"""Research Note 85-38

,:. .,,,

'%J A STUDY OF EFFECTIVENESS OF IN*A'TRY SYS','!S: TRAXNII;G

If EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS, COST AND TRAINING

EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS, AND HUMAN.

£"' FACTORS IN SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT AND FIELDING

. Kenneth L. Evans and Arthur D. Osborne

Litton Mellonics Systems Development Division

for

-% ARI Field Unit at Fort Benning, Georgia

"Seward Smith, Chief

E Reproduced From

.. Best Available Copy

Training Research Laboratory

Harold F. O'Neil,-Jr.,--Director ___DTiC

R eac U. S. ArmyA ' .rko "

,.• Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

-~ Janluary 1985

ApprOve4 fet owbik rs4o.m: distrfwlb•li• wUmited. U 

S85 V 7 31019

r7I
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

THE BEHAVIORAL SFOR AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Pcpute Chief of Staff for Personnel

~ •L. NEALE COSBY

" EDGAR M. JOltNSON Colonel. IN

Technical Director Commander

SResearch accomplished under contract

for the Department of the Army

Litton Mellonrics

'p.

Ii

This reportN. as submitted by the contractor, has been cleared for release to Defense Technical Information Center

(DTIC) to comply with regulatory requirements. It has been given no primary distribution other than to DTIC

and will be available only through DTIC or other reference services such as the National Technical Information

srrvico (NTIS). The vicws. o•iniens, and/or findings contained in this rten ae those of the authOr(sl and

should not be construet as an officia, "ep2lttmeni of the Army position. policy, or duisios. unless so designated "" - by other official documentation.

k0p4

• .- . AW' , *g A* .* . . *s .A .% .
unclassified SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (WWhen Deta EntereJ)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONS

I. __REPORTN__ BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

I.REOR NMBER OV CESON R2 NO. 3. RECIP IENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

Research Note 85-38 NVTp. -4 /J7 S

4. TITLE (and Subtitle) S. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

A STUDY OF EFFECTIVENESS OF INFANTRY SYSTEMS: Final Contract Report

Training Effectiveness Analysis, Cost and Jan 79 - May 84

Training Effectiveness Analysis, and Human ec. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

Factors in Systems Development and Fielding

7. AUTHOR(a) 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(*)

Kenneth L. Evans and Arthur D. Osborne MDA 903-80-C-0345

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT, TASK

Litton Mellonics AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS

P. 0. Box 2498 2Q263743A794

Fort Benring, Georgia 31905

11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

U.S.' Army Research Institute for the Behavioral. January 1985

and Social Sciences, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, 13. NUMBER OF PAGES

Alexandria, Virginia 22333 -5600 20

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(I dl f ert 1mm Controlling Oldico) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report)

unclassified ISs. DECL ASSI FI CATION/DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE

IS. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered In Block 20, It dlfferent from Report)

1. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

19. KEY WORDS (Continue om reverse side i no•eeery aid identify by block number)

-4dvanced rifle marksmanship; lefdMVT-Trlssj.

Xnalytic Process Model, MI6Al riflej

basic rifle marksmanship; M16A2 rifle,

infantry soldier development,*

-RAEF (C..t~m an revrs "I it nenuinp iad identifi b block rntmbnr)

' ngoing programs of research were summarized in the areas of Training

Effectiveness Analysis (TEA) for Infantry weapons systems, Cost and Training

Effectiveness Analysis (CTEA), systems development and evaluation technology,

Infantry soldier development, Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain (MOUT)

requirements for sustained military operations, development and evaluation of

a low-cost Multipurpose Arcade Combat Simulator (MACS), and problem analysis'

of map.reading and land navigation. Major research products, several of

.4hich were implemented Army-wide, have been highlighted. &,l*.. ' ,

DO I JIA 1473 TON Or t NOV65 IS oeo-, unclassifie~d

'ScUUiTV CLASSIFICATION' OF T"IS PAGE (whn" Dote 9ntnere*
J0 S E C U R IT Y C L A S S IF IC A T IO N O F T h IS P A G E(W hmm D a ta E n t ered)

.4 •

Item 19 (cont'd)

Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain * Multipurpose Arcade Combat Simulator = ýrojectile location technolog<y

E"ifle marksmanship training' simulation"

#ustained operations)

"".Training - -scharge Pýi ograa i'

unit rifle markmanship,

4*4t

.4

I

Accession For

NTIS GRA&I

DTIC TAB

___Unannounced 13 'Justif icc-*1..o

Distrlibut'tcn/

Ava b -i _!t.7 Codes

Dlbt _a

ii _ ufclassified

SCCUmY CUASUi~iATIOW OF T140S PAGg(U~en D~at r~tntgdj

=• ... _.:, *-.- 

-.. .d. _..• .- ,. .. .44- .. ... ; .: : -. : . . .. . = . .= 

. . . . ..

p 

.-.

