Talk:Wonderlic test

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Ball State University supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from on 14:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Need for protection?
Self-proclaimed 'rumor mill' profootballtalk.com states that Vince Young has received a 3 on the Wonderlic test. I think this page needs to be protected until a reputable source reports on what he got, otherwise people are just going to keep adding his score. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Greb (talk • contribs).

Not to mention that...
The same people who run the rumor mill are now reporting that there was an error in scoring the tests.

"Combine officials, we're told, have re-scored the Young's test and the test of all other players who took it in his group. NFL teams will get the official Wonderlic results for all players later in the week."

Though to be fair, how many of the scores posted here are confirmed and how many are just rumors, considering scores are meant to be confidential? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ytny


 * On the other hand, if the rumors were wrong, it seems logical that the athletes or the reps would come forward to deny the scores, especially in the cases of low scores. Regarding Young's low score, reports now are that he may have "literacy issues" that made it difficult for him to read the questions.  I'm not advocating that this be included in the article, but it may explain a score of 6. If he couldn't even read the questions, he certainly would have trouble answering even the simplest of them. Crunch 16:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, though it would be no less logical for a player to not comment on a low Wonderlic score (correct or not) since it would keep the story in the news longer and ultimately, the Wonderlic score will be a non-issue after 1-on-1 interviews and workouts. But we're just getting into speculation upon speculation.


 * I guess the unofficial word (but confirmed by sources credible enough for print media) is that yes, he was originally scored a 6 but there were indeed errors in scoring or administering the test, and he scored a more believable, albeit still sub-par, 16. It's low, but not historically low, so I'm not sure if Young is Wiki-worthy any more. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ytny


 * Dan Marino also scored a 15 or 16. Young's score wasn't out of the ordinary.  Racist.  Huangdi (talk) 09:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Vince Young's score
Vince Young's score of 6 is not confirmed. Please remove the score until a confirmation of score is received. Current reports have the score at 16. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.163.10.2 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 2006 February 27  (UTC)

15 or 16?
There seem to be contradicting reports on Vince Young's score. Most articles say his re-test score is 16, but the last link (Paul Zimmerman's column) says 15.

Also, I don't see anything that supports the last part of "erroneously reported to have scored a 6 at first when it was really a 7". None of the links supports "it was really a 7" - is this subtle vandalism?

In any case, because many of these scores are from unreliable sources, would it make sense to delete some, most or all of them? Ytny 15:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The "It was really a 7" surely came from Zimmerman's article, which is the only source I've seen that says that. I have amended the article to reflect the debate rather than taking a side.Nolewr 15:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Pfft, Vince Young's re-test was the exact same test that he took the first time when his score was laughable (6 or 7). And he still scored under average. I guess Mack Brown was smart with his "dummied up" offensive system at Texas which basically told Young to look for his 1st option, and if he's not open, just run. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.69.141 (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

So I just updated these - it seems pretty confirmed on the internet that his rescore was 16, and the original score was "erroneous". Check the Vince Young article for more info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.132.252 (talk) 07:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Akili Smith accusation
In my opinion the accusation of cheating by Akili Smith should be removed. To me, this borders on libel, as it is probably unproven. This is no place for accusations. Joeylawn 00:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, at least the jump in his test score appears to be accepted and documented by independent sources as fact, and scouts have been quoted, albeit anonymously, with their suspicions. Whatever the case, a lot of stuff on this page needs to be sourced better. Ytny 06:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link, Ytny. I read it, and the key words were "some THINK (my emphasis) he was cheating". Well, there's no proof, so such accusations should be deleted. For the record, I am not a Akili Smith/OU fan, just someone interested in Fairness/NPOV. Joeylawn 68.184.64.232 22:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * How the hell does one cheat on the Wonderlic? Of course, from my POV, how the hell does one score less than 30? 147.145.40.44 22:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Famous scores
This whole section should probably be removed, as it fails the verifiability criterion. Can we get sources on ANY of those? &mdash;Wrathchild (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that any score that does not provide an in-line reference consistent with WP:CITE should be removed. The Vince Young score has been properly cited here at at Vince Young. None of the others are properly sourced.  If we can't source at least 5 or more, than I think they all should go. Johntex\talk 20:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Many of the scores seem to be verified at http://www.macmirabile.com/Wonderlic/Wonderlic.htmGreb 02:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not an American so I don't give a damn about the American NFL but is there really any reason to list so many famous scores? I don't see any particular reason why many of these are famous scores. The only reason that I can see is that they have been published by some other source so they can be included in wikipedia. Perhaps the high scores, e.g. over 40 can be included but other then that I wonder if they should be. If you really think a list of all known scores has any purpose then perhaps consider putting it in a seperate page. Nil Einne 06:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nil Einne, there shouldn't be soo many examples. Perhaps we could only include the 10 examples, the 5 highest and lowest :) --ShadowJester07 18:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

