No abstract

Apprvedfor public releage; distribution unlimited. SECURITY CLASSI-ICATION OF THIS PAGE= REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE la. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION lb. RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS 2a. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3. DISTRIBUTION'/AVA'LABILITY OF REPORT Unclassified 2b. DECLASSIFICATION / DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE "4, PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) 5. MOtITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) NAMRL Monograph 36 6a. NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 6b. OFFICE SYMBOL We also wibh to acknowledge the help of two individuals, Dr. John de Lorge and Kathleen S. Mayer, who both read several versions of the manuscript and made many helpful suggestions, most of which were incorporated into this work. iv 'P, Test development in aviation selection evolved into four general areas of individual differences asaessment: general intellectual measures, aviation-related paper-and-peucil measures, psychomotor performance measures, and personality measures (7-9). These areas have varying degrees of utility in selection and receive different emphasis in Navy and Air Force selection pzccedures. The Early Years The Army Air Forces Aviation Psychology Program conducted a comprehensive investigatiou of the use of personality measures to predict aviation performance (10). The thrust of the effort was to determine the predictive value of a number of commercially available tests. A secondary consideration was to use questionnaire items from these tests to establish a pool of items of high predictive value in aviation screening. Although performance measures in an actual combat environment were desirable criteria, they were not obtainable. The criterion used for the validation efforts was graduation/ elimination from primary flight training. These studies are summarized in Table 1.

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate only, other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (07804-0188), 14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES Uninhabited combat air vehicle (UCAV) 17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF REPORT Unclassified

No abstract

This report describes the evaluation of a portion of a new aircrew selection test battery recently developed at the Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory. The results indicate that performance-based test measures can be used to predict flight training performance. Several test measures were reliably related to a pass/fail criterion. These results provide support for the prediction of whether or not a candidate will pass or fail training. The results of a hierarchical multiple regression revealed that scores from three tests, 1) Absolute Difference-Horizontal rracking, 2) Complex Visual Information, and 3) Risk-taking Task, were generally equivalent in predicting success in primary flight training. Interactions of college major and accession source with derived scores of the three significant tests contributed significant amounts of variability when added to the model. We recommend that the valid tests from this study Le implemented for operational use * with the AQT/FAR. The use of hierarchical multiple regression wiLh the tests will isolate those specific measures capable of accounting for added and unique variance, beyond that of the AQT/FAR and certain demographic variables, in th.ý prediction of primary flight training course. 14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES aviation selection, attrition, prediction, flight training, 37 erformance-based, psychomotor tests, psychological tests 16. PRICE CODE 17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATIOPN 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACC