Quantifying the Extent to Which Junior Performance Predicts Senior Performance in Olympic Sports: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To what extent does junior athletic performance predict senior athletic performance (i.e., in the highest, open-age category)? This question is the subject of a lively debate in the literature. Following traditional theories of giftedness and expertise, some researchers and practitioners have proposed that a high level of junior performance is a prerequisite for the development of a high level of later senior performance. Sceptics of this view hold that junior performance has limited predictive value for later senior performance, pointing to empirical evidence indicating that predictors (e.g., participation patterns) of junior performance and of senior performance differ. The straightforward way to resolve this controversy empirically is to test the correlation between junior and senior performance. OBJECTIVE: To provide robust and generalizable evidence on this issue, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant studies. The aim was to quantify the overall correlation between junior and senior performance and then test whether correlations vary across junior age categories and subsamples (e.g., types of sports). METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in SPORTDiscus, Eric, ProQuest, PsychInfo, PubMed, Scopus, WorldCat, and Google Scholar from 27 January through 30 April 2022. We searched for original studies that recorded athletes' junior and senior performance longitudinally and included measures of association between junior and senior performance. Quality of evidence was evaluated using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool version for nonrandomized studies. RESULTS: The search yielded k = 129 effect sizes from N = 13,392 athletes from a wide range of Olympic sports, 62% male and 38% female, from 2006 to 2021. Four central findings emerged: (1) Overall, the meta-analytic pooled correlation between junior and senior performance was [Formula: see text] = 0.148. That is, junior performance explained only 2.2% of the reliable variance in senior performance. (2) The finding was robust across types of sports, sexes, wider or narrower performance ranges, national or international samples, and binary or continuous performance measures. (3) Effects varied across junior age categories: the younger the junior age category, the lower the correlation between junior and senior performance, with [Formula: see text] ranging from [Formula: see text] = - 0.052 to [Formula: see text] = 0.215. That is, across junior age categories, junior performance explained 0-4.6% of the reliable variance in senior performance. (4) The quality of primary studies was high. DISCUSSION: The results suggest that junior performance has very little, if any, predictive value for senior performance. The findings run counter to claims from traditional theories of both giftedness and expertise. From an applied perspective, talent selection typically begins around puberty or younger-age ranges where youth performance is uncorrelated or negatively correlated with later senior performance. The evidence presented here raises serious questions about the use of junior performance for talent selection purposes. A PRISMA-P protocol was registered at https://osf.io/gck4a/ .

Participation patterns in talent development in youth sports.

There has been a longstanding debate about the question: What amounts of what types of youth sport activities optimally facilitate later athletic excellence? This article provides a review of relevant research. We first evaluate popular conceptualizations of participation patterns-early specialization, deliberate practice, and deliberate play. Then, we review the available evidence on associations between performance and individual participation variables. The review reveals conceptual, definitional, and empirical flaws of the conceptions of early specialization, deliberate practice, and deliberate play. These approaches thus possess limited usefulness for empirical research. A review of studies considering individual, clearly defined participation variables provides a differentiated pattern of findings: Predictors of rapid junior performance and of long-term senior performance are opposite. Higher-performing juniors, compared to lower-performing peers, started playing their main sport, began involvement in talent promotion programs, and reached developmental performance milestones at younger ages, while accumulating larger amounts of coach-led main-sport practice, but less other-sports practice. In contrast, senior world-class athletes, compared to less-accomplished national-class peers, started playing their main sport, began involvement in talent promotion programs, and achieved performance milestones at older ages, while accumulating less coach-led main-sport practice, but more other-sports practice. We discuss implications for theory, practice, and future research.

Individual Responses versus Aggregate Group-Level Results: Examining the Strength of Evidence for Growth Mindset Interventions on Academic Performance.

