I__. - International Military Testing Association

most common. Finally, MSG Battalion personnel were extensively interviewed, to solicit
their ideas on what behaviors represented potential reliability problems.
Preparation of Behavior Indicators Checklist. All of the information described above
was converted to a list of discrete behaviors that could indicate a potential personnel
security risk. These behaviors were sorted, where possible, into the categories used for
the MSG performance rating scales developed in the prior phase of this research. New
categories were formed where the pre-existing system did not seem to cover clusters of
behaviors, and a number of the pm-existing categories were combined and/or renamed,
as appropriate.
The first draft of the Behavior Indicators Checklist contained 61 behaviors, grouped into
10 clusters or behavior categories. Each of these behaviors was considered to be an
indication that an MSG might be headed for, if not already in, some kind of trouble,
ranging from emotional instability to drinking problems, or simply not realizing the
dangers of becoming too friendly with Foreign Service Nationals about whom little was
known.
Examples of checklist behaviors are: “MSG often becomes disorderly or violent when
drinking” and “A Foreign Service National shows a sudden increase of favors towards
this MSG.” There were a number of behaviors that, while not particularly desirable, may
not indicate a real problem if the behavior is relatively short in duration, for example,
“MSG frequently asks to get off duty early or switch duty assignments.” There might be
an acceptable reason for the latter example, e.g., visiting relatives or a special, detachment-related
project. The important point here is that the Detachment Commander
should be aware of the reason for these behaviors, and, if appropriate, take action to
decrease undesirable or dangerous behaviors.
Field Review: An Iterative Process. There were two rounds of field review of the
Behavior Indicators Checklist. In both cases, the checklist was taken out to MSG detachments
and feedback was obtained in small group (or one-on-one) structured interviews
with incumbent MSGs, Detachment Commanders, and a number of the Department
of State officials who work with MSGs in the detachments. Sites were selected
with the following criteria in mind: (1) detachments with Commanders who had a fair
amount of experience in the MSG program; (2) as much geographical dispersion as
possible, within the constraints of our budget; (3) sites that varied in terms of their perceived
desirability (a function of potential threat and of general desirability and hospitality
of the location); (4) detachments that varied in terms of their size, i.e., number of
MSGs; and (5) at least some detachments where there was an obviously high threat of
counter intelligence activity (e.g., Eastern Bloc countries).
The first round of site visits included Vienna, Prague, Belgrade, and Athens. In the
interviews at each detachment, the draft checklist was discussed, item by item, to address
the following issues:
(1) the appropriateness and clarity of the wording;
(2) the extent to which each behavior did, in fact, indicate a potential personnel problem;
(3) the comprehensiveness of the list of behaviors, i.e., whether there were any behavior
indicators that we had overlooked; and
(4) the response format that should be used for the checklist.
524