r

9I

~~~~

ADAO Se $18
UNCLASSIFIED

AIR FORCE HUMAN RESOURCES LAB BROOKS API TEX

PILOT SLLECT ION SYSTEM OEV ELOPMC N T. (U )
at 78 0 R SIITER. N A THOI SQN
AF)*LTR7133

P90 5/1
.
iii

$~

cmi

IN

<1

~~ j

AF HRLTR 7 33/
~

..

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

II

~~~~

Nancy

R
E
S

C.)

Dy

David R/Hunter

P1LOT SELECTION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT

A./rhompson

PERSONNEL RESEARCH DIVISION

Brooks Air Force Base, Texas 78235

j
~

(LJ)
~~~

FMd R.port for Por

~~~~~~

78
10 Novsmber 1977

j T 7,J )/.
~ ~~
~

r~~~ +

~~~~~~

Approved for public release; ~~~~~~~~~

~~~~
~~~~

E
S

LABORATORY
AIR FOR C E SYST EM S COMM A ND

~~~~ ii

.t~AII*t1r~

~~~~~~~~~

BROOKS AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS 78235

78

5 08

~~~~~~~~

rY

I
(,

________________________________

NOTICE
When U.S. Government drawings, specifications, or other data are used
for any purpose other than a definitely related Government
procurement operation , the Government thereby incurs no
respo n sibi lity n or any ob ligatio n wh atsoever , and the fact that the
Government may have formulated , fu rni shed , or in any way supplied
the said drawings, speci fi catio n s , or other data is n ot to be rega rded by
implication or otherwise, as in any manner licensing the holder or any
other person or corporation , or conveying any rights or permiasion to
n y patented invention that may in any way
man ufacture , use , or sell a
be related thereto.
This final report was submitted by Personnel Research Division, under
project 7719, with HQ Air Force Human R esources La borato ry
(AFSC), Brooks Air Force Base, Texas 78235.
This report has been reviewed and cleared for open publication and/or
public release by the appropriate Office of Information (01) in
accordance with AFR 190-17 and DoDD 5230.9. There is no objection
to unlimited distribution of this report to the public at large, or by
DDC to the National Technical Information Service (NTIS).
This technical report has been reviewed and is approve d for publication.
LELAND D. BROKAW, Technical Director
Personnel Research Division
DAN D. FULGHAM, Colonel, USAF
Commander

__________________

~~

- -. - -

- .--

Unclassified
S E C U R I T Y C L A S S I F I C A T I O N OF THIS P A G E (When Dale Ent ered)

PAGE
REPORT DOt1I~~E~1TATIOI1
U

I. REPOR1 NUMBER

READ INSTRUCT I ONS

BEFORE COMPLET ING FORM

2. GOVT ACCESSI,)N NO. 3.

R E C I P I E N T S C A T A L O G N U M B E R

AFHRL.TR-78.33
4. T I T L E ( d Subtitle)
~~

5.

PILOT SELECTION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT

TY P E OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

Final
2 September 1975

10 November 1977

6. P E R F O R M I N G ORG. R E P O R T N U M B E R
7. AUT HOR(a )

B . C O N T R A C T O R G R A N T N U M B E R ( s)

9. P E R F O R M I N G O R G A N I Z A T I O N NAME AND A D D R E S S

10.

David R. Hunter
Nancy A. Thompson

Personnel Research Division

Air Force Human Resources laboratory
Brooks Air Force Base, Texas 78235

62703 F
77191223
12.

II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS

HQ Air Force Human Resources laboratory (AFSC)

Brooks Air Force Base, Texas 78235

14.

P R O G R A M ELEMENT , PROJECT . T A S K
A R E A & W O RK U N I T N U M B E R S

77191220

REPORT D A T E

July 1978
I3~ NUMBER O F PAGES
6

MONITORING AGENCY NAME & AD ORESS( II diff eren t from Controlling Of fI c e)

15.

S E C U R I T Y CLASS. (of thi, report)

Unclassified

ISa . O E C L A S S I F IC A T I O N / D O W N G R A D I N G
SCHEDULE

16.

DISTRIB UTION S T A T E M E N T (of Hit, Report)

Approved for public release;distribution unlimited.

17.

D I S T R I B U T I O N S T A T E M E N T (of the abet tact ent.r.d in Block 20, f t diff.rent from Report)

IS.

S U P P L E M E N T A R Y NOTES

SMA Studies: 6026

19. K E Y W O R D S (Continue on revere . d d e If n.c...ary ..nd identify by block number)

background and attitude tests

factor analysis .
pilot selection
psychom oto r testin g

selection tests
Strong Vocational Interest Blank (SVIB)
undergraduate pilot

20. %, T R A C T (Continue on r e v e rie .id. If nec .a.ary and Identify by block numb.r)
~~

including two aircrew psychomotor tests, the Automated Pilot

~~This technical report describes test instruments,
Aptitude Measurement System , and several written tests, as predictors for success in Undergraduate Pilot Training.
The report recommends im plementation of a pilot selection system which in cludes psychomotor tests, the
Automated Pilot Aptitude Measurement System, and several written tests as an effective screen for entry into
undergraduate pilot training. Validities are reported for individual instruments as well as for combinations of those
instruments. The im port an ce of obtaining cost effective self-c ontained equipment is indicated , an d recom me n da itons
for future research are given.

DD

~~~~~

1473

EDITION OF I NOV 65 IS O B S O L E T E

Unclassified
S E C U R I T Y C L A S S I F I C A T I O N OF THIS P A G E (Wh, n Data Entered)

PREFACE
This work was performed under Project 7719, Air Force Personnel System
Development on Selection , Msignment, Evaluation , Quality Control, Retention,
Promotion, and Utilization ; Task 771912 , Selection and Classification Instruments
for
Officer Personnel Programs, and responds to Request for Personnel Research No. 72.18,
titled Improved Screening for Undergraduate Pilot Training, issued by Air
Training
Command.
The data reported herein were collected under the direction or by the efforts of
many individuals other than the authors; prominent among these individuals
are Dr.

George Long, Captain Nicholas Vamey, Dr. Lonnie Valentine, Jr., Sgt VincentMaurellj
,

an d Sgt Louis Kaluza, to whom the authors express their appreciation.

The authors are especially indebted to the late Dr. Robert E. Miller, who was
responsible for the development of the Reference Battery.

m r
-

-.

ctfl

D
0

--

- .-

()

~7~:

SP~.CIAL

~~ ~~~~ .-- -

TABLE OF CONT ENTS

Page

I. Introduction

II. Selection Instruments

Paper.and.Pencil Measures
Air crew Psych om oto r Test s
Autom ated Pilot Aptitude M easu rement System (APA M S)

6
6

III. Sample

IV. Data Analysis

V. Results and Discussion

15

VI. Conclusions and Recommendations

18

R eferences

18

Reference Notes

19

Appen dix A : Reference Battery Scales

21
UST OF TABLES

Tab le

1 Pilot Composite Subscales

2 Means, Standard Deviations , a
n d Correlations with IJPT
Criteria for Psychomotor Coordination Tests
3 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations with UPT
Criteria for APAMS Factor Scores and Parameter Scores
4 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations with UPT
Criteria for SVIB Blank Scales
5 Means, Standard Deviations, an d Correlations with UPT C riteria for OBAS
6 Means , Standard Deviations, and Co r relatio ns with UPT
Criteria for Reference Battery Scales
7 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlation s with UPT
Criteria for AFOQT (Form M) Raw Scores
8 Regression Problems for Single Predictor Sets with Pass/Fail Criterion
9 Regression Problems for Single Predictor Sets with Pass/FTD Criterion
10 Regression Problems for Combinations of Predictor Sets
II Validity of APAM S Factor Scores for Cross.Validation Sample

Page

8
8
9
9
9
10
10
II
12
13

List of Tables (Continued)

Table

12
13
14
15
16
Al
A2
A3

A4
AS
A6
A7
A8
A9
AlO
All
A12
A 13
A14
Al 5
A16
A17
Al 8
A19
A20
A2 1

Validity of APAMS Parameter Scores for Cross-Validation Sample

Application of Regression Coefficients to Cross-Validation Sample
Validities of APAMS Composite Score Generated from Parameter Scores
Regression Problems for Various Predictor Systems for UNPass/ Fall Criterion
Regression Problems for Various Predictor Systems for UPT Pass!FTD Criterion
Intercorrelation of Psychomotor Coordination Scores and APAMS Parameter Scores
Intercorrelation of Psychomotor Coordination Scores and APAMS Factor Scores
Intercorrelation of Psychomotor Coordin ation Scores and SVIB K eys
Intercorrelation of Psychomotor Coordination Scores and OBAS Scales
Intercorrelation of Psychomotor Coordination Scores and Reference Battery Scales
Intercorrelation of Psychomotor Coordination Scores and AFOQT Composites
Intercorrelation of APAMS Parameter Scores and SVIB Keys
Intercorrelation of APAMS Factor Scores ana SVIB Keys
Intercorrelation of APAMS Parameter Scores and OBAS Scales
Intercorrelation of APAMS Factor Scores and OBAS Scales
Intercorrelation of APAMS Parameter Scores and Reference Battery Scales
Intercorrelation of APAMS Factor Scores and Reference Battery Scales
Intercorrelation of APAMS Parameter Scores and AFOQT Composites
Intercorrelation of APAMS Factor Scores and AFOQT Composites
In tercorrelatio n of SVLB an d OBAS Scal es
Intercorrelation of SVIB and Reference Battery Scales
Intercorrelation of SVIB Keys and AFOOT Composites
Intercorrelation of OBAS and Reference Battery Scales
Intercorrelation of OBAS and AFOQT Composites
Intercorrelation of Reference Battery Scales and AFOQT Composites
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations with LJPT Criteria
for Psychomotor Coordination Tests

Page

13
13
14
14
15
23
23
23
24
24
25
25
25
26
26
27
28
29
29
29
30
30
~1
31
32

334

PILOT SELECTION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT

I. INTRO DUCT ION

Over the past 8 years, the Personnel Research Division of the Air Force Human Resources Laboratory
(AFHRL) has performed a series of studies aimed at improvement of procedures for selection of
Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) students. As a result of these sequential efforts , instruments have been
developed which are valid for the selection of personnel fo TiFF; however, because of the extended fashion
mon g them had not been fully determined.
under which they were developed, the in terrelation ships a
both
individually
and in combination , while pa r ti ally
,
instruments
Furthermore , the validity of these
established in previous studies, required further investigation.
This study addresses the issues of the joint contributions of the various selection instruments to the
he instruments considered in this study include the
prediction of pilot training success. In particu lar , t
and McGrevy (1971), paper-and-pencil tests
,
Valentine,
Sanders
developed
by
aircrew psychomotor tests
which impacted revisions to the Pilot Composite (PC) of the Air Force Office r Oualif ~ing Test (AFOQT),
and the Automated Pilot Aptitude Measurement System (APAMS) developed by Long and Varney (1975).
IL

SELECTION IN STRUMENTS

Paper-and-Pencil Measures
A reference battery consisting of 21 tests was assembled to measure a variety of cognitive abilities,
many of which were not included in the PC of the AFOQT. Some tests from the reference battery showed
point.biserial correlation s with a UN Pass/Fail criterion ranging from .13 to .19 (Miller, N ote 1) an d have
been selected for inclusion in the latest revision (Form N) of the AFOOT. Table 1 shows the tests used in
Form M and Form N of the AFOOT Pilot Composite. The scales in Form N that were taken from the
Reference Battery are indicated with an asterisk. Descriptions of the tests in the Reference Battery may be
found in Appendix A.
Ta ble 1.

Pilot Compo~ te Subscales

Form M

Form N

Verbal Analogies
Table Reading
* Electrical Maze
~ Block Counti ng
* Scale Reading

Mechanical Information
Mechanical Principles
Pilot Biographical
Inventory
Aviation Information
Visualization of
Maneuvers
Instrument Comprehension
Sti ck an d Rudder
Orie n tation

Tools

Mechanical Comprehension
Instrument Comprehension
Pilot Biog rap hical and
Attit u de Scale

Additionally, Guinri , Vitola, and Leisey (1976) have investigated the use of scales developed from the
Strong Vocational Interest Blank (SVIB) and the Officer Background and Attitude Survey (OBAS) as pilot
selection instruments and have reported significant correlations between scales from these two instruments

~~~~~

and IJPT criteria. Based upon the work by Guinn , Vitola, an d Leisey, three scales (A, B, an d C) were
developed with items similar in content to those in the SVIB. Those three scales and the OBAS Total
Elimination (TE) and Flying Deficiency (FD) scales were used in this study.
Airciew Psychomotor Tests
Two psychomotor coordination tests have been developed for selection of aircrew personnel:
Two-Hand Coordination and Complex Coordination. The first of these testsTwo Hand Coordinationis a
continuous tracking task in which the subject is required to track a target moving about in a circle with an
X-shaped cursor. The movement of the cursor is ~ introiled by two joyst icks. One joystick controls the
right-left (X 1 -axis) movement of the cursor , while the other joystick controls the up-down (Y 1 -axis)
mo vem~rit.
The second testComplex Coordinationis a compensatory tracking test in which the subject is
required to keep a cursor as close as possible to the intersection of a vertical and horizontal row of dots,
while at the same time keeping a short bar of light as close as possible to the vertical row of dots. The
movement of the cursor in the right-left (X2) axis and up-down (Y2) axis is controlled by a large,
floor-mounted joystick, while the movement of the short bar of light in the right-left (Z2) axis is controlled
by a rudder bar. The development of these tests has been described by Sanders, Valentine , and McGrevy
(1971).
For both tests, scores are obtained by summing the absolute displacements fro m the cursor to the
target poi n t a
n d , for the second test, from the bar of light to the vertical row of dots , for each 1-minute
period of the tests. Each test has a 3-minute practice period, followed by 5 minutes durin g which
perfo rm ance is scored , thus producing five scores for each of the control axes (X 1 ,Y 1 X 2, Y2, Z2).
McGrevy and Valentine (1974) reported correlations of .16 to .42 between the UN Pass/Fail
criterion and the scores from the 4th and 5th minutes of the Complex Coordination Test. Correlations of
these scores with the Flying Training Deficiency (FTD)/Other Disposition (which includes all subjects who
either passed UN or were eliminated for other than FTD) criterion ranged from .08 to .29. An unpublished
study by AFHRL staff personnel has replicated these findings (McGrevy , Note 2), and those resul ts are
summarized in Table A2 1.
,

Autom ated Pilot Aptitude Measurement System (APAMS)

The APAMS uses two Sin~~r-Link General Aviation Trainers interfaced to a Varian 620
minicomputer. Subjects receive a 5-hour syllabus of instruction and testing over a variety of flight
maneuvers. Durin g each testing period, flight parameters (i.e., altitude , heading, ro ll rate , etc.) are
mon ito r ed and recorded , and from these parameters the deviations from the command (ideal) condition are
calculated. The complete 5-hour syllabus produces 190 of these command deviation scores on each subject.
In their report on the development of the system , Long and Vamey (1975) reported multiple
correlations ranging from .25 to .50 between various UN criteria and factor scores obtained from the
APAMS data. In this study , both factor scores and simplified APAMS parameter scores were used.
il L SAMPLE

The data reported and analyzed here were principally collected under the project Ground-Based
Screeninga joint effort of the Air Training Command Flying Training Candidate Selection Division and
the Air Force Human Resources Laboratory. However, some of that reported data were gathered in earlieT,
independent studies. Under the proj ect Ground-Based Screening, more than 1,800 officers and officer
trainees were test ed , using various combinations of the selection instruments listed in Section II of this
repoit .

-4

The data collection effort extended over several years, beginnin g in 1973 with criterion collection and
continuing into 1977. Since not all tests were administered to each subject , the samples of subjects tested
on one instrument may overlap only partially, or n ot at all, with the samples tested on another instrument
or set of instruments. This has complicated the data analysis procedures and has limited the number of
comparisons which may be made among these instruments.
Furthermore, the numbers, cha racteristi cs , and sources of personnel entering UPT during this
extended period underwent considerable fluctuation . The initial phases (1973 1974) of the data collection
ef f ort , during which most of the data on paper-and-pencil tests were collected, were characterized by a high
volume of personnel entering UN, the m~ ority of whom were products of the Office r Training School
(OTS). During this phase, a
lso, compulsory militaiy service was in effect.
Later in the data collection phase (19751976), however, the flow of personnel into UN, especia
lly
those coming from 015, had greatly decreased. The principal sources of input at that time were Air Force
Academy grad u ates , Reserve Of fic er Train in g Co rps ho n or graduates , and commissioned officers from the
Air National Guard and Regular Air Force. During this time frame , both the Vietnam conflict and
compulsory military service were terminated. The effects of these changes were to increase the
homogeneity of abilities within the applicant pool and to increase the overall ability level because of the
increased selectivity made possible with a much smaller group of trainees.
During the course of data collection, the procedures employed in UPT were modified and the
pass/fail ratio changed to reflect fewer failures, This pass/fail ratio, commonly termed the p/q split, is
reported later in several tables showing validity data.
This ratio is important when evaluating the correlations obtained from the analysis because the p/q
split sets a limit on the magnitude of the point-bisenal correlation that may be obtained. Only with a p/q
split of 50/50 (that is, 50% pass and 50% fail) is a correlation of 1.0 possible. As the pfq split deviates from
he maximum correlation that may be computed decreases, so that with a 90/10 split (90% pass/ lO%
50/ 50, t
fail) the maximum point-biserial correlation that may be obtained is approximately 0.55 (Nunnally, 1967,
p. 133).
Mi of these circumstances doubtlessly acted to attenuate the validities obtained in this study,
although their exact impact may not be determined.
W. DATA

ANALYSIS

Mean s , standard deviations, and correlations with two UPT criteriaPass/Fail (for any cause) and
Pass/Fail (for FTD)for each of the instruments for which data were available are given in Tables 2 through
7. In those cases where the test instrument produces an error score (in which good performance is indicated
by a lo w score ), the signs of the correlation coefficients have been reflected so as to produce positive
coefficients.

