AFHRL-TR-89-56

A ORAIR FORCE OFFICER QUALIFYING TEST (AFOOT) AIR FUORCE FORM P: TEST MANUALDTIC

H t E LECT - II Frances R. Berger APR 30 1990

U Wila B. Gupta NJ

Raymond M. Berger B

E Psychometrics Inc.

A 13245 Riverside Drive A Sherman Oaks, California 91423-2172

N

Jacobina Skinner

MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL DIVISION

R Brooks Air Force Base, Texas 78235-5601

E

April 1990

Interim Technical Report for Period January 1987 - September 1989

0

U

R

C Approved for public release: distribution is unlimited.

E

S LABORATORY

AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND

BROOKS AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS 78235-5601

.-( ,.,, 016,
DISCLAIMER NOTICE

THIS DOCUMENT IS BEST

QUALITY AVAILABLE. THE COPY

FURNISHED TO DTIC CONTAINED

A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF

PAGES WHICH DO NOT

REPRODUCE LEGIBLY.
NOTICE

When Government drawings, specifications, or other data are used for any purpose

other than in connection with a definitely Government-related procurement, the

United States Government incurs no responsibility or any obligation whatsoever.

The fact that the Government may have formulated or in any way supplied the said

drawings, specifications, or other data, is not to be regarded by implication, or

otherwise in any manner construed, as licensing the holder, or any other person or

corporation; or as conveying any rights or permission to manufacture, use, or sell

any patented invention that may in any way be related thereto.

The Public Affairs Office has reviewed this report, and it is releasable to the National

Technical Information Service, where it will be available to the general public,

including foreign nationals.

This report has been reviewed and is approved for publication.

WILLIAM E. ALLEY, Technical Director

Manpower and Personnel Division

HAROLD G. JENSEN, Colonel, USAF

Commander
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE o.. No.w7OvW~

Pubic reortingq burden for this5 coiie<1ion of information f estimated to average - hou.r Der respons.e, fu~d~in the time for reiewing imstructiol5. searthing existing data %ourov. -etrl -&nd in ,,lrl ott n nOen rlaOE~d reviewing the colection Of .ntorneatiol 'vend commnents fe7gardifq this burden estimate or any otiser a&oem of theS

DavssHoghwavSaitC 1. of nformntj 1204. 

n Arlington, .iA 22202-4302. rd~ and ncgn to l the NigstMt burdenl. officeo0 to 1,0018 Wsnfinqton n el Jd Hfeadquarters Oludqe't.PaoSenlor SiirnCes. Directorat Reducton Project(0704011541)WashiWon, fotrmation, operations and Reports.12 DC 20S03 efao

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

IApril 1990 Interim -January 1987 to September 1989

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

Air Force Officer Qualifying Test (AFOOT) C - F33615-83-C-0035

Form P: Test Manual PE - 62703F

________________________________________________________PR - 7719

6. AUTHOR(S) TA - 18

Frances R. Berger Raymond M. Berger WU- 24

Willa B. Gupta Jacobina Skinner

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

Psychometrics Inc.REOTNM R

13245 Riverside Drive

Shierman Oaks, California 91423-2172

9. SPONSORING MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/ MONITORING

Manpower and Personnel Division AEC EOTNME

Ai r Force Human Resources Laboratory AFHRL-TR-89-56

Brooks Air Force Base, Texas 78235-5601

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRIBUTION, AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. ABSTRACT (Maxim uT 200 words)

The latest form of the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test (AFOQT)--Form P-is the first AFOOT to

e developed in two parallel forms, Forms P1 and P2. The AFOQT has been part of the selection

process for officer commissioning programs and for specific programs Such as pilot and navigator

training since 1951. Forms PI and P2 are organized into 16 subtests which form five composites:

Pilot, Navigator-Technical, Academic Aptitude, Verbal, and Quantitative.

The present report is a test manual for Form P. It describes the de,,elopment of Form P; its

continuity with Form 0 via common items and characteristics; statistical data for Forms P1 and P2,

suc-h as reliability, item difficulty, item discrimination, score characteristics, and norms; test

validity derived from studies of other AFOOT forms; and considerations of administration, scoring,

and interpretation. Sample questions and pertinent bibliographic references are included.

14. UBJCT TRMS15. NUMBER OF PAGES

Air Force Officer Quiilifving Test :Jfficr classification 11C

dptitude tests officer selection 16. PRICE CODE

mental abilities testing test manual ____________

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

OF REPORT j OF THIS PAGE j OF ABSTRACT

Untldssified Unclassified Unclassified UL

NSN 740-0-2805500Standard Form 298 (Rev 2-89)

"94- 102
SUMMARY

This test manual provides information on the use and interpretation of

scores derived from the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test (AFOQT) Form P.

Since 1951, the AFOQT has been part of the selection process for officer

commissioning programs and pilot and navigator training. The latest cf 16

successive forms of the AFOQT, Form P, is the first to be developed in two

parallel forms.

The manual briefly describes the evolution of the AFOQT across its

periodic revisions designed to improve predictive validity and prevent test

compromise. A description of each subtest and composite is provided, and

sample problems are presented.

Fyperimpntal AFOQT ieims were cuaistructed and field tested with the goal

or providing a large AFOQT item bank. Analyses of the data provided

information important for Form P item selection. Form P, like Form 0,

contains 380 items organized into 16 subtests which form five composites:

Pilot, Navigator-Technical, Academic Aptitude, Verbal, and Quantitative.

Resemblance to Form 0 in terms of psychometric properties, content, and

style was the criterion for Form P item selection. Preliminary analyses of

Forms PI and P2 based on the test data of airmen attending Basic Military

Training at Lackland AFB established that the forms are highly similar to

each other, as well as being comparable to Form 0.

Additional evidence of the comparability of the forms is given in some

detail for officer applicant samples tested during the Initial Operational

Test and Evaluation (iOT&E) of AFOQT Form P. Central characteristics,

reliability (KR-20), standard error of measurement, item difficulty and

discrimination, and item content are reported. Intercorrelations among the

Form P subtests are interpreted for construct validity. Included are

summaries of criterion-related validity studies relating AFOQI Form 0 to

performance measures for officer commissioning programs at Officer Iraining

School (OTS) and the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC);

entry-level pilot and navigator training; and non-rated officer training.

Statistically significant positive validity coefficients were obtained in

all of the studies. Validity studies for Form P are planned, and it is

expected that the predictive validity of Form P will be similar to that tor

Form 0 because of the comparability of Forms 0 and P.

Test administration and scoring considerations are discussed. Topics

include testing locations, standardized procedures, test security, testing

schedule, and score interpretation. Research on a Quick Score procedure to

prescreen applicants for OTS and AFROTC is reviewed. Appropriate documents For

for the use and interpretation f the AFOQT are cited. I

DTIC TAB

Unannounced []

Justlftcatto

ByDiatributlon/

Availability Codes

Avail and/or

Dist SpqcIal
PREFACE

The Air Force Human Resources Laboratory (AFHRL) is designated as the

primary test development agency for the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test

(AFOQT) by Air Force Regulation 35-8, Air Force Military Personnel Testing

System. The current research and development (R&D) effort was undertaken as

part of AFHRL's responsibility to develop, revise, and conduct research in

support of the AFOQT. Work was accomplished under Task 771918, Selection

and Classification Technologies, which is part of a larger effort in Force

Acquisition and Distribution Systems. The project was completed under Work

Unit 77191824, Officer Item Pool Development, as a contractual effort

(Contract F33615-83-C-0035) by Psychometrics Inc., Sherman Oaks, CA.

Ms Jacobina Skinner represented the monitoring agency as contract manager.

1i-
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. BACKGROUND.............................

History of the AFOQT...........................

Description of the Subtests ..................... 4

Composites .............................. 10

11. DEVELOPMENT OF FORM P.......................11

Experimental Item Construction .................... 11

Analysis and Results ........................ 12

Parallel Forms Development ....................... 13

III. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ........................ 15

Comparability of Forms P1 and P2 .................... 15

Score Characteristics........................15

Item Characteristics ......................... 18

Reliability of Subtests and Composites. ............... 19

Standardization..........................21

Validity...............................23

IV. ADMINISTRATION AND SCORING. ............ ......... 30

Administration ........................... 30

Scoring...............................32

V. SUPPLEMENTAL SOURCES OF AFOQT INFORMATION ............. 35

REFERENCES.................................37

APPENDIX A: Content of Forms M, N, and 0 of the AFOQT. .......... 41

APPENDIX B: United States Air Force Officer Qualifying Test

Information Pamphlet: Subtest Sample Items .. .. .. . .45

APPENDIX C: Skew and Kurtosis of AFOQT Form P Subtest and

Composite Raw Scores.....................77

APPENDIX D: Item Analysis Summary ..................... 79

APPENDIX E: AFOQT Subtest Intercorrelation matrices for

Forms P1 and P2 ........................ 87

APPENDIX F: Raw Score to Percentile Conversion Tables. .......... 91

APPENDIX C: AFOQT Bibliography ..................... 103

iii
LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

I Organization of AFOQT Form P Subtests and Composites ....... 2

2 Mean Item Difficulty (E) and Discrimination Statistics (rbi s )

for Experimental Items Selected for Forms P1 and P2 ........ .. 14

Score Means and Standard Deviations of Common Items

on AFOQT Forms PI and P2 ........................ 16

4 Means and Standard Deviations of AFOQT Forms P1 and P2

Subtest and Composite Raw Scores ..... ................ . 17

5 Internal Consistency Reliability (KR-20) and

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) ..... .............. . 20

6 Composite Reliabilities and Standard Errors of Measurement

(SEM) Estimated From Subtest KR-20 and Communality Values . . . 20

7 Intercorrelations of Composite Raw Scores for

AFOQT Forms PI and P2 ........ ...................... . 22

8 Correlations of AFOQT Form 0 Composites with Civilian Tests . . 29

9 Testing Schedule .... ....................... 31

A-I Content of AFOQT Form M (1975) ..... ................. .. 42

A-2 Content of AFOQT Form N (1978) ..... ................. .. 43

A-3 Content of AFOQT Form 0 (1981) ..................... 44

C-i Skew and Kurtosis of AFOQT Form P Subtest and

Composite Raw Scores ........ ...................... 78

D-i Mean Difficulties, Biserials, and Point Biserials, AFOQI Form P1 80

I)-2 Distribution of Item Difficulty, AFOQT Form P1 .. ......... . 81

D-3 Distribution of Item Discrimination, AFOQT Form PI . ....... .. 82

0-4 Mean Difficulties, Biserials, and Point Biserials, AFOQT Form P2 83

D-5 Distribution of Item Difficulty, AFOQT Form P2 ......... 64

D-6 Distribution of Item Discrimination, AFOQT Form P2 . ....... . 85

E-1 Subtest Raw Score Intercorrelations, AFOQT Form PI . ....... .. 88

n-2 Subtest Raw Score Intercorrelations, AFOQT Form P2 . ....... . 89

F-I AFOQT Form PI Pilot Composite Conversion Table .. ........ . 92

F-2 AFOQT Form P1 Navigator-Technical Composite Conversion Table . . 93

F-3 AFOQT Form P1 Academic Aptitude Composite Conversion Table . . . 94

F-4 AFOQT Form P1 Verbal Composite Conversion Table .. ......... .. 95

F-5 AFOQT Form PI Quantitative Composite Conversion Table ...... . 96

F-6 AFOQT Form P2 Pilot Composite Conversion Table .. ......... .. 97

F-7 AFOQT Form P2 Navigator-Technical Composite Conversion Table . . 98

F-8 AFOQT Form P2 Academic Aptitude Composite Conversion Table . . . 99

F-9 AFOQT Form P2 Verbal Composite Conversion Table .. ......... . 100

F-10 AFOQT Form P2 Quantitative Composite Conversion Table ....... . 101

i v
AIR FORCE OFFICER QUALIFYING TEST (AFOQT) FORM P:

TEST MANUAL

I. BACKGROUND

Since 1951, when the test appeared in a preliminary versioa, the Air

Force Officer Qualifying Test (AFOQT) has been part of the selection process

for Air Force officer commissioning programs and for pilot and navigator

training programs. The latest of 16 successive forms of the test, Form P,

was the first to be constructed in two parallel forms. The development,

measurement characteristics, and equivalence of these forms, and the use and

interpretation of their scores, are the principal topics of this manual.

History of the AFOQT

Purpose

As with the other milifAry services, the U.S. Air Force has the goal of

commissioning officers who will be leaders with exceptional levels of

ability. The primary selection criteria for officers are education and

aptitude (Brown, 1987). ThE AFOQT is used to measure the aptitudes of

candidates for two of the three officer commissioning programs: the Air

Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) and the Officer Training

School (OTS). (The third program, which is offered at the Air Force Academy

in Colorado Springs, Colorado, uses other criteria for selection and is

exempt from the AFOQT requirement.) Aircrew classification, a function that

matches aptitudes to the task requirements of pilots and navigators,

constitutes the second major use of the AFOQT.

AFOQT Form P contains 380 items organized into 16 subtests which form

five composites: Pilot, Navigator-Technical, Academic Aptitude, Verbal, ana

Quantitative (Table 1). A candidate for admission to AFROTC, OTS,

Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT), or Undergraduate Navigator Training

(UNT) must meet or exceed minimum qualifying scores on the AFOQT composites

to continue in the selection process. The validity of the procedure has

undergone continual study and verification to provide assurance that the

AFOQT is a highly suitable instrument for officer selection and

classification.

Evolut on of the AFOQT

The information in this secLion is drawn largely from Rogers, Roach, and

Short (1986), who noted that age, education, and medical fitness

requirements were the principal considerations for selection to pilot

training programs hPfore World War II. Early efforts to use physiological

or psychological tests to select student pilots were only partially

successful. Following the onset of U.S. participation in World War II, the

Aviation Psychology Program was initiated, with the mission of developing

pilot selection instruments. Among the prominent psychologists and

measurement specialists staffing this program were John C. Flanagan, J. P.

Guilford, Robert L. Thorndike, and Neal E. Miller. The need for a large

number of aircrew personnel, as well as the shortage of physically qualified
Table i. Organization of AFOQT Form P Subtests and Composites

Composite

No. of Academic QuantiSubtest items Pilot Nav-Tech aptitude Verbal tative

Verbal Analogies 25 X X X

Arithmetic Reasoning 25 X X X

Reading Comprehension 25 X X

Data Interpretation 25 X X X

Word Knowledge 25 X X

Math Knowledge 25 X X X

Mechanical Comprehension 20 X X

Electrical Maze 20 X X

Scale Reading 40 X X

Instrument Comprehension 20 X

Block Counting 20 X X

Fable Reading 40 X X

Aviation Information 20 X

Rotated Blocks 15 X

General Science 20 X

Hidden Figures 15 X

Total 380

college students in 1941, dictated their first task--to develop a general

abilities test to replace the previously used college requirement. The result

was the Aviation Cadet Qualifying Examination (ACQE).

Initial Screening Tests. The ACQE, a general intelligence test consisting

ot 13U items, w o Ldku 6y mure than a mi-iiU i,.m duiiag the war to qualify

as commissioned officers and pilots, bombardiers, and navigators.

The title of this screening test was changed to the Army Air Forces Qualifying

Examination (AAFQE) in June 1944, due to the fact that the test was by then

t)eing admirnistcred tl enlisted men (to serve as gunners) as well as to

aviation cadets.

Selection and Classification Tests. The need for a test to screen and

classify potential aircrew members resulted in the development of the Aircrew

Classification Battery (ACB). This battery included psychomotor tests and

both power and speeded paper-and-pencil tests that provided Pilot, Navigator,

ind Bombardier stanines (composite scores). The ACB was revised many times

and was eventually used for selection as well as classification.

The ACB was discontinued in 1947, because of a decrease in applicant flow,

but was reinstated in 1951 at the request of Headquarters Air Training

Command, which was finaing it difficult to find aviation cadet applicants who

had 2 years of college. In the interim, the Aviation-Cadet Officer-Candidate

Qualifying lest (AC-OC-QT) was used experimentally to screen applicants for

officer Candidate School (OCS) (now OTS) and for direct commissioning, to

Az •| rn
screen aviation cadet applicants, and to measure necessary nontlying aptitudes

such as electronics. The AC-OC-QT became operational in October 1950 under

the name Aviation Cadet Qualifying Test (ACQT). The ACQT, because ot its

ability to predict success on the ACB, replaced the ACQE as a screening device.

The AFOQT. The first version of the AFOQT, which incorporated the

AC-OC-QT, was designed in 1951 to predict success in OCS and to screen for

aircrew training. Form A, which consisted of the USAF Officer Activity

Inventory, the Attitudc Survey, and the preliminary AFOQT, followed. Five

composite scores were derived from Form A: offilL QualiLy,

Observer-Technical, Pilot, Verbal, and Quantitative. Form B, designated the

Officer Selection Form, became operational in September 1955, replacing the

ACB for aircrew selection. The AFOQT forms that followed (Forms C through L)

underwent frequent revisions to composites, subtest content areas, test items,

conversion tables, and norms.

Precursors of Form P. The history of the development ot Forms M, N, and 0

shows the way in which the design of Form P evolved. Appendix A displays the

content and organization of these forms. Form M (1975) (Table A-l) was the

same as its predecessor, Form L, with the exception that it provided a

separate female-specific conversion table for the Pilot composite (Miller,

1974). A comparison of Tables A-I and A-2 indicates the structural changes

introduced into Form N. The need for revision of Form M was revealed by a

validity study conducted by Valentine (1977). The five booklets of Form M

were reduced to four. Five subtests were removed: Officer Biographical

Inventory, Pilot Biographical Inventory, Aviation Information, Visualization

of Maneuvers, and Stick and Rudder Orientation. Seven subtests were added:

Background for Current Events, Pilot Biographic and Attitude Scale, "lable

Reading, Electrical Maze, Block Counting, Tools, and Rotated Blocks. Further,

the Quantitative Aptitude and Verbal Aptitude composites in Booklets I and 2

were subdivided into subtests. Three subtests--Arithmetic Reasoning, Math

Knowledge, and Data Interpretation--replaced Quantitative Aptitude. Word

Knowledge, Reading Comprehension, Background for Current Events, and Verbal

Analogies replaced Verbal Aptitude.

Changes were also made to the normative base for Form N (Gould, i978).

The norming sample, drawn from the three commissioning sources was well as

active duty second lieutenants, was designed to reflect the range of ability

-ypected in the officer applicant --pulation. Norms were developed for the

total group and for three educational-level groups: less than 2 years of

college, more than 2 years (but not graduates), and college graduates. New

conversion tables were developed for the Lhrce educational-level groups.

Form 0 (1981) dropped the subtests titled Background for Current Events,

Tools, Aerial Landmarks, and Pilot Biographic and Attitude Scale, and added

Aviation Information and Hidden Figures (Rogers, Roach, & Wegner, 1986). Form

O was the first AFOQT form to be equated to an anchor test, Form N, through

items common to both forms. A further change involved the number of

conversion tables, which were reduced to five--one for each composite--as it

was no longer considered relevant to emphasize educational differences in the

conversions (Roach, 1986; Roach & Rogers, 1982). Form 0 was also associated

with administrative changes that promoted efficiency in test administration

3
and reduck,, I chnical problems in achieving scoring accuracy. That is, all

subtest, re enclosed in a single booklet; all answer sheets were

electrinicallv scanned and computer-scored; and there were two central scoring

locations, Maxwell AFB, Alabama, for AFRUTC test administrations, and Brooks

,FB, ITexas, tor all others.

(rle o! t most -;aIi,,it teat,.,res ot tile later AF.Qi forms is their

coot intitv, ma intained by the use o "anchor" or common items. Form P, iike

r 1 has a certain proportion of items taken trom the previous version.

1 h's.,ntial nature* of the aptitude measures found by the Air Force to be

r.latel to prtic ijent otilcer pertormance remained unchanged in AFOQI Form P.

Description ot the Subtests

'Apt it UI" i. usually interpreted to mean inherent or natural ability and

aptiti" to'-t, a meajsure of the ability to learn. In practice-, aptitude

te~t frequntlv measure combinations of potential abilities and learned

ki I I. Ie Math knowledge and Arithmetic Reasoning tests in the AFOUQ, tor

'xa:a re, lsnbl- achievement tests and assume some prior knowledge. The

x\r~'{ cIa be , s-en as an aptitude test battery, however, in that the prediction

, t tlr,, pe rformance--both in training and on the job--is its primary

)JrpS t. In addition, the,. AFOQT serves a classitication function in tile Air

Frc, personnel svsLem by distinguishing between such assignments as pilot

trtiain;' and navigator training (Miller, 1969a). The AFOQ'I subtests and

cpsites, and the abilities they measure, are described below. Sample

pruh ms, taken from the Air Force Ofticer Qualifying 'est Intormation

Pamphlt. (Dpartment ot the Air Force, 1967) are provided in Appendix B. ltie

5.',llle problems are provided for illustrative purposes only and should not be

viwe-d in and o themse.lves as a blueprint for the test. They reflect the

ditricoltv and content of AFOQT items but do not necessarily conform to all o

the subtest specifications in the descriptions which tollow.

erbaI Analogies (VA)

tu litems in this subtest take two forms. Ine first is a pair ot words

I',md by the phrasu "is to" to express a relationship between them, followed

i)v a third word, the stimulus. Ihe examinee must choose trom a list of five

words th-:e word that has the same relationship to the stimulus as that between

the' 4iven pair. The second form displays in the stem only a pair ot words

with an implied relationship. Among five alternative word pairs is one that

e.xpresses the same type of relationship as that of the given pair.

