— 

~~ 4 ___________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ____________

4

~ 

Techilcal Pap.r 289 [

~D

DEVELOPMENT OF THE ARMED SERVICES

I VOCATIONAL APTITU DE BATTERY (ASVAB)

FORMS 2 AND 3

:

‘

~ 

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

Leonard C. Seeley, M. A. Fischl. and Jack M. Hicks

/ ~ PERSONNEL ACCESSION AND UTILIZATION TECHNICAL AREA • ~~ cz

F

DDC H _

~~i ri

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

February 1978

A ppvov~d to, public rele~~e , ciI%lrIbutIon unlumiled.

__________________________________ ________ . . —. _________________________________

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AN D SOCIAL SCI ENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

W . C. MAUS

J. E. UHLANER COL, GS

Technical Director Commander

(

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this report h. been made by ARt. Please address correspondence

concerning distribution 01 reports to: U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, ATTh: PERt- P . 5001 Eusenhovier Avenue. Alexandria, Virginia 22333.

FINAL DISPOSITION: This report may be destroyed when it us no longer needed. Plus. do not ?*turn it 10

the U. ~ Army Research Institute for the Behavioral end Socuel Scu.noes.

~~~ 

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position. unles, so design.tid by other euthori,ed documents.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ f: t •~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .

— — — a..~~~~ —
~

Unclassif ied

~

ii U R ITV CL ASS ui ~ IC A T 1ON OF T HIS PAGE: (C’l~

cuu V~t,u l

~

ni, -re d)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE l

~

:;kj; ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ( (2. 

GOv I A CCES51ON NO. ~ . REC1 P I E NTS C A TALOG NUM B E R

4. TiTLE (wa d Subtitle) • ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T Y PE OF RE P~~~~1

~~~~~ E RI ~~~~~V

~~ ______ 

R Y ( ~~~~~~~~~~3T: AL

I 

I

1. AUTHO R 1 S I ~~~~~~~~~ • • ,,• , .• ~~~~~~~~ ~~. CONT RACT OR O R A NT NLIMBEHISI (

~Ø ~~ onard C./See1eY~~ M. A./Fisch15 ~~~ Jack MTJ 

_______________________

___________ - -~~ - a.- - -

9. PER9ORU1NG ORGA Ni ZATiON NAM E AND ADDRESS / ~

ç. PROGRAM E L F ’.l’.NT PROJECT TA ~~ Army Research Institute for the Behavioral aId~~ ~~ AREA

Social Sciences “

~

— - ‘li~76373lA768

~OO1 Eisenhower Ave., Al exandr ia VA 2233~ L.2.s~762717A76~~,,J Ii. CONTROLLING OFF1C F N AME AND ADDRESS T9~ RE P ~~~ I~~~.ATE -

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel , u.s. Army ( LI.. Feb ~ 1’8 I

Washington DC 20310 - 

14 . MONITORiNG AGENC i NAME & A OORESS(iI differ ent from Con:rolling Off uce) IS. TV 

~~~~ 

CLASS. 70 thuS 

P1rrp .,rt)

Unclassified

ISa. OEC L A SS1 F IC A T I ON ’D O R NGRAOING

S C H EDU LE

IS. D 1 S TRIC U T ION ST ATEMENT (of t

~

u in R ep o r t)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

I? . DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of tile ubsumoct e.tr Iin Block 20, 1 da) fer utr from R eport)

IS . 5uPP L EMENTAR ~~ NOTES

IS . 5EV WORDS (Continue on reverse tide if nece,sors wad i dentify bo h/o.k ‘aumbu .r)

Arme d Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB ) 2 and 3

Test development

Test item standardization Selection tests

Classification tests Vocational aptitude tests • 20. A CSTR ACT ( Cont;nue on reverse si de if ~

i ecrss ~~ y wad idenuifr by b/ orb number)

• ~~~ ..The Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, (ASVAB),

composed of the common elements of operational classification

batteries used by the different services, has been given to high

school students since 1968. Results are used by the schools for

counseling and by the Armed Services for selecting and classifying

polential recruits. The present report documents the development ~~~~~~~

and validation of ASVAB Forms 2 and 3, par allel improved form s

FOAM 1413 EOITi QN OF 1 NOV 55 IS OCSO LCTE Unclass if ied C.. SECUN ITY CL ASSi FICAT ION OF T HIS PA GC ( lien Data I

. .. •. - -.

‘

—--- ... . ... ..

~~. -, ..__.. . ._.... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . .

~~~~ ... ~~~ •~~~ _ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .
Unclassified

SCCURETY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAOC(ITh.n Date &,t.sed)

___—~~~ Steps in the development and validation were : (1) preparation of 200

new items for each of the eight cognitive tests of ASVAB—1; (2) field

administration to approximately 4000 Selec t ive Servi ce reg istrants ,

stratified to represent the population of young men of mili tary age in

order to obtain basic data on the items ; and (3) preparation of eight

25 item tests based on item analysis of the field data , and gene ra t ion

of two new forms of the noncognitive Coding Speed test; and (4) a

second field administration to approximately 3500 regis tran ts to deriye

norms and other statistical characteristics of the two new forms.

Unclassified

ttCU~~

ItY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAOUseI.n Data znt.r.d)

:

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

—- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - .

~~ ..J ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ r

~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ .. .~~ S ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ 7 _______
Tech u ical Paper 289

DEVELOPMENT OF THE ARMED SERVICES

VOC ATIONAL APTITUDE BA TTERY (ASVAB )

__________ 

FORMS 2 A ND 3

UTIt WftIts SeCtIN

HI kil SectiSS 0

Leonard C. Seeley, M. A. Fischl, and Jack M. Hicks

imI~ IflO~’AV*1UbiUT1 PERSONNEL ACCESSION AND UTILIZATION TECHNICAL AREA

~~~~~~~~~~ AV~

lL .E~

i

~~I~

l&L Ralph R. Canter. Chief

H

Submitted by: Approved By:

E. Ralph Dusek, Director J. E. Uhlaner

INDIVIDUAL TRAINING & PERFORMANCE TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

RESEARCH LABORATORY

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

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

February 1978

Army Project Number Enlisted Requirements

2763731 A768

b Appro

~

aed for public release; distribution unlimited.

• 1 

__ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —-——---~

• .. 

~~~~
- 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 compk non of a major phase of the task , formal recommendations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

IT

_ A
—

~~~~

---

~~

FOREWORD

The Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social

Sciences (ARI) has been a pioneer since World War II in develop ing and validating instruments for effective selection and

classif ica tion of po tential military enlisted personnel.

Research in the field is currently conduc ted by the Personnel

Accession and Utilization Technical Area of ARI.

In 1966 the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower &

Reserve Affairs) requested the development of a single aptitude

test ba tt ery to be used by all Armed Services. All four services

——Ar my, Navy, Air Force , and Marine Corps——par ticipated in

develop ing the requested Armed Services Vocational Aptitude

Battery (ASVAB), the Army as lead service with major responsibility.

ARI Research Repor t 1161 described the developmen t and

validation of the first ASVAB , composed of common elemen ts of

opera tional classification batteries used by the differen t

serv ices. ASVAB— 1 was used for pre—service testing in high

schools from 1968 to 1973. It was replaced in January 1973 by

the improved parallel forms ASVAB 2 and 3, which the Army was

also the lead service in developing . . The present report documents the steps in development and validation of Forms 2 and 3,

which were replaced in January 1976 by Forms 5, 6, and 7 developed with the Air Force as lead service.

The ori g inal research was performed under RDTE Project

2Q062106A722; curren t research during FY 1977 on enlisted selection and classification is done under Army Projects 2Q763717A76ó

and 2Q763731A768.

J. E. UHLANER . Technical Director

• —-

~~

-- •- • • • • 
• • • ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ • • ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~• —- •---~- -•-.•—.----~~~.- • • - • • • - •

DEVELOPMENT OF THE ARMED SERVICES VOCATIONAL APTITUDE

BATTERY (ASVAB) FORMS 2 AND 3

BRIEF

Requiremen t :

To develop new and improved forms of the Armed Services

Voca tional Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) as rep lacemen ts for the

original ASVAB introduced in 1968 for screening , classification ,

and counseling in the Department of Defense high school testing

program for potential service recruits.

Procedure:

The research steps in the development program were (1) preparation of 200 new items for the experimental test forms of each

of the eight cognitive tests of the ASVAB ; (2) field administration to approxima tely 4000 Selec tive Service regis tran ts, stratified to be representative of the population of young men of

mil itary age , in order to obtain basic data on the items ; (3)

preparation of final forms of eight 25—items tests based on item

analysis of the field data , and generation of two new forms of

the non—cognitive Coding Speed test; and (4) a second field

administration of the tests to approximately 3500 registrants to

derive norms and other statistical characteristics of the two new

forms of the battery.

Findings :

The resul ting ASVAB 2 and 3 were found to be equivalent , and

a single conversion table was prepared . The tests had satisfactory reliability, an appropriate range of dIfficulty levels , and

were superior to ASVAB—l as a tool for high school counseling and

the screening and classification purposes of the Armed Services .

Utilization of Findings :

In January 1973 ASVAB Form 2 was implemen ted in the high

school testing program as a replacement for Form 1. Subsequently

Form 3 was adopted by the Air Force and the Marine Corps as their

operational classification battery.
• .— ,__—,———~

._._S- ~• • ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ..• • .•• • • —.-. •

~ j

DEVELOPMENT OF THE ARMED SER VICES VOCATIONAL APTITUDE BATTERY

(ASVAB) FORMS 2 AND 3

CONTENTS

Page

RESE ARCH SUMMARY i

BACKGROUND 2

PROCEDURE 3

Experimental Test Forms 3

First Field Administration——Item Statistics 4

Development of the Final Test Forms 4

Second Field Administration——Standardizaton 7

RELIABILITY OF FORMS 2 AND 3 9

RELATIONSHIPS WITH RACE AND EDUCATION 9

CONCLUSION 13

DISTRIBUTION LIST 15

TABLES

Table 1. APEES si tes for data collection for item statistics 4

2. Test frequency dis tribu t ions of Form 2 and Form 3 i tems 6

3. Mean item difficulty (.2c ) and homogenei ty (n t) in

three forms of ASVAB 7

4. Adminis tration order and t ime allowed for ASVAB

Forms 2 and 3 7

5. Standardization data collection AFEES sites , Sep tember

1971 8

6. ASVAB reliabili ty: coefficients of equivalence and

internal consistency for each test 10

7. ASVAB—2 means , standard deviations , and intercorre—

lations 11

8. ASVAB—3 means , standard deviations , and intercorre—

la t ions 12

• • • • • • • ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .

~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ —~ —-—-
DEVELOPMENT OF THE ARMED SERVICES VOCATIONAL APTITUDE BATTERY

(ASVAB) FORMS 2 AND 3

RESEARCH SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to describe the steps in the development of Forms 2 and 3 of the Armed Services Vocationa l Apt itude Ba tt ery

(ASVAB). Forms 1 , 2, and 3 of the ASVAB each consisted of nine multi p le—

choice tests developed for adinininstration in the high school test

program of the Department of Defense. That program , opera ted as an

adjunct to service and recruiting efforts , offers to test high school

students with service relevant tests and also provides the test results

to the schools.

The battery comprises the common portions of the operational classifica tion batteries used by the Services through 1973 , and consists

of the following tests:

1. Coding Speed. Matching of words and numbers.

2. Word Knowled ge. Finding correct synonyms.

3. Ari thmetic Reasoning. Logical app lica tion of arithmetic

operations.

4. Tool Knowled ge. Pic torial test of knowled ge of hand tools.

5. Space Percep tion. Pictorial test involving folded and

unfolded figures .

6. Mechanical Comprehension. Mechanical princ iples shown

in drawings.

7. Shop Information . Determining correct usage of tools and

shop equi pment.

8. Au tomotive Information . Grasp of automotive princ ip les and

knowled ge.

9. Elec tronics Information. Princip les of elec tricity and elect ronics.

In addi tion , an AFQT score is obtainable from this battery.

The original ASVAB was introduced for use in the high schools in

September 1968. Work was then begun on the development of two additional

forms of the test as eventual replacements. The research steps in this

program consisted of (1) preparation of item pools for experimental

test forms, (2) field administration to obtain basic empirical data

concerning the items, (3) selection of items to comprise the final test

forms , and (4) a second field administration to derive norms and other statistical properties of the two new forms of the battery.

• • • • • .• • • ~~~ •~~~~ • • • - •

~~~~~~~ .~~~~~~~~~~ • .• •~~• • • •~~ • • •~~~~ - • • • • - • ••~~
_

Two hundred new test items of each of eight types of content were

administered in AFEES to several national samples of Selective Service

registrants stratified to represent the population of young men of

military age. The total sample consisted of some 4000 cases, 18% of

whom were blacks , and requisite statistics ot item difficulty and homogeneity were obtained . Using these statistics , items were assembled

into two parallel 25—item forms of each of these eight content types.

