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.
Introduction
Youth sport programmes have multiple goals from improving the health, fitness and wellbeing of children and adolescents 1 to creating developmental opportunities for potential future sporting success 2 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 definition 1 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 study 4 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 skills 10 and physical fitness 11 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 exercise 12 ). Nonetheless, recent research 4 suggests that practitioners still focus upon the ‘athlete’ (i.e., individuals involved in sport 12 ) 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 studies14–16 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 research 4 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 terms 34 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 reflections 23 of those that impact youth athleticism.
The survey was adapted from previous surveys in similar domains4,24 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 definition 3 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 approach
28
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).
Practitioners’ perceptions of athleticism.
Research rigour
Research 29 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 development 4 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)).
Participants importance of characteristics for athleticism.
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.
Practitioners perceptions of the importance of athleticism.
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.
Practitioners’ perceptions around the challenges associated with measuring athleticism.
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 research 31 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 definition 3 (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 CYDM 1 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 environments 35 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. Research 36 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 measures 3 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 difference 41 ; 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 research 12 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 athleticism 42 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 research 12 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
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.
