Technical Paper $30 1/U/ [AD

CADET EVALUATION BATTERY: MAA' ,-4A COMPARISON OF 1975 MALE AND'FEMALE

SSCORES WITH ONE ANOTHER AND WITH 1971MALE SCORES

4

E. Sue Mohr and Michuel G. Rumroey

LU PERSONNEL ACCESSION AND UTILIZATION TECHNICAL AREA

C~ID

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

September 1978

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

1 j•) olO),,,1U

U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of threDeputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

¶ WILLIAM L. IIALUSHE

JOSEP11 ZEII)NIIRK 011(lonl, US Arm~yTedmiciaI Di)mcitw tnnan

13~11k) PiNiq Nlm 61bloll0 th~is Mri hot been meW by AAt, Please 64ddvtu coittae4ondonc#

itIty" S11 00vbutIO" Of M~otr%* 1W U, 3. Am'V 11010maicl lou~tute for the. w avtieo l ond soc~ial Scititces,ATIN t40f1' IO eLw. vne A1001111111r*e VW4ini 223~31

the LU 11 Animv Mismach instijuisto, lgth. oethaiorsi anj Social smoiene,

STho findmosJ wi tiil. teglog agei ,tt to, lie kjtjviostde as an ofluolel L~~ i~ Of the Avmy Iposifitmi.%W1666 t U1 sgntu b*10 1 '0 OhV i 01o thotatdttlCflejt

Unclas If iod19CURITY CLASSIPIOAY10w of THIN IAG64Wn ot hf(

REPRT DOCUMEVT-AT1ON PAGE KA NTUTM1. IMPORT MU111111 ATAL04 HUMNIEN

Techxnical Paper 330 '

DE fLT EVALUATION (ATTE1SO OF1 75

WITH1971MALZSCOHS o . P9 P@RMIN@ 0110. AtPO"T Humes"

10 E. Sue Mohr 00Michael1 G. WYBy IPERFORMING ORGANIZATION HAN19 AND ADDRIIS 10.I KAEL Ja TP ITAS

U.S. AmIy Research Institute for the Beohavior ~ w~ UqRCTSand Social ScieneeS (P1ERI-IL) / 2Q763731A7685001 2Ei~enhower Ave., Alexandria, Virginia 22330-

11, CONTROLLING CIPPICK HMAN AND A0004ES8

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personneol / S'Washington, DC 20110

4 MON-ITOKING AGENCY NAME & ADORE1091tlo fe fft UZr~lhid owes) s, 61cuitITY cLAXs. (at this tepol)

L. unclassi fied

Approved for public release: distribution unlimited

17. GISTRIUUTIOM STATICM4Tr (of th. aoetottI 4"W"fe to slosh *00 It i111ot eN" ftreort)

It, SUPPLEMENTARY MOTES%

10. KRY WORDS (Coiiiout om rovotooelde O noceomoo andid I~tir 6Y &took "40wib

Army IRoservo Officers4' Training Cops (ROTC)Cc-qnitivti And nonvognitive measkresSax differellonsOffictor selection test

14l AUSIT1 ACT (C00=w on #*=soe Wo 11 ho**06" OW t*01epf bp bWoeS wmome)J '~rh~present study com~pared male and female performatice on the Cadet

L Laiiation flattory (CED~) , a measixre of A~rmy off icer potential, and comparedMile scores achieved ill two testing periods 4 yeaars aipart. Trhe CEB1 wasadministerod to 637 male cadets in the 2d year (Militairy Scionce 11) ofthe Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps ('R01C) in .197.1 and to 1,035 fomaloand 926 male appl.icants in the 3d year of ROTC (MS ItI) in 1975. Cognitivescale *core* from the 1971 saiele were superior to the coqnitive scores --

DO maiA10 a I47 Ibt@@'to I Lalt'1 (

"5CUAITV CA.AWPICATIGOW or V040 PAMOIWM me &*"a

Z2<.?IAbstract (on~tinued)for both the male and female 1975 sample.. while the noncognitive scores forthe 1975 male group exceeded those for the 1971 group on three of four scales.These results were discussed in terms of changes in the nature of the IRMpo~pulation following the cessation of the draft. Comparisons between maleand female &cures from the 1975 sample. indicated that females tended toperform as competently as males on the cognitive scales but revealed thatmale performance was superior an all four noaclognitive scales. Discussionof the sex differences obeerved focused on the use of all-male samples inbtlio develoreeent of the CHB.~

I I Unclassified

Tsohulcu Piper 330

CADET EVALUATION BATTERY:A COMPARISON OF 1975 MALE AND FEMALE

SCORES WITH ONE ANOTHER AND WITH1971 MALE SCORES

E, fSu Mohr and Michael 0. FRumsey

and

Anthony E. Castelnovo, Work Unit Leader

PERGONNEL ACCESSION AND UTILIZATION TECHNICAL AREA

Submitted as complete and Approved SyiteahMI44llY gCcurate, by!Rap A, center Eý Ralph Duse k DirectorTechrnlcal AroaChief INDIVIDUAL;TRAININGk AND PERFORMANCE

RESEARH L~brAoRy

Joseph ZeldnerTEHICAL DIRECTOR

US, ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexamdria, Virginia 22333

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for PersonnelDepartment of the Army

September 1976

Army Project Number Officoer Careers

ApWred too PUbMba r*%ee,: distsitbulln unlmliited.

