Factor Structure and Criterion-Related Validity of the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test Form T for Pilot Applicants

Abstract

The Air Force Officer Qualifying Test (AFOQT) is the primary selection tool for officer applicants in the U.S. Air Force (USAF) for nearly seven decades. The AFOQT is revised and modified periodically, with rigorous equating and linking effort to ensure comparability and connectivity across forms. The most recent version of AFOQT is Form T that includes 10 cognitive ability and knowledge subtests. Despite the continuing validation effort of the AFOQT across forms, it was mostly directed to the general population of officer applicants, but not to any specific subpopulation. The current investigation reported three studies in an attempt to provide evidence for factor structure and criterion-related validity of AFOQT Form T for pilot applicants via four analytical approaches: meta-analysis, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and structural equation modeling (SEM). The results suggested that AFOQT Form T data are best represented by a bifactor model with a general ability and four specific abilities, and that each latent construct has a distinct predictive utility for pilot performance criteria.

Keywords

AFOQT factor structure criterion-related validity SEM cognitive test battery pilots

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ackerman

P. L.

Kanfer

(2009). Test length and cognitive fatigue: An empirical examination of effects on performance and test-taker reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15(2), 163–181.

Aguilar

I. D.

(2017). Comparison of the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test Form T and Form S: Initial item- and subtest-level analyses (No. AFCAPS-TR-2017-0002). Air Force Personnel Center.

Akaike

(1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19(6), 716–723.

ALMamari

Traynor

(2019). Multiple test batteries as predictors for pilot performance: A meta-analytic investigation. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 27(4), 337–356.

ALMamari

Traynor

(2020). Predictive validity of the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test (AFOQT) for pilot performance: A Meta-analytic investigation at the subtest level. Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors, 10(2), 70–81.

ALMamari

Traynor

(2021). The role of general and specific cognitive abilities in predicting performance of three occupations: Evidence from bifactor models. Journal of Intelligence, 9(3), 40.

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.

Arth

T. O.

(1986). Validation of the AFOQT (Air Force Officer Qualifying Test) for non-rated officers (No. AFHRL-TP-85-50). Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.

*Arth

T. O.

Steuck

K. W.

Sorrentino

C. T.

Burke

E. F.

(1990). Air Force Officer Qualifying Test (AFOQT): Predictors of Undergraduate Pilot Training and undergraduate navigator training Success (No. AFHRL-TP-89-52). Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.

10.

Auerswald

Moshagen

(2019). How to determine the number of factors to retain in exploratory factor analysis: A comparison of extraction methods under realistic conditions. Psychological Methods, 24(4), 468–491.

11.

Azen

Budescu

D. V.

(2003). The dominance analysis approach for comparing predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Methods, 8(2), 129–148.

12.

Bandalos

D. L.

(2002). The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter estimate bias in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(1), 78–102.

13.

Barron

L. G.

Carretta

T. R.

Rose

M. R.

(2016). Aptitude and trait predictors of manned and unmanned aircraft pilot job performance. Military Psychology, 28(2), 65–77.

14.

Beaujean

A. A.

(2015). John Carroll’s views on intelligence: Bi-factor vs. higher-order models. Journal of Intelligence, 3(4), 121–136.

15.

Bentler

P. M.

(1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.

16.

Berger

F. R.

Gupta

W. B.

Berger

R. M.

Skinner

(1990). Air Force Officer Qualifying Test (AFOQT) form P manual (Tech. Rep. No. AFHRL-TR-89-56). Manpower and Personnel Division, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.

17.

Browne

M. W.

Cudeck

(1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21, 230–258.

18.

Brunner

Nagy

Wilhelm

(2012). A tutorial on hierarchically structured constructs. Journal of Personality, 80(4), 796–846.

19.

Canivez

G. L.

Watkins

M. W.

Good

James

(2017). Construct validity of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth UK Edition with a referred Irish sample: Wechsler and Cattell–Horn–Carroll model comparisons with 15 subtests. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 383–407.

20.

Carretta

T. R.

(2008). Predictive validity of the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test for USAF air battle manager training performance (No. AFRL-RH-WP-TR-2009-0007). Air Force Research Laboratory, Human Effectiveness Directorate.

21.

Carretta

T. R.

(2010). Predictive validity of the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test for non-rated officer specialties. Military Psychology, 22(4), 450–464.

22.

*Carretta

T. R.

Ree

M. J.

(1995). Air Force Officer Qualifying Test validity for predicting pilot training performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 9(4), 379–388.

23.

Carretta

T. R.

Ree

M. J.

(1996). Factor structure of the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test: Analysis and comparison. Military Psychology, 8(1), 29–42.

24.

*Carretta

T. R.

Retzlaff

P. D.

King

R. E.

(1997). A Tale of two test batteries: A comparison of the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test and the Multidimensional Aptitude Battery (No. AL/HR-TP-1997-0052). Armstrong Laboratory, Human Resources Directorate.

25.

Carretta

T. R.

Rose

M. R.

Trent

J. D.

(2016). Air Force Officer Qualifying Test Form T: Initial item-, test-, factor-, and composite-level analyses. Human Performance Wing, Air Force Research Laboratory.

26.

Carroll

J. B.

(1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge University Press.

27.

Cattell

R. B.

(1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276.

28.

Cheung

M. W. L.

(2019). A guide to conducting a meta-analysis with non-independent effect sizes. Neuropsychology Review, 29, 387–396.

29.

Cheung

M. W. L.

Chan

(2005). Meta-analytic structural equation modeling: A two-stage approach. Psychological Methods, 10(1), 40–64.

30.

Cheung

M. W. L.

Chan

(2009). A two-stage approach to synthesizing covariance matrices in meta-analytic structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(1), 28–53.

31.

Cheung

M. W. L.

Cheung

S. F.

(2016). Random-effects models for meta-analytic structural equation modeling: Review, issues, and illustrations. Research Synthesis Methods, 7, 140–155.

32.

Child

(2006). The essentials of factor analysis (3rd ed.). Continuum.

33.

Cole

W. R.

Arrieux

J. P.

Dennison

E. M.

Ivins

B. J.

(2017). The impact of administration order in studies of computerized neurocognitive assessment tools (NCATs). Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 39(1), 35–45.

34.

Coyle

T. R.

(2018). Non-g factors predict educational and occupational criteria: More than g. Journal of Intelligence, 6(3), 43.

35.

Cucina

J. M.

Byle

(2017). The bifactor model fits better than the higher-order model in more than 90% of comparisons for mental abilities test batteries. Journal of Intelligence, 5(3), 27.

36.

Cucina

J. M.

Howardson

G. N.

(2017). Woodcock-Johnson-III, Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test (KAIT), Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (KABC), and Differential Ability Scales (DAS) support Carroll but not Cattell-Horn. Psychological Assessment, 29(8), 1001–1015.

37.

Dombrowski

S. C.

(2015). Exploratory bifactor analysis of the WJ-III Achievement at School Age via the Schmid–Leiman orthogonalization procedure. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 30(1), 34–50.

38.

Dombrowski

S. C.

Beaujean

A. A.

McGill

R. J.

Benson

N. F.

(2019). The Woodcock-Johnson IV tests of achievement provides too many scores for clinical interpretation. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 37(7), 819–836.

39.

Dombrowski

S. C.

Canivez

G. L.

Watkins

M. W.

(2018). Factor structure of the 10 WISC-V primary subtests across four standardization age groups. Contemporary School Psychology, 22(1), 90–104.

40.

Drasgow

Nye

C. D.

Carretta

T. R.

Ree

M. J.

(2010). Factor structure of the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test form S: Analysis and comparison with previous forms. Military Psychology, 22(1), 68–85.

41.

Dueber

D. M.

(2020). A bifactor approach to dimensionality assessment (Theses and Dissertations–Education Science. 59). https://uknowledge.uky.edu/edsc_etds/59

42.

*Duke

A. P.

Ree

M. J.

(1996). Better candidates fly fewer training hours: Another time testing pays off. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 4(3), 115–121.

43.

Enders

C. K.

(2010). Applied missing data analysis. Guilford Press.

44.

Fabrigar

L. R.

Wegener

D. T.

MacCallum

R. C.

Strahan

E. J.

(1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299.

45.

