How Much Does Deliberate Practice Really Matter?

Deliberate practice matters—but how much does it explain?

Following our two episodes on Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Römer’s influential 1993 paper, we explore Macnamara, Hambrick, and Oswald’s 2014 meta-analysis of deliberate practice and performance.

Across 88 studies involving 11,135 participants, the researchers found that deliberate practice was an important predictor of performance. For musicians, it explained 21% of the variation in performance between individuals. The remaining 79% was not explained by deliberate practice in this analysis; it should not be interpreted as a measure of talent.

In this episode, we discuss why the relationship was stronger in more predictable activities, how retrospective practice estimates introduce uncertainty, and why differences in the definition and measurement of deliberate practice matter.

Practice matters. It does not explain everything.

Keep Singing Smart.

References

Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363

Macnamara, B. N., Hambrick, D. Z., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). Deliberate practice and performance in music, games, sports, education, and professions: A meta-analysis. Psychological Science, 25, 1608–1618. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614535810