Consensus Definition of Sport Specialization in Youth Athletes Using a Delphi Approach
A single, widely accepted definition of sport specialization does not currently exist. A consensus definition is necessary to guide youth sport stakeholders on topics associated with sport specialization. To develop a consensus definition of youth sport specialization and identify elements that support the construct of specialization. Delphi study. Directed surveys. A consensus panel of 17 experts was created to provide a broad multidisciplinary perspective on sport specialization in youth athletes. The final definition was developed per an iterative process that involved 4 rounds of review. A comprehensive review of the literature and expert input supported our initial proposed umbrella definition that included 6 additional elements. The study team reviewed the results after each round, and changes were made to the definition based on panel feedback. Panel members were provided with the definition and 6 elements and then asked to rate each specific to importance, relevance, and clarity using a 4-point Likert scale. In 4 Delphi consensus rounds, 17 experts reviewed the umbrella definition and 6 elements before consensus was reached. The umbrella definition and 3 of the initial 6 elements achieved greater than 80% agreement for importance, relevance, and clarity after the fourth round of review. The remaining 3 components did not reach greater than 80% agreement, even after iterative edits, and were removed. The process resulted in a final consensus definition: Sport specialization is intentional and focused participation in a single sport for a majority of the year that restricts opportunities for engagement in other sports and activities. A consensus-based conceptual definition for sport specialization was developed using a Delphi method. This definition has important implications for clinicians and sports medicine professionals who support youth athletes.Context
Objective
Design
Setting
Patients or Other Participants
Data Collection and Analysis
Main Outcome Measure(s)
Results
Conclusions
Youth sport specialization is increasingly common among young athletes and may have significant effects on public health.1 Extrapolated estimates demonstrated that the United States spends as much as $5.2 billion per year on injuries related to sport specialization.1 Additionally, this phenomenon is perhaps accelerating apparent disparities in the current pay-to-play youth sport model as opportunities for athletes in lower socioeconomic status levels to participate in sports are decreasing.2
The most common definition of sport specialization is year-round participation in a single sport to the exclusion of other sports.3 Although widely used and referenced, it is unclear where this definition originated, and it was most likely not developed through any scientific process, which is a major limitation. Another concern is that this definition is operationalized in a wide variety of ways throughout the available literature, making the true effects of sport specialization difficult to determine. For example, Ferguson and Stern4 cited several aspects of early sport specialization, including high volume, intensity, and duration of training at a young age; minimal rest or time off; highly structured training with emphasis on physical development; possible exclusion of other sports; may be initiated by parents, coaches, or trainer; and oriented toward external goals, such as obtaining provincial status. Others use single versus multiple sport participation5–8 or the number of sports played before a certain age,9 whereas some do not define specialization for research participants but allow them to answer questions within the context of their sporting background.10 Finally, the most common method of operationalizing the definition is the 3-point specialization scale, which has been linked with injury.3,11–13 Most researchers in sport specialization have used this scale, which is based on an unvalidated definition; thus, the relationships among specialization, injury, and burnout may not be as straightforward as previously described. As is the case in much of the research in this area, these represent methodologic decisions and opinions of the authors, and these result in difficulties aggregating data with those of others who may define, and thereby operationalize, specialization differently.
Importance to Clinicians and the Sports Medicine Community
Uniform definitions are critical for a mutual understanding among youth sport stakeholders and can inform and improve clinical practice. A uniform definition supports consistent communication between clinicians with the goal of improving outcomes. Additionally, it allows for clearer communication among clinicians and patients, parents, and coaches. This communication may include guidance that could be critical to keeping children in sport or preventing injuries.
Furthermore, a uniform definition allows researchers to study the effects of this trend in a standardized way. To put it more directly, if we cannot uniformly and consistently define what we are trying to study, it is almost impossible to study it. A recent research agenda14,15 proposed by the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine's Collaborative Research Network argued that the development of a consensus definition of sport specialization is a key research priority of primary importance in the field to improve the quality of future studies and appropriate synthesis of findings.
A single definition of sport specialization is essential to move the field forward. As research into sport specialization grows and evolves, a consistent, consensus-based definition is needed to ensure that the construct is defined and measured accurately. Therefore, the purpose of our study was to develop a conceptual and operational consensus definition of sport specialization in youth.
METHODS
This study was deemed exempt by the Internal Review Board at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Expert panel members were identified, per their presence in the sport specialization literature and through existing academic relationships with study team members, as leaders in pediatric sports medicine. The overall selection process emphasized developing a panel with broad multidisciplinary representation in youth sport. We aimed for representation from the following fields: pediatrics, primary care sports medicine, orthopaedic surgery, athletic training, physical therapy, epidemiology, and sport psychology. Ultimately, all areas were specifically represented on the expert panel.
Delphi Procedure
The consensus process used a 4-step Delphi method, which was conducted between April 2020 and August 2020. The Delphi method is a reliable means of determining consensus for an ambiguous clinical term or problem.16,17 This iterative process relies on a systematic progression of repeated rounds of review and is effective for determining expert group consensus where there is little or no evidence and where opinion is important. Panel members' responses are anonymous and yet provide crucial expert input.
Phase 1: Collection of Existing Sport Specialization Definitions and Expert Opinions
During this phase, we conducted a comprehensive review of the literature using a systematic search to examine existing definitions of sport specialization. The primary goals were to conduct a concept analysis (under review) and to determine the need for a consensus definition. We reviewed 163 articles, but no consensus definition was identified. If an article contained a sport specialization definition (and any important elements of specialization), the data were extracted into an Excel (Microsoft Corp) database and used to construct our initial definition.
Additionally, the study team reached out to various stakeholders in youth sports and sport specialization. These individuals, regarded as experts on this topic, were asked to provide their own definitions of sport specialization and any elements that are essential to the definition of a specialized youth athlete. They were also asked to serve on the expert panel due to their research and clinical expertise. Our experts had authored a combined total of more than 1500 peer-reviewed journal publications (range = 8–376) and held academic or clinical appointments or both; 11 of 19 were involved in daily patient care involving the population of interest for this study.
Phase 2: Developing a Preliminary Definition of Sport Specialization and Its Elements
For phase 2, the committee synthesized the responses gathered in phase 1 and created a working definition of specialization in addition to its supporting elements. The initial definition was developed after substantial discussion and eventual consensus of all members of the study team at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.
Phase 3: Delphi Study
The final phase incorporated the Delphi method using an iterative survey completed by the panel of multidisciplinary experts on sport specialization. The same experts from phase 1 participated in this phase. The final expert panel consisted of 5 physicians with expertise in pediatric sports medicine, 3 certified athletic trainers, 2 physical therapy researchers, 2 sport psychology researchers, 1 family medicine/sports medicine physician, 1 pediatric orthopaedic surgeon, 1 epidemiologist, 1 physician with expertise in pediatrics, and 1 physician with expertise in physical medicine and rehabilitation (Appendix 1). These individuals were invited by email and then formally included in the Delphi method after they accepted the invitation and completed an anonymous survey (Qualtrics) that contained the proposed umbrella definition and 6 elements. For each round, the experts were asked to rate the overall definition and elements developed by the study team on importance, relevance, and clarity. A 4-point Likert scale was used consisting of strongly disagree, disagree, agree, and strongly agree. An a priori cutoff of greater than 80% of panelists' ratings of strongly agree or agree was used to determine if consensus was achieved for each component of the definition. Additionally, panelists could provide comments or suggest specific edits for the overall umbrella definition and elements during all consensus rounds.
We evaluated the survey results after each round. Quantitative results (scale responses) were examined using proportions to assess agreement. Also, this evaluation used the qualitative approach of structured thematic analysis to examine narrative and open-ended comments. Members of the study team independently reviewed each comment. Finally, we convened to achieve consensus for interpreting the quantitative and qualitative results. Changes to the definition, the elements, or both were made based on the expert panel's ratings and narrative comments and the eventual study team consensus. These changes consisted of major and minor revisions to the umbrella definition and elements. Even if the definition or an element achieved greater than 80% agreement during a specific round, we considered the panelists' feedback and attempted to improve the statement and further raise the agreement level. The modified definition, as suggested by the study team, was then distributed to the Delphi panel for the next round of reviews using the same 4-point Likert scale. Three rounds were required to achieve consensus, and a fourth round was added to address a textual change to the umbrella definition.
RESULTS
Of the 31 experts invited, 17 agreed to participate in the Delphi study (13 men, 76%; degrees = 8 with PhD or DSc, 9 with MD; Appendix 1). Our panelists had published an average of 95 publications in the areas of sports medicine and youth sports across their academic and clinical careers or both. One panelist resided in Canada, and the other 16 resided in the United States. The overall results of each round of the Delphi process can be found in the Table. Complete details for each round of definitions and comments from the entire process can be found in Appendix 2. These details provide a more comprehensive understanding as to how the definition evolved throughout the process. The final definition with supporting elements follows (Figure):




Citation: Journal of Athletic Training 56, 11; 10.4085/1062-6050-0725.20
Sport specialization is intentional and focused participation in a single sport for a majority of the year that restricts opportunities for engagement in other sports and activities. Single and multisport athletes may be considered specialized if they meet some or all of the following elements:
-
Participation in a single sport for >8 months of the year that includes regular organized practices, competitions, or other structured training.
-
The athlete may have limited or ended involvement in other sports to enable focused participation in a single sport. Alternatively, the athlete may have only ever been involved in 1 sport.
-
Focused participation in a single sport limits the opportunities or time available for other activities, such as involvement in other sports, academics, extracurricular activities, time with friends, and community engagement.
DISCUSSION
Our process generated a consensus definition of youth sport specialization using a Delphi approach. The expert panel's input resulted in a consistent definition and identified supporting elements for defining specialization that could be useful to youth athletes and sport specialization stakeholders at the levels of clinical care, research, and advocacy. These elements were timing and intensity of activity, number of sports played, and a relatively new element focused on limiting the time available for other activities of interest.
Timing and Type of Participation
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of this process was including a cutoff value of 8 months per year for single-sport participation. In the survey comments, it was clear that some panel members had strong feelings about the inclusion or exclusion of this cut point. As 1 panelist put it, “We need to draw a line in the sand.” However, another panelist argued, “Cut points should be used in instrumentation, maybe not the definition.” Several researchers18–20 have noted that organized participation in a single sport > 8 months per year is associated with increased injury risk. Therefore, 8 months in a single sport seemed to be an appropriate starting point for operationally defining year-round sport participation. However, it is unclear if this is the most appropriate cut point as the necessary methodologic studies have not yet been conducted. Additionally, creating cut points is often clinician friendly, but they are usually much more complicated in terms of assessing risk. Relationships are probably not linear, such that <8 months per year carries little or no risk, and everything ≥8 months has an increased but similar risk. It seems intuitive that more months equates to more injury risk, but whether this relationship is linear and whether it only holds true for biomechanically repetitive activities (eg, throwing a baseball) is unknown. Nevertheless, we felt it was reasonable to provide some guidance for the number of months, but we chose to use the more generic term year-round in the umbrella (eg, conceptual) definition and the 8-month cutoff in our specific elements. We believe this is a logical compromise that offers flexibility to practitioners and providers researchers with a specific initial cutoff that should be further evaluated by sport and sex.
Direct and Indirect Support of the Athlete
Several statements were considered for inclusion as elements that focused on support for the athlete, simultaneous participation in other sports, and motivation for participation. The statement regarding support for the athlete was focused on the logistical support that might be necessary for specialization (ie, parents driving a child to practices and games, purchasing equipment, moving to a new community to belong to a specific team or gym). Ultimately, this element was not supported and was removed because it was not considered central to the idea of identifying whether an athlete was considered specialized or not.
Motivation for Participation
The other construct that was somewhat controversial in this process was motivation. Panelists struggled to arrive at a consensus for whether a specific motivation for sport participation was an inherent part of sport specialization. This item focused on whether an athlete was motivated by short-term or long-term success, such as making a specific club or team or aspiring to achieve financial benefit for sport participation. This component was removed because the panel felt it was not clear how it related to defining a specialized athlete.
Quit Other Sports
One element that was not controversial was the idea that an athlete who is specialized may end participation in other sports or may have only ever participated in a single sport. This element scored greater than 80% for importance, relevance, and clarity in the first round. This element is similar to the most commonly used definition that has been operationalized by the advent of the 3-point sport specialization scale.3 The scale asks, Have you ever quit other sports to focus on a single sport? A critique of this question is that athletes who have only ever participated in a single sport may answer no and thus be misclassified. Miller et al21 recently observed that this question is particularly problematic in individual-sport athletes such as gymnasts. Overall, the panel agreed with the second clause in the statement: or may have only ever participated in 1 sport.
Simultaneous Participation in Other Sports
The final element included in the proposed consensus definition focused on whether an athlete could be considered specialized if he or she participated in more than 1 sport (ie, exclusivity). Anecdotally, this is a common scenario in team sports (ie, an athlete plays a single sport year-round but also participates in another sport). This idea has also been reflected in the recent literature.8 For example, Frome et al22 divided soccer athletes into specialized (played soccer >8 months/year and no other sports) and nonspecialized (played soccer >8 months/year and played other organized sports) and observed that those in the soccer-only group were less likely to report an injury in the previous 12 months compared with the nonspecialized group. However, this definition was limited in that both groups participated in soccer for >8 months/year. The panel debated how to best weigh year-round play in a single sport compared with year-round play in a single sport while also participating in other sports. This item was considered important and relevant but lacking in clarity. One panelist noted, “I think this applies to a lot of team-oriented ball sports, such as baseball, soccer, and basketball. However, for some sports, such as gymnastics, tennis, and dance, they don't have an opportunity outside of the sport club.” Another panelist thought exclusivity with minimal time in other sports was acceptable: “Exclusivity: plays only 1 sport OR plays 1 main sport with very limited amount of time being spent on any other sports.” This item was removed after the second round when it became evident that consensus among panelists was unlikely. This topic may need to be revisited in the future.
Time Available for Other Activities
The final component supports the notion that specialization restricts the opportunities or time available for activities other than sports. Overall, this component received greater than 80% support for importance (94%), relevance (94%), and clarity (88%) from the panel in the first round. Still, efforts were made to improve the clarity in each subsequent round. Theoretically, missing time with friends may be a consequence of the travel associated with specialization and may lead to burnout. One way to combat this concern is to schedule breaks to allow athletes to regroup and relax. However, in competitive youth athletics, this can be very difficult. For example, club tryouts often occur the week after state high school championships. This scenario does not allow for breaks between seasons.
This is the first scientifically derived definition of youth sport specialization. Although we identified several limitations in applying this definition across different sports and populations, this process ultimately resulted in a strong consensus regarding the umbrella definition of specialization and its primary constituent elements. Future examination is needed to help improve the definition of sport specialization as youth sporting opportunities continue to evolve. Research related to intensity (months/year, hours/week, and age) will be particularly valuable. Several panelists commented about intensity: for example, “Intensity: plays that sport year-round (which we need to agree on and define in terms of number of months/year, but also should include minimum number of hours per week— since a kid who plays 1 sport 1–2 times/week for 12 months is probably not training intensively enough to be called specialized).” Ultimately, we did not see enough consensus to include specifics related to intensity beyond “regular organized practices, competitions, and/or other structured training.”
Another possible limitation is that the Delphi panel assembled for this process consisted mainly of individuals with sports medicine backgrounds in North America. Our panel was multidisciplinary with a strong history of publication in sports medicine and youth sport policies and coaching. Additionally, several panelists were physicians and were able to provide clinically relevant expertise to our definition. This was important for our group as we strived to develop a definition that not only furthers research in sport specialization but also aids sports medicine clinicians in their practice. Yet a limitation is that our panel consisted primarily of individuals residing in the United States (16/17 [94%]) and did not include public stakeholders who might have helped to improve the clarity of some of the components. The final limitation is that we had a small response for the final round. However, this focused only on a wording change.
CONCLUSIONS
A consensus-based conceptual definition for sport specialization has been developed using a Delphi method in which a group of multidisciplinary experts participated. The final consensus definition is as follows: Sport specialization is intentional and focused participation in a single sport for a majority of the year that restricts opportunities for engagement in other sports and activities. This definition provides an opportunity for researchers, clinicians, and other youth sport stakeholders to apply a consistent definition of youth sport specialization to clinical guidance, research, and policy. In summary, this consensus definition supports important discussions about the growing trend of sport specialization in youth.

Definition of sport specialization and its elements.
Contributor Notes