was simply the sum of the weighted nominations
he received. Several controllers within each
facility received no nominations of any sort. For
each position, the nominations scores were then
T-scaled, separately by each of the four facilities,
to yield a distribution of ratings having a mean
of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. Various
combinations of the D, R, and E nominations
were also derived by averaging the T-scores for
the different positions. Even though it is true
that the Radar ATCSs occasionally do some work
at each of the three job stations, the “R” position
may be considered as the “home” position. There-
fore, the “R”-nominations score was deemed as

being more meaningful and appropriate for the
Journeymen Radar Controllers.

Supervisory Ratings By Form B and Form C.
The two instruments developed for supervisory
rating of controller performance were designated
as “Form B” and “Form C.” Although these
experimental rating forms differed in several re-
spects, both embodied the same five-point rating
scale (ie., O= Unsatisfactory, 1=Fair, 2=Good,
3=Very Good, and 4=Excellent). Each form
provided for the evaluation of an ATCS on
numerous items, each of which represented an
attribute, element, or standard of performance.
The majority of the Form B items and all of

TN

83

55
50

40

30

15
1) 14

1

1715

12

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Age
Frequency Distribution of Ages for Journeymen Radar ATCSs of the Atlanta, Memphis, Ronkonkoma,

Frcure 1.

&>

and Leesburg ARTCOs.

3



variance” and other treatments. Other methods
were therefore employed.

Figure 2 presents the plotted means of the
composite B+C+R ratings by length-of-experi-
ence groups for dichotomized groups of control-
Jers aged “40 and less” and “41 and older.” A
comparison of the data for the two groups re-
veals a higher mean rating for the younger con-
trollers of every experience level. The smaller
differences are between the younger and older
ATCSs of the two least experienced groups. For
each succeeding experience category, the plotted
means become increasingly more divergent with
the greatest differences being between the younger
and older controllers of the most experienced
groups.

Similar results, which are not graphically de-
picted in this report, were found for the other
four criterion measures. In every instance, the
younger controllers within every experience group
were characterized by having a higher average
rating. Yet only one difference between the
younger and older ATCSs proved to be statis-
tically significant; it involved the “C” super-
visory ratings of journeymen who had “9-to-10”
years of experience.

These findings, supplemented by those of cor-
responding analyses in which experience was
dichotomized, tend to indicate the presence of
very moderate and nonsignificant interaction ef-
fects. For journeymen controllers younger than
41, job performance ratings (of the type used
in this study) generally tend to improve with
length of experience in ATC work. This does
not appear to be true of the older group of
ATCSs.

IV. Discussion

The finding of statistically significant and
negative relationships between chronological age
and performance ratings is not without precedent.
Trites and Cobb** reported similar findings in
their 1-to-4-year follow-up study of several
samples of ATCS trainees. Based on training-
entry age, they found that the older recruits—
particularly those over 40—were more apt either
to fail the initial 8-week training course or
to pass with only marginal grades. More im-
portantly, their analysis of post-training data
indicated that the older individuals were much
more likely to: either leave or be separated from
the FAA; transfer to another type of work;

or be reported by their supervisors (unofficially
and for research purposes only) as undesirable,
potentially hazardous, or less than fully satis-
factory in the performance of duties.

The present study concerned the analysis of
age, experience, and performance data for jour-
neymen Radar ATCSs of four of the FAA’s
21 Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs).
Despite the fact that more than 82 per cent of
the 568 controllers comprising the sample were
less than 41 years old and had less than 10 years
of ATC experience, the study has nevertheless
yielded an appreciable amount of valuable in-
formation.

Assuming that the sample is representative,
one would conclude that only a very small pro-
portion of the journeymen ATCSs of the 21
ARTCCs are over 40 years of age and/or
possess tenure of more than 10 years. How-
ever, this does not warrant a summary dismissal
of the issue concerning age and experience. On
the contrary, it brings into focus the implications
of a rather paradoxical situation stemming from
the fact that technological advances have per-
mitted the consolidation of several ARTCCs since
1959. The entire air-route control system for-
merly embodied 32 Center facilities. Fewer
controllers have been needed to man the remain-
ing 21 Centers. Some transfers and reassign-
ments have been unavoidable, but the consolida-
tion program has been phased over several
years during which the required reduction in
manpower has been accomplished primarily
through normal attrition of personnel supple-
mented by a drastic curtailment in the
recruitment of controller trainees. Based on the
sample, it can be estimated that about 80 per
cent of all present-day journeymen air route
controllers probably entered the FAA during
the 4-year period 1956 through 1959 and that
over 70 per cent are between 28 and 35 years old.
Inasmuch as recruiting inputs have remained
relatively low over a long period of time and
due to the fact that the period of rapid develop-
ment and expansion is past history, promotional
opportunities may not be as great as in the past.
In fact, these controllers will probably constitute
the major portion of the ARTCC journeyman
population for many years. However, en masse
increments in age and experience will obviously
characterize this large bloc of controllers, Ex-
cluding a consideration of possible changes in


