Technical Report 448

AN INVESTIGATION OF T4E A0d6TION PROCESS

IN TRAINING TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

Jon S. Freda and Joyce L. Shields

MANPOWER AND EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS TECHNICAL AREA

DTIC

S U. S. Army DSCT

LA- Research Instituie for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

June 1960 - -

AApproved for puTlic release; distribution unlimited.

82 01 04 040

.L
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

L. NEALE COSBY

JOSEPH ZEIDNER Colonel, IN

Technical Director Commander

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this report has been made by ARI.

Please address correspondence concerning distribution of reports to: US.

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, ATTN:

PERI-TST, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333.

FINAL DISPOSITION: This report vf&ay be destroyed when it Is no longer

needed. Please do not return it To the U.S. Army Research Institute for

the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

NOTE: The findings In this report are not to be construed as an official

Department of the Army position, un;ess so designated by other authorized

documents.

~ ~ I

...............................................................................
Unclassi fied ______

SECURI'I'( :LAIIIFICATION OF THIS PAG , (Met, Data Rntered)

E AREAD -, INSTRUCTIONS REPORT OMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

.'EPOPT WIJMGER T2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATA¶OG NUMSER

Tech'nicai Report 448R h b 4 sQ _

4, ý .IT' E mied Subtitle) 5. TYPY t,r REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE ADOPTION PROCESS IN

TRAININlG TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERsEROMNOS.ROTNUER;

~6. PERF70AM.NG ORO. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUT4OR(s) 9. CON CRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(e)

Jon S. Freda and Joyce L. Shields

S. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS )0. PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT, TASK

U.S. Army Research Instituto for the Behavioral AREAA WORK UNIT NUMBERS

and Social Sciences

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22334 2Q162717A764

I1. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. 'qEPORT DATE

Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel June 1980

Washington, D)C 20310 "3. NUMBER OF PAGES 50 14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & AOORESSi different from rontrolllng Off-., 15. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report)

Unclaisified

"TS. DECL ASSI PIC AONT-OWN GRADING

SCH)EDULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Repori) ,4

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract mrered In Block 20, If different from Report)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

IS. KEY WOROc (Continue on reverse sde It neceeary and identify by block nuilber)

Transfer of training

Training Extension Course 1,TEC)

Multivariate analysis techniques

Adoption of training techniques

120ý A111TRACT r•~m•ue mm M,-,e d* M neay amid Id•mmttf by block nhin.te)

This study focused on the adoption process in the transfer of Army training technology from the researcher to the user. The training product chosen

for this investigation was the Training Extension Course (TEC) program.

A two-part survey questionnair- was completed by 111 Army participants

attending TRADOC/FORSCOM Traininr and Evallation Workshops. The questionnaire

requested attitudinal and usage information relating to the adoption of the-

(Continued)

DO 71 WI MOITION OF I NOV 611 IS OMILETt Unclassified

SE('UR1TY CLASS1FICATVOR OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered)

L
Unclassif ied

SICURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGIt(When Diata fIm•n

Item 20 (Continued)

Training Extension Course (TEC) program by unit training managers. Sources

of TEC-related information were matched with the awareness, acceptance, and

utilization stages of the adoption process to help understand the dissemi- I

nation activity within training technology transfer. The attitudinal responses were factor analyzed and, with selected biographic information, were

entered in a regression analysis to assess the utility of these measures as

predictor variables of TEC utilization.

Two major findings emerged. First, the acceptance (PERSUADE stage) of

the TEC program is influenced predominantly by interna.l sources of information (e.g., work environment), while the initial awareness (INFORM stage)

and later utilization of TEC are influenced by internal and external sources

(support groups, briefings, etc.). Second, prior familiarity with TEC is a

better predictor of TEC usage than are attitudinal measures taken from the

innovation literature (for this particular sample).. However, familiarity

alone does not insure extensive TEC usage, since there is an approximate

50-50 split between TEC users and nonusers who are previously familiar with

TEC. The majority of TEC users scheduled TEC less than 10% of their training time. The findings suggest that periodic scheduled TEC assessments

might increase TEC use and that job performance data should continue to be

collected for evaluating TEC utilization. Suggestions are provided to improve and evaluate TEC utilization.

This report is intended primarily for behavioral and social scientists

interested in applying multivariate analytic techniques to the study of technology transfer.

ii Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(l'hen Data Entemd)
Technical Report 448

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE ADOPTION PROCESS

IN TRAINING TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

Jon S. Freda and Joyce L. Shields

Accession' ?o'r*

"iTIs Cvf.&, Submitted by:

DTIC T. Halim Ozkaptan, Acting Chief UnaD ounced . MANPOWER AND EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS TECHNICAL AREA

just if iat iOL. -

Distrlbuticn/ Approved by:

Availability Codes James D. Baker, Acting Director ORGANIZATIONS AND SYSTEMS Avail and/or RESEARCH LABORATORY

Dist Specal

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

5007, Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

June 1980

Army Project Number

2Q162717A76A Training Technology

Approwd for public rgelam: distribution unlimitp-.

'iii
ARI Research Reports and Technical Reports are intended for sponsors of

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

for implementation at the time of publication are presented in the last part

of the Brief. Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formal recoinmendations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military

agnce bybifn rDipsto om

iv.
_-_9 FORM - Ii

FOREWORD____________________________

The Manpower and Educational Systems Technical Area of the Army Research

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) is concerned with improving individuul and unit training through research in the design, methodology, and implementation of instructional delivery systems. One aspect of

this research is to develop procedures foc improving the acceptance and use

of these training systems by Army personnel.

This report investigates the adoption process in the transfer of training technology from the researcher to the Army user. Work on this 6.2 effort

was accomplished under Army Project 2Ql62-l7A764, FY 1979, "Evaluation and

Assessment of Training Technology."

\nical-girector

I

,Zff

• v

JOE1IDI~

-" |
AN INVESTIGA~TION OF THE ADOPTION PROCESS IN TRAINING TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

BRIEF

Requirement:

To investigate the influence of users' attitudes and sources of information on their adoption of a training research product.

Procedure:

A two-part questionnaire was administered to ill Army participants attending TRADOC/FORSCOM Training and Evaluation Worksho*-3. The questionnaire

gathered information on attitudes and usage relating to the adoption of the

Training Extension Course (TEC) program by unit training managers. Sources

of TEC-related information were matched with the awareness, acceptance, and

utilization stages of the adoption process to gain an understanding of the

dissemination activity within training technology transfer.

Findings:

Two major findings emerged. F4 rst, the acceptance (PERSUADE stage) of

the TEC program is influenced primarily by internal sources of information

(e.g., work environment,, while the initial awareness (INFORM stage) and

later utilization of TEC are influenced by internal and external sources

(e.g., support groups, briefings). Second, prior familiarity with TEC predicted TEC usage better than did attitudinal measures, for this particular

group. However, familiarity alone does not insure extensive TEC usage, since

about half of those previously familiar with TEC did not use it. The majority of TEC users scheduled TEC less than 10% of their training time.

Utilization of Findings:

The sources of information contributing to the awareness and later utilization of TEC originated both within and outside the unit. However, TEC

acceptance (i.e., the decision to use TEC) was influenced significantly more

by sources of information within the unit. Far more people were aware of

TEC than accepted and used it. The findings suggest that although awareness

is influential, acceptance is relatively critical for TEC adoption. Therefore, efforts could be directed toward (a) recoqnizing that the unit is the

primary decision point influencing acceptance of TEC and (b) providing updated and relevant information to key unit training personnel to insure a

self-renewal capability that would direct the integration, adaptation, and

modification of TEr from within the unit. Application of this approach may

provide a reliable dissemination activity for improving product utilization

in Army training technology transfer.

vii j4 UJ h M -I U)J

'K
AN INVESTIGATION OF THE ADOPTION PROCESS IN TRAINING

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

CONTENTS

Page

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

METHOD ............................................................... . . 10

Sample...........................................10

r ~Data Collecto Fom............................13

Procedure...............................................................13

RE SULTS....................................................................15

TEC-Related Information ................................................ 15

Factor Analysis ........................................................ 15

Regression Analysis .................................................... 19

DISCUSSION.................................................................224

Findings................................................................22

Suggestions ............................................................ 23

REFERENCES.................................................................25

APPENDIX...................................................................29

DISTRIBU7TION .............................................................. 43

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Description and keywords of each activity in the model . . . . 3

2. Factors influencing the likelihood of adoption or

adaptation of a seemingly promising innovation by an

organization: Integrated findings .. ........................... 7

3. Resprndent locatio% ............................................. 11

4. Respondent characteristics. .................................... 12

5. Questions related to stages of the adoption process. .......... 13

6. Construct variables linked to section II questionnaire

items and concept source. ...................................... 14

ix

.AMP

r-ow
Page

Table 7. Sources of TEC information relied upon by respondents

for each stage of the adoption process . . . . . ....... 16 iA

8. Sample br,.akdown of TEC utilization information . . . . ... 17

9. Mean ratings and standard deviations of respondents by

item number in section II of the questionnaire ........ 18

10. Rating factors for respondents by item and loadings ..... 20

11. Mean factor scores for respondents based on the si,.m of item

scores within each factor ....... ................... . 21

12. Number of questionnaira i:ems required for predictor

variables compared with the amount of variance explained . . . 21

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Army training technology transfer model ...... ........... 2

[H 2. The adoption process in technology transfer ...... ......... 6

x
AN INVESTIGATION OF THE ADOPTION PROCESS IN TRAINING

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

INTRODUCTION

There is a present concern that a significant number of recently fieldedI

Army training products have not been integrated sufficiently nor used effectively to improve individual and unit proficiency within the Army's materiel

systems (Freda, 1980; Sands & Glaser, 19781 Shields, 1976). This concern

can be viewed as an acceptance and usage problem in the transfer of new

training technology from the researcher to the user. Focus on the training

technology transfer process is based on the assumption that the strategies

2 and procedures used to formulate and introduce new training technology in

tefield are primary determinants of the acceptance and use of the training

products.

In addressing this problem, a systems model of Army training technology

transfer has been developed to define the sequential flow of activities involved in the process (Freda, 1980). The activities in the model are

(a) analysis of requirements (e.g., needs assessment, results in a researchable question); (b) research, develop, test, and evaluate solutions (e.g.,

research, test, develop, and evaluate [RDTE]l results in a research product),

(c) dissemination of findings (can result in user acceptance); and Md institutionalization (starts with the utilization of the product by the user and

eventually is incorporated within the user's agency as part of standard4

practice) (see Figure 1 and Table 1).

The purpose of this model was to (a) document relevant Army regulations

within the appropriate activities of the model, (b) provide an information

base for use by Army decisionmakers to improve the process where needed, and

(c) discuss suggestions for tracking product utilization. Within the fraimework of this model, a major iss3ue is the lack of data on how dissemination

efforts can be guided to insure the institutionalization of a training product. Specifically, critical concern is focused on variables that contribute

to the user's adoption of a training product. The adoption process occurs

during, and between, the dissemination of information of a training product

and the institutionalization of the training product (initial utilization;

see Figure 2).

A myriad of variables has been addressed in an effort to understand t'ie

adoption process (see Table 2). The variables researched in the present

study are derived from two major questions. First, do users of training

products possess attitudes different from those who do not use training

products? For example, in a study of attitudinal differences between users

and nonusers of computer-assisted instruction (CAI), Pengov (1977) found

that CAI users had significantly more positive attitudes toward computers

in general and more familiarity with educational inrovations than did nonCAI users. The relevance of this research question to Army training technology transfer is that knowledge of user attitudinal variables may help to

focus dissemination efforts on those potential users possessing attitudes

similar to previous users of training products. Knowing on whom to focus

one's efforts, then, may result in a reduction of the time-lag between RDTE

and utilization, as well as a significant improvement in product utilization.
41

41

r4Pr~r4

~ý -E4)U4

41)

44

00

41)

I N

r 44

fa)

~all
4-J g 4J)

U) 0 @.I

r.~~ ~ ~ ru 4 Pu 4 0 (alr ;O r..40- 4J HU. (a* NW~ ý4 tn 

-4 ýQ) a) r J u 4.) 

00 0 A

f >WH0 tp >1 0 1 d1)u ( 1 )k U) M > 94H OJ r:S4f 0 ." -14 H4 P4~ (d L4W 4-)~ r. En' 0P1047 w(

) ) 4-14 11( y 4 P4 L ) H 0 N 0 4W W - 4J U) 04r 4H *'I0 0 4 . 4 0 .)W W - H >4: -iEi4

4..),q~ H U 0) rý z L) a) 0 -H )0-'4 g r

4.) 44 0 W W H0%M0 J r4 H~~~ *'4 M U) 0UNZ 0) V U M Q

ru W - 40.) 'ý4 H W 4) U w 0~) 044 Vr 4t

0 D1 z 0P4 4HC P4) U) r, - 4 >D

0) 0)I rz (a r-I0) rq 4.)0 4J 0) 0)

4) 40> ý4 I) )flO r40 4) 4)4UW0W)0(a.4U)

4-) ~ ~ U) ~ 0U ~ ~ ~ 4> ~ 4 - U , r 4

U)Q -40 4 4 d- >, . a)-10 E4CA

H1 -4H-44 (d 1) H 4(n04 ) *.Zr4 )*HU 044Of 44~4*

0) 0U H )-4EH ~U10) -H (A 4J-H

>1 44-) 4)04 -H0)4O Q)r.WHu44 00 O1 0)u

U) ~ > ~~''4- ~ U)1 V O.IU))'H *0 c 4 ) (a4 41 r.U) 0 .1 f 4j0 r-4 44)WT(0> 1 O J0

0) ý 0) -r )M A H3 )ý r.H 0 W U0 L) 0 V4) v a) 4 4J :W>,HW100 )- a 0 m E U) r- - o ýlU ) A a - 4-) 4) 4) H u n Mi -4> (d 4) - 0VI ) 0)_) ( -

u $4 W O W W En:J Q )o W ý4 J 'r 0 Wr- 4 14 (a rd f l >4 V 0 4 M 0 0 ý4 0 1 LO-H H I

0 (n 4) 0)0W W 4 1- 0)H t1f4

44 w u 0 U 4 -4 3 1. !I W 4 r- 14 $4 0 W 

(a 04 J U '4J( o ( ) (

E' ~~ ~~ H0 ~ ~ ~ ( ~ ~ u( ~ 04' Jr 4" HNa .M9W r
04 0~ mI

0 00O Tn

Q)41. 1 4-) 4

(5 4J (0 "1HO) ~ -U

0 .)-1 U 1-4rO l) -4J 0> H -, h W V 0 ,, 0)tl4) Q)

W 4~4 -4 44 A 3: * 4

9:0Q4 44~~ U 0)0 ) ~ u 0 (nO 0) 

C0 V 4 0(44)0 >W 4 'U) 0)Q) 

U) W-~4 14rP 1P4 t$ ) w4)->4 0 ý r- 00) 4:.A.

4 0p 434- 1 ~ 0 4) 4(U0 0) 0' *L.M-4 rO Q) W . 0)40H0 05.

U tn - 0 0 Qr- 4 . ( ( - ( r. 0i H> 14' ' W u E-4 Z

U4- 00 0 'dI- 0"4 Q) )H ) a:s0 0(n-4.) 4J 9 A 4 4 0 V Q4 w 0 N 0)

'j V 0 4J ) 0 M -H- L I1L

(fl '4-)W 4J )0 r ý~~44 Q4 W Q-i f IU 04-4 0) 4 J: C - -

r 000w . w) 0 v ~ 0 44 4-4 r. M r, 04.

-4 J ,1 >0 E UTO 0 ) En 40 44 Q) r. ~ :j ~ ~ ~ ~ 0). ~ M*40Q.0-4V(071r O Ht J 

W~ 04.' 42J M :V - 0 v.1 I 9 4

11 ~ r ) Q 0) > . Ul( 4 (00)

4- U 0 .4-104Q)r 0 W W 41 4 fl r- (L ~ 4) ra ~ -4it ow 0 U

4) 00 Q) C: 4

0 :j . ,4r 4: :3 4.4 o O r. 0 H4)- -HJ J 

~C0() -4 4) 4 fl J 00. d0 *0)* 0)( -- m0

0) . 0 0) 4 H u f-4 V) 4

0 - 4 1 0 91 Qr 4 H Oa

04W -I.j -i -rq 0 (d :4 t~n 0 > (0J4

0 02 ot., : -~4'U 4.))o 0I'U U (01. (a -H40f 0)f V 4 

*d0H ) r-4H9'U 4 W d) r.-ý 0 .)4 *JUV AWAIQ) 4i 0 4 Q U4 0 U 4

04 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ U0 ~ () ~ -- ~ ~ ~ 1 4 ~ ) ( wI4(Dr 0HO)4) 

0) > .0*4 )4 :j ~ H .- ) t)%)0r0I0 (t H.0E )4f WnU~ H*dH4U)0

toL 0 0)r UH 'U o cu 441 0 4 $ 4J .0. ýW Q)1 H4JU 3Q

4-J ) 4 -H4.)H -44J r -40 0 U 4J 4 ý 4 Ii

V) 44 W 0 )U 1 42 4 4 H 4rIh ) ;4 r. U dM (ZV >

0)..-' 1)4)0 0H U( W 9 $ Q -

v- wfl u I, )'

la, w UV 0W4

-H.~ 4- A0A.M '2 )U 4) Q S J 4 4 H M 0 E4V f
4J3

Q)

C)

0 0

C)~ 0 e~ 0 U)

>1 , U) -i I H 2ri 

01 0 (

0 - . 4J tD 4J) ý C (U 

v 44.J(U~ 4JJ 4J.H- -ri M 4J04 > w

0 ( . 4 -4 ~~44-H it C)ý 4.)~44 W 4) -~ 0

0 0 Q)~00 -) -~4 U tO )

4J~~~~.C t (FUJ() 4.)ý

C4-J U f

u) Q)

C a)C) 41 U)

$4i( (a > Cu) M 4.)

o (a u44 Q

10 4 .4 0 0)

C) Q-P * fuý C)) - 1) () (

V0 (dU4 -4 M 4 - C)Mu) 4

C)C)- $4UC~ V $4r C4)- -

04 _4 1)U)0 (

*.4- -H4 4 a

w 1 V 0- 0 -U 4-) 9 ~4 (U

T) 00-

-. 1 ) u J > H 4 : ) -

>roC 4-) a).) 4I4 ~ OC ) -4

-41~(U a H( *4 4.)

r.I 0C "3C 4.4

0) U)) I~ !0O

u- 0 J 4-) j 0( ý4 -1Q)(U 0 V4

-4 0 4-J 0 ( 9 ) 4 ) '4-

41 0 >, (n 4J( 4-) W .*L

.H fo~ 0)) r.C) r-4ý i 4

0 C)4-l" (v0C () 41 41( Q)- 4J >4 i C)ru 04Q 04 0.)r.

t0 4 U '0 '0-4 0H 4.1

U~.,( ( (U 

4.$U44- 4) Q )001uu 4

4J~~ VVHQ)

(1))C 4 (U 

uU a) >

4) 4)84t > IL

(U r . ) 4 -J C)4.

LO U) 44) tP~ F,0 0 4--

0~~~ -04 -i r d4

4J ~ 4 - ~ ~ 0 4 C)tn 

$14J~ 1 E n 4 J4)ý

Q'- 4-' 4 4 C)9r.(

*HCL) w~ 0 .-0(U 1

-H *4 41J

UC) co

d) 4

(U 14 . U)

0 10 bl a
4.) 4.)

F, 4J

00

.4J N

0

044 V ý44 0 Q

040

004U

U N

0 

N4
IF_____________- ~ -- n~. ~ Y¶~77

*~. u '4)

004 Q44.1

>n 0 .4ý4 00 V

1.44

0. In Wn

0) 441 V

Q4 - In 01 12 In

1 -4 (a Q Ch m.> (n u I

4-J 4 '-I 0

4-4 0 0- r0 4 1 :3

In 0 04 04u0 In A.10 0n~ C:~4J- 04-4) 'H 

54 >,n~ IA4 4.) 4-'~ 0 "4J

In 4J~' 0 ,ra0. J-4 ., 4,.) >.441 4- -H A

4 ) (O)4-) -

4 .(n. 0I 1 d -4In -4 .,0) d .1

w ." Q4 4 4 -,-1 04 M

0)-4 0ý -0; U) Q4)0 r- 04 P

rd 4)~ 4fl UE n w -4R 4 .

:> V) .,4 4

-4-14-1.14 E00S

0 L0 4

Q) -44 .H- I

0 N014 ~4 40 4-)

00 In 00.0

011 K410

00 0 w4 > 44) 0 . a4 ) *-4

4 0' Ai 0 004

.1 > ( 0 4-' -4"' A-) 0) '-1 > ..-4 -4i 4-)' ' (n 5 ".4 "-4 4 $

'H 4-) J ) , 4 .) i>' 4 4Ian >4) 1-4 .4 -

-4 >1 It .4J'H 4I 4J "" * 0 Q)I 4 4I' )

44 O ON)I 1,-4~ In-4 4

o 4J 1pn -4In-4> `-404 H4)>44

>1- -4 wi

In4 .0).4 (n

w. P1 0 H > i4

1.4 (oQ-4-4 4

0" u F U

-~0 (1)In

H U

4 1e 1 . ra C
41.

0

4-)

04 00

4.)C:4

Ci 0 0 o (a

-4 4 0 w) 41J!q0

0 4 .) Jt4 1 .4 0 4 ) -r

rd 4J

V0 0 tou 00 04

fd~4. J00 V> N ~ 44C ~ ~ ~ ~ Id i 4C 04 0J 0. 00> 00

U) 0)

0 0 to 40

4.)0

-- 4

0

$44

0)ta.4. tP4-

to ~ ~ 0U 4 W4) 01W r-4 4- - 4 4) U) 0 -.4r. (

fd 44 W00ý4Q *d. 

0JC 4J N

4) 40 4 4 r. 4 *.-

-1C 0 -14 >U 0 )

'o 'o 1 0 

00 0 0 1.4 W r-40 0.,4

.a.'

1..

4J r0

1J .,4

04 *d 0

-. 0 U41 U) u 0)4J4 .1 04 

1. 00ow 0 -A 4J 9910I. 0d

~4-4 A 0) H r. t-4 14 0

ý-~04 rd .4 0)04 44 co -4
The second question is concerned with knowing what sources of information are used by potential users during the adoption process. Sources of

information are representative of types of authority. Studies conducted by

Fairweather (1967, 1971, 1973, 1974) and Davis (1972) suggest that potential

users are influenced by different types of authority during different stages

of the adoption process. Specifically these studies have shown that exter-

:: nal sources of Information (i.e., originating outside the work environment

of the user) influence the user's familiarity and subsequent utilization of

a research product. However, internal sources of information (i.e., originating within the work environment of the user) appear to influence decisions to accept the research product (Fairweather, 1974). With respect to

Army training technology transfer, if the potential user's reliance on different sources of information is related to different stages of the adoption

process, then future dissemination efforts could be guided by the stages of

the adoption process. Knowing what sources of information to introduce at

each stage of the adoption process may improve the probability of user acceptance and ut:.lization of the training product.

Accordingly, the purpose of this paper is to investigate both subjective

(attitudinal) and objective (sources of information) variables that may influence the adoption of an Army training product. The training product chosen

for study was the Training Extension Course (TEC). The Army's program consists of performance-oriented, self-paced lessons (mainly audiovisual) prepared by service schools to provide individual instruction for enlisted men

in Army units. The TEC program was initiated by the U.S. Army Combat Arms

Training Board in response to a 1971 Army directive to decentralize training

management at battalion levels and below. Since that time, the TEC program4

has passed through various stages of development and evaluation. A current

evaluation concerns the use of TEC (Mays, Holmgren, & Shelnutt, 1979).

A number of studies have investigated various aspects of the TEC program, including cost-effectiveness analysis of TEC (Temkin, Connolly, Marvin,

Valdes, & Cavine;3s, 1975); TEC training effectiveness compared with conventional Army classroom instruction (Knerr, Downey, & Kessler, 1975); TEC delivery via CAI (Hoyt, Bennik, & Butler, 1977); and effects on retention from

TEC training compared with effects from conventional instruction and from

Lesson Administrative Instructions (Holmgren, Hilligoss, Swezey, & Eakins,

1979). With respect to TEC utilization, two studies have been reported.

In a survey of selected active and reserve component units, McCluskey

and Tripp (1975) found that (a) command emphasis did not affect the mode of

use for TEC, (b) approximately 30% of the soldiers surveyed used TEC, (c) the

major reason cited by the respondents for not using TEC was the lack of prior

awareness about TEC, and (d) unit training officers and noncommissioned officers (NCOs) reported positive attitudes with respect to the content and

utility of TEC. Based on the results of this study, some of the suggestions

offered by the authors for improving TEC use were an increased role of the

TEC learning centers; promotional, prototypic training programs for demonstrating TEC; and establishment of an incentive system to improve TEC use.

Mays, Holmgren, and Shelnutt (1979) conducted a two-phase survey of active and reserve component battalions within the Continental United States

(CONS), and battalion level personnel in U.S. Army, Europe (USAREUR) to

* 9

-i!
obtain TEC utilization data. In the first phase, Mays et al. (1979) found

that the reserve component used TEC more often than did the active component

(i.e,, 49,103 vs. 14,722 individual TEC uses); TEC usage in the active component was predominantly in an individual-mode, while that in the reserve

component was in the group (<6) mode; and for both components, the TEC use

rate per battalion was highest for infantry and lowest for field artillery. This last finding is partially explained by the lack of MOS-specific TEC

lesson series and the inapplicability of common TEC lesson series to field

artillery than to infantry at the time the study was conducted. Some of the

findings from the second phase of their study were that lack of awareness of

TEC contributed to the numner of TEC nonusers, command promotion of TEC was

low or moderate, and unit trainers influenced significantly the use of TEC.

Thus, the general consensus of the findings of these two studies is that

significant improvement could be realized in the effective use of the TEC

program.

As indicated by Mays et al. (1979), lack of awareness and low command

emphasis may be relevant variables contributing to ineffective TEC use.

This hypothesis could be related to the timing of dissemination efforts (in

the form of sources of information) in relation to the stages of the adoption process. That is, the types of authority upon which one will rely to

decide to use TEC may depend on the existing stage of the adoption process.

moreover, the attitudes of TEC users and nonusers may be used to predict,

in an ex post facto fashion, the extent of TEC use. This predictive approach

will assess the reliability of the relationship between attitudinal measures

of iisers and product utilization.

The present study differs from previous research on TEC utilization in

that a systems model of Army training technology transfer (Figure 1) is used

to organize data collection on the adoption process of a training product.

The research undertaken here assumes that an increased understanding of

(a) user attitudes toward training products, the organizational system, and

personal characteristics, and (b) sources of information used during the

adoption process will provide information for Army research and development

training managers who wish to introduce and use TEC in their units. Moreover, this study will provide data concerning the utility of a systems approach to predicting and understanding product utilization.

A two-part survey questionnaire (Appendix) was completed by 311 Army

(all active components) participants attending the TRADOC/FORECOM Training

and Evaluation 'Workshops conducted during August and September 1976. Table 3

presents a breakdown of the location of the participants, and Table 4 presents the sample breakdown of their background information. These data indicate that most participants were majors and captains assigned to S-3 duty

within Field Artillery or Infantry. Most had been assigned temporary duty

no more than once a year, and had fewer than two prior training-related

assignments,

10
Table 3

Respondent Location

Number of

Location respondents Percent

Fort Sill, Okla. 22 19.8

Fort Hood, Tex. 20 18.0

Panama 1210.8

Fort Benning, Ga. 11 9.0

Fort Lewis, Wash. 8 7.2

Fort Bragg, N.C. 7 6.3

Fort Carson, Colo. 54.

Fort Ord, Calif. 4 3.6

Panama (School of America) 4 3.6

Fort Polk, La. 4 3.6

Fort Richardson, Alaska 4 3.6

Fort Campbell, Ky. 3 2.7

Fort Knox, Ky. 3 2.7

Fort Stewart, Ga. 2 1.8

Germany 1 0.9

Korea 1 0.9

Total 111 100.0
Table 4

Respondent Characteristics

Number of persons

Background variable (N 111) Percentage

Rank

LTC 5 4.5

MAJ 36 32.4

CPT 48 43.2

ILT 6 5.4

2LT 2 1.8

NCO 14 12.6

Current job assignment

G-3 7 6.3

S-3 67 60.4

School 4 3.6

Training Officer/NCO 12 10.8

Other 21 18.9

Branch

Armor 10 9.0

Engineer 8 7.2

Field Artillery 34 30.6

Infantry 37 33.3

Other 22 19.8

Frequency of TDY

Never 26 23.4

Annually 42 37.8

]Biannua.l-Qtrly 23 20.7

Montnl y 12 10.8

Nn response 8 7.2

Military schools

attended

0 2 1.8

No raspon.e 3 2.7

1-2 43 38.7

5-10 26 23.4

Pre• ious training

assignments

0 19 17.1

1-2 57 51.4

3-4 21 18.9

5-7 5 4.5

No response 9 8.1

12
Data Collection Form

The first section of the ..wu-part questionnaire requested bibliographic

information and presented 15 questions on communication patterns and use of

TEC in the respondent's unit training program. Primary interest in this section was on three questions used to elicit the sources of information relied

upon by the respondents during each staqe of the adoption process (see Table 5). The second section of the questionnaire presented 23 items designed to assess thu respondents' attitudes toward individual/personal characteristics, social system features, and innovation/research products. Attitudes toward these three major construct variables and their subcomponents

have been reported to influence the adoption of research products (Davis &

Giaser, 1976; Havelock, 1976; Pengov, 1977). These construct variables and

their respective concept sources are presented in Table 6. Respondents

rated each of the 23 topics on 10 bip(. ar adjective scales based on the format of the Osgood Semantic Differential (Osgood & Suci, 1955). Prior to

data analysis, the 23 topics were arranged in accord with the construct

variables.

Table 5

Questions Related to Stages of the Adoption Process

Question Stage

1. From what source did you first learn of the TEC INFORM

lessons?

2. What source of information convinced you to use PERSUADE

TEC?

3. From what source of information did you learn UTILIZATION

how to use TEC?

A

Procedure

TEC usage data collection forms and instructions for completion were

given to each participant in tht TRADOC/FORSCOM Training and Evaluation Workshop. The participants' responses for the two-part questionnaire were transcribed onto coding sheets and punch-card coded for subsequent data analysis

via the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Nie, Hull, Jenkings,

Steinbrenner, & Bent, 1975).

