The predictive validity of multiple-task measures (performance measures obtained when an individual performs two or more tasks concurrently) to flight performance has been frequently questioned because it is usually low and often appears to be no better than the validity of the corresponding single-task measures. Misanalyses conducted on the results of 14 studies demonstrated that the effect sizesassociated with both single- and multiple-task measures were both statistically different from 0.0, with the effect size for the multiple-task measures statistically greater than that of the corresponding single-task measures. However, the corresponding predictive validities were low, and the usefulness of both measures is examined.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bittner, A., Jr., and Damos, D. (1988). Statistical isolation of timesharing components: Demonstration and interpretation. In F. Aghazadeh (Ed.), Trends in ergonomics V (pp. 21–27). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
2.
Blower, D., and Dolgin, D. (1991). An evaluation of performance-based tests designed to improve naval aviation selection (Tech. Report NAMRL-1363). Pensacola, FL: Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory.
3.
Boer, L., and Castelijns, M. (1991). The PILOT test as a predictor of pilot aptitude. In M. Dentan and P. Lardennois (Eds.), Human factors for pilots: Proceedings of the XIX WEAAP conference (pp. 1–12). Aldershot, England: Avebury Technical.
4.
Braune, R., and Wickens, C. (1986). Time-sharing revisited: Test of a componential model for the assessment of individual differences. Ergonomics, 29, 1399–1414.
5.
Carretta, T. (1987). Time-sharing ability as a predictor of flight training performance (Tech. Report AFHRL-TP-86-69). Brooks Air Force Base, TX: Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.
6.
Carretta, T. (1989). USAF pilot selection and classification systems. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 60, 46–49.
7.
Damos, D. (1978). Residual attention as a predictor of pilot performance. Human Factors, 20, 435–439.
8.
Damos, D., and Gibb, G. (1986). Development of a computerbased naval aviation selection test battery (Tech. Report NAMRL-1319). Pensacola, FL: Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory.
9.
Damos, D., and Lintern, G. (1981). A comparison of single and dual-task measures to predict simulator performance of beginning student pilots. Ergonomics, 24, 673–684.
10.
Delaney, H. (1990). Validation of dichotic listening and psychomotor task performance as predictors of primary flight training criteria: Highlighting relevant statistical issues (Tech. Report NAMRL-1357). Pensacola, FL: Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory.
11.
Fournier, B., and Stager, P. (1976). Concurrent validation of a dual-task selection test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 589–595.
12.
Gibb, G., and Dolgin, D. (1988). Validation of a computerbased aviation secondary selection system for student naval aviators. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting (pp. 807–811). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
13.
Griffin, G. (1988). Evaluation of an automated series of single and multiple psychomotor and dichotic listening tasks. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting (pp. 812–816). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
14.
Griffin, G., and McBride, D. (1986). Multitask performance: Predicting success in naval aviation primary flight training (Tech. Report NAMRL-1316). Pensacola, FL: Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory.
15.
Griffin, G., Morrison, T., Amerson, T., and Hamilton, P. (1987) Predicting air combat maneuvering (ACM) performance: Fleet fighter ACM readiness program grades as performance criteria (Tech. Report NAMRL-1333) Pensacola, FL: Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory.
16.
Griffin, G., and Shull, R. (1990). Predicting F/A fleet replacement squadron performance using an automated battery of performance-based tests (Tech. Report NAMRL-1354). Pensacola, FL: Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory.
17.
Hedges, L., and alkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic.
18.
Hulin, C., Henry, R., and Noon, S. (1990). Adding a dimension: Time as a factor in the generalizability of predictive relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 328–340.
19.
Hunter, J., and Schmidt, F. (1990.). Methods of metaanalysis.Newbury Park. CA: Sage.
20.
Iaffaldano, M., and Muchinsky, P. (1985). Job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 261–273.
21.
Johnson, B. (1989). DSTAT: Software for the meta-analytic review of research literatures [Computer program]. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
22.
Jorna, P. (1989). Prediction of success in light training by single-and dual-task performance. In AGARD Conference Proceedings No. 458 (pp. 21-1–21-10). Loughton, England: Specialized Printing Services Ltd.
23.
McCloy, T. (1979). Measures of time-sharing skill and gender as predictors of flight simulator performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC.
24.
Melton, A. (Ed.). (1947). Apparatus tests. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
25.
North, R., and Gopher, D. (1976). Measures of attention as predictors of flight performance. Human Factors, 18, 1–13.
26.
Pew, R., Rollins, A., Adams, M., and Gray, T. (1977). Development of a test battery for selection of subjects for ASPT experiments (Tech. Report 3585). Cambridge, MA: Bolt, Beranek, and Newman.
27.
Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
28.
Rosenthal, R., and Rubin, D. (1986). Meta-analytic procedures for combining studies with multiple effect sizes. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 400–406.
29.
Taylor, H., and Russell, J. (1939). The relationship of validity coefficients to the practical effectiveness of tests in selection: Discussion and tables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 23, 565–578.
30.
Terelak, J. (1991). Current research and trends in aviation psychology. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 62, 903–906.
31.
Trankell, A. (1959). The psychologist as an instrument of prediction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43, 170–175.
