Abstract
Despite growing recognition of the non-linear and multidimensional nature of athletic development, talent identification and development (TID) models remain largely grounded in static, trait-based assumptions. This study introduces the Dynamic State-Change Assessment Model (DSCAM), a conceptual assessment framework derived from 23 qualitative interviews with expert practitioners in elite football. DSCAM reconceptualizes talent development as an iterative process involving transitions between two primary dimensions: State Content, the athlete's current performability and capability, and Change Potential, their development needs and developability. The model integrates five assessment types (performative, diagnostic, formative, summative, and ipsative) and delineates both feedback and feedforward mechanisms that shape individualized developmental trajectories. Using constant comparative analysis, the study demonstrates how assessments simultaneously inform present evaluations and future projections, thereby challenging reductionist tendencies such as early selection and reliance on fixed metrics. By incorporating cognitive, physical, psychological, and contextual factors, DSCAM offers a more nuanced and adaptive framework for guiding long-term athlete development. The findings contribute to ongoing debates in sport science by advancing a theory-driven, evidence-informed model for improving assessment practices within applied talent development pathways.
Keywords
Introduction
Despite significant advancements in talent identification and development (TID) models, much of the existing literature continues to operate under the assumption that talent can be identified and developed through fixed assessment criteria, emphasizing innate potential or static performance indicators.1–5 Although an individual's current ability may offer a temporary competitive advantage (or disadvantage), it is an unreliable predictor of future performance due to the varied capacity for development and growth among individuals. 6 Moreover, effective performance characteristics differ from those associated with long-term potential. 7 This perspective often reinforces early specialization and a reliance on static measures of ability, potentially obscuring the fluctuating and context-dependent nature of talent realization. 8
In contrast, a growing body of research suggests that TID should move beyond capturing a static snapshot of talent and instead emphasize the dynamic, evolving trajectory of individual development.9,10 The distinction between innate potential and developability underscores that while all individuals possess a capacity for growth, the realization of that potential depends on learning and experience, highlighting that athletes are shaped through training rather than by fixed traits alone. Despite this shift in understanding, there remains a limited grasp of how talent development (TD) unfolds as a process of continual transitions between stable state conditions and change conditions, particularly in relation to the assessment mechanisms that drive such transitions.
Building on this problematization, the aim of this study is to advance talent development practices beyond the predominantly summative assessment models commonly used in talent development (TD). Accordingly, this study addresses the following research question: How does the iterative interaction between State and Change conditions, mediated by assessment, influence talent development processes in football?
The talent development process
This study conceptualizes talent development (TD) as a dynamic and adaptive process, emphasizing the critical role of the performer–environment relationship in fostering talent growth and success within the context of football. The dominant research trajectory in athletic talent comprises two principal strands.10–13 The first is the talent identification (TI) paradigm, which seeks to recognize and select promising athletes based on inherent capacities or latent aptitudes. The second is the talent development (TD) paradigm, which focuses on the volume and quality of training necessary to attain elite-level performance.
Accordingly, TI refers to the process of detecting individuals with the potential to become elite performers, whereas TD is understood as the functional linkage between an individual's latent potential and their manifested capabilities within specific performance settings. 14 TD is thus an evolving process where the TD processes shape the athlete's developmental trajectory. This perspective highlights the importance of supporting athletes at different stages in their journey toward elite performance 14 and underscores the need to account for these trajectories in TD practices. 7 In short, a shift is required, from evaluating talent based solely on static, quantifiable attributes to assessing performance under sport-specific constraints and transferable perceptual-cognitive skills. 12
Despite this growing recognition, TD is still frequently misconstrued as a uniform, linear progression toward maximizing athletic potential. In reality, TD is complex, cyclical, and nonlinear, consisting of multiple interconnected components that influence athlete development over time. 15 Recognizing the multifaceted and dynamic nature of TD requires attention to the diverse processes and dimensions that shape developmental outcomes. As Hohmann and Seidel 16 argue, athletes’ developmental paths are determined by their experiences, the challenges they face, and the opportunities available to them. Progress is often non-sequential, characterized by phases of acceleration, stagnation, or regression, each shaped by a range of internal and external factors.
