Talent detection programs in sport: the questionable use of

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