MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3030549267 · doi:10.1007/s40279-020-01299-4

Assessing Technical Skills in Talented Youth Athletes: A Systematic Review

2020· review· en· W3030549267 on OpenAlexaff
Till Koopmann, Irene R. Faber, Joseph Baker, Jörg Schorer

Bibliographic record

VenueSports Medicine · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSport Psychology and Performance
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersCarl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg
KeywordsScopusAthletesApplied psychologyContext (archaeology)Sports medicinePsychologySet (abstract data type)Medical educationMEDLINEMedicinePhysical therapyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Talent identification and development (TID) programs aim to identify players with the greatest potential for long-term success. Previous research suggests that the assessment of sport-specific technical skills is valuable for discriminating between more and less skilled individuals and/or for predicting future performance. OBJECTIVE: This review aims to provide an overview on both the instruments used to assess sport-specific technical skills and their discriminatory, explanatory and/or predictive findings in the context of TID. METHODS: Electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Knowledge, SPORTDiscus, SURF and Scopus (January 1990-October 2019). Search terms covered the areas of sport, technical skills assessment, performance, skill level and youth. In the end, 59 relevant studies were identified and evaluated. RESULTS: The results highlight the widespread and important role of technical skills in TID; almost all studies (93%) reported discriminatory, explanatory and/or predictive benefits for the assessment of sport-specific technical skills. Analyzing and categorizing the number of assessment methods applied in the studies (n = 69) according to their method type ('technique-related' or 'outcome-related' variables) and method set-up ('experimental' or 'competition' data acquisition environment) indicated a clear tendency towards 'outcome-related' (73%) and 'experimental' (75%) assessment methods. We also found a strong overrepresentation of studies assessing cross-sectional data (75%) in soccer (53%) in male samples (74% of studies reporting subjects' sex) from European countries (64%). CONCLUSIONS: On the one hand, our findings demonstrate the great capability of sport-specific technical skills assessments to discriminate different performance levels and predict future performance in TID activities. On the other hand, this review highlights the focus on 'outcome-related' and 'experimental' methods in specific populations and, consequently, the limited knowledge in other areas. Here, the application of 'technique-related' and 'competition' methods appears promising for adding new knowledge, especially in the light of technological advances.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.323
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.364 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations120
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSports MedicineSame topicSport Psychology and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207