Human Factors: The Journal

of the Human Factors and

Ergonomics Society http://hfs.sagepub.com/

Isoperformance and Personnel Decisions

Marshall B. Jones
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2000 42: 299
DOI: 10.1518/001872000779656543

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://hfs.sagepub.com/content/42/2/299

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

Additional services and information for Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics
Society can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://hfs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://hfs.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://hfs.sagepub.com/content/42/2/299.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jan 1, 2000

What is This?
Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at University of Waikato Library on June 18, 2014
Isoperformance and Personnel Decisions
Marshall B. Jones, Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey,
Pennsylvania

Isoperformance curves are contour lines or surfaces that trace all combinations of
two or more determinants that suffice to produce a specified level of performance –
hence the term isoperformance. When the determinants are aptitude and training
time or time on the job, an isoperformance curve allows one to identify individuals
who have sufficient aptitude for the work that they can be expected to reach a
specified standard of performance in a specified length of time. This paper dis-
cusses isoperformance in the personnel selection and classification literature and
then develops and illustrates the uses of isoperformance curves in personnel deci-
sions. The idea of aptitude sensitivity is introduced, and the relationship between
this idea and predictive validity is explained. The paper also indicates how isoper-
formance can be used to detail trade-offs among training time, the minimum qual-
ifying score, attrition rate, quotas, and the specified level of criterion performance.
Isoperformance finds direct application in the multiple-job assignment problem,
exemplified by the choice of which recruit to send to which training school in the
military services.

INTRODUCTION formance fits or might fit into personnel theory.

An isoperformance readout generates trade-off
functions called isoperformance curves (Jones &
Kennedy, 1996). These curves are contour lines
or surfaces; they trace all combinations of two or
more determinants that suffice to produce a spec-
ified level of performance, hence the term isoper-
formance. The most important determinants for
personnel theory are aptitude and training time
or training method. The result that is produced
from these determinants is a specified level of
performance at the end of training or on the job.
Almost always, the specified level of performance
can be produced by more than one combination
of determinants. Isoperformance offers many
solutions instead of a single best solution. One
can select lower-aptitude people at the price of
increased training time or select higher-aptitude
people and decrease training time.
As straightforward as this reasoning appears
to be, it is not immediately obvious how isoper-
With the exception of aptitude-treatment inter-
actions (Cronbach & Snow, 1981), personnel
decisions and training are separate and largely
noncommunicating fields with their own theo-
ries and methods, their own professional orga-
nizations, and their own journals. Selection and
classification are treated as problems in the pre-
diction of behavior. Training is recognized as
related in that personnel theorists seek to pre-
dict how potential employees or recruits will
perform during or after training (on the job).
However, the amount of training is not an
explicit part of those theories. There is no pro-
vision for trading off aptitude and amount of
training.
An additional complication is that isoperfor-
mance is a satisficing technique (Simon, 1957).
It does not maximize an objective function
(some measure of performance) but, instead,
requires the user to specify a level of perfor-
mance as adequate, proficient, or good enough.

