document resume - education resources information center · the human resources research...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 074 342 AC 014 285

AUTHOR Drucker, EUgene B. Schwartz, ShepardTITLE The Prediction of AWOL, Military Skills, and

Leadership Potential.INSTITUTION Human Resources Research Organization, Alexandria,

Va.SPONS AGENCY Office of the Chief of Research and Development

(Army), Washington, D.C.REPORT NO HumRRO- TR --73 -1

PUB DATE Jan 73NOTE 48p.

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29DESCRIPTORS Attitudes; Delinquent Identification; Enlisted Men;

*Leadership Qualities; *Military Training;Motivation; *Prediction; psychologicalCharacteristics; Psychological Testing; *SuccessFactors; Technical Reports

IDENTIFIERS Absent Without LeaVe; AWOL

ABSTRACTDuring basic combat training, 2,072 enlisted men were

classified as being either AWOL or Non -AWOL. Three hundred of thesemen were similarly classified after 90 days in their initial unitassignment. AWOL and Non-AWOL soldiers were then compared todetermine whether certain factors could be used to predict whichsoldiers would go AWOL or to predict ratings of acquired militaryskills and of leadership potential. The results indicate that AWOLand Non-AWOL subjects differed on personality, education,intelligence, aptitude, and military component. No differences werefound in attitude toward the Army, race, or physical status. AWOL andNon-AWOL subjects differed in age during initial unit assignment, butonly among 17- and 18-year-old soldiers during basic combat training.Only 19-year-old and older subjects differed in career orientation.In general, the same factors that were related to AWOL were relatedalso to military skill and leadership potential. (Author)

TechnicaiReport

73-1

HurriRRO-M-73-1

FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE CM

HumRRO

The Prediction ofAWOL, Military Skills, nd

Leadership Potential

Eugene H. Drucker and Shepard Schwartz

HUMAN RESOURCES RESEARCH ORGANIZATION300 North Washington Street Alexandria, Virginia 22314

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

January 1973

Prepared for

Office of the Chief of Research and DevelopmenzDepartment of the ArmyWashington, D.C. 20310

Destroy this report wher. it is no longer needed.Do not return it to the originator.

DARD-ARS-B

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYOFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20310

February 26, 1973

SUBJECT: The Prediction of AWOL, Military Skills, and LeadershipPotential

TO: 4C011ISII IONS LIFRAR IANER IC PRIICESS ENG & REFERENCE FACILITY4833 RLIGRY A VFNUFBETHESDA MD ?COP+

1. This report is part of the research done for Work Unit ESPRIT,Development of Methods for Improving Soldier Adjustment to the Army.A major purpose of this study was to explore the potential use ofpersonality tests for predicting which soldiers would go AWOL.Another purpose was to study which soldiers would most successfullyacquire necessary military skills, and to predict which soldiers wouldmost likely be promoted.

2. Over 2,000 enlisted men were classified on the basis of whetherthey had or had not gone'AWOL during basic combat -training; 300 ofthese men were subsequently classified again on the basis of whetherthey had or had not gone AWOL during the first 90 days of their initialunit assignment. AWOL and non-AWOL soldiers were then compared onvarious factors; they differed on personality, education, intelligence,aptitude, and military component. In general, the same factors thatwere related to AWOL were also related to military skill and leadershippotential.

3. This report will interest those concerned with motivation, attitude,leadership, delinquency, personality testing, and prediction studies.

FOR THE CHIEF OF RESEARCH Awl DEVELOPMENT:

VITERNAColonel, OS

Chief, BehavioralSciences Office

HumRROTechnical

Report73-1

c!!_f,lr,::Nlt:1;r7

The Prediction ofAWOL, Military Skill_, andLeadership Potential

Eugene H. Drucker and Shepard ehwartz

HumRRO Division No. 2Fort Knox, Kentucky

HUMAN RESOURCES RESEARCH ORGANIZATION

Approved forpublic release;

distributionunlimited.

Prepared for

Office of the Chief of Research and DevelopmentDepartment of the. ArmyWashington, D.C. 20310

The Human Resources Research Organization (HurnRRO) is a nonprofitcorporation established in 1969 to conduct research in the field of trainingand education. It is a continuation of The George Washington UniversityHuman Resources Research Office. HumRRO's general purpose !s to improvehuman performance, particularly in organizational settings, through behavioraland social science research, development, and consultation. HumRRO's missionin work performed under contract with the Department of the Army is toconduct research in the fields of training, motivation, and leadership.

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Departmentof the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized documents.

PublishedJanuary 1973

byHUMAN RESOURCES RESEARCH ORGANIZATION

300 North Washington StreetAlexandria, Virginia 22314

Distributed under the authority of theChief of Research and Development

Department of the ArmyWashington, D.C. 20310

FOREWORD

The research described in this report. was performed by the Human ResourcesResearch Organization as part of the Work Unit ESPRIT, Development of Methods forImproving Soldier Adjustment to the Army. The objective of the Work Unit is to dev.;lopmeasuring instruments for determining the sources of low motivation and attitudedeterioration among enlisted men, and to adapt and evaluate methods for increasingmotivation and preventing attitude deterioration. This report contains the results of astudy to determine what factors can be used to predict which enlisted men will goAWOL.

The research was conducted at HumRRO Division No 2; Fort Knox, Kentucky,where Dr. Donald F. Haggard is the Director. Personnel of the U.S. Army Armor HumanResearch Unit provided military support for this effort. LTC Willis G. Pratt is Chief ofthe Unit.

HurnRRO Research for the Department of the Army is conducted under con.tract DAHC 19-73-C-00041. Army Training Research is conducted under Army Project2Q062107A'745.

Meredith P. CrawfordPresident

Human Resources Research Organization

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

PROBLEM

Recent Army statistics show an increase in the number of soldiers v,hoduring their military service. To reduce the AWOL rate, the Arm-i could reject recruitsmost likely to go AWOL or could give them special attention designed to reduce AWOLlikelihood, but either solution requires that the soldiers who will go AWOL be identifiedin advance. Previous attempts to develop methods for predicting who will go AWOL havebeen unsuccessful.

To develop an effective predictive technique, the factors that cause soldiers to goAWOL must first be identified. Once identified, they can be used istical !Omutathat would combine the information from different sources to predict AWOL. Thepurpose of the present study is to identify the factors that cause soldiers to go AWOL. Asecond research project under Work Unit ESPRIT is being conducted concurrently toevaluate the effectiveness of multiple discriminant function analysis as a statisticaltechnique for combining this information in order to make AWOL predictions.

The factors that were studied to determine their effects on AWOL are personality,attitude toward the Army, career orientation, age, years of education, intelligence,aptitude, race, Army component, and physical status.

The ability of these factors to predict Military Skills scores and Leadership Potentialratings also was assessed.

APPROACH

The subjects were 2,072 enlisted men assigned to the United States Training Center,Armor, for basic combat training. Each man completed five scales Zrom the CaliforniaPsychological Inventory (CPI) and the TA-III Questionnaire, an attitude scale measuringfavorability of attitudes toward the Army. Other information for each subject wasobtained from personnel records.

AWOL information was obtained for each subject during basic combat training fromunit morning reports. After 90 days of initial duty assignment, the information wasobtained by inserting suspense actions in Military Personnel Record Jackets; the officersor NCOs who normally prepare and review evaluation ratings were asked to use a specialform to report whether a subject was AWOL, and to rate each subject on military skillsand leadership potential.

Subjects were classified as being either AWOL or Non-AWOL during basic cornbattraining and again during initial duty assignment. AWOL and Non-AWOL subjects werecompared to determine the relationship between each factor and the tendency to goAWOL. Separate analyses were performed for 17- and 18-year-old soldiers and for soldiers19 years of age and older during basic combat training.

RESULTS

During both basic combat training and initial duty assignment, AWOL and Non-AWOL subjects were found to differ in theh scores on the five personality scales. Atboth times, the Non-AWOL subjects had the more socially desirable personality traits.

AWOL and Non-AWOL subjects did not differ in their attitudes toward the Army,either during basic combat training or during initial duty assignment. No differences werefound between the two groups in career orientation except for soldiers 19 years of ageand older; during basic combat training, those who planned to make the Army theircareer had a greater tendency to go AWOL.

Among 17- and 18-year-old soldiers in basic combat training, those who were AWOLwere found to be younger than those who were not AWOL. During initial dutyassignment, AWOL soldiers were also younger than Non-AWOL soldiers,

During both basic combat training and initial duty assignment, AWOL soldiers werefound to have less education, lower intelligence, lower mechanical aptitude, and lowerclerical aptitude than Non-AWOL soldiers.

Neither race nor physical status was found to be related to AWOL, However, RApersonnel had a greater tendency to go AWOL than US personnel.

Education, aptitude, intelligence, age, and the Responsibility scale from the CPIwere found to correlate highest among the factors with Military Skills ratings. Race,component, and the four remaining personality scales showed a small correlation withthese ratings, while attitude toward the Army, career orientation, and physical statuswere unrelated to military skills.

Subjects with the greatest leadership potential were found to have more sociallydesirable personality traits than those with low ratings. Those with high ratings: were alsofound to be older, better educated, and more intelligent, and to have higher aptitudescores.

CONCLUSIONS

(1) The results of this study suggest that personality is an important determinant ofAWOL. Thus, future techniques designed to predict which soldiers will go AWOL shouldtake personality traits into account.

(2) Attitude toward the Army is not an important factor in determining whichsoldiers will go AWOL.

(3) Soldiers planning to make the Army their career appear more likely to goAWOL. Among 19-year-old and older soldiers, more of those who were oriented towardan Army career werc AWOL than those not oriented toward an Army career; also, RApersonnel were more likely to go AWOL than US personnel. Thus, an increase in theAWOL rate may occur as a result of having a volunteer Army.

(4) Soldiers who enter the Army at their 17th birthday are much more likely to goAWOL during basic combat training than soldiers who enter at other ages. During initialunit assignment, younger soldiers generally are more apt to go AWOL than older soldiers.

(5) Soldiers who go AWOL have less education, lower intelligence, and less mechani-cal and clerical aptitude than soldiers who do not go AWOL.

(6) Race is not an important factor' in .determining who will go AWOL.(7) The same factors appear to cause both younger and older soldiers to go AWOL.(8) The same factors that cause soldiers to go AWOL also influence acquisition of

military skills and leadership potential.

vi

CONTENTS

Introduction

Method

Pogo

5

Approach 5

Subjects 6

Materials 7

California Psychological Inventory 7

TA-III Questionnaire 8

Career Orientation 8

Background Characteristics 8

Military Skills Scale 9

Leadership Potential Scale

Results 9

Prediction of AWOL During Basic Combat Training 9

Personality 9

Attitude Toward Army 10



Prediction of AWOL Among Soldiers 17 and 18 Years of Age DuringBasic Combat Training 11

Personality 11


Career Orientation . ... ...... . 12


Prediction of AWOL Among Soldiers 19 Years of Age or Older DuringBasic Combat Training 14

P e r s o n a l i t y . , . . . . . . . ... .. ... .. 14



Background Characteristics . . 15

Prediction of AWOL During Initial Unit Assignment ..... 16

Personality . . . . . . . .. . . ..... 16


Career Orientation

Background Characteristics . ...... .. 17

Prediction of Military Skills Ratings 18

Prediction of Leadership Potential Ratings ..... . ... 19

Personality ........ . . . . . . .. . . .. 19


Career Orientation .. . . ... .. .. 20Background Characteristics 21

vii

Page

Discussion . ......... .... ..... . . ......... 23

Literature Cited 31

Appendices

A AWOL Information 7,-;.im 33

B TA-I I I Questionnaire 34

C Military Skills Scale 38

D Leadership Potential Rating Scale 39

Tables

1 Mean California Psychological Inventory Scores for AWOL andNon-AWOL Subjects During Basic Combat Training 10

2 Comparison Between AWOL and Non-AWOL Subjects by Career. Orientation ScoreDuring Basic Combat Training 10

3 Mean Background Characteristics of 'AWOL and Non-AWOL SubjectsDuring Basic Combat Training 11

4 Comparison Between AWOL and Non-AWOL Subjects on Background CharacteristicsDuring Basic Combat Training

5 Mean California Psychological Inventory Scores for 17- and 18-Year-Old AWOL andNon-AWOL Subjects During Basic Combat Training .. ......... 12

6 Comparison Between 17- and 18-Year-Old AWOL and Non-AWOL Subjects byCareer Orientation Score During Basic Combat Training 12

7 Mean Background Characteristics of 17- and 18-Year-Old AWOL andNon-AWOL Subjects During Basic Combat Training 13

8 Comparison Between 17- and 18-Year-Old ,NWOL and Non-AWOL Subjects onBackground Characteristics During Basic Combat Training .......... 13

9 Mean California Psychological Inventory Scores for 19-Year-Old and Older AWOL andNon-AWOL Subjects During Basic Combat Training 14

10 Comparison Between 19-Year-Old and Older AWOL and Non-AWOL Subjects byCareer Orientation Score During Basic Combat Training

11 Mean Background Characteristics of 19-Year-Old and Older AWOL andNon-AWOL Subjects During Basic Combat Training . . .... ......... . 15

12 Comparison Between 19-Year-Old and Older AWOL and Non-AWOL Subjects onBackground Characteristics During Basic Combat Training

13 Mean California Psychological Inventory Scores for AWOL and Non-AWOL SubjectsDuring Initial Unit Assignment .. ................... .

14 Comparison Between AWOL and Non-AWOL Subjects byCareer Orientation Score During Initial Unit Assignment

15 Mean Background Characteristic Scores of AWOL and Non-AWOL SubjectsDuring Initial Unit Assignment 17

16 Comparison Betwean AWOL and Non-AWOL Subjects on Background CharacteristicsDuring initial Unit Assignment

17 Correlation Coefficients Between Information Measures andMilitary Skills Ratings

16

17

vi i i

18

19

Tables Cont.)18 Mean California Psychological Inventory Scores for Subjects by

Leadership Potential Group 2019 Comparison Between Leadership Potential Groups by Career Potential Score 2120 Mean Background Characteristic Scores for Subjects by Leadership Potential Group 2121 Comparison Between Leadership Potential Groups by Background Characteristics . . 22

The Prediction .ofAWOL-Military Skills, andLeadership Potential

INTRODUCTION

According to recent Army statistics, there has been a substantial increase inAWOL rate over the last few years (1). In 1967, 78 out of every 1,000 soldiers weAWOL: The rate has increased during each subsequent year By 1971, the rate had _Inc

than doubled; 177 out of every 1,000 soldiers went AWOL during 1971.High AWOL rates can have negative consequences for the Army in terms of be

lost manpower and reduced morale. Not only are personnel who are absent from aunable to perform the tasks or duties to which they are assigned, but their absence oftinterferes with the performance of those tasks to which their replacements had initiabeen assigned. In addition, manpower is lost when personnel are needed to propAWOL reports, to prosecute soldiers who have been AWOL, and to administer whate%punitive measures are assigned. A high AWOL rate is also likely to have a detrimeneffect on the morale of other soldiers, further reducing the performance efficiencysoldiers who have not gone AWOL.

One possible solution to the AWOL problem would be the rejection of recruits w,would be most likely to go AWOL during their military service. Assuming that tmanpower source is large enough to supply the required number of soldiers, those melikely to go AWOL need not be accepted into the Army. Another possible solution wourequire that the soldiers most likely to go AWOL be given special treatment by the Armto reduce the likelihood that they would, in fact, go AWOL. For example, speccounselors could be assigned to these people to help them with personal problems oradjusting to the demands of Army life.

While either approach could theoretically solve the Army's AWOL problem, tl-eboth require a means for identifying AWOL soldiers in advance. Unfortunately, previoattempts to develop techniques for predicting which soldiers would go AWOL have be.relatively unsuccessful. For example, the Army Behavioral Science Research Laborato:(BESRL) conducted a study (2) in which three delinquency scales from the PersonOpinion Study and a scale developed from BESRL's Personal History Form, the OversAcceptability Scale, were administered to a sample of basic trainees. The scales weexamined for their ability to predict delinquency by comparing the responses made Enondelinquents to those made by soldiers who had later violated military law. The resulshowed that the scales could not efficiently differentiate between the men in these tm.groups. Consequently, it was concluded that none of these instruments would be usefifor predicting which soldiers would commit disciplinary offenses.

Earlier, the U.S. Naval Retraining Command (, 4, 5, 6, 7) evaluated an instrumerdeveloped from personality tests, the Delinquency Potential (DP) scale. This scale WEformulated from items selected from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventor(MMPI) and the California Psychological Inventory (CPI). To develop the DP Scale, 47items from the two personality tests were administered to 20,000 men. The 119 items t.which delinquents and nondelinquents responded most differently were selected to bincluded in the scale. In the study by Gunderson, Ballard, and Huge (6), it was fowlthat 51% of all delinquents could be identified, but 25% of the nondelinquents woulhave been incorrectly identified as delinquents. Thus, although the DP Scale did differertiate between delinquents and nondelinquents, it did not differentiate well enough to buseful for prediction purposes. Because there were many more subjects in the nordelinquent sample than in the delinquent sample, the number of nondelinquents whi

would have been misclassified through use of the scale would have been far greater thanthe number of delinquents who would have been correctly classified.

In another study of delinquency, Datel (Bj administered the Socialization scale ofthe CPI to 762 inductees and 303 stockade prisoners at Fort Ord. It was found thatinductees and stockade prisoners tended to differ in their responses. One-third of thestockade prisoners could have been correctly identified by the scale, but 1% of theinductees would have been incorrectly identified as prisoners. Because the number ofrecruits in the Army is far greater than the number of stockade prisoners, misclassific-ation of 1% of the inductees would have caused a very large number of nondelinquentsto be misclassified as probable delinquents.

Thus, previous attempts to develop a scale for predicting which soldiers wouldcommit delinquent acts have been unsuccessful. While many successful predictions ofdelinquency can be made using these scales, they can be made only at a high cost since,for each delinquent correctly identified, an even greater number of nondelinquents wouldbe incorrectly identified. If soldiers were obtained from an unlimited source of man-power, erroneous classification might be tolerated. However, when soldiers must beobtained from a limited manpower source, erroneous classification leads to the loss oftoo many successful soldiers to be practical. With the probable termination of the draft,it can be assumed that the manpower source will be quite limited in the future. Ifpotential delinquents are to be prohibited from military service, it first will be necessaryto develop better techniques for predicting delinquency.

One problem in developing an instrument to predict who will go AWOL is the factthat there are many underlying factors that cause soldiers to go AWOL. Any attempt topredict which soldiers will go AWOL by using a measure of only one factor would,therefore, almost certainly fail. A two-step approach is thus needed to develop aninstrument capable of predicting AWOL. The first step would be to identify factors thatcause soldiers to go AWOL, and the second would be to combine these factors into asingle predictive instrument that would allow a statistical technique to be used formaking the predictions. The statistical technique would have to take into account all theinformation provided by these factors.

Many of the factors that cause military personnel to go AWOL have already beenidentified. A study by the U.S. Navy Neuropsychiatric. Unit , found that factors thatpredicted adjustment to the marines included years of education, history of schoolrepulsion, and age at enlistment. Among those factors found by Stouffer and Unless (10)to discriminate between delinquents and nondelinquents in the Navy were type of homelife, number of health complaints, and history of civilian delinquency. In an earlier studyof military delinquency by HumRRO (11), such factors as socioeconomic status, homebackground, pre-Army delinquency, and aggressiveness were found to be important.

One purpose of the present study is to attempt to identify additional factors thatmay be related to AWOL in the Army and to verify the importance of factors previouslyidentified in other research. Simultaneously, an attempt is being made under Work UnitESPRIT to assess the adequacy of multiple discriminant function analysis as a techniqueto combine known factors in a predictive formula.

In predicting which soldiers go AWOL, it is possible that the causes of AWOL duringbasic combat training are different from the causes following basic combat training.During basic training, soldiers have less unsupervised time than they will have later intheir military careers. Therefore, it is likely that a soldier who goes AWOL during basictraining will have to be more deliberate in his plans to go AWOL than soldiers in otherphases of their military service. Once a soldier is permanently assigned to a regular unit,he has considerable time without supervision and spends a great deal of time off post. Itis easier for a soldier in this situation to go AWOL than one who is still in basic training.Consequently, the factors that cause a soldier to go AWOL during basic training are likely

to be somewhat different than the factors following training. One purpose of the presentstudy is to determine whether the factors that differentiate between AWOL and non-AWOL soldiers during basic training differ from those that differentiate between AWOLand Non-AWOL soldiers during regular duty assignments.

Another major purpose of this study is to explore the potential use of personalitytests for predicting which soldiers will go AWOL. It is probable that some aspect of asoldier's personality may increase the likelihood that he will go AWOL. For example,some soldiers may go AWOL as a reaction to stress; because of an inability to toleratestress, they may try to escape what is to them a stress-producing situation. On the otherhand, some soldiers may have a high tolerance for stress and may not go AWOL even ifthey find the Army to be stressful. To the extent that personality tests can measure suchfactors as tolerance for stress, it would be possible to use them as sources of informationfor predicting which soldiers will go AWOL.

Previous studies have already found that delinquents and nondelinquents responddifferently, on the average, to scales from the California Psychological Inventory. Studiesby Gough and Peterson (12) and by Peterson, Quay, and Anderson (13) have shown thatthe CPI can discriminate between delinquents and nondelinquents. The Socialization scaleof the CPI has been found especially successful in making such discriminations. Forexample, in the previously mentioned study by Datel (8), the Socialization scale wasfound to discriminate between stockade prisoners and inductees who were not confinedto the stockade.

Attitude toward the Army is another factor that will be explored as a possiblefactor causing soldiers to go AWOLsoldiers who have unfavorable attitudes toward theArmy may be more likely to go AWOL than soldiers who have favorable attitudes. Theinfluence of career orientation will also be examinedit is expected that soldiers whoplan to make the Army their career will be less likely to go AWOL than soldiers who donot plan to make the Army their career. Other factors to be studied are intelligence,personal aptitude, age, race, amount of education, military component, and physicalstatus.

It is also a purpose of the present study to explore the possibility that these samesources of information can be used to predict which soldiers would most successfullyacquire necessary military skills, and to predict which soldiers are most likely to bepromoted into positions of leadership. Going AWOL, failing to learn required skills, andfailing to achieve a position of leadership all are signs of maladjustment to military life. Itis likely, therefore, that all share the same underlying causes, and that all can bepredicted by a knowledge of these causes.

METHOD

APPROACH

To determine whether factors can be used to predict which soldiers would go AWOLduring their military careers, information on each factor for each subject was obtainedprior to basic combat training. AWOL reports received during basic combat training andduring initial unit assignments allowed each subject to be classified later as being AWOLor non-AWOL. The information describing AWOL soldiers was then compared to theinformation describing non AWOL soldiers.

AWOL information during basic combat training was obtained from unit morningreports; all men who were listed one or more times on morning reports as being AWOLwere classified as AWOL subjects. AWOL information during initial unit assignments wasobtained by inserting a suspense action in the Military Personnel Record Jacket for each

subject. Each subject's commander was asked to provide AWOL information on anenclosed form 90 days after the subject was assigned to the Unit and return the form tothe Chief of the Armor Human Research Unit. (Appf ridix A contains the AWOLinformation form.) The following information was requested:

(1) The organization to which the soldier was currently assigned.(2) The date on which the assignment was made.(3) Current pay grade.(4) Current MOS.(5) Current duty position title.(6) Whether or not the soldier had his period of active duty extended by

reason of AWOL or other misconduct.(7) The date, length, and cause of each extension.

In addition, the commander was asked to provide ratings of the degree to which thesubject had acquired a number of different military skills and to rate the subject'sleadership potential. These ratings were to be made by the officers or NCOs whonormally prepare and review evaluations of their men.

To determine how well each factor could predict which soldiers would go AWOLduring basic combat training, the subjects were classified as being either. AWOL orNon-AWOL during basic training. The information pertaining to subjects who wentAWOL during basic combat training was then compared to the information pertaining tosubjects who did not go AWOL in order to discover whether there were differencesbetween the two groups on any of the factors.

To determine how the relationship between these factors and AWOL was affectedby the age of the subjects, three analyses were conducted on the data received duringbasic combat training. The first analysis included data from all subjects regardless of theirage, the second included data only from 17- and 18 -year -old subjects, while the thirdincluded data only from subjects 19 years of age and older.

Data received during initial duty assignments were analyzed only once, using theentire sample for which AWOL data were available. The sample of AWOL subjects duringinitial unit assignment was too small to allow it to be further divided into different agegroups.

The rating received by the subjects during initial duty assignments was correlatedwith the values for each of the different factors to determine how well the differentfactors could predict acquisition of military skills.

Subjects were divided into four groups on the basis of their ratings to determinehow well the different factors could predict ratings of leadership potential. Informationpertaining to subjects in the four groups was then compared to determine whether or notthere were significant differences among the four groups on any of these factors.

Information pertaining to personality, attitude toward the Army, and career orienta-tion was obtained by administering tests and questionnaires to subjects before the start ofbasic combat training. Information on other factors was obtained from personnel records.

SUBJECTS

The subjects for the study were 2,072 enlisted men assigned to basic trainingcompanies at the United States Training Center, Armor.

During basic combat training, 60 of these men were reported by their units ashaving been AWOL; the remaining 2,012 men were not reported as having been AWOL.The 60 AWOL subjects included 24 men who were 17 or 18 years of age, and 36 menVio were 19 years old or older, The 2,012 Non-AWOL subjects included 537 men whowere 17 or 18 years of age, and 1,462 men who were 19 years of age or older (the

remaining 13 Non-AWOL .subjects could not be classified by age because f missi orinaccurate data).

AWOL reports during initial unit assignments were received for only 338 of theoriginal sample of over 2,000 suidiers. Of this number, 31 were reported as having beenAWOL during initial unit assignment, and 269 were reported as not having been AWOL:The remaining 38 reports were incorrectly completed and could not be used for theanalysis. AWOL reports were not received at all for the remaining 1,734 subjects.

MATERIALS

California Psychological Inventory'

Because the California Psychological inventory (CPI) had been found in preciousstudies (8, 12, 13) to differentiate between delinquents and noncielinquents, the test waschosen Co be included in the present study. The CPI appeared to be particularlyappropriate since it was initially developed for use with normal rather than abnormalpersons.

--The CPI contains a total of 480 items that together yield 18 scores representingdifferent aspects of social interaction. Since there was not sufficient time to administerthe entire inventory to the subjects, only five of the 18 scales were included.

To select the five scales, a group of experienced officers and noncommissionedofficers were given a description of each of the 18 traits measured by the inventory.They were asked to select the five traits they considered the most important fornoncornmi sioned officers to possess. The five subscales, and their descriptions as pro-vided in the CPI test manual (14) are listed:

(1) Dominance. Persons scoring high on the Dominance subscale were describedas "aggressive, confident, persistent, and planful; as being persuasive andverbally fluent; -is self-reliant and independent; and as having leadershippotential and initiative."

(2) Responsibility. Persons scoring high on the Responsibility subscale weredescribed as being "planful, responsible, thorough, progressive, capable,dignified, and independent; as being conscientious and dependable:,resourceful and efficient; and as being alert to ethical and moral issues."Socialization. Persons scoring high on the Socialization scale were describedas "serious, honest, industrious, modest, obliging, sincere, and steady; asbeing conscientious and responsible; and as being self-denying andconforming."

(4) COITIpl, Persons scoring high on the Communality scale weredescribed as "dependable, moderate, tactful, reliable, sincere, patient,steady and realistic; as being honest and conscientious; and as havingcommon sense and good judgment."

(5) Achievement via Independence; Persons scoring high on the Achievementvia Independence scale were described as "mature, forceful, strong, domi-nant, demanding, and foresighted; as being independent and self-reliant; andas having superior intellectual ability and judgment."

The final version containing these five scales consisted of 185 items. Each item wasa statement with which the respondent indicated agreement or disagreement.

Reproduced by permission for research purposes only, Copyright 1943, renewed 1970 by theUniversity of Minnesota, Published by The Psychological Corporation New York, N.Y. All rights reserved.

Since there is evidence to indicate that item responses obtained to selected items isolated from thecontext of a personality inventory may not be comparable to those obtained within the context, the resultsof this research should not be considered applicable to the standardized complete form of the inventory.

TA-III Questionnaire

The TA-III 'is an attitude questionnaire developed by HumRRO Division No. 3 forWoe- Unit TRANSITION. The first section consisted Df a list of 14 concepts, such as theU.S. Army, Labor Unions, and Going to School. The subject was required to rate thefavorability of his feelings toward each of these concepts. Six concepts concerned themilitary, and one point was given for each of these six concepts that was describedfavorably.

The second section of the questionnaire consisted of 16 statements concerning- theArmy, such as "The Army makes a man of you" and "Most Army officers are wellqualified for their jobs." The subject responded to each statement by stating the degreeto which he agreed or disagreed with it. One point was given for each statement withwhich he agreed when that item was favorable toward the Army. One point was alsogiven for each statement with which a subject disagreed when the item was unfavorabletoward the Army.

The third section consisted of three questions referring to adjustment to Army lifeand to reenlistment intentions. These items were not scored.