The relationships between words are of several types, including cause and

-'lt'ct, seqience, antonym, synonym, degree, action to object, object to

-Iction, part to part, part to whole, member to category, and object to

attribute. Among the types of wrong alLeruatives may be homnonyms or antonyms

of the. correct answer; wrong tenses or grammatical forms; or reversals ot the

direction ot the given -nalogy. 'o preclude ambiguity, the alternatives are

:)nstrmct..,I such that only one type, ot relationship in a given word pair can

4
(An (,xample of ambiguity: Morning is to evening as

A. breakfast is to dinner

B. sunlight is to starlight

K ther alt rnative would be an appropriate analogy.)

Verbal ability (i.e., proper use of vocabulary in various contexts) is one

component of the ability required by the VA test. Inferring relationships is

another component. The degree of remoteness of these relationships

contributes to the difficulty levels of the VA items. The more interences

required, the more difficult the item. For example, the relationship

"gras :4reen" requires the examinee to make fewer inferences than

"rasslandscape." The less central the attributes of the analogy are to its

enantic representation, the more dif ficult the i -m. For example, tiie

relationship "grass:green" is probably more central to our conceptual

representation of grass than the relationship "grass:landscape." In general,

t h, "X:Y: :A: " format is easier than the "X:Y: : '" tormat, in tiat tne

tor[-mer directs the search for alternatives.

VA items do not test knowledge of specific subject matters. The

vocaibularv used is neither complex nor esoteric.

Aritthint ic Reasoning (AR)

1ihe AR items test the ability to understand and manipulate relationsnips

in order to arrive at solutions to problems. The major emphasis is on

reasoning, but the problems require knowledge of basic arithmetic functions

such as addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, percentages, ratios,

proportions, squares, square roots, or the conversion of dimensions in a

single measurement system (e.g., yarls to feet). Knowledge of the formulas

used to calculate the lengths of the sides of right triangles or the

circumferences and areas of circles may be necessary to solve some problems.

In order to avoid irrelevant sources of difficulty, calculations are simple

and not time-consuming.

[he AR items are constructed as word problems. In general, a

characteristic such as height, weight, speed, distance travelled, temperature,

or interest earned must be calculated in the context of other characteristics

that have a given relationship (e.g., half as fast) to a given object.

Calculations may involve the conversions of dimensions in a scale, a

requirement implied by the problem. For example, if told that a Line is 20

yards lang and asked how many 3-foot-long objects fit on that line, the

examinee must infer that conversion from yards to feet is necessary. Verbal

abilitv as an intervening variable is minimized by use of basic, simple

vocabulary in the item stems.

Knowledgeo of specitic subjects is not necessary for the AR items.

Measir,.d by this subtest are the abilities to analyze problems and use

r,,aisning to manipulate the components analyzed, in order to satisfy the

pr bl,,m spec if icat ions.
Reading Comprehension (RC)

RC items requi-e the examinee to read and understand paragraphs. Singie

reading passages ranging from approximately 40 to 150 words in length are

followel by five alternatives each, one of which completes the final sentence

of the pissage appropriately. The incorrect alternatives may complete the

last sentence in a grainmatical sense, but they show either an incomplete or

incorrect understanding of the given passage. The subject matters of the

reading passages include art, economics, the environment, literature,

philosouphy, psychology, science, and sociology. Knowledge of these subjecLc

is not necessary for the examinee to arrive at correct answers. Wrong

alternatives are typically ones that refer to elements of the passage but fail

to capture the central theme or continue the logic.

The comprehension required by this subtest depends upon one's abilities to

abstract, generalize, synthesize, recognize concepts, and rea.son

constructively. The relevance of this subtest clearly lies in its

relationship to the informational aspects of high-level Air Force jobs.

)a a Interpretation (DI)

The Dl subtest consists of data presented in tables or graphs. 1hese data

are frequently expressed as units (such as thousands of hours) which are

identitied either above the data in a column heading or below the data in a

footnote. Each set of data is followed by several questions pertaining to it,

and each question has five alternatives. The answer to any one item

(question) is independent of the answers to the other items that refer to the

same data.

All of the Di questions require examination and interpretation of the

relationships within the data displayed. Answers to some questions depend on

making the correct associations between two or more sets of numeric

information given in different areas of a table. Ottier questions require a

series of simple arithmetic calculations or estimates such as the computation

of ratios, percentages, proportions, or ranges after interpreting the given

data. Most of these calculations involve whole numbers, and the alternative

answers rarely have more than one decimal place.

Incorrect alternatives may be values or variables obtained by locating

and/or comparing incorrect cells, arriving at intermediate solutions,

performing incorrect computations, misunderstanding the meaning ot cells,

and/or failing to convem-t cell numbers to their correct scales. The subject

matter of the charts does not play a significant role in the examinee's

ability to answer the DI questions.

Tle )1 subtest calls upon one's abilities to locate, interpret, and

integrate different types of data appearing in a variety of tabular and

graphic structures, in order to satisfy problem requirements. Recognizing

r'lationships, as well as basic arithmetic reasoning, are other abilities

involvw'd in this test.

6
Word Knowledge (WK)

The WK subtest measures vocabulary acquisition, a straightforward aspect

of verbal ability. The items are cast as synonyms. A word is given and then

followed by five alternatives; one of these alternatives has the same nIning

as the given word. Incorrect alternatives include words that may sound or

look like the given word, have a synonym that sounds or looks like the given

word, are opposite in meaning, or are a commonly mistaken meaning for the

word. No technical or scientific terms, foreign expressions, or proper names

are included. All words are in the singular form unless they have acquired a

use more common in plural form (e.g., data, cross-purposes). The vocabulary

is at the high school completion level.

Math Knowledge (MK)

The MK subtest presents items requiring knowledge of mathematical

relationships. The item stems are either word or number problems. The item

types include symbolic fractions, decimals, and square root solutions.

Understanding of mathematical terms such as "reciprocal" or "prime number" is

assumed by some items. Incorrect answers to the problems may reflect

solutions arrived at because of common misunderstandings, lack of knowledge,

or inability to apply learned mathematical relationships accurately.

Items are worded st'ch that reading ability does not play a significant

role and none of the calculations involved is time-consuming, complex, or

difficult. MK measures mathematical reasoning and mathematical knowledge

typical at a first-year college level.

Mechanical Comprehension (MC)

The MC subtest requires acquaintance with and understanding of basic

physical principles such as friction, centrifugal force, and pressure, and the

ways in which these principles apply to the operation of mechanical devices.

Diagrams of mechanical situations are associated with 75% of the items; each

diagram is followed by several items. These items measure such things as the

understanding of transfer of rotational motion and rotational range of

action. The remaining items, unillustrated, require kno.iledge of the

mechanical parts of engines (particularly automobile engines) and knowledge of

hardware and tools. Both diagrammatic and unillustrated questions deal with

functions of parts, the effect of movement of one or more parts on other

parts, and the actions necessary from certain parts to achieve a designated

effect. T]i, incorrect alternatives to the MC questions may be in terms of

incorrect directions (e.g., left rather than right), incorrect measurements,

or incorrect application of physical principles.

The mechanical devices or situations in the items are relatively

frequently encountered and do not in and of themselves require special

knowledge. An individual who achieves a high score on MC is one who has a

ready understanding of the principles behind the design of mechanisms and

their operation.

7
Electrical Maze (EM)

EM items ask the examinee to choose a correct path through a maze from

among five choices. In each item, five boxes of equal size are lined ip at

the bottom of a maze. Within each box are two dots marked S (starting point)

and F (finishing point). A line leads from each of the dots marked S. Only

one box will have a line from the S point, which leads to a single circle at

the top of the maze and back to the F point in the same box. Black dots which

ippear where two lines meet or intersect show the only places where turns or

directional changes may be made. If lines meet or cross where there is no

dot, turns or directional changes may not be made. There are no continuous

loops through the circle. Lines are wrong if they lead to a dead end, if they

come back to the box without going through the circle, or if they lead to

other boxes. Easy items tend to have fewer lines and dots than the more

difficult items.

Solvers of EM problems tend to take a trial-and-error approach. The

examinees with the highest scores may develop strategies to eliminate wrong

lines quickly. Spatial aptitude in the sense of being able to ignore

confusing visual cues on the way to a goal is what is being measured. With

respect to aviation, an obvious application of this ability is in tasks

involving electrical wiring, but this ability may also be related to piloting

tasKs involving visually seeking locational cues.

Scale Reading (SR)

The SR subtest necessitates reading gauges, dials, and meters. Drawings

of these devices are associated with either one, two, or three items. Each

device contains one or two scales which may be straight or curved, and which

are divided and subdivided by short vertical or horizontal lines. The width

of subdivisions may be of equal intervals or based on logarithmic scales.

Numeric values are given at two or more points on each scale. The examinee's

task is to estimate the numeric value indicated by an arrow pointing to the

out,ide edge of the scale at a point which is either between or outside the

two given values. The arrow is accompanied by the item number so that the

examinee can identify the appropriate set of five alternative choices before

selecting the alternative that is closest to his or her estimate.

The more difficult items employ straight-line logarithmic scales, curved

scales, scales reading from right to left, or combinations of these. The SR

subtest measures visual-perceptual acuity, ability to comprehend different

types of scales and unit relationships, and ability to count in different

scale units.

Instrument Comprehension (IC)

D, items require the examinee to read airplane instruments to determine

the position of an airplano in flight. No previous experience with reading

.iirplaue inStrume tts is needed. Full explanations and sample items are given

at the beginning of the test. Each item depicts two aircraft instruments.

Onf, indicates the amount ot climb or dive, and the degree ot bank to the left

,)r right. The other is a compass that shows the direction in which the

;,irplane is head ,d. The two instruments are accompanied by four drawings of

• l l I
aircraft in flight. The examinee must select the one illustration that

corresponds to the readings on the instruments.

IC items vary in difficulty depending on the extent to which the amount ot

climb or dive, degree and direction of bank, and compass heading are varied.

Easier items, for example, have one or more of the following elements: no

banking, no climb or dive, and a heading in the direction of one of the major

compass points. The IC items draw upon not only form visualization and scale

but also their relationship, a more complex aptitude.

Block Counting (BC)

The task in the BC subtest is to determine the number of blocks that are

touched by a designated block in an illustrated pile. Each pile consists of

11 blocks. At least one full edge of every block in the pile is visible. The

pile is not a perfect cube; the twelfth block is "missing" in order to provide

visual information on the other blocks. The location and size of each side of

the missing block (usually the top level) are clear to the viewer, and two of

its six surfaces are obvious from the gap in the cube.

Each block-pile illustration serves five items. Five blocks in each pile

are assigned numbers corresponding to five item numbers. The examinee must

count how many blocks in the pile touch the numbered block and choose the one

answer of five alternatives that matches the count.

The ability to visualize the abutment of surfaces to designated objects is

what is measured by this test. It is one of several distinct approaches in

the AFOQT used to assess spatial ability.

Table Reading (TR)

The TR subtest is a speeded test; that is, it contains more items than can

usually be answered correctly in the allotted time. It tests one's ability to

read tables quickly and accurately to locate and identify the intersection of

two coordinates. Examinees are asked to locate a number in the cell of a

table, given the X and Y coordinates of the cell. Examinees select their

answer from one of five alternatives.

The table is a square matrix containing many cells. The column and row

headings are the same and range from a negative number to its equivalent

positive number. Numbers inside the cells increase from left to right and

from top to bottom. A cell number may be identical to the cell number in the

cell above or to the left of it or may be several units larger. Given

particular X and Y coordinates, the incorrect alternatives can be the cells

found by applying incorrect combinations of signs to the coordinates, by using

numbers in cells adjacent to the correct cell, or by using numbers that

contain the same digits as those in the correct cell, but in a different

order. The easier items are those in which the correct cells are on or near

the border of the table and where the X and Y coordinates are of the same sign.

Aviation Information (AI)

AI items measure knowledge of general aeronautical concepts and

terminology. Examinees must choose the one of five alternatives that either

best completes a sentence or best answers a question. Items cover topics

9
such as the functions of certain airplane parts, the proper operation of

airplanes, hazards encountered by airplanes and how these may differ from

one type of airplane to another, navigation and communication techniques,

aviation weather maps, and aeronautical terms and concepts. Al items are

relevant to civil aeronautics rather than military aeronautics. The

emphasis of the items is on light aircraft or general aviation aircraft with

turbo jet or reciprocating engines.

Rotated Blocks (RB)

The RB subtest requires the mental manipulation of objects in

three-dimensional space and visualization ot the changed appearance of those

objects as they are rotated. Each item presents a drawing of a given

three-dimensional block followed by five drawings depicting blocks in varied

positions. One of the five has the exact configuration of the given oloc',

but is shown from a different angle. The examinee must determine which one

of the five has this configuration. The drawings are made large and clear

to preclude calling upon acuity of visual discrimination.

The aptitude measured by RB is spatial visualization.

General Science (GS)

GS items measure knowledge of basic scientific terms, concepts,

principles, and instruments. Questions are followed by five alternative

choices. The content is drawn from astronomy, biology, chemistry,

electronics, geography, meteorology, and physics.

Hidden Figures (HF)

HF items examine an individual's ability to see a simple figure in a

complex drawing. Five distinct figures lettered A, B, C, D, and E appear at

the top of each page. Below these are several drawings, each embedding one

of the five distinct figures in a complex setting. The examinee must

determine which one of the five figures appears in each drawing. The

correct hidden figure in each complex drawing will always be the same size

and in the same position (unrotated) as it appears among the figures at the

top of the page.

HF calls upon visual perception, spatial imagery, short-term memory, and

the ability to ignore irrelevant and confusing visual cues.

Composites

The subtests that make up the composites were shown in Table 1. Logical

analysis and empirical data, where possible, have determined the recommended

uses of these composites (Miller, 1969b).

Pilot (P)

The Pilot composite was formulated to predict Undergraduate Pilot

Training success. The criterion measure used to evaluate the predictiveness

of this composite was flying deficiency leading to removal from training.

10
High scorers have been shown to have the degree and kinds of aptitudes

necessary to complete training successfully.

Navigator-Technical (N-T)

The N-T composite is relevant for success in Undergraduate Navigator

Training, other training programs which stress mechanical and engineering

concepts, and in pilot training as well.

Academic Aptitude (AA)

The AA composite, which emphasizes verbal and mathematical reasoning

skills, was designed to predict success in any training program that is high

in academic content. The academic portions of the OTS and AFROTC program

curricula are examples.

Verbal (V)

The Verbal composite was formulated to predict training success in

programs that require verbal skills, such as administrative services, public

information, and education and training.

Quantitative (Q)

The Q composite predicts success in mathematically referenced training

programs such as accounting, auditing, statistical services, disbursing, and

supply.

!I. DEVELOPMENT OF FORM P

In 1983, anticipation of the need for future forms of the AFOQi prompted

initiation of a project to develop a pool of experimental items from which

selections would be made for AFOQT Form P in two parallel versions. The

advantages of constructing two forms concurrently were expected to include

improved retesting capability and reduction of opportunities for test

compromise.

Approximately 4,800 items were created for the experimental pool. 'he

major requirement guiding item development was that the subtests were to

have a high resemblance to the Form 0 subtests in content, appearance, and

distributions of item difficulty and item discrimination. The continuity of

instruments proven to predict officer performance would thus be assured.

The process of Form P construction summarized in this section of the manual

is described at length in Berger, Gupta, Berger, and Skinner (1988).

Experimental Item Construction

New Items

The experimental items were written to be consistent with Form 0 in terms

of format, semantics, and punctuation; content categories of certain

subtests; item difficulty range; and specific requirements for graphics.

Item writers were provided with operational definitions that described the

[1
constraints they must observe as to the content, scope, complexity, length,

appearance, and number of items and response options (see Appendix B, Sample

Items). When appropriate, the content categories covered in selected

subtests were expanded to include a broader concept of the area tested; for

example, adding computer-related questions to the General Science subtest

because of their importance in the science fields. Form 0 item data trom

officer applicant examinees were analyzed to gain insight on the factors

affecting difficulty, and these factors were used to guide Form P item

development to approximate Form O's range of difficulty.

Common Items

Included in the research of the experimental pool were anchor or common

items selected from Form 0. Seven booklets of new and common items were

assembled for each subtest except Scale Reading and Table Reading (speeded

tests); for these two subtests, 14 booklets were prepared. (To obtain

accurate item statistics for the last items in the speeded tests, the tests

were administered in either forward or reverse order to seven samples

each.) The common items for each subtest appeared in all seven (or 14)

booklets of that subtest, in order to verify that the different samples

tested on the seven booklets of a subtest were comparable in ranges of

ability. Comparability was essential to maximize the constancy of scale

indices for item difficulty and item discrimination measures across examinee

groups. Based on the collective set of findings described below, the

samples were judged to be sufficiently comparable to proceed with a Form P

test construction strategy in which item indices were treated as

non-sample-specific. A second important reason for including common items

was to provide continuity with previous AFOQT forms.

Field Tests

Approximately 350 airmen attending Basic Military Training at Lackland

AFB, Texas, were tested on each of the experimental booklets between August

1984 and December 1986. Basic airmen constituted the only practicable group

on which to obtain preliminary data for evaluating item adequacy. Because

the AFOQT is administered for operational selection and classification

purposes at about 500 military testing sites in the Continental United

States and overseas, it was not logistically or economically feasible to

field test the several thousand new test items with officer applicants.

Supplemental data on two subtests, General Science and Aviation information,

were obtained by readministering the experimental test booklets to cadets

attending OTS between October 1985 and January 1986. Biographic information

was collected from all examinees.

Analysis and Results

Sample Comparability

To evaluate the comparability of the samples of test-takers, the 7 to 14

basic airmen samples tested on each experimental subtest were compared for

biographic and score characteristics. Tables which show the analysis results

are presented in Berger et al. (1988). A summary of the major findings

follows. The samples appear to have been relatively comparable on most

12
variables. Age differences across samples for each subtest were tyDically

less than I year; the mean number of years of education rarely varied by more

than 2 months; and the range of differences in percentage of ethnic

representation was rarely more than 10%. However, the range of male/female

representation in the various samples did vary considerably for some subtests.

The various airmen samples were also compared for test performance, first

on the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) composite score derived from the

Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB). The mean percentile

scores were reasonably close; differences across the samples within subtests

ranged from 2.2 (BC) to 6.2 (AR). The modal difference was approximately

three points. Performance on the common items included in the experimental

AFOQT test booklets provided a second method for assessing the comparability

of the airmen samples. On the average, the proportion of airmen samples

answering the items correctly differed by .09 or less.

The OTS cadets who took the AI and GS tests were older than the majority ot

airmen examinees (mean ages 25 to 26 years and 19 to 20 years, respectively).

All cadets had completed at least 16 years of education, whereas 95% ot the

airmen had completed 12 to 14 years. The gender representation was relatively

stable across samples within subtests, with the percentage of males varying

between 85% and 90%. Ethnic representation among cadets showed a pattern

quite similar to that of airmen, but there was a slightly higher proportion of

White cadets. On the common items in the experimental test booklets, cadet

samples performed more consistently than did the airmen samples. Mean scores

for the cadets differed by only about .02 points across the seven samples

administered both the Aviation Information and General Science subtests.

Test Statistics

In view of the finding that samples administered each subtest were

comparable on biographic and ability indicators, the experimental items were

evaluated by classical item analysis procedures within each sample. These

analyses were used to identify candidate items for a reduced pool from which

Form P selections would be made.

Item Analyses. The results of analyzing the experimental items indicated

that the number of new items that met discrimination index and difficulty

standards was sufficient to proceed with the development of Form P.

Requirements were that item-total score biserial correlations be negative for

all non-keyed (incorrect) alternatives and positive for the keyed (correct)

responses. Further, biserial correlations for keyed responses had to reach or

exceed a minimal discriminative standard of .40. An additional consideration

was the need for items to have difficulty levels that fell within the range of

and approximated the distribution of difficulty for Form 0 items.

Parallcl Forms Development

The criteria for selecting both common and new items for Forms P1 and P2

from the experimental pool included equivalent mean difficulty lev> vL eta%_ai

subtest, comparable mean biserial correlations, and comparable distributions

of content categories for applicable subtests. Similar distributions of keyed

responses, and stylistic features such as item formats, were also factors in

item selection.

13
Each Form P subtest was constructed to have 50% of its content the same as

that of the corresponding Form 0 subtest. This was accomplished by the use of

common items drawn from Form 0. Selection criteria were acceptable difficulty

and discrimination statistics, balanced subject-matter content, balanced keyed

response options, and an average item difficulty comparable to that of the

full set of items in the Form 0 subtest. In addition, the positions of the

common items were considered in the selection process in order to balance

items taken from the beginning, middle, and end cf each subtest.

The considerations for selecting common items also governed the selection

of new items for Form P. The characteristics of Form 0 items to be replaced

were particularly considered and item-by-item matches were attempted. A number

of trade-offs were necessary to balance content, keys, appearance, and

position; but in general, priority was given to matching the item difficulty

and discrimination of Form PI and Form P2 subtests.

Table 2 shows the experimental item data for the Form P selections. In

the context of the analysis of experimental items (i.e., based on basic airmen

and OTS cadet data), Forms PI and P2 were highly similar in subtest

difficulty, with no differences for 11 subtests and differences of .01 for

five subtests. Item discrimination was exactly the same for PI and P2 in four

6uuLeStt, oituwed a difference of .01 for six subtests and differences from

.02 to .04 for six subtests.

Table 2. Mean Item Difficulty (E) and Discrimination Statistics (rbis)

for Experimental Items Selected for Forms P1 and P2

Ibis -_ 

Subtests PI P2 P1 P2

Verbal Analogies .61 .60 .47 .47

Arithmetic Reasoning .53 .53 .56 .56

Reading Comorehension .64 .64 .54 .55

Data Interpretation .52 .53 .45 .48

Word Knowledge .56 .56 .55 .57

Math Knowledge .58 .58 .55 .54

Mechanical Comprehension .50 .49 .39 .39

Electrical Maze .38 .38 .68 .67

Scale Reading (speeded) .55 .55 .42 .38

Instrument Comprehension .45 .44 .59 .62

Block Counting .51 .51 .68 .65

Table Readinga (speeded) - - .71 .70

Aviation Information .43 .43 .59 .58

Rotated Blocks .51 .51 .54 .54

General Science .44 .44 .43 .40

Hidden Figures .63 .63 .67 .68

altem difficulty is not relevant for Table Reading. All items are

inherently easy.

14
Comparioi of the data for the new forms showed that high comparability,

if not parallelism, was achieved between Forms 0 and P. The equivalence of

the items in Forms PI and P2 is discussed in the next section, which presents

evidence regarding their psychometric properties when administered in the

actual Form P context to applicants for officer commissioning training

programs.

III. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Comparability of Forms PI and P2

The data in this section were obtained from applicants for officer

commissioning at operational test sites, including AFROTC detachments and

Military Entrance Processing Stations, between 15 June 1987 and 31 October

1987. AFOQT Form P1 was administered to 3,216 applicants, and Form P2 to

2,976 applicants, using an equivalent groups design. Equivalent groups were

assured by instructing test administrators to distribute Form P1 and then Form

P2 to alternate examinees in each testing session. The last form distributed

was recorded, and the next testing session was begun with the distribution of

thc other form. Scores were analyzed for central characteristics, item

difficulty and discrimination, internal consistency reliability, and

intercorrelation of the composites.

Score Characteristics

Common Items

Fifty percent of the items in each Form P subtest were drawn from

Form 0.1 The score means and standard deviations of the items selected from

Form 0 to appear in common in Forms P1 and P2 attest to the comparability of

the two samples. Table 3 shows that the largest mean score difference for any

subtest was less than one-third score point (Math Knowledge), and that the

differences in standard deviations were similarly small. A similar pattern

was found when subtest scores were combined into composite scores. The

average performance of the samples tested on Form PI and on Form P2 differed

by about .5 point or less on four composites. The largest difference wab 1.14

points on the Navigator-Technical composite.

Total Scores

Each AFOQT subtest is scored as one point for each correct answer. (There

is no correction for guessing.) Table 4 shows the mean scores and standard

deviations of the total test (new and common items) for Form P examinees.

Form P2 has mean scores that are higher than those of Form P1 for nine

subtests, with differences ranging from .01 point higher (Electrical Maze and

Table Reading) to approximately 1.41 points higher (Reading Comprehension).

1After the Form PI and P2 booklets were printed and distributed to

operational test sites, two common items were determined to be inadequate in

construction. These items -- one in the General Science subtest and one in

the Aviation Information subtest -- remain in the test booklets but are

omitted from the test scoring procedure.

15
Table 3. Score Means and Standard Deviations

ofCommon Items on AFOQT Forms Pl and P2

Number of Form PI Form P2

Subtest common items Mean SD Mean SD

scored

Verbal Analogies 13 8.18 2.44 8.35 2.44

Arithmetic Reasoning 12 7.34 2.81 7.10 2.83

Reading Comprehension 13 8.47 2.93 8.57 3.06

Data Interpretation 12 7.64 2.39 7.67 2.40

Word Knowledge 13 7.52 3.12 7.53 3.13

Math Knowledge 12 7.64 3.16 7.34 3.10

Mechanical Comprehension 11 5.62 2.36 5.60 2.39

Electrical Maze 10 3.99 2.11 3.92 2.03

Scale Reading 20 11.64 -4./4 11.3b 3.45

Instrument Comprehension i0 5.52 2.73 5.55 2.82

Block Counting 10 6.07 2.33 5.78 2.15

Table Reading 20 13.95 3.64 13.92 3.50

Aviation Information 9 4.22 2.24 4.28 2.22

Rotated Blocks 7 3.67 1.76 3.75 1.81

General Science 9 4.22 1.97 4.20 1.97

Hidden Figures 8 5.30 1.77 5.33 1.74

Composite

Pilot 103 59.19 14.20 58.75 13.99

Navigator-Technical 131 77.10 18.63 75.96 18.26

Academic Aptitude 75 46.79 12.89 46.56 13.01

Verbal 39 24.17 7.26 24.46 7.44

Quantitative 36 22.62 7.09 22.11 7.11

Note. Form P1 N = 3,216; Form P2 N = 2,976.

The seven subtests in Form Pi that have higher mean scores than those of their

counterparts in Form P2 show differences ranging from approximately .09 point

higher for Word Knowledge to 1.37 points higher for Math Knowledge. Restated,

these data indicate that Form P2 is slightly easier for nine subtests,

particularly Reading Comprehension, and Form P1 is easier for seven subtests,

particularly Math knowledge. Because of the large sample sizes, even

differences as small as .01 raw score point are statistically significant.

The differences between means of Forms P1 and P2 for Reading Comprehension

(1.41 score points), Math Knowledge (1.37 score points), and Block Counting

(1.09 score points) may be meaningful.

When the subtests are organized into composites, Form P1 is shown to be

slightly easier for the Pilot, Navigator-Technical, and Quantitative

composites, with differences between means ranging from .61 to 3.34 score

points. The Academic Aptitude and Verbal composites appear to be slightly

easier in Form P2, witn their means being .91 and 2.01 points higher,

respectively, than those of Form Pl. The largest difference between means was

seen for Navigator-Technical (3.34 raw score points).

16
Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations of AFOQT Forws P1 and P2

Subtest and Composite Raw Scores

Number of (Form P1 Form P2

Subtest items scored Mean SD Mean SD a

Verbal Analogies 25 16.21 4.46 16.90 4.4o 6.1L

Arithmetic Reasoning 25 15.48 5.70 15.09 5.55 2.72

Reading Comprehension 25 15.17 4.99 lo.56 5.24 10.bz

Data Interpretation 25 16.00 4.50 16.67 4.63 J.b4

Word Knowledge 25 15.16 5.74 15.07 5.76 0.bi

Math Knowledge 25 16.63 6.24 15.26 6.09 6.8i

Mechanical Comprehension 20 9.93 4.18 9.9b 4.17 0.26

Electrical Maze 20 7.76 3.74 7.77 3.48 0.15

Scale Reading 40 23.79 6.86 22.51 6.59 1.64

Instrument Comprehension 20 11.52 5.27 11.98 5.45 3.J7

Block Counting 20 12.79 4.34 11.70 3.99 lu.30

Table Reading 40 27.59 7.11 27.bO 6.84 0.06

Aviation Information 19 8.49 4.19 9.05 4.22 7.06

Rotated Blocks 15 8.00 3.21 8.47 3.40 5.58

General Science 19 9.34 3.94 9.15 3.67 1.96

Hidden Figures 15 9.99 3.12 9.78 2.95 2.72

Composite

Pilot 204 118.08 28.35 117.47 27.74 0.8b

Navigator-Technical 264 157.29 38.38 153.95 37.43 3.48

Academic Aptitude 150 94.65 25.43 95.56 2b.05 3.07

Verbal 75 46.54 13.51 48.55 13.94 5.7i

Quantitative 75 48.11 14.57 47.01 14.82 2.94

Note. Form P1 N 3,216; Form P2 N = 2,976.

a-We to the large sample sizes, all differences between means for these

samples are significant beyond the .01 level.

The standard deviation indicates the way measures are dispersed around a

mean. One standard deviation on each side of the mean accounts for tne scores

of approximately two-thirds of any sample with normally distributea scores.

For example, in interpreting Table 4, two-thirds of the Form Pi sample had

Block Counting (BC) scores that differed from the mean score of 12.7V by 4.34

points (plus aad 'inus); in other words, the said scores ranged from 8.45 to

17.13. Two-thirds of the P2 sample had BC scores ranging trom 7.71 to 15.69.

The scores achieved by the two samples in the range of the mean plus or minus

one standard deviation are quite close, 8.68 points for Form P1 and 7.9b

points for Form P2, indicating quite similar spreads around their respective

mean scores.

Knowledge of the standard deviation of test scores is useful for a variety

of applications. One of these is to compare the scores of samples on

alternate test forms to see if one of the forms has a more restricted score

range than the other. If this were the cabe, there could be different

validity outcomes computed for the two forms. (Validity will be discussed in

17
a Later section.) Forms Pi and P2 do appear to be comparable, however, with

respect to the standard deviations of both the subtests and composites.

Skew and Kurtosis

Skew. When a distribution of scores is not symmetrically beii-snapea, it

indicates that a larger proportion of the group scored either on the nigh end

(negative skew) or the low end (positive skew) rather than in the middle.

Aupendix C indicates that, for the most part, Forms P1 and P2 show highly

similir skewness. The differences between the Pi and P2 subtest coefficients

of skewness range from zero (SR and Al) to .17 (VA). The differences between

P1 and P2 composites range from .01 (N-T and AA) to .08 (V and Q). All of the

composites are negatively skewed, indicating that higher scores were more

requnt than Lower onfes.

kurtosis. Kurtosis refers to the peakedness of a score distribution.

1ivun the same number of cases, a tall and narrow curve is self-defined as a

smill range of scores; a short and wide curve, as a wide range of scores.

,parLurus from normal kurtosis did not appear to be extreme. For the most

Pirt, coetticienLs ot kurtosis are comparable for the Pi and P2 subtests, withk

'ifft.erences il ranging from zero (AI) to .33 (TR). Dilferences in Kurtosis

K composite scores range from .01 (N-f) tO .11 (Q).

Item Characteristics

Antily.ss were conducted on tlie data of the two samples referenced above to

"t)!t n itrm lifficulty and item discrimination statistics. Appendix D shows

'Jw 2tdfn diilticuilty and discrimination values -nd the distributions ot the

itern id'licetS lor each subtest in Form PI (Tables D-I through D-3) and in Form

:,2 ibleks D-4 through b-6).

iten bitticiiltv. The average item aitticulty does not vary between each

Frrn P1 and form c2 subtest by more than .06 score point (Tables D-I and b-4),

111d tW difetrence is typically much smaller. Furtner, tile distributions ot

i,, dirtiuLty for the two torms arc similar (Tables D-2 and D-5). These

r t compare very favorably to the data for the Pi ana P2 items

dmi nister(,d in the context of the experimental pool (see Section 1i above).

Tid' pVrillclism ot the forms with respect to item difficulty appears to be

c(>Y;er In these diata for the administration of Form P to officer applicants.

Item liscrimirlation, Test item analyses use tile biserial correlation to

oea,;Isre the relationslhip between answering an item correctly and being in a

top gro):p of some type, usually a defined top sector of total scores. This

correlation should be high for the keyed answer to a multiple-choice test

,l,-stion, and negative for all tile wrong options. The samples ot applicants

for officer commissioning provided data indicating that the AFOQT subtests in

Forms "I and P2 had mean i te-total test bizcrL&! cerreiations that more than

-, th, criteria (Tables D-3 and D-6). Mean biserials (Tables D-I and D-4)

ringed from .51 to .72 in Form PI (Scale Reading and Math Knowledge) and from

.48 to .74 in P2 (Scale Reading and Instrument Comprehension). These data

compar, flvor,hbly with those collected for the same test items from basic

iirmnn nd OIS (-,idets in tie experimental field tests. The differences

between the mean hiseria-s of the two forms were never greater than .00 for

ay subtest, providing turtiher evidence of the parallelism of Forms P1 and P2.

18
Reliability of Subtests and Composites

Several testing concepts pertaining to the consistency of test

measurements are associated with various types of reliability. One of these

is stability of a measure administered more than once, estimated by

correlating the scores obtained from a group of examinees administered the

same test on two occasions. Another is "internal consistency reliability,"

which, in the case of the AFOQT, is computed by segmenting the subtests into

items and computing their equivalence. A third is the "standard error ot

measurement" (SEM), a measure of the precision of a test score. The SEM

indicates the area in which an examinee's "true" score is expected to fall,

given obtained scores on repeated test administrations. An examinee's

obtained score is expected to lie within one SEM on each side of the true

score about two-thirds (68%) of the time. The smaller the SEM, the more

confident one can be that different scores of two examinees on the same test

represent true differences in aptitude. These different types of reliability

in relation to the AFOQT Form P are discussed below.

Stability

The test-retest reliability is assumed for Form P from data for Form 0, as

the two forms are comparable. Arth (1986a) conducted a study of applicants

for officer training, of whom 2,246 were retested on Form 0 between October

1981 and December 1983. The retest group differed in terms of the intervals

between test and retest, with 312 retesting in less than 6 months, 1,300 in 6

to 11 months, 443 in 12 to 17 months, and 191 in 18 months or longer. For all

retesters, the test-retest correlations on the composites were as follows:

Pilot = .812, Navigator-Technical = .852, Academic Aptitude = .853, Verbal =

.880, and Quantitative = .775. Higher or lower reliabilities might have been

obtained had the estimates been computed separately for groups witn diflerent

retest intervals. Allen and Yen (1979) noted that changes in lengths of time

can affect test-retest reliabilities in different ways. Other factors which

may have influenced the magnitude of the correlations are carry-over etects

such as recall, practice, coaching, and motivation. Carry-over effects due to

motivation are probable for the Arth (1986a) sample. The retesters were a

self-selected group who requested an opportunity to retake Form 0, presumably

as an attempt to improve their scores to qualify for commissioning or aircrew

training programs. Nevertheless, the reported reliabilities are moderately

high and suggest stability in AFOQT measurements across time.

Internal Consistency

The Kuder-Richardson 20 (KR-20) formula was used to compute the

reliability of the Form P1 and Form P2 subtests (Table 5), and a formula

developed by Wherry and Gaylord (1943) was used to estimate tne reliability ot

the composites (Table 6). As shown in Table 5, the reliabilities of the

subtests range from .75 to .91 in Form PI and from .71 to .90 in Form P2.

The lower reliabilities were for Electrical Maze in Form Pi and for General

Science in Form P2, and both high reliabilities were for Table Reading. (it

should be noted that KR-20 reliabilities tend to be overestimated for speeded

subtests and for the composites that contain them.) Tue comparability of the

Forms P1 and P2 subtests with respect to reliability is striking. Six of the

subtests--VA, AR, WK, MC, TR, and Al--have KR-20 reliabiliLies tlat differ by

19
only .010 or less between the two forms. The differences for RC, Mh, EM, Sk,

IC, RB and HF range from .015 to .028. The largest differences are tnemselves

inconsequential (.040, .044, and .048 for BC, DI, and GS, respectively).

These findings indicate close comparability between Forms P1 and P2.

Table 5. Internal Consistency Reliability (KR-20)

and Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

KR-20 SEM

Subtest PI P2 P1 P2

Verbal Analogies .793 .791 2.025 2.010

Arithmetic Reasoning .877 .867 2.001 2.024

Reading Comprehension .826 .854 2.082 2.005

Data Interpretation .772 .816 2.148 2.071

Word Knowledge .876 .874 2.026 2.051

Math Knowledge .902 .886 1.955 2.057

Mechanical Comprehension .767 .770 2.020 2.000

Electrical Maze .748 .720 1.878 1.839

Scale Reading .851 .831 2.640 2.705

Instrument Comprehension .876 .891 1.853 1.798

Block Counting .83s .795 1.765 1.806

Table Reading .908 .900 2.154 2.106

Aviation Information .799 .806 1.876 1.859

Rotated Blocks .751 .774 1.601 1.619

General Science .7b2 .714 1.921 1.962

Hidden Figures .766 .740 1.508 1.501

Table 6. Composite Reliabilities and Standard Errors of Measurement

TSEM) Estimated From Subtest KR-20 and Communality Values

Reliability estimates Standard error ot measurement

KR-20 Communality KR-20 Communality

Composite PI P2 P1 P2 P1 P2 P1 P2

Pilot .958 .957 .867 .869 5.81 5.75 10.34 10.04

Nav-Tech .971 .969 .914 .915 0.54 6.59 11.26 10.91

Academic Apt .961 .963 .902 .913 5.02 5.01 7.96 7.68

Verbal .931 .937 .834 .856 3.5D 3.50 5.50 5.29

Quantitative .941 .943 .845 .860 3.54 3.54 5.73 5.55

In the absence of a parallel forms reliability measure obtained from

retesting the same examinees on both Forms P1 and P2, the Wherry-Gaylord

(W-G) procedure was used to obtain an estimate of the reliability of each

composite. The formula uses reliabilities for the subtests in a given

20
composite. Subtest reliabilities were computed using two methods. First,

the KR-20 method was used to obtain an upper bound estimate of composite

reliability. This estimate is upper bound because the KR-20 values are

inflated due to the presence of both speed and mixed model subtests in the

AFOQT, rather than power subtests exclusively. Second, communality

estimates were computed. The communality of each subtest is its multiple

correlation (R) with all other subtests. Communality was computed by

regressing each subtest raw score against the raw scores for the remaining

15 subtests. The communality procedure provides a lower bound W-G estimate

of composite reliability. The "true" reliability for each composite would

be expected to fall between the estimates computed by the two methoas.

The W-G estimates of the reliabilities for the Form P composites (see

Table 6) are higher than those for their component subtests, ranging from

.93 to .97 for Form P1 and from .94 to .97 for Form P2, based on the KR-20

method. Using the communality method, the estimates range from .83 to .91

in Form P1 and from .86 to .92 in Form P2. The Navigator-Technical composite

shows the highest reliability in both forms, but all are acceptably high.

The estimated composite reliabilities for the two forms are either identical

(Pilot) or close to identical, with differences of .01 to .02.

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

The SEMs are highly similar for the Forms P1 and P2 subtests (Table 5).

They range from approximately 1.5 to 2.2 score points except for Scale

Reading, which has standard errors of 2.6 and 2.7 in P1 and P2, respectively.

In practice, the SEM columns of Table 5 would be used to estimate the range

of an examinee's "true score" on a particular subtest; that is, the obtained

score minus and plus the SEM. Table 6 displays the SEMs for the

composites. These are particularly important in that it is the composite

scores which influence selection and placement. Form PI SEMs tend to be

higher than those of Form P2, but the differences are quite small, varying

from .01 to .06 score point (KR-20 method) and from .18 to .35 score point

(communality method). These findings add further support to the

comparability of Forms P1 and P2.

Intercorrelations

Additional evidence is seen in the pattern of intercorrelations between

composites fur the two forms (Table 7). The correlations between any pair

of composites for Form P1 did not differ from those for Form PZ by more than

.01. Equivalent correlations were obtained for 7 of the 10 pairs. Results

for subtest intercorrelations were somewhat more variable (Appendix E),

although differences between the correlations for subtest pairs on Form P1

versus Form P2 rarely exceeded .05.

Standardization

Scoring Scales and Norms

To enhance the interpretability of results obtained by examinees,

scoring scales and norms have been detined for the AFOQT. In the absence of

scales and norms, raw test scores are not meaningful, in part because they

21
Table 7. Intercorrelations of Composite Raw Scores

for AFOQT Forms P1 and P2

Navigator- Academic

technical aptitude Verbal Quantitative

Pilot

Form P1 .93 .75 .61 .74

Form P2 .93 .74 .61 .73

Navigator-Technical

Form P1 .84 .62 .90

Form P2 .84 .62 .89

Academic Aptitude

Form P1 .90 .91

Form P2 .90 .91

Verbal

Form P1 .64

Form P2 .64

are affected by the difficulty of items on different test forms. On early

forms of the AFOQT, raw scores were converted to a stanine scale (Valentine

& Creager, 1961). However, the convention for the past three decades has

been to derive percentile scales for the composites. Percentile scores on

the AFOQT are expressed in terms of the percentage of examinees in the

standardization sample who fall below a given raw score point.

The normative base for AFOQT Forms P1 and P2 is a sample of military

personnel tested on Form N. As described by Gould (1978) in a report on the

development and standardization of Form N, the 2,618-case sample consists of

basic airmen (25.4%), AFROTC cadets (27.1%), AFA cadets (27.1%), OTS cadets

(10.2%), and active duty second lieutenants (10.2%). The sample was

designed to represent the full range of ability expected in the officer

applicant population.

Equating

Form P scores were linked to the normative group using equipercentile

equating to Form 0 scores. Form 0 had been equated to Form N in a previous

study (Rogers, Roach, & Wegner, 1986). Analytic techniques were designed to

achieve comparability to the Form N composite scales.

The Form P equating process proceeded in two steps. Initially, a set of

provisional raw-to-percentile score conversions were developed on a research

sample of random and equivalent groups of Forms 0, P1, and P2 examinees

enrolled in three military training programs: enlisted personnel in Basic

Military Training and officer candidates in OTS and AFROTC (Steuck, Watson,

& Skinner, 1988). The provisional conversions were used during the Initial

Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) of Form P conducted with officer

22
applicants between 15 June 1987 and 31 October 1987. Final conversion

tables (see Appendix F) were produced, based on analyses of the applicants'

data. These conversion tables were implemented in August 1988, when Form P

officially replaced Form 0 as the operational AFOQT.

Validity

There are several approaches to the estimation of test validity.

Predictive validity, the ability of a test score to predict future

performance, is the pertinent measure for evaluating the AFOQT. The Pearson

product-moment correlation is generally used to establish a test score's

relationship to a performance measure. The higher the validity coefficient,

the more accurate the prediction, given a representative sample of

sufficient size to ensure reliable and stable results. Because score data

are obtained for samples of a population, an obtained validity coefficient

may be the result of chance factors such as sampling error which affect the

composition c- one particular sample, and therefore may not be a true

indicator of the strength of the relationship between a test score and a

performance measure. The probability (p) of obtaining a positive or

negative correlation, when the actual correlation is zero, can be computed.

If that probability is .05 or less, the result is considered to be

statistically significant.

