Conventional Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery-7 (ASVAB) Arithmetic Reasoning and Word Knowledge tests, were compared with computer-administered adaptive tests as predictors of performance in an Air Force Jet Engine Mechanic training course (n=495). Results supported earlier research in showing somewhat longer examinee response times for adaptive tests in comparison to conventional tests. These longer response times were attributed to the higher relative difficulty of the items in the adaptive tests. Score information analyses showed that the adaptive tests provided considerably higher levels of information than did the conventional tests at all ability levels. Analyses of composite validities also showed on significant effects involving adaptive versus conventional tests, although there was again a siginificant interaction involving the adaptive tests. The data thus indicated no significant differences in validities between equal-length adaptive and conventional tests. It is concluded that similar validities for adaptive tests and conventional tests are supportive of the use of adaptive tests in military selection testing because of additional advantages inherent in computerized adaptive administration of ability tests. (Author/PN)