Technical Paper 344 F A -

T'VLDT LEVE

"VALIDITY OF PEER RATINGS OBTAINED

o DURING RANGER TRAINING

Arthur C. F. Gilbert and Ronald G. Downey 5

PERSONNEL AND MANPOWER TECHNICAL AREA .

F- .1

U. S. Army

Research Inetitute for the Behavioral and S&,.ial Sciences

October 1978

Approved for public r,,ovvl., dlottrib tlon unilmite(d.
DISCLAIMER NOTICE

THIS DOCUMENT IS BEST

QUALITY AVAILABLE. THE COPY

FURNISHED TO DTIC CONTAINED

A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF

PAGES WHICH DO NOT

REPRODUCE LEGIBLY.
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

WILLIAM L.. HAUSER

JOSEPH ZEII)NER ColonelI, US Army

Techickal Direcgtor Lomimasider

NOTICES

DISTRtBUuYON PrimGIy tiittrihUlion Of this report ha. beenri made by AMt. Pleam addreiss Corte mondeerice

cimilwilimne difitributioii of rallorts to U. S. Army megwgrch Institute lta the 1sehavioral and Social Sciiancts,

At TN It' HIl P. 10011 'tr.~ Ave'iuv, Aleswanditi, Viluini M~33.

FINL f~PII~pN.This report meny, be destroyed when it is no longer needed. Plea. do not return it to

teU U. Army 11114argth Insvtitut for the Behavioral eMd Social Sciences,

~LThe findings in this report are not to be consitrued as an officlal Department ot the Army Pos1tion,

umless, so datigneatti by other muthorlitod docurment.
Unclasaified

I:CuRITY CLASI1FICATION OF TIllS PAGE (Wfmum Vleto Knlos0d)

RT PAGE EAD TNUTRUCTIONS REPORT DOCUMENTATION PBEFORE COMPLETING FORM

.APR 01 N A. GOVT ACCESSION NO: S. RECIPIRNY'S CATALOG NUNSER

Technical Paper, .344'

4. TITLE (and.&fito) 5, TYPe or MEPO"T & PRI"OO COVEIREID

VALIDITY OF PEER RATINGS OBTAINED DURING ""

RANGER TRAINING 6- PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMNER

?I AUOINOR(q .. CONTMACTOM GRANT NUMIIM1o)

Arthur C. P. Gilibert: and lonald c. I)ownoy --

I- 1i1111ORMING P O-GANIZAT'ION NZii AN&S ADDIII .. .. , A0122 IOM A .UNIT'NPUNOWFSM' TASK

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and

Social Sciences (PERI-IL)

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22333

I I, CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRMSS II, REPORT DATE

Deputy Chief October 1978 of Staff for Personnel Oor 8

Washington, DC 20310 NUMI9M 0F PA ,, -

14. NONITORING AGENCY NAME& A IORI'ItUI Et0MI t•W ConfMII,*I OflotI) 14. SECURITY CLASS. (of this "Polf)

Unclassified

i. DiSTRIOUTION STAT ;MENT (oI his. kepool)

Approved for open releaset distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIMUTON IN TATMITENT (oftho oSOeSo mnt.,od In &look 20, It 411116 10. 0 P00 1ai)

IS. SUPPLEME1NTARY NOTES

Portions of this paper prossiinted at 17th annual conference of the Military

Tosting Association, Sapttmb',r 1975.

* IS KEKY WORDS (Contimuo 4" tovootf oid., If n.* ~o84rV And Ido,,#D by £blook nuime.)

Peer rat knqm Prediction Validity

Associate rat ings Leadership Selection

Duty performance Correlation Officer training

Job performance Ranger training

26. Ai • ACy ecolr. - ;e;•Mv side It ne0lo0my OW idwIell by bloek neb.t')

-The purpose of this research was to evaluiate the validity of peer rat ihIgl

obtained during the Ranqtr course in predicting oubsequent performance in actual duty assiqnments. A criterion instrument was used to obtain ratings of

overall duty performance and of potont ial porformance In combat leadership,

technical-manaqorial lhadership, tactical knowledge, defining persona[ roles,

decisionmaking, defining functional roles, mottvatinq troops, and tactical

' knowledge. The relationships among the pvter ratings, measures of Ranger (continued)...;

D ,ID M 1473 ,EITIONO O,, NOV, It OSSOLCT, Unclassified

-- .SECURITY CLASBIPICATION bi THIS PAS! (014" Dote D•nIvord)
P-nn-" m,' _i..

aSurnYXY CLA"FICATION OF THIS PAG5K~M* boe ne. ________

20. (continued)

. ',ourse performance and the critorion measures of performance and potential

performance were assessed by coirelation techniques. Revults indicate tilat

the relationship between peer ratings and ratings of performance and poten--

tial performance was higher than for other measures of student performance

in the Ranger course.

iied

'ctiltiTY CLAMPII| , IC .J 1 T7HS P AU]*I'.. A I' R,.
TschiidcaI7~psr 344 *)7,'~ ~

VALIDITY OF-PEERB-ATINGS NED

F DURING RANGER TRAINING,

/ ~ Arhur C FGil~bert 00Ronald 0Dwe

Anthony E. Castelnovo

Work Unit Loader

PERSONNEL AND MANPOWER TECHNICAL AREA

Skibm"Itie as comple and Approved byý technically acecurate, by: Ralph It. Canter Ef. RAlph Dusee Technicall Area Chief PERSONNEL AND T14AINING

RESEARCH LABORATORY

Joseph Zoldnsr3

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

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

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandiftl, VIroinis 22333

Off ice, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

Army Projeoct Number Officeor Assessment

XM1077 A7M & Development

Approved for oubimt eeMoe, distribution, un~linited
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 latter part of

the Brief, Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formal recommen.

dations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military

agencies by briefing or Disposition Forn.

L .. . * . II.............
FOREWORD

The Personnel and Manpower Technical Area of the Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) conducts research

to provide scientific methods of identifyinq individuals with good leadership potential, selecting officors for commissioning, and evaluating

officer performance. One means of prediction and assessing leadership

potential is through ahsociate evaluation), (%,-erratings), which have

long been used at the U.S. Military " andI irn Officer Candidate

Schools. In 1972, the office nf the M,,"ty Chief of Staff for Personnrl asked AR! to invemtigata the value of associate evaluations in all

officer schools, beginning with the Ranger course. ARI Research Problem

Review 76-8 presented the results of the initial program at the Ranger

school during FY 1973; this report describes the validation of those

initial Ranger peer ratings by comparing them with special evaluations

of the mame men's performance in FY 1976. The research was accomplished

wider Army Project 2Q762717A766, in response to requirements of the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel. Portions of this paper

were presented at the 17th annual conference of the Military Testing

Association, 17-19 September 1975.

The associate evaluation program has become operational at other

officer training schools. Associate evaluation techniques are still

valuable for feedback and evaluation in officer acquisition and training proqrams, including ROTC, and are valuable predictors of officer

suCC|ss.

EP EIDNIER

Technical Director

t , . .,
VALIDITY OF PEER RATINGS OBTAINED DURING RANGER TRAINING

BRIEF

Purpose:

To establish the validity of associate ratings obtained in selected

classes of the Ranger course in predicting subsequent performance in officer duty assignments.

Procedure:

Associate ratings and other measures of performance in the Ranger

course had bean obtained on 470 officers attending the first three Ranger

classes in FY 1973. In FY 1976 special-purpose performance evaluations

were obtained for 313 of the 470 officers and the two sets of evaluations

compared.

Findingst

Associate ratings obtained during Ranger training were found to be

predictive of all attributes measured by the performance evaluation

form. The highest degree of predictive validity was obtained for ratings on the ability defined as "making decisions and initiating action

under pressure." Platoon associate ratings during training were bettor

predictors of ratings of performance or of potential performance than

squad peer evaluations. Both tactical officers' evaluations and total

Ranger course grades were found to be signifinantly related to several

scales of the performance evaluation, but to a lesser degree than either

form of peer evaluation.

Utilization of Findings:

Associate ratinqs appear to have substantial value in predicting

subsequent duty performanco of officers who attended the Ranger course.
VALIDITY OF PRir RATINGS OBTAINED DURING RANGER TRAINING

ccWENT8

Page

"•N•RODUCTIO . . ........................ . 1

OBJECTIVES . . ......................... . .

M ple . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...

Data Collection instruments ...... . . . . . . . . 2

Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

RPE ULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

DISCUSSION . . . . . . .. . . . . 12

DVISTRIAUTION FRRSNC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 15 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 17

LIST OF TAILES

Table 1. Training evaluation scores for Ranger students . . . .. 3

2. Performance Evaluation Form scales, corresponding

factors, and abbreviated scale titles . . . 4

3. Officer performance scale .............. 5

4. Performance Evaluation Form scale means, standard

deviations, alpha coefficient reliabilities, and

number of subjects ... .......... .......... 7

5. Intercorrelations of the Performance Evaluation Form

scales . . . . . .. ..... ................. . . . ..... . 8

6. Intercorrelations of Performance Evaluation Form

ratings and Ranger training acoreg .... .......... ... 10

7. Intercorrelations of Performance Evaluation Form

rankinys and Ranger training scores* .... .......... ... 11
Page

Table 0. Ranger training saore means and standard deviations

for the validity sample, and difference in mean scores

from the entire training sample ............ 13

21

4i-
VAIIDITY 0)F P'EILK RAT.I.NS OBI'TAINErD

DURING RANGER TRAINING

I NTRODlUCT ION

The military has a long history of Using asisociate evaluations.

Some of the better known programs include the aptitude for service

ratings at the U.S. Military Academy (Ilaqjorty, 1963; Tobin & Macrum,

1967) , Officer Candidatu school rart tigs (Parrish & Drucker, 1957)

basic training ratings (eorldon & Modland, 1965), and the use of peer

ratings in the assessment of officers at the senior field grade level

(Downey, Medland, & Yatea, !976) . The success of these and other programs was a major factor in a 1972 decision by the office of thn Deputy

Chief of Staff for Personnel to investigate the use of associate ratings in Army Officer training courses. Trho Ranger c~ourse was selected

as a pilot model for this appraisal technique because of the course's

importance for the Army leader's primary role in ground combat and because of the extensive field exercises involved.

Downey (1976) reported the results of an earlier phase of the research that focused on the feasibility, reliability, and acceptability

of associate ratings in the Ranger courso. Generally, the results indicated that, in this context, associate evaluations wore feasible in

terms of administration and automated scoring and were reliable across

different training periods and different groups of evaluators. However, even though Ranger course students generally expressed the opinion that associate evaluations were appropriate and valid nmasures of

leadership, they wore not positive about the use of those evaluations

in an Army personnel system.

01M, I'C(T I V E's

The major objectiv, of this r~iearch was to establish the validity

of the associate rating,; obtainied by Downey in the Ranger course by

showing their ability to predict officer performance in subsequent duty

assignmunts. To mout this objective, it was necussaty to evaluate the

psychometric properties of the device designed to measure officers'

duty performanv'.. Another objective was to compare the relative effectivenems of associate ratings with other training grades in predicting

duty petforman-e.

i-
Peer rating evaluations and other information were collected on

470 officers who attended three different Ranger classes during FY 1973.

In FY 1976, performance ratings forms wore mailed for 427 (91%) of these

officers. Usable performance evaluation measures were returned and proceassed for 313 (73%) of those mailed. Thus, performance measurun were

obtained on 67% of the original sample of 470 officers.

Data Collection Instruments

Peer Evaluations. Tho peer evaluations had been obtained within

the traininq platoon. As an independent requirement, the Ranger course

student evaluation system also included peer evaluations, but within

the squad setting, In the platoon peer evaluations, each member was

required to nominate the eight highest and the eight lowest members of

the platoon whom he would most like or least like "to serve with in

combat because of his potential for effective leadership." Downey

(1976) describes this procedure in greater detail. The peer evaluations were obtained at the end of each of the three phases of Ranger

training: a garrison phase at Fort Benning, Ga., a mountain phase in

Georgia, and a jungle phuae at Eglin Air Force Bass, Fla. A composite

peor evaluation score combining all three peer evaluations was also

derived.

Ranger Training Scores. A variety of training evaluation scores

was obtained on students attending the Ranger course: (a) nine different traininq grades, includinq three tactical training officers'

(TAC) evaluations, (b) three squad-level peer evaluations; and (c) a

final course grade. These scores a•ro shown in Table 1.

Performance Evaluation Form. Previnus research by Helme, Willemin,

and Grafton (1971) and lIelme, Willemin, ,and Day (1971) yielded eight

broad dimensions of leadurship style. 'Two other dimensions reflecting

consideration and the initiation of structure were identified by Stogdill (1974) and Fleishman (1974). Consequently, the criterion instrument used in this research, the Performance Evaluation Form, was designed to yield ratings along nine broad dimensions identified by these

research efforts, as well as one rating that reflected overall

performance.

The 10 scalhs ot thc Performance Evaluation Form are shown in

Table .1. Part .1 of thv tform evaluates the officer's overall performaitco in hiki pt-incipal duty as i•nmont . Parts It aind III rate the officer's potont.il porformance alonq crucial dosmains of leadership.

Table 2 shows tht, difforent dimension,;, the scales that reflect these

dimensions, and Lho research source of those dimensions, as well as

S.,.., i.,. .,MA~lS.,Afllii, .d1.f~ii 1J~~iA
the abbreviated titles of che scales used in this report. On each

scale, the rater was required to rank order the seven scales in Part

II of the instrument, in terms of the officer's relative potential for

future assignment, and was also to rate the officer on a 7-step scale.

Parts I and III required only a rating.

Table .]

Training Evaluaition Scores for Ranger Students

Training grades:

Land navigation score

Physical training score

Practical work exam

Patrol grades

Tactical training officer's evaluation, Fort Benning

Tactical training officer's evaluation, mountain phase

Tactical training officer's evaluation, Florida phase

Spot reports

Special observations

Squad associate evaluationst

Port: Bonning

Mountain phase

Florida phase

Final course qrade

All ratinqs on thut scales of th. P'erformance E.valuation Form were

performed on a 7-step sualei the * steps of this scale are defined in

Tablo 3 iand are adapted fron previous work by Willemin (1965).

Four copies of. this criterion instrument wore mailed to the personnel officers responsible for the officer's records. one rating was

to be accompl.ished by the officer's immediate superior. A second rating was to be accomplished by a superior officer other than the officer's

immediate superior (but not nocessarily the indornlnk.1 official) who was

judqod to know t.he officer's performancoe. The two additional. ratings

were to be made by two c.osi assoclat-is who were judgted t.o know the

officer's portorlm'lnole. The t.hroo raturs other than the immediate

supervisoi- were duoi~inatud by th0 por.nontivL otfflcer aft.or talking with

t he L, I ler ' a Lnutud iod tt, Huporv i sot
Table 2

Performance Evaluation Form Scales, Corresponding

Factors, and Abbreviated Scale Titles

Per formance Evaluation Abbreviated title

Torm scale Factor of scale

Part I

Duty performance Duty performance

Part II

Applying tactipal knowledge and Tactical staff skillsa Tactical knowledge

skills in suftort of combat

operations

Understanding ehe mission and Team leadershipa Defining personal

clearly def*11ng poeronal roles

roles of subordinates in

its accomplishment

Making decisions and initiating Command of mena Making decisions

actions under pressure

Defining functional roles and Initiation of strucoturebeO Defining functional

duties in the process of do- roles

veloping subordinates to

fill assignments for longtem unit effoctiveness

Planning and orqanizing man- Executive directiona Planning and

power and matoriel to meet organization

situational roqul roeents

Motivating \:roops to accomplish- Considorationbto Motivating troops

inq the mission by taking

into consideration their

wll-being and morale

"Applying knowledqe of .locimtics Tochnical staff nkillsa Technical knowledge

and technivai. mattors to

so.lue suc pport ptoblemn

PartTI

t'ombat loadvri-hip Combat IcaIdertshipa Combat leadership

chti i c'a t-mana, " I a.t loadet'Shti| Tochn i ca I -managerial Tochnical-managerial

le~hidcrih ipa' leadership

Holme, Willtemilt a k tld ton (l TI7.)

brleishmamn (1.014).

cSt oqdi 1I14 ( -1)
Table 3

Officer Porfurindince Scalea

Scale value Description

7 OUTSTANDING Far above the rLqqiremltnt_!" of tho iu.it.uition,

suggesting the highest kind of formal r"ecoq, i-,

tiern through meritorlour awamrd, or decoration

6 SUPERtOR Mi.eMiiL above the requiroments of the situation, suggesting formal reu.L .Ior through a

special (favorable) efficiency report, or

letter of coituntendation.

ABOVE AVERAGE Somewhat above the requrementu Ct the situation, suggesting Informal rc~inition throug|i

specific favorable comment in his regular efficioncy report, and through informal appreciation or cotmendation.

4 AVERAGe. F .. t.oýthL recguirements, of the situation,

suggesting -al.preciation (perhalli montly

unexpressod).

3 BELOW AVERAGE Somowhat b.low the rejdremen t3i of tLhe situation, though ouggostitg only the mildest kind

of corrective action through In formal recommondatiorn for Improvement, or through change

of ditty assignment within the organIzatlion.

2 MARGINAL Markedly•. oow the r•. l.iemolit of the mituatIoln, su qoHtillg formal corrective action

throutih a specvl t (lonfaverabb') .fficiency

report, adminint.rtilye admonition*, letter or

reprimand, lwmmary court., or tronsfor out. of

the orclani zatio.

I UN.13Avr7 AT•' oHY F. _'. r b,..1 b ow.t t'.'- n -tno o.he t in t uot ion,

sugqest inq the mo.t drait'ic kinid of formal

correctiv• actli onl t hrough roe l asi i• i cat i on,

demotion, tl or'lli cou t, or boardi 111j Cut. of

t lie Army.

AAdapt ed from WiI leni n (I 965) .

S~ - -.-.II .i ~...'.-., 
I'4tkot.s of Iat i M] t 0o11s woV%) d iI ibilted for 42?7 of the off iWorn

who had attended the Hang:er course. Ratings wore obtained from the

supervisors of *112 off icera. Superior officers, ot;her than the imnmdiate sulxsrv imors, v(coploeted ratings formn on 307 off i'txrt. Ratinqgi by

at least une adasociate were recuivod for 309 officeru, and ratinqs by

tWo associates wore received for 304 officers. A uisable set of ratinqg

was defined as one that had at least two ratings. In all, 313 usable

retuirns were received.

