A meta-analysis of the relationship between Wonderlic test scores and school success
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This meta-analysis examined the validity of an alternative to traditional assessments called the Wonderlic which is a brief measure of general mental ability. Our results showed significant, positive correlations between Wonderlic scores and academic performance in general ( r̅ = .26), between Wonderlic scores and undergraduate GPA in particular ( r̅ = .27, ρ¯ = .33), and between Wonderlic scores and retention ( r̅ =.09, ρ¯ = .12). We also identified several significant moderators of the relationship between Wonderlic scores and relevant outcomes (e.g., test publisher reported coefficients were larger than those reported by other sources). Subgroup differences in test scores were in the same range as other post-secondary admissions assessments (e.g., ACT and SAT scores). Overall, the Wonderlic has similar levels of subgroup differences and is less strongly related to GPA than traditional assessments but still retains useful levels of predictiveness and is a shorter, less expensive assessment that requires less preparation than the ACT or SAT.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".