Technical Report - International Military Testing Association

2
. .
. -
“.,.>__ ., . _ _ _ _ . . . . . _ _ -
4.h.. ._ _ Tha caBe for. Another view, the preveillng ona, is that eveluation should
ram&in independent of treining. Evaluation, it is contended, is properly a
coordinaea function vfe-a-vie training and should not be relegated to a s~ordinata
role, To do so%uidx BornewhAt like Qlscing the bar examiners under the
low-school faculty, the teacher-certification agency under the normal. school,
or the Auditor under the bookksepar. tiir would ignore tha nosd for checka and
balances between training and evaluation A% indcpend-antiy coexisting functions,
As an evaluative instrument, then, the SKT is supposed not - -to
bs a form of
training de-rfca. To regard the SK? 8~1 euch would supposedly be a groea nioconception
of it6 true function, even though the SKT dcee have the extrinsic
effect of operAting As a ntudy LrcpeIler.
I a’
/
* \.
.’
,
--
c
According to its Qroponents, evAluatfon is better able to respond flexibly
to rapid technological developments with the Introduction of new subject matter,
And to cope with the sudden obsolescence of old subject matter, eince it is A
far simpler mtter to revise a test than to revise a training courne. To submerge
evaluation in tralnfng, it is pointed Out, would impoea upon the former
the inherent drsubacke of the latter. It in considered cruciA1, therefore,
that evaluation remain directly recrpooet.re to the clsesificntion stclndards
rather than become elavishly dependent upon the errining standards. As for
the ecorrcmies anticipated with the pro?oaed consolidation, it le believed ehicl
would have to be calaulatsd in term of overell cffactivenecs rather than
purely Dionetary units. The sacrifice of IimSted pecuniary aavi~~ge is be-ieved
to be a relatively cheap price to pay a~ part of the coot of independent
nvAtuAtion.
Theee two opposing positions retative to independent evaluation form the
horns of a dilemm that periodically rear into view. ‘What’8 the eneuer?
Whatever the Ansver, it mst first be recognized on both aider that tha
qussti.on iteelf is recilly neither one of tralnirg nor of evaluation in an
exclusive eense. Rather, it is a question of rcanpower utilization in A
corcpreheneive renee and probably should be Approached Aa such. Whatever the
answer, it should be identifiable neither as training policy nor a8 evaluation
policy but as a amnpower management Qolicy. In short, it should be an Air
Porte anmer to an Air Force question.
Surnnary. And there It ie-one vereion of the mjor goale of specinlty
knowledge testing in the Air Force. Ye have reviewed the goals of the SKT
as an instrument of management in support of the airman pereonnel classification
ayetern through quality control and standardization of knowledge and through
systernstfc career progreeeion. We have alao reviewed the goals of the SXT
in relation to training, not only to energize study but also to screen bypass
epacialiste. Finally, we have scrutinized the icpace of ehe SKT on the training
program And raised the question& independent evaluation, In 00 doing, we hnve
euggested that, whatever the answer, it should be transcendingly Air Force in
it8 spirit.
. .