The predictive validity design requires a criterion of performance,

whether in training or on the job, to relate to test scores. Various

criterion groups are referenced in past AFOQT Form 0 validity studies. At

this time, no research on the validity of Form P has been completed. The

comparability demonstrated between Form P and Form 0 permits generalization

of Form O's validity studies to Form P (Steuck et al., 1988).

Selection for Commissioning Programs

Validity research has shown the AFOQT Form 0 to be significantly

predictive of training in the Officer Training School (OTS) and the Air

Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) (Cowan, Barrett, & Wegner,

1989, 1990).

OTS. Passing scores on the AFOQT and a Bachelor's degree from an

accredited university or college are required for application to OTS.

Research was conducted to validate the OTS process of selecting college

graduates for the 12-week training program (Cowan et al., 1990). The

predictors studied included the percentile scores on the five AFOQT

composites. Performance criteria were measures of success in OTS:

(a) a dichotomy reflecting graduation or elimination from training,

(b) final grade on academic material, (c) a training effectiveness rating

from instructors, and (d) an indicator of whether or not the cadet was a

distinguished graduate. Sample sizes varied by criterion (n = 3,200 to

n = 4,500 cadets).

Most AFOQT composites were found to be significantly predictive of all

criteria, with the highest correlations obtained between the Academic

Aptitude and Verbal composites and final grade in training (r = .38 ana

r = .43, respectively). Validities for other criteria were Tower, with most

23
ranging between .10 and .20 and significant at p < .01. The lower

correlations were not unexpected due to the restricted variance of both the

dichotomous criteria and the rating scale used by instructors. For example,

the vast majority of cadets graduate from training and few qualify for

distinguished graduate status. Another factor impacting the magnitude or

the validities was restriction in range from use of the AFOQT to determine

qualifications for the officer force. OTS cadets are a highly select

subgroup of applicants for commissioning training. Reported correlations

were not corrected for range curtailment on the test. Overall, the finding

that test scores consistently related to training performance attest to the

validity of the AFOQT as an OTS selector.

AFROTC. The AFROTC administers a 2-year Professional Officer Course

(POCT to prepare accepted candidates for officer duty. POC candidates are

evaluated by a Quality Index Score (QIS), which consists of six

differentially weighted variables. These are the Verbal, Quantitative, and

Academic Aptitude composites of the AFOQT; the Scholastic Aptitude Test

(SAT) score; cumulative grade point average (GPA); and a Detachment

Commander's rating, which is an overall rating based on the first five

variables and a personal interview. Research was conducted to validate

these predictors against training and post-commissioning performance

variables (Cowan et al., 1989).

Validity analyses for the AFOQT composites were reported for samples of

1,000 to 9,500 AFROTC cadets. The criteria were completion/non-completion

of the POC; an irstructor rating of training performance; distinguished

graduate status; and three experimental supervisory ratings of job

performance, potential for career progression, and job motivation.

Study results showed that every criterion except job motivation was

significantly predicted by one or more of the AFOQT composites. The

Academic Aptitude composite offered the greatest predictability of the three

AFOQT composites, with correlations near .15 for instructor rating,

distinguished graduate, and potential for career progression criteria. The

correlations obtained for AFROTC, like those observed for OTS performance,

are likely to be substantial underestimates of the predictive power of the

AFOQT. Approximately 25% of the QIS used for AFROTC cadet selection

decisions was due directly to AFOQT scores. In combination, selection on

AFOQT aptitudes and similar ones measured by the SAT produces a fairly

homogeneous group of cadets. The impact of aptitude curtailment was not

accounted for in the AFROTC validities.

Rated and Non-Rated Training

The criterion-related validity of the AFOQT as a selection instrument

for Undergraduate Navigator Training (UNT), Undergraduate Pilot Training

(UPT), and non-aircrew technical training has been established by several

studies, summarized below.

Undergraduate Navigator Training (UNT). The Navigator-Technical

composite is one of the primary selectors for UNT. A study by Shanahan and

Kantor (1986) evaluated all the AFOQT composites against four UNT standards.

The criterion measures were training outcome (graduation/elimination),

24
average classroom lesson score, average simulator lesson score, ana average

flying lesson score. All of the AFOQT composites were found to correlate

significantly with the graduation/elimination performance measure. The

correlations for the composites with that measure, uncorrected for range

restriction on the tests, were between .10 and .19, all significant at

p < .01.

UNT classroom lesson and UNT simulator lesson grades were also well

predicted by the composites, especially by Quantitative (uncorrected r = .40

and .32, respectively). The Pilot and Navigator-Technical composite scores

were the most predictive for UNT flying lesson grades (uncorrected r = .21

and .24, respectively).

The results of hierarchical regression analyses provided evidence that

when Navigator-Technical scores were combined with Quantitative scores, the

prediction of the various performance criteria was improvpd. The multiple

correlations (R) thus obtained were .20 for graduation/elimination, .43 for

classroom less-n grades, .34 for simulator lesson grades, and .26 for flying

lesson grades.

A study of the validity of AFOQT subtests and composites for 632 UNT

attendees was conducted by Arth, Steuck, Sorrentino, and Burke (in

preparation). The AFOQT subtests with the highest correlations (corrected

for restriction of range) with a UNT pass/fail measure were MK (.21),

AR (.23), BC (.24), and SR (.25). The Pilot, Navigator-Technical, and

Quantitative composites had corrected correlations with UNT outcome of

.25, .27, and .23, respectively.

Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT). Candidates for OTS and UPT who do

not have a private pilot license must successfully complete the Flight

Screening Program (FSP) prior to entering OTS. The validity of the Pilot

composite in predicting UPT outcome for 719 attendees of FSP and UPT between

1982 and 1986 was investigated by Sawin (1987). The AFOQT Form 0 Pilot

composite percentile score had a statistically significant correlation with

UPT outcome (uncorrected r = .15, p < .001).

Arth et al. (in preparation) studied the validity of the various AFOQT

subtests and composites in predicting UPT outcome for 695 officers. The

subtests that best predicted the UPT pass/fail outcome were Instrument

Comprehension (corrected r = .38) and Aviation Information (corrected

r = .30), both of which also have face validity for pilot tasks. The Pilot

and Navigator-Technical scores were the best predictors among the composites

of UPT outcome, with corrected r's of .30 and .24, respectively.

Non-Rated Technical Training. AFOQT data were obtained for 9,029

non-aircrew officers who attended 29 entry-level and 8 advanced non-rated

technical training courses (TTC) between October 1979 and December 1983

(Arth, 1986b). The AFOQT composites, categorized as either Rated (Pilot and

Navigator-Technical) or Non-Rated (Academic Aptitude, Verbal, and

Quantitative) were all correlated with final TTC grades, although only the

non-rated composites are used for selection in this context. Most of the

course grades were well predicted by all composites, entry-level courses

particularly. The correlations between composites and grades ranged from

25
.01 to .62, with the most frequent intervals being .31 to .40 (59

correlations) and .41 to .60 (57 correlations). The Academic Aptitude

composite, with 28 correlations of .31 to .5j, predicted course grades best,

on the whole. The Navigator-Technical composite was the next best predictor,

with 24 correlations that ranged from .31 to .62. The correlations reported

were uncorrected for the range restriction in test score variance resulting

from preselection of the officer samples on AFOQT measures.

Improvements in prediction were achieved for the non-rated composites by

combining them. For 20 of the 37 courses, a linear combination of Verbal

and Quantitative scores predicted final grades significantly better than did

the single composites. Another noteworthy result was that in tne cases ot

Air Traffic Control and one Intelligence class, the Pilot and

Navigator-Technical scores predicted grades better than did the non-rated

composites, singly or in combination.

Air Weapons Controllers. The development of a selection strategy to

improve the success rate of Air Weapons Controllers during training and in

field assignments entailed obtaining predictive validity statistics for 9bb

students at five organizations responsible for training Air Weapons

Controllers (Finegold & Rogers, 1985). Pearson product-moment correlations

were computed between the AFOQT composites and criteria consisting of

academic grade, success (i.e., pass or fail), and student class rank. All

of the AFOQT composites were significantly related to all of the performance

criteria at the p < .01 level. Academic Aptitude was the most consistently

successful compoSire in predicting student performance, with its

correlations ranging from .26 to .38. The Navigator-Technical composite was

the next most successful predictor, with correlations from .23 to .39. The

performance criterion best predicted by all composites was class ranking.

Validity Generalization for Non-Rated Officers. As a preliminary

attempt to assess the comparability of AFOQT validity across test forms,

Hartke and Short (1988) conducted a Schmidt-Pfunter meta-analysis on 47

different validity coefficients obtained for AFOQT Academic Aptitude

composite scores against technical training grades. The Schmidt-Hunter

procedure calculates a weighted mean validity coefficient corrected for

study differences in range restriction and predictor/criterion reliability,

and variance due to sampling error, among other differential effects. The

weighted mean validity coefficient is assumed to be the best estimate of

true validity if the variance in correlation coefficients attributable to

sampling error and other study effects accounts for most (>75%) of the

observed variance in the set of effects.

The AA composite score data were collected from studies in which either

several AFOQT forms were involved (L, M, N, and 0) or there was no

information as to which form was used. Therefore, in this preliminary

study, the question of validity generalizability across forms could not be

answered. Predictor and criterion reliability data and score variance were

also not available, precluding corrections for these factors. Nevertheless,

the meta-analysis could be conducted to determine the generalizability of AA

across all jobs in the sample, and subgroups of jobs for major occupational

groupings.

26
The results of this study indicated that true validity was not tile same

across all job titles, because although a weighted mean correlation ot .J9

was obtained, sampling error accounted for only 33% of the variance. The

wide range of job occupations in the sample probably accounted for this

result to a large extent. For the four major occupational subgroups

studied, observable sampling error variance was higher, but exceeded 7Z.o tor

only one subgroup studied, Intelligence and Security Police. The

meta-analysis for this subgroup produced a weighted mean correlation of .44,

with 100 percent of the observed variance attributable to sampling error.

At this time, then, the AA composite's validity can be considered to be the

same for all occupations within only the Intelligence and Security Police

subgroup. The results of this study also indicate that although AA validity

varies across Air Force specialties, the individual true validities will

vary around the mean weighted validity coefficient of .39. Planned

meta-analysis research on the AFOQT will include all the composites, larger

data sets, more complete information on test forms and test statistics, and

more homogeneous job title groups.

Construct Validity

In psychological testing, a "construct" is a meaningful attribute (e.g.,

anxiety; verbal ability) that is hypothesized to operate dimensionally in

human behavior. Thus, there are supposedly differing levels of "anxiety"

and "verbal ability." Construct validity can support the existence or such

theoretical dimensions through several techniques that demonstrate how tests

hypothesized to measure the same construct will group together. Whereas the

predictive validity of a personnel selection test such as the AFOQT provides

thc most ,,npeling evidence to supporL inferences regarding tie test's

utility, construct validity can confirm the nature of the attribute being

measured. A variety of statistical evidence supports the constructs or tue

AFOQT subtests and composites. These include factorial validity of the

subtests, intercorrelations of relatively homogeneous subtests, and

correlations with non-military tests and measures.

Factorial Validity. A factor analysis of AFOQT Form 0 was conducted for

a random sample of 3,000 examinees to determine the dimensions underlying

the 16 subtests (Skinner & Ree, 1987). Five factors identified in thle

results strongly suggested the factor names of Verbal, Quantitative, Space

Perception, Aircrew Interest/Aptitude, and Perceptual Speed.

Verbal Analogies, Reading Comprehension, and Word Knowledge were tile

tests that clearly defined the Verbal Factor (i.e., hau the highest loanings

on Factor I). Math Knowledge, Arithmetic Reasoning, and Data interpretation

clearly identified the Quantitative factor. Factor III, Space Perception,

was composed of Rotated Blocks, Block Counting, Electrical Maze, Iicuen

Figures, and Mechanical Comprehension. Factor IV, Aircrew Interest/Aptitude

was best defined by Aviation Information and instrument Compreiension. f'ie

Perceptual Speed factor included the speeded subtests, Table Reading anc

Scale Reading. The AFOQT test constructs identified by tuese tactor names

appear to h-ve been well validated by the types ot tests that lorraed eacth

f actor.

27
Subtest Intercorrelations. Subtest intercorrelations for AFOQT Form P,

obtained from officer applicant samples ot 3,21b for Form P1 and 2,97b for

Form P2, varied from .16 to .76. With samples this large, even the smaller

correlations are significant and indicate that all the subtests are

measuring something in common. The commonalities might be due to general

ability and the basic verbal ability required to read test instructions,

together with the ability to follow those instructions in detail. What is

of interest with respect to construct validity is whether tests measuring

similar attributes have high correlations with each other, but low

correlations with measures of hypothetically dissimilar aptitudes. The

subtest intercorrelation matrices for Forms P1 and P2 in Appendix E provide

evidence of such validity for the constructs suggested by the AFOQT factor

a nalysis.

The verbal aptitude construct in tfie AFOQT appears dirc-tly or by

implication in the subtest names of Verbal Analogies (VA), Word Knowledge

(W<), and Reading Comprehension (RC). The highest intercorrelations

obtained for these three subtests are with each other. The lowest

correlations for these verbal subtests are with Electrical Maze (EM), a

subtest that one can intuitively perceive as requiring little verbal power

for its accurate responses. The verbal construct seems to be well

established. Relatively high correlations are often observed between verbal

subtests and math or scientific types of subtests on multiple aptitude

batteries. It can be convincingly argued that math and science problems do

requie verbalization to some degree; hence, the moderately high

correlations obtained between these subtest types on Form P.

The quantitative aptitude construct suggested by the factor analysis was

defined by the Arithmetic Reasoning (AR), Data Interpretation (DI) and Math

Knowledge (MK) subtests. These subtests tend to correlate more highly with

each other than with other subtests. The lowest correlations of AR, DI, and

MK are with Aviation Information (AI) (.20 to .34). The AI test is a

knowledge test that does not require mathematical reasoning.

The construct identified as aptitude for space perception relies on five

subtests for its definition: Electrical Maze (EIM), Block Counting (BC),

Rotated Blocks (RB), Hidden Figures (HF), and Mecianical Comprehension

(MC). Appendix E indicates tnat these subtests in both Forms P1 and P2

correlate highly with each other (< .39), and with the Scale Reading

subtest, which also measures visual-perceptual sKills. Tne lowest

correlations typically found for the tests defining the space perception

construct were with WK and Al, subtests that clearly do not require

spatial-perceptual skill.

The construct of aircrew interest/aptitude is supported by the

intercorrelations of MC, IC, Al, and GS. These range from .45 to .65. The

content of tilese subtests appears to be appropriate to the interests and

aptitudes involved in successful aircrew worK. Certain subtests have low

correlations with Al but have moderate to high correlations with the other

Subtests supporting tnis construct (14F, SR, NK, and E1). The aircrew

interest/aptituide construct appears to b a complex one that does not exclude

to a great extent tUe other aptitudes measured by the AFOQT.

26
Perceptual speed was the last construct suggested by the factoi.

analysis. The subtests whose descriptions support this construct, Table

Reading (TR) and Scale Reading (SR), were well correlated (r = .53 and .55

on Form PI and Form P2, respectively); but SR, which has computational

components, was more highly correlated with subtests involved in the

quantitative construct. TR also correlated well with BC, probably in part

due to BC's perceptual aspect. Also, the BC test has been shown to have a

speeded component (Skinner & Ree, 1967). The subtests with the lowest

correlations with TR and SR were AI and WK, neither of which requires

perceptual speed to respond to its items.

For the most part, data from the subtest intercorrelations show validity

for the AFOQT constructs in that subtests requiring similar skills tended to

be more highly correlated with each other than with other subtests, and in

that the lowest intercorrelations tended to be between subtests that purport

to require few, if any, of the same skills.

Correlations with Civilian Tests. A study was conducted to determine

the extent to which the AFOQT composites correlate with similar measures in

the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and the ACT composite of the American

College Testing Program (Diehl, 1986). The subjects were AFROTC cadets

entering the Professional Officer Course during Fiscal Year 19b5 (FY8O).

Analyses were conducted for 1,907 cadets tested on both the AFOQT and SAT

and for 1,240 cadets tested on both the AFOQT and ACT.

The highest correlations for the AFOQT composites were found between the

Academic Aptitude compnsite and similar composites derived from the cadets'

combined performance on the verbal and math sections of the civilian

batteries (Table 8). The AFOQT Academic Aptitude composite showed

a correlation of .80 with the ACT Composite and with the SAT Composite.

Correlations between the part scores were only slightly lower. The AFOQT

Verbal and Quantitative composites correlated .77 and .71, respectively,

with their SAT counterparts SAT Verbal and SAT Math. Scores on the

Navigator-Technical composite, which includes the subtests of the

Quantitative composite, also related highly to performance on the SAT Math

composite (r = .61). Some correlations were substantially lower, as might

be expected- For example, the Pilot and Navigator-Technical composites did

not correlate highly with the SAT and ACT Verbal composites, probably

because there is little overlap in test content.

Table 8. Correlations of AFOQT Form 0 Composites

with Civilian Tests

AFOOT composite ACT composite SAT composite SAT verbal SAT math

Pilot .416 .400 .237 .449

Navigator-Technical .566 .547 .326 .614

Academic Aptitude .804 .801 .716 .6b7

Verbal .681 .702 .772 .473

Quantitative .683 .660 .429 .710

29
The high =zrrelaticnc between the AFOQT compesites and their

contenL-parallel composites in prominent civilian tests provide additional

confirmation of the construct validity of the AFOQT.

IV. ADMINISTRATION AND SCORING

Administration

Testing Locations

AFOQT testing locations include Military Entrance Processing Stations

(MEPS), Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps detachments on university

campuses, and Consolidated Base Personnel Offices (CBPOs) on military

installations. The annual testing load is approximately 35,000 to 40,000

examinees.

Administrators

Test administration is conducted and monitored by Personnel Technicians

(Air Force Specialty Code 73270). Qualifications for the Test Control

Officers (TCOs), who supervise and monitor on-site testing programs, include

attainment of the rank of Master Sergeant or higher. Test Examiners (TEs)

responsible for actual administration must be at least Staff Sergeant

selectees. Training activities for TEs include familiarization with testing

regulations (AFR 35-8, Air Force Military Personnel Testing System, and AFR

30-17, Safeguarding CONTROLLED ITEM (Test Material) Information) and review

of the manual for administration (Department of the Air Force, 1987b). The

manual specifies requirements for the testing environment and preparation of

testing materials. The local TCO supervises practice testing sessions with

the TE. TCOs at Air Force major commands, as well as the Inspector General,

ensure local TCOs comply with standards for testing conditions and

administration procedures as specified in AFR 35-8 and the manual for

administration.

Standardized Procedures

Information Pamphlet. Prior to testing, examinees receive an

Information Pamphlet (Department of the Air Force, 1987a) to acquaint them

with the nature of the AFOQT. The pamphlet describes the purpose, content,

and schedule of the test and presents five sample items with answers for

each subtest.

Test Environment. A space of 15 square feet (inclusive of aisles) per

examinee is required. Desks are arranged for efficient test distribution

and collection. Minimum standards of lighting and ventilation must be met,

and all examinees must be visible to the TE. If waivers are requested for

testing facilities that are below standard, the request must include

documentation which describes the actions to be taken to counteract the

deficiences. If test interruptions such as power failure occur, the TE

provides instructions to the examinees with respect to handling of test

booklets and test rescheduling. In such cases, the TE collects and

safeguards the test materials.

30
Directions. Examiners at all testing sites are directed to deliver tie

test directions exactly as stated in the manual for administration. Each

testing session begins with the TE's verifying each examinee's identity and

having the examinee sign a test roster. The TE then distributes all

necessary testing materials (i.e., test booklet, answer sheet, and pencil).

The test purpose and rules and schedule of testing are explained. Each

examinee is requested to certify, by signing the answer sheet, that he or

she is physically fit to take the examination. Otherwise, the examinee is

excused and rescheduled for a later testing date. Following collection of

biographic and military personnel data, a Privacy Act Statement is read.

This statement describes the authority to conduct AFOQT testing (10 Unitea

States Code 508, 509, and 510, and Executive Order 9397), the principal

purpose for collection of personal identity infimation including Social

Security Number, and routine uses of the scores. imxaminees are informed

that disclosure of personal information is voluntary but that refusal could

result in denial of a military commission. Finally, testing commences with

subtests being administered according to the schedule shown in Table 9. The

total amount of time required to administer the AFOQT is approximately 4.5

hours.

Table 9. Testing Schedule

Administration time Testing time Total time

(in minutes) (in minutes) (in minutes)

Pretpst Activities 24 24

Verbal Analogies 1 8 9

Arithmetic Reasoning 1 29 30

Reading Comprehension 1 18 19

Data Interpretation 1 24 2j

Word Knowledge 1 5 b

Math Knowledge 1 22 23

Break 10 10

Mechanical Comprehension 1 22 23

Electrical Maze 3 10 13

Scale Reading 3 15 18

Instrument Comprehension 3 6 9

Block Counting 2 3 5

Table Reading 2 7 9

Aviation Information 1 6 9

Rotated Blocks 2 13 15

General Science 1 10 11

Hidden Figures 2 8 10

Collection of Materials 2

TOTAL TIME REQUIRED 1 hr 2 min 3 lirs 26 min 4 tirs 30 min

31
Test Security

The office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) for test administration,

scoring, and reporting of results for the AFOQT is the Personnel Testing

Branch, Personnel Measurement Division, Headquarters Air Force Military

Personnel Center (IHQ AFMPC/DPMYOT), Randolph AFB, Texas. Administrative

direction and oversight are provided to about 500 TCOs assigned throughout

the Continental United States and overseas.

