An evaluation of aviator training ability requirements scale ratings

An Examination of Ability Requirements for Various Rotary Wing Missions

“…As suggested elsewhere (Jones & McAnulty, 1984), there are serious methodological problems in the research by Myers, et a l., (1982) that may have precluded the identification of ability differences. For example, Myers, et al selected tasks identified by the Aircrew Training Manual (ATM) for each mission and required SMEs to rate the abilities for a subset of these ATM "tasks.…”

“…Previous research (McAnulty & Jones, 1984) found that a transform to normalize the rating distributions was an effective technique for removing systematic sources of error without distorting the task-ability relationships.…”

“…That is, in each mission, there was a general ability factor in the original data that disappeared and was replaced by more specific factors following the transformation (see Jones & McAnulty, 1984).…”

“…The original data were transformed using the Method of Successive Intervals (MSI) technique (Guilford, 1954;Hays, 1967;McAnulty & Jones, 1984). The MSI technique transforms each rater's judgments to a normally distributed, standardized scale having a mean of zero and a standard deviation of approximately one.…”

Identification and evaluation of methods to determine ability requirements for Air Force occupational specialties

“…However, there is doubt as to the absolute nature of the scales. McAnulty and Jones (1984) reported that the raters used the scales as if they were ordinal, rather than absolute. Landy (1988) suggests a different rating format to be used with the ARS scales.…”