Youth athleticism: Perspectives on what is it,why is it important and how to measure it

Abstract

While athleticism is recognised as a guiding principle for youth development, practitioners’ perceptions of athleticism are variable and unidimensional. Therefore, this study aimed to explore academic and practitioner perceptions around the concept of athleticism, including its importance and measurement. A multi-method survey was completed by 167 academics and practitioners (sport coaches and strength and conditioning coaches). The survey consisted of six sections: (1) participant demographics; (2) role specific demographics; (3) knowledge of athleticism; (4) importance of athleticism; (5) perceptions of the current definition of athleticism; and (6) measuring athleticism. Fixed response quantitative data were analysed in SPSS and qualitative data were analysed using template analysis. Athleticism was described as a multi-dimensional (i.e., physical and psychological), dynamic (i.e., product and a process that interacts with the environment), and adaptable (i.e., individual, environment and sporting context specific) concept. Developing athleticism was deemed important for both participation and performance environments for: 1) mental and physical health and wellbeing, 2) engagement in physical activity and sport, 3) enhancing physical and psychosocial characteristics, 4) reducing injury risk, and 5) for successful sporting performance. However, numerous theoretical and practical challenges were identified for measuring athleticism. It is imperative that academics and practitioners working with youth are cognizant of the athleticism descriptors (i.e., multi-dimensional, dynamic and adaptable) when researching and developing youth athleticism.

Keywords

Fitness long-term athletic development motor skills strength and conditioning well-being

Introduction

Youth sport programmes have multiple goals from improving the health, fitness and wellbeing of children and adolescents¹ to creating developmental opportunities for potential future sporting success² and sometimes both. Over the last decade, the concept of long-term athletic development has become popularised to support these ranging goals.¹ In their 2016 position statement, the National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) defined long-term athletic development as “the habitual development of athleticism over time, to improve health and fitness, enhance physical performance, reduce the relative risk of injury and develop the confidence and competence of all youth”.³^(p1492) The central component of long-term athletic development is “athleticism”, defined as “the ability to repeatedly perform a range of movements with precision and confidence in a variety of environments, requiring competent levels of motor skills, strength, power, speed, agility, balance, coordination and endurance”.³^(p1491) These definitions aimed to support the NSCA's position statement to (a) help foster a more unified and holistic approach to long-term athletic development (i.e., unify an integrated approach to athletic development that considers physical, motor skill and psychosocial factors) ; (b) promote the benefits of a lifetime of healthy physical activity (i.e., to encourage a lifelong habit of physical activity by emphasizing the long-term health and wellbeing benefits; and (c) prevent and/or minimize sport and physical activity-related injuries for all boys and girls (i.e., to reduce the risk of injury associated with participating in sport and physical activity).

Both long-term athletic development and athleticism reflect interdisciplinary concepts for use across multiple practitioners (e.g., academics, sports coaches, physical education teachers, strength and conditioning [S&C] coaches) to support the development of youth.⁴ For example, the definition¹ suggests athleticism has four key concepts; motor competence (i.e., performing a range of movements), physical characteristics (i.e., strength, power, speed, agility, balance, coordination, endurance), psychological constructs (i.e., confidence) and a variety of environments (i.e., to display athleticism, or it's components, across a variety of environments e.g., gym, pitch or playground). Whilst the athleticism definition has been presented in the academic literature, limited research exists that explores the conceptualisation of the term from multiple perspectives (e.g., practitioners, academics). To the authors knowledge, only one study⁴ has explored practitioners’ understanding of athleticism, showing perceptions were inconsistent and variable, and mostly unidimensional in nature (i.e., only physical development). For example, Till et al.⁴ showed only 2.7% of practitioners defined all four (i.e., motor competence, physical, psychological, environment) concepts of athleticism with only 2.0% of practitioners acknowledging “psychological components, such as confidence and competence”, as a component of athleticism. This research highlights the varied understanding of the components of athleticism, especially from a psychological perspective. As such, further exploration of practitioners’ perceptions of athleticism is required to support our understanding of athleticism and its development within and across youth.

Whilst the nature of athleticism is complex, and practitioner and academic understanding of it are varied, evidence suggests that developing athleticism is beneficial for athletes, given differences in the movement, physical and psychological characteristics between playing standards.^5–7 However, Lloyd et al.³ stated that all youth, whether they participate in physical activity or sport, should aim to develop their athleticism due to the declines in physical activity,^8,9 motor skills¹⁰ and physical fitness¹¹ across youth. As such the development of athleticism is important for all (e.g., both ‘athletes’ and ‘non-athletes’, athletes referred to as someone who does, competes in, or is good at, sports, organised events, or physical exercise¹²). Nonetheless, recent research⁴ suggests that practitioners still focus upon the ‘athlete’ (i.e., individuals involved in sport¹²) compared to all youths (i.e., a focus on athlete development over principles of LTAD that apply to all youth). This may be due to the similarity in the words (athlete and athleticism), which may impact on the application of long-term athletic development practices. Recent research,^12,13 suggested term use can influence the creation and sharing of knowledge between stakeholders (e.g., researchers, practitioners, policy makers) and potential application.

Within the NSCA's ten pillars for successful long-term athletic development,³ pillar eight recommended monitoring and assessment (i.e., practitioners should use relevant monitoring and assessment tools as part of a long-term athletic development strategy). For example, load monitoring strategies to reduce risks of excessive training or assessment tools to determine the effectiveness of program design, adaptation or to instill youth motivation. ‘What’ this may look like will depend on the resources available in that environment (e.g., facilities, equipment, time, practitioner expertise). However, to the authors’ knowledge, no previous research has measured athleticism in its entirety (i.e., movement, physical, psychological, environment) and whilst research studies^14–16 have measured ‘some’ components of athleticism, it appears unclear how to measure the interdisciplinary concept of athleticism, especially as academics and practitioners, are unclear on how to define it. Alongside these theoretical challenges, measurement in youth populations presents several practical challenges which may impact the ability to effectively measure athleticism. For example, recent research⁴ found practical adherence to the eighth NSCA pillar of monitoring and assessment to be amongst the lowest adhered to pillar, in comparison, health and wellbeing of the child being central to LTAD programs (pillar five) was the most adhered to. This finding is interesting given the abundance of literature surrounding fitness assessments in youth populations,^17–19 yet highlights that further work is required to understand the challenges practitioners perceive when monitoring and assessing youth athleticism. Understanding these challenges better is the first step in providing a clear guide for practitioners to effectively measure athleticism to implement long-term athletic development practices.

In summary, current research is limited exploring the conceptualisation of athleticism. Although athleticism is a core component of recommended long-term athletic development strategies, there is limited empirical evidence constituting what is athleticism, why it is important and how it is measured. Recent research within other popular concepts related to sport (e.g., talent) have started to explore such terms³⁴ due to the different perspectives between individuals (e.g., practitioners, coaches, academics) that paint a blurry picture.¹³ It is therefore crucial that we better understand concepts, such as athleticism, so that they can be used and developed more effectively within practice.²⁰ Therefore, this study aimed to explore academic and practitioner (sport / S&C coaches) perceptions of athleticism including what is athleticism, why is developing athleticism important and what are the challenges associated with measuring athleticism.

Methods

Research philosophy and design

To explore practitioner and academics perceptions of athleticism, this cross-sectional study used an online multi-method survey (quantitative and qualitative methods). A multi-method design was deemed appropriate due to the pragmatic research philosophy adopted.²¹ A pragmatist research philosophy uses the most appropriate methods to investigate the research question, with the goal of producing useful, applicable findings,²² which in this study was to understand athleticism, from a research and applied perspective. The sample was purposively selected, participants were required to work as an academic, sports coach or S&C coach, either (or both) coaching or researching youth environments. This sample was selected to explore the knowledge, experiences, and reflections²³ of those that impact youth athleticism.

The survey was adapted from previous surveys in similar domains^4,24 and was then further developed to address the research questions of the current study. A range of short open-ended questions were included to provide greater opportunity for qualitative responses to expand on the current knowledge of athleticism. Prior to distribution the survey was reviewed, and pilot tested by the research team. The survey was circulated internationally, the only inclusion criteria was that participants must work in youth environments; researching or coaching participants 18 years of age or younger. Participants were recruited via social media platforms and email, the research team posted a link to the survey on their social media, or a link to the survey was sent to the research teams’ connections via email. The survey remained open for five weeks (until no new survey responses were submitted). Institutional ethical approval was gained from the lead author's university. All participants were informed of the risks and benefits of taking part in the study before providing consent to their participation.

Participants

The survey gathered 167 responses. Participants included 138 males (82.6%), 27 females (16.2%), one non-binary individual (0.6%) and one undisclosed individual (0.6%). The sample included 19 researchers, 69 sports coaches, 42 S&C coaches, and 37 researcher-practitioners (i.e., undertook a university and applied coaching role). Six participants were volunteers, 15 worked part time and 146 were employed full time. The average age of participants was 36.4 ± 11.1 years (range = 20–65 years). Participants academic qualifications included secondary education (n = 3), A-levels/ Business and Technology Educational Council (BTEC; n = 13), BSc (n = 47), post graduate qualification (n = 14), MSc (n = 50) and PhD / Professional doctorate (n = 28). Twenty-four of the S&C coaches were accredited (UK Strength and Conditioning Association/National Strength and Conditioning Association/Australian Strength and Conditioning Association), with six in the process of completing accreditation. Coaching qualifications ranged from level 1 to 4 in the UK coaching framework across a range of sports (football, rugby, handball, basketball, athletics, weightlifting, cricket, swimming, netball, tennis, fencing, golf, equestrian, squash and hockey), as well as European coaching qualifications (e.g., Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) “Pro” or A licence). Participants worked with male only athletes (n = 30), female only athletes (n = 9) and groups consisting of both sexes (n = 127). Participants worked with a range of age groups: under 12 (n = 52), 12–13 (n = 70), 14–16 (n = 117) and 17–18 (n = 107), and across multiple levels (i.e., school, club, talent pathway, elite).

Measures

To explore participants perceptions of athleticism they completed an online survey (Qualtrics, Provo, USA). The survey consisted of six sections: (1) participant demographics; (2) role specific demographics (separate for academic, coach and research-practitioner); (3) knowledge of athleticism; (4) importance of athleticism; (5) perceptions of the current definition of athleticism; and (6) measuring athleticism. These six sections were designed to answer three main questions; what is athleticism? (Section 3), why is developing athleticism important? (Section 4 and 5) and what are the challenges associated with measuring athleticism? (Section 6). Each section consisted of both qualitative (e.g., open-ended text entry) and quantitative (e.g., Likert) questions.

The demographics section included questions about the participant, including age, gender, job role and qualifications. Role specific demographics included questions about the groups and specific sports they research/coach. In the knowledge section, participants were asked to define athleticism and comment on whether they believed athleticism is a product, a process, or both, and why. In the importance section participants were asked their perceived importance on certain characteristics of athleticism using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all important, 5 = extremely important). In the current definition section, participants were asked on their agreeability of the definition³ using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree). Participants were also asked if they would remove any characteristics from the definition or add any characteristics. In the measuring athleticism section, participants were asked which components they thought were important to measure and the challenges that are associated with measuring athleticism, or any of the characteristics of athleticism. Only surveys that had one fully completed section (from sections 3–6) were included in the analysis.

Data analysis

First the data was exported from Qualtrics into an excel file. Due to the quantitative and qualitative data collected, multiple methods were used to analyse the data. Fixed response quantitative data were analysed in SPSS 26.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA). Data were reported as medians and interquartile ranges (IQR), frequencies and percentages of total responses, where appropriate.

Open-ended questions were analysed using template analysis. Template analysis is a qualitative data analysis method, a form of thematic analysis, that uses a hierarchical coding template to analyse textual data,²⁷ such as interview transcripts. This method was chosen due to the structured yet flexible nature, allowing the researcher to interact with the data before confirming the template. Template analysis has been referred to as a midpoint between coding reliability approaches and the reflexive approach²⁸ and is typically used in fields of sport science and psychology.²⁷ The sections that included qualitative data analysis were knowledge (what is athleticism?), importance (why is developing athleticism important?) and measuring athleticism (what are the challenges associated with measuring athleticism?) Each section was analysed separately, and a different template was created for each. When designing the template, the following process took place.^25–28

Familiarisation. Once the data was exported into Excel, the lead researcher read through the full data set.

Preliminary coding. Consistent with medium q approaches, both deductive and inductive coding procedures took place. There were expected such as “Physical characteristics” and “Psychological characteristics”. However, an inductive process took place also, where some unexpected themes were identified such as “Individual and context specific”.

Organise themes into meaningful clusters. This process included organising themes into a hierarchical order. For example, under the higher order theme “Process”, there were two themes: “The long-term development of athleticism” and “Factors that may impact the development of athleticism”.

Define an initial coding template. From the previous steps, the researcher then defined an initial coding template. This was created in a word document where hierarchical themes were organised and defined (as can be seen in Table 1).

Apply the template to the data. The template was then applied to the data and modified where necessary. For example, after applying the template to the data, the theme “the long-term development of athleticism” was developed from the original theme name of “the development of athleticism” because the notion that this development was long term became apparent throughout the data set.

Finalise the template and apply it to the data set. The finalised template was applied to the data set and the data analysed accordingly. When reporting the data, quotes include a participant code. The letter at the begging refers to the participants job role (i.e., SC = S&C, C = sports coach, R = researcher, RP = researcher-practitioners) and the number following the letter refers to the participant number (e.g., RP23).

Table 1.

Practitioners’ perceptions of athleticism.