Address correspondence to Marshall B. Jones, Department of Behavioral Science H181, Milton S. Hershey Medical Center,
500 University Drive, Hershey, PA 17033; mbj1@psu.edu. HUMAN FACTORS, Vol. 42, No. 2, Summer 2000, pp.
299–317. Copyright © 2000, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved.
Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at University of Waikato Library on June 18, 2014
300
It usually results in a multiplicity of solutions
and relies on other considerations to make a
final decision. Moreover, that final decision
does not necessarily maximize anything in par-
ticular, although it probably does seem “best”
in some sense to the decision maker. Isoper-
formance differs from customary procedure in
personnel theory and behavioral science gener-
ally in all of these respects. Behavioral scientists
sometimes use satisficing techniques, but when
they do, it is almost always a preliminary step
to minimizing or maximizing some objective
function (e.g., utility, efficiency, cost, profits, or
validity).
Despite these differences, I argue that iso-
performance plays a role in personnel theory. It
is a neglected role in current theorizing but
could be much developed. The role is to set
minimal aptitude standards for jobs or job cat-
egories, especially in a multiple-job context.
Except for important early work by Brogden
(1946, 1951, 1959) and Horst (1954, 1955)
and a small group of currently active research-
ers centered around the Army Research
Institute (ARI; Johnson & Zeidner, 1991;
Rumsey, Walker, & Harris, 1994; Statman,
1993; Zeidner & Johnson, 1991a, 1991b; Zeid-
ner, Johnson, & Scholarios, 1997), researchers
of personnel theory have concentrated on the
single-job context. Usually they consider only
one job, and their main concern is to predict
performance on that job or on training for that
job. The outcome for each individual is accep-
tance or rejection. When more than one job is
considered, each job is supposed to draw on a
separate (disjunct) applicant pool. The key
point about the multiple-job context is not just
that two or more jobs are involved but that all
jobs or job categories draw on a common pool
of applicants. An individual who is assigned to
one job is not available for any other, even
though he or she might be well qualified for it.
If the applicant pools for the several jobs are
disjunct, what appears to be a multiple-job sit-
uation is reduced to the single-job context that
is multiply applied.
Although the theory of minimal aptitude
standards (i.e., how best to set them) has been
little developed, in practice all three military
services specify minimal qualifying scores on
the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery
Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at University of Waikato Library on June 18, 2014
Summer 2000 – Human Factors
(ASVAB) for assignment to specific training
schools. The U.S. Army cutoff scores were
originally set so that individuals scoring at or
above the cutoff would have at least a 50%
probability of graduating from training school.
This practice became obsolete when training
philosophy changed, and most students (85%
or more) graduated. For many years now cut-
off scores have been negotiated informally, tak-
ing several considerations into account – for
example, difficulty of school courses, criticality
of errors on the job, and recruiting problems
(Nord & Schmitz, 1991). The Army cutoff
scores are intended to ensure a high probabili-
ty that all individuals assigned for training will
perform at least passably well. This objective is
not the same as guiding recruits into specialties
at which they will perform best, and in general
the cutoff scores are set too low to steer re-
cruits toward one specialty rather than another
(Statman, 1993). As a consequence, the ARI
theorists have turned their attention elsewhere.
ARI theorists envisage a two-tier selection
and classification plan. The first tier is a screen
on general ability. In the Army this screen is
the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT),
an ASVAB composite designed to approximate
psychometric g. A recruit must score at or
above the minimal qualifying score on the
AFQT to become a soldier. The second tier is a
complex classification process that assigns
recruits to training schools to maximize mean
predicted performance (MPP) on the job. This
second tier not only maximizes MPP but also,
in so doing, aggregates over individuals and
military occupational specialties (MOSs); the
first tier is aimed only at ensuring that each
individual possesses adequate general ability to
be a soldier.
In this paper I propose a three-tier plan.
The first tier is the same as the one proposed
by the ARI theorists: a screen on general abili-
ty. The second tier is a screen on predictor
composites for specific jobs or job categories.
To qualify for a specific job, a recruit must
score at or above the cutoff on the aptitude
predictor for that job. Applying these cutoffs
results in a list (sometimes quite lengthy) of all
possible ways of meeting workforce require-
ments with only qualified people. The third tier
is a choice of one of these ways for implemen-
PERSONNEL DECISIONS
tation. One choice, for example, is to pick the
way that maximizes mean predicted perfor-
mance. Isoperformance plays its part in the
second tier. The third tier in the proposed plan
can result in the same assignments as the sec-
ond tier in the Army plan. The plan proposed
in this paper is more general. It could, for
example, maximize objective functions other
than MPP or assign individuals to jobs accord-
ing to a nonmaximizing rule such as “first
come, first served.”
The first step in developing this three-tiered
proposal is to briefly review the main results of
research on the multiple-job context. This
review is followed by an account of the pro-
posed plan couched in terms of the Army
selection and classification program. A brief
review of the isoperformance readout comes
next. In the subsequent steps (sections) I intro-
duce and illustrate the idea of aptitude sensitiv-
ity, explain how predictive validity fits in, and
describe the interplay of competing considera-
tions in the second tier. The next section con-
tains a preliminary exploration of the third tier
and is focused on outcomes other than perfor-
mance and first-term levels of performance. In
the last section I point out the next steps in the
development of isoperformance as a frame-
work for human-systems integration.
THE MULTIPLE-JOB CONTEXT
To determine the validity of a predictor in the
single-job context, the correlation between the
predictor and performance in training or on the
job must be calculated. If there are several jobs
and therefore several predictors, there is an addi-
tional issue: namely, how individuals are assigned
to jobs. The case of two individuals and two jobs,
A and B, with standardized (and equally weight-
ed) performance measures, provides a good
example. If one individual is predicted to perform
better on Job A than on Job B and the other is
predicted to perform better on B than on A, then
the expected performance on the jobs will be
higher if the two individuals are assigned to the
jobs for which they are predicted to do better. In
the multiple-job context, an individual’s perfor-
mance or predicted performance on the job
depends only in part on predictor validities; it
also depends on how an individual is assigned.
Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at University of Waikato Library on June 18, 2014
301
In the single-job context, mean performance
on the job after selection can be determined
empirically. All recruits with a score equal to
or greater than a cutoff are admitted, and their
performance in training or on the job is as-
sessed. If the regression of performance on the
predictor is linear, then mean performance on
the job after selection will be approximated by
mean predicted performance (MPP). If the
sample is very large, mean performance on the
job will equal MPP. Brogden (1955) showed
that this proposition generalizes to the multiple-
job context. Given that all predictors are based
on a single battery of tests administered to the
same participants, if all regression systems are
linear, then mean performance after assign-
ment will be approximated by MPP. If the sam-
ple is large enough, mean performance will
equal MPP. Brogden also showed that MPP
is maximal when the predictor for each job is
the best (least squares) composite of tests in
the battery and each individual is assigned to
the job in which he or she is predicted to per-
form best.
A central issue for Brogden and, more
recently, for the ARI theorists has been to
demonstrate that MPP can be substantially
improved by optimal assignment even when
the intercorrelations among the predictors are
high. Under strong assumptions (detailed
later) Brogden (1959) proved that classifica-
tion efficiency (i.e., the improvement over ran-
dom assignment that can be obtained by
optimal assignment),
MPPmax = f(m)R(1 – r)1/2, (1)
where f(m) is the expected value of the highest
ranking of m deviates drawn from a unit-normal
population (a normal order statistic). R is the
average validity of the m predictor composites,
and r is the average correlation among the pre-
dictor composites.
Brogden’s formula supports three major
conclusions. MMPmax increases as average pre-
dictor validity increases, as average predictor
intercorrelation decreases, and as the number
of jobs increases. To obtain some notion of
how much difference classification might make
(how large MMPmax might be), suppose that R
and r both equal .7 and m equals 8. The order
302
statistic when m equals 8 is 1.42. Therefore,
MMPmax equals 0.54, a little more than half of a
standard deviation (a definitely nonnegligible
amount).
As noted previously, Brogden derived his
formula under strong assumptions. These
assumptions were that (a) all predictors were
best (least squares) composites and equally
valid; (b) that all correlations between predic-
tors were equal; (c) that all job quotas to be
filled were equal; (d) that the applicant pool
was infinite; and (e) that all distributions, mar-
ginal or joint, were normal. Recent work on the
multiple-group context has been focused on
testing Brogden’s conclusions under more real-
istic assumptions. The work was carried out by
constructing a designated population from the
1980 youth reference population (Mitchell &
Hanser, 1984) and the database for Project A
(1990) and then drawing samples from it.
Some samples were used to determine assign-
ment variables and others were used to cross-
validate the application of those variables for
assignment and evaluation. It should be noted
that the use of a constructed population could
not be avoided. ASVAB test results could all be
obtained from the same participants, but the
job performance measures could not.
In practice, few individuals are trained in
more than one military specialty (not to men-
tion as many as eight), and even if they were,
the multiple-job problem calls for performance
in a recruit’s first job assignment. A recruit’s
performance in his or her second or later job
assignment would be relevant only if one were
able to assume that the first assignment experi-
ence had no effect on subsequent performance
in other jobs.
The results of this work have been described
in several places, most recently by Zeidner et
al. (1997). The upshot is that Brogden’s conclu-
sions continue to hold in realistically finite pop-
ulations with nonequal predictor validities and
intercorrelations. Moreover, the advantages
gained by optimal assignment continue to be
substantial.
THE PROPOSED PLAN (ARMY)
The Armed Services Vocational Aptitude
Battery (ASVAB) is administered to all pros-
Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at University of Waikato Library on June 18, 2014
Summer 2000 – Human Factors
pective military recruits as part of the enlistment
process. The ASVAB consists of 10 tests: for
example, Mathematics Knowledge, Electronics
Information, and General Science. In the U.S.
Army, 10 aptitude area (AA) composites are
formed from these 10 tests. The composites
include Combat, Clerical, Mechanical Mainten-
ance, and Skilled Technical.
The Armed Forces Qualifying Test (AFQT)
constitutes 4 of the 10 ASVAB tests, but, un-
like the AA composites, it is intended to mea-
sure general cognitive ability. It consists of two
verbal and two numerical ASVAB tests. The
Army uses the AFQT to exclude the bottom
25% (roughly) of American youths between
18 and 23 years of age. This screen constitutes
the first tier of the existing Army plan and can
serve equally well as the first tier in the pro-
posed three-tier plan.
Job categories in the Army are called mili-
tary occupational specialties (MOSs), and in
each MOS one of the AA composites predicts
performance better than any other. The Army
designates this composite as the one for use in
qualifying soldiers for training in that MOS.
Thus for MOS 19D (cavalry scout) the desig-
nated AA composite is Combat, and for MOS
45L (artillery repairer) the designated AA
composite is General Maintenance.
In addition, the Army specifies a minimum
qualifying score on the designated composite
for each MOS. For example, for cavalry scout
the minimum qualifying score on Combat is
90. A recruit must score 90 or better on
Combat to qualify for training as a cavalry
scout. For artillery repairer the minimum qual-
ifying score on General Maintenance is 100.
These procedures identify every recruit as
either qualified or not qualified for every MOS.
The result is a qualification matrix (see Table 1
for a small hypothetical example). Each of the
19 individuals in the table is indicated as quali-
fied or not qualified for each of two MOSs.
Recruits who are not qualified for either MOS
are not included because they are neither part
of the problem nor part of the solution.
The quota for an MOS is equal to the num-
ber of places for that MOS in the training
schools. The first major problem of the second
tier in the proposed plan is that the qualifica-
tion matrix might not allow all quotas to be
PERSONNEL DECISIONS
TABLE 1: Hypothetical Qualification Matrix for 19 Recruits and 2 MOSs
Individual MOS A Only
1 ✓
2 ✓
3 ✓
4 ✓
5 ✓
6 ✓
7 ✓
8 ✓
9 ✓
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
filled with qualified people. Given that the
quotas for both MOSs in Table 1 equal 10, it is
possible to fill the quota for MOS A by taking
the 7 individuals who qualify for A only plus 3
of the 6 individuals who qualify for both
MOSs. Similarly, it is possible to fill the quota
for MOS B by taking the 6 individuals who
qualify only for MOS B plus 4 of those who
qualify for both A and B. It is not possible,
however, to fill both quotas. To do so, the
number of individuals who qualify for either A
or B would have to equal or exceed the sum of
the two quotas (20), and it doesn’t; there are
only 19 individuals.
The second major problem of the second tier
is that when all quotas can be filled with quali-
fied people, it is often possible to do so in many
different ways. For example, if the two quotas in
Table 1 were 8 instead of 10, there would be 10
020 different ways to fill both quotas with quali-
fied people (see Table 2). There are 10 types of
solutions. For example, the Type 1 solution in
Table 2 assigns 7 individuals who qualify only
for A and 1 individual who qualifies for both A
and B to MOS A. Type 1 assigns all 6 individu-
als who qualify only for B plus 2 who qualify for
both A and B to MOS B. Within each type,
however, there are numerous (sometimes very
numerous) ways of assigning individuals to the
two MOSs. Thus (again Type 1) there is only
Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at University of Waikato Library on June 18, 2014
303
MOS B Only MOS A and MOS B
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
one way to select the 7 who qualify for MOS A
only, because there are only 7 who qualify, but
the 1 individual who is qualified for both MOSs
can be any of the 6 individuals who are so qual-
ified. For each 1 of these 6 possibilities there are
10 ways of filling the quota for MOS B. The 2
individuals who qualify for both MOSs can be
any 2 from among the 5 remaining individuals
who qualify for both jobs (1 such individual has
already been assigned to MOS A). Altogether,
then, there are 60 different ways of the first type
of filling the two quotas. As is clear from the
last column of Table 2, 60 is the smallest num-
ber of solutions allowed by one of the 10 types.
The sum of the numbers in the last column is
10 020.
In the third tier of the proposed plan one of
these solutions is adopted; which one to
choose is a difficult and complicated question.
A case might be made that Type 1 solutions
should be preferred because they make mini-
mal use of doubly qualified people. It could be
that doubly qualified people are more expen-
sive to recruit. On the other hand, it could be
that the Army’s strategic plan calls for consoli-
dating these two jobs for which the recruits are
doubly qualified in the near future. In that
case, the Type 4, 7, 9, or 10 solutions might be
preferable because they make maximal use of
doubly qualified people.
304 Summer 2000 – Human Factors

TABLE 2: Types of Solutions for the Two-Job Matrix in Table 1, where QA = QB = 8

Solutiona
Number of
Type MOS A MOS B Left Over Solutions

1 7A,1AB 6B,2AB 0A,0B,3AB 60

2 7A,1AB 5B,3AB 0A,1B,2AB 360
3 7A,1AB 4B,4AB 0A,2B,1AB 450
4 7A,1AB 3B,5AB 0A,3B,0AB 120
5 6A,2AB 6B,2AB 1A,0B,2AB 630
6 6A,2AB 5B,3AB 1A,1B,1AB 2520
7 6A,2AB 4B,4AB 1A,2B,0AB 1575
8 5A,3AB 6B,2AB 2A,0B,1AB 1260
9 5A,3AB 5B,3AB 2A,1B,0AB 2520
10 4A,4AB 6B,2AB 3A,0B,0AB 525
a
The numbers in these three columns do not refer to individuals but, rather, to numbers of individuals.
Thus 7A,1AB should be read as 7 individuals who qualify for A only and 1 individual who qualifies for
both A and B.

MOS A might be more critical than MOS B,
in which case the most qualified people (i.e.,
those with the highest scores on the designated
measure) should be placed in MOS A. If that is
done, however, it might not be possible to fill
other quotas that require high scorers on that
AA measure. In fact, it might be advisable to
fill both job categories with the lowest-scoring
(but still qualified) recruits in order to leave as
many higher-scoring recruits available as possi-
ble for more demanding MOSs. For recruiting
and morale reasons one might want to honor
the recruits’ preferences as much as possible.
Retention might be a consideration. That is, it
might be advisable to prefer a somewhat less-
qualified recruit who was, on other evidences,
likely to reenlist over one who was more quali-
fied but less likely to reenlist. There might be
demographic constraints that should be ob-
served.
By itself, isoperformance does not provide a
way to resolve these concerns. In a later section
of this paper I make a few comments about reen-
listment and predicted performance at more
advanced stages of a military career, but in the
main, the third tier and its problems are left to
another occasion. Isoperformance provides a
sound and straightforward way of determining
Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at University of Waikato Library on June 18, 2014
the minimum qualifying score for an MOS. If,
however, the quotas cannot all be filled with
qualified people (as often happens), then an alter-
nate solution must be determined. The quotas,
the tolerable attrition rate, the amount of train-
ing, the minimum qualifying score, and even the
criterion level of performance might have to be
adjusted. Isoperformance can be further used to
detail the trade-offs among these considerations.
THE ISOPERFORMANCE READOUT
Figure 1 presents two isoperformance curves
that trade off aptitude and time on the job.
The job in question is M1 Abrams tank turret
mechanic, MOS 45E (see the Appendix for a
description of this MOS and descriptions of
the two other MOSs used as examples in this
paper). The aptitude measure is Mechanical
Maintenance, and the minimum qualifying
score is 100 (Department of the Army, 1987).
Any soldier who scores 100 or better on Mech-
anical Maintenance can be assigned for train-
ing as an M1 Abrams tank turret mechanic.
From 1985 to 1992 the Army administered
a Skill Qualification Test (SQT) to all enlisted
personnel each year. Different SQTs were
developed for each MOS at each skill level
PERSONNEL DECISIONS
130
120 (117,12)
110
100
Mechanical
Maintenance 90
80
Crit = 65
70
Crit = 60
60
50
start> 6 12 18
Time on the Job (mos)
Figure 1. Isoperformance curves trading off aptitude (Mechanical Maintenance) and time on the job with the
criterion (SQT) set at 60 and 65 and level of assurance set at .90 for both criterion settings. The MOS is 45E
(M1 Abrams tank turret mechanic).
(1–5). In different years parallel forms of the
tests were used; Skill Level 1 was the entry
level. The Army regarded a score of 60 on this
test as an indicator of proficiency. Thus the
SQT is the performance criterion. Figure 1
presents two isoperformance curves, one for
SQT = 60 and the other for a somewhat higher
standard of performance (SQT = 65).
The isoperformance technique requires the
user to specify not only a level of performance
on the criterion but also a probability of attain-
ing that level (called the assurance level).
Given that the Army typically requires 9 out of
10 soldiers to be proficient in what they do
(Mayberry, 1992), the two curves in Figure 1
trace all combinations of aptitude and time on
the job that suffice to produce soldiers with a
.90 probability of proficiency (scoring 60 or 65
on the SQT).
Some readers find curves like the ones in
Figure 1 easier to read if aptitude is plotted on
the abscissa and time on the job is plotted on
the ordinate. In that case the time to criterion
is a decreasing function of aptitude. Although
that reading is familiar to many psychologists,
it can be seriously misleading because it trans-
lates or attempts to translate a contour line
into a causal relationship. Aptitude and time
on the job in Figure 1 are independent deter-
Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at University of Waikato Library on June 18, 2014
305
(100,46)
24 30 36 42 48 54
minants of SQT score; they are not causally
related one to the other. Nevertheless, Figure 1
and isoperformance curves are generally easier
to understand if the axes are (temporarily)
reversed.
Isoperformance curves are more accurately
read as trade-off functions. For example, given
a soldier with a score on Mechanical Mainten-
ance of 117, after 12 months on the job the
probability is .90 that he will perform at SQT
= 65. A second soldier, who scores 100 on
Mechanical Maintenance, will take 46 months
to reach the SQT = 65 standard with .90 prob-
ability. A drop of 17 points on the aptitude
measure requires 34 months to make up. In
other words, it takes 2 months on the job to
make up for the reduction in performance indi-
cated by a drop of 1 point in aptitude.
The curves in Figure 1 are based on data
archived at the Tri-Service Training and Person-
nel Data Center (TPDC) in Orlando, Florida,
N = 461. The following model was fit to the
data to obtain the curves:
____
SQTit = m + Tt + b(APT
____i – APT ) +
cTt(APTi – APT ) + εit , (2)
where SQTit is the performance of the ith sol-
dier after t months at Skill Level 1 and
306
ΣT =0
t
t (3)
The design is a single-factor experiment with
repeated measures on the individual soldiers.
The single factor is time on the job with lev-
els corresponding to annual measurements. Tt
is a treatment effect; it indicates how much
average performance after t months on the
job differs from the general level of perfor-
mance, m. In this connection, time on the job
in the Army is largely time spent in training.
Of the 165 MOSs in the TPDC database, a
large majority show increasing performance
with time on the job.
Two further points should be mentioned
regarding Tt. First, they are parameters in the
model and, like all parameters, they are esti-
mated from sample information but are not
sample statistics. Second, the model describes
the course of SQT score over time in point-to-
point fashion and not as a closed functional
form, because (a) no one closed form (e.g.,
quadratic) fits all MOSs, and (b) five points
are too few to distinguish a specified closed
form from alternative possibilities.
The second source of variation in the design
is aptitude. It captures much of the variance in
performance attributable to differences between
one soldier and another. APTi is the soldier’s
____
score on Mechanical Maintenance and APT is
the mean aptitude score of the 461 soldiers in
MOS 45E. εit is a normally distributed error
term with a mean equal to 0 and variance
equal to σ 2ε. In addition, the model allows for
an interaction between aptitude and Tt.
The parameters of the model, other than Tt,
are indicated by lowercase italic letters: m is
the general mean, b is the regression coeffi-
cient for SQT score on aptitude, and c is the
coefficient for the interaction term (almost
always negative in the TPDC database). These
parameters, along with Tt and the error vari-
ance, σ 2ε, are all estimated in the course of fit-
ting the model to the data.
All of the 461 soldiers in 45E had scores on
Mechanical Maintenance and on the first SQT
measurement (Year 1). Thereafter, however,
the number of soldiers who were still at Skill
Level 1 decreased steadily as more soldiers
advanced to Skill Level 2. In 45E the number
Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at University of Waikato Library on June 18, 2014
Summer 2000 – Human Factors
of soldiers still at Skill Level 1 at the second
SQT testing was down to 259, and at the third
testing the number was down to 184. As their
number decreased, the mean aptitude score of
soldiers still at Skill Level 1 also tended to
decrease. In 45E this decrease was slight. The
461 soldiers at the first SQT testing had a
mean aptitude score of 112.2. Mean aptitude
scores at the second through the fifth testings
were 112.5, 112.4, 111.7, and 111.3, respec-
tively. This tendency for the mean aptitude
scores among soldiers still at Skill Level 1 to
decrease at later testings was an understand-
able complication. Moreover, its effect could
be estimated from the known regression of
SQT score on aptitude and was taken into
account in the fitting procedure.
The isoperformance curves in Figure 1 were
derived in four simple steps. First, a level of
performance, SQThi, was determined suffi-
ciently above the specified level, SQTspec, such
that, given σ 2ε and a normal distribution, 90%
of the soldiers would fall at or above SQTspec.
Given that two values were specified for
SQTspec (60 and 65), there were two resulting
values of SQThi. Second, the error term was
dropped, performance was fixed at SQThi, and
Equation 2 was solved for time on the job as a
function of aptitude. Thus
____
SQThi – m – b(APTi – APT )
Tt = ________________________________
____ . (4)
1 + c(APTi – APT )
The third step consisted
____ of substituting the val-
ues of m, b, c, and APT obtained for MOS 45E
and then substituting the two values obtained
earlier for SQThi. Finally, time on the job was
inferred by linear interpolation from the effect
of time on the job, Tt.
APTITUDE SENSITIVITY
The term aptitude sensitivity refers to the
slope of an isoperformance curve that trades
off aptitude with something else. In the present
case, it trades off aptitude with time on the
job. Aptitude sensitivity is defined at a point
and thus might change from point to point on
an isoperformance curve. Approximately, how-
ever, it is given by the length of time on the
PERSONNEL DECISIONS
100
90
80
Clerical
70
Criterion = 65
60
Criterion = 60
50
start> 6 12 18
Time on the Job (mos)
Figure 2. Isoperformance curves trading off aptitude (Clerical) and time on the job with the criterion (SQT) set
at 60 and 65 and level of assurance set at .90 for both criterion settings. The MOS is 71M (chaplain assistant).
job, ∆T, needed to make up for a reduction in
aptitude, ∆A, divided by ∆A. Thus
∆T .
aptitude sensitivity = ____ (5)
∆A
In Figure 1 we obtained a value of 2 for apti-
tude sensitivity at aptitude = 117 or time = 12
months (with SQT = 65 and assurance level =
.90). This value indicates a high degree of apti-
tude sensitivity. Nevertheless, it is still possible
to make up for a substantial aptitude differen-
tial (17 points) by more time on the job, albeit
a lot more time (almost 3 years). In other MOSs
the isoperformance curve is even more sensi-
tive to aptitude.
Figure 2 presents isoperformance curves for
MOS 71M (chaplain assistant). The aptitude
measure is Clerical (office work, not clergy)
and the proficiency standards (SQT) are set at
60 and 65 with level of assurance at .90, as
before. From 6 to 18 months the two curves
decline somewhat and are only a little more
sensitive than those for MOS 45E. Aptitude
sensitivity is 2.3 and 2.2 for SQT = 65 and
SQT = 60, respectively. For the first year and a
half, therefore, it is possible to make up some-
what for a deficiency in aptitude (only about 5
aptitude points; 12 ÷ 2.3 = 5.2). A soldier with
an aptitude score of 85 would not be proficient
initially but would probably be proficient after
Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at University of Waikato Library on June 18, 2014
307
24 30 36 42 48 54
18 months on the job. After 18 months, how-
ever, the two curves are essentially flat. If a sol-
dier has a score on Clerical of less than 83, he
or she will not reach the standard at SQT = 65
in any amount of time. Similarly, if he or she
has a score on Clerical of less than 68, no
amount of time on the job will suffice to meet
the standard at SQT = 60. When an isoperfor-
mance curve is flat (maximally sensitive to
aptitude), performance is determined solely by
aptitude and time spent training is without
effect.
Figure 3 illustrates the opposite extreme –
that is, complete insensitivity to aptitude. The
curves are hypothetical because the TPDC
database contains no MOS with isoperfor-
mance curves that are anywhere near vertical.
In this hypothetical case, however, aptitude has
no effect and performance is determined solely
by time spent training or time on the job. It
takes a year for a soldier to reach proficiency
with 90% assurance, and his or her aptitude
makes no difference. To reach the higher stan-
dard (SQT = 65) it takes two years, and, again,
aptitude has no effect on performance.
Except at most moderate degrees, aptitude
insensitivity is absent in the TPDC database
mainly because the aptitude measures used by
the Army to qualify soldiers for training in dif-
ferent MOSs have good predictive validity. The
308
160
140
120
100
Aptitude 80
60
40
20
0
start> 6 12
Time on the Job (mos)
Figure 3. Hypothetical isoperformance curves illustrating complete insensitivity to aptitude.
TPDC database includes ASVAB measures
(obtained at the point of enlistment) and SQT
scores (obtained after one or more years on the
job). Predictive validities for SQT scores at 6
months that are not corrected for range restric-
tion center in the low .30s, sometimes reaching
down into the .20s. Validities corrected for range
restriction center in the .40s and frequently
range in the .50s.
With respect to isoperformance, the lowest
scores on the aptitude measures that the Army
accepts as qualifying are usually about right.
For most MOSs in the TPDC database a sol-
dier with the minimum qualifying score reach-
es proficiency (SQT = 60) with the specified
probability (.90) in less than a year on the job.
In Figure 1, for example, a soldier who scores
100 on Mechanical Maintenance (the mini-
mum qualifying score) meets specifications at
around 10 months. Soldiers who score above
100 can be expected to meet specifications ear-
lier than 10 months. It would be best, of
course, if all soldiers were proficient on their
first day of duty. If that is not possible, howev-
er, it seems reasonable to require the lowest-
scoring but still qualified soldier to take a year
or less on the job to reach proficiency.
At the same time, the Army does not want
the qualifying score set higher than is neces-
sary. In that case, highly qualified soldiers
would be assigned to tasks that less-qualified
Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at University of Waikato Library on June 18, 2014
Summer 2000 – Human Factors
Criterion = 65
Criterion = 60
18 24 30 36 42 48 54
men and women could do equally well. The
Army might then find itself with a shortage of
qualified soldiers for more demanding MOSs.
Chaplain assistant (MOS 71M) is a case in
point. From Figure 2 it is clear that soldiers
with scores as low as 75 on Clerical are profi-
cient (SQT = 60) from the outset. Yet the min-
imally qualifying score for this MOS is 95,
which is 20 points higher. A chaplain assistant
is, therefore, seriously overqualified. The sam-
ple size for MOS 71M in the TPDC database is
715. These 715 soldiers are all overqualified
for their MOS and all could be serving in
MOSs that require higher scores on Clerical to
reach proficiency than the scores required for
chaplain assistant. Perhaps there is no shortage
of soldiers who score 95 or higher on Clerical,
but if there is, one way to increase their num-
ber would be to reduce the qualifying score for
chaplain assistant to 75.
Aptitude insensitivity is especially helpful in
MOSs that are not mission-critical, especially
if high aptitude levels are required for soldiers
to be proficient in short order. In such cases,
less-qualified people can be assigned to those
MOSs and, with time, they will become profi-
cient. Printing and bindery specialist (MOS
83F) is a good example. The duties of this
MOS do not appear to be mission-critical (see
Appendix), and the isoperformance curves for
83F (see Figure 4) are less sensitive to aptitude
PERSONNEL DECISIONS 309

