Wonderlic test

The Wonderlic Contemporary Cognitive Ability Test (formerly Wonderlic Personnel Test) is a popular assessment used to measure the cognitive ability and problem-solving aptitude of prospective employees for a range of occupations. It is a proprietary assessment created and distributed by Wonderlic. It consists of 50 multiple choice questions to be answered in 12 minutes.[1][2][3][4] The test was developed by Eldon F. Wonderlic (1909–1980),[5] while he was a graduate student at Northwestern University.[3][6][7] The score is calculated as the number of correct answers given in the allotted time. A score of 20 is intended to indicate average intelligence.[3]

"Wonderlic" redirects here. For the Los Angeles-based rock band, see Wonderlick.

Wonderlic Personnel Test (WPT-R)
TypeMultiple choice questions
Developer / administratorWonderlic, Inc.
Knowledge / skills testedMath, vocabulary, and reasoning
PurposeAssessing cognitive ability and problem-solving aptitude of prospective employees
Year started1936 (1936)
Duration12 minutes
Score / grade range0–50 (1 point per question; score of 20 intended to represent average intelligence)
Languages12 different languages
Scores / grades used byProspective employers; notably administered at the NFL Scouting Combine
VariantsWonderlic Personnel Test – Quicktest (WPT-Q); Wonderlic Scholastic Level Exam (SLE); WonScore
Websitewww.wonderlic.com
Part of a series on
Psychology
Basic types
Applied psychology
Lists
  •  Psychology portal

The most recent version of the test is WonScore, a cloud-based assessment providing a single score to potential employers based on scientific research.[8][9] The Wonderlic test was based on the Otis Self-Administering Test of Mental Ability with the goal of creating a short form measurement of cognitive ability.[1][4][10]

History

Created in 1936 by E. F. Wonderlic, the Wonderlic Personnel Test was the first short-form cognitive abilities test.[3][11] It was developed to measure general cognitive ability in the areas of math, vocabulary, and reasoning.[3][11] Wonderlic created and distributed it as a graduate student in the psychology department at Northwestern University from his home.[12][11] Regarding the time allotted to take the test, Eldon F. Wonderlic, in an article released in 1939, stated the following: "The length of the test was made such that only about two to five per cent of average groups complete the test in the twelve-minute time limit."[4]

Originally designed to aid in employee selection of companies such as AT&T[13] and Oscar Meyer in the 1940s, the Wonderlic Personnel Test has also been used by both the United States Armed Forces and the National Football League for selection purposes. During World War II, the Navy began using the Wonderlic Personnel Test to select candidates for pilot training and navigation. During this time period, 1940–1960, it was supplied for free as the data was so valuable to E. F. Wonderlic. He wanted to perfect the test, not charge for it. In the 1970s Tom Landry, coach of the Dallas Cowboys, was the first to use the Wonderlic Personnel Test to predict player performance.[3] It is still used in the annual NFL Combine as a form of pre-draft assessment.[3][11] In short, it attempts to screen candidates for certain jobs within the shortest possible time. It may be termed as a quick IQ test.[14]

See also: Intelligence quotient and Personnel selection

The Wonderlic test is continually being updated with repeated evaluations of questions.[6][15] Also, beginning in the 1970s, Wonderlic began to develop other forms of the Wonderlic Personnel some of which include: Wonderlic Perceptual Ability Tests, Wonderlic Scholastic Level Exam, or the Wonderlic Contemporary Cognitive Ability Test.

Types

The tests are divided into three different sections: cognitive ability, personality, and motivation.

Cognitive Ability

Released in the 1990s, the Wonderlic Personnel Test measures an individual's capability of solving problems and learning. The Wonderlic Personnel test is divided into two different forms of test: the Wonderlic Personnel Test – Quicktest (30 questions in 8 minutes) and the Wonderlic Personnel Test (50 questions, 12 minutes). The Wonderlic Personnel Test-Quicktest differs from the Wonderlic Personnel Test in that it is not proctored giving employers a general idea of the potential applicant's cognitive ability. The Wonderlic Personnel Test is a much more comprehensive test.[16][17]

The Wonderlic SLE is the scholastic version of the Wonderlic Personnel Test and is commonly administered to nursing school and medical program applicants.[18]

Personality

The Wonderlic Personality tests measure personal characteristics that are widely accepted as being predictive of a candidate's expected job performance. Wonderlic claims that using the Wonderlic Personality Test to select individuals whose traits are aligned with the demands of the position, employers can improve employee productivity, employee satisfaction and customer service while reducing recruitment costs and employee turnover.[19]

Added during the 1990s, the Wonderlic Personality Test contains two sections. The Wonderlic Five-Factor Personality Profile and the Wonderlic Seven-Factor Personality Profile. The Wonderlic Five-Factor Personality Profile tests individuals on five primary dimensions of the individual's personality: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability/neuroticism, and openness to experience.[20] These are essentially the same constructs as the Big Five personality traits, also known as the Five Factor Model.

Motivation

Averaging 10–15 minutes, the 58-item assessment is based on leading workplace motivation model, Holland/RIASEC. It evaluates a candidate’s interests, which helps predict how motivated they will be by the actual responsibilities of the job. The more motivated they are by those responsibilities, the likelier they will succeed in that position.[21]

Sample questions

Similar to other standardized tests, the Wonderlic Cognitive Ability Test presents its questions in an open response.[4] The types of questions that have appeared in the oldest versions of the Wonderlic test include: analogies, analysis of geometric figures, arithmetic, direction following, disarranged sentences, judgment, logic, proverb matching, similarities, and word definitions. However, the questions may take different angles depending upon the ‘intelligence’ of the question setters. [4][12][14] Practice questions will include:

  • If a piece of rope cost 20 cents per 2 feet, how many feet can you buy for 30 dollars?
  • Which of the numbers in this group represents the smallest amount? a) 0.3 b) 0.08 c) 1 d) 0.33
  • A high-speed train travels 25 feet in 1/3 second. In 4 seconds, the train will have traveled __?__ feet.[22]
  • A clock lost 2 minutes and 36 seconds in 78 days. How many seconds did it lose per day?[22]

Application to industrial-organizational psychology
See also: Industrial and organizational psychology

The Wonderlic test, as a vocational and intelligence test, falls under the field of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. As a personnel test the Wonderlic is used to gauge an applicant's job potential, educational potential, and training potential.[23] Six forms of this test are made available (A, B, C, D, E, and F) in which Wonderlic suggests that when two of these versions are to be used, the best combinations are A and B or D and F.[24] However, a study conducted by psychologists Kazmier and Browne (1959) shows that neither of these forms can be regarded as directly equivalent.[24] While there is no lack of tests that could be used in place of the Wonderlic, such as the IQ or the Mechanical Aptitude Test, it is a quick and simple vocational test for personnel recruitment and selection.[15] The Wonderlic test has been peer reviewed by the American Psychological Association and has been deemed worthy of field applications to the industrial use of personnel testing.[25] Other sources can be found on the database APA PsycNET.[26]

Reliability
See also: Reliability (statistics)

In 1956, Weaver and Boneau reported in the Journal of Applied Psychology that two of the five forms, A and B, that were published at the time were harder than the others which caused scores on those forms to be significantly lower than scores obtained on forms C–F.[2] Concerning these observed differences, Weaver and Boneau state: "This accords with the history of the development of the test. Forms D, E, and F are made up of items selected from the Otis Higher, while A and B were developed later and include types of items not found in the Otis."[2] Those findings, seemingly, invalidate the claim that those forms were equivalent or consistent.[2] E. N. Hay made a similar observation as well. Hay found that form F was significantly easier than Form D.[27] Furthermore, Kazmier found Form B to be the most difficult of the five forms and, thus, recommended that it "not be regarded as directly equivalent to any of the forms."[10] Kazmier also found Forms D and F to be significantly different from each other and recommended that these forms be regarded as inequivalent.[10] In a study of the Wonderlic's test-retest reliability, conducted in 1992, Stuart McKelvie "concluded that conscious repetition of specific responses did not seriously inflate the estimate of test-retest reliability."[28] To put it simply, one's memory of some of the answers does not significantly affect one's score on the Wonderlic.[28]

In 1982, Carl Dodrill conducted a study in which 57 adults were administered the Wonderlic twice over a five-year period. In the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Dodrill reported that the test-retest reliability for the Wonderlic was .94.[29] According to a 1989 article in Psychological Reports, the Wonderlic scored a r=.87 on the reliability scale compared along with the Pearson test score of r=.21.[30]

Validity
See also: Validity (statistics)

In an article written in Psychological Reports, T. Matthews and Kerry Lassiter report that the Wonderlic test "was most strongly associated with overall intellectual functioning," which is what it is purported to measure.[30] However, Matthews and Lassiter did not find the Wonderlic to be a successful measure of fluid and crystallized intelligence, and they stated that "the Wonderlic test scores did not clearly show convergent or divergent validity evidence across these two broad domains of cognitive ability."[30] In academic testing, the Wonderlic test has shown high correlations with aptitude tests such as the General Aptitude Test Battery.[30]

However, a more recent study by Kenny Hicks and co-workers concluded that evidence concerning the test's validity was limited. Their own research showed "that Wonderlic has no direct relationship to fluid intelligence once its commonality to working memory capacity is accounted for", and that the Wonderlic "was a significant predictor of working memory capacity for subjects with low fluid intelligence, but failed to discriminate as well among subjects with high fluid intelligence".[31]

Jordan v. New London

In May 1997, Robert Jordan filed a lawsuit against the city of New London, Connecticut, alleging violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States and Connecticut constitutions, in a case that was referred to by several media outlets as "Too Smart To Be A Cop",[32][33] based on the city's application of scores generated by the Wonderlic test.

Jordan was born and raised in New London, and had previous experience in law enforcement, working as a part-time officer in near-by Groton Long Point, and as a seasonal officer for the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. In fall 1996, Jordan requested an interview with Keith Harrigan, New London's Assistant City Manager in charge of personnel. Harrigan informed Jordan that he was ineligible because he scored too high on the written portion of the Wonderlic test intended to evaluate cognitive ability. New London had decided to consider only applicants who scored between 20 and 27 on the written examination. Jordan scored a 33 on the exam, the equivalent of having an IQ of 125.

Jordan filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, where his case was dismissed by Judge Peter C. Dorsey, who noted: "The guarantee of equal protection under the Fifth Amendment is not a source of substantive rights or liberties, but rather a right to be free from invidious discrimination in statutory classifications and other governmental activity. It is well settled that where a statutory classification does not itself impinge on a right or liberty protected by the Constitution, the validity of the classification must be sustained unless the classification rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of [any legitimate government] objective....[Jordan] may have been disqualified unwisely but he was not denied equal protection."[34] The dismissal was upheld on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Central tendency of Wonderlic scores
See also: Central tendency

Serving as a quantitative measure for employers, scores are collected by the employers and the applicant's score may be compared to a professional standard, as is the case with security guards or, simply, compared to the scores of other applicants who happen to be applying for the same or similar positions at that time.[23] Each profession has its own, unique, average; therefore, different professions require different standards.[4][23] Wonderlic, Inc. claims a minimum score of 10 points suggests a person is literate.[12]

Median score by profession

Listed are a sample of median scores by profession on the Wonderlic test from 1983. The scores are listed in descending numerical order, and professions with the same score have been alphabetized.[23]

