Read This to Better Understand the Feb 10 Announcement

StuSEL

Moderator
Aug 23, 2009
1,014
10
38
You know where.
Noticeable problem: Archival data for 229 controllers who participated in the concurrent, criterion-related validation of the AT-SAT test battery in the late 1990s were used in this study.

If I'm reading this correctly, they conducted a study based on a sample of controllers from nearly 20 years ago to determine how applicants today will perform. Was this thing peer reviewed?
 

StuSEL

Moderator
Aug 23, 2009
1,014
10
38
You know where.
like i said before....if you're using data from 229 controllers in the 90's....you're using data from 228 white men.

how do you think that's going to benefit diversity when you apply it across the board to a personality test of 25k? your hires are going to be white men.

where's the transparency of any of this? show me evidence that a biographical questionnaire can be used as a go/no-go, without bias, while being a strong predictor for future employment success.
"The CBAS sample was predominately male (83%) and white (87%). Over half of the sample had at least some college (59%), with more than an additional quarter (29%) reporting an undergraduate college degree. Most (76%) had no prior aviation-related experience as either a pilot or air traffic controller. The sample was similar to the other 1,003 controllers who participated in the AT-SAT validation study and to new hires entering the FAA Academy for the first time between 1981 and 1992 (Table 1)."
 

StuSEL

Moderator
Aug 23, 2009
1,014
10
38
You know where.
This study was published in July 2012, and concludes, in part, with this:

Further research is needed to evaluate the validity and utility of CBAS by linking it with actual training outcomes in the FAA Academy and field facilities, to better quantify costs and benefits.

In other words, this was purely academic and likely has no practical value in the agency. There haven't even been 2 years to track down academy new-hires and correlate their training results to any CBAS/BioQ scores. Unless someone can find a study that does evaluate the validity and utility of the CBAS (Controller Background Assessment Survey), I'm not buying the idea that this is the end-all be-all solution. Additionally, the CBAS referenced in this study contained 80 questions, while the one employed on the most recent application had 62. Don't tell me that eliminating almost 1/4 of the questions from the survey wouldn't have changed the outcome of this academic study.
 

towermom

Newcomer
Mar 1, 2014
13
1
3
I was a OTS with absolutely no knowledge hired in 1982 (scored 97 on our version of the atsat). Did a huge questionare for cami way back then. They have been tracking bio info for decades in an effort to improve screening. Not saying they have it right, but the intent is there. By the way, saw another study the faa did that showed one of the best indicators of future success as an ATC was how you did in math in high school. Take that for what it's worth.
 

towermom

Newcomer
Mar 1, 2014
13
1
3
Not quite correct. The projection was 93k per year per additional successful trainee in the field ( in salary, benefits, training costs, etc). At 1% improvement with 800-1000 hires that $600,000 is in the ballpark. But if the FAA believes their study, by only taking the top 10% scores on the BQ they could possibly save 10 times that much every year for years to come.

Prior experience applicants should be able to bypass the BQ, imo, but not CTIs. I've encouraged CTI students I know to try to double major in something non ATC. Too risky putting all your eggs in one basket with only one crazy employer.
 

h4xit

Trusted Contributor
Dec 9, 2010
688
13
18
"after taking into account aptitude (as measured by the written aptitude test used between 1981 and 1992 (Broach, 1998)), personality explained an additional 6-9% of variance in performance in the FAA Academy Screen"

They didn't really take aptitude into consideration first.
 

asbresnick

Newcomer
Feb 11, 2014
2
0
1
I've encouraged CTI students I know to try to double major in something non ATC. Too risky putting all your eggs in one basket with only one crazy employer.
Sweet, holy Jesus. I didn't think anyone else thought the same way I did. After seeing how much it debt it takes to become a commercial pilot and how difficult it is to get a job that will even begin to pay back the debt, I refused to go to school for "Professional Flight." After learning there was no standing agreement to guarantee CTI grads spots in training classes, I refused to go to school for "Air Traffic Management."

Although part of me does wish I could have worked out a double-major as the CTI program did look like fun!