The means and standard deviations of the 190 variables obtained from the APAMS are not reported,
as those variables are not themselves used in further analyses. Because of the large number of variables
obtained from the APAMS, some form of data reduction was considered desirable. The Long and Varney
(1975) analyses used a factor an alytic procedure to reduce the number of variables, an d t his approach has
also been followed in this analysis.
A principal components factor analysis, fo llowed by Varim ax rotation , was performad on the 190
APAMS variables. This procedure resulted in the identification of the six factors given in Table 3. However,
becau se of the instability of the factor coefficients obtained from an analysis of 190 variables with only
140 subjects (the usual rule of thumb is to have 10 times as many subjects as variables), a
n other , sim pler
data reduction procedure was also carried out.

Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations

with UNCriteria for Psychomotor Coordination Tests
Variable

Mea n

SD

r(Pa~~/FaIl)

( N 1 3 7 )
p/q 72/25

r(P,u/FTD)

(N 114)
p/q ~~
1Sf 15

X-Axis, Min. 4
X-Axis, Min. 5
Y-Axis, M m . 4
Y~Axis, Min. 5
X-Axis, M in .4 + 5
Y-Axis, M m . 4 + 5

Two-Hand Coordination
910.15
321.55
948.31
328.35
868.00
309.21
875.22
318.70
1,858.47
601.19
1,743.22
577.41

.15
.21
.13
.13
.19
.14

.07
.21
.14
.19
.15
.18

X-Axis, Min. 4
X-Axis, Min. 5
Y-Axis, M m . 4
Y-Axis, Min. 5
Z-Axis, M m . 4
Z-Axis, Min. 5
X-Axis, Min . 4 + 5
Y.Ajcjs, Miii. 4 + 5
Z-Axis, Min 4 +5

Complex Coordination
450.71
453.50
412.78
459.48
438.46
532.43
396.53
502.58
2,672.95
5,647 .72
3,063.58
6 ,231.9 1
863.49
885.20
834.99
998.29
5,736.53
11,353.33

.18
.16
.18
.19
.17
.22
.17
.19
.21

.14
.15
.12
.14
.07
.17
.15
.14
.13

have been reflected.

p < .05 .
p < .01.

Table 3. Means, Sta ndard Deviatio ns , and Correlations

with UPT Criteria for A PAM S Facto r Sco res
an d Parameter Sco r es
Mean

SD

r(Paaa/F,ll )
(P4140)

r (Pau/FTD)

Variable

p/q 71/25

(N 117)
p/q = 55/ 15

Factor I Heading
Factor H Bank
Factor III Attitude
Factor N Side Slip
Factor V Bank II
Factor VI Position
Average Pitch Angle
Average Bank Angle
Average Side Slip
Average Heading
Average Altitude

0
0
0
1)
0
0
2.09
5.01
1.61
9.10
96.36

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
.52
2.04
.37
9.94
68.20

.18
.27
.00
.15
.20
.04
.26
.28
.19
.27
.20

.03
.37
.08
.09
.13
.08
.18
.33
.11
.19
.22

Signs have been reflected .

p < .05 .
p < .01.

-4

Table 4. Mea n s, Sta ndard Deviation s, and Cor relatio ns

with UNCriteria for SVIB Blank Scales

Var iable

Mean

SD

r(Pa /Faii )
(N ~ 265)
p/q 72/25

SVIB Key A
SVIB Key B
SVIB Key C

40.06
33.4 1
38.32

6.38
7.56
31.99

.13
.16
.06

r(Pau/FTD)
(N = 227)
p/q 54/16

.06
.09

.01

p < .05.

Table 5. Mean s, Sta ndard Deviations, and Correlations

with UNCriteria for OBAS
V~ riab(i

Total Elimination Scale

Flying Defi cien cy Scale

Mean

SD

1.76
.69

1.31
1.17

r(Paas/Fall)
(N = 251)

p/a

72/28

r (Pau/FTD)
(N
220)
= 65/ 15

p/q

.15
.13

.05
.03

p < .05.

Table 6. Mea ns, Standard Deviations, an d Correlations

with U N Criteria for Reference Battery Scales

(N

Variable,

Scale Reading
Letter Sets
Tool Functions
Electrical Information
Mechanical Principles
Word Knowledge
Word Grouping
Verbal Analogies
Block Counting
Point Distance
Electrical Maze
Pattern Detail
Rotated Blocks
Tools

Figure Analogies
Hidden Figures
Answer Sheet Markin g
Table Reading
Large Tappin g
Trace Tapping
Discrimination-Reaction

245, Tested During FY 74) a

Mean

SO

r(Pau/Fall l
p/g = IS/ IS

16.18
18.75
6.58
6.78
7.87
8.24
8.09
8.32
34.71
25.13
7.44
7.65
6.11
7.1 1
7.19
4.63
98.78
22.59
69.07
101.25
87.60

4.50
431
1.85
1.80
1.90
1.70
1.48
1.52
8.60
9.78
4.17
3.27
2.12
1.9 1
1.99
3.00
15.74
6.57
15.00
24.86
17.50

.19
.10
.04
.02
.10
.03
.01
.13
.18
.04
.13
.07
.08
.04
.01
.05
.05
.17
.05
.05
.06

r(Oth.r b/ FTO)
p/q = 62/8

.16
.15
.08
.10
.12
.15

.04
.19
.15
.06
.14
.14
.10
.02
.04
.03
.09
.08

.10
.03
.02

a DIU taken from Miller (Note I) .

b Oth er Category includes graduates and all personnel elimi nated for other than Flying Tra in~
~
ing Deficiency.
p < .05.
p < . O I .

Table 7. Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations

with UN Criteria for AFOQT (Form M) Raw Scores

(N 245, Tested During FY 74) a

Variab le

Mean

PIlot Composite
Navigator Composite
Officer Quality
Verb al
Quantitative

103.09
123.71
1 19.64
40.12
37.76

SD

r(Pass /Fail )

17.16

.15
.11
.08
.10
.13

25.68

16.45
7.32
9.05

r(Oth er/ FTD) b

.10
.05

.00
.04
.05

aData taken from Miller (Note

1).
b Othe r
~
~ category incl udes graduates and all personnel eliminated fo- other than Flying Training Deficie ncy.
p < .05.

The additional variables reported in Table 3 are the simple averages of all APAMS variables that were
in the same metricthat is, the mean absolute deviation from the command Pitch Angle , Bank Angle, etc.
Where overlapping samples permitted , the intercorrelations of the test variables from each instrument
were computed. These correlations are presented in Tables Al throug h A20, in Appendix A.
T ables 8 and 9 present the multiple correlations obtained between the set of scores obtained from
each instrument and the Pass/Fail and Pass/ FTD criteria , respectively. In these and subsequent tables, the
seven predictors reported for the Reference Battery are those sr ~i.les which appear in the PC of Form N of
the AFOQT; however, these are not all of the scales which constitute the PC. Therefore , these correlations
should not be taken as representing the total validity of the PC for Form N of the AFOQT.

Table 8. Regression Problems for Single Predictor

Sets with

Pro blem

No.

Pass/Fail Criterion

No. of
Predi ct or s

Predictor Set

Psychomotor Tests

2
3

10

APAMS Parameter Scores

APAMS Factor Scores

SVLB

5
6

OBAS
Reference Battery 5
Reference Battery ~
AFOQT (Pilot and Navigator
Composites) Form M

a Dat a taken from Miller (Note I).

1Data from subjects who also wrr e tested on APAMS.
p < .05.
p < .01.

10

2
7
7
2

137
140
140

265
257
245

131

245

.34
.32
.41
.18
.15
.25
.17
.15

Table 9~ Regression Problems for Sin gle Predictor

Sets with Pass/FTD Criterion

Probl em
No.

No. of

Predictor Set

Predictors

10
5
6
3
2
7
7
2

1l4
117
117
227
220
245
109
245

Psychomotor Tests
APAMS Parameter Scores
APAMS Factor Scores
SVIB
OBAS
Reference Battery
Reference Battery b
AFOQT (Pilot and Navigator
Composites)a Form M

4
5
6
7
8

33

37
.~~!

.14
.05
.26
.35
.10

aData taken from Miller (Note

1). Criterion in this ~~se is VFD/Other Disposition.
b
Data from subjects who also were tested on APAMS.
p < .05.
p < .01.

For those cases where there were sufficient subjects to permit analysis, the multiple correlations
between combinations of instruments and the two train ing criteria were computed. These multiple
correlations are given in Table 10.
The data reported for the APAMS thus far have been based upon the subjects tested by Long an d
Varney. An additional sample of subjects was also testedreferred to hereafter as the cross-validati on
sample. Using the weights generated by the factor analysis of the Long and Vamey data , six factor scores
were generated for each subject in the cross-validation sample, corresponding to the factors reported in
Table 3. The correlations between these six factor scores and the two training criteria are given in Table ii.
Table 12 gives the correlations between these training criteria and the five APAMS Parameter scores for the
cross-validation sample.
In order to assess t
he shrinkage in the multiple correlations, the regression weights obtained from
problems 2 and 3 given in Table 8 and problems 2 and 3 given in Table 9 were applied to the APAMS factor
scores and parameter scores to generate predicted UPT criteria values. The correlations between these
predicted values and the two UPT criteria are given in Table 13.
As an alternative to the use of regression weights to form an overall APAMS score, a unit weighting
scheme was evaluated in which each of the five APAMS parameter scores (in standard score form) was
assigned a weight of 1.0, a
nd the overall APAMS score was formed by taking the simple arithmetic sum of
the scores. The correlations between this APAMS composite score and the two training criteria for both the
Long.and Varney sample and the cross-validation sample are given in Table 14.
Tables 15 and 16 report multiple correlations with UN Pass/Fail and Pass/FTD for selected sets of
predictors.
An operation similar to that used with -the APAMS data was performed on the psychomotor
coordination test scores. From Tables 15 and 16, it may be seen that Test 1 (Two-Hand Coordination)
makes little contribution to Test 2 (Complex Coordination) for the prediction of either criterion.
Furthermore, if the sum of the scores from minutes 4 and 5 for each control axis (X4 + X 5 ; Y4 + Y5; 4 +
Z 5) are used, there is again little decrease in validity.
Finally, by taking the arithmetic sum of the scores from each axis (in standa rd score form), a single
Psychomotor Composite score may be found. This composite score, which is simply the arithmetic sum of
all the scores from the 4th and 5th mInutes of Test 2, retains much of the validity of the other scoring
procedures while being much more convenient to apply .
11

_
_

--

_______________________________

Table 10. Regression Problems for Combinations of Predictor Sets

Pus/F.M

Probl.m
No.

Predictor SVI

No. of

Predictors

Psychomotor Tests and

2
3
4

APAMS Factor Scores

Psychomotor Tests and
SVIB
Psychomotor Tests and
OBAS
Psychomotor Tests and
Reference Battery
Psychomotor Tests and
AFOQT Form M
APAMS Parameter Scores
and Psychomotor Tests
APAMS Parameter Scores
and SVIB
APAMS Parameter Scores
and OBAS
APAMS Parameter Scores
and Reference Battery
APAMS Parameter Scores
and AFOQT Form M
APAMS Factor Scores and
SVIB
APAMS Factor Scores and
OBAS
APAMS Factor Scores and
Reference Battery
APAMS Factor Scores and
AFOQT Form M
SVIB and OBAS
SVIB and Reference Battery
SVIB and AFOQT Form M
OBAS and Reference Battery
OBAS and AFOQT Form M
Reference Battery and
AFOQT Form M
Reference Battery and
AFOQT Form Ma
-

6
7
8
9

10

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

20
21

a Data taken from Miller (Note 1).

* p < .05 .
p <.Ol.

12

PSU/FTD

Criterion
N

Criterion

11

137

.51

114

.51

218

.29

186

.25

210

.30

179

.24

12

130

37

108

.41

106

.30

87

.17

10

139

.41

114

.40

123

35

101

.41

116

.24

95

.37

12

131

38

109

.52

106

35

88

.40

123

.44

101

.51

116

.39

95

.42

13

131

.51

109

.56

107

.48

88

.52

5
10
5
9
4
9

256
258
215
250
207
106

.23
.22
.17
.15
.16
.27

219
220
181
213
174
245

.16
.26
.14
.17
.07
.27

245

.27

245

.27

Table 11. Validity of APAMS

Factor Scores for Cross-Validation
Sample5
Puss/Fan
(N.11S)

Factor

I Heading
II Bank
Ill Altitude
N Side Slip
V Bank II
VI Position

Pau/F1D
(N 55)
~~

(.18)
(.27)
(.00)
(.15)
(.20)
(.04)

.18
.15
.20
.16
.06
.20

.18
.15
.25
.14
.16
.21

(.03)
(.37)
(.08)
(.09)
.(.13)
(.08)

aVa it from validation sample (Table 3) are shown in

~~ ~~
pareffiheses for comparison.
p < .05.
p < O l .

Table 12. Validity of APAMS

Parameter Scores for Cross-Validation
Sample s
Pa~~ PaM
( He
lls )

PItch
Bank
Side Slip
Heading
Altitude

.28
.27
.15
.09
.18

P W FrD
(N I9)
~~

(.26)
(.28)
(.19)
(.27)
(.20)

.37
.25
.19
.14
.22

(.18)
(.33)
(.11)
(.19)
(.22)

aV fities from validation sample (Table 3) are shown in

~~
parentheses for comparison.
p < .05.
p < .01.
Table 13. Application of Regression Coefficients to Cross-Validation Sample
Problem

No. of

No.

Pred ictor set

Vailebiss

2
3
4

APAM S Parameter Score

APAMS Parameter Score
A1AMSFactor Score
APAMS Factor Score

Crit erio n

Pass/Fail
Pass/FTD
Pass/Fall
Pass/FTD

5
6
6

116
99
116

99

-.09
.23

-.08

.27

13

I.

- -

.
-- - - .
-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~

- -

-~~~~~

____________

Table 14. Validities of APAMS

Composite Score Generated from
Parameter Scores (in Standaad Score Form)
Criterion

Sample 1
140
117

Pass/Fail
Pass/FTD

30
.26

Sample 2

Pass/Fail
Pass/FTD

116
99

.25
.31*

p < .01.

Table 15. Regression Problems for Various Predictor Systems

for UPT Pass/Fail Criterion

Problem
No.

1
2
3

4
S

6
7
8

9
10
11
12

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

No. of

Predictors

Reference Battery
Psychomotor Tests (Tests 1 & 2,
Mins.4&5)
Psychomotor Test 2 (Mm . 4, M m . 5)
Psych omotor Test 2 (u n. 4 + M m . 5)
APAMS Composite
APAMS Composite, Psychomotor Composite
APAMS Composite, SVIB Scale B
APAMS Composite, OBAS T.E. Scale
APAMS Composite, Reference Battery
Psychomotor Composite, Reference
Battery
Psychomotor Composite, Reference
Battery, APAMS Composite, OBAS T.E.
Scale
Psychomotor Composite, Reference
Batte r y, APAMS Composite, SVE B Scale B
Psychomotor Composite- Reference
Battery, APAMS Composite, OBAS T.E.
Scale, SV IB Scale B
Psychomotor Composite, Reference
Battery , OBAST.E . Scale
Psychomotor Composite, Reference
Battery , SVIB Scale B
Psychomotor Composite, Reference
Battery , OBAS T.E. Scale, SVIB
Scale B
Reference Battery , OBAS T.E. Scale
SVIB Scale B

p < .05.
p < .01.

7
10

131
137

.17
.34

137

.31

137

Psychomotor Composue Score

Psychomotor Composite , Reference

Battery , APAMS Composite

Predictors

1
2
2
2
8
8

.30
.29

140
137

.30
.36

116
112
130

.24
30
.34

130

.42

10

113

.38

10

120

.41

11

112

.40

113

.33

120

.34

10

112

.36

249

.23

14

137

-- - - .
- -~~~
~~~

123

.30

Table 16. Regression Problems for Various Predictor

Systems for UPT Pass/FTD Criterion
Probiem
No.

No. of
Predictors

Predictors

Refe rence Battery

Psychomotor Tests (Test 1 & 2,

3
4

Psychomotor Test 2 (Miii. 4, M m . 5)

Psychomotor Test 2 (Min. 4 + Miii. 5)

Psychomotor Composite Score

APAMS Composite
APAMS Composite , Psychomotor Composite
APAM S Composite , SVIB Scale B
APAM S Com posite , OBAS T.E. Scale
APAMS Composite, Reference Battery

10
11

Psych omotor Composite , Reference

Ba ttery
Psychomotor Composite , Reference
Battery, APAMS Composite

12

13

15

18
19

.35

6
3

114
114

.27
.21

117

.26

114

114

114

2
8

95
91

101

.33

.20
.29

.29

.21

.39

108

.46

Psychomotor Composite, Reference

Batte ry, APAJ~1S Com posite , OBAS T.E.

10

92

.47

Psychomotor Composite, Reference

Battery, APAMS Composite, SV IB Scale B

10

98

.48

11

91

.48

92

.43

98

.41 *

10

91

.43

212

Battery, OBAS T.E. Scale

Psychomotor Composite, Reference
Battery, SVIB Scale B
Psychomotor Composite, Refe rence
Batte ry, OBAS T.E. Scale, SVIB Scale B
Reference Battery, OBAS I.E. Scale
SVIB Scale B

17

109

108

Psychom otor Comp osite, Re ference

Battery , APAMS Composite , OBAS T.E.
Scale , SVIB Sca
le B
Psychomotor Composite , Reference

16

Scale

14

10

M m . 4 & 5)

6
7
8
9

.21

p < .05.
p < .01.
V. RESULTS ANI) DISCUSSION

Before reporting the results obtained in this study , it would be well to review b riefl y the difficulties
which beset the analyses and the limitations which these conditions have placed on the interpretation and
generalizability of the results.
As noted ea rlier , the c
haracteristics of the sample and, to some degree , the nature of the training
environment changed during the course of data collection. Furthermore , t h ose tests wh!~h required the use
of an apparatusspecifically the Psychomotor Coordination tests and the APAMSwere influenced by
variations in the apparatus itself.

15

In t
he case of the Psychomotor test device, abnormalities in the test results which appeared during
the data analysis made it apparent that a random malfunction in the equipment had occurred
approximately halfway through the study. This malfun ction increased scores obtained by subjects and thus
partially invalidated the scores obtained by the later subjects. Since it appeared that the onset of this
malfunction coincided roughly with the end of testing for the first APAMS sample, the scores for these
subjects were used in determining validity coefficients for the Psychomotor tests.
The intercorr elatfons of the Psychomotor tests with the other variables are based on the entire sample
of subjects because , otherwise, there would be too few cross-matching cases. The correlations are
attenuated because of the increased random variability of the Psychomotor variables, how ever , and can
only be regarded as approximations to the true values.
For the APAMS, equipment malfunctions and difficulties encoun tered in reading data from the
magnetic tape ifies produced by the system resulted in the loss of some data , especially for the second,
cross-validation sample. Here, in those cases where data were missing, t
he means of the particular variables
were inserted. This has the effect of reducing the variance of those variables and atten uating their
correlations with the criteria. Validities reported for the cross.validation sample are therefore somewhat
biased to be lower than the true validities which might have been obtained under better conditions.
Validities obtajned for the Psychomotor Coordination tests were slightly lower than those obtained in
previous studies, probably du e, at j east in part , to the equipment difficulties noted earlier. Ne vert heless,
several significan t correlations were obtained between these variables and the two criteria. The multiple
correlations of the Psyc
homotor tests, usin g all variab les, a
nd the two criteria were moderate , but were n ot
statistically significant because of the number of predictor variables relative to the number of subjects.
However , by going through the reduction or simplification procedures described earlier, Psychomotor
Composite scores were obtained that did correlate significantly with the criteria: .29 for Pass/Fail and .20
for the Pass/FTD.
Both the Factor scores and the Parameter scores obtained from the APAMS demonstrated significant
correlations with the two criteria in both validation and cross-validation samples. In the validation sample,
multiple correlations of .41 and .42 were obtained between the Factor scores and the Pass/Fail and
Pass/FTD criteria, respectively. For the Parameter scores, multiple correlations of .32 and .37 were
obtained.
Application of the four regression equations obtained from the validation sample to the
cross-validation sample resulted in a reduction of the multiple correlations. For the Factor scores, these
shrunken mul tiple correlations were .08 and .27 for the Pass/Fail and Pass/FTD criteria , respectively;
while for the Parameter scores, the multiple correlations were reduced to .09 and .25 for the respective
criteria. This shrinkage was considered excessive ; therefore , the procedure described earlier for the
generation of a single APAMS Composite score was accomplished. This Composite score correlated 30 and
.26 with the Pass/Fall and Pass/FTh criteria, respectively, in the validation sample and .25 and 31 with the
two criteria in the cross-validation sample. All of these correlations were statistically significant and did not
experience the shrinkage between samples to which the scores generated using regression weights were
subjected.

Low but statistically significant correlations were obtained between scales from the SVIB and the
Pass/Fail criterion. However, correlations ef these scales with the Passf FTD criterion were not significant.
For the seven scales from the Reference Battery that were included in Form N of the AFOQI ,
correlations with the Pass!Fail ctiterion ranged from .10 to .19 , while correlations of these scales with a
criterion of FTD/Other Disposition ranged from .08 to .19. The multiple correlations of these seven scales
with the Pass/Fail and FTD/Other criteria were .25 and .26 , respectively.
The Pilot Composite of the previous version of the AFOQT (Form M) correlated .15 and .10 with the
Passf Fail and FTD/Other criteria, respectively. These are of approximately the same order but slightly
lower than uncorrected correlations reported by Miller (1966, 1969 , 1972, 1974) which ranged from .20 to
.36. However , these correlations seriously- underestimate the true corr elations in the population because all
16

subjects had already been selected for training, based upon their scores on the AFOQT, Pilot Composite.
Miller (1969) estimates the unrestricted correlation with Pass/Fall to be .40.
While no direct validation of the Pilot Composite for Form N of the AFOQT was possible in this
study, it is possible to arrive at an estimate of that value. Using the data from Miller (Note 1), the
composite correlation of seven of the scales from Form N with the Pass/Fall criterion is .25. The scales
which appea
r in the AFOQT are approximately twice as long as those in the Reference Battery : correcting
for this increased test length yields a correlation of .26. Including the contribution of the Pilot Biographical
and Attitude Scale raises the correlation to .30, and the inclusion of the estimated independent
contribution of the Instrument Comprehension scale yields a correl ation of .33. The same operations
performed on the data available from subjects who were tested on the APAMS yields a correlation of .26.
Similar operations performed on the correlations with FTD/Other Disposition obtained from the Miller
data and Pass/FTD from the APAMS study yield estimated correlations of 30 and .39, respective ly.
From these data , it would seem that the validity for the PC of Form N should fall in the range of .30
to .40. An overall estimated validity of .35 seems appropriate and should be fairly indicative of the degree
of relationships between the PC and UPT performance within the restricted sample for which data were
available. The unrestricted correlation , therefore , would be on the order of .40 or greater.
In Tabl e 10, multiple correlations are reported for the two training criteria using each pair of
predictor sets for which sufficient data were available. Correlations here range from .15 to .51 for the
Pass/Fail criterion and from .07 to .56 for the Passf FTh criterion. In these analyses , all variables or scales
fro m each test (except the Reference Batte ry) were included. This gives fairly high multiple correlations for
man y of the combinations , but it also results in nonsignificant correlations in several cases because of the
rati o o f predictors to subjects.
In Tables 15 and 16, the numbe r of variables taken from each test have been reduced with a view to
obtain ing the most parsimonious set of predictors. For the Pass/Fail criterion , the best com bin ation of
predictors consists of the Psychomotor Comp osite score , APAMS Composite score , an d the seven scales
from the Reference Battery . This combination yields a multiple correlation of .42 which is statistically
significant.
Addition of both the best scales from the OBAS and SVIB do not improve upon this combination
and , in fact , result in a small decrease ( .02) in the multip le correlation. This phenomenon , which may also
be noted in other instances, is a function of the poor match among subjects on the different tests , so that of
the 130 subjects who had scor es available on the Psychomotor tests, APAMS, and Refe rence Batter y , only
11 2 also had scores available on the OBAS and SVIB.
Because of this artifact and the possible influence it might have on the assumptions underlying the F
test , statistical comparisons of these prediction models were consid ered inappropriate.
However , it is possible to make some comparisons based on the observed results. The Psychomotor
Composite, by itself , correlates .29 with the Pass/Fall criterion . Adding the APAMS Com posite results in a
m ultiple correlation of .36 and , as noted ab ove, adding the seven scales from the Reference Battery brings
the multiple correlation up to .42.
Alternatively , a system consisting of just the Psychomotor Composite and the Reference Battery gives
a multiple correlation of .34. Adding the SVIB and OBAS increases the multiple correlation to .36.
For the Pass/FTD criterion , similar results are obtained . The combination of Psychomotor Composite
scores, A1AMSComposite scores, and Reference Battery scales give a multiple correlation of .46 . In this
case, adding the SVIB and OBAS increases the multiple correlation to .48.
The system con sistin g of just the Psychomotor Comp osite and Reference Battery gives a m ultipl e
correlation of .39 an d , adding the SVIII and OB AS increases the multiple correlation to .43.
-

17

~~

-- ~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The results of this study support earlier studies regarding the validity of Psychomotor Coordination
tests and the APAMS for the prediction of liFT criteria. Furthermore, these results have demonstrated how
the scoring procedures used for these tests may be simplified with little reduction in validity.
it is evident that either or both of these tests can add to the validity of a selection system based on
paper.and.pencil tests. Whether it is economically feasible to do so is another question which is beyon d the
scope of this study.
It is recommended that a pilot selection system utilizing paper.and-pendil measures (AFOOT),
psychomotor tests (in particular the Complex Coordination Test), and the APAMS be adopted.
Paper-and-pencil measures provide an effective , valid means of initial screening; the psychomotor tests
contribute unique variance, supplemented by the APAMS apparatus.
FutuTe selection research will be directed at developing low cost devices to measure the abilities
which contribute to the validity of the APAMS. Additionally, new are as of testin g, such as biophysiological
measures, information processing skills, and measures tapping higher-level integrative abilities should be
addressed.
REFERENCES

Guinn, N., Vitola , B.M., & Leisey , S.A. Background and interest measures as predictors of success in
undergraduate pilot training. AFHRL-TR.76-9, AD-A025 851. Lackland AFB , TX: Personnel
Research Division, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory, May 1976.
Long , G.E., & Va r ney, N.C. Automated pilot aptitude measurement system. AFHRL -TR -75-58 , AD. A018
151. Lackland AFB, TX: Personnel Research Division, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory,
September 1975.
McGrevy, D.F., & Valentine , L.D., Jr. Valida tion of Iwo aircr ew psychomotor tests. AFHRL .T R.744 ,
AD-777 830. Lackland AFB, TX: Personnel Research Division, Air Force Human Resources
Laboratory, January 1974.
Miller, g.E. Relationship of AFOQT swres to measures of success in undergraduate pilot and navigator
training PRLTR-66-14, AD-656 303. Lacldand AFB, TX: Personnel Research Division, Aerospace
Medical Division, Aerospace Medical Division, October 1966.
Miller, R.E. Interpretation and utilization of scores on the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test.
AFH RL-TR .69-103 , AD-69 1 001. I.ackland AFB , TX : Person nel Resea
r ch Division, Air Force
Human Resources Laboratory, May 1969.
Miller, R.E. Development and standardization of the Air Force Qualifying Test Form L. AFHRL-TR-72.47,
AD-754 849. Lackland AFB , TX: Personnel Research Division, Air Force Hum a
n Resou rces
Laborato ry, May 1972.
Miller , R.E. Development and standardization of the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test Form M.
AFHRL -TR -74-16, A1).778837. Lackla nd AFB , TX: Personnel Research Division, Air Force Human
Resources Laboratory, March 1974.
Nunnal ly, J .C. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-H ill, 1967.
Sanders, J .H., Valentine , LD., Jr., & McGrevy , D.F. The development of equipment for ythomotor
~
assessment. AFHRL-TR-7l.40, AD-732 210. Lackland AFB, TX: Personnel Research Division, Air
Force Human Resources Laboratory, July 1971.

18

REFERENCE NOTES

2.

Miller, IL E. Computer study of AFOQT and Nay battery. Personnel Resear ch Division , Air Force
Human Resources Laboratory, unpublished.
McGrevy, D.F. Computer study of further data collected on aircrew psychoniote tests. Pez onnel
~
~
Reseatch-Division, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory, unpublished.

i
19

- -

~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--

-~~ - --

--

APPENDIXA: REFERENCE BA11ERY SCALES

Scale Reading

Letter Sets

ToolFunctions
Electrical Informmion
MechanicoiPtindples
Word Knowledge
Word Group ing

VerbalAnalogies

Block Counting

PointDistance

ElectricalMaze

Is a test of the subject s ability to read scales, dials, and meters. There are a
variety of scales with various points indicated on them by numbered arrows. The
subject is to estimate the numerical value indicated by each arrow . There are
four sample items an d 24 scored items, divided into two separately timed
sections.
Has items which contain five groups of letters with four letters in each group.
Four of the groups of letters are alike in some way. The subject is to find the
rule that makes the four groups alike. The fifth group is different from the
others and will not fit the rule . He indicates his knowledge of the rule by
selecting the group that does not fit. The subject is given two sample items and
30 scored items, divided into two separately timed sections.
Contains questions about the use of tools. In each of the ten items, a tool is
depicted and five statements are given concerning the use or type of the tool.
The subject must select the statement that best fits the illustration.
13 a test of the subject s knowledge of electricity and electrical devices. it
contains ten items which cover a variety of electrical principles and applications.
Contains 10 items covering mechanical principles and devices, such as gears and
pulleys.
Is a test of how well the subject understands words. Each of the 10 items consists
of an underlined word followed by five choices. The subject is to decide which
one of the five choices most nearly matches the meaning of the underlined word.
Consrsts of 10 items each containing five words. The subject s task is to select
the word that does not belong with the others.
Is a test of the subject s ability to determine the relationships between words . In
these 10 items the subject is given one relationship and part of another. The
subjects task is to select from among the five choices the one that best
completes a relationship similar to the first one (I.e., Hoof is to cow as paw is to
X).
Is a test of the subject s abilit y to see into a three-dimensional pile of blocks
and determine how many pieces are touched by certain numbered blocks. There
are two sample items followed by 80 scored items divided into two separately
timed sections.
Is a test of th e subjects ability to compare small distances quickly. Each
problem has a central point sunounded by some lines and circles, among which

there is a dot marked a and a dot marked b. The subj ect is to decide which
one of the two lettered dots is nearer the cante ral point. There are two sample
Items. The test is divided into two separately timed sections with 30 item s in
each section.
Is a test of the subjects ability to choose a correct path from among five
choices. For each item there is a diagram which consists of a large circle at the
top of the picture and five lettered boxes at the bottom. In each box there is a
dot marked S and a dot marked F. Unes lead from these points to the
other boxes and to the circle , with dots Indicating connections between lines.
The subj ect must choose the box which has a connection from the S through
the cirde and back to the F In the same box . Only one of the five boxes in
each Item will meet this condition. There are three examples and 16 scored
items.
21

_____
__

Is a test of the subject s ability to remember patterns which have been made by
arranging straight lines in several ways. The subject is given 5 minutes to study a
page containing 15 of these patterns. The subject is then given 15 items in which
he must identify which one of five alternatives had been presented on the study
page .
Rotated Bloc/cr
Presents the subject with a reference block and requi res tha t he decide which
one of five other blocks is the same as the reference block , were it rotated in
3-dimensional space. There are four sample problems and 10 scored items.
Tools
Is a test about tools and how they are used . Each of the 10 item s has a picture of
a tool and four other objects. The subject must decide which one of the four
objects goes with the pictured tool.
F igure Analogies
Is a test of how well the subje ct can discover logical relationshi ps. The subject is
given two fi gu res which have a certai n relation ship to each other. Then a third
figure is given which has that sam e relationship to one of five alternative fIgures.
The subject s task is to select that fi gu re from the alternatives which bears the
same relationship to the single figure that the two original figures bear to each
other. There are two sample items and 10 scored items.
Hidden Figures
is a test of the subject s ability to see a simple figure in a complex drawing. At
the top of each page are five figures , a
nd below these are some numbered
drawings. The subject is to determine which lettered figure is contained in each
of the numbered drawin gs.
Answer Sheet Marking Is a test of how quickly and how accurately the subject can mark answers. The
questior in this test appear as pairs of numbers. Each pair stands for one space
on the answer sheet. The first number is the number of the question and the
second is the number of the space to blacken for that question . There are two
separately timed sections in this test , each containing 75 items.
Table Reading
Is a test of the subject s ability to read tables quickly and accurately . The items
in this test consist of pairs of numbers which correspond to numbers appearing
on the abcissa and ord inate of a large table he subject s task is to find the
entry in the table at the intersection of the row and column design ated by the
pair of numbers. There are five practice problems and 43 scored items in this
test.
La,ge Tapping
Requires that the subject place three pencil dots inside a large number of circles
arrayed regularly across the page . The score is the number of circles in which the
subject places the three dots during the time limit.
Thace Tapping II
Con sists of small num bered circles connected by an irreg ul ar line. The subject is
to place one dot in each circle as quickly as he can , starting with the circle
numbered one an d proceeding along the irregular line . The score is the number
of circles in which the subject places a dot.
Discrim ination-Reaction Is a test of speed of reaction to a signal. The signal is an arrangemen t of a black
circle and a white circle within a box. The subject s task is to place a check mark
on one of four lines to in dicate the relationship of the white circle to the black
circle. There are eight practice problems and 100 scored items on the test.
Pattern Detail

22

Table Al. Intercorrelation of Psychomotor Coordination

Scores and APAMS Parameter Scores
(N= 137)

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Test 1 X-Axis
Test 1 Y-Axis
Test 2 X-Axis
Test 2 Y Axis
Test 2 Z-Axis
Average Pitch Angle
Average Bank Angle
Average Side Slip
Average Heading
Average Altitude

.83
.37
.29
.08
.30
.24
.31
.24
.28

.31
.20
.07
.28
.24
.27
30
.27

.54
.00
.29
.25
.37
.29
.09

.04
.21
.16
.25
.16
.04

.11
.03
.03
.14
.25

.78
47
.65
.61

35
.63
.59

.33
.31

.75

10

Table A2. Intercorreladon of Psych omotor Coordination

Scoies and APAMS Factor Scores
(N=137)

1. Test 1 X-Axis
2. Testl Y .Ax is
3. Test2X .Axis
4. Test 2 Y-Axis
5. Test 2 Z-Axis
6. APAMS Factor I
7. APAMS Factor II
8. APAMS Factor III
9. APAMS Factor IV
10. APAMS Factor V
11. APAMS Factor VI

.83
.37
.29
.08
.15
.02
.22
.10
.10
.04

31
.20
.07
.22
.08
.23
.06
.08
.01

.54
.00
.20
.07
.08
.16
.21
.06

.04
.08
.06
.03
.28
.08
.04

.12
.00
.31
.09
.17
.00

.00
.00
.02
.00
.00

10

.01
.00
.00

.CJ
.01

.00

II

.00
.02
.01
.00

Table A3. Intercorrelation of PSychomotor Coordination Scores and SVIB Keys

(N =

1. Test 1 X-Axis
2. Test 1 Y.Axis
3. Test 2 X-Axis

4. Test2Y .Axis

5.Tes t2Z .Axj s

6. SVIB Key A

7. SVIB Key B
8. SVIB Key C

.84
.35
.15
.17
.17
.17
.03

.30
.09
.16
.18
.17
.12

.47
.02
.24
.26
.11

229)

23

.08
.10
.12
.02

.05
.04
.00

.97
.40

.41

-~

N
*

p..

00

in

V.,

N r fl N

~~~~~~~~~
I

~~~~~~~

V~. ~~ (
~

04
N

.~~~~

.00
(~ ~.

p.. Q N 00% N
~
~~

or- a% oo

I
B

N 0
~~

00

.~~~~~~ ~ i~~
~~

.
I

t . V.~ 00 .-. fl

~~ Q~ ~~

1 1 00 0 N ~~.. 00 *
~ ~
I

c
~

. .

.
~~ m

OS 0

I I

~~ 0 ~~ 0 ~~
0 ~~ N P~I ~ m ~~
0
0
C

00% 0 p.1 0 0 N p..

0 % ~~ 0
~
0 0 4 0 4~ N N ~~

~~ N ~~ 0 0
OS 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 p.. 00 0 50 N V) 0% ~ 5 V~I 0 00 % 00 ~~ fl 00
00

Ill

i I I I

,
~~

t fl ~
~~
~~~~~~~

~~~~

~~

.~

3~ II!J J1

I I I

PP5

~*

50 0- CO Os O. N

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

IJJJ I

I
- 00 05 0 s N
~~ f l 5 0 0~

V
~

Table A6. Intercorrelation of Psychomotor Coordination Scores and AFOQT Composites (Form M)
(N=194 )

1. Test 1- X-Axis
2. Test 1 YAxis

.94

3. T e s t 2 X - Axis
4. Test 2 Y-A~is

5. Test 2 Z-Axis
6. PIlot Composite
7. Navigator Composite
8. Officer Quality
9. Verba l
10. Quan titative

.18

.07
.11
.06
.05
.17
.16
.07

.15
.02
.11
.06
.06
.18
.18
.08

.44
.03

.04

.15
.08
.20
.06

.19
.05
.03
.07

.25

.20

.05

.11
.13
.09
.09

.42
.14
.09
.11

.53
.41
.73

.76
.67

.48

Table A7. Interco rrelation of APAMS Parameter Scores and SVIB Keys
(N= 123)
1

I . Average Pitch Angle

2. Average Bank Angle
3. Average Side Slip
4. Aver age Headin g
5. Average Altitude
6. SVIB Key A

.76
.43
.66
.60
.07
.07
.03

7. SVIB Key B

8. SVI B Key C

.31
.64
.60
.08
.08
.03

.32
.29
.24
.24
.16

.75
.16
.15
.09

.12
.10
.05

.97
.38

.37

Table A8. Intercorrelation of APAMS Factor Scores and SVIB K eys

(N= 123)

I. APAMS Factor I
2. APAMS Factor II
3. APAM S Factor III
4. APAMS Factor N
5. APAMS Factor V

6. APAM S Factor VI
7. SV!B Key A
8. SVIB Key 8
9. SVIB Key C

.01
.01
.01

.02

.00

.00
.05
.04
.10

.04

-.03
.01
.06
.03
.00

.02

.02
.00
.11
.08
.03

25

-.04
.01
.24
.23
.03

.02
.19
.19
.09

.03
.01
.06

.97
.34

.37

Table A9. Intercorrelation of APAMS Parameter

Scores and OBAS Scales
(N

116)

1. Average Pitch Angle

2. Average Bank Angle
3. Average Side Slip
4. Average Heading
5. Average Altitude
6. Tota l Elimination Scale
7. Flying Deficiency Scale

.75

.42

.29

.67

.64

.25

.23

.61

.29

.30

.60

.28

.31

.09

.15

.75

.33
.39

.30

37

.67

TableAll). Intercorrelation of APAMS Factor Scores and OBAS Scales

( N = 1 6 6)

1. APAMS Factor I
2. APAMS Factor II

3. APAMS Factor IH

4. APAMS Factor IV
5. A1AMSFactor V
6. APAMS Factor VI
7. Total Elimination Scale
8. Flying Deficiency Scale

.05
.01
.00
.02
.00
.02
.21

.11
.07
.14
.06
.01
.09

.03
.)5
.02
.03
.22

.0~

.00

.02
.08

.01

.03
.15

.00
.00

.19

26

-4

*
N
ri
01

V.)
~* V .~~

04
N

.000104

00 p . . 0 0 %0 O~~~
0N O .
N

p..
5 0 0 000 N V.) V
~~~~ 50
eI eINP .)N 0000
I

1045000

.
~

- O N N 0 4
0 N 0 0 -.

0 1 ~ ) . 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 0 O N C
O
N

00 Ifl 10%

1Q% p.~ 0 50 0 % V.) N I 5 0 5 0 V.) ( ) N

qo
c

qo q

~~~~~

0.

00 V.) 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 5N
0 ON p... 00 04 00 1
0.0 ~ )

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

V.)

00

~~

04.

*
N

~~

04

04

p.- 0 ) 0 4 * 1 50 V.) *000 W~ 0 0 0 - .p. V.) V.) 5 5 ) 0 4 0 0

~
5 5)0 N
N
N
ON

~ vs

p..

~~

p.. 000 1 N N - N O O N . 00 VS VS ..
~ p..

555 55) - S0 5 V.) *1 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 5

- 0 00 0 s5)
0 4N 5 5 ) 5 0 0 %VS 000 04

IllIthIIIlittial ftknI
-.N 1
~~~

~~~

27

- - _ _5

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_~~~

~~~_
--

._-

*
*

5000 0 VS
15 ) 00 5 1 )

00

00 ... 04 00 0 0 00
N. m.q o . o. _~ 0.

2
2
V.]

50 00 00 N VS VS . . 0 04 0
N N N V S p .0
4 0
~ 00..

0.

2
q

I N 5 0 0 0 N N- Q V S NN N V S

2
0 ON C
0 * 5 5 ) N .000 0 0 0 4 . ~~~~

2
0 0 V S I 0 % 1 0 %- O
0S- C 0 % V S N* O % O V S V S N

5s_

0 0 5 5 5* 5 0 0 4 - 0 - 5 N
0* 0 VS 0 0 1 1VS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

00 VS

P.

.~

i~~~~~i

N O VS 0 0 0 4 0 %
0004 ..5* VS 0 4 0 1 0 0 4 * 0 %VS
I
I l l
VS VS

o.o q

s-S O

I I I

* 0 %O S O 5 0N - 5 0 5 0 0 4 1 0 4 0 4 O
S(5) VS ( 5 5 0 % 00
N0
o
q q ~~~~~~~~ =~~~~q q q

~~~~~~~~

VS0
5 0 0 0 0 5 0 O N 5 0 N N- 0 0 0 4 0 0* 0 5

I I
I
I I
I I I
N .-I VS .- ~~~ VS VS
0 VS 00 0~ 5 0 0 % VS VS VS 1VS N- ~~~~~ in (55

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I
I
I

U
U
H
J
d

.h!J
i
i

Iii
i l
f iHJ{
I
I

...s p . 4 V S* V S 5 0 N - %0..5
00
C4 VS~~~ i5)5~~p.- OO 05 O
s
** ( 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 N
* S*
~ **

28

Table Al3. Intercorielation of APAMS Parameter Scores and AFOQT

(Form M) Composkes
(N106)

1. Average Pitch Angle

2. Average Bank Angie
3. Average Side Slip
4. Average Heading
5. Average Alt
itude
6. Pilot Composite
7. Navigator Composite
8. Officer Quality
9. Verbal
10. Quantitative

0
.68

.35
.66

.44
.17
.14
.21
.01

.42
.16
.17
.27
.01

.47

.67

.64

.35
.33
.29
.23
.07
.12
.10

.81
.43
.11
.1 3
.20
.00

.37
.06
.14
.18
.08

.51
.12
.04
.13

.7

.51
.33
.75

.75
49

.47

10

.51
.33
.75

.75
.69

.47

TableA14. Intercorrelatiosi of APAMS Factor Scores and AFOQT

(Form M) Com posites
(N=106)

1. APAMS Factor I
2. APAMS Factor II
3. APAMS Factor III
4. APAMS Factor N
5. APAMS Factor V
6. APAMS Factor VI
7. Pilot Composite
8. Navigator Composite
9. Officer Quality
10. Verbal
11. Quantitative

.02
.04
.03
.01
.02
.32
.10

.03

.04
.03

.01
.00
-.12
1)2
.01
.03
.00
.11
.04

.05
.00
.02
.01

.15
.15

-.14
.19

.02
.00
.25
.11
.03
.05
.08

.01
.12
.10
.22
.34
.03

.22

.13
.17
.11

.09

.44
.12

.04
.13

TableAlS. Intercorielation of SVIB

and OBAS Scales
(N = 378)

1. SVIB Key A
2.SVIB Key B

.97

3.SVIB Key C
A3
4. Total Elimination Scale
.22
5. FlyIng Deficiency Scale
.05

~~~~~~~~~ -~~~~~~~~~ -.-~ - ,

.43
.20 .01
.05
.12

.- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .

.63

.~~~~~~~-

~~~~~~~~ ~~-

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

50

N
N

N
N

*4

0 4 0 0 4

0 0 0 0 0 0 - .

NN C N .

2
050

0 5 0 0 5 N
~~~5 O 0 04

04 0 * N

P.

VS 0 - 0 4 5 0 0 5) 04 s~) N- N

O ON5 0 .0 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 -

2
2
*5 0 . - , VS in

VS

000404.0500404

;
~

0 0 4 * 0 40 4 5 0* 0 40
.*
0104

..sN 4

040

00

.~~~~~~~~~

0O N 1* 0 0 - 0 5 r - 0 N 0 4 N 5 0 0
~~
*

P.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~

.-. O% (5) 0 5 0 5 . 00 0 4 5N00 4 0 4 0 4 0 4

* 0 40
0
0~N0 ~~~~~~~~~~ N N O ~~ i0 ~0

.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

..

-4: co c?~~~

*
N

I I

I I I

i~ bD~

~~~~~~~~~

I
p fl
~~

1 g ~~~~~-1

30
I

..,w. . , __, _
~

--_--

- s- -- . .-~~.~~, _

VS

. V) 50

~~ t~i

2
\

5 00 0 0 40 0

0.

*N N O.

..

0 4 5 5) 0 0 - 5

04

N N0 N .

2
V

00 VS ~~~(5 ) 0 4 0% V.) 1) N 0.
0 N N O N N 0 j V S.

(5

2
a
.~V

.
~ o. 0.-~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

P.

0-~~~ oo 0 o o o N* 0 * s o m mN 0 . o

~~~~~4

VS

.~
VS

s_

.q .-~~~

o~~j

s- s OS 5 5 ) 0 5 0 5 0 40
VS 5 0 0 4 5 0 0 40 0 0
VS40 40

0.0M0 V S N

NN0. 0. . 0. 0
~~

V S N O O S V S S O O 0 % N 5* 0
* O NO*50*

V .)

5
04

I I

I~ I

~~

I~ a ~3 ~

.
i
~

~ ~~

~~
.

4)

.U

p jfl1IIJa i i!qJJ
~ ~

~~~

* *

* * ~~~~~

0 4 0 4 04
40

31

~~~~

--

.-

_
~~~

N
N
N
N

50f9

V.) in

VS 0 I N N

00 s

V.

IVS0

0
~~~~0 0 0

VS 0 % . s V S O O VS OO N

0 5 5 0 0 4 0 4* 0 4 055)
00
0 00 -

l
0.i

5 .

0 5 0 0 0 4* 0 0

0 0 5 0

if NV S
~

1k

VS

V.5 04 ( 5 ) 1 0 4

e ( ~. N V S

2
5 0 0 0 4 V S 0 4 5 0. .5 1 N 5 0 * 0 0

N VS 50.1) in 04
VS VS (5) N

.4 0 % 1 0%

VS

04

( 5)5 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 5 0
5 0 0 0 0 5 N 0 (5)
0

0% N 0 0 4 0 0N 10% (4 50
s-s N N N
N~~~~~~~~~~N

(5)

0% p.. (5)

.
~

N -V S 0 0 . 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 4 0*40 0 0V.)400 VS 0 5 0 0 5 -

P.

V )S 005 05 . N - O O NVS 5 0 0 4 0 4 0 00 5 0 0 4 0 0N5- 1

0 4 0 4 0 400

00501050N05N
- 0 4 * ~~~
0 . 10 5 0 0 5 0

04

J
(4 (~

.~~

lj f p hLj fl
~~
VS) 0
10 4 0 0 0 %Q * 0 4 VS
4 VS 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 .0 . 0 4 5
s- -s
- 5- s
~~~~-s * ~~ 1~~0 4 0 4 0 4

32

- -- :- - - -~~- - .

0 5 ( 5 ) 0 4 0 %00 05 00 515 VS 040% .- 5 1 ) 0 4 0 4

~~~~~~

.
-~~~~~~

, -%t

~~~~

.
-~

TableA21. M eans, Standard Deviat ions, and Correlations with UPT

Criteria for Psychomotor Coordination Tests (MCGTevy Study)
-

(N ISO)

Var la bi s

M.s n

SO

r(Paa/FaN) b

r(FTO /OtIi.r)

.19
.20
.14
.20

.27
.29
.27
30

Two-Hand Coordination

X-Axis, M m . 4
X-Axis, Mm. 5
Y-Axis, Mm. 4
Y-Axis, M m . 5

1,087.91
1,049.64
1,094.48
1,077.78

451.92
434.13
420.09
406.58
Complex Coordination

X-Axis, Mun. 4
X-Axis, Miii. 5
Y.Axis, Miii. 4
Y-Axis, Min. 5
Z-Axis, Min. 4
Z-Axis, Min. 5

690.12

495.52

887.43

445.89
1,018.0 1

646.08
609.99
553.55

.21

487.01
538.00

815.06

.25
.26
.26

.19

.28

.15

976.75

.27

.20
.24
.18

.25

a DS taken from McGrevy (Note 2).

~~
b~jg~~ have been reflected .
other than FTD .

ca tegory includes all subject s who either graduated or were eliminated from UPT for

& GOYESNMCNT PSINTINC OFFIC(~1g7e- 771-122/37

33

-~~~~ _ _

I
A

ADAO58 lets
UNCLASSIFIED

AIR FORCE HUMAN RESOURCES LAO BROOKS AFB TEX

PILOT SELECTION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT .(U )
AS 75 0 K HLR4TER. N A THOMPSON
AFItL TR 7S 33
END

A
c

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

DYIC

F/S 5/ 1

INFOR MAT ION

\IH FORCE (It ~1~ \ REsouR(:Es L%HORATORY

Brooks ~ir Fore~,Base. T..a~ 78235
Errata

FiNI
% uthor

t pun her

Title
Effec t of an M)Vo lunieu r Forre on Input unto t he
School of Military Seieiiee~. Offi eer Training
Program

)
7) 1)
~fllBL TK 7 3 l~ (.tD TS

~~~~

F) ) R L i H 7 ( ) (Al ) ~ (h2 5 85))

~

G u in n

( l) .th 12 6W))
~FhlRL T H77 3( ~

\ alentine

lfl 7833
~FiflH.

( U)

Back ground and l,iterest Measur c ~ as Predietor ~ of

Success in Indergraduatc Pilot Training
Navi gaiorOhu~erver Select ion Research: Ih~veto p
meiit of New ir Force Officer Qua) if ~ i ng Te~i

~
Navigator Technical ( uuiIposite

(I. 1(8)
~ ~8

lluuiuie r

Pilot Selection S~~iiein I)4

e)o p IuirnJ

1 )iue t o ~ror.ng error~ wh irlu ~ ,re foufld in the daia files of t he ~ ir Force Office r Qiialifivatioui Tr~t
huruui~ I.. M. auid N. all auIa I%M ~ i~iuIg aptitu de scores derived from these lest 1orun~ w hikhi are ronlaiiieil iii
t he .iibje l technical reports ahoy r are considered erroneotis.

N ~ \ I i ;t ) N. Ti~ hi,ui. al l)ire, tor

~
\1~Iii po ~~ er a, iii Per ~ oii net I)i isiouu

-_

~~~~~~~~-