ASSIGNMENT #2

Youth Sport Specialization vs. Diversification: The Debate Continues

Michael Fraina, Ph.D.

Susan P. Mullane, Ph.D

.

May 2020

Introduction

A topic that has gained attention within the sport industry is the discourse between youth sport specialization and diversification (Normand, Wolfe, & Peak, 2017). Sport specialization has been defined as “the age or point in time in an athlete’s development when sports training and competition is restricted to and focused upon a single sport in the pursuit of elite performance” (Capranica & Millard-Stafford, 2011, p. 572). This practice has become increasingly common for children as young as five years old (Hecimovich, 2004).

The opposite method of youth sport participation is diversification. Wiersma (2000) defined sport diversification as “the participation in a variety of sports and activities through which an athlete develops multilateral physical, social, and psychological skills” (p. 13). Any individual having competed in multiple sports and/or recreational activities has participated within the model of sport diversification.

Although there are strong opinions on both sides, limited research has evaluated the topic in a quantitative or qualitative environment. As expressed in the review of literature, studies (e.g., Baker, 2003; Ferguson & Stern, 2014; Russell & Molina, 2018) have generally examined one element of the specialization issue (e.g., psychological, physical). The current study is designed to comprehensively measure, in a retrospective manner, the perceptions of current college students as to the merits and downsides of both specialization and diversification at the youth level. Topics to be evaluated include the factors that influence one’s decision of whether to specialize, psychological and academic outcomes attributed to athletes’ sport participation decisions, and participants’ recommendations to current youth athletes. Prior to the methodology, results, and discussion, a review of the existing literature on sport specialization is presented.

Specialization: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

In conjunction with the trend in recent decades toward early sport specialization, there are many proponents of this strategy. Coaches, administrators, and parents in favor of devotion to a single sport generally report three specific justifications: the “10-year rule”, case studies of successful athletes, and enhanced athletic development.

From a theoretical perspective, a commonly held stance is that the only pathway to elite athletic performance is through extensive practice. In a study designed to explore whether specialization is a prerequisite for athletic prowess, Baker (2003) cited the “10-year rule,” which suggests that the ability of an individual to reach his/her full potential could only be achieved through a minimum of 10 years of intense training. The 10-year rule was initially developed by Simon and Chase (1973). Supporters of early sport specialization contend that year-round training is the only manner in which to demonstrate this level of commitment. Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Romer (1993) applied this theory to athletics by proposing that sport success was tied directly to the individual’s amount of deliberate practice. Stewart and Shroyer (2015) noted that specialization can lead to enhanced coaching and skill instruction, improved skill acquisition, development of time management skills, and enjoyment of sport and talent development.

The popularity of youth sport specialization is often connected with the accomplishments of famous athletes. Gould (2010) theorized that media portrayals of Tiger Woods and Michael Phelps, which emphasized their sole dedication to their respective sports at a young age, have encouraged young athletes to follow suit. Kaleth and Mikesky (2010) similarly referenced interviews from Amanda Beard and Venus and Serena Williams, which urged young athletes of the need to specialize in order to be successful. Thus, there is documentation from elite and influential athletes in favor of early specialization.

There is also some evidence that specialization may lead to positive developmental outcomes. Comparisons of the participation patterns of athletes have measured the differences between competitors of varying skill levels. Abernethy, Baker, and Cote (2003) compared training tendencies of Australian expert athletes and non-expert performers. In-depth interviews revealed that experts competed in more intense training than non-expert athletes. Additionally, expert athletes perceived that all aspects of deliberate practice were helpful toward sport performance (Abernethy et al., 2003). Livingston, Schmidt, and Lehman (2016) viewed that parents perceived expedited skill development among those children who had specialized in their respective sport. Russell and Molina (2018) observed virtually identical levels of peer satisfaction between specializers and non-specializers, and slightly higher levels of intrinsic motivation for specializers. These favorable opinions toward sport specialization support the notion of intense, year-round training in a single activity.

Despite the emergence of early specialization, there are many detractors to this practice. Brylinsky (2010) contended that arguments in support of early specialization, in particular the “10-year rule,” were not essential for elite sport participation. Some of the main arguments against youth specialization (and thus in favor of diversification) include athletic success of multi-sport athletes, psychological consequences of specialization, and physical risks of specialization.

