Wonderlic test

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ytny (talk | contribs) at 02:40, 8 July 2006 (Sample questions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Wonderlic Personnel Test (often referred to as Wunderlich) is an intelligence test primarily known for being administered to prospective players in the National Football League since the 1970s. The Wonderlic is a twelve-minute, fifty-question exam to assess aptitude for learning a job and adapting to solve problems for employees in a wide range of occupations. 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 (corresponding to an intelligence quotient of 100; to convert scores ). It is rumored that at least one player has scored a 1 on the test.

Notable scores

Pat McInally, a wide receiver/punter from Harvard University who played for the Cincinnati Bengals from 1977 to 1985, is the only player known to have scored a perfect 50. In 2005, it was rumored that Ryan Fitzpatrick, a quarterback also from Harvard, scored a perfect 50, but his actual accomplishment was to finish the test in 9 minutes with a score of 38 — the most impressive speed ever seen at the NFL Combine. Fitzpatrick was drafted in 2005 by the St. Louis Rams — referenced in The Wall Street Journal (September 30, 2005) as the NFL's Smartest Team.

Some rumored, but unconfirmed, scores of other NFL players and draft candidates:

Average scores

This assessment roughly corresponds to the averages revealed, according to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, by an NFL personnel man in Paul Zimmerman's "The New Thinking Man's Guide to Pro Football," which are:

  • Offensive tackles: 26
  • Centers: 25
  • Quarterbacks: 24
  • Guards: 23
  • Tight Ends: 22
  • Safeties: 19
  • Middle linebackers: 19
  • Cornerbacks: 18
  • Wide receivers: 17
  • Fullbacks: 17
  • Halfbacks: 16

The average scores in other professions are:

  • Chemist: 31
  • Programmer: 29
  • Newswriter: 26
  • Sales: 24
  • Bank teller: 22
  • Clerical Worker: 21
  • Security Guard: 17

Sample questions

A sample Wonderlic Test posted on ESPN.com showed questions that varied in difficulty:

Q: The ninth month of the year is:
Pick One: October, January, June, September, or May.
Q. In printing an article of 48,000 words, a printer decides to use two sizes of type. Using the larger type, a printed page contains 1,800 words. Using smaller type, a page contains 2,400 words. The article is allotted 21 full pages in a magazine. How many pages must be in smaller type?[4]

Adverse Impact

The Wonderlic is used as a selection device by many employers because of its ability to separate applicants along a wide performance scale, and because it measures cognitive ability, which is the strongest predictor of job performance. However, the test also has high levels of adverse impact (differential performance between ethnic and gender groups), which renders it a highly risky device for employers to use. In the United States, all employers need to validate any selection device that has adverse impact according to guidelines set down by the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC). That is, employers must be able to prove that performance on the device is significantly linked to performance in the job. Therefore,if any employer uses the Wonderlic without such validation, they are exposed to class action legal challenge, which can be expensive and reputationally damaging.

The precedent that employers can be found guilty of discrimination merely from using a discriminatory selection device without knowledge or intent to discriminate stems from a US lawsuit in the early 1970's (Griggs vs Duke Power). Here Duke Power used the Wonderlic as part of a set of criteria when selecting employees for their operations unit. 13 Black employees filed a class-action lawsuit against Duke Power, charging discriminatory employment practices. While a district court ruled in favour of the company, and an appellate court agreed with the district court, the US Supreme Court unanimously reversed the previous decisions. They concluded that the devices used in selection clearly favored white males, and that Duke Power had made no effort to prove the job-relatedness of the selection criteria.

References

  1. ^ Zimmerman, Paul (2006-03-31). "It's not personal ... it's personnel". SI.com. Retrieved 2006-06-20.
  2. ^ Daugherty, Paul (2006-03-01). "Will Wonderlic cause teams to wonder about Young?". USA Today. Retrieved 2006-06-20. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |co-author= ignored (help)
  3. ^ McClain, John (2006-02-27). "False score gives Young wrong kind of buzz". Houston Chronicle. Retrieved 2006-06-20.
  4. ^ "So, how do you score?". ESPN.com Page 2. 2006-02-28. Retrieved 2006-02-27.