Technical b r Report - International Military Testing Association

performance testing dram in these two examples illustrate the focus of this
paper: the use of process versus produc: neasures in performance testing.
I am chiefly interested in the us2 of performance tests to evaluate the
results of training, and :o properly set the stage for what I have to say
today let me first summarize what the training eval&tor considers to be
the ideal use of product and process measures. Performance tests are used In
training evaluation to serve trio purposes: (a) to certify student achievf-
mat, and (b) to dis&nose weaknesses in th2 instructional system. In the
use of such tests, Profici2ncy measures which focus on task outconco (products)
normally provide data relevant to the first purpose, whereas measures of her:
the tasks are carried out (process) pertain to the second. For example, the
number of targets hit by the tanker trainee r=ould be the product measure by
which his qualification ss a tank gurner is assessed. However, if he fails
to qualify we would also Eke to know W;I~ - where was his training weak?
This is where process measures are useful: if the gunner consistsntly
. .
missed :argets, was it because he ran&ad incorrectly, or obtained an irqroper
sight picture, or r-asn't able to maintain the gun lay during firing? This
type of data is useful in diagnos9.g areas of training deficiency, and Is
essential in efficiently rsmediating trainees.
3x1s we sac the roles piayed by product and process measures in training
evaluation. Both are iqortant -- even critical -- when used for their
respective purposes in evaluating the results of training.
Product and Process as Xeasures of Stuiant Xchicvencnt
k'fth this background i wsoitld now like to narrow the focus of my comments
to the us2 of these types of p2rforLance measures in serving just the first
’
_--. .-. -. .
./’
250
. I . ,s-. VII
-
- :
a. 1
'