Test material and data are treated as confidential and are released only

to authorized personnel. Further, provisions are made to prevent test

compromise and to ensure scores are not obtained by fraudulent means. TCOs

and TEs are fully advised of their responsibility for securing materials and

scores and of potential punitive action that may ensue due to test

compromise or loss of materials. All test administration personnel are

informed that they are subject to administrative/disciplinary action under

Lhe Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) as specified in AFR 30-17, which

relates to test compromise or loss of materials. TCOs and TEs may not take

a test which they have administered, or to whica they have access, without

prior approval from IIQ AFMPC/DPMYO[ or until 6 months have elapsed since

access to the test.

TCOs and TEs are responsible for safeguarding and/or retaining personal

control of test materials at all times and must adhere to regulatory

procedures for reporting any examinee misconduct detected. Examinee

activities that constitute test compromise are described to examinees prior

to testing.

Scoring

Af (% Scoring Procedure

Official scores used for Air Force personnel decisions are derived and

,eporteIbyi Hy At'PC/DPMYOT to recruiters, detachment commanders, and other

authorized users. hxaminees record their test responses on machine-scannable

an:,wer sheets. After testing, TEs forward the answer sheets from the

testing site for processing at a central facility maintained by HQ

Ai,'PC/i)PM.rYOT. Scoring accuracy is verified by periodic checks of the

cnlibration of the scanning device, and of associated scoring and reporting

software, using two procedures: (a) processing of "dummy" answer sheets

with known scores, and (b) hand-scoring of examinees' answer sheets. Due

to the proven accuracy of the computerized processing procedures, requescs

for hand-scoring and rescoring are usually denied. In anticipation of the

possibility that scores might be challenged, however, answer sheets are

retained for a period of 6 months after testing, along with microfiche

records and tape files of scores and item responses.

The turnaround time for official scoring and reporting is about 2

weeks. In the interim, recruiters at the MIEPS are authorized to use an

alternative scoring procedure to estimate how well an applicant will perform

on the AFV T. The scoring procedure approved for use with Form P is called

)L:,irk Scor-."

32
Quick Score

Prescreening of applicants for OTS or the AFROTC is an undertaking to

reduce the costs associated with applicant processing. Recruiters can use

the unofficial "Quick Score" estimates to make decisions about how to manage

applicants while waiting to receive official AFOQT results from HQ

AFMPC/DPMYOT. For example, the applications of high-scoring examinees who

are most likely to meet Air Force aptitude entry requirements may be

expedited.

Several earlY versions of a prescreening test were previously developea

for predicting AFOQT scores. The Air Force Precommissioning Sreening Test

(AFPST), a screening test for selection to navigator training and to the Air

Force Academy Preparatory School, was a short version of the Officer Quality

composite (now known as the Academic Aptitude composite of the AFOQT)

(Valentine, 1961). The AFPST, renamed the Pre-Enrollment Test, was revised

and implemented in 1965, and underwent further revision in 1967 (Miller,

1966, 1968). The Pre-Enrollment Test was discontinued in April 1969.

The need for a prescreening device recurred in the early 1960s witu the

implementation of AFOQT Form 0. Unlike the AFPST and the Pre-Enrollment

Test, which were separate and shorter versions of the AFOQT, the Officer

Screening Composites developed for Form 0 used a subset of the items in tthe

operational battery (Rogers, 1985).

The Officer Screening Composites were used from July 1982 until August

1988, when Form P became the operational officer selection test. At that

time, HQ AFMPC/DPYOT requested that the applicant prescreening procedure be

updated. Research was initiated by the Air Force Human Resources Laboratory

to improve the prescreening procedure for Form P.

The development of the Form P Quick Score is described at length by

Sperl (1988) and by Sperl and Ree (1989). Briefly, two tecnniques for

selecting a subset of items from the AFOQT battery for the QuicK Score

composites were compared for predictability of scores on the full-length

test and for gender and ethnicity effects. One technique identified items

from each subtest by random selection; the second identified items with the

highest item-subtest point biserial correlations, a strategy similar to that

used to construct the Form 0 Officer Screening Composites.

Results favored the random item selection methodology. Although the two

techniques (random and point biserial) both yield Quick Score composites

which correlate well with examinees' scores on the corresponding composite

derived from the full-length test, the random item selection technique shows

considerably less bias in prediction for gender and ethnic groups. Another

improvement offered by the use of the Form P Quick Score composites over the

Form 0 Officer Screening Composites concerns the representativeness of test

coverage. Selected subtests were excluded in the development of the Form 0

prescreening device; the Quick Score for Form P represents all subtests in

proportion to their relative contributions to the total item count on the

full-length test.

33
Quick Score composites based on tOe random item selection technique were

recommended for implementation to HQ AFMMPC/DPMYOT. Additional analyses were

conducted to express or convert Quick Score composites to the percentile

metric used to report results on the five full-length AFOQT composites. The

needs of recruiters, who are the primary users of the Quick Score composites,

were a major consideration. Recruiters had expressed dissatisfaction with

tihe Form 0 conversion method, which used a confidence interval method to

establish the range of percentile scores within which raw scores from

short-form scoring were expected to fall (Rogers, 1985). The alternate

procedure used for Form P is an expectancy table. It reports the percentage

of examinees obtaining a given value on the Quick Score composite who are

expected to reach or exceed selected percentiles on the corresponding AFOQT

composite. Manuals were also deveJoped to instruct TEs on the correct

procedures for computing the Quick Score composite scores and to guide

recruiters in the proper interpretation of the scores using the expectancy

tables (Department of the Air Force, 1989a, 1989b).

Qualifying Scores. In the first stage of applying to AFROTC or OTS, all

examinees take all of the AFOQT. The minimum AFOQT composite scores needed

to qualify for acceptance are the 15th percentile for Verbal (V) and the

10th percentile for Quantitative (Q). To qualify for pilot/helicopter

training, an applicant must achieve a minimum Pilot Composite (P) score at

the 25th percentile a:id a minimum Navigator-Technical Composite (N-T) score

aL the 10th percentile. Also. the ex3minee's combined P and N-T scores must

be at Least at the 50th per,:entii> (AFR 51-4). That is, if only the minimum

score is achieved on one of the two composites, the applicant must

compensate with a higher score on the other composite in order to achieve

the 50thi percentile on the combined scores.

To qualify for navigator training, the applicant must achieve a minimum

N-T score corresponding to the 25th percentile, a minimum P score at the

LOth percentile, and a combined N-T and P score at the 50tii percentile.

Reporting Scores. Scores are reported to the test-taker verbally or in

ihe, form of a letter, or by a copy of a Report on Individual Personnel

(R P). individual CBPOs report scores to Active Duty Air Force, National

Guard, and Air Force Reserve personnel. The recruiter at a MEPS reports

scores to the civilian applicants. The scores of ROTC cadets are sent to HQ

AFROT C.

Score Interpretation. The selection and commissioning of officers from

O1S and AFROTC are directly affected by the operational use of AFOQT

scores. Proper understanding and utilization o1 these scores is therefore

of high importance. The predictive information provided by AFOQT scores is

combined with other data (such as physical fitness and eu,wational

attainment, among others) that help to determine personnel decisions. The

AF(OOT provides information regarding a candidate's aptitudes for a specified

program. In some programs, failing to achieve an established AFOQT minimum

score can be a sufficient reason for rejecting a candidate (Artlh, 1985).

xLtensive studies have determined the specific combinations of subtests

that maximize the prediction for certain types of trairitig. Computer

scoring yields the five AFOQI composites that represent these subtest

34
combinations. With respect to interpretation, Air Force personnel who use

the scores to make selection decisions about officer applicants receive a

briefing that includes composite descriptions, tae meaning of percentiles,

and the score levels that are considered competitive. Test-takers who

request score interpretation receive an explanation of their percentiles;

that is, where they rank relative to all other examinees in the normative

sample on the various composites.

Because of the way in which the AFOQT is constructed, it is possible to

compare the score differences of different examinees on the same composite,

and those of the same examinee on different composites. Care is taken in

inferring strengths and weaknesses from the score differences, however.

Because the score differences may be a result of chance, their proportion in

excess of chance must be estimated before diagnostic inferences are drawn.

V. SUPPLEMENTAL SOURCES OF AFOQT INFORMATION

Points of Contact for the AFOQT

The three major Air Force agencies involved on a day-to-day basis with

the AFOQT testing program are listed below. The functional responsibilities

of the agencies differ as shown.

1. HQ United States Air Force

Directorate of Personnel Plans

Policy Division

Washington, DC 20330

Develops plans, policies, and procedures to implemnent and monitor the AFOQT.

Establishes and coordinates testing requirements and procedures needed to

implement Air Force officer procurement policies.

2. HQ Air Force Military Personnel Center (AFMPC)

Personnel Measurement Division

Randolph AFB, TX 78150-5000

Executes test policy and oversees the operational program (test printing,

distribution, administration, scoring, reporting, security).

3. Air Force Human Resources Laboratory (AFHRL)

Manpower and Personnel Division

Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5601

Performs research to support the operational test and testing program. Is

responsible for test development and revision. Develops, analyzes, and

evaluates tests and associated materials (e.g., Administration Manual, Quick

Score). Conducts continuing research and development to ensure the use of

the AFOQT and its psychometric adequacy for officer selection and

classification decisions.

35
AFOQT Bibliography

In addition to the references cited in this manual, a bibliography of

selected references relative to the AFOQT is given in Appendix G. Most of

the references were extracted from a longer list of publications compiled by

Cowan and Sperl (1989). Their paper covers 50 years (1937-1966) of resea-ch

on selection and classification of U.S. military officers, encompassing many

topics in addition to the AFOQT.

The AFOQT bibliography is arranged chronologically by report date from

1950 (about the time that Form A was introduced) to the present, providing

material of interest both to those readers interested in gaining an

historical perspective on the test and to those concerned primarily with the

recent or current officer testing program. Most of the reports focus on

AFOQT development, standardization, and validation topics.

Readers may obtain copies of the reports from:

(Qualified requesters--Department of Defense personnel and registered

DTIC users)

Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC)

Cameron Station

Alexandria, VA 22304-6145

Commercial (202) 274-7633

AUTOVON 284-7633

(Private sector requesters)

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

Commercial (703) 487-4650
References

Air Force Regulation (AFR) 30-17. (23 Jun 89). Safeguarding Controlled

Item (Test Material) Iiformation. Washington, DC: Department of tile

Air Force.

Air Force Regulation (AFR) 35-8. (25 Apr 83). Air Force military personnel

testing system. Washington, DC: Department of the Air Force.

Air Force Regulation (AFR) 51-4. (25 Aug 86). Application procedures for

undergraduate flying training (UFT). Washington, DC: Department of the

Air Force.

Allen, M. J., & Yen, W. M. (1979). Introduction to measurement theory.

Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Arth, T.O. (1985). United States Air Force Officer Qualifying Test Manual

for interpretation (updated through AFOQT Form 0). Unpublished

manuscript.

Arth, T.O. (1986a). Air Force Officer Qualifying Test (AFOQT) Retesting

effects (AFHRL-TP-86-8, AD-A168 926). Brooks AFB, TX: Manpower and

Personnel Division, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.

Arth, T.O. (1986b). Validation of the AFOQT for non-rated officers

(AFHRL-TP-85-50, AD-AI64 134). Brooks AFB, TX: Manpower and Personnel

Division, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.

Arth, T.O., Steuck, K.W., Sorrentino, C.T., & Burke, E.F. (in preparation).

Air Force Officer Qualifying Test (AFOQT): Predictors of undergraduate

pilot training and undergraduate navigator training success. Brooks

AFB, TX: Manpower and Personnel Division, Air Force Human Resources

Laboratory.

Berger, F.R., Gupta, W.B., Berger, R.M., & Skinner, J. (1988). Air Force

Officer Qualifying Test (AFOQT) Form P: Test construction

(AFHRL-TR-88-30, AD-A200 678). Brooks AFB, TX: Manpower and Personnel

Division, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.

Brown, D.C. (1987). Military officers: Commissioning sources and selection

criteria (HumRRO FD-PRD-87-42). Alexandria, VA: Human Resources

Research Organization.

Cowan, D.K., Barrett, L.E., & Wegner, T.G. (1990). Air Force Officer

Training School selection system validation (AFHRL-TR-89-65). Brooks

AFB, TX: Manpower and Personnel Division, Air Force Human Resources

Laboratory.

Cowan, D.K., Barrett, L.E., & Wegner, T.G. (1989). Air Force Reserve

Officer Training Corps selection system validation (AFHRL-TR-88-54).

Brooks AFB, TX: Manpower and Personnel Division, Air Force Human

Resources Laboratory.

17
Cowan, D.K., & Sperl, T. (1989). Selection and classification of United

States military officers: A fifty-year bibliography (1937-1986)

(AFHRL-TP-88-45, AD-A205 631). Brooks AFB, TX: Manpower and Personnel

Division, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.

Department of the Air Force (1987a, January). Air Force Officer Qualifying

Test information pamphlet (AFPT 997). Randolph AFB, TX: Air Force

Military Personnel Center.

Department of the Air Force (1987b, January). United States Air Force

Officer Qualifying Test: Manual for administration, Form P, versioas 1

& 2 (AFPT 983). Randolph AFB, TX: Air Force Military Personnel Center.

Department of the Air Force (1989a, January). United States Air Force

Officer Qualifying Test: Procedures for quick scoring Forms P (A guide

for test control officers) (AFPT 988). Randolph AFB, TX: Air Force

Military Personnel Center.

Department of the Air Force (1989b, January). United States Air Force

Officer Qualifying Test: Interpreting quick score composites for Forms

P (A guide for recruiters) (AFPT 989). Randolph AFB, TX: Air Force

Military Personnel Center.

Diehl, G.E. (1986). Correlations among SAT, ACT, AFOQT, and grade point

average. Unpublished manuscript.

Finegoll, L.S., & Rogers, D.L. (1985). Relationship between Air Force

Officer Qualifying Test scores and success in air weapons controller

training (AFHRL-TR-85-13, AD-A158 162). Brooks AFB, TX: Manpower and

Personnel Division, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.

Gould, R.B. (1978). Air Force Officer Qualifying Test Form N: Development

and standardization (AFHRL-TR-78-43, AD-A059 746). Brooks AFB, TX:

Personnel Research Division, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.

Hartke, D.D., & Short, L.O. (1988). Validity of the academic aptitude

composite of the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test (AFOQT)

(AFHRL-TP-87-61, AD-AI94 753). Brooks AFB, TX: Manpower and Personnel

Division, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.

Miller, R.E. (1966). Development of officer selection and classification

tests - 1966 (PRL-TR-66-5, AD-639 237). Lackland AFB, TX: Aerospace

Medical Division, Personnel Research Laboratory.

Miller, R.E. (1968). Development of officer selection and classification

tests - 1968 (AFHRL-TR-68-1049 AD-679 989). Lackland AFB, TX:

Personnel Research Division, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.

Millerr, R.L. (1969a). Interpretation and utilization of scores on the Air

Force Officer Qualifying Test (AFHRL-TR-69-103, AD-691 001). Lackland

AFro, TX: Personnel Research Division, Air Force Human Resources

la boratory.

38
Miller, R.E. (1969b). Interpretation and utilization of scores on the Air

Force Officer Qualifying Test (AFHRL-TR-69-103, AD-691 001). Lackland

AFB, TX: Personnel Research Division, Air Force Human Resources

Laboratory.

Miller, R.E. (1974). Development and standardization of the Air Force

Officer Qualifying Test Form M (AFHRL-TR-74-16, AD-778 837). Lackland

AFB, TX: Personnel Research Division, Air Force Human Resources

Laboratory.

Roach, B.W. (1986). The influence of college education on standardizea test

performance: Should multiple conversion scales be used? Paper

presented at the 10th Symposium of Psychology in the DoD, US Air Force

Academy, Colorado Springs, CO.

Roach, B.W., & Rogers, D.L. (1982). Development of the common metric.

Paper presented at the 8th Symposium of Psychology in the DoD, US Air

Force Academy, Colorado Springs, CO.

Rogers, D.L. (1985). Screening composites for Air Force officers (AFHRLTP-85-2, AD-A154 315). Brooks AFB, TX: Manpower and Personnel

Division, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.

Rogers, D.L., Roach, B.W., & Short, L.O. (1986). Mental ability testing in

the selection of Air Force officers: A brief historical overview

(AFHRL-TP-86-23, AD-173 484). Brooks AFB, TX: Manpower and Personnel

Division, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.

Rogers, D.L., Roach, B.W., & Wegner, T.G. (1986). Air Force Officer

Qualifying Test Form 0: Development and standardization

(AFHRL-TR-86-24, AD-A172 037). Brooks AFB, TX: Manpower and Personnel

Division, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.

Sawin, L.L. (1987). The validity of the AFOQT Pilot composite in predicting

UPT outcome for FSP attendees. Unpublished manuscript.

Shanahan, F.M., & Kantor, J.E. (1986). Basic navigator battery: An

experimental selection composite for undergraduate navigator training

(AFHRL-TR-86-3, AD-A168 857). Brooks AFB, TX: Manpower and Personnel

Division, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.

Skinner, J., & Ree, M.J. (1987). Air Force Officer Qualifying Test: Item

and factor analysis of Form 0 (AFHRL-TR- 6-b8, AD-A184 9/)). Brooks

AFB, TX: Manpower and Personnel Division, Air Force Human Resources

Laboratory.

Sperl, T.C. (1988). The development of Quick Score Composites for the Air

Force Officer Qualifying Test. Unpublished master's thesis, St. Mary's

University, San Antonio, TX.

39
Sperl, T.C., & Ree, M.J. (1989, August). Air Force Officer Qualifying Test

(AFOQT): Development of Quick Score Composites for Forms P1 and P2.

Paper presented at the 97th Annual Conterence ot the American

Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA.

Steuck, K.W., Watson, T.W., & Skinner, J. (1988). Air Force Officer

Qualifying Test (AFOQT): Forms P pre-implementation analyses and

eq:t!~'~~,AFIIR I TP- -, AD-PO0! 0). Br'w)ks AFB, TX: Manpower and

Persoanel Division, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.

Valentine, L.D., Jr. (1961). Development of the Air Force Precommission

Screening Test - 62 (ASD-TN-61-146, AD-269 527). Lackland AFB, TX:

Personnel Laboratory, Aeronautical Systems Division.

Valentine, L.D., Jr. (1977). Navigator-observer selection research:

Development of a new Air Force Officer Qualifying Test navigatortechnical composite (AFHRL-TR-77-36, AD-A042 689). Brooks AFB, TX:

Personnel Research Division, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.

Valentine, L.D., Jr., & Creager, J.A. (1961). Officer selection and

classification tests: Their development and use (ASD-TN-61-145, AD-269

827). Lackland AFB, TX: Personnel Laboratory, Aeronautical Systems

D ivision.

Wherry, R.J., & Gaylord, R.H. (1943). The concept of test and item

reliability in relation to factor pattern. Psychometrika, 8, 247-264.
APPENDIX A: Content of Forms M, N, and 0 of the AFOQT

41
Table A-1. Content of AFOQT Form N (1975)

Compositesb

Subtesta Items P N-T OQ V Q

Booklet 1 (AFPT 972)

Quantitative Aptitude 60 X X X

Booklet 2 (AFPT 973)

Verbal Aptitude c 60 x x

Officer Biographical Inventory 96 x

Booklet 3 (AFPT 974)

Scale Reading d 48 x

Aerial Landmarksd 40 x

General Science 24 X

Booklet 4 (AFPT 975)

Mechanical Information 24 x x

Mechanical Principles 24 x x

Booklet 5 (AFPT 976)

Pilot Biographical Inventory 50 X

Aviation Information 24 x

Visualization of Maneuversd 24 X

Instrument Comprehensiond 24 x

Stick and Rudder Orientation 24 X

Total 522

aScale Reading and Aerial Landmarks are scored according to the number

right minus one-fourth the number wrong; Visualization of Maneuvers and

Instrument Comprehension are scored as the number right minus one-third the

number wrong. Other subtests are scored as number right only.

bComposites: Pilot (P), Navigator-Technical (N-T), Officer Quality

(OQ), Verbal (V), Quantitative (Q).

cNot administered to female applicants.

dSpeeded subtests.

42
Table A-2. Content of AFOQT Form N (1978)

Compositesb

Subtesta Items P N-T OQ V Q

Booklet 1 (AFPT 982)

Arithmetic Reasoning 25 X X x

Math Knowledge 25 X X X

Data Interpretation 25 X X X

Booklet 2 (AFPT 983)

Word Knowledge 25 x x

Reading Comprehension 25 x x

Background for Current Events 25 X X

Verbal Analogies 25 X X x

Booklet 3 (AFPT 984)

Table Readingc 50 x x

Electrical Mazec 30 x x

Block Countingc 80 X X

Scale Readingc 48 x x

Tonl.Q 25 X X

Mechanical Comprehension 24 X X

Booklet 4 (AFPT 985)

Rotated Blocks 20 X

Aerial Landmarksc 40 X

GeneraScience 24 X

Instrument Comprehensionc 24 x

Pilot Biographic and Attitude 66 X

Scale

Total 606

alnstrument Comprehension is scored according to the number right minus

one-third the number wrong; the remaining speeded subtests are scored as tie

number right minus one-fourth the number wrong. Other subtests are scored

as number right only.

bcomposites: Pilot (P), Navigator-Technical (N-T), Officer Quality

(OQ), Verbal (V), Quantitative (Q).

cSpeeded subtests.

