Assessment of expert performance compared across professional domains.

Thomas, Rick P.; Lawrence, Ashley

doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.03.009

Cited by 12 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This meta-analysis was cited to show that deliberate practice could not explain any statistically significant amount of the variance of individual differences “in performance among elite-level performers” (Moreau et al, 2018, p. 333). Similarly, Thomas and Lawrence (2018) reviewed expert performance across different professional domains and claimed that “deliberate practice fails to account for large proportions of variance in expertise” (p. 171).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deliberate Practice and Proposed Limits on the Effects of Practice on the Acquisition of Expert Performance: Why the Original Definition Matters and Recommendations for Future Research

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over 25 years ago Ericsson et al. (1993) published the results of their search for the most effective forms of training in music, a domain where knowledge of effective training has been accumulated over centuries. At music academies master teachers provide students individualized instruction and help them identify goals and methods for their practice sessions between meetings – this form of solitary practice was named deliberate practice, and its accumulated duration during development was found to distinguish groups with differing levels of attained music performance. In an influential meta-analysis Macnamara et al. (2014) identified studies that had collected estimates of practice accumulated during development and attained performance and reported that individual differences in deliberate practice accounted for only 14% of variance in performance. Their definition of “deliberate practice” differs significantly from the original definition of deliberate practice and will henceforth be referred to as structured practice. We explicate three criteria for reproducible performance and purposeful/deliberate practice and exclude all effect sizes considered by Macnamara et al. (2014) that were based on data not meeting these criteria. A reanalysis of the remaining effects estimated that accumulated duration of practice explained considerably more variance in performance (29 and 61% after attenuation correction). We also address the argument that the limited amount of variance explained by the duration of practice necessarily implies an important role of genetic factors, and we report that genetic effects have so far accounted for remarkably small amounts of variance – with exception of genetic influences of height and body size. The paper concludes with recommendations for how future research on purposeful and deliberate practice can go beyond recording only the duration of practice to measuring the quality of practice involving concentration, analysis, and problem solving to identify conditions for the most effective forms of training.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deliberate Practice and Proposed Limits on the Effects of Practice on the Acquisition of Expert Performance: Why the Original Definition Matters and Recommendations for Future Research

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Legal scholars could inform researchers about problems in practice and advise them on how to best incorporate the procedural framework in their methods. At the same time, legal scholars, lawyers, and judges need to open up to the idea that many of the limitations of human cognition are universal and independent of training or experience (Danziger, Levav, & Avnaim-Pesso, 2011; Thomas & Lawrence, 2018). Importantly, they need to open the door to their chambers to researchers and facilitate in vivo research.…”

Section: Way Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Judge as a Procedural Decision-Maker

Sagana

Toor

2020

Zeitschrift für Psychologie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Despite the abundance of studies exposing heuristic and biased thinking in judicial decision-making, the influence of this empirical work in court is limited. In this commentary, we address this paradox and argue that the disconnect between empirical work and practice stems from the limited knowledge and consideration of procedural rules. These shortcomings increase the skepticism of legal scholars and practitioners of this research and give an excuse for dismissing the findings, deeming them inapplicable in court. We suggest that the only way forward is by diversifying our research methods and by building a culture of collaboration, fostering research partnerships between legal scholars and (legal) decision-making researchers. This approach aims to bridge the gap between legal and social sciences and to promote the impact of empirical studies of the legal system on current legal practice.

show abstract

“…As a discipline, psychology is not exactly known for its error-free predictions. Quite the opposite is true: on the whole, clinical psychologists attain relatively modest levels of consistency and consensus, which are two important parameters of professional competency (Thomas & Lawrence, 2018; see also Herman & Freitad, 2010). One way to encourage professional competency is to stimulate critical feedback and discussions.…”

Section: Carl Saganmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expert Witnesses, Dissociative Amnesia, and Extraordinary Remembering: Response to Brand et al.

Patihis

Otgaar

2019

Psychol. Inj. and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Brand et al.'s (2018) response-as well as previous works by some of the authors-reveal a recurrent and concerning picture of using lengthy, but flawed, arguments to promote the concept of dissociative amnesia. Our focus here is not so much on the weak-to-moderate correlation between measures of trauma and dissociation-we concentrate more on the weak evidence for dissociative amnesia. If triers of fact accept there is a correlation between trauma and feeling depersonalized or experiencing memory errors, we foresee relatively few legal consequences. However, if the leap is made to accept that trauma causes dissociative amnesia (or dissociative identity disorder) then it opens the door to repressed memory testimony being trusted in the courtroom, which in the past has had negative consequences. The problem with the concept and theory of dissociative amnesia is that there is an easy-to-miss claim of extraordinary remembering that contradicts findings and theories in memory research. Incorrect beliefs in such extraordinary remembering that can have severe repercussions in court. We document some areas of agreement with Brand et al., but reiterate that there is a lack of evidence for the mechanisms proposed in dissociative amnesia.

show abstract

Assessment of expert performance compared across professional domains.

Cited by 12 publications

References 54 publications

Deliberate Practice and Proposed Limits on the Effects of Practice on the Acquisition of Expert Performance: Why the Original Definition Matters and Recommendations for Future Research

Deliberate Practice and Proposed Limits on the Effects of Practice on the Acquisition of Expert Performance: Why the Original Definition Matters and Recommendations for Future Research

The Judge as a Procedural Decision-Maker

Expert Witnesses, Dissociative Amnesia, and Extraordinary Remembering: Response to Brand et al.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About