4.6 Review

Assessing personal talent determinants in young racquet sport players: a systematic review

Journal

JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES
Volume 34, Issue 5, Pages 395-410

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2015.1061201

Keywords

badminton; aptitude; table tennis; gifted children; tennis

Categories

Funding

  1. Saxion University of Applied Science (Enschede, The Netherlands)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Since junior performances have little predictive value for future success, other solutions are sought to assess a young player's potential. The objectives of this systematic review are (1) to provide an overview of instruments measuring personal talent determinants of young players in racquet sports, and (2) to evaluate these instruments regarding their validity for talent development. Electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, PsychINFO, Web of Knowledge, ScienceDirect and SPORTDiscus (1990 to 31 March 2014). Search terms represented tennis, table tennis, badminton and squash, the concept of talent, methods of testing and children. Thirty articles with information regarding over 100 instruments were included. Validity evaluation showed that instruments focusing on intellectual and perceptual abilities, and coordinative skills discriminate elite from non-elite players and/or are related to current performance, but their predictive validity is not confirmed. There is moderate evidence that the assessments of mental and goal management skills predict future performance. Data on instruments measuring physical characteristics prohibit a conclusion due to conflicting findings. This systematic review yielded an ambiguous end point. The lack of longitudinal studies precludes verification of the instrument's capacity to forecast future performance. Future research should focus on instruments assessing multidimensional talent determinants and their predictive value in longitudinal designs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available