Applying the 5Cs Framework to Elite Youth Tennis: Impact Factors in a Talent Development Environment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for this very interesting and well-conceived article. The manuscript is theoretically well grounded and demonstrates a strong and comprehensive engagement with relevant literature. While this breadth is a clear strength, a slight streamlining of the theoretical background may help improve overall conciseness and readability. The research focus and guiding questions are developed implicitly and are addressed convincingly in the discussion. The overall argumentation is logical and coherent.

To further strengthen the contribution, the discussion could benefit from a more critical reflection of the findings, for example through a deeper consideration of potential tensions or challenges within the programme or across stakeholder perspectives.

The concept of critical impact factors would benefit from conceptual clarification.

The description of participant selection could be expanded to improve methodological transparency. In particular, it would be helpful to clarify whether developmental stage played a role in participant selection and whether inclusion criteria were driven primarily by athlete characteristics, parental involvement, or both. Any limitations arising from these decisions should be acknowledged.

The future directions section is thoughtful and comprehensive but could gain in impact through clearer prioritisation and closer alignment with the core research focus.

Given the scope and complexity of the intervention, the manuscript would also benefit from a visual shematic to support readers understanding of the overall programme/ research process.

Finally, as the study involves an embedded practitioner-researcher, a brief clarification of how dual practitioner–researcher roles were managed analytically would further strengthen methodological rigor and transparency.

A few minor editorial issues should be addressed: in line 223, “mother” is declared as male. potential formatting issues should be checked e.g. is double spacing intended in lines 178, 259, 683, and 719.

Author Response

Please see the attachment where we provide our responses and signpost to all revisions. Many thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript: Applying the 5Cs Framework to Elite Youth Tennis: Critical Impact Factors in a Talent Development Environment

Summary

This manuscript reports a season-long, multi-modal psychosocial intervention implementing the 5Cs framework within a British Lawn Tennis Association Regional Player Development Centre. Using a collective case study design, the authors explore how athletes, parents, and coaches experienced the program and which “critical impact factors” supported or constrained its effectiveness. The study is timely and applied, given the increasing psychosocial demands and health of professional youth athletes, and it offers a practically useful account of how a sport psychology practitioner can coordinate an integrated, stakeholder-inclusive intervention.

General comments

A major strength is the study is ecological validity and relevance to real-world talent development. The intervention is delivered over 30 weeks, with the practitioner working alongside coaches and families, which aligns well with the pragmatic methodology and the paper’s emphasis on practical consequences and “what works” in context. The participant configuration (parent–athlete–coach triads) and focus on system-wide integration is particularly appropriate for youth tennis, where parent–coach communication and role clarity are frequently highlighted as determinants of effective support.

The manuscript describes in depth with transparency the intervention, which enhances potential replicability. The authors outline a co-designed planning process, a curriculum that progresses one “C” at a time, and a coherent set of coach, athlete, and parent strategies. The integration of coach development and individualised athlete support (profiling assessments repeated across the programme; “strategy cards” and personalised goal-setting) is described in a way that practitioners can readily use.

Methodologically, the paper is strengthened by qualitative methodology. Semi-structured interviews are conducted with all groups using thematic analysis.

Finally, the results are clearly structured around three higher-order themes that map convincingly onto programme design principles likely to matter in youth sport: (a) tennis specificity and individualisation, (b) developmental collaboration across the system, and (c) evidencing growth through accessible/innovative strategies. The emphasis on developmentally appropriate, engaging tools (e.g., “gamified” strategy cards and environmental prompts) is a practical contribution that many applied programmes struggle to operationalise.

Limitations and recommendations for improvement

1. Potential bias from the dual scientist–practitioner role and embedded delivery. The manuscript notes the risk of social desirability (participants responding in ways that “appease” the practitioner/researcher), and suggests future work using independent data collection. I recommend strengthening this discussion by explaining more explicitly how the team mitigated desirability in the interview context beyond role clarification (e.g., examples of prompts used to elicit critique; any negative case sampling logic), especially because the second author also led intervention delivery, data collection, and analysis.
2. Limited triangulation beyond self-report. While the programme included practice-based notes and case synopses, the main reported dataset is interview data at the end of the programme. The authors themselves highlight that the study was limited in objective observations of behaviours in training and competition. A constructive enhancement (without changing the design) would be to clarify how the practice-based notes informed interpretation (e.g., were they used to contextualize cases, check consistency, or prompt interview questions?), and to consider including a brief illustrative example of how notes contrasted with interview claims.
3. Evidence of change over time. The intervention included repeated profiling assessments (athlete and coach) across the programme, which is a notable strength of the programme design. However, it is not fully clear how these repeated assessments were analysed or used as evidence of “improvement” in this manuscript. If quantitative reporting is not intended, the authors could still add a short qualitative summary of patterns observed in profiling (e.g., typical directions of change, variability across cases), clearly labelled as descriptive, to better support the “evidencing growth” theme.

Minor issues

• Table 1 appears to contain a demographic inconsistency (e.g., “Clara” listed as “Mother” with gender “Male”). Please correct.
• The ethics and ongoing consent approach is well described but consider briefly clarifying whether any extracts were reviewed by participants prior to submission or only screened internally by the research team.
• p.13  talent development environment. Please correct to Talent Development Environment. (Abstract)
• p.18 range of athletes not athlete. Please correct (Abstract)
• pp.130-131. parents, athletes [i.e., players] and coaches. Please correct to Parents, Athletes [i.e., players] and Coaches

Overall recommendation

Overall, I consider this a strong applied contribution that extends the 5Cs framework into an individual-sport, youth tennis talent development context, with actionable guidance for practitioners and organisations. I recommend acceptance pending minor revisions, primarily focused on strengthening transparency around bias triangulation, clarifying the role of repeated profiling data, and correcting minor reporting issues.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment where we provide responses and signpost to all revisions. Many thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf