Military

Military Aptitude

Military activities place high demands on cognitive ability, learning ability, as well as on the safe handling of complex, often safety-critical situations. Incorrect decisions in the selection and assignment process are associated with substantial individual, organizational, and societal costs. Accordingly, psychological aptitude testing plays a central role internationally in the military context.

Most central meta-analyses and large-scale individual studies on the validity of cognitive and personality-related predictors in the military context largely refer to the US selection model. This model is based on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB), a standardized test battery for the assessment of cognitive abilities. From the ASVAB subtests, a general ability index, the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT), is calculated, which consists of verbal ability and numerical ability and correlates highly with fluid intelligence (r = ,54; Hambrick et al., 2023). The AFQT can therefore serve as an indicator of general mental ability (GMA). In addition, job-specific Aptitude Area Scores are derived within the ASVAB, representing different combinations of specific cognitive abilities for individual military occupational areas.

Meta-analytic findings confirm the high validity of the AFQT for military performance criteria: a recent meta-analysis by Cucina et al. (2024), which exclusively considered performance-near criteria in the form of Hands-on Performance Tests (HOPT), reports corrected variance explanations of approximately 20–25 % for AFQT-based predictions. The authors also showed that job-specific Aptitude Scores can explain additional variance beyond the pure AFQT (ρ = ,55; corrected for correlation with range restriction and criterion validity (cf. Schmidt & Hunter, 1998)), while general cognitive ability continued to have the greatest predictive power (ρ = ,44). In addition, findings by Hambrick et al. (2024) show that the validity of general cognitive ability remains stable even after several years of professional experience and is not replaced by increasing experience. GMA therefore remains a central predictor of professional performance even among more experienced military personnel.

Besides general cognitive ability, specific cognitive performance dimensions also provide incremental contributions to the prediction of military performance. This relevance of specific abilities is directly reflected in the structure and weighting of the US Aptitude Area Scores, which intentionally combine verbal, numerical, logical reasoning, and spatial visualization ability with knowledge tests. Evidence for the relevance of specific cognitive abilities can also be found outside the military context: Nye et al. (2022) report in a meta-analytic relative weighting analysis on general occupational success that specific cognitive abilities account for a larger proportion of explained variance than the g-factor alone. However, these findings cannot be directly transferred to military activities due to the lack of military-specific criteria. For certain military occupational groups, for example in military aviation, studies additionally show that GMA is a very good predictor but is not sufficient to fully capture performance requirements (Al Mamari & Traynor, 2021). In combat situations in particular, the ability to react quickly and correctly under strain is additionally required (Dominski et al., 2018). While resilience is often operationalized as a personality trait (e.g., Maddi et al., 2017), initial empirical individual studies show that reactive stress tolerance in cognitive ability tests is related both to resilience as a personality trait (Volgemute et al., 2023) and to close-combat performance (Maddi et al., 2017).

Compared to cognitive performance characteristics, personality traits show lower but consistent incremental validity. Dominance analyses in the military context show that personality traits contribute considerably less to explained variance than cognitive abilities (Darr & Catano, 2016). A second-order meta-analysis by Wilmot and Ones (2021) reports a corrected meta-analytic variance explanation of approximately 13% for personality traits in military occupational success, with a relative importance analysis showing that conscientiousness (53%), emotional stability (30%), and openness (11%) contributed the most. Nye et al. (2020) point out that forced-choice personality tests are particularly suitable for military selection procedures due to their high resistance to faking and could in the future enable a more differentiated assignment of personality profiles to military occupational areas.

In summary, the available findings show that general cognitive ability represents the central predictor of military training and occupational success, complemented by specific cognitive abilities and, to a lesser extent, personality traits.

