- - p - -

Technical Paper ~~ LEVEL

EFFECTS OF RETRIEVAL TERM SPECIFICITY

ON INFORMATION RETRIEVAL FROM

COMPUTER-BASED INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS

/

Lawrence M. Potash

HUMAN FACTORS TECHNICAL AREA

[

~~irJ

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

July 1979

Approved tor publ ic ru ssia , d

~

it

~ibut Ion unIlmt ~sd.

2

~ ~~

— — — ~~~~~~~~ 

~~~~~~~~~~~ -~~ -- ~~~~~~~~~~~ — - ~~~~~ _ ~~~~• ~~~~~~~~ -
—— ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ‘

~~

‘

~~~~~~~~~

“- r

~~ —

~~~ 

-

~~~~~ 

—

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ,_._. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~

U. S. ARMY R ESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIO RAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

WILLIAM L. HAUSER

JOSEPH ZEIDNER Colonel. U S Army

Technical Director Commander

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distributi on of thi s report has been made by A PI. Plea,, address correspOndSn

~e

concerning distribution of reports to: U. S. Army Research Instit ute for the Behav ioral and Social Sciences ,

ATTN PERI.P , 5001 Eisenhoiee. Avenue, Alexandr ia , Virginia 22333.

FINAL DISPOSITION: This report may be destroyed iehen it is no longer needed . Pleas do not return It to

the U. S. Army Rs..arch Inst itute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

IL The findings i$ this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army posit ion ,

unless so designated by other author ized dOCum ents.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

:

~

.;: ___ ____ -.~~~ 

:i::

J
ii 

~~~~~~~~~~ -

~~

—.. -—--——---—----- 

~~

- —------- 

~~~~~~~ .. _

~ ~~~~. ,_ _,

Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (

~~i.n Oat. Entered)

READ INSTRUCTIONS REPORT DOç~~~~ TATION PAGE BEFORE COMPLETIN G FORM

I. REPORT NUMBER _ i ,

~~J / 2. GOVT ACCESSIQW I!5 ~- _____________

~~~~ 7 j ‘

.

4 ~~ -- Technical Paper)~ 1S - ~~ ~

1

~ FFECTS OF RETRIEVAL TEEM SPECIFICI

~~ / 

‘

~~~ ‘7~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (

4~ TITLE (.d A.h~t

~I~~

I ON INFORMATION RETRIEVAL FROM COMPUTER I ___________________________

BASED INTELLIGEkE SYSTEMS . ~ / 6. PERFORMiNG ORG. REPORT NUMBER

~~~jl., ,,,,, ~~~~, 

— — — — I. CONTRA CT OR GRANT NUNBER(.)

~

/

~~~~~~~~~~~~ eM. o~~ s~ J _________

5. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT , TASK AREA & WORK UNiT NUMBERS U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral(

~~ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ and Social Sciences,’5001 Eisenhower Avenue ‘—

Alexandria, VA 22333

II. CONTROLLING OFFI CE NAME AND ADDRESS • — 1T~~ h~ .

~T BAT!

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel /t) Jui1-~~~79 I

Washington , D.C. 20310 --~ 1~~~ ,..,...eI n.s4s-JAGES

42

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADORESS(U dlU.r~ ut groat ConttolUnd Offi ce) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (01 thI. r.port)

Unclassified

—— ISa. OECLASSIFICAT ION/ DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE

IS. DISTRIBUTION STA TEMENT (of tAg. Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

17. DISTRIBUTION STA TEMENT (of 1,. abet,.cl wt.rod In Block 20. II dllt.roat froot Report)

sa. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

IS. KEY WORDS (Contlnu. on rev.,.. aid. If n.c...atv wd ld.ntl(y b

~’ block numeb.r) GIM II Query Language Retrieval term Data element dictionary ASSIST

Retrieval term specificity Data base specifications Inputting

Incidental learning Specific retrieval term Information retrieval Ancillary learning

Global retrieval term Query language Online tactical

Macroelement Query language performance intelligence system Data element measures 26. ABSTRACT (C t~~a. ,.vav~~ .5* if nsee.a ~~

y ~~~ tdantt& by block maib.v)

...)~This experiment assessed the impact of using two levels of retrieval

terms on formulating and inputting query statements. One level used specific

terms to retrieve one element of information ; the other level used global

terms to retrieve blocks of information that would otherwise require five to

six specific terms.

FORM 

,,a,, ~ ~~ .473 LOSTION OF ‘NOV 55 IS O SOLETE Unclassified

SECURITY CLAUIFICATtON OF TNt! PAGE (When Data EnS ar.d~

~~~~~ /Ø~7 ./

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~

-

~T:T---- - - I
___ — —- —-

Unclassified SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(Whi,, Data 1i5 1.d)

20.

Participants in the study were enlisted personnel from Fort Belvoir, Va.,

with General Technical (GT) scores )‘ 110. Participants were assigned either

to a specific group allowed to use only specific retrieval terms, or to a

global-specific group allowed to use both global a;41 specific retrieval terms.

The retrieval terms and their definitions were listed in a data dictionary and

were displayed on a data name chart.

After a 5—minute typing test, participants were given instructions on

how to write query statements in the GIM II Query Language used in Army System

,.

~ for Standard Support Terminals (ASSIST) .

-

~~ Participants were then given a set of 48 problems . For each problem , the

participants had to write and type a query statement that would satisfy the

information requirements .

~ An electric typewriter simulated the keyboard input

of a computer terminal7’using a stopwatch , each participant recorded the time

it took to write and--type query statements.

After finishing the problems , each participant was given an ancillary

learning test to assess how well specific terms had been learned .

Finally, participants rated the ease of use of the query language , m dicated hów they went about writing query statements, and rated the value of

using global terms.

~~~The opportunity to use global terms had no effect either on the time

needed to write query statements or on the accuracy of typed query statements.

Where the use of global terms was applicable , substantial savings in the time

required to input query statements was shown. Except that the global-specific

group reported that it made more use of the data name chart before using the

data dictionary, the two groups indicated that they went about writing query

statements in approximately the same way . Both groups gave high ratings to

the value of using global terms.

Use of global terms is not recommended unless the specific items of information subsumed under the global term are normally retrieved together

frequent1y.~ \

NTIS ~~~~~

~~~~ nounced

3~5ttftcatbo~~~~~~~~~ i

I

~~~~~~~~~. 

kva

~~~~~

Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAG E(’lThen 0.t. EnS.r.d)

-

~~~~~ ,- -— ~~~~~~ -— - —-—-~~~~~ ~I _ .T1 .

~~~~~ -., ~~~~~~~~~~, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~
—, -

~~~~~~~~~ T~~

’

~~ - - ..=‘- -‘- ----‘- 

~~~~

“ — 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

— 

~~~~~~~~~ -~~ -~~~~~~ - - --~~~~-~

----

~~

--— ~ ‘-

~

-.--

Technical Paper 379

EFFECTS OF RETRIEVAL TERM SPECIFICITY

ON INFORMATION RETRIEVAL FROM

COMPUTER BASED INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS

Lawrence M. Potash

Raymond C. Sidorsky, Team Chief

Submitted by:

Edgar M. Johnson, Chief

HUMAN FACTORS TECHNICAL AREA

Approved By:

A. H. Blrnbaum, Acting Director

ORGANIZATIONS AND SYSTEMS

RESEARCH LABORATORY

Joseph Zeidner

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

July 1979

Army Project Number Intelligence Systems 20762722A765

&ppras d for public ralsase; distribution unlimited.

— - - 

~

-i, -~~~~~~~~~~~ - -

.

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - ~~~~~~~~ - .
-

~~~ -~~~~~~~~ - -~~~~~~~~~~~ - —~~~ -- —

ARI Research Reports and Technical Papers are intended for sponsors of

R&D tasks and other research and military agencies. Any findings ready for

implementation at the time of publication are presented in the latter part of

the Brief. Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formal recommendations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

- -

— --~~~~-~~~ -~~~~~~~~~~~ -~~~~ -. ,

_ ~~~~~ - --~~~
- - -~~~~~~~ -

~~~.--- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -.~~

- —------- - ,-. -----

FOREWORD

The Human Factors Technical Area is concerned with the human resource demands of increasingly complex battlefield systems for acquiring ,

transmitting, processing, disseminating, and utilizing information . The

research focuses on the human performance problems of the man-system interface, on interactions with coninand and control centers, and on issues

of system develotisent. The research is concerned with such areas as tactical symbology, information management , user-oriented systems, staff

operations and procedures , and sensor-systems integration and utilization .

One area of interest is the development of an approach to the design

of the man—computer interface that is people—oriented rather than computeroriented . Most existing query languages require the use of ii sp~~ ific ii

retrieval terms to request information from the data base of the system.

The speed and ease of composing and entering query statements might be

increased by adding “global” retrieval terms--terms that retrieve clusters of related data elements-—to specific terms that retrieve only basic

data elements. Decisions concerning the cost-benefits trade—off of using

global terms require data on how the use of global terms will affect user

performance.

This publication presents the results of an experiment assessing

the effects of using global retrieval terms plus specific retrieval terms

for formulating and inputting query statements. The results indicate

that the primary effect of using global terms is reduced time required

to input query statements, not reduced time required to formulate query

statements.

Research in the area of man-computer synergism is conducted as an

in—house effort augmented by contracts with organizations selected for

their relevant capabilities and facilities. The present research was

conducted by personnel from the Army Research Institute (ARI) and is responsive to the general requirements of Army Project 2Q762722A765 and

to the special requirements of the Combined Arms Combat Development

Activity. Special requirements are contained in Human Research Need

78-149, “Interactive Procedures for Data Inputting, Organization , Retrieval, and Purge.” This research was made possible through the

cooperation of the Intelligence Systems Support Detachment of OACSI and

the Personnel Management Division, Fort Belvoir, Va.

chnical Director

~

- - - -: ~~~~~~~-- -~ -~~~~~~~ - , —
~ -- --- — -— -

~~~

— -- 

~~

—~~~~~~~~~~~~

-----— - -

~~~~

-------- -

~~~

----- --

~~~~~~

-

EFFECTS OF RETRIEVAL TERM SPECIFICITY ON INFORMATION RETRIEVAL

FROM COMPUTER-BASED INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS

BRIEF

Requirement :

To assess the impact of using two levels of retrieval terms for formulating and inputting seminatural English query statements.

Procedure :

Thirty-six enlisted personnel with General Technical (GT) scores of

at least 110 were randomly assigned to two groups. One group was allowed

to use only specific terms for retrieving items of information (specific

group). The second group was allowed to use both specific and global

terms to retrieve blocks of information that would otherwise require use

of several related specific terms (global-specific group) .

Two or three participants were tested per day . Each participant was

given a Data Element Dictionary containing the retrieval terms, a Data

Name Chart displaying these retrieval terms and their interrelationships ,

and a test booklet appropriate to the group.

The retrieval terms and their definitions were based on those listed

in the Ground Order of Battle File (GOBBA) in the “Data Base Specifications (DS), ASSIST CONUS TESTBED SYSTEM (ACTS) .

“

Before the experiment, participants were given a 5-minute typing

test. The participants then went through the instructional portion of

the test booklet, which taught them a simplified version of the query

language used in ASSIST and how to use both the dictionary and the name

chart. Next, participants had to write and type query statements that

would satisfy the information requirements of 48 problems. An electric

typewriter simulated the keyboard input of a computer terminal. Using a

stopwatch , each participant timed how long it took to (a) write and (b)

type each query statement.

After finishing the performance section of the test, participants

were tested for incidental learning of the retrieval terms. They were

also asked to rate the ease of writing and typing query statements and

the advisability of using global terms, and to indicate what strategies

they used to write the query statements.

L. . 
_____

— 

- ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~-

- - - -

~~~~

Results:

Opportunity to use global retrieval terms, typing speed , and GT

scores had no significant effect either on the time required to write

the query statements or on the number of query statements correctly

written. However, where global terms were applicable, their use resulted in substantial saving in the time required to type query statements. Both specific and global-specific groups gave high ratings to

the value of using global terms.

Utilization of Findings:

Based on these findings, the use of global terms is not recommended

unless the specific items of information subsumed under the global term

are normally retrieved together frequently .

— p — - -- — - A
-

~

______ - ~

-

~~~~~ =--~~ -

~~~~~~~~ --~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

- —

~~~~~~~

-

~~~

- -, _-., ‘. 

‘

~~~~~~~~~~-T ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ‘

~~~~~

EFFECTS OF RETRIEVAL TERM SPECIFICITY ON INFORMAT ION

RETRIEVAL FROM COMPUTER-BASED INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION 1

OBJECTIVE 3

METHOD 4

Participants 4

Equipment 4

Test Booklet 5

Procedure 7

RESULTS 8

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 14

SUMMARY 15

APPENDIX A. EXAMPLES OF PROBLEMS GIVEN TO SUBJECTS 17

B. DATA DICTIONARY ( GLOBAL-SPECIFIC GROUP ) 21

C. ANALYSES OF VARIANCE 31

DISTRIBUTION 41

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Sunena ry of results of analyses of variance of

time required for writing and typing query

statements for each problem category 9

2. Mean of median typing speeds for five categories of

problems as a function of typing speed and term

specificity 10

3. Suninary of rating evaluation 12
—~- — —~~~~-=--- ~~~ ~~~~

-

~

-

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table C-l. Analysis of variance for time required to

write query statements in problem category 3 31

C-2. Analysis of variance for time required to

type r

~uery statements in problem category 1 32

C-3. Analysis of variance for time required to

type query statements in problem category 2 33

C-4 . Analysis of variance for time required to

type query statements in problem category 3 34

C—5. Analysis of variance for time required to

type query statements in problem category 4 35

C-6. Analysis of variance for time required to

type- query statements in problem category 5 36

C-7. Analysis of variance for number of specific

terms recalled 37

C-B . Analysis of variance for time required to write

query statements in problem category 1 38

C—9. Analysis of variance for number of times the

correction procedure was used 39 

- - - - --- - - -- - - 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- 

-

-

.-—-- ---- -- ——--

~~

- -—-- 

~~~

_

~~~~~

_ - -

~~~~~~~~~

-,

~

- - —---

~~~~~~

——.—— - ------- —--‘-

~~

-- -

~

.-,--——-----———--

EFFECTS OF RETRIEVAL TERM SPECIFICITY ON INFORMATION

RETRIEVAL FROM COMPUTER-BASED INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS

INTRODUCTION

In most data management systems, units of information are labeled

by retrieval terms. When the user wants to retrieve the information, he

or she incorporates the retrieval term(s) in the query statement . An

example of a query statement in the GIM II language , used in the Army

System for Standard Intelligeflce (ASSIST) ,1’

2 would be—-

FOR GOBBA WITH UNIT EQ “12345” “56321” LIST COMMANDER #

“FOR GOBBA” refers to the data base for the ground order of battle.

“COMMANDER” is the retrieval term . The output produced by this query

statement would be the names of the commanders (and whatever else is

stored in the designated data field) for the two units specified . One

factor that would be expected to affect how efficiently such a retrieval

language works is the size of the information unit that is retrieved by

the retrieval term . In a number of situations, lumping together informa—

tion previously keyed on different specific terms might be useful (or

necessary) , because the information to be retrieved could be labeled by

a single term . Two such situations are as follows :

1. When the information should not be used by itself; that is, subsidiary units of information are necessary to qualify the primary

unit of information (for example, whether the information has

been validated, what units of measurement are, etc.).

2. When information logically goes together to make up the whole

picture; that is, information that is related or is comprised

of elements with a high probability of being used together. For

example, for many purposes, all of the terms shown below could

be combined into one information unit called COMBAT READINESS

STATUS (which might be abbreviated as COMREDS).

• CRCAT--Combat readiness category of unit.

• CATO1——Time span required for the subject unit to reach full

combat readiness.

1

TRW Systems Group. GIM II User Reference Manual, McLean , Va., January

1975.

DMS Elementary User ’s Guide with Sample Application . Prepared

for U.S. Army Intelligence Support Detachment, OACSI, June 1976.

1

- ~~~~~~~~ - -- - p - --

~~~~~~~~ 4 -- —a-- -
____ 

—— ~

—.---— -

~

• CATO2--Unit of measurement .

• REASU——Reason (for lack of combat readiness) unknown .

• REAS 1--Primary reason for lack of combat readiness.

• REAS2-—Secondary reason for lack of combat readiness.

• REAS3-—Tertiary reason for lack of combat readiness .

Use of clusters of information or macroelements (an ordered set of

two or more elements used as a single data element) should enable the user

to avoid stringing together a number of specific retrieval terms and may

decrease——

1. The time required to look up retrieval terms.

2. The number of typographical errors and resultant error correc—

tioi~s needed .

3. The length of the query statement.

4. The inputting time once the query statement is formulated.

5. The possibility of omitting important information .

In this research, the term used to retrieve a macroelement is called

a “global term.” Regardless of the merits of using global terms, use of

“specific terms” (the names or terms used for retrieval of individual

d~

ata elements) is necessary because they allow the user to

1. Decrease the amount of extraneous categories of information (in

some cases a global term may provide too much information).

2. Delimit the information requested (for example, you might want

a list of certain categories of information for all units under

two commanders, but in a language like GIM II there is no direct

way to key in on the specific items wanted without using the

specific term COMMANDER) .

This research assessed the impact of using two levels of retrieval

terms for formulating and inputting query statements in seminatural query

languages where the categories of information have been previously derived.

Query systems can vary in several ways, including the type of language used in the man-computer dialogue (menu, seminatural English , natural English), whether a controlled or uncontrolled vocabulary is used, the means of inputting (typewriter keyboard , function keyboard , light

pen). The boundary conditions for the current research are based on

GIM II, as follows:

2

_____________ _________ 

~~~~~~~~ - A
~~~—— .

~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~

- — • -- - 

~~~~ .--

1. Vocabulary is assumed to be controlled. In this context , controlled vocabulary means that the MIS system will accept only a

limited set of predefined terms .

2. Seminatural language is assumed in the sense that statements are

in seminatural English syntax (the GIM II Query Language used

in ASSIST is such a model).

3. Synonym capability exists only in that global terms can be used

to stand for a cluster of more specific terms.

4. Query statements are input via a keyboard.

5. The query language deals with retrieval of relatively brief

items of information rather than document retrieval (including

messages).

Thus, this research represents an attempt to maximize the effectiveness of GIM Il—like systems.

OBJECTIVE

The overall objective of this research is to assess the impact of

using global terms in addition to specific terms for formulating and inputting query statements written in seminatural English . More specifically , the following effects of the use of global terms will be assessed:

1. Does the use of global retrieval terms affect the speed of formulating query statements?

2. Does the use of global retrieval terms increase the speed with

which query statements can be input (i.e., typed)?

3. Does the use of global terms affect the accuracy of statements

input into the system?

4. Will users express a preference for adding global terms to specific terms?

5. Does the use of global retrieval terms affect the recall and

recognition of specific retrieval terms?

6. Does the use of global terms affect how the user employs aids, such as a dictionary containing the retrieval terms and a chart

displaying these terms?

3

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J
— r--~~~~----- -

~~ - _ — — — —

No attempt is made to assess the importance of loss of precision of

output in information due to the use of global retrieval terms. Precision and its effects depend on the size of the data base and the way the

output is organized.

METHOD

Participants

Beginning participants were 43 enlisted personnel (E4 and above)

from Fort Belvoir, Va., with GT scores > 110 who had some familiarity

with typing (even if only “hunt ~- 1d peck” typing). Approximately 39%

were women .

Because an important measure of participant performance——the time

required to write and type query statements--is meaningless if participants are very inaccurate typists, all participants had to reach a minimal level of performance to be included in the study. The performance

criterion required 50% of the query statements to be formulated and typed

without error.3

To insure the proper number of participants in each group, the experimenter scored the number correct at the end of each daily session

(an average of two participants wete run per day). Seven of the 43 participants did not reach the criteria for acceptable performance, and

their data were not included in the analysis. Of the 36 subjects who

met the criteria, 18 were assigned to the specific group (allowed to use

only specific terms) and 18 were put in the global-specific group (allowed

to use both global and specific terms).

Equipment

Electric typewriters simulated the keyboard of a terminal . The participants typed the query statements on paper. Each participant was also

given a test booklet, a data dictionary, and a data name chart.

3

Only query statements without LIMIT OUTPUT restriction were used in the

analysis (see footnote 5 for the underlying rationale). Thus, for inclusion in the study, subjects had to type a minimum of 16 query statements without error. The mean number correct for the global—specific

group was 25.1 (range 18-31). The mean number correct for the specific

group was 24.4 (raflge 16—31).

4
______ ~~~~~~ - —

-

~~~~~~—— - ~~— — -—-~~~~ -- -~~~~- --~~~~ -~~~~~~ -‘-—-— - --- —~

_:::i--

Test Booklet

Throughout the performance portion of the experiment, participants

used a test booklet consisting of an instruction section , a performance

assessment section, an ancillary learning test, and a rating evaluation

sheet.

The instruction section was used to teach the players a simplified

version of GIM II Query Language and how to use both the data dictionary

and the data nasie chart (described below). This section also contained

three practice problems for which the participant had to write and type

query statements to retrieve the requested information .

Following each practice problem , participants were given feedback on

their answers and explanations of underlying strategies for retrieving

information. The advantages of using global terms , where applicable,

were pointed out to the participants in the global-specific group. This

group was told to use the global terms when they thought it would save

time, provided that the global term replaced two or more of the specific

terms required by the query statement. These participants were told not

to use a global term if it only subsumed one specific term because it

“wouldn ’t give you any advantage and would produce too much extraneous

information.” Each of the global terms was defined to comprise five or

six specific terms.

The performance assessment section contained 48 problems (see Appendix A for sample problems). The participant had to write and type a

query statement that would satisfy the information requirements for each

problem. The problems were classified in five categories depending on

whether global retrieval terms could be used . A description of these

categories and the number of problems in each category follows. (Where

applicable, the number of specific retrieval terms required to produce

the same information is shown in brackets.)

• Category 1. Six problems with information requirements completely satisfied by a global term in the query statement (five

to six specific terms).

• Category 2. Six problems with information requirements satisfied by one global term plus use of one or two specific terms

in the query statement (six to eight specific terms).

• Category 3. Twelve problems with information requirements satisfied by one global term plus two to three specific terms or by

an additional global term which subsumes the two to three specific

terms in the query statement (seven to nine specific terms).

• Category 4. Twelve problems with information requirements satisfied only by three to four unrelated specific terms in the query

statement.

5

-- — - — ~~~ -

~~

- -

~~~~~~~~~~~~ - ---- —- ~~~~~~~ — ~~~~~~~ - —p — ~~~~~ ___~ -- - - -- -~~~~~~~~~ - —-~~ — -
r 

~~~~~~~~ ;

__

• Category 5. Twelve problems with information requirements satisfied only by three to four specific terms in the query statement

or by a single global term which subsumed these specific terms.

The specific retrieval terms were assigned to the different problem

categories on a semirandom basis, so that it was advantageous to use each

specific term with other terms or subsumed under a global term in at least

three problems . For each global term there were at least four problems

in which it could be used in place of multiple specific terms.

One-third of the problems contained in each category had LIMIT OUTPUT restrictions that required the query statement to be written so that

extra categories of information would not be produced. Half of these

LIMIT OUTPUT problems required use of a WITH CLAUSE (see page 1 and Appendix A for examples of a query using the WITH clause). These restrictions were used to force the global—specific group to use specific terms

in some of their query statements and to prevent careless use of global

terms. -

Instances of the different types of problems were randomly assigned

to positions 1 through 48 in the performance assessment section of the

test booklet. Two different random orders were used , so that approximately 50% of the participants in each group (specific and global—specific)

used one of the two orders (see Appendix A for examples of problems).

An ancillary learning test assessed how well participants in both

‘groups had learned the specific terms. The recall and recognition tests

contained the definition of the term and a space for the participant to

write the appropriate specific retrieval term. For the recognition test

(given after the recall test), the participant was allowed to use the

data name chart.

The rating sheet consisted of a number of 9—point rating scales designed to assess how participants went about writing the query statements,

how easy they thought the statements were to write and input, and how they

perceived the value of using global terms (for subjects in the specific

groups, global terms were defined and their use was described) .

A data dictionary was given participants . The dictionary listed

every retrieval term and followed each term with an underlined phrase

that indicated what the term stood for (all retrieval terms were abbreviations or brevity codes). Each retrieval term also was described or “defined” in terms of the type of data that it would retrieve. The retrieval

terms and their definitions were based on those listed in the Ground Order

of Battle Files (GOBBA) .

‘

~

4

Data Base Task Group and Systems Development Task Group FORSIC-IDHS.

Data Base Specifications (DS), ASSIST CONUS TESTBED SYSTEM (ACTS),

October 1974.

6

--- - -
— - — — — 

-

~ —.----- -r

The dictionary used by the specific group contained 57 retrieval

terms. The dictionary used by the global—specific group contained the

identical 57 specific terms plus 14 global terms, each of which subsumed five to six specific terms (see Appendix B for an example).

About 50% of the specific and global terms listed in the dictionary

were actually used by the participants. The remaining terms were extraneous and were used to simulate the presence of terms commonly used by

the analyst.

The data name chart listed all the retrieval terms contained in the

data dictionary . For the global-specific group, all the specific retrieval terms subsumed under a global term were listed next to the global

term and were enclosed in brackets. The data name chart (30.5 cm x 30.5 cm

for the specific group; 30.5 cm x 61 cm for the global group) was attached

to the wall in front of the participant.

Procedure

Participants were randomly assigned to either the specific or specificglobal group and were seated at a desk containing the data dictionary,

data name chart, and test booklets appropriate to their group. Prior to

the experiments proper, participants were given a 5-minute typing test to

measure typing speed . After completion of the typing test, participants

received the test booklets and went through its instruction portion. The

instruction portion of the booklet contained an exercise in which the participants had to use the data dictionary to find terms that would provide

the requested items of information.

When the participants had completed the exercise, the experimenter

went over the answers with the participants to insure that each understood

how to use the data dictionary. At the end of the instruction section,

the participants had to write and type appropriate query statements for

a second exercise with three sample problems. Using a stopwatch, participants recorded the time required to write and the time required to

type the query statements. The experimenter went over these problems

with the participants and reviewed the instructions. After completion

of the first four problems in the performance section, the experimenter

reviewed those problems, correcting any mistakes and explaining the nature of any errors. After this review, participants were on their own

for the remainder of the test.

During initial problems, the experimenter also recorded typing time,

‘ising a stopwatch to make sure participants were recording their times

accurately. Incorrect recording of times by participants was not a

problem .

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

———~~~~~-~~~~ 

- 

7 

i

i

— i

-.- :

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~____ -
:

~~~~~ —- -~~

--- _

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _ 

Afte r completion of the performance section of the test , pa rticipants were tested for ancillary learning of the retrieval terms . Participants were also dsked to rate the ease of writing and typing query

statements and the advantages of using global terms, and to indicate what

strategies they used to write the query statements .

RESULTS

A 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design, unweighted means analysis, in which GT

Score, Typing Speed, and Term Specificity were dichotomized into high-low

categories, was used to analyze median time required for writing and typing query statements in each of the five categories of problems.5 Table 1

summarizes the significant effects of GT Score, Typing Speed , Term Specificity, and their interactions on median writing and typing time for each

of the five categories of problems. Appendix C contains tables for each

analysis of variance yielding statistically significant effects .

None of the three variables had a consistent effect upon writing

speed . However, two of the variables--Typing Speed and Term Specificity--

had a significant effect on median times necessary for typing the query

statements.

It is not surprising that both typing speed and term specificity

should affect median time required to input or type the query statement;

term specificity directly affects the length of the query statement.

However , the magnitude of the effect of term specificity is not so easily

predicted; it depends on whether the number of errors ( and therefore time

spent correcting errors) decreases , the proportion of times that global

terms are used (where applicable) , and the number of specific terms subsumed under a global term (fixed at five or six in this experiment) ~6

Table 2 shows the mean of the median typing times for each of the

five problem categories as a function of typing speed and term specificity.

Appreciably more time is required to use specific terms when information

requirements can be satisfied either by use of a global term (category 1)

or by a global term plus one to three specific terms or a second global

term (categories 2 and 3). For problems in which only specific terms

5

For this and subsequent analyses, all statements with LIMIT OUTPUT restrictions were eliminated: (a) some participants became confused by the

syntax requirements for some limit output statements, and (b) only a relatively small number of statements (16) had LIMIT OUTPUT restrictions providing too few counters to be meaningfully analyzed . The correlation

between total number correct and number correct after LIMIT OUTPUT problems were eliminated was .97 for the global—specific group and .91 for

the specific group.

6~~ indicated in a later analysis, there was no significant relationship

between retrieval term specificity and number of errors corrected .

8

-- ~~ ---- - — 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
:~~~~~~~~.

-

~~

w ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —.-—- - -— - 

~~~ ~~~~~~~~

Ln I ~ -

~ I I I

0 >1 ~~~~~ I ~ I I I I 14 0) o ~~~~

w e

14 -4.~ Q~ t

~ I ~ -k I I I

~~ U E~~ Q) ‘-4

.00 CN I k I I I

‘-I 14 -

~

H

,—4 I I k I I I

0 0Is

U

I s O — .,4 4.4

14

_4 ‘4.1 0)

O s in u I I I I I 0) 0) p.4 U) 4 ~ > .0 0)4 5 14~ Is s4.~ 0

E’ >~~Cfl U~~~~ I I I I I I ‘.4

~~~14 ,-4 45

~~~0) •

~~ .,.~ m I -k I I I I

‘4.4 04 1 45

0 -~ cfl~~ .00 c.4 I I I I I I Ii

04

V ‘

-4 I I I I I I

‘44~~~ 0

I .’.’ 45 4.)

x

U) -I.) 4.) 4.) 14 .,.4 .,4 .,.4

0 >i 0 0 o ‘

44 .4J .,.4 .

~

.4 ~~~~~ 0) ‘4.1 4-4 0) 0 0) ...4 .

~

.4 .,.4 0) .p.4 04 0 VU U 14 ‘4-4 U) 0) 0)0) o -

~ M 04 0 )04 XOi o o U) O4 Cfl U) 

o 0’ U) ~~~~ 00. 0 1-i 0’14 O 140

O ~ ~ O~~~ 0 0 ) ~~~0) OW>, tfl~~-4 U) .p4 CS E-4 U)~~ 4 •‘4 E4 U) E-4 E4 0 0

9

~
r ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

- -

~~ 

-

~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ :——~~ 

- 

- 

-

~~ m

in

N U)

~

o o ~

_

.1 C’)

0 N 0

U) Is’

N Is 0) ~

0) ~~ N m c’4 C’)

14 4.)

.0

4.1 .-I 0

0 4-1 0) 04 U)

0 ) 0 4-4 in 0)

0)0) 0 C’) ..-1 04 .0’ 14c n c U) N U) O -

~4 0)

z

‘~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ -;

‘5 U) ‘1) ~~~V

‘-4 0) .q ~~~ ~~ ‘

~~~~~

4 N ~

O

~~ 0) ‘-4 IN Is’

0) -‘-4

O

‘~~ -4 --i IN ‘5

0 ~ 4.) Z -4 0)

U

‘4-1

0

~ :i

~

—~~~~~~~ — ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~
- -

~~~~~ -_~~~~~~~~~--

-

~~~~ - -- .—~~

— —“U: --r- -

~~~~ — - --— -— - - ~~--- -— - -- --

can be used (category 4), or for which only three to four related specific terms will satisfy the information requirements (category 5) , no

significant differences were found between the global-specific and the

specific groups.

Other analyses, using the 2 x 2 x 2 analysis of variance design previously described , indicate that GT Score, Typing Speed, and Term Specificity did not significantly affect the accuracy of query statements typed

onto the answer sheets (i.e., the number of coi~

rect query statements),

the numbe r of statements with data names listed correctly, or the number

of times the correction procedure was used . Recall of the specific terms

was significantly related to GT Score; individuals with high GT scores

remembered more of the specific terms (F = 4.33, p < .05). Significant

interactions also occurred between GT Score and Typing Speed (F = 4.52,

p < .05) and between OT Score and Term Specificity (F = 7.58, p < .05)

with regard to the number of specific terms recalled . For individuals

with high typing speeds, high GT scores were associated with better recall of specific terms. For individuals with low typing speeds, the

number of terms recalled was essentially the same for both high and low

scorers. For the group using specific terms, individuals with high GT

scores tended to remember more of the specific terms, whereas this effect

was not exhibited for individuals in the global-specific group.

A 2 x 2 x 2 ANOVA of the same design previously discussed , was used

to analyze the effect of Number of Correct Statements, Number of Specific

Terms Recalled , and Retrieval Term Specificity on median speed of writing

query statements and number of corrections made. There were no significant main effects of these variables on median speed of writing query

statements. Of the four interactions, only one reached significance,

Number of Specific Terms Recalled by Number of Corrections for category 1

of the five categories of query statement (F = 7.68, p < .05). Number of

Correct Statements was significant with regard to the number of times the

correction procedure was used (F = 9.17, p < .01). Individuals with the

highest number of correct query statements used the correction procedure

half as often as individuals with low accuracy (with a X number of times

used equal to 5.0, as contrasted to 9.6 for the low-accuracy group).

Table 3 summarizes the results of the rating evaluation . All ratings were made on a 9—point scale. The first three statements were designed to ascertain the perceived ease with which the subjects carried

out the different tasks related to inputting appropriate query statements

into the system (i.e., ease of composing query statements, ease of typing

query statements, and ease of using the data dictionary). The rating

scale ranged from 0 (very difficult) to 8 (very easy). As Table 3 shows, there were no major discrepancies between the ratings of the globalspecific and specific groups. Even though there were significant (large)

differences between the specific and global groups in the actual typing

time required for four of the five types of problems, the ratings indicate that the two groups did not differ in the perceived ease of inputting

the query statements. Both groups perceived the typing part of the task

as relatively easy.

11

— ~~~— - —- —p _~_ ~~~~~~~~~~~ 

~~~~~~~~ ~

—_ - ~— . _ _ - -

-

~~ — A
.

‘~

T’

~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ 

~~~~~~

‘~~~~~~~~~~

“~~~~~~

“~~~~~~~ ‘ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

- - — 

_

~

‘

-4 44 40 04.1 .0 40 4- 1 00 U’ 0) 0) .-I CO c I

U’W0’ E 10 ~~ ci I. U

-‘-4 .4 

~ 0’ 40

‘U ~~~~ N 

0

(0 - 

- 0 ~

0 N

4)

0.4.4 —.

O .

)~

~

’1-1 dP

— 0 .-4 4.~~O Q E U) N U’ I I .03 0

~~W c 

0 o 4.1 (0 4.1 0

~ vi ( ‘ 4 440. 0) -.4 ~ 4.144 X •

~~ 

4 (‘4

U 01 14 0 >. 

—dP 11 —. 0 0

~~~

i

-,4

4

~~

40 0) 0) a) 0’ c o 4444 0 U’ I I c .c~~~~ i o o c o o -.4 104) w . c •-4 ‘

d .-4 •-4 U, $.1 44()4.) ~ v i vi 0 40 3 0 ) 0 0 44 0 .4 4-4

o tn In >,0 ‘p a w 4.1 14 -

~~ 0 

0 o i 4.1 010 0) a) a) -.1 o’ 400 )44 0 0 0’ I I 4.1 0) 4.1 E i U .0 0 ~ 0 0 10 4.1 4040.0 4~~-

~ .4 ,-4 0 ~.. 00~~~~-.1~~~ vi v i ‘-4 3 0 (0 -.4

‘U 

)C 40~ C’) m m

a U’ 

4) >. 

—dP

~ 4 .4 4.1 44

.0 

41 400) ‘0 ID 0 0 40 0 10.014010 0’ 0) N

4.1000 0 0 I I

‘U ‘44 .4 .4 (0 0 

0 4-1 00)0)1044 g~ -4 40 0 (U -.4 >. 0 ‘0 )~ a) N 4-i rn C’)

(0 44 0) 01 10 0’ 0) 0) a I -444 0 ‘0 ~fl ‘0 ~~~‘

0 4.’

0 

~0

‘0 

>~ 

-

N N

U,

44 0) C14 U’ 0 0’ 0) 0) 0 0 >-. W 0 I I

‘0 ‘U’ 1)1 0) 0.0) 10 (0 > ~ . 044 ‘U E-l U’ ’04) (N a) Co N ~0

(0

0’ 

4)

a a w

0’ 0) 0) (0 4.4 (0 0 I I 0 0 1 0) 10 10’ u~ 0.04) S

o ~~ .4 

N

O 

U) 

X 40 40

>.44 

0

•_I -.4 0 ~4-1 ._I --I ‘i-I 0 -.4U

U) CU C) 0. I -.4 (0 ‘-4 ‘4-4 10 -‘-I (0 .0 0 44 0 40 0) -4 0. E’ (

~ 

U)

12

t

~~~— — ~~~~~ L : ~~~~~~~~~ — - 

L

~ L 

—

~~~
- 

~~~~~~~

_

~~~~~~~~

_ ‘ _ _ - _ _‘-_ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ TT

It is possible that there would have been more disparity in the

ratings had each participant used both the global-specific arid the specific conditions.

The next four statements were designed to ascertain how participants

went about writing the query statements. The rating scale varied from

10% or less of the time to 90% or more of the time; it was again a 9—

point scale. (Since these categories are not nutually exclusive , the

percentages can , and did , add up to more than 100%.) The only discrepancy between the two groups of participants was in the use of the data

name chart before using the dictionary . The global-specific group tended

to make more use of the data name chart before using the dictionary;

perhaps it was easier first to scan the chart to spot a candidate global

term and then go to the data dictionary to make certain the global term

was applicable. After practice , many members in both groups supplied a

large proportion of the terms from memory .

The last scale , used to rate the value of using global terms, ranged

from 0 (of very little use) to 8 (very useful). Prior to making the rating, participants in the specific group , who had no experience in using

global terms, were given a description of how global terms would be used .

Both groups gave similar ratings for the value of using global terms

which was, on the average , quite high . Note that the desirability of

using global terms (or at least the rating given for their usefulness)

is not strongly supported by the results of the performance evaluation

and is at variance with the ratings given for ease of composing and typing query statements .

Participants in the global group were also asked to “list the most

important disadvantages of using global terms (if any).” With regard to

advantages, the overwhelming response was this: It saves time and/or requires less writing (and thereby saves time) and/or less typing (and

thereby saves time). Three general disadvantages were pointed out:

1. The addition of global terms gives the user more terms to learn,

which can prove confusing unless the global terms are frequently

used.

2. It takes time (and causes confusion) to match global terms with

the specific terms they represent (one respondent indicated that

this is more true of global terms that contain information less

obviously related).

3. The use of global terms often produces extraneous information .

13

_ _ _.. : .—- .——--—- --—-.—— .

~~

-,—,-.~

__——,_, —_— — -—— --—— ._a_

:i:.(0L__.,__....._

_ 

. _ _ ,___ ._ __._-__- ‘ __ .___ _ _ __ . . . .- - . .
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Generally speaking , the results lend only weak support to the use

of global terms in addition to specific terms. The use of global terms

in addition to specific terms had no effect either on the time necessary

to write query statements or on the accuracy of typed query statements .

The one area where the use of global terms did make a difference was in

the time required to type the query statements. Where use of global terms

was applicable, substantially less time was required to input query statements. Whether the demonstrated differences in typing time would be

“operationally significant” depends on a number of factors, including--

1. The number of query statements the person using the system must

input per unit time.

2. The number of specific terms subsumed by the global term (and

the average number of letters per term).

3. The ease of selecting appropriate global terms , i.e., whether

the relationship of the specific terms to the global terms is

relatively obvious.

4. The usability of available global terms, i.e., the proportion

of times that the majority of specific items of information

subsumed under the global term would be requested together .

5. The proportion of time spent inputting as contrasted to writing

query statements.

In designing the experiment, a number of arbitrary points along potential continua had to be chosen. For example, global terms subsumed

five to six specific terms, although other numbers, such as 10 to 15 or

more, could have been used . The assignment of 5 to 6 specific terms for

tach global term was made for several reasons: this was the range that

the items in the particular data base seemed to fit into best; and unless

elements of information are frequently requested together, subsuming a

large number of specific terms under one global term produces a great

deal of extraneous information that would represent “clutter ” to the user.

Another reason for using 5 to 6 specific terms is the average number of

letters per term . The five—letter abbreviations used for the specific

terms were taken from the ASSIST CONUS TESTBED SYSTEM data base . Sixletter abbreviations were used for the global terms, the extra letter

being used to help discriminate between global and specific terms.

The fact that this experiment was carried out with a simulated rather

than a “live” system also reduces the amount to be generalized from its

results. The simulation is most comparable to the operator’s task prior

to the system execution of the query statement (i.e., where before he or

she pushes the execute tab or the system equivalent, he or she writes the

query statement, types it, checks it, and corrects any errors. The give

14 

- -- ------.----,---.-—-- — —---- ,- --- -----—---— —.—.— — — ~

- — —-------.- ‘-————~~~-~~~~~~ - — -.‘— —k ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- ~-- - ~— -— — —.-— --- -‘—

and take that occurs when the system “kicks back” an “incorrect” message

or provides the “wrong ” information was not simulated in this experiment .

The discrepancy between the perceived value and the empirically assessed value of using global terms is not too surprising, because results

of opinion sampling do not always correlate highly with empirically assessed performance .

7 Whe ther stated preference would transla te into

greater user acceptance of the system is unknown . It seems likely that

user preference would be lessened if the use of global terms produced a

great deal of extraneous information.

The lack of relationship between GT score and the more important performance measures (number correct, speed of writing ‘~

1 typing query

statements, etc.) for the range of GT scores (ll0-15b , of participants in

this experiment suggests that when the system operator is used as an intermediary, GT score may not be an important consideration . However ,

where the operator has to perform additional functions-—for example ,

those of an intelligence analyst who decides what data should be retrieved—-GT score may be more important. GT score might also be related

to th e speed of learning to use the query language , which was not measured

in this experiment.

Based upon the current results, use of global terms or macroeleinents

is not recommended unless the specific items of information subsumed under the global term are (or should be) normally retrieved together frequently. When this condition is met , use of global terms could (a) help

prevent omission of important information when information requirements

are not completely delineated , and (b) significantly increase the rate

at which statements could be typed into the system when a large number

of query requests per unit time must be input . If g lobal terms are used ,

care ‘3hould be taken that too many specific terms are not subsumed under

• global terms and that the specific items of information comprised in the

global term are often requested together (or logically should be requested

together).

SUMM ~ARY

This experiment assessed the impact of using two levels of retrieval

terms for formulating and inputting query statements. Specific retrieval

terms were used to retrieve one element of information; global retrieval

terms were used to retrieve blocks of information that would otherwise

reçuire the use of five to six specific terms. The specific terms and

their definitions were taken from the Ground Order of Battle File (GOBBA),

“Data Base Specifications (DS), ASSIST CONUS TESTBED SYSTEM (ACTS).”

7

Potash, L. M., & Jeffrey , T. E. Factors in Design of Hardcopy Topographic Maps. ARI Technical Paper 284. January 1978. AD A04962l

15 

- - -
________________ - -

~-~—- —..~~- ~~~~~~~~~ .

~~- —• .,.~.— —,~

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

• 

~~~~~~

Thirty—six enlisted personnel from Fort Belvoir with GT scores, > 110 participated in the research . Participants were assigned either to a specific group , allowed to use only specific retrieval terms , or to a globalspecific group , allowed to use both global and specific retrieval terms .

The results only weakly support the use of global terms in addition

to specific terms . Opportunity to use global terms had no effect either

on the time necessary to write query statements or on the accuracy of

typed query statements . Where the use of global terms was applicable,

substantial savings in the time required to input query statements was

• demonstrated . Except that the global—specific group reported more use

of the data name chart before using the data dictionary , the two groups

indicated that they went about writing query statements in approximately

the same way . Both groups gave high ratings to the value of using gbbal terms .

Based upon these results, use of global terms is not recommended

unless the specific items of information subsumed under the global term

are normally retrieved together frequently .

16

_________________ __________ __
__________ “““‘

~~~~~‘~~~ .. - ‘

~~~~ r~ ’L 

-

~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ._- 

- 

_.~

APPENDIX A

EXAMPLES OF PROBLEMS GIVEN TO SUBJECTS

Examples of the problems given to subjects are shown in this appen—

dix . The problem given to the subject is shown beneath the section

labelled “PROBLEM .” The information requirements that must be met by the

query statement are labelled “DESCRIPTION OF INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS .”

In cases where extraneous output is to be limited , a “LIMIT OUTPUT” section is also contained as part of the problem. Note that half of the

• limit output requirements necessitated use of the with clause. Where use

of a global term would produce output for extraneous categories of information , the LIMIT OUTPUT clause made their use illegal. Since the purpose

• of the experiment was not to test the subjects use of syntax , a skeleton

query statement is provided at the top of each problem to aid the subject

in writing the query statement . The answer(s) are provided below each

query statement beneath the section labelled “ANSWER.”

17

L

-__ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- ~~~--- —- • —‘— - —-- ~

--‘ • - • ---—--- •- ---,-,-~ -

~~‘~~ .

,.

