Talk:Wonderlic Test

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Psychology
Portal		 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
American football Portal
This article is part of WikiProject National Football League, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary on the comment page to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Need for protection?

Self-proclaimed 'rumor mill' profootballtalk.com states that Vince Young has received a 3 on the Wonderlic test. I think this page needs to be protected until a reputable source reports on what he got, otherwise people are just going to keep adding his score.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Greb (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Not to mention that...

The same people who run the rumor mill are now reporting that there was an error in scoring the tests.

"Combine officials, we're told, have re-scored the Young's test and the test of all other players who took it in his group. NFL teams will get the official Wonderlic results for all players later in the week."

Though to be fair, how many of the scores posted here are confirmed and how many are just rumors, considering scores are meant to be confidential? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ytny

On the other hand, if the rumors were wrong, it seems logical that the athletes or the reps would come forward to deny the scores, especially in the cases of low scores. Regarding Young's low score, reports now are that he may have "literacy issues" that made it difficult for him to read the questions. I'm not advocating that this be included in the article, but it may explain a score of 6. If he couldn't even read the questions, he certainly would have trouble answering even the simplest of them. Crunch 16:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, though it would be no less logical for a player to not comment on a low Wonderlic score (correct or not) since it would keep the story in the news longer and ultimately, the Wonderlic score will be a non-issue after 1-on-1 interviews and workouts. But we're just getting into speculation upon speculation.
I guess the unofficial word (but confirmed by sources credible enough for print media) is that yes, he was originally scored a 6 but there were indeed errors in scoring or administering the test, and he scored a more believable, albeit still sub-par, 16. It's low, but not historically low, so I'm not sure if Young is Wiki-worthy any more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ytny

[edit] Vince Young's score

Vince Young's score of 6 is not confirmed. Please remove the score until a confirmation of score is received. Current reports have the score at 16.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.163.10.2 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 2006 February 27 (UTC)

[edit] 15 or 16?

There seem to be contradicting reports on Vince Young's score. Most articles say his re-test score is 16, but the last link (Paul Zimmerman's column) says 15.

Also, I don't see anything that supports the last part of "erroneously reported to have scored a 6 at first when it was really a 7". None of the links supports "it was really a 7" - is this subtle vandalism?

In any case, because many of these scores are from unreliable sources, would it make sense to delete some, most or all of them? Ytny 15:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The "It was really a 7" surely came from Zimmerman's article, which is the only source I've seen that says that. I have amended the article to reflect the debate rather than taking a side.Nolewr 15:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Pfft, Vince Young's re-test was the exact same test that he took the first time when his score was laughable (6 or 7). And he still scored under average. I guess Mack Brown was smart with his "dummied up" offensive system at Texas which basically told Young to look for his 1st option, and if he's not open, just run. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.69.141 (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Akili Smith accusation

In my opinion the accusation of cheating by Akili Smith should be removed. To me, this borders on libel, as it is probably unproven. This is no place for accusations. Joeylawn 00:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, at least the jump in his test score appears to be accepted and documented by independent sources as fact, and scouts have been quoted, albeit anonymously, with their suspicions. Whatever the case, a lot of stuff on this page needs to be sourced better. Ytny 06:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, Ytny. I read it, and the key words were "some THINK (my emphasis) he was cheating". Well, there's no proof, so such accusations should be deleted. For the record, I am not a Akili Smith/OU fan, just someone interested in Fairness/NPOV. Joeylawn 68.184.64.232 22:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
How the hell does one cheat on the Wonderlic? Of course, from my POV, how the hell does one score less than 30? 147.145.40.44 22:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Famous scores

This whole section should probably be removed, as it fails the verifiability criterion. Can we get sources on ANY of those? —Wrathchild (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree that any score that does not provide an in-line reference consistent with WP:CITE should be removed. The Vince Young score has been properly cited here at at Vince Young. None of the others are properly sourced. If we can't source at least 5 or more, than I think they all should go. Johntex\talk 20:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Many of the scores seem to be verified at http://www.macmirabile.com/Wonderlic/Wonderlic.htmGreb 02:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not an American so I don't give a damn about the American NFL but is there really any reason to list so many famous scores? I don't see any particular reason why many of these are famous scores. The only reason that I can see is that they have been published by some other source so they can be included in wikipedia. Perhaps the high scores, e.g. over 40 can be included but other then that I wonder if they should be. If you really think a list of all known scores has any purpose then perhaps consider putting it in a seperate page. Nil Einne 06:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Nil Einne, there shouldn't be soo many examples. Perhaps we could only include the 10 examples, the 5 highest and lowest :) --ShadowJester07 18:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adverse impact

Hello, I would like to welcome User:Keithmcnulty to Wikipedia and to this article.
I do have a bit of a concern with your additions to Wonderlich Test. You have added a section titled "Adverse impanct". In my opinion, this section does not seem to be written from a neutral point of view. Since you have added similar informaiton to Cognitive test, it makes me wonder if you might possibly be against these types of tests, and trying to use Wikipedia to get your point across.
In any case, the section needs to be more balanced, how about renaming it "Use in employment". Then, the section can contain information about both the alleged positie impact of using the test and the alleged negative impact. Clearly there must be people who feel using the test in employment has a positive impact or it would not be used!
Also, we need to strive for including both view-points in the section. And we need to attribute those viewpoints to notable people who have spoken or written on the issue. They can't just be our opinions. Please see WP:CITE for more information about this.
Once again, welcome!  Johntex\talk 15:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the section, as the CITE tag has been up for a couple of weeks and nothing has been done to improve the POV or verifiablity of the content. If User:Keithmcnulty or anyone else wants to rewrite the section, I have no problem, but please see WP:CITE, WP:OR and WP:POV.Ytny 03:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Fitzpatrick's score

I actually had heard before that he scored a 38, then retook the test and aced it. Anyone got a source? --Liface 05:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This says 38, This says 37, there's about 10 pages that say 50. --Liface 05:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Primarily for the NFL?

I think the 1st sentence -- "The Wonderlic Personnel Test is an intelligence test primarily known for being administered to prospective players in the National Football League since the 1970s." -- should be significantly altered. I have had to take the Wonderlic 4 times since 2000 for a variety of things not involving the NFL (mostly job applications). It does a disservice to both the provider of the test, and their customers, by implying the untruth that it is only used by the NFL. 147.145.40.44 22:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think taking out that sentence, or at least some reference to it, makes the rest of the article rather bizarre. Most of the article is about scores of football players but without some sort of indication that the test is primarily associated with football players (either in terms of who takes it or in terms of the public consciousness) then the obsession with football player scores makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.221.152 (talk) 02:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simpleton Version ?

I think that is an incorrect assessment of the test found at that location, in that it is unneccessarily derogative. Having taken the test MANY times for various occupations, I can tell you that that is exactly what the test looks like, and it is not "dumbed down" in any way (although the questions are different). A better qualifier for this "fan made test" would be "abbreviated" or "abridged", which is why Im changing it. I am comfortable with the statement concerning complexity in the following sentence, in that the author of the test seems like he chose questions that mirror the easier questions on the actual Wonderlic (i.e, there are no questions concerning cubic feet).

[edit] Which IQ Scale...?

The leading paragraph of this article offers IQ=2W+60 as a conversion to a standard IQ score. Which scale...? The WAIS? Cattel? The California Test of Mental Maturity? While they all agree that 100 is average, that is the only thing they agree on. 148 on Cattel is the same score as 130 on the WAIS and 132 on the CTMM. Minimally, this article would need to state the value of one standard deviation for that formula to be relevant or a particular scale specified. --Joe Webster (talk) 05:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)