Another critical consideration within TD is the extensive variability of individual characteristics that contribute to athletic potential. Talent does not arise from isolated traits but emerges from the complex interaction of multiple attributes, 7 reflecting the interplay between nature and nurture. 9 Bailey et al. 17 suggest that talent comprises a broad array of components, including genetic predispositions, physical and cognitive attributes, psychological qualities, and socio-cultural influences. These factors interact in nuanced ways, shaping athletes’ capabilities and their potential for success within their sport. Environmental factors, including coaching, access to resources, and developmental opportunities, further modulate talent realization. 10
Henriksen et al. 18 emphasize the importance of considering the broader socio-cultural, organizational, and ecological contexts that surround athletes. Variables such as resource availability, coaching expertise, training infrastructure, competition structures, and social support systems are all crucial in shaping developmental trajectories 12 Furthermore, the concept of talent itself is inherently subjective and context-dependent. Different stakeholders, including coaches, scouts, and governing bodies, often hold divergent views on what constitutes talent and how it should be nurtured. 15
Methodology
Philosophical underpinnings
Guided by an interpretivist, social-constructivist worldview, I adopted the Gioia methodology 19 as it aligns with my aim to develop inductive theory regarding how football stakeholders construct and enact the notion of talent assessment. I employed the Gioia toolkit, including the data structure, rich empirical quotations, and iterative analysis, to ensure methodological rigor. In line with the Gioia approach, participants’ own language was retained as first-order concepts, reflecting my relativist ontological stance. Second-order themes, by contrast, represent author co-constructed interpretations, consistent with a subjectivist epistemology.
Qualitative interviews
For this study, qualitative, open-ended interviews were conducted with individuals actively involved in TID. This interview format offers strong epistemological alignment, as talent development is understood as emergent, shaped by context, time, and reflexive adaptation. Interpretivist, open-ended interviewing shares this ontology: knowledge is not extracted as static “fact” but co-constructed in the moment of interaction. Moreover, many of the cues central to talent development remain tacit; open-ended prompts enable these often-unspoken insights to surface.
Open-ended interviews are therefore particularly well-suited to capturing the multidimensional nature of talent development, where technical, tactical, physical, psychosocial, and contextual factors interact in complex ways that resist pre-specification through closed-ended questionnaires. 14 As King 20 p:14 notes, such interviews allow researchers to “see the research topic from the perspective of the interviewee and to understand how and why he or she comes to have this particular perspective.” The ability to sustain a dialogical exchange, using participants’ own insights as the basis for follow-up questions, further facilitates the emergence of new themes, concepts, and relational patterns, which can be explored in subsequent interviews.
Participants were selected through purposive sampling, based on their stakeholder roles, coaches, academy directors, scouts, and agents, to capture key decision-makers and influential actors in the assessment process. The aim was to generate a 360° dataset on assessment practices by involving individuals with direct, real-time involvement in talent-related decisions. This approach was intended to ensure that responses reflected ongoing processes and fresh insights. Recruitment took place via personalized email invitations, in-person networking at football tournaments, and controlled snowball sampling.
A total of 23 individuals participated in the study, all of whom are currently active in talent development roles (see Table 1 for further details). Many had prior careers as professional football players. All interviews were audio-recorded with the consent of the interviewees and transcribed verbatim. The interviews explored participants’ professional trajectories, current roles, and a wide range of TD-related themes. These included: the timing of talent identification and the role of age/maturity; conceptual distinctions between talent, potential, and ability; coaching, development, and scouting processes and working methods; assessment criteria (physical, technical, tactical, psychological); position-specific and playing-style development; use of data and technological tools in development and assessment; the role of the developmental environment and the junior-to-senior transition. Semi-structured interviews ranged from 34 min to 1 h and 46 min in length. Although time-intensive, the transcripts enabled repeated, in-depth engagement with the material during analysis and supported the identification of key themes and illustrative quotes, which were further explored in later interviews. Most interviews were conducted in Swedish and subsequently translated into English. All participants were anonymized through a de-identification process using quasi-identifiers (e.g., years of experience in football, previous and current roles), binned where appropriate. Pseudonymous identifiers were assigned using randomly generated two-letter codes unrelated to participants’ actual initials.
Interviewees.
Data analysis
Guided by an interpretivist Gioia design, the data were analyzed using inductive constant comparison, 21 which facilitated the identification, refinement, and comparison of categories and themes across multiple coding iterations. 22 Each interview transcript and field note were coded and iteratively compared with prior materials, supported by memo-writing, until comparisons no longer altered the emerging model of how State and Change conditions co-evolve with assessment. This approach maintained a balance between participants’ perspectives and theoretical abstraction, ensuring methodological rigor while generating analytical traction to explain the iterative nature of talent development. 23 The goal of the analysis was to achieve analytical generalization, enabling the theoretical constructions developed in this study to have broader applicability beyond the specific context. 24
The analysis unfolded in distinct phases. The first phase involved open coding, which entailed systematically breaking down the interview transcripts into first-order categories that captured participants’ language and contextual nuances. 25 In the second phase, axial coding was used to identify relationships among these first-order categories and group them into second-order themes. 26 These themes reflected a higher level of abstraction and enabled the recognition of broader patterns within the empirical data. At this stage, theoretical constructions began to emerge as the data were synthesized into meaningful themes that linked participant insights with conceptual frameworks. 22 Axial coding led to the identification of eight second-order themes that bridged raw data with theoretically informed constructions: Mindset, Mentality & Work Ethic; Attributes; Trainability; Learning; Game Intelligence & Decision-Making; Athleticism & Dynamism; Future vs. Current Ability; Long-Term Development Focus. The final phase of analysis involved synthesizing these second-order themes into aggregate dimensions, representing the most abstract level of theoretical interpretation. This phase was guided by inductive reasoning, allowing broader theoretical insights to emerge from the empirical evidence. 23 The resulting aggregate dimensions were State: encompassing performability and (cap)Ability, and Change: encompassing learning capacity and developability. Through this synthesis, an empirically grounded conceptual model was developed that captures the complexity of the study phenomenon and contributes to theory-building in talent development.