Average score in the NFL by position

The Wonderlic test is used in the NFL Scouting Combine. Paul Brown introduced the test to the league in the late 1960s.[35] According to Paul Zimmerman's The New Thinking Man's Guide to Pro Football, the average score of an NFL player according to position is the following:[36]

An average football player usually scores around 20 points.[12] Quarterbacks and offensive linemen usually have higher scores.[35] Most teams want at least 21 for a quarterback.[37]

Some notable players who scored well below the average include:

Some notable players who scored well above the average include:

Predictor of success in the NFL

John P. Lopez of Sports Illustrated proposed a 26–27–60 rule to predict a quarterback's success in the NFL (at least a 26 on the Wonderlic, at least 27 college starts, and at least 60% pass completion) and listed several examples of successes and failures based on the rule.[73] A 2005 study by McDonald Mirabile found that there is no significant correlation between a quarterback's Wonderlic score and a quarterback's passer rating, and no significant correlation between a quarterback's Wonderlic score and a quarterback's salary.[74] Similarly, a 2009 study by Brian D. Lyons, Brian J. Hoffman, and John W. Michel found that Wonderlic scores failed to positively and significantly predict future NFL performance, draft position, or the number of games started for any position.[75][35] Lyons said that Wonderlic's "limited return on investment" for the NFL is contrary to general mental ability being a very strong predictor of job performance for most careers; "because it's so physically based, the results point to that [GMA] really doesn't matter".[35] Donovan McNabb, whose score[52] was the lowest of the five quarterbacks taken in the first round of the 1999 NFL Draft, had the longest and most successful career.[76]

The Lyons study also found that the relationship between Wonderlic test scores and future NFL performance was negative for a few positions, indicating the higher a player scores on the Wonderlic test, the worse the player will perform in the NFL.[75] According to Pat McInally, who was selected by the Cincinnati Bengals in the fifth round of the 1975 NFL Draft, George Young told him that his perfect score caused him to be selected later than he would have otherwise.[77] NFL reporter Matt Verderame reported that New England Patriots offensive lineman Joe Thuney avoided answering Wonderlic questions so he would not score too high.[78] McInally speculated that "coaches and front-office guys don't like extremes one way or the other, but particularly not on the high side. I think they think guys who are intelligent will challenge authority too much".[72] Mike Florio of Profootballtalk.com agreed with McInally:[79]

Scoring too high can be as much of a problem as scoring too low. Football coaches want to command the locker room. Being smarter than the individual players makes that easier. Having a guy in the locker room who may be smarter than every member of the coaching staff can be viewed as a problem – or at a minimum as a threat to the egos of the men who hope to be able when necessary to outsmart the players, especially when trying in some way to manipulate them.

Job performance in the NFL also includes deviance. A 2016 study found that the Wonderlic significantly predicted future arrests—referred to as criminal off-duty deviance—in NFL draftees.[80]

A simplified and condensed version of the Wonderlic test appears in newer editions of the Madden NFL video game series.[3] The Madden version of the test is taken in "Superstar Mode" portion of the game, to make the game experience more realistic, although, it is now optional.[81][82] The questions usually consist of basic math and English questions. For example, "If Adrian Peterson rushes for 125 yards in a game, how many yards will he have at the end of the season if he keeps up with this pace?". Players have four answers to choose from when taking this version of the test.[83]

References
  1. Aiken, L. R. (1998). Tests and Examinations: Measuring abilities and performance. New York: John Wiley & Sons. p. 293. ISBN 978-0-4711-9263-3.
  2. Weaver, H. B.; Boneau, C. A. (1956). "Equivalence of Forms of the Wonderlic Personnel Test: A Study of Reliability and Interchangeability". Journal of Applied Psychology. 40 (2): 127–129. doi:10.1037/h0047065.
  3. Pollick, Michael. "What is the Wonderlic Personnel Test". www.wisegeek.com. Retrieved March 29, 2012.
  4. Wonderlic, E. F.; Hovland, C. I. (December 1939). "The Personnel Test: a restandardized abridgment of the Otis S-A test for business and industrial use". Journal of Applied Psychology. 23 (6): 685–702. doi:10.1037/h0056432.
  5. "Eldon Wonderlic in Social Security Death Index". Fold3. Retrieved January 25, 2021.
  6. "History". wonderlic.com. Retrieved May 14, 2012.
  7. Schulte, Melanie; Ree, M. J ., Carretta, T.R. (2004). "Emotional Intelligence: not much more than g and personality". Personality and Individual Differences. 37 (5): 1059–1068. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2003.11.014.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  8. "WonScore by Wonderlic Review" Finances Online. Retrieved 2020-03-05.
  9. "Newton Partners With Wonderlic for Pre-Hire Assessments" Newton Software. Retrieved 2020-03-05.
  10. Kazmier, Leonard J.; Browne, C .J. (1959). "Comparability of Wonderlic Test Forms in Industrial Testing". Journal of Applied Psychology. 43 (2): 129–132. doi:10.1037/h0045688.
  11. "History". wonderlic.com. 2012.
  12. Merron, Jeff (2007). "Taking Your Wonderlics". espn.go.com.
  13. "How A Multiple-Choice Test Became A Fixture Of The NFL Draft" Five Thirty Eight. Retrieved 2020-03-05.
  14. "Personality and Aptitude Career Tests. (2004). "Wonderlic personnel test: A short and quick iq test". personality-and-aptitude-career-tests.com. Retrieved November 20, 2012.
  15. Lindzey, Gardner (November 1, 1949). "Remarks on the use of the Wonderlic Personnel Test as a 'pre-test.'". Journal of Clinical Psychology. Retrieved March 8, 2012.
  16. "Ready. Test. Go". Wonderlic. Retrieved December 8, 2012.
  17. "Wonderlic Test – Cognitive Ability Test". All Practice Test. Retrieved April 12, 2012.
  18. "What Is the Wonderlic?". Beat the Wonderlic. Retrieved March 13, 2017.
  19. "Wonderlic". Retrieved July 23, 2012.
  20. "Description of Five Factor Model". Retrieved April 10, 2012.
  21. "Motivation" Wonderlic.com. Retrieved 2020-03-15.
  22. "Free Wonderlic Practice Test - 50 Questions, 12 Minutes". Beat the Wonderlic. Retrieved March 13, 2017.
  23. Wonderlic Personnel Test Manual. Northfield, IL: E.F. Wonderlic & Associates, INC. 1983.
  24. Kazmier, L.J. & Browne C.G.(1959). Comparability of Wonderlic test forms in industrial testing. Journal of Applied Psychology. 43(2):129–132.
  25. Dobrill, Carl; Warner, Holly (February 1988). "Further studies of the Wonderlic Personnel Test as a brief measure of intelligence". Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 56 (1): 145–147. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.56.1.145. PMID 3346441.
  26. "PsycNET". psycnet.apa.org.
  27. Hay, E. N. (1952). "Some research findings with the Wonderlic Personnel Test". Journal of Applied Psychology. 36 (5): 344–345. doi:10.1037/h0061766.
  28. McKelvie, Stuart J. (January 1992). "Does memory contaminate test-retest reiliability". Journal of General Psychology. 119 (1): 59–72. doi:10.1080/00221309.1992.9921158. PMID 1613489.
