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.