I__. - International Military Testing Association

_II_ -..-.- -_- -..__.. -. ..~ ..---- _ . ..-- --. .~
The most logical criterion data for this purpose were the available records of Non Judicial
Punishments (NJP) and Reliefs for Cause (RFC). The base rates for these criteria,
however, are so low that there were very few cases (N=40) where we had both a completed
checklist and a record of either NJP or RFC. All 40 “matches” were with NJPs;
there were no matches with RFC. In over half of these 40 cases, the NJPpredafed the
completion of the checklist, so they were of no use in determining if the checklist could
predict personnel problems. Checklists for the remaining few matches were examined
and the response patterns did indeed seem to indicate that behavior problems were detected
prior to the incident that incurred the Non Judicial Punishment.
Near the end of the “For Research Only” usage period, a questionnaire was sent to all
140 detachments, asking for an evaluation of the checklist and of the User’s Guide that
accompanied it. Subjects covered by this questionnaire included:
(1) Clarity of User’s Guide and checklist content;
(2) Clarity of format (“user friendliness”);
(3) Ease/Difficulty of making accurate ratings;
(4) Time to complete the checklist/extent of administrative burden;
(5) Completeness of checklist;
(6) Usefulness of checklist; and
(7) Recommendation for continued use.
There were 106 questionnaires returned; a 76% return rate. The results can be summarized
as follows. Both the User’s Guide and the checklist itself were reported to be clear,
understandable, and “user friendly”. It was “fairly” to “very” easy to make accurate
ratings. It took an average of 28 minutes to complete the checklist, and was considered
to be a “reasonable” to “minimal” administrative burden (versus “excessive”). The list of
behavior indicators on the checklist was considered to be “very complete“, and it was
reported to be “pretty useful” (this was the second to highest usefulness response option;
the highest was “extremely useful”). Recommendations regarding continued use of the
checklist were:
Yes, as it stands 76
Yes, with revisions 20
No 7
No response 3
106
Of the twenty Detachment Commanders that indicated “Yes, with revisions”, most did
not make specific recommendations for revision. Those who did comment on this
recommendation referred to more procedural revisions, rather than revisions to the
checklist items (e.g., use the checklist as a formal Counseling Sheet).
Final Implementation of Checklist
The final draft of the CVAL Behavior Indicators Checklist is now ready for implementation.
An outline of the guidelines recommended for its use follows:
526