  29. Dodrill, Carl (1983). "Long-Term Reliability of the Wonderlic Personnel Test". Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 51 (2): 316–317. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.51.2.316.
  30. Matthews, T; Kerry S. Lassiter (2007). "What Does the Wonderlic Personnel Test Measure?". Psychological Reports. 100 (3): 707–712. doi:10.2466/pr0.100.3.707-712. PMID 17688083. S2CID 41253312.
  31. Hicks, K. L., Harrison, T. L., & Engle, R. W. (2015). Wonderlic, working memory capacity, and fluid intelligence. Intelligence, 50, 186-195https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.03.005.
  32. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/too-smart-to-be-a-cop/
  33. https://slate.com/business/2013/05/too-smart-to-be-a-cop.html
  34. http://www.aele.org/apa/jordan-newlondon.html
  35. Ledbetter, D. Orlando (March 6, 2010). "NFL's success using Wonderlic Test subject to interpretation". Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Archived from the original on May 27, 2010. Retrieved May 14, 2012.
  36. Zimmerman, Paul (1984). The New Thinking Man's Guide to Pro Football. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 9780671453947. The New Thinking Man's Guide to Pro Football.
  37. Pompei, Dan (April 19, 2010). "Notre Dame's Clausen wild card in NFL draft". Chicago Tribune.
  38. mjdeadspin. "If Your Wonderlic Score Is Lower Than Your Jersey Number..."
  39. Florio, Mike (April 3, 2012). "Claiborne gives birth to a four on the Wonderlic". NBC Sports. NBC Universal.
  40. "Manningham is a test case".
  41. Dougherty, Pete (March 1, 2006). "Will Wonderlic cause teams to wonder about Young?". USA Today. Retrieved September 13, 2016.
  42. McShay: Young's test score creates quite a buzz KABC-TV February 27, 2006.
  43. McGinn, Bob (April 17, 2013). "Tennessee's Cordarrelle Patterson has plenty of talent and question marks". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Archived from the original on November 4, 2013. Retrieved November 12, 2013.
  44. "Memorable Wonderlic Scores". Sports Illustrated. February 25, 2013. Archived from the original on November 12, 2013. Retrieved September 13, 2016.
  45. "Carlos Hyde profile". NFL Draft Scout. The Sports Xchange. Archived from the original on May 2, 2014. Retrieved May 11, 2014.
  46. "Travis Henry profile". NFL Draft Scout. The Sports XChange. Archived from the original on September 28, 2007. Retrieved November 12, 2013.
  47. Lyons, Brett. "NFL Combine 2012: 10 of the Most Pathetic Wonderlic Scores Ever". Bleacher Report. Retrieved August 19, 2017.
  48. "Memorable Wonderlic Scores". SI.com. Retrieved August 19, 2017.
  49. "Notable Wonderlic scores from past NFL Combines".
  50. "Inside NFL's Wonderlic Test – And Why It Matters". April 12, 2014.
  51. "Wonderlic test scores of 2018 NFL Draft QBs leaked". April 3, 2018.
  52. "Wonderlic Scores Leak For 2013 Quarterbacks". April 23, 2013.
  53. ESPN.com news services (May 17, 2010). "Report: Tebow below average on test". ESPN. Retrieved January 12, 2013.
  54. "2019 NFL Draft Class Wonderlic Test Scores | WTS". Retrieved November 22, 2019.
  55. "2020 NFL Draft: Wonderlic test scores revealed".
  56. "Matthew Stafford". Pro Football Reference. Sports Reference LLC. Retrieved January 18, 2013.
  57. "2020 NFL Draft: Herbert score higher than reported".
  58. Robinson, Charles (March 16, 2005). "Pro day report: Alex Smith". Yahoo! Sports. Oath Holdings Inc. ("Yahoo"). Retrieved March 21, 2018.
  59. Eckel, Mark (April 22, 2016). "2016 NFL Draft: What was Carson Wentz's Wonderlic score?". NJ.com. New Jersey On-Line LLC. Retrieved September 14, 2017.
