Can perceptuo-motor skills outcomes predict future competition participation/drop-out and competition performance in youth table tennis players? A 9-year follow-up study

Irene R Faber; Till Koopmann; Nicolette Schipper-van Veldhoven; Jos Twisk; Johan Pion

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0281731

. 2023 Feb 10;18(2):e0281731. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281731

Can perceptuo-motor skills outcomes predict future competition participation/drop-out and competition performance in youth table tennis players? A 9-year follow-up study

Irene R Faber ^1,^2,^*, Till Koopmann ¹, Nicolette Schipper-van Veldhoven ^2,³, Jos Twisk ⁴, Johan Pion ^5,⁶

Editor: Rafael Franco Soares Oliveira⁷

PMCID: PMC9916551 PMID: 36763603

Abstract

Tools that provide a fair estimate of young table tennis players’ potential and their chances to succeed will support making decisions whether to commit to an extensive development program and the accompanying lifestyle. Consequently, this study included two research questions (RQ) to evaluate the capability of the Dutch perceptuo-motor skills assessment to predict competition participation/drop-out (RQ1) and competition performance (RQ2) in young table tennis players (n = 39; 7–11 years) using a tracking period of 9 years. The perceptuo-motor skills assessment consists of eight tests assessing gross motor function (i.e., sprint, agility, vertical jump) and ball control (i.e., speed while dribbling, aiming at target, ball skills, throwing a ball and eye-hand coordination). A Cox regression analysis demonstrated that a higher level of ball control was associated with a lower risk to drop-out from table tennis competition. The eye-hand coordination test appeared to be most suitable since it was the only test included in the multivariable Cox regression model (HR = .908; p = .001) (RQ1). Similarly, a multilevel regression analysis showed that a higher level of ball control was associated with a higher future competition performance. The eye-hand coordination and aiming at target tests were included in the multivariable multilevel model (p < 0.05; R² = 36.4%) (RQ2). This evaluation demonstrates promising prospects for the perceptuo-motor skills assessment to be included in a talent development programme. Future studies are needed to obtain valid thresholds scores and clarify the predictive value in a larger sample of youth competition players.

Introduction

Programs for talent identification and development in children and adolescents have become an important pillar in modern sports [1, 2]. These so-called talent programs generally aim to support young athletes in discovering and developing their talents while encouraging as well as supporting the pursuit of excellence within (a certain) sport [3–5]. An important aspect of these programs is the identification of children with high potential for excellent adult performance (i.e., international level [6]) to provide the best opportunities for development already from a young age. This strategy is often employed to increase the effectiveness and/or efficiency of talent programs and to increase the chances for success by taking advantage of the most sensitive periods for learning [7, 8]. However, it is a challenge to adequately find and develop these ‘diamonds in the rough’ and prevent disappointing results (e.g., talent loss or drop-outs) [4, 5, 9]. As such, sports federations and clubs are searching for both established and innovative approaches to improve talent identification and development, to overcome setbacks and to create the best learning environment [10].

A recent scoping review by Baker and colleagues emphasized the necessity of prospective approaches including longitudinal tracking in talent programs and its paralleled research since talent in its essence is a time-constrained variable [11]. These approaches are considered to contribute to a better understanding of factors influencing the dynamics of individual pathways in the long run. This seems important especially for those sports that are characterized with a relatively long and intensive investment phase towards the elite level [12]. A fair estimate of an athlete’s potential to reach the international level and the chances to stand on international podia will support the decision whether to commit to an extensive development program and the accompanying lifestyle. This information would serve everyone in the system, from the athletes, the coaches to the sport associations and other stakeholders. So-called talent programs are established approaches to talent promotion in a variety of sports [1]. One sport, in which the national associations typically aim to incorporate sufficient and functional talent identification and development programs is table tennis [13].

Table tennis is generally considered an early starting sport in which young players aiming for the elite levels already start at an age between 4 to 8. The age of peak performance, however, can rise up to 30 or even later, particularly for European players. As such, it can take up to 20 to 25 years of investment by a player and other stakeholders until the player reaches the elite level [13, 14]. Modern elite table tennis requires full dedication and commitment, often including difficult choices, such as leaving other sports, quit or change schools/education, transfer to another club, moving houses, adhere to a strict lifestyle and/or emigrate to another country [14]. A fair evaluation of a player’s potential will help to judge whether all these sacrifices are worth the investment. Here, prospective observational research including the longitudinal tracking of youth table tennis players is expected to provide a deeper understanding of talent dynamics and the veracity of talent determinants. This knowledge can then support players, coaches, clubs and associations in designing (individual) pathways for all players [15].

Table tennis is a prime example of a technique-based sport [16]. Players aiming for the elite level need to develop outstanding technical skills including, among others, a proper body positioning and balance control, variable, flexible and fast footwork, and a fast-switching capability to adjust stroke techniques [16–18]. Moreover, technical skills are the basis for the ability to execute various tactical strategies (i.e., using an adequate solution to the given situational demands) [19, 20]. Therefore, coaches emphasize, besides a positive and safe learning climate, on the technical skill development (i.e., performing services and strokes under varying conditions) from the moment a youngster starts playing table tennis. Perceptuo-motor skills are fundamental for the development of outstanding sport-specific technical skills [19]. Consequently, the development towards elite level is highly dependent on a player’s perceptuo-motor skills [14, 21, 22]. Accordingly, assessments of perceptuo-motor skills have become part of the evaluation of young table tennis players’ potential [23–28] without down-playing that talent development in table tennis, as proposed by Baker et al. [29], still should be seen as a multidimensional (i.e. holistic), emergenic, dynamic and symbiotic process and that the accuracy of selection decisions is thus constrained by a range of factors [14, 29–31].

Based on this perspective, the Netherlands Table Tennis Association (NTTA) implemented a perceptuo-motor skills assessment with confirmed reproducibility and internal consistency as part of their talent program [28, 32]. This assessment was constructed by a team of experienced coaches with expertise in talent identification and embedded scientists on the basis of a task-analysis of elite table tennis. The assessment consisted of eight test items assessing the following essential perceptuo-motor skills for table tennis: eye–hand coordination, coordination of simultaneous foot and arm movements, combined gross and fine motor skills, agility, dynamic balance, bat and ball control, and high velocity in footwork [32]. It was hypothesized this assessment could contribute to the prediction of a player’s competition participation as well as his/her competition performance. Players who have better perceptuo-motor skills are expected to be more motivated to start and remain participating in competition and perform better during competition. A first observational study including a 2.5 years follow-up in 48 young table tennis players (7–11 years) revealed that the assessment was not able to predict competition participation, but that that the outcomes of the perceptuo-motor skills assessment were significant predictors for future competition results (R² = 53%) [28]. However, as previously mentioned, the pathway to the elite level in table tennis is typically far longer. Thus, an evaluation of the perceptuo-motor skills assessment concerning its predictive validity for a longer period is essential for talent development purposes [5, 15]. For that reason, this 9-year follow-up study focuses on the following two research questions (RQ):

RQ1: Can the outcomes of the perceptuo-motor skills assessment predict competition participation/drop-out in young table tennis players?

RQ2: Can the outcomes of the perceptuo-motor skills assessment predict future competition performance in young table tennis players?

Methods

Ethical statement

This study and its informed consent procedure were approved by the ethical committee of the Medical Spectrum Twente (Medical School Twente, Institute for Applied Sciences, Enschede, the Netherlands; MTC/11069.oos 18-2-2011) in full compliance with the declaration of Helsinki. Written parental informed consent and players’ consent were obtained prior to the testing.

Study design

This explorative 9-year follow-up study used an observational prospective design to evaluate the predictive validity of a perceptuo-motor skills assessment regarding competition participation and competition performance outcomes of young table tennis players (age 7–11). The perceptuo-motor skills assessment was conducted in 2011 and 2012 and afterwards the players’ competition participation and competition performance outcomes were monitored until January 2020. This period covered 18 or 16 consecutive competition periods of six months for the youth players tested in 2011 and 2012, respectively. A longer follow-up was considered inappropriate due to the COVID-19 pandemic allowing no (full) competitions to be played in 2020 and 2021.

Players

The sample of young table tennis players (≤ 11 years) consisted of the players that were recruited for the initial study [28] at the regional talent days of the eastern department of the NTTA in 2011 and 2012 and afterwards participated in at least one competition (n = 39; nine players from the initial study never started to play competition within the tracking period). These players were selected and registered for the regional events by the coaches of their local clubs. The coaches were instructed to invite the youth players with the highest potential for regional and/or national elite table tennis. The eastern department is one of eight regional competition departments connected to the NTTA. Its total population of young players was estimated to be between 100 and 120 players per year at that time.

Perceptuo-motor skills assessment

The perceptuo-motor skills assessment consists of three tests assessing gross motor function (i.e., sprint, agility, vertical jump) and five tests assessing ball control (i.e., speed while dribbling, aiming at target, ball skills, throwing a ball and eye-hand coordination). ‘Sprint’ included a pyramid-shape circuit in which players need to gather and return five table tennis balls one by one as fast as possible from five different baskets starting at the basis of the pyramid-shaped circuit (measured in s). For ‘agility’, players needed to get through a circuit, including climbing over a gymnastics’ cabinet and under and over a low hurdle as fast as possible (measured in s). At ‘vertical jump’ players were instructed to jump as high as possible and touch the wall at the highest point possible. The difference between the jumping height and standing height with one arm up along the wall was measured in centimetres. ‘Speed while dribbling’ used a zigzag circuit in which the players needed to move sideways as fast as possible while dribbling with a basketball using one hand (measured in s). At ‘aiming at target’ players needed to hit a round target (Ø 60 cm) on the floor at 2.5-meter distance with a table tennis ball using a standard bat with their preferred hand (measured as points made). ‘Balls skills’ also required hitting a round target on the floor (Ø 75 cm), but here players needed to throw a table tennis ball with their preferred hand via a vertical table tennis table from two different positions, 1 and 2 meter distance away from the target (measured as points made). At ‘throwing a ball’, the players threw a table tennis ball as far away as possible with their preferred hand (measure in m). In the ‘eye-hand coordination’ test players were instructed to throw a ball at a vertical table tennis table at 1 meter distance with one hand and to catch the ball correctly with the other hand as frequently as possible in 30 seconds (measured as points made). The complete test protocol of the assessment is available online [28]. Previous evaluations of the perceptuo-motor skills assessment demonstrated fair to good reproducibility with regard to the level of test items (ICC = 0.81–0.85; p < 0.001; CV = 3–19%) and the total score (ICC = 0.91; p < 0.001; SDD = 98 points; CV = 7%). The internal consistency of all test items is satisfactory (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.82), and the validity (i.e., the association between the assessment’s outcomes and current competition performance and the assessment’s discriminative ability between performance levels) is considered moderate to good [28, 32].

All children were tested under similar conditions as part of the regional talent days after conducting a warm-up. Total testing time for the perceptuo-motor tests was approximately 20 minutes for each child spread over three sessions. Test leaders were physical therapy students or table tennis coaches who were familiarized with the use of the test protocol. Instruction and feedback were given during a practical training by an expert coach of the NTTA. The youth players’ characteristics for height, weight and current training hours per week as well as the control variables of sex (m/f) and age (years) were extracted from the register forms.

Competition participation/drop-out and competition performance

Youth players included in this study participated in the official competitions of the NTTA including both team competitions and individual tournaments. One calendar year includes two competition periods of six months with ten team matches and approximately three to five individual tournaments. Competition participation/drop-out and competition performance data were extracted from the open archives of the NTTA (https://www.nttb-ranglijsten.nl/ranking.php). Competition participation (RQ1) was considered nominal data (yes/no) per competition period. Consequently, it was determined how many competitions periods a player participated within the follow-up period and if a player dropped-out from competition (yes/no) and if so at what age (years). Competition rating scores (ratio data) indicated the player’s competition performance (RQ2); the higher the rating score the better the player’s table tennis competition performance. For example, players from the lowest regional youth leagues have a score approximately between 0 to 200 points and the players of the highest national youth competition a score approximately between 1400 to 1800 point. The calculation of the competition rating score (https://www.nttb-ranglijsten.nl/elo300.php) is based on the official NTTA’s national and regional competitions and can be converted to international standards. It allows to compare performances levels between players (youth and adult players, male and female players) who participate in any of the regional and national competition leagues and tournaments [28]. As such, a player’s table tennis performance is ranked within a certain competition period compared to all players competing in the same and other leagues.

Statistical analysis

Both IBM SPSS Statistics 26 (IBM Corp. Released 2019. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp) and STATA 17 (StataCorp. 2021. Stata Statistical Software: Release 17. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC) were used for the statistical analyses. The normality of the competition performance outcome was evaluated by comparing mean and median and by visual inspection. Descriptive statistics of the raw test item scores are presented for the total sample and for boys and girls separately. Then firstly, a Cox regression analysis was used to examine if perceptual motor skills (independent variables) predicted competition participation/drop-out (dependent variable) within the follow-up period of this study (RQ1). Secondly, a multilevel regression analysis was conducted to explore the predictive value of the perceptuo-motor skills outcomes (independent variables) for the longitudinal competition performance outcomes (dependent variable) of the 9-year follow-up period (RQ2). For this analyses, the repeated observations (level 1) were correlated within the subjects (level 2). For both the Cox regression analysis and the multilevel regression analysis, univariable and multivariable models were created. The univariable models provide insight into the predictive value of a single test item, while the multivariable analyses evaluate the strength of and relationship between the items when used as part of the perceptuo-motor skills assessment. For the final multivariable models, a backward selection procedure was used with a cut-off p-value of 0.05; so all variables in the final multivariable model were significantly related to the outcome. Besides that, for the final multivariable multilevel model, the explained variance was reported. Based on the results of previous studies, sex and test age were included as covariates in all analyses. The significance level alpha was set at 0.05 for all analyses.

Results

Sample characteristics and descriptive results

A total of 39 young table tennis players (21 boys and 18 girls, mean age = 9.4, SD = 1.06 years) participated in this study; 21 from the regional talent day in 2011 (10 boys and 11 girls) and 18 from the regional talent day in 2012 (11 boys and 7 girls). This number amounts to approximately 20% of the players available in this age category in the eastern department per year. All raw test scores of the motor skills assessment were evaluated as normally distributed; means and medians were similar and the range around the mean followed a normal distribution. There were no missing data. Descriptive results of the perceptuo-motor skills assessment are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and Cox regression analysis of dropout rates examining the perceptuo-motor skills assessment.

Univariable	Total group	Boys	Girls	HR	p	95% confidence interval
	M (SD)	M (SD)	M(SD)
	n = 39	n = 21	n = 18
Sprint (s)^a	34.8 (3.6)	33.7 (6.7)	36.2 (3.2)	1.115	.069	.992–1.254
Agility (s)^a	24.7 (4.6)	22.9 (5.5)	26.8 (5.2)	.996	.926	.909–1.091
Vertical jump (cm)	30.7 (5.9)	30.7 (6.2)	30.6 (5.7)	1.067	.130	.981–1.160
Speed while dribbling (s)^a,¹,²	24.1 (6.6)	21.5 (4.7)	27.1 (7.4)	1.076^*	.042	1.003–1.154
Aiming at target (points)	22.9 (10.3)	24.5 (11.5)	21.0 (8.6)	.963	.054	.927–1.001
Ball skills (points)¹,²	19.3 (6.0)	21.7 (6.3)	16.4 (5.4)	.910^*	.038	.832 - .995
Throwing a ball (m)²	9.4 (1.5)	10.1 (1.4)	8.5 (1.2)	.753	.063	.558–1.016
Eye-hand coordination (points)¹	13.2 (7.5)	14.5 (7.8)	11.6 (7.0)	.908^*	.001	.858 - .960
Multivariable				HR	p	95% confidence interval
Eye-hand coordination (points)				.908^*	.001	.858 - .960

Open in a new tab

HR: Hazard Ratio

*p < 0.05; ^aLower values indicate better performance.

Test age and sex were included as covariates in all models

¹test age and

²sex significant covariates (p <0.05).

Predicting competition participation/drop-out (RQ1)

The univariable Cox regression analyses used to evaluate whether the perceptuo-motor skills assessment (i.e., test results) predicts competition drop-out demonstrated three significant predictors: speed while dribbling (HR = 1.076; p = .042), ball skills (HR = .910; p = .038) and eye-hand coordination (HR = .908; p = .001) (Table 1). Test age and sex were significant covariates within the univariable models of speed while dribbling and ball skills, while sex was also a significant covariate within the univariable model of throwing a ball (p < 0.05). The multivariable analysis with backwards procedure showed that the final multivariable model consisted of only one test item: eye-hand coordination (HR = .908; p = .001). This means that per ball a player catches, he/she has on average .908 times the chance to drop-out over time. That is, a higher score for eye-hand coordination appears to have a preventive value for dropping out of the sport.

Predicting competition performance (RQ2)

The results of the multilevel analyses are presented in Table 2. Six of the eight test items significantly predicted the longitudinal competition outcomes in univariable models; sprint (B = -45.450; p = .001), speed while dribbling (B = -27.152; p = .003), aiming at target (B = -17.977; p < .001), ball skills (B = 26.311; p = .007), throwing a ball (B = 131.080; p = .003), and eye-hand coordination (B = 34.260; p < .001). Test age was a significant covariate within the univariable models of speed while dribbling, ball skills, throwing a ball and eye-hand coordination (p < 0.05). The final multivariable model had an explained variance of 36.4% and included the test items aiming at target (B = 10.189; p = .005) and eye-hand coordination (B = 27.769; p < .001). Test age was also a significant covariate in this multivariable model (p < 0.05).

Table 2. Multilevel analysis for predictive value of the perceptuo-motor skills assessment on competition performance.