The necessity of early sport specialization toward athletic achievement has been countered in literature. Hill (1993) surveyed 152 baseball players in the Northwest Rookie League to identify their previous athletic participation patterns and recommendations for youth. Results reflected that the majority of these professional baseball players were multi-sport athletes through high school. Only 22% of these successful athletes advised youth and high school students to specialize in their chosen sport.

Griffin (2008) concurred with the observations of Hill (1993). The author noted that many elite athletes had participated in various sports during their youth. This study also cited the work of Gould and Carson (2004), which revealed that a sample of Olympic athletes had not focused on skill expertise at the youth level. Rather than categorizing success through winning and losing, these athletes sought happiness, a proper balance of enjoyment, and psychological maturity associated with athletics.

Contrary to the belief of sport specialization proponents, White and Oatman (2009) determined that early commitment to a single sport was not required for skill superiority. Their study of Division I and II National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) football and field hockey players revealed that early specialization was not their chosen path. In fact, 83% of these successful athletes reported that they had participated in three or more different sports prior to high school. These results directly contradicted the opinion of the pro-specialization crowd that success is only achievable through full commitment.

Ultra-endurance athletes have also attributed positive outcomes to the sport diversification model. During interviews with 28 ultra-endurance athletes, Baker, Cote, and Deakin (2005) determined that early sport specialization was not required for success. Athletes were categorized as Experts, “Middle of the pack,” and “Back of the pack” competitors. Prior to mid-adolescence, these triathletes had not specialized in any of the three triathlon events. Their ability to convert early diversification into participation in the grueling activity of Ultra-endurance triathlons negated the importance of specialization.

In terms of psychological outcomes, several crippling implications of early sport specialization have been reported. Malina (2010) classified these as social isolation, overdependence, burnout, manipulation, and compromised growth and maturation. Young athletes with identities tied solely to athletic participation may have limited opportunities to develop relationships with peers (Malina, 2010). The harmful psychological consequence of burnout has occurred more frequently within specialized athletes (Malina, 2010). The atmosphere of adult control in specialized environments has also enhanced manipulation (i.e., age modification, dietary manipulation) (Malina, 2010). Lastly, specialized athletes have demonstrated stunted physical and emotional maturation (Malina, 2010). As these harmful consequences were deemed as unique to sport specialization, they present a compelling argument in favor of diversification.

Along the same lines, Strachan, Cote, and Deakin (2009) conducted a study regarding the psychological profiles of 40 specializers and 34 non-specializers participating in swimming, gymnastics, and diving. They observed that specialized athletes suffered higher levels of emotional exhaustion than their peers who had diversified sport involvement. Russell and Limle (2013) observed that young adults who had specialized in a single sport were less likely to continue sport participation into adulthood.

Lastly, early specialization can manifest in physical risks. Through an odds ratio analysis, Ferguson and Stern (2014) deciphered that youth sport specialization often facilitates fatigue and overuse injuries. Baseball pitchers were especially susceptible to overuse injuries, as likelihood of elbow/shoulder surgery increased according to amount of months, pitches thrown, and pitch velocity (Ferguson & Stern, 2014).

Methods

A quantitative survey was designed using Qualtrics software. The survey contained 24 items, 14 of which used a Likert scale (Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree), and the remainder sought demographic information about the participants. The survey was divided into three sections. The first area (items # 1-8) addressed the factors that influenced the athlete into either specialization or diversification. Next, items # 9-16 measured physical and psychological outcomes that participants attributed to their participation decision. Lastly, the third section (items # 17-24) investigated athletes’ recommendations toward youth sport specialization. Questions were designed by a panel of experts in addition to items gleaned from reviewing the literature on the subject matter. Participants received an announcement on Blackboard about the study with the link to the study provided. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, as the survey was monitored by Qualtrics.

A purposeful sample was used. Eligible participants were undergraduate students with majors or minors in a Sport Administration program at a private research university in the southeastern United States. The participants were enrolled in either of two undergraduate courses in their sport administration curriculum during two different semesters. The total number of eligible participants was 140 (N=140), and number of respondents was 86, representing a 61.4% response rate.

