Technical b r Report - International Military Testing Association

scanning machino and associated data set into the computer. The
computer is used to score the tests and the results are ret~rncd to
the appropriate team vi,a the tcletypc network (Figure 4). Turn-
around time has been reduced to one or two days, depending on computer.
availability.
One of the largest prob1crr.s WC encountered in program development was
how to best score snd analyze the test results. One goal was to deter-
mine individual strengths and weaknesses while another goal was to
identify and correct deficiencies within the training program itself.
Ke developed a "quick-look' SAT report to meet the first requirement.
This report is based on tbc.exam.inecs' results compared to the existing
fleet, or total, results contained in the answer file. Individual
training recommendations are also contained in the SAT Report and are
based *on Z-scores greater thdn 0.5 bckw the fleet mean. This criteria
was picked art" .:ly but has worked well in practice.
A more detailed analysis is conducted to meet the second evaluation goal.
This analysis includes individual and group evaluaticn (i.e., submarine
crew, tender crcx, instructors, etc.). PPP table evaluation, teat
instruxent evalcation. These evaluations are conducted after each test
version is retired and replaced with a new version. The FEM program
provides a uniqac envirxzent for many of these analyses. CoLlmun i. t y
idiosyncrasies include (1) relatively stable crew composition, (2)
detailed hardware pcrfornance data, (3) close liaison among all nctivi-
ties, and (4) extensive personnel history data. These attributes
enable crew Fcrfcrmance and empirical test validity evaluations beyond
those which are normaily Fracticable.
I
199
:. _
-..