AD-A238 072

DoTF ".-91/3 Some Personality Characteristics

of Air Traffic Control Specialist

Trainees: nteractions of

Personality and Aptitude Test

Office of Aviation Medicine Scores with FAA Academy

Washington, D.C. 20591 Success and Career Expectations

Lendell G. Nye

William E. Collins

Civil Aeromedical Institute

Federal Aviation Administration

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125

May 1991

Final Report

This document is available to the public through

the National Technical Information Service,

Springfield, Virginia 22161.

fELECTE DTIC' U.S. Department JUL l 119U

/ ;t91-04680 of Transportation

Administration

Dbhlmlm unn.w - 91 7 10 151
NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of

the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of

information exchange. The United States Government

assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof.
Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

DOT/rAA/A-91/8

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

Some Personalty Characteristics of Air Traffic Control May 1991

Specialist (ATCS) Trainees: Interactions of Personalit3 6. Performg Organization Code

and Aptitude Test Scores with FAA Academy Success and

Career Expectations 8. Performing Organization Report No.

7. Authorls)

Lendell G. Nye, B.A. and William E. Collins, Ph.D.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute

P.O. Box 25082 11. Contract or Grant No.

Okahoma City, OK 73125

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Office of Aviation Medicine

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 14. Sponsoring Agency Code

Washington, D.C. 20591

15. Supplementary Notes

This work was performed under task AM-C-91-HRR-123

16. Abstract

The State-Trait Personality Inventory (STPI) is a self-report inventory which

measures anxiety, curiosity, and anger (Spielberger, 1979). The three 'trait' scale

scores are determined by the frequency of each emotion as stable personality

constructs. The Multiplex Controller Aptitude Test (MCAT) is the primary selection

test completed by ATCS applicants. The STPI was given to 1,284 students who entered

the FAA Academy nonradar screen program between October 1986 and September 1987.

Men and women ATCS trainees exhibited less anxiety and anger than normative groups of

college students and Navy recruits. Also, in most comparisons, the ATCS sample

indicated greater curiosity. ATCS pass rates were reduced within each MCAT score

level for the groups of entrants with anxiety or anger scores above the normative

levels. Personality trait profiles differed significantly for groups when they were

categorized by both self-expected job performance levels and job satisfaction, but

not aptitude score levels. Analyses indicated significant relationships between

anxiety and lower job performance self-expectations and between curiosity and higher

self-expected job satisfaction. FAA Academy entrants have a group profile indicating

relatively low levels of trait anxiety and anger. Personality factors can impact a)

the predictive validity of the MCAT in determining a student's aptitude for learning

air traffic control principles/procedures and b) potentially, organizational goals

such as increasing employee job satisfaction.

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

Training Document is available to the public

Personality through the National Technical Information

Anxiety Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161

19. Security Clossf. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price

Unclassified Unclassified 16

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
SOME PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL

SPECIALIST (ATCS) TRAINEES: INTERACTIONS OF PERSONALITY

AND APTITUDE TEST SCORES WITH FAA ACADEMY SUCCESS

AND CAREER EXPECTATIONS

INTRODUCTION

For this study, the STPI- State-Trait Personality futurejob satisfaction as ATCSs. The FAA has been

Inventory (Spielberger, 1979) was the personality monitoring facets of employee job satisfaction usmeasure used to examine three issues. The STPI is ing the Job Satisfaction Survey (Myers, Schroeder,

a self-report instrument comprised of scales, which VanDeventer, & Collins, 1988) since 1984 and has

measure the personality dimensions of anxiety, cu- been using those survey findings to meet its perriosity, and anger. The scores for the three "trait" ceived responsibilities to implement organizational

subscales for the emotions of anxiety, curiosity, and changes leading to increased employee job satisfacanger are determined by the self-reported frequency tion. Job satisfaction has been defined (Locke, 1976)

of each emotion and are considered to be indicators as "a pleasurable or positive emotional state resultof stable personality constructs. By contrast, the ing from the appraisal of one's job or job experi- "state" subscales ask the respondent to indicate how ence." Although management has an important role

he/she feels at the present time. Generally, anxiety to play in meeting employee needs, there are some

is defined by subjective feelings such as nervous- indications that job satisfaction attitudes may be

ness, tension, insecurity, and lack of self-confi- more consistent over time than would be expected,

dence. Anger is described by terms such as irrita- given changes in the work environment (Staw &

tion, rage, and lack of self-control. The personality Ross, 1985). Also, to some degree, employees"bring

dimension of curiosity is related to descriptors such a positive or negative disposition to the work setas inquisitive, eager, stimulated, and mentally ac- ting, process information about the job in a way that

tive. is consistent with that disposition, and then experience job satisfaction or dissatisfaction as a result"