Univariable	B	p	95% confidence interval	RR² (%)
Sprint (s)	-45.450^*	.001	(-72.091 - -18.809)	15.1
Agility (s)	-12.993	.283	(-36.725–10.739)	2.1
Vertical jump (cm)	-3.248	.747	(-22.943–16.446)	0.0
Speed while dribbling (s)¹	-27.152^*	.003	(-44.931 - -9.373)	12.7
Aiming at target (points)	17.977^*	< .001	(9.536–26.417)	19.3
Ball skills (points)¹	26.311^*	.007	(7.104–45.519)	9.2
Throwing a ball (m)¹	131.080^*	.003	(45.501–216.659)	11.8
Eye-hand coordination (points)¹	34.260^*	< .001	(23.489–45.032)	31.3
Multivariable ¹	B	p	95% confidence interval	R² (%)
Aiming at target (points)	10.189^*	.005	(3.035–17.340)	36.4
Eye-hand coordination (points)	27.769^*	< .001	(16.984–38.554)	36.4

Open in a new tab

B:regression coefficient

*p < 0.05.

Test age and sex were included as covariates in all models

¹test age and

²sex significant covariates (p <0.05).

Discussion

This study focused on the capacity of a perceptuo-motor skills assessment to predict future competition participation/drop-out and competition performance in young table tennis players. The results of this 9-year follow-up study demonstrated that a higher level of ball control was associated with a lower risk to drop-out from table tennis; three tests for ball control (i.e., speed while dribbling, ball skills, and eye-hand coordination) significantly predicted players’ participation/drop-out. The eye-hand coordination test appeared to be most suitable since it was the only test included in the multivariable model. Similarly, a higher level of ball control also appears to be associated with a higher future competition performance; all five ball control tests (i.e., speed while dribbling, aiming at target, ball skills, throwing a ball, and eye-hand coordination) significantly predicted the longitudinal competition scores. Although the sprint test was found to be a significant predictor as well, only two of the ball control tests were included in the multivariable model (i.e., eye-hand coordination and aiming at target). These results are in line with previous studies showing that perceptuo-motor skills play an important role in the development of young athletes’ competition performance in sports consisting of complex motor tasks, and that specific tests to assess the underlying skills inherent to a particular sport are appropriate for estimating the potential regarding the perceptuo-motor domain [33–36].

The explained variance of the multilevel model to predict competition performance (36.4%) was a bit lower compared to the model in the previous study (53%) [28]. This is likely due to the longer tracking-period in the current study which comes with an increasing influence of other performance-determining factors including mental aspects (e.g., motivation, self-efficacy, volition, and self-esteem), contextual factors (e.g., training facilities and parental support) and the learning environment (e.g. positive and safe sport climate, team support, coaching style) [37, 38]. These other factors might become quite important determinants during puberty/adolescence which covers a great part of the investment phase in table tennis [12]. Moreover, since table tennis performance characteristics are multidimensional, a weaker performance on the one aspect could be compensated by other traits (i.e., compensation phenomenon) [5]. Still, the perceptuo-motor skills assessment and specifically the ball control tests seem to contribute to make fair decisions during the selection procedures and, therefore, seem to be suitable as a part of multidimensional profiling of young table tennis players.

When tests are included as part of the selection process, it is helpful to establish threshold scores that are associated with continued participation (i.e., survival) and the future competition performance [36]. This would support the estimation of a player’s physical and technical potential and can provide guidelines for a player’s individual pathway. However, more data are needed to be able to calculate threshold scores specifically valid for table tennis youth players from different age groups and for boys and girls separately. The predictive value/weight and threshold scores of the test items within the assessment might differ between sexes due to, among other things, differences in physical appearances and personal preferences between boys and girls that influence the development of a player’s playing style.

Additionally, some criticism should be pointed out regarding the current ‘talent system’ in which the assessment was used. If you consider the pathway of a young player within this system, there are mainly two critical issues. First, it is known that in 2011 and 2012 there were approximately 100–120 registered children within the U11 age category. Only 20–25% of this group participated at the regional talent day. This means that 75–80% of the children were not tested and had therefore no opportunity to be included in the selection for the consecutive national talent day. This early ‘deselection’ can be based on the judgement of their skills by their coaches but could also be due to the lack of response by their club. Second, some of the children never started to play competitions. This again can be due to individual constraints (e.g., motivation, self-esteem), but in some cases may be due to environmental constraints (e.g., no team available, club culture). Both issues ensure a considerable loss within the talent pool and cause a weakness in the talent system. Efforts to overcome these issues are likely to contribute to increases in the effectiveness and efficiency of the talent program.

Limitations of this study need to be acknowledged. First, as previously mentioned, this study included only a small sample recruited during the regional talent day in the eastern department and pre-selected by club coaches. The generalisation of the findings to the players participating at the national talent day, including selected players from other regions, is expected to be valid given the sufficient variety in the test scores and competition rating in the ‘upper part’ of the sample. However, this should be verified in a larger sample including players from the national talent day since the assessment might lose its strength in a more homogenous sample regarding perceptuo-motor skills. Second, to optimize the power of this study, the survival and multilevel analyses were conducted using the total sample. The outcomes of both the boys and girls within the test age spanning from 7 to 11 years were analysed altogether. Consequently, the analyses included different developmental stages in which the associations were calculated, especially when considering influences of differences in growth and maturation [39]. Although sex and test age were included as covariates, it is recommended for future research to split the analyses for boys and girls as the weight of the test items might differ between sexes (i.e., interaction effect), to reduce the age span for prediction models and to take into account growth and maturation.

In conclusion, this study reinforces the promising prospects regarding the predictive validity of the perceptuo-motor skills assessment as part of a multidimensional assessment as a helpful tool for coaches regarding talent purposes in table tennis. This assessment can contribute by objectifying a young player’s potential regarding the perceptuo-motor domain and for that reason support decisions/selections. It has to be emphasized, however, that talent development is a multidimensional process [15, 29, 40] and that the accuracy of selection decisions is influenced by a range of factors [14, 29–31]. Moreover, to interpret an individual player’s test scores, it is important that thresholds will be based on a larger dataset and that the player’s sex, test age, training experience, growth and maturity level are taken into account [36, 39]. Furthermore, talent development programs do not intend to limit children’s freedom of choice to practice a particular sport. Coaches should also be aware of the potential risks of early specialization and selection (e.g., injuries, mental exhaustion and drop-outs) [41, 42] and should always create a safe and positive learning climate [43]. This is crucial to both preventing early drop-out and stimulating development. Finally, the perceptuo-motor skills assessment is only intended to identify those children excelling in this essential performance aspects in table tennis.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the Netherlands Table Tennis Association for the provision of the data and Wilke Epkes for his help completing the dataset.

Data Availability

The data of this study cannot be made publicly available for ethical and legal reasons; the public availability would compromise confidentiality and/or participant privacy. The data contain potentially identifying athlete information. This restriction is imposed by the Netherlands Table Tennis Association. Data will only be available on request and can be sent to the Netherlands Table Tennis Association using the email address jong@tafeltennis.nl.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

1.De Bosscher V, De Knop P, Van Bottenburg M, Shibli S. A conceptual framework for analysing sports policy factors leading to international sporting success. European sport management quarterly. 2006;6(2):185–215. [Google Scholar]
2.Vaeyens R, Güllich A, Warr CR, Philippaerts R. Talent identification and promotion programmes of Olympic athletes. Journal of sports sciences. 2009;27(13):1367–80. doi: 10.1080/02640410903110974 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Johnston K, Wattie N, Schorer J, Baker J. Talent identification in sport: a systematic review. Sports Medicine. 2018;48(1):97–109. doi: 10.1007/s40279-017-0803-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Till K, Baker J. Challenges and [possible] solutions to optimizing talent identification and development in sport. Frontiers in psychology. 2020;11:664. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00664 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Vaeyens R, Lenoir M, Williams AM, Philippaerts RM. Talent identification and development programmes in sport. Sports medicine. 2008;38(9):703–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Swann C, Moran A, Piggott D. Defining elite athletes: Issues in the study of expert performance in sport psychology. Psychology of sport and exercise. 2015;16:3–14. [Google Scholar]
7.Anderson D, Magill R, Thouvarecq R. Critical periods, sensitive periods, and readiness for motor skill learning. Skill acquisition in sport: Research, theory and practice. 2012:211–28. [Google Scholar]
8.Watanabe D, Savion-Lemieux T, Penhune VB. The effect of early musical training on adult motor performance: evidence for a sensitive period in motor learning. Experimental brain research. 2007;176(2):332–40. doi: 10.1007/s00221-006-0619-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Baker J, Schorer J, Wattie N. Compromising talent: Issues in identifying and selecting talent in sport. Quest. 2018;70(1):48–63. [Google Scholar]
10.Faber IR, Sloot L, Hoogeveen L, Elferink-Gemser MT, Schorer J. Western Approaches for the identification and development of talent in schools and sports contexts from 2009 to 2019-a literature review. High Ability Studies. 2021:1–34. [Google Scholar]
11.Baker J, Wilson S, Johnston K, Dehghansai N, Koenigsberg A, De Vegt S, et al. Talent research in sport 1990–2018: a scoping review. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020:3067. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Côté J, Baker J, Abernethy B. Practice and play in the development of sport expertise. Handbook of sport psychology. 2007;3:184–202. [Google Scholar]
13.Faber I, Damsma T, Pion J. Finding Talent and Establishing the Road to Excellence in Table Tennis. Talent identification and development in sport: International perspectives 2020. [Google Scholar]
14.Faber IR. Diamonds in the rough. Searching for high potential in youth table tennis players: Radboud University Nijmegen; 2016. [Google Scholar]
15.Elferink-Gemser MT, te Wierike SC, Visscher C. 16 multidisciplinary longitudinal studies: a perspective from the field of sports. The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance 2018. p. 271. [Google Scholar]
16.Friedrich W, Fürste F, Fürste F. Tischtennis-verstehen, lernen, spielen: ein Tischtennis Lehrbuch: Wolfgang Friedrich; 2018. [Google Scholar]
17.Sève C, Saury J, Theureau J, Durand M. Activity organization and knowledge construction during competitive interaction in table tennis. Cognitive Systems Research. 2002;3(3):501–22. [Google Scholar]
18.Malagoli Lanzoni I, Di Michele R, Merni F. Performance indicators in table tennis: a review of the literature. International Journal of Table Tennis Sciences. 2011;7:71–5. [Google Scholar]
19.Faber IR, Koopmann T, Büsch D, Schorer J. Developing a tool to assess technical skills in talented youth table tennis players—a multi-method approach combining professional and scientific literature and coaches’ perspectives. Sports medicine-open. 2021;7(1):1–24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Kannekens R, Elferink‐Gemser M, Visscher C. Positioning and deciding: key factors for talent development in soccer. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports. 2011;21(6):846–52. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01104.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Limoochi S. A survey of table tennis coaches’ opinions of some criteria in talent identification. International Journal of Table Tennis Sciences. 2006;6:280–7. [Google Scholar]
22.Toriola AL, Toriola OM, Igbokwe NU. Validity of specific motor skills in predicting table-tennis performance in novice players. Perceptual and motor skills. 2004;98(2):584–6. doi: 10.2466/pms.98.2.584-586 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Pullinger SA, Varamenti E, Nikolovski Z, Elgingo M, Cardinale M. Seasonal changes in performance related characteristics and biochemical marker variability of adolescent table tennis players. Asian Journal of Sports Medicine. 2019;10(1). [Google Scholar]
24.Siener M, Hohmann A. Talent orientation: The impact of motor abilities on future success in table tennis. German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research. 2019;49(3):232–43. [Google Scholar]
25.Nikolić I, Furjan–Mandić G, Kondrič M. The relationship of morphology and motor abilities to specific table tennis tasks in youngsters. Collegium antropologicum. 2014;38(1):241–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Hülsdünker T, Ostermann M, Mierau A. Standardised computer-based reaction tests predict the sport-specific visuomotor speed and performance of young elite table tennis athletes. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport. 2019;19(6):953–70. [Google Scholar]
27.Faber IR, Elferink-Gemser MT, Oosterveld FG, Twisk JW, Nijhuis-Van der Sanden MW. Can an early perceptuo-motor skills assessment predict future performance in youth table tennis players? An observational study (1998–2013). Journal of sports sciences. 2017;35(6):593–601. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2016.1180421 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Faber IR, Elferink-Gemser MT, Faber NR, Oosterveld FG, Nijhuis-Van der Sanden MW. Can perceptuo-motor skills assessment outcomes in young table tennis players (7–11 years) predict future competition participation and performance? An observational prospective study. PloS one. 2016;11(2):e0149037. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149037 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Baker J, Wattie N, Schorer J. A proposed conceptualization of talent in sport: The first step in a long and winding road. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2019;43:27–33. [Google Scholar]
30.Doherty SAP, Martinent G, Martindale A, Faber IR. Determinants for table tennis performance in elite Scottish youth players using a multidimensional approach: A pilot study. High Ability Studies. 2018;29(2):241–54. [Google Scholar]
31.Faber IR, Bustin PM, Oosterveld FG, Elferink-Gemser MT, Nijhuis-Van der Sanden MW. Assessing personal talent determinants in young racquet sport players: a systematic review. Journal of sports sciences. 2016;34(5):395–410. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2015.1061201 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Faber IR, Nijhuis-Van Der Sanden MW, Elferink-Gemser MT, Oosterveld FG. The Dutch motor skills assessment as tool for talent development in table tennis: a reproducibility and validity study. Journal of sports sciences. 2015;33(11):1149–58. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2014.986503 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.Vandorpe B, Vandendriessche JB, Vaeyens R, Pion J, Lefevre J, Philippaerts RM, et al. The value of a non-sport-specific motor test battery in predicting performance in young female gymnasts. Journal of sports sciences. 2012;30(5):497–505. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2012.654399 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Panjan A, Šarabon N, Filipčič A. Prediction of the successfulness of tennis players with machine learning methods. Kinesiology. 2010;42(1.):98–106. [Google Scholar]
35.Pion J, Fransen J, Deprez DN, Segers VI, Vaeyens R, Philippaerts RM, et al. Stature and jumping height are required in female volleyball, but motor coordination is a key factor for future elite success. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2015;29(6):1480–5. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000778 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Pion J, Lenoir M, Vandorpe B, Segers V. Talent in female gymnastics: a survival analysis based upon performance characteristics. International journal of sports medicine. 2015;94(11):935–40. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1548887 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Lane AM, Jones L, Stevens MJ. Coping with failure: the effects of self-esteem and coping on changes in self-efficacy. Journal of Sport Behavior. 2002;25(4). [Google Scholar]
38.Gillet N, Berjot S, Gobancé L. A motivational model of performance in the sport domain. European Journal of Sport Science. 2009;9(3):151–8. [Google Scholar]
39.Silva M, Carvalho HM, Gonçalves C, Figueiredo A, Elferink-Gemser M, Philippaerts R, et al. Growth, maturation, functional capacities and sport-specific skills in 12–13 year-old-basketball players. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness. 2010;50(2):174–81. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Elferink-Gemser MT, Jordet G, Coelho-E-Silva MJ, Visscher C. The marvels of elite sports: how to get there?: British Association of Sport and Excercise Medicine; 2011. p. 683–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.Baker J, Côté J, Deakin J. Expertise in ultra-endurance triathletes early sport involvement, training structure, and the theory of deliberate practice. Journal of applied sport psychology. 2005;17(1):64–78. [Google Scholar]
42.Wall M, Côté J. Developmental activities that lead to dropout and investment in sport. Physical education and sport pedagogy. 2007;12(1):77–87. [Google Scholar]
43.Schipper van Veldhoven N. Sports and physical education from a pedagogical perspective: a golden opportunity. Deventer: daM publishers[Google Scholar]. 2017. [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281731.r001

Decision Letter 0

Rafael Franco Soares Oliveira

13 Oct 2022

PONE-D-22-23471Can perceptuo-motor skills assessment outcomes predict future competition participation/drop-out and performance level in youth table tennis players? An explorative 9-year follow-up studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Faber,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:Dear authors,

The authors presented an interesting work. However, there are some concerns that need attention before a further considerations.

Please consider comments made by both reviewers. There some issues that need better clarity to understand all procedures applied in the manuscript and also to provide a proper rationale of the whole design and aims of the paper. Thus, I suggest a round major revisions at this stage.

Thank you

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by November 27th of 2022. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rafael Franco Soares Oliveira

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear authors,

The authors presented an interesting work. However, there are some concerns that need attention before a further considerations.

Thank you

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Can perceptuo-motor skills assessment outcomes predict future competition participation/drop-out and performance level in youth table tennis players? An explorative 9-year follow-up study

First of all, the reviewer would like to thank the authors for their work and efforts in trying to improve sports science knowledge. The authors are commended on their efforts thus far. The article is an interesting approach to assessment outcomes predict future competition participation/drop-out and performance level in youth table tennis players. The study is well designed and well-written, with a great original article evaluating the usefulness of the topic.

Abstract

Line 51: eye-hand or eye hand please check and fix the throughout the manuscript

Introduction

This section is well designed and well-written. However, here is the alternative sentence for the research questions.

Line 117-122: The purposes of this study were (a) can the outcomes of the perceptuo-motor skills assessment predict competition participation/drop-out in young table tennis players, (b) can the outcomes of the perceptuo-motor skills assessment predict future performance level in young table tennis players (c) relationships between psychophysiological responses and locomotor demands.

Methods section

Line 156: no need this info https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149037.s001. Please extract it.

What about maturation. If you do not measure it, please add limitations.

Results section

Results and tables are well shown

Discussion section

Overall the discussion is well-written and incorporates relevant literature.

References

References are well selected by the authors

Figures and Tables

This section is well designed and well-shown.

