Technical b r Report - International Military Testing Association

e found in the area of in:&personal behavior. One has to do with instruc-
tor training, where at leas: traditionally the military instructor trainee
is evaluated by having him prepare and deliver a block of instruction during
which he is judged on such process fac:ors as: “stood erect," "had good
eye contact with audience, )( "conld be heard in the back of the room," "used
visual aids effectively, (t "covered all points in the lesson plan," etc.
Although thc.pro&ct of instruction clearly is student learning, I believe
i: is scldon if ever used 3s tke critericr: for qualifying an instructor
trainee -- probably because 1. '* vould icvolve a more time cons-x,ing ar.d inprac-
tical method of- evaluation. iu?other very sinilar exaqle which cmes CO
mind pertains to a recrui:er's task of delivering a persuasive speech to a
student audience. If the product of this task could be measured it would
be in terns of the number in the audience echo later contact the recruiter
with an interest in enlisting. i3ut, again, because of its implaussbility
as a measure of student achievcent, product gives day to process and the
. .
recruiter traxze's persuasive speech is evaluated in -zxh the same way as
va.s described above for instructor trainee.
Dealin< with Pr&lerzs of ?rcc?ust Yeascrecmt
I'm sure that those of you involved in performance testing can think of
many more instances in which product measurement is not used. Clearly, some
of these are justified by cost or safety considerations -- but others are
not. hhich bricgs us to tke ccnrral point of my rcanrks today. I bcllcvc
that test developers often faii to see the inportamce of measuring task
outcome; or perhaps they merely slight chc iqortaxe when fated with prnc-
tic31 litzi:a;,ons in its LstxCn:cnt. h%.l:cvcr tlrc motivation, I bclicvc
they do not strive nearly kard cslough to overcome rcsL;‘yce problems which
254
3