@emmapetancevski @NovakSportSci @JobFran @JobFran3

- Always open to discussing these results further!💬 - For more, see the link at the top of the thread or on ResearchGate - Link:

- Overrepresentation of football (soccer) studies in the current literature may limit generalisability to other invasion games, particularly those where the context around decisions can be very different (ie football vs rugby).

Our study had some significant limitations which need to be considered. 🚨 - First, the limited number of studies specifically on females limits the generalisability of our findings to female populations.

- Finally, the vast range of decision-making assessments available to team invasion game scientists and practitioners in the current literature no doubt presents a challenge when trying to determine which assessment would be most effective for their specific circumstances.

- Additionally, the development of robust notational tools in several sports may allow for more comparable results in the future. 🔎

- Emerging technologies may bridge the gaps that exists between lab settings and field-based tasks. - Portable eye tracking for instance, can allow more high-fidelity information to be collected in situ allowing for greater understanding of the processes involved.

- Many options for those looking to assess decision making in their players. - Classification can make screening and selecting these tests easier.

What does this mean for sport scientists and sports practitioners? 👇👇

- Most common constraint considered was task constraints (85%), compared to individual constraints (68%) and environmental constraints (9%). - This may indicate that task constraints are generally easier to implement in tasks (i.e. changing rules, game conditions etc.).

- In terms of representative task design, 35% of tasks were classified as controlled lab compared to 33% being classified as open in situ. - Interestingly, all studies featuring open in situ task designs were published after 2010.

- 43% of studies included sport specific perception components (i.e. responding to other players). 👀 - 59% contained sport-specific action components (i.e. a kick or throw). 🏃‍♂️ - 39% of studies contained both.

- Studies had n of 8 - 385 participants. - Tasks with more participants were more likely to be laboratory-based (e.g. responding to a video by pressing a button) highlighting logistical difficulties of collecting field-based data in large cohorts.

- Football (soccer) was studied most (70%). ⚽️ - Most studies involved male players (68%). ♂️ - Only three studies featured females only. ♀️

Here is what we observed from the 47 papers included 👇👇

We extracted (along with descriptive data): 1. Outcome measures. 2. Perception and action components of the task. 3. Constraints present in the task. 4. Task category (continuum from controlled lab to open in situ).

Inclusion critera: 1. Sample of male or female players between 12 and 18 yrs. 2. Sample from any level of performance. 3. Originate from a team invasion game.

Here is what we did 👇👇 - 3 databases were searched (PubMed, WoS, SportDISCUS). - No limits were placed on publication year, language or publication type to minimse the risk of systematic bias.

We systematically reviewed the literature around team invasion games to study how these decision making assessments aligned with the central tenets of the Ecological Dynamics conceptual framework such as perception-action coupling, constraints, and representative task design.

With @emmapetancevski , @NovakSportSci and @JobFran Link: https://t.co/EcnrodaRI3 Details Below 👇