— -- —- ~~~~~~

-

~

- - -

~~~~

-

-- -- -- -

~ 

—-

~~~~~~

Techn~

ca

~ Paper 345 LE

~

’ ~

,: 

~~~~~ 

~~~~~~~

SOME PROPERTIES OF AN OFFICER MEASURE

OF PERFORMANCE AND POTENTIAL

Arthur C. F. Gilbert and Frances C. Grafton

I

PERSONNEL AND MANPOWER TECHNICAL AREA

I—I

jLL

DDC

flfl ~~Th r~

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

Octob r 1978

Approv.d for public r.I.•$.; distribution unhimltsd.

.

~ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ — 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :

~~

::. ___
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~‘—~ -

~~~~~~~

I

I

U. S. ARMY RESEARC H INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORA L AND SOCIAL SCiENCES

A Field Operat ing Agenc y un der the Jurisdict ion of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personne l

WILLIAM L. HAUSER

J OSEPH ZEIDNER Colone l, US Army

Technical Director Commander

NOTICES

_

I DISTmISUTION: Prlmsry distribution of this report Pi~ been meds by ARI, Pines address c upendsncs

concerning distribution of reports to: U. 5. Army ~eiisrcIt I nstitute for the Siltiviorsi and Social Sciences.

ATTN: PERI.P. 5001 Eisenhower Avenue. Alexandria . VirgInia 22333.

FINAL DI~~OaITlOrd : This report cngy b destroyed when it is no ionge~ needed. Piae~ do not return it to

the U. S. Army ~s arch Institute 10, the Sehsvior’ai and Socia l Sciences.

~~IL The findings In this report are not to be construed as an official Deportment of the Army poslUon.

unless so designated by other suthoriasd documents

— - ~ -

~~~ - - 

— 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

.

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

I

.

_____ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . - .

~~~~~~~~ ______
Unclassified

SC~~L~ ITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (~~ i.i, D.~~~ Enl.r.~~

W I I U ~~~ II A WIIb&I D AI~~~ READ INSTRUCTIONS i

~~~rup~ u ur~~~u~~~i

~ I ~~ I I’JI ’ T O~~1l- BEFORE COMPLET IN G FOR M T MIIM•t.S 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO 3. RECIPIENTS CATALOG NUMSER

Technical #a~~J345 _____________________________

4. j

~~~~~~.s.m. J ’ .. .. ~~~~~~ 3. TYPE OF REPORT C PEMOD COVERED

~.

- — 

— I ( ~~~, .,

~

,sONEj

~OPERrIES OF AN~9FFICER_

MEASURE OF I -- PERFORMANCE AND POTENTIAL , _________________________ ) .0.~ ~ - 5. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMSER

L - -

~~~~ -- 7. AUTHO~~~~ S. CONTRACT OR GRAN T NUMSE~~’.)

Arth~~~~~~~~ )Gilb~~~~~~~ Frances C./ GraftonJ -- -

C. PERFORMING ORGANIZAT ION SAM E AND ADDRESS ~

O. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT . TASK AREA & WORK UNIT NUMSERS Army Research Institute for the Behavioral ana’

.— ___________

-

Social Sciences (

,4~

’ ~~i~i627l7A766

5001 Eisenhower Avenue , Alexandria , VA 22333 _— ‘—~~~~~‘‘

II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS IS. REPORT OATS

U.S. Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Personn~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Washington , DC 20310

______________________________________________________ 16 I4

~ MONITORING AGENCY NAM E C ADORESS(II d lf f . r~ ,l 1ps C~~

,tvotIln4 OWc•) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (.1 dig. vspoil)

-- ~~ ~ 

— ‘: Unclassified

Is.. DECLASS FICATION/OOWNGRADING

/ SCHEDULE --

IS. DISTRISUTION STATEMENT (.1 Nil. Raport)

Approved for lic release; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRISUTION STAT EMENT (of Ni. .batr.c I ~ iftv.d In Block 20. II dIfl.r.nS fro R.po,l)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Original version presented at the 18th Annual Meeting of the Military Testing

Association , 1976.

t,. KEY WORDS (Ccntlnu on r.v.c. . old. If n.c..y ond SdSntSIy by block nua.b.r)

Off icer performance Correlation

Officer potential Factor analysis

Duty performance Performance evaluation

Job performance Reliability of raters

(C.nIffiu. on i.. ~~~.. .I

~~ H n.cmy a,d ld.nH~ ’ by block .,uonb.,)

~~~~~~~ Objectives of this research were to evaluate the reliability of a criterion measure of officer performance, the Performance Evaluation Form , and

to determine whether the instrument could differentiate among the requirements of alternative officer assignments. Officers were rated by the immediate supervisor , another superior officer who knew the rated officer ’s perform- ance, and two associates; four complete ratings were available for 771

Infantry Branch and 102 Quartermaster Branch officers. The matrices of~~ .—~~ (continued)

DO ~~~~~~~~ 1473 EDtT1ON OF INOV SC I$OO$OI..ITE - Unclaa$ified -

) IS~~RSTY c1.

~~~~ PIeATIOs. ~~~~~Wlf~~

Aá~~~~Iion 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~ — .*.. — . -

— .

~—~-— ~~~~ .

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

Unclassified

SECURITY CLA$$IFICATION OF THIS PASI(I~ on D~ . tse.on

20. (continued)

~~ correlations among the dimensions of the Performance Evaluation Form were

factor-analyzed for each type of rater in the two career branches. Factor

structure for each of the four sets of ratings and for the two branches was

similar. There were some differences between the two branches in the factor

structure of the ranking of attributes in terms of an officer’s potential

for future assignments.

j

I

unclassified

SECURITY CLA$SIFICATIØN OF tHIS PASII’Pbon D . Ii,Non~

~~~~~~~~~ 

__

~~~ _~~:l. ..