Reviewer #2: Reviewer Comments:

Can perceptuo-motor skills assessment outcomes predict future competition

participation/drop-out and performance level in youth table tennis players? An explorative 9-year follow-up study: PONE-D-22-23471

GENERAL COMMENTS:

Thank you for your contribution to PLoS One. Overall, the paper which presents a study analysing the (prognostic) validity of motor performance in young table tennis players falls within the scope of the journal and should be of interest to the readership. Strengths of the study mainly relate to the investigation of important talent predictors at a young age (7-11) years for long-term success while utilizing a 9-year prognostic period in a sport where talent research is still scarce. However, in its current form the manuscript also presents a range of concerns in regard to its content (rationale and theoretical background of assessed predictors, definition of criterion variables, discussion of results) and presentation (particularly description and clarity of utilized methodology).

With regards to the content of the paper, some aspects require improvements.

1) First, I would ask you to elaborate on the explanation of the assessed constructs in the introduction. It should be more highlighted that the constructs you are assessing cover only some small pieces of the multifaceted talent characteristics needed for an excellent young table tennis players. Maybe you could just use a theoretical model of talent development (like the one of Gagné) or a heuristic model of talent predictors (although I am currently only aware of a soccer-specific one by Williams and Reilly, 2000) in order to show the complexity of talent in the sport of table tennis and then present the area you want to focus on. Why exactly those motor skills were chosen? Please provide rationale in the introduction.

2) Much more important are my concerns with regard the separation of the two research questions (RQ) and the utilized criterion variables for those. to purpose 3 (validity of physical tests for in-game soccer performance). It is not entirely clear to me, why exactly the two RQs were differentiated and chosen. What is RQ1 for, what is the aim of RQ2 – both are evaluating the long-term prognostic validity, by focussing potentially different things – participation and performance level. If this is the reason, this should be explained in more detail. Potentially the lacking clarity is also a result of some inconsistencies in the use of the chosen criterion: while for RQ2 future performance level is used for instance in the title, sometimes also competition performance or competition performance level are used. I would recommend being consistent here. By the way: Please think about labelling your two RQs as RQ1 and RQ2 and please use that structure (including subheadings) also for the methods and results part. This could facilitate readability.

3) Further, there are some severe issues with the description and the clarity of the utilized statistical analyses. Although I generally agree with the choice of them, a final decision of the adequate use is not possible due to some missing information on the analyses and results you present. Please exactly describe and state the procedure you were following in each of your research question regarding the analyses: why and how did you exactly perform Cox regression analysis in the univariate, how in the multivariate approach. Why is the use of Cox regression (what I appreciate) useful and appropriate for your setting. Just to give you an example: It ist not clear by the means, what the survival curve in Figure 1 exactly display/how it was computed. Is it a result of the multivariate Cox regression or is it “just” the Kaplan-Meier Curve with survival rates and hazard ratios computed based on “drop-outs” in specific time intervals. Please elaborate, otherwise it is not possible to follow your results.

4) The same applies for RQ2 [performance level]: which multilevel analyses did you use? Multiple Regression? What are your levels (are there some?) and why this is intended. If so, where are the random effect that were estimated /why were they not?

5) Furthermore, with regard to the utilized criterion variables, please clarify how exactly performance level was measured. There is some information given about a score, but this is not detailed enough. Please elaborate and please also refer to the former comment regarding consistency in labelling/defining your main outcomes/criterions in the former comment.

6) Moreover, I really struggle with your approach to aggregate performance outcomes of boys and girls. I know, that this was followed due to the rather low sample size and I appreciate reading about this short-coming in the discussion (and considering gender at least as a covariate). However, I think you should enlarge this part of the discussion by giving some information on potential similarities or dissimilarities of talent pathways/ differences in performance/ as to whether the utilized performance scores are comparable among gender. Apart from that, I would really like to see the results of the utilized covariates e.g., gender also in your tables. There are only some hints on covariates without providing the results for them.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

Title

• “assessment outcomes” sounds a bit confusing- only assessments or only outcomes or just diagnostics?

• Why explorative? Please add a rational in the text. Is this important for the title?

Abstract

• L.44: decision-making: think about replacing by making decisions regarding selection/promotion (or similar). Decision-making bis connoted with making in-game decisions and therefore could be misleading here.

• L.46: competition performance vs. future performance level? See general comment

• L.54: add regression?

Introduction

• L.66: please define excellent adult performance

• L.72: provide reference

• L.75: I agree that longitudinal approaches are needed. But, please be aware that your approach is prospective, but in my point of view not longitudinal – in the sense that you assessed predictors only once. Please precise.

• L.78 and L.90: what do you mean by fair estimate /evaluation of potential. This should be explained (also it might be implicitly clear)

• L.81: maybe add that talent development programs are established approaches of talent promotion in a variety of sports with some examples, the focus on table tennis)

• L117: explain, why the study is explorative

Methods

• l.144 provide distribution regarding gender and age

• Is there a rule, in which ages the players are nominated for the squads? If I am right, players were between 7 and 11 years old, which seems to be a rather large range for initial talent identification events (if the events were of such type?)

• L.157pp: please double check the presentation of the statistical values. Should read e.g., ICC = 0.91. Please also check formatting (e.g., n should be in italics, see for instance l.144)

• L166-168: sentence seems not to be complete.

• L.170pp: Please explain which “levels” were exactly used (or whether level is the right term for the score that was used). See also general comment.

• L.187: was there also significance testing for normality?

Results:

• L.215: lower values are better performances in speed measures, right? Please note on that, as this is important for the interpretation of the HRs.

• By the way: although I like the idea of referring to the diagnostics elsewhere, it would be helpful to at least provide the units /general shape of the utilized tests) in order to better understand interpretations in this part.

• “best fitting model”: please provide measures for that (and describe the process how it was found in more detail)

• L.226pp: Please state what was used as independent and dependent variables in the regressions (already in the methods section) and add this information also in Table 2.

Discussion

L.250: decimal point instead of comma

L.261: commas before and after “therefore”?

l.290: see general comment on combined approach regarding gender

L.195pp: In line with my comment regarding the introduction of the utilized and investigated measure, I would recommend to extend this paragraph by giving more information why the study “only” focused on a small part of the complex construct of talent and to highlight that this small piece is more a support for coaches and not a replacement (?).

Figure 1:

• See general comment. I would recommend deleting ages 0-7 years (not included in the dtudy, and players were potentially not in the system yet. Please also provide Confidence intervals for the survivals (in order to get insight in potential problems due to lower sample sizes for later drop outs). Please add also a label for the columns with n=21 and n=18 (presumably the 2011 and 2012 assessments separately?)

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Feb 10;18(2):e0281731. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281731.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

30 Oct 2022

Point-by-point response

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

Response

We have addressed all points to the best of our knowledge, and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Since these revisions were not substantive changes, they are not indicated as tracked changes within the manuscript to maintain readability.

We need to change our data availability statement. The data of this study cannot be made publicly available for ethical and legal reasons; the public availability would compromise confidentiality and/or participant privacy. The data contains potentially identifying athlete information. This restriction is imposed by the Netherlands Table Tennis Association. Data will only be available on request and can be sent to the Netherlands Table Tennis Association using the email address jong@tafeltennis.nl.

The ethics statement is now only stated within the methods section.

Reviewers' comments:

Response

Thank you for your positive response regarding our paper and the feedback that helps to improve its content and readability.

Abstract

Line 51: eye-hand or eye hand please check and fix the throughout the manuscript

Response

Thank you for you careful reading. We have changed eye hand to eye-hand throughout the manuscript.

Introduction

This section is well designed and well-written. However, here is the alternative sentence for the research questions.

Response

Thank you for your suggestion. However, we are a little bit puzzled by the alternative, especially regarding the inclusion of question (c) relationships between psychophysiological responses and locomotor demands. We believe that this was beyond the scope of our article. Nevertheless, we tried to simplify the research question, please see line 107-112.

Methods section

Line 156: no need this info https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149037.s001. Please extract it.

What about maturation. If you do not measure it, please add limitations.

Response

We have deleted the link and added the maturation as a topic to the limitation paragraph (line 317-319) as proposed.

Results section: Results and tables are well shown

Discussion section: Overall the discussion is well-written and incorporates relevant literature.

References: References are well selected by the authors

Figures and Tables: This section is well designed and well-shown.

Response

Thank you for these compliments and again for your feedback.

Reviewer #2: Reviewer Comments:

Can perceptuo-motor skills assessment outcomes predict future competition

participation/drop-out and performance level in youth table tennis players? An explorative 9-year follow-up study: PONE-D-22-23471

GENERAL COMMENTS:

Response

Thank you for your positive response and critical feedback that helps us to improve our paper.

With regards to the content of the paper, some aspects require improvements.

Response

Thank you for your suggestions. Indeed, our starting point is that talent development is a multidimensional process in which many factors play a role. We now emphasize on that in the introduction in line 86-90 by including the conceptualization of talent as proposed by prof. Baker and colleagues. Additionally, psychomotor skills are important elements of performance in the sports domain and especially in technique-based sports like table tennis. We have added a more detailed rational about the assessed constructs (line 93-98).

