J., Lenoir, M., Philippaerts, R., and Vaeyens, R. (2015). Characteristics of high-level youth soccer players: variation past playing position. J. Sports Sci. 33, 243–254. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2014.934707

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Elferink-Gemser, M., Visscher, C., Lemmink, K., and Mulder, T. (2007). Multidimensional performance characteristics and standard of performance in talented youth field hockey players: a longitudinal report. J. Sports Sci. 25, 481–489. doi: 10.1080/02640410600719945

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Farrow, D., and Abernethy, B. (2002). Tin can anticipatory skills be learned through implicit video based perceptual training? J. Sports Sci. 20, 471–485. doi: 10.1080/02640410252925143

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Foskett, A., Ali, A., and Gant, North. (2009). Caffeine enhances cognitive function and skill performance during simulated soccer action. Int. J. Sport Nutr. Exerc. Metab. 19, 410–423. doi: 10.1123/ijsnem.19.4.410

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Güllich, A., and Emrich, E. (2014). Considering long-term sustainability in the evolution of world course success. Eur. J. Sport Sci. xiv, S383–S397. doi: x.1080/17461391.2012.706320

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Güllich, A., Kovar, P., Zart, S., and Reimann, A. (2017). Sport activities differentiating match-play comeback in elite youth footballers-a 2-twelvemonth longitudinal report. J. Sports Sci. 35, 207–215. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2016.1161206

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Higgs, C., Way, R., Harber, V., Jurbala, J., and Balyi, I. (2019). Long-Term Development in Sport and Physical Activity three.0. Victoria, BC: Sport for Life Guild.

Google Scholar

Houlihan, B., and Green, M. (2008). Comparative Elite Sport Evolution: Systems, Structures, and Public Policy. Oxford: Elsevier. doi: x.1016/B978-0-7506-8281-7.50004-X

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Howe, M. J. A., Davidson, J. Westward., and Sloboda, J. A. (1998). Innate talents: reality or myth? Behav. Brain Sci. 21, 399–442. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X9800123X

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Janssen, I., and LeBlanc, A. G. (2010). Systematic review of the health benefits of physical activity and fitness in school-anile children and youth. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 7:forty. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-7-40

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Jones, A. Grand. (2006). The physiology of the world record holder for the women's marathon. Int. J. Sports Sci. Charabanc. 1, 101–116. doi: 10.1260/174795406777641258

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kjønniksen, L., Anderssen, North., and Wold, B. (2009). Organized youth sport equally a predictor of physical activeness in adulthood. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports xix, 646–654. doi: x.1111/j.1600-0838.2008.00850.x

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Koz, D., Fraser-Thomas, J., and Baker, J. (2012). Accurateness of professional sports drafts in predicting career potential. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 22, e64–e69. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2011.01408.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lidor, R., Hershko, Y., Bilkevitz, A., Arnon, One thousand., and Falk, B. (2007). Measurement of talent in volleyball: xv-month follow-up of elite adolescent players. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness 47, 159–68.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Loffing, F., Schorer, J., Hagemann, N., Lotz, Due south., and Baker, J. (2012). On the advantage of existence left-handed in volleyball: further evidence of the specificity of skilled visual perception. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 74, 446–453. doi: ten.3758/s13414-011-0252-1

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., and Altman, D. One thousand., PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 151, 264–926. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135

CrossRef Full Text

Peters, Chiliad. D., Godfrey, C. M., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Parker, D., and Soares, C. B. (2015). Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int. J. Evid. Based Healthc. 13, 141–146. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Ploutz-Snyder, R. J., Fiedler, J., and Feiveson, A. H. (2014). Justifying small-n research in scientifically amazing settings: challenging the notion that merely "big-n" studies are worthwhile. J. Appl. Physiol. 116, 1251–1252. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.01335.2013

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Rea, T., and Lavallee, D. (2017). "The structured repsychling of talent: talent transfer," in Routledge Handbook of Talent Identification and Evolution in Sport, eds. J. Baker, Southward. Cobley, S. Schorer, and Due north. Wattie (Routledge: London), 441–452. doi: x.4324/9781315668017-32

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Roca, A., Williams, A. M., and Ford, P. R. (2014). Capturing and testing perceptual-cerebral expertise: a comparing of stationary and movement response methods. Behav. Res. Methods 46, 173–177. doi: 10.3758/s13428-013-0359-5

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Sarmento, H., Anguera, M. T., Pereira, A., and Araújo, D. (2018). Talent identification and development in male football: a systematic review. Sports Med. 48, 907–931. doi: 10.1007/s40279-017-0851-7

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Schorer, J., Rienhoff, R., Fischer, L., and Baker, J. (2017). Long-term prognostic validity of talent selections: comparing national and regional coaches, laypersons and novices. Front. Psychol. viii:1146. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01146

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Swann, C., Moran, A., and Piggott, D. (2015). Defining aristocracy athletes: issues in the report of expert operation in sport psychology. Psychol. Sport Exerc. xvi, iii–14. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.07.004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tallir, I., Musch, E., Valcke, M., and Lenoir, Thousand. (2005). Furnishings of two instructional approaches for basketball on decision-making and recognition ability. Int. J. Sport Psychol. 36, 107–126.

Google Scholar

Till, K., Cobley, Due south., O'Hara, J., Chapman, C., and Cooke, C. (2013). A longitudinal evaluation of anthropometric and fitness characteristics in junior rugby league players considering playing position and pick level. J. Sci. Med. Sport 16, 438–443. doi: ten.1016/j.jsams.2012.09.002

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tricco, A. C., Lillie, Due east., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., et al. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 169, 467–473 doi: 10.7326/M18-0850

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Vink, K., Raudsepp, L., and Kais, Chiliad. (2015). Intrinsic motivation and individual deliberate practice are reciprocally related: bear witness from a longitudinal written report of adolescent team sport athletes. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 16, 1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.012

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Williams, Yard. A., Ford, P. R., and Drust, B. (2020). Talent identification and development in soccer since the millennium. J. Sports Sci. 38, 1199–1210. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2020.1766647

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Young, B. W., and Salmela, J. H. (2010). Examination of practice activities related to the acquisition of aristocracy functioning in Canadian middle distance running. Int. J. Sport Psychol. 41:73.

Google Scholar

girouardondritted.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.607710/full

Share this post