Technical Paper $30 1/U/ [AD

CADET EVALUATION MAA BATTERY: 

' ,-4A COMPARISON OF 1975 MALE AND'FEMALE

SSCORES WITH ONE ANOTHER AND WITH 1971

MALE SCORES

4

E. Sue Mohr and Michuel G. Rumroey

LU PERSONNEL ACCESSION AND UTILIZATION TECHNICAL AREA

C~ID

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

September 1978

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

1 j•) olO),,,1 U
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of thre

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

¶ WILLIAM L. IIALUSHE

JOSEP11 ZEII)NIIRK 011(lonl, US Arm~y

TedmiciaI Di)mcitw tnnan

13~11k) PiNiq Nlm 61bloll0 th~is Mri hot been meW by AAt, Please 64ddvtu coittae4ondonc#

itIty" 00vbutIO" S11 Of M~otr%* 1W U, 3. Am'V 11010maicl lou~tute for the. w avtieo l ond soc~ial Scititces, ATIN t40f1' IO eLw. vne A1001111111r*e VW4ini 223~31

the LU 11 Animv Mismach instijuisto, lgth. oethaiorsi anj Social smoiene,

STho findmosJ wi tiil. teglog agei ,tt to, lie kjtjviostde as an ofluolel L~~ i~ Of the Avmy Iposifitmi.

%W1666 t U1 sgntu b*10 1 '0 OhV 01o i thotatdttlCflejt
Unclas If iod

19CURITY CLASSIPIOAY10w of THIN IAG64Wn ot hf(

REPRT DOCUMEVT-AT1ON PAGE KA NTUTM

1. IMPORT MU111111 ATAL04 HUMNIEN

Techxnical Paper 330 '

DE fLT EVALUATION (ATTE1SO OF1 75

WITH1971MALZSCOHS o . P9 P@RMIN@ 0110. AtPO"T Humes"

10 E. Sue Mohr 00Michael1 G. WYBy I

PERFORMING ORGANIZATION HAN19 AND ADDRIIS 10.I TP KAEL Ja ITAS

U.S. AmIy Research Institute for the Beohavior ~ w~ UqRCTS and Social ScieneeS (P1ERI-IL) / 2Q763731A768

5001 2Ei~enhower Ave., Alexandria, Virginia 22330-

11, CONTROLLING CIPPICK HMAN AND A0004ES8

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personneol / S

'Washington, DC 20110

4 MON-ITOKING AGENCY NAME & ADORE1091tlo fe fft UZr~lhid owes) s, 61cuitITY cLAXs. (at this tepol)

L. unclassi fied

Approved for public release: distribution unlimited

17. GISTRIUUTIOM STATICM4Tr (of th. aoetottI 4"W"fe to slosh *00 It i111ot eN" ftreort)

It, SUPPLEMENTARY MOTES%

10. KRY WORDS (Coiiiout om rovotooelde O noceomoo andid I~tir 6Y &took "40wib

Army IRoservo Officers4' Training Cops (ROTC)

Cc-qnitivti And nonvognitive measkres

Sax differellons

Offictor selection test

14l AUSIT1 ACT (C00=w on #*=soe Wo 11 ho**06" OW t*01epf bp bWoeS wmome)

J '~rh~present study com~pared male and female performatice on the Cadet

L Laiiation flattory (CED~) , a measixre of A~rmy off icer potential, and compared

Mile scores achieved ill two testing periods 4 yeaars aipart. Trhe CEB1 was

administerod to 637 male cadets in the 2d year (Militairy Scionce 11) of

the Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps ('R01C) in .197.1 and to 1,035 fomalo

and 926 male appl.icants in the 3d year of ROTC (MS ItI) in 1975. Cognitive

scale *core* from the 1971 saiele were superior to the coqnitive scores --

DO maiA10 a I47 Ibt@@'to I Lalt'1 (
"5CUAITV CA.AWPICATIGOW or V040 PAMOIWM me &*"a

Z2<.?IAbstract (on~tinued)

for both the male and female 1975 sample.. while the noncognitive scores for

the 1975 male group exceeded those for the 1971 group on three of four scales.

These results were discussed in terms of changes in the nature of the IRM

po~pulation following the cessation of the draft. Comparisons between male

and female &cures from the 1975 sample. indicated that females tended to

perform as competently as males on the cognitive scales but revealed that

male performance was superior an all four noaclognitive scales. Discussion

of btlio the sex differences obeerved focused on the use of all-male samples in

develoreeent of the CHB.~

I I Unclassified
Tsohulcu Piper 330

CADET EVALUATION BATTERY:

A COMPARISON OF 1975 MALE AND FEMALE

SCORES WITH ONE ANOTHER AND WITH

1971 MALE SCORES

E, fSu Mohr and Michael 0. FRumsey

and

Anthony E. Castelnovo, Work Unit Leader

PERGONNEL ACCESSION AND UTILIZATION TECHNICAL AREA

Submitted as complete and Approved Syi teahMI44llY gCcurate, by! Rap A, center Eý Ralph Duse k Director

Techrnlcal AroaChief INDIVIDUAL;TRAININGk AND PERFORMANCE

RESEARH L~brAoRy

Joseph Zeldner

TEHICAL DIRECTOR

US, ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexamdria, Virginia 22333

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

September 1976

Army Project Number Officoer Careers

ApWred too PUbMba r*%ee,: distsitbulln unlmliited.
ARI Research Reports and Technical Papers are intended f or sponsors of

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

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

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

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.
FOREWORD

The Personnel Accession and Utilization Technical Area of the Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) is concerned with providing integrated sets of techniques to support Army

personnel management systems. Early identification of officer leaders

and development of officer leadership from cadet training through company and field grade assignments are of major concern in the management

of the Army's manpower resources. ARI conducts research to provide

scientific means of identifying individuals with good leadership potential for officer training, selecting officers for commissioning, and

evaludting their performance.

The Cadet Evaluation Battery (CEB) was developed as an end product

of a program undertaken to meet the need for improving the selection

and assignment of personnel in accord with their capabilities to meet

differing leadership requirements. The program evolved in response to

requirements and recommendations of the Army Scientific Advisory Panel

(ASAP) and the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (DCSPER).

The CEB is essentially a refined and reduced version of the Differential Officer Battery (DOB) . Technical Research Report 1173 presented

the major psychological factors derived from officer responses to tests

of the experimental DOB and described the reduction of the measures

obtained to a manageable number of experimental predictor scores. Dimensions derived from a factor analysis of actions observed at an Officer

Evaluation Center (OEC) simulation, which was developed to test the predictive validity of the DOB, are described in Technical Research Report

1172. Research Report 1182 examined the extent to which DOB scores were

associated with differential performance in the OEC exercise and success

in combat and technical/administrative assignments.

The transition from the experimental DOB test battery to the operational CEB battery necessitated the collection of normative data from

the relevaut cadet group. These data were collected on male students

in the Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps by Richard D. Doorley in

1971. The present publication uses normative data recently collected

to coutpare male and female performances and compares these recent

normativ, data with those collected in 1971. It carries forth the

" .,lt ion and as:; iqpnent proqram responsive to the roconueordatjiots Of

Al.;AP , and X1CSPER a-; well as to the objectives of Arnmy 'ro ject.

. ',;I,'7 IlAVI, FY l377 Work lProqram.

I. NEI 
CADET EVALUATION BATTERY: A COMPARISON OF 1975 MALE AND FEMALE

I SCORES WITH ONE ANOTHER AND WITH 1971 MKALE SCORES

BRIEF I<I

Requirement:

To compare male and female performance on the Cadet Evaluation

'Battery (CEB) and to examine changes in male CEB performance between

1971 and 1975.

Procedure:

The CEB was administered to 637 male cadets enrolled in the 2d

year--Military Science (MS) 11--of the Army Reserve Officers' Training

Corps (ROTC) in 1971 and to 1,035 females and 926 males applying for

enrollment into the 3d year (MS Ill) of ROTC in 1975. CEB scale and

subscale scores were compared for all three samples.

Findings:

Cognitive scale scores from the 1971 sample were superior to the

"cognitive scores for both the male and female 1975 samples, whereas the

noncognitive scores for the 1975 male group exceeded those for the 1971

group on three of four scales. The 1975 female sample achieved higher

scores than the 1975 male sample on two of the three cognitive scales,

but the 1975 male group was superior to the female sample on all four

*• noncognitive scales.

Utilization of Findings:

The findings will (a) heip determine the extent to which the CEB

will be used for female cadets and the manner in which female CEB scores

will be interpreted and (b) be used to establish new CEB norms.

.. '
CAMET EVALUATION BATTERY1 A COKPARXSON OF 1975 MALE AND FEMALE

SCORES WITH ONE ANOTHER AND WITH 1971 MALE SCORES

CONTENTS

Page

INTIODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

14 Procedure O 4 . .

9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . *.

C CLSubjec s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

j LIST OF TA3LE8

Tabla I. Raw mean s-cores and standard deviati.on* on Cza scale$

forT1971 .id.1975 samples ....... ................ 4

Ct 2. t**t cIPOrison ofsample means . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3. Raw msubascalo means, standard deviations and t values

for 1975 mAle and females .... ....... 6

'- ,

I I

•, •. . . . . ~
CADT EVALUATION BATTERY: A COMPARISON OF 1975 MALE AND FEMALE

SCORES WITH ONE ANOTHER AND WITH 1971 MALE SCORkS

INTRODUCTION

The Cadet Evaluation Battery (CEB) has been used operationally as

a diagnostic measure of officer potential of cadets in the Army Reserve

Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) since 1972. The CEB consists of two

primary parts: the Cadet Evaluation Test (CET) and the Cadet Evaluation

Inventory (CEI). The CET provides a measure of the-cadet's cognitive

abilities in the areas of combat leadership, technical managerial leadership and career potential. The CEI provides a noncognitive measure

of the cadet's interests in the same three areas as well as a measure

of the cadet's career intent.

The CEB represents the culmination of a lengthy and comprehensive

test development process. An early predecessor was the Differential

Officer Leadership (DOL) Experimental Test Battery, which was administered experimentally to a male officer sample in 1958-1959. Based on

the results of analyses on this sample, the DOL was refined to become

the Differential Officer Battery (DOB) (Willemin, 1964). Pactor analyses were conducted on individual tests or groupings of tests comprising the DOB (Helme, Willemin, a Day, 1971), followed by validational analyses based on an all-male sample in a simulated combat situation on the

resulting scales (Helme, Willemin, & Day, 1974). The validational data

were then used to select scales from four information tests, two selfdescription inventories (Differential Inventory-A and Differential

Inventory-B), an attitudinal inventory (Individual Understanding Test),

and a questionnaire on demographic and background information (Personal

Data Record). Also, a new scale, based partly on items from an instrument entitled the Officer Assignment Questionnaire, was added. Items

from these scales were combined to form the CEB, with the information

tests providing the cognitive items and all other tests providing the

noncognitive items.

The validational analyses on the DOB indicated that combat cognitive and noncognitive scales incorporated into the CEB were predictive of combat leadership performance, and that technical-managerial cogni- tive and noncognitive CEB scales were predictive of leadership performance in technical and managerial roles.

The career potential and career intent scales are used to predict

whether the cadet will pursue an Army officer career.
OBJECTIVES

The contoint of C2) scales and means and standard deviations of CEB

scalo scorkta were determined on the basis of malt siamples, In recent

years, fwmalos have been entering FOX in increasing numbers; therefort?,

so th0u the CE14 will be optivally useful for assessment and counseling

of women, normative information regarding female CES performance is

n:eded. The present study was designed to provide such information.

Also, because no standardixation information on males had been collocted

sinco 1971, a new sample of oales was tested for comparison with both

tho 1971 sample and the female sample.

MEHOD

Subjects

In 1971, a sample of 637 wale cadets enrolled in Military Science

(MS) Ii from R)TC host institutions was tested. 1 These schools were

representative in terms of academic level, cadet background, geographic

aroa, and type (public, private, military).

The more recent samples comprised 1,035 female and 92t, male applicants for MS IIl, including both advancing MS II cadets and 2-year program applicants, in FY 1975 (school year 1974-75). Units were instructed

to return tests mvpleted by all female applicants during FY 75 to ARI.

Of a total of 291 units, 186 were identified as having sent tests for

one or more female students. As some test information was not accoopanied by an identifiable school code, the nurmber of units contributing

to this sample may have been somewhat higher. Also, among those not

responding, approximately 30 schools had no females attending MS II

during school year 1974-75. Many of these schools may simply have had

no female applicants to MS IXI.

Male rosults wore randomly selected from a complete file of all

males taking the CEB in FY 1975 and also supplied to ARI.

Procedure

Th. CEB is a self-administored test battery developed by tho Army

Research institute. This battery consists of two test booklets, 7

scales, and 23 subscales. One booklet, thu CET, contains the following

scales: Combat Leadorships Cognitive (CLC), Technical-Managerial Leadership: Cognitive (TMC); and Career Potential: Cognitive (CPC). The

CLC scale is composed of two subscalest Tactics and Practical Skills.

1This data collection effort was conducted under the direction of

Richard ). Doorley.

i _ - _ _ _
There aro also two subscales for the TMC scale: History, Politics, and

Culture, and Math/Physical Science. CPC is composed of a single subscale: Technology Operations.

The composition of the five CET subscales was determined by a factor analysis of the DOB information tests (Helme, 1968a). Four of the

subscales (Practical Skills; History, Politics, and Culturea Math/

Physical Science; and Technology Operations) emerged as factors in this

analysis, while the fifth, Tactics, was a residual content scale,

The other booklet, the CEI, conthins these scales: Combat Leadership: Noncognitive (CLN); Technical-Managerial Leadership: Noncognitive (TMN); Career Potential: Noncognitive (CPN), and Career Intent.

CLN contains these subscales: Nature Endurance; Combat Engineer; Combat

Leader: Physical Leaderl Nonaesthetici and Organized Sports and Outdoor

Skills. TMN includes these: Decisive Leader; Verbal/Social Leaderl

Rural versus Urban; Scientific Interest; Scientific Orientation; and

Math/Physical Science Interest. CPN subscales are Administrator Noninterest; Administrative Noninterest; Combat; and Manual versus White

Collar Interest. Career Intent has but one subscale, Career Intent.

Of the 18 CEI subscales, 13 were derived from separate factor

analyses on each of the two self-description inventories: Differential

Inventory-A (Helms, 1968b) and Differential Inventory-B (Smith, 1968).

Combat Leader and Scientific Orientation were factors on the Individual

Understanding Test, Rural versus Urban Interest and Math/Physical

Science Interest were derived from the Personal Data Record. Finally,

Career Intent was based partly on the Officer Assignment Questionnaire

and partly on newly developed items.

In 1975, two forms of the CEB were in operational use. All sub1-

Jects sampled that year received Form 1. The CET, Form 1, contains 100

items with 4-response alternatives. The CEI, Form 1, contains 125 items

which have 2-, 3-, 4-, or 5-response alternatives. Nine CEI items are

not scored.

Subjects in the 1971 sample received an experimental form of the

CEB. Items scored on this form were identical to those scored on Form. 1.

The CEB was administered to students at the local ROTC units.

RESULTS

Standard deviations and mean scores for the 1971 sample and the

1975 male and female samples were computed for each scale (see Table 1)

Results of t tests comparing group means on each scale are shown in

Table 2. Male means for 1971 were significantly different (p < .005)

from male means for 1975 for each of the seven scales. on each of the

three cognitive scales, the performance of 1971 group was superior. On

all noncognitive scales except Career Potential the 1975 group achieved

higher scores.

V _3

_ I_|_ k•
Tabe Is1

Raw Mean Scores and Standard Deviationh on CED Scales

for 1.971 and 1975 Samples

-1971 males 1975 males 1975 females

Scale x S.6D. M S.D. H SD

Combat Leaderthipt

Cognitive (CLC) 2),.59 5.03 18.07 6.6 16.90 4.86

Technical-Managerial

Leadershipt Cognitive (TM4C) 22.42 6.02 16.91 G3.53 18.74 5.70

Career Potential:

Cognitive (CPC) 10.18 3.56 7.82 4.05 8.06 2.83

Combat Leadership:

UNoncognitive (CLN) 23.48 6.33 25.84 5.71 19.44 6.11

Technical-Managerial

Leadershipt Noncognitive (TteN) 21.77 6.54 22.72 5.54 21.85 6.10

Career Potential:

Noncognitive (CPN) 14.56 6.23 13.45 5.16 10.54 5.37

Career Intent (CI) 3.63 2.50 5.34 1.94 5.03 2.06

4
Table 2

t Test Comparisons of Sample Means

High Medium Low t value t value t value

Scale rank (1) rank (2) rank (3) (l)-(2) (2)-(3) (1)-(3)

CLC 1971 1975M 1975F 1l.14** 4.85** 24.84**

TMC 1971 1975F 1975H 12.54** 6.70** 16.90**

CPC 1971 1975F 1975M 13.45** 1.55* il.88**

CLAN 1975M 1971 1975F 7.69** 12.95** 24,15**

T• 1975M 1975F 1971 3.48** . 5 3•09**

CPN 1971 1975M 1975F 3.84** 12.33** 13.96**

CI 1975H 1975F 1971 3.48** 12.39** 15.20**

• p < ,0.

**P < .005.

Comparisons between the 1975 females and the 1971 males revealed

a significant (p - .005) superiority for males on five of the seven

scales. On one Beale, Technioal-Manageriali Noncognitive, no significant differences were foundi on Career Intent, the female scores were

significantly (p < .005) higher.

Scores from the 1975 male sample were significantly (p < .005)

higher than female scores on all four noncognitive scales. Males also

scored significantly (p < .005) higher than females on the cognitive

combat leadership scale, while females scored higher (p < .005) on the

cognitive technical-managerial scale. Females also scored higher on

the cognitive career potential scale, but the difference was not significant (.05 < p < .10).

Means for the 1975 male and female groups were computed and compared, using t tests for each subscale, as shown in Table 3. Male and

female scores differed significantly (p < .05) on 18 of 23 subscalesi

of these 18 differences, 15 favored males and 3 favored females.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The most striking result that emerges from a comparison of the

1971 sample with the 1975 samples is the recent deterioration on the

cognitive scales. Although some of the itemsn used have probably become

obsolete since their incorporation into the DOL in the 1950's, such

obsolescence was probably almoat as evident in 1971 as ir 1975. An

LiI
Table 3

Raw Subscale Means, Standard Deviations, and t Values

for 1975 Males and Females

Subscalo Males (n - 926) Females (n - 1,035)

(by scale) M S.D. N S.D. t value

I. CLC

Tactics 8.55 3,.62 8.26 2.69 2.03*

Practical Skills 9.53 3.96 8.53 3.18 6.34*

II. TMC

Hist/Pol/Culture 8.60 3.41 9.31 3.36 4.64*

Math/Phys. Sci. 8.32 3.99 9.43 3.23 6.80*

III. CPC

Technology Op. 7.82 4.05 8.06 2.83 1.53

IV. CLN

Nature Endurance 3.68 1.14 3.53 1.23 2.79*

Combat Engineer 4.41 2.20 2.12 2.09 23.62*

Combat Leader 2.40 1.09 2.27 1.17 2.54*

Physical Leader 3.40 1.31 3.40 1.22 --

Nonaesthetic 2.79 1.50 1.91 1.41 13.38'

Org. Sports 3.21 1.24 3.12 1.28 1.58

Outdoor Skills 5.97 2.00 3.41 2.19 26.91'

V. TMN

Decisive Leader 6.88 2.00 6.70 2.28 1.85

Verbal/Social Ldr. 6.11 2.02 6.50 2.16 4.11'

Rural vs. Urban 3.16 1.20 3.13 1.26 .54

Sci. Interest 2.10 1.22 1.90 1.16 3.72*

Sci. Orientation 1.85 .89 1.57 .96 6.67*

Math/Phys. Sci.

Interest 2.63 2.11 2.04 1.81 6.67*

Vi. CPN

Adnminis trator

Noninterast 3.47 2.00 3.01 2.09 4.96*

Admis h trative

Noniuterest 3.1,7 2.4,4 3.43 2.38 4.04*

Combat 4.08 2.19 2.35 2.14 17.67"

Manual vs. White

Collar Int. 2.03 1.20 1.76 1.23 4.91"

VIT. Ct

CdIr(,' r £tntt 5.34 1.94 5.03 2.06 3.42*

P'ocni,,I i tio v,11W, Or 0 mean fimalp -icorq' based on malt, norms.
effort is currently in progress to replace questionable items. A more

important factor may well have been thQ change in composition of the

ROTC MS II population between 1971 and 1975. In 1971 the draft, by

removing the nonmilitary job options of many college students, made

ROTC a relatively attractive choice for many who might not otherwise

have considered it. The competition for the limited number of ROTC

spaces may well have produced a higher level of academic quality than

in 1975, when the draft was no longer a factor.

It should be noted that the 1975 sample included applicants to

the 2-year ROTC program as well as cadets enrolled in MS I1. An exposure to ROTC courses might be expected to improve scores on the combat

cognitive scale, which has a number of items on military tactics. However, such exposure would have no apparent effect on the technicalmanagerial cognitive scale, which is composed of history/politics/culture

and math/physical sciences subtests. Because the cognitive technicalmanagerial scores declined to an even greater extent than the cognitive

combat scores between 1971 and 1975, it does not appear that the inclusion of 2-year applicants was primarily responsible for the overall

cognitive score deterioration.

Comparisons between the 1971 and 1975 male groups on the noncog- nitive scales revealed a trend markedly different from that found in

comparisons of the cognitive scales. On each noncognitive scale except

career potential, scores indicated that the 1975 group tended to have

more of the interests found to correlate with successful on-the-job

performance than the 1971 group. These findings are again consistent

with an explanation based on the changing composition of the ROTC popu- lation between 1971 and 1975. A likely impact of the draft was to

produce an ROTC population with relatively heterogeneous interests in

1971, which paralleled the interests of active military officers to a

somewhat limited degree. With the draft eliminated by 1975, students

with traditional military interests were more prevalent in the ROTC

population. This explanation is consistent with the finding that the

1975 group demonstrated more motivation for a military career than the

1971 group on the career intent scale.

Comparisons between male and female scores from the 1975 samples indicated that females tended to perform as competently as males on the

cognitive scales but did not perform as well on the noncognitive scales.

Although the reliance on voluntary cooperation of schools in

obtaining data on females raised the possibility of response bias, a Si' sufficiently large proportion of schools did respond to indicate that

I, the female sample mean obtained here was a fairly reasonable estimato

of the 5population mean for female applicants to the ROTC Advanced Cours'ie

.1n 1975.
Any interpretation of the results for females must racognime that

efforts to select and validate CNB items were conducted using male

samples. Thsi the noncognnitiv itms selected indicated what interests

and preferences are characteristic of a successful male officer, but

theme may not correspond exactly to the interests and preferences of a

successful female officer. It cannot# then, be concluded that the noncognitive scores show that male WOTC stodnts are more likely to be

successful officers than female MMstudients. IITC 

Research is currently in progemw to valUkdt the CX3 on femalesm

using the 1975 sample. U1ntil the results of this investigation are

availsable, interpretatiomn of fowle anosnmustUwre smres must be made

with special caution. The results an the o0Rtive scales provide at

least a preliminary trnication that 'the qpavot4i a use of these scales

does not place fesmale cadets at a unfair disafvantage.

'Ii

'- !I..

m m m i m " m m m -
REFERENCES

Helm*, W. H. Factorially Derived Information Moasuras for Differential

Prediction of Officer Performance. ARI Technical Research Note

203, December 1968. (NTIS No. AD 686 288)

Helm, W. H. Factor Analysis of Leadership Inventory for Differential

Prediction of Officer Performance. AR! Research Memorandum 68-8,

July 1968.

Helms, W. H., Willemin, L. P., & Day, R. W. Psychological Factors

Measured in the Differential Officer Battery. ARI Technical

Research Report 1173, July 1971. (NTIS No. AD 737 685)

Helme, W. H., Willemin, L. P., a Grafton, F. C. Prediction of Officer

Behavior in a Simulated Combat Situation. ARI Research Report

1182, March 1974. (NTIS No. AD 779 445)

Smith, K. H. Internal Analysis of Personal Inventory for the Differential Officer Battery. ARI Research Memorandum 68-5, April 1968.

Willemin, L. P. Prediction of Officer Performance. ARI Technical Research Report 1134, March 1964.

qI

9 z
DIST RIBUTION

ARI Distribution List

4 OASD (M&RA) 2 HOUSACOEC, Ft Ord, ATTN: Library

2 HODA IDAMI-CSZ) 1 HOUSACDEC, Ft Ord, ATTN: ATEC-EX-E-Hum Factors

1 HODA fDAPE-PBR 2 USAEEC, Ft Benjamin Harrison, ATTN: Library

1 HODA IDAMA.AR) 1 USAPACDC, Ft Benjamin Harrison, ATTN: ATCP-HR

1 HODA (DAPE-HRE-POI I USA Comm-Elect Sch, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: ATSN-E A

I HQDA ISGRO-ID) 1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEL-CT-HDP

1 HQOA (DAMI*DOT.C) 1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEL-PA--P

I HODA (DAPC-PMZ-A) 1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEL-SI-CB

1 HODA (DACH-PPZ-A) 1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: C, Facl Dev Br

1 HODA (DAPE-HRE) I USA Materials Sys Anal Agcy, Aberdeen, ATTN: AMXSY-P

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

I HODA iDAPE-OW) 1 USA Ord Ctr & Sch, Aberdeen, ATTN; ATSL-TEM-C

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

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

1 HODA (DAFD-MFA) 1 USA Infantry Hum Rsch Unit, Ft Benning, ATTN: Chief

1 HODA (DARD-ARS-P) I USA Infantry Bd, Ft Benning, ATTN: STEBC-TE-T

1 HODA IDAPC-PAS.A) 1 USASMA, Ft Bliss, ATTN: ATSS-LRC

1 HODA (DUSA-OR) 1 USA Air Def Sch, Ft Bliss, ATTN: ATSA-.CTD-ME

1 HODA (DAMO-ROR) 1 USA Air Def Sch, Ft Bliss, ATTN: Tech Lib

1 NODA (DASG) 1 USA Air Del Sd, Ft Bliss, ATTN: FILES

1 HODA iDAlO-PI) 1 USA Air Def Bd, Ft Bliss, ATTN: STEBD-PO

1 Chief, Consult Div IDA-OTSG), Adeiphi, MD 1 USA Cmd & General Stf College, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: Lib

1 Mil Asst. Hum Res, ODOR&E. OAD (E&LS) 1 USA Cmd & General StO College, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: ATSW-SE-L

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

I HO First Army, ATTN: AFKA-01-TI 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dev Act, Ft Leevenworth, ATTN: DepCdr

2 HO Fifth Army, Ft Sam Houston 1 USA Combined! Arms Cmbt Day Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN; CCS

1 Dir, Army StI Studies Ofc, ATTN: OAVCSA IDSP 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dev Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: ATCASA

1 Ofc Chief of Stf, Studies Ofc 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbyt Dey Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: ATCACO-E

1 DCSPER, ATTN: CPS/OCP 1 UISA Combined Arms Cmbt Dev Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: ATCACC-CI

1 The Army Lib, Pentagon, ATTN: RSB Chief 1 USAECOM, Night Vision Lab, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: AMSEL-N V-SD

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

1 Ofc, Asst SeOt of the Army (R&D) 1 USAMIERDC, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: STSFB-DO

1 Tech Support Orfc, OJCS I 09A IEng Sch, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: Library

1 USASA, Arlington, ATTN: IARD-T 1 USA Topographic Lab, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: ETL-TD--S

1 USA Rsch Ofc. Durham, ATTN: Life Sciences Dir I UISA Topographic Lab, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: STINFO Center

2 USARIEM, Natick, ATTN: SGRD-UR-CA 1 LISA Topographic Lab, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: ETL-GSIL

1 USATTC, Ft Clayton, ATTN: STETC.MO.A 1. WUA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: CTD-MS

1 USAI MA, Ft Bragg, ATTN- ATSU-CTD.OM 1' USA Intellignce Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATS-CTD--MS

1 USAI MA. Ft Bragg, ATTN: Marquet Lib 1 Ul.BAnstull~gnoce Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI-TE

1 US WAC Ctr & Sch, Ft McClellan, ATTNk Lib 1 USA ýntelllgonmo Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI-TEX-GS

1 US WAC Ctr & Sch, Ft McClellan, ATTN: Tng Dir 1 LISA intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huschuca, ATTN - ATSI-CTS--OR

1 USA Quartermaster Sch, Ft Lee, ATTN: ATSM-TE -1 USAftste~lligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI-CTD-DT

1 Intelligence Material Dev Ofc, EWL, Ft Holabird 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI-CTD-CS

1 USA SE Signal Sch, Ft Gordon, ATTN: 'ATSO-EA 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: DASISRD

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

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

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

2 WRAI R. Neuropsychiatr Div 2 CDR, USA Electronic Prvg Grd, ATTN: STEEP-MT-S

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

1 USA Concecit Anal Agcy, Bethesda, ATTN- MOCA-WOC 1 Hq MASSTER, USATRADOC, LNO

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

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

1 USA Artic Test Ctr, APO Seattle, ATTN: STEAC-MO-ASL 1 Senior Army Adv., USAFAGOD/TAC. Elgin AF Aux Fid No. 9

I USA Artic Test Ctr, APO Seattle, ATTN: AMISTE-PL-TS -1 HO USARPAC, DCSPER, APO SF 96558, ATTN: GPPE -SE

1 USA Armament Cmd, Redstone Arsenal, ATTN: ATSK-TEM I Stimson Lib, Academy of Health Sciences, Ft Sam Hcuston

IU'SA Armament Cmd, Rock Island, ATTN- AMSAR-TDC I Marine Corps Inst., ATTN: Dean-MCI

I FAA-NAFEC, Atlantic City, ATTN: Library 1 HOUSMC, C~mmandant, ATTN: Code MTMT 51

1 FAA-NAFEC, Atlantic City, ATTN: Hum Engr Br 1 HQUSMC, Commandant, ATTN: Code MPI -20

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

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

1 USA Armor Sch, Ft Knox, ATTN: Library 1 USCG Training Ctr, NY, ATTN: co

1 USA Armor Sch, Ft Knox, ATTN: ATSB-DI-E I USCG Training Ctr, NY, ATTN: Educ Svc Ofc

1 USA Armor Sch, Ft Knox, ATTN: ATSB-DT.TP 1 USCG. Psychol Fles Br, DC, AtTTN: GP 1/62

1 USA Armior Sch, Ft Knox, ATTN: ATSB*CD-AD 1 HO Mcid-Range Br, MC Dvt, Otiantico, ATTN: P&S Div

PRECEDING PAGE B1LANK
i US Marine Conny Liialioni Ofe, AMC, Alex&-wk*a ATINt AMCSS'*i 1 Oaf &@t amlineo OWN M adiaa CaNad

IUGATRAOM~, Ft Maitre. ATTWl ATP40-11 I AIN GRIM Kmweleame ATTN: Inf6 o Or I

6 USAYMADOC, Ft Moitwab, ATThi ATPfl-AD IMIYt4 h s . I USAThADOC, Ft Monroe. ATTN! Ar T1-EA I M ~ y A s lPub s u y T N . a

2 USA Aviationi Task Nd, Ft Rudottut ATTN% gy"g.. I Pih 00110s 00. AM~ Ou w RDoAv Div. lnt

I USA Ag,*V for Aviation kSoltf. P t Rualmer, Auft Ubeuv of Daft^ O M OdE

I USA Atgcy for Aviation Waitty, Ft Rush.o, AT7N: VA Ia*Ar I Pors Nab Ob Ulpf", AKA. IV"al 0, F - Paross

I USA Aviton Slah, Ft Rocsker. ATTV: PO Damw 0 11 MIAkwb'iw vafab D ok GP0ll AUd aled"

I HOUSA Aviationl 9v Coed, It Lulm, ATill AMAV-4111 OWdsh Rdlf t.1Ma TIM W , WhifIat"

2 USA AvAMN~ Sys uTW Am, Id mm* APB, AThO: 1AVTV-T

I USA Ale 0.1 lI&, Pt Wiaa, ATTNt AMI TIM

IUSA Air Mobilit Poush A Dew Lo M-11ý tt li ATMk SAVOLAS

1 USA Aviation lit, Res Tni Mg%. Pt Rludomr, AVTNI AI'P-T-RM

1 USA Aviation Ich, 00. Ft Rucar, AuTNi A¶T"~

I, ~ HQ, ~I 0ARCO$A, Alaindria, ATTWN 4X* Dli

I US Military Aosdmyv. Vft Pont ATVh 040 ha ~tL

I US Military Academy, Weal Point. ATTNI MAC IUSA Standafsdtostiori Op. UK. PM0 NY, AIIM: MAWM~4

I Ofc of Novel Rasdh Ariingtsn. AT~: Coda 410

I 01 fNovetcul Amtblq 2rer, ATPOIF, 0#0 4

I NvlAPHRL (P Wi od sLab API i AItAA*O

I1sd AP4L(iv ow MdRasI A PI o*ATt m

I NAPHAIRIWPA. Nft, A t60 o

I NAPIIrL (00.5 Arott AIN-13

I NoyR k(dJN LAldu~ AP3

I NINN4ouSAF au 2.NPOYFI6051

11 HUAPRLW (OX 1110 AI

I AFHVIL ITbI Lowyapi AP

I AMRAL (All %-PAP$, ON

3 AP lntIttlt L API 0N$I ONJZ AToh: 

IAHCIUA TOYI)

1 HUSAP Aeo(DPLXXA) k PI~t3L4 ~tt~ 1 UAF Lao~e Me~2ialion L14d, AftPI, ATM, - PC ONC 0

1 AFOIF. (NL), AtriftWi

IAir Fame. AcafsmV, 00, ATIN: Dept of II San

0 NayPwm & Dov Ctr,SonObmoe

2 Navy Mod Nwjmftychiatr Rwh Unit, Sari Ofts

INov Elaetroic Lab, Sn Oiego, AlYNt Pea Lmb

INav TrnmCon, Wa Wloom. A'Tt Codae WO-UJb

1 NavPoa~t~ra&U, Montayo, A'rtN COOe II& INavPost~ralich, Mrntarty, Al'ftN Code 2124

I NavTrmg~qt11p~tr, Orlando, AflN Tagl Lib

1 US Despt of Labut, VC, A1"rNt Manpostw Aitnin

IUSDOp*~ f Juoti., DC ArrTNz ruigvt Ufoebmain

I Nat But 61 Sw~tana DC, AMN Camp.W In% Souise

I Not ClWIng llauaafar MW -Ifft. NeAbkvfta

I Domowr Federal Ctr, Laiav~ood, ATT: ELIM

12 Dohnst Docurjmntelion Center

4Dir Ptyci, Am* tq, Fuaall Was, Cahew

I Ciclarniflo Advi, Nll Si, Aerny ll, ftsol 0114, cOhiom

I Mil aod Air Atsaabta, Austrian vnibauV

I Centre~ de Rsobltc ho DiOact oturs, Hitmaire to I& Nstrt

National#,.Brp,.avlr

2 Conadian Joint Staff Woshitnpo

I C)Ai: Staff, Royal Chmmitsn AF, AfI: Part atd Anal Or

3 Chief, Cartatilia Dot Rich Staff, AIWN: C/ORDIWI

4 British 0.4 Staff, British ItMimvuw Waeltnwn

'12
I US Mane Corps Lialsion Ofc. AMC•. Aexandria, ATTN- AMC(S-F I of| & Cd Int of Ew#W Medicine. Canada

I USATRADOC. Ft Monroe ATTN: ATRO-ED I AIR C• NS. Kanaifltan. AWTN: Info Sys B

I ULSATRADOC. Ft Monroe. ATTN: ATPR-AD I MilW" koftm Tosl.cwgehq

a USATRADOC. Ft Monroe. ATTWC ATTS-EA I Miihtary Attiasw. Fmioh mbW, ATTN: Doc Sec

I USA Famt Cnwd. Pt McPherson. ATTN: Library I Madjin Chaf. C.E.RP..-AlesIi. Toulon/Navl Frace

2 USA Aviation 1tet dl. Ft Rucker. AT'TN: STVBG--PO I MIt 'lli~sl 001. ApMIi Nut &WI Ruhs Div. Minisry

1 USA Agcy for Aviation Safety. Ft Rucker. AT'I't Ubrary Of O t "h DONhi

1 USA Agey for Aviation Safety, Ft Rucke. ATM: Ediuc Ad-,as I Pli telt O1 Librw. Ary A. AM rIal Defense Force

1 USA Aviation Sch. Ft Rucker, ATTN: PO Dnraw 0 I MWal s van Doeends. OOOP/KL Aid Socisal

1 HOUSA Aviation Sys Ond. St Lils. ATTN: AMSAV-.ZDR Pill ........ Zskm. The He". Natherlande

2 USA Aviation Sy Teat Act, Edwrds AFPi, ATrN: SAVTE-T

I USA Air Dal Scd. Ft Blss, ATTN: ATGA TIM

I USA Air Mobility Roch & On Lab, Moffett Fid, AVr : SAVDL-A,,

1 USA Aviation Sch. Ret Tng Mgt. let Rucker, ATTN: AlI'S--T-RTM

1 USA Aviation Sch. CO. Ft Rudcer, ATTN: ATT-0-A

I No. DARCOM: Alexandria. ATYN: AMXC6-AI.

I Ha. DARCOM; Alexandria, ATTN- OR

1 US Military Academq. Wart Poit, ATM.: Sr" Uni

I US Military AcsimyWt Point, ATTN: Of of e Nit I*I

I US Military Academy, West Point. A'M, MAOR

1 USA Standerditation Gp, UK, FPO NY. AT-: MASI-W

1 Ofc of Naval Rsch, Arlington, ArM: Coda 452

3 Of of Naval Rech. Arlington. ATTN, Coft 418 -

I Oft of Naval Asch. Arlington. A"'*N, 0 43-

1 Off of Naval n ,ho Arlinrton. AVlN: Cof 441

I Naval AMrepc Med Rot Lab.fPnmol*, AMT AMWskfhOW

1 Nava Mro• c Med Ae Lnb, L i 6, AY"h: Coda LIi

I Naval Aaroepc Mod Res LW, Poseeb ATT'1 Co&. Li

1 Ch•ef of NaPeft, ATTN: Iast-OR

I NAVAIRSTA.NorfoIk, ATTN:, Shtyft

1 Nay Oean00r*hIc, DCK ATTN: COft 6WS. Chrte & Yeah

1 Center of Naval Anal. AYTN: 0Of Ctr

1 NovArSysComý.ATTN: AIR-4313C

I Nav BuMad. ATTN, 713

1 NeaHllcopterSubftlua 2. FPO SF 96601

1 AFHRL (FT) Wi1ibrn AFB

1 AFHRL "" Lb"ry AFS

1 AFHRL (AS) WPAFB, OH

2 AFHRL (DOJZ) Brooks AFB

I APHRL (D6JN) Locklind ArS

1 HOUSAF JINYSD)

1 HOUSAF (DPXXA)

1 AFVTG (RD) Randolph 0i

3 AMRL (HE) WPAF8. ON

2 AF Inst of T'ch, %WAF9. ON, ATTN: tN./SL

I ATC (XPTDI RandOlph AFi

1 USAF AeroMetl Lb, Brooks Aft 1SUL-4, ATM- DCCI

I AFOSR (NL), Arlington

I AF Log Cmd, McbCtellan APB, ATTN: ALCjOPCRB

I Air Force Academy, CO. ATTN. Dept of Oal 9bn

5 NavPers & DevCtr, San D0eo

2 Navy Mad NedroptychiatrI Rlath 'nit. Son DOego

I Nay Electronic Lab, San Dieo, ATTN: Ria Lab

I Nay TrngCsn, San Diego. ATTN: Code 9000--Ub

I NavPostGraSch, Monterey, ATTN: Code -6Aa

1 NavPostGraSch, Monterey, ATTN: Code 2124

1 NavTrngEquipCtr, Orlando, ATTN: Tech Lib

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

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

1 Net Our of Standards, DC, ATTN: Computer Info Section

1 Not Clearing House for MH-Inro, Rockville

1 Denver Federal Ctr, Lakewood, ATTN: BLM

12 Defense Documentation Center

4 Dir Psych, Army Nio, Russell Of"c, Canberra

I Scientific Advur, Mil Rd. Army Hq, Rusllel Ofos. Caearra

I Mil and Air Attache, Austrian Embassy

I Centre fie R'chorche Dem Pacteurs, Humaine de la Defense

Nattonale, Brus.ls

2 Canadian .loln! Staff Wa.,ington

I C/Air Staff. PaoyI Cnnrodian AF, ATTN: Pert Std Anal Br

I Chief, Canalian Def Rsch Staff, ATTN: C/CRDS(W) COPY

4 British oDf Staff. British Embassy, Washit•non BEST AVAILABLE

12