Selecting the ‘right’ athletes to competitions and games is crucial in eventually deciding winners and champions. Thus, the purpose of this study was to discuss selections to top-level sport teams using validity concepts as theoretical points of departure. Drawing on data from 14 semi-structured interviews with elite coaches (selectors) in football (n = 8) and alpine skiing (n = 6), this article adds to the knowledge on rationales behind selection decisions in elite sport, how selections are performed and with what consequences. Results point to several key validity concerns in selection processes such as the (non) use of explicit selection criteria, lack of structure in selection processes and coaches’ giving way to gut feelings and their ‘eyes for the sport‘ instead of utilizing various selection aids at hand.
Johansson A. Deciding who is the best. Validity issues in selections and judgements in sport. PhD Thesis, Umeå University, Sweden, 2010.
2.
BoulierBLSteklerHO. Are sport seedings good predictors? An evaluation. Int J Forecasting1999; 15: 83–91.
3.
TrewinCBHopkinsWGPyneDB. Relationship between world ranking and Olympic performance of swimmers. J Sport Sci2004; 22: 339–345.
4.
GréhaigneJPGodboutPBouthierD. Performance assessment in team sports. J Teach Phys Educ1997; 16: 500–516.
5.
VoyerDWrightEF. Predictors of performance in the national Hockey League. J Sport Behav1998; 21: 456–474.
6.
FryMJLundbergAWOhlmannJW. A player selection heuristic for a sports league draft. J Quant Anal Sports2007; 3: Article 5.
7.
NadeauLRichardJPGodboutP. The validity and reliability of a performance assessment procedure in ice hockey. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy2007; 13: 65–83.
8.
MemmertDHarveyS. The game performance assessment instrument (GPAI): some concerns and solutions for further development. J Teach Phys Educ2008; 27: 220–240.
9.
BarfieldJPMaloneL. Performance test differences and Paralympic team selection: pilot study of the United States National Wheelchair Rugby Team. Int J Sports Sci Coach2012; 7: 715–720.
10.
MontelpareWMcPhersonMPuumalaR. Statistical analysis of athlete variability applied to biomechanical analysis of ski jumping. Int J Sports Sci Coach2013; 8: 373–384.
11.
TrompEJ YGert-Jan PeppingGJLyonsJet al.“Let’s pick him!”: ratings of skill level on the basis of in-game playing behaviour in bantam league junior ice hockey. Int J Sports Sci Coach2013; 8: 641–660.
12.
WisemanACBrackenNHortonSet al.The difficulty of talent identification: inconsistency among coaches through skill-based assessment of youth hockey players. Int J Sports Sci Coach2014; 9: 447–455.
13.
HoareDGWarrCR. Talent identification and women’s soccer: an Australian experience. J Sports Sci2000; 18: 751–758.
14.
ReillyTBangsboJFranksA. Anthropometric and physiological predispositions for elite soccer. J Sports Sci2000; 18: 669–683.
15.
PhilippaertsRMVaeyensRJanssensMet al.The relationship between peak height velocity and physical performance in youth soccer players. J Sports Sci2006; 24: 221–230.
16.
GabbetTGeorgieffBDomrowN. The use of physiological, anthropometric, and skill data to predict selection in a talent-identified junior volleyball squad. J Sports Sci2007; 25: 1337–1244.
17.
SherarLBBaxter-JonesADGFaulknerRet al.Do physical maturity and birth date predict talent in male youth ice-hockey players?J Sports Sci2007; 25: 879–886.
18.
OrlickTPartingtonJ. Mental links to excellence. Sport Psychol1988; 2: 105–130.
19.
GouldDGuinanDGreenleafCet al.Factors affecting Olympic performance: perceptions of athletes and coaches from more and less successful teams. Sport Psychol1999; 13: 371–394.
20.
AbbotACollinsD. A theoretical and empirical analysis of a ‘state of the art’ talent identification model. High Ability Studies2002; 13: 157–178.
21.
Durand-BushNSalmelaJH. The development and maintenance of expert athletic performance: perceptions of World and Olympic champions. J Appl Sport Psychol2002; 14: 154–171.
22.
WeinbergRButtJCulpB. Coaches’ views of mental toughness and how it is built. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol2011; 9: 156–172.
