The perceived value of athlete monitoring systems (AMS) has recently been questioned. Poor perceptions of AMS are important, because where practitioners lack confidence in monitoring their ability to influence programming, and performance is likely diminished. To address this, researchers have primarily sought to improve factors related to monitoring metrics, e.g., validity rather than socio-environmental factors, e.g., buy-in. Seventy-five practitioners (response rate: n = 30) working with Olympic and Paralympic athletes were invited to take part in a survey about their perceptions of AMS value. Fifty-two per cent (n = 13) was confident in the sensitivity of their athlete self-report measures, but only 64% (n = 16), indicated their monitoring was underpinned by scientific evidence. A scientific base was associated with improved athlete feedback (rS (23) = 0.487, p =0.014*) and feedback correlated with athlete monitoring adherence (rS (22) = 0.675, p = <0.001**). If athletes did not complete their monitoring, 52% (n = 13) of respondents felt performance might be compromised. However, most respondents 56% (n = 14), had worked with internationally successful athlete(s) who did not complete their monitoring. While AMS can be a useful tool to aid performance optimisation, its potential value is not always realised. Addressing socio-environmental factors alongside metric-factors may improve AMS efficacy.
Keywords: Highly trained; confidence; metric; monitoring; self-report; training.