AD-A154 815 SOCIAL ACTIONS UTILIZATION FIELDS lAFS 736XA/I 737X1 I g(U)l AIR FORCE OCCUPATIONIAL IRASUREVENt CENTER RANDOLPHAPI TX VAR OS

UNCLASSIFIED 05O /9 NI.

""NI i D

11111 1.0. 112.2_ _6 L A 1 2 .

11111.25 1. 6l

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHARTNAMtNAL BUREAU It ,ANDAR[DS 1

t"-p

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

DTI

SELECTEJUN101

~B

SOCIAL ACTIONS UTILIZATION FIELD I

(AFS 736WAB, 737X)

AFPT 90-73X-519

"-' MARCH 1985

OCCUPATIONAL ANALYSIS PROGRAMUSAF OCCUPATIONAL MEASUREMENT CENTER

AIR TRAINING COMMANDRANDOLPH AFB, TEXAS 78150

APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED

8_ 5 1 5

DISTRIBUTION FORAFSC 73XX TRAINING REPORT AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

TNGOSR EXT

AFHRL/MODS 2 1MAFHRL/ID 1 lm/lhAFMEA/MEMD 1 1AFMPC/MPCMC 2AFMPC/MPCX 1 1ARMY OCCUPATIONAL SURVEY BRANCH 1CCAF/AYX 1DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER 1DOD EOMI PATRICK AFB FL 32925 3 3HQ AAC/DPAT 3 3HQ AFCC/LGMT 1 1HQ AFCC/MPPTT 3 3HQ AFISC/DAP 1HQ AFLC/MPCA 3 3HQ AFSC/MPAT 3 3HQ ATC/DPAE 1 1HQ ATC/TTQC 2 1HQ ESC/TTGT 1 1HQ ESC/DPTE 2 2HQ KAC/DPAT 3 3HQ KAC/TTGT 1 1HQ PACAF/TTGT I IHQ PACAF/DPAT 3 3HQ SAC/DPAT 3 3HQ SAC/TTGT 1 1HQ TAC/DPAT 3 3HQ TAC/TTGT 1 1HQ USAF/MPX.H 1 1HQ USAF/MPPT 1 1HQ USAFE/DPAT 3 3HQ USAFE/TTGT 1 1HQ USMC (CODE TPI) 1LMDC/AN 1NODAC 13250 TCHTW/TTGX (LACKLAND AFB TX) 5 53507 ACS/DPKI 1

m = microfiche onlyh = hard copy only

jt

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGENUMBER

PREFACE ------------------------------------------------ iii

INTRODUCTION 1------------------------------------------- 1

SURVEY METHODOLOGY 2------------------------------------- 2

Inventory Development 2----------------------------- 2

Training Emphasis Administration ------------------ 2

TRAINING ANALYSIS - -------------------------------------- 4

POI Analysis ------ 4---------------------------- 4

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS ------------------------------- 12

~Acces'2 n

DfC T'f#

; tribut oI i

A Iat II

PREFACE

This report presents the results of a detailed Air Force occupationalsurvey involving the training requirements for Social Actions Officers (AFSs736XA/B and 737X). The USAF Occupational Measurement Center completedthis project by authority of AFR 35-2.

The survey instrument, USAF Job Inventory AFPT 90-73X-519, datedOctober 1983, was developed by Chief Master Sergeant Theodore R. Wilcox.Second Lieutenant Mary Thomasson analyzed the survey data and wrote thefinal report. Ms Olga Velez provided computer support for the project. Thistraining report has been reviewed and approved by Mr J. S. Tartell, Chief,Management Applications Section, USAF Occupational Measurement Center.

Copies of this report have been distributed to Air Staff sections, majorcommands, and other interested training and management personnel.tio copi ree .ilab. pon rpelest toq USA~occujpaIal M ~remt fn , t " O c ' nl s n

PAUL T. RINGENBACH, Colonel, USAF WALTER E. DRISKILL, Ph. D.Commander Chief, Occupational Analysis BranchUSAF Occupational Measurement USAF Occupational MeasurementCenter Center

iii

TRAINING REPORTSOCIAL ACTIONS UTILIZATION FIELD

(AFS 736XA/B, 737X)

INTRODUCTION

This is a report of a training analysis of the Social Actions officerutilization field (AFSs 736XA/B and 737X) completed by the OccupationalAnalysis Branch, USAF Occupational Measurement Center, in January 1985.The survey was requested by the 3290 TCHTG/TTZSC, Lackland AFB, Texas.The primary objective of the study was to provide information for planningand developing training documents, as well as assessing the validity of thetraining course content. Analyses of the job structure, DAFSC groups, AFR36-1 and 39-1 specialty descriptions, job satisfaction, CONUS and overseasgroups, MAJCOM groups, and time in career field (TICF) groups werecovered in an Occupational Survey Report (OSR) published in November 1984. -

This training report provides task data training managers can use inconjunction with career ladder documents to assess the effectiveness of SocialActions officer training. Topics discussed in this report include assessmentsof: (1) Equal Opportunity Management Institute (EOMI) Curriculum Guide/POI (dated 1984); (2) POI L30ZR7364B, Drug/Alcohol Abuse Control (dated3 January 1%-,; and (3) POI L30ZR7371, Social Actions Staff Officer (dated28 November 1983).

The job of a Social Actions officer involves advising and assisting com-manders and supervisors in administering Social Actions programs. They alsoplan, organize, and manage Social Actions activities, including equal oppor-tunity, drug and alcohol abuse control, and education in human relationsprograms.

Airmen and officers in the Equal Opportunity/Human Relations specialty(A-shred personnel) attend a 16-week resident training course at the DefenseEqual Opportunity Management Institute, Patrick AFB, Florida. Drug/AlcoholAbuse personnel (B-shred) attend technical training for 8 weeks and 2 daysat Lackland AFB, Texas. Staff officers attend technical training for 2 weeksat Lackland AFB, Texas.

APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED

SURVEY METHODOLOGY

Inventory Development

The data collection instrument for this occupational survey was USAF jobInventory AFPT 90-73X-519, dated October 1983. Development of the inven-tory task list began with a review of past surveys of AFS 734XOA/B and736XB career areas, as well as a review of current specialty publications anddirectives. Also, interviews were conducted with 98 officer, enlisted, andcivilian Social Actions personnel at 12 CONUS and overseas locations. Fromthe interviews, a tentative task list was developed. The tentative inventorywas validated by a field review at 13 MAJCOM-level Social Actions units. Thefield review resulted in a refined task list of 511 tasks representative of thework performed by Social Actions personnel.

Training Emphasis Administration

During the period December 1983 through November 1984, trainingemphasis (TE) booklets were administered to selected Social Actions officers(AFS 736XA/B and 737X) at operational units, both in the CONUS and atoverseas locations, by consolidated base personnel offices. Personnel wereidentified from uniform officer record (UOR) data tapes generated by the AirForce Manpower and Personnel Center (AFMPC) and maintained by the AirForce Human Resources Laboratory (AFHRL).

Each individual completing a TE booklet rated tasks on a 10-point scalefrom no training emphasis required to extremely heavy training required.

RATING SCALE FIRST-TERM TRAINING EMPHASIS RECOMMENDED

BLANK No structured training requiredI Extremely low training emphasis2 Very low training emphasis3 Low average training emphasis4 Below average training emphasis5 Average training emphasis6 Above average training emphasis7 High training emphasis8 Very high training emphasis9 Extremely high training emphasis

Training emphasis is a rating of which tasks require structured training forfirst-term personnel. Structured training is defined as training provided atresident technical schools, field training detachments (FTD), mobile trainingteams (MTT), formal OJT, or any other organized training method.

2

Inventory data returned from the field were entered into the AFHRLcomputer at Brooks AFB either by optical scanning or keypunching. TheComprehensive Occupational Data Analysis Program (CODAP) software packagewas then used to analyze the data. The CODAP package produces a varietyof computer printouts based on survey respondent ratings on inventorytasks.

The number of raters and interrater reliability for Social Actions officersis shown in Table 1. As seen in the table, a total of 20 7364A officers pro-vided TE ratings for A-shred officers. Agreement among 7364A raters was.90, which indicates high agreement. Twenty-six 7364B officers providedB-shred TE ratings. The interrater agreement among B-shred officers was.91, which also indicates high agreement. Staff officer raters totaled 15.Their interrater agreement was also .91.

