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

net/publication/221765228

The value of a non-sport-specific motor test battery in predicting

performance in young female gymnasts

Article  in  Journal of Sports Sciences · March 2012

DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2012.654399 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

88 1,407

7 authors, including:

Barbara Vandorpe Joric Vandendriessche

Ghent University Ghent University
12 PUBLICATIONS   1,293 CITATIONS    12 PUBLICATIONS   1,318 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Roel Vaeyens Johan Pion

Ghent University Hogeschool Arnhem and Nijmegen
79 PUBLICATIONS   7,332 CITATIONS    59 PUBLICATIONS   1,827 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Motor coordination and sport talent in children View project

Talent identification within cycling View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Johan Pion on 24 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Johan Pion]
On: 31 January 2012, At: 09:19
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sports Sciences

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20

The value of a non-sport-specific motor test battery in

predicting performance in young female gymnasts
a a a a
Barbara Vandorpe , Joric B. Vandendriessche , Roel Vaeyens , Johan Pion , Johan
b a a
Lefevre , Renaat M. Philippaerts & Matthieu Lenoir
a
Department of Movement and Sport Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences,
Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
b
Department of Biomedical Kinesiology, Faculty of Kinesiology and Rehabilitation Sciences,
KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Available online: 23 Jan 2012

To cite this article: Barbara Vandorpe, Joric B. Vandendriessche, Roel Vaeyens, Johan Pion, Johan Lefevre, Renaat M.
Philippaerts & Matthieu Lenoir (2012): The value of a non-sport-specific motor test battery in predicting performance in
young female gymnasts, Journal of Sports Sciences, DOI:10.1080/02640414.2012.654399

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2012.654399

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Journal of Sports Sciences, 2012; 1–9, iFirst article

The value of a non-sport-specific motor test battery in predicting

performance in young female gymnasts

BARBARA VANDORPE1, JORIC B. VANDENDRIESSCHE1, ROEL VAEYENS1,

JOHAN PION1, JOHAN LEFEVRE2, RENAAT M. PHILIPPAERTS1, & MATTHIEU LENOIR1
1
Department of Movement and Sport Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
and 2Department of Biomedical Kinesiology, Faculty of Kinesiology and Rehabilitation Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

(Accepted 1 January 2012)

Abstract
Downloaded by [Johan Pion] at 09:19 31 January 2012

Gymnastics talent identification focuses on the identification of young gymnasts who display characteristics for potential
success in the future. The aim of this study was to identify which current performance characteristics are related to
performance in competition 2 years later. Twenty-three female gymnasts aged 7–8 years completed a multidimensional test
battery measuring anthropometric, physical, and coordinative characteristics and were technically evaluated by expert
coaches. Two years later, the all-around competition results of those gymnasts now participating in elite (n ¼ 12) and sub-
elite (n ¼ 11) competition were obtained. None of the initial measurements significantly correlated with the results of the
sub-elite gymnasts 2 years later. For the elite gymnasts, a non-sport-specific motor test battery correlated strongly with the
competition result, with more than 40% of the variation in competition performance being explained by the result on that
test 2 years earlier. Neither the coaches’ judgement nor the anthropometric and physical characteristics were sensitive
enough to predict performance. A motor coordination test might be valuable in the early identification of gymnasts, as its
discriminative and predictive qualities might be sufficiently powerful for selection within a relatively homogeneous
population of gymnasts exhibiting similar anthropometric and physical profiles.

Keywords: Talent identification, motor coordination, anthropometry, physical tests, expert judgement, longitudinal study

training (Russell, 2010), early identification from the

Introduction
A preoccupation of many sport federations, clubs,
and coaches is recognizing current participants with
the potential to excel in that particular sport (De
Bosscher, Bingham, Shibli, van Bottenburg, & De
Knop, 2008; Régnier, Salmela, & Russell, 1993;
Williams & Reilly, 2000). This process, often
referred to as talent identification, is especially
important in small countries with a relatively small
pool of talent where it is unrealistic to assume that
gifted individuals will automatically make it onto the
sports scene (Vaeyens, Güllich, Warr, & Philip-
paerts, 2009). Moreover, identification of gifted
athletes would allow proper monitoring through the
developmental process from child prodigy to elite,
thus increasing the likelihood of success (Williams &
Reilly, 2000). In women’s gymnastics, senior status
is reached at the age of 16 years. Since the attainment
of international success requires a large amount of
intense preparation, which takes about 8–10 years of
age of 6 years is common practice (Prescott, 1999).
In the quest for expertise, talent identification is
preceded by talent detection (i.e. discovering poten-
tial performers not currently involved in the sport;
Williams & Reilly, 2000) and succeeded by talent
development (i.e. the ongoing process of guidance
towards high-level competition by providing the
athlete with a suitable learning environment; Wil-
liams & Reilly, 2000). Traditional talent identifica-
tion models in gymnastics and other sports select
athletes by considering a test battery consisting of a
combination of physical, anthropometric, psycholo-
gical, sociological, coordinative or technical variables
(Régnier et al., 1993; Vaeyens, Lenoir, Williams, &
Philippaerts, 2008). Cross-sectional studies have
highlighted the importance of an appropriate build
and physical profile for performance in gymnastics by
distinguishing young gymnasts from other athletic
populations or controls (Bencke et al., 2001;
Maffulli, King, & Helms, 1994; Prescott, 1999), or