New forms of the Coding Speed test were generated , and when these were

added to the item—analysis based tests , there were two entirely new

nine—test batteries.

These batteries were administered to several additional stratified

national samples of Selective Service registrants , one form to a sample.

A total of 3500 cases, at 13 AFEES , was utilized for this administration. This sample , nationally representative , again intentionally

over—sampled black registrants , and consisted primarily of 18— and

• 19—year—olds , 80% of whom had completed between 10 and 13 years of education . From this administration , percentl .e and Army Standard Score

norms were developed ; and test reliability coefficients , intercorrela—

tions , and other characteristics of the new batteries were derived .

BAC KGROUND

The original form of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery

was introduced for use in the DOD High School Testing Program at the beginning of the 1968—69 school year . This battery, which comprised the

common elements of the operational classification batteries in use by

the military services through 1973, consists of nine tests described as

follows :

1. Coding Speed. Presents a key showing a series of words each

with a 4—digit code number to represent it. Each item presents one of

the words and five alternative sets of numbers. The examinee ’s task is

to select the correct code number according to the key.

2. Word Knowledge. For each item the examinee is required to

select from a set of four alternatives , the correct synonym for a specified word .

3. Arithmetic Reasoning . For each item the examinee is required

to choose , from among four alternatives , the correct answer to an

arithmetic problem .

4. Tool Knowledge. Each item presents five drawings of various

tools and articles of shop equipment. The examinee indicat’es which

of four alternatives “is used with” or “goes best with” the lead

drawing.

5. Sp4ce Perception. Each item consists of one three—dimensional

figure unfolded and laid out flat , and four folded figures. The

examinee is asked to decide which one of the folded figures corresponds

to the unfolded figure.

— 2—

___________ • _

~~~..~~_ • ._. _ ._ ___.. _ • _.~~~~

• • •~~~~~~~~ ..._ , 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -
6. Mechanical Comprehension. Each Ler~ contains one or more drawings ill ust ra ting some mechanical pr inc ip le. In response to a question

about the principle , the exam inee dec ides on the correc t answer from a

set of four alternatives.

7. Shop Information. • These items consist of questions , many of

the m wi th drawings , concer ning shop tools and prac tices. The examinee

chooses his response from four alternatives.

8. Au tomotive Information. This test comprises four—choice items

measuring knowled ge of the au tomob ile , it s componen t par ts, and the ir

functioning.

9. Electronics Information. This test consists of four—choice

items about principles of electricity and electrical/electronic devices.

Immediately upon introduction of the ASVAB into the high schools ,

work commenced on the development of two successor forms. The objective

was to develop a pa ir of parallel for ms which would be comparable bu t

super ior psycho metr icall y to the form then in use in the schools. That

ea rly form of the battery , developmen t of wh ich was descr ibed by Bayroff

and Fuchs ,

1 contained some tests In which the mean item difficulties

were other than the most desirable. In addition , parallel forms were

required , for retest purposes. The research steps to develop the two

new forms req uired ( 1) prepara t ion of test items, (2) field administration to obtain empir ical da ta concern ing the item s, (3) selection of the

Items to compr ise f inal test f orms , and (4) a second field administration to der ive norms , in tercorrela tions , and test reliability

coefficients.

PROC EDURE

EXPERIMENTAL TEST FORM S

As an initial step , two hund red new four—alternative items were

prepared in each of the eight cognitive content areas of the ASVAB . This

resulted in 1600 items designed to cover a wide range of difficulty,

fro m ex tremely easy to ex tremel y difficult. The two hundred items of

each of the eigh t types were arranged in to fo ur experimen tal pools , 50

items to a pool , items in each pool arranged in ascending order of estimated difficulty. These pools were assembled into two series of test

bookle ts, each ser ies con taining half of the eigh t differen t con tent

areas. They were designated Series W and Series A . The four W Series

bookle t s (Wi , W2 , W3 , and W4) con tained Word Knowled ge , Space Perception ,

Mechanical Comprehension and Automotive Information item pools ; the A

Series (Al , A2 , A3 , and A4) consisted of Arithmetic Reasoning , Tool

Knowledge , Shop Information , and Elec tronics Information item pools.

‘Bayroff , A. G., and Fuchs , E. F. The Armed Services Vocational

Aptitude Battery. Army Research Institute Research Report 1161 ,

February 1970. (AD 701 907)

—3—

• . •~~~ . _~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ •~~ 
— ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FIRST FIELD ADMINISTRATION——ITEM STATISTICS

Field administration took place in two time—blocks , February and

August of 1970. At least two AFEES in each of the five recruiting

• regions were selected (Table 1). Experimental test booklets were

administered at these AFEES to samples of Selective Service registrants

reporting for pre—induction processing . This step was accomplished

throug h the joint effort of research representatives of the Army , Navy,

Air Force , and Marine Corps , the Army acting as lead service. The total

number of cases was approx ima tel y 4 ,000 , stratified on AFQT to represent

the mobilization population of young men of military age . Eigh teen

percen t of this total sample was black .

Each examinee was admin istered a booklet containing four tests.

Testing time for this administration was limited to approximately an

hour and three—quarters , minimizing the research intrusion on operational AFEES testing . The experimental booklet was always administered

prior to any operational tests.

DEVELOPMENT OF FINAL TEST FORMS

Final forms of the Coding Speed test were constructed by choosing

some common nouns to serve as key words , and assigning a different

randoml y selected four—digit number to each key word . Time limits for

this speed test were established thro ugh preliminary administration in

two of the AFEES shown in Table 1.

Table 1

AFEES SITES FOR DATA COLLECTION FOR ITEM STATISTICS

Bookle ts Wl , W2 , Al , A2 Bookle ts W3 , W4 , A3 , A4

February 1970 Augus t 1970

Chicago , Ill. Atlanta , Ga.

Cleveland , Ohio Baltimore , Md .

Columbia , S. C. Boston , Mass.

Dallas , Tex. Columbia , S. C.

Detroi t , Mich . Los Angeles , Calif .

Fresno , Calif. Milwaukee , Wis.

Hous ton , Tex . Minneapolis , Minn .

Los Angeles , Calif. New Orleans , La.

Montgomery, Ala. Philadelphia , Penna.

New Haven . Conn . Portland , Ore.

Newark , h. J. St. Louis , Mo.

Philadelphia , Penna . San Antonio , Tex.

Salt Lake City, Utah

- . 4 —

•——- •

~

-- - — • . ~~~ J
Selection of items for the final forms of the eight cognitive tests

was performed through statistical analysis of the data gathered in the

first field administration . For each of the 1600 items , its difficulty

and its correlation with total score over all items of the same content

type were calculated . The Difficulty Index (ic) was defined as the

proportion of examinees choosing the correct response to each item ,

corrected for chance success. The proportion of examinees choosing

each incorrect alternative was also calculated . The item—t,est correlation (nit) was computed as the point—biserial correlation (~pb) between

each item and total score on the test to which the item belonged , uncorrected for common elements. For this purpose the dichotomous variable

was the correct alternative ; analogous nit ’s were also computed for each

incorrect alternative .

To imp lement item selection , all items in a content area were

distributed according to difficulty value ; then the nit values were

examined. In general , an item was selected if it satisfied a place in

the target difficulty pattern , had a high nit , had no pc for a wrong

choice higher than that of the correct choice , and the nit for the

correct choice was substantially hi ghter than that of any wrong choice.

Table 2 shows the distribution of item difficulties for each of the

eight cognitive tests , along with the target difficulty pattern toward

which the battery was designed.

Tab le 3 compares the mean item difficulty levels and mean nit ’s

for three forms of the ASVAB . Examination of the ic’s shows Forms 2

and 3 to have overcome the primary problems experienced with Form 1;

namel y (1) the extreme test—to—test variability in difficulty and (2)

the observation that Word Knowled ge I was just too easy. By comparison , no two tests of Forms 2 and 3 are more than three percentage

points different in mean item difficulty, and that difficulty value is

at a more appropriate level than found in Form 1.

The nit ’s present a somewhat less decisive p icture. Though these

value~ are satisfactoril y high for ASVAB 2 and 3, they appear in some

cases to be not as high as for ASVAB 1. This diffe rence should not be

construed as indicating a deficiency of Forms 2 and 3, however , because

ASVAB 2 and 3 coefficients were computed on the basis of the 50—item

pools of the item analysis samp les. Half the items in these pools were

later rejected , partly on the basis of unacceptably low nit ’s, configuring the fina l forms for ASVAB 2 and 3. Therefore , the mean nit ’s for

the final versions of ASVAB 2 and 3 would necessarily be higher than

those reported in Table 3, and they probabl y exceed the values shown for

ASVAB I in the table.

2Using the formula ac — np—I where p is -the uncorrected proportion of n—I

correct answers , and n is the number of alternatives per item

—5—

• - -- ~~ -, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - ~~~~~~—~--~~~
__________________

C

0

00.0

I.’ ., ’

b-i (\J (\J rC\ ~~~ ~

(\ rc~ N\ r(\ rc~

, F-l U

b-4 re~ 0 ..z~ H ~~ re\ ~~ ~

:t t(\ C’J

(\J 0 -~~ H -~~ ~~~- ~~ -~~ ~~~

I,

r

~~ C\J —I ..j- rc~ r

~~ t(\ re~ ~~ C~

J

f-C Si

• (\J (

~

J H ~~ (N

rc\ o

0 re~ —4 ~~ H f\ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ‘-4 U.

(‘4 0 (C\ (‘4 ~:

~

- ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ -~~ (‘4

(‘4

~

C\ 0 s

~

\ -

~~ ~~ rC\ ~ \ ~~ ~~~

. (N

(‘4 ~

.C4 Z 

~~ 0 rC\ ~

zr rC~ rC~ ~~ rC\ ~~ (‘4

r

~

4 5) 0 --

.0 ri

~ rC\ 0 ~~ (‘4 ~~ ~~~ rr~

. ~ j . (\J

04 0 .