The data structure (Figure 1) plays a critical role in enhancing methodological rigor by clearly illustrating the progression from raw data to theoretical abstraction. It shows how first-order categories, drawn from participant statements, were systematically abstracted into second-order themes and ultimately synthesized into aggregate dimensions. Table 2 provides additional supporting evidence, keyed to Figure 1, and includes representative first-order quotations underlying the second-order themes. The presentation of findings is organized according to the identified themes, mapped onto the aggregate dimensions. Focusing on the theme level offers a more nuanced lens for capturing underlying processes and issues within overarching dimensions. 27 This structured, transparent approach reinforces the empirical foundation of the theoretical conclusions.
Data structure.
Dimensions, themes, & quotations.
Findings
Performability
As football evolves, the demand for dynamic players, i.e., players that have the inherent ability to run, press, and work hard for the duration of a game, has grown significantly. The game is now faster and more physically intense, requiring players to be versatile across multiple aspects. AK notes that traditional static playmaker roles have diminished, with modern football demanding players who contribute physically and tactically in all phases. This shift has placed greater emphasis on dynamism, leading scouts to quickly dismiss players who lack the ability to run or press intensely. Scout NL reinforces this view: “We are looking for athletic profiles. Dynamic. Tactically good. But above all, athletic and dynamic.” The high-intensity nature of today's matches, requiring long sprints, repeated runs, and sustained effort over 90 min, has made athleticism essential. Respondent JA echoes this, emphasizing that as football gets faster, “athletic players who can keep up with the demands of the game are increasingly sought after.” Beyond physicality, mental dynamism is equally crucial. AK highlights a key distinction that sets top players apart: “An inherent ability to press and endure without having to think about it.” Players who instinctively press and maintain intensity, regardless of the game's pace, possess an invaluable quality in the fast and relentless nature of modern football. “Football moves so fast today compared to before. And now, all players are dynamic. The likes of Busquets don’t exist anymore. That type of player is required to do much more than just being a playmaker. Pirlo [former Italian national team player], Riquelme [former Argentinian national team player]… many players of that type have disappeared from football.” (JAJ, Head of Academy)
Respondent NL stresses the importance of intelligence in a player's dynamism, asking, “Can they learn or not?” In modern football, players who combine athleticism with the ability to quickly absorb and apply new tactics are especially valuable. These athletes are not only physically prepared but also mentally sharp, capable of adapting to evolving systems and demands.
Athleticism and dynamism are key traits for success at the highest levels. Respondent JAJ notes, “The first thing you look for is some standout qualities,” with physical traits like speed, strength, or agility often distinguishing young players early in the scouting process. However, respondent MO warns that standout qualities alone are not enough: “Without the understanding to make these decisions in a match, standout qualities become completely irrelevant if you can’t utilize them.” This underscores the necessity of pairing athleticism with game intelligence and decision-making. Players who excel physically but also think and adapt quickly are the most sought after in today's game.
In football's fast-paced environment, game intelligence and decision-making are crucial. Players who can read the game, anticipate plays, and make logical decisions in real time often outperform those with superior technical skills but weaker tactical understanding. Scout JA describes game intelligence as the ability to recognize and respond to the game's flow: “Knowing when to drop back, make runs, or move into central areas.” This awareness is vital, as players must constantly adapt to unfolding situations.
Beyond technical proficiency, effective decision-making requires reacting to the game's unpredictable nature. Scout JAJ highlights this challenge: “A thousand new situations you need to pick up and understand.” This type of adaptability is difficult to teach but essential for success. Respondent JA equates logical decision-making with game understanding, describing it as “an innate ability to understand what football is and how it should be played.” Players who excel in processing the game in real time and adjusting their actions accordingly are highly valued for their ability to navigate dynamic match situations.
Situational awareness, the ability to understand not only one's own position but also that of teammates and opponents, is a crucial component of game intelligence. Scout NL emphasizes this, stating, “Awareness of the game, the ability to know what's going on. Where you are on the pitch and where everyone else is, that is important.” This awareness enables players to anticipate movements, make effective decisions, and stay ahead of the opposition.
