Tec hnical Paper 288

EARLY DEVELOPM ENT OF TH E

MILITARY APTITUDE PREDIC TOR

(MAP)

Leonard C. Seeley

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

~~~ 

and

F - Theodore Rosen and Kenneth Stroad

Human Resources Research Organization

f c ~

)

1 w

/ •

t

~~ =

PERSON NEL ACCESSION AND UTI LIZATION TECHNICAL AR EA

C-,

— , ‘

~~.

___________ r

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

March 1978

Approved for public relesis; d

~

itribut ori unismited.

i;. - 

~~~~ 

- :1. —
V

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

W. C. MAUS

J. E. UHLANER COL. GS

Tec hnical Director Commander

Research accomplished

under contract to the Departr

~

ent of the Army

Human Resources Research Organization

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this report has been made by A RI. Please address correspondence

concerning distribution of reports to: U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

ATTN: PERI-P . 5001 Eisenhowe r Avenue , Alexandria . Virginia 22333.

ELNAL DISPOSITION: This report mey be destroyed when it is no longer needed. Please do not return it to

the U, S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

m~i

~ 

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an of ficial Department of the Army position.

unless so designated by other authorized documents.

.‘. -_.

~

d,

_~~-. ~~~~~~~~~~ r ~~~~~~~~~~~~ , ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -

~~~~~~~
Un c la ssi f ied 3 RITY CLASSIFICATiON OF THIS PAGE (When V.,. Entered)

( REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT ’S CATALOG NUMBER

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1 ______________________________

_.r ”

~~ \ 4. TITLE (end Si

~

btiil.) .- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 5. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

EARLY DEVELO ;MENT OF THE MILITARY APTIT UDE ( _~~E~~ CTOR ~~~~~ • 

~~_J.. 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHOR(.) B. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(S)

,/

~~ 

Leonard C./Seeley,~~q~~

. Th re Rosen

5. PERF0;MIN : :

~~~~~lzATb oN NAM E AND ADDRESS 

Be havioral ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T ASF

and Social Science s, ~OO1 Eisenhower Avenue 2QT tYT 51A70B 1

Alexandria , VA ~~~~ __________________________

Human Resources Research Organization , ~OO N .

Washington Street , Alexandria , VA 22~~~ // Mar% ~ 7E

II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS T~~ NUMBER OF PA G&S

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel , U.S. Army 22

$4~~~~~NITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(i t d lff.ren l fro ~~$5.dvo1tTh*Qf lice) IS. SECURITY CLASS. ( of thIs repo rt)

/ ILl ~~~~~~~~~~~ .

~ (73’

~~ ~

I / Unclassified

~ 

T rpp ~ ~~ ~

_____

~~_7 ____________

/ I / .-

~ IS.. DECLASSI FICAT ION ’DOWNGRA DING — ~~ — 1

~ -~~~ SCHEDULE

lB. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)

Approved for public release ; distribution unlimited .

I?. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of Cl, . .b.Ir. ct entered in Block 20, II d if f e r e n t f ree, Report)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

IS. KEY WORDS (Continu. on .‘.~ .ra. aid. If n.c...aty end Identify by block nimib.r)

Military Aptitude Predictor (MAP)

Motivation

Enlistment Selection

Attrition

Army Basic Combat Training success

20. AesTRAC’r (t’Oe,t

~~ a. ,,v.ren .f* if na~~~~ y d Identity by block ntm.b.r)

>The Army Research Institute (ARt) was direct~~~~~y the Deputy Chief of Staff

for Personnel ~~o develop and validate motivational measures to aid in

selection of enlisted personnel . The development of the Military Aptitude

Predictor (MAP) was begun in 1973 for this purpose . The initial MAP included

the trainee ’s age , education , aptitudes , and civil court convictions (moral

waiver) as predictors of military performance , and was intended for use at

the Armed Forces Examining and Entrance Stations (AFEES). The 1975 version

~~~~ ~~~~~~ 

~473 £D,TtON OFIpIOV 6S I& OBSOi~ETFL 

- 

Unclassified

SECUBITY CLA UIFICAT?ON OF THIS PAGE (Wten Oat. Bat.r.d)

-. 

—. 

_

~

f. — “T 

~~~~ *
Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGEOThW Data Ant.red)

(MAP—75) was intended for use by recruiters to provide a prediction of

Basic Combat Training -(BCT)~ b~havior and performance at an earlier point in

time , thus saving the Army AFEES transportation and processing costs. In

April 1975, the Secretary of the Army directed implementation of the MAP to

begin 1 August 1975. This initial testing was conducted in one District

Recruiting Command (DRC) in each of the five Recruiting Regions during the

period 1 August — 30 September 1975. Its operational use was suspended

on 1 October 1975 and , immediately following suspension of testing , ARI

conducted interviews in the five DRC ’s to determine the nature and extent of problems associated with its use .

P

~~~~~~~~ IIt ~ fitdai o

I :

•

~ 

U’

~ 4~~- : L, ~i(

LALL

Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(W? ~

.n Data EnC.red) 

---- ~~~~-

_____ WM ..~~~. . . . f’TT _______
Technical Paper 288

EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE

MILITARY APTITUDE PREDICTOR

(MAP)

Leonard C. Seeley

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

and

Theodore Rosen and Kenneth Stroad

Human Resources Research Organization

M. A. Fischl, Work Unit Leader

PER SONN EL ACCESSIO N AND U TILIZATION TECHNIC A L AREA

Ralph R. Canter, Chief

Submitted By:

E. Ralph Dusek , Director Approved By:

IN DIVI DUA L TRAINING AND PERFORMANCE J. E. Uhlaner

RESEARCH LABORATORY TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

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

5001 Eisenhowe r Avenue , Alexandria , Virginia 22333

Office , Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

March 1978

Army Project Number Requirements, Retention,

20763731A768 and Utilization

A~prcesd foe public release; dIstribution unhimit d.

1

~ ______ __________________________________ ~ ,

~~~ . -° ~~~~~~~~~ -

~~ °‘~~~
A RI Research Reports and Technical Papers are intended for sponsors of

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

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

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

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

_ - - - - -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .- -~~ —
FOREWORD

A primary concern of the Personnel Accession and Utilization

Techn ical Area of the Army Research Institute for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences (ART) is the Army ’s continuing need for hig h

quality enlisted men and women . Programs in the Technical Area

deal with systematic research over wide areas and with specific

problems . With every change in induction standards since the end

of W orld War I , questions on the effects of t’ e change on the

Ar m y ’s enlisted person ne l sys te m have bee n addressed by ARt ’s

continuing program on selection , classification , management , and

utilization of Army personnel.

The technology of screening on aptitude has been developed to a

relativel y hi gh degree of ma tu r it y over more than 50 y ears of

study. The technology of screening on adjustment and motivation is

newer and hence much less precise. The research reported here is

part of a set of early s teps in building a parallel and comparable

technology. The specific objective was to develop instruments to

scree n recruits for potential military delinquency——a problem

previously addressed first by ARI’s Retention Standards Task and

la ter b y the Selection and Behavioral Evaluation Project , Military

Selec tion Research Division.

The Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (DCSPER), with the personal interest and backing of the Secretary of the Army , directed

ART in 1973 to develop an instrument capable of identif ying and

screening out potential military delinquents prior to induction.

The presen t Technical Paper describes the development and testing

of the resul ti ng Military Apt itude Predictor (MAP—75). Trial

imp lementation of the MAP—75 from 1 August to 1 October 1975

prov ided direc tion for fur ther developmen t , part icularly in revis—

ing and enlarging the Early Experience Questionnaire (EEQ) portion

now being validated in ARI.

Research was conducted as an in—house effort augmented by

con tracts with organizations selected for their capabilities in test

developmen t. ART personnel developed the initial MAP instrument;

Richardson , Bellows & Henry, Inc. con tributed substantially,

especially on the EEQ portion of the MAP, under Contracts DAHC

19—75— C—0024 and DAHC 19—76—C—0036. Human Resources Research

Organization (HumRRO) personnel par ticipated in some of the later

da ta collec tion and analysis under Contract DAHC 19—75—C—0036.

Fur ther analysis and development have been done at ARI. The entire

research was conduc ted under Army Project 2Q763731A768 and is

responsive to the special requirements of DCSPER and the Secretary

of the Army.

J. E. UHLANER .

Technical Director

- p. -

~~-
EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE MILITARY APTITUDE PREDICTOR (M AP)

BRIEF

Requirement~

To develop measures of motivation as an aid in the earl y

selection of app licants for enlistment.

Procedure:

Successive steps included : (1) Construction and tryout of a

Military Apt itude Predictor (MAP) based on age , education , aptitude

tes t scores , and record of civilian court convictions . While satisfactorily screening out potential failures , the measure also

screened out undul y large numbers of potentiall y successful soldiers. (2) Addition to the MAP of an Early Experience Questionnaire

(EEQ) covering additional activities and experiences. This composite was also found to screen out more good soldiers than poor

against three criteria——disci p linary records , Basic Combat Training

(BCT) “sold ier ing ” and comp letion of BCT versus separation under

the Trainee Discharge Program (TDP). (3) Development of MAP—75

consisting of age , education , civilian court convictions , school

grades , the EEQ, and a physical fitness measure (“Leg—ups ”). MAP—75

was adm inistered to 195 EM successfully comp leting BCT and 83

awaiting TDP discharge. Analysis was conducted both on the total

sampl e and a subsample of non—h igh school grad uates and GED ’s.

F ind ings:

In the non—high school gradua te sample of 151, including GED ’s,

the most effect ive qualif ying score was 35 , which wo uld disqualif y

22 percen t of those fa iling BCT and 2 percent of those comp leting

BCT. Since this was not a typ ical app licant samp le , the result ,

alth otigh highly encouraging , was not considered conclusive .

Utilization of Findings:

By d irection of the Secretary of the Army , the MAP—75 was in

operational use from 1 Augus t to 1 October 1975 with a qualif y ing

score of 35. Interviews with 58 recruiters revealed reservations

ab out use of such an earl y screening test in view of the number of

recruits needed to fill manpowe r requirements in relation to the

small supply of app licants

Continuing effort under the early screening program focuses

on sh ifts in content and expansion to improve the EEQ and poss ible

inclusion of a measure of phys i cal co nd iti on as well a~ performance—oriented tests of cooperativeness and dependability.

- -

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

~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~_ .

_ • --- ,

~

_,,I _..$ ,,
EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE MILITARY APTITUDE PREDICTOR (MAP)

CONTENTS

Pag e

BAC KGROUND 1

FIRST STEPS 1

ADDITIONS TO THE INSTRUMENT 2

DEVELOPMENT OF THE 1975 Version (MAP—75) 5

Procedure 5

Var iables 5

“orrelational Analysis 6

MAP—75 Scoring 9

IMPLEMENTATION 12

Conduct of Interviews 12

Interview Results 12

CONCLUSIONS 13

APPENDIXES 15

DISTRIBUTION LIST 21

TABLES

Table 1. MAP Scores of New Enlistees , by Gro up 2

2. Percentage of Trainees in Various Criterion Categories 4

Attaining Specified EEQ Scores

3. Zero Order Correlation of MA P—75 Variables with Success 6

in BCT

4. Intercorrelation Matrix , Total Sample 7

4 5. Intercorrelation Matrix Non—High School Graduates 8

and GED ’s

-~~~ -.

~~~-— ~~

. .— 

_

~

_f;

~~ - . -

~~~~~~ 

- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TABLES (Continued) Page

Table 6. Consequences of Using Certain Sing le—We ighted MAP 9

Qualify ing Scores to Screen 151 Non—Hi gh Sch ool

Grad ua tes and GED ’s

7. Consequences of Using Certain Double—Wei gh ted MAP 10

Qualif ying Scores to Screen 151 Non—Hi gh School

Gradu ate s and GED ’s

8. Effect of a Total Procedure of Qualify ing all Dip loma 11

Graduates and those Non—Graduates Attainin g a MAP—75

Score of 35

9. Effec t of a Total Procedure of Qualifying all 11

Diploma Graduates and those Non—Graduates Attaining

a MA P—75 Score of 39

- ~- — 

- - --.-- — - j

~~ ,•, - ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ —~ :

~~~~~~-
EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE MILITARY APTITUDE PREDICTOR (MAP)

BAG KGROUND

In 1973 the Army Research Institute (ART) was directed by the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (DCSPER), with the personal interest

and backing of the Secretary of the Army , to conduct a research effort

to develop and validate motivational measures to aid in selection of

enlisted personnel. An accurate predictor of success in the Army would

be useful for pre—enlistment differentiation of those app licants who

would not be expected to satisfactorily comp lete their training from

those who seemed reasonable military adjustment risks .

FIRST STEPS

The development of the Military Aptitude Predictor (MAP) was begun

in 1973. The initial MAP included the trainee ’s age , education , apt itude test scores , and record of prior civil court convictions as

predictors of successful military adjustment. These variables were

combined into one score , ranging from 0 to 10.

The for m was employed on an experimental basis by the U.S. Army

Recruiting Command (USAREC ) using a sample of 1 ,000 app licants throughout CONUS from 15—30 October 1973. The results , including an evaluative

questionnaire comp leted by the Armed Forces Examining and Entrance

Station (AFEES ) Guidanc e Counselors , were checked by Department of the

Army head quar ters (HQDA). No significant errors were detected in the

completion of the form. Evaluation of questionnaires from 22 Guidance

Counselors showed that they had no difficulty in using the form , and

that one minute or less was required to determine a score.

MAP scores were then constructed by ARI on approximately 4500

September 73 enlistees randomly selected from data available at HQDA.

Data pertaining to earl y discharges for adverse reasons , and to accelera ted prom oti ons , we re re t rieved fro m the Mili tary Perso nnel Cen ter

(MILPERCEN) data base for use as sucess criteria. Soldiers were classed

as failures (separated from service), satisfactory performers , and

hi ghly sucessful perf ormers (accelera ted promotion). The MAP scores

were then evaluated tq determine their usefulness as predictors of these

- criteria.

The results of this analysis are presented in Table 1. These find—

ings indicate that the qualifying cut—off scores on the MAP which would

most successfully screen out potential failures would unfortunatel y also

screen out unduly large numbers of successful soldiers . Accordingly,

fur ther research was deemed necessary.

- ~~~~~~~~~ • . ..:4. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -
Table 1

MAP SCORES OF NEW ENLISTEES , BY GROUP

Failures Highly Sucessful

(Separa ted Sa tisfac tory (Acc elera ted

from Service) Soldiers Promotion) Total

MAP

Score No. No. % No. No. %

10 5 2.2 165 3.9 8 4. 7 178 3.8

9 24 10.5 1161 27.2 71 42.0 1256 26.8

8 27 11.8 812 19. 0 50 29. 5 889 19. 1

7 51 22.4 832 19. 5 16 9.5 899 19. 3

6 62 27. 2 711 16. 7 15 8. 9 788 16.9

5 38 16. 7 380 8. 9 6 3. 6 424 9. 1

4 17 7.4 185 4.3 3 1.8 205 4.4

3 4 1.8 22 0.5 0 0.0 26 0.6

2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

1 0 0.0 0 0.0 _

~

9 0.0 0 0.0

TOTALS 228 100. 0 4268 100,0 169 100.0 4665 100.0

ILLUSTRATIVE CONSOLIDATIONS OF MAP SCORES

8— 10 56 24.6 2138 50. 1 129 76. 3 2323 49. 8

7 51 22.4 832 19.5 16 9.5 899 19.3

1—6 121 53.1 1298 30.4 24 14.2 1443 30.9

1—5 59 25.9 587 13.8 9 5.3 655 14. 0

Note. Data From MTLPERCEN, September 1973.

ADDITIONS TO THE INSTRUMENT

At this point an Early Experience Questionnaire (EEQ)1 was added

to the MAP as a fifth variable. This autobiographic questionnaire inquired about such pr ior civilian activities as community and extra—

curr icular school ac tivities , par tic ipation in sports , reasons for drop—

p ing out of school where appl icable , personal activities , and civilian

job experience. Following DA judge advocate opinion that there were no

legal obstacles to use of the form , but that there might be ind ividua l

offense taken , perhaps on invasion of privacy grounds , procedures for

field research were prepared by ARI to determine the receptiveness of

applicants to the EEQ, and its usefulness in the MAP.

‘Bell , D. B., Kr is t iansen , D. N., and Seeley, L. C. Initial Considera tions in the Development of the Early Experience Questionnaire

(EEQ). Army Resear”h Institute , Research Memorandum 74—10, July 1974.

2

________

A
The field research tryout was conducted during the week of 4 March

1974 a t four Recep t ion Sta t ions (For t s Ord , Dix , Jackson , and Leon ard

Wood). A total of 1428 new enlistees comp le ted the questionnaire. In

addi t ion , 233 of the enlistees were interviewed in private to determine

their reaction to the questions . Analysis of the interview data showed

the following: -

(1) Twenty—nine (29) of the 233 considered one or more of the EEQ

questions to be sensitive .

(2) Most of the comments from the 29 individuals concerned three

par ticular items (running away from home ; being i~

n juvenile court; and

knowing how to start a car without a key).

Of the 1428 enlis tees co mple ting the EEQ , cri terion informat ion w as

available on 1235. To de termine the EEQ ’ s scree ning value , the scores

of these 1235 individuals were compared with 3 criteria: (1) disciplinary re cords , (2) ra tings on soldiering in general during Basic Combat

Training (BCT); and (3) comp le tion or non—completion of BCT. Results

are shown in Table 2.

Here again on the EEQ, just as in the MAP cases of Table 1 , we find

that although percentage comparisons were favorable——i.e. , much larger

percen tages of failure s wo uld have been screened out than of good soldi ers——in terms of numbers of men , many more good soldiers would have

been los t than poor . The obvious reason for this is that there were

(and are) so very many more good soldiers than failures : the ra t io for

BCT comp le tions to separations under the Trainee Discharge Program

(TDP) was close to 20 :1; for clean versus adverse disci p linary record ,

about 10:1 , f or sa t isfac tory vers us poor soldiering, about 3:1.

Addi t ional analyses were subsequently conducted on the EEQ and three

other selec ted ques tionnaires. 2 These ins truments were administered

in various combina t ions to a total of 6682 responden ts at Recr uit ing

S tat ions , AFEES , and Reception Stations . Results of these analyses are

reported in ART Technical Report TR—77—A6 , The Feasibili ty of the Use

of Au tobiographical Information as a Predic tor of Early Army Attrition.

2The Work Environment Preference Schedule (WEPS), New York , The

Psycholog ical Corporation ; What ’s Your Opinion? , ART scale of attitudes

toward authority; and the Enlistee Profile 1975, another ARI—developed

autobiographical questionnaire.

— 3 —

— -..u—~ - — —- - — -- — — —~~ —V- —-- —
Table 2

PERCENTAGE OF TRA INEES IN VARIOUS CRITERION CATE GORIES

ATTAINING SPECIFIED EEQ SCORE S

Total EEQ Screen—Out

A Score of 10:

Adverse d isciplinary record 108 34 (31.5%)

N o adverse d isc iplinary record 1127 158 (14.0%)

100% = 1235

Poor Sold iering (Dr ill Sgt . evaluation) 345 70 (20. 3%)

Satisfactory Soldiering (Drill Sg t. 890 122 (13.7%)

evalua tion ) 100% = 1235

TDP Separat ions 62 15 (24.2%)

Successf ul Completion of BCT 1173 177 (15.1%)

100% = 1235

A Score of 8

Adverse Disciplinary record 108 58 (53.7%)

No adverse disciplinary record 1127 391 (34.6%)

100% = 1235

Poor Sold ier ing (Dr ill Sgt. evaluation) 345 161 (46.7%)

Satisfactory Soldiering (Drill Sgt eval ) 890 287 (32.3%)

100% = 1235

TDP Separations 62 32 (51.6%)

Successful comp letion of BCT 1173 417 (35.5%)

100% = 1235

Note. At this point a low score on the EEQ was favorable , a hig h one unfavorable. Subsequently the scale was

inverted and the more conventional system was adopted in which a high score is desirable.

• I .

-1~~ - - -—- —

~~ ., - —

~

, - ‘,‘- 

- 

-.- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~- 
DEVELOPMENT OF THE 1975 VERSION (MAP—75)

Based on these earlier experiences , the MAP—75 was developed. The

MAP—75 was intended for use by recruiters rather than at AFEES , to provide a prediction of BCT behavior and performance at an earlier point

in time , thus saving the Army AFEES transportation and processing costs.

It consisted of age , education , record of civil court convictions ,

school grades (in place of aptitude test scores , which are unknown at

this point), the EEQ, and the best measure of physical fitness derived

fr om parallel ART performance test research .3 A pre—operational

tryout of the MAP—75 was administered by ART to basic trainees at Ft.

Jackson and Ft. Leonard Wood during the period 12— 16 May 1975. This

tryout was conducted to determine how accurately the screening procedure

would diff eren tiate successf ul and unsuccessf ul sold ier s, if employed as

an operational prescreen. Addi tionally, the tryout provided useful

information on the consequences of various potential qualif ying scores.

PROCEDURE

The MAP—75 was administered to 195 enlisted men who were successf ull y comp leting BCT , and to 83 who were awaiting discharge under the

Trainee Discharge Program. The BCT group was termed the “success ”

group , while the TDP men were defined as the “failure” group .

VARIABLES

The MAP var iables for this analysis were as follows :

Old EEQ : The EEQ score computed using the original scoring key,

based on all 25 items .

New EEQ : The EEQ score computed using a second—generation scoring

key , based on only 19 items.

~~~~ Tra inee ’s age in years at the time of enlistment.

Educa tion Level: Highest grade completed in school.

Education Code: High School diploma , General Education Development

qualif ica tion (GED), or non— -:raduate.

Grades: Average school grades as repor ted by trainee.

AFQT: Score from trainee ’s record .

3 Seeley , L. C. and Fischl , M. A. Development of Performance Tests

as Supplementary Enlistment Screening Measures: An Interim Report.

Army Research Institute , Research Memorandum 75—8, July 1975.

5

— —-—-—.~ ....‘—-— - —

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

—‘.-

~ 

‘

.. .

~~—
Wa iver: Whe ther moral wa iver , due to civil court convictions , was

required for enlistment.

Exercise: Score on Leg—U ps exercise.

MAP—AA: Number of aptitude areas in which the trainee scored above

a standard score of 90 , from records.

CORRELATIONAL ANALYSIS

Biserial correlation coefficients of the MAP—75 variables with the

success criterion , bo th for the to tal sample and for a subsamp le consisting of only non—high school gradua tes and GED ’s,4 are prese nted

in Table 3, and the comp lete intercorrelation matrices of the MAP—75

var iables and the criterion are presented in Tables 4 and 5.

Table 3

ZERO ORDER CORRELATION OF MAP—iS VARIABLES WITH SUCCESS IN BCT

Non—High School

To tal Sample Grad uates and GED

(N = 278) (N = 151)

Old EEQ .26 .28

New EEQ .28 .29

Age .00 .02

Education Code .09 .10

Educat ion Level .09 .04

Grades .25 .28

AFQT .17

Waiver — .03 .10

Exercise .09 .05

MAP AA .16 .16

Note. Success is defined as successfully completing BCT (N = 195) vs. awaiting separation under the Trainee

Discharge Program (N = 83).

~AFQT scores were not tabulated for this subsample.

4

Many of the remaining analyses were conduc ted separa tely on these

two samples , since the possibility was anticipated that the MAP—75

might be used to screen only non—high school graduates and GED ’s.

6

______ - - 

- . - -

~T~

---- - 

- - =

~~~~~~ ~~~~~ - ~~~~~~
.Lbd v I

N.

ssaO~ flg I

~

.0 -

~~ baa~~io

I ’1 .—l

a2w 0 -~~ 0 r-l I C ~

1 H0.l

~po~

~~~ UOT~~~~Oflp~~

z Lt1 ~~~ ‘

~~ 0

~’ ~~

uot~~ onpa I r -3• c

~ ~

N. r-. 

~~ ~~~ L

~~ -~~

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

O-. c-1 0

H

a) ~~~ 

III , I I

.-l 1-4 0

t

~ (-I

H as1o1~ xa I o ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -4

1.-I O~~~O L 1~

H VV-dVW

~~~ N. aD C~ r— c

~i -.0 CO O\ \O CO

0 ~~~~~~~~ 0 ‘-I

H O\ C N. cx~ c’

~ it-i c-J 0

~ 00 Lri

CO C~ c

~ C’1 0 Lt~ r-4 -

~~ r~- -.0

U~~~

H .-4 .-4HH Ui

0 H

Wa ) I.,

a)

-‘.4

I-’ 0 a) 0 0 U) ~

i

~l~~~ -l 0’O’U)

~ ~~~ U)

I~~~~~~~~~ -

~~~~UQ ti E-’

~~ a) .‘.4 c

~ ~ ~ a) ~~ ci 0’

< ~

4 c~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ bOW ’-l ~~~~

— 

~~~~~ 

______ 

7 

1

~~
uo~~~afl~~~ SS~~~~~~fl~~ I

CO ö~i

~~io

baa M ~11

II 92v I ’.-400

if) apo ) c’4 C-.) O - ~~C

~~ C’~~~~ 0H uoflw3npa I .

0

H CO C~l H -.

~

t I m H C-4 c’i C uo~~~ onp~ CO

H -

~~ H C O~ N. CO I C’-1 C’) C r~ C’) 

0

W\ ,-~ H O\ C’) 0” N. C”

) C

0 0 0 0 0 0’- 4 H

W 0

.00

C~ CO

H C~i Lfl H -

~~~~‘.0 N. r’•’) If’)

I C C’) H H 00 C C

0 aST31aX~ H I

0’- -

~~ C -

~~ CO CO N. CO ‘

.0 I 0 ,-l H H C’.I CCC H z VY-dYN I I I >4

H

N. L’) H CO C -

~~ -

~~ Lñ C”) ‘.l

a

~s 

‘.0 CO -

~~ C’) C’1 -1’ CO 0 —4 N.

C CO CC H C C’) C’) C’) 0

H

~~~ I’) ‘

.0 CO H H N. C’, 0 ‘

.0 CO c-i H O’i N. C’) cl CO ‘.0 If’) ‘

.0

H H r-I H U

~~14 C”) CO H C’) C H CO —1’ .0 H

0 0

H f—I H

Z W a ) 0) H >— ‘u a)0 H

I-I

0

a) 0 0 U) HH 0’0’cl)

‘

~~ H~~~ U) 4.I

~~~ J EI3 f.4 W

-

~~~u WWt ~~ e I~

)

~~~~ a) I

~~~~~~~~~ ’u u U ci

~~ 0) -‘.4 ~ ~ a) 5 ~

5 C.)

>~ Si ~~~~~~~~~~~ UOWH S

Z 0E.3 E.3 -l

~~Z0 u’)

8

r ‘

~ 1 - - - - - - - •— S ~~~~
Using the intercorrelation matrices , multiple regression equations

were computed (Appendix A) to determine the ability of various linear

combinations of the MAP—75 variables to predict the success criterion.

Multiple R ’s for combinations of the MAP— 75 variables were in the range

of 0.30 to 0.33 for the total sample as well as for the non—hi gh school

graduate GED samp le. These R ’s were shrunken but not cross—validated .

MAP—iS SCORING

Several alternative methods were devised to weig ht the MAP—7 5 variables to produce a final score. These alternatives were then reduced

to two , termed single and double scoring , since the latter method doub ly

weighted the point values for the variables EEQ, Wa iver , and Grades.

The complete scoring procedure for these two methods is presented in

App endix B. Here and in subsequent steps a high score is a good sc ore ,

in contrast to earlier phases where a low score was desirable.

MAP scores were computed for all trainees in the Ft. Jackson/Leonard

Wo od samp le using each of these procedures. Distributions of both

scores for both success and failure groups are presented in Appendixes

C and D. The distributions of the two methods of scoring are quite

similar.

To further compare the scoring systems , a detailed analysis was conducted of the consequences of screening decisions which would be made

based on each of these methods. All high school graduates were excluded fr om these analyses , since at this point MAP screening was

an ticipa ted onl y among non—grad uates , and Table 6 summarizes the consequences of using certain scores from the single—weight procedure

as a prescreen , wh ile Table 7 presen ts results of a parallel analys is

using the double—weig ht procedure.

Table 6

CONSEQUENCES OF USING CERTAIN SINGLE WEIGHTED MAP QUALIFYING

SCORES TO SCREEN 151 NON—HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES AND GED’S

Qualif ying Conseq uences

Score Ac tion 49 TDP Failures 102 BCT Successes

35 Pass 78% 98%

Fail , Deny Enlistment 22% 2%

39 Pass 55% 82%

Fail , Deny Enlistment 45% 18%

44 Pass 18% 44%

Fail, Deny Enisitment 82% 56%

46 Pass 6% 23%

Fail , Deny Enlistment 94% 77%

9

-——

~~~~~~~

—

~~~~~~~~~~

-

~~~~~~~~~ 

—

~~~

—

~~~~~~~~

—— - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Table 7

CONSEQUENCES OF USING CERTAIN DOUBLE WEIGHTED MAP QUALIFYING

SCORES TO SCREEN 151 NON—HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES AND GED ’S

Qualif y ing Conseq uences

Score Action 49 TDP Failures 103 BCT Successes

59 Pass 71% 96%

Fail , Deny Enlistment 29% 4%

66 Pass - 55% 82%

Fa il , Deny Enlistment 45% 18%

69 Pass 43% 72%

Fail , Deny Enlistment 57% 28%

These tables do not show any significant improvement for the double

weight procedure over the single—weight method and , since the double

weight scoring procedure is more cumbersome , it was dropped .

The two qualifying scores of the single—weigh t pr oced ure which

appear to be the most effective are 35 and 39. As Table 6 shows , a cut

at 35 minimizes the risk of erroneously turning away potentially good

soldiers , while correctly denying entry to almost one—fourth of the

failures. A cut at 39 correctly denies entry to almost one—half of the

fa ilures , but at a cost of turning away almost one good soldier in five .

In d ifferent recruiting markets , one or the other could be considered .

For MAP—iS scores of 35 and 39 , Tables 8 and 9 presen t summar ies ,

evalua ting the entire procedure of forwarding all high school d iploma

grad uates to AFEES, and forward ing only those non—graduates who attain

the qualif ying MAP—75 score.

The same caution presented in a previous section should again be

pointed out . Spec ifically, the f igures of Tables 8 and 9 are based on

a conveniently available samp le in wh ich the ratio of BCT succ esses to

TDP fa ilures wa s only a little larger than 2: 1. This is not typ ical of

Ar my input in general , in which closer to 10:1 would be the case. Thus

the fav orable percen tage of rejec tions among fa ilures compared with

successes, mus t be weighed aga ins t the number of app licants of bo th

types who would be rejected when typ ical Army input is examined .

10

a 

- - 

—

~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ = .- - --4

~

= .. - - - -, )

.- . -- -

~~ 

-

~~

-=

~ . - 
Table 8

EFFECT OF A TOTAL PROCEDURE OF QUALIFYING ALL DIPLOMA GRADUATES

AND THOSE NON—GRADUATES ATTAINING A MAP— 75 SCORE OF 35

Consequences

TDP Failures BCT Successes

Action n % n

Pass

All Diploma Gradua tes 34 41 93 4S

Non—Graduates Scoring

35 or More 38 46 100 51

Total Pass 72 87 193 99

Fail , Deny Enlistment 11 13 2 1

Non—Graduates Scoring

Less than 35 _____ _____

To tal N 83 100% 195 100%

Table 9

EFFECT OF A TOTAL PROCEDURE OF QUALIFYING ALL DIPLOMA GRADUATES

AND THOSE NON—GRADUATES ATTAINING A MAP— 75 SCORE OF 39

Action TDP Failures BCT Successes

n % n

Pass

All Diploma Graduates 34 41 93 48

Noi.—Graduates Scoring ~9 or More 27 33 84 43

Total Pass 61 74 177 91

Fail, Deny Enlistment

Non—Gradua tes Scoring - Less than 39 22 26 18 9

Total N 83 100% 195 100%

11

‘.4 - . “ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IMPLEMENTAT ION

On 28 April 1975 the Secretary of the Army directed imp lementat ion

of the MAP—iS, to begin 1 August 1975. This initial testing was conducted in one District Recruiting Command (DRC ) in each of the f ive

Recruiting Reg ions.5 For non—hig h school graduates , a qualifying MAP—7 5

score of 35 was required . Recruiters were to discourage app licants who

scor ed below 35 from continuing the ir enlis tment process ing by travel ing

to AFEES ,6 Some h igh school grad uates were also tested for research

purposes.

The operational use of the MAP—75 was suspended on 1 October 1975.

Immed iately af ter the suspens ion of tes ting, ART personnel conducted interviews with recruiters in the five DRC ’s to determine the nature and

extent of problems associated with such screening .

CONDUCT OF INTERVIEW S

Interviews with 58 recruiters were conducted between 29 September

and 10 Oc tober 1975. The recruiters were selected from various parts

of the DRC ’s to the extent allowed by distance , transportation availability, and the USAREC mission requirements , and they were equally

representative of rural , city, and suburban areas . Thirty—three of

the 58 recruiters had met their recruiting objectives during the month

of August. The interviews were conducted both individually and in

groups. Personal interviews lasted approximately one hour , while the

group interviews lasted approximatel y two hours. Each session was

guided by asking prepared questions. Interviewees scemed candid and

usually attempted to be constructive in their remarks .

The pay—grades of the 58 interviewees were as follows : Grade E7

(31%) , E6 (52%) , E5 (16%) , and E4 (1%). They described their number

of years of recruiting experience as:

Less than 1 year: 17%

1 to 2 year s: 35% -

2 to 4 years : 25%

More than 4 years: 23%

With few exceptions , these recruiters had been in their present

duty assignments for the entire time they had been recuiters.

INTERVIEW RESULTS

The general results of the interviews with recruiters can be

summarized as follows :

~ Ph iladel phia , Peor ia , San Antonio , Port land , Miami.

6 Relatively few app licants were actually turned awa y for low scores

b y participating recruiters. Ten out of 665 non—hig h school graduates

scored below the cut—off score.

12

- ~~~

— - .-=- -- -—

~~

-- —--- -.-- --— -

4 - —. -- -
Most recruiters felt that screening out “non—qual ity ” applican ts

was part of their responsibility ; however , meeting recruiting objectives was more important.

Recru iter s had no t rece ived an adeq ua te exp lanation of the rationale

or purpose of the MAP.

The Army has not lost any enlistments because of the MAP.

Recrui ters wo uld prefer a screening tes t correla ted w ith the

AFQT/ACB.

Most of the MAP ’s were administered incorrectl y. Thus , da ta collected during the period are of limited value .

The “Leg—ups ” excerc ise is useful beca use it gives recr uiters some

idea of the app licant’s ph ysical capacity.

Most recruiters did not understand the value of the EEQ.

In the present market , time spent on the MAP could have been better

spent on other activities.

If the MAP concept is to be explored f urther , a revised instrument

should be used.

CONCLUSIONS

It is clear tha t appropr ia te screen ing and selec tion are more

feasible when there are many app licants to chose from. When the number

of recruits needed to fulfill manpower requirements is large in relation to the supply of app lican ts , s uch tha t prac tically all app lican ts

are needed , scre ening and selec tion can be of only limited value .

It is doubtful that many recruiters can be motivated to use faithf ull y any screening instrument if they receive credit only for

produc tion and not for correc tly identi fying and rejec ting po tentially

poor soldiers.

It is par ticularly d6ubtful if recruiters will be willing to use an

instrument that consumes considerable time . An instrument requiring

only nominal time to adminis ter is much more likely to be used .

A universal problem exists in setting cut—off scores. Since 85—90%

of new accessions perform and adapt satisfactorily, any cut—pff score

that maximizes the number of applicants rejected as poor risks will also

screen out a very sizable number of potentially satisfactory soldiers.

Finding ways of protecting (fencing off) low—risk applicants from being

screened out b y the procedure is under investigation. High school grad—

uate status is one such “fence; ” others need to be exp lored .

13

.-..--- ~~ .

-

~~~~- --~~~~~-- = =“ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

. - 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The technology for screening on ap titudes has been developed to a

relatively hi gh degree of maturity over more than 50 years of study. The

technology for screening on adjustment/motivation Is much newe r and

hence much less precise . The present research program is a set of early

steps in building a parallel and comparable technology.

The August — September 1975 operational evaluation was informative

and useful . The focus of future development is to build an instrument

for use under AFEES ausp ices, in the same sp irit in which the aptitude

testing program is administered under AFEES auspices .

Research will be continued to develop improved MAP measures. The

“Leg—U ps ” measure of physical condition is useful , but mig ht well be rep laced with a less cumbersome task. Additional performance—oriented

tests designed to meas ure coopera tiveness and depe ndab ility m igh t pr ove

useful.

Most promising , perhaps , is the return on the substantial effort

which has been undertaken in developing the EEQ and similar autobiographical predictors. Initial results , as noted earlier in this report , hav e

been published . Further research is under way with the inten t of revising or replac ing ineffec tive ques tions w ith be tter ones , with increasing

overall predictive ability, and with construction of a large pool of

alternates. Improvement in the EEQ may well be the most cost beneficial

way to improve validity of the MAP.

1~

4

___ - - - -_____ — - —---~~

-

- 

j—: - 

~ u-~-..

. 

~~ ~~~‘

-

‘ ‘--U.’ ~~~~~~
APPEND IXES

Appendix Page

A. Alternative Multip le Regression Equations Predicting 17

Success

B. MAP—7 5 Scoring Conversions 18

C. Sing le—Wei ghted MAP Score Distribution for Non—Hig h 19

School Graduates and GED ’s

D. Double—Wei ghted MAP Score Distribution for Non—Hig h 20

School Graduates and GED ’s

15

- 1)~~ * -

~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
APPENDIX A

ALTERNATIVE MULTIPLE REGRESSION EQUAT IONS PREDICTING SUCCESS

TOTAL SAMPLE

1. Success = .96 + .04 New EEQ + .07 Age — .01 Education Level

+ .10 Grades — .10 Waiver + 0.0 Exerc ise

Multip le R (original) = .33 N 281

Multi ple R (shrunken) = .31 n 6

2. Success = .75 + .09 MAP—AA + .05 New EEQ ÷ .07 Age — .11 Education

level — .09 Waiver + 0.0 Exercise

Multiple R (original) = .33 N = 281

Multiple R (shrunken) = .30 n = 6

NON—HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES AND G.E.D .

3. Success = .44 + .04 New EEQ + .02 Age — .03 Educa tion Level

+ .12 Grades + .30 Waiver — 0.0 Exercise

Multiple R (original) = .36 N = 154

Multiple R (shrunken) = .32 n = 6

4. Success = — .11 + .13 MAP—AA + .06 New EEQ + .37 Age

— .35 Educational Level + .39 Waiver + 0.0 Exercise

Multipie R (original) = .37 N 154

Multiple R (shrunken) = .33 n = 6

5. Success - .18 + .04 New EEQ + .25 Age + .02 Education Code

+ .11 Grades + .28 Waiver — 0.0 Exercise

Multiple R (original) = .36 N = l5~ Multiple R (shrunken) .32 n = 6

17 __ _ _

-
APPENDIX B

MAP-75 SCORING CONVERSIONS

Raw Score Sing le Wei ghting Double Wei ghting

AGE 18, 19 , 20 1 2

17, 21+ 0 - 0

EDUCATION 12 12 12

11 11 11

10 10 10

9 9 9

GRADES A’ s 15 30

A’ s and B’s 12 24

B’s and C’s 9 18

C’s and D ’s 6 12

D’s 3 6

WAIVER No 6 12

Ye s 0 0

EEQ 19 19 19

18 18 18

17 17 17

16 16 16

15 15 15

14 14 14

13 13 13

12 12 12

11 11 11

10 10 10

9 9 9

8 8 8

7 7 7

6 6 6

5 5 5

4 4 4

3 3 3

2 2 2

1 1 1

- 0 0 0

E~

-.ERC1SE 13+ 2 2

1—12 1 1

0 0 0

iS

— —~~~-— — —--—--— 

-;-- ; AU .- _____
APPENDIX C

SINGLE WEIGHTED MAP SCORE DISTRIBUTION FOR

NON-HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES AND G.E.D.’s (N i51)

Score Failure Success

N % Cum % N % Cusi %

52 0 0.0 99.8 3 2.9 100.1

51 0 0.0 99.8 0 0.0 97.2

50 0 0.0 99.8 2 2.0 97.2

49 1 2.0 99.8 1 1.0 95.2

48 1 2.0 97.8 6 5.9 94.2

47 0 0.0 95.8 5 4.9 88.3

46 1 2.0 95.8 6 5.9 83.4

45 3 6.1 93.8 10 9.8 77.5

44 3 6.1 87.7 12 11.8 67.7

43 5 10.2 81.6 9 8.8 55.9

42 5 10.2 71.4 6 5.9 47.1

41 3 6.1 61.2 9 8.8 41.2

40 5 10.2 55.1 8 7.8 32.4

39 0 0.0 44.9 7 6.9 24.6

38 4 8.2 44.9 1 1.0 17.7

37 3 6.1 36.7 6 5.9 16.7

36 2 4.1 30.6 5 4.9 10.8

35 2 4.1 26.5 4 3.9 5.9

34 3 6.1 22.4 1 1.0 2.0

33 2 4.1 16.3 0 0.0 1.0

32 2 4.1 12.2 1 1.0 1.0

31 1 2.0 8.1 0 0.0 0.0

30 3 6.1 6.1 0 0.0 0.0

19

T~i ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~
APPENDIX D

DOUBLE WEIGIffED MAP SCORE DISTRIBUTION FOR

NON-HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES AND G .E .D.’s (N i~ i)

Sco re Failure Succ ess

N % Cum % N % Cum %

93 0 0.0 99.8 -1 1.0 100.1

90 0 0.0 99.8 2 2.0 99.1

87 0 0.0 99.8 2 2.0 97.1

85 1 2.0 99.8 1 1.0 95.1

84 0 0.0 97.8 1 1.0 94.1

83 0 0.0 97.8 3 2.9 93.1

82 1 2~ 0 97.8 2 2.0 90.2

81 0 0.0 95.8 2 2.0 88.2

80 0 0.0 95.8 3 2.9 86.2

79 1 2.0 95.8 8 7.8 83.3

78 1 2.0 93.8 3 2.9 75.5

77 3 6.7 91.8 8 7.8 72.6

76 1 2.0 85.7 5 4.9 64.8

75 2 4.1 83.7 7 6.9 59.9

74 3 6.1 79.6 2 2.0 53.0

73 2 4.1 73.5 6 5.9 51.0

72 3 6.1 69.4 3 2.9 45.1

71 2 4.1 63.3 3 2.9 42.2

70 1 2.0 59.2 6 5.9 39.3

69 0 0.0 57.2 5 4.9 33.4

68 2 4.1 57.2 3 2.9 28.5

67 3 6.1 53.1 4 3.9 25.6

66 1 2.0 47.0 4 3.9 21.7

65 3 6.1 45.0 1 1.0 17.8

64 1 2.0 38.9 1 1.0 16.8

63 1 2.0 36.9 1 1.0 15.8

62 2 4.1 34.9 4 3.9 14.8

61 1 2.0 30.8 1 1.0 10.9

60 0 0.0 28.8 5 4.9 9.9

59 0 0.0 28.8 1 1.0 5.0

58 3 6.1 28.8 2 2.0 4.0

57 2 4.1 22.7 1 1.0 2.0

56 2 4.1 18.6 0 0.0 1.0

55 1 2.0 14.5 0 0.0 1.0

54 2 4.1 12.5 0 0.0 1.0

52 0 0.0 8.1 1 1.0 1.0

50 1 2.0 8.1 0 0.0 0.0

49 2 4.1 6.1 0 0.0 0.0

48 1 2.0 2.0 0 0.0 0.0

20

- — -

- .

- - - -

~~~~~~~~~;. ‘ ‘

-

~ —~ -~~~ - a. -

~~~ I- - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -
DISTRIBUTION

ARt Distribution List

4 OASO (M&RA( 2 HQUSACDEC , Ft Ord, ATTN: Library

2 HODA IDAMI-CSZ( I t-IOUSACDEC. Ft Ord, ATTN; ATEC —EX— E— Hum Factors

1 HODA (DAPE-PBR 7 USAEEC. Ft Beniamin Harrison , ATTN: Library

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

1 HODA (DAPE-l-4 RE- PO) 1 USA Comm—Elect Sch, Ft Monmouth, AiTTN: ATSN—EA

1 HODA (SGRD-lD( 1 USAEC , Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEL—CT—HDP

I HODA (DAMI-DOT-C) 1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATT N~ AMSEL—PA—P

1 HODA (OAPC-PMZ-A) 1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEL--Sl--CB

1 HODA (DAC I-4-PPZ-A( 1 usAEc . Ft Monmouth, A’fl’N: C, Fad Dcv Br

1 I-IODA (DAPE-HREI 1 USA Materials Sys Anal Agcy, Aberdeen. ATTN: AMXSY— P

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

I HODA (DAPE-DW) 1 USA Ord Ctr & Sch, Aberdeen . ATTN: ATS L—TEM—C

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

1 HQDA (DAPE-CPS) I USA Combat Arms Ing Bd, Ft Benning, ATTN: Ad Supervisor

1 HODA (DAFD-M FA) I USA ofantry Hum Rsch Unit, Ft Benniog. ATTN: Chief

1 HQDA (DARO-ARS-P( 1 USA Infantry Bd, Ft Bel-ining, ATTN: STEBC—TE--- T

1 I-b OA (DAPC-PAS-A) 1 USASMA. Ft Bliss , A’fl’N: ATSS---LRC

I’IQDA (DUSA-OR) 1 USA Air Dci Sch. Ft Bliss , ATTN : ATSA -CTD - ME

1 4-b OA (DAMO-ROR) 1 USA Air Dci Sch, Ft Blits , ATTN Tech Lib

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

1 HQDA (DA1O-PI) I USA Air Oaf Sd . Ft Bliss, ATTN: STEBO—PO

1 Chief , Consult Div (DA-OT SG), Adelphi, MD 1 USA Cmd & General Stf College, Ft Leavenworth. ATTN: Lib

1 Mil Asst. Hum Ret , ODDR&E , OAD (E &LS( I USA Cmd & General Stf College. Ft Leavenworth. ATTN: ATSW —SE—L

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

1 HO First Army, ATTN: AFKA-OI-T I 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Des Act , Ft Leavenworth. ATTN: OepCdr

2 HO Fifth Army, Ft Sam Houston 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Des Act , Ft Leavenworth. ATTN: Ct

~

S

I Dir , Army Stf Studies Ok, A TTN: DAVCSA (DSP) 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dcv Act , Ft Leavenworth . ATTN: ATCASA

1 Ofc Chief of Stf. Studies Of c 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dcv Act , Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: ATCAC O—E

1 DCSPER , A’fl’N: CPS/OCP 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Des Act . Ft Leavenworth. ATTI’4: ATCACC—Cl

1 The Army Lib , Pentagon , ATTN: RSB Chief I USAECOM, Night Vision Lab , Ft Belvoir , ATTN: AMSEL—NV—SD

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

1 Oic , Asst Sect of the Army (R&D) 1 USAMEROC . Ft Belvoi r , ATTN: STSFB—DO

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

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

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

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

I USATTC, Ft Clayton , A’rrN: 5TETC-MO.A 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch , Ft Huachuca , ATTN: CTD—MS

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

1 USAIMA . Ft Bragg. ATTN: Marguat Lib 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Scis, Ft Huechuca, ATTN: ATSI—TE

1 US WAC Ctr & Sch , Ft McClellan , A’fl’N: Lib I USA intelligence Ctr & Sd,. Ft 1-luachuca, ATTN: ATSI—TEX—GS

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

1 USA Ouartermaster $ch , Ft Lee , An N: ATSM .TE 1 USA Intelligence Ce & Sch , Ft Huactsuca . ATTN: ATSI—CTD—DT

I Intellig ence Material 0ev Ofc , EWL , Ft Holabird 1 USA Intelli gence Ctr & Sch , Ft Huachuca , ATTN: ATSI—CTD—C S

1 USA SE Signal Sch . Ft Gordon , ATTN: ATSO.EA I USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca , ATTN : DASISRO

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

1 USATSCH , Ft Eustis , ATTN: Educ Advisor 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Scts , Ft 44u.chuca. ATTN: Library

1 USA War Colleg e. Carlisle Barracks , ATTN: Lib I CDR . HO Ft Huachuca , ATTN: Tech Ref Div

2 WRA I R , Neuropsychiatry Div 2 CDR . USA Electronic Prvg Grd , ATTN : STEEP—MT--S

1 DLI , SDA . Monterey 1 CDR , Project MASSTER , AT’TN: Tech Info Center

1 USA Concept Anal Agcy, Bethesda . ATTh: MOCA.WGC 1 Hc~ MASSTER . USATRADOC . LNO

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

I USA Concept Anal Agcy . Bethesda. ATTN: MOCA’JF 1 USA Recruiting Cmd. Ft Sherdian . ATTN: USARCPM— P

1 USA Ai’t ic Test Ctr , APO Seattle , ATTN: STEAC’ MO-ASL 1 SenIor Army Adv , USAFAGOD/TAC. Elgin AF Aux Fbi No. 9

1 USA Artic Test Ctr , APO Seattle . ATTN: AMST E.PL.TS 1 HO USARPAC . DCSPER . APO SF 96558. ATTN: GPPE—SE

1 USA Armament Cmd . Redstone Arsen al , ATTN: ATSK-TEM I Stimson Lib . Academy of Health Sciences , Ft Sam Houston

1 USA Armament Cmd . Rock Island . ATTN: AMSAR-T DC I Marine Corps ln~

t., ATTN: Dean—MCI

1 FAA-NAFE C, Atlantic City . ATTN: Librar y 1 HOUSMC , Commandant , ATTN : Code YTMT 51

I FAA.NAF EC, Atlantic City, ATIN: Hum En~ Br 1 HOUSMC, Commandant , ATTN: Cods MPI— 20

I FAA Aeronautical Ctr . Oklahoma City , A TI’N: AAC.44D 2 USCG Academy . New London . ATTN: Adm ission

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

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

1 USA Armor $cts, Ft Knox , ATTN : ATSB.Dl.E 1 USCG Training Ctr , NV , A-rrN: Educ Svc Oft

1 USA Armor Sch . Ft Knox , ATTN: ATSB’DT-TP 1 USCG. Psychol Ret Br , DC, ATTN: OP 1/62

I USA Armor $ch, Ft Knox , ATTN: ATSB-CD’AO I 140 Mid—Range Br, MC Oat . QusntIco, ATTN: P&S Div

21

=— —

_______________ - ~~~ 1 ~~~~~~ -
I US Maiine Coips Liaivion Ofc , AMC . Alexandr ia , ATIN: AMCGS—F I Del & Civil Inst of Enviro Medicine, Canada

1 USATRADOC . Fi Monroe , ATTN: ATRO ED I AIR CRESS , Kensington , ATTN: Info Sys Br

6 USATRADOC . Ft Mnnroe , i\TTN: ATPR AD 1 Mil ita erpsyko logi sk Tjen este . Copehage n

I USATRADOc , H Monroe , - . TTN ATTS—EA 1 Military Attache . French EmL~is sy , ATTN: Doc Sec

1 USA Forces Cmd , Ft McPher son , ATTN Library 1 Medecin Chef , C.E . R .P.A —Arsenal , Tou bon /Nav al Fr ance

2 USA Aviation Test Bd, Ft Ruc ker , ATTN: STEBG—PO 1 Prin Scientific Off , App l Hum Engr Rsch Dlv , Ministry

1 USA Ag r y for Av iation Safety, Ft Rucker . ATTN Library of Defense . New Delhi

1 USA Aqc y for Aviation Safet y . Ft Rocker . ATTN: Educ Adviso r 1 Pers lttch Ofc Library. AKA , Israel Defense Forces

1 USA Avia tro n Scfs . Ft Rucke , . ATTN: P0 Drawer 0 1 Mini steris van Defensie , 000P/KL Aid Sociaal

1 HOUSA Aviation Sys Cmd , St Louis , ATTN: AMSAV—ZDR Psycho logi sch e Zaken , The Hague , Netherlands

7 USA Av iation Sys Test Act. . Edwards AFB , ATTN: SAVTE—T

1 USA Air Del Sch , Ft Bliss , ATTN : ATSA TEM

1 USA Air Mobility Rsch & Dcv Lab , Moffe ti FId , ATTN: SAVDL—A 5

1 USA Aviation Sch, Res Tng Mgt, Ft Rucker , ATTN: ATST—T—RTM

1 USA Av ation Sd, , CD, Ft Rucker ATTN : ATST— D—A

1 HO, USAMC . A lexandr a . ATTN: AMXCD-TL

1 HO, USAMC , Alexandria . ATTN: CDR

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

1 US Military Academy, West Point , AT’I’N: Ofc of Milt Ldrsh p

1 US Military Academy, West Point , ATTN: MAOR

I USA Standar ci izat on Gp. UK , FPO NY , ATTN: MASE—GC

I Ofc of Naval Rs ch , Arlington , ATTN: Code 452

3 Ok of Naval Rscft , Arlington , ATTN: Code 458

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

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

1 Naval Aeros pc Med Re, Lab . Pensacola . ATTN: Acous Sch Div

1 Naval Aerosp c Med Res Lab , Pensacola , ATTN : Code L51

1 Naval Aerospc Med Res Lab , Pensacola , ATTN: Code L5

1 Chief of NavPers , ATTN: Pert-OR

1 NAVAIRSTA , Norfolk , ATTN: Safety Ctr

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

1 Center of Naval Anal , ATTN: Doc Ctr

1 NavAirSysCom , A T’TN: A I R—53 13 C

1 Nay BuMed , ATTN: 713

1 Nav Helico pterSubS gua 2, FPO SF 96601

1 AFHRL IFT( Willi am AFB

1 AFHRL (TTI Lowry AFB

I AFHRL (AS) WPA F8 , OH

2 AFHRL IDOJZ) Brooks AFB

1 AFHRL (DOJ~

’4( Lackland AFB

I HOLISA F IiNYSDI

1 HOUSAF IDPXXA(

1 AFVTG IRD( Randolph AFB

3 AMRL )HEI WPAFB , OH

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

1 ATC (XPTO( Randolp h AFB

1 USAF AeroMed Lib, Brooks AFB ISUL—4). ATTN : DOC SEC

I AFOSR (NLI, Arli ngton

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

1 Air Force Academy, CO. ATTN: Dept of Sd Scn

5 NavPers & Dcv Ctr , San Diego

2 Navy Med Neuropsychiatric Rscfs Unit, San Diego

I Nay Electronic Lab, San Diego, ATTN : Rev Lab

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

1 NavPost GraSch , Monterey, ATTN : Code 55Aa

1 Nav Pos t GraSc h, Monterey, ATTN: Code 2124

1 NavTrng EquipCtr , Orlando , ATTN: Tech Lib

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

1 US Dept of Justice , DC, ATTN : Drug Enforce Adm in

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

1 Nat Clearing House for MH —Info , Rockv ille

1 Denver Federal Ctr , Lekewood , ATTN: BLM

‘2 Defense Documentation Center

4 Dir Psych , Army Hg. Russell Ofcs, Canberra

I Scientific Advsr , Mib Sd, Army Hg, Russell Ofcs , Canberra

1 Mil and Air Attache , Austrian Embassy

I Centre de Recherche Des Facteurs, Humaine de Ii Defense

Netionale, Bruss els

2 Canadian Joint Staff Washington

1 C/Air Staff , Royal Canadian AF . ATT N: Pers Std Anal Br

3 Chief , Canadian Del Rach Staff , ATTN: C/CRDS(W)

4 Briti s h Oaf Staff , Brit ish Embassy, Washington

I

—,

_____ - - .. ——- — - - — -.. - — 

‘

_ _______ _ ___ __ —- .___ z -- --.

- — -—-.———— — .—