— --- ,-— -‘

~~

--.

~

TECHNICAL PAPER 372 

[AD

USING AN ASSESSMENT CENTER TO

PREDICT FIELD LEADERSHIP PERFORMANCE

OF ARMY OFFICERS AND NCOs

Frederick N Dyer

and

Richard E. Hilligoss

ARI FIELD UNIT AT FORT BENNING, GEORGIA

I

~ 

C

U. S. Army

Research ~

nst,tute b r t he R~havioraI and Social Sciences

May 1979

Approv.d for public r,l..s. . dpgtribution unhim~t.d.

79 ~~ 12 036
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ‘

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

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

WILLIAM L. HAUSER

JOSEPH ZEIDNER Colonel, US Army

Technical Director Commander

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION Primary dittribution of this report his been made by ARI. Pl ease sddr lss correspondsn

~S

concerning distribution of reports to: U. S. Army R.aeerch Institute for the Behav ioral arid Social Sciences ,

ATTN PERI P, 5001 E,senhower Avenue. Alexa ndria , Vtrg snia 22333.

FINAL. DISPOSITION This report may be destroyed when it is no longer needed. Pleas do not rlturfl it to

the U. S. Army Research Institute for thi Behavioral end Social Sciences.

IL The findings in this report are not to be construed a, en of fid el D.g.rtment of the Army position,

unless so designated by othir authorized documents.
Unclassified SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Plian Data Ent.r.d)

~~~~~~~~~~~ I%~~ F’i m iI

~ A~~~ifflJ 

~~

,.E READ INSTR UCTIONS

‘~~ rvs

~ i UWI CFI I M I I”t’ BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

_____ 3. RE~~P.IENT S CATALOG NUMB ER —

Technical Paper ~~~ ~ 

~ (1~

Jx / 1/ 1 

~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _~~~~ .. _._ , 5. TYPE OF REPORT 6 PERIOD COVERED

JJSING AN ASSESSMENT CENTER TO PREDICT IIELD \ -- • I LEADERSHIP PERFORMANCE OF ARMY ØFFICERS AND NCOs,

— 

6. PERFORMING ORG. RE PORT NUMBER - - -.- -——-—. 

7. AU TN OR (.) S. CONTR ACT OR GRANT NtJMBER(.)

IC ,

~ 

Frederick N ./ Dy er ~~~ Richard EjHilli9oss --

~~. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAM E AND ADDR ESS tO. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT , TA SK

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral A REA 6 WORK UNIT NUMBERS

and Social Sciences 2Q162717A766 I 5001 Eisenhower Avenue , Alexandria , VA 22.

~~3

II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS -. I

~ . REPQR7 GATE

U.S. Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Personne~ ~ij MaY ~~ 79

Washington , DC 20310 _~~

‘ T3. WUMBEROF PAGES

30

ti MONI YORING AGENCY NAME I AODRESS(II diU.rwt frcie Cont,ollln4 Offi c.) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of thi. r.port)

~~~ 21, .

, / Unclassified

—— - ... f 5.. OECLASSIF ICATION/DOWNGRAD ING SCHEDULE

IS. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of till, R.port)

Approved for public release ; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTR,euTIoN STATEMENT (of A. ab.Iract ..ni.r.d In Block 20, If dlU.r..nt from R.pof l)

te. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

IC. KEY WORDS (Continua on tar.,.. aid. If n.c...ay a.d l d.ntlly by block math.?)

Assessment center

Assessment center exercises

Performance ratings

Leadership dimensions

26. AWST RACT (Ca,s~~ ,. ro..ma .f

~~ If n.c..aty d id.nf Sly by block ma, bat)

‘Z~During 1973 and 1974, the U.S. Army Infantry School (USAIS) Assessment

Center (ACTR) at Fort Benning , Ga., tested 408 officers and NCOs who were

students in USAIS leadership courses. Field leadership performance ratings

for these assessees were then obtained at 6- and 18-month intervals following

graduation and assignment to new units . Complete rating data was obtained

at 6 months for 159 of the original assessees and at 6 and 18 months for 108

of these assessees. Correlations between these ratings at 6 and 18 months

(continued)

DO ~~~~~~~~~ 1473 £OITSON OF?NOV S IS OSSOt.STE Unclassified

SECURITY CLAUI~~ICATt0W OF THIS PAGE (WPr.n Oar. I,i t .,.d)

//

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _ _
- - —

Uncl assified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAOE(WIia, 0.1. Eni.re d)

Item 20 (continued)

~~averaged .66 for the different assessee groups , indicating a substantial

degree of reliability for the rating instrument . Field leadership performance at 6 months was predicted by items in an entry interview, a pape r

and pencil test, and a Person Description Blank . Taken together, however ,

the results indicate only marginal utility for the USAIS ACTR for prediction

of the field leadership performance of junior officers and NCOs. Typically,

the more assessor time required for an assessee measure , the less chance

that the score would predict field leadership.

The report is written for behavioral psychplogists.

i

i

Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSI FICATION OF THI S PAGE(Wh.n flat. Ent.r.d)

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

———--— -.--— —--

~~~--- --•.-. ——
TECHNICAL PAPER 372

USING AN ASSESSMENT CENTER TO

PREDICT FIELD LEADERSHIP PERFORMANCE

OF ARMY OFFICERS AND NCOs

Frederick N. Dyer

and

Richard E. Hilligoss

Submitt ed by:

H.C. Strasel , Chi ef

ARI FIELD UNIT AT FORT BENNING, GEORGIA

Approved By:

E. Ralph DUsek , Director

PERSONN EL AN D TR AINING

RES EAR CH LA BORAT ORY

Joseph Zeidner

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

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

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333

Office , Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

May 1979

Army Prolec t Number Assessment Center Technology

20162717A786

~~~ rceed to, public r.Ieese. dIstribution unlimited

-~~ .-. -— -.. —~~~~~~~~~~~ ---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .
___

~

_ -- w-•• _ _ _..

~

_____~ - .,.-.

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

-.-.-••-.-•-- ______________

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 recommen

dations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military

agencies by bt’iefing or Disposition Form.

L — ___
FOREWORD ______ ___________ _______________

The research repor ted here was performed by the Fort Benning

Field Un it of the Army Research Institute. As part of an ongoing pro—

gram , the research is direc ted toward deve loping cost—effective methods for leadership assessment and training. This program includes

research on mul t ip le aspec ts of the des ign , developmen t , evaluat ion ,

and integration of cost—effective leadership training systems for

the U.S. Army .

This paper de scribe s a val ida t ion study of the U .S. Army Infantry

School (USAIS) Assessment Center (ACTR) which tested over 400 junior

officers and hCOs during the period July 1973 to December 1974. The

Army Research Institute correlated assessee data from the ACTR with

field ratings of leadership obtained on t h e assessees 6 and 18 months

following their assignment to new duty stations. This was done to

ident if y ACTR exercises wh ich accurately predict future leadership

performance. Such exercises will be streamlined for future use In

the selection and training of junior officers and NCOs .

This projec t was conducted during FY7Land IIZS as an in—house

effor t , par t of Army RDTE Project 2Q2 (2717A766 , Manpowe r Systems Managemen t. The research was directl y responsive to the needs of USAIS

and TR.ADOC.

echn ical Direc to r
F”

USING AN ASSESSMENT CENTER TO PREDICT FIELD LEADERSHIP

PERFORMANCE OF ARMY OFFICERS AND NCOs

BRIE F

Requirement :

To determine how effectively an Assessment Center can predict

field leadership .

Procedure:

During 1973 and 1974, the U.S. Army Infantry School (USAIS) Assessment Center (ACTR) at Fort Benning tested 408 officer and NCO

students in USAIS leadership courses. Field leadership performance

rat ings were obtained from superiors , peers , and subordinates of the

assessees at 6— and 18—month intervals following graduation of the

assessee and assignment to a new unit.

Findings :

Field leadership ratings by superiors, peers , and subordinates

were substantially the same at 6 and 18 months ; that is , the ratings

were reliable . The most assessor—intensive formal ACTR exercises

actually did the poorest job of predicting field leadership. Self—

description provided the most leadership predictors and required the

least assessor and assessee time . Lieutenants who were rated high

on leadership by their superiors , peers , and subordinates following

the Infantry co urse , judged themselves to be competitive , sensitive ,

and organized . Captains who were about to enter the Advanced Course ,

and who later received high ratings on the field leadership cr iter ion ,

were apt to be high on their need for order. The enlisted men about

to enter Off icer Candidate School , and who , following this training,

were rated high on field leadership , were more apt than their low—

rated peers to make a good overall impression . NCOs about to enter

the Advanced NCO course , who later received high ratings on field

leadership, were more apt than their low—rated peers to show enthusi—

asm , be athletic , and firm in their decisions.

Utilization of Findings :

Self—descriptions of leadership capacity did predict field lead—

ership ratings . Such self—ratings could be used to aid leader selec—

tion in Basic Combat Training , Advanced Individual Training, and other

situations where selec tion of leaders must occur swif tly and w ith

li tt le oppor tunity for observation of leader skills.

________ ______ -- - -- - ----
USING AN ASSESSMENT CENTER TO PREDICT FIELD LEADERSHIP PERFORMANCE

OF ARMY OFFICERS AND NCOs

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION 1

METHOD 1

Assessment Center Personnel 1

Assessment Center Exercises 2

Psychometric Tests and Self—Description Instruments 5

Conduct of the Assessment Center 6

Field Leadership Performance Ratings 6

RESULTS 7

Assessor Ratings of Assessee Performance During Formal

Exercises 8

Peer—Rankings on Group Exercises 10

Self—Rankings on Group Exercises 11

Entry Interview Performance Evaluation 12

Pencil and Paper Performance Tests 12

Self—Description Instruments 13

Comparison of Different Classes of ACTR Scores 14

DISCUSSION 23

Characteristics of Specific Assessee Groups 23

Predictive Validity of Different Classes of ACTR Scores 26

REFERENCES 27

DISTRIBUTION LIST 29

TABLES

Table 1. Assessee Group Characteristics and Sizes 3

2. Person Description Blank “Yourself” correlations

with criterion . 15

3. Results for six different classes of ACTR scores—

all assessee groups combined. 17 
TABLES Page 

Table 4. Results for six different classes of ACTR 

score: IOBC assessees 19 

5. Results for six different classes of ACTR 

score: IOAC assessee& 20 

6. Results for six different classes of ACTR 

score: BIOCC assesse s 21 

7. Results for six different classes of ACTR 

score: ANCOES ass ssees 22 

8. Resul ts for separat:e ACTR exercises for all 

assessee gr oups. 24 
USING AN ASSESSMENT CENTER TO PREDICT FIELD LEADERSHIP PERFORMANCE OF ARMY

OFFICERS AND NCOs 1

INTRODUCTION

The assessment center concept involves the immersion of individuals

in situations which simulate those he would face if he were selected for

entry or promotion. It has been widely used In industry and business to

selec t personnel fo r high level posi tions .

2 In 1973—1974 the U.S. Army

Infantry School (USAIS) Assessment Center (ACTR) assessed students from the

Infantry Off icer Advanced Course (IOAC), the Infan try Off icer Bas ic Course

(IOBC) and the Advanced NCO Educa tional System (ANCOES) to determine the

feasibility of the assessment center as techniques for leadership

developmen t and leadership prediction . It also assessed students from the

Branch Immaterial Officer Candidate Course (BIOCC) to determine the

feasibility of the a8sessment center concept as a selection device .3 The

purpose of the present paper Is to discuss the effectiveness of the ACTR

for pred ic ting field leadership performance.

METHOD

ASSESSMENT CENTER PERSONNEL

The assessors consisted of six Majors , seven Captains , two

Lieutenants , three Master Sergeants , two Sergeants First Class , and one

Staff Sergeant . The assessors were selected by DA using the following

cr iteria : each man must be in one of the combat arms ; each Captain and

above must have had command experience; each Major , Cap tain , and Sergeant

1

A prel iminary version of this Technical Paper was presented at the 19th

Annual Conference of the Military Testing Assoc iation , San Antonio ,

Texas , 17—21 October 1977.

2

Earles , J. A. and Winn , W. R. Assessment Centers: An Annotated

Bibliography. AFHRL —TR—77— 15, May 1977.

3

U.S. Army Infan try School. Assessment Center After Action Report:

Executive Summary (Book 1 , Vol. 1), December 1974.

L ~~~- . - - - -
must have served in combat; and Officers must have an advanced degree in 

one of the behavioral sciences. The assessors received training for four 

months on principles and techniques in assessment, interviewing and 

counseling before beginning their duties. The training included repeated 

rehearsals of assessment exercises. 

Table 1 presents a summary of assessee characteristics and group 

sizes. Assessees reported to Fort Benning one week before their scheduled 

USAIS course to participate in the assessment center. They were randomly 

selected by DA from all students scheduled for USAIS leadership training. 

ASSESSMENT CENTER EXERCISES 

The AGTR staff, with assistance from Army Res earch Institute and 

HumRRO scientists, constructed exercises and questionnaires to measure ten 

dimensi ons of leader behavior. Leadership research indicated these dimensions to be appropriate for the assigned mission and it was believed these 

dimensions could be evaluated using the assessment center concept. These 

were adaptability, administrative skills, communication skills, decision 

making, forcefulness, mental ability, motivation, effectiveness in an 

~rganizational leadership role, social skills, and supervisory skills. 

In evaluating possible exercises and exercise concepts, a basic factor 

of considerati~n was that the exercises would place the assessees in 

uniquely different situations while simultaneously providing multiple 

opportunities for the evaluation of each dimension. Exercises were 

developed which exhibited situational diversity, military relevance and 

apparent potential for eliciting behaviors related to the designated 

dimensions.4 The following exercises were developed: 

Entry Interview: A background interview to elicit information related 

to motivation, experience and the assessee's self-knowledge of his 

strengths and weaknesses (Time: 65'). 

Appraisal Interview: An applied exercise in which each assessee 

interviewed two others t o select one for a position within a ba!talion. 

This interview elicited behaviors related to ~ommunication skills, social 

interaction and organization of thought (105'). 

Leaderless Group Discussion: This exercise was a combined individual 

and group task in which 6 IOAC assessees were assigned a mission to 

distribute year-end funds among the represented directorates while 

attempting to acquire a maximum amount for his own directorate. IOBC, 

BIOCC, and ANCOES assessees were assigned a mission to get a soldier from 

their unit selected as the Brigade Soldier of the Month and providing a 

4 

Olmstead, J. A., Cleary, F. K., Lackey, L. L., and Salter, J. A. 

Development of Leadership Assessment Simulations. Human Resources 

Research Organization TR 73-21, September 1973. 

- 2 -
Table 1

ASSESSEE GROUP CHARACTERISTICS MD SIZES

ASSESSMENT GROUP

— Descriptor IOUC TOAC BIOCC(OCS) ANCOES

Ntaber Aaeee.ed 90 88 143 87

Nt~~ er vith coeplete

6—~~nth ratings 45 36 40 38

Pay Grade 0—1 0—3 E 3—6 E 64

Average Age 22.6 28.8 25.3 33.3

Average yeare of

Active Duty 0.3 5.7 3.3 12.

9S
-

~~~

rank order of merit list of the available candidates . This exercise

elicited behaviors associated with forcefulness, persuasiveness,

organ i za t ional ability and group interaction (140’ ).

In—Basket Exercise (Three versions : IOAC — assessee was placed in the

role of a battalion commander; IOBC/BIOCC — assessee was placed in the role

of a company commander; ANCOES — assessee was placed in the role of a 1st

Sergeant). An in—basket containing many items typical of the appropriate

position was presented to the assessee who had 3 hours to address each item

in the in—basket. This exercise elicited behaviors relating to problem

solving , dec is ion making, work organization and leadership . It was

followed by an interview to discuss reasons for action taken and the

relat ionship perceived to exist among some of the actions (Exercise 180’;

Interview 80’).

War Came (IOAC assessees only): This was an assigned—role rotating

leader exercise conducted in two 160 minute sessions. Teams of 6 players

engaged in cost effectiveness analys is in a mil itary force planning

environment. Total costs , R&D , intelligence acquis it ion, balanced

offensive/defensive forces were all considered under limited bud ge t and

t ime constraints. This exercise elicited organizational and leadership

behav ior (Exercise 320’; Or ientation 90’).

Rad io Simulate (Three versions : IOAC assessees were placed in company

commander role; IOBC/BIOCC assessees were plac ed in a platoon leader role

during a civilian emergency situation to insure that lack of military

exp er ience did no r preclude them fr om par tic ipation in the exercises;

ANCOFS assess eeu were placed in the role of acting platoon leaders) . It

was a 5—hour exercise using rad ios as the only means of communication . It

el icited organizational and leadership behaviors (Exercise 300’;

Or ientation 90’).

Ass igned Leader Group Exercise (Field Exercise) (IOBC , 810CC, ANCOES):

This was a 5—hour rotating leader designated exercise involving a team of 6

assessees. There were 6 lanes with a different obs tacle prov ided for each

lane. It elicited emergent leadership, planning and organizational

behaviors (300’).

Management Exercise (“ Cong lomerate ”): This was a two hour exercise

d ivided into two planning and two trad ing periods. The 18—man assessment

group was organized into three 6—man groups who competed against each

other. This exercise elicited behaviors relating to emergent leadersh i p,

aggressiveness and social interaction (120’).

Wr iting Exercise: This was an exercise designed to measure accuracy of

information provided , grammar , spelling and comp leteness . The IOAC

—4—
assessees responded to a Staff Action Paper and oth r ussessm n t g roups 

to a discharge action (60'). 

PSYCH<JotETRIC TESTS AND SELF-DESCRIPTION INSTRUMENTS 

A survey of tests in general was made revealing many possibilities for 

adoption into the assessment p~ogram. The primary c rite rion fo r selecting 

speci fie tests was relevance of the variables to be tested to the l endcrship 

dimensions of administrative skills, communication skills, supervisory skills, 

forcefulness, adarcabilitv, decision making, and mental ability. 

Additional criteria used in selecting tests w re: non-offensive test 

items, suitability :.Ln content and format for use with mature adults, 

adequacy of normative data and theoretical discussions, recency of publication or revision and efficiency in test administration. 

Both cognitive and non-cognitive tests w re s lccted specifically to 

(1) allow for the compnrison of an individual score with normative duta 

and (2) ve rify the results of other assessment measurements. Group tests 

were selected in order to minimize the number of ass ssors a,ld the amount 

of time requirPd for each assessment. The psychometric tests and selfdescriptive instruments selected are listed below. The Pe rson Description 

Blank was developed for this project. All others are described in the 

Mental Measurement Yearbook.5 

1. Leadership Opinion Questionnair 

2. Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal 

3. Nelson-Denny Reading Test 

4. Henmon-Nelson Test of Ment ~otl Ability 

5. Leadership Q-Sort Test 

6. Social Insight Test (Chapin) 

7. Work Environment Prefe r nc Schedul (Gordon) 

8. Strong Vocational Int rest Blank 

9. Edwards Personal Preference Sch dule 

10. Person Description Blank 

Questionnaires to obtain specific bat:kground information about the 

assessee, and to solicit the assessee's opinion of his assessment 

experience, were also developed. The purpos of these questionnaires 

was to assist in the overall research effort and to olle t s uggestions 

for improving Assessment Cent r t echniques and administration. 

5 

Buros, 0. K., The Seventh Mental M asuremcnts Yearbook. Gryphon Press, 

Highland Park, N.J., 1972. 

- 5 -
- -

CONDUC T OF THE ASSESSMENT CENTER

Assessment activities occup ied three—and—one—h alt days of the

assessee’s t ime . Days typ ically began at 0700 with activities continuing

to 2100. This allowed collection of a great deal of information in the

shor t t ime ava ilable , enhanced the “to tal immers ion” exper ience , and

reduc ed the effects of outside influences on ACTR performance. Paper and

pencil tests, simulated leadership tasks and interviews were approximately

equally d istributed over the three—and—one—half—day period . Certain groups

of assessees returned for feedback counseling from one to three weeks

following their assessment. During this three—hour period their Leadership

strengths and weaknesses as identified in the assessment center were

commun ica ted and ac t iv it ies were sugges ted wh ich wo uld lead to correc ti on

of deficienc ies.

FIELD LEADERSHIP PERFORMANCE RATINGS

The leadersh ip criterion used to validate the ACTR measures consisted

of ratings of ten leadership dimens ions by two super iors , two peers and two

subord inates of the assessee. These were made six months following the

comp letion of the assessee’s USAIS course by personnel in his new unit .

The same ra t ings were ob t a ined aga in 18 months following comp letion of

school although fewer questionnaires were returned at this later period .

Where ra ti ngs were obtained at both periods , there was only a [0% overlap

In raters from the first period to t he’ second .

The ten leadershi p d imensions were decision making . administrative ’

skills , Interpersonal coinpetenence (soc ial skills), communi ca t i on sk i lls ,

supervisory skills , organ i za ti onal role sk i lls , technical and tactical

compe tence , leader motivation, leader adaptabilit y , and leader

forcefulness. For each d imension , f ive statements describing particul ar

behav iors were rated making a total of 50 items on the Leadership

Perf ormanc e Ra t ing Form (LPRF) .6

Appr ox imately one—half of the questionnaires were returned . Comp le te

ra ting data was obtained on 159 of the original 408 assessees at six

months and comp l ete data was obtained on 108 assessees at six and IS

months.

Sal ter , J. R., and O [ms tead , J. A. Research on Assessment CrIteria and

Co un sel ing Me thods. Human Resources Research Organization TER 74—25 ,

December 1974.

— 6 —

L ___
The average rating for all 50 items per questionnaire and all six 

~uestionnaircs was calculated for six months and for 18 months. Tl1c 

correlations between these two averages ranged from .54 for the IOBC 

tlssessees, through • 68 for IOAC asses sees, to • 7 5 for the ANCOES asses sees. 

Only 15 BIOCC assessees had complete rating data for 6 and 18 months and 

the nega tive correlation between six and 18 month averages for this group 

(-.35) may have been spurious. The six-month/18-month correlation may be 

thougl1t of as a test/retest reliability. These correlations arc surprisingly 

high since on-the-job-training could change leadership over the 12-month 

p riod between ratings and because of the relatively short time for observation of leadership prior to the first ratings (six months) . Correlations 

between rater types (superior, peer, subordinate) w re also generally 

significant and positiv' for each rating period (for IOBC, lOAC, and 

ANCOES assess es) . 

Although these correlations indicate the overall av•ragc rating at a 

rating period was highly reli"ble , the questionnaire failed to discri111inatc 

among tl~ ten dimensions that presumably we r e represented in the fifty 

items. A factor analysis i ndicated only one significant fac tor whic l1 

accounted for 74% of this common variance. It is not cl ar whether the 

failure to discriminate among leadership dimensions reflected a "halo" 

effect or whethe r the different leadership dimensions are as interdependent 

as these high correlations indicate. 

The average rating for a ll 300 questions (six raters x SO questions) at 

the six-month rating period was used as the field leadership criterion to 

validate the ACTR measures. This choice was based on th higl1 correlations 

(see above) betwe n the six-month and 18-month ratings and tho availability 

of greater data for the six-month period. 

RESULTS 

The scores obtained frc:n the ACTR fall into the following six classes: 

1. Assessor ratings of assessee performance during individual and 

group formal exercises such as the In-Basket. 

2. Peer rankings of assessees in those formal exercises where a group 

of assessees participated together such as the Assigned Leader Group 

Exercise, 

3. Sclf-rankings by the assessee of his performance relative to other 

group membe rs in these group exercises, 

4. Leadership dimens ion ratings made by an assessor during the Entry 

Interview with the assessee, 

- 7 -
5. Aaaeaaee performance on paper and pencil performance tests, and 

6. Aaaeaaee self-descriptions on questionnaires and other instruments 

such as the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. 

The results will be discussed for each of the above classes of score 

and, following this, the classes of ACTR scores themselves will be 

discussed and compared on their effectiveness for prediction of the field 

leadership ratings criterion. Proportions of successful predictors will be 

compared among classes as will the amount of t l me required by assessors and 

assessees to obtain each successful measure. The end result will be an 

ordering of the different classes of ACTR measure on their utility for 

predicting the criterion. 

1. ASSESSOR RATINGS OF ASSESSEE PERFORMANCE DURING FORMAL EXERCISES 

Leaderless Group Discussion (LGD) 

Assessor ratings for this exercise provided good predictors of the 

field leadership criterion for the IOBC assessee group. In particular, a 

rating of "amount of negative soc ial behavior shown" was correlated (r•-.56. 

p(.Ol) with the cri t e r ion ind icat n~ thAt those ass essees who showed 

more negative social behavior were more likely to be rated high on field 

leadership. Similarly, "social concern" was related to the criterion with 

IOBC assessee& who showed leas social concern being more apt to be rated 

high on field leadership (r•-.37, p<.Ol). One other rated dimension that 

waa aianificantly related to the criterion for this group was "speaking 

ability" • IOBC asaeaseea who were rated high on this dimension were more 

apt to be rated high on field leadership (r•.28, p<.05). 

For BIOCC assessee&, "social concern" was significantly related to the 

criterion (r•.31, p<.05) but, contrary to IOBC, high social concern was 

related to good rAtings on the criterion. 

For ANCOES assessees, the Leaderless Group Discussion produced a 

single significant relation with the criterion. The dimension "conveys 

information" was correlated negatively (r•-.32, p<.05), indicating that 

persons rated lower on this communication skill dimension were more apt to 

be rated high on the criterion. As will be shown throughout this s P.c tion, 

poor performance for NCOs on the ACTR exer cises was frequently r elated to 

higher ratings on the criterion. 

Assessor ratings on the Leaderless Group Discussion failed to predict 

the criterion for the IOAC assessee group. 

Conglomerate Exercise (CONG) 

Only tw of the assessor ratings for this exercise showed significant 

- 8 -
relationships with the criterion . For the IOBC assessees, ratings of

“energy and vigor ” were negatively correlated (r —— . 26 , p<.OS) indicating

that low energy and vigor were more apt to be related to high f ield

leadership ratings. For the BIOCC assessees, the “ receptivity” rating

showed a positive correlation with the criterion ( r— .36 , p<.0 5). Assessees

who were rated hig her on the “recept ivity” dime ns ion (listen ing to and

considering ideas of others) were more apt to receive hig h field leadership

ratings.

Assessor ratings on the Conglomerate Exercise failed to predict the

criterion for the ANCOES and IOAC groups .

Radio Simulate

Assessor ratings on the Radio Simulate exercise were almost completely

unrelated to the field leadership criterion . Only for the ANCOES asse ssees

was one significant relationship found for the rating of “ adaptability”

(r—— .28 , p<.OS) . In this case , poor NCO performance on the exercise was

related to hig h criterion performance.

In—Basket

Assessor ratings on this exercise showed significant relations to the

criterion for all groups but the IOBC assessees. For IOAC cap ta ins , the

field leadership cr iterion was positively related to good assessor ratings

on “decision making ” ( r — .29 , p<.O5) and “use of ava ilable informa tion”

(r— .36, p .

~.OS). For BIOCC assessees high criter ion ra tings were related to

good performance on “written communication ” (r— .27 , p< .OS) and “task

orientation ” (r— .35, p< .OS).

All significant relationships between In—Basket assessor ratings and

ANCOES field leadership ratings were negative. Good criterion ratings were

related to poor “direc t ing ability” ( r—— .27 , p<.OS) and poor “ task

orientation” ( r—— .37 , p < .05).

~

,ppraisal Interview

No assessor rating was significantly related to the criterion for the

IOBC , IOAC and BIOCC assessee groups for this exercise . For the ANCOES

assessee group two dimensions: “ab ili ty to organize” (r—— .33, p - ~

.OS) and

“use of Informa tion” Cr — — .29 , p — .05), were related . The negative

correla tions indica te tha t poor “abil ity to organ ize” and poor “use of

information” on the exercise were related to good field leadership ratings .

Writing Exercise

Assessor ratings on “accuracy of wr itten information” were

significantly related to the criterion for both the IOBC and IOAC groups

—9—
(r•-.27 and r•-.29, respectively, p<.OS for both). The negative 

relationship indicates that poorer writing accuracy was related to better 

field leadership ratings. The other significant relationship for this 

exercise was "spelling" which for the ANCOES assessees was related 

positively to the criterion (r•.28, p<.OS). 

Assessor ratings on the Writing Exercise failed to predict the 

criterion for the BIOCC group. 

Assigned Leader Group Exercise (ALGE) 

All assessee groups except the IOAC captains completed this exercise. 

This exercise was successful in predicting the criterion for the ANCOES 

group. High assessor ratings on two dimensions were associated with high 

field leadership ratings. These were "emergent leadership" (r•.29, p <.OS) 

and "group facilitation" (.r•. 29, p <.OS). Interestingly, these were the two 

dimensions on the exP.rcises that were classed as "follower behaviors". The 

other significant relationship indicated that low assessor ratings on 

"flexibility" were associated with high scores on the criterion (r•-. 30, p < 

.OS). 

The ALGE assessor ratings provided no significant correlations with 

the criterion for the remaining IOBC and BIOCC assessee groups. 

Leader Game (LOOt) 

Only the IOAC Captains participated in this exercise (it took place of 

the ALGE for this group). One of the assessor-rated dimensions, 

"flexibility," was correlated negatively with the criterion. Good 

criterion ratings were related to poC'r "flexibility" (r • -. 36, p < .OS). 

Among the nonsignificant assessor ratings, dimensions of "organization", 

"leadership" and "planning", which would be expected to have strong 

relations to a leadership criterion did not even approach significance. 

2. PEER-RANKINGS ON. GROUP EXERCISES 

Leaderless Group Discus~ion 

The six group members who participated in this exercise ranked all six 

members on a m.aber of different jimensions at the end of the exercise . No 

significant predictors of the criterion were found for any of the 

dimensions on which peer rankings were made. 

Conglomerate Exercise 

Similar rankings were obtained from group members in this exercise 

with similar results, i.e., no significant relationships with the criterion 

for any assessee group. 

- 10 -
Ass igned Leader Group Exercise

More predictive validity was found for peer—rankings in this exercise .

In fact three of the four dimensions provided significant criterion

predictors for the ANCOES assessee group . These were “ability to lead”

(r— .29 , p, .O5), “quality of leader support ” ( r— .28 , p<.O5), and “generating

group morale ” (r— .33 , p< .OS). These positive correlations indicate that

hig h—ranked individuals on the exercise tended to receive the high field

leadersh ip ratings. The only other significant correlation for this

exercise appeared for the BIOCC assessee group for a ranking of “how much

you ~~uld like to associate with them socially” (r— .30, p< .O5). Persona

preferred for socialization were more apt to be rated high on the

criterion.

Leader Game

This exercise did not produce any significant peer—ranking

correlations with the criterion for the IOAC assessees who participated in

it.

3. SELF—RANKINGS ON GROUP EXERCISES

Leaderless Gro up Discussion

The assessee included himself in the group rankings for this exercise

and his self—ranking was tested also as a predictor of the criterion. Only

one of these scores was found to pred ict the criterion. This was the self—

ranking on “ idea quality” (r— .32 , p < .OS) for the ANCOES assessees. Persons

who ranked themselves hig her on this dimension were more apt to receive

hig h field leadership ratings.

Cong lomerate

Three self—rankings were significantly associated with the criterion

on this exercise for the ANCOES assessees. These were “popularity” (r .29 ,

p<.OS) , “energetic support of team effort ” (r .34 , p < . OS), and “causing — conflict within the group ” (r .29 , p<.O5). High “popularity” , high

“energetic support of team effort ” and low “amount of conflict” were

related to hig h ratings of field leadership. For the IOAC group , self—

rankings of “idea qual ity” were related positively to the criterion (r .31 ,

p< .O5). IOBC and BIOCC assessees d id not produce significant self—ranking

predictors for this exercise .

Assigned Leader Group Exercise

The ANCOES assessee group produced the only significant self—ranking

predictors for this exercise. These were for dimensions of “ability to

lead” (r— .32 , p<.OS) and “generating group morale” (r .30 , p< .OS) . The

— 11 —
positive correlations indicate hi gh self—rankings were related to good

ratings on the field leadership criterion. IOBC assessees did not produce

significant self—ranking predictors and the IOAC assessees did not

participate in this exercise .

Leader Game

As with peer—rankings , self— rankings produced no significant

correlations with the criterion for the IOAC assessees who were the only

participants of this exercise .

4. ENTRY INTERVIEW PERFORMANC E EVALUATION

Six of the 14 scores of the Entry Interview significantly predic ted

the field leadership ratings of the BIOCC assessee group . These were

“overall impress ion” (r~ .42, p<.Ol), “interest in self—development” (r~~.28,

p< .O5), “effec tiveness in conveying information” (r~~.35, p<.O5), “derives

sa ti sfac tion from work accomplishmen ts” (r~ .3l , p<.O5), “fluen t and

articulate” (r .29, p<.O5), and “how well he expresses his opinions”

(r .29, p< .O5). These positive correlations inalcate that good Entry

Interview ratings were related to good field leadership cr iterion ratings .

The ANCOES assessees who were rated high on “an ima tion and en thus iasm”

were much more apt to receive high criterion ratings than their lower—rated

colleagues (r— .45 , p<.Ol). For this group “ interest in self—development”

was inversely related to the field leadership ratings (r’

~— .29, p -<.O5). The

only o ther signif ican t predic tor from the En try Interview was for the IOBC

group . As for the ANCOES group , “interest in self—development” was

correlated negatively with field ratings of leadership (r’— .27 , p<.O5).

5. PENC IL AND PAPER PERFORMANC E TESTS

The four tests that fall into this category are the Henmon—Nelson Test

of Mental Ability, the Watson—Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal , the

Nelson—Denny Reading Test , and the Social Insight Test . Only for the

ANCOES assessee group did these measures successfully predict the field

leadership ratings criterion. However , it is questionable to use the term

“successfully” since poor performance on the Henmon—Nelson Quantitative

(r—— .30, p< .OS); Henmon—Nelson Verbal (r=— .41, p<.Ol), Henmon—Nelson Total

Score (r—— .40, p< .Ol); Nelson—Denny Vocabulary (r=— .36 , p< .05); Nelson—

Denny Comprehension (r—— .32, p< .OS) and Nelson—Denny Total (r=— .37 , p< .O5)

were related to good ratings on the field leadership criterion. The

Watson—Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal and The Social Insight Test

showe d no significant correlations wi th the cri terion for any of the

assessee groups .

— 12 —
6. SELF—DESCRIPTION INSTRUMENTS

Edwards Personal_Pr eferenc e_Schedule j EPPS)

One of the hig hest correlations obtained with t he cri ter ion wa s from

th is instrument. IOAC assessees with a high “Need for Order ” tended to be’

rat ed higher on the field ratings of leadership (r .52 , p- .001). in

addition , the IOAC assessees showed an inverse rela ti onsh ip between “Need

f or Suc corance ” (to have others provide help when in trouble , t o seek

encouragement from others , etc.) and the criterion (r—— .35, p<.O5).

The ANCOES assessee’ group also showed a number of significant

correlations between EPPS measures and the criterion . “Need for

Exhibition ” was inversely related to the criterion (r—— .31 , N~~ o5) , and

“Need for Abasement” was related positively (r— .28 , p- .O5). No EPPS

measures were significantly related to the criterion performance of the

810CC and IOBC -l~~se ssecs.

Work Environment Preference Sc hedule kW~X~~~

High scores on this measure “typ ify individuals who accept authority,

who prefer to have spec if Ic rules and guidelines to fol low , who prefer

impersonal ized work relat tonships , and who seek the security of

organizational and in—group identification. ” One of the assessee groups

showe d significant correlations on this measure with the criterion of field

leadership ratings. IOAC assessees who were higher on the WEPS were more

likely to receive high cri terion ratings (r .32, p< .O5). The BIOCC and

ANCOES groups d id not have significant correlations with the criterion on

this measure.

Leader Op inion quest ionnair~~~ j~~~~

ANCOES asse ssee s scor ing hig h on “Cons idera tion” on the LOQ were more

apt to be rated hig h on the criterion (r— .36, p<.OS). IOBC assessees who

were hig h on “ Structure ” were more apt to be rated high on the criterion

(r— .25 , p < .0 5 ). No other LOQ scores were significant for these or for the

other assessee groups .

Leader sh i

~

p .QSort (L~ S)

IOBC assessees showed a fairly strong relationship of “Decision

Mak i ng ” to the criterion with the persons scoring low on this dimension

being more ap t to rece ive high lead ership ratings (r—— .39 , p .01).

“Teaching and Communication ” scores , on the other hand were posit ivelv

related to the criterion for the IOHC group (r— .27 , p< .O5). High scores on

“Mental Health ” were related to hig h criterion ratings for the ANCOES

assessees (r .33 , p < .OS) while low scores on “Personal Integrity” were

rela ted to high criter ion ra t ings for this group (r— .30 , p .OS).

— l

~ —
IOAC assessed showed an inverse relation between “Considerat ion”

scores and the criterion (r.’-.36, p<.OS). BIOCC asssssees showed no

significant relationship of LQS measures to the criterion.

Person Description Blank

Fifty pair. of adjectives were presented to each assessee (e.g. WART :

1 2 3 4 5 6 7: GULLIBLE ) with instructions to rate himself by circling the

number that best described hi. position between these polar adjectives .

Twenty—six of these fifty pairs produced significant correlations with the

criterion for at least one of the assessee groups . The pair. of adjectives

and their correlations with th. criterion for each asses see group are

presented in Table 2. Positive correlations indicate that persons who

rated themselves higher than average on the rightmost adjective were more

apt to be rated high on field leadership . Negative correlations indicate

that person , who rated themselves higher than averag e on the leftmost

adjective were more apt to be rated hig h on field leadershi p. A negative

correlation does not neces sarily mean that people were closer to the “1” —

end of the scale than to the “7” end of the sc4e . It only indicates that

persons who were on the “1” side of the overall averag .e for that item were

more apt to be rated high on the criterion.

Cc1IPAR ISON OF DIFF~~ ENT CLASSES OF ACTR SCORES

Table 3 present s summary data for all assessee groups for the six

classes of ACTR scores . It can be seen that the number of scores per

assessee (Column 1) varied from 9 for the Pencil and Paper Perf-~rmance

Tests to 75 for the Self—Description Instruments . The assessor time per

score (Column 4) showed a very wide variation from 14.5 minutes per score

for Assessor Ratings on Formal Exercises to less than one minute per score

for the Self—Descript ion Instruments. The latter small time per score

reflects the assessor time savings that resulted from presenting the Self—

Description Instruments in a group (six assessees) setting . The zero —

“a.ssssor times per score” that appear for Peer Ranking s and Self Rankings

reflect the fact that these scores were provided by the assessees and did

not require any additional time of assessors beyond that required for the

assessor rating s on these exercises . The “assessee time per score ” (Column

6) is prorated over Assessor Ratings , Peer Rankings and Self Rankings .

Thus only a single figure is shown for this column for these three

categories. It can be seen that assessee time per score is also long for

the Formal ACTR Exercises. Assessee time per score is longest for the

Pencil and Paper Performance Tests and shortest for the Self—Description

Instruments.

A successful predic tor is defined in thi. report as one which ha s a

correlation with the criterion that is significant at the .05 level . In

Column 2 of Table 3 the average number of successful predictors per

ssaessee is given and Co lumn 3 shows the percentage that this is of the

— 14 — 

--- ~ -

~ -— - ---~—- --- — - —~~ 

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

Table 2

PUSONAL D~SCRIPTI0H 1LA$T~ (PDE) “YOULS~ .7” SXU

CORRELATIONS WI’fl~ CRITERION

Assesseset Group

PD1 Descriptor IOAC IOIC 110CC ANCOES

Nonco~~.tj tiv (1)

co~~.titivs (7) .26 .45(.OOl)** .25 — .17

C1~~ y (1)

Graceful (7) 49 .20 .31(.026)* .12

Understandable (1)

)

~.teriou. (7) — . 32(.029)* .03 .13 — .09

Insensitive (1)

Sensitive (7) — .02 .40 (.004)** .12 — .05

Tt.ldtn~ (1)

F1r~ (7) .14 .29(.026)~ — .10 .41(.005)**

Tout (1)

Tendsr (7) -_ .39(.009)** — .17 .17 — .31(.030)*

~ilttary (1)

Un.ilitary (7) — .20 .16 .18 — .28(.042)*

Wary (1)

Gullibi. (7) — .49(.00l)** _ .45(.001)** — .11 — .19

Indecisivs (1)

Decisive (7) .07 .27(.035)* — .12 .16

Careful (1)

Reckless (7) — .16 — .10 — .01 — .38(.009)**

CowardLy (1)

Irave (7) — .04 .04 — .13 .33(.023)*

Instnc .r . (1)

Sin cere (fl — .11 .15 _ .39(.006)** .16

A .05, ** .01

— 15 — 

~~~~ .~~~~~~~~ -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - ~ -~~~ ~~~~~~~ .- ~~~~~-- ---- ~~~~
Table 2 (cont'd) 

PERSONAL DESCI.IPTlCII ILA* (PDI) "YOURSELf" SCOlll 

COIUIATIOIS WlT1I CUTBIION 

Aaaeaa .. at Croup 

PDI Deacriptor IOAC IOIC IIOCC 

Leadina (1) 

rollowln& (7) - .24 -.31(.020)* -.04 

Pasalve (1) 

Active (7) . 34 (.022)* .u -.11 

Soothina (l) 

Irritatina (7) .03 -.24 -.18 

Allbitious (1) 

CoiiiP1¢ (7) -.36(.016)• - .19 -.10 

loriDa (1) 

Intereatina (7) -.22 .18 .03 

Quiet (1) 

Talkative (1) -.31(.031)* .06 -.11 

Secretive (1) 

Open (7) -. 34(.021)* .02 -.1.8(.041)* 

Mission-oriented (1) 

People-oriented (7) -. 32(.028)* .19 .21 

Colorful (1) 

Colorless (1) .12 -.18 -.13 

Hard-working (1) 

Easy-<'.oing (7) -. 44( .003)** -.12 - . 10 

Dominating (1) 

Subadsai ve (7) -.29(.043)* .03 .12 

Stable (1) 

Change able (1) -. 33(.023)* .03 .07 

Unathletic (1) 

Athleti c (7) . 20 . 20 .31 (.025)* 

Di so an zeci (l ) 

Orsan!zed ( 7) . 20 . 37 ( .006) ** .02 

---- ------- * .05 , ** .01 

- 16 -

AHCOIS 

-.15 

.22 

-.39( .008)•• 

-.12 

.27(.048)• 

.07 

.18 

-.19 

-.32(.025)* 

-.25 

-.13 

.06 

.44(.003)** 

.18 
__________________ - -

Table 3

RESULTS FOR SIX DIFFERE~FI CLASSES OP ACTR SCORES -

ALL ASSESSES G~~UPS C0~~INED

Class ,

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

ACTR

Score ~~~~~ “.

Assessor Ratings

Formal Exercises 48’ 5.75 8.46 14.50 171.43 14.24 165.00

Pee r Rankings

Formal Exer cises 15 .25 1 6 ,56 0 0 S

Self Rankings

Formal Exercises 15.25 1.75 11.48 0 0 a a

Entry Inte rview 14 2.25 16.07 4.64 28.89 4.64 28.89

Pen cil & Pape r

Performance Tests 9 1.50 16.67 2.96 17.18 11.78 106.67

Sel f— Description

Instru~~nts 75 10.75 14.33 .30 2.12 1.B3 12.74

5

Pee r and self—rankings included with assessor ratings for these calculation..

— 17 —

~

- - --—-—~~~~~ -.-~~~ - -

~~~-
total number of scores for the assessee. Five percent would be expected by 

chance due to the .05 significance level. This figure ranges from a high 

of 16.7% for the Paper and Pencil Performance Tests to near chance levels 

(6.6%) for the Peer-Rankings. The high figure for the Pencil and Paper 

Performance Tests is somewhat misleading since all of the significant 

predictors were for the ANCOES group and all indicated poor pencil and 

paper test performance to be related to good field ratings (see below). 

Perhaps the most interesting data is in Column 5 where the assessor time 

per successful predictor for each class of ACTR score is shown. This 

ranges from slightly over 2 minutes per successful predictor for the SelfDescription Instruments to nearly three hours per successful predictor for 

the Assessor Ratings of Formal Exercises. 

The assessor ratings of formal exercises represent the most typical 

ACTR data and their collection is the raison d'etre of an assessment 

center. The poor predictions from these rating scores compared to 

interviews, and to questionnaires is thus especially disappointing for 

ACTR proponents. The poor performance is not a result of low rating 

reliability. Checks of rater reliability on the exercises where more 

than one assessor rated the same assessee indicated that reliability of 

the ratings was surprisingly good. Spearman-Brown calculations indicate 

three-rater sums for LGD, ALGE, CONG and LGAM to have reliabiliti es in the 

70s and 80s. 

The high reliability of the criterion field leadership ratings was 

described earlier. Since both criterion and assessoc ratings are reliable, 

the failure of the assessor ratings to proviue more than a few significant 

correlations with the criterion must reflect some failure of the ACTR 

exercises to elicit and/or measure the same behaviors that peers, superiors 

and subordinates in field units classify as "leadership". 

Tables 4, 5, 6 and 7 provide the data of Table 3 with a separate 

breakdown by the different assessee groups. It can be seen that the ACTR 

scores for the ANCOES (Table 7) provide much better predicti on of the 

criterion than the ACTR scores of any of the other assessee groups. However, 

a sizable portion of the significant criterion predictors for ANCOES represent 

a troublesome inverse relation betveen ACTR performance and the criterion. 

One normally would not intentionally set up an ACTR with the intent of 

selecting for promotion or employment only those persons who do badly on 

the ACTR tasks. These inverse relationships between predictor and criterion 

reflect a failure of the ACTR exercises, the unsuitability of the criterion, 

or both - at least for the ANCOES group. 

The different classes of ACTR scores show different patterns of success 

for the different assessee groups. For example, the Entry Interview does an 

excellent job for the BIOCC group (43% successful predictors) but it does 

little predicting for any other group. For IOAC assessees~ the Self-

- ' 18-
r

TthI.s 4

RESULTS FOR Sir DIP7U~ IT CLASSES OF ACTR SCOU * IOIC ASSRSSUS

:

~e 

Descrtpto~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~

~~~ ~ r

~ u

~~

S.. ~~ i

~~~ 0. ~~

• 0.0.

Usaseor P.atinp 68 3 7.35 14.52 197.44 14.03 275.Oi

Pest ftanktnp ~ 0 0 0 a a

Self Ranking. 15 0 0 0 0 * *

Entry interview 14 1 7.14 4.64 63.00 4.64 65.0~

Pencil & P aper P.rfo a~~ce Tests 9 0 0 2.96 17.78

Suit—De scription

In.tr~~ent. 75 10 13.33 .30 2.28 1.83 13.7

‘Peer and self—ranking, included with assessor ratings for these calculation s .

—19 —

- —-----~~~-
Table S

RESULTS 1t) R ~1X DIFFERENT CLASSES OF ACTR SCO RE S IOAC ASSESSEE S

~~~~~~~ ~~~~ 5 5 .55 5.4 ‘~ ‘

-1 5 5 .4 5 .4 .4 5’.- ..4 5 U 0 ~~~~~~ 1J55 ~J 5 4J ’

..’ 0 ‘

~~~O so 5’..’ U

Descriptor H flI 

~

1 j

~ j

Ass essor Ratings bS 4 .88 14.43 24 ’- ~ ~.30 14.85 297.00

Peer Rankings 16 0 0 0 0 ~

‘

Self Rankings L6 1 6.25 0 0

Entry Interview 14 0 0 4.64 

~~~ 

4.64

Pencil 6 Pape r

Pe rfo rmance Teats 9 0 0 2.96 17.78 ~~~~

Self--Description

Instru~~nts 75 15 20.00 .30 1.52 1.83 9.13

‘Peer and self- rankings included with assessor ratings for these calculation..

- 20 -
Tthl. S

RESULTS lOft SIX DIFFERENT CLASSES OF £CfL 8C0U~ 110CC ASSESSEES

— a I $

~~~ 

$ ,

~~ ~~~5

‘‘ 45 ‘

~~. .4e’~ •— 0 O 5 .4 ’a ~~~ ‘44~~~ be5 5 .’ U ~~~ 0 so Li

Descriptor 

~ 

~i4 II ~ z , ~~~~

Assessor Ratings 68 4 5.88 14 .52 246.80 14.03 275 .00

Peer Rankings 15 1 6.67 0 0 a

Self Ranking. 15 0 0 0 0 *

Ent ry Interview 14 6 42.86 4.64 10.83 4.64 10.83

Pencil & Pape r

Performan ce Test. 9 0 0 2.96 17.78 =~~

Self—Description

Instr u~~nts 75 4 5.33 .30 5.71 1.83 34.25

‘Peer and self—ranking , included with assessor rating , for these calculation..

— 21 —

- ---~~~~

- -—-- - --

~~

— - - - ---——-- - - - ~-

~ --. --— — —-. -—--- -
- .— -

~

---

~ -~ —V- -- —--~~~~~

---

~~

-

~~~~~~~

Tab le 7

RESULTS FOR SIX DIFFERENT CLASSES OP AC~

p SQ)lZ : Mi(X)ES ASSESSEES

.j ~~~* 5

~ ~;: 

~~ 9: Descriptor JU U ~ V I

~

i 2 “

~~~ 1

~~ 

1

~~~

Assessor Ratings 68 10 14.71 34.52 98.12 14.03 72.37

Peer Rankings 15 3 20.00 0 0

Self Rankings 15 6 40.00 0 0

Ent ry Interview 14 2 14.29 4.f~

4 32 .50 4.64 32.50

Pencil S Paper

°e rfor ~,ncw Teat. 9 6 66.67 2.96 4.44 17.78 26.67

Self — Description

15 14 18.67 .30 1.63 1.83 9.79

‘Pi~

er and st~If-t4uklngs included with assessor rating s fur these calculation s .

— 22 —

L ______ - _ ____
Description lnstruaents do a good job of predicting the criterion but the 

other classes of score have little predictive validity. 

Table 8 represents a breakdown of the data in Table 3 by separate 

exercise. The moat effective single measure by almost all criteria is the 

Person Description Blank. This instrument required less than ten minutes 

to administer but provides much more effective criterion prediction than 

exercises such as the Radio Simulate which required over five hours of 

assessee ttme, and even more assessor time. However, it can be argued that 

self-descriptions would be much leas effective in a setting where 

deliberately falsified self-descriptions might occur. False selfdescriptions would have been at a minimum in the USAIS ACTR sine~ the 

assessees were assured that the data would not affect their careers. 

DISCUSSION 

Two perspectives exist for discussion of these results. One is in 

terms of the specific characteristics as measured in the ACTR which predict 

field leadership ratings of the different assessee groups. The other 

perspective is from the general question of '~hat parts of the ACTR were 

effective in assessment of leadership. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF SPECIFIC ASSESSEE GROUPS 

The young lieutenant who had recently been commissioned who was rated 

high on leadership by peers, subordinates and superiors, following his 

Infantry course, judged himself to be more wary, competitive, sensitive and 

organized. His decision-making skills were rated lower by himself and by 

trained assessors. Ironically, he was judged to be somewhat lower on selfdevelopment than the lieutenant who was rated more poorly on field 

leadership. 

The captain, about to enter the Advanced Infantry Course, who later 

received high ratings on the field le~dership criterion, was apt to be high 

on his need for order and more apt to prefer a structured work environment. 

He performed well on in-basket exercises and viewed himself as more hardworking, wary and tough. 

The enlisted man about to enter Officer Candidate School who was rated 

high on field leadership following his OCS training and Branch leadership 

course, was more apt than his low-rated colleague to make a good impression 

and to be fluent, creative &nd task-oriented. He viewed himself as more 

creative and persistent, yet somewhat less dominating and less sincere than 

his colleague who fared less well on field leadership ratings. 

The NCO about to enter the advanced NCO course, who later received 

high ratings of field leadership, was more ~nthusiastic but poorer in 

reading, quantitative and verbal skills than his colleague who received 

- 23 -
Tab le 8

RESULTS FOR SEPAISTE ACIR EXERCISES FOR ALL AS SESSEE (

~ OUPS

I, S -~ a a

~ 

h 

~ Descriptor ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~

S ~~~

~ 

!

~ 

!

~ e ! ______ ~~~~s’ ~

Assessor Ratings

L.*d.rl.ss Grp .

Discussion 9 1.25 13.89 7.78 56.00 6.67 93.33

Cong1o~~ret. 8 .50 6.25 7.30 120.00 6.67 80.00

Radio Staulats 16 .25 1.56 29.06 1860.00 24.38 1560.00

In—Buke t 14 1.50 10.71 7.86 73.33 18.57 173.33

Appraisal Interview 8 .50 6.25 18.54 296.7 26.25 420.00

Writing Exercises 4 .73 18.75 8.33 44.44 15.00 80.00

Assigned IA ader

Group Exercise 9 1.00 11.11 16.67 150.00 17.65 100.00

Wir Gaas (IOAC) 9 1.00 11.11 15.93 143.33 21.58 410.00

Pair Ranking

LGD 6 0 0 0 0 *

Cong 0 a a

ALGE 4 1.33 33.33 0 0 5

War Came 5 0 0 0 0 a a

Self-Ranking

LCD 6 .25 4.17 0 0 a a

Cong 5 1.00 20.00 0 0

ALGE 4 .67 16.67 0 0 a

War Game 5 0 0 0 0 a a

Ent ry In tsrv iew 14 2.25 16.07 4.64 28.89 4.64 28.89

Per fonsance Tests

Hanson Nelson 3 .75 25.00 2.22 8.89 13.33 53.33

— 24 —
I

Tabi. S (coat ’d)

RESULTS POP SEP AJATE ACtR EXERCISES FOR ALL ASSESSES (

~~0UPS

~~~~~~ Descriptor . 8 .!

~ ..! ~ 2 2 ~ ~ ~~~i U

~ 8

I I~~ •

~

Nelson—Denny 4 .75 15.73 1.67 5.89 10.00 53.33

Watson—Gjuer 1 0 0 8.33 ~~~ 30.00 O”~

Rad ii I~~t

~~t 1 0 0 5.00 C>O 30.00

Self—D..crjp ti on

Iostr~

aests

Eè,ar ds Per sonal

Pre ference Schedul e 15 1.00 6.67 .56 1.33 3.33 50.00

W o~t &~vi ronasnt

Preference Schedule 1 .25 25 1.61 6.67 10.00 40.00

L.ad.rship Opinion

Questionnaire 2 .50 25.00 1.67 6.67 10.00 40.00

Laed.r.hip Q Sort. 7 1.25 17.86 1.19 6.67 7.14 40.00

P•rson Description

50 7.75 15.50 .02 .15 .14 .90

Peer and self-ranking, included wi th assessor ratings for these calculations .

— 25 —
lower tield leadership ratings . He was more considerate , but less able to

perform on in—baske t exercises and In simulated emergencies. He viewe d

h imself as more athletic , firm , careful and soothing than did his low—rated

colleague .

PREDICTIVE VALID ITY OF DIFFERENT CLASSES OF ACTR SCORES

Sel f—Descri ption Instruments provided the largest proportion of

criterion predictors and also provided these scores with the least assessor

and assessee t ime . On the other hand , the most assessor—Intensive formal

ACTR exercises actually do the poorest job of predicting the field

leadership criterion. Intermediate between these extremes is the Entry

Interview which provided a fair number of predictors with only a moderate

amount o assessor and assessee t ime .

These results must be somewhat distressing to proponents of the

assessment center concept. Such forma l exor c ises as the In—Bask et.

Assigned Leader Gro up Exerc ise and Leaderl

~~ss Group I~iscuss 1on are the

backbone of such centers. For such exercises to predict poorly in the

current setting , despite good to excellent rel~~abi1 ttv of predictor and

c r i t e r ion measures , indicates a mismatch between the ACTR exercise measures

and the criterion scores. A possible exp lanation of this mismatch is tha t

the ACTR w as m or e effec ti ve in eliciting leadership skills than the

subsequent duties of these leaders. The ‘iSA I S ACTR exer ci ses pr obab ly d id

prov id e toug h challenges to leadersh i p and actual leadersh ip skills were

probably demonstrated by assessees and rated by assessors. How”ver, the

criterion ratings were made during peacetime when few it any emergencies

would arise which required excellent leadership for their successful

resolution. As a result , the criterion ratings max- have been made on some

other factor than leadershi p suc h as sociabilit y . Another possible basis

for field rat Ings may have ’ been the leadership self—conceptions tha t the

~

issessees held and somehow c ommunicated to the superiors. peers and

subordinates who prov ided the criterion ratings. With tew it any

opportunities tor dSSCSSee’S to demonstrate genuine leadershi p, this “talk

about l eadership” may have been the basis for leadershi p ratings . Not only

would this account for the general failure of assessor—intensive exerc ises

to predict the criterion , It would explain the relative success oi

instrume nts such as the Person Descri ption Blank which were spcci t lcall v

desi gned to obtain l eadership—relate d sell conceptions.

Fut ure validation stud ics pl anned for the ITSAIS ACTR assessees will

utilize promotion data and per formance In their leadership courses as

leadership criteria . Hopeful ly , promotions of these leaders would be

rela ted to actual leadersh i p skills and not to sociability or to incorrect

self—percept ions of leadershi p skills.

- 

~~ 

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

~~~~~~ ~~

—-

~~~~~~

- ---~~

--

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

REFERENCES

Buros • 

) . K. , The Seventh Mental Meisu r ements Yearbook. ~ rvphon Press ,

Highland Par k , N. J ., l’

~7 2 .

r I es , J . . and W inn , W. R . Asses sment ~cn t cc s : An Anno tat e d

Bibl iography . A FHRL— TR— 7~ — i~~, Max- l’~~7.

Olmst e’ad , 1 . A. , Cl ,.‘a r y , F. . , i,acke~ • L . L . ,and Salt ct • . A

l

~e~ ’e’ I opmeut 0 t I eade rsh I p Assessment S inn 1 at i ens . h uman Re sour C c ’S

R~~se’i reb Organ i at ion 1K 73— 2 1 * Se pt embe r j e )

S,t it cc , 1 . K . and 01 ms toad , 1 . ‘i . Re sea ~h on \s smcn t Cr it e t i a

and Counsol ing Methods. Human Re sour c cS Re ’s ea cc h ~ t ~~

ati I .

~ at ion .

TRR ‘4—2’ ~, Decembe r l

~~74.

I’ . S. Ar my Infantry School. :\sse’ssment Center .\I t e r Act ion Report:

Lxecut lye Summary (Book 1 , V ol. l

~ . December H 

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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I

DISTR I BUT ION

API Distribution Li*t

4 OASO IM&RAl 2 HOLISACOEC. Ft Ord, ATTN: Library

2 HODA IDAMI-CSZI I HQUSACDEC . Ft Ord, ATTN : ATEC—EX—E- - Hu m Factors

HODA IDAPE~

PBR) 2 USAEEC, Ft Benjimin Harrison . ATTN: Library

HODA IDAMA AR I I USAPACDC , Ft Benjamin Harrison , ATI’N: ATCP—HR

1 HODA IDAPE- HPE-POI I USA Comm—Elect Sch, Ft Monmouth , ATTN: ATSN—EA

1 HQOA SGRD IOI I USAEC. Ft Monmouth, ATTN : AMSEL—CT—HD P

1 HQDA IDAM I-DOT-C I 1 USAEC . Ft Monniouth, ATTN: AMSEL—PA—P

1 HQDA IOAPC-PM~~A) 1 USAEC. Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEL—S l— CB

1 HODA (DACH.PPZ-Al 1 USAEC, Ft Morimoe,jth , AT1’N: C, 

~acl 0ev Br

1 HODA (DAFt-H RE I USA Materials Sys Anal Agcy , Aberdeen , ATTN: AM XSY—P

I HODA IOAPE-MPO-C) I Edgewood Arversa(, Aberdeen , ATTN: SAREA— BL—H

1 HODA IDAPE - OWI 1 liSA Qrd Ctr & Sch, Aberdeen , ATTt’J: AT SL—TEPil—C

I I400A IDAPE - HRLI 2 USA Hum Engr Lab, Aberdeen , ATTN: Library/Dir

1 HQDA IDA PE CPSI 1 USA Combat Arms Tag Bet , Ft Benning. ATTN: Ad Superviso r

1 I’IQDA IDAF D-M FA 1 USA Infantry Hum Rsch Unit , Ft Berrying. ATTN. Chief

1 HODA IDARQ.ARS- P) 1 USA Infantry Bet. Ft Benning, ATTN: STEBC—T E —T

1 HODA IDAPC-PAS Ar 1 USASMA, Ft Slim, ATTN: ATSS—LRC —

1 HQDAIDUSA.ORI 1 USAAir DefScN .Ft Bliss ,ATTNI ATSA—CTD—ME

1 HQDA IOAMO.RORI 1 USA Air Oct Sch, Ft Bi tt, ATTNI Tech Lib

1 HODA IDASG) 1 USA Air Oct Sd. Ft Bliss , ATTN: FILES

1 HODA DAb -Ph 1 USA Air Oaf Bet . Ft Bliss . ATTN: STEBD—PO

1 Ch,et Conei~it On DA OTSGI, Adelohi . MD 1 USA Cmd & General Stt College , Ft Leavenworth , A TTN: Lib

I Mil Asst. Hum P.s. 000R&E, OAD IE&LS) 1 USA Cmd & General Stf College , Ft Leavenworth , ATTN: ATSW— SE—L,

1 HO USARAL , APO Seattle . ATT N A RAG P-R 1 USA Cmd & General Stt College , Ft Leavenworth . ATTN: Ed Advisor

1 HO F~rst Arrr’y , A TTN: AFKA-OI-T l 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt 0ev Act , Ft Leavenworth , ATTN DepCdr

2 HO F~tth Army, Ft Seen Houston I USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dcv Act . Ft Leavenworth . ATTN: CCS

I Ore . Army SrI Stud e* Ofc . ATT N OAVCSA IOSPI 1 USACombined Arrns Cmbt Den Act . Ft Leavenworth , A”TN: ATCASA

1 Ofc Ch ef of Stf , Studies Of t 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dee Act , Ft Leavenwort h, ATT N ATCACO—E

I OCSPER. A TTN: CPSIOCP I USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dee Act , Ft Leavenworth , ATTN - ATCACC—CI

I The Army Lib, Pentagon , ATT NI RSB Chief 1 USAECOM. Night Vi*ion Lab, Ft Belvoir , ATTN: AMSEL—NV —SO

I The Army Lib . Pentagon , ATTN AN PAL 3 USA Computer Sys Cmd . Ft Belvoir , ATT N I Tech Library

1 Ofc , Asst Sect t

~ t

~ e A my R&OI 1 USAMEROC . Ft Belvoir , ATTN: STSFB— DO

1 Tech Support Qfc , Q,jCS 1 USA Eng Sch. Ft Belvoir , ATT N I Library

1 USASA, Arli ngton , ATTN : IARD T 1 USA Topograuh.c Lab. Ft Belvoir , ATTN: ETL -TO—S

1 USA Rsch Ott . Durham . ATTN . LI e Sciences Dir 1 USA Topogriextic Lab. Ft Beleo,r , ATTN: STINFO Center

2 USARIEM . Nai ck . ATTN: SGRD.UE-CA 1 USA Topogr

~~hic Lab , Ft Beivoir ATTN: ETL—G SL

1 USATTC . Ft Clayton , ATTN STETC MO-A 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & 5th, Ft Huachuca , ATTN: CTD—MS

I USAIMA , Ft Bragg, ATTN ATSU CTO-OM I USA Intelli gence Ctr & 5cR , Ft Huachuci. ATTN: ATS—CTO—MS

I USArMA . Pt Bragg, A TTN Marquat Lb 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch , Ft Huachuca , ATTN: ATS I—TE

1 US WAC Ct, & Sch, Ft McCIeh arr , A TTN: Lib 1 USA Intelligence C,, & Sch, Ft Huachuca . ATTN: ATSi — T EX — GS

I US WAC Ctr & Sch . Ft McCiehian , ATTN: Trt g Dir 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & 5th, Ft Huachuca , ATTN : ATSI—CTS—O R

1 USA Ouartermaster S-h . Ft Lb. . ATTN ~TSM-TE 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch , Ft Huachuca , ATTN: ATS I—CTD— OT

1 Intelligence Material Des Of r , EWL . Ft Holabir~ 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch . Ft Huachuca , ATTN: ATS I—CT O—CS

1 USA SE Signal Sch, Ft Gordon , A TTN: ATSO-EA I USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch , Ft Huachuca , ATTN: DAS,’SRD

I USA Chaplain Ctr & Sch. Ft Hamyton . ATTN: ATSC .TE.RD I USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch . Ft Huachuca , ATTN: ATSI—TEM

I USATSCH. Ft Eustis , ATTN1 Educ Advisor I USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch , Ft Huachuca , ATTNI Library

1 USA War College, Carlisle Barracks , ATTN: Lib 1 COP , HO Ft Huachuca , ATTN: Tech Pet Div

2 WRAI P , Neuropsycheatry Div 2 COP , USA Electtonic Pryg Grd . ATTN: STEEP—MT—S

1 DLI , SDA . Monterey I HO. TCATA, ATTN: Tech Library

1 USA Concept Anal Aqcy, Be tt’mda , A”TN: MOCA-MR 1 HO. TCATA. ATTN : AT CAT OP-Q, Ft Hood

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

1 USA Arctic Teit Cs,, APO Seattle , ATTN: STEAC-PL.Ml 1 Senior Army Adri., USAFAGOD/TAC , Elgin AF Aus FId No. 9

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

1 USA Armament Cmd. Red stone Arsenal . ATTN~ ATSK-TEM 1 Stimson Lib. Ac~ temy of Health Sciences. Ft Sam Houston

I USA Armament Cmd, Pock Island . ATTN~ AMSAP TOC 1 Marine Corpe Inst. ATTN: Dean’MCI

1 FAA.NAFEC , Atlantic City. ATTN: Library i HO. USMC. Ccmnsand.nt. ATTN: Code MTM T

I FAA .NA FEC, Atlantic City . ATTN: Human Engr B~ I HO. USMC.Ccnvmandant. ATTN: Cooe MPI

~2O~

28

I FAA Aeroni~ticil Cle. Oklahoma City , ATTN: AAC-4.40 2 USCG Aca~~mv. New London, ATTN: Admission

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

1 U SA Armor Scts . Ft Knox , M1N: Lrbeary 1 USCG Traineig Ctr. NY, ATTNI CO

I USA Armor Sch, Ft Knox , ATIN: ATSB-Dl.E 1 USCG Traine~ Ct,. NV , ATTN: Educ S-c Ofc

1 USA Armor Sch, Ft Knox , A Tfllj: ATSB-DT-T P I USCG. Ptythcl Rex Br. DC. A’TTN: GP 1/~ 2

1 USA Armor Sets , Ft Knox . ATTN ATS8-CD.AD 1 HO Mid-Rasp Br. MC Det, Ouantico, ATTN : P&5 Div

29 .

‘

. 

- - - -

: 

-

.

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

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

1 US Marine Corps Liaison Oic . AI.IC Alexandria , AnN- AMCGS—F 1 Oct & Cvi Inst oI Enviro Medicine , Canada

I USATRADO C . Ft Monroe ATT N ATRO—ED I AIR CRESS. Kensington . ATTN Info Sys Mr

6 USAT RAOOC , Ft Monro. , A TTN. ATPR—AD 1 Militaerpsy leologisk Tjen.ste , Copenhagen

1 USATRADOC , Ft M-

~nroe . ~ rTN ATTS—E.~ 1 Military Attache French Embassy ATTN Dot Sec

1 USA Forc,s Cmd. Ft McPherso n. ATT N. L brary I Medecirs Che ’

, C.E.R.P..

4 . —Arsenal. TouionI NauaI France

2 USA Avi ation Test Bd . Ft Pucker . ATTN STEBG- PD 1 Prin Scientific Off , Appl Hum Engr Rsch Di, , P.Iirristry

1 USA Agc’v for Av iation Safe t ’~, Ft Pucker ATT N L orary of Defense. New Delhi

I USA A qcy for Aer ation Safat~ . Ft Rucirei ATTN Educ Advisor 1 Pert Rsch Dfc Library, AKA , Israel Defense Forces

1 USA Aviation 5ch, F1 Pucker ,

)j N PC Drawer 0 1 Ministeris van Defens e , 000PiKL Af a Sociaai

I HQUSA A an on S~ s Cry d. St Louis . ATTN AM SAV—Z OR Psyci’rologrsche Zakerr . The Hague , Netherlands

2 USA Aviation Sys Test Act ., Edwards AFB , ATT NI SAVTE—T

1 USA Ar Del Sets . Ft Bliss . ATTN ATSATEM

1 USA Air Mobility Rsch & De~ Lao , Moftctt Fid , ATT N: SAVDL—AS

1 (iSA A,iatiun 5th. Ret Tnq ‘

.

~~t , Fr Pucker , ATTN. ATST—T—RTM

I liSA Avi~t on 5cR , CO. Ft Pucker . ATTN: ATST—D- . A

1 HO, DAR COM Aevand ria. ATTh . AMX CD —TL

1 HO, DAPCOM . Alexandria , ATTN COP

I US Ml . t ary Acaceiri n A’ rst P int ATTN Serials Unit

I US Military A.Iaeiemy ~‘/C si Poi -’t . ATTN Olc of Milt Ldrsrip

I US M.. raiy Acacle r’ry, Wv,,

’ Pornr , ATTN M AOR

1 USA Sta”da~,n zat-orr Go UK FPO NY ATT.N: MA SE—G C

t Ofc of Naval Rsch , Ari. v,jmn AT

~’N: C,7,le 452

3 Ofc of Naval P.c ArI n q t ~ ri ATTN Code 458

I Oft of Nava l R. Arlington , AT r’ - - 

~

e 450

I Otc . ‘e*l Rscb . Arlr rgton , AT’ • rde 43t

1 N~ v~ l Aerospc Med Pes Lab , Pensacola . ATTN: Acous Sch Die

1 Naval Aer’i s pc Med Ret Lab . Pensacola , ATTN: Code L51

1 Naval A.’~ spc Med Ret Lsb Per,sacoia ATTN Code L5

I Ci~- ef of Nas- Pers , ATTN Pe rs .OR

1 NAVAI R STA . Norfolk ATTN: Satety Ctr

1 N~n Ocaanc4raphic OC . ATT FJ : Code 6251, Charts & Tech

I C.nter of Nasal Anal ATTN Dot Ctr —

1 NavA rSvsCo m . ATTN. ,

‘rIR -53t3C

1 h u e BuMed . ATTN 71 3

I Mavffeh ico pt erSub Sq ua 2 PRO SF 96601

I AFHR LIF T I W-lli ar,s, AFB

1 AFH R LIT T I L0wr’, AE 8

1 AFHRL AS- W PAFB . OH

2 AFHRL ‘DO Z Brooks AFS

I AFI’IR L IDOJNI Ltckland AFB

I UQUSAF IINYSDI

1 HO(JSAF DPXXAI

1 AFVTG (P01 Randolph AFB

3 AMRL IH EI WRAPS . 01-I

2 AF Inst ol Tech , WPAF B. OH. ATTN: ENE/SL

I ATC IXPTDI Randolph AFB

1 USA F AeroMxd Lb . Brooks AFB ISUL—4I , ATTNI DOC SEC

1 AFOSR (NLI, Ar lington

1 AF Log Cmd , McC eilai’ A FB , ATTN I ALC’DPCRB

1 Air Force Academy, CC, ATTN: Dept of BeI Scn

5 r’lavPers & Dxv Ctr . San Diego

2 Navy Med Neuropsychiatr c Rsch Unit , San Diego

1 Nay Electronic Lab, San Diego , ATTN 1 ~es Lab

Naa TrngCen . San Diego ATTN: Code 9000—Lib

1 NavPostGraSch , Monterey, ATTN Code 55Aa

1 NavPostGraSch. ‘

rl ),,t irres , ATTN: COde 2124

I Nav Trng€quipCtr . Orlando . ATTN Tech Lib

I US Dept of Labor . DC. .\TTN Manpower Adrnin

1 US Dept of Justice , DC, ATTN: Drug Enforce Adrnm n

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

1 Nat Clear ing House for MU — Info , Pockv,Ile

1 Denver Federal Ctr, Lakewood . ATTN: BLM

12 Defense Documentation Cente r

4 Dir Psych, Army Ut1, Pussel l Ofcs , Canberra

I Scientific Actvsr . Md Gd , Army Hq, Russell Otcs , Canberra

1 Mil and Air Attache. Austrian Embassy

1 Centre dx Pecherche Des Fac teurs , Humairre de ha Defense

hiatronale . Br ussel s

2 Canadian Joint Staff Was hington

I C/Air Staff , Royal Car’ad an AF . ATTN Pert SItS Anal Br

3 Chief . Canadian Oaf Rsch Staff , ATTN~ C/CROS(W)

4 British Def Staff , British Embassy. Was hrngton

30

,- - ...--- - -—-.-—- -- ,, 

-

~~ “. - ~~~~~ -~~~~ -- -~~ . - -~~~~~