Next Article in Journal
Adaptive Neural Trajectory Tracking Control for Synchronous Generators in Interconnected Power Systems
Next Article in Special Issue
Mechatronics Design of a Gait-Assistance Exoskeleton for Therapy of Children with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy
Previous Article in Journal
Body Composition in Karate: A Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Comparison of Electromyographic Activity during Barbell Pullover and Straight Arm Pulldown Exercises
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 13
Issue 1
10.3390/app13010560
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Maturity Status, Relative Age and Constituent Year Effects in Young Iberian Kayakers

by
Rui António Fernandes
1,2,
Beatriz Branquinho Gomes
1,2 and
Fernando Alacid
2,3,*
1
Faculty of Sport Sciences and Physical Education, University of Coimbra, CIDAF, 3040-248 Coimbra, Portugal
2
RIBA2, Ibero-American Network of Researchers in Applied Anthropometry, 04120 Almeria, Spain
3
Faculty of Education Sciences, Health Research Center, University of Almeria, 04120 Almeria, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(1), 560; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13010560
Submission received: 18 November 2022 / Revised: 19 December 2022 / Accepted: 28 December 2022 / Published: 31 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sports and Exercise Rehabilitation)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Like in other sports systems, in kayaking, young athletes are commonly grouped by their birth years. This study analyzed maturity status, relative age, and constituent age effects in young Under 14 (U14) and 16 (U16) Iberian male kayakers. One hundred and thirty (U14: n =80; U16: n = 50) young kayakers aged 14.10 ± 1.06 years were assessed for anthropometry, performance, maturity, and sport experience. The year was divided into four birth quarters (BQ). There were no significant differences in the kayaker’s distribution by BQ in both categories (U14, p = 0.348; U16, p = 0.709) or total sample (p = 0.783). Six of the ten best kayakers in the U14 category were born in the year’s first half, and eight were among the U16 kayakers. Talent detection and selection systems based solely on the young kayakers’ performances may imply some bias. One of the ways to get around this situation would be to adopt a grouping system similar to bio-banding, allowing the maximum number of practitioners to experience the possibility of obtaining competitive success.

1. Introduction

In Portugal and Spain, during the various age-group competitions, different experience levels and skill may be found among the paddlers participating in the National Championship. To provide equal opportunities during competition, like in other sports systems, in kayaking, young athletes are commonly grouped by their birth year.
Maturation is a process that involves many body changes [1]. It plays a crucial role in improving motor skills; and maximizing motor skill proficiency is ideal in childhood. [2]. Previous research, considering performance [3], with young paddlers has focused on maturational and morphological analysis of the best athletes in their categories [4,5,6,7], and reported that the most mature kayakers obtain the best performances. More recently, Fernandes et al. [8] showed that years of practice were crucial in youth kayaking success besides maturity. Therefore, talent identification batteries must consider aspects of maturity in performance variations [9], preventing the drop out of less mature children derived from an absence of competitive success or a perceived absence of ability [10].
Meanwhile, relative age (RA) concerns a child’s chronological age inside their age group and is defined by the date of birth and the cut-off selection date [11]. The relative age effect (RAE) is a frequent occurrence in youth sports [12] and is characterized by the discrepancy between athletes’ observed and expected birth date distributions [13]. Thereby, children born early in the selection year have a higher probability of experiencing successful participation and maintaining it.
It is important to notice that RA and biological maturation are independent constructs. RA depends on birth and cut-off dates, and biological maturation depends on genetics and environmental context. Also, there is a considerably more extensive range for variation in biological maturity in a single-year age group than in RA. While in RA, differences are limited to twelve months, maturity can differ up to six years [11].
For instance, regarding chronological age, a person born in January is nearly twelve months older than some other person born in December of the same year. Consequently, the physical and psychological differences that can be observed may perhaps be attributed to this singularity [4,14]. Furthermore, when studying under 13 and 15 football players, Altimari et al. [5] stated that stature, body mass, and lean body mass were influenced by the birth date in these categories. Additionally, Sandercock et al. [6] presented significant differences between birth months in an analysis of physical fitness test performances. Such an advantage could justify, to some extent, the bias in sports selection credited to the peculiarities of the RAE.
Also, RAE may show up well before puberty, and it is more likely that these differences result from the context in which children are inserted, resulting in the possibility of experiencing different environments with implications for their development, which is probably more associated with age than maturity [7]. For that reason, almost all competitive sports are organized into age categories, presumably, to reduce such differences. Most likely, participants are grouped by chronological age to guarantee honest competition and opportunity [3].
The influence of the relative age effect phenomena is explained as influencing several sports, including swimming [15,16], football [17], and basketball [18]. Nevertheless, reversed RAE has also been reported, like in the cases of athletics [19] and futsal [20]. Moreover, this inverse RAE has been explained in sports where performance demands high technical skills [21], and physical qualities may be secondary [22].
Regarding kayaking, the only study focusing on the RAE phenomena was conducted by Isorna-Folgar et al. [23], pointing out that young athletes born in January, February, and March have a higher probability of being chosen for development training camps. However, more is needed to configure certainty about achieving international sporting success in later years. Indeed, youngsters with the potential to reach the elite level born late in the year have an inferior opportunity to participate in sports when they have already passed puberty [24]. In most sports, children born early in the year have better performances than children born later in the year. However, this tendency is not found in adult athletes, with no clear correlation between performance and date of birth [25].
Besides the RAE, another fact that may influence performance is the Constituent Year Effect (CYE). This term refers to the effects of the birth year observed in groups with more than one age group [26]. During the youth training process, the older athletes of the category tend to have an advantage over the younger ones. This advantage is accentuated mainly due to the physical differences resulting from the maturation processes.
This study intended to analyze maturity status and the RAE, and to evaluate the influence of CYE in young Iberian male kayakers, considering how it may impact the opportunity equity of the young kayakers in the complex and frail system of identification, detection, selection, and development of young kayaking talents.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

