Premium
The predictive validity of the EPI and 16PF for military flying training
Author(s) -
Bartram D.
Publication year - 1995
Publication title -
journal of occupational and organizational psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.257
H-Index - 114
eISSN - 2044-8325
pISSN - 0963-1798
DOI - 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1995.tb00583.x
Subject(s) - psychology , 16pf questionnaire , personality , eysenck personality questionnaire , population , extraversion and introversion , aircrew , big five personality traits , amateur , selection (genetic algorithm) , test (biology) , clinical psychology , social psychology , demography , big five personality traits and culture , engineering , aeronautics , paleontology , artificial intelligence , sociology , biology , political science , law , computer science
The study was carried out to assess the validity of the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI) and Cattell's 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) as predictors of flying training outcome. In addition, it examines differences in profile between self‐selected applicants for flying training and the general population; the effects of test‐taking conditions on scale scores; incidental selection effects related to personality differences and the reliability of the personality data. The EPI and 16PF inventories were administered to samples of men during selection testing at the RAF Officer and Aircrew Selection Centre, Biggin Hill. Further samples were tested at the Army Air Corps Centre at Middle Wallop prior to their Selection Board interviews. In addition, data were obtained for non‐enlisted applicants tested at Biggin Hill and amateur aviators tested at various flying clubs. The results confirmed previous findings that applicants for pilot training are highly ‘self‐selected’, being much more emotionally stable and more extraverted than the general population. Furthermore, the 16PF profile for the unselected sample was found to be very similar to that for US airline pilots. The pattern of differences between those who succeeded and those who failed in training was as expected. The magnitude of these correlations (in the region of r = .20) was also at the level expected. The results support the findings of previous work and indicate that there are small but potentially valuable increments in validity to be obtained by considering personality factors in selection for pilot training. The problems associated with the use of self‐report measures in selection are discussed.