Section Bank P/S #3

[663697]

After reading the first highlighted sentence I was ready to pick B (correct answer), but once I read the last sentence I was more drawn to A. I am still confused as to why, overall, the study's measure enhanced the predictive validity when it states in the last sentence that the number of errors from the study had low correlations with other tests?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Nugester]

Is the answer B? Assuming because "strong negative correlation" implies a high predictive value that the less errors you make, the better chances you pass. The last sentence states that the phase 2 test has low correlations with other tests, however, make no mention whether these other tests have any kind of predictive value or correlation to passing.

 

[aldol16]

The reason they have the last sentence there is because someone could make the argument that their attention test just tests something that another test already tests on - or measures an effect mediated by a variable that is already tested on. So say maybe executive function actually causes a pilot to be able to redirect attention faster and one of the other selection tests evaluates executive function. Let's say that's a simulated planning test. If you were to use both tests, they would be redundant and wouldn't add anything. You would expect the tests to correlate with each other - that is, that the ability to redirect attention would correlate with the ability to plan.

So taking a step back, we can see that this study's measure of attention does enhance the selection test battery because it adds new information that can predict successful completion of pilot training.