43
Table A-3. Content of AFOQT Form 0 (1961)

Compositesb

Subtesta Items P N-T AA V

Verbal Analogies 25 X X X

Arithmetic Reasoning 25 X X X

Reading Comprehension 25 X X

Data Interpretation 25 X X X

Word Knowledge 25 X X

Math Knowledge 25 X X X

Mechanical Comprehension 20 X X

Electrical Maze 20 X X

Scale Reading 40 X X

instrument Comprehension 20 X

Block Counting 20 X X

Table Reading 40 X X

Aviation Information 20 X

Rotated Blocks 15 X

General Science 20 X

Hidden Figures 15 X

Total 380

aAll subtests are scored as number right only. No subtests are

specifically designated as speeded because all subtests contain elements of

both power and speed.

bComposites: Pilot (P), Navigator-Technical (N-T), Academic Aptitude

(AA), Verbal (V), Quantitative (Q).

44
APPENDIX B: United States Air Force Officer Qualifying Test

Information Pamphlet: Subtest Sample Items

45
PART I

Verbal Analogies

IIREC''IONS: This part of the test measures your ability to reason and see rela

tionhips between words. You are to choose the answer that best completes the

analogy developed at the beginning of each question.

1. FINGER is to HAND asTOOTH is to

1-A tongue.

1-B lips.

I-C nose.

I-) mouth.

i-E molar.

2. RACQUET is to COURT as

2-A tractor is to Field.

2-B blossom is to bloom.

2-C stalk is to prey. 2-D plan is to strategy. 2-E moon is to planet.

3. SWEATER is to CLOTHES as

3-A bottle is to cork.

3-B hand is to finger. 3-C shoe is to foot.

3-D rose is to flowers.

3-E dog is to cat.

4. ROW is to BOAT as SAIL is to

4-A ocean.

4-B navigate.

4-C rudder.

4-) ship.

4-E travel.

5. FLY is to AIRPLANE as

5-A drive is to stake.

5-B skate is to sltde.

5-C push is to fall.

5-) swim is to fluat.

5-E rod is ti h,,,k

46
PART2

Arithmetic Reasoning

)IRECTIONS: This part of the test measures mathematical reasoning. It is

concerned with your ability to arrive at solutions to problems. Each problem is

followed by Five possible answers. Decide which one of the Five answers is most

nearly correct.

1. A field with an area of 420 square 4. An Air Force recruitini station

yards is twice as iarge in area as a enlisted 450 people. Of these. 2,0!& second Field. If the second field is 15 were under 20 years old and .32,- yards long, how wide is it? were 21) to 22 years old. How manv,f

the recruits were over 22 years ld?

I-A 7 yards

I-B 14 yards 4-A 1:30

1-C 28 yards 4-B 140

I-D 56 yards 4-C 175

1-E 90 yards 4-D 180

4-E 270

A passenger plane can carry two tons

of cargo. A freight plane can carry 5. Ifan aircraft travels at 564 miles per five tons of cargo. If an equal number hour, how far did the aircraft fly in

of both kinds of planes are used to 900 seconds?

ship 105 tons of cargo and each plane

carries its maximum cargo load, how .5-A 141 miles

many tons of cargo are shipped on the -5-B 226 miles

passenger planes? 5-C 300 miles

5-D 451 miles

2-A 15.0 tons 5-E 846 miles

2-B 30.0 tons

2-C 42.0 tons

2-D 52,5 tons

2-E 75.0 tons

3. A typist took three typing tests. The

average typing speed on these three

tests was 48 words per minute. If the

typist's speed on two of these tests

was 52 words per minute, what was

the typist's speed on the third test?

3-A 46 words per minute

3-B 44 words per minute

3-C 42 words per minute

3-D 4,) w, rd per min u te

3-E -l w, rd, po r on in uto

47
PART 3

Retading Comprehension

m) I(-1 IO,.) : Vhii, pri t & h- tL't m easures your ability to) read and understand

Kir1-, Froc qklk-U(h1 pstm ire to coethe answer tha best curpletes the

I It th- 1, al tiv~i, i4:nhtiti,) like other str-.mu%-t achieve

rItr I~~~ hirfn,nv -r cbhereriie mim~ing their C1IinpiinvInt piT~,he structural

.111 siti-th-n~i denients of an effective tirgarii/;itin formi themselves into aI

Lightl\ knot, highly cohe-, ye package. An ,rganrization whose parts are

dnitiIlivr cainnt carry Lit its, Iii,si If rmiritgers.are to design

Itj ri e nii tns.the) need Lt

I ifinply~ Jrg;inizitiia structurles

B ,l -m1 il raige, greaite r spei tIi ztiin ,l a)I

I - Tn1 hizv~ the fit oforgainiizational parts.

I-) nirdoce ire techniological inriwAimn5 .

-11, rcvluce the span ot control in the orgam/aiiton.

2. First, C1. stridiuri, Bitulinurn the bacterium that produces the poison, must be

present. TIhese hacteri a are widespread in the environment and are considered by

slane to) he everywhere, in fac't. Set-ond, the bacterium that produces the deadly

tixin moust he treaited toi an atmntosphere that's free of oxygen and tio temperatures

thit are JLI u." vini enough but riot too warm. 'Iho!se cundi tions have to be held

Irig enoogh fo(r the toyxin to develop. Acid will prevent the growth of the

0~in 01iani the production, if tix in1 The following condition is necessary for

I;(ttoihsin tot develop

2-A premsence- oixygen.

I- B I hrio- peril (1 d ftimre

2C 1rie mie it ac-d.

1-I) warm tern per~ito ri's

2-F txp sore tot i are bacteria

A. D~ue to )Lur hrt life s.pan of seventyiodd years it Is ertsy for human beings to

think )f vi rth as Ia phai et which never changes Yet we live oin ai dynamic planiet

with inany fctscontributing to charge. We k now that wind and rain erode

ind shaipfi iur p a net. Many thefr forces are aliso at work, such as volca nic

m ii Y. ttinpo rtiire nu 'Iii tiilns. and even extrate rrestrial in tiraction such as

nn)1tVi), inrid grai% iLttIo)ni 6)frces. 'Ihe earth, in actuality, is aI large rock

V-A i n .I stU it i nerttia;

V- II whit h iS, qit k ly ero~ding.

1C whim 1 1 ws, ig

I ) hi, It i it uh t to iif, tli fluLitin' iaUad by interplanetary

48
4. Mustela nigripes, the rarely seen black-footed ferret, is often confused with

Mustela putorius, the common European polecat. It is true that these two

mammals resemble each other in some ways. However, they are two distinct and

separate species with differences in color, body form, and other attributes. Who

knows how many sightings of the black-footed ferret

4-A were the result of seeing the European polecat running loose?

4-B were of species other than the common European polecat?

4-C were made of a related species of the same form and color?

4-D were instead sightings of the Mustela nigripes?

4-E were due to the European polecat destroying their habitat?

.5. One theory that explains the similarities between Mayan art and ancient

Chinese art is called "diffusion." This theory evolves from the belief that

invention is so unique that it happens only once, then is "diffused" to other

cultures through travel, trade, and war. This theory might explain why

5-A the airplane and birds both have wings.

5-B certain artifacts in Central America resemble those found in Southeast

Asia.

5-C most great art comes from Europe, where there is much travel between

countries.

5-D rivers in South America and Africa have some similar features.

5-E England, being so remote in the Middle Ages, is the only country to

have castles.

49
PART4

Data Interpretation

) RECTIONS: This part of the test measure your ability to interpret data from

rtibleta ind zraphs. Each table and graph is folilwed by two. three. or four questions

pertaining t,. that table or graph only.

Ration A Ration B Ration C Ration D

4.5 2.8 :3.5 6.2

6 .5 3.6 7.6 4.6

:33 4,9 5.3 5.2

4.9 7.1 5.5 6.1

5.8 3.7 4.1 7.0

2.5 5.1 6.7 3,9

4.2 6.0 4.5 5.9

4.7 4.7 6.5 7.1

3.8 6.1 5.7 ,5.9

5.3 5.0 5.9 8.1

45.5 49.0 55.3 60.0

Four groups of ten rabbits were each fed a complete commercial ration from birth

until 5 months of age. Each animal was weighed at birth and at five months. The

weight of the animal at birth was subtracted from its weight at five months. These

differences, in pounds. are shown above for each rabbit.

1. Which ration appears to be the best'?

1-A Ration A

1-B Ration B

I-C Ration C

t-D Ration D

2. The average weight gain of the rabbits fed Ration B is

2-A 4.55 lbs.

2-B 4.9 ,) lbs.

2-C 5 .5.3 l bs.

2-D 5.44 lbs.

2-E 6 00 lbs.

50
The ;ivrit. di'f,- rnc i Ir n e1ht g:iin het-. cn the -ruup of rabbittie, whu aned the niu.L and the gruup & ho gained the least was

3-A C),35 Lbs.

3-C u 47 b',.

3 -1) 1 10 .

,3-E I 4 1 b-.

4 he indr\ idul r.hbit -howing the least gain was fed

4-A Ration A

4-B Ratiwn B.

4-C Rati,.,n C.

4-D R. tin D

.5 The indiidual raibbit that gained the most weight gained

5-A 6m Ib

5-B B.5 Ibz.

5-C 7.1 lbs.

5-D 7.6 lbs.

5-E 8.1 tbs.

51
P'ARI5

Wo(rd Knowledge

M )V I( IOUNS': Iil, [VIrL 4 thc t,-L nw~tli-ri. vcr).imt oiprehensnin Involvingvu)Lr

lhitf, tIL' iiiiii"r- lru ~V T tri lL llln. tl k" ' a A I 1 1Ll tI-)ifl n, i~ the ins'tr 01A

I ,' 1 ,-, it n~ )h .I-, th o c I p i~ii \aIk- v rd

I -A cri j

I- I ; 11C L dfrusZd

I -C ddi h h

ch'I' t L I

'I-A 'LlI Ut

2-BI )l

'nf~ ti ue

2-1) ~ 2- F I

3-A L w,) d: i y,

3-Bl m)~t Vtuk

3-C) 'n* An th

AS D II- I1

4-11 lking wvt

4-f ' i dirt1y

4-1) .:nri Iv ilerit

.4 K mildly nraf~ti tud

5-( ' , r i i d

52
PART 6

Math Knowledge

I)II F ('*T( )NS: 'lhi part of the test rneasures your ability to use learned

ro:i he tii( ':tI rcA ti,)nhi >. Fach problem is folowtd by five possible answers.

I Xcdc Whi ,L[ch ' 0olthC five oin~wers is mo.t nearly correct.

1. The lfrst digit ofthe square root of 59043 is

I-A I I -B 2

1 -C :3

I-1) 4

2 The distance in miles around a circular course with a radius of 35 miles is (use

pi = 2Wi7

-2-A 1 16 miles.

2-C 220 miles.

2-1) 440 miles.

2-E 880 miles.

3. The expression "3 factorial" equals

3-A 1 9

3-B 16

3-C 6

3-) 9

-V 27

4 Solvtw tb)r x. 2x - 2X2

4-A 1 7

4-H 2 7

4-C 2

4-1) 7

4-E 14

5. The reclirocal of 5 is

5-A 0.1.

5-B 0.2,

5-C? 0.5.

5-1) 1.0.

5-F 2.0.

53
PART 7

Mechanical Comprehension

DIRECTIONS: This part of the test measures your ability to learn and reason with

mechanical terms. Choose the answer that best completes the statement. Also

included in this part of the test are diagrams of mechanical devices. Following each

diagram are several questions or incomplete statements, Study the diagram

carefully and select the choice that best answers the question or completes the

statement.

1. If gear R is the driver, at the moment shown,

gear S is

I-A not moving.

I-B jammed.

I-C moving at its highest speed.

1-D moving in the same direction as r

gear R.

I-E moving in the opposite direction

as gear R.

2. Which water wheel will turn for the longer time?

2-A R

2-B S

2-C Both wheels will turn for an

equal amount of time.

2-D Neither wheel will turn 3t all.

2-E This can't be determined from

the drawing.

3. As shaft S makes one complete turn from the position shown, C moves D

C

3-A left and then right. 3-B right and then left.

3-C up only.

3-D down only.

3-E upanddown.

54
A = 100 pounds 0 - 2 pounds

Smooth SmootSoot 300 Surface

Surface

(NOT IN EQUILIBRIUM)

4. Ii weight B is to slide to the right, whuL change must be made in the diagram?

4-A The slope ofthe inclined plane under A must be increased.

4-B The slope of the inclined plane under B must be increased.

4-C The radius of the inner pulley must be decreased.

4-D The radius of the inner pulley must be increased to a size nearer to

that of the outer pulley.

4-E The radius of the outer pulley must be twice that of the inner pulley.

A B

Weiyht -10 pounds

All Springs

Identical

10 poundis

5. Ten-pound weights are each suspended from a ceiling by three identical springs.

In A, the extension of each spring is

5-A nine times greater than in B,

5-B three times greater than in B.

5-C the same as in B.

5-D 1,3 less than in B.

5-E 1,9 less than in B

55
PART 8

Electrical Maze

IM) RICTIONS: This is a test f your ability to choose a correct path from among

evcral choices. In the picture below is a box with dots marked S and F. S is the

starting point, and F is the finishing point. You are to follow the line from S.

through the circle at the top of the picture, and back to F.

In the problems in tnis test, there will be five such boxes. Only one box will have

a line from the S, through the circle, and back to the F in the same box. Dots on the

lines show the only places where turns or direction changes can be made between

lines. If lines meet or cross where there is no dot, turns or direction changes cannot

be made. Now try sample problem Si.

SI.

A B C 0 E

The first box is the one which has the lne from S, through the circle, and back to F.

Therefore, A is the right answer.

56
Each diagram in the test has only one box which has a line through the circle and

back to F. Some lines are wrong because they lead to a dead end. Some lines are

wrong because they come back to the box without going through the circle. Some

lines are wrong because they lead to other boxes. Some are wrong because they

retrace the same line.

Now try sample problems S2 and S3.

S2. S3.

A B C D E A B C D E

For sample problem S2, the correct answer is D. For sample problem S3, the correct

answer is B.

2

A B C D E A B C D E

57
A B C D E A B C D E

A B C D E

58
PART 9

Scale Reading

DIRECTIONS: This is a test of your ability to read scales, dials, and meters. You

will be given a variety of ocales with various points indicated on them by numbered arrows. You are to estimate the numerical value indicated by each arrow, find the

choice closest to this value in the item havini the same numbers as the arrow, and

then mark your answer on a separate sheet of paper. Now look at the sample items

below.

SI. A 6.00

s1 B 5.00

C 4.25

1) 2.25

S0E 1.25

25 0 S2. A 13.0

B 12.0

C 10.2

sz D 1.3

E 1.2

S3. A 81.75

S1 H 79.5

C 78.75

D) 77.60

9E 67.50

0 3 S4. A 1.75

B 1.65

C 1.50

S4 I) .75

E .65

In sample item St there are five subdivisions of four steps each between 0 and 20.

The arrow points between the long subdivision markers representing 4 and 8. Since

it points to the marker that is one step to the right of subdivision marker 4. it points

to 5.00. This is choice B in sample item SI.

In sample item S2 the scale runs from right to left. There are ive subdivisions of

five steps each, so each step represents .1. and the arrow points to the marker

representing 1.2. This is choice E in sample item S2.

In sample item S3 the arrow points between two markers. You must estimate the

fractional part of the step as accurately as possible. Since the arrow points halfway

between the markers representing 77.5 and 80.0. it points to 78.75. This is choice C

in sample item S3.

In sample item S4 c,ch -,.cp represents .5. but the steps are of unequal width with

each step being two-thirdh .i wide as the preceding one. Therefore, the scale is

compressed as the valueb tncr.avt The arrow is pointing to a position halfway between the marker rt,pr.,.nting 5 nd 1.0, but because of the compression of the

scale the value o th p ,, l , . t br .',) . than 75. Actually, it is .65. which is choice

E in sample item 54

59
1. A 1:fl A 735

(/2

E i

T '7)

2. A

C 4

D) lit)

c3

3. A :3.1425t3

B1 3 375 7 TI C 1.275

L) :1.150

E 1.125 24

4

4. A 2.2 i

D 175

E , 13.24

5. A 2o.7

II 20.3

(219 9 D 19 3

E 19 .,.- -- 2 0

l6

60
PART 10

Instrument Comprehension

)IREC'TIONS: This test measures your ability to determine the position of an

airplane in flight from reading instruments showing its compass heading, its

amount of climb or dive. and its degree of bank to right or left. In each item the lefthand dial is labeled ARTIFICIAL HORIZON. On the face of this dial the small

aircraft silhouette remains stationary, while the positions of the heavy black line

and the black pointer vary with changes in the position of the airplane in which the

instrument is located.

The heavy black line represents the HORIZON LINE, and the black pointer

shows the degree of BANK to right or left.

If the airplane is diving,

If the airplane is climbing, '.he hurizon line is seen

the fuselage silhouette is between the fuselage seen between the horizon silhouette and the point

line and the pointer, as in er. as in dial 3, below.

If thr airplane is neither dial 2, below. The greater The greater the amount

climbing nor diving, the the amount of climb, the of dive, the greater the

horizon line is directly greater the distance be- distance between the on the silhouette's fuse- tween the horizon line and horizon line and the

lage, as in dial 1, below, the fuselage silhouette, fuselage silhouette.

ARTIFICIAL ARTIFICIAL ARTIFICIAL

HORIZON HORIZON HORIZON

Dial I DaI 2 Dial 3

If the airplane has no Ifthe airplane is banked to If the airplane is banked

bank, the black pointer the pilot's right, the to the pilot's left, the

is seen to point to zero, as pointer is seen to the left of pointer is seen to the

in dial 1. above, zero, as in dial 2, above, right of zero, as in dial 3,

above.

The HORIZON LINE tilts as the aircraft is banked and is always at right angles to

the pointer.

Dial 1 above shows an airplane neither climbing nor diving, with no bank.

Dial 2 above shows an airplane climbing and banking 45 degrees to the pilot's

ri ght.

Dial 3 above shows an airplane diving and banked 45 degrees to the pilot's left.

61
On each itten the right hand dial is labeled COMPASS. On this dial. the arrow

shows tht. onpats., J direction in which the airplane is headed at the moment. Dial 4

-,hows It heaIded rorth; dial 5 shows it headed west and dial 6 showws it headed

n rthwt.,t

0NN 

N

s S S

COMPASS COMPASS COMPASS

L I 4 DIal 1 6)iaI

Each item in this test consists of two dials and four silhouettes of airplanes in

flight. Your task is to determine which one of the four airplanes is MOST NEARLY

in the position indicated by the two dials. YOU ARtE ALWAYS LOOKING NORTH

AT THE SAME ALTITUDE AS EACH OF THE PLANES. EAST IS ALWAYS TO

YOUR RIGHIT AS YOU LOOK AT TIE PAGE. Item X is a sample. In item X the

dial labeled ARTIFICIAL HOIZON shows that the airplane is NOT banked, and is

neither climbing nor diving. The COMPASS shows that it is headed southeast. The

only one of the four airplane silhouettes that meets these specifications is in the box

lettered C, so the answer to X is C. Note that B is a rear view, while D is a front view.

Note also that A is banked to the right and that B is banked to the left.

A B

A N

S0 C 0

ARTIFICIAL COMPASS ,-

HORIZON

62
AB

SC0

ARTIFICIAL COMPASS

HORIZON

AB

SC0

HORIZON
A B

0N_

WSe C D

ARTIFICIAL COMPASS

HORIZON

A B

SC 0

ARTIFICIAL COMPASS

HORIZON

64
A B

N

W EE

se C0

ARTIFICIAL COMPASS

H~ORIZON

65
PART I I

Block Counting

D[ RECTIONS: This is a test of your ability to "see into" a 3-dimensional pile of

blocks and determine how many pieces are touched by certain numbered blocks. All

,f the blocks in each pile are the same sLze and shape Look at the sample below.

Block A 3 C D E

Sl 1 2 3 4 5

52 3 4 5 6 7

S3 S 6 7 8 9

$4 2 3 4 5 6

SS 2 3 4 s 6 -I1

Block S1 touches the other 2 top blocks and the 2 blocks directly below it, The

total number of blocks touched by SI is, therefore, 4. For sample problem SI, 4 is

choice D in the key to the right.

Block S2 touches blocks 1 and 3 and the unlettered block to the right of block 3.

Since block S2 touches 3 other blocks, the answer is 3. According to the key, 3 is

choice A for sample problem S2. Now look at sample problem S3. It touches 3 blocks

above, 3 blocks below, and one block on the right. Therefore, the correct answer is 7,

so C is the correct answer to sample problem S3.

Now count the blocks touching blocks S4 and S5. For block S4, the correct answer

is 5, so D would be the correct answer. For block S5, the correct answer is 4, so C

would be the correct answer.

66
KEY

Block A B C D E

1 3 4 6

2 _9_~

5 3 5~

67
PART 12

Table Reading

)1 RC'IIONS: 'h:s a test f .--ur ability to read tables quickly and accurately.

at ik the tihle oel,,. Notice that the X values are shown at the top of the table

nd :he Y vaiue ire h,,wn ,n the left of the table. In this test. you are to lind the

entry that jccurs at .ne intcr~ectmin of the ro.,w and the column corresponding to the

values given.

xx -I.LE

- .2 -1 , 1 f2 3

2 1 2 3 25 " 2 29 10

.2 23 25 27 29 I1) 12

- I 24 2r 23 30 12 13 14

Y VALUE 0 26 27 29 31 3:1 31 35

-1 27 29 30 32 :14 35 37

-1 2 1) 11 3.5 0; 38

29 31 32 14 3:; 17 19

x A B C_ 1) E

1. 0 -I 29 33 32 35 34

2 -3 -.3 22 29 23 31 28

:3 -1 -2 25 31 29 30 27

4 - 3 11 30 34 3.5 37 39

- 23 29

-- I 23 29 25 22

68
PART 13

Aviation Information

DIREC'IIONS: This part of the test measures your knowledge of aviation. Each of

the quetim sir incomplete statements is followed by five chices. Decide which one

f the uhoice-, bet answers the questiun or conpletes the statement.

