Technical Report - International Military Testing Association

More documents

Recommendations

Info

. . . Conctpta for Exploration in Prof iciepcy tieaaureraent EfICHAEL A. ZACCARIA Lackland Air Force Base, Texas XARVIN KAS’ Randolph Air Force Base, Texan Roth the keynote speaker and the cbairam of the tboretical aympoaim on approaches to improve measuremat have asked that ve develop C~ccpte for exploration in proficiency mBaaurcment. Our theoretical sp~~osi~m chairman baa indicated that vc can gain very little by merely polishing up our present meaauremnt techniques. Thus, any approach to a real improvement in proficiency measureuxmt muat be a radical departure, at leaat in aow vaya to the conventional concepts presently applied in this area. The traditional appmach has atereotyped our thlnklng to such I an extent that ve are primarily concerned vith marely ru Lning and velidating proficiency measurement devices. It might be vell for ua to bc:!r. this discussion by reappraising aoaz of the concept8 that have ‘
..- . -*- .,- ‘. _ . When the matn objective is to use a umaoure to select or screen individual8 for a .program, there ia no question concerning the value of a norm-referenced syatcm. On tha other hand, the question arises ar to whether we should group achievement measures in order to con!4 up with one score. ()ur program chairwa has stated quite tuccinctly that in order to mke real progress in thir realm of proficiency evaluation, id, .&et begin with the job. We are definitely in agreement vfr.h this comaznt end wish to present some concept8 of how this r,:$c be done. Sa individuals have approached thte task by :L+ use of 6upervi60zy ratings as an ultimate criterion on the ow ‘jtrd and the development of tests of proficiency on the other. ‘31 approach has been one of intercorrelating the teut batteries ar.d crl:eria thuo deriving optianm prediction weights for each test. Thrs courm of action ray vell remind us of the story of a team of prychologirtr baLrg called upon to develop prediction devicas for a large company. After considerable work on these predictore, thio group wa8 &la to predict quite highly with a large battery of temts the criterion which war based on rupervirory ratings. The paychologistr, being dfasatirfied vith marely being able to forecast there ratings with naariy perfect accuracy, decided to do mme further research and to factor unalyze the criterion and predictor variables: Lo and behold, the analytlia being complete, they found that they were Pearuring job saniority. Validity of perfownce amaouree riced not ba related to another criterion. These could be ultimate criteria in and of themselves. Let UP ruppose that we wish to ueaaure the performnce of secratariee. The first thing we should do ir etart vith the .job. We should enumerate the taoks that she doar in terma of product-lfke performr.ice. A secretary, for example, may do the following: type letters or finished copy fros draf te , take dictation, file correa~ndance, #elect mterialr from filer, receive vfstoro, and answer inqutrfer over the telephone. From this brief description of the recretarial dutleb, we can quite reudily develop uome of the following criterion perfonmnce measure#: We can wasure her speed and accuracy of typing, her rpeed and accuracy of taking shorthand, and her ability to transcribe her shorthand notes, her abill y to sppropriately file corrasporxience and to find mterials filed. Her ability to anmrcr qumfer on ths telephorm may be somevhat mre difficult. On the basin of each score that rhe maken, we can clarrffy her in terma of ratisfactoty. unratiefactory, end outstanding. The criterion for satirfsctory on typing, for example, mfght be an average of 40 wordr per minute on a cartrin specified copy vith no more than two error43 per page for a two-page amnuscript. Outstanding on thir charactari8tic mfght imrolve 60 words per minute with no mre than one error on a two page manuscript. Sfmllar stemjards could be worked out for each of the other criteria. . . . - _ _ . . _ _. . _ .- 42 . I -. c i . . . . . . : * .- ‘, .’ .+ . - . - ,.,- i... .-_.. -... __ _ _. _. - - - .- . ._ -_- . _-^_-dA- _______...._ - ^-.- .--. - -. . _ , . .
Page 1: UNCLASSIFIED/UNLIMITED Technical Re
Page 4 and 5: . r � � . . rnl.ITAkf ies?ING A
Page 6 and 7: :a-- � . . __ ._ _ .._ _ .___. -
Page 8 and 9: . . . _ _- -_ _.. ..--._... -.. .-.
Page 10 and 11: .-. c 1. - - . . __. . _ _ _ _ . --
Page 12 and 13: (i . * -. -._ _ . . . . have one @k
Page 14 and 15: .-- A- . __ .-._ -.-.. - -‘--- .-
Page 16 and 17: : i f I . . _.. _ ._ ” .-. -. ._
Page 18 and 19: -. / ,’ i _. . . _. __ _. __. .._
Page 20 and 21: . __ . ____ . . .- ---__.._ - __.__
Page 22 and 23: ., � � . 3 . i’ i i I , ‘ .
Page 24 and 25: F ‘. r2r . * . . � , , ! ,. .
Page 26 and 27: - ; , . -_ . . . . .’ , i: ‘. :
Page 28 and 29: ‘. . The initial objective of th
Page 30 and 31: \I’ . . i ’ ’ _ . . I 1 Z-N -
Page 32 and 33: . , . . Perspective DR. HAROLD A. E
Page 34 and 35: . . . . . . need another sort of te
Page 36 and 37: .___ ---.-.-a ---._- ~.-~“..CI.~.
Page 38 and 39: . . - . -. . . ‘. - -m.__ ’ We
Page 40 and 41: w - ------- --- -.-. ___..- - I _ .
Page 42 and 43: . . . , - . . - . 2 . . . .--...-.
Page 44 and 45: c. / I ’ . a . c . ’ , Summary
Page 46 and 47: -- /-’ 1. Bxamfnatfoti Grade 2. P
Page 48 and 49: : . A . . . 3. Officarr’ Administ
Page 52 and 53: Here; UC are trying to make acveral
Page 54 and 55: ‘a : . -.. . . 1 . . . . . _. . .
Page 56 and 57: f -. ‘Ibotertfaoul,X:-Cp I .- . .
Page 58 and 59: -.. :.. . , / _ :. . .A. . . - ---.
Page 60 and 61: Teat reliability? -- Certainly 6OmC
Page 62 and 63: . . One of the p~oblmnr that we pro
Page 64 and 65: . . . The Prsdictioa of fob Profici
Page 66 and 67: . The basic fomula uhic:!~ generate
Page 68 and 69: . - - . . . . * . i ’ f “. . z
Page 70 and 71: -- 1 . * __-_..___ __.-_.- I . �
Page 72 and 73: . . .* . - ..-.. ___ - --- -___ -._
Page 74 and 75: _ . . . _ .- ._ ..-.-_ _---.---- -
Page 76 and 77: __ ._ __ ._ .^ . .._--- -. ____. ..
Page 78 and 79: � Teble 8 Thr Probubilitier of Gr
Page 80 and 81: 60 40 30 20 10 1. Identify PtlAEr 1
Page 82 and 83: . . . . Parronality Tooting md Job
Page 84 and 85: -. _- _. ._. ,. _ -- _ ______-_____