Mindset theory assumes that students' beliefs about their intelligence-whether these are fixed or can grow-affects students' academic performance. Based on this assumption, mindset theorists have developed growth mindset interventions to teach students that their intelligence or another attribute can be developed, with the goal of improving academic outcomes. Though many papers have reported benefits from growth mindset interventions, others have reported no effects or even detrimental effects. Recently, proponents of mindset theory have called for a "heterogeneity revolution" to understand when growth mindset interventions are effective and when-and for whom-they are not. We sought to examine the whole picture of heterogeneity of treatment effects, including benefits, lack of impacts, and potential detriments of growth mindset interventions on academic performance. We used a recently proposed approach that considers persons as effect sizes; this approach can reveal individual-level heterogeneity often lost in aggregate data analyses. Across three papers, we find that this approach reveals substantial individual-level heterogeneity unobservable at the group level, with many students and teachers exhibiting mindset and performance outcomes that run counter to the authors' claims. Understanding and reporting heterogeneity, including benefits, null effects, and detriments, will lead to better guidance for educators and policymakers considering the role of growth mindset interventions in schools.

Quantifying the Extent to Which Successful Juniors and Successful Seniors are Two Disparate Populations: A Systematic Review and Synthesis of Findings.

BACKGROUND: To what extent does the pathway to senior elite success build on junior elite success? Evidence from longitudinal studies investigating athletes' junior-to-senior performance development is mixed; prospective studies have reported percentages of juniors who achieved an equivalent competition level at senior age (e.g., international championships at both times) ranging from 0 to 68%. Likewise, retrospective studies have reported percentages of senior athletes who had achieved an equivalent competition level at junior age ranging from 2 to 100%. However, samples have been heterogeneous in terms of junior age categories, competition levels, sex, sports, and sample sizes. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to establish more robust and generalizable findings via a systematic review and synthesis of findings. We considered three competition levels-competing at a national championship level, competing at an international championship level, and winning international medals-and addressed three questions: (1) How many junior athletes reach an equivalent competition level when they are senior athletes? (2) How many senior athletes reached an equivalent competition level when they were junior athletes? The answers to these questions provide an answer to Question (3): To what extent are successful juniors and successful seniors one identical population or two disparate populations? METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in SPORTDiscus, ERIC, ProQuest, PsychInfo, PubMed, Scopus, WorldCat, and Google Scholar until 15 March 2022. Percentages of juniors who achieved an equivalent competition level at senior age (prospective studies) and of senior athletes who had achieved an equivalent competition level at junior age (retrospective studies) were aggregated across studies to establish these percentages for all athletes, separately for prospective and retrospective studies, junior age categories, and competition levels. Quality of evidence was evaluated using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version for descriptive quantitative studies. RESULTS: Prospective studies included 110 samples with 38,383 junior athletes. Retrospective studies included 79 samples with 22,961 senior athletes. The following findings emerged: (1) Few elite juniors later achieved an equivalent competition level at senior age, and few elite seniors had previously achieved an equivalent competition level at junior age. For example, 89.2% of international-level U17/18 juniors failed to reach international level as seniors and 82.0% of international-level seniors had not reached international level as U17/18 juniors. (2) Successful juniors and successful seniors are largely two disparate populations. For example, international-level U17/18 juniors and international-level seniors were 7.2% identical and 92.8% disparate. (3) Percentages of athletes achieving equivalent junior and senior competition levels were the smallest among the highest competition levels and the youngest junior age categories. (4) The quality of evidence was generally high. DISCUSSION: The findings question the tenets of traditional theories of giftedness and expertise as well as current practices of talent selection and talent promotion. A PRISMA-P protocol was registered at https://osf.io/gck4a/ .

Do growth mindset interventions impact students' academic achievement? A systematic review and meta-analysis with recommendations for best practices.