D r 

-~t~ 

e
A STUDY OF EFFECTIVENESS OF INFANTRY SYSTEMS: TRAINING

EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS, COST AND TRAINING

EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS, AND HUMAN

FACTORS IN SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT AND FIELDING

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . ............. . . . . ............... . 1

TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS FOR INFANTRY WEAPONS SYSTEMS . . . . . . 1

Evaluation of the Basic Rifle Marksmanship (BRM) Program of

Instruction (POI) 1

Development of an Advanced Rifle Marksmanship (ARM) POT ..... . 1

Developztent of a Rifle Marksmanship Training Program for Units . . . 2

Further Development and Implemencation of Rifle Marksmanship Training - '.- - . -& - '* 2

Assessment of Army Training Requirements fora New Rifle ...... 4

Development of Means to Improve Implementation/Utilization of

Training Programs . . . . .. . . . . . .'. * . 4

Development of a Unit Rifle Marksmanship Training Guide . . . . • o • 5

COST AND TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS .... . . . . . . .. . . . 5

SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION TECHNOLOGY . ........ o .. • 6

An Initial Analytic Process Model for System Measurement . . . . . . 6

An Analytic Process Model For Systems Design and Measurement .. .. 6

Development of a Computer-Aided Analytic Prccess Model . ...... 7

INFANTRY ROLDIER DEVELOPMENT ..000. . . ... 0.... 0. .. ....... 7,

MILITARY OPERATIONS ON URBANIZED TERRAIN (MOUT) . . . . . .o. . . . . . 8

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUSTAINED MILITARY OPERATIONS o . o o o . . . . o o o

DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF A LOW-COST MULTIPURPOSE ARCADE

COMBATSIMULATOR * .0 . 0 0 . 0 .* .0 . .0 0 0 . .. . . . 9

Applicability of Low-Cost Video Training to Various

U.S. Army Weapons .o. .# * . . . . o o o . - o 9 . o o .0 * 9

Preliminary Evaluation of the Light Pen as the Key Component in a

Microcomputer-BasedSimulator. . . . . .... ........ .. 10

Preliminary Evaluation of theMultipurpose Arcade Combat Simulator • 10

Software Products o o o 0 . 0 . . . . . . 0 . 0 . 0 0 * I a 0 . 0 0 * 11

PROBLEM ANALYSIS OF MAP READING AND'LAND NAVIGATION . o . . o . .'.o. 12

REFERENCES .. . .. .. .. . . . . .. ... .. . . . . .. . 13

Iii

,, , , '~'>*

.. • .. .•• - . .. . . . . j.• . ..j $ d'.. f,, •-A•.,• ... ., . • . . . ... •• . , . ... ., .
A STUDY OF EFFECTIVENESS OF INFANTRY SYSTEMS: TRAINING

EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS, COST AND TRAINING

EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS, AND HUMAu

FACTORS IN SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT AND FIELDING

INTRODUCTION

This final report summarizes the research support provided by the Mellonics

Systems Development Division of Litton Systems, Inc. to the U.S. Army Research

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) during the period 1 May

1980 through 22 May 1984 under Contract Number MDA 903-80-C-0345.

During this period, the research supported ongoing ARI research programs

relating to Training Effectiveness Analysis (TEA) for Infantry Weapons Systems,

Cost and Training Effectiveness Analysis (CTEA), Systems Development and

Evaluation Technology, Infantry Soldier Development, Military Operations on

Urbanized Terrain (MOUT), Requirements for Sustained Military, Operations,

Development and Evaluation of a Low-Cost Multipurpose Arcade Combat Simulator

(MACS), and Problem Analysis of Map Reading and Land Navigation. A complete

listing of reports of research performed is provided at the end of this report.

TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS FOR INFANTRY WEAPONS SYSTEMS

Evaluation of the Basic Rifle Marksmanship (BRM) Program of Instruction (POT)

The requirement of this task was to evaluate the BRM POI developed by

Litton Mellonics under contract nur-ber DAHC 19-77-C-0011. In order to assess

the effectiveness of this program, record fire scores were collected before

and after its implementation within a training brigade at Fort Benning,

Gcorgia (Osborne, Schroeder, & Heller, 1980).

An analysis of company average scores obtained on the record fire course

indicated that marksmanship performance increased significantly (j < .001)

following program implementation. Due to these findings, the BRM POI was

approved' for adoption at all Army Training Centers by the U.S. Army Infantry

School (as proponent).,

Development of an Advanced Rifle Harksmanship (ARM) PO0

Building upon the previously developed BRM program, fully implemented at

all Army Training Centers conducting. Initial Entry Training, this task required

the development of a follow-on ARM program to provide training in the additional

rifle marksmanship skills critically needed by Infantryuen. The K4. program

existing in 198i was analyzed and three major, problems were identified: (a)

limited scope of training, (b) inappropriate automatic fire and night fire

training, and (c) inadequate feedback (bullet location information).

1
An extensive analysis of Army Training and Evaluation Programs was

performed for both the Infantry (ARTEP 7-15) and the Mechanized Infantry

(ARTEP 71-2). This analysis attempted to identify the most important marksmanship skills required by Infantrymen, but which had not been taught in the

BRM program. A revised ARM training program was then developed which reduced

the extent of automatic fire training, made the conduct of night fire training

more appropriate, and added new periods of instruction in three areas: quick

fire, rapid semi-automatic and suppressive fire, and moving target engagement

(Evans & Schendel, 1984). This program was implemented for field testing in

1982 at Fort Benning, Georgia, as part of the Infantry One Station Unit

Training COSUT> POI, and it was adopted by the U.S. Army Infantry School (as

proponent). However, while the new POI represents improved ARM'training, more

revisions are deemed necessary.

Development of a Rifle Marksmanship Training Program for Units

The requirement of this task was to improve the effectiveness of Ml6Al

rifle marksmanship training in U.S. Army units, through the development and

evaluation of a unit rifle marksmanship training program compatible and

integrated with BRM and ARM instruction. Based upon modifications in BRM and

ARM training made as a function of previous research, a training program was

developed to be used by combat, combat support, and combat service support

units of the Active and Reserve Components (Osborne, Evans, Lucker, & Williams,

1982). While allowing for flexibility among units with a wide range of

training priorities, time, and resources, the program was designed to both

reinforce and further develop those marksmanship skills taught in BRM and

ARM.

Critical components of the unit program were informally evaluated in a

series of field tests conducted with selected units at Forts Benning, Bragg,

and Riley. Using marksmanship performance measures obtained during a U.S.

Army Forces Command competitive exercise, substantial increases in shooting

performance were demonstrated after less than eight hours of instruction.

As a major part of this effort, the rifle marksmanship training material

introduced in Change 3 to Field Manual 23-9, Mi6AI Rifle and Rifle MarkSmanship

(1974), was developed to be used as the'primary document for the development

and implementation of rifle marksmanship programs within-units Army-wide.

Further Development and Implementation of Rifle Marksmanship Training

The overall marksmanship research program led to the implementation of

an integrated set of three training programs: basic, advanced, and unit rifle

marksmanship programs of instruction. Due to the time lag between program

development and the delivery of training 'support materials to trainers in the

field, implementation problems occurred. The major requirement of this task

was to further develop and implement BRM, ARM, and unit rifle marksmanship

training programs.

Evans and Osborne (1983) summarized the major products of research on

M16A1 rifle marksmanship' training conducted between 1978 and 1983, including

rcesearch designed to identify problems existing in marksmanship training and

to evaluate prbmising solutions to these problems. Efforts which supported

the implementation process were documented in the areas of equipment research,

target design, range modification, training aids and devices, and instructor

2

%
training. Evans and Osborne (1983) also summarized the major problems remaining

to be resolved if fully effective marksmanship training is to be realized.

Although 'not formal contract requiremen. two articles written for

Infantry magazine that are related to this task" objective are worthy of note.

First, Smith and Osborne (1981) presented a non-technical summary of ARI's

marksmanship research since 1976, with emphasis given to the rationale for the

major changes in the revised BRM POI. This article was used as a vehicle to

deliver marksmanship information to trainers in a timely fashion. Second,

Osborne (1981) discussed the advantages and disadvantages of the M16A1 rifle

and presented the results of several firing tests. He concluded that the

M16A1 rifle has no serious shortcomings and that it is a capable weapon worthy

of a soldier's confidence.

The Basic Rifle Marksmanship Shooter's Book is a'pocket-sized booklet

developed for the use of the initial entry soldier (Heller, Thompson, &

Osborne, 1981). Its purpose was twofold. First, it provides the soldier with

a reference to read and study as questions arise pertaining to any portion of

BRM training. Second, it can be used to record one's marksmanship performance

and progress during BRM. The location of hits and misses can be recorded on

reduced copies of all BEM paper targets, while scorecards are provided for all

periods ti which pop-up targets are used. It is believed that more effective

remedial or reinforcement training can be provided to those .soldiers who have

kept accurate records in this booklet, which is currently being used at a

number of Army Training Centers.

As part of an assessment of the potential usefulness of training devices

for increasing marksm&uship performance, an experimental evaluation of the

Superdart projectile location syster was conducted using Australian soldiers

as test subjects (Smith & Osborne, 1981). This system is a live-fire target

device 'that electronically detects and locates the position of a passing

supersonic projectile and displays its precise location to the firer via a

video display unit. Projectile location is accurately determined, whether a

target is hit or completely missed.

Experimental versus control comparisons were made of the ability of

soldiers to hit both stationary and moving targets equipped with the Superdart

system. Experimental soldiers received the detailed and timely location

feedback from Superdart. In contrast, control soldiers were given only the

hit or miss feedback that is normally available from killable pop-up targets.

Despite both groups of soldiers having exhibited very high hit rates during'

pretest measurements, a significant performance' increase was found when

Superdart feedback was introduced, during stationary target firing (p < .05).

A similar, though statistically insignificant, trend was found in the .results

of the.moving target firing.

Because the Superdart system can sequentially detect and plot up to ten

shots fired in the automatic mode, and because it is possible to detect misses

that are as far as five meters from, the target, the system could be used for

training and evaluating suppressive, night, protective mask, and assault

firing techniques. In summary, Smith and Osborne (1981) concluded that the

Superdart equipment demonstrated potenLial usefulness In three areas:

3
I. It can assist both students and instruc-ors by providing the precise

and timely feedback necessary for the effective acquisition of. marksmanship

skills.

2. It can be used to develc information about what to train and how to

accomplish that training (e.g., aetermining the best way to engage a target

with automatic fire).

3. The system could be used as a measurement instrument for evaluating

the performance of weapons, ammunitiou, and equipment.

AsSessment of Army Training Requirements for a New Rifle

The requirement of this task was to assess Army training requirements for

a new rifle, partly based upon an analysis of the eight major features of the

M16A2. rifle that distinguish it from the Mi6Al rifle. The Ml6A2 rifle is the

result of a Product Improvement Program (PIP) and was type classified in 1982.

It is currently being prcduced by Colt Industries for the U.S. Marine Corps

and the U.S. Army.

Osborne (1983) outlined the contrasting marksmanship training philosophies

employed by the Army and Marine Corps ind their relationship to characteristics

of the M16A2 rifle. In particular, Army requirements were discussed in detail

from a training development perspective and recommended rifle improvements considered optimum for Army use, while simultaneousll meeting Marine Corps requirements, were presented. From an Army training development perspective, the M16A2

rifle which was type classified appears to have 22 major disadvantages, 10 of

which likewise apply to the Ml6Al rifle. For this reason, a list of recommended

Army rifle features was developed which reflects training development considerations and which appears to have the highest pzobability of resulting in optimum

combat performance.

Deveiopment of Meens to'Improve Implementation/Utilization of Training Programs

The requirement of this task was an attempt to improve the implementation

and utilization of L.I6Al rifle marksmanship training programs. A primary

problem in obtaining and sustaining improvemen:s in training is inadequatn

information &vailability due to remote training locations', instructor shortages,

and a rapid turnover of trsiners. For this reason, two instructional videotapes

for rifle marksmanship trainers were developed to facilitate the implementation

and sustainment of training programs at Army Training Centers and in units.

"Teaching Rifle Marksmanship: Part One" presents topics such as rifle

marksmanship fundamentals and preparatory marksmanship training (Evans, 1984).

"Teaching Rifle Marksmanship: Part Two" covers live fire training, shot group

analysis, diagnosis of shooting errors, and remedial training (Evans, 1984).

Copies of each videotape are scheduled to be aelivered to each Trainin*

and Audiovisual Support Center (TASC) Army-wide in late 1984.

.. 4
Development of a Unit Rifle Marksmanship Training Guide

The comprehensive Unit Rifle Marksmanship Training Guide, designed to

assist units in planning and conducting an effective rifle marksmanship

training program, was developed to fulfill -his task requirement (Osborne &

Smith, 1984). Containing 46 sections, most dealing with a separate rifle

marksmanship topic, this research product provides guidance for training

developers and instructors of BRM, ARM, and unit marksmanship.

A unit marksmanship program must include consideration for individual and

collective firing proficiency. The individual portion of the marksmanship

program should be designed to insure skill retention and improvement, whereas

the collective portion of the program should be focused on the application of

those skills in a group environment, such as an ARTEP squad firing mission.

The majority of the material in the Unit Rifle Marksmanship Training Guide is

directed toward individual tasks developed from a detailed analysis of rifle

requirements necessary to accomplish unit combat missions. Therefore, accomplishment of the suggested individual rifle tasks will provide a high probability that, with minimum training in fire distribution and fire control,

units can deliver effective rifle fiee in combat.

The Guide was organized in modular form to assist a unit in developing

its own unique training program. Each section can be pulled out and used as.

the major reference document for a primary period of training or as a cot.-

cuz:ent training topic during other training. The Guida does not include

detailed specifications for subjects, hours, and ammunition appropriate for a

unit. Rather, it provides the information necessary for each unit to develop

its training program based upon training status, mission requirements, and the

availability of time, facilities, and ammunition. As proponent for rifle

marksmanship training, the U.S. Army Infantry School has accepted the Guide

for publication as a Field Cir-ular !or distribution to units Army-wide.

COST AND TRAI!NNG EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS

No methodology exists for Cost and Training Effectiveness Analysis (CTEA)

that is generelizable to all U.S. Army systems .- d, nonsystems, and goes beyond

the acquisition phase of systems to include the analysis of fielded systems.

The requirement of this task was to determine how this need could be met

through extension, development, or refinement of current methods.

Rosen, Berger, and Matlick (1981) refined and ex2tended a previous

literature search, eapecially. to ,include studies -onducted to determine the

cost and effectiveness of Training. Extension Courses (TEC). Because the

authors found no current CTEA model or methodology that could be modified for

developing and fielded systems, as well as for system and nonsystem training,

a systematic approach to Training Effectiveness Anelysis (TEA) for multiple

purposes was developed. This approach considers application of the following

submodels: CTEA for developing systems, Instructional System Development

(ISD), training evaluation for nonaystem training, initial screening training

effectiveness analysis for fielded systems, training subsystem effectiveness

analysis for fielded systems, and training developments study. Methoda are

available 'for accomplishing the processes embedded in some of these submodels.

5

... , . ... ... . .: ...
For other submodels, the required processes have been identified, awaiting the

development of specific methods.

These findings, especially the systematic approach to identifying the

appropriate CTEA submodel for a g4 ven problem, will be useful to traitting

developers and researchers in this area. Detailed methods for performing some

of the new submodeln developed in thi4 effort await their application, and

subsequent codification by these aralyst3 and reseLrchers.

SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION TECHNOLOGY

An Initial Analytic ?rocess Model for System Measureuent

Testers; analysts, and researchers too'often use an incomplete or inappropriate set of human performance measures in evaluativg human-machine systems.

Because there is no verified analytic process for deriving the optimal measures

of a system's performance or effectiveness, assessment needs are difficult to

define and the procesa is relatively haphazard. For t'is reason, the primary

requirement of this task was to produce an initial model of the conceptual and

analytic procedures necessary for the determination and developn"ent of fully

adequate systems effectiveneas measurement.

initially, over 250 dic,cments were reviewed in a comprehensive search of

the manned systems measurement literature (Edwards, Bloom, Oates, Sipitkowski,

Brainia, Eckenrede, & Zeidler, 198.). Based on this review, the state of the

art of manned systems measurement was assessed (Edwards, Bloom, & Brainin, 1981).

Measurement capabilities and limitations were identified, so that requirements

and priorities for the improvement of systems-oriented measuremenw could be

delineatel. The authors concluded that measurement models need to be further

developed, supported with appropriate human performance data, refined through

more consistent and comprehensive applications, and validatej by independent

corroboration. An initial analytic process model was then developed, based on

an extension of the Systems Taxonomy Model. (Bloom, Oates, & Familton. 1981).

An Analytic Process Model For Systems Design and Measurement

The requirement of this task was to further develop the Analytic Process

Model (APM) and demonstrate its application to the analy is and evaluation of

training systems. Bloom, Oates, Hamilton, and Leaf (1982) deve'loped the APMH

in greater detail and demonstrated its application to thb Bradley Infantry

Fighting Vehicle training system. The use of the APM as a design tool for

the specification of training systems required to support developing systems

was also explored. This design application of the APM was examined in 'the

context of a training system for a newly planned U.S. Ar y 9mm handgun. In

adaition, a sample application of the APH was programmed on an Apple II

microcomputer, in order to demonstrate an ability to aut mate the routine

procedures as an interactive analytic process.

The APIA enables testers, analysts, and researchers lo define system

factors, or taxonouies, and to translate them into systen measures or design

requirements. The model forces one to describe the system of interest and its

6

..... %......

S .#, •,,'• • •- '% . %-,•%*• % •.- % • .. • °. - . ° °. . -,- .. .- *. *."*."*%p' . ._ . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . .• . , . , • • • • • " " ' , ? • • ' ,7 i'!, "•i:
hu-man elements to provide a more complete set of system-human attributes

pertinent to system effectiveness. Further, the APM aids users by providing

general "menus" of factors (taxa) and procedures to help translate those taxa

into appropriate measures or design requirements.'

Development of a Computer-Aided Analytic Process Model

The requirement of this task was to develop a computer-aided APM to

provide a routinized, thorough, adaptive, and efficient procedure to help

produce evaluation measures for any planned or existing training system.

Bloom, Oates, Shapiro, and Hamilton (1983) produced .a procedural outline and

demenstration package of a computer-aided APM for deriving training systems

measureR. Programmed in PASCAL, the demonstration model uses an Apple II+

microcomputer with two 5-1/4 inch disk drives. It is designed to hLip analyze

performance requirements and develop effectiveness measures for training

systems. The analyst chooses from the computer's data base of recommended

options or creates new options at each branch in a series of'nested sets.

Special instructions and help to guide the analyst through the model are

available on-line and in a separately produced operati'ns, handbook (Shapiro,

Bloom, & Oates, 1983). Hard-copy'prinitouts of selected options are available

immediately upon request at key stages in the analytic process.

The APM will enable testers, analysts,..and researcherr to routinely

define sets of syrtem performance requirements and to translate them into

system effectiveness measures. It complements ISD methods by facilitating the

front-end analysis of training systems. Further, the APM appears to be

complementary with the Early Training Estimation System (EMES), various

methods for Logistic Support Analysis (LSA), and the Human Resources Test and

Evaluation System (HRTES).

INFANTRY SOLDIER DEVELOPMENT

The transition from civilian life to Initial Entry Training can be a

difficult adjustment for some young Americans. In order to assist in the

adjustment process, the U.S. Army provides both performance counseling and

personal counsaling. The requirement of this task was to evaluate the need

for counseling among successful OStIT trainees and Training Discharge Program

(TDP) attrites.

Structured interviews were given to 149 successful trainees and 57 TDP

attrites (Schroeder, Grunzke, Slimowicz, Kemery, & Williams, 1981). The

interview was designed to evaluate the current needs for both performance and

personal counseling and whether those'needs were being met. It also assessed

the frequency of various types of problems and who the trainees preferred as

counselors for those problems. Embedded in the interview was an experlmnnt

designed to determine whether subtle psychological biases might be influencing'

the interview results (ie., subtle biases might exist simply due to the

success or failure of the person being interviewed). In addition, less formal

unstructured interviews were given to the TDP attrites in an effort to gain

insights into the nature of the TDP population and to try to determine if more

counseling migiit have prevented the discharge.

7
Findings indicated that both groups felt a substantial amount of per-

"formance and personal counseling was being provided, although both groups felt

more performance and personal counseling was needed. Both groups expressed a

need for more performance counseling, feedback about how they were doing, than

fir personal counseling. Results indicated a large range in frequency of

occurrence for 22 selected problems and that counselor preference was dependent

on the type of problem.

Information presented in this report has significant implications for

Army counselors in the OSUT setting. Although it is questionable whether

providing more counseling in OSUT would substantially reduce attrition,

providing more counseling might increase morale. Knowledge of which problems

occur most frequently and-who the preferred counselors are should assist the

Army counselor in deciding which counseling approaches are most appropriate,.

Similarly, such information should as3ist Army trainers in deciding which

counseli•ag methods best fit a given instructional program.

"AILITARY OPERATIONS ON URBANIZED TERRAIN (MOUT)

-. The continued growth of urbanized areas worldwide, especially in Western

Europe, has focused increasing military emphasis on fighting in, around, and

through urbanized terrain. Conducting operations in an urban environment

requires special training and planning procedures. For this reason, the

requirement of this task was to conduct a comprehensive review oý U.S. MOUT

training and doctrine.

Reiss, Perkins, Evans, McFarling, and Nadler (1983) reviewed existing

U.S. doctrine for MOUT, observed institutional and unit training, administered

questionnaires to soldiers and instructors in OSUT, and conducted interviews

with knowledgeable personnel at all levels within the Army. In addition, U.S.

MOUT training and doctrine was compared to that of its European allies. The -'• authors concluded that numerous researchable problems exist in the MOUT area.

For example, there is a need for updated doctrine based on operations analysis

and a need to determine the optimum map scale for MOUT operations. The

"incorporation of live fire training should be explored, while the use of

Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System (MILES) equipment is expanded.

Urban terrain analysis and training capable of being conducted without a,

MOUT facility need greater emphasis. A detailed task analysis of MOUT should.

be conducted and, the role of snipers needs to be more closely'examined.

'Further, the need exists for developing Command Post Exercise/Field Trairing

Exercise'(CPX/FTX) MOUT scenarios and for studying the cost effectiveness of

simulation as an alternative training method. Weapons and equipment most

suitable for MOUT should also be identified ;.nd evaluated.

The findings of this research effort represent an overall view of

existing MOUT training'and doctrine. They can form the basis for a specific

research project or a revision in current training procedures. In addition,

research products were provided to the USAIS for their consideration and use

in'further training developments for MOUT.

V
REQUIREMENTS FOR SUSTAINED MILITARY OPERATIONS

The U.S. Army must be prepared to fight an intense and sustained war.

Episodes of sustained combat have occurred in the past and could be more

likely in the future, due to technological advances and the combat readiness

"of Threat forces. The requirement of this task was to review existing literature

and to define researchable problems related to sustained operations training

"for infantry soldiers and units.

Perkins (1982) conducted a comprehensive review of sustained operations

literature that included combat-related literature, laboratory and field

studies of the effects of sleep loss on performance, reports on sustained

- operations in combat, and U.Sb Army doctrine as primary sources of information.

The literature review revealed performance considerations related to tough and

"rpalistic training, readiness for special battlefield conditions, morale,

group cohesion, communicaticts, physical readiness, and leadership. Approxi-

'- mately 50 researchable problems were identified that can be clasaified into at

least one of the following training goals:

I. Insure that soldiers and units have the skills required to successfully

conduct military operations for prolonged periods.

2. Create conditions in training that are as similar as possible to

"cembat.

3. Challenge soldiers both mentally and physically.

' 4. Build methods of coping with fatigue and stress as soldiers learn the

limits of their endurance.

Although U.S. Army doctrine recognizes the requirement to prepare for

sustained operations, training has been addressed in an informal manner. For

this reason, Perkins (1982) has outlined a recommended research plan to aid in

formalizing training necessary to successfully conduct: sustained operations.

DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION-OF A LOW-COST

MULTIPURPOSE ARCADE COMBAT SIMULATOR

"The Multipurpose Arcade Combat Simula or (MACS) is a prototype simulator

developed by ARI. The MACS system consist of three components: an inexpensive

"microcomputer, a video monitor, cnd a ligh pen attached to a demilitarized

, weapon. Research 'in this task was conduct to refine the existing M16A1 MACS

system, exiend its concept to other Infant y weapons, and evaluate its usefulness in training.

Applicability of Low-Cost Video Trainini t Various U.S. Army Weapons

The requirement of this task was to p odue a list of. representative

U.S. Army weapons rank ordered in terms of their suitabillity. for low-cost,

microcomputer-based, video simulation/trainin. Perkins and Schroeder (1983)

conducted a two-stage investigation to pr(muce a rank-ordered list of suitable

weapons. In the first stage, a comprehensive list of weapons was compiled and

L "'
then sorted using a decision tree to produce a limited list of the most likely

candidates for MACS-type stiulation. In the second stage, this limited

list of weapons was rated using four criterin: (1) number of hours spent

training on that weapon in Infantry OSUT, (2) cost of ammunition, (3) weapon

density in.the In'antry, and (4) the feasibility and desirability of creating

a MACS application for that weapon. The first three criteria were determined

from existing objective information. In order to determine values for the

fourth criterion, a structured interview was developed and administered

to subject matter experts who were asked to rate the appropriateness of

MACS-type training for the different weapons. Finally, a literature review

vas conducted to determine whether any other low-cost simulation systems

currently exist.

Perkins and Schroeder (1983) found the following weapons to be the most

suitable for MACS-type simulation/training, ranked in order of decreasing suitability: '(1) Hl6Al/A2 rifle, (2) M72A2 light antitank weapon (LAW), (3)

M203 grenade launcher, (4) M60 machinegun, (5) Dragon, (6) TOW, (7) .45

caliber pistol, (8) M249 squad automatic weapon (SAW), (9) M202A1 FLASH,

and (10) .50 caliber machinegun. The literature search for information on

currently available simulators identified several very expensive systems, but

none in the price range of MACS ($3,000 - $6,000). Based on the resultb of

q this investigation, the three mcst suitable weapons were selected for MACS

development and subsequent evaluation.

Preliminary Evaluation of the Light Pen as the Kev Component in a

Microcomputer-Based Simulator

iThe key hardware cou'ponent in MACS is a light pen that reads the raster

scan on the video monitor and provides the microcomputer with X and Y coordinates signifying where the light pen was aimed at a precise moment. The

requirement of this task was tn conduct a preliminary evaluation of the

effects of certain variables -on the reliability of the light pen.

Schroeder and Cook (1983) assessed the effects of screen color, screen

brightness, light pen sensitivity adjustment, distance to the screen, ambient

light, glare, location on the screen, equipment warm-up, and trigger switch

closure on the reliability of light pen readings. The reliability of the

light pen was'found to vary widely depending on the conditions of the test..

The most important finding was an interaction between screen brightness I and location on the screen in their joint effect on light pen reliability. In

contrast, reliability was found to be unaffected by some of the variables

(e.g., ambient light and trigger switch closure). Results of this evaluation

provide valuable information about the hardware and software changes needed to

maximize the reliability of the MACS system.