Higher order theme	Theme	Explanation	Example Quote
Physical characteristics	Physical characteristics that are within the current athleticism definition	Athleticism is associated with the physical characteristics one possesses; participants mentioned some characteristics that were listen within the current definition of athleticism.	“The translation of physical qualities e.g., strength, speed etc, into effective sport-specific or related movements in situ.” (C6) “Athleticism; to continuously perform sport specific skill sets based around participants abilities of endurance, speed, power etc.” (RP14)
	Physical characteristics beyond the current athleticism definition	Some characteristics reported were beyond that of the originally presented athleticism definition, such as: elasticity, mobility, and “robustness”. Some practitioners provided physical characteristics that defined the subcomponents of characteristics already presented in the definition, for example listing acceleration and maximum velocity or aerobic and anaerobic capacity.	“The all-round physical competence and robustness of an athlete, characterised by their fundamental movement skills, strength, power, fitness, speed (acceleration and max velocity) and agility.” (RP18)
Psychological characteristics	Psychosocial characteristics	Practitioners recognised a psychosocial component in defining athleticism, specifically confidence and self-perception. Participants associated psychosocial characteristics with how athleticism should be displayed as well as the benefits for performance.	“The combination of physiological and psychological factors which determine performance for any individual athlete, including their own self-perceptions of said factors.” (SC39)“The ability to perform a range of movements with accuracy, flow and confidence”. (RP15)
	Cognitive characteristics	Cognitive skills have been defined as the “need to acquire, process, store and act on information from the environment in an adaptive way” (Bayne et al., 2019). Practitioners acknowledged perceptual skills and technical and tactical knowledge was important for athleticism. It is interesting to note that practitioners don’t just see the athleticism as the ability to display the movement/skill but also the need for the individual to have selected the correct movement/skill in relation to their environment.	“The ability to effectively select and demonstrate an appropriate and efficient movement solution to a movement problem.” (SC7)“I think in a sporting context it can also entail the other domains of technical and tactical.” (R9)“The ability of an athlete to problem solve using a variety of physical qualities and tactical awareness.” (SC3)
	Lack of detail and understanding	Practitioners were vague and lacked detail when presenting the psychological component, potentially displaying a lack of knowledge or confusion about what psychological characteristics specifically are important to athleticism.	“Good psychological characteristics” (RP19)“The ability to show agility, adaptability both physically and mentally” (C46)“The ability of a person to perform a solution to a variety of tasks effectively and efficiently, utilising their physical and mental capabilities.” (SC26)
Product	Athleticism depends on natural ability	Practitioners identified the role genetics and natural ability play in an individual's athleticism and how this athleticism can be “displayed”.	“Athleticism can be a specific display of physical characteristics or qualities, either as a natural gift or talent.” (SC29)
	Athleticism can be measured	Participants stated athleticism is a product because it can be measured and assessed, thereby producing the product. For example, someone's power by be assessed by measuring their countermovement jump.	“It is also an outcome that can be defined through testing and assessment.” (SC32)
	Athleticism is visible	When defining athleticism practitioners referred to something that can be seen, such as moving with “style” or “flow” or described how the movement should be executed using words such as “control”. There is also the perception that this display of athleticism is being demonstrated technically to a high standard. It is assumed that participants are describing something physical here, however terms such as “style” or “grace” may imply a psychological input, for example, it may be displayed with confidence. Interestingly participants don’t disclose in what environment athleticism is observed, for example on the pitch or in the gym. One participant suggested athleticism is in different environments, making us question whether you can have ‘athleticism’ if you are only able to display it in one environment.	“To move with style and grace in different situations and in different environments, consistently.” (R7)“We talk about people being athletic or showing “athleticism.” (R3)“Athleticism is an outcome (i.e., what we see in a sporting context).” (R17)“The ability to coordinate one's body effectively and efficiently to achieve an outcome preferential to performance in a given activity” (SC28)
Process	The long-term development of athleticism	Practitioners expressed how athleticism is a developmental process, it is seen as something that can always be built upon and therefore links to athleticism being a long-term process. Similarly, one's athleticism can also regress, and therefore may be thought of as more of a “continuum” or “journey”.	“For me athleticism is on a scale. An Athlete's athleticism can be continuously developed.” (C5)“I am not sure anybody ever fully meets true athleticism, and that athletes at all levels can always get better in some capacity. Therefore, we work towards the final product, but never achieve it.” (R13)“Although athleticism is an outcome, it is also a developmental journey as most youth athletes excel in 1 aspect of athleticism but are not the well-rounded athlete, they are looking to become.” (SC23)
Process	Factors that may impact the development of athleticism	Participants also referred to factors that impact the development of athleticism, such as opportunities to play and train, or uncontrollable factors such as growth and maturation and environmental factors.	“Through a process of play/ exploration/ coaching” (C60)“We can see fluctuations… due to various factors e.g., growth and maturation, psychological development, environmental factors etc.” (RP22)
Both a product and a process		Whilst some participants stated being athletic as the product, they also suggested that athleticism can be developed through a training process. Regardless of athleticism being a natural ability, some practitioners also believed that athleticism can and should be developed. Again, there are links here to athleticism being a long-term journey and a focus on the environments that are required such as “holistic” and “well-rounded” programs, highlighting the importance of not solely focusing on physical factors to develop athleticism.	“You can be born naturally more athletic than others… But a lot of athletic skills can be trained and improved…” (C45)“Athleticism is outcome-focused in terms of being able to quantify changes in athletic qualities (e.g., strength, speed, endurance tests), however, this process should be targeted in a long-term format with the aim to enhance the child's understanding and appreciation of athletic development, which ideally occurs within a holistic, well-rounded programme.” (R15)
Individual, environment and context specific		It was highlighted that what athleticism is and looks like and, is different depending upon the individual (their age/maturation) their environment (PA or performance) and sporting context (their given sport and/or position). Therefore, athleticism needs to be adaptable to the athlete and context, as does the process of developing it. This is an interesting perspective given the intended general nature of athleticism.	“What that athleticism looks like and is characterised will be context dependent contingent upon the sport, the level of the athlete, and maturity of the athlete”. (RP25)“Athleticism is the ability to demonstrate high levels of physical skill in both a technical and non-technical environment.” (SC11)“I feel as though the definition of athleticism is not set in stone as positional demands are a big factor in an athlete's athletic requirements.” (SC23)

Research rigour

Research²⁹ suggests strategies to ensure rigour in the process of qualitative research. Athleticism is a core component of long-term athletic development, yet it would appear there is a lack of consensus of the meaning of athleticism by practitioners.⁴ Consequently, there is a strong rationale to complete the current study, as provided in the introduction. Exploring what athleticism is will mean that athleticism can be better developed in youth populations, suggesting the worthiness of the project. The sampling strategy in the current study was carefully developed (e.g., inclusion criteria) to represent the voices of the key interest-holders that develop youth athleticism. Although the sample size was not extensive in comparison to other surveys exploring other concepts, such as long-term athletic development⁴ and multi-disciplinary factors affecting talent identification,³⁰ it is believed the triangulation of perspectives provides a comprehensive view on youth athleticism. The survey was pilot tested by the research team, whereby small adjustments were made such as wording and order of questions.