Results

Participants in the study were 60.4% males and 39.6% females. Seventy-one percent of males had diversified sport participation, and 64.7% of females played multiple sports as youth. Composition of race/ethnicity was White/Caucasian (67.4%), Hispanic (13.9%), Black/African American (10.5%), Asian/Pacific Islander (4.7%), and mixed race (3.5%). The sample included 46.5% seniors, 22.0% juniors, 16.3% sophomores, and 15.1% freshmen. In total, 31.4% had never specialized in sport, 12.8% began specialization between the ages of 6-8, 15.1% between 9-11, 19.8% between 12-14, 18.6% between 15-17, and 2.3% after the age of 18. Among the participants, 81.4% did not currently receive an athletic scholarship. Of the 16 athletes on scholarship, 56.3% had diversified and 43.7% had specialized. Regarding their current rate of sport participation, 48.8% were involved between 1-5 hours per week, 16.3% between 6-10 hours, 11.6% between 11-15 hours, 6.9% between 16-20 hours, and 16.3% played sport 20 or more hours per week.

Research question # 1 sought to identify which factors influenced the athlete toward either specialization or diversification. Overall, 68.6% engaged in diversification, while 31.4% were sport specializers. In terms of parental influence, 67.4% disagreed that parents influenced them toward specialization, while 32.6% agreed. Furthermore, 69.8% of respondents agreed that parents urged them toward diversification, as compared to 30.2% who disagreed. In the current study, 61.6% disagreed and 38.4% agreed that peers influenced them toward specialization. Conversely, 67.4% agreed that peers influenced them to diversify, as opposed to 32.6% who disagreed. Results indicated that coaches were the only ones who pushed these athletes toward specialization. In sum, 51.2% agreed that coaches favored specialization, compared to 48.8% who disagreed. Ultimately, the greatest percentage (59.3%) responded that they made their own choice toward specialization or diversification. Parents (27.9%), coaches (6.9%), and peers (5.8%) were less influential toward the athlete’s decision.

The survey then transitioned to assess a variety of physical and psychological outcomes perceived by participants. A significant majority (79%) disagreed that specialization takes the fun out of sport. An even 50-50% of respondents indicated that they felt it was good to specialize. There was a strong rate of disagreement (60.5%) in the item dealing with specialization and its increased risk of injury. Regarding whether specialization is helpful toward earning a college scholarship, 77.9% agreed. Even 53.5% of participants who had diversified sport participation responded affirmatively to this item. A large percentage of respondents (84.9%) agreed that specialization can lead to burnout. Some who had specialized (77.8%) agreed that their chosen strategy could illicit burnout. Another outcome was that 97.6% of responded that diversification can lead to an athlete becoming more well-rounded. There was more balance as to whether diversification takes pressure off of a young athlete; while 70.9% agreed, 27.9% disagreed. Many who had diversified toward multiple sports responded that their chosen path released pressure.

To measure research question # 3, participants were requested to recommend the ideal age for youth to begin specialization. Results indicated that 10.4% suggested between the ages of 6-8, 19.7% proposed specialization from age 9-11, 37.2% responded an ideal age of 12-14, 26.7% thought it best to begin specialization between the ages of 15-17, and 5.8% advised youth to specialize at age 18 and above. Thus, it appears that the participants in the current study favored specialization around the age of high school, but earlier than college.

Discussion

A commonly held opinion revolves around the perceived rise of youth sport specialization. Yet, nearly 70% of the participants in the current study (college students studying Sport Administration at a university in the southeastern United States) diversified in multiple sports during their youth. Perhaps either the emphasis toward specialization is overblown, or there has been a shift back to diversification. There is wide agreement that participation in sports offers both short and long-term physical and psychosocial benefits for children and adolescents. Therefore, efforts must be made to ensure that youth athletes receive the best opportunity to participate in multiple sports. Administrators and coaches should limit conflicts between sports and encourage children to pursue multiple activities.

Some sport organizations and associations are taking steps to encourage diversification. The U.S. Tennis Association, NCAA, and NFL, and a number of other sports organizations have teamed together in an advertisement aimed to educate parents and coaches. The ad warns that children who specialize in sports early on may not be on the best path for success, according to writer Jennifer Wallace. Wallace, in an appearance on “CBS This Morning,” goes on to point out “the idea that childhood should be spent working and not experimenting in multiple sports, is not in the best interest of the child.”

