Operational Use 

of the Air Traffic 

Selection and 

Training Battery

Raymond E. King

Carol A. Manning

Gena K. Drechsler

Civil Aerospace Medical Institute

Federal Aviation Administration

Oklahoma City, OK 73125

May 2007

Final Report

DOT/FAA/AM-07/14

Office of Aerospace Medicine

Washington, DC 20591
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 thereof.

___________

This is a statistical snapshot of the workforce 

demographics. The use of this data in any employment 

decision is PROHIBITED without the express written 

authorization of the Deputy Chief Counsel 

for Operations, AGC-3.

___________

Previously published in the 

International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, 

2006, Volume 6, Issue 2, 207-234.

___________

This publication and all Office of Aerospace Medicine 

technical reports are available in full-text from the Civil 

Aerospace Medical Institute’s publications Web site: 

www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/oamtechreports/index.cfm
i

Technical Report Documentation Page 

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

DOT/FAA/AM-07/14 

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date 

Operational Use of the Air Traffic Selection and Training Battery May 2007 

6. Performing Organization Code 

 

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. 

King RE, Manning CA, Drechsler GK 

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

FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute 

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

Oklahoma City, OK 73125 

12. Sponsoring Agency name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

Office of Aerospace Medicine 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

15. Supplemental Notes 

Work was accomplished under approved task AM-HRR-523 

16. Abstract 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is commencing a massive hiring of air traffic control specialists using 

a new selection procedure, the Air Traffic Selection and Training (AT-SAT) computerized test battery. Before 

AT-SAT could be used for hiring purposes, however, the issue of its potential for adverse impact (potential unfair 

discrimination) had to be addressed. A previous project (Wise, Tsacoumis, Waugh, Putka, & Hom, 2001) 

reweighted the subtests and adjusted the overall constant to mitigate potential group differences that could result 

in adverse impact, without unduly compromising validity. A subsequent study (Dattel & King, 2006) used 

research participants and found that this effort appeared to have achieved its goal of mitigating group differences 

that could result in adverse impact. The present study endeavors to: 1) describe how AT-SAT functions as an 

operational selection method with respect to the several applicant pools, and 2) determine how the reweighting 

effort fares with actual applicants in the goal of reducing/eliminating group differences that could result in 

adverse impact. Of the 854 applicants who have taken AT-SAT as part of a job application process (rather than 

as according to a research protocol), 219 applicants (25.64%) voluntarily disclosed their race; gender was known 

for 253 (29.63%). The results suggest that the reweighting effort is paying dividends as group differences that 

could result in adverse impact are not in evidence. While the initial numbers reported here are relatively small, 

the issue of group differences that could result in adverse impact will be continually monitored. Longitudinal 

validation, comparing AT-SAT results to training and on-the-job performance, is a research priority due to 

concerns about the overall passing rate of 93.33%, which is higher than the expected passing rate of 67%. 

 

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement 

 

 

Adverse Impact, Aptitude Testing, Computerized Testing, 

Personnel Selection 

Document is available to the public through the 

Defense Technical Information Center, Ft. Belvior, VA 

22060; and the National Technical Information 

Service, Springfield, VA 22161 

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

Unclassified Unclassified 11 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized 

iii

Acknowledgment

The authors gratefully acknowledge Clara Williams for the time she spent building the 

database that made this report (and the many more that will follow) possible. No research 

project ever enjoyed the services of a more dedicated professional.

1

Operational Use of the Air Traffic

Selection and Training Battery

A Plan for the Future: The FAA’s 10-Year Strategy for 

the Air Traffic Control Workforce was submitted to the 

U.S. Congress in December 2004. This report, generally 

referred to as the Controller Workforce Plan (FAA, 2004), 

provides the outline to mitigate anticipated controller 

retirements and contemplates strategies to achieve appropriate staffing levels, including hiring 12,500 controllers over the next decade. The present paper focuses 

on the current status of the recently1 implemented Air 

Traffic Selection and Training (AT-SAT) selection test 

battery, focusing specifically on the functioning of the 

reweighted AT-SAT and the potential for group differences that could result in adverse impact.2 The data in 

this paper represent the first time operational (collected 

for selection purposes rather than research) AT-SAT data 

are being reported.