~~~~~~

---- —,--‘,..- - --- - — -..‘-

~ 

- --- —- •

~~~~ —~

I

, 

:°

~

~~~ :

~ 

: ~ .

0 ~~~~ U~ U)

18

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_________ -• ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

-

~ 

___ - — — -

~

I I

2

0 .0 11 0444H 04 a) a) 4-I O W E-i a) .

4 0 • 

S 44 0) 0 ‘-4 4.4 0 04 a) a) 0 ‘-4 Q) .0 0 C) 0 0) ~.4 44 4.) 5 5 4-) E’l 0 0 0~ .- 4 Z 0 —4 sU) 0 ..4 a) C)

.0 U) ). a) 

>~ 

S 4-) --4 E-i 4-) > 44 0)

U) .-I~~~ ‘-4 .,

.

I - ‘-I U) H Wa)E-i ‘-I 0) ~ 4 >i

0 

U) 

- ‘-4 0 .“

~ 

44 

0

.0 a) 

...4 C)

50 )-i id 

‘4.4 a) ‘-4 • 11.1

— 

S.4 14-l

~~~~ 04 ‘4-i 04 ‘-4 0 ‘4-4 a) U) • a) 0 (0) .0 0 0 44 C) C) (0) .‘.4 a) 5Q4 ..4 04 44 4.)

‘0)04 0 0 0 

>~ a) IS • a) 5 0 --1 Ii 0 5 14 C) 145D 04 ,-1 a) 4.4 .0 14 WOO a) a) ‘0) 4.4 0 44 C) 44 )-I .0 W 0 --4 a) ‘4-1 440 44 ~ a) —4 0) 0 0 4-)

WOZ .0 a) r.4 

-‘.4 1,4)

14,4 14 0 4.) .4

4-) H 0 IS ‘I-I 5 4,4 0) Z 0) 0 4-1 0 0 U) 0 510 —4 a) ~ —l 

-

4 0 14 C) a) 0) 

4) CO U) 

0~ U) 0 0 5 ‘-4 - 0) ~ ‘-I O 44 4-l U) e’ 0 .0 C) .,,4 .,.4 (5 0 0’ a) a) S (I) 44 Z 4) 04 .0 -.-4 0 4.) 0) 0. 0 0 0 ‘U 0’ 4) 10-i IS )- a) U 0

~ 0) 

0

C) . C) .0 

~i-1 U 

0 • (5 44 (4.4 44 0

)- ,44U) U) 0) 

44 0 44 

...I 0 a) C) ‘I-I a) ~~~E-4 (fl .,.4 0) ‘-4 C) ‘4-4 0

04 C5 4-)EI H 0) 0 ‘4-4 0 .0

10 0 Z S 5 

~1-4 ~ CO 44 

0) 0 .0

‘0)a) ~~ ‘-I 0 0 -‘-4 )‘ 44 ‘

0 

0) .0 0 ~ 0 .0 ‘-4 U) a) >i )-’ a) .0 CO C) 04 .0 44 )~J 44Z a) 44 5 a) (4) a) Z 0~~~4 -.-4 U) 14 4~

) Q) a) 44 15 U) -“4 0-4 Z ‘4-4 . 4 .,.4 0) .0 O ’.-I U) 44 0 0 0 0 .0 a) 0 U) )-i .0 a) 5 . .4 ~ 4.1 .0 0’ ~~ ‘-4 5 40) 0 ~

0 14 40) 

0 H ‘0 0 0 .10 5 a) 0) ~ 4 S 4-i 4-1 0’ 

5 D a)~~~~~a)H 0 .0 .0 a) 0 0 0 0

01 .,.4 C)~~~ C) 5 

4~

) 5 

-‘-4 ‘4-4 

~1.4 S 14 103 4-4 4.) H 5 5 44 0 14.1 0

~ 4-41544 0 0’ 0 0’ 0 a ) • 

~,.4 >il 14 0 0 U )’ 4-iS 1 ,-l ‘44 Z .0440 )04 ~ a) . 4 44)-i a ) Q 0 0

O —4(5 4) ‘0) 

44 4)11 0404 0 0 CO H C f l WO 40) 0 a) 0.0 0 1 5 E-i 0) ’0)SU) 0 0 0 0’ 0) 44 44 CO t4 5 --4 0

~~~ 

.~-4 4 

(444) 4.4~~~ 5 5 5 4)

0) o ~~~~~ .

4 . a) 

•‘.4 44C ) 110 5 0) E-i C)

4-4 

.,.4~~~~ 44 a) a) 0 

0

Z 

O SU) 10.i 

a) 

~-4 0) 

.0 -4 .0>i -4 

‘44 H •,.4Q5 ‘0 -4 ‘0 5—I Eli Cl) CO a) 44 )-’ W Z 0 -“I 0 5.~.4 0 ) 0 .. ,.4 .‘4 .0 0

10. W’44 0 0 5 C) 5

.14 0 0’ 4) 0 4) H 0 04 ‘4-I H U) 0) a) a) (S —I C

~~~~~~~ a) a) a) 0) 4) 4.) 

E-i .0 

~

J 4.) U 

U)

Z 0) 0) .4~ .0 .0 .0 .0)-i .015 

~ ) 44 15 15

o 44W~~~ 

E-i E-~ E’i E-i.Q 

E 0 04 0 0 0

I~~ H 4-1

- ’.4EZ El 4) 0 0 U) El 5 000 ~~ 11 .4

0 04 0 0) 0) 10. — — — — — 0 0) 

-‘ — CO 0)

U I-I >1 15 

.0 C) ‘0 0) Cl) IS .0

>~~4J H ii Z 0 5 0) H 

0)

0 U) Wa )

U

U) U) S W Z 

H 104 0 4)~~~~~H

19 

•

~~~

—-- ----

‘

~~~~~ - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

~—-
______ ____ ______ -- - -- 

——~

--TT:- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ - -

~~~~~~ -: ~~~~~~~~~~~~ _ 

- 

--- 

- ______

4.)

a) I .0 O 4) 44

4) 0) >4

‘1 - 114 0 0 ‘I-i a) 0

04)’0-.-4 14 .-4 O 44 U) a)

0 ’ 0-d a) 0)

• -.4 5 14 .-1 0 S 1 4 0

~~ 0) 0 4)4)4 - 1 5

0 )- 4.) 5U) a)

0 .0 0 ) a) 0)4) .OZ .O ’1—l ’0 4-’ 0 a) 4-)4) a) H .5

El 0 140 ) Z U) -.-4 0 44Z H WW)-’sSO

C O .0 0410.

S44 ~~4 4 Z a) 150)4-I - 0) 0

— 0 .0 0 .0 0

0 ) 0 ) 4-) U 4.) . . .0 0) a ) Z >‘~ 4-~ U

5 4) .13 (S .0 -‘-4 --I --4 5

5 ..4 -.4 0 ‘.-I ~ 4 4-i w4C ) 44,~

:1 (5 .‘.4 ..4 0 • ‘4-I

5 .0 .0 ~

l-4 .0 0

0 IS a) S a) a) -‘-4 10. 04 04 04 -.4 0 0)

0 ) 0 . 0) -I a) a) a) 0) Cl)

.5150 10 0) C) 0 ~

l-1 ‘0 0) 4.)0>4 0~~~ 0 15

W E-i 0 .—4 0 0 ll-l ,-4 ~

1-1 ‘.1 15 CO a) 0)

0a) • )-i Z 0 0 0 0) 0 .0 C )CO IIH 0 -.4 ~-I 0) CO -.4 0) 44l~ CO 14 0’ 44 ‘0 ‘0 W 0’-.-4 0) E4 0) 4.) 0 0 4) U) ‘ - 4 0 4 3 . 0(5 0. 0 —4 0’ U) 0) 0) .4J .—4 -.-4 0 0) 0 0) 10 15 5 . (5 --4 0~~- 4 a) 44 ‘.-4 ..4 4-) ~~ C) 5

0 -l -.-l --I 0 0) .0 a) Cl) 0) 0) 0 U) -.4 .0.Q 0 E l 4) 0 ‘0 04 01 .0 a) -.4 0 4~ °

-

~ 10 a)G) P. El 0) )‘ )- 0) 0 440

0 I) - 1 5 0)Z 14 ..4 ..4 ). 0) 0 ’I 0) U) 0) 0 0 014

0(5 -z ~-i 0 0 .0 0. 544

0 0 0) 1 0 ‘I-I 0) 0) 15 15W

W 41J -.-I 0El --4 ~

I-1 ~

4-I 0 0 )

‘0 0) 0) 0) 44 4-4 - .44) 0 El ‘0 ‘0 .0 Cl) 5

C O ’ 0 44 U) U 44 -‘-4 1 4 E l

(5 5 44. .5 (5 (4) ,.4 4)0)

El 4)14 0 .-I >. 44 - - 14 4)

Z ‘~4 ..-4 U .’4 U) 4.) 4) 0 IS

10 4)0)~~—la)10 14 --4 -.1 ~

l-l .0 ~4 0 )

0)

0) 0)0) 4) .—4 0E l H .0 0) - a ) U) 4) 0) 4) 0 5 0) 4J 0 ”-4 0) .0 .0 .0 0 0 0 ’E 01 (54)0 4-’ 4-) 14 H

103 ‘1- 1 1 5 0 )- > . • 43 IL, U) 0 440 ) 15 0’ 0’ 0) I5 ’I-I .SZ 0 4 ~ 0 0 0. Z 0)’0 W U ..4 ”4 -‘-4 ., 43

o E ‘O )-I H 44 V-4 4.) 44 0)

H 0 4J 410 (f) 15’ 4 15 15 0 El C O W4 - 4.0 103 0.0 0 0

“-4 15 ‘-4 .4 Cl) 0)

~ 0) ‘0 0. ‘0 ‘0 .

~

4 44 U) bo,OnU ) 045 0 0

o 044440U ) -.-4 0 --1 -.4 a) C) f

~ .14 0 0 4.) -.4

Z 4) ’00.04 0)>. 4) 0) a) ~

l-1

~~ H 0 ’00a )101 ‘0 44 ‘0 ‘0 ‘0 --4

E-’ 44~~. 4 a ) 4 ) U) 0 0 ) 0 0 0 H 104 0 ~~ U) o )- 0 0 44 0)

~ 0 440 ) - ~ ‘I-I a) C -

~~~ S’OW14E-I W .-I 4)) 0) El .0 0)

Z IS 0 ) a) .0 0) .0 .0 0) 4)

o ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ El’0 El El 0. H 04 J -

~~~~ El 4) 0 U) El 0)>.”-40’O 0) 14

o ~~ 0 .-4SW — — — 0 0) 0) U 4-1 >4 ‘.404)-’ IS .0 0 04 0)

z (

~ 4)~~~~44 0

~~ I) O U) U) 10 -‘-4 a) .SOZ H 10. 0 0)0~~~~)-,0)

20

________ ____ __ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

-
— —•-~

APPENDIX B

DATA DICTIONARY (GLOBAL-SPECIFIC GROUP)

RECORD TYPE A: Unit Designators (names, level, role, etc.) the chain of

operational control for that unit; the readiness status ;

and specific combat capabilities.

UNVAL Unit Validity Validity data for information con-

• tam ed in record A ; indicates how likely it is that

data is correct.

UNDAT Unit Date Contains the date of the latest information on unit designators .

I UNcHR Unit Characteristics Contains information in data elements

UNAME , MUNBR , MODES , MSSTA , MSROL .

UNAME Unit Name Contains the primary name of the unit.

MUNBR Military Unit Number Contains the Military Code

Number of the unit.

MODES Military Organizational Designation Contains a

code designating the organizational type for the

unit by service , force , or department.

MSSTA Military Service Status Contains a code indicating

availability of the unit in full time military

activity .

MSROL Military Service Role Contains a code indicating

functional role the unit may perform .

21

~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -• •
~~~~- -= - ~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ‘ -

~~~~~~ 

• - - -

~~~~~ ~~“

~“

ATTUS Attitude Toward United States Contains a code indicating the overall attitude of the unit towards

the United States.

DEPN6 Dependability Contains information in data elements

DEPN 1, DEPN2 , DEPN3 , DEPN4 , DEPN5 in addition to MUNBR

DEPN1 Dependability type 1 The unit Morale Rating .

DEPN2 Dependability type 2 The unit Discipline Rating .

DEPN3 Dependability type 3 The unit Political Reliability rating .

DEPN4 Dependability type 4 The unit Off icer/NCO

efficiency rating .

DEPN5 Dependability type 5 The unit Combat effectiveness rating.

I CRSTA I Combat Readiness Contains information in data elements CRCAT,

CATO1, REAS1, REAS2 , REAS 3 in addition to MUNBR.

CRCAT Combat Readiness Category. The code indicating the

combat readiness category of the unit .

CATO1 Category type 1. Contains the time span required

for the subject unit to reach full combat readiness.

(Units are in days - combat ready units have time

equal to 0).

REAS1 Reason number 1. Code for the primary reason the

unit is not combat ready (comba t ready units have

primary reason equal to 0).

22

__________________ 

-

~~~~~~~~~ - __________________________ _

.i —

~~ — —
- .

~~~~~~~

‘ --- ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~

‘ ‘

~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

‘ - 

~~~

- -

~

--- -- —

REAS2 Reason number 2. Code for the secondary reason the

unit is not combat ready (combat ready units have

secondary reason equal to 0).

REAS3 Reason number 3. Code for tertiary reason unit is

not combat ready (combat ready units have tertiary

reason equal to 0).

• I OFFCT I Offensive Capability Total. Contains information in data

elements OFFCN, OFFCB , OFFCC , OFFCE in addition to MUNBR.

OFF~N Offensive capability nuclear . Contains a code indicating the unit’s offensive nuclear weapon capability .

OFF~B Offensive capability biological. Contains a code

indicating the unit’s offensive biological weapon

capability .

OFFCC Offensive capability chemical. Contains a code indicating the unit’s offensive chemical weapon

capability .

OFF~ E Offensive capability electronic . Contains a code

indicating the unit’s offensive electronic weapon

capability.

I DECAT I Defensive Capability Total. Contains information in data

elements DECAN , DECAB , DECAC , DECAE in addition to MUNBR.

DECAN Defensive capability nuclear. Contains a code indicating the Unit’s defensive nuclear capability .

23

--

~

- -

—- - ____
~

-- ~ -‘-w-~~~ —~

----~~ - ~~~~~~ - -

~~~ “ 

- -

~~~~

DECAB Defensive capability biological . Contains a code

indicating the unit’s defensive biological capability .

DECAC Defensive capability chemical . Contains a code indicating the unit ’s defensive chemical capability.

DECAE Defensive capability electronic . Contains a code

indicating the unit’s defensive electronic

capability .

[OSTRU I Organizational Structure. Contains information in data

elements COMDS, SUPTP , UNCON, OPCON in addition to MUNBR.

COMDS Command designator. Indicates the type of echelon

(next higher echelon) exercising control over the

subject unit.

SUPTP Support type . Indicates the command/control/

support relationship between the and its next

higher echelon .

UNCON Unit control. Contains the name of the unit

exercising operational control over the subject

unit.

OPCON c

~ erational control . Indicates the type of operational control exercised by the unit named in UNCON .

RECORD TYPE B. Personnel Strength data both actual and authorized (from

Table of Organization and Equipment) broken down into

officer, NCO , enlisted and civilian.

24

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
____ -

~~~~~~~ -~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _2”~” - 

~~~~~~ 

• - 

•

-!_~~~~~~~ ‘ —- —

PRVAL Personnel Validity. Validity for information contained in record B.

PERDT Personnel Date. Contains the date of latest information on the personnel strength.

I PERDA Personnel Data. Contains information in data elements PEREM ,

PERCy, PEROF , PERNC , PERTL , in addition to MUNBR.

PEREM Personnel enlisted men. Contains the total number

of enlisted personnel other than NCO ’s in the unit.

PERCy Personnel , civilian strength. Contains the total

number civilian personnel in the unit.

PEROF Personnel , officer strength. Contains the total

number of officers in the unit.

PERNC Personnel, noncommissioned officer strength. Contains the total number of NCO’s in the unit.

PERTL Personnel, total number of. Contains the total

number of military personnel in the unit.

SKNUC Skills nuclear . Lists number of personnel in each

unit capable of handling offensive nuclear weapons

broken out by skill category - a 2 digit code.

RECORD TYPE C. Current location information including actual location ,

nearest city , temporary relocation.

LOyAL Location validity . Indicates the reliability of

the location intelligence.

25

— ~~ —— — - - — 

• 

~~~~~~~~~~~ -

-

- -- £ .

~~~ -~~~~~~~ _-~~~~ - ~~~ — - •

-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —~~~

-

~~~~~— —~~~~~•
— ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —,----— ___________________________________________________________

- -- 

--- .

~:~-r~~~-- -

~~~~~~ -- -— ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ • .

~~~~

- .— - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~

LODAT Location date. Contains the date of latest information for the location information .

LOINF Location information. Contains information in data elements

WACNO , LONAM , CNTRY , GEOCR , UTMCR in addition to MUNBR.

WACNO World area code number. Contains the World Area

Code (WAC) of the area in which the unit is located.

LONAM Location name. Contains the name of the installation or nearest city at which enemy unit is stationed .

CNTRY Country . Contains the code for the country of location at which enemy unit is stationed .

GEOCR Geographic coordinates. GEO coordinates of the city

or installation at which unit is stationed .

UTMCR UTM coordinates. UTM coordinates of the city or

installation at which enemy unit is stationed .

CELEV City elevation . Contains the elevation above sea

level of the city or installation at which the unit

is located (in meters).

NDPOT Nuclear destructive potential. Gives a rating of

nuclear destructive potential against target city

or installation.

RECORD TYPE D. Weapons and Equipment Assigned to the Unit.

WPVAL Weapon Validity. Contains a code for the reliability

or accuracy of the intelligence information .

26

• ~~~~~ - - .-p• - - • - 

-

L~ ~~~~~~~~~ —~ — -

~~

-—~~~~~. — —
~~~~~

- •—

~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ •

WPDAT Weapon date. Contains the date of latest information for the weapons data.

WPDES I Weapon description . Contains information in data elements

• WPNAM , WPRNO , COMAF , WPNUC in addition to MUNBR.

• WPNAM Weapon name . Contains the names of the different

types of weapons in the unit.

WPRNO Weapon reference number. Contains the weapon

• reference numbers for the different types of weapons in the unit.

COMAF Country of manufacture . Contains the code for the

country of manufacture of the different types of

weapons in the unit.

WPNUC Weapons nuclear. Contains a code which tells whether

the different types of weapons in the unit have a

nuclear delivery capability .

I WPQUA I Weapon quantity. Contains information in data elements

WPAUT , WPACT , WPOPR , in addition to MUNBR.

WPAUT Weapon authorized. Contains the quantity of weapons the unit is authorized broken out by category

of weapon .

WPACT Weapon actual. Contains the actual quantity of

weapons available to the unit broken out by category of weapon.

27

—~~~~~~~~ -~~~~~~~~~~~ •--—•— ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ - • - ~~~~~~~~ • • •

-s

----

~~.

--- -

~~~~~~~~ -~~~ -- -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ i

~~~~~~~~ ___
‘ — ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -

~ r~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~

-

~~~~

“-

~ 

—------- __________________________

WPOPR Weapon operational. Contains the actual number of

operational weapons in the unit broken out by category of weapon .

NUCOP Nuclear Operational. Number of operational weapons

with nuclear delivery capability in the unit broken

out by category of weapon.

RECORD TYPE E. This record contains global terms that contain informa-

• tion from more than one of previous record types (A, B,

C, D).

I NUTHR Nuclear Threat. Contains information in data elements OFFCN,

CRCAT , SKNIJC , NUCOP , in addition to MUNBR . Yields information concerning specified enemy units nuclear offensive

capabilities .

OFFCN Offensive capability nuclear . Contains a code indicating the unit’s offensive nuclear weapon

capability .

CRCAT Combat readiness category . Indicates the combat

readiness category of the unit .

SKNUC Skills nuclear . Lists number of personnel in each

unit capable of handling offensive nuclear weapons

broken out by skill category - a 2 digit code. :j
- -=

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

— -

~~~~ ~~~

-

~~~~~~~~

-.

-- • 

~~~~~~~~~~ 

---- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

• • •• 

-

~ 

• ~~~~~~~~~~~~ •-

~~~~~

-

~~~~~~~~

NUCOP Nuclear operational. Number of operational weapons with nuclear delivery capability in thc unit

broken out by category of weapon.

I BIVLN I Biological vu1nerabili~y. Contains information in data elements DEPN1 , DECAB , UTMCR , CRCAT , PERTL, in addition to

MUNBR. Yields information concerning vulnerability of

specified enemy units to biological attack .

DEPN1 Dependability Type 1. The unit Morale Rating.

DECAB Defensive Capability Biological. Contains a code

indicating the unit’s defensive biological capability.

UTMCR UTM coordinates. UTM coordinates of the city or

installation at which enemy unit is stationed .

CRCAT Combat Readiness Category . Indicates the combat

readiness category of the unit.

PERTL Personnel, Total Number of. Contains the total number of military personnel in the unit.

LNUVLN I Nuclear Vulnerability . Contains information in data elements

DEPN5 , DECAN , UTMCR , CRCAT , in addition to MUNBR. Yields

information concerning vulnerability of specified enemy

units to nuclear attack.

DEPN5 Dependability Type 5. The unit Combat Effectiveness

Rating.

29

—•— —~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —~~~~~~~~~~ -- ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ • ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

.

~~ ~~~~~~~~ • • 

-. ______
____ -- •- - -- - - • - -

~ 

----V 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —- —.

DECAN Defensive Capability Nuclear. Contains a code

indicating the unit’s defensive nuclear capability .

UTMCR UTM Coordinates. UTM Coordinates of the city or

installation at which enemy unit is stationed .

CRCAT Combat Readiness Category. Indicates the combat

readiness category of the unit.

BITHR 1 Biological Threat. Contains information in data elements

OFFcB, CRCAT , in addition to MUNBR. Yields information concerning units biological offensive capabilities .

OFFCN Offensive Capability Nuclear. Contains a code indicating the unit ’s offensive nuclear weapon

capability.

CRCAT Combat Readiness Category. Indicates the combat

readiness category of the unit.

30

__ ___ ________
___________________________ ---~ •~~~~~~--~~~~ -~~~~~~~~~~~ 

~~~~~~~~

—

____ -

APPENDIX C

• ANALYSES OF VARIANCE

Table C-l

Analysis of Variance for Time Required To

Write Query Statements in Problem Category 3

Source of Degrees Mean

variation of freedom square F-ratio P

GT Score 1 802.4953 0.95 NS

Typing Speed 1 7217.4630 8.58 .01

Term Specificity 1 2204 .2434 2.62 NS

GT Score x

Typing Speed 1 449.4543 0.53 NS

GT Score x

Term Specificity 1 386.4039 0.45 NS

Typing Speed x

Term Specificity 1 2964.2373 3.52 NS

GT Score x Typing

Speed x Term

Specificity 1 1299.1873 1.54 NS

Within Cell

(experimental error) 28 841.141 1

Total 35

31

— ~~~~
•Z

~

•

;•~ ~~~~~~ ~~ ‘

~~

- — —--

~~

..—- ‘

~~~ ‘ • - • ~~~~ — • ~~~~~~~~~~ -

~~~~~~~ • ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - -‘

~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~

Table C-2

Analysis of Variance for Time Required To

Type Query Statements in Problem Category 1

Source of Degrees Mean

variation of freedom square F—ratio P

GT Score 1 0.135c 0.00 NS

Typing Speed 1 87.6463 1.24 NS

Term Specificity 1 2494.0233 35.36 .01

GT Score x

Typing Speed 1 0.9124 0.01 NS

GT Score x

Term Specificity 1 7.7976 0.11 NS

Typing Speed x

Term Specificity 1 72.1621 1.02 NS

GT Score x Typing

Speed x Term

Specificity 1 60.6744 0.86 NS

Within Cell

(experimental error) 28 70 .5430

Total 35

32

--
______ - — ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

— 

-_~

Table C-3

Analysis of Variance for Time Required To

Type Query Statements in Problem Category 2

Source of Degrees Mean

variation of freedom square F-ratio P

GT Score 1 35.7082 0.36 NS

Typing Speed 1 644.9725 6.57 .05

Term Specificity 1 3178.4175 32.37 .01

GT Score x

Typing Speed 1 120.5302 1.22 NS

GT Score x

Term Specificity 1 7.7160 0.07 NS

Typing Speed x

Term Specificity 1 63.9222 0.65 NS

GT Score x Typing

Speed x Term

Specificity 1 82 .7626 0.84 NS

Within Cell

(experimental error) 28 98.1891

Total 35

33

_____ - __ ___ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ — - -

~~~

-

- -——-

~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —~~~~~—

Table C-4

Analysis of Variance for Time Required To

Type Query Statements in Problem Category 3

Source of Degrees Mean

variation of freedom square F-ratio P

GT Score 1 17.6063 0.15 NS

Typing Speed 1 1501.4446 12.47 .01

Term Specificity 1 3726.3375 30.95 .01

GT Scorex

Typing Speed 1 79.1923 0.66 NS

GT Score x

Term Specificity 1 29.8108 0.25 NS

Typing Speed x

Term Specificity 1 275.5665 2.28 NS

GT Score x Typing

Speed x Term .

Specificity 1 27.2985 0.23 NS

Within Cell

(experimental error) 28 120.4114

Total 35

34

_____________
___________________ 

_______ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - 

~~~~~~~~ T~: ~~~~~~~~~

Table C-5

Analysis of Variance for Time Required To

Type Query Statements in Problem Category 4

Source of Degrees Mean

variation of freedom square F-ratio P

GT Score 1 8.8574 0.28 NS

Typing Speed 1 299.4854 9.51 .01

Term Specificity 1 38.5574 1.22 NS

GT Score x

Typing Speed 1 36.7539 1.17 NS

GT Score x

Term Specificity 1 7.1943 0.23 NS

Typing Speed x

Term Specificity 1 5.3583 0.17 NS

GT Score x Typing

Speed x Term

Specificity 1 78.4089 2.49 NS

Wi thin Cell

(experimental error) 28 31.4804

Total 35

35

~~~~~~~~~ •~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ • 
— — — -—---~~— — —-- • • 

- 

—

Table C-6

Analysis of Variance for Time Required To

Type Query Statements in Problem Category 5

Source of Degrees Mean

variation of freedom square F-ratio P

GT Score 1 0.0864 0.004 NS

Typing Speed 1 415.5341 18.68 .01

• Term Specificity 1 116.0544 5.22 .05

GT Score x

Typing Speed 1 2.8536 2.85 NS

GT Score x

Term Specificity 1 5.8806 0.26 NS

Typing Speed x

Term Specificity 1 21.8428 0.98 NS

GT Score x Typing

Speed x Term

Specificity 1 2.1600 0.10 NS

Within Cell

(experimental error) 28

Total 35

36

iT

~

• - - :
• —- ____ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

.-

~

.—— • 

~~~~~~~~~

• •

~~~~~~~~

-

~~~~~

-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Table C-7

Analysis of Variance for Number of

Specific Terms Recalled

Source of Degrees Mean • variation of freedom square F—ratio P

GT Score 1 95.5206 4.33 .05

Typing Speed 1 28.7960 1.31 NS

Term Specificity 1 8.2134 0.37 NS

GT Score x

Typing Speed 1 99.8786 4.52 .05

GT Score x

Term Specificity 1 167.2708 7.58 .05

Typing Speed x

Term Specificity 1 1.0586 0.05 NS

GT Score x Typing

Speed x Term

Specificity 1 33.7010 1.53 NS

Within Cell

(experimental error) 28 22.0571

Total 35

37

- • 

~~~~~~~ iT ~~~~ •

—.4 -•-~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ • . ~~~~ 1 -, j — ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - -
Table C-8

Analysis of Variance for Time Required To Write

Query Statements in Problem Category 1

Source of Degrees Mean

variation of freedom square F-ratio P

Number of correct

query statements 1 162.8261 0.19 NS

Number of specific

terms recalled 1 513.9161 0.60 NS

Retrieval term

specificity 1 448.3946 0.53 NS

Number of correct

query statements x

number of specific

terms recalled 1 1425.7178 1.67 NS

Number of correct

query statements x

retrieval term

specificity 1 6541.2980 7.68 .05

Number of specific

terms recalled x

retrieval term

specificity 1 2316.7222 2.72 NS

Number of correct

query statements x

number of specific

terms recalled x

retrieval term

specificity 1 988.9415 1.16 NS

Within cell 28 851.8144

Total 35

38

_ __ __ - - _
•‘.—~~~~~~~~~~~ ‘

~~~~~~ — • • ~~~~~~~~~~

Table C-9

Analysis of Variance for Number of Times

the Correction Procedure was Used

Source of Degrees Mean

variation of freedom square F-ratio P

Number of correct

query statements • 1 173.9322 9.15 .01

Number of specific

terms recalled 1 25.6391 1.35 NS

Retrieval term

specificity 1 37.4867 1.97 NS

Number of correct

query -statements x

number of specific

terms recalled 1 3.6124 0.19 NS

Number of correct

query statements x

retrieval term

specificity 1 3.2366 0.17 NS

Number of specific

terms recalled x

retrieval term

specificity 1 16.9781 0.89 NS

Number of correct

query statements x

number of specific

terms recalled x

retrieval term

specificity 1 0.0648 0.00 NS

Within cell 28 19.0029

39

• _ _ _ # _ 4 ~~~~~
- — —-- - - —~-- - ~~~~ ---- — —~~- - —--— -- - - ~——--..--.. ~ -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ARI D,%tnbuI

~

on List

4 OASD (M&RA) 2 HOUSACDEC, Ft Ord. ATTN: Libr wy

2 HODA (DAM I-CSZ) I HOUSACDEC, F,fled. ATTN: ATEC-EX-F Hum Feclo,~ 1 HODA IOAPE P9RI 2 USAEEC. Ft Benlsm,n Hirri~

on ATTN Lil,iai y

I HODA IDAMA -AR ) 1 USAPACOC, Ft Benjam,n Harm on , ATTN ATCP HR

1 HQDA IDAPE HRE-PO) 1 USA Comm-Elect Scfs , Ft Moninouth, ATTN ATSN -FA

1 HODA ISGRD-lDI I USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN AMSEL CT HOP

t HODA (DAMI-OOT-Cl 1 (JSAEC,Ft Monmouth. ATTN:AMSEL-PA P

1 HODA (OAPC-PMZ-A) 1 USAEC, Ft Monsmouth, ATTN: AMSEL- -SI--CS

I HQOA (OACH.PPZ-Al 1 USAEC, Ft Moesmnouth. ATTN . C, Fan Div St

1 HQDA IDAPE-HRE) 1 USA Materials Sys Anal Agcy. Aberdeen, ATTN ANXSY -P

1 HOOA (DAPE-MPO-C) 1 Edgewood Artinal, Aberdeen. ATTN: SAREA RI. H

I HODA (DAPE-OW) 1 USA Ord Cu & Sds, Aberdeen, ATTN: ATSL-TEM-C

1 HODA (DAPE -HRL) 2 USA Hum Enge Lab, Aberdeen, ATTN: Library/Dir

1 HODA (DAPE-CPS) 1 USA Combat Arms Tog Sd, Ft Benninq, ATTN Ad Supervisor

1 HODA (DAFD-MFAI 1 USA Infantry Hum Rids Unit. Ft Binning, ATTN: Chief

1 HODA (DARD-ARS-PI 1 USA Infantry Sd, Ft Binning . ATTN: STEBC- TE- T

I HODA (DAPC-PAS-A) 1 USASMA. Ft Bliss, ATEN: ATSS--IRC

1 HODA (DUSA-ORI I (iSA Air Del Sds, Ft Bliss , ATTN : ATSA CTD ME

1 HODA (DAMO-RORI 1 USA Air Del Sch, Ft Bliss, ATTN: Tech LBs

I HODA (DASGI I USA Air Del Sd, Ft Bliss, A TTN: FILES

1 HO1)A IDA 1O-PI) 1 USA Air Oil Sd, Ft Bu tt, ATTN : STEBO—P()

CIi ,f, Consult Div (DA’OTSGI. Adelphi, MD 1 USA Cmd & Gen ral Stf College, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: Lit,

1 M it As~t. Hum Ret , ODDR&E . OAD (E&LS) 1 USA Cmd 6 General Stf College, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: AT$W-SE -L

I HO USARAL . APO Seattle , ATTN: ARAGP -R 1 USA Cmd & General Stf College. Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: Ed Advisor

I HO First Army, ATTN: AFKA-Ol TI 1 LiSA Combined Arms Cmbt Div Act . Ft Leavi’nworth. ATTN: OepCrln

2 HO Fifth Army, Ft Sam Houston 1 USA Combined Anns Cn,bt Div Act. Ft Leavenworth. ATTN: CCS

1 Di . Army Stf Studies Ole, ATTN: OAVCSA (DSP) 1 USA Combined Arms Cnèt Div Act, Ft Leavenworth. ATTN: ATCASA

1 OIc Chief of SIt , Studies Ofc 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Div Act . Ft Leavenworth, A’l’TN: ATCACO—E

1 ()CSPER , ATTN: CPS/OCP I USA Combined Arms Cmbt Des Act . Ft L.avenwgrth, ATTN: ATCACC—CI

1 The Army Lib, Pentagon, ATTN RSB Chief 1 USASCOM. Night Vision Lab, Ft Belvoir , ATTN: AMSEL— N V—SD

1 The Army Lib , Pentagon, ATm: ANRAL 3 USA Computer Sys Cmd, Ft 8.Ivoir. ATTN: Tech Library

I Ofc . A,et Sect of the Army (R&D) I USAMERDC . Ft Belvoir, ATTN: STSFB—DO

I Tech Support Ofc. OJCS 1 USA Eng Sch, Ft Belvo ir, ATFN: Library

1 USASA, Arlington, ATTN: IA RD-T 1 USA Topographic Lab, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: ETL TO—S

1 USA Rsch Qfc, Durham, ATTN: Life Sciences Dir 1 USA Topographic Lab, Ft Belvoir , ATTN: STINFO Center

7 USARIEM , Natick , ATTN: SGRD-UE-CA 1 USA Topographic Lab, Ft Belvoir , ATTN: ETL GSL

I USA F EC, It Cl

~yIou, A rrN : ~TFIC MOA I USA litti’lliyt’nr. CIr & Sth, Ft Hti.ichucj, ATTN : CTO MS

1 USAIMA, Ft Bragg, ATTN ATSU-CTD-OM 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sd,, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATS— CTD-MS

I USAIMA, Ft Bragg, ATTN: Marquet Lib 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huecituca. ATTN: ATSI—TE

1 US WAC Ctr & Sch, Ft McClellan, ATTN: LIb 1 USA Intelligence Cu & Sch, Ft Huachuca, Al1’N: ATSI—TEX—GS

1 US WAC Ctr & Sth. Ft McClellan , ATTN: Tnq Dir 1 USA Intelligence Cu & Sth, Ft Huachuca. ATTN: ATSI—CTS --OR

1 USA Quartermaster Sch, Ft Lee, ATTN : ATSM-T E 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sets . Ft Huachuca , ATTN: ATSI—CTO--OT

1 Intelligence Materiel 0ev Ofc , EWL , Ft Holel,ird 1 USA Intelligence Cu & Sets, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI—CTD—CS

I USA SE Signal Sch , Ft Gordon , ATTN: ATSO-SA I USA Intelligence Cu & Sch. Ft Huachuca. ATI’N: DAS/SRD

1 USA Chaplain Ctr & Sch. Ft Hamilton , ATTN: ATSC-TE.RO 1 USA Intellig ence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca , ATTN: ATSI—TEM

I USATSCH. Ft Eustis , ATTN : Educ Adv iwr 1 USA Intelligence CI, & ScIs, Ft Huactiuca, ATTN: Lib rary

1 USA War Colleqe, Carlisle Barracks . ATTN: Lib 1 COR , HO Ft Huachuca , ATTN: Tech Ref Div

2 WRAIR , Nerirops yc hiatny Div 2 CDR, USA Electronic Pryg Grd , AITh: STEEP- MT—S

1 DLI , SDA , Monterey 1 HO, TCATA, ATIN: Teds Library

1 USA Concept Anal Aqcy, Bethesda, ATEN: MOCA-MR I HO, TCATA. ATTN: AT CAT-OP-O, Ft Hood

1 USA Concept Anal Agcy. Bethesda , ATTN: NOCA-JF I USA Recruiting Cmd. Ft Sheridan, ATTN: USARCPM-P

1 USA Acctic Test Cu, APO Seattle , ATTN: S’rEAC-PL-MI I Senior Army Mv.. USAFAGOD/TAC, Elgin AF Aux FM No. 9

1 USA Arct ic lest Ct,, APO Seattle, ATIN: AMSTE-PL-IS 1 HO. USARPAC. OCSPE R. APO SF 96558. ATTN: GPPE-SE

1 USA Armament Cmd, Redstone Arsenal, ATTN: ATSK-TEM 1 Stimson Llb, Academy of Health Sciences. Ft Sam Houston

I USA Armament Cmd, Rock Island , ATTN: AMSAR-TDC 1 Marine Corps Inst . ATTN: Dean-MCI

1 FAA-NAFEC , Atlantic City. ATTN: Library 1 HO, USMC. Commandant, ATTN: Code MINT

1 FAA-NAFEC , Atlantic City , ATTN: Human Engr Br I HO, (JSMC, Commandant, A’fl’N: Coda MPI’2O~

28

1 FAA Aeronautical Ctr , Oklahoma City, AnN: AAC-440 2 USCG Academy, New London. ATm: Adm ission

2 USA FM Arty Sch, Ft Sill. ATTN: Library 2 USCG Academy. New London, ATTN; Library

I USA Armor Sets . Ft Kno x , ATTN: Library 1 USCG Traini ng Cu, NY . ATTN: CO

I USA Armor Sets, Ft Knot,, ATTN: AT SB-DI.E I USCG Training Ct,. NY . ATTN: Educ Sac Ofc

I USA Armor Sets . Ft Knox , ATIN: ATSB-DT TP 1 USCG. P,ychol Ret Br , DC. ATTN: GP 1/62

1 USA Armor Sth, Ft Knott , A TFN: ATSB.CD-AD * HO Mid-Range Br. MC Det. Ouantico. ATTN: P65 Dlv

41 

.

~~~i:::: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ -•
- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ -

1 US Marine Corps Liaison Otc . ftiMC, Alexandria , ATTN AMCGS—r 1 Del & Civil Inst of Envir o Medicine, Canada

I USATRADOC, Ft Monroe , ATTN : ATRO-ED 1 AIR CRESS, Kensington, ATTN: Info Sya Br

6 USATRADOC. Ft Monroe , ATTN: ATPR - AD 1 MilitaerPsvkolOgisk Tieneste, Cogenls agen

1 USATRADOC. Ft Monroe, ATTN : ATTS—EA 1 Military Attache , French Embessy , ATTN: Doe Sec

1 USA Forces Cmd. Fl McPherson , ATTN: Library 1 Medeci n Chef . C.E. R .PA. —Arse nal, Tou lois/Nava l France

2 USA Aviation Test Rd . Ft Bucker , ATTN: STEBG—PO 1 Prin Scientific Off . Appi Hum Engr Rsch Div . Ministry

I USA Agcy foe Aviation Safety, Ft Rucker , ATTN: Library of Defense . New Delhi

I USA Agey for Aviation Safety. Ft Rucker, AT1’N: Educ Advisor 1 Pert Rsch Ofc Library. AKA , Israel Defense Forces

1 USA Aviation Sets , Ft Ruc ker , ATTN: P0 Drawer o 1 Ministe ris van Defensie, DOOP/KL AId Sociaal

1 HOUSA Aviation Sys Cmd , St Louis , ATTN: AMSAV—ZDR Psychologiscise Zaken . Th. Hague, Netherlands

2 USA Aviat ion, Sys Test Act .. Edwaids AFB, ATTN : SAVTE—l

I USA Air Del 5th. Ft Blis s , ATTh: ATSA TEM

I USA Air Miiliility Rscl s & Des Lets , Moffett FId, ATTN: SAVO L-AS

I USA Aviationi Sets, Ret log Mgt, Ft Rucker , ATTN: ATST—T—RTM

• I USA Aviation ScIs . CO. Ft Rucker . ATTN: ATST—O—A

* HO, DARCOM . Alexandria, ATTN : AMXCO-TL

‘ 

1 HO, DARCOM , Alexandria . ATIN: CDR

1 US Military Academy. West Point, AT1’N: Serials Unit

1 US Militar y Academy, West Point, ATTN: Ofc of Milt Ldrslsp

— 1 US Militany Academy , West Point, ATTN: MAOR

I USA Standaid,zation Gp, UK , FPO NY , ATTN: MASE—GC

1 Ofc of Naval Rids. Arlington, ATTN : Code 452

3 Ofc of Naval Rids. Ailinqton, ATTN : Code 468

1 Ole of Naval Rids, Arlington, ATTN: Cod. 450

I DIe of Naval Rsch. Arlington, ATTN: Code 441

1 Naval Aeros pc Med Res Lab , Pensacola . ATTN: Acous Sets Dii.

1 Naval A*rosi.c Med Ret Lab. Pensacola, ATTN : Code L51

I Naval Mrospc Med Ret Lab . Pensacola, ATTN: Code L5

1 Chief of NavPirrs, ATTN: Pers.OR

1 NAVAIRSTA , Norfolk, ATTN: Safety Ctr

1 Nov Oceanographic, DC, ATTN: Code 6251, Charts & Tech

1 Center of Naval Anal, ATTN: Doe Cu

1 NavAirSysCom, ATTN: A IR—5 3I3C

1 Nav BuMed.ATTN: ?* 3

I N.vH.IloopterSubSqua 2, FPO SF 96601

1 AFIIRL (FT) gelli ams

1 AFHRL (AS) WPAFB, OH

2 AFHRL (OOJZ) Brooks AFB

I AFHRL (0051) Lacklaisd AFB

1 HOUSAF (INYSD) • -

I HOUSAF (DPXXA)

1 AFVTG (RO) Randolph AFB

3 AMRL (HE) WPAFB . OH

2 AF Inst of Tech , WPAFB , OH, ATTN: ENE/SL

I ATC (XPTDI Randolph AFB

I USAF AeroMed Lilt, Brooks AFB (SUL—4). ATTN: DOC SEC

1 AFOSR (NI), Arli ngton

1 AF Log Cmd. MeClell .in AFB . ATTN: ALC/DPCRB

I Air Force Academy, CO. ATTN: Dept of Sal Scn

5 NavPers & Div Ctr , San Diego

2 Navy Marl Neuropsychi etric Rich Unit . San Diego

1 Nov Electronic Lab, San Diego , AITN : Baa Lab

1 Nay TrngCen, San Diego , ATTN: Code 9000- Lib

1 NavPostGraSch , Monterey, ATTN: Code S5Aa

1 NavPostGraSch . Monterey, ATTN: Code 2124

1 Navlr isgEquipCtr , Orlando, ATTN Tech Lib

1 US Dept of Labor. DC, ATTN: Manpower Admin

1 US Dept of Aistice . DC, ATTN: Drug Enforce Admin

1 Nat Bur of Standards , DC, ATTN: Computer Info Section

1 Nat Cleari ng House for MH—Info , Rocirville

1 Denver Federal Ctr , Lakewood, ATI’N: BLM

*2 Defense Documentation Center

4 Dir Psych , Army Hq, Russell Ofcs, Canberra

1 Scientific Mast, Nil Sd, Army Hg, Russell Ofcs, Canberra

I Nil and Air Attache, Austrian Embwey

I Centte de Recfserche Des Facteurs, Humaine di Ia Defense

Nationale, Brussels

2 Canadian Joint Staff Washington

I C/Air Staff. Royal Cenedian AF. ATTN: Pars Std Anal Br

3 Chief , Canadian Del Rich Staff , ATTN : C/CRDS (W)

4 Biitisls Del Staff . Brit~

sh Embatsy. Wash ington

42

___________________