ABSTRACT

In recent years, Macnamara, and associates Hambrick and Oswald, conducted and published studies which purportedly showed deliberate practice (hereafter, DP) exerts less powerful main effects than believed and popularized in the press, public discourse and professional circles. Their central purpose seemed to be one of correcting a misperception, as they surmised – the role practice plays in improving performance had been exaggerated. In a reanalysis, we distinguished between (DP) and mere time spent. Two results emerged: (1) the correlation between DP and performance reported by Macnamara, Hambrick, and Oswald in 2014, when compared to correlations between other predictor and criterion variables (e.g., obesity, drinking, smoking, etc.), turns out to be substantial; and (2) using the effects and standard errors (adjusted) employed by the original study, the aggregate correlation between DP and performance was twice that of time and performance. As it is, between their analysis and our own, the main findings obtained were quite similar, hardly cause for objection or continuing debate. In sum, little reason exists to doubt the robust contribution DP makes to the development of expertise.

摘要

近年来，Macnamara及其同事Hambrick和Oswald进行并发表了一些研究，据称这些研究表明故意的实践（以下简称DP）所发挥的主要作用不及在新闻界，公众话语和专业界中所认为和普及的那样。正如他们推测的那样，他们的主要目的似乎是纠正误解的一种方法–实践在提高绩效中所扮演的角色被夸大了。在重新分析中，我们区分了（DP）和仅花费的时间。出现了两个结果：（1）与其他预测变量和标准变量（例如，肥胖，饮酒，吸烟等）之间的相关性相比，Macnamara，Hambrick和Oswald在2014年报告的DP与绩效之间的相关性为充实 （2）使用原始研究采用的影响和标准误差（调整后），DP和性能之间的总体相关性是时间和性能的两倍。就其本身而言，在他们的分析与我们自己的分析之间，获得的主要发现是非常相似的，几乎不会引起异议或持续的辩论。总而言之，几乎没有理由怀疑DP对专业知识发展的强大贡献。