Additionally, given the current alarming statistic that approximately 70% of youth athletes are dropping out of sports by age 13 due to lack of fun while participating, it is necessary to be creative and responsive to making sure kids have fun. It could be the sport landscape is changing, and that kids want new opportunities for fun and sport participation. Gadd (2018) noted that while participation is dropping overall, there is growth happening in some areas. Suggestions to re-evaluate and re-conceptualize the concept of “sport” include adding other activities and supporting new and emerging sport, and nontraditional sports, like climbing, which had a 130% increase in participation last year. While the introduction of free play that might be more unstructured, it allows for more “playing” as opposed to competition, so that the fun might return to youth sports. If kids play for fun, their experience needs to provide that, and many agree (including members of the sample in the current study) that specialization takes the fun out. In promoting the specialization approach, kids lose the opportunity to play other sports and engage in other activities, such as music, art, drama, and even reading, the things necessary to become more well-rounded people. If they specialize, they do not have any time for any of those other activities and burnout is possible.

Upon noticing a decline in membership numbers overall and specifically for kids 10 years old and under, USA Swimming also has been proactive in encouraging kids to diversify in an effort to both retain existing members and increase the number of new ones. Research had indicated that parents wanted their kids to participate on swim teams and have a great “fitness activity” but not necessarily be on competitive teams. USA Swimming introduced a new category of membership, “flex membership,” that requires less of a time commitment, fitness and fun, and not so much competition. The sport of swimming has been involved with ProjectPlay from its inception and has been very proactive in developing multisport athletes. Ad campaigns for USA Swimming have also included swimmers performing ballet, kicking soccer balls, painting, playing musical instruments and basically reinforcing the idea that kids can swim as well as participate in other activities. Additionally, the NBA and USA Baseball have developed age specific guidelines for participation for young athletes that are intended to promote a healthy and positive sport experience. The overarching philosophy behind the NBA approach is that youth should be provide opportunities and encouraged to sample different sports and should avoid specializing in basketball prior to the age of 14.

Four national sport organizations in Canada recently joined forces with the Canadian Olympic Committee in a campaign to encourage young people to play various sports in lieu of only one. In the U.S., the OneSport media campaign was designed to help prevent overuse injuries in youth athletes, and backed by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and the American Society for Sports Medicine. Both initiatives support the pushback against the trend of early sport specialization.

Another issue is cost, as well as the potential unintended consequences of expensive sport programs. Youth sport is a $15 billion industry. The rising cost of youth sports and specializing in one sport is very expensive. According to the Aspen Institute (2019), annual spending for one child in one sport is $693. Furthermore, only 22% of youth from families with household income rates of $25,000 participated in sport on a consistent basis. This contrasts with 43% of their peers from households in which incomes exceed $100,000. Overall, according to the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS), the total number of youth sport participants in 2018-2019 was 7,937,491. The importance of this figure was that it marked the first time in 30 years that participation figures had dropped from the previous year. Tackle football suffered the largest drop off, losing 30,829 athletes from 2017-2018 (NFHS, 2019). Youth sport not only consumes a large portion of a family’s gross income but can have a demotivating effect on young athletes too. In a 2017 study, Dorsch discovered an inverse relationship between the amount of money families spend on organized youth sports and their kids’ level of enjoyment and commitment to the sport. Speculation into the reason for this finding is related to added pressure kids might feel when parents spend money on their sport participation, which clearly increases as kids specialize to become top tier athletes. On behalf of the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM), LaPrade et al. (2016) offered a consensus statement that sport specialization results in unhealthy physical and mental consequences for youth athletes.

Another main focus of the current study was to determine how relevant social agents influenced the decisions of youth sport participants. While parents and peers more often pushed toward diversification, coaches were inclined to favor early specialization. This raises the question as to whether there is an ulterior motive for coaches to encourage specialization. If the justification is financial in that private coaches charge exorbitant rates to train specializers, this should be addressed. According to Shell (2017), 63% of parents admitted spending between $100-$499 monthly on private coaches, while an additional 18% allocated $500-$999. Importantly, study participants eschewed their advice and made the specialization vs. diversification decision of their own volition. With the value of autonomy, this is a positive development.