Correspondence: M. Lenoir, Department of Movement and Sport Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Watersportlaan 2,
B-9000 Ghent, Belgium. E-mail: matthieu.lenoir@ugent.be
ISSN 0264-0414 print/ISSN 1466-447X online Ó 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2012.654399
 2 B. Vandorpe et al.
predicting their current performance based upon one
or more of the aforementioned attributes (Bradshaw
& Le Rossignol, 2004; Claessens, Lefevre, Beunen,
& Malina, 1999). However, in the course of the
development from childhood to adulthood, anthro-
pometric and physical characteristics might be
influenced by growth, maturation, and/or training
(Malina, Bouchard, & Bar-Or, 2004; Pearson,
Naughton, & Torode, 2006). Therefore, researchers
have argued that such studies have focused on
identifying good performance at the time of testing
rather than discovering potential for future success
(Philippaerts, Coutts, & Vaeyens, 2008; Vaeyens
et al., 2008; Williams & Reilly, 2000; Wolstencroft,
2002).
Adequate motor coordination is widely thought to
be a necessary building block for the development of
fundamental motor skills required for everyday
functioning in childhood and across the lifespan
Downloaded by [Johan Pion] at 09:19 31 January 2012
(Henderson & Sugden, 1992; Seefeldt, 1980). In
addition, the acquisition of fundamental motor skills
is often considered a prerequisite for the learning of
specific skills in sports (Clark & Metcalfe, 2002;
Malina et al., 2004) and even the ability to excel in
sport (Moore, Collins, Burwitz, & Jess, 1998). In line
with Burton and Miller (1998), who stated that the
purpose of a motor coordination test is not to
measure performance of skills but the general traits
underlying them, a motor coordination test might be
valuable in the search for gymnastics potential.
Indeed, recent findings show moderate to high
long-term stability in motor coordination from
childhood to adolescence (Ahnert, Schneider, &
Bös, 2009), underlining its possible value for talent
identification. However, there is a scarcity of
information regarding the motor coordination of
gymnasts, which might be attributed to a lack of
consensus regarding the assessment of this attribute.
Previous research has focused on perceptual-motor
measurements involving static and dynamic balance
(Bressel, Yonker, Kras, & Heath, 2007; Prescott,
1999), postural control (Carrick, Oggero, Pagnacco,
Brock, & Arikan, 2007; Prescott, 1999), and
kinaesthetic ability (Prescott, 1999), using difficult
laboratory procedures that have limited applicability
and reliability (Prescott, 1999).
Although the prediction of future success is an
important criterion for effective talent identification
test batteries (Kearney, 1999; Régnier et al., 1993),
there is a lack of longitudinal research aimed at
predicting future performance in gymnastics. In one
of the few longitudinal studies, Prescott (1999)
determined which talent characteristics were able to
predict performance in women’s gymnastics 2 years
later. Prescott revealed that a combination of
anthropometric components, local muscular endur-
ance in the abdominals and hip flexor muscle groups,
and flexibility in the hip and shoulder joints was
responsible for producing a perfect fit for classifying
the future performance of 33 female gymnasts as
successful (n ¼ 12; achieving at least 80% the
performance score of the highest scoring gymnast)
or unsuccessful (n ¼ 21; scoring below 80%). Since
Prescott’s definition of future performance was based
upon this dichotomization, the talent characteristics
could therefore only be used to distinguish between
those two groups of gymnasts.
The present longitudinal study aimed to identify
those talent characteristics that best predict gymnas-
tics success in the following years by implementing a
multidimensional test battery. It was hypothesized
that a motor coordination test would be a valuable
contributor to future success in gymnastics competi-
tion. In addition, the role of the expert coach in the
initial screening for gifted gymnasts was taken into
account, since the recommendation of coaches is still
used in practice.
Methods
Participants
In 2008, 33 young female competitive gymnasts aged
7–8 years from 21 Flemish gymnastics clubs took
part in the annual selection day of the Flemish
Gymnastics Federation for inclusion in the national
talent development programme for becoming an elite
senior gymnast. All gymnasts completed a multi-
dimensional test battery. In addition, six expert
coaches of the National Training Center, including
the head coach of the Belgian national team, each
subjectively evaluated the morphology of the gym-
nasts and the technical execution of basic gymnastics
elements on the four pieces of apparatus by means of
a 5-item qualitative scale ranging from 0 (‘‘weak’’) to
2 (‘‘very good’’) with 0.5 intervals. At the end of the
testing day, the coaches gathered to form a unan-
imous decision about each gymnast’s future poten-
tial, based upon their observations independent of
the results on the test battery, and assigned them to
one of two groups: ‘‘potentially elite’’ and ‘‘poten-
tially sub-elite’’. In Flanders in 2008–2010, there
were two competitive levels for girls under 11 years
of age, with the A-level (referred to as ‘‘elite’’ in this
article) being the highest and the B-level (referred to
as ‘‘sub-elite’’ in this article) being the lowest of the
two levels. According to the coaches, the selected
gymnasts were the ones with the potential to become
elite gymnasts and would thus probably compete at
A-level in the next few years (‘‘potentially elite’’,
selected: n ¼ 19; ‘‘potentially sub-elite’’, not selected:
n ¼ 14).
In 2010, the competition results of those gym-
nasts, aged to 9–10 years, now competing at the elite

