I__. - International Military Testing Association

criterion Measures
All criteria were comprehensive, llcan-dolt measures of job
performance, as listed and described below.
Total Score on Written Tests: measures of soldiers'
technical knowledge pertinent to the various "critical tasks"
performed in each MOS.
Total Score on Hands-On Tests: measures of soldiers' ability
to actually carry out the 14 to 17 major job tasks in each MOS.
General Soldierina Proficiencv: a composite score on written
and hands-on tests of tasks common to many MOS (e.g., determining
grid coordinates on maps, recognizing friendly/threat aircraft).
Core (i.e., MOS-specific) Technical Proficiency: a composite
score on written and hands-on tests of tasks that are at the
llcorell of each MOS (i.e., those that define the MOS).
Skill Qualification Test Score (SOT): written tests Of MOSspecific
technical knowledge developed by the U.S. Army Training
and Doctrine Command for periodic testing of soldiers MOS.
The comprehensive measures above are not mutually exclusive.
Written and hands-on test scores were used in the computation of
General Soldiering and Core Technical Proficiency, as well as the
total scores for written and hands-on tests. ,
Procedure
Collection of Project A predictor and criterion data was
part of the 1985 concurrent validation. Scores on the ASVAB
subtests and the Skill Qualification Test were obtained from
archival data sources.
A series of backward stepwise multiple regression analyses
were performed separately for each MOS. An SPSS Regression
program sequentially entered blocks of ASVAB, spatial, and
perceptual-psychomotor tests, removing nonsignificant tests in
each block before entering the next block. Two orders of entry
were used. In both cases the ASVAB tests were entered first; in
one analysis spatial tests were entered second, followed by the
perceptual-psychomotor; in the other analysis this order was
reversed. Results were corrected for restriction-of-range in the
ASVAB scores (Lawley formula; Lord and Novick, 1968), and
adjusted for shrinkage (Wherry, 1940).
Results
Table 3 shows the proportion of variance explained (R2) by
the significant predictors of the criteria at each stage of
382