| Title |
Individual differences in expertise development over decades in a complex intellectual domain
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Memory & Cognition, March 2009
|
| DOI | 10.3758/mc.37.2.194 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Robert w. Howard |
| Abstract |
Learners acquire expertise at different rates and reach different peak performance levels. Key questions arise regarding what patterns of individual differences in expertise development occur and whether innate talent affects such development. International chess is a good test domain for both issues, because it has objective performance measures, actual practice measures (number of games), longitudinal population data, and minimal gatekeeper influence. Players' expertise development typically follows either a logarithmic or a power-function curve, approaching asymptote by around 750 games. A comparison of eventual top players and other eventually well-practiced players typically reveals a performance difference at domain entry, which widens progressively with practice and then stays large and constant. The data show various correlated signs of apparent greater natural talent in eventual top players: precocity (indexed by entering the domain and gaining the grandmaster title much younger on average), faster acquisition of expertise (indexed by fewer years and games needed to gain the grandmaster title from domain entry), and a higher peak performance level after extensive actual practice. A factor analysis found evidence for an underlying natural talent factor that constrains ultimate performance level. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 8% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 46 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 29% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 18% |
| Researcher | 6 | 12% |
| Professor | 5 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 5 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 24 | 47% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 12% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 6 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 6 | 12% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 August 2013.
All research outputs
#3,260,404
of 22,716,996 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#229
of 1,565 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,175
of 93,802 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,716,996 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,565 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 93,802 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them