h 312L

fl

~ 6~~~~

kD

~~ i/~ DIFFERENTIAL VALIDITY OF THE ARMY

~~

, APTITUDE AREAS FOR PREDICTING..ARMY , 

1

’

JOB TRAINING PERFORMANCE OF/

N BLACKS AND WHITES. — — — C, ,

.—~

/ 

Mflton H)MaIer~~~ Edmund F.JFuchs

PERSONNEL ACCESSION AND UTILIZATION TECHNICAL AREA

Ui -

p -

~~~~ I J// ~~~~~~~!— c..

~ ~

/ , -7’ / ‘7 - ‘

, ‘

/ 2 ’~ ‘

~~~~~~~~~~~ —-—-

-—- I

U. S. Army

Rmavch Institute for the Behavioral and Social Scl.nc s__-~

~~~‘ ____ ~~~ 

r-_

1 Approved for public release; distr,buton unh,m,t,d.

____ 

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

• /

~~ j

i_ 
-~~

U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL A ND SOCIAL SCIENC ES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

WILLIAM 1. HAIJSER

JOSEPH ZEI UN ER Colonel , US A~

my

Tech maca l Director Commander

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION Primary diitr,buteon of this r.oort ha. been med. by ARL P1.. eddr.u corrupondona’ cenoarning distribution of reports tO: U. 5. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. A TTN PEAl-P . 5001 E,wnhoocr Avenue. Ale*.nd.i.. Vir5sn,. 22333.

FINAL DIMOLTION: This ‘spo rt may be destroyed ielssn It is no IO~,Sc n..d.d . PIsa’p do not return it to

the U. S. Army Rs.arch Institut, for th. Bsh.vsorai end Søcs.t Sciences.

~~~ 

The Indinge 10 this ‘Sport .rc not to be construed ~

s an of ficiet Department of the Army peestion. unhile so de.sgn.esd by Other .uthona.d documents.
‘

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

~t~~jR ITY CLA I~S IFICAT ION OF THIS PAGE (Whin O.t. ~~~~~~~

READ tNSTRUCT IONS REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COM PLETIN G FORM

IT REPORT NUMBER j2 . GOVT ACCESSION NO 3. RECIPIENT S CATALOG NUMBER

Tech nical Paper 3l2~ I ______ _____________________________

4. TITL E (% d SubUli .) S. TYPE OF REPO RT & PERIOD COVERED

DIFFERENTIAL VALIDITY OF ThE ARM Y APTITUDE AREAS --

FOR ~REDICTING ARM Y JOB TRAINING PERF ORMANCE ____________________________

6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER OF BLACKS AND WHITES --

7. AUTHOR (.~ 8. CONT RACTOR O RAN T NUMBER(e)

M:iton H. Maler and Edmund F. Fuchs -—

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAM E AND ADDRESS 50 . PRO GRAM ELEMENT , PRO.IECT , TASK AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and

Soci al Sciences (PERI—IL ) 2Q7627 17A766

5001 Eisenhower Avenue , Alexandria VA 22333

1 5 . CONTRO LLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

September 1q78

D~’c ut - Chief of Staff for Personnel 53. NUMBER QF PAGES

W3sh illgton , DC 20 310 18

IA. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESSO I dltf.rwl from ConftolIin~ Of fIce) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of Ibi, report)

Unclassifi- ’d

IS.. DECLAS S IFICATI ON/OOWHGRADING SCHEDULE

“

~

(iT bISTRI BUTION STATEMENT (of lAS. R.porl)

Approved for public release ; distribution unlimited

I i. GISTR IOUTION STATEMENT (.1 he abatrocl entered in Block 20. if differen t from Report)

IL SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

IS. KEY WORDS (Continue or, r;ror.e .id• It n.cee.ary end identify by block numb.,)

Differential classification Racial groups , validity l’or

Army Classification Battery

Aptitude areas

Job training prediction

20 A BSTRACT (Continue on rover.. .5.’

. St n.c..er ~

y end id.ntify by block ni ib.v.

) —

- —2T.) Aptitude area scores of the ~rmy classifi cation Battery ( ACB) are part

el the Army selection dUd classification procedure to determine which appli—

cants for enlistment are accepted and wh i ch Army job training programs are

open to them . Th e validity of the current aptitude area measures were assessed

by a stop—b y—stop analysis comparing aptitude area scores and job training

scc’r

~

’s (final course qradesI for 12 , ~~5 whites and 1, 772 blacks. Results

showed that apti tude area scores correlated highly with tr~nrinc scores for 7

F0~ M

I J

~~~ 73 EOfTION OF 5 NOV U IS OBSOLETE Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF Ttsi S PAGE (liSt,n Date Entered) 

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

-

-- ---,-— ~~— -----— --- — .

.

-—~~~~~—---~~~__
~ 

——- - -~~ --.-.

~~~~~~~~~~ -~~~~~~~ --—--— .- ______

Uncla~

.sti.1eu

SECURITY CLAUIFICATION OF YNIS PAOI(W*on Dt. Entered)

—2b . Abstract (continued)

, ... ~~both blacks and whites . For six of the eight major job areas for which

white—black identification was available , both white and black trainees

were selected appropriately for their job categories.

-. 

~

. /

C. -

,

S ft..

rv

DIS1RI35~f1 ’Y

~ .:. ‘‘

Dr. .iss i t i e ~1

SICUR ITY CLASSI FICATION OF THIS PAGtIW~

,.n bate Rnter~45

— ----- —-. - --

~

- _ . .— —— -- -

. 

-~~ 
Technical Paper 312 

DIFFERENTIAL VALIDITY OF THE ARMY 

APTITUDE AREAS FOR PREDICTING ARMY 

JOB TRAINING PERFORMANCE OF 

BLACKS AND WHITES 

Mtlton H. Maier and Edmund F. Fuchs 

PERSONNEL ACCESSION AND UTILIZATION TECHNICAL AREA 

Submitted as complete and 

technically accurate, by: 

Ralph R. Canter 

Technical Area Chlet 

Approved By: 

E. Ralph Dusek. Director 

INDIVIDUAL TRAINING AND PERFORMANCE 

RESEARCH LABORATORY 

Joseph Zeldner 

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR 

U S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITU TE FOR TH E BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIE NCES 

500 1 Erscnhower Avenue, Alexandria, V irgin ia 22333 

Army Project Number 

20762717A766 

Olfrct:, Deputy Chref o f Staff for Personnel 

Department of the Army 

· September 1978 

Apf>o<Mtd lor public rtleese: diuribution unlimited. 

Enlisted Accession & 

Utilization 
-

~~~~~

ARI Research Reports and Technical Papers are intended for sponsors of R&D tasks and other research and military agencies. Any findinqs 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 briefing or Disposition Form. 

-

~~~~~ L 4 ~~~~~—----- —-- 
YOR~~~ RD

The Personne l Accession and Utilization ‘rc(’hni(-a l Ar ca Ut the U.s.

P~

n~

ty Research In s t i tu t e for the Behaviora l and ~

;ec r,i 1 ~

;c1t’isceu (ART )

applies psycholoqical measurement me t hods to en~tbiv the Army to make i

~~ .l

use of the skills and aptitude s of both enli~;te d and officer personnel,

through increasingly accurate and differentiated measures of ind ividua l

potential . Research on enlisted accession measures included maintainin~J

and improving the effectiveness of the A rmy Classificat i on Battery (Ai ’h)

and itu Departn~ nt of Defense successor, the Armed serv i ces Vocational

Apt itudt -’ Hattery (ASVAB ) .

Research continues on the conditions that may interact with classyfica tj on tests and thus affect the basis for clas:~i fyin g incomiriq en- listed personnel. Previous research est ablishin~

j the validity of the ACB

has been reported in It RI Technical Paper .

~ 1 ’) and ARI Research Re ports

1177 and ll7 ’

~. The present report demonstrates t ie v a l i d ity of ACB apti—

tude area scores in predicting job traininq succ~’

~ s tor both k’la~-ks and

whites.

The research was responsive to special requi rements of the Deputy

thief of Staff for Personnel and the object~~ve; ot Army Pro t ect

2Q7627 17A766 , “Man power Systems Management. ”

~~~~~~~~L

SEP11 ZEIDNER

Technical Di rector 

- -- - .- -.----- 

— — —

~~
DIFFERENTIAL VALIDITY OF THE ARMY APTITUDE AREAS FOR PREDICTING 

ARMY JOB TRAINING PERFORMANCE OF BLACKS AND WHITES 

BRIEF 

Requirement: 

'l'o detennine whethe r scores on the aptitude area battery introduced 

in the Army in 1973 provide an equitable basis for qualif i cation of wh ites 

and blacks for training in major groups of Army jobs. 

Procedure: 

A step-by-step analysis was conducted. The first step indicated 

that the~e were significant aptitude area score differences i n the two 

racial groups. Mean aptitude area scores were higher for whites than for 

blacks in each aptitude area, although major overlapping of scores characterized the distributions. In a second step, correlation coefficients 

between aptitude scores and training scores in counterpart job areas were 

found to be unusually high (.45 to· .70), thus justifying use of the ap titude area scores as qua.lifiers for job training. The final step was to 

analyze the relation of training performance to aptitude area scores 

within job areas, to de t e rmine whether the relation was reasonably s imilar 

across the two rac~al groups. The sample consisted of 14 ,127 trainees--

12,355 whites and 1,772 blacks. Criterion data were final course grades 

in training in eight major job areas. 

l:,indings: 

Prediction of training performance and trend lines for wh ite s and 

blacks were in close agreement. Although some of the diffe r ences in prediction are probably of statistical significance in vi ew of t h e large 

samples, regression of job training measures on the aptitude area scores 

of selection indicated no differences of practical significance w' th i n 

the critical score range for whites and blacks. For s i x of the eight j ob 

areas examined for which white-black identification was availab le , aptitude scores and final course grades for blacks and whites showed only 

slight differences. In the Combat job area, scores by blacks were higher 

than expected from the predicted scores of 90 and 100; in the Mechanical 

Maintenance and Skilled ec~nical areas, final course grades for whites 

were better than pr€'dictcd by respective aptitude area scores of 110 and 

1 20. 
Utilization of Findings :

For six of the eight major job areas , both white and black trainees were selected by the appropriate aptitude area composite. For Combat and

Skilled Technical job areas , a second look at the selection basis and

process in the light of current conditions may be helpful.
— ~ - -—-

DIFFERENTIAl . VALIDITY OF TIl E ARMY APTITUDE AREAS FOR PREDICTING ARMY

JOB TRAINiNG PERFORMANCF c~t- ’ BLACKS AND WHITES

CONTENTS _____________________________ ____________

Page

BACXG1

~

DUND 1

P~~ BLEM 1

t

~~TUOE) 2

Research Model 3

Data 3

Analysis S

DISCUSSION 13

REFERENCES 15

DISTRIBUTION 17

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Tests in the Army Classification Batte ry ( ACB-73) . . . . 2

2. Aptitude areas and related Army jobs 4

3. Aptitude area mean scores of whites and blacks

in 1971 input sample 6

4. Validity of aptitude areas for counterpart Army jobs . . . 7

S . Sample si:es in aptitude area validation and racial

studiec 

h . Mean aptitude area scores and final course qradt’s of

whites and bl,tckn by t4~S group 9

7 . Fina l course grades for given ~~titude area scores

from regression lines for whites and blackq 10

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Comparative trends of course grades of whites and

blacks for aptitude scores 11

-— - Trn1QFJS*~~~L
DIFFERENTIAL VAL.IDI'l'Y OF THE ARMY APTITUDE AREAS FOR PREDIC'l'ING 

ARMY J OB TRAINING PERFORMANCE OF BLACKS AND WHITES 

For many years th U. S . Army has officially be n conctO'rned with fair 

treatment of all rac i a l groups. The A~ .a d to end racia l segregation 

of housing and othe r mi.li tary facilities in "! early 1950 's. A s pecial 

concern of Army research scientists and ~r· .nel offic ials has been the 

racial fairness of the selection and clu• cation procedures that determine which applicants for enlis~nt are accepted and which Army job 

training programs are open to thea. 

Since the end o f t he Korean War, the ~ has recognized the need to 

i~ selection standards to classification standards. Many problems arose 

when men passed service screeninq standards for acceptance but failed to 

meet c lassification standards for available job training. The primary 

test involved in screeninq has been the A~ Forces Qualification Test 

(AFQT) . Screening standards have capitalized on the high relation of 

AFQT percentile scores to qualification for job training through the aptitude area scores o f t:lH! Army Classification Battery (ACI\) . Individuals 

with Army standard scores of 90 or .ore qualify for job tra ining. The 

high relation found be tween AFQT scores and number of aptitude areas in 

which individuals q ualified (Maier li Fuchs, 1972b) made possible simplified standards based primarily on the AFQT. Persons s coring a t 31 or 

above (to 100) on AFQT were almost certain to have several qualifying 

aptitude area scores and could be accepted as aeeting mental s tandards 

on the basis of their AFQT scores. Siailarly, those scoring from 0 to 9 

on AFQT were almost certain to have no dependable qualifyi.ng aptitude 

area scores and could be rejected on that basis. Those with AFQT scores 

from 10 to 30 were better evaluated by qetting their aptitude area scores 

and basing qualification on those scores. 

Thus, although the primary mental qualification test fo r Army enlistment has been the 1\FQT, the real basis for screening has been the set of 

aptitude area classification measures. This relation has been more evident since 1973, when all enlistment applicants began taking the ACB before 

their t-nlistment eligibility was evaluated. 

In 1973, thP. Army introduced a new battery of mental t ests as the new 

Army Classification Batte ry (ACB-73) with a revised s e t of composites as 

the new aptitude a r eas. The tests in the new ACR and th ir )~ols are 

shown in Table 1. The names of the new aptitude areas and t he ir symbols 

are shown in Table 2, th, r with the ACB tests making up the aptitude 

area composites and the major Army job groups associated with e ach aptitude 

1 
area. The aptitude areas were developed to provide maximum absolute 

validity rather than differentiation. Hence, there are many t e sts to an 

aptitude area and rather high intercorrelation among areas. The major 

purpose of the present analysis was to assess the racial fairness of the 

new aptitude areas as qualifiers for Army job training. Earlier research 

(Maier & Fuchs, 1973) had established the fairness of the previous 

measures. 

Table 1 

Tests in the A~y Classification Battery (ACB-73) 

Category 

General Ability 

Tests 

Mer.hanical Ability 

Tests 

Perceptual Ability 

Tests 

Classification 

Inventory 

Test title 

Arithmetic Reasoning 

General Information 

Mathematics Knowledge 

Science Knowledge 

Word Knowledge 

Automotive Information 

Electronics Information 

Mechanical Comprehension 

Trade Information 

Attention to Detail 

Pattern Analysis 

Attenti veness Scale 

Combat Scale 

Electronics Scale 

Maintenance Scale 

ME'l'HOD 

Test symbol 

AR 

GI 

MK 

SK 

WK 

AI 

EI 

MC 

TI 

AD 

PA 

CA 

cc 

CE 

CM 

Validation studies in the Army since World War II pointed to the job 

training criterion as more discriminating and conducive to effective evaluation than job performance. 1'he training is aimed at actual tasks of the 

job; it is normally conducted by noncommissioned office rs (NCO's) with experience in the job, who train and supe rvise persons doing the job. Evaluation of the performance of trainee"' is a normal part of the trainer's 

operation. Such evaluation is feasible because a class of trainees starts 

together and their progress relative to each other can be judged. In contrast, a group of soldiers starting on the job following completion of 

2 
training normally becomes wi dely scattered, often with as many different 

supervisors as there are individuals in the group. The pr oblem of diffe rent scaling values applied by different raters is involved, as well as the 

problem of the rater's not having a range of performance a t t his experience 

level to use as a basis for ratings. Other problems often encounte red in 

on-job studies include poor opportunity for supervisors to valuate the 

job perfol'Jitance of their subordinate s, pressures incident to administrative 

actions tied to official job ratings, and wide variance in tasks actually 

performed under the same job title. 

Research Model 

The design of the present analysis was influenced by the 1970 Supreme 

Court decision in the case of Griggs v. Duke Power and subsequent related 

decisions, as well as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commdssion Guidelines. The first step is to see if differences exist between racial 

groups in aptitude area scores. If so, the second step i s to look at the 

magnitude of the validity coefficients (correlation between aptitude area 

scores and counterpart training perfonwmce evaluations) to see if they 

are large enough to justify use of the aptitude area scores. If so, the 

final step is to see if the relation between scores on an aptitude area 

and evaluations in training fo~ counterpart jobs is reasonably colinear 

across racial groups. 

The fi.rst step indicates whether or not use of the scores comes unde r 

the scope of the Supreme court decision. The second step indicates whe ther 

or nut test-score effectiveness meets the Court's "touchstone of business 

necessity," that is, whether tne scores are valid enough to justify their 

uae in identifying more effective personnel. The third step exam.i.nes the 

question of whether the test scores have equal meaning for different races. 

Of course, management interests dictate concern for the second and third 

steps, regardless of the first step. 

Data 

Data used as the basis for developing the new aptitude area composites 

proved to be the best available fo r the key elements of the pr esent analysis (Maier & Fuchs, 1972b). Test s cores were obtained on some 25 ,000 young 

lien entering training in over 100 Army Military Occupational Specialty 

(IllS) or job training programs i n 1964 and 1965. On completion of the 

training, the final course grades, along with indications of acade~i c turnbacks and failures, were collected. The predictor variables for this analysis wore the aptitude area scores listed in Table 2. The criterion varialiles were the final course grndes i n the training for the counterpart 

groups of Army jobs shown in Table 2. The control variabl was race , which 

proved to show significant frC'quencie~ only for whites and blacks. 

3 
Symbol 

--

co 

FA 

EL 

~ 

OF 

sc 

MM 

GM 

CL 

ST 

GT 

Table 2 

Aptitude Areas and Related Array Jobs 

Aptitude area 

Title 

Combat 

Field Artillery 

Electronics Repair 

Operators and Food 

Surveillance and 

Coallunications 

Mechanical Maintenance 

General Maintenance 

Clerical 

" 

Skilled Technical 

Gene ral 

Collposite 

ACB testa 

AR+TI+PA+AO+.:C 

AR+GI+MK+EI+CA 

AR+EI+MC+'l'I+CE 

GI+AI+CA 

AR+WK+MC+PA 

MK +AI +EI +TI +CM 

AR+SK+AI+IC 

AR+WK+AD+CA 

AR+MK+SK 

AR+WK 

Major related jobs 

Infantry, Armor, Combat Engineer 

Fi eld Cannon and Rocket Artillery 

Missiles Repair, Air Defense Repa

Electronics Repair, Fixed Plant Co

Repair 

Missiles Crevman, Air Defense crev

Food Services 

Target Acquisition and Combat Sur

eo..unication Operations 

Mechanical and Air Maintenance, R

Construction and Utilities, Olemi

Petroleua 

Administrative, Finance, Supply 

Medical, Military Police , Intelli g

Processing, Air Control, Topogr aph

Informati on, and Audio Visual 

Used only to qua lif y for specjal 

Off icer Candida te Test 
In the ·oriqinal validation study, it was possible to ompute correlation coefficients in each sample and to work with such coefficients in 

consolidatinq aa.ple statistics within an t«>S group. It was thus possible 

to develop the moat valid composites by calculations using correlation 

coefficients rather than raw data. However, for evaluating specific 

groups of individuals, it was necessary to combine datA within an MOS 

group. Each *>S group wa$ compost>d of several I«>S samples, but the final 

course grades f~ different t«>S samples were not comparable and hence 

could not be combined directly. It was assumed that the mean and variability of final course grades reflected the judgmental set o f the tr ine r 

staff. Thus, for each II>S sample, the final course grades were standardized to have a 11ean of 100 and a standard deviation of 20. The aptitude 

area predictor scores were transfo~ed to deviation scores witl\ a me an of 

100, but the standard deviations were left as observed in each MOS s ample . 

The standard deviativns of the aptitude area scores were not standardized, 

because in subsequent analyses their covariance& were used i n correcting 

validity coefficients in each MOS group for restriction in ·range. ~he 

cases with adjusted final course grades and aptitude area scores were then 

consolidated by MOS group for analysis. The racial breakouts were later 

identified as individuals with these modified--and, it is hoped, mor e 

realistic--data. 

Analysis 

From the almost 21,000 cases used in the analysis, which developed the 

current ACB and aptitude areas (4,000 cases were lost from the original 

25,000 because criterion data were not available), racial identification as 

white or black was obtained for approximately 14,000 men. For these cases 

the adjusted final course grades and scores on the aptitude area of selection were computed as described above. These data form the basis for the 

analysis reported later for the third step. However, the first step required all aptitude area scores for representative racial groups. The new 

aptitude area system had been introduced in 1973, and those score s we re 

collected for Army accessions durinq part of September 1973. At that time 

there was no draft, but the A~ was making strong recruiting efforts to 

meet its requir~nts for qualified personnel to meet numerous projected 

vacancies. This sample, then, does not include those who failed the 

screening, and it probably underrepresents the very highly quali f i ed 

groups geared to college and graduate school or managerial training. 

Nevertheless, these factors are not likely to significantly alter the 

general nature of the overlap in di stributions and th~ diff r~ ce s in 

11eans foWld in this large sample. •rhc sample of almost 7, 500 cas e s covers 

all parts of the United Statt-~, and results should be unbiased i n their 

broader impact. 

Table 3 shows mean scores on all the aptitude areas for this whole 

sample as well as separately for white s and blacks. These scores are on 

a scale that attempts to place the population mean at 100 and the standard 

deviation at 20 for each aptitude area. Note, howeve r, that the standard 

5 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

deviations for blacks and wh ites in any one MOS group such as Combat are

different from the population value of 20 because of sampling variabil ity

and restriction in range. It is evident from Table 3 that in ~ acIi area

the mean scores for whi tes are significantly higher than those for blacks ,

the differences running one-third to one—half a standard deviation . This

result repeats a type of finding from other military and civilian i nvest iqations . It shows, basically, the problem of poorer educational and cciitural facilities available to many segments of the black population . The

comparison of aptitude area mean scores finds discrimination to the ~ Xt ent

that scores for black s average lower than those for whites (although the

actual distributions are characterized by major overlapping of scores)

This result answers the first step and calls for analysis of the second

step in our model.

Tabie 3

Aptitude Area Mean Scores of Whit es and Blacks in 1973 Input Sampl e

Ap titude area Whites Blacks Total

CO Combat 106 90 100

FA Field Ar tillery 100 88

EL Electronics Repair 105 95 101

OF Operators and Food 99 82 92

SC Surveillance and Communications 106 97 103

MM Mechanical Maintenance 101 85 95

c

~

4 General Maintenance 104 89 99

CL Clerical 106 100 103

ST Skilled Technical 104 92 10(1

Sample size 4,756 2 ,697 7,482

The en tical information required for the second step was reported in

Mater and Fuchs (1972a) and is reproduced here as Table 4. This represents

best estimates of the correlation of the aptitude area scores with performance in training for counterpart Army jobs for the population of younq men

of draft age. In effect , these ratios show the gain in standard score on

the criterion of job training performance with unit gain in standard score

on the counterpart aptitude area . These nine coefficients , with six around

.70 , and even respectable values of .45 for Operators and Food, .53 for

Combat , and .61 for Field Artillery aptitude areas , are high enough to

indicate’ substantial rel ationships. Because the men studied were in the

relevant job training programs and hence had almost all qualified on the

counterpart aptitude’ areas , these coefficients had been corrected for

( 4

____ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I

restrict ion in range Lu rt-present the broader population of young men.

These validi ty coefficients tire unusually high , matching the best of

those obtained for academic- programs . This finding gives a favorable

result from the second step and calls for the third step analysis i t

our model .

Table 4

Validity of Ap tit ude Areas for Counterpa rt Army Jobs

Aptitude area Validi ty

Co (C ombat) .53

Ftc (Field Artillery) -~~~~~

EL (Electronics Re’pai r )

OF ( Operators tind Food) .45

SC (Survei 11 one,- ari d Communications) . ni

MM (Me c h anut -al ~‘Iaintenanee) .74

GM (General Maintenance) .68

CL (Clerical) .68

ST (Skilled Technical) .5fl

Note: From Maier & Fuchs , 1972a.

The third step concerns the relevance of the aptitude area scores

for separate racial etroups . As stated above, data on almost 2] ,000 men

were used in the validation study to develop the aptitude area composites .

Slightly over 14,000 of those men were identified by race , essentially

all as whi te or black . Table 5 shows; the distributions of the total v a li —

dation sample and of the wh i ten and b lacks in the sample by MOS L t a i iii nq

group. The noticet’tbIe variations in proportion of the validation sampl,-

identified by race art ’ in Operators and Food (a high proportion ) and in

the Combat and Field Artillery (a low proportion) . The numbers available’

in Field Artillery are especially disappointing; to avoid givino undue

weight to such small samples , this MOS group was not analyzed tu rHis ’r.

For the’ remain ing e i ght MOS groups , the mean aptitude area scores of

whi tes and bla cks in MOS trainin g and their mean final course gra des are

shown in Table i s . Although the mean aptitude scores and course ‘trades of

whites are higher thou those for black s, most differences in course grades

are generally those’ to he expected from the regression effects. The regression effects ind i cate~1 by the validity coefficients shown iii TabI . 4 proVide an oxpe ’ctat ion that th e-’ di f fe r e ’rtee in means for an aptitude’ art -a

7 
should be ac. -ompa nucel by a nina II er di I tel. -ti , - ,’ iii f jui .i I course q i ach is , - it is

Actually, most of the ~

1t tfvi-ences in I m a ] course grade’ means • irs - wit Ii iii

on.’ point of the product ut the di fference in aptitude area s;c .i - moans

multi plied by the validity coefficient . This is not to argue that ref m e d

statistica l tests would satisfy a null hypothesis——such review would most

likely I md ,l~ fft’t - t’uc - ,’s; ~ii stat j et i cal iqni ficance for these large’ n im—

p 1.—s . What is I’r.•nt Ilt s e t h e ’i. - ; s ; o ,n-ii-n’ of practical signi I i , - &n. s ’ cO (tie

dat,t . We st i ii ts-tvt’ two di f I s -I ,-w-

~ -e et note. The Combat ejroti~

s t i ni I

course grades. of tlit’ b I a~-k -u ’ - pl oct c cal ly up to those c i the whit .-s

although bet~aust’ o t tog tS-s5 tciii we would expect a eli! fe ron, -e c i t ~ lic ni t I t ‘

~

s ,

ptiiflt ~~~. Iii ce) !it Fast , the 5k 11 l t - ~i 1. - s -hot cal group ftii ~~i c - OS! s- -u i,It -; • s t

the hi acks ,ut’ de !pressed by about two jxi ints be low exIce ’etat l o u t. i’Iiiis

tii is; tori ow suciqos to that t in- e -om }sani non of means for whit en and hi at -k

is; m- eassur m g for si ~ ~~t the areas hut that another look at the Combat

and 5k i I Led ‘re’chn c cal at s -a-; may i s . - lit’ I pful

r abie ‘.

Sample S i cot; iii Apt t t ud.’ Area Vol i dat ion and Racial St udi ott

- - Samj slt’ si~ .e -

(4’15 cj t o up Vol i dat ion Whit o RI ock Whi t

Combat 1 ,609 ‘

~

iR1 lU 71.’

Field Artillery 665 134 41 1’ ’ Electronics Repair 1 , 840 2 ,036 2 12 .‘, 268

Operators and Food 1 ,516 1,166 179 l ,14c,

Surveillance and Coninunicat ions 2,137 1 ,241 148 l ,3°l

Mechanical Maintenance 4,195 2,776 26(4 1,04’

General Maintenance 1 ,139 688 71’ 7(44

Clerica l 1,502 2 , 232 446 .‘, t. 7 8

S k i l led Technical .‘, 175 1 ,499 25~ 1 , 7 - ’ .’

Total .‘0 ,97*1 12 , 355 I ,7’ .’ 14,1.’7

~

\ more 1~L .tqm.tt c ’ t es I t)f t he t , . I .‘Vonc.’ of the alit I t ud.- .1 l

~~5i 5.~~ ’ 

i s

ter witi los ~nel blacks t ’, a review e t tb rt ’qI-ession lines of MOS coulet ’ qr.a~h’s on apt i tude’ •tre,i ;c~~ires for hot h racial groups . An opt it tide it c i

sc~ r.’ ~it 00 ~~ tli. ’ coflulkiui mlii i m um I 01 acceptance for t ra i fling in a counterpart MOS • although 100 li.i;; often b~~ n the minimum for ac .

c -

~’ptauic .

.’ for the more .mdvant ’ed or eli I I i cult MOS . Si m 1.1 n y , scores ti! 1 10 or I .i s mark the it

ho) tiers is; highly PloIll Si nq t uth’nt s with high like’ Ii hoeiel of be’coin l nq

honor eiradu,ites; . IIt’nce , these four .11)11 tude’ score levels were s.’ 1 t’c -t cci

for observat ion et prod i .-t .-d .-eui se q i- otto, ; of whites and blacks. t

~

’c ’l i ’.i ’li

8

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

~~~~~~~~~~ ---— - - - — -~
MOS group , the regression equations or prediction equations of course

grades at successive aptitude scores were plotted separately for white

and black samples. From these equations the course grades expected at

the four aptitude scores of )

~~ , 100, 110, and 120 were noted . The results

are presented in Table 7.

Table 6

Mean Aplitudo A r - ~t Scores and Final Course Grades of

Wh~~te’s and Blacks by MOS Group

~~~~itude area score Final couros~ grade

MOS group Whites Blacks Whites Blacks

Co~~ at 101.5 92.1 100.2 99.4

Electronics Repair 100.9 91.1 100 .7 94.1

Operators and Food 101.0 94.0 100 .

r .

Surveillance and Commun i cations 100.4 89.0 100.8 13.3

Me chanical Maintenance 100.9 90.0 100.8 •

~2 0

F Ger~

eral Maintenance 101.5 89.6 lO0 .ti 9 3.6

Clerical 101.2 94.0 101. 8 96.2

Skilled rechnical 101.6 90.7 10 1.4 92.0

Scales for both aptitudc scores and course grades are based o~ means

of 100 and standard deviations of 20 for the full population of young men .

The overriding impact of the entries in Table 7 is that predicted final

course grades for whites and blacks are amazingly uniform within an aptitude area score level in an MOS group . Differences of 0, 1, or 2 poi nts

predominate. Slightly 1 crqor differences arc found in the Combat MOS

group where blacks with Combat aptitude area scores of 90 or 100 did a

bit better, a~d it-i Mech anical Maintenance and Skilled Technical MOS groups

where wh i tes with Mechanical ~

l

~ intenarice or Skilled TechnIcal scores of

110 or 120 (respectively) did a h~~t better.

As a chock on the results 1r .’

~~~ u i ted in Table 7, which arc ls ,i~~, ’t Ofl

data corrected for restriction in range , the data on available ’ cases (as

shown in Table 5) were also revie-swt-cd. As indica ted earli er , i lie da ta have

been adjusted to put in t ~

orntatjon on traiüees in different MOS proqrams

within the same MOS group on a c -omiuon seal.’ . In this analysis, these

adjusted dat.t were examinec1 toe wh i t en and blacks to plot course grade

means for clusters of train, ’ -’s Ot 5Uc~~~(’oS i v.’ i ntervals of ap ti t t i c k ;;

~~

-O FO5

and then to rou ghly ( i t :;t t a igh t—1 in.’ Ir e-ntI s to the sets of c n ss c -rved

mean s . Figure 1 presents these plots of the’ mean trends for whit .o arid

blacks , with r egression l i n e -s representing the results from th t- t - ~ir1 i o r

‘1 

=~~~~ -~~~~ _ _- ---~~~~~ 
-

~~~ - - --—--- —---— -—- --

In

.-4 ~~ ttl in m in tO N ‘-4 _4 0 .-4 ~~

4 .-4 ~~

4 0 -.4 -.4 -.4 .-4 _.4 ..4 -4 ,-4 _4

en 0 o

en cO a)

0 eD CO cO ~~ ~~ ‘0 ‘4-4 -‘-4 .-I .-4 C) -.4 .-4 .-4 -.4 .-4 0 4 ..4 ,.4 ~~4 ,.4 -.4 4 .4

a) Ii,

a) 0

U -i en .i

~

U N N (‘4 en to CO CO .a o o o o o o o o

a) .-4 .-4 .4 .—4 ,-4 ..-4 ,-4 ,..4 -4

o i

~~o ‘4-4

en ‘0 in n .1) C .1.1 LA CO U) 0. N CO N ..4 .,.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.4 ,.4 .4 ,.-4 , .-4 ,-4

C

0 1.4 en 0 en at ‘

~

.4 .

~~ 0) U (‘4 0 C\ —4 ~ % .-4 0 N 1.. G) tS 0 0 0-. 0 5~ 0 0 Ct

0’ ‘

~~ .-4 .—l —4 .4 -.4 P-4

1.4 - 0

9

o 0) Ut 1.4 In 0) Ct 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‘4.4 1.4 4.) Ct 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :i ...4 ,4 -.4 ,_4 ,.4 . 4 ..4 4

N at 0

‘1) 0 41) Ii

—4 0 —4

.‘l U ‘0 ‘0 U) C en I-’ .,.4 ,

~~ 40 r.4 U CO .0 ~~ ‘ N ~~ ‘ N N

o-. at at a-. at a-, at

0) 0 •0 0’ S en 4.4 0)

~~‘ N tO (‘4 .

~

4 ~~ N

0’

C

C

0

--4

4-I

iO

.2

In a)

.0 o .a ai 1.4 5 1.i ‘0 0 C U 0 --I 0 0) C —4 (4 ‘0 C) ‘0 4.) ~ ‘0 0) 0’ 0. r

~

. C C C C) en 0) ‘0 -l 0) en ~

z ‘ci 40 1.j

R a) o vi e ii ~ o U ~ .-4 ‘0 0)

~~ at 40 ‘0 -.4 C (4 ‘—4 U — ‘0 0 0 ..4 .,.4 .4 ‘0 ‘0 C 4-~ (4 -

~~ -.4 C 40 0 0) ‘0 4.) 

~ 0) 40 (4 .,4 ~4

Ct4 U (-4 D’ 0) (4 ‘-4 41) ~~ 4-4 C.) ~ ~ j

o .4 P

~ S 0) 0) .-.4 .) o ~ it) 0 en Z t

~ C.) U)

L _______ 

10 

_________

~

- ___ -—--—- 
LEGEND: Validity study regression

—. —. . Whi te sample trend line

— — — — Black sample trend line

_________ _________

80 P.) 100 110 120 130 80 90 100 110 120 130

CO Aptitude Area Score EL Aptitude Area Score

~ if ________

80 90 100 110 120 130 80 90 100 110 120 130

OF Aptit uds Area Score SC Aptitude Area Score

Figure 1.. Comparative trends of course grades of whites

and blacks for aptitude scores.

11

—- ___ ____ - 

- 
________________________ 

--

~~~~~

-

~~~~~~~~~~

- --

~ I

LEGEND: — Validity etudy regression

— . • — . — White sample trend line

— — — — Black sample trend line

80 80

I I I I I I I Tj 1

80 90 100 110 120 130 80 90 100 110 120 130

MM Aptitude Area Score GM Aptitude Area Score

130-,. 130 —

80— P 80

1 1 1 1 F I I I I 1 I

80 90 100 110 120 130 80 90 100 110 120 130

CL Aptitude Area Score ST Aptitude Area Score

Figure 1 (cont’d ). Comparative trends of course grades of whites

and blacks for aptitude scores.

12

L __ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--

_ __ __
validity study as a reference . In this figure, the r ace trend l ines are 

shown only for the score intervals with sufficient number s of cases. For 

this reason, many of the trend lines for blacks do not extend above the 

110 aptitude score l evel . 

'!'he regression lines f rom the validation study 'and the trend l.i.nes 

from the samples of whites and blacks show reaarkable agreement on the 

plots in Figure 1. Differences are generally saall and variable as to 

which group outperforms c a th rat a given aptitude l eve 1. These results reinforce the compute values from Table 7, indicating tha~ in a 

practical sense the apti tu ... rc s ores are equally us f ul for predicting 

job training pe.rforman e of whit s nd blacks. Note tha t i:1 Table 7 the 

linear regression lines were extended to a score of 120, ven though few 

cases were availablG in the 110-120 range. 

DISCUSSION 

Results of this analysis provide rather straightforward answers to 

questions raised by the model. Camparison of aptitude area scores of 

samples of white and black young men shows sizable differences in means 

of the two races. High validity is shown in the validity coefficients of 

the aptitude areas for predicting counterpart job training performance, 

clearly justifying the " touchstone of business necessity" cited by the 

Supreme Court. Finally, ~~mparison of the regression of job training 

perfo~ce on counterpart aptitude area scores indicates that regression 

from the validation study and from sa.plea of whites and blacks shows no 

differences of practical significance within the critical range (although 

there probably are statistically significant differences in the regression 

linea). 

The results of this research are consistent with res ults found by 

other researchers in both the civilian and ailitaxy communities. Cleary 

(1968) found no evidence of differences in the prediction of black and 

white grades at three colleges when the Scholastic Aptitude Test was used 

as a predictor. Similar findings were reported by Pfeife r and Sed'J.acek 

(1970) at the University of Maryland. Campbell and his associates (1973) 

at the Education Testing Service reported on a 6-year study of workers in 

selected u.s. Civil Service occupations as showing that "regressi on equations developed on majo:dty group data appeared to predic t almost equally 

well for minority groups." O'Leary, Farr, and Bartlett (1970) studied 

predictor-criterion relations in several job situations, and found that 

aptitude teats were as likely to favor whites as blacks. Guinn, Tupes, 

and Alley (1970), working with Air Force enlisted men, found that the 

performance of blacks in t ec-.hnical schools tended to be slightly overpredicted by aptitude-criterion prediction equations. Their obse rved 

differences were not consistent in direction or magnitude across the different technical school courses and hence did not consistently favor 

either race . Thomas (1972) studied a large sample of Navy trainees and 

found some statistically significant differences in the regression 

13 
equations relating black and white course grades with performance on 

aptitude teats. She observed a slight tendency for overprediction of 

black perfo~ce along with slightly lower accuracy of prediction. 

The present analysis used job training perforaance as the criterion; 

such a criterion has been challenged in some equal opportunity cases. 

However, in these cases a key element has been the absence of failure in 

training or other active use of the training evaluation. In the Army 

situation, many students do not graduate; and at the other end of the 

scale, honor graduates are often given early promotion or other rewards 

for their superior performance in job training. 

In the present research, about one-quarter of the trainees did not 

graduate on schedule. Most of these were academe failures or academic 

turnbacks, for whom the application of training evaluations was clearly 

significant. Also, "voluntary" withdrawals are often at least partly 

motivated by difficulties encountered in .. intaining passing grades. It 

is therefore felt that the job training criterion used here can be defended as applicable to equal opportunity qu .. tiona. However, careful 

research should be undertaken to relate job training performance to sUbsequent on-the-job perforaance. A aaajor effort would be needed to avoid 

the difficulties cited in the "PJOBLDI" aectian of this report. Certainly, 

a special criterion measure would be needed, vith atandard tasks and multiple judges, or an objective job sa.ple teat, or both. 

Another factor is time. The primary data were collected in 1964-

1965. Thia period .. y actually have been .ore •nonul" than the later 

sixties, when the Az1ly was heavily involved in Southeast Asia. However, 

with the end of the draft (and ccmbat imrol~nt), the mid-1970's may 

well be the start of a new era for the Anly. Recruitaent standards will 

react to the size of replacement needs, on the one hand, and to effects 

of the econollf on the quality of applicanta, on the other hand. The 

ql:antity and quality of education available to various groups in our 

society will place ita mark on what difference• are found in the regression linea for current racial samples. It a.- highly desirab,.e that 

the Axw¥ update the pres~nt findings on a current aample of trainees. 

14 
-

REFERENCES

campbell , J. P., Crooks , L. A. , Mahoney , M. H., & Rock , D. A. An Investigation of Sources of Bias in the Prediction of Job Performance .

Final Project Report (PR— 73—37) . Princeton , N.J.: Educational

Testing Service , Septembe r 1(173.

Cleary , P.nn T. Test bias : Pr~-di ct ion of Grades of Negro anc .l White

Students in Integrated Colleqes . Journal of Educatien .1 Me asurement ,

1968 , ~~~, ll~) — l . ~4.

Guinn . N., Tupc s, E. C. , i-. Alley , W. E. Cultural Subgroup Di f ferences

in Relationships Between Air Force Aptitude Cr-ri-cposite-1 ; and Training

Cri teria. AFHRL-TR-70-35. Lackland AFB , Tex.: Air Force Human

Resources Laboratory , Personnel Research DiVision , September 1970.

Maier, Milton H., & Fu chs , Edmund F . An Improved Differ ential Army

Classification System . ARI Research Report 1177. April 1972 (a)

Maier , Milton H., & Fuchs , Edmun d F. Development and Evaluation of a

New ACB and Aptitude Area System . ARI Technical Paper 239 . September 1972 (b).

Maier , Milton H., & Fuchs, Edmund F. Effectiveness of Select ion and

Classification Testing . ARI Research Report 1179 . September 1973.

O’Leary , B. S., Farr , J. L., & Bartlett , C. J. Ethnic Group Membership

as a Moderator of Job Performance . Technical Report No. 1. Arlington , Va.: Office of Naval Research , April 1970.

Pfejfer , C. Michael , & Sedlacek , William E. Validity of Academi c Predictors for Black and White Students at the Univers i ty of Maryland.

Research Report 2-70. College Park , Md. : University of Maryland ,

Cultural Study Center, l

~ 70.

Thomas, Patricia J. An Investiqation of Possible Test Bias in the Navy

Basic Test Battery . Technical Bulletin STB 73—1 . San Diego , Calif.:

Naval Personne l and Training Research Laboratory , Auqust 1972.

- —S ~~~~~~~~~ 

_ _ _

~~~_ fr ._ -_~~~_____s_~~ 
DISTRIBUTION

API Distribution List

4 OASD M&RA I 2 HOUSACOEC . Ft Ord. ATTN Ltaa ry

2 HODA )DAMI - CSZ) 1 HOUSACDEC . Ft OrcI . ATTN ATEC - E X - E Hurri Factors

I HODA )OAPF-PBR 2 USAEEC , Ft Benjamin Harrison ATTN Library

1 HODA IDAMA A PI 1 USAPACOC . Ft Benj am in Harr sos - , ATT N ATCP - H R

1 HODA IDAPE HRE POi 1 USA Comm-Elect Sch. Ft Morimouth . A T t N : ATSN FA

1 HODA lSGRu - lU~ 1 USAEC , Ft Monmo.a r ATTN A’.I

~~E L -- CT- I-IDP

1 HOOA PAMI DOT-C) 1 USAEC . Ft Mortmocth , ATTN AMSEL-PA- P

1 HODA )OAPC-PMZ Al 1 LJSAEC. ft Monrrioi.t’ , ATT’s AMs E L --SI- - C8

1 HQDA )OAC H-PP c

~ A) 1 USAEC . Ft Mon mov th . ATTN C. F:ict Den Br

1 HODA (DAPE HAt) 1 USA Mater ials Sys Anal Agey. Abeidi-en . ATTN: AMXSY-P

I HODA)DAPI MPO-CI 1 Edgewood Arsenal . Aberdeen . ATTN : SA RisA - - Bi - I-f

1 1-4ODA (OA PE- DWj 1 USA Ord Ctr & 5th Aberdeen . ATT N ATSL~~TEM~~C

1 HODA IDAPE HAL) 2 USA Hum Engr Lab . Aberdeen ATTN: L brar~ /Dir

1 HODA DAPF - CPS) 1 USA Combat Arms Tog Sd . Ft Berinin g, ATTN Ad Supervisor

I HODA IDAFD MEA l 1 USA Infantry Hum Rsch Unit F- Benn ri-

~. ATTN Cl ,si-f

1 HQOA I DARD -ARS-P) 1 USA Infantry Sd Ft Bennioq. ,

~TTN~ STEBC—TE -T

1 I-4ODA IOAPC PAS-Al 1 USASMA . Ft Bu tt . ATTN : ATSS—LRC

1 HUDA IDUSA-OR) I USA Air Def Sch. Ft Bliss . ATTN: ATSA--CTD- -ME

1 HODA )DAMO POP) I USA Ar Def Sd’, Ft Bliu , ATT N Tech Lib

I HQDA IDASG) 1 USA A i r Def Sd , Ft Bliss ATTN FILES

I HODA DAlE PIT 1 USA Air Oct Bd , Ft Bliss . ATTN~ STEBD—PO

I C~-e t . C—insult 0-’ IDA-OTSG) , Adelph i . MD I USA Cmd & General Stt College . Ft Leaven wor th . ATTN: Lid

I M Ass ’ H~~,n Ret , 000R&E . OAD IE&LS) I USA Cmd & General SrI College . Ft Leavenw ort h. ATTN ATSW—SE -- L

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

I HO Fi,st Army . A TTN: AFKA- Ol- Tt 1 liSA Combined Arms Cmbt 0ev Act . Ft Leavenworth , ATTN: DepCdr

2 HO F - Iris At rny, Fl Sam Houston 1 USA Comb ined Arms Cmbt Dcv Act . Ft Leavenworth , ATTN: CCS

1 Dir . Army SrI Srudie, Ofc , ATTN: OAVC$A (DSP) 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Des Act . Ft Le avenworth , An N: ATCASA

I O~. Cini .5 of Stf . Studies Qfc 1 USA Comb ined Arms Cmbt Dev Act . Ft Leavenwo rth , ATTN: ATCACO—E

1 DCSPER . ATTN CPS/OCP 1 USA Combined Arms Cmht Dcv Act . Ft Leavenworth . ATTN: ATCACC—Ct

I The Ar my Lila . Pe.sragorr ATTN: RSB Chief 1 USAECOM . Night Vision Lab . Ft Belv oir , ATTN: AMSEL—NV—SD

1 The Army Lib , Pentagon ATTN: ANRAL 3 USA Computer Sys Cmd . Ft Belvei r . ATTN: Tech Library

1 Ofc . Ats t Sect of the Army (R&D) I USAMERDC . Ft Belvo ir . ATTN: STSFB-DO

I Tech Suc,p ort Ofc . OJCS 1 USA Eng Sch, Ft Belvoir . ATT N Library

1 USASA. Arl ingt on . ATTN: lARD -I 1 USA Topographic Lab, Ft Belv oir . ATTN : ETL- TD—S

I USA Rsclr Ofc , Durham , ATTN: Life Sciencev Dir 1 USA Topographic Lab, Ft Belvoir , ATTN : STINFO Center

2 USARIEM , NaticIs , ATTN: SGRD-UE -CA I USA Topographic Lab , Ft Belvoir , ATTN: ETL—GSL

1 USATTC , Ft Clayton , ATTN: STETC-MO-A 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sd’, Ft Hu achu ca . ATTN : CTD—MS

1 USAIMA . F, Bragg, ATT N: ATSU-CTO-OM 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sen . Ft Huachuca , ATTN : ATS—CTD—MS

1 USAIMA . Ft Bragg. ATTN: Marguat Lib I USA Intelligence Ctr & Sd’, Ft Huachuca . ATTN: ATSI—TE

US WAC Cur & Sch, Ft McClellan . ATTN: Lib 1 USA Inte lligence Ctr & Sd’, Ft Huachuca , ATTN: ATS I—TEX—GS

1 US WAC Cu & Sch . Ft McClellan , ATTN Tng Dir 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sd’. Ft Huachuca , ATTN: ATSI—CTS—OR

1 LISA Qu arterm aster Sch . Ft Lee. ATTN: ATSM-TE 1 USA Intelligence CIr & Sd’. Ft Huachuca , ATTN: ATS I—CTD—DT

1 Intellige nce Material Dee Ofc , EWL , Ft Holab ird 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Seh, Ft Huachuca , ATTN: ATSI—CTD—CS

1 USA SE Signal Sd’. Ft Gordon , ATTN: ATSO-EA 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch , Ft Huechuca , ATTN: DAS/SRD

I USA Charla,n Cu & Sch . Ft Hamilton . ATm : ATSC-TE-RD 1 USA Intellig ence Ctr & Sch . Ft Huachuca , ATTN: ATS I—TEM

1 USATS CH Ft Ec itt is . ATTN: Educ Advisor I USA Intell igence Ctr & Sd’, Ft Huachuc a , ATTN: Librar y

I USA War College . CarI sIe Barracks , ATTN: Lb I CDR , HO Ft Nuachuca , ATTN: Tech Ref Div

2 W~1AIR -Nes i ’ so-syc h i a t rv Div 2 COP , USA Electronic Pry9 Ged . ATTN: STEEP- MT—S

1 DLI . SDA M1

~ irerey 1 COP . Project MASSTER , ATTN Tech Info Center

1 USA Coirrn i.t Airal Agry. B,-t I,rel a . ATTN : MOCA-WGC 1 Hg MASSTER , USA TRADOC . LNO

1 USA (‘.iincel Anal Agry . lirlhi’scla, ATTN . MOCA-MR 1 Research Intti tute . HO MASSTER . Ft Hood

1 USA Concept Airal Agcy . Heth..tdci. ATT N: MOCA-JF 1 USA Recruiting Cmd . Fr Slierr liarn . ATTN: US/IRCPM -P

I USA Arl.~ Tort Ct r , AP() Seattl e . ATTN STEAC MO-ASL 1 Senior Army Adv . . USAFAGOD/TA(; . Elq i n AF A un FId No. 9

1 I JSA Arti r T,’ct Ct, - AI’O S~~ttl p . AT1 N- AMSIE -PL-T5 1 HO (ISARPAC , DCSPE R . APO SF 9fi558. AT TN - GPPE —St

I USA l’ir ni,.ir w i it Cimi , Rodstoir ~ Arse is ,i , A TTN ATSK-T EM I St ims, in Lila , Acarkiniy u I.-alt h Ikiu’oce’,, rt Sam Houston

1 USA A ,-nern ou,t Cm,l Rod . l ilcs ic i l ATTN AMSAR -TOC 1 Miruiiu Corps Inst . , ATTN Dean- MCI

1 FA A NM EC Atl ~ u r,u ,- City Al TN- I Irrary 1 HOUSMC , Commandant . ATTN Cu ,rIe MTMT 51

I FAA NAt ut Ai . i ss?u, i

_ _tv - ATTN Hi, i,,1~ 5, 1 I )QUSMC . Cnrii man.Iant - AT d (awl,- Ml” 20

I FAA Ai’ riaiias.tuu al Ci, , Okl..Ii ome City ATTN ; AAC 44D 2 USCG Acad emy, New Lo. i ’lou i . ATTN Adm ission

2 USA Fl u Arty Ser . Ft Sill . ATTN: Li brary 7 USCG Academy, New Li,ruu)on , ATTN library

1 USA Arirri,, S.1r . Ft K.ios , ATTN Library 1 USCG Trainin g Ctr , NY , ATTN: CO

1 USA Armor Sd’. Ft Kurne . ATTN ATSB.OI.E 1 USCG Training Cu. NY , ATTN: Educ Svc Ofc

I USA Armor Sen . Ft Kisox . ATTN: ATSR- DT-TP 1 USCG. Ptyc hol Pea Br , DC, ATTN: GP 1/62

1 USA Ar mo, Sd. I-, Ku,i,e . ATTN ATS B- C D-AO 1 HO Mid--Range Br , MC 0.-I , Ouant rco . ATTN: P&S Div

17 ..

—~~~ .---

—- —‘

— - -5—-..-

~~

. .

‘ 

p

~~~ ~

g

~

,

~

itic

_________ 

~~~~~~~~~~~

- 

~~~~~~-.- .-
1 US Marine COfll\ lr~aion Ole:, AMC. Alullldrla, ATTN: AMCGS-F 

1 USATRAOOC. Ft Monroe, ATTN: ATRO- ED 

I USATRADDC, Ft Monrc., ATTN: ATPR-AD 

1 USATRADOC, Ft Monroe, ATTN: ATTS- EA 

1 USA Fon:.s Cmd. Ft McPherson. ATTN: llbtery 

2 USA Aviallon Tast Bd, Ft Ruckllr, ATTN: STEIIG-f'O 

1 USA AIJcy for Aviation Safety, F t Ruckaf, ATTN: llbtery 

1 USA A!FY for Aviation Safety, Ft Rucker, ATTN: Ecluc: AdlriiDr 

1 USA Avialion Sdl, Ft Ruc:kar, ATTN: PO Dr-0 

1 HOUSA Aviation Sys Cmd, Stlouis, ATTN: AMSAV-ZOR 

2 USA Avtltlon ~Tilt Act., Edwards AFB, A.TTN: SAYTE-T 

1 USA Air Def Sdl. Ft Bills. ATTN: ATSA TEM 

1 USA Air Mobility Rsch a Dev Lib, Moffett Fld, ATTN: SA VOL-AS 

1 USA Aviation Sdl. Ras Tng Mgt, ft Rucker, ATTN: AlST-T-RTM 

1 USA Aviation Sch, CO. Ft Rucker, ATTN: ATST -D-A 

HO. DARCOM, Al•xandria, ATTN: AMXCD-TL 

HU, OARCOM, Ahtxandria, ATTN: COR 

US Military Ac:.1dlony, West Point, ATTN: Serilll Unit 

1 US Milltery Acfd(:ny, Welt Point, ATTN: Ofc: of Milt Lclr1hp 

1 US Mrlotary Academy, Wnt Point, ATTN: MAOR 

1 USA Surndarditatiun Gp, UK, FPO NY, ATTN: MAIIE-GC 

1 Ole of Nav~ R$Ch, Ar:inglon, ATTN: Code 4&2 

3 Olr: of Naval Rsch, Arlington, ATTN: Code 4&8 

1 Ole of Naval R~<.'h, Arlit1910n, ATTN: Code 460 

Ole of Naval Rsch, Arlington, ATTN: Codt 441 

N~ll Aerospc: M.rd Rn Lib, Penuc:ula, ATTN: Aoou1 Sell 01w 

Naoal Aeroap: Med Res Ub, PeMICOia, ATTN: co0e L5t 

Navll Allousl).; Med Res Lab, Pensac:ola, ATTN: Code L5 

1 Chilli "' Navl'en, ATTN: Pers-OR 

1 NAVAIRSTA. Norfolk, ATTN: Safely Ctr 

1 Nil¥ 0celll09flllhic. DC, ATTN: Code 6251, Ch•IS a Tldl 

1 Canter of Navol Anal, ATTN: Doc: Ctr 

1 N:wAirSysCurn, ATTN: AIR-5313C 

1 N~ Bu:lhd. ATTN: 713 

I NavHofic:opterSubSqua 2, FPO SF 884101 

1 AfHRL IFTI William AFB 

1 4IFHRL (TTl lotM'V AFB 

1 AFHRLIASI WPAFB, OH 

2 AFHRL IOOJZI Brooks AFB 

1 AFHRL IDOJNILakland AFB 

1 HOUSAF (INYSDI 

1 tiOUSAF (OPXXAI 

I AFVTG IROI R.adotph AFB 

3 AMRL CHEI WPAFB, OH 

2 AF lnst of ·r<'Ch, WI'AFR, OH, ATTN: ENIYSL 

1 A TC IXPTDI A:~ndolph AFO 

1 USAF 1\cro~h:oll.ih, Blook' AFB ISUL - 41, ATTN: DOC SEC 

1 AFOSR INLI. Arlinytotr 

'1 AF LOll Cmd, MeCiellan AFB, ATTN: ALCIOI'CRB 

I Air Ft>~ct Acaolnmy. CO, ATTN: Dep! .,r Bel Sen 

5 Navf'l!rs a. Oev Ctr, San Oielln 

2 Navy Mild Nelrr~ll'fc:hilllric Asch Unit, San Dileo 

1 Nil¥ Electronic Lib, San Dit110, ATTN: R11 LAb 

I Nil\' Trrl!l('r.n. Slln Di"!!I, A 1'TN: Coct. 11000-l.lb 

1 NavP<~ttGriSch, Montvnty, ATTN: Code 5fiAI 

N..-Pc-nGmS..:r. M(lnt~rey, ATTN: Code ,124 

N..,Trn\IECl<=iPCtr, Orlnndo, Al'TN: itoch Lib 

US Drvt nl r.al'<>r, 0~. ATTN: M•nl""'..,.. Admin 

US Dl't>t nl Justice, DC, ATTN: Onrg En! "tee Admin 

Nat Bur \II Standanfs, I'C. ATTN: Computer Info S..:ti!:'n 

N~t Clo•.11i1111 II•>U><l lor Mil ·Info, Rod.villo 

Do:nw.r Fodo!f•l Cu. Lalul\vood. ATTN: lllM 

12 Oftlrnoe Oocument.otion Cotntrr 

4 Dlr Psych, At my Hct. Rutell Ofcs, C1111homn 

I !lo: • ..ntilir. A<IY<r, Mil Od. Arnov Hq, Rorwa Ofcs, Canberre 

1 Mil :anof Air Atl:a<'he, Austri:an EmhiiS'V 

1 Cc llto• •In Ao~'IOIItho• Oott f ,k:lmr.,, ltumainft dot Ill Defltl• 

NlliONio•, Buo,.,..ls 

2 CRnlllliar Jnint Shill WMhrngton 

1 ClAir St:tff, Ruyal Cltlldi;m Ar·. ATTN: Pen Sid ANIBr 

~ Choel, t:anldi111 Del Asdl Stall, ATTN: C/CROS(W) 

• Drltlth Def Stall, Brilith ErnbMW. Washi01110n 

18 

t Dlf a CMII• of Elwinl Mldidne, Canadl 

t AIR~ ............ ATTN: Into lys. 

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

1 Mll1tlry Alllllll, F...-E...._.,, ATTN: Doc Sec 

1 lilldlcllla.f,C.E.R.P.A.-ANMI. Toulon/N1w11 Fr11101 

t ...,.SciiMiftc(Mt,._. HuMIIvRIIIII Olv,Minillry 

of DIIINI. Nlw Dlllli 

1 ,_ Jlllll Ole Ubrlry, AKA, I-I Demlll Fore~~ 

t llllliiWII 11111 Dlfenlie, OOOPIKL Afd SC'cl-' 

..,. at i > Zltlln, The Hegue, Nebrllndl