LEVEL

Technical Report 473 - .

JOB SAMPLES AS TANK GUNNERY

PERFORMANCE PREDICTORS

N. K. Eaton, J. Johnson, B. A. Black

ARI FIELD UNIT AT FORT KNOX, KENTUCKY

DTIC

~JUL 7 1981

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

September 1980

Approved for public relnse; distribution unlimited.

81 7 06 Il1

I, s
U. S. ARMY RESFARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

FR.AIN A. HART

JOSEPH ZEIDNER Colonel, US Aimy

Technical Director Cowmande

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this report has been made by APO. Plese -. correspondence

concerning distribution of reports to: U. S. Army Reseach Institute for Sdte Usher4gland Social Sciences.

ATTN: PEI.WT. G00 Eisenhovwr Avenue. Alexandria, Virgnia 22333.

FINA DlIO~l~t~d:T16a report may be destroyed ,eftn it is no lonWe neede. 11 seM do not return 'itto

the U. S. Army Research I nstitute for the Behavioral and Social Science.

fjjThe findintgs in Stis reors wre not to be construed a an offleii Darment of the Army psition.

unlion so designfated by other euthorised documents.
r ,

UNCLASSIFIED SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (fWhon Dae E ntfoa

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE B E CPTINORM

1. REPORT NUMUIR 12. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 2. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMUER J Technical Fepot ,473

4. TITLE enqjuli "bU S. TYPE OF REPORT & P#ROD GOVIRZD

JOB .SAMLES AS TAIK GUNNERY PERFORMANCE t/ /: ."/ .. '

PREDICTORS . PERFORMING ORG. REPORT N=1

7. AUTHON(W 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMSR(Iw)

Newell Eaton, Jimmy R. Johnson, Barbara A. Black

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM CLEMENT PROJECT. TASK

US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral AREA S WORI UNIT NUNERS

and Social Sciences, Fort Knox Field Unit 2Q762717A767 /

Fort Knox, KY 40121

II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS JV.aJDR~nA ..-

US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral // SepIlNhNLA980,

and Social Sciences, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, ' f. NUMBEROF PAGEAlexandria, VA 22333 77

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(If dllffemet from ConIrollih Office) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of thl repart)

IS.o. DC ASSI FICATION/ DOWNGRADING

SCHEULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of thl Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of tre abstract entered in Block 20. If dlfferent from Report)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

19. KEY WORDS (Continue on revere side if nsceeeery aid Identify by block ruwbor)

Armor Hands-On Tests

Tanks

Selection/Assignment

Job Samples

- G.1TACT' 'Cmfwr~ mwre afW N ff* Mavsiy m Ideaitfy by block rnumber)

This research was conducted to develop and evaluate job samples as predictors of tank gunnery performance. In Phase I of the research two potentially

useful job sample predictors were identified and validated. Phase II results

provided cross-validation of these predictors. Subjects in Phases I & 11

consisted of recent Armor OSUT graduates. Approximately one-half the subjects

in Phase III were administered the job sample tests during their eighth week

of training while the remaining one-half were tested at the Fort Knox Reception Station, i.e., prior to training. Phase III results demonstrated that'

DO , , 1Q W3 EYION oW NOV s515 MoSOLET UNCLASSIFIED

SECUNTY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PA (Nht. Diee 1i;fewd)
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGEI3ha, Date tloemQ

Item 20. (Continued)

feedback had no effect on job sample-tank gunnery relationships: however,

level of prior training did have an effect. Eight week personnel performed at

a higher level than Reception Station personnel on most job sample tasks.

Results suggest that the job samples evaluated here offer promise in predicting performance after initial training and may be adaptable for use with the

operational unit assignment process.

AcaesSion For

WTIS Rk

DTIC TAB E

Unannounoed 01 Juet if lst iol-LDistribut-cn/ ..... _

AvailabilitY Codes-,-

,Avail and/or

Dist special

ti UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE.When Data Enftowd)
Technical Report 473

JOB SAMPLES AS TANK GUNNERY

PERFORMANCE PREDICTORS

N. K. Eaton, J. Johnson. B. A. Black

Submitted by:

Donald F. Haggard. Chief

ARI FIELD UNIT AT FORT KNOX, KENTUCKY

Approved by:

E. Ralph Dusek, Director

PERSONNEL AND TRAINING

RESEARCH LABORATORY

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

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria. Virginia 22333

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

September 1980

Army Project Number Technology for Increasing

2Q762717A767 Soldier Productivity

Ap ve for publIc reS: distrbution unfuind.
ARI Research Reports and Technical Reports are intended f1.r 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 recommendations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

iv
FOREWORD

A major research area for the U.S. Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) is developing and evaluating technology

for increasing soldier productivity. The ARI Field Unit at Fort Knox,

Kentucky, in its work unit area "individual readiness model and assessment"

(Army Project 2Q762717A767), is concerned with improving the methods used

to assign personnel to training and service in tank crew duty positions.

The long-range program includes developing and validating predictor tests

to improve assignment practices and lead to enchanced tank crew combat

proficiency.

The research report here describes the development and initial evaluation of predictive job sample tests for assigning tank crewmen to the

position of gunner based on objective measures of their aptitudes and

performance. The research was designed in response to requests by the USA

Armor Center (USAARMC) and the USA Armor School (USAARMS).

JOSPH INER

r hnicalixector

v
JOB SAMPLPO' AS TANK GUNNERY PERFORMANCE PREDICTORS

0)C.L i'

1>r cilo-oiop and e\'al u:t. Joh sampl-eR as predictors of tank gunnery

per or'dc.

Vie researcl- was conducted in three phiases. In Phase 1, three job sam14t- wver'- do':etvc. an~d Pvaluated. There tasirs represented three irajcor

h rrt of 1link oln performance: 1) the rerptirer.ent to properly

a tnlIp t- 2 ie roqu ire-aeiv to sensze thp cation of a fired round w!It t

tic i ot 7 3' lp reuiremen r to ar~eiy;d-itist the SO~V

I "'m(lt rni;7 Lac~h of theso r ecpirernoots was t e.nted with .3n

,3 C,1 ; r ;,11. ror i1t [dq jri iatively objeoct 've pcrtomrince nicasoresz,

......... 1: thva proposedi pr ed .%ctor; r, nf-Jstr -d of a m1( o d I

'1 OY Xrr 7t

"c.wa I tgo PC! to coimpi cinent art exp.anid tpor, Pha se

Iai. V-r ;-,-rpix1 In Vhqsr 1, tnce task wnea:;res were obtained

iats who wcre couipletLiig triig stnk gunnier/loaders.

ci z F. 1is i i .o; cilPerv re i n Pha-c I nav hdve been a func- on or thr

r-' irI ',~ i H , rthe ta irn-i1- to bi. -it ien Or aptf itlIdrS I- dect erminv.0-~ ~r ' ciLI~lS~pCno-ecrved in Phase I were, a four L-ion of achievEmnit

~~r ~ i Th~ ~'oa ii inrluded 1 C~d~esWhn had recertiv eapirlet c'

L~'* i',(). iv It t -t i hl;, W t 7,17t :-r e*t on ';cV gu

P. ti ~ig.

hai,11r. ter of- rt oi, rwc key variarples, vt'rhIai, I Pedhack and level

U ' ov]4 U Jo, 0:; irpl-tank gunner * reldt ionghips were evaluated.

- 'I t t! 1("? jot) sntapie, c tnt ir-of-mass, wa:; included i h vlain

P......pait-ic ~ipnnt- I -icre 11 -indiv iduals froma the Reception Station at Fort

"I 7 infiiili'ls !I-, tlhir eighth week of Basic Armor Train ina (BAT at

jI ox. )i I cr cn cPt:r- ocrs, r a r efl.ectiJ.on o f Ithe amount o f iipr ov emen t ov er

i ii L LI eJ ;ob sa, t.p L eo Vs ks were o- valIu t ed a c pr ed i c t0r q o f 1 ivt e-[ i rep gun -

or-i ~mm.'or'. iiase III live-fire gunnery prrfoiwance was scored us~nR

Stphi-Liual-Od Video playback techniques.

iinC di v.,s:

iPhnse ',vei~silt-cd in JIventificntirsn of two pot.entlaily 11seful. job SAMPle

predictors. Tliert wete fliamond tracking and rourd sensing. Rouind adjuntment

1-Oa not- currelated with gunnery pcrformaqncv. Phnne II results repiicated tbe

j~=DWPAU& MAWSNW T''
Phase I relationships of diamond tracking and round sensing to tank gunnery.

In Phase III, feedback had no effect on job sample-tank gunnery relationships.

However, level of prior training did have an effect, with BAT personnel performing at a higher level than Reception Station personnel on most job sample

tasks.

Utilization of Findings:

The results from the three phases of research suggest that job samples seem to offer promise in predicting performance after formal training but

prior to assignment to operational units. Future research efforts may be

directed toward the use of job samples as performance predictors for personnel

within operational units. Hands-on/jnb sample tasks may be developed which

are useful in the selection of gunners and tank commanders to fill vacated

slots in operational units.

viii
JOB SAMPLES AS TANK GUNNERY PERFORMANCE PREDICTORS

CONTENTS

Page

BRIEF vii

Objective vii

Procedure vii

Findings vii

Utilization of Findings viii

Tables x

Figures xi

INTRODUCTION 1

PHASE I 3

Method 3

Results 9

Discussion 10

PHASE II 12

Method 12

Results 13

Discussion 17

PHASE III 18

Method 18

Results 23

Discussion 26

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 27

* REFERENCES 29

APPENDICES 31.

*ISTRIBUTION 77

ix
TABLES Page

Table 1. Gunner and Driver Comparisons 16

Table 2. Armec Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB)

Basec Armor Crewmembers Selection Tests 22

Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations for Reception Station

and PAT Personnel for Four Job Sample Tasks 25

x
FIGURES Page

Figure 1. Circle Design. (Insert shows Willey BOT sight reticle

in position for commencing the tracking task.) 4

Figure 2. Diamond Design. (Insert shows Willey BOT sight reticle

in position for commencing the tracking task.) 5

Figure 3. Half-tone Print of Sensing Slide. 7

Figure 4. Prediction of Gunnery Performance from Combined

Standardized Diamond Tracking and Sensing Errors

Based on Unit Weight Model 15

Figure 5. Target Design for Center-of-Mess Task with Sight Reticle

in Starting Position. 20

xi
INTRODUCTION

Prediction of tank gunnery performance has been the focus of several recent research efforts (Greenstein and Hughes, 1977; Eaton, Bessemer, and Kristiansen, 1979). The majority of this research has utilized paper-and-puncii

aptitude/achievement tests as predictors, in contrast, job samples -- "handson" prediction tests which comprise aspects of the required task considezed

crucial to successful job performance -- have seldom been measured.

The rationale supporting the past emphasis on paper-and-pencil testing is

easily understood. These tests are relatively inexpensive to produce and administer. They are easily scored, easily standardized and quite portable. On

the other hand, measurement of performance on job samples is more difficult.

Job samples usually require the development and/or purchase of equipment on

which to perform and instrumentation for measuring that performance. Such

equipment and instrumentation is frequently neither inexpensive nor easily

portable,

Despite the research emphasis they have received and their obvious practical advantages, paper-and-pencil tests have had only moderate success as predictors of tank gunnery performance. Test-performance zero order correlation

coefficients greater than .35 are rare. Further, multiple regressions of test

scores on gunnery performance infrequently exceed .50. Finally, predictcrperformance relationships seldom cross-validate to new samples (Eaton, 1978;

Eaton, Bessemer, and Kristiansen, 1979).

