Search

Although relative age effects in sports have been studied worldwide, the underlying mechanisms are still under debate. This study adds to the existing knowledge by providing a further exploration of the within-year and between-year effects and their possible interaction in an individual skill/technique based sport: table tennis. Data of male and female elite players across ages (U15, U18, U21, and senior) were collected from the ranking lists in international (world and Europe) and national contexts (France and the Netherlands). A multi-way frequency analysis per subsample revealed (1) no interaction effects; (2) significant within-year and between-year effects for the U15 players in the international context and male French players; (3) a significant within-year effect in the French U18 category; (4) a significant within-year effect in female European U21; and (5) no within-year effects in the senior category. Table tennis seems to be at risk for within-year and between-year effects specifically within the context of high competitive level for younger players (U15, males, and females), but not for interactions between these effects. Future research should reveal the development of the RAEs over time in a longitudinal study, evaluate influencing constraints, and innovative prevention solutions in a more comprehensive way.

The purpose of this study was to examine the longitudinal profiles of sport motivation using a 3-wave design (beginning, middle, and end of the season) among a sample of 736 adolescent athletes involved in intensive training centers. The authors explored whether several subgroups of athletes representing distinct motivation profiles emerged from the analyses and whether athletes reporting various scores of satisfaction and thwarting of basic psychological needs (BPNS and BPNT) at time 1 (T1) belonged to distinct motivational profiles at T1, T2, and T3. Results of latent profile transition analyses showed 4 different profiles: highly self-determined, self-determined, moderate autonomous and controlled motivation, moderately self-determined (T1 and T2), and high autonomous and controlled motivation (T3) profiles. Moreover, the likelihood of belonging to particular profiles was significantly predicted by athletes' BPNS and BPNT scores assessed at T1. Thus, a motivational profile approach may prove useful in understanding sport motivation as a dynamic system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]