This study evaluated 130 young Iberian male kayakers aged 14.10 ± 1.06 years born between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2006. Data was collected regarding kayakers’ experience, anthropometry, performance, and maturity status. All participants passed the mandatory medical examinations required by the respective national federation. Kayakers with less than one year of practice were automatically excluded from the assessment. The Ethical Committee approved all procedures. Written informed consent was obtained from parents or legal guardians.

2.2. Design and Procedures

To assess RAE, kayakers born between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2004, were categorized as under 16 years of age (U16). Kayakers born between 1 January 2005, and 31 December 2006 were classified as under 14 years of age (U14). Uniformity of birth season of broader populations from different regions was assumed. Birth quarters (BQ) were defined as 1st BQ: 1 January to 31 March, 2nd BQ: 1 April to 30 June, 3rd BQ: 1 July to 30 September and 4th BQ: 1 October to 31 December. To assess the CYE, the athletes were also divided by year of birth [3]. The participants were distributed as follows: 50 U16, 15.24 ± 0.61 years, 80 U14, 13.40 ± 0.54 years.
Data were collected at the Spanish and Portuguese National Championships, and the competitions took place with about a month of difference. Racecourse conditions were flat water with no current alongside good weather with no wind (less than 0.5 m·s−1), which were verified in both competitions. Kayakers were assessed considering their competition schedule and throughout the day.
Two certified level 3 International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry (ISAK) evaluators took all anthropometric measures following the ISAK procedures. Body mass (kg) was assessed using a digital scale SECA 878 (SECA, Hamburg, Germany), and stretch stature, and sitting height (cm) were assessed with a portable stadiometer SECA 206 (SECA, Hamburg, Germany). Before the sessions, to prevent measurement inaccuracies, all instruments were calibrated. Relative technical error of measurement [27] ranged between 0.03% and 0.11% for anthropometric measures.
For performance, the competition officials considered the time, in seconds, required for the kayakers to complete the race, 3000 and 5000 m for the U14 and U16, respectively. Also, the distribution of birth quarters of the participants who obtained the ten best performances in each category was analyzed.
Biological development was assessed by somatic maturation [1], the percentage of the predicted adult height (PAH%) defined the maturity status, and the Khamis and Roche [28] method was used to estimate the paddlers predicted adult height (PAH). Mean parental stature was corrected according to Epstein et al. [29]. Also, maturity offset was obtained to estimate the distance in years from the peak growth velocity for height (PHV), that the athlete is currently in [30]. Kayakers were classified as late, on time (average), or early maturing based on the PAH% converted to a z-score [13,31,32]. A z-score between −1.0 and +1.0 categorized the kayaker as on time in maturity status. A z-score < −1.0 classified the kayaker as late, while a z-score > +1.0 classified the kayaker as early maturing [32].

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The data distribution and the homogeneity of variance were tested using Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Levene’s, respectively. Birth year intervals (frequency) and distributions of kayakers by maturity status were determined by BQ for all kayakers and evaluated with the Chi-square statistic. Descriptive statistics were determined by BQ in each category and by year of birth and compared with a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the post hoc Bonferroni test. Estimated effect sizes (η2) were also calculated. The level of significance was set as p < 0.05. SPSS Statistics 27.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was applied to perform the statistical analysis.