Preliminary Evaluation of the Multipurpose Arcade Combat Simulator

The requirement of this task was to perform limited experimental evalu-

* ations of MACS configured for the Ml6Al rifle,. M203 grenade launcher, and

M72A2 light antitank wapon. Computer training programs were written for each

* configuration and field tested using soldiers in OSUT (Perkins, Selby, Broom,

& Osborne, 1984).. The primary'dependent variable was the live-fire performance

10
of the experimental group (MACS training and regularly scheduled training)

compared to the control group (regularly scheduled training only). Additionally,

an opinion questionnaire was administered to the experimental group to obtain

subjective reactions to MACS training.

It was found that MACS training, when given prior to live-fire instruction,

may give soldiers a head start in the acquisition of marksmanship skills. In

the MACS evaluations with the M203 and M72A2, which limited training to a

brief exposure prior to live firin,?, there was a trend for the experimental

groups to hit more targets and to place live rounds closer to the center of

mass of the target, especially on distant targets. For the M16AI evaluation,

.. there were several significant training effects found within MACS performance,

but the live-fire performance of the experimental group did not differ signi- - -ficantly from that of the control group. Soldiers in the experimental groups. "reported on -the opinion questionnaire that MACS training was very interesting

and helpful, ind preferable to traditional concurrent training.

Results of this investigation indicated that MACS has potential to

become a cost-effective training device. It could contribute to a more

favorable learning environment by providing standardized instruction, one-onone instruction, and a motivating head start to live-fire training. Since the

results indicated that the effectiveness of MACS mayvary as a function of

exposure schedule, further development and investigation was recommended to

determine the most appropriate stage of training to use MACS, and the amount

of time needed to impart an effect.

* Software Products

An integral part of MACS development and evaluation was the creation of a

"variety of software products. Software disks and associated-subroutine

hardcopy listings were produced for the M16AI rifle, M203 grenad& launcher,

and M72A2 light antitank weapon MACS systems.- Specifically, MACS M16AI rifle

system disks and text files were produced for the following programs:

"1. steady position and aiming - pretest and posttest

2. steady position and aiming training

3. down range feedback

4. field fire I

5. field 'fire II

6. record fire

These M16Al rifle computer programs are each compatible with training objectives

in BRM. A text file was also created to mechenically zero the rifle/light pen

for each soldier. In addition, a computer program was produced for the MACS

H4203 grenade launcher. Similarly, a system disk and text' files were produced , for the MACS M72A2 light antitank weapon. Detailed descriptions of all MACS

software productu have been provided by Perkins, Selby, Broom, and Osborne

(1984).

11
"PROBLEM ANALYSIS OF MAP READING AND LAND NAVIGATION

/ 'Z Land navigation is a fundamental military skill for every soldier. Over

the last several decades, however, the intensity of land navigation training • in the U.S. Army has declined, resulting in several generations of soldiers

lacking proficiency in basic map reading and land navigation skills. In 1982,

-.. ARI was tasked by the Chief of Staff of the Army to conduct research to

- improve Army-wide instruction in map reading and land navigation. In partial

'* response to this mission, one requirement of this task was, to critically

analyze existent land navigation responsibilities, doctrine, materiel, and

*- training within the U.S. Army, other U.S. services, and selected foreign armed

-*: forces. Based on information derived from this analysis, a 'second requirement

was to identify potential improvements to be recommended for development and

"". implementation.

Salter and Schendel (1984) conducted a comprehensive problem analysis of

• "* instituticnal and unit land navigation training based on data obtained from

the following sources:

"1. a literature review

2. structured and unstructured interviews

3. questionnaires administered to inptructors and subject matter experts

. 4. on-site observations of training and performance

5. participation in training

The review of relevant land navigation literature provided broad background

Sinformation necessary to conduct the problem analysis. Hundreds of documents

were reviewed, including:

"1. Army Regulations

"2. TRa.)OC Regulations, Bulletins, Pamphlets, and Training Circulars

3. 'Field Manuals

4. military Journals

.'5. reports of Department of Defense sponsored research

"6.. behavioral science journals

7. books from commercial publishers

Salter and' Schendel (1984) concluded that the'present shortfall in land

navigatidn performance has multiple causes requiring multiple lines of attack.

* ' 'Eighteen'problems wereidentified in the analysis in the areas of doctrine,

materiel, and training. Nineteen near-term recommendations'and thlrteen

long-term recommendations were presented. The. final report of this research

* represents a cowprehensive data base for establishing action priorities and

directions for future work on proposed problem solutions. 'Results of the

* problem analysis oe map reading and land navigation have been presented to the

S'headquarters of'the Army Research Institute (ARI), the Training and Doctrine

Command (TRADOC), and the U.S. Army Infantry Schowl (as proponent).

12

F
REFERENCES

Bloom, R. F., Oates, J. F., Jr., & Hamilton, J. U. (1981). An initial I analytic process modal for systems measurement; Extensions of the systems

"taxonomy model (Contract No. MDA 903-80-C-0345). Darien, CT: Dunlap and

"Associates, Inc.

Bloom, R. F., Oates, J. F., Jr., Hamilton, J. W., & Leaf, W. A. (1982).

An analytic process model for systems design and measurement (Contract

"No. MDA 903-80-C-0345). Darien, CT: Dunlap and Associates, Inc.

