Technical b r Report - International Military Testing Association

in the instrument, but most of the redundant questions were asked only
once to minimize the length of the survey.
Of the 295 surveys sent to supervisors at 88 Air Force bases, 20’7
were returned. All responses were manually e.&ted and keypunched
for transferal of the survey data to magnetic tape.
The questionnaire’s length might have been responsible for a reduced
response rate toward the end of.the instrument, but response rates for
all three survey approaches were sufficient to enable co,nparison of the
alternative txchniques.
A detailed report of the survey data and an in-depth discussion of
their implications will be forthcoming soon in an AF Human Resources
Laboratory technical report. For brevity and to minimize duplication
Table 2 describes item content and mean responses without discussion
of their implications. The reader is cautioned against ixferring strong
conclusions from this limited display of data.
.4 cost estimate for each OJT cost factor is exhibited in Table 3. The
cost models used to compute these estimates were selected from several
cost models based on various combinations of the three survey approaches.
Again, a more rigorous discussion will soon appear in AFHRL publication.
The OTT cost per trainee of S1545 can be %ompa.red to the marginal cost
per trainee o course 3Af3R 70230, S2271. There are criteria other
than costs which are equally inrportant, viz. , training capacities ar.d
quality of the training. Thus, conclusions regarding optimal OJT/‘TTS
mists for the Administrative Specialty based only on data in this report
would be reached without considering other important criteria. These
criteria are discussed l~~ a Technical Report in review at AFHRL. ’
Z The cost of Tech schoorwas obtained from FUSD Corporation data.
- !
. -._.
62
. _
, _- .- _..
.
._. .~. _. .*. - -. A