Missing values on items in the first section of the questionnaire were

not included in the data analysis. To facilitate data reduction in the second section of the questionnaire, one score for each item was computed by

summing anross the bipolar adjective scales, which have been reported to load

greater than or equal to .75 on an evaluative dimension (e.g., Osgood & Suci,

13

r|
4-4

* 0

U~ >)

U) ON0 r )

u 04

a) W Q-N -4 ~ H ~ a

0H4 $ - -4 4r40 ~ >14

> fHH- > >10 > > 1H 4

-44a

0) r.t -

$4 "-4 14 N

-44 U

4JU4

0J .4--1) O)

0. U) U ~ J 0 .H

144

I to
1955; Shaw & Wright, 1967). This procedure resulted in an item score based

on five scales: good-bad, honest-dishonest, fair-unfair, pleasantunpleasant, and valuable-worthless. Missing values on each of these scales

were managed in the following manner: (a) if one out of five scales was not

marked, that scale was assigned a median value [41; and (b) if two or more

of the five scales were not marked, the summed score was replaced by the

within-subject mean obtained from the summed scales across the individual's

completed item scores. This procedure was used to minimize spurious correlations due to unequal number of observations.

The information obtained in the first section of the questionnaire was

subjected to a contingency analysis and a descriptive histogram breakdown.

The item scores in the second section on the questionnaire were factor analyzed, converted to summed factor scores, and together with selected variables from the first section, entere- into a regression analysis to assess

the utility of those attitudinal measures as predictor variables.

RESULTS

TEC-Related Information

Table 7 presents the source of information used during the adoption

process. Statistical analysis of the number of respondents who used the

different sources of information revealed that certain sources of information were relied upon significantly more than other sources between and

within the stages of the adoption process (X2 

hoc comparisons among the proportions (all significant 

(8) = 38.35, 

z's 

a '4 

1.96, 

.001). 

a's 

Post 

'ý .05)

4

of respondents using each source of information by each stage of the adoption

process (a between-cell analysis of Table 7) indicated that (a) respondents

relied on TEC information presented within the work environment and from

the published literature and text material to the same extent across each

stage of the adoption process; (b) reliance upon information from the training support groups and briefings was significantly greater during the initial

informative (awareness) and later utilization stages than during the middle

acceptance stage of the adoption of TEC within the unit; and (c) reliance

upon formal schools for information was greater during the initial awareness

than during the subsequent acceptance and utilization of TEC lessons.

Table 8 presents the sample breakdown of TEC utilization information.

The data show that among those respondents previously familiar with TEC

(FAMTEC), 46% were TEC users, whereas 21% of the respondents were not familiar with TEC. Moreover, approximately half of the TEC users schedule TEC

for less than 10% of their training time. FAMTEC as well as selected background variables were entered into later regression analyses to assess the

relative importance of these variables in predicting TEC utilization (TECUSE). j

Factor Analysis

The initial concern with the 23 scale items in the second part of the

questionnaire was focused on the relationship among the scales and their

extent of agreement with the a priori categorization based on the construct

variables from innovation literature. Table 9 presents the mean rating and

15

XI

-
u .r- cc L '44 4) .,4

0.- 4-) N L (a N 1.4

~ Q) 0 1.

0 0

-H

41) 4.t0 ý4

P-4 -1 9-4 0)

0)

0 Q

CA4 444INC )U

0" -H 41 $4.

WU N4J 4-4 ' N ý4 CJ) ti 0

WU) 0 a), a) 0) Q) 0 0 r4

(n 0 u w'0

t- tn Q) A -r 

U)

r 41 0 0) 0)1

E-44-

0)

4-4 r4 to 0 Q o t' >4J N) 0-

4 4U) t44 0 414 H 4.4 N ~ N 1- 1- 0 U

4)L =) 0).) .. )

ý u 40 ,u 

0. 0. uU 1.4 

9 I4

07 0 44 4J
Table 8

Sample Breakdown of TEC Utilization Information

TEC users Non-TEC users

TEC-related variables (N = 44) (N = 67)

Familiar with TEC YES 44 46

NO 0 21

Percent training time 0 10 67

used for TEC 1-9 21 0

10-29 9 0

0-100 4 0

1

iI

. 17

Ii

• ' •-- '" • ' ' , -, " • .';' . • "- .. • •,.•*,'"" •-, -• . . ..:• ., _ • "e" "'• ••-•,,. • '• ••" "•..•. •, , .•
Table 9

Mean Ratings and Standard Deviations of Respondents by

Item Number in Section II of the Questionnaire

Standard

Item number Construct variable Mean deviation

1a7

1 Innovation 27.4 6.8

;•2 Innovation 27.1 6.5

3 Innovation 28.0 6.7

4 Innovation 29.4 6.8

5 Individual 29.1 7.3

6 Social System 28.6 7.3

7 Social System 25.9 7.1

8 Individual 27.0 6.6

9 Innovation 19.5 6.8

10 Innovation 25.7 7.1

11 Social System 28.6 7.4

12 Social System 29.6 7.2

13 Social System 30.1 6.9

14 Social System 29.4 7.1

15 Social System 28.9 7.2

16 Social System 28.4 7.3

17 Innovation 23.6 7.4

18 Innovation 25.2 7.6

19 Innovation 26.4 7.3

20 Innovation 25.8 6.5

21 Innovation 27.0 6.8

22 Social System 24.6 7.0

23 Innovation 20.6 9.1

Note. Scale Anchor Points: Highest evaluation = 35; middle ev.aluation = 20;

lowest evaluation 5.

18

AL
standard deviations of each item across subjects. Split-half, odd-even

reliability (Rulon, 1967) was computed to be .80, thus indicating good

internal consistency among the items of the scale. Correlations among

the items were then computed, and the resulting intercotrelation matrix

was subjected to a Principal Components Factor Analysis with varimax ro-I

tation. A principal components solution was obtained in which unity (1)

was placed in the diagonal of the intercorrelation matrix, and a minimum

eigenvalue of 1 was used for the criterion of factor extraction. Results

from the first pass showed that 14 factors had eigenvalues greater than 1,

which accounted for 95.9% of the cumulative variance.

Subsequent passes were conducted on the 23 iteras, which were orthogonally varimax rotated on three through eight factors, respectively. Analysis of these subsequent passes indicated that five factors provided the optimum data reduction with respect to interpretive sense, minimum eigenvalue

criterion, spread of item loadings, and maximum accounting of the variance.

Table 10 presents a breakdown of the varimax rotated factor loading

matrix of item number and content by factor number and name. The results

indicated that the a priori constructs of individual and social system

variables were collapsed across an interpersonal dimension in this analysis,

while the innovation variable retained its independence (although scattered

into three variables) from the other two categories. Factor scores (Table

11) were then computed by summing across the time scores that loaded the heaviest within each factor (Nunnally, 1967). The factor scores were considered to be representative of the respective construct variable for this

particular sample and were used in the subsequent regression analysis as a

predictor variable of TEC utilization.

Regression Analysis

A foward-stepwise multiple regression analysis was performed that entered as first into the regression equation that variable which explained

the greatest amount of variance in the outcome variable. Classification of

the predictor variables was based on the factor scores mentioned previously,

as well as on the background and FAMTEC variables. TECUSE served as the

outcome variable.

The only variable that entered significantly in the regression equation was FAMTEC. Further analyses yielded other variables which entered

but not significantly. These variables each incremented the multiple R

by at least 2% in predicting TECUSE; number of previous major military

schools attended (School); present job assignment (Job); Army Branch

(Branch); perceived attitude toward group lecture method (Factor 5); perceived degree of change (Factor 4); and perceived attitude toward training

innovations (Factor 2). Table 12 shows the number of questionnaire items

that must be added to obtain each variable along with the multiple R and

percentage of the variance explained by each variable.

The findings indicate that given all construct variables, only prior

familiarity with TEC (FAMTEC) is the most efficient and the only significant

predictor of TEC use. Using only FAMTEC, the predictor equation that accounts for 12.7% of the variance is

19

o •kt

• .•,• ..... • .o., .. .•.,_• .. • ., s :•: •• .•:•,• • % • . •! ,, ... • ,••
-4 C

O4J U

r.'

H OQ

0) 00

0 00)

4) 4~J CN

dp H

rOD

ý4.

0q4 M) 0

Ch H 4) U.

0 4-) 4- H,- to

ý4i a%. Al

0) U rdQ)

a4 .) H) 0-O

>>

4-)(d 0r.

41 4.3 H nNII Dm4 L 

r~ -d

r. H 0H . N'4N0 -

0- 0 4~

.r 4.)

4S1)

0 0

1..4CfM 00d a

w U) 0

u~ 0)

20
-4gil ___________-P- , -17"-- 

Table 11

Mean Factor Scores for Respondents Based on the

sum of item Scores Within Each Factor

Factor name Mean factor score Standard deviationf

II. Training innovations 241.6 2.

III. General issues 48.9 13.3

IV. Degree of change 20'.6 9.1

V. Lecture 19.5 6.8

Table 12

Number of Questionnaire items Required for Predictor Variables

Compared with the Amount of Variance Explained

Cumulative Cumulative

Number of number of Percentage percent of4

Construct questionnaire questionnaire of variance variance

variable items used items explained explained

FAMTEC a 1 1 12.7 12.7

Factor 2 9 10 3.0 15.0

Factor 4 1 11 2.8 17.8

Branch 1 1.2 1.2 19.0

School 1 13 1.1 20.1

Job 1 14 1.0 21.0

Factor 5 1 15 0.8 21.8

aF(l, 98) =14.3, g .001.

211
TECUSE 1.92 - .44 (FAMTEC).

Using all seven variables, the equation that accounts for 21.8% of the variance becomes

TECUSE = 2.14 - .45 (FAMTEC) - .01 (Factor 4) - .08 (School)

- .01 (Job + .02 (Branch) - .02 (Factor 5) + .003 (Factor 2).

One point of caution must be made with respect to the regression equations. The mix of variables, coefficients, and constants in the equations

as shown have been maximized for a particular sample under study. One should

expect slippage of predictability if the equations are used with other populations (Darlington, 1978; Winer, 1978). Furthernore, even though the analysis thus far has suggested a minimal set of construct variables for TEC users

and non-TEC users, there is no guarantee that a new instrument using only

these measurement variables would produce the san'e results. Such a study

should be tried, but the individual, social system, and innovation variables

should be expanded and included.

DISCUSSION

Findings

Two major findings emerged from this study. First, the acceptance

(PERSUADE stage) of the TEC program is influenced predominantly by internal sources of information (e.g., work environment), while the initial

awareness (INFORM stage) and later utilization of TEC are influenced by

internal and external sources of information (e.g., support groups, briefings, etc.). This finding supports the data of Mays et al. (1979), who

found that 74% of the soldiers surveyed learned to accept TEC from their

unit trainers.

Second is that prior familiarity with TEC is a better predictor of

TEC usage than are attitudinal measures taken from the innovation literature (for this particular sample). However, familiarity alone does not

insure extensive TEC usage, since there is an approximate 50-50 split between TEC users and nonusers who are previously familiar with TEC. In addition, most TEC users in the present study scheduled TEC less than 10% of

their training time. This second finding is similar to the 50.2% of respondents being TEC users as reported by Mays et al. (1979). Moreover,

this finding suggests that remedy of the lack of awareness of TEC reported

in McCluskey and Tripp (1975) would not lead necessarily to TEC utilization. The two major findings are discussed in detail below.

1. Attitudinal Measures and TEC Familiarity. Specifically, the interpersonal dimension found in this study is a composite of two separate dimensions obtained a priori from the literature. The fact that an interpersonal

dimension was found is partly due to the lack of items that could have discriminated between a separate individual and social system variable. Attitudes toward training innovations were clustered generally around one factor,

although three other factors were observed that evidently were not perceived

similarly in terms of training innovations by the respondents.

22
Thus, these findings suggest that attitudinal measures of the adoption

process with respect to interpersonal and training appear to cluster similarly across laboratory studies, although these measures may not be significant for prediction purposes. That is, the relative importance of indices

sampled in this study weights an individual's prior familiarity with TEC

as the only significant predictor of TEC utilization.

Support for this finding canes frtnn Pengov (197'. , who observed that

prior familiarity with educational innovation was the single most effective

predictor of computer-assisted instruction (CAI) usage among her respondents,

accounting for approximately 18% of the variance. Similarly, in the present

study prior familiarity with 'T'EC was the only significant predictor of TEC

usage, accounting for approximately 13% of the variance of the respondents'

F 2. Sources of Information. The sources of information change with the

stages of the adoption process. It appears that the proximity of the source

of the information is valued as the time approaches to commit oneself to accept/refuse the training product. TEC users relied more on within-unit information to decide to accept TEC. This finding, together with familiarity

alone not insuring TEC use, indicates that the potential user's selection of

authoritative sources of TEC changed over time during the adoption process.

Thus, dissemination efforts could synchronize and adapt TEC-related informa- tion with the potential user's bias toward the authoritative source relied

upon during the particular stage of the adoption process.

Suggestions

Suggestions based on these results depend upon the primary objective of

Army training and its subsequent measures of effectiveness, costs, and benefits. If the objective is to improve unit or individual proficiency in Army

personnel by providing a self-paced, decentralized, managed training system,

then agreement must be made on measures of effectiveness that evaluate the

system. TEC use has been a primary measure of effectiveness to evaluate the

TEC program. Previous research has reported a significant relationship between TEC lesson use and MOS test performance (e.g., Jacobs & Hardy, 1974;

Knerr, Downey, & Kessler, 1975). Moreover, an increase in TEC use has been

reported to be related to more cost-effective training (Temkin, Connolly,

Marvin, Valdes, & Caviness, 1975). Theiefore, based ot these past results

and findings of the present study, two suggestions are provided to improve

TEC use (assuming that this activity is a reliable measure of TEC effectiveness) and to evaluate TEC utilization (scrutinizing this activity as a sole

measure of effectiveness).

1. To Improve TEC Use. More activity may be needed, not only in terms

of the introduction of TEC to users based on information within the work environment and from training support groups and briefings, but also in terms

of a periodically scheduled assessment, both in-house and by outside support -

groups, of the units' activity to integrate and update TEC into its training5

schedule. This assessment may be pursued by a more vigorous role in training support groups and briefings, as well as formal schools, to facilitate

the adoption of TEC by units, Other research (such as Fairweather's studies

23
and Davis' research on National Institute of Mental Health projects) reports a need for outside pressure or advocacy from the beginning if the

projects are even to be disseminated, much less accepted.

Although initial outside assessments should be considered, the ultimate goal should be to establish an in-house TEC assessment schedule to

insure acceptance and utilization of TEC. That is, the acceptance aspect

of the adoption process appears to depend more on internally originated

information (i.e., within work environment) than on externally originated

information (i.e., support groups, etc.). This in-house assessment schedule may be accomplished, for example, by developing a program in which Army

training centers would provide the units' training managers, supervisors,

and/or operations NCOs with the procedures and information to integrate

and update TEC lessons usage. The objective here would be to provide a

context that would facilitate a readiness to seek information and knowledge

of practice from external sources which would be incorporated within the

unit (see Digman, 1977, for more details).

In addition, TEC user meetings could be sponsored that would allow the

"frontline" users to discuss their experiences of different utilization

plans, problems, adaptations of TEC to their units. The goal here would be

to strengthen the interbranch network of communication concerning utilization strategies and to help foster person-to-person communication--two

factors reported to be highly influential in the innovation change process

(Davis & Glaser, 1976). Moreover, the exchange of information among TEC

users could be directed toward a self-renewal capability in which TEC users

(e.g., training managers, unit instructors, etc.) would be involved in the

modification 

their unit, perhaps 

and upgrading 

at company 

of the 

levels. 

content 

TEC 

and 

user 

quality 

involvement 

of TEC lessons 

at this 

within 

level

4

could be supported by a TEC course development team, located at learning

centers or provided from outside support groups. Such an activity has been

employed, for example, within a CAI environment at the Ohio State University

College of Medicine (Pengov, 1977).

The personal incentive for the unit's personnel involved in the assessment and/or meetings could be official recognition of the person's attempt

to integrate and update TEC lesson usage into the training schedule and official documentation in the individual's personnel folder. These suggestions

are in support of those of McCluskey et al. (1975) and Mays et al. (1979)

that promoted company level involvement in learning how to use TEC, TEC

learning center involvement in training unit trainers in TEC, promotion

points for both the student and unit trainer, and greater command emphasis.

2. To Evaluate TEC-Related MOS Performance. MOS performance data

and other relevant variables should be continued to be collected, as well

as TEC lesson usage rates per unit, in order to observe long-term trends.

These trends may then be analyzed in terms of determining the optimal mix

of TEC integration with conventional/other training based on selected measures of MOS performance. That is, TEC utilization alone may produce a

diminishing rate of return when maximum level of MOS performance is reached.

Therefore, alternative mixes of TEC usage and conventional and/or other

types of training methods could be considered as TEC evaluation continues.

24

" !ai
REFERENCES

Alderman, D. L., & Mahler, W. A. Faculty predispositions toward computer

assisted instruction: Initial attitudes at two year colleges. Bulletin of the Interuniversity Communications Council, Inc., EDUC0M.

Princeton, N.J., Spring 1976.

Army Training Support Center (ATSC). TEC, Bulletin Number 78-2, May 1978.

Darlington, R. B. Reduced-variance regression. Psychological Bulletin,

1978, 85(6), 1238-1255.

Davis, H. R. Mental health research and development: A report to the

PSAC panel on health services research and development. Washington, D.C.z National Institute of Mental Health, 1972.

I

Davis, H. R., & Glaser, E. M. (Eds.). Putting knowledge to use: A distillation of the literature regarding knowledge transfer and change.

Human Interaction Research Institute, National Institute of Mental

Health Grant Number 5 ROI MB 22683-03 MHS, November 1976.

Digman, L. A. Organizational factors related to technology transfer and

innovation. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1977, 2(1), 61-68.

Fairweather, G. W. Methods for experimental social innovation. New York:

Wiley and Sons, 1967.

Fairweather, G. W. Experimental innovation defined. In H. A. Hornstein,

B. B. Bunker, W. W. Burke, M. Gindes, & R. J. Lewicki (Eds.), Social

intervention: A behavioral science approach. New York: The Free

Press, 1971.

Fairweather, G. W. Innovation: A necessary but insufficient condition for

change. Innovations, 1973, 1, 25-27.

Fairweather, G. W. Creating change in mental health organizations. Elmsford, N.Y.: Pergamon Press, 1974.

Fliegel, F. C., & Kivlin, J. E. Attribute of innovations as factors in

diffusion. The American Journal of Sociology, 1966, 72(3), 235-248.

Freda, J. S. Army training technology transfer: A systems model. ARI

Research Report 1241, July 1980.

Hambrick, R. S. Needs and information needs: Some approaches to needs

analysis. Paper presented at National Institute of Education Dissemination Seminar, 3 May 1978.

Havelock, R. G. Planning for innovation through dissemination and utilization of knowledge. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Institute for Social Research,

University of Michigan, 1976.

25

S- -- . __ ....-..- __ __ _ L ' * L .g•- * .• -- '-.. 7a•': -- _ ,.' •-• -•: & - .*,i -- . V
Holmgren, J. E., Hilligoss, R. E., Swezey, R. W., & Eakins, R. C. Training effectiveness and retention of training extension course (TEC)

instruction in the combat arms. ARI Research Report 1208, April 1979.

Hoyt, W. G., Bennik, F. D., & Butler, A. K. The effectiveness of alternative media in conjunction with TEC for improving performance in MOS

related tasks. ARI Technical Report TR 77-A20, December 1977.

Jacobs, T. 0., & Hardy, R. A. Test and evaluation of Training Extension

Course. Human Resources Research Org-knization Technical Report 74-16,

June 1974. (AD 784 200)

Kaufman, R. A. Educational system planning. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:

Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972.

Knerr, C. S., Downey, R. G., & Kessler, J. J. Training individuals in Army

units: Comparative effectiveness of selected TEC lessons and conventional methods. ARI Research Report 1188, December 1975.

Likert, R. The Human Organization: Management and value. New York:

McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967.

Mays, P. V., Holmgren, J. E., & Shelnutt, J. B. Current use, patterns of

use, and factors affecting use of the Army Training Extension Course

(TEC) Program. ARI Technical Report rR 79-A3, May 1979.

McClusky, M. R., & Tripp, J. M. An evaluation of the utilization, maintenance and perceived benefits of the Training Extension Course (TEC)

(Tech Rep 75-18). Alexandria, Va.: Human Resources Research Organization, June 1975.

Nie, N. M., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrcnncr, K., & Bent, D. M.

Statistical package for the social sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill

Book Company, 1975.

Nunnally, J. C. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.,

1967.

Osgood, C. E., & Suci, G. J. Factor analysis of meaning. Journal of Experimental Psycholoqy, 1955, 50, 325-338.

Pengov, R. E. Key individual, social, and innovation variables influencing

the diffusion of computer assisted instruction (CAI). Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1977.

Rulon, P. J. A simplified procedure for determining the reliability of a

test by split-halves. In W. A. Mehrens & R. L. Ebel (Eds.), Principles of educaticnal and psychological measurement. Chicago, Ill.: Rand McNally and Co., 1967.

Sands, F. F., & Glaser, B. M. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 1977 National

Symposium of the military services on utilization of people-related

research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E). Navy Personnel

Research and Development Center (NPRDC), SE 78-3, NOO 123-76-C-0174,

January 1978.

26

S .
Shaw, M. E., & Wright, J. M. Scales for the measure.nent of attitudes. New

York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967.

Shields, J. L. Training Technology Transfer. Proceedings of the 15th

Annual Operations Research Symposium, Fort Lee, Va., 27-29 October

1976.

Tempkin, S., Connolly, J. A., Marvin, M. D., Valdes, A. L., & Caviness,

J. A. A cost assessment of Army training alternatives. ARI Research

Problem Review 75-3, August 1975.

Winer, B. J. Statistics and data analysis: Trading bias for reduced mean

square error. Annual Review of Psychology, 1978, 29, 647-681.

27

: a:
APPE1DI X

TRAINING TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER (T3)

PT 5146 

29

-
DATA REQUIRED BY THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 I

TITLE OF FORM' '= ' '' PlkESC MIaNG DRECTIFPT 5146, Training Technology Transfer (T3 I. AU.THORlITY= ) '-- AR 70-1

2.,PRINCIFAL 10 USC OPU RP'OS1 Sec 4503 ' " I

The data collected with the attached form are to be used for research

purposes only.

3. ROUTINE USES

This is an experimental personnel data collection form developed by

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

pursuant to its research mission as prescribed in AR 70-1. When identifiers

(name or Social Security Number) are requested they are to be used for

administrative and statistical control purposes only. Full confidentiality

of the responses will be maintained in the processing of these data.

4. MANDATORY OR VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE AND EFPECT ON INDIVIDUAL NOT PROVIDING INFORMATION

Your participation in this research is strictly voluntary. Individuals are

encouraged to provide complete and accurate information in the interests of

the research, but there will be no effect on individuals for not providing

all or any part of the information. This notice may be detached from the

rest of the form and retained by the individual if so desired.

FORM Privay Act Statment- 26 Sol 75-1

DA Fcr," 4368-P. 1 May 15 30 '.,
TRAINING TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER (T 3 ) Part 1

Name:

Social Security Number:

Rank:

Date of Rank:

Organization:

Present Job Assignment:I

Branch:

Length of time in organization:

Length of time in present Job Assignment:

Previous assignments in your Organization: t

Previous training related assignments:j

How frequently do you go on TDY?

List all major military schooling (note if it were a correspondence course):

31
Questions 1-3 deal with communication patterns. This information is

important to this research effort. Therefore, we would appreciate

answers to the following questions. The names you enter will be used

only to tabulate patterns of communication.

(1) Please list by name, rank and duty position the three friends in

your organization you see most often socially.

(a)

(b)

(2) Please list by name, rank and duty position the three persons you

work closest with in your organization.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(3) When you need advice on training probluis who are the three people

you most frequently turn to? (Please list by name, rank and duty

position.)

(a)

(b)

(c)

Questions 4-15 deal with the use of TEC lessons as presented on thL I

Beseler Que/See in your unit's training program.

(4) From what source of information did you first learn of TEC Lessons?

(a)

(b) I am not familiar with TEC (turn in 1st part of questionnaire).

(5) How frequently do you use TEC?

(a) Never

(b) Daily

32
(6) What source of information convinced you to use TEC?

(7) From what source of information did you learn how to use TEC?

(8) What subjects do you use TEC lessons to -each?

(9) How many TEC lessons are available in your battalion?

K (10) What % of your training time do you use TEC?

(11) If you do not use TEC in your training program--why? (You can

circle more than one.)

(a) it is not an effective teaching device

(b) do not have titne

(c) do not have manpower

(d) did not receive training on how to use

(e) did not receive TEC lessons

(f) did not receive equipment

(g) equipment is not available to me

(h) non-availability of appropriate lessons

(i)

(12) Uuder ideal circumstances what is the percentage of your training

time that you would use TEC?

(13) Under ideal circumstances what is the minimal percentage of your

training time that you would use TEC?

(14) Under ideal circumstances what is the maximal percentage of your

training time that you would use TEC?

(15) Please rate the value of TEC relative to traditional instruction

for the same subject using the followi-, scale. Mark the point

and indicate the value below the scale.

the same as

much traditional much

worse worse instruction better better

-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

33

76:5146-1
TRAINING TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER (T ) Part 2

Name:4

Social Security Number:

34
Each of the following concepts is followed by 10 identical sets of

adjective pairs. Each adjective pair is separated by a seven-point

scale. Please rate your attitude toward each of the concepts by

placing an X along the seven-point scale. Place the X on the line

which represents the scale position correbponding to your assessmnent

of the concept relative to that pair of adjectives. The direction you

choose left or right of the center of the scale indicates whether you

think the concept is more nearly associated with one or the Other ofA [ ~the two descriptive adjectives. A mark in the middle indicates thatj

you believe that the concept is midway with respect to the two qualities

described in the adjective pairs.

If you are totally unfamiliar with a concept please place the symbol N/A

4. ~next to the concept.I

35
1. TEC lessons

good ___bad

rough _ __smooth

honest dishonest

passive active

fair . . . . .unfair

weak ____strong

fast slow

unpleasant _ __pleasant

hard ___ __ __soft

worthless ______valuable

2. Sony Rover Television Trainer (TVT)

good __ __ _ _ _bad

rough ___ __ __smooth

honest _ __dishonest

passive ______active

fair ___ __ __unfair

* weak strong

fast __ __ _ _ _slow

unpleasant __________pleasant

hard _ _ __sof t

worthless __ ___. .valuable

good _ _ __ __ _ _ __bad

rough ________ . .smooth

honest _________ ___dishonest

passive ______ _____ _____ ______active

fair __ __ _ _ _._ _ _ unfair

weak __ ___ _ _strong

fast __ __ _ _ _slow

unpleasant _ __pleasant

hard .______ ___ soft

worthless __________ ___ valuable

4. Performance Oriented Training

good _______ ___ bad

rough _ ___ __ _ __ _ __ smooth

honest __ __________dishonest

passive ___active

fair __ _ _ unfair

weak ___._________strong

fast ___ ___slow

unpleasant pleasant

hard ______ ______ _*soft

worthless ______ __ __valuable

36
5. Pride of workmanship

good _ __bad

rough smooth

honest dishonest passive active

fair _ _ ___unfair

weak .strong

fast *slow

unpleasant pleasant

hard _______ ___soft

worthless ______- -:valuable

6. Positive social interaction with peers

good __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ bad

rough __________ __ smooth

honest ___________ _____ dishonest

passive ____active

fair ___ _________ __ unfair

weak ____ __strong

fast ____________ __ slow

unpleasant ____ _____ pleasant

hard _______ ___ soft

worthless _______________ valuable

7. ability to influence unit policy

good _______ ______ ______ ___ bad

rough _______ __smooth

honest ______ ____________ dishonest

passive _ ___ __ _ _ __ active

fair _______ ___unfair

weak ____- strong

fast _______ ______ ___ slow

unpleasant __________ _____ pleasant

hard _______ ______ ___ soft

worthless ____________ valuable

8. training trainers "how to train"

good __ __ _ _ _ bad

rough _ ___ __ __ __ smooth

honest ___ : _ _ _ dishonest

passive ___________ : - active

fair ___________ - :_____ unfair

weak _ __strong

fast _ _ __ __ _ _ __ slow

unpleasant -_ _ __ pleasant

hard __ __ _ _ _soft I

worthless ____ - valuable
9. lecture method for large groups

good _ __bad

rough ____smooth

honest ___ ____dishonest

passive ____active

fair ________unfair

weak _ __strong

fast _ _ __ __ _ _ __slow

unpleasant _ _____ pleasant

hard ___________________________________ soft

worthless _ _ ____ ____valuable

10. training simulators (e.g., sub-calibre devices)

good __ __ _ _ _ bad

rough _____ smooth

honest ___ __ __ ___dishonest

passive ___ active

fair __ __ _ _ _unfair

weak _______ ___ strong

fast _____ __ slow

unpleasant _____ __ pleasant

hard _ ___ __ _ _ __ soft

worthless _ ____valuable

11. myself as a squad leader

good _ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ bad

rough __ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ smooth

honest ____________ dishonest

passive __ ___ __ active

fair __ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ unfair

weak ___strong

fast ____. . . .____ _ _ slow

unpleasant _ ____pleasant

hard ___soft

worthless ____valuable

:L2. myself as a platoon leader

good __ __ _ _ _bad

rough ___smooth

honest ___ _______ dishonest

passive _______ ___active

fair _ unfair

weak ___ _______ _______ __ __ strong

fast _______ __ slow

unpleasant _ _____pleasant

hard _____ __soft

worthless _______ ___valuable

38
13. myself as a compAny commander

good _____ __bad

rough smooth

honest ____dishonest

passive ______active

fair _____ __ unfair

weak _ __strong

fast _ _ _ __slow

unpleasant - ___ __ pleasant

hard ___ _________ __ soft

worthless valuable

14. myself as a battalion commander

good ___bad

rough __________ __ __smooth

honest _______ ___ dishonest

passive _______ ___active

fair __ __ _ __unfair

weak ____ __strong

fast _ _ _ _ _ slow

unpleasant ___. . . . . .pleasant

hard ___soft

worthless _____ __ valuable

15. myself as a brigade commander

good ___________ __ bad

rough __ __ _ _ _ smooth

honest _______ ______ ___ dishonest

passive ____-_ _ _ ___ active

fair __ __ _ _ _ unfair

weak _ __strong

fast _____ __ slow

unpleasant ________ __ ___pleasant

hard _______ ___ soft

worthless __ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ valuable

16. 'self as commanding general of a division

good _ _ _ __bad

rough ___ _________ __ smooth

honest _______ dishonest

passive _______active

ir unfair

.dak __________ __ strong

fast slow

unpleasant ____- -_ _ _ :pleasant

hard _____ __soft

worthless _______ :- valuable

39
17. on duty education (GED)

good bad

rough : .. smooth

honest :___: _ : dishonest

passive ___ _____ active

fair :__ _ :_:___unfair

weak __: _ ____ strong

fast _____ __:__ slow

unpleasant : _ _____:pleasant

hard ___ _ soft

worthless :_ : ____ valuable

18. Women in the Army

good :_____ bad

rough : : : smooth

honest . . : dishonest

passive : :___: : . active

fair __:____ _ unfair

weak ______ strong

fast __: . .__ : slow

unpleasant :_:__ . : : pleasant

hard :_ : : : . . soft

worthless __: : : : : valuable

19. SQT

good ___:_ ___: _ bad

rough _ : ______: smooth

honest __:: _ _ : dishonest

passive __: __:__ _ active

fair :___: _ _ unfair

weak ___ :__ ____strong

fast :_ : :_:__ : slow

unpleasant _ ___: pleasant

hard ____ : _ soft

worthless :___ : _ valuable

20. Engagement Simulation (SCOPES, REALTRAIN)

good :_ :_: :_:_:_bad

rough :___ :_:_:smooth

honest : : _:: dishonest

passive active

fair : : : : unfair

weak : : : :___ strong

fast : _ _: : slow

unpleasant :_: _: : : _ pleasant

hard soft

worthless valuable

40

k
21. Training innovations save time and manpower

good _ __bad

rough smooth

honest .dishonest

passive _ __active

fair ____ unfair

weak strong

fast _______ ___slow

unpleasant _ __:. - pleasant

hard sf

worthless ____valuable

22. TASO

good ____ bad

rough ____smooth

honest ____dishonest

passive ___ _______ ____active

fair ____. .unfair

weak _______strong

fast __________ __slow

unpleasant ___- -:pleasant

hard ____soft

worthless valuable

23. Performance Oriented Training is a new name for the same old thing.

good _ _ __ __ __ __ bad

rough ________________smooth

honest ____dishonest

passive __ ___ __active

fair ____ unfair

weak _ __strong

fast. __ _ slow

unpleasant _____ __ pleasant

hard _ __ __soft

worthless _______valuable

Thank you for your participation.

41

76 :5146-2
DISTRIBUTION

IUS AwMY Wk;flNN CO)MMANUi AITNI AýPt

I DEPA-1MtNI OF hit. NAVY INAININUi ANALYt)IS ANI, EVALUATION IbROOP

1 HQ9 iLATA ATINt AICA1-UIJ-u

? HUiA RESL.ARCH' AN;) SlUDWL, 01L

I MILIIARY OCCUPATIINAL UtVLLOIPNk1 UIV UAlJC-MSP-O, NM (4$2C HOFFMAN bLflW I

4 OAýXI (MRA ANt) L)

I HUI. Tt.ATA TECHNICAL LIURAHY

I HQ0A OULSPEH

1 HU')A ATTN: DAMI-ISI

I USA jaVIATION SYSIEM5 COMU A11IW UHSAY-lilk

1 USk c;ORADCOM A11'4. AMSFLPA-HH

IHLA:O4UARILRS USMAHINL LHPS AIIN: JLM

I HLMiwOA~rk.RSq US '4ARINL LONRS ATTN: COUUF MPI-20

ICHMI-9I ATTITOULt + UPINION SURVEY LUlVISION AITI: ATl -mCR-mA, HOFFMAN HLUO~ 11

IUSA tNIE.LLIGENCLh ANO SL(.OH1TY COUMMANU ATTN: 1AOlPs-rNc-T

HU Tk4AUUC h.CHNICAL LIHNAHY

1 A~ NINN3~JPM~ tNAINt Tt.LHNICAL LItJRANY

I NIL! ANY OCCUPATIJNAL ULVLL(?M.frMEI iNECIo)HATL ATTN: ATZI-NCR-MS-M, HM 3N33 HUFFmAN HLUC3 11

I DATA ANALYSIS UIVISIUN A 1N. Alil-NCR',Al)q HUFFMAN dLDC, 11

I UjSi ,.dLPENCEN AITNt LiAPC-POU-1

I HTrI sNFANTRY DIVISION

I HQUA ARMY FURLI. M00ILkNIIA11ON COOUPkI4ATIUN U~FFCE

I Hw )A ATTN' tIASiulH

1 123D USAWCON HE-SEkVk. LLNILN

I OS AptMY SULUI)EH SJJPPORI LLNT~k ATTN: AlSi,-HU (UR* CAVINESS)

1 USA4 I-OkCE. COMMAN) AFLu - ULlodiv CH10 0ý STAFF FOR LOGISTICS

I US AmMY AIR I)EIENSL SCtIOUL AlINI ATSA-UTI)

I UIHEcT:IOATF OF IHAININb iAI1N: AIlU-T

I Oj&&:TC;RATF OF :U'itiAT ULtVLLOPmtNIS ATIN- ATztU.D

1 HQOA.HCOM MARINt- COWIJS LIAISON OrC

I IDhYAWIMENT OF lHL ARMY Uts ARMY INTLL.6F.N;'~CL + StCURITY COP4MANU

I USA mISSiLF COMMA'N4t Au1N. Uk:-iNI~NN

I ARM)tS ATTN: UHCDM-Tus-Tu

*I US,\ tORCLS COmMIAN)

I PM rwAUE /

1 UjS MiLITAHY LIUl]IXCT DI. WA6HINt3 IN OrC OF LWUAL OPPURTUNIlY

I NAVAl CIVILIAN I'L-45ONNLL LUMU SOUUHL-4N FLI.) Lily

2? ARI I IAISON OFI. ILE UMN

1 71H- mIHMY IRA1INi COMAN

I ARMY TkAININb SUI.;'0N1 CtNltR INUIVIDJAL TRAININU EVALIIATION

I H00A. DCSUPS INLUIVfIOOAL 1NAININtj

*I HUI)A. DCSOPS IRAININUj UiHLCTUHA1I.

I H(4LA. DCSLOG MAINILNANLL MANAG;LMENT

HUIJA. OCS STOUY JFI4CL

I IJ.'. NAVY THAiIN46 ANALYSI!S LVALUATiJN (iROOIP

1 lUSACoILC AlIN: ATEC-LX-t. HUMAN I.AC.lORS

1 ArTNZ SM-AI.C/DPCH

1 INTEN-UN1V SEMINARt ON AHMLLI FOULLbS * SOC 

'

1 OASA (RUA) UEPOLTY F.UN SLILNIUL ANU TE.CtNOL~by

I OFC uF NAVAL kLSLAkCH/

I AFHRi /LRr

I AFHRI /LNLU

* I ~~AIN ..URCL HUMAN NSUNLLb ATTN: 0HWMLTSN

1 AFAM~tL/80

I NAVY P'ERSONNIL P~ AND Li LLI'IEk LILLCVINH OF PNQUNAMS

I NAVY PL.RSUNNLL H AND Li CLNIEN /I

*e, OF(' tif NAVAL kLSY-AHCH ItHSUN10.L ANI) iNAIIwINU WE-SEANCH PROLNAMS

43

PktICPAMI UUnNO MLK4 Iu
I NAVAI PERSONNEL HR U CE.NIL.R

1 OFC u~F NAVAL RLSk.ARCH PRUJfrL.1 ON ICLA, ENVIRQN#4LNTAL PHYSIOLOGY

I MCFA.wN-(iHAY + ASSOCIAIL',,s INC* i

I rVAVAI AEHOSPACL MEDICAL RH(LH LAb Alk:$I4Ný HAN(UEH RESEARCH

I DEPT, OF NATIONAL uULFE1CL ULtN.NL& ANJ CIVIL INSTITUTE OF ENVIN MLI1

I NAMA AER0SPACL. MEDICAL RH(LH LAd AERISPACE P4VCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT

I USA IRADUC SYS4.MS ANALYSIS ACTIVITY ATTNI ATAA-TCA

IHEAU%4UARTEPS, COAST U.UARU CHiIF PSYCHOULOGICAL RSICMH 4P

IUSA wESEARCH ANo TECHNOLOUYl LAH AITN:. DAvDL-AS (DR. R. So DUNN)

I USA mOBILITY EUUIPMENT H AND U CUMU AITNt DRUME-TU (SCHOOL)

I NI(SHI VISION LAti ATTN% UHSEL"NVy6IJD

I USA IRAlNING BOARD ATTN! AT~bi-Alb-TA

1 USA ,4ATEHIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ACTIVITY ATTN: ORXSY-C

1 NAFEc HUMAN ENGlNLEHIN~i bmANCH

I HATTi.LLE-COLUM4UIS LABOHATORIES TACTICAL 1ECHNICAL OFC

I USA .mRCTIC TES) CEN ATTN% AMSTLwPL-TS

I USA c-OLD REGIONS rLST LEN ATTN** SIECR-op

I DEFENSE LANGUAbG. INSIITUIL FORtW(N LANGUAGE CEN

1 HQ WwAIR DIV OF' N.LUHOPSYLkilAIRY

I USA ýLECTKONIC WARFARE LAd CHILV, INTELLIGENCE MATER DEVEL SUPP OFF

I USA wSCH UFVEL 4 STANDANUIZA Liks U.K.

I AFWAi/FIGR (CUIld

I USA RESEARCH AND DLVLLOPMLNT LAb!O CHIEF, BEHIAV SCIENCES DlV9 FOOD SCI LAO

1 NAVAI AIR SYSTLMS COMMANU ATTN: AIR-5313

I USACuEC TECHNICAL INFORMATION CLNIER

I USAA.4L LIBRARY

1 HUMAN RESOURCES RSCH ORHi (HUMRRO)/

I SEVMiLE RESEARCH CORP~ORAT ION

1 USA iRADOC SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ACTIVITY ATTN: ATAA-SL (TECH LIBRARY)

I UNIFoRMED SERVICES UNlI OF THE HLALIH SCI ULPARtMENT OF PSYCHIATRY

I HUMAN RESOURCE!> HSCH OH6 (HUMPRO)

1 HUr4RwO LIHRARY

1 BATTPLLE REPORTS LIBRARY

1 RAND CORPORATION ATTN: LIbRARY U

1 GRONiNGER LIHRARY ATTN: AIZF-Pb-L BLab 1313

1 CENTt.R FOR NAVAL ANALYSIS

1 NAVAt HEALTH RSCH LEN LtibRARY

1 NAVAi PERSONNEL R AND D CLN LIsRARY AITNI CODE P106

I AIR t-ORCE HUMAN RESOURCES LAb ATTN: AFHRL/OTS

I HO, iT. HUACHUCA ATTN: TECH kt1 DIV

I USA ACADEMY OF HEALTH SCILNCLS $IIMSJ)N LIBRARY (DOCUMENTS)

I SCHOuL OF SYSTEMS AND LObISTICS /

I ERIC PHOCESSINki AND REIEHLNCL FAC ACJUISITIONS LIORAR1AN

I DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY TRAININGi ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 6P

I NATIuNAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS/

I USMA DEPT OF bEHAVIORAL 5(1l AND LEADERSHIP

1 OLU uOMINION UNIVEkSITY PLRFOPMANCE AboSESSMENT. LAdORATORY

I USA t.OMMAND AND GENERAL STAFF COLLEGE AT TN L18RARY

1 USA IRANSPORTATIOJ SCHOOL USA THANSP TECH INFO AND RSCH CEN

I NMRDC PROGRAM MANIAGER FOR HUMAN PLRFORMANCE

I USA aUlMINCEN TECHNICAL RESEARCH BRANCH LIBRARY

I USA i-IELU ARTY BU)

I NAT cLEARINGHOUSE FOR MLNIAL HE~2ALTH 14FU PARKLAWN BLDr,

1 U OF TEXAS CEN FDR COMMUNICATION RSCII

I INSTiTUTE FOR DEFENSE ANALYSES

1 USA iRAINING SUPPORT CENTER ATTN: ATIC-UST-PA

I AFHRi TECHN.OLOI~iY OFC 00:

I PURDuE UNiV DE~PT OF PSYCIIOLOGJLAL SCILNCES

1 USA m.OBILITY EUUIDMENT H AND U LUMMANL) ATTN: OROMt-ZG

1 DA Us ARMY RETRAI'41N(i bU. RESEARCH + tVALUATION DIVISION

I ESSEA CORPORATIO1N ATTN:. DR. bob WATER$

1 HALEl TINE CORPUkAT ION AT IN: UP* STONE.

44
I USA uEROMEDICAL HESEARCH LAB Sl.kENTINiC INFORMATION CENTER

I RAYTNAON SERVICE COMP~ANY SIPLNCt.H LABONATURY

I HUMAw RESOURCE mASIAG3EML,4T LEN, !.AN DIE(.iU

I USAF& DEPT OF ALHi SCI + LL.AULwSHIP

I US AiLITARY ACAIuAY ULPT* OI* mliTURY9 HLUG 601

I USA iNTELL'UENCE CLN ANL) ZiLH AITNI SCHIOOL LIBRANy

1 USA iNTELLIGENcdk CLN ANU bCH ATTN$ ATSI-PT-LL

1 MARIw~E CORPS INSIITUTE

I NAVAi SAFETY CLNTjN; /

I US CoAST GU~ARD MiN CEN AIIN: tUUCATI1)NAL SVCS OFFICEp

1 USAAvNC AND FT. RJCIKER AITNI AIiO-ES

I US AwMY AVN Thlb LlI$RARY AJTNI CHIEF LIBRARIAN

1 USA A~IR ULFENSL SCHOOL ATTN$ AISA-UT

1 USAAYNC ATTNI ATZQ-l)

I US MILITARY ACAULMY UIRLCIOM 09 INSTITUTIONAL RSCm

I USAAijS-L IbRAHY-I)UCUMLNT S

1 USA sERGEANTS MAJOH ACADEMY ATT14: LEARNING RESOURCES CENTER

I USA INFANTRY HOAHD ATTN% ATlb-IW-AL

I USA INTELLIGENCE CEN ANU tSCH AIIN ATbl-DoTU-SF

I USA ,.RDNANCE CLN AND SCH ATIN: ATSL-TU-TAC

I USA ARMOR SCHOOL ATTN% AILK-Tu

I USA .ARMOR CENTER DIHECTUHAIL OF COMBAT DEVELOPMENTS

I NAVAi POSTG4ADUATE SCM ATTN: t)UULLY KNOX LIbRARY (CODE 1424)

1 USA iRANSPORTATIIJ4 SCHOOL ULPUjTY ASSI, COMMANDANT EDUCA. TECHNOLOGY

I USA sIGiNAL SCHOOL ANU FT. bORLIoN ATT~4: ATZII-LT

I USA wUARTLRMASTEH SCH AJIN: ATSM-TNG-*TMET

I USA mILITARY POLICL SCHOOUL AITNI LIBRARY

1 USA ARMOR CENTER + FT. KNUX OFFICE OF-ARMOR FORCE M6T + STANDARDIZATION

I CHIkE. OF NAVAL LUJCATION AND TNO. /

I USA sIGNAL SCHOOL * FT. bjUHDON LOUCATIONAL TLCHNOLOGy DIVISION

) HO AiC/XPTD THAI'IINb SYSILMS IDEVELOPM4ENT

1 USA INSTITUTE FUR MILITAHY ASSISlANCE ATTN! ATSU-TD-TA

I US A.oMY ARMOR CENTER ATTN: ATIK-TIJ-P4U

I IISA AIR UEFENSL CENTER, Fie bLISS,ý ATTNI ATZC-DIM

1 USA iwUARTERMASTER SCHOOL UlkLCIUHATL OF TRAINING OEVELOPMENTS

I US CoAST G.UARD ACAUEMY /

1 USA IRANSPORTATioNj SCHOOL DiRELlOkATE OF TRAINING * DOCTRINE

I USA INFANTRY SCHOOL LIBRAHY /

1 USA INFANTRY SCHOOL ATTN% ATSH-I-V

1 US AMMY INFANTRY SCHOOL ATTN$ ATSH-CI)

I USA INFANTRY SCHOOL ATTN! ATSH-UOI-LRU

1 USA INFANTRY SCHOOL ATTN: AISH-EV

I USA M.P + CHEM SCH/TNb CEN 4 FT. MCCLLLLAN ATTN: ATZN-PTS

I USA MP + CHEM SCH/TNG CEN + Fl, MCCLELLAN DlIM COMBAT DEVELOPMENT

1 USA M4P + CHEM 5CH/TN CjEN 4 FT. MCCLELLAN DIH; TRAINING DEVELOPMENT

I USA MP + CHEM SCH/TNG LEN * FT, MCLLELLAN ATTN: ATZN-,4P-ACE

I USA iNSTITUTE OF AL)MINISTHATIUN ATTN: RESIDENT TRAINING MANAGEMENT

1 USA I"IELD ARTILLLRY SCHOOL MORRIS, SWETT LI6RARY

I USA INSTITUTE 09. ADMINISIHATlON ACAUEMIC LIBRARY

1 USA wAR COLLEGE AITN LIbRARY

1 USA PNGINLER SCHOOL LIHRARY AND LLAR41NG RESOURCES CENTER

I liSA uRMOH SCHOUL (USAHMS) ATTN: LIBRAHY

I US CwAST GUARD) ACADEMY LIbRARY

1 USA iRANSPORTATIUN SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION SCHOOL LIBRARY

1 ORU~iAvZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS CFN 4 SCH ATTN% LIBRARIAN

I US AWMY INTELLIGEN4CE CE"ITLk + SCHOOL ATTN: ATSI-TL)

1 US Ag.MY INTELLIGE~iCE CLNTLH' 4 SCHOOL ATTN% ATSI-RM-M

I US ANMY INTELLIGLNICE CLNTLR + 51CHOOL ATTN: ATSIL)T-SF-IM

1 US MARINE CORPSo EDUCATION CENTER

I USA ýIELD ARTILLERY SCHOOL UIRLLTORArE 09 COUURSE UEV * TRAINING

I I)EPAwTMENT OF [HF. AIN I-ORCE AIM UNIVERSITY LIBRARY (ATC)

I USA C.HAPLAIN CtNTER SCHUOL ATTN: ATSC-TD-QD

T 45_ __

vJ
I USA t.HAPLAIN Lt.NT:H 4 Sk.,MUUL AIIN: Arbc-1D-LU

I1 USA t.HAPLAIN CLN1~iý + hLHUUL AIINI AthC-II)SF

I USA cHAPLAIN CLiOJiE' + bCHUUL AIINI AISoC-105-LLC

I HU iwAl)OC 7HAkri'i1'J utýL)UVILMLNI AINbI11U[ý

;A CkAiAIIAN JOINT SIAFý

I COLS (W) LXHHAt(Y

I ýRblJi.H ARMY ATIAL-ikt

3CAN'jI,.AN UF]LN(. LIAISON ')10F ATIN: LUlJNS~LLUN, q ULFFNCE W ANI) 1)

I HOYAt NLTHERLANob E.MBASSY MILIIAHY AIIACHF

I CA,!iAiIAN k)HCLS hAt3E CUHt~NvuLLiS ATTNZ PJ~kSUNNEL S3LLLCTIOUN

P '.A'AijIAN FORCE!; P'EkSUNNtL APPL KSLt1 U41T

1 ARMY PERSONNEL HLSt.AHCH LbIAbLIlrlMLN1

.~LI$RaWY U1 CUNbNLSS EALHANGL o\NU bIlH 01VI

1 I)EIEi,45L TCHNtL(AL INFUHMAlIUN LLrN ATloN: OTIL.OL)A-e

140) IhItiaHY OF CUNUPILýSS U1N1T UUCUML141!. E PLI1TIN~i PHOJACT

I US GoVERNMENT PHI%4I1NUi OPL LJJiHAHY, PUHLlC UUCUMFiTS DEPARIML~NT

I US (iuVLHNME-NT liIWI1'TN(, OH.. LltimAHY A'4L) STATUTORY, LIH OIV (SLL)

ITHE allMY LTBRANY AT IN ANNY STUUILS ý)LC

3 ROYAi ARMY E~iULAIIUNAL LUHPS LENIRL ARMy SCHUOi. OF TPAINING SUPPORT

Ni.JMER u)I AlOURFSS.LLS* 20U I TOTAL NiuMbE. OF COPIES i~tb

46