Processing positional dynamics in real time is a defining trait of football intelligence, setting apart players who read and anticipate the game from those who simply react. Respondent AR reinforces this, noting, “The best technical players aren’t always the ones with the best game intelligence,” highlighting that game understanding, rather than technical skill alone, often separates elite players from the rest. While technical ability can be developed through training, instinctive game awareness is harder to cultivate and frequently determines a player's ceiling. This underscores that knowing when and how to act in different situations is often more critical than raw technical proficiency. “Game intelligence is something that ties back to the ability to learn quickly. If you can learn quickly, then you have good game intelligence. If you have standout qualities, those qualities become less important later. Because no matter how fast you are, if you never run in the right way, you won’t be able to utilize your speed.” (AK, Scout) “I can sit and talk to a player about this and that, and he doesn't grasp it. But it still comes naturally when he's on the field. But he can’t put it into words off the field. That's the essence of game intelligence, being in their natural environment when they’re on a football pitch.” (MO, Head Coach)
(cap)Ability
TD is a complex process shaped by the unpredictability of development, hidden personality traits, and the evolving nature of football, making future success difficult to guarantee. Respondent AK acknowledges this uncertainty: “We can all be wrong about this,” highlighting the challenges despite the assessors’ best efforts. While respondents agree that TD focuses on evaluating talent in the present without certainty about future development, assessors must still make decisions based on what can be measured and observed.
In the competitive world of football, mindset, mentality, and work ethic often separate those who reach the top from those who fall short. While physical and technical abilities are essential, respondents emphasize that mental attributes, resilience, discipline, and learning from mistakes, are crucial for long-term success. Respondent DJ describes mindset as “a great talent in itself,” noting that players who continually push themselves and refuse to settle for their current level tend to stand out. This highlights that talent alone is insufficient; consistent self-improvement is key. Another respondent reinforces this, stating, “You have to be an exceptional talent to break through without the right mindset” (KMV, Scout). The ability to motivate and strive for growth often determines who ultimately succeeds.
Mindset is crucial because different players require tailored development approaches. Some may lack technical proficiency but compensate with mental fortitude and a strong work ethic. Respondent LH notes that players who “work incredibly hard” often surpass more naturally talented individuals by putting in extra effort to overcome their limitations. This resilience can be the decisive factor in a player's development, even outweighing initial technical shortcomings. Persistence in training and a commitment to improving weaknesses are often seen as talents in themselves. Respondent MÖ explains, “The ability to keep training on things you might not be good at, that's 100% talent.” Players who focus on their weaknesses and strive for improvement demonstrate rare mental toughness.
Discipline and consistency are key components of a player's mentality. The demanding cycle of training, recovery, and preparation is essential for sustained high performance. Respondent AK emphasizes this, stating, “You have to be a full-time professional to perform at a high level,” highlighting that mental endurance is just as crucial as physical stamina. Respondent NL adds, “This relentless cycle of training and recovery demands both physical and mental endurance, which many players struggle to maintain.”
Internal motivation, the “inner drive” to go beyond the required work, is critical, especially given the sacrifices of a football career. The ability to maintain consistent effort, regardless of external conditions, sets certain players apart. Respondent MÖ stresses that dedication cannot be seasonal: “Does he train every day, every week, month after month? Or is he only good in July when the sun is shining?”
True talent, according to respondent LH, is about pushing through challenges. This mental toughness is especially evident when facing setbacks. Respondent SN observes that some players “have never done heavy lifting” and struggle with motivation when challenges arise. In contrast, those who persist through adversity display the resilience essential for success at the elite level. While physical and technical skills form the foundation, the ability to persevere, adapt, and stay focused under pressure ultimately determines who will succeed at the highest level. “Of course, there are different talents, in the sense that there's always someone very good but also lazy. And then there's someone who is a little behind technically and tactically but works incredibly hard. It is often the mental aspect that is the talent differentiator” (DJ, Chief Scout).
Development potential
An essential aspect of development is identifying and addressing weaknesses. Respondent ES highlights that development needs and learning capacity often lies in a player's ability to improve in areas where they struggle: “What are the opportunities to develop those weaknesses versus just maintaining and building on your strengths?” This shifts the focus from existing abilities to growth capacity, emphasizing that addressing weaknesses is key to unlocking learning and development potential. Identifying development needs and learning capacity in young players is challenging due to the unpredictability of their development. Respondent JA highlights this difficulty: “ Everyone can say, ‘Yes, he has potential.’ Potential for what?” Predicting how far a player's potential can take them, especially as they progress through different levels, remains uncertain. This unpredictability makes it difficult for assessors to determine which players will successfully advance in their careers. Respondent JAJ explains, “The younger the age group, the harder it becomes to predict the capacity for taking the next step.” While some players show early promises, identifying those who will continue to develop over time is a challenge. Providing the right environment and opportunities is crucial, yet the same respondent acknowledges that assessing future learning and development potential is ultimately “a qualified guessing game.” Even after filtering out players unlikely to progress, identifying future standout athletes remains an inexact science.