ARI Research Reports and Technical Papers are intended f or sponsors ofR&D tasks and other research and military agencies. Any findings ready forimplementation at the time of publication are presented in the latter part ofthe Brief. Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formal recommen-dations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate militaryagencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

FOREWORD

The Personnel Accession and Utilization Technical Area of the ArmyResearch Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) is con-cerned with providing integrated sets of techniques to support Armypersonnel management systems. Early identification of officer leadersand development of officer leadership from cadet training through com-pany and field grade assignments are of major concern in the managementof the Army's manpower resources. ARI conducts research to providescientific means of identifying individuals with good leadership poten-tial for officer training, selecting officers for commissioning, andevaludting their performance.

The Cadet Evaluation Battery (CEB) was developed as an end productof a program undertaken to meet the need for improving the selectionand assignment of personnel in accord with their capabilities to meetdiffering leadership requirements. The program evolved in response torequirements and recommendations of the Army Scientific Advisory Panel(ASAP) and the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (DCSPER).

The CEB is essentially a refined and reduced version of the Differ-ential Officer Battery (DOB) . Technical Research Report 1173 presentedthe major psychological factors derived from officer responses to testsof the experimental DOB and described the reduction of the measuresobtained to a manageable number of experimental predictor scores. Di-mensions derived from a factor analysis of actions observed at an OfficerEvaluation Center (OEC) simulation, which was developed to test the pre-dictive validity of the DOB, are described in Technical Research Report1172. Research Report 1182 examined the extent to which DOB scores wereassociated with differential performance in the OEC exercise and successin combat and technical/administrative assignments.

The transition from the experimental DOB test battery to the opera-tional CEB battery necessitated the collection of normative data fromthe relevaut cadet group. These data were collected on male studentsin the Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps by Richard D. Doorley in1971. The present publication uses normative data recently collectedto coutpare male and female performances and compares these recentnormativ, data with those collected in 1971. It carries forth the" .,lt ion and as:; iqpnent proqram responsive to the roconueordatjiots OfAl.;AP and , X1CSPER a-; well as to the objectives of Arnmy 'ro ject.

. ',;I,'7 IlAVI, FY l377 Work lProqram.

I. I NE

CADET EVALUATION BATTERY: A COMPARISON OF 1975 MALE AND FEMALEI SCORES WITH ONE ANOTHER AND WITH 1971 MKALE SCORES

BRIEF I<IRequirement:

To compare male and female performance on the Cadet Evaluation'Battery (CEB) and to examine changes in male CEB performance between1971 and 1975.

Procedure:

The CEB was administered to 637 male cadets enrolled in the 2dyear--Military Science (MS) 11--of the Army Reserve Officers' TrainingCorps (ROTC) in 1971 and to 1,035 females and 926 males applying forenrollment into the 3d year (MS Ill) of ROTC in 1975. CEB scale andsubscale scores were compared for all three samples.

Findings:

Cognitive scale scores from the 1971 sample were superior to the"cognitive scores for both the male and female 1975 samples, whereas thenoncognitive scores for the 1975 male group exceeded those for the 1971group on three of four scales. The 1975 female sample achieved higherscores than the 1975 male sample on two of the three cognitive scales,but the 1975 male group was superior to the female sample on all four

*• noncognitive scales.

Utilization of Findings:

The findings will (a) heip determine the extent to which the CEBwill be used for female cadets and the manner in which female CEB scoreswill be interpreted and (b) be used to establish new CEB norms.

.. '.

CAMET EVALUATION BATTERY1 A COKPARXSON OF 1975 MALE AND FEMALESCORES WITH ONE ANOTHER AND WITH 1971 MALE SCORES

CONTENTS

Page

INTIODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Procedure . . . . . . . . . . 214 4 O . 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .*

C CLSubjec s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

j LIST OF TA3LE8

Tabla I. Raw mean s-cores and standard deviati.on* on Cza scale$forT1971 .id.1975 samples ....... ................ 4

2. Ct t**t cIPOrison ofsample means . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3. Raw msubascalo means, standard deviations and t valuesfor 1975 mAle and females .... ....... 6

'- ,

I I

•, •. . . . . ~

CADT EVALUATION BATTERY: A COMPARISON OF 1975 MALE AND FEMALESCORES WITH ONE ANOTHER AND WITH 1971 MALE SCORkS

INTRODUCTION

The Cadet Evaluation Battery (CEB) has been used operationally asa diagnostic measure of officer potential of cadets in the Army ReserveOfficers' Training Corps (ROTC) since 1972. The CEB consists of twoprimary parts: the Cadet Evaluation Test (CET) and the Cadet EvaluationInventory (CEI). The CET provides a measure of the-cadet's cognitiveabilities in the areas of combat leadership, technical managerial lead-ership and career potential. The CEI provides a noncognitive measureof the cadet's interests in the same three areas as well as a measureof the cadet's career intent.

The CEB represents the culmination of a lengthy and comprehensivetest development process. An early predecessor was the DifferentialOfficer Leadership (DOL) Experimental Test Battery, which was adminis-tered experimentally to a male officer sample in 1958-1959. Based onthe results of analyses on this sample, the DOL was refined to becomethe Differential Officer Battery (DOB) (Willemin, 1964). Pactor analy-ses were conducted on individual tests or groupings of tests comprisingthe DOB (Helme, Willemin, a Day, 1971), followed by validational analy-ses based on an all-male sample in a simulated combat situation on theresulting scales (Helme, Willemin, & Day, 1974). The validational datawere then used to select scales from four information tests, two self-description inventories (Differential Inventory-A and DifferentialInventory-B), an attitudinal inventory (Individual Understanding Test),and a questionnaire on demographic and background information (PersonalData Record). Also, a new scale, based partly on items from an instru-ment entitled the Officer Assignment Questionnaire, was added. Itemsfrom these scales were combined to form the CEB, with the informationtests providing the cognitive items and all other tests providing thenoncognitive items.

The validational analyses on the DOB indicated that combat cogni-tive and noncognitive scales incorporated into the CEB were predictiveof combat leadership performance, and that technical-managerial cogni-tive and noncognitive CEB scales were predictive of leadership perfor-mance in technical and managerial roles.

The career potential and career intent scales are used to predictwhether the cadet will pursue an Army officer career.

OBJECTIVES

The contoint of C2) scales and means and standard deviations of CEBscalo scorkta were determined on the basis of malt siamples, In recentyears, fwmalos have been entering FOX in increasing numbers; therefort?,so th0u the CE14 will be optivally useful for assessment and counselingof women, normative information regarding female CES performance isn:eded. The present study was designed to provide such information.Also, because no standardixation information on males had been colloctedsinco 1971, a new sample of oales was tested for comparison with boththo 1971 sample and the female sample.

MEHOD

Subjects

In 1971, a sample of 637 wale cadets enrolled in Military Science(MS) Ii from R)TC host institutions was tested. 1 These schools wererepresentative in terms of academic level, cadet background, geographicaroa, and type (public, private, military).

The more recent samples comprised 1,035 female and 92t, male appli-cants for MS IIl, including both advancing MS II cadets and 2-year pro-gram applicants, in FY 1975 (school year 1974-75). Units were instructedto return tests mvpleted by all female applicants during FY 75 to ARI.Of a total of 291 units, 186 were identified as having sent tests forone or more female students. As some test information was not accoopa-nied by an identifiable school code, the nurmber of units contributingto this sample may have been somewhat higher. Also, among those notresponding, approximately 30 schools had no females attending MS IIduring school year 1974-75. Many of these schools may simply have hadno female applicants to MS IXI.

Male rosults wore randomly selected from a complete file of allmales taking the CEB in FY 1975 and also supplied to ARI.

Procedure

Th. CEB is a self-administored test battery developed by tho ArmyResearch institute. This battery consists of two test booklets, 7scales, and 23 subscales. One booklet, thu CET, contains the followingscales: Combat Leadorships Cognitive (CLC), Technical-Managerial Lead-ership: Cognitive (TMC); and Career Potential: Cognitive (CPC). TheCLC scale is composed of two subscalest Tactics and Practical Skills.

1 This data collection effort was conducted under the direction of

Richard ). Doorley.

i _ - _ _ _

There aro also two subscales for the TMC scale: History, Politics, andCulture, and Math/Physical Science. CPC is composed of a single sub-scale: Technology Operations.

The composition of the five CET subscales was determined by a fac-tor analysis of the DOB information tests (Helme, 1968a). Four of thesubscales (Practical Skills; History, Politics, and Culturea Math/Physical Science; and Technology Operations) emerged as factors in thisanalysis, while the fifth, Tactics, was a residual content scale,

The other booklet, the CEI, conthins these scales: Combat Leader-ship: Noncognitive (CLN); Technical-Managerial Leadership: Noncogni-tive (TMN); Career Potential: Noncognitive (CPN), and Career Intent.CLN contains these subscales: Nature Endurance; Combat Engineer; CombatLeader: Physical Leaderl Nonaesthetici and Organized Sports and OutdoorSkills. TMN includes these: Decisive Leader; Verbal/Social LeaderlRural versus Urban; Scientific Interest; Scientific Orientation; andMath/Physical Science Interest. CPN subscales are Administrator Non-interest; Administrative Noninterest; Combat; and Manual versus WhiteCollar Interest. Career Intent has but one subscale, Career Intent.

Of the 18 CEI subscales, 13 were derived from separate factoranalyses on each of the two self-description inventories: DifferentialInventory-A (Helms, 1968b) and Differential Inventory-B (Smith, 1968).Combat Leader and Scientific Orientation were factors on the IndividualUnderstanding Test, Rural versus Urban Interest and Math/PhysicalScience Interest were derived from the Personal Data Record. Finally,Career Intent was based partly on the Officer Assignment Questionnaireand partly on newly developed items.

In 1975, two forms of the CEB were in operational use. All sub1-Jects sampled that year received Form 1. The CET, Form 1, contains 100items with 4-response alternatives. The CEI, Form 1, contains 125 itemswhich have 2-, 3-, 4-, or 5-response alternatives. Nine CEI items arenot scored.

Subjects in the 1971 sample received an experimental form of theCEB. Items scored on this form were identical to those scored on Form. 1.The CEB was administered to students at the local ROTC units.

RESULTS

Standard deviations and mean scores for the 1971 sample and the1975 male and female samples were computed for each scale (see Table 1)Results of t tests comparing group means on each scale are shown inTable 2. Male means for 1971 were significantly different (p < .005)from male means for 1975 for each of the seven scales. on each of thethree cognitive scales, the performance of 1971 group was superior. Onall noncognitive scales except Career Potential the 1975 group achievedhigher scores.

