Abstract
Relative age effect (RAE) is considered to bias the selection of young athletes and a cause of exclusion of many participants. The goal of the study was to unveil the effects of the birth quarter on physical performances and a set of psychological constructs in the age groups corresponding to the specialization years. A set of surveys with cross-sectional data collected from 2015 to 2019 in youth basketball was used. Three hundred and twenty-seven Brazilian players (127 females, 100 males), mean age 14.0 years, participated in the study. Counter-movement jump, line-drill, yoyo intermittent test, achievement goals, motivation for deliberate practice, and enjoyment were measured. Bayesian multilevel regression was performed. RAE was observed but its advantages did not persist and did not differentiate the players in the variables under scrutiny. The only predictor of athletic and psychological outcomes was chronological age. The initial advantage that triggered the coaches' decision to select individual players disappears during the specialization years. Coaches must overcome the superficial observation of young athletes based only on age groups and actual performances, avoiding hasty decisions that, unlike RAE, last in time and cannot be reversed.
Highlights
The last decade witnessed a plethora of studies on talent identification and development, aiming at identifying accurate predictors of adult elite performance
The Relative age effect (RAE) selection bias followed the trends reported in the literature (Arrieta et al, 2016; Hancock, 2017; Haycraft et al, 2018)
The result is especially evident for male players, as the girls born in the 1st quarter and earlymaturers are fewer than their male peers. This reflects further evidence that RAE and maturity status are not to be confounded, the present study suggests the phenomenological emergence of the “survival of the fittest” (Jones et al, 2018), as, at least for boys, those retained by the coaches are the older ones, chronologically and biologically
Summary
The last decade witnessed a plethora of studies on talent identification and development, aiming at identifying accurate predictors of adult elite performance (for a review, Sarmento et al, 2018). The first common characteristic of these studies is their utilitarian ideology. Starting with measurements and assessments at different stages of childhood and adolescence, researchers try to discriminate the variables that can help coaches and managers to select or deselect athletes. The premise is that sport specialization is a necessary condition for performance and expertise development, the theoretical ground being the deliberate practice theory (Ericsson et al, 1993). The corollary is that specialization must start in childhood and deliver the best possible athlete at the end of the process, preferably under the guidance of qualified coaches. The second common characteristic is the persistent inconsistency of methods, results, and interpretations of the results. As Zuber et al (2016) put it, “it is not possible to consider the entire person-environment system empirically in holistic terms.”
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