TABLE 1

TRAINING EMPHASIS INTERRATER RELIABILITIESFOR SOCIAL ACTIONS OFFICERS

NUMBER OF INTERRATERDAFSC TE RATERS RELIABILITY

7364A 20 .907364B 26 .917376 15 .91

3

TRAINING ANALYSIS

An important use of occupational survey data is in the validation oftraining documents. Survey data useful for this application include TEratings and percentages of TICF groups performing tasks. The data areuseful in evaluating the Plans of Instruction (POI) for the basic residenttechnical training course. The data-gathering process for collecting TE datawas explained in the SURVEY METHODOLOGY section.

The TE ratings collected from the 7364A personnel yielded an averagerating of 2.49 and a standard deviation of 1.98. For the purposes of thistraining analysis, tasks rated higher than 4.47 were considered high intraining emphasis for 7364A personnel. The TE ratings collected from the7364B personnel yielded an average rating of 2.47 and a standard deviation of1.81. Tasks rated higher than 4.28 were considered high in training empha-sis. Training emphasis ratings collected from 7376 personnel yielded anaverage rating of 3.42 and a standard deviation of 2.13. High trainingemphasis for 7376 personnel is considered 5.55. With respect to percentmembers performing data, 1-24 months TICF (first job) and 1-48 months TICFgroups are normally examined in the course of a training analysis. Inaccordance with ATC regulation 52-22, tasks performed by at least 50 percentor more personnel should be considered for inclusion in a basic residencecourse. Tasks performed by at least 30 percent, but less than 50 percent,may be considered for inclusion in formal training, although not necessarily ina basic residence course.

A review of the Equal Opportunity Management Institute (EOMI) Curric-ulum Guide/POI, dated 1984; POI L30ZR7364B, Drug and Alcohol AbuseControl, dated 3 January 1984; and POI L30ZR7371, Social Actions StaffOfficer, dated 28 November 1983, was possible through the assistance oftraining personnel at the Lackland Technical Training Center and EOMI.Subject-matter specialists from the schools matched relevant job inventorytasks to specific POI items. An analysis of the POl consists of examining thetasks matched to each item (paragraph, unit, or block), along with theirrespective TE and percent members performing data, to determine whether thesurvey data support inclusion of the item in the training document. Sincethe POI blocks are written as knowledge objectives and the job inventory waswritten as a series of performance tasks, a direct evaluation of the courseeffectiveness is difficult. The following paragraphs highlight items found asa result of the analysis of these documents.

POI Analysis

Based on the previously mentioned assistance from technical schoolsubject-matter specialists in matching inventory tasks to the POI, computerproducts were generated displaying the results of that matching process.Information displayed for consideration included TE ratings, as well as per-cent members performing data for 1-24 months TICF (first job), 1-48 monthsTICF, and DAFSC groups.

4

EOMI 1984 Curriculum Guide/POI: The POI used to outline training for 7364Apersonnel contained 168 blocks. Of those, 97 had no tasks matched and, forthe most part, were knowledge items. Of the blocks with tasks matched, 62were well supported by the survey data.

Block H-025 involves instruction on budgeting. Of the 11 tasks matchedto this block, only 2 received high TE ratings. Less than 50 percent of thepersonnel in the 1-24 months TICF group performed these tasks. Only onetask was performed by 50 percent of the 1-48 months TICF and DAFSCgroups. These tasks should be reviewed by subject-matter specialists andtraining personnel to determine if inclusion in a basic residence course iswarranted.

Block H-050-3 titled, "Know the seven steps to process an equal employ-ment opportunity (EEO) complaint," had only one task matched to it. Thistask received a very low TE rating and had very low percentage of membersperforming. Training personnel should review this block to determine ifinclusion in the POI is warranted.

Block J-060 titled, "Student presentations (Historical Perspective)," hadno tasks matched to it, however, requires a performance measurement. Thiscould mean an applicable task has not been matched or there are no clearlydefined inventory tasks appropriate to that block. In any case, subject-matter specialists and training personnel should review this block in detail toassure inclusion is justified.

Of the tasks not referenced to any block, 13 received high TE ratingsand had substantial percents of A-shred officers performing. These tasksare illustrated in Table 2. Eight of the 13 unmatched tasks with high TEratings involved climate assessment functions. Including a block of instruc-tion on climate assessment functions in the EOMI Curriculum Guide/POI maybe justified.

POI L30ZR7364B: The plan of instruction used to outline training for Drugand Alcohol Abuse Control Officers contained 92 blocks (paragraphs or sub-paragraphs). Of those, 35 were knowledge items and had no tasks matched.Most of the blocks with tasks matched appeared well supported by the surveydata; however, eight of those need to be reviewed by subject-matter special-ists and training personnel to determine if the amount of time allotted forinstruction is appropriate. Those eight blocks are as follows:

Block II, Section IC, of the POI represents 1 hour of instruction on pre-senting a 15 minute lecture. The five tasks matched to this section receivedhigh TE ratings and have high percentages of members performing. Only oneof these five tasks had less than 50 percent of first-job or 1-48 months TICFpersonnel performing. Also, to successfully complete this block, a perform-ance measurement is required. Since the tasks matched to this block receivedhigh TE ratings and substantial percentages of members performing, moretime may need to be devoted to this block.

5

Block III, Section 8, of the. POI represents 4 hours of instruction on thebehavior confrontation model and what action a supervisor should take inrelation to suspected alcohol abuse. Only one task (document subordinatecounseling sessions) was matched to Section 8. Training to the extent indi-cated appears questionable. Perhaps the match of this one task is anaccurate reflection of the block of instruction; perhaps other tasks shouldhave been matched. In either case, this section of Block III should bereviewed.

Block III, Sections 9A and 9B on crisis intervention techniques, have onlyone task matched to each of them, but represent 3 hours of instruction each.The matched tasks received high TE ratings, but only moderate percentagesof members performing. These sections should be reviewed to determine if 3hours of instruction each are justified.

Block IV, Section 2C, represents 15 minutes of instruction on the responsi-bilities of a Social Actions Section. The three tasks matched to this subpara-graph received very high TE ratings and percentages of members performing.Considering the high ratings of these tasks, more time probably needs to bedevoted to this section.

Block IV, Section 2D, represents 15 minutes of instruction on Air Forcepolicy on matters for which Social Actions is responsible. The one taskmatched to this section received a high TE rating and had 100 percent mem-bers performing. As with Section 2C, more time probably needs to bedevoted to this section.

Block IV, Section 4A. As with the two previous sections, Section 4A ofBlock IV should be reviewed to determine if more time is justified. Thisblock represents 30 minutes of instruction on developing a referral listing;however, all but one of the five matched tasks received high TE ratings. Allfive had high percent members performing. Perhaps more time needs to bedevoted to instructing the development of referral listings.

From the list of tasks not referenced to any block of the POI, 7364B TEraters gave high ratings to 38 tasks. Of those, 17 were tasks from Duty L,Drug or Alcohol Abuse Control Documentation Functions. The 17 tasks mainlyinvolved reviewing "27 series" forms. The percentage of members performingthese tasks was high in the three groups examined (first job, 1-48 monthsTICF, and 7364B total sample). Table 3 illustrates these 17 tasks, their TEratings, and percentages of members performing. These tasks, as well as theothers not referenced to the POI, should be reviewed and considered forinclusion in the appropriate channel of instruction of the basic course.

POI L30ZR7371: The plan of instruction used to outline training for SocialActions Staff Officers contained 21 blocks (paragraphs or subparagraphs).Of those, only the Registration and Overview block had no tasks matched.Of the tasks matched to the POI, only four received high TE ratings. Thesefour tasks were:

6

Brief commanders, first sergeants, or other agency

personnel on human relations or other EOT programs

or policiesConduct formal briefingsEvaluate drug and alcohol abuse rehabilitation programs

Conduct unit self-inspections

The matched tasks, for the most part, received average or below average TEratings, but had high percent members performing. Tasks typical of thosematched to the POI are illustrated in Table 4. Note these tasks are those onewould expect a staff officer to perform.

Analysis revealed 94 tasks not matched to the POI received high TEraLings. Interestingly, many of these tasks had very low percent membersperforming. Typical unmatched tasks are illustrated in Table S. Note thesetasks are those that normally would be performed by junior Social Actionsofficers or enlisted Social Actions personnel (see DAFSC section of the Occu-pational Survey Report, dated November 1984).

It appears the staff officers surveyed feel the tasks they actually per-form do not require extensive training. Conversely, they indicate training isnecessary for tasks they may not perform to a large extent. Apparently,they feel it is important to know how to perform "technical" Social Actionstasks to be an effective staff officer. Whatever tile reason, the POI for theSocial Actions Staff Officer course should be carefully reviewed and possiblyrevised to include tasks which are essential knowledge for a Social ActionsStaff Officer.

7

C140 \ r-- O - D CY \0 a% - c (14 00 uz cn'i ID it 00 a'- \o '.D 'c10 1

04V

I'D 00 \.c I'D 10 ID \Dc 00-

ZI

UPc -

w M rl- - C r- - cc) c) In - 4 cc acO.1 \DI r- r '0 0 1 '0 '.0 '0 '.0 0.0 cc ) Incn C z

E-co

m. m 140 C)I

z r

0 0Cc c

zU 0 El U F-H- <. w. 0

00 cc -' U )c

H- z w 0 <r - Z Z0 -4 0. '-4 Z: <0 Z .J 0 ~ c

cc-- - U U H- V

Z" > "~ 0 " ur- H H Z < .

ccM cc E- H < 0 0 cc-z ccc c.o z

0 cc >c u 0.4 w0.. a4 mz 0 w- 0cc M w V) m cc> U)c

H 4U 0u 0 Hl W 0

H cc 04- wcc E- cn. ( z L-C4 E- <- Lzc z z

OH cncc <~c <Y c4 Zc0 E0 Qc I . Z! C.- -4. E.

w Z <c a4: F; <

H~V < (n~c 0 cc Hcc H H)ZW- cc z 4 H cccc W c

L)4 - < ~. 4 14 - - ~~c - -

cc z'. n o 0 ::: = .W = 14 cc 90 . <'- W -It u m 04 (n F- V) E4 r 4 w

w :D 3 w < Dt w - < i8

w 00 44, -1 CI -ma\m 0 )I 00%ci 0 . 0 I

z

z = . .

4

C)

C) z

0-

P4:0

H -1 CC. 0a 0 4

- ~0 co U u uw M :D

Z- 0 0

U) .V) CA 0

0-4P g a> = 9 :D Q

CI4 F.c ) n Z4:r u3, 66

HD Ln. -4 ~ M . C I )E-,

Z ~H H I- m tw1 - l

00 0 0000 '<00 0.-' 0 ->-4

C), 4 E- Q0~ /2 '4 E-t--

~.- Ci~C~a~j C3t0W-

H 1- " )

--T OOn -4 OO4' 0 w 000\ NLnP.OO C -'00'.

9

00

o 00 (N 00 (N4 00 00 %D IT (NS00a.( W0 N 00 w0 (71 w0 '0 in -

00 -T uI1

Cj0

00 100 a, W- n 0t T N- 0 D

(N4 00 -T - N 0 MN (N

0 . .

z >4

ro 00CO a4 0I0 4- 0 wO

co E- 00 0 3W wIx~ CO0go

~ I Z~CO~~CO 04(1

w. 00 0 w

04

0Q "3 -i ,.: =) .-

000 0 > 0Q 40

E-0 - E- 0. z so! 4 4 u~

10

O D 'D r- - ' N ON '0 ~ O~\

)-4 F.A co N z

0

U,0

- 0 I-) Cf

0 NO 000Z

LzJ0

-4

zULn n

w 0 J0U

N4- CA

4 0 0~

> w 0U 0 W4

C4 n 04 z -ccU

0z w Z

a4 a

cn Z:

o. CA W0 4 E

~~~ V)O '4 N (' . 'U, - r- u ~ ui Wi u40

11 04 n 0%1c

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS

Analysis of the Social Actions officer training documents indicates thesedocuments should be reviewed and possibly modified.

The EOMI 1984 Curriculum Guide/POI, for the most part, is well sup-ported by the survey data. Three blocks possibly should be deleted. Tasksnot referenced to the EOMI Curriculum Guide indicate a block of instructionon "climate assessment" may be justified.

Eight blocks of POI L30ZR7364B should be reviewed and have possibletime adjustments made to more closely align them with data indications. Ablock of instruction on Drug and Alcohol Abuse Control Documentation func-tions should be added to this POI.

The POI used to outline the staff officers course needs to be closelyreviewed. Data indicate tasks performed by Social Actions Staff Officers didnot receive high TE ratings and, conversely, those tasks receiving high TEratings are not performed to a great extent by the staff officers.

12

m

1LMED