Neil Warren

Educational Programs in the Human Factors Area

This paper summarizes trends in the development of university programs in the human factors area. Several examples are described briefly.

An optometric aptitude test.

As a basis for the construction of an aptitude test for training in optometry, certain preliminary steps were necessary. A review of the literature in the fields of medicine and engineering revealed that the tests for training in medicine stressed the verbal achievement of the applicant, and that those in engineering stressed the mathematical achievement. Inasmuch as optometry seems to combine studies related to both of these fields it was thought logical to make some measurement of these two factors in the aptitude test for optometry. In addition to the information gained from a review of the literature in related fields, a job analysis was made on practicing optometrists in the city of Los Angeles. The ability to read dials and tables accurately and quickly and the ability to detect diseased conditions of the human eye seemed to be two important components of their duties. A section of the test was devoted to an attempt to measure the applicant’s ability to read a graph quickly and accurately and to note minor variations in detail. In addition to the review of the literature and the job analysis, a careful examination of the curriculum of study at an optometry school was made. The school administration pointed out those subjects that were of most importance to the student and special emphasis was given to them. The resulting test consisted of five parts and was to determine the following characteristics of the applicants: A. General level of scientific information.

Book Reviews : Leadership: A Study of Role Expectations and Performance, by Ralph M. Stogdill, Ellis L. Scott, and William E. Joynes. Columbus: The Ohio State University Research Foundation, I953

tations of formal deficiencies in the theories, ranging from Koch, who makes a most ungracious interpretation of Hull, to MacCorquodale and Meehl, who provide a postulate set intended as a formalization of the Tolmanian approach. Detailed consideration of each of the analyses would be impossible, and inappropriate, in a review of this nature. In general, although probably none of the analyses will receive complete acceptance by the theorists involved (especially Lewinians and Hullians will object), most of the criticisms contained in Modern Learning Theory are basically valid. Debate will concern mainly the implications of these criticisms.