(n ¼ 12) and sub-elite (n ¼ 11) levels were obtained.
Ten gymnasts were not found on the result sheets
due to injury or having dropped out from the sport
(Figure 1).
Permission for this study was received from the
local Ethics Committee of the Ghent University
Hospital. For all participants, informed parental
consent was obtained.
Multidimensional test battery and expert judgement
The relationship between competition results and
both multidimensional talent characteristics and
expert judgements was examined using a long-
itudinal design. In 2008, female artistic gymnasts
performed a generic test battery of five anthropo-
metric, seven physical performance, and two co-
ordinative tests. In addition, six expert elite coaches
evaluated the general appearance and technical
Downloaded by [Johan Pion] at 09:19 31 January 2012
abilities of the gymnasts on the four pieces of
apparatus. Assessments were conducted at a fully
equipped gymnastics training centre by a group of
qualified examiners who followed standardized test
protocols. The tests were arranged as a circuit, with
the gymnasts moving from one station to another in
the following order: anthropometry, coordination,
physical performance, and technical gymnastics
abilities. The gymnasts performed the tests barefoot,
wearing a leotard. Training status at initial testing
was also recorded. In 2010, the all-around results
from an actual competition were obtained.
Anthropometry. The anthropometric assessments
were made following standardized protocols (Loh-
man, Roche, & Martorell, 1988). Height was
measured using a portable stadiometer to the nearest
0.1 cm (Harpenden, Holtain Ltd., Crymych, UK).
Figure 1. Flow chart of the selection procedure. Note: Gymnasts who are selected by the coaches for further development under guidance of
the Gymnastics Federation are not however obliged to follow the elite route. In Flanders, gymnasts aged 9–10 years of age may choose to
compete at the elite or sub-elite level.
Prediction of gymnastics performance 3
Body mass (to the nearest 0.1 kg) and percent body
fat (to the nearest 0.1%) were determined by means
of a bio-electrical impedance scale (TANITA BC-
420SMA, Weda B.V., Naarden, Holland).
To estimate the somatic maturity of the girls,
maturity offset was predicted by means of a gender-
specific regression equation reported by Mirwald and
colleagues (Mirwald, Baxter-Jones, Bailey, & Beu-
nen, 2002) based upon a non-invasive technique
using chronological age, height, body mass, sitting
height, and leg length measurements: 79.376 þ
(0.0001882*LegLength SittingHeight Interaction) þ
(0.0022*Age LegLength Interaction) þ (0.005841*
Age SittingHeight Interaction)7(0.002658*Age Body
Mass Interaction) þ (0.07693*BodyMass Height Ra-
tio). Age at peak height velocity was then derived by
extracting maturity offset from chronological age. Since
there is an estimation error to the aforementioned
equation and reliability will improve as the chronolo-
gical age of the child approaches age at peak height
velocity, care is warranted in using this equation to
predict the exact age at peak height velocity. However,
the equation can be used to give an indication of a
child’s maturity status compared with same-aged peers
(Malina et al., 2006).
Physical performance. Flexibility was assessed by the
sit-and-reach (0.1 cm) test of the Eurofit test battery
(Council of Europe, 1988). Explosive leg power was
evaluated with the countermovement jump (0.1 cm),
performed with hands on hips, using Optojump
(Microgate, Bolzano, Italy) (Cometti & Cometti,
2007) and standing broad jump of the Eurofit test
battery (Council of Europe, 1988). The knee push-
ups and sit-ups tests, following the Bruininks-
Oseretsky test of Motor Proficiency-2 procedures
(BOT-2; Bruininks & Bruininks, 2005), were used to
 4 B. Vandorpe et al.
assess upper body strength and core stability. The
gymnasts’ sprinting ability was measured by a 20 m
sprint test with sprint times being recorded using
Polifemo light photocells with 0.001 s accuracy
(Racetime2, Microgate, Bolzano, Italy) (Lidor,
Hershko, Bilkevitz, Arnon, & Falk, 2007). Anaerobic
performance was assessed with a one-minute rope
jumping test (Vandorpe et al., 2011b).
Motor coordination. The KörperkoordinationsTest
für Kinder (KTK; Kiphard & Schilling, 2007) is a
widely used, valid, and reliable instrument to assess
the general motor coordination of children (Ahnert
et al., 2009; Lopes, Rodrigues, Maia, & Malina,
2011; Vandorpe et al., 2011a). The Körperkoordi-
nationsTest für Kinder consists of four subtests: (1)
walking backwards three times along each of three
balance beams of decreasing width, with a possible
maximum score of 72; (2) moving sideways on
Downloaded by [Johan Pion] at 09:19 31 January 2012
wooden platforms in 20 s with the score being the
sum of the number of relocations over two trials; (3)
jumping sideways with two feet over a wooden slat in
15 s, with the score being the sum of the number of
jumps over two trials; and (4) hopping for height on
one leg over a foam obstacle increasing in height by
5 cm at each step, with a possible maximum score of
78. The raw performance scores of each subtest are
transformed into age- and gender-specific motor
quotients, together resulting in a general motor
quotient (MQKTK).
In addition, nine basic tests (running backwards,
skipping, hopping, shuffle pass, cross steps, boun-
cing, jumping jacks, tuck jumps, and giant jumps)
were judged on a 10-item qualitative scale (i.e. ability
to perform the movement, without falling, with a
steady rhythm, supported by arm movements,
balanced, with confidence, dynamic, without sloppi-
ness, with sufficient amplitude, and seemingly
effortless) to determine the basic locomotion skills
of the gymnasts, with a possible maximum score of
90. Reliability coefficients were high (test–retest ¼
0.94, inter-rater reliability ¼ 0.93) (Vandorpe et al.,
2011b).
Training status. Training status at the time of initial
testing was requested prior to test assessment via the
coaches and was expressed as previous training
experience in years and actual training hours per
week.
Expert coaches’ judgement. Four coaches of the junior
national team at the National Training Centre were
each assigned to one of the four pieces of apparatus
(vault, uneven bars, balance beam, floor exercise) in
order to independently and subjectively evaluate the
gymnasts’ morphological build and technical ability
on that particular apparatus. Simultaneously, two
coaches of the senior national team observed their
general appearance and gymnastics abilities on all
four pieces of apparatus. Each of the six coaches then
awarded a score from zero to two (0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2),
ranging from weak to very good in their opinion, to
each gymnast individually. The six scores were then
summed yielding a maximum possible score of 12.
Inter-rater reliability of the six coaches was very good
(Cronbach’s alpha ¼ 0.888; P 5 0.001).
Competition results. Since at the top level gymnasts
only get one chance (e.g. Olympic Games) to prove
their abilities, one competition was selected to
provide an indication of the competition perfor-
mance of the gymnasts. Hence, the all-around result
at the 2010 Flemish Gymnastics Championship,
which is the last and most important competition of
the season for which gymnasts of that age group peak
for, was used because all the skills they acquired that
season were most likely on show in that final
competition. The gymnasts were judged according
to Code Of Points 2009–2012 (COP) of the
Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique (FIG)
with panels of three National/Brevet judges per
apparatus. In Flanders, the youngest age groups,
up to the age of 11 years, are required to perform
compulsory routines, developed and choreographed
by the Flemish Gymnastics Federation Technical
Committee, with the emphasis on technique, form,
and execution. In these compulsories, the maximum
possible Difficulty score (D-score) on each apparatus
is 10 and gymnasts could be rewarded with a perfect
Execution score (E-score) of 10. The sum of the D-
and E-scores gives the final apparatus score. Sum-
ming the four apparatus scores results in the all-
around score with a maximum of 80. Unfortunately,
since the elite and sub-elite levels required the
performance of different compulsory exercises (diffi-
cult vs. easy), further comparisons of the competition
results of the two levels was not possible.
Statistical analysis
Descriptive statistics were obtained using SPSS
v.15.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago IL, USA). To identify
differences between the two levels in the parameters
measured at initial testing, an independent samples t-
test was used. For those variables with a limited
amount of data (training status), the Mann-Whitney
U-test was applied. Pearson’s product–moment
correlations were conducted to assess the relation-
ship between the variables measured at initial testing
and the eventual competition outcome. Again,
considering the small number of gymnasts for which
training status data were available, the Spearman
rank-order correlation was used to reveal the
relationship between training status at year of initial
 Prediction of gymnastics performance 5

testing and competition results 2 years later. In line
with Cohen (1988), the magnitude of the correlation
coefficient (r) was considered to be 0.1 small, 0.3
moderate, and 0.5 large. Due to the limited sample
size, gaining insights into the contribution of each of
the parameters in predicting future success in
competition, by applying multiple regression analy-
sis, was not appropriate. As a rule of thumb, there
should be 10 cases for each predictor in the model to
obtain a reliable regression model (Field, 2009).
Therefore, linear regression analysis was applied
using the Enter method for only those variables that
correlated significantly with the outcome (result in
competition). Statistical significance was set at
P 5 0.05.
Results
Table I presents the results of the multidimensional
Downloaded by [Johan Pion] at 09:19 31 January 2012
standard deviations of the two levels on all para-
meters are reported in Vandorpe et al. (2011b). In
line with Vandorpe et al., the present results revealed
that the absolute scores of the elite gymnasts were
systematically in favour of those of the sub-elite
gymnasts, but statistical significance was only
achieved for knee push-ups, motor quotient of the
KörperkoordinationsTest für Kinder, jumping side-
ways, basic locomotion skills, and the sum score of
the six expert coaches.
From the initial test battery, only the motor
quotient of the KörperkoordinationsTest für Kinder,
as a measure of motor coordination, and one of its
subtests (moving sideways) correlated significantly
with the competition result of the elite gymnasts 2
years later (MQKTK: r ¼ 0.67, P ¼ 0.02; moving
sideways: r ¼ 0.60, P ¼ 0.04), indicating that the
higher the general motor coordination value 2 years
before competition, the higher the gymnast scored in

test battery, training status, and expert judgements
measured at year 1 of the Flemish gymnastics talent
development programme and the results in competi-
tion obtained in year 3. In addition, correlation
coefficients between all variables and the all-around
competition result 2 years later are also shown in
Table I. Results of comparison of the means and
that competition. None of the anthropometric or
physical performance variables correlated signifi-
cantly with later competition outcomes. Training
status at initial testing as well as the expert judgement
of coaches did not correlate significantly with the
result in competition 2 years later either. Similarly,
for the sub-elite gymnasts, none of the initially

Table I. Means, standard deviations, and t-values of the comparison between the results of the two levels on the generic test battery, training
history, and expert judgement measured at year 1 and correlation coefficients of the parameters measured at year 1 and the competition
results 2 years later (year 3).

Sub-elite Independent Competition

Elite (mean + s) (mean + s) samples Competition score score year 3,
Variable (n ¼ 12) (n ¼ 11) t-test [t(P)] year 3, elite [r(P)] sub-elite [r(P)]

Competition year 3, elite 62.3 + 6.3 – –

Competition year 3, sub-elite 61.8 + 8.8 – –
Height (cm) 123.0 + 6.5 126.6 + 4.3 1.53 0.08 0.23
Body mass (kg) 22.7 + 2.6 24.3 + 3.2 1.32 0.23 0.13
Body fat (%) 15.5 + 3.1 15.5 + 3.1 70.03 0.37 0.32
Age at peak height velocity (years) 11.6 + 0.3 11.5 + 0.2 71.03 70.06 70.43
Sit-and-reach (cm) 31.0 + 2.3 31.0 + 2.3 70.08 70.37 0.16
Countermovement jump (cm) 25.4 + 3.0 25.0 + 1.7 70.41 70.10 0.19
Knee push-ups (n/30 s) 32.8 + 5.0 26.3 + 6.0 72.85* 0.30 0.30
Sit-ups (n/30 s) 34.3 + 8.1 29.3 + 3.9 71.89 0.14 0.27
Standing broad jump (m) 161.7 + 12.1 154.0 + 5.7 71.92 0.42 0.05
20 m sprint (s) 3.9 + 0.2 4.0 + 0.2 1.29 0.10 70.11
Rope jumping (s) 75.2 + 17.0 70.8 + 17.1 70.61 70.04 0.17
MQKTK 133.7 + 4.3 129.4 + 5.3 72.16* 0.67* 70.27
Walking backwards 69.3 + 3.6 65.8 + 4.6 71.99 70.58 70.19
Moving sideways 40.3 + 4.7 38.9 + 4.5 70.70 0.60* 70.07
Jumping sideways 73.0 + 8.1 67.4 + 3.4 72.13* 0.43 70.37
Hopping for height 68.2 + 8.1 68.7 + 8.2 0.16 0.23 70.17
Basic locomotion skills 74.8 + 8.1 66.7 + 10.4 72.10* 0.08 0.42
Training experience (years) 2.3 + 0.7 2.4 + 1.3 20.0þ 0.48# 70.12#
Training status (hours per week) 11.9 + 2.5 10.8 + 1.8 19.5þ 0.56# 0.32#
Sum 6 expert coaches 9.6 + 2.8 5.0 + 4.2 73.13* 0.29 0.23
#
Non-parametric Spearman correlation coefficient (elite: n ¼ 9; sub-elite: n ¼ 6).
þ
Non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-test (elite: n ¼ 9; sub-elite: n ¼ 6).
*P 5 0.05.
 6 B. Vandorpe et al.
measured parameters correlated significantly with
competition outcome 2 years later.
By means of linear regression analysis, we exam-
ined the predictive value of those variables that
correlated significantly with the outcome (result in
competition) – the motor quotient of the Körper-
koordinationsTest für Kinder and moving sideways.
Only for the elite gymnasts did the coordination test
battery significantly predict the outcome. The motor
quotient of the KörperkoordinationsTest für Kinder,
measured at initial testing, predicted the results in
competition 2 years later (b ¼ 0.98, t11 ¼ 2.82,
P ¼ 0.02), and explained a significant proportion of
variance in competition score (R2 ¼ 0.44, F1,11 ¼
7.95, P ¼ 0.02) (Figure 2). Moving sideways mea-
sured at initial testing also predicted the results in
competition 2 years later (b ¼ 0.80, t11 ¼ 2.38,
P ¼ 0.04), with moving sideways explaining a sig-
nificant proportion of variance in competition score
Downloaded by [Johan Pion] at 09:19 31 January 2012
(R2 ¼ 0.36, F1,11 ¼ 5.64, P ¼ 0.04).
Discussion
The aim of the present longitudinal study was to
investigate the predictive value of a test battery
measuring anthropometric, physical performance
and motor coordination characteristics, training
status, and the technical judgement of expert coaches
to predict eventual competition outcomes for female
gymnasts.
None of the anthropometric variables assessed at
initial testing correlated significantly with competi-
tion performance 2 years later. This might be
explained by the homogeneity of the current sample.
Indeed, previous studies (Prescott, 1999; Vandorpe
et al., 2011b) revealed that competitive gymnasts
generally exhibit similar anthropometric profiles
from as early an age as 6 years. Since growth and
maturation are not affected by intensive training
(Baxter-Jones, Thompson, & Malina, 2002;
Figure 2. Correlation plot with regression line of the relationship of
MQKTK score versus performance results at the Flemish
Gymnastics Championship 2 years later.
Damsgaard, Bencke, Matthiesen, Petersen, & Mul-
ler, 2000; Malina, 1999), the small size of all
gymnasts in the current sample can be attributed to
previous natural or systematic selection by their
coach(es). Thus, the anthropometric measurements
used in this study cannot be used to distinguish
within a group of gymnasts and may therefore be
more relevant in talent detection rather than identi-
fication processes. Searching for small and light girls
for gymnastics is beneficial due to the rules of the
sport, rewarding difficult acrobatic movements in
combination with grace and artistry. Accordingly,
the importance of a small stature for both aesthetic
and biomechanical advantages has been previously
highlighted (Bencke et al., 2002; Claessens et al.,
1999; Malina, 1999; Russell, 2010).
Similarly, physical performance variables mea-
sured at the first test assessment did not correlate
significantly with results in competition 2 years later.
In line with previous studies, the absolute values of
the measured variables in this study did however
tend to indicate that the physical performance
variables are able to separate gifted gymnasts from
their less gifted peers, with the gifted performers
showing better strength, flexibility, speed, and
endurance than their less successful counterparts
(Prescott, 1999; Vandorpe et al., 2011b). The
findings of the present study are in agreement with
those of Philippaerts et al. (2008), who reported that
general physical performance characteristics do not
seem sensitive enough to discriminate at the top level
in many sports. Considering the possible impact of
training, growth, and maturation on these variables
(Malina et al., 2004; Pearson et al., 2006), predicting
future performances based upon these variables is
difficult. It seems that physical performance mea-
sures reflect current ability rather than potential to
excel (Philippaerts et al., 2008; Vaeyens et al., 2008;
Wolstencroft, 2002). Thus, even though the sample
in the present study was rather small, the lack of
significant correlations between performance results
and previous training status is probably also evi-
denced in the homogeneity of the entire group,
having experienced similar systematic training pro-
grammes (Vandorpe et al., 2011b).
Interestingly, based upon the coaches’ judge-
ments, no significant predictions of eventual compe-
tition outcomes could be made either. Traditionally,
initial screening for gifted gymnasts is based upon
the recommendation of coaches (Prescott, 1999).
The elite coach is able to separate the cream from the
top fairly accurately (Vandorpe et al., 2011b), but the
present results indicated experts had difficulties
discriminating within a group of either elite or sub-
elite gymnasts. Indeed, in addition to the physical
performance measurements, it is possible that the
coaches’ judgements relied on already developed

