TY - CONF
T1 - A Prospective Study of The Developmental Biographies of Great British Pathway Athletes
T2 - Pathway to Podium
AU - Dunn, Emily
AU - Langham-Walsh, Eleanor
AU - Lowery, Megan
AU - Hardy, Lewis
AU - Lawrence, Gavin
AU - Gottwald, Vicky
AU - Hardy, James
AU - Oliver, Sam
AU - Roberts, Ross
PY - 2018/6/8
Y1 - 2018/6/8
N2 - While talent identification (talent ID) systems strive to predict future elite athletes, the longitudinal success of such pathways is questionable (Gullich & Cobley, 2017; Leyhr, Kelava, Raabe & Höner, 2018). Few studies have adopted a multi-disciplinary approach to talent ID (e.g. Forsman, Blomqvist, Davids Liukkonen, Konttinen, 2016), with the current talent ID literature examining psychological (Meyer, Markgraf & Gnacinski, 2017) and physiological (Dodd & Newans, 2018) attributes independently. Consequently, this is likely contributing to poor longitudinal prediction and a bias in athlete selection (the relative age effect e.g. Jones, Lawrence & Hardy, 2018). The Great British Medallist project (GBM) vastly contributed to the literature as they retrospectively examined psychosocial, coach, environmental and practice and training history attributes. This identified commonalities and differences between former Elite (E) and Super Elite (SE) athletes, using pattern recognition analysis (Hardy, Barlow, Evans, Rees, Woodman & Warr, 2017). However, the primary unit of analysis were multiple sports, which likely caused a wash-out effect of practice and training history attributes, when discriminating between athletes. No research has longitudinally examined interactions between: physiological, psychosocial, coaching environment and practice and training history, within an elite population, with the primary unit of analysis being a single sport. This will be the first study to prospectively examine an athlete from their development, through to podium, over a period of 8 years.
AB - While talent identification (talent ID) systems strive to predict future elite athletes, the longitudinal success of such pathways is questionable (Gullich & Cobley, 2017; Leyhr, Kelava, Raabe & Höner, 2018). Few studies have adopted a multi-disciplinary approach to talent ID (e.g. Forsman, Blomqvist, Davids Liukkonen, Konttinen, 2016), with the current talent ID literature examining psychological (Meyer, Markgraf & Gnacinski, 2017) and physiological (Dodd & Newans, 2018) attributes independently. Consequently, this is likely contributing to poor longitudinal prediction and a bias in athlete selection (the relative age effect e.g. Jones, Lawrence & Hardy, 2018). The Great British Medallist project (GBM) vastly contributed to the literature as they retrospectively examined psychosocial, coach, environmental and practice and training history attributes. This identified commonalities and differences between former Elite (E) and Super Elite (SE) athletes, using pattern recognition analysis (Hardy, Barlow, Evans, Rees, Woodman & Warr, 2017). However, the primary unit of analysis were multiple sports, which likely caused a wash-out effect of practice and training history attributes, when discriminating between athletes. No research has longitudinally examined interactions between: physiological, psychosocial, coaching environment and practice and training history, within an elite population, with the primary unit of analysis being a single sport. This will be the first study to prospectively examine an athlete from their development, through to podium, over a period of 8 years.
M3 - Poster
ER -