RESEARCH NOTE 86-02

The Perception of Need for Counseling

Among Successful Infantry OSUT Trainees and TDP Attrites

James E. Schroeder and Marvin E. Grunzke

Mellonics Systems Development Division

Litton Systems, Inc.

Charles J. Slimowicz, Jr., Edward Kemery, and Beverly Williams

ARI Field Unit at Fort Benning, Georgia

Training Research Laboratory

DTIC

"j U.S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

JANUARY 1986

Arpoved bor oulic release. diStribultoi- mnl ~ed.

86 6

.'.,.... .o:. ,.;.,,',.'..,....'. :- ;. .- . ..... ................. ,...........,, ,.',...
US. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

WM. DARRYL HENDERSON

EDGAR M. JOHNSON COL, IN

Technical Director Commanding

Research accomplished under contract

for the Department of the Army

Mellonics Systems Development Division, Litton Systems, Inc.

Technical review by

Jack M. Hicks

Michael G. Sanders

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

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

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

Service INTIS). The vitws. vpini'.ns. and/or findings contained in this report are those of the author~sl and

should not be construe, as an officia, Lopattmemr of the Army position. policy, or decision, unless so designated by other official documentation.

i '* %
UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION Of THIS PAGE (Whon Dots Enee4

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BFRE INTUTOS

1. R9,PORT NUMBER 2.GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPiENTS CATALOG NUM99ft

ARI Research Note 86-02 A , Is __________

4. TITLE (an~d Subttle) S. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

THE PERCEPTION OF NEED FOR COUNSELING AMONG

SUCCESSFUL INFANTRY OSUT TRAINEES AND TDP ATTRITES

S. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTMOR(.J S. CONdTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER'e)

James E. Schroeder, Marvin E. Grunzke (Litton Systems, Inc.) and Charles J. Slimowicz, Jr., Edward MDA-903-80-C-0345

Kemery, and Beverly Williams (A.R.I.)______________

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS I0. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT. TASK

Mellonics Systems Development Division, LittonARA OKUINMER

Systems, Inc., P.O. Box 2498, 2Q162722A791

Fort Benning, Georgia 31905

11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS I2. REPORT DATEt

ART Field Unit at Fort Benning, Georgia January 1986

P.O. Box 2086, 13. NUMBER OF PAGES

Fort Benning, GA 31905 94

4. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & AODRESS(iI dillfent hoot Controlilng Office) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (91 t0e eP-11)

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral Unclassified

and Social Sciences, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue,

Alexandria, VA 22333-5600 It. DECL ASSI F1CATION/ DOWNGRADING

SCHEDUILE

1S. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of Cia Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

* 17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of I. abstract entered In Blck 20. f d~fferstit boo, Repo"t)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

* Frederick N. Dyer,. contracting officer's representative.

19. KEY WORDS (Conltinue onl revee side iof noceeawand identify by block number)

At tri tion

Attribution

Counseling

Training Discharge Program (TDP)

2ft ANTRAC? (Cotoe sm reverse &M* of neoeemy v mI denify by block nawnbot)

The purpose of this research was to determine the need for counseling among

One Station Unit Training (OSUT) soldiers, their preferred counselors, and the

types of problems they encounter. Two populations were given structured interviews: successful soldiers graduating from OSUT (n = 149) and Training Discharge

Program (TDP) attrites (n = 57). Both groups agreed that a substantial amount of

counseling is currently provided, that even more counseling is needed, and that

there is a greater need for performance counseling than personal ~(~er

FOM W3 EDITION OF INMOV 6SIS OBSOLETE NLASFD

iSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 1,111 PAGE (Wheni Date Entered)
.L-rL - k- NN-.

StCVRITV CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Wam Dots Euitrndj0

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ DISTRUCTIONS

BEFORE COMPLETIG FORM

1RCPORT NUM1ER 3. GOVT ACCESSION NO. S. RECIPIENTS$ CATALOG NUMBER

4. TITLE (and Sbuo* .T9O EOR EIO OEE

6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHORg'.) D. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUNSER(e)

S. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND) ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMEN4T. PROJECT. TASK

AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS

11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

12. NUMBER or PAGES

14. MONITORING AGENCY N AME 6 ADDRESS(gg dilfareit buee Contr'oling Office) 1S, SECURITY CLASS. (of hI%# reporl)

It. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of Ois Report)

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of 0s, abotrocg entere In Block *.it different Rosem Aepeui)

18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

It. KEY WORDS (Conftnue en revoee side it necessary and Identify by block rnumber)

21 ABSTRACT Maintme revsei ok If neoee ad Ideawfop by block nuibe,)

DO 1J " 43 COISION OF I NOV 65 IS OSSOLIETE

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF TrutS PAGE (When Data Entred)

- ~ ~ ~ y %. . . .- ..
UNCLASSIFIED

SCURIT% CLASSIFICATION OF T1N1S PAGE(Mb Dae Emem4

ARI Research Note 86-02

20. Abstract (continued)

counseling. Also, the frequency of occurence and preferred counselor varied from

problem to problem. Personal interviews with the TDP attrites after the

structured interviews indicated that the attrites were not a homogeneous group,

something often assumed in studies of attrition. Finally, there was evidence

that psychological bias due to success or failure affected the results of the

interview: attrites reported a higher incidence of "more socially acceptable"

problems, whereas successful OSUT graduates reported a higher incidence of "less

socially acceptable" problems. The results are discussed in terms of implications for Army counseling, counselor training, and studies of attrition.

..5

.5'

Q.

UNCLASSIFIED

SuRCUmTV CLASSIFICATION OF TI41S PAGEiMen Dee. £nItred)
RESEARCH NOTE 86-02

ition of Need for Counseling

'Successful Infantry 0' 1 ainees and TDP Attrites

James E. Schroeder and Marvin E. Grunzke

Mellonics Systems Development Division

Litton Systems, Inc.

Charles J. Slimowicz, Jr., Edward Kemery, and Beverly Williams

ARI Field Unit at Fort Benning, Georgia

Frederick N. Dyer, Contracting Officer's Representative

Submitted by

Seward Smith, Chief

ARI Field Unit at Fort Benning, Georgia

Approved as technically adequate

and submitted for publication by

Harold F. O'Neil, Jr., Director

Training Research Laboratory

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

JANUARY 1986

Army Project Number Manning and Maintaining the Force

20162722A791

ApWprwovd for public r0Mae; distibution unlimited

-' ili 1*~
ARI Research Reports and Technical Reports are intended for sponsors of

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

for implementation at the time of publication are presented in the last 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.

I.

a..

or- Accesion •F--

NTeS DTIC TAB CRAQl 3

Justif Unarlnounced ication ..... 2 .......... .. ,

Distributior, By

:

Availab;'ty code

DistS Avail .1;d Ior

eca

iv

..
THE PERCEPTION OF NEED FOR COUNSELING AMONG SUCCESSFUL OSUT TRAINEES AND TDP

ATTRITES: AN ATTRIBUTIONAL ANALYSIS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Requirement:

To Ovaluate the current need for counseling among successful One Station

Unit Training (OSUT) trainees and Training Discharge Program (TDP) attrites.

To evaluate which problems occur more frequently and the preferred counselors

for those problems. To determine whether psychological biases due to success

or failure could subtly influence the results of interview data.

Procedure:

Structured interviews were given to 149 successful trainees and 57 TDP

attrites. The interview was designed to evaluate the current needs for both

performance and personal counseling and whether those needs are being met.

The interview also assessed the frequency of various types of problems and

who the trainees preferred as counselors for those problems.

Embedded in the interview was an experiment designed to determine whether

subtle psychological biases might be influencing the results of the interviews.

More specifically, according to Attribution Theory, such subtle biases might

exist simply due to the success (successful trainees) or failure (TDP attrites)

of the person being interviewed. If so, post-success or post-failure data

should be interpreted with caution.

Less formal unstructured interviews were given to the TDP attrites in

an effort to gain insights into the nature of the TDP population and to try

to determine if more counseling might have prevented the discharge.

Findings:

o Both groups (OSUT successes and TDP attrites) felt that there is

currently a substantial amount of both performance and i- £sonal counseling

provided.

o Both groups felt that more performance and personal counseling is

needed.

o Both groups expressed a relatively higher need for more feedback

about how they were doing (i.e. performance counseling) than for personal

counseling.

v
o As would be expected, results indicated a large range in frequency%

of occurrence for the 22 selected problems.

o As would be expected, results indicated that preference for counselor

was dependent on type of problem.

o There was an indication that psychological bias might have influenced

some of the results of the interviews, i.e. TDP attrites reported a higher incidence of "more socially acceptable" problems than "less socially acceptable"

problems while the successful trainees indicated the opposite. This fact

should serve as a cautionary note for future research efforts where postsuccess or post-failure data are being collected. However, it certainly

* should not preclude collecting such potentially valuable data.

o Scientists interviewing the TDP attrites reported a high degree of

* heterogeneity both in reasons for being discharged and personality traits

of the TDP group. On a subjective basis, interviewers were able to distinguish

two major categories of attrites. The existence of such heterogeneity makes

* prediction of the potential attrite extremely difficult.

* Utilization:

Although it is questionable whether providing more counseling in OSUT

would substantially reduce attrition, it is certainly true that trainees

expressed a strong need for more performance and personal counseling, and

providing more counseling would probably significantly increase morale. Also,

the information presented in this report has significant implications for Army

counselors in the OSUT setting. Knowledge of which problems occur most frequently and who the preferred counselors are should assist the Army counselor

in deciding which counseling approaches are most appropriate. Similarly, such

information should assist Army trainers in deciding which methods of counseling

best fit a given Program of Instruction. The heterogeneous nature of the TDP

population has important implications for military scientists attempting to

predict potential attrites. Analysis of the TDP population is necessary to

decide which type of individual is most readily predicted. Finally, the

evidence of psychological bias due to the effects of success or failure should

serve as a caution for all investigators working in the attrition area.

vi
THlE PERCEPTION OF NEED FOR COUNSELING MONG SUCCESSFUL INFANTRY OSUT

TRAINEES AND TDP ATTRITES

CONTENTS V

Page

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

METHOD....................................................... 3

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .......................................... 3

Need for Counseling..................................... 3

Personal Counseling ................................... 3

Performance Counseling ................................ 5

Most Frequent Problems.................................. 10

Counselor Preference.................................... 10

Attrition and Reported Problem Frequency ................. 15

Attrite Heterogeneity................................... 17

General Discussion...................................... 21

*REFERENCES................................................... 24

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Results of Structured Interview .................... 25

LIST OF FIGURES

*Figure 1: Counselor Preference ................................ 14

* Figure 2: Frequency of Occurrence for Successful

Trainees and TDP Attrites ........................... 18

Figure 3: Frequency of Occurrence for Successful

Trainees and Attrite Groups ......................... 22

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Personal Counseling................................ 4

*Table 2: Performance Counseling .............................. 6-7

Table 3: Need for More Friendly Advice and

Need for More Direct Feedback ....................... 8

Vii
F. Wr

Table 4: Amount of Friendly Advice and Amount 1

of Direct Feedback ................................. 9

Table 5: Frequency of Problems (Successful Trainees) ......... 11

Table 6: Frequency of Problems (TDP Attrites) ................ 12

Table 7: Problem Areas in which Significant Differences

were found between Successful Trainees and

TDP Attrites....................................... 13

Table 8: Ratings of Social Acceptability by Independent

Non-trainee Raters ................................. 16

Table 9: The Attrition Categories ............................ 20

Vii
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

* Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

WIM. DARRYL HENDERSON

EDGAR M. JOHINSONCLN

* l~iccwrCommanding Tccnica 

* Research accomplished under contract

* for the Department of the Army

- Mellonics Systems Development Division, Litton Systems, Inc.

* Technical review by

* Jack M. Hicks

* Michael G. Sanders

* This report, as submitted by the contractor, has been cleared fer release to Defense Technical Information Center

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

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

Service (NTIS). The vitws. apini#.ns. and/or findings contained in this report are those of the author(s) and

should not be construet! as an ofliciv; C'epaitmer4 of the Army position, policy, or decision, unless so designated

- by other off icial documentation.
'ILK -%A -wp

INTRODUCTION

Background

Attrition in the Armed Forces has become a primary concern, especially

since the creation of the All Volunteer Force (AVF) in 1973. According to

information found in a General Accounting Office Report (1980), first term

attrition increased from 30% to 40% in the period 1971-1974. According to DOD's

* comments on the report, part of the increase was due to the fact that had high

attrition been allowed during the draft era, it would have undermined the

integrity of the draft system. Not only does high attrition represent a

* significant government expenditure with little or no return (an estimated $5.2

billion between 1974 and 1977), but there also may be significant personal costs

for the individuals leaving the Armed Forces. Since nearly 90% of all DOD male r

attrition is estimated to occur in the first enlistment period (60% of Army

attrition in the first year for 1977), there is serious concern about the

possible adverse affects on the young American who fails to complete what is

likely to be one of his or her first adulthood challenges.

Because of its importance, the attrition problem is currently being

attacked in a number of ways (see Goodstadt and Yedlin, 1980, for a review of

* the recent literature). From a management standpoint, questions are being asked

concerning the organization's role in controlling attrition (e.g., should there

be imposed ceilings on the amount of attrition). From a psychological and

sociological standpoint, attempts are being made to predict the potential

* attrite so that he or she might be screened out at the recruitment stage.

Efforts are being made to effectively enhance incentives (salary, bonuses,

benefits, living quarters, etc.) and morale factors (recognition for

accomplishments, attempts to increase esprit de corps, etc.). Much of this is

probably due directly to the need to make the military competitve with private

enterprise in order to man the force (see Moskos, 1978).

The purpose of the present paper is to investigate the need for and extent

of counseling in the difficult period of adjustment represented by basic

training. More specifically, the need for counseling, amount of counseling,

locus of counseling, and frequency of problems were investigated in two trainee

* populations: successful trainees graduating from Infantry OSUT (One Situation

Unit Training), and TDP (Training Discharge Program) attrites.

* Objectives

The present research represents efforts to answer five questions dealing

with counseling in the OSUT setting. The first question simply addressed the

* current need for counseling among OSUT trainees. Since the Army distinguishes

between personal counseling (e.g., when a soldier is having a personal problem),

* and performance counseling (e.g., providing positive or negative feedback on
a performance task), attempts were made to assess the need for both of these

types of counseling.

The second question dealt with types of problems that occur in the OSUT

setting. If there is a need for counseling, it would be extremely useful

to determine which problems are most frequently encountered. For example,

Programs of Instruction for NCO counseling and/or Chaplain counseling might

be constructed so that more frequently occurring problems would receive

more instructional weighting.

The third question concerned the OSUT trainees' preferred counselor.

Knowing who the trainee would prefer to talk to would be useful for two

reasons. First, from an organization standpoint, the most preferred counselor (e.g., Drill Sergeant, Chaplain, First Sergeant, etc.) might be made

available for counseling during designated periods, or relieved of some other

assignment in order to concentrate on counseling. Second, counseling training

for a given MOS might be weighted according to the kind of counseling problem

that is most likely to be encountered. For example, why give Drill Sergeants

extensive training on counseling family problems if trainees clearly prefer

to talk with the Chaplain about family problems?

The fourth question dealt with the differences in perception that the two

populations (successful trainees and TDP's might have about counseling. Do

differences in attitude between successful trainees and TDP attrites represent

true differences? Do they represent dispositional differences in the two

groups? Or, are they merely results of success and failure? Attribution

theorists (see Weiner, Frieze, Kukla, Reed, Rest, and Rosenbaum, 1972), have

shown that explanations of a success/failure situation depend heavily on the

individual you ask. Typically, the person who fails will attribute his

failure to situational variables beyond his control. For example, the attrite

might attribute the TDP to the system, the Drill Sergeant, etc. (situational);

not his own problem (dispositional). The successful trainee might have quite

a disparate view of the TDP. In fact, according to Attribution Theory, he

would be more likely to have the opposite explanation [i.e., he is a loser

and it was his fault (dispositional); it was not the system (situational)].

* The major point is that whenever the perceptions of succeeding and failing

populations are being assessed, the subtle biases of the populations involved

must be taken into account.

The fifth question dealt with the nature of the TDP population. Attempts

to predict the attrite have often failed to realize that attrites represent a

heterogeneous, rather than homogeneous population. Some studies have concentrated only on the TDP attrite, but even with the TDP population there may be

great differences in the personality, background, and reason for being

discharged. The final purpose of the present research was to assess the

homogeneity of the TDP population. If heterogeneity exists, then future

attempts to predict the TDP attrite must take this fact into account and

specify which type of TDP attrite their instrument predicts.

2

-i

............. ""....... ,''''','? :'I- -?-. :'"" : :" ", ' :.-:-:: :
METHOD

In order to provide input for answers to the five questions posed,

structured interviews were given to a group of successful trainees (n-149) the

day before graduation, and a group of attrites (N-57) being discharged under the

Training Discharge Program. The successful trainees came from the Alpha and

Delta companies, Sixth Battalion, Infantry Training Brigade at Fort Benning

(July - August 1980). Of the various attrition categories, the TDP population

was selected because it represents a rubstantial portion of all attrition (92%

of all OSUT attrition at Fort Benning ) and because the TDP attrites were

accessible. The TDP trainees were interviewed as available from all eight

battalions of the Infantry Training Brigade at Fort Benning (August 1980 - March

1981).

Both samples were given the same structured interview. The administration

of the interview was different for the two samples because of the difference in

availability of the two groups. The successful trainees were available in two

large groups on separate days. The TDP attrites were available on an

individual basis over a period of several months. All other dimensions of the

interview were made as similar as possible. Both groups were first given

Privacy Act statements. The purpose of the interview was explained to both

groups. For both groups, the questions were read aloud and the trainees circled

their response choice. A total of 70 questions were asked in the structured

interview. Five questions dealt with amount of or need for personal counseling.

Ten questions dealt with amount of or need for performance counseling. There

were questions about frequency of occurrence and preferred counselor for 22

different topic areas. Finally, there were 11 questions to assess the trainees'

knowledge of existing counseling sources. The trainees typically required 10-15

minutes to complete the structured interview. Following the structured

interviews, the TDP attrites were given an additional personal interview. The

purpose of this interview was to further the understanding of the nature of the

TDP attrite population. In this interview, TDP attrites were individually asked

more general questions about why they were being discharged, how they felt about

the discharge, whether they had intentionally done things to get discharged,

whether the Army was what they expected, etc. Four interviewers were involved

in the data collection: a male research psychologist, a male R&D coordinator, a

female psychology graduate student, and a male psychology graduate student. The

personal interviews lasted approximately 10-20 minutes.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Need for Counseling

Personal counseling. Personal counseling is defined as providing help to a

soldier experiencing a personal problem. Table 1 shows the mean frequency

rating of both groups for three of the questions pertaining to personal

counseling. Detailed results of the structured interview as well as all

specific questions can be found in Appendix A for the successful trainees

(Column 1) and TDP attrites (Column 2). The TDP attrites indicated a

significantly higher frequency of need for personal counseling than successful

trainees (Question 1). However, both groups indicated a relatively low

frequency need. There was no difference in the two groups when asked how frequently the other soldiers encountered personal problems (Question 6). When

asked if the Army

lFor the period I Jan 81 to 30 Sep 81.

3
- CO .-- t

j C CL. 4) 

-1%

0 00

0' =

0 0 L 0 0-

>- 0) -4 0 0 C-. m A -> .L -

m 0 4

4)*0 0- $ -0i 

4.4 4.) C.

o % NO)*cmr

-. 4 Cc- 1-4 V44 0

e ) 0 WO_4 CU

&0 CL QL 0. 0 V

,-40 to0 00.L in U

CU~~-4 C .0 ) V) L. V0r.00) 41-

G -4E 0

o 0. 0 0 m0

U) ) L ) oU .1c5

0) .1) Css C.) .C.

0..~ 00) Q~ 

0 0. 0)

60 (U io) ,-IEn 

wC C~C 0)9

CY 0 l 0 Or.q W
should provide a better way of getting advice about personal problems (Question

10), a high percent of both groups agreed (78% for the successful trainees and

89% for the TDP attrites).

Performance counseling. Performance counseling is defined as providing

feedback information about performance on some task. In order to assess the

need for performance counseling a number of questions were asked. Table 2

presents results for eight performance counseling questions. When asked if

the Army should tell soldiers more about how they are doing (Question 11), a

* high percentage of both groups indicated "yes" (93% for both). The trainees

were also asked how frequently their Drill Sergeants talked to individuals

privately about how they were doing (Question 3 and 8); how often the Drill

Sergeants talked to individuals in front of a group about how they were doing

(Questions 4 and 9); and how often the Drill Sergeant had talked to the group

about how the group was doing (Question 5). There were no significant

differences between the successful trainees and TDP attrites on any of these

questions. The general pattern for both populations, was (in decreasing order

of frequency of occurrence), Drill Sergeant counseling the whole group, Drill

Sergeant counseling a single trainee in the presence of the group, and Drill

Sergeant counseling an individual soldier in private.

There was a relatively high need for seeking information in both groups.

When asked how frequently they (Question 2), or the other trainees (Question

7), had needed to ask someone about something they needed to know, the mean

responses in both cases were between "Occasionally" and "Often."

Apart from type of counseling, trainees were asked what mode of

counseling should be provided (i.e., friendly advice or more authoritarian

directed feedback). Table 3 shows the results of four questions designed to

assess the perceived need for the two modes of counseling. It would be easy

to infer from Table 3 (Question 14 and 15) that there is at present very little

counseling occurring in OSUT. However, Table 4 (Questions 16 and 17) shows

the same groups' responses to questions concerning incidence of both types

of counseling. In three of four cases (the fourth being 49.19%), a majority

* of trainees reported that the Army was providing a lot of counseling. It is

difficult to imagine many (if any) of the public or private educational

institutions doing this well in making counseling available. The picture

emerging is that the Army is currently providing a substantial amount of

friendly advice and direct feedback, but that more is needed.

One checklist was included to assess the trainees' knowledge of what

types of counseling are available to soldiers (see Appendix A, Question 18).

The list contained nine types of counseling which are available and two which

are not (Skinnerian and Investment). The mean number of times legitimate

counseling sources were correctly identified was 5.25 for the successful

trainees and 4.38 for the TDP's. Although this difference was significant

[t(202)=2.129, 25.05J, it probably simply reflects a response bias since the

successful trainees also had a significant greater number of false alarms,

* where nonexistent counseling sources were identified [t(202)=2.124, p <.051.

5 "
w CY

Lc% %0

-31N 40 oc

W~ =

U y ~ N- o co

Cl) = .) -4 cod 4

0 V 3- N. - C

C 0 ap-4 .% n > G

40 0o X S. 1 ~ 0 -li cC cc 00 4) a4U -) 4P 4)

o to 0) C)~ -. 0. 0

OC.) (C) - 0 0 >1A :b% >,U G) 1

40 to'- V L '4 0

4) 0) L C

2~r 4 Q. 0.C U) ) 0 i 0 - 4)0 0 0~ ~ CC% -4) 0 ) 4 rU..S. U)0 .. Ui.

S. Cf 0 0 0 = . 0

0 i.. S 0 0.. 0 1.. mC a to dc5 .- 4 Ci -444)

00 W.4 C -I*. C . a)C L.i 0 *.m0 0 .40 0 - ~ . 0 tio o C c -b m 0.-I- M.4(V *- 0 4r4 c GoA >. =n & .) .% -0 4. U. u-I U 6 U

0) 001 i . 0 L i >- 8 .59 0 to1.

0 ap V) -4 > 1 -4 > U >

=. u4a)- 0 t.4) 0 4) 0c L a

ce >'d 00 2:1 0 0

.0 - @. 1. U C Clco' ~ 0. Z4. Z....

z 7

0

Of =1E
C.) t tt

1of if0

-ICI

-) W 10 0m LA) m

L) - N M cenn

-J

L)-IU u 0NCYl

Go 0 (Y'

m 4

0 to 444) % 4. - cm W. 0 .4d 00 .

4. 0) 0)-0 4 

Q "a4 00 0 0) 0 41~ C

eq: 0 4) N Vn a. >b n >b> 4)> NO 0). N.. mL CL. L 0-f . o L.. u) 0- 4) m. 0 ~0 0 w. 0_ OC . 06.) WU. 4

(UL)-N = 1 410CC 0C 4

CA 0) 4)0 .- c 0o m 0) --. -T4 U4) 44= S m) 0 C..- 04 00go.

&0 q)t 0 0 0UV)- 0 "U 0 Wm L) .0 0

0 Q U) 1- * =- 0 e-I to 0l UC.0 ui0. r-4 >b 0 1-4 0 0. 0 U =-4 cc 2.00 w ( Ll (U .-I 0) Q I0 Q L,.m -4 c 011 m c r-4 4)u -4 0 . 0 4c V 0 .00

U) 931. U) O r- .. ) 0 cCr U) VS.- (U 0 .0 mU ) ( 0 0 (Um C.u C) ) 00 to )0- 0 4)W v 0u '- co .4 e 40 0 .C 0 4.) 0 9 0 4) 0.-I 2 0)C' U) C~.U) 0 c 20 1

= QC 1-4 0 ..- 4 0U)C r M- V1)0 U .0.--f 4 a V44 0 In m IC G 0 .(a'. 0 1. 0 L C : 1- Lcm L.N S. N Q o 0 cU 0 (U ~ 00 (U 0 (U 0 0 .0 4)) 4~.

0- 4)( 4) 0 2

~~~,~~ 006 V 4 4.

0 20 0 >- - Q- >o 0 Q.0 d 0 OS. 0D ..- D 0 0110 0)

f- La

M cc

o

cyp
d4 P dP dP d

co 0 Lfl

fn

'~ -4 I

*,4 U -4

dp dP pd

ZR4J N (N L

> 4 (- N -4 (

U

4)r o p dP dP dP E- 4 ) 0 Ln LI)r- >4 U 0 0 E

M x04 OD r- N N' z H 0

44 U

0 r-4W 44

U) a) c A a)r

;- u- r4 - U H~ 0 0) 04rc

a z

00

-4. Cx > U) d 0 0>.

>1 0 a

-4T Lf 4J.1N

>1 M -4 U) *E 4J -4 ( -1

$4 ~ D~ -4G) W i-c

41W .- 4 04

D)j. -a)0.- r-4

( 0 U 0 0 -.4

-4 a) 40

0 (a) w ) Q)

41 . -4 r. 
 - -- - -- W. W .4 . ;z r r fl w

0

4.) dP dP dP dP

m Sn 

0)

01

~4 -4 dP dP cP dP

0 ) N ON4 

rU

0)

,a -4 -4 sIP sP sIP d

0. s: Lj 

4 -I 0 f nm C

a4

0o 0 z

U- '00 -4 %0dP C.'d H . 0~ a) -4

-t 04Ea s-4 -4 

~ I-4

0 0.. (n~ r U Q

E- EA' 'M E-U E

0 0)

010

0

Q) -4 r= 

C) fu 4 -

ON a t >-4.

-4 -4 4J ) 4

0)14 41 cO x a

v ' a)

444 uU. 04

94

~ ,--.*...-* *.*-....-...*.- S.*S...-..----.. *.* -*...0
J.-

These data suggest that various counseling outlets might be explained to

trainees in more detail. However, it is impossible to determine whether the

trainees were not adequately informed, failed to learn the information, or

failed to remember the information.

Most Frequent Problems

All trainees were asked to rate 22 problems on frequency of occurrence

for other members of their unit (see Appendix A, Question 12 for a listing of

the problem areas). They were not asked about frequency of their own problems

because of the defensiveness that such phrasing might create, and also in

order to give both groups a common reference group. The 22 problems were

selected with the help of counselors, Army Officers, and OSUT Drill Sergeants.

At the end of this section of the interview, the trainees were also asked to

suggest any other type of problem they had observed. Out of 204 trainees,

only one trainee offered a suggestion, so the list was apparently fairly

comprehensive.

Table 5 shows a rank ordering of the mean frequency ratings for the

successful trainees. The mean ratings ranged from 3.98 (the semantic

"equivalent" to 4.0 is "Often"), to 2.06 (the semantic "equivalent" to 2.0 is

* "Rarely"). Table 6 presents a rank ordering of the mean frequency ratings for

* the TDP attrite group (for more detailed information on frequency ratings for

* both groups, see Appendix A). There were some interesting differences in the

perceptions of problem frequency for the two groups. Some of these

differences will be discussed in more detail in a later section of the paper.

Table 7 shows a list of the problems in which significant differences were

found between the two groups. There were a total of 13 significant

* differences within the 22 problem areas. By chance, one would expect 1.1

* significant differences. In order to secure an estimate of the consistency of

rating, the 149 successful trainees were randomly divided in half and a

correlation was computed on the mean frequency ratings for the two halves.

The correlation of mean problem frequency, for the two halves of the

successful trainee group, was r=.94, suggesting fairly high agreement within

the successful trainee group. In contrast, the correlation of the mean

frequency ratings for the successful group and the TDP attrite group was r=.41.

Counselor Preference

All trainees from both samples were asked to indicate their preferred

counselor for the 22 problems. The seven alternatives were: one of the other

soldiers in your group, your Drill Sergeant, your First Sergeant, the

Chaplain, a Drill Sergeant in another company, someone else here at the Fort, and no one. Figure 1 shows the overall counselor preference for both trainee

groups. There was general agreement between the two groups with regard to

overall preferred counselors. The only significant differences in preference

for counselor between the two groups were for "someone else here at the Fort,"

(z=4.38, 2<.0001), and "no one", (z=2 .95, p<.01). In general, the Drill

Sergeants were the most preferred, followed by "one of the other soldiers in

10
Table 5

FREQUENCY OF PROBLEMS

Successful Trainees

Rank Order, Mean Problem

1 3.98 Money

2.5 3.39 Being unable to take orders

*2.5 3.39 Other trainees

4 3.38 Not liking routine jobs

*5 3.28 Having to do "unimportant" jobs

6 3.25 Getting along in the Army

7 3.24 Alcohol abuse

8 3.10 Not knowing enough about life

9 3.00 Some of the drill sergeants

*10 2.99 Not wanting to be a soldier

*11 2.95 Becoming totally dedicated to the Army

12 2.80 Learning the new material

13 2.64 Physical fitness

14 2.63 Health.

15 2.58 Learning basic Army tasks

16 2.54 Close personal friendships

*17 2.47 Fears

18. 5 2.36 Legal matters

18.5 2.36 Family

20 2.31 Recreational activities

21 2.17 Parents p

22 2.06 Religious beliefs
- iYWYWY..... ... . ,-~ 

Table 6

FREQUENCY OF PROBLEMS

TDP Attrites

Rank Order Mean Problem

1 3.62 Having to do "unimportant" jobs

2 3.46 Some of the drill sergeants

3.5 3.33 Money

3.5 3.33 Other trainees

5 3.31 Not liking routine jobs

*6 3.30 Physical fitness

7 3.16 Learning the new material

8 3.07 Getting along in the Army

9 3.06 Family

*10 3.04 Learning basic Army tasks I

11 3.00 Becoming totally dedicated to the Army

*12 2.98 Recreational activities

-13 2.96 Not 'wanting to be a soldier

*14 2.91 Fears

15 2.87 Close personal friendships

*16 2.71 Health

*17 2.69 Parents

is1 2.66 Not knowing enough about life

19 2.47 Being unable to take orders

-20 2.41 Relicqious beliefs

*21 2.33 Alcohol abuse

22 2.26 Legal matters

12

.............................................
P4

TABLE 7

PROBLEM AREAS IN WHICH SIGNIFICANT

DIFFERENCES WERE FOUND BETWEEN SUCCESSFUL TRAINEES

AND TDP ATTRITES -."

Problem Mean Mean t

(Successful Trainee) (TDP)

Being unable to take orders 3.39 2.62 4.31***

Religious beliefs 2.06 2.41 -1.96*

Some of the drill sergeants 3.00 3.46 -2.52*

Learning the new material 2.80 3.16 -2.15*

Learning basic Army tasks 2.58 3.04 -2.58**

Money 3.98 3.33 3.26**

Fears 2.47 2.91 -2.47*

Parents 2.17 2.69 -2.80**

Physical fitness 2.64 3.30 -4.00***

Not knowing enough about life 3.10 2.66 2.07*

Alcohol abuse 3.24 2.33 4.12***

Family 2.36 3.06 -3.94***

Recreational activities 2.31 2.08 -3.19**

* Pd. 05

** PC. 01

** P-. 001

13
2 2

£Z

00. 0

£00I

0 C

I.-~

4I -W

z

0

U0

-J L"

>I

m0

=00
your group." the Chaplain, and First Sergeant. Less than 10% preference went to

each of the other counselors. (For details on which counselors were preferred

for the 22 problem areas, see Appendix A, Question 13).

Attribution and Reported Problem Frequency

It was predicted that some amount of disagreement between the two groups,

* would occur just because of the simple fact that one group had failed and one

group had succeeded (sour grapes and/or sweet lemons). it is a well known

psychological fact that reasons given for failing depend on the individual

giving the reason. The person failing will typically have a good reason for the

failure (e.g., it's not me, it is Just this situation), while observers may have

quite different accounts (e.g., it's not the situation, it's Just him or her).

For example, consider the significant difference that was found between attrites

and successful trainees on the question concerning need for more personal

counseling, to what extent was the attrite saying "it wasn't me, they just

didn't provide me with enough counseling," and/or to what extent is the

*successful trainee saying "I made it because of my strength; the other guy

didn't make it because of his weaknesses?" In summary, one must be careful with

post hoc interview data in cases where success or failure are involved. In

areas where there is general agreement between the two groups, there is little

problem interpreting results. However, in areas where there is a discrepancy,

* interpretation becomes difficult. For example, consider using the results of

the present research to choose problem topics for inclusion in a Drill Sergeant

counseling course. Should one concentrate more on the problems that the TDP

attrites indicate are most frequent (since they are presumably the group with

the problems), and run the risk that those aren't actually the real problems

that come up, but rather the best sounding reasons? or, should one select the

problems that the successful trainees cite (since their perspective is less

- biased), and run the risk that you really aren't-getting at the true problems?

In order to assess the influence of consistency needs and/or attribution

principles on the trainees' attitudes, and hence on the present results, an

experiment was programmed Into the interview. A group of 11 Army Research

Institute (ARI) personnel were asked to rate the 22 problem topics from Question

12 of the structured interview for social acceptability. Two of the ARI

personnel were female secretaries, one was a female research psychologist, two

were ARI military personnel, and six were male research psychologists. The ARI

personnel were asked to imagine that they had been discharged from the Army and

were explaining to a friend back home. Would they feel good about giving the

* reason, or not? The results are found in Table 8. The problems have been rank

4 ordered for social acceptability. The 22 problem topics were split in half so

that the 11 which were judged to be the most socially acceptable problems

composed one level of social acceptability (high), and the 11 topics which were

judged to be less socially acceptable problems composed the second level of

social acceptability (low). Attribution theory would predict that attrites

* would probably have a tendency to describe their problem in more socially

* acceptable terms in order to justify their departure. The successful trainees

* would be likely to be either more honest about the actual

15
C7.

. 0 Q c 00

1 0) J 4 - V I *00 

0- .0 0 0) 0) ( a 14 U$ 

4.S~~ 0. El 4 S. C1 q) ~ 0 X w - P Z$ 41 0 .,4 0 AU va 1 0 4 r-4

(1 00 Cu.C Qu 0 0 Cu cc 01 0 C: o4- .- q1 c!) .14 0 vj L .0 0- " w -:! >0 0~C $4 C0 ..-4.0U

&j o4.C 10 - x .1 V- r. c .0

44 Fi *4 c,) 0 0 4 CtO U C0 

w 0 VJJ" W C4 c

V0 4C.4 000 Cu r_ .3 r- -4 0) w

CR l o.0 0 Q QI * .4-4 4 -4 .co fc E3 1 1 a O C) IV 4:tAo-.4 C) .0~ Cu.4 0 a) a 0 ) r -- I I.9M o 4.j .- 0 SOU-4 -4 0 w. -S..j oo'- "4f o w~14C .0 w 3. 4-b 1" 44I. F3 0.0 U0U 0 U1 4 :)C a O - 04. * U 0 > Q) - 0 - 0~ ~ U- 11 ~-0 4a Cutr-U) Cr4 w . 4-4 PZ-4~u c Cu

UUUz -40 0 O 0UOOV U I u UUO4 a)U 0 I0 m 440 0 W .0 $.00 m.W 0C00

00 1-4 P-4EM1-40 4 a 0-.- -.- 0 0 0 0 J0 -414 -

03 r 4

To w w wo T o 01444 w0 Z I 3:

0. A *m a"4(1 - v C0c ic

m

. ~ 4 C ~ 0 ~ ' -4~~ ~ ~ c 's 0

Cu4 .- 4-4 C4 C'C4

C,

4 0 

r- C Ili n 4.- - - 4 COe J -4I 0on~ -T ItI~ N c 0 Ne 'Ao 10 0 000 C: V .4 r-4W .4 -4 CA C4 I

CJ4

1. 01 

Aj;s to 1-00111I'l 1- -Tal* NO 01 * O , M161
problems or to describe the problems in less acceptable terms (possibly because

they hadn't run into any significant problems). The current analysis went one

step further and predicted that the attrites would describe the other trainees'

problems as more acceptable (possibly in order to help justify their leaving the

Army). On the other hand, successful trainees would describe the other

trainees' problems as more unacceptable (possibly because they hadn't

experienced any problems or possibly because they were being more honest). The

prediction was simply that the description of problems would be different for

the two groups (i.e., an interaction between trainee populations and social

acceptability). Note that if such differences should exist, there is no way (in

the present analysis) to know which group's opinions represent "truth" and which

group's opinions represent psychological bias. Theoretically, the TDP attrite's

perceptions would be more subject to bias due to the fact that he has more to

explain and Justify.

Figure 2 shows the predicted interaction. The dependent variable was the

mean frequency rating for the two levels of social acceptability which were

nested in the frequency of problems (Question 12) of the structured interview.

The predicted interaction was empirically supported. The TDP attrites reported

a higher frequency of more socially acceptable problems than less socially

acceptable problems relative to the successful trainees. An analysis of

variance was conducted with proportionate number of subjects (n (TDP) - 49, and

n (Successful) - 98) . Eight of the TDP subjects, and 15 of the successful

trainees were eliminated because of missing data. Another 36 of the successful

trainees were randomly discarded to achieve proportional sample sizes. The

predicted interaction was marginally significant [F (1,145) - 3.70, .05 <p<.06].

Neither of the main effects (groups or social acceptability), was significant

(F's<1.0).

Attrite Heterogeneity

In order to gain a better understanding of the TDP attrite population,

in-depth interviews were given following the structured interviews. These

interviews were unstructured. In order to predict attrition, one must have a

good understanding of the population being predicted. The homogeneity of the

predicted population is important. If the predicted population is homogeneous,

a single well constructed instrument might be adequate. However, if the

predicted population is heterogeneous, as Manning and Ingraham (1981) found in a

post-basic training population, then a more complex instrument with multiple

predictors would probably be required (one to predict each of the attrition

subsets). Too often in the past, prediction has been based on correlations for

the entire attrite population. If different types of attrites exist within the

TDP population, then typically low item-criterion correlations might be

partially explained.

In attempting to classify the TDP attrites, the interviewees' responses to

questions as well as any other non-verbal expressions of attitudes were used.

It should be emphasized that the resulting categories represent a very

preliminary "pilot" effort and that much more needs to be done (e.g., evaluate

the validity and reliability of the classification system).

17 S.*%.. : % * . I
,.

3.25

3.00

Perceived

Frequency of Successful Occurrence

(Mean Frequency Attrites

Rating on 5 Point

Scale)

2.75

A

A

2.50

More Less

"Socially Acceptable" "Socially Acceptable

Problems Problems

Figure 2. Frequency of Occurrence for Successful Trainees and TDP Attrites.

18 . a.
Based on the interviewers' evaluations, the TDP attrite population is

quite heterogeneous. One major division was between those trainees who were

"salvageable' in that they had no good reason for wanting to leave the Army

but nevertheless wanted to leave, and those who were "not salvageable"' in that

there were very good reasons for those individuals leaving the Army. Low

motivation and bad attitude would probably be the best descriptors of the

salvageable group. Another characteristic of this group was their attitude

toward the Army. Whether for real or psychological reasons (see the attribution section), these trainees had definitely soured in their attitude toward

* the Army. In general, they blamed the Army in one way or the other for misleading then or causing the problem. This group was salvageable to the extent

that some program or change in training might be able to change these trainees'

attitudes toward the Army. This group was also "salvageable"' in contrast to

the other major group in that most of the "not salvageable" group had justifiable

* personal reasons for being discharged, or problems over which the Army had little

or no control. Table 9 shows a breakdown of the two major categories (salvageable

and not salvageable), and the ten specific categories. The interviewers felt that

the salvageable group could be subdivided into two general categories (Code 1 and

Code 2). In general, the Code 1 group was unhappy with the Army because it was

harder than they thought. Many complained of psychosomatic symptoms (defined

* here as a complaint of physical problem for which the Army medical facility

found no evidence or too little to justify a medical discharge). They also

talked more about getting home to family and friends. on the other hand, the

Code 2 group seemed more hardened, street-wise, manipulative, and expressed in

more dramatic terms their dislike for the authority and discipline of military

life. Interestingly, over 35% of this group admitted intentionally doing

things to be discharged.

The 38.6% that fell in categories 3-10 were-felt to be unsalvageable in the

sense that there were good reasons for their being discharged (either on the part

of the Army or on the part of the individual). A certain amount of attrition

should be expected in any contemporary organization. Codes 3-5 were possibly

the result of deficiencies in the testing, classification or selection methods

used in the recruiting process. The Code 6 was an individual who wanted to stay

* in the Army, but said he had extreme pains in his back (pains which were not

judged by the Army medical facility to be sufficient for medical discharge and

* hence, labeled here as psychosomatic). The Code 7 problems were unfortunate

and certainly beyond the control of the Army or the individual. The Code 8

individuals might represent an inability to adjust, or the possible

* instability of the individual prior to entry. The Code 9 individuals were

being discharged because of drugs or alcohol. The Code 10 people were

apparently unable to reconcile military life with their religion (although

* this should be relatively rare in the AVF). With regard to reason for being

discharged, it is apparent that the TDP population is quite heterogeneous.

* The interviewers' objective evaluations from personal interviews also

indicated a heterogeneity of personality. Given the diverse nature of this

* sample of the predicted population, it is not difficult to understand why

19
0

-41

50 m

o r4 m

.4 0 C 0 ~ 0 I

4.) -m 4) -4-4 . c .0 1-4 .0 C7 .04 - m 0 .0 0 .,4 0 .) 0 Q I 0M L 1. 4.) %. -4 .0

46)~~ 0 ~ ~ b ~ >%V )00 -- 4 c

'1 06 4)'ja) .- 4 c (a 0 4 c -4 - 4 .

L. b= '4) Q '4 = .4) 0 cis a) t

0) 0 r- L. m m .. 1 . C_ : -4 0) 0 4) 4. 4) 41 (4 V) 4) 4) S- 41

0% cc

c LA%

.o0 O1l

= '-o -4 

41

L 0

I-aa

'40 -4 a 0 A V-- 0V 

0.44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Qu L) C- u U u u U u u u

TA

0'

ViV

ot

1 -4

LM) 41o

(U -420
attempts to predict attrites have not been extremely successful. It appears

that more extensive analyses of the TDP population are necessary in order to

more precisely specify the target group(s).

Since the Code 3-10 groups have more specific reasons for being discharged,

one would expect them to be less In conflict about leaving and, hence, more

likely to be consistent with successful trainees than their Code 1 and Code 2

counterparts with respect to frequency of counseling problems. In Attrition

terms, If there is a well defined reason for their being discharged (i.e., Codes

3-10), then the attrites will have less of a need for coming up with good

* sounding, socially acceptable counseling problems. If so, then Codes 3-10

* should have a perception of problems frequency more similar to successful

trainees than to their Code l and Code 2 TDP counterparts.

Figure 3 shows the predicted interaction. Codes I and 2 indicated a higher

incidence of more socially acceptable problems while Codes 3-10 and the

successful trainees indicated a higher incidence of less socially acceptable

problems. However, a 2 x 2 analysis (with proportional n's) for the two groups

(Codes 1 and 2 versus Codes 3-10), and type of problems (more socially

* acceptable and less socially acceptable), yielded no significant interaction

[F(1,43) -3.41, .05<p<.101. For details on how Codes 1, 2 and 3-10 responded

in the structured int-erview, see Appendix A (columns 3-6).

Some specific questions were nested within the unstructured interview.

Responses to these questions provided some interesting insights about the TDP

population. For example, 62.5% indicated that they had made the decision to

join the Army quickly. Also, 73.2% said the Army was not what they expected. A

majority (55.4%) said they preferred to be alone rather than in a group. The

preceding results are interesting and may lead to future research efforts.

However, they are very difficult to interpret since the successful trainee group

was not given the unstructured interview.

Seventy five percent of the TDP's reported they were happy about leaving

the Army. This figure is generally comparable to the 63% figure reported by

Orend, Stord, and Rosen (1977) for another sample. A number of attrites (19.6%)

reported intentionally misbehaving to get the TDP. When asked if more personal

counseling would have made a difference in receiving a TDP, 23.2% indicated the

affirmative. When asked if receiving more information about where they stood

and how they were doing would have made a difference in receiving the TDP, 39.3%

* indicated the affirmative. These results indicate a more general need for

feedback and performance counseling than for personal counseling.

* General Discussion

In general, results indicated a high need for both personal counseling and

* performance counseling. A substantial amount of both types of counseling is

* currently being provided, but trainees indicated that more is needed. It is

questionable whether supplying more counseling would substantially reduce

* attrition since only 23.2% of the attrites indicated that more personal

21
3.25

3.00

Perceived Category Y

Frequency of Successful

Occurrence

(Mean Frequency Category X

Rating on 5 Point

Scale)

2.75

2.50

More Less

"Socially Acceptable" "Socially Acceptable"

Problems Problems

Figure 3. Frequency of Occurrence for Successful Trainees and Attrite Groups.

L:q

'S2

h 22
4,

counseling might have stopped the TDP and 39.3% of the attrites indicated that

more performance feedback might have stopped the TDP. However, providing more

counseling could have other desirable effects, e.g. increasing the morale of

all trainees. Of the two types of counseling, the pattern of results

indicated a greater need for performance counseling (feedback about how they

are doing) than personal counseling.

The incidence of various problems was to some extent dependent on which

group was queried. Interpretation of problem frequency becomes difficult

because of the strong possibility of psychological biases due to success or

failure. Nevertheless, current results provide useful information with regard

to the type of counseling training that should be provided. Also, the results

from the preferred counselor data should provide useful input for decisions

about the content of counselor training for various MOS's.

The results of the attribution experiment support the idea that data from

interviews with succeeding and failing populations become very difficult to

interpret. This difficulty should not be interpreted as a reason to abandon

post hoc data collection. Rather, such data contain unique information if

analyzed with caution.

Finally, although very preliminary, results of the subjective

unstructured interviews indicated a heterogeneous TDP attrite population.

These findings are similar to those found by Manning and Ingraham (7981) in a

post-basic training population. Such variability in the predicted population

may partially explain the relatively unsuccessful attempts to predict

attrition in the past. More research is needed both to confirm the existence

of heterogeneity, and if it is found, to learn more about the nature of

* specific categories so that they might be more accurately predicted.

23

o,.

.........................................................

.................................. *.*. .5 . * t*.* *. . . . .

. . *-..*'.**. . . . . . . . . . . ... . . .~. . . . . 5. . . .. .. * -
REFERENCES

General Accounting Office. Attrition in the military--an issue needing

management attention. U.S. Department of Commerce PB80-146749, February 1980.

Goodstadt, B.E., and Yedlin, N.C. First-tour attrition: Implications for

policy and research. ARI Research Report 1246, June 1980.

Manning, F.J., and Ingraham, L.H. Personnel attrition in the U.S. Army in

Europe. Armed Forces and Society, 1981, 7 (Pt. 2), 256-270.

Moskos, C.C. The enlisted ranks in the all-volunteer Army. In J. Keeley

(Ed.), The all volunteer force and amercian society. University of

Virginia Press, 1978.

Orend, R.J., Stoad, K.W. & Rosen, T.H. Selection of qualified Army enlistees:

Analysis of characteristics of soldiers separated under TRADOC Regulation

635-1. ARI Technical Report 77-B2, December 1977.

Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kukla, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, R.M.

Perceiving the causes of success and failure. In E.E. Jones, D.E.

Kanouse, H.H. Kelley, R.E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.),

Attribution: hLearning Perceiving the causes of behavior. Morristown: General

Press, 192

24; 2.
APPENDIX A

How to use Appendix A

Appendix A contains results from the structured interview. Each

page presents statistical information on a given question for the

successful trainees (column 1); all TDP's (column 2); Code I TDP's

(column 3); Code 2 TDP's (column 4); the "salvageable" TDP, Code 1

and Code 2 (column 5); and the "unsalvageable" TDP, Codes 3-10

(column 6). Means, and variances are reported where appropriate

(questions 1-12v and 14-18b), and mode and frequencies are reported

for questions 13a-13v. The statistical test values below any two

columns (t or X 2 ) represent the outcome of tests between those

column populations.

* p < .05

** p.< .01

< .001

25-

25 -

i... .-. , ..., ...... . . .S.. . . . . ... .. ,.. 

5* S-... ~ *S** ~!
4 $4

0'

0.a

a) kD > 4) 1 u C2

0 4.4L

4~ It

0)- 9 >

$-4 0'

o p.4 .44

CCC

.0 En~

> 04

4

o- r-4 C N

-4~ t -nC

U,) (o U

-W U C

0 '.0 N

P). C~L

CC a

430 CE' (N 26

.C)e
0 r. LA

o tw - LA

<~ 0A E- N~ -i C4

ra u >q v.4 S 4 -

0 ~ -4 Ln

v 0

>z 0

4-4 P* *

0) c

-Pr N LA

4.4 ) En O

0 4-) >1 W ;

-4 0- 0 0 ~ IL) E-4 0

S 0 -I

.0 U) 41

, -4 U LA

-r .Jd >1 ci 0 

0 0)r

0 CN

m LA

0) 0 )

-4 0 U)

.~~~o LCl- z 

(N -. -

0

H

27
U) V)

.4.) a)P i-DC) 

->- 44 0- 

-

Q4 

>

:1 

)

0 > -4 (N4

U) r~ N 4-

'0

r-4 0) 4i-1*

4-) 0 0C

U)-4 LA 4-1) a)w ! r . C: -4 >1 I:) 4 (N (a L) .-4 00 * LA W 4-4 4- E(CANi (N 

C' 0 U) -1-(a 

M

U)

~-4C' z -ON

-) 4 . )L

U)- N

( 0 '-I C1

C)1

ac) 0 >,rq r 

1

0) 41 4(

0 ( 0 * .0 

(

(Do P4 -4 LA 1

~~oE E-4'.

U) 

6

*D C.)

C2-3

z%
41

0 w r4 0 U)

4-4 '44 in0 0 i c0E1 I-I IN

$4

* = > -4 

; o OD

0 r4 4-

• -) im c a m' u

4 0•

4.) SN w r4

0 0 a

01u -4 r- 16"

OJU uI rwC 0

-4 0 co

,a 0 t.0444 444 44

(29

- -) E- 4 .-

4 0 u-I a

w0 0 a _%0 W

0 Lu4I

> U uU m 0

~~4)

*0 u U) E-I 4

06 1.1
W %w U Cp

4 44 4 0 Cben 0

0 'AOn $4 >1 --

N LA 4.) W LA LA J

9J 0

0 '

-4 0-. in i

m) r-I 0U E* mN- -

tJ$4 - 4 to bU)~ 0 _ _

-4c. ) - -~ 1) UU()

0A 0' '

0 to *)

004

0 4 U) U) 0

0n n 

4 r-__

0 $ - -

4)4

LA 04 (11 -4 -4

0

E-4

U) w *

30

J ...... .~ . . . . . . . . . .
|" °.

0 r. 0 ON

o1 0. r. W . OD

0 ) 0 P

41 0 r.Ln

4 1 ) 0I to0

0. ¢ . 4.J a "00 00(N

r-4 u M -4

o 0 0).!I

04

0 0

Id (nn

9 W - U C O

00

M -4 En 5 .4q en- e.4 w ) ca '.0 (1)04 0Ln

0

00 F U r II

w . t- 0 4)

4. 0 0 >

%%

"> -

'0)P 0 00 do 0

0A

>44 r-4

0 0) - -

~0 (n E-2 *

cxx

dz

4 31

%. 12 t k
W- Cw-T vz 6 ---

-44C I 4) 11I(

0- 0 (N - mII 0 4) ># 40 ) 0) '

oz 0 LA

0 4-1

0

L44 Vl N

4)E >co 0 .140 r-I ' 0

r- ( UE4 C - -

0 rq (

41 4 ) .

00 0 0 0 4J1 0 0 a. LA (N w)4 0~ Z OD pi ) uE- - 41 0 -4 >1 (/l) u -4 k) 4)C,

(a L)~ C') 

0). A.. RT C

4.) 3: -4 V) LA I44 rO 0 '

4J~ 4)

>r4- _

0rU f 40 ) If

~U) 441

w-4 -4-

U)rE-1A

32
W~t %Dl Cl& rWU S CW

0 c 4) 

01 0) > - 4

4 .) 4)

>1

-41

.0 P N

A-) En L 4 C4 

00

()0

-4 (-.

04 0 01 U )0 CD

00 a N L

M> $44 U

c) -1 -4q M ( Nn u UE- W O

04 0) $

it a - r-4 I

0 4 V 0 

0 00a

0)00 U4 (N- U)

OD (n (7-I%

W LN (

0-4--E-4

E4-4 '

04)00

~ Z 33
4.H w 4) 4 .

$4 0 4 0 E C4 r4 .-4

4-1 4_ _ -

.0.

0 0 -4 LA)

0 1-4 (V

to4 0 p

U) L

-1 44 (d 0

0.4 0

04 0_U_

4-4 >1

-l4 CN -4I $4 %) 4e-H 8n r- L 44

4J4E-4 (4 U-4 C14

.4-4 Wl a,. 0 -7% w

$4 . 4)

0 0. a 0 

0/ 4 to4 N

ON U w m 0 0

U

z~ 0)

U)

(N

34
IWWI? I L %. q i

1 q W .w l 

 r w  

 x?rq d

 .. q.Ij 

, u.

 4T.7 WJ 7 

, 

14 U -4 Ln . -1 0 .44 -4 -

4)

r-4 N4

>4 0 r4 C4C

w -4 0

-4 ODO

a)b

0-)

41

C'4

U) iZ C14 C14 P1 4 4 0- ~ 4~-4

10 0.

0 4 C14 In

-04 H to U) 0

.,q 0 4 0

Q-4

0-4 >4C

C4, 0 > 35

*4 ~ a. a .

4 P. ~ ~ E tv >4 4 4 ***4*. . . . . . . .
) U) r-4 LI) S.. C - -4 0

>a4 r-4 -

0

(4 14 Ln Ln A

0 U) 0

ON

0 .)-.-

4- W --

01

4 4 0~ r- 0CI

0U E- OD

14

-4-C1

- 0

4.) -4 . 0 

E-4 LA O r-l aiLA

C 0U

-4 0 0 in My

.wH r4 * -4

&4)

Of n dP

36
0 6.4

4J C n 0E- (4)

0 4) c

-40

) E;

0 4J U) 40 o

o o 0 0 ~ 0 a C: ) ) -4 M ~ L)3 E- i r4 rM

>4 0

O4) U 4 a) ) 4A

4) r3 -4 00 41 IQ u I 42 U E- .

M4a E- -4 2 $4- c rq 4 - 4n

~I 4-'4 a

-44- w 00 . 0 r 0 4)A 14 z- $4U'

44~ 00 >A LAL

IX 4 a 9

w~4 0) m 0w z

U H

0-4~0 0L

E-4~ I )L

N -

'U~U II'- I ~x. 4Cf

4*4 437
4.)

~40 .U wn OD

I L. 04 c'*4 U4

-4 In 041

14 00-. '1 

>1

-4 U)

cn 0.0

CN0.'

-4 ON 4 ) U E-4 ) 0' r-4

-4

- OD-

-4 2.4 a-~ * L

.41 4) E-4 .A LA 4'1 > -4('

(D z0

'N U)C LA .'I -4 ('4 0 OD I

zz

En UE-4

E-44

38.4
4 ~ 4 0 4 02 (1 LA

41 0 z 0

4) LA

0 r0I

01 0 C)~ 02 (

a))

4 >40 N

to $4 N

4.1

0 0 ___

0- E- - L

a) > -

LO (NU)w C 4JI

H~ ~ 0* H 0

0 U) E-4

E-4

ol a)N L

C) ~'.39
17W m ro V" PR

>1 .- ON

-4 oN

~2 LA LA)

000 LA 0 )

4.4 U <U r4 5-4

(ON

w. 0 0p*

*0 L)0

0. 4(UC

$4 ((N

VD 012 4

V. 4) -44 U) 4

0) (U1-

-44 M

U(HU

00 (NE4.00

O~~ L -o. 
'4.44

lotL L) L*4

eN H H

-n M

) U

0

Hf 00'9

(n (4 r

a) -0 :10

p H)

0 0 0

H Q) 00) W

-4 ~ ~ 3 (nU- e

Cl)

U) x U)

o - 041
rC~~~~~r4 - r. 4 C. 0-r )r m; - r r - r r - %w ~ur- --

0C

14 CN %D I M 

U) O

44

4 0 0.

0 ) to

U) U) in to

1, 0) U in (N4-

EnO en e

0 0a

D4 U) N t

HH

U) T)i Of '0"0

U' 42
4-I W.U) OD co I4. Cx- in H

0 a4 .-

in E-

>1 0 -. C r 4 OD

0

H 4 '

1 ~00 0- cc 

4-4 U 4 U i en

0n En

o- .- c 0 inl

0 H

41 rqI L)C UEA -4 H0 )

10 1-

40 U) OD

0 4). ~ E-4 6- n in

>U 0

Sz

D4 En

W" CFl~4 C

ft L) 1-4 -

-4

43

p *-****- * ~ ~ **-.-'**----..*-- *-***-* -*- -- - - - - - ' .. ~****~**
ix- ul r-4 W

0n 4E0 E-

>1

(N

>

co LA

0U) 00

C:O cl 13 -

0 0l

U)

'a C"

Imaa

0 ~U E-f H4 -

$4 N

.4-)

U4 Ia) -4

- '0

.1-I *-44 -4n(

z V

0U Ln EE) )4-

CNN

44 -
~.h p. M - . N r-~~

a) I* O

0

LA

>-4

> -4 (N I

CN 0(N4a'

uli (NnU 1- ) C -4 -

-4 rz1- 0 H -4 a4 a'-4- 00~ a -

1U E-4 rN-4 -

In~( L __

Um In a.0 4

(I E- LA

-4

8 U) I

NE- wN z -

C)) U H 

L) g~

0 U)

0 54.

.- %.C__ 0, 
41) W . -4 a

LA 40OE-4 c1i r-4 CN

Ci - - .N

0.

0

U) ) .

A) u 0)

00

*s4 >1 a 4 LA N- 4.) r-I 0 CI ON

- -4 -4

0 wN

(1) ON s-I

P.0 LA) s-I 14 4 s 0 * LA

4) 4 E-4 - LA

____ U)

r U) wC I

0' )z P U) 

U2 ~ (4 N (4 

464
* 4.4

0 4J

4-)Ci U V U

w - .j4-

a .'1E- c -

-4 M' U) cc

n N -1I

00

54 ('4

* N

o4 tow O -I s-4

U)

o (47
> 

N

0 0 0'1

00 

0 0r

-4 UE'J

vA 0

0 4

ON LN

a) E- Nli r U) r-

-4 -4 0

I P44 U

N W 0n -r-4

4r L) H~E r4 LA4 r 

0) U)

-4 48
Q) (n %D c

0 N

U" 4 0'

>1 l

a) - - LO

rN (N

44Q (N (N ml

0 0

HU) 00 0

0 P4 rLA -44

w HN

En 0)0)4

4-) P4 0 I

$4 9 C4 V

$4 > ~ - ( OD 

04 z. ~ (Ni

S.4 LIV~ 

=w H) cl-4 (N r-4 A

>H U

U) ..)

(N

0i Ix 4)

%.

%'
Vp

0~ c c.,L

>1) - C1

4) 1

41 .

a) I* C

u4 4

4.44

U) -4

- 44

r (n) .- 4 4c L

..- i.. - - -

Cl)

r-44

4) 44I

4) wU

-4 z 'U .-- 9

0 W- E-A

4 244

U) 4)

0450
P ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d.nW PPhW ~ P ~ .CNY E V1 iWIJ~ ~- . V~~~~

LA 4 0 E m*)-

Ln

%w4 U____

NN

OO U) n (n.

-4 in.J- -

.,I M E

U)

Q)U1 -4 r a

a)) $4C%

a04 rn 0

Q) a) E.m-4 C) Ln %

E/) 1.4ew

CU1 04 1* ) tU)

4-'51
T,- W-.I w Ltwv

444* ~ U

>

V-4 0' I

0) 00 -4 Ln 0J 00

0

p.4 U) LA f.

-44

(0 0 00 a 04 *H m u UE fn-4H

(n- CO 0.

00 4C

44 0 coI

to $4 ('A

0 PU

t) ) nt. 0 

04 - - ODU

Efl 14 (4 LA ON

ft-I 4) 1 4ttf t 

U -z.-

('4 LA i

u H~ C4 1 -4

on E-4

E-4t

52

* . t *,~ ':* ~ *.*
41 co

>4

r-4 _ _ _

%D m 1

4-44 u C

P- ) CN 0 I

-4 90 CI LA 0 00 in-S

41 E

-4 41'

o4. 14 ~ 0- 1 N 0

4) u -4 4

w CN

r..

>-44r

z II

o~ .) 00 W 4-] 0- U)- N4 co

0 24

-4

of U) z

o - 53
-- * 1. W. T4 L- .- S r- trr 'x~'

44 0

4u* 0 0-

4.) CC0)

'-4 ) OD 0

0 0

4-) C1

Lo C L

1-44

U)'

0 Q

Cl) q

$4C'

(I))

En -l ri (4

0) C-4 

0 P

1.54
$44

1*<1

I) U) ~ ) 

IR

eU

124

a) a

rz CLn %

C1

>1

N U) W

() H0 (N r-4

E-1UE ~ (NH e

ole

S5

H II
Z) Ef (N eq

4) W444

,-4 (N

a) ~ -4ON 4

>1 4

-4 0(O

LOA

tnn

-4I 41 -4 04 mN ( -

a) <v 4(NN (n -- 4A~.

Ir.i En 3) L O

a) -4

0 E

(N4

0f (1)U

56
44%

$44

4-) IV 0N 444 C4 -16 en

6-4

-4

6-4 ('

LN N' 4

IN) 6-I N

64U) OD0

0 En

(fl L

0 ___50

N -
Y*V~~~~~~~~~~h~ .~ . ~*

~7- 17 1.-9A -* -- ~ -

.41 wz)- Lf)

ot 0 (-4 N (N r-4

4 -4

r4

-4 I

a n LA -I 4) 0) z 0 -

0

>1

-I U) 0

AS 0 LA

r. a 0 (

m Ur 0E-i m (N - Cl) ul (U 3 ____ 

C) u -4

UJ N 41-4

Wa o C 41 ~ a. P4-J

C. 4- 0 p C

0 -4) (n C'

o >4 0' C4 C4 -4 q

I Iu U)

(N (J2L) 4 -

(a *.- 4

0 N -

Z5
0

04E- '144 ('

0 )0 4 4.) ___ ___

0 '-4 0 <u' -4 (n

0

' 44t -4

4. U 1.4 4J a LA

'0 0 E ra tU)nU 0 U) 

c 0 -4-

-4 -4

0 - 4 - 0a

>.4~ 41 t E40 m C

co 0~ - I 0 4-4 .4 4) U' E-4 '.0

U) w . ) ' 4- 1.4 C' 

4- 0u) M' -4 u

:3 a 4- LA

0 4.4.)

w -44 4n 14) r.

:) ,q ) w N 0

CU04 wA CU 1*4 0

C')1 -4 'E(' -

z 4-' 0 r. 0 U) 1.4 0

EO $4U) H-4

U) Q) $4 $4

4.) -40 04 (44

59
4 0~

- -1

CD I I

0N 0

0>1

U E- - 4

-4N m -4 .

o I -4i

.)

4.) - - - -4

En wV. VN I (1 0

(n- w (-st I 9 C4zI 1 I

E E01 s- N I

GO1
0 F-4

1-4 1-4

r-4 00J

8z LM. 11

044

00, IT

0 U2I"n

Q I 425 AT. I b

go In r. to w.) C. ,4 v

4.61
.P,-FT~pWX -i -71 -F -" Twr wvvi -vv

P4'

4(N

r4 T -

ic 1 -4 '.0

0. 00.~

(N L

r14 UE-4

ol (14 m

.IJ -' U (. ~ 62
m U)

~- (N 'p Al -4 (14

&4 I E4p I 1 I.

(4 -4

-4 co

0 a

0~ r- I OD U)C. L) E-(-4-

ON

-- 4

P4 U) (

w I I NV

U)P

of z(NC4

63 I U

el -E-4-4 -
a 

 S 

.  

 t 

7 . -

to

iE-.0 1 I 0

0 - -4 CN -

K0 -4 N- 1

0oIo I % . *

H I 

0 4 En'.

U c4 E- a4 I

u 'I

-,4 4

-4

4IL -4 rI O

4 ,L

00

4.) w O -4 - (

I I I R

U) U

0H r- C4 enJ

64
- -- 71 Mi 7.

IU) LA

P4E- .-4 m

tz 0' 1- 

0~ i m ri ON %D L

En

C-' -4N

L). 10_____ I-

.

0 N

04

or U E-4 C14 '4 0

0 4 -4 00 L

0)

.9 n ____ ___

w' 0

U-H4-

01 ix

46
IV N

4 0 E

-4 r4

14 I .

a N

U E-

$44

a4 P4 O % l

UU 4 C"m N -4W

03 0 m I 1 1

rJ4 (n W

wI I I IV4 m u H N s -4 %D

ui N. -

-4

Od U)-N

66
FW~L.Ir h ..- W. ~w g. W-.W L r1- LIU w L-- W Am 

I N.

u < C4 r. V)

CNN

U) -

0 C.0

U)

4)

>1 4 -N

E-4 (N -4 ci) 4-

544

u), EU))

01) 0. ci LA 

I nL~ I 67
r', ,-. I- I O

OZ ' '

4O~ Q M ~ 0

04 0 E-4 l -4I

~ 0

0 in . 4 r-4 C D

-IN

En

S M A4r

L) Eo 0

r-I 004 * m 

4-)

0. -J (n0

En N C4N ~ 

H )

H iE-4

of

68

" ,, , .. e .. . .. ' " " " . . ' ." ." ' o. ., .. -. . . .. . , .. . .. HL " ' " ' - "; - ." : , '", : '" : " " i 1
~CA LA

--

u 4 (N

0z r- I I L

aE4 s-I (N

U -4 4

PA L

E- I V I n

-44 -4 -

w z I I I (

fn L-r4 C

* 0

-4

Ol t z1- 

z6

2o-l_
.61 1.-

ul'

.4 0(N 1 4 v C0

~co

0~ z 0 1 LA

CN

f4 . I

(N P4

,-4

W -I

LA (N

I4 IVI

W LI) N 

r-42

(fU) W' LAO

1 I I T

m' ()H r-4 IV C4N -

-4

* (I2E-4

07
4~ ~~ 0 -

Cl)l

0 lI I '.9

-4 r-4

OZO I I HA

E-4 ('4 s

93..

w z IV

UE-4

0 Cl 

71-4 -
0 - I I * N

OE-4 0 C'4 H4 H

C N m

u~ (N H N

(N

Cl)

0 04 m NN~

0 E-4 (N H- N

CI)N

0 Q I I N

U- (N H C-4

.,j

D4 (n rwt wE-4

72
4 .4'

n r-4 vS

0 z 0I 1 L

U N m en

(N

In

C4-

0IC I I c

$4

4)

U) w S Ol- M

I D4 I I I (N

r-I u ..

4373
* N

II

- 4 C. o

0 QA

U E-4NQ 

En.

04

4--

0) U)

Q) N

a)

rL4 V) I U

-4 c

U'H

U ) -4 U

0

-74
I I I I r, 0OE- - N 4

r4'

a~ C4 -4 (N

w) 0W

44 U

EnN

-4 -

-4 C ON

U)v N l

L)A

U)

- -4 LA
1.04 114 -4

CD I

U4 < C4

P4 OD W -

0c '.

-4C1

U E C% I -I a-I

2 co

N N co co

w z I I I q ('4H CI W

-4EEU0

-4

of C40 a-I C1 N)

76 '
I,0

0p

rOE4 N 4

-4 U) C14

CP0

4Jo -

4 E-4 U)'.

-4 1J2 w(N

Wz

(N '. U C- eq u-

.1D

of4

;~77
~E-4Q ODI 4o- 0 N ..

U,

4 u -4 (N

NN

LA s 0,

U24 -4 C4 0 L

0

-4

1 4 z I I I I H I (n i-4 -4

of CC) (nN

78

JIL'
V-4-

I B N

r-4

U E-4 u v-i N' 

13 N

r-44

D4U)

LN N. iA

799
- - r-- rr -. r -r C-- V - -' - - -- - - -- * %

clib

4 0 E- r-I p

Qr U) N

14 O N -1 N

0aE-s I - n

Hl (n

0 z 1

U) r-4(

aD I

en e

Inn

U) -Ir- W 

U

4u E -

E- 1%

of WN 0

CU U) H0
m 4.

-4N

U)) () C14

-4-

0 :3r

-44 - 4

00

L) E-4

On4 4)Q) -

-4 .) r.O -4U *0

r.-4-

. 0 a) 4)

0CL sI -

Ef 4* 0* 00 '

-4 0. $1

0'0 0

44 w 0

r4~

#t- (n E-4

0'

Csx Cs'

4Jcn

00 0
* . .- .n

- 0 0 0

4 ON

4 0

w C ( I 

-r- -4 .,j HU 4) aca

44 14.) 0 :

, a) 0 WN r Enw 0, )0' ) N_ __34 

4W (13 0(-4E- 4j r

044 C4 0 

-W 4J --- r N( 

rn> 0 w(u 0N w- P4.SI

U 41 U -4N n rn ,~U a)4 OWO 

d.0 W C .

04) U-4CC4 0 ON

U H.c r-4-4

0 V) E-4

0

82
W L 00A 

= LA,

0 c-o

'-

*.I Id *d4

4

~4J6J4 OD~f *Od 0-

U)~ ~ 0 c4Jl

to 000 U - N

0) C)C

r. Q)Iq.

41: *- - L)

0()01 mx

0) .119 r. r

J . - -A83
W - to m'

C. 0: O E-4 *-4 --

41J rC -4 r-4N t LA

EI F4 w 00 r

ll4H~ a (92 

0) 4-) Q- 0 ; 4 4 4 * 44

CCN

t~ -I 0) 0) to ON% LA

N 4 9:0 * p ' I--I 0J44 0CO A UAQ 

Z' 00r-4 r.

U 4- 4-1 0)2-

1) 4-) 4- 0 H4 - O--U 0) M 1-

0) i-tI I Wi to 02020'm 0 Q 344 - r- C UU0 * co )0 U)E-4

I.- 0'0'0'C

0' 0 CCCr

H 0) 4j) - H H

0) r 02 ~ O

C. >O0$w $4 - Ln

:3>i(af o Q. 4 C 14

0HC 5 rr H- in VD

a4-) H NI0

t

R X.CC wH- T - 4 w z TT

COECA0

84
~CiA 04 0 0% 64-1 Mz. 0 G 0 w PA~ 0 co

0 0

to co

V aa Do q.

VU-4 a o-t24;fr

0 00A41r WO O 

to( t 946 w P4 rA4 1 r0 r. 4) 13 41 C: a 04

0$ 3m (a 9~ w caan

40% ) CA 4 0.8f o l

"4 "4 * * .4~~ W 044 .~~;

0" C: 0 0 e C4 e w 600 0 0 I qm0 1

r.t*

04 "0to%

o o Goz ("a 4 .6.4 IaZ "

444

93 ca L85

0- (*4* N - - . - n V' * 9 - * ~ . V.1 94 z * * * .~,
oo 01 Hz V-4 co. 4h

0. o 071

0 m

A,

"4 a0 W ;v

- 41 aw r-I i

0 $4 IQ ? ri

0."

0 00 to

"4.40 010 'CI

co" 0 0 w t

r- 0) a :IC

00 W cc

00 4) c%

FA..(O-4 001 r-4

a) ) .4o ~ a LM 

44U

(.4

.0 .

w4 r4 AlI

41 41

&) &,*

01 01 ; 86

0' (Az IX U)