↓ Skip to main content

Are youth sport talent identification and development systems necessary and healthy?

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine - Open, May 2018
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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
40 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
208 Mendeley
Title
Are youth sport talent identification and development systems necessary and healthy?
Published in
Sports Medicine - Open, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40798-018-0135-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fieke Rongen, Jim McKenna, Stephen Cobley, Kevin Till

Abstract

Talent identification and development systems (TIDS) are commonly used in professional sport to convert youth athletes into sporting stars of the future. Acknowledging that only a few athletes can "make it," the necessity and healthiness of TIDS have recently been questioned based on their increased professionalism, high training, and competition volumes, but limited effectiveness. In this short communication, we suggest that the key issues associated with TIDS are not due to their overall concept, but with how they are designed and implemented. It is recommended that researchers and practitioners determine the worth and value of TIDS by also evaluating the positive health of the athlete rather than solely focusing on performance outcomes. To achieve this, TIDS staff should shape and develop their values, expectations, and day-to-day routines to achieve positive health outcomes focusing on personal development and an athlete-centered culture. In business, this has been termed the concept of "Deliberately Developmental Organisation." TIDS can deploy the factors (e.g., high-quality staff, expert support services, quality facilities, and learning routines) characteristic of such organizations, to concurrently ensure positive impacts and minimize predictable negative outcomes without losing focus on a drive for sporting performance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 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 208 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 208 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 15%
Student > Master 29 14%
Student > Bachelor 19 9%
Researcher 14 7%
Lecturer 12 6%
Other 38 18%
Unknown 65 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 101 49%
Psychology 10 5%
Social Sciences 8 4%
Unspecified 4 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 1%
Other 15 7%
Unknown 67 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 11 October 2023.
All research outputs
#1,283,472
of 24,988,543 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine - Open
#120
of 577 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,734
of 336,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine - Open
#5
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,988,543 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 577 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 336,575 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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 66% of its contemporaries.