A CRITICAL STUDY OF GRAPHIC RATING SCALES BY N e a l B oery A ndregg * * * * A THESIS S u b m itte d t o t h e G ra d u a te S o h o o l o f M io h ig an S t a t e C o lle g e o f A g r io u lt u r e and A p p lie d S o ie n o e i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f th e r e q u ire m e n ts f o r th e d e g re e o f DOCTOR OF EDUCATION D e p a rtm e n t o f E d u o a tio n 19 5 1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am d e e p ly g r a t e f u l t o D r. V. H. N o ll f o r h i s a s s i s t a n c e , sound a d v ic e , and c a p a b le d i r e c t i o n o f t h i s s t u d y . I s in c e re ly a p p r e c i a t e t h e a d v ic e o f D r. W. D. B aton on s t a t i s t i c a l te c h n iq u e s . A cknow ledgm ent i s due D r. C. V. M illa r d and D r. J . S . K a rs la k e f o r t h e i r h e lp fu l s u g g e s tio n s . A p p r e c i a tio n i s e x p r e s s e d t o members o f t h e E v a lu a tio n S e c t i o n , E d u o a tio n B ra n ch , P la n s and O p e ra tio n s D i v i s i o n , A ir U n i v e r s i t y f o r t h e i r a s s i s t a n c e w ith c a l c u l a t i o n s and t y p i n g . F o r h e r e n co u rag e m e n t and c o n s ta n t h e lp , I am m ost g r a t e f u l t o my w i f e , V e ra . TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. II. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM .................................... REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................................................... H is to ry o f r a tin g s c a le s ..................... ......................................... V a l i d i t y ................................. .................................................................... R e l i a b i l i t y .................................................................................................... T r a i t s am enable t o r a t i n g ................................................................... I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s i n t r a i t r a t i n g s and a b b r e v ia te d s c a le s ........................................................................................................... T ypes o f r a t i n g e r r o r s III. .......................................................................... THE SITUATION AND DESIGN OF THE STUDY............................................ The s i t u a t i o n ............................................................................................... D e s ig n o f th e s t u d y ................................................................................. H y p o th e se s and m ethods o f t e s t i n g t h e m ..................................... IV. V. ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA ..................................... SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY . . . S u m m a ry .................................................................... ......................................... F in d in g s ........................................................................................................... C o n c lu s io n s .................................................................................................... S u g g e s tio n s f o r f u r t h e r s tu d y .......................................................... BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... APPENDIX .............................................................................................................................. LIST OF TABLES TABLE I. PAGE RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS IN TWENTY DIFFERENT STAFFS TO THEIR RESPECTIVE CHIEFS OF STAFF ON ORGANIZING ABILITY IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM............................................. 3k ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF STUDENTS' RATINGS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE CHIEFS OF STAFF ON ORGANIZING ABILITY IN THE TACTICAL PROBIEM ..................................................................... 35 III. F 37 IV . F II. V. V I. 1+0 F X II. X III. STRATEGIC PROBLEM. 3 ^ ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF INSTRUCTORS» RATINGS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE CHIEFS OF STAFF OH ORGANIZING ABILITY IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM...................................................................... V III. X I. STUDENTS ' RATINGS ON TACTICAL PROBLEM. 39 F X. RATIOS- STUDENTS' RATINGS ON RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS IN TWENTY DIFFERENT STAFFS TO THEIR RESPECTIVE CHIEFS OF STAFF ON ORGANIZING ABILITY IN THE TACTICAL PROBIEM ............................................. V n. IX . RATIOS- RATIOSRATIOS- INSTRUCTORS* RATINGS INSTRUCTORS* RATINGS ON TACTICAL PROBLEM. . . I j l ON STRATEGIC PROBLEM. . A SUMMARY OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN TWENTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON KNOWLEDGE APPLIED TO THE SOLUTION OF THE TACTICAL PRO BIEM 1+1+ AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF ORIGINAL RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN TWENTY DIFFER­ ENT STAFFS ON KNOWLEDGE APPLIED TO THE SOLUTION OF THE TACTICAL PROBLEM ................................................................................... 1+5 AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN TWENTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON KNOWLEDGE APPLIED TO THE SOLUTION OF THE TACTICAL PRO BIEM .................................................................................... 1+6 RELIABILITY OF INSTRUCTORS' AND STUDENTS ' RATINGS OF STAFF MEMBERS' PERFORMANCE ON THE TACTICAL AND STRATEGIC PROBLEMS .............................................................................. 1+9 MULTIPLE CORRELATIONS OF RATINGS ON TWO TRAITS WITH COMPOSITE RATINGS GIVEN IN THE TACTICAL AND STRATEGIC PROBLEMS .................................................................................................... 59 f l TABLE XIV . XV. X V I. X V II. X V III. XIX. XX. X X I. X X II. X X III. XXIV. XXV. XXVI. PAGE MULTIPLE CORRELATIONS OP RATINGS ON THREE TRAITS WITH COMPOSITE RATINGS GIVEN IN THE TACTICAL AND STRATEGIC PROBLEMS . . i .............................................................................................. 60 MULTIPLE CORRELATIONS OP RATINGS ON THINKING, INITIATIVE AND ORGANIZING ABILITY WITH COMPOSITE RATINGS GIVEN IN THE TACTICAi AND STRATEGIC PROBLEMS ........................................ 61 SPURIOUS CORRELATION drrJji IN CORRELATING RATINGS WITH THE COMPOSITE RATINGS IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM.................. 61 RELIABILITY OP INSTRUCTORS’ AND STUDENTS’ RATINGS OP STAFF MEMBERS' PERFORMANCE ON THE TACTICAL AND STRATEGIC PROBLEMS ...................................................................... 63 A SUMMARY OP RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN TWENTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON THINKING IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM............................................................. . 93 AN ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE OF ORIGINAL RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN TWENTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON THINKING IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM.. 93 AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN TWENTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON THINKING IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM............................................... 9k A SUMMARY OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN TWENTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON. INITIATIVE IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM................................... 9k AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF ORIGINAL RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN TWENTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON INITIATIVE IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM.. 95 AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS|TO STUDENTS IN TWENTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON INITIATIVE IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM........................................... 95 A SUMMARY OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN TWENTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON COOPERATION IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM.................................................................... 96 AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF ORIGINAL RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN TWENTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON COOPERATION IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM 96 AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN TWENTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON COOPERATION IN THE" TACTICAL PROBLEM......................................... 97 TABLE XXVII. A SUMMARY OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN TWENTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON ORGANIZING .ABILITY IN THE TACTICAL PROBIEM............................................... X X V III. AN ANALYSE OF VARIANCE OF ORIGINAL RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN TWENTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON ORGANIZING ABILITY IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM............................................................................................................ XXIX. AN ANALYSE OF VARIANCE OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN TWENTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON ORGANIZING ABILITY IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM.......................... XXX. A SUMMARY OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN TWENTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON EXPRESSION IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM............................................................................... XXXI. AN ANALYSE OF VARIANCE OF ORIGINAL RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN TWENTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON EXPRESSION IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM........................ II AN ANALYSE OF VARIANCE OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN TWENTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON EXPRESSION IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM............................................... xxx n . X X X III. A SUMMARY OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THIRTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON KNOWLEDGE APPLIED TO THE SOLUTION OF THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM................................. XXXIV. Alf ANALYSE OF VARIANCE OF ORIGINAL RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THIRTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON KNOWLEDGE APPLIED TO THE SOLUTION OF THE STRATEGIC PROBIEM....................................................................................... i XXXV. AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THIRTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON KNOWLEDGE APPLIED TO THE SOLUTION OF THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM .............................................................................................................. XXXVI. A SUMMARY OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THIRTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON THINKING IN THE STRATEGIC PROBIEM....................................................................................... XXXVII. AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF ORIGINAL RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THIRTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON THINKING IN THE STRATEGIC PROBIEM.......................... TABLE PAGE X X X V III. XXXIX. XL. X L I. X L II. X L III. XLIV. XLV. XLV I . X L V II. XLV H I . AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THIRTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON THINKING IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM.................. 103 A SUMMARY OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THIRTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON INITIATIVE IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM........................................................... 103 AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF ORIGINAL RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THIRTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON INITIATIVE IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM................................................................................ 10l+ AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THIRTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON INITIATIVE IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM IOU A SUMMARY OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THIRTY DIFFERENT STAFFS (SI COOPERATION IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM............................................................. 105 AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF ORIGINAL RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THIRTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON COOPERATION IN THE STRATEGIC PROBIEM .............................................................................................. .10 5 AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THIRTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON COOPERATION IN THE STRATEGIC PROBIEM . . . . 106 A SUMMARY OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THIRTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON ORGANIZING ABILITY IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM......................................... 106 AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF ORIGINAL RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THIRTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON ORGANIZING ABILITY IN THE STRATEGIC PROBIEM ........................................................................ 107 AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THIRTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON ORGANIZING ABILITY IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM.............................................................................................. 107 A SUMMARY OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THIRTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON EXPRESS ION IN THE STRATEGIC PRO BIEM ........................................................... 102> I TABLE XLIX. L. L I. L II. L III. L IV . LV. LV I. L V II. L V III. L IX . IX . IX I. IX II. L X III. PAGE AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF ORIGINAL RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THIRTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON EXPRESSION IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM..................................................................................................... 10S AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THIRTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON EXPRESSION IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM.................................. 109 NUMBER OF RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM.......................................................................... 110 NUMBER OF RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM.......................................................................... Ill NUMBER OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO THEIR FELLOW STUDENTS IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM................................................ 1 12 . NUMBER OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO THEIR FELLOW STUDENTS IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM................................................ 113 NUMBER OF RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM........................................................................ llU NUMBER OF RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM........................................................................ 115 NUMBER OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO THEIR FELLOW STUDENTS IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM............................................. 116 NUMBER OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO THEIR FELLOW STUDENTS IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM............................................. 117 INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO CHIEFS OF STAFF IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM......................... 113 INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO CHIEFS OF STAFF IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM......................... US INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO OFFICERS IN CHARGE OF PERSONNEL IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM....................................................................................................... 119 INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO OFFICERS IN CHARGE OF PERSONNEL IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM 119 INTERCORRELAT IONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO OFFICERS IN CHARGE OF INTELLIGENCE IN THE TACTICAL PRO BIEM .......................... 120 TABUS LXIV. LXV. LXVI. LX V II. LXVI I I . DCIX. LXX. DOCI. PAGE 2NTERCGREELAT IONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO OFFICERS IN CHARGE OF INTELLIGENCE IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM.............................................................................................................. 120 INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO OFFICERS IN CHARGE OF OPERATIONS IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM.............................................................................................................. 121 INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO OFFICERS IN CHARGE OF OPERATIONS IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM.............................................................................................................. 121 INTERCORRELAT IONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO OFFICERS IN CHARGE OF SUPPLY IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM 122 INTERCORRELAT IONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO OFFICERS IN CHARGE OF SUPPLY IN THE TACTICAL PROBIEM . . . 122 INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO ASSISTANT PERSONNEL OFFICERS IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM 12.3 INTERCORRELAT IONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO ASSISTANT PERSONNEL OFFICERS IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM .... 123 INTERCORRELAT IONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO ASSISTANT INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM.............................................................................................................. 12k LX X II. INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO ASSISTANT INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM.. 12i+ LXXIIIc INTERCORRELAT IONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO ASSISTANT OPERATIONS OFFICERS IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM.... 125 LXXIV. INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO ASSISTANT OPERATIONS OFFICERS IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM.... 125 LXXV. INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO ASSISTANT SUPPLY OFFICERS IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM.............. 126 LXXVI . LXXVII. LXXVI I I . INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO ASSISTANT SUPPLY OFFICERS IN TEE TACTICAL PROBLEM 126 INTERCORRELAT IONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO COMMUNICATIONS OFFICERS IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM................. 127 INTERCORRELAT IONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO COMMUNICATIONS OFFICERS IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM................. 127 TABLE LXXIX . LXXX. LXXX I . LXXXII. LXXX I I I . LXXXIV. LXXXV. LXXXVI . LXXXVII. LXXXVII I . LXXXIX. XC. PAGE INTERCORRELAT IONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO COMMANDING GENERALS IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM 12S INTERCORRELAT IONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO COMMANDING GENERALS IN THE STRATEGIC PRO BIEM .................. 