23.
GouldDDieffenbachKMoffettA. Psychological characteristics and their development in Olympic champions. J Appl Psychol2002; 14: 172–204.
24.
PensgaardAMDudaJL. “If we work hard, we can do it”: a tale from an Olympic gold medallist. J Appl Sport Psychol2002; 14: 219–236.
25.
AbbottACollinsD. Eliminating the dichotomy between theory and practice in talent identification and development: considering the role of psychology. J Sports Sci2004; 22: 395–408.
26.
BakerJHortonS. A review of primary and secondary influences on sport expertise. High Ability Studies2004; 15: 211–228.
27.
Van YperenNW. Why some make it and others do not: identifying psychological factors that predict career success in professional adult soccer. Sport Psychol2009; 23: 317–329.
28.
BielingPJIsraeliALAntonyMM. Is perfectionism good, bad, or both? Examining models of the perfectionism construct. Pers Individ Diff2004; 36: 1373–1385.
29.
StollOLauAStoeberJ. Perfectionism and performance in a new basketball training task: does striving for perfection enhance or undermine performance. Psychol Sport Exer2008; 9: 620–629.
30.
HenriksenKStambulovaNRoesslerKK. Holistic approach to athletic talent development environments: a successful sailing milieu. Psychol Sport Exer2010; 11: 212–222.
31.
SireciSG. The construct of content validity. Social Indic Res1998; 45: 83–111.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association and National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for educational and psychological testing, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1999.
40.
StobartG. The validity of national curriculum assessment. Br J Educ Stud2001; 49: 26–39.
41.
ShepardLA. Evaluating test validity. Rev Res Educ1993; 19: 405–450.
42.
MehrensWA. The consequences of consequential validity. Educ Measur: Issues Pract1997; 16: 16–18.
43.
ReckcaseMD. Consequential validity from the test developer’s perspective. Educ Measur: Issues Pract1998; 16: 13–16.
44.
CizekGJRosenbergSLKoonHH. Sources of validity evidence for educational and psychological tests. Educ Psychol Measure2008; 68: 397–412.
45.
GrattonCJonesI. Research methods for sport studies, London: Routledge, 2004.
46.
KvaleS. Interviews an introduction to qualitative research interviewing, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996.
47.
MurphyKRClevelandJNSkatteboAJet al.Raters who pursue different goals give different ratings. J Appl Psychol2004; 89: 158–164.
48.
HighhouseS. Stubborn reliance on intuition and subjectivity in employee selection. Ind Organiz Psychol2008; 1: 333–342.
49.
ColbertAERynesSLBrownKG. Who believes us? Understanding managers’ agreement with human resource findings. J Appl Behav Sci2005; 41: 304–325.
50.
GroveWMZaldDHLebowBSet al.Clinical versus mechanical prediction. Psychol Assess2000; 12: 19–30.
51.
SadlerDR. Indeterminacy in the use of preset criteria for assessment and grading. Assess Eval Higher Educ2009; 34: 159–179.
52.
HunterJEHunterRF. Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychol Bull1984; 96: 72–98.
53.
ReeMJEarlesJA. Intelligence is the best predictor of job performance. Curr Direct Psychol Sci1992; 1: 86–89.
54.
HumaraM. Personnel selection in athletic programs. Athletic Insight2000; 2: 1–7.
55.
MischelWShodaY. A cognitive-affective systems theory of personality: reconceptualizing the invariances in personality and the role of situations. Psychol Rev1995; 102: 246–268.
56.
RobertsBWWaltonKEViechtbauerW. Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychol Bull2006; 132: 1–25.
57.
HausknecktJPDayDVThomasSC. Applicant reactions to selection procedures: an updated model and meta-analysis. Person Psychol2004; 57: 639–683.
58.
GillilandSW. The perceived fairness of selection systems: an organizational justice perspective. Acad Manage Rev1993; 18: 694–734.
59.
StevensonCL. Perceptions of justice in the selection of national teams. Sociol Sport J1989; 6: 371–379.
60.
RyanAMPloyhartRE. Applicants’ perceptions of selection procedures and decisions: a critical review and agenda for the future. J Manage2000; 26: 565–606.