  60. "Calvin Johnson". Pro Football Reference. Sports Reference LLC. Retrieved January 23, 2013.
  61. "Historical NFL Wonderlic Scores". Archived from the original on September 2, 2016. Retrieved August 23, 2017.
  62. "Blaine Gabbert". Pro Football Reference. Sports Reference LLC. Retrieved January 18, 2013.
  63. "Gardner Minshew". Pro Football Reference. Sports Reference LLC. Retrieved October 9, 2019.
  64. Fortenbaugh, Joe (March 16, 2010). "Minnesota's Decker scores a 43 on the Wonderlic: The Golden Gopher lands the highest score at the combine". National Football Post. Reign Net Media, LLC. Archived from the original on January 7, 2014.
  65. Kausler, Don Jr. (March 9, 2011). "Ex-Tide QB Greg McElroy learns he scored a 43, not a 48, on NFL's Wonderlic test". AL.com. Tuscaloosa, Alabama: Alabama Media Group.
  66. "John Urschel". NFL.com. NFL Enterprises LLC. Retrieved May 10, 2014.
  67. Clements, Ron (May 25, 2016). "Ravens guard John Urschel's straight-A streak continues at MIT". Sporting News. Sporting News Media. Retrieved June 9, 2016.
  68. Reynolds, Jeff (April 11, 2014). "What to make of Johnny Manziel's 32 score on the Wonderlic?". CBS Sports. Retrieved September 9, 2014.
  69. ""Harvard Guy" Ryan Fitzpatrick Rides High in the NFL". Harvard Magazine. September 26, 2011. Archived from the original on November 12, 2013. Retrieved November 12, 2013.
  70. Brown, Clifton (April 9, 2012). "Wonderlic whiz Benjamin Watson questions value of test". Sporting News. Archived from the original on November 2, 2013. Retrieved November 12, 2013.
  71. Kotala, Carl (April 16, 2006). "Wonderlic reaches well beyond NFL". USA Today. Archived from the original on November 12, 2013. Retrieved November 12, 2013.
  72. McClellan, Bob (June 15, 2006). "McInally continues to perfect the Wonderlic". Rivals.com. Archived from the original on October 24, 2013. Retrieved April 25, 2011.
  73. Lopez, John P. (July 8, 2010). "The Rule of 26–27–60 helps predict NFL quarterback success or failure". Sports Illustrated. Archived from the original on October 18, 2013.
  74. Mirabile, McDonald P. (Spring 2005). "Intelligence and Football: Testing for Differentials in Collegiate Quarterback Passing Performance and NFL Compensation". The Sport Journal. United States Sports Academy. 8 (2). Retrieved April 25, 2011.
  75. Lyons, Brian D.; Hoffman, Brian J.; Michel, John W. (July 1, 2009). "Not Much More than g? An Examination of the Impact of Intelligence on NFL Performance". Human Performance. 22 (3): 225. doi:10.1080/08959280902970401. S2CID 145416436.
  76. Gladwell, Malcolm (December 15, 2008). "Most Likely to Succeed". The New Yorker. Retrieved January 12, 2013.
  77. Lopresti, Mike (September 26, 2011). "Harvard's Ryan Fitzpatrick gets passing grades for 3–0 Bills". USA Today. Retrieved October 3, 2011.
  78. Jordan Heck (July 30, 2019). "Patriots player avoided Wonderlic questions so he wouldn't 'scare teams off' with his intelligence". Sporting News.
  79. Florio, Mike (February 28, 2011). "Greg McElroy gets a 48 on the Wonderlic". Profootballtalk.com. NBC Sports. Retrieved April 25, 2011.
  80. Seifert, Kevin (April 12, 2016). "Using data to predict arrest rates of NFL draft picks". ESPN.com. Retrieved February 10, 2019.
  81. "Madden NFL 11". Retrieved March 29, 2012.
  82. 00.19. "Madden NFL 10 (XBOX 360) Video Review – It's All In The Details". www.gamervision.com. Retrieved March 29, 2012.CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  83. EA Sports (2005). "NFL Superstar", Madden NFL 2006 (manual) (in English). Electronic Arts, page 11.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.