See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/250683192

Relative Alterseffekte: Im Leistungssport unvermeidbar?

Article  in  Sportwissenschaft · March 2010

DOI: 10.1007/s12662-009-0095-2

CITATIONS READS

35 1,850

3 authors:

Joe Baker Jörg Schorer

York University Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg
286 PUBLICATIONS   8,444 CITATIONS    131 PUBLICATIONS   2,140 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Stephen Cobley
The University of Sydney
129 PUBLICATIONS   3,414 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Maximising rowing performance and minimising injury View project

Jokey and Rider Safety: A study of fall time, warning signals and rider response capability to reduce catastrophic and serious injury risk in racing and equestrian sports.
View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Joe Baker on 21 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Sportwiss 2010
DOI 10.1007/s12662-009-0095-2
© Springer-Verlag 2010
Researchers in varying fields (e.g., educa-
tion, epidemiology, and sport) have come
to demonstrate that the social policy of
annual age-grouping, applied most com-
monly in school and sport, interacts with
the characteristics of the developing in-
dividual (i.e., chronological age relative
to peers) to produce a developmental cli-
mate that provides advantages to some
while disadvantaging others. The conse-
quential outcomes resulting from this in-
teraction are known as relative age effects
(RAEs). The purpose of this review is to
provide an overview of the contempora-
ry research examining the problem. The
following sections attempt to summarize
(1) how age-grouping procedures affect
immediate and long-term athlete deve-
lopment in various contexts, (2) the me-
chanisms causing RAEs, and (3) variables
moderating the size of these effects. La-
ter sections justify why both researchers
and practitioners should work toward re-
solving RAEs together. An overview of
potential strategies and solutions are of-
fered. Nonetheless across the paper, aut-
hors perceive existing work and potenti-
al solutions as “work in progress”, accep-
ting that further research knowledge will
contribute toward identifying appropriate
solutions.
What are relative age effects?
To help provide a “level playing field” for
individuals at different levels of develop-
ment, most education and sports sys-
tems group pupils or athletes according
to chronological age. For instance, edu-
Hauptbeiträge
Joseph Baker1 · Jörg Schorer2 · Stephen Cobley3
1 Lifespan Health & Performance Laboratory, School of Kinesiology & Health Science,
York University, Toronto
2 Institut für Sportwissenschaft, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster
3 Carnegie Faculty of Sport & Education, Fairfax Hall, Headingley Campus,
Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds
Relative age effects
An inevitable consequence of elite sport?
cational systems that use a date of Sep-
tember 1st (e.g., UK) to group pupils result
in those with a birthday immediately af-
ter this selection date (e.g., September 3rd)
being almost 12 months older than a co-
hort member with a birthday on August
29th. Although the purpose of these age
divisions is clearly positive—maintaining
general developmental similarities (i.e.,
biological, cognitive) among individuals
in the same age cohort—there is increa-
sing evidence that standardized times for
assessments, exams, and selections com-
bined with the significant individual va-
riability within an annual cohort promote
participation and attainment inequalities
among cohort members. Researchers ex-
amining RAEs typically consider how the-
se subtle age differences within an annual
age group (Barnsley, Thompson & Barns-
ley, 1985) affect developmental outcomes.
