Technical Report - International Military Testing Association

i’
I
.
.
When developed with ing;t,2uity, we may be surprised at some of the
areas in which PCT’s would be appropriate. For example, Dr. Owen Waveless,
an international specialist in linguistics, assures me that the development
of an Instrument along these lines for interpreters should be ponsible.
He said that such an instrument could be used effectively by an observer
NOT skilled In a given language to evaluate an axaminee’a ~aneuaw’imJficiency.
Even though it would NOT be a canpletely adequate aubstltute
for more precise measurlas yielded by a good performance test, it would
be much better than a traditional rating scale alone.
. WHAT IS A PERFORIWXE CHECK TEST?
- -
.
Y
The proposed instrument is a true test developed In much the same wa,y
aa a good written test, but the items are answered about--not by--the examinee
and each item describes one specific mnnipulation, skill, or
product that is marked by the observer, or supervisor, as being observed,
or not -brerved in the examinee’s performance of the specified tasks of
his job. It differs from the usual performance check list in that each
item has been selected on the basis of experimental analysis (using
standard item analysis techniques) frcxn a much larger list of specific
proficiencies that first, can be readily and directly observed or
inferred, second, can be so defined that any qualified observer would
consistently state that the soldier observed either did or did not odequcll;ely
perform the defined manipulation,and third, which distinguish between
characteristics of various levels of proficiency. In some instances the ’
manipulation described by the item might be a specific task. H,-wever,
most items wou!d be limited to distinct individual skills or manipulation5
involved in completing such tasks. For example, one item in a performanoe
check test for a bandsman might be,“Consistently produces high C on his
inetrument when called upon to do so.” A bandmaster should be able to
answer this question about every one of his bandsmen, even without any
special observation of them.
Different items should describe consistently observable levels of
skills possessed by examineee with different level5 of job proficiency,
Some items should describe skills whfch are possessed only by the most
proficient soldier in the MOS; Borne should cover skill8 which are
porseoeed by the highly proficient but not by a man with average prof
iciency; come should cover skills possessed by the average man but not
poclstseed by those low in proficiency; a few should cover skill8 that a
man low in proficiency can do but that a novice with some familiarity with
the ffeld can not do at the level described by the item. Naturally,
neither items covering things which practically everyone in the job can
do, nor items which no one can do should be included for measurement purposes,
.
93
---
-
,
, . !
1 .
I
i
6
,