Revisiting the empirical model ‘Phases in the junior-to-senior transition of Swedish ice hockey players’: External validation through focus groups and interviews

Abstract

In this study, we continue to explore the junior-to-senior transition process in Swedish ice hockey by validating the empirical model ‘Phases in the junior-to-senior transition of Swedish ice hockey players’ created in our previous study.¹ More specifically, we collected opinions and critical reflections of 15 senior professional players and expert coaches about the empirical model as a whole and about the content of each junior-to-senior transition phase and then converted the original empirical model into its validated version. Professional ice hockey players and first league coaches formed three focus groups, while three senior coaches were interviewed individually. All were encouraged to critically reflect on the empirical model. The data from all sources were analysed following guidelines of the thematic (deductive) analysis complemented by quantitative measurements of the participants’ agreement with the content of the empirical model. Results supported the sequence and designations of the junior-to-senior transition phases (i.e. preparation, orientation, adaptation and stabilization), as well as duration of the junior-to-senior transition (i.e. up to four seasons) outlined by the empirical model. We were also able to validate the psychological content (perceived demands, resources, barriers, coping strategies and outcomes) of each transitional phase. Accordingly, five themes were reformulated, 17 new themes were added and some themes were re-ordered during the conversion of the original empirical model into the validated model. To improve the readability of the validated model (from the bottom to the top), we also re-ordered sub-categories describing the psychological content of each junior-to-senior transition phase. We conclude by discussing the validated model in relation to theoretical frameworks and previous research and providing some methodology, future research and practice-oriented reflections addressed to researchers, coaches and sport psychology practitioners.

Keywords

Athletic career coping parents social support

Introduction

I played in a certain way as a junior player and when I moved up [to senior level] I thought I could play the same way and do the same things I did as a junior player. At the time, I just didn’t think they [senior players] were so much better than I. But the truth was that they were where they were, and I was where I was, for a reason. (A senior ice hockey player about the junior-to-senior transition)

The junior-to-senior transition (JST) is often seen as ‘a gatekeeper’ of future progress for talented and aspiring juniors aiming at senior elite and professional sports. There are a growing number of studies on this transition in a variety of sports, which demonstrate its challenging nature, high dropout rate and a need for efficient support to the transitional athletes.^3–6 Here, we focus on the JST in Swedish ice hockey, taking into account two recent innovations in career transition research. The first one is a turn towards using the ‘general’ career or transition models to collect contextually specific data and transform the general models into specifically tailored empirical models.^7–10 The second one is a change from viewing a transition as an even (undifferentiated) process to identifying its temporal structure or phases⁷ with their specific psychological content (e.g. perceived demands, resources and coping strategies). In our previous study,¹ we used the athletic career transition model^11,3 and the holistic athletic career model,^12,13 coupled with the analysis of Swedish ice hockey context to create a conceptual four-phase JST framework and to collect the data from seven semi-professional players. Based on the data analysis, we developed an empirical model titled ‘Phases in the JST of Swedish ice hockey players’. In this study, we continue to explore the JST process in Swedish ice hockey by validating the empirical model using the feedback from Swedish professional players and coaches. Below, we provide a brief overview of the JST research in different athletic and sociocultural contexts; then narrow our focus to relevant ice hockey research and our previous study¹ emphasising on the empirical model ‘Phases in the JST of Swedish ice hockey players’.

The JST research in various athletic and sociocultural contexts

As first introduced in the analytical sports career model,¹⁴ the JST begins when junior team sport athletes are permitted to take part in practices and competitions with the senior team and lasts until athletes are fully adapted as senior team players, both on and off the field. From this definition, it is obvious that the JST takes time. The current consensus between transition researchers is that roughly one-third of junior athletes successfully cope with this transition, and that it takes from one (the best scenario) to four years or competitive seasons to complete.^1,3–6 Therefore, sport governing bodies, clubs, coaches, parents and athletes themselves might benefit from better understanding of how the JST unfolds in time, what are the athletes’ key challenges at the beginning, in the middle and at the end of this transition and what psychological support they may need. It is also important to keep in mind that, while the JST challenges can be comparable across sports, they are expressed and experienced differently, depending on the relevant sport, sociocultural contexts and athletes’ individual characteristics, available support system and life circumstances.

Studies on the JST have been already conducted in various athletic and sociocultural contexts, including, for example, Russian Olympic sports,^14,3 British event riding and football,^15–19 Spanish basketball,²⁰ Australian rugby,²¹ Dutch football,²² New Zealand athletics²³ and Swedish handball, event riding, basketball and golf.^24–27 A majority of these studies were qualitative and based on the interview data from athletes or coaches. In addition, there was a series of Swedish studies in which the Transition Monitoring Survey was developed and applied to multi-sport samples during the JST, implementing cross-sectional and longitudinal designs.^28–30 Taken together, the JST research findings revealed: (a) increased physical and mental aspects of the senior practice and competitions, increased responsibility and pressure from self and others to demonstrate competence and balancing an athletic career with other life domains as major perceived demands of the JST, (b) personal maturity, motivation, determination, communication skills, confidence and previous sport and transition experiences complemented by social support from families, teammates and coaches as the JST resources, (c) pressures from parents and coaches, a lack of financial support, injuries and competing demands in the athletes’ social, academic and vocational lives as the JST barriers and (d) working hard and trying to do their best, planning, sustaining good relationships with others, learning from others and seeking social support and guidance when needed as the JST coping strategies.

Career transition research in the ice hockey context

Several studies have focused on career experiences of ice hockey players in the North American context.^31–35 These authors analysed media data or used interviews to identify the players’ major career demands, barriers and adaptation strategies throughout their professional careers. The most recent studies in the Canadian National Hockey League (NHL) context^34–35 focused on developing an empirical career model outlining the players’ statuses, demands and barriers across the four career stages, such as: (a) entering the NHL (prospects), (b) developing as an NHL player (rookies and sophomores), (c) reaching the NHL elite (prime veterans) and (d) maintaining NHL player involvement (seasoned veterans). Relevant to the present study are demands and barriers experienced by prospects and rookies. For prospects, the demands to enter the NHL included recognition through training camps or selection from minor leagues. In parallel, the prospects had to deal with the draft year pressures and team camp anxiety as relevant barriers. The major perceived demands for rookies were making a good impression and earning playing time, demonstrating progress in physical and tactical developments and coping with setbacks to avoid demotion from the team. In addition, insecurity with teammates and roster spot uncertainty were perceived as barriers that could decrease the players’ chance to progress at the NHL. Specific features of the NHL context were also visible through the barriers that the players thought applicable to every NHL career stage (e.g. pressure to play despite injury and conflicts with head coach).

