| Title |
Conventional and Genetic Talent Identification in Sports: Will Recent Developments Trace Talent?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Sports Medicine, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40279-014-0221-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarah Breitbach, Suzan Tug, Perikles Simon |
| Abstract |
The purpose of talent identification (TI) is the earliest possible selection of auspicious athletes with the goal of systematically maximizing their potential. The literature proposes excellent reviews on various facets of talent research on different scientific issues such as sports sciences or genetics. However, the approaches of conventional and genetic testing have only been discussed separately by and for the respective groups of interest. In this article, we combine the discoveries of these disciplines into a single review to provide a comprehensive overview and elucidate the prevailing limitations. Fundamental problems in TI reside in the difficulties of defining the construct 'talent' or groups of different performance levels that represent the target variable of testing. Conventional and genetic testing reveal a number of methodological and technical limitations, and parallels are summarised in terms of the test designs, the point in time of testing, psychological skills or traits and unknown interactions between different variables. In conclusion, many deficiencies in the current talent research have gained attention. Alternative solutions include the talent development approach, while genetic testing is re-emphasised as a tool for risk stratification in sport participation. Future research needs to clearly define the group of interest and comprehensively implement all methodological improvement suggestions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 50 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 | 7 | 14% |
| United States | 7 | 14% |
| Canada | 2 | 4% |
| New Zealand | 2 | 4% |
| Belgium | 2 | 4% |
| Portugal | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| India | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 23 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 26 | 52% |
| Scientists | 19 | 38% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 297 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Singapore | 1 | <1% |
| Qatar | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 290 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 57 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 46 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 42 | 14% |
| Researcher | 23 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 17 | 6% |
| Other | 60 | 20% |
| Unknown | 52 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 158 | 53% |
| Psychology | 18 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 16 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 3% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 2% |
| Other | 31 | 10% |
| Unknown | 59 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 19 February 2019.
All research outputs
#1,166,239
of 24,149,630 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#993
of 2,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,735
of 230,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#16
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,149,630 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,798 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 53.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
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 230,728 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 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 57% of its contemporaries.