The limited research in which job samples have been evaluated have yielded

numerous task-performance relationships in the range of .30 to .40 (Eaton, 1978;

Gobel, Baum, and Hagin, 1971), These results provide hope for improved prediction of gunnery performance. For example, in predicting training outcomes

for several Air Force programs, Hunter, Maurelli, and Thompson (1977) demonstrated that job sample measures did yield significant increments over traditional (AFOQT) paper-and-pencil tests. Although no cross-validation efforts

have been undertaken using job samples in the tank gunnery context, such efforts have been conducted successfully in other areas.

interest in job sample testing has gained impetus from the notion that

paper-and-pencil measures reflect variance associated with cognitive testtaking skills whereas job sample measures are relatively free of such variance

due to their "hands-on" nature. In addition, Hunter (1975) has concluded that

these psychomotor measures are less susceptible to the influences of prior educational and cultural differences among examinees. Thus an individual possessing the necessary psychomotor aptitudes and skills for successful job performance, but lacking the verbal skills or education to perform well on a paperand-pencil test, is given an equal opportunity. These facts may explain to

some extent the improvement in performance prediction obtained with job samples,

For these reasons, recent research efforts directed toward the prediction of

tank gunnery performance have emphasized hands-on performance for both predictors and criteria (Greenstein and Hughes, 1977; Eaton, 1978; Eaton, et al,

1979).
Another advantage of job samples is their face validity (Gordon and

Kleiman, 1976). By selecting 'in actual portion of the task as the perform.ance

predictor, many of the situational variables, which would not be present to the

same degree in paper-and-pencil tasks, are present and operating in the J.>b

sample tasks. An indication of this is the increased level of motivation experienced by most examinees (Seegal and Bergman, 1975; and Gordon and Kleiman,

1976). Pruitt (1970) suggested that these motivational differences may be due

to the individual's perception that he or she is actually working rather than

taking a test.

When job sample and paper-and-pencil tests were compared with regard to

their adverse impact on examinee attitudes, "both minority and majority examinees saw the job sample tests as significantly fairer, clearer, and more

appropriate in difficulty level" (Schmidt, Greenthal, Hunter, Berner, and

Seaton, 1977, p. 187). This finding coupled with the finding that there were

no significant differences between minority and majority attitudes toward

either test provides support for expanding research in the area of job sample

performance testing.

in summary, the advantages accompanying the use of job sample tests include: 1) reducing response bias and faking compared to self reports of attitudes, heliefs and interests (Wernimont and Campbell, 1968), 2) minimizing the

disadvantages for individuals who have limited education and/or low level verbal skills, and 3) providing the examinees with more realistic expectations

about the job (Pruitt, 1970; O'Leary, 1973; and Farr, O'Leary and Bartlett,

1973). The latter of these advantages is of significant interest in light of

research which has shown that realistic job previews can decrease the likelihood of subsequent voluntary resignations (Ilgen and Seeley, 1974).

Due to the limited success enjoyed by paper-and-pencil tests as gunnery

performance predictors, the empirical and logical support for considering job

samples as performance predictors, and the continuing need of the Army to predict who will perform well in tank gunnery, this research was designed to explore the potential of job samples as gunnery predictors.

In Phase I a variety of job samples, including tracking, sensing, and

round adjustment were developed. These job samples were evaluated as potential

predictors with recent tank gunner/loader graduates as research participants.

In Phase II, the most predictive job samples from Phase I were re-evaluated to

determine whether the relationships observed in the first phase would obtain

with a second sample of tank gunner/loader participants. In addition, Phase I7

job sample performance was evaluated with a sample of research participants

who were relatively unfamiliar with tank gunnery (tank driver trainees) to

determine the effect of gunner/loader training on job sample performance. The

information obtained was used to evaluate the extent to which job samplegunnery performance relationships might be related to aptitude rather than

achievement. In Phase III, issues concerning time of Job sample test administration relative to stage of training and the effects of external feedback

were addressed. Research participants included gunner/loader trainees tested

in either feedback or no feedback situatlons prior to trining and after eight

weeks of training.
PHASE I

In this phase of the research, three job samples were chosen for evaluation. These represented three major requirements of tank gunn ery performance:

1) the requirement to operate tank controls In order to properly track a target (tracking), 2) the requirement to sense the location of a fired round with

respect to the target so as to be able to make a proper adjustment for a second

round (sensing), and 3) the requirement to change the point of aim, based on

the location of a first round with respect to the target, to achieve a second

round hit (round adjustment). Each of these requirements was tested with an

appropriate simulator, yielding relatively objective performance measures.

It was hypothesized that performance on the three job sample tasks would be

positively related to tank gunnery performance because the three tasks appeared

to have a high degree of face and content validity.

METHOD

SAMPLE

Rea.irch narticvpints were 47 g-mner/oaders. They were recent Armor OSUT

(MOS 19E) graduatop of Ft Knox for whom tank gunnery scores were available from

ongoing research being conducted by the Army Research Institute Field Unit at

Ft Knox. Not all. personnel were tested on all tasks due to time constraints.

Of the 47 gunner/loadrs, 26 were tested on the tracking task, 31 were tested

on the sensing task, and 16 were tested on the round adjustment task. Of

these, 10 men participated on both tracking and sensing, 10 participated on

both tracking and round rIjustment, 15 participated in both sensing and round

adjustment, and nine pirticipnted in all three tasks,

PROCEDURE AND VARIABLES

Crewmen participated in some or all of the job tasks described below.

The three tasks were carried out in separate rooms, and scored by separate

scorers,

Tracking Task. In the tracking task, gunnertloaders were given two geometrical designs, a circle and a diamond figure, to track using the Willey

Burst-on-Target (BOT) trainer. The Willey BOT Trainer is a device designed to

simulate tank gunnery engagements. The equipment basically simulates the M6OAl

fire control system and includes a set of gunner's hand controls which modulate

the position of the gunner's sight reticle with respect to the target. The

actual size circle and diamond designs are shown in Figures 1 and 2 respectively,

Reduced-to-scale inserts are also provided to demonstrate the visual field of

the participant at the onset of tracking.

The task of each research participant was to track between the lines on

each circle and diamond design a total of 20 times. Tracking direction (clockwise/counterclockwise) and design presentation (circle/diamond) were accomplished so that each crewman started on a different design than the crewman

preceding him and research participants alternated directions of tracking for

each trial.
Figure 1. Circle Design. (Insert shows Willey

BOT ightretile n poitio f4
Figure 2. Diamond Design. (Insert shows Willey
All crewmen received two scores for each of the 20 trials. The first

score was a time score. Three scorers anually controlled separate 1/100

second Hunter timers. These timers recorded the time required to track the

entire design. The research participant's score was the mean number of seconds

appearing on the three clocks.

The second tracking score was an error score. This score was determined

by the number of 0.5 sec periods that the sight reticle (aiming cross) on the

Willey BOT trainer was either in contact with or outside the border line of

the design. Scorers recorded the number of 0.5 sec pulses emitted by a Hunter

timer during the time the sight reticle was not between the border lines of

the design for each trial. The research participant's score for each trial

was determined by averaging the error scores obtained from the three scorers.

Error and time scores for both diamond and circle were the means from the

three scorers over trial 16-20 (the last five trials) for each crewman. Trials

16-20 were chosen because the asymptotic performance level was approached by

trial 15, for both time and error.

Sensing Task. On the sensing task, 31 gunner/loaders reported their

sensing of a total of 25 simulated main gun rounds. Five Ektachrome slides,

each representing a different portion of a Table VI-M tank gunnery range at

Ft Knox, Kentucky, were used to present targets for this task. Each crewman was required to sense the location of five simulated rounds "fired" at each of

the five target slides. A typical slide is illustrated in Figure 3.

The "firing" simulation was accomplished by employing an ICONIX 6246

Tachistoscope (T-scope), two Kodak Carousel slide projectors, and a 50" X 36"

screen. Each target slide was projected on the screen for the duratiorn of

a five-round simulated engagement. A second slide projector, controlled by

the T-scope, presented a small red blip which was superimposed on the target

projection slide for a period of 10 msec. The blip, simulating a main gun

round, was produced by placing a red acetate film over a pinpoint hole made in

a separate opaque slide.

The experimenter began the presentation for each of the 25 simulated

rounds by announcing "on the way" and manually engaging the T-scope controlled

sequence. After the presentation of each simulated round, the research participant recorded his sensing of the round on a score sheet which consisted of a hand-drawn replication of the Table VI-M target slide just presented. The

participant received a new score sheet representing the new target slide prior

to each five round engagement.

The deviation in millimeters of the sensed round from its true location

was computed. These deviations were measured by placing a Xerographic transparency on which the true location of the simulated main gun rounds had previously been plotted over the participant's score sheet. The sensing score

consisted of the mean deviation for the 25 trials.
* 4,

i,. A

A.

* E

A

;~;i ~ * -

4

V.

'V

* 4,, *1 4$ j *

,. *~1 * V

*

e

'A

Figure 3, Half-Tone Print of Sensing Slide

-A
Round Adjustment Task. The Fire Control Combat Simulptor (FCCS) was used

to measure the participant's round adjustment performance. The FCCS is a device designed to simulate tank gunnery engagements. The configuration and

computer program simulated the M60Al fire control system during conventional

firing engagements. The FCCS contained an instructorvs console and a gunner's

station. From the instructor's console, a variety of situations could be programmed which specified target, terrain, and type of round, and required the

gunner's assessment and response.

The task utilizing the FCCS tested crewmen on their ability to apply

standard burst-on-target (BOT) procedures Vhile tracking a moving target. BOT

is a technique of fire adjustment employed when a first round miss occurs.

The program of instruction at Ft Knox indicated that all gunners were trained

to note the position of the miss relative to the sight reticle and place that

portion of the sight reticle on the center of mass of the target.

By programming the FCCS in a particular sequence (see Appendix A), the

gunner was forced to miss the first round. Each crewman was given six oneround practice engagements for familiarization with the apparatus, The practice engagements were not scored. At the conclusion of the practice, each

crewman was given 12 two-round engagements that were scored. Scores for the

crewmen were the number of targets "hit" on the second round of the 12 tworound engagements. The first round of each engagement was ignored because the

first round was programmed to miss.

Tank Gunnery Scores: Table VI-M. Steel's Main Gun Tank Range at Ft Knox,

Kentucky was used for the Table VI-Mo Normal range operation procedures were

utilized, but major changes were made in the targets, the engagements, and the

method of scoring.

The standard cloth panel stationary targets were replaced by 1.8m x 1.8m

stationary plywood targets. These targets were placed at ranges of 1000m and

1400m. The moving target was a 6.5m plywood flank tank target at a distance

of 700m, traveling approximately 5 km/h and perpendicular to the line of fire.

Standard zero panels placed at 1200m were also used.

Each crewman was required to fire a warm-up round at the zero panel, one

two-round engagement at both the 1000m and 1400m targets, and two two-round engagements at the moving target. The order of fire and engagement techniques

are shown in Appendix B.

Scoring was achieved by two scorers observing each firing tank. One

scorer used a periscope, BC M65, lOx, while the other used a pair of 8x binoculars. Scorers also maintained constant voice contact with the firing tank

through the use of the external intercom located at the rear of the M6OAl tank.

Thus the scorers knew when the gunner would fire each round, and the specific

target at which he was to fire. Scores were recorded as a hit or miss, based

on a consensus between the two scorers.

8
Each £ searciV pa' Lic.ant was required to do his own sensing, fire adjustment and firing, The function of the Tank Coimnander (TC) was to ensure

that correct safety measures were followed, to determine the range to the carget, to lay the gun tube in the general area of the target, and to give the

fire command.