Results

What is athleticism?

Participants responded that athleticism was a product (n = 18; 10.8%), process (n = 55; 32.9%), and both a product and process (n = 91; 54.5%), with 1.8% (n = 3) of participants not responding to this question.

Table 1 presents six key themes identified were ‘physical characteristics’, ‘psychological characteristics’, a ‘process’, a ‘product’, a ‘product and process’, and ‘individual, environment and context specific’ (Table 1). When practitioners mentioned the physical characteristics, they listed characteristics within the current definition (e.g., strength, speed) but stated further characteristics (e.g., “elasticity”, “mobility”). When referring to the psychological component, both psychosocial (i.e., confidence and competence) and cognitive characteristics (i.e., decision making) were provided alongside other concepts like “athletic mindset” or “good psychological characteristics”. Practitioners, referred to psychological concepts such as an “athletic mindset” or “good psychological characteristics”. Whilst being something that can be measured or observed (a product), athleticism was also seen as a long-term developmental concept that will progress or regress (a process) depending upon the environment provided (e.g., opportunities to play or train) or a combination of a product and process. The individual and context specific nature theme showed that athleticism can differ dependent upon the individual (e.g., their age/maturation), their environment (i.e., physical activity or sports performance) and/or their sporting context (i.e., their given sport and/or position). position).

The importance of different characteristics for athleticism

Table 2 presents the median (Inter Quartile Range; IQR) for participants perceived importance of the characteristics of athleticism, presented by all participants and individual role. Participants suggested physical characteristics were more important (5(1)) than psychological characteristics (4(1)).

Table 2.

Participants importance of characteristics for athleticism.

Characteristics	Whole group	Academic	Sports coach	S&C	Combined
Physical characteristics	5(1)	5(1)	4(1)	5(1)	5(1)
Psychological characteristics	4(1)	4(1)	4(0)	4(1)	4(2)
Motivation	4(1)	5(1)	4(1)	4(0)	4(2)
Knowledge and understanding	4(1)	4(1)	4(1)	3(1)	3.5(1)
Motor skills	5(1)	5(1)	5(1)	4(1)	5(1)
Strength	4(2)	4(1)	4(1)	4(1)	4(1)
Power	4(2)	4(1)	4(1)	4(1)	4(1)
Speed	4(1)	4(1)	4(2)	4(1)	4(1)
Agility	4(1)	4(1)	4(1)	4(1)	4(1)
Balance	4(1)	4(2)	4(1)	4(1)	4(2)
Aerobic endurance	4(1)	4(1)	4(1)	4(1)	4(1)
Confidence	4(1)	5(1)	4(1)	4(0)	4(1)
Self-esteem	4(1)	4(1)	4(1)	4(1)	4(1)
Perceived competence	4(1)	4(1)	4(1)	4(1)	4(2)

Data is reported as median (IQR) for the 1 to 5 likert scales. 1 = not at all important; 2 = slightly important; 3 = moderately important; 4 = very important; 5 = extremely important

Why is developing athleticism important in youths?

Table 3 summarises the themes based on practitioners’ perceptions of the importance of athleticism. Practitioners discussed the importance of developing athleticism either in relation to general wellbeing and physical activity participation, or successful sporting performance. General wellbeing and physical activity participation displays participants perceptions around the importance of athleticism for mental and physical health and well-being, engagement in physical activity and sport and to enhance physical and psychosocial characteristics. Whilst participants recognised athleticism as being important and relevant for these two different environments (physical activity participation and sporting performance), it was also recognised that what athleticism is and looks like in these two environments is different. These perceptions created four higher order themes: ‘general wellbeing and participation in physical activity and sport’, ‘for successful sporting performance’, ‘the difference of athleticism from physical activity to performance’, and ‘the relevance of athleticism from physical activity to performance’. The relevance refers to athleticism being seen as the building blocks that leads from one environment to the other or the foundations from which more complex, or sport specific skills can be built upon and the importance of athleticism for reducing injury risk in both environments. However, it is also noted that what athleticism is, and the characteristics athleticism is composed of, is different in these environments, this again reinforces the perception that the concept athleticism is adaptable.

Table 3.

Practitioners perceptions of the importance of athleticism.

Higher order theme	Theme	Explanation	Example Data
General wellbeing and participation in physical activity and sport	Mental and physical health and wellbeing	Participants suggested athleticism was important for both physical and mental health. While some benefits to physical health were listed, no specificity was given to how athleticism helps mental health and wellbeing.	“Healthier (e.g., reduced risk of obesity and cardiovascular disease).” (RP18)“Athleticism should lead to better adult health and positive lifestyles”. (RP22)“For mental health as well as physical”. (C55)
	Engagement in physical activity and sport	Participants highlighted athleticism as being important to youth so that they’re able to participate in physical activity and sport, hopefully for lifelong engagement. Participants suggested developing athleticism allows enjoyment in physical activity and sport, therefore, hopefully leading to lifelong engagement.	“To enable children to be physically active”. (R5)“Allows them to enjoy a wide range of activities”. (RP3)“To enjoy sport or physical activity and therefore stay with it for longer”. (SC34)
	Enhance physical and psychosocial characteristics	Participants said that improving athleticism will result in improved competence and confidence, this is then thought to encourage lifelong participation in sport. Other psychological characteristics were noted: motivation, competence and self-perceptions of their athleticism.It is interesting to note that psychosocial characteristics were rarely associated with successful performance.	“Increased confidence both on and off the playing surface” (RP2)“Because it builds confidence and competence to engage in a range of physical activity across the lifespan”. (SC7)“Provides them with confidence in their abilities, thus encouraging further opportunities for sporting exploration.” (SC24)“Build confidence and self-perceptions of their athleticism”. (R15)“Keeps them motivated”. (RP3)
For successful sporting performance		This theme presents the perspectives that athleticism is important so that youth are able to perform sport to a high standard, or at least given the freedom to move into performing environment if they desire. The associations with high performance are interesting given the purpose of athleticism being “for all youth”.	“This allows them to engage in higher levels of sport, competition and training environments.” (SC17)“In the context of youth sport, increased athleticism may also enhance the chances of a Youth athlete displaying sport-specific skills when performing and potentially being selected within talent pathways.” (SC20)“You need to have athleticism to be able to compete and win.” (C25)
The difference of athleticism from physical activity to performance		Highlighted by participants that athleticism for physical activity and athleticism for performance are different things. This is important as it displays what athleticism is and the purpose of developing it is different in both environments. One practitioner suggested breadth and depth in PA environments while another suggests that one may have low levels of athleticism in PA environments.	“Athleticism in the context of sport and athleticism in the context of PA and they are different things”. (R8)“Without any degree of athleticism, it is difficult to perform in any sport, even recreational sport. Those wishing to perform in competitive sports need to display a higher level of athleticism.” (C51)“Depends on the age, certain aspects of athleticism become more important as you get older and begin to specialise in a sport perhaps. At younger ages developing a good grounding in all aspects of athleticism will allow them to transition into many different sports later down the line.” (SC8)
The relevance of athleticism from physical activity to performance	Building blocks of movement	Athleticism was seen as the building block, which allow more complex and sport-specific movements to be completed and allows individuals to move between recreational physical activity to sporting performance environments.	“Athleticism provides the foundations on which all sport and physical activity are based.” (RP19)“Increases the opportunity for youth to sample and excel in multiple sporting environments”. (SC24)“Allows them to engage in higher levels of sport, competition and training environments.” (SC17)“Increased athleticism may also enhance the chances of a Youth athlete displaying sport-specific skills when performing and potentially being selected within talent pathways.” (SC20)
	Reduce the risk of injury	Participants highlighted the importance of athleticism for reducing the risk of injury, both within and outside of a sporting context.	“This movement toolbox reduces likelihood of injury”. (RP7)“To enable children to be physically active, to participate in sport and potentially excel in sport, and to withstand the rigours of both (i.e., avoid injury).” (R5)“To help improved performance as well as pursuing sporting development with reduced risk of injury.” (C49)“Have reduced risk of injury, and therefore more opportunity to be involved in sport and recreational activity”. (RP20)

Measuring athleticism

Importance

Practitioners reported their perceived importance in measuring the characteristics of athleticism, MC (n = 100, 59.9%), speed (n = 93, 55.7%), power (n = 84, 50.3%), strength (n = 83, 49.7%), agility (n = 75, 44.9%), aerobic capacity (n = 68, 40.7%), balance (n = 61, 36.5%), confidence (n = 64, 38.3%) and self-esteem (n = 54, 32.3%).

Challenges associated with measuring athleticism

Table 4 presents the qualitative analysis of practitioners’ perceptions of the challenges faced when measuring athleticism, highlighting numerous theoretical and practical challenges. Six higher order themes were identified; ‘perceptions that misalign with the concept of LTAD’, ‘concerns over practitioner knowledge’, ‘concerns with validity and reliability’, ‘measurement is context dependent’, ‘logistical considerations’ and ‘organisational considerations’. Participants perceptions misaligned from the NSCA's pillars of LTAD as some participants suggested assessments’ lack of game specificity and were concerned over identifying “talent” or “true change” through growth and maturation. Further concerns on knowledge were displayed, with participants suggesting that practitioners were not capable or comfortable, particularly measuring the psychological characteristics. Other theoretical challenges mentioned were practitioners’ uncertainty around the most valid and reliable measures (again, displaying particular concern over the psychological measures) and the perception that measurement is context specific. Participants suggested that practitioners consider the context athleticism should be measured in, as measurement would be different for different individuals and sports, supporting the idea that practitioners perceive athleticism as an adaptable concept. Participants also stated some practical challenges to consider, these included numerous logistical (e.g., finding time around academics and training and participant and/or parent/guardian feelings) and organisational (e.g., budget, staffing and equipment) challenges that need to be considered when aiming to measure youth athleticism.

Table 4.

Practitioners’ perceptions around the challenges associated with measuring athleticism.

Higher order theme	Theme	Explanation	Example data
Perceptions that misalign with the concept LTAD	Measures lack game or sport specificity	Athleticism measures lack game or sport specificity is interesting given the sport specific nature this imposes and how this may misalign with the concept of LTAD and the NSCA pillars.	“Lab or field-based tests are usually too controlled to be able to conclude that the findings of the tests directly translate to the field of play.” (RP7)“The tests associated with attributes are often isolated and not a fair reflection of athleticism in the sporting context.” (R13)“Typical assessments of movement competency may not reflect the specific movement needs of individual sports.” (RP16)“The measurement is often separate from the movement skills so does not necessarily indicate higher performance”. (RP11)Athletes that perform well in closed tasks such as testing may not be able to transfer that ability in a sporting context. Sc3
Perceptions that misalign with the concept LTAD	‘True change’, ‘talent’ or growth and maturation?	Participants perceive growth and maturation as a challenge when identifying what is ‘true change’ or ‘talent’ and what is maturation.	“Growth and maturation status makes the data for younger ages difficult to use to identify talent”. (RP11)“Correcting for growth and knowing what is a true or negative change”. (SC4)
Concerns over practitioner knowledge	Psychological measures	Participants highlight the psychological measures as being beyond what practitioners are comfortable of capable of administering.	“Psychological assessment beyond the tools most coaches have or are comfortable with”. (C2)“Hard to measure confidence as it is a personal attribute.” (C20)“For some of these, especially the psychological traits I’m unsure as to how you would measure them. For others, I’m unsure as to the benefit of testing for them”. (RP21)
Concerns over practitioner knowledge	Capability of practitioners	Participants highlight the competency or capability of practitioners being a challenge to measuring.	“Competency of people measuring” (RP3)“Trained practitioners to administer testing protocols.” (C21)
Concerns with validity and reliability	Subjectivity of related assessments	Participants are concerned about the subjectivity of some of the assessments used to measure athleticism.	“Direct relationship between the outcome measure and the general ability to describe someone as athletic based on subjective observation”. (SC22)“They can be very subjective so for instance movement competency, the way people rate that may vary from person to person”. (SC21)
	Subjectivity of the concept of athleticism	It is highlighted that athleticism may be about perception, rather than an objective measure, making athleticism itself subjective.	“I think athleticism is about perception and would think of it taking many tests to pull together to get a result.” (C37)
	Low external validity	Participants questioned the generalisability and appropriateness of tests as they do not reflect sporting performance.	“Typical assessments of movement competency may not reflect the specific movement needs of individual sports.” (RP16)“The tests associated with attributes are often isolated and not a fair reflection of athletics in the sporting context” (R13)
	Concerns with the psychological measures	Participants expressed concerns with the validity, reliability of psychological measures and their use within youth populations.	“Factors such as confidence and self-esteem can be transient and situational making it difficult to apply measurements taken outside of match and training situations.” (RP16)“Psychometrics aren’t validated for all populations”. (SC10)“Psychological measures of athleticism can be difficult without first educating the athletes on its purpose or with younger athletes who do not have a strong understanding of what athleticism is or how to self-evaluate.” (SC24)“Ensuring young athletes understand the types of questions to assess psychological constructs can be difficult.” (RP24)
	Internal factors	Participants recognised internal factors that may affect the reliability of testing, such as motivation, technique and organisation.	“If they are aged 13-18 they’ll probably forget and won’t turn up to the session” (SC8)“Technique is a big challenge when strength testing as under higher loads, the athlete's movement competency may go out the window”. (SC23)“Motivation and experience” (C60)
Measurement is context dependent	Depending on the individual	Participants suggest that athleticism is context dependent and therefore, measuring athleticism is also context dependent, based upon the individual's stage of development and the sport they participate in.	“These are all dependent on the individual and will be related to their chosen sport.” (RP5)“The characteristics are likely to change at different development stages and therefore being aware of different scales and ways to measure them accurately for different ages.” (C63)“The specific athleticism characteristics needed will differ from sport to sport and so the task being undertaken needs to be considered when measuring what good athleticism is.” (C45)
	Depending on the environment	Some participants highlight athleticism may be different in different environments, such as different sports. Here it was also highlighted that the environment that you measure in, only encapsulates that one environment.	“There are different levels of athleticism required for each sport, and one athlete may not be considered athletic in one sport but excels in another. And in some areas or some teams, the best ‘athlete’ (in terms of physical or mental qualities) may not be the best compared to others when they step on the pitch or the court, field or track.” (SC17)
	Depending on what characteristics are perceived as important	Participants suggest that what is measured, and the result of that measurement will depend on what characteristics are perceived as important.	“Different people can be athletic in different ways. Some people may have really strong balance, and that makes them a strong athlete, even if other components are low.” (C1)“It is complex due to multiple factors to quantify athleticism, as what if an athlete is really strong, powerful and has good acceleration/max velocity, but has poor aerobic fitness?” (RP19)
Logistical Considerations	Time and space around academic and training commitments	Participants mentioned logistical issues when measuring athleticism, these included: finding appropriate times of the year and space.	“With athletes at a school it is difficult finding the time to measure some of these characteristics and making sure the pupils are prepared properly, due to workload and other commitments in school”. (SC30)“Finding the right time and place to do testing that doesn’t interfere with training sessions and allows athletes to present to their best ability.” (SC39)
Logistical Considerations	Feelings of the participant and/or their parents/guardians	Participants spoke about how the participants, or their parents, may feel when being tested.	“Parents hate their kids being measured; kids hate comparing measurements with other kids in a similar position to them.” (SC5)“It can be seen negatively by athletes as a test”. (SC18)
Organisational considerations	Time consuming	Participants refer to the tests being time consuming and other factors may be more important.	“A lot of components so can be time consuming with a lot of athletes”. (SC8)“Time it takes to measure when athletes could be playing and learning”. (C8)
	Budgets	Participants refer to budgets as being a challenge.	“Especially in a field setting with small budgets”. (RP13)“Budget”. (R9)
	Staffing	Participants mention the challenges that are associated with either not having enough staff, or staff who are untrained in completing the measures.	“Staff (both availability and trained on the measures).” (RP20)“It can be challenging to measure all characteristics from a time perspective e.g., movement competency can be labour intensive.” (RP24)“Trained practitioners to administer testing protocols.” (C21)
	Equipment	Participants find it hard to access the equipment needed for valid and reliable measures.	“If resources are tight as they often are in youth sport prioritising of characteristics is needed”. (SC14)“Access to high quality equipment – for example – speed gates, standing broad jump mats.” (C12)

