I__. - International Military Testing Association

een used in prior research and thus had known or expected
characteristics.
For criterion measures of platoon performance, the ratings
of three groups were used: observer/controllers (OCs) at the
JRTC, company commanders (COs) rating their three platoons, and
the platoon members. (PLT) themselves. The OC ratings were done
at the JRTC after the rotation was completed: the CO and PLT
ratings were made during post-rotation data collection. Each
rater rated each platoon, about whose performance he was
knowledgeable, on its performance during each mission conducted
(e.g., movement to contact, deliberate attack, and defense). A
rater's average rating of the platoon across observed missions
became the criterion score. Raters used a 4 point scale:
Trained, Needs a little training, Needs a lot of training,
Untrained. PLT ratings were computed by averaging criterion
scores across the four positions (squad member, squad leader,
platoon sergeant, platoon leader), i.e., equally weighted by
positon. Readers can contact the author for additional
information on any of the scales. The predictor data used for
the analyses in this paper are from squad member responses only.
Leader perspectives will be addressed in future analyses.
Results
Scales. The questionnaire predictor scales used in this research
typically had means of about 3.1 - 3.6 on the five point response
scale, with standard deviations around 1.0 at the individual
respondent level and around .5 as averaged at the platoon level.
Scale reliability estimates (alpha values) were typically around
the .8 level. The platoon performance criterion scales had the
following characteristics: OC ratings - Mean = 2.1, SD = .41;
CO ratings - Mean = 3.2, SD = .43; PLT ratings - Mean = 3.2, SD =
. 32. Number of platoons rated were: OC - 23; CO = 42; PLT = 59.
Direct impact of cohesion. As noted in Table l.a., all the
aspects of cohesion correlated significantly with platoon
performance as rated by the OCs at JRTC and as rated by the
platoon members. The cohesion - performance relationship based
on CO criteria was in the same direction but at a lower, nonsignificant
level. Also, as noted in Table l-b., the different
aspects of cohesion all correlated significantly with each other,
although at a notably lower correlation coefficient level with
the Army identification aspect. An initial factor analysis of
squad member responses indicated that Army identification was a
separate construct from the others, that squad member bonding was
a separate construct, and that the other scales were linked to
perceptions about the platoon leaders. Platoon pride loadings
were split between the squad member and leader factors.
Relation of cohesion to other constructs. As noted in Table
l.c., other standard organizational constructs and level of
training were related to the cohesion scales. In short, there
-I -i ii