Finegold

L. S.

Rogers

(1985). Relationship between Air Force Officer Qualifying Test scores and success in air weapons controller training (No. AFHRL-TR-85-13). Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.

46.

Flanagan

D. P.

McGrew

K. S.

(1997). A cross-battery approach to assessing and interpreting cognitive abilities: Narrowing the gap between practice and cognitive science. School Psychology Review, 26(2), 189–219.

47.

Gignac

G. E.

(2008). Higher-order models versus direct hierarchical models: g as superordinate or breadth factor? Psychology Science, 50(1), 21–43.

48.

Gignac

G. E.

Kretzschmar

(2017). Evaluating dimensional distinctness with correlated-factor models: Limitations and suggestions. Intelligence, 62, 138–147.

49.

Gignac

G. E.

Szodorai

E. T.

(2016). Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 74–78.

50.

Glomb

T. M.

Earles

J. A.

(1997). Air Force Officer Qualifying Test (AFOQT): Forms Q development, preliminary equating and operational equating (No. AL/HR-TP-1996-0036). Armstrong Laboratory, Human Resources Directorate.

51.

Gorsuch

R. L.

(1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.

52.

Gustafsson

J. E.

(2001). On the hierarchical structure of personality and ability. In Collis

Messick

(Eds.), Intelligence and personality: Bridging the gap in theory and measurement (pp. 25–42). Lawrence Erlbaum.

53.

Gustafsson

J. E.

Balke

(1993). General and specific abilities as predictors of school achievement. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28(4), 407–434.

54.

Hancock

G. R.

Mueller

R. O.

(2000). Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In Cudek

duToit

S. H. C.

Sorbom

D. F.

(Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Present and future (pp. 195–216). Scientific Software International.

55.

Hayduk

L. A.

Littvay

(2012). Should researchers use single indicators, best indicators, or multiple indicators in structural equation models? BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12(1), Article 159.

56.

Higgins

J. P.

Thompson

S. G.

Deeks

J. J.

Altman

D. G.

(2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 327(7414), 557–560.

57.

Hohensinn

Kubinger

K. D.

Reif

Schleicher

Khorramdel

(2011). Analysing item position effects due to test booklet design within large-scale assessment. Educational Research and Evaluation, 17(6), 497–509.

58.

Horn

J. L.

(1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185.

59.

Horn

J. L.

(1968). Organization of abilities and the development of intelligence. Psychological Review, 75(3), 242–259.

60.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

61.

*Hunter

D. R.

Thompson

N. A.

(1978). Pilot selection system development (No. AFHRL-TR-78-33). Human Resources Laboratory.

62.

Hunter

J. E.

(1986). Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes, job knowledge, and job performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29(3), 340–362.

63.

Jak

Cheung

M. W. L.

(2020). Meta-analytic structural equation modeling with moderating effects on SEM parameters. Psychological Methods, 25(4), 430–455.

64.

Jensen

A. R.

(1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability (Vol. 648). Praeger.

65.

Jensen

A. R.

Weng

(1994). What is a good g? Intelligence, 18, 231–258.

66.

Jensen

J. L.

Berry

D. A.

Kummer

T. A.

(2013). Investigating the effects of exam length on performance and cognitive fatigue. PLOS ONE, 8(8), Article e70270.

67.

Johnson

J. F.

Barron

L. G.

Carretta

T. R.

Rose

M. R.

(2017). Predictive validity of spatial ability and perceptual speed tests for aviator training. The International Journal of Aerospace Psychology, 27(3–4), 109–120.

68.

Johnson

J. W.

(2000). A heuristic method for estimating the relative weight of predictor variables in multiple regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 1–19.

69.

Johnson

Bouchard

T. J.

Jr. (2005). Constructive replication of the visual–perceptual-image rotation model in Thurstone’s (1941) battery of 60 tests of mental ability. Intelligence, 33(4), 417–430.

70.

Jöreskog

K. G.

Sörbom

(1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Scientific Software International.

71.

Kaiser

H. F.

(1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151.

72.

Kell

H. J.

Lang

J. W.

(2017). Specific abilities in the workplace: More important than g? Journal of Intelligence, 5(2), 13.

73.

Kell

H. J.

Lang

J. W.

(2018). The great debate: General ability and specific abilities in the prediction of important outcomes. Journal of Intelligence, 6(3), 39.

74.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Bolger

(1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In Gilbert

Fiske

Lindzey

(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 233–265). McGraw-Hill.

75.

Kline

R. B.

(2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Publications.

76.

Koran

(2020). Indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis: More is not always better. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 27, 765–772.

77.

Lang

J. W.

Kersting

Hülsheger

U. R.

Lang

(2010). General mental ability, narrower cognitive abilities, and job performance: The perspective of the nested-factors model of cognitive abilities. Personnel Psychology, 63(3), 595–640.

78.

Marsh

H. W.

Hau

K. T.

Balla

J. R.

Grayson

(1998). Is more ever too much? The number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33(2), 181–220.

79.

Matsunaga

(2008). Item parceling in structural equation modeling: A primer. Communication Methods and Measures, 2(4), 260–293.

80.

McGill

R. J.

(2020). An instrument in search of a theory: Structural validity of the Kaufman assessment battery for children-second edition normative update at school-age. Psychology in the Schools, 57(2), 247–264.

81.

Molenaar

(2016). On the distortion of model fit in comparing the bifactor model and the higher-order factor model. Intelligence, 57, 60–63.

82.

Morgan

G. B.

Hodge

K. J.

Wells

K. E.

Watkins

M. W.

(2015). Are fit indices biased in favor of bi-factor models in cognitive ability research? A comparison of fit in correlated factors, higher-order, and bi-factor models via Monte Carlo simulations. Journal of Intelligence, 3(1), 2–20.

83.

Murray

A. L.

Johnson

(2013). The limitations of model fit in comparing the bi-factor versus higher-order models of human cognitive ability structure. Intelligence, 41(5), 407–422.

84.

O’Connor Quinn

. (2014). Bifactor models, explained common variance (ECV) and the usefulness of scores from unidimensional item response theory analyses [Unpublished master’s thesis, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill].

85.

*Olea

M. M.

Ree

M. J.

(1994). Predicting pilot and navigator criteria: Not much more than g. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(6), 845–851.

86.

Raju

N. S.

Brand

P. A.

(2003). Determining the significance of correlations corrected for unreliability and range restriction. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27(1), 52–71.

87.

R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/

88.

Ree

M. J.

Carretta

T. R.

(1996). Central role of g in military pilot selection. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 6(2), 111–123.

89.

*Ree

M. J.

Carretta

T. R.

Teachout

M. S.

(1995). Role of ability and prior knowledge in complex training performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(6), 721–730.

90.

Ree

M. J.

Earles

J. A.

Teachout

M. S.

(1994). Predicting job performance: Not much more than g. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 518–524.

91.

Reeve

C. L.

Blacksmith

(2009). Identifying g: A review of current factor analytic practices in the science of mental abilities. Intelligence, 37(5), 487–494.

92.

Reeve

C. L.

Bonaccio

(2011). Nature and structure of intelligence. In Chamorro-Premuzic

Furnham

von Stumm

(Eds.), Handbook of individual differences (pp. 187–216). Wiley-Blackwell.

93.

Reise

S. P.

(2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47(5), 667–696.

94.

Reise

S. P.

Bonifay

W. E.

Haviland

M. G.

(2013). Scoring and modeling psychological measures in the presence of multidimensionality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(2), 129–140.

95.

Reise

S. P.

Moore

T. M.

Haviland

M. G.

(2010). Bifactor models and rotations: Exploring the extent to which multidimensional data yield univocal scale scores. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(6), 544–559.

96.

Reise

S. P.

Scheines

Widaman

K. F.

Haviland

M. G.

(2013). Multidimensionality and structural coefficient bias in structural equation modeling: A bifactor perspective. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(1), 5–26.

97.

Roberts

H. E.

Skinner

(1996). Gender and racial equity of the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test in officer training school selection decisions. Military Psychology, 8(2), 95–113.

98.

Rodriguez

Reise

S. P.

Haviland

M. G.

(2016). Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21(2), 137–150.

99.

Ryan

J. J.

Glass

L. A.

Hinds

R. M.

Brown

C. N.

(2010). Administration order effects on the test of memory malingering. Applied Neuropsychology, 17(4), 246–250.

