I__. - International Military Testing Association

Table 2.
Frequency of Total Number : Frequency Distribution for the
of Breaks per Platoon : Number of Breaks by Battalion
. - - . _.-..-__.
Total Number Platoon :
of Breaks Frey. % : Battalion
.
*-
.
Number of Breaks
0 1 2 3 4
------- - _ _ .__ _,. _
0 10 17 :
.
v 3 3 6 0 0
1 17 29 : w 1 3 6 2 0
2 21 34 : X 5 3 2 2 0
:
3 9 15 : Y 1 6 2 2 1
:
4 3 5 : z 0 2 5 3 2
Table 3. Lowest Break and Number of Breaks Correlated with
Performance Measures
Type of
Measure Platoon Performance Rated By:
oc cc PLT
--
OVERALL
LOWEST BREAK .37 . 03 .33** .zG"-k
--_-. _
---.
NUMBER
OF BREAKS -*Zig* -.34* -.37** -.44***
~-_- __----_
* p < .05 ** p < .Ol *** pc -001
Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the relationship between the mean
overall performance scores and the lowest break and number of
breaks conditions, respectively. Analysis of variance provides
an F of 3.74, p < . 01 and an F of 4.47, p < .004 for the data in
Figures 1 and 2, respectively. Similar results were obtained by
using any of the other methods of computing the performance
measures.
Examination of Figure 1 reveals that platoon performance is
most degraded when either the PS or the PL is at the position of
the lowest break. Performance is better than average when the
lowest break in vertical cohesion occurs at the CC level and is
best when the vertical chain has no breaks at all. Since
performance measurement was at the platoon level, some cloudinrj
435