The first question examined whether there were (Staw, Bell, & Clausen, 1986). Similarly, it has been

personality differences between men and women on argued (Schmitt & Pulakos, 19g5)thatsomepersonthe STPI dimensions and also compared the STPI ality characteristics create a predisposition for faresults of our sample of FAA Academy entrants vorably evaluating aspects of the work environwith normative group data. Gender differences on ment. For this study, it was hypothesized that an

the Sixteen Personality FactorQuestionnaire (I6PF, increased curiosity level would be related to a more

Cattell, 1970) were examined (Karson & O'Dell, positive predisposition or anticipation of job satis1974) and the conclusion made that the factor struc- faction. Conversely, higher scores on both anxiety

tures of the 16PF scales for men and women Air and anger subscales, as measured by the STPI,

Traffic Control Specialist (ATCS) applicants were would correspond to a significant degree with lower

very similar. Examining their descriptive statistics, self-expectations of job satisfaction.

only on the '' scale (tender-mindedness) was the

gender group effect size (d statistic) found to reach The third purpose of this study was to examine and

Cohen's (1969) classification for a "large" differ- clarify the interrelationships among aptitude test

ence between gender groups. In a previous study results, STPI personality traits (anxiety, curiosity,

(Collins, Schroeder, & Nye, 1989), both trait anxi- and anger), job performance self-expectations, and

ety and state anxiety scores of FAA Academy en- FAA Academy nonradar screen performance.

trants were lower than normative groups of college Newly-hired Air Traffic Control Specialists are

students and Navy personnel in flight training. Gen- required to successfully complete a nonradar screender differences in trait anxiety were found in the ing program (pass/fail) at the FAA Academy in

normative group of college students and also in a Oklahoma City prior to being assigned to an air

study of community volunteers (Stoner & Spencer, traffic control facility, where they then are required

1986); with women indicating higher levels of trait to continue in phases of classroom, simulation, and

anxiety in both studies. on-the-job training. The "screen" measures aptitude

for the ATCS occupation based on performance on

The second purpose of this study was to determine paper-and-pencil tests and ability to apply airtraffic

the nature of the relationships between expressed control procedures in laboratory simulation probpersonality characteristics and attitudes regarding lems.

I
The Multiplex Controller Aptitude Test (MCAT) actual training performance, which could be exhas been used by the Federal.Aviation Administra- plained as the function of a) aptitude, as reflected by

tion since 1981 as the primary selection test of a selection test (MCAT) scores, and b) the trait anxibattery of tests administered to applicants for the ety construct, a component of which directly inATCS occupation. The MCAT is a timed paper- volves the lack of self-esteem and self-confidence.

and-pencil test in which the individual first examines tabular data about aircraft altitude, speed, and METHODS

course, along with a map illustrating several aircraft

at different locations on various flight paths. Appli- The State-Trait Personality Inventory (STPI) was

cants are required to correctly compute aircraft given to the students who entered the FAA Acadtime-and-distance travel patterns and identify po- emy nonradar screen program between October

tential conflicts among flight paths. The predictive 1986 and September 1987. Also, a biographical

validity of the MCAT has been documented in questionnaire (BQ) was completed at the same testvarious studies (Della Rocco & Manning, 1990; ing session during the first week of attendance at the

Schroeder, Dollar, & Nye, 1990; Manning, Kegg, & FAA Academy. A total of 1,482 subjects completed

Collins, 1988; VanDeventer, Collins, Manning, both the BQ and STPI. Of that total, 1,284 finished

Taylor & Baxter, 1984; and Sells, Dailey, & Pickrel, the FAA Academy screen and received a final grade.

1984). Entrants who withdrew prior to completion of the

screen were not given a final grade. Those who hld

Anxiety, measured as a personality trait using the previously attended the FAA Academy and had

State-Trait Personality Inventory, was found to be failed orwithdrew ("recycled") were excluded from

inversely related to a) successful completion of the the sample.

FAA Academy nonradar program in the en route

option prior to 1986 and b) achieving full perfor- TheSTPliscomprisedofatotalof60items, divided

mance level as an ATCS after field training (Collins, into six subscales. The scores for three "trait"

Schroeder, & Nye, 1989). subscales are determined by the frequency (i.e.,

almost never, sometimes, often, and almost always)

Those trainees who reported above-average perfor- of each emotion, while the "state" subscales ask the

mance self-expectations for themselves as ATCSs respondent to indicate how he/she feels at the present

at the beginning of Academy screen programs were time (i.e., not at all, somewhat, moderately so, and

later found to have higher actual pass rates (Collins, very much so). The total scores for each subscale are

Nye, & Manning, 1990; VanDeventer, Collins, obtained by summing the item responses, giving a

Manning, Taylor, & Baxter, 1984). These expecta- range of possible scores from a minimum of 10 to a

tions were defined and measured based on a self- maximum of 40. The Cronbach (alpha) reliabilities

projection of effectiveness (relative to peers) both in ranged from .86 for state anxiety to .66 for the state

future training and at the full performance level as anger scale. For this study, only the trait effects of

air traffic controllers. the STPI on Academy screen performance were

evaluated (anxiety, alpha = .77; curiosity, alpha =

A recent model of work attitudes, motivation, and .82; and anger, alpha = .76).

performance (Katzell & Thompson, 1990) postulated that ability-related resources directly affect The BQ that was administered was comprised of

both performance and expectancy; the later term 145 items that addressed various aspects of the

was defined by Campbell and Pritchard (1976) as entrant's background (for example, education and

the subjective likelihood that a given level of indi- aviation-related experience) and current attitudes

vidual effort will result in the achievement of a regarding his/her career goals and expectations.

performance goal. Also, an individual's perceptions

of having the personal resources, including cogni- Anticipated job satisfaction was measured by selftive and behavioral skills, that are necessary to reported responses, using a five-point scale from

accomplish a goal have been termed self-efficacy "not at all" to "a very great extent," to three items

(Bandura, 1982). Perceived self-efficacy was found from the Biographical Questionnaire:

to help explain numerous motivations, achievement

strivings and career goals, for example. Thus, one a) Do you expect that working for the federal

specific hypothesis tested in the current study was government will be desirable?

that there existed a positive and significant relationship between performance self-expectations and

2
TABLE 1: Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Comparisons of State-Trait Personality

Inventory (STP1) Scores - Anxiety, Curiosity, and Anger Scales

Normative Groups

Colleee Studen Navy Recruits ATCS Trainees

Men Women Men Women Men Women

n = (95) (185) (198) (72) (1237) (274)

Trait Anxie

Mean 17.88 19.38 19.17 19.24 14.86 15.08

SD 4.47 5.65 5.14 5.56 3.54 3.30

t value -6.43* -9.33* -11.38* -6.07*

State Anxiey Mean 17.95 19.06 24.05 23.88 16.22 15.71

SD 5.52 6.25 7.14 7.94 4.80 4.61

t value -2.96 -6.24* -14.90* -8.37*

Trait Curiosity

Mean 29.67 29.30 28.72 31.10 31.27 31.66

SD 5.05 4.53 5.10 4.97 4.22 3.95

t value 3.08* 5.76* 6.68* 0.89

State Curiosity

Mean 26.85 26.17 27.12 30.83 30.08 30.25

SD 5.72 5.45 6.35 5.73 5.65 5.28

t value 5.31* 7.97* 6.18* 0.88

Trait Angr Mean 18.65 19.14 20.88 19.63 16.03 15.93

SD 5.06 4.97 5.73 5.32 3.49 3.55

t value -4.96* -7.58* -11.57* -5.58*

State Anger Mean 13.42 14.24 17.38 15.07 10.38 10.18

SD 5.38 5.75 7.27 6.38 1.45 0.61

t value -5.49* -9.57* -13.51* -6.50*

* Separate variance t-test statistic significant at p< .001 for same-gender comparisons between the

normative groups and the ATCS trainees.

b) Do you expect that management will be b) Of all the air traffic controllers in the country,

supportive of your concerns? at what percentile do you think you will be

able to perform? (5-point scale ranging from

c) Do you expect to be satisfied with your job? "the lowest 10%" to "the top 10%").

For this study, performance self-expectations were The entrants' scores were obtained for the Multi- - - measured by the self-reported responses to the fol- plex Controller Aptitude Test (MCAT). Also, the "W

lowing two items: entrants' subsequent Academy screen results (successful completion, failure, or withdrawal) and the 3

a) How long do you think that it will take you to final Academy grades were available from a data- 3

become fully effective in your current job? (5- base maintained in the Human Resources Research -

point scale ranging from "much longer than Division atthe Civil Aeromedical Institute (CAMD.

most others" to "much less time than most others"), .+.+t .

