Recommended multidimensional models for talent selection are difficult to implement for practitioners in the field. Furthermore, their application has not been established from a scientific point of view, with a lack of clarity concerning how to integrate manifold test results with respect to loading, interaction, and compensation phenomena. Consequently, the question of powerful single predictors for future player status are still of interest within talent research in order to determine promising content for less extensive selection procedures. The aim of the current study is an immediate comparison of the prognostic validity of two frequently used areas within talent selection in youth football: general motor performance (e.g., speed and endurance) and specific motor performance (i.e., technical skills). Participants completed four general and four specific motor performance tests at early adolescence (U13/U14, 133 players) and middle adolescence (U16/U17, 85 players). The area under the curve (AUC) from the receiver operating characteristic was used to compare the prognostic validity of both motor performance areas (predicting U20 player status: professional vs. non-professional). Although no comparison at the four different age levels led to a significant difference (.07 ≤ p ≤ .65), there was a continuous superiority of specific over general motor performance in descriptive AUC values. These descriptive differences reached relevant extent within early adolescence (ΔAUCU13 = .09; ΔAUCU14 =.14) and were partially accounted for by the influence of biological maturation. In line with theoretical considerations and earlier research, these results provide further evidence of the superiority of specific over general motor performance in predicting future player status. Until the applicability of multidimensional models is further established, specific motor performance rather than general performance should be included in less extensive talent selection models, especially in early adolescence.

It is widely recognized that motivation is an important determinant for a successful sports career. Specific patterns of motivational constructs have recently demonstrated promising associations with future success in team sports like football and ice hockey. The present study scrutinizes whether those patterns also exist in individual sports and whether they are able to predict future performance levels. A sample of 155 young individual athletes completed questionnaires assessing achievement goal orientations, achievement motives, and self-determination at t1. The person-oriented method linking of clusters after removal of a residue (LICUR) was used to form clusters based on these motivational constructs in order to analyze the relations between these clusters and the performance level 2.5 years later (t2). Similar to the studies in team sports, four motivational patterns were observed at t1. The highly intrinsically achievement-oriented athletes were much more likely to compete internationally [odds ratio (OR) = 2.12], compared to the failure-fearing athletes (OR = 0.29). Although team and individual sports differ in many respects, they nevertheless are characterized by similar and thus generalizable career-promoting motivational profiles: Regardless of the type of sport, the highly intrinsically achievement-oriented athletes consistently have the best potential for success.

When identifying talent, the confounding influence of maturity status on motor performances is an acknowledged problem. To solve this problem, correction mechanisms have been proposed to transform maturity-biased test scores into maturity-unbiased ones. Whether or not such corrections also improve predictive validity remains unclear. To address this question, we calculated correlations between maturity indicators and motor performance variables among a sample of 121 fifteen-year-old elite youth football players in Switzerland. We corrected motor performance scores identified as maturity-biased, and we assessed correction procedure efficacy. Subsequently, we examined whether corrected scores better predicted levels of performance achievement 6 years after data collection (47 professionals vs. 74 non-professional players) compared with raw scores using point biserial correlations, binary logistic regression models, and DeLong tests. Expectedly, maturity indicators correlated with raw scores (0.16 ≤ | r | ≤ 0.72; ps < 0.05), yet not with corrected scores. Contrary to expectations, corrected scores were not associated with an additional predictive benefit (univariate: no significant r-change; multivariate: 0.02 ≤ ΔAUC ≤ 0.03, ps > 0.05). We do not interpret raw and corrected score equivalent predictions as a sign of correction mechanism futility (more work for the same output); rather we view them as an invitation to take corrected scores seriously into account (same output, one fewer problem) and to revise correction-related expectations according to initial predictive validity of motor variables, validity of maturity indicators, initial maturity-bias, and selection systems. Recommending maturity-based corrections is legitimate, yet currently based on theoretical rather than empirical (predictive) arguments.

No abstract