Analysis of Aptitude, Training, and Job Performance Measures

Abstract

McFann-Gray and Associates, Arlington, Virginia. It assesses the quality of current training and job performance measures, examines the relationship between AFQT/ASVAB scores and training and job performance of military personnel, and explores alternative methods and measures for improving training and job performance measurement. Field research was conducted with the support of HQ FORSCOM at Fort Bragg, North Carolina and Fort Hood, Texas. Field research was also conducted at a number of TRADOC schools and at Marine Corps training centers at Camp Pendleton and Camp Twentynine Palms. This research also received considerable support from the U.S. Army Training Support Center (SQT Management Directorate in particular) and from the Defense Manpower Data Center, without whose help the data analysis could not have been completed. xiii SECTION I * Corrected for restrictions of range. * * Too few observations. * Corrected for restriction of range. ** Too few observations. * Corrected for restrictions of range. ** Too few observations.

Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB): Predicting Military Criteria from General and Specific Abilities

“…reflect proficiency acqtired on-the-job. This is due to the fact that SOT scores are obtained after Army recruits leave initial, entry-level training and have been in their initial job assignment for some time (Wagner, Dirmeyer, Means, & Davidson, 1982). Use of a different Army crite~ion measure should not have an appreciably negative impact on the comparability of analyses across services, because the Army SOT should be r,,adicted in about the same manner as final course grades (Hunter, 1983a(Hunter, , 1983b.…”

United States Air Force Faculty Research Program 1989. Program Technical Report. Volume 4

“….59 ( 4) 0 (5) .27 ( 6) 3. Azimuth .65 ( 4) -.92 (5) .73 ( 6 proficiency measures as criteria (Wagner, Dirmeyer, Means, & Davidson, 1982), and the poor reliability demonstrated by supervisory ratings of performance (Vineberg & Joyner, 1983;Wagner, et al, 1982). Cory (1982) attempted to circumvent these problems by using alternate measures of performance.…”

Armed Services Vocational Battery (ASVAB): Integrative Review of Validity Studies

“…That is, the rates are held to Service-specific limits by "washing back" new recruits (recycling recruits through specific blocks of a training program) rather than failing them when the Service requirement for force manning is extremely high or the recruiting market is extremely poor. This factor also contributes to the contamination of training success criteria (Wagner et al, 1982).…”