~~~ OJ -~~ pc\ ic’, K\ ~~~- 04

~

e\ c’~

j j PC\ re~ r(\ ~~ ~~ ~~~- oj >

(‘4 (‘4 (‘4 ~~ rC~ tc\ ~~ ~ \ H

Z ESi

E

~

o. H ~~ (‘4 

r14 (‘4 0 -zt ~~~ rC\ r(\ rC~ ~~~- (C\ (N 1 F-I

& ~

C\ 0 (4‘

04 0 ~~~- r(\ re~ ~~ re\ ~~~ LL~

\ H

g

• ~

c ~~~

‘ 

~~~

‘ 

~ 

‘8 

6 ‘ 6 6 6 ‘ ~~~~~~~ N- ‘

~

O ~~- O J 2 I

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

~~
Table 3

MEAN ITEM DIFFICULTY (Ec) AND HOMOGENEITY (n t) IN THREE FORMS OF ASVAB

Form 1 Form 2 Form 3

Test pc n t pc nit pc nit

Word Knowledge 68.1 .632 54.8 .581 54.5 .582

Arithmetic Reasoning 55.6 .558 55.2 .526 55.2 .526

Tool Knowledge 49.0 .434 55.2 .438 55.2 .446

Space Perception 48.3 .450 55.6 .445 54.9 .410

Mechanical Coinprehen . 46.7 .421 54.1 .460 53.9 .447

Shop Information 46.2 .447 53.2 .338 53.4 .402

Automotive Info . 42.4 .517 55.2 .438 55.4 .447

Electronics Info . 49.0 .473 52.6 .423 52.9 .417

SECOND FIELD ADMINISTRATION——STANDARDIZATION

Upon construction of the final forms of ASVAB 2 and 3 (Table 4 shows

test order and time allowed for each test) a second field administration

was performed to standardize the instruments , i.e., to determine standard

scores and percentIle equivalents to raw scores. This effort was carried

out by administering each form of the battery to approximately 1200 young

men in September 1971. These individuals were tested at thirteen AFEES

locations (Table 5), representing all five recruiting regions. The majority of the total sample consisted of Selective Service registrants

reporting for pre—induction processing ; the remainder were applicants for

enlistment. Candidates for all military services were represented - in the

sample; all those included were non—prior service personnel. Virtually

all examinees were either 18 or 19 years of age , 80% had completed 10 to

13 years of education , and 15.5% were black.

Table 4

ADMINISTRATION ORDER AND TIME ALLOWED FOR ASVAB FORM S 2 AND 3

Test a Time Allowed in Minutest’

1. Coding Speed (CS) 7

2. Word Knowledge (WK ) 10

3. Arithmetic Reasoning (AR) 25

4. Tool Knowledge (TK) 10

5. Space Perception (SP) 15

6. Mechanical Comprehension (MC ) 15

7. Shop Information (SI) 10

8. Automotive Information (Al ) 10

9. Electronics Information (El) 10

Total 9 tests 1 hr. 52 mis.

Codlng Speed has 100 Items. AB other,, 25 Items

b

~~ dj ,~~ Speed is a true weed test. All others are po~~r tests with administrative time limits

—7—

• - —-•—, .— _~~~~~~~~ —_-_

~~~~~- -
_________

Table 5

STANDARDIZATION DATA COLLECTION AFEES SITES, SEPTEMBER 1971

Baltimore , Maryland Montgomery, Alabama

Cleveland , Ohio Oakland , California

Detroit , Michigan Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Ft. Hamilton , New York Philadelphia , Pennsylvania

Jacksonville , Florida Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Kansas City, Missouri St. Louis, Missouri

Los Angeles , California

The standardization data collection procedure was arranged according

to a counterbalanced design. The AFQT was necessary in order to stratify the standardization sample to conform to the mobilization population.

Since there were two forms of the ASVAZ, four subgroups were defined as

follows :

Subgroup n (approx.) Test sequence

A 600 ASVAB 2——AFQT —7 or —8

B 600 AFQT—7 or —8——ASVAB 2

C 600 ASVA3 3——AFQT—7 or —8

D 600 AFQT—7 or —8——ASVAB 3

Any other operational tests were administered after both the ASVAB

and AFQT had been administered .

At this time , a second group , of approximately 500 examinees , was

utilized to determine the equivalence of the counterpart tests of the

two ASVAB forms. For this group , ASVAB 2 and 3 were each divided into

approximately half—length sections. Section 1 of each form consisted of

the first four tests of the battery (CS, WK , AR , and TK), Section 2 of

the last five tests (SP, MC, SI , Al, and El). Each examinee received

one section of each ASVAB ,——that is, two half—batteries——in counterbalanced sequence resulting in the following breakdown :

Subgroup n (approx.) Test Sequence

E 125 ASVAB 2, Sec . l——ASVAB 3, Sec . 1

F 125 ASVAB 3, Sec . 1——ASVAB 2, Sec . 1

G 125 ASVAB 2, Sec. 2——ASVAB 3, Sec . 2

H 125 ASVAB 3, Sec. 2——ASVAB 2, Sec . 2

This ASVAB testing was done after the operational AFQT had been

administered , but before any other testing . No examinee participated

in more than one of the above subgroups A through H.

• - •-
Norms for ASVAB 2 and 3 were calibrated on the basis of the World

War II mobilization population , according to the equipercentile method .3

Subgroups A through D were stratified in terms of scores on AFQT Forms

7C and 8C, then operational. Subsamples 1 and 2 were combined , as were

subsainples 3 and 4, yielding two stratified samples from the mobilization

population , each of 1250 cases , 125 per decile , one for ASVAB Form 2 and

another for Form 3.

The next steps were to derive percentile and standard score equivalents to each test raw score , as well as AFQT percentile equivalents of

the sum of raw scores on the WK, AR , TK , and SP tests. Frequency distributions of raw scores were prepared for each ASVAB 2 and 3 test

separately, and for each test when ASVAB 2 and 3 were combined . For each

test , the conversions for Form 2 were compared with those for Form 3,

revealing negligible differences . It was therefore decided that a

single conversion table , based on a combination of Forms 2 and 3, could

be utilized .

RELIABILITY OF FORMS 2 AND 3

The final step in the development of ASVAB 2 and 3 was estimation of

the reliability of the respective tests. For this purpose , the data of

subgroups E through H were utilized . Table 6 presents coefficients of

equivalence and internal consistency for each test of the battery. These

coefficients seem reasonably high for tests of only 25 items. As may

be noted , six of the nine tests exhibit equivalence coefficients of

the order of .80 or higher , with only the Shop Information test falling

below .70. Why the Shop Information test yielded the lowest equivalence

coefficients is not apparent , especially since its internal consistency

coefficients are of comparable magnitude to th~ rest of the set.

RELATIONSHIPS WITH RACE AND EDUCATION

Slightly more than 15% of the standardization sample were black ,

ranging between 13.5% and 17.2% in the four subsamples. Tables 7 and

8 present the intercorrelations of all tests of the battery , as well

as their correlations with educational level and race. Generally, the

intercorrelations are of intermediate magnitude , the perceptual motor

test (Coding Speed ) being most independent of the rest of the battery.

3A good discussion of the equipercentile method can be found in

Cronbach , L. G. Essentials of Psychological Testing, 3rd edition

Ha r per and Row, 1970, pp. 111—112.

4Ali power test raw scores were computed utilizing the standard

correction for chance success with four response alternatives.

—9—
The range of correlation coefficients with race is from 0.32, Space

Perception in Form 2, to 0.53, Electronics Information in Form 3. In

general , correlation is lower for those tests which are nonverbal , such

as Space Perception or Tool Knowledge . Also noticeable is the intercor—

relation of race with education , which is in the low 0.20’s range. When

education level is partialled out , these correlations with race reduce

from 3 to 7 correlation points to r’s of .27 (SP in Form 2) to .48

(El in Form 3).

Table 6

ASVAB RELIABILITY:

COEFFICIENTS OF EQUIVALENCE AND INTERNAL CONSISTENCY FOR EACH TEST

Internal Consistencyb

Test Equivalencea Form 2 Form 3

Coding Speed .83 .86 Not Applicable

Word Knowledge .80 .85 .87 .86

Arithmetic Reasoning .81 .86 .87 .86

Tool Knowledge .79 .76 .78 .80

Space Perception .82 .84 .84 .83

Mechanical Comprehension .77 .73 .83 .83

Shop Information .67 .65 .81 .82

Automotive Information .75 .74 .85 .88

Electronics Information .80 .79 .83 .82

‘Correlation of Form 2 and Form 3, in two subsamples , Form 2 administered frist in one (N = 250). Form 3 administered

first ,ri the other 1n 250).

b1j~~;1~~ Kuder.Rithardson Formula 20, n 600, each form.

-10 -

• ; •~~ ••. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~_ - • .• • --~~~~- -- • • • - • - • • •- - • _ - • • •.. • -.- - • • -

~~-•-
1-

~~

0 

. 

O \

LC\~~ ~~

COCO

F ~~ N. U O~~~~~~~ (

~~C\

t’- 54

.0

I-I

E-4 ~~~~ N- G\ 

OJ H 0\ 

-~~ -4 CO

-

~~

0 

~

0 H 

~~ . 

~~ te’~ H 

‘

..

~~ CO 

‘-.0

oE~

4 Q\ rC\ U\ G\ CO 0’~ 004 -.)

I-I 

~

0 

~‘0 

~l”\ 

t

~’\ 

-~~ 

-

~~ 

N- 

-

~~ 

-

~~

0

— 

0~

~ t 0 H0H-.-

4 0\

H N-

’-.0 

‘-.0 .0 -.0 ~~ u\ N- ~~~~ 

H

II H Nt

~\ 040) 0) ~~ N- 0 ~~~ 0\ CC)

N Z 

N

~ 0 N- CO NN.’--0 .0 

-0 ‘-0 

~~

ir

~~

5, <• ‘u 1.4 5) Q\

’-.Q ‘-0 H ~~~ ~~~ N 

~

) H ~~ 

~\ 

(‘4 r4

’\ s t.

~ ‘i-i ~ ‘4) U’\~~ 

‘-.0 CCi CO N- ~~ 

-

-0 1’ C— 

t

~\ ~~ f-I 0~~ 4 Co

‘IC

04 ci) 0 (‘\H ~~ 0 

~

-. ‘-4 ~~~ N-CO 

-‘0

•.0 

t(\ 

-

~~ 

‘-.0 0) ~~ NN- CO 

~\ 

~C\ 

-~~ 

-~~

U) N-~

~

\ &t’~

LV\ .4

’\

~~ 

00) N-0N~~~~O~~~~LC\ &r, L1’\ (‘4 r(\~~. ~e’

~ 

‘Th .4’ ,r\ LC~ 

~ \ 

U”\ LC\ C\J .4. 

.~

~

- 

.

~~

H 0 N H.’4 ~ 

~~~

,

rC\ H ~~ pr\ -,m 0 0 N 0 L(\ .-4 \J 

-

~~ ‘ s fl

• 0 0 f\ 0 f\ f\ ~~ 

it\ 

~ ‘ ~ N- N -f\ 

~

- - I 

‘

-4

C ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

.4 . 

IC IC

.~

~

‘IIi 4J 

—

i~

0)o ? o

~ g 

g

U II

11. 3 1 

~ ~ 4 11.1 114 ra

~ 

a S M~~~~ I E ~4~~~~~~~~OOOO ~~~~~~~ >.

a) 

O’O’ Q U 5 ,

~. u.

‘.4

—11-
r

Z 0~~~~~~H U)

CON HO-.3

U

N-cO ’0CO~~- U \

1/)

z COCOCO~~~- .0 f \

0

— 0 f\ 0 i

~\ 0 J

~ ~ — i

~ \ r(\

O N- 0 3 ‘0 0 -ci- -~~ .f’~ .-ciN- .J~

i CU .ci- J\ 0 ~‘J “ 0 f\

0 N- 3 N- 3 3 f’~ 3 3 .f\ .

~

Coil

0) 1.4 X

<0)

54 0 ‘

~~~ 0 re’, H 3’~ 0 —4 N- 3 ~ \ ~~\ 3

~~~~~~~ Co

0 H 00 ~~~ tC\ N- N-CO 00 3\ .

~~ 0 f-I if\ U\ - 0 0 Lr%\o 4 L1\ ‘

~~ ~~ 3 ~~ —

0 N 3\ -0 040) ‘

.0 ‘

-4 U\ i

~~ H ~~~ -

IC\ Lf\0 lf’\ LC\ Lf’\0) 3 N -N -CO ~~~~~~~

-0 N-° 30 (‘404 N-~

‘0 0’. 0) H’.~ 0 0’. (‘4 3\ H N\’0 0 —I ‘-I 3’. 0

C/) If’. U•\ 04 -

~

f ~~ l(\ .

~~- u\ - 0 Lr~ ir~.o ’ (‘4~~~- $-\ 

~

r\ 0

~~~~~~~ \LC~ H 0 4N --0 N - \ 0 0 4N -N - 0 4 N, ’ ~cQ -~~

0 -~~ ~~~‘0 If’. ~ \‘-C) If\0) LI’. N- N- N- ~~~ N- H H ~

-lr -4 C\J

I0~~~i’.00H\00).ztCU000 04CUH0\ H

g JN O U . O <IC

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

~ IC IC .4

N- N- N- N- 6 ~~ ~‘

— S S U I4~~~d 0’O’ O’ O’ S • ~5 -

~~ ! I 

~ 1-4 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I- I-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ OOOO ~~~~~~)4

— 12 —

—- - ——--———- -— - •.i.___• — ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

• ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.- —— -.- - -—-- -. -.~~~ — - -—•- -~~~~~~•-~~ -

~~

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

~~~~ . .--------

,— .-————~~~~~~~~~~~ —-—-— - - — —

CONCLUSION

~ The objective in developing ASVAB 2 and 3 was, as stated at the be—

ginning of this paper , to produce two parallel forms which would be

comparable but psychometrically Superior to the form then in use in the

high schools. From the standpoint of coverage of the required range of

difficulty, internal consistency, equivalency of both forms, and rela—

tionship among the component tests , Forms 2 and . of the ASVAB met this

objective . They can be regarded as high—quality instruments fully

suitable for use in counseling high school students as well as in

screening and classifying them , where appropriate , for entry into the

Armed Services.

—13 — 

~~~~~~~~~ 

j — ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ s

~~

...,.. , . .!~~~~t

~~~~~~~~ - ”’ —
r - -

DUST RI RU TI ON

AR) Distribution List

4 OASD (M&RA) 2 HOUSACOEC. Ft Ord, ArrpI: Library

2 HOOA (DAMP -CSZ) 1 HQUSACDEC. Ft Ord, ATTh : ATEC—EX—E —Hum Factors

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

I 1400A (DANA-AR) ¶ USAPACDC, Ft B.njamin Harrison, ATTN: ATCP—HR

1 HODA (DAPE.HRE.PO) 1 USA Comm-Elect Sch, Ft Monmo~th , AT1’N: ATSN-EA

1 HODA (SGRD-lD) I USAEC. Ft Monmouth , ATT’N: AMSEL-CT—HDP

1 HODA (DAMP-DOT-C) I USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATtN: AMSEL-PA--P

I HOOA (OAPC.PMZ-A) 1 USAEC, Ft Mon,nouth, ATTN: AMSEL—SI r:a

I HOOA (DACH-PPZ.A) 1 USAEC. Ft Monmouth, ATTN : C, Fad Div Br

I HODA (DAPE.HRE) 1 USA Materiels Sys Anal Agcy, Abertfeen, ATTN: AMXSY—P

1 HODA (DAPE-MPO-Cl 1 Edgewood Arsenal, Aberdeen, Aim: SAREA— 4L-H

1 HODA (DAPE-DW) I USA Ord Ctr & Sd,, Aberdeen , AT1’N: ATSL—TEM—C

1 HODA IDAPE-HRL) 2 USA Hum Engr Lab. Aberdeen, ATTN : Library/Dir

HQDA (DAPE-CPS) I USA Combat Arms Tng Bd, Ft Binning. ATTN : Ad Supervisor

I HODA (DAFOMFAI 1 USA Infantry Hum Rsdt Unit, Ft Binning, ATTN: Chief

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

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

I HODA (DUSA-OR) 1 USA Air Dat Sch, Ft Bliss. ATTN: ATSA--CTD-NE

1 HODA (DAMO.RQR) I USA Air D,f Sch, Ft Bliss, ATTN : Ted, Lib

1 HOOA (OASG) 1 USA Air Def Bd, Ft Bliss , ATTh: FILES

I HODA (DAlO-PI) 1 USA Air Del Bd, Ft Bliss , ATtN: STEBO—PO

1 Chief, Consult Div (DA.OTSG), Adelphi , MD 1 USA Cmd & General Stf College, Ft Leavenwo rth , ATTN: Lib

1 Nil Asst. Hu

~ Res, 000R&E . OAD (E&LS ) 1 USA Cmd & General Stf College. Ft Leavenworth, A’T’TN: ATSW—SE—L

1 HO USARAL, APO S.attl., Aim: ARAGP-R ¶ USA Cmd & General Sot College, Ft Leavenworth. ATTN: Ed Adv i,or

1 HO First Army, ATT’N: AFKA-OI.Tl 1 USA combined Arms Cmbt Dev Act. Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: DepCdr

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

I Dir, Anny Sot Studies Ofc , ATT’N: OAVCSA (DSP) I USA Combined Arms Cmbt Div Act. Ft Lievenworth. ATTN : ATCASA

I Ofc Chief of Sot, Studies Ofc 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Des Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: ATCACO-E

1 DCSPE R . ATTh: CPS/OCP I USA Combined Arms Cmbt Div Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: ATCACC—Cl

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

1 The Army Lib, Pentagon, ATTN: ANRAL 3 USA Computer Sys Cmd, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: T.d~ Library

I Ofc, A,st Sect of the Army (R&D) I USAMERDC, Ft Be4voir, AiTh: STSFB—OO

1 Tech Support Ofc, OJCS 1 USA Eng Sch, Ft Belvoir, AT’T’N: Library

I USASA, Arlington, ATT’N: IARD-T I USA Topographic Lab, Ft Belvoir , ATrN: ETL—TD—S

1 USA Rich Otc, Durham. ATTN: Life Sciences Dir 1 USA TOpOgraphic Lab . Ft Belvoir . ATTN: S’T’INFO Center

2 USARIEM, Netick , ATTN: SGRD.UE.CA 1 USA Topographic Lab, Ft BeIvol,, ATTN: ETL—GSL

I USAT’TC. Ft Clayton, Aim: STETC-MO’A USA Intelligence Ctr & Sc)’

,, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: CTD—MS

I USAIMA, Ft Bragg, A’fl’N: ATSU-CTD-OM 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch. Ft Huachuca, Aim: A1’S—CTD-MS

1 USAIMA, Ft Bragg, Aim: Marques Lib 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sth, Ft Huachuca, Aim: ATSI—TE

1 US WAC Cu & Sd~. Ft McClellan, Aim: LIb 1 USA Intelligence Cu & Sth, Ft Huechuca, ATTN: ATSI—TEX -GS

I US WAC Ctr & Sch, Ft McClellan, Aim: Tog Dir 1 USA Intelligence Cit & Sch. Ft Huechuca, Aim: ATSI-CTS-OR

1 USA Ce..rtermast.r Sc),, Ft Lee, Aim: ATSM.TE I USA Intelligence Ct, & 5th, Ft Huachuca, Aim: ATSI—CTD—Di’

1 Intelligence Material Des Otc , EWL. Ft Holabird I USA Intelligence Cu & Sc),, Ft Huachuce. Aim: ATSI—CTD-CS

1 USA SE Sigrtal Sch, Ft Gordon, Aim: ATSO-EA I USA Intelligence Cu & Sc),, Ft Huachuca. Aim: DAS/SRD

1 USA Chaplain Coy & Sch, Ft Hamilton, Aim: ATSC-TE-RD I USA Intelligence Ct, & Sch. Ft Huachuca, Aim: ATSI—TEM

1 USATSCH. Ft Euttis, Aim: Educ Advisor I USA Intelligence Cu & Sch, Ft Huachuca, Aim: Library

1 USA War College, Carlisle Barv.cks, Aim: Lib ¶ COR . HO Ft Huathuce. Aim: Tech Ret Div

2 W RA IR , Neuropsychiatry Dlv 2 CDR . USA Electronic Prvg Grd, Aim: STEEP-NT-S

I DLI , SDA. Monterey I CDR , Project MASSIER, Aim: Tech Info Center

I USA Concept Anal Agcy, Bethesda, Aim: MOCA-WGC I Hg MASSTER. USATRADOC. LNO

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

I USA Concept Anal Agcy, Bethesda, Aim: MOCA-JE I USA Recruiting Cmd, Ft Sherdian, Aim: USARCPM-P

I USA Attic Test Ctr, APO Seattle. A’TTN: $1CAC-MO’ASL I Senior Army Mv.. USAFAGOD/TAC, El~ n AF Aus FId No. 9

¶ USA Artlc Test Ct,, APO S.ettle. Aim: AMSTE.PL-TS I HO USARPAC . DCSPER , APO SF gg~~s, Aim: GPPE—SE