V _3

I_|_ _ k•

Tabe Is1

Raw Mean Scores and Standard Deviationh on CED Scalesfor 1.971 and 1975 Samples

-1971 males 1975 males 1975 females

Scale x S.6D. M S.D. H SD

Combat LeaderthiptCognitive (CLC) 2),.59 5.03 18.07 6.6 16.90 4.86

Technical-ManagerialLeadershipt Cogni-tive (TM4C) 22.42 6.02 16.91 G3.53 18.74 5.70

Career Potential:Cognitive (CPC) 10.18 3.56 7.82 4.05 8.06 2.83

Combat Leadership:

UNoncognitive (CLN) 23.48 6.33 25.84 5.71 19.44 6.11

Technical-ManagerialLeadershipt Noncog-nitive (TteN) 21.77 6.54 22.72 5.54 21.85 6.10

Career Potential:Noncognitive (CPN) 14.56 6.23 13.45 5.16 10.54 5.37

Career Intent (CI) 3.63 2.50 5.34 1.94 5.03 2.06

4

Table 2

t Test Comparisons of Sample Means

High Medium Low t value t value t valueScale rank (1) rank (2) rank (3) (l)-(2) (2)-(3) (1)-(3)

CLC 1971 1975M 1975F 1l.14** 4.85** 24.84**TMC 1971 1975F 1975H 12.54** 6.70** 16.90**CPC 1971 1975F 1975M 13.45** 1.55* il.88**CLAN 1975M 1971 1975F 7.69** 12.95** 24,15**T• 1975M 1975F 1971 3.48** . 5 3•09**CPN 1971 1975M 1975F 3.84** 12.33** 13.96**CI 1975H 1975F 1971 3.48** 12.39** 15.20**

• p < ,0.**P < .005.

Comparisons between the 1975 females and the 1971 males revealeda significant (p - .005) superiority for males on five of the sevenscales. On one Beale, Technioal-Manageriali Noncognitive, no signifi-cant differences were foundi on Career Intent, the female scores weresignificantly (p < .005) higher.

Scores from the 1975 male sample were significantly (p < .005)higher than female scores on all four noncognitive scales. Males alsoscored significantly (p < .005) higher than females on the cognitivecombat leadership scale, while females scored higher (p < .005) on thecognitive technical-managerial scale. Females also scored higher onthe cognitive career potential scale, but the difference was not sig-nificant (.05 < p < .10).

Means for the 1975 male and female groups were computed and com-pared, using t tests for each subscale, as shown in Table 3. Male andfemale scores differed significantly (p < .05) on 18 of 23 subscalesiof these 18 differences, 15 favored males and 3 favored females.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The most striking result that emerges from a comparison of the1971 sample with the 1975 samples is the recent deterioration on thecognitive scales. Although some of the itemsn used have probably becomeobsolete since their incorporation into the DOL in the 1950's, suchobsolescence was probably almoat as evident in 1971 as ir 1975. An

LiI

Table 3

Raw Subscale Means, Standard Deviations, and t Valuesfor 1975 Males and Females

Subscalo Males (n - 926) Females (n - 1,035)(by scale) M S.D. N S.D. t value

I. CLCTactics 8.55 3,.62 8.26 2.69 2.03*

Practical Skills 9.53 3.96 8.53 3.18 6.34*

II. TMCHist/Pol/Culture 8.60 3.41 9.31 3.36 4.64*

Math/Phys. Sci. 8.32 3.99 9.43 3.23 6.80*

III. CPCTechnology Op. 7.82 4.05 8.06 2.83 1.53

IV. CLNNature Endurance 3.68 1.14 3.53 1.23 2.79*

Combat Engineer 4.41 2.20 2.12 2.09 23.62*Combat Leader 2.40 1.09 2.27 1.17 2.54*Physical Leader 3.40 1.31 3.40 1.22 --

Nonaesthetic 2.79 1.50 1.91 1.41 13.38'Org. Sports 3.21 1.24 3.12 1.28 1.58Outdoor Skills 5.97 2.00 3.41 2.19 26.91'

V. TMNDecisive Leader 6.88 2.00 6.70 2.28 1.85Verbal/Social Ldr. 6.11 2.02 6.50 2.16 4.11'Rural vs. Urban 3.16 1.20 3.13 1.26 .54Sci. Interest 2.10 1.22 1.90 1.16 3.72*Sci. Orientation 1.85 .89 1.57 .96 6.67*Math/Phys. Sci.

Interest 2.63 2.11 2.04 1.81 6.67*

Vi. CPNAdnminis trator

Noninterast 3.47 2.00 3.01 2.09 4.96*Admis h trative

Noniuterest 3.1,7 2.4,4 3.43 2.38 4.04*

Combat 4.08 2.19 2.35 2.14 17.67"Manual vs. White

Collar Int. 2.03 1.20 1.76 1.23 4.91"

VIT. CtCdIr(,' r £tntt 5.34 1.94 5.03 2.06 3.42*

P'ocni,,I i tio v,11W, Or 0 mean fimalp -icorq' based on malt, norms.

effort is currently in progress to replace questionable items. A moreimportant factor may well have been thQ change in composition of theROTC MS II population between 1971 and 1975. In 1971 the draft, byremoving the nonmilitary job options of many college students, madeROTC a relatively attractive choice for many who might not otherwisehave considered it. The competition for the limited number of ROTCspaces may well have produced a higher level of academic quality thanin 1975, when the draft was no longer a factor.

It should be noted that the 1975 sample included applicants tothe 2-year ROTC program as well as cadets enrolled in MS I1. An ex-posure to ROTC courses might be expected to improve scores on the combatcognitive scale, which has a number of items on military tactics. How-ever, such exposure would have no apparent effect on the technical-managerial cognitive scale, which is composed of history/politics/cultureand math/physical sciences subtests. Because the cognitive technical-managerial scores declined to an even greater extent than the cognitivecombat scores between 1971 and 1975, it does not appear that the inclu-sion of 2-year applicants was primarily responsible for the overallcognitive score deterioration.