Variability in attainment outcomes as
a function of relative age were first identi-
fied in education (Armstrong, 1966; Frey-
man, 1965) and subsequent research has
reinforced a consistent attainment dis-
advantage for the relatively youngest pu-
pils across a range of education subject
disciplines (e.g., math or science), among
them physical education (see Cobley et al.,
2009a for an example of this pervasive ef-
fect). In sport, RAEs were first noticed in
Canadian ice-hockey and volleyball. Con-
trolling for general population distribu-
tions, Grondin et al. (1984) found unequal
birth-date distributions for males and fe-
males at recreational, competitive and se-
nior professional levels for both sports
during the 1981/1982 season. More speci-
 
 
fically, players born shortly after the “cut-
off ” date used for annual age groupings
were consistently over-represented com-
pared to their relatively younger peers. Si-
milar findings were reported among male
Canadians participating in the elite deve-
lopmental and junior ice-hockey leagues
(Barnsley & Thompson,1988; Barnsley et
al., 1985). Subsequently, and with few ex-
ceptions (e.g., golf, Côté et al., 2006; soc-
cer referees, Cobley et al., 2008), greater
proportions of relatively older male ath-
letes have been confirmed across juni-
or and youth age groups (i.e., 10–18 year
bands) and levels of competition (recreati-
on–elite representative) for popular team
sports. A recent meta-analysis of RAEs in
sport (Cobley et al., 2009b) noted these
effects in baseball (Thompson et al., 1991,
1992), football (Verhulst, 1992; Musch &
Hay, 1999; Helsen et al., 2005), ice-hockey
(Wattie et al., 2007), swimming (Baxter-
Jones, 1995), volleyball (Grondin et al.,
1984), basketball (Hoare, 2000), tennis
(Edgar & O’Donoghue, 2004), and rug-
by (Abernethy & Farrow, 2005). On ave-
rage across these studies, the relatively ol-
der (i.e., classed in quartiles as those wi-
thin the first 3 months of a cut-off date)
were over 10% more likely to be represen-
ted in these contexts, compared to the re-
latively younger (i.e., those with birth da-
tes within the last 3 months of annual age-
grouping). More recently similar trends
have also been identified in basketball
(Delorme & Raspaud, 2009), rugby (Till
et al., in press), and handball (Schorer et
al., 2009; Schorer, Baker et al., in press;
Schorer, Cobley et al., in pressb).
Sportwissenschaft 2010  | 

How are relative age
effects caused?
Several mechanisms have been hypothe-
sized as causes of RAEs. Primarily, the-
se focus on the role of maturational dif-
ferences (e.g., Barnsley & Thompson,
1988); for example, greater height and
mass (to a degree) are thought to under-
pin successful performance in sports re-
quiring power, speed, and endurance (Ma-
lina, 1994; Malina et al., 2004). Relatively
older players, as a result, are consistently
and repeatedly advantaged (assuming si-
milar cut-off dates are applied each and
every year of competition), because their
extended chronological age reflects grea-
ter maturation at any given time, particu-
larly during childhood and adolescence
(Norikazu, in press). Data from elite juni-
or soccer players support such contenti-
on. Brewer et al. (1992) indicated that such
players were above the 95th percentile for
height and weight compared to age-mat-
ched normative data. Although such data
reinforce maturation as a key antecedent
of RAEs, it remains unclear precisely how
early maturity advantages lead directly to
long-term athletic attainment.
There is some evidence to suggest that
maturational differences lead to an incre-
ased likelihood of being identified as ta-
lented and selected by coaches for higher
tiers of competition (Baker, Wattie, Cob-
ley, Faught & Montelpare, in press; Sherar
et al., 2007). Being selected for the next
tier of development is often a necessary
obstacle for competing at levels of sport
beyond recreation, and thereby an impor-
tant constraint on skill acquisition and ex-
pertise development since selection leads
to access to better resources and more op-
portunities to practice (Helsen et al., 1998).
Conversely, those not selected are less able
to access practice facilities, coaching, and
competition. Taken together, sport-related
processes of maturation and selection ap-
pear to constrain an individual’s ability to
invest in practice and accumulate sport-
specific skill and experience, factors dee-
med critical for long-term attainment (see
Baker & Horton, 2004). If a young athle-
te does not show advanced maturational
characteristics or display outstanding per-
formance on standard test batteries (de-
pendent on advanced physical characte-
 |  Sportwissenschaft 2010
Hauptbeiträge
ristics) compared to annual-age group
peers, then it is difficult to participate in
sport at levels higher than recreational.
In addition to selection and the bene-
fits of accumulated experience, larger so-
cial factors are also implicated in RAEs.
For instance, Musch and Grondin (2001)
proposed that the existence of RAEs is de-
pendent on the depth (or amount) of com-
petition, such as the number of individu-
als wanting to access events or teams in a
given sport. Further, Helsen et al. (1998)
proposed that the amount of opportuni-
ty (i.e., teams and clubs) available for par-
ticipation also affects RAE strength. The-
se factors emphasize the role of sport po-
pularity and infrastructure in propagating
conditions that perpetuate RAEs, sugges-
ting that RAEs are less likely in sports
with lower popularity, or in social con-
texts where infrastructure and provision
exceed participation demand. As an exa-
mple, Wattie et al. (2007) proposed that
population expansion and participation
increases in ice-hockey were antecedents
to RAE emergence in Canadian ice-ho-
ckey. Similar results were demonstrated
by Cobley et al. (2008) for German soc-
cer players and coaches. Both these stu-
dies show that RAEs are not recent phe-
nomena, but are associated with the on-
set of broader social events (i.e., increasing
popularity; change or lack of change in lo-
cal sporting infrastructure). Collectively,
such studies indicate that RAE “causes”
are grounded in larger social and cultu-
ral foundations. A complete understan-
ding of the direct and indirect inter-con-
nections between these various contribu-
tors is necessary to develop sound strate-
gies to reduce or eliminate relative age in-
equalities in sport.
How is the effect moderated?
In addition to understanding the vari-
ous facets that may initiate and perpetu-
ate RAEs in sport, it is important to un-
derstand how these effects are moderated.
The most notable moderator of RAEs ap-
pears to be gender. Most studies of RAEs
in sport have focused on male athletes and
the few studies of female athletes sketch
an inconsistent picture of RAEs. For in-
stance, Helsen et al. (2005) showed con-
sistent RAEs for male and female soccer
players for the U18 European Champion-
ship, while Vincent and Glamser (2006)
found no RAEs among females in the
US Olympic Developmental Program.
Delorme and Rauspaud (2009) reported
repeated and significant over-representa-
tions of the relatively older (born in the
first half of the annual age group) across
the age-bands of 7–17 years for both fe-
male and male French basketball play-
ers. Schorer, Cobley et al. (in press) no-
ted significant RAEs for female and ma-
le junior developmental selection squads
in German handball, although the effect
sizes were smaller for female players. Si-
milar results for German youth soccer and
handball were reported by Lames et al. (in
press, cited in Lames, Augste, Dreckmann,
Görsdorf & Schimanski, 2008). Possib-
le explanations for these inconsistencies,
particularly when compared to males, in-
clude variations in the levels of competi-
tion, sport popularity and age-band exa-
mined. Related to this latter point, it has
been suggested that the size of RAEs may
be affected by additional maturational va-
riation at ages associated with the onset of
puberty, generally applicable at the ages of
13–15 in boys and 12–14 in girls (see Musch
& Grondin, 2001).
Similarly, an athlete’s chronological age
and/or stage of the career appear to mode-
rate RAEs. Against their original expec-
tations, Cobley et al. (2009b) noted that
the size of RAEs increased with age un-
til late adolescence, but then decreased in
adult sporting contexts. At the adult elite
level, Bäumler (1998) examined German
Bundesliga players and concluded that re-
latively older players were more likely to
drop-out from elite levels than relatively
younger ones. Similar results were identi-
fied by Schorer et al. (in press) for the Ger-
man handball league, but only in German
players. With international players sho-
wing clear RAEs across all career stages,
German players demonstrated variability
over the different career stages. Specifical-
ly, during the junior and early adult years
(i.e., post 18–21 years of age), clear RAEs
were observable, but in the later career
stage (i.e., above 30 years of age) RAEs
diminished. These intriguing results re-
inforce the inherent complexity of RAEs
across an athlete’s development and ca-
reer. Further work is necessary to deter-

mine how an athlete’s career stage might
be influenced by RAEs. It is possible that
career stage is a proxy variable for incre-
ased likelihood of injury, aging, physical
and mental fatigue or a combination of all
these factors (as hypothesized by Schorer,
Cobley et al., in press), thereby explaining
the increased likelihood of earlier with-
drawal in the relatively older player from
elite sport participation.
A third moderator reported in team
sport athletes is playing position. Ashford
and Heyndels (2007) noted that RAEs va-
ried according to playing position in elite
German soccer. The strongest effect sizes
were found for goalkeepers and defenders,
with RAEs not evident for forwards. In eli-
te German handball, Schorer, Cobley et al.
(in press) illustrated that RAEs were evi-
dent in the “left-backcourt” position but
not in the mirrored position of the “right-
backcourt”, which has essentially the same
physical, technical and tactical demands.