ESPN just reported that Greg McElory scored a 48 on his test. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.23.209.146 (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Adverse impact
Hello, I would like to welcome User:Keithmcnulty to Wikipedia and to this article. I do have a bit of a concern with your additions to Wonderlich Test. You have added a section titled "Adverse impanct". In my opinion, this section does not seem to be written from a neutral point of view. Since you have added similar informaiton to Cognitive test, it makes me wonder if you might possibly be against these types of tests, and trying to use Wikipedia to get your point across. In any case, the section needs to be more balanced, how about renaming it "Use in employment". Then, the section can contain information about both the alleged positie impact of using the test and the alleged negative impact. Clearly there must be people who feel using the test in employment has a positive impact or it would not be used! Also, we need to strive for including both view-points in the section. And we need to attribute those viewpoints to notable people who have spoken or written on the issue. They can't just be our opinions. Please see WP:CITE for more information about this. Once again, welcome! Johntex\talk 15:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed the section, as the CITE tag has been up for a couple of weeks and nothing has been done to improve the POV or verifiablity of the content. If User:Keithmcnulty or anyone else wants to rewrite the section, I have no problem, but please see WP:CITE, WP:OR and WP:POV.Ytny 03:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ryan Fitzpatrick's score
I actually had heard before that he scored a 38, then retook the test and aced it. Anyone got a source? --Liface 05:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This says 38, This says 37, there's about 10 pages that say 50. --Liface 05:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Primarily for the NFL?
I think the 1st sentence -- "The Wonderlic Personnel Test is an intelligence test primarily known for being administered to prospective players in the National Football League since the 1970s." -- should be significantly altered. I have had to take the Wonderlic 4 times since 2000 for a variety of things not involving the NFL (mostly job applications). It does a disservice to both the provider of the test, and their customers, by implying the untruth that it is only used by the NFL. 147.145.40.44 22:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think taking out that sentence, or at least some reference to it, makes the rest of the article rather bizarre. Most of the article is about scores of football players but without some sort of indication that the test is primarily associated with football players (either in terms of who takes it or in terms of the public consciousness) then the obsession with football player scores makes no sense.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.221.152 (talk) 02:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe the rest of the article shouldn't sounds like just the NFL uses it them. There is a brief mention of other uses that only shows the scores in other fields.  The rest of the article makes it sound like it is a NFL-only test.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.253.68 (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Simpleton Version ?
I think that is an incorrect assessment of the test found at that location, in that it is unneccessarily derogative. Having taken the test MANY times for various occupations, I can tell you that that is exactly what the test looks like, and it is not "dumbed down" in any way (although the questions are different). A better qualifier for this "fan made test" would be "abbreviated" or "abridged", which is why Im changing it. I am comfortable with the statement concerning complexity in the following sentence, in that the author of the test seems like he chose questions that mirror the easier questions on the actual Wonderlic (i.e, there are no questions concerning cubic feet).

Which IQ Scale...?
The leading paragraph of this article offers IQ=2W+60 as a conversion to a standard IQ score. Which scale...? The WAIS? Cattel? The California Test of Mental Maturity? While they all agree that 100 is average, that is the only thing they agree on. 148 on Cattel is the same score as 130 on the WAIS and 132 on the CTMM. Minimally, this article would need to state the value of one standard deviation for that formula to be relevant or a particular scale specified. --Joe Webster (talk) 05:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Joe Webster. I'm trying to find a primary source for this IQ conversion, but website upon website refers back to this Wikipedia article, making the source for this conversion formula circularly referential. In other words, it is totally unreliable as it appears in the main article.-- giggle 23:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory.george.lewis (talk • contribs)


 * You are correct. The whole section is poorly sourced (although I tried my best to source it better during an earlier edit), so I've deleted the whole section, including my previous keystrokes. This can come back in with a rewrite if someone can find a better source. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Weston Review
What the hell is the Weston Review? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.90.193 (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Spam
The article is largely spamming for the Wonder company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.10.75 (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not clear if the symbols under "Average Scores" are negative signs or dashes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.158.35 (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Has anyone looked up any of the sources on this test? I have found some descriptions of the test in standard textbooks on psychological testing that I intend to use to update quite a few articles on Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Average scores for other professions
The "Average scores for other professions" sections is unsourced. There are several books and articles that mention average scores, but I haven't found a paper relating to an independent study that produced these results. Should they be removed?

Online sources:
 * http://espn.go.com/page2/s/closer/020228.html

Wonderlic sources from 1966: Smallman12q (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Overview of the section
From the looks of everything, it seems like we need to just primarily focus on the psychological and business application of the section. I would just leave the section on the NFL alone since I am pretty sure its NFL jurisdiction. I tried sending one of you guys a link about the Wonderlic test but it did not work. Any ideas? I am going to try and put up some of my links here.

As for smallman, good job on finding the links they seem adequate to our discussion.

The first link deals with the validity of the test:
 * Validity of the wonderlic personnel test as a measure of fluid or crystallized intelligence: Implications for career assessment. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=2bd6960a-98fb-446c-a07e-c0857b12caba%40sessionmgr4&vid=1&hid=9&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=psyh&AN=2002-17479-010

The second link deals with measure of IQ:
 * Validity of the Wonderlic Personnel Test as a brief IQ measure in psychiatric patients. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=5&hid=9&sid=0f60df66-9550-4135-b04c-3da8a7889788%40sessionmgr4&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=psyh&AN=1986-10794-001

The third is dealing with the test in an industrial setting:
 * COMPARABILITY OF WONDERLIC TEST FORMS IN INDUSTRIAL TESTING http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=5&hid=9&sid=0f60df66-9550-4135-b04c-3da8a7889788%40sessionmgr4

If you cannot get into these articles shoot me a message. VLord89

Vince Young
Vince Young's second try on the Wunderlic was 14, according to a top 10 lowest wunderlic score website i found from google. someone should update that and cite it (i don't want to, but i also didnt wanna let this go unreported) — Preceding unsigned comment added by174.63.111.168 (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Wonderlic Test: Article Critique
Within in the article, there is only one paragraph that describes what the Wonderlic Test is. While the paragraph does do some of what the test is justice, much more is needed for elaboration. After the introduction a section on which the inventor of the test along with a brief history of its creation is an essential part of creating the article.

Unfortunately, much of the article is about the NFL as discussed within the class. In order not to have any unexpected changes to occur during our work, it would be best to leave the section regarding the NFL alone, but rather add it into the subtexting when creating the "Content". (Place it under its own NFL section) However, getting rid of some of the NFL "comments" might improve the integrity of the article, which should be done at the end of our work.

One important topic that must be discussed is the I/O relevance to the Wonderlic Test. Our primary objective is to tie this personnel test with the field of I/O. This is to be the main body of the work, with a brief history preceding and any information coming after.

Another concern that has risen in the group is the resources and citations that appear on the article. Over 90% of the resources are NFL oriented, providing no information on what the test generally is. More peer-reviewed articles are necessary to provide accurate details.

One of the first goals of the group is to create an outline of what should be on the article. By creating a table of contents as our guideline, we will be better able to structure our article. One of the biggest things that make highly rated Wikipedia articles so well written was the way the article is set up. Each section was thorough and information was not scattered. As of now, we have come up with this design:

•	Introduction •	Table of Contents •	History of the Wonderlic Test •	The Test: Examiner and Examinee •	Wonderlic Test’s significance in I/O Psychology •	Validity of I/O •	Occupational Scores •	NFL relavence

Each of these labels will have subsection, but those are to be created as the article is being remade.

VLord89 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC).


 * VLord, in my judgment this is a solid plan. Rather than "Validity of I/O", the subsection should be called "Validity".  By the way, it is likely not to clear to all readers what "I/O" stands for:  Industrial Organizational Psychology.  Keep going... Mjtagler (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * During our few weeks of research so far, I think the biggest concern with the article page is separating the psychology from the NFL information. I have found a few good articles, the best one is about the validity of the Wonderlic. The library has a couple book sources I plan to check out for our use. Reputable sources are desperately needed on this article and the more the better!! I think that a good portion of March should be spent tracking down the best sources available. The outline is perfect, I don't think I would change any part of it. Also, I would like to find a way to incorporate the Wonderlic Test article with the I/O article. The I/O article is well written and has a lot of good information, but it does not mention the Wonderlic. I'd like to be able to link it so the Wonderlic gets more views from people interested in psych. Kmbeer (talk) 22:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a brief mention of the Wonderlic in the "Personnel recruitment and selection" section of the Inudstrial-Organizational Psychology article would be appropriate, but obviously focus on the actual Wonderlic article first. Mjtagler (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There should also be some mention of the tests reliability be it intra-test reliability (e.g., equivalence of forms or test-retest reliability) and inter-test reliability (e.g., convergence and divergence with other measures of mental ability). I'm not sure if there will be enough information to make a create a substantial section but I have found a few relevant sources.
 * Dodrill, C. B. (1983). Long-term reliability of the Wonderlic Personnel Test. Journal Of Consulting And Clinical Psychology, 51(2), 316-317.
 * Weaver, H. B., & Boneau, C. A. (1956). Equivalence of forms of the Wonderlic Personnel Test: a study of reliability and interchangeability. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 40(2), 127-129.
 * McKelvie, S. J. (1992). Does memory contaminate test-retest reliability?. Journal Of General Psychology, 119(1), 59. Mdwilliams2 (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I will work on the history part of the article. Kmbeer (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the formula for converting one's score on the Wonderlic to an IQ score should be deleted. Mdwilliams2 (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I second that motion Moses, I can't find any reliable source for that formula. VLord89 (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Alas, a pair of scissors is often one of the best quality-improvement tools. If something looks dubious and is unsourced, feel free to get rid of it. (If you later find a source which says the same, or something similar, you can always come back and update the article) bobrayner (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Peer review followup
This is a strong article - it's getting harder for me to find things to comment on! The last peer review seems to have helped - I see most of the points raised by the reviewer have been addressed already. Have fun; bobrayner (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The article has drawn on a relatively wide range of sources to build lots of good, neutral content. Explaining the test's appearance in a game is a nice touch.
 * The text is clear and accessible without any obvious presentation problems.
 * There are a handful of places where the language may not be clear to a lay reader - for example the r-values in the Reliability section.
 * Good use of links, both inline and Main. I think it used to overlink in some places but now the balance feels just right.
 * The "Industrial and Organizational Psychology is the scientific study..." sentence looks like a non-sequiteur in its current place (because nothing after it mentions I&OP) - maybe move it up a little?
 * If statistics are available on test scores, would it be possible to build a table or a graph? This could be better for readers.
 * How does it compare to other intelligence/cognitive tests? I think this is quite good "standalone" coverage of Wonderlic, but various other tests are out there. What are the similarities, what are the differences, how are they used?

Impact of recent student edits
This article has recently been edited by students as part of their course work for a university course. As part of the quality metrics for the education program, we would like to determine what level of burden is placed on Wikipedia's editors by student coursework.

