Taste 2. Factor Matrix Rotated by Varimax

Variable I isa U1
EAR PT IT 05 03 90
EAR PT IV OL —04 90

A 1 098 —00
B 05 —05, 06
Cc 1% —09 01
E —03 —s1 01
F 08 —53 05
G 43 33 05
H 48 52 02
I —06 02 04
L —70 —33 08
M —30 08 —00
N 17 —i7 —04
ce) 74 09 —03
Qi 10 1 —02
Qe 03 —02 —10
Q3 52 37 10
Q4 —82 —06 —00
MD B —28 07

Decimals have been omitted

Discussion

Thus, while all the factors found have been
identified previously, we again have the puzzling
situation that there is negligible relationship be-
tween the two criterion variables and the per-
sonality variables, while there is evidence that
the two criterion variables are highly related to
each other. It is of course difficult to explain
what happened, but it is the writers’ hunch that
that the discovery that there was virtually no
variance on Part V of the EAR may well suggest
a clue to the answer. The EAR is reviewed by
both the ATC and his supervisor together before
it is signed, and it may well be that supervisors
are unwilling to give an unsatisfactory overall
rating to an employee who has a real chance of
seeking appeal. That the same tendency may
have extended into the two EAR ratings is shown
by the relatively small sigmas associated with
them, .28 and .54 respectively, on a five-point
scale, The supervisors may well have given low
ratings on certain items, and then compensated
for them in the overall rating by boosting the
ratings on other items. This difficulty is further

Iv v VI VII VIIL
o1 03 —10 02 04
—038 —05 05 —02 00
82 1% OL 08 07
—02 —03 —96 —OL —02
23 00 03 03 —02
o1 00 03 04 —09
32 —50 —05 01 03
20 1 xe 48 06
02 —88 00 20 —10
—84 02 nu —06 10
— 038 —01 05 21 —00
—63 08 16 —0L 383

02 —02 07 84 08

—00 02 —02 20 —00
—02 03 —03 —02 93
28 82 05 01 OL
08 02 —00 38 —04
—02 03 00 21 08
03 24 —00 18 00

compounded by the highly select, homogeneous
nature of the group, who are of course very care-
fully screened before being allowed on the con-
trol boards. It should be obvious, moreover, that
any really serious inability in performance would
clearly manifest itself in what might often be a
near-air-disaster, and the controller who was even
suspected of such performance would immediately
be suspended from his duties, usually by transfer
to a less critical job until the matter had been
settled.

In all, it seems clear that the old psychometric
maxim that it is most difficult to develop selec-
tion measures on workers who are working rela-
tively successfully in their jobs has again been
demonstrated. It is difficult to see how the FAA
could use the textbook method of allowing ‘all
applicants to try their hand at air traffic con-
trol, and then developing selection tests. How-
ever, with the increasing development of simula-
tion equipment, and with the routine administra-
tion of the 16PF to all applicants, future studies
of this type should become feasible.





performance has been “satisfactory”, “unsatisfac-
tory,” or “outstanding.” It was immediately dis-
covered that Part V was not usable, since no one
at all was called unacceptable or unsatisfactory,
and only a tiny portion of the controllers were
called “outstanding”. A small factor analysis
was done on the items in Parts IL and IV
together, and it was discovered that while there
was a good deal of overlap between the two parts,
they were sufliciently different to warrant using
them as separate variables in the study. Thus,
out of the three possible criterion measures, we
were left with only two which showed any vari-
ability. Part V was probably ineffective, simply
because of a general unwillingness on the part of
supervisors to call anyone unacceptable.

Subjects used in the present study were ob-
tained from a group of 568 individuals from four
Air Traffic Control Centers, described in Karson
(1969). However, many subjects had to be
omitted because of missing data on the EAR
sheets, leaving only 264 subjects finally included
in the sample.

The data analysis consisted simply of factor
analyzing the two EAR scores and the 17 16PF
scores together. The principal components
method was used, followed by Varimax rotation
to orthogonal simple structure.

Results

Table 1 gives the raw score means and sigmas
from the two criterion variables and the 16PF
scores, No correlation matrix is presented, since
the correlations were similar to those reported by
Karson (1969) for the 16PF variables. How-
ever, the correlation between Part II and Part IV
of the EAR sheet was found to be +.63. Also,
only one of the correlations between the EAR
variables and the 16PF variables was significant
(—.14), that between EAR II and Q2 (Self-
Sufficiency). Thus, while there is evidence that
the two parts of the EAR sheet are measuring
something very similar, again it was found that
there were very few relations between the annual
performance ratings and the 16PF.

The rotated factor matrix is presented in
Table 2. Virtually all of the variance of the two
criterion variables, EAR Parts II and IV, is

Taste 1. Means and Standard Deviations of Predictor
and Criterion Variables (N=264)

Standard

Variable Mean Deviation
1, BAR Part IT 3.44 28
2. EAR Part IV 2.84 a
3. 16PF A (warmth) 9.47 3.14
4. 16PF B (intelligence) 8.03 1.66
5. 16PF C (ego strength) 16.99 3.63
6. 16PF E (dominance) 13.06 3.82
7. 16PF F (surgency) 13.84 414
8. 16PF G (group conformity) 15.27 3.17
9. 16PF H (boldness) 13.28 5.09
10. 16PF I (sensitivity) 6.44 3.02
11. 16PF L (insecurity) 782 2.97
12, 16PF M (impractical) 10.92 3.12
18. 16PF N (sophistication) 11.55 2.62
14. 16PF O (guilt proneness) 9.17 3.37
15. 16PF Q1 (criticalness) 9.67 2.48
16. 16PF Q2 (self-sufficiency) 10.17 3.57
17. 16PF Q3 (disciplined) 12.50 3.07

18. 16PF Q4 (free floating anxiety) 9.70 4.99
19. 16PF MD 5.81 2.96

found on only one factor, namely ITI. Both
criteria load .90 on this factor, and not at all on
the other factors; the criterion variables again
reside in their own, virtually private factor. The
other factors are familiar in air traffic control
studies (Karson, 1967). Factor I is well known
as Anxiety-vs.-Adjustment, with high loadings on
C,G,H, —L, —O, Q3, —Q4, and MD. Factor
I, with loadings on —E, —F, and —H is an
offshoot of the general Invia-vs.-Exvia factor
which Karson (1967) has dubbed “Subduedness-
vs.-Independence.” Factor IV, with high load-
ings on —I and —M, is similar to the 16PF
second-stratum factor of Pathemia-vs.-Cortertia
or cortical alertness. Factor V contains the re-
mainder of the loadings of the Invia-vs.-Exvia
factor, (—A, —F, and —Q2) the rest of which
is contained in Factor II, and was identified as
Invia-vs.-Exvia. Factor VI, with a single load-
ing on B is obviously the Intelligence factor.
Factor VII, with loadings on G, N, and perhaps
Q8 is called by Cattell (Cattell, Eber, and
Tatsuoka, in Press) the “Superego” factor, or
Obessivenesss - Compulsiveness - vs. - Sociopathic
Deviancy according to Karson (1967, 1969). QL
has previously been found important in the con-
troller population, and it resides to some extent
with M on Factor VIII, Rebelliousness.


34815

1

N

cd

REFERENCES

Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M.
Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Ques-
tionnaire. Champaign, Ill: Institute for Personality
and Ability Testing, in press.

Cattell, R. B. & Eber, H. W. The Sieteen Personality
Factor Questionnaire, Champaign, Il: Institute for
Personality and Ability Testing, 1962.

Gough, H. G. California Psychological Inventory
Manual. Palo Alto, Cal.: Consulting Psychologists
Press, 1960.

4,

5.

=

Karson, 8. Second-order factors in air traffic con-
trol specialists. Aerospace Medicine, 1967, 88, 412-414.
Karson, S. Some relations between personality factors
and job performance ratings in radar controllers.
Aerospace Medicine, 1969, 40, 823-826.

‘Trites, D. K., Kurek, A., & Cobb, B. Personality and
achievement of air traflie controllers. Aerospace
Medicine, 1967, 38, 1145-1150.


AM 70-14

PERFORMANCE RATINGS AND PERSONALITY FACTORS
IN RADAR CONTROLLERS

Samuel Karson, Ph. D.
Jerry W. O’Dell, Ph.D.

Approved by Released by
oe
Stanton A Veneta [PU Stge€ mo
Sranuey R. Mouter, M.D. P. V. Smern, M.D.
Cuter, Avromupican Applications Feprrat Air Surceon
Division

September 1970

Department of Transportation

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Office of Aviation Medicine





PRESENT ADDRESS OF AUTHORS:

Samuel Karson, Ph. D.

Head, Department of Psychology
Eastern Michigan University
Ypsilanti, Michigan 48197

Jerry W. O'Dell, Ph.D.
Associate Professor

Eastern Michigan University
Ypsilanti, Michigan 48197

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.


PERFORMANCE RATINGS AND PERSONALITY FACTORS IN RADAR
CONTROLLERS*

Air traffic controllers have in the past few years
come into great public prominence. Although
there are only some ten thousand of these workers
in centers and towers, it is now apparent to most
people that even a slight inefficiency in the air
traffic control system can lead to a dramatic dis-
ruption of American life. The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) has been conducting ex-
tensive researches into factors of all kinds affect-
ing controller performance. Among this wide-
ranging program have been a few attempts to
relate personality variables to job performance.
Trites, Kurek, and Cobb (1967) studied the effects
of over- and under-achieving during the training
program on job performance, and also their rela-
tion to the scales of the California Personality
Inventory (Gough, 1960), and reported several
significant relationships. Karson (1969), using
peer and supervisory ratings of job performance,
related these to the personality factors measured
by the 16PF test (Cattell & Eber, 1962), by
means of correlational and factor-analytic
methods. In general it was found that peer and
supervisory ratings of air traffic controllers
(ATC’s) were highly related to each other
(r=+.55), but no relationship was found be-
tween peer and supervisory ratings and any of
the personality variables, although the ratings
showed correlations of —.18 and —.17 respec-
tively with age. In the factor analysis associated
with the correlations, the two performance meas-
ures were alone on their own private factor, and
did not load on any of the personality factors.

This finding was surprising, especially in view
of the fact that Trites, et al, had previously
found relationships between performance and
personality traits, and also because the senior
author has found the 16PF to be effective both in
screening out potential psychiatric problems and

*Presented at the 1969 annual meetings of the Aero-
space Medical Association in San Francisco by Dr.
Karson.

in detecting high anxiety in controllers which was
also found in clinical interview. Because of this,
it was decided to again attempt to find relation-
ships between the 16PF scales and job perform-
ance measures, but using another estimate of job
performance, the FAA’s “Employee Appraisal
Record for Nonsupervisory Employees” (here-
after, “EAR”).** This is an official U.S. Civil
Service form, used for the annual evaluation of
all employees of the appropriate rank in the FAA.

Method

The 16PF, Form A, 1962 edition has, since
1966, been administered to all operational con-
trollers as part of the FAA’s Air Traffic Con-
troller Health Program. All 16PF’s were
machine scored for the usual 16 scales, plus a
“Motivational Distortion” scale, which attempts
to determine response bias (Karson, 1967).

The basic criterion measure, the EAR, was
made available by the FAA Civil Aeromedical
Institute*** on many of the subjects who had
taken the 16PF. In the light of the senior
author’s previous disillusionment with criterion
measures, this form was carefully examined for
evidence that it actually had at least some
validity. The EAR consists of five sections, of
which only three have direct relevance to per-
formance. Part II (Career Potential) contains
ratings by a superior on broad performance areas,
such as “ability to reach decisions” and “creative
ability”. Part IV (Performance) has ratings on
six areas of very specific relevance to the con-
troller’s job. Part V (Certifications) asks two
questions, namely, whether the employee’s per-
formance is at an “acceptable” or “unacceptable”
level of competence, and, secondly, whether his

**The FAA has recently revised its Employee Ap-
praisal Record.

***This study was made possible through the co-
operation of Mr, Bart Cobb, who kindly made his data on
the EAR available.