Comparisons between the 1971 and 1975 male groups on the noncog-nitive scales revealed a trend markedly different from that found incomparisons of the cognitive scales. On each noncognitive scale exceptcareer potential, scores indicated that the 1975 group tended to havemore of the interests found to correlate with successful on-the-jobperformance than the 1971 group. These findings are again consistentwith an explanation based on the changing composition of the ROTC popu-lation between 1971 and 1975. A likely impact of the draft was toproduce an ROTC population with relatively heterogeneous interests in1971, which paralleled the interests of active military officers to asomewhat limited degree. With the draft eliminated by 1975, studentswith traditional military interests were more prevalent in the ROTCpopulation. This explanation is consistent with the finding that the1975 group demonstrated more motivation for a military career than the1971 group on the career intent scale.

Comparisons between male and female scores from the 1975 samplesindicated that females tended to perform as competently as males on thecognitive scales but did not perform as well on the noncognitive scales.

Although the reliance on voluntary cooperation of schools inobtaining data on females raised the possibility of response bias, aSi' sufficiently large proportion of schools did respond to indicate that

I, the female sample mean obtained here was a fairly reasonable estimatoof the 5population mean for female applicants to the ROTC Advanced Cours'ie.1n 1975.

Any interpretation of the results for females must racognime that

efforts to select and validate CNB items were conducted using malesamples. Thsi the noncognnitiv itms selected indicated what interestsand preferences are characteristic of a successful male officer, buttheme may not correspond exactly to the interests and preferences of asuccessful female officer. It cannot# then, be concluded that the non-cognitive scores show that male WOTC stodnts are more likely to besuccessful officers than female IITC MMstudients.

Research is currently in progemw to valUkdt the CX3 on femalesmusing the 1975 sample. U1ntil the results of this investigation areavailsable, interpretatiomn of fowle anosnmustUwre smres must be madewith special caution. The results an the o0Rtive scales provide atleast a preliminary trnication that 'the qpavot4i a use of these scalesdoes not place fesmale cadets at a unfair disafvantage.

'Ii

'- !I..

m m m m m m i " m -

REFERENCES

Helm*, W. H. Factorially Derived Information Moasuras for DifferentialPrediction of Officer Performance. ARI Technical Research Note203, December 1968. (NTIS No. AD 686 288)

Helm, W. H. Factor Analysis of Leadership Inventory for DifferentialPrediction of Officer Performance. AR! Research Memorandum 68-8,July 1968.

Helms, W. H., Willemin, L. P., & Day, R. W. Psychological FactorsMeasured in the Differential Officer Battery. ARI TechnicalResearch Report 1173, July 1971. (NTIS No. AD 737 685)

Helme, W. H., Willemin, L. P., a Grafton, F. C. Prediction of OfficerBehavior in a Simulated Combat Situation. ARI Research Report1182, March 1974. (NTIS No. AD 779 445)

Smith, K. H. Internal Analysis of Personal Inventory for the Differ-ential Officer Battery. ARI Research Memorandum 68-5, April 1968.

Willemin, L. P. Prediction of Officer Performance. ARI TechnicalResearch Report 1134, March 1964.

