Table 2.

Studies that compared the decision-making processes between low- and high-ability levels in youth team-sports players.

Study	Level of Ability/Performance	Objectives of the Study	Design of the Study	Measures	Main Results
Raab et al. [36]	High-level players, medium-level, and low-level handball players	Describe the link between the use of different information search strategies, the subsequent option-generation process, and the resulting choice characteristics in a realistic sports task.	Three groups with different levels of performance were tested in four waves occurred approximately every 6 months over a period of about 2 years. The video test consisted of 15 clips of about 10s each. Also, a video-based head-mounted infrared eye tracker was used.	Information search, option generation, and choice.	The spatial strategy was employed by ~51% of high-level players, ~41% of medium-level players, and ~55% of low-level players. Based on option-generation, a spatial strategy was employed by ~61% of high-level players, ~36% of medium-level players, and ~59% of low-level players. A significantly better quality of the initial option was found when compared to subsequent options for each of the four waves. Significantly more options were generated in the first wave, and significantly fewer were generated in all subsequent waves.
Vaeyens et al. [37]	Elite, sub-elite, regional, and control group levels in football	Examine differences in decision-making skill and visual search strategies across five categories of small-sided, offensive game simulations in soccer (2 vs. 1, 3 vs. 1, 3 vs. 2, 4 vs. 3, and 5 vs. 3) with participants with different experience and skill level.	Participants stood on two pressure sensitive switches and were required to make the correct tactical decision quickly and accurately when the ball was played in the direction of the player wearing the yellow vest. Players were required to verbalize their intended response immediately after each trial.	Decision time, response accuracy, search rate, fixation location, and fixation order.	No significant differences in choice reaction times were observed across groups. The three groups of players employed shorter decision-times than the nonplayer participants across all viewing conditions. All participants were less accurate in the 4 vs. 3 condition and more accurate in the 2 vs. 1 condition. Significant differences were observed between the 2 vs. 1 and 3 vs. 1 conditions and the 3 vs. 2, 4 vs. 3, and 5 vs. 3 conditions. Skilled players spent more time fixating on the player with ball possession and less time on the player wearing the yellow shirt.
Den Hartigh et al. [38]	Invited and non-invited players to be part at a football academy	Compare players with greater and lower ability levels in terms of game-reading	Players watched football game plays and verbalized simultaneously the actions taking place in the field.	The Skill Theory coding system was used to code the verbalizations made by the players. The system presents 8 complexity levels (0–error; to 7–abstraction).	Selected players (invited by football schools) had meaningfully high scores on the skill theory complexity scale. Selected players displayed a strong capacity to structure information from the game plays, indicating high levels of cognitive complexity).
Diaz del Campo et al. [39]	Low and high football players	Analyze differences in decision-making (cognitive and execution) between high- and low-level players.	Different small-sided games were applied in accordance to age group (2 vs. 2 to 7 vs. 7). Decision-making during attacking and defensive processes were analyzed comparing low- vs. high-level players.	The Game Performance Evaluation Tool (GPET) was used to determine the decision-making of players (cognitive and execution). Decisions were categorized relative to technical/tactical skills and relative to tactical context adaptation.	High-level players had better results in the cognitive aspects of game performance (independently of their age group). High-level players made better decisions related to passing and keeping the ball than younger players. Results suggest the importance of adapting to the tactical contexts of the game in the development of expertise.
French et al. [40]	Different cognitive and skill execution baseball levels	Analyze differences in cognitive and skill execution components of the game performance in different levels of ability.	A minimum of 5 regular season games were recorded and analyzed for each team.	The following categories were coded by the observers: (i) setting information; (ii) position played; (iii) type of movement; (iv) position decisions; (v) type of control; (vi) location of play; (vii) accuracy of decision; (viii) skill execution (including infield throwing, outfield throwing, tagging a base, tagging a runner), and (ix) forceful execution of throws.	Differences in skill execution between ability levels were found. However, cognitive components were not meaningfully different between ability levels. Throwing force, batting average, batting contact, and catching meaningfully distinguished ability levels. Cognitive components minimally distinguished the ability levels.
Keller et al. [27]	Sub-elite, state elite, and national elite football players	Analyze if a video-based decision-making task could classify football players into different ability levels. Players were organized as sub-elite, state elite and national elite.	Players watched clips in which was necessary to identify the most appropriate option to pass or shoot.	Decision-making score was measured by each player.	The video-based decision-making tests were able to discriminate different levels of performance. A significant increase in decision-making performance with increasing levels of ability level across the three groups was observed.
Woods et al. [41]	Talent-identified and non-talent-identified Australian football players	Analyze if contextual decision-making skill can be a discriminative of talent-identified junior Australian football players	Players were asked to watch a clip of an attacking action and choose the preferred passing option.	Decision-making score was measured by each player.	Talent-identified participants were more accurate than other players in terms of the decisions they made after watching attacking clips.
Bennett et al. [6]	Different football players levels	Evaluate the use of mobile technology as an alternate method of delivering video-based decision-making assessments for talent identification.	Players completed a video-based decision-making assessment on an iPad, with response accuracy and response time recorded for various attacking situations (2 vs. 1, 3 vs. 1, 3 vs. 2, 4 vs. 3, and 5 vs. 3).	(i) response accuracy, measured on a multiple point scale evaluated by two nationally and one internationally accredited coaches; (ii) response time, recorded as the duration between the occlusion of a video and the player selecting a response on the iPad.	Older players were faster at responding in each situation. However, response accuracy was similar in all developmental stages. Therefore, there is limited conclusive evidence supporting the effectiveness of these assessments for talent identification.
Raab et al. [42]	High-, medium- and low-level handball players	Investigate whether a preference for intuition over deliberation results in faster and better lab-based choices in team handball attack situations.	Athletes were asked to name, as quickly and as accurately as possible the first option for the player in ball possession that came to mind after the frozen frame of video clips from a video test.	It was recorded the verbal responses (dependent variables of decision time), option generation time, quality of first option, final option, and number of options. The PID scale was used.	High-level players showed better performance than medium-level and lower-level. Girls were more intuitive than boys. Athletes classified as having a preference for intuitive decisions made their first choice faster, had a better first option, and had better best options than athletes classified as deliberative decision-makers.