Respondent DJ highlights the challenge of assessing learning and development potential, noting that the line between talent and potential is often blurred: “Talent and potential, it's kind of the same thing. It's about what conditions you have now to develop into a first-team player.” This suggests that learning capacity is not just about innate qualities but rather about the attributes that can be nurtured over time. By focusing on a player's skills and characteristics, this perspective shifts the discussion from abstract notions of talent to tangible, trainable traits. Respondent JA underscores the unpredictability of development, explaining, “Development is the hardest thing because no one knows.” This uncertainty is widely acknowledged in TID, as even structured frameworks cannot account for every individual variation. Respondent LH reinforces this: “There's so much individuality, and everyone is different.” Respondent MÖ further emphasizes the complexity of TD, stating, “If there were a formula, everyone would use it.” Success in football cannot be reduced to a simple equation; it requires continuous assessment, nurturing, and adaptation to each player's unique developmental path, with numerous variables and uncertainties along the way.
Assessing talent is inherently subjective, as respondent NL explains: “Football is a feeling. You might think one thing, and I might think another. Who's right? Neither of us, maybe.” Even experienced assessors can have differing opinions on a player's potential for learning and development, highlighting the uncertainty in TD. While young players with promising qualities can be identified, there is no guarantee they will develop into top-tier athletes. Assessors instead focus on fundamental traits like dynamism and intelligence, recognizing the unpredictability of long-term success. The respondent DJ emphasizes this forward-looking approach: “It's not about the here and now. It's about what conditions you have now to develop into a first-team player”. The scout from RMJ Mngt. adds “Then there's that little thing: potential for learning and development. Can the player be developed? Is there more to tap into?” This underscores the challenge of determining not just whether a player has talent, but whether that talent can continue to grow over time.
Persistence and developmental potential also play a crucial role in talent evaluation. Respondent JAJ notes that a player who consistently performs with high intensity but lacks efficiency can still demonstrate significant potential, if they can refine their game. “If he gets some help to develop and then starts succeeding, that's interesting. Or you see someone who is big, strong, and fast but doesn't have great control over his body or the ball yet. But you can see that if you help him with those areas, he will become a physical monster that no one will be able to compete with.” (JAJ, Head of Academy) “It's not about what the scout does; it's about what the coach does with the player once he's in the environment. You can find the best player in the world, in your eyes, according to statistics and what everyone thinks, says, and sees. But if the coach doesn’t use him properly… that interplay is something we should probably think even more about when scouting and recruiting players.” (MÖ, Coach)
Developability
A player's capacity to learn and adapt is crucial for long-term success, especially as they progress beyond their initial physical advantages according to one respondent “Talent is the ability to learn quickly” (AK, Scout). Further, while speed may be a key trait in younger players, “Speed is not enough when you become older. It's the ability to learn quickly and adapt to a new level” (AR, Scout). This adaptability ensures continued development through different stages. Trainability, the ability to absorb instructions and understand a coach's message, is another critical factor in player success. Respondent AK emphasizes that trainability depends on a player's “understanding of drills, grasping the message, and willingness to change and learn.” This adaptability and openness to learning distinguishes top players from the rest. The ability to evolve both physically and mentally is essential for modern footballers, enabling them to excel in their current environment while continuously improving to meet the game's demands.
A player's ability to make logical decisions on the field is closely linked to their capacity to quickly absorb and apply lessons from training and matches. Game intelligence, as noted by Respondent JA, is directly tied to learning ability. Players who can “understand immediately” and apply insights on the pitch demonstrate the rapid learning and decision-making essential for long-term development. This highlights that football's success depends as much on mental acuity as on physical prowess. Developability also involves assessing a player's ability to build on their existing skills. Respondent NL stresses the importance of evaluating whether a player can continue growing: “A player may have fantastic skills, but can they take another step forward?” This question is key when identifying talent for elite leagues or international competition. The link between dynamism and football intelligence reinforces the need to pair physical traits with mental agility. As one respondent notes, it is rare to find a player who possesses all necessary qualities from the outset, scouting, therefore, focuses on what can be trained. “We focus on some attributes, and then we might have to sacrifice some others. But then we also consider which of these we can train. For instance, combination play, and crossing are two things that are easier to train from the age of 18 than game intelligence. If this player can just add these elements, which becomes our job, then he will improve both in value and in quality with us” (DJ, Chief Scout).
Respondent IG explains that players without early physical advantages often develop superior game intelligence out of necessity, relying on tactical awareness rather than sheer athleticism: “You often train your game intelligence better by not having the physical advantages when you're younger.” This highlights the interplay between physical and mental development, suggesting that early physical limitations can foster stronger tactical skills. Respondent LH emphasizes that by age 18, certain physical traits must already be established: “You need to have certain physical traits in place because you won’t be able to train yourself at, for instance, a certain speed.” However, players who lack speed can compensate with football intelligence, using anticipation and decision-making to stay ahead of opponents. This adaptability allows slower players to excel, underscoring the importance of a well-rounded skill set that balances physical attributes with mental agility.
Coordination and balance are also crucial for a player's long-term success, serving as foundational elements in youth football where essential skills are developed. Respondent ML highlights their connection to technique: “Coordination and balance are often connected with technique,” emphasizing the link between physical and technical ability. For younger players, Respondent AB stresses the importance of early technical and tactical development. While broad skill-building is essential, he notes that players naturally gravitate toward their strengths: “If I'm not good at something, likely, I won’t continue with it.” This suggests that while a holistic training approach is valuable, specialization and confidence-building become crucial by ages 13 or 14, when players start identifying their core abilities. In today's game, players must be not only technically skilled but also physically prepared to execute tactical tasks effectively. Their ability to integrate these attributes and continuously improve ultimately determines their long-term potential. “You need to have the technical ability that football today demands at a high pace. Then comes physicality; you need to be an athlete; you need to be ready. And if there's still some room for development in you, that's only positive. And of course, how organized are you on the field? Your understanding and execution of tasks” (JA, Scout).
Discussion
The aim of this study is to expand talent development (TD) practices beyond the prevalent reliance on summative assessments found in many existing models. Talent should be conceptualized through both potential and content, that is, not only in terms of future capabilities but also present performance. This, in turn, necessitates different assessment processes in TD. While content refers to observable, practice-based skills, potential denotes unrealized abilities that can be nurtured in a supportive learning environment. 28 This distinction allows for a differentiation between talent-as-content and talent-as-potential. 29
Talent-as-potential concerns the degree to which an individual's innate abilities can be realized through skill acquisition. It emphasizes developmental capacity, often viewed as fixed, where talent is perceived as an inherent trait that determines whether one can reach elite performance levels. While specific skills may be trained, potential is seen as setting an upper limit on development. 30 From this perspective, talent development is about realizing rather than enhancing pre-existing capacities.
In contrast, talent-as-content refers to what individuals can currently do, the skills and knowledge they have acquired. This view positions talent as a function of demonstrated performance, developed through experience and training, and considers expertise a platform for further growth. 31 Capability is framed holistically, reflecting integrated attributes rather than isolated technical skills. 29 While initial performance can improve through targeted training, content-based capability underscores talent as dynamic and continually evolving.
Talent manifests in both performance and in the opportunities afforded through identification, selection, and promotion within talent systems32–35 Performance enables individuals to demonstrate their abilities and potential in dynamic, match-like contexts, integrating physical, technical, tactical, and psychological dimensions. 14 Talent arises from the interaction of multiple traits, where performance captures current ability, while developability and learning capacity indicate future potential. Talented individuals balance present performance with an openness to learning and improvement through what Csikszentmihalyi et al. 36 p:258 describe as “serious play.”
(Cap)Ability refers to the skills, aptitudes, and attributes that an individual has acquired through training, practice, and competition.37,38 It reflects the athlete's current level of functioning, encompassing technical, physical, cognitive, and psychological competencies. Early recognition of these abilities is critical, although talent should not be reduced to any one standout trait. Rather, it results from a combination of characteristics, including the flexibility to adapt to developmental and in-game demands. Players who demonstrate versatility and an ability to progressively enhance multiple attributes, such as technical skill, physical robustness, and tactical intelligence, are more likely to be recognized and retained within talent pathways.