According to mindset theory, students who believe their personal characteristics can change-that is, those who hold a growth mindset-will achieve more than students who believe their characteristics are fixed. Proponents of the theory have developed interventions to influence students' mindsets, claiming that these interventions lead to large gains in academic achievement. Despite their popularity, the evidence for growth mindset intervention benefits has not been systematically evaluated considering both the quantity and quality of the evidence. Here, we provide such a review by (a) evaluating empirical studies' adherence to a set of best practices essential for drawing causal conclusions and (b) conducting three meta-analyses. When examining all studies (63 studies, N = 97,672), we found major shortcomings in study design, analysis, and reporting, and suggestions of researcher and publication bias: Authors with a financial incentive to report positive findings published significantly larger effects than authors without this incentive. Across all studies, we observed a small overall effect: d¯ = 0.05, 95% CI = [0.02, 0.09], which was nonsignificant after correcting for potential publication bias. No theoretically meaningful moderators were significant. When examining only studies demonstrating the intervention influenced students' mindsets as intended (13 studies, N = 18,355), the effect was nonsignificant: d¯ = 0.04, 95% CI = [-0.01, 0.10]. When examining the highest-quality evidence (6 studies, N = 13,571), the effect was nonsignificant: d¯ = 0.02, 95% CI = [-0.06, 0.10]. We conclude that apparent effects of growth mindset interventions on academic achievement are likely attributable to inadequate study design, reporting flaws, and bias. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Learning and Transfer in Problem Solving Progressions.

Do individuals learn more effectively when given progressive or variable problem-solving experience, relative to consistent problem-solving experience? We investigated this question using a Rubik's Cube paradigm. Participants were randomly assigned to a progression-order condition, where they practiced solving three progressively more difficult Rubik's Cubes (i.e., 2 × 2 × 2 to 3 × 3 × 3 to 4 × 4 × 4), a variable-order condition, where they practiced solving three Rubik's Cubes of varying difficulty (e.g., 3 × 3 × 3 to 2 × 2 × 2 to 4 × 4 × 4), or a consistent-order condition, where they consistently practiced on three 5 × 5 × 5 Rubik's Cubes. All the participants then attempted a 5 × 5 × 5 Rubik's Cube test. We tested whether variable training is as effective as progressive training for near transfer of spatial skills and whether progressive training is superior to consistent training. We found no significant differences in performance across conditions. Participants' fluid reasoning predicted 5 × 5 × 5 Rubik's Cube test performance regardless of training condition.

Predictors of Junior Versus Senior Elite Performance are Opposite: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Participation Patterns.

BACKGROUND: Does early specialization facilitate later athletic excellence, or is early diversification better? This is a longstanding theoretical controversy in sports science and medicine. Evidence from studies investigating athletes' starting age, childhood/adolescent progress, and amounts of coach-led practice and peer-led play in their main sport and in other sports has been mixed. Each participation variable was positively correlated with performance in some studies but uncorrelated or negatively correlated with performance in others. However, samples were heterogeneous in age, sports, and performance levels. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to establish robust, generalizable findings through a systematic review and meta-analysis. We investigated three questions: (1) did higher- and lower-performing athletes differ in childhood/adolescent progress, starting age, or amounts of main-sport or other-sports practice or play; (2) do effects differ between junior and adult athletes, compared performance levels, or types of sports; and (3) are effect sizes from different predictors associated with one another? METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in SPORTDiscus, ERIC, ProQuest, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, WorldCat, and Google Scholar until 28 February 2021. Selection criteria included original research studies comparing higher- versus lower-performing athletes regarding one or more of our predictor variables within defined age categories, sports, and sex, and reporting effect sizes or data needed to compute effects sizes. Mean meta-analytic Cohen's d was calculated for each predictor. Quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. RESULTS: In total, 71 study reports met all eligibility criteria and included 262 international athlete samples, 685 effect sizes, and a total sample size of 9241 athletes from local to Olympic competition level and from diverse sports. The following findings emerged. (1) Compared with their national-class counterparts, adult world-class athletes had more childhood/adolescent multi-sport coach-led practice, a later main-sport start, less main-sport practice, and slower initial progress (|0.23|< [Formula: see text]<|0.50|; all p < 0.001). (2) The opposite was true for predictors of junior-age performance: higher-performing juniors had an earlier main-sport start, more main-sport practice, less other-sports practice, and faster initial progress (|0.23|< [Formula: see text]< |0.61|; all p < 0.001). (3) Main-sport or other-sports peer-led play had negligible effects (all p > 0.05). (4) Results were robust across types of sports. (5) Effect sizes from different predictors were associated with one another (|0.64|< r <|0.79|). A GRADE assessment revealed a low quality of evidence for peer-led play but a moderate to high quality of evidence for all other predictors. DISCUSSION: Excess childhood/adolescent specialized practice may hinder athletes' long-term development through overuse injury, burnout, suboptimal athlete-sport match, and limiting long-term learning capital. By contrast, adult world-class athletes' childhood/adolescent multi-sport practice with reduced main-sport practice implied a relatively resource-preserving, cost-reducing, and risk-buffering pattern that yielded greater long-term sustainability and practice efficiency.