Av,1 labillty Codem

3 Avll nd/ok 3' Speia

Z +
TABLE 2: Multivariate Analysis of Variance Assessing Relationships of STPI Trait Measures with

Trainee Self-Expectations of Job Satisfaction Levels

Trait Scales in z Scores

T-Anx T-Cur T-Ang

ffec Mean Mean Mean N

Job Satisfaction Expect.- .258 -.278 .139 442

Moderate or Limited

Job Satisfaction Expect.- -. 120 .129 -.064 950

Considerable or Great

Total sample .000 .000 .000 1392

Bartlett test of sphericity (3,1390) - 318.38, p < .001

Multivariate Tes Univariate Tests

F E

Hotelling 25.55 <.001 T-Anx 44.37 <.001

T-Cur 51.77 <.001

T-Ang 12.45 <.001

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Personality Characteristics and Job Satisfaction

Disposition. A multivariate analysis of variance

The results of group comparisons of ATCS trainees (Table 2) was conducted using standardized scores (z

with samples of college students and Navy recruits scores) for the three personality trait subscales for a

from Spielberger (1979) are shown in Table 1. dichotomy of groups based on self-expected job

Because the variances of the scale scores were not satisfaction (to a "considerable" or "very great"

found to be equal (i.e., the scale standard deviations extent and to a "moderate" or "limited" extent). This

were lower for both men and women ATCSs), procedure also allowed for the determination of

separate variance t-tests were performed. The corn- effect size differences on the STPI dimensions

parisons were by gender and each comparison indi- between the two groups. The Hotelling multivariate

cated that men and women ATCS trainees reported test for job satisfaction expectation groups was sigless trait and state anxiety than did Spielberger's nificant (F=25.55, p<.001): the univariate tests indisamples (t values, -2.96 to - 14.90). Similarly, lower cated thatthe differences were most prominent in the

levels of both trait and state anger were reflected in curiosity (F=51.77, p<.001, d=.41) and anxiety

each comparison by t values -5.49 to -13.51. Also, (F=44.37, p<.001, d=.38) scale scores and secondthe ATCS sample reported greater trait and state arily in the anger (F=12.55, p<.001, d=.20) dimencuriosity inmostof the between-group comparisons sion. These findings were consistent with the hy-

(t values, 0.89 to 7.97). In other words, significant pothesized results; the curiosity personality dimendifferences (p<.001) were found in all but two of the sion being positively, but the anxiety and anger

24 between-group, by-gender comparisons. dimensions being negatively, associated with selfexpectations of employees' future job satisfaction.

There were no significant gender group differences

within our ATCS sample for any of the trait or state For a more descriptive representation of the relationmeasures. This last finding contrasted with gender ships between STPI scales and the future job satisdifferences in trait anxiety, which occurred in the faction criterion, the standardized scores for trait

normative group of college students and also in a anxiety, trait curiosity, and trait anger for the sample

study of community volunteers (Stoner & Spencer, were recoded into categories: less than -1.0, -1.0 to

1986) in which women indicated higher levels of zero, zero through 1.0, and greater than 1.0. Table 3

trait anxiety. shows the percentages of students within the job

4
TABLE 3: STPI Trait Scale Levels and Job Satisfaction Self-Expectations

Curiosi - X2 (43.96), p < .001, N = 1,486

Extent of exoected Job Satisfaction as an ATCS

Moderate Considerable

Qr limited or g_ r at[l

z Scores < -1.0 45.4% 54.6%

-1.0 to 0.0 35.4% 64.6%

0.0 thru 1.0 28.7% 71.3%

z Scores > 1.0 20.0% 80.0%

Total 32.5% 67.5%

Anxy- X2 (42.58), p < .001, N = 1,486

Moderate Considerable

or limited orVyga-m

z Scores < -1.0 21.7% 78.3%

-1.0 to 0.0 29.0% 71.0%

0.0 thru 1.0 34.5% 65.5%

z Scores > 1.0 48.2% 51.8%

Total 32.5% 67.5%

A - X2 (12.99), P < .01, N - 1,486

Moderate Considerable

or limited or very great

z Scores < -1.0 26.2% 73.8%

-1.0 to 0.0 30.2% 69.8%

0.0 thru 1.0 36.2% 63.8%

z Scores > 1.0 40.2% 59.8%

Total 32.5% 67.5%

5
TABLE 4: Effects of STPI Personality Traits, ATC Aptitude Test Scores, Education Level, Military

ATC Experience, Gender, and ATCS Self-Performance Expectations on Future Job

Satisfaction

T-Cur Educ T-Anx T-Ang JobExp MiIATC Gender MCAT

T-Cur ---

Educ .00 ---

T-Anx -.34 .05 ---

T-Ang -. 12 -.05 .39 ---

JobExp .18 -.09 -.26 -.04 ---

MiIATC .01 -.28 -.09 .07 .15 ---

Gender .03 .05 .02 -.02 -. 11 -.09 -

MCAT -.05 .04 .02 -.05 .14 -. 19 -. 12 -

JobSat .30 -. 12 -.24 -. 14 .16 .09 .00 .00

Variable Beta Weight F i1nif.

T-Curiosity .24 79.10 p <.001

Education Level (I= H.S., 2=Assoc. Deg.,

3=Bach. Deg., 4=Post Grad) -. 11 15.34 p<.001

T-Anxiety -. 10 10.23 p<.001

T-Anger -.08 7.96 p <.01

Job Performance Expectations as ATCS .07 6.79 p< .01

Military ATC Experience (No=0, Yes= 1) .05 3.01

Gender (Men= 1, Women=2) .01 .26

ATC Aptitude Test Score (MCAT)* .01 .19

Multiple R = .36, F(8,1347) = 26.14

* MCAT - Multiplex Controller Aptitude Test selection test for ATCS applicants.

Note: The dependent variable (JobSat) - future job satisfaction - is the mean of three items from the

Biographical Questionnaire involving the extent of expected a) desirability of working for the federal

government, b) management support of employee concerns, and c) overall job satisfaction.

satisfaction expectation groups. The effect of curi- educational level, and military air traffic control

osity on job satisfaction self-expectations (x2 (3) experience). The beta weights of the variables were

=43.96, p < .001) was reflected in the finding that examined to estimate the relative importance of the

80.0% of the students who had trait curiosity scores association of these variables with self-expectations

that were at least one standard deviation higher than of future job satisfaction. The beta weights indicated

the ATCS mean expressed greater likelihood of job that trait curiosity (B=.24, F=79. 10) tended to corresatisfaction. Conversely, only about one-half(51.8%) spond most significantly with anticipated job satisof the group with trait anxiety scores and 59.8 % of faction, while gender, aptitude test scores, and prior

those with anger scores (at least one standard devia- military experience were not significant predictors

tionaboveoursamplenorm)expectedtobesatisfied in the regression equation. As found in previous

with their jobs as ATCSs. analyses, increasing anxiety and anger levels were

related inversely with self-expectations. Job perforTable 4 presents a correlation matrix and results of mance self-expectations were significantly, and posiregressing the future job satisfaction criterion mea- tively associated with self-expectations of job satissure on not only the STPI scale scores, but also other faction. Also, a significant but small (B = -.11, F =

potentially relevant and interrelated variables; in- 15.34) inverse effect was indicated for educational

cluding MCAT scores, subjective performance ex- level and the job satisfaction criterion.

pectations, and several demographic items (gender,

6
TABLE S: Multivariate Analysis of Variance Assessing Relationships of STPI Trait Measures with

Trainee Self-Expectations of Future ATCS Performance Level

Trait Scales in z Scores

T-Anx T-Cur T-Ang

GrouD Effect Mean Mean Mean N

Performance Expect.-Average or Lower .276 -. 144 .027 508

Performance Expect.-Above Average -. 158 .083 -.016 884

Total sample .000 .000 .000 1392

Bartlett test of sphericity (3,1390) = 342.17, p < .001

Multivariate Test Univariate Tests

F 11L. F ~ g

Hotelling 24.19 <.001 T-Anx 63.48 <.001

T-Cur 16.57 <.001

T-Ang 0.59 >.05

Personality Characteristics, Performance Expec- between the trait anger characteristic and the critetations, and Academy Screen Results. A multiva- rion measure was not significant as indicated by

riate analysis of variance (Table 5) was conducted x2(3) = 2.78, p>.0 5 .

using the standardized scores (z scores) for the three

personality trait subscales fora dichotomy of groups, Table 7 presents a correlation matrix and the results

based on subjective performance expectations of of a multiple regression analysis with the trainees'

"above average" and "average or lower" compared performance self-expectation criterion and the folwith other ATCSs. The Hotelling multivariate test lowing variables: the STPI trait measures, the scores

for performance self-expectation groups was sig- on the Multiplex Controller Aptitude Test (MCAT),

nificant (F=24.19,p<.001) with the univariate tests previous experience (yes/no) in military air traffic

indicating that the differences were most prominent control, educational level, and gender. The beta

in anxiety scores (F-63.48, p<.001, d=.43), and weights indicated that higher trait anxiety (B= -.23,

secondarily in curiosity level (F=16.57, p<001, F=63.94) tended to correspond to lower perford=.23). mance self-expectations. Also there was a small

effect (B= -.07, F=8.53) in the regression equation

Th: strongest effect on performance self-expecta- for gender, with women reporting lower job selfions was anxiety (x2(3)= 69.03,p<.001), reflected expectations than did men. By contrast, previous

in the finding that 76.3% of the students who had military experience, higher MCAT scores, and

trait anxiety scores that were at least one standard greater curiosity were positively related and added

deviation lower than the ATCS mean also expressed significantly to prediction of the criterion.

above average performance expectations (Table 6).