100.

Sackett

P. R.

Yang

(2000). Correction for range restriction: An expanded typology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 112–118.

101.

Sass

D. A.

Smith

P. L.

(2006). The effects of parceling unidimensional scales on structural parameter estimates in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13(4), 566–586.

102.

Schermelleh-Engel

Moosbrugger

Müller

(2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74.

103.

Schmid

Leiman

J. M.

(1957). The development of hierarchical factor solutions. Psychometrika, 22, 53–61.

104.

Schmidt

F. L.

Hunter

(2004). General mental ability in the world of work: Occupational attainment and job performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 162–173.

105.

Schneider

W. J.

McGrew

K. S.

(2018). The Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory of cognitive abilities. In Flanagan

D. P.

McDonough

E. M.

(Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 73–163). Guilford Press.

106.

Schneider

W. J.

Newman

D. A.

(2015). Intelligence is multidimensional: Theoretical review and implications of specific cognitive abilities. Human Resource Management Review, 25(1), 12–27.

107.

Schwarz

(1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 6(2), 461–464.

108.

Sidik

Jonkman

J. N.

(2007). A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in combining results of studies. Statistics in Medicine, 26(9), 1964–1981.

109.

Skinner

Ree

M. J.

(1987). Air Force Officer Qualifying Test (AFOQT): Item and factor analysis of Form O (No. AFHRL-TR-86-68). Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.

110.

Spearman

C. E.

(1904). “General intelligence,” objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 1 5, 201–293.

111.

Stanek

K. C.

Ones

D. S.

(2018). Taxonomies and compendia of cognitive ability and personality constructs and measures relevant to industrial, work and organizational psychology. In Ones

D. S.

Anderson

Viswesvaran

Sinangil

H. K.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 366–407). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 10(9781473914940), n14.

112.

Steuck

K. W.

Watson

T. W.

Skinner

(1988). Air Force Officer Qualifying Test (AFOQT): Forms P pre-implementation analyses and equating (AFHRL-TP-88-6, AD-A201 100). Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.

113.

Stevens

(1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum.

114.

Thompson

Daniel

L. G.

(1996). Factor analytic evidence for the construct validity of scores: A historical overview and some guidelines. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(2), 197–208.

115.

Thurstone

L. L.

(1938). Primary mental abilities (Vol. 119). The University of Chicago Press.

116.

Tulsky

D. S.

Zhu

(2000). Could test length or order affect scores on Letter Number Sequencing of the WAIS-III and WMS-III? Ruling out effects of fatigue. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 14(4), 474–478.

117.

Vandenberg

R. J.

(2006). Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends. Organizational Research Methods, 9, 194–201.

118.

Velicer

W. F.

(1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika, 41, 321–327.

119.

Veroniki

A. A.

Jackson

Viechtbauer

Bender

Bowden

Knapp

. . . Salanti

(2016). Methods to estimate the between-study variance and its uncertainty in meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 7(1), 55–79.

120.

Warne

R. T.

Burningham

(2019). Spearman’s g found in 31 non-Western nations: Strong evidence that g is a universal phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 145(3), 237–272.

121.

Watkins

M. W.

(2010). Structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition among a national sample of referred students. Psychological Assessment, 22(4), 782–787.

122.

Weitensfelder

(2017). Test order effects in an online self-assessment: An experimental study. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 59(2), 229–243.

123.

Wood

J. M.

Tataryn

D. J.

Gorsuch

R. L.

(1996). Effects of under- and overextraction on principal axis factor analysis with varimax rotation. Psychological Methods, 1(4), 354–365.

124.

Yousfi

Böhme

H. F.

(2012). Principles and procedures of considering item sequence effects in the development of calibrated item pools: Conceptual analysis and empirical illustration. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 54, 366–396.

125.

Zhang

Sun

Cao

Drasgow

(2020). Using bifactor models to examine the predictive validity of hierarchical constructs: Pros, cons, and solutions. Organizational Research Methods, 24(3), 530–571.

126.

Zierke

(2014). Predictive validity of knowledge tests for pilot training outcome. Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors, 2(4), 98–105.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.41 MB