194 



FUTURE SELECTION OF AQUANAUTS 



criterion variables is weighted according to its importance in the factor. Importance is deter- 

 mined by the amount of variance accounted for by each of the criteria. Thus the better criteria, 

 those which account for more of the variance, are weighted more heavily than are the poorer 

 criteria. The weighting or loading of each of the ten criterion variables are given in order of 

 importance for the general factor in Table 8. 



Table 8 

 LOADINGS OF CRITERION VARIABLES ON THE GENERAL FACTOR 



*Fe'wer considered better. 



Examining the factor loadings in Table 8 and the correlations between criteria and demo- 

 graphic characteristics in Table 7, it is heartening to note that the five most important crite- 

 ria according to their loadings are also the five criteria which correlated with the demographic 

 variables. Thus, those things which are important are predictable. 



The unrotated or general factor, loadings for which are presented in Table 8, weights each 

 criterion against every other criterion and thus provides information regarding the relative im- 

 portance of each criterion. In the definitions of criteria, however, different types of criteria 

 were identified. Whether or not such types of criteria "hang together" mathematically can be 

 determined by rotating the factor matrix. Rotating the matrix is a technique which maximizes 

 loadings on one group of variables while minimizing loadings on another. 



Two factors emerged from the rotated matrix. The first we will call a work factor, and 

 the second an evaluation-adjustment factor. Loadings for the criteria are presented in order 

 of importance for these two factors in Table 9. 



Note that the heaviest loadings on these two factors are considerably higher than are the 

 heaviest loadings on the general factor. Similarly, the lightest loadings are much lower, many 

 of them nonexistent. Note also that those two factors are relatively independent. That is, 

 those variables loading heavily on one factor load lightly on the other factor. 



An examination of the loadings justifies the names of these two factors. For the work fac- 

 tor, the two strongest work variables, diving time and number of sorties, have near maximum 

 loadings. Number of human-performance tasks completed and change in diving time, the other 

 two work variables, are among the top five variables. Only two nonwork criteria, outside tele- 

 phone calls and leader rating, have even modest loadings. The other factor, evaluation- 

 adjustment, shows the opposite pattern. Teammate choice and leader ratings, evaluations by 

 others, are the top two variables. The only other loadings of any consequence are on two ad- 

 justment criteria, outside telephone calls and meal satisfaction. None of the work criteria 

 have appreciable loadings on this factor. 



Correlations Between Factor Scores and Values 



Correlations between the three factor scores and the six AUport- Vernon- Lindzey values 

 are presented in Table 10. Correlations for the group as a whole are at the top of the table, 

 followed by the civilian and Navy subgroups. 



