I__. - International Military Testing Association

Table 4
Best Spatial, Perceptual, and Psychomotor Tests
Number of Equations Range of Median
Project A Where Significant Semi-partial
Tests (Maximum=86) Correlations
Spatial:
Assembling Objects 48 . 06 - .11
Figural Reasoning 40 . 07 - .12
Map 33 .07 -, .14
Perceptual:
Target Id. - % correct 32
Short Term Memory - % correct 25
Number Memory - response time 25
. 07 - .lO
.07 - .14
ns - -07
Psychomotor:
a-Hand Tracking - accuracy 20 05 - .15
l-Hand Tracking - accuracy 18 -:OS - .lO
Target Shoot - time-to-fire 6 -.09 - -.07
common tasks, but does so using both written and hands-on scores.
Although spatial tests were slightly superior to the
perceptual-psychomotor scores as incremental predictors, the
latter group of measures accounted for criterion variance which
is not redundant with the spatial tests. This is important
because the perceptual-psychomotor tests require expensive
computer hardware and software and must be administered
individually. Thus, their utility should be considered
separately with each selection or classification decision.
These analyses also revealed that some individual Project A
tests were significant incremental predictors across a wide
variety of MOS and criteria (see Table 4). These measures are
therefore strong candidates for addition to ASVAB.
To interpret these results properly, a number of
methodological considerations should be noted. First of all,
ASVAB scores were employed for selection, while the Project A
scores were used Infor research purposes only." Individuals may
have responded more carefully, exerted more effort, etc., on the
ASVAB subtests, thus making them more valid measures of abilities
than the Project A tests. Another concern is a statistical one.
Although the samples used were large enough to make the degree of
shrinkage in each individual equation relatively low, the large
number Of equations computed increases the probabilities that
384
. .