Added references:

• Baker J, Wattie N, Schorer J. A proposed conceptualization of talent in sport: The first step in a long and winding road. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2019;43:27-33.

• Faber IR, Bustin PM, Oosterveld FG, Elferink-Gemser MT, Nijhuis-Van der Sanden MW. Assessing personal talent determinants in young racquet sport players: a systematic review. Journal of sports sciences. 2016;34(5):395-410.

• Faber IR, Nijhuis-Van Der Sanden MW, Elferink-Gemser MT, Oosterveld FG. The Dutch motor skills assessment as tool for talent development in table tennis: a reproducibility and validity study. Journal of sports sciences. 2015;33(11):1149-58.

Response

Indeed, what you describe is exactly what we aimed for. We wanted to evaluate the prognostic value for both competition participation and competition performance. We provided more detailed information on this at the end of the introduction section (line 98-101). We also now use RQ1 and RQ2 for the research questions as you suggested (line 107-112) and the structure of the results section. Also, we checked the consistency of terms regarding competition performance throughout the paper.

Response

As the reviewer correctly noticed, Figure 1 is a Kaplan-Meier curve which shows the survival function (i.e., probability to remain in competition) against time (i.e., the age of a player). This information is now added to the methods section (line 202-203) and results section (line 233-234).The x-axis title is changed for clarity into age (years) and for the y-axis to survival probability. The Cox regression analyses are first conducted for each item separately (univariable), to highlight the individual interest of each of the measured variables. After that also multivariable analyses were conducted.

Response

Additional information is provided in the statistical paragraph of the methods section (line 206-215) to better explain the analyses that were conducted.

Response

As proposed, we added information about the competition rating score in line 185-194. Hopefully, this provides enough information. Please let us know, whether specific information is still missing.

Response

Although we indeed agree that an analysis including sex would be the better solution, this is considered inappropriate while including a small dataset. Therefore, we only corrected for sex by including sex as a covariate. It is quite common not to report the coefficients and p-values of the covariates in a regression model. The coefficients of the covariates are not part of the research question and therefore, they don't provide relevant information. That's the reason why the coefficient for age and sex were not reported. Anyway, if you still want to see them, of course, we can provide, but again, we don't believe that this information is very relevant. In addition to this, we emphasize in the discussion part on a future approach in which sex is taken into account (line 291-293; 312-319; 326-328).

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

Title

• “assessment outcomes” sounds a bit confusing- only assessments or only outcomes or just diagnostics?

• Why explorative? Please add a rational in the text. Is this important for the title?

Abstract

• L.44: decision-making: think about replacing by making decisions regarding selection/promotion (or similar). Decision-making is connoted with making in-game decisions and therefore could be misleading here.

• L.46: competition performance vs. future performance level? See general comment

• L.54: add regression?

Response

We have made changed to the manuscript as proposed:

- Assessment is deleted.

- Explorative Is deleted; this was mainly due to the small sample, but seems unnecessary.

- Decision making is changed into making decisions or similar wording throughout the paper to avoid misunderstandings.

- Competition performance is used throughout the document.

- Regression is added to the description.

Introduction

• L.66: please define excellent adult performance

• L.72: provide reference

• L.78 and L.90: what do you mean by fair estimate /evaluation of potential. This should be explained (also it might be implicitly clear)

• L.81: maybe add that talent development programs are established approaches of talent promotion in a variety of sports with some examples, the focus on table tennis)

• L117: explain, why the study is explorative

Response

The comments have been addressed as following:

- Excellent adult performance is defined as international level according to the classification levels of Swann (2014) (line 46) with reference to: Swann C, Moran A, Piggott D. Defining elite athletes: Issues in the study of expert performance in sport psychology. Psychology of sport and exercise. 2015;16:3-14.

- The following reference has been added (line 53): Faber IR, Sloot L, Hoogeveen L, Elferink-Gemser MT, Schorer J. Western Approaches for the identification and development of talent in schools and sports contexts from 2009 to 2019-a literature review. High Ability Studies. 2021:1-34.

- This text has been changed into: prospective longitudinal approaches including longitudinal tracking in line with the scoping review of Baker et al. (line 54 and line 73-75).

- More details have been added to clarify the estimate of potential: A fair estimate of an athlete’s potential to reach the international level and the chances to stand on international podia…. (line 59-61)

- The suggested sentence is added (line 63-64) together with the following reference: De Bosscher V, De Knop P, Van Bottenburg M, Shibli S. A conceptual framework for analysing sports policy factors leading to international sporting success. European sport management quarterly. 2006;6(2):185-215.

- Explorative Is deleted; this was mainly due to the small sample, but seems unnecessary.

Methods

• l.144 provide distribution regarding gender and age

• L.157pp: please double check the presentation of the statistical values. Should read e.g., ICC = 0.91. Please also check formatting (e.g., n should be in italics, see for instance l.144)

• L166-168: sentence seems not to be complete.

• L.170pp: Please explain which “levels” were exactly used (or whether level is the right term for the score that was used). See also general comment.

• L.187: was there also significance testing for normality?

Response

The comments have been addressed as following:

- The distribution of gender and age is added to the results section (line 219).

- In table tennis it is common practice that players are selected for more intensive training programs already at an early age, e.g., from 10-12 years or even younger. The context presented within the paper is representative for a common situation in the Netherlands. The first time that players are selected for international competitions (i.e., European Youth Championships) is for the under-15 category.

- Statistical values were adapted as proposed (line 162-168).

- Sentence has been reformulated (line 173-175).

- We deleted the word level and changed this into competition performance. The competition rating score is used to reflect the competition performance of a player. More detailed information of the score is added (line 185-194).

- We didn’t perform a statistical test for normality. The normality tests are not very valid for small sample sizes. Therefore, we evaluated normality by comparing mean and median and by visual inspection.

Results:

• L.215: lower values are better performances in speed measures, right? Please note on that, as this is important for the interpretation of the HRs.

• “best fitting model”: please provide measures for that (and describe the process how it was found in more detail)

• L.226pp: Please state what was used as independent and dependent variables in the regressions (already in the methods section) and add this information also in Table 2.

Response

The comments have been addressed as following:

- This information is added as footnote in Table 1.

- More detailed information about the tests is added to the methods section (line 144-160)

- After considering this formulation, we think it's better to approach this as the final multivariable model instead of the 'best fitting' model. We used a backwards procedure to come to this final model and did not make a comparison. We changed this accordingly.

- The information about independent and dependent variables is now added to the methods section within the statistical analysis paragraph (line 203-208).

Discussion

L.250: decimal point instead of comma

L.261: commas before and after “therefore”?

l.290: see general comment on combined approach regarding gender

Response

The comments have been addressed as following:

- This is changed as proposed (line 276).

- This is changed as proposed (line 286).

- Although we indeed agree that an analysis including sex would be the better solution, this is considered inappropriate within this small dataset. Therefore, we only corrected for sex by including sex as a covariate and included this in the limitation paragraph of the discussion section.

- This information is added to the concluding paragraph (line 320-326).

Figure 1:

• See general comment. I would recommend deleting ages 0-7 years (not included in the study, and players were potentially not in the system yet. Please also provide Confidence intervals for the survivals (in order to get insight in potential problems due to lower sample sizes for later drop outs). Please add also a label for the columns with n=21 and n=18 (presumably the 2011 and 2012 assessments separately?)

Response

The comments have been addressed as following:

- Ages from 0-7 are deleted as proposed in Fig1.

- The Kaplan Meier is a descriptive plot to display observed values. For this reason, confidence intervals cannot be calculated. Because they are observed values, you have no CI.

- Column labels have been added to Table 1.

Once again, thank you for your feedback that helped us to improve our article.

Attachment

Submitted filename: 20221030_Response to reviewers_PONE_IF.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(37.3KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281731.r003

Decision Letter 1

Rafael Franco Soares Oliveira

20 Dec 2022

PONE-D-22-23471R1Can perceptuo-motor skills outcomes predict future competition participation/drop-out and competition performance in youth table tennis players? A 9-year follow-up studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Faber,

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: Dear authors,

The authors improved their work when compared with the previous version. Reviewer 1 already recommended acception of the work while reviewer 2 suggested minor revision. This is also my opinion because there are still some possibilities to developt the content of the manuscript. Please check all comments made by reviewer 2 and address.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 04 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rafael Franco Soares Oliveira

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear authors,

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: First of all, the reviewer would like to thank the authors for their work and efforts in trying to improve sports science knowledge

Reviewer #2: Reviewer Comments:

Can perceptuo-motor skills outcomes predict future competition participation/drop-out and competition performance in youth table tennis players? A 9-year follow-up study: PONE-D-22-23471_R1

Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript to the PLoS One. From my point of view, the authors should be complimented for their revisions made on the paper. Most of the reviewers’ comments were addressed in a satisfying manner. However, there are still some issues that are listed below and should be considered (lines refer to the revised manuscript with track changes):

1) While I appreciate structuring the paper according to your two RQs, this is still missing in the abstract. Consider introducing RQ1 and RQ2 here as well. In doing so, the results within the abstract can me assigned to that structure easily. This would enhance understanding.

