Technical Paper 331 AD

MAEADLEVE:L/' 

'

MALE AND FEMALE FACTORS ON THE CADET

EVALUATION BATTERY

Michael G. Rumsey and E. Sue Mohr

iA1 PERSONNEL ACCESSION AND UTILIZATION TECHNICAL AREA t-.j

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

September 1978

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

WILLIAM L. HAUSER

JOSEPH ZEIDNER Colonel, US Army

Technical Director Commander

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION Primary distribution of this report has been made by ARI. Please address correspondence

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

ATTN Pf III P. 5001 Fisenhto~we Avenue, Alcinimdria, Virginia 22333

FINAL DISPOSITION This report may he 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.

NgF The findings in this report ore not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position.

unless so designated by other authorized documents.
71--

Unclassified

SECU]RITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data ghtered) _____________

REPOT DCUMETATO14 AGEREAD INSTRUCTIONS REOR DOUETTINPG BEFOR2Z COMPLETING FORM

-OURX43~ 7 2. GOVT ACCESSION No. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

TITLE (and Sbtitil S. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

E AND EEMALE XACTORS ON THE CADETEVLAIN

A T RAOR GRAN NUMBER(aJ

9.PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASK

U . .AT m c f i orar u Pnt e frs o n n el ORG.aREPO RT

and Social. Sciences (PERI-IL)112733A68

5001 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, Virginia 22333

I.CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS

Deputy Chief of Staff frPronlU - Washington: DC 20310 3

1.MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(il different from Controlling Office) I5. SECURITY CLASS. (of (hie report)

Unclassifi ad

re ECL ASSI FICATION/ DOWNGRADING

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)

Approved for public release;p distribution unlimited

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered In Block 20, if different from Report)

18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse aid. if necessary and identify by block number)

Cadet Evaluation Battery (CEB)

Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC)

Officer selection test

Sex differences

Cognitive and noncognit.Lve measures

20. ABSTRACT (Coatirue an reverse. uidi If ,wcaesy and li~entily by block mnti bet)

ý'ýýubscales used to describe item categories in the Cadet Evaluation

- Battery (CEB), a diagnostic measure of officer potential, were derived

primarily from factor analyses of responses given by male officers between

1961 and 1963. In order to determine current male and female CEB factor

structures, the battery was administered to 1,035 females and 926 males

applying for enrollment into the third year (MS III) of the Reserve officers' 2

Training Corps (ROTC) program. Then separate factor analyses were conducted

F0 OP1OV'~ EE -a . fie- --
unc lasziLi~

SECURITY CLA98,1S1Wntnita~ wSp~(h~ aaRt~~yWE20. A~bstract (conti-nuedY'

on the- two CEB- tests-1 . the CadatEvaluaatiow Trert (CET)- and-the. Cadet EvraluationI

Inventory (CEI), korteach sex. CET mAlb fk-tbfts were found to be- widely

divergent from both CET female f~ctolrs--an& t11e~oriqinal cET'subadales-F-while

CEI male factors were found to~ resemble- rathear'closely both CEI female fcturs

and the original CEI subscales. Implications-_ of these f indings for~ the use

and interpretation- of- C e-sores'-ares- discussed.

__ 10

4I

..... . ..
9- -:-mzfirm--=- FE ___W;

Technical Paper 331

MALE AND FEMALE FACTORS ON. THE CADET

EVALUATION BATTERY

Michael G. Rumsey and E. Sue Mohr

and

Anthony E. Castelnovo, Work Unit Leader

Nf

PERSONNEL ACCESSION AND UTILIZATION TECHNICAL AREA

Submitted as complete and Approved By:

technically accurate, by: Ralph R. Canter E. Ralph Dusek, Director

Technical Area Chief INDIVIDUAL TRAINING AND PERFORMANCE

RESEARCH LABORATORY

Joseph Zeldner

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

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

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

September 1978

Army Project Number Off icer Careers

2Q763731A768

Approved for public rleIasei distribution unlimited.
I°

A.,1 Research Reports and Technical Papers ae 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 thW' latter part of

,he 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.

Oi -
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 cornpany 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

evaldating their performance.

The Cadet Evaiuation 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 responsive to requirements and recommendations of the Army Scientific Advisory Panel (ASM)

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

The CEB is essentially a refined and reduced version Df 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 used to a manageable number of experimental predictor scores.

Dimensions derived from a factor analysis of actions observed at an

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

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

associated with differential performance in the OEC exercise and success

in combat and iechnical/administrative assignments.

The present publication is one of two which compare male and female

responses to the operational CEB in 1975. The first, Technical Paper

330, compared male and female scores with one another and with scores

collected from a 1971 male sample by Richard D. Doorley. This paper

examines male and female factor structures.

This publication carries forth the selection and assignment program

responsive to the recommendations of ASAP and DCSPER as well as to the

objectives of Army Project 2Q763731A768, FY 77 Work Program.

ch'cPa ZEDiet

Technical Director
MALE AND FEMALE FACTORS ON THE CADET EVALUATION BATTERY

BRIEF

Requirement:

To determine current factor scructures of male and female responses

on the Cadet Evaluation Battery (CEB).

*Procedure:

The CEB was administered to 1,035 female and 926 male applicants to

the third year (MS III) of ROTC in 1975. Item p values were calculated

for each sex to determine which items should be scored. Then separate

factor analyses were conducted on the two CEB tests, the Cadet Evaluation

Test (CET) and the Cadet Evaluation Inventory (CEI), for each sex.

Findings:

CET male factors were found to be widely divergent from both CET

female factors and the original CET subscales, and CEI male factors were

found to resemble rather closely CEI female factors and the original CEI

subscales.

Utilization of Findings:

These findings may help determine the extent to which the CEB will

be used for female ROTC applicants and the manner in which female CEB

scores will be interpreted. They may also be used in structuring planned

future revisions of the CEB.
MALE AND FEMALE FACTORS ON THE CADET EVALUATION BATTERY

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION ....................... ... ........................... 1

Differential Inventory--A ................. .................... 2

Differential Inventory--B ................. .................... 2

Individual Understanding Test ............... .................. 3

Personal Data Record....................... 4

OBJECTIVES ......................... ............................. 4

Procedure ........................... ............................ 4

RESULTS .................... ................................ 5

CONCLUSIONS ..................... .............................. 8

REFERENCES ..................... ............................. .. 11

APPENDIX ....................... .............................. .. 13

DISTRIBUTION ..................... ............................ .. 29

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. CET factors obtained from analyses on 1975 sample data . 6

2. CEI factors obtained from analyses on 1975 sample data . 7

A-1. Item response data; items classified by factors

found in analysis of 1975 male CET data ... ......... .. 14

A-2. Item response data; items classified by factors

found in analysis of 1975 male CEI data ... ......... .. 19

A-3. Factor loadings: analysis of 1975 female CET

data (loadings a .30 only) ......... ................ .. 24

A-4. Factor loadings: analysis of 1975 female CEI

data (loadinqs Z .30 only' ......... ................ ... 26
MALE AND FEMALE FACTORS ON THE CADET EVALUATION BATTERY

INTRODUCTION

The Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) provides the great

majority of Army officers for both active and reserve duty. The quantity

of officers acquired from this source is projected to increase through

1981, and it is critically important to maintain the quality as well as

quantity of ROTC cadets. As of school year 1977-78, a primary quality

control instrument for evaluating students entering the Army ROTC program is the Cadet Evaluation Battery (CEB).

The CEB, a self-administered test battery developed by thea Army

Research Institute, has been used operationally as a diagnostic measure

of officer potential of ROTC cadets and applicants 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

individual's cognitive abilities in the areas of combat leadership,

technical-managerial leadership, and career potential. The CEI provides

a noncognitive measure of the applicant's intcerests in the same three

areas, as well as a measure of his/her career intent.