- __~~~ __.-.

~:

_--_-

~~~ 

——-—-- 

--~ _

~

-xr~

. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Technical Paper 345

SOME PROPERTIES OF AN OFFICER MEASURE

OF PERFORMANCE AND POTENTIAL

PIl 55ff ,

~ Øhe

act kn icelias ~

j ISII1If~

!5t~3

IbIlrhcj lIft ____

Arthur C. F. Gilbert and Frances C. Grafton -

Anthony E. Castelnovo H

Work Unit Leader •

~Il5f f~ &~~ ‘i •

I ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PERSONNEL AND MANPOWER TECHNICAL AREA L._

~t

Submitted as complete and Approved By: technically accurate, by:

Ralph R. Canter E. Raiph Duseic

Technical Area Chief PERSONNEL AND TRAINING

RESEARCH LABORATORY

Joseph Zeldner TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

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

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VIrginia 22333

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

October 1978

Army Proje ct Number Officer Accession &

2076271 7A766 Utilization

Aporoved for pttf Ic rals..es; mst,Ibuiion u~ihaltsd.

_____________ — .. — .. —- -- - —

- -

~ 

~~~~~~~~~ —

~

r:.~~~~~ 

- - — ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ — 1f - 

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

— t

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 recommendations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

1-

I

I.

— —~~~ —---- .
P

FOREWORD

Part of the on—going research program on leadership in the Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI ) is concerned with delineating and then measuring the major factors that collectively comprise leader behavior. ARI Research Reports 1172 and 1182

describe the develo~mtent of eight broad dimensions of leadership performance, based on analyzing actual behavior in a simulated combat situation. These dimensions were used to construct the Performance Evaluation Form , which is designed to measure overall officer duty performance

and evaluate potential performance. Technical Paper 344 reports the use of the Performance Evaluation Form as a criterion measure of Ranger

duty performance in the validation of peer ratings obtained at Ranger

school. This paper investigates the reliability of the Performance

Evaluation Form itself and its ability to differentiate between requirements of different officer assignments. The work was done in the Personnel and Manpower Technical Area, under Army Project 2Q162717A766. An earlier version was presented at the 1976 meeting of the Military

Testing Association.

O EPH ZE D R

hnical D rector

I 

__ -- - ______— - - 

— — ~~~~ ••.. _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _ _:___. — - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —- _ .. - -.--,- —
SC~iE PROPERTIES OF AN OFFICER MEASURE OF PERFORMANCE AND POTENTIAL

BRIEF

Requirement :

To evaluate the reliability of the Performance Evaluation Form as

a measure of officer performance and potential and to determine if the

instrument could differentiate among the requirements of different

types of officer duty assignments; to explore the possible interaction

between assignment requirements and evaluations provided by raters in

different types of positions relative to the ratee.

Procedure :

Four complete ratings on the Performance Evaluation Form were obtained for 771 Infantry and 102 Quartermaster officers who had attended

Officer Basic Course during FY 1974. Each officer ’s immediate supervisor , another superior officer, and two close associates rated the

officer in several domains of leadership and ranked these domains in

terms of the officer ’s potential strengths for future assignment. Reliability estimates were obtained , and factor analyses performed to

determine if different factor structures would emerge in t.he two different branches or for the different sets of raters.

Findings:

Results indicated a certain uniformity within each branch as to

how each officer was rated by the four different sets of raters. This

uniformity appears to be true when the two branches are compared . Some

evidence supported the idea that the rankings of the attributes differed in the two branches in terms of the officer ’s potential for future

assignments.

Utilization of Findings :

Ratings of officer duty performance can be reliably made , essentially unaffected by immediate task requirements within the Infantry and

Quartermaster Branches.
SOME PROPERTIES OF AN OFFICER MEASURE OF PERFORMANCE AND POTENTIAL

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION 1

PROCEDURE 1

The Performance Evaluation Form 1

Data Collection 3

Data Analysis 3

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 6

REFERENCES 13

DISTRIBUTION 15

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Distribution of officers by branch with four

complete ratings 5

2. Reliability estimates for the 10 scaies of the

performance evaluation form for the In~~ntry and

Quartermaster Branches 7

3. Loadings of ratings by the four sets of raters on

the four factors in the overall analysis of infantry

ratings 8

4. Percent of variance corresponding to the first factor

extracted in the factor analyses of ratings 9

5. Loadings of each variable on the first unrotated factor

for each of the eight analyses of ratings 9

6. Percent of variance corresponding to the first factor

extracted in the eight factor analyses of rankings . . . 11

7. Loadings of each variable on the first unrotated factor

for each of the eight analyses of rankings 11 

-—.

—~~~~~~ — - 

.