Bloom, R. F., Oates, J. F., *Jr., Shapiro, R. G., & Hamilton, J. W. (1983).

The analytic process model for system design and measurement (Vol I):

7 A computer-aided tool for analyzing training systems and other humanmacbine systeums (Contract No. MDA 903-80-C-0345). Norwalk, CT: Dunlap a and Associates East, Inc.

Edwards, J. M., Bloom, R. F., & Brainin, P.'A. (1981). System development

and evaluation technology: State of the art of manned system measurement, (Contract No. MDA 903-80-C-0345). Darien, CT: Dunlap and Associates, Inc.

"" Edwards, J. M., Bloom, R. F., Oates, J. F., Jr., Sipitkowski, S., Brainin, P.

A., Eckenrode, R. J., & Zeidler, P. C. (1981). An Annotated Bibliography

• •of the manned systems measurement literature (Contract No. MDA 903-80-C-0345).

"Darien, CT: Dunlap And Associates, Inc.

Evans, K. L,, (1984). Teaching rifle marksmanship: Part one (Videotape].

Fort Benning, GA: U.S. Army Infantry Center Educational Television.

"Evans, K. L. (1984). Teaching rifle marksmanship: Part two [Videotape].

.- Fort Benning, GA: U.S. Army Infantry Center Educational Television.

-: Evans, X. L., & Osborne, A. D. (1983). The development and implementation

if basic,* advanced,* and unit Ml6Al rifle marksmanship training progr am

(ARI Research Report in preparation). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Fesearch

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Evans,'K. L., & Schendel, J. D., (1984). Development of an advanced-rifle

Smarksmanship program of instruction (ARI Research Product in, preparation).

Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and

Social Sciences.

Heller, F. H., Thompson, T. J., & Osborne, A. D. (1981). Basic rifle marksmanship shooter's book (ARI Research. Product in preparation). Alexandria,

MVA U.S., Army Research Institute for the behavioral and Social Sciences.

Osborne, A. (1981). The M16 rifle: Bad reputation, good performance.

Infantry, 71 (5), 22-26.

13

4.l

'4 . " •" ' . , . +"
SI

O•torne, A. D. (1983). Analysis of M16A2 rifle characteristics and recommended

improvements (ARI Research Report in preparation). Alexandria, VA: U.S.

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Osborne, A. D., & Smith, S. (1984). Unit rifle marksmanship training guide

(ARI Research Product in preparation). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Osborne, A. D., Evans, K. L., Lucker, H. A.,,& Williams, G. P. (1982).

Development of a rifle marksmanship training program for units (ARI I Research Product in preparation). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research

* Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

* Osborne, A. D., Schroeder, J. E., & Heller, F. H. (1980). Evaluation of the

basic rifle marksmanship program of instruction (ARI Research Report

1364). Alexandria, VA: US. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences.

Perkins, M. N., Selby, R. D., III, Broom, J. M., & Osborne, A. S. (1984).

Preliminary evaluation of the multipurpose arcade combat simulator.

(MACS) for the M16. M203. and M72A2 (ARI Research Report in preparation). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and

Social Sciences.

Perkins, M. N., & Schroeder, J. E. (1983). Applicability of low-cost video

training to various U.S. Army weapons (ARI Research Note in preparation). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and

Social Sciences.

Perkins, M. S. (1982). Training considerations for infantry in sustained

operations (ARI Research Report in preparation). Alexandria, VA: U.S.

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Reiss, D. W., Perkins, M. N., Evans, K. L., McFarling, L. H., Nadler, L. B.,

& Thompson, T. J. (1983). Survey of current doctrine, training, and

special considerations for military operations on urbanized terrain (ARI

Research Note 83-43). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for

the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (NTIS No. ADA136833)

Rosen, M. M., Berger, D.,C., & Matlick, R. K. (1981)-. A generalizable

model for cost and training effectiveness analysis (ARI Research Report in preparation). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Salter, J. A., & Schendel, J. D. (1984). An analysis of Army-dide land

navigation performance: P~iblems and proposed solutions (ARI Research

Report in preparation). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Schroeder, J. E., & Cook, W. A., Jr. (1983). Preliminary evaluation of the

light yea as the. key-component in a microcomputer-baSed simulator (ARI

Research Note 83-31). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for

the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (NTIS No. ADA112596)

14

.7~:. L 1 7- 
J. E., Grunzke, SSchroeder, M. E., Slimowicz, C. J., Kemery. E., & Williams, B.

(1981). The perception of need for counseling among successful Infantry

OSUT trainees and TDP attrites (ARI Research Report in preparation)

Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and

Social Sciences.

Shapiro, R. G. (1983). The computer-aided analytic process model (Vol III):

Appendix to the operations handbook for the APM demonstration package

(Contract No. MDA 903-80-C-0345). Norwalk, CT: Dunlap and Associates

East, Inc.

Shapiro, R. G., Bloom, R. F., & Oates, J. F., Jr. (1983). The computer-aided

analytic process model (Vol I1): Operations handbook for the Ai'M

demonstration package (Contract No. MDA 903-80-C-0345). Norwalk, CT:

Dunlap and Associates East, Inc.

Smith, S., & Osborne, A. (1981). Troubleshooting riflemarksmanship.

Infantry, 71(4), 28-34.

Smith, S., & Osborne, A. D. (1981). Experimental evaluation of the Superdart

proiectile location system (ARI Research Report in preparation).

Aleyandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and

Social Sciences.

15

/
FILMED

9-85

DTIC

/