Studying career development in ice hockey inevitably roused the researchers’ interest in the transitional career phases. For example, analysis of the transition experiences of rookie players who recently moved to the elite amateur level in the Canadian ice hockey³¹ revealed several ‘on-ice’ (e.g. readiness to elite competition, demonstrating competence and earning playing time) and ‘off-ice’ (e.g. relationships with teammates, host families, player trades and personal maturation) issues. Other research findings from the prospect and rookie NHL players^32,33 emphasised physical and mental demands of scouting and training camps, meeting team expectations, earning trust to get and maintain a spot on the team roster. The adaptation strategies used by prospect and rookie players were to understand one’s own performance, trying to meet team expectations, building confidence, using support from family and team and improving physical, mental and technical abilities.³² While these studies shed light on some aspects of the JST, they had their limitations. The transition was treated as an event (e.g. entering the NHL) rather than a process, and there were no data on how long the JST might last in the ice hockey context. To address these gaps, we attempted to look at the JST of Swedish ice hockey players as a sequence of phases, each with specific psychological content.¹

The JST in Swedish ice hockey players

In our previous study,¹ based on the athletic career transition model,^3,11 the holistic athletic career model^12,13 and our analysis of Swedish JST context, we proposed a conceptual JST framework containing four – preparation, orientation, adaptation and stabilization – phases. Being interested in the duration of the JST and relevant phases, we hypothesized that the preparation phase might take up the players’ last season in the junior team, the orientation phase might last for the first season in the senior team and the adaptation and stabilization phases might cover the time period between the second and the forth seasons in the senior hockey. These hypothetical estimates were incorporated into the conceptual framework. Seven active semi-professional players from the third Swedish ice hockey league^a positioned at the beginning, in the middle and at the end of the JST were interviewed regarding their JST experiences. As a final interview question, they were asked for their feedback on the conceptual framework (i.e. the four-phase structure, phase designations and durations of each phase and the JST as a whole). The data were analysed using thematic (deductive) analysis,² and the conceptual framework was transformed into the empirical model ‘Phases of the JST in Swedish ice hockey players’ (see Figure 1). In the empirical model, the JST process in Swedish ice hockey was described as having four phases: the preparation (players of 18–20 years old), the orientation (the first season in a senior team), the adaptation (the second and third seasons in a senior team) and the stabilization (the fourth season of senior ice hockey). Players’ perceived demands, resources, barriers, coping strategies and outcomes relevant to each phase were derived from the analysis of empirical data and revealed a dynamic nature of the transition process. In addition, the participants reflected on individual differences in how players handle the JST and a possibility of going back and forth between adjacent phases, especially if a player changes teams. Considering the limitations of how the empirical model was created (e.g. involvement of only semi-professional players),¹ we wanted to further validate the empirical model in the Swedish ice hockey context by gathering data from professional players and coaches. Therefore, the objectives of this follow-up study were: (1) to collect opinions and critical reflections of senior professional players and expert coaches about the empirical model as a whole and about the content of each JST phase and (2) to convert the empirical model into the validated model based on the participants’ feedback.

Figure 1.

Empirical model ‘Phases in the JST of Swedish ice hockey players’.¹ JST: junior-to-senior transition.

Method

Research design

In the process of validating the empirical model, we aimed at making it more relevant to and more generalizable within the Swedish ice hockey context by collecting and analysing opinions and critical reflections on the empirical model from senior professional players and expert coaches. We have not found any previous studies that could serve as examples of validating empirical models. Therefore, we have developed our approach based on the system’s theory that implies three consecutive steps in examining any complex research object, including ‘rough synthesis’, ‘analysis’ and ‘synthesis on a higher level’.^36,37 The complex research object in our study is the JST process in Swedish ice hockey, summarized in the empirical model ‘Phases in the JST of Swedish ice hockey players’. In the process of validating the empirical model, rough synthesis involved summarizing the participants’ first impressions about the model as a whole and a preliminary quantitative examination of the participants’ agreement with its content. The analysis consisted of the participants’ reflections on the themes describing each transitional phase, as well as the duration of the JST and its respective phases. The synthesis on the higher level included the conversion of the empirical model into the validated model.

The data were collected using focus groups and interviews. Focus groups were chosen because of their potential to provide access to a range of opinions about questions of interest.³⁸ Each of the three focus groups was kept homogenous (players from the first league, n = 4, players from the second league, n = 5 and coaches from the first league, n = 3) to avoid differences in power, which could inhibit free communication between the participants.³⁸ Individual interviews with professional coaches (n = 3) were added because of a difficulty in bringing together suitable participants for a focus group. Guides for the focus groups and the interviews were structured to facilitate the participants’ elaboration on the empirical model.

Participants

The participants of the study (n = 15) constituted a purposeful sample³⁸ of nine male ice hockey players (M age = 26; SD = 1.58) from the first (n = 4) and the second (n = 5) Swedish ice hockey leagues, as well as six senior team coaches (M experience = 26.2 years; SD = 12.2) from the first (n = 3), the second (n = 1) and the third (n = 2) Swedish ice hockey leagues. Players were recruited from two and coaches from four different teams. Five players were forwards and four were defensemen. Five players had experience with international competitions as junior players. Five coaches had experience coaching both junior and senior teams, and two coaches had previously been club managers as well.

Data collection

Focus groups

Focus groups were organized and moderated based on the recommendations of Krueger and Casey.³⁸ The moderators (first and third authors) prepared the empirical model handouts and a brief presentation about the model and how it was created. At the focus group meetings, the following structure was followed. First, the participants’ background information (e.g. age, number of seasons in senior hockey, playing position and level of the team) was collected through the participants’ introductions to the group. Second, handouts of the empirical model were shared with the participants and thoroughly explained. Third, the participants were encouraged to carefully look through the empirical model and express in the group their initial impressions of the empirical model (i.e. general agreement or disagreement). Fourth, they were asked to mark individually what they agreed or disagreed with in the content (i.e. themes) of each JST phase using green (agree) and red (disagree) markers. Fifth, the participants were asked to add written comments on what they would like to add, change or remove from the model using blank spaces available on the handout. Sixth, the moderators initiated a shift to a group discussion and stimulated the participants’ exchange of opinions about the empirical model as a whole and about different transition phases (e.g. what they liked, disliked, wanted to add, change or remove from the model). The highlighted content and written comments were used as a basis for the discussion. Seventh, the moderators summarized the discussion and asked for the participants’ feedback on the summary; then changes were made if necessary.

Interviews

The initial five steps of the interviews were identical to those of the focus groups. After working on the model’s handout, coaches were pulled into a discussion with the interviewer (first author) about the empirical model as a whole and the content of each of its phases. The interviewer encouraged critical reflections and suggestions to improve the model. Further, the interviewer summarized the discussion and asked for the participant’s feedback; then changes were made if necessary.

Procedure

The study was approved by the first author’s University ethical committee. The participants were recruited through the managers of their respective clubs and informed about the study and ethical issues (e.g. confidentiality and their right to withdraw). Prior to the focus groups and interviews, the participants signed informed consent forms. The focus groups lasted on average for 91 min and interviews for 74 min. All sessions were arranged at locations and time convenient to the participants and digitally recorded upon their approval.

Data analyses

The analytical process was focused on the participants’ opinions about the empirical model and their reflections on the content of each JST phase, based on the combined data set from focus groups and interviews. We followed the same steps of theoretical deductive analysis described in Braun and Clarke² as in our previous study, in which the empirical model was created.¹ In step 1, focus group and interview recordings were transcribed verbatim and read repeatedly, along with written comments from participants, to become thoroughly familiarized with the data. As data collection was built around the existing empirical model, the raw data in the transcripts were already structured to some extent. In step 2, the data related to participants’ initial impressions of the empirical model were sorted out and summarized. In step 3, the handouts of the empirical model with green–red marked themes were analysed in terms of agreement among the participants. These three initial steps helped us with the ‘rough synthesis’ of the data. In step 4, we proceeded with the ‘analysis’ by discussing the participants’ feedback on the content of each JST phase (e.g. what themes should be reformulated and what new themes should be added) and the model as a whole. All points of disagreement were carefully considered until relevant consensuses within the research group were reached, and decisions were made about necessary changes in the empirical model. In step 5, new content and relevant quotations from the participants’ reflections were translated into English; the translation was also triangulated within the research group. Finally, in Step 6, we completed the ‘synthesis on a higher level’ proposing the validated model now presented in this paper.

Results

The results are structured following the three aforementioned steps in the process of validating the empirical model. In the text below, players are represented as P1-9, coaches as C1-6 and all the themes are written in italics.

Rough synthesis: Initial impressions of the empirical model

Initial impressions of the empirical model were explored using mixed-method approach with qualitative data as dominant and quantitative data as supportive.³⁹ Therefore, below we provide insights into the participants’ first reflections on the model followed by summarizing quantitative data on their agreement with the themes describing each JST phase.

Qualitative rough synthesis

Players’ initial impressions of the empirical model were positive and the model was seen as generally consistent with their JST experiences:

P3: I think (…) when I look back at those years, this is how it actually was. You got in here [orientation phase] and you had a bit too high an expectation of yourself and thought that you were going to make it (…). When I look back, I think that this [the empirical model] is mostly true.

P6: Much of it is right. I think you have captured it pretty good. I have more comments on the first ones [preparation and orientation phases] than the latter [adaptation and stabilization phases].

P7: Yes, like they said, that the last two are good [adaptation and stabilization phase], the first one is not 100% [preparation phase], but there is a lot that is correct in that as well.

Coaches’ reflections were also positive:

C2: Well, there is nothing that is in the model that I don’t agree with, but I think there can be more [content] in it.

C1: Yes, there could be more things in it, but the things that are in it are correct … I can recognize everything because I have experienced it. [I also see] possible reasons for players’ stagnation. They just couldn’t come further because they were stopped by some of the things that are in here [the model]. I can see this clearly.

C4: I would have to say that it is quite accurate with these four phases. It looks good. What I do right away when I see these four phases is that I place my different players into the model. That is my first reflection as a coach seeing it from my perspective.

Participants’ agreement with the content of the empirical model

This quantitative examination was undertaken to get a preliminary overview of how many themes representing psychological content of the empirical model were supported or not supported by the focus groups and interview participants. As mentioned above, the participants were instructed to mark by coloured markers the themes they agree with (by green) and themes they were disagree with (by red). Among the 59 themes describing psychological content of the four JST phases in the empirical model, no single theme was supported by the 100% of the participants. At the same time, there was no single theme that was supported by less than 50% of the participants. The agreement was higher and disagreement was lower in regard to the psychological content of the adaptation and stabilization phases, compared to the preparation and orientation phases, which were consistent with the participants’ first impressions of the empirical model (see above). As an example, we briefly overview the themes that were the most and the least supported in regard to the preparation and the orientation JST phases, with figures in parentheses showing a number of participants who supported the theme (with a plus) and a number of participants who didn’t support the theme (with a minus). In the preparation phase, the highest support was received by the demands to prepare physically (+13) and mentally (+13, –1) to make a step into the senior ice hockey, and the lowest agreement was expressed towards distorted expectations (+8, –5) as a barrier. In the orientation phase, the highest support was received by coping strategies working hard (+13), modelling senior players (+13) and accepting group norms (+13, –2) and also by a barrier distorted expectations (+13). Least supported were outcome themes understanding major features of senior ice hockey (+8, –2) and finding one’s role in the senior team (+8, –2). To sum up, based on the quantitative testing, no themes were removed, and the content of the empirical model was kept intact for the further analysis.

Analysis: Participants’ qualitative feedback on the psychological content of the JST phases

The preparation phase

A majority of the participants supported the theme preparing physically and mentally for senior ice hockey as the most important demand during the preparation phase. Several participants recognized that support from family and getting acquainted with the senior team members were important external resources:

C5: Players [junior] often have them [senior players] as a sort of idols. They often avoid taking a space as they should do and they conform to them [senior players] too much. When the new players get to know them [seniors] it’s easier to act as who they really are.

Attitude and determination were perceived as important internal resources, especially when facing adversity: ‘… if you experience setbacks, you just have to continue, and if you have the right willpower and determination, nothing is going to stop you’ (P1). Although families were considered as a vital source of social support, coaches suggested that parents, along with agents, were also barriers:

C6: I often feel that parents act as barriers … I meet a lot of parents who have biased views of their sons. The players often have a good idea of what level they are at as players, but the parents talk too much with them about ice hockey, compare them with other players and influence their self-perceptions not always in the right direction.

C1: From that age [18] agents control players and much of what happens depends on the agent (…). They [agents] sometimes influence the players in a negative way and make them uncertain about their future (…). So, agents can be both good and bad.

Too big of a gap between junior and senior level and lack of physique were seen as inherent barriers for junior players, while participation in youth culture and parties was considered dependent on the players’ social circle: ‘It’s about who you choose to hang out with, or at least this was for me’ (P8). Many participants agreed with junior players’ distorted expectations about their readiness for senior hockey: ‘In hindsight, I could use some help with managing expectation and having realistic goals … instead I got ahead of myself. I probably would have done things differently if I knew how things actually were on the senior level’ (P3). Further, trying to take advantages of the opportunities given in the senior team, junior players, as confirmed by the participants, might experience setbacks and excessive anxiety:

P1: (…) Then you think that 22 players in the team believe that you’re completely useless, just because you missed a pass. Then you continue to think about this and you will miss even more passes just because you’re so nervous and jerky. It becomes a vicious circle.

Coaches suggested that already at this phase, many players perceived non-sport obligations (studies or additional jobs) as barriers for future athletic success:

C4: Players in this phase have to be in two places at once [ice hockey and school], and school will suffer because the players do not want to miss any opportunity to practice or play (…) They are prepared to sacrifice whatever it takes.

Furthermore, it was suggested that many players moved away from home for the first time at this age and had trouble adapting to living on their own: ‘A barrier for me was to move away from home … it was a lot to do with food, cleaning, and shopping … and at the same time I moved to a new city and lived alone for the first time’ (P4).

Working hard and modelling senior players were supported as appropriate coping strategies for the juniors in their initial acquaintance with senior hockey. One of the outcomes of the preparation phase, learning the basic requirements of senior ice hockey, was described as follows: ‘the junior players who come here, they make mistakes and it’s a learning process in which they learn what the new demands are’ (C6). Becoming part of the senior team was supported as an inevitable outcome to play senior level ice hockey.

The orientation phase

When coming to the senior team, the learning processes involved coping with training/games physically (e.g. playing with more mature opponents), mentally (e.g. having less important role in the team) and tactically. The tactical demands were to weed out ‘naive’ playing common to junior ice hockey: ‘If you watch a junior game, players make mistakes around the blue lines that I could never accept [on the senior level]. It’s a process for them to learn this when they move up to seniors’ (C6). Further, participants agreed that when becoming a contracted senior, the players were expected to be more serious and take responsibility for oneself and own development: ‘They are on their own on the ice, and they need to take responsibility for their own performance, practice, as well as diet, and sleep’ (C5).

In agreement with the empirical model, players and coaches emphasised how important it is for the novices to ‘understand norms to become a part of the team’ (P1), and ‘follow the team rules and what the team believes in’ (P2). Both players and coaches also acknowledged that role models within the team, trust from coach, intrinsic motivation and attitude and determination were indeed important resources to have for the rookie players. The coaches shared the belief that trust from coaches is important, but stressed that it’s something that players have to earn: ‘If you have a young guy sending you the right signals and doing the right things, he will get my trust. If he doesn’t, then he won’t’ (C6). Furthermore, several participants suggested that trust from coach should be broadened to include trust from the entire team management: ‘Nowadays everyone works with larger team management rather than only with the coaches’ (C1). Further, the participants perceived youth culture as a possible, but not a major, barrier if a player already understood the commitment needed to play senior ice hockey. Players highlighted lack of trust and opportunities in the senior team as a major barrier, while coaches had a different view: one called it ‘an old cliché that they didn’t get the chance’ (C5), and the other said ‘I often hear they say we don’t believe in them. But they haven’t done anything to make us believe in them … they want something before they have proven themselves’ (C6). Parents and agents were again mentioned as potential barriers during the orientation phase in the similar sense as described in the quotes related to the preparation phase (see above). Some participants reflected that they had to work part time or study to get by financially, which was seen as a barrier, while others received funding from parents to avoid that. Participants elaborated on the theme non-sport obligations as follows: ‘Some players on our team [third division] do studies and some are working’ (C5), ‘It’s a tough life in the third division. Some players work from 7.00 to 16.00, and then they have to go to practice at half past five. The days from Monday to Friday are very long’ (P7). Both players and coaches agreed that distorted expectations were a common barrier: ‘I got up [to the senior team] and I had too high expectations about what I thought I would be able to do’ (P3). Lack of physique was considered an important barrier for players during this phase, along with injuries, which were a barrier throughout the whole transition. Working hard, accepting norms and modelling senior players were universally recognized as adaptive coping strategies. Both coaches and players agreed with the empirical model that the orientation phase was completed when the players learned major features of the senior ice hockey and found their role in the senior team.

C1: They have to accept their roles as players and be realistic about the level they have at that moment. But they shouldn’t get ahead of themselves thinking that they are better than they are and deserve a more prominent role.

The adaptation phase

Players perceived this phase to be marked with a substantial increase in expectations and demands: ‘Expectations got higher with the experience you gained. To perform better, yes, but not only. You are expected to take more responsibility not only for yourself but also for the team’ (P2). Unity in the team was seen as a facilitating factor for players’ development and well-being: ‘… good unity in the team is essential, it’s fun to get together down to the arena, and it affects your mental well-being. I mean it builds up energy and motivation to continue’ (P5). Trust from coaches was yet again something that coaches thought that players had to earn. Moreover, the players see a benefit in having trust from the broader management team (similar to the orientation phase). Attitude and determination to continue developing as a player together with intrinsic motivation (described by C6 as ‘the drive, ambitions, and the genuine interest in the game’) were considered important to avoid complacency with having a spot in the senior team roster:

P2: You get what you have worked for during so many years, i.e. a spot as a regular on the team. But in the adaptation phase you might become content. It has happened to so many talented guys who got a senior team jersey and then stagnated.

While the participants found ‘normal’ that rookies have a lack of physique in the orientation phase, they agreed that ‘during the adaptation phase the physique had to be sorted out and help the players not only to play better but also to avoid injuries and performance slumps’ (C6). Non-sport obligations were seen as barriers only for the low-paid players, whereas players with good income from ice hockey viewed studies or additional jobs as resources: ‘I don’t like to just play ice hockey. I don’t see it [studies] as a barrier. I see it as something that helps me to recover’ (P8) and ‘When I’m not playing that well, maybe school is good and I can focus more on that. (…) I don’t have to feel like if ice hockey is crap, then everything is crap’ (P5). Further, the participants confirmed that coping strategies of the adaptation phase were appropriate: ‘Players continue to work hard, plan, and take responsibility. Yes, I agree with that’ (C4) and ‘The hardest part for many was not to practice, but to properly eat, sleep, and plan all of that’ (C6). They also elaborated on how important it is to further develop by striving for a better role in the team and earning trust from the team management:

C5: They should not be content with their spot in the team. They need to keep challenging themselves and their teammates all the time. They should constantly strive for a better role because that’s what it takes to develop as a player. This is also a way to earning trust from the team management.

The outcomes of the adaptation phase (i.e. performance stability and gaining experience) were considered as good descriptors of the participants’ experience: ‘At that time the stability should be there’ (C4) and ‘… in the third season you have experience and you know what needs to be done’ (C6).

The stabilization phase

The participants agreed that this phase brought on increased demands to take even more responsibility within the team and to steadily perform well: ‘With time, players get clearer roles and accordingly they are required to take more responsibility in their group, or defensive line’ (C5) and ‘… the stability, yes, it should just be there to keep well in the team’ (C4). It was also suggested that players at this phase should act as role models for the younger guys. Intrinsic motivation, attitude and determination and previous ice hockey experiences were seen as important resources because of the increased likelihood of feeling content and lack of motivation: ‘You have to set new goals to strive for, so you don’t get too satisfied with where you’re at… if you show attitude and determination you can always reach even further [career wise] or at least find what level you can play on’ (P2). Unity in the team was still an important external resource, but the participants felt even stronger that at this age, partners and players’ own families should be added to the model: ‘at that age it’s important to be supported by your girlfriend, or it can be your family’ (C6). As in the adaptation phase, participants perceived non-sport obligations as barriers only if they were dependent on a salary outside of ice hockey to continue to play and strive for a professional contract. If they didn’t, they perceived studying or having a part-time job as resources. Barriers that might inhibit or even stop their careers were injuries: ‘It’s unfortunate to see how players with still a good game and potential have to terminate because of injuries’ (C3). To continue to work hard and striving for excellence were seen as important coping strategies to avoid stagnation, as most players believed they could still take several steps further in their careers. To take responsibility in the team was stressed as a facilitating factor in player development and earning a more prominent role in the team: ‘To take more responsibility within the team each year is a good thing to do, and it may be a goal that one should have’ (P2). Taking a more holistic view, the participants emphasised prioritising in life: ‘When they are about 24–25 and they may have girlfriends or are about to start a family. Many players start to think about what they really want in life and have to make some decisions’ (C5). In terms of the JST outcomes, the participants fully supported the theme becoming an experienced senior player, while the other theme, understanding at which senior level one can compete, divided coaches and players. Coaches supported it, but players argued that ‘no one can know what level he can play on’ (P6). At the same time, they both agreed that the stabilization phase is decisive for the players who still didn’t get a professional contract:

C6: … the guys ask themselves if it’s worth the effort. They may think they have reached their potential and can’t get any further. I think it’s common when they are about 25 years of age; it is still a good age to shift to a civil career instead. So, I believe this is a crossroad for many players, where they have to figure out what they want in life.

Participants’ feedback on the model as a whole

The participants agreed that all players typically moved through the suggested JST phases, but the timing and duration fluctuated, depending on the individual, the level they played and moving between divisions and teams: ‘It can be six years for some guys while others make it in a year. I think all players pass through these phases but the duration is unique to each person’ (P3). Coaches, on the other hand, thought that three to four years was a good general estimate for the JST duration. The participants agreed that the preparation phase occurred when players were 17 to 20 years old, while the other phases varied more: ‘The orientation phase could be about two years, where you have to spend some time on the bench. The adaptation phase was more like the third and fourth year for me’ (P2). The following discussion highlights the diverse opinions on the duration of the transition:

P7: I think everything can be faster than what it is here [duration of the phases]. If you get up to a senior team, I would say six months for this [orientation phase] and the rest of the season is the adaptation phase. Starting from the second year I think it should be the stabilization phase.

P6: I don’t think it’s realistic to become an established player after the first season. That would be really hard.

P7: If you have the skills, I think one should be able to be there.

P8: I’m thinking that all of us come from the major clubs and to get established in one of those clubs after the first season will be very hard.

P7: Well, yes. That would be really hard.

P5: So, most often it will take more time.

The participants brought up the possibility of a non-linear progression through the JST phases, noting that players might move back and forth between the phases, especially if they change teams during this period: ‘… It could be the orientation phase or the adaptation phase all over again … If you transfer to a new club, parts of it come up again’ (P5).

The content of the JST phases was seen as dependent on the level the players played. For example, youth culture was perceived as a more common problem in smaller clubs on lower levels than in larger clubs on higher levels. Several coaches suggested that the empirical model partly lacked a holistic perspective of what was going on outside of ice hockey, saying that players’ careers were influenced by a variety of factors including their social circle, school and grades, work and a civil career, parents, agents, own family or moving away from home.

The validated model

The data analyses allowed us to make updates to the empirical model and, thus, to convert it to the validated model (see Figure 2). In the validated model ‘Phases in the JST of Swedish ice hockey players’: (a) the four-phase sequence and phase designations were kept intact as fully supported by the study participants; (b) the duration of the phases was revised and shown to be more flexible; (c) five themes’ labels were changed to better mirror the meanings communicated by participants, and 17 new themes were added to reflect the additional psychological content of each JST phase; (d) themes were partly re-ordered based on the discussion within the research group (keeping in mind participants’ discussions during focus groups). In addition, to facilitate reading the model (from the bottom to the top), we re-structured description of phases (i.e. put demands on the bottom and outcomes on the top). In Figure 2, all changes and updates of the themes and duration of the phases incorporated into the validated model are shown in bold.

