Hambrick David Z, Macnamara Brooke N, Oswald Frederick L
Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States.
Department of Psychological Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, United States.
Front Psychol. 2020 Aug 18;11:1134. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01134. eCollection 2020.
The question of what explains individual differences in expertise within complex domains such as music, games, sports, science, and medicine is currently a major topic of interest in a diverse range of fields, including psychology, education, and sports science, to name just a few. Ericsson and colleagues' is a highly influential perspective in the literature on expertise and expert performance-but is it viable as a testable scientific theory? Here, reviewing more than 25 years of Ericsson and colleagues' writings, we document critical inconsistencies in the definition of deliberate practice, along with apparent shifts in the standard for evidence concerning deliberate practice. We also consider the impact of these issues on progress in the field of expertise, focusing on the empirical testability and falsifiability of the deliberate practice view. We then discuss a multifactorial perspective on expertise, and how open science practices can accelerate progress in research guided by this perspective.
在音乐、游戏、体育、科学和医学等复杂领域中，是什么导致了个体专业技能的差异，这一问题目前是包括心理学、教育学和体育科学等众多领域的主要研究热点。埃里克森及其同事的观点在关于专业技能和专家表现的文献中极具影响力，但它作为一个可检验的科学理论是否可行呢？在此，回顾埃里克森及其同事25年多的著作，我们记录了刻意练习定义中的关键不一致之处，以及关于刻意练习的证据标准的明显变化。我们还考虑了这些问题对专业技能领域进展的影响，重点关注刻意练习观点的实证可检验性和可证伪性。然后，我们讨论了关于专业技能的多因素观点，以及开放科学实践如何加速在这一观点指导下的研究进展。
