-

. /ir r / ~

‘ 

/

~~~~~~al~~!e

4

L

~

7i1

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OFFICER ~

DUTY

© , PERFORMANCE AND CERTAIN MEASURES

OF POTENTIAL ‘ /

/ Arthur C. F.,

hilbert

o

~~~~~~ 

‘

~

‘2 / ‘/~~~ /j

PERSONNEL AND MANPOWER TECHNICAL AREA

~~~~~~~~~

r

~

ir

U. S. Army

~

Research Institute b r she Behavioral and Social Sciences

July 1979

7~ Approved br publ ic r ease , di s tribution unlim ited.

79 1 ( ‘

~ ~

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

_______ 

/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -
U. S. ARMY RESE ARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating A gency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

WILLIAM L. HAUSER

JOSEPH ZEIDNER Colonel . U S Arm y

Technical Director Commander

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary dist ribution of thi s report has been m.d. by API. Pleate eddr,ss corresponden

~

s

concerning distributi on of reports to: U. S. Army Research Insti tute for ths Behavioral end Social Sciences,

ATTN. PERI-P . 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandr i. , Virginia 22333.

FINAL DISPoSITlOf~

I: This report may be destroyed when li no long er nseded. Pie... do not r turn it to

the U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Socia l Sceanoss.

IL Th. findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position,

unless so design ated by other euthor ised documents.

—.

~~~~~~

-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unclassified SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (W h en Oat. Entered)

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

Q A 1~E READ INSTRUCT ION S 1% rvi

~ I LP’JS..UM I

~ I A I IUI5 UAU BEFORE COMPLETIN G FORM

t

~~ REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT S CATALOG NUMBER

Technical Paper 371 /

4. TITLE (aid Subtitt.) 5. TYPE OP REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OFFICER DUTi PERFORMANCE --

AND CERTAIN MEASURES OF P(YI’ENTIAL 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHOR(a) B. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(.)

Arthur C. F. Gilbert --

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

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences 2Q162717A766

5001 Eisenhower Avenue , Alexandria , VA 22333

II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

U.S. Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel July 1979 13. NUMBE R OF PAGES Washington , DC 20310 14

IC. MONITORING AGENCY NAME C AODRESS(U diff.r.n t Ito. , Controlling Off ice) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of this r.port)

—— Unclassified

15.. DECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADIN G SCHEDULE

IC. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of he ab.t,.ci .nt~r.d in Block 20. if dift.rent iron, Report)

IS. SUPPLEM ENTARY NOTES

Original version presented at the 19th Annual Meeting of the Military Testing

Association , 1977.

IC. KEY WORDS (Continue on revers. aid. if n .ceswy aid id.ntily b~ block number)

Officer performance Peer ratings

Officer potential Prediction

Duty performance Officer training

Job performance

20. A~~~~sAcr rcxt~~i. ai P,,.?.. st~~ Ft n.cw y d id.niifr b~ block number)

As part of on—going research on prediction of leader effectiveness , the

performance of students in the Army Officer Basic Course (OBC) was measured

by the seven scales of the standard Officer Evaluation Battery , OBC final

grades, and peer ratings made halfway through the course and at the end of

the course. Later duty performance was assessed by the standard Officer

Efficiency Report and the special-purpose Performance Evaluation Form .

Statistical correlations indicated that duty performance was predicted best

(Continued)

5)5) ~~~~~~~~ ~

473 £DSTION OF ? NOV CS IS OBSOLETE Unclassified

j SECuPirv CLASSIFICATION OF ‘

~HtS PAGE (Pk.n D.t. En tered)

____________________ -— -“—— a. . ~~~ ~~. . .

~~ 

~~~~~~~~~ 

•‘:“

‘ .Jr . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~ ee-~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- - .

~~~~~ 1~~~

’ 

~~ 

. .__ . _ .._,

~~~ -____ ____.______~____ — -..- — —
Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(Whi a, 0.1 . Ent.eed)

Item 20 (Continued)

final peer ratings and next best by grades , both in general and for

personnel in noncombat arms branches. For combat arms personnel , however , final peer ratings and course grades appeared about equally pre—

dictive . These findings confirm other research on the value of peer

~~~~~~~~oD

I

- —

_~~~~_ c~~~ ~~~~~~~~~

• : 

-

T•

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

Unclassified

jj SECUR ITY CLASSIFICA TION OF THIS PAOEIWh sn Del. Entered)

- -

-

~ . 

• ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

~~~~~ _ ,.- - — 

.-

~

N~*’4~: ‘

~~~. . • ‘

~ - /
Technical Paper 371

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OFFICER DUTY

PERFORMANCE AND CERTAIN MEASURES

OF POTENTIAL

Arthur C. F. Gilbert

Anthony E. Castelnovo, Team Chief

Submitted by:

Ralph A. Canter, Chief

PERSONNEL AND MANPOWER TECHNICAL AREA

Approved By:

E. Ralph Ousek

PERSONNEL AND TRAINING

RESEARCH LABORATORY

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

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VIrginia 22333

Off ice, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

• July 1979

Army Prolect Number Officer Performance

20162717A766

Approved for pU~IiC rslauae; dIstribution unlimst.d.

iii

‘

~ 

-.--— —

~

--.- —

J

~ ; 

~~~~~

~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ - •

~~~~~~ P —- -

~~~~ - -: ~~. 

-
AR) 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 format recommendations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

iv

______ 

- / —- -“ — 

~~

— 

~~~ - 

-‘
I

FOREWORD

Part of the on-going research program on leadership in the Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) is concerned with delineating and then measuring the major factors that collectively comprise leader behavior. ARI Research Reports 1172 and 1182

describe the development of eight broad dimensions of leadership performance, based on analyzing actual behavior in a simulated combat situation. These dimensions were used to construct the Performance Evaluation Form, which is designed to measure overall officer duty performance

and evaluate potential performance. Technical Paper 344 reported the

use of the Performance Evaluation Form as a criterion measure of Ranger

duty performance in the validation of peer ratings obtained at Ranger

school.

Technical Paper 345 confirmed the reliability of the Performance

Evaluation Form itself and its ability to differentiate between requirements of different officer assignments. This paper analyzes performance

data from the Officer Basic Course in relation to data on later duty

performance to determine which school measures best predict officer

potential.

The work was done in the Personnel and Manpower Technical Area,

under Army Project 2Q162717A766. A version of this report was presented

at the 1977 meeting of the Military Testing Association.

~~~~~~~ZEIDb’~~~~~~ nical T)irector

V

- 

_

0 

/

__ 

-

‘ 

I
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OFFICER DUTY PERFORMANCE AND CERTAIN MEASURES

OF POTENTIAL

BRIEF

Requirement:

To determine the usefulness of certain Officer Basic Course (OBC)

measures in predicting later duty performance .

Procedures:

Performance during OBC was measured on the seven scales of the Officer Evaluation Battery, OBC final grades , and peer ratings made halfway through the course and at the end of the course. Duty performance was assessed by ratings with the special—purpose Performance Evaluation

Form and standard Officer Efficiency Report ratings .

Findings :

Statistical correlations indicated that duty performance was predicted best by the end-of-course peer ratings, and mext best by course

grades. For combat arms personnel, peer ratings and course grades were

about equally predictive , but for noncombat arms personnel peer ratings

alone correlated best.

Utilization of Findings :

The findings confirme:~ ~

,.zevious research on the predictive value

of peer ratings.

• vii

— —— - - — _•_ — 

— - —~~~~~ S - —-S . - - 

I

~~~ ~~~~~ .

-

0

- Ti
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OFFICER DUTY PERFORMANCE AND CERTAIN

MEASURES OF POTENTIAL

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION 1

PROCEDURE 1

Data Collection 1

Data Prepara tion 2

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 2

REFERENCES 11

DISTR IBUTION 13

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Reliability estimates for each scale of the

Performance Evaluation Form 5

2. Correlation between each predictor and each scale

of the Performance Evaluation Form for the total

sample (N = 2,108) 6

3. Correlation between each predictor and each scale

of the Performance Evaluation Form and corresponding

multiple correlation for the combat arms branches

(N = 1,193) 7

4. Correlation between each predictor and each scale

of the Performance Evaluation Form for branches

• other than combat arms (N = 915) 8

5. Correlation between each predictor and weighted

average officer efficiency ratings and corresponding

multiple correlations for combat arms, branches

other than combat arms, and total sample 10

ix

0 

~~~~~~~~

__ __ __ ___ _
CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Performance Evaluation Form scales and corresponding factors and abbreviated scale titles 3

2. Officer performance scale 4

• : - ‘ .

~~~~~~~ /~~~~~ 

~~: .5 ~ 

0 .~
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OFFICER DUTY PERFORMANCE

AND CERTAIN MEASURES OF POTENTIAL

INTRODUCTION

Previous leadership research identified eight broad domains of off jeer behavior in a realistic experimental combat situation (He lme , Willemin , & Grafton , 1971). The efficacy of the Differential Officer Battery in predicting performanc~ in these domains was reported by He lme ,

Willemin , and Day (1971). Another area of related research concerned

the validity of assoc iate ratings in the assessment of officer potential

(Parrish & Drucker , 1957 ; Haggerty , 1963; Gordon & Medland , 1965; Downey,

Medland , & Yates, 1976; Gilbert & Downey, 1978).

Research based on the prediction utility of che Differential Off i—

cer Battery led to the development of the Officer Evaluation Battery

(OEB), which consists of seven scales: Combat Leadership (cognitive) ,

Technical Managerial Leadersh ip (cognitive) , Career Potential (cognitive),

Combat Leadership (noncognitive), Technical—Managerial Leadership (non—

cognitive) , Career Potential (noncognitive) , and Career Intent. In

design , this instrument reflects two of the major domains of leadership

reported in the Helme , Willemin , and Grafton (1971) research.

The objective of this research was to determine the efficacy of

certain measures obtained in the Officer Basic Course ( OBC) in predicting

subsequent on—the-job performance. The Officer Basic Course measures

were scores on the seven scales of the OEB , OBC final course grades,

midcourse peer ratings, and final course peer ratings. On-the-job performance measures consisted of a special—purpose Performance Evaluation

Form and Officer Efficiency Report (OER) ratings.

PROCEDURE

Data Collection

Approximately 5 ,000 officers in the 13 career branches who attended

the Officer Basic Course in Fl 1974 and administered the Officer Evaluation Battery were used as subjects in this research program . Peer ratings

were obtained at the midpoint of the OBC and again at the end of the

course . Final course grades were obtained from each OBC in either actual grades or in class standing within each OBC class , or both.

The Performance Evaluation Form has been described in detail elsewhere (Gilbert , 1975; Gilbert & Grafton , 1978; Gilbert , Hooper , & Hicks ,

1977). This instrument was designed to measure overall duty performance

and rankings and ratings of potential performance along 10 leadership

dimensions. Five of these leadership dimensions correspond to factors

derived by Helme , Willemin , and Grafton (1971) and also to the factors

1

•0~ — 0

- b
of consideration and initiation of structure identified by Fleishman

(1974) and Stogdill (1974). In addition , the form required ratings along

the more global dimensions of combat leadership and technical-managerial

leadership identified by the Helme , Willemin , and Grafton research.

Figure 1 shows the dimensions assessed by the Performance Evaluation Form with the corresponding scale of the form and the abbreviated

L title of each scale . Figure 2 shows the 7—point scale (adapted from

Willemin , 1965) that was used for each rating . Raters were required to

rank seven of the scales in terms of an officer’s potential for future

performance, and then to ra te the officer in these seven ..cales. Three

of the scales—-Duty Performance , Combat Leadership, and TechnicalManagerial Leadership——required ratings only .

Wherever possible , ratings on the Performance Evaluation Form were

obtained from four raters : the officer ’s immediate supervisor , a superior officer other than the officer ’s immediate supervisor but not necessarily the OER—indorsing official , and two close associates.

Data Preparation

The OBC grades and class standings were equated by ranking (within

the class) the grades of officers for whom class grade s only were available . These rankings were then converted to standard scores. When

class rankings were available , they were converted to standard scores

within the different OBC classes. Scores were standardized with a mean

of 100 and a standard deviation of 20. For the purpose of analysis,

the ratings on the Performance Evaluation Form were averaged , if ratings

were available from at least two raters.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 1 shows reliability estimates for each of the 10 scales of

the Performance Evaluation Form . These estimates are based on cases

for which all four ratings were available in the sample . Estimates

were obtained by averaging the six possible correlations among the four

raters and adjusting the resulting average by the Spearman—Brown Prophecy

formula.

The reliability estimates ranged from .70 for the Combat Leadership

scale to .55 for the Logistical Knowledge scale . These estimates support the findings of Willemin (1965).

Table 2 shows the correlations between the 10 predictor variables

and each of the 10 scales of the Performance Evaluation Form for the

entire sample . Table 2 also shows the multiple correlations between

the 10 predictor variables. This table reveals that final course peer

ratings yielded the highest zero—order correlations for eight of the

scales; the two exceptions were for the Technical—Managerial scale and

2

0 

- • 

- 

/

/

~~~~~~~ ir~ -- 

- -
Performance Evaluation Abbreviated title

Form scale Factor of scale

Part I

Duty performance Duty performance

Part II

Apply ing tactical knowledge and Tactical staff Sk~ 1lSa Tactical knowledge

skills in support of combat

operations

Understanding the mission and Team leadership

a Defining personal

clearly defining personal roles

roles of subordinates in

its accomplishment -

Making decisio’-~

s and initiating Command of mena Making decisions

actions under pressure

Defining functional roles and Initiation of structureb,c Defining functional

duties in the process of de— roles

veloping subordinates to

fill assignments for long—

term unit effectiveness

Planning and organizing man- Executive directiona Plann ing and

power and materiel to meet organization

situational requirements

Motivating troops to accomplish— Considerationb,c Motivating troops

ing the mission by taking

into consideration their

well-being and morale

Applying knowledge of logistics Technical staff Sk~ l1Sa Technical knowledge

and technical matters to

solve support problems

Part III

Combat leadership Combat leadershipa Combat leadership

Technical—managerial leadership Technical-managerial Technical-managerial

leadershipa leadership

a

Helme , Willemin , and Grafton (1971). bFlejshman (1974).

Cstogdill (1974).

Figure 1. Performance Evaluation Form scales and corresponding

factors and abbreviated scale titles .

3

r”

-

- 

-
Scale value Description

7 OUTSTANDING Far above the requirements of the situation ,

suggesting the highest kind of formal recognition through meritorious award , or decoration .

6 SUPERIOR Markedly above the requirements of the situation , suggesting formal recognition through a

special (favorable) efficiency report, or

letter of commendation .

5 ABOVE AVERAGE Somewhat above the requirements of the situation , suggesting informal recognition through

specific favorable comment in his regular eff iciency report, and through informal appreciation or commendation.

4 AVERAGE Fully up to the requirements of the situation ,

suggesting general appreciation (perhaps mos tly

unexpressed).

3 BELOW AVERAGE Somewhat below the requirements of the situation , though suggesting only the mildest kind

of corrective action through informal recommendation for improvement , or through change

of duty assignment within the organization .

2 MARGINAL Markedly below the requirements of the situation , sugges ting formal corrective action

through a special (unf avorable) efficiency

report , administrative admonition , letter or

reprimand , summary court, or transfer out of

the organization .

UNSATISFACTORY Far below the requirements of the situation ,

suggesting the most drastic kind of formal

corrective action through reclassification ,

demotion , general cour t , or board ing ou t of

the Army .

Figure 2. Officer performance scale .

a

a

Ad~~~~ d from Willemin (1965).

4 

_,.~ 

•

~~~~~~~~~~~~ :;

~~• , 0 - - ~~~~~~~~~ 5.

- ~~~ -

I

~~~ 

•

~~ - -

~ - 5 • ~~~~~~~~~ - ,. —

_________ 

.

~~~ ~~~~~
the Tactical Knowledge scale. Final course peer ratings were most

predictive of Duty Performance , Combat Leadership , and Making Decisions.

Table 1

Reliability Estimates for Each Scale of the

Performance Evaluation Form

Reliability

Scale estimate

Duty Performance .67

Combat Leadership . .70

Technical—Managerial Leadership .58

Tactical Knowledge .68

Understanding Mission .59

Making Decisions .66

Defining Functional Roles .58

Planning and Organizing .57

Motivating Troops .60

Logistical Knowledge .55

Table 3 shows the correlations among the same Set of variables

and for corresponding multiple correlations for the combat arms branches.

These branches are air defense , armor , field artillery, and infantry. In

this analysis, final course peer ratings yielded higher or equal zero—

order correlations with the criteria , as did other predictors in all but

two instances--the Technical-Managerial Leadership scale and the Logistical Knowledge scale.

Table 4 shows the correlations between each set of predictors and

each of the 10 criteria and corresponding multiple correlation s for the

branches other than the combat arms branches . For all of the criteria ,

with the exception of the Technical—Managerial scale , the zero—order

• correlations between final course peer ratings and the criteria were

higher than or equal to the zero—order correlations between each of the

other variables and each of the criteria.

In general , the results of these analyses indicate that final OBC

peer ratings are the best predictors of duty performance when measured

by the Duty Performance scale of the Performance Evaluation Form for the

• total sample. The zero-order correlation in this instance is .26 between

final course peer ratings and duty performance ; the next highest zero—

order correlation is .19 between duty performance and OBC final grades.

___________ ______ _________ ____ I

=~ ———--- - —- 

- 

:

~

-

~

----—

~

- .

- —-S — —-S —

0 • :- e

~~J ,c -
o In 

-~ o 0 0 a) .’-’ ..-4 4.J * 41 41 * 41 41 41 41 41 41 Q~~(6 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 a) a) at at In U) 1.0 ,-4 5.-I to U) ~ .0 .0 ~~~ a) (N m (N (5

~ N m c’ (‘1 (N (N 4-~ 

-

~i

i 4.)

zoU -I-’ S S 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 a 41 41 41 41 4.1 41 41 41 41 41 0 ()

~~ 1.0 10 U) (N s-I ‘.0 CO .-4 In m ...4 

•,.4

04 N N .-4 

C’) (N N s-I N (N 4 144 • 14-I 

•

S

a) 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41

o 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 -4 (0 .-I e~ ‘.0 U) 0 ~~ to ‘.0 N N U) U) 41 41 04 -4 s-I ~~ s-I -I -4 ‘-I -I s-I 0 41 ...

41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 C -K 41 41 41 41 41 41 -K 41 41

w 0 at at at at at CO ~~ N 0 ‘.0 

0

04 -I s-I s-I s-I .4 .-4 .4 ,.4 ,..4 

,.4 Q5 0) 0 . . . . . . . . . . o ia

u

wo C)

.0 —I S 

W

~~~~~

S 41 0 5 N 41 -K 41 5 5 14.1 H ~-4 ‘0 In at 0 .-I N (

~ s—I ~~ O I l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

wz . . 

I

• 

I

• I 

4.; .I~

~

a) 4.1

os ewa ) 0 41 41 -K

OW 0 41 41 41 -5 41 41 U) .-I tO Z tO’ N tO’ N ‘~~

‘ U) 

-I 

•-4 m s-I 44 1-105 04 4404 0 N 0 C’) 0 0 0 0 0 0 t1)W 0 O.-I

.05 00 . . . . . . . . . . Wa) 

O l d

Od 

4.) I I 

I

10(0 0

.5.4 41 .5 .5 41 41 41 41 41 0 U

O

~~~

P.s ‘00 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 N ‘0(0 WZ U) tn N In N N 10 In In U) 5 4.) 44~~~ 0 s-I 0 .-I 0 s-I 0 0 0 0 a) t O O 04 E-4 . . . . . . . . U ( s-I Ei Z U~

.0 44 40 O W 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 0000404 E4 4J.0 0 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 04 .) Z C) ‘.0 N N at tO tO tO ‘.0 In

~~ s-I (14 0 N 0 .-I 0 0 0 0

‘ 044 0 . • . . . . . 1.4 ’44 

al es 04 41 41 -K 41 41 0 0 5 0 41 41 .5 41 41 41 41 41 0 0 .0 4.4 04 N s--I U) N In LI) m tO 0 s--I — 5 5 00 0 0 -4 0 s-I 0 0 0 0 0 s-I 01 0 0 40 04 . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 5

(0 

I

5 0 41 .5 5 41 41 

.

0 41 41 5 41 .5 41

5 0 N U) 0 -I s-I N N ‘.0 at E~ 90 o~~~~~~~~o00 090 • 0) s-I I COO 

.

41 41 .5 .5 41 41 41 41 41 -5 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 ‘00~~ 1040 0 0 -3 CO ~~ 0) s--I 10 N (‘4 N G) I d 0 5 O 0 s-I N 0 3’) 0 s-I 0 0 0 s-I I.~~~5 0 4 IO40

H . . . . . . . . . 

. ‘-4

4.4 5 44 s-I 0 a) 

0 W 0 E 4 E4 o Id •‘-4 al 0 ~~ a) In ‘0 U n 04 01 U) (0 a) 11 11 0

_______ 

‘

Si.,

’ 

i

i’’ i ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~ 

.5

. 5 

- ~~~~~~~~~~ 

~~~~~~~ t 

T1~ ‘ 

‘

~~ 

/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~. - --
S 

I

0 

I 41 41 41 ‘5 ‘5 41 41 -K 41 10 s-I

040 I 41 41 41 41 41 

-

~ 41 0 

0 -I s-I

~~~ N s -4 N s-I 0’ 

Ct s--I m 10

~(.J a) N m N (‘4 N N N N N s--I • • • • . 5 a) a) 0 4.) 4.) 40 ‘0 ‘K 41 41 ‘K 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 .5 41 41 41 * 41 41 41 4.) 4.)

m 

‘-0 0’ In 0) 10 ‘.0 N (“4. s-I 5 5

Os NN s - - N

N s-I s-4~~~~~~~~~~

,- 4040

O 0 .s-4 .,4

44-4 • 44

a) -5 .5 41 -5 -5 -5 s-I

0 ~~ -K 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 SWSW

O m 

‘

-0 0) C”) s-I Cfl at 

CO ‘.0 N

Os s-I s-I 0 s-I s--I s-I 0 0 s-I 0 •5.4 a ) •s -•4 Q)

a) . . . . . . . . . 

C0.-4 (I) s--4

4.4.0 

•

0 4-

) 41-I -K -II 41 41 41 -5 41 41 41

1- 144 0 -5 ‘5 ‘5 41 

-K -

~ -5 ‘K

W O 0 s-I .-I N 4’4 at 0 i(4 (0 0 In tO

04444 CO N N s--I N s-I (N s-I s-I s-I s-I 01

0 . • . S S • . . . — 

5 01 -s--I

. 50 0 

4-

~~~c

n

4 .s-4 

0

-I-) 

‘K -K II 0 a) 44-1 40 4.-I 0 m LI) In N s-I (‘1 N (N N 0 ‘0 .-4 O s-I U 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 ‘—I 0 0 5 40444. ) • • . . . . S . .

I I I I I I

s 4 4.4 Gt .a) 04 (d O s-I Is 41 44a ) 44 00 0 41 41 41 O 5 1 f l W~~~ CO s--I 10 Z C’1 s—I ‘.0 m s-I LI) m (N s-—~ N a) 4404 0 s—I 0 s-I 0 0 0 0 0 0 544 0 4

sO s-I ll 00 . • • • • • • • • 4I 44

0~~~

0 04 4-) I I I I Wa )00s1 40s-I Z 0 W a) 040 .s-4 4.5 -K 41 14 -I ‘00 41 41 -K 41 s-I ., WZ 10 0 s-I In U) 0’ N (0 0’ U 0O ~~~~ (.4 S Za) 4.1Z 0 s--I 0 s-I 0 0 0 0 0 0 a) 40 .0 04 E-’ . . . . . . . . . • fi fl

s-I 01

0

.0 4455 0 40 0 -s-I tO 41 41 41 Z

~ 0-I ~J ’ 044 0 41 41 * USCO Z U) (“4. N (N 10 N 0 0 m N 0 0 00 4 0 4 i-

~ 0 s-I 0 s-I 0 0 0 0 0 

0 (0 U • . . . • . .

W~~~~~E I I — — I-l U ll 0101 41 • 0 0 14 U 41 41 -K ‘K Is -K — 0 0

. 00 4-) 04 ‘0 N tO 0 o

~ m to m at 

01 5 5 0040 U 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S • • . S • •~~~~~~~~~S S .._ — s ~~ S o — 0 4 0 0 41 -K 0 1. — s .

a) 

U 44 41 41 

O ’001’0’0 (‘4 (‘4 U) CO N s-~ W E 4 (‘4 0 m U) 0 0 0 0 0

0-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~~~

Q u a

~~

o

~ 4-4. 0 • • • • 4-4 I-4 H a) (54

CO ‘0 5 41 41 41 41 ld al .IJ 0t 0t

SO U 41 41 -K 41 -K 41 41 W O

O 4 0 IO

(N ‘.0 0 1(4 

‘0 0 - (“4. N N (0 ~I

., I4 

U 0 s-I 0 s-I 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 (0

4

~~

4d • S S S 4J

Z 1.IZ

O S ~~~ IOIWII s-I s-I .~~~. 0 a) . 0 . 0

S OWIOWW 4.1 (0 s-I 0 a) OEi U E-4 0-4

0 40 --I 01

0 ...4 a) U) ‘0 II U II II II

04 44 01 (4) U) 4)) a) .s-4 a) ‘0 --I (4) 04 s--I 00 0 .0 01 w Z S (4) 40 s-I 0 U) S

40 1-1 0 ~ at ..4 a)

S a) 

~d PI 0 0 

U) s-—I 

‘~~~

01 0 E~~ U0E

i

14 ‘0 Z.I 5 -‘-I s-I 0 40 1.0 44 ‘0 U 01 s-I 44 S N 5 Id 0 a) 1-4 Id1-4 s-I 40 01 01.s-4 ..4 0 4-)

s-I a) Qa) 40 

4.) 5 55 4) .s4 

0 04 4) •s-4 ’0 0 (0 01 .s-4 .s-4 40 40 4.) .s-4

-s--I 40 

540 .,.4 1-I 5 S 501 ~ U) 

‘0 4-I a) •..4 .s-I 54.4 .s-I ~ I a) 44 4.) 5 0 k-i 0 ‘0 .g ~~ 4 0 0 4.) ~t 44

° a) U 0-4 0-’ 

D Cd

• 1.~~~~

•

• 

--:

‘~~~

‘~~~

‘ 

-

~ - - 

•

/

~ 

-
I 

—

S0

W -s-4 a) 

U s-I l.) 44 41 ‘K 44 44 -K Is 41 .5 55 04 0 ‘K ‘K 41 41 -5 41 44 41 41 ‘K 4.4 4) 10 0 0 s-I 0 In 0 0) N (N 4.) a) 10 -0• (“4 0 (“1 10 N (N 40 (“4. 4) 4.4 s-Ill • • . 5 5 . 5 5 S • ‘0 Id 5 1.4 4-~ 4.) 0 0 W0 

U 44 ‘K 44 ‘K ‘K ‘K 44 ‘K ‘K - ~~ ‘K 44 ‘K 41 ‘K ‘K 41 - 41 41 (l-I a) 444 a)

0 -I 40 ‘.0 It) at s-I 1.0 at 

LI) 

~

‘I s-I 

- s-I 5I

04 (“s (‘4 N (N (‘4 N N N N 

C’)

s-I 0 -s-I 

0 Cl) . (0 a) 44 ‘K 44 ‘K 44 44 41 41 41 41 -5 ‘K 0 ~~ 41 * 44 ‘K ‘K 44 41 44 -5 44 -5 0 0 0 N N at 0 LI) ‘-~

0 s-I 0 A. e4(N ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~(‘4~~~~~~

4.4 .-I

Oat (4) 44 44 41 ‘K ‘K ‘K -K 44 ‘K 01 4411 0 * * -Il Is 41 ‘K ‘K 44 ‘K — S a) U ‘.0 N 40 C’) U) In (‘4 In 0

~ N 01 CO s-I s-I N s-I s-I s-I s-I s-I 0 s--I 0 4.4 (4)

0 . . . s • . . • • u Id a-s a) 0 a)~~~~ 5 . 0(0 0 ‘0 -s-I 5 ‘0444. ) ~~~ 4) 4-l W (5 ‘I-I H s-I LI) 0 N s-I N s-I s--I 0 LI S0W 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 4)) ~~~ 04 4) . . • . s . . . . . 4.4 4.4 4)) 44 4)4. 40 I I I I O S ( nWW s-—I .

~ 04

H 4.I

U) a) -K II 544 04 00 U -K ‘K I4 4.I 0 (1) 0 ~~~ ‘5 Z 10 U) s-I N 0’ LI) 0 s--I N 0 WWU Os- - I 4.4 0. 0 s-I 0 s--I 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wa) 0 ( 0 .55 00 . . • . . . . S 4.4 $I U ’d S 0 0 4~

) I 

(dld CO s--I

.s--I .0 0 U U OZ04 0-4 -s--I -5 ‘K 44 ‘K 41

‘0 U 41 ‘5 ‘K Is -K 44 -K 41 -K II II II II II 0 ‘0 4-1 a)Z s-I 0 N 0 at 1.0 0) CC U) N 54)) lIZ s-I N s--I N 0 s-I 0 0 0 s-I 0 0 a) 4055 04 0-4 . S S • • S • S S 

~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ll

~~~ 0 0 00404

Id 0 41 41 ‘K - II

U ‘K ‘K 44 ‘K 44 Is OW Z N s-I N s-I 0 N U) CO N s--I

-.455 .-1 s-4 (“4 0 10 s--I s-I 0 0 0 s--I s-d o U . • • . • . . • . . — —01 01

0 0 0444 41 41 41 41 — 0 0 CO U ‘K ‘K 41 ‘K 01 5 5 .0 04 N 11) s-— I 0’ U) N (54 0

~ 

LI) 0 0 

‘ D O

0 4.4 U 0 s-I s-I s--I 0 0 0 0 0 s-I 0 0 5 ‘0 0 • . . . . . • • .

(044 I 

—

SE 

O’ d 0’ ’40 sd 0) 4.4 U ‘K -K Is 41 0 0 00 4 0 a) 0 Z 0 N (0 (0 s--I 0 0 0 0 0

0-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s--I s-I

4.) . . . . . . . • . . 5 I I I O 0014)0101 41 ‘K 44 44 44 ‘K a ) 1 5 0 15 45 S -I.) ~~ ‘K * ‘K * • 44 44 41 0 Ed s--I N 10 (‘4 0 (‘4 N U) N S U s-i N s-I N s-I s--I 0 0 0 s-I • . . . • . . • tdIWI I 400

sI a 501400 o U a) 44 0 0 0 - 4 El E-’ 4.4 s-I 0 a) 0 Id -—I 01 0 II II II II 0 -s-I 4)) (0

04 1-4 0~ U) (I) 

‘

~~ 0 0 4)4 -s-I a) ‘0 ..4 (0 04 s-I 0 55 01 a) Z 0 (4) 45 s-I 0 (4) 8 $4 ~ at -s-I a) a) 01 0 0 U) s-I ‘0 0 1

0 

‘

~~ ~~~~~ 5 

-s-I •sI

1 55 44 ‘0 0 

4~ ~~~~ 01 s-I 44.4 q

~ s - lU) S N S Id 

0 a) 1-I i-I ‘514 s-I Id 01 01-s-I -s-I 0 4.4 s-I a) 0 4)4 IS 4.) 5 55 4) ~s-4 U

0, 

4) -sI

’d 0 (0 01 -s-I -s-I 

Id ‘0 

4) 

.,-4

‘5 

-.1 14 5 0 5 0~ > (0 

‘0 s-I 4.) a) .4 s-s--I 511 -s-I .s-4 U 14 ~4-) 0

~~~~~~~~ 

U 0 0-’ E-~ ~ 8

~~~~~~ . r —- 

—

~

S.’

’

- ‘ 

-~ 

.

~~~~~~ , -5

z

~

-

f — I-w-1~~,S - -

~~ -.
In the combat arms branches, there is little difference between

the predictive value of peer ratings and OBC final grades for duty performance. For branches other than the combat arms, nowever, the correlation between final course ratings and duty performance is .30; the

correlation between grades and duty performance is .16.

The last analyses involved the relationships between the predictors

and the weighted average OER ratings. Table 5 shows the results of

these analyses. For the total sample, final course peer ratings yielded

a correlation of .21 with OER ratings; however , the final grades obtained

in the OBC yielded a correlation of .20. In the combat arms branches,

OBC final bourse grades yielded a slightly higher zero-order correlation

with OER ratings, whereas the opposite occurred in branches other than

combat arms.

The results of this research are similar to results of other reports on the utility of associate ratings or peer ratings in predicting

subsequent performance (Reline , 1969; Gilbert , 1975; Gilbert & Downey,

1978). Further research will explore how the predictive utility of peer

ratings m ay be enhanced . One possible approach would be to divide the

sample into individual career branches, since some differences in predictive power between combat arms branches and the other branches were

observed in this research. Another possibility would be to divide the

sample according to the similarities of specialties in which the off icers are engaged.

9

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

—

- .

• -‘

~~~

.

‘ 

~~~

_

~~~~~‘5

•

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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~s- -- -
Table 5

Correlation Between Each Predictor and Weighted Average Officer

Efficiency Ratings and Corresponding Multiple Correlations

for Combat 4

~

trms , Branches Other Than Combat Arms ,

and Total Sample

Branches other than

Combat arms combat arms Total 1⁄4

Predictor (n = 2 ,486) (n = 2,120) (n = 4 ,506)

Combat Leadership

(cognitive) .06 .05 .06

Technical-Managerial

Leadership

(cognitive) .02 — .01 .01

Career Potential

(cognitive) .01 .04 .02*

Combat Leadership

(noncognitive) .08* .1O** .09**

Technical-Managerial

Leadership

(noncognitive) .lo** •Ø9** .lo**

Career Potential

(noncognitive) .02 .01 .02

Career Intent .02 .06 .04

OBC grades .25** .l5** .2041*

Midcourse peer ratings .12*41 .1141* .11*41

Final peer ratings .22** .21** .2l**

Multiple correlations .30** .2441* .26*41

*Significant at the .05 level.

4141S

~ gnificant at the .01 level.

10 -

• 

~~~~ 

f---) - 

-

5 

~~~~~~~~~ t-~

’L~

t 

~

_______________________________
REFERENCES

Downey, R. G., Medland, F. F., & Yates , L. G. Evaluation of a peer

rating system for predicting subsequent promotion of senior military officers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1976, 61, 206-209.

Fleishman , E. A. Twenty years of consideration and structure. In

Fleishman , E. A. and J. G. Hunt (Eds.), Current development in

the study of leadership. Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois

University Press , 1974.

Gilbert, A. C. F. Prediction of Army officer performance. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Military Testing Association,

Indianapolis, m d., September 15-19 , 1975. In Proceedings of the

17th annual conference of the Military Testing Association.

Indianapolis , md. : U.S. Army Enlisted Evaluation Center, 1975.

Gilbert , A. C. F., & Do’wney, R. G. Validity of peer ratings obtained

during Ranger training. ARI Technical Paper 344, October 1978.

Gilber t, A. C. F., & Grafton, F. C. Some properties of an officer

measure of performance and potential. ARI Technical Paper 345,

October 1978.

Gilbert, A. C. F. , Hooper , J. N., & Hicks , 3. M. Establishing the

validity of a multidimensional Army officer performance measure.

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Society

for Multivariate Experimental Psychology , Hollywood , Fla.,

May 4—7, 1977.

Gordon, L. V., & Medland , F. F. The cross—group stability of peer ratings of leadership potential. Personnel Psychology, 1965, 18,

173—177.

Haggerty, H. R. Status report on research for the U.S. Military Acad—

emy. ARI Technical Research Report 1133, October 1963.

Helme, W. H. Research to predict cadet and officer performance . ARI

Research Study 69—10, May 1969.

Helme , W . H., Willemin , I.. P., & Day, R. W. Psychological factors

measured in the differential officer battery. ARI Technical

Research Report 1173, July 1971. (AD 737 685)

Helme , W. H., Willemnin, L. P., & Graf ton, F. C. Dimensions of leader—

ship in a simulated combat situation. ARI Technical Research

Report 1172, July 1971. (AD 730 315)

Parrish , J. A., & Drucker , A. J. Personnel research for officer candidate school. ARI Technical Research Report 1107, November 1957.

11

_ __ 

_ - 

/ç - . 

- - - —.——- _a... . - . —
Stogdill , R. M. Handbook of leadership : a survey of theory and research. New York : The Free Press, 1974.

Willemin, I.. P. Criterion aspects on Army research on the prediction

of officer performance. ARI Research Study 65—6, December 1965.

12 

__________ ________ ___ 

1

• - • -:

~~~~~ r __ 

— ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ i .
DISTRIBUTION

AR) lJi’ trilitilion List

4 OASD (MP.RA) 7 HOUSACUEC , Ft Ord. ATTN: Library

2 HODA )DAM) - CSZ) 1 HOUSACOEC Ft Ord, ATffi: ATEC - EX--E Hum Factors

1)011Th (DAPE P8)4 ) 2 USAEEC . Ft Benj amin Harr ison ATTN: L ilvas y

I $l0[)A (DAMA AR) I USAPACDC . Ft Bess 1arni is Harrison , ATTN : ATCP HR

1 HOIIA (DAPI HRE - P0( 1 USA Comm-E lect ScIs , Ft Moninouth , ATTN ATSN -EA

I HODA (SGRD-I D) 1 USAEC. Fl Mosimou t h , ATTN: AMSEL CT HOP

¶ 1-IDDA (DAMI DOT-C) t USAEC. Ft Monmouth. ATTN; AMSEL-PA P

1 HODA (DAPC PMZ-A) 1 USAEC , Ft Monmoutl i , ATTN : AMSEL- SI—CR

I HODA (OACH-PP?-A) 4 USAEC . Ft Monmouth. ATTN . C. Fad Des Br

1-IODA (DAPE-HREI 1 USA Materials Sys Anal Agcy. Aberdeen. ATTN AMXSY -P

1 HODA (DAPE MPO C) 1 Edgewood Ars enal . Aberdeen, ATTN: SAREA Hi H

HODA (DAP I 13W) 1 USA Ord CIr & Sth. Aberd een , ATIN: ATSL—TEM ..

~~

1 HODA (DAPE HA L) 2 USA Hum Engr Lab , Aberdeen. ATTN : Library /Dir

HQDA (DAPE-CPS) t USA Combat Arms Tog Rd . Ft Renninq. ATTN~ Ad Superviso r

1 HODA (DAFO - MFA) 1 USA Infantry Hum Rsch Unit . Ft Beaning . ATTN: Chief

HODA (DARD ARS-PI 1 USA Infantry Bd. F Benning . ATTN: STEBC - TE--T

I I-b OA (DAPC - PAS-A) 1 IJSASMA , Ft Bliss , ATTN : ATSS— LRC

1 HIIDA (DUSA OR) 1 USA Air Del Sch , Ft Blis s . ATTN: ATSA CTD ME

I bI ODA (DAMO RORI I USA Air Oct Scf, Ft Bliss . ATTN : Tech Lii,

I tlOi)A (DASC) 1 USA Air Or’) Bd. Ft Bliss , ATTN: FILES

I b-lQL)A IDA 1OP I) t USA Air Def Bd, Ft Bliss . ATTN: STEBO --P0

1 C liii-) Coriciilt Div (DA-OTSG). Adelphi, MD 1 USA Cmd & General Stf College, Ft Leavenworth. ATTN: Lili

1 Mit Asst Hum Rvs, Ot)DR&E, OAO )E&LS( 1 USA Cmd & General Stf College , Ft Leavenworth, ATT N: ATSW—SF-- I.

1 140 USARAL , APO Snatlls- . ATTN: A RAGP A 1 USA Cmd & General StI College. Ft Leavs-nwrirtl,. ATTN: Ed Adviso r

HO First Arm y, ATTN: AFKA-Ol TI 1 (ISA Ciiml,ined Arms Crnbt 0ev Act , Ft Leav ’-ii wor tl i , ATTN: OepCrls

7 HO Fifth Army. Ft Sam Houst on 1 USA Combined Arms Cnibt Div Act. Ft Leavenworth. AnN: CCS

1 [ti, Army Stf Studies Oft . ATTN~ OAVCSA (DSP) 1 USA COfTtbIiPd Arms Cmbt Div Act . Ft Leavenworth. ATTN : ATCASA

I (II, (Thief of StI . Studies Ofc I USA Combined Arms Crnftt Dee Act. Ft Leavenworrh. ATTN; ATCACO—F

I lii id’) A , At TN CPS/OCI’ 1 (ISA ~.vnlsins’d Ar ms Csn hi Dcv A it , Ft Leav”nworth . ATl’N: ATCAC C--t t

I (hi- As es y iii ,, I’eiitaqoi , ATTN. RSB Chief 1 IJSAECOM . Night Visio n Lab . Ft tsel v r,ir . ATTN: AMSEL—NV—SD

I [be Army 11,), Pentagon , ATTN: ANRAL 3 USA Computer Sys Crnd , Ft Be)voir , ATTN Tech Library

I Oh , Awl Sect of the Army (R& D) 1 USAMERDC . Ft Belvoir . ATTN : SISFB DO

I Tech St

~~post Ofc . OJCS I USA mg Sch, Ft Belvoi r . ATTN: Library

I IISASA , Ar lu ,v t tn ii , ATTN lAR D - I 1 USA Topograp isic Lab . Ft Belvour . ATTN : ETL ID—S

I USA AM h Of . ., Durham . ATTN: Li)r Sciences Dir t USA Topographic Lab . Ft Belvnir . ATTN: STINFO Cersr er

7 (ISARIIM , N,,t ,s- k AITN SGRO-UE CA 1 USA Topographic Lab . Ft Belvoir . ATTN : Eli GSL

I (J ~ AI It ’ Ii S.l,iyIo,i Al IN ~;tI ic MOA I EISA Iu it elfv j i ’iw ’ Cit P. Scli Ft Hii.w;Iss s i ’a, AUN: CTD MS

I 11SAIMA s Hr.eyj , A) IN A ISU d OOM 1 USA Intelligence Cli & ScIs, Ft Hu,cht,ca , A’ ITN: ATS—CTD—MS

USA’MA , Ft Bragg , ATTN. Marriuat Lib 1 USA Intelligence CIr & Sch , Ft Hiiachti ca , ATTN: ATS I—TE

1 ItS WAC Cir & Srh , Ft McClell an . ATTN: Lit s I USA Intelligence Ci, & ScPr , Ft Huachuca, ATTN : ATSI- IF)) -GS

I u S WAC Ctr & 5th , Ft McClellan , ATTT’1: Tog Dir 1 USA Intelli gence Ctr & Sch . Ft Htuachuca . ATTN: ATS I—CTS-- OR

USA Quariesmasrs-r Sch . Fl Lee. ATTN: ATSM.Tt I USA Intelligence Ctr & ScIs , Ft Huachuca. ATIN: AT SI—CT D- -OT

1 Intell ige nce Mater ial Des Oft , EWL , Ft Holabird 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch. Ft Huachuca , ATTN: ATSI—CTD—cS

1 USA SE Signa l Sch , Ft Gti,rl on ATTN: ATSO-EA 1 USA Intel ligence CIr & Sch , Ft Huachuca. ATTN: DAS/SRD

I USA CIsapI,’

~’i Cii & ‘jib , Ft Has,iilrnn . ATTN: ATSC-TE Rl) 1 USA Intellig ence Cl, & ScIs , Ft Husr ’ ca , ATTN ATSI-TEM

1 USAISCH . Es Euslis . ATI N: Ethic Art visor 1 USA Intelligence Cli & Sch, Ft Huachu ca , ATTN : Library

I USA War Colliri te , C.rlisl ~ Basiacli s, An N: Lib I CDR , HO Fl Huachuca, ATTN: Tech Ret Div

7 W RAIR , Neiisripsyrhi ,iIiy Dii. 7 COR . USA Electronic Prvg Grd , ATTN : STLFP MT—S

1 DLI, SDA . Mrir ~

Irie- j I Ha. TCATA . ATTN : Teth Library

I USA Concsruil Anal Agcy , Bethesda, ATIN: MOCA-MR 1 HO5 TCATA . ATTN: AT CAT-OP-a, Ft Hood

USA Concept Anal Agcy . Bethesda, ATTN: MOCA-JF 1 USA RecruitIng Cmd. Ft Sheridsn. ATTN: USARCPM-P

I USA Arctic Test Ctr , APO Seattle , ATTN~ STEAC-PL .MI 1 Senior Army Mv., USAFAGOD/TAC . Elgin AF Aux FId No .9

1 USA Arctic Test Ctr , APO Seattle , ATTN ; AMSTE-PL -TS I HO. USARPAC, DCSPER . APO SF 96558, ATTN: GPPE-SE

1 USA Armament Cmd , Redston e Arsenal , ATIN: ATSK-TEM I Stimao n Lib, Academy of Health Sciences. Ft Sam Houston

1 USA Armam ent Cnud, Rock Island , ATTN; AMSAR-TDC 1 Marine Corps Inst., ATTN: Dean-MCI

1 FAA-NAFEC , Atlantic City. ATTh: Library 1 HO, USMC. Commandant . ATTft4: Code MTMT

I FAA NAFEC, Atlantic City , ATTN: Human Engr ,,, 1 HO. USMC. Commandant, ATTN: Code MPI-20.24)

1 FAA Aesonautica l Ctr , Oklahoma City, ATTN: AAC -44D 2 USCG Academy New London , ATTh: Admission

2 USA Fld Arty ScIs , Ft Si)) . AITh: Library 2 USCG Academy . New London, ATTN : Libr ary

I USA Armor Sths Ft Knox, ATTN: Library 1 USCG Training Ctr . NY . ATIN: CO

1 (ISA Arnior Sch, Ft Knox , ATTN; ATSB-Dl-F 1 USCG Triining Ctr , NY. ATTN: Educ Sec Oft

I USA Arn ios - Sen. Ft Kniux , ATTN: ATSB- DT TP 1 USCG, Pgychol Res Br . DC, ATTN : GP 1/62

1 USA Armor 5th, Ft Knott , ATTN; ATSB -CO.AD 1 HO Mid-Rang . Br , MC Get . Ouanticu. ATTN ; P&S Div

13

- - -

~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —.r Uw1W

~~~ —~-

~~~~~ m”--~ 

- - 

~~— -- - ,

~ ~~i*4
1 US Marine Corps Lia ison Ofc , AMC. Alexa ndria, ATTN AMCGS —r 1 Di,f & Civ tl Inst of Eneiro Medicine, Canada

I USATRADOC . Ft Monroe , ATTN: ATRO ED 1 AIR CRESS , Kensington , ATTN: tub Sys Br

6 USATRADOC . Ft Mon roe . ATTN : ATPR AD 1 Militaerp sy kolog isk Tjenes t e , Copenhagen

1 USATRADOC , Ft Monroe , ATTN: ATTS EA I Milit ary Attache . French Embassy, ATTN : Doc Sec

I USA Forcet Cmd , Fl McPh erson , ATTN : Liti rary 1 Medecin Chef , C.E R .P A. — Arsenal , Tou loii/Nav o l Fiance

2 l.ISA Aviation Test Bit , F’~ Rti.-,

~ii , ATTN STEBG- P0 1 Prin Scientific Off , AppI Hum Engr Rsch Dix , Min ist i y

I USA Agcy for Aviation Safely. ft Ruuck er , ATTN: Libr ary of Defe nse. New Delhi

1 USA Agcy for Aviation Safety, Ft Rucker , ATTN: Educ Advi sor 1 Pers Rsch Ofc Library . AKA . Is rael Detente Foui:es

USA Aviation 5th, Ft Rucker , ATTN: P0 Drawer 0 1 Ministeris van Defensie , DOOP/KL At d Sociaal

1 HOUSA Aviation Sys Cmd , St Louis , ATTN: AMSAV —Z DR Psycho logutche Zaken , The Hague , Netherlands

7 USA Avi atioi i ‘

~

ys Test A:t ., Edwards AFH. ATTN : SAVTE -

1 USA Air Del Sch , Ft h It s ’ . , ATTN: ATSA TFM

1 USA Au Mi ’t’ilily A-cl. & t)i,v Lali , Moff et l [Ii), ATTN: SAVOL -AS

I USA Aviation ScIs . Rrs Tng MgI, Ft Rucker , ATTN - ATST -T—RTM

1 USA Aviation Sch, CO. Ft Ruck er , ATTN: ATST—D-- A

1 HO, DARCOM , Alexan dria , ATTN; AMXCO -TL

1 HO, DARCOM . Alexan dria , ATTN: CDR

1 US Military Academy, West Point , ATIN: Seria ls Unit

1 US Military Academy, West Point , A T’IN: Ofc of Mill Ldss h p

US Militaty Ar’.xt emy, West Point . ATTN: MAOR

1 USA Standa itj i,ation Gp, UK , FPO NY , An N: MASE—G C

1 Ofc of Naval flsc$s , Arli ngt on . ATTN : Code 452

3 Ok of Naval Aw ls , Arling ton , ATTN: Code 458

I Ofe of Naval Rsch , Arlington , ATTN ; Code 450

1 Ok of Naval Rsch , Arlin gton ; ATTN: Code 441

1 Navaf Ae i ospc Med Ret Lah , Pensaco la , ATIN; Acou l Sch Div

I N.iva l Aeros lv- Med Ri’s Lab , Pen sacola , ATTN: Code L61

I Naval ~~ ros Iic Med Rex Lab , Pensacola , ATTN: Code L5

1 Chief of NavPi ,rs , ATTN: Pers-OR

1 NAVAIRSTA, Norfolk , ATTN; Safety Ctr

1 Nay Oceanog rat ifti c . DC. ATTN: Code 6251. Charts & Tech

1 Center of Naval Anal , ATTN: Doe Ctr

1 NiuvAirSysCom , ATTN : AIR --5313C

1 Nay BuMed , ATTN: 713

1 NavHeI(copte rSubSq ua 2. FPO SF 96601

I AFI-IRI. (FT( Williams AFB

1 AFHRL (IT) Lowry AFB

1 AFHRL (AS) WPAFB . OH

2 AFHRL (DOJZ) Brooks AFB

1 AFHRL (00*1) Lackland AFB

1 HOUSAF (INYSD)

1 HQUSAF (DPXXA)

1 AFVTG (AD) Randolph AFB

3 AMRL(HE)WPAFB , OH

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

1 ATC IXPTDI Randol ph AFB

1 USAF AeroMerl Lih , Brooks AFB (SUL~~4(. ATTN: DOC SEC

1 AFOSR (NLI . Arli ngton

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

1 Air Force Academy, CO. ATTN: Dept of Bef Scn

5 NavPers & Dcv Ctr . San Diego

‘

2 Navy Med Neuropsych uatric Rsch Unit . San Diego

1 Nay Electronic Lab . San Diego , A T’TN: Ret Lab

1 Nay TriiqCurn . San Diego , ATTN : Code 9000—Lib

I NavPostGraSch . Mo nteiry. ATIN: Code 55Aa

I NavPostGr aSch , Monterey, ATTN; Code 2124

1 Nav lrngEquipC tr , Orlando , ATTN: Tech Lib

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

1 US Dept of Justice , DC, ATTN: Drug Enforce Admin

I Nat Bur of Standards , DC, ATIN: Computer Info Section

1 Nat Clearing House for MH Into , Rockvi lhe

1 Denver Federal Cm , Lakewood . ATTN: BLM

12 Detente Document ation Center

4 Dir Psyds . Army Ha. Russell Otcs . Canberra

1 Scientific Advtr , Mil Bd , Army Hq, Russell Ofct . Canberr a

I (4.1 and Air Attache . Austrian Embassy

1 Centre ~~ Recherche Des Fac(eurs , Humaine de Ia Defense

National, , Bruist efs

2 Canadian Joi nt Staff Was hir ugron

1 C/Air Staff , Royal Canadian AF , ATTN: Pert Std Anal Br

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

4 Ri r, ch Oct Staff , British Ernbasay , Washi ngton

14

‘5 /

~~~~~~~~~ - 

- -- 

-.