The reliability otnlAm~tes for rho two scaltin of Part IU of the

Performance Evaluat ion Form wuoe obteained using tho ýalpha cosfficient

(Cronbach, 1951) treating each rater am an item. The extent to which

the scales differentially reflected different types of leadership styles

was evaluated by appraising the vero correlations amony the ratinsju oni

these scales.

The validity of the associate rat.inis and oV the separate Ranger

training grades in predicting duty performance wou ovaluated by obtaining the zoro ordor curelat.ions between each of theme measures and the

10 scales of the Poxformtanc Evaluation Form. Ilwo sepaorate Isoues relating to the prodictive validities of the asssoviate ratings and the

Panger training grades were addrusuedi (a) conparison of the ability

of each of theme measures to predict total performance, and (b) comnparison of the relationships of these measures with each of the other Performance Evaluation Form scales,

Rt*: UI I4P'fl•

Table 4 shows t he numn and ntntndard doviatltos tfov the ratiqling

And ranki.ns of the alvca )of thit, •-lrfoiunvaice ,viltl•t ion ,'orm, alonl

with the alpha coeff'ic itnt rol iabilitty estimates and the numbers of

cases on which thes, statistics were' durived. The rollability estimates for the rat ticti ranged from ,60 for duty perforilatance to .5 ro f'

inotivatinti troops. These reliability estimates are goinewhat Lower than

those reported by WA floenin (9iW), who reported a reliability estimate

of ,73 for four raters usinq the samno teohnique. The somewhat lower

roliability estimat:os obtained in thitt research coulhd be due to the

Caot that this siamploe of offiours was more homogeneouis with respect

to performanicei as Rangers, they were a more highly so lect: group, The

reliability entim~atos for the •ankings Lf' the Sca-lesi rianlged from .5i8

for tat vti al know I edge' and ski ll to , II for dkelt ilq lt e •rt onl I.to l's.

1ht 114,cot' r o tiollt 'llxteoli q hti lt, mlllit o I the' rat illtlNe eled t h' u•lls of

tho l'dlakIngs *xr' arv uhowu ill 'Takilkx . The 'l' xirh li• t louioI amiong1 thet, ratili n

oil tho icalel oxt, 'te'ed t) w ith only t•our e•xci|ltio.'t (all involvinq

tho techniical ksiowli•detivale), ll t t it h1) hand (tito ' l'tat tex1lll

Ii
Ii

4,4

I I '

NN M 14 (4t M ~ 

ri "

4. . - '4'4

-0

0 V W 0M~ M ~ ~ . 0 b

4*4 U

4-14

'214

in, 4- ol4 .0
tI 0. W f P 4 0 4 4

0 in C

f i I

II

Q (1h m.4 Ir 

elI g

0' III

4.4

9 , c ~ C4 Y 'Y 41

A~~ IIt

II 4

-41

a a 44 4~

ON 0 IV I 

144 V '.' 4 Q) 44)4 U) 44 4 C .) L

.H 4d '4
among the rankings were moderate or low and generally negative in value.

Use of the ranking technique (ipsative scores) forced this negative relationship, because if certain scales were ranked high, others had to

be ranked low.

The correlation between thu ratings and the rankings for the same

type of scale was low in all instances except one. The exception was

the scale that reflected ability in "making decisions and initiating,

action under pressure," which showed a correlation of .53 between the

rating and ranking techniques. Furthermore, the rankings on th4 decision scale were more highly correlated with ratings on the other

scales with the exception of the scale that reflected "technical

knowledge."

The results indicated that both the ratings on each scale and,

where applicable, the rankings of the scales yielded approximately the

same reliability estimates, although the ratings were slightly higher.

The high intercorrelations among the ratings on the scales indicated

that these scales yielded little differentiation among the attributes

being measured. On the other hand, results of analyzing the ranking

indicated the most influential dimension in evaluating the overall duty

performance of the officer. This dimension was "making decisions and

initiating action under pressure," which yielded a correlation coefficient of .43 between rankings on this scale and duty performance. Even

though the rankings of the scales showed some degree of differentiation

among the attributes measured, this could be due to the forced properties of the ranking method rather than the stimulus material that constituted the scale descriptions.

Table 6 shows the zero order correlations between each of the

Panger training scores, including associate ratings, and each of the

10 rating scales of the Performance Evaluation Form. For the Ranger

training scores, three types of evaluations--the platoon associate

evaluations, the squad peer evaluations, and the tactical officer's

evaluations--were combined across the three training phases to yield

one overall score for each. The correlations between each of the

Ranger training scores "nd each of the seven ranking scales of the

Performance Evaluation Form are shown in Table 7.

The results shown in Table 6 indicate that the platoon associate

ratings and the squad pear evaluations were statistically significant

predictor" of ratings on all 10 scales of the Pdrformance Evaluation

Form. The platoon associate evaluations yielded somewhat higher correlations with the criterion measures than did the squad peer evaluations. This could be due to the higher reliability of the platoon associate evaluations (Downey, 1976). Only in a few instances did the

other traininq scoros obtained in the Ranger course yield statistically

Lignificant correlations with the ratings of current performance or of

potential performance in future assignments. Of particular interest

here were the correlations between the criterion instrument scales and

•' *,, . .. .. . . .. . .. . ... • •, • • • , - • . ..... . • , • , • .• . • • . . • • •. . ..,. • • • . , •,• .• • ... . . • • . • . .. ,... .• •, , • . • .. .•,9!
Table 6

Interoorrelatione of Performance Nvaluation Form Ratings

and Ranger Training Score*

(n - 295)

Ranger Ratings

training scores 1 2 3 4 5 6 79 10

1. Platoon peer

evaluations .28" .330* .24** .31* .28** .35•" .28** "1* "* ... .)*,19A

2. Land navigation

score -. 03 -. 01 -. 04 .00 -. 04 -. 02 -. 05 -. 05 .04 -. 02

3. Physical training .06 .03 .03 .06 .09 .07 .06 .04 .12' .03

4. Praotioal work

exam -.10 -.07 -.06 .02 -. 07 .02 -.06 -.06 -.09 -. 0 1

5. Patrol grades .06 .08 .03 .05 .02 .O6 .01 .05 .02 -.01

6. TAC-evaluations .01 .07 .05 .12* .06 .08 .07 .04 .09 .03

7. Squad peer

evaluations .22* .22* .16"* .24"* .21** .26"* .18"* .15* .21"* .±I**

8, Spot reports .02 .08 .03 .08 .03 .04 .03 .05 .06 -. 02

9. Special reports -. 04 .02 -. 02 .05 .01 .03 -. 02 -. 01 N., .0o

t0. Total Ranger gradeb .01 .15* .08 .15* .08 .15, .07 .10 . 0• 1t"

"1 w Duty performanco ratings

2 - Combat loadership ratings

3 * Teoh.-manag. leadership ratings

4 a Tactical knowledge ratings

5 - Defining personal roles ratings

6 Making decisions ratings

I - Defining functional roles ratings

A- Planning- organisation

1- Motivatinq troop ratings

10 - Technical knowledge ratings

Woiqhted sum of all training grades.

'p ' .05.

* .01. 10
'rable 7

Interoorrelations of Performance Evaluation Form Rankings

and Ranger Traininq Scores

(n - 295)

Ranger training acores 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

1. Platoon peer

evaluation .17** .03 .34** -. 20"* -. 16.* .10 -. 25**

2. Land navigation

score .04 .17"* -. 01 -. 06 -. 03 .09 .09

3. Physical training -. 02 -. 04 .07 -. 04 -. 04 .05 -. 02

4. Practical work

.00 -. 04 .04 -. 09 .03 -. 06 .09

5. '•,U.ol grades .07 .00 .09 .00 -. 04 -. 06 -. 05

S6. TAC-evaluations .13* -. 02 .14** -. 16'**-.12' .00 -. 02 ,

7. Squad peer

evaluations .13' .01 .32"* -. 18"* -. 11 .02 -. 18"*

S. Spot reports .12' -. 13' .06 -. 12' -. 02 .04 .01

9. Special reports .12" .01 .03 -. 09 -. 12% .02 .01

10. Total Ranger

gradeb .13' -. 08 .15"* .07 .07 .03 .11

aRankings woro. reversed so that a hiqh value representm most effective.

Scale designationsi

11 - Tactical knowledqe ranktnqs

12 - Defining personal ro.l.on rankin'.ij

13 a Makinq decimion rankinqt

14 - Defining functkonal roles rankings

15 w Planninq 6 orqanirnatlon rankintim

16 a Motivatinq troops rankings

17 - Technical knowlodqco rankinqw. b!

Woiqhted sum of all Lraiiini grades.

*p . .05.

.* 01.

11
total Ranger grade. The correlations between the total Ranger grade

and the scales reflecting combat leadership potential, tactical knowledge, a-d decisionmaking were all significant at the .05 level.

The correlations shown in Table 7 between tho platoon associate

evaluations and the ranking of five of the Performance Evaluation Form

scales were statistically significant, but negative in three instances

(i.e., defining functional roles, planning and organization, and technical knowledge). slightly smaller but statistically significant conrelations in the same direction were obtained between the squad peerl

evaluations and four of those five scales. The correlation between the

squad peer evaluations and the scale on technical knowledge was not

significant. Evaluations made by the tactical officer yielded statistically significant corre].itjons with the ranking on four of the scales.

Further examination of Table 7 reveals other statistically significant

relationships between certain training scores and the criterion measures.

The negative validity coefficients for three of the ranking scales (defining functional roles, planning and organisation, and technical knowledge) would seoo to be a function of the iptative nature of the rankings.

This phenomenon may merely mean that officers not perceived high in

decisionmaking and tactical knowledge received lower rankings in these

areas. The intercorrelations of ratings would seem to confirm this

idea.

Again, both the platoon associate evaluations and the squad peer

evaluations were generally the best predictors of rankings of the scales

measuring potential performance. The platoon associate evaluations

yielded slightly higher correlations with the criteria than did the

squad evaluations.

Table 8 shows the means and standard deviations of the Ranger

training scores for the officer sample used in this research and the

difference between the mean scores of this sample and the mean scores

of the original sample of 470 officers who attended the course. The

decrease in sample size was due to the fact that performance ratings

could not be obtained on some officers because they had left the Army

or were in a transient status; in some instances, the Performance

Evaluation Forms were lost. Table 8 reveals that only minor differ-.

ences existed between the two samples and that these differences do

not represent any systematic bias in terms of training grades.

UISCUSSION

The roliabiliLy Omtimntns of oach of the ratinq scales of the

Performance Evaluat-Lton Form, an well as the rankings of the scales

which used rankings, wore considurad Hatisfactory for criteria. Howover, the distribution of ratinqn on the different scalas showed a

tendency toward negative nkewnu tw.

1.2
Table 8

Ranger Training Score Means and Standard Deviations for

the Validity Sample, and Difference in Mean

Scores from the antire Training Sample

Difference in

Ranger training scores M.an S.D. N means

Platoon evaiuAtions--serining 2.06 .28 307 0

Platoon evaluations--mountain 2.0 .28 313 0

Platoon *valuations--rlorida 2.02 .33 303 -.1

Land navigation 51.8 10.4 313 1.1

Physical training 2689 6.6 313 .9

Practical work exam 87.0 4.1 313 1,0

Patrol grades 350.2 32.7 305 .2

TAC *valuation--Benning 22.2 3,3 313 .7

TAC evaluation--mountain 25.8 3.2 313 1.0

ThC evaluation--Florida 27.0 2.6 305 -. 2

Squad avaluations--aenning 37.7 4.9 312 -. 4

squad *valuations--mountain S6.9 7.8 312 -1.0

Squad evaluations--Florida 55.4 6.3 303 -. 6

Spot reports -6.6 21.7 307 -. 4

Special reports -7.2 5.6 307 -1.2

Total Ranger performance 724.6 94.3 310 .2

Note. The training sample was made up, of individuals who went through

Ranger traininq but for whom validity data wore not collected

later.

................ 

.....

aim
As mentioned previously, the ratings on the different scales were highly intercorrelated. This indicates that, in this sample,

the instrument did not reflect the expected differentiation among

the attributes being assessed. Rankings of the scales tended to bet- ter differentiate important types of criterion performance.

In terms of predictive effectiveness of the platoon associate

evaluations, the validity of these evaluations of the Rangers' performance were similar for all scales of the Performance Evaluation Form,

with the lowest correlation being obtained between platoon associate

evaluations and ability to apply technical knowledge. Of all the training scores, the peeo evaluation. yielded the highest relationship with

all of the ratings on the 10 scales of the criterion measure. The total

Ranger grade, as would be expected, was significantly correlated

(p 4 .05) with the soales reflecting combat leadership, tactical knowledge, and decisionmaking. This is consistent with the nature and purpose of Ranger training.