180
170
160
150
(149,12)

140
(131,21)
130
Skilled 120
Technical
110
100
90 Crit = 65
80
Crit = 60
70
60
50
start> 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54
Time on the Job (mos)

Figure 4. Isoperformance curves trading off aptitude (Skilled Technical) and time on the job with the criteri-
on (SQT) set at 60 and 65 and level of assurance set at .90 for both criterion settings. The MOS is 83F
(printing and bindery specialist).

than are curves for any other MOS in the
TPDC database. The curve for SQT = 60
begins very high (above 140) on the relevant
aptitude measure (Skilled Technical) but falls
rapidly with time on the job. After 2.5 years on
the job an aptitude score of 100 suffices for
proficiency, and after another two years sol-
diers with an aptitude score of 70 become pro-
ficient.
The curve for SQT = 65 provides a good
example for obtaining a quantitative indication
of aptitude sensitivity. Given that the two
curves in Figure 4 are almost parallel, either
one serves for both. A soldier with an aptitude
score of 149 requires 12 months to meet spec-
ifications, and a soldier with an aptitude score
of 131 requires 21 months to do the same.
Hence
21 – 12 9
aptitude sensitivity = ____________ = ___ = 0.5.(6)
149 – 131 18
The aptitude measures are different for 45E
and 83F. However, the ASVAB composites are
all scaled to the same mean and standard devi-
ation and are, therefore, comparable, at least
with respect to distribution. Thus after a sol-
dier has 18 months on the job, aptitude sensi-
tivity for 83F is four times less than it is for
45E and infinitely less than it is for 71M.
Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at University of Waikato Library on June 18, 2014
HOW PREDICTIVE VALIDITY FITS IN
Aptitude sensitivity, predictive validity, and
the slope of the performance curve are closely
related ideas. Validity is usually taken as a cor-
relation. However, if validity is taken as the
regression coefficient of performance on apti-
tude, then all three ideas are regression coeffi-
cients or slopes. Moreover, they are simply
related. Aptitude sensitivity equals change in
training time or time on the job per unit apti-
tude (∆T ÷ ∆A); validity equals change in per-
formance per unit aptitude (∆P ÷ ∆A); and
slope of the performance curve is change in
performance per unit time (∆P ÷ ∆T). Thus
∆T ____
____ ∆P ____
∆P
= ÷ . (7)
∆A ∆A ∆T
Aptitude sensitivity is the ratio of predictive
validity (construed as a regression coefficient)
to the slope of the performance curve. It re-
flects the balance between aptitude and time as
determinants of performance. As aptitude in-
creases in importance as a determinant of per-
formance, the isoperformance curve increases
in sensitivity. As training increases in impor-
tance as a determinant of performance, the
isoperformance curve decreases in sensitivity.
310 Summer 2000 – Human Factors

These relationships are depicted graphically
in Figure 5. Panel A presents a representative
isoperformance curve. Given a point on this
curve (aptitude = 80, time = 30), in the next 6
months aptitude decreases by 6 points to 74.
Therefore, aptitude sensitivity equals 1. In
Panel B, given that the regression of perfor-
mance on aptitude is taken as linear, the
regression coefficient is the same at 80 as it is
at any other aptitude level. Specifically, perfor-
mance (SQT) increases by 4 points for every
10 points that aptitude increases. Thus, ∆P
divided by ∆A equals 0.4. In Panel C, in the
next 6 months performance increases by 2.4
SQT points with the curve at 30 months.
Therefore, ∆P divided by ∆T also equals 0.4.
Hence aptitude sensitivity is the same (in this
case, 1) whether it is calculated directly as the
slope of the isoperformance curve or indirectly
from its two component slopes.

(A) 140

120

100

80
Aptitude
60

40

20

0
start> 12 24 36 48

Time on the Job (mos)

(B) 90

80

70
Perfor-
mance 60
50

40

30
start> 70 90 110 130

Aptitude

(C) 80

70

60
Perfor-
mance 50

40

0
start> 12 24 36 48

Time on the Job (mos)

Figure 5. (A) An isoperformance curve trading off aptitude and time on the job, (B) performance as a func-
tion of aptitude, and (C) performance as a function of time on the job.
Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at University of Waikato Library on June 18, 2014
PERSONNEL DECISIONS
A good example of this logic in practice is
the case of 71M and 83F. The regression coef-
ficient of performance on aptitude for 71M
(chaplain assistant) is .32 (r = .28, .52 correct-
ed for restriction in range), whereas the regres-
sion coefficient for 83F (printing and bindery
specialist) is .23 (r = .20, .34 corrected). This
difference is part of the reason why 71M is
sensitive to aptitude whereas 83M is much less
sensitive. It is not the main reason, however.
The main reason is that performance, at least
as measured, does not improve with time in
71M whereas it does improve with time in
83F. Figure 6 presents mean SQT score by year
for the two MOSs. Mean performance in 71M
increases by 2 points from the first to the sec-
ond year and then not at all thereafter, whereas
mean performance in 83F increases by 20
points over the same interval of time.
Isoperformance curves usually decelerate
late in training. The reason for this tendency is
apparent in Figure 5. The regression of perfor-
mance on aptitude is generally linear, but the
regression of performance on training time or
time on the job tends to be a conventional
learning curve. Performance improves rapidly
early in training and then slows down. Thus
the denominator of aptitude sensitivity, ∆P
divided by ∆T, decreases, whereas the numera-
tor, ∆P divided by ∆A, remains the same. The
result is that isoperformance curves tend to
decelerate late in training.
90
80
70
SQT
60
50
40
start> 6 12
Figure 6. Mean SQT for MOS 71M and MOS 83F by time on the job (MOS).
Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at University of Waikato Library on June 18, 2014
311
This tendency has practical consequences.
An extension of training in an already lengthy
training program is unlikely to yield major ben-
efits because the effects of training have largely
worn off, leaving the curve very sensitive to
aptitude. This rule of thumb holds only as long
as the training program does not change. If the
extension involves the acquisition of new
skills, then, in effect, a new learning curve is
initiated, and the isoperformance curve might
turn sharply downward again.
HOW THE SECOND TIER WORKS
As Figures 1 through 4 show, isoperfor-
mance provides a way of identifying qualified
individuals. In MOS 45E (Figure 1), if the pro-
ficiency and assurance levels are set at 60 and
.90, respectively, and if these standards should
be met within a year, then the minimum quali-
fying score is 100. If one wanted the proficien-
cy and assurance requirements to be met in a
shorter length of time (for example, 6 months),
the minimum qualifying score would have to be
increased to 106. If the proficiency standard
was raised, then the minimum qualifying score
would also have to be raised. Raising the profi-
ciency requirement to 65 would require the
minimum qualifying score to be set at 117.
The trade-offs among aptitude levels, length
of training time or time on the job, and profi-
ciency standards are all straightforward. Trade-
MOS = 71M
MOS = 83F
18 24 30 36 42 48 54
Time on the Job (mos)
312
offs involving assurance levels or quotas
involve a complication. The complication is
attrition rate – that is, the proportion of indi-
viduals who are assigned to a job category
(MOS) who fail to meet specifications. In
training programs the attrition rate is the pro-
portion that does not graduate, and in some
programs minimizing this rate is a major cost
consideration. All of the recruits assigned to an
MOS have aptitude scores at least as high as
the minimum qualifying score. Most have
scores above this minimum score, and many
have scores well above it. The attrition rate,
therefore, will be less than the inverse of the
assurance level. If the assurance level is .90,
attrition will be less than .10.
Attrition also ensures that the number who
graduate or meet specifications, G, is less than
Q, the number assigned to the training program
or job category; G is often the more critical
number. These three ideas (Q, G, and attrition
rate) are closely connected. Specifically,
G screen imposes fewer constraints on the assign-
Q = _____________
1 – attrition
Hence one way to obtain Q is to specify G and
then calculate Q. Of course, making such a
calculation presupposes that one knows the
attrition rate, and this, in turn, presupposes
that one has decided, at least tentatively, who
is going to be assigned to the job category at
issue.
Q and G cannot always be satisfied by dis-
tributing or redistributing individuals to job
categories. There might be no way to fill all
quotas with qualified people or to obtain the
desired numbers of graduates or proficient per-
sonnel in all job categories. In such cases,
training time, assurance level, performance cri-
terion, minimum qualifying score, Q, or G
must be adjusted. In the personnel selection
literature such adjustments are usually dis-
cussed in terms of utility (e.g., Cronbach &
Gleser, 1957). Isoperformance provides an
alternative approach – one that focuses on
trade-offs.
For example, there is no point in extending
the training time for an MOS such as chaplain
assistant, in which performance is very sensi-
tive to aptitude. The increased training time
Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at University of Waikato Library on June 18, 2014
Summer 2000 – Human Factors
has a monetary cost and provides little or no
relief for any of the other considerations at
issue. Reducing the assurance level lowers the
minimum qualifying score and, together with
an increase in Q, allows one to graduate as
many or more people without lowering the
performance criterion. The downside is that
the attrition rate and thus the cost of training
are increased. In addition, the level of perfor-
mance on the job, although proficient, will not
be as high as it was with the higher assurance
level. In some job categories for which perfor-
mance levels are preferably as high as possible,
poorer job performance might not be accept-
able. In many and perhaps most job categories,
lowering the performance criterion is the least
attractive solution. It is a tempting fix, however,
because doing so “lifts all other boats.”
In the single-job context, the three-tier plan
proposed in this paper is reduced to a two-tier
plan. When there is only one job category, there
is only one best predictor of performance and
therefore only one screen. In general, this one
(8)
ment process than do the screens for specific
aptitudes in the multiple-job context. In some
circumstances it imposes no constraints at all;
in that case the present approach does not dif-
fer from conventional selection (no screen).
For example, if the number of individuals qual-
ified for a job category, N, is much greater than
Q and the work is so expensive to train or so
important that only those who score highest on
the aptitude measure are selected, then the
top-scoring Q individuals will be selected as in
conventional selection.
If N is greater than Q but training costs are
minimal and time to reach proficiency is not
important, then the two-tier (isoperformance)
and conventional approaches might differ. For
example, if (a) the job category at issue is sim-
ilar to printing and bindery specialist in that its
isoperformance curves are sensitive to training
as well as aptitude, (b) recruitment costs for
highly qualified people are high, and (c) highly
qualified people are difficult to retain, the best
option might be to select qualified but not very
qualified people and train them to specifica-
tions over possibly long periods of time. That
would ensure that people assigned for training
would not only remain on the job long enough
PERSONNEL DECISIONS
to become proficient but would stay on the job
after they had become proficient.
If N is less than Q, another difference devel-
ops. In the conventional approach the individu-
als who have the highest Q scores are still
selected because there is no requirement to
specify a proficiency standard and assurance
level up front; hence qualification is not defined.
If a minimal aptitude standard is imposed, how-
ever, it might happen that the quota cannot be
filled with qualified individuals. In that event,
the selection process comes to a halt while the
selecting agency decides what to do: reduce the
quota, relax the assurance level, reduce the stan-
dard of proficiency, increase training time, or
initiate a recruiting program.
THE THIRD TIER
In the Army’s second tier (the third tier in
this paper) the ARI theorists use linear pro-
gramming to maximize mean predicted perfor-
mance (MPP). The insertion of a screen on
specific aptitude predictors (the second tier in
this paper) creates an obvious difference be-
tween the ARI plan and the one advanced in
this paper. In the ARI plan, some individuals
might be assigned to jobs for which they are
not qualified. This case might not be likely, but
there is nothing in the plan that rules it out.
Maximizing MPP does not exclude an individ-
ual who passes the AFQT screen but fails to
qualify for any job. Even if an individual quali-
fies for one or more jobs, MPP might be
improved by assigning the individual in ques-
tion to a job for which he or she is not quali-
fied. The case of two individuals (1 and 2) and
two MOSs (A and B) provides a good exam-
ple. If both individuals qualify for MOS A but
1 is predicted to perform much better than 2
with respect to MOS B, then 1 qualifies for A
and 2 does not, although the difference
between their predicted performances is not
large. In such a case, maximizing MPP assigns
individual 1 to MOS A and 2 to MOS B, even
though 2 does not qualify for B.
There is also an obvious fix for this difficul-
ty: namely, to adopt the three-tier plan pro-
posed in this paper and then maximize MPP.
The second tier eventuates in a list of all ways
to fill all quotas with qualified people. To max-
Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at University of Waikato Library on June 18, 2014
313
imize MPP one simply selects whichever way
has the highest MPP or, in the event of a tie, an
arbitrarily selected way from the tied (best)
ways. In Table 2, for example, at least one of
the 10 020 ways of filling both quotas has an
MPP as high as or higher than any other. The
solution is to pick any such way.
However, considerations other than predict-
ed performance might have to be taken into
account. In recent years 10% to 15% of all U.S.
Navy recruits have been lost to attrition in basic
training, and 20% to 25% have been lost to
attrition by 18 months in service (R. R. Vickers,
Jr., personal communication, June 1999). Rough-
ly 40% of these cases were medical – individu-
als discharged for medical problems. Another
40% were behavioral – individuals discharged
as training failures or for misconduct, lack of
motivation, unsuitability as indicated by a situa-
tional reaction, or, more generally, nonadaptabil-
ity to military life. The remaining 20% have
been lost to attrition based mainly on events
that occurred prior to entering service – for
example, a previously unnoted violation of
administrative guidelines rather than failure to
cope with the specific stresses of basic training.
Retention is an even larger problem. Reten-
tion rates vary with length of service, the skill
level required by a given military specialty, and
how quickly or slowly an individual advances
through the ranks. They also vary with bonus-
es or benefits that the services might give to
people who remain in service or, during a
downsizing, those who separate from it, the
civilian unemployment rate, and marital status
(Moore, Griffis, & Cavalluzzo, 1996).
In principle, attrition and retention should
be predictable to some degree from informa-
tion that is available or potentially available at
the point of enlistment. A few such predictors
are known. Recruits who have completed high
school are more likely both to reach the point
of reenlistment (not to be lost to attrition) and
to continue in service after that point than
those who have not completed high school
(Cooke, Marcus, & Quester, 1992). Thus com-
pletion of high school could also be invoked to
decide which way to fill all quotas with quali-
fied people, by modifying either the first or the
second screen (Tier 1 or 2). To be qualified for
service in any form or for certain specialties,
314
an individual would have to have a high school
diploma in addition to meeting the ASVAB
requirements. There would be difficulties, of
course – for example, (a) an individual who
had not completed high school but scored well
on the AFQT and especially well on certain
AA composites, and (b) how much the army
or navy is prepared to lose in predicted perfor-
mance in order to reduce the risk of attrition
or increase the probability of reenlistment.
Other difficulties concern the process of
maximization. One such difficulty is especially
apparent when the same predictor (something
like the AFQT) is used for all job categories. In
this case, maximizing mean predicted perfor-
mance will assign the highest scorers on the
predictor to the job category in which the pre-
dictor is most valid, the next-highest scorers to
the category in which the predictor is next
most valid, and so on, down to the lowest
scorers on the universal predictor, who will be
assigned to the category in which performance
is least well predicted. If performance is equal-
ly well predicted in all categories but some cat-
egories are more important than others, the
same thing happens except that “importance”
is substituted in place of “validity.” If different
aptitude predictors are used for different job
categories, a strict stratification will generally
not result. However, given the high correla-
tions between the AFQT and all of the ASVAB
tests, an approximate stratification of jobs by
AFQT is likely.
The problem is that performance in the ARI
scheme of things refers to first-term perfor-
mance. However, even low-level job categories
must ultimately have chief petty officers, and if
job categories are stratified by general ability,
low-level MOSs might not have anyone in
them who could become a good chief. In short,
there might be a need for some balance in gen-
eral ability in all job categories, and maximiz-
ing first-term performance could easily exclude
any such balance.
DISCUSSION
A Pseudo-Third Tier
The prototypic function of the second tier is
to ensure that all quotas are filled with qualified
individuals. It can also be used to channel indi-
Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at University of Waikato Library on June 18, 2014
Summer 2000 – Human Factors
viduals to jobs in which they will perform well –
in effect, to usurp the main function of the third
tier. The jobs would be arranged in an hierarchy
of importance. The requirements for assignment
to the top job would be made so severe that
only individuals who were expected to perform
very well would be assigned to it. Requirements
for assignment to a less important job would be
a little less stringent. Requirements for assign-
ment to jobs at the bottom of the hierarchy
would ensure no more than passable perfor-
mance. Such a strategy might not maximize
MPP weighted for job importance, but it could
come close to doing so. The meaning of qualifi-
cation would, of course, be altered for jobs in
the upper reaches of the hierarchy. It would
mean something more like “excellence” than
“adequacy.” Nevertheless, the second tier can be
used this way, and it might be more practical
than attempted maximization.
However, this pseudo-third tier involves a
stricter stratification of jobs than what results
when MPP is maximized using the same pre-
dictor for all job categories. The stratification,
moreover, is explicit and not a byproduct of
using a single predictor.
A Role for Training Considerations
The most distinctive feature of isoperfor-
mance is its inclusion of training as an explicit
consideration in personnel decisions. The
study of training and skill acquisition is an
experimental discipline with its own theories
and history. Personnel psychology is a correla-
tional discipline with a different history and
different theories. Nevertheless, the two disci-
plines share a common applied objective: to
field proficient personnel. Because they do
share this objective, they trade-off with each
other and hence can be partners in an isoper-
formance analysis. This partnering works both
ways, however. If training has a role in person-
nel decisions, then personnel considerations
have a role in training.
Figure 7 presents a single, hypothetical iso-
performance curve trading off aptitude, training
time, and training method. A soldier with an
aptitude score of 95 meets specifications after
18 months when instructed by Method B but
not until 49 months when instructed by Method
A. To meet specifications after 18 months by
PERSONNEL DECISIONS 315

130

120
(112)
110

100

Aptitude 90 (95)

80

70 Method A
60
Method B
50

50
start> 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54

Training Time (mos)

Figure 7. A single hypothetical isoperformance curve trading off aptitude, training time, and instructional
method. The proficiency standards and levels of assurance are the same for both instructional methods.

Method A, a soldier would have to have an
aptitude score of 112. Clearly, B is a much bet-
ter method than A. It is possible to compare
and evaluate instructional methods without
using isoperformance. One could instruct one
group of participants by Method A and anoth-
er by Method B and compare the acquisition
curves of the two groups. However, the impli-
cations for selection would be lost. It would be
clear only that B was a better method than A.
One would not know how much longer it
would take participants with specified apti-
tudes to reach the proficiency standard with
the specified assurance.
This point is made even clearer in Figure 8.
A comparison of the two methods in this case
would yield different results depending on how
long training was continued. Method B is bet-
ter up until 22 months; Method A is better
after 22 months. A group comparison would
miss the relation to aptitude. High-aptitude
people (aptitudes ≥ 109) reached proficiency

160

140

120

100
Aptitude
80

Method A
60

Method B
40

20
start> 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54

Training Time (mos)

Figure 8. A single hypothetical isoperformance curve trading off aptitude, training time, and instructional
method. The proficiency standards and levels of assurance are the same for both instructional methods.
Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at University of Waikato Library on June 18, 2014
316
more quickly when instructed by Method B
than by Method A. Low-aptitude people (apti-
tude < 109) reached proficiency more quickly
when instructed by A than by B. Low-aptitude
people would never reach proficiency if B were
the only method of instruction.
Personnel decisions, training, workforce
analysis, and much of human engineering, as
well as parts of several other fields, are aimed
at fielding proficient and effective personnel.
To the extent that they do, these different disci-
plines serve the same end and might therefore
trade off with one another. What cannot be
accomplished in one way can, perhaps, be
accomplished in another. However, to the
extent that different disciplines trade off with
one another, they are drawn within the same
circle of ideas; in effect, they are integrated.
APPENDIX: MOS DESCRIPTIONS
(from Department of the Army, 1987)
45E (M1 Abrams Tank Turret Mechanic)
The M1 Abrams tank turret mechanic per-
forms unit maintenance of vehicular-mounted
armament (including machine guns), associated
fire control, and related systems and compo-
nents of M1 tanks and associated equipment.
He or she services, lubricates, replaces, removes,
installs, repairs, adjusts, purges, tests, trou-
bleshoots, corrects, and interprets schematic
diagrams regarding the follow components and
assemblies: vehicular-mounted armament,
sighting and fire control, turret, cupola, and
electrical, mechanical, and hydraulic systems.
N = 461, aptitude cutoff = 100.
71M (Chaplain Assistant)
The chaplain assistant performs support for
religious programs, worship, and counseling in
both the combat and chapel environment. He
or she prepares worship bulletins, service mate-
rials, and sacraments of Protestant, Catholic,
and Jewish faiths; prepares the chapel for wor-
ship; demonstrates, through communication
skills, sensitivity and caring in counseling dis-
tressed individuals; maintains the audiovisual
library; types military letters, endorsements,
messages, and other correspondence; assists in
determining serviceability of ecclesiastical ma-
terial and equipment; and coordinates religious
Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at University of Waikato Library on June 18, 2014
Summer 2000 – Human Factors
support in combat and field. N = 715, aptitude
cutoff = 95.
83F (Printing and Bindery Specialist)
The printing and bindery specialist performs
bindery operations and operates offset duplica-
tors and presses to reproduce printed materials
related to adjutant general, topographic, and
psychological operations. He or she also per-
forms preventive maintenance on offset dupli-
cators, photodirect platemakers, electrostatic
converters, sheet-fed offset presses, paper fold-
ers, collators, and paper shredders. N = 222,
aptitude cutoff = 85.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported in part by Grant
No. N00014-98-1-0574 from the Office of
Naval Research, Captain Dennis K. McBride,
program officer. The author acknowledges the
invaluable assistance of John A. Joseph in com-
putational work associated with this article.
REFERENCES
Brogden, H. (1946). An approach to the problem of differential
prediction. Psychometrika, 11, 139–154.
Brogden, H. (1951). Increased efficiency of selection resulting from
replacement of a single predictor with several differential predic-
tors. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 11, 173–196.
Brogden, H. (1955). Least squares estimates and optimal classifica-
tion. Psychometrika, 20, 249–252.
Brogden, H. (1959). Efficiency of classification as a function of
number of jobs, per cent rejected, and the validity and inter-
correlation of job performance estimates. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 19, 181–190.
Cooke, T. W., Marcus, A. J., & Quester, A. O. (1992). Personnel
tempo of operations and Navy enlisted retention (Report No.
CRM91-150). Alexandria, VA: Center for Naval Analyses.
Cronbach, L. J., & Gleser, G. C. (1957). Psychological tests and
personnel decisions. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1981). Aptitudes and instructional
methods: A handbook for research interactions. New York:
Irvington.
Department of the Army. (1987). Army regulation 611-201:
Enlisted career management fields and military occupational
specialties. Washington, DC: Author.
Horst, P. (1954). A technique for the development of a differential
prediction battery. Psychological Monographs: General and
Applied, 68(Whole No. 380).
Horst, P. (1955). A technique for the development of a multiple
absolute prediction battery. Psychological Monographs: General
and Applied, 69(Whole No. 390).
Johnson, C. D., & Zeidner, J. (Eds.). (1991). The economic benefits
of predicting job performance: Vol. 2. Classification efficiency.
New York: Praeger.
Jones, M. B., & Kennedy, R. S. (1996). Isoperformance curves in
applied psychology. Human Factors, 38, 167–182.
Mayberry, P. W. (1992). Evaluating minimum aptitude standards.
Military Psychology, 4, 1–16.
Mitchell, K. J., & Hanser, L. M. (1984). The 1980 youth popula-
tion norms: Enlistment and occupation standards in the Army
PERSONNEL DECISIONS
(Tech. Report). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute
for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Moore, C. S., Griffis, H. S., & Cavalluzzo, L. C. (1996). A predic-
tive model of Navy second-term retention (Report No. CRM95-
245). Alexandria, VA: Center for Naval Analyses.
Nord, R., & Schmitz, E. (1991). Estimating performance utility
effects of alternative selection and classification policies. In
J. Zeidner & C. D. Johnson (Eds.), The economic benefits of
predicting job performance: Vol. 3. Estimating the gains of
alternative policies (pp. 73–131). New York: Praeger.
Project A. (1990). Project A: The U.S. Army selection and classifica-
tion project [Whole issue]. Personnel Psychology, 43, 231–378.
Rumsey, M. G., Walker, C. B., & Harris, J. H. (Eds.). (1994).
Personnel selection and classification. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man. New York: Wiley.
Statman, M. A. (1993). Improving the effectiveness of employment
testing through classification: Alternative methods of develop-
ing test composites for optimal job assignment and vocational
counseling. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Wash-
Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at University of Waikato Library on June 18, 2014
317
ington University, Washington, DC.
Zeidner, J., & Johnson, C. D. (Eds.). (1991a). The economic bene-
fits of predicting job performance: Vol. 1. Selection utility. New
York: Praeger.
Zeidner, J., & Johnson, C. D. (Eds.) (1991b). The economic bene-
fits of predicting job performance: Vol. 3. Estimating the gains
of alternative policies. New York: Praeger.
Zeidner, J., Johnson, C. D., & Scholarios, D. (1997). Evaluating
military selection and classification systems in the multiple job
context. Military Psychology, 9, 169–186.
Marshall B. Jones is professor and chair of behav-
ioral science at the Pennsylvania State University
College of Medicine. He received his Ph.D. in psy-
chology at UCLA in 1953.
Date received: June 19, 1998
Date accepted: August 11, 1999