Stewie
04-06-2012, 07:29 AM
http://www.austinchronicle.com/blogs/sports/2012-04-05/the-nfl-beat-wonderlickin-bad/
According to the people who studied the matter, the only two positions on the field with statistically relevant correlations to wonderlic scores were TE and DB.
And the worse you performed on the test, the better you were on the field.
"Hoffman co-authored a 2009 study with Brian D. Lyons in collaboration with California State University (Fresno) and Towson University. The Lyons Study was presented at the 20th and 21st annual Meetings of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. This 43-page study of 762 NFL players over three draft classes comes to two distinct conclusions:
1) NFL performance on the football field was only found to have a statistically significant correlation with Wonderlic scores among two positions: Tight end and defensive back. Correlations were statistically negligible across all other positions. (Yes, even QB.) In other words, with the exception of TEs and DBs, a player’s Wonderlic score (high or low) gave no predictable projection for their eventual productivity as an NFL player. It was worthless.
2)Tight ends and defensive backs showed a negative correlation.
You read that right. Among these two positions (one of which Claiborne plays) a bad score was a more promising indicator of future NFL production than a good one."
According to the people who studied the matter, the only two positions on the field with statistically relevant correlations to wonderlic scores were TE and DB.
And the worse you performed on the test, the better you were on the field.
"Hoffman co-authored a 2009 study with Brian D. Lyons in collaboration with California State University (Fresno) and Towson University. The Lyons Study was presented at the 20th and 21st annual Meetings of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. This 43-page study of 762 NFL players over three draft classes comes to two distinct conclusions:
1) NFL performance on the football field was only found to have a statistically significant correlation with Wonderlic scores among two positions: Tight end and defensive back. Correlations were statistically negligible across all other positions. (Yes, even QB.) In other words, with the exception of TEs and DBs, a player’s Wonderlic score (high or low) gave no predictable projection for their eventual productivity as an NFL player. It was worthless.
2)Tight ends and defensive backs showed a negative correlation.
You read that right. Among these two positions (one of which Claiborne plays) a bad score was a more promising indicator of future NFL production than a good one."