Most CEB subscales were constructed from an earlier test battery,

the Differential Officer Battery (DOB), on the basis of responses to

DOB items by a sample of about 4,000 male officers who received the

battery upon entrance to active duty between 1961 and 1963. CET items

were drawn exclusively from four information tests in the DOB (Helme,

1968a). These tests were factor analyzed as a unit and, of the resulting

factors, the following were included in the CET because of their predictive validity, as demonstrated by correlations with leadership performance

measures at an Officer Evaluation Center (Helme, 1974).

1. Practical skills. This factor tests practical knowledge of a

rural-mechanical nature. Items from the following content categories

are prominent in this factor: nature sports, farm facts, and mechanical

information.

2. Technology operations. This factor emphasizes mechanical and

physical science knowledge. Dominant content categories are mechanical

information, physics, and chemistry.

3. Math and physical science. This factor tests knowledge in

physics, chemistry, and mathematics.

4. History, politics, and culture. This factor tests knowledge

in humanities and the social sciences. Major content categories are

art, literature, and politics.
ME--

5. Tactics. Unlike the others, this scale was composed of residual

content items and was not identified in the factor analysis. It tests

knowledge in military tactics.

The CEI items were drawn predominantly from two self-description

inventories, the Differential Inventory--A (Helme, 1968b) and Differential

Inventory--B (Smith, 1968); an attitudinal inventory (Individual Understanding Test); and a questionnaire on demographic and background information (Personal Data Record). A separate factor analysis was conducted

on each test, and from the i°csulting factors, the following subscales

were developed and included in the CEI.

Differential Inventory--A

1. Decisive leadership. The essential picture given by these items

is that of a confident, outgoing, energetic, "take-charge" person.

2. Combat. All items are directly concerned with combat officer

duties.

3. Administrator noninterrst. Item loadings on this reflected

factor present a consistent dislike for managing operations through

recordkeeping activities.

4. Nonesthetic interest. This reflected factor shows indifference

to or dislike -f esthetic and social service interest.

5. Organized sports interest. Highest loadings are for items

self-descriptive in terms of excelling in sports and participating on

varsity teams; participation in more highly organized team sports loads

in the moderate range; and general confidence in being able to take care

of one's self in physically demanding situations shows lower loadings.

6. Nature endurance. Liking for wilderness, climbing, etc., and

willingness to endure rugged or lonely conditions form the core of this

factor. Tolerance of strictness, night work, etc., forms a secondary

constellation.

Differential Inventory--B

1. Administrative noninterest. Each of the items on this reflected

subscale represents some phase of administrative work, from bookkeeping

to managing stores. The scale seems clearly to represent lack of interest

in and low aptitude for administrative work.

2
2. Scientific interest. This subscale contains items describing

interest in or aptitude for scientific pursuits. Also included are items

describing the examinee as having an analytic mind, as being able to

quickly understand new and difficult information, and as having interest

in activities such as missile testing.

3. Outdoor skills and combat leadership. This subscale consists

of items that describe the examinee as having combat skills and skills

or interests in outdoor activities.

4. Verbal or social leadership. Most items on this subscale

describe the examinee as a leader but without reference to specific situations or activities in which leadership is exercised. This type of

leadership is contrasted with combat leadership and the situation or

activity-related leadership characteristic of other scales.

5. Combat engineer. This subscale represents a combination of

four factors. The items seem to represent a combination of interest in

actual job supervision, mechanical interest, scientific interest, and

interest in the rugged outdoors. They represent planning and building

fortifications, laying roads through rough country, handling heavy equipment, and the like.

6. White collar veisus manual work. This subscale represents a

combination of two factors. The items all seem to invo]ve sc'me kind of

choice between outdoor manual work or supervision of manual work and

administrative or paper work.

7. Aggressive physical leadership. This subscale reprcents a

combination of two factors. The items are somewhat heterogeneous in

their content but involve vigor, tough leadership of men in difficult

situations, and willingness to accept some of the more difficult leadership tasks, such as giving reprimands.

Individual Understanding Test

1. Scientific orientation. This subscale contains three items

reflecting an interest in complex scientific endeavors and an aptitude

in mathematics.

2. Combat leader orientation. This subscale consists of four

items demonstrating a willingness to lead others in combat and to take

initiative.
Personal Data Record

1. Math/physical science skill-interest. This subscale reflects

the degree to which respondents enjoyed mathematics and physical science

subjects in school and the level of performance respondents feel they

demonstrated in these subjects.

2. Urban (versus rural). Responses indicating that the individual

brought up in an apartment in an urban, northeastern environment, with a

library and playground available, produced high scores on this subscale.

The final CEI subscale, career intent, was not derived from the CEB.

This subscale was composed of some items from the Officer Assignment

Questionnaire and some additional items. Each item concerned the respondent's intention to pursue a career as an Army officer.

OBJECTIVES

The content of CEB subscales was determined on the basis of male

responses given between 1961 and 1963. Since females have been entering

ROTC in increasing numbers in recent years, information regarding the

interpretation of female CEB scores is urgently needed. The present

study addressed this need by examining the factor structure of female

CEB responses. Factor analysis of male CEB responses was also conducted

to determine current relevance of the CEB subscales for interpreting

male scores and to provide information for a comparison of male and

female factors. The degree of similarity between such factors is an

important consideration in the evaluation of the suitability of the

CEB for assessment and counseling of women.

METHOD

Subjects

Sub3e7ts were 1,035 females and 926 males who were applying for

enrollment into the third year (MS III) of ROTC in FY 1975 (school year

1974-75). Further identifying information was unavailable, but applicants to the MS III program are, typically, college sophomores, who may

or may not already be enrolled in the second year (MS II) of PDTC.

Procedure

At the time of this study, two forms of the CEB were in operational

use. All subjects here received Form 1. The CET, Form 1, contains 100

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

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

are not scored.

4
The CEB was administered to students at the local ROTC units. Units

were instructed to return tests completed by all women during FY 1975 to

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

for one or more students. Some test information was not accompanied by

an identifiable school code, so the number of units contributing to this

sample may have been somewhat higher. Also, it should be noted that

among those not responding, approximately 30 schools had no females

attending MS II during sc-hool year 1974-75. Many of these schools may

. .simply have had no female applicants to MS II.

Male results were selected randomly from a complete file of all

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

RESULTS

For both the male and female samples, p values were calculated for

each item. Items on which both males and females received a p value

either greater than .80 or less than .20 were selected for exclusion

from later factor analyses. The relationship between p values of most

of the remaining items and their loadings on male and female factors

are shown in Tables A-1 and A-2, Appendix.

With the elimination of 6 CET and 8 CEI items on the basis of

p values, as well as the 9 CEI items which are not scored, 94 CET and

108 CEI items remained. For males and females separately, tetrachoric

correlation coefficients were obtained for the matrix of 94 CET items

and the matrix of 108 CEI items. A separate principal components factor

analysis was then conducted for each of the four combinations of sex and

test (CET-male; CEI-male; CET-female; CEI-female) on the basis of these

coefficients. For each analysis, axes were then rotated, using the varimax procedure, until no new meaningful factors were found to emerge.

The resulting factors for the CET are shown in Table 1; those for

the CEI are shown in Table 2. Factors are listed in rank order according

to the percentage of variance accounted for by each. Items loading .30

or above on each male factor are shown in Tables A-1 and A-2, Appendix; items loading .30 or above on each female factor are shown in Tables A-3

and A-4, Appendix.

On the c.ognitive analyses, seven factors, accounting for 44.81% of

the variance, were obtained for males; and six, accounting for 20.67% of

the variance, were obtained for females. For both sexes, a general

knowledge factor accounted for the greatest percentage of total variance.

The male and female general knowledge factors cut across a wide variety

of subjects, including mathematics, physical sciences, technology operations, history, politics, culture, and practical skills. However, the

two general knowledge factors contained different items, with only a

moderate degree of overlap.

_ • •5 --
I

[ Table 1

CET Factors Obtained from Analyses on 1975 Sample Data

Factor % Variance Cumulative % Title

Males

1 9.68 9.68 General knowledge

2 8.34 18.02 Environmental awareness

3 5.99 24.01 Physical science information

4 5.72 29.73 Practical skills

5 5.14 34.87 Tactical knowledge

6 5.02 39.89 Math/physical science applications

7 4.92 44.81 Technical knowledge

Females t

1 7.29 7.29 General knowledge

2 3.60 10.89 Math/physical science knowledge

3 3.41 14.30 Practical skills

4 3.04 17.34 Combat tactical knowledge

5 1.85 19.19 History, politics, and culture

6 1.48 20.67 Electrical knowledge

Several female factors bore a moderate degree of similarity to certain male factors. Surprisingly, the female factors tended to resemble

the original subscales in content more than did the male factors. A

female practical skills factor that was obtained was based almost exclusively on items from the original practical skills subscale. A male

practical skills factor was also obtained, but this factor included items

from the tactics and tactical operations subscales as well as from the

practical skills subscale. Although nature sports and farm facts were

important elements of both the original subscale and the female factor,

the male factor had almost no items in these areas.

A cognitive mathematics and physical science factor for females was

composed almost entirely of items from the mathematics/physical science

subscale and included both information and application items. Two male

factors were rather loosely tied to the same original subscale. One,

math/physical science applications, included a number of tactical operations and tactics items as well as several from the math/physical science

subscale. Item content was focused primarily on ability to apply basic

scientific and mathematical principles. The other male factor, physical

6
science information, included relatively esoteric items of factual information, primarily in the field of physical science but also in such areas

as tactics, practical skills, and history.

Table 2

CEI Factors Obtained from Analyses on 1975 Sample Data

Factor % Variance Cumulative % Title

Males

1 11.29 11.29 Assertive rural leader

2 5.70 16.99 Administrative noninterest

3 5.50 22.49 Combat

4 5.14 27.63 Car-eer Intent

5 4.48 32.11 Administrator noninterest

6 4.45 36.56 Verbal/social leader

7 3.90 40.46 Combat engineer

8 3.55 44.01 Physical science interest

9 2.31 46.32 Mathematics interest

10 2.03 48.35 Nature endurance

11 1.88 50.23 Field work preference

12 1.81 52.04 Urban background

Females

1 9.37 9.37 Combat

2 7.15 16.52 Verbal/social leader

3 5.92 22.44 Administrative noninterest

4 4.61 27.05 Outdoor activities preferred

to indoor

5 4.17 31.22 Career Intent

6 4.01 35.23 Mathematics/physical science

intezest E 7 3.57 38.80 Combat engineer

8 2.73 41.53 Work-oriented decisive leader

9 2.25 43.78 Physical orientation

10 2.17 45.95 Urban vs. rural background
The original tactics subscale served as the basis for both the male

and the female tactical knowledge factor. Both factors included tactical

items covering orienteering and military information. However, the male

factor also included items on mathematics, whereas the female factor did

not.

History, politics, and culture remained a factor in the female CET

factor analysis, with all four items on this factor derived from the

original subscale. No comparable male factor appeared.

None of the other CET factors was particularly similar to the original subscales. Neither did any of the remaining factors obtained for

one sex have a strong resemblance to any of the factors obtained for the

other sex. One male factor, designated "environmental awareness," involved awareness and understanding of one's physical environment and a

knowledge of international geography and history. Another male factor

was labeled "technical knowledge." This factor dealt with knowledge in

such subjects as technology, tactics, science, and computer operations.

Finally, one female factor contained two items testing electrical

knowledge.

Qualities represented in the decisive leader subscale were also

predominant in the new female decisive leader factor and constituted a

major portion of the assertive rural leader male factor. Although only

four of the nine items in the female factor were from the original subscale, virtually all items were consistent with the adjectives "confident,

outgoing, energetic," and "take-charge" used to describe that subscale.

Only 6 of 36 items on the male factor were from the original scale, although many more were consistent with the above qualities. Equally

important in the male factor, hIowever, were item responses showing a

Southern or Western rural rather than a Northeastern urban background.

Finally, two factors were obtained, one for males and one for

females, which bore little resemblance to any of the original subscales.

These factors, although conceptually similar to one another, shared no

common items. The male factor, "field work preference," included items

showing a preference for field assignments over headquarters or other

indoor assignments and a confidence in one's ability to handle combat

situations in the field. On the female factor, "outdoor activities preferred to indoor," items reflecting disinterest with routine white collar

jobs such as librarian or cashier received high loadings, and items expressing interest in outdoor activities were also included.

CONCLUSIONS

Conclusions to be drawn from this study must be qualified on the

basis of certain sampling considerations. Random sampling from the complete file of male CEB test responses provided reasonable assurance of

the representativeness of the male sample, but somewhat le-a confidence
is justified concerning the representativeness of the female sample. A

fairly large proportion of schools provided female data, as requested,

but the reliance on voluntary cooperation of schools necessarily raised

the possibility of response bias in rhe sampling procedures. Although

it seems unlikely that factors determining the responsiveness of a cgiven

school would significantly relate to the factor structure of students'

responses on the CEB, one must nevertheless cautiously interpret the

results for females in this study.

To the extent that the samples were representative, this study has

revealed major differences between male and female cognitive factors.

Neither the new male or female factors correspond very closely to the

original CET subscales. Clearly, interpretations of CET scores must now

consider the new factor structures and the sex of each testee. Because

the new male factors do not suggest categories as clearly def'na.'le as

the original subscales, and because many of the female responses cannot

be structured into factors at all, the difficulty of interpreting CET

responses has increased. Thus, it appears that development of new test

items that can ease this difficulty are advisable. At present, a number

of obsolete CET items are being replaced, and a more comprehensive revision is planned for the near future.

Until major revisions of the CET have been completed, one major

concern is how operational use of the existing CET affects females.

Given the fact that male subjects were used for the development and

standardization of the CET, the differences found between male and female

factors raise the possibility that the test might unfairly favor males.

Fortunately, there is evidence that such is not the case. Mohr and

Rumsey (1978) found that, on the technical-managerial cognitive scale,

used for selection of individuals into the ROTC MS III program, females

received significantly higher scores than did males.

An examination of CEI findings shows that male and female differences on this test were relatively minor. Also, although some of the

original subscales were combined to form new male and female factors,

some were obtained as factors only for one sex, and a few of the new

factors were not closely related to any of the original subscales, the

resemblance between the subscales and the male and female factors generally was quite high. Although these results do not necessarily

establish the factors as equally appropriate for either sex, they do

indicate that the original subscales will continue to provide a useful

framework for the interpretation of male and female CEI responses in

the near future.

_ - 9_
I

i ME

REFERENCES

Helme, W. H. Factorially Derived Information Measures for Differential

Prediction of Officer Performance. API Technical Research Note 203,

December 1968 (a). (NTIS No. AD 686 288)

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

Prediction of Officer Performance. ARI Research Memorandum 68-8,

July 1968 (b).

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

Behavior in a Simulated Combat Situation. ARI Research Report 1182,

March 1974. (NTIS No. AD 779 445)

Mohr, E. S., & Rumsey, M. G. Cadet Evaluation Battery: A Comparison

of 1975 Male and Female Scores With One Another and With 1971 Male

Scores. ARI Technical Paper 330, September 1978.

