I__. - International Military Testing Association

Based on the feedback received from the first round of site visits, a specific response
format was selected, and a number of revisions were made to the checklist, including
specific wording changes to increase clarity or applicability, the addition of several
behaviors and the deletion of a few, and the combining of two categories that were seen
as overlapping. This draft was reviewed by MSG Battalion personnel, including the
MSG School Instructors/Advisors, and the second round of site visits was scheduled.
There were six detachments visited in the second field review, one in the Middle East,
four in SubSaharan Africa, and one in Western Europe. The same format was followed
for these site visits in terms of the individuals interviewed and the topics covered. There
were several more suggestions for additions and deletions, and a number of further
wording changes recommended. The checklist was again revised, based on these
recommendations, and was again reviewed by MSG Battalion personnel. The final set of
categories were entitled:
A. Job Performance E. Social Behavior
B. Liberty Behavior z F. Emotional Behavior
C. Drinking Behavior G. Money-Related Behavior
D. Personal Relations/Associations H. Physical Health and Appearance
Each category had a list of relevant behaviors, an Overall Rating Scale, and a space to
write comments related to that category of behavior. There were four response options
for each behavior: “Definitely Yes”, “Yes Somewhat”, “Definitely No”, and “Not Relevant”.
Every “Yes” response required a written comment in the space provided for that
category. The Overall Rating Scale for each category was a seven-point scale, where the
lowest rating indicated that there were “Definite Problems”, and the highest rating indicated
that the MSG’s “Behavior [was] Always Exemplary”.
Since a number of the behaviors in the checklist were most appropriate or most critical
for countries with a high threat of counter intelligence activity (e.g., Eastern Bloc countries),
these behaviors were identified as such. Examples are: behaviors related to “fraternization”
and behaviors related to using the “buddy system” whenever leaving the
Embassy compound.
Trial Usage and Evaluation. As an additional check on the readiness of the Behavior
Indicators Checklist, Detachment Commanders were asked to use it for several months
on a “For Research Only” basis. Commanders were briefed on the purpose of the checklist
and were instructed to fill one out for each MSG in their detachment, after the MSG
had been with the detachment for 90 days. They were further instructed to mail completed
checklists directly to the researchers.
A total of 792 completed checklists were received. These were reviewed for response
errors, e.g., checking two response options for one behavior; and for illogical patterns of
responding, e.g., many negative behaviors checked in a category, with a very high overall
rating for that category. Additionally, all written comments were reviewed. Based on
these investigations, there did not appear to be any problems with the response format or
with the overall clarity and understandability of the checklist.
There was also an attempt made to gather some other criterion data for the MSGs for
whom we had completed checklists, to see if the patterns of response on the checklist
made at least intuitive sense when compared to another performance/reliability measure.
525