DATA HANDLING

Scores for Limef ati ezror for both circle and diamond tracking were raw

scores. Tn addition, combined scores for circle and diamond tracking were computed by converting each crewman's time and error scores (for each design

separately) to z scores and adding the two scores together.

Score. on the sensing and round adjustment tasks were raw scores. On the

sensing task, lost rounds or rounds sensed 25mm or more from their true location were scored as 251ma errors.

Tank gunnery (Table VI-M) performance measures were number of moving target hits, number of first round hits, and number of second round hits. Table

VI-M overall scores were computed by multiplying the number of first round

hits by 10 and adding that. product to the number of second round hits multiplied bj iv.u,

RESULTS

TRACKING-TANK GUNNERY$ IELATIONSHIPS

Correlations were computed between each of the tracking task measures

(time, error, and combined scores, for both circle and diamond figures) and

each of the tank gunnery measures (overall scores, moving target hits, first

round hits and second round hits). Although there were no significant relationships between circle tracking and tank gunnery performance, significant

relationships were observed between diamond tracking and gunnery performance,

Crewmen with fewer diamond errors had higher overall scores (r - -.41, p <.05),

and more first round target hits (r - -.50, p <.01). A complete intercorrelation matrix is provided in Appendix C.

SYNSING-TANK GUNNERY RELATIONSHIPF

Correlations were computed between participants' sensing scores and their

gunnery measures (overall score, moving target hits, first round and second

round hits). The relationship between sensing and both second round hits and

overall scores approached significance (r - -.35 and -.34, p =.05 and .06,

respectively). It is interesting to note that although relationships with the

.racking task were statistically significant, and those with the sensing task

approached significance, the sensing and tracking tasks were not significantly

correlated with one another (see Appendix C).
ROUND ADJUSTMENT-TANK G1NERY RELATIONSHIPS

Analysis of the FCCS data and tank gunnery scores revealed no significant

relationships. The ability to apply BOT procedures and hit a moving target on

the FCCS devize was s s-gaif.cantly relaLed to the gunnercs ov.zrall _

first and second rourid hits nor to the uumber of moving target hits (sea

Appendix C).

INTER-SCORER RELIABILITY ON TRACKING ERROR

Because the tracking error measure was based on the visual evaluation of

researcn parcicipant performance, the reliability of the tracking error could

be qiestioved. Inter-scorei reliabilities were determined. The three scorers

used in the tracking task provided high scorer reliability coefficients for

diamond error and moderate reliability for circle error. For the diamond error

measure, correlations were .91, .94, and .92 for scorers 1 and 2, 1 and 3, and

2 and 3, respectively. For the circle error measure, correlations were .63,

.56, and .85 for scorers 1 and 2, 1 and 3, and 2 and 3, respectively.

DISCUSSION

The p cpe:, chi-s :esearch was Lo evaluate the relationship betweern

performance on severdl job samples and tank gunnery performance. The results

of the researcib revealed significant relationships between gunnery performance

and both round sensing and tracking of the 1iamond figure. The fewer eriors

research participaits made in sensing aid tracking, the better they performed

in tank gunnery.

The relationship between round sensing and measures of gunnery performance were readily interpretable. Round sensing had a numerically higher correlation with second round hits than with first round hits. Such a relationship was expected because applying BOT procedures involved knowing generally

where the round landed with respect to the target (i.e., round sensing) and

specifically where the sight reticle was placed with respect to the target

picture. This provided the gunner with specific information on second round

engagements, but only general information or, first rounds of Later engagements.

Relationships involving diamond tracking error were rt so easily interpreted. The tracking task was designed to measure a participant's ability to

operate the turret/gun controls. While such ability should have beer generally

related to performance on all engagements, it should have been most strongly

related to moving target hits. However, that was not the case. Diamond tracking was significantly related only to first round hits, and overall score.

Interestingly, the error, rather than the overall time measure, accounted for

these relationships. Thus, it was not a gunner's overall speed on the tracking

task, but instead his accuracy, that accounted for the variance In the gunnery

performance.

Tracking the circle figure was much more difficult than the diamond. The

circle required constant changes in horizontal and vertical movement (or

IC
traverse and elevation), as opposed to the fixed degree of norizontal and ver- tical movement with changes only It corners required to track the diamond.

However, the gunners in this research, were not required to perform such complex tracking on Table VI-M. The moving target traveled slowly across the range

in a constant direction. This difference may have accounted for the failure

to observe a relationship between circle tracking and moving target hits.

Circle tracking may serve as a predictor of gunnery performance with evasive

targets moving in complex patterns (see Jones and Jehan, 1978, for further discussion on this topi:).

No clear rationale exists for the failure to observe predictor-criterion

relationships between the circle tracking and overall gunnery performance. One

explanation proposed that the lower scorer reliability for the circle error may

i;ave contriluced to the lack of significant correlations.

The failure to observe relationships between the round adjustment measure

and gunnery performance was also not easily interpreted. The round adjustment

measure should have evaluated both tracking and BOT ability. Yet despite the

high fidelity of the FCCS controls, and the objective measurement potential it

offered, no significant results with gunnery were obtained. In fact, the highest correlation, a -.21, was in the wrong direction, i.e., the more targets hit on the FCCS, the fewer second round hits on Table VI-M. Apparently high-fidelity

and sophisticated stimulus control and response mnasurement in a simulator are

no guarantee of significant relationships with on the job performance.

11
PHASE II

Phase II of this research was designed to complement, and expand upon, tht

Phase I research. Overall, the results of Phase I research were favorable, an6

two Job sample measures were related to gunnery performance (diamond error and

sensing error). Several issues however, were not completely addressed.

First, because a small number of participants performed all tasks, the

intercorrelations between tasks provided in Appendix C can only be considered

as crude estimates of population parameters. These intercorrelations should be

explored more fully to determine the degree to which task performance accounts

for unique gunnery variance. Tasks related to gunnery performance, but unrelated to one another, account for unique gunnery variance, and thus may be combined for improved gunnery prediction. Those tasks which are highly intercorrelated, on the other hand, are redundant, that is, a second measure adds

little to prediction, once the first measure is known.

in addition, during the first phase of the research, many different

measures of the Job sample tasks were obtained, and many measures of Table VI-Y

were evaluated, but the sample size was relatively small. Consequently, there

was liberal opportunity for Type Ii errors in evaluating relationships between

task measures and gunnery performance. Those tasks which did show apparently

significant relationships with gunnery performance (tracking and sensing)

needed to be re-evaluated to determine whether the task-gunnery relationships

observed in Phase i were attributab3e to chance.

Finally, the task measures in Phase I were obtained from research participants whc were completing training as tank gunner/loaders. Thus, the relationships observed may have been due to achieveinent rather than aptitude. Participants who received m re help in training, had prior experience or worked harder,

could have learned to be better gunner/loaders, and consequently performed

better on both tank Funnery and the Job sample tasks.

Such a hypothesis implies that for some of the gunner/loader participants

at least, training, aptitude, and/or motivation resulted in some level of

achievement, and that the achievement was reflected by task performance. Consequently, this hypothesis can be evaluated by comparison of task performance

of gunner/loader trainees, and other participants who are comparable in many

ways, but are relatively untrained in gunnery.

The purpose of the Phase II research was to address these issues by providing more stable measures of task intercorrelations, re-evaluating and validating the significant task-performance relationships observed in Phase I, and

determining whether task-performance relationships are more likely due to

achievement or aptitude measurement.

METHOD

SANMPLE

Research participants included 24 gunner/loaders who recently graduated

from Armor OSUT (MOS 19E) at Ft Knox and for whom tank gunnery Table VI-M

12
scores were available. In addition, the sample included 10 drivers who recently completed Armor OSUT (MOS 19F) at Ft Knox. Unlike gunner/loaders,

drivers are not given extensive gunnery training, and do not fire on main gun

tank ranges at Ft Knox.

PROCEDURE

Tracking Task. As in Phase I, crewmen were given the circle and diamond

designs to track on the Willey device. Each crewman was required to track both

designs 20 times as in Phase I. Diamond and circle error scoring was accomplished the same way with the exception that only one scorer was used.

Sensing Task. The methods for the sensing task were the same as in Phase I

with the exception that half-tone prints were used in place of the standard

hand-drawn score sheets and lost rounds or rounds sensed 10mm or more from their

true location were scored as 10mm errors. The half-tone prints were copied from

the pictures of the Table VI-M course that were used for the target slides.

Round Adjustment Task. The round adjustment task was eliminated because

no significant relationships with Table VI-M performance were observed in

Phase I.

Table VI Modified. The Table VI-M firing range procedures and method of

scoring were identical for Phases I and II. Table VI-M was fired by gunner/

loaders only. Drivers did not fire Table VI-M as it was not part of their

normal training, and not necessary for the research.

RESULTS

TANK GUNNERY RELATIONSHIPS

Tracking: Tank Gunnery Relationships. Correlations were computed between

each of the tracking task measures and the tank gunnery measures. As in Phase I

there were no significant relationships between circle tracking and tank gunnery

performance, but significant relationships did exist between diamond tracking

and tank gunnery performance. Gunner/loaders with fewer diamond errors had

higher overall gunnery scores (r - -.49, y <.02), more moving target hits

(r - -.41, 2 <.05), more first round hits (r = -.43, 2 <.05) and more second

round hits (r - -.46, E <.05). A complete intercorrelation matrix is provided

in Appendix D.

It is interesting to note that in Phase II crewmen tended to take longer

in the tracking task and to make more errors than the crewmen in Phase I.

Because both samples were drawn from the same population, there is some reason

to believe that the higher error scores in Phase II were the result of scorer

learning. The scorer in the tracking task probably became more skilled or proficient in the task of scoring. This result would indicate a need to refine

the scoring technique and instrument the scoring phase whenever possible to

control this scorer influence.

13
Sensing: Tank Gunnery Relationships. Correlations were compucea between

the sensing score and the tank gunnery measures. A significant relationship

was observed between number of errors on the sensing task and tank gunnery performance. As can be observed in Appendix D, crewmen with fewer sensing errors

had higher overall scores (r - -.41, 2 <.05). No significant relationships

were observed between sensing score and the moving target, first round hits, or

second round hits, although the correlations with moving targets and second

round hits approached significance (r's - -.36 and -.35, 2 <.10). It is also

worthy to note that the correlation between diamond error and sensing error was

again nonsignificant (and in this case, zero).

Tracking and Sensing Combined: Tank Gunnery Relationshlps. Phase i research suggested the utility of both diamond error and sensing error as predictors of Table VI-M scores and indicated their intercorrelation was about

zero. Therefore, both error scores for Phase II subjects were combined as

predictors of Table VI-M according to the unit-weighted model (as suggested by

Einhorn and Hogarth, 1975; Schmidt, 1971; and Lawshe and Schucker, 1959).

Unit-weighted models have been suggested for small sample research because only

the direction of the predictor-criterion relationship needs to be known. Beta

weights are not computed, but instead are set arbitrarily at one. While there

is somewhat less precision with this approach, there is also less opportunity

for error in incorrect Beta-weight estimation.

In applying the unit-weighted model to the data, standardized scores were

computed for tracking error, sensing error, and Table VI-M overall scores,

Standardized error scores were then added together, and their sum correlated

with standardized Table VI-M scores, yielding an r = .64, p <.01 (the signs for

the error score were reversed to achieve a positive-going scale). Thus, the

fewer errors a participant made in tracking and sensing the higher his predicted

Table VI-M score, and the better his actual Table VI-M score. This relationship

is shown in Figure 4.

In addition to computations with the unit weight model, standard multiple

regression cross-validation techniques were employed. Beta weights for tracking and sensing error measures were computed from Phase I data and applied to

standardized error scores in Phase II, yielding an R = .65, p <.01. The high

similarity between unit model and multiple regression model results was due to

the ratio of the computed Beta weights (BI = -.64, B2 = -.59). Their ratio was

.92, nearly 1.00. Consequently, in this case unit-weight and multiple regression models provided nearly the same result. The plot of multiple regression

predicted to actual Table VI-M scores was almost identical to Figure 4.

Comparisons Between Gunner and Driver Performance. To evaluate the extent

to which gunner's performance on the tracking and sensing tasks was a function

of their prior gunnery training (i.e., achievement) in 19E Armor OSUT, comparisons of gunner's and driver's scores were made by using t-tests. Means,

standard deviations, t-test results, and sample size are shown in Table 1 for

drivers and gunners on each task. No significant differences between gunners

and drivers were observed on any of the tasks. In the one instance where the

comparison did suggest a difference between gunner and driver performance,

14
+2.5

+2.0'

+!.S00

+1.0,

U- 15

0

o

ir 4. o Gunr Pefmace frmCmie 0rdcto tnadzdD~nn

20 S , S

.0 0

-1. -1 0 -. 0S. 10 +.

Combined Standardized Diamond Tracking and Sensing Errors

Figure (4. Prediction of Gunnery Performance from Combined Standardized Diunond

Tracking and Sensing Errors Based on Unit Weight Model

j 15
Table 1

GUNNER AND DRIVER COMPARISONS

Gunner (N - 24) Driver (N 1 10)

Standard Standard t*

Mean Deviation Mean Deviation

Diamond Error 10.43 4.70 10.48 7.53 .02

Diamond Time 17.87 5.50 18.14 4.37 .12

Circle Error 14.01 6.07 16.44 2.37 -1.04

Circle Time 20.82 7.02 19.17 5.17 -.57

Sensing Error 39.88 11.77 28.96 18.61 -1.77

*811 p > .05

16
sensing error, ( = -1.77) drivers yielded less error Lnan. gummers. Ztls result is contrary to the direction hypothesized had the job sample-gunnery performance relationships been based on achievement.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this phase of the research was to confirm and extend the

findings of Phase I. The results confirmed both of the significant relationships between Table VI-M scores and diamond and sensing error. In addition,

both a unit-weighted model and a standard multiple regression model, based on

results from Phase I, provided a very good fit between Phase II diamond and

sensing measures and Table VI-M performance. Approximately 35% of the variance

on Table VI-M was accounted for by those two variables. The magnitude of this

relationship was due to the fact that the two error measures proved to be uncorrelated, and thereby provided unique contributions to predictions of gunner's scores. In addition, the relationships between gunnery and job sample

scores seem to be more likely due to aptitude rather than achievement measurement. This is because gunner/loaders, who had considerable gunnery training,

scored no better on the job sample tasks than drivers, who had relatively

little gunnery training.

Overall, it appears that the development and empirical validation of an

appropriate set of job samples gives promise of measures yielding reasonably

large correlations with gunnery performance. Moreover, such relationships may

be attributed, in large part, to aptitude rather than achievement measurement.

Consequently, such tethniques seem to have reasonable potential for use in

assignment of personnel to appropriate training programs.

1:
PHASE III

Phase III of this research was conducted to further evaluate the use of

job samples in predicting criterion performance. The results of the -co previous phases prompted interest in the effects of two key variables, 'r 1 a

feedback and level of training on the previously identified predictor/ "orformance relationships.

Feedback has been shown to enhance learning. This effect has been demonstrated for individuals (Stockbridge and Chambers, 1958) and groups (Alexander,

Kepner, and Tregoe, 1962) in military settings. Holding (1965) described a useful system for classifying information feedback (IF) or knowledge of results.

Major dichotomies in this system include: 1) intrinsic (present in the standard

task) versus artificial (added to the standard), 2) concurrent (during response) versus terminal (after response), and 3) separate (for each response) versus

accumulated (for several responses). This system provides a useful framework

in which to discuss the effects of varying the kind and the amount of feedback,

both of which have been shown to affect performance (Goldstein and Rittenh.ouse, 1954).

A specifia amount of feedback is intrinsic to both the job sample testing

and the gunnery criterion performance situations. With regard to job sample

testing, it was not known whether providing feedback enhanced or degraded performance on job sample tests. In addition, the effect of feedback on predictor/

performance relationships had not been determined

In the two previous phases, job samples were measured after formal armor training. Reasonably large correlations with subsequent gunnery performance

were obtained. The question existed as to whether these correlations would

obtain when job sample measurement took place before training, or after basic

training, but before intensive gunner/loader training.

In addition to evaluating the effects of feedback and level of training,

a new job sample task was included in Phase III. Centar-of-mass determiration

represented a major component of tank gunnery perforimnce which included the

requirement to traverse the turret and lay the main gun quickly and accurately

on the preferred portion of the target,

Finally, job samples as predictors of tank gunnery performance had not

previously been compared to current ASVAB based paper-and-pencil predictorgo

This required obtaining job samples, ASVAB, and gunnery performance dotn Cot

a large sample of research participants.

METHOD

SAMPLE

The research participants were randomly selected from the population of

trainees assigned t gunner/loader (MOS 19E) training at Ft Knox. Job sample

tests were administered to 160 men representing 10 separate companies. Not

18
all personn;I1 were tested on all tasks due to time constraints and all the men

from one company were eliminated from the data analysis due to equipment performance failure beyond the control of the experimenter. Of the remaining 144

participants, complete data sets were available for 63 or 88, depending upon

the analysis required.

PROCEDURE

Sixteen (16) men per company from 10 companies were tested. Eight of the

16 men from each company were tested during the time they were in the Ft Knox

Reception Station. The remaining eight were tested after they had completed

approximately eight weeks of Basic Armor Training (BAT). Of the eight persons

in each of these groups, four received verbal feedback (knowledge of results)

during the job sample testing, while the remaining four received no verbal information concerning their performance. Each participant was tested on three

separate job sample tasks: 1) tracking, 2) sensing, and 3) center-of-mass.

Tracking Task. Crewmen were asked to track the diamond design using the

Willey BOT trainer. After receiving appropriate instructions, (see Appendix E)

each crewman was allowed to practice tracking the design once clockwise and

once counterclockwise. Upon completion of the practice trials, each crewman

tracked the design 20 times, alternating direction at the beginning of each

trial. Crewmen in the feedback group were provided with scores reflecting the

time it took them to track the design and the number of errors committed after

each trial. Crewmen in the no feedback group were not provided information

concerning their performance.

The time score consisted of the total elapsed time from the "go" command

to the "stop" conmmand on each trial. This score was the time appearing on a

standard 1/100 second Hunter timer which was manually controlled by the scorer.

The total number of errors per trial was computed by counting the number of

0.5 sec pulses emitted by another Hunter timer during the time in which the

aiming cross portion of the sight reticle was not between the borders of the

diamond design. Scorers viewed the design by means of a video monitor placed

on a table behind the subject. For convenience the pulses from the second

Hunter timer were recorded on cassette tape and played through headphones worn

by the scorer, thereby minimizing subject distraction. The tracking trials

were videotaped for later error score verification.

Sensing Task. The methods for the sensing task were the same as in Phasa

II with the exception that crewmen in the feedback group were told their mean

deviation for the five rounds in each engagement prior to the presentation of

the next target slide (see Appendix F). In the no feedback group, no information was provided concerning performance.

Center-of-Mass Task. This task was presented immediately following completion of the tracking task and was videotaped in its entirety. A slide presenting four tanks was placed in the Willey BOT. The crewman was instructed

te move the aiming cross from the center position (see Figure 5) to the designated target on the coumiand "go" (see Appendix G). The crewman fired the

19
Figur esignfor 5. Trget Cnter-f-Ma Taskwith i iceI

Startng Poition

-20
Willey laser when he determined that the aiming cross was on the center-of-mass

of the target. Each participant completed eight trials, two trials per target.

Scoring was accomplished by means of a manually controlled Hunter stopclock to determine total time for each trial from the "go" command until firing.

A 1.5 square millimeter transparent grid was placed over the instructor's viw.-

ing screen of the Willey and displayed on a video monitor behind the subject.

This allowed the scorer to accurately determine the deviation of the aiming

cross from the true center-of-mass.

Crewmen in the feedback group were informed as to their time to centerof-mass and amount of deviation from true center after each trial. Crewmen in

the no feedback group were not provided information concerning their performance.

ASVAB. Scores for each participant on seven Armed Services Vocational

Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) subtests were obtained from personnel records. These

were Word Knowledge (WK), Mathematics Knowledge (MK), Mechanical Comprehension

(MC), Numerical Operations (NO), Arithmetic Reasoning (AR), Electronics Information (El), Automotive Information (Al) and Classification Inventory-Electronics

(CE). These subtests were chosen based on previous research (Eaton, Bessemer,

and Kristiansen, 1979) which developed two paper-and-pencil predictors of tank

crewman performance. Table 2 shows how these subtest scores were combined and

what predictor criterion relationships have previously been obtained (Maitland,

Eaton, and Neff, 1980).

Table VI-M. The Table VI-M order of firing and engagement techniques used

in Phase III were the same as in Phases I and II with the exception that crewmen were not required to fire a warm-up round at the zero panel. Scoring procedures, however, were different. Each engagement was videotaped for subsequent

verification on a 21" video screen. Two cameras were used, one recorded stationary engagements at 1000m and 1400m by means of a 1000mm telescopic f - 5.6

lens, the other recorded the moving engagements at 700m using a 500mm telescopic

f = 5.6 lens. The cameras were situated approximately 25m to the left or right

of the firing tank. The direction selected offered the least amount of obscuration during firing from smoke, dust, or heat distortion, etc. The video tapes

were played at a later date for scoring by two experimenters (see Appendix H

for sample score sheet). The playback equipment allowed a frame-by-frame

analysis that could easily detect rounds passing through holes produced by

previous rounds.

DATA HANDLING

Tracking Data. The tracking task was quantified to yield six separate

measurements of tracking performance for each participant. Three were related

to tracking time and three to tracking error. These measures were obtained by

computing: 1) the mean error and time scores for the first four trials, 2) the

mean error and time acores for the last four trials (i.e., trials 17 through

20), and 3) the difference between means for time and the difference between

means for error.

21
Table 2

ARMED SERVICES VOCATIONAL APTITUDE BATTERY (ASVAB) BASED ARMOR

CREWMEMBER SELECTION TESTS

Predictor Combined Standardized Correlation

Tests Subtest Scores* with Criterion**

Gunnery UMO Word Knowledge (WK)

Mathematics Knowledge (MK)

Mechanical Comprehension (MC) °29***

Driving UMO Numerical Operations (NO)

Arithmetic Reasoning (AR)

Electronics Information (El)

Automotive Information (AI)

Classification InventoryElectronics (CE) °40***

*Formulae from Eaton, Bessemer and Kristiansen (1979)

**Correlations from Maitland, Eaton, and Neff (1980)

*** <.001

22
Sen )a. 21 ' datz obtained from ch4 sensing cask was quanti:ied. as

in Phase It, by Coti.purtirg the vie.i- rltn.br of c!rrors for cIhi 25 crials compited

by the p;. t .t. A t v

Center-of -Mass Dat- a our measure. .:nra ob!avned ftom the center-of-mass

task: I) th an! i -I a for tcT-iaLs five thro igh ei-ghi:, 2) the difference be--.

tween the Li., - 1'i: .. ,alc one four -Ico, and i!:*'ve Lhrough eight,

3) the meart n(ii..!K(,tr cOC or ti:;LI. { Ii i : 'i uign and 4) the diff ,rence bec,wecn e:roc i...n ) :.: ..".al e kwit h Lour and Eive Lhrough eight.