3. Results

The frequency of month and years of birth by quarter of the young Iberian kayakers, for U14, 16, and the total sample are summarised in Table 1. There were no significant differences in the kayakers’ distribution by BQs, for the category of participation (U14, p = 0.348; U16, p = 0.709) or total sample (p = 0.783). Despite that, when analyzing the total sample, the kayakers born in the 3rd BQ were slightly more represented (28.5%). Examining by category of participation, this tendency was observable only for the U14, where the athletes born in the 3rd BQ represented 37.3% of all the participants. For the U16 category, the tendency was to observe more paddlers born in January, February, and March.
Maturity status distribution was significant for the total sample in both categories, and was also significant regarding U16 kayakers born in 2003 and 2004 and U14 kayakers born in 2005 (Table 2).
About the ten best kayakers in each category, three U14 kayakers were born in 2006 and seven in 2005. In the U16, two kayakers were born in 2004 and eight in 2003. Four early maturers were among the top ten performers in both categories. All early maturers in the U14 category were born in 2005, with three born in the first two BQ’s. In the U16, all four were born in the first two BQ’s. Also, regarding the U16 kayakers, seven early maturers were observed in the total sample (n = 50); six were born in 2003, and five in the 1st and 2nd BQ’s.
Considering the kayakers’ characteristics by BQ and year of birth, Table 3 and Table 4 summarise the data from the U14 and U16 athletes, respectively. Table 3 shows that, regardless of CA, whoever has more years of practice obtains the best performances despite their maturational status. In the U16 category (Table 4), the kayakers born in the 1st BQ were significantly (p < 0.05) older than the athletes born in the 4th BQ, F(3; 46) = 6.294, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.29. Naturally, these kayakers were observed as taller (174.06 ± 6.66 cm), F(3; 46) = 0.713, p = 0.549, η2 = 0.04, heavier (66.09 ± 8.40 kg) F(3; 46) = 0.946, p = 0.426, η2 = 0.06, and also faster (1406.16 ± 75.29 s), F(3; 46) = 2.313, p = 0.088, η2 = 0.13. However, they do not present themselves as being the most mature. That characteristic was verified in the athletes born in the 2nd BQ (96.70 ± 1.13 PAH%).
Kayakers born in 2003 were significantly (p < 0.05) more mature (97.38 ± 0.8%), F(1; 48) = 56.353, p = 0.000, η2 = 0.54, and more experienced (5.06 ± 2.00 years), F(1; 48) = 11.456, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.19, than those born in 2004 (94.85 ± 1.44 %, 3.25 ± 1.77 years). They, consequently, obtained the best performances.