Development potential and learning capacity refer to the underlying aptitude for growth that underpins future success.16,39,40 Growth capacity is multidimensional and is best understood through indicators rather than direct measurement. 41 Some key traits may remain latent during early stages of development but become critical later. Growth capacity represents the projected upper bound of an athlete's potential trajectory and serves as a proxy for future success under the assumption of continued development. 30 It emphasizes predicting who is most likely to succeed in future, yet-undefined performance roles. 41
Developability refers to an individual's capacity to grow, adapt, and improve over time. It includes psychological traits such as resilience, adaptability, and the ability to perform under pressure, qualities essential to thriving in competitive environments.14,15,42 According to Silzer and Church,43,44 focusing on these aspects of performability allows organizations to more effectively cultivate high-potential individuals and secure a competitive advantage. Effective TD requires identifying not only those with current high performance but also those with strong developmental capacity. 45 Developability reflects an athlete's responsiveness to coaching, willingness to engage in deliberate practice, and capacity to learn and adapt over time. 46 TD, therefore, must balance assessments of present ability with projections of long-term growth potential. Active learning plays a critical role in talent realization, yet many athletes may lack one or more essential components, limiting their developmental trajectory. 7
A unifying model
As illustrated in the Dynamic State-Change Assessment Model (DSCAM) (Figure 2), talent development (TD) is organized around two overarching dimensions, State Content and Change Potential, and incorporates five assessment processes: performative, diagnostic, formative, summative, and ipsative assessments. These are complemented by two outcome mechanisms: feedback and feedforward. Together, these components form an iterative assessment cycle, wherein each phase informs the next, reinforcing a dynamic and continuous process of TD. State-related variables serve as the foundation for initial evaluations, enabling assessors to classify athletes based on current competencies, demonstrated skills, and performance metrics. In contrast, the Change dimension highlights latent attributes such as cognitive flexibility, learning capacity, and developmental responsiveness, which are important interactional processes that are often underappreciated in early-stage assessments but are critical for long-term success. 7 This dual focus aligns with emergenic and epigenetic frameworks of talent development, which emphasize the interaction between genetic predispositions and environmental conditions in shaping athletic performance over time. 47 The following discussion examines the implications of DSCAM for sport science, with particular emphasis on the interplay between the State and Change dimensions in guiding effective, individualized development pathways.
Dynamic state-change assessment model (DSCAM) of talent development.
The DSCAM offers a comprehensive framework for understanding the diversity of assessment processes within TD. It integrates immediate evaluations of talent-as-content with a forward-looking focus on talent-as-potential, bridging present performance with future developmental capacity. This dual perspective addresses core challenges in TD by emphasizing the interplay among performance, growth capacity, developability, and (cap)ability. By conceptualizing TD as a dynamic, iterative process, DSCAM challenges static interpretations of talent and offers actionable insights for refining assessment methods. This approach aligns with Baker et al., 32 who advocate for holistic assessments that incorporate psychological resilience, adaptability, and trainability alongside physical attributes.
Assessment types in DSCAM
Performative assessment 48 evaluates an athlete's capacity to execute skills in competitive, high-pressure, and unpredictable environments. It provides real-time, situated data 49 by assessing ability within simulated or actual performance contexts. 50 As an assessment of learning and developability, performative assessment captures growth capacity, adaptability, and (cap)ability in action.51,52 It plays a crucial role in generating feedback, serving as a regulatory mechanism that informs learning and behavioral adaptation.53,54 In DSCAM, these feedback insights are channeled into the diagnostic phase, ensuring that performance data informs ongoing development.
Diagnostic assessment serves a foundational role in talent development by identifying an athlete's current strengths and developmental needs.55,56 It provides a structured, evidence-based baseline across domains such as physical performance, technical and tactical ability, psychological resilience, and injury susceptibility. 57 Functioning preemptively, diagnostic assessment supports the design of individualized development plans aimed at optimizing performance and mitigating barriers to progress. 58 A core output of diagnostic assessment is feedforward, a proactive, anticipatory mechanism that guides future learning by identifying areas for growth before an action is taken.53,59,60 As such, it plays a critical role in shaping formative efforts, aligning training strategies with an athlete's evolving potential.
Formative assessment focuses on where an athlete currently stands, where they are headed, and how best to support their developmental trajectory. 58 It evaluates adaptability in relation to coaching strategies, training loads, and competitive levels, 61 while also considering an athlete's potential for long-term improvement.2,3 This includes monitoring physical maturation, skill transferability, psychological resilience, cognitive decision-making, and work ethic. Formative assessment is essential in sustainable TD systems, as it supports continuous learning and development by providing ongoing, targeted feedback on progress.
Summative assessment, often referred to as an assessment of learning, measures whether specific competencies or benchmarks have been achieved. 56 It evaluates present ability or proficiency in key performance areas such as speed, ball control, or tactical awareness.12,61 Closely linked to (cap)ability, summative assessments are typically used in selection contexts, serving as decision points for progression into performance-based environments. Although summative in nature, these assessments can also provide feedforward, offering insight into readiness for advanced developmental tasks or simulated performance contexts.
Ipsative assessment, positioned centrally in the DSCAM framework, is a personalized, longitudinal evaluation that focuses on intra-individual development. 62 It compares an athlete's current performance to their previous results, emphasizing growth capacity and adaptability over time. 8 Rather than highlighting deficiencies against external benchmarks, ipsative assessment tracks progress against personal developmental goals. This method supports a growth mindset approach, 63 where talent is understood as cultivated rather than fixed. It is particularly effective in evaluating responsiveness to training, motivation, and learning adaptability, especially for athletes who may not excel in normative comparisons. In short, it tracks progress against personal improvement rather than comparing athletes to their peers. 62 Ipsative feedback can also be more motivating, as it reframes success in terms of personal progress, which is particularly valuable for developing athletes in highly competitive systems.
Practical implications
The DSCAM offers important implications for both theory and practice by promoting a flexible approach that accommodates the diverse developmental trajectories of individual athletes. By integrating assessments of both talent-as-content and talent-as-potential, the model enables clubs to strengthen the effectiveness of talent pipelines and cultivate environments that support long-term athlete growth. This dual-focus framework contributes to more sustainable and inclusive pathways for athlete development, advancing broader objectives related to performance optimization and equity within elite sport contexts. DSCAM holds promise for advancing the field of talent development (TD) by encouraging more nuanced evaluations that account for an athlete's current capabilities as well as their capacity for future growth. 15 By moving beyond static, one-dimensional metrics, the model supports the adoption of adaptive evaluation strategies that reflect the complexity of athlete development. In doing so, it facilitates more inclusive development practices that recognize and nurture diverse pathways to success.
Limitations and future research directions
This study offers nuanced, practice-based insights into football talent development, yet some methodological constraints delimit the scope of its contributions. First, the participant pool is context-bound: all 23 informants were men working in Swedish, Danish or Italian professional leagues and were recruited through purposive and controlled snowball sampling. Findings may therefore not translate to women's pathways, grassroots settings or other sporting cultures. Second, the dataset consists exclusively of one-off, retrospective qualitative interviews; no observations, documents or performance metrics were triangulated, leaving the analysis vulnerable to selective recall and self-presentation biases. Third, the design is cross-sectional. Because perceptions were captured at a single time-point, the study cannot track how assessment practices, or players, evolve across developmental phases. Fourth, theme generation rests on interpretivist coding judgements. Although the Gioia protocol provides transparency, the manuscript does not report inter-coder reliability or participant validation, so alternative thematic interpretations remain plausible. Acknowledging these limitations clarifies the boundary conditions of the findings and signals avenues for future longitudinal, multi-method and cross-cultural research.
Future research can build on the DSCAM framework to investigate how contextual and environmental factors mediate these transitions, thereby refining our understanding of effective TD strategies. One avenue of research should examine how specific interventions facilitate transitions between State and Change dimensions, particularly across different sporting contexts. Longitudinal studies could explore the long-term career trajectories of athletes assessed using DSCAM, offering valuable insights into its predictive validity. An additional avenue for investigation involves assessing how DSCAM contributes to the refinement of TD systems, specifically across the stages of detection, identification, development, selection, and transfer. Research should also evaluate the empirical effectiveness of blended assessment models, those integrating multiple assessment types, across educational and professional domains, with particular emphasis on their applicability in sports science and TD practice.
Conclusion
The relationship between talent and change lies at the core of athlete development. Assessment frameworks play a pivotal role in shaping learning experiences, guiding motivation, and structuring development over time. While summative and outcome-based assessments continue to dominate professional practice, the integration of additional assessment types within a structured yet flexible framework can enhance talent development by aligning individualized learning trajectories with competency-based outcomes. This article contributes to the TD discourse by introducing a structured, yet generically adaptable, assessment framework. In doing so, the DSCAM promotes greater systematicity and precision in assessment practices across talent development contexts.
By differentiating between State and Change dimensions, as well as between talent-as-content and talent-as-potential, DSCAM addresses both the tangible and intangible aspects of talent development. This distinction is especially relevant in dynamic and unpredictable sports environments, where success criteria can shift rapidly.64,65 The framework aligns with recent TD scholarship advocating for more adaptive approaches that consider the interplay between current abilities and future potential.66,67 By conceptualizing State and Change as complementary domains and recognizing both content and potential as components of talent, DSCAM supports the growing movement toward integrated and holistic assessment models.
This integrated approach ensures that current performance, developmental needs, learning capacity, (cap)ability, and developability are all considered, enabling a more comprehensive and individualized evaluation of an athlete's developmental trajectory. Such a broadened perspective is essential for identifying athletes who can not only excel in their present roles but also adapt and evolve as they progress through their careers. The identified assessment mechanisms should be understood as part of an ongoing, continuous process, one that links various stages of talent cultivation to reduce athlete dropout and maximize long-term developmental outcomes. 65 As Martindale et al. 15 emphasized, long-term vision and holistic strategies are essential components of effective talent development.
The model's generic adaptability allows for the tailoring of assessment components (A1–A5) to suit both individual and team level development, different types of assessments, outcome mechanisms, developmental goals, and sports. This flexibility supports context-specific implementation while maintaining conceptual coherence, making DSCAM applicable across a range of TD environments.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