of controllers will undoubtedly continue to com-
prise the major portion of the journeyman air
route traffic controller population for at least
several, and possibly many, years.

A total of 812 Form B’s and 800 Form C’s
was collected for the Radar ATCSs. Multiple
ratings were not uncommon. In respect to Form
B, 46 of the controllers received three evalua-
tions, 241 were rated twice and 284 were rated
only once. For Form C, there were 46 triplets,
238 duals and 278 singles. In all, 526 of the 568
controllers were rated at least once with either
a Form B or C. (The remaining 42 ATOSs
received no B nor C ratings.) Inasmuch as the
forms were unsigned, multiple ratings were
arbitrarily designated as the “first,” “second,”
and “third.” Pearson product-moment correla-
tions of .46, .26, and .41 were found between the
different sets of Form. B ratings. Intraclass
correlation techniques indicated the average of
these intercorrelations to be in the order of .35.
For Form ©, the intercorrelations were .38, .17,
and .26 and the intraclass correlation was .29.
These values, which were somewhat lower than
had been anticipated, should not be considered
as conventional reliability coefficients. In those
instances where an individual was the recipient
of multiple ratings, only one represented an
evaluation by his immediate supervisor; others
were by other supervisory personnel who may
have been less knowledgeable regarding the in-
dividual’s proficiency. In retrospect, it became
obvious that the procedure should have included
the collection of such ratings from only the im-
mediate supervisors. Almost 65 per cent of the
Form B’s and Form C’s represented multiple
ratings. It should also be pointed out that a
rather strong “halo” effect characterized the rat-
ings obtained with either form.

For each of 525 individuals, an Overall (Raw-
Score) Form B Rating was computed by aver-
aging the item ratings of the single or multiple
forms. Similar treatment of the Form C data
resulted in the assignment of 516 Overall Form
C Ratings. The assigned B and C ratings were
then converted to T-scaled scores yielding a mean
of 50 and an S.D. of 10. The procedure not
only permitted a more direct comparison of the
B and C ratings with each other and with the
R-Nominations score but also the averaging of
T-scaled values for derivation of two composite
scores which were designated as “B+C” and

“B+C+R.” Thus a total of five ratings—all
in T-score form—were available for use as cri-
terion measures.

The interrelationships of the five performance
measures were next determined. These Pearson
coefficients, which are shown in Table II, ranged
from .84 to .96 for the B, C, and B+C super-
visory ratings. Correlations of the R-Nomina-
tions score with B, C, and B+C were .56, .50,
and .55, respectively. Because of their magni-

TABLE II. INTERCORRELATIONS OF FIVE PERFORMANCE MEASURES
AND THEIR CORRELATIONS WITH AGE AND YEARS ATC EXPERIENCE

Chron. Exper i-
Variables © BEC. -R+Nom BHCHR Age ence
B-Supv) Ny] 515.525 525.525.525.825
Rating orf .84 96 5692-14 +05
C-Supv. 516516516. 516516,
Rating or 1955090215 = 03,
BEC Supv. N 526 526 526 526
Rating = 15595-1505,
R-Nomina. N 526 568 568
By ATCs ot 178 +419 =.02
BHCHR N 526 526
Combined x =18  -.04
Chron, = N 568
Age r “45

tude, the latter coefficients were suggestive of
both communalities and differences in regard to
the factors underlying the peer ratings and the
supervisory evaluations of performance. All
correlations of the composite B+C+R versus
the B, C, and B+C ratings were above .90, and
a .78 was obtained between this composite and
the R-Nom rating.

Low but statistically significant and negative
correlations were found between chronological
age and all five performance ratings. (See
Table II.) Based on variable N’s of 516 to 568,
the coefficients ranged from a minus .14 to a
minus .19. These statistically significant rela-
tionships, which had emerged for a sample in
which almost 75 per cent of the subjects repre-
sented a narrow age range of 28 to 35 years,
indicated the need for other types of analyses
whereby the performance of the few older con-
trollers might be directly compared with that
of the younger groups.

Length of experience in FAA control work
was also negatively related to each of the five
criterion ratings. In each instance, however,
the relationship was negligible and nonsignifi-



those in Form C had been extracted from pre-
vious appraisal instruments. The 14 items of
Form B were of a more general nature and less
technical than those of Form C. Form B
focused upon measures of general abilities such
as understanding, judgment, teamwork, coopera-
tion, knowledge, and emotional stability. Each
of the 33 items of Form C represented verbatim
copy of the “performance indicators” or ap-
praisal standards specified in the semi-annual
“Over-the-Shoulder-Rating” of each controller.
As previously mentioned, the latter type of pro-
ficiency evaluation and other operational ap-
praisals, are of a non-quantitative nature and
are generally used for diagnostic and remedial
purposes. For construction of the Form C, the
33 technical elements or items of performance
were merely adapted to the five-point rating
scale format so as to yield quantitative indices of
proficiency.

Completion of both a Form B and a Form C
was requested of each Radar ATCS’s immediate
supervisor. Inasmuch as controllers frequently
worked different shifts, other and/or higher’ su-
pervisory personnel were also asked to submit
evaluations by both forms for those controllers
of whom they deemed themselves knowledgeable.
Thus, two ratings of performance by each form
were collected for about half the controllers, and
as many as three were obtained for a few. In
using either Form B or Form C, the supervisor
rated an employee on each of the listed items.
The average rating across all items of a sub-
mitted form was computed by the research pro-
cessing staff. Dual and triple ratings were
averaged to obtain a controller’s overall Form B
Rating and his overall Form C Rating.

Il. Results

Records revealed that a total of 568 individuals
were working within the four ARTCCs as GS-12
Journeymen Radar “R” Controllers. April 15,
1965, was used as the computation date for
years of ATC experience and age. One of the
568 was 51 years old and two were 50. One was
only 26. Within this range, the frequencies rep-
resented a skewed distribution. Only 15 were
beyond age 45 and 438 were younger than 36.
Assuming that the sample is representative of
all Center facilities, one would conclude that
about 77 per cent of the FAA’s Air Route Jour-
neymen Radar Controllers are not yet 36 years

old. The sample yielded a mean age of 33.3
and a standard deviation (S.D.) of 4.9.

An examination of the entry-on-duty (EOD)
dates for these 568 ATCSs revealed that only
47 (or about 8 per cent of the sample) had been
in active control work for 10 or more years, A
total of 515, or approximately 91 per cent, en-
tered service during the 4-year period 1956-
1959 and thus had 6 to 9 years of experience.
The remaining 6 individuals had been in ATC
work for 5 years or less, a nominal period for
attainment of journeyman status. The average
for the 568 was 7.8 years active control work;
the S.D. was 2.0.

Table I presents the distribution of years of
job experience for controllers comprising each
of five age groups. Addition of the frequencies
would indicate that 462 of the 494 controllers
aged 40 or less possessed 6 to 9 years of experi-
ence. In other words, over 81 per cent of the
568 ATCSs were not only less than 41 but also

TABLE I. DISTRIBUTION OF ATC EXPERIENCE BY AGE GROUPS

Year of Entry on Duty With FAA

1960 1954

& > 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 & <
Length of Experience