4. Discussion

This study’s main objective was to analyze maturity status, the RAE, and to evaluate the influence of CYE in young Iberian male kayakers. As a result, the main findings of this study were that in the U14 (n = 80), unlike the U16 (n = 50), the maturational status does not seem to be a decree of competitive success. Therefore, the CYE appears to influence the performance only in the U16 category. Also, no statistically significant differences were found for the RAE in the total sample (n = 130) or the two categories assessed. Nevertheless, a substantial part of the ten best kayakers of each category was born between January and June and were early maturers.
The present study showed that the older U16 kayakers born in the 1st BQ achieved better performances than their peers born in other BQ’s. On the contrary, the fastest kayakers in the U14 category were born in the 3rd BQ. Furthermore, those with more years of practice obtained the best performances in both cases. Recently, Fernandes et al. [8] stated that the young kayakers who achieved better performances were maturely advanced and had more years of specific practice. Moreover, López-Plaza et al. [33] showed negative and significant correlations between performance and chronological age and presented significant performance maturity-based differences at 1000, 500, and 200 m.
The relative age effect is properly documented in team sports, mainly soccer [5,11,13,34]. However, the same does not occur for kayaking, where the RAE phenomenon is practically unstudied. For example, Isorna-Folgar et al. [23] reported that 37.5% of the paddlers who participated in the Spanish National Training Camps were born in the 1st BQ; however, those who achieved medals in World Championships or Olympic Games were primarily born in the 4th BQ (35.1%). Moreover, analyzing the fifteen male Iberian kayakers who participated in the Tokyo Olympics, eleven were born in the 3rd and 4th BQ, five in the 3rd BQ, and six in the 4th BQ. This fact, associated with the need for technical mastery that kayaking imposes, can explain why the RAE may not be observed at the senior elite level. However, there is the possibility of finding an inverse RAE. In the beginner categories, it is more likely to find RAE than in older age groups. The clarification may be related to the APHV and the age at which puberty occurs, which may undeniably increase the variances in physical traits between athletes born in different BQ’s of the same year [35].
With 56.3%, the U14 (13.40 ± 0.54 years) has shown a higher percentage of births in the 3rd and 4th BQ’s, 33.8% in the 3rd BQ alone. Interestingly, this percentage increases to 37.3% when looking only at the U14 (13.73 ± 0.29 years) born in 2005. On the other hand, in the U16 total sample (15.24 ± 0.61 years), 54% were born in the first two BQ’s and 30% in the 1st BQ alone. It was also found that 58.4% of kayakers born in 2003 (15.78 ± 0.26) were born in the first two BQ’s. The 3rd BQ was where the highest number of kayakers in the total sample (n = 130) were born (28.5%).
Considering the CYE, in the U14 category, significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed between athletes born in 2006 and those born in 2005, in CA, stretch stature, sitting height, maturity offset, and PAH%. Although, these were not only not reflected in significant differences in performance, as the younger kayakers were the ones with better performances. This fact may be due to the possibility that the differences mentioned above were masked by the years of practice, 3.41 ± 1.52 years in athletes born in 2005 and 3.22 ± 1.44 years in athletes born in 2006. Moreover, it is known that young kayakers usually obtain the best performances with more years of specific practice [8].
Another explanation may be the fact that despite the 2005-born kayakers (13.73 ± 0.29 years) being practically a whole year older than the ones born in 2006 (12.82 ± 0.32 years), both were still relatively close to the PHV, 0.24 ± 0.67 and −0.59 ± 0.66 years, respectively. The fact is consistent with the 87.52 ± 2.81 PAH% for the kayakers born in 2006 and 91.25 ± 2.17% for those born in 2005, indicating that the U14 kayakers were somewhat in the early stages of the maturation process. As stated by Cumming et al. [36], concerning data for soccer players, the majority of players with a PAH% ≥ 85.0 to <90.0% are early pubertal, players with a PAH% ≥ 90.0 to <95.0% are mid-pubertal, and players with a PAH% ≥ 95.00% are late pubertal.
Considering the U16 category and following the same rationale, it was found that athletes born in 2003 were significantly older (15.78 ± 0.26 years) and significantly further away from the PHV (2.00 ± 0.49 years), consequently being closer to their predicted adult height. Additionally, the ones with significantly best performances (1409.46 ± 65.37 s) were significantly more experienced (5.06 ± 2.00 years). This data for U16 kayakers corroborates previous findings [8,33], reaffirming the importance of controlling for maturation at this kayakers’ sports development stage.
When performing correlations, comparisons, and regressions, CA is usually a significant variable in kayaking [8,33,37]. Thus, those born earlier in the year probably present superior stretch stature, body mass, sitting height, muscle mass, and kayaking experience, and possibly obtain better performances.
Moreover, in a sport that presents difficulties in retaining athletes at the senior levels, it is essential to consider the implications of these facts in the early dropout of kayaking. Gardner et al. [38] stated that it is possible to predict young athletes’ dropout using enjoyment and behavioral intentions as indicators. Usually, young athletes born in the same year follow the same training programs, and those born in later BQ’s often feel frustrated when attaining worse sports results. However, the lack of sports success is one of the factors that leads youth athletes to drop out. Under these circumstances, coach and parental support are essential to persuade the adolescent to continue the sporting activity despite a temporary lack of sports success. Therefore, youth sport is complex. Kayaking is no different, with the addition that it takes place in various water planes and the need for practitioners to move in unstable boats with the same characteristics as those used by senior athletes. Therefore, a talent detection and selection system based solely on the young kayakers’ performances may imply some bias. It could confer some competitive advantage to individuals who, by chance, are maturely advanced or have been born earlier than their peers. This study is not without limitations. For example, a study limitation is the assumption of a uniform birth season of broader populations and age sub-groups from different regions. Similarly, despite an effort to evaluate all the U14 and 16 kayakers participating in the competition, the sample size is still limited, so data must be interpreted cautiously.

