MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361297539 · doi:10.1080/1750984x.2023.2188120

A scoping review of the use of theory in positive youth development and athlete transition literature

2023· review· en· W4361297539 on OpenAlexaff
Rachel Dunn, Katherine A. Tamminen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeci-PsychologyPsychosocialDevelopmental stage theoriesPositive Youth DevelopmentDevelopment theoryGrounded theoryQualitative researchInclusion (mineral)Sport psychologyNursing theoryDevelopmental psychologyApplied psychologySocial psychologyMEDLINESociologySocial sciencePsychotherapistAutonomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The psychosocial development of young people in sports settings continues to be a popular area of study. Researchers examining youth athletes may draw on developmental theories from broader fields of psychology when choosing which psychosocial outcomes to study. However, it is currently unclear which theories inform youth sport research, and how these theories have been used. Therefore, a scoping review of the literature in positive youth development and youth athlete transitions in sport was conducted to investigate the use of theory in these areas. Two databases were systematically searched (APA PsychINFO and SportDiscus) and 10,453 abstracts were screened for inclusion in the review. Information was extracted from 207 articles and dissertations. Results indicated that the most-used theories included Ecological Theories of Human Development, (Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. University Press) and Self-Determination Theory (Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.). Theories were most often used in peripheral ways to contextualise or discuss research findings (Sandelowski, (1993 Sandelowski, M. (1993). Theory unmasked: The uses and guises of theory in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 16(3), 213–218. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770160308.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Theory unmasked: The uses and guises of theory in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 16(3), 213–218.). The use of theory more centrally (e.g. theory testing) was less common. In the future, researchers could draw on theories more fully to guide their hypotheses, examine whether non-developmental theories are appropriate to use with different populations, and ensure that research in youth sport is informed by theoretical progress in developmental psychology.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.138
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.138
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0600.046
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of Sport and Exercise PsychologySame topicYouth Development and Social SupportFrench-language works237,207