5 6 7 9 lo 1

Age Groups |& < Yrs. Yrs. Yrs. Yrs. Yrs. & >

46 & over 2 3 3 7 15
4 = 45 7 1S 5 6 8 59
36 = 40 7 2 6 0 5 5 36
31-35 2 20 99 70 58 15 1 256
30 & less 4 59 78 2% 15 182
ALL Ages 6 93 211 1200 91 2% aL 568

had entered service during the FAA’s rapid ex-
pansion period 1956-1959. Further examination
would show that 416 of those with EOD dates of
1956 through 1959 had not yet reached their
thirty-sixth birthday; this represents about 73
per cent of the entire sample. From a research
standpoint, such sampling characteristics posed
certain difficulties in the assessment of age and
experience effects. However, the need for re-
solving this issue becomes more fully apparent
when considering the possible impact of future
en masse increments in both age and experience
for such a large bloc of journeymen controllers.
As will be discussed in subsequent sections of
this report, several factors have arisen in recent
years which suggest that these employees might
experience somewhat more difficulty than their
predecessors in the attainment of promotions to
supervisory status. In brief, this large group


statistically significant. Perhaps it should be
emphasized that these are general findings based
on group means. In fact, some of the controllers
over 40 years of age were rated relatively high
by both their peers and their supervisors whereas
the opposite was true regarding some of the
younger ATCSs,

Length of Eaperience Versus Performance.
With the exception of the R-Nomination rating,
no significant differences in performance were
found between the groups of controllers having
differing lengths of ATC job experience. How-
ever, a comparative study or plot of the data
appearing in Table III would reveal a consistent
trend in the group means of every rating. In
each instance, the mean rating for the controllers
having 11 or more years of experience is
Jower than for any of the less experienced groups.
Yet, it should be emphasized that these means
are based upon relatively smal] numbers of in-
dividuals, many of whom are over 40 years of
age. It is also possible that many of these
ATCSs have always been less proficient than

Bt+C+R Rating

6&< 7

7

their colleagues and thus have failed to be pro-
moted from journeyman status.

Excluding the shortest-tenure groups (for
which one may only speculate regarding the
relatively high ratings, such as possible recency
of promotion to journeyman status), the highest
performance means on every variable are for
those controllers having 8 and 9-to-10 years of
experience. This trend in the data is somewhat
more accentuated for the R-Nominations vari-
able. With the exception of adjacent experience
groups, most of the differences between the
group means of these peer ratings were found
to be statistically significant.

Interaction Effects of Age and Euperience.
One of the basic objectives of the study con-
cerned a determination of possible interaction
effects of age and experience upon performance.
Unfortunately, limitations stemming from the
frequency distributions of age and experience
precluded the application of many of the more
sophisticated and normally appropriate statisti-
cal techniques such as “two-way analysis of

9-10 11 &>

Years
Figure 2, Means of the B+C+R Ratings for “Older” vs. “Younger” Radar ATOSs of Different Experience Groups.

8 Tot.



AM 67-1

THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CHRONOLOGICAL AGE,
LENGTH OF EXPERIENCE, AND JOB PERFORMANCE
RATINGS OF AIR ROUTE TRAFFIC
CONTROL SPECIALISTS

Bart B. Cobb, M.S.

Approved by Released by

e
Bild ite P. V. Smrozn, M.D.

J. Rosert Dixie, M.D.
Cuer, Civ, AEROMEDICAL Feverat Am Surczon
InsrrrvTe

June 1967

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Office of Aviation Medicine





the system and in staffing policies, it is not un-
reasonable to predict an approximate mean age
of 40 and an average tenure of about 15 years
for the Air Route Journeyman ATCS population
for the year 1972.

A determination of the reasons as to why the
older groups of controllers tend to receive the
lower ratings would demand additional research.
To what extent might the lower ratings be at-
tributable to physiological aging? Do the chron-
ologically older ATCSs generally have lower-
level aptitudes and abilities? Are differences in
motivation involved? These represent but a few
of the many questions bearing upon the com-
plexity of the problem.

It should be emphasized that the findings
emerging from the present study are based on
experimentally derived ratings of job perform-
ance which were collected at an arbitrarily
chosen point in time for controllers representing
only a portion of the ARTCC journeyman radar
ATCS population. Further, the study afforded
no evidence regarding the true reliability of
these experimental ratings which were collected
on an anonymous basis for research purposes
only. In terms of the official and periodic pro-
ficiency evaluations, all controllers of the sample
had been considered satisfactory.

It is also possible that the ratings have been
biased by attitudes regarding age. On the other
hand, the older ATCSs may indeed be less pro-
ficient than their younger colleagues. Length
of experience, when considered independently of
age, was found to be negligibly related to rating
level. Even though the study failed to reveal
any significant interaction effects of age and ex-
perience, consistent trends in the results indicated
progressively higher mean ratings extending
from the lesser to the more experienced groups
of controllers who were less than 41 years of
age. For ATCSs aged 41 and older, the mean

ratings of the more experienced groups were
lower than those of the less experienced groups.

