Unclassified IICuniTV CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PACE («f»» DM«KnlmrtdThis research was conducted to determine whether available paper-andpencil aptitude and training measures could be used to ptedict tank driver, qunner, and tank commander performance, and if üO, to develop appropriate prediction equations based on the aptitude measures.The research was conducted in three phases. The first two phases were conducted with armor trainees at Fort Knox, and dealt with the gunner and«-. driver positions. The third phase was conducted with armor crewmen in operational armor battalions, and dealt with the tank commander and gunner positions. In Phases I and II, at Fort Knox, measures of trainee aptitudes, training performance, driving performance, and main-gun tank gunnery were collected for trainees in the sample. Aptitude measures included the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) raw scores and additional paper-and-pencil tests, while training measures included performance on tests relating to tank weapons, maintenance, communication, etc. The criterion performances were tank commander ratings of trainee M60 tank driving on a standardized course and number of hits during main-gun tank firing. During Phase III, aptitude and main-gun firing measures were collected for tank commanders and gunners in a rample from a USAREUR armor division. Aptitude measures were based on a battery of papei-and-pencil tests. Gunnery measures were based on performance during tank crew qualification firing at Grafenwohr, West Germany.With armor trainees at Port Knox a number of potentially useful predictor variables were identified in phase I. These included four ASVAB tests and three additional paper-and-pencil tests as gunnery predictors and six ASVAB tests and two additional paper-and-pencil tests as driving predictors. Only one of the driving predictor tests was validated in Phase II, and none of the p^per-and-pencil tests was correlated with the gunnery measure. Ni /ertheless, certain methodological problems entered Phase II, so the failure to validate the other tests did not necessarily indicate a true lack of relationship with criterion performance. In Phase III, conducted with operational units, none of the tank commanders' or gunners' paper-and-pencil test scores was correlated with tank crew qualification gunnery scores.The results from Phases I and II suggest that the continuing need to ma/.e optimal assignments of Army recruits to gunner/loader or driver training may best be addressed by continued research on the paper-andpencil measures identified in Phase I, as well as the exploration of other techniques such as job sample performance measurement. In continued research with the paper-and-pencil tests, formulas based on both regressionbased models and unit-weighted models seem appropriate. The results from Phase III indicate that paper-and-pencil tests Jo not seeta to offer promise of predicting performance of personnel in operational units on tank crew qualification gunnery. Perhaps research efforts could best be dir...

Preference ratings of 10 familiar professional, 10 familiar skilled, 10 unfamiliar professional, and 10 unfamiliar skilled labor jobs, presented as either titles or descriptions, were obtained from 100 male high school students Professional or familiar jobs were preferred as titles but these effects were absent or reduced in ratings of descriptions of the same jobs Changes in job preferences in a 2nd rating were greater when Ss were shifted from titles to descriptions, or the reverse, than when the identical type of material was rated, indicating nonequivalence between stimulus materials in study of job attitudes. Implications for personality and interest tests using job titles as items are discussed

Unclassified-2a. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3. DISTRIBUTION /AVAILABILITY OF REPORT Approved for public release; 2b. DECLASSIFICATION IDOWNGRADING SCHEDULE distribution is unlimited. 4. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) S. MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) ARI Technical Report 920 6a. NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 6b. OFFICE SYMBOL 7a. NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION

No abstract

No abstract