How did the staffing situation become so urgent? 

As detailed in the Controller Workforce Plan, a majority 

of the air traffic controller workforce went on strike on 

August 3, 1981, when President Ronald Reagan ordered 

the striking controllers to return to duty within 48 hours. 

When 10,438 (out of a workforce of approximately 

15,000) striking controllers did not return to work by 

the deadline, President Reagan fired them. Facing a 

sudden shortage of controllers, the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) hired 3,416 individuals in 1982 

and another 1,720 in 1983. From 1982 through 1991, 

the FAA hired an average of 1,527 individuals per year. 

The majority of entrants met the 18 to 30 years-of-age 

entry requirement. 

The post-strike hiring wave created the potential for a 

large portion of the controller workforce to reach retirement age at roughly the same time, particularly due to 

the FAA policy requiring retirement from controlling air 

traffic by age 56. Based on current projections, 73% of the 

agency’s 15,000 controllers will become eligible to retire 

within ten years. Total losses are expected to reach nearly 

11,000 (FAA, 2005). This amount of attrition means 

that the FAA must use effective recruitment, selection, 

and training procedures to ensure that its staffing needs 

are met. The AT-SAT battery, now the official Civil Service test used to select FAA air traffic control specialists 

(ATCSs) without previous operational air traffic control 

experience, will thus become an instrument of increasing 

importance. 

The development and validation of AT-SAT plays a 

critical role in reducing costs associated with attrition 

from air traffic control training. Using a valid selection 

test also ensures that those who are hired have (or have 

the potential to develop) the necessary knowledge, skills, 

and abilities to be successful. The duties of ATCSs make 

them individually responsible for more lives than the 

practitioners of any other occupation in the United States 

(Biggs, 1979). The FAA developed the AT-SAT battery 

to replace a two-stage selection process in which ATCS 

applicants completed an Office of Personnel Management 

(OPM) test battery and a nine-week screening program at 

the FAA Academy in Oklahoma City, OK. This previous 

selection process proved to be expensive (Ramos, Heil, & 

Manning, 2001a). AT-SAT was developed based on the 

results of the Separation and Control Hiring Assessment 

(SACHA; Nickles, Bobko, Blair, Sands, & Tartak, 1995) 

job task analysis, which drew heavily from previous work 

done by Ammerman, Becker, Jones, Tobey, and Phillips 

(1987). Additional development and validation efforts for 

AT-SAT were described by Ramos, Heil, and Manning 

(2001a & 2001b) in their two-volume report.

AT-SAT is a select-in procedure; select-out (medical) 

issues will not be addressed in this paper. Readers interested 

in select-out issues are referred to King, Retzlaff, Detwiler, 

Schroeder, and Broach (2003). AT-SAT is a computerized 

test battery comprised of eight subtests based on 22 individual scores that, when weighted (forming “part scores”) 

and combined, are totaled (with a constant added) for a 

single overall score. As delineated in Table 1, AT-SAT is 

comprised of the following subtests: Air Traffic Scenarios 

Test, ATST; Analogies, AY; Angles, AN; Applied Math, AM; 

Dials, DI; Experiences Questionnaire, EQ; Letter Factory, 

LF; and Scan, SC. AT-SAT is an aptitude test and not 

a test of air traffic control knowledge. The goal of ATSAT is to predict the likelihood of success in air traffic 

control training and, more importantly, subsequently 

on the job. Seven of the eight subtests assess aspects of 

cognitive ability, while one, EQ, assesses issues in the 

personal history/personality realm. Four (ATST, AY, LF, 

SC) of the subtests are dynamic; they are interactive and 

1

AT-SAT was approved as the official ATCS selection test for those 

applicants without previous air traffic control experience on May 

13, 2002, with June 2002 marking the first time the test was used 

operationally. 

