09.12.2012 Views

I__. - International Military Testing Association

I__. - International Military Testing Association

I__. - International Military Testing Association

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

overall predictive efficiency, (i.e., the reduction in r between<br />

TI and PTI). The process continues until all data are combined<br />

into a single equation. Analysis of the r losses at each stage<br />

allows identification of the fewest number of regression<br />

equations that can accurately generate FTI values across all<br />

AFSs. In order to measure how well each set of weights would<br />

reproduce an ATO, the weights were used to classify tasks into<br />

the "A-D" categories. PTI values were classified into importance<br />

categories of A through D using a procedure identical to the one<br />

for TI values. Classification accuracy (CA) was measured by<br />

computing the table and formula shown in Figure 1.<br />

Predicted Ch0~ltlcatlon<br />

A B C D<br />

A F 11 F 11 F 1s F 14 Rl<br />

B<br />

Actual F 21 F 22 F 2s F 24 R2<br />

Cluoiflcatlon<br />

c F91 F SP F 93<br />

F R3<br />

94<br />

D F 41 F 44 F,, F 44 Fk<br />

Cl c2 cs c4 N<br />

F;; ir the frequency in the iJ%ll<br />

Figure 1. Classification Table and Formula<br />

CA has been weighted such that misclassifications result in<br />

larger penalties as the V'distance18 between predicted<br />

classification and correct classification becomes greater. This<br />

weighting strategy is reasonable, in that testing importance<br />

differences associated with categories in the table become<br />

greater as the 8*distance1V between the categories increases. The<br />

range of CA values is 0% (every classification has maximum<br />

distance from the correct classification) to 100% (every<br />

classification is correct).<br />

RESULTS<br />

The r's using weights from the cross-validation samples<br />

ranged from .44 (908X0) to .92 (914X0) and the r's using weights<br />

from the validation samples ranged from .42 (566X0) to .91<br />

(121X0). Therefore, there is great amount of variability among<br />

the AFSs in the ability of a linear function of the five<br />

predictors to account for the variance in TI. Because the<br />

shrinkage in r using the weights from the validation and crossvalidation<br />

samples was nonsignificant (a(=.O5) across all AFSs,<br />

the validation and cross-validation samples were combined for<br />

subsequent analyses.<br />

313<br />

_

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!