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

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

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

~~~ -- - - - —-- ~~~ - - -.

-—--~~~. .

CONTENTS (continued)

Page

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Performance Evaluation Form scales and

corresponding factors 2

2. Officer performance scale 4

t 

,

~~~~~~~~•- •-—~~~-• . - —

________ 

~~~~~ 

- 

- • , — - -—- -——~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - ~~~~~~~~
SOME PROPERTIES OF AN OFFICER MEASURE OF

PERFORMANCE AND POTENTIAL

INTRODUCTION

The leadership research program of the U.S. Army Research Institute

for the Be

~ avic~

ral and Social Sciences (ARI ) continues to focus on the

dimensions of leadership and on the development of predictive indexes

of leadership. Helms, Will emin , and Graf ton (1971) defined eight broad

dimensions of leadership performance , on the basis of an andlysis of

officer behaviors in a realistic simulated combat situation . The factors defined were technical-managerial leadership, combat leadership ,

team leadership, command of men , mission persistence , executive direction , tactical staff skills, and technical staff skills.

As part of ongoing research on the relationship between active

duty officer performance and measures obtained during Officer Basic

Courses ( OBC) , a criterion instrument was developed to reflect critical

aspects of leadership as defined by Helme, Willemin , and Grafton (1974)

and other sources (Stogdill , 1974 ; Fleishman , 1974). This instrument ,

the Performance Evaluation Form (Gilbert, 1975 ; Gilbert & Downey , 1978)

provides measures of officer performance and potential during OBC and

will be described in greater detail in this paper.

The objectives of this research effort were (a) to evaluate the

reliability of the Performance Evaluation Form and (b) to determine if

the instrument could differentiate among the requirements of alternative officer assignments. In view of these objectives , it was hypothesized that differentiation among branches on the variables of the Performance Evaluation Form should be maximized if two branches differing

substantially in functional assignments were evaluated . Consequently ,

the Infantry Branch was selected as best representing combat arms

branches; the factor structure of ratings in this branch should emphasize the combat aspect of the variables. The Quartermaster Branch (QM)

was selected to represent the service support branches. In this instance, the factor - structure of variables in the Quartermaster Branch

should differ markedly from ratings in the Infantry Branch .

PROCEDURE

The Performance Evaluation Form

As described briefly elsewhere (Gilbert, 1975; Gilbert & Downey ,

1978) , the Performance Evaluation Form provides both a measure of overall performance and nine ratings along c~imensions considered crucial

in the leadership domain. The 10 scales of the Performance Evaluation

Form are shown in Figure 1.

L - - 

-

:

- -

-

- 
Performance Evaluation Form scale Factor

Part I

Duty performance

Part II

Applying tactical knowledge and ckills in Tactical staff SklllSa

support of combat operations

Understanding the mission and clearly Team leadershipa

defining personal roles of subordinates

in its accomplishment

Making decisions and initiating actions Command of mena

under pressure

Defining functional roles and duties in Initiation of structureb

the process of developing subordinates to

fill assignments for long—term unit

effectiveness

Planning and organizing manpower arid Executive directiona

materiel to meet situational requirements

Motivating troops to accomplishing the considerationb

mission by taking into consideration

their well being and morale

Applying knowledge of logistics and tech- Technical staff

nical matters to solve support problems

Part III

~~~~~~~ Combat leadership Combat leadershipa

Technical—managerial leadership Technical—managerial

leadershipa

a

He3~ne Willemin , and Grafton (1971).

b

5t dill (1974); Fleishnian (1974).

Figure 1. Performance Evaluation Form scales

arid corresponding factors.

2

• - 

—•• 

_ ____ •__ 1___ _ •

~

—_~

_ -- —•
r 

- -

Part I of the instrument evaluates the officer’s overall performance. A 7—step scale was adapted from Willemin (1965); 7 is “outstanding” and 1 is “unsatisfactory” (Figure 2).

Figure 1 shows the seven scales of Part II, and lists the attribute

that each scale is intended to measure. Five of the seven scales correspond to the factors derived by Helnie, Willemin , and Grafton (1971) ,

and two correspond to the principal leadership dimensions identified by

Stogdill (1974) and Fleishman (1974). The rater is asked to rank—order

the sc’tles in terms of the officer’s relative potential for future assignments and then to rate the officer on the 7-step scale defined in

Figure 2. In Part III , the rater evaluates the officer ’s potential

performance in combat leadership and in technical managerial leadership

on the 7—step scale.

Data Collection

Approximately 5,000 officers in the 13 Career Branches and in the

Chaplain Corps who attended OBC during FY 1974 were participants in the

overall research program.

Four Performance Evaluation Forms were mailed to four different

raters for each officer. The organization personnel officer was responsible for insuring that the forms were completed by each officer’s immediate supervisor , a superior officer other than the immediate supervisor, and two close associates. The personnel officer , in consultation

with the officer ’s immediate supervisor , designated the other three

raters.

Four complete ratings were obtained on 2,886 officers . The distribution of these officers in the 13 Career Branches and in the Chaplain Corps is shown in Table 1. The research reported here analyzed

the ratings of the 771 Infantry officers and the 102 Quartermaster

officers.

Data Analysis

Reliability estimates were obtained for the 10 scales of the Performance Evaluation Form for the Infantry Branch and for the Quartermaster Branch. The Infantry Branch was selected as being representative

of the Combat Arms Branches , and the Quartermaster was selected as being

representative of the Service Support Branches. The reliability estimates for each of the 10 scales of the Performance Evaluation Form were

computed by averaging the six possible correlations obtained among the

four raters. The resulting average correlations were adjusted by use

of the Spearman-Brown Prophecy Formula.

3

• -
Scale value Description

7 OUTSTANDING Far above the requirements of the situation,

suggesting the highest kind o forma l recognition through meritorious award , or decoration .

6 SUPERIOR Markedly above the requirements of the situation , suggesting formal recognition through a

special (favorable) efficiency report , or

letter of commendation.

5 ABOVE AVERAGE Somewhat above the requirements of the situation, suggesting informal recognition through

specific favorable comment in his regular efficiency report, and through informal appreciation or commendation .

4 AVERAGE Fully up to the requirements of the situation , suggesting general appreciation (perhaps mostly

unexpressed).

3 BELOW AVERAGE Somewhat below the requirements of the situation, though suggesting only the mildest kind

of corrective action through informal recommendation for improvement, or through change

of duty assignment within the organization.

2 MARGINAL Markedly below the requirements of the situation , suggesting formal corrective action

through a special (unfavorable) efficiency

report, administrative admonition , letter or

reprimand , summary court , or transfer out of

the organization.

1 UNSATISFACTORY Far below the requirements of the situation ,

suggesting the most drastic kind of formal

corrective action through reclassification , demotion, general court, or boarding out of

the Army .

Figure 2. Officer performance scale.

a

a

Ad~~~~d from Willemin (1965).

4

-I

-- - 
Table 1

Distribution of Officers by Branch with

Four Complete Ratings

Branch Number

Air Defense 22

Adjutant Genera l 176

Armor 354

Chaplain 27

Engineer 205

Field Artillery 520

Finance 49

Infantry 771

Military Intelligence 34

Military Police 121

Ordnance 120

Quartermaster 102

Signal Corps 352

Transportation Corps 33

Total 2 ,886

In addition , a factor analysis was performed , using the nine specific scales of the Performance Evaluation Form across the four sets

of ratings (i.e., 36 variables) in the Infantry Branch, to evaluate

whether a different emphasis was placed on the different leadership

domains by the separate classes of raters (i.e., immediate supervisor,

another superior officer, and associates). Ratings by the two associates were kept separate in all analyses. Since only a rater factor

emerged , separate factor analyses were performed for each of the four

sets of ratings to determine if factor structures were different.

A parallel set of factor analyses was performed for the four sets

of ratings in the Quartermaster Branch to determine if a different emphasis would be placed on the attributes. Theoretically , the attributes

measured in the QM Branch should reflect some differences in duty requirements, as assessed by the instrument, from those measured in the

Infantry Branch.

As stated previously, the leadership domains in the Performance

Evaluation Form required the raters to rank-order seven of the leadership domains in terms of their perception of the officer ’s potential

for future assignments. A series of factor analyses, paralleling those

5

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

~~

-- - - - - • T
using the ratings of these attributes, was performed for the rankings

of these attributes in the two branches.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The 10 reliability estimates for the Performance Evaluation Form

are shown in Table 2 for both branches. Table 2 shows that for the

Infantry Branch, the reliability estimates ranged from .74 for the

global rating of duty performance to .59 for the scale that describes

the officer’s potential ability to apply knowledge of logistics and

technical matters to solve troop support problems. The reliability

estimates for the Quartermaster Branch ranged from .70 for the scale

that described global duty performance to .50 for the scales that reflected the officer’s potential for combat leadership and for technicalmanagerial leadership. Generally, the obtained reliabilities more

closely resemble those reported for a broad sample of officers by

Willemin ( 1965) than those reported for officers in the Ranger course

(Gilbert , 1975; Gilbert & Downey , 1978) .

The obtained reliability estimates were evaluated to detect statistically significant differences in magnitude between the two branches.

Only one statistically significant difference appeared : The reliability

estimate for the scale that measures potential to perform under combat

leadership conditions was significantly higher for the Infantry Branch

than for the Quartermaster Branch. However, the cause of this lower

reliability estimate for the four raters in the Quartermaster Branch

could be the comparatively smaller opportunity to assess this

characteristic.

After the reliability estimates were obtained , the data were analyzed to determine (a) whether the ratings of potential performance in

various areas differed between the Infantry and Quartermaster Branches,

and (b) the extent to which the four ratings might differ within the

branches.

The first analysis involved computing the correlation among the

nine variables across all four raters for the Infantry Branch. This

correlation matrix was then factor-analyzed , using a principal components

solution with the highest absolute row value as the communality estimate.

Four factors were extracted with associated eigenvalues of at least 1.00.

These factors were then rotated , using the varimax method . Each factor

tended to be associated with a rater. The two sets of associated ratings represented two distinct factors throughout. The loadings of the

ratings on the nine scales of the Performance Evaluation Form on these

four factors are shown in Table 3. (In this paper , the nine variables

in Parts II and III of the form are referred to by the leadership behavior each variable is designed to measure , as shown in Figure 1.)

6 

.

• - .-• - • • • - . • - -- 

~

-• *—-~~

- ——-• -

~~~
___

Table 2

Reliability Estimates for the 10 Scales of the Performance Evaluation

Form for the Infantry and Quartermaster Branches

Reliability estimate

Infantry Quartermaster

Scale (N = 771) (N 102)

Part I

lAity performance .74 .70

Part II

Applying tactical knowledge and skills in

support of combat operations .67 .69

Understanding the mission and clearly defining personal roles of subordinates in

its accomplishment .63 .62

Making deci4on and initiating actions

under pressure .71 .63

Defining functional roles and duties in

the process of developing subordinates

to fill assignments for long—term unit

effectiveness .60 .64

Planning and organizing manpower and

materiel to meet situational requirements .63 .55

Motivating troops to accomplish the mission by taking into consideration their

well being and morale .65 .69

Applying knowledge of logistics and technical matters to solve troop support

problems .59 .56

Part III

Combat leadership .71 .50

Technical—managerial leadership .64 .50

L 

7

• - •-- ~~~—- - - . 

~~ - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -—•-- -
_ ____

Table 3 shows that the loadings for the variables on each factor

are high and uniform in magnitude on the four factors. Each of the

four factors can best be described as representing a particular type

of rater. However , the factors did not yield much information on how

each rater evaluated an individual on the variables in question. Consequently , it was considered desirable to explore the factor structure

of the ratings given by each type of rater. Since only rater factors

emerged in the analysis of the Infantry data , it was felt that separate

analyses for each rater in the Quartermaster Branch also would be

appropriate.

Table 3

Loadings of Ratings by the Four Sets of Raters on the

Four Factors in the Overall Analysis

of Infantry Ratings

Variable IS OS A A

1. Tactical staff skills .77 .81 .78 .76

2. Team leadership .82 .85 .78 .81

3. Command of men .81 .83 .81 .81

4. Initiating structure .80 .80 .76 .78

5. Executive direction .82 .80 .78 .79

6. Consideration .73 .76 .74 .74

7. Technical staff skills .72 .73 .72 .75

8. Combat leadership .79 .82 .80 .77

9. Technical-managerial leadership .76 .79 .79 .76

Note . IS • immediate supervisor

OS — other supervisor

A = associate .

A correlation matrix for each of the four raters in each branch

was computed for the nine variables of Parts II and III of the Performance Evaluation Form . Each of the eight matrices obtained was f actoranalyzed . A principal components solution was obtained , using the

highest row value as the communality estimate.

In each of the eight solutions, only one factor emerged with an

associated eigenvalue of 1.00 or greater . The percentage of common

variance associated with this first factor for each analysis is shown

in Table 4. In Table 5, the unrotated factor loading of the nine variables on this factor is shown for each analysis.

8

• - • - - -

~ •

: _____ ~~

- : - 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ •• ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Table 4

Percent of Variance Corresponding to the First Factor Extracted in

the Factor Analyses of Ratings

Analysis Percentage of variance

Infantry:

Immediate superior 90.75

Other superior officer 91.71

Associate 91.17

Associate 90.22

Quartermaster:

Immediate superior 87.73

Other superior officer 87.55

Associate 85.39

Associate 86.24

Table 5

Loadings of Each Variable on the First Unrotated Factor for

Each of the Eight Analyses of Ratings

Infantry Quartermaster

Variable IS OS A A IS OS A A

1. Tactical staff skills .82 .85 .81 .81 .68 .68 .74 .77

2. Team leadership .87 .88 .84 .86 .81 .84 .84 .86

3. Coimnand of men .86 .88 .86 .86 .83 .86 .83 .86

4. Initiating structure .83 .83 .82 .81 .81 .80 .83 .86

5. Executive direction .85 .84 .84 .83 .81 .82 .85 .80

6. Consideration .79 .80 .80 .78 .68 .76 .75 .72

7. Technical staff skills .74 .76 .78 .77 .66 .81 .75 .74

8. Combat leadership .84 .88 .86 .83 .78 .81 .81 .80

9. Technical—managerial .79 .83 .84 .79 .79 .89 .77 .74

leadership

Note. IS — immediate supervisor

OS = other superior officer

A = associate.

9

--I---

- 

~~~~~ -
The loadings for each of the four raters on the nine variables

for the Infantry Branch appear to be similar in magnitude. Across the

four sets of loadings, the higher loadings appear for the ratings on

the factors corresponding to command of men , team leadership, combat

leadership, and executive direction. More exact testing for differences

among the factor loadings or among the raters for these loadings is

risky, because of the different magnitude of the eigenvalues obtained

in each matrix and because of the interdependence among the loadings

in a given matrix. Thus, any interpretation is exploratory in nature.

The loadings for each of the four raters on the nine variables

for the Quartermaster Branch appear to be comparable. If one considers

the four loadings for each variable, the three variables having the

highest loadings are command of men , team leadership, and executive

direction.

Comparison of the loadings of the variables on the first factor

for the four raters in the two branches showed no marked trend or differences between the Infantry and Quartermaster Branches.

Generally, as far as ratings of performance potential on the

variables are concerned , there was a certain uniformity within each

branch as to how the officer was perceived. Also, apparently there was

a certain uniformity across the two branches.

This lack of the hypothesized differentiation between the branches

led to a search for possible differences in rankings of the variables

between the branches. Consequently , the next series of analyses focused

on the ranking of the officer’s potential performance on the seven variables in Part II of the form. These analyses paralleled the analyses

of the ratings except that only seven variables were involved.

Again , correlation matrices for each of the four raters in each

branch were computed for the seven variables in Part II. Each matrix

was factor-analyzed , using a principal components solution with the

highest absolute row value as the diagonal estimate of communality .

In each of these analyses, only one factor had an associated eigenvalue of 1.00 or better. In analyzing the rankings of the superior officer in the Quartermaster Branch, the first factor had an associated

eigenvalue of .9215. The percentage of common variance accounted for

by the first factor in each analysis is shown in Table 6, and the unrotated factor loadings are shown in Table 7.

- The loadings for each variable for the unrotated first factor

solution for the Infantry Branch again had a certain uniformity. In

other words, the four raters in the Infantry Branch tended to perceive

the ratee in similar fashion. If the loadings are considered across

the four raters, a bipolar factor appears to emerge, one end defined

by command of men , and the other end by technical skills. Tactical

• 

10

. _ — - - — -• —•—• - -— —-.- — -—•— —— -t_ .•— 

— -— -—--.-~—~

-.

~ •—— - ••—.-• — - - -—--,.-.-—--- - ----- --.• _•—•-.--—--_-—
Table 6

Percent of Var iance Corresponding to the First Factor Extracted

in the Eight Factor Analyses of Rankings

Analysis Percentage of variance

Infantry:

Immediate superior 56.31

Other superior officer 59.56

Associate 61.80

Associate 54.65

Quartermaster :

Immediate superior 47.32

Other superior officer 43.62

Associate 47.98

Associate 49 .48

Table 7

Loadings of Each Variable on the First Unrotated Factor for

Each of the Eight Analyses of Rankings

Infantry Quartermastera

Var iable IS OS A A IS OS A A

1. Tactical staff skills .46 .55 .58 .55 — .21 — .56 — .58 .25

2. Team leadership .30 .33 .35 .24 -.24 .01 .08 .60

3. Comm and of men .59 .55 .58 .52 — .36 — .36 — .37 — .27

4. Initiating structure — .26 — .27 -.30 — .22 .28 .35 .02 — .34

5. Executive direction -.45 -.47 -.52 -.59 .53 .67 .59 — .17

6. Consideration .08 .06 .04 .16 — .37 — .28 — .20 -.19

7. Technical staff skills -.67 — .67 — .64 — .61 .44 .26 .50 .65

Note. IS — immediate supervisor

OS — other superior officer

A — associate

&

Factor loadings reflected for the two associate ratings in the Quartermaster Branch.

11

• ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

-

.——-————
skills and team leadership load substantially and positively on this

factor when the four sets of loadings are considered.

In the Quartermaster Branch, on the other hand , there seemed to

be differences in the factor structure that emerged in each of the

four analyses, as shown in Table 1. If loadings across the four raters

are considered , as well as individual loadings for each of the four

raters, a bipolar factor emerges. One end of this factor is defined

by technical staff skills and the other by command of men. Executive

direction loads positively on all four unrotated factors for this

branch. Tactical skills load negatively for three solutions.

In summary, the factor—analytic solution of the rankings appears

to give different factor structures for the Infantry Branch and for the -

Quartermaster Branch. Considerable uniformity appears to exist among

raters in the Infantry Branch but not in the Quartermaster Branch .

Results of this research do not indicate different factor structures underlying the ratings in the two branches. This could be due

to the high correlations among variables for a given rater. However,

the rankings of the variables for each rater provide evidence for differences in factor structure between the branches . The emergence of

more clearly defined factors and differences between branches in the

context of these analyses may be due in part to the fact that each

attribute in the Performance Evaluation Form was described by a single

statement.

T 

H

I - - -- - • - -
REFERENCES

Gilbert , A. C. F. Prediction of Army Officer Performance . Paper presented at the 17th Annual Conference of the Military Testing Association , Indianapolis, Ind., 15—19 September 1975.

Gilbert, A. C. F., & Downey, R. G. Validity of Peer Ratings Obtained

During Ranger Training. ARI Technical Paper 344, September 1978.

Helme , W. H., Willemin , L. P., & Grafton , F. C. Dimensions of Leadership in a Simulated Combat Situation . ARI Technical Research

Report 1172, July 1971. (AD 730 315)

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

Willemin , L. P. Criterion Aspects of Army Research on the Prediction

of Officer Performance . ARI Research Study 65-6 , December 1965.

13

“—-4

- 

•

~~ 1 ~~~_ _ r _

~~~~T~~~T~~ __~~~i_ - - --•- - - ~~~-.~~-

~-~~

~-
-- —- --w-~~~ - • —~~

-—---

~~~~

•- - --

01ST RI I UT ION

ARI Qistribution List

4 0*30 IM&RA) 2 HOUSACOEC, Ft Ord, ATTN : Library

2 HQDA )DAMI•CSZI I HOUSACDEC , Ft Ord, ATTN: ATEC—EX—E—Hum Factors

1 HOOA IDAPE.PBR 2 USAEEC, Ft Benjamin Harrison, ATTN: Library

1 HODA (DANA-AR) 1 USAPACDC, Ft Benismin Harrison, ATTN: ATCP—HR 

1 I’400A IOAPE.HRE PO) I USA Comm-Elect Sch, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: ATSN—EA

1 HODA ISG A D-lO) 1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATI’N: AMSEL—CT—HDP

* HODA (DAUI -DOT-C) I USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEL—PA-P

1 HODA )DAPC-PMZ-A) 1 USAEC. Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEL—Sl---C B

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

I 1400* (DAPE-HRE) 1 USA Materials Sys Anal Agcy, Aberdeen, ATrN: AMXSY—P

1 1400* (OAPE.MPO-C) 1 Edgewood Arsenal. Aberdeen, ATTN: SAREA—BL—H

1 HQDA (DAPE•OW) 1 USA Ord Ctr & 5th, Aberdeen, A’fl’N: ATSL—TEM—C

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

1 HOOA (DAPE.CPS) 1 USA Combat Arms Tng Bd, Ft Binning, ATTN: Ad Supervisor

1 IIODA (DAFO.MFAI 1 USA Infantry Hum Rich Unit , Ft Beaning, AT!’N: Chief

I HOOA (DARD.ARS-P) I USA Infantry Bd, Ft Berir,ing, ATTN: STEBC—TE—T

1 1400* (DAPC-PAS-A) 1 USASMA . Ft Bliss , AT1’N: ATSS—LRC

I 1400* (OUSA-OR) 1 USA Air Dad Scts , Ft Bliss, ATIN: ATSA—CTD--ME

1 HODA IOAMO-ROR) 1 USA Air Def Sch, Ft Bliss, ATTN : Tech Lib

I HODA IOASGI 1 USA Air Oaf Bd. Ft Bliu, ATTN: FILES

1 HODA IDAIOPI) 1 USA Air Di Bd. Ft Bliss , ATrN: STEBD—PO

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

1 MgI Asst. Hum Res, 000R&E. OAD (E&LS) I USA Cmd & General Stf College. Ft Leavenworth, ATIN: ATSW—SE—L

1 HO USARAL, APO Seattle, ATTN . ARA GP-R 1 USA Cmd & General Stf College, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: Ed Advisor

1 HO First Army , A~fl’N: AFKA-Ol.TI 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Div Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: DepCdr

2 HO Fifth Army , Ft Sam Houston I USA Combined Arms Cmbt Des Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATIN: CCS

1 Di,. Army Stf Studies Ofc, ATrN: OAVCSA (DSP) 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt 0ev Act, Ft L.aevenworth, ATIN: ATCASA

1 Ofc Chief of Stf. Studies Ofc 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Des Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATIN: ATCACO—E

1 DCSPER . ATTh: CPS/OCP 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt 0ev Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN : ATCACC-Cl

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

1 The Army Lib, Pentagon, ATTN: ANRAL 3 USA Computer Syt Cmd. Ft Belvoir , ATTN: Tech Library

1 Ofc , Asst Sect of the Army (R&D) I USAMEROC, Ft Belvoir. ATFN: STSFB—DO

1 Tech Support Oic, o~cs 1 USA Eng Sch, Ft Belvoir . ATIN: Library

1 USASA, Arlington, ATTN: lARD-I 1 USA Topographic Lab, Ft Belvoir , ATTh: ETL—TD—5

1 USA Rich Ofc, Durham, AT1’N: Life Sciences Dir 1 USA Topographic Lab. Ft Belvoir , ATTN: STINFO Center

2 USARIEM , Natick , ATTN: SGRD-UE-CA I USA Topographic Lab, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: ETL—GSL

I USATTC, Ft Clayton, ATtN: STETC-M0-A I USA Intelligence Ct, & Sch, Ft Huechuca. ATTN: CTD—MS

1 USAIMA, F~ Bragg, ATrN: ATSU-CTD-OM 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATFN: ATS—CTD—MS

1 USAIMA. Ft Bragg, ATTN: Marquat Lib 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca. ATTN: ATSI—TE

I US WAC Ctr & Sch, Ft McClellan, A1’TN: Lib 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuc., A’fl’N: ATSI—TEX--GS

1 US WAC Ctr & Sch, Ft McClellan, ATTN : Tng 01— 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch. Ft Huachuc.. AnN: ATSI—CTS.-OR

1 USA Quartermaster $ch, Ft Lee. ATTN: ATSM-TE I USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuce , ATTN: ATSI—CTD—DT

1 lntelligen’ e Material Div Ofc, EWL , Ft Holabird I USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch , Ft Huachucs , ATTN: ATSI—CTD--CS

I USA SE Signal Sch, Ft Gordon, ATTN: ATSO-EA 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch. Ft Huachuce, A’fl’N: DAS/SRD

1 USA Chaplain Ctt & 5th. Ft Hamilton, ATTN: ATSC-TE-RD 1 USA Intefligenc. Ctr & 5th, Ft Huathuc., ATTN: ATSI—TEM

I USATSCH, Ft Eustia, ATTN: Educ Advisor 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch. Ft Huechuca . ATTN : Library

1 USA War College, Carlisle Barracks, ATIN: Lib 1 CDR. HQ Ft Huachuca, A’fl’N: Tech Ref Div

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

1 DLI, 50*. Monterey I CDR . Project MASSTER, A’fl’N: Tech Info Center

1 USA Concept Anal Agcy, Bethesda, ATTN: MOCA.WGC 1 Hq MASSTER , USATRADOC . LNO

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

1 USA Concept Anal Agcy , Bethesda, AnN: MOCA.JF 1 USA Recruiting Cmd, Ft Sherdian, ATTN: USARCPM—P

I USA Artic Teat Ctr, APO Seattle, ATTN: STEAC-MO-ASL I Senior Army Mv., USAFAGOD/T AC. Elgin AF Aux FId No.9

1 USA Artic Test Ct,, APO Seattle, ATTh: AMSTE-PL TS I HO USARPAC . OCSPER, APO SF 96558. ATTN: GPPE—SE

1 USA Armament Cmd. Redstone Arsenal, ATI’N: AISK-TEM I Stimson Lib, Academy of Health Sciences, Ft Sam Houston

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

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

1 FAA- NAFEC . Atlantic City. ATTN: Hum En~ Br 1 HOUSMC, Commandant , ATTN: Code MPI—20

I FAA Aeronautical Ctr , Oklahoma City, ATIN: AAC 44D 2 IJSCG Academy, New London, ATTN: Admission

2 USA FId Arty Sd

~

, Ft Sill, ATTN: Library 2 USCG Academy, Ness London, ATTN: Library

1 USA Armor 5th, Ft Knox , AITN: Library I USCG Training Ctr , NY , ATTN: CO

I USA Armor 5th, Ft Knox , ATTN: ATSB-OI-E I USCG Training Cs,, NY, ATTN: Ethic Svc Ofc

I USA Armor Sds. Ft Knox, ATTN: ATSB-DT.TP I USCG, Psychol Rev Br , DC, AT1’N: GP 1/62

1 USA Armor ScIs , Ft Knox , AITN: ATSB-C0-A0 1 HO Mid—Rang. B~

, MC Oat , Quantico, ATTN: P&S Div

15

~~~CZDING PAGI B

~~MC..~

&~

T FWIID

— -. ~~~~~~ • :~~~~~~. ~~~~~~~ T:T~~~~ . -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

------

~~~~~

1 US Marine Corps Li.ision Ofc , AMC. Alexandria, ATTN: AMCGS—F I O.f & Civil Inst of Enviro Medicine, Canada

1 USATRADOC, Ft Monroe. AT1N: ATRO—ED I AIR CRESS, Kensington, ATYN: Info Sys Br

6 USATRADOC. Ft Monroe. ATTN: ATPR—AD I Mlllteer psykologisk Tjeneate, Copehagen

1 USATRADOC, Ft Monroe, ATTN: ATYS-EA 1 Military Attache, French Embassy, ATTh: Doc Sec

I USA Forces Crnd, Ft McPherson, A’fl’N: Library 1 Medecin Chef, C.E.R.P.A._ArIefl&: Toulon/Naval France

2 USA Aviation Test Sd, Ft Ruckar, ATFN: STEBG—PO 1 Prin Scientific Off, AppI Hum Engr Rich Div. Ministry

I USA Agcy for Aviation Safety, Ft Bucker, A’fl’N: Library of Defense, New Delhi

I USA Agcy for Aviation Safety, Ft Bucker, ATrN: Educ Advisor I Peti Rich Ofc Library, AKA, Israel Defense Forces

1 USA Aviation Sch. Ft Ruckar , AITh: PC Drawer o I Ministeris van Defensie, 000P/KL Aid Sociaal

1 HOUSA Aviation Sys Cmd. St Louis, AflN: AMSAV—ZDR Psythologiache Zaken, The Hague. Netherlands

2 USA Aviation Sag let Act., Edwards AFB. ATTN: SAVTE-T

1 USA AIr Oaf Sth. Ft Bliss, AT1’N: ATSA TEM

1 USA Air Mobility Rich & Div Lab, Moffatt FId, ATIN: SAVDL—AS

1 USA Aviation Sth, Baa Trig Mgt, Ft Rucker, ATTN: ATST—T—RTM

1 USA Aviation Sth. CO. Ft Rucker, A’Tl’N: ATST—O-A

I HO, DARCOM , Ajexandna. AT1N: AMXCD—TL

1 HO, DARCOM. Alexandria, ATTN: CDR

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

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

1 US Military Academy, West Point, ATTN: MAOR

1 USA Standardization Op. UK, FPO NY, ATTN: MASE—GC

I Ofc of Naval Rsth, Arlington. ATTN : Code 452

3 Ok of Naval Rich, Arlington, A fl’N: Code 458

I Ofc of Naval Rich, Arlington, ATIN: Code 450

1 Ofc of Naval Rscti, Arlington. ATTN: Code 441

1 Naval Aerotpc Med Rev Lab. Pensacola. ATTN: Acous Sch Div

1 Naval Aerospc Med Baa Lab. Pensacola, AnN: Code L5I

I Naval Aerospc Med Rev Lab. Pensacola , ATTN: Code L5

1 Chief of NavPers, ATTN: Pars-OR

1 NAVAIRSTA, Norfolk , ATIN: Safety Ctr

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

1 Center of Naval Anal, ATTN: Doc Ctr

1 NavAirSysCom, AT1’N: AIR—53 13C

1 Na, BuMed. ATTN: 713

1 NavHeliccpterSubSqua 2, FPO SF 96601

1 AFHRL (FT) William AFB

1 AFHRL (TT) Lowry AFB

1 AFURL (AS) WPAFS , OH

2 AFHRL )DOJZI Brooks P5FB

1 AFHRL (DOJNI Lackland AFB

1 HQUSAF (INYSO)

1 HOUSAF IDPXXAI

I AFVTG )RD) Randolph AFB

3 AMRL(HE)WPAFB .OH

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

1 ATC (XPTO) Randolph AFB

1 USAF AeroMed Lib, Brooks AFB lSlJL—4), ATTN : DOC SEC

1 AFOSR INL). Arlington

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

1 Air Force Academy, CO. ATJ N: Dept of Oil Scn

5 NavPers & 0ev Ctr, San Diego

2 Navy Med Neuropsychiatric Rich Unit, San Diego

1 Nay Electronic Lab. San Diego . ATTN: Ret Lab

Nay TrngCen. San Diego. ATTN: Code 9000—Lib

I NavPostG,aSch, Monterey. ~iTTN ’ Code S5Aa

1 NavPostGraSch , Monterey, ATTN: Code 2124

1 N.vTrngEquipCtr, Orlando, ATTN : Tech Lib

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

1 US Dept of Justi ce , DC, ATTN; Diug Enforce Admin

I Nat Bun of Standards, DC, ATTN : Computer Info Section

1 Nat Cleaning House for MU—Info , flockville

I Denver Federal Ct,. Lakewood, ATIN: BLM

12 Defense Documentation Center

4 Dir Psy ch . Army Hg, Russell Ofcs. Canberra

I Scientific Advsr, Mil Sd, Army Hg, Russell Ofcs . Canberra

1 Nil and Air Attache, Austrian Embassy

I Ce.itre dv Recherche Des Fac tours, Humaine di Ia Defense

National,, Brussels

2 Canadian Joint Staf f Weehington

I C/Air Staff, Royal Canadian AF. ATTN: Pars Std Anal Br

3 Chief , Canadian Def Bach Staff , ATTh: C/CRDS(W)

4 British Def Staff, British Embassy, Washington

16

— -- — ..

--—--- 

.

- -- — 

- _

~~~~~~~ i~~~~~~~ii -:--.-