Construct validity and reliability of the Talent Development Environment Questionnaire in Caribbean youth track and field athletes

Autoři: Candice E. Thomas aff001;  Gavin Abbott aff002;  Paul B. Gastin aff003;  Luana C. Main aff002
Působiště autorů: Centre for Sport Research, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia aff001;  Institute of Physical Activity and Nutrition, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia aff002;  La Trobe Sport and Exercise Medicine Research Centre, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia aff003
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 15(1)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227815


Caribbean nations stand to benefit significantly from the potential insights that can be gained from the assessment of their athlete talent development environments; which in turn can lead to the formulation of evidence-based strategies and improvements to their sport development pathways. The principal aim of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the 25-item TDEQ-5 to determine its validity to assess the development environments of talented youth track and field athletes from six English-speaking Caribbean countries. As a secondary aim, we sought to examine athletes’ perceptions of their talent development environment within this context. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed adequate model fit of a re-specified model and good overall internal reliability of the scale, therefore offering support for its use within this context. Furthermore, adequate construct validity and internal reliability was found within three subscales (i.e., communication, holistic quality preparation and support network) with subpar scores within two subscales (i.e., long-term development focus and alignment of expectations). Preliminary findings on athletes’ perceptions of their environment revealed key strengths in coaches’ long-term development focus and communication, however deficiencies were noted in the accessibility and availability of sport-related support and preparation of athletes. In conclusion, the re-specified TDEQ-5 with 25 items appears to be a reliable and valid measure within the Caribbean context. However, it is recommended that the scale be used with some caution with regard to the interpretation of results for the ‘long-term development focus’ and ‘alignment of expectations’ subscales.

Klíčová slova:

Built structures – Caribbean – Factor analysis – Human performance – Psychometrics – Research validity – Sports – Sports and exercise medicine


1. Cummings K. TrackandFieldNerdz. Fix the gap correct the problem. [cited 18 August, 2019]. Available from: [].

2. Enoksen E. Drop-out rate and drop-out reasons among promising Norwegian track and field athletes: a 25 year study. Scandinavian Sport Studies Forum. 2011;2:19–43.

3. Bennie A, O’Connor D. Athletic transition: An investigation of elite track and field participation in the post-high school years. Change: Transformations in Education. 2006;9(1):59. edsaup.200705096.

4. Hollings S, Mallett C, Hume P. The transition from elite junior track-and-field athlete to successful senior athlete: Why some do, why others don't. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching. 2014;9(3):457–472. doi: 10.1260/1747-9541.9.3.457 2014-34315-004.

5. Tucker R, Santos-Concejero J, Collins M. The genetic basis for elite running performance. British Journal Sports Medicine. 2013;47(9):545–549.

6. Henriksen K, Stambulova N, Roessler KK. Successful talent development in track and field: considering the role of environment. Scandanavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports. 2010;20:122–132. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01187.x 20840570.

7. Martindale R, Collins D, Daubney J. Talent Development: A Guide for Practice and Research Within Sport. Quest (00336297). 2005;57(4):353–375. doi: 10.1177/0734242X07080760 PubMed PMID: 18649574.

8. Mc Cree R, editor The exclusion of sport from Caribbean economic development 2002: University of the West Indies at St. Augustine. Retrieved from

9. Kaufman Z, Rosenbauer BP, Moore G. Lessons learned from monitoring and evaluating sport-for-development programmes in the Caribbean. Global Sport-for-development. Global Culture and Sport London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2013. p. 173–193.

10. Rees T, Hardy L, Güllich A, Abernethy B, Côté J, Woodman T, et al. The great british medalists project: A review of current knowledge on the development of the world's best sporting talent. Sports Medicine. 2016;46(8):1041–1058. doi: 10.1007/s40279-016-0476-2 26842017.

11. Wang CKJ, Pyun DY, Li C, Lee MS. Talent development environment and achievement goal adoption among Korean and Singaporean athletes: Does perceived competence matter? International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching. 2016;11(4):496–504. 117180922.

12. Martindale RJJ, Collins D, Wang JCK, McNeill M, Kok Sonk LEE, Sproule J, et al. Development of the Talent Development Environment Questionnaire for sport. Journal of Sports Sciences. 2010;28(11):1209–1221. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2010.495993 20694933.

13. Hall AJA, Jones L, Martindale RJJ. The Talent Development Environment Questionnaire as a tool to drive excellence in elite sport environments. International Sport Coaching Journal. 2019;6(2):187–198. 136827124.

14. Li C, Wang CKJ, Pyun DY, Martindale R. Further development of the Talent Development Environment Questionnaire for sport. Journal of Sport Sciences 2015;33(17):1831–1843.

15. Wang CKJ, Sproule J, McNeill M, Martindale RJ, Lee KS. Impact of the talent development environment on achievement goals and life aspirations in Singapore. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. 2011;23(3):263–276.