traits rather than the discovery of potential talent.
This finding could however also be attributed to the
nature of the instrument that was used to quantify
expert judgement. Since the aim of the coaches was
to identify the elite-level potential gymnasts and not
to rank them from the least to most talented, this
method was probably not sensitive enough to
distinguish within the homogeneous samples of
either the elite or sub-elite gymnasts.
The usefulness of the KörperkoordinationsTest
für Kinder (Kiphard & Schilling, 2007) for gymnas-
tics talent identification was demonstrated as the
coordination test battery was not only able to
distinguish between elite and sub-elite gymnasts
(Vandorpe et al., 2011b), but also predicted the
results (440%) of the top (elite) gymnasts in
competition 2 years later. Therefore, it might be
concluded that in a homogeneous sample of elite
gymnasts, the relative importance of anthropometric
Downloaded by [Johan Pion] at 09:19 31 January 2012
and physical performance variables to distinguish
between the gymnasts decreases, whereas the role of
motor coordination increases. Motor coordination as
assessed by the KörperkoordinationsTest für Kinder
seems to measure a general trait underlying a wide
variety of skills and is sensitive enough to give an
indication about the potential to develop rather than
to determine current performance. Indeed, as
Williams and Ford (2009) argued, at the top level
(elite), being more skilled than the other gymnasts
will determine who wins medals. On the other hand,
at a lower level (sub-elite), the importance of either
parameter in predicting competition outcomes is less
strong. The larger standard deviations of the results
of the sub-elite gymnasts indicate that they are a
more heterogeneous group with respect to motor
coordination. Hence, the sub-elite gymnasts might
compensate a deficiency in the coordination domain
by better physical capacities. At the elite level, a
similar compensation mechanism is less likely as the
difficulty of the programme requires them to be well-
coordinated and have sufficient physical capacities.
Regarding the non-sport-specific nature of the test, it
could be suggested that this test battery could also be
used for talent detection and identification purposes
in other sports. Considering the fairly accurate
prediction of future gymnastics performance of
moving sideways (435%), when time is limited or
when a lot of children need to be measured, the
administration of moving sideways only might be a
valuable substitute for the entire Körperkoordina-
tionsTest für Kinder test battery in measuring the
coordination of athletes. The finding that none of the
other three subtests contributed much to the
competition score 2 years later could be explained
by the task requirements of these subtests. In line
with Vandorpe et al. (2011a), this further suggests
that moving sideways primarily measures coordina-
Prediction of gymnastics performance 7
tion, whereas jumping sideways and hopping for
height also require strength in combination with
speed for good test results. Since gymnastics training
involves some reactivity training, the inability of
jumping sideways and hopping for height to distin-
guish within the current sample of gymnasts might
again be attributed to its homogeneity due to similar
training experiences or previous selection. In addi-
tion, the ceiling effect on the walking backwards test
might also reflect the homogeneity of the gymnasts
regarding balance tasks, being preselected or highly
trained on that performance variable.
The criteria necessary for an effective talent
identification test battery have been suggested
(Kearney, 1999; Régnier et al., 1993) to include
highly predictive, stable variables (only minimally
impacted by training and/or growth and maturation),
relevant to performance, with sufficient validity,
reliability, objectivity, and applicability. Previous
studies have highlighted its stability (Ahnert et al.,
2009), validity, reliability, objectivity, and applic-
ability in normal as well as sport-specific gymnastics
populations (Kiphard & Schilling, 2007; Vandorpe
et al., 2011a, 2011b). The present study highlighted
the value of measuring motor coordination by means
of the KörperkoordinationsTest für Kinder by
adding to the criterion of prediction.
Although the test battery used in this study was
quite extensive, we acknowledge its limitation by not
including important psychological (Abbott & Col-
lins, 2004) as well as environmental (Baker &
Horton, 2004; Côté, 1999) factors, which might also
substantially contribute to the outcome of the
multidimensional developmental process from gift-
edness to talent (Gagné, 2004). However, in agree-
ment with Falk and colleagues (Falk, Lidor, Lander,
& Lang, 2004) and Baker and Horton (2004), we
believe that the influence of the environment is more
on talent development than talent identification. In
our opinion, the basic critical antecedents of expert
performance were addressed in this study. Baker and
Horton (2004) described this as a metaphor, with the
genes determining the size of an empty bucket while
the environment determines its content. In other
words, even with the best support and willpower, a
tall and heavy child with low coordination will be
unlikely to reach the top in gymnastics.
In conclusion, anthropometric and physical per-
formance tests as well as coach judgements were less
sensitive to distinguish at the top but rather reflect
current performance instead of the potential to
develop. The ability of the coach to identify talent
should however not be underestimated, but scientific
observations using objective criteria should comple-
ment these intuitive judgements (Vaeyens et al.,
2008; Williams & Reilly, 2000). The present study
has highlighted the value of a non-sport-specific
 8 B. Vandorpe et al.
motor coordination test in contributing to initial
gymnastics talent identification processes, as it was
found to be an important identifier of potential talent
within a group of highly gifted gymnasts exhibiting
similar anthropometric and physical profiles. In line
with the sliding populations approach of Régnier
et al. (1993), the present study was able to predict
short-term gymnastics success over a period of 2
years in young female gymnasts. However, care is
