↓ Skip to main content

Long-Term Prognostic Validity of Talent Selections: Comparing National and Regional Coaches, Laypersons and Novices

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, July 2017
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 (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
136 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Long-Term Prognostic Validity of Talent Selections: Comparing National and Regional Coaches, Laypersons and Novices
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01146
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jörg Schorer, Rebecca Rienhoff, Lennart Fischer, Joseph Baker

Abstract

In most sports, the development of elite athletes is a long-term process of talent identification and support. Typically, talent selection systems administer a multi-faceted strategy including national coach observations and varying physical and psychological tests when deciding who is chosen for talent development. The aim of this exploratory study was to evaluate the prognostic validity of talent selections by varying groups 10 years after they had been conducted. This study used a unique, multi-phased approach. Phase 1 involved players (n = 68) in 2001 completing a battery of general and sport-specific tests of handball 'talent' and performance. In Phase 2, national and regional coaches (n = 7) in 2001 who attended training camps identified the most talented players. In Phase 3, current novice and advanced handball players (n = 12 in each group) selected the most talented from short videos of matches played during the talent camp. Analyses compared predictions among all groups with a best model-fit derived from the motor tests. Results revealed little difference between regional and national coaches in the prediction of future performance and little difference in forecasting performance between novices and players. The best model-fit regression by the motor-tests outperformed all predictions. While several limitations are discussed, this study is a useful starting point for future investigations considering athlete selection decisions in talent identification in sport.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 136 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 17%
Student > Master 21 15%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Researcher 10 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 20 15%
Unknown 42 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 65 48%
Psychology 8 6%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Arts and Humanities 2 1%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 46 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 December 2018.
All research outputs
#2,437,862
of 23,314,015 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#4,786
of 31,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,475
of 313,355 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#137
of 583 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,314,015 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,000 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 313,355 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 583 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.