If you are an editor of this article who spent time correcting edits to it made by the students, please tell us how much time you spent on cleaning up the article. Please note that we are asking you to estimate only the negative effects of the students' work. If the students added good material but you spent time formatting it or making it conform to the manual of style, or copyediting it, then the material added was still a net benefit, and the work you did improved it further. If on the other hand the students added material that had to be removed, or removed good material which you had to replace, please let us know how much time you had to spend making those corrections. This includes time you may have spent posting to the students' talk pages, or to Wikipedia noticeboards, or working with them on IRC, or any other time you spent which was required to fix problems created by the students' edits. Any work you did as a Wikipedia Ambassador for that student's class should not be counted.

Please rate the amount of time spent as follows:
 * 0 -No unproductive work to clean up
 * 1 - A few minutes of work needed
 * 2 - Between a few minutes and half an hour of work needed
 * 3 - Half an hour to an hour of work needed
 * 4 - More than an hour of work needed

Please also add any comments you feel may be helpful. We welcome ratings from multiple editors on the same article. Add your input here. Thanks! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Did Wonderlic get back to their older test names?
According to Winderlic's website, the cognitive ability tests are again called Wonderlic personnel tests (WPT), and no longer the Wonderlic Contemporary/Classic cognitive ability tests Does the name in the article needs to be changed as well, or is it just a temporary change?Tamirubin (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Involvement of test in a court case for its use by the New London, CN police department.
Suggest inclusion of a reference to the case of Jordan v. City of New London

In 1996, Robert Jordan, along with 500 other individuals "underwent a written screening process conducted by the Law Enforcement Council of Southeastern Connecticut, Inc. (“LEC”), a coalition of fourteen cities and towns, for a position as a police officer." Included in the screening process was the "Wonderlic Personnel Test and Scholastic Level Exam (“WPT”), which purports to measure cognitive ability." According to Wonderlic, the the "normative median" suggested for a patrol officer was 21 and Jordan scored a 33. He contacted the city of New London When he found out the city was hiring police officers but was told he wouldn't be interviewed because he "didn't fit the profile." Jordan thought he was facing age discrimination - which is illegal - because he was 46. Instead, he found out that "to prevent frequent job turnover caused by hiring overqualified applicants the city only interviewed candidates who scored between 20 and 27." The court upheld the city's decision on the "rational basis" test, stating that even though the city's hiring policies might be unwise, "we conclude that even absent a strong proven statistical correlation between high scores on the Wonderlic test and turnover resulting from lack of job satisfaction, it is enough that the city believed -- on the basis of material prepared by the test maker and a letter along similar lines sent by the LEC -- that there was such a connection" - a rational basis for the classification.

Under the rational basis test “a statutory classification that neither proceeds along suspect lines nor infringes fundamental constitutional rights must be upheld against equal protection challenge if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.”

http://www.aele.org/apa/jordan-newlondon.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ileanadu (talk • contribs) 16:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Wonderlic test. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jsonline.com/sports/tennessees-patterson-with-plenty-of-talent-and-question-marks-rt9i5uj-203524771.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.si.com/nfl/photos/2013/02/25memorable-wonderlic-scores
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/carlos-hyde?id=2543743
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://wonderlictestsample.com/nfl-wonderlic-scores/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140107193610/http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Minnesotas-Decker-scores-a-43-on-the-Wonderlic.html to http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Minnesotas-Decker-scores-a-43-on-the-Wonderlic.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://harvardmagazine.com/2011/09/ryan-fitzpatrick-buffalo-bills-quarterback-harvard-graduate
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2012-04-09/wonderlic-whiz-benjamin-watson-questions-value-of-test
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/draft/2006-04-16-wonderlic-feature_x.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=553028

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Wonderlic Test page updates necessary
Some of the information provided on this page was either never accurate, or has just become dated over time. Is it possible for me to get in contact with someone to provide some updated/corrected information (with independent sources to cite, of course)? Carmine.marano (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Just a math test?
According to the sample questions, this is a lower primary school math test, and not a cognitive ability test. Something must be wrong here, probably in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.224.3.203 (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)