12S INTERCORRELAT IONS BETYEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO CHIEFS OF STAFF IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM.................... 129 INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO CHIEFS OF STAFF IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM........................... 129 INTERCORRELAT IONS BETYEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO OFFICERS IN CHARGE OF PERSONNEL IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM...................................................................................................... 130 INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO OFFICERS IN CHARGE OF PERSONNEL IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM...................................................................................................... 130 INTERCORRELAT IONS BETYEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO OFFICERS IN CHARGE OF INTELLIGENCE IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM...................................................................................................... 131 INTERCORRELAT IONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO OFFICERS IN CHARGE OF INTELLIGENCE IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM................................................................... 131 INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO OFFICERS IN CHARGE OF OPERATIONS IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM...................................................................................................... 132 INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO OFFICERS IN CHARGE OF OPERATIONS IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM..................................................................................................... 132- INTERCORRELATIONS BETYEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO OFFICERS IN CHARGE OF SUPPLY IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM...................................................................................................... 133 INTERCORREIATIONS BETYEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO OFFICERS IN CHARGE OF SUPPLY IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM.. 133 X C I. INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO ASSISTANT PERSONNEL OFFICERS IN THE STRATEGIC PROBIEM.. 13k X C II . INTERCORRELATIONS BETYEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO ASSISTANT PERSONNEL OFFICERS IN THE STRATEGIC PRO BIEM ... 13U TABLE X C III. XCIV. XCV. XCVI. X C V II. X C V III. XCIX. C. PAGE INTERCORRELAT IONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO ASSISTANT INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM..................................................................................................... 135 INTERCORRELAT IONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO ASSISTANT INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM..................................................................................................... 135 INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO ASSISTANT OPERATIONS OFFICERS IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM..................................................................................................... 136 INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO ASSISTANT OPERATIONS OFFICERS IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM 136 INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO ASSISTANT SUPPLY OFFICERS IN THE STRATEGIC PROBIEM.. 137 INTERCORRELAT IONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO ASSISTANT SUPPLY OFFICERS IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM 137 INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO COMMUNICATIONS OFFICERS IN THE STRATEGIC PR O B LE M .... 132 INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO COMMUNICATIONS OFFICERS IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM.............. 13S L E T OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. ARMY RATING SCALE INSTRUCTIONS .......................................................... 33 2. ARMY RATING SCALE ....................................................................................... 39 3. FACE OF GRAPHIC RATING SCALE FOR EXECUTIVES,DEPARTMENT HEADS, FOREMEN AND SUPERVISORS ...................................................... 90 REVERSE OF GRAPHIC RATING SCALE FOREXECUTIVES, DEPARTMENT HEADS, FOREMEN, AND SUPERVISORS .................................................... 91 GRAPHIC RATING CARD................................................................................... 92 k* 5. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OP THE PROBLEM The v a lu e o f th e r a t i n g b o a le te c h n iq u e as a p p lie d t o p e r s o n a l­ i t y t r a i t s h a s b een o r i t i o i z o d b y many p s y c h o lo g is ts . Some o f th e e a r l y s t u d i e s i n t h i s f i e l d , w hich fo u n d r a t i n g s c a le s u n r e l i a b l e , c a u se d t h e i r v a lu e t o be q u e s tio n e d . However, s e v e r a l more r e c e n t s tu d i e s h av e done n u eh t o in f lu e n c e f a v o r a b ly t h e s ta n d in g o f r a t i n g s c a le s . D e s p ite th e s e v e re o r i t i o i s a , t h e r a t i n g so a le has in c r e a s e d b o th I n f a v o r and i n u s a g e . G u ilfo rd ^ has s t a t e d t h a t " w ith o u t any d o u b t, r a t i n g - s o a l o m ethods have made t h e i r p la c e s e c u re i n i n d u s t r i a l p r a o tio e and i n t h e e d u c a tio n a l w o r ld ." S t a r r and Greenly** oonduoted a s u rv e y i n 1939 w hich c o v ered s i x t y - f o u r oom panles em ploying from £00 t o more t h a n 1 0 0,000 em p lo y ees. p a n ie s u s e d m e r it r a t i n g s . A p p ro x im a te ly o n e - th ir d o f th e com­ M ahler^ i n a r e c e n t s u rv e y o f t h e r a t in g p r a o t io e s o f 125 oom panles found t h a t th e m a jo r it y u sed r a t i n g s o a le 3 , w ith tw e lv e u s in g oheok l i s t s and se v e n r a n k in g o r g r a d in g . N ev erth e­ l e s s , th e r a t i n g s o a le r e q u ir e s c o n tin u o u s s tu d y and r a t e r t r a i n i n g i f i t i s t o become a r e l i a b l e e v a lu a tio n in s tr u m e n t. Many s tu d i e s have b een made o f r a t i n g s c a l e s , b u t a re v ie w o f th e l i t e r a t u r e f a i l e d t o r e v e a l any t h a t had r e p o r te d f in d in g s b a se d . * J . P . G u ilf o r d , P sy c h o m e tric M ethods. Book Company, Ih o . 1936. ' p . New York* M cGraw-Hill ^ R . B. S t a r r and R . J . G re e n ly , " M e rit r a t i n g s u rv e y f in d in g s ," P e rs o n n e l J o u r n a l , 17* 37&-3&k> A p r i l , 1939* 3 w . R . M ah ler, "S oas ooxmon e r r o r s I n employee r a t i n g p r a o tio e s , P e rs o n n e l J o u r n a l , 26* 6 3 - 7k, J u n e , 19li7» upon th e a n a l y s is o f v a r i a n c e . However, a number o f a r t i c l e s have s u g g e s te d many a p p l i c a t i o n s o f a n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e t o o b liq u e s t o a re a s o f p s y o h o lo g io a l and e d u o a tio n a l r e s e a r o h .^ A sim p La e x p e r i m e n ta l d e s ig n oan be s e t up i n whioh. a number o f indeponddent r a t i n g 8 , b a se d upon o b serv an ce o f p erfo rm an ce, a re g iv e n t o a n inid iv id u a l. U sing th e same s c a l e , o th e r in d ep en d en t r a t i n g s a r e g iv e n t o o th e r in d i v i d u a l s a s s ig n e d t o t h e same r o le when t h e s e v e r a l in d iv id u a ls a re e a o h members o f d i f f e r e n t b u t e s s e n t i a l l y s i m i l a r groups a tte m p t­ in g t o s o lv e th e same problem* I f th e l e v e l s o f r a t i n g f o r e ao h t r a i l t o be r a t e d a re g iv e n n u m e ric a l v a lu e s , f o r exam ple from 1 t o 9» * I mean r a t i n g oan be o b ta in e d f o r eao h a p p l i c a t i o n o f th e r a t i n g b la n k . T h u s, th e p ro b le m i s t o d eterm in e i f d if f e r e n c e s i n t h e means o f th e r a t e d p e rfo rm an c es o f th e s e v e r a l in d iv id u a ls who w ere a s s ig n e d th e same r o l e s a re r e a l d if f e r e n c e s o r i f th e s e d if f e r e n c e s oan b e a t t r i b u te d t o f l u c t u a t i o n s i n r a t i n g s r e s u l t i n g from chance a lo n s . A n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e and i t s t e s t o f s ig n i f i c a n c e , F , e n a b le s us t o t e s t th e s ig n i f i c a n c e o f th e s e d i f f e r e n c e s i n mean r a t i n g s . ^ H. E . G a r r e t t and J . Z ubin, "The a n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e i n p s y o h o lo g io a l r e s e a r c h ," P sy o h o lo g io a l B u l l e t i n , 2+0: 235-267, A p r i l, D. A* G ra n t, "The a n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e i n p s y o lo lo g ie a l r e ­ s e a r c h ," P s y o h o lo g io a l B u l l e t i n , 1*11 158-166, M aroh, 19M+. C. C. P e t e r s , " i n t e r a c t i o n i n a n a ly s is o f v a ria n c e i n t e r p r e t e d as i n t e r o o r r e l a t i o n , " P s y o h o lo g io a l B u l l e t i n , ijl* 2S7-J|99, Hay, 19Wl* H. W. A le x a n d e r, "A g e n e ra l t e s t f o r t r e n d , " P s y c h o lo g ic a l B u l l e t i n , Iff 1 533-557* November, 19^6. L . S . Kogan, "A n a ly sis o f v a ria n c e - r e p e a te d m easurem ents," P s y o h o lo g io a l B u l l e t i n , 2+5s 151-1243* M arch, 192+2 • 3 The r a tio n a l© o f a n a ly s i s o f T a rlan o e i s t h a t th© t o t a l a m o f s q u a re s o f th e n u m e ric a l v a lu e s o f a s e t o f r a t i n g s made b y s e v e r a l g ro u p s o f i n d i v i d u a l s oan be a n a ly z e d o r b ro k e n down i n t o p a r t s , eao h i d e n t i f i ­ a b le w i t h a d i f f e r e n t so u ro e o f v a r i a t i o n , h i th e s im p le s t e a s e , th e t o t a l s u n o f sq u a re s i s b ro k en deem i n t o two p a r t s , a sum o f s q u a re s b a a e d upon v a r i a t i o n "w ithin th e r a t i n g s g iv e n b y t h e s e v e r a l g ro u p s and a sum o f s q u a re s b a s e d upon v a r i a t i o n betw een th e mean r a t i n g s g iv e n b y th e s e v e r a l g ro u p s . On th e assu m p tio n t h a t th e g ro u p s o f r a t i n g s vTrf-ng up t h e t o t a l s e r i e s o f r a t i n g s a re random sam ples from a homogeneous p o p u la tio n , th e " w ith in " and th e "betw een" v a r ia n c e s o f r a t i n g s may b e e x p e c te d t o d i f f e r o n ly w ith in t h e l i m i t s o f chance flu c tu a tio n s . T h is i s t h e n u l l h y p o th e s is w hioh i s t e s t e d b y d iv id in g t h e v a r ia n c e o f t h e mean r a t i n g s g iv e n by th e s e v e r a l g roups b y t h e v a r ia n c e o f r a t i n g s w i t h i n th e s e v e r a l g ro u p s. I f t h i s v a r ia n c e r a ­ t i o , F , ex ceed s th e v a lu e a t t h e l e v e l o f s ig n if ic a n c e a g re e d upon ( g e n e r a l l y e i t h e r th e 5 p e r o e n t 'o r th e 1 p e ro e n t l e v e l ) , th e n th e n u l l h y p o th e s is i s o o n s id e re d f a l s e . I f t h e n u l l h y p o th e s is i s r e j e c t e d , mean r a t i n g s g iv e n b y th e s e v e r a l groups t o in d iv id u a ls s e r v in g i n th e seme r o le s w i l l d i f f e r and th e d if f e r e n c e s a re in d i c a t i v e o f r e a l d i f ­ fe re n c e s . The F - t e s t a llo w s one t o i n f e r t h a t t h e r e a re s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s betw een mean r a t i n g s b u t does n o t s p e c i f y t h a t eao h mean r a t i n g d i f f e r s s i g n i f i o a n t l y from eao h o f th e o t h e r s . I f th e n u ll h y p o th e s is i s a c c e p te d , d if f e r e n c e s i n th e mean r a t i n g s g iv e n b y th e s e v e r a l g ro u p s oan be a t t r i b u t e d t o chance a lo n e . One pu rp o se o f t h i s s tu d y i s t o g iv e th e f a c t s a ohanoe t o prove o r d isp ro v e t h i s n u l l h y p o th e s is f o r r a t i n g s g iv e n in d e p e n d e n tly by two groups o f a i r fo ro e o f f i c e r s , s tu d e n ts and t h e i r i n s t r u c t o r s . A seco n d p u rp o se o f t h i s s tu d y i s t o a n a ly s e a s o r e com plex e x p e r im e n ta l d e s ig n i n w hioh th e v a r ia n c e o f r a t i n g s g iv e n t o i n d i v i d ­ u a ls s e r v in g i n d i f f e r e n t s t a f f p o s i t i o n s , th e v a r ia n c e betw een r a t e r s ( s tu d e n ts and i n s t r u c t o r s ) and th e i n t e r a c t i o n w i l l be s tu d i e d . T h u s, we w i l l a s o e r t a i n f o r ea o h so a le ( 1 ) i f in d iv id u a ls s e r v in g i n s t a f f p o s i t i o n s o f im p o rta n ce a re g iv e n r a t i n g s w hioh d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from, th o s e g iv e n t o o th e r in d iv id u a ls s e rv in g i n s u b o rd in a te p o s it i o n s ( 2 ) i f mean r a t i n g s g iv e n by s tu d e n ts t o th e perform ance o f t h e i r f e l ­ low s tu d e n ts s e r v in g i n d i f f e r e n t s t a f f p o s itio n s d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y fro m t h e mean r a t i n g s g iv e n b y i n s t r u c t o r s who g iv e f u l l tim e t o o b s e r ­ v a t i o n and r a t i n g ( 3 ) i f th e i n t e r a c t i o n betw een r a t i n g s g iv e n b y i n ­ s t r u c t o r s and s tu d e n ts t o s tu d e n ts s e rv in g i n s t a f f p o s it i o n s o f v a ry in g d e g re e s o f im p o rta n ce i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . A t h i r d p u rp o se o f t h i s s tu d y i s t o d ete rm in e th e r e l i a b i l i t i e s o f s t u d e n t s ' and i n s t r u c t o r s ’ r a t i n g s . Symonds^ h as em phasized t h e n e e d f o r ad e q u a te sam p lin g i n e v a lu a tio n : "A s in g le o b s e r v a tio n i s u n r e l i a b l e , a s i n g l e r a t i n g i s u n r e l i a b l e , a s in g le t e s t i s u n r e l i a b l e , a s in g l e m easurem ent i s u n r e l i a b l e , a s in g le answ er t o a q u e s tio n i s u n re lia b le . R e l i a b i l i t y i s ao h iev ed b y h eap in g up o b s e r v a tio n s , r a t i n g s t e s t s , q u e s tio n s , m easures • • • . • An ad eq u ate r a t i n g r e q u i r e s t h e judgm ent o f s e v e r a l r a t e r s i n s e v e r a l s i t u a t i o n s a t s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t tim e s . Tork* R e l i a b l e ev id en o e m ust be m u lt ip lie d e v id e n c e ." 5 F e r o iv a l K. Symonds, D iagnosing P e r s o n a l i t y and C onduot. D. A p p le t o n -C en tu ry Company. 192 P* !?• Hew 5 Extrem e v a r i a t i o n s i n perform ance ire r e found b y o b se rv e r* o f a i r p la n e la n d in g s d u rin g W orld War I I . O b serv ers r a t e d eao h la n d in g made b y p i l o t s on p la c e o f la n d in g , a t t i t u d e o f a ir p la n e and d ro p p in g o r b o u n o in g . D i f f e r e n t o b s e rv e rs a g re e d ire 11 i n making th e r e q u ir e d r e c o r d s , b u t r e t e s t s showed a lm o st no o o n s is te n o y o f p erfo rm an ce, and t h i s o o n s is te n o y dro p p ed e v en low er when t e s t s w ere made on d i f f e r e n t d ays. F a r t o f th e in o o n s is te n o y o an be a t t r i b u t e d t o v a r i a t i o n s i n w in d , tu r b u le n c e , and o th e r u n c o n tr o lle d c o n d iti o n s . n e v e r t h e le s s , a s in g l e m easure o f la n d in g b e h a v io r , no m a tte r how r e l i a b l y ju d g e d , g iv e s l i t t l e o r no in fo r m a tio n o f r e a l v a lu e as t o th e p i l o t ' s oompete n o e i n la n d in g t h e a i r c r a f t . R e a liz in g a l l th e f o r e g o in g , i t was d e c id e d t o u se b o th s t u ­ d e n ts and i n s t r u c t o r s i n e v a lu a tin g s t u d e n t s ' perfo rm an ce when th e y w orked as a g ro u p o r a s t a f f i n s o lv in g t a o t i o a l and s t r a t e g i o a i r fo rc e problem s a t th e A ir Comnand and S t a f f S o h o o l. Thus i n e a o h s t a f f o f s i x t e e n o f f i c e r s , s tu d e n ts r a t e d t h e i r f e llo w o f f i o e r s w ith whom th e y h ad w o rto d as f o llo w s : The s tu d e n t Commanding G en eral and th e s t u ­ d e n t C h ie f o f S t a f f r a t e d a l l s tu d e n t s t a f f members. The s tu d e n t o f f i c e r s i n o h arg e o f t h e s e v e r a l a c t i v i t i e s r a t e d e a o h o th e r as w e l l as t h e s tu d e n ts a c tin g as C o m anding G e n e ra l, C h ie f o f S t a f f , and mem­ b e rs o f t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e s t a f f s e o ti o n s . S u b o rd in a te o f f i o e r s i n e ao h s t a f f s e o ti a n r a t e d t h e i r s e o tio n c h i e f and a l l o th e r members o f th e ^ S t a f f , P s y o h o lo g io a l R e s e a rc h P r o j e c t ( P i l o t ) , " p s y o h o lo g io a l r e s e a r o h on p i l o t t r a i n i n g i n t h e AAF," Am erican P s y c h o lo g is t, I t 7 -1 6 , J a n u a ry , 191+6. 6 san e s t a f f s e c t io n . lem . S tu d e n ts r a t e d e a o h o th e r o n ly onoe f o r e ao h p ro b ­ An i n s t r u c t o r e v a lu a to r a s s ig n e d t o e ao h s t a f f r a t e d d a i l y eao h s tu d e n t s t a f f o f f i c e r on h i s perform ance d u rin g e ao h problem . R a tin g s w ere re n d e re d on s i n oountsx know ledge a p p lie d t o th e s o l u t i o n o f t h e problem , t h i n k i n g , I n i t i a t i v e , c o o p e r a tio n i n group w ork, o r g a n iz in g a b i l i t y , and e x p r e s s io n . They w ere b a se d upon a n i n e - p o in t s o a le w ith n in e as t h e maximum r a tin g * C r ite r ia f o r s p e c i­ f i e d r a t i n g s w ere g iv e n on g ra p h io , u n id im e n s io n a l so & les? w hioh w ere c o n s tr u c te d b y a com m ittee o f i n s t r u c t o r s , W arren O. F in d le y and th e w rite r. A. f o u r t h p urpose o f t h i s s tu d y i s t o a s c e r t a i n i f o e r t a i n s t a f f p o s it i o n s a f f o r d a b e t t e r o p p o r tu n ity f o r o b s e rv e rs t o r a t e t h e p erfo rm ­ ance o f o f f i o e r s s e rv in g i n th o s e p o s itio n s t h a n do o t h e r s t a f f p o s i­ tio n s . 3h i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h i s p o i n t t h e C h i-sq u a re te c h n iq u e w i l l be a p p lie d t o th e number o f r a t i n g s re n d e re d b y b o th s tu d e n ts and i n s t r u c ­ t o r s on t h e perform ance o f s tu d e n ts s e r v in g i n th e d i f f e r e n t s t a f f p o s itio n s . A f i n a l p urpose o f t h i s s tu d y i s t o d e te rm in e th e r e l a t i o n s h i p s betw een t h e r a t i n g s re n d e re d on th e s i x s c a l e s and t h e oam posite r a t i n g f o r eao h p o s i t i o n r a t e d b y s tu d e n ts and i n s t r u c t o r s i n o r d e r t o in v e s ­ t i g a t e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f e v a lu a tin g perfo rm an ce i n o e r t a i n s t a f f p o s i­ t i o n s b y u s in g few er s c a l e s . C o r r e l a t io n a n a l y s is w i l l be u sed i n t h i s p h ase o f t h e s tu d y . 7 S ee ap p en d ix . I CHAPTER XI REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE HIST CRY OF RATING SCAIES The e f f o r t t o ju d g e end d e s o rib e in d iv id u a l o h e r e o t e r i s t i o s o r t r e i t d i f f e r e n c e s I s n o d o u b t as o ld as s o o ia l l i f e i t s e l f * O a lto n was p ro b a b ly t h e f i r s t t o u se a r a t i n g a o a le i n a p s y o h o lo g io a l p ro b lem* He u s e d i t i n t h e e v a l u a ti o n o f th e v iv id n e s s o f im ages. G a lto n was im p re sse d w i t h th e a p p l i c a t i o n o f th e norm al d i s t r i b u t i o n ourve t o human t r a i t s and assum ed t h a t i t o p e ra te d in th e in h e r ita n c e o f e n i Q nenoe* G a lto n n o d o u b t r e o e iv s d some h e lp from t h e astro n o m ers mho f i r s t d is c o v e r e d t h a t i n d i v i d u a l e r r o r s i n tim s o b s e rv a tio n s o f a s t r o n o m io al phenomena w ere g ro u p ed i n a r a t h e r d e f i n i t e way* T h is g ro u p ­ in g had b een s tu d i e d s t a t i s t i c a l l y and was d ev elo p ed i n t o t h e norm al p r o b a b i l i t y o u rv e . S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r b i o l o g i s t s d is o o v e re d t h e n o r­ m al p r o b a b i l i t y law o p e r a tin g i n b i o l o g i o a l d a t a . B rad sh aw ^ o r e d ite d G a lto n w ith tw o fu n d am en tal assu m p tio n s o f r a t in g s s 1) P e r s o n a l q u a l i t i e s a r e d i s t r i b u t e d i n t h e p o p u la tio n ao o o rd ln g t o t h e fre q u e n o ie s o f th e norm al d i s t r i b u t i o n o u rv e , and e q u a l i n t e r v a l s on t h e s o a le sh o u ld r e p r e s e n t e q u a l s te p s i n fre q u e n c y on a norm al o u rv e . F* G alton* i n q u i r i e s i n t o Hunan P a o u lty and I t s D evelopm ent. M acm illan an d Company, Ltd* 188$. Londons 9 L td . F* G a lto n . H e r e d ita r y G en iu s. 191i * London: M acm illan a d Company, ^ F * F . B radshaw , "The A m erican C ounoil an E d u o a tio a r a t i n g s o a le s i t s r e l i a b i l i t y , v a l i d i t y and u s e ," Arc h iv e s o f p sy ch o lo g y , Ho. 1 1 9 , O ctober, 1930* P* 7* 2 ) I f s ta n d a r d d e s c r i p tio n s o f p e r s o n a l q u a l i t i e s a r e a rra n g e d i n l i n e a r o r d e r , a r a t e r oan g iv e an a o o u ra te ju d g m en t, w hioh w i l l h e com parable w ith a n o th e r r a t e r ' s ju d g m en t, by m atohing h i s own e x p e rie n c e a g a in s t t h a t te r m w h io h a p p e a rs m ost s i m i l a r t o i t * P ro b a b ly th e f i r s t t o seo u re r a t i n g s o f human a b i l i t y was P e a r s o n , ^ a p u p il o f G a lto n , who i n 1906 d e v ise d a s e v e n - p o in t s c a le f o r e s tim a tin g i n t e l l i g e n c e . A n o th er im p o rta n t developm ent i n th e ja h i s t o r y o f r a t i n g s o a le s was a prooodure d ev elo p ed b y M in er. H is sam ple r a t i n g b la n k i s shown below : Sample R a tin g B lank W ill you p le a s e r a t e th e d ic a te d ? P la o e a d o t alo n g th e d e n t as f i n e l y as you o a re to * w ith o u t o o n s u ltin g o t h e r s . The S e c r e t a r y 's o f f i c e w ith in t h r e e J o n e s , Jo h n s tu d e n t named below f o r lin e a f te r eaoh t r a i t , P le a s e g iv e th e r a t i n g r e c o rd sh eet is to be days* th e t r a i t s in ­ g ra d in g t h e s t u ­ in d e p e n d e n tly r e tu r n e d t o th e In s tru c to r - D Among th e members o f th e av erag e s e n io r o la s s i n t h i s s t u d e n t 's c o u rse and so h o o l th e s tu d e n t would ra n k i n th e Lowest Fourth ' Middle Seoond H igh est 5t h 5t h 5t h 5t h 5t h ________________________ Average_____________________________ Common S en se E n erg y In itia tiv e L e a d e rs h ip R e lia b ility G e n e ra l A b i l i t y -------------H ------------ K. P e a rso n , "On th e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f i n t e l l i g e n c e t o s i t e and sh ap e o f head and t o o th e r p h y s io a l and m en tal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , n B io m e trlk a , 5* 1 0 5 -l!l6 , 1907* ^ B. M iner, "The e v a lu a tio n o f a m ethod f o r f i n e l y g ra d u a te d e s tim a te s o f a b i l i t y * " J o u r n a l o f A p p lie d P sy c h o lo g y , 1* 123-133* J u n e , 1917. T h is p ro c e d u re r e p r e s e n te d th e r e s u l t s o f w ork w hioh had b e e n done on r a t i n g up t o t h a t p o i n t . The p e rso n was r a t e d r e l a t i v e t o members o f a d e f in e d group w hioh was known t o th e r a t e r s and u se d as a s ta n d a r d . A ll q u a l i t a t i v e term s w h io h a re g e n e r a lly u sed t o d e s c r ib e t r a i t s w ere av o id e d s in o e i t was im p o ss ib le t o d e f in e them so t h a t th e y had th e same m eaning f o r th e d i f f e r e n t r a t e r s . The p ro c e d u re a llo w ed r a t e r s t o make f i n e d is c r im in a tio n s w hioh oould be tra n sm u te d i n t o e q u iv a le n t u n i t s o f th e s ta n d a rd d e v ia tio n on th e b a s is o f th e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f th e r a t i n g s . However, s ta n d a rd s v a r ie d from r a t e r t o r a t e r . D uring W orld War I p s y c h o lo g is ts were o a ll e d upon t o d e v ise m ethods o f r a t i n g th e e f f i o i e n o y o f o f f i o e r s . H o llin g sw o rth ‘S c r e d i t s S o o t t w ith in tro d u o in g th e " O f fio e r s R a tin g S c a l e ," a m an-to-m an so a l e , w hioh a tte m p te d t o make r a t i n g s more o o n o r e te . F ig u re 1 lk g iv e s Army R a tin g S o a le I n s t r u c t io n s .