Technical Paper 343 

~· 

•. 1 

EFFICACY OF A TRAINING PRIORITIES MODEL 

IN AN ARMY ENVIRONMENT 

Arthur C. F. Gilbert, Raymond 0. Waldkoetter 

and 

James L. Raney 

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

and 

Helmut H. Hawkins 

U.S. Army Military Personnel Center 

PERSONNEL AND MANPOWER TECHNICAL AREA • 

U. S. Army 

Research lnctitut~ for the B~t.avior al and Social Scienc..-s 

October 1978 

Approved for publoc release. dostrobutoon unt im oted . 

7 9 04 03 0 33 
~

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

—,— — --,- -

~~~~~ -- .-—-- -.- -. -

~~~~—-- —— -, ___

__________

.1 •

U. S. AR MY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR TH E BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating A gency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

WfLLIA M 1. HAUSER

JOSEPH ZEIDNER Colonel, US Army

Technical Director - 

Commander

NOTICES

DISTRISUTION: Prim.ry distribution of this report his bisn mOe by API. Pies.. eddress correspondence

conc.rrling distribution of reports so: U. S. Army Reseerch Institute for the Beh.viorii end Sociel Sciences,

ATTN PERI P, 5001 Eus nho~~ r Avenus , Aisitendria , Virginia 22333

FINAL DISPOSITION: This report may be dsstroysd when it is ito longer needed, Pi..w do not return it to

SM U. S. Army Rew.rch I nstitute for the Behavioral end Sociel Sciences.

~~

IL TM findings in SPIES report are not to be construed is en officlel Dw.rtrnsnt of th. Army position ,

unless so designated by other authorized documents.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~ TT

TI’
---

~~~ ~

-—~

-._“_ I -, 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~ -~~ ,‘ 

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

Unclassified SECURITY CLASSIFICATIO N OF THIS PAGE (WPiw D.c. L,UIr.d)

READ INSTRUCTIONS REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

LiI

~~~~~

’ ij--.i

Tech nical frape~~~343/ J

~

. GOVT ACCESSION NO 3. RECIPIENrS CATALOG NuMBER

6 4. TlTLE( ~~d

~~~buu.) 5. TyPE OF REPORT & pERuoD Covf ~~~o

• ~~~ 

~~~~~~

FICP.cY OF A ,

~,RAINING PRIORIT IES ~~~~~~~~~~ 1f 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER ~

I AN ARM Y ENVThONMENT ~~~~

‘ ___________________________

~~~ .

_____

AHYi4~~~ iL 

___

5. CONTRA CT OR GRANT NuMBER(.)

• James L./Raney~~~~~~~Helmut H.JHawkins

Arthur C F./Gilbert, Raymond ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -—

I. PERFORMING ORGA NI Z A TI ON NAM E AND ADDRESS 10 . PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJE CT , TASK

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral/ “ 

A R EA & WORK UN I T NUMBERS

and Social Sciences (PERI—IL ) ,

5001 Eisenhower Avenue , Alexandria , VA 22333 (,~~~~~~~~~~17A7 6

L

II. CONTROL L1P4 c. OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS ,IL ~~~~IflT B ...TS

Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel L 

~~~ 

(. ¶ Washing ton , DC 20310 

26

5 4 MONITORING AGENCY NAME C ADDRESS(iI dill.r.r i Ire,. ConirollinG OlUc.) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of (hi. rsporl)

U nclassified P ~~ 

IS•, OECL ASS IF ICA TION/DOWN GRAD IN G ____________________________________ SCHEDULE

IC. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (ol hi. Rsport)

Approved_~~~~,pub1ic_ release ; distribution unlimited . -t

I?. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of ill. ab.t,.ct .ntir.d Sn Bled . 20 , if dift.rsn I (rem Aspe n )

IS. SUPPLEMENTA RY NOTES

4 ——

IC, KEY WORDS (Conhlnu. en PiP.~ .. lids if n.c..llry aid fd•niify by block niai b.r)

Task analysis Instructional modalities Industrial psychology

Training priorities Regression analysis Organizational

Task criticality Vocational psycholog y psychology

Type s of training Occupational psychology Personnel utilization a Training curriculum developmen t

20. ASS74AcT (Caif inu an , oaes• .ids if .rec.. ,. and ldant*& by block n. b.n)

AI~ he research explored the feasibility of a s t ra tegy for assigning training priorities in an Army Military Occupational Specialty (MOS 76V) . Data

were collected for each of the 183 tasks in the MOS from 80 supervisors and

instructors on four rating st~s1es : Task Learning Difficulty, Consequences

of Inadequate Performance , Need for Immedia te Performance , and most appropriate Type of Training . Add i tional data indicate the percentages of MOS

members performing each task in the IOS ..

~~~~~~~( ..) 

(con tinued )

DO I 

F

JAM 

OWN 

~~ 

. u47~ — LOITSON OF I NOV Si l OBSOLETE Unclassified

SECURITY CLAUfF ,CAT rON OP THIS PAGE (1l5.n 0.11 Enl.,sd)

I,

~/ ~Og ~ LO 79 04 03 033
r

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

—- ‘

~~~~~~~~~~ ~~IiII : 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - 

- 

-

‘

~~

- --

~~~~ 

‘

~~~~~

Unclassified

SECURITY CI.A$$ IPICATION OF t HIS PAO I(Wh an D.ia tni.ee ~~

20. (Contimued)

~~~ata were analyzed in terms of the reliabilities of the four scales.

Regression analyses were performed to establish the degree to which training priorities could be predicted from task learning difficulty , consequences of inadequate performance , need for immediate performance , and

percentage of members performing . A multiple correlation coefficient of

.87 was obtained between the Type of Training scale and the four predictor

variables in the most parsimonious so1ution .~~~

\

~

ø

~ ~~~~~~ 

- .

\ ~~~~~~~~~ - ~~

•

\ ~~~~~~~~

\

~

t 4

~~~~~ ~

H

Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAOE(W!,an b.Ia Sni. d)
. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ • ~‘ .‘ - - -~~ -- - -- -- -- . 

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

Technical Paper 343

EFFICACY OF A TRAINING PRiORiTiES MODEL

:1 IN AN ARMY ENVIRONMENT

Arthur C. F. Gilbert, Raymond 0. Waldkoetter

and

James L. Raney

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

and

Helmut H. Hawkins

U.S. Army Military Personnel Center

H Anthony E. Castelnovo, Team Chief

PERSONNEL AND MANPOWER TECHNICAL AREA

SubmItted as complete and Approved By:

technically accurat e, by:

Ralph R. Canter E. Ralph Dusek

Technical Area Chief PERSONNEL AND TRAINING

RESEARCH LABORATORY

- I Joseph Zeidn.~

r

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

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

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alex andria , V irginia 22333

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel - •

Department of the Army

October 1978

Army Pro4ec t Number Enlisted Careers

20782717A766

Appro

~

ed for public release; distribution unlimited.

___
ARI Research Reports and Technical Papers are intended for sponsors of 

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

implementation at the time of publication are presented in the 1atter 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. 
- • ______________________________________________

—- _____________ - - - - TT°TT L - .. _ i

~~~~~~~---

——— ~~”

~

!OREWOR D

In 1975 the Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social

Sciences C ARl) was requested by the A rmy Military Personnel Center

(MILPERCEN) to examine for potential Army application a theoretical model

of training priorities developed by the Air Force. ARI’S Personnel and

Manpowe r Technical Area tested the original model with enlisted personnel

in a specific Military Occupational Specialty CMOS), as the initial research on the problem of task criticality now being investigated in API’s

Training Technical Area. The technological base research was done under

Army Project 2Q762717A766.

¶ The contents of this Technical Paper were presented at the 18th an—

nual. meeting of the Military Testing Asaociation, October 1976. --

e hnical Director
T~~

1 !

EFFICACY OF A TRAINING PRIORITIES MODEL IN AN ARMY ENVIRONMENT

BRIEF

Requirement:

To determine whether a four—factor model for determining task criticality can be used to establish training priorities and preferred type of

training for the separate tasks in an Army supply Military Occupational

Specialty C MOS 76V). The four factors were Task Learning Difficulty ,

Task Delay Tolerance, Consequence of Inadequate Performance, and Percentage of Members of the MOS who perform the tasks.

Procedure:

Data were collected by asking 80 supervisors and instructors in MOS

76V to rate each of the 183 tasks in the MOS on task learning difficulty,

task delay tolerance, and consequences of inadequate performance. These

data were combined with previously collected information on the percent—

age of MOS personnel performing each task. Raters also judged the best

type of training for each task from a list ranging from “resident school

training” to “no training.”

The four sets of factor data were tested to determine their effi—

ciency in predicting supervisors’ and instructors’ opinions on the type

of training most appropriate for each task. Statistical analysis established how well the different types of training were predicted from the

four factors.

Findings:

• The four—factor model can be used to develop task criticality indices for establishing training priorities in this MOS. The most parsi—

monious solution used the four factors to predict type of training at

three levels (resident school training, other training at the unit, and

no training). The most useful single variable in determining training

• priorities was task learning difficulty——the tasks considered hardest

to learn should be taught in the most formal setting.

Utilization of Findings:

The general applicability of the model for MOS 76V, Equipment Stor—

age Specialist, has been demonstrated in this research. Further research

is needed prior to Army adaptation or implementation , in other 1406.

L . 

- - ~~~~~~~ -
________ ---- -

~~~~~- -~

--- ---~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -

~~~~~~~~

EFFICACY OF A TRAINING PRIORITIES MODEL IN AN ARMY ENVI1~)NMENT

CONTENTS

Page

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

PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Task Rating Scales •... . .. . ... . . . . .. . . .. 2 1 -

Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

• SUMMA~~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

APPENDIX A: Task Inventory, MOS 76V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

B: Task Rating Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

DISTRI~~JTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Location and presentation group of

subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2. Order of presentation of the rating scales

to each of the five groups of subjects . . . . . . . . . . 5

3. Correlation among the three types of

training scales and the seven predictor

variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

4. Beta weights of the different variables in

the six regression analyses for predicting

training priorities . . ... . . . ... ...... •
_____ 

~~~ 7~~~~~~ •

_“-,‘

EFFICACY OF A TRAINING PRIORITIES MODEL IN AN ARMY ENVIRONMENT

INTRODUCTION

Deriving training priorities for different job tasks is ess’~

ntial

to effective curriculum design. Thus, tasks are defined that should be

included in, or excluded from, the instructional program. Training time

and costs are reduced when only job-specific tasks are included. Another

consideration is the level at which the knowledge should be imparted.

The level should be related to the sophistication required for satisfactory job performance. Further savings in time and cost will result when

the most favorable instructional setting for each of the various job

tasks is specified.

The curriculum designer should have information on the instructional

xr~ dality or combination of modalities most appropriate in each instance.

Will the task be taught better in a resident school setting or in correspondence training? Is a combination of on—the—job training and correspondence appropriate? The timespan that elapses from the actual training

to the point of application of the knowledge acquired has to be evalu—

ated. If the timespan is such that the knowledge acquired in the train—

ing course is archaic, or forgotten by the job incumbent at the point of

application, then it should be excluded from the training curriculum.

An adequate system of establishing training priorities will deter—

mine what should be included in the training curriculum and the level at

which the training should be conducted. In addition, it should identify

when the training should occur and what is the most advantageous training

strategy. From a training viewpoint, an adequate system of establishing

training priorities will determine what knowledge should be taught and at

which leve l, and where and when the knowledge should be imparted. Technical training objectives can then be adequately assessed by such a system, under the s asor.ed judgment of training specialists, and reviewed

according to given doctrine and training policies.

The training priorities model used in this research was adapted from

the task criticality model developed in the U.S. Air Force.1 Research

results indicated the potential utility of a four—factor model of estab—

lishing training priorities. These four factors were Task Learning Difficulty (TLD), Consequences of Inadequate Performance (CIP), Task Delay

