Abstract: This study assessed the reliability, diagnostic validity, and prognostic validity of the generic cognitive diagnostic test battery NeurOlympics in elite youth football players ( N = 57), aged 11 – 15 years. For reliability, players completed NeurOlympics twice over a 2-week period. For diagnostic validity, further age-matched sub-elite youth footballers ( n = 53) completed NeurOlympics once, and the performance of elite players was assessed using the Game Performance Evaluation Tool. For prognostic validity, coaches rated elite youth players after 1 year, and their performance level was assessed 2 years later. Results show marginal test–retest reliability for Test 4 (attention; r tt = .68) and for the global cognition score ( r tt = .63), whereas the other three sub-tests of NeurOlympics exhibited low reliability. While Test 3 (cognitive control), Test 4 (attention), and the global cognition score distinguished elite from sub-elite players, no significant association emerged within the homogeneous elite youth footballer sample with concurrent game performance or with prognostic criteria. The findings substantiate concerns about using generic cognitive assessments, such as NeurOlympics, for talent identification and selection in elite youth football.
Reinhard et al. (Thu,) studied this question.