2

Adverse Impact – “A selection rate for any race, sex, or ethnic group 

which is less than 4/5 (80%) of the rate for the group with the highest 

rate.” (Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, 1978, 

Sec 4D.)
2

can only be administered via computer. The remaining 

four are static, similar to pencil-and-paper tests, but are 

administered via computer. 

During the development of AT-SAT, subtests were 

weighted to yield the maximum validity, according to 

their relationship to the job, as suggested by the job task 

analysis. An individual’s performance on each subtest is 

multiplied by the weight developed for that subtest, and 

a constant is subtracted to ensure that each subtest has a 

floor of zero. The net result is a “part score.” Part scores 

are then summed and combined with an additional, 

overall constant (composed of a summation of the inverse 

of the individual constants and a calibrating constant) 

to yield the overall AT-SAT score (which is truncated 

to have a maximum score of 100). Veteran’s preference 

points (either five or ten points) are subsequently added. 

This overall score is the only one that enters into the 

hiring decision when AT-SAT is used in an operational 

fashion. Subtest weights are not disclosed in this paper 

as they could be used as part of a coaching strategy to 

artificially inflate AT-SAT scores in an effort to gain a 

competitive advantage. 

Before operational use of AT-SAT was approved for 

hiring purposes, FAA employees that were members of 

minority groups raised concerns over potential adverse 

impact. Recall that adverse impact is a selection rate 

for any race, sex, or ethnic group that is less than 4/5 

(80%) of the rate for the group with the highest rate. To 

calculate this ratio, the pass rate of the group of interest 

serves as the numerator, while the pass rate of the group 

with the highest pass rate serves as the denominator. 

Eighty percent serves as the bright line; a quotient below 80% suggests a potential for adverse impact, while 

one equal to or greater than 80% argues against it. The 

concern about the potential for adverse impact against 

African Americans seemed well founded, as only three 

out of every 100 black applicants were predicted to 

achieve a score of at least 70 (the minimum passing score 

– termed a “qualifying score”) on AT-SAT. Nevertheless, 

as the predictive validity was .69, a case could be made 

for “business necessity.” Business necessity is a defense 

available when the employer has a criterion for selection 

that is facially neutral but excludes members of one sex, 

race, or national origin at a substantially higher rate than 

members of other groups (thus creating adverse impact). 

The employer must then prove that its selection requirement having the adverse impact is job-related, typically 

as demonstrated by a job analysis. 

To appreciate the wider context, the reader needs to 

understand that the issue went beyond pass rates for 

minority applicants. By original design, 38% of fully 

certified incumbent FAA controllers would not pass 

AT-SAT under the original scoring scheme. The original 

passing score of 70 had been calibrated, using the overall 

constant, so that only 62% of incumbent fully certified 

controllers would achieve an AT-SAT score of 70 or 

more, in an effort to minimize FAA Academy failures 

and compensate for the need for ATCSs to perform 

Table 1. The eight AT-SAT subtests. 

Subtest Description

Dials (DI) Scan and interpret readings from a cluster of analog 

instruments 

Applied Math (AM) Solve basic math problems as applied to distance, rate, and 

time 

Scan (SC) Scan dynamic digital displays to detect targets that regularly 

change

Angles (AN) Determine the angle of intersecting lines 

Letter Factory (LF) Participate in an interactive dynamic exercise that requires 

categorization skills, decision making, prioritization, working 

memory (incidental learning), and situation awareness 

Air Traffic Scenarios (ATST) Control traffic in interactive, dynamic low-fidelity simulations 

of air traffic situations requiring prioritization 

Analogies (AY) Solve verbal and nonverbal analogies that require working 

memory and the ability to conceptualize relationships 

Experience Questionnaire (EQ) Respond to Likert scale questionnaire about life experiences 
3

potentially more difficult duties in the future. The goal 

was to at least preserve and strive to improve the level of 

functioning in the workforce (Waugh, 2001). 

In response to concerns about group differences that 

could result in adverse impact, FAA officials requested 

that scientists review the options to mitigate these differences. Meanwhile, they emphasized maintaining the 

overall validity of the AT-SAT battery. Additionally, FAA 

management made the case that the cut score should be 

set at the point where most fully qualified, incumbent 

controllers would pass FAA’s entry-level aptitude test. 

Consequently, the AT-SAT subtests were re-weighted, 

and the overall constant was adjusted. The new weights 

were developed as a trade-off between their validity and 

their contribution to group differences that could lead to 

adverse impact. The content of the subtests themselves was 

not changed; rather, the subtests were weighted differently. 

The goal was to retain adequate validity while reducing 

potential adverse impact. Test validity (job-relatedness) 

is determined by the strength of the correlation between 

the overall AT-SAT score and en route controller job 

performance measures (which, in the AT-SAT validation 

study, consisted of a computerized situational judgment 

test assessing maximum performance, plus peer and supervisor ratings of typical performance). After reweighting, 

the correlation between AT-SAT and a job performance 

composite measure was reduced slightly, from .69 to .60 

(Wise, Tsacoumis, Waugh, et al., 2001). Compared with 

most validation coefficients, this is still a strong correlation 

with job performance. As indicated above, the relationship with job performance is especially important in this 

context; any remaining adverse impact can be justified by 

business necessity, as previously defined above. 

Using data from the original validation studies, Wise 

et al. (2001) found that, by reweighting the subtests 

and adjusting the overall constant (as described above), 

they eliminated group differences that could result in 

potential adverse impact for women and Hispanics and 

greatly reduced it for African Americans. Wise, et al. 

concluded their report with a cautionary statement about 

the uncertainty of how the reweighting might function 

with actual applicants, to include the impact on overall 

pass rates. A primary purpose of the present paper is to 

examine how this reweighting functioned operationally to eliminate group differences that could result in 

adverse impact. 

To further address the potential problem of adverse 

impact, FAA officials decided to abandon a strict “topdown” approach to hiring and, instead, use a category 

ranking method. This approach is a form of “score banding” that can be justified on the basis of ignoring score 

differences that are due to an estimate of the applicant’s true 

ability. Score banding, although somewhat controversial 

among selection scientists, “will almost always produce 

less adverse impact than strict rank ordering” (Biddle, 

2005, p. 103) as it ignores score differences likely to be 

statistically insignificant. Under this scheme, job fair 

applicants who achieve a qualifying minimum score are 

divided into two groups: those scoring 85 and above 

(termed “well qualified”) and those scoring from 70 to 

84.9 (termed “qualified”). Those in the “well-qualified” 

group will be offered employment before anyone in the 

“qualified” group. AT-SAT data in this paper are therefore 

reported according to these categories. 

Dattel and King (2006) applied the weights and additive constant developed to address potential adverse 

impact to the scores of 724 developmental ATCSs, hired 

by a previous method, who volunteered to take AT-SAT. 

An average increase of 4.86 points was found with the 

new scoring method; the notional passing rate, based on 

achieving an AT-SAT score of 70 or more, changed from 

58.8% to 80%. American Indian/Alaskan Native, Hispanic, and black participants (categories are as defined on 

the Race and National Origin Form) showed the greatest 

average increase in overall scores: 6.97, 6.98, and 7.02 

respectively, representing increases in pass rates of 22.2% 

(77.8% to 100%), 35.1% (51.9% to 87%), and 35.2% 

(37% to 72.2%), respectively. 

While this analysis of data collected from research 

participants was encouraging, the real standard is to 

determine how a selection instrument functions with 

actual applicants. That opportunity has presented itself 

with the commencement of increased hiring and universal 

use of AT-SAT to hire candidates without previous air 

traffic control experience. 

Sources of ATCS Applicants without Previous Controlling 

Experience

The Air Traffic - Collegiate Training Initiative (AT 

- CTI) program and job fairs are two authorities used to 

hire personnel without previous experience controlling air 

traffic. The AT - CTI program is a partnership between 

the FAA and 14 aviation colleges/universities to provide 

the academic preparation necessary for students interested 

in ATCS careers. Enrollment in, and even completion of, 

a AT - CTI program in no way obligates the FAA to hire 

the student, and the FAA typically does not test these 

students until near the completion of their studies. AT 

- CTI school officials decide whether to recommend a 

student to the FAA for AT-SAT testing, and hence, hiring consideration. 

