I__. - International Military Testing Association

Table 1
Correlation Matrix of Potential Predictors and Training Criteria
1. co
2. -1NT
3. FR
4. LS
2: MS LGD
7. GC
a. MP
9. BOTC
10. M-3
11. M-4
12. PPT
13. PST
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 1112 13
25
ha
.44
.27
. 63
. la
:27 62.21
:74 31.25 75
:36 3-c .55 .62
. 08 .09 . 14 .25
. 35 .64 .18 .17 .50
.24 ,28 .22
.20 -xv-- 20
. 28 - - :20
-----
-----
.22
T-27
.21 I-3-6
--
Note. Only correlations significant to the .05 level are reported
in this table. Correlations between NOAB operational predictors
are based on the population of NOAB candidates (n=743).
Correlations between the NOAB predictors and training criteria are
uncorrected correlations based on the sample of NOAB candidates
attending MARS training (n=95). CO = conducting officer, INT =
interview, FR = file review, LS = leadership stands, LGD =
leaderless group discussion, MS = merit score, GC = general
classification test, MP = military potential, BOTC = BOTC grade,
M-3 = MARS III training results, M-4 = MARS IV training results,
PPT = passage planning test, PST = problem sensitivity test.
Experimental Predictors
Because the PST and PPT have been incorporated into the NOAB
only recently, there is not yet a sufficient number of candidates
who have completed the two experimental tests at the NOAB and then
gone on to complete MARS occupation training to evaluate the
predictive validity of these tests. In the interim, the concurrent
validity of the tests was evaluated by administering them to a
small group of MARS candidates (n = 43 to 122) already in the
training system. The results of this preliminary research indicate
that the PPT is related to both MARS III (r = .21) and MARS IV
performance (r = .30); however, the PST is not related to either
MARS III or MARS IVtraining success. As shown in Table 1, the PPT
is unrelated to the file review, suggesting the potential for
contributing incremental criterion prediction beyond that provided
by the file review,
264