Search Results

Despite evident differences between approaches to talent development, many share a set of common characteristics and presumptions. We call this the Standard Model of Talent Development (SMTD). This model is articulated and the relevant literature drawn out to highlight the model's strengths and weaknesses. The SMTD has been enormously influential, in terms of both policy documentation and practice, and it retains an obvious common sense appeal. However, we will argue that not only is its attractiveness illusionary and inconsistent to the emerging evidence base from research, but it is also undesirable from a variety of perspectives and desired outcomes. In short, we suggest that the most common system for identifying talent is unsubstantiated from both a process and an outcome perspective.

In response to the recent literature regarding the development of applied sport psychologists’ service philosophies (Lindsay, Breckon, Thomas, & Maynard, 2007), three neophyte psychologists take an autoethnographical approach to detailing how they developed their current philosophies. Using vignettes and personal accounts of their experiences they describe how reflection on their beliefs and values about people, behavior, sport, and change has underpinned their development as practitioners. The three authors detail how their delivery has developed from an approach that initially relied heavily on one framework into a more client-led approach that is more congruent with their beliefs and how this has in turn enhanced their effectiveness as practitioners. The implications of this reflective process for other neophytes is explored in relation to the experiences of the three authors.

This investigation developed a measure of motor control at the ankle for persons with CP using relative phase. Twenty-nine subjects, 14 with spastic diplegia cerebral palsy (CP group) and 15 without disability (WD group) were tested once. Video data were collected as a seated subject performed four full range of ankle plantar and dorsiflexion movement tasks (right ankle, left ankle, ankles in-phase with each other, and ankles antiphase to each other) at four different frequencies (self-paced, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0 Hz). The relative phase measure was able to discern the differences between the two groups of children. The CP group had poorer motor control than the WD group, based upon the measure. Both groups had more difficulty performing the antiphase than the in-phase movements. The investigation adds to the body of knowledge in that the concept of relative phase was used as a measure of motor control at the ankle in persons with CP. Results indicated that the measure was adequately sensitive to quantify differences between a group with CP and a group without disability. Clinically the measure could eventually be used as both an assessment and outcome tool.