estimating reading ability level from the aqe general

PRL-TR-66-1 February 1966

Estimating Reading Ability Level

from the

AQE General Aptitude Index

By.. Howard L. Madden

r Ernest C. Tupes

I , -'ic'

''U-, Distrbu ein of this document is unlimited.

PERSONNEL RESEARCH LABORATORYA.EROSPACE MEDICAL DIVISIONAIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND

Lackland Air Force Base, Texas

N 0 T I C E

When US Government drawings, specificatior,.s, or other data areused fer any purpose other than a definitely related Governmentprocurement operation, the Government thereby incurs no responsi-bility nor any obligation whatsoever, and the fact that the Govern-ment may have formulated, furnished, or in anv way supplied thesaid drawings, specifications, or other data is nnt to be regardedby implication or otherwise, as in any manner licensing the holderor any other person or corporation, or conveying any rights or per-mis-,ion to manufacture, use, or sell any patcnted invention thatmay in any way be related thereto.

VAUITVPISTI NOva be LA ciow

TSHtCR GARLOW

-~ I' -~ - - - ~-~.zv-~aw - ~~ X

bI

PRL-TR-66-1 February 1966

ESTIMATING READING ABILITY LEVEL FROM THEAQE GENERAL APTITUDE INDEX

By

Heward L. MaddenErnest C. Tupes

D:istributicn of this document is unlimited.

PERSONNEL RESEARCH LABORATORYAEROSPACE MEDICAL DIVISIONAIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMANDLackland Air Force Base, Texas

4,A, ,-

FOREWORD

The study described in this report was carried out in responseto a Requirement for Personnel Research RPR 65-15 as modified4 August 1965), "Career Development Course Research." I he RPRwas originated by Headquarters Air University. The Air Staff monitorof the RPR was Mrs. Mabel 0. Bruner, AFPDPCE. The study was

carried out by Personnel Research Laboratory under Project 7717,Selection, Classification, and Evaluation Procedures for Air ForcePersonnel; Task 771705, Selection and Classification Instruments

for Airman Personnel Programs.

This report has been reviewed and is approved.

James H. Ritter, Col USAF

Commander

ti

• alW•. -- •-• ~ ~ - •,m a • •.q• w, . _j • _- -,III

ABSTRACT

Conversion tables are presented for estimating reading achievement(reading grade level as measured by the California Achievement Test and

scaled score as measured by the Davis Reading Test) from the AQE Gen-eral Aptitude Index. Distributions of estimated reading grade are shown

for non-prior-service airmen entering the Air Force in 1964 and 1965 for

the total group and for subgroups split on years of education completed.Distributions of estimated reading grade are also presented by career fieldfor airmen assigned to 29 career fields. It was pointed out that a widerange of reading ability was found within each career fielA and that the

career fields differed considerably with respect to average reading ability.Implications for writing of Career Development Course& and technical

manuals were discussed.

iNi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. Backgw un . ................................................. I

11. The Corversion Tables ........................................ 2

Ill. Estimated Reading Grade Distributions of Selected Air Force Groups ............. 4

Appendix I: Statistical Tables ..................... ................ 21

Appendix 11: Statistical Computations ................................. 25

References . .................................. ................ 27

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 California Achievement Test, Form W, Reading Comprehension GradeEquivalents of General Aptitude Index Levels ......................

2 Davis Reading Test Form 2A Scaled Score Equivalents of General

Aptitude Index ........................................... 3

3 Reading Comprehension Grade Distributions of Non-Prior-ServiceBasic Airmen ........................................... 4

4 Reading Comprehension Grade Distributions for Basic Airmen

at Various Educational Levels ................................ 5

5 Reading Comprehension Grade Distributions of Airmen Assigned to

Career Field 4 -Photography .................................. 6

6 Reading Comprehension Grade Distributions of Airmen Assigned to

Career Field 6-Weather .................................... 6

7 Reading Comprehension Grade Distributions of Airmen Assigned toCareer Field 7 -Air Traffic Control and Warning .................... 7

8 Reading Comprehension GG Distributions of Airmen Assigned toCareer Field SA -El& Countermeasures ..................... 7

9 Reading Comprehension in istributions of Airmen Assigned toCareer Field 41 -Air . . .... . ........................... 8

10 Reading Comprehension Grade Distributions of Airmen As.sigtned toCareer Field 43-Medical ...... ............................. 8

I I Reading Comprehension Grade Distributions of Airmen Assigned toCareer Field SB -Communications (Non-Radio) ..................... 9

j 12 Reading Comprehension Grade Distributions of Airmen Assigned toCareer Field SC-Radio Communication .......................... 9

13 Reading Comprehension Grade Distributions of Airmen Assigned toCareer Field 30A -Supply .................................. 10

14 Reading C.,,,prehen:.ion Grade Distributions of Airmen Assigned toCareer Field 32-Accounting & Finance ........ ........ ....... .... 10

1i Reading Comprehension Grade Distributions of Airmen Assigned to

Career Field 34A- Clerical Services ............................ 11

16 Reading Comprehension Grade Distributions of Airmen Assigned toCareer Field 34--B Administration............. ........ 11

I _ __

List of Tables (Continued)

Tabe Page

17 Reading Comprehension Grade Distributions of Airmen Assigned toCareer Field 14A-Wire Maintenance ............................ 12

18 Reading Comprehension Grade Distributions of Airmen Assigned toCareer Field 16A- Aircraft Accessory Maintenance ................... 12

19 Reading Comprehension Grade Distributions of Airmen Assigned toCareer Field 17- Aircrast Maintenance .......................... 13

20 Reading Comprehension Grade Distributions of Airmen Assigned toCareer Field 18-Missile Maintenance .......................... 13

21 Reading Compreher.sion Grade Distributions of Airmen Assigned to

Career Field 20-Motor Vehicle Maintenance ....................... 14

22 Reading Comprehension Grade Distributions of Airmen Assigned toCareer Field 21-Metal Working ............................... 14

23 Reading Comprehension Grade Distributions of Air,'en Assigned toCareer Field 22A -Facilities ................................ 15

24 Reading Comprehension Grade Distributions of Airmen Assigned toCareer Field 24 -Utilities ................................... 15

25 Reading Comprehension Grade Distributions of Airmet, Assigned toCareer Field 25 -Fire Protection .................................... 16

26 Reading Comprehension Grade Distributions or Airmen Assigned toCareer Field 30B -Fuel Specialist .................................... 16

27 Reading Comprehension Grade Distributions of Airmen Assigned toCareer Field 9-Radio-Radar Systems ........................... 17

28 Reading Comprehension Grade Distributions of Airmen Assigned toCareer Field 10 -Missile Electronic Maintenance ........... . .

29 Reading Comprehension Grade Distributions of Airmen Assigned toCareer Field 11 -Anmamen. Systems Maintenance and Operator .......... 18

30 Reading Comprehension Grade Distributions of Airmen Assigned toCareer Field 12 -Nuclear Weapons ............................. 18

31 Reading Comprehension Grade Distributions of Airmen Assigned toCareer Field 140-Wire Maintenance, Electro-Mechanical ............... 19

32 Reading Comprehension Grade Distributions of Airmen Assigned toCareer Field 165-Aircraft Electrical Accessory Maintenance ........... 19

33 Reading Comprehension Grade Distributions of Airmen Assigned toCareer Field 22B-Facilities, Missile ............................ 20

34 Correlations Between AQE-64 Variables, AFQT, and CaliforniaReading Test .. ......................................... 22

35 Correiations Between AQE-64 Variables, AFQTj andDavis Reading Test ....................................... 23

36 Distributions 3f California Reading Conmprehension Test Scores forHigh School Graduates and High School Nongraduates ................. 24

37 Distributions of Davis Reading Comprehension Level Test Scoresfor High School Graduates and High School Nongraduates ............... 24

38 Equations for Predicting Reading Grade Level ........................ 25

39 Probable Errors When Conversion Table is Used to O..-,Estimated Reading Grade Levels for Career Field Groups .............. 261

v!

ESTIMATING READING ABILITY LEVEL FROM THEAQE GENERAL APTITUDE INDEX

I. BACKGROUND

The range of aptitudes among Air Force enlistees varies from extremely low (those en-listees who can barely achieve minimal enlistment standards) to extremely high (representedby that small percentage of enlistees who have the potential to complete postgraduate trainingat nearly any university). As a result of this range of aptitudes, large differences in readingability exist among the airman population. Further, as a result of classification and initialassignment policies based largely on aptitudes, differences exist between the various career

fields with respect :o the average reading ability of airmen assigned thereto. With the adventof the increased emphasis in the Air Force on self-study courses, reading ability differences(and a method of measuring such differences) have become a matter of concern.

Present Air Force personnel procedures (AFM 35-1, and AFM 50-23) require that an air-

man complete a self-study Career Development Course in his specialty before he can be con-sidered for skil upgrading. Not only is skill upgrading a necessary prerequisite to promotionfor most airmen but such upgrading must be accomplished within certain prescribed maximumperiods (AFR 39-4).

In order to properly evaluate student achievement in the Career Developutient Courses(CDCs), to determine whether reading training is necessary for a given individual before at-tempting a CDC, and to attempt to match the reading difficulty of particular CDCs with the

reading ability level of airmen most likely to undertake them, it appeared essential to Air

Unrerrity personnel responsible for the CDC program that a standardized Air Force-widemeasure of reading ability be developed. Consequently, Personnel Research Laboratory was

,sked to develop such a measure.

Because of the known high relationship (correlations of .71, .74, and .79) of the General

Aptitude Index (AI) of the Airman Qualifying Examination (AQE) and reading ability (due inpart to the inclusion of a reading vocabulary subtest in the General Al), it seemed that theGeneral Al wculd serve adequately as a measure of reading ability, if conversion tables couldbe developed so that General Al scores could be easily expressed it, terms of the score units(reading grade) typically resulting from tests of reading ability. This would not only save theAir Force the cost of developing a rading ability test but would save the expense of a specialte.,,t administration each time it was aesired to ascertain the reading ability of any airman orgroup of airmen. The General Al is -corded in every airman's personnel folder; thus his read-ing ability level could be quickly as ntrained by use of a conversion table.

Two well-standardized civilian tests of reading ability (the California Test of ReadingVocabulary and Reading Comprehension, Form W, and the Davis Reading Test, Form 2A) wereadministered to samples of basic airmen along with AQE Form 64 (in counterbalanced order).Conversion tables were developed showing the reading grade level and scaled score corre..sponding to each AQE General Al level. The reading grade level conversion table was usedto obtain distributicns of reading ability for airmen in a number of career fields as estimatedfrom their General Al scores.

II. 1)., CONVERSION TABLES

Means, star.dard deviations, and intercorrelations of the AQE and reading test variablesare prescnted in Tables 34 and 35 in the Appe,.idix. Distributions of the reading comprehensie,test scores entering into the conversion tables are also shown in the Appendix, Tables 36 and

37.

TeEach reading test yielded two scores. level of comprehension and vocabulary (CalifomipSTest) and lt~vel of comprehension and speed of comprehension (Davis Test). Only the level of

reading compreh.ension scores were used in devrloping the conversion tables, since neithertending speed nor reading vocabulary seemed especially relevant to the desired measure o, rearing ability. Conversion tpbles wert, developed by the equipercenrile method between the Gere,Al and the cwo tests of reading coiprehension. The conversion table for the General Al -California Test is presented in Table I and that for the General Al -Davis Test is shown if,Table 2. It should be noted -hat the two reading tests provide reading ability scores in differe:units of measurement and the conversion tables reflect this fact. Use of the California Testconversion table yields reading ability scores in terms of grade (8th grade, 9th grade, etc.)The Davis Test conversion table yields reading ability scores in scaled score form which c a"ýbe related (via the test manual) to percentile rank s:andinb in various grade groups (Grade 8through cellege freshman). For most purposes the California Test conversion table probaLlywill yield a more meaningful reading ability measure.

Table 1. California Achievement T'rs, Form 1, Reading ComprehensionGrade Equivalents of General Aptitude Index Levelm

*q.,qg| Al GOrd lquivuget

95 15.090 14.585 14.080 :3.0

75 12.570 12.065 11.560 11.0

50 9.545 9.040 8.535 8.030 7.5i5 7.020 6.5

15 & Below 6.0

The equipercentile method of developing conversion tables whereby the score any indi-vidual would be expected to achieve on one rest can be estimated from his score on anothertest has been in use for many years and has a statistically sound basis. 4owever, two condi-tions must be mot before the conversion tables developed by tiis procedure can be expected

2

~ ~ - - -~ . - -* - -AO -.~ ~"MOW

Table 2. Davis Reading Teat, Fonr 2A, Sealed ScoteEquivalents of General Aptitude Index

Gemnoel Al Seeed See Equivianto

95 8290 8085 7880 7575 7270 7165 6860 6755 6650 6545 6440 6235 6130 6025 5820 54

15 & Below 53 & Below

to yield consistently accurare resui s. The first of these is that ;he two tests upon which theconversion table is based must be highly correlated with each other. The second conditionis that the sample upon which the table is developed and the sample on which the table is tobe applied must be random samples from the same population. If he relationship between thetwo tests is not high, the estimated scores of individuals may be inaccutate (too high or toolow) although the average estimated score of a group may be quite accurate. If the sampleson which the table is developed and applied are not random a.;mples from the same population,the estimated scores of individuals may be consitently too high er too low (depending uponthe Frecise manner in which the two samples differ) and the rverage estimated score of a groupwill also be too high or too trw.

The correlations between the General Al and both reading tests awe high (see Tables 34and 35). The standard error of estimatina reading grade leveP as mcasu:ed by the CaliforniaTest from the General Al is about 1.5 grades which means thac &he estimacted reading gradc. ofany ind~vioual would be more than 3 grades too high or -oo low only about 5 percent of the time.The average reading grade of a gSoup could be estimated even more accurately (depending, ofcourse, upon the size of the group).

The samples of basic trainees upon which the conversion tables were developed arereasonably representative of all basic airmen so that the tables can be used to estimate thereading ability scores of ?-%ndom samples of basics, with fair accuracy. When the tables areapplied to airmen in career field groups which are not random samples of the airman population,some bias may result. It should be noted also that the conversion table will not be accurate incertain special cases. For example, if an airman whose estimated reading ability is low,based on his General Al has had remediai reading training since his General Al was obtained,his actual reading ability will probably be somewhat I "gher than estimated.

3

-W, 900"r- 42 - 7- --- MYw, .. vim

Ill. ESTIMATED READING GRADE DISTRIhUTIONS OF SELECTED AIR FORCE GROUPS

The reading grade conversion table wns applied to the General Al distributions of selected

groups of airmen to obtain distributions of evirnated reading grade levels.

In Tables 3 and 4 are shown the esti.natr i re -ding grade distributions of non-prior-serviceaiwmen enlisting during calendar years 1964 ard t0 6 5. These tables are of primary usefulnessas an indication of the level and wide range oi reading ability among eniistees. Of interest is therelationship between reading ability and anount of education (Table 4), which indicates - notsurprisingly - that as the amount of education increases, so does the average reading ability.Year by year, however, the average reading grade of enlistees lags behind the education g:ade,and the lag becomes greater as the amount of education increases. This finding is probablypartly artifactitious due to the ceiling of grade 15 on the reading scale but probably also reflectsa true difference as the result of self-selection on the part of the airmen.

Table 3. Reading Compreew-.aion Grade Distributions

of Non-Priom-Service Hasic Airmen'

R..d:ngG A 194 Eajisteeab 1%5 EnjIsteeSb

15.0 7.5% 5.114.5 6.7 5.514.0 8.5 6.613.0 6.8 6.612.5 7.1 7.212.0 10.9 9.111.5 7.4 7.4

11.0 10.3 8.910.0 6.2 7.79.5 8.4 8.89.0 4.9 8.18.5 0.9 9.48.0 3.3 3.37.5 3.4 3.07.0 1.7 3.3

Mean Grade 11.4 11.0Median Grade 11.8 11.3SD 2.0 2.0

*Estimated from General Alb1964 - 6.9% High School Nongraduates

1965 - 12.7% High School Noagtaduates

Tables 5 through 33 present distributions of estimated reading grade for groups of airmenassigned to technical training courses in a number of career fields.' These airmen enlistedduring the 1961-1962 period; however they can be assumed to be reasonably representative ofpresent input. The tables are grouped according to the selector aptitude index (General, Admin-

istrative, Mechanical, or Electronics) reeuired for assignment to the particular career field.

The career fields in the tables are numbered as in the United States Air Force Occupational Handbook.

4

Table 4. Reading Comprehension Grade Distributionsfor Base Airmeu at Various Educatlonal Levels'

te"dIng Higlh Sebml High SCelel 1 Yew 2 Yeom 3 Yewrs C6ll100Gried Nenueueftes GmmimftS College Calle" Cello" GadA. a

15.0 1.4 4.3 15.8 23.6 32.3 28.3145 2.2 5.3 13.0 14.7 14.0 18.514.0 4.3 7.2 12.3 13.0 13.7 14.213.0 4.2 6.6 9.9 9.4 7.5 10.312.5 5.5 7.2 9.1 7.5 6.1 6.912.0 9.1 10.2 10.5 8.5 6.7 7.011.5 7.8 7.7 6.0 5.4 4.5 3.211.0 11.5 10.0 6.5 5.6 5.6 3.710.0 9.3 7.3 4.0 3.2 2.4 1.59.5 11.2 9.1 4.7 3.3 2.8 2.49.0 9.2 6.8 2.6 2.1 1.0 1.58.5 11.3 8.5 3.2 2.0 1.9 1.28.0 4.3 3.7 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.57.5 4.1 3.6 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.47.0 4.6 2.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4

Mean Gradu 10.4 11.1 12.5 13.0 13.3 13.3Median Grade 10.6 11.4 13.0 14.0 13.8 13.8Percentage at

Each Level 9.3 75.4 8.1 4.9 1.3 1.0

"Estimated from General Al. Sample - all 1964 and 1965 Non-Prior-Service Enlistees.

The distributions shown in Tables 3 through 10 for career fields for which the General Al wasused in selection can be assumed to be reasonably accuste (that is, to contain no bias or con-stant error). The distributions for the otbh career fields for which an aptitude index other thanthe General Al was used in selection we probably biased to some extent. The direction andamount of these biases were estimated by meams of mutirPle correlation techniques" and are in-dicated in Tables 11 through 33 as "probable etos." Thus, in Table 11, the probable error,shown as -1.0, indicates that the estimsted roading grade for airmen in this career field (Non-Radio Communications) averages about ome rade too low.

The data in these tables indicate that within each career field there is a wide range ofreading ability and that the career fields for which data were available differ widely (grade9.0 to grade 14.5) in the average readini; ability of airmen assigned thereto. The data suggestthat in preparing Career Development Courses (and other material such as technical manuals)an effort should be made to insure that the reading comprehension level of the course materialshould be at a level appropriate for the particulat career field. The data also indicate thatminimum completion times should be set with care so that the majority of the airmen taking eachCDC can complete the required reading ad study within the time limits.

* The application of the multiple correlation technique is shown in Appendix il along with alternativemethods of estimating reading grade in career field groups (Tables 38 and 39).

5

Table 5. Reading Comprehension Grade Distributiounof Airmen Assigned to Career Field 4- Photogrsphya"

n(N = 140)

Gmenerl Reading

Al Gode Level % Cm%

95 15.0 4 490 14.5 3 785 14.0 6 13

80 13.0 11 2475 12.5 12 3670 12.0 13 4965 11.5 12 6160 11.0 17 7855 10.0 11 4i950 95 6 9545 9.0 2 9740 8.5 3 100

Mean Reading Grade 11.7Median Reading Grade 11.9

OSelector Al for Course 23230-General

Table 6. Reading Comprebenmion Grade Distibutiomsof Airmen Assi.ed to Career Field 6-Weatier°

(N - 411)

Al G Lewd % Cue

95 15.0 44 4490 14.5 30 7485 14.0 16 9080 13.0 10 100

Mean Reading Grade 14.5

Median Reading Grade 14.8

OSelector Al for Course 25231 -General

6

Table 7. Reading Comprehensiom Grade Distributions of AirmenAssigned to Career Field 7 -Air Traffic Comtrol *ad Warning

(N 1,856)

GOmoel ReadingAl GCedo Level Cumn

95 15.0 1 1

90 14.5 1 285 14.0 1 3

80 13.0 2 575 12.5 16 2170 12.0 34 5565 11.5 25 8060 11.0 20 100

Mean Reading Grade 11.9

Median Reading Grade 12.0

'Selector Al for Courses 27230A, 27230B, 27330A, 27330B-Genetal

Table 8. Reading Compreheueiom Grade Distributions of Airme.Assigned to Career Field 8A - Electronic Coeitermessuresm

(N = 424)

Genwgl tmedmg

Al Grude Level cgs

95 15.0 13 1390 14.5 19 3285 14.0 23 5580 13.0 34 8975 12.5 3 9270 12.0 3 9565 11.5 2 9760 11.0 3 100


'Selector Al for Course 29230-General

7

Tabi. 9. Reading Compiroehalop Grado Dimtribvioan of AirmenAmilpod to Career Field 41- Air Polie,5

(N 1,113)

$&4e Level dt Cup S

95 15,0 0 090 14,5 1 185 14.0 1 280 13.0 1 3?1 12.5 3 670 12.0 8 1465 11.5 11 2560 11.0 17 4255 10.0 15 5750 9.5 16 7345 9.0 14 8740 8.5 13 100


"Selector Al for Course 771 30-General

Table 10. Readimg Compreheurion GCrde Miotributionn of AirmenAssigued to Career Field 4:1 -Medical'

(N - 3. 09)

0.neveslEsdAS b4e Level % CmS

95 15.0 4 490 14.5 7 1185 14.0 I1 2280 13.0 16 3875 12.5 14 5!70 12.0 22 7 165 11.5 11 8160 11.0 15 I00


OSelector Al for Courses 90010, 90230, 92230, 90630, 90631, 90232, 90330,90430, 90530-General

man

Table 11. Reading Comprehemsioo Grade Ilstribblioms of AirenAssiged to Career Field 8B-Commumicatioms (Noa-Radio)0

(N - 1,375)

Al Gode. Level cum %

95 15.0 190 14.5 2 385 14.0 2 580 13.0 4 975 12.5 5 1470 12.0 9 2365 11.5 9 3260 11.0 10 4255 10.0 10 5250 9.5 9 6145 9.0 8 6940 8.5 8 7735 8.0 7 8430 7.5 7 9125 & Below 7.0 9 100

Mean Reading Gr;ade 10.0Median Reading r3aJe 10.1Probable Error 1.0

'Selector Al for Courses 29130, 29131- Administrative

Table 12. Reading Compreemsion Grade Distrilbuions of Aimen.Assiped to Career Field SC- Radio Commnmication

(N 2.315)

o,..eol booeg,Al Osode Lew Cuin

95 15.0 2 290 14.5 2 485 14.0 4 880 13.0 6 1475 12.5 9 2370 12.0 14 3765 11.5 11 4860 11.0 10 5855 10.0 11 6950 9.5 9 7845 9.0 8 8640 8.5 4 9035 8.0 4 9430 7.3 3 9725 & Below 7.0 3 100

Mean Reading Grade 11.4Median Reading Grade 11.4Probable Error - 0.2

'Selector Al for Courses 29130, 29131 -Administrative

9

Table 13. Reading Comprehension Grade Distributions of AirmenAsuigned to Career Field 3OA- Supply'

(N -3.481)

IA Grad e L. 5 Cu6 %95 15.0 0 090 14.) 1 1

86 14.0 1 2so 13.0 1 375 12.5 2

70 12.0 6 1165 11.5 6 17

60 11.0 7 2455 10.0 8 32

50 9.5 1Ga 424P 9.0 10 5240 8.5 10 62

35 8 N0 12 7430 7.5 60 8425 & Below 7.0 16 100

Mean Readirg Grade 9.0Median Reading Grade 9.1Probable Error - 1.2

aSelector AT for Courses 64530. 64630, 64730 -Administrative

Table 14. Reading Comprehenson Grade D18tributtonof Airmen

65 ~11.50900

60 11.0toCsee Fill2Aewtq& 76ane35 1.0 6 /69014.5 6 12

0 14.0 5 172o 13.0 11 287Ma 12.5 12 Is70 12.0 18 5665 11.5 9 6560 i11.0 1 i 76

55 10.0 8 84so 9.5 7 9145 9.0 5 96,,0 0.5 2 9835 0.0 1 99

S30 7.5 0 9925 & Below 7.0 1 0

SMean Reading Grade 12.2Median Reading Grade 12.2Probable Error - 0.4

'Selector AT for Course 67130 -Administrative

10

Table 15. Reading Comprehension Grade Distributiops of AirmenAssigned to Career Field 34A-Clerical Services'

(N 998)

Generel ReadingAl Grad* Level Cure

95 15.0 2 290 14.5 2 485 14.0 5 980 13.0 6 1575 12.5 9 2470 12.0 17 4165 11.5 11 5260 11.0 11 6355 10.0 10 7350 9.5 8 8145 9.0 7 8840 8.5 5 9335 8.0 3 9630 7.5 2 9825 & Below 7.0 2 100

Mea- Reading Grade 11.2Median Reading Grade 11.6Probable Error - 0.6

'Selector Al for Courses 70130, 73230 -Administrative

Table 16. Reading Compeehemnioe Grade Distributions of AirmenAssiped to Career Field 34B -Admimnitrationa

(N , 1,782)

Al LegLvul %cuin %

95 15.0 1 190 14.5 1 185 14.0 2 4s0 13.0 2 675 12.5 6 1270 12.0 9 2165 11.5 8 2960 11.0 9 3855 10.0 9 4750 9.5 9 5645 9.0 8 6440 8.5 9 7335 8.0 9 8230 7.5 8 9025 & Below 7.0 10 100

Mean Reading Grade 9.6Median Reading Grade 9.8Probable Error - 1.2

"Selector Al for Course 70230-Administrative

11

Table 17. Reading Comprehension Grade Distributions of AirmenAssigned to Career Field 14A -Wire Maintenance"

(N = 395)

General ReadingAl Grade Level Cum %

95 95 107 190 14.5 1 285 14.0 2 480 13.0 4 875 12.5 6 1470 12.0 15 2965 11.5 11 40

60 11.0 12 5255 10.0 10 6250 9.5 10 7245 9,') 9 8140 8.5 9 90

35 8.0 4 9430 7.0 3 9725 & Below 7.0 3 i37

Mean Reading Grade 10.5Median Reading Grade 11.1Probable Error + 0.3

"5Selector Al for Course 36130-Mechanical

Table 18. Reading Comprehension 5rade Distributions of AirmenAsilpted to Career Field 16A -Aircraft Accessmory Maintenan.e"

(N , 1.316)

aeage I"mdAt Orme,* Level Curem

9•15.0 390 14.5 4 7

85 14.0 5 1230 13.0 8 2075 12.5 7 27

70 12.0 10 3765 d11.1 11 4860 R11.0 11 59r5 10.0 10 6950 9.3 9 7845 9.0 7 8540 9.5 5 90115 s.0 5 9530 7.5 2 97

!•25 & Below 7.0 3 100

! Mean Reading Grade 11 .I

Median Readingl Grade 11.4Probable Error + 0.7

.S*tlecto Al for Courses 42132, 42231, 42430-Mechanical

12

Table 19. Ieadding Comprehension Grade Distributions of AirmenAssigned to Career Field 17-Aircraft Maintenance'

(N = 11.093)

Genel Reading

Al Grade Leval % Cur %

95 15.0 1 190 14.5 i 285 14.0 2 480 13.0 3 775 12.5 4 1170 12.0 9 2065 11.5 8 2860 11.0 9 3755 10.0 10 4750 9.5 10 5745 9.0 10 6740 8.5 9 7635 8.0 8 8430 7.5 7 9125 & Below 7.0 9 100

Mean Reading Grade 9.7Median Reading Grade 9.7Probable Error 0.0

aSclector Al for Courses 43131, 43230, 43231 -Mechanical

Table 20. Reading Comprehension Grade Distributions of AirmenAswip.ed to :areer Field 18-Mimile .Malmtemamce*

(N - 1.411)

l ade Level Coo S

95 15.0 6 690 14.5 7 1385 14.0 9 228o 13.0 10 3275 12.5 14 4670 12.0 16 6263 11.5 10 7260 11.0 8 8055 10.0 7 8750 9.5 4 9145 9.0 3 9440 8.5 2 9635 8.0 2 9830 7.5 1 9925 & Below 7.0 1 100

Mean Reading Grade 12.0Median Reading Grade 12.1Probable Error 4 0.8

'Selector Al for Course.4 44330, 44331-Mechanical

13

Table 21. Reading Compehe"Wion (Grade I)mtributionx of AirmenAnniped to Camcer Field 20 -olotor Vehicle Mailnenancea

A4 Grad. LewJ % Cum %

oS. 1.0 2 290 11.5 1 585 14.0 2 780 11.0 1975 12.5 2170 12.1 14 1765 11.S 10 4760 11.0 1'55 10.0 lu (6950 9.5 7841, 0.0 ,85

40 8.9 ( ()S8.0 k4 9*

30 7.5 2 07

25 & Below 7.0 I OU

Mean Readirg Grade 11.]Median Reading Grade 11 ..Probable Error + 0.7

aSelector Al for Courses 471 1, -171 l, -Mvchlanical

Table 22. Reading Comprehension Grade Distributions of AirmenUnIped to Career Field 21- %1ital Sorkingo

(N- 469)

On,.:aeel no""in$Al Grad. Level Cum %

95 15.0 1 190 14.5 i 285 14,0 2 480 13.0 5 975 12.5 5 1470 12.0 11 2565 11.5 9 1460 11.0 10 4455 10.0 14 5750 9.I 10 6745 9.0 10 7740 8.5 6 8335 8.0 7 9030 7.5 3 9)23 & Below 7.0 7 100

Mean Reading Grade 10.0Median Read, g Grade 10.6Probable Error + 0.1

aSelector Al for Courses 53270, 53430-Mechanical

14

Table 2 4. Reading Comprehens•on Grade Distributiows of Airmen

Assigned to Career Field 22A-Facilitiesa

(N 1,711)

Geaffel RecedingAl Grade Level % Cum

95 15.0 2 290 14.5 2 485 14.0 4 88o 13.0 5 1375 12.5 7 2070 12.0 12 3265 11.5 11 4360 ! 1.0 10 5355 10.0 9 6250 9.5 8 704' 9.0 10 8040 8.5 ( 86,5 8.HA 5 9130 7.5 3 9425 & Below 7.0 6 100

Mean Reading ;rade 10.6Median Reading (ra.de 11.2Probable Error 0.4

Ifelector Al for (Courss 54130, 54430, 54530, 54630-Mechanical

Table 24. Revdiang Cape.betsiom Cook I)li.rlbeio of 41emaA.amcd to ('awev Feld* 24- 1ttllltles

(N - )61)

At 6oo lw.L l Cum

9 15.0 2 290 14.5 2 4I8 14.0 5 9so 13.0 7 1675 12.4 II 2770 12.0 1t 4565 11.5 10 5560 11,0 9 64

1, 10.0 9 '350 9.4 6 .945 9.0 6 8540 F4.5 6 9135 ,039410 .. 3 9725 &klo* '.0 3 I00

Mean Reading (,t,,du 1,Median ReaJing Girad, 11f7Probable Error

'S1•lector Al for S 1,ur-' 4,1- Mur,',nic al

I '

Table 25. Reading Compreheasion Grade Distributions of Air..Assigned to Car 'ýr Field 25 -Fire Protections

(N 842)

General IleainAl badeI Level %con %

95 15.0 0 090 14.5 1 185 14.0 1 280 13.0 1 375 12.5 3 670 12.0 7 1365 11.5 6 1960 11.0 8 2755 10.0 12 3950 9.5 11 5045 9.0 12 62S40 8.5 11I 73S35 8.0 8 81

•"30 7.5 8 899i25 & Below 7.0 1110

Mean Reading Grade 9.3Median Reading Grade 9.5Probable Error 0.1

OSelector Al for Course 57130- Mechanical

Table 26. Readiug Comprehension Grade Distributions of AirmenAaslpsd to Career Field 300- Fuel Specialist"

(N 5• 10)

Aal *aed Imevel % coo

,15.0 0 050 14.5 0 085 14.0 1 1go 13.0 2 5i5 12.5 5 170 12.0 11 1965 11.5 8 2760 11.0 8 3555 10.0 12 4750 9.5 11 5345 -9.0 11 6940 L5 10 79

is.80 7 3630 1.5 7 9325 & beiow 7.0 7 100

Mean Reading Grade 0,6Median Reading Grade 9.3Probable Error - 0.1

"Selector Al for Course 64330-Mechanical

16

o ,.~ . t•

Table 27. Reading Comprehension Grade Olstributioas of AkImesAssigned to Career Field 9-Radio-Radar Syatemsa

(N 6.818)

Al Stede L-ei S CIN S

95 15.0 10 109' 14.5 9 1985 14.0 10 2980 13.0 11 4075 12.5 13 5370 12.0 17 7065 11.5 9 7960 11.0 7 8655 10.0 5 9150 9.5 4 9545 9.0 2 9740 8.5 2 9935 & Below 8.0 1 100


OSelectot Al for Courasa 30130, 30131, 30133, 30230, 30330, 30331, 30332,30430, 30431, 30432, 30433, 30630- Electremics

Table 28. Reading Comprehension Grade Distributions of Airmen

Assigned to Career Field 10-Missile Electronic Maintenancea

(N = 638)

Gemnael oefg

90 15.0 21 2795 14.5 14 4285 14.0 is 1 57so 13.0 10 6775 12'.5 9 7670 Ito. 11 8765 11.5 4 91

60 11.0 455 10.0 2 97$0 9.5 1 9645 9.0 1 9940 & Below 8.5 1 100

Mean Reading Grade 13.2Median Reading Ccade 14.3Probable Error + 1.6

O.l.ecter At (a Cesrees 31130-3031, 31132.31432, 31330, 31433 -Eletroaice

17

Table 29. Reading Cemalebenslom Grade Disrilbutions of Aimen Assigedto Carer Field I1-Armament Systems Mahintnance and OPerators

(N = 1,93)

90" Itodi.l

Al Qmle Loel Cum s

95 15.0 16 1690 14.5 13 2985 14.0 14 43s0 13.0 13 5675 12.5 10 6670 12.0 15 8165 1.1.5 8 896C 1 Lo . 9455 1 ..0 3 9750 9.5 2 9945 & Below 9.0 1 100


OSelctw, Al for Courses 32130, 32230, 32231 -Electronics

Table 30. Reading Compreliension Grade Distributions of AirmeaAsaigped to Career Field 12-Nuclear Wempoasa

(N = 620)

eon" me"n

95 15.0 23 2390 14.j 16 39I5 14.0 15 54I0 13.0 12 6675 12.5 11 7770 12.0 12 3965 11.5 4 9360 11.0 4 9755 10.0 1 9650 9.5 1 9945 & Below 9.0 1 100


aSelecew Al foe Coweuae 33130, 99125-Electnlics

18

Table 31. Reading Comprehension Grade Dlutribstions of Aimen Aasignedto Career Field 14B -Wire Mainteamace, Eleetro-Mechanicalea

(N =391)

General Reading

AI lrnde Level c C S95 15.0 3 3'

90 14.5 3 685 14.0 7 1380 13.0 7 2075 12.5 9 2970 12.0 17 4665 11.5 10 ,660 11.0 11 6755 10.0 10 7750 9.5 9 8645 9.0 6 9240 8.5 4 9635 8.0 2 9830 7.5 1 9925 & Below 7.0 1 100


"OSlectc, Al lot Coumrm 3330-lecmmicas

Table 32. Reading Comprehemnslo Grade Distributions of Aimen Amsignedto Career Field 168 -Aircraft Electrical Acceusory Maintemmacea

(N 2.640)

Oemmlleediag•Al Omde Level S co.S

95 15.0 f 4 4

31.0 4 7 19is 14.0 4 1175 12.5 472570 12.0 3965 11.5 10 4960 11.0 .10 5

10.0 9 6840 9. 9 745 9.0 7 6440 8.5 7 91

30 /.) 325& Below 7.0 4 1N

Mean Reading Grade 11 .1Median Rea,.ing Grade 11.5Probable Error + 0.4

aSelecto Al foa Comus 42133, 42230, 42330, 42333- Klecuroees

19

40.. ..-"r

- T.&Ide 31. Reedial3 Compr~elmosom Grade Distivhbui~on of AlmAmnspmed to Cmeer Field 22B -Faeliflesi. NOmI..it

p.(N 136)

Al Gfd* Levol coo%

V95 15.0 3 390 14.5 1 485 14.0 7 1180 13.0 5 1675 12.5 8 2470 12.0 17 41

*65 11.5 11 52t60 11.0 7 59

55 10.0 8 6750 9.5 12 7945 9.0 6 8540 8.5 4 89

358.0 6 9530 7.5 2 9725 & Below 7.0 3 100

Wone Reading Grad* 11.1Median Reading Grade 11.6Ptobable, Error + 0.5

*110pw' All be Ces.' 54130- leeuemnic

20

APPENDIX I. STATISTICAL TABLES

21

'V l!

C-4 r'4 - -'C¶ e4

V- cc 7 t-e i 1 -r a

I- If t'4 - 3

WI ýD t 3

ii ~ ~ ~ o j~ Ir ' "T 3 4 rv

fr.O 04 I.0'% V ' .,4

,Q.

Q. f4 U Al c - 0

1~~1 ,f N 4u-5 .* ~ -' 0

* . ~ ~: 22

~JTI0 14 ~safU

WN*r'

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r r4 N - 3u\3\ w- .'?(I

od~

NO (( r\ 0)( '

q ao r-4 r4( rjo

- 0' \0 r 4..o

GN r- \ O00 ' .

st -40

U 09

'c .n ev 's -u -:'

v. w .N2U

7,4 -C - 2,Ci

ff W s

~~2N

.1 -

A Table 36. Distributions of California Reading Comprehension Test Scoresfor High School Graduates and High School Nongraduates

(Sample: Non-Prior-SerLice Male Basic Airmen Tested in M1arch 1965)

High School High School TotalReading Test Reading Graduates Mngraduatoes Sample

new Score Grade IF % IF % IF %

73 - 84 15 13 3 2 2 15 363 -72 14 52 13 4 4 56 1255 - 62 13 60 15 9 10 69 1449- 54 12 65 18 6 7 71 1545-48 11 40 10 8 9 48 1040- 44 10 33 8 10 11 43 935 - 39 9 53 14 16 17 69 1428- 34 8 49 13 18 20 67 1320-27 7 21 5 16 17 37 81 -19 6 5 1 3 3 8 2

N 391 100 92 100 483 100

Mean Grade 11.0 9.4 10.7Median Grade 11.9 9.6 11.4

SD 2.3 2.3 2.4

Table 37. Distributions of Davis Reading Comprehension Level Test Scoresfor High School Graduates and High, School Nonmgaduates

(Sample: Non-Prior-Sernice Male Basic Airmen Tested in Match 1965)

High School High School TotalReading Test Graduates Nefgraduotes Sample1eled Scom , f % 1 % f %

93-96 14 2 0 0 14 189-92 23 3 2 1 25 385 - 88 1 0 0 0 1 081 - 84 28 4 1 0 29 377-80 88 12 9 4 97 1073 -76 92 12 18 9 110 12,69- 72 134 18 27 14 161 1765-68 146 20 43 21 189 20

:61 - 64 164 22 64 32 228 2457-60 31 4 27 14 58 653- 56 s18 2 7 4 25 349- 52 6 1 3 1 9 1

N 745 100 201 100 946 100"Mean 68.4 64.0 67.4

Median 69.0 64.9 68.0SD 8.4 6.4 8.2

24

OU ~ ~- -r

Nr*VV, OW -- 1MO

APPENDIX II. STATISTICAL COMPUTATIONS

Ire the text it was noted that the conversion tables would be expected to yield unbiased

estimates of reading ability from knowledge of the AQE General Aptitude Index only when the

group (or case) to whom the conversion was applied was a random (unbiased) sample of thepopulation from which the group upon which the conversion table was developed was also arandom sample. It was noted that the career field gioups probably did not meet this criteria of

randomness and probable error values were supplied which could be applied to each careerfield to correct the estimated reading ability scores for this lack of randomness. To obtain

the probable error values, regression equations were first computed to predict reading grade

level from the General Al and each of the other three Als in turn from data given in Table 34.These equations are shown in Table 38. The appropriate equation was then 2?plied to eachcareer field sample (using General Al mean and selector Al mean in the sample) to compute a

predicted reading grade mean. This predicted mean was then subtracted from the estimatedreading grade mean (obtained via the conversion table) to obtain a probable error for each

career field as indicated in Table 39.

The appropriate probable error value can be used, if desired, to adjust the estimated

reading grade (obtained by use of the conversion table) of an airman in any career field up or

down to obtain what may be a slightly better estimate of reading grade level. Alternatively,when both the General Al and the selector Al are available for any airman, the appropriate

regression equation may be used to obtain an estimated reading grade level. For example,Airman X in career field 30 (Supply) has a General A] of 60 and an Administrative (the selec-

tor Al for this career field) Al of 90. When these values are entered in the regression equationfor Administrative career fields, the reading grade level in estimated to be 12.2 (.0437(60) +.0501(90) + 5.0730 - 12.2040).

Table 38. Equations for IPedicting Reading Grade Level

Career Fields for which the selector Al is Administrative

RGL - .0437 Gen Al + .0501 Ad Al + 5.0730

Career Fields for which the selector Al is Mechanical

RGL - .0991 Gen Al - .0085 ,ech Al + 5.0459

Career Fields for which the selector Al is Electronics

RGL .0743 Gue Al + .0222 El Al + 4.6088

23

A T-

Table 39. Probable Errors When Conversion Table Is Used to Obtain

Estimated Reading Grade Levels for Career Field Groups

Career General Al Sol octo r Al Predicted Estimated ro babl eField Mean vnd Mean RGL RGL Error

8B 53 ýAdmin 72 11.0 10.0 -1.08C 60 Admin 79 11.6 11.4 -0.2

30A 45 Admin 63 10.2 9.0 -1.232 68 Admin 91 12.6 12.2 -0.4

34A 62 Admin 81 11.8 11.2 -0.6

34B 51 Admin 70 10.8 9.6 -1.2

14A 58 Mech 72 10.2 10.5 +0.316A 61 Mech 77 10.4 11.1 +0.:

17 52 Mech 64 9.7 9.7 0

18 70 Mech 89 11,2 12.0 +0.820 61 Mech 78 10.4 H1.1 +0.7

21 55 Mech 72 9.9 10.0 +0.1

22A 58 Mech 72 10.2 10.6 +0.4

24 62 Mech '73 10.6 11.2 + 0.625 49 Mech 63 9.4 9.3 -0.1

30B 52 Mech 64 9.7 9.6 -0.1

9 73 Elect 82 11.9 12.3 t0.4

10 81 Elect 91 12.6 13.2 +0.6

11 78 Elect 88 12.4 12.8 +0.4

,12 82 Elect 90 12.7 13.2 +0.5

1,1B 65 Elect 70 11.0 11.4 +0.4

-16B 61 Elect 68 10.7 11.1 40.4

22B 61 Elect 67 10.6 11.1 +0.5

¶

1#

REFERENCES

AF Manual 35-1, Mfilitary pcrs rn,'l classification policy manual. Washington: Department~oftheAir Force, 15 April 15j3.

AF Manual 50-1, Programmed Learning. Washington: Department of the Air Force, 31 July1964.

AF Manual 50-23. Guide for planning and conducting on-the-job training. Washington.Department of the Air Force, 1 May 1964.

AF Regulatior 39-4. On-the-], ", upgrade training. Washington: Department of the Air Force,14 june 1963.

Davis, F. B. & Oavis, Charlotte C. Manual: Davis Reading Test. New York: The Psycho-logical C(-rporation, 1962.

Tiegs, E. W. & Clark, W. W. Manual: Calilornia Achievement Tests. Monterey, Calif.:California Test Bureau, 1963.

Tapes, E. C. AQE non's for high sc,', I seniors and Air Force training groups. PRL-TR-65-10,AD.619 346. Lackland AFB, Tea.: Aefolapce Medical Division, May 1965.

27

Security ClassificationDOCUMENT CONTROL DATA - R&D

(security claasification of title, body of a atei.nd kbuiw an mdedi am" e obe mred **on Mm overall report is cl..alilog)I ORIGINA TIN G ACTIVJITY (Coworsto author) Is. REPORT SECURITY C LASSIFICATiou

Pefsonnel Research LaboratoryLackland AFB, Texas 78236 Ab CiROUP

3. RlEPORT TITLE

ESTIMATING READING ABILITY LEVEL FROM THE AQE GENERAL APTITUDE INDEX

4. DESCRIPTIVE NOTES (Type of report and Inclusive deat.)

5 AUTHOR(S) (Last namne. 11Wre naome, inetial)

Madden, Howard L.Tupes, Ernest C.

6 REPORT DATE 17a. TOTAL NO. 40 PAGES Tb. No, op, A IRFebruary 1966 27 7

So CONTRACT OR GRANT NO. S0. ORIGINATOR'S REPO91T NUMISCR~f)

b. PROJECT NO. PRL-TR-66- 177 171 ___________________________ _

Tasbk

Task0 j tOo Ayebe whr mt sb atS

d.

10 A VAIL AKILITY/LIMITATION NOTICES

Distribution of this document is unlimited.

11. SUPPLEMENTARY MOTBS It. SPONSORING MILITARY ACTIVITY

Personnel Research LaboratoryLackland AFB, Texas '78236

13. ABSTRACT

Conversion tables are presented for estimating reading achievement (reading grade level as measured bythe California Achievement Test and scaled score as measured by the Davis Reading Test) from the AQEGeneral Aptitude Index. Distributions of estimated reading grade are shown for non-prior-service airmenentering the Air Forqe in 1964 and 1965 for the total group and for subgroups split on years of educationcompleted. Distributions of estimated reading grade are also presented by career field for airmen assignedto 29 career fields. It was pointed out that. a wide range of reading ability was found within each careerfield and that the career fields differed considerably with respect to average reading ability. Implicationsfor writing of Career Develeopmem Courses aed technical mAnual. wer discussed.

DD IJA0 P!IS4 1473

Security Classification______________is1. ma nLINK A LINIK 9 LINK C

ROL~ SIT M*OL WT sidLE

reading z-bilitycareer fieldeo;timated reading abilityAitmati Qualifying Ezaassa'anoconversion tablecorrelation

INSTRUCTIONS-

1. ORIGINATING ACTIV!TY: Enter the name and address imnposed by security classification, using standard statement,of the contractor, subcontractor, grantee, Department of Do- such es:fen-ge activity or other organization (corporate author) issuing (1) "Qualified requesters may obtain copies of this

2a. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION: Enter the over- (2) "Foreign announcement and disseminatic~n of tliat

acwihappropriate security regulations. (3), U. S. Government agencies may obtain copies of

the group ndmbcr. Also, when applicable, show that optionalmarkings have been Lsed for Group 3 and Group 4 as author- (4) "U S. miitr agencies may obtain copies of this

ized reortdirctlyfro DD. Oherqualified users3. REPORT TITLE- Enter the complete report title in all shall request throupwhcapital letters. Titles in all cases should be unclassifieidtIf a meaningful title cannot be selected without classifica.tion, show title classification in all capitals in parenthesis %'5) "All distribution of this report In controlled. Qual-immediately following the title. ified DDC users shall request through4. DESCRIPTIVE NOTESk If appropriate, enterr the typeof treport, e.g., interim, progress, summary, annual, or fiund. If the report has been furnished to the Office of TechnicsGive the Inclusive dates when a specific reporting period Is Services, Department of Commerce, for sale to the public, intcovered, cote this feet and enter the price, if known.5, AIUTHR(S); Enter the names(s) of authot(s) as sMown on IL SUPPLEM91TARY NOTES: Use for additional explanaor In the report. Entiew Iast nM~, first Rome, middle InitiaL toynesIt -ivlitary, show rank arid breach of service, The saem of oyntsthe principal w.thor, is an absolute minimum requirement.l I. UPONUOR1INO MILITARY ACTIVITY: Enter the name ol

the departmental project office or laboratory sponsoring (paJh6, REPORT DATE4 Enter the date of the report as day, ling I.,) the research and development. Include address.month, year; or month, year. if mere than Oon date allpeiars 13AU RCTEnea btrtgingarefndfcuon the report, use date of publication. 1.A TAT ne nasrc iigabifadfcu

Is, OTA NUBER F P~ff Th toal op curt 641Mmary Of the document indicative of the report, evcn thoug7.,TOALNUBE O POE Te otl ag ~UM It ma loapa lehr ntebody of the technical re-

should follow normal pagination procedures, Le., enter the port, If additional space is required, a continuation sheet 0tnumi-er of pages containilng information, be ittached,7b, IEUMBsER Of RE1FELRENCES Enter the total number of It Is hIghly desirable that the abstract ()f classilfied rep,references cited itt the report, be unclassi fled, Each paragraph of the abstract shall end -Afla, C0ONTRACT OR GRANT NMBJMER, If appropriate, enter a indication of the military security classification of the inthe applicable number of the contract or grant under which wm.,stion In the paragraph, Ptpresented as ff5), (S), (C), orthe report was written, There is no limitition on the length of the abstract. lot8 b, Ic, & Sd PROJECT NUMBER, Enter the appropit ofer, the suggested length Is fronm 150 to 225 words.eutfiproje de'urmb Ie ntificatiom number task projectc 14. KEY WORD$: Key words are technically meaningful tertsubpojet ombe, sste nubeto tok umbr, icor short phrases that chsatcterix* a teport anid may be up~ed a9s. ORIGINATOR'S REPORT NUM111S(S) rVOer the atfi index entries for cataloging the rporot. Key word% must becilo report nus,4bf by which thea dft-imonlt will be identified selected so that no security classification is reqluirid. Identtand controlled by the originating activity, This number swelt fiers, such as equipment model designaalion, trade name, milibe Unique to this repoft, proJecl code name, %toge Ic location, may be used as keyt9b. OThJER R9PORT Nt.1AB9R(§); If the sepoil has been words but will he 1.1loaded by en hiltidlatiefn of tee haleal con,

assined any ather report numbers (either by the ovljtnfilo 11110 The asaignnent of links, rules, ondf weiphts, Is notionsIor by Th& qporiscf), also enter thig numerf(s),10, AVAILABILITY/LIMITATION NOTICES Enter any hlmwItatilne an further dntssmitastwo .1 the ropers, et~ thenl li

Socuity ctmsiiruI~atS

estimating reading ability level from the aqe general

Documents