Figure 2.

The validated model ‘Phases in the JST of Swedish ice hockey players’. JST: junior-to-senior transition.

Discussion

This study was aimed at further exploration of the JST process in Swedish ice hockey players by means of validation of the empirical model ‘Phases in the JST of Swedish ice hockey players’ created in our previous study.¹ As mentioned above, we have not found any previous studies that could serve as examples of validating empirical models. Therefore, we have developed our approach based on the system’s theory^36,37 with three major steps including: (1) rough synthesis, (2) analysis and (3) synthesis on a higher level. Below, we will follow this logic to discuss the validated model and to relate it to the previous JST research.

Rough synthesis: A summary of the participants’ initial reflections on the empirical model

The initial holistic impressions on the empirical model were important because they influenced the analysis of the model’s content further undertaken by the participants. For example, initial negative impressions could lead to the participants’ low interest in the details of the model and even to their withdrawal from the study. Luckily, the players could recognize their own JST experiences in the empirical model, and the coaches perceived it as a generally proper reflection of the steps that players go through to become established senior players. As players reflected on their own experiences, it was expected that not every theme in the empirical model was going to apply to their individual transition experiences. The coaches’ integrated experiences of their work with multiple transitional players supported the content of the empirical model to a greater extent than opinions of individual players. Both players and coaches agreed to a greater extent with the content of the adaptation and stabilization phases than that of the preparation and the orientation phases. This was also mirrored in the preliminary quantitative examination of the data, based on calculating the number of the participants that agreed or disagreed with particular themes in the empirical model. This examination provided a substantial (but not full) support for the content of the empirical model. Although not all the participants supported each theme, there was no a single theme that was supported by less than 50% of the participants. For example, the theme distorted expectations in the preparation phase was supported by eight participants, but not supported by five. Obviously, not all players experienced distorted expectations, but for some (even for currently well established players), it was an important barrier at a time. In another example, the theme non-sport obligations (studies/job) in the adaptation phase was supported by nine participants and not supported by four. The reason for the different opinions might relate to the players’ professional status and their perception of a need or no need for studies or an additional job. Taking into account that all 59 themes of the empirical model received support at least to some extent, no themes were removed, and the content of the empirical model was kept intact for further discussion and analysis.

Analysis: Participants’ feedback on the content of the JST phases

The participants’ reflections on the psychological content of each JST phase provided a deeper understanding of the players’ JST experiences. As a result of the analytic process, five themes in the empirical model were reformulated to better represent the participants’ experiences, and 17 new themes were added based on the participants’ input.

In the preparation phase, excessive anxiety, non-sport obligations, parents, agents and moving away from home were added as barriers. In the orientation phase, three themes were slightly reformulated, and four new themes were added. The demand to take responsibility and be serious was renamed into to be serious and take responsibility for oneself. Barriers lack of trust and opportunities in the senior team were renamed into perceived lack of the trust and opportunities, reflecting the coaches’ comments that trust and opportunities are not a problem if a player earns them. Based on the players’ comments, a resource trust from the coach was renamed into trust from the team management. The added themes were barriers, such as non-sport obligations, parents, agents and a coping strategy earning trust from team management. The new themes describing more in depth the first two phases of the JST are well supported by the previous JST research. For example, Morris et al.¹⁸ reported British youth football players’ anxieties about moving up to the senior team. Several studies^15,23–28 identified difficulties in combining sport with studies or work during the JST. Furthermore, studies in British equestrian¹⁵ and team sport¹⁶ contexts revealed that parents and agents were sometimes interfering with the successful JST. In the ice hockey context, Battochio et al.³³ described earning trust from the general manager and head coach as one of the major challenges for the Canadian prospect and rookie players, which is comparable to earning trust from team management.

In the adaptation phase, one theme was reformulated (trust from the team management instead of trust from the coach), and four new themes were added. Intrinsic motivation was highlighted as an important resource to keep going as demands and expectations increase, while injuries were emphasised as barriers. Coping strategy striving for a better role was added, based on the participants’ argument that after finding one’s role on the senior team (in the orientation phase) players should strive for a more prominent role, possibly playing special teams (e.g. power play and box play). In the stabilization phase, one theme was renamed (to take more responsibility within the team instead of to take more responsibility), and four themes were added. The new themes included a demand of being a role model, partner and own family as resources, injuries as barriers and a coping strategy prioritizing in life, especially for the players who were yet to secure a professional contract in this phase. In previous studies, role modelling or mentorship of the senior players was shown to be important,³⁴ partners and injuries were described as both facilitating and debilitating in the JST,^16,21,35,40 while prioritizing in life was recommended to help athletes better manage their time and energy and plan for the future.^3,15,28

Synthesis on the higher level: The validated model

Reflecting on the number of the transition phases, the participants thought that four phases were sufficient to describe the transition. Although the participants acknowledged that some phases were ‘closer’ to each other than the others, they easily adopted the phase designations when talking about their own (or their players’) JST experiences. Several participants suggested that the preparation and orientation phases overlap in their content, and the same is true about the adaptation and the stabilization phases. This also means that the biggest gap was found between the orientation and the adaptation phases.

Most players considered the duration of the transition to be between one and four years, while one player felt that his transition lasted for six years. The coaches agreed that three to four years was an accurate estimate for the JST duration for a majority of players. The participants’ views on duration of the JST are in agreement with previous studies,^3,6,28 which estimated the JST to last between one and four years. The perceived duration of each phase also varied among participants. For many, the preparation phase was hard to estimate, since players got contracts with senior teams whenever they were deemed ready by the senior team management. The definitive end of the phase was marked by the age (19–20) when players became too old to play junior ice hockey. The orientation phase was generally described as a learning year, but was reported to last between six months and two seasons by some players. The adaptation phase, according to the participants’ suggestions, lasted for another six months to two seasons, and the stabilization phase for the next one or two seasons.

According to the participants’ experiences, the duration of the JST and its phases were defined by several factors. First, the level of ice hockey has influenced the players’ prospects of having a similar role on the senior team as they had in the junior team. The role they had in the senior team influenced their playing time being one of the crucial developmental opportunities. Furthermore, players perceived that chance, coincidence and luck contributed to the transition process and its pathway. For example, the club’s unstable financial situation might compel the managers to involve more junior players, or let young players take a more prominent role in the senior team, and thereby provide them with more opportunities.

Despite the agreement with the four-phase JST structure, the participants stressed the non-linear and uneven nature of the JST, suggesting that it’s likely for players to move back and forth between phases. Several participants reflected that they experienced moving back to earlier phases when changing to a new team or qualifying for a better league, but that with the experience they gained they could move up faster. It was also mentioned that players often became stuck or moved slowly through one phase, but then suddenly moved faster through the other phases. An interesting reflection was also about the players’ role in the team (i.e. their status and importance) and their playing positions (e.g. forward) as factors influencing the JST process. The participants agreed that the duration and content of the transition were more dependent on the role in the team than on the playing position.

The validated model’s relevance to theoretical frameworks and previous research

The athletic career transition model^3,11 has previously been used and received support in several studies.^{17–19,24–30} This study provided further support to the model and confirmed the usefulness of its components (i.e. demands, resources, barriers, coping strategies and outcomes) as a basis for analysis of the JST process. The participants could follow and discuss the dynamics of the components throughout the four phases of the empirical model, and then helped clarify the components in the validated model.

We got a sense from the previous study¹ that the empirical model came up short on the holistic perspective of the transition, so in this follow-up study, we attempted to expand our understanding of the JST content from the holistic developmental perspective.^12,13 Most players perceived that non-sport issues had a somewhat limited influence on their JST in ice hockey and attributed their successful transition mainly to their own dedication and hard work. Coaches, on the other hand, emphasised non-sport issues in the JST to a greater extent, and they identified school, work, players’ financial situation, parents, agents, players’ social network, partners and family as influential factors. This more holistic perspective on the coaches’ side can be explained by the fact that players reflected on their own successful JST experiences, while coaches reflected on the transition experiences of many players, both successful and less successful.

The validated model confirms previous JST research findings in terms of: (a) increased physical, technical, tactical and mental demands on the senior level;^{3,14–16,18–24} (b) support from family, coaches and teammates as important resources;^24–28,31 (c) parents being both potential resources and barriers;^16,18–19 (d) agents as a possible barrier influencing players negatively;¹⁶ (e) the seriousness of senior sport and higher responsibility for athletes themselves²⁰ and (f) the difficulties of combining sport with other spheres of life^15,23–28 among others.

Applications and future research

Several participants reflected about usefulness of the empirical model for a number of ice hockey stakeholders. We also think that the same is true about the validated model that took into account the participants’ suggestions. First, Swedish ice hockey clubs might use the model to create transition programs to facilitate the players’ JST. For example, clubs can arrange early opportunities for players to acquaint themselves with the senior team and give them chances to assess their capabilities in the senior environment. Second, both coaches and players reflected on the usefulness of the model for coaching and player education. Coaches, for example, knowing that players might experience excessive anxiety and distorted expectations in the beginning of the transition, can aid by communicating their expectations to the novices in a clear and concrete manner. Players can use the model to learn about the JST and apply that knowledge to their career planning. Sport psychology practitioners can use the validated model to position players within the four phases and thereby identify potential working issues. Finally, the validated model can serve as a basis for creating a psychological support system in the JST for Swedish ice hockey players (e.g. a set of workshops for the players to increase their awareness of the JST demands and help them build up resources for successful coping with each JST phase). All these applications are to be supported by further research aimed at developing intervention programs, implementing them and assessing their effectiveness. Other transition researchers might use this study as an inspiration to create the JST empirical and validated models within their respective athletic and sociocultural contexts.

Conclusion

This study aimed at validation of the empirical model ‘Phases in the JST of Swedish ice hockey players’ has two major contributions to the career transition literature. First, the tree-step-structure (i.e. ‘rough synthesis’, ‘analysis’ and ‘synthesis on a higher level’) based on the system’s approach was proposed and showed its usefulness in guiding the validation process and demonstrating how the empirical model was transformed into the validated model. Second, the validated model itself is innovative for career transition research. What it adds to the literature is a four-phase temporal structure with distinct psychological content (i.e. demands, resources, etc.) of each phase relevant to one particular sport and sociocultural context (i.e. Swedish ice hockey). The content of each phase is validated based on the opinions of professional players and experienced coaches that allowed making the model more relevant to Swedish ice hockey context and also more solid and user-friendly. The validated model can be used as: (a) an example for creating empirical transition models in other athletic and sociocultural contexts; (b) a basis for creating a psychological support system for Swedish ice hockey players in the JST; (c) an aid for sport psychology practitioners working with transitional athletes and (d) an aid in player and coaching education, as well as in developing transition programs at club level.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We cordially thank the participants who devoted their time and shared their expertise to make this study happen. We are also grateful to Dr. Maria Cypher for improving readability of the paper and to our two reviewers Drs. Randy Battochio and Roy Samuel for the constrictive comments on the earlier version of the paper.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Note

References

Stambulova

Pehrson

Olsson

. Phases in the junior-to-senior transition of Swedish ice-hockey players: from a conceptual framework to an empirical model. Int J Sport Sci Coaching 2017; 12: 231–244.

Braun

Clarke

. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006; 3: 77–101.

Stambulova

Talent development in sport: the perspective of career transitions. In: Tsung-Min Hung

Lidor

Hackfort

(eds). Psychology of sport excellence, Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, 2009, pp. 63–73.

Stambulova

Alfermann

Statler

et al.

ISSP position stand: career development and transitions of athletes. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol 2009; 7: 395–412.

Stambulova

Wylleman

Athletes’ career development and transitions. In: Papaioannou

Hackfort

(eds). Routledge companion to sport and exercise psychology: global perspectives and fundamental concepts, London: Routledge, 2014, pp. 605–620.

Auweele

De Martelaer

Rzewnicki

et al.

Parents and coaches: a help or harm? Affective outcomes for children in sport. In: Auweele

(ed.). Ethics in youth sport, Leuven, Belgium: Lannoocampus, 2004, pp. 179–194.

Stambulova

Athletes’ transitions in sport and life: positioning new research trends within existing system of athlete career knowledge. In: Schinke

McGannon

Smith

(eds). The Routledge international handbook of sport psychology, New York, NY: Routledge, 2016, pp. 519–535.