The Test Solution “Military Aptitude” therefore includes the following dimensions:

• Logical Reasoning (INT)

• Numerical Ability (INT)

• Verbal Ability (INT)

• Reactive Stress Tolerance (DT)

• Personality: Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, Openness, Extraversion, Agreeableness (FCB5)

The table below provides a complete overview of the specific weightings of the individual tests used to calculate the overall score for the Test Solution “Military Aptitude”. The weighting of the dimensions in the Test Solution “Military Aptitude” is derived from the presented meta-analyses, relative weighting studies, and dominance analyses. The relative weighting of specific cognitive abilities in this Test Solution was determined on the basis of their respective loading on g (SCHUHFRIED, 2025b). The weighting of reactive stress tolerance is implemented as the mean value of the weights of the other cognitive performance characteristics due to a lack of robust empirical findings. Further information on the calculation and interpretation of the result of a testing can be found on the page: Notes on evaluation and interpretation.

For all military occupational areas, a uniform screening is used. Based on the strongest and most consistent empirical evidence, this screening is based exclusively on general cognitive ability. The same test principles are applied as those underlying the calculation of the AFQT, as these show consistently high validity across all military occupational groups. Personality traits are not considered in the screening, as their relative dominance compared to cognitive abilities is clearly lower. The total duration of the screening form is 20 minutes. The total duration of the Test Solution “Military Aptitude” is 55 minutes.

Military Aptitude - Technical Occupations

Technically oriented military activities, for example in maintenance, servicing, system operation, or technical specializations, place additional specific cognitive demands beyond general military requirements. Besides high general cognitive ability, spatial visualization ability and mechanical-technical comprehension are particularly required for job-specific demands.

General cognitive ability also remains a central predictor of training and occupational performance for technical military activities, as shown by findings on the validity of the AFQT. In addition, many requirement profiles of technical occupations in the US Army, Navy, and Air Force include ASVAB subtests on spatial ability and mechanical-technical comprehension (cf. http://www.military.com , accessed 22.12.2025; Hambrick et al., 2023), which, according to the above-mentioned meta-analysis on job-specific ASVAB scores, suggest incremental validity for military occupational success (cf. Cucina et al., 2024).

The Test Solution “Military Aptitude - Technical Occupations” therefore extends the base model by the following dimensions:

• Spatial Visualization Ability (INT)

• Mechanical-Technical Comprehension (MECH)

The table below provides a complete overview of the specific weightings of the individual tests used to calculate the overall score for the Test Solution “Military Aptitude - Technical Occupations”. The weighting of these additional dimensions was based on meta-analyses on general occupational success (Nye et al., 2022), due to a lack of robust empirical findings in the military context. Further information on the calculation and interpretation of the result of a testing can be found on the page: Notes on evaluation and interpretation.

The total duration of the Test Solution “Military Aptitude - Technical Occupations” is 75 minutes.

Military Special Forces

Special forces are characterized by particularly high physical, psychological, and cognitive demands. General cognitive ability and resilience remain central predictors in this area as well, as shown by studies on the selection of special forces (Beal, 2010). At the same time, requirements analyses show that in highly demanding scenarios such as anti-terror operations or hostage situations, the ability to quickly obtain an overview in order to react quickly and correctly is particularly important (Dominski et al., 2018; Muhly & Dössegger, 2025). Empirical individual studies additionally show clear performance differences in reaction-related and motor-related abilities. Paśko et al. (2022) report that members of special forces show significantly better motor times as well as faster reaction times compared to civilian comparison groups, with motor time showing higher validity. These differences appear in simple reaction tasks as well as in choice reaction and complex reaction tasks.

The Test Solution “Military Special Forces” therefore additionally includes the following dimensions:

• Obtaining an Overview (ATAVT-2)

• Motor Time (RT)

• Ability to React (RT)

The table below provides a complete overview of the specific weightings of the individual tests used to calculate the overall score for the Test Solution “Military Special Forces”. The weighting of these dimensions is based on available empirical findings, meta-analyses on cognitive ability, and consideration of the specific requirements profile of special forces. Where empirically robust literature is insufficient, the weights of requirement-related dimensions correspond to the average of the other weights. Further information on the calculation and interpretation of the result of a testing can be found on the page: Notes on evaluation and interpretation.

The total duration of the Test Solution “Military Special Forces” is 80 minutes.

References can be found here: Literature