Discussion

The way terms, such as athleticism, are understood can influence the creation and sharing of knowledge between interest-holders and shape behaviour and policy.^12,20 Consequently, it is imperative that athleticism is further explored. The purpose of the current study was to explore academic and practitioner perceptions around the concept of athleticism, including the importance and measurement of athleticism. The findings of the current study describe athleticism as a multi-dimensional, dynamic, and adaptable concept. Practitioners perceived athleticism to be important for both wellbeing and participation in physical activity, and for successful sport performance, emphasising the importance of developing athleticism for all youth. Participants highlighted numerous practical and theoretical challenges associated with measuring youth athleticism. It is crucial that those involved in knowledge creation, dissemination and application consider the ways in which athleticism is described, to support programs aimed at developing youth athleticism.

What is athleticism?

As per research into the conceptualisation of terms such as talent and coaching,^31–34 the findings of this study suggest athleticism may be too complex to be defined within a singular definition. Therefore, the current study has adopted previous research³¹ and explored athleticism through description. Athleticism was found to be multi-dimensional, with findings demonstrating a physical and psychological component of athleticism. When referring to the physical characteristics, practitioners were detailed and extensive in their descriptions offering greater depth than the definition³ (e.g., acceleration and maximum velocity rather than just speed). When referring to the psychological component practitioners, were often vague (e.g., “an athletic mindset” or “good psychological characteristics”). It is acknowledged that the participants in the current study were either sports coaches or S&C coaches, not trained psychologists. However, given psychological characteristics are a recognized component of athleticism,³ better support may be required for practitioners to understand the role the psychological component plays in the development of youth athleticism and how practitioners are able to develop it. It may be important to note differences in terminology here, between long-term athletic development and long-term athlete development. Long-term athlete development is thought to apply to athletes, whereas long-term athletic development is considered for all youth.⁴ It is the goal of long-term athletic development programs to develop all youths’ athleticism.⁴ Interestingly, the CYDM¹ pays greater attention to the psychological influence in youth development than previous LTAD models. CYDM focuses on self-esteem, and then in later adolescence, confidence, and/or if specializing, ‘sport-specific psychological skills’. However, participants in the current study suggested a new psychological characteristic that was not stated within the current definition of athleticism; cognitive characteristics, such as decision making, problem solving or technical and tactical awareness.

Cognitive characteristics have previously been researched in talent development environments³⁵ and are found to be a component of talent.³¹ The recognition of cognitive characteristics related to athleticism in this study is interesting, due to the potential for sport specific aspects of decision making and tactical understanding, and how this might contrast with the intended general nature of athleticism. One explanation for this finding may be due to the sample including sports coaches and S&C coaches, the majority of which worked with adolescents in specific sports. It is important to question whether cognitive characteristics are a component of athleticism or whether cognitive characteristics are in fact components of talent or sport-specific development. It is also important to acknowledge both the product and the process of these terms, talent verses talent development, athleticism verses athletic development. It may be that some characteristics (e.g., confidence) are important to the process of developing athleticism, but some may be important for the product (e.g., cognitive characteristics). Some practitioners found it difficult to distinguish between these two vague concepts; ‘athleticism’ and ‘talent’, writing “athleticism is talent” (C49). This result highlights the need to further explore where athleticism sits within, or around, talent development, the product and process of athleticism and perceptions around athleticism and sport-specificity (i.e., is athleticism general or sport-specific, or both?)

Participants also identified athleticism as an adaptable and dynamic concept. The theme ‘individual, environment and sporting context specific’ demonstrates the difference in athleticism for different individuals, their environment and/or their sporting context. It could therefore be argued that a singular definition of athleticism cannot be applicable across different environments, sports or positions. However, the term athleticism is utilised across these different environments and sporting contexts, therefore highlighting the need for practitioners to understand the adaptable nature of athleticism. Research³⁶ explores these different environments; participation, development, and performance, referring to a “three worlds continuum”. The three worlds continuum refers to: participation for personal well-being, personal references excellence (club competitor) and elite referenced excellent (world class performer). If we liken this research to athleticism, it could be that athleticism can cover different environments or ‘worlds’ (e.g., participation, development, and performance) because athleticism is relevant and applicable to all three but how athleticism is defined and how athleticism looks may be different in these different environments. The theme ‘athleticism is the building blocks’ supports this conclusion, and the idea presented by Collins et al.³⁶ as this theme highlights how athleticism allows individuals to progress from one environment to the other, and how athleticism lays the foundation for sport specific skills to be developed.

Why is developing athleticism important and what characteristics are important to it?

Athleticism was deemed important for ‘general well-being and physical activity participation’ and ‘successful sporting performance’. While the athleticism was perceived to be different in both physical activity and sport performance environments, athleticism was also suggested to underpin the building blocks of movement and allow individuals to progress and regress between these environments (i.e., participation to performance). Previous literature supports these findings, suggesting that developing athleticism is important to ensure health and wellbeing, maximize participation in physical activity and reduce the risk of injury.¹ Findings demonstrated how practitioners perceived physical characteristics (5(1)) as more important than psychological characteristics (4(1)) for athleticism. Although psychological components (e.g., confidence and competence) are not well recognised by practitioners,⁴ research demonstrates psychological components are important for athleticism from both a physical activity and sports perspective.^37–40 All other physical characteristics (power, speed, agility, balance and aerobic endurance) were rated as equally important. However, it is acknowledged that a quantitative analysis may not have been the best method of exploring the importance of the characteristics of athleticism, given the importance of characteristics may change depending on the individual, their environment and sporting context. Considering the adaptable, dynamic and evidently, complex nature of athleticism, findings highlight the need to explore the characteristics of athleticism further from a qualitative perspective.

What are the challenges associated with measuring youth athleticism?

The findings of this study showed practitioners perceived the importance of measuring physical and psychological characteristics of athleticism was below 60%. This finding may be explained by the practical and theoretical challenges associated with measuring athleticism (see Table 4). Previous research highlights the importance of practitioners selecting accurate, reliable and valid measures³ however, findings from the current study highlight practitioners’ confusion around the most accurate, reliable and valid measures. Thus, further work is required for dissemination and education to promote the use of monitoring and assessment within LTAD pathways. Although, it should be considered that coaches may desire support in developing appropriate measures that reflects athleticism in their environment, e.g., sport specific measures. The perception that measures lack sport specificity is not unique. Measures of physical fitness have previously been criticised for not reflecting performance.¹² However, it is unclear whether athleticism is the ability to display the characteristic (e.g., speed), or whether it is an individual's ability to display this in a sporting scenario. If the latter, this would infer a cognitive component to athleticism, and therefore, this echoes the discussions made above in ‘what is athleticism’. Research exploring technique and skill demonstrates a key difference⁴¹; technique being anything practiced in a closed environment with no contextual interference and skill being technique applied in context. It could be argued there may be a difference between athleticism in a controlled context (e.g., speed) and athleticism in a sporting context (e.g., demonstrating speed in an individual's ability to pass defenders in a game). This argument strengthens the need to explore athleticism further with a focus on approaches to measuring the concept of athleticism and perceptions of measurements across environments and/or contexts.

The theme ‘measurement is context specific’ encapsulates how practitioners perceive measurement to be different depending upon an individual's stage of development and the sport they participate in. For example, it could be questioned whether all characteristics are required to be athletic, especially when considering specific contexts (e.g., does a swimmer or a weightlifter need to display running speed?) Previous research¹² highlights the complexity of measuring athleticism, suggesting it is difficult to capture due to the demands of specific sports and therefore, that a single assessment is unrealistic. However, it is also recognised that in some environments a universal measure of athleticism, or a total score of athleticism⁴² may be beneficial to capture global, or general athleticism. Findings from the current study would suggest that measuring athleticism is critically considered, it is imperative that practitioners and organisations aimed at developing youth athleticism consider athleticism as a multi-dimensional, dynamic and adaptable concept, alongside their athletic development strategy, when determining an appropriate strategy to measuring athleticism.

Strengths and limitations

Using a mixed methods study design across a range of practitioners allowed a range of perspectives on athleticism to be obtained. The triangulation of perspectives (i.e., academics, sports coaches, S&C coaches) is a strength to the current study and helps support interdisciplinary work on youth athleticism. It has helped identify the lens through which different practitioners perceive athleticism, therefore, providing a new perspective to the concept of athleticism. Furthermore, previous research¹² suggests involving practitioners in the creation of descriptions, can improve clarity and transferability to real-life settings. However, a limitation to this study design is that athleticism is complex term and the survey design may not have allowed individuals to fully explain and explore their perspectives. Instead, depth qualitative approaches should be considered for future research. Secondly, most practitioners worked with adolescents, and must be considered when interpreting the findings, especially for themes such as “individual, environment and sporting context specific”. Typically, youth start to specialise around 12–16 years of age,⁴³ therefore, it may be that practitioners that work with children perceive athleticism to be different, perhaps more general, concept. Furthermore, the majority of coaches were paid full time (146) and over 50% of the sample had an advanced degree. This may not be representative of majority of the practitioners that work in youth environments, due to little funding in youth environments many coaches are volunteers or part time members of staff.

Conclusion

This study aimed to further explore the concept of youth athleticism, why developing athleticism is important and the challenges associated with measuring it. Findings from the current study present athleticism as a multi-dimensional, dynamic and adaptable concept, differing from current definitions.³ Athleticism was deemed important for ‘both general well-being and physical activity’ and ‘successful sporting performance’. Further, an individual's athleticism was thought to be the building blocks that allow individuals to progress, or regress, between these different environments (i.e., participation to performance). However, how athleticism is defined and how athleticism looks may be different in these different environments. When exploring measurement, numerous practical (e.g., logistical and organizational considerations) and theoretical challenges (e.g., measurement is context specific) were associated with measuring youth athleticism. It is imperative that researchers and practitioners recognise these descriptors (multi-dimensional, dynamic and adaptable) to implement, monitor and evaluate their research and practice in the development of athleticism. This is pertinent to improve LTAD strategies and development of athleticism of all youth. Given most organisations responsible for developing youth athleticism have limited resources, they therefore rely on the precision and efficiency of their strategic goals.¹² Consequently, the findings of the current study are necessary to improve the knowledge creation, dissemination and application of athleticism for academics and practitioners translating research into applied practice.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Lane Procter

Ethical considerations

The Local Research Ethics Review Committee at Leeds Beckett University approved our survey on April 13th, 2023. Respondents gave written consent before participating in the survey.

Consent to participate

Written participant consent was gained prior to completing the survey. Participant information has been anonymised for the purpose of the current study.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

References

Lloyd

Oliver

Faigenbaum

, et al. Long-term athletic development—part 1: a pathway for all youth. J Strength Cond Res 2015; 29: 1439–1450.

Till

Baker

. Challenges and [possible] solutions to optimizing talent identification and development in sport. Front Psychol 2020; 11: 664. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00664

Lloyd

Cronin

Faigenbaum

, et al. National strength and conditioning association position statement on long-term athletic development. J Strength Cond Res 2016; 30: 1491–1509.

Till

Lloyd

McCormack

, et al. Optimising long-term athletic development: An investigation of practitioners’ knowledge, adherence, practices and challenges. PloS One 2022; 17(1): e0262995.

Till

Morris

Emmonds

, et al. Enhancing the evaluation and interpretation of fitness testing data within youth athletes. Strength Cond J 2018; 40: 24–33.

Till

Emmonds

Jones

. Strength and Conditioning for Young Athletes. 2nd edition. London: Routledge, 2019.

Saward

Hulse

. Longitudinal physical development of future professional male soccer players: implications for talent identification and development? Front Sports Act Living 2020; 2: 57820.

Guthold

Stevens

Riley

. Global trends in insufficient physical activity among adolescents: a pooled analysis of 298 population-based surveys with 1·6 million participants. Lancet Child Adolesc Health 2020; 4: 23–35.

Tremblay

Barnes

González

, et al. Global matrix 2.0: report card grades on the physical activity of children and youth comparing 38 countries. J Phys Act Health 2016; 13: 343–366.

10.

Bolger

O’Neill

, et al. Fundamental movement skill proficiency and health among a cohort of Irish primary school children. Res Q Exerc Sport 2019; 90: 24–35.

11.

Sandercock

Cohen

. Temporal trends in muscular fitness of English 10-year-olds 1998–2014: an allometric approach. J Sci Med Sport 2019; 22: 201–205.

12.

Grainger

Kelly

Garland

, et al. Athletes’, ‘talents’, and ‘players’: conceptual distinctions and considerations for researchers and practitioners. Sports Med 2025; 55: 9–15.

13.

Johnston

Alexander Kelly

Baker

. Language games and blurry terminology: can clarity enhance athlete development? Front Sports Act Living 2023; 5: 1150047.

14.

Pichardo

Oliver

Harrison

. Effects of combined resistance training and weightlifting on motor skill performance of adolescent male athletes. J Strength and Cond Res 2019; 33: 3226–3235.

15.

Pullen

Oliver

Lloyd

, et al. Relationships between athletic motor skill competencies and maturity, sex, physical performance, and psychological constructs in boys and girls. Children 2022; 9: 75.

16.

Chang

Chou

Chang

, et al. Comparison of functional movement screen, star excursion balance test, and physical fitness in junior athletes with different sports injury risk. Biomed Res Int 2020; 2020: 8690540.

17.

Marques

Henriques-Neto

Peralta

, et al. Field-based health-related physical fitness tests in children and adolescents: a systematic review. Front Pediatr 2021; 5: 640028.

18.

Owen

Till

Weakley

, et al. Testing methods and physical qualities of male age grade rugby union players: a systematic review. PloS One 2020; 15: e0233796.

19.

Tomkinson

Lang

Tremblay

. Temporal trends in the cardiorespiratory fitness of children and adolescents representing 19 high-income and upper middle-income countries between 1981 and 2014. Br J Sports Med 2019; 53: 478–486.

20.

Johnston

Alexander Kelly

Baker

. Language games and blurry terminology: can clarity enhance athlete development? Front Sports and Act Living 2023; 5: 1150047.

21.

Morgan

. Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods. London: Sage Publications, 2014.

22.

Giacobbi

Poczwardowski

Hager

. A pragmatic research philosophy for applied sport psychology. Sport Psychol 2005; 19: 18–31.

23.

Palinkas

Horwitz

Green

, et al. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Adm Policy Ment Health 2015; 42: 533–544.

24.

McKeown

Ball

. Current practices of long term athlete development of junior athletes in high performance sport environments. J Aust Strength Cond 2013; 21: 4–12.

25.

Braun

Clarke

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

26.

Braun

Clarke

. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health 2019; 11: 589–597.

27.

Brooks

McCluskey

Turley

, et al. The utility of template analysis in qualitative psychology research. Qual Res Psychol 2015; 12: 202–222.

28.

Byrne

. A worked example of braun and clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Quant 2021; 56: 1391–1412.

29.

Morse

. Critial analysis of strategies for determining rigor in qualitative inquiry. Qual Health Res 2015; 25: 1212–1222.

30.

Xiang

Tengku Kamalden

Liu

, et al. Exploring the multidisciplinary factors affecting sports talent identification. Front Psychol 2022; 13: 948121.

31.

Baker

Wattie

Schorer

. A proposed conceptualization of talent in sport: the first step in a long and winding road. Psychol Sport Exerc 2019; 43: 27–33.

32.

Côté

Gilbert

. An integrative definition of coaching effectiveness and expertise. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2009; 4: 307–323.

33.

Jones

Johnston

Baker

. I can’t teach you to be taller”: how Canadian, collegiate-level coaches construct talent in sport. Case Studies in Sport and Exercise Psychology 2020; 4: 84–94.

34.

Johnston

Baker

. The complex and (sometimes) conflicting conceptualizations of talent: a case study of elite distance running coaches. J Expert 2022; 5: 38–57.

35.

Höner

Larkin

Leber

, et al. Talent identification and development in sport. Sport Exerc Psychol 2023: 549–581. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-03921-8_23

36.

Collins

Bailey

Ford

, et al. Three worlds: new directions in participant development in sport and physical activity. Sport Educ Soc 2012; 17: 225–243.

37.

Babic

Morgan

Plotnikoff

, et al. Physical activity and physical self-concept in youth: systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med 2014; 44: 1589–1601.

38.

Burton

Cowburn

Thompson

, et al. Associations between motor competence and physical activity, physical fitness and psychosocial characteristics in adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med 2023; 53: 2191–2256.

39.

Coppens

Laureys

Mostaert

, et al. Validation of a motor competence assessment tool for children and adolescents (KTK3+) with normative values for 6- to 19-year-olds. Front Physiol 2021; 12: 652952.

40.

De Meester

Barnett

Brian

, et al. The relationship between actual and perceived motor competence in children, adolescents and young adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med 2020; 50: 2001–2049.

41.

Bennett

KJM

Fransen

. Distinguishing skill from technique in football. Sci Med Footb 2024; 8: 397–400.

42.

Turner

Jones

Stewart

, et al. Total score of athleticism. Strength and Cond J 2019; 41: 91–101.

43.

Zoellner

Whatman

Read

, et al. The association between sport specialisation and movement competency in youth: a systematic review. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2021; 16: 1045–1059.