Stambulova

Theoretical developments in career transition research: contributions of European sport psychology. In: Raab

Wylleman

Seiler

et al. (eds). Sport and exercise psychology research: from theory to practice, London, UK: Elsevier, 2016, pp. 251–268.

Stambulova

A Look at the future of qualitative methodology through the prism of athlete career research. In: Smith

Sparks

(eds). Handbook on qualitative research methods in sport and exercise, London: Routledge, 2016, pp. 450–460.

10.

Stambulova

Ryba

Setting the bar: towards cultural praxis of athletes’ careers. In: Stambulova

Ryba

(eds). Athletes’ careers across cultures, New York, NY: Routledge, 2013, pp. 235–254.

11.

Stambulova

Symptoms of a crisis-transition: a grounded theory study. In: Hassmén

(ed). SIPF yearbook 2003, Örebro, Sweden: Örebro University Press, 2003, pp. 97–109.

12.

Wylleman

Lavallee

A developmental perspective on transitions faced by athletes. In: Weiss

(ed). Developmental sport and exercise psychology: a lifespan perspective, Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, 2004, pp. 507–527.

13.

Wylleman P, Reints A and De Knop P. A developmental and holistic perspective on athletic career development. In: Sotiaradou P and De Bosscher V (eds) Managing high performance sport. New York, NY: Routledge, 2013, pp.159–182.

14.

Stambulova

. Developmental sports career investigations in Russia: a post-perestroika analysis. Sport Psychol 1994; 8: 221–237.

15.

Pummell

Harwood

Lavallee

. Jumping to the next level: a qualitative examination of within-career transition in adolescent event riders. Psychol Sport Exerc 2007; 9: 427–447.

16.

Finn

McKenna

. Coping with academy-to-first-team transitions in elite English male team sports: the coaches’ perspective. Int J Sport Sci Coaching 2010; 5: 257–279.

17.

Morris

Tod

Oliver

. An analysis of organizational structure and transition outcomes in the youth-to-senior professional soccer transition. J Appl Sport Psychol 2015; 27: 216–234.

18.

Morris R, Tod D and Eubank M. From youth team to first team: an investigation into the transition experiences of young professional athletes in soccer. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol 2016; 15(5): 525–339. DOI: 10.1080/1612197X.2016.1152992.

19.

Morris

Tod

Oliver

. An investigation into stakeholders’ perceptions of the youth-to-senior transition in professional soccer in the United Kingdom. J Appl Sport Psychol 2016; 28: 375–391.

20.

Lorenzo

Borrás

Sánchez

et al.

Career transition from junior to senior in basketball players. Revista de Psicología del Deporte 2009; 18: 309–312.

21.

Jones

Mahoney

Gucciardi

. On the transition into elite rugby league: perceptions of players and coaching staff. Sport Exerc Perform Psychol 2014; 3: 28–45.

22.

Van Yperen

. Why some make it and other do not: identifying psychological factors that predict career success in professional adult soccer. Sport Psychol 2009; 23: 317–329.

23.

Hollings

Mallett

Hume

. The transition from elite junior track-and-field athlete to successful senior athlete: why some do, why others don't. Int J Sport Sci Coaching 2014; 9: 457–472.

24.

Ekengren J. From a dream to reality: the transition from junior to senior national team for twenty national team players. Master’s Thesis, Halmstad University, Sweden, 2002.

25.

Alge E. Successful career transition from young rider to senior in equestrian sport. Master’s Thesis, Halmstad University, Sweden, 2008.

26.

Čačija G. Qualitative study of the junior-to-senior transition in Swedish basketball. Bachelor Thesis, Halmstad University, Sweden, 2007.

27.

Jorlén D. Career transitions for Swedish golf juniors: from regional to national junior elite competitions. Bachelor Thesis, Halmstad University, Sweden, 2007.

28.

Stambulova

Franck

Weibull

. Assessment of the transition from junior-to-senior sports in Swedish athletes. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol 2012; 10: 1–17.

29.

Franck

Stambulova

Weibull

. Profiles of personal characteristics and relevant pathways in the junior-to-senior transition: a longitudinal study of Swedish athletes. Int J Sport Psychol 2016; 6: 483–507.

30.

Franck A, Stambulova N and Ivarsson A. Swedish athletes’ adjustment patterns in the junior-to-senior transition. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol. Epub ahead of print 22 November 2016. DOI:10.1080/1612197X.2016.1256339.

31.

Bruner

Munroe-Chandler

Spink

. Entry to elite sport: a preliminary investigation into the transition experiences of rookie athletes. J Appl Sport Psychol 2008; 20: 236–252.

32.

Schinke

Gauthier

Dubuc

et al.

Understanding athlete adaptation in the national hockey league through an archival data source. Sport Psychol 2007; 21: 277–287.

33.

Battochio

Schinke

Battochio

et al.

The challenges of Canadian players in the National Hockey League. J Clinical Sport Psychol 2009; 3: 267–285.

34.

Battochio

Stambulova

Schinke

. Stages and demands in the careers of Canadian National Hockey League players. J Sport Sci 2016; 34: 277–288.

35.

Battochio RC, Schinke RJ and Stambulova N. Career barriers in the National Hockey League: an inductive thematic analysis of first-hand data from Canadian professional ice hockey players. Int J Sport Psychol. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305620626_Career_barriers_in_the_National_Hockey_League_An_inductive_thematic_analysis_of_first-hand_data_from_Canadian_professional_ice-hockey_players.

36.

Ganzen VA. Сиcтемные описания в психологии [System’s descriptions in psychology]. Leningrad: Leningrad University Press, 1984.

37.

Stambulova

Hvatskaya

Athletes’ careers in Russia: from 1980 Moscow to 2014 Sochi Olympics. In: Stambulova

Ryba

(eds). Athletes’ careers across cultures, London/New York: Routledge, 2013, pp. 160–172.

38.

Krueger

Casey

. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research, 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2015.

39.

Yardley

Bishop

Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: a pragmatic approach. In: Willig

Stainton-Rogers

(eds). The Sage handbook of qualitative research in psychology, London: Sage, 2008, pp. 352–369.

40.

Ivarsson A, Stambulova N and Johnson U. Injury as a career transition: experiences of a Swedish elite handball player. Int J Sport Psychol. Epub ahead of print 11 October 2016. DOI: 10.1080/1612197X.2016.1242149.