There were mixed results when analyzing the outcomes to be attributed to early specialization. Study participants disagreed that specializing takes the fun out of sport, generally agreed that specialization is helpful to gaining a competitive edge in sport, and opined that specialization is necessary toward earning a college scholarship. In reality, however, the percentage of young athletes receiving these scholarships is only about 2%, which is minimal. Conversely, in addition to some agreement that specialization increases the risk of injury, a significant majority of respondents noted the propensity of specialization to lead to burnout. Previous literature has examined the dangerous consequences of burnout, making this a noteworthy finding. Within sport programs, especially those environments that encourage specialization, mechanisms should be introduced to continuously measure whether athletes are susceptible to burnout. In conjunction with the findings that diversification takes pressure off of a young athlete and leads them to become more well-rounded, it is worthwhile to explore which environment is more suitable for athletic and personal success.

Lastly, when asked to recommend the ideal age for youth to begin specialization, the most popular responses were between 12-14 and 15-17. This indicates that current collegians are wary of specialization occurring at ages 6-8. Despite this observation, respondents suggested that specialization should commence before the age of 18. All of this information should be communicated to families. A response might be similar to the developmental model of sport specialization that has been proposed by various national sport governing bodies. For example, the model developed by the US Tennis Association divides tennis participation into three stages. The first stage, age 12 and under, focuses on the athlete learning basic tennis skills, having fun, and continuing to play other sports. The second stage, for ages 12-18, includes a greater understanding of the sport, training, and progression in competition. And the final, third stage, reached by ages 15-18, is the competitive stage where athletes are dedicated only to sport of tennis and work full time to become an elite player. The developmental model delays sport specialization (and its negative effects of overuse, burnout, and stress) by providing a transition and including an emphasis and framework for social, psychological, and developmental aspects of youth sport participation.

Limitations

Although the current study was novel in that numerous facets of sport specialization were broached, certain limitations still exist. First, the design of this quantitative survey was cross-sectional. Thus, the researchers did not have the opportunity to track possible changes to attitudes toward specialization. Furthermore, data were collected among college students in one department at one university. It is entirely possible that attitudes within this population were unique and not generalizable to the larger population. On a related note, the study participants of college students were asked to retrospectively respond to questions regarding youth sport specialization. As items on the instrument addressed psychological perspectives toward specialization, it is conceivable that participants could have difficulty in recalling their youth. Lastly, the analysis consisted of review of Likert-style questions. Results did not compare group differences, for example across gender, race/ethnicity, or class standing. Despite the study’s limitations, findings should expand knowledge in the sport industry.

Directions for Future Research

Although the base of literature related to sport specialization has increased, further research is necessary. Gathering opinions from different populations, such as adults, high school students, and even youth themselves would shed light on this important issue. Since much of the literature surrounding sport specialization has focused on the perspective of the athlete, examining the issue through the lens of coaches and/or administrators would be valuable. Comparing group differences among sports or other factors may develop new knowledge about the types of sports that encourage specialization. Lastly, a qualitative or mixed-methods study could further the level of information. For example, participants could be asked how coaches influenced them into specialization, examples of how specialization may lead to burnout, or to explain their justification for selecting the appropriate age to specialize.

Conclusion

Youth sport specialization is a “hot topic” in the sport industry and has substantial implications on athletes and their parents. In this study, results depicted a trend toward diversification of multiple sports. Commonly, youth athletes are making their own decisions as to whether to specialize or diversify. Participants attributed a variety of outcomes to early specialization: while specialization was believed to aid toward achievement of a college scholarship, the practice is related to burnout. Ultimately, college students in the sample suggested involvement in a single sport beginning from ages 12-17. The authors hope that the current study inspires future research into all aspects of sport specialization.

References

Abernethy, B., Baker, J., & Cote, J. (2003). Learning from the experts: Practice activities of expert decision makers in sport. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74(3), 342-346.

Aspen Institute. (2019). State of play: Trends and developments in youth sports. Retrieved from https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/content/uploads/2019/10/2019_SOP_National_Final.pdf

Baker, J. (2003). Early specialization in youth sport: A requirement for adult expertise? High Ability Studies, 14(1), 85-94.

Baker, J., Cote, J., & Deakin, J. (2005). Expertise in ultra-endurance triathletes early sport involvement, training structure, and the theory of deliberate practice. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17(1), 64-78.

Brylinsky, J. (2010). Practice makes perfect and other curricular myths in the sport specialization debate: Appropriate coaching can make all the difference. The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance, 81(8), 22-25.

