ReviewSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Ecological Dynamics as an Accurate and Parsimonious Contributor to Applied Practice: A Critical Appraisal.
Review in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adaptive Athlete Management in Youth Football: A Developmentally Informed Framework for Applied Practice.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Sprint Running Coordination: A Dynamical Systems Perspective.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- Psychological readiness mediates performance transfer in constraints-led, game-based basketball training: evidence from a quasi-experimental study.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- From tracking data to ecologically grounded tactical indicators: a conceptual validation procedure for team invasion sports.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Self-video modeling combined with self-feedback in youth sport: an opinion on cognitive load, attention, and learning design.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With sport coaches adopting and working toward increasingly evidence-grounded approaches to practice, skill acquisition has appropriately become a critical area for consideration. As part of this growing interest in skill acquisition, the ecological dynamics approach has garnered attention amongst scholars and practitioners with myriad media (e.g. peer-reviewed articles, books, podcasts and social-media outputs) extolling its benefits. In doing this, however, the available guidance, advice and scholarship have typically positioned ecological dynamics as a direct competitor to existing or traditional cognitive approaches, advising against practical integration of approaches due to theoretical incompatibility. As a standalone approach, we are concerned that there are mechanistic and epistemological issues and inconsistencies that prevent experimental comparisons and limit its applicability, novelty and capability to comprehensively address real-world athlete and coach needs. Based on this, in this Current Opinion paper, we lay out these concerns and critically examine the clarity, coherence and consistency of the approach and its associated literature. In concluding, we also suggest that a more evidence-based and mechanistically driven approach that draws upon a wider set of theoretical perspectives can offer greater benefit to athletes, coaches and practitioners in real-world sport.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.