| Title |
Talent Identification in Sport: A Systematic Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Sports Medicine, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40279-017-0803-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kathryn Johnston, Nick Wattie, Jörg Schorer, Joseph Baker |
| Abstract |
Talent identification (TID) programs are an integral part of the selection process for elite-level athletes. While many sport organizations utilize TID programs, there does not seem to be a clear set of variables that consistently predict future success. This review aims to synthesize longitudinal and retrospective studies examining differences between performance variables in highly skilled and less-skilled athletes in elite-level sport. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to identify relevant studies (N = 20). There was a clear overrepresentation of studies that (1) examined physical profiles of athletes (60%); (2) focused on male samples (65%); (3) examined athletes between the ages of 10 and 20 years (60%); and (4) were published between the years 2010 and 2015 (65%). On closer examination, there was a high degree of variability in the factors that were found to discriminate between skilled and less-skilled individuals. Findings from this review highlight how little is known about TID in elite sport and emphasize the need for greater diversity in TID research. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 111 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 | 15 | 14% |
| United States | 9 | 8% |
| Spain | 7 | 6% |
| Australia | 6 | 5% |
| Canada | 5 | 5% |
| Netherlands | 3 | 3% |
| Brazil | 2 | 2% |
| Finland | 2 | 2% |
| Portugal | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 10% |
| Unknown | 49 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 70 | 63% |
| Scientists | 35 | 32% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 4% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 640 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 640 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 105 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 85 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 85 | 13% |
| Lecturer | 30 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 28 | 4% |
| Other | 99 | 15% |
| Unknown | 208 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 302 | 47% |
| Psychology | 20 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 18 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 2% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 2% |
| Other | 45 | 7% |
| Unknown | 229 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 75. 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 22 February 2022.
All research outputs
#577,461
of 25,670,640 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#540
of 2,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,295
of 341,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#17
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,670,640 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,894 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 done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 341,176 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 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 59% of its contemporaries.