Psychomotor abilities tests as predictors of training performance

Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science

Volumn 34, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 75-83

  John Johnston, P ^a   Catano, Victor M ^a  

^a SAINT MARY S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036553678     PISSN: 0008400X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/h0087157     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Ackerman, P.L., & Ciancolo, A.T. (2000). Cognitive, perceptual-speed, and psychomotor determinants of individual differences during skill acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 259-290.
2. Alderton, D.L., Wolfe, J.H., & Larson, G.E. (1997). The ECAT battery. Military Psychology, 9 (1), 5-37.
3. Angus, R.J. & Halliwell, S.T. (1987). Psychometric analysis of the general classification test - Form 3 (GC3). (Technical Note 13/87). Willowdale, ON: Canadian Forces Personnel Applied Research Unit.
4. Boudreau, J.W. (1991). Utility analysis for decisions in human resource management. In M.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough, (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 2. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
5. Campbell, J. P. (1990). An overview of the army selection and classification project (Project A). Personnel Psychology, 43, 231-239.
6. Carretta, T.R., (1990). Cross validation of experimental USAF pilot training performance models. Military Psychology, 2, 257-264.
7. Catano, V.M. (1995). Describing the primary abilities associated with five clusters of entry-level military occupations. (Technical Supplement 95-4). North York, ON: Canadian Forces Personnel Applied Research Unit.
8. Catano, V.M. (1999). Developing entry-level military occupational families based on abilities profiles. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Canadian Psychological Association, Halifax, NS.
9. Catano, V.M., & Black, M. (2001). Personality and vocational interest as predictors of military training performance. Paper presented at the 7th European Congress of Psychology, London, UK.
10. Catano, V.M., Cronshaw, S.F., Wiesner, W.H., Hackett, R.D., & Methot, L.L. (1997). Recruitment and Selection in Canada, 2nd ed. Toronto, ON: Nelson.
11. Catano, V.M., & Ibel, R.H. (1995). Clustering Canadian forces military occupations using statistical analyses of ability profiles. (Technical Note 6/95). Willowdale, ON: Canadian Forces Personnel Applied research Unit.
12. Childs, R.A., Baughman, W.A., & Keil, C.T. (1997). Tests of cognitive ability. In D.L. Whetzel & G.R. Wheaton (Eds.), Applied measurement methods in industrial psychology (pp. 143-184). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing.
13. Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (pp. 80-97). New York: Academic Press.
14. Fleishman, E.A. (1953). Testing for psychomotor abilities by means of apparatus tests. Psychological Bulletin, 50 (4), 241-262.
15. Fleishman, E.A. (1956). Psychomotor selection tests; Research and application in the United States Airforce. Personnel Psychology, 9, 449-467.
16. Fleishman, E.A. (1972). Structure and measurement of psychomotor abilities. In R.N. Singer (Ed.), The psychomotor domain: Movement behaviour (pp. 78-106). Philadelphia, PA: Lea and Febiger.
17. Fleishman, E.A., & Mumford, M.D. (1988). Ability requirement scales. In S. Gael (Ed.), The job analysis handbook for business industry and government (pp. 917-935). New York: Wiley.
18. Fleishman E.A., & Quaintance, M. K. (1984). Taxonomies of human performance: The description of human tasks. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
19. Fleishman, E.A., & Reilly, M.E. (1992). Handbook of human abilities: Definitions, measurements and job task requirements. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press Inc.
20. Ghiselli, E.E. (1973). The validity of aptitude tests in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 26, 461-477.
21. Hartigan, J.A., & Wigdor, A.K., (Eds.) (1989). Fairness in employment testing: Validity generalization, minority issues, and the General Aptitude Test Battery. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
22. Hunter, J.E. (1980). Test validation for 12000 jobs: An application of synthetic validity and validity generalization to the General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB). Washington, DC: U.S Employment Service, U.S. Department of Labor.
23. Hunter, J.E. (1983). The dimensionality of the General Aptitude Test battery (GATB) and the dominance of the general factors over specific factors in the prediction of job performance for the U.S Employment Service. (USES test research report no. 44). Division of Counseling and Test Development, Employment and Training Administration. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.
24. Hunter, J.E., & Hunter, R.F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 98 (1), 72-98.
25. Ibel, R.H., & Cotton, C.A. (1994). Validation of experimental scales of non-commissioned member applicant selection and classification. (Technical Note 17/94). Willowdale, ON: Canadian Forces Personnel Applied Research Unit.
26. Jaeger, R.M., Linn, R.L., & Tesh, A.S. (1989). A synthesis of research on some psychometric properties of the GATB. In J.A. Hartigan & A.K. Wigdor (Eds.), Fairness in employment testing: Validity generalization, minority issues and the General Aptitude Test Battery. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
27. Legras, L.P., & Staples, R.E. (1983). A correlational analysis of the relationship of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Revised with the General Classification Battery - English and the Canadian Forces Classification Battery. Personnel Selection Services Report. Borden, ON: Base Personnel Selection Office.
28. Lubinsky, D., & Dawis, R.V. (1992). Aptitudes skills and proficiencies. In M.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology Vol. 3 (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
29. MacLennan, R.N. (1997). Validity generalization across military occupational families. (Technical Note 00/97). Ottawa, ON: Canadian Forces Personnel Research Team.
30. McHenry, J.J., Hough, L.M., Toquam, J.I., Hanson, M.A., & Ashworth, S. (1990). Project A validity results: The relationship between predictor and criterion domains. Personnel Psychology, 43, 335-354.
31. Olea, M.M., & Ree, M.J. (1994). Predicting pilot and navigator criteria: Not much more than g. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, (6), 845-851.
32. Ree, M.J., & Carretta, T.R. (1994). The correlation of cognitive and psychomotor tests. (Interim Technical Paper). Brooks Air Force Base, TX: Human Resources Directorate Manpower and Personnel Research Division.
33. Ree, M.J., & Earles, J.A. (1991). Predicting training success: Not much more than g. Personnel Psychology, 44, 321-332.
34. Ree, M.J., Earles, J.A., & Teachout, M. (1994). Predicting job performance: Not much more than g. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 518-524.
35. Schmidt, F.L., & Hunter, J.E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, (2), 262-274.
36. Schmidt, F.L., Ones, D.S., & Hunter, J.E. (1992). Personnel selection. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 627-670.
37. Thorndike, R.L. (1985). The central role of general ability in prediction. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 20, 241-254.
38. United States Department of Labor. (1986). Manual for the General Aptitude Test Battery (Section 1). Scarborough, ON: Nelson Canada.
39. Watts F.N., & Everitt B.S. (1980). The factorial structure of the General Aptitude Test Battery. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 36, 763-767.
40. Wise, L.L., McHenry J., & Campbell, J.P. (1990). Identifying optimal predictor composites and testing for generalizability across jobs and performance factors. Personnel Psychology, 43, 355-366.
41. Wolfe, J.H., (1997). Incremental validity of ECAT battery factors. Military Psychology, 9 (1), 49-76.
42. Woycheshin, D. (1999). Validation of the Canadian Forces aptitude test against QL3 course performance. (Technical Note 99/11). Ottawa, ON: Director of Human Resources Research and Evaluation.