↓ Skip to main content

The Illusion of Competency Versus the Desirability of Expertise: Seeking a Common Standard for Support Professions in Sport

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
43 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
176 Mendeley
Title
The Illusion of Competency Versus the Desirability of Expertise: Seeking a Common Standard for Support Professions in Sport
Published in
Sports Medicine, September 2014
DOI 10.1007/s40279-014-0251-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dave Collins, Veronica Burke, Amanda Martindale, Andrew Cruickshank

Abstract

In this paper we examine and challenge the competency-based models which currently dominate accreditation and development systems in sport support disciplines, largely the sciences and coaching. Through consideration of exemplar shortcomings, the limitations of competency-based systems are presented as failing to cater for the complexity of decision making and the need for proactive experimentation essential to effective practice. To provide a better fit with the challenges of the various disciplines in their work with performers, an alternative approach is presented which focuses on the promotion, evaluation and elaboration of expertise. Such an approach resonates with important characteristics of professions, whilst also providing for the essential 'shades of grey' inherent in work with human participants. Key differences between the approaches are considered through exemplars of evaluation processes. The expertise-focused method, although inherently more complex, is seen as offering a less ambiguous and more positive route, both through more accurate representation of essential professional competence and through facilitation of future growth in proficiency and evolution of expertise in practice. Examples from the literature are also presented, offering further support for the practicalities of this approach.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 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 176 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 174 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 19%
Student > Postgraduate 20 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 10 6%
Other 41 23%
Unknown 41 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 83 47%
Social Sciences 11 6%
Psychology 8 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 3%
Other 21 12%
Unknown 41 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 28 February 2024.
All research outputs
#1,385,068
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#1,126
of 2,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,338
of 250,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#19
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 56.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 250,308 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 is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.