Key result
Attention control measures explain ~12% of unique variance in Navy training performance beyond standard scores.
Why the study?
Military selection tests leave room for improvement when predicting work-relevant outcomes.
Do measures of attention control improve the prediction of training success in military trainees compared to standard composite scores?
Observational
Do measures of attention control improve the prediction of training success in military trainees compared to standard composite scores?
Effect estimate: R = 0.34
Attention control measures may improve the accuracy of predicting training success in military personnel beyond standard composite scores.
May enhance military trainee selection; leaves open prospective validation before practice change.
Military selection tests leave room for improvement when predicting work‐relevant outcomes. We tested whether measures of attention control, working memory capacity, and fluid intelligence improved the prediction of training success above and beyond composite scores used by the U.S. Military. For student air traffic controllers, commonality analyses revealed that attention control explained 9.1% ( R = .30) of the unique variance in academic performance, whereas the Armed Forces Qualification Test explained 5.2% ( r = .23) of the unique variance. For student naval aviators, incremental validity estimates were small and nonsignificant. For student naval flight officers, commonality analyses revealed that attention control measures explained 11.8% ( R = .34) of the unique variance in aviation preflight indoctrination training performance and 4.3% ( R = .21) of the unique variance in flight performance. Although these point estimates are based on relatively small samples, they provide preliminary evidence that attention control measures might improve training outcome classification accuracy in real‐world samples of military personnel.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Burgoyne et al. (2024) conducted an observational in Military training performance. Attention control measures vs. Standard military composite scores (e.g., Armed Forces Qualification Test) was evaluated on Academic and flight training performance (R = 0.34). Attention control measures explained up to 11.8% (R=0.34) of unique variance in training performance among Navy trainees, improving prediction beyond standard military composite scores.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: