Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for :

  • Author: Richard Collins x
  • Sport and Exercise Science/Kinesiology x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Richard Bailey and David Collins

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.

Restricted access

Jack R. Engsberg, Richard E. A. Van Emmerik, Sandy A. Ross, and David R. Collins

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.