Not all job fair applicants are permitted to take the 

AT-SAT due to the time required (a full day) and the 

cost (about $800) of administering it. Selection for ATSAT testing was previously based on a random selection 

process but is now based on responses to a biographical 
4

questionnaire. Job fair applicants compete with each 

other in order to be hired at a specific facility. Not every 

job fair applicant who achieves a qualifying score will be 

offered employment. Consequently, it is possible that 

a job fair applicant who scores only in the “qualified” 

range will not be offered employment. Similarly, AT 

- CTI applicants who score in the “well qualified” range 

are referred for positions before applicants who score in 

the “qualified” range. 

The third pool of applicants also did not have previous air traffic control experience but were unique in that 

they took both the paper and pencil Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) test and AT-SAT. Members of this 

group had passed the OPM test several years previously 

but were not admitted into the nine-week screening program due to reduced staffing requirements at the time. 

Since hiring was reduced after they passed the OPM test, 

but before they could complete the screening program, 

they had to take AT-SAT at a later time and could not be 

hired without a passing AT-SAT score (>70). This group 

is also unique due to the amount of time that had elapsed 

before they were finally considered to be hired and their 

two tiers of testing. 

Other Applicant Pools

There are other applicant pools for ATCS positions, 

including former military and Department of Defense 

civilian controllers. These groups will not be described in 

detail in this paper as they do not have to take AT-SAT 

and are considered for employment based on their previous operational experience controlling air traffic.

Method

Operational results (i.e., AT-SAT scores collected from 

applicants who competed on the basis of taking AT-SAT) 

were analyzed in terms of race, ethnic, and gender group 

membership, considered by hiring authority. 

Participants

From June 2002 to June 2006, 854 applicants took 

AT-SAT as part of their job application process. Applicants 

either 1) responded to a job fair announcement (soliciting applicants for a specific position), 2) were nearing 

completion of one of the 14 AT - CTI programs, or 3) 

had previously passed the OPM test and had to achieve 

a passing score on AT-SAT before they were admitted 

into training at the FAA Academy. All applicants were 

requested to voluntarily complete the Race and National 

Origin (RNO) form (OPM Form 1468 until October 

2005, FAA Form 3330-64 thereafter) to ascertain their 

racial/ethnic group membership. Self-identification of 

gender was new to FAA Form 3330-64; previously, that 

information was solicited through a variety of means. Of 

854 job applicants, gender was known for 253 (29.63%). 

RNO data are discussed in the Results section, as they 

derive directly from the self-report forms. 

Results

Of the 854 job applicants, 219 (25.64%) disclosed their 

race on the form in use at the time of their application. 

Total counts for race/national origin groups and gender 

are depicted in Table 2.

Table 2. RNO Results. 

RNO Count

1.) American Indian or Alaska Native 1 

2.) Asian (Asian or Pacific Islander previous to Oct 2005) 12 

3.) Black or African American (Black, not of Hispanic Origin previous to Oct 05) 23 

4.) Hispanic or Latino (Hispanic previous to Oct 05) 8 

5.) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (Was represented under #2 previous to Oct 05) 1 

6.) White 174 

Gender

Male 212 

Female 41
5

Table 3 displays AT-SAT pass rates (those who achieved 

a score > 70) with respect to self-reported RNO group 

membership, segmented by hiring authority. 

Collapsing across applicant pools, the sole American 

Indian/Alaska Native applicant passed and the sole Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander passed; 11 of 12 

(91.67%) Asian applicants passed; 18 of 23 (78.26%) 

black applicants passed; 7 of 8 (87.5%) Hispanic applicants passed; and 169 of 174 (97.13%) white applicants 

passed. Ignoring the two smallest groups (due to their 

extremely small n), the ratio of the group with the lowest 

passing rate (black/African American) compared to the 

group with the highest passing rate is 80.57 (78.26/97.13), 

just above the 80% threshold, suggesting that AT-SAT 

did not, as yet, exhibit group differences that could result 

in adverse impact.

As the concept of adverse impact is also concerned with 

gender differences, the data were also examined by gender, 

again according to hiring authority. Table 4 displays ATSAT pass rates (those who achieved a score > 70) with 

respect to gender, segmented by hiring authority. 

Collapsing applicant pools, 203 of 212 men (95.75%) 

passed and 38 of 41 women (92.68%) passed. The ratio 

here is 96.79 (92.68/95.75) suggesting that AT-SAT 

did not exhibit a gender difference with a potential for 

adverse impact. 

Table 5 delineates the results of the overall population 

of 854, by hiring source. The overall pass rate of 93.3% 

rate is higher than the 67% predicted in the Controller 

Workforce Plan (FAA, 2004).

Table 4. Gender AT-SAT differences, considered by hiring source. 

 Gender Applicant Pool 

Failed - scored 

below 70 

Qualified – 

scored 70-85 

Well Qualified - 

scored > 85 

Total Passing - 

 70 

 Count Row % Count Row % Count Row % Count Row % 

CTI 4 4.5% 30 34.1% 54 61.4% 84 95.5% 

Male Job Fair 2 4.8% 16 38.1% 24 57.1% 40 95.2% 

OPM/ATSAT 3 3.7% 19 23.2% 60 73.2% 79 96.3% 

CTI 3 13.6% 6 27.3% 13 59.1% 19 86.4% 

Job Fair Female 3 75.0% 1 25.0% 4 100.0% 

OPM/ATSAT 7 46.7% 8 53.3% 15 100.0% 

Total 12 4.7% 81 32.0% 160 63.3% 241 95.3% 

Table 3. RNO Group AT-SAT differences, considered by hiring source. 

Self-reported RNO 

Membership 

Applicant 

Pool

Failed - scored 

below 70 

Qualified - 

scored 70-85 

Well Qualified - 

scored > 85 

Total Passing – 

 70 

 Count Row % Count Row % Count Row % Count Row % 

1.) American Indian or 

Alaska Native OPM/ATSAT 1 100.0% 1 100.0% 

CTI 2 66.7% 1 33.3% 3 100.0% 

Job Fair 1 14.3% 3 42.9% 3 42.9% 6 85.7% 

2.) Asian (Asian or 

Pacific Islander 

previous to Oct 2005) OPM/ATSAT 2 100.0% 2 100.0% 

CTI 2 14.3% 6 42.9% 6 42.9% 12 85.7% 

Job Fair 3 42.9% 4 57.1% 4 57.1% 

3.) Black or African 

American (Black, not of 

Hispanic Origin 

previous to Oct 05) OPM/ATSAT 2 100.0% 2 100.0% 

4.) Hispanic or Latino CTI 1 20.0% 4 80.0% 4 80.0% 

(Hispanic previous to 

Oct 05) 

Job Fair 1 33.3% 2 66.7% 3 100.0% 

5.) Native Hawaiian or 

Other Pacific Islander 

(Was represented under 

#2 previous to Oct 05) 

Job Fair 1 100.0% 1 100.0% 

CTI 3 3.9% 20 26.0% 54 70.1% 74 96.1% 

6.) White Job Fair 14 41.2% 20 58.8% 34 100.0% 

OPM/ATSAT 2 3.2% 20 31.7% 41 65.1% 61 96.8% 

Total 12 5.5% 76 34.7% 131 59.8% 207 94.5% 
6

Discussion and Conclusion

After years of validation efforts (Ramos, Heil, & Manning, 2001a & 2001b), AT-SAT is finally being used as 

an operational selection tool for ATCSs, coinciding with 

the increased hiring that has already begun. This study 

focused primarily on AT-SAT’s performance in selecting 

applicants of various racial/ethnic backgrounds. The 

outcome found in this study is very different than the 

3% passing rate predicted under the original weighting 

scheme for black applicants, for example. There was 

also no evidence of any potential adverse impact with 

respect to gender. Therefore, while AT-SAT appears 

to be functioning as projected by Wise et al. (2001) in 

terms of reduced group differences that could result in 

adverse impact, the higher than expected pass rates may 

be of concern. The next step is to conduct longitudinal 

validation to determine how well AT-SAT predicts success 

in training and on-the-job performance. 

The increased ATCS hiring will serve to populate the 

RNO and gender cells if applicants voluntarily provide 

the data. Group differences that could result in adverse 

impact will be continually monitored. The value of considering the data by hiring source is to suggest strategies 

to mitigate group differences, should they arise. Recall 

that AT-SAT scores are used differently depending on 

the hiring authority under which an applicant applies. 

Therefore, even though the present study is more realistic than previous efforts that used research data, a more 

thorough understanding could be afforded by an examination of applicants who are actually offered employment. 

In an effort to increase the voluntary participation rate, 

future applicants should be encouraged to complete 

their RNO forms so that a more accurate picture of the 

applicants can be achieved and group differences can be 

more readily detected. It will also be necessary to assess 

the potential for adverse impact of subsequent selection 

procedures, to include considering who is actually offered 

employment. 

References

Ammerman, H.L., Becker, E.S., Jones, G.W., Tobey, 

W.K., Phillips, M.D. (1987). FAA ATC operations 

concepts, Volume I: ATC background and analysis 

methodology. (DOT/FAA/AP-87/01). Washington, 

DC: Federal Aviation Administration.

Biddle, D. (2005). Adverse impact and test validity: A 

practitioner’s guide to valid and defensible employment 

testing. Burlington, VT: Gower.

Biggs, D. (1979). Pressure cooker. New York: Norton.

Dattel, A.R., King, R.E. (2006). Reweighting AT-SAT 

to mitigate group score differences (DOT/FAA/AM06/16). Washington, DC: FAA Office of Aerospace 

Medicine.

FAA (2004). FAA announces 10-year air traffic controller 

staffing plan. Retrieved January 20, 2005 from www.

faa.gov/newsroom/controller_staffing/WorkforcePlan.pdf. Federal Aviation Administration. 

King, R.E., Retzlaff, P.D., Detwiler, C.A., Schroeder, 

D.J., Broach, D. (2003). Use of personality assessment measures in the selection of air traffic control 

specialists. (DOT/FAA/AM-03/20). Washington, 

DC: FAA Office of Aerospace Medicine.

Nickels, B.J., Bobko, P., Blair, M.D., Sands, W.A., Tartak, E.L. (1995). Separation and control assessment 

(SACHA) final job analysis report. Bethesda, MD: 

University Research. 

Ramos, R.A., Heil, M.C., Manning, C.A. (2001a). Documentation of validity for the AT-SAT computerized test 

battery, Volume I. (DOT/FAA/AM-01/05). Washington, DC: FAA Office of Aviation Medicine.

Ramos, R.A., Heil, M.C., Manning, C.A. (2001b). Documentation of validity for the AT-SAT computerized test 

battery, Volume II. (DOT/FAA/AM-01/06). Washington, DC: FAA Office of Aviation Medicine. 

Table 5. Overall AT-SAT results, considered by hiring source. 

Applicant Pool 

Failed - scored below 

70

Qualified – scored 

70-85

Well Qualified – 

scored > 85 

Total Passing - 

 70 

 Count Row % Count Row % Count Row % Count Row % 

CTI 34 6.9% 178 35.9% 284 57.3% 462 93.1% 

Job Fair 20 7.7% 109 41.8% 132 50.6% 241 92.3% 

OPM/ATSAT 3 3.2% 26 26.8% 68 70.1% 94 96.9% 

 Total 57 6.7% 313 36.7% 484 56.7% 797 93.3% 
7

Waugh, G. (2001). Predictor-criterion analyses. In R.A. 

Ramos, M.C. Heil, C.A. Manning (Eds.) Documentation of validity for the AT-SAT computerized 

test battery, Volume II (DOT/FAA/AM-01/06) 

(pp.37-42). Washington, DC: FAA Office of Aviation Medicine.

Wise, L.L., Tsacoumis, S.T., Waugh, G.W., Putka, D.J., 

Hom I. (2001). Revisions of the AT-SAT (DTR-01-

58). Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research 

Organization (HumRRO).