5. Conclusions

Given the constraints that maturation issues impose during the different stages of an individual’s growth to adulthood, all categories have their specificity. The U14 and U16 male categories are particularly susceptible to these issues, as they are categories where more significant maturational differences can be observed. As demonstrated by the main findings in this study, namely in the U16 category, the CYE and the maturity status seem to influence the performance, which could imply rethinking how young kayakers are distributed in the category of participation, by looking to find a new format that provides equity in kayaking participation. For example, in Portugal and Spain, U14 and U16 kayakers are sub-grouped by year of birth, with the older kayakers categorized as group A and the youngest as group B. One way of refining this form of distribution of participants would be to adopt a grouping system similar to the bio-banding suggested by Cumming et al. [36].
Additional strategies may include selecting athletes to integrate training groups or primary teams to achieve immediate performances (first team) and other training or secondary teams to develop the athletes to obtain the best performances in the medium to long term. Future studies may also consider including motivational and behavioral variables and training environments, such as social context, coach and parental support, coach experience, peer acceptance, enjoyment, quality of the training sessions, and previous training experiences in other sports.
Therefore, trying to ensure that coaches and sports decision-makers do not make swift decisions, and guarantee equal opportunities for young kayakers at different stages of maturational development as much as possible. Thus, allowing the maximum number of practitioners to experience an enjoyable sporting environment with the possibility of obtaining competitive success.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.A.F., B.B.G. and F.A.; methodology, R.A.F., B.B.G. and F.A.; investigation, R.A.F.; data curation, R.A.F. and F.A.; writing—original draft preparation, R.A.F., B.B.G. and F.A.; writing—review and editing, R.A.F., B.B.G. and F.A.; supervision, B.B.G. and F.A.; project administration, F.A.; funding acquisition, F.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by a research contract between the Royal Spanish Canoeing Federation and the University of Almería (ref: 001427), the Research Plan and Transfer of the University of Almería (ref: PPUENTE2022/001), the Health Research Centre of the University of Almería and the collaboration protocol signed between the Portuguese Canoe Federation and the Faculty of Sports Sciences and Physical Education of the University of Coimbra.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethical Committee of the Faculty of Sports Sciences and Physical Education of the University of Coimbra (protocol code CE/FCDEF-UC/00322018).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data are available from the authors, upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the Royal Spanish Canoeing Federation, the Portuguese Canoe Federation and all the participants involved.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Baxter-Jones, A.D.G.; Eisenmann, J.C.; Sherar, L.B. Controlling for Maturation in Pediatric Exercise Science. Pediatr. Exerc. Sci. 2005, 17, 18–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Myer, G.D.; Faigenbaum, A.D.; Ford, K.R.; Best, T.M.; Bergeron, M.F.; Hewett, T.E. When to Initiate Integrative Neuromuscular Training to Reduce Sports-Related Injuries and Enhance Health in Youth? Curr. Sport. Med. Rep. 2011, 10, 155–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Medic, N.; Starkes, J.L.; Young, B.W. Examining Relative Age Effects on Performance Achievement and Participation Rates in Masters Athletes. J. Sport. Sci. 2007, 25, 1377–1384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Wattie, N.; Schorer, J.; Baker, J. The Relative Age Effect in Sport: A Developmental Systems Model. Sports Med. 2015, 45, 83–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Altimari, J.M.; Altimari, L.R.; Bortolotti, H.; Junior, A.F.; Gabardo, J.M.; Buzzachera, C.F.; Frisselli, A.; Moraes, A.C. de The Relative Age Effect on Anthropometry, Body Composition, Biological Maturation and Motor Performance in Young Brazilian Soccer Players. J. Hum. Kinet. 2021, 77, 147–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sandercock, G.; Ogunleye, A.; Parry, D.; Cohen, D.; Taylor, M.; Voss, C. Athletic Performance and Birth Month: Is the Relative Age Effect More than Just Selection Bias? Int. J. Sports Med. 2014, 35, 1017–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Sherar, L.B.; Baxter-Jones, A.D.G.; Faulkner, R.A.; Russell, K.W. Do Physical Maturity and Birth Date Predict Talent in Male Youth Ice Hockey Players? J. Sport. Sci. 2007, 25, 879–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Fernandes, R.A.; López-Plaza, D.; Correas-Gómez, L.; Gomes, B.B.; Alacid, F. The Importance of Biological Maturation and Years of Practice in Kayaking Performance. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 8322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lloyd, R.S.; Oliver, J.L.; Faigenbaum, A.D.; Myer, G.D. CHRONOLOGICAL AGE VS. BIOLOGICAL MATURATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR EXERCISE PROGRAMMING IN YOUTH. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2017, 28, 1454–1464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Delorme, N.; Raspaud, M. The Relative Age Effect in Young French Basketball Players: A Study on the Whole Population: The Relative Age Effect in Young Basketball. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sport. 2009, 19, 235–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Parr, J.; Winwood, K.; Hodson-Tole, E.; Deconinck, F.J.A.; Hill, J.P.; Teunissen, J.W.; Cumming, S.P. The Main and Interactive Effects of Biological Maturity and Relative Age on Physical Performance in Elite Youth Soccer Players. J. Sport. Med. 2020, 2020, 1957636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kearney, P.E.; Hayes, P.R.; Nevill, A. Faster, Higher, Stronger, Older: Relative Age Effects Are Most Influential during the Youngest Age Grade of Track and Field Athletics in the United Kingdom. J. Sport. Sci. 2018, 36, 2282–2288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Figueiredo, A.J.; Coelho-e-Silva, M.J.; Cumming, S.P.; Malina, R.M. Relative Age Effect: Characteristics of Youth Soccer Players by Birth Quarter and Subsequent Playing Status. J. Sport. Sci. 2019, 37, 677–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Cobley, S.; Baker, J.; Wattie, N.; McKenna, J. Annual Age-Grouping and Athlete Development: A Meta-Analytical Review of Relative Age Effects in Sport. Sport. Med. 2009, 39, 235–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Baxter-Jones, A.D.G. Growth and Development of Young Athletes: Should Competition Levels Be Age Related? Sport. Med. 1995, 20, 59–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Costa, A.M.; Marques, M.C.; Louro, H.; Ferreira, S.S.; Marinho, D.A. The Relative Age Effect among Elite Youth Competitive Swimmers. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2013, 13, 437–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sierra-Díaz, M.; González-Víllora, S.; Pastor-Vicedo, J.; Serra-Olivares, J. Soccer and Relative Age Effect: A Walk among Elite Players and Young Players. Sports 2017, 5, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Arrieta, H.; Torres-Unda, J.; Gil, S.M.; Irazusta, J. Relative Age Effect and Performance in the U16, U18 and U20 European Basketball Championships. J. Sport. Sci. 2016, 34, 1530–1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Brustio, P.R.; Kearney, P.E.; Lupo, C.; Ungureanu, A.N.; Mulasso, A.; Rainoldi, A.; Boccia, G. Relative Age Influences Performance of World-Class Track and Field Athletes Even in the Adulthood. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 1395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Lago-Fuentes, C.; Rey, E.; Padrón-Cabo, A.; Prieto-Troncoso, J.; Garcia-Núñez, J. The Relative Age Effect in Professional Futsal Players. J. Hum. Kinet. 2020, 72, 173–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Romann, M.; Fuchslocher, J. The Need to Consider Relative Age Effects in Women’s Talent Development Process. Percept. Motor Skills 2014, 118, 651–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Delorme, N.; Raspaud, M. Is There an Influence of Relative Age on Participation in Non-Physical Sports Activities? The Example of Shooting Sports. J. Sport. Sci. 2009, 27, 1035–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Isorna-Folgar, M.; Vaquero Cristóbal, R.; Vinuesa González, J.C.; Rial Boubeta, A. El efecto de la edad relativa en la participación en el Plan nacional de tecnificación deportiva y la consecución de grandes éxitos deportivos en piragüismo. Apunts 2014, 115, 46–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Baxter-Jones, A.D.G.; Helms, P. Born Too Late to Win? Nature 1994, 370, 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Jakobsson, J.; Julin, A.L.; Persson, G.; Malm, C. Darwinian Selection Discriminates Young Athletes: The Relative Age Effect in Relation to Sporting Performance. Sports Med. Open 2021, 7, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wattie, N.; Cobley, S.; Baker, J. Towards a Unified Understanding of Relative Age Effects. J. Sport. Sci. 2008, 26, 1403–1409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Perini, T.A.; de Oliveira, G.L. Technical Error of Measurement in Anthropometry. Rev. Bras. Med. Esporte 2005, 11, 81–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Khamis, H.J.; Roche, A.F. Predicting Adult Stature without Using Skeletal Age: The Khamis-Roche Method. Pediatrics 1994, 94, 504–507. [Google Scholar]
  29. Epstein, L.H.; Valoski, A.M.; Kalarchian, M.A.; McCurley, J. Do Children Lose and Maintain Weight Easier Than Adults: A Comparison of Child and Parent Weight Changes From Six Months to Ten Years. Obes. Res. 1995, 3, 411–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mirwald, R.L.; Baxter-Jones, A.D.G.; Bailey, D.A.; Beunen, G.P. An Assessment of Maturity from Anthropometric Measurements. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2002, 34, 689–694. [Google Scholar]
  31. Malina, R.M.; Coelho E Silva, M.J.; Figueiredo, A.J.; Carling, C.; Beunen, G.P. Interrelationships among Invasive and Non-Invasive Indicators of Biological Maturation in Adolescent Male Soccer Players. J. Sport. Sci. 2012, 30, 1705–1717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Myburgh, G.K.; Cumming, S.P.; Malina, R.M. Cross-Sectional Analysis Investigating the Concordance of Maturity Status Classifications in Elite Caucasian Youth Tennis Players. Sports Med. Open 2019, 5, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. López-Plaza, D.; Alacid, F.; Muyor, J.M.; López-Miñarro, P.Á. Sprint Kayaking and Canoeing Performance Prediction Based on the Relationship between Maturity Status, Anthropometry and Physical Fitness in Young Elite Paddlers. J. Sport. Sci. 2016, 35, 1083–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Müller, L.; Gehmaier, J.; Gonaus, C.; Raschner, C.; Müller, E. Maturity Status Strongly Influences the Relative Age Effect in International Elite Under-9 Soccer. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2018, 7, 216–222. [Google Scholar]
  35. Ferriz-Valero, A.; García Martínez, S.; Olaya-Cuartero, J.; García-Jaén, M. Sustainable Sport Development: The Influence of Competitive-Grouping and Relative Age on the Performance of Young Triathletes. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Cumming, S.P.; Lloyd, R.S.; Oliver, J.L.; Eisenmann, J.C.; Malina, R.M. Bio-Banding in Sport: Applications to Competition, Talent Identification, and Strength and Conditioning of Youth Athletes. Strength Cond. J. 2017, 39, 34–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Alacid, F.; Marfell-Jones, M.; López-Miñarro, P.; Martínez, I.; Muyor, J. Morphological Characteristics of Young Elite Paddlers. J. Hum. Kinet. 2011, 27, 95–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gardner, L.A.; Magee, C.A.; Vella, S.A. Enjoyment and Behavioral Intention Predict Organized Youth Sport Participation and Dropout. J. Phys. Act. Health 2017, 14, 861–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Frequency of month and year of birth by quarter for U14, 16 and the total sample of kayakers.
Table 1. Frequency of month and year of birth by quarter for U14, 16 and the total sample of kayakers.
1st BQ2nd BQ3rd BQ4th BQ
Age GroupnBirth YearMean ± SD CA (Years)n%n%n%n%Expected Frequencyχ2
U14 Kayakers802006, 200513.40 ± 0.541822.51721.32733.81822.5203.300 (ns)
292006 12.82 ± 0.32 827.6620.7827.7724.17.30.379 (ns)
512005 13.73 ± 0.29 1019.61121.61937.31121.612.84.137 (ns)
U16 Kayakers502004, 2003 15.24 ± 0.61 1530.01224.01020.01326.012.51.040 (ns)
262004 14.73 ± 0.32 830.8519.2519.2830.86.51.385 (ns)
242003 15.78 ± 0.26 729.2729.2520.8520.860.667 (ns)
Total Sample1302006, 2005, 2004, 200314.10 ± 1.063325.42922.33728.53123.832.51.077 (ns)
CA: chronological age; BQ: birth quarter; (ns): non-significant.
Table
Table 2. Distributions of the kayakers’ maturity status based on PAH% by BQ for the total sample of U14 and 16, top ten U14 and 16, and CYE (U14, 2005; 2006 and U16, 2003; 2004).
Table 2. Distributions of the kayakers’ maturity status based on PAH% by BQ for the total sample of U14 and 16, top ten U14 and 16, and CYE (U14, 2005; 2006 and U16, 2003; 2004).
BQ of U14 Total Sample BQ of U14 Top Ten BQ of Kayakers Born in 2006 BQ of Kayakers Born in 2005
1st2nd3rd4thχ21st2nd3rd4thχ21st2nd3rd4thχ21st2nd3rd4thχ2
Maturity status U14n = 18n = 17n = 27n = 18 n = 1n = 5n = 4n = 0 n = 8n = 6n = 8n = 7 n = 10n = 11n = 19n = 11
PAH%:
Early5220 1210 0000 5220
On time13111814 0330 8444 581411
Late047449.075 (s)00000.400 (ns)02432.793 (ns)013035.765 (s)
BQ of U16 total sample BQ of U16 top ten BQ of kayakers born in 2004 BQ of kayakers born in 2003
Maturity status U16n = 15n = 12n = 10n = 13 n = 5n = 3n = 0n = 2 n = 8n = 5n = 5n = 8 n = 7n = 7n = 5n = 5
PAH%:
Early5101 3100 1000 4101
On time91188 2202 6534 3654
Late102433.640 (s)00000.400 (ns)102417.154 (s)00006.000 (s)
PAH: predicted adult height; BQ: birth quarter; (s): significant; (ns): non-significant.
Table
Table 3. Characteristics (means and standard deviations) of U14 kayakers by birth quarter (n = 80), year of birth (2006, n = 29 and 2005, n = 51) and results of ANOVA, and estimated effect sizes (η2).
Table 3. Characteristics (means and standard deviations) of U14 kayakers by birth quarter (n = 80), year of birth (2006, n = 29 and 2005, n = 51) and results of ANOVA, and estimated effect sizes (η2).
1st BQ (n = 18)2nd BQ (n = 17)3rd BQ (n = 27)4th BQ (n = 18) Born in 2006 (n = 29)Born in 2005 (n = 51)
VariablesMean (± SD)Mean (± SD)Mean (± SD)Mean (± SD)Fη2Mean (± SD)Mean (± SD)Fη2
CA (years)13.69 ± 0.53 *13.47 ± 0.49 *13.39 ± 0.4613.03 ± 0.505.4640.1812.82 ± 0.32 †13.73 ± 0.29162.0930.68
Years of practice (years)3.33 ± 1.463.64 ± 1.693.25 ± 1.542.97 ± 1.130.6180.023.41 ± 1.523.22 ± 1.440.3020.00
Stretch stature (cm)164.43 ± 7.68163.65 ± 10.44163.45 ± 10.07163.60 ± 8.810.0430.00159.49 ± 9.77 †166.17 ± 8.0210.9070.12
Sitting height (cm)85.05 ± 4.4385.81 ± 5.4585.18 ± 5.8986.08 ± 3.710.1860.0183.54 ± 5.04 †86.59 ± 4.647.4780.08
Body mass (Kg)55.26 ± 11.2455.89 ± 8.5552.75 ± 10.9657.53 ± 11.820.7650.0352.34 ± 10.8756.60 ± 10.432.9860.04
Maturity offset (years)0.03 ± 0.690.02 ± 0.81−0.12 ± 0.91−0.13 ± 0.620.2720.01−0.59 ± 0.66 †0.24 ± 0.6728.9850.27
APHV (years)13.66 ± 0.5613.44 ± 0.6613.52 ± 0.7113.17 ± 0.461.9990.0713.41 ± 0.6413.48 ± 0.630.2480.00
PAH (cm)180.75 ± 5.81181.62 ± 8.17182.18 ± 6.22183.63 ± 6.530.5930.02182.12 ± 7.43182.03 ± 6.170.0030.00
PAH (%)90.94 ± 2.1390.06 ± 3.0489.66 ± 3.2089.07 ± 3.311.2650.0587.52 ± 2.81 †91.25 ± 2.1743.8090.36
3000 m time (s)915.01 ± 124.53864.82 ± 124.86843.24 ± 109.86871.43 ± 103.551.4130.05861.77 ± 108.32875.18 ± 121.280.2440.00
CA: chronological age; APHV: age at peak height velocity; PAH: predicted adult height; BQ: birth quarter. * Significant difference (p < 0.05) compared to 4tu BQ. † Significant difference (p < 0.05) compared to born in 2005.
Table
Table 4. Characteristics (means and standard deviations) of U16 kayakers by birth quarter (n = 50), year of birth (2004, n = 26 and 2003, n = 24) and results of ANOVA, and estimated effect sizes (η2).
Table 4. Characteristics (means and standard deviations) of U16 kayakers by birth quarter (n = 50), year of birth (2004, n = 26 and 2003, n = 24) and results of ANOVA, and estimated effect sizes (η2).
1st BQ (n = 15)2nd BQ(n = 12)3rd BQ (n = 10)4th BQ (n = 13) Born in 2004 (n = 26)Born in 2003 (n = 24)
VariablesMean (± SD)Mean (± SD)Mean (± SD)Mean (± SD)Fη2Mean (± SD)Mean (± SD)Fη2
CA (years)15.58 ± 0.50 *15.43 ± 0.52 *15.10 ± 0.5614.77 ± 0.526.2940.2914.73 ± 0.32 †15.78 ± 0.26154.0550.76
Years of practice (years)4.00 ± 1.424.62 ± 2.163.95 ± 3.163.92 ± 1.780.2990.023.25 ± 1.77 †5.06 ± 2.0011.4560.19
Stretch stature (cm)174.06 ± 6.66170.99 ± 4.34171.89 ± 6.72172.63 ± 4.340.7130.04171.96 ± 5.37173.12 ± 5.870.5310.01
Sitting height (cm)91.89 ± 3.9890.00 ± 3.1789.84 ± 3.8290.83 ± 2.930.9370.0690.20 ± 3.1391.34 ± 2.941.3120.03
Body mass (Kg)66.09 ± 8.4062.09 ± 5.4163.18 ± 7.2362.76 ± 5.340.9460.0662.05 ± 6.8565.45 ± 6.383.2720.06
Maturity offset (years)1.97 ± 0.741.59 ± 0.481.41 ± 0.641.36 ± 0.552.6740.151.25 ± 0.58 †2.00 ± 0.4923.4300.33
APHV (years)13.61 ± 0.5313.83 ± 0.5513.68 ± 0.5713.40 ± 0.391.5080.0913.48 ± 0.57 †13.78 ± 0.424.5450.09
PAH (cm)180.07 ± 4.85176.83 ± 4.52180.02 ± 7.31181.93 ± 4.541.9870.12181.30 ± 5.30 †178.11 ± 5.194.6020.09
PAH (%)96.64 ± 1.8396.70 ± 1.1395.50 ± 1.7795.25 ± 1.742.6330.1594.85 ± 1.44 †97.38 ± 0.8256.3530.54
5000 m time (s)1406.16 ± 75.291455.37 ± 102.201497.72 ± 80.111464.11 ± 89.812.3130.131489.25 ± 94.59 †1409.46 ± 65.3711.8450.19
CA: chronological age; APHV: age at peak height velocity; PAH: predicted adult height; BQ: birth quarter. * Significant difference (p < 0.05) compared to 4tu BQ. † Significant difference (p < 0.05) compared to born in 2003.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fernandes, R.A.; Gomes, B.B.; Alacid, F. Maturity Status, Relative Age and Constituent Year Effects in Young Iberian Kayakers. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 560. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13010560

AMA Style

Fernandes RA, Gomes BB, Alacid F. Maturity Status, Relative Age and Constituent Year Effects in Young Iberian Kayakers. Applied Sciences. 2023; 13(1):560. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13010560

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fernandes, Rui António, Beatriz Branquinho Gomes, and Fernando Alacid. 2023. "Maturity Status, Relative Age and Constituent Year Effects in Young Iberian Kayakers" Applied Sciences 13, no. 1: 560. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13010560

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop