Technical b r Report - International Military Testing Association

In the design of our performance tests, we have conscientiously selected :v
,.
criterion measures which do not rely upon the (subjective jcdgement of the
?
rater. The guiding philosophy of this test development effort was that we
do not care how a man accomplishes his job or ,his task. What we are
I
concerned with is whether he got the job donep i.e., produced the required
outputs at the proper time. In this way, the testing procedures can
remain independent of the,,specific processes that are prescribed.
Applying ithese principles to testing combat skills of the Light
Weapons Infantryman (XOS llB), we began with a definition of tke situations
in which the individual fs experted to perform. These can generally be
defined iq terms such as: assault and defense, reconnaissance patrol,
defensive patrol, night infiltration, and anti-tank actions. The next
step was to perform a behavioral :ask analysis, in cue-rcc--zs ‘S *
to determine exactly what the individual soldier is respondin, to in each
of these situations (the cues) and whft outputs (response) are expected
of him.
1
One of the firs? characteristics, that became evident was that while ,’
we were. talking in terms of individual proficiency and individual testing,
the soldier seld~~m acts as an individual in the defined criterion situations.
He is virtually always a member of a I larger unit, most often the fire
team, operating as a member of a squ d. As we proceeded, it becarr.e clear
b
1
that we had to test him in that context. ,
Another critical factor that b came clear is that the infantryman is
%
operating most of the time against an intelligent opposing force, *