Optimising long-term athletic development: An investigation of practitioners' knowledge, adherence, practices and challenges

Long-term athletic development practices have been recommended for the past two decades. However, limited research exists exploring the knowledge and skills required by practitioners to optimise long-term athletic development. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the knowledge, adherence, practices, and challenges of practitioners responsible for delivering long-term athletic development. A mixed methods survey was completed by 236 practitioners (e.g., sport coaches, physical education teachers) consisting of four parts; 1) demographics, 2) knowledge, 3) adherence, and 4) practices and challenges. Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed by Friedman’s analysis of variance and thematic analyses, respectively. Quantitative findings showed practitioners 1) recognised their responsibility for delivering long-term athletic development, 2) have a familiarity with existing developmental models, and 3) had high adherence, focused upon health and wellbeing, to delivering long-term athletic development. However, practices associated with growth and maturity, monitoring and assessment, and the systematic progression and individualisation of training had lower adherence. Qualitative analysis indicated that practitioner’s perceived definitions of athleticism and long-term athletic development were inconsistent, especially according to the psychological components (i.e., confidence). Practitioners’ descriptions of their long-term athletic development practices identified two higher order themes; 1) goals, in which long-term athletic development “is for life” and the importance of “an individual centered journey” highlighted as sub-themes; and 2) realities of delivering long-term athletic development, whereby variety in programme delivery, monitoring development and practical challenges were noted as key priorities. Eight practical challenges were identified including governance and priorities, resources, education, early specialization, high training volumes, staff communication, parents and youth motivation. This mixed method survey highlighted a multitude of knowledge, adherence, practices and challenges towards long-term athletic development. These novel findings can help inform policy to optimise long-term athletic development and to support the complex problem of developing a healthier, fitter and more physically active youth population.

Revisiting Early Sport Specialization: What's the Problem?

Context:

The assumed risks of early specialization in sport are well known, with several international consensus statements advising against specialization in early athlete development. However, there have been recent calls for more focused research in this area.

Evidence Acquisition:

Research evidence from several scientific disciplines (eg, sport psychology, sports medicine, human development) were synthesized to develop a framework for practitioners working with adolescent athletes.

Study Design:

Narrative review.

Level of Evidence:

Level 4.

Results:

There appear to be risks associated with a highly specialized approach to athlete training, but the mechanisms driving these effects are largely unknown. Greater attention to understanding these mechanisms would help mitigate risk and develop stronger policy for athlete development. Recommendations for program modifications are provided.

Conclusion:

Early specialization remains an important topic for researchers and practitioners working with youth and adolescent athletes. However, more work needs to be done to provide truly evidence-based recommendations for youth athlete training.

Movement Competency Training Delivery: At School or Online? A Pilot Study of High-School Athletes

Movement competency (MC) development of high-school athletes can prepare them for the requirements of physical preparation training and the demands of sport. The aim of this study was to explore the physical effects of and athlete compliance to coach-led versus self-directed training approaches in this population. Thirty-nine high-school athletes (19 male, 14.5 ± 0.3 years old; 20 female, 14.6 ± 0.3 years) were allocated into two groups for a physical preparation program to improve MC. Groups were prescribed either (i) one face-to-face and one online (F2F, n = 18), or (ii) two online (OL, n = 21) sessions per week for 16-weeks. Before and after the intervention, the Athlete Introductory Movement Screen (AIMS) was used to assess MC alongside common physical capacity measures (triple-hop, star-excursion balance, medicine ball throw, 40m sprint and countermovement jump). Dropout left 22 participants with pre-post physical scores. Compliance with online training was low and F2F session attendance moderate. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to assess participant perceptions following the intervention. Assessing individual responses, the F2F group had a higher proportion of positive responders to AIMS scores, yet capacity measures were inconclusive across groups. Face-to-face coaching when acquiring MCs as part of physical preparation, may provide greater positive perceptions towards training compared to self-directed online prescriptions, and thereby greater compliance.