Comprehensive Spatial Testing for Selection and Training
Abstract
Spatial intelligence is a central aspect of human intellectual functioning. It is predictive of both participation and success in careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) pursuits, even after controlling for verbal and mathematical intelligence (Shea, Lubinski & Benbow, 2001; Wai, Lubinski & Benbow, 2009). Attention to the spatial domain is particularly important in selection and training in computationally or technically demanding jobs (Smith, 196vy.Spatial intelligence is also important for everyday navigation tasks, such as learning the layout of a new place, maintaining a se systematic study of navigation ability is relatively recent (Hegarty & Waller, 2005; Wolbers & Hegarty, 2010) and we are just beginning to develop standardized measures of this aspect of spatial ability (Weisberg & Newcombe, 2018).Using spatial tests for selection for technical careers and navigation challenges required for success in todays Navy is an attractive option. However, many existing tests of spatial ability were developed in the early to mid 20th century and may not test the most relevant skills for todays Navy. In addition, most tests of spatial ability have not benefitted from recent psychometric techniques such as item response theory, and existing tests do not measure the broad range of spatially intelligent tasks in which military personnel must engage. The Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) contains just one spatial task (the Object Assembly test) and a test of the related construct of Mechanical Comprehension. The proposed project aims to develop a battery of tests that provides a reliable and comprehensive assessment of important spatial skills for military selection and training.To achieve the goal, we need research to tackle twobasic issues:Issue 1: Do tests with the same name measure the same construct? Tests with the same name that purportedly measure thesame cognitive process (e.g., mental rotation, cross sectioning, perspective taking) may actually tap different capabilities; testswith different names may tap the same ability. We simply do not know enough about what current tests measure to make effective recommendations regarding personnel selection or job placement. The first goal of this project is to provide the evidence necessary for making decisions about which tests of a particular construct are best, for every construct we decide to evaluate. The question of what skills to evaluate brings us, however, to the second issue.Issue 2: What constructs should we include in the domain of spatial skills? Historically, measures of spatial abilities were based on small-scale tasks, measuring ability to imagine transformations objects that are smaller than the body and can be apprehended from a single viewpoint. In contrast, large scale or environmental spatialabilities refer to the ability to think about spaces that are larger than the body and that we learn about as we explore or navigate through space were not included (Hegarty & Waller, 2005). The study of large-scalenvironmental spatial intelligence is relatively recent, but there has been significant progress in understanding this essential aspect of intelligence in recent including the development of standardized measures of this ability in virtual environments (Weisberg & Newcombe, 2016; 2018). This project will developand validate online measures of both small scale (object manipulation) and large scale (navigation) spatial abilities and provide the evidence necessary for determining the structure of spatial intellect and what tests to include in an overall batteryApproved forPublic Release.
Document Details
- Document Type
- DoD Grant Award
- Publication Date
- May 05, 2021
- Source ID
- N000142112425
Entities
People
- Mary Hegarty
Organizations
- Office of Naval Research
- United States Navy
- University of California, Santa Barbara