The range of possible scores on the questionnaire was from 0 to,22, with high scoresindicating favorable attitudes toward the Army. The TA-III Questionnaire is given inAppendix B.

Career Orientation

A measure of orientation toward an Army career was obtained from the last twoquestions in Section 3 of the TA-III. These questions were concerned with the subject'schances of reenlisting after his present tour of duty. Subjects who indicated on bothquestions that they will almost certainly reenlist or will probably reenlist were given twopoints. Subjects who indicated on one of the two questions that they would reenlist weregiven one point. Subjects who did not indicate on either question that they wouldreenlist were given 0 points. Thus, the higher the number of points received, the more asubject was oriented toward the Army as a career.

Background Characteristics

The following information was obtained from military records:(1) Race. Subjects were classified as either Black (Negro) or White (Caucasian).

There were too few subjects of other races to be included in the dataanalysis.

(2) AE.(3) Education. Information was obtained concerning the number of years each

subject went to school,(4) Intelligence. The General Technical (GT) score served as a measure of

intelligence.(5) Aptitude. The Mechanical Aptitude (MA) and Clerical Aptitude (Cl) scores

served as measures of personal aptitude.(6) Component. Subjects were classified as either RA or US.(7) Physical Status. Subjects with no ratings of "2" on their Physical Status

records were assigned a score of 0. Those with a single rating of "2" wereassigned a score of 1. Those with more than one rating of "2" wereassigned a score of 2. Thus, the higher the score, the lower the physicalstatus of the subject.

Military Skills Stale

A rating scale was devised to measure subjectively the capacity of each subject toperform different skills judged to be important for success as an enlisted man. The eightskills were adapted from the Army's Enlisted Efficiency Report:

(1) Knowledge of job.(2) Performance of job.(3) Adaptability on job.(4) General responsibility.(5) Personal relations skills.(6) Leadership skills.(7) Acceptance of authority.(8) Achievement drive.

For each of these eight skills, a scale was provided on which it could be indicatedwhether the subject was outstanding, above average, about average, low average, orunsatisfactory. These ratings were to be made by the officers or NCOs who wouldnormally prepare and review such evaluations. (The Military Skills scale is contained inAppendix C.)

To score the scale, values from 1 to 5 were given to each response. A subject wasOven five points for each outstanding rating; four points for each above average rating;three points for eaai about average rating; two points for each low average rating; andone point for each unsatisfactory rating. These points were then summed for all eightskills, to yield the Military- Skills score. The rang_ e of possible scores was from 8 to 40points.

Leadership Potential Scale

To measure leadership potential, a scale was provided on which the rater couldindicate the highest grade at which he thought the man could function effectively. Theseratings ikere to be made by the same persons who made the Military Skills ratings. Therespondent was asked to rate the subject as capable of functioning as an officer, or toselect the grade of enlisted man, ranging from El to E9, at which the subject couldfunction effectively. Occasionally, respondents che,kal the officer category and alsospecified an enlisted man's grade. Whenever this occurred, it was assumed that the soldiercould have performed at both levels, and was listed in the higher ranking category. (TheLeadership Potential scale is contained in Appendix D.)

Subjects were placed into one of four groups based upon their ratings: a rating fromEl to E3, Group I; a rating from E4 to E6, Group II; a rating from E7 to E9, Group III;a rating of officer or warrant officer, Group IV.

RESULTS

PREDICTION OF AWOL DURING BASIC COMBAT TRAINING

Personality

The mean scores for AWOL and Non-AWOL subjects on the five CPI scales arecontained in Table 1. The maan score for AWOL subjects was less than that received byNon-AWOL subjects for each of the scales. To determine whether these differences werestatistically significant, a t-test was conducted between the two means for each trait: Theresults of the tests showed that all of the differences were statistically significant,

Table 1

Mean California Psychological Inventory Scores for AWOL andNon-AWOL Subjects During Basic Combat Training

PersonalityTrait

AWOLSubjectsIN-60)

Non-AWOLSubjects

(N=2012)

SignificanceLevel

Dominance 20.0 22.7 289 .01

Responsibility 19.8 24.4 6.80 .01Socialization 26.9 32.0 5.42 .01Communality 21.5 23.1 1.96 .05Achievement via

Independence 12.0 14.6 5.88 .05

Attitude Toward Army

The mean TA-IlI scores for the two groups show that there was little difference intheir attitudes toward the Army. Although the mean for the Non-AWOL subjects (14.8)was slightly more favorable than the mean for the AWOL subjects (14.3), a t-test showedthat this difference was not statistically significant.

Career Orientation

The number of AWOL and Non-AWOL subjects having each Career Orientation scoreis shown in Table 2. A chi-square test showed that AWOL and Non-AWOL subjects didnot differ significantly in their career orientation.

Table 2

Comparison Between AWOL and Non-AWOLSubjects by Career Orientation Score During

Basic Combat Training

CareerOrientation

Score

Number ofAWOL

Subjects

Number ofNon-AWOL

Subjects

1

2

32 1,270

12 231

16 478

XC61 (dfm.2); NS


The mean age, education level, intelligence, and aptitude scores for AWOL andNon-AWOL subjects are contained in Table 3. AWOL subjects were slightly younger thanNon-AWOL subjects, although a t4est showed that the difference was not statisticallysignificant. AWOL subjects had had almost two fewer years of education than Non-AWOLs, and received lower mean General Technical, Mechanical Aptitude, and Clerical

In

Aptitude scores. The differences in education level, intelligence, lnd a titude werestatistically significant (p <.01).

Table 3

Mean Background Characteristics of AWOL andNon-AWOL Subjects During Basic Combat Training

BackgroundCharacteristic

AWOLSubjects(N=60)

Non -AWOLSubjects(N=1999)

SignificanceLevel

Age (years) 19.4 19.7 0.72 NS

Education (years 10.0 11.9 9.61 .01

General Technical Sore 935 104.8 5.92 .01

Mechanical Aptitude Sco.-q 98.3 104.6 2.84 .01

Clerical Aptitude Score 97.2 105.4 4.71 .01

The number of AWOL and Non-AWOL subjects are listed in Table 4 according torace, military component, and physical status. A chi-square test showed that the propor-tion of RA and US personnel differed significantly among the two groups. In the AWOLsample, 70% of the subjects were RA personnel, while only 53% of the Non-AWOLsample were RA personnel. AWOL and Non-AWOL subjects did not differ significantly ineither racial composition or physical status.

Table 4

Comparison Between AWOL and Non-AWOL Subjects onBackground Characteristics During Basic Combat Training

Background.

Characteristic

Number ofAWOL

Subjects

Number ofNonAVVOL

Subjectsdf Significance

Level

Race

White

Black

ComponentRAUS

Physical Status

01

52

4218

3622

. 2

.1,828162

1,066

938

1,286

63570

1.44

5.96

0.61

1

1

2

NS

.05

NS

PREDICTION OF AWOL AMONG SOLDIERS 17 AND18 YEARS OF AGE DURING BASIC COMBAT TRAINING

Personality

The mean scores for 17. and 18-year-old AWOL and Non-AWOL subjects on the fiveCPI scales are contained in Table 5, Significant differences between t means for thetwo groups were found on the Responsibility, Socialization, and Achievement via

Independence scales. For each of these traits, the mean score obtained by the AWOLsubjects was lower than the score obtained by the Non-AWOL subjects. The differencesbetween the means for the two groups on the Dominance and Communality scales werenot statistically significant.

Table 5

Mean California Psychological Inventory Scores for

17- and 18-Year-Old AWOL and Non-AWOL Subjects

During Basic Combat Training

PersonalityTrait

AWOLSubjects(N=24)

Non-AWOLSubjects(N =532)

SignificanceLevel

Dominance 21.7 21.7 0.00 NSResponsibility 18.5 22.0 3.33 .01

Socialization 25.2 28.4 2.82 .01Communality 20.0 21.4 1.40 NSAchievement via

Independence 11.6 13.5 2.24 .05


Among 17- and 18-year-old subjects, 'those in the AWOL group showed a slightlyless favorable attitude toward the Army (mean = 13.8) than those in the NonAWOLgroup (mean = 15.6). However, a t-test showed that the difference between the meanswas not statistically significant.

Career Orientation

The number of 17- and 18-year-old subjects in the AWOL and Non-AWOL groupshaving each Career Orientation score is listed in Table 6. The subjects in the two groupsdid not differ significantly in their career orientation.

Table 6

Comparison Between 17- and 18-Year-Old

AWOL and Non-AWOL Subjects By Career

Orientation Score DuringBasic Combat Training

CareerOrientation

Score

Number ofAWOL

Subjects

Number ofNon-AWOL

Subjects

15

1 4

2 5

3.42 (df.2); NS

12

256

61

207


The mean age, education level, intelligence, and aptitude scores for 17- and 18-year-old AWOL and Non-AWOL subjects are contained in Table 7. Statistically significantdifferences were found between the means for the two groups on all characteristicsexcept Mechanical Aptitude. The subjects in the AWOL group were found to be youngerthan those in the non-AWOL group (p.01) and they had 0.8 year less education(p.05). Those in the AWOL group also were found to have lower mean GeneralTechnical .01) and Clerical Aptitude scores (p.05).

Table 7

Mean Background Characteristics of 17- and 18-Year-OldAWOL and Non-AWOL Subjects During



AWOLSubjectsIN.24)

Nary AWOLSubjectsN-5(37)

SignificanceLevel

Age (years) 17.3 17.5 3.14 .01Education (years) 93 10.5 2.47 .05General Technical Score 90.4 97.1 2.63 .01Mechanical Aptitude Score 98.8 99.4 0.21 NSClerical Aptitude Score 95.7 101,2 2.22 .05

The number of 17- and 18-year-old AWOL and Non-AWOL subjects is listed inTable 8 according to race, component, and physical status. The two groups did not differsignificantly on any of these background characteristics.

Table 8

Comparison Between 17- and 18-Year-Old AWOL andNon-AWOL Subjects on Background Characteristics


BackgroundCho:.. cteristic

Number ofAWOL

Subjects

Number ofNon-AWOL

Subjectsof Significance

Level

Race

.White

Black22 497

2 39

ComponentRA 24 473US 0 64

Physical Status01

14 3608 151 3.33 2 NS

3

0.04

2.16

1 NS

NS

PREDICTION OF AWOL AMONG SOLDIERS 19 YEARS OF AGE ANDOLDER DURING BASIC COMBAT TRAINING

Personality

The mean scores for 19-year-old and older AWOL and Non-AWOL subjects on thefive CPI scales are contained in Table 9. Significant differences (p.01) between themeans for the two groups were found on the Dominance, Responsibility, Socialization,and Achievement via Independence scales. For each of these traits, the mean score forthe AWOL subjects was less than the mean score for the Non-AWOL subjects. While themean score for AWOL subjects was also lower than the mean score for non-AWOLsubjects on the Communality scale, the difference between the two groups was notstatistically significant:

Table 9

Mean California Psychological Inventory Scores for 19-Year-Oldand Older AWOL and Non -AWOL Subjects During


PersonalityTrait

AWOLSubjectsIN 36-)

Non-AWOLSubjects(NN1457).

SignificanceLevel

Dominance 18.8 23.1 3.44 .01

Responsibility 20.6 25.3 5.31 .01

Socialization 28.0 33.4 3.94 .01

Communality 22.5 23.7 1.06 NS

Achievement viaIndependence 12:2 15.2 5.26 .01


Among-the subjects who were 19 years of age and older, a significant difference onthe TA-HI Scale was not found between those in the AWOL group (mean = 14.7) andthose in the Non-AWOL group (mean e 14.4).

Career Orientation

The number of 19-year-old and older subjects in the AWOL and Non-AWOL groupshaving each Career Orientation score is contained in Table 10. The subjects in the twogroups were found to differ significantly (p.05) in their career orientation. While 17 outof 36 subjects (47%) in the AWOL group obtained a Career Orientation score of zero,1,002 out of 1,432 subjects (70`x©) in the Non-AWOL group obtained this score.Similarly, while 11 out of 36 subjects (31%) in the AWOL group obtained a maximumscore of 2 on the Career Orientation scale, only 266 out of 1,432 subjects (19 %) in theNon-AWOL group obtained this score,

7A

Table 10

Comparison Between 19-Year-Old andOlder AWOL and Non-AWOL Subjects by

Career Orientation Score DuringBasic Combat Training

CareerOrientation

Score

Number ofAWOL

Subjects

Number ofNon-AWOL

Subjects

1

2

17

8

11

1,002

164

266

=6.77 (df=2); p 0


The mean age, education level, intelligence, and aptitude scores for 19-year-old andolder subjects in the AWOL and Non-AWOL groups are contained in Table 11. Statisti-cally significant differences (p.01) were found between the two groups on all back-ground characteristics except age. Compared to subjects in the Non-AWOL group, thosein the AWOL group were found to have more than two years less education as well aslower General Technical, Mechanical Aptitude, and Clerical Aptitude scores.

Table 11

Mean Background .Characteristics-of 19-Year-Old and Older .

AWOL and Non-AWOL Subjects During Basic Combat Training


AWOLSubjects(N=36)

Non-AWOLSubjects(N=1462)

Significance'.4Vel

Age (years) 20.9 20.5 0.63 NSEducation (years) 10.2 12.5 8.69 .01General Technical Score 95.5 107.7 4.53 .01Mechanical Aptitude Score 97.9 106.5 2.81 .01Clerical Aptitude Score 98.3 106,9 3.66 .01

The number of 19-year-old and older AWOL and Non-AWOL subjects are listed inTable 12 according to race, component, and physical status. The two groups did notdiffer significantly on any of these three background characteristics.

Table 12

Comparison Between 19-Year-OW and Older AWOL andNon-AWOL Subjects on Background Characteristics


Beck roue dCharacteristic

Num Lier ofAWOL

Subjects

Number ofNon-AWOL

Subjects

x2 cif SignificanceLevel

RaceWhiteBlack

ComponentRAUS

Physical Status01

2

306

1818

22140

1,331123

588873

926474

57

2.04

1,01

1.87 2

NS

NS

NS

PREDICTION OF AWOL DURFNG INITIAL UNIT ASSIGNMENT

Personality

The mean scores for AWOL and Non-AWOL subjects on the five CPI scales arecontained in Table 13, The mean scores for AWOL subjects were lower than the meanscores for Non-AWOL subjects on all five scales, Each of these differences was found tobe statistically significant.

Table 13

Mean California Psychological Inventory Scores for AWOL andNon-AWOL Subjects During Initial Unit Assignment

PersonalityTrait

AWOLSubjects(N=32)

Non-AWOLSubjects(269)

SignificanceLevel

Dominance 19.0 23.5 4.62 .01Responsibility 20.6 25.5 5.54 .01Socialization 28.6 33.0 - 3.73 .01Communality 21.4 24.2 2.51 .05Achievement via

Independence 12,8 15.4 3.31 .01

Attitude Toward ArmyThe mean TA-III scores for the two groups show that the AWOL subjects had

slightly more favorable attitudes toward the Army (mean = 16.3) than the Non-AWOLsubjects (mean = 14.9). The difference between the two means, however, was not=statistically significant.

Career Orientation

The number of AWOL and Non-AWOL subjects having each C. ver Orientationis contained in Table 14. A chi-square test showed that there were no differencesbetween the two groups in their career orientation.

Table 14

Comparison Between AWOL and Non-AWOLSubjects by Career Orientation Score During

Initial Unit Assignment

CareerOrientation

Score

Number ofAVVOL

Subjects1

Number ofNon-AWOL

Subjects

0 16 187

1 4 21

2 11 58

x2-4,48 (df-2); NS


The mean age, education level, intelligence, and aptitude scores for AWOL andNon-AWOL subjects are contained in Table 15. AWOL subjects were found to besignificantly younger than Non-AWOL subjects (p.01) and to have significantly feweryears of education (p.01). The General Technical, Mechanical Aptitude, and ClericalAptitude scores for AWOL subjects were also found to be significantly lower than thosefor Non-AWOL subjects (p .01).

Table 15

Mean Background Characteristic Scores of AWOL andNon-AWOL Subjects During Initial Unit Assignment


AWOLSubjects(N=31)

Non-AWOLSubjectsIN,267)

SignificanceLevel

Age (years) 18.2 20.1 637 .01Education (years) 9.9 12.5 8.23 .01General Technical Score 90.4 109.3 7.84 .01Mechanical Aptitude Score 98.0 107.4 3.58 .01

Clerical Aptitude Score 96.2 108.2 4 $8 .01

The numbers of AWOL and Non-AWOL subjects are listed in Table 16 according torace, component, and physical status. Chi-square tests showed that AWOL subjects didnot differ from Non-AWOL subjects in either racial composition or physical status. Asignificant difference was found between the two groups, however, in the proportion ofRA and US personnel (p<,01). In the AWOL group, 24 out of 31 subjects (77%) wereRA personnel; in the Non-AWOL group, 133 out of 268 subjects (50%) were RAoersonnel

Table 16

Comparison Between AWOL and Non-AWOL Subjects onBackground Characteristics During Initial Unit Assignment


Number ofAWOL

Subjects

Number ofNon-AWOL

Subjects

z df SignificanceLevel

Race

WhiteBlack

ComponentRAUS

Physical Status01

2

27

4

247

2010

1

256

10

133

135

157

94

16

7.53

0.59

1

2

NS

.01

NS

PREDICTION OF MILITARY SKILLS RATINGS

To determine how well Military Skills ratings could be predicted from the differentfactors, correlation coefficients were computed between each factor and the rating ofmilitary skill. The ratings were available only during initial unit assignments. Only thedata from Non-AWOL subjects were used, since ratings of AWOL subjects could havebeen biased by the company commander's knowledge that the subject was AWOL. Table17 contains the correlation coefficients.

The correlation coefficients between the five CPI scales and Military Skills ratingsranged from .13 to .31. Four of the personality traits correlated significantly withMilitary Skills ratingsDominance (p<.01), Responsibility (p.01), Socialization (p<.05),and Achievement via Independence (p<.05).

Neither the. TA-III scale nor the Career Orientation scale correlated significantly withMilitary Skills ratings. However, a significant correlation was obtained between rating ofmilitary skill and each background characteristic except physical status. The highestcorrelation was obtained with education (r .40), while the correlations with GeneralTechnical score (r .33), Mechanical Aptitude score (r a .35), and Clerical Aptitude score(r = .35) were slightly smaller. Race (r = .15) and Component (r = .17) showed thesmallest correlations among those that were statistically significant.

Table 17

Correlation Coefficients Between Information Measures andMilitary Skills Ratings

informationMeasures

NCorrelation

oef f icientSignificance

Leitel

California Psychological InventoryScores

Dominance 269 .25 .01Responsibility 269 .31 .01Socialization 269 .16 .05Communality 269 .13 NSAchievement via

Independence 269 .17 .05

TA-III 265 .01 NSCareer Orientation 266 .02 NSBackground Characteristics

Age 267 .30 .01Education 267 .40 .01

General Technical Score 267 .33 .01

Mechanical Aptitude Score 267 .35 .01Clerical Aptitude Score 267 .36 .01Race 266 .15 .05Component 268 .17 .05Physical Status 267 .00 NS

PREDICTION OF LEADERSHIP POTENTIAL RATINGS

The Leadership Potential ratings, like the Military Skills ratings, were available onlyduring initial unit assignments. As before, only ratings for Non-AWOL subjects wereanalyzed in order to eliminate bias created by the knowledge that the subject was AWOL.

Subjects were classified into one of four groups on the basis of their ratings: GroupIall Non-AWOL subjects who received a Leadership Potential rating of El, E2, or E3;Group Non-AWOL subjects with a Leadership Potential rating of E4, E5, or E6;Group Non-AWOL subjects with a Leadership Potential rating of E7, E8, or E9;Group IVall Non-AWOL subjects with a Leadership Potential rating of officer orwarrant officer. Four subjects were classified in Group I, 124 in Group II, 49 in GroupHI, and 92 in Group IV.

Personality

The mean scores for the four groups on the five CPI scales are contained in Table18. With only two exceptions, on each of the five traits the mean scores increased as theLeadership Potential of the group increased. Thus, the means for Group II were higherthan the means for Group I, the means for Group III were higher than those for GroupII, and so forth. Exceptions from this pattern occurred on the Communality scale wherethe mean for Group II (23.5) was slightly less than the mean for Group I (24.0), and onthe Achievement via Independence scale where the mean for Group II (14.4) was againslightly less than the mean for Group I (14.5).

Table 18

Mean California Psychological Inventory Scores forSubjects by Leadership Potential Group

PersonalityTrait

Leadership Potential Groupell Significance

Lave IdIV

Dominance 17.2 21.5 22.6 27.1 3,265 .01Responsibility 21.2 23.7 25.3 28.2 3,265 .01Socialization 27.0 31.7 32.6 35.3 3,265 .01Communality 24.0 23.5 24.3 25.1 3,265 NSAchievement via

Independence 14.5 14.4 15.4 16.9 3,265 .01

°Tested by analysis of variance.

An analysis of variance was conducted for each scale to compare the four means. Asignificant difference (p<.01) between the means for the four groups was found on fourof the five scales. Only on the Communality scale were the means for the four groupsnot significantly different.

To determine which Means were significantly different on each of the four scales onwhich significant differences were obtained, t-tests were conducted between all pairs ofmeans. No significant differences were found between the means for Group I and thosefor Groups II or III. However, the means for Group I were significantly lower than thosefor Group IV on the Dominance (p<.01), Responsibility (p<.05), and Socialization(p<.01) scales. No differences were found between the means obtained from Group IIand those from Group III. However, the means obtained from Group II were significantlylower than those from Group IV on all five scales (p.01). Finally, the means obtainedfrom Group III were significantly ,)owes than those obtained from Group IV on theDominance (p<.01), Responsibility (p<.01), Socialization (p<.05), and Achievement viaIndependence (p<.05) scales.


The mean TA-III scores for subjects in the four groups show that the subjects inGroup I had the most favorable attitude toward the Army (mean = 15.2), those in GroupIII were intermediate (mean = 15.1), while those in Groups II (mean e 14.8) and IV(mean 14.8) had the least favorable attitude. The analysis of variance conducted tocompare the difference between the means showed that the differences were notstatistically significant.

Career Orientation

The number of subjects in each group having each of the three Career Orientationscores is contained in Table 19. A majority of the subjects in each group had a CareerOrientation score of 0, while the smallest number of subjects had a score of 1. Achi-square test, however, showed that the proportion of subjects receiving each score inthe four groups did not differ significantly.

Table 19

Comparison Between Leadership Potential GroupsBy Career Potential Score

CareerOrientation

Score

Number of Subjects

Group I Group II Group III Group IV

0 3 87 33 641 1 11 4 5

2 0 24 11 23

X 2 4.03 (df.6); NS


The mean age, education level, intelligence, and aptitude scores for the subjects ineach of the four groups are contained in Table 20. Subjects in each group were older, onthe average, than subjects in any of the groups receiving lower Leadership Potentialratings. An analysis of variance showed that the difference in age between the groups wasstatistically significant (p<.01). The difference between each pair of groups was shown byt-tests to be statistically significant except for the difference in age between Groups IIand HI.

Table 20

Mean Background Characteristic Scores forSubjects by Leadership Potential Group

BackgroundCharacteristics

Leadership Potential Group

i i IVdf Significance

Leveia

Age (years) 18.2 19.6 19.9 21.1 3,263 .01Education (years) 11.8 11.7 12.3 13.8 3,263 .01General Technical Score 101.2 101.2 110.2 120.1 3,2F3 .01Mechanical Aptitude Score 108.0 100.6 107.9 116.2 3,263 .01Clerical Aptitude Score 103.0 101.2 109.4 117.3 3,263 .01

aTes ed by analysis of variance.

With one exception, subjects in each group had more years of education thansubjects. in groups receiving lower Leadership Potential ratings. The subjects in Group Ideviated from this pattern since they had slightly more years of education (11.8) thansubjects in Group. II (11.7 years). An analysis of variance showed that the difference ineducation between the groups was statistically significant (p.01). The differencebetween Group IV and each of the other three groups was shown by t-tests to bestatistically significant (p<.01). The difference between Group_ s II and III was alsostatistically significant (p.05), although the differences between Group I and Groups IIand III were not significant.

With the exception of Group I, which had the same mean as Group II, subjects ineach group had higher GT scores, on the average, than subjects in groups receiving lower

Leadership Potential ratings. An analysis of variance showed that the difference inintelligence hetween the groups was statistically significant (p<.01). The differencebetween Group IV and each of the other three groups was shown by t-tests to hestatistically significant (p-C.01). The difference between Groups II and III was alsostatistically significant (p<.01), although the differences between Group I and Groups IIand HI were not significant.

With the exception of Group I, which had a mean Mechanical Aptitude score thatwas slightly greater than that received by Group II and Group HT, subjects in each grouphad, on the average, higher Mechanical Aptitude scores than did subjects in groups havinglower Leadership Potential ratings. An analysis of variance showed that the difference inMechanical- Aptitude between the groups was statistically significant (p.01). The differ-ences between Group IV and Groups H and III were found to be-statistically significant(p.(.01). The difference between Groups II and HI was also statistically significant(i.K.05), although Group I did not differ significantly from any of the other threegroups.

With the exception of Group I with a Clerical Aptitude score that was greater thanthat for Group II, but less than that for Group III, subjects in each group had, on theaverage, higher Clerical Aptitude scores than subjects in groups having lower LeadershipPotential ratings. An analysis of variance showed that the difference in Clerical Aptitudebetween the groups was statistically significant (p.01). The difference between GroupTV and Groups I, II, and III was found to be statistically significant (p.01). Thedifference between Groups II and HI was also significant (p.05), although the d ffer-ences between Group I and Groups II and III were not significant..

The number of subjects in each group are listed in Table 21 according to race,component, and physical status. A chi-square test showed that the groups did not differsignificantly on any of these three factors.

Table 21

Comparison Between Leadership Potential Groups byBackground Characteristics

BackgroundCharacteristics

Number ofSubjects in

Group I

Number ofSubjects inGroup II

Number ofSubjects inGroup III

Number ofSubjects in

Group IV

'df SignificanceLevel

RaceWhite 117 45 91

Black 6 2 17.26 3 NS

ComponentRA 65 23 42

2.05 3 NSUS 59 25 50

Physical Status0 1 81 29 46

1 3 36 15 40 9.06 6 NS

2 6 4 6

DISCUSSION

A major purpose of the present study was to identify factors related to AWOL andto confirm relationships previously identified in studies of delinquency. The resultsshowed that AWOL and Non-AWOL subjects differed on several of the factors studied.The groups were found to differ on all five personality scales during both basic combattraining and initial unit assignment. Other factors on which they differed were years ofeducation, intelligence, mechanical aptitude, and clerical aptitude.

The success of the five CPI scales in differentiating between AWOL and Non-AWOLsubjects was especially important, since the scales were selected by military personnelwith little or no previous training in psychological testing. Had these scales been selectedby trained experts who were aware of the causes of military delinquency, perhaps evengreater differences could have been found between the groups.

During both basic combat training and initial unit assignment, significant differenceswere 'obtained between AWOL and Non-AWOL subjects on all five CPI scales. The twogroups were found to differ on only three of these scales when only the data for 17- and18-year-old subjects were considered, and on four scales when only the data from19-year-old and older subjects were considered. For the 17- and 18-year-old subjects, thegroups differed only on the Responsibility, Socialization, and Achievement via Independ-ence scales. For the subjects who were 19 years of age or older, the groups differed onthe Dominance, Responsibility, Socialization, and Achievement via Independence scales.On the Communality scale, the mean score for AWOL subjects was lower than the meanfor Non-AWOL subjects even though the difference was not statistically significant. Thissuggests that the failure to find a significant difference in Communality for 17- and18-year-old soldiers was possibly due to the reduced size of the sample. There was nodifference at all in the mean Dominance score obtained from 17- and 18-year-old AWOLand Non-AWOL subjects, suggesting that Dominance was not a relevant factor in soldiersof this age.

AWOL and Non-AWOL soldiers did not differ in their attitudes toward the Army. Itwas expected that AWOL soldiers would have had more negative attitudes toward theArmy than Non-AWOL soldiers; however, no differences were found in- the attitudes ofthe two groups either during basic combat training or during initial unit assignment. Sinceit is normally assumed that attitudes play a major role in determining behavior, theseresults are somewhat surprising. They suggest that further examination should be given tothe relationship between attitudes and behavior among soldiers. One possible explanationfor the failure to find a relationship between delinquent behavior and attitude toward theArmy is that the other factors causing soldiers to go AWOL, or keeping them from goingAWOL, were even more important than attitudes.

Although no relationship was found between attitudes and AWOL in the presentstudy, attitudes may have a stronger effect on other forms of behavior in the Army. Theresults of a recent HumRRO study (15) show that attitude toward the Army is related toa tank commander's intention to reenlist in the Army. Tank commanders who decided toreenlist were found_ to have more favorable attitudes toward the Army than those whodecided not to reenlist.

