Predicting Long‐term Firefighter Performance From Cognitive and Physical Ability Measures

Abstract

Firefighters from 1 academy training class were observed for 23 years, beginning with their selection test consisting of a g-saturated written exam (GCA) and firefighting simulations loaded on a strength/endurance (SE) factor. Operational validity coefficients for both GCA and SE were high for training success and remained consistently high for job performance ratings throughout the study. The operational validity for combined GCA and SE predictors was .86 for a composite job rating measure covering 21 years of service. A structural model produced similar results for more broadly defined GCA and SE latent variables. Both analyses suggested approximately equal weighting for GCA and SE for a fire service selection test. Results indicate considerable latitude in choosing cognitive and physical predictors for firefighter screening if the predictors are highly loaded on GCA and SE.

The Validity of Individual Psychological Assessments for Entry-Level Police and Firefighter Positions

“…In the context of public safety occupations, Hunter & Hunter (1984) reported a corrected validity of .42 for general cognitive ability. Subsequent research has reported similar validities for firefighters (Barrett, Polomsky, & McDaniel, 1999;Henderson, 2010) but lower validity for police officers (.27;Aamodt, 2004). Personality traits, in particular conscientiousness, have been found to be…”

“…Specifically, the Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness scales were significant predictors of the first assessment dimension. Assessor judgments were not related to the cognitive ability tests, despite the substantial evidence for the validity of general cognitive ability in public safety (Aamodt, 2004;Barrett et al, 1999;Henderson, 2010).…”

The Prediction of Training Proficiency in Firefighters: A Study of Predictive Validity in Spain

“…Criterion validity studies have been progressively replaced by content validity studies in firefighter research. This is due to litigation issues, because content validity is easily understandable for judges (Henderson, 2010). Although content validity studies have explanatory power about why a skill is relevant to performing a particular task on a job, they do not provide a quantitative estimation (i.e., statistical evidence), whereas studies of predictive validity do (Schmidt, 2012).…”

“…Some other interesting efforts can be found in this case from the scientific literature. We refer to the works by Barrett, Polonsky, and McDaniel (1999), Henderson, Berry, and Matic (2007), and Henderson (2010). All this research is focused on the criterion validity of cognitive ability (Barrett et al, 1999;Henderson, 2010) and physical tests (Henderson, 2010;Henderson et al, 2007).…”

“…The last work is a primary study carried out by Henderson (2010), in which he examined criterion validity of cognitive and physical ability measures. Seventy-four participants in a training course after a successful selection procedure were studied for 23 years.…”