Since completion of this study in which ex-
perimentally derived ratings served as criteria,
a new appraisal program for all FAA employees
has been instituted. This new program involves
the use of a detailed evaluation format, desig-
nated as the “Employee Appraisal Record” or
EAR Form 3693. All employees have not yet
been evaluated by this newly implemented
method. However, copies of Form 3693
were made available to CAMI researchers for
over 300 of the ATOSs involved in the present
study. The results of a preliminary analysis,
based on data which have been extracted from
Part IV of the EAR and coded for quantifica-
tion, are in general agreement with the findings
presented in this report. In other words, the
older ATCSs tend to receive the lower ratings
and length of experience does not appear to be
a significant factor. These findings are also in
general agreement with those previously reported
by Trites and Cobb.

The present study represents but one of a
series of investigations concerning the relation-
ships of performance versus age and/or experi-
ence. Much of this additional research is being
directed toward identification of the factors
underlying these relationships.

REFERENCES

1, Trrtes, D. K., and Coss, B. B.: Problems in Air
Traffic Management: III. Implications of Training-
entry Age for Training and Job Performance of Air
Traffic Control Specialists. Aerospace Medicine,
35 :336, 1964.

2. Trrres, D. K., Mrtuwr, ©. M., and Coss, B. B.:
Problems in Air Traffic Management: VII. Job and
Training Performance of Air Traffic Control Spe-
cialists—Measurement, Structure, and Prediction.
Aerospace Medicine, 36 :1181, 1965.



cant. For years of experience versus chronologi-
cal age, the correlation was .45.

Numerous other statistical procedures, includ-
ing one-way analyses of variance, were employed
to. determine more fully the extent to which
performance—as measured by each of the five
experimental ratings—might be associative with
age and experience. For most of these addi-
tional investigative phases, coarse grouping pro-
cedures were employed to establish age and
experience groupings. Differing numbers of
class intervals were tried. In view of the skewed
distributions however, five age and five experi-
ence groups were deemed most practical. All
analyses of a given type yielded similar results
for each of the five performance measures and
the findings across the different analyses tended

to be consistent and non-contradictory. Subse-
quent portions of this report have therefore
focused upon a discussion of the general findings
obtained for only three of the five variables.
Age Versus Performance. Table III presents
the means of three performance measures by age
and experience groups. For the B-+C Combined
Supervisory Rating, the R-Nominations Score
and the B+C+R Overall Rating, the means or
averages in performance level reflect a progres-
sive and steady decline from the youngest to the
oldest group of ATCSs. In every instance, the
t-tests indicated statistical significance of differ-
ences involving either of the two oldest versus
the two youngest groups. All other differences,
between adjacent age groups and those involving
the intermediate age group “36-40,” were not

TABLE III. MEANS OF THREE PERFORMANCE MEASURES BY AGE AND EXPERIENCE GROUPS
Year of Entry on Duty With FAA
1959 & > 1958 1957 1956-1955 1954 & <
Length of Experience
6 Years 7 8 9-10 11 Years
or less Years Years Years or _more
Age Groups N__ Mean oN Mean oN Mean oN Mean N_ Mean N_ Mean

~ 46 & over 1 39.0 3° 44.3 3 48.0 6 43.0 13° 44.2
g@ 41 - 45 6 48.3 17 47.8 13 49.0 10 43.9 7 46.1 53 47.2
33 36 - 40 7 47.7 21 46.7 6 54.3 15 49.4 5 55.2 54 49.2
§ 31 - 35 20 47.1 85 50.2 65 50.4 68 50.9 238 «50.2
© 30 & less 57 52.6 73° 49.8 24 52.7 14 49.8 168 51.2
gz
= All Ages 90 50.7 197 49.4 111 50.8 110 49.9 18 47.6] 526 50.0
wo 46 & over 2 48.5 3 43.0 3 46.3 7 42.7 15 44.3
§ 41 - 45 7 45.7 18 45.3 15 48.4 11 49.6 8 43.4 59 46.7
DB 36 - 40 7 47.0 23 46.3 6 53.8 15 52.8 5 48.6 56 49.1
€ 31 - 35 22, 45.5 90 49.9 70 52.3 73 52.7 1 60.0} 256 51.0
30 & less 63 50.6 78 51.1 26 51.7 15 53.5 182 51.2
Z
a All Ages 99 48.9 211 49.5 120 51.5 117 52.4 21 45.2] 568 50.3
fat 46 & over 1 42.0 3 44.3 3° 47.7 6 43.5 13° 44.5
@ 41 - 45 6 47.3 17 47.4 13 49.1 10 45.9 7 46.1 53 47.3
3 36 - 40 7 47.9 21 46.6 6 53.7 15 50.3 5 52.6 54 49.1
& 31 - 35 20 46.8 85 50.1 65 51.2 68 51.5 238 «50.5
% 30 & less 57 52.0 73 50.1 24 52.1 14 50.9 168 51.1
z All Ages 90 50.2 197 49,5 111 51.1 110 50.6 18 47.1] 526 50.1



ever, it was noted that the existing and available
subjective evaluations were somewhat inappropri-
ate for the purpose. Appraisal methods in use
at the time the study was initiated had been de-
signed primarily for remedial and diagnostic
purposes. Most of these operationally derived
evaluations were also nonquantitative and offered
little potential for individual differentiation. In
quest of more adequate “subjective” criteria, three
experimental performance-rating procedures were
developed. Each procedure involved a different
form or evaluation format. These forms, which
are described in subsequent sections of this report,
were designated as “Form A, Nominations by
Coworkers,” “Form B, Supervisory Rating of
Performance,” and “Form C, Supervisory Rating
of Performance.”

Several different methods were considered
whereby “objective” measures of performance
might be obtained. The need for standardized
evaluation procedures was recognized, and it be-
came apparent that traffic-control-problem-simu-
lation equipment would be involved. It was
concluded that the equipment and experienced
personnel of the National Aviation Facilities Ex-
perimental Center (NAFEC) would afford the
best means of obtaining such indices. After
proper coordination, a project was established by
NAFEC for intensive simulation testing of 36
ATCSs who would be randomly selected from
specific age and experience groups of several
hundred controllers for whom CAMI would col-
lect “field” ratings (ie., supervisory ratings and
peer ratings) of job performance. The results
of the NAFEC testing phase are not included
in the present report.

Arrangements for the Collection of Field
Ratings. The collection of data on controller
personnel of four major Air Route Traffic Con-
trol Centers (ARTCCs) was coordinatively ar-
ranged by the FAA Headquarters’ Office of
Personnel and Training (OPT) and the Air
Traffic Service (ATS). The facilities involved
are located at or near Atlanta, Georgia; Memphis,
Tennessee; Leesburg, Virginia; and Ronkonkoma,
New York.

With the cooperation of each facility chief and
his staff, schedules were arranged whereby ap-
proximately 95 per cent of controller personnel
received an oral briefing in which a visiting mem-
ber of the CAMI research team discussed the
types of information to be collected and some

of the objectives of the study. The controllers
were informed that the Office of Aviation Medi-
cine had been requested to conduct a survey to
determine the various. methods by which con-
troller proficiency might be evaluated, and also
to obtain information from controllers regarding
the work environment and other factors which
they deemed relevant to performance. The re-
searcher explained that a person’s health, age,
training, knowledge, and experience represented
only a few of the possible determinants of indi-
vidual performance. Working conditions, ad-
ministrative policies, and work-shift changes
were also mentioned as being of possible import.
Due to the possibility of bias that might other-
wise have arisen, efforts were made to avoid any
focus upon age and experience.

In discussing the different types of data to be
collected from both the controllers and their
supervisors, the researcher emphasized that all
of the information would be collected on an
anonymous basis, that no signature would be re-
quired with the submission of any form or rating,
and that all of the data would be used only for
research purposes.

Coworker Nominations Form A. Fach Assist-
ant Controller, Journeyman Radar ATCS, E-
Coordinator, and Crew Chief received a copy of
the Form A. It was explained that the nomina-
tions form offered each of them an opportunity
to contribute toward identification of the best
controllers within the entire facility. Nomina-
tions submitted by a controller were not restricted
to those of his own GS-level or job position. In
brief, the recipient of each Form A was merely
requested to nominate those individuals whom
he considered as “most outstandingly effective” in
the performance of duties for each of three posi-
tions. The positions were “Sector, D-Interphone/
Radio,” “R-Radar Position,” and “E-Coordina-
tor.” It was suggested that nominations of this
category be limited to four for each position and
that any additional names be listed in a second
category designated as “next most effective.” In
the derivation of summary scores, the data pro-
cessing staff assigned a weight of 2 for each of
the four nominations listed as “most outstand-
ingly effective.” Of all remaining nominations
in either category, the fifth, sixth, seventh, and
eighth were each assigned a weight of 1. Those
beyond the eighth were omitted. An individual’s
coworker-nominations score for a given position


RC ios 4
Us A4f

1467. 1-1

‘BIOLOGY
EIBaARY

THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CHRONOLOGICAL AGE, LENGTH
OF EXPERIENCE, AND JOB PERFORMANCE RATINGS OF AIR
ROUTE TRAFFIC CONTROL SPECIALISTS

I, Introduction.

Aviation has been developing and expanding
at an increasingly accelerated pace in recent
years.. Pilot certification has more than doubled
within the past 5 years, aircraft production
is some 40 per cent greater than 2 years
ago, and new records in revenue for both passen-
gers and freight are being established each year.
The growing numbers of aircraft, varied in type
and with higher speed capabilities, have resulted
in increasingly heavier traffic loads for both the
Terminal (or Tower) and Air Route (or Center)
traffic control facilities of the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA).

However, the FAA anticipated this greater vol-
ume of traffic and through advanced planning,
research, and development has been able to
improve significantly the capability and relia-
bility of the numerous elements of the air traffic
management system. Progressive improvements
have been made in regard to communications,
surveillance gear, and various types of ancillary
equipment; traffic control procedures and flight
regulations have been revised to promote a more
expeditious flow of air traffic with an enhanced
margin of safety; higher standards have been
implemented for the selection of controller train-
ees, and changes in training programs have been
instituted.

The typical journeyman controller of today can
more easily and effectively direct greater numbers
of aircraft than his predecessor. Yet, his job
continues to be of a very demanding and critical
nature. The imperativeness of safety in traffic
operations requires that a controller remain
alert over long periods of time, always cap-
able of making precise error-free decisions.
In crucial situations, he must maintain emotional
stability and react in a calm, yet speedy, and
technically approved manner. A controller must

keep fully abreast of all changes and updating
in procedures and be able to pass frequent peri-
odic proficiency checks. It is also important that
he develop and retain an adaptability and resil-
iency to variable day-night work shift changes
or patterns. Briefly, the job of an Air Traffic
Control Specialist (ATCS) is apt to be de-
scribed by a knowledgeable observer or by the
controller himself as being “stressful.”

In recent years, officials have expressed a grow-
ing interest and concern regarding the extent
to which controller performance and reactions to
stress might be associative with aging and length
of experience in active control work. This con-
cern has been based partially upon anecdotal
evidence and also upon previous research find-
ings, some of which represented peripheral find-
ings of investigations designed for other purposes.
However, the need for a more definitive study
of the interrelationships of age, experience, and
performance became increasingly more apparent.
Research efforts for this purpose were undertaken
in 1965 by the FAA’s Civil Aeromedical Insti-
tute (CAMI) in Oklahoma City.

The present report pertains to but one of the
project’s two basic phases. More specifically, the
phase encompassed in this report represents a
survey-type study involving the collection of ex-
perimentally derived ratings of job performance
for several hundred Air Route (or Center)
journeymen radar ATCSs and the relationships
of these criterion measures to chronological age
and tenure in ATC work.

IL Methodology

The investigative procedure for the overall re-
search project was formulated on the assumption
that both “subjective” and “objective” evaluations
of controller proficiency should be collected for
use as performance criteria. At the outset, how-

434

}



ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This study is from the Civil Aeromedical Institute, Federal Aviation
Administration, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. It represents but one of a series
of related projects. Dr. William F. O’Connor was a participant in the early
phases of the study. Assistance in various phases of data analysis was
rendered by Mary Kaye Phifer and Carolyn Harshaw.

The opinions and conclusions contained in this report are those of the
author and should not be construed as reflecting the views or endorsement of
the Federal Aviation Administration,

Qualified requesters may obtain Aviation Medical Reports from Defense Documentation
Center. The general public may purchase from Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and
Technical Information, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Springfield, Va. 22151