In studies conducted by HumRRO on the effects of the Army's VOLARexperiment' , questionnaires were administered to 47,886 men during Basic CombatTraining or Advanced Individual Training. Data were analyzed by comparing the AWOLrates of men having different personal characteristics. Among the items on the question-naire were a number of attitude statements, and AWOL rates were computed for menhaving different attitudes toward the Army. The results obtained during Basic Combat

These were studies of attitudes and absenteeism during the BOT -AIT cycle at Forts Ord and Jackson.

Training showed the relationship between attitudes and AWOL rate to be co-mplex. _.

attitudes toward the Army became more positive, the AWOL rate declined, but only to (Icertain point; beyond that, as attitudes became more favorable, the AWOL rate increased.On the other hand, the AWOL rate continued to decrease steadily during AdvancedIndividual Training as attitudes became more favorable.

The discrepancy between the results of the present study and those of the VOLARstudies could possibly be accounted for bi the difference between the methods used inthe two investigations. During the present study, the mean attitude score for AWOLsubjects was compared to the mean score for Non-AWOL subjects. In the VOLARstudies, AWOL rates were compared for soldiers having different attitude scores. Theresults of the VOLAR studies show that there is a nonlinear relationship betweenattitudes and AWOL rate. That is, the AWOL rate was found to be higher for subjectshaving extreme positive and negative attitudes toward the Army than for subjects havingintermediate attitudes. When the attitudes of AWOL and Non-AWOL subjects are com-pared, the extreme attitude scores obtained from subjects in the AWOL group would beexpected to show the same mean as the scores obtained from subjects in the Non-AWOLgroup. However, the variance of the attitude scores for AWOL subjects would beexpected to he greater than the variance of the scores for Non-AWOL subjects. An F-testcomparing the variance of the scores for AWOL subjects during Basic Combat Training(23.4) with the variance of the scores for Non-AWOL subjects (21.7) showed, however,that the variances were not significantly different. Thus, the differences in the results ofthe two investigations cannot be accounted for on the basis of the difference between thetwo methods of analysis.

Career Orientation was found to be related to AWOL for soldiers 19 years of age orolder, but not for 17- and 18-year-old soldiers. Using the entire sample, AWOL andNon-AWOL subjects did not differ in their career orientations either during basic combattraining or during initial unit assignments. A significant difference in career orientationwas found between AWOL and Non-AWOL soldiers during basic combat training, butonly for soldiers 19 years of age or older. Apparently, older soldiers who plan to rn..kethe Army their career are more likely to go AWOL during basic combat training thansoldiers of the same age who do not want to make the Army their career. The reasonwhy this relationship between career orientation and AWOL was found only for soldiers19 years of age or older cannot be determined from the data. However, these findingssuggest that, in some circumstances, career orientation could be used to predict whichsoldiers will go AWOL. Whether or not 19-year-old and older soldiers who plan a careerin the Army are also more likely to go AWOL during initial unit training cannot bedetermined because the sample of soldiers who went AWOL during initial unit assign-ments is too small to be analyzed by age. Further research on this question is warrantedby the nature of the data obtained in the present study.

Age was another factor that gave inconsistent results. No -difference was found inthe average age of AWOL and Non-AWOL soldiers using the entire sample during basiccombat training. A significant difference in age between AWOL and Non-AWOL subjectswas found during. basic combat training for soldiers who were 17 and 18 years of age,but not between those who were 19 years-of age or older. Thus, it appears that soldierswho enter the Army immediately after their 17th birthday are more likely to go AWOLthan soldiers entering at other ages. Perhaps the 17-year-old who enters the Army justafter his birthday does so to escape the problems of civilian life. His inability to handlethese problems in civilian life may further prevent him from handling correspondingproblems in military life. It appears from this research that the AWOL rate can bereduced by not accepting recruits at their 17th birthday. However, this solution may notwork if it merely causes a slight delay in enlistment; if these same men enter the Army-just a few months later, they may still be unable to handle the problems theywill face in the Army.

During initial duty assignment, AWOL and Non-AWOL soldiers were again found todiffer in age. At this Lime of service, however, AWOL is not limited to the extremelyyoung soldier. The average age of the AWOL soldier during initial unit assignment was18.2 years; this was still two years younger than the average age of the Non-AWOLsoldier. Thus, it appears that the very youngest soldiers are most likely to go AWOLduring basic combat training when supervision is greatest. When supervision is reduced,however, the range of young soldiers likely to go AWOL becomes greater. Therefore, agecan be used as a factor to predict which soldiers will go AWOL, but only if time ofservice is taken into account simultaneously.

In the VOLAR studies, significant differences were found between the AWOL ratesof soldiers of various ages during training. Soldiers 17 years of age or younger had thehighest AWOL rate. The AWOL rate decreased with age until ages 22 and 23, but thenincreased for soldiers 24 years of age or older. In the present study, significant differencewas found during basic combat training between the mean ages of AWOL and Non-AWOL soldiers who were 17 and 18 years of age, but not for soldiers-older than 18.These results could be accounted for by the results of the VOLAR studies. Since theAWOL rate was found in the latter to decrease between the ages of 17 and 18, asignificant difference in the average age would be expected between AWOL and Non-AWOL soldiers in this age group. However, since the AWOL rate increases for soldiersover 23 years of age, the AWOL rate would be highest for the youngest and oldestsoldiers in the age group 19 years and older, and lowest for those intermediate in age.When the average age of AWOL and Non-AWOL soldiers is compared, a significantdifference could not then be expected, However, the variance of ages for AWOL subjectswould be expected to be larger than the variance for Non-AWOL subjects, An F-testshowed that the variance of AWOL subjects (11.21) was significantly greater (p.01)than the variance of Non-AWOL subjects (2.86), supporting this explanation of thedifference between the results of the two studies:

Clear and consistent relationships were found between years of education andAWOL. During both basic combat training and initial unit assignment, soldiers who wentAWOL were found to have fewer years of education than soldiers who did not go AWOL.A similar finding was obtained during the VOLAR studies in which the AWOL rate wasfound to decrease beginning at the seventh year of school,

Equally clear and consistent relationships were found between intelligence andAWOL. During both basic combat training and initial duty assignment, soldiers who wereAWOL were less intelligent than soldiers who did not go AWOL. Similar findings wereobtained using the two aptitude scales. Soldiers who went AWOL during basic combattraining or during initial_ unit assignment had less mechanical aptitude and clericalaptitude than soldiers who did not go AWOL. These relationships were found for boththe younger and older subjects for clerical aptitude, but only for the older subjects formechanical aptitude.

No statistically significant differences were found in the proportions of Negroes andWhites among AWOL and Non-AWOL soldiers. Thus, the data suggest that race may notbe an important factor in causing a soldier to go AWOL. However, during the VOLARstudies, statistically significant differences were found in the AWOL rates of Negro andWhite soldiers; an AWOL rate of 3.23 was found for White soldiers compared to a rateof 5.11 for Negro soldiers. In the present ESPRIT study, the AWOL rate during trainingwas 2.8 for White soldiers compared to a rate of 4.7 for Negro soldiers. Thus, the ratesand the differences between them, determined in the two studies are quite similar. It ispossible that the statistical significance of the results obtained in the VOLAR studies wasdue either to the larger sample size in VOLAR or to a difference in the methods used inanalysis of the data.

A tendency was found for RA personnel to go AWOL more than US personnel.During both basic combat training and initial duty assignment, a greater proportion of

R_A were found in the AWOL sample than in the Non-AWOL 31e. This suggests thatthe AWOL rate may continue to increase once the draft is terminated. The presentsample of RA personnel includes not only men who want, to make the Army their career.but men who volunteered for duty only because they would have been drafted if theydid not enlist. Thus, many of the RA soldiers in the sample were more like US soldiersthan RA soldiers. Similar results were obtained during the VOLAR studies.

Physical status, the remaining factor that was explored, was found to be unrelatedto AWOL:

The results of this study suggest that personality scales may be very effective inpredicting which soldiers will go AWOL. 'Fo determine whether or not AWOL andNon AWOL soldiers differ on the remaining scales of the CP1 or on other personalitytests requires additional research. However, the consistent differences between AWOLsand Non-AWOLs in the present study suggest that personality may be an especiallyimportant factor in determining who will go AWOL.

One reason for dividing the sample of subjects from basic combat training intodifferent age groups was to determine whether the same factors are related to AWOL atdifferent ages. Generally, it appears that the factors that cause younger soldiers to goAWOL are the same as those that cause older soldiers to go AWOL. Slight differenceswere found in the personality scales that differentiated between AWOLs and Non-AWOLsin the two age groups, In addition, career orientation appeared to be an important factoronly for older subjects, but no important differences were fotind among the other factorsthat differentiated between AWOL and Non-AWOL soldiers (except age itself).

The fact that soldiers who recently became 17 years of age were particularly likelyto go AWOL suggests that soldiers of this age should be studied more carefully. It isunlikely that age itself caused these men to go AWOL more often than men who wereonly slightly older. Whether their high AWOL rate was due to inability to handle personalproblems, immaturity, or some other factor cannot be determined from the data. Thisproblem also deserves closer examination.

The use of suspense actions to obtain AWOL information during initial dutyassignment was generally very unsuccessful. AWOL reports were received for only 16% ofthe initial sample of basic trainees, and many of these were unusable. Since there was noway of determining whether these 16 %© differed systematically from the remaining 84`x©, itis possible that the subjects in the sample are not representative of all soldiers in theirinitial duty assignments. For example, there could have been a greater chance that thesuspense action for AWOLs would have been noticed more often than for Non-AWOLs.Any factor that could cause the suspense action of one type of soldier to be noticedmore often than the suspense action for another type of soldier could have caused thesample to differ in some important respect from other soldiers in their initial dutyassignment_ It is suggested, therefore, that other methods be developed to obtain AWOLdata during this period of service. One such method is being assessed in the HumRROstudy testing the effectiveness of multiple discriminant function analysis as a method forpredicting AWOL.

Another purpose of the present study was to determine whether the same factorsthat could be used to predict AWOL could also be used to predict military skills ratingsand leadership potential ratings. The results show that the factors related to AWOL are,in fact, related to both military skills and leadership potential ratings. Age, education,intelligence, and aptitude were related to all three forms of adjustment to the Army.Personality was also related to the three forms of adjustment. Attitude toward the Army,race, and physical status were unrelated to any of these three forms of adjustment.Military component seemed somewhat related to AWOL and military skills, but not toleadership potential.

One weakness in the present study occurred as a result of using ratings to measuremilitary skills and leadership potential: Normally_ , objective measures should be usedwherever possible to help ensure that the data will be reliable and valid. Subjective _ratingsof the sort used in this study often are made less accurate by the inability of the rater toassess the person being judged, or by biases in the rater that could affect his judgments.This problem is further compounded in the present study by the lack of control inselecting the personnel who make the ratings. While the instructions requested that theratings be made by officers or NCOs who normally prepare and review evaluation ratings,there was no assurance that the rater complied with this request. It is, therefore,important to consider these data as being tentative in nature. Before they can beaccepted with assurance, new data will be required in which information on military skillsand leadership potential is obtained in a more controlled and objective manner.

In summary, several factors have been found to be related to AWOL, military skills,and leadership potential, while several other factors were found to be unrelated. Theimportance of personality as a factor in predicting AWOL confirms Datel's (8) earlierfinding that the AWOL soldiers could be differentiated from Non-AWOL soldiers by usingthe Socialization scale of the CPI. The results also confirm findings from the U.S. NavalRetraining Command (3, 4, 5, 6, 7) that personality items can differentiate betweendelinquents and nondelinquents. Similarly, the findings pertaining to age and educationconfirm the results obtained earlier by the Navy (9, 10) concerning factors related todelinquency. The results also confirm the results of studies on civilians (12, 1.3) thatshowed a relationship between the CPI and delinquency. If multiple discriminant functionanalysis is found to be an effective technique for combining this type of information forpredicting AWOL, the reamining step will be to identify additional factors and tocombine them using the statistical technique.

LITERATURE CITEDAND

APPENDICES

LITERATURE CITED

1. "Military Discipline: Ebbing Morale of Men at tear," CongrReport, vol. XXX, ho. 8, 1972, pp. 391-395.

2. Larson, Emile E. and Kristiansen, Donald M. Prediction of Disciplinary Offin Army Service, Technical Report No. 210, Army Behavioral Science RescLaboratory, Arlington, Virginia, April 1969.

3. Hanley, Charles. An Inventory of Personal Opinions, Technical Report 1, URetraining Command, San Diego, California, August 1954.

4. Ives, Virginia and Grant, Marguerite Q. Initial Steps in the Measurement ofpersonal Maturity, Technical Report 6, U.S Naval Retraining Command, SECalifornia, November 1956_Ives, Virginia, Grant, Marguerite Q., and Ballard, Kelley B. Inter= personal VRelated to Recidivism in Military Delinquency, Technical Report 8, U.S. N:Retraining Command, San Diego, California, December 1957.

6. Gunderson, E.K., Ballard, Kelley B., and Huge, P.S. The Relationship of DePotential Scale Scores of Naval Recruits to Later Military Performance, Tec-Report 9, U.S. Naval Retraining Command, San Diego, California, July 195

7. Gunderson, E.K. and Ballard, Kelley B. Discriminant Analysis of Variables 1to Non-Conformity in Naval Recruits, Technical Report 11, U.S. Naval RetiCommand, San Diego, August 1959.Datel, William E. "Socialization Scale Norms on Military Samples," Militaryvol. 127, 1962, pp. 740-744.

9. Berry, Newell H. and Nelson, Paul D. Many Are Called, Report 66-14, U.S.Neuropsychiatric Research Unit, San Diego, California, August 1966.

10. Stouffer, A., Jr., and Otness, H. Robert. "100 Civilian Delinquents in theJournal of Clinical Psychopathology, vol. 47, 1946, pp. 251-270.

11. Osburn, Hobart G., Brown. Charles, Chreitzberg, Janice, Hield, Wayne, Seideand Watson, Donald. A Preliminary Investigation of Delinquency in the ArmTechnical Report 5, April 1954.

12 Gough, H.G. and Peterson, D.R. "The Identification and Measurement of Prtional Factors in Crime and Delinquency," Journal of Consulting Psychology1952, pp. 207-212.Peterson, D.R., Quay, H.C., and Anderson, A.C. "Extending the Construct N.of a Socialization Scale," Journal of Consulting Psychology, vol. 23, 1959, p

14. Gough, H.G. Manual for the California Psychological Inventory, ConsultingPsychologist Press, Palo Alto, California., 1960.Drucker, Eugene H. and Schwartz, Shepard. Reenlistment Intentions of TantiCommanders, HumRRO Technical Report 72-17, May 1972.

Appendix A

AWOL INFORMATION FORM

HumRRO TRANS. FORM I-1

THIS FORM IS TO BE COMPLETED ONLY IF THE MAN NAMED BELOW IS ONACTIVE DUTY STATUS ON THE SUSPENSE DATE SPECIFIED BELOW.

Name SSN Suspense Date1. Please provide the following information about the above named soldier:

a. To what organization is he currently assigned7b. On what date was he assigned?c. What is his current pay grade? ; his MOS? ; his duty position

title?d. Has his period of committed active duty ever been extended by reason of AWOL

or other misconduct? . Yes Noe. If the response to the preceding question was "Yes," please give date, length and

cause of each extension.Date Length Cause

2. With reference to the EM named please complete the HumRRO Career-PotentialRating. Report, which appears on the back page of this Form. The individual. officersor NCO's who would normally prepare and review the evaluation ratings of this man,should be employed for this purpose.Forward completed forms to Chief

US Army Armor Human Research UnitATTN: ES-74Fort Knox, Kentucky 40121

4. When this suspense action has been completed, the Notice of Suspense Action, theletter to the Commanding Officer of the EM named, and the HumRRO Form thatis not applicable to the man, will be removed from the Record Jacket and destroyed.

Name

HumRRO Division No. 2

Appendix B

TA-III QUESTIONNAIRE

Rank Serial N

Section I

October, 1969Form TA -III, 74-1

We 'would like to know how generally favorable or unfavorable you feel about thedifferent things listed at the bottom of this pagethat is, how much you like or dislikeeach thing. You may not know much of anything about some of the things isted, so youmay have to depend on things you have heard from,other people, or even on hunches.Show how you feel about each thing by putting one of the numbers from 1 to 7 in frontof it.

Here is what your numbers should mean:

1. Feel extremely favorable.2. Feel quite favorable.3. Feel slightly favorable.4. Feel neither favorable nor unfavorable.5. Feel slightly unfavorable.6. Feel quite unfavorable.7. Feel extremely unfavorable.

(a) The U.S. Army h. Teachersb. Labor unions Life as a civilian

(c) Most Army sergeants1. The U.S. Air Force

d. Going to school k. Night clubs(e) Life as a soldier Most Army officersf. Managers, bosses The police

(g) Army rules and regulations n. Hunting, fishing

Section H

In this section there are a number of statements about the Army. Read each state-ment and decide how much you agree or disagree with it Then check the answer whichis closest to the way you feel.

1. The Army makes a man of you.

Agree completely.Agree moderately.Agree slightly. ,

Disagree slightly.Disagree moderately

2. Most Army officers are well qualified forfcrr their jobs.

(1) Agree completely.(2) Agree moderately_ .

(3) Agree slightly.(4) Disagree slightly.(5) Disagree moderately.(6) Disagree completely.

The Array does everything possible to put men in the jobs for which they ! bestsuited.

(1) Agree completely.(2) Agree moderately.(3) Agree slightly.(4) Disagree slightly.(5) Disagree moderately.(6) Disagree completely.

4. The Army is run as efficiently


as No large civilian organizations

5. Most Army NCOs are willing to go through anything they ask their men to gothrough.

(1) Agree completely.(2) Agree moderately.(3) Agree slightly.(4) Disagree slightly.(5) Disagree moderately.(6)_Disagree completely.

6. In the Army, nobody seems to "give a damn" about anything.

(1 Agree completely.(2) Agree moderately.(3 )_Agree slightly.(4) Disagree slightly.(5) Disagree moderately.(6)1' Disagree completely.

The Army is not interested in the welfare of individual soldier,

(1) Agree completely.(2) Agree moderately.(3)__ Agree slightly.(4)_ Disagree slightly.(5) Disagree moderately.(6) Disagree completely.

Army officers are generally understanding of the needs and problems of their me(1) Agree completely.(2) Agree moderately.(3) Agree slightly.(4) Disagree slightly.(5) Disagree moderately.(6) Disagree completely.

9. The discipline you get in the Army is good for you.


10. Whatever job you get in the Army, you can be sure that you will be well "nedwhen you start performing your duties.


11. The Army encourages men with ability and initiative.(1) Agree completely.(2) _Agree moderately.(3) Agree slightly.(4) Disagree slightly.(5) Disagree moderately.(6) Disagree completely.

12. Army officers are generally as well qualified as men who have civilian jobs with thesame amount of responsibility.


13. Army NCOs are generally as well qualified as men who have civilian jobs with thesame amount of responsibility.

(1) Agree completely.(2) __Agree moderately.(3) Agree slightly.(4) _Disagree slightly.(5) Disagree moderately.

14. As long as you "keep your nose clean," you'll get ahead in the Army just as fastwhether you really work hard or not.


15. Most Army NCOs really understand how to get the best out of their men.


16. Most Army NCOs are well qualified for their Jobs.


Section III

1. How hard has it been for you getting used to Army life and discipline?

(1) Very hard.(2) Fairly hard.(3) Neither hard nor easy.(4) Fairly easy.(5) Very easy.

2. Right now, what do you think the chances are that you will reenlist in the Armyafter your present tour of duty?(1) _Will definitely not reenlist.(2) Will probably not reenlist.(3) Might reenlist.(4) _Will probably reenlist.(5) Will almost certainly reenlist.

If things work out for you in the Army, what are the chances that you willreenlist when your present tour is finished?

(1) I will almost certainly reenlist.(2) =I will probably reenlist.(3) There is a good chance that I will re(4) I will probably not reenlist.(5) I will definitely not reenlist.

Appendix C

MALI ARY SKILLS SCALE

HumRRO CAREER-POTENTIAL RATING REPORT (EM)

THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW IS FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES ONLY,AND WILL IN NO WPY BE MADE A PART OF THE

PERMANENT RECORD OF THE EM NAMED.

Please rate the EM named on each of the following characteristics:

a. Knowledge of his Jobb. Performance of his Jobc, Adaptability on his Jobd. General Responsibilitye. Personal Relations Skillsf. Leadership Skillsg. AecePtance of Authorityh. Achievement Drive

Out Above About Low Unsatis-Standing Average Average Average factory

Appendix D

LEADERSHIP POTENTIAL RATING SCALE

Please indicate below the highest grade at which you think this man could function effec-tively if he were to continue in an Army career. In giving your answer, please disregardthe man's present career intentions, the likelihood that he will remain in the Army, orthe availability of promotions.

a. I believe this man has officer or warrant officer potentialb. I believe this man has the potential to perform effectively at the level of:

El E2 ES

E4 E5 E6

E7 ES E9

Unclassifiedecurity cis agification

DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA - R F. Dcorny classification of title, body of t eod indexing annotation mat be entered whoa the oyaren report to clasailiad

I oo I INATNVO AO TiVi TT (Corporate author)

Human Resources Research Organization (HumRRO)300 North Washington StreetAlexandria,' Virginia 22314

RA. REPORT gECyMiTy cLAMPICATIoN

Unclassified-Zb: GROUP

REPORT To-LE

THE PREDICTION OF AWOL, MILITARY SKILLS, AND LEADERSHIP POTENTIAL

4. inacRipTivr NOTE, (Typo of por and incluniye dates)Technical Report

euyiton(s) (Fitet name. middle initial, law none

Eugene H. Drucker and Shepard Schwartz

D. REPORT DATE

January 19733a. TOTAL ND. or PAN Ett

d3lb NO. OF NE PR

15CONTRACT ON ONANT NO.

DAHC 19-73-C-0004h. PROJECT OIL

2Q062107A745

d.

ORIGIN R REPORT NU _R 3)

HumRRO TR 73-1

eh, oTRER R PORT NO r a __ numbee (fiat may be designedtide xenon)

I OTAIRLIT ION 3TATEM ENT

Approved for public release;distribution unlimited,

I SUPPLEMENT ANT NDt_ Wo Unit ESPRIT: Develop-merit of Methods for Improving Soldier.Adjustment to the Army. HuMRRO DivisionNo 2 Fort Knox Kentuck

IOPDNOON)N0 MMITANYAETIVIT

Office, Chief of Research and DevelopmentDepartment of the ArmyWashington, D.C. 20310

13. .....-TRA.1.

During basic combat training, 2,072 enlisted men were classified as being eitherAWOL or Non-AWOL. Three hundred of these men were similarly classified after 90 daysin their initial unit assignment. AWOL and Non-AWOL soldiers were then compared todetermine whether certain factors could be used to predict which soldiers would goAWOL,-or could predict ratings of acquired military skills and of leadership poten-tial. The results indicate that AWOL and Non-AWOL subjects differed on personality,education, intelligence, aptitude, and military component. No differences were foundin attitude toward the Army, race, or physical status. AWOL:and Non-AWOL subjectsdiffered in age during initial unit assignment, but only among 17- and 18-year-oldsoldiers during basic combat trAining. Only 19-year-old and older subjects differedin career orientation. In general, the same factors that were related to AWOL wererelated also to military skill and leadership potential.

,NOVD ,FNOV 451473 nclassified

Security. Cleasification . .

UnclassifiedSecurity Classification

14

Attitudes

Delinquency

Leadership

Motivation

Personality

Prediction

KEY WON66LINK A

ROLC

LINK 6

KOLE

LINK C

ROLE WY

UnclassifiedSecurity Classification

DISTRIBUTION LIST

2 DI Dr2 (JPGk) I CLJJT U% 4 UuC AV T1 1F il G Y TT ('G Ll R 1M)1 C Ci ft1I LI FtI .iS C G3D I I.1 u .. 1l( CIP 11 CO ri ir ri i cLILM4I JN USD Pfl.4E (. 1 fM1 U C4 T C TN .J !. 3 OP flV FT lC1Ett4I UFC O PIE c ) o (H) rr EEGL i rri t ii ii T ATTN )L] IT2 CU) L C1 J rUC GCY 4U1 TT FCTrT 1 1 t 4 U F! lfli

CI i TECH INFO JLITY CULLEr PA M) L3MJT u FLU AFY rH TT Dlii T SILLI CC US FUUP CcDJ ATr SIJPPCRT FLS J3 1 C M1T 1J 4.(Y Sc1 STT Q ir JLCLS ii ir LLI CINC U pi:iIc ATIM G3 CSE AF 5 L(P Q61 I LPT1 ii Ty ci rU fliL 40LF FF SILLI cc; is V J4FS4 pfl Th341 A4 sr1N r 1M1I JS4 15 sc TT ij cr uric LII ri nISTISlu G U F ThCES %FJLITHE,N COMD TTI SGACU Cl 1 CI )T US tS SL MIF LIS UI TIS1 iI5 AL SA rs 4fl PL 5TTLS 1 IJ4 cT r IL SS1 ris rii v r irçCG (15 kMS tJ]5 Pfl r4 hV ATTN JP4S Iv 1 C 4jI I cr icI C iSS A) (S) LNT U ATTN DSIF CULO 1 L Ut 4 y i Sr ii NJFPLcII) rr AITN ML1A L!v v2 CC LS ARMY ATm CSUT F-I ED[ MD I rrijr JSS S1V SLH 4T!N US FT SILL1 CG R( NM TT OLSUT F F=IFMu. I U5 SC1 E T J P515 C)S CJ T GkSL4 CG sIxrI ARMY P4LS flF SS FN 1Z 1 UI CF A SIj) ( CN sris JU45v sci e USSCLSLI : suS 1TI Sc.c M'u 3LI SS4 FS4 S C3T U S r- STIN ASASLL\ T LISSz CG EiJ%S ITN ( Mf 9SO1 SJ FRAN 015 .0 iN 1P5 LPT J IS T FSING1 CLIN QYIUL SEV uPY U IEJ1JP5VCHJAT LTl SEED 1IJS 1 L-flE5 I' LL4 Cr1 LWS lL1 US AM LNr SC I LT 4LNFII DIP HL API 'ID I UI Cl LUC JSI F! IFN'ING

1 Cl, JS CUL F IMINIATIN [(1M F flUJ 1 r)I S Sr S1 ULY t)EPT ( 5SIS FT TSfl[ -r'S UL L"T IUTLLS I! G tV MY flS1IL NUI IL MS DI ft ' V FALl IeS I)PT ii SI S F T ESNI'G1 ITCH LIS ACMY 4STIrK LMIS TICS MASS Lf USS IG Cr L SCH ATTN TSSC Wfl FT MUUuJHISr rIF LIdlO (3T TTN TECH I.Ih FT 3LYUI VU I C1 iSS SI CTI SL rI STSSC.Lk FT1 FSSTUF SclFFrIFI INFr ci US &SMY ML C isj TIN CiU Plc STC ALA I SLrv F AT1 LTASUN1 CO FT UACUUC SeT C1!L1 J/ ATTN IFril [F LIT 1 IrPE.S 1U 11g C-- r L,IV1 SIxr US L IS JP)T dLDL U I 14 FFS IF SAl FAF I Ut UI- TIkUIhS L SCU WC%FTR 1)5 4S1 PLNS IJF? ISVH Fft)JTSES USAI1 FT c]Irn tCSFI)k fl 4TTS rF I1 Sly WSU OLS cr FT JI ATTN 3 TF TTIV I II tftS ATTN LSGTF IUII wisSI .4LTEM L5 4Y T1TI CTK rr JlukflPSVLHIAT (liv I J 1Y I O4J R -1 CKCT 4TT t'CL CU V1Y NLSILU V(L Ut TT SEMi t (SUF4 1 LLI SV-i L LflL flLT 1r p5ycF4(4T S NFLJUL CINSLT1 ILc LI0 FSL1 USALU 5PE5IMNT4FIT1N CT)4U I O(D ? CC, S V I LI CM STIF4 '[IMV ScI kS iI1 FLIMAN FACTfl(S TTST IIV IAUF-4Z I LJSSF F4tJSP CL Ir 1 Sj A V iF SUVI SY kCii LL4 tTNCLp4R SL v1 Cr) 4NKFakU ASNL AT T SLJFA F.IO122-4 P% I Ill 1 Mr r iv LIrc r i uc SI-C IST T.LJI ) flPT)MI3 TH RQN uSUT4IJCUl FT ITAFR

