Technical Paper 

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

[~D

RAPS 2--AN ABRIDGED VERSION OF THE

RACIAL ATTITUDES AND

PERCEPTIONS SURVEY

Francis E. O’Mara and William Tierney

ARI FIELD UNIT AT PRESIDIO OF MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

j C~

)

~ 4’LJ DC

[r

~

irJ

U. S. Army

kcs~~ rrF fl~~’itIJ t

~ fcr th

~ 

Reh~

iv~~raI and SOcial Scienct s

September 1978

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

~ ~i ~

U 

~~ .

~~ , 

v

p

_________ 

~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
U. S. ARMY RESEAR CH INSTITUT E

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating A gency under t he Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

WILLIAM L. HAUSER

JOSEPH ZEIDNER Colonel , US Army

Technical Director Commander

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this report has bssn med. by ARI. Please address correspondsn~

a concerning distribution of reports to: U. S. Army Research Institute for th Behavioral and Social ScienceL ATTN: PERI-P , 5001 Eisenhower Avenue. Alex andria~ Virginia 22333.

FINAL DISPOSITION: This report may be destroyed wben it is no longav needed. Please do not return it to the U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral end Social Sciences.

~QIL Th. findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized documents.

-,
— .-.

~- --_— ,. _,i

~~

I

Unclassified SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Wh at Da. Ent.,.()

fl

~~~~ei~~ T lWI I U ~~ij r A FIliki D A ~~~~ READ ENSTRUCTIONS I

~~~U’Jl~ I ~~~~~~~~~~~~ U ~~ I I’

.1

~” ~ BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

,

‘ 

/ L REPORT Hu~~~Es . 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO 3. RECIPIENTS CATALOG NuMBER

‘

~-A Technical Paper ~

34O __________________________

4. TITLE (mid SuBISU.) 5. TYPE OF REPORT A PERIOD COVERED

RAPS 2--AN ABRIDGED VERSION OF THE RACIAL

ATTITUDES AND PE~~ EPTIONS SURVEY . -- - . 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMSER

I. AUTI4OR(.) - - — 

C. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(a)

) Francis E./O’Mara 2 iiant/Tierney

1 

--

5. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAM E AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT , TASK C WORK UNIT NUMSERS U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral ~~~~

-

and Social Sciences 

~-~~~~7~~~ 14A769 /

5001 Eisenhower Avenue , Alexandria , VA 22333 - - -

II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS ~ 12. REPORT DATE

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel , Human Sept&~~~ ~~78

Resources Directorate (TAPE-fiRR) — ti. ISIJMSER ~ FP~GES

Washington , DC 20310 18

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME A ADDRESS(U 451j.rmit Er. Controlling Oh io.) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (oh (hi. r.p .,t)

—— ~~~~~ 

- ‘

~~‘ Unclassified

I IS.. OECLASSIF ICATION/OOWNGRAOING

SCHEOULE 

-

IS. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of hi. R.POrS)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

‘ 

~~~~~~~~~~ ~ 17. DISTRIBuTION STATEMENT (of A. .b.tract .nt.eed in Block 20. lb dhbb.roni fr om R.porf)

IS. SUPPL EMENTARY NOTES

IS. KEY WORDS (Continu. on r.v.r. . aid. i n.c..wy aid id.ntShy by block n.m,b.r)

Racial attitudes Racial Perceptions Inventory (RPI)

Race relations Factor analysis

Scale construction

Attitude indexing measurement

20. AWS ’ RA CT (Conllnu. rove,.. aid. In.c..s y aid Id.ntifr by block n,b~~)

This report describes efforts to make the Racial Attitudes and Perceptions Survey (RAPS) a more efficient and useful management tool for Army

commanders to use in monitoring the racial climate in their units. These efforts consisted of an abridgment of the RAPS that resulted in a significant

reduction in the time and manpower required to administer this instrument and

to analyze the resultant data.

(continued)

DO ~~~~~ 1473 EOI1ION OF 5 NOV as iS OBSOLE TE Unclassified

SECURITY CLAS*IFIC*TION OF THIS PAGE (Wh.n D.i

~ Inie, d)

~/
r ~

—- ——--- - -

~~~~

Unclassified _________

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAOC(UBat D~~a ~~~~~~

(continued)

‘

~~ Since the Incidence of Discriminatory Behavior (1DB) section of the

RAPS was designed for item—by-item analysis, it was not possible to shorten

it without reducing its scope. The other major section of the RAPS , the

Racial Perceptions Inventory (RPI), became the focus of the abridgment procedure because its principal purpose is the determination of a summary score

for each of the four scales included in this section . A subset of items was

chosen from each of the RPI scales in such a way as to maximize the predictability of the appropriate scale score that was provided by each item and

that was independent of that provided by the rest of the items in the scale.

The validity of the resulting abridged scales was determined by calculating

the correlation between subjects’ scores on the full and on the abridged

scales for each of two samples drawn from different Army installations at

different times.

The results of this analysis indicated high agreement between the two

versions of the scales. Inspection of the internal consistency measures of

the abridged scales indicates some attenuation . However , the pattern of the

results indicates that this may be largely due to sample differences or to

the “aging” of the RAPS rather than to any major psychometric deficiencies

of the abridged scales. In sum , the abridged RAPS appears to be a suitable

alternative to the unabridged version , and one that, when used properly,

would complement the use of the complete instrument.

.

~~~~~~~ 5~

ct~

0B

~e~

tiOfl

DOC 0

~

u

~ ’ ~~~~‘ - ‘~

•-

Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGEIITh.n Dat. Enl.r.d)
r ~~

---—

~ 

- - —- -

~~~~~~~

- - -—

~~~~~

- - -

~~~

- -

~~~~

Technical Paper 340

RAPS 2--AN ABRIDGED VERSION OF THE

RACIAL ATTITUDES AND

PERCEPTIONS SURVEY

Francis E. O’Mara, Army Research Institute

and

Willi am Tierney, U.S. Army

James A. Thomas , Work Unit Leader

ARI FIELD UNIT AT PR ESIDIO OF M ONTEREY , CALIFORNIA

Submitted as complete and Approved By:

technically accurate, by:

Jack J. Sternberg E. Ralph Dusek, Director

Field Unit Chief INDIVIDUAL TRAINING AND PERFORMANCE

RESEARCH LABORATORY

Joseph Zeidner

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

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

September 1978

Army Project Number Human Relations

20763744769 Management

Apprce.d for publIc r laeie; distr ibutio n unlimited. 

J
ARI Research Reports and Technical Papers are intended for sponsors of

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

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

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

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

4

~

_- _ _ _ -- _

~

_ _ _ -

_ . - _ _ _ • __ ‘ _ 

i_ _ ______ ______
FOREWORD -

In 197 3 the Army Research Institute for the Behav ioral and Social

Sciences (ARI ) responded to requirements f rom the Assistant Secretary

of Defense (Ma npower & Reserve Affa irs) and the Army Chief of Staff for

Research and Development by developing the Racial Attitudes and Perceptions Survey (RAPS) for assessing racial climate at Army installations.

ARI Technical Papers 338 and 339 describe the RAPS development and utilization . Subsequent research at the ARI Field Unit at Presidio of

Mon terey , Calif., has produced a shorter version of the RAPS descr ibed

in this report.

Research was conducted under Army Project 2Q763744A 769, in suppor t

of requ irements of the Office of Equal Opportunity Programs of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (DAPE-HRR) .

JOS PH Z I ER

Tec nical Director

__________ 

- -- - --- - ~~ -~~~~ - - - - j
RAPS 2--AN ABRIDGED VERSION OF THE RACIAL ATTITUDES AND

PERCEPTION S SURVEY

BRIEF

Requirement :

To develop an abridged , alternate version of the Racial Attitudes

and Perceptions Survey ( RAPS) for use by unit commanders at the division

or installation level.

Procedure :

A subset of items was selected from the RAPS to minimize the number of items used , while keeping constant the underlying concepts measured by the RAPS subscales. The validity of the abridged scales was

determined by calculating the correlation between subjects ’ scores on

both scales for each of two samples drawn from different Army installations at different times. The reliability of the abridged instrument

was ascertained through the calculation of each subscale ’s coefficient

alpha.

Findings:

There was high agreement between the scale obtained with the

abridged RAPS and those obtained with the o-riginal version.

The internal consistency measures of the abridged scales were

lower than those for the full scales. However , the pattern of results

indicates that this may be largely due to sample differences or to the

“aging” of the RAPS rather than to any psychometric deficiency in the

abridged scales.

Utilization of Findings :

The use of the abridged version--RAPS 2-—will permit more frequent

measurement of a unit’s racial climate without imposing a large burden

on the unit’s personnel resources.

4
- 

~

—

U’

RAPS 2--AN ABRIDGED VERSION OF THE RACIAL ATTITUDES AND

PERCEPTIONS SURVEY

CONTENTS

Page

BACKGROUND 1

Racial Perceptions Inventory 1

Incidence of Discriminatory Behaviors 2

PROBLEM 4

METHOD 4

Sample S

Procedure S

RESULTS 7

Correlations Between Original and Abridged Scales 7

Reliability 11

DISCUSSION 13

APPEND IX: THE ABRIDGED RACIAL PERCEPTION S INVENTORY 15

DISTRIBUTION 17

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Composition of sample by race and rank 5

2. Items on the original and abridged RPI 6

3. Factor analysis of the abridged RPI 8

4. Product moment correlations——original vs. abridged

scales, and Fort Ord RPI vs. abridged scales (Fort

Ord 1975 data base , n = 505) 11

5. Product moment correlations--original vs. abridged

scales, and Fort Ord RPI vs. abridged scales (Fort

Hood 1974 data base , n = 1,500) 11

6. Alpha coefficients—-original , Fort Ord , and abridged

RPI scales 12

4

S —
r — —S .na._ ~

__ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - — - - - - - ~~~~ — - -- ~- - --- - -

RAPS 2--AN ABRIDGED VERSION OF THE RACIAL ATTITUDES

AND PERCEPTIONS SURVEY

In 1973 , the Army Research Institute (ARI) was tasked by the Office of the Chief of Research and Development, Department of the Army ,

to develop an instrument that would provide a reliable and valid assessment of the racial climate at a military installation . Such an instrument was seen as essential to provide commanders with the minimal information necessary for evaluation of the nature and scope of racial

problems in their units; it could also assess the impact of a unit’s

race relations programs. In response to this assignment , the Racial

Attitudes and Perceptions Survey (RAPS) was developed by ARI through a

contract to a private research organization .1 Subsequent to its development and field testing throughout the Department of Defense , the RAPS

has continued to be the subject of research and refinement by ARI on

an in—house basis. This report describes research designed to make

the RAPS a more effective and efficient management tool.

BACKGROUND

The RAPS is divided into two sections : the Racial Perceptions

Inventory (RPI) and the Incidence of Discriminatory Behaviors (1DB).

These sections differ in the level of abstraction at which they measure

racial attitudes and perceptions . The RPI measures generalized racial

attitudes and perceptions independent of an installation ’s racial climate. This measurement is important because these attitudes and perceptions are the target of many of the Army ’s race relations educational

ef forts. The 1DB attempts to measure individual perceptions of the

racial climate at a specific installation . It does this by asking

subjects to report the frequency with which various racially related

incidents and practices occur .

Racial Perceptions Inventory

Previous analyses with the RAPS (Hiett et al., 1974) have shown

that the RPI section contains the following four factors or scales .

1

Hiett , R . L., McBride , R. S., & Fiman , B. G. Measuring the Impact of

Race Relations ProgLams in the Military , McLean , Va. : Human Sciences

Research , Inc., March 1974 .

1

~

— - ~~~~~~--— —

. 

-- -~~~ —-- -- - - -
- - — -- --j..-- ___—~~~--~~ - - -----—- ~~~~~— . -

~~ —-— —- —- --- ---.~~~~~~~ ~~~ .- ‘

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

_ _ - _ -;

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

~~~~z~

!IIlI

~~

1. Perceived Discrimination Toward Blacks (PDB). The items loading on this factor tap perceptions of the amount of racial discrimination that exists in the treatment of black personnel in specific areas

of military life . The following RPI questions are examples of this

factor:

35. Whites get away with breaking rules that blacks

are punished for.

10. Blacks get more extra work details than whites.

2 Attitudes Toward Racial Interaction (ATI). Items loading on

this factor measure the attitude of being favorably or unfavorably oriented toward interaction with people of different races, both in the

military and in society in general. For example,

28. Blacks and whites would be better off if they lived

and worked only with people of their own races.

37. Blacks and whites should mix together only while

they ’re on duty .

3. Feelings of Reverse Racism (FRR). The items that load on

this factor measure the perception that whites feel threatened by or

are fearful of blacks and that black personnel are treated more favorably than white personnel. For example ,

2. With the same education and skills , black soldiers

get better treatment than whites.

18. Blacks get extra advantages at this installation .

4. Racial Climate (RC). The items in this factor measure perceptions of the quality of race relations in the Army and of the Army ’s

level of commitment to racial harmony . For example ,

12. The Army is firmly committed to the principle of

equal opportunity.

27. Race relations in the Army are good.

Incidence of Discriminatory Behaviors

The 1DB section differs from the RPI section in psychometric

philosophy as well as in content. An assumption underlying the development of this section was that the commander who uses the RAPS would

be interested in each area of discrimination and racial conflict measured -

by this instrument . Therefore , in contrast to the RPI, the unit of analysis for the 1DB is not a global score derived through the aggregation of

2 

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

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

-~-~~~-=~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

-..-—-- -

responses to a group of items , but rather is the responses given to

each item , taken individually . It would presumably be of little use

to a commander to have a low overall 1DB score if hidden in this score

was the report of a strong prevalence of a single discriminatory practice in his command.

Given this orientation , factor analytic techniques were not used

in the development of the 1DB. However , the 42 items that constitute

this section were categorized topically into the following four groups :

1. Racial Harassment. Items in this group concern verbal abuse

or physical intimidation directed toward members of other racial groups .

For example , the following questions are included in the 1DB :

7. I hear whites on this installation making insulting

remarks about the hairstyles , music , or food preferences of blacks .

102. I see blacks on this installation harassing or excluding whites from facilities open to all.

2. System Treatment. This section contains items dealing with

the occurrence of discrimination directed toward whites and blacks at

different facilities on the installation . For example ,

73. I see whites who work in offices like finance , disbursement , or transportation providing whites with

better service ti-ian they do for b’acks.

81. I see whites receiving discriminatory treatment at

military facilities (such as the exchange , commissary,

or service clubs).

3. Supervisory Treatment. This group of items measures the incidence of discrimination by supervisors toward subordinates of a different race. For example ,

76. I see white supervisors giving blacks less credit for

good performance than they give to whites.

80. I see black supervisors pass whites over for training

opportunities for which they are qualified .

4. Self-Segregation. These items measure the degree to which

personnel associate strictly with members of their own race . For

example ,

70. Whites on my job stick together.

87. During off—duty hours, I see blacks spending time with

just blacks .

3

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
F- - - - - - —- -- - —

PROBLEM

A major problem of the RAPS is the amount of time it requires.

Experience has shown that the total administration t ime is approximately

1 to l—~ hours , although on occasion the time required is as much as

2 hours. Although this usually is not an extensive period and is comparable to that required by most comprehensive attitude surveys, it

would be desirable to reduce the time required . Reduction of time

would make the RAPS less costly to a commander , and the survey could

therefore be used more frequently. Further , any shortening of the

RAPS would also reduce subject fatigue and maximize subject attention

and cooperation.

Therefore , the objective of this research was to develop an abridged ,

alternate version of the RAPS for use by unit commanders.

METHOD

A primary concern when modifying scales is the way rn which the

scale will be used . This is especially true in the case of the abridgment of a scale, since some information will be lost. It ir important

to insure that the discarded information is not essential to the intended

application of the scale.

In the abridgment of the RAPS, it was assumed that the primary purpose of the RPI section was the estimation of scores on each of the four

scales (PDB , ATI , FRR , RC) for various subgroups of the surveyed population (e.g., whites , blacks). Thus, it was assumed that the pattern of

responses to any particular item on the RPI would be only of secondary

importance to the user. Given these ~ssuinptions, the task of reducing

the RPI becomes primarily the elimination of those items that do not make

a substantial independent contribution to the prediction of a given scale

score. Ideally , what would be desired for each of the four RPI scales

would be a small number of items , each maximally correlated with the appropriate scale score and also minimally correlated with each other.

The large correlation that each item would have with the scale score

would be indicative of the degree of predictability of the scale score

afforded by that item; the low intercorrelations would insure that the

increment of predictability provided by each item would be independent

of that provided by the rest.

The 42 items in the 1DB , on the other hand , were designed to measure the perceived frequency of a particular racially related incident

or practice at an installation. Therefore , reducing this section would

limit its scope rather than minimize redundancy. Hence , the effort to

reduce the size of the RAPS was confined to an abridgment of the RPI.

4

L _______
Sample

The data used for this research were obtained through the administration of the RAPS to a sample of 7th Infantry Division personnel atFort Ord , Calif., during the period 30 June to 3 July 1975. The sample

consisted of 505 permanent—basis military personnel. The composition

of this sample by race and grade is shown in Table 1. A second group

of 1,500 personnel who were administered the RAPS at Fort Hood , Tex.,

in 1974 was used as a cross-validation sample.

Table 1

Composition of Sample by Race and Rank

Racial ethnic group

Spanish_ a b Rank White Black American Pacific Other Total %

El—E3 93 82 15 4 18 212 42.3

E4 & E5 84 22 16 6 15 143 28.5

E6—E9 48 22 14 10 7 101 20.2

WO 4 0 1 0 0 5 1.0

2LT & 1LT 13 2 0 0 2 17 3.4

CPT & MAJ 18 2 0 0 3 23 4.6

Total 260 130 46 20 45 501

51.0 25.9 9.2 4.0 9.0

a

Spanish...1~nerican = Cuban , Mexican-American , Puerto Rican .

b

Pacific = Filipino, Guamanian , Hawaiian , Samoan .

Procedure

To insure that the factor structure of the RPI had not changed

- - drastically during the 3 years between the initial RAPS development and

the Fort Ord administration of the scale , a factor analysis of the RPI

was performed on the Fort Ord data. The same factor analytic technique

that was employed in the original development of the RAPS was used--a

principal axis factor analysis followed by varimax rotation (Hiett et

al. , 1974). Briefly , the results of this factor analysis revealed that

the same four factors that emerged from the original analysis of the

RPI ( PDB , ATI , FRR , RC) still comprised the current factor structure

of this instrument; however , they differed somewhat in item content

5

~

- -- --

~ 

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

- -

~~~~~

-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --
r - - 

- -

(Table 2). For discussion in this report, the RPI scales defined by

the original factor analysis will be termed the “original” RPI scales,

those defined by the present factor analysis will be termed the “Fort

Ord” RPI scales, and those ultimately derived through the abridgment

procedure will be referred to as the “ abridged” RPI scales.

Table 2

Items on the Original and Abridged RPI

Original RPI Fort Ord RPI

Scale (1973 factor structure) (1975 factor structure) Abridged RPI

PDB 3 ,5 ,6 ,7 ,10,14 ,16 ,23 ,24 , 7 ,10,16 ,23 ,24 ,25 ,32 , 33 , 6 ,7 ,10 , 16 ,23 ,

25 ,32 ,33 ,34 ,35 ,38 ,39 , 34 ,35 ,44 ,45 ,50 ,55 , 56 ,66 24 ,25 , 34 , 35

42 ,44 ,45 ,47 ,52 ,55 ,56

ATI 4 ,13,17 ,20,28,30,31, 4,13,19,20,28,31,36,37, 4,13,20,28,

36 ,46 ,53 ,58 ,61,63 46 ,58 ,61, 63

FRR 2,9,15,18,22 ,26,40,41, 2,10,18,40

54 ,60,62 ,64,67 ,68,69 59,60,67,69

RC 1,8,11,12,21,27 ,29,43, 11,12,21,27,49 11,12,21

48,51,59

a

Reverse scored

Because the same four factors emerged in the present factor analysis that emerged in the original factor analysis of the RPI , it was

concluded that the Fort Ord da,ta constituted an appropriate data base

for the present study. Using this data base, two criteria were applied

to reduce the number of items in each of the four subscales. An item

was retained in the subscale if (a) it had a loading of at least .50 on

the appropriate factor (as determined by the factor analysis perform~d

on the Fort Ord data) and (b) the correlations it shared wi th the other

items in that subscale did not exceed .40. The items that were retained

through this procedure in each of the subscales are listed in Table 2,

along with the items that constituted the original scales and those that

constituted the full scales as defined by the results of the factor analysis that was performed on the RPI using the Fort Ord data.

6 

‘

t. -
rr —S—-—- -— — a~~~~—r fl9-fl - ~ _..c- - — —

Reduction of items in a scale is often difficult because the removal of some items causes the underlying factor that is being measured

to be lost or distorted. To insure that this had not occurred in the

present instance , a principal ax is factor analysis was performed on the

body of retained items. The results of this factor analysis are displayed in Table 3 and indicate that the factor structure of the RPI was

preserved.

The f inal test of an alternate instrument is to apply both instruments to the same phenomenon and check that the resulting data agree .

In the present case , this criterion becomes the amount of agreement between subjects’ scores on each of the four original scales and those on

the abridged version . A scale score (using unit weighting) was computed

• for each of the Fort Ord subjects on each of the original and each of

the abridged RPI scales. To determine extent of agreement , Pearson

product—moment correlation coefficients were computed between scores

derived for each of the original RPI scales and those der ived for the

abridged version .

RESULTS

Correlations Between Original and Abridged Scales

Table 4 displays the correlation coefficients between the original

and the abridged RPI scales. The data show a strong agreement between

the two versions of each of the scales. Thus, the reduction of items

in the four scales did not alter the general concept that was measured

by each.

To assess the stability of these correlations , these calculations

were repeated on a second sample of 1,500 permanent—basis personnel

who were administered the RAPS at Fort Hood in November 1974. The correlation coefficients that were computed between the orig inal and the

abridged RPI scale scores are shown in Table 5. These results are

highly similar to those obtained between the original scales and the

abridged scales using the Fort Ord data. However , these high correlations may be spurious. Since the short form was contained in the original form , the obtained correlations may be inflated by errors of

measurement. 2

2 . . Cronbach , L. J. Essentials of Psychological Testing. New York:

Harper and Row , 1970 , p. 225.

7

/1

- .

~~~~~~~~~~~~ ---- --~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - - - - - ~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - - - -~~~~~~~~~~
Table 3

Factor Analysis of the Abridged RPI

Loading Factor 1——Feelings of reverse racism

- .47 6. Harsher punishments are given out to black offenders

than to white offenders for the same types of

offenses.

.54 40. Some blacks get promoted just because they are black .

.55 41. Black power is a dangerous thing.

.78 54. Blacks frequently cry “prejudice” rather than accept

blame for personal faults.

.64 59. The Army provides a good career opportunity for

blacks.

.60 60. Blacks get away with breaking rules that whites are

punished for.

.57 67. Blacks don ’t take advant.age of the educational opportunities that are available to them.

.77 69. Many blacks have begun to act as if they are s~

uperior

to whites.

Factor 2--Perceived discrimination against blacks

.41 6. Harsher punishments are given out to black offenders

than to white offenders for the same type of offenses .

.67 7. Whites who supervise blacks doubt their competence .

.59 10. Blacks get more extra work details than whites.

.51 16. Whites act as though stereotypes about blacks were

true.

.58 23. Whi tes have a better chance than blacks to get the

best training opportunities.8
Table 3 (Conti nued)

Loading Factor 2 (Con tinued)

.54 24. Whites assume that blacks commit any crime that oc—

curs, such as thefts in the barracks.

.52 25. Whites do not show proper respect for blacks with

higher rank.

.61 34. Whites are not willing to accept criticism from

blacks.

.70 35. Whites get away with breaking rules that blacks are

punished for .

Factor 3--Attitudes toward integration

.51 4. Blacks were better off before this integration business got started.

.61 13. After duty hours, soldiers should stick together in

groups made up of their race only .

.54 20. Trying to bring about racial integration is more

trouble than it’s wort-i .

.74 28. Blacks and whites would be better off if they lived

• and worked only with people of their own races.

.60 31. If my unit had a supervisor of a race different from

mine , I would dislike it.

.50 58. A black who attends an all-black school is better off

as long as it is just as good as a white school.

- .50 61. There should be more close friendships between blacks

and whites in the Army .

9

__ ~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~ - 

_ _

_ ___ I

__ ~~~~~~- -

~~~ ~~~~~~~ -- -~~~~~~~~~ -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ----- -~~~~~——~~~~~~
Table 3 (Continued)

Loading Factor 4—-Racial climate

.52 11. I understand the feelings of people of other races

better since I joined the Army .

.60 12. The Army is firmly committed to the principle of

equal opportunity.

.48 21. If the race problem can be solved anywhere , it can

be solved in the Army .

10

~

- 

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

•- --
Table 4

Product Moment Correlations——Original vs. Abridged Scales,

and Fort Ord RPI vs. Abridged Scales

(Fort Ord 1975 Data Base, n = 505)

Scale Original vs. abridged Fort Ord vs. abridged

PDB .92 .90

ATI .94 .96

FRR .86 .95

.75 .91

Table 5

Product Moment Correlations——Original vs. Abridged Scales,

and Fort Ord RPI vs. Abridged Scales

(Fort Hood 1974 Data Base , n = 1,500)

Scale Original vs. abridged Fort Ord vs. abr idged

PDB .95 .96

ATI .94 .95

FRR .88 .91

RC .80 .91

Reliability

The final consideration in the abridgment of the RPI lies in the

issue of reliability. The reduction of the length of a scale will almost invariably reduce that scale ’s reliability. Additionally , an item

was selected for inclusion in an abridged RPI scale precisely on the

basis of there not being a strong correlation between that item and the

other items in that scale. One adverse side-effect of this procedure

would be a reduced internal consistency for the scales. Therefore , a

matter of real concern is the degree to which the RPI scales suffered

a serious reduction in their reliability as a result of their abridgment .

11 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alpha coefficients were computed for each For~ Ord RPI scale

(full length) for each of the abridged RPI scales. These coeff i—

cients are displayed in Table 6 along with the coefficients determined

in the original development of the RAPS. These coefficients indicate

that, although a good degree of internal consistency was preserved in

the shortening of the RPI, this consistency was less than that for the

full scale. However , inspection of this data reveals that this attenuation may be more a function of sample differences than of the length

of the scales. For example , the difference between the alpha coeff icient computed for the RC scale based on the original (1973) data and

on the Fort Ord (1975) data base was .20 , whereas the abridgment of

this scale reduced its reliability only .05 further. Whether this

cross-sample difference in the reliability of these scales was due to

the passage of time (i.e., 1973 vs. 1975), to the nature of the samples

(i.e., a service-wide sample vs. a sample drawn from a single installation), or to differing sample sizes is a matter for further experimental

attention. Therefore , further research on the cross-validation of the

abbreviated RPI scales should be done . However , this cross—sample difference notwithstanding, it appears that the effect of the shortening

of the RPI scales on these scales’ reliabilities was not overly

detrimental.

Table 6

Alpha Coefficients--Original, Fort Ord ,

and Abridged RPI Scales

Original Fort Ord Abridged

Scale (1973 data)a (1975 data) (1975 data)

PDB .95 .82 .72

ATI .88 .82 .88

FRR .88 .77 .71

RC .80 .60 .55

a

Hiett et al., 1974.

3

Cronbach , L. J. Coefficient Aiphas and the Internal Structure of

Tests. Psychometrika, 1954 , 16, 298—334.

12

___
• - --.- - - - - ___________________

DISCUSSION

These results indicate that the abridged RPI (see Appendix) is

a suitable alternative to the unabridged version of the scale. The

high correlations between the scale scores on the abridged RPI and on

the full instrument indicate that a similar pattern of results may be

obtained regardless of which version was employed .

Even with these positive results , however , it would not be advisable for a commander to rely solely on the abridged version (the

RAPS 2). It is recommended that the initial administration of the RAPS

in a unit should be accomplished with the original scale , and the

abridged version should be readininistered on some periodic basis for

followup purposes. This use of the complete scale allows for an itemby— item analysis of the resultant data that would provide the commander

with a fuller understanding of the factors that influence the racial

climate in his organization . With this understanding , the commander

is in a better position to interpret the results of the abridged RAPS ,

which should be administered in the periods between the use of the full

scale. Thus, the abridged RAPS should not displace the full RAPS but

rather complement its use. By using both scales, a commander should be

able to keep a close and continual watch on the racial climate in his

unit without imposing a heavy burden on his personnel resources.

13

L • • •

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

• •
~ -- - - - -

APPENDIX

RACIAL ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIOI-4S SURVEY : THE

ABRIDGED RACIAL PERCEPTIONS INVENTORY (RPI)

15
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ —.-•- — - - - - -

On ~our answe r sheet , mark your answer to each of these questions , as follows :

A DI SAGREE STRON GLY C NE ITHE R ‘~

GREE NOR DISAGREE

B DISAGREE D AGREE

E AGREE STRONGLY

1. Blacks were better off before this 14. Blacks and Whites would be better -

integration business got started . off if they lived and worked only

with people of their own race . 2. Harsher punishments (Article l5s , courts-martial , etc.) are given 15. If my unit had a supervisor of a

out to black offenders than to race different from mine , I

white offenders for the same would disli ke it.

types of offenses.

16. Whites are not willing to accept

3. Whites who supervise black super- criticism from Blacks.

visors doubt their competence.

l7~ Whites get away with breaking

4. Blacks get more extra work details rul es that Blacks are punished

than Whites. for.

5. I understand the feelings of 18. Some Blacks get promoted just

people of other races better because they are Black.

since I joined the Army .

19. Black power is a dangerous thing.

6. The Army is firmly cornitted to

the principle of equal opportunity . 20. Blacks frequently cry “prejudice ” rather than accept blame for

7. After duty hours , soldiers should personal faults.

stick together in groups made up

o~ their race only (Blacks only 21. A Black who attend an all -black

with Blacks , and Whites only school is better off as long as it

with Whites). is just as good as d white school .

8. Whites act as though stereotypes 22. The Army provides a good career

about Blacks were true (for opportunity for Blacks.

examp le , all Blacks are lazy).

23. Blacks get away with breaking

9. Try ng to bring about racial rules that Whit es are punished

integration is more trouble than for.

it’ s !.-lorth.

24. There should be more close

10. if the race probl em can be solved friendships between Blacks and

anywhere , it can be solved in the Whites in the Army

Army . 25. Blacks don ’t take advantage of

11. Whites have a better chance than the educational opportunities

Blacks to get the best training that are available to them . opportunities.

26. Many Blacks have bequn to act as

12. Whites assume that Blacks commit if they are superior to Whites.

any crime that occurs , such as

thefts in barracks.

13. ~

1hit-

~

s do not show proper respect

for Bkcks w ith higher rank.

16

4

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

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

D~

ST RIBUT ION

ARt Distribution List

4 OASD IM&RA) 2 HOUSACOEC . Ft Ord , ATTN: Library -

•

2 HODA (DAMI ~SZ) I HOUSACDEC , Ft Ord , ATTN: ATEC—EX—E—Hum Factort

1 HODA IDAPE-PBR 2 UsAEEc, Ft Benjamin Harrison , ATTN: Library

HODA (DAMA -AR) 1 USAPACOC . Ft Benjamin Harrison , ATTN: ATCP—HR

1 HODA (DAPE-HRE-PO ) 1 USA Comm—Elect Sd,, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: ATSN—EA

‘I HOOP. iSGRD-lO) 1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEL—C T—HDP

1 HQDA (DAMI-DOT-c) 1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth , ArrN: AMSEL—PA— P

1 HODA IDAPC-PMZ-A) 1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEL —Sl--CB

1 HOOP. (DACH- PPZ-AI 1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth. ATrN~ C, Fad Den Br

1 HQDA )DAPE-HRE 1 USA Materials Sys Anal Agcy, Aberdeen , ATTN: AMXSY — P

1 HODA (DAPE.MPO-C) 1 Edgewood Arsenal, Aberdeen , ATTN: SAREA — BL—H

1 HQOA (DAPE-DWI 1 USA Ord Ctr & Sd,, Aberdeen, ATtN ATSL—TEM—C

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

1 HODA IDAPE-CPS) 1 USA Combat Arms Tng Bd , Ft Benning, ATTN: Ad Supervisor

1 HODA IDAFD-MFA) 1 USA Infantry Hum Rscts Unis . Ft Banning, ATTN: Chief

1 HODA )DARD-ARS-P) 1 USA Infantry Bd, Ft Banning, ATTN: STEBC—TE—T

1 HOOP. )OAPC-PAS-A) 1 USASMA , Ft Bliss , ATrN ATSS—LRC

1 HOOP. (OUSA-OR) 1 USA Air Oaf Sch, Ft Bliss , ATTN: ATSA—CTD--ME

1 HODA (DAMO-RQR I 1 USA Air Oaf Sth, Ft Bliss, ATm: Tech Lib

1 HOOP. (DM0) 1 USA Air Oct Ed, Ft Bliss , ATIN: FILES

1 HODA IDA1O-PI) 1 USA Air Del Bd, Ft Bliss , ATTN: STEBD—PO

1 Chief , Consult Div (DA.OT5G). Adelph . MD 1 USA Cmd & General Stf College, Ft Leavenworth , ATTN: Lib

I Nil Asst. Hum Re,, 000R&E , OAO (E&LS) 1 USA Cmd & General Stf College, Ft Leavenworth , ATTN: ATSW—SE—L

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

I HO First Army, ATTN: AFKA-Ol-Tl I USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dee Act , Ft Leavenworth , A TTN: DepCdr

2 HO Fifth Army, Ft Sam Houston I USA Combined Arms Cmbt Des Act , Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: CCS

1 Dir, Army Stf Studi e, Ofc , ATTNI OAVCSA (DSP) 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dcv Act , Ft Leavenworth, ATTN : ATCASA

1 Ofc Chief of Stf , Studies Ofc 1 USA Combined Arms cmbt Dcv Act , Ft Leavenworth, ATIN: ATCACO—E

I DCSPER , AITN: CPS/OCP 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Des Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATIN: ATCACC—C l

I The~Army Lib , Pentagon, A’TTN: RSB Chief 1 USAECOM . Night Vision Lab , Ft Belvoir , ATTN: AMSEL —N V—S D

1 The Army Lib , Pentagon, AT’l’N: ANRAL 3 USA Computer Sys Cmd, Ft Belvoir , ATTN: Tech Library

1 Ofc . Asst Sect of the Army (R&D) 1 USAMEROC , Ft Belvoir , ATTN: STSFB—OQ

1 Tech Support Ofc , OJCS I USA Eng Sch, Ft Belvoir , ATTN: Library

1 USASA, Axlington. ATTN IARO-T I USA Topographic Lab, Ft Belvoir. ATTN: ETL—TD—S

I USA Rsch Ofc , Durham , ATTN: Life Sciences Dir 1 USA Topographic Lab , Ft Belv oir , ATTN: STINFO Canter

2 USARIEM , Natick , ATTN: SGRD-UE-CA 1 USA Topographic Lab , Ft Belvoi’, ATTN: ETL—GSL

1 USATTC , Ft Clayton , ATI’N: STETC-MO-A 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huacltuca , AT1’N: CTD—MS

I USAIMA . Ft Bragg, ATTN: ATSu-CTD-OM 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, AUN: ATS—CTD—MS

1 USAIMA. Ft Bragg, ATTN: Marquat Lib 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & 5th, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI—TE

1 US WAC Ctr & Sch, Ft McClellan , ATTN: Lib I USA Intelligence Ctr & Sth, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI—TEX—GS

1 US WAC Ctr & Sch, Ft McClellan, ATTN: Tng Dir 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sets , Ft Nuachuca, AT’TN: ATSI—CTS—O R

1 USA Quartermaste r Sd,, Ft Lee, ATTN: ATSM-TE 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sets, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI—CTD—DT

I Intelligence Material 0ev Ofc , EWL , Ft Holabird 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sets, Ft Ffuachuca , ATTN: ATSI—CTD—CS

1 USA SE Signal Sch , Ft Gordon, ATTN: ATSO-EA 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca , ATTN: DAS/SRD

1 USA Chaplain Ctr & Sth . Ft Hamilton , ATTN: ATSC-TE-RD 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI—TEM

1 USATSCH, Ft Eustis , ATTN: Educ Advisor I USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch , Ft Huachuca , ATTN: Library

1 USA War College, Carlisle Barracks . ATTN: Lb 1 CDR , HO Ft Huachuca, ATTN: Tech Ref Div

2 WRA I R , Neucopsychiatry Div 2 CDR , USA Electronic Prvg Ord, ATTN: STEEP—MT—S

1 DLI. SDA, Monterey I CDR , Project MASSTER , ATTN : Tech Info Center

1 USA Concept Anal Agcy, Bethesda, ATTN: MOCA-WGC 1 Hg MASSTER , USATRADOC. LNO

1 USA Concept Anal Agcy, Bethesda , ATTN MOCA-MR I Research Institute, HO MASSTER . Ft Hood

1 USA Concept Anal Agcy, Bethesda . ATTN: MOCA-J F 1 USA Recruiting Cmd, Ft Sherdian , ATTN : USARCPM—P

1 USA Attic Test Ctr, APO Seattle , ATTN: STEAC-MO.ASL 1 Senior Army Ads ., USAFAGOD/TAC , Elgin AF Act. FId No. 9

1 USA Attic Test Ctr , APO Seattle . ATT’N: AMSTE-PL-TS I HQ IJSARPAC, DCSPER , APO SF 96558, ATTN: GPPE—SE

USA Armament Crvsd, Redstone Arsenal , ATTN: ATSK-TEM 1 Stimson Lib, Academy of Health Sciences , Ft Sam Houston

1 USA Armament Cmii, Rock Island, ATTN: AMSAR-TDC 1 Marine Corps Inst ., A’fl’N: Dean—MCI

1 FAA- NAF EC , Atlantic City . ATTN: library 1 HQUSMC , Commandant, ATTN: Code MTMT 51

1 FAA-NAFEC , Atlantic City , ATTN: Hum En~ Br 1 HQUSMC, Commandant . ATT N: Code MPI—20

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

2 USA F h d Arty Sch , Ft Sill , ATTN: Library 2 USCG Academy, New London, ATTN: Library

I USA Armor Sch . Ft Knox , ATTN: Library USCG Training Ctr, NY, ATTN: CO

I USA Armor Sets. Ft Knox . ATTN ATSB-Dl-E 1 USCO Training Ctr, NY, ATTN: Educ Svc Of c

1 USA Armor Sth, Ft Knox , ATTN: ATSB-OT-TP 1 USCG. Psycho) Res Br, DC, ATTN: GP 1/6 2

I USA Armor Sch, Ft Knox , A11’N: ATSB-CO-AD 1 HO Mid—Range Br, MC Dat . Quantico , ATTN: P&S Div

17 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1 ’ ~~~~ ‘

- ~~- 

— — —

~~ 

‘

~~~

‘ .

—

1 US Marine Corps Lia is ion Ofc , AMC , Alexandria . ATTN: AMCGS—F 1 Oaf & CIvil Inst of Envu ro P.4.ducin.. Canada

1 USATRADOC , Ft Monroe , ATTN : A TRO—ED I AIR CRESS, Kensington. ATTN: Info Sys Br

6 USATRADOC , Ft Monroe . ATTN: ATPR—AD 1 MlIlt..rp.ykologuak T) nsste. Copehap,n

1 USATRADOC, Ft Monroe , ATTN : ATI’S—EA 1 MilItary Attach ., French Embassy. AT1’N: Doe S.c

1 USA Forces Cmd , Ft McPherson , ATIN: Library 1 Mid.cin Chef. C.E.R.P.A.—Arsenal. Toulon/Naval France

2 USA Aviation Test Ed, Ft Roc ker , ATTN: STEBG—PO 1 Prin Sci.nt3fic Off . ApgM l4tj

~

% Eja~ Rids Di,, Mirsugry

1 USA Agcy for Aviation Safety, Ft Rucker . ATTN: Library of Defena., New Delhi

1 USA Agcy b r Aviation Safety, Ft Rucker, ATTN: Educ Advisor 1 Pen Rich Ofc Library, AKA. Israe l Defense Forces

I USA Asiation Sets , Ft Roc ker , ATTN: P0 Drawer o 1 M lnhi terit van Defensie. 000P/KL AId Socuaal

1 HOUSA Aviation Sys Cn,d. St Louis , ATTN : AM SAV—ZOR Psychologiache Ziken, The Hague, Netherlands

2 USA AviatIon Sya Teef Act ., Edwards MB, ATTN: SAVT E—T

I USA Air Oaf Sets . Ft Bliss , ATJ’N: ATSA TEM

1 USA Air Mobility R,ch & Dcv Lab . Motlett FId , ATTN: SAVOL—AS

1 USA Aviation Sdi. Re, Tng Mgt. Ft Rur-ker , ATTN: ATST—T—RTM

I USA Aviation Sets , CO. Ft Rucker , ATTN: ATS1’—D—A

1 HO, DARCOM , Alexandria , ATTN: AMXCD—TL

I HO, DARCOM , Ale xandria . ATTN: CDR

1 US Military Academy, West Point, ATTN: Serials Unit

1 US Military Academy, West Point , ATTN: Ofc of Milt Ldrs hp

1 US Military Academy, West Point , ATTN: MAOR

1 USA Standardization Op. UK , EPO NY, ATTN: MASE—GC

1 Ofe of Naval Rseh , Arlington, ATTN : Code 452

3 Ofc of Naval Rach. Arlington, ATTN: Code 458

1 Ofc of Naval Rsch , Arlington, ATTN: Code 450

1 Ofc of Naval Rsch , Arlington, ATTN: Coda 441

1 Naval Aerospe Med Res Lab, Pensacola, ATTN: Acous Sets Div

1 Naval Aerospc Med Res Lab , Pensacola , AT’TN: Code L5I

I Naval Aerospc Med Re, Lab , Pensacola, ATTN: Code L5

1 Chief of NavPers . ATTN: Pers-OR

1 NAVAIRSTA , Norfolk , ATTN: Safety Ctr

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

I Canter of Nasal Anal, A’fl’N: Doe Ctr

I NavA irSysCom , ATTN: AIR—53 13C

I Nay ~ .s Med, ATtN: 113

I NavHeliccpterSubSqua 2, FPO SF 96601

I AFHR L (FT) William AFB

I AFHRL (U) Lowr’i AFB

I AFHRL (AS) WPAFB , OH

2 AFHRL (DOJZ) ‘irooks AFB

I AFHR L IDOJN) Lackland APE

1 HO(JSAF IINYSDI

I HOUSAF IDPXXAI

I AFVTG (RI)) Randolph AFB

3 AMRL (HE) WPAFB , OH

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

1 ATC )XPTD) Randolph AFB

1 USAF AeroMed Lib , Brook s AFB (SUL—4 ). ATTN : DOC SEC

1 AFOSR )NL), Arlington

1 AF Log Cmii, McClellan AFB, ATTN : ALC/DPCRB

I Air Force Academy, CO. ATTN: Dept of Bal Sen

5 NasPers & Des Ctr , Sen Diego

2 Navy Med Nauropsychiatric Rich Unit , San Diego

1 Nay Electronic Lab, San Diego , ATTN: Re, Lab

1 Nay TrrsgCen, San Diego , ATTN: Code 9000—Lib

1 NavPostGraSch , Monterey, ATTN: Code 55Aa

1 NavPo stGraSch , Monterey. ATTN: Code 2124

1 NavTrngEquipC t r , Orlando , ATTN: Tech Lib

1 US Dept of Labor . QC, ATTN: Manpower Mmin

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

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

1 Nat Cleari ng House for MN—Info , RocIcaille

1 Denver Federal Ctr , Lakewood, ATTN: BIM

12 Defense Documentation Center

4 Dir Psych, Army Hq, Russell Ofcs. Canberra

I Scientific Advsr, Mit Ed, Ar my Hg, Rustell Ole,. Canberra

1 Mu and Air Attache , Ausg~an Embassy

1 Centre de Recherche Des Facteurs . Humaine de Ia Detente

Nationala , Brusse ls

2 Canadian Joint Staff Washington

1 C/Air Staff , Royal Canadian AF , A11’N: Pars Std Anal Br

3 Chief, Canadian Oaf Rich Staff , A’rTN: C/CRDS(W)

4 British Dat Staff , Briti sh Embassy , Washington

-