Physical Ability-Task Performance Models: Assessing the Risk of Omitted Variable Bias

Vickers, Ross R.; Hodgdon, James A.; Beckett, M. B.

doi:10.21236/ada515128

Cited by 7 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In cases such as this, regression equations can be useful in teasing apart which tests are the best to include to maximize prediction, and which tests are redundant. In fact, research has shown that physical tests can overlap significantly in their ability to predict simulated task performance-i.e., some tests can capture the same predictive power as other tests (Vickers, Hodgdon, and Beckett, 2008). In cases where there is such overlap, such factors as ease, cost of implementation, and adverse impact should also guide the choice of which tests to use.…”

Section: Our Evaluation Of the Criterion-related Validation Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Establishing Gender-Neutral Physical Standards for Ground Combat Occupations: Volume 2. A Review of the Military Services' Methods

Hardison¹,

Hosek²,

Saavedra³

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest.RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR1340z2Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2018 RAND CorporationR® is a registered trademark. Cover: U.S. Army image from Reuters.iii PrefaceOn January 24, 2013, the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff announced rescission of the 1994 Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule, which restricted assignments of women to occupational specialties or positions in or collocated with direct ground combat units. After the announced decision to eliminate the rule, the fiscal year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) directed establishment of gender-neutral and valid physical standards prior to opening any of the restricted occupations to women and gave the services until no later than September 2015 to demonstrate that such standards were in place.This report provides the results of a review to assess whether the work undertaken by the services would satisfy the NDAA requirements. To accomplish this, the research proceeded in two phases. The first phase involved describing best-practice methodologies for establishing gender-neutral standards for physically demanding jobs, tailored to address the needs of the military. The work in the first phase was completed in 2013, and the report (Volume 1) was shared with the services. The second phase of the work, described in this report (Volume 2), involved a review and evaluation of the methods used by the military services to meet the requirement. The review began in 2013, as the services planned their efforts, and ended in April 2015, about six months prior to the 2015 deadline and before the services had completed the final stages of their work.In December 2015, the Office of the Secretary of Defense released a preliminary version of this report on its website when the Secretary of Defense announced the decision to open previously closed combat iv Gender-Neutral Physical Standards for Ground Combat Occupations: Vol. 2 occupations to ...

show abstract

Section: Our Evaluation Of the Criterion-related Validation Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Establishing Gender-Neutral Physical Standards for Ground Combat Occupations: Volume 2. A Review of the Military Services' Methods

Hardison¹,

Hosek²,

Saavedra³

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These dimensions corresponded to Anaerobic Power (AP), Muscle Endurance (ME), and Aerobic Capacity (AC) dimensions identified in previous studies. 4,5 Fixing the variances at 1.000 established the scales for the latent traits representing the general ability and GP dimensions. This method of scaling made it possible to estimate factor loadings for each indicator variable in the measurement models.…”

Section: Analysis Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The resulting models based on general dimensions have adequately summarized the covariation of physical ability tests with task performance. [1][2][3][4][5] The appropriate level of analysis remains an open question despite recent findings. Those findings are limited to specific combinations of tests and tasks.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…7 In previous work, analysis of moderately correlated task performance measures has shown that those indicators could be reduced to a single overall performance index. 4,5 Second, Harman et al 6 constructed a separate predictive model for each of the four combat tasks. The models were based on forward stepwise regression with vertical jump, horizontal jump, sit-ups, push-ups, and a 3.2-km run as potential predictors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Latent Trait Model of Simulated Combat Performance

Vickers¹,

Ross²

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Military personnel perform many physically demanding tasks. Identifying the physical abilities that influence performance will contribute to the design of efficient physical training programs. Causal models were constructed to evaluate aerobic capacity (AC), anaerobic power (AP), and muscle endurance (ME) as potential causes of general performance (GP). Five simulated combat tasks defined GP. AP and AC, but not ME, influenced GP. The AP-AC combination contrasted with general strength (GS)-AC models found in earlier studies. No GS measures were available in this study, so the inclusion of AP in the final model may be a case of omitted variable bias. The models to date have consistently excluded ME as a cause. Further study of the importance of AP could be constructive.-1-

show abstract

“…The strength-performance association can be modeled by representing strength as a single general factor and performance as a general factor (Vickers, 1995(Vickers, , 1996(Vickers, , 2003aVickers, Hodgdon, & Beckett, 2009). Such models have produced strength-performance correlations ranging from r = .32 to r = .96.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Physical Abilities and Military Task Performance: A Replication and Extension

Vickers¹,

Ross²

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Physical Ability-Task Performance Models: Assessing the Risk of Omitted Variable Bias

Cited by 7 publications

References 28 publications

Establishing Gender-Neutral Physical Standards for Ground Combat Occupations: Volume 2. A Review of the Military Services' Methods

Establishing Gender-Neutral Physical Standards for Ground Combat Occupations: Volume 2. A Review of the Military Services' Methods

A Latent Trait Model of Simulated Combat Performance

Physical Abilities and Military Task Performance: A Replication and Extension

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About