Good questions. Thanks for the chance to try to clarify some issues.
I usually say 'WOMBAT (or equivalent) test'. That's because, though I
have seen mostly unequivocal, convincing, results, there are still
some experiences with it that remain uncertain (or unexplained). I
guess I'll be fully sure in about twenty years.
The basis for what doubts I do have is cultural. EG, one objective of
WOMBAT testing is to ascertain an individual's potential to maintain
high levels of situational awareness under stress. Yet some folk are
wholly unfazed by things that are very distressing for others. What
arouses an emotional response in me might leave you completely
relaxed. However, I bet I could find some (& quite legal) exercises
for the 'cool dudes' that will achieve the aim. (My personal regime
involves hard physical exercise, occasional abseilling, jungle
navigation, parachuting, disorientation and sight deprivation. But
then I don't recommend my drinking habits, either.)
I am an advocate of self-appraisal (and training) as it does permit
elimination of uncertainty. We are all capable of knowing our
reactions to emotional stress - and of assayng our ability to perform
complex manipulative and crew-coordination functions while under
intense pressure. Rigorous honesty with oneself is required, along
with some assistance in selecting personally-appropriate benchmarks.
(It also helps to be willing to experience serious discomfort in the
pursuit of real professionalism.)
Game? Sure it is. That's one of the things I like about the WOMBAT. It
is wholly unlike anything associated with flying. When assessing an
equivalent test (or set of exercises), my preference remains to choose
something unfamiliar to participants. (Gaining familiarity with the
WOMBAT will improve scores, but not to the extent that it loses effect
as a measure. Ability to ride a horse was once used as a predictor of
pilot ability and I'm not at all sure it still wouldn't work.) But I'm
expressing my preference. Another approach might work better for
others. The bottom line is that the individuals will know what is of
value to them, what is working to strengthen their cognitive fitness.
You are right, the issue is to predict how people will react under
real, life-threatening, pressure. Indeed, in my view, this is the key
to breaking the '80% barrier'.
Better yet, the issue is for people to know without doubt that they
will cope with maximum stress with absolute confidence. Everyone can
improve upon their innate competence to do that, through regular,
experiential learning and exercise. What they do may vary from
individual to individual, culture to culture. But we all have to do
something.
Cheers
Doug
PS It stands for the Wondrously Original Method of Basic Aptitude
Testing, and no, I'm not selling the damn thing, just a believer.