What Makes a Champion? Early Multidisciplinary Practice, Not Early Specialization, Predicts World-Class Performance.

What explains the acquisition of exceptional human performance? Does a focus on intensive specialized practice facilitate excellence, or is a multidisciplinary practice background better? We investigated this question in sports. Our meta-analysis involved 51 international study reports with 477 effect sizes from 6,096 athletes, including 772 of the world's top performers. Predictor variables included starting age, age of reaching defined performance milestones, and amounts of coach-led practice and youth-led play (e.g., pickup games) in the athlete's respective main sport and in other sports. Analyses revealed that (a) adult world-class athletes engaged in more childhood/adolescent multisport practice, started their main sport later, accumulated less main-sport practice, and initially progressed more slowly than did national-class athletes; (b) higher performing youth athletes started playing their main sport earlier, engaged in more main-sport practice but less other-sports practice, and had faster initial progress than did lower performing youth athletes; and (c) youth-led play in any sport had negligible effects on both youth and adult performance. We illustrate parallels from science: Nobel laureates had multidisciplinary study/working experience and slower early progress than did national-level award winners. The findings suggest that variable, multidisciplinary practice experiences are associated with gradual initial discipline-specific progress but greater sustainability of long-term development of excellence.

Resilience of adolescents, though weakened during pandemic-related lockdown, serves as a protection against depression and sleep problems.

Adolescents facing adversities are susceptible to depression and sleep problems. Resilience is an important protective mechanism for coping with adversity. During the COVID-19 pandemic, adolescents faced hardships including being pulled from their schools and being unable to socialize with friends during mandated lockdowns. We had three aims in this study. First, we sought to test whether Chinese adolescents' resilience was strengthened, maintained, or weakened during the COVID-19 lockdown. Second, we sought to test whether adolescents' resilience predicted depressive symptoms and in turn, sleep problems. Third, we sought to examine the role social support may play. In a partially-longitudinal survey study, we demonstrated via a within-subject t-test and its Bayesian equivalent that Chinese adolescents' resilience weakened during the lockdown compared with before the pandemic. However, resilience remained an important predictor: A mediation model demonstrated that higher resilience was associated with fewer depressive symptoms, which in turn predicted fewer sleep problems. Moreover, we found that social support moderated this mediation: Strong social support reduced the negative effects of low resilience levels. These results help shed light on the fragility of resilience, its importance for adolescents' mental health when facing adversity, and how we might support adolescents experiencing social distancing mandates or who are otherwise isolated from their peers.

Reconsidering the Use of the Mindset Assessment Profile in Educational Contexts.

The Mindset Assessment Profile is a popular questionnaire purportedly designed to measure mindset-an individual's belief in whether intelligence is malleable or stable. Despite its widespread use, the questionnaire appears to assess an individual's need for cognition and goal orientation more than mindset. We assessed the reliability, construct validity, and factor structure of the Mindset Assessment Profile in a sample of 992 undergraduates. The reliability of the Mindset Assessment Profile was questionable (α = .63) and significantly lower than the reliability of the Implicit Theories of Intelligence Questionnaire (α = .94), an established measure of mindset. The Mindset Assessment Profile also lacked convergent and discriminant validity. Overall scores on the Mindset Assessment Profile correlated significantly more strongly with need for cognition than with mindset. Item-level analyses supported this finding: most items correlated weakly or not at all with mindset, and correlated significantly more strongly with need for cognition and learning goal orientation. Exploratory factor analysis indicated that three factors were underlying scores on the Mindset Assessment Profile: need for cognition, mindset, and performance goal orientation. Based on its questionable reliability and poor construct validity, we do not recommend that researchers and educators use the Mindset Assessment Profile to measure mindset.

Toward a cumulative science of expertise: commentary on Moxley, Ericsson, and Tuffiash (2017).

In a recent Psychological Research article, Moxley, Ericsson, and Tuffiash (2017) report two studies of SCRABBLE expertise. The results revealed that the average SCRABBLE rating was higher for males than for females. Moreover, correlational and structural equation analyses revealed that activities that the authors refer to as "purposeful practice" accounted for a substantial amount of the variance in SCRABBLE ratings. The authors generalize their findings concerning SCRABBLE to STEM careers. We believe this generalization is unjustified, as is their argument that SCRABBLE can be used to understand the gender gap in STEM fields. Moreover, the authors' conclusions are undermined by inconsistencies and contradictions in their arguments. We discuss these problems with Moxley et al.'s article in terms of their impact on the cumulative science of expertise.

How do task characteristics affect learning and performance? The roles of simultaneous, interactive, and continuous tasks.

Why are some tasks more difficult to learn than others? Hoffman et al. (Accelerated expertise: training for high proficiency in a complex world. Psychology Press, New York, 2014) hypothesized that certain task characteristics-termed "dimensions of difficulty"-hindered learning and performance. Previously, we tested two dimensions: consistent vs. variably mapped and static vs. dynamic. Here, we test three more dimensions of difficulty: sequential vs. simultaneous, discrete vs. continuous, and separable vs. interactive. In each study, we manipulate a single task feature (dimension of difficulty) while holding all others constant. Tasks with continuous (rather than discrete) features slowed participants' performance but did not impair learning. Learning and performance were unimpaired in tasks with interactive (rather than largely separable) processes. By contrast, we found strong evidence that simultaneous tasks (i.e., those that demand multitasking) inhibit learning, slow performance, and increase task errors. Importantly, this occurred in the absence of perceptual and mechanical bottlenecks present in most other studies of multitasking. We also are the first to examine simultaneity on learning a new task while controlling for other dimensions of difficulty. We discuss the potential impact of these results on current theory and application to real-world domains.

Is the Deliberate Practice View Defensible? A Review of Evidence and Discussion of Issues.

The question of what explains individual differences in expertise within complex domains such as music, games, sports, science, and medicine is currently a major topic of interest in a diverse range of fields, including psychology, education, and sports science, to name just a few. Ericsson and colleagues' deliberate practice view is a highly influential perspective in the literature on expertise and expert performance-but is it viable as a testable scientific theory? Here, reviewing more than 25 years of Ericsson and colleagues' writings, we document critical inconsistencies in the definition of deliberate practice, along with apparent shifts in the standard for evidence concerning deliberate practice. We also consider the impact of these issues on progress in the field of expertise, focusing on the empirical testability and falsifiability of the deliberate practice view. We then discuss a multifactorial perspective on expertise, and how open science practices can accelerate progress in research guided by this perspective.

Three visual working memory representations simultaneously control attention.

How many items can we store in visual working memory while simultaneously conducting a visual search? Previous research has proposed that during concurrent visual search, only one visual working memory representation can be activated to directly influence attention. This previous research suggests that other visual working memory representations are "accessory items", which have little direct influence on attention. However, recent findings provided evidence that not one, but two visual working memory representations can capture attention and interfere with concurrent visual search. We successfully replicate these findings, and further test whether the capacity of visual working memory during visual search extends to not two, but three representations that influence attention directly. We find evidence that three visual working memory representations can simultaneously control attention.

How Firm Are the Foundations of Mind-Set Theory? The Claims Appear Stronger Than the Evidence.

Mind-set refers to people's beliefs about whether attributes are malleable (growth mind-set) or unchangeable ( fixed mind-set). Proponents of mind-set theory have made bold claims about mind-set's importance. For example, one's mind-set is described as having profound effects on one's motivation and achievements, creating different psychological worlds for people, and forming the core of people's meaning systems. We examined the evidentiary strength of six key premises of mind-set theory in 438 participants; we reasoned that strongly worded claims should be supported by equally strong evidence. However, no support was found for most premises. All associations (rs) were significantly weaker than .20. Other achievement-motivation constructs, such as self-efficacy and need for achievement, have been found to correlate much more strongly with presumed associates of mind-set. The strongest association with mind-set (r = -.12) was opposite from the predicted direction. The results suggest that the foundations of mind-set theory are not firm and that bold claims about mind-set appear to be overstated.

The role of deliberate practice in expert performance: revisiting Ericsson, Krampe & Tesch-Römer (1993).

We sought to replicate Ericsson, Krampe & Tesch-Römer's (Ericsson, Krampe & Tesch-Römer 1993 Psychol. Rev. 100, 363-406) seminal study on deliberate practice. Ericsson et al. found that differences in retrospective estimates of accumulated amounts of deliberate practice corresponded to each skill level of student violinists. They concluded, 'individual differences in ultimate performance can largely be accounted for by differential amounts of past and current levels of practice' (p. 392). We reproduced the methodology with notable exceptions, namely (i) employing a double-blind procedure, (ii) conducting analyses better suited to the study design, and (iii) testing previously unanswered questions about teacher-designed practice-that is, we examined the way Ericsson et al. operationalized deliberate practice (practice alone), and their theoretical but previously unmeasured definition of deliberate practice (teacher-designed practice), and compared them. We did not replicate the core finding that accumulated amounts of deliberate practice corresponded to each skill level. Overall, the size of the effect was substantial, but considerably smaller than the original study's effect size. Teacher-designed practice was perceived as less relevant to improving performance on the violin than practice alone. Further, amount of teacher-designed practice did not account for more variance in performance than amount of practice alone. Implications for the deliberate practice theory are discussed.

Retrieval shifts in spatial skill acquisition are collective rather than item-specific.

How do people improve their ability to intercept moving targets? Prior research and theories of skill acquisition suggest that individuals engage in item-specific retrieval shifts (Anglim & Wynton, 2015; Logan, 1988; Palmeri, 1997; Rickard, 1997, 2004; Touron, 2006; Wilkins & Rawson, 2010). However, this prior research examined performance on nonspatial, nondynamic tasks. In three experiments, we pitted four hypotheses against each other, to test skill acquisition for intercepting repeated trajectories in a spatial and dynamic task: the item-specific algorithmic speedup hypothesis, the item-specific retrieval shift hypothesis, the collective retrieval shift hypothesis, and the combined hypothesis (item-specific algorithmic speedup followed by a collective retrieval shift). We found evidence for the combined hypothesis. Specifically, under easy conditions, we found small improvements on repeated trajectories that were attributable to item-specific algorithmic speedup. By contrast, under difficult conditions, we found strong evidence that the performance benefits for repeated trajectories were driven primarily by a collective shift from algorithmic to direct-retrieval strategies. This evidence for collective retrieval shift is in direct contrast to theories suggesting item-specific retrieval shifts. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

How do task characteristics affect learning and performance? The roles of variably mapped and dynamic tasks.

For well over a century, scientists have investigated individual differences in performance. The majority of studies have focused on either differences in practice, or differences in cognitive resources. However, the predictive ability of either practice or cognitive resources varies considerably across tasks. We are the first to examine task characteristics' impact on learning and performance in a complex task while controlling for other task characteristics. In 2 experiments we test key theoretical task characteristic thought to moderate the relationship between practice, cognitive resources, and performance. We devised a task where each of several key task characteristics can be manipulated independently. Participants played 5 rounds of a game similar to the popular tower defense videogame Plants vs. Zombies where both cognitive load and game characteristics were manipulated. In Experiment 1, participants either played a consistently mapped version-the stimuli and the associated meaning of their properties were constant across the 5 rounds-or played a variably mapped version-the stimuli and the associated meaning of their properties changed every few minutes. In Experiment 2, participants either played a static version-that is, turn taking with no time pressure-or played a dynamic version-that is, the stimuli moved regardless of participants' response rates. In Experiment 1, participants' accuracy and efficiency were substantially hindered in the variably mapped conditions. In Experiment 2, learning and performance accuracy were hindered in the dynamic conditions, especially when under cognitive load. Our results suggest that task characteristics impact the relative importance of cognitive resources and practice on predicting learning and performance. (PsycINFO Database Record