Capranica, L, & Millard-Stafford, M.L. (2011). Youth sport specialization: How to manage competition and training? International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 6(1), 572-579.

Dorsch, T. (2017). How kids’ sports became a $15 billion industry. Time Magazine.

Ericsson, K.A., Krampe, R.T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363-406.

Ferguson, B., & Stern, P.J. (2014). A case of early sports specialization in an adolescent athlete. Journal of Canadian Chiropractic Association, 58(4), 377-383.

Gadd, C.P. (2018). Fear, greed, broken dreams: How early sports specialization is eroding youth sports. Vancouver Sun.

Gould, D. (2010). Early sport specialization: A psychological perspective: Early sport specialization does not guarantee later sport success. The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 81(8), 33-37.

Gould, D., & Carson, S. (2004). Fun and games?: Myths surrounding the role of youth sports in developing Olympic champions. Youth Sports Australia, 23(1), 19-26.

Griffin, J. (2008). Sport psychology: Myths in sport education and physical education: Sport psychology isn’t just for the elites; it can benefit everyone in youth sports and physical education. The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance, 79(8), 11-13.

Hecimovich, M. (2004). Sport specialization in youth: A literature review. Journal of the American Chiropractic Association, 41(4), 32-41.

Hill, G.M. (1993). Youth sport participation of professional baseball players. Sociology of Sport Journal, 10(1), 107-114.

Kaleth, A.S., & Mikesky, A.E. (2010). Impact of early sport specialization: A physiological perspective: From a physiological standpoint, the benefits of early specialization are unsubstantiated. The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance, 81(8), 29-37.

LaPrade, R.F., Agel, J., Baker, J., Brenner, J.S., Cordasco, F.A., Cote, J., Engebretsen, L., Feeley, B.T., Gould, D., Hainline, B., Hewett, T.E., Jayanthi, N., Kocher, M.S., Myer, G.D., Nissen, C.W., Philippon, M.J., & Provencher, M.T. (2016). AOSSM early sport specialization consensus statement. The Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, 4(4), 1-8.

Livingston, J., Schmidt, C., & Lehman, S. (2016). Competitive club soccer: Parents’ assessments of children’s early and later sport specialization. Journal of Sport Behavior, 39(3), 301-316.

Malina, R.M. (2010). Early sport specialization: Roots, effectiveness, risks. Current Sports Medicine Reports, 9(6), 364-371.

National Federation of State High School Associations. (2019, September 5). Participation in high school sports registers first decline in 30 years. Retrieved from https://www.nfhs.org/articles/participation-in-high-school-sports-registers-first-decline-in-30-years/

Normand, J.M., Wolfe, A., & Peak, K. (2017). A review of early sport specialization in relation to the development of a young athlete. International Journal of Kinesiology & Sports Science, 5(2), 37-42.

Russell, W.D., & Limle, A.N. (2013). The relationship between youth sport specialization and involvement in sport and physical activity in young adulthood. Journal of Sport Behavior, 36(1), 83-98.

Russell, W., & Molina, S. (2018). A comparison of female youth sport specializers and non-specializers on sport motivation and athletic burnout. Journal of Sport Behavior, 41(3), 330-350.

Shell, A. (2017). Why families stretch their budgets for high-priced youth sports. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/09/05/why-families-stretch-their-budgets-high-priced-youth-sports/571945001/

Simon, H.A., & Chase, W.G. (1973). Skill in chess: Experiments with chess-playing tasks and computer simulation of skilled performance throw light on some human perceptual and memory processes. American Scientist, 61(4), 394-403.

Stewart, C., & Shroyer, J. (2015). Sport specialization: A coach’s role in being honest with parents. Strategies, 28(5), 10-17.

Strachan, L., Cote, J., & Deakin, J. (2009). “Specializers” versus “samplers” in youth sport: Comparing experiences and outcomes. The Sport Psychologist, 23(1), 77-92.

White, J., & Oatman, D. (2009). Does specializing in team sports during childhood translate into a college athletic career? Missouri Journal of Health, Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance, 19, 20-24.

Wiersma, L.D. (2000). Risks and benefits of youth sport specialization: Perspectives and recommendations. Pediatric Exercise Science, 12(1), 13-22.