ASVAB Dnita. Rz1.w scores for three of the seven ASVA]P subtests were sumunee

to yield a prced.:tor c.....L d th,_c CLuwmnnry UMIS. Those SubLests were WK, Ml,, and

MC (see Table 2). 'Yi- raw ov:.; ..-, :he CtIa.61in ug LOer subtests were suimmed

Co form allothcr p;.'i: :,C,,t1.,rr:d Lc, u Vr L vir UtS These subtests were NO

Aft, El., ,Ikl, and (R. 2.. .. utniel 04y 1'

' and Driving UMS were summed co

provide a third pr.ri.. . ciJ. Li.'Ji :iv7 i , three raw scores used to obtain.:

the Gunnery UTNS ,;ert tonve-ted L o sCadard ;'orcaL- with a mean of 00 and a

standa'rd deviation ,i: 15, .n -. rinwcd ito yireJJ a fourLh predictor referred Lo

as the Cunnery IT._aIoC, Be-;'e en and l1isc].an, 1979). The use of the UMS

al ld UNO I t:;u , I ,Vf,, r . epres',.nLctd 1i. IMal. land, Eaton, and Netff

(980). UNO Ct i.C'; ao uii -- i c' mod,', 0im*hL I:Olritza." only standardized

ASVAB subtests. [UUS re2iers to ut--we:g]'tcd models containing only raw scores

from ASVAB subtestsTable VI-M Data. Tank gunnery (Table VI-f) performance measures included

number of movi.ni; target hits, number cf ,i.r.tt roiad hits, number of second

round anLt d:inu ,ib,; ol total hit; . Tln, scuores aere converted to z scores

Oil ., companly by nL ny becn-i;se -'!,; i1w1.yo zowpanies fired the same tank oil

the saire -day.

JOB SAIPLE REL,,I.NS-IPS

A two-way mult Ivaria.,_. analysis of variance \MANOVA) was.-performed .to determine if level o:: prior training had a significnt efect on the perfdrmance of four lob sample tasks. Results of this analysis revealed a significant di.1ferencrt betwcen the task perFormince of Reception Stntion (no prior

trinI. n l) mnd JAT (Cl ghti WIekii of crtini,,p,) periontle]. (F- 28.76; 11 <.0001).

Pont-hoe till Vr i In t- ;:ltj.yse.. £ 'O; tLrckling urror, ensdwig error, nnd center-ofmass error rev.-aled v sgnificant. level of training main effect F - 27.126;

_ <.0001; F 39.295; .p <.001: and F = 42.e'33; .p1 <.000.1, respectively for the

three tasks. Tlhcre was no di.1fereoce between Reception Station and BAT personnel for the center-of-mau. k...M,) time job sanmple task, As can be seen in

Table 3, BAT personnc!., on the average, performed better ol job sample-tasks,

i.e., made fewer errors) or were faster than the Reception Station personnel.

The exceptions to this were that BAT personnel in both the feedback and no

feedback groups made more errors on the sensing task and the BAT personnel in

the feedback gioup took longer to locate the center--of-mass than did the

Reception Station personnelB

23 BEST AVAILABLE COPY
To determine wheri-er o" not the Recepcioi, Station personnel differed from

BAT personnel in ranl gunnery petcrmalee, t - tests were performed. No difference was found between the two groups for.total hits, moving target hits,

first round hits, or second round hits.

The secoad factor, in the two-way MANOVA was type of feedback (i.e.,

presence or absence of feedback). 'Ihe results of this analysis revealed no

difference in job sample task performance between indiv uuals who received information concerning teir performance and those who did not, for any of the

four tasks. Neither was there an interaction between l.vel of training and

type of feedbacR. Ic determine whether the feedback and no feedback groups

could be collap.;ed under tbci, rcspcctive leels of training, tests of colinearity were perzo:'mod (Kirk, 19&, p. q-i4). Nune were significant. Therefore,

because there were no i Lffuric--, found bet:ween means crd the hypothesis that

the overall regression, 1 Lre wa, .,.ia: could not be rejected, the distinction

between the feedbacl- aml i:o feedback i!a:oups within leveIs of training in subsequent analysts was nun i:ecalned,

TANK GNERY RELAi 1 OLV',SIPS

All participa: t" for . complete: nb rarpie and gucnery data sets were

available (31 B 2ccaptwcn and . 5L TJ;X; .n-..* 'cAId in subsequent analyses.

Tracking: Tar k l Gunn oc y Rl.lhi.s. Correlations were computed between

each of the six I wrczisg asr-o i. and three, -he tank gunnery measures

(total hits, firs,,:ucd iUi a !oving hies) for bor i Re '-pci.Dsn Station and BAT

level personnei. I' aigni &am relatA.onship .:a,; obsrvec between mean tracking

time (trials 17 ch!:oug!,, 2 aLid . number of moving target: nits for the Reception

Station personnel (r 3; <.GI). Th icr tr.3,;.,g ti:us were associated

with more movL!:g _irgec !its,

For BAT level. p'n-sonne], four sig''.i,'nt raciiopg task-tank gunnery relationships wers observed- Signific.nt -r'ia! onship, were observed between

the difference soer" 'o-r ;ri (, time ,ic bh firi-c reLound and total number

of hits (r = .20; !, <.05 and r m- .31; ) <.05), Signxificant relationships were

also observed betwec; tSe, :e 2 i ,5 fe or rncksiiag er7or and both first

round and total nuaber cf hits 'r .26 P_ -.05 nd i" = .25; 2 <.05). A complete inter-corre]ation matrix frc bot, iucpItJon Sttoton and BAT level personnel is provided in Ape,-itix I,

Sen.,ting; ,t-_, <n L: -.,R: / la _i n ea -s (.t leeLa,.,oc,., were computed between

mean number of anscig errnrs- an, It ;m. gani:iry :.,asuTes (second round hits

and total hlts) lor boLl: Racepftun S,::i.t:tn and bAT leve.a personnel. Contrary

to the finre.ngs Ir Ptaso:3 I 310 ir'-i 0iJf 0lraduates, sensing was not found

to be related t'j taL, gunna, ,i-eror-srtco.

Center-of-Mass: Tan%, Gunnery Reiarlonshlrs. Correlations were computed

between four separate measui:es of center-of-mass cask performance and two

measures of rank gunnty performance (f[icsL roLnd hits and total hits). No

significant reiaclonSiaps wr-re obse:rved

ASVAB. 'ThnkK,__ne .,,, . x p avt-icipar.cs for whom complete

job sample, ASVAB, a:.d g, y ,.-!LL ;ts wo1e' available (30 Reception Station

21..
w n 0

a En ILM %D

'-I

.1c m EOr o 4co

00

~ tf-~ Cen

9-) En

Ln W 

0 U) I**

41 0 -

o4 6M -

o ON

o 0

0'

00

0 C/0

en0x0'

0 c 0

CCAV

cnFU

41

25
and 33 BAT) were included in subsequent analyses. None of the four ASVAB derived measures, Gunnery UMS, Gunnery UMO, Driving UMS, nor Gunnery plus Driving

UMS, was related to total number of Table VI hits. Complete correlation

matrices are provided in Appendices J and K.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of ihzs research was to determine the effects of two variables,

type of feedback and level of prior training, on job sample task performance

and on job sample-tank gunnery relationships. The results of Phase III testing

revealed no difference on -ob sample performance for participants receiving

feedback versus those who cid not. This lack of difference may be accounted

for by the concurrent intrinsic feedback present in the selected job sample

tasks. For example, the gunner's controls on the Willey BOT trainer modulated

the position of the sight reticle relevant to the target while the eyepiece

allowed him to obtain constant information conce-rning the effect his responses

had on the position cl that reticle. In the sensing task, participants were

provided feedback, nct after each round, but after each five round engagement.

This meant that they were given information concerning their performance on

a given target slide just prior to conmencing a new five-round engagement on

a new target slide. Thus the participants may not have had the opportunity to

apply the information, they received within the specific context in which it

would have been most profitable *i.e., on the original target slide). Future

research efforts should closely evaluate the time of feedback (e.g., immediate,

delayed, etc.), the "orm of feedback (e.g., millimeters, number of errors,

lapse time, etc.), and the quaitL-v of feedback relative to the capacity of

the capacity of the p.AcLicipant to process information in the allotted time.

Significant differences were revealed in Phase III between personnel with

no prior training an,- personnel in their eighth week of Basic Armor Training

on three job 7aniple tasi.cs. However, no difference in job sample task performance was found For participants In the feedback and no feedback groups.

Several of the reiationships between job sample measures and tank gunnery performance found in Phases I and I of this research did not obtain in Phase III

when personnel who had no hands-on gunnery experience served as research participants. However, onc new measure method, difference scores, did show

promise. Finally, n(. relationship was found between ASVAB based gunnery predictors and performnrce of gunners in Lheir first live firing experience.

Phase I and II iesearch pnrticLpants were recent Armor OSUT (MOS 19E)

graduates who were tested on Job sample tasks at the end of their 13th week of

training just prior to their first live firing experience. However, Phase III

participants, had no fecrmal gunnnry training or very little prior to job sample

testing. The findinV of significant differences between the two groups in

Phase TIT on job sample tasks most likely reflects the fact that job sample

scores are quantifying components of performance which are affected by experience. Thus, contrary to the suggestion made based on Phase II results, previous

methods of quantification must necessarily be measures of achievement rather

than aptitude. For this reason, a new method of quantifying job sample performance which took into account prior experience or training was evaluated. This

method relied upon the use of diffarence scores.

2 i
The Phase III attempt to quanr, ify E'rmprovemeat" and remove initial proficiency level from The measure, by The use cf d' fe,-erce scores, provided some

degree of promise at the BAT level. Becau,;e difference scores may reveal the

amount of improvement over trials, the significani positive correlations which

were obtained indicate that the -'eatey the Impri-vement The greater the number

of first rourd hits and the higher the total numibcr of h:lts. Thus, difference

scores, in a rather crude form are i'easurc!:: of tha '1aIity to learn." It is

this ability to leanl' which is Ke r.rcd :a as aptitude. To Find measures

which are predictive ol. :utu,:e pc for,.?aac bar¢ are not .s.everely affected by

training, one must firsL identify alyuicude6 Methodeiogy must thee be developed

to appropriately measuqe hse e''iie. fut:c resear-, must concentrate on

determining the mos a su:lta1le f ii h" -;ob samples that have

already been identitied as cri'ial "apL Ltcd-containiig components of specific tasks.

The failure of tm ASVAB based paper-a'c--rsccii predictors to crossvalidate to new samples came as iii m i rise :j, d ;erved to provide continued

support for the Eat-ot;, Bessemer, ad k(Is9i1nsea (:179) proposal that research

efforts should be directed Lo%.ard jrab s;amaiLe and s1iiulae-or techniques for predicting gunnery perfoi:naace.,

SUIIIIAIRY i""1 IThSL~

The research reporced hereiK :las designed cc evaluare several job sample

predictors' gunnery oar ,rance. Inc h firsT- ptbeLse of Lhe research a variety

of job samp .le asr,,w d T i . several measures of

tracking, sensing, end -and a,1u, t enL tasks, Tra _pi.g a diamond figure and

round sensing wvre bet c a .2d gnery ,o perforance. The fewer errors a

gunner/loader ,iade .a - . J 3,e h_ r ',e "ired the tank main gun.

Job sarmple nieas zrei ,..'11 were reaiteg Co ;eanero -perrarmance in the first

phase of the research, t re;ee-ovaiuate' nwa a nc. :iampe of research participants in the second p oes of the research. In addJtion, a unit-weighted prediction modei and a s!- regression model, bsed on7 Phase I results, were

applied to Phase it r,.t ac:ejnting for ,ppro.ih1atE!1y 35% of gunnery variance. Moreover, co .nparin o en job ;aumple scores of personnel who were either

given extensive ti. u gunr/oader .tte training in gunnery

(e.g., drivers), .u,Is .c ad a,s suggcsttrg u.;at the observed relationships

were best attribuL,-,,A], to measurao1+:+ent ofi ,it;,d ra ter than achievement level.

Consequently, the .ol n:o. enie wis de raee d holding promise as an

assignment tool C- 'a'', ,'-,-i , inirtg programs.

However, in Hhe ,--pn-:, -. pcLvaoup . evaluated job

samples were re-I: .- m Oe lRcccption Station (i.e.,

individuals having no :)11''r ,-,i'e y tr ,i.,; / md fr-om eighth week of BAT (Basic

Armor Tralning), a di le-ct - .o'i.-;1i.y identified Aob sample --

tank gunnery relatic.;h., was a -ted i :nass change from what could

be referred to as conerzcenT '.-ope: "trc Lt .i :-.search seemed to have a

degrading effect on 'io, swliple at o, Jp. T che ,roggestion from Phase II

that the job sample task. is n .rsired, r',b' r'd iptitude rather than achievement had to he t:--con;1c1,,-ro. A-; 1 r - , i ,.. .e io:hnc - quiantifying job sample

tests was chanKv,1r' 1n !2c*L :-mb,_ i,::, ;"rfoou:a.nc" over .ime rather than

absolute level hi . . u', . ae ann; o ,i ",: cl;te.o ps were once again

observable -- at leat for bAT .aevul pursu irwl1

9
The critical aspect of job samples as tank gunnery performance predictors

appears to be the methods used to quantify task performance. These methods must

account for prior experience (i.e., training) and accurately reflect the individual's potential for acquiring the necessary skills.

Job samples and associated simulation techniques show excellent promise as predictors of tank gunnery performance. Future research must place an emphasis

on the aptitude measurement methodology used to quantify both the job sample

tasks and the performance criteria.

28
REFERENCES

Alexander, L. T., Kepner, C. H., & Tregoe, B. B. The effectiveness of

knowledge of results in a military system-training program, Journal of Applied Psychology, 1962, 46(2), 202-211.

Bilodeau, I. M. Ch. 9 Information feedback, in Bilodeau, E. and Bilodeau,

I. M., Principles of skill acquisition. New York: Academic Press, 1969.

Eaton, N. K. Predicting tank gunnery performance (Research Memorandum 78-6).

Alexandria, VA: US Army Research Institute, February 1978.

Eaton, N. K., Bessemer, D. W. & Kristiansen. D. M. Tank crew position

assignment (Technical Report 391). Alexandria, VA: US Army Research Institute, February 1979.

Einhorn, H. J., and Hogarth, R. M. Unit weighting scheme for decision making.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1975, 13, 171-192.

Farr, L., O'Leary, S., and Bartlett, C. J. Effect of work sample test upon

self-selection and turnover ci iob applicants. Journal of Applied Psychology,

1973 (Oct), 58(2), 283-285+

Gobel, R. A., Baum, D. R., and Hagin, W. V. Using a ground trainer in a job

sample approach to predicting pilot performance, AF1RL TR-71-52. Nov 1971.

Goldstein, M., and Rittenhouse, C. H. Knowledge of results in the acquisition

and transfer of a gunnery skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1954,

48, 187-196.

Gordon, M. E. & Kleiman, L. S. The prediction of trainability using a work

sample test and an aptitude test: A direct comparison. Personnel Psychology,

1976, 29, 243-253.

Greenstein, R. B. & Hughes, R. G. The development of discriminators for

predicting success in armor crew positions (Research Memorandum 77-27).

Alexandria, VA: US Army Research Institute, December 1977.

Holding, D. H. Principles of training. New York: Macmillen, 1965.

Hunter, D. R. Development of an enlisted psychomotori/perceptual test battery

AFHRL TR 75-60. November 1975.

Hunter, D. R., Maurelli, V. A. & Thompson, N. A. Validation of a psychomotor/

perceptual test battery (AFHRL Technical Report 77-28). Lackland Air Force

Base, TX: Air Force Human Resources Laboratory, July 1977.

Ilgen, D. R., and Seeley, W. Realistic expectations as an aid in reducing

voluntary resignations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59, 452-455.

29
Jones, M. J., and Jehan, H. I. A procedure to improve gunner skills (Technical Paper). Ft Knox, KY: US Army Armor and Engineer Board, January 1978.

Kirk, R. E. Experimental design procedures for the behavioral sciences.

Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1968.

Lawshe, C. H., and Schucker, R. E. The relative efficiency of four test

weighting methods in multiple regression. Educational and Psychological Measure- ment, 1959, 19, 103-114.

Maitland, A. J., Eaton, N. K. and Neff, J. F. Cross-validation of predictor equations for Armor Crewman performance. (Draft Technical Report) Alexandria,

VA: US Army Research Institute, March 1980.

O'Leary, L. R. Fair employment, sound psychometric practice, and reality: A dilemma and a partial solution. American Psychologist, 1973 (Feb), 28(2),

147-150.

Pruitt, W. A. Basic assumptions underlying work sample theory. Journal of

Rehabilitation, 1970, 36(1), 24-26.

Schmidt, F. L. The relative efficiency of regression and simple unit predictor weights in applied differential psychology. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 1971, 31, 699-714.

Schmidt, F. L., Greenthal, A. L., Hunter, J. E., Berner, J. S., and Seaton, F. W.

Job sample vs. paper-and-pencil tests: adverse impact and examinee attitudes.

Personnel Psychology, 1977, 30, 187-197.

Siegel, A. I. and Bergman, B. A. A job learning approach to performance prediction. Personnel Psychology, 1975, 28, 325-339.

Stockbridge, H. C. W. and Chambers, B. Aiming, transfer of training, and knowledge of results. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1958, 42, 148-153o

Wernimont, P. F., and Campbell, J. Signs, samples and criteria. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 1968, 52, 372-376.

30
APPENDICES: Page

A. Sequence of Console Settings for FCCS Efagement Simulations 33

B. Table VI-M 37

C. Phase ! Means, Standard Deviations and Intercorrelation Matrix 41

D. Phase II Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelation 45

Matrix (N- 24)

E. Phase III Tracking Task Instructions 49

F. Phase III Sensing Task Instructions 53

G. Phase III Center-of-Mass Task Instructions 57

H. Table VI Tank Gunnery Score Sheet 61

i. Phase III Means, Standard Deviations and Intercorrelation Matrix 65

for Reception Station (N - 31) and BAT Personnel (N - 57)

J. Phase III Means, Standard Deviations and Intercorreiatlon Matrix 69

for Reception Station Personnel (N - 30)

K. Phase III Means, Standard Deviations and Intercorrelation Matrix 73

for BAT Personnel (N - 33)

31

... ... . ...... I I ... I .. i " .. ..... ".... II .mI ........... .. i i I
APPENDIX A

SEQUENCE OF CONSOLE SETTINGS FOR FCCS ENGAGEMENT SIMULATIONS

33

-UIEC G PNI A BLAhK-NOT 72 A

p
APPENDIX A

SEQUENCE OF CONSOLE SETTINGS FOR FCCS ENGAGEMENT SIMULATIONS

1. Sabot, L, 1000m

2. Heat, L, 1000m

3. Sabot, R, 1000m

4. Rep, L, 1000m

5. Heat, R, 1000m

6. Hep, R, 1000m

I. Sabot, L, 2500m, Start Range, Stop, 1500m, Start

2. Heat, Start

3. Sabot, R, 1000m, Start, Range, Stop, 1500m, Start

4. Heat, Start

5. Heat, L, 2500m, Start, Range, Stop, 1500m, Start

6. Sabot, Start

7. Heat, R, 1000m, Start, Range, Stop, 1500m, Start

8. Sabot, Start

9. Sabot, R, 1000m, Start, Range, Stop, 1500m., Start

10. Heat, Start

11. Heat, L, 2500m, Start, Range, Stop, 1500m, Start

12. Sabot, Start

35
APPENDIX B

TABLE VI-M

37

h1ECQD1MQ PAN BLANK-NOT n! =
TABLE VI-M

Engage- Range

ment Target in meters Engagement Technique Ammunition

1 Zero panel 1200 Precision Periscope HEAT

2 Stationary panel 1000 Precision Telescope HEAT

3 jving tank 700 Battlesight-Periscope HEAT

silhouette

4 Stationary panel 1400 Precision Periscope SABOT

5 Moving tank 700 Precision Telescope HEAT

silhouette

39

I-4EDIJQ R" BLANE-T 72LAJW
APPENDIX C

PHASE I MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS AND

INTERCORRELATION MATRIX

41

ilks"DINV pu
.0 N

C

I vs

I-II.

0

Ln W'D O'D 8,

z0 - m04 r4 0 0 afN

o 06**

8~ I r .-

*0 1

'-43

'.0 NO IflO ,a m p-.0 n0u m0 ,
APPENDIX T)

PHASE II MEANS,* STANDARD DEVIATIONS AND

INTERCOR2RELATION MATRIX (N-24)

454

45=ap~ A-NTn"
te.

ba

0

1-4'

f42

k 10 1

0 01

0 CL 6

.-. I0L37

BLNKNO 72a=
APPENDIX E

PHASE III TRACKING TASK INSTRUCTIONS

I.

I.

49

k-ecnDid O PLS BLANK-NOT 71 I
PHASE III TRACKING TASK INSTRUCTIONS

At this station you will participate in a tracking task. You will use

this equipment to perform the tracking task.

1. These are hand controls (point).

2. This is the palm switch on each side (point).

3. The hand control works only when the palm switch is depressed (show)

(move + to center).

4. Put both hands on the controls, look through the eyepiece here, and depress

the palm switch.

5. Turn the hand control to the right to make the crosshair appear to move to

the right; -- do it now. (HELP IF NEEDED.)

6. Turn the hand control to the left to make the crosshair appear to move to

the left; - do it now. (HELP IF NEEDED.)

7. Rotate the hand control back to make the crosshair appear to move up;

do it now. (HELP IF NEEDED.)

8. Rotate the hand control forward to make it go down; -- do it now. (HELP

IF NEEDED.)

9. To go on the diagonal, up and left, turn the control to the left, and

rotate backward; -- do it now.

10. To go down and righ; turn the control to the right and rotate forward; --

do it now.

11. Go back to the center.

12. To go down and left, turn left, and rotate forward; -- do it now.

13. To go up and right, turn right and rotate backward; -- do it now.

14. The more you turn the controls in one direction, the faster the crosshair moves.

51
You are to track this diamond design (indicate) by keeping these (indicate) cross-hairs in between the two lines (indicate). You will start from

here (the top) when I say "go" and track in the direction I indicate. When

you get back to the top I will say "stop." You will be scored on how fast

you track the design and how many errors you make. An error is scored when

the center of the cross-hair touches the black lines or goes outside the

black lines. Now I will give you 2 trials to practice. (Show the man how

to track the design -- once to the left and once to the right -- and then

allow the man two minutes of practice).

Now we are going to score your next 20 trials.

Feedback Only: At the end of each trial I will tell you how long it

took you to track the design and how many errors you made.

52
APPENDIX F

PHASE III SENSING TASK INSTRUCTIONS

53
PHASE III SENSING TASK INSTRUCTIONS

"At this station you will participate in a sensing task. The purpose of

this task is to determine if you can locate a flash of light on this screen."

At this point the T-scope was opened until the participant identified the

simulated round. He did not record his sensing of the round. Once he was

sure of the location of the round, the cycle was started to close the Tscope. Then the researcher continued to read the instructions. "That is what

it will look like, but it will only appear for a brief moment, like this."

The start button on the T-scope was pressed, at this point, to allow for a

simulated round flash to occur. The researcher would point to the approximate

location of the flash to facilitate the participant's sensing of the flash.

This would be repeated as many times as necessary to insure that the participant could see the flash. He did not record his sensing of the round. Then

the researcher returned the target slide projector to the first target slide

and continued to read the instructions. "There will be one flash at a time and

I will announce "on the way" prior to each flash. I have given you five pictures, one for each of the slides you will see. For each slide there will be

five flashes on or near a target that I indicate. Your task is to locate the

flash on the slide and place a dot in the same spot on the picture. In addition

you will place a number beside the dot to indicate which flash in the sequence

you just recorded. I will tell you the number to record." This was done prior

to giving the "on the way", i.e., "number one on the way". "If you are unable

to see the flash write "lost" and the "number" in the top-right hand corner of

your picture."

55

_- CE1Mojgl 12AJ o, 
Feedback Only: "At the end of each five round sequence I will score your

paper and tell you how many millimeters your recorded flash is from the true

location."

56
APPENDIX G

PHASE III CENTER-OF-MASS TASK INSTRUCTIONS

57
PHASE III CENTER-OF-MASS TASK INSTRUCTIONS

"In this task, you will be required to move the cross-hairs from the

center dot (identify) to the target I designate, and place the cross-hairs

in the center of that target. Do this as quickly as you can. You will start

on my command "go". When you have the cross-hairs on the center of the target, stop moving the hand control, and fire, as I do now." (Scorer, stop the

clock at this point.) "After you "stop," fire a three to four round burst and

then move the cross-hairs back to the center dot. You will be given eight

trials and each will be videotaped. Do not fire "on the move"|"

Feedback Group Only: "At the end of each trial you will be told how long

it took you to locate the center and fire, and the number of units you were

off the center."

"Are there any questions?"

Scorer Instructions

Have the man locate the center-of-mass for the targets in this order:

1st-top left target; bottom right target; 3d-top right target; 4th-lower left

target.

Record total time from "go" to "fire.'

59

jkAMD3IM PAUS SAM-*"
!4

APPENDIX H ,1

TABLE VI TANK GUNNERY SCORE SHEET

61
TABLE VI TANK GUNNERY SCORESHEET

GUNNER NAME SCORER NAME

DATE WEATHER TANK'

TARGET (RANGE) SIGHT TO BE USED (AMMf40)

1. ZERO PANEL (1200m) PERISCOPE (HEAT)

2. STATIONARY TANK (lO00m) TELESCOPE (HEAT)

Rd I Rd 2

H Ii

M M

3. MOVING TANK (BATTLESIGHT) PERISCOPE (HEAT)

Rd 1 Rd 2 ____________

H H

M M

4. STATIONARY TANK (1400m) PERISCOPE (SABOT)

Rd I Rd 2

H H

M M

S. MOVING TANK (700m) TELESCOPE (HEAT)

Rd 1 Rd 2

M M

First Round Hits Second Round Hits

0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 S

Total Number of Hits _erified by Hole Count?

S ES NG________ N

63

VAiIClJ1G PWS EMS-O 71 LA
APPENDIX I

PHASE III MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS

AND INTERCORRELATION MATRIX FOR RECEPTION STATION (N-31)

AND BAT PERSONNEL (N-57)

65

i-i4CED1NG P* S ANE-N T 1UM
- 1~

9. a 0% 4-' 0

o I

II

~ -o '- 0

K ~.

o 4, -

z

H -4

C -~

to .. ('4 $4 '.4 ~ 0 0

I ' 0 ~ ~- K'-'

U 4,0

I..-.-

-4 0 0 0

o 4

p4.4

-~ 0% a -~ 0 o ..~ ~ 44' 9-4 0 -~ 9-4 49..-. 0 .4 4 4,

4, 0 r~ 4,

~ 9. a a a a'

0 4 a 4, 0 .4 '4 4

oil, .s~ H 4 0 ('4 4 ('4 4 4' "

9-4,, 9.9. 4 .

u4*. 4--

F-4~ q14.. 0 0% H 0 'S 444 - 4

4- 4, 0 4, 4, - H 0

4 -'

.. a 4 40 -~ a -: 4 4, 04

(.4 0 4, 0 0 0 -4 - (N

00 9.9. 4, .-4 (.4

~ H 4 P. (N 44-. - 0 4

4% 40 -' - 0 .~ 0 H

-. 4, a a -' a N -~ 0 - H P. 4 4 r~ ~4 4, 0

44 . . - . 9 -

-~ H 4, 4, H 0) 4, 4 P. 4,

4, 9*1

o 4, a 4 (44 4 a 0 O~ - 4

H .~ - ~

9. .~ C H 4 0 -' 0 4, 4

9 * 4 4 9 1-4 4- 4-44 4-4 0.' 4-' 4-' 4-- 4-- 4-, 4-' -~

4 0% 4 4 .-4

! -4 (- 4, 4, 4 p 0 0 .- 0% (~' ~ .0

- a a *-- 0 a (44 a 4, 4 0 a a - -4 0 7- '0

54 ~ '.4 ('4 4, 4, 40 444 - - C

('4 ('4 -4 .

4-- 74

to 04 H

U, a ,0 a 4 - a a 0% 4, Ji~I 7. 0 - -

f 0 4, .00,0

4- 4-, 4-' 4-- ~gw 0% 0% 4 0 '0 4 .4 .4 4, 444 4, P. 44' H 94- 0 -' .44 0

H 9. I

9- 44 949. ~ 4 4 .4

0 4 4 4 4 444 9. 9.

9-S 9... (4(4 (44. 0 I '4*. 4 .4 4 t4~

4,- 4-4 ~fl ~ Nfl (.4

67

j~4C5DIMG im~S EhiC-NOT T1i.h~
APPENDIX J

PHASE III MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS

AND INTERCORRELATION MATRIX FOR RECEPTION

.STATION PERSONNEL (N=30)

69

MWS AE-N TlUM
oo

PIn

z

om

71 "

PAHLm-w ia
APPENDIX K

PHASE III MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATTONS, AXE

INTERCORRELATION MATRIX FOR- BAT PERSONNEL (N=33'

73

hiEOD P3uAw-um1 no 11um
*1

- -4 4

00 0,

n0

E4-

04

93. 4 .. e $

d 4.. N C7I

ikwus ammL~m-wIna
BEST AVAILABLE COPY

. PI', MMA . AI', I 'q I .:1 1 HA k "",

I ig" -K 'l. EAA ,-L '4G k L 180td I , A10 f A rI - - L, 0 1113

I I A A, AIlN: ATCAT-01, - C L[TER (?P t A741 AIA, "

HLA~., lLAiNjm AS!,, I , I Ill, A , A L A E' L ,4,,,, III 'I', .I l AIIO ,AL ,l, 1 A'Mt : r 1 ' A' - . C ;, V AL P R9 ;IN'IL k t,'; D L.', LIiUPAPf, A!T,: COD PI06

'",I r+.A tIJ L ,1 : Ai Hc", F1Ci,A I T, 1.! ,"f +ul.A. RI,1TTX ,, TL, TLLH t A'TN q., Lil .1 1)7

d: fj, il'l.: , hl'A i I .',A Cflt f fU fAl :i CL % I',L N:, . ", 

L fCARY (DOclimiNTS5

''CU'n nb'.l ll" . Al ,RI.T[' l, ,AC L SIt' ,hA Abl AA-I',l AI .. :',, A,4 A RIr[R ILI7 l 1ANPAL, A'II %u 

1fef-f 'Tj ir~." Cl' 5A M!, 0R KIIA' !;4iACLVSIS 4!'~1I! AN EVAL-JATION SF

I 'UA CU .. 4, ATTN: ;Y'AL-f.,,-RHt ., Cj'.'lA IA TO *,iY,:Ti STATIU lCU

I WA ABRA LUM, ATfIN: AT I -L-AC U.PA [JPT ." ,I;0I AAL SCI A ) LIADARSH01

I IA F' LW A MAPf IA, Kjl"' ,)P.;' , rfl: i I C I T[ h:,O'INI UER2 T' l krL-IWANC[ ANILSSMENT LABORATORY

1A I'AlII;'., 0%. MARINI COPPS. ATIN: COL I4i-j A CO'MC NA! UE . A TAFF COLLEGE. ATTN: LIBRARY

.1 ,M IIMI 0R4i'l AND SE VA!,li AkMY IU',A TRA%'[Pu RTOION ',6A'L , USA TH;kNSP irrCH INFO AND RCII CAI

I '4I IAI UIYI',IION AN[I fI. IIT iV, A IN: .AF !N-'I -

'T- T IW C PRONAM MANUA 'A ' A HUMAN iERFORMANCL

Ir.,, 141t11 NI IllS ANIl 'Jl1.iUlII ( CL"NI, AfrTO: IAI',-T L T I IA MimIi IN !IllNI(At Rf SEAci) BRANCH L IBRARY

ii IRA!,( lill r Al Ilh llh, '. I IiL ARTY li

IIAVAL .H', I ' Il lAlMtINi 0 N, AITN I CI+l,I AL LI LAkY 1 .iAT CI LAR'. i(NUuil FOR MLN1AL ilAL1H INFO, PARKLAWN BLDG

1II ITARYi 'ICl;!i'ATIIIIAt IiVLOr'L III"IE fII 1 RA11 L. AtI %: A I1 - I UTOf T A, [S I OR C, :'uL ICA1ION ,SCH k tliR-'4', . MI, I 1. II AN I1CTI II 1N.TITL F OR blI .N'.1 ANALYSEU

)AIA ,AI U' IVICIIEN. 0114' Al/I-C'+,,-MI, Hl U'LAI L4MAlI L1 A1'1 TA UI'RCPT UIiTLA. ATT14: AIIC-DST-PA

I M HILPLIN, Al I1: OAPt-POU-T Al-'. I':i)IC O l'

!10H IN A plII IVII N I U',A MhiLItIY [QJIPMf';T RPAND I COMMAND, ATTN: 0RM-ZG"

I QLA, ARM, FORCE YOUORIIlIATIUI. (ALRTT|, OPTI'A+ JfF IT DA US ARMY RETRAUIIIG BOE RISEARCII * LVALUATION DIVISION

Hl~ti A, AlIN: VAUG-VIP I UA AER TA'.NU:(AL RASLARCH LAB, SIENTrIrFI INFORMATION CENTER

I NAVAL All ",YSTEM CUOIiANDI IRAYrILO SfAVIcE COMPANY, SI'[NCIR LABORATORY

I I;'IV ARII HAV r 

hlNTIU I US MILITARY ACAUIM DEPT. OF II!,TORY, BLDA 601

1 0'. ARMY 'MIlIPIIR %11 II'IMI IER. ATII: Ar,,-,.iu 104. 5AVIlfl CC I MARAIL LURF'C INiT,1 L

I iRA?! (if IIRAININt.. R'l, Ai-I I I'AOAS;L AlA, . U 'I N*ll ATIN: ATI(-I S

I ll IrA{I ll OfI.IMNAT Ii'I I'YIENS. AIIN: 111- ,-l 1 ' Al-NI AV 1f, I IIIRARY, A T I : CHIILE LIBRARIAN

I lWi'IkIi ,.OM MAdINI 11,11 pN 100 l", A LAC I U A AId UiIL 1 " , A1L OTI: TIL ATSA-UT

I ARIMIN ll ill .1111 AUMt iiC ARMY INtLLIGENLL FCUAIt CO.MAND I UJAAVN(, ATTN: AT11'-U

I .A MI'.SI1 EUWANII. Alir: I;IUMl-NIN I U, MILITARY ACAAMI. DIRECTOR OF INISTITUTIONAL RSCH

AI 4A . AITN LRLPM-IUD-TD I USA AIR DLFiN',E SCARI61L. ATTN: ATSA-CD-MS

I ACA F(IUArC 1 U.A' JAADS-LI BRANY-DOCUi"NINS

I I 'M l - I ASA AIR DIF[INSI OAD, ATTN: FILES REPOSITORY

UI 411 IARI ISIRICI lIF WASHIINGTON OFC ,TF 0UA CI-PI' AA111f I USA INFANTRY BOARD. ATTN: AT76-IB-AE

I NAVAL CVII IAN PIIRONNEI. CtioR S uTHiERN ID DIV I UAA ItST[LLICANCE CITN AND SCH, ATTN: ATSI-DOJtD-SF

* O0 AII LIRISAII OC RIIlJaC (IN Au, S.1, ATTN: ATSL-ID-TAC

I fll ARMY IIIAINING CIMMANID u',A ARMOR C~l00 , ATIN: AtIK-ID

I 141, hI',ll'", UNII IRAINI/M, I USA ARMOR (IILR, l1IRt.lCIiAOIL Of COMBAT DEVEIIOPMLNTS

I IQIIA. ilI.',lII", IAINIRG DIRILLIIAIL I NAVAL P(CI(.RCIANTI '.H, AITN.: DUDLEY KNOX LIBRARY (COOL 1424)

IRIO IIIC4; MANILNANCI M ANAGLMLNI I ACA IRANSWORTA] lAT SLICIOL, DEPUIY ASST. COVMOANT EIDUCA.

1IIA, IVS 11D O4 ILL TF'IINOLOGY

I 1b NAVY TRAINIG ANALYSIS FVAIUAION GRO' USA SIGAL SCWOOL AND FT. DORDON, ATTN: ATZ-ET

I UACULC. ATTN: A[IC-FX-L. HIIMAN FACTORS I USA QUARTERMASTilr %C, ATTN: AT1M1-TNA-T-ET

1 ATIN: SM-AlC1I1.IPR I USA MILITARY POLICE RCHOOL, ATTN: LIBRARY

I INTR-IiNIV ',MIIUAH ON ARMID FORCES - SO UA AARMOR CFNTEP 4 FT. K'IIPr OFFICE OF ARMOR FORCE MGT

I OAA (RDA) DLPiIlY FOR SCILNCE ANO TECIHNOLOGY - S'ANOARDIZATIO1

I 11IC (if NAVA Ri ,Ak1 l I CRi1 Of NIAVAL [PYCAI ION AND TNG

; A11 llhl I iSA SNIICA :, '101,OL " IT. lORDON, IIUCAIIONAL TECHNIOLOGY DIVISION

I- AIAlI ! t t I ,Rl, tl'T: TRAINI!, %YTLHS I 0VIIOI'MINI

I AlR iliI 11101AN EI'ihlh'li" IA. AIlS 41 111 ' I'M I iJA lwll1rU51 ION MIIlIARY AS'.I',IAICI , ATI: AISUID-T A

IAl A111 Iill I tSAISU, 0 IN: AILT -tIIt

I14AVY I iIRN ItI H AND1 0 II111ILR l l I 0UH DI lI IIIRAM', I US ARMY ARMOR CrNlil, ATTN: ATIK-TD.1rMO

I MAVY PtRINNII R ANII [ LINIE 1 USA AIR DEFENSE CLIR. FT. BLISS. ATTN: ATIC-DIN

OC .4 TAVAL RESEARI PERSONNEL AMD TRAISING RLSLAkCiI PROGRAMS I USA QUARTERlIASTER SCHOOL, OIRECTORATE OF TRAINING DEVELOPMENTS

I NAVAL FFRSCYIN[i R * 0 CENTER I US COAST GUARD ACADEMY

I UC tE IfAVAL RiSLARCII PROJECT OFFICER. ENVIRONMENTAL PHYSIOLOGY I USA TRANSPORTATION !HO-, DIRECTORATE OP TRAINING * DOCTRINE

1 UFC Of NAVAL ISCH O4GANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS PRO. I UA INFANTRY SCHOOL LIDRARY

I NAVAL AENOSPACE MELDICAL RSCII LAB1, AIIA311L RANGER RESEARCH 1 USA INIANTRY SCHOOL, ATTN: ATSH-I-V

I DEPT. OF NATIONAL DEFENSE. DEFENSE AN CIVIL INSTITITE OF 1 US ARMY INFANTRY SCHOOL. ATTN: ATH-CO

EIEAIR MID 1 USA INFANTRY SCHOOL, ATTN: ATSH-DOT-LRO

I IAVAI AIROSPACC MIEI(IAL RCII LAB, AERIDPACE PSYChOLtRA PEARTMENT I uSA INFANTRY SCHOOi., ATTI: ATl-EV

4 IlS INA.L)OC ',YSTEMS Al LE'IS ACTIVITY, AITN: ATAA-TCA I ESA MP CHM SCH/TIG CE FT. MCCLELLAN. ATTN: ATZN-PIS

I I AIA IOAR IRSR . 'OAST GIIAIRD. CIII ', F ,('HIIOLIIICAI ASCI1i IIR I USA 4P CiAM '. /TNG CIN IT. MCCLELLAN, DIR. LOMDAT DEVELOPMENT

I lA RILSIANLI TAN ILICNOLIY IAI. ATY: 0AVDL-AS (OR. 14. S. DUNN) I USA MP CI EM _,'TNG CEN - T, MCCLELLAN. DII, TRAINING

I USA fhGINLLk IOIPIKRAPIC LARS, AMN [IL-EI DEVELOPMENT

I SA IBILITY QUIPMNM II AND D COMOEI. ATTN: 'RHOPt-IO1 (SC IOL) I USA MP . CHEM -SCH/TG CEN - FT. MCCLELLAN, ATTN': ATZ-.P-ACE

I 11141T VIS1ON LAB. AIIN: DRSEL-NV-SOO 1 USA INSTITUTE OF ADMINISTRATION, ATTN: RESIDEIh TRAIIII|G

I lISA TRAININg3 BOARD, ATTN: ATTG-ATB-TA MANAGEMENT

1 ISA IUMAN ENGINEERING LAB 1 USA FIELD ARTILLERY SCHOOL, MORRIS SWETT LIBRARY

I USA MATERIEL SYSTEMS AALnSIS ACTIVITY. ATTN: ORXSY-C I 1.A INSTITUTE OF ADMINISTRATION. ACADEMIC LIBRARY

1 BATTELLE-C..INBI8 LABORATORIES, TACTICAL TECHNICAL LFC I USA WAR COLLEGE, ATTN: LIBRARY USA ARCTIC TIST GEM. ATN: 44STE-FL-TS USA ENGINEER ST.DOL, LIBRARY AND LEARNING RESOURCES CENTER

1 USA COLD REGIONS T1S CN, ATTN: STEER-OP I USA ARMOR SCHOOL (USAARMS), ATTN: LIBRARY

I USA CONCEPTS ANLVSS ,GCY, ATTN: CSIA-ROP 1 US COAST GUARD ACADEMY. LIBRARY

I LISA CONCEPTS ANALYSIS AACE, ATTN: CSCA-JF 1 USA TRANSPORTATION SCHOOL, TRANSPORTATION SCHOOL LIBRARY

1 DEFENSE LANGIIAGE IN.JITUTE, FORIGN LANGIIAE CEN 1 ORGAIIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS CCN + SAl. ATTN: LIBRARIAN

I N WRAIR DIV Of INIF$ROPSV11AIRY 1 US ARMY ItiTELLIGENCE CENTER + SCHOOL, A1TT: ATSI-TD

I UsACACDA. ArM: AZL-CA-IE I US ARMY INTELLIGENCE CENTER • 

SCHOOL, ATTN: ATSI-RM-M

I USACACDA, AITN: NIZL-CAC-IM I USA FIELD ARTILLERY SCHOOL, DIRECTORATE OF COURSE DEV

1 IISACAC, ATTN: AILL-CAC-iA * TRAINING

I -1ACACDA. ATTN: ATZL-CAC-A . i OEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR UNIVERSITY LIBRARY (ATC)

1 USA ASCH DEVEL - STONDARDIZA GP, U.X. 1 MO TRADOC TRAINING DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE

j USA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMER" LABS, 'HIEF, BEH4AV SCIE;CES DIV, 2 BRITISH EMBASSY. BRITISH DEFEICE STAFF

FOOD SCI LAB 2 CANADIAN JOINT STAFF

1 TRAJARA. ATTN: SAUS-OR I.CDLS (W) LIBRARY

HQDA IFENCH AR Y ATTACH

I NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, ATT1: AIR-31 1 AUSTRIAN EMBASSY DEFENSE. MILITARY AND AIR ATTACHE

1 US'LMEC IUELOICAL INRHRMAIIEI CCENTET 3 CANADIAN DEFENCE LIAISON STAFF. ATTNI COUNSELLOR. DEFENCE

I USARi, LIBRARY R AND I

HUAM RESOURCES RSCH Ol (HUMARO) 1 ROYAL NETHERLANDS' EMBASSY MILITARY ATTACHE

I SEVtLLE RESEARCH CORPORATION 1 CANADIAN FORCES BASE CORNWALLIS, ATTN: PERSONNEL SELECTION

I USA TRAOC SVSLMS ANALYSIS ACTIVITY. ATTN: ATAA-SL (TECHl 2 CANADIAN FORCES PERSONNEL APPL RSCA UNIT

LEBRARN) 1 ARMY PERSONNEL RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT

I UNIFORMED SERVICES UNIT OF THE HEALTH SCI DEPARTMENT OF I LIBRARY OF COtGRESS EXCHANGE AND GIFT 1V

PSYCMIATRY I DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CEN, ATTN: OTIC-ODA-2

I USA COMPUTER SYSTEMS COMMANO, ATTN: COMMANO TECHNICAL LIBRARY N-9 140 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. UNIT DOCUMENTS CXPEDITING PROJECT

I MUAmN RESOURCES RSCM ORG (MUPRRO) 1 US GOVERNMENT PRIITIN OFEC. LIBRARY, PUBLIC DOCIENTS DEPARTMENT

I HIIMARO LIBRARY 1 US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFEC LIBRARY AND STATUTORY, LIB DIR (SLL)

I BATTELLE REPORTS LIBRARY 1 THE ARMY LIBRARY, ATTN: ARMY STUDIES SEC

I BANE CORPORATION 3 ROYAL ARMY EDUCATIONAL CORPS CENTRE, ARMY SC4OOL OF TRAINING

1 RAND CORPORATION, AITN: LIBRARY 0 SUPPORT

BESTAVAILABLE Copy L '7 J : ' .. ' ;,+