Technical Paper 309 AD

_i

00

©

©

©

9

MEASURING MOTIVATION AND

JOB SATISFACTION

IN A MILITARY CONTEXT

Walter C. Borman

Personnel Decisions, Inc.

and

Paul R. Bleda

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

:

(al to

Kill

I

'> (

9fl0

INDIVIDUAL TRAINING AND SKILL EVALUATION TECHNICAL AREA

• *«. 1»i <****

' 1 ) LJ ^>

NOV 6 19T8

if

(W r\] \:A[j

)

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

September 1978

Approver! (or public relnaie, distribution unlimitrd.

o i 0 äl 019

-_

""»*"?W"'" ' I«.- *l

.',: .v.
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency undei the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

JOSEPH ZEIDNP.R

Technical Director

WILLIAM L. HÄUSER

Colonel, US Army

Commander

Research accomplished under contract

to the Department of the Army

Personnel Decisions, Inc.

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION Primary distribution of thu report hat bun mad« bv ARI. Plane address corraipondanca

concarning distribution of raporli to U S. Army Research Institute for ihe Behavioral and Social Sciencai,

ATTN PfrRI P. 5001 F'wnriower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333.

FINAL DISPpSITIQN Thu report may ba destroyed whan it n no Irnger naadad. Please do not return it to

tha U. S. Army Raiaarch Inintuta for the Bahavioral and Social Sciancai.

NOTE The findings in thu report are not to be conitruad a< an official Dapartmant of tha Army position,

unlan so designated by other aiirhomad documents.

JH.WJ-Jli.JU« I ——
THIS DOCUMENT IS BEST 

QUALITY AVAILABLE. THE COPY 

FURNISHED TO DTIC CONTAINED 

A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF 

PAGES WHICH DO NOT 

REPRODUCE LEGIBLY, 
i ;~v

Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Whmn Df Bntond)

1

"6

/ffij Walter C. k

REPO CUMENTATION PAGE

WtPOWTNUMBER

Technical /f*aper.

X TITLE rmnmmp

2. GOVT ACCESSION NO

MEASURING MOTIVATION ANrWOB,w(SATISFACTION

*IN A $ILITARY-£ONTEXT'# *"

7. AUTHORfa>

Walter C. /3orman Paul ^2Efij ($

» PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral anc

Social Sciences

and Personnel Decisions, Inc.

II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRE3S

Army Deputy chief of Staff for Personnel

Washington, DC 20310

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME ft AOORESSf" dlttotmnt from Controlling Olllc»)

/2/o2fc

TL

READ INSTRUCTIONS

BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

3 RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

5. TYPE OF REPORT ft PERIOD COVERED

• PERFORMINO ORG. REPORT NUMBER

«. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER«)

DAHC19-7J-C-OJ02'5

\

10. PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT. TASK

AREA ft WORK UNIT NUMBERS

IS. SECURITY CLASS, (el thlm rmporl)

Unclassified

IS». uECLASSI FIT ATION/DOWNGRADING

SCHEDULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (ol thlt Sopor»)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (ol Ihm mbolrect mntond In Block 10, It dllloront /foot Roport)

(ft. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

It. KEY WORDS (Coivtnua on rovtmm old* II nocooomry mill Igontlly by block numbor)

Motivation Questionnaire Booklet

Work-Related Satiafaction Combat Support Troops

Convergent<-discriminant validity Replication Sample

Disciplinary Actions

20. ABtTVtACY (Continue on >•!>•«•• »Ittm II noeomOmwy mnd Identify by block numbor)

This investigation examined motivation, work-related satisfaction, and

morale among enlisted persons in the Army. A review of relevant literature

helped to delineate definitions of these constructs and to identify instruments

to be administered in the field, A variety of civilian-oriented questionnaires

and inventories was field tested, using 466 soldier« Representing 104 platoons

and 16 companies) in one sampla and 614 soldiers (representing 47 platoons and

16 companies) in a separate sample. Analysis of the results

00 i JSTTI 1473 eomow or

>arate sample. Analysis of the resultssheared six / /

I KÖV •• I« OMOUlTf .| *

•

j

'

<Jif-*- 01^ v —RT^/SmS y&w

-r V- / —-/- SECURITY CLASWFICATIOM OF THIS RAae cm»*» oSTWni*r»d)

mm I. I I : f-fftr- *mmmmm$: ~~
unclassified

-k

MCUWITY CLAMiriCATIOM OF THI» PAOKgWlg Dim MiwO

20.

distinctly separate motivation/satisfaction constructs with acceptable convergent and discriminant validities. Composite measures of these six

constructs correlated moderately with self-reports of plans to reenlist

and pride in the Army but near zero with self-reported problem behavior.

Advantages of such multimethod composite measures are discussed.

^

!

I

»i

* . i •

Ü\X ! J'1 J

; —J

Unelaseified

IICÜRITY CLAMIPICATION OF THIS PMtfHhun DM» Knfnd)

r '

m

jC"'*ip\*~*-* "
Technical Paper 309

MEASURING MOTIVATION AND

JOB SATISFACTION

IN A MILITARY CONTEXT

Walter C. Borman

Personnel Decisions, Inc.

and

Paul R. Bleda

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

INDIVIDUAL TRAINING & SKILL EVALUATION TECHNICAL AREA

Submitted as complete and Approved By:

technically accurate, by:

Milton 8. Katz L Ralph Dusek, Director

Technical Area Chief INDIVIDUAL TRAINING AND PERFORMANCE

RESEARCH LABORATORY

Joseph Zeldner

TECHNICML 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 Nun. oat MotIvatIon and

2Q782717A787 Morale

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

. w nip*' ,, i minimum .-rnrT^i--

-, ., ,. I
ARI Research Reports and Technical Papers are intended for sponsors of

R&O tasks and other esearch 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.

F7
FONKW: "I>

So

I

I

High Levels of motivation, job satisfaction, and morale are important to the Army for the recruitment, retention, and career productivity

of high-quality personnel, This report is the first of several designed

to search for; develop, evaluate, and refine ways of understanding and

measuring the work motivation, job satisfaction, and productivity of individual soldiers. The project, was accomplished jointly by personnel of

the Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI)

and Personnel Decisions, Inc., under contract DAHC 19-73-C-00J25 • Dr. D.

Bruce Hell of the Individual Training and Skill Evaluation Technical Area,

ART, was the contracting officer's technical representative. Work was

done in response to Army Project 2Q762717A767, Techniques for Increasing

Soldier Productivity. Another report, "Motivation, Satisfaction, and Morale in Army Careers: A Review of Theory and Measurement" (ARI Technical

Report TR-76-A7), has teer, produced from this effort.

•wi*- f

.
MEASURING MOTIVATION AND dOB SI-'A' oli IM A fll i,'JTAI< i' ONTi.xa

bRIEE'

Requirement . High lev/els of motivation,

tant to the Army in recruiting <

The aim of this research wa.3 to

tial military use the available

sati afaction.

job '.a i. i ifartinn, and morale are impor -

nd ret.ent i.on of hi qh-qua 1 ity personnel,

select, • ctorvt, and validate for f.- * » ;i

ci vJ 1 i an measures of mot i vat inn and job

Procedure:

A review of relevant literature helped to delineate d-l i n i t i on-; of

mot i at ion anri job satisfaction and to identify appropriate measures t o

be administered in the field. A variety of questionnaires, inventories,

ami rating scales were field tested using 4f>6 enlisted soMi.-i-; (reprfsentincj 104 platoons and 16 companies) stationed in Korea; a replication

field tented 614 soldiers (r«pr ifH;r'i 'ng 47 platoons and 1h companies)

stationed in Germany.

Findings:

Analysis oi the results showed si/ distinctly separate motivation/

satisfaction constructs: MotivatiOT\. Overall Satisfaction with the Army,

Satisfaction with the Job, Satisfaction with Superior.-;, and Satisfaction

with Coworkers, and Satisfaction with Pay. Within the six scales, 19

variables provide a consistent, meaningful, and empirically valid system.

The system is closely related Lu ««-vei al s.: I i reported indicators of organizational effectiveness, Lncluding pride in t'n<> Army and plans to

reenlist.

Utilization of Findings:

The final set of instruments car, he used to measure attitudes and

perceptions of soldiers, and thus assess area« of dissatisfaction or the

perceived impact of organizational changes.

; Mb

m<l '
'• , ij! ' , ri</;• iv v;'!'.-ii AND JOB ::AT, SFMTT"; IN A MJI.JTAI'V CONTFXT

"'/; !']•:;

IU"VODU'T;.Oi

MFTH' )i) . . .

1

2

f'i ••"";' inq ,

r i o ! : Testing: fViinp!'' 1

l-'if'.!'j Tostii.'): Sampl < 'I • • • .

:;>•!»•' ing Mear.nrpc to I'pproscni Constructs

5

6

6

PKr;rjL

i'denti fyimi Vali'l Motivation/Satisfaction Constructs

in .'limpIn 7 and Selecting Scales and Items to

M'-r::;iJ . • Those Constructs

: ientj i'ying v.il. id Motivation/Satisfaction Constructs

i.n 'in- Rep] i cation Sample

Crosn ValifjaiioP: Multiconstruct-Multimethod Results

Final Sfiection of Variables

i >- Lat i onu Among Motivation/Selection Constructs and

Arm/ Criteria

CONCLUSIONS

REFERENCES

DISTRIBUTION

7

10

11

11

1 1

15

17

.

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Initial pool of scales and items .

2. Summary of Sample I and Sample II factor

analysis results

3. Multiconstruet-multimethod results for field

test (Sample I) and replication (Sample IT) data .... 10

4. Correlations between Motivation/Satisfaction

constructs and six self-report criteria . . 12

h

i*""""- I '." |ff.l»Jl.»U- •&.- If»*»-
KiiZ-.SUfcl

srTJ«FACTION H

AMT) -f"M

0*11 E*T

PRODUCT T or.

, instruments «

cre

, r.ivr.i »n-criented ins ^ motivatlon

U1 ^ d valid *"""**" context,

rcU H Txns in the nu.^^ry

these domai** satisfaction tc> -

«t-ivation and BO tnitial etton-

.dated as i»-^ gtudy were

The aims «E <* re6 ln a

B£action could be ^^^ of

lb)« al9CO

aIt^« the relation of

a«d (°

t0 /iteria. The ra-

.elf—P°rt

D;

r

t " that military ,;U.bl« and vail- --itary con,,xt, — report «!«»•; ndUtary

S- ^Sd"satisfaction «> — ^t ^ ^^

ln addition,

qeneral i^uo

. vhiB research.

,rH addressed in thie

_ „f i

4.«faction of lnK naraimoniously the sat* izational

irvq to tap contain 1«*<J

rtoes each tneasu* Kendall,

, 4 variance? ,inT) (Smith, ^

c

method wi- iml Index (JDI> inq satisfac

atu3 «ilin. 1969) P^-'iith and her J-^ of -ati-i-*

°;ft reßultant set of facet meases nt a l-»^ of

-^•n^U^. «^'r,-l -dCysatisfactio, i»

Z'tZ^ ^^ W° 8ame facet of satis;

ordinations. of ^Uet «^»a

Relationships ^.^ ,nagnitude £%£^ componen^ .

„, low to modeiave ^ qoa, a« correspondinq lf

factlon are '" lnq the Jul an ff>utld that c ^ fche work

rrar^-ion *«. ^ •*•

.
correlated . 1 fi - .60 (median r .39) in two different samples« Gillet

and Schwab (1975), using the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Weiss,

Dawn, England, and Lofquist, 1967) and the JD1, found that the two methods

of measurinq satisfaction with pay, promotions, supervision, and coworkers correlated .56, .57, .70, and .49 respectively. Thus, in these two

Studien at least, it appears that different measurement methods tap sonewhdt differen-: or substantially different corstructs.