1 T4VOSF S-1UL CS II 4Il Ak4V ISL 1MD AlP TFVP( TTSLL SN FAr 1 II tIT4vL f W N UCI, IlCMINY M(SNL DiI'S N I TTTN 5U15 1I 2 c Ut SEC 8LTV STL HALL STA SuN SC fl 5 CI VAI LILT O& SLITFLY ry [MLRUN SIA VA 1 AT I nñt ATTN ILA IHFALY) CAMFArN STA ALTA v zj4cn USA [DC AG srcy 1= F'LIJ HATHISTITI ISd I L u FV IEU AFT LAS FT1 F A MS I FJASA ALA I CF TIES CAL TECH JNST LIAIS LiS CQ US CR1 UVTI. C(IMU TANS AGY Ft SSIStIS I Cu USA fliT MLU 5 IV AICV TT SAM 1flUSTJI1 (Fl 4RIY mc TNT AGY FT ATTING CT AAMV 'IL S Ii CTVI Sill1 CO A.TMY COC UM)H A&Y F-I KNIIS I USA THAVIL1A L SYS ASCA L4 AtTN AAIC AAL VA1 :i US ARMY AVN ASCS FT UCFA 2 TNI L TLVTL DIV floCSF PSI iIA W- I.I1PRN TNT liSA 1 flS MST CTS 1 IFT 1 CAFAFAP 'C T AR Arts P LITTPNNE LAMPALIN 514 ALEA VAS LT U TTIG CIS IAI ATTN AcPSITCTT Fl SILL I USA LIq AIVTAcU STU. ASDIAS1 r USA TJG CIA S PT LTU)TAMD WUEJI) ATTN ACUTS UI I PA5 AMY IN FT AflPING ArTN Pp p UIVI rt USA II- [IS ArrtI AJIGTT FT TTAIST I PA5 IAMY 1SIPT 4I) rr as1 cr JA TUG TTR INF ATTP AC(FS G3 FT OIA AFTMY SAIl M FT SILLI cr Uss INC CIT ATTN ACFS G3 1 JACKSIN I , CUSAPS. TTFJ CTTL L 11 IUUAk AlIT 54 FT MLSPE]PS LG kISS INC. CIA INT ATTN AQFS L3 FT LEWIS C CO'TAAr ATTN ATITST5 FT [INATJE1 USA TNr CTA ISP L FT flAfl ASIA ACIiPS G3 C cNAIr ATTN LIA T MUNRP

411 JSA !NT CTR 1SF ATVT AFS U FT pL s 1154 AATIC TLAT CTR CAF ISATA L TEST METH flIV ATATTLLS Cf] J5 TILD TN& 1A AyrP TNG Fr SAI TflUSTUTI S Cifl- iSA AJ ASU FT ILISS

,o Cr USA ALT CEP ATTN FT ULI5 1 CiF US AA.lUg HqU FT KNOX1 CU USA iir cr5 tNT ATTN ICOFA I FT CAMFITELL 1 Cl-IF USA AVT NKU FT AUTFT

LIX 4RMV PAK CULL CAPLISL XIT 1 C IF IJSA INF HAU PT [NNIPIL1 CO USA INTFLL CH ATTN ANt3PTSAO r HLJCIIIJA I Cl-I USA INI CT( HXLJ PITA OF MONrXYI COMDT COIT GEN STAFF CO FT LEAVENWORTH ATTN ARCHIVES 3 CI 4TH A 4OAAT) OIV ATTN DCSOT API) FIT P33251 DIR OF MILIT PSYCHOL LTTISHP US MILIT ACAD .X5T POINT 1 CCI 30 ATFIrI3E0 CAY KEGI FT ILAIS1 U NIL IF ACAU REST POINT ATTN LIII 1 CCI lATH AIAMIIPAI) CMV AECT ATTN MYN OFCR ANT DM145 NT1 CITMOT 4131IV XVII ICH ATTN DIII OP IFISTR FT RUCKEX 1 ISI ASMORIU DIV 110 C I-ID Cfl FT IITIOD ATTN AC OF 5 02I CTIFIDT ARMY SECUX Try 1121 CIX I 501=1 FT DEVENS ATTN LIII S CD LIT PS NIKI) AAIIILA lIT IFIF DIV ATTN 53 PT thEy1 CUMLfl INI)STR CTILL OF THE AEMEO FORCES FE HONAIR 2 CII LIT 115 5411-I SI1MIjA 3RLI PIP DIV ATTN AN ANT NY DM0312 C014]T TTATL NAIl CCLLL FT LSALEY I MCMXIII ATTN CLAASF CCIIIUS XII LIX S CI) I4I) XII IINT11 ARMOR YTI IFTF DIV ATTN 3 SF0 FlY 050)41 STI'100N LIII MED ELD 5XV ICH ORITITIXE ARMY NED CTR FT IAN HOUSTON 1 CCI COMPANY A 317 XII 121 -1A 3D AKMUI4LO OIV APU NYS TOMUT THE ARIITP SCM ATTN 001 PT KNJX I 01 5TH tIN 5313 AXMI)X ATTN 55 11 KNOXI COMDT ARMI TEIIIOX SCH FT KNOT ATTN WEAPONS UEFT 1 Cl SRI) RN SMEll 41111111 YTII INP DIV ATTN ST SF0 NY DM132111 LIII USA AIIMOR ACH FT KNI1M 1 Cl TALl AN 7TH ARM'R 4111 ARMORFU DIV 4TTN 53 API) NY DM055

01)11171 1151 CHAPLAIN SCM ATTN DCI FT HAMILTON A OMLIF III 40311 ARMTTIXPII DIV 11)5 ANrELES ATTN AC ITT SOS1 SITMIST ARMY ri-tIM COMPS SCM PT MCCLELLAN AETII 113110 ADY 1 55TH rUD 1.3 DIV AIIM) NC JACKSONVILLE ELA1 CI)MDT USA FIN 5011 ATTN CF-IF DOC DXV LII FLN DIV 001)1 PIll 1 CC lID 27TH AI1MUAEII CJIV NY SIll NO SYRACUSE1 USA l-INTNCX SCM FT IIETIJ HARRISON ATTN 11110 ADd 1 TCXAS NC. 4MT1-1 AI1MORYD DIV RAL=LASS C092T ALIJ GIN SCH FT BENd HAFIPISUN ATTN 10110 ADd 3 Cl A.MY ARMOR CTA FT KNOX ATTN 03 AIRKOEI 001101 115511 ATTN 10110 NOV FT BINNING I CIT IRIS IMp DIV ATTN ACDFA C3 ADD NY DROSS1 COFIOT U5AIS ATTN AJIt5flEFX0 FT XENIIINX

I CO 7TH IMP DIV ATT ACEJFS I) ANT SAN FRAN 55207I LIE. ARMY ON ACM PT LEE I Cr ATM INF 0111 ATTN TC0FA 02 Am NY 011111C011IE LISA GM SCH FT LEE ATTN ETIUC 3011 3 CI.. 4TH 1SF DIV FIECHI C FT CARSON ITT-I SOUPS 113I CIIMIIT ARMY TRANS ICH IT EUSTIS ATTN ILLUC ADV 1 04 1135 FT CARSON C HIll ATM INF OIV IMICHI ATT MAJ H51I(I5I COHIIT USA NIL POLICE 5tH ATTN FINS tPTflG 11001 II GLITIIJDN 3 K. 112N1) Ads INF DIV ATTN AOUFT 03 PT IIRAGC2 CTJMDT US ARMY SUUTHEASTEII=N 510 SCM ArTN IDLIC XIV FT ODILIIIN 1 C. XVIII AIIN ClIAPS 50112 ACOPS 13 FT BRAGGI EISMDT USA NO SOIl ATTN 001 FT XLIII 1 CII tRTTII IMP IIEIL.0 PT XXF4NING ATTN 531 CD USA 11110 CTM S SCM 010 OF DPI ATTN AHTIND ANT MD 1 Cl) 55T RN (NOINPI ATTN SO PT MVIIIN A%ST CIIMDT ARMY AIR DIP SCM FT BLISS ATTN CLASSP TECH 115 1 CII FIXISIRS 21211 MN 5TH US IRE RIOT SEEN SO 11110 NY 057423 Cl USA PLO ARTY CTR C FT TILL ATTN AVN DFCR 7 CO SIlO IN 5TH IMP RIOT ATTN 53 AFLT NY ONTNA1 CLJMDT ARMED FORCES STAFF COLL NI1RFDLK 1 CO 171ST INF 1101 ATTN 53 MMD SEATTLE 111731I CIINL)S USA 510 CTX S 5011 ATTN DOT PT IHTINMDUIH 1 CD 151 TIN 39TH INF XIII INF DIV ATTN SO ADD NY 011034I CTJMLIT JUISOC ADVOCATS GENCRALS 5011 U OP 115 1 CO 2ND RN ISTI-i INF 3RD INP DIV ATTN 53 ADO NY 0110251 LIrTY CUMDT USA AVN SCM ELEHINT GA 5 lIT INI liv ATTN ACIIFA 03 Ft RILEY1 FIFTY AlIT CflMDT Ills AWl SCM ELEMENT TA N 073 5ST TIN IMFCHI 52120 INF IMIITH IMP MDI ATTN 43 API) IAN FRAN 9521111 USA SYN SCM XI.EMENT OFC OP DIR OF INSTR ATTN EDUC NOV l.A I CO 4TH MN IMICIFI 14T1=I INF ATTN SO IT KNoll1 loUt CLINILT ARMY NIL IT POLICE SCH FT CORQDN I CII USA FAIITIC GD USA INC DEVICE OEM FLAS COMOT USA ENGR SCM ATTN 10110 ADV 4HII115E4 FT REL.VOIFI 1 DX OPC OP lAST CHF TIP STAFF FOR COMM ELCT ATTN CETS-5 WASH1 DIR OF INSTA US NIL AC4Q WIlT POINT NY L ClIP MED ISIS PROJ FIMY 110SF US MIII) 55110 MElT POINT1 DIR OF FIILIT LNSTR US MILIT ACM) WEST POINT I CO NIL IT 01ST [IF IIASHINOTON1 USA INST FOR NIL ASSIST ATTN LID BLDG 11T21011 FT MRAGG 2 DX USA ADA 17M (AIINOLISI RALEIGH FIT4 USA INST FOR MIL ASSIST ATTN CQUNTEILINIURGINCY TIEPT II BRAGG 1 U A ISECRUIT Ili. CORD HAMPTON VAI CONOT DIP ROT SCM FT RELVDIR 1 DIX ASHY LIII TIFNYAL.DN2 CQMDT USA NIL MUtT tIP C ICH ATTN Clip T)FC OP UPS REDSTONE AXSNL I CIIF OF RILIT HIS) 35 ATTN OEM REP UNU COMDT US WAC 5K US WA CTM ATTN AJ1MCT FT MCCLELLAN 1 CD USA 10TH SPEC FORCES SF PT DIVENSII HO ABERDEEN PD ATTN 11011 LIII 1 CD 24TH ARTY OP (AOl ATTN S RI1 CO USA INTILL CIII K SCM ATTN DIR OF ACADEMIC QPS FT HUACHUCA 1 Cl IIISy ARTY 1101 AD ATTN 13 PA1 CD USA INTELL CTR S SCM ATTN DIR CF 000 C LIT FT IIUACHIJCA I CL) 211TH ARTY OP AD ATTN 53 SELFRIDGE APII 001401 1,14 CCOI0 OPt OF CEIF OF 1115 bENT INSTR FT LEAVENWORTH 5 lID NIAIAARAFUPFALO UEF SLIT ARTY 01150 AIR DIP LTICRPDRT1 COMDT USA CA SKIM ATT_FI_ DOCTRINE DEVIL LIT C FLM% FT BRAGG 1 I-lOS 45TH ARTY ROE AD ATTN 53 XML HER ILLi CORDE LISA CM SCH ATTN 001 FT BRAGG 1 CD 35TH ARTY 401 AD ATtN 53 FT FIPADE MILl

I CC IPIST 44N(DIV (AIR PAILEI 41T APO SAN FRAN 963411 CG 15T -AY IAIRMOBILE) ATTN AC ;FS M FLAN t6383

I EJOC mELDA qk )1 (41-4 ATTN T 0 CLEmENSI OFC n. 1NTE.NAyL TNT PLANNING L EVAL 4R AID ASH DC

I US AWRY Tuopic TEST GTR p0 DRAWL H42 ATIN PEHAV SCIEN ClI FAA mE9 LIM HQ 640 RASH DC

I CO USAFAAC ATTN 53 FT SILL1 DEPT OF TRANS FAA AEU SkC EN) h1O4 WASH DC

10 CO III CORPS & FT MOOG 4111, G3 SEC FT HUUD 2 CFTC CE RASH DC31 CO 1ST AREIRRED DIV ATP( G3 SEC FT H100 2 SYS OEVEL CORP SANTA PONICA ATTN LIBIO ED 20 ARRi0F0 ')IV MTh G3 SEC FT HOUO

t DUNLAP ASSOC INC DARIEN ATTN LIR25 Cu )7TH soRT BOO,: ATTN S3 SfC ET Hnpn 2 RAC PIER LI3 MCLEAN VA.1 CG uSAEAC I PI SILL ATTN ARPSIGT-TNIN PSYCHOL1 GP EF*EETIVENESS RSCIT LAB U OF ILL DEPT OF40 Cu III CO's OS ARTY ATTN GI SEC FT SILL

I ELECT PERS FISCH GP Ti CF 50U-THeRN CALIF15 CO 1ST AIT KOBE ATTN GS SEC FT BLISS 2 LEARNING KED CT4 u OF ()Ws ATTN DIRH CO USATCI E FT PoLO ATTN 14PRCRUCCT

I HUMAN SCI RES INC MCLEAN VA1 PsCH couTPAeTs C GRANTS Hp Aar)

1 CVI, F'1R ASCH IN SUCIAL SYS ATTN LIRA MOI IT ARO CFC CHF OF R&D HASH DC

I BIM C14 FUR ItP5 ON LEARNING 4 TEACHIN$ U OF MICR1 CHF OF HELT ItA AT IN SCI INFO RR RSCH SPY DIV ,.ASH or I P M SI CGOIL L OHIO STATE UNIV

CO HOS 14NOJSAFAC L FT SILL ATTN S3I EDITOR ITH) s[5 APSTF AMER SF1G GT 1)03 )IRS U OF TENN

CO III COPPS AFTY ATTN S3 FORT SILL1 U OF CHICAGO 0Epr Er- spc

CO USRAH ATTN S3 FT SILL 1 01R OP CNA PNCEI IN SCCIAL SYS KENSINGTON MUCG USAFACFS ATTN AKPSIAG-As Fr SILL f cANATTIAN JOINT STAFF OFC pF ntF AFS memsER wAsHINGTuxC1NC uS ATLANTIC FLY CODE 3124 USN BASE NTEIF LK

