A central component of the Paralympic mission is to “ … enable Para athletes to achieve sporting excellence” (International Paralympic Committee, 2019, p. 21). Para sport classification systems per...

Fairness in sport is a widely shared meritocratic norm. Its application is usually restricted to equality of opportunity to compete for victory. Paralympic sports lay down a further challenge in that equality of opportunity must be shaped by considerations of fairness, evidenced by the development of discrete competition categories to construct fair and meaningful contests. In this article, we extend these philosophical ideas to consider how Fair Equality of Opportunity might operate in the context of Paralympic sports classification. We articulate three conceptions of fairness relevant to these sports: (i) background fairness; (ii) procedural fairness; and (iii) stakes fairness. We critically review the International Paralympic Committee's Policy on Sport Equipment in relation to the first two conceptions and argue that greater clarification, theorization and rule modification is required if physical prowess, as opposed to equipment technology, is to be assured as the dominant determinant of Paralympic athletic success.

The present paper describes the conceptual basis of evidence-based classification of para-athletes with intellectual impairment (II). An extensive description of the theoretical and conceptual foundation of the system as currently conceived is provided, as are examples of its applications in the three sports included in the Paralympic programme for II-athletes in 2020 (i.e., athletics, swimming and table tennis). Evidence-based classification for II-athletes is driven by two central questions: i. How can intellectual impairment be substantiated in a valid and reliable way, and ii. Does intellectual impairment limit optimal sport proficiency? Evolution of the system and current best practice for addressing these questions are described, and suggestions for future research and development are provided. Challenges of understanding and assessing a complex (multifaceted and intersectional) impairment in the context of sport also are considered.

The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) mandates Paralympic Sports to develop evidence-based classification systems that allocate athletes into ‘classes’ according to the impact of their impairment on sport-specific performance. In wheelchair-basketball, a panel of classifiers assesses athlete’s performance through observation. One key barrier to evidence-based classification is the absence of defined eligible impairments, including clear guidelines on how to assess them and their impact on wheelchair basketball performance. This study aims to reach expert consensus on issues specific to wheelchair basketball that can benefit from evidence-based classification. It offers recommendations for refining the classification manual, thus improving adherence to the IPC classification code. A three-round Delphi study was conducted with 29 experts in wheelchair basketball. The experts agreed with the new definition for the aim of wheelchair basketball classification, which is in line with the IPC code. Cases identified as having the highest risk for disagreement between classifiers included classifying players with upper limb deficiency or with impaired coordination. The panel failed to agree on changing the classification procedures and on defining the eligible impairment list. This study identifies issues specific to wheelchair basketball classification to be addressed in future research. Additional discussions need to take place to promote further resolution.

The aim of this study was to investigate the role of age and intellectual impairment (II) in decision-making in basketball. The current study investigated differences in decision making between equally well-trained adult basketball male players with intellectual impairment (players with II) (n = 93), adults without II (senior) (n = 44) and youth basketball players (under-14, n = 31; under-16, n = 25; under-18, n = 30). A computer test was developed composed by 20 photographs displaying various basketball game-situations, and participants had to decide as fast as possible what the player in ball possession should do: dribble, pass or shoot. Decision time and accuracy were recorded for every situation. Players with II had slower decision time (3.8 ± 1.8 s vs. 1.5 ± 0.5 s, p < 0.001) and less decision-making accuracy (15.7 ± 2.8 correct decisions vs. 17.9 ± 1.2 correct decisions, p < 0.001) compared to senior players without II. Discriminant analysis with speed and accuracy as independent variables classified 91.2% (CCA = 0.769) of the players correctly into their group: players with II or players without II. A Spearman correlation revealed that age correlated significantly (p < 0.001) with the number of correct decisions (rs = 0.269) and mean decision time (rs = −0.331). Our findings support that decision making in basketball develops with age and experience, but is significantly deteriorated in experienced adult players who have II. Decision-making should be considered as an important eligibility criterion to participate in competitive basketball events for male players with II.