← Back to context

Comment by varloid

2 months ago

They decided that at least some amount was acceptable - the minimum score on the AT-SAT was changed so that 95% of test takers would pass because the original threshold where 60% passed excluded too many black applicants. This was despite previous studies showing that a higher score on the AT-SAT was correlated with better job performance.

No, that's not an answer to that specific question.

Performance on the AT-SAT is not job performance.

If you have a qualification test that feels useful but also turns out to be highly non-predictive of job performance (as, for example, most college entrance exams turn out to be for college performance), you could change the qualification threshold for the test without any particular expectation of losing job performance.

In fact, it is precisely this logic that led many universities to stop using admissions tests - they just failed to predict actual performance very well at all.

  • > Performance on the AT-SAT is not job performance.

    No, but it was the best predictor of job performance and academy pass rate there was.

    https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA566825.pdf

    https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/data_research/resear... (page 41)

    There are a fixed number of seats at the ATC academy in OKC, so it's critical to get the highest quality applicants possible to ensure that the pass rate is as high as possible, especially given that the ATC system has been understaffed for decades.

    • That is NOT what the first study you've cited says at all:

      > "The empirically-keyed, response-option scored biodata scale demonstrated incremental validity over the computerized aptitude test battery in predicting scores representing the core technical skills of en route controllers."

      I.e the aptitude test battery is WORSE than the biodata scale.

      The second citation you offered merely notes that the AT-SAT battery is a better predictor than the older OPM battery, not that is the best.

      I'd also say at a higher level that both of those papers absolutely reek of non-reproduceability and low N problems that plague social and psychological research. I'm not saying they're wrong. They are just not obviously definitive.

      2 replies →