* ’' ’ F ig u re 2*^ shows th e Army R a tin g S o a le . D i f f i c u l t i e s e n c o u n te re d w ith t h e r a t i n g s o a le w ere (1 ) r a t e r s w ere o f te n u n w illin g t o undergo th e la b o r o f m aking o u t th e m a s te r r a t i n g s o a le . They som etim es p o stp o n ed th e t a s k o r made o u t a s o a le i n a 13 H. L . H o llin g sw o rth , Ju d g in g Human C h a ra o te r. D. A p p le to n and Company. 1922. p p . 103-lOi*. ^ New York* See a p p e n d ix .' ^ W. D. S o o t t , R. C. C l o t h i e r , S . B. Mathews on end W. R. S p r i e g e l , P e rso n n e l Management. New Y ork: M cGraw-Hill Book Company, 2ho. 19^1* P* 2 I 7 . *■7 W. D. S o o t t , R . C. C l o t h i e r , S . B. Mathews on and W. R. S p r i e g e l , og. o i t , p . 2 1 3 . o a r e I s a s Banner. (2 ) some o f t h e r a t e r s found d i f f i c u l t y i n compar­ in g a s u b o rd in a te w i t h th e f i v e men l i s t e d on th e m a s te r s o a le and i n s t a t i n g which, o f t h e f iv e he resem b led i n th e q u a l i t y o r t r a i t u n d e r c o n s id e r a tio n . Thus i t ap p ears t h a t th e s t a b i l i t y o f a known g ro u p a g a in s t w hioh t b s r a t e r was t o oomparo r a t e e s v a r ie d from r a t e r to r a te r . R u g g ^ who o b ta in e d d a ta from Army re c o rd s and from a sim ­ i l a r s o a le u sed i n t h e p u b lio s c h o o ls found t h a t t h e "m an-to-m an” o r i t e r i a n was r a r o l y a l i k e f o r two r a t e r s . s o a le d ev elo p ed b y S o o t t laolced r e l i a b i l i t y . He found t h a t t h e r a t i n g R a tin g o f f i o e r s o f te n t r a n s f e r r e d t h e i r o p in io n s o f an o f f i c e r 's p e r s o n a l q u a l i t i e s t o o th e r r a t i n g s on i n t e l l i g e n c e , le a d e r s h ip , and p h y s io a l q u a l i t i e s . P erh ap s as a r e s u l t o f R u g g 's o r i t l o a l s tu d y , i n t e r e s t i n r a t in g s c a le s b eg an t o d e t e r i o r a t e . However, l a t e i n 1922 P a te r s o n 20 p u b lis h e d an e l a b o r a t e d e s c r i p t i o n o f th e S o o tt Company g ra p h ic r a t i n g s o a le w hioh was m o d ifie d from th e o r i g i n a l m an-to-m an s o a l e . s o a le was a l s o d is o u s s e d b y F ro yd 21 i n 1923* The same He oanoluded t h a t th e g ra p h io ty p e o f r a t i n g s o a le was th e m ost p o p u la r an d , on th e w h o le, 22 t h e m ost s a t i s f a c t o r y . F ig u re s 3 and U show a g ra p h io r a t i n g s o a le 23 u sed b y th e S o o t t Company f o r w o rk ers i n n o n e x e c u tiv e p o s i t i o n s . ------------- JB ----------- H. 0 . Rugg, " i s th e r a c in g o f human o h a r a o te r p r a c tic a b le ? " J o u r n a l o f E d u c a tio n a l P sy c h o lo g y , 12: 1}25-Il38, November, 1921j I»*55“ 5 b i , Itooember, 1 9 21. 13* J a n u a ry , 1922; *51-93» F e b ru a ry , 1922. 20 D. G. P a te r s o n , "The S o o tt Company g ra p h io r a t i n g s o a l e ," J o u r n a l o f P e rs o n n e l R e se a rc h , 1 : 36l-370» Deoeuiber, 1922. 21 Uex F re y d , "The g ra p h io r a t i n g s c a l e , " J o u r n a l o f E d u o a tio n a l P sy ch o lo g y , lJ+x 8>3-102, F e b ru a ry , 1923* — — — ——— — — ^ S e e ap p e n d ix . IT. D. S o o t t , R . C. C l o t h i e r , S . B. Ilathew son and W. R. S p r ie g e l, o p . o i t . , p p . 22 2 -2 2 3 . The e x p e rie n c e g a in e d w i th g ra p h io r a t i n g s o a le s and t h e o r i t i o a l s tu d io s made o f them i n t h e p a s t t h i r t y y e a r s have done much t o d e m o n stra te t h e i r s tr e n g t h s and l i m i t a ti o n s * th e s e s tu d i e s w i l l be review ed* In. t h e pages t h a t fo llo w , F o r oonvenienoe in com parison, th e s e s tu d i e s w i l l be rev iew ed i n g ro u p s d e s ig n a te d a s f o llo w s t v a lid ity , r e l i a b i l i t y , k in d s o f t r a i t s m ost e a s i l y r a t e d , i n t e r o o r r e l a t i o n s o f t r a i t r a t i n g s and a b b r e v ia te d s c a l e s , and ty p e s o f e r r o r s * VALIDITY The v a l i d i t y o f a g ra p h io r a t i n g s o a le i s g e n e r a lly th o u g h m is­ t a k e n ly ta k e n f o r g r a n te d i f o b s e rv a tio n s b y i m p a r tia l r a t e r s oan be made w ith a h ig h d e g ree o f r e l i a b i l i t y * O b se rv a tio n s a re o f te n used as th e c r i t e r i o n and v e r y few s tu d i e s have b een made o f th e v a l i d i t y o f r a t i n g s b a s e d upon o b s e r v a tio n s . H arsh and P e r r i n p )i s tu d ie d r a t i n g s made b y s ix t e e n g ra d u a te and u n d e rg ra d u a te s tu d e n t s , w ith a t l e a s t two y e a r s w ork in psyo h o lo g y , on th e p erfo rm an ce o f £lj. o o lle g e s tu d e n ts * These r a t i n g s w ere o o r r e l a t e d w ith more o b je c tiv e c r i t e r i a , su o h a s i n t e l l i g e n c e , aim ing and c a r d s o r t i n g t e s t s c o re s end head s iz e * R a te r s o b serv ed th e r a t e e s w h ile t h e y p erfo rm ed th e t a s k s , th e n made t h e i r r a t i n g s w ith o u t knowing th e t e s t s o o re s o r head s iz e s * in te llig e n c e t e s t so o re s. R a tin g s on i n t e l l i g e n c e o o r r e l a te d *7& w ith R a tin g s on c a r d - s o r tin g o o r r e la t e d .6 3 w ith ~ c a r d - s o r t i n g t e s t s o o r e s , w h ile th o s e on aim ing o o r r e la te d o n ly *36 2ii S . E . M arsh and F . A* C. P e r r i n , "An e x p e rim e n ta l s tu d y o f th e r a t i n g s c a le te c h n iq u e ," J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o o ia l P syohology, 1 9 : 3&3~399t Jan u ary -M aro h , 1925- 12 w ith a c t u a l s c o r e s . R a tin g s o f h ead e l s e had a c o r r e l a t i o n o f .7 6 w ith a c t u a l head s i z e . S uoh a s tu d y oan he made o n ly when t h e r e i s some o b je c tiv e o u ts id e o r i t e r i o n o f th e same t r a i t a v a i l a b l e . The b e s t ty p e o f o u ts id e o r i t e r i o n w ould a p p ear t o be some m easure o f a o tu a l b e h a v io r , suoh a s s a le s o r p ro d u c tio n r e c o r d s , m m ost r a t i n g s t u d i e s , i t i s im p o s s ib le t o o b ta in suoh a o r i t e r i o n . The p r e s e n t s tu d y i s no e x o e p tia n , f o r th e s im u la te d s t a f f p la n n in g e x e r o is e s on t a o t i o a l and s t r a t e g i o a i r f o ro e problem s w i l l n e v e r a g a in be r e p e a te d i n e x a c t l y th e same manner i n w a rtim e . K e l l y ^ h as t r e a t e d v a l i d i t y th u s : " I f oam petent ju d g e s ap­ p r a i s e in d iv id u a l A as b e in g as mnoh b e t t e r th a n in d iv id u a l B as in d iv id u a l B i s b e t t e r th a n in d iv id u a l C, th e n i t i s s o , and th e r e i s no h ig h e r a u t h o r i t y t o a p p e a l t o . " Remmers, 26 i n a s tu d y o f s tu d e n ts * r a t i n g s o f t h e i r t e a c h e r s , s t a t e s t h a t s tu d e n t judgm ents c o n s t i t u t e th e o r i t e r i o n ; henoe v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y a re i n t h i s o a se synon­ ymous. 3h th e p r e s e n t s tu d y s t u d e n t s ' r a t i n g s o f th e p erform ance o f t h e i r f e llo w s t a f f members and in s tr u c to r s * r a t i n g s o f t h e i r p erfo rm ­ ance w i l l be u se d a s th e c r i t e r i o n . Henoe th e v a l i d i t y o f th e s e r a t ­ in g s o an b e d e te rm in e d i n t h e p r e s e n t s tu d y o n ly b y in fer© n o e from th e r e l i a b i l i t y o f th e r a t i n g s . 25 fe re n c e . T . L . K e lle y , The In flu e n o e o f N u rtu re upon i n d i v i d u a l Di f ­ Hew Y ork: The M acmillan Company. 1 ^ 6 , p . 9» H. H. Remmers, " R e l i a b i l i t y and h a lo e f f e c t o f h ig h so h o o l and o o lle g e s t u d e n t s ’ judgm ents o f t h e i r t e a o h e r s , n J o u r n a l o f A p p lie d P sy o h o lo g y , I S : 619 - 630, O o to b er, 193b • RELIABILITY I t i s g e n e r a l l y a g re e d t h a t th e r e l i a b i l i t y o f p o o led r a t i n g s in c r e a s e s w ith th e number o f r a t e r s * R u g g ^ recommends th e u se o f p o o le d o r a v e ra g ed r a t i n g s o f n o t l e s s t h a n th r e e in d ep en d en t r a t e r s . Symonds 2SJ reoommends a t l e a s t e i g h t r a t e r s and Bradshaw* t o 106 d e p en d in g upon th e d eg ree o f r e l i a b i l i t y s o u g h t. 29 from f iv e In e a o h i n - s ta n o e i t i s assum ed t h a t th e s e v e r a l r a t e r s a re a l l oom petont t o r a t e and t h a t t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f p o o led r a t i n g s te n d s t o in o re a s e a c c o rd in g t o t h e S pearm an-B r own Formula* 30 m 1926 K o r n h a u s e r ^ p u b lis h e d a s tu d y d e a lin g w i t h r e l i a b i l ­ ity . Two g ro u p s o f o o lle g e s tu d e n ts * one made up o f e ig h te e n s e n io r s and th e o th e r c o n s is t i n g o f f i f t y s tu d e n ts from a l l o la s s e s * w ere r a t e d b y v a ry in g numbers o f i n s t r u c to r s * A g ra p h io s o a le w ith f iv e i n t e r v a l s * e a o h i n t e r v a l b e in g s e p a r a te d b y a v e r t i c a l lin e * was u se d . S tu d e n ts w ere r a t e d on se v en t r a i t s w hioh w ere d e s c r ib e d b r i e f l y . G raphio R a tin g C ard w hioh was u sed i s shown i n F ig u re 5 • The 32 Where s e v e r a l i n s t r u c t o r s had o b serv ed th e same s tu d e n ts * th e av erag e o f th r o e s e t s o f i n s t r u c t o r s ’ r a t in g s w ere o o r r e la te d w ith th e 27 H. 0 . Rugg, og. o i t . ^ P . M. Symonds, op. o i t . * p . 9 6 . ^ F . F . Bradshaw , op. o i t . ^ J* P . G u ilfo rd * og. o i t .* p . Jj21. ^ A* W. K o rn h au ser, " R e l i a b i l i t y o f av erag e r a t i n g s , " J o u r n a l o f P e rs o n n e l R e se a r oh* 5* 32 See a p p e n d ix . 3 0 9 -3 1 7 . December* 1926. av e ra g e o f t h r e e o th e r s e t s o f i n s t r u o t o r r a t i n g s , eao h s e le o te d a t random . The av erag e c o r r e l a t i o n f o r r a t i n g s g iv e n t o t h e e ig h te e n s e n io r s was . 67 . I n i t i a t i v e had t h e lo w e s t r (.3i+) and i n d u s t r y had t h e h ig h e s t r ( . 7 ^ ) . The ra n g e o f o o rre l& tio n s f o r r a t i n g s g iv e n t o t h e f i f t y s tu d e n ts o f a l l c l a s s e s was muoh s m a lle r , th e a v e ra g e r h e in g i n th e f o r t i e s . 33 C o r r e la tio n s o f r a t i n g s made b y p a i r s o f i n s t r u c ­ t o r s show c o n s id e r a b le d iv e rg e n c e i n i n s t r u c t o r s ' r a t i n g s , th e av erag e r b e in g .1*1 f o r th e s e n io r g ro u p and .3 $ f o r s tu d e n ts fro m a l l c l a s s e s . ' C o r r e la tio n s o b ta in e d b y h a v in g th e same i n s t r u o t o r r a t e a t d i f f e r e n t tim e s av e ra g e d *60. Thus t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f r a t i n g s o b ta in e d b y hav­ in g th e same i n s t r u o t o r r a t e a t d i f f e r e n t tim e s was c o n s id e r a b ly h ig h e r th a n th e r e l i a b i l i t y o b ta in e d b y c o r r e l a t i n g p a i r s o f i n s t r u c t o r s ' r a t i n g s b a se d upon t h e same o b s e r v a tio n s . X n to ro o rr o la tio n s o f r a t i n g s w ere h ig h , b e in g i n th e n eig h b o rh o o d o f .i+5 t o .Sl+. Ream ers 35 u s in g t h e Purdue R a tin g So a le f o r I n s t r u c t o r s , r e ­ p o r te d th e r e l i a b i l i t y o f h ig h s c h o o l and o o lle g e s t u d e n t s ' r a t i n g s o f t h e i r i n s t r u c t o r s on su o h t r a i t s as i n t e r e s t i n S u b je c t, P r e s e n ta ­ t i o n o f S u b je c t M a tte r , and S tim u la tin g I n t e l l e c t u a l C u r io s i ty . Wien two in d e p e n d e n t r a t e r s w ere u sed r e l i a b i l i t i e s v a r ie d from .1 6 t o . 143* Thus a c o n s id e r a b le number o f s tu d e n ts w ere needed i f r e l i a b i l i t i e s w ere t o approaoli . 90 . Remmers oonoluded t h a t r e l i a b l e judgm ents o f 3 3 ------------ A* W. K o rn h au ser, o p. o i t . ^ A* W. K o rn h au ser. "A com parison o f r a t e r s , ” J o u r n a l o f P e r­ s o n n e l R e s e a rc h , 6 : 33& -3W , J a n u a ry 1927* 25 a . w , K o rn h a u ser, ”A co m p ariso n o f r a t i n g s on d i f f e r e n t t r a i t s , " J o u r n a l o f P e rs o n n e l R e se a rc h , 6* I4I4O-I4I4J6 , M arch, 1927- ^ H. H. Reamers, og. o i t . o lsa sro o m t r a i t s o f i n s t r u c t o r s can b e o b ta in e d from b o th h ig h s c h o o l and o o lle g e s t u d e n t s . I n a n o th e r s tu d y a t P urdue U n iv e r s ity , i n s t r u c t o r s ware asked t o r a t e t h e i r s tu d e n ts on s i x t r a i t s a t t h e end o f a' te r m 's iro rk . C a rte r^ r e p o r t e d r e l i a b i l i t i e s o f .3 0 and *1+0 f o r tiro r a t e r s i n t h i s s tu d y and e s tim a te d r e l i a b i l i t i e s o f .2 0 t o <90 f o r s ix t e e n r a t e r s . ZDs oonoludod t h a t r a t i n g s o f s tu d e n ts b y i n s t r u c t o r s a re s u f f i c i e n t l y r e l i a b l e f o r p r a o t i o a l p u rp o s e s . R ic h a rd s and E llin g to n ? ^ r e p o r te d r e l i a b i l i t i e s ra n g in g from -.21* t o .gi* f o r p a i r s o f te a o h e r r a t e r s who were ask ed t o ju d g e t h e i r s tu d e n ts on tw e lv e t r a i t s . The fo re g o in g s tu d i e s seem t o show t h a t much depends upon th e p a r t i c u l a r t r a i t r a t e d , t h e t r a i n i n g o f th e r a t e r s , and th e m anner o f s e c u r in g th e r a t in g s * R e p o rte d r e s u l t s a re c o n f l i c t i n g and in d ic a te t h a t r e l i a b i l i t i e s sh o u ld be c a lc u l a te d f o r e a o h s o t o f c o n d itio n s so t h a t t h e k in d s o f r a t e r s and t h e number r e q u ir e d can b e determ in ed f o r t h e d e s ir e d d e g re e o f r e l i a b i l i t y , Ea g e n e r a l, r e p o r te d r e l i a b i l i t i e s f o r two in d e p e n d e n t r a t e r s a r e low , muoh lo w er th a n r e p o r te d r e l i a b i l i ­ t i e s o f gro u p i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s o r o f s ta n d a rd iz e d achievem ent t e s t s . G. C. C a r te r , " S tu d e n t p e r s o n a l i t i e s as i n s t r u c t o r s s e e th em ," S tu d ie s i n H ig h er E d u c a tio n . L a f a y e tte : Purdue U n iv e r s ity . 191+5* ^ T . W. R ic h a rd s and W illis E l lin g t o n , " O b je c tiv ity i n th e e v a lu a tio n o f p e r s o n a l i t y , n J o u rn a l o f E x p e rim en tal E d u c a tio n , 10: 2 2 3 -2 3 7 , J u n e , 19l*£. . TRAITS AMENABLE TO RAT INS A t r a i t i s c o n s id e re d am enable t o r a t i n g when oom petent r a t e r s te n d to a g re e . H o llin g s w o r th ^ found o lo s e agreem ent among r a t e r s upon suoh t r a i t s as e f f i c i e n c y , o r i g i n a l i t y , p e r s e r v e r a a o e , q u io k n e ss , ju d g m e n t, c l e a r n e s s , e n e rg y and w i l l . He found f a i r agreem ent on men­ t a l b a la n c e , b r e a d th , le a d e r s h ip , i n t e n s i t y , r e a s o n a b le n e s s , in d ep en d ­ e n c e , h e a l t h , e t o . , and p o o r agreem ent on suoh t r a i t s a s o o u ra g e , u n s e l f i s h n e s s , i n t e g r i t y , o o o p e r a tiv e n e s s , oh e a r f u ln e s s and k i n d l i n e s s . Shen*0 found b e s t agreement among r a te r s on s c h o la r s h ip , le a d e r ­ s h ip , and i n t e l l i g e n c e and th e p o o rest agreement on j u d i c i a l s e n s e , p u n c tu a lity , and t a c t . In another stu d y , S h e n ^ found a sy ste m a tic ten d en oy o f in d iv id u a ls t o o v erra te or underrate th em selv es in a l l t r a i t s according t o th e kind o f d e lu sio n t h e y had about th e m se lv e s. Thus th e co n sta n t tendenoy seemed dependent upon the in d iv id u a l and La n o t upon th e t r a i t . Miner found good agreement fo r su o h t r a i t s as le a d e r s h ip , g en e r a l a b i l i t y , r e l i a b i l i t y and en ergy. G u ilf o r d ^ has summarized a number o f r u le s which stu d en ts o f ra tin g have gained from e x p e r ie n o e : 39 J . P . G u ilf o r d , og. o i t . , p . 273. Lo Eugene S h en , "The r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t o f p e r s o n a l r a t ­ i n g s , " J o u r n a l o f E d u c a tio n a l P sy ch o lo g y , 1 6 : 232-237, A p r i l, 1925* ^ Eugene S h en , "The v a l i d i t y o f s e l f - e s t i m a t e ," J o u r n a l o f E d u c a tio n a l P sy ch o lo g y , 1 6 : 10L.-107, F e b ru a ry , 1925* L2. ^ J . B. M in er, o p . o i t . , p . 127. J . P . G u ilfo r d , l o o . o i t . 17 1) T r a i t s s h o u ld bs d e s c rib e d u a iv o o a lly , o b j e c t i v e l y , and s p e o ifio a lly . 2 ) A t r a i t w h ich i s t o be r a t e d s h o u ld n o t a number o f t r a i t s t h a t v a r y in d ep en d en tly * be a com posite of 3 ) E ach t r a i t sh o u ld r e f e r t o a s in g le ty p e o f a o t i v l t y o r t o th e r e s u l t s o f a s in g l e ty p e o f a o t i v l t y . I4.) T r a i t s s h o u ld be grouped a c c o rd in g t o th e aoouraoy w ith w h io h t h e y c a n be r a t e d . 5) d e s o r ib in g t r a i t s , av o id t h e u se o f g e n e r a l term s suoh as v e r y , e x tre m e , a v e ra g e , o r e x c e l l e n t . 6 ) T r a i t s s h o u ld be ju d g ed on t h e b a s is o f p a s t o r p r e s e n t aooam plishm ents r a t h e r th a n upon w hat r a t e r s r e g a rd as f u tu r e p ro m ise . 7 ) 3h s e l f - r a t i n g s t h e r e i s no t r a i t i n w hich a l l in d iv id u a ls o v e re s tim a te o r a l l u n d e re s tim a te th e m s e lv e s . £) Do n o t u se s o a le s f o r t r a i t s on w hioh r e l i a b l e o r more o b je c tiv e d a t a oan be o b ta in e d . INTERCQRRELAII01E IN TRAIT RATINGS AND ABBREVIATED SCALES R a tin g s o a le s u sed by d i f f e r e n t i n d u s t r i e s v a r y c o n s id e ra b ly i n t h e number o f t r a i t s r a t e d . 3h an a n a ly s is o f 132 r a t i n g s o a le s , M a h l e r ^ found t h a t th e number o f t r a i t s v a r i e d from one t o t h i r t y t h r e e , th e av erag e b e in g 9*3 • A p p a re n tly t h e s e t r a i t s a re a l l im por­ t a n t from th e com panies * p o in ts o f v iew and m easure d i f f e r e n t a s p e o ts o f t h e r a t e e 's p erfo rm a n c e . However, M ahler found l i t t l e o r no a g re e ­ m ent on w hat o h a r a o t e r i s t i o s sh o u ld be r a t e d . D river^-* r e p o r te d a s tu d y o f a t e n - t r a i t m e r i t - r a t i n g so a le a t th e A t l a n t i c R e fin in g Company i n lk W. R . M a h le r, og. o i t . ^ R. S . D r iv e r , "A o ase h i s t o r y i n m e r it r a t i n g , ” P e rs o n n e l J o u r n a l , 16: 137-162., May, I 9 I4O. w hioh i n t o r c o r r e l a t i o n s v a r i e d from *11 t o .7 9 w i t h a mean o f . 1+6 . 3X1 an e a r l i e r s tu d y , K ornhauser ) t(y r e p o r te d i n t e r o o r r e l a t i o n s o f i n s t r u c ­ to r s * r a t i n g s o f s tu d e n ts on i n t e l l i g e n c e , i n d u s tr y , m o ra l t r u s t w o r t h i ­ n e s s , and l e a d e r s h ip w hioh v a r ie d from . 1+5 t o E w a rt, S e a sh o re and T i f f i n , L.7 w ith a m edian o f . 69 . i n a s tu d y o f m e r it - r a t in g s o f 1 ,1 2 0 men on a t w e l v e - t r a i t s c a l e , fo u n d i n t e r o o r r e l a t i o n s from ,2 5 t o . 