Technical b r Report - International Military Testing Association

PROCESS VERSUS PRODUCT XEASURES IX PERFORWCE TESTING
William C. Osborn
Human Resources Research Organization
Consider the f ollovizg si:uations.
titer having undergoce training ia task gunnery a soldier's proficiency
is beicg tested 0;1 a g~~nr.e:y range. During the course of this test he will
fire several nain gun rozds a: targets varying in size, shape and distance.
In each case his score is deternixed by whether he hit the target within
some specified-time limit, arid he is certified a tank gucner if he scores
above some ninirnrul level required for qualification.
Under other circumst2-aces, a soldier having uadergoce similar training
may be evaluated differectly. Let's assume that azzunition is scarce or
that adequate range facili:ies arc not available. Here the soldier might
have to be.tcsted under dry-firing conditions. He would be required to
take actual or miniaturized versiocs of targets under fire, and's tester
would assess in each case whe:her the yzner 1) acquired the target with
smooth manipulation of tte hand coztroller, 2) correctly ra;lged on the
target, 3) achieved the proper sight pfcture, 4) squeezed the firing switch
wfthou: losing the sight piciure, and 5) fired within some allotted time.
Here tfre gunner is qualified if he performed each of the five procedural
steps correctly on some zinimun nutber of targets.
In the first situation described, a task outcome or product measure --
tar&e: hits -- is th6 basis for evaluating gunners; whereas, in the second
i
instance correct task p:&ed&xe or a process measure is ehe basis for evalua-
iion. Tnough somewhat oversimplffied, the contrasting approaches to
249