This finding was explained by referring to
the preferred laterality of players in the-
se two positions. Right-handers typical-
ly play in the left-backcourt and left-han-
ders in the right-backcourt. Considering
that around 90% of the normal populati-
on is right handed (Raymond et al., 1996),
Schorer, Cobley et al. (in press) postulated
that there is likely to be greater competiti-
on amongst players for the left-backcourt
position. The applicability of the laterali-
ty explanation has also been reinforced in
a recent study of male professional ten-
nis players (Loffing, Cobley & Schorer,
2009). Their data show significant RAEs
for right-handers, but not for left-handers,
suggesting that left-handers in tennis gain
advantages which circumvent the RAEs.
Although the variables identified abo-
ve (gender, age/stage of career, and play-
ing position) have been found to mode-
rate relative age effects, it is probable that
others will be identified as research in this
area continues. In the following sections,
we explore the development and social ra-
mifications of this pervasive effect.
Are relatively younger athletes
always disadvantaged?
In most of the sporting contexts exami-
ned to date relatively younger athletes ha-
ve been described as disadvantaged by
the combination of relative age within an-
nual age-grouping. However, recent stu-
dies suggest in certain situations being re-
latively younger may not be detrimental.
An exploratory study by Ste-Marie et al.
(2000) on Canadian regional junior fe-
male gymnasts found that normal RAEs
occurred before the age of 14, but after this
age the effect reversed with the relatively
younger gymnasts more likely to partici-
pate and compete in regional level gym-
nastics. In addition, two studies by Wat-
tie et al. (2007) found that relatively ol-
der athletes in junior developmental tiers
of ice-hockey in Canada were at a higher
risk of injuries compared to their relative-
ly younger counterparts.
At the adult level, three studies provi-
de preliminary evidence suggesting that
it might be beneficial in the long term
to be relatively younger. Baker and Lo-
gan (2007) found that relatively younger
Canadian ice-hockey players were cho-
sen earlier in the National Hockey League
draft than relatively older ones. Ashford
and Heyndels (2007) demonstrated that
relatively younger players in the Ger-
man soccer Bundesliga had higher wa-
ges when reaching the German Bundesli-
ga than their relatively older counterparts,
but only for goalkeepers and defenders,
not forwards. In handball, Schorer, Cob-
ley et al. (in press) showed that the pro-
portion of relatively younger players in-
creased throughout the later stages of the
careers (above 30 years of age). They hy-
pothesized that some relatively younger
athletes develop superior skills that help
them remain in an unfavorable system.
Although playing against older, more ca-
pable opponents may promote superior
development in technical and/or tactical
skills, it is important to note that these hy-
potheses have not been adequately inve-
stigated and, more important, do not ju-
stify a sport structure that disadvantages
a large number of its participants, parti-
cularly at an early age. Perhaps the most
appropriate approach would be to better
understand what factors lead to the im-
proved skill development in some athletes
compared to others.
The research outlined in the previ-
ous sections provides a strong inclusi-
onary, developmental, health and mo-
ral argument to justify why researchers,
Abstract · Zusammenfassung
Sportwiss 2010 
DOI 10.1007/s12662-009-0095-2
© Springer-Verlag 2010
Joseph Baker · Jörg Schorer ·  
Stephen Cobley
Relative age effects.
An inevitable consequence
of elite sport?
Abstract
The process of annual age-grouping, ap-
plied most commonly in school and sport,
has been shown to produce a developmen-
tal climate that provides advantages to some
while disadvantaging others. This inequal-
ity has a number of important short- and
long-term consequences known as relative
age effects (RAEs). This review summariz-
es current knowledge regarding the origins
of RAEs, their effects on skill acquisition and
athlete development as well as possible solu-
tions to this problem. The work done to date
reinforces the conclusion that RAEs are re-
markably complex and are underpinned by a
number of social and procedural factors that
make resolution of this inequality difficult.
Throughout the review, we propose areas
where further work is needed to improve our
understanding of this phenomenon.
Relative Alterseffekte.
Im Leistungssport
unvermeidbar?
Zusammenfassung
Die jährliche altersbezogene Gruppierung, so
wie sie in Schule und Sport üblich ist, erzeugt
ein Entwicklungsklima, das manche bevor-
zugt, andere benachteiligt. Diese Ungleich-
heit hat eine Reihe relevanter kurz- und lang-
fristiger Konsequenzen zur Folge, die zusam-
mengefasst werden mit dem Begriff relative
Alterseffekte („relative age effects“, RAE). Wir
geben eine Übersicht zum aktuellen Wissens-
stand über die Entstehung von RAE sowie zu
ihren Effekten auf den Erwerb sportlicher Fä-
higkeiten und die Entwicklung des einzel-
nen Sportlers. Zusammengefasst werden
auch mögliche Lösungen für die Probleme,
die sich aus RAE ergeben. Die bisherigen Ar-
beiten unterstützen unser Fazit, dass RAE au-
ßergewöhnlich komplex sind und dass sie
von einer Reihe gesellschaftlicher und proze-
duraler Faktoren, die eine Aufhebung dieser
Ungleichbehandlung erschweren, noch ver-
stärkt werden. An verschiedenen Stellen un-
serer Übersicht zeigen wir Bereiche auf, in de-
nen für ein umfassenderes Verständnis des
Phänomens RAE weitere Forschung notwen-
dig ist.
Sportwissenschaft 2010  | 

coaches and administrators should mo-
ve toward examining RAEs more purpo-
sefully and attempt to identify and evalu-
ate solutions—solutions that try to elimi-
nate RAEs and their potential to generate
present and long-lasting participation and
attainment equalities.
What are the solutions to
relative age effects?
As relative age effects arise from social
conditions and processes such as talent
selection, it should be possible to reduce
or eliminate these trends. However, to da-
te this has proven difficult even though se-
veral solutions have been proposed. Initi-
al solutions focused on modifying annu-
al age groupings, by either advocating a
change in the age-group cut-off date (e.g.,
from January to June), rotating cut-off da-
tes from year to year (Barnsley et al., 1985),
or by altering age-grouping bandwidths.
Ultimately, such modifications only lead
to corresponding shifts in RAEs, relative
to the new cut-off dates applied. This is ex-
emplified within data samples taken from
Australian, Belgian, German, and English
soccer (see Cobley et al., 2008; Helsen,
Starkes & Van Winckel, 2000; Musch &
Hay, 1999; Simmons & Paull, 2001).
To prevent a “fixed-bias” across all
sports, Grondin et al. (1984) proposed that
age-group bandwidths should be expan-
ded to 15 and 21 months rather than the
typical 12 month annual age-groupings.
This proposal would rotate cut-off dates
across particular ages and regularly chan-
ge group composition. Similarly, Boucher
and Halliwell (1991) proposed a 9-month
bandwidth (referred to as the Novem sys-
tem) to reduce potential age inequalities
in a given group and ensure that the sa-
me participants (i.e., relatively older or
younger) were not disadvantaged year af-
ter year. With more elaboration, Hurley et
al. (2001) presented the Relative Age Fair
(RAF) cycle to overcome RAE trends in
junior ice-hockey. The RAF aimed to al-
ter cut-off dates by 3 months for each and
every consecutive year of participation.
Like prior rotational proposals, this sys-
tem would ensure players experienced
being placed in each of the four quartile
positions (i.e., Quartile 1=relatively oldest,
Quartile 2, Quartile 3 & Quartile 4=rela-
 |  Sportwissenschaft 2010
Hauptbeiträge
tively youngest) across the competitive ju-
nior hockey system. Similar to the Novem
systems, the RAF strategy would appear
to partially reduce RAEs. However, inhe-
rent within these proposals are adminis-
trative and logistical complexity, making
their adoption challenging for youth sport
governing bodies.
Alternative solutions have focused
on ensuring athlete heterogeneity upon
sports teams. This could be done by im-
plementing player quotes, where selec-
tions must meet specified distributions to
prevent favoring the relatively older (Bar-
nsley & Thompson, 1988), or by regula-
ting the average age of a whole team (Hel-
sen, Starkes, & Van Winckel, 1998; 2000),
or the distribution of playing time. Others
have suggested grouping participants ac-
cording to height and weight classifica-
tions, similar to boxing and wrestling
(Baxter-Jones, 1995; Musch & Grondin,
2001). Although these strategies may be
more sensitive to individual variability in
physical characteristics, they again may
prove difficult to integrate into sport sys-
tems if substantial support from gover-
ning bodies is not gained.
Other less complex solutions involve
delaying the processes of selection and re-
presentation until after puberty and ma-
turation (i.e., 15–16 years of age). This
may initially seem a more radical step for
some sports contexts; however it is gene-
rally and only within the last 20–30 years
that sport has seen an increasing prolifera-
tion of representative local, regional juni-
or and adolescent sports teams. These de-
velopments invite earlier athlete scrutiny,
assessment, identification, and selection,
events which are proposed to inflate the
likelihood and magnitude of relative age
inequality. By delaying or even reversing
these processes, and protecting the initial
stages and ages of sporting involvement,
interested and motivated youngsters of all
ages have a better chance at experiencing
and enjoying sport prior to involvement
in any selection system.
The strategy of simply raising aware-
ness of RAEs among those responsible
for the infrastructure and coordination of
youth sport may also be effective (Cobley
et al., 2009b). Increasing awareness and
understanding of RAEs, as part of coach
training and education programs, may
help center coaches’ attention to potential
selection bias as a result of cross-section-
al athlete assessment or selection. Likewi-
se, simply monitoring for RAEs in selec-
tion and participation may prove useful,
helping coaches delineate identifying ge-
nuine advanced skill observed in athletes,
from advanced performance competen-
cy underpinned by early maturation rela-
tive to peers. To assist with this process,
coaches are advised to integrate criteria
based on perceptual, cognitive and motor
skill as part of athlete selection. Such crite-
ria, designed specific to the performance
demands of respective sports, could help
reduce the association and dependence
upon physical attribute measurement and
assessment. However, and yet again, the
implementation of any such strategies
would necessitate fundamental changes
in the attitudes, training and organization
structure of developmental sport. Here,
supportive and collaborative work with a
responsive sport governing body seems a
pertinent future direction for applied re-
searchers.
Future directions and conclusions
Ironically, the existence of RAEs may un-
dermine the effectiveness of talent iden-
tification and development programs
by passing over (i.e., missing) talented
young athletes in favor of relatively ol-
der, less talented ones. The research sum-
marized in this review illustrates the con-
textual complexity of relative age effects
in sport. While the bulk of research in this
area emphasizes the RAE problem, more
recent studies have moved towards de-
veloping a more comprehensive under-
standing of RAEs. These and future stu-
dies are necessary to create a sound the-
oretical understanding of the origins and
implications of RAEs as well as to identify
ways in which sport systems can be mo-
dified to reduce or remove RAEs in the
future. Perhaps most important, the so-
cial policies that perpetuate RAEs seem
contrary to the notion of sport as an ave-
nue for positive youth development for
all involved. Serious attention to redu-
cing or eliminating RAEs by sport gover-
ning bodies, administrators, and coaches
is required. These possible interventions
should be evaluated in the long turn.
Corresponding address
Joseph Baker
Lifespan Health & Performance Laboratory,
School of Kinesiology & Health Science,   B. (2006). When “where” is more important than
York University
4700 Keele St., M3J 1P3 Toronto
Ontario
Kanada
bakerj@yorku.ca
Conflict of interest.  No statement made.
References
  1. Abernethy, B. & Farrow, D. (2005). Contextual fac-
tors influencing the development of expertise in
Australian athletes. Proceedings of the 11th World
Congress of Sport Psychology, Sydney, Australia.
  2. Armstrong, H.G. (1966). A comparison of the per-
formance of summer and autumn-born children at
eleven and sixteen. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 36, 72–76.
  3. Ashworth, J. & Heyndels, B. (2007). Selection bias
and peer effects in team sports: The effect of age
grouping on earnings of German soccer players.
Journal of Sports Economics, 8, 355–377.
  4. Bäumler, G. (1998). Der Relativalterseffekt bei Fuß-
ballspielern und seine Wechselwirkung mit dem
Lebensalter. In G. Bäumler & G. Bauer (Hrsg.),
Sportwissenschaft rund um den Fußball. 12. Jah-
restagung der dvs-Kommission Fußball vom 22.-
29.9.1996 in München (S. 109–115). Hamburg:
Czwalina.
  5. Baker, J., Wattie, N., Cobley, S., Faught, B. & Montel-
pare, W.J. (in press). Exploring mechanisms of the
relative age effect in Canadian Minor Hockey. In-
ternational Journal of Sport Psychology.
  6. Baker, J. & Horton, S. (2004). A review of primary
and secondary influences on sport expertise. High
Ability Studies, 15, 211–228.
  7. Baker, J. & Logan, A.J. (2007). Developmental con-
texts and sporting success: birth date and birth-
place effects in national hockey league draftees
2000–2005. British Journal of Sports Medicine,
41(8), 515–517.
  8. Barnsley, R.H. & Thompson, A.H. (1988). Birthdate
and success in minor hockey: the key to the NHL.
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 20,
167–176.
  9. Barnsley, R.H., Thompson, A.H. & Barnsley, P.E.
(1985). Hockey success and birthdate: The RAE.
Canadian Association for Health, Physical Edu-
cation, and Recreation, 51, 23–28.
10. Baxter-Jones, A. (1995). Growth and development
of young athletes. Should competition levels be
age related? Sports Medicine, 20, 59–64.
11. Brewer, J., Balsom, P.D., Davis, J.K. & Ekblom, B.
(1992). The influence of birth date and physical de-
velopment on the selection of a male junior inter-
national soccer squad. Journal of Sports Science,
10, 561–562.
12. Cobley, S., Baker, J., Wattie, N., & McKenna, J.M.
(2009a). How pervasive are relative age effects in
secondary school education? Journal of Educatio-
nal Psychology, 101, 2, 520–528.
13. Cobley, S., Baker, J., Wattie, N. & McKenna, J.
(2009b). Annual age-grouping and athlete deve-
lopment: A meta-analytical review of relative age
effects in sport. Sports Medicine, 39, 3, 235–256.
View publication stats
14. Cobley, S., Schorer, J. & Baker, J. (2008). Relative
age effects in elite German soccer: a historical ana-
lysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 26, 1531–1538.
15. Côté, J., MacDonald, D.J., Baker, J. & Abernethy,
“when”: birthplace and birthdate effects on the
achievement of sporting expertise. International
Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 1065–1073.
16. Delorme, N. & Raspaud, M. (2009). The relative age
effect in young French basketball players: a study
on the whole population. Scandinavian Journal
of Medicine and Science in Sport, 19, 235–242.
17. Edgar, S. & O’Donoghue, P. (1995). Season of bir-
th distribution of elite tennis players. Journal of
Sports Sciences, 23, 1013–1020.
18. Edwards, S. (1994). Born too late to win? Nature,
370, 186.
19. Freyman, R. (1965). Further evidence on the ef-
fect of date of birth on subsequent school perfor-
mance. Educational Research, 8, 58–64
20. Grondin, S., Deschaies, P. & Nault, L.P. (1984). Tri-
mestres de naissance et rendement scolaire. App-
rentissage et Socialisation, 16, 169–174.
21. Helsen, W.F., Starkes, J.L. & Van Winckel, J. (1998).
The influence of relative age on success and drop-
out in male soccer players. American Journal of
Human Biology, 10, 791–798.
22. Helsen, W.F., Starkes, J.L. & Van Winckel, J. (2000).
Effect of a change in selection year on success in
male soccer players. American Journal of Human
Biology, 12, 729–735.
23. Helsen, W.F., Van Winckel, J. & Williams, A.M. (2005).
The relative age effect in youth soccer across Euro-
pe. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23, 629–636.
24. Hoare, D. (2000). Birthdate and basketball suc-
cess: Is there a relative age effect? Proceedings of
the Pre-Olympic Congress: Sports Medicine and
Physical Education. International Congress on
Sports Sciences, 2000, September 7–13. Brisbane:
Australia.
25. Hurley, W., Lior, D. & Traczie, S. (2001). A proposal
to reduce the age discrimination in Canadian mi-
nor hockey. Canadian Public Policy, 27, 65–75.
26. Lames, M., Augste, C., Dreckmann, C., Görsdorf, K.
& Schimanski, M. (2008). Der “Relative Age Effect”
(RAE): neue Hausaufgaben für den Sport. Leis-
tungssport, 38 (6), 4–9.
27. Lames, M., Augste, C., Dreckmann, C., Görsdorf, K.
& Schimanski, M. (2009). The relative age effect in
German youth sports: Football, handball and ice-
hockey. Manuscript submitted for publication.
28. Loffing, F., Cobley, S. & Schorer, J. (2009). Relative
Age Effects are a developmental problem in ten-
nis. But not necessarily when you’re left-handed.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
29. Malina, R.M. (1994). Physical growth and biological
maturation of young athletes. Exercise and Sport
Sciences Reviews, 22, 389–434.
30. Malina, R.M., Bouchard, C. & Bar-Or, O. (2004).
Growth, maturation, and physical activity.
Champaign Illinois: Human Kinetics.
31. Musch, J. & Grondin, S. (2001). Unequal competiti-
on as an impediment to personal development: A
review of the relative age effect in sport. Develop-
mental Review, 21, 147–167.
32. Musch, J. & Hay, R. (1999). The relative age effect
in soccer: Cross-cultural evidence for a systematic
discrimination against children born in late com-
petition year. Sociology of Sport, 16, 54–64.
33. Norikazu, H. (in press). Relationships among bir-
th-month distribution, skeletal age and anthro-
pometric characteristics in adolescent elite soccer
players. Journal of Sports Sciences.
34. Raymond, M., Pontier, D., Dufour, A. B. & Møller, A.P.
(1996). Frequency-dependent maintenance of left
handedness in humans. Proceedings of the Royal
Society London B, 1627–1633.
35. Schorer, J., Baker, J., Büsch, D., Wilhelm, A. & Pabst,
J. (2009). Relative age, talent identification and
youth skill development: Do relatively younger
athletes have superior technical skills? Talent De-
velopment and Excellence, 1, 45–56.
36. Schorer, J., Baker, J., Lotz, S. & Büsch, D. (in press).
Influence of early environmental constraints on
achievement motivation in talented young hand-
ball players. International Journal of Sport Psy-
chology.
37. Schorer, J., Cobley, S., Büsch, D., Bräutigam, H. &
Baker, J. (in press). Influences of competition level,
gender, player nationality, career stage and play-
ing position on relative age effects. Scandinavian
Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports.
38. Sherar, L.B., Baxter-Jones, A.D.G., Faulkner, R.A. &
Russell, K.W. (2007). Do physical maturity and birth
date predict talent in male youth ice hockey play-
ers? Journal of Sports Sciences, 25, 879–886.
39. Simmons, C. & Paull, G.C. (2001). Season-of-birth
bias in association football. Journal of Sports Sci-
ences, 8, 677–686.
40. Ste-Marie, D., Starkes, J., Cronin, A. & Fletcher, H.
(2000) The relative age effect: A “flip-flop” pheno-
menon in gymnasts. Proceedings of the Cana-
dian Society for Psychomotor Learning & Sport
Psychology Conference; 2000 Oct: Waterloo, Ca-
nada.
41. Thompson, A.H., Barnsley, R.H. & Stebelsky, G.
(1991). Born to play ball – the relative age effect
and Major-League Baseball. Sociology of Sport
Journal, 8, 146–151.
42. Thompson, A., Barnsley, R. & Stebelsky, G. (1992).
Baseball performance and the relative age ef-
fect: Does little neutralize birthdate selection bias?
Nine, 1, 19–30.
43. Till, K., Cobley, S., Wattie, N., O’Hara, J., Cooke, C. &
Chapman, C. (in press). The prevalence, influential
factors and mechanisms of relative age effects in
UK Rugby League. Scandinavian Journal of Medi-
cine and Science in Sport.
44. Verhulst, J. (1992). Seasonal birth distribution of
West European soccer players: A possible explana-
tion. Medical Hypotheses, 38, 346–348.
45. Vincent, J. & Glamser, F.D. (2006). Gender dif-
ferences in the relative age effect among US Olym-
pic Development Program youth soccer players.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 24, 405–413.
46. Wattie, N., Baker, J., Cobley, S. & Montelpare, W.J.
(2007). Tracking relative age effects over time in
Canadian NHL players. International Journal of
Sport Psychology, 38, 1–9.
47. Wattie, N., Cobley, S., MacPherson, A., Howard, A.,
Montelpare, W.J. & Baker, J. (2007). Injuries in Ca-
nadian youth ice hockey: The influence of relative
age. Pediatrics, 120, 142–148.
Sportwissenschaft 2010  |