6 $ w ith a m edian o f .7 5 • A f a o t o r a n a ly s is showed t h a t a g e n e r a l f a o t o r , a b i l ­ i t y t o do th e p r e s e n t jo b , aooounted f o r m ost o f th e t o t a l •variance i n th e r a t i n g s . B o lan o v ieh made a f a o t o r a n a l y s is o f r a t i n g s on 1L+3 f i e l d e n g in e e rs who were r a t e d on f o u r te e n t r a i t s : p e r s o n a lity , p erso n al a p p e a ra n c e , p u n c t u a l i t y , th o ro u g h n e s s , e f f i c i e n o y , r e s o u r c e f u ln e s s , d e p e n d a b ility , o o o p e ra tio n , jo b a t t i t u d e , te o h n io a l a b i l i t y , s a le s a b i l i t y , o r g a n is in g a b i l i t y , judgm ent, and d e s ir e f o r s e lf-im p ro v e m e n t. IX x te rc o rre la tio n s ra n g e d from .05 t o .73 w ith a m edian o f .1+9 • The f a o t o r a n a ly s is re v e a le d t h a t s i x ooxaaon f a o t o r s , a tte n d a n c e t o d e t a i l , a b i l i t y t o do p r e s e n t jo b , s a le s a b i l i t y , o o n s o ie n tio u s n e s s , o rg a n is in g o r s y s te m a tic te n d e n c y and s o b ia l i n t e l l i g e n c e , aeo o u n t f o r m ost o f t h e t o t a l v a r ia n c e In r a t i n g s . The m u ltip le o o r r e l a t i o n f o r o v e r - a l l jo b su o o ess-w as .3 1 and In c lu d e d sev en o f th e f o u r te e n t r a i t s . They w ere: p e r s o n a l i t y , e f f i c i e n o y , r e s o u r o e f u ln e s s , c o o p e ra tio n , jo b a t t i t u d e , 5 5 ----------- A* W« K o rn h au ser, nA com parison o f r a t i n g s on d i f f e r e n t t r a i t s , op. o i t . 1+7 E. E w art, S . E. S e a sh o re and J . T i f f i n , nA f a o t o r a n a ly s is o f an i n d u s t r i a l m e r it r a t i n g s c a l e , 11 J o u r n a l o f A p p lie d P sy ch o lo g y , 2 5 : lfgl-l*&6 , O cto b er, 191+1* hg D. J . B olanovioh, " S t a t i s t i c a l a n a ly s is o f an i n d u s t r i a l r a t ­ in g c h a r t ," J o u r n a l o f A p p lied P sy c h o lo g y , 30: 23-31* F e b ru a ry , 191+6. 19 s o lo s a b i l i t y , and o r g a n iz in g a b i l i t y . l a a r e o e n t s tu d y , J u r g e n s e n ^ r e p o r te d i n t e r o o r r e l a t i o n s from .60 t o .3 3 w i t h a m edian o f .7 6 f o r r a t i n g s on w ork h a b i t s , a t t i t u d e s , aoo ep tan o e b y o t h e r s , s e l f - o o n t r o l , m e n ta l a b i l i t y , and p h y s ic a l a b i l ­ ity . The above i n t e r o o r r e l a t i o n s a p p e a r t o be t y p i c a l o f th o s e u s u a lly r e p o r te d f o r r a t i n g s o a le s c o n s is ti n g o f r e l a t i v e l y n arro w and s p e o i f i o a l l y d e fin e d t r a i t s . Jorgensen^® c o n v e rte d raw s o o re r a t in g s i n t o s ta n d a r d s o o re s and found t h a t th e i n t e r o o r r e l a t i o n s a l l dropped i n s i z e and ran g ed fro m .3 3 t o .Slj. w ith a m edian o f .6 0 . E ach o f t h e r e l i a b i l i t i e s a l s o dropped i n s iz e when r a t i n g s w ere e x p re s s e d as e ta n d a rd s o o r e s . *51 Ju rg e n se n ^ oonoluded t h a t i t i s s im p le r , more d i r e o t , and e q u a l l y e f f e o t i v e t o o b ta in an o v e r - a l l r a t i n g i n s te a d o f a compos­ i t e b ased on h ig h ly o o r r e l a t e d t r a i t r a t i n g s . v a lu e t o t r a i t r a t i n g s . T h is does n o t deny a l l O v e r - a ll r a t i n g s may be more v a l i d a n d /o r r e l i a b l e i f made a f t e r c o n s id e r a tio n has been g iv e n t o t r a i t s , e v e n th o u g h t r a i t i n t e r o o r r e l a t i o n s a re h ig h . L a w s h e a n d h i s a s s o c ia te s i n jo b e v a lu a tio n s tu d ie s have shown t h a t jo b s o an be e v a lu a te d j u s t as e f f i c i e n t l y b y u s in g few er s o a l e s . JLtO C. E . J u rg e n s e n , " I n t e r o o r r e l a t i o n s i n m e r it r a t i n g t r a i t s , " J o u r n a l o f A p p lied P sy ch o lo g y , 3U: 2l{.0-2i|3, A ugust, 1950* 5° 3 b id . 5 1 I b id . 52 C. H. Lows h e , J r . , and G. A . S a t t e r , " S tu d ie s i n jo b e v a lu a ­ tio n * 1 . F a o to r a n a ly s e s o f p o in t r a t i n g s f o r h o u r ly - p a id jo b s i n t h r e e i n d u s t r i a l p l a n t s . " J o u r n a l o f A p p lie d P sy ch o lo g y , 2 3 1 139-193, They have a ls o attempted t o Id e n tify the primary faotors operating in sa la r y ratin g plans in various in d u str ia l plan ts and to determine th e sig n iflo a n o e o f eaoh faotor in the t o t a l poin t rating* They found d iffe r e n t combinations o f fa o to rs operating in th e se v era l p lan ts studied* They also found th a t abbreviated so a le s mere j u s t as e f f i ­ c ie n t in job e v a lu a tio n as mere th e longer soales* C orrelation te c h ­ niques mere used in th e se stu d ie s in whioh r a tin g s on th e se le o te d so a le s produced m u ltip le c o rr ela tio n s which approached 1*00 w ith the o r ite r io n , t o t a l p o in t rating* As a r u le , in applying c o rr ela tio n tech n iq u es, th e researoh worker hopes t o use independent measures whioh have low or zero in te r ­ o o rrela tio n s and whioh have high co rrela tio n s w ith the o r ite r io n . In the stu d ies whioh have been reviewed th e la t t e r oond ition has e x is te d , but th e in te ro o r re la tio n s have g en e ra lly been high* Hence i t oan be oonoluded t h a t the t r a i t s whioh have been rated are not d is c r e te , but J u n e , 19U j* C*-H* Laws h e , J r . , " S tu d ie s i n jo b e v a lu a tio n ! 2 . The adequaoy o f a b b r e v ia te d p o i n t r a t i n g s f o r h o u r ly - p a id jo b s in t h r e e i n d u s t r i a l p l a n t s * n J o u r n a l o f A p p lied P sy ch o lo g y , 2 9 : 177-1 J u n e , 1&5* C* H. Laws h e , j r . , ana A* A. Stale s k i , " S tu d ie s i n jo b e v a lu a tio n : 3* An a n a ly s is o f p o in t r a t i n g s f o r s a la r y - p a id jo b s i n an i n d u s t r i a l p l a n t , " J o u r n a l o f A p p lied P sy ch o lo g y , 3 0 : 117-123* A p r i l , 19M>. C. H. Lawshe, J r . , ana S . L . A l e s s i , ''S tu d ie s i n jo b e v a lu a tio n : A n a ly s is o f a n o th e r p o in t r a t i n g s c a le f o r h o u r ly - p a id jo b s and th e adequaoy o f an a b b r e v ia te d s o a le ," J o u r n a l o f A p p lie d P sy c h o lo g y , 3 0 : 310-319# A u g u st, 19^6* C. H. Lawshe, J r . , and h* W ilso n , S t u d i e s i n jo b e v a lu a tio n : 5» An a n a ly s is o f th e f a o t o r oom parison sy stem a s i t f u n c tio n s i n a p a p e r m i l l , " J o u r n a l o f A p p lied p syo h o lo g y , 3 0 : J426-I+3U* O o to b er, 1 9 C* H. Lawshe, J r . , and fe. !f* W ilso n , " S tu d ie s in jo b e v a lu a tio n : 6 . The r e l i a b i l i t y o f two p o in t r a t i n g s y s te m s ," J o u r n a l o f A p p lie d P syohology, 31* 355~3^5i A u g u st, lSd+7* C. H. Lawshe, J r . , E . E . Dudek and R . F . W ilson, " S tu d ie s i n jo b e v a l u a t i o n : 7* A f a c t o r a n a ly s is o f two p o i n t r a t i n g m ethods o f jo b e v a l u a t i o n ," J o u r n a l o f A p p lied P sychology, 32* 118-129, A p r il, 21 te n d t o o v e rla p one an o th er* Smal t r i e d and Rammers 53 found o v e rla p p in g r e l a t i o n s h i p s among t r a i t s when th e y a n a ly z e d s tu d e n t r a t i n g s o f f a c u l t y members b y t h e Purdue R a tin g S c a le * Sane t r a i t s had a h ig h s a t u r a t i o n o f e i t h e r P r o f e s s io n a l M a tu r ity o r Empathy* th e tw o f a o t o r s m easured by t h e s o o le . However* many o th e r t r a i t s had n e a r l y e q u a l s a t u r a t i o n o f b o th f a o t o r s m d l i t t l e o f e i t h e r one* The m u ltip le c o r r e l a t i o n te c h n iq u e oan be u sed t o d is o o v s r t r a i t s t h a t o v erlap * R e fin e d r a t i n g p ro o e d u re s oan th e n be s e t up w here r a t ­ in g s a re b a s e d upon o b s e rv a b le n o tio n s only* r a t h e r th a n upon th e ty p e o f t r a i t s w hioh may o v erlap * TYPES OP RAT IRG- ERRORS The o v e rla p p in g r e l a t i o n s h i p s among t r a i t s on th e r a t i n g s o a le m en tio n ed i n th e p re c e d in g s e o tio n may be i n t e r p r e t e d as e i t h e r th e 5li oause o r t h e oonsequonoe o f h a lo e f f e o t . The h a lo e f f e c t was f i r s t m en tio n ed b y W e lls , 55 56 g iv e n i t s name b y T h o rn d ik e ,-^ and d e s c r ib e d b y R ugg,*^ who rem arked t h a t we ju d g e our fe llo w s i n te rm s o f a g e n e r a l H* T . S m a lz rie d and H* H* Remmers, MA f a o t o r a n a ly s is o f th e Purdue R a tin g S o a le f o r I n s t r u c t o r s , " J o u r n a l o f E d u c a tio n a l P syohology* 3hi 363-367» S ep tem b er, 19^3 • 5I1 W. S . M onroe, E n c y c lo p e d ia o f E d u c a tio n a l Reseoroh* R ev ised E d i t i o n * Hew Y ork: The M acm illan Company. l$i?0* p* 9t>U. ■*** P* L* W ells* "A s t a t i s t i c a l s tu d y o f l i t e r a r y m e r it ," A rch iv es o f Psyohology* Ho. 7» A u g u st, 1907* ^ E . L . Thorndike* "A c o n s ta n t e r r o r i n p s y o h o lo g io a l r a tin g * " j o u r n a l o f A p p lie d P syohology* I4.1 2-5-29, Maroh, 1920. 57 H. 0 . Rugg, op. o i t . mental a ttitu d e toward them whioh leads us t o a ttrib u te th e general a ttitu d e or im pression t o p a rticu la r q u a l it i e s . However, Bingham^ sta te d th a t a l l halo e f f e o t , as in d icated by c lo se c o rr ela tio n s between r a tin g s otn s p e o ifio t r a i t s and an o v e r -a ll estim ate of personal f i t n e s s , need not be considered in v a lid . An o v e r -a ll judgment i s more l i k e l y t o be oorreot i f made a fte r th e r a te r 's a tte n tio n has been fooussed on s p e o ifio t r a i t s . Symonds 59 proposed th a t a l l persons, in a group being r a te d , be judged on one t r a i t a t a tim e to reduce t h is e r r o r . and Wonderlio 60 Stevens have shown th a t halo e f f e o t i s demonstrably reduced by judging a l l persons in a given group on one t r a i t at a tim e, thus oonfirm ing Symonds' o r ig in a l p red io tio n . above r e s u lt s . G ilin s k y ^ has a lso v e r ifie d th e Halo e f f e o t i s more l i k e l y to in flu en ce th e ratin g o f t r a i t s n o t e a s i l y observable or not o le a r ly d efin ed . Another type o f error i s the one of len ien oe or s e v e r ity , r eferred t o by G uilford 62 as th e system atio e rr o r. This i s the tendenoy in a r a te r sy ste m a tic a lly to overrate or t o underrate in d ivid u als in t r a i t s as compared w ith th e average r a tin g o f a l l jud ges. A t h i r d ty p e o f e r r o r i s th e one o f e e n t r a l te n d e n o y . When r a t ­ e r s do n o t know i n d iv id u a ls v e ry w e ll, th e y h e s i t a t e t o g iv e extrem e ^ W. V. Bingham, "H alo , in v a l i d and v a l i d , " J o u r n a l o f A p p lied P sy c h o lo g y , 2p: 221-22S, A p r i l, 1939• ^ P . M. Symonds, op. o i t . , p p . 8>0-gl. 60 S . N. S te v e n s and E . F . W o n d erlio , "An e f f e c t i v e r e v i s i o n o f a r a t i n g te c h n iq u e ," P e rso n n e l J o u r n a l, 13* 125-13U, O cto b er, 193U* 61 A* S . G ilin s k y , "The in flu e n c e o f a p rooedure o f ju d g in g on th e h a lo e f f e o t , " Am erioan P s y c h o lo g is t, 2 j 309-310, A u g u st, 19^7* 62 J . P . G u ilfo r d , op. o i t . , p . 273* 23 r a t i n g s ; hence t h e i r r a t i n g s te n d t o d u s t e r c l o s e ly ab o u t t h e moan and do n o t d i f f e r e n t i a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y betw een d i f f e r e n t p e rfo rm a n c e s . A f o u r t h ty p e o f e r r o r i s t h e l o g i o a l e r r o r . N ew com b,^ in a r a t i n g e x p e rim e n t in a b o y 's suraner camp, found t h a t ju d g e s a re l i k e l y t o g iv e s i m i l a r r a t i n g s i n t r a i t s t h a t seem l o g i o a l l y r e l a t e d i n t h e m inds o f th e r a t e r s . S e v e r a l r a t e r s e s tim a te d th e p ro n e n e ss o f boys t o c e r t a i n ty p e s o f b e h a v io r , t h e av erag e i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n b ein g *14-95• When o b je c tiv e r e c o r d s w ere k e p t b y th e s e same r a t e r s , b a se d upon ob­ s e rv e d b e h a v io r , th e i n t e r o o r r e l a t i o n s av erag ed o n ly . l l t l . L ike th e h a lo e f f e o t , t h i s e r r o r in c r e a s e s th e i n t e r o o r r e l a t i o n s o f t r a i t s , b u t f o r a d if f e r e n t reaso n . These f o u r e r r o r s oan be re d u c e d b y c a l l i n g f o r judgm ents o f o b j e c t i v e l y o b serv ed b e h a v io r r a t h e r t h a n a b s t r a c t , o v e rla p p in g t r a i t s . 6k They o a n a lso b e re d u ce d i f t h e r a t e r s h e lp t o o o n s tr u o t t h e s o a l e , d is c u s s t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f a b i l i t i e s and m eet to g e th e r f r e q u e n t l y t o oompare t h e i r r a t i n g s f r i t h th o s e o f o t h e r s . As has a lr e a d y been s a i d , e r r o r s due t o h a lo oan be re d u c e d b y r a t i n g a l l i n d i v id u a ls on a g iv e n t r a i t b e f o re r a t i n g them on a n o th e r . E r r o r s o a n a l s o be re d u ced by r a t e r t r a i n i n g . D r iv e r,^ in d is ­ c u s s in g means o f im proving em ployee p erform ance r a t i n g , l i s t s se v e n m ethods o f r a t e r t r a i n i n g : 63 T. Newcomb, "An e x p erim en t d e s ig n e d t o t e s t t h e v a l i d i t y o f a r a t i n g te c h n iq u e ," J o u r n a l o f E d u c a tio n a l P syo h o lo g y , 22> 279-2E9* A p r i l , 1 9 3 !. 61j. W. S . M onroe, l o o , o i t . ^ R. S . D r iv e r , " T r a in in g as a means o f im proving employee p e r ­ form ance r a t i n g , " P e rs o n n e l, 1 $ : 3&J--370, May, 19&2* 2k 1) I n d iv id u a l i n s t r u c t i o n 2) Group instruction. 3) R a tin g s oom pleted under th e im m ediate s u p e rv is io n o f th e ra tin g in s tru o to r ]+) D iBO ussion a f t e r th e r a t i n g has b een oom pleted 3) R a tin g m anual 6) Cover l e t t e r 7) B r i e f in t r o d u c t o r y speeoh D riv e r 66 co n clu d e s t h a t p e r s o n a l o o n ta o t t r a i n i n g m ethods are more s u c c e s s f u l th a n l e s s d i r e c t p ro c e d u re s suoh as r a t i n g m anuals or cover l e t t e r s . He recommends t h a t a o tu a l oases f a m i l i a r t o a l l i n ­ t e r e s t e d i n d iv id u a ls be u sed as p r a o tio e m a te r ia l f o r r a t i n g and t h a t su b se q u e n t t o th e co m p letio n o f t h e r a t i n g s , th e r e s u l t s be d is c u s s e d and e r r o r s o r a p p a re n t d is o re p a n o ie s be p o in te d o u t t o th e r a t e r s * He a l s o s u g g e s ts as b e in g h e lp f u l* a d is c u s s io n o f (1) th e u ses t o whioh. r a t i n g s w i l l be p u t, (2 ) i n d i v id u a l d if f e r e n c e s b a s e d on th e t h e o r ie s c o n c e rn in g th e norm al d i s t r i b u t i o n ourve, (3) p ro ced u res t o be fo llo w e d i n u s in g r a t i n g so a le s* and (i+) th e meaning o f th e v a rio u s d e s c r i p t i v e te rm s u sed on th e r a t i n g so ale* CHAPTER I II THE SITUATION AND DESIGN OP THE STUDY THE SITUATION T he d a ta f o r t h i s s tu d y w e re c o l l e c t e d a t th e A i r Command an d S t a f f S c h o o l o f t h e A ir U n i v e r s i t y , l o c a t e d a t M axw ell A i r F o rc e B a se , M ontgom ery, A labam a. T he A ir Command a n d S t a f f S c h o o l i s d e s ig n e d to a f f o r d p r o f e s s i o n a l e d u c a tio n f o r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s a t t h e wing l e v e l t o e x p e r ie n c e d A i r F o r c e O f f i c e r s w ith ra n k s o f C a p ta in , M ajo r, l i e u t e n a n t C o lo n e l, an d C o lo n e l. A f t e r r e c e i v i n g i n s t r u c t i o n p r i m a r i l y b y th e l e c t u r e m ethod in s t a f f a n d command d u t i e s , members o f e a c h c l a s s a r e d iv id e d i n t o s m a ll g ro u p s o f a p p ro x im a te ly s ix te e n s tu d e n t s e a c h . E ach g ro u p th e n w orks a s a s t a f f o r u n i t on tw o p r a c t i c a l p ro b le m s , one in a t a c t i c a l o p e ra ­ t i o n , an d one i n a s t r a t e g i c o p e r a t i o n . The g ro u p workB on a s t i m u l a t e d s t a f f p ro b lem w ith each s tu d e n t a s s ig n e d t o a s p e c i f i c s t a f f p o s i t i o n . F o r t h e t a c t i c a l p ro b le m , th e p o s i t i o n d e s ig n a tio n s a r e a s f o llo w s : C h ie f o f S t a f f , O f f i c e r in C harge o f P e r s o n n e l, O f f i c e r in C h arg e o f I n t e l l i g e n c e , O f f i c e r i n C harge o f O p e r a tio n s , O f f i c e r i n C harge o f S u p p ly , and s e v e re d a s s i s t a n t s f o r e ac h o f f i c e r e x c e p t th e C h ie f o f S ta ff. D e s ig n a tio n s f o r th e s t r a t e g i c p ro b le m a r e t h e same, w ith th e a d d i t i o n o f th e p o s i t i o n o f Commanding G e n e r a l. E ach g ro u p a t t a c k s th e same p ro b le m w ith e a c h s tu d e n t p e rfo rm in g th e t a s k s d e le g a te d to th e p o s i t i o n t o which h e has b e e n a s s i g n e d . S tu d e n t a s s ig n m e n ts a r e chan g ed f o r e a c h p ro b le m , so t h a t most s t u d e n t s s e r v e i n a more re s p o n ­ s i b l e p o s i t i o n once and in a s u b o r d in a te p o s i t i o n o n c e . 26 Eaoh problem i s introduced by a oontrol s t a f f o f in stru o to rs mho serve as a higher headquarters s t a f f and answer questions from th e subordinate headquarters* Students are b riefed on r a tin g proce­ dures by a Senior O ffioer in Charge o f E valuation a t the beginning o f eaoh problem. Students have had sev era l hours o f in s tr u c tio n and ex­ perience i n oral ex p ressio n , i t s e v a lu a tio n and s t a f f procedures p rior t o beginning the f i r s t problem. Eaoh s t a f f i s le d by a student (C h ief o f S t a f f or Commanding G eneral), w ith a member o f the in str u c tio n a l S t a f f observing and e v a l­ uating* The fu n ction o f the student lead er i s to work w ith h is s t a f f in the so lu tio n o f th e assigned problem* Hie i s evaluated on h is p er- ‘ formanoe o f th is fu n ctio n by th e in str u o to r , mho a lso r a te s th e perform­ ance o f eaoh student s t a f f o ffio e r on a graphic r a tin g soale* Eaoh in stru o to r ra tes stu dents approximately four tim e s, onoe eaoh o f the l a s t four days o f th e problem. At the com pletion o f a problem, eaoh student ra tes h is fe llo w students as fo llo w s : The student Commanding General and th e Chief o f S t a f f ra te a l l student s t a f f members* The student o f f ic e r s in oharge o f the se v e r a l a o t i v it i e s rate eaoh other as w e ll as th e stu dents a ct­ in g as Comnanding General, C hief o f S t a f f , and members o f t h e ir resp ec­ t i v e s t a f f s e c tio n s . Subordinate o ffio e r s in eaoh s t a f f s e o tlo n rate t h e ir se o tlo n o h ie f and a l l other members o f the same s t a f f se o tlo n . Students r a te eaoh other only onoe fo r eaoh problem, but are encouraged t o m aintain a work s h e e t ^ during th e problem so th a t th ey m ill be able t o reoord any ev a lu a tio n of stu d e n ts' mork throughout th e problem* See appendix. C 27 R a tin g s a r e made on s i x t r a i t s : knowledge a p p lie d t o th e s o lu ­ t i o n o f th e p ro b le m , th i n k i n g , i n i t i a t i v e , c o o p e r a tio n i n group w ork, o r g a n is in g a b i l i t y and e x p re ss io n * T hey a re b ased upon a n i n e - p o in t s c a le w ith n in e a s t h e maximum r a t i n g . C r i t e r i a f o r s p e o if ie d r a t i n g s a re g iv e n on g r a p h io , u n id im e n sio n a l s o a l e s . i f any o f t h e r a t e r s f e e l t h a t t h e y have b e e n u n ab le t o o b serv e a n y s t a f f member on a p a r ­ t i c u l a r t r a i t , t h e y oan oheok " n o t o b serv ed 11 on th e g ra p h io s o a le . DESIGN OP THE STUDY From th e d a t a on s t u d e n t s ' and i n s t r u c t o r s * r a t i n g s g iv e n d u rin g th e t a o t i o a l pro b lem , r a t i n g s o f and b y tw e n ty s t a f f s w ere s t u d i e d . R a tin g s made on t h i r t y o f th e t h i r t y - t w o s t a f f s i n t h e s t r a t e g i c prob­ lem w ere a ls o s t u d i e d . B oth sam ples w ere ohosen a t random and r e p r e s e n t o v e r 73 p e r c e n t o f t h e t o t a l number o f r a t i n g s . The r a t i n g s re n d e re d b o th by i n s t r u o t o r s and b y s tu d e n ts w ere re o o rd e d b y p o s it i o n s r a t e d . F o r th e t a o t i o a l pro b lem , r a t i n g s on th e s i x t r a i t s w ere l i s t e d f o r t h e C h ie f o f S t a f f (C /fe), O ff io e r i n Charge o f P e rs o n n e l ( A - l ) , O f fio e r i n Charge o f I n te ll i g e n c e (A -2 ), O f f ic e r i n Charge o f O p e ra tio n s (A -3 )» O f fio e r i n Charge o f S u p p ly (A—1+) and one a s s i s t a n t i n eao h s e o ti o n (a /A -1 , a /A -2 , a / a - 2 , k/k-h) and th e Com m unications O f f io e r who i s r e a l l y a n A s s i s ta n t A-3 a l s o . F o r th e s t r a t e g i o pro b lem , r a t i n g s w ere re o o rd e d f o r a l l o f th e above p o s itio n s and f o r th e p o s i t i o n o f Commanding G e n e ra l. 63 Ib id . 28 Assignments o f students to th e d iffe r e n t s t a f f s and to s t a f f p o s itio n s were made a t random. Members o f the school fa o u lty who served as observers were assigned to s t a f f s in th e same manner. HYPOTHESES AND METHODS OP TESTING THEM Eaoh o f the sev era l t r a it s in ferred from, or observed in , th e 69 behavior o f a p a rticu la r s t a f f o ffio e r are to be considered one by one. In g en era l, fe llo w s t a f f o f fic e r s (u su a lly coordinate w ith , or subordinate t o him) ra te the s t a f f o ffio e r in q u estion , by means o f a graphio r a tin g s o a le , on eaoh of s i x t r a i t s . Moreover, th e s itu a tio n w ith in whioh th ese ra tin g s are made ooours repeatedly in the sense th a t su o o essive groups or s t a f f s o f (o rd in a r ily ) d iffe r e n t o ffio e r s in te r a c t (w ith in t h e ir group) in oontending w ith the same (or an e sse n f t i a l l y sim ila r ) s tr a te g ic or ta o tio a l a ir foroe problem. Within eaoh s itu a tio n , th e o ffio e r assigned to any p a r tic u la r role (suoh as th a t o f Commanding General) is rated on eaoh o f the sev era l t r a i t s by other in d iv id u a l members o f h is student group and by an in stru o to r. W ithin t h is s e t t in g , our f i r s t hypothesis is* With referenoe to th e ra tin g s made by students w ith resp eot to any one t r a i t , there are no r e a l d iffe r e n c e s between the mean rated performanoe of one o f f i ­ oer (assign ed t o a p a rtio u la r s t a f f r o le ) and th a t o f another o ffio e r (assign ed t o the same r o le ) when eaoh o f the sev era l o ffio e r s is a 69 (Motet The term "offioer" or " s ta ff offioer" w i l l be used t o r e fe r t o student o ffio e r s only. In stru cto rs, who are o ffio e r s , w i l l be referred to as " in stru otors" .) member o f ( d i f f e r e n t b u t e s s e n t i a l l y s i m i l a r ) s u c c e s s iv e groups oonte n d in g w ith t h e same ( o r e s s e n t i a l l y s i m i l a r ) s t r a t e g i o o r t a o t i o a l a i r fo ro o p ro b le m . T his h y p o th e s is w i l l be t e s t e d b y p erfo rm in g a sim ple a n a ly s is o f v a ria n c e i n w hioh r a t i n g s made by a given s t a f f o f o f f i o e r s o f th e p erfo rm an ce o f one o f t h e i r g ro u p s e r v in g i n a p a r t i c u l a r p o s i t i o n w i l l be compared w i t h r a t i n g s o f th e perform ances o f o th e r o f f i o e r s s e rv in g i n t h e same p o s i t i o n i n o th e r g ro u p s b y t h e i r f e llo w s t a f f o f f i o e r s . S e p a r a te F r a t i o s (b etw een v a r ia n c e d iv id e d b y w it h in v a r ia n c e ) w i l l be c a l c u l a te d f o r perform ance r a t i n g s o f o f f i o e r s s e r v in g i n eao h o f th e t e n s t a f f p o s itio n s i n th e t a o t i o a l problem and i n eaoh o f th e e le v e n s t a f f p o s it i o n s i n th e s t r a t e g i c problem on e a o h o f th e s i x tra its . Thus t h e r e w i l l be 21 x 6 a n a ly s e s o r F r a t i o s . W ith in t h e same s e t t i n g , our seco n d h y p o th e s is i s : W ith r e f e r ­ en ce t o th e r a t i n g s made by i n s t r u c t o r s r a t h e r th a n b y s tu d e n ts w ith r o s p e o t t o a n y one t r a i t , t h e r e a r e n o r e a l d i f f e r e n c e s betw een th e mean r a t e d perfo rm an ce o f one o f f i o e r ( a s s ig n e d t o a p a r t i c u l a r s t a f f r o l e ) and t h a t o f a n o th e r o f f i o e r (a s s ig n e d t o th e same r o l e ) when e ao h o f th e s e v e r a l o f f i o e r s i s a member of ( d i f f e r e n t b u t e s s e n t i a l l y s i m i l a r ) s u o o e ss iv e g ro u p s c o n te n d in g w ith t h e same ( o r e s s e n t i a l l y s i m i l a r ) s t r a t e g i o o r t a o t i o a l a i r f o r o e p ro b lem . This h y p o th e s is w i l l be t e s t e d i n th e same m anner used f o r t e s t ­ in g th e f i r s t h y p o th e s is s in o e i n s t r u c t o r s ’ r a t i n g s w ere t u r n e d i n e ao h day and were made w ith o u t c o n s u ltin g o r h av in g aooess t o p re v io u s r a t ­ in g s . F r a t i o s w i l l be o a lo u la te d f o r perform ance r a t i n g s r e c e iv e d b y o f f i o e r s s e r v in g in e a o h o f t h e t e n s t a f f p o s it i o n s i n th e t a o t i o a l problem and in. eaoh o f the e le v en s t a f f p o sitio n s in th e str a te g io problem on eaoh o f th e s i x t r a it s * Again there w i l l be a t o t a l of 21 x 6 analyses or F r a t io s . W ithin th e same se ttin g * our th ir d hypothesis i s j With r e fe r ­ ence t o th e r a tin g s made by in str u c to rs and by students w ith respeot to any one t r a it * th ere are no z e a l d iffe re n c es between the mean rated performance o f o ffio e r s assign ed t o a p a rticu la r s t a f f ro le and th a t o f other o ffio e r s assigned to d iffe r e n t s t a f f r o le s when eaoh o f the se v e r a l o ffio e r s (assign ed t o a p a r ticu la r s t a f f r o le ) i s a member o f (d iffe r e n t but e s s e n t ia lly sim ila r ) su ccessiv e groups contending w ith the same (or e s s e n t i a l ly sim ila r ) str a te g io or ta o tio a l a ir foroe prob­ lem. This hypothesis w i l l be t e s te d by making a two-way c la s s i f ic a ­ t io n fo r eaoh of the s i x t r a i t s on whioh o f fic e r s were rated in eaoh o f th e two problems. P o sitio n s o f o ffio e r s rated w i l l be o lo s s if ie d on one a x is and raters* in str u o to r and student* w i l l be c la s s i f ie d on the other axis* An a n a ly sis o f variance applying the method o f un- 70 w eighted averages' based upon disproportionate su b-olass numbers w i l l be used. There w i l l be 6 x 2 a n a ly ses. W ithin th e same s e t t in g , our fou rth hypothesis i s ; With r e fe r ­ ence t o th e r a tin g s made by in str u c to rs and students w ith respeot to any one t r a it * n e ith e r in str u c to rs nor student s t a f f s w i l l e x h ib it a high degree or r e l i a b i l i t y in t h e ir a b i l i t y t o ra te the performance o f 70 G. W. Snedeoor* S t a t i s t i o a l M ethods. C o lle g e P r e s s , 19h&, PP- Ames: The Iowa S ta te o f f ic e r s (assign ed to d iffe r e n t r o le s ) when eaoh o ffio e r is a member o f (d iffe r e n t but e s s e n t ia lly sim ila r ) su cc essiv e groups contending w ith the same (or e s s e n t ia lly sim ila r ) S tra teg io or ta o tio a l a ir foroe problem# This hypothesis w i l l be te s te d by s e le o tin g f iv e s t a f f s a t ran­ dom from th e t a o t io a l problem and fiv e s t a f f s a t random from th e str a ­ t e g ic problem# Students* r a tin g s on eaoh o ff io e r in eaoh s t a f f w i l l be divided a t random in to two groups fo r eaoh t r a i t , and Pearson Produot-Moment C orrelation C o e ffic ie n ts w i l l be oaloulated on th e mean ra tin g s giv en eaoh o ffio e r in eaoh s t a f f and stepped up by th e SpearmanBrown Formula. The Pearson Produot-Moment C orrelation Method w i l l be used on in stru ctors* ra tin g s given eaoh o f f ic e r in eaoh s t a f f fo r th e second and th ir d days to c a lc u la te the r e l i a b i l i t y o f in stru ctors* ratin gs# R e l ia b il i t ie s w i l l be reported fo r eaoh o f the s ix t r a i t r a t ­ ings made by both students and in str u c to rs in eaoh problem# t o t a l o f tw enty-four ire l i a b i l i t i e s w i l l be reported# Hence, a Within th e same s e t t in g , r e l i a b i l i t i e s o f ra tin g s based upon a composite of two or three t r a i t s w i l l a lso be reported# W ithin the same s e t t in g , our f i f t h hypothesis i s : R atings on c e r ta in t r a i t s o f o ffio e r s servin g in c e r ta in s t a f f p o sitio n s are e a s ie r to make than are r a tin g s on other t r a i t s o f o ff ic e r s serving in d if f e r ­ en t s t a f f p o s itio n s . This hypothesis w i l l be t e s te d by s e tt in g up a two-way c l a s s i f i ­ c a tio n w ith the number o f r a tin g s given t o o ffio e r s serving in d iffe r e n t s t a f f p o sitio n s on one axis and the number o f r a tin g s given t o o ffio e r s 32 on e ao h t r a i t on t h e o th e r a x i s . A two-way o l a s s i f i o a t i o n w i l l he u se d f o r th e number o f i n s t r u c t o r s ' r a t i n g s and f o r th e number o f s t u ­ d e n t s ' r a t i n g s i n e a o h o f th e two p ro b le m s. 3h e ao h o f th e above- m en tio n ed o a s e s , C h i-sq u a re t e s t s w i l l be made t o oompare th e number o f d i f f e r e n t t r a i t r a t i n g s a o t u a l l y g iv e n t o o f f i c e r s s e rv in g i n eao h ty p e o f s t a f f p o s i t i o n and th e number o f r a t in g s ex p e o te d f o r e ao h t r a i t o r s t a f f p o s itio n . Our s i x t h and f i n a l h y p o th e s is i s : R a tin g s made by b o th s t u ­ d e n ts and i n s t r u c t o r s on fe w e r th a n s i x t r a i t s w i l l c o r r e l a t e h ig h ly w i t h oom p o site r a t i n g s o f w hioh t h e y a r e a p a r t . T h is h y p o th e s is w i l l be t e s t e d b y u s in g m u ltip le c o r r e l a t i o n te c h n iq u e s t o see i f r a t i n g s on tw o o r t h r e e s o a le s o n ly w i l l y i e l d h ig h c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h com posite r a t i n g s on w hioh th e y a re a p a r t . Com posite r a t i n g s o r th e sum o f t h e r a t in g s on t h e s i x t r a i t s were u sed t o d ete rm in e s t u d e n t s ' f i n a l r a t i n g s . A lth o u g h t h e r e i s same s p u r i o u s ly h ig h e f f e o t , c o r r e l a t i o n s o f r a t in g s on e a o h o f th e s i x t r a i t s w i t h oom p o site r a t i n g s w i l l be made f o r e ao h s t a f f o f f i c e r r a t e d b y b o th s tu d e n ts and i n s t r u c t o r s . T hus, i n th e t a o t i o a l problem , t h e r e w i l l b e t e n i n t e r o o r r e l a t i o n t a b l e s (7 x 7) f o r r a t in g s by s t u ­ d e n ts and t e n i n t e r o o r r e l a t i o n t a b l e s ( 7 x 7 ) f o r r a t i n g s b y i n s t r u c t o r s , l a th e s t r a t e g i o p ro b le m , t h e r e w i l l be tw en ty -tw o i n t e r o o r r e l a t i o n t a b l e s , e le v e n f o r r a t i n g s b y s tu d e n ts and e le v e n f o r r a t i n g s b y i n ­ s t r u c t o r s , e a o h 7 x 7- CHAPTER 17 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OP DATA To t o s t H y p o th esis 1—’’With, re fe re n o o t o th e r a t i n g s made bys tu d e n ts w ith r e s p e o t t o any one t r a i t , t h e r e a re no r e a l d if f e r e n c e s betw een t h e mean r a t e d p erfo n n an o e o f one o f f i o e r (a s s ig n e d t o a p a r ­ t i c u l a r s t a f f r o l e ) and t h a t o f a n o th e r o f f i o e r ( a s s ig n e d t o t h e same r o l e ) when e a o h o f th e s e v e r a l o f f i o e r s i s a member o f ( d i f f e r e n t b u t e s s e n t i a l l y s i m i l a r ) s u c c e s s iv e g roups co n te n d in g w ith th e same ( o r e s s e n t i a l l y s i m i l a r ) s t r a t e g i o o r t a o t i o a l a i r fo rc e p ro b le m .” — an a n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e was u se d . T h is s t a t i s t i o a l te o h n iq u e i s b a se d upon th e assu m p tio n t h a t th e t o t a l sum o f sq u a re s o f n u m e ric a l r a t in g s made by s e v e r a l groups o f r a t e r s oan be s e p a ra te d i n t o two o r more sp e­ o i f i o p o r ti o n s , eao h a lig n e d w ith a s p e o if io souroe o f v a r i a t i o n . !Dx t h i s p a r t i o u l a r d e s ig n , r a t i n g s g iv e n eaoh s t a f f member in t h e t a o t i o a l and i n th e s t r a t e g i o problem f o r eaoh o f th e s i x t r a i t s w ere c l a s s i f i e d and ta b u la te d a s shown i n th e i l l u s t r a t i v e example (T ab le I ) . By u s in g t h i s m ethod, i t was p o s s ib le t o d is c o v e r th e v a r ia n c e o f means r a t i n g s g iv e n th e s tu d e n ts o f th e s e v e r a l s t a f f s and t o oomp a re i t w ith t h e v a ria n c e o f th e in d iv id u a l r a t i n g s . U sing t h e d a ta i n th e i l l u s t r a t i v e exam ple (T ab le I ) , th e c a l ­ c u la tio n s w hioh were n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e 126 a n a ly s e s o f v a r ia n c e a re g iv e n below and summ arized i n T able l i t 2 ( ^ X)^* T o ta l Sum o f S q u a re s ■ j£X - ■- rr - — o r C - T ““ N A (S®® T able i ) TABIE I RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS IN TWENTY DIF5ERENT STAPES TO THEIR RESPECTIVE CHIEFS OF STAFFS ON ORGANIZMG ABILITY IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM ^ ^ S ta ff 1 2 9 1 2 S 1+ 4 1 5 1 5 3 1+ 1+ 1 7 h 1+ k 5 1+ 1 3 3 2 1+ 6 2 3 5 1 1 1+ 2 6 2 1 3 5 1 1+ 3 2 1 1 1 3 3 5 1 7 £ 9 ■ 3 10 1 3 12 IS 19 1 2 1 11+ 15 16 1 2 1 1 1+ 9 2 1 1+ 1+ 1+ 2 3 1 3 2 2 3 1 1+ 2 5 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 33 1 1 1 k 6 17 1 SubT o ta ls 20 15 1+ 61+ 3 51+ 3 53 2 23 , 1 6 3 2 0 1 0 N « ^ 1+ 6 2 m z —ij - 12 13 10 10 12 10 13 13 10 9 13 9 12 12 H+ 12 £6 96 53 61 90 61+ 96 £6 70 66 76 65 70 37 110 79 27 96 32 722 2£9 3£7 6S2 1+20 73*+ 5£0 500 1+96 1+6S J+£l 1+32 61+1 £72 51+1 l£ 5 6S0 262 630 fcifcJJ rolfcLtfol'Zlut LK.«> Vof.bo7ot.9x S tf fA *#aoo ttfoo WyM it*.** VofJ* fto y 1+ ll+ 1+ 12 2l £ A £1 . 31+91 B 561 10563 c **Loo - w v 'o t f t : jf d 2 T o ta l Sum o f S q u ares - 10563 - 35 - 10563 - 10197.62 2 T o ta l Sum o f S q u ares ■ 365*33 2 Sum o f S q u ares 1)61316011 S t a f f O f fio e r Means y 1 “ -^ P " ■ o r * Ni N 2 g D - - j - (See T able I ) w here £ X i ■ th e sum o f r a t i n g s g iv e n i n eao h s t a f f and i ■ 1 t o 20 N i " th e number o f r a t i n g s g iv e n i n eaoh s t a f f and i ■ 1 t o 20 Sum o f S q u ares betw een S t a f f O f fio e r Means ■ 10295*13 - 10197*62 ■ 97*56 Sum o f S q u ares w ith in S t a f f O f fio e r r a t i n g s - C - D (See T able 1) Sum o f S q u ares w ith in S t a f f O f f io e r r a t in g s * 10563 - 10295*13 ■ 267*32 TABLE I I ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE OP STUDENTS' RATINGS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE CHIEFS OF STAFF ON ORGANIZING ABILITY IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM Source of V ariation T otal Between S t a f f O ffioer Means W ithin S t a f f O ffioer Ratings Degrees of Freedom Sum o f Squares 217 365*33 19 193 Mean Square F R atio 97*56 5*13 3*30 267*32 1*35 ** S ig n ific a n t at the 1% l e v e l . The mean square in eaoh o f the above oases was oalou lated by d ivid in g the sum o f squares by the number o f degrees o f freedom. The mean square o f Within S t a f f O ffioer Ratings was used as the error term, *5.1 3 henoe P ■ 1■— or 3*3Q>» 1*35 56 T h is same p ro c e d u re was u sed t o a n a ly z e r a t in g s on a l l s i x t r a i t s g iv e n t o 1) S tu d e n t o f f i c e r s s e r v in g i n a l l t e n s t a f f p o s it i o n s o f t h e t a o t i o a l p ro b lem . 2 ) S tu d e n t o f f i o e r s s e r v in g i n a l l e le v e n s t a f f p o s i­ t i o n s o f t h e s t r a t e g i o pro b lem . The 6 x 10 o r 60 F r a t i o s f o r th e t a o t i ­ o a l p roblem a re shown i n T a b le H I . The 6 x 11 o r 66 F r a t i o s f o r th e s t r a t e g i o p roblem a r e shown i n T ab le IV. Out o f t h e 126 a n a ly s e s o f v a r ­ ia n c e w hioh w ere u sed t o t e s t H y p o th e sis 1 , o n ly 16 had F r a t i o s w hioh w ere n o t s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e 5 p e r o e n t l e v e l . T w en ty -fo u r w ere s i g n i f i ­ c a n t a t t h e 5 p e r o e n t l e v e l and t h e re m a in d e r, f$6, were s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e 1 p e r o e n t l e v e l . Henoe H y p o th esis 1 i s f a l s e . The m ajority o f the F r a tio s whioh were not s ig n ific a n t a t the 5 per cent l e v e l were on Cooperation and Thinking whioh were d i f f i c u l t to r a te . L ite w is e , the m ajority o f th e F r a tio s whioh were not s ig n ific a n t at the 5 per cen t l e v e l were on r a tin g s given o f f ic e r s servin g in minor p o sitio n s as a s s is ta n ts whose performances were somewhat more d if f i o u l t to rate than were the performances o f o f f ic e r s in oharge o f se o tio n s. To t e s t H y p o th esis 2 —"W ith r e f e r e n c e t o th e r a t i n g s made b y i n ­ s t r u c t o r s r a t h e r th a n by s tu d e n ts w ith r e s p e o t t o any one t r a i t , th e r e a re no r e a l d if f e r e n c e s betw een th e mean r a t e d perform ance o f one o f f i o e r (a s s ig n e d t o a p a r t i c u l a r s t a f f r o l e ) and t h a t o f a n o th e r o f f i o e r ( a s ­ sig n e d t o t h e same r o l e ) when e a o h o f th e s e v e r a l o f f i o e r s i s a member o f ( d i f f e r e n t b u t e s s e n t i a l l y s i m i l a r ) s u o o e s s iv e groups c o n te n d in g w ith th e same ( o r e s s e n t i a l l y s i m i l a r ) s t r a t e g i o o r t a o t i o a l a i r fo ro e p ro b ­ le m ." — an a n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e s i m i l a r t o th e one p r e v io u s ly d e s c rib e d was u s e d . R a tin g s g iv e n e a o h s t a f f member i n t h e t a o t i o a l and i n th e s t r a t e g i c p roblem f o r e a c h o f th e s i x t r a i t s w ere c l a s s i f i e d and ta b u ­ l a t e d as i l l u s t r a t e d i n T a b le V. TABIE I I I F RATIOS STUDENTS » RATINGS ON TACTICAL PROBIEK P o sitio n •>^Rated " C h ie f of S ta ff T rait Knowledge Degrees o f Freedom *■ 1.9^ 19-193 * Thinking, Reaching 1.95 Sound Conclu­ sio n s Degrees o f Freedom 19-203 I n itia t iv e 3»79 Degrees o f 19-201 Freedom Cooperation in Group Work 1.33 Degrees o f 19-200 Freedom ** Organizing A b ility 3.30 Degrees o f Freedom 19-193 Expression Degrees o f Freedom ** 3-kS 19-201 O fficer in Charge of Personnel * 2 .0 0 19-150 o f f ic e r in Charge o f I h te lligen oe *« 2 .1 3 A s st. Eero ffio e r O fficer in Charge in Charge sonnel o f Opera- o f Supply O fficer tio n s ** ** * A sst. A sst. A sst. m t e l l i - Operations Supply genoe O ffioer O fficer O ffioer ** e Communi­ ca tio n s O ffioer 1.7k 2.53 1.9k ♦♦ 5 .0 0 15-67 19-137 19-115 19-157 ** ** ** I+.10 19-Sk ** 2.77 1.67 2.57 2.33 1.30 3.73 3.1*2 19-153 19-209 19-173 * 1.37 1.67 * 1 . 7k 19-150 19-156 19-209 I 9 -I 7I4. 19-32 15-6k 19-137 19-111 19-152 2.35 1.70 1 .5 3 1+.3S k.23 2 .S 2 .5 1 3.7k 19-151 19-159 19-175 19-93 15-63 2.63 19-13k 19-112 19-15k ** * 2.9k 2 .0 2 1.19 1.23 1.63 2.75 19-135 19-113 15-33 ** ** * 2 .1 0 19-152 * 1.72 19-135 ** 2.1+3 19-169 ** 3.93 19-116 ** 2 .6 2 19-92 * 19-139 1 .6 6 3.96 1.31 o.3k 19-211 ** 2 .0 3 19-170 19-169 19-213 ** ** ** ** 2 . 3k 2.05 1 . 1+6 3.77 2.k5 19-12jk 19- 1^6 ** 19-210 ** 2 .2 0 19-166 ** 5 .1 2 19-77 *e ** 2 . 1s 19-170 * S i g n i f i c a n t a t th e 5% l e v e l . 2.03 2.7k k.57 ♦* lk-53 ♦* 2 .7 0 e* 19-106 15-30 19-150 19-123 19-165 19-133 * * S ig n ifio a n t a t th e 1% l e v e l . (O nly 17 o u t o f 20 s t a f f s had an A s s is ta n t 19-171 19-219 I n te llig e n c e O f fic e r ) TABIE IV F RATIOS STUDENTS’ RATINGS ON STRATEGIC PROBLEM P o sitio n ^Rated Trait" Knowledge Degrees of Freedom T h ln ld jif, Reaohing Sound 'Conclusions Degrees o f Freedom I n itia t iv e Degrees o f Freedom Cooperation in Group Work Degrees o f Freedom Organizing A b ility Degrees o f Freedom Expression Degrees o f Freedom Command­ ing General m* 2 .7 9 O ffioer in Charge o f Per­ sonnel * +♦ 2 .1 9 4 .4 4 Chief Of S ta ff O ffioer in Charge of m te lligen oe ++ 4 .3 0 O ffioer in Charge o f Operatio n s ** 3.2-3 A sst. ComsmnioaA sst. Opera- Supply tio n s O ffioer O ffioer tio n s O ffioer ** as 2 .0 0 2 .0 2 1 .3 5 O ffioer in Charge of Supply A sst, p ersozmel O ffioer A sst. I n t e llig en o e O ffioer 1 .6 1 1 .4 6 1 .7 4 ^ -2 5 1 *♦ 1 .3 1 29-149 a 1 .7 7 29-256 ** 2 .1 1 29-347 * 1 .7 5 22-133 * 2 .2 4 2 9-233 ** 3 .0 9 2 9-256 ** 4 .5 1 ^ -3 5 0 a* 2 .3 9 29-253 2 9-156 1 .4 9 0 .9 3 29-169 ** 2 .3 4 29-352 ** 2 .6 3 2 9-354 ♦* 2 .5 4 12-1142 29-21*4 * ** 2 .9 3 2 .0 5 12-147 29-247 *4 ** 3 .5 0 1 .3 5 29-269 *♦ 4 .3 4 29-270 ** 2 .9 2 29-355 ♦a 4 .0 4 29-353 ** 2 .5 0 29-262 a* 2 .7 4 29-263 ** 2 .3 3 29-165 ** 2 .3 2 29-157 * 1 .6 4 29-176 ** 1 .3 3 29-132 ** 2 .3 0 29-260 * 1 .7 2 29-259 ** 1 .9 0 29-160 * 1 .4 7 29-163 ** 1 .3 5 29-266 ** 2 .2 7 29-266 ** 2 .0 2 29-350 ** 2 .6 6 12-143 * 2 .2 9 29-263 ** 3 .2 2 29-237 29-232 29-272 ** 2 .6 2 29-133 ** 1 .9 2 29-205 4 .1 7 29-360 ** 2 .3 1 3 .0 6 1.1*3 29-133 ** 2 .2 k 29-230 *♦ 2 .6 6 29-233 . 29-250 29-31*3 29-139 * 1 .7 9 2 9 -1 5 4 ** 2 .9 5 29-224 29 - 11*0 29-2.31 1.1*4 1J& 1 .9 6 29-166 29-199 29-270 29-172 29-279 ** 2.t*7 3 .tj2 z .t 5 .9 7 2 .5 6 29-249 ** 3 .0 5 29-353 12-146 29-262 29-237 29-361 29-275 29-354 * S ig n ific a n t a t the 3% le v e l* e* * * S ig n iflea n t a t the 1/S l e v e l. a* : (Only 13 o f 3 ° s t a f f s had a Chief o f S t a f f p o sitio n ) V>4 (XL TABLE V EATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS IN TWENTY DIFFERENT STAFFS TO THEIR RESPECTIVE CHIEFS OF STAFF ON ORGANIZING ABILITY IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM Sub- 73 it Z¥o.** *92.00 *91-00 W o o *oo.oo 9f.oo /M o o xYojjT ? o .i\ W .oo 2 2 *.oo SxY.oo *& *° V>J vO ItO The a n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e d a ta i n T able V I w ere o a lo u la te d b y u s in g th e san e p ro o ed u re as i l l u s t r a t e d f o r th e d a ta i n T a b le s I and I I . TABLE V I ANALYSE OF VARIANCE OF HETRTJCTCKS» RATINGS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE CHIEFS OF STAFF ON ORGANIZING ABILITY IN THE TACTICAL PROBIEM Mean S quare S ouroe o f V a ria tio n D egrees o f Freedom T o ta l 77 252 .3 7 19 20U.25 10.75 56 I46.12 0 .6 3 Betw een S t a f f O f fio e r Means W ith in S t a f f O f fio e r R a tin g s Suns o f S q u ares F R a tio 12.95** ** S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e 1% l e v e l . Tbs above p ro o ed u re -was used t o a n a ly z e r a t i n g s on a l l s i x t r a i t s g iv e n to * 1) S tu d e n t o f f io e r o s e rv in g i n a l l t e n s t a f f p o s itio n s o f th e t a o t i o a l pro b lem . 2) S tu d e n t o f f i o e r s s e rv in g i n a l l e le v e n s t a f f p o s itio n s o f t h e s t r a t e g i o problem . The 6 x 10 o r 60 F r a t i o s f o r th e t a o t i o a l problem a r e shown i n T able V I I . The 6 x 11 o r 66 r a t i o s f o r th e s t r a t e g i o problem a re shown i n T ab le V I I I . TABLE V H F RATIOS EETRUCTGBS' RATINGS COT TACTICAL PRQBIBM P o s itio n ^>»Rated C h ie f of S ta ff in itia tiv e D egrees o f Freedom C o o p eratio n i n Group Work D egrees o f Freedom O rg an isin g A b ility D egrees o f Freedom E x p re s sio n D egrees o f Freedom A s s t. A s s t. A s s t. I n t e l l i ­ O p e ra tio n s S u p p ly O f f ic e r O ffio e r gence O f fio e r aa aa a* 7 .6 7 4 .9 1 7 .U Conmunio a tia n s O f fio e r ** 7 .2 3 O f f ic e r i n Charge o f In te l­ lig e n c e aa 9 .6 0 19-5S a* 7 .3 2 19 -5 4 aa 4 .7 5 19-57 aa 7-49 19-56 *♦ 5 .4 3 19-57 ♦* 4 .7 0 19-49 aa 6 .6 5 14-33 aa 5 .2 4 19-49 aa 6 .0 3 19-53 a* 3 .9 7 19-50 aa 5 .3 1 19-59 aa g .3 3 19-55 19-57 , ** 6 .72 19-53 . !