Pilot Candidate Selection Method

Abstract

In 1993, the US Air Force implemented the Pilot Candidate Selection Method (PCSM) as an additional indicator of pilot training aptitude. PCSM scores have been shown to be related to several pilot training criteria including graduation/elimination, flying grades, class rank, and number of flight hours needed to complete training ( Carretta & Ree, 2003 ). The PCSM composite is still in use today, but the scores that contribute to it have changed. The study reported here examined the predictive validity of the current composite versus several training performance measures for 883 students attending Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT). Results indicated that the PCSM composite remained predictive of flying training performance despite changes in test content and flying training. After correction for multivariate range restriction and dichotomization of the graduation/elimination criterion, the correlation between the PCSM composite and T-6 completion was .53. This is consistent with the value of .46 reported by Carretta and Ree (2003) for an earlier version of the PCSM composite. Its predictiveness can be attributed to the measurement of factors that have consistently shown a relation to flying performance: cognitive ability, aviation job knowledge/experience, and psychomotor ability.

Multiple test batteries as predictors for pilot performance: A meta‐analytic investigation

“…As a predictor, flight simulator (i.e., work sample TBs) was the best predictor of pilot performance across three specific criteria and one overall criterion, with mean validities ranging from .24 to .35. This result seems consistent with Carretta and Ree's () conclusion that identified flight simulators as a strong predictor of pilot performance. It also matches the findings from other occupations, where the relationship between work sample tests and job performance measures are typically found to be of high magnitude.…”

“…To demonstrate this, we present examples from three TBs. In Carretta (), the correlation between the Pilot composite score of the AFOQT and academic average was less than that with daily flying average (.19 vs. .28), although the anticipation is to see the reverse trend, because the Pilot composite score is highly saturated with Acquired Knowledge. Similarly, the correlation with the academic average was higher for the Test of Basic Aviation Skills (TBAS) composite than that for the AFOQT pilot composite score (.22 vs. .19), although the reverse is expected, as the TBAS composite is more saturated with Psychomotor Abilities and less saturated with Acquired Knowledge.…”

“…Despite the continued revision and improvement of this TB across several forms, studies show generally a small magnitude for the test‐criterion correlations barely exceeding .10 (e.g., Arth, Steuck, Sorrentino, & Burke, ; Carretta, ; Carretta & Ree, , ; Duke & Ree, ). Observed correlations, however, show a substantial increase when they are corrected for attenuations such as measurement error and range restriction (Barron et al, ; Carretta, ; Olea & Ree, ). Nevertheless, for very expensive training programs like flight programs (Carretta et al, ; King et al, ), even a small increase in predictive power of the selection tests is viewed as an important economic factor.…”

“…show a substantial increase when they are corrected for attenuations such as measurement error and range restriction (Barron et al, 2016;Carretta, 2011;Olea & Ree, 1994). Nevertheless, for very expensive training programs like flight programs (Carretta et al, 2014;King et al, 2012), even a small increase in predictive power of the selection tests is viewed as an important economic factor.…”

Factor Structure of the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test Form S: Analysis and Comparison with Previous Forms

“…The Pilot and Navigator-Technical composites are used to qualify applicants for aircrew training. The AFOQT has been validated against officer training performance (Roberts & Skinner, 1996); several aircrew training performance criteria including passing-failing training, training grades, and class rank (Carretta, 2008;Carretta & Ree, 2003;Olea & Ree, 1994); and several non-aviation officer jobs (Arth, 1986;Arth & Skinner, 1986;Finegold & Rogers, 1985;Hartke & Short, 1988).…”