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 -