These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
Pubmed for Handhelds
PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS
Search MEDLINE/PubMed
Title: Psychometric Personality Differences Between Candidates in Astronaut Selection. Author: Mittelstädt JM, Pecena Y, Oubaid V, Maschke P. Journal: Aerosp Med Hum Perform; 2016; 87(11):933-939. PubMed ID: 27779952. Abstract: INTRODUCTION: This paper investigates personality traits as potential factors for success in an astronaut selection by comparing personality profiles of unsuccessful and successful astronaut candidates in different phases of the ESA selection procedure. It is further addressed whether personality traits could predict an overall assessment rating at the end of the selection. METHODS: In 2008/2009, ESA performed an astronaut selection with 902 candidates who were either psychologically recommended for mission training (N = 46) or failed in basic aptitude (N = 710) or Assessment Center and interview testing (N = 146). Candidates completed the Temperament Structure Scales (TSS) and the NEO Personality Inventory Revised (NEO-PI-R). RESULTS: Those candidates who failed in basic aptitude testing showed higher levels of Neuroticism (M = 49.8) than the candidates who passed that phase (M = 45.4 and M = 41.6). Additionally, candidates who failed in basic testing had lower levels of Agreeableness (M = 132.9) than recommended candidates (M = 138.1). TSS scales for Achievement (r = 0.19) and Vitality (r = 0.18) showed a significant correlation with the overall assessment rating given by a panel board after a final interview. DISCUSSION: Results indicate that a personality profile similar to Helmreich's "Right Stuff" is beneficial in astronaut selection. Influences of test anxiety on performance are discussed. Mittelstädt JM, Pecena Y, Oubaid V, Maschke P. Psychometric personality differences between candidates in astronaut selection. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2016; 87(11):933-939.[Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]