The Athletic Intelligence Quotient and performance in the National Basketball Association

1Citations
Citations of this article
20Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Prior to selecting an NBA player, teams consider multiple factors, including game film and tests of agility, strength, speed, anthropometry, and personality. In recent years, as the other major professional sports have begun to place greater emphasis on the measurement of cognitive abilities, so too have representatives in the NBA. In this study, the predictive validity of an empirically-supported measure of cognitive ability (AIQ) was examined vis-à-vis performance outcomes in the NBA. Specifically, AIQ scores were obtained from 356 NBA prospects prior to their draft between 2014 and 2019. The players’ professional status and subsequent performance were assessed through composite and isolated NBA statistics. ANOVAs demonstrated that there were significant differences between NBA and non-NBA players, and subsequent independent samples t-tests revealed that NBA players had significantly higher AIQ scores than non-NBA players for 3 out of 4 factors and the Full Scale AIQ Score. Additionally, using hierarchical multiple regression analyses, it was demonstrated that the AIQ predicted some modest statistically significant relationships with multiple NBA stats (e.g., Player Efficiency Rating, Effective Field Goal Percentage), after controlling for the impact of draft placement. While the effect sizes for these differences and relationships were somewhat small, such findings are consistent with sport analytics and the restricted range when evaluating professional athletes. Given the expanding role of analytics and cognitive assessment in the NBA, the potential importance of the AIQ is considered in the draft process.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hogan, S. R., Taylor, D., Boone, R. T., & Bowman, J. K. (2023). The Athletic Intelligence Quotient and performance in the National Basketball Association. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1197190

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free