I. If the elevator tabs on a plane are lowered, the plane will tend to

I-A nose up.

I-B nose down.

I-C pitch fore and aft.

1-1) go into a slow roll.

I-E wing over.

2 The pilot always advances the throttle during a

2-A nose dive

2-B landing. 2-C turn.

2-D spin.

2-E climb.

3. The pilot of an airplane can best detect the approach of a stall by the

3-A increase in speed of the engine. 3-B increase in pitch and intensity of the sound of the air moving past

the plane. 3-C increase in effectiveness of the rudder.

3-D ineffectiveness of the ailerons and elevator.

3-E decrease in pitch and intensity of the sound of the air moving past

the plane.

4. It is ordinarily desirable to provide an unusually long flight strip at municipal

airports for the takeoff of

4-A military planes in echelon.

4-B heavily loaded ships in still air.

4-C small airplanes in rainy weather.

4-D any airplane across the wind.

4-E airplanes that have high climbing speeds.

5. The slipstream of an airplane will have the least effect on the plane's direction of

flight when the plane's

5-A stick is moved forward.

5-B stick is moved backward.

5-C stick is moved sideways. 5-D rudder bar is pressed with the left foot.

5-E rudder bar is pressed with the right foot.

69
PART 14

Rotated Blocks

lIRElCTIONS: This test measures your ubility to visualize and manipulate objects in space. In each item of this

tebt you are shown a picture of a block. The problem is to find a second block which isjust like the first.

Look at the two blocks below. Although you see them from different points, the blocks arejust alike.

Look at the two blocks below. They are not alike. They can never be turned so that they will h. alike.

Now look at the sample item below. Which of the five choices isjust like the first block?

The correct answer is D. It is the same block as seen from a different side.

70
Now luok at the two sample items below.

The right answer for S2 is C. The right answer forS3 is A.

71
! 1A 

B C DE

-

A B 

<

r2A 

B C D

3 A B C 0D

-KB -iD

72K
1PART 15

General Science

Il)lIR.I(ONS: This part of the test measures your knowledge in the arena of

-cienee. FACh 4the quc.ti,,n. r incomplete statement, is followed br Five choices.

Decidc ra ncnc of the choicc best answers the question Jr completes the

btatement.

I A eI ,Iv ' sn .Ith, t r.w , th 1h:1 ( wV fL the

i-B oerth ,n the .un

I-C sun on the earth.

I-D earth on the moon. 1-E moon on the earth.

2. Substances which hasten a chemical reaction without themselves undergoing

change are called

2-A buffers.

2-B catalysts.

2-C colloids.

2-D reducers.

2-E polymers.

3. Lack of iodine is often related to which of the following diseases?

3-A Beriberi

3-B Scurvy

3-C Rickets

3-D Goiter

3-E Asthma

4. The chief nutrient in lean meat is

4-A starch.

4-B protein.

4-C fat.

4-D carbohydrates.

4-E Vitamin B.

5. After adding salt ti water, the freezing puintof the water is

5-A variable.

5-B inverted.

5-C the same

5-) D ra i sed

5-F lowered.

73
PART 16

Hidden Figures

DIRECTIONS: This part of the test measures your ability to see a simple figure in

a complex drawing. At the top of each page are five figures, lettered A, B, C, D, and

E. Below these on each page are several numbered drawings. You are to determine

which lettered figure is contained in each of the numbered drawings.

The lettered figures are:

A B C D

As an example, look at drawing X below.

\ 

" /N

X y

Which one of the five figures is contained in drawing X?

Now look at drawing Y, which is exactly like drawing X except that the outline of

figure B has been made heavy to show where to look for it. Thus, B is the answer to

sample item X.

Each numbered drawing contains only one of the lettered figures. The correct figure

in each drawing will always be of' the same size and in the same position as it appears

at the top of the page. Threfore. do not rotate the page in order to find it. Look at

each numbered drawing and i, ,ie which one of the five lettered figures is contained

in it.

74
1 23
Sample Item Key

Verbal Analogies Scale Reading

1. D i. A

2. A 2. E

3. D 3. B

4. D 4. C

5. A 5. D

Arithmetic Reasoning Instrument Comprehension

1. B 1. D

2. B 2. D

3. D 3. C

4. D 4. A

5. A 5. B

Reading Comprehension Block Counting

1. C 1. D

2. D 2. B

3. C 3. A

4. A 4. E

5. B 5. C

Data Interpretation Table Reading

1. D 1. C

2. B 2. B

3. E 3. E

4. A 4. C

5. E 5. A

Word Knowledge Aviation Information

1. C I. B

2. D 2. E

3. C 3. D

4. D 4. B

5. A 5. C

Math lKnowledge Rotated Blocks

1. B 1. D

2. C 2. C

3. C 3. C

4. A 4. D

5. B 5. B

Mechanical Comprehension General Science

1. A 1. E

2. B 2. B

3. E 3. D

4. C 4. B

5. B 5. E

Electrical Maze Hidden Figures

1. B I. A

2. C 2. A

3. F. 3. E

4. A 4. 1)

5. 1) 5. C

76
APPENDIX C: Skew and Kurtosis of AFOQT Form P

Subtast and Composite Raw Scores

77
Table C-I. Skew and Kurtosis of AFOQT Form P

Subtest and Composite Raw Scores

Number Skew Kurtosis

Subtest of items P 12 P1 2

scored

Verbal Analogies 25 -.41 -.58 -.32 -.07

Arithmetic Reasoning 25 -.25 -.20 -.83 -.81

Reading Comprehension 25 -.24 -.3v -.57 -.64

Data Interpretation 25 -.27 -.42 -.57 -.56

Word Knowledge 25 -. 18 -. 12 -.90 -.98

Math Knowledge 25 -.42 -.14 -.99 -1.10

Mechanical Comprehension 20 .11 .09 -.72 -.73

Electrical Maze 20 .46 .37 .06 .01

Scale Reading 40 -.09 -.09 -.58 -.32

Instrument Comprehension 20 -.13 -.25 -1.13 -1.155

Block Counting 20 -.43 -.28 -.35 -.37

Table Reading 40 -.)3 -.40 .43 .10

Aviation Information ±9 .54 .54 -.54 -.54

Rotated Blocks 15 -.07 -.23 -.62 -.73

General Science 19 .17 .21 -.72 -.64

Hidden Figures 15 -.20 -.24 -.71 -.51

Composite

Pilot 204 -.27 -.34 -.40 -.30

Navigator-Technical 264 -.32 -.31 -.40 -.39

Academic Aptitude 150 -.35 -.34 -.50 -.56

Verbal 75 -.27 -.35 -.56 -.b2

Quantitative 75 -.32 -.24 -.74 -.85

78
APPENDIX D: Item Analysis Summary

79
Table D-1. Mean Difficulties, Biserials, and Point

Biserials, AFOQT Form P1

Mean item Mean Mean point

Subtest difficulty biserial biserial

Verbal Analogies (VA) .648 .573 .410

Arithmetic Reasoning (AR) .619 .667 .500

Reading Comprehension (RC) .607 .578 .436

Data Interpretation (DI) .640 .517 .390

Word Knowledge (WK) .606 .662 .500

Math Knowledge (MK) .665 .722 .544

Mechanical Comprehension (MC) .496 .545 .429

Electrical Maze (EM) .388 .549 .411

Scale Reading (SR) .595 .509 .379

Instrument Comprehension (IC) .576 .700 .546

Block Counting (BC) .640 .663 .468

Table Reading (TR) .690 .683 .456

Aviation Information (AI) .447 .595 .461

Rotated Blocks (RB) .533 .631 .470

General Science (GS) .491 .560 .434

Hidden Figures (HF) .666 .659 .474

80
Table D-2. Distribution of Item Difficulty, AFOQT Form P1

Number of items with item difficulty of

.00 to .21 to .41 to .61 to .61 to Subtest .20 .40 .60 .bo .99

Verbal Analogies (VA) 0 3 8 8 b

Arithmetic Reasoning (AR) 0 3 8 10 4

Reading Comprehension (RC) 0 7 3 12 3

Data Interpretation (DI) 0 1 11 9 4

Word Knowledge (WK) 0 5 7 10 3

Math Knowledge (MK) 0 0 8 15 2

Mechanical Comprehension (MC) 0 3 13 4 0

Electrical Maze (EM) 6 5 4 5 0

Scale Reading (SR) 0 9 11 12 8

Instrument Comprehension (IC) 0 2 9 9 0

Block Counting (BC) 0 3 6 6 5

Table Reading (TR) 2 7 j 5 21

Aviation Information (AI) 0 8 9 1 1

Rotated Blocks (RB) 0 4 6 2 3

General Science (GS) 0 6 8 4 1

Hidden Figures (HF) 0 1 6 4 4

81
Table D-3. Distribution of Item Discrimination, AFOQT Form Pi

Number of items with item biserial of

.00 to .21 to .41 to .bl to .81 to

Subtest .20 .40 .60 .80 .99

Verbal Analogies (VA) 0 0 16 9 0

Arithmetic Reasoning (AR) 0 0 4 20 1

Reading Comprehension (RC) 0 1 14 10 0

Data Interpretation (DI) 0 5 13 7 0

Word Knowledge (WK) 0 0 3 22 0

Math Knowledge (MK) 0 1 3 14 7

Mechanical Comprehension (MC) 0 2 14 4 U

Electrical Maze (EM) 0 1 13 6 0

Scale Reading (SR) 0 10 19 i 0

Instrument Compreflension (IC) 0 0 4 13 3

Block Counting (BC) 0 0 7 12 1

Table Reading (TR) 0 2 9 17 12

Aviation Information (AI) 0 1 8 10 0

Rotated Blocks (RB) 0 0 b 9 0

General Science (GS) 0 2 8 9 0

Hidden Figures (HF) 0 0 3 12 0

82
Table D-4. Mean Difficulties, Biserials, and Point

Biserials, AFOQT Form P2

Mean item Mean Mean point

Subtest difficulty biserial biserial

Verbal Analogies (VA) .676 .579 .410

Arithmetic Reasoning (AR) .604 .648 .486

Reading Comprehension (RC) .663 .631 .468

Data Interpretation (DI) .667 .574 .425

Word Knowledge (WK) .603 .t52 .497

Math Knowledge (MK) .610 .668 .514

Mechanical Comprehension (MC) .498 .552 .432

Electrical Maze (EM) .388 .533 .393

Scale Reading (SR) .563 .482 .3b2

Instrument Comprehension (IC) .599 .740 .572

Block Counting (BC) .585 .606 .447

Table Reading (TR) .690 .649 .434

Aviation Information (AI) .476 .607 .466

Rotated Blocks (RB) .564 .646 .489

General Science (GS) .482 .518 .402

Hidden Figures (HF) .652 .648 .460
Table D-5. Distribution of Item Difficulty, AFOQT Form P2

Number of items with item difficulty of

.00 to .21 to .41 to .b1 to .61 to

Subtest .20 .40 .60 .80 .99

Verbal Analogies (VA) 0 2 8 7 8

Arithmetic Reasoning (AR) 1 2 9 9 4

Reading Comprehension (RC) 0 1 9 10 5

Data Interpretation (DI) 0 1 7 14 3

Word Knowledge (WK) 0 4 9 10 2

Math Knowledge (MK) 0 0 15 b 2

Mechanical Comprehension (MC) 0 4 10 6 0

Electrical Maze (EM) 8 3 4 5 0

Scale Reading (SR) 1 12 9 12 6

Instrument Comprehension (IC) 0 0 11 8 1

Block Counting (BC) 0 6 4 7 3

Table Reading (TR) 1 8 4 6 21

Aviation Information (AI) 0 8 8 2 1

Rotated Blocks (RB) 0 3 7 2 3

General Science (GS) 0 6 10 2 1

Hidden Figures (HF) 0 3 4 2 6

84
Table D-6. Distribution of Item Discrimination, AFOQT Form P2

Number of items with item biserial of

.00 to .21 to .41 to .61 to .81 to

Subtest .20 .40 .60 .80 .99

Verbal Analogies (VA) 0 0 14 11 0

Arithmetic Reasoning (AR) 0 0 6 19 0

Reading Comprehension (RC) 0 0 11 14 U

Data Interpretation (DI) 0 3 10 12 0

Word Knowledge (WK) 0 0 6 18 1

Math Knowledge (MK) 0 0 8 14 3

Mechanical Comprehension (MC) 0 3 10 7 0

Electrical Maze (EM) 0 3 12 5 0

Scale Reading (SR) 0 11 22 7 0

Instrument Comprehension (IC) 0 0 3 10 7

Block Counting (BC) 0 2 7 11 0

Table Reading (TR) 0 3 il 16 10

Aviation Information (Al) 0 0 7 12 0

Rotated Blocks (RB) 0 0 4 11 0

General Science (GS) 0 4 12 3 0

Hidden Figures (HF) 0 0 3 12 0

85
APPENDIX E: AFOQT Subtest Intercorrelation matrices

for Forms Pl and P2

87
Table E-1. Subtest Raw Score Intercorrelations, AFOQT Form PI

VA AR RC DI WK MK MC EM SR IC BC TR AI RB GS

AR .59

RC .67 .55

DI .59 .72 .60

WK .65 .46 .72 .48

MK .54 .72 .46 .58 .36

MC .49 .55 .42 .50 .37 .45

EM .29 .38 .25 .37 .16 .36 .45

SR .46 .67 .43 .65 .32 .55 .47 .46

IC .40 .41 .13 .42 .25 .38 .53 .47 .50

BC .41 .50 .37 .52 .25 .44 .44 .46 .59 .50

TR .31 .40 .34 .46 .23 .38 .26 .32 .53 .35 .50

AI .33 .30 .32 .33 .30 .22 .53 .31 .32 .54 .29 .22

RB .41 .48 .28 .44 .23 .46 .54 .44 .47 .53 .53 .29 .35

GS .55 .55 .52 .49 .49 .55 .61 .39 .43 .45 .38 .22 .46 .45

HF .42 .42 .34 .43 .26 .42 .42 .39 .44 .43 .46 .34 .2b .Ai .36

88
Table E-2. Subtest Raw Score Intercorreiations, AFOQT Form P2

VA AR RC DI WK MK MC EM SR IC BC TR AI RB GS

AR .62

RC .72 .56

DI .64 .76 .61

WK .70 .47 .74 .52

MK .53 .74 .46 .64 .37

MC .52 .54 .46 .53 .42 .43

EM .31 .40 .27 .40 .17 .38 .45

SR .45 .63 .42 .61 .31 .53 .43 .45

IC .42 .46 .36 .45 .27 .41 .56 .48 .51

BC .40 .49 .37 .51 .25 .43 .42 .49 .57 .50

TR .32 .44 .31 .45 .21 .37 .28 .34 .55 .37 .51

Al .35 .30 .35 .34 .32 .21 .54 .30 .33 .55 .29 .23

RD .40 .49 .30 .47 .25 .46 .54 .45 .47 .56 .53 .32 .3J

GS .56 .55 .53 .52 .54 .51 .65 .40 .42 .49 .37 .24 .49 .4o

HF .38 .41 .31 .40 .25 .38 .39 .39 .44 .44 .47 .34 .25 .50 .3

89
APPENDIX F: Raw Score to Percentile Comversion Tables

91
Table F-i. AFOQT Form P1 Pilot Composite Conversion Table

Raw score Percentile Raw score Percentile Raw score Percentile

0-38 01 102 33 13b 69

39-44 02 103 34 137 70

45-51 03 104 35 138 71

52-5D 04 105 30 139 7j

56-57 05 106 37 140 74

58-61 06 107 36 141 75

62-64 07 108 39 142 76

65-67 08 109 41 143 77

66 09 110-111 42 144 76

69-70 10 l12 43 145 79

71-72 11 113 44 146 do

73-74 12 114 45 147 81

75-77 13 115 46 148 62

78 14 11 47 149 83

79 15 117 48 150-151 84

80 16 118 50 152 85

81-82 17 119 51 153-154 8b

83 18 120 52 155 87

84 19 121 53 156 86

85-87 20 122 54 157 89

88 21 123 55 156 90

89 22 124 56 159 91

90 23 125 57 160 92

91-92 24 126 58 161 93

93 25 127 60 ib2-163 94

94 26 128 61 164-165 95

95 27 129 62 166-168 96

96-97 28 130-131 63 lb9-173 97

98 29 132 64 174-179 98

99 30 133 65 180-204 99

100 31 134 66

.101 32 135 67

92
Table F-2. AFOQT Form PI Navigator-Technical Composite Conversion Table

Raw score Percentile Raw score Percentile Raw score Percentile

0-58 01 138 34 178 67

59-69 02 139 35 179 b6

70-75 03 140-141 36 i8o O0

76-79 04 142 37 161 70

80-83 05 143-144 38 182 71

84-85 06 145 39 1;33 72

86-88 07 14b 40 ib4-lbj 13

89-91 08 147 41 16b-167 74

92-95 09 148 42 16 7D

96-97 10 149-151 43 189 7o

98-99 11 152 44 ij0 7/

100-102 12 153 45 191 70

103-104 13 154 46 i92-Ivj 7i

105-106 14 155 47 194 66

107-109 15 156 48 195-190 Oi

110-111 16 157 49 197 82

112-113 17 158 50 ib-199 b114-116 18 159 51 20U 64

117 19 160-161 52 201 o

118-119 20 162 53 202-203 66

120-121 21 163 54 204-2U d/

122 22 164 55 206-207 06

123-124 23 165 5b 210-219 09

125 24 166 57 2U-211 90

126-127 25 167 58 212-213 91

128 26 168 59 214 92

129 27 169 60 215-21b 93

130 28 170 ol 217-219 9q

131-132 29 171 o2 220-222 9j

133-134 30 172-173 63 223-227 96

135 31 174 64 228-232 j7

136 32 175-176 65 233-236 96

137 33 177 66 237-2b4 99

94'3

U __
Table F-3. AFOQT Form PI Academic Aptitude Composite Conversion Table

Raw score Percentile Raw score Percentile Raw score Percentile

0-27 01 82 29 112 69

28-34 02 83 31 113 70

35-39 03 84 33 114 71

40-41 04 85 34 115 72

42-45 05 86 35 116 75

46-48 06 87 36 117 76

49-50 07 88 37 118 76

51 08 89-90 38 119 79

52-55 09 91 40 120 80

56-57 10 92 41 121 81

58-59 11 93 43 122 bz

60 12 94 44 123 83

61 13 95 45 124 84

62 14 96 47 125 85

63 15 97 49 L2U 86

64-66 16 98 50 127 67

67 17 99 51 ]26 88

68-69 18 100 52 129 89

70 19 101 53 130 90

71 20 102-103 54 131 91

72-73 21 104 57 132 92

74 22 105 59 133-134 93

75 23 106 61 135 94

76 24 107 62 136-137 95

77 25 108 63 138-139 9b

78 26 109 65 140-141 97

79 27 ilO 67 142-143 98

80-81 28 11 68 144-150 99

94
Table F-4. AFOQT Form P1 Verbal Composite Conversion Table

Raw score Percentile Raw score Percentile Raw score Percentile

0-14 01 34 23 53 b2

15 02 35 24 54 64

16-17 03 36 26 ij b7

18 04 37 27 56 b9

19 05 36 30 ,7 72

20 06 39 32 58 74

21 07 40 33 59 7/

22 08 41 3b b0 76

23 09 42 36 bl bi

24 10 43 40 62 64

25 11 44 41 b3 bb

26 12 45 44 64 87

27 13 46 4b b5 90

28 14 47 48 66 92

29 15 48 50 b7 93

30 17 49 53 68 9b

31 18 50 55 69 97

32 19 51 57 70 96

33 21 52 60 71-75 99

95
Table F-5. AFOQT Form P1 Quantitative Composite Conversion Table

Raw score Percentile Raw score Percentile Raw score Percentile

0-14 01 39 28 60 71

15-16 02 40-41 31 61 75

17-19 03 42 33 62 7b

20 04 43-44 34 63 78

21 05 45 38 64 80

22 06 46 41 65 82

23-24 08 47-48 43 66 85

25 09 49 45 67 86

26 10 50 48 68 90

27-28 11 51-52 52 69 91

29 14 53 54 70 92

30 15 54 57 71 94

31-32 17 55 59 72 95

33 19 56 61 73 97

34-35 21 57 64 74 98

36 24 58 66 75 99

37-38 26 59 69

96
Table F-6. AFOQT Form P2 Pilot Composite Conversion Table

Raw score Percentile Raw score Percentile Raw score Percentile

0-41 01 101 33 134 b9

42-46 02 102 34 135 7U

47-53 03 103 35 i3u 71

54-57 04 104 36 137 73

58-59 05 105 37 i3b 74

60-62 06 lob 38 139 75

63-65 07 107 39 14u 7b

66-67 08 108 41 141 77

68 09 109 42 142-143 76

69-70 10 110 43 144 79

71-73 11 i1 44 14) du

74-75 12 112 45 146 b1

76-77 13 113 4o 147 d2

78 14 114 47 14d 63

79 15 115 48 149-150 64

80 16 116 50 151 65

81-82 17 117 51 152-153 d0

83 18 118 52 /b4 07

84 19 119-120 53 155 6

85-86 20 121 54 iD t9

87 21 122 55 15/ 90

88 22 123 56 15b 91

69 23 124 57 159 2

90-91 24 125 56 1o 93

92 25 126 60 161-162 94

93 26 127 61 163-164 95

94 27 128 b2 lb-1od 9t

95-96 28 129 63 1b9-173 97

97 29 130 64 174-179 96

98 30 131 65 1bu-204 99

99 31 132 66

100 32 133 67

97
Table F-7. AFOQT Form P2 Navigator-Technical Composite Conversion Table

Raw score Percentile Raw score Percentile Raw score Percentile

0-59 01 135 34 174 67

60-69 02 136 35 175 68

70-74 03 137 36 17b 69

75-79 04 138 37 177 70

80-82 05 139-140 38 178 71

83-84 06 141-142 39 179 72

85-87 07 143 40 180-181 73

88-90 08 144 41 182 74

91-93 09 145 42 183-184 75

94-95 10 146-147 43 185 76

96-98 11 148 44 186 77

99-100 12 149 45 187 76

101-102 13 150 46 188-189 79

103-104 14 151 47 190 80

105-106 15 152 48 191-192 81

107-109 16 153 49 193 82

110-111 17 154-155 50 194-195 83

112-113 18 156 51 196 84

114 19 157 52 197 85

115-116 20 158 53 198 86

117-119 21 159 54 199-201 87

120 22 160 55 2U2-203 66

121 23 161 56 204-205 89

122 24 162 57 206-207 90

123-124 25 163 58 208-209 91

125 26 164 59 210 92

126 27 165 60 211-212 93

127 28 166 61 213-215 94

128 29 167 62 216-219 95

129-131 30 168-169 63 220-223 96

132 31 170 64 224-228 97

133 32 171-172 65 229-232 98

134 33 173 66 233-264 99

98
Table F-8. AFOQT Form P2 Academic Aptitude Composite Conversion Table

Raw score Percentile Raw score Perceutile Raw score Percentile

J-29 01 82 29 114

30-34 02 83 31 115 70

35-39 03 84 33 116-117 il

40-41 04 85-86 34 118 72

42-44 05 87 35 119 75 45-47 06 88 36 12u 76

48-49 07 89 37 121 76 50 08 90-91 38 122 79

51-54 09 92 40 123 8u 55-56 10 93 41 124 61

57 ii 94 43 125 82

58-59 12 95 44 126 83

60 13 96-97 45 127 6-

61 14 98 47 128 bb

62 15 99 49 129 67

63-65 16 100 50 130 8b

66 17 101 51 131 69 67-68 18 102 52 132 90

69-70 19 103 53 133 91 71 20 104-105 54 134 92

72 21 106 57 135-136 93 73 22 107 59 137 94

74-75 23 106 61 138 95 76 24 109 62 139-140 9b

77 25 110 63 141-142 97 78 26 il 65 143 98

79-80 27 112 67 144-150 99

81 28 113 68

99
Table F-9. AFOQT Form P2 Verbal Composite Conversion Table

Raw score Percentile Raw score Percentile Raw score Percentile

0-15 01 36 23 55 62

16 02 37 24 56 64

17-18 03 38 26 57 67

19 04 39 27 58 69

20 05 40 30 59 72

21 06 41 32 60 74

22 07 42 33 61 77

23 08 43 36 62 78

24 09 44 38 63 81

25 i0 45 40 64 84

26 11 46 41 65 66

27 12 47 44 bb 87

28 13 48 46 67 90

29 14 49 48 68 92

30 15 50 50 69 93

31 17 51 53 70 96

32-33 18 52 55 71 97

34 19 53 57 72 96

35 21 54 60 73-75 99

100
Table F-10. AFOOT Form P2 Quantitative Composite Conversion Table

Raw score Percentile Raw score Percentile Kaw score eercentile

0-14 01 37-38 26 59 71

15-16 02 39 31 60-61 75

17-18 03 40-41 33 02 76

19 04 42 34 63 76

20 05 43-44 38 b4 t2

21 06 45 41 0) OD

22-23 08 46 43 60 86

24 09 47-48 45 07 68

25 10 49 46 o8 9u

26-27 11 50 52 69 91

28 14 51 54 70 9z

29 15 52-53 57 71 94

30-31 17 54 59 72 9D

32 19 55 61 ij 9b

33 21 56 64 74 96

34-35 24 57 66 D 99

36 26 58 t9

101
APPENDIX G: AFOQT Bibliography

103
AFOQT Bibliography

1950-1959

Byers, W.E. (1954). The degree to which the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test

Battery measures factors that are independent of more easily obtained

data. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Wisconsin.

Flyer, E.S. (1954). AFOQT as a predictor of grades in the aircraft controllers

course (PRL-TM-54-5). Lackiand AFB, TX: Personnel Research Laboratory.

Roy, H., Brueckel, J.S., & Drucker, A.J. (1954). Selection of Army ana Air

Force Reserve Officer Training Corps students (Personnel Researcn Note No.

28). Washington, DC: The Adjutant Gener:al's Office.

Staff. (1954). Selection of Army and Air Force Reserve Otficer Training Corps

students (TRW-Z87. Alexandria, VA: Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Flyer, E.S., & Bigbee, L.R. (1955a). Estimates of the validity of the AFOQT

pilot aptitude score for an AFROTC sample (PRL-TM-55-1). LacKlana AFb,

TX: Personnel Research Laboratory.

Flyer, E.S., & Bigbee, L.R. (1955b). Light plane proficiency ratings as a

selection device for AFROTC pilot trainees (PRL-TM-55-38). Lackland AFB,

TX: Air Force Personnel and Training Research Center.

Christal, R.E., & Goebel, L.G. (1956). Composition and intercorrelations ot

the ±955 Air Force Offi'er Qualifying Test composites (PRL-TN-5b-4).

Lackland AFB, ',X: Personnel Research Laboratory.

Goebel, L.D., & Christal, R.E. (1956). Composition and intercorrelations ol

the 1956 Air Force Officer yialifying Test (Form C) composites

(PRL-TN-56-6). Lackland AFB, TX: Personnel Research Laboratory.

11 gen, E.P., & Thorndike, R.L. (195t). Follow-up study of Ar Force caaet

examinees (AFPTRC-TN-56-58, AD-105 553). Macklana AFB, TX: Air Force

Personnel and Training Research Center.

Christal, R.E., & Krumboltz, J.D. (1957a). Prediction of first semester

criteria at the Air Force Academy (AFPTRC-TN-57-17, AD-096 920). LacKland

AFB, TX: Air Force Personnel and Training Research Center.

Christal, R.] ., & Krumboltz, J.D. (1957b). Use of the Air Force Oflicer

Qualifying Test in the AFROTC selection program (PL-TM-57-6). Lacklant

AFB, TX: Air Force Personnel and Training Research Cent--.

Farr, H.M. (1957). Proctrement of Air Force officers during the period 19b7

through 1977 (M-35582-5-NC, F239p). Maxwell AF., AL: Air University, Air

Command and Staff College.

Mahoney, H. (1957). An analysis of current personnel selection for navigator

training in the USAF (M-32983-NC, M216a). Maxwell AFB, AL: Air

University, Air lr1r College.

i04
Tupes, E.C. (1957a). Officer aptitude and officer effectiveness report

differences among groups of applicants for regular commission

(PL-TMI-57-5). Lackland AFB, TX: Personnel Laboratory.

Tupes, E.C. (1957b). Relationships between measures obtained during AFROTC

training and later officer effectiveness reports (PL-TM-57-4). Lackland

AFB, TX: Personnel Laboratory.

fupes, E.C., Carp, A., & Borg, W.R. (1957). Validation of a proposed officer

effectiveness selection battery (AFPTRC-TN-57-141, AD-146 415). Lackland

AFB, TX: Nir Force Personnel and Training Research Center.

Tupes, E.C., & Christal, R.E. (1957). Psychological tests and the selection

and classification of Air Force officers (AFPTRC-TN-57-52, AD-120 383).

Lackland AFB, TX: Air Force Personnel and Training Research Center.

Zaccaria, M.A., Page, W.L., & Ailsworth, K.A. (1957). Predictors of final

grade in communications officer course (PL-TM-57-11). Lackland AFB, TX:

Personnel Laboratory.

Barron, F., Block, J., MacKinnon, D.W., & Woodworth, D.G. (1958). An

assessment study of Air Force officers: Part IIi. Assessment correlates

of criteria ot otticer effectiveness (WADC-TR-58-91(III), A -210 218).

Lackland AFB, TX: Personnel Laboratory.

Gough, Hl.G. (1958). An assessment study of Air Force officers: Part IV.

Predictability of a composite criterion of officer effectiveness

(WADC-TR-58-91(IV), AD-210 219). Lackland AFB, TX: Personnel Laboratory.

Gough, H.G., & Krauss, 1. (1958). An assessment study of Air Force officers:

Part 11. Description of the assessed sample (WADC-TR-58-91 (II), AD-208

/00). Lackland AFB, TX: Personnel Laboratory.

MacKinnon, D.W. (1958). An assessment study of Air Force officers: Part V.

Summary and applications (WADC-TR-58-91(V), AD-210 220). Lackland AFB,

TX: Personnel Laboratory.

MacKinnon, D.W., Crutchfield, R.S., Barron, F., Block, J., Gough, H.G., &

Harris, R.E. (1958). An assessment study of Air Force officers: Part I:

Design of the study and description of the variables (WADC-TR-58-91 (I),

AD-L)I U40). Lackland AFB, TX: Personnel Laboratory.

Thorndike, R.L., & Hagen, E.P. (1958). Long-term prediction of some officereffectiveness measures from aptitude tests (WADC-TR-58-489, AD-204 531).

Lackland AFB, TX: Personnel Laboratory, Wright Air Development Center.

Valentine, L.D., Jr. (1958). Validity of the AFOQT (Form A) for prediction of

student-officer success in observer training (WADC-TN- 56-b9, AD-207

334). TLackLand AFB, TX: Personnel Laboratory, Wright Air Development

e n t er.

Creager, J.A. (1959). Standardization ol Form E, AFOQT (WCLL-TM- 59-12).

Lackland AFB, TX: Personnel Laboratory.

105
Mullins, C.J. (1959). Mean and percentage distributions of FIP trainees on

AFOQT scores (WCLL-TM-59-39). Lackiand AFB, TX: Personncl Laboratory.

Tupes, E.C. (1959). A comparison of the importance ratings of Air Force

officer duty assignments with the average officer aptitude and ofticer

eTfectiveness ot incumbents (WCLL-TM59-16). Lacklana AFb, TX: Personnel

Laboratory.

1960-1969

Miller, R.E. (1960a). Comparison of AFOQT composites and CEEB scores in the

Air Force Academy selection battery (WWRDR-TM-60-25). Lackland AFb, TX:

Wright Air Development Division, Air Research and Development Command.

Miller, R.E. (1960b). Prediction of Officer Training School criteria from the

Air Force Officer Qualifying Test (WCLL-TM-60-10). Lackiand AFB, TX:

Personnel Laboratory.

Miller, R.E. (1960c). Prediction of technical training criteria from AFOQT

composites (WADD-TN-60-215, AD-246 658). Lackland AFB, TX: Wright Air

Development Division.

Miller, R.E. (1960d). The Cadet Screening Test as a predictor of AFOQT

aptitude composites (WCLL-TM-60-14). Lackland AFB, TX: Personnel

Laboratory.

Tupes, E.C. (1960). Estimating AFOQT officer quality stanines from general

aptitude index (WWRDP-TM-60-15). Lackland AFB, TX: Personnel Laboratory.

Valentine, L.D., Jr. (1960a). Levels of aptitudes of the first three Officer

Training School classes (WWRDP-IM-60-16). Lackland AFB, TX: Personnel

Laboratory.

Valentine, L.D., Jr. (1960b). Scoring AFOQT booklet I from marK-sense cards

(WCLL-TM--60-6). Lackland AFB, TX: Personnel Laboratory.

Creager, J.A., & Miller, R.E. (1961). Summary of regression analyses in the

prediction of leadership criteria: Air Force Academy classes of 19b1

through 1963 (ASD-TN-61-41, AD-263 979). Lackland AFB, TX: Personnel

Laboratory, Aeronautical Systems Division.

Valentine, L.D., Jr., & Creager, J.A. (1961). Officer selection and

classification tests: Their development and use (ASD-TN-61-145, AD-2b9

827). Lackland AFB, TX: Personnel Laboratory, Aeronautical Systems

Division.

Miller, R.E., & Valentine, L.D., Jr. (1964). Development and standardization

of the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test - 64 (PRL-TDR-64-b, AD-60 782).

Lackland AFB, TX: Personnel Research Laboratory.

Miller, R.E. (1966a). Development of officer selection and classification

tests - 1966 (PRL-TR-66-5, AD-639 237). Lackland AFB, TX: Personnel

Research Laboratory.

106
Miller, R.E. (1966b). Relationship of AFOQT scores to measures of success in

undergraduate pilot and navigator training (PRL-TR-66-14, AD-656 305).

Lackland AFB, TX: Personnel Research Laboratory.

Karst, C.F. (1967). USAF regular officer procurement and selection

(M-35582-7-U, Kl8u). Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University, Air Command and

Staff College.

Koepnick, R.E. (1967). The selection and training of procurement otficers by

the United States Air Force (M-35582-7-U, K78s). Maxwell AFB, AL: Air

University, Air Command and Staff College.

Shaffer, W.M. (1967). An analysis of current USAF regular commissioning

procedures (M-35582-7-U, $5252a). Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University, Air

Command and Staff College

Gregg, G. (1968). The effect of maturation and educational experience on Air

Force Officer Qualifying Test scores (AFHRL-TR-66-107, AD-687 09).

Lackland AFB, TX: Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.

Miller, R.E. (1968). Development of officer selection and classification

tests (AFHRL-TR-68-104, AD-679 989). Lackland AFB, TX: Air Force Human

Resources Laboratory.

Miller, R.E. (1969). Interpretation and utilization of scores on the AFOQT

(AFHRL-TR-69-103, AD-691 001). Lackland AFB, TX: Air Force Human

Resources Laboratory.

Tupes, E.C., & Miller, R.E, (1969). Equivalence of AFOQT scores for different

educational levels (AFHRL-TR-69-19, AD-703 727). Lackland AFB, TX: Air

Force Human Resources Laboratory.

1970-1979

Miller, R.E. (1970). Development and standardization of the Air Force Officer

Qualifying Test Form K (AFHRL-TR-70-21, AD-710 602). Lackland AFB, TX:

Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.

Black, D.H. (1)72). United States Air Force personnel selection (M-35582-7-U,

B6274u). Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University, Air Commana and Staff College.

Miller, R.E. (1972). Development and standardization of the Air Force

Officer Qualifying Test Form L (AFJIRL-TR-72-47, AD-754 849). Lackland

AFB, TX: Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.

Miller, R.E. (1974). Development and standardization of the Air Force

Officer Qualifying Test Form M (AFHRL-TR-74-16, AD-778 837). Lackland

AFB, TX: Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.

Shull, W.B. (1975a). An investigation of the Air Force Officer Qualifying

Test. Dissertations Abstract international, 36, 4942A.

107
Shull, W.B. (1975b). An investigation of the Air Force Officer Qualifying

Test. Proceedings of the 17th Annual Military Testing Association

Conference (pp. /ib-/Jl). Indianapolis, IN.

Ree, M.J. (1976). Effects of item-option weighting on the reliability ana

validity of the AFOQT for pilot selection (AFHRL-TR-7b-76, AD-A035 732).

Lackland AFB, TX: Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.

Alley, W.E., & Gibson, T.A. (1977). Predicting success in the AFKOTC

scholarship program (AFHRL-TR-77-11, AD-A041 137). Lackland AFB, TX: Air

Force Human Resources Laboratory.

Jackson, D.K., & Gordon, M., Jr. (1977). Development of a weigted selection

system for the AFROTC professional officer course. Proceedings of the

19th Annual Military Testing Association Conference (pp. 1U2-111). San

Antonio, TX.

Valentine, L.D., Jr. (1977). Navigator-observer selection research:

Development of a new Air Force Officer Qualifying Test navigator-technical

composite (AFHRL-TR-77-36, AD-A042 689). Brooks AFB, TX: Air Force Human

Resources Laboratory.

Gould, R.B. (1978). Air Force Officer Qualifying Test Form N: Development

and standardization (AFHRL-TR-78-43, AD-A059 746). Brooks AFB, TX: Air

Force Human Resources Laboratory.

Hunter, D.R., & Thompson, N.A. (1978a). Pilot selection system development

(AFHRL-TR-78-33, AD-A058 418). Brooks AFB, TX: Air Force Human Resources

Laboratory.

Hunter, D.R., & Thompson, N.A. (1978b). Pilot selection system development.

Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 6, 102.

Jackson, D.K., & Gordon, M., Jr. (1978). Weighted selection system for AFROTC

applicants--perspective after second year of use. Proceedings of the 20th

Annual Military Testing Association Conference (pp. 566-572). Oklahoma

71ity, OK.

1980 - to Present

Albert, W.G. (1980). Computerized algorithms: Evaluation of capability to

predict graduation from Air Force training (AFHRL-TR-80-o, AD-A091 105).

Brooks AFB, TX: Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.

Roach, B.W. (1983). Monetary value of pilot selection using the AFOQT.

Proceedings of the 25th Annual Military Testing Association Conference

(pp. 478-483). Gulf Shores, AL.

Roach, B.W., & Rogers, D.L. (1983). Sex as a moderator variable in predicting

OTS attrition. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Military Testing

Association Conference (pp. 496-501). Gulf Shores, AL.

108
Rogers, D.L. (1983). Development of the Air Force officer screening

composites. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Military Testing Association

Conference (pp. 467-471). Gulf Si Les, AL.

Arth, T.O. (1984). Validation of the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test.

Proceedings of the 26th Annual Military Testing Association Conference

(pp. 1055-1059). Munich, West Germany.

Skinner, M.J. (1984). Aptitude selectors for minuteman missile combat crew

duty. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Military Testing Association

Conference (pp. 1073-1079). Munich, West Germany.

Arth, T.O. (1985, August). Which Air Force candidates benefit most from

retesting? Paper presented at the 93rd Annual Conference of the American

Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA.

Finegold, L.S., & Rogers, D. (1985). Relationship between Air Force Officer

Qualifying Test scores and success in air weapons controller training

(AFHRL-TR-85-13, AD-A158 162). Brooks AFB, TX: Air Force Human Resources

Laboratory.

Rogers, D.L. (1985). Screening composites for Air Force officers

(AFHRL-TP-85-2, AD-Ai54 315). Brooks AFB, TX: Air Force Human Resources

Laboratory.

Arth, T.0. (1986a). Air Force Officer Qualifying Test (AFOQT): Retesting

effects (AFHRL-TP-86-8, AD-A168 926). Brooks AFB, TX: Air Force Human

Resources Laboratory.

Arth, T.0. (1986b). Validation of the AFOQT for nonrated officers

(AFHRL-TP-85-50, AD-A164 134). Brooks AFB, TX: Air Force Human Resources

Laboratory.

Arth, T.O., & Skinner, M.J. (1986, November). Aptitude selectors for Air

Force officers non-aircrew jobs. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Military

Testing Association Conference (pp. 301-306). New London, CT.

Rogers, D.L., Roach, B.W., & Short, L.O. (1986). Mental ability testing in

the selection of Air Force officers: A brief historical overview

(AF[RL-TP-86-23, AD-A173 484). Brooks AFB, TX: Air Force Human Resources

Laboratory.

Rogers, D.L., Roach, B.W., & Wegner, T.G. (1986). Air Force Officer

Qualifying Test Form 0: Development and standardization (AFHRL-TR-86-24,

AD-A172 037). Brooks AFB, TX: Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.

Wegner, T.G., & Short, L.O. (1986, November). Assessing the accuracy of the

AFOQT quick score procedure. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Military

Testing Association Conference (pp. 60-65). New London, CT.

Skinner, M.J., & Ree, M.J. (1987). Air Force Officer Qualfying Test (AFOQT):

Item and factor analysis of Form 0 (AFHRL-TR-86-68, AD-AI84 9/5). Brooks

AFB, TX: Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.

109
Berger, F.R., Gupta, W.B., Berger, R.M., & Skinner, J. (1968). Air Force

Officer Qualifying Test (AFOQT) Form P: Test construction

(AFHRL-TR-88-30, AD-A200 678). Brooks AFB, TX: Air Force Human Resources

Laboratory.

Cowan, D.K., & Sperl, T.C. (1988). Selection and classification of United

States military officers: A fifty-year bibliography (1937-1986)

(AFHPRL-TP-88-45, AD-A205 631). Brooks AFB, TX: Air Force Human Resources

Laboratory.

Elliott, L.R. (1968). Validation ot the Air Force Reserve Officer Training

Corps selection system. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Military Testing

Association Conference (pp. 469-474). Arlington, VA.

Sperl, T.C. (1988). The development of Quick Score Composites for the Air

Force Officer Qualifying Test. Unpublished master's thesis, St. Mary's

University, San Antonio, TX.

Steuck, K.W., Watson, T.W., & Skinner, J. (1988). Air Force Officer Qualifying

Test (AFOQT): Forms P pre-implementation analyses and equating

(AFHRL-TP-88-6, AD-A201 100). Brooks AFB, TX: Air Force Human Resources

Laboratory.

Barrett, L.E. (1989). Cognitive versus noncognitive predictors of Air Force

cfficer training. Paper presented at the 97th Annual Conference of tne

American Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA.

Gupta, W.B., Berger, F.R., Berger, R.M., & Skinner, J. (1969). Air Force

Officer Qualifying Test (AFOQT): Development of an item bank

(AFHRL-TR-89-33, AD-A216 228). Brooks AFB, TX: Air Force Human Resources

Laboratory.

Sperl, T.C., & Ree, M.J. (1989). Air Force Officer Qualifying Test (AFUQT):

Development of Quick Score Composites for Forms P1 and P2. Paper presented

at the 97th Annual Conference of the American Psychological Association,

New Orleans, LA.

110