¶ USA Armament Cmd, Redstone Anen.l. Aim: ATSK-TEM I Stimson LIb. Academy of Health Sciences, Ft Sam Houston

I USA Armament Cmd. Rock Island, Aim: ANSAR-TDC I Marine Corps Inst., AT’TN: Dean-MCI

I FAA-NAFEC, AtlantIc City, Aim: Library I HOUSMC, Commandant. Aim: Cods MTMT Si

1 FAA.NAFEC, Atlantic City, Aim: Hum Engr Sr I HOUSMC, Commandant. Aim: Code MPI—20

I FAA Aeronautical Cu, Oklahoma City, Aim: A.AC’440 2 USCG Academy, New London, AflN: A&nli*ion

2 USA FId Any 5th, Ft Sill, Aim: LIbrary 2 USCG Academy. New London, Aim: Library

I USA Armor 9th, Ft Knox, Aim: LIbrary 1 USCG Training Cu, NV , Aim: CO

I USA Armor 9th, Ft Knos , Aim: ATSS-Dl-E I USCG Training Cu, NV , Aim: Educ Sec Ofc

1 USA Armor Sds. Ft Knos , Aim: ATSS-OT.TP I USCG. Psyctiol Re, Br, DC, Aim: OP 1/52

I USA Armor 9th. Ft Knox . ATTh: ATSI-CO’AD I HO Mid—Range Br. MC Des, Quantico, Aim: PU Dlv

__________________ -- — ----—--. — -,- . - .---~~~~

. — ---., -“ .-

,

--- — - • ---- —-—-- -.-- -.

-- ----- -

--——---.,------ - - -—--—--• - - ---- -----•--— .
I US Marine Corps Li~ision Otc. AMC. Alexandria , ATm: AMCGS—F 1 Del & Civil Inst of Enviro Medicine, Canada 1 USATRADOC, Ft Monroe , ATTN: ATRO—ED 1 AIR CRESS. Kensington . ATTN: Info Sys Br

6 USATRADOC . Ft Monro e A’fl ’N: ATP R—AD I Mllitaer psykologlslc Tjenett e , Copehagen

1 USATRADOC . Ft Monroe, ATTN : ATTS—EA 1 Militar y Attache, French Enstcosy. ATTN: Doc Sec

1 USA Forces Cmd , Ft McPherson , ATTN: Libra ry I Medecin Chef , C.E.R.P.A.—Arsenal. Toulon/Naval France

2 USA Aviation Test Bd , Ft Rucker , ATTN: STEBG—PO 1 Prin Scientific Ott, AppI Hum Engr Rich Div . Ministry

1 USA Agcy for Aviation Safety , Ft Rucker , AT’I’N: Library of D,fense , New Delhi

1 USA Agcy for Aviation Safety . Ft Ruclser, ATTN: Educ ~~visor I Pert Rich Ofc Library, AK.A. Israel Defense Forces

1 USA Aviation Sc),, Ft Ruckor, ATIN: P0 Drawer o 1 Ministeri s van Detensie, 000P/KL Afd Sociaal

I HOUSA Avi ation Sys Cmd , St Louis , ATTN: AMSAV—ZDR Psycholog ische Zaken , The Hague, Netherlands

2 USA Avia tion Sys Test Act., Edwards AFB, Aim: SAVTE—T

1 USA Air Del Sc),, Ft Bliss, ATTN: ATSA TEN

1 USA Air Mobility Rsch & 0ev Lab , Moffett Fid , ATFN: SAVDL—AS

1 USA Aviation Sc),. Res Ing Mgt , Ft Rucker, ATTN: ATST—T.--RTM

I USA Aviation Sc),, CO. Ft Pucker, AT1’N: ATST—D—A 1 HO, USAMC, Alexandria, AITN: AMXCD—TI.

1 HO. USAMC, Alexandria. ATTN: CDR

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

1 US Military Academy, West Point, ATTN: Ofc of Milt Ldrshp

1 US Military Academy, West Point, ATTN: MAOR

1 USA Standardization Gp, UK , FPO NV , ATIN: MASE—OC

1 Ofc of Naval Rscti, Arlington, Aim: Code 452

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

1 Ofc of Nasal Rich. Arlington, AT’l’N: Code 450

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

1 Naval Aerospc Med Ret Lab, Pensacola , AT’l’N: Acous Sch Div

1 Navel Aerospc Med Ret Lab. Pensacola , Aim: Code 1.51

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

I Chief of NasPers, ATTN : Pers’OR

1 NAVAIR STA . Norfolk , A’fl ’N: Safety Ctr

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

1 Canter of Naval Anal, ATTN: Doc Ct,

I NavAirSysCom, ATFN: AIR—5313C

1 Nay BuMed. ATTN: 713

1 NavHelicopterSub$qua 2, FPO SF 96601

1 AFHRL (PT) William AFB

1 AFHRL ITI) Lowty AFB

1 AFHRL(AS) WPAFB,OH

2 AFHRL (DOJZ) Brooks AFB

1 AFHRL (DOJN) Lack land AFB

1 HOUSAF (INVSD)

1 HQUSAF (DPXXA)

1 AFVTG (RD) Randolph AFB

3 AMRL (HE) WPAFB , OH

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

1 ATC (XPTOI Randolph AFB

1 USAF Aeri’Med Lib , Brooks AFB (SUL—4 ), Aim: DOC SEC

1 AFOSR (NL), Arlington

1 AF Log Cmd, McClellan AFO. ATTN: ALC/DPCRB

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

5 NavPers & Oev Ctr,San 0ssgo

2 Navy Med Neuropsyc)~

iatrii

~ Rsch Unit, San Diego

1 Nay Electronic Lab, San Oiego. ATI’N: Ret Lab

1 Nay TrngCen, San Diego, Aim: Code 9000.-Lib

I NevPostGraSch, Monterey, ATI’N: Code b5Aa

I NavPostGraSch, Monterey, AT1’N: Code 2124

r I NavTrngEquipCs,. Orlando, ATTN: Tech

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

1 US Dept of Justice, DC, ATIN: Drug Enforce Admin

1 Nat Bur of Standards, DC, Aim: Compute, Info Section

I Nat Cleari ng House for MU—Info , Rockvllle

I Denver Federal Ctr , Lakewood . A ’Il’N: BLM

¶2 Defense Documentation Center

4 Dir Psych, Army Mg, Russell Ofcs, Canberra

1 Scientific Advsr, Nil Bd, Army Hg, Russell Olce. Canberra

1 Nil arid Air Attache, Austrian Embessy

1 Centre di Recherche Des Facteurs . Hum.lne de li Defense

Nationale, Brussels

2 Canadian Joint Stiff Washington

1 C/Air Staff, Royal Canadian AF , ATTN: Pert Sad Anal Br

3 Chief. Canadian Del Rich Staff . ATTN: C/CRDS(W)

4 Dritith Del Staff . British Embassy . Washington

- -

~~~~ t ~~~~~~~ 

— —