Craig Pickering

Sports Science Quarterly – Q4 2025

/by

Every quarter we take a deep dive into the latest research in sports science. In this edition we look at the latest research on putting together effective multidisiplinary support teams, REDs in sport, the limitations of sports science, and transfering theory into practice.

As always, the full Sports Science Quarterly is available exclusively to HMMR Plus Members. You can browse the past topics on our archive page. The first topic below is free to everyone, but sign up now to read about all the latest research. To get an idea of what Sports Science Quarterly is all about, the April 2016 edition is available in its entirety for free.

This Quarter’s Topics

Best practices for multidisciplinary support teams

Quick Summary – Multidisciplinary Teams (MDTs) are now standard in elite sport, bringing together coaches and performance staff to solve complex athlete problems through collective expertise. A recent study by King and colleagues found that while cognitive diversity improves decisions and outcomes, it can slow processes, creating a trade-off between speed and quality. Effective MDTs require clear role boundaries, open information sharing, psychological safety, and adaptability in the face of uncertainty—but these are often undermined by ego, poor behaviour, or power dynamics. The takeaway is that technical expertise alone isn’t enough; MDT effectiveness hinges on collaboration, trust, and the ability to navigate complexity with shared purpose.

Given the increase in roles within the sports science sphere, there has been an increased focus on how multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) can work effectively. Within most sports, MDTs are comprised of the various performance support providers, as well as the coach(es), and, in some cases, the athlete(s). The purported benefits of an MDT are that they allow for greater cross-functional problem-solving, which better supports athletes and teams in their pursuit of excellence. For example, if an athlete struggles to perform under pressure, then previously there would have been work done with the sports psychologist, often in a room away from the track, one-on-one. With MDTs, the goal now is that a number of people are working towards the same goal; the psychologist can still work with the athlete, but perhaps the skill acquisition expert can provide input on session design, and the coach can be aware of how they can use language to mitigate any perceived pressure from the athlete. Within elite sport, MDTs are now commonplace, although generally poorly researched within this setting. MDTs are well researched in other domains; healthcare, for example, is a setting in which they are well studied, given the potential high-stakes nature of their role.

Whilst a couple of previous research papers have explored MDTs in sport, a recent paper by Ryan King and colleagues, published in the Journal of Expertise, sought to explore how practitioners within an MDT approach their work in elite sport, specifically around how they collaborate and problem solve. This research is important, writes King, because we tend to assume that practitioners within an MDT inherently know how to collaborate effectively, which is a risky assumption. Based on the research to date, King and colleagues came up with four key assumptions around how MDT practitioners operate in applied contexts:

  • Practitioners work in teams with colleagues from different backgrounds – this is an important consideration, given that an MDT includes people from different areas of expertise, with different histories and experiences. A concern is that practitioners within an MDT typically hold a multitude of post-graduate and professional qualifications, which tend to be focused on technical excellence. Very limited time or attention is spent on developing the ability to work in combination with colleagues from other disciplines; as such, we run the risk of having a workforce of highly qualified practitioners, whose knowledge remains inaccessible, and their deep expertise does not translate into effective practice. In addition, many practitioners feel compelled (and indeed, maybe be professionally obligated to) work within the boundaries of their knowledge, as opposed to utilising true multidisciplinary thinking. A final barrier here is that each discipline may have its own domain-specific language, skills, and ways of working, which limits the ability for collaboration.
  • Practitioners who work in MDTs work together to solve complex problems and make difficult decisions – or at least, this is the goal. Achieving this requires a blend of cognitive and applied skills to understand the nature of the problems presented, and then the ability to apply effective solutions to solve them. Of course, the problems faced by many MDTs are not simple; they are usually volatile, uncertain, complex, chaotic, ambiguous, and wicked. The very nature of MDT work means that there are multiple interactions between multiple people, which introduces an ever-increasing number of variables and making the solution increasingly complex. The good news here is that, whilst complex, cognitive diversity within teams has been shown to yield more effective solutions to problems—highlighting the strength of the MDT.
  • Practitioner teams possess diverse skills and expertise that create better solutions than could be established in isolation – after having back surgery in 2012, I entered a residential rehabilitation program for a couple of weeks. Here, I was supported by physiotherapists, S&C coaches, physiologists, dieticians, psychologists, and soft tissue therapists, all with the clear goal of maximising my return to fitness. They worked together; if the physio spotted something, it was discussed with the S&C coach, who could develop an intervention to solve it; they then interacted with the dietician to discuss nutritional interventions to support their goal, and so on. The end result was bigger than the sum of its parts; the team of experts would have gotten good results working in isolation, but by working together on the same problem, in an integrated manner, the results were exponentially better. This communication process also prevents the issue of divergent goals; for example, if an S&C coach is working to build mass, but the dietician is working to reduce body weight, then the two are working against each other—meaning neither gets a good result. The complexities of human performance means that teams of cognitively diverse individuals can work together to innovate, evolve, and push boundaries.
  • Practitioners who work in MDTs effectively share expertise, collaborate, and work together to deliver effective solutions – a team can only work effectively together if the members of the team are open to sharing. This requires effective communication, which allows for the development of common language, shared mental models, and overall better collaboration. Barriers to effective communication include ego, unequal power dynamics, a lack of psychological safety, and imposter syndrome. As such, MDTs should seek to promote constructive conflict, psychological safety, the building of trust, and healthy debate.

King and his coauthors aimed to explore the above assumptions, to better understanding whether they were (or weren’t) valid. To do this, they recruited 28 practitioners (including 8 females) who worked as part of an MDT in elite sport. The practitioners then took part in one of five focus groups, where the group discussed prompting questions.

Based on the results, four key themes emerged. The first key theme was cognitive diversity is important, but not if it slows us down. As a general rule, practitioners from MDTs recognised the importance of diversity, believing that it lead to better decisions, solutions, and outcomes. As an example, one participant stated “the more diversity you have in an environment, then potentially the better number of perspectives you’re going to see a problem from, that helps you solve it a little bit better.” A diverse MDT was defined as one that had individuals from diverse backgrounds, including different areas of expertise, different types of experience, different skills, and different personalities. However, practitioners also highlighted a cost-benefit trade-off to diversity; diverse teams are generally bigger, and, as a result, slower. This is a problem when rapid results are important, but, again, the practitioners believed they could eventually go further, and achieve more, with greater diversity.

The second key theme was staying in your lane is encouraged, however sharing and collaboration is important. This theme related specifically to role clarity and shared understanding. Issues around information sharing related to confidentiality (e.g., medical problem or mental health issue), and over- vs under-sharing. A key purpose of information sharing was seen to be to create alignment, to ensure everyone is moving in the same direction. Alongside this, individuals within the MDT being clear on their role, and that of others, was seen as crucial, in part because it drives accountability to key outcomes.

The third key theme was we need psychological safety; however poor behaviour keeps getting in the way. As with any collection of people, MDTs will have people with different ranges of character and ego. The practitioners in this study highlighted the need for character traits to fit within the overall team make-up/culture to work togther effectively. A barrier to effective working is when practitioners seek to gatekeep their own domain, which doesn’t represent the reality of overlapping boundaries. Negative team dynamics were seen to leading to a negative working atmosphere, and negative team outcomes. It was also recognised that an aversion to constructive challenge and conflict was harmful to overall team performance. Related to this was the need to develop a psychologically safe environment, which practitioners feeling able to contribute freely, without the fear of making mistakes or experiencing imposter syndrome.

The fourth (and final) key theme was high confidence in a world of nuance and uncertainty; adaptability and context is key. This recognises that practitioners within an MDT must deal with uncertainty and risk when it comes to decision making, with a big element being deciding what level of risk each individual is comfortable with. Being adaptable in the face of uncertainty was also seen as crucial, with the ability to change direction in the face of new information.

What does all of this mean? Firstly, it’s clear that the members of an MDT need more than just high level technical skills. Being able to effectively work in a world that is continually muddied by uncertainty and risk, along with working closely with people (who may be challenging!) from different backgrounds and experiences adds a layer of complexity to the work of team members. The downside of this is that information is often used as “currency”, utilised in a transactional manner that can most benefit each individual team member. To address this, sharing information should be reframed as the continuous exchange of skills, expertise, perspectives, and values—driven by shared goals and a unified purpose. Within an MDT, learning often occurs through challenge, failure, and mistakes, meaning that psychological safety plays an important role in allowing the MDT to improve. If you’re involved within an MDT, and especially if you lead one, these are crucial considerations to enhance the overall effectiveness of the team.

Join Now to Keep Reading

This is just the beginning. To continue reading this article you must be a HMMR Plus member. Join now to get access to this and more content. Learn more and sign up here. If you are already a member, log in here.