** 4 -4 i 19-47 ** 5 .6 5 15-39 . ** 4 .5 3 19-50 ** 7 .5 1 19-50 19-47 5.9k 19-57 aa 9 .0 3 4 .S 5 .5 4 19-53 1 9-5^ 19-53 19-57 19-53 19-55 16-40 19-52 19-55 19-55 aa 9 .5 2 aa 6 .3 9 ** k .k 7 ** 10.25 ** 11.03 aa 7 .5 4 aa 4 .0 7 aa 9 .0 2 a# 5 .1 7 aa 3 .4 3 19-59 19-53 19-59 ** 1 2 .95 19-59 aa 4 .6 9 aa 1 0.3 3 a* 1 1 .4 7 19-59 ** 4 .2 0 19-55 aa 3 .2 5 15-41 ** 4 .6 5 19-55 aa 6 .5 4 19-55 aa 5 .0 0 19-54 aa 2 .S 5 19-5S aa 1 5 .69 19-59 ai 6 .1 5 19-54 aa 9 .6 2 19-57 aa 9 .9 7 19-56 ** 5 .3 0 19-47 1 aa 5 .0 S 15-35 a"i 5 .6 2 17-41 aa 6 .9 6 19-45 aa 12.43 19-41 aa 5 .6 2 19-56 19-52 19-59 15-39 19-97 19-59 (O nly 17 o f 20 s t a f f s had an A s s i s ta n t I n t e ll i g e n c e O ffio e r) 19-52 19-53 T ra it Knowledge D egrees o f Freedom T h in k in g , R eaching Sound Conclu­ s io n s D egrees o f Freedom O f f ic e r O f f ic e r A s s t. P e r i n Charge i n Charge s o n n e l o f O pera- o f S u p p ly O f fio e r tio n s ** aa aa 6 .2 2 2 .9 e 7 .3 S O ffio e r i n Charge of P e rso n n e l ** 4 .4 3 19-59 19-59 ** S i g n i f i c a n t a t th e 1% l e v e l , aa 7 .0 4 j TAHE V I I I P RATIOS INSTRUCTORS1 RATINGS ON STRATEGIC FROBIEM P o sitio n '"'''\Rated T ra it Knowledge Degrees o f Freedom Thinking, Reaching Sound Conclusions Degrees o f Freedom I n itia t iv e Degrees o f Freedom Cooperation in Group Work Degrees o f Freedom Organizing A b ility Degrees o f Freedom Expression Degrees o f Freedom Command­ ing General ■ m a r O ffioer of S ta ff O fficer in Charge in Charge o f P ero f I n t e ls camel lig en o e o f f ic e r o f f ic e r in Charge in Charge o f Opera- o f Supply tio n s ** 2 .8 1 0.7 6 A sst, Persozmel O ffioer aa 5 .7 6 A sst. I n te l­ lig e n c e O ffioer A sst. Opera­ tio n s O fficer ** 7 .0 0 A S ^t. Supply O ffioer Communi­ ca tio n s O ffioer 2 .S 7 a* 3 .7 1 29-62 -------- we— S . 12 aa 3 .2 6 a ; 5 .S 3 29 -9 3 12-4+3 29-69 29-93 29-93 29-69 29-62 29-66 29-67 aa 7 .7 5 ** 4+.S9 ** 3 .0 2 aa 3 .7 6 ** 5 .6 2 ** 6 .0 9 a* 5 .3 5 a* 4+.21+ ** 4+.65 29-76 aa 4+.55 29-94+ aa 5.94+ 12-4+3 aa 7 .6 0 29-69 ** 3 .6 6 29-93 ** 5 .2 9 29-96 ** 6 .6 9 29-67 ** 9 .9 7 29-64+ ** 7.54+ 29-65 aa 5 .1 2 29-63 aa 6 .1 6 29-77 ** 6 .6 2 29-64+ aa 3 .5 9 29 -9 6 aa 5 -5 9 12-142 aa 6.1+3 29-54+ ** 4+.61+ 29-54+ ** 1+.33 29-97 ** 2 .1 3 29-91 29-97 aa 6 .5 0 29-90 aa 5 .5 6 29-68 aa 6 .5 9 29-60 *e 2 .6 7 29-65 a* 5 .5 6 29-91; aa 6 .7 5 32-4+3 ** 3 .1 6 29-95 ** 3 .6 6 29-54+ *♦ 4+.21 29-95 ** 7 .9 0 29-90 29-66 aa 3 .2 9 29-69 aa 6 .00 29-67 a* 4+.0S 29-60 ** 2 .7 6 29-65 aa 4+J+9 29-96 aa 12.91 12-4+1 29 -9 1 ** 5 .00 29-93 ** 9 .9 3 29-69 , ** 6 .7 1 26-70 29 -7 6 ^ ** 6 .9 5 29-60 26-67 IO . 3 S 29-91 . ** 1+.79 7 .1 6 i+.o£ 26-76 . *♦ 4+.32 2 9 -9 6 32-4+3 29-67 29-61 29-62 aa S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e 1% l e v e l . ** 6.4+6 ** 7 .1 5 5 .7 ? 3*4+0 29-90 26-61 29 -9 2 29 -9 6 29-94+ 29-95 (O nly 13 o f th e 30 s t a f f s had a C h ie f o f S t a f f p o s itio n ) aa 9 .0 6 . Out o f 126 analyses o f varianoe which wore used t o t e s t hypothe­ s i s 2 , a l l F r a tio s were s ig n if ic a n t at the 1 per oent le v e l* Hence, Hypothesis 2 i s f a l s e . To t e s t h y p o th e s is 3 - "W ith re fe re n c e t o th e r a t i n g s made by i n s t r u c t o r s and b y s tu d e n ts w ith r e s p e o t t o any ono t r a i t , th e r e a re no r e a l d if f e r e n c e s betw een th e mean r a te d perform ance o f o f f i o e r s a s s ig n e d t o a p a r t i c u l a r s t a f f r o l e and t h a t o f o tb s r o f f i o e r s a s sig n e d t o d i f f e r e n t s t a f f r o le s when eaoh o f th e s e v e r a l o f f io e r s ( a s s ig n e d to a p a r t i c u l a r s t a f f r o l e ) i s a member o f ( d i f f e r e n t b u t e s s e n t i a l l y sim ­ i l a r ) s u c c e s s iv e g roups o o n ten d in g w ith th e same (o r e s s e n t i a l l y s im ila r ) s t r a t e g i o o r t a o t i o a l a i r fo rc e problem*" - an anaL ysis o f v a ria n o e o f a tw o-w ay c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was u s e d . P o s itio n s o f o f f io e r s who w ere r a te d i n e ao h p ro b lem w ere c l a s s i f i e d on one a x is and r a t e r s ( i n s t r u c t o r and s tu d e n t) wero c l a s s i f i e d an th e o th e r ax is* t r a i t s w ere exam ined f o r b o th p ro b lem s. R a tin g s on eao h o f t h e s ix The m ethod o f unw eighted a v e r- 71 a g e s ' u s in g d is p r o p o r tio n a te s u b -o la s s numbers was u s e d . The d a t a i n T ab le EC i l l u s t r a t e th e u se o f t h i s method. Tn T a b le IX th e a v era g e r a t i n g s g iv e n b y b o th s tu d e n ts and i n ­ s t r u c t o r s a re shown f o r e a o h s t a f f p o s itio n a lo n g w ith th e number o f r a tin g s • T o ta l Sum o f S q u ares » 6«9 2 ♦ 6*9 2 + ••• Sum o f S q u ares Between P o s i tio n Mosms ■ 71 G. W. S n ed eo o r, loo* o it* TABUS EC A SUMMARY OP RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN TWENTY DIFFERENT STAPES ON KNOWLEDGE APPLIED TO THE SOLUTION OP THE TACTICAL PROBLEM P o sitio n s '^>^afced Raterfr^. No. o f R atings Students Average Rating No. o f Ratings In stru ctors Average Rating T otals Key: C^ A -l A -2 A-3 Comm. A-l* a / a - i a /a -2 a / a - 3 a/a-1* O ff. T otals 213 170 173 229 193 101* 63 157 135 177 6 .9 6.? 6 .7 6 .9 6 .9 6 . 1* 6 .3 6 .3 ■6 .3 7 .2 73 Ik 77 76 77 69 53 69 73 70 6 .6 6 .k 5 .3 5 .6 6 .1 6 .3 6 2 .3 1 2.3 12 . 1* 1 2 .3 1 2 .9 ll+.O 1 3 0 .0 A-l* A /A -l A/A-2 a/ a - 3 A/A-l* Comm. - O ffio e r i n Charge o f S u p p ly - A s s t. P e rs o n n e l O ffio e r - A s s t. I n t e llig e n c e O f fio e r - A s s t. O p e ra tio n s O ffio e r - A s s t. S u p p ly O ffio e r O ff. - Communications O f fio e r 6 .5 '6 . 5 1 3 .5 1 3 .3 1 2 .5 1 3 4 13-1* G/fe A -l A-2 A-3 - C h ie f o f S t a f f - O f f io e r i n Charge o f P e rs o n n e l - O f f io e r i n Charge o f I n t e ll i g e n c e - O f f io e r i n Charge o f O p e ra tio n s 6 7 .7 , 7 Sum o f Squares Between Hater Means - ■■■■*■■■■ ■ A£> 7 T ✓ S2- 1.46 Inter a c tio n Sum o f Squares ■ 3*24 - 1,63 - 1 .4 6 ■ 0 .15 Error Mean Square ■ jygp- ( + ••• + ) (Error Mean Square o f th e O riginal Data) (0 .2 1 ) ( 0 . 65 ) - .007 or .01 Error Mean Square » The Error Mean Square o f th e O riginal Data i s ca lc u la ted in Table X. TABIE X AN ANALYSE OP VARIANCE OP ORE INAL EATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN TWENTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON KNOWIEDGE APPLIED TO THE SOLUTION OF THE TACTICAL PROBLEM Souroe o f V a ria tio n T otal Degrees of Freedom Sum of Squares Mean Square 1526.74 0 .6 5 235k Between O ffioer Means W ithin O ffioer Ratings by th e Same Group 19 2335 The complete a n a ly sis i s shown in Table XI. TABIE X I AN ANAI/YSE OF VARIANCE OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN TWENTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON KNOWLEDGE APPLIED TO THE SOLUTION OF THE TACTICAL PROBLEM S ouroe o f V a r ia tio n D egrees o f Freedom T o ta l Sum o£ S q u ares Mean Square F R a tio 19 3.2k P o s itio n s 9 1.63 0 . 1S 1S .00 R a te r s 1 l.k 6 1 . 1+6 ik 6 .oo D x te ra o tio n ( P o s itio n s x R a te r s ) 9 0.15 0 .0 2 E rro r 2335 * S i g n i f i c a n t a t th e 3% l e v e l . • . ** ** 2 . 00 * 0 .0 1 ** S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e 1% l e v e l . 72 The d a t a i n T a b le s X V III and XIX' were t r e a t e d i n th e sane m anner as th e p re c e d in g r a t i n g s on Knowledge t o o b ta in an a n a ly s is o f v a ria n o e o f r a t i n g s on T h in k in g (s e e T able XX). 73 S im i l a r l y th e d a ta i n 7k T a b le s XXI th ro u g h L w ere u sed t o o b ta in a n a ly se s o f v a ria n o e o f r a t ­ in g s on th e o th e r t r a i t s f o r th e t a o t i o a l and s t r a t e g i o problem s. Out o f t h e tw e lv e a n a ly s e s o f v a ria n o e (T ab les X I, XX, X X III, XXVI, XXIX, XXXII, XXXV, XXXVIII, XLI, XLIV, XLVII and L) 75 whioh w ere u sed t o t e s t H y p o th e sis 3* n il tw elv e F r a t i o s w hioh were made on r a t e r means w ere s i g n i f i o a n t a t th e 1 p e r c e n t l e v e l . T h is ev id en o e combined w ith t h a t w hioh i s o b ta in e d by in s p e c tin g th e tw elv e summaries of See a p p e n d ix . 75 I b id . r a t i n g s made b y s tu d e n ts and i n s t r u c t o r s (T a b le s IX, X V III, XXI, XXIV, 76 XXVII, XXX, XXXIII, XXXVI, XXXIX, X L II, XLV and XLVHl) shows t h a t f o r e ao h t r a i t r a t e d s tu d e n ts te n d e d t o be more l e n i e n t th a n i n s t r u c t o r s in th e ir ra tin g s . S i m i l a r l y , a l l tw elve F r a t i o s w h ich w ere made on p o s i t i o n means w ere s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e 1 p e r c e n t l e v e l (T a b le s X I, XX, X X III, XXVI, XXIX, XXXII, XXXV, XXXVIII, XLI , XLIV, XLVII and L)V T h is e v id e n c e a lo n g w ith t h a t w hioh i s o b ta in e d b y in s p e c tin g th e tw e lv e summ aries o f r a t i n g s made b y s tu d e n ts and i n s t r u c t o r s (T ables IX, X V III, XXI, XXIV, XXVII, XXX, XXXIII, XXXVI, XXXIX, X L II, XLV, and X LV III) shows t h a t b o th s tu d e n ts and i n s t r u c t o r s a lik e had a ten d e n c y t o g iv e s i g n i f i o a n t l y h ig h e r r a t in g s t o o f f i c e r s s e rv in g i n p o s itio n s o f im p o rtan c e th a n t o th o se s e rv in g i n m inor p o s itio n s as a s s i s t a n t s . T h is wan a p p a re n t f o r r a t in g s b y b o th i n s t r u c t o r s and s tu d e n ts i n t h e t a o t i ­ o a l p roblem b u t o n ly f o r r a t i n g s b y i n s t r u c t o r s i n th e s t r a t e g i o problem . S tu d e n ts te n d e d t o g iv e o f f i c e r s s e rv in g as a s s i s t a n t s h ig h e r r a tin g s i n th e s t r a t e g i c p ro b lem . I t i s a ls o i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o te t h a t i n th e t a o t i o a l p ro b le m , i n t e r a c t i o n wan s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e 5 P®r o e n t le v e l o n ly on Know ledge, I n i t i a t i v e , C o o p e ra tio n and O rg an isin g A b i l i t y 79 (T a b le s X I, X X III, XXVI, and XXIX). However, i n th e s t r a t e g i c problem , i n t e r a c t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e 1 p e r c e n t l e v e l on a l l t r a i t s r a te d N SO e x o e p t E x p re s s io n (T ab les XXXV, XXXVIII, XLI, XLIV, and XLVII). Thus i t a p p e ars t h a t as b o th i n s t r u c t o r s and s tu d e n ts g a in e d e x p e rie n c e in t h e s e s t a f f p ro b le m s, th e y te n d e d t o v a lu e th in g s d i f ­ fe re n tly . In g iv in g r a t i n g s on E x p re s s io n , t h e r e was no i n t e r a c t i o n i n e i t h e r problem * The above d a ta show t h a t H y p o th e sis 3 1® f a l s e . To t e s t H y p o th e sis - "W ith r e f e r e n c e t o th e r a t in g s made by i n s t r u c t o r s and s tu d e n ts w i t h .r e s p e c t t o any one t r a i t , n e i t h e r i n ­ s t r u c t o r s n o r s tu d e n t s t a f f s w i l l e x h i b i t a h ig h d e g re e o f r e l i a b i l i t y i n t h e i r a b i l i t y t o r a t e th e p erform ance o f o f f i o e r s (a s s ig n e d t o d i f ­ f e r e n t r o l e s ) when eao h o f f i o e r i s a member o f ( d i f f e r e n t b u t e s s e n ­ t i a l l y s i m i l a r ) s u o o e s s iv e g roups c o n te n d in g w ith t h e same ( o r e s s e n ­ t i a l l y s im i l a r ) s t r a t e g i o o r t a o t i o a l a i r f o r c e p ro b lem ." - f iv e s t a f f s w ere s e le o te d a t random from t h e t a o t i o a l problem and f iv e s t a f f s a t random from t h e s t r a t e g i o p ro b lem . S tu d e n ts ’ r a t i n g s on eao h o f f i o e r were d iv id e d a t random i n t o tw o groups f o r eaoh t r a i t and th e av erag e r a t i n g s o f e a o h group w ere c o r r e l a t e d u s in g th e P e a rso n Product-M oment C o r r e la tio n C o e f f i c i e n t . The r e s u l t s w ere s te p p e d up b y th e Spearm an- Brown Form ula t o o b ta in th e r e l i a b i l i t y o f r a t in g s o f th e e n t i r e group o f s tu d e n ts * S in o e o n ly one i n s t r u o t o r r a t e d eaoh s t a f f o r group o f s t u d e n t s , i t was im p o ss ib le t o o b ta in th e r e l i a b i l i t y o f i n s t r u c t o r s 1 r a t i n g s by u s in g d i f f e r e n t i n s t r u o t o r s o b se rv in g th e same g ro u p . How­ e v e r , i n s t r u c t o r s ’ r a t i n g s on two su o o e ss iv e d a y s , th e second and th e t h i r d , were u se d t o o b t a i n a m easure o f t h e i r r e l i a b i l i t y i n r a t i n g . T able X I I shows th e r e l i a b i l i t y o f i n s t r u c t o r s ' and s tu d e n t s ' r a t in g s on e a o h ite m o f th e r a t i n g s o a le f o r b o th th e t a o t i o a l and th e s t r a t e ­ g io problem s* 49 TABLE X I I RELIABILITY OP INSTRUCTORS' AND STUDENTS' RATINGS OP STAPP MEMBERS' PERFORMANCE ON THE TACTICAL AND STRATEGIC PROBLEMS T ra it Knowledge T h in k in g I n i t i a t i v e Coopera­ O rg an izin g E x p re ssio n ^ R a te d A b ility tio n P ro b lem ^ R a tin g s R a tin g s R a tin g s R a tin g s R a tin g s R a tin g s I n s t r S tu d I n s t r s t u d I n s t r S tu d I n s t r S tu d I n s t r Stud. In 's'tr s iu d T a o tio a l .5 5 .6 4 .5 2 .3 2 .6 0 .25 .77 .3 6 .5 9 .5 6 .77 .62- S tra te g io .6 2 .4 0 •53 .2 7 .5 3 .49 .53 .25 .5 9 .1 2 .3 4 .5 9 R e l i a b i l i t i e s o f i n s t r u c t o r s ' r a t i n g s on eao h t r a i t v a r ie d from .52 t o .04* th e av e ra g e b e in g .6 3 . R e l i a b i l i t i e s o f s tu d e n t s t a f f s ' r a t i n g s v a r i e d fro m .1 2 t o .6 4 , t h e av erag e b e in g .4 l« B oth i n s t r u c t o r s ' and s tu d e n t s t a f f s ' r e l i a b i l i t i e s w are h ig h e s t on r a t i n g E x p re s sio n and low­ e s t on r a t i n g T h in k in g . I t would a p p e a r from th e d a ta t h a t a s in g le i n s t r u c t o r r a t e d more r e l i a b l y th a n a g ro u p o f s tu d e n t s . However, i t sh o u ld b e p o in te d o u t t h a t i n s t r u c t o r s ' r a tin g s on th e seoond and t h i r d days were u sed and a lth o u g h th e r a t in g s w ere t h e o r e t i c a l l y in d ep en d en t t h e y u n d o u b te d ly w ere in flu e n c e d b y s y s te m a tic e r r o r whioh would te n d t o r a i s e th e r e l i a b i l i t y . I f a h ig h d eg ree o f r e l i a b i l i t y i s d e f in e d t o be .3 5 o r b e t t e r , t h e n H y p o th esis 4 i s t r u e . To t e s t H y p o th esis 5 “ "R a tin g s on c e r t a i n t r a i t s o f o f f i o e r s s e r v in g i n c e r t a i n s t a f f p o s it io n s a re e a s i e r t o make th a n a re r a t i n g s on o th e r t r a i t s o f o f f i o e r s s e r v in g i n d i f f e r e n t s t a f f p o s i t i o n s ." C h i-sq u a re t e s t s w ere made on th e number o f r a t in g s g iv e n b y b o th s t u ­ d e n ts and i n s t r u c t o r s and th e number e x p eo ted b y e a o h . The ex p eo ted number o f r a t i n g s g iv e n on e a o h t r a i t i n th e t a o t i o a l problem was SO b eo au se t h e r e w ere 20 s t a f f s w hioh were r a t e d b y t h e i r i n s t r u c t o r s on fo u r d if f e r e n t days. The a c t u a l number o f r a t i n g s g iv e n a re shown i n gi ea o h o e l l o f T ab les L I and L I I . T hese numbers w ere eao h m u ltip lie d b y a f a c t o r t o b r in g th e a c t u a l t o t a l , row o r column, t o th e ex p eo ted t o t a l , £00 o r 1|£0. C h i-sq u a re t e s t s on th e number o f r a t i n g s g iv e n b y i n s t r u c t o r s t o s tu d e n ts i n th e t a o t i o a l problem fo llo w : U sing th e d a t a i n T a b le L I £2 C h i-sq u a re (Knowledge) - (£7 -£of+(£3 -£ 0?+(£6-£ 0?+(£5-£o?+(£6-£0?+(77-£ 0 )+(59-£0 )+(77-gO?+(£2 -£of+(7£-£o‘ 155 C h i-sq u a re (Knowledge) ■ - 7*7^ S i m i l a r l y C h i-sq u a re (T h in k in g ) ■ Chi-square (in itia tiv e ) ■ C h i-sq u a re (C o o p e ra tio n ) " 7 «0£ 5*53 C h i-sq u a re (O rg a n iz in g A b i l i t y ) » 13«25 C h i-sq u a re (E x p re ssio n ) ■ 6 .5 3 F o r 9 d eg ree s o f freedom , a v a lu e o f 16*92 i s needed f o r s i g n i f i ­ cance a t th e 5 p o r c e n t l e v e l . U sing th e d a t a in T a b le L H C h i-sq u a re (C h ie f o f S t a f f ) ■ ( 7 9 - ^ 0? + ( 6 l - £ 0? + ( 7 9 - ^ 0? + ( S l - £ 0? + ( 7 9 - ^ o f + ( ^ l - « 50? £------------- §0 _ 6 25“ _ „ rtfl} u ,u o Sim ilarly, Chi-square (A -l) - 0 .2 2 Chi-square (A-2) - 0 .2 0 Chi-square (A-5) ■ 0 .1 0 Chi-square (A-k) - 0 .0 2 Chi-square (Asst. A-l) - 0.92 Chi-square (Asst. A-2) - 0 .6 0 Chi-square (Asst. A-3) - 3 .1 0 Chi-square (Asst. A-k) - 1 .0 2 Chi-square (Comm. Off.) - 2 .1 3 For 5 degrees of freedom, a valuo of oanoe a t t h e 5 P®** o s n t l e v e l . C h i-sq u a re t e s t s on th e number o f r a t in g s g iv e n b y s tu d e n ts t o t h e i r f e llo w s tu d e n ts i n th e t a o t i o a l problem w i l l now be made. th e d a t a i n T ab le L I I I 2k U sing and th e g r e a t e s t number o f r a t i n g s g iv e n on any s o a le t o s tu d e n ts s e rv in g i n a p a r t i o u l a r p o s it i o n as t h e ex p e o te d num ber, C h i-sq u a re (Knowledge) ■ (2k 0-223f . (137-190^ 223 190 (91-99! 99 (175-172! 172 ( 190-191^ 191 (252-239! 239 (lkg-155! 155 (I9k-129! + 129 (232-203! 205 ( Ilk -1 3 ^ !, 7 .5 7 S i m i l a r l y C h i-sq u a re (Thi n k in g) - 10.k2 C h i-sq u a re ( i n i t i a t i v e ) ■ 5*71 C h i-sq u a re (C o o p e ra tio n ) ■ 0 .0 k C h i-sq u a re (O rg a n isin g A b i l i t y ) - 20.32 ^C C h i-sq u a re (E x p re ss io n ) ■ 1 J+5 ♦F o r 9 d e g re e s o f freedom , a v a lu e o f 16.92 i s needed f o r s ig n if ic a n c e a t t h e 5 p e r o e n t l e v e l ; a v a lu e o f 2 1.67 i s needed f o r s ig n if ic a n c e a t th e 1 p e r oent le v e l. Using the data in Table LIV^ 2 2 2 2 , . _ x 2(221-223) *(226-223 )+2(22U-223)+(223-223) Chi-square (Chief of S ta ff) ---- -— — ■ ---C h i-sq u a re (C h ie f o f S t a f f ) » 19 ■ 0*09 S i m i l a r l y C h i-sq u a re (A -l) ■ 3*77 C h i-sq u a re (A -2) ■ 2 .3 5 C h i-sq u a re (A -3) " 0 .514C h i-sq u a re (A-i+) ■ 1*19 C hi-B quare ( A s s t. A - l) ■ 13*35 C h i-sq u a re ( A s s t. A -2) ■ 6 .3 3 C h i-sq u a re ( A s s t. A -3) ■ 6 . OS C h i-sq u a re (A s s t. A-1+)* 3 .5 ^ Chi-square (Coranunicat ions Offioer) ■ 3*29 ♦For 5 degrees of freedom, a value of 11.07 is needed for s ig n ifi oanoe at the 5 P°r oent le v e l. The expected number of ratings given on eaoh soale in the stra te­ gic problem by instructors was 120 beoause there were 30 sta ffs whioh w ere rated b y their aa signed instructors on four differen t days. How­ ever, the Chief of S ta ff position was f ille d in only 13 of the 30 sta ffs henoe the expeoted number of ratings on eaoh soale for th is position was only 52. The aotual number of ratings given are shown in eaoh o e ll of Tables LV and LVI. 36 These numbers were eaoh multiplied by a factor to bring the aotual t o t a l, rows or oolumns, to the expeoted t o ta l. Chi- square te s ts on the number of ratings given by instructors to students in the strategio problem follows giT Using the data in. Table L Chi-square (Knowledge) «* 2 ( 126-120)+2( 122-12pf+( 123-12of+2( 115-120?+(119-12of+(120-120?+(lQg-12of 2 120 * (57-52) Chi-square (Knowledge) ■ 2.8>5 Sim ilarly Chi-square (Thinking) a 3.21+ Chi-square ( in itia tiv e ) ■ 2.30 Chi-square (Cooperation) ■ 2.25 Chi-square (Organizing A b ility) ■ 10.35 Chi-square (Expression) ■ 3»k& For 9 degrees o f freedom, a value o f 16.92 is needed for s ig n ifi­ cance at the 5 per oent le v e l. SS Using the data in Table LVI Chi-square (Commanding General) ■ ( ll£>-12of+2 ( 119- 12of +3( 121- 12of ■ 120 Sim ilarly Chi-square (Chief of S ta ff) - 0.02 Chi-square (A-l) » 0 .3 0 Chi-square (A-2) ■ 0 .1 6 Chi-square (A-3 ) » 0 .1 2 Chi-square U -k) - 0.13 Chi-square (Asst. A -l) = 2.13 Chi-square (Asst. A-2) » l.lfiS O.OSJ Chi-square (Asst. A-3) “ 0*55 Chi-square (Asst. A-1+) ■ 1.66 Chi-square (Communications Offioer) - O.72 For 5 degrees of freedom, a value of 11.07 Is needed for s ig n if i­ cance at the 5 P®r ° 0nt le v o l. Chi-square te sts on the number of ratings given by students to th eir fellow students in the strategio problem w ill now be made. 29 the data in Table LVII Using and the groatest number o f ratings given on any soale to students serving in a particular position as the expeoted number, Chi-square (Knowledge) 321+ 161 29s Sim ilarly Chi-square (Thinking) ■ J+.25 Chi-square (in itia tiv e ) » lj..l6 Chi-square (Cooperation) ■ 0.03 Chi-square (Organizing A b ility) - 19*01* Chi-square (Expression) ■ 1.61* ♦For 10 degrees of freedom, a value of 12.31 is needed for signifioanoe at the 5 P°r osnt le v e l) a value of 23.21 is needed for signifioanoe at the 1 per oent le v e l. Using the data in Table LVH3?° Chi-square (Commanding General) ■ (379-3SU) + ■ + 2(386-3auf + ( 332 - 3 ^ - g . Chi-square (Commanding General) ■ 5 H + (3&5- 3&$ ’ ° ' 10 Sim ilarly Chi-square (Chief of S ta ff) ■ Chi-square (A-l) ■ 3*W* Chi-square (A-2) - U.15 Chi-square (A-3) - 0.1|2 Chi-square (A-4) - 2.95 Chi-square (Asst. A -l) ■ 6 .3 6 Chi-square (Asst. A-2) a 9*l46 Chi-square (Asst. A-3) - 5*70 Chi-3 quare (Asst. Arb) - 7*03 Chi-square (Communications Offioer) ■ 5*92 For 5 degrees of freedom, a value of 11.07 is needed for s ig n if i­ oanoe at the 5 P0r oent le v e l. Based upon the number of omissions, Chi-square te sts showed that instructors had some d iffic u lty in rating organizing a b ility and a s s is t­ ants* p osition s. None of the t e s t s were sign ifican t at the 5 P®r oent le v e l, however. Students had quite a l i t t l e d iffic u lty in rating organ­ izin g a b ilit y (Chi-square sig n ifica n t a t the 5 P®** oent le v e l for both problems) and some d iffic u lty in rating thinking and knowledge. They also found i t ea sier to rate students serving in important s ta ff posi­ tion s than those serving as a ssista n ts. Only one Chi-square te s t was sig n ifica n t at the 5 P®r oal*k le v e l, namely, the one on ratings given to a ssista n t personnel officers in tbs ta o tio a l problem. However, Chi-square values for a ll assistan t positions in both problems were noticeably higher than those for positions of importance. The above data show that Hypothesis 5 is tru e. To t e s t Hypothesis 6 - "Ratings made by both students and in­ structors an fewer than s ix tr a its w ill oorrelate highly with composite ratings of whioh they aro a part." - correlations of ratings on eaoh of the six tr a its with composite ratings were made for o fficers rated in eaoh s t a f f position in eaoh problem by both students and instructors. Sinoe an omission would not permit intercorrelations to be com­ puted, only those ratings whioh were made by raters on a ll s ix tr a its were used. The sum of the ratings on a ll six tr a its was used to deter­ mine a students' fin a l rating. Interoorrolations for ratings made in the ta o tio a l problem are shown in Tables LIX to LXXIX.91 Interoorrola­ tions for ratings made in the strategio problem are shown in Tables LXXEC to C. 92 The above-mentioned interoorrolations on ratings given by both instructors and students aro high. This shows that there is a lo t of halo e ffe c t present and that raters are undoubtedly rating on just one faotor - a b ility to do the sp eoifio job. The multiple correlation teohnique was used to indioate how w ell oamposite ratings for eaoh s ta ff position in eaoh problem could have been predicted from ratings on two or more t r a it s . It was thought that perhaps a pattern of important t r a it s would appear depending upon the s t a f f p osition rated. First-order partial correlation ooeffioients wore oaloulated holding constant the ratings of the t r a it that had the highest correlation with the composite rating. The formula whioh was used is r r 13 ”rl 2 “ 1 3 .2 r- r23 * ! (1 ‘ r i2 a ) <1 - r 232 ) where r stands for the relationship between composite ratings (to t- iable 1 ) and a tr a it rating (variable 3 ) when values in the tr a it having the highest correlation with the oomposito rating (variable 2 ) are held constant. After the f ir s t partial correlation co efficien ts were a ll oalou­ lated , the highest one in eaoh instanoe was seleoted in order to cal­ culate the multiple correlation based upon two t r a it s . The formula whioh was used is 1 "R1 (23 ) “ ^1 ”ri 2 ^ ^ " r35.2) where R ./0_. is the multiple correlation between composite ratings and ratings on two of the t r a it s . Table i n i shows multiple correlations based upon two t r a it s . After two t r a it s were found niiioh had the highest relationship with the oomposite rating, they were held oonstant and Beoond order p artial correlation co efficien ts were oaloulated using the formula r ll *.23 r llj..2 **r 13»2 r3U.2 where r . stands for the relationship between oomposite ratings li+.23 (variable 1 ) and a t r a it rating (variable lj.) when values in the two tr a its having the highest multiple correlation with the oomposite rating (variables 2 and 37aro held oonstant* Multiple correlations based upon three tr a its were oaloulated using the formula ” 6 * * ) ■ (i- 4 > c x ^ and are shown in Table XIV. Upon studying Tables XXII and XIV, one discovers that the tr a it s , in itia tiv e , Organizing A b ility and Thinking, contribute muoh more fre­ quently to the multiple correlations with oomposite ratings than do the other three t r a it s . As a resu lt, multiple correlations with composite ratings using these three tr a its were oaloulated and are shown in Table XV. Multiple correlations of ratings oh these tr a its with oom­ posite ratings given in the ta o tio a l and the strategic problems vary from *93 to *99 and average slig h tly less than . 9 7 , the average multi­ ple correlation using the best three t r a it s . Eenoe, i t appears that students could be rated on In itia tiv e , Organizing A b ility and Thinking only, thus reduoing the task of rating by f i f t y per cen t. A oertain amount of spurious correlation is introduced by corre­ latin g ratings on one t r a it with the oomposite whioh is formed by summing i t and fiv e other ratings. This point was investigated by correlating ratings on one t r a it with the sum of the other fiv e and making the com­ parison in Table XVI for fiv e sets of ratings seleoted at random from the ta o tio a l problem. Table XVI shows that the spuriousness was rela tiv ely small. Since composite ratings were used to determine students' grades, i t appears that the correlation methods used to te s t Hypothesis 6 were appropriate. TABIE X I I I MULTIPLE CORRELATIONS OP EATINGS ON TITO THAITS WITH COMPOS H E RATINGS GIVEN IN THE TACTICAL AND STRATEGIC PROBIE1S P o s itio n s "^■ ^^R afced _ R aters""--------T a o tio a l Problem in s tru c to rs S tra te g io Problem T a o tio a l Problem S “fcUuGXTM S tra te g ic Problem C.G. c/fe A-2 A-3 A-k Rl( 2 6 ) .95 r 1(36) Ri m .9 2 RK3U) .93 •9k Rl(U 7) .9 5 *l{3k) •9k **1(31*) .95 Rl(l*6) .95 Rl( 2 5 ) .95 RK 3 6 ) .95 *Hk6) (3U) Hl( 3 6 ) .95 RK31 j.) * 1 (3 6 ) r K 3W .97 .9 5 *1(31*) RK 3 6 ) •9k •9U 1 - Composite Rating 2 - Knowledge 3 - T hinking 1+ - I n itia tiv e A -l r K3U) RU3k) Rl( 2 i|) •91 . ri •9k .9 6 •9k A sst A -l A sst A-3 A sst Coramunio a tio n s O ffio e r A-k Rl(2 6 ) Rl( 5 6 ) .9 7 .95 Rl( 6 7 ) .95 Rl(3ij-) .9 ^ * 1 (3 6 ) •93 RK 3 6 ) r K3U) ri •95 .9 6 RK 3 4 ) .9 3 *1(1(6) .9 7 Rl ( 3 5 ) **1(27) .9 6 •9k ^ (3 6 ) •95 *l(3k) * i(3 W .9 It RK3U) RK 3 5 ) •9k •95 **1(36) .9 7 Rl( 2 6 ) Ri( 6 7 ) * 1 (3 5 ) .9 6 .95 .9 6 A sst A-2 (36) •90 .9 5 •9k 5 - Cooperation 6 - Organizing A bility 7 - Expression **1(23) - Multiple Correlation of Composite Rating with Knowledge and Thinking VJl vo TABLE XIV MULTIPIE CORRELATIONS OP RATINGS ON THREE TRAITS WITH COMPOSITE RATINGS GIVEN IN THE TACTICAL AND STRATEGIC PROBIE1E i__________ 1___ Positions ■^^Rated Raters^------Taotioal Problem instructors Strategio Problem C.G. “ 1 ( 347 ) .9« p Rl(3l46) 1(21+6) .96 .96 Taotioal Problem Staidantis Strategic Problem c/fc Rl(3l46) .97 1(3*45) .77 1(3146) .92 1 - Composite Rating 2 - Knowledge 3 - Thinking k - in itia tiv e A -l A-2 A-3 A-i4 Asst A -l \ Asst A-2 Asst A-3 Asst A-I4 Comm Off Rl(l467) *1(357) *1(246) Rl(356) Rl(367) Rl(3l46) •9S .92 •92 •97 •97 .97 p Rl(3U6) 1(367) 1(314-5) Rl(3l46 ) Rl(3l47) Rl(3i46) 1(356) 1(367) 1(3146) .92 .92 .96 .96 .96 .96 .97 .95 .97 *1(3146) .97 R1(267) Rl(356) •97 .97 R1 ( 2U6 ) Rl(257) Rl(356) .97 .97 •97 1(3145) .97 1(3146) .97 1(3145) .97 Rl(3l46) Rl(3l46) Rl(357) Rl(267) r1(3U6) Rl(3U6) .92 .99 .97 .97 •97 •92 1(356) .97 1(2314) .97 1(347) .97 1(357) .97 1(3146) •99 K 2I46) .97 5 - Cooperation 6 - Organizing A b ility 7 - Expression 1(2314-) - Multiple Correlation of Composite Rating with Knowledge, Thinking and In itiative 61 TABLE XV MULTIPLE CORRELATIONS OF RATINGS Oil THINKING, INITIATIVE AND ORGANIZING ABILITY WITH COMPOSITE RATINGS GIVEN IN TEE TACTICAL AND STRATEGIC FROBIE1E ' Position "'-^Ratad Ratar3>''>^ C.'G. Taotioal Problem Instructors S trategic Problem Taotioal Problem Students Strategio Problem r c/s' a-T A-2 a -3 a -1£ Asst Asst Asst Asst Comm A -l A-2 A-3 A-4j. Off ' • .93 .97 .97 .97 .97 .97 .95 .97 .9 6 •97 .96 .95 .97 .96 .97 .97 . 9k .96 .93 .96 •93 .97 .97 .95 .97 .96 .99 .96 .95 .97 .97 .96 .96 .97 .95 .97 .97 .97 .97 .99 •96 .97 TABLE XVI SPURIOUS CORRELATION IN CORRELATING RATINGS WITH TEE COMPOSITE RATINGS IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM Position Rated Chief of S ta ff Instructors Thinking Students Knowledge Correla­ TTiTFerCorrela­ tio n with tion with enoe Composite Sum of Other Five Ratings . 8$ “ •5 3 " 1 .92 .66 1 .61 .07 instructors Organization .90 .66 C Vl 0. U telligenoe Offioer Operations Offioer Assistant Personnel Offioer A ssistant Personnel Offioer Rated by Trait Ihstruotors Thinking .93 .69 . 01+ Students .93 .69 . 01+ Organization S in o e th e m u l t i p l e c o r r e l a t i o n s u s in g t h e t h r e e t r a i t s , In itia ­ t i v e , O rg a n iz in g A b i l i t y and T h in k in g , y i e l d e d v a lu e s a v e r a g in g .9 7 » i t was f e l t t h a t t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f r a t i n g s s h o u ld b e s t u d i e d f u r t h e r . The r e l i a b i l i t i e s o f s t u d e n t s ' and i n s t r u c t o r s ' r a t i n g s on t h e above t h r e e t r a i t s w are com pared v /ith t h e r e l i a b i l i t i e s o f t h e i r o o m p o site r a t i n g s . C om posite r a t i n g s g iv e n b y t h e f i v e s t a f f s fro m t h e t a o t i o a l p ro b le m and b y t h e f i v e s t a f f s fro m th e s t r a t e g i o p ro b le m w h io h w ere u s e d t o t e s t h y p o th e s is U w ere s t u d i e d . S t u d e n t s ' r a t i n g s on e a o h o f f i o e r w ere d iv id e d a t random i n t o tw o g ro u p s f o r t h e sum o f t h e above t h r e e t r a i t s and a g a in f o r t h e o o m p o site r a t i n g s . A verage r a t i n g s o f e a o h group w ere c o r r e l a t e d u s in g t h e P e a rs o n Produot-M om ent C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t . The r e s u l t s w ere s te p p e d up b y t h e Spearm an-B row n F o rm u la t o o b t a i n t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f r a t i n g s o f t h e e n t i r e g ro u p o f s tu d e n t s i n e a o h s t a f f . S in o e o n ly one i n s t r u o t o r r a t e d e a o h s t a f f o r g ro u p o f s tu d e n tB , i t was im p o s s ib le t o o b t a i n t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f i n s t r u c t o r s ' r a t i n g s by u s in g d i f f e r e n t i n s t r u c t o r s o b s e r v in g t h e same g ro u p . H ow ever, i n s t r u c ­ t o r s ' r a t i n g s on tw o s u o o e s s iv e d a y s , t h e seo o n d and t h i r d , w ere u sed t o o b t a i n a m easu re o f t h e i r r e l i a b i l i t y i n r a t i n g . T a b le X V II shows t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f i n s t r u c t o r s ' and s t u d e n t s ' r a t i n g s o n f i r s t , In itia ­ t i v e , O rg a n iz in g A b i l i t y and T h in k in g and t h e n on o o m p o site r a t i n g s u s in g a l l s i x s c a l e s . In o am p arin g t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f r a t i n g s on t h e t h r e e t r a i t s , i n i t i a t i v e , O rg a n iz in g A b i l i t y and T h in k in g , w i t h t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f r a t i n g s a n a l l s i x s c a l e s , one f i n d s t h a t t h e fo rm e r a r e o n ly s l i g h t l y s m a l l e r t h a n t h e l a t t e r f o r b o th i n s t r u o t o r s ’ and s t u d e n t s ' r a t i n g s . Thus, i t appears that ratings on the three t r a it s , In itia tiv e , Organiz­ ing A b ility and Thinking oon be used to appraise students' performance on these problems beoause the multiple correlations with oomposite rat­ ings are high and the r e lia b ilit ie s are only s lig h tly le ss than those obtained for oomposite ratings* Henoe, the data tend to confirm Hypothesis 6 * TABUS XVII RELIABILITY OF INSTRUCTORS' AND STUDENTS' RATINGS OF STAFF MEMBERS' PERFORMANCE ON THE TACTICAL AND STRATEGIC PROBLEMS .^Traits I n itia tiv e , Organizing ^ ‘Sv^^R ated A b ility and Thinking ProbleSS*^ Raters Instructors Students Taotioal .61 .51 Strategio .72 .L2 Composite Ratings (Six Soales) Raters Students Instruotors .7 6 .5 9 ,b& CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUS IONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY SUMMARY The purposes of th is study were (1) to determine i f ratings ; given by instruotors and students to officers serving in planning s t a f f positions indioate that there are real differences in their performances; (2 ) to discover instructors’ and students' rating ten­ dencies and the effe o t of the s ta ff position of the o fficers whose performance was rated upon these tendencies; ( 3 ) to determine the r e lia b ilit y of ratings made by instruotors and students (i+) to deter­ mine i f oertain tr a its are easier to rate than others and i f officers serving in oertain s t a ff positions are easier to rate than others; and ( 5 ) to investigate the p o ssib ility of using fewer rating soales in rating o ffic e r s' performance in s t a ff p osition s. Students were assigned to the differen t s ta ffs and to s ta ff positions at random so that analysis of varianoe could be used. Each instructor who rated was assigned to a s t a ff in the same manner. The graphic rating scales were presented to instruotors and stu­ dents by the o fficer in oharge of evaluation in a briefing on how to use the rating so a les. Students had had several previous rating experi­ ences in the school in that they rated each other in oral expression several tin es ju st prior to taking part in the ta o tio a l and strategio problems. Most instruotors had participated in in-service rater tra in - FINDINGS 1* Differences in the perfonnanoe of offioera serving in & s t a f f position as measured by ratings o f their fellow s ta ff offioers and their instruotors oannot be attributed to ohanoe alone. 2. Instruotors and students had a tendency to rate offioers serving in key s t a ff positions more len ien tly than they rated th eir subordinates. 3. Students rated th eir fellow s ta ff offioers more len ien tly than did instruotors. If. There was interaction between instruotors' and students' ratings on a ll tr a its exoept Expression and th is interaction increased with experience in the sta ff problems. 5. Students found i t easier to rate the performance of their fellow offioers serving in positions of importanoo than to rate the perfonnanoe of those serving in minor positions as assistan ts. 6. Both instructors and students had more d iffic u lty in rating students on Organizing A b ility than on any other t r a it . 7. Students and instruotors rated most reliab ly on Expression and lea st relia b ly on Thinking. S. Although the r e lia b ilitie s o f instruotors' and students' ratings on most tr a its were rela tiv ely low, the r e lia b ilitie s of th eir ratings on In itia tiv e , Organizing A b ility, and Thinking combined and on the oamposite of the six soales were su bstantially higher. 9. Ijxteroorrelations o f ratings on the s ix tr a its were high thus indicating the prosenoe of halo. 10. Ratings on In itia tiv e , Organizing A b ility , and Thinking produced the highest multiple correlations with composite ratings in most instances* R e lia b ilitie s o f oomposite ratings of instructors and students on these three soales compare favorably with r e lia b ilit ie s of oomposite ratings of instruotors and students on a ll six scales* CONCLUSI01E For years the primary objective of most rating so hemes has been to obtain an index of efficie n c y of subordinates. In th is study, we have had subordinates rating th e ir superiors as w ell. Thus by broaden­ ing the base or increasing the number of raters, i t was hoped that the ratings would be improved* Subordinates are often in a better position to rate th eir superiors and fellow workers than are outside observers. Mutual ratings between s ta ff members should promote sympathy and under­ standing for each other's problems* They should help produce a more e f f ic ie n t s ta ff o ffic e r . The knowledge that he is being evaluated by h is subordinates, as w ell as by his own superiors, should cause him to be more a lert and moro reooptive to oritioism . On the other hand, supervisors might attempt to curry favor with subordinates by relaxing standards and refraining from necessary c r i t i ­ cisms and decisions, thus bringing about a breakdown of s ta ff morale. Sometimes supervisors, for fear of getting low ratings themselves, may make th eir ratings spuriously high. In other instances, subordinates w ith real or fanoied-grievances may find th is a means of getting even. However, there is sa fety in numbers. Thus the e ffe c t of extreme ratings, 67 either high or low, is reduoed when mean ratings derived from independ­ ent ratings of several observers are used as they were in th is problem. Hypothesis 1 was proved fa ls e . Students tended to agree rather than disagree on the ratings they gavo to fellow offioers serving in the several s ta ff p osition s. . Hence, differences in the performances of offioers in the several s t a f f positions cannot be attributed to chance alone. Hypothesis 2 was also proved fa lse for instruotors making inde­ pendent d a ily ratings of s t a ff o ffio e r s 1 performances tended to agree from day to day with their other ratin gs. It should be pointed out that although the d a ily ratings of each instructor are th eo retica lly independent, the systematic error of each w ill help to make an analysis of variance sig n ifica n t. Hypothesis 3 was showa to be fa lse as students rated more le n i­ en tly than instruotors on a ll so a les. However, both students and instruotors gave th eir highest ratings on oooperation and th eir lowest ratings on expression. Ib is believed that Air Command and S ta ff Sohool students enter into the ta c tic a l and strategio problems with a mental s e t or frame of mind keyed to oooperation; that i s , eaoh student displays oooperation at every opportunity and evaluators, both student and instructor, being aware of t h is , give students high ratings on th is count. On the other hand, the low ratings which were given on expression are probably the resu lt of the unit o f instruction in that area which preceded the taot io a l problem. Both students and instruotors have been o r itio a l of 62 students' a b ility to express themselves o rally. Here, then, in both the ta c tic a l and stra teg ic problems, there are opportunities to apply what they have learned when they studied the unit on oral expression. Both students and instructors rate offioers serving in positions of importance higher than they rate o fficers serving in subordinate p o sitio n s. Hence, in fairness to the student o ffic e r , the assignments to the s t a f f positions should be equitably distributed so that an o f f i­ cer w ill have one experience serving in a position of major importance and one serving in a subordinate position i f p ossib le. Then too, the o ffioer should become a better s t a f f offioer and have more appreciation of what i s involved in other s ta ff o ffic er s' jobs after having had two d ifferen t s ta ff assignments or se ts of experiences. This la tte r point is further demonstrated by the fa ct that interaction is more sig n ifica n t in the analyses of variance on ratings in the stra teg ic problem. This interaction is undoubtedly caused by ohanged sets of values held by stu­ dents who have served in positions o f importance who la ter served in subordinate positions or by ohanged sets of values held by those who served in subordinate positions who la ter served in positions of impor­ tance. Hypothesis 1* was confirmed. Tb was not surprising to find that both students and instruotors rated most relia b ly on oral expression, the area in which they had had the greatest amount o f prior experience. Oral expression is also something which- is readily observable. The r e lia b ilit y of ratings on individual scales was rather low but the r e lia b ilit y of a oomposite of the three soales, I n itia tiv e , Organizing 69 A b ility and Thinking, was somewhat higher. highest when a l l six soales were used. R e lia b ility of ratings was Reported r e lia b ilitie s of instruotors' ratings were somewhat higher than those of students; how­ ever, i t must be pointed out that here again the systematic error of individual instruotors contributed toward these re su lts. Hypothesis 5 was confirmed. Chi-square te s ts showed that organ­ izin g a b ility was d iff ic u lt to rate in some instances and that subor­ dinate positions were generally more d iffio u lt for students to rate on th is ch aracteristic than were positions of importance. Few te s ts were sig n ifica n t at the 5 P°r cent le v e l; nevertheless, the trend was clea rly apparent. The duties of the several s ta ff positions were d if ­ ferent - some did not require muoh organizing a b ility - and the impor­ tance of most of them varied depending upon whether the problem was ta c tic a l or stra teg ic . Hypothesis 6 was confirmed. By using ratings based upon three so a le s, in it ia tiv e , Organising A b ility and Thinking, correlations in the neighborhood of *97 were obtained with composite ratings based upon the s ix so a le s. The r e lia b ility of ratings based upon the above three soales is somewhat lower than the r e lia b ility of ratings based upon a l l s ix so a le s. However, i t is f e l t that the small increase in r e lia b ility using a ll s ix soales is not worth a ll of the extra rating work required when an abbreviated se t of ratings based upon three soales yield s re­ su lts whioh compare so favorably with the longer s e t. Authorities recognize that the keystone o f any rating program is the individual rater's judgment. rater judgments are: Two essen tia ls for seouring reliab le (1) Raters must be taught to make accurate and oansisterct judgments. (2) Raters must also have the potential a b ility and the desire to make suoh ratin gs. This study demonstrates that the a b ility to mate ao ourate and consistent ratings cannot be taught overnight. It takas tima for raters to learn the purposes of a rating system, something about the distribu­ tio n of a b ilit ie