qI

9 z

DIST RIBUTION

ARI Distribution List

4 OASD (M&RA) 2 HOUSACOEC, Ft Ord, ATTN: Library2 HODA IDAMI-CSZ) 1 HOUSACDEC, Ft Ord, ATTN: ATEC-EX-E-Hum Factors1 HODA fDAPE-PBR 2 USAEEC, Ft Benjamin Harrison, ATTN: Library1 HODA IDAMA.AR) 1 USAPACDC, Ft Benjamin Harrison, ATTN: ATCP-HR1 HODA (DAPE-HRE-POI I USA Comm-Elect Sch, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: ATSN-E AI HQDA ISGRO-ID) 1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEL-CT-HDP1 HQOA (DAMI*DOT.C) 1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEL-PA--PI HODA (DAPC-PMZ-A) 1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEL-SI-CB1 HODA (DACH-PPZ-A) 1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: C, Facl Dev Br1 HODA (DAPE-HRE) I USA Materials Sys Anal Agcy, Aberdeen, ATTN: AMXSY-P1 HODA (DAPE-MPO-C) 1 Edgewood Arsenal, Aberdeen, ATTN: SAREA-BL-HI HODA iDAPE-OW) 1 USA Ord Ctr & Sch, Aberdeen, ATTN; ATSL-TEM-C1 HODA (DAPE-HRL) 2 USA Hum Engr Lab, Aberdeen, ATTN: Library/Dir1 HODA IDAPE-CPS) I USA Combat Arms Tng Bd, Ft Benning, ATTN: Ad Supervisor1 HODA (DAFD-MFA) 1 USA Infantry Hum Rsch Unit, Ft Benning, ATTN: Chief1 HODA (DARD-ARS-P) I USA Infantry Bd, Ft Benning, ATTN: STEBC-TE-T1 HODA IDAPC-PAS.A) 1 USASMA, Ft Bliss, ATTN: ATSS-LRC1 HODA (DUSA-OR) 1 USA Air Def Sch, Ft Bliss, ATTN: ATSA-.CTD-ME1 HODA (DAMO-ROR) 1 USA Air Def Sch, Ft Bliss, ATTN: Tech Lib1 NODA (DASG) 1 USA Air Del Sd, Ft Bliss, ATTN: FILES1 HODA iDAlO-PI) 1 USA Air Def Bd, Ft Bliss, ATTN: STEBD-PO1 Chief, Consult Div IDA-OTSG), Adeiphi, MD 1 USA Cmd & General Stf College, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: Lib1 Mil Asst. Hum Res, ODOR&E. OAD (E&LS) 1 USA Cmd & General StO College, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: ATSW-SE-L1 HO USARAL, APO Seattle, ATTN: ARAGP-R 1 USA Cmd & General Stf College, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: Ed AdvisorI HO First Army, ATTN: AFKA-01-TI 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dev Act, Ft Leevenworth, ATTN: DepCdr2 HO Fifth Army, Ft Sam Houston 1 USA Combined! Arms Cmbt Day Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN; CCS1 Dir, Army StI Studies Ofc, ATTN: OAVCSA IDSP 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dev Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: ATCASA1 Ofc Chief of Stf, Studies Ofc 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbyt Dey Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: ATCACO-E1 DCSPER, ATTN: CPS/OCP 1 UISA Combined Arms Cmbt Dev Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: ATCACC-CI1 The Army Lib, Pentagon, ATTN: RSB Chief 1 USAECOM, Night Vision Lab, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: AMSEL-N V-SD1 The Army Lib, Pentagon, ATTN: ANRAL 3 USA Computer Sys Cmd, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: Tech Library1 Ofc, Asst SeOt of the Army (R&D) 1 USAMIERDC, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: STSFB-DO1 Tech Support Orfc, OJCS I 09A IEng Sch, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: Library1 USASA, Arlington, ATTN: IARD-T 1 USA Topographic Lab, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: ETL-TD--S1 USA Rsch Ofc. Durham, ATTN: Life Sciences Dir I UISA Topographic Lab, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: STINFO Center2 USARIEM, Natick, ATTN: SGRD-UR-CA 1 LISA Topographic Lab, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: ETL-GSIL1 USATTC, Ft Clayton, ATTN: STETC.MO.A 1. WUA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: CTD-MS1 USAI MA, Ft Bragg, ATTN- ATSU-CTD.OM 1' USA Intellignce Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATS-CTD--MS1 USAI MA. Ft Bragg, ATTN: Marquet Lib 1 Ul.BAnstull~gnoce Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI-TE1 US WAC Ctr & Sch, Ft McClellan, ATTNk Lib 1 USA ýntelllgonmo Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI-TEX-GS1 US WAC Ctr & Sch, Ft McClellan, ATTN: Tng Dir 1 LISA intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huschuca, ATTN - ATSI-CTS--OR1 USA Quartermaster Sch, Ft Lee, ATTN: ATSM-TE -1 USAftste~lligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI-CTD-DT1 Intelligence Material Dev Ofc, EWL, Ft Holabird 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI-CTD-CS1 USA SE Signal Sch, Ft Gordon, ATTN: 'ATSO-EA 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: DASISRD1 USA Chaplain Ctr & Sch, Ft Hamilton, ATTN: ATSC-TE-RD 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI-TEM1 USATSCH, Ft Eustis, ATTN: Educ Advisor I USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: Library1 USA War College, Carlisle Barracks, ATTN. Lib 1 CDR, HO Ft Huachuca, ATTlN: Tech Ref Div2 WRAI R. Neuropsychiatr Div 2 CDR, USA Electronic Prvg Grd, ATTN: STEEP-MT-SI DLI, SDA, Monterey 1 CDR, Project MASSTER, ATTN: Tech Info Center1 USA Concecit Anal Agcy, Bethesda, ATTN- MOCA-WOC 1 Hq MASSTER, USATRADOC, LNO1 USA Concept Anal Agcy, Bethesda, ATTN: MOCA-MR 1 Research Institute, HO MASSTER, Ft Hood1 USA Concept Anal Agcy, Bethesda, ATTN: MOCA.JF 1 USA Recruiting Cmd, Ft Sherdian, ATTN: USARCPM-P1 USA Artic Test Ctr, APO Seattle, ATTN: STEAC-MO-ASL 1 Senior Army Adv., USAFAGOD/TAC. Elgin AF Aux Fid No. 9I USA Artic Test Ctr, APO Seattle, ATTN: AMISTE-PL-TS -1 HO USARPAC, DCSPER, APO SF 96558, ATTN: GPPE -SE1 USA Armament Cmd, Redstone Arsenal, ATTN: ATSK-TEM I Stimson Lib, Academy of Health Sciences, Ft Sam Hcuston

IU'SA Armament Cmd, Rock Island, ATTN- AMSAR-TDC I Marine Corps Inst., ATTN: Dean-MCII FAA-NAFEC, Atlantic City, ATTN: Library 1 HOUSMC, C~mmandant, ATTN: Code MTMT 511 FAA-NAFEC, Atlantic City, ATTN: Hum Engr Br 1 HQUSMC, Commandant, ATTN: Code MPI -201 FAA Aeronautical Ctr, Cklahoma City, ATTN: AAC-44D 2 USCG Academy, New London, ATTN: Admission2 USA FId Arty Sch, Ft Sill, ATTN: Library 2 USCG Academy, New London, ATTN: Library1 USA Armor Sch, Ft Knox, ATTN: Library 1 USCG Training Ctr, NY, ATTN: co1 USA Armor Sch, Ft Knox, ATTN: ATSB-DI-E I USCG Training Ctr, NY, ATTN: Educ Svc Ofc1 USA Armor Sch, Ft Knox, ATTN: ATSB-DT.TP 1 USCG. Psychol Fles Br, DC, AtTTN: GP 1/621 USA Armior Sch, Ft Knox, ATTN: ATSB*CD-AD 1 HO Mcid-Range Br, MC Dvt, Otiantico, ATTN: P&S Div

PRECEDING PAGE B1LANK

i US Marine Conny Liialioni Ofe, AMC, Alex&-wk*a ATINt AMCSS'*i 1 Oaf &@t amlineo OWN M adiaa CaNad

IUGATRAOM~, Ft Maitre. ATTWl ATP40-11 I AIN GRIM Kmweleame ATTN: Inf6 o Or I6 USAYMADOC, Ft Moitwab, ATThi ATPfl-AD IMIYt4 h s .I USAThADOC, Ft Monroe. ATTN! Ar T1-EA I M ~ y A s lPub s u y T N . a2 USA Aviationi Task Nd, Ft Rudottut ATTN% gy"g.. I Pih 00110s 00. AM~ Ou w RDoAv Div. lntI USA Ag,*V for Aviation kSoltf. P t Rualmer, Auft Ubeuv of Daft^ O M OdEI USA Atgcy for Aviation Waitty, Ft Rush.o, AT7N: VA Ia*Ar I Pors Nab Ob Ulpf", AKA. IV"al 0, F - ParossI USA Aviton Slah, Ft Rocsker. ATTV: PO Damw 0 11 MIAkwb'iw vafab D ok GP0ll AUd aled"I HOUSA Aviationl 9v Coed, It Lulm, ATill AMAV-4111 OWdsh Rdlf t.1Ma TIM W , WhifIat"2 USA AvAMN~ Sys uTW Am, Id mm* APB, AThO: 1AVTV-TI USA Ale 0.1 lI&, Pt Wiaa, ATTNt AMI TIMIUSA Air Mobilit Poush A Dew Lo M-11ý tt li ATMk SAVOLAS

1 USA Aviation lit, Res Tni Mg%. Pt Rludomr, AVTNI AI'P-T-RM1 USA Aviation Ich, 00. Ft Rucar, AuTNi A¶T"~

I, ~ ~I HQ, 0ARCO$A, Alaindria, ATTWN 4X* DliI US Military Aosdmyv. Vft Pont ATVh 040 ha ~tLI US Military Academy, Weal Point. ATTNI MAC

IUSA Standafsdtostiori Op. UK. PM0 NY, AIIM: MAWM~4I Ofc of Novel Rasdh Ariingtsn. AT~: Coda 410

I 01 fNovetcul Amtblq 2rer, ATPOIF, 0#0 4

I NvlAPHRL (P od Wi sLab API i AItAA*OI1sd AP4L(iv ow MdRasI A PI o*ATt m

I NAPHAIRIWPA. Nft, A t60 o

I NAPIIrL (00.5 Arott AIN-13I NoyR k(dJN LAldu~ AP3I NINN4ouSAF au 2.NPOYFI605111 HUAPRLW 1110 (OX AII AFHVIL ITbI Lowyapi API AMRAL (All %-PAP$, ON3 AP lntIttlt L API ONJZ AToh: 0N$I

IAHCIUA TOYI)

1 HUSAP Aeo(DPLXXA) k PI~t3L4 ~tt~1 UAF Lao~e L14d, Me~2ialion AftPI, -ATM, ONC PC 01 AFOIF. (NL), AtriftWiIAir Fame. AcafsmV, 00, ATIN: Dept of II San

0 NayPwm & Dov Ctr,SonObmoe2 Navy Mod Nwjmftychiatr Rwh Unit, Sari Ofts

INov Elaetroic Lab, Sn Oiego, AlYNt Pea LmbINav TrnmCon, Wa Wloom. A'Tt Codae WO-UJb

1 NavPoa~t~ra&U, Montayo, A'rtN COOe II&INavPost~ralich, Mrntarty, Al'ftN Code 2124

I NavTrmg~qt11p~tr, Orlando, AflN Tagl Lib1 US Despt of Labut, VC, A1"rNt Manpostw AitninIUSDOp*~ f Juoti., DC ArrTNz ruigvt Ufoebmain

I Nat But 61 Sw~tana DC, AMN Camp.W In% SouiseI Not ClWIng llauaafar MW -Ifft. NeAbkvftaI Domowr Federal Ctr, Laiav~ood, ATT: ELIM

12 Dohnst Docurjmntelion Center4Dir Ptyci, Am* tq, Fuaall Was, CahewI Ciclarniflo Advi, Nll Si, Aerny ll, ftsol 0114, cOhiomI Mil aod Air Atsaabta, Austrian vnibauVI Centre~ de Rsobltc ho DiOact oturs, Hitmaire to I& Nstrt

National#,.Brp,.avlr2 Conadian Joint Staff WoshitnpoI C)Ai: Staff, Royal Chmmitsn AF, AfI: Part atd Anal Or3 Chief, Cartatilia Dot Rich Staff, AIWN: C/ORDIWI4 British 0.4 Staff, British ItMimvuw Waeltnwn

'12

I US Mane Corps Lialsion Ofc. AMC•. Aexandria, ATTN- AMC(S-F I of| & Cd Int of Ew#W Medicine. Canada

I USATRADOC. Ft Monroe ATTN: ATRO-ED I AIR C• NS. Kanaifltan. AWTN: Info Sys B

I ULSATRADOC. Ft Monroe. ATTN: ATPR-AD I MilW" koftm Tosl.cwgehq

a USATRADOC. Ft Monroe. ATTWC ATTS-EA I Miihtary Attiasw. Fmioh mbW, ATTN: Doc Sec

I USA Famt Cnwd. Pt McPherson. ATTN: Library I Madjin Chaf. C.E.RP..-AlesIi. Toulon/Navl Frace

2 USA Aviation 1tet dl. Ft Rucker. AT'TN: STVBG--PO I MIt 'lli~sl 001. ApMIi Nut &WI Ruhs Div. Minisry

1 USA Agcy for Aviation Safety. Ft Rucker. AT'I't Ubrary Of O t "h DONhi

1 USA Agey for Aviation Safety, Ft Rucke. ATM: Ediuc Ad-,as I Pli telt O1 Librw. Ary A. AM rIal Defense Force

1 USA Aviation Sch. Ft Rucker, ATTN: PO Dnraw 0 I MWal s van Doeends. OOOP/KL Aid Socisal

1 HOUSA Aviation Sys Ond. St Lils. ATTN: AMSAV-.ZDR Pill ........ Zskm. The He". Natherlande

2 USA Aviation Sy Teat Act, Edwrds AFPi, ATrN: SAVTE-TI USA Air Dal Scd. Ft Blss, ATTN: ATGA TIMI USA Air Mobility Roch & On Lab, Moffett Fid, AVr : SAVDL-A,,1 USA Aviation Sch. Ret Tng Mgt. let Rucker, ATTN: AlI'S--T-RTM1 USA Aviation Sch. CO. Ft Rudcer, ATTN: ATT-0-AI No. DARCOM: Alexandria. ATYN: AMXC6-AI.I Ha. DARCOM; Alexandria, ATTN- OR1 US Military Academq. Wart Poit, ATM.: Sr" UniI US Military AcsimyWt Point, ATTN: Of of Nit e I*II US Military Academy, West Point. A'M, MAOR1 USA Standerditation Gp, UK, FPO NY. AT-: MASI-W1 Ofc of Naval Rsch, Arlington, ArM: Coda 4523 Of of Naval Rech. Arlington. ATTN, Coft 418 -I Oft of Naval Asch. Arlington. A"'*N, 0 43-1 Off of Naval n ,ho Arlinrton. AVlN: Cof 441I Naval AMrepc Med Rot Lab.fPnmol*, AMT AMWskfhOW1 Nava Mro• c Med Ae Lnb, L i 6, AY"h: Coda LIiI Naval Aaroepc Mod Res LW, Poseeb ATT'1 Co&. Li1 Ch•ef of NaPeft, ATTN: Iast-ORI NAVAIRSTA.NorfoIk, ATTN:, Shtyft1 Nay Oean00r*hIc, DCK ATTN: COft 6WS. Chrte & Yeah1 Center of Naval Anal. AYTN: 0Of Ctr1 NovArSysComý.ATTN: AIR-4313CI Nav BuMad. ATTN, 7131 NeaHllcopterSubftlua 2. FPO SF 966011 AFHRL (FT) Wi1ibrn AFB1 AFHRL "" Lb"ry AFS1 AFHRL (AS) WPAFB, OH2 AFHRL (DOJZ) Brooks AFBI APHRL (D6JN) Locklind ArS1 HOUSAF JINYSD)1 HOUSAF (DPXXA)1 AFVTG (RD) Randolph 0i3 AMRL (HE) WPAF8. ON2 AF Inst of T'ch, %WAF9. ON, ATTN: tN./SLI ATC (XPTDI RandOlph AFi1 USAF AeroMetl Lb, Brooks Aft 1SUL-4, ATM- DCCII AFOSR (NL), ArlingtonI AF Log Cmd, McbCtellan APB, ATTN: ALCjOPCRBI Air Force Academy, CO. ATTN. Dept of Oal 9bn5 NavPers & DevCtr, San D0eo2 Navy Mad NedroptychiatrI Rlath 'nit. Son DOegoI Nay Electronic Lab, San Dieo, ATTN: Ria LabI Nay TrngCsn, San Diego. ATTN: Code 9000--UbI NavPostGraSch, Monterey, ATTN: Code -6Aa1 NavPostGraSch, Monterey, ATTN: Code 21241 NavTrngEquipCtr, Orlando, ATTN: Tech Lib1 US Dept of Labor, DC, ATTN: Manpower Admin1 US Dept of Justice, DC, ATTN: Drug Enforce Admin1 Net Our of Standards, DC, ATTN: Computer Info Section1 Not Clearing House for MH-Inro, Rockville1 Denver Federal Ctr, Lakewood, ATTN: BLM

12 Defense Documentation Center4 Dir Psych, Army Nio, Russell Of"c, CanberraI Scientific Advur, Mil Rd. Army Hq, Rusllel Ofos. CaearraI Mil and Air Attache, Austrian EmbassyI Centre fie R'chorche Dem Pacteurs, Humaine de la Defense

Nattonale, Brus.ls2 Canadian .loln! Staff Wa.,ingtonI C/Air Staff. PaoyI Cnnrodian AF, ATTN: Pert Std Anal BrI Chief, Canalian Def Rsch Staff, ATTN: C/CRDS(W) COPY4 British oDf Staff. British Embassy, Washit•non BEST AVAILABLE

12