↓ Skip to main content

Talent Identification and Development Programmes in Sport

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
591 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1045 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Talent Identification and Development Programmes in Sport
Published in
Sports Medicine, October 2012
DOI 10.2165/00007256-200838090-00001
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roel Vaeyens, Matthieu Lenoir, A. Mark Williams, Renaat M. Philippaerts

Abstract

Many children strive to attain excellence in sport. However, although talent identification and development programmes have gained popularity in recent decades, there remains a lack of consensus in relation to how talent should be defined or identified and there is no uniformly accepted theoretical framework to guide current practice. The success rates of talent identification and development programmes have rarely been assessed and the validity of the models applied remains highly debated. This article provides an overview of current knowledge in this area with special focus on problems associated with the identification of gifted adolescents. There is a growing agreement that traditional cross-sectional talent identification models are likely to exclude many, especially late maturing, 'promising' children from development programmes due to the dynamic and multidimensional nature of sport talent. A conceptual framework that acknowledges both genetic and environmental influences and considers the dynamic and multidimensional nature of sport talent is presented. The relevance of this model is highlighted and recommendations for future work provided. It is advocated that talent identification and development programmes should be dynamic and interconnected taking into consideration maturity status and the potential to develop rather than to exclude children at an early age. Finally, more representative real-world tasks should be developed and employed in a multidimensional design to increase the efficacy of talent identification and development programmes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,045 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 5 <1%
United Kingdom 5 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
Brazil 3 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Singapore 2 <1%
Belgium 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 5 <1%
Unknown 1016 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 226 22%
Student > Bachelor 167 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 130 12%
Researcher 59 6%
Student > Postgraduate 53 5%
Other 208 20%
Unknown 202 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 623 60%
Social Sciences 48 5%
Psychology 36 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 26 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 24 2%
Other 71 7%
Unknown 217 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 07 January 2023.
All research outputs
#6,500,214
of 25,559,053 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#2,080
of 2,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,809
of 192,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#440
of 832 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,559,053 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,886 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 57.1. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 192,981 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 832 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.