Archery talent in schoolchildren: Asaribab 2015

One hundred and sixty pupils in the fifth and sixth year of primary school in Manokwari Regency, West Papua, were measured to see how many were suited to archery. They were 80 boys and 80 girls aged 10 to 12, with a mean age of 11.04 years in the boys, drawn from eight state and private schools taking part in the beginners' programme funded by Indosat.

The boys' means are: 34.78 sit-ups (from 19 to 45), 55.44 back-ups (from 30 to 79), 7.78 kg of arm pulling strength (from 3 to 16), 68.21 kg of leg strength (from 36 to 131.5), 52.94 kg of trunk strength (from 32 to 90.5) and 33.73 ml/kg/min of VO2max estimated from the multistage test (from 24.3 to 40.5). The shooting test, 18 arrows at 20 metres on an 80 cm face, gives a mean of 122.56 points (from 104 to 137, standard deviation 8.80). In the girls the shooting mean is 120.08 points (from 99 to 136) and VO2max runs from 25.3 to 39.5.

The results were converted into T-scores, added up and divided into five bands. Among the boys, 18 children (22.5%) fall in the top band, above 55.59, and another 18 (22.5%) in the second, between 50.75 and 55.59; among the girls it is 12 (15%) and 24 (30%). Hence the sentence the paper repeats in its conclusion: 45% of the boys and 45% of the girls come out as talented for archery.

The authors then compare these children with the 2009 Indosat-Perpani national evaluation, where the boys averaged 250 points (from 130 to 325) and the girls 243.6 (from 143 to 299), and compare VO2max with a reference table for children aged 11 to 14 in Jakarta (26.0 for boys, 24.5 for girls). They conclude that the Manokwari pupils, with no training behind them, are not far from already trained athletes.

A descriptive survey of a single group, with no comparison group and no follow-up. The sample was chosen on criteria set in advance: state and private primary schools that offer archery, pupils enrolled in the Indosat programme, boys and girls from the upper classes, written consent. There are eight schools, two in each of Manokwari's four districts.

The measurements took place in two parts of the same day. In the morning, from eight o'clock, five stations in sequence: height and weight; timed sit-ups and back-ups in groups of eight children; arm pulling strength on an expanding dynamometer held in front of the chest, leg strength on a leg dynamometer with the knees bent to about 45 degrees and trunk strength on a back dynamometer, all in kilograms and with the best of three attempts; then the 20-metre multistage test to a recorded signal, stopped after two missed arrivals, with VO2max read off a table. In the afternoon came the shooting test: standing on the line, feet shoulder width apart, 18 arrows on an 80 cm face, scoring from 10 down to 1 by ring and zero for a miss, with whatever technique the child had.

The analysis is entirely descriptive. Each raw result was converted into a T-score, the scores were added up, and the total was divided into five bands built on the mean and standard deviation of this same group, separately for boys and girls. No significance testing: only means, minima, maxima, counts and percentages.

The text contradicts itself on two points that matter. The shooting test is described once at 20 metres and once at 10 metres, both times on an 80 cm face; the sit-ups are given per minute in the abstract and the summary, but the description of the test says 30 seconds. Some figures also differ between tables and text: the boys' maximum sit-ups is 45 in the table and 49 in the summary, leg strength 131.5 and 132, the boys' shooting score 122.56 with a minimum of 104 in the table against 122.46 with a minimum of 102 in the text. This record uses the table values.

The comparison the conclusion rests on does not hold up. These children's 122 points come from 18 arrows at 20 metres, that is out of a possible 180; the 250 points of the national Indosat evaluation, with maxima up to 325, come from a different test that is never specified. Setting the two numbers side by side and saying that untrained children are nearly the equal of trained athletes is a step the data do not allow. In the same way VO2max is compared with a table of norms rather than with a group measured in the same way.

The proportion of talented children is a property of the chosen thresholds, not of the children. The bands are calculated from the mean and standard deviation of this very sample, so part of the group falls above the second threshold by construction: the 45% says where the cuts were placed, not how many children in Manokwari will become archers. No validity or reliability figures are given for the battery, and none of the children was followed over the years to see whether the classification predicted anything.

The equipment is missing (type of bow, draw weight, arrow length), as is each child's shooting experience and any account of their earlier preparation, although the paper speaks of untrained children. The authors themselves write that they looked only at the performance side and that intelligence, creativity and task commitment, the other two components of the talent model they cite, were left out. The paper is in Indonesian with an English abstract.

This is a talent identification study in children, not a performance study. For someone who shoots it changes nothing about technique, equipment or training: it only says that in a group of 160 Papuan children aged 10 to 12 you can measure strength, endurance and score, and then rank them from first to last.

The one figure that concerns shooting is what children with no specific preparation manage over 18 arrows at 20 metres on an 80 cm face: a mean of 122 points out of 180, with a little over 30 points between the lowest and the highest. None of these children was followed up, so there is no telling whether the high T-scores led anywhere.

For a coach working with the very young it remains an example of how a test battery was put together, not a selection rule to adopt. The sentence that circulates when this paper is cited, that 45% of children are talented for archery, depends on the thresholds the authors chose inside their own group and does not transfer to another field, another region or another age.