warranted when applying this approach to other age
groups for which a modified test battery should be
developed.
Acknowledgements
This project was funded by the Department of
Culture, Youth, Sports, and Media of the Flemish
Government. We would like to thank the Flemish
Gymnastics Federation for allowing us to contribute
Downloaded by [Johan Pion] at 09:19 31 January 2012
to their talent identification and development pro-
gramme and for their valuable help in the practical
organization of the data collection. Warm thanks to
the gymnasts, elite and club coaches for their
enthusiasm during testing.
References
Abbott, A., & Collins, D. (2004). Eliminating the dichotomy
between theory and practice in talent identification and
development: Considering the role of psychology. Journal of
Sports Sciences, 22, 395–408.
Ahnert, J., Schneider, W., & Bös, K. (2009). Developmental
changes and individual stability of motor abilities from the
preschool period to young adulthood. In W. Schneider & M.
Bullock (eds), Human development from early childhood to early
adulthood: Evidence from the Munich Longitudinal Study on the
Genesis of Individual Competencies (LOGIC) (pp. 35–62).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Baker, J., & Horton, S. (2004). A review of primary and secondary
influences on sport expertise. High Ability Studies, 15, 211–226.
Baxter-Jones, A. D., Thompson, A. M., & Malina, R. M. (2002).
Growth and maturation in elite young female athletes. Sports
Medicine and Arthroscopy Review, 10, 42–49.
Bencke, J., Damsgaard, R., Saekmose, A., Jorgensen, P.,
Jorgensen, K., & Klausen, K. (2002). Anaerobic power and
muscle strength characteristics of 11 years old elite and non-
elite boys and girls from gymnastics, team handball, tennis and
swimming. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in
Sports, 12, 171–178.
Bradshaw, E. J., & Le Rossignol, P. (2004). Anthropometric and
biomechanical field measures of floor and vault ability in 8 to 14
year old talent-selected gymnasts. Sports Biomechanics, 3, 249–
262.
Bressel, E., Yonker, J. C., Kras, J., & Heath, E. M. (2007).
Comparison of static and dynamic balance in female collegiate
soccer, basketball, and gymnastics athletes. Journal of Athletic
Training, 42, 42–46.
Bruininks, R. H., & Bruininks, B. D. (2005). Bruininks-Oseretsky
Test of Motor Proficiency (2nd edn.). Minneapolis, MN: AGS
Publishing.
Burton, A. W., & Miller, D. E. (1998). Movement skill assessment.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Carrick, F. R., Oggero, E., Pagnacco, G., Brock, J. B., & Arikan,
T. (2007). Posturographic testing and motor learning predict-
ability in gymnasts. Disability and Rehabilitation, 29, 1881–1889.
Claessens, A. L., Lefevre, J., Beunen, G., & Malina, R. M. (1999).
Contribution of anthropometric characteristics to performance
scores in elite female gymnasts. Journal of Sports Medicine and
Physical Fitness, 39, 355–360.
Clark, J. E., & Metcalfe, J. S. (2002). The mountain of motor
development: A metaphor. In J. E. Clark & J. H. Humphrey
(Eds.), Motor development: Research and reviews (Vol. 2, pp. 163–
190). Reston, VA: National Association of Sport and Physical
Education.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(2nd edn.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cometti, G., & Cometti, D. (2007). La Pliométrie-Méthodes,
entraı̂nement et exercises. Paris: Chiron.
Côté, J. (1999). The influence of the family in the development of
talent in sport. The Sport Psychologist, 13, 395–417.
Council of Europe (1988). EUROFIT: Handbook for the European
Test of Physical Fitness. Rome: Council of European Committee
for Development in Sports.
Damsgaard, R., Bencke, J., Matthiesen, G., Petersen, J. H., &
Muller, J. (2000). Is prepubertal growth adversely affected by
sport? Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 32, 1698–1703.
De Bosscher, V., Bingham, J., Shibli, S., Van Bottenburg, M., &
De Knop, P. (2008). The global sporting arms race: An
international comparative study on sports policy factors leading to
international sporting success. Aachen: Meyer & Meyer.
Falk, B., Lidor, R., Lander, Y., & Lang, B. (2004). Talent
identification and early development of elite water-polo players:
A 2-year follow-up study. Journal of Sports Sciences, 22, 347–355.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage.
Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as
a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15, 119–147.
Henderson, S. E., & Sugden, D. A. (1992). Movement Assessment
Battery for Children. London: Psychological Corporation.
Kearney, J. T. (1999). Sport performance enhancement: Design
and analysis of research. Letter to the editor in chief. Medicine
and Science in Sports and Exercise, 31, 755–756.
Kiphard, E. J., & Schilling, F. (2007). Körperkoordinationstest für
Kinder. 2. Überarbeitete und ergänzte Auflage. Weinheim: Beltz
Test GmbH.
Lidor, R., Herschko, Y., Bilkevitz, A., Arnon, M., & Falk, B.
(2007). Measurement of talent in volleyball: 15-month follow-
up of elite adolescent players. Journal of Sports Medicine and
Physical Fitness, 47, 159–168.
Lohman, T. G., Roche, A. F., & Martorell, R. (1988).
Anthropometric standardization reference manual. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
Lopes, V. P., Rodrigues, L. P., Maia, J. A. R., & Malina, R. M.
(2011). Motor coordination as predictor of physical activity in
childhood. Scandinavian Journal of Medicince and Science in
Sports, 21, 663–669.
Maffulli, N., King, J. B., & Helms, P. (1994). Training in elite
young athletes (the Training of Young Athletes (TOYA)
Study): Injuries, flexibility and isometric strength. British
Journal of Sports Medicine, 28, 123–136.
Malina, R. M. (1999). Growth and maturation of female
gymnasts: Is training a factor? In F. E. Johnston, B. Zemel, &
P. B. Eveleth (Eds.), Human growth in context (pp. 291–301).
London: Smith-Gordon.
Malina, R., Bouchard, C., & Bar-Or, O. (2004). Growth,
maturation and physical activity (2nd edn.). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Malina, R. M., Claessens, A. L, Van Aken, K., Thomis, M.,
Lefevre, J., Philippaerts, R. et al. (2006). Maturity offset in
gymnasts: Application of a prediction equation. Medicine and
Science in Sports and Exercice, 38, 1342–1347.

Mirwald, R. L., Baxter-Jones, A. D., Bailey, D. A., & Beunen, G.
P. (2002). An assessment of maturity from anthropometric
measurements. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 34,
689–694.
Moore, P. M., Collins, D., Burwitz, L., & Jess, M. C. (1998). The
development of talent study. London: English Sports Council.
Pearson, D. T., Naughton, G. A., & Torode, M. (2006).
Predictability of physiological testing and the role of maturation
in talent identification for adolescent team sports. Journal of
Science and Medicine in Sport, 9, 277–287.
Philippaerts, R. M., Coutts, A., & Vaeyens, R. (2008). Physiolo-
gical perspectives on the identification and development of
talented performers in sport. In R. Fisher & R. Bailey (Eds.),
Talent identification and development: The search for sporting
excellence (pp. 49–67). Berlin: ICSSPE.
Prescott, J. (1999). Identification and development of talent in young
female gymnasts. Dissertation, Loughborough University,
Loughborough.
Régnier, G., Salmela, J. H., & Russell, S. J. (1993). Talent
detection and development in sport. In R. N. Singer, M.
Murphy, & L. K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport
psychology (pp. 290–313). New York: Macmillan.
Russell, K. (2010). Young athletes: The dichotomy of the child
Downloaded by [Johan Pion] at 09:19 31 January 2012
prodigy. In Proceedings of the International Congress of the Growing
Child in High Performance Sport. Birmingham: University of
Birmingham.
Seefeldt, V. (1980). Developmental motor patterns: Implications
for elementary school physical education. In C. Nadeau, W.
Holliwell, K. Newell, & G. Roberts (Eds.), Psychology of motor
behavior and sport (pp. 314–323). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
View publication stats
Prediction of gymnastics performance 9
Vaeyens, R., Güllich, A., Warr, C. R., & Philippaerts, R. (2009).
Talent identification and promotrion programmes of Olympic
athletes. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27, 1367–1380.
Vaeyens, R., Lenoir, M., Williams, A. M., & Philippaerts, R. M.
(2008). Talent identification and development programmes in
sport: Current models and future directions. Sports Medicine,
38, 703–714.
Vandorpe, B., Vandendriessche, J., Lefevre, J., Pion, J., Vaeyens,
R., Matthys, S. et al. (2011a). The KorperkoordinationsTest
fur Kinder: Reference values and suitability for 6–12-year-old
children in Flanders. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and
Science in Sports, 21, 378–388.
Vandorpe, B., Vandendriessche, J., Vaeyens, R., Pion, J., Lefevre,
J., Philippaerts, R. M. et al. (2011b). Factors discriminating
gymnasts by competitive level. International Journal of Sports
Medicine, 32, 591–597.
Williams, A. M., & Ford, R. R. (2009). Promoting a skills-based
agenda in Olympic sports: The role of skill-acquisition
specialists. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27, 1381–1392.
Williams, A. M., & Reilly, T. (2000). Talent identification and
development in soccer. Journal of Sports Sciences, 18, 657–667.
Wolstencroft, E. (2002). Talent identification and development: An
academic review. Edinburgh: Sport Scotland.