Intelligence and Neuropsychological Aptitude Testing of U.S. Air Force MQ-1 Predator Pilot Training Candidates

Abstract

This report is published in the interest of scientific and technical information exchange, and its publication does not constitute the Government's approval or disapproval of its ideas or findings.

Multidimensional Aptitude Battery-Second Edition Intelligence Testing of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Training Candidates Compared with Manned Airframe Training Candidates

“…This is consistent with prior research on both manned and unmanned pilot groups [20,29]. However, a small, but statistically significant, difference in VIQ (primarily accounted for by the Comprehension subscale) was found between these two groups.…”

“…This is consistent with prior research on USAF manned and unmanned pilot populations [4,20,24,29]. Furthermore, the results of the study revealed the MAB-II test scores for these three pilot groups had significantly less variance when compared with age-corrected normative general population scores (standard deviation for the three quotients ranged from 37.0-55.6% of the normative value; see Table 2).…”

“…As a number of prior studies have shown, understanding and predicting aviator performance is a complex mix of ability, personality, and motivation [7]. Predicting performance may require unique algorithms for type of aircraft flown -be they manned or unmanned [24], and subtle differences on subscales may differentiate between those who succeed and those who fail in training [20]. Although overall these groups appear very similar intellectually, the small but statistically significant differences seen in this study may have predictive utility when considered in the context of an aviator's motivation, personality, and physical ability.…”

“…Chappelle et al obtained comprehensive computer-based intelligence testing (Multidimensional Aptitude Battery-Second Edition [MAB-II]) and neuropsychological screening (MicroCog) on USAF MQ-1 Predator nonrated pilot training candidates who passed the initial RPA flying screening course (n=108), nonrated training candidates who failed the training course (n=52), as well as USAF rated pilot training candidates who cross-trained to the MQ-1 Predator from manned airframes (n=157) [20]. The results of the study revealed nonrated pilot training candidates performed in the high average to superior range of functioning and nonrated pilot training candidates who passed training scored higher on measures of spatial analyses/reasoning, memory for novel spatial arrangements, general visual reasoning, visual construction, general executive reasoning, and general information processing accuracy when compared with nonrated pilot training candidates who failed training.…”