Tolerance (TDT), and Percentage of Members (PCT) who perform the task in

a particular Military Occupational Specialty (MOS). These factors are

‘Mead, D. F. Determining Training Priorities for Job Tasks. Paper pre—

sented at the 17th Annual Conference of the Military Testing Association,

Indianapolis, md. , 16—19 September 1975.
-• —- —..————-—- -_~

.-—-..• •- - ~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ 

.•.. .•.‘ •_

~

—.—~

.

~~~

•.-

~

— 7 -• ~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~

similar to those recognized in designs for human engineering .2 The pur—

pos~ of this research was to explore the potential va lue of a rev ised

version of the model for Army application.

PROCEDURE

As a result of an operational requirement, the MOS selected for a

test of the utility of the tc’u-factor model was 76V, Equipment Storage

Specialist. A task list and rating Rcalea were developed and adntini~ —

tered to a representative sample of 80 supervisors and instructors in

this MOS. This sant~l. was uaed for exploratory purposes, and the collected judgments were assumed to be qualified responses based on direct

experience and participation.

The task list consisted of 183 tasks defined by the Army Military

Personne l Center (MILPERCEN ) from the Comprehensive Occupational Data

Analysis Program (CODAP ) survey booklets (Appendix A). The task list

contained on ly those tasks that were performed by personnel in grades

( up through E—5 and excluded those duties that were strictly military

in nature.

Scales were developed to measure three of the four factors——TDT ,

TLD , and CIP——to obtain judgments on the type of training considered most

appropriate for each task. Results of these measures, plus information

on the fourth factor (PCT), constituted the variables used in analyzing

the predictive effectiveness of the four—factor model.

Task Rating Scales

Four scales (Appendix B) were developed. One rating scale was the

training priority criterion measure. The other three involved measurement of variables considered to be predictive of the training priority

eva luation (i.e., TDT , TLD, CIP).

Type of Training . The type of training scale——the criterion measure

——requ ired the rater to evaluate the 183 tasks on a 5—point scale as to

the type of training considered most appropriate for each task. The rating categories were as follows:

1. No training required,

2. On-the—job training (OJT),

2Lintz , L. M., Loy , S. L., Hopper, R., & Potemp a , E. W. Relationship

Between Design of Avionics Subsystem Cost, Training Difficulty, and Job

Performance (AD 759 583). St. Louis, Mo.: McDonnell Astronautics Com

pany , 1972.

2
3. Formal unit training, 

4. Nonresident school training, and 

5. Resident school training. 

The raters were informed that the scale was a measure of the most appropriate type of training for the successful performance of a task. Each 

rater was asked to select the one option of the five judged to be the 

best method of training for that task. The training categories are defined in terma of increasing levels of structured, well-developed teaching methods. 

Task Learning Difficulty. This scale was defined as "measure of the 

need for lengthy systematic training before a new member of the appropriate Army specialty could perform the task adequately." The scale was 

defined further in terms of the "difficulty involved in picking up the 

task on the job without any systematic trai~ing." This scale was a 7-

poi nt s c ale. 

Consequences o f Inadequate Performance. This scale was defined as a 

measure o f the probable consequences of i nadequate performance of a task. 

The instructions stated that such consequences could be possible injury 

o r death, wasted supplies, damaqeci equipment, or wasted man-hours of work. 

A 7-point scale was used. The scale value of 1 corresponded to the least 

serious consequences of inadequate performancP. defined as "extremely 

l ow--if the task is not done correctly, the possible consequences of inadequate performance are negligible." The high end of the scale, corresponding to a scale value of 7, was defined as "extremely high--if the 

task is not done correctly, the possible consequences of inadequate performance are disastrous." 

Task Delay Tolerance. This scale was defined as a measure of how 

much delay of task performance can be tolerated between the time the 

soldier becomes aware that the task must be performed and the time at 

whi c h he must start doing it. In other words, does he have to perform 

the task immediately? Does he have time to call his supervi s o r? Does he 

have time to read a field or technical manual? Or, will the time permit 

s actually being taught how to perform the particular task? The ratin~ were obtained on a 7-point scale; the scale value of 1 was defined 

as "extremely low--the task must be performed immediately whenever it is 

encountered." The scale value of 7 was defined as "extremely high--task 

performance is almost never urgent." 

Subjects 

Subjects were 80 noncommissioned officers (NCOs) in MOS 76V, Equipment Storage Specialist. These NCOs were instructors or supe1·visors. In 

the sampling plan, an attempt was made to obtain a sample as representative as possible in terms of both geographical location and type of unit 

3 
(i.e., operational type unit, or support unit such as a supply depot). 

Table 1 shows the number of subjects at each location. OVerseas locations were not used because of the ti-. constraints. 

Table 1 

Location and Presentation Group of Subjects 

Presentation Groue 

Location 1 2 3 4 5 Total 

Fort Ord 2 1 1 1 1 6 

Fort Hood 2 2 2 2 2 10 

Fort Devens 0 2 1 1 0 4 

Fort Lee 5 5 5 5 5 25 

Letterkenny 

Army Depot, Pa. 2 1 1 1 2 7 

Fort McClellan 1 1 2 2 1 7 

Fort Campbell 2 2 2 1 2 9 

Fort Jackson 1 2 2 2 1 8 

Fort Bragg 1 1 1 1 0 4 

Total 16 17 17 16 14 80 

Administration 

Subjects were divided into five groups on the basis of order of 

administration of the scales. The orders of presentation of the scales 

are shown in Table 2. SUbjects in four groups were required to rate the 

tasks on the four scales in the order shown and were not allowed to refer 

to the ratings given to a task on a scale completed earlier than the one 

which they were then completing. In the fifth group, all the scales were 

presented simultaneously, and subjects were required to rate each task on 

all four scales before proceeding to the next. After completion of the 

rating tasks, subjects were required to complete a questionnaire containing items dealing with training and personnel management. 

4 
Table 2 

Order of Preaentation of the Rating Scales to 

Each of the Five Groups of Subject& 

Order of ,2reaentation 

Gro~p 2 ) 

•roT TLD TOT 

2 TLD TOT CIP 

) TD'J' CIP TOT 

CIP TO'r TLD 

5 (Each task rated on all scales 

continuing to the noxt task) 

Note. TOT • Type of Training. 

TLD a Task Learni ng Difficulty. 

'l'()T .. Task Delay Tolerance. 

IP .. Consequences of Inadequate 

Performance. 

4 

CIP 

'l'OT 

TLD 

TOT 

before 

After ompleting the rating tasks and questionnaire, the subjects 

were interviewed either individually or in groups. The interview was 

unstruc tured but focused on such issues as the adequacy of the task list, 

problems encountered in the rating task, personnel utilization practices, 

and possible improvement of training. 

RESULTS 

Data were first analyzed to determine the reliabi lity or the amount 

of agreement among the raters tor each of the three predictive scales. 

1'hese reliabilitiea were coau>uted using the data from all 80 subjects. 

The reliability estimate was derived from the CODAP program. For 

the Task Learning Difficulty scale it was .92, the hight'lat reliability 

estimate obtained. Reliability estimates of .75 and .72 were obtained 

for the Consequences of Inadequate Performance and the Task Delay Tolerance, reapectively. A poasible explanation of the relatively low reliabilities of theae two scalea is that the instructions may have been somewhat ambiguoua. Alao, values on the Task Delay Tolerance acale were 

reveraed in comparison with the other two scales. In other worda, 1 on 

5 
.‘.

~ 

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

this scale was encoded for “extremely low——the task must be performed

immediately whenever it is encountered.” Thus the most important task

on this scale had a value of 1 whereas the most important value was 7 on

the other two scales.

After the reliability estimates among raters for each of the four

scales were established , the mean rat ing given each task by those who

rated that task was comç zted for each of the four scales. The mean rating for the Type of Training scale was computed for a 3—point scale in

which a value of 3 was assigned to a rating corresponding to “resident

school training.” A value of 2 was assigned to those tasks for which

the rater evaluated the training method most appropriate as being in one

of the three following categories: on—the—job training, f ormal un it

training, and nonresident school training. A value of 1 was encoded for

the eva lua tive category cor responding to “no training required.”

A second Type of Training scale was a 5—point scale. The scale values were derived by assigning a value of 5 to the category corresponding

to “resident school training,” a va lue of 4 to “formal unit training,”

a value of 3 to “nonres ident school tra in ing, ” a valu e of 2 to “on—the—

job training,” and a va lue of 1 to “no training r equired. ”

A th ird Type of Train ing scale value was genera ted by assigning a

value of 1 to those tasks where the majority of the raters felt that resident school training or formal unit training was most appropriate, and a

value of 0 to all cther tasks.

The fourth factor of the model and the final variable in the analyses was the percentage of members of the t4DS who perform each task (PeT).

These data were acquired from previously collected information processed

by CODAP.

Three other variables were generated in accordance with the proce—

‘1 dure outlined by Mead ( Mead , 1975). These variables were the TLD percent

values, the squared TDT values, and the squared PCT values. Generation

of these new variables appeared desirable to investigate their possible

utility in an Army setting. The correlation matrix resulting from the

10 variables is shown in Table 3.

Six analyses of regression were performed , using ratings on the Type

• of Training scale as the criterion (Table 4). In the first two analyses,

as stated previously , the ratings were trichotomized; in the second two

• ana lyses, a S—point scale was used; and in the third two analyses, a

dichotomized scale was used as the criterion variable. The first analysis in each pair used four predictor variables: three of these variables

were the average ratings of each task on the TLD scale, CI? scale, the

TOT scale , and the fourth variable was the percentage of incumbents per—

forming (PcT) each task in the MOS. The second analysis in each pair of

analyses employed three generated variables. One of these generated var—

lables was the value of the TLD variable if less than 5% of the members

performed the task : otherwise, a value of zero was assigned to the value

6 1
— ~~~~~~~- ~-

—. — —-- — 

— • -- - --

._

Table 3

Correlation Among the Three Type . of Training Scales

and the Seven Predictor Variables

I

Variable

J Var Ia- TOT TOT TOT TLD CIP TOT POT TLD TOT PCT

ble 3 5 1 PCT SQ SQ

• TOT 3 1.00 •97** .62** $7** •5j ** — .11 _ .32** .13* — .12 _ .27**

TOT 5 1.00 .67** .88 ’ .52** — .12 _ .38** .t4 — .12 _ •34**

TOT 1 1.00 .50~~ .30** — .01 _ .22** .18 — .01 _ .21**

TLD 1.00 .56** — .11 ..,39** .15* ~ .13 ~33**

CI? 1 .00 _ ,59** _ .16* .02 _ .61** -~~19~~

TOT 1.00 _ .17* •15~~ _

~ 99** .09

PCT 1.00 — .35 _ .16* 94**

TLD PCT 1.00 .17* _ .20**

TOT SQ 1.00 — .08

PCT SQ 1.00

Note. TOT 3 — Three—point Type of Training Scale.

TOT S — Five—point Type of Training Scale.

TOT I — Two—point Type of Training Scale.

TLD Task Learning Difficulty.

CI? — Consequences of Inadequate Performance.

TOT — Task Delay Tolerance.

POT — Percent of Members Performing.

TLD PCT — Task Delay Tolerance value if PCT < 5% of PCT ; otherwise 0.

TOT SQ — Task Delay Tolerance Squared.

PCT SQ — Percent of Members Performing Squared.

*p< .05.

**p < 01
- - 

~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ •~~-~~~~‘p~~~~~~~~~~~

of the variable for that task. The two other variables were th. squared

TDT ratin gs and the squared PC? va lues for each task.

The beta weights obtained in each of th. six analyses are shown in

Table 4 accompanied by the corresponding multiple correlation coefficients and the squared multiple correlation coefficients.

The highest multiple correlation coefficient was obtained using the

S—point Type of Training scale as the criterion, and using all seven predictor variables. HoweveL , there was only a negligible increase in this

instance, as compared with the result obtained in using the four origina l

variables. Also , a negligible difference existed between the multip le

correlation of the 3—point Type of Training scale and the S—point Type of

Training scale, and the difference in predicting the former from the tour

or the seven predictor variables was not of substantial importance. A

substantial difference was evident when attempts ware made to predict the

dichotomized Type of Training rating from either the fou r or from the

seven prediction variables. It appears that the most parsimonious solu—

tion can be achieved by predictinq the trichotomized Type of Training

Mcale from the four origi nal variables.

The results of the interviews indicated that the task listing and

inst ructions for the use of the scales were adequate. However, there

appeared to be some problem with the scale reflecting Task Delay Toler—

ance. As noted prev iously, this scale was reversed in terms of impor—

tance from the direction of the other scales. The problem of being

assigned to duty in an MOS other than their primary MOS was of concern

to some of the NCOs , particularly in view of the fact that they were required to take their proficiency test in their primary MOS. Many NCOs

were trained in this Pt~S by on—the—job training (OJT). Some of these

NCO5 were partial to the OJT training strategy . Some NCOs felt that

school—acquired training was not as well utilized as it should be, because of locally developed procedures or because supervisors were not

fully aware of the school curriculum. Another reason for not fully utilizing school—acquired information was that supervisors were not aware

of the current curriculum in the school.

DI SCUSSION

• Results of this research indicated that the four—factor model of det.nnining trainin g priorities can have reasonable app lication to MOS 76V ,

Equipment Storage Specialist. The single most useful variable in determining training priorities was the Task Learning Difficulty scale. Tasks

that are rated as difficult to learn are judged better taught in a more

formal environment. Again , the most parsimonious approach to assessing

tentative training priorities appears to result from segmenting Type of

Training into a 3—point scale that corresponds to resident school in—

struction, other types of training, and no training. The four basic variables (Task Learning Difficulty, Consequences of Inadequate Performance,

Task Delay Tolerance , and Percentage of Members Performing) are highly

S
‘

~~ 

•__ _

~

—•_~~~~

,

•,.:i-.I_• -_•~

• —~ ,

~ - ‘ - ~~~~~~~~~7 ‘‘~~~~~~~ a

Table 4

8.ta Weights of the Different Variables in the Six Regression

An a ly ses for Predi cting Training Priorities

Type of Training Type of Training Type of Training

Variable 3—point scale 5—point scale 2—point scale

• TLD .85644 .85186 .83094 .83393 .44552 .46658

CIP .04597 .05615 .05028 .07647 .11853 .11459

TOT .01765 — .35526 — .00236 1.25900 .10873 — .48737

PC? .01909 — .07334 — .04890 — .08289 — .00728 .35399

TLD PC? — .00576 — .00380 .14626

TOT SQ .37276 1.27285 .60386

- t PC~’ SQ .09161 .02835 — .32794

R .87330** ,87393** .88019** .88392 k .51012** .53106**

R2 .76266 .76375 .77473 .78131 .26022 .28203

-

‘ Note. TLD — Task Learning Difficulty.

• CI? — Consequences of Inadequate Performance.

TOT — Task Delay Tolerance.

PC? — Percentage of Members Performing.

TLD PC? - TLD of < 5%; otherwise TLD.

TOT SQ - TOT Squared.

PCT SQ — Percentage of Members Performing, Squared.

‘ .05.

**p < .0

1. 9
T±TI1 IT~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

predictive of the Type of Training when categorized in this fashion .

There is no apparent need for the three generated variables , since they

do not add sufficiently to the prediction equation.

The relatively low correlations of the Task Delay Tolerance scale

with the Type of Training criterion scales may be attributed to possible

rater confusion because this scale had step values that were reversed in

comparison w ith the Task Learning Di ff iculty scale and the Consequences

of Inadequate Performance scale. Further research could be conducted to

determine whether this scale has greater utility when the step values

are in the same direction as the other scales.

Other analyses of the data obtained in this research will aim toward

isolating the differences in the ratings provided by supervisors and instructors , as well as differences that may be attributable to the order

of presentation of the scales. It would be interesting to explore the

increase in prediction that may result from different scaling strategies.

It is recommended that the utility of the four—factor model be examined

in other MOS before the system is recommended for operational use in the

Army . 

S~~MARY

The purpose of this research was to explore the feasibil ity of a

strategy for assigning training priorities in an Army supply MOS. Data

were collected from 80 supervisors and instructors for each of the 183

tasks in the MOS on four rating scales: Task Learning Difficulty, Consequences of Inadequate Performance , Need for Immediate Performance , and

the most appropriate Type of Training. Additional data were obtained

for the tasks that reflected the percentage of members performing each

task in the MOS.

Data were analyzed in terms of the reliabilities of the four scales,

and regression analyses were performed to establish the degree to whi ch

different types of training could be predicted from the four variables,

i.e., Task Learning Difficulty, Consequences of Inadequate Performance ,

Need for Immediate Performance, and Percentage of Members Performing. A - multiple correlation coefficient of .87 was obtained between the Type of

Training scale and these four variables in the most parsimonious solution.

Additional analyses of these data will be performed to isolate certain effects that may lead to increased utility of the model. Further

research will involve exploring the value of the model in other Army MOS

and examining the feasibility for operational use for Army —w ide application in diagnosing training or work design problems.

10
APPEI"DI X A 

TASK INVEI'n'ORY IMos q6v 

- A. PERFORN SU PPLY /EQU IP!·ENT RECEI VING DUTIES 

1 DETERMI NE RECEIVIr:G OPERATIONS PERSONNEL REQUIREJ'!ENTS 

2 DETERMI NE MATERI/lL IWIDLlNG Ul MENT (MHE) REQUIRF.ME!lTS 

- 3 ASSIGN WORK CREWS 

4 REQUEST MHE 

5 SPOT CAR RIER 

6 CHECK C 

--

ARRIER 

--- COIWITION 

1 CHECK/V ERIFY CARRIER .:ft ~ SERIAL Nut-IBER 

8 PALLE':"I ZE !~ MING SUPPL! E 

9 UNLOAD INCOMI NG SU?PLI E 

-- - 10 SUPERVI SE PERSONN EL UNLOADI NG INCO!<U NG 

11 INSPECT I NCOMING SUPFLIES FOR DAMAGE 

12 TALLY-I N SliPPLIES 

- 13 SEGREGA TE SUPPLIES 

14 REPACKA GE DANAGEJ; CO I'l'AINERS 

15 RFJ.tARK DJU.tAGED COfiTr\INER 

16 CHECK/V ERIFY SHI? ? IriG ReCEIPT DOCUt-1EN'l'S 

SU::'PLI ES 

17 FORWARD RECEIPT CUt-~E: TS TO DOCUt-l.EN'l' CONTROL 

18 MOVE SU PPLIES TO STORAGE AHEA 

..-.----- - . 19 CLEAN Ef. -. U'TY CARRIERS 

20 PREPARE REPORT OF I T£!.! DISCREPANCY 

-- ·-

ftAGE 1 o.- 12 PAr.(' 

I 

, •.. 

,.-

1 ·-

I 

I 

I ' I --H 

' I 

21 PROCESS PARCEL POST RECEIPTS 

11 -- -- .. - ·- . . - . . ·- T _____ 1~ --- --·---··------=t-. ~-= ···- · ·---===- ____ l .. __ ,
. TASK INVENTORY IMOS .76V ~AG[ 2 or 12 ~"' t• 

. -· .. . . - . - .... ' ·· 

B. PERFORt-1 SUPPLY "'':'ORAGE A:iD HANDLII:G DUTIES 

1 ASSIGN STORAGE LOCATIQriS 

2 SUPERV!SE PEP.SONI:EL OPERATING l<!HE 

3 VERIFY STORAGE LOCATION 

4 CQt.t?tiTE HHE A:ID t-!ANPO\-'ER RE FOR STORAGE FUI:CTJO~IS 

5 STORE SUPPLI=:S I:l ASSIGNED AREAS 

6 SUPERVISE PERSONN=:L STORING SU?PL:i:ES 

7 PLACE SUPPLIES ON DUNNAGE 

8 STACK PALLET!ZED UP? LIES 

9 CONSOLIDATE SU!ILAR I':'E!-!S . 1l) INSPECT SUPPLIES FOR CONTA!-IINATION 

11 REQUEST INSECT/RODE!iT CONTROL I<EASURES 

12 SAFEGUARD SUPPLIES 

13 SPOT-CHECK SUPPLIES FOR DAMAGE 

.. 14 R~OVE DAri.AGED ITEMS 

15 COVER SUPPLIES Ili OPEN STORAGE 

16 REPORT STOCK DISCREPANCIES 

17 PREPARE BIN REPLENISlWENT REQUEST 

18 RECEIVE BIN REPLENIS~ffiNT STOCK 

. 19 PREPARE STOCK LOCATION CHANGE NOTICE 

20 FORWAND ~GE NOTICE TO STOCK LOCATOR FILE 

. 

____ ..,. -1 CONTINUED ON N~\~ PAGE 12 
I

~~~~

’

__TT~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T-Z~~ —~~~~~~ 

~ 1

_________ T~~~~~~IV ENTORY J M06~ T6v 

~~ O~~ l2 IP*r.c. 1

B. PERFORM SUPPLY STORAGE AND HANDLING DUTIES (Corrr )

21 STORE SENSITIVE MATERIAL

22 STORE SPECIAL COMMODITIES 

—

23 PERFORM HOUSEKEEPING DUTIES

• 

— 

2ie PERFORM COSIS

-

______ 

i1~~

13 

~~~~~~~~~ -.... .
--------------------------~--------,-----------~ TASK INVENTORY IMOS · 76V 

._ _______ ·------ -

C. PERFORM ESERVATION/PAC~G G DUTIES 

1 Dl SASSD!BLE/REA El-ffiLE mNOR E UIPf.fENT FOR CLEANING 

SELF. T CLEANING ?R ESS 

3 Dl"l'ERf.IINE !A':'I::RI LS EQUIP~! N1' Rl:: UIRED F R LEANI NG 

4 Dt::'l'ERt-!1 NE RE U IRED LEANING PR CESS AFE'rY PRE AUTI N 

5 CLEAN IT!::t>IS F R PRESERVATI N/ FA KAGlNG 

6 SUPEHV1"E Pl-"'HS N~EL LEANING !TENS 

7 CHE K LVEN'l' COi':DI'IJ N 

8 SUPt:RVI SE PEHSCN~EL HANDLING S LV"'NTS 

9 TES'l' l'l'ENS FOR CLEAII~!NESS 

10 SELECT DRYING PS EDURE 

11 DR\' ITEZ.:S FOR Fl\ESERVATION/ FA KAGiil, 

12 SUl'ERrl SE PER~ON:'I L 1\YING 1 'l'FJ.:S 

13 SELECT FRESERVATI N ~!E'I'H D 

~-~----------------------------------+---------~-- 14 APPLY 1' ~!I'ORAHY 'r\TE PRE 'ERV ,\TIVES 

15 APl'LY PE~IANEN'l' ':'\'FE PRESEl\VA! I\' FS 

16 SUPERV .l SE FI::RSONNEL APFL YING rf\ESERV A'l' IVES 

17 I NSPt\:T l'RESE!\VED : TE:.'IS 

18 CmtPU'l'E C'ONTA.!NER ~IA l'E IUAL HE~~UIRE~tENTS 

· 19 Sf.:Ll::C'l' CU''I!ION Irll~ AND DUNN,\liE ~! 1'ERI ALS FL'l\ l'ACK 1 Nv 

20 APrLY •r ACI\lNC CUSHIONI NG AND DUNNAGE ~IA'l' E!U ALS 

,_ __________________________ ---- --- ~ 

CONTINUED N NE~~· rAGE 

----- --- - - L.-.• -·~ .... •. 
__________ 

TASK INVENTORY I

MOS 76v IP*6t 5 oci2 pA,~

r

~

C. PERFORM PRESERVATION/ PACKAGING DUTIES ( CONT ) —

21 SUPERVISE PERSONNEL APPLYING PACKING /CUSH IONING r

~

u~

:NAGE —

~

2.~ SELECT SHIPPING CONTAINER FOR PACKING

23 CON~~RUCT/REFAIR CONTAINERS —

2ie SUFERVI~ E ~~C:;NEL CCNSTRUCTING/RE }’AIRING CCNT ;dNEF~ 

—

25 REPA CK ~H I FPJN c L’s

~

N i’ ,

~~~FE~ 

— 

- -~

A 2t. SUI Eh’V:SF }‘Ei~::cN:;YL PACK ING CCNTA NFC ~ 

—____________ —

.‘7 CUT ~i’F:NC I

~ FCF MARK NG FF~U R~~tENT~

28 A~TL~ LM’}~~ ECH CUiF ~ i , G

• 29 IN SPE CT I

~ t~

E~ ING OF CC:; A IN - ______________ —

30 SEL ECT 1~

LOCKIN ~ PRAC:NG ~AT~’H A L

31 AF r LY F CCKIN • ~ ~-

~ c ::;.; ~

I-I::F:A L

32 API LY :rEN:I~ :c~

I:~ cN ~~~~~ GC —

33 ~~~Tfl EEI’ROOF FING ~

‘CNTA NE t:~ -_________________________ ______________

31

~ 

SUI’ERV ISF PEH~~’

~ Ni~ . ~y~ : e E ~ i HccF:sG 1FF I~ CCN:’A

35 COMPUTE ~RA }’l’ : NG HF!: CHCF.K~NT RE~I ’IHEM:~ 

:

~: —

36 STRA P II~ MS FO R ~~~~~~ 

- _____________________________________

37 SUPER V ISE PER~~N:;~ : ~TH~

d’I’IN~ ITEMS — ——

38 PERFORM RGUGH HAN ’IING TE~ T~ 

- ____________________________ __________

- 

- -

~~ 

_

• 

__ _ _

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

_ 

H
TASK INVENTORY IMOS "76V I f'AG£ 6 or 12 "Ar·t:' 

~ 

D. PERFORM SHIPPHIC A!ID ~SSOINC DUTIES 

1 PLAll SHIPPING OPE:V.:'IONS 

2 COORDHIATE SHIPPI:IG IiJFO WITH OTHER STORACE ACTIVITI ES 

3 SELECT SUPPLIES FC!=. SP.IPPHlC 

4 ASSD-3 LE AND PREH-~E LOAD FOR SHIPPiriC 

5 COf.lPUTE CUBE OF Sf.:PPIHC CONTAINERS 

6 ~ICH ITEMS TO BE SniPPED 

7 ADDRESS SHIPPIUC vCiiTAINERS 

8 PALLE':'!ZE SUPPLIES FOP. SP.IPHEUT 

9 SUPERVISE PERSO:a;::::: PALLE'!'IZING SUPPLIES 

10 CONSCLIDATE SHI!=Z.E:rs I 

. 11 SUPERVISE PERsor;r;::::: CO!iSOLIDATIIiC SP.IPf.IEUTS 

12 MOVE SUPPLIES TO ;: LDING AREA 

13 SUPERVISE PEP.SONt:EL f.!OVINC SUPPLIES TO HOLDING AREA 

14 TALLY- OUT SUPPLIE~ 

15 CHE K CONDITION OF CARRIER 

16 LOAD CARRIER 

i17 BLOCK AND BRACE SUFPLIES ON CARRIER 

18 SUPERVISE PERSONNi.::L LOADn;c CARRIER 

19 PREPARE CARGO LOAD FOR HELICOPTER f.IOVEr.fEi;'l' 

20 ANNOTATE SHIPPING D C~:Ei~T ENTRIES 

-

~ - --·-·· 1-

CONTINUED ON NEXT PACE 16 

-· ~ ... -- "--
·- -

TASK INVE~"l'ORY IMOS . 76V PAGI[ 7 Of' 12 PM". E' 

.. -

D. PERFORM SHIPPING AND ISSUING DU7!ES (CONT) I 

21 CHECK SHIPPING DOCUMENTS 

22 DISTRIBUTE SHIPPirlG DOCUMENTS 

23 SPOT CHECK SUPPLIES AGAINST ISSUE DOCUMENTS 

r-i 

l 

i 

I i 

I 

- ·- · 

i 

·-

; 

- ~,r

-

I 

---...:.j---

I 

17 - ~- •.. ,_.....,. ·· ·- . -· 

l ---- ~~- -- ' ··~ 
TASK INV~Q~"( . IMOS "76V PAG£ 8 OJ 12 I'Ar.[' 

·--··- ... ·..-

,- E. PERFORM LOCATIOlf/IrlVENTORY DUTIES 

1 PREPARE/FILE LOCATOR CARDS 

2 MAINTAIN LvCATOR FILE IN FIN SEQUENCE 

3 FILE LOCATOR CARDS 

4 POST LOCATCR CARDS 

5 MAINTAIN CE!iTRALIZED STOCK LOCATOR FILE 

6 INSTRUCT PERSONNEL IN STOCK LOCATOR NUMBERING SYSTEJ.! USE 

7 SUPERVISE PERSOlnlEL MAINTAINING .. STOCK LOCATOR FILE 

8 POST STORAGE LOCATIONS ON DD 1348-1 

9 POST STORAGE LOCATIONS ON DD 250 

10 POST STORAGE LOCATIONS ON DA 2765 ' I 

11 POST STO~GE LOCATIONS ON DOD MAT REC tOCU (DD 1486) ! 

12 POST STORA~E LOCATIONS ON MAT TRA~S RECORD I 

13 POST STOCK DA~A CHANGES TO BIN/BULK STOCKS (~ 

14 POST STOCK DATA CHANGES TO LOCATOR RECORDS -r-·· 

15 PLAN FOR I=tvENTORIES I 

l6 INVENTORY SUPPLIES 

17 SUPERVISE PERSONNEL CONDUCTING INVENTORY 

18 CONDUCT PHYSICAL LOCATION SURVEY ---~L I 

I 

19 REPORT LOCATION DISCREPANCIES ----r20 REPOR'r IrM:NTORY RESULTS 

·--- -1- -- ------·- ·--····----. ..1--

COITINUED ON NEXT PAGE 18 I I ----- - ·- --·· - · · - .... . "':' -___.....•-:..k~ 
~~~~~—---~~~~----• ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

— 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- — ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .7 —-

TASK INV ENTORY - 1M06 76V j PAGE 9 0r 12 PAr~~~

I

• B. - PERFORM LOCATION/INVEN TORY DUTIES (C0NT ) 

—

21 COMPLETE DOD PHYSICAL INVENTORY DOCUMENT (DL 11485)

— 

22 VERIFY NUMBER OF COUNT CARDS TO BE COt.PLETED

— 

23 VERIFY COUNT CARD INFORMATIO N 

—

214 COMPLETE INVENTORY COUNT CARD (LA 2000) 

—

25 POST STORAGE LOCAT IONS ON DA 2000 

—

1 26 COMPLETE INSTALLATION INVENTORY COUNT CAR D (CA 2000—3) —

- I i

1 ________

- -a-,

________ 

19

__

- H

‘I
- _____

TASK INVEIIFORY I MOS 76v PAGE 10 0~ 12 P*~

•E

~

F. PERFORM SUPPLY STORAGE ADKINIST P.ATIVE/MANAG~~~ HT DUTIES ______________ —

1 ASSIST IN SELECTING STORAGE FACILITY _____________ —

2 ESTABLISH SIJPPLY RECEIV iNG/ISSUING SOP

3 COORDINATE WAREHOUSI NG ACTIVITIES

- 

14 COMPUTE NET STORAGE SPACE AVAILABLE —

5 COMPUTE SPACE RE QUIREMENTS

4 — —

6 DETERMINE TYPE OF STORAGE AR EA REQUIRED

7 DETERMI NE STACKIN G HEIGHT S

8 COMPUTE SPACE UTILIZED

9 PREPARE SPACE UTILIZATION REPORT

10 PREPARE /MAINTAI N PLANOGRAFH

11 MAINTAIN PUBLICATIONS LIBRAR Y

12 MAINTAI N DOCU~INT CONTROL

13 IMPLEMENT STORAGE PROCEDURE CHANGES

114 COMPILE TONNAGE DATA

15 PREPAR E TONNAGE REPORTS

• 16 PREPAR E LINE ITEM REPORT S —

17 COMP I LE STATiSTICAL WOHE LOAI) INF ORMA TION

18 MAINTAI N DOCUNENT SUSPENSE FILE

19 FORWARD RECEIVING DOCUMENTS TO STOCK CONTROL ACTIVI TY

20 ANNOTA~E DOD SINGLE LINE ITEM REL/REC DOCU (PD 1 3L8_i) —

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE 

20

• 

— -- - 

~~~~~~~~~

—. — ‘-- — 

‘ 

I

____ 

-

~~~ H 

-

~~~
- 

- _________

TASK INVENTORY 1

M05 76V 

j

~~Ac~~ 11 or 12 PAv~(~

F. PERFORM SUPPLY STORAGE ADMIN/MANAG~~~NT DUTIES ( COrIT ) _____________ —

21 COMPLETE !’J.T INSPECTION AND RECEIVING REPORT (DL 250) _____________ —

22 COMPLETE FE~UEST FOR ISSUE/TURN-Ill (LA 2765)

23 PROCESS D0 MATERIAL RECEIPT DOCUMENT (DA i1486)

214 PREPARE MATERIAL TRANSFER RECORD

-

• 5 FORWARD CA 3785 TO LOCATOR CONTROL ACTIVITY

c - 

26 INITIATE REPORT OF PACKAGING AND HANDLING DEFN (DD 6)

27 COLLECT DATA FOR STORAGE REPORTS.

28 INSTRUCT PERSONNEL IN STORAGE/MATERIAL HANDLING PROCEDURES

29 INSTRUCT PERSONNEL IN SAFEGUARDING PROCEDURES 

—

____________ H

_________________________________________________________________________ 

———-....

-‘

—.•.-- •

-_________ C

_____ H H ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

21~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ”

~~~~~ i_ ___~

_ _

~~ -

~~~~~~~~~~~~ . - -- •__- --

~~~~~ .-•-- 

~~~~~~ 
r ,

~~ -~

—u---- — ~

- --

-~~~~~~~ 

- - --—p--— ~~~ ~~ -—-- —

~~~~~~

- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ________________

______________ — 

1t40s • 76V PAGE 12 or 12 e*’~~c

rA~

jy P-VENTORY —

—

G. PERFORM OPERATOR MAINTENANCE DUTIES

1 PERFORM PREOPERA ION CHECKS/SERVICES ON WAREHOUSE CRANES

2 PERFORM DURING OPERATION CHECKS/E~ RV ICES ON WESE CRANES

- 

3 PERFORM AFTER OPERATION CHECKS/SERVICES ON WHSE CRANES —

- 

14 PERFORM PREOFERATION CHECKS/SERVICES ON TRUCKS —

5 PERFORM DUR ING OPERATION CHECKS/SERVICES ON TRUCKS 

— —

6 PERFORM AFTER OPERATION CHECKS/SE RVICES ON TRUCKS 

— —

— 

7 PERFORM PREOFERA ION CHECKS/SERVICES ON WAREHOUSE TRACTORS —

• 8 PERFORM DURING OP ERATION CHECKS/SVCS ON WAREHOU SE TRACTORS —

— 

9 PERFORM AFTER OPERATION CHECK S/SVCS ON WAREHOUSE TRACTORS —

— 

10 PERFORM PREOPERATION cHEcKS/SEEv:cEs ON CQNVEYCRS

11 PERFORM DURING O?ERATICN CHECKS/SERVICE S ~N CONVEYORS —

12 PERFORM AFTER OPERATION CHECKS/SERVICES ON CONVEYC ~r

13 PERFORM PREOFERA::oN CHECKS/SERVL ES ON HAN D TOOLS I

114 PERFORI’1 DURING OPERATION CHECKS/SERVICES ON HAND TOOLS —

• 15 PERFORM AFTER OPERATION CHECKS/SERVICES ON HAN D TOOLS —

- 

16 PERFORM PBEOPERA~~ON CHECKS/SERVICES ON OFFICE EQUIPMENT

17 PERFORM DURING C?ERATION CHECKS/SERVICES ON OFFICE EQUIP —

-_ -_________ • -

18 PERFORM AFTER OPER ATION CHECKS/SERVICES ON OFFICE EQUIP

19 SUPERVISE PERSON NEL PERFORMING CHECKS/SE RVICES ON MilE — —

20 A~SIST IN P~

]

~

FOKM ING ~~GANIZ AT ION AL MAINTENANCE ON MilE 1

21 POST EQUIP?~

TNT UTILIZATION RECORD (DA 2 1400 ) 

-

22 POST_DAILY/M ONTHLY_EQUIPMENT LOG (DA 2 1408-1) 

— 

22 -_______ _____ ._J

_______________

_____________________________ 

• 

t~4
~~~~~~~~ T1~~~~~~ _‘

~~~~IT . :

~~~T ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

— -

APPENDIX B

TASK RATING SCALES

Subj.cts were given a copy of the task inventory . Subject s in Groups

1— 4 were given one rating scale at a time , on separate sheets , and asked

to rate each task of the inventory according to instructions on the scale.

4 Subjects in Group 5 were given all rating scales at once and asked to rate

•ach task on all tour scales before going on to the next task. Answers

were mar ked on separate answer sheets.

TYPE OF TRAINING

This scale is a measure of the most appropr iate type of training for

the successful petormance of a task. Each task is to be assigned one of

the following five options which in your judgment seems best:

1. No training required

2. On—the—job training

3. Forma l unit training

4. Nonresident school training

5. Resident school training

TASK LEARNING DIFFI CULTY

This scale is a measure of the need for lengthy, systematic training

before a new member of the appropriate A rmy specialty could perform the

task adequately. It may be though t of as the difficulty involved in

“picking up ” the task on the job without any systematic training. Each

task is to be rated on a scale from 1 (Least Difficul t to Learn ) to 7

( Moa t Difficult to Learn) with intermediate levels defined as follows:

1. Extr.maly Low——No training is required to perform the task.

2. Low

3. Somewhat below av.rage

4. Average

5. Somewhat above average

6. High

7. Extrui.ly high——Lengthy, systematic training is essential to

perform the task .

23

_ — ~~~~~~~~~ L .
--~~~-— ~

—-

~~-• ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - -

~

-‘

~~ ~ ~~~Ew~

-— ’ -

________ 

-

~~~ -- --

CONSEQUENCES OF INADEQUATE PERFORMANCE

This scale is a measure of the seriousness of probable consequences

of inadequate performance of a task. It is defined in terms such as

possible injury or death, wasted supplies, damaged equipment, and wasted

man—hours of work . Each task is to be rated on a scale from 1 (Least

Serious Consequences of Inadequate Performance) to 7 ( Most Serious Consequences of Inadequate Performance ) with intermediate levels defined as

follows:

1. Extremely low——If the task is not done correctly , the probable

consequences of inadequate performance are

negligible.

H 2. Low

3. Somewhat be low average

4. Average

5. Somewhat above average

6. High

7. Extremely high——If the task is not done correctly, the probable

consequences of inadequate performance are

fl disastrous.

TASK DELAY TOLERANCE

This scale is a measure of how much delay of task performance can be

tolerated between the time the soldier becomes aware that the task must

4 be performed and the time he must begin doing it. Must the soldier begin

immediately, or does he have time to consult a manual, seek guidance, or

even be taught to do it? Each task is to be rated on a scale from 1

(Least Task Delay Tolerance) to 7 (Most Task Delay Tolerance) with inter—

mediate levels defined as follows:

1. Extremely low——The task must be performed immediately whenever

it is encountered.

:: ::ewhat below average

• 4. Average

5. Somewhat above average

6. High

7. Extremely high——Task performance is almost never urgent.

24

• -.• -• _

- _ —- ~~ 

-_ _ - •t~~

._
-- , .--- —-- —.—-.—-—.-,,—. — S —.- . ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

~~~~~~~~~~~

—-

DISTR~IUTION

AR) DIstribution Lust

4 OASD (M&RA( 2 HOUSACOEC . Ft O’d. ATIN: Libeary

2 HODA (OAMI cSZ) I HQUSACDEC• Ft Ord, ATTN: AT EC--EX-E -Hum Factors

I HODA (DAPE•PBR 2 USAEEC. Ft Benjamin Ha,ruaon, ATTN : Library

1 HODA (DANA-AR) I USAPACDC . Ft Benjamin Harrison , ATTN. ATCP-HR

1 HODA (DAPE.HRE•PO) 1 USA Comm—Elect Sch. Ft Monmouth, ATTN ATSPg-EA

A I HODA ISGROIO) 1 USAEC. Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEL- CT - HOP

I HODA (OAMI-OOT•C) 1 USAEC. Ft Monmouth, ATTN AMSEL-PA-P

I HODA (DAPC-PMZ-A) I USAEC , Ft Monmouth, AT’TN: AMSEL- SI--CB

I HODA (OACH•PPZ-A) I USAEC. Ft Monmouth, ATTN: C, Fad Day Br

• I HODA (DAPEHRE) 1 USA Material, Sys Anal Agcy, Ab.rdepn, ATTN: AMXSV-P

1 HODA (DAPE MPO-CI 1 Edgewood Arsenal, Aberdein. ATTN: SAR EA—BL -H

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

1 HODA (DAPE URL) 2 USA Hum Engr Lab, Aberdeen, ATTN: L brary~Dir

1 HODA (DAPE-CPSI I USA Combat Arms Tng Bd, Ft Benning, ATTN: Ad Supervisor

• 1 HODA (OAFDMFA) 1 USA Infantry Hum Asch Unit , Ft Banning, ATTN: Chief

I HODA (DARD-A RS-P) I USA Infantry Bd, Ft Banning, ATTN: STE BC—TE -T

I HODA (DAPC-PA$•A) I USASMA, Ft Bliss , ATTN: ATSS-LRC

1 HODA (DUSA-OR) 1 USA Air Oaf $ch, Ft Bliss , ATTN: ATSA CTD-ME

I HODA (DAMO.RQR) 1 USA Air Def Sch, Ft Bliss , ATTN: Tech Lib

1 HODA (DASGI I USA Air Del Bd, Ft Bliss, ATTN: FILES

I HODA (0A10.Pl) I USA Air Del Bd . Ft Bliss . ATTN: STE BD—PO

1 Chief , Consult Div (DA.OTSG), Adelphi, MD I USA Cmd & General Stf College, Ft Leavenworth , ATT N: Lib

• I Mi) Ant. Hum Ru, 000R&E. OAO (E&LS) I USA Cmd & Generil Sti College. Ft Leavenworth , ATIN: ATSW—S E—L

I HO USARAL , APO Seattle, ATTN: ARAGP.R 1 USA Cmd & General Sti College , Ft Leavenworth , ATIN: Ed Advisor

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

2 HO Fifth Army, Ft Sam Houeton 1 USA Combined Arm, Cmbt Des Act , Ft L.mr.nworth, ATTN: ccS

1 DIr, Army Sd Studies Qic, ATTN: OAVCSA (DSP) I USA Combined Arms Cmbt Des Act , Ft Le.venworth, A’fl’N: ATCASA • 1 Of c Chief of Sd, Studies Ok I USA Combined Arms Crnbt 0ev Act , Ft Leavenworth, ATTP4: ATCACO- F

1 DcSPER. ATTP4: CPS/OCP I USA Combidad Arms Cmbt Des Act Ft Leavenworth , ATIN: ATCACC-Cl

I The Army l,.ib, Pentagon, A’TIN: 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 Belvoir , ATTN: Tech Library

• 1 Ok, Ant Sect of the Army (R&D) 1 USAMERDC , Ft Belvoir , AnN: STSFB-DO

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

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

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

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

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

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

I USAIMA , Ft Bragg, ATTN: Marquis Lib 1 USA Intelligence CIr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATYN: ATS I—TE

1 US WAC Ctr & Sch, Ft McClellan , ATIN: Lib 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca , ATTN: ATS I—TEX—G S

I US WAC Ctr & Sch , Ft McClellan, ATIN: Tng Dir 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huechuca, ATTN: ATS I— CTS—O R

1 USA Gu~ terma~ar Sch, Ft Lee. ATTN: ATSM-TE 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca , ATTN: ATSI— CTD—DT • 1 Intellig ence Materiel Des Oic . EWL. Ft Holabird I USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca , ATTN: ATSI—CTD--CS

1 USA SE Signal Sch, Ft Gordon, ATTN: ATSO-EA I USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca . ATIN: OAS/SRD

I USA Chaplain Ctr & Sd~

, Ft Hamilton, ATTh: ATSC.TE.RD I USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATS I—TEM

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

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

2 WRAIR , Neuropsychiatry Div 2 COP . USA Electronic Prvg Grd , ATTN: STEEP—MT—S

I DLI, WA. Monterey I COP , Project MASSTER , ATTN: Tech Info Center

I USA Con~ pt Anal Agcy , Bethesda . ATTN: MOCA.WGC I Hq MASSTER, USATRADOC , LNO

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

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

1 USA Artic Test Ctr, APO Seattle, AT’TN: STEAC.MO.ASL 1 Senior Army Ads,, USAFAGOOPTAC . Elgin AF Aus Fld No. 9

1 USA Ar1i

~ Tue Ctr, APO Seattle , ATTN: AMSTE.PL.TS I HO USARPAC , DCSPER , APO SF 96558, ATTN : GPPE—SE

1 USA Armament Cmd, Redstone Arsenal, ATTN: ATSK.TEM 1 StImson Lib, Academy of Health Sciences . Ft Sam Houston

I USA Armament Cnsd, Rock Island, ATTN: AMSAR.TDC I Marine Corps Inst., ATTN: Dean—MCI

I FAA.NAF EC, Atlantic City. ATTN: Library 1 HOUSMC . Commandant . ATTN: Code MTMT 51

1 FAA.NAFEC , Atlantic City, ATTN: Hum En~ Br 1 HOUSMC. Ccmmiind

~nt 411 N i’,yl~ MPI - 20

I FAA Aeronautical Ctr, Oklahoma City , ATTN: AAC’440 2 USCG Academy, New Lo ioort ATTN: Admiss Qrr

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

1 USA Armor Sch, Ft Knox , A’fl’N: Library I USCG Treining Ctr . NY , ATTN CO

1 USA Armor $ch, Ft Knox , A TTN: AT$B.DI E I USCG Training Ctr , NY , ATTN: Educ Svc Otc

I USA Armor Sch. Ft Knox . ATIN: ATSO.OT’TP I USCG, Psychol Pee Br, DC, ATIN: GP 1162

1 USA Armor Sch, Ft Knox , ATTN: ATSS.CD-AD 1 HO Mid—Range Br, MC Oct . Ouantico, ATTN: P&S Div

25
US Mat one Corps Loalsoon Ole, AMC. Aluandrla, ATTN: AMCGS-F 

1 USATRADOC, Ft Monro.t, ATT~ : ATRO- EO 

6 USATRAOOC, Ft Monroe, ATTN: ATPR- AO 

1 USATRADOC. Ft Monroe, ATTN: ATTS- EA 

1 USA Forces Cmd, Ft McPherson, ATTN: Llbtary 

2 USA Avoation Test Bd, Ft Rucker, ATTN: STEBG- PO 

USA Agcy for Aviation S.faty, Ft Rucker, ATTN: Library 

USA Agcv for Avoatoon Safety, Ft Rucker, ATTN: Educ Advisor 

USA Avoltoon Sch, Ft Rucker. ATTN: PO Ora- 0 

1 HQUSA Aviatoon Svs Cmd, StLouis. ATTN: AMSAV-ZDR 

2 USA AvladM 9vt Tftt Act., Edwards AFB. ATTN: SAVTE-T 

1 USA Air Oaf Sch, Ft Bhu. ATTN: ATSA TEM 

USA Aor Mobiloty Rsch & Oav Lab, Mo'fttt Fld, ATTN: SAVDL-AS 

USA Avoatoon Sch. Res Tng Mgt, Ft Rucker, ATTN: ATST-T- RTM 

USA Avoatoon Sch, CO, Ft Rucker, ATTN: ATST-0-A 

HO. DARCOM, Alexandroa. ATTN: AMXCO-TL 

HO, DARCOM. Alexandroa, ATTN: COR 

US Molo tary Acade:ny, West Point. ATTN: Serials Unit 

US Molo tarv Academy, West Point, ATTN: Ofc of Milt Ldrlhp 

US Molrtary Academy, st Poont, ATTN: MAOR 

USA Sundardontoon Gp, UK, FPO NY, ATTN: MASE - GC 

1 Ole of Naval Rsch, Arlongton. ATTN: Coda 452 

3 Ole of Naval Rsch, Arlington, ATTN: Coda 458 

Ole ol Naval Rsch, Arlongton, ATTN: Code 450 

Ole of Naval Rsch. Arlington, ATTN: Code 441 

Naval Aerospc Med Res Lab. Pens.cola, ATTN: Acous Sch Olv 

Naval At!rospc Mcd Res Lab, Pans.cola, ATTN: Code L51 

Naval At!ro!pc Med Res Lab, Pens.cola, ATTN: Code L5 

(.hoe# .X NavPers, ATTN: Pers-OR 

NAVAIRSTA, Norfolk, ATTN: Safety Ctr 

Nav Oceanogrnphoc, DC, ATTN: Code 6251 . Charu & Ttteh 

Center of 11!-.al O.nal, ATTN ; Doc Ctr 

N~v AorSvs n•. ATTN; AIR- 5313C 

Nav BuMeJ. ATTN: 71J 

NnvHohcopterSubS<lua 2. FPO SF 96601 

AFHRL (FT) \Yolloam AFB 

AFHAL (TTl lowrv AFB 

1 1\FHRL IASl WPAFB. OH 

2 AFHr.L tnOJZ} Brook< AFB 

AFHRL iDOJN l Lockland AFB 

HOUSAr- (INYSD} 

' HOUS/\1' (OPXXAl 

1 AFVTG (POl Randolph AFB 

3 At.IRL (HE} \VPAFB, OH 

2 AF lnst of Tl'Ch. WPAFB, OH. ATTN: ENE/SL 

' ATC tXPTOI Randolpt- AFO 

USAF ArroMcd Lol>, Btooks AFB !SUL- 4}, ATTN: DOC SEC 

AFOSR (NU, Aninyton 

AF l og Cmd. McClellan AFB. ATTN: ALC/ OPCRB 

1 Aor Force Acauomy, CO, ATTN: Dept of Bel Sen 

5 NavPers & Dev Ctr, San Diego 

2 Ndvy MP<I Neuropsychiatric Rsch Unit, San Diego 

1 N.J'/ Elcctronoc Lab. San Doeqo. ATTN: Res Lab 

1\a• Trn C• •. San Docyo. ATTN: Code 9QOO-Lib 

NuvPostGraSch. Monterc·t. ATTN: Code 55Aa 

NavP stGr~Sc h, Monterey, ATTN: Code 2124 

NavTmgEcwopCtr. Odando. ATTN: Tech Lib 

Uf, Dept ill LDI.o:. UC. ATTN: Mal' power Admin 

US DePt of Ju>ticc. DC. ATT:<J: Drug Enforce Admin 

Nat Rur of Standards. DC. ATTN: Computer Info Stctoon 

Nat CleJrong h ouse lor MH - Inlo. Rockvolle 

1 Denver Federal Ctr Lakewood, ATTN: BLM 

12 Defense Documentation Center 

4 Orr Psych, Army Hq, Russell Ofcs, Canberra 

1 Scoen11 fo c A<lvsr. Mol Bd. Army Hq, Russell Ofcs, Canberra 

1 Mol no·d Aor An ache. Austrian Emhassy 

1 Cent"' cl•· Recherche Des Far tours. Humaone dt! Ia Defense 

Natrona!~ . Br <o·ls 

? Cm.td1nn .!oont Stall Wa5hongton 

1 CIAor Stall. Royal Canado3n AF, ATTN: Pers Std Anal Br 

3 Cl>o ot. Canadian Del Rsch Staff, ATT~ : C/CROSIWl 

4 Oro tish Dol Stall. Brotosh Embassy, Washington 

26 

Oaf a Civil I lilt of Envlro Medicine, Canada 

AIR CRESS ~. ATTN: Info Svs lr 

Mlllt8erii'YIIololi* Tilnettt. Coclehaeln 

Military Anecht, Frwndl Em-.y, ATTN: Doc Stc 

Medecln Chit, C.E.R.P.A.-Af11NI, Toulon/N-1 Frence 

1 Prln Sciefttiflc Off ~ Hun-£19 Rldl Olv, Minillry 

of Oafwnll, New Delhi 

1 Pwt RICh Otc Library, AKA, lsr•l Defense For011 

1 Minlmrlt ven OaftniW, DOOP/KL Afd Soci11l 

Ptydlologltdle Zlbn, Tht Hegue, Netherlands