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

INFORMATION FOR INTERPRETING TABLES IN APPENDIX

1 . Column headings used in Tables A-i, A-2:

a. Item No. = Number identifying item in CET or CEI booklet.

b. Scale:Subscale = Abbreviations identifying the CEB scale and

subscale from which the item was derived.

c. % Corr Female = Percentage of females from the 1975 sample responding

with a keyed alternative to the item.

- d. % Corr Male = Percentage of males from the 1975 sample responding

with a keyed alternative to the item.

e. % Corr Orig = Percentage of males from the 1971 sample responding

with a keyed alternative to the item.

f. Fem Fact = That factor on which the item loaded highest in the

analysis of 1975 female responses (if loading was .30 or higher).

g. Fem Fac Ld =Absolute value of highest factor loading in the

analysis of 1975 female responses (if value was .30 or greater).

h. Male Fac Ld = Signed value of loading on male factor being considered

(only items loading .30 or higher are included).

2. Interpretation of abbreviations used in Tables A-i and A-3:

a. Scale abbreviations under "Scale:Subscale":

CL = Combat Leadership: Cognitive

TM= Technical-Managerial Leadership: Cognitive

CP = Career Potential: Cognitive

b. Subscale abbreviations under "Scale:Subscale":

T = Tactics

PS = Practical skills

HPC = History, politics and culture

MPS = Math/physical science

TO = Technology operations

c. Factor abbreviations under "Fem Fact":

GK = General knowledge

MPS = Math/physical science knowledge

PS = Practical skills

TK = Combat tactical knowledge

HPC = History, politics and culture

EK Electrical knowledge

gp

z- 1.aý_ i
Table A-I

ITEM RESPONSE DATA;

ITEMS CLASSIFIED BY FACTORS FOUND

IN ANALYSIS OF 1975 MALE CET DATA

Item Scale: % Corr % Corr % Corr Femr Fem Male

No. Subscale Female Male Orig Fact Fac Ld Fac Ld

(n 1035) (n - 926) (n = 637)

I. General knowledge

53 TM:MPS 31 48 64 - - .80

4 TM:HPC 59 59 66 GK .35 -. 70

3 TM:HPC 69 75 83 GK .43 -. 68

98 CP:TO 23 31 43 - - .67

56 TM:MPS 30 36 57 MPS .43 .66

50 CL:PS 51 42 87 PS .36 .65

63 TM:HPC 50 38 50 GK .42 .61

62 T•:HPC 44 25 36 GK .46 .58

57 CP:TO 27 23 42 - .55

70 CL:PS 45 39 65 GK .36 -. 55

75 TM:MPS 47 35 52 - - .53

97 CP:TO 27 37 41 - - -. 53

52 CL:PS 48 56 60 - - .52

54 TM:MPS 55 46 65 - - -. 52

66 CL:T 76 60 63 - - .52

69 CL:PS 30 39 51 - - -. 47

95 TM:MPS 25 24 33 - - .45

49 CL:PS 48 34 56 - - .43

72 CL:PS 27 37 49 PS .38 -. 42

6 CL:T 47 45 67 - - .38

2 TM:HPC 59 46 76 GK,HPC .34 .36

18 CP:TO 84 63 86 GK .62 .36

22 TM:HPC 57 67 74 GK .35 .35

1 TM:HPC 40 30 45 HPC .39 -. 34

51 CL:PS 48 56 60 - - 34

82 TM:HPC 41 37 38 - - .34

59 CP:TO 44 48 48 - - .30

II. Environmental awareness (reflected)

91 CL:PS 20 27 33 - - .72

44 TM:HPC 46 46 49 HPC .31 .69

45 CL:T 47 49 46 TK .32 .69

47 CL:T 55 55 55 - - .69

64 TM:HPC 24 19 42 - - .66

41 TM:HPC 62 64 72 GK .36 .64

48 CL:T 56 41 51 - - .64

82 TM:HPC 41 37 38 - - .59

43 TM:HPC 25 27 42 - - .53

18 CP:TO 84 63 86 GK .62 ,51

14
Table A-i (continued)

Item Scale: % Corr % Corr % Corr Fem Fem Male

No. Subscale Female Male Orig Fact Fac Ld Fac Ld

(n - 1035) (n - 926) (n = 637)

90 CL:PS 10 36 13 EK .56 .50

89 CL:PS 42 38 41 - - .47

67 CL:T 24 32 34 - - .45

98 CP:TO 23 31 43 .45

79 CP:TO 65 60 60 TK .53 .41

12 CL:PS 49 75 79 - - .40

95 TM:MPS 25 24 33 - - .38

32 CL:PS 55 69 72 PS .38 .37

77 CP:TO 60 48 48 - - .37

63 TM:HPC 50 38 50 GK .42 .36

75 TM:MPS 47 35 2- - .34

73 TM:MPS 44 33 56 GK .32 .33

III. Physical science information (reflected)

96 TM:MPS 31 25 28 - - .71

88 CL:T 18 22 25 MPS .35 .68

86 CL:T 47 37 52 - - .67

74 TM:MPS 34 30 48 MPS .38 .65

49 CL:PS 48 34 56 - - .63

81 TM:HPC 26 40 42 - - .59

93 TM:MPS 32 34 43 MPS .31 .59

71 CL:PS 29 35 42 - - .58

92 CL:PS 15 22 26 - - .56

39 CP:TO 38 40 59 - - .45

95 TM:MPS 25 24 33 - - .41

35 TM:MPS 81 58 93 GK .48 .37

42 TM:HPC 82 57 78 GK .41 .36

40 CP:TO 53 39 59 GK .48 .33

45 CL:T 47 49 46 TK .22 .31

85 CL:T 15 25 28 - - .30

IV. Practical skills

9 CL:PS 63 64 93 PS .37 .80

7 CL:T 63 76 76 - - .78

8 CL:T 53 60 64 - - .76

10 CL:PS 43 84 82 TK .33 .72

11 CL:PS 84 59 89 GK .62 .70

6 CL:T 47 45 67 - - .68

19 CP:TO 30 32 49 - - .44

18 CP:TO 84 63 P6 GK .62 .36

23 TM:HPC 57 46 72 - - .33

41 TM:HPC 62 64 72 GK .36 .32

12 CL:PS 49 75 79 - - .31

21 TM:HPC 75 70 is 79 GK .62 .31

i1
7777

Table A-i (continued)

Item Scale: % Corr % Corr % Corr Fem Femr Male

No. Subscale Female Male Orig Fact Fac Ld Fac Ld

(n = 1035) (n = 926) (n = 637)

V. Tactical- knowledge

25 CL:T 26 36 54 - - .71

26 CL:T 39 61 64 TK .37 .70

15 TM:MPS 71 74 81 GK .55 .66

28 CL:T 50 48 72 TK .35 .66

29 CL:PS 63 71 68 GK .61 .63

24 TM:IPC 74 63 76 GK .31 .60

27 CL:T 47 41 44 - - .54

13 TM:MPS 86 58 92 MPS .42 .42

59 CP:TO 44 48 48 - - .41

70 CL:PS 45 39 65 PS .38 .38

87 CL:T 38 31 29 - - .35

73 TM:MPS 44 33 56 GK .32 .34

77 CP:TO 60 48 48 - - .34

VI. Math/physical science applications

36 TM:MPS 61 45 51 MPS .50 .76

38 CP:TO 38 37 56 - - .72

33 TM:MPS 57 43 72 MPS .36 .67

46 CL:T 39 26 55 TK .34 .59

37 CP:TO 49 47 63 - - .56

40 CP:TO 53 39 59 GK .48 .55

35 TM:MPS 81 58 93 GK .48 .54

34 TM:LPS 43 35 62 MPS .58 .40

99 CP:TO 29 25 43 MPS .42 -. 40

55 TM:MPS 46 48 58 MPS .35 -. 38

95 TM:MPS 25 24 33 - - -. 35

89 CL:PS 42 38 41 - - -. 34

66 CL:T 76 60 63 - - -. 33

85 CL:T 15 25 28 - - .33

43 TM:HPC 25 27 42 - - -. 3 0

VII Technical knowledge

68 CL:T 19 38 48 - - .71

58 CP:TO 40 33 47 - - .68

"5 CL:T 48 46 68 GK .35 .59

16 TM:MPS 78 71 82 MPS .32 .56

60 CP:TO 9 32 33 EK .42 .53

P 54 TM:MPS 55 46 62 - - .50

21 TM:HPC 75 70 79 GK .62 .40

4 TM:HPC 59 59 66 GK .35 .37

97 CP:TO 27 37 41 - - .37

3 TM:HPC 69 75 83 GK .43 . 2

72 CL:PS 27 37 49 PS .38 .32

20 CP:TO 68 79 78 GK .57 .30

16
Table A-1 (continued)

Item Scale: % Corr % Corr % Corr Femr Fem Male

No. Subscale Female Male Orig Fact Fac Ld Fac Ld

(n 1035) (n 926) (n = 637)

65 CL:T 28 34 45 TK .35 .30

69 CL:PS 30 39 51 - - .30

71 CL:PS 29 35 42 - - -. 30

92 CL:PS 15 22 26 - - -. 30

ljo-
Interpretation of Abbreviations

used in Tables A-2 ,and A-4

1. Scale abbreviations under "Scale:Subscale":

CL = Combat Leadership: Non-cognitive

TM = Technical-Managerial Leadership: Non-cognitive

CP = Career Potential: Non-cognitive

CI = Career Intent

2. Subscale abbreviations under "Scale:Subscale":

NE = Nature endurance

CE = Combat engineer

CLO = Combat leader orientation

APL = Aggressive physical leader

NA Non-aesthetic leader

OS Organized sports

OSCL = Outdoor skills and combat leader

DL = Decisive leader

VSL = Verbal/social leader

RU = Rural vs. urban

SI - Scientific interest

SO = Scientific orientation

MPS = Math/physical science interest

ANI = Administrator non-interest

NI = Administrative non-interest

C = Combat

MWC = Manual vs. white collar interest

3. Factor abbreviations under "Ferm Fact":

C = Combat

VSL Verbal/social leader

NI = Administrative non-interest

01 = Outdoor activities preferred to indoor

CI = Career intent

SMPS - Math/physical science interest

CE = Combat engineer

WDL = Work-oriented decisive leader

PO = Physical orientation

U = Urban vs. rural baekground

N.1

S~18
Table A-2

Item Response Data;

Items Classified by Factors Found

in Analysis of 1975 Male CEI Data

Item Scale: % Corr % Corr % Corr Fem Fem Male

No. Subscale Female Male Orig Fact Fac Ld Fac Ld

(n = 1035) (n = 926) (n = 637)

I. Assertive rural leader (reflected)

68 TM:DL 73 56 67 VSL .36 .80

4 TM:RU 23 44 14 U .54 -. 73

108 TM:VSL 86 72 81 VSL .59 .71

3 TM:RU 11 30 6 - - -. 70

116 TM:RU 89 70 86 U .48 .70

115 TM:RU 77 60 75 U .41 .69

77 CL:APL 74 58 67 VSL .37 .67

119 TM:DL 76 62 71 WDL .41 .67

71 TM:VSL 80 66 71 VSL .31 .65

72 CL:APL 78 71 78 VSL .32 .62

63 TM:DL 73 71 77 VSL .54 .61

89 CL:APL 46 56 55 C .38 .59

105 CL:OSCL 58 69 76 CE .37 .58

80 TM:SI 66 57 56 WDL .42 .58

69 TM:DL 36 54 35 VSL .48 -.57

76 TM:VSL 78 64 73 VSL .54 .56

67 CL:OS 80 74 81 01 .33 .52

118 CP:MWC 43 54 57 C .41 .51

107 CL:OSCL 12 53 22 C .49 -. 50

121 TM:DL 75 76 76 VSL .51 .45

124 CL:NE 75 77 84 C .31 .45

94 CL:CE 40 63 57 C .53 .44

20 CL:CLO 58 68 62 C .48 .43

56 CP:C 33 49 55 C .81 .43

60 CP:ANI 62 66 75 NI .57 .43

84 CL:CE 19 62 51 CE .60 -. 42

7 CI:CI 69 61 38 CI .86 .41

74 TM:SI 38 39 44 MPS .42 .38

83 CL:OSCL 47 67 45 C .57 -. 38

2 TM:RU 49 47 55 - - .37

18 CL:CLO 50 61 39 VSL .52 -. 37

24 CL:OS 46 53 47 PO .37 .37

1 TM:RU 65 66 54 U .53 -. 34

91 CL:CE 38 60 52 CE .56 -. 34

81 CL:OSCL 63 83 83 WDL .41 .33

64 TM:DL 53 53 48 - - .32
Table A-2 (continued)

Item Scale: % Corr % Corr % Corr Fem Fem Male

No. Subscale Female Male Orig Fact Fac Ld Fac Ld

(n = 1035) (n = 926) (n = 637)

II. Administrative non-interest (reflected)

99 CP:NI 50 46 57 NI .67 .71

106 CP:NI 24 32 38 NI .69 .71

97 CP:NI 59 65 64 NI .60 .65

88 CP:NI 58 62 67 NI .71 .64

93 CP:NI 47 50 62 NI .73 .63

60 CP:ANI 62 66 75 NI .57 .62

85 CP:NI 36 40 50 NI .61 .61

103 CP:NI 45 40 57 NI .69 .60

104 CP:NI 26 55 58 NI .44 .58

49 CP:ANI 34 23 38 NI .39 .44

105 CL:OSCL 58 69 76 C .52 .39

118 CP:MWC 43 54 57 C .41 .39

52 CP:ANI 15 70 77 NI .44 .37

45 CP:ANI 41 55 53 01 .47 .36

113 CP:MWC 46 42 45 - - .35

56 CP:C 33 49 55 C .81 .33

120 CP:MWC 55 58 46 NI .38 .32

III. Combat (reflected)

58 CP:C 22 58 52 C .79 79

54 CP:C 23 48 52 C .80 .13

51 CP:C 24 61 47 C .72 ..71

59 CP:C 24 51 45 C .76 .69

56 CP:C 33 49 55 C .81 .63

102 CL:OSCL 23 74 68 C .68 .63

53 CP:C 51 66 57 C .69 t54

78 CL:OSCL 35 57 59 C .64 '49

94 CL:CE 40 63 57 C .53 .48

20 CL:CLO 58 68 62 C .48 .43

111 CP:MWC 33 52 46 C .55 .34

41 CP:C 59 75 75 C .44 .33

108 TM:VSL 86 72 81 VSL .59 .33

101 CL:OSCL 16 49 24 C .68 .32

20
Table A-2 (continued)

Item Scale: % Corr % Corr % Corr Fem Fem Male

No. Subscale Female Male Orig Fact Fac Ld Fac Ld

(n = 1035) (n = 926) (n 637)

IV. Career intent (reflected)

10 CI:CI 74 85 64 CI .76 .83

9 CI:CI 79 85 66 CI .72 .82

8 CI:CI 76 76 48 CI .81 .80

11 CI:CI 61 69 35 CI .74 .75

7 CI:CI 69 61 38 CI .86 .72

12 CI:CI 50 66 24 CI .61 .69

21 CL:NE 65 75 59 PO .31 .39

20 CL:CLO 58 68 62 C .48 .36

14 CL:CLO 79 74 79 C .34 .31

25 CL:NE 90 74 62 WDL .42 .31

V. Administrator non-interest

46 CL:NA 39 58 68 01 .57 .80

48 CL:NA 33 44 62 01 .51 .76

42 CP:ANI 34 44 42 01 .46 .71

57 CP:ANI 25 34 33 - - .60

50 CP:ANI 42 38 46 NI .52 .60

45 CP:ANI 41 55 53 01 .47 .58

47 CL:NA 29 54 62 VSL .35 .55

43 CL:NA 37 61 61 CE .36 .43

111 CP:MWC 3- 52 46 C .55 .37

49 CP:ANI 34 23 38 NI .39 .33

70 CL:OS 46 44 42 PO .37 .33

109 CL:APL 75 74 60 - - .33

VI. Verbal/social leader

82 CL:APL 69 83 70 VSL .78 .71

114 TM:VSL 55 62 48 VSL .75 .68

73 TM:VSL 58 32 43 VSL .73 .65

5 TM:DL 30 46 26 VSL .58 .61

18 CL:CLO 50 61 39 VSL .52 .54

110 TM:VSL 63 54 42 VSL .53 .53

75 TM:VSL 74 77 64 VSL .55 .51

69 TM:DL 36 54 35 VSL .48 .48

122 1m:DL 39 44 33 VSL .42 .35

76 TM:VSL 78 64 73 VSL .54 .34

23 TM:DL 50 67 52 WDL .40 .33
Table A-2 (continued)

Item Scale: % Corr % Corr % Corr Fem Fem Hale

No. Subscale Female Male Orig Fact Fac Ld Fac Ld

(n = 1035) (n = 926) (n = 637)

VII. Combat engineer

86 CL:CE 25 61 48 CE .56 .68

92 CL:CE 23 54 49 CE .53 .64

84 CL:CE 19 62 51 CE .60 .62

90 CL:CE 16 59 45 C .53 .60

100 CL:CE 18 44 43 CE .53 .57

91 CL:CE 38 60 52 CE .56 .54

112 CL:OSCL 50 81 73 01 .37 .45

83 CL:OSCL 47 67 45 C .57 .42

95 CL:CE 35 40 42 CE .45 .37

98 TIf:SI 53 63 56 MPS,VSL- • .34 .34

VIII. Physical science interest

28 T14:MHPS 39 40 40 MPS .65 .79

33 TH:MIPS 24 27 25 MPS .68 .76

27 TM:HPS 22 27 36 MPS .49 .60

30 1T4iIPS 5 26 29 - - .50

17 TM:SO 51 57 55 MPS .83 .42

29 TM:1.MS 54 62 51 MPS .79 .42

87 TM:SI 34 52 50 C .48 .42

63 TM:DL 73 -1 77 VSL .54 .38

74 T14:SI 38 39 44 MPS .42 .37

15 TM:SO 63 81 52 MIS .37 .36

34 TM:MPS 42 49 43 MPS .78 .35

IX. Mathematics interest

34 TM:MIS 42 49 43 MPS .78 .68

29 TM:MPS 54 62 51 MPS .79 .67

17 TM:SO 51 57 55 MPS .83 .62

70 CL:OS 46 44 42 01 .32 .35

22
Table A-2 (continued)

Item Scale: % Corr % Corr Z Corr Fem Fem Male

No. Subscale Female Male Orig Fact Fac Ld Fac Ld

(n = 1035) (n - 926) (n - 637)

X. Nature endurance

22 CL:NE 57 57 45 WDL .41 .46

23 TM:DL 50 67 52 WDL .40 .44

123 CL:NE 67 82 75 C .42 .39

21 CL:NE 65 75 59 PO .31 .38

81 CL:OSCL 63 83 83 WDL .41 .34

24 CL:OS 46 53 47 PO .37 .33

25 CL:NE 90 74 62 WDL .42 .31

XI. Field work preference

111 CP:MWC 33 52 46 C .55 .52

96 CL:OSCL 38 67 53 C .42 .49

64 TM:DL 53 53 48 - - .34

80 TM:SI 66 57 56 WDL .42 -. 33

40 CL:NA 53 62 69 VSL .37 .31

XII. Urban background

1 TM:RU 65 66 54 U .53 .47

78 CL:OSCL 35 57 59 C .64 -. 43

101 CL:OSCL 16 49 24 - - .38

4 TM:RU 23 44 14 U .54 .37
Table A-3

FACTOR LOADINGS:

ANALYSIS OF 1975 FEMALE CET DATA

(LOADINGS - .30 ONLY)

Item Scale: Fem Item Scale: Fem

No. 1 Subscale 2 Fac Ld3 No. Subscale Fac Ld

I. General knowledge

18 CP:TO .62 36 TM:MPS .37

11 CL:PS .62 41 TM:HPC .36

21 TM:HPC .62 70 CL:PS .36

29 CL:PS .61 79 CP:TO .36

20 CP:TO .57 4 TM:HPC .35

15 TM:MPS .55 5 CL:T .35

35 TM:MPS .48 22 TM:HPC .35

40 CP:TO .48 74 TM'MPS .35

62 TM:HPC .46 2 TM :HPC .34

14 TM:MPS .46 73 T!4:MPS .32

3 TM:HPC .43 78 CP:TO .32

63 TM: HPC .42 24 TM :HPC .31

42 TM:HPC .41 33 TK:MPS .30

II. Math/physical science knowledge

34 TM:MPS .58 33 TM :MPS .36

36 TM:MPS .50 55 TM:HPS .35

14 TM:MPS .43 88 CL:T .35

56 TM :MPS .43 70 CL: ?S .33

13 TM:MPS .42 16 TM:MPS .32

99 CP:TO .42 35 TM:MPS .31

15 TM:MPS .39 93 TI:MPS .31

74 TM:MPS .38

Number identifying item in CET.

2 Abbreviations identifying the CET scale and subscale from which the

item was derived.

Signed value of loading in the analysis of rasponses of females in the

1975 sample.

24
Table A-3 (continued)

Item Scale: Fem Item Scale: Fem

No. Subscale Fac Ld No. Subscale Fac Ld

III. Practical skills

10 CL:PS .46 72 CL:PS .38

99 CP:TO .39 9 CL:PS .37

11 CL:PS .38 50 CL:PS .36

32 CL:PS .38 29 CL:PS .34

70 CL:PS .38

IV. Tactical knowledge

79 CP:TO .53 46 CL:T .34

26 CL:T .37 10 CL:PS .33

28 CL:T .35 5 CL:T .32

65 CL:T .35 45 CL:T .32

29 CL:PS .34

V. History, politics and culture

1 TM:HPC .39 2 TM:HPC .34

62 TM:HPC .36 44 TM:HPC .31

VI. Electrical knowledge

90 CL:PS .56 60 CP:TO .42
Table A-4

FACTOR LOADINGS:

ANALYSIS OF 1975 FEMALE CET DATA

(LOADINGS 2 .30 ONLY)

Item1 Scale: 2 Fem Item Scale: Fem

No. Subscale Fac Ld No. Subscale Fac Ld

I. Combat (reflected)

56 CP:C .81 107 CL:OSCL .49

54 CP:C .80 20 CL:CLO .48

58 CP:C .79 87 TM:SI .48

59 CP:C .76 92 CL:CE .47

51 CP:C .72 41 CP:C .44

53 CP:C .69 123 CL:NE .42

102 CL:OSCL .68 96 CL:OSCL .42

78 CL:OSCL .64 118 CP:MWC .41

83 CL:OSCL .57 86 CL:CE .39

ill CP:MWC .55 89 CL:APL .38

90 CL:CE .53 14 CL:CLO .34

94 CL:CE .53 84 CL:CE .32

105 CL:OSCL .52 81 CL:OSCL .31

100 CL:CE .49 124 CL:NE .31

II. Verbal/social leader

82 CL:APL .78 122 TM:DL .42

114 TM:VSL .75 20 CL:CLO .40

73 TM:VSL .73 23 TM:DL .37

108 TM:VSL .59 40 CL:NA -. 37

5 TM:DL .58 77 CL:APL .37

75 TM:VSL .55 68 T14:DL .36

76 TM:VSL .54 47 CL:NA -. 35

63 TM:DL .54 80 TM:SI .35

110 TM:VSL .53 98 TM:SI .34

18 CL:CLO .52 59 CP:C .34

121 TM:DL .51 72 CL:APL .32

69 TM:DL .48 14 CL:CLO .31

79 TM:VSL .44 71 TM:VSL .31

Number identifying item in CEI.

2 Abbreviation identifying the CEI scale and subscale from which the item

was derived.

Signed value of loading in the analysis of responses of females In the 1975

sample.

26
Table A-4 (continued)

Item Scale: Fem Item Scale: Fem

No. Subscale Fac Ld No. Subscale Fac Ld

III. Administrative non-interest (reflected)

93 CP:NI .73 50 CP:ANI .52

88 CP:NI .71 45 CP:ANI .46

103 CP:NI .69 52 CP:ANI .44

106 CP:NI .69 104 CP;NI .44

99 CP:NI .67 49 CP:ANI .39

85 CP:NI .61 120 CP:MWC .38

97 CP:NI .60 42 CP:ANI .38

60 CP:ANI .57 i11 CP:MWC .37

IV. Outdoor activities preferred to indoor

46 CL:NA .57 81 CL:OSCL .35

48 CL:NA .51 120 CP:MWC .34

45 CP:ANI .47 73 TM:VSL .34

42 CP:ANI .46 105 CL:OSCL .33

123 CL:NE .40 67 CL:OS .33

86 CL:CE .40 71 TM:VSL .32

88 CP:NI .37 118 CP:MWC .32

5 TM:DL .37 9 CI:CI .32

112 CL:OSCL .37 50 CP:ANI .31

60 CP:ANI .35 84 CL:CE .30

V. Career intent

7 CI:CI .86 11 CI:CI .74

8 CI:CI .81 9 CI:CI .72

10 CI:CI .76 12 CI:CI .61

VI. Math/physical science interest

17 TM:SO .83 27 TM:MPS .49

29 TM:MPS .79 74 TM:SI .42

34 TM:MPS .78 15 TM:SO .37

33 TM:MPS .68 98 TM:SI .34

28 TM:MPS .65 49 CP:ANI -. 30

_i
Table A-4 (continued)

Item Scale: Fem Item Scale: Fem

No. Subscale Fac Ld No. Subscale Fac Ld

VII. Combat engineer (reflected) LNG

84 CL:CE .60 74 TM:SI .40

86 CL:CE .56 46 CL:NA -. 37

91 CL:CE .56 105 CL:OSCL .37

S92 CL:CE .53 43 CL:NA -. 36

100 CL:CE .53 48 CL:NA -. 35

95 CL:CE .45 94 CL:CE .34

90 CL:CE .41 19 T: SO .33

VIII. Work-oriented decisive leader (reflected)

80 TM:SI .42 81 CL:OSCL .41

63 TM:DL .42 119 TM:DL .41

25 CL:NE .42 23 TH:DL .40

121 TM:DL .41 108 T :VSL .40

22 CL:NE .41

IX. Physical orientation (reflected)

39 CL: OS .43 50 CP:ANI -. 32

24 CL:OS .37 96 CL:OSCL .32

70 CL:OS .37 45 CP:ANI -. 31

42 CP:ANI -. 37 21 CL:NE .31

X. Urban versus rural background (reflected)

4 TM:RU .54 48 CL:NA -. 35

1 TM:RU .53 104 CP:NI -. 31

116 Tb:RU .48 46 CL:NA -. 31

115 TM:RU .41

28
55NW-AIý OR~

F' 0DIST RIB UT ION

ARI Distribution List

4 OASD (M&RA) 2 HOUSACDEC. Ft Cud, ATTN- Libary

2 HODA (DAMI-CSZ) I HOUSACOEC, Ft Ord, ATTN: ATEC-EX-E-Hum Factor5

1 HODA (DAPE-POR 2 USAEEC, Ft Benjamin Harrison, ATTN: Library

I HOD (DAM-AR)1 USAPACDC, Ft Benjamin Harrison, ATTN: ATCP--HR

1 HODA (DAPE-HRE.PO) I USA Comm-Elect Sch, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: ATSN-EA

1 HQDA (SGRD-ID) I USAEC. Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AM.SEL-CT-HDP

I HODA (DAMI-DOT-C) 1 USAEC. Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEL-iPA-P

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

1 HODA (DACH-PPZ-A) 1 USAEC. Ft Monmouth, ATTN: C, Fact Dcv Br

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

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

1 HODA (DAPE-DW) 1 USA Ord Ctr & Sch, Aberdeen. ATTN: A fSL-TEM-C

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

1 HODA (DAPE-CPS) 1 USA Combat Arms Tng Bd, Ft 8enning, ATTN. Au Supervisor

1 HODA (DAFD-MFAý I USA Infantry Hum Rsch Unit. Ft Banning, ATTN: Chief

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

1 HODA (DAPC.PAS-A) I USASMA, Ft Bliss. ATTN: ATSS-LRC

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

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

1 HODA (DASG) 1 USA Air Def Bd, Ft Bliss, ATTN: FILES

I HODA (DA10-Pt) 1 USA Air Def Bd. Ft Bliss, ATTN- STEBD-PO

1 Chief, Consuls Div (DA.OTSG), Adeiphi, MD I USA Cmd & General SOf College, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN. Lib

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

1 HO USARAL, APO Seattle, ATTN: ARAGP-R 1 USA Cmd & General 5Sf College, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: Ed Advisor

I HO First Army, ATTN: AFKA-Ol-TI 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Des Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: DepCdr

2 HO Fifth Army, Ft Sam Houston 1 USA Comnbined Arms Cmbt Dev Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: CCS

1 Dir. Army Sef Studies Ofe, ATTN: OAVCSA (DSP) USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dev Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: ATCASA

1 Ofc Chief of Stf, Studies Ofc 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Des Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: ATCACO-F

1 DCSPER, ATTN: CPS/OCP 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dev Act. Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: ATCACC-C!

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

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

I Ofc, Asst Sect of the Army (R&D) 1 USAMERDC, Ft Belvoir, 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-TD-S

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

2 USARIF.M, Natick, ATTN: SGRD-UE-CA 1 USA Topographic Lab, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: ETL-GSL

I USATTC, Ft Clayton, ATTN: STETC.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 iHuachuca. ATTN: ATS-CTD-MS

I USAIMA, Ft Bragg, ATTN: Marquat Lib 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft i-uachsica, ATTN: ATSI-TE

1 US WAC Ctr & Sch, Ft McClellans, ATTN: Lib 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTNt ATSI-TEX-GS

1 US WAC Ctr & Scts, Ft McClellan, ATTN: Tnig Dir 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca. ATTN: ATSI-CTS-OR

I USA Quar termaster Sch. Ft Lee, ATTN: ATSM-TE 1 USA Intelligence 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 DAS!SRD

1 USA Chaplain Ctr & Sch, Ft Hamilton, ATTN. ATSC-TI-RD 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca. ATTN A.TSI-TEM

1 USATSCH, Ft Eustis, ATTN. Eifuc Advisor 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch. Ft Huachnica. ATTN- Library

1 USA War College. Carliale Barraces, ATTN- Lib 1 CDR, HO Ft Huachuca. ATTN: Tech Ref Div

2 WRAIR, Neuropsychiatr Div 2 CDR, USA Electronic Prvg Grd, ATTN STEE~P-MT--S

1 DLI, SDA. Monterey 1 CDR, Project MASSTER. ATTN- Tech Info C~enticr

1 USA Concept Anal Agcy, Bethesda, ATTN. MOCA-WGC 1 Hq MASSTER, USATRADCC, LNO

1 USA Concept Anal Agey, Bethesda, ATTN: MOCA-MR 1 Research Institute, HO MASSTER. Ft Hooo

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

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

1 UISA Artic Test Ctr, APO Sevttle, ATTN: AMSTE.PL.TS 1 HO USARPAC, DCSP6R, APO Sl' 96558, ATTN: GPPE-SE

1 USA Armament Cmd, Redstone Arsenal. ATTN: ATSK-TFM 1 Stimson Lib, Academy of Health 'Linrienct rt Sam Houstoii

1 USA Armament Cmd, Rock Island, ATTN: AMSAR-TDC 1 Marine Corps Inst., ATTN- Dean-MCI

1 FAA-NAFEC, Atlantic City, ATTN: Library 1 HOUSMC, Commandant. ATTN~ - ode MTMT 51

1 FAA.NAFEC, Atlantic City, ATTN: Hum Engr Bir 1 HOUSMC, Commandant, AT. h- Cole MPI--20

1 FAA Aeronsautical Ctr, Oklahoma City, ATTN; AAC-44D 2 iJSCG Academy. Ne"w Lo~iron. At TN. Admissco.,

2 USA Fid Arty Sch, Ft cill, 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 1 USCG Training Ctr., NY. ATTN- Edtic Svc Qfc

1 USA Armor Sch. Ft Knox, ATTN: ATSB.DT.TP 1 USCG, Psychol Re~s 8r,. DC, A iTN: GP 1/62

1 USA Armor Sch, Ft Knox, ATTN: ATSB.CD.AD I HO Mid-Range Br. MC Oct, Csvantico, ATTN: P&S Div
- _ -NY

I US Marine Corps Laitiion Ofr, AMC, Alexandria, ATTN,. AMCGS-F 1 Oaf & Civil lmuof Envirolliedicine, Canada

1 USATRADOC, Ft Monroo. ATTN- ATRO-ED I AIR CRESS, lKenlrioon, AM1': Info Sys ft

6 USATRADOC, Ft Monroe, ATTNt ATPR-AD 1 Milltwilrfkaylogiale Tjenetse, Ckipalisalern

1 USATRADOC, Ft Monroe, ATTN: ATTS-EA I Kiittery Attache, French Enibegey. ATTN: Doc Sec

1 USA Forces Crnd, Ft McPhei on, ATTN: Library 1 Modscln Chef. C.e.R.PA.-Aaaena, Toulon/Navel Frwo

2 USA Aviation Test Bd, Ft Rtucker, ATTN: STEBG-PO I Ptln Scientific 0111, APsl Huam EmW Rach Div, Ministryv

1 USA Aqcy for Aviation Safety, Ft Rucker, ATTN: Library of Defense, Now DOiehl

I USA Aqcy for Aviation Safety, F t Roucker, ATTN: Educ Advisor I hirs Rahl Oft Library, AKA, Isaeel Defense Forces

1 USA Aviation Sch, Ft Rucker, ATTh: PC Drawer 0 1 Mlflhteris van 0efenale, 00*3P/KL Afd S&deal

I HQUSA Aviation Sys Cmd, St Louis, ATTN-. AMSAV-D Pscoovsle Zaicen, The Hague. Netheroilads;

2 USA Aviation Ws5 Tint Act., Edwards AFB, AMTN SAVTE-T

1 USA eir Def Safi, Ft Bliss, ATTN: ATSA TEM

I USA Air Mobility Richs & 0ev Lab, Moffett Fld, ATTN: SAVOL-AS

I USA Aviation Sch. Ret Trig Mgt, Ft Rucker, ATTN: ATST-T-RTM

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

1 HO, DARCOM. Alexandria. ATTN: AMXCD-.TL

I lHO, DARCOM, Alexandria, ATTN: CDR

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

I US Military Academy, West Point. ATTN: Ofc of Milt Ldrakip

1 US Military Acadenmy, Wett Point, ATTN: MAOA

1 USA Standardization Gp, UK, FPO NY, ATTN- MASI-O

1 Ofe of Naval Rsch. Arlington, Al I - Code 462

3 Ofe of Naval Rsch, Arlington, ATTN: Code 458

1 Ofc of Naval Rsch, Arlington, ATTN Code 460

1 Oft of Naval Rsch. Arlington, ATTN: Code 441

I Naval Aerospc Med Ret Lab. Pensacola. A17N- Acous Sch Div

INaval Aerospc Med Ret Lab. Pensacola, ATTN: Code L51

1 Naval Aerospc Med Ret Lab, Pensacola. ATTN: Code LB

1 Chief of NayPert. ATTN- Pers*OR

1 NAVAI RSTA, Norfolk, ATTN -Safety Ctr

- I Nv Oceanographic, DC, ATTN: Coda 6251. Charts & Tech

1 Center of Naval Anal, ATTN. Doc Ctr

I IlaviirSysom ATTN: AIRI-5313C

1 Nav BuMed, ATTN: 7 1'3

1 NavHelicopterSubSysua 2. FPO SF 96601

1 APHRL (FT) William AFB

I AR-IRL (Tr) Lo~vy AFS

I AFHRL (AS)IWPAFOH

2 AFHP.L ID'OJZ) Brook,; AF8

1 APHRL iDOJN) Lacklarad AFB

1 HOUSAr- IINYSD)

I HOIUSAV (DPXXA)

1 AFVTc, (PD) Randolph AFB

3 AMVRL (HE) WPAFB, OH

SAF Inst o~f Tech, WPAF8, OH, ATTNi: ENE/SL

iATC (XPTOI Randolph AFB

1 USAf. AcroMed Lib, Brooks AFS ISUL-4), ATTN: DOC SEC

1 AFOSR (INI. Arlington

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

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

5 Nav~i & 0ev Ctr, San Diego

2 Navy faed Neuropsychiatric Rsch Unit, San Dieglo

I Na', Electronic Lab, San Diego, ATTN; Resa Lab

I Nay TrngCen, San Diego, ATTN: Code 9DDO-Lib

1 NavPostGraSch, Monterey, ATTN: Code 5SAa

I Na,,PostilraSch, Monterey, ATTN: Code 2124

I NavTrngEquipCtr, Orlando, ATTN: Tech Lib

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

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

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

1 Net Clearing House for MH-lnfo, Rockville

1 Denver Fedzral Ctr, Litkewood, ATTN: BLM

12 Defense Documentation Center

4 Dir Psych, Army Hq, Rtissell 01cs, Canberra

I Scientific A'lvsr,. il Bd, Army Hq, Russell Ofks, Canberra

1 Mil and Air Attache, Aurnian EmbasI

I Centro do Rechserche Des Facteurs, Humaine de I& Defense

Nationale, Brussils

2 Canadian .Joint Staff Washington

I CtIr Staff, Royal Canadian AF ATTN: Pert Std Anal Sr

3 Chief, Canadian Oef Rseh Staff, ATTN: CICROS(W

4 British Def Staff. British Enibassy, Washington

30