$ CANAUIAN ARmv STAFF 4ASHINGTON ATTA G$07 ENG1 (INC PACIFIC SCIEN ADV GP (J3051 BOX 1J FPO 1 CANABIAN LIAISON nrcp ARMY APHOW MD Fr RNoxI ruK fl cr:!4mANJ $ PACIFIC ELT $44 DIEGO 2 OFE Cf ARHEa FORCES ATTAcHE ROYAL SwEDISH EmsSY DCi CHF 30 OF mt3 . NURC ON ATTN COME 513 3 AUSTRALIAN NAY ATTACHE C.135Y CF AUSTRALIA RASH oCI cHr Rrs 01v Pul DF ME0 4 SUFIC ON 1 UPC OF A16 ATTACHE AUSTRALIAN GMBSY ATTN: T.A. NAvGN RASH, B.C.I HEAu OLIN OSYCHOL SECT PROFFSNE ;J IV RJR NF MED . SUNG ON 4 AW514ALIAN A,04'4 ATTACK CoFST OF AUSTRALIA ATTN TECH CLK6 TECH LIR PERS lift BOK of NAV PERS AWL ANNEX 2 OF R f POPP LREITAQ ST5 LTD SURREY ENGLANDI OIF PFR5 RES DIV PUP OF NAV PERS I meNNINGEW FRI/NO/011N TOPEKAI TECH LIV AUK IIE SHIPS CODE ZIOL NAVY DEFT 1 AMER INSTS FOR 'SCH SILVER SPRINGI NUR nr Y0S . nXS ON WM ASST CHF rOk Re$ OEVEL TEST * MAL l AMER INNIS FOR k$CO ATTN LORN PA2 NAV AIR SYS CDR') RFP ATLANTIC NAV AIR ST4 NoRFout

I um E GINENE41 COLUMBIA UN1V SCH OF BUSi ENGNM PSyCH1L 14 ONR CODE 655 ATTN ASST HEAD MASH DC 3 MATRIX PSCO CO FALLS CHURCH VAJ Co . DIR NAV IN. OEVICL Cl r OBLANou ATTN TECH LIP

1 FOLIC L INC CUNSO CO LA CALIFI in FIT ANTI-AIK fAAFARE TAG SAN OIEGO I OBERLIN CULL DEPT Or PSYCHOiI CU NOCLFAF WPOS TNG CTR PACIFIC US NAV AIR STA SAN OTAGO L OR CEI1WhE t HWY CHMN DEPT OF ASYCHOL u OF OGL1 Cu iAv AI6 tWia rak JoHNSvILLE PENNA ATTN NADC LIB I V1TWC LARS SILVER SPRING MD ATTN LIHN

Go FLT TNo CTR NAV PAS[ NTIAPORT I HEAD BEFT OF PSYCHOL UNIV OF SC COLumalsI C40, FLT TNG GP NAV PASS CHARLESTNN 1 U GF CFoRGIA .`EFT OF PSYCHGL2 CU us FL! rND CTR NURFUEI: I 0 OF UTAH DEPT (ft' pSYCHCLI CO FLPET TNG CT2 US NAV STA SAN u1E6L1 1 APEK INST FUR a&ew MTN LIB PALO ALTU CALIFI CLAD PSYCOUL meNTAL HYGIENE UNIT OS NAV A ANNAPULIS I CULL OE ARTS & SCI U OF MIAMI ATTN L L MCQUITTYI PRES NAV KAM COLL OCKPGRI ATTN PAHAN LIH I JOIO STATE D SCH OF AVN3 co sEvy scH c4,10 NAV TNG CfR SAN JIEGo 1 It J 8 CULLEN jePT VF SOC C ANTHROP ONIV OF MIi CO NAV Goiukn HSL SCH DAM NECK VA REACH 3 ORIPUN sTATT- Li DEPT OF PILIT $C1 ATM 40JU CO C DIR U$ ATLANTIC FLT 45.1 TACTICAL NORFOLK T AMER ASYCHNL ASSTIC wASHINGTON Aug T FSTCHOL AHSTRI CU NOELIIP wEAPOVA TNG CIF ATLANTIC NAV 414 STA NORFOLK I t.J ILL U HEAD DEPT OF PSYCHOL2 CU ELT SONAR NCH KEY WEST 1 OFURGIA INST DF TECH CIF SCH OF PSYCHUL1 en FIT ANTI-sHA WARFARE SCE SAN DIEGO I LIFE set INC *most TEXAS ATTN W 43 RATHENvI 00 UT NAVL PSCH PERS L TNG OR (CODE ASK) ARE VA I AMER (JVHAV SCI CALIFI CHF OF NAV RES ATIN Olk PSYCHCL SCI UIV CODE 450 I PUB AOMIN CTR ATTN J 0 KITCHEN SAN UTEC91 CHF OF NAV HES ATP* HEAP GP PSYCHOL DR CODE 452 2 DIR INIR RENnuRcc$ sTATE VILE ST CLOUD MINNi DIA US NAV RES LAB ATTN CODE 5120 1 FILL OF Wm AKY 4Cli RP FOULI DIR NAVAL .(SCH EAR AITN LID CLUE ?DOM SASH UC i SO ILLINOIS U DEPT OF PSYCHOLI CFO OF NAV A14 TNG INC RES DEPT NAV AIN STA PENSACOLA ? ASSOC JIM CDC TNT PROD ATLANTA GAi CO NAV SCH OF AVN MID NAV AVN MFO CTR PENSAcOLA i wAsH MILITARY SYS TECH LID DIV BETHESDA MDI LIB NAV MET) RES LAB NAV SOH SASE GROTON I Om L 14YFIJMO NY STALL Ernc DEPT ABSTRACT 601Tuk AVCRI CU KED FLIT RES LAO CARP LEJEUNE 1 m5 gRAIOUN B SMITH RES ASSDC U OF MINNI COW NAV MSL OR POINT mUOU CALIF AITN TeCH LIB GLIDE 3022 1 LR1 V IALHERT mr 1 GOOD HOPE QAI DIE AEROSPACE GREH EQUIP LAR NAY AIR EINGNR CTR PA I ow S RDSent- ASSOC OIR FCR FSCH INS' OF AVN U OF ILL1 OIC NAV PERS RCS AGTVY SAN UIECD I OK C PIGLET DtPT dOUC PSYCH CITY U aF NY.1 NAV NEUPOksYcHIAT RES UNIT SAN DIEGO 1 C(N H P HARRIS (USA RET)PRES THE CITADEL SCi UIR PERS RES LA NAV PERS PROGRAM SUPPOPT ACTIVITY KASH NAV YO I 04 H SHOEMAKER DIR TNG RSCF GA NY4 COMJT MARINE CORPS HO MARINE CORPS ATTN com AO-LB I U OF MINN ]EFT oF INDuST EDOC ATTN R E KUHL1 110 MAPINE CORPS ATTN AX I UDC-TECH EOUC PROD PLANT DEV ATTN w STOCK ST PAUL

moI uiw MARINE &s EDUC CTR MARINE CURDS SCH 4uANTIC0 1 GOP PkkG1SSEND JIV DUKE U LIBI OIR MARINE CORPS ;DST ATTN EVAL UNIT 1 U OF CALIF GEN LIFO 00CU DEPT

US mARINE CPRPS HOS HIST REF Lin ATTN MRS JADOT 1 FLORIDA STATE U LID GIFTS-.=EXCHCHF CF NAY ORNS op-otpi I psycHoL LIO HARVARD UNIV CAMBRIDGECHF OF NAV DENS OP-OTTL

I U OF ILL LIO 5E4 DEPTcoma HOS MTH NAV OIST ATTN COUC AOS, NEW ORLEANS 2 U OF KANSAS L14 PEAIROICAL 'SEPTCHF OF NAV AIR TECH TNT NAV AIR STA MEMPHIS I U IF NERRASKA LIPS ACQ DEPTOf OPS EVAL GRP OFF OF CHE OF NAT UPS OPOSEG I OHIO STATE U LIB'S GIFT F ETCH DIV

2 ComOT pop (MAST WARD HQ I PrANA STATE U PATTEr LIP Dccu DESK1 CHF GFCP PERS +(k5,4 REVIEW OR COAST GUARD HO 1 ouoDuE u LItIS FikioDICALS CHECKING FILES1 CU US COAST QUARU TAG CTR CUVOANOWS ISLANU NY 1 STANFORD II LIPS DOW LIR1 CD us COAST GUARD TNG CTR CAPE HAY NJ I LOIN U OF lExAsI CO US COAST GUARD INC CTR & SUP CTM ALAMEUA CALIF 1 SYRACUSE U LIR SER 01V1 CO US COAST GUARD INST CKLA CITY OKLA 1 SERIALS SEC uNIV OF MINA MINNEAPOLIS1 c0 US COAST GUARD RES TNG CIR YuRKTOWN VA I STATE U OF IOWA 1195 SER ACQI SUPT US COAST GUARD ACAO NEW LONOCN CONN 1 NU CAPELINA STATE COLL CH HILL LIBl 0ANS ANLS DEC HO STRATEGIC AIR CCM() OFFUTT AFB 2 ROSTON U LIBS ACQ UIVI AIR TNE.CC40/XPT RANOCLEN AFT I U OF MICH LIRS SCR DIV1 TECH DIP TECH INO-011,0001 464RL LORRY AFB mu- 1 DRuAN u Lin1 CHF SCI DIV DIME SCI , TECH OCS R*0 HO AIR FORCE AFRSTA I CULWAIIIA U LIAR DU-CU ACC)I FAA DRCIE OF PLNS & UPS MO USAF HASH DC I uIR JITINT U LUIS NASHVILLE1 CHF DE PERS RES UR ORGTE-OF CIVILIAN PERS ocS-PERS HQ AIR FORCE I U OF GENvER NARY Km) LIEI CHF ANAL DIV TAPPOPL IRI DIA, OF PERSONNEL PLANNING M4S USAF 2 LIR GEO HASH UNIV ATTN SPEC COLL DEPT WASH OC2 OPTY TIG USAF 14FIAS-01I NORTON AFO 2 LIR OF CONGRESS CHF OF EACH H GIFT DIV1 RADC RASH GRIFF1SS APO NY. l U OF PQM OTICLI LION2 SmAMA ISRAEL -HERS RSCHI MCCLELLAN AF I CATHULIC U LIR EOUC C pSYCHOL LIB WASH DC1 ATC -ATARI} RANDTILPH AFB I 0 UF KY MARGARET I KING LIBI ATIKE/IT ATTN CAPT o S SELLHAN LORRY API I SU ILL U ATTN LION SEP DEPTI HO SAMSP WISIXI AF UNIT POST OFC LA (IFS CALIF I KANSAS STATE U FARRELL LIB2 mILIT TN1 &Tm nm LACRLINO Avg I MITCHAM YOUNG Ti LID SCR SECT2 AFHRL IHRII .WRILUH-PAIlk8SUN AFT I U OF. LOUISVILLE LIU KELKNAP CAMPUS1 AMU AFIRM BROOMS APB TEXAS I GEORGETOWN U LIB SER DEPT WASH DC1 HOS ATC OCS/TECH TNG IATTETS) RANDOLPH AF8 I LIDS GOLD STATE U ATTN 00C LoN FT COLLINS1 USAFA DIR OF THE LIII USAF ACAD COLO I CD USA ARMOR INS' CTR. ATTN DIR PERSN L & CDMMTY ACTVTY FT KNOX1 EMOTE OF AEROSPACE SAFETY AFIA5-L opTY III NORTON APB 1 CD USAAO MG CTR AITN OIR PERSNL C COMMTY ACTVTY FT BLISST. 6570TH PERS RES LAB PRA-4 AEROSPACE MED DIV LACKLANDAFD I ;CG USA ENDR-TNG CTR ATTN DIR-PERSNL & COMMTY ACTVTY MO

CO HUMAN RESOURCES LAO BROOKS APO T C0_ -USA INF TAM CTR ATTN DIR PERSNL, &COMPLY ACTVTY. FT. DIXCONK USAF -SPEC OP SCH ITACI EGLIN AFB TAID CTR-ATTN DIR FERSNL-E COMMTY- ACTVTY ARIL

1 AFHRL 'FT) WILLIAMS AFR ARIL T TNG CTR ATTN DIATEKSNL & COMMTY ACTVTY &I,1 psycHoolnEoGy pR00 NATL sCI.,0uND .,_ T-rTNO CTR ATTN DIA FERsNL E COEINTT ACTVTY Nc-1 DIR.NATL.SECUR AOY FT .0E0 0 MEADE &TIN A _FC CITE OF STAFF USA ALEX VA1 DIR NATL sEcuR GY FT CEO 0 MEADE ATTN DIROF TNG _1 C uSA -. T CTR FT HCOSTON , .. .

3 CIA ATTN CRS /ADO STANOARD DIET . 1_" CD USA INF: TN_ CPT -ATTN DIR PERSNL K cowev ACTVTY LAI SYS EVAL DIV RES DIRECTORATE 0110 -OLD PENTAGON _l_ _cD.U!AIN:]N CTR ATTN DIR PERSNL t COMMTY ACTVTY'ALA1 DEPT OF STATE -BUR OF INTEL + RES EXTERNAL -RES STA F i: pa TNr' DIR-FER$NL C COMMTY ACTVTY FT LEWIS1 SCI-INFO ETCH WASHINGTON APR 9 5 4- CTR ATTN-DIR TERM Q COMMTY ACTVTY SC

CHF4IGT-E OEN TNT DIV TR:.LCO FAA WASH Dc -.: f.-0 1 SA INF g P TNocTR-ATTN--DIR'pER$NL-&--commTv ACTVTY OA...BUR.J3F-RES. tENDR US.POST oFC:DEFT 'ATTN CHF HUMA FACTORS BR. L CRMUT:USA.ARMrK SCM ATTN LIBRART.FTRNoxf

FIL ED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPY

HUMAN RESOURCES RESEARCH ORGANIZATION300 North Washington Street Alexandria, Virginia 22314

PresidentExecutive Vice President

Director for Business Affairs and TreasurerDirector for OperationsDirector for Program DevelopmentDirector for Research Design and Reporting

Dr. Meredith P. CrawfordDr. William A. McClelland

Mr Charles W. SmithMr, Arnold A. Hey(Dr. Robert G. Smith, Jr.Dr_ Eugene A. Cogan

RESEARCH DIVISIONSHumRRO Division No 1 (System Operations) Dr. J. Daniel Lyons

300 North Washington Street DirectorAlexandria, Virginia 22314

HumRRO Division No. 2Fort Knox. Kentucky 40121

HumRRO Division No 3Post Office Box 5787Presidio of Monterey, Cali

HumRRO Division No 4Post Office Box 2086Fort Benning, Georgia 31905

rma 4

HumRRO Division.No. 5Post OffiCe.Box 6057Fort Bliss, Texas 79916

.

FiUMRRO Division Ni,. 6 (Aviation)Past Office Bdx 428Fort-Rucker, Alabaina:36360

HuntRF10 Division No. 7 .(Soctal Science)300 -North Washington StreetAlexandiia, Virginia -22314

Dr, Donald F. HaggardDirector

Dr. Hovvard H. McFannDirector

Dr. T.O. JacobsDirector

Dr. Albert L. Kubala. .

Direetor.-- -

Dr. Wallace W ProphetDireetbr

Dr, Arthur. J: HoehnDirector

document resume - education resources information center · the human resources research...

Documents