Conversely, less than one-half (46.0%) of the group Table 8 shows the Academy screen pass rates of our

with trait anxiety scores at least one standard devia- sample groaped by MCAT score level and STPI trait

tion higher than our ATCS sample mean expected level. The dichotomy of trait scores was based on

above average job performance. Trait curiosity was "high" equalling the level of one rounded-point

also significantly related to performance expecta- above the mean scores of the normative groups

tions (x2(3) = 19.31,p<.001), with higher curiosity (anxiety -20, anger - 21, curiosity - 30). Consistent

reflected in greater confidence. The relationship with previous results, relatively small percentages

7
TABLE 6: STPI Trait Scale Levels and Trainee Performance Self-Expectations

Anxie- X2 (69.03), p < .001, N = 1,486

Performance Self-Expectations compared with other ATCSs

Average Above

or Lower Average

z Scores < -1.0 23.7% 76.3%

-1.0 to 0.0 29.8% 70.2%

0.0 thru 1.0 44.1% 55.9%

z Scores > 1.0 54.0% 46.0%

Total 37.1% 62.9%

Curiosiy - X (19.31), p <.001, N 1,486

Average Above

or Lower Average

z Scores < -1.0 45.5% 54.5%

-1.0 to 0.0 39.9% 60.1%

0.0 thru 1.0 33.5% 66.5%

z Scores > 1.0 29.1% 70.9%

Total 37.1% 62.9%

Anger - X2 (2.78), p > .05, N = 1,486

Average Above

or Lower Average

z Scores < -1.0 32.2% 67.8%

-1.0 to 0.0 37.2% 62.8%

0.0 thru 1.0 37.8% 62.2%

z Scores > 1.0 40.1% 59.9%

Total 37.1% 62.9%
TABLE 7: Effects of STPI Personality Traits, ATC Aptitude Test Scores, Education Level,

Military ATC Experience, and Gender on ATCS Job Performance Self-Expectations

T-Anx MCAT Mi1ATC T-Cur Gender T-Ang Educ

T-Anx ---

MCAT .02 ---

MilATC -.09 -. 19 ---

T-Cur -.34 -.05 .01 ---

Gender .02 -. 12 -.09 .03 ---

T-Ang .39 -.05 .07 -. 12 -.02

Educ .05 .04 -.28 .00 .05 -.05 --

JobExp -.26 .14 .15 .18 -. 11 -.04 -.09

Variabl Beta Weight F Sinif

T-Anxiety -.23 63.94 p<.001

ATC Aptitude Test Score (MCAT)* .18 46.81 p<.001

Military ATC Experience (No=0, Yes= 1) .14 28.22 p<.001

T-Curiosity .12 18.87 p<.001

Gender (Men= 1, Women=2) -.07 8.53 p<.01

T-Anger .06 5.24 p <.05

Education Level (1=H.S., 2=Assoc. Deg.,

3=Bach. Deg., 4=Post Grad.) -.03 1.58

Multiple R = .37 F(7,1349) = 30.92

* MCAT - Multiplex Controller Aptitude Test selection test given to ATCS applicants.

Note: The dependent variable (JobExp) - job performance self-expectations - is the mean of two

self-report items from the Biographical Questionnaire involving the: a) expected length of time needed

to become effective in the job, and b) future job performance level relative to other ATCSs.

of ATCS entrants reported trait anxiety (9.4%) and tude and personality measures with Academy screen

trait anger (9.7%) at the "high" levels. Pass rates performance.Theconrrlaioncoefficients(Figure 1)were

were lower within each MCAT score level for those corrected (Thomdike, 1949) for the usual (for Academy

students with anxiety or anger levels above the enrants) severe restriction-in-rangeofaptitude testscores

normative levels. For both anxiety and anger levels, based on a ratio of6.94/ 18.62 standard deviations forour

theeffects were somewhat greater within the "high" ATCS sample to the original pool of applicants. The

MCAT group, with scores of 95.0 or greate1 : "high" correlation and path analysis coefficients shown in the

trait groups had lower pass rates (11.2% lower for path diagram (Figure 1) are significant (.001) if.10 or

anxiety and 10.9% for anger). By contrast, trait greater. In this analysis, the MCAT score coefficient

curiosity level was not significantly related to sue- (gamma = .35), anxiety (gamma = -.28), and curiosity

cess in the FAA Academy screen. (gamma = .12) accounted for 20.9% of the variance in

performance self-expectations. Furhermore, the direct

ApathanalysiswaspefoumedusingSRELVI(Joekog effects of MCAT scores (gamma =51) ar- trait anxiety