2) L.99: Although you almost entirely adjusted the naming of the criterion variable for RQ2 (competition performance), there are still some situation were you refer to level. Consider removing level here as well as in l.186 if appropriate. You are referring to a continuous variable in your analyses (performance score). Therefore, avoid using “level” which might suggest a nominal outcome. By the way: conder using “future competition performance” here.

3) L.104 and throughout: check formatting of statistical values again. R^2 in italics?

4) L.187pp: while I appreciate your elaborations on the score, it would be helpful for the readership to provide a formula for this score, if possible. This would also help to get a better impression of your multilevel result…. If not just leave it as it is.

5) L.202 pp: Thank you for including information on KMC here. While this represents an interesting analysis, this- in the current version- does not refer to RQ1 or RQ2. Those RQs solely refer to the predictive value of the performed perceptuo motor test. Therefore I would suggest either including this analysis and their result into a RQ- presumably this could be RQ1a and the results referring to the tests could be RQ1b, or removing this analyses from the manuscript.

6) L.210: provide more rationale why multi- and univariate approaches were followed a potential reason could be investigating single tests power (univariate), but also the test batterys power (multivariate). Just shortly elaborate on that, please.

7) L.220: were these indeed different talent days for boys and girls? Or are the number 21 and 18 incidentally the same as those for the gender distribution? Please clarify. By the way: if there were different talent days, there is still further reason to discriminate boys and girls in your analyses: 1 year difference of testing dates, level of participants comparable among boys and girls?, …. Maybe at least add some thoughts to the discussion.

8) Table1: Please provide results for gender and age as covariates, please (as a follow-up in your answers to the latter revision). It is important to know, whether the covariates were significantly influencing the results, or not. Please state and also present as text in the results section. If there is a significant influence, you should also discuss whether there could be reasoned assumptions as to whether the prognostic relevance among genders could be different? [which would be maybe reflected by an interaction effect!?.

9) Table 1: Please provide at least 1 decimal for the Means of your test (in line with the given SDs that are already presented with 1 decimal.

10) L.248: This subheading does not fit to the subheading of RQ1. Please use the same “structure”: should this also read “Predicting …” ?

11) L.250: delete “(p <.05”) as you present each exact p afterwards.

12) L.252: (Oxford) comma before “and eye-hand coordination!?

13) Table 2: Can you also present the R^2s for each model in the Table? This would be kind of an effect size and, thus, in line with all further analyses where you present effect sizes (e.g., HR).

14) L.317pp: As already mentioned, I appreciate presenting the limitations regarding sex and age. However, this is a severe issue in your analyses. Therefore, I recommend extending this section: what are your expectations about concrete limitations/restrictions of generalizability of your analyses towards the predictive value of the conducted tests. For me, it is by no means clear that the predictive power of such tests is the same for boys and girls. And by the way, this is well-known problem in talent research. Already William & Reilly (2000) claim for the consideration and comparison of both genders when investigating the predictive value of talent predictors. Just a thought: I know, that your sample size is too low for performing separate analyses (and getting significant results at the same time). However, did you perform those analyses also separately and compared e.g. the regression coefficients of those (non-significant) models with those given for the total sample. This (together with the results of the covariates) could indicate as to whether the differences between gender could be more or less neglected in your study. I would appreciate reading about such points here in this part of the discussion.

Thank you again for this interesting paper. I hope that my comments are appreciated and help to further enhance the quality of the paper.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

PLoS One. 2023 Feb 10;18(2):e0281731. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281731.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1

17 Jan 2023

Point-by-point response

Journal Requirements:

Response

We checked the references. No updates were necessary for this revision.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear authors,

Response

Thank you for your positive response regarding our paper.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1:

First of all, the reviewer would like to thank the authors for their work and efforts in trying to improve sports science knowledge.

Response

Thank you for your positive response regarding our paper and accepting it for publication.

Reviewer #2:

Response

Thank you for your positive response and critical feedback that helps us to improve our paper. Lines refer to the version with track changes.

Response

References to RQ1 and RQ2 are now included within the abstract.

Response

Thank you for your suggestions. We deleted 'level' at line 99, line 186 and line 298.

3) L.104 and throughout: check formatting of statistical values again. R^2 in italics?

Response

This has been changed as proposed.

Response

Unfortunately, it is not possible to provide an easy calculation for the performance score. However, the complete description how the rating score is calculated can be found here: De Elo-ranglijsten toelichting en berekeningswijze (nttb-ranglijsten.nl). This webpage is in Dutch and provides a comprehensive outline. The link is added in the method section (line 190).

Response

We decided to delete the KMC in the revised version to focus directly on the proposed research questions.

Response

This information is added to the statistical analysis as proposed (line 211-214).

Response

The talent days included both boys and girls. Indeed the numbers are the same by coincidence. The exact numbers of boys and girls per year are added to the results section (line 223-224) to clarify this.

Response

Information about the covariates' significance in the univariable and multivariable models for both RQ1 and RQ2 is added in table 1 and 2 and in the text of the results section (line 243-245 and line 258-262). Based on these outcomes it appears that test age and sex were significant covariates within some of the univariable Cox regression analyses, but not in the final multivariable one. Influences of test age and sex are further discussed in the discussion section (line 300-305, line 327-332, line 337-341).

9) Table 1: Please provide at least 1 decimal for the Means of your test (in line with the given SDs that are already presented with 1 decimal.

Response

Decimals are now provided in Table 1 as proposed. These changes are not shown with track changes to preserve readability.

10) L.248: This subheading does not fit to the subheading of RQ1. Please use the same “structure”: should this also read “Predicting …” ?

Response

This has been changed as proposed.

11) L.250: delete “(p <.05”) as you present each exact p afterwards.

Response

This has been changed as proposed.

12) L.252: (Oxford) comma before “and eye-hand coordination!?

Response

This has been changed as proposed.

13) Table 2: Can you also present the R^2s for each model in the Table? This would be kind of an effect size and, thus, in line with all further analyses where you present effect sizes (e.g., HR).

Response

R2 have been added to table 2 as proposed.

Response

As proposed, information about the covariates' significance in the univariable and multivariable models for both RQ1 and RQ2 is added in table 1 and 2 and in the text of the results section (line 243-245 and line 258-262). Based on these outcomes it appears that test age and sex were significant covariates within some of the univariable Cox regression analyses, but not in the final multivariable one. For the prediction of competition performance, only test age appeared a significant covariate. The issue of possible (interaction) effects of sex is pointed out in the discussion part (line 300-305, line 327-332, line 337-341).

Thank you again for this interesting paper. I hope that my comments are appreciated and help to further enhance the quality of the paper.

Response

Thank you for your feedback, this is much appreciated.

Attachment

Submitted filename: 20230117_Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(29.7KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281731.r005

Decision Letter 2

Rafael Franco Soares Oliveira

31 Jan 2023

Can perceptuo-motor skills outcomes predict future competition participation/drop-out and competition performance in youth table tennis players? A 9-year follow-up study

PONE-D-22-23471R2

Dear Dr. Dr. Irene R. Faber,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Rafael Franco Soares Oliveira

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Congratulations! Our recommendation is to accept your manuscript!

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the revised version of your paper. All comments have been adressed accordingly and the authors should be complimented for their work! I have no further comments.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281731.r006

Acceptance letter

Rafael Franco Soares Oliveira

1 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-23471R2

Can perceptuo-motor skills outcomes predict future competition participation/drop-out and competition performance in youth table tennis players? A 9-year follow-up study

Dear Dr. Faber:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Rafael Franco Soares Oliveira

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Attachment

Submitted filename: 20221030_Response to reviewers_PONE_IF.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(37.3KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: 20230117_Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(29.7KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

[pone.0281731.ref001] 1.De Bosscher V, De Knop P, Van Bottenburg M, Shibli S. A conceptual framework for analysing sports policy factors leading to international sporting success. European sport management quarterly. 2006;6(2):185–215. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref002] 2.Vaeyens R, Güllich A, Warr CR, Philippaerts R. Talent identification and promotion programmes of Olympic athletes. Journal of sports sciences. 2009;27(13):1367–80. doi: 10.1080/02640410903110974 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref003] 3.Johnston K, Wattie N, Schorer J, Baker J. Talent identification in sport: a systematic review. Sports Medicine. 2018;48(1):97–109. doi: 10.1007/s40279-017-0803-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref004] 4.Till K, Baker J. Challenges and [possible] solutions to optimizing talent identification and development in sport. Frontiers in psychology. 2020;11:664. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00664 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref005] 5.Vaeyens R, Lenoir M, Williams AM, Philippaerts RM. Talent identification and development programmes in sport. Sports medicine. 2008;38(9):703–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref006] 6.Swann C, Moran A, Piggott D. Defining elite athletes: Issues in the study of expert performance in sport psychology. Psychology of sport and exercise. 2015;16:3–14. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref007] 7.Anderson D, Magill R, Thouvarecq R. Critical periods, sensitive periods, and readiness for motor skill learning. Skill acquisition in sport: Research, theory and practice. 2012:211–28. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref008] 8.Watanabe D, Savion-Lemieux T, Penhune VB. The effect of early musical training on adult motor performance: evidence for a sensitive period in motor learning. Experimental brain research. 2007;176(2):332–40. doi: 10.1007/s00221-006-0619-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref009] 9.Baker J, Schorer J, Wattie N. Compromising talent: Issues in identifying and selecting talent in sport. Quest. 2018;70(1):48–63. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref010] 10.Faber IR, Sloot L, Hoogeveen L, Elferink-Gemser MT, Schorer J. Western Approaches for the identification and development of talent in schools and sports contexts from 2009 to 2019-a literature review. High Ability Studies. 2021:1–34. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref011] 11.Baker J, Wilson S, Johnston K, Dehghansai N, Koenigsberg A, De Vegt S, et al. Talent research in sport 1990–2018: a scoping review. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020:3067. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref012] 12.Côté J, Baker J, Abernethy B. Practice and play in the development of sport expertise. Handbook of sport psychology. 2007;3:184–202. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref013] 13.Faber I, Damsma T, Pion J. Finding Talent and Establishing the Road to Excellence in Table Tennis. Talent identification and development in sport: International perspectives 2020. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref014] 14.Faber IR. Diamonds in the rough. Searching for high potential in youth table tennis players: Radboud University Nijmegen; 2016. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref015] 15.Elferink-Gemser MT, te Wierike SC, Visscher C. 16 multidisciplinary longitudinal studies: a perspective from the field of sports. The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance 2018. p. 271. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref016] 16.Friedrich W, Fürste F, Fürste F. Tischtennis-verstehen, lernen, spielen: ein Tischtennis Lehrbuch: Wolfgang Friedrich; 2018. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref017] 17.Sève C, Saury J, Theureau J, Durand M. Activity organization and knowledge construction during competitive interaction in table tennis. Cognitive Systems Research. 2002;3(3):501–22. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref018] 18.Malagoli Lanzoni I, Di Michele R, Merni F. Performance indicators in table tennis: a review of the literature. International Journal of Table Tennis Sciences. 2011;7:71–5. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref019] 19.Faber IR, Koopmann T, Büsch D, Schorer J. Developing a tool to assess technical skills in talented youth table tennis players—a multi-method approach combining professional and scientific literature and coaches’ perspectives. Sports medicine-open. 2021;7(1):1–24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref020] 20.Kannekens R, Elferink‐Gemser M, Visscher C. Positioning and deciding: key factors for talent development in soccer. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports. 2011;21(6):846–52. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01104.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref021] 21.Limoochi S. A survey of table tennis coaches’ opinions of some criteria in talent identification. International Journal of Table Tennis Sciences. 2006;6:280–7. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref022] 22.Toriola AL, Toriola OM, Igbokwe NU. Validity of specific motor skills in predicting table-tennis performance in novice players. Perceptual and motor skills. 2004;98(2):584–6. doi: 10.2466/pms.98.2.584-586 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref023] 23.Pullinger SA, Varamenti E, Nikolovski Z, Elgingo M, Cardinale M. Seasonal changes in performance related characteristics and biochemical marker variability of adolescent table tennis players. Asian Journal of Sports Medicine. 2019;10(1). [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref024] 24.Siener M, Hohmann A. Talent orientation: The impact of motor abilities on future success in table tennis. German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research. 2019;49(3):232–43. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref025] 25.Nikolić I, Furjan–Mandić G, Kondrič M. The relationship of morphology and motor abilities to specific table tennis tasks in youngsters. Collegium antropologicum. 2014;38(1):241–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref026] 26.Hülsdünker T, Ostermann M, Mierau A. Standardised computer-based reaction tests predict the sport-specific visuomotor speed and performance of young elite table tennis athletes. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport. 2019;19(6):953–70. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref027] 27.Faber IR, Elferink-Gemser MT, Oosterveld FG, Twisk JW, Nijhuis-Van der Sanden MW. Can an early perceptuo-motor skills assessment predict future performance in youth table tennis players? An observational study (1998–2013). Journal of sports sciences. 2017;35(6):593–601. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2016.1180421 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref028] 28.Faber IR, Elferink-Gemser MT, Faber NR, Oosterveld FG, Nijhuis-Van der Sanden MW. Can perceptuo-motor skills assessment outcomes in young table tennis players (7–11 years) predict future competition participation and performance? An observational prospective study. PloS one. 2016;11(2):e0149037. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149037 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref029] 29.Baker J, Wattie N, Schorer J. A proposed conceptualization of talent in sport: The first step in a long and winding road. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2019;43:27–33. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref030] 30.Doherty SAP, Martinent G, Martindale A, Faber IR. Determinants for table tennis performance in elite Scottish youth players using a multidimensional approach: A pilot study. High Ability Studies. 2018;29(2):241–54. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref031] 31.Faber IR, Bustin PM, Oosterveld FG, Elferink-Gemser MT, Nijhuis-Van der Sanden MW. Assessing personal talent determinants in young racquet sport players: a systematic review. Journal of sports sciences. 2016;34(5):395–410. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2015.1061201 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref032] 32.Faber IR, Nijhuis-Van Der Sanden MW, Elferink-Gemser MT, Oosterveld FG. The Dutch motor skills assessment as tool for talent development in table tennis: a reproducibility and validity study. Journal of sports sciences. 2015;33(11):1149–58. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2014.986503 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref033] 33.Vandorpe B, Vandendriessche JB, Vaeyens R, Pion J, Lefevre J, Philippaerts RM, et al. The value of a non-sport-specific motor test battery in predicting performance in young female gymnasts. Journal of sports sciences. 2012;30(5):497–505. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2012.654399 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref034] 34.Panjan A, Šarabon N, Filipčič A. Prediction of the successfulness of tennis players with machine learning methods. Kinesiology. 2010;42(1.):98–106. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref035] 35.Pion J, Fransen J, Deprez DN, Segers VI, Vaeyens R, Philippaerts RM, et al. Stature and jumping height are required in female volleyball, but motor coordination is a key factor for future elite success. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2015;29(6):1480–5. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000778 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref036] 36.Pion J, Lenoir M, Vandorpe B, Segers V. Talent in female gymnastics: a survival analysis based upon performance characteristics. International journal of sports medicine. 2015;94(11):935–40. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1548887 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref037] 37.Lane AM, Jones L, Stevens MJ. Coping with failure: the effects of self-esteem and coping on changes in self-efficacy. Journal of Sport Behavior. 2002;25(4). [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref038] 38.Gillet N, Berjot S, Gobancé L. A motivational model of performance in the sport domain. European Journal of Sport Science. 2009;9(3):151–8. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref039] 39.Silva M, Carvalho HM, Gonçalves C, Figueiredo A, Elferink-Gemser M, Philippaerts R, et al. Growth, maturation, functional capacities and sport-specific skills in 12–13 year-old-basketball players. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness. 2010;50(2):174–81. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref040] 40.Elferink-Gemser MT, Jordet G, Coelho-E-Silva MJ, Visscher C. The marvels of elite sports: how to get there?: British Association of Sport and Excercise Medicine; 2011. p. 683–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref041] 41.Baker J, Côté J, Deakin J. Expertise in ultra-endurance triathletes early sport involvement, training structure, and the theory of deliberate practice. Journal of applied sport psychology. 2005;17(1):64–78. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref042] 42.Wall M, Côté J. Developmental activities that lead to dropout and investment in sport. Physical education and sport pedagogy. 2007;12(1):77–87. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0281731.ref043] 43.Schipper van Veldhoven N. Sports and physical education from a pedagogical perspective: a golden opportunity. Deventer: daM publishers[Google Scholar]. 2017. [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Can perceptuo-motor skills outcomes predict future competition participation/drop-out and competition performance in youth table tennis players? A 9-year follow-up study

Irene R Faber

Till Koopmann

Nicolette Schipper-van Veldhoven

Jos Twisk

Johan Pion

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Ethical statement

Study design

Players

Perceptuo-motor skills assessment

Competition participation/drop-out and competition performance

Statistical analysis

Results

Sample characteristics and descriptive results

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and Cox regression analysis of dropout rates examining the perceptuo-motor skills assessment.

Predicting competition participation/drop-out (RQ1)

Predicting competition performance (RQ2)

Table 2. Multilevel analysis for predictive value of the perceptuo-motor skills assessment on competition performance.

Discussion

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Rafael Franco Soares Oliveira

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Rafael Franco Soares Oliveira

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 1

Decision Letter 2

Rafael Franco Soares Oliveira

Roles

Acceptance letter

Rafael Franco Soares Oliveira

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases