1. Youth Soccer: Tactical Player Development
Brad Camp
MTSU 12/4/13

2. Background: Youth Player Development
Recently, research has shown youth sport participation doesn’t guarantee positive outcomes for athletes (Fraser-Thomas, & Côté, 2006).
In light of such findings, researchers have worked to improve player development policies (Côté, Baker & Abernethy, 2003; Bayli, 2001).
The governing bodies of American youth soccer have been influenced by such research, and are currently implementing progressive strategies in player development (Snow, 2012; USSF, n.d.).

3. The Four Components of Soccer (Snow, 2012)
Player Performance
Technique
Psychology
Tactics
Fitness

4. Project Problem
The United States Soccer Federation (USSF) has placed much emphasis on some components, i.e. technical development (USSF, 2012).
American youth soccer athletes lack tactical sophistication, creativity, and intelligence when compared to their international opponents (Tony DiCicco, World Cup Winner, 2010).
h?v=bZak9Kqrubw

5. Project Purpose
To investigate the effectiveness of “quizzes” developed by the National Soccer Coaches’ Association of America (NSCAA) aimed at developing players situational awareness and decision-making skills (NSCAA, 2013).
Specifically, I hoped to understand what items were too easy or too difficult for participants, but also what items discriminated well between the upper and lower groups.
This project was meant to be a sort of pilot test for a future study. I aimed to ‘tryout’ items for future implementation.

6. Method 38 youth soccer athletes were surveyed.
Entry level, small group decision making items were selected for inclusion in the survey. Such decision making abilities should be taught at these ages (Snow, 2013; USSF, n.d.).
There were 10 items total.
Item analysis was conducted on the data using ITEMAN.

7. Results Item Item Difficulty Item Discrimination 1 .77 .40 2 .59 .53 3
.67
.20 4
.49
.47 5
.38
.00 6
.62 7
.64 8
.74 9
.72
.33 10
.28

8. Results Item 10 displayed a .28 item difficulty level.
Item 5 had an unacceptable item discrimination at .00.
Item 3 displayed a borderline .20 item discrimination level.

9. Item 10 Problems: -Choices 1,2, & 3 are in more space than choice 4
all facing the goal
-Playing forward is
preferred, but the other
choices have space to
go forward once in
possession

10. Item 5 Problems: -Similarity between choices 1 & 2. -Choice 3 allows
teammate space.
-To create an attempt
on goal, there are three
good choices.

11. Item 3 Problems: -Option 1 & 2 are very similar -Both options are goal
attempts, and an
argument could be made
for a near or far post
effort

12. Conclusions
For the most part, these entry items selected appear appropriate.
There were individuals who had more years of training, so the items’ ability to discriminate was sensible.
Problem items should be dropped or revised.
Problem items were contradictory at times. For example, soccer development literature stresses finding space to dribble, pass, or move into (Snow, 2012), but problem items often discouraged that in favor of choices that have more complex reasoning.
Thus more complex ideas may not be advisable for younger athletes, as they play on smaller fields with less players, and therefore have less complexity in decision making.

13. Future Work
Future studies should take all the acceptable items and survey U10-U12 players. This is the age where introducing small group decision making is advised (Snow, 2012).
Future studies should provide more complex questions in addition to acceptable items to more advanced players.
After conducting a study of worthy numbers, one might be able to make suggestions to American soccer player development.
Administer questions that also investigate defending decisions.

14. Limitations Extremely small sample size
Geographic and personal aspects of participants
Different analysis may have produced more clear results