2003 IMTA Proceedings - International Military Testing Association

466
the latter two groups respectively. Translated to a selection scenario applicants falling into the
'High' category have a high risk (33%) of failing BFTS, while those in the 'Medium' and 'Low'
categories have progressively lower risks of failing (19%, 0% respectively). Table 2 summarises the
results of this analysis.
Table 2 - BFTS Outcomes by Cutoff group
Conclusion
Cut-off Group
N Percentage
Low Med High Low Mid High
FAW 7 3 0 33.3% 18.7% 0%
PASS 14 12 60 66.6% 75% 72.3%
CREDIT 0 1 17 0 6.3% 20.5%
DISTINCTION 0 0 6 0 0% 7.2%
Total 21 16 83 100% 100% 100%
The results may seem surprising in that neither age nor previous flying experience met statistical
criteria for inclusion in the model, despite previous research showing they are related to pilot
training outcomes. Both however, are thought to be important considerations in the subjective
assessment components of the selection process. Younger applicants and those with more flying
experience are often preferred. Range restriction, therefore, may be leading to an under-estimation
of the likely contribution of these variables on prediction BFTS outcomes. The same applies to the
Pilot Index. It is the main determiner for deciding who is likely to progress to more advanced levels
in the selection process.
The utility of the Aviation Reasoning Test is of interest. It is similar to previous predominantly
knowledge based tests that have been included previously in the pilot selection battery. There is
some suggestion it may be tapping into motivation as much as skill or ability. This study suggests
that its inclusion in the selection model may prove useful - at least for selection at the basic flying
training level.
Of the AUSBAT measures, the Pursuit B especially was predictive. Together with one of the
Perceptual Adjustment measures, it accounted for 13.6% of the variance in this study. This
confirms previous research supporting its utility in helping predict success at this level of training.
As some of the AUSBAT tests were designed to predict outcomes at more advanced flying training
levels, it is perhaps, not surprising that many are not showing up as statistically significant at the
basic level. Finally, the study provides strong evidence supporting the role of the flight screening
raw mean score in predicting BFTS outcomes additional to that provided by all the selection tests
The primary drawback of the study concerns the small sample size which precludes analyses of subgroups
(eg Service specific, Basic or Advanced FSP Program) for which distinctive patterns of
variable interrelationships may be evident. The range restriction associated with some of the
variables also suggests the full contribution they make is likely to be underestimated.
Overall, however, the model accounts for a substantial proportion of the variance in BFTS sortie
averages. Given that some of the trainees in the sample did not commence BFTS training until three
years after they were tested and screened, the strength of the findings in this study is encouraging. It
suggests the approach is likely to have utility as a tool for predicting BFTS outcomes for ADF pilot
applicants.
45 th Annual Conference of the International Military Testing Association
Pensacola, Florida, 3-6 November 2003