I__. - International Military Testing Association

_____ I- ..-.- --_ - ..-.. * .._. - -._._. ._.. .._.. --- ___- --...-. ._~. _ . ..____ __..... ~_
Table 3
Mean Performance at Cutoffs for AFQT, Actual and Predicted Scores
on Event 3 and Passing Rate at Event 3
Predictor SR AFQT Actual Pred. Pass/fail
Score at Score at Event 3
Event 3 Event 3
Combat 20% 78.14 646.95 650.96 .879
Two-hand 20%
Tracking
50%
50% 68.40 633.38 633.52 .850
80% 61.38 620.44 619.49 -834
80%
Combat & 20%
Two-Hand
Tracking 50%
80%
63.75 650.66 659.04 .912
60.79 640.39 640.35 .890
59.51 627.41 " 624.20 -853
71.10 654.57 664.02 ,907'
64.97 643.38 643.15 .881
60.17 625.28 625.40 .848
No Selection 56.66 609.94 .814
Raising the cutoff on CO would lead to higher mean AFQT scores
for llH, especially at lower SRs. This would lead to a depletion
of high ASVAB quality recruits for the other Infantry MOS.
Selection based on Two-hand Tracking scores also increases the mean
AFQT score for llK, but to a much lesser extent than either CO or
the two predictors combined. For example, a 50% SR on Two-hand
Tracking would produce a higher pass rate on Event 3 than a 20% SR
using CO, yet it would lead to much less of an increase in mean
AFQT scores. Therefore, Two-hand Tracking, compared to CO, is
better able to minimize AFQT impact while improving outcomes for
11H's.
While the current research demonstrates a smaller depletion ot‘
AFQT scores in remaining MOS when Two-hand Tracking is used as a
classification test, future research must be conducted to evaluate
the potential impact of this system on training or on-the-job
260
I
/