The rosults were not as cloarcut on the validity of peer evaluations in predicting the rankings of the scales that reflect potential

performance. Significant positive relationships were found between

peer evaluations and both the tactical knowledge scale and the decisionmaking scale. Significant negative relationships were discovered between peer evaluations and the scales that measured ability to define

functional roles, planning and organization, and technical knowledge,

given the "forced" nature of these rankings and the assumption that

low performers were generally ranked high in these areas.

In Summary# the scale* of the criterion instrument were found to

be reliable. A better degree of differentiation among the attributes

measured was obtained by rankings than was obtained by ratings. Associate evaluations obtained during Ranger training were found to be predictive for all attributes reflected in the criterion instrument, with

the highest predictive index obtained for ability to "make decisions

and initiate action under pressure." Platoon associate evaluations

were better predictorw of ratings of performance or potential performance than were squad 1puer evaluations. Both the tactical officers'

evaluations and the total Ranger course grades showed significant but

smaller relationships than the peer evaluations with certain scales of

the criterion ratinqs.

14
REFEHRNC ES

Cronbach, L. J. Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Teats.

Psychometrica&, 191, 16, 297-334.

Downey, R. G. Utilization of Associate Nominations in the U.S. Army

Training Environment: The Ranger Course. ARI Research Problem

Review 76-8s, October 1976.

Downey, R. G., Medland, F. F., & Yates, L. G. Evaluation of a Peer

Rating System for Prudicting Subsequent Promotion of Senior Military Officers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1976, 61, 206-209.

Fleishman, E. A. Iventy Ycars of Consideration and Structure. In

the Study of Leadership. Carbondale, Ill. Southern Illinois

University Prose, 1974.

Gordon, L. V., a Medland, F. F. The Crose-Group Stability of Peer Ratings of Leadership Potential. Personnel Psychology, 1965, 18,

173-177.

Haggerty, H. R. Status Report on Research for the U.S. Military Academy.

1⁄4 ARI Technical Research Report 1133, October 1963.

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

Measured in the Differential Officer Battery. ARI Technical Research Report 1173, July 1971. (AD 737 685)

Healmo, W. H., Willemin, L. P., G Grafton, F. C. Dimensions of Leadership in a Simulated Combat Situation. ARI Technical Research Report 1172, July 1971. (AD 730 315)

Parrish, J. A., & Drucker, A. J. Personnel Research for Officer Candidate School. AR! Technical Research Report 1107, November 1957.

Stoqdill, R. M. Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research, New York_ The Free Press, 1974.

Tobint, D. J. , A Macrum, R. Hi. Leadership Evaluation. (Research report.) Wont Poin~t, N.Y. : office of Military P~iychology An~d LeaderehJ. p, U.S. Military Ac'adomy, 1.1)67.

WillOmill, I,. P. C'iterion Anpectm on Army Rvsoarch on the Prediotion

of Officer Performanco. ARt lirt,•irch Study 05-0, December 1965.

15
DISIRIBUTION

ANI Distribution List

4 CASD IMSRAI 2 HOUSAC0EC,1Pt Ord, ATTNi Library

2 HOCA I DAMI CIZ) I I4OUSAOVDC, Ft Ord, ATINt ATIC-SE(-E.-Humfedlott

1 HODA IDAPE-PEN 2 USASKC, Ft Senijemin Hartlorm, ATTN: Library

1 HOCA IOAMA-AR) I USAPACOC, Ft Benjamin eMorison, ATTN i ATOP-HR

I HODA ICAPF-H.HNEPOI I USA Commn-Eloot &ch, Ft Monmoufth, ATTN: ATIN-EA

I HOCA (F150,1101 I USAIC, Ft Monmouth, ATTNi AMBEL-CT-HOP

I HODA IDAMd*DQT-CI I USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ArrNt AMEEL-PA-P

I HODA (OAPC-PMZ.Al I USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN! AMBEL-61-CB

I HODA ICACH.PPZ.Al 1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN! C, Poot Day Br

I HODA IOAPE.HNEI 1 USA Materials Sys Anal Agicy, Aberdeen, ATTNW AMXSY-lb

I; HOCA (CAPP.MPO-C) I E1dgewood Arsenial, Aberdeen, ATTN: SAREA-BL-i4

IHODA (DAPt-OWl I USA Ord Cie & Bol, Abottleon, ATTN I ATSL-TIM.-C

I JQODA IDAPUHPILI 2 USA Hum IEngr Lob, Abefillec,, hAFNt Llbrorevslr

I 1400A IDAPECPSI I USA Combat Arms Tell Sd, Ft Sunning, ATTN: Ad Sujvwarvio

I HODA (DAPOMPAI I USA Ilmnwtfy Hum Ninth Unit, Pt Senning, ATTNt Chief

I HODA ICANC.ARS.PI USA Infantry oid, Pt Banning, ATTNi ESROC-TI-?

I 1400A IOAPVPAS.A) I USAIMA, Ft 01111, ATTNi ATSS.- LRC

I HODA IDUSACOtI I USA Alt Del Soft, Ft $llst, ATTN: A'fSA*.CTD-.MI

I HODA (OAMQORQj I USA Alr Dot Salt, Ft Sler, ATTt4: Tacih Lib

I HODA I90MG) I USA Ali Del Sd. Pt Eliot, ATTm: PILES

i HODA (DA IO.PI I USA Alt Deft Ed, Ft El11% AYTm: IYED-.PO

I Chief, Contult Div (OA.OTIGI, AdelphiI, MO I VIA Cmd & Gmneral Sit College, Ft Leavenworth, ATTNi Lib

J Mil Asti. Hum Res, QODDNI, CAD RASL) I USA Cmad 6 General itf College, Ft Leavernworih, A'rTN: ATSW-59-L

I HO USARAL, APO Seattle, ATTN: ARAOP.N I USA Cmd Or General Sit College, Ft Leavenworth, ATTNt Ed AdvIWo

i NO0 First Army, ArtN: APKA-Ol.TI I USA Combinetid Arms 3'rmitlt Day Act. Ft Loomavewtlh, ArnNt DepCdr

2 HO Fifth Army, Ft Sam Houton I USA Combined Armsa Cmbt 0ev Act, Irt Leavenworth, ATTN: CCI

1I Olt, Army Sit Studios Ota, ATTN: OAVOSA (DWIP 1I USA Combined Armal Ombiv Dav Act, 11% Leevenworlit, ArTNi ATCASA

I ONt Chief of Sit, Studios Oft I USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dev Act, Ft Loervewiorh, ATTNt ATCACO-F

I OWNIt.N ATTN: CPI/OCP I USA Combined Arms Cnibt Dev Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTNi ATCACC-Ci

I The Army LIUi, Pentagon, ATTN! RIE Chief I USAICOM, Night Vislion Lob, Pst Selvoiir AI¶Nt AMBEL-NV-80

I The Army LIUI, Pentagon, Ar!Ni ANFIAL 3 USA Computer Sys 0mb, Ft Belvair, ATTN i Tect Library

I Ofe, Ant bect of the Army (111110 1 USAMI HOC, Ilt lelvoir, ATTN: STIFE-DO

I Tech Suippon Oft, OJCU i USAin#gkit, Ft Volvoir. ATTN i Library

i USASkA, Aliuton, ATTNii IlAND.? I USA Topographie Lab, Ft Delvoir, AITNi inTL-TO-S

I USA Rict OfN, Duiham, ATTNi Life Sciences Div 1 USA Topographic Lob, Ft Selvoir, AT'TN i STINPO Canter

2 USARIEM, Natick. ATTHi WORDUE11CA I USA Topographic Lab, Ft Solvoit, AT'INi OTL-GIL

1 USAITT, Itt Clayton, ATT'N: STITC-MOA 1 USA Intelligfence Ctr 6 isth, Pt Huaietuca, ATTNi CYD-MS

I USAIMA, Ft Bragg, ATTh: ATSU.CTO-OM 1 USA Intelligences Otrt Sc5h, Pt lNuachuta, ATTN: ATS-CTD-M8

I USAIMA, Pt Bragg, ATIN: Merquat Lib I USA Intelligence Cti r I. oh, Pt Huecttuca, ATTN: AlIt-TI

I US WAC Ctr At Sch, Ft McClellan, ATTN: LibI i USA rintelligence Ctrlt I. 5h, Fl Huachlica, ATTNi AISI-TiX -08

1 US WVAC Cit 6 Soft, FPt McClellan, ATTN: Ting Dir I USA Intelligence Ctr Oa Soft, Ft Huuitu~a, AT"TN: ATSI-CTS-OR

I USA Quartevmesler Scit, Ft .eo, ATTN: ATIM ~E I USA Intelligence Ctr A 5th, Pst Huechuoa, ATT'N: ATNI-OTO-OT

I Intelligence Material Doey Ole, OWL, Pt Holahitrd IUSA Intelligance Ctr & Boh, Pt Huschuae, ATTNt ATBI-CTD--CS

I USA SE Signal 5th, Ft Gordon, ATTN ATSOSA I USA Intelligence Ctr A Itch. Pt Huechuoia, ATTN: DAI/UND

I USA Chaplain Ott & Sft, Pt Hamilton, ATTN! ATSC-TI.RO I USA Intelligence Citt Sch, Pt Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI-TIM

I USATSCII, Ft futIl,. ATTN: NOW Atlvlsor I USA intellognce Ctt & 5th, Ft IHulchutta, ATTN! Library

I USA War College, Coo lisle barrecks, ATTN! Lib 1 CON, HO Pt Huethuca, ATTN: Tech Nef Dlv

2 WHAIR, Ne,,ropoycltwirv Div 2 CDN, USA Ellectranic Prvg Ord, ATTN: STEEP-MT-S

I CLI, SOA, Mtw~toray I CON, Project MAISrUEf. ATTN: Tech Info Canter

I USA Conoit Anal Apiey, Setlvrerls, ATTN: MOCAWOC t H4~ MASSTIR, USATRADOC, LNO

IUSA Ct~mept Anil Apjy, (tathoeasa, ATTN: MOCA-MA I Research Institute. HOC MABSITR, Ft HoodI USA Cryitcet Anal Allay, iletheicla, ATTN: MOCA.JP 'I USA RecultIng; Cmd, Ft Sherdlen. ATTN: USARCPM-P

i USA Ai fir Test Ott, APO Sealttl, ATTN; STEAC-MO-AiL I Senior Army Adv,, USAFAGOD/TAC, 11gm9i AP Aix Pold No. S

I URA Aitir toot Cli, APO Seattle, ATTN: AMSTE-PL-Ti i HOIJSARPAC, DOVER, APO OF 26EBS, ATTN: OPPE-Sk

I URA Aimoianeril Cmit, Redstone Aiiwnal, ATTN: AT39-TIM I Stininon Lib, Acadlemy of Health Science,, Ft Sam Houlton

i USA Armaiment Cred, Riek Woeiw, ATTN! AMSAR.TOC I Marine Corps Init., ATTN: Dean-MCI

I FAA NAFIC. Atititntl City, ATTN! Llhtiryt I HQUSMC, Commandant, ATTN i Code MIMT El1

I FAA.NAP W. Atliamiti City, A'ITN: Hutm Etpi lit I I4OUSIVC, Commandant, ATI1N: Coda PI -20

I FAA Asmatiuteiivl 111,, Oklahoma City, ATTN: AAC-44D 2 USCG Academy, New Londron, ATTN: Actmistion

2 USA Philt Arty Soft. Ft Sill. ATTN: Libirary 2 USCO Academy, Now Londocn, ATTN: Library

I USA Ainitit &!It, Ft Knott, ATTN: Libitay 1 USCO Ttaining Ctr, NY, ATTN: CO

1 UStA Aiinot Schl, Pt Kit,,,, ATTN: ATSO.DI-E 1 USCO Training Ctr, NY, ATTN: Utlue Svc Oft

I USA Atttam Suhl, Ft Kima, ATTN: ATSBOCTIP I USCO, Payctiol Roo or, DC, ATTN i OP 1102

I UPIA Arnmo Adi, Ft Knox, ATTN! AmBODCf AC I HO Midl -aenge Er, Mr Dil, Quaniltir, ATTN! P&5 Div

17

N PAOX &Ah KA
I US Mwirinv Coops Liationr Otc, AMC, Alexiandria, ATTNi AMvCGS-F I oaf So CIiv il nt of InvIro Iwodicln.o, Consolea

IUSATIIADOC, Ft Moniov, A7TTI; ATRO.-ED I AIR C111111, Kensingtoni, AITNi Info I", i.

S USATRADOC, Ft Manros, ATTN: ATIPR-AD 1 Milliliw~poil~ikel Timnin, Copoeltap

lxI USATRADOC, Pit Mortoe, ATTN: il lS-E I Millta" Ailtteahav, French Inflow, ATTN~ Do Ow f

I USA Forces Cmd. Pt McPherson, ATTNt Libray I IMIdI -nCowl, C.1,1111.P.A A-Artionel, Toultan/Nove Praince

2 USA Aviation Test Bill Pt Rocket, ATTN; STINO-PO I Prnii kiatfi. 0f, Aj* Hum IV flub Div, Ministy

1 USA Agvoy for Aviation Safett, FPt Puocker, ATTN! Library of Daelie', Now DOWh

I USA fty for Aviation SofetV, Ft Rucker, ATTN: laov Adviao I Peon flub Offe Library, AKA, Israel Oeforwwo Formo

I USA Aviationi Sch, Pet Rucker, ATTN- PO Drewe 0 11 Minlatorl. van Doefrlewle, DOOPI'KL Aid leel"u

I 14'USA Aviationt Iy# Cmd, Sit Louli, ATTNi AMIAV-ZOR Peb@kdt oln, The0 Haiel, Notherolleodi

2 USA Avwiations I" Toit Act., filwar*s API. ATINi UAVTI-T

I USA AirDe 0 r.h.F S ts.ho li, ATTN i ATSA YVM

t USA Alt Mobility High a Day Lob, Moffett laid, ATTh: SAVOL-AS

I USA Aviation Sch, Met Twig Mot, PI Rucker, Arm:i ATST-T-RTM

I USA Aviation Soloo, CO. Pot Ruckewi, ATTN; ATST-D.-A

1 1H0, OAPIC(M, Alsoadidria, ATTh: AMXCD-TL

I iNO, DARGOM, Alexndtria, ATTN; CDR

I US Military Academiy, War Point, ATTN: Serials Unit

I US Miioiftr Aciadeimy, West Poilnt, ATTN: Ole of Milt Ldrahp

I US Mittitry Actiodanrty. Wast Potint, ATTN; MAOR

I VIA Stawidattliawllion 00, UK, 1Pro NY, ATTN MAASE-OC

I Wit of N,ivail Rith, ArloIngtonm, ATTN: Cod, 452

3 Olei rol Nouvel Rath, Ariltiglor, Al'T'N: Cods 4M6

I DiftitS Navot Felth Arlingftri, Armr Cowl. 4W.

I loutf Novol Rich, At~rlgiong , ATTNi Coda 441

1 Novel Atrrrtpo Mid Amt Lab, Foivtlacula, ATTNI Acous kch Div

I Nival Aorno,ar Mod Rot Laft, Parvatolfa, ATTNi Coda LSII

I Nyaal Aami nt Mod Het Lob, Pinsaolaol, ATTN; Code L5

I (Chitw of Nayllut,, ATTN: Port-OR

I NAVAIRRIA, Norfoik, ATTN! Safety Ctr

I Nav Owwoaitogriliru, DC, ATTN! Cotla 0251, Chuart A Tech

I Caviar of Navali Anal, ATTN -One thr

I in~vAirtiyiCt~no, ATTN: AIR-6313C

11 Nov NuMtti, ATTNi: ?13t

I Navi~altoptoorli~tifua 2, PPOWP 90601

I APNPL (FT) William AF9

I API4ML IT ri Lowtv APB

11APMPL IASI WPAPS, OH

IAPIIPL (fl0JZ) Brooks APB

IAPHIIL IDOJNi Louckiln AFB

I HOUSAI1 (DPXXAI

1 APYT OI) iR~iIadidnipli APB

3 AMR L IHS) WPAPII, OH

2 AP Ivso, ofInch, WlPAFV, OH, ATTN: FN[U.'SL

I ATC IXiI`13l Pillidoiripi APLI

I USAF AvriiM,,i Lit, britiils APP (501L -4), ATTN: DOC SEC

I APUSR INLI.) Arlington

IAl: Lull L'mri, MrUleliart API, ATTN! AL.C.113PCRI

iAli Pompr Awtuilemv, CO, ATTN! Dept 'i not Mm

I Nuv~i'vis & Dow iet, Sari Di..v.

2 Navy Mud Nnii oliovehilai in HMiti Wilt, Soo~n 04pg

INow tieirtticu luili,Nnoii 01o'rpo, ATTNi Rot Lob,

I Now Timiti'',i, Knit I livlaii, ATTN: Cnite 11)000-.- L

I Naivfi'ti(j Iliv, Mivittty. AliTN: Colowi 054ta

I NMvP',oit oi, iinwr i All1 N! 12.,lo 111V~4

1 NolvTioiLiloijti(~i, t ililitlit A'l I N! iitl Lotb

I LIS~ Cktl.ft Liili,40i, P.AFl N: Mraiilatrmir Ailini

I US noipi of JiwusiN~, i00, A ITN Doomi Ittilorao Admin

I N61 iti ,f oti~l siminw, I)(,,,% rTN: Comuiniiov Info Section

I L0il'voi Fr~al,'ill Ctot LWsiivnvutd. AT'TN: lit M

12 Dolliruts fr~niintomntattioi Comeitr

4 Oil Psitch, Ao sV inyt, flittaitil Oft,, (olaortnIrn

I loollnlifha Artvii, Mot Rot, Arooti Nil, lusioll Ofits, Canbetrra

I Mil glil Ali AftutoVII0 Autlit w P,4 Fitiiiy

I Aaiiliieitli l401001 Im iriuivii, 144'inallr do i ,eflafaito

)o C.'iiil .u~ili Staff W6111iiiifluti

I CýAi Stall, Stiwytl Vanitwlluii Al. ATTN: Pltwi Still Anal So

:4 ON, Coinfit~in flail Muth1 S1411. Armra CIC RDSIVI

4 lbillsht f0i Suiti. Nlinith tLioliad, wpohinngtii

18