Page 86 and 87: . . . . ,’ . . NW we rhould recog
Page 88 and 89: _ . - . .._ - -_-..-.-- _-_- ._,__X
Page 90 and 91: . -. . . . -- .--- ..-_ .--- . .--.
Page 92 and 93: . . . In their reply the US Army Pe
Page 94 and 95: . - _ _ - . - - . .* _ . . . -M1_1-
Page 96 and 97: -. . :a. .\ -. -I- .’ -.., 7 -a!
Page 98 and 99: - .-_ .! . . . __. _. . ._ 1 _____.
Page 100 and 101:
s-t g CD L-9 "0 aI - - -I -, 6-8 g
Page 102 and 103:
i’ I . . When developed with ing;
Page 104 and 105:
. . are to be developed. Discus6 wi
Page 106 and 107:
--- . . . . Aritm 1 CRTTRRU FOR IDX
Page 108 and 109:
Page 1 GR4ia -- HOS -- Length of Ti
Page 110 and 111:
. . ANNEX 3 CRITERIA FCR PERFORMANC
Page 112 and 113:
. . ‘- -.- . .I : . -.. (. .- ,.
Page 114 and 115:
. . .- . - ., .- 2 :. -W-.l.W.‘..
Page 116 and 117:
. . and performed .the duties 01 th
Page 118 and 119:
’ . I , ._ ..--“.,.-.“..~...;
Page 120 and 121:
. . . - . . . . -.. . ^. ‘. L ,..
Page 122 and 123:
. . . contributions to the fir&l mu
Page 124 and 125:
._ _ --r -. :’ ,--_ .I’- ..__ .
Page 126 and 127:
,’ ‘. ,-- - : ’ ‘.b :’ _.
Page 128 and 129:
.1 , .I . . ., .;., ., _- . -.< “
Page 130 and 131:
. . Test Construction Procedures wI
Page 132 and 133:
. . * .-a . ..” .-. ,. ., “.. _
Page 134 and 135:
Ceoly, W. D., 6 Cratn, J. L. Dual c
Page 136 and 137:
:. ‘ci � � � � � i I 1
Page 138 and 139:
. personnel are assigned to jobe th
Page 140 and 141:
. . _-. .._. -...a_-e,-,. .-Y.-e--.
Page 142 and 143:
The octond 6reA of opercatfon’ fo
Page 144 and 145:
O&#&RAL%YWP011U0111l-SRRS.GE~SEVIF.
Page 146 and 147:
. Systematic upgrading. At the same
Page 148 and 149:
2 . . . - “.,.>__ ., . _ _ _ _ .
Page 150 and 151:
. - . . -.. ..- . .-. .._-,_.-&s -.
Page 152 and 153:
During the post year, the fiOS Eval
Page 154 and 155:
I-- , c Now, an MOS Evaluation Test
Page 156 and 157:
f . Job P.na1ysi.r for Tart Develop
Page 158 and 159:
h. i. 1. k. 1. m. n. . Reproduction
Page 160 and 161:
. . Administration of the Job Inven
Page 162 and 163:
. ‘,‘, . : . . ; . .,--- -. can
Page 164 and 165:
. CL%TiS D. l!CYRIDZ US Army Artill
Page 166 and 167:
When a request was made for the nam
Page 168 and 169:
Item Writing Procedures for IncrasL
Page 170 and 171:
- Preoentation to MTA Panel ConaLde
Page 172 and 173:
-- -- . _ . _-._ ._- --- ..--._. -
Page 174 and 175:
.- We probably ohould not conc1~rn
Page 176 and 177:
. . . LOXCAL EKPIRICAL Content Vall
Page 178 and 179:
, __-____ 14_1- -...-. -- _.._.~ _.
Page 180 and 181:
, .- - L L . -. .--Ly -_ _. - . . \
Page 182 and 183:
._“...- . , ._ I . . ..,_ . _, _
Page 184 and 185:
c r- ’ , L- .’ ./’ / :‘.. p
Page 186 and 187:
ecause we do not like the criteria
Page 188 and 189:
-- ., -__. . . . ,Establlshment has
Page 190 and 191:
. 6. . . . .i 4 * .I .J ,I --. Dunn
Page 192 and 193:
-. Item Writers Aptitude Test Devel
Page 194 and 195:
. i . -- t ! Ens Harold AdaL-an Hr.
Page 196 and 197:
1 / . . . I . Cape Harry H. Craer,
Page 198 and 199:
. ‘. . & . e . Fir. John J. Parke
Page 200 and 201:
6.. , . . 1% + , ,* ___ . ‘. * ,
show all

Technical Report - International Military Testing Association

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?