Technical b r Report - International Military Testing Association

esults but lacked depth in that it did not account for related variables
that may have some concomitant effect on SKT scores, such as the
pre-training abilities of the trainees.
Another AF’HRL study, The Road to Work: Technical School
Training or Directed Duty Assignment?, by Mr. W. B. Lccznar,
used several criteria which are thought to be related to performance,
including: Job Difficulty CompositeG, Number of Tasks Performed
(range l-372)7, Average Task Difficulty per Unit Time (range l-7)7,
and operationally prepared Airman Performance Report (range l-9)
overall evaluations. Several variables thought to cause variation in
these criteria were used in addition to OJT/TTS as grouping in an
analysis of covariance or? ” . . . a two treatment-one concomitant
variable multiple regression model. ‘*8 Analyzing these results,
Mr. Lecznar concluded that, “The inclination is to say that in these
specialties formal resident technical training provides little or no
advan!age over on-the-job training. ” 9
Airman Proficiency Ratings (APR’s) would appear to be a
‘natural’ ;Oi. rleasuring some aspects of performance, but they
currently suffer from such a high degree of inflation that their
lack of variation severely limits their potential for this purpose.
The Navy has qlso done some interesting work in developing
productivity indices. lo This concept may eventually be a fruitful
avenue for future work but a few shortcomings must be overcome.
0x-W prfJbk?Il? is that it will be difficult to account for changes in the
quality of output or in the type of output. In addition, output level
in many work centers in the .4ir Force is strongly related to the
demand for the output, which could be a troublesome variable to
account for in a productivity index.
A logical attack for this problem would be to select the best
measure of productivity, performance, or proficiency, a priori,
and then accept the results obtained with observations on that
measurement. State-of-the-art for this type of measurement is
6 hleade kChrista1, 19r
7
8
LcczIlciI’, 1972,
Ibid, 11. 3
11.2
9
10
Op. Cit., p.
BUNAVPERS,
9
196~1
71