I__. - International Military Testing Association

on 1903 Army linguists in four 1inguist military occupational special.ities
(~0s) who had received language training in Spanish, German, Korean, and
Russian at DLIFLC. Data collect ed at several points in the career cycle of
these linguists included the following elements:
1. ASVAB and DLAB scores at time of selection.
2. Personality measures, interest inventories, and supplementary
cognitive measures collected prior to the beginning of language training.
3. Measures of the extent and nature of motivation to learn foreign
languages collected prior to and during language training.
4. Inventories of student learning strategies collected at two
different times during their language courses.
5. The Defense Language Proficiency Test (DLPT) , a series of measures
of foreign language proficiency in listening, reading, and speaking skills
collected immediately after graduation from language training, after
subsequent AIT , and at subsequent annual administrations as mandated by
Army regulations.
DLIFLC and AR1 coordinated with the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) to obtain contractor support to build, collect, manage, and analyze
the LSCP data base. In order to build upon information derived from the
LSCP analyses, DLIFLC requested the contractor, Advanced Technologies
Incorporated (ATI) to submit a plan for the design and development of a
revised DOD language aptitude battery. The remainder of this paper draws
heavily from that plan.
Proposed e f_I_. fdevelopment o r t s
The following conclusions drawn from the LSCP data analysis were
relevant to the design of the new battery:
1. Substantial prediction of success in language training, as measured
by the DLPT, was afforded by factors not presently considered in language
selection.
2. The relationship of predictors to criterion performance differed
across languages represented in the study, and within individual languages
across the criterion skills of listening, reading, and speaking.
Consequently, the AT1 management plan recommended two approaches for
improving linguist selection and subsequent military linguist performance:
1. to expand the range of factors considered in predicting success
beyond those presently reflected in ASVAB composites and the current DLAB.
2. to attempt to tailor predicton by language and language skill.
From the very beginning, certain constraints on the development of a
new language aptitude instrument were recognized.
First of all, although the new aptitude test will attempt,\to provide a
more exhaustive assessment of the potential military linguist s
capabilities, the large-scale nature of its use, the time and resources
that are likely to be available for its administration, and concerns about
fatigue on the part of those taking the instrument necessitate that the
time allotted for the the new test not greatly exceed that of the current
DLAB. A possible mechanism for achieving maximal efficiency in measurement
would be to use adaptive testing techniques; however, careful consideration
would have to be given to the nature and interrelation of the traits
underlying the abilities to be measured (as yet underspecified), and to the
hardware requirements of such a system and their implications for test
administration.
Secondly, it would not be desirable to test different abilities or use
different prediction and scoring formulae for every one of the forty
languages taught in the Defense Foreign Language Program (DFLP). It would
232