Personality characteristics and multitasking-related assessments as supplemental predictors of A-School training performance and success among Naval Hospital Corpsmen.

摘要

Brogden (1959) introduced the concept of classification efficiency , which defines this term as a function of (1) the validity of the predictors, (2) the intercorrelation of the performance criteria, (3) the percentage selected or rejected, and (4) the number of possible jobs. The current study examines the first factor of classification efficiency by determining the validity of the Naval Hospital Corpsman (HM) Classification Composite in predicting Naval Hospital Corpsman School (NHCS) A-School training performance (measured by individual grade point average throughout training) and success (measured by end status of graduated versus disenrolled). These analyses are followed by investigations of potential incremental validity in predicting training performance and success when the HM Composite is supplemented by subtest scores from Navy Computer Adaptive Personality Scales (NCAPS), as well as Executive Functions Tasks (task-switching, attention distraction, and working memory), SynWin (multitasking simulation), and POLY (Polychronicity Questionnaire). Results suggest significant gains in predicting training performance when the HM Composite is supplemented with the composite score from SynWin Emergency Condition 1, as well as Achievement Motivation, and Social Orientation from NCAPS. For A-School training success, results from the statistical analyses suggest a significant incremental validity when the HM Composite is supported by the accuracy scores from Digit Switch Task-Switching Condition I. SynWin Emergency Condition 1 also provided some positive indication for predicting A-School success. Unfortunately, scores from POLY does not exhibit any valuable increase in predicting NHCS training performance or success. Lastly, discussions are provided that suggest further studies with larger samples to confirm current finding. Furthermore, subjective generalizability analyses suggest that the implementations of these supplemental instruments may be job specific. That is, each job should have a combination of personality characteristics that produces the best Person-Job Fit, and lower multitasking dependent jobs should not warrant the inclusion of assessments that are multitasking-related.