This study addressed both tho.se satisfaction-measurement issues,

first, a conceptual-empirical approach identified satisfaction constructs

appropriate for describing military satisfaction "space." A careful literature review (Motowidlo, Dow 11, Hopp, Bormarii Johnson, and Dunnette,

1976) suggested the kinds of satisfaction facets most likely to be salient for military personnel. Instruments tapping these facets and the

motivation domain were selected and administered to Army soldiers. Factor analyses then provided empirical information about what satisfaction

and motivation constructs most, parsimoniously reflected the total variance in satisfaction/motivation instrument responsesSecond, multiple measures of each satisfaction and motivation facet

were administered. Nine civilian-oriented instruments, two instruments

developed in the military, and two scales developed especially for this

study provided considerable conceptual overlap in the measurement of individual satisfaction/motivation facets. This overlap made possible an

analysis of the convergent and discriminate validity of a relatively

large number of measures, thus extending the work of Evans (1969) and

Gillet and Schwab (1975).

METHOD

Pretest ing

A literature review determined the constructs most widely used in

describing aspects of motivation and satisfaction. The following constructs were identified: (a) Mor^e and discipline, (b) motivation,

ger.c: *- .** t

%

* f' (d) pay satisfaction, (e) inb satisfaction.

(f) satisfaction with superiors, (g) satisfaction with coworkers, (h)

satisfaction with career progress, (i) satisfaction with the organization, and (j) satisfaction with the general environment. Ne.xt, measures

which possessed good reliability and validity in prior research studies

and which, as a group, reflected well the content of these 10 constructs

were identified. The preliminary pool of scales/items and the variables

that they measured are shown in Table 1.

The protest booklet was completed by 141 enlisted persons (Specialist

5 and below) from support units ir a foreign location. On the basis of

pretest experience, 54 of t s 67 pretest measures of satisfaction and

mot ivai ion were retained for subsequent research steps.

rv1

'

ail BOMB

>-Äi"

lEMBw*- - 'in»ff"
Table 1

Initial Pool of Scales and Items

Tnstrument

Brayfield-Rothe Job Satisfaction

Scales (Brayfield 6 Rothe, 1951)

Cureton Air Force Questionnaire

(Cnreton, 1060)

Variable measured

Job satisfaction

Satisfaction with army

Satisfaction with community

Satisfaction with job

Satisfaction with military

Satisfaction with pay

Satisfaction with unit

Job Descriptive Index

(Smith, Kendall, 6 Hulin, 1969)

Satisfaction with coworkers

Satisfaction with pay

Satisfaction with promotions

Satisfaction with supervisor

Satisfaction with work

Job Invoivemeri t Scale

(Lodahl & Kejner, 1965)

Military Morale Index

Minnesota Job Description

Questionnaire (WeisE, Dawis,

England, r. Lofquist, 1967)

Minnesota Satisfaction

Questionnaire (Weiss, uawis

England, * Lofquist, 196 7)

Patchen Motivation Scale

(Patchen, 1965)

Protestant Ethic Scale

(Blood, 1969)

Involvement with job

Morale

Job satisfaction

Extrinsic «atisfaction

Intrinsic satisfaction

Motivation

Motivation

V':

-f-ii'.i m^piwwuw

?%
Table 1 (continued)

Instrument Variable measured

Sears Questionnaire

(Smith, 1963)

Self-Ratings

Satisfaction with

Satisfaction with

and security

Satisfaction with

identification

Satisfaction with

Satisfaction with

Satisfaction with

Satirfaction with

surroundings

Satisfaction with

amount of work

career future

company

coworkers

financial rewards

kind of work

physical

supervision

Present mood about Army life

Own morale

Unit morale

Effort

Performance

Job satisfaction in Army

Life satisfaction in Army

Effort for promotion

How worthwhile to try hard

Sum of Prior Expectancies

About Army Life

Sum of "Is Present Now" in Army Life

Difference Between Prior Expectancies

and "Is Present Now" General satisfaction

Sum of Expectancies

Sum of Valences (Desirability)

Sur.i of Valences x Expectancies

Survey of Organizations

(Taylor S Bowers, 1972)

Motivation

Conmunications flow

Decislonmaking

Group process

Motivation conditions

Opportunities for getting ahead

Overall conditions to encourage

hard work

Overall satisfaction

I '

—i i nppiüi
Table 1 (continued)

Instrument Variable measured

Survey of organizations (cont'd)

(Taylor S. Bovers, 1972)

Peer goal emphasis

Peer interaction facilitacion

Peer support

Pe«?r work facilitation

Satiafac:ion with career progress

Satisfaction with coworkers

Satisfaction with job

Satisfaction with organization

Satisfaction with pay

Satisfaction with supervisor

Supfervisory goal emphastc

Supervisory interaction

facilitation

Supervisory needs

Supervisory support

Supervisory work facilitation

Field Testing: Sample I

The revised booklet was administered to 466 enlisted persons (Specialist 5 and below) assigned to 104 platoons and lb companies in combat

support and air defense artillery units. (Sample I). These respondents

formed a convenience sample» they were those persons available diring the

researchers' visits to each unit. Thus, the deor^e to wnich Sample I represents the Army population is unknovn.

Responses to satisfaction and motivation measures were intorcorrelated and factor analyzed to inv&atigate the underlying dimensionality of

these domains in a military context. Factor aralyses results provided one

scheme for identifying constructs that summarize the motivation/satisfaction of enlisted military personnel.

Besides satisfaction and -Valvation me&sures, the questionnaire booklet contained several self-report questions. Two items asked soldiers to

report their intentions to reenlist (yes, not sure, or ro) and their pride

in the Army (on a 5-point ßcale). Also included were two questions about

the number of disciplinary actions (AWOL's, Article 15's) taken against the

respondent over the preceding 12 months and two inquiries about problem

behaviors exhibited by the respondent (number of sick calls the preceding

month and number of times lowered in rank - i.e., "busted"). With this

information, relationships between self-report criteria and motivation/

satisfaction in the Army could be assessed.

-i»*fc

' '"^V-
MM

' '

'-A^

Field Testing: Sample II

A replication study was performed to determine if the motivation/

satisfaction construct framework developed in Sample I provided a reasonable means of structuring data obtained from an independent sample of

soldiers. We also intended to evaluate the generalizability of relationships between motivation/satisfaction and criterion variables. To accomplish these goals, many of the motivation, satisfaction, and criterion

measures included in the field test booklet were administered in Sample

II to 614 enlisted personnel randomly selected from 16 company and 47

platoon-sized units. Half the units were combat-support troops; the rest

were air-defense artillery units.

Selecting Measures to Represent Constructs

One important purpose of this research was to identify scales and

items best suited for measuring salient satisfaction and motivation constructs in the Army. Therefore, several criteria were used to select

these measures.

1. The content of each scale/item was required to have a priori

conceptual similarity to the construct it purported to measure.

2. The scale/item had to load on the same factor as other variables

thought to measure that construct.

3. Each scale was to be characterized by high internal consistency.

4. Each construct was to be represented by no more than a single

measure from any one instrument. Through this criterion we

sought to prevent common method variance from artificially

raising within-construct correlations among measures.

5. The Items or scales had to possess good convergent and discriminant validity (Campbell 5 Fiske, 1959). To develop relatively

"pure" composites, only those scales/items showinq comparatively

high correlations with other measures of the same construct

(convergent validity) and relatively low correlations with measures of other constructs (discriminant validity) were retained.

RESULTS

Identifying Valid Motivation/Satisfaction Constructs in Sample I and

Selecting Scales and Items to Measure Those Constructs

For Sample I data, a five-factor principal-components solution rotated to the varimax criterion rwd'j best conceptual sense of the several

solutions tried, and accounted for approximately 74% of the total variance in the correlations among satisfaction and motivation measures. The . x*

0]

.MI ti mm
factor labels, with percent of variance accounted for by each, are

(a) Motivation (11%), (b) Overall Satisfaction with the Army (29%), (c)

Satisfaction with the Job (13%), (d) Satisfaction with Superiors (7%),

(e) Satisfaction with Coworkers (13%).

Table 2 shows the scales and items that loaded most highly on each

factor. Measures associated with pay satisfaction loaded on the Overall

Satisfaction factor. Since previous research suggested that Satisfaction

with Pay should be treated as a separate construct, and since it emerged

as an identifiable factor in a pretest factor analysis, Satisfaction with

Pay was treated separately in subsequent analyses.

Applying the five scale/item selection criteria previously set forth,

22 measures (numbered in Table 2) were selected to represent the 6 motivation and satisfaction constructs. A multiconstruct-multimethod matrix

(see Table 3) was developed to summarize the convergent and discriminant

validity obtained with this 22-variable system. Diagonal indexes in the

matrix were formed by transforming the correlations among variables within

the construct to Fisher z scores and then computing the mean of theee z's.

The numbers on the diagonal are the mean z'a transformed back to correlations. The off-diagonal correlations, representing the means of all the

across-construct correlations between variables, also were calculated using z transformations. In all cases, the diagonal correlations differ

significantly from zero (.10 significance level) and are greater than are

the off-diagonal indexes in the corresponding row or column. Further,

for each pair of constructs, none of the across-construct correlations

between individual measures is greater than any of the within-construct

correlations between individual measures assigned to those constructs.

Thus, the 22 variables included in this system demonstrate acceptable

levels of convergent and discriminant validity as well as satisfying the

other criteria set forth above.

Identifying Valid Motivation/Satisfaction Constructs in the Replication

Sample

As in the Sample I analyses, a principal components analysis was

performed on responses to the questionnaire booklet, with the resultant

factors rotated to the varimax criterion. A six-factor solution appeared

most psychologically meaningful for Sample II data; it accounted for 60%

of the total variance in the responses. This solution included not only

the five factors originally identified in the Sample I data, but also a

Satisfaction with Pay factor.

I

.

Correlations between factor loadings of the same named factors from

Sample I and Sample II were as follows: Motivation, .73; Overall Satisfaction with the Army, .75; Satisfaction with the Job, .85; Satisfaction

with Superiors, .67; Satisfaction with Coworkers, .85. Thus, the sixconstruct framework originally derived from Sample I received some confirmation from the Sample II factor analytic results.

•m tK",m^H>,MB—I -?k^l!rhr-~-
SS! twm

Table 2

Summary of Sample I and Sample II Factor Analysis Results*

Satisfaction/motivation factorB

Sample loadings

Sample I Sample II

Overall Satisfaction With the Army

Oireton satisfaction with the Army as

a whole0

Sum of effort expectancies

Prior expectations

Cureton satisfaction with community

Survey cf organizations overall satisfaction

S00 opportunities for getting «head

Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire extrinsic

Own morale

Cureton job satisfaction

S00 satisfaction with pay

MSQ Total

Satisfaction With Coworkers

.84 .66

.83 .34

.68 .56

.66 .61

.60 .43

.59 .38

.55 .29

.55 .70

.52 .49

.52 .17

.51 .33

• SCO peer support

SOO peer goal emphasis

SOO satisfaction with coworkers

• Job Descriptive Index Coworkers

• (Sears Coworkers)

Sum of valencies x expectancies

Self-rating of effort

Self-rating of performance

Self-rating of overall effectiveness

as a soldier .56

Self-rating of how worthwhile it is

to try hard .56

(Patenen motivation scale) .42

Job Satisfaction

.71 .48

.68 .66

.55 .71

.47 .53

Motivation

.70 .73

.63 .66

.59 .66

.60

.55

.42

• Sears kind of work

• SOO satisfaction with the job

• Brayfield-Rothe job satisfaction

• JDI work

• (Cureton job satisfaction)

.72 .74

.64 .67

.63 .71

.62 .67

.49 .66

li|Hm»l.tMH'
Table 2 (continued)

Sample loaciinqs

S.o

tl.f*otlon/«otiv«tlon factors

Sample 1

Satisfaction With Super

iors

. S00 supervisory support

# Sears supervision ^

Satisfaction With Pay

.58

.56

.51

.50

• SOO

• Sears

satisfaction with pay

Sample IX

.81

.70

.64

.57

.78

.67

.60

• JDI pay -

financial rewards

contained in both

sample questionnaire booklets are

selected to

represent constructs based on

a

only scales/items

included.

»H.rt.« •«!« °

r lte" """

.„Uud. of loaain,» for S»P1.

a separate factor

I.

.„ order of the mac

«s.tl.fMtl» »1th Pay —*«•« »

..i.,!r,,.,,-...-><w^ h* "

w

".. '
Tk»-'

Tab!« 3

Mul t-iconstruct-Mult imethod Rer.ults for Field

Test (Sample I* rind Replication (Sampln II) Dflta'

Factor

1. Motivation

2. Overall satisfaction with

1 he Army

3. Satisfaction with the job

4. Satisfaction with superior»

5. Satisfaction with coworkers

6. Satisfaction with pay

45

48

37

42

64

61

40

46

S3

55

66

70

29

28

41

44

37

40

5B

61

19

21

26

22

27

27

34

27

44

39

15

17

41

36

30

22

22

25

16

10

44

44

All upper entries are derived from Sairple I data; lower entries are dei.-ived from Sample II replication d?ta.

Cross validation; HultluunaLiuoL-MuItimetnod Results

Another approach to cross validating Sample I's construct framework was

attempted uslnq the 22 variables selected to represent the motivation/

satisfaction constructs in Sample I. As an independent check on the convergent and discriminant validity of these variables, the construct framework represented by these 22 measures was submitted to a multiconstructmultimethod analysis using the Sample II data. The results (see Table 3)

indicate that construct measurement within this framework possesses consistent convergent and discriminant validities. All within-construct correlations differ significantly from zero at the .05 level and are greater

than the off-diagonal correlation in corresponding rows and columns.

Thus, in the Independent repli i sample, the 22 variables provided

relatively "pure" construct m asut .-nient. of the six motivation/satisfaction

dimensions.

10

I. -..*•

TfT^'- «m jmmsuffß i»aw» • ; " '
-.I' 'P^^^?

Final Selection of Variables

Although Adequate cross-validity was shown for construct measurement,

a decision was made to use data from both Samples 1 and II to form one

final "best" group of variables to represent the SLY. motivation/satisfaction construct:s. Therefore, the five criteria for selecting measures of

constructs were applied to the various scales and items using Sample II

data« Measures were deleted from or add^d to the construct-meaEurement

system it the criteria were better met in Sample II as a result of the

additions/deletions as long as these revisions did not cause the criteria

to be less well met in Sample I. Using this approach, four scales/items

were deleted from the list of variables and one was added. Those deleted

were: (10) "Worthwhile to Try Hard" (single item), (4) Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, (22) Sears Financial Rewards, and (7) Sears Coworker. The measure added was Survey of Organizations Single Item Measure of Satisfaction with Coworkers.

Compared to the 22-variable system, the 19 variables provided somewhat purer measures of motivation/satisfaction in Sample II without adversely affecting the Sample I multiconstruct-multimethod results. Thus.-

the '9-variable system was used in subsequent analyses involving selfreport Army criteria.

Relations Among Motivation/Satisfaction Constructs and Army Criteria

Table 4 depicts relationships between each motivation/satisfaction

construct and several self-report criteria from Sample II. Two criteria,

"Plans to Reenlist" and "Pride in the Army," are significantly related

to all six constructs, with correlations ranging an high as .68. Relationships between construct composites and self-report problem behaviors

F -e much lower. Twenty of the 24 correlations are in the predicted direction but only 10 reach significance at the .05 level. Further, the maggr.itude of these relationships is very small, with the maximum of approximately 2% of the criterion variance accounted for. Motivation is the

only construct consistently related to problem behaviors, though again,

the magnitude of these correlations is very low.

CONCLUSIONS

The primary practical intent of this project was to recommend questionnaire measures suitable for assessing the motivation and satisfaction

of enlisted persons in the Army. The first step in selecting these instruments was to develop for the motivation/satisfaction "space" a comprehensive frai.'fwnrk capable of describing the multivariate domain represented by tncee fJt. ad constructs. Although conceptual issues dictated

the initial selection of an extensive set of psychometric instruments, the

final delineation of appropriate measures of the underlying constructs was

determined empirically via a field test and a replication.

11

. %,;..*
c0

•rH (0 P

«

0 -H

«ju

I*H 0)

inP

•H -H

•P VH

(0U

W

V, 4J C U H a

4J 0)

t

*a

>i

a) •H '*-!

rH

p .-H

Si

0 <D (fl x w H C X

4) -H

a)w

^

+J T)

0)c

m <d w w c -P o u

X!£

CO +J

rH in

U)C

P.0

MU

0

c. oHPU >, m A

M-l&

U) O

•H B)

4JP

U 0)

<0X

l+H rl w o

rH5

JJo

a)u

wc0P

0

U -H a P.

V) IX

•H3

P <n $

t:o

•HU

Xim

0 <w

»o inH

•Pflco

•rH

l-l H->

rH (J

<0«

P ^H ü in

fl

IT

r:oHPm>

•HPO

s;

rHa

m

0) rH

05 tH 1 <u

IM

p

rHH

0) rH W O

**

*«

CMo

**

m IN

•r i' PC

0)d0Pca

rH

Pu

««

*«

ft CN

oo

I

«

rm

ro I

om

ooI

*o

o

«

+*

*

**

**

*«

(- IT» <* i- 00o *r oo oo in .- i£>

o *- >- CN

11

oo

1I

o «- 1 1

oo1

**

**

*

«*

«

«*

r- ** CM «- 00

n rm C* «- r- 5r

CN ro ro •?

oo

11

»-o

t

o«

11

oo

11

**

T* 00

in •* <G

rH8

•H

oo

«O lT- O I I

VO CM O O I I

H

<o

<u

Pi

(0

rH

«1J

in

12

in CM o o i

**

«*

**

**«

*

r- CM 00 00 r- <J\ r~ oo TJ> •" r- f»l

«0 «) i£ VC To 1

oo

i

o •- 1 IOO

*«

«*

««

«

««

«*

«*

*

*¥

«

CN ID r» r- rr CN CN >X)

u oo KO

O

>* •* ITI H)

11

ro 1 1

11

o •- 1 1

r-l

p

in

ra TJ

in r-H

in

w

o

T- r-l fc

rH JC (U

(1) 13 (0

P

(J GS

-0

U 0)

*

8

cn

•H fe

1

M •rH •H < w H

ID

E

.0wuo

ItH

inPoHP

r0

r-H

91UuoÜUVHa§w

rH0

UH

0)

13

inc0

•Hp

ft)

iH

4) H

m rU o o 0 • • u v v H

gL ft ft

a,

«P

*

« i.

-' V',,

iTO
'factor analyse;, and conceptual considerations provided the rationale

for selecting six constructs of practical and theoretical interest. Next,

field test and replication data were examined to insure that the measures

selected to tap these constructs <wX several reliability and validity

criteria.

The 19-varLable/6-canstxnet system developed in the present project

appears to provide a consistent, conceptually meaningful, and empirically

valid framework for representing * he motivation/satisfaction domains of

individual soldiers or of Army upits. The final set of instruments can

measure feeliny states and perception«7 of soldiers, and can be incorporated into a theoretically and pragmatically useful framework for eummarizing responses. The availability of such instrumentation makes possible

the establishment of a formal audit procedure for evaluating Army motivation and satisfaction on a continuing basis. Such feedback regarding the

psychological orientation of enlisted personnel may enhance organizational

effectiveness by identifying potential areas of dissatisfaction. The instruments also may provide assessments of the impact of modifications on

current training programs.

Further research is needed to assess the ability of satisfaction and

motivation construct measures to predict relevant criteria. In this study

soldiers' construct scores and their self-reported disciplinary outcomes

and problem behavior showed low relationship. However, this finding may

reflect the low base rates associated with these criterion measures and

the difficulty in obtaining accurate self-reports of this kind of behavior. We advocate further attempts to predict individual and unit-level

criteria usinq this construct system.

Finally, the multiconstruct-multimethod approach taken in this study

has broad implications for motivation and satisfaction measurement. Multimethod composite measures of individual motivation and work-related

satisfaction constructs allow for largely instrument-free measurement of

these constructs. Relatively instrument-free measurement means that relationships between satisfaction/mot 1 vaHnn ronntruets and other variables will not depend so much upon the particular scales or items employed.

Multimethod composite measures with good convergent and discriminant validity should therefore lead to purer and more refined measurement of work

motivation and satisfaction, and, eventually, to better understanding of

these concepts.

-

13

mmmu^mmMM—fi "t&W
REFERENCES

i

•«4

Blood, M. R. Work Values and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 1969, 53, 456-459.

Borman, W. C, Johnson, P. D., Motowidlo, S. J., & Dunnette, M. D.

Measuring Motivation, Morale, and Job Satisfaction in Army Careers.

Minneapolis: Personnel Decisions, Inc., 1975.

Brayfield, A. H., (. Rothe, H. F. An Index of Job Satisfaction. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 1951, 35, 307-311.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. Convergent and Discriminant Validation

by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 1959,

56, 81-105.

Cureton, E. E. Dimensions of Airman Morale (Technical Note WADD-TN-60-

137). Lackland Air Force Base, Texas; Personnel Laboratory, Wright

Air Development Division, 1960.

Evans, M. G. Convergent and Discriminant Validities Between Cornell Job

Descriptive Index and a Measure of Goal Attainment. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 1969, 53, 102-106.

Gillet, B., & Schwab, D. P. Convergent and Discriminant Validities of

Corresponding Job Descriptive Index and Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire Scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60_, 313-317.

Lodahl, T. M., & Kejner, M. The Definition and Measurement of Job Involvement. Journal of Appli.ec Tyi-chology, 1965, 49, 24-33.

Motowidlo, S. J., Dowell, B. E., Kopp, M. A., fcrman, W. C, Johnson,

P. D., & Dunnette, M. D. Motivation, Satisfaction, and Morale in

Army Careers; A Review of Theory and Measurement. ARI Technical

Report TR-76-A7, December 1976. (NT1S No7~ÄrftC36390).

Patehen, H. Some Questionnaire Measures of Employee Motivation and Morale.

Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research,

University of Michigan, 1965.

Smith, F. J. Thg Sears Employee Attitude Survey Program. Speech delivered to the Seattle Personnel Managers Association, January 1963.

Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. Measurement of Satisfaction

in Work and Retirement. New York: Rand McNally, 196^».

Taylor, J. C., s. Bowers, D. G. Survey of Organizations. Ann Arbor:

Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1S72.

15

-^ "
w

Weis:-, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. Manual for

the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minnesota Studies in

Vocational Rehabilitation, 1967, 22.

"*'*%*

16

1 !

**m
DISTRIBUTION

ARI Distribution tut ^HIS PAGE IS BEST QUALITY PRÄCH.CAäöl

ftiUM ÜOrY, BURMISh&D TO DDQ

I1

i

j

i

< M

4 OASD (M&RA)

2 HQDA (DAMI CSZ!

HQOA (DAPE PBR

HQDA1DAMAAR!

HQOA (DAPEHRE POI

HOC-, ISGROIDI

HQOA IDAMI DOTCI

HOD« (DAPC PMZ A|

HQOA IDACH PPZAI

HODA (DAPE HHE)

HODA IOAPF MPOCI

HQDA (IJAPF-DW)

HOOA(DAPEHRL)

HQDA (DAPECPSI

HQDA (DAFD MFA)

HQDA (DARDARS P)

HQDA IDAPCPAS A)

HODA (DUSA ORI

HQDA (DAMORQR)

HODA (DASG)

HQOA IDAIO-Pll

Chief. Consult Oiv (UA 0 ;SGI, Adalphi, MO

Mil AMI Hum Res, ODDFl&E, OAD (E&LSI

HQ USARAL, APO Seattle, ATTN. ARAGPfl

HQ Fint Army, ATTM: AFKAOI Tl

HQ Fifth Army, Ft Sam Houston

D!r, Army Stf Studies Ofe, ATTN: OAVCSA (DSP)

Ofc Chief of St«. Stutliis Ofc

OCSPER, ATTt:: CPS/OCP

The Army Lib, Pentagon, ATTN RSU Chief

The Army Lib, Pentagon, ATTN: ANRAL

Ofc, Asst Sect of thn Army IROiO)

itch Support Ofc. OJCS

USASA, Arlington, ATTN: IARD T

USA Rich Oft., Durham, ATTN: Life Sciences Dir

USARIEM, tUUr.k, ATTN: SGRDUE CA

USATTC, Ft Clayton, ATTN: STETC-MOA

USAIMA, Ft Bragg, ATTN: ATSU-CTDOM

USAIMA, Ft Bragg, ATTN: Marquat üb

US «VAC Ctr & Sch, Ft McClellan. ATTN: Lib

US WAC Ctr & Sdi Ft McClellen ATTN: Tng Dir

USA Ouarterm&ster Sch, Ft Lao, ATTN: ATS' .-TE

Intelllgonco Material Oav Ofc, EWL, Ft Holabird

USA SE Signal Sch, Ft Gordon, ATTN: ATSO EA

USA Chaplalr. Ctr ft Sch, Ft Hamilton. ATTN: ATSCTERO

USATSCH. Ft Eustis, ATTN: Edue Advisor

USA War Collage, Carlisle Barracks, ATTN: Lib

WRAIR, Neur.,psychletry Div

DLI, SDA, Monterey

USA Concept Anal Agcy, Bathesda, ATTN: MOCA-WGC

USA Concept Anal Agoy, Bethr-sda, ATTN: MOCA MR

USA Concept Anal Agcy, Bathesda, ATTN: MOCA JF

USA Arüc Tost Ctr, APO Seattle. ATTN: STEAC M0A8L

USA Artie Test Ctr. AMO Seattle. ATTN: AMSTEPLTS

USA Armament Cmd, Rortstono Arsenal. ATTN: ATSKTEM

USA Armament Cmd, Rock Island, ATTN; AMSARTDC

FAA-NAFtC. Atlantic City, ATTN: I 'hrery

FAANAFEC, Atlantic City, ATTN: Hum Eriujt Br

FAA Aeronautical Ctr, Oklahoma City, ATTN: AAC 44D

USA Fid Arty Soli. Ft Stil. ATTN: Library

USA Armor Sch, Ft Knox, ATTN: Library

USA Armor Sch, Fj Kwx. ATTN: ATSB-OI-E

USA Armor Sch, Ft Knox, ATTN: ATSB-OTTP

U8A Armor SVh, Ft Knox, ATTN: ATSB-CDAD

HQUSACDEC, Ft Ord, ATTN: Library

HOUSACDEC, Ft Ord. ATTN: ATEC- EX-E-Hum Factors

USAEF.C, Ft Benjamin Harrison, ATTN: Library

USAPACDC. Ft Benjamin Harrison, ATTN: ATCP- HR

USA Comm -Elect Sch, Ft Monmouth. ATTN: ATSN-EA

USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEl,~CT -HOP

USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEL -PA P

USAEC, Fl Monmcuth, ATTN: AMSEL SI CB

USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN C. Fuel Dev Br

USA Meterlals Sys Anal Agcy, Alwnfoon. ATTN: AMXSY-P

Edgewood Arsenal. Aberdeen, ATTN: SAREA- BL H

USA Ord Ctr & Sch, Abordeen, ATTN: ATSL-TEM-C

USA Hum Engr Lab, Aberdeen. ATTN: Library/Dir

USA Combat Arms Tng Bd, Ft Bcnning, ATTN; Ad Supervisor

USA Infantry Hum Rsch Unit, Fl Bennlng, ATTN: Chief

USA Infantry Bd, Ft Banning, ATTN: STEBC-TE-T

USASMA, Ft Bliss, ATTN: ATSS -LRC

USA Air Def Sch, Ft Bliss, A i TN: ATSA -CTD-ME

USA Air Def Sch, Ft Bliss, ATTN: Tech Lib

USA Air Dof Bd. Ft Bliss, ATTM: FILES

USA Air Def Bd, Ft Bliss. ATTN: STEBD-PO

USA Cmd & General Stf Collouo, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: Lib

USA Cmd & General Stf College, Ft Leavunworth, ATTN: ATSW-SE-L

USA Cmd & General Stf CollntoJ, Ft Loavenworth, ATTN: Ed Advisor

USA Combined Arms Crnbl Dev Act. Ft Lravonworth, ATTN: DepCdr

USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dev Ar;, f, Leavenworth, ATTN: CCS

USA Combined Arms Cmbt D»v Act, Ft Leavanworth, ATTN: ATCASA

USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dev Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: ATCACO- E

USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dev Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: ATCACC-CI

USAECOM, Night Vision Lab, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: AMSEL-NV-SD

3 USA Computer Sys Cmd, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: Tech Library

USAMERDC, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: STSFB-DQ

US/. Eng Sch, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: Library

USA Topographic Lab, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: ETL TD-S

USA Topographic Lab, Ft Be!voir, ATTN: STINFO Centirr

USA Topographic Lab, Ft üelvoir, ATTN: ETL GSL

USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuc«, ATTN: CTD-MS

USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATS-CTD-MS

USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huechuc«, ATTN: ATSI-TE

USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI-TEX-GS

USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch. Ft Huachuca. ATTN: ATSI-CTS-OR

USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI-CTD-DT

USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI-CTD-CS

USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN. DAS/SRD

USA Intelligence Ctr 6 Sch, rt Hutchuca, ATTN: ATSI-TEM

USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch. Fi Huachuca, ATTN: Library

CDR, HQ Ft Huachuca, ATTN: Tech Ref Div

CDR, USA Electronic Prvg Grd, ATTN: STEEP-MT-S '

CDR, Project MASSTER, ATTN: Toch Info Center

Hq MASSTER, USATRADOC, LNO

Research Institute, HQ MASSTER, Ft Hood

USA Recruiting Cmd, Ft Sherdien, ATTN: USARCPM-P

Senior Army Adv., JSAFAGOD/TAC, Elgin AF Aux Fid No. 9

HQ USARPAC. OCSPER, APO SF 96658. ATTN: GPPE-SE

Stimton Lib, Acedamy ul Health Sciences, Ft Sam Houston

Marina Corps lnst„ ATTN: Dean- MCI

HOU°)MC, Commandant, ATTN: Co* "TMT 51

HQUSMC, Commandant. ATI N: Code MPI -20

USCG Academy, New London, ATTN: Admission

USCG Academy, New London, ATTN: Library

USCG Training Ctr, NY, ATTN: CO

USCG Training Ctr, NY, ATTN: Educ Svc Ofc

USCG, Psychol Rat Br, DC, ATTN: GP 1/62

HQ Mid-Range Br, MC Dot, Quantico, ATTN: PftS Div

17

L "-' ■■•'••

MW ajgajpatawaa»»" —"•
1 US MJ-I'IC Coroi Lialn-.r 0»'.. 'MC. Alexandria. ATTN: AMCOS-F

1 USATHAIKK; Ft Monrw, ATTN ATRO ED

0 USATRAOO'.. Fl Mow». ATTN ATPR -AD

1 USATRADOC, Ft Monrne, ATTN ATTS EA

1 USA For.jit (.mil. Ft MePhnrvtn, A I"TN Llbrery

2 USA Aviation t»«t Bil, Ft R'ick..(. ATTN: fjTEBü p0

1 USA Agi:y fin Aviation Satety, fi Rucket, ATTN: Library

1 USA Agcy (nr Aviation Safety. Ft Ruck»'. ATTN: Educ Advn-or

1 USA Avietion Sch, Ft Huckcr, ATTN: PO Drawer 0

1 HQUSA Aviation Sy« Cmd. St Louh, ATTN: AMSAV-ZDR

2 USA Aviation »yt Tnt Act.. Edwards AFB. ATTN: SAVTE-T

1 USA Air Def Sen, Fl Bli»s, ATTN: ATSA TEM

1 UTA Aii Mobility R«ch ft Dev I ah. Moffett Fid, ATTN: SAVOL-AS

1 USA Avution M\. Re< Tng Myt F» Pucker, ATTN: ATST-T-RTM

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

1 HQ, OARCOM, Alexandria. ATTN: AMXCO-TL

1 HQ, OARCOM. Alexandria. ATTN: COR

1 US Military Acade.ny. West Point, ATTN: Sariils Unit

1 US Military Academy, West Poiht, ATTN: Oft of Milt Ldrihp

1 US Military Academy, West Point. ATTN: MAOR

1 USA Standardiietlon Q(., UK, FFO NY, ATTN: MASE-GC

1 Ofc of Naval Rich, Arlington. ATTN: Cod* 452

3 Ofc of Naval R-.ch, Arlington, ATTN: Cod» 468

1 Ofc of Naval Rich, Arlington, ATTN: Code 450

1 Ofc of Naval Rich, Arlington, ATTN Cod« 441

1 Nava1 Aarotpc Med Res Lab PenMcola, ATTN: Acoul Sch Dlv

t Naval Aerospc Mad Res Lib. Penucoli, ATTN: Cod« LSI

1 Naval Aarotpc Med Re? Lab. Pensecola, ATTN: Code LB

1 Chief of NavPurs, ATTN: PcrsOR

1 NAVAIRSTA. Norfolk, ATTN: Safety Cu

1 Nav Oceanogceuhic, DC. ATTN Codo 0251, Chart« & Tech

1 Canter of Naval Anal, ATTN: Doc Ctr

1 NavAirSyXom, ATTN: AIR 5313C

1 Nav BuMed, ATTN: 713

1 NevHelioopterSiibSmw ?, FPO SF BA601

1 AFHRl. (FT) V/lllum AFB

1 AFHRL(TT) Lowry AFB

1 AFHRL IAS) WPAFB, OH

2 AFHRL (DOJZ) Brook* AFB

1 AFHRL (DOJNI Lackland AFB

1 HÜUSAF (INYSO)

1 HOUSAF (DPXXA)

1 AFVTG (RDI Randolph AFB

3 AMRL IHF.I WPAFB, OH

2 AF ln$t of Tech, WPAFB, OH. ATTN: EME/SL

1 ATC (XPTD) Randolph AFD

1 USAF AeroMed Lib, Brook; AFB (SUL-4), ATTN: OOC SEC

1 AFOSR (NL), Arlington

1 AF Log Cmd. McClellen AFB, ATTN: ALC/DPCRB

1 Air Force Aceue'ny, CO. ATTN. D»tpi / "n\ Sw'i

6 NevPer» J, Dev Ctr, San Dlegn

2 Navy Med Neurocxvchlatric Hit h Unit. Sen Diego

1 Nav Electronic Lab, Son Diego, ATTN: Ret Lab

1 Nav TrrqCen, San Diego. ATTN: Code 0000-bb

1 NevPbstGreSch, Monterey, ATTN: Code 66Aa

1 NevPostGraSch, Monterey, ATTN: Code 2124

1 NevTrngErtuipCtr. Orlando, Al IN: Tech Lib

1 US Oept of Labor, OC, ATTN: Menpowor Admin

1 US Oiit of Justice, DC, Ar IN. iirwg Enforce Admin

t Nat Bur of Standards, DC. ATTN: Computer Info Section

1 Nat Cloarlng Homo for Mlf loin. Rockvlltn

1 Denver Federal Ctr, Lukawood. ATTN. OLM

17 Defense Oociimentetloii Ointer

' Dir Psych, Army HQ, Ruuoll Ofci, Cenborr»

, Sclo'ttific Advr. Mil öd. Army Hq. Runell Ofci, Cenbetre

1 Mil and Air Attache, Austrian FimiMty

1 Oniio dn Ri'chotch* Dee Facimtrs. Humalne du la Defense

N'.ionala, flniMiili

7 Canadian Joint Staff Washington

t C/Air Stiff. Royal Canadian AF, ATTN: Pets Std Anal Br

3 Chief, Cunadlan Del Rsch Staff, ATTN: C/CRDS(W)

4 British Dan* Staff. Drltlili Embatay, Weahlngton

18

1 Def »Civil Inst of Enviro Medicine, Canada

1 AIR CRESS, Kentlngton, ATTN: Info Syi Br

1 Mlllteerpaytu>lo»lek T|ene«t», Copehagen

1 Military Attache, French Embeaey. ATTN: Doc Sac

1 Medaeln Chef, C.E.RP.A.-Arsenal, Toulon/Naval Franca

1 Prln Sclafttlflc Off, Appf Hum Engr Rsch Olv, Ministry

of Defenee, New Delhi

1 Pers Rsch Ofc Library, AKA, Israel Defense Foren

1 Minister« van Offenste. OOOP/KL A'dSociaal

Psychologische Zakan. The Hague, Netherlands

THIS PAGE IS B* 3 IS ILIIY PMCUCABJ*!