& Sorbom, 1986) in which the following causal model (gamma = -. 16) were significant predictors of Academy

wastested: aptitudetestscoresandwraitpersonalityscores final grades, accounting for 29.5% of the variance. A

were postulated as having direct effects on both the marked difference was between the corrected correlation

performance self-expectations and the Academy final coefficient for performance self-expectations and Acadgrade criteria, and also the residual effect ofperformance cmy final grades (r=.24, p<.001) and the direct effect

self-expectations on Academy final grades could be (B=.04,p>.05) ofprfomance expectations in the model.

detennined. Comparing the significance ofthe path coef- This finding indicated that, in this study, the predictive

ficients of MCAT scores and trait personality scores to validity of performance self-expectations could be exAcademyfmlgdesdeteminedtheextentto which self- plained asbeinga function of the ATC aptitude test scores

expectations mediated the relationship between the apt- (MCAT) and the personality trait measure of anxiety.

9
TABLE 8: Academy Screen Pass Rates for MCAT and STPI Levels

Anxiety Anger Curiosity

% Pass % of % Pass % of % Pass % of

GROUPS Screen Sample Screen Sample Screen Sample

Lower MCAT- High Trait 46.0 4.9 49.4 6.0 56.1 42.1

Lower MCAT- Lower Trait 56.6 56.0 56.5 54.9 55.0 18.8

High MCAT- High Trait 63.8 4.5 63.8 3.7 72.4 25.7

High MCAT- Lower Trait 75.0 34.6 74.7 35.4 76.2 13.4

Note: (n = 1,284), Multiplex Controller Aptitude Test (MCAT) levels are "Lower" = 70-95 and

"High" = 96-112.

State Trait Personality Inventory (STPI) "Lower" levels are trait anxiety < 20, trait anger < 21, and

trait curiosity < 30.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study confirm earlier findings For the last issue of this study, both ATCS job

(Collins, Schroeder, & Nye, 1989), that recently performance self-expectations and Academy screen

employed ATCS trainees continued to have a per- performance were related to aptitude test scores and

sonality profile that is relatively low in anxiety. to trait anxiety levels. The predictive validity of the

Also, our sample was low on the anger dimension MCAT was demonstrated to have been impacted by

but high on the curiosity measure of the STPI. This the anxiety personality dimension. It was found that,

finding could be a further example of applicant self- to some extent, future performance self-expectaselection and/or the nature of the selection process tions (conceptualized as a measure of self-efficacy)

itself. Significantgenderdifferences forATCS train- reflected a realistic self-evaluation of future job

ees were not found on any of the STPI dimensions, performance (success in the Academy screen) at an

a finding consistent with previous research, e.g., initial stage in the trainees'careers. Also, the impact

Karson and O'Dell (1974), which found that the of self-efficacy on Academy screen performance

personality profiles of men and women interested in could be explained in terms of relative ability (MCAT

the air traffic control occupation were more similar test scores) and personality characteristics (absence

than dissimilar. of anxiety) found in successful air traffic controllers.

With respect to self-expectations of future job satisfaction, significant differences were found in the

perceptions of newly hired air traffic controllers.

Since the sample for this study included only firsttime Academy entrants and the self-expected job

satisfaction items were completed at the beginning

of the ATCS screen program, many potential situational factors were mitigated that could affect job

satisfaction. Thus, these results suggest that the

potential exists for some degree of biased affect (or

predisposition) regarding future job satisfaction and

that some of the variability is reflected by the STPI

dimensions. Specifically, greater future job satisfaction was associated with higher levels of curiosity but lower levels of the anxiety and anger personality dimensions.

10
FIGURE 1: Correlation Matrix and Path Analysis of STPI Measures, Aptitude Test Scores, Job

Performance Self-Expectations, and Final Academy Grades

PerfEx Grades Anx-T Cur-T An-T

PerfExp ---

Grades .24 ---

Anx-T -.27 -. 11 ---

Cur-T .18 -.04 -.33 ---

Ang-T -.04 -.02 .40 -. 12 --- MCAT .33 .52 .03 -.05 -.05

Note: Coefficients are corrected for restriction-in-range of aptitude test (MCAT) scores.

Structural Path Coefficients

(Maximum Likelihood)

.51

.35

MCAT

.12 V

CUR-T > PERFORMANCE .04 ACADEMY

.08 SELF- > FINAL

ANG-T - > EXPECTATIONS GRADES -.28 A

ANX-T .2

-.16>

Note: MCAT= Multiplex Controller Aptitude Test; PERFEXP= Job

Performance Self-expectations; ANX-T= Trait Anxiety; ANG-T=

Trait Anger; CUR-T= Trait Curiosity. Path coefficients of

.10 or greater were significant (n=1 142, p=<.001).

11
REFERENCES

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in Karson, S., & O'Dell, J. W. (1974). Personality

human agency. American Psychologist, 37, differences between male and female air taf122-147. fic controller applicants. Aerospace Medicine, 4=, 596-598.

Campbell, J. P., & Pritchard, R. D. (1976). Motivation theory in industrial and organizational Katzell, R. A., & Thompson, D. E. (1990). An

psychology. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Hand- integrative model of work attitudes, motivabook of industrial and organizational psy- tion, and performance. Human Performance,

chology (pp. 63 -130). New York: John Wiley 3(2, 63-85.

and Sons.

Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes ofjob

(1970). Handbook for the 16PF. Institute for satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), HandPersonality and Ability Testing. Champaign, book of industrial and organizational psycholIL. ogy, (pp. 1297-1349). New York: John Wiley

and Sons.

Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for

thebehaviorasciences.New York: Academic Manning, C. A, Kegg, P. S., & Collins, W. E.

Press. (1989). Selection and screening programs for

AirTraffic Control Specialists. InR. S. Jensen

Collins, W. E., Schroeder, D. J., & Nye, L. G. (Ed.), Aviation Psychology (pp. 321-341).

(1989).RelationshipsofanxietyscorestoAcad- Brookfield: Gower Technical.

emy and field training performance of Air

Traffic Control Specialists. Washington, D. Myers, J. G., Schroeder, D. J., VanDeventer, A.

C.: Federal Aviation Administration Report D., & Collins, W. E. (1988). 1988 FAA job

No. DOT/FAA/AM-89-7. satisfaction survey: National report. Washington, DC: FAA Office of Aviation MediCollins, W. E., Nye, L. G, & Manning, C. A. cine.

(1990). Studies of poststrike Air Traffic Control Specialist trainees: i!. Changes in demo- Schmitt, N., & Pulakos, E. D. (1985). Predicting

graphic characteristics of Academy entrants job satisfaction: Is there a general satisfaction

and biodemographic predictors of success in factor? International Journal of Psychology,

air traffic controller selection and Academy 2D, 155-167.

r7reening. Washington, D. C.: FAA Office of

Aviation Medicine Report No. DOT/FAN Schroeder, D. J., Dollar, C. S., & Nye, L. G.

AM-90/4. (1990). Correlates of two experimental tests

with performance in the FAA Academy air

Della Rocco, P. S., & Manning, C. A. (1990). trafficcontrolnonradarscreenprogram. WashSelection of air traffic con-trollers for auto- ington, D. C.: FAA Office of Aviation Medimated systems: Applications from current re- cine Report No. DOT/FAA/AM-90/8.

search. Washington, DC: FAA Office of Aviation Medicine Report No. DOT/FAA/AM- Sells, S.B., Dailey, J.T., & Pickrel, E.W. (1984).

90/13. Selection of air traffic controllers. Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration

Joreskog, K G., & Sorbom D. (1986). LISREL VI: Report No. FAA-AM-84-2.

Analysis of linear structural relationships by

the method of maximum likelihood: User's

guide (4th ed.). Mooresville, IN: Scientific

Software, Inc.

12
Spielberger, CD. (1979). Pirliminary manual for

the State-Trait Personality Inventory. Inventory. Tamnpa, Florida: Human Resores Insttuite, U of South Florida.

Staw, B. hL, & Ross, L. (1985). Stability in the

midst of drange: A dispositional approach to

job attitudes. Jocral of Applied Psychology,

MD,469480.

Staw, B. K~, Bell, N.EF., & Clusen, J. A. (1986).

Mwe dispositional approach to job attitudes: A

lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative SciaeiKs Quarterly, 56-77.

Stoner, S. B., & Spencer, W. B. (1986). Age and

sex differences on the State-Trait Personality

Iwnvetry. Psychological Reports 52.13 15-

1319. Tbomdike, IL L. (1949). Personnel Selecuon. New York: Wiley and Sons.

Vz anwvetr, A. D., Collins, W. F., bMannng C

A,.&TaylorD. K(l984).ShaiesfpartmLke

Air Traffi ControlSpecialiuraineer:l. Age,

biographical factors, and selection test performnce related to Academy training success. Washington, D. C: Federal Aviation

.Administration Report No. FAA-AM-84-6.

13 *U.L GOVERNMENT PAINTING OMCE. W99 - S634WII