| Title |
Expert Performance in Sport and the Dynamics of Talent Development
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Sports Medicine, October 2012
|
| DOI | 10.2165/11319430-000000000-00000 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elissa Phillips, Keith Davids, Ian Renshaw, Marc Portus |
| Abstract |
Research on expertise, talent identification and development has tended to be mono-disciplinary, typically adopting genocentric or environmentalist positions, with an overriding focus on operational issues. In this paper, the validity of dualist positions on sport expertise is evaluated. It is argued that, to advance understanding of expertise and talent development, a shift towards a multidisciplinary and integrative science focus is necessary, along with the development of a comprehensive multidisciplinary theoretical rationale. Here we elucidate dynamical systems theory as a multidisciplinary theoretical rationale for capturing how multiple interacting constraints can shape the development of expert performers. This approach suggests that talent development programmes should eschew the notion of common optimal performance models, emphasize the individual nature of pathways to expertise, and identify the range of interacting constraints that impinge on performance potential of individual athletes, rather than evaluating current performance on physical tests referenced to group norms. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 20% |
| United States | 2 | 13% |
| Canada | 1 | 7% |
| Australia | 1 | 7% |
| South Africa | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 47% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 60% |
| Scientists | 5 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 539 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| Canada | 3 | <1% |
| Belgium | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Portugal | 2 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 6 | 1% |
| Unknown | 517 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 113 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 106 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 67 | 12% |
| Researcher | 41 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 30 | 6% |
| Other | 112 | 21% |
| Unknown | 70 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 316 | 59% |
| Psychology | 49 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 32 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 2% |
| Other | 39 | 7% |
| Unknown | 77 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 January 2021.
All research outputs
#3,342,501
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#1,730
of 2,874 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,067
of 192,626 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#301
of 831 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,874 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 56.8. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 192,626 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 831 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.