16. Li C, Martindale R, Wu Y, Si G. Psychometric properties of the Talent Development Environment Questionnaire with Chinese talented athletes. Journal of Sports Sciences. 2018;36(1):79–85. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2017.1282619 28134001

17. Brazo-Sayavera J, Olivares PR, Andronikos G, Martindale RJ. Spanish version of the Talent Development Environment Questionnaire for sport: Cultural adaptation and initial validation. PloS one. 2017;12(6):e0177721. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177721 28582387

18. Siekanska M, Wojtowicz A. Polish version of research based of sport talent development environment and adaptation of talent development environment questionaire. Studies in Sport Humanities. 2017;7.

19. Li C, Wang CKJ, Pyun DY. Impacts of talent development environments on athlete burnout: a self-determination perspective. Journal of Sports Sciences. 2017;35(18):1838–1845.

20. Ivarsson A, Stenling A, Fallby J, Johnson U, Borg E, Johansson G. The predictive ability of the talent development environment on youth elite football players' well-being: A person-centered approach. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2015;16(1):15–23. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.09.006 S1469029214001368.

21. Li C, Martindale R, Sun Y. Relationships between talent development environments and mental toughness: The role of basic psychological need satisfaction. Journal of sports sciences. 2019:1–9.

22. Mills A, Butt J, Maynard I, Harwood C. Examining the Development Environments of Elite English Football Academies: The Players' Perspective. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching. 2014;9(6):1457–1472. 101361325.

23. Gledhill A, Harwood C. Toward an understanding of players’ perceptions of talent development environments in UK Female Football. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. 2018;31(1):105–115.

24. Little RJ. A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1988;83(404):1198–1202.

25. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin B, Anderson R, Tatham R. Multivariate data analysis. 7th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall 2010.

26. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research. 1981:39–50.

27. Anderson JC, Gerbing DW. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin. 1988;103(3):411.

28. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 1999;6(1):1–55.

29. Marsh HW, Hau K-T, Wen Z. In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling. 2004;11(3):320–341.

30. Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research: Guilford Publications; 2014.

31. Jöreskog KG. Testing structural equation models. Sage Focus Editions. 1993;154:294.

32. Martindale R, Collins D, Douglas C, Whike A. Examining the ecological validity of the Talent Development Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sports Sciences. 2013;31(1):41–7. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2012.718443 22917218.

33. Martindale R, Collins D, Daubney J. Talent development: A guide for practice and research within sport. Quest 2005;57(4):353–375. doi: 10.1177/0734242X07080760 PubMed PMID: 18649574.

34. Taherdoost H. Validity and reliability of the research instrument; how to test the validation of a questionnaire/survey in a research. 2016;5(3):28–36.

35. Swain SD, Weathers D, Niedrich RW. Assessing three sources of misresponse to reversed Likert items. Journal of Marketing Research. 2008;45(1):116–131.

36. Marsh HW. Negative item bias in ratings scales for preadolescent children: A cognitive-developmental phenomenon. Developmental Psychology. 1986;22(1):37.

37. Lloyd RS, Oliver JL, Faigenbaum AD, Myer GD, De Ste Croix MBA. Chronological age vs. biological maturation: Implications for exercise programming in youth. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2014;(5): 1454–1464. edsgcl.368471895. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000391 24476778

38. Lloyd RS, Cronin JB, Faigenbaum AD, Haff GG, Howard R, Kraemer WJ, et al. National strength and conditioning association position statement on long-term athletic development. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2016;(6): 1491–1509. edsgcl.455988877. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001387 26933920

39. Keegan R, Spray C, Harwood C, Lavallee D. The motivational atmosphere in youth sport: Coach, parent, and peer influences on motivation in specializing sport participants. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. 2010;22(1):87–105. doi: 10.1080/10413200903421267 edselc.2-52.0–77951158480.

40. Keegan R, Spray C, Harwood C, Lavallee D. A qualitative investigation of the motivational climate in elite sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2014;15(1):97–107. edselc.2-52.0–84887507759.

41. Jowett S. At the heart of effective sport leadership lies the dyadic coach-athlete relationship. Sport & Exercise Psychology Review. 2017;13(1):62–64. 121491011.

42. Thomas CE, Chambers TP, Main LC, Gastin PB. Factors influencing the early development of world-class Caribbean track and field athletes: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine. 2019;18(4):758–771. 31827361

43. Vaeyens R, Lenoir M, Williams AM, Philippaerts RM. Talent identification and development programmes in sport. Sports Medicine. 2008;38(9):703–714. doi: 10.2165/00007256-200838090-00001 18712939

44. Chambers TP, Harangozo G, Mallett CJ. Supporting elite athletes in a new age: experiences of personal excellence advisers within Australia’s high-performance sporting environment. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health. 2019:1–21.

45. Park S, Lavallee D, Tod D. Athletes’ careers in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland: Differences in the evolution of research and support programs in two neighbor nations. Athletes' careers across cultures: Routledge; 2013. p. 229–241.

Článek vyšel v časopise


2020 Číslo 1