s or t r a it s to be rated and how to observe. Students and instruotors were able to rate Expression w ith greater r e lia b ility than any other t r a it , not only because they could observe and lis t e n to the s t a ff offioer speak, but also because they had more experience and training in th is area. They were more o r itio a l observers with respect to Expression and gave students lower ratings on th is t r a it than on any other one. Raters must be trained i f th eir ratings are to be of rauoh value. In th is study, instruotors had their f u l l time available for observation and rating. Students had a lim ited amount of time; obser­ vations were made while they worked as s ta ff offioers and fin a l ratings were made during the morning of the la s t day for each problem. hour was se t aside for rating on eaoh problem. One The Chi-square t e s ts show that students tend to have more d iffic u lty in observing and rating th eir fellow s ta ff offioers than do th eir instruotors. Hence, s u f f i­ cient time must be provided for observation and rating. be motivated to make better observations. Students must 93 was devel­ The work sheet'-' oped to encourage students to plan observations. to Ib was also developed both students and instruotors "rater oonsoious" and to give th e m o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o t r a n s l a t e o b s e r v a tio n s i n t o m e a n in g fu l ju d g m e n ts and r e c o r d th e m . The d e s i r e o f t h e r a t e r t o f o r m u la te a o o u ra te and c o n s i s t e n t ju d g m e n ts d o e s n o t d e v e lo p a u t o m a t i c a l l y n o r c a n i t be e s t a b l i s h e d b y o rd e r. The w i l l i n g n e s s o f t h e r a t e r t o r a t e d ep en d s i n l a r g e p a r t on how he i s m o tiv a te d . A t t e n t i o n s h o u ld b e g iv e n t o malrfrig s u r e t h a t he u n d e r s ta n d s t h e r a t i n g p ro g ra m . He s h o u ld b e a b le t o s e e th e n e ed w h ic h t h e r a t i n g f u l f i l l s , how i t a f f e o t s him an d how o t h e r s t a f f o f f i ­ c e r s w i l l b e a f f e c t e d by t h e r a t i n g s . He s h o u ld a o o e p t t h e s t a t e d p u r ­ p o s e o f t h e r a t i n g p ro g ram r a t h e r th a n in v e n t one o f h i s own. The tim e and a t t e n t i o n w hioh w i l l b e g iv e n t o a r a t i n g p ro g ram w i l l be d i r e c t l y p r o p o r t i o n a l t o t h e i n t e r e s t an d a t t e n t i o n shown b y h ig h e r a u th o r ity . H ence, k e y p e rs o n n e l (com m andant, s u p e r v is o r s and k e y i n s t r u o t o r s ) s h o u ld be " s o ld " f i r s t . The " s e l l i n g " o f b e y p e r s o n n e l in v o lv e s d i s c u s s i n g and f o r m u la tin g a r a t i n g p ro g ram w h io h t h e y f e e l w i l l be h e l p f u l t o th e m . T hey s h o u ld have a p a r t i n d e v e lo p in g th e r a t i n g in s tr u m e n t t o in c lu d e form ula t i n g d e f i n i t i o n s o r d e s c r i p t i o n s an d s e t t i n g up p r o c e d u re s t o be f o llo w e d . They s h o u ld a l s o h av e t h e e x p e r ie n c e o f t r y i n g o u t t h e r a t i n g fo rm and e v a l u a t i n g t h e r a t i n g p r o ­ c ed u re. Ifc i s f e l t t h a t more tim e s h o u ld have b e e n g iv e n t o t r a i n i n g b o t h i n s t r u c t o r s and s tu d e n t s t o r a t e b e t t e r . However, t h e m is s io n o f t h e s o h o o l d i d n o t l i s t r a t e r t r a i n i n g a s b e in g o f p rim a ry im p o r ta n c e . T e o h n io a l in f o r m a t io n and s t a f f w ork a r e deemed o f much g r e a t e r im p o r­ t a n c e so l i t t l e tim e c o u ld b e g iv e n t o r a t e r t r a i n i n g . I t i s b e lie v e d t h a t t h i s s i t u a t i o n i s t y p i c a l o f m o st s o h o o ls , o i v i l i a n and m i l i t a r y , f o r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s o a n seem t o f i n d l i t t l e f o r r a t e r tra in in g * sp ao e i n t h e i r c u r r i c u l a Many o f th em w ould h e s i t a t e t o a llo w s t u d e n t s t o h e lp d e te r m in e o t h e r s t u d e n t s ’ r a t i n g s . H ow ever, t h e r a t i n g s i t u a t i o n was i d e a l i n s e v e r a l r e s p e o t s . The t a o t i o a l and s t r a t e g i o p ro b le m s w ere o f s u c h a n a t u r e t h a t s tu d e n t s w orked t o g e t h e r f o r f i v e d a y s i n s o l v i n g e a c h p ro b le m . T h e re w ere s e v ­ e r a l s t a f f m e e tin g s , a num ber o f s m a l l e r c o n f e r e n c e s , and many o p p o r­ t u n i t i e s f o r d o s e o o n ta o ts . T h e re was am ple o p p o r t u n i t y f o r i n s t r u o ­ t o r s t o o b s e rv e s t u d e n t s i n a o t i o n . Some s t u d e n t s , b e c a u s e o f t h e i r s t a f f p o s i t i o n s , w ere b e t t e r a b le t o o b s e rv e an d t o b e o b s e rv e d t h a n o th e rs . G e n e r a lly s p e a k in g , t h e r e was ample o p p o r t u n i t y f o r them t o r a t e an d m o st s t u d e n t s w e re v e r y c o o p e r a ti v e d u r in g b o t h p ro b le m s . As a r e s u l t , t h e r e w ere c o m p a r a ti v e ly l a r g e num bers o f r a t e r s and r a t ­ in g s . C o n s id e r in g t h e a d v a n ta g e s o f t h e p r e s e n t s tu d y o v e r t h e t y p i c a l o l a s s room s i t u a t i o n , r e s u l t s a r e n o t p a r t i c u l a r l y e n o o u ra g in g . The r e l i a b i l i t y o f r a t i n g s i s a b o u t t h e same a s w ould b e e x p e c te d i n t h e c la s s r o o m s i t u a t i o n . The s t u d e n t s ' te n d e n c i e s to w a rd le n ie n o y and h a lo and t h e i r te n d e n c y t o be i n f l u e n o e d b y p o s i t i o n s o f im p o rta n c e m ig h t a l s o be e x p e c te d i n t h e o la s s ro o m s i t u a t i o n . M u ltip le c o r r e l a ­ t i o n s b a s e d u p o n t h e b e s t t h r o e o f ih e s i x t r a i t s s t u d i e d w hen com pared w i t h m u l t i p l e c o r r e l a t i o n s b a s e d upon t h e t h r o e t r a i t s , In itia tiv e , O rg a n iz in g A b i l i t y , and T h in k in g , show p r a c t i c a l l y n o d i f f e r e n c e s . T h is m ig h t be i n t e r p r e t e d a s f o l l o w s : Ib d o e s n o t m a t t e r much w h e th e r s t u d e n t s i n t h i s s tu d y w ere r a t e d o n t h e t h r e e t r a i t s w h io h c o r r e l a t e d b e s t w i th o o m p o site r a t i n g s i n e a o h i n s t a n c e , on I n i t i a t i v e , O rg a n iz in g A b i l i t y and T h in k in g * o r on a l l s i x t r a i t s . A g e n e r a l h a lo makes i t n e a r l y im p o s s ib le t o g e t a o l e a r p i o t u r e o f a n o f f i o e r 's s t r o n g an d w eak p o i n t s . A lth o u g h t h e t r a i n i n g o f r a t e r s h a s u n d o u b te d ly im proved th e q u a l i t y o f r a t i n g s , i t i s f e l t t h a t g ra p h io s o a le s l i k e th o s e i n th e p r e s e n t s t u d y r e q u i r e t o o muoh t r a i n i n g tim e i f a o o e p ta b le r e s u l t s a re t o b e o b ta in e d * A o o e p ta b le r a t i n g s have b e e n o b ta in e d o n ly a s a r e ­ s u l t o f c o n tin u o u s w o rk on t h e p a r t o f t h e f a c u l t y and s e v e r a l c o n s u l t ­ a n ts * SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY I f i t i s a t a l l p o s s ib le , th e r e l i a b i l i t y o f in s tr u c to r s ' r a tin g s s h o u ld b e s t u d i e d b y h a v in g two o r more i n s t r u o t o r s in d e p e n d e n tly and s im u lta n e o u s ly r a t e t h e p e rfo rm a n c e o f s t a f f m em bers. Thus t h e e f f e o t o f s y s t e m a t i c e r r o r o o u ld be e l i m i n a t e d fro m r e p o r t e d m e a su re s o f r e l i a ­ b ility . The e f f e c t o f t h e s t a f f o f f i o e r 's r a n k on t h e r a t i n g s he r e c e i v e s m ig h t a l s o be s t u d i e d b y m aking a tw o-w ay c l a s s i f i c a t i o n f o r e a o h o f th e s i x t r a i t s on w h ic h o f f i o e r s w ere r a t e d i n e a c h s t a f f p o s i t i o n . R anks o f o f f i o e r s r a t e d w ould b e c l a s s i f i e d o n one a x i s and r a t e r s , i n s t r u c t o r and s t u d e n t , w ould be c l a s s i f i e d on t h e o t h e r a x is * An a n a l y s i s o f v a r ia n o e a p p ly in g t h e m ethod o f u n w eig h ted a v e ra g e s b a se d u pon d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e s u b - o l a s s num bers w ould b e u s e d . 7h The p o s s i b i l i t y o f r a t i n g o n ly t h e w o rk p r o d u o ts w h io h a r e p r o ­ d u c e d b y i n d i v i d u a l o f f i o e r s s h o u ld b e s t u d i e d . A lth o u g h th e p l a n seem s l m p r a o t i o a l now , i t m ig h t b e t h a t o e r t a i n s u b o r d in a te p o s i t i o n s w h io h r e q u i r e d e t a i l e d w o rk on e s t i m a t e s o f s i t u a t i o n s an d l o g i s t i o s c a l c u l a t i o n s m ig h t be e v a lu a te d i n t h i s m an n er. The p o s s i b i l i t y o f u s in g t h e P o ro ed -C h o io e te c h n iq u e i n r a t i n g s t a f f o f f i c e r s ' p e rfo rm a n c e s h o u ld be s t u d i e d . T h is te c h n iq u e w o u ld f o r o e t h e r a t e r t o ch o o se b e tw e e n d e s c r i p t i v e p h r a s e s w h ic h a p p e a r o f e q u a l v a lu e (have t h e same p r e f e r e n c e in d e x ) b u t a r e d i f f e r e n t i n v a l i d i t y ( d i s c r i m i n a t i o n in d e x ) . Thus i t re d u c e s th e r a t e r ’s a b i l i t y t o c o n t r o l th e f i n a l r e s u l t o f h i s r a t i n g s . fiv e s to p s : T h is te o h n iq u e r e q u i r e s ( l ) p ro c u re m e n t o f d e s c r i p t i v e e s s a y s o f s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l p e rfo rm a n c e , ( 2 ) p r e p a r a t i o n o f a oom plote l i s t o f d e s c r i p ­ t i v e p h r a s e s o r a d j e o t i v e s , ( 3 ) d e t e r m in a ti o n o f p r e f e r e n c e and d i s ­ c r i m i n a t i v e in d io e s f o r e a o h p h r a s e , (lj) p a i r i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s s o t h a t p r e f e r e n c e i n d io e s a r e t h e same and d i s c r i m i n a t i v e in d io e s a re d i f f e r e n t , b e in g n e g l i g i b l e f o r one a l t e r n a t i v e , and ( 5 ) t r y - o u t on a s p e o i f i e d c r i t e r i o n g ro u p . BIBLIOGRAPHY- 75 A. BOOKS G a lt on, F . 19ll+. H e r e d i ta r y G e n iu s. 379 PP* London: M acm illan and Company, L t d . G a lt on, F . i n q u i r i e s i n t o Human F a c u lt y and I t s D ev elo p m en t. M ac m illa n arid Company, L t d . IBB3T 3 Sl+ p p . G u ilf o r d , J . P . P sy o h o m e tric M eth o d s. Company, lao ’i 1936* 5E6 p p . New Y ork: London: M cG raw -H ill Book H o llin g s w o r th , H. L . J u d g in g Human C h a r a c te r . New Y ork: and Company. ISfcZF. 268 p p . D. A p p le to n K e lle y , T . L . The I n f lu e n o e o f N u rtu re Upon l a d i v i d u a l D i f f e r e n c e . New Y ork. The M ao m illan Company. 1926. 1+9 p p . M onroe, W. S . E n c y c lo p e d ia o f E d u o a tio n a l R e s e a rc h , R e v is e d E d i t i o n . New Y ork: The M ao m illan Company. 19$0 • pp. S o o t t , W. D ., R. C. C l o t h i e r , S . B. M athewson and W. R. S p r i e g e l . P e r s o n n e l M anagem ent. New Y ork: M oG raw -H ill Book Company, I n o . w . ' ' ------------ S n e d e c o r , G. W. S t a t i s t i c a l M eth o d s. P ress. 19U6~ 1+85 PP* Ames. The Iowa S t a t e C o lle g e Sym onds, P e r o i v a l M. D ia g n o sin g P e r s o n a l i t y and C onduot. D. A pple to n - C e n tu r y Company. 1931* 6o2 p p . New Y ork: B. MONOGRAPHS AND BULLETINS B radshaw , F . F . "The A m erican C o u n c il on E d u o a tio n r a t i n g s o a lo ; i t s r e l i a b i l i t y , v a l i d i t y and u s e ." A rc h iv e s o f P s y c h o lo g y , No. 1 1 9 , O c to b e r, 1930. SO p p. C a r t e r , G. C. " S tu d e n t p e r s o n a l i t i e s a s i n s t r u c t o r s se e th e m ." i n H ig h e r E d u o a tio n . L a f a y e t t e : P urdue U n i v e r s i t y , 191+5* W e lls , F . L . "A s t a t i s t i c a l s tu d y o f l i t e r a r y m e r i t . " P s y c h o lo g y , N o. 7> A u g u st, 1907* 30 PP* S tu d i e s 1+6 PP* A ro h iv e s o f 76 C. PERIODICALS A le x a n d e r , H. W. "A g e n e r a l t e s t f o r t r e n d . ” P s y c h o lo g io a l B u l l e t i n , U3:533-557, November, I 9U6 . Bingham , W. V . "H a lo , i n v a l i d and v a l i d . " 2 3 :221-223, A p r i l , 1939- J o u r n a l o f A p p lie d P s y c h o lo g y , -------------------------------------------------- Bolonovioh, D. J . " S ta tistic a l analysis of an industrial rating chart." Journal of Applied Psyohology, 30:23-31, February, 19^6. D r iv e r , R . S . "A c a s e h i s t o r y i n m e r i t r a t i n g . " P e rso n n e l J o u rn a l, 16:137-162, May, 19^0. Driver, R. S. rating." "Training as a means of improving employee performance Personnel, lS:36l4.-370, May, 19^*2. Ewart, E ., S. E. Seashore and J . T iffin . "A factor analysis of an in du strial merit rating soale." Journal of Applied Psyohology, 25:i|£>l-l|£>6, October, 19^+1* F r e y d , Max. "The g r a p h ic r a t i n g s o a l e . " lU :£>3-102, F e b r u a r y , 1923* J o u r n a l o f E d u c a tio n a l P s y c h o lo g y . Garrett, H. E. and J. Zubin. "The analysis of varianoe in psychological research." Psychologioal B u lletin , i|0;233-267, April, 19U3* G ile n s k y , A . S . "The in f l u e n o e o f a p ro c e d u re o f ju d g in g on th e h a lo e f f e c t . " A m erican P s y c h o l o g i s t , 2 :3 0 9 -3 1 0 , A u g u st, 19^7• G ra n t, D. A. "The a n a l y s i s o f v a r ia n o e i n p s y c h o lo g i c a l r e s e a r c h . " P s y c h o lo g ic a l B u l l e t i n , J4 1 : 1 3 ^ -1 6 6 , M aroh, 1 9 ^ * J u r g e n s e n , C. E . " l u t e r o o r r e l o t i o n s i n m e r i t r a t i n g t r a i t s . " A p p lie d P s y o h o lo g y , 34:2lj.0-2li3, A u g u st, 1950. Kogan, L . S . " A n a ly s is o f v a r i a n c e - r e p e a t e d m e a s u re m e n ts." B u l l e t i n , i ; 5 : 1 3 1 -1 ^ 3 , M arch , 19US. K o rn h a u s e r, A. W. " R e l i a b i l i t y o f a v e ra g e r a t i n g s . " R e s e a r c h , 5 :3 0 9 -3 1 7 , D eoem ber, 1926. K o rn h a u se r, A . W. "A c o m p a riso n o f r a t e r s . " 6 :3 3 S -3 Wj-, J a n u a r y , 1927* Jo u rn a l o f P s y c h o lo g io a l J o u r n a l o f P e rs o n n e l J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n n e l R e s e a ro h , K o rn h a u s e r, A . W. "A co m p ariso n o f r a t i n g s on d i f f e r e n t t r a i t s . " o f P e r s o n n e l R e s e a r c h , 6 :i4i+0 -i|ij.6 > M aroh, 1927* Jo u rn a l Laws he, C. H. Jr. and G. A. S atter. "Studies in job evaluations 1. Factor analyses of point ratings for hourly-paid jobs in three industrial plants." Journal of Applied Psyohology, 2 3 :1 3 9 193, June, 1 9 ^ . L aw she, C. H. J r . " S tu d ie s i n jo b e v a l u a t i o n : 2 . The a d eq u acy o f abbreviated point ratings for hourly-paid jobs in three industrial plants." Journal of Applied Psychology, 29:177-1£>4, June, 191+5• Lawshe, C. H. Jr. and A. A. Maleski. "Studies in job evaluation: 3* An analysis of point ratings for salary-paid jobs in an industrial plant." Journal of Applied Psyohology, 30:117-123, April, 19 1+6. Lawshe, C. H. J r . and S. L. A lsssi. "Studies in job evaluation: 1+. Analysis of another point rating scale for hourly-paid jobs and the adequacy of an abbreviated scale." Journal of Applied Psychology, 30:310-319* August, 191+6. Lawshe, C. H. Jr. and R. F. Wilson. "Studies in job evaluation: 5* An analysis of the factor comparison system as i t funotions in a paper m ill." Journal of Applied Psychology, 30:1+26-1+31+. October, 19^ 6 . Lawshe, C. H. Jr. and R. F. Wilson. "Studies in job evaluation: 6. The r e lia b ilit y of two point rating systems." Journal of Applied Psyohology, 31:355-365, August, 1947* L aw she, C. H. J r . , E . E . Dudek and R. F . W ils o n . " S tu d ie s i n jo b evaluation: 7» A faotor analysis of two point rating methods of job evaluation." Journal of Applied Psychology, 32:11S-129, April, 194^. Mahler, W. R . "Some common errors in employee rating practioes." Personnel Journal, 26:63-74, June, 1947* Marsh, S. E. and F. A. C. Perrin. "An experimental study of the rating scale technique." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psyohology, 1 9 :3 ^ 3 - 3 9 9 , January-Maroh, 19 2 5* Miner, J. B. The evaluation of a method for fin ely graduated estimates of a b ility ." Journal of Applied Psychology, 1 :1 2 3 -1 3 3 , June, 1917* Newcomb, T . "An experiment designed to t e s t the v a lid ity of a rating teohnique." Journal of Eduoational Psyohology, 2 2 :2 7 9 -2 3 9 , April, 1 931. P a t e r s o n , D. G. "The s o o t t Company g r a p h ic r a t i n g s o a l e . " P e r s o n n e l R e s e a r c h , 1 :3 6 1 -3 7 0 , D ecem ber, 1922. Jo u rn a l of 73 P e a r s o n , K . "On t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f i n t e l l i g e n c e t o s i z e and s h a p e o f h ea d an d t o o t h e r p h y s i c a l and m e n ta l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . " B io m e tr ik a , 5:105-114.6, 1907. ------------- P e t e r s , C . C . " I n t e r a c t i o n i n a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e i n t e r p r e t e d as i n t e r ­ c o r r e l a t i o n . " P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , l4 l:2 & 7 -2 9 9 , May, 19l)l|R em m ers, H. H. " R e l i a b i l i t y and h a lo e f f e o t o f h ig h s c h o o l an d o o l le g e s t u d e n t s ' ju d g m e n ts o f t h e i r t e a o h e r s . " J o u r n a l o f A p p lie d P s y c h o l ­ o g y , I S : 619- 630, O c to b e r , 193U* R i c h a r d s , T . W. an d W i l l i s E l l i n g t o n . " O b j e o t i v i t y i n t h e e v a l u a t i o n o f p e r s o n a l i t y . " J o u r n a l o f E x p e r im e n ta l E d u c a tio n , 1 0 * 2 2 3 -2 3 7 , J u n e , 19h2. R u g g , H. 0 . " I s t h e r a t i n g o f human c h a r a c t e r p r a c t i c a b l e ? " E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o lo g y , 1 2 : 1425- 1433, N ovem ber, 1 9 2 1 ; 1 $ 2 1 ; 13: 30- 142, J a n u a r y , 1 9 2 2 ; 3 1 - 9 3 , F e b r u a r y , 1 9 2 2 . Jo u rn a l of D ecem ber, S h e n , E u g e n e . "T he r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t o f p e r s o n a l r a t i n g s . " o f E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o lo g y , 1 6 :2 3 2 -2 3 7 , A p r i l , 1925* S h e n , E u g e n e . "T he v a l i d i t y o f s e l f - e s t i m a t e . " P s y o h o lo g y , l6*10l}.“ 1 0 7 , F e b r u a r y , 1925* S m a l z r i e d , N . T . an d H. H. R em m ers. R a ti n g S c a le f o r I n s t r u o t o r s . " 3 1 4 :3 6 3 -3 6 7 , S e p te m b e r , 19^3* Joum al J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t io n a l "A f a c t o r a n a l y s i s o f t h e P u rd u e J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t io n a l P s y o h o lo g y , S t a f f , P s y c h o lo g ic a l R e s e a rc h P r o je o t ( P i l o t ) , " p s y c h o lo g ic a l r e s e a r o h on p i l o t t r a i n i n g i n t h e AAF." A m e ric a n P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1 * 7 -1 6 , J a n u a r y , I9 I4 6 . S t a r r , R . B . and R . J . G r e e n ly . " M e r it r a t i n g s u r v e y f i n d i n g s . " J o u r n a l , 1 7 :3 7 3 -3 3 1 j., A p r i l , 1939* P erso n n el S t e v e n s , S . N. and E . F . W o n d e r lic . "An e f f e o t i v e r e v i s i o n o f a r a t i n g t e c h n i q u e . " P e r s o n n e l J o u r n a l , 1 3 :1 2 5 - 1 3 ^ , O o to b e r, 193U* T h o r n d ik e , E . L . "A c o n s t a n t e r r o r i n p s y o h o l o g io a l r a t i n g . " A p p lie d P s y c h o lo g y , 14: 25- 29 , M arch , 1 9 2 0 . Jo u rn a l of APPENDIX 79 THE AIR UNIVERSITY AIR COMMAND AND STAFF SCHOOL Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama C lass 49A 26 A p ril 1949 FINAL SCHOOL PROBLEM Cover Sheet fo r Work Sheets 1. A f a i r and accurate report o f a student*s s t a f f e f f e c t iv e ­ ness w i l l r e s u lt i f you w i l l make frequent planned observations of h is performance throughout th e sch ool problem* Observations should be recorded on th e work sh eet (49AFSP FORM #8 DTD 26 Apr 49) a t the c lo s e o f th e day in which they have been made* The r a tin g s are ac­ complished by comparing each stu d e n t's behavior w ith th e d escrip tio n s on th e s c a le at th e top o f the worksheet and by copying the appro­ p r ia te numbers in th e columns opposite h is name* 2* All stu dents who have been observed should be rated with resp ec t t o ono t r a i t before going on to the n e x t. A space fo r re­ marks has been provided so th at you can record notes to a s s i s t in making r a tin g s each day. 3* At the end o f th e problem, you w i l l consider sep a ra tely each s c a le and th e t r a i t which i t rep re sen ts. 4« A s in g le ratin g s h e e t, (49A FORM #6 DTD26 Apr 49) w i l l be provided fo r you to summarize a l l ra tin g s fo r the problem. Write down th e one number on each s c a le , which, in your opinion, ind ioatos th e degree o f e ffe c tiv e n e s s demonstrated by th e student on th at t r a i t . f l STA FF N O . STUDENT RAT rjR v'/CRK S H A F T R a to t h e s t u d e n t fro m 1 t o 9 on t h e t r a i t d e s c r i b e d b e lo w b y w r i t i n g t h e num ber t h a t b e s t a p p ra ise s h i s w o rk on t h i s p ro b le m i n t h e p r o p e r colum n o p p o s i t e h i s name* I f y o u f e e l t h a t y o u h av e n o t h a d s u f f i c i e n t e v id e n c e t o r e n d e r a ju d g m e n t, p l a c e a n X in th e p r o p e r colum n and make p l a n s f o r o b s e r v in g t h e s t u d e n t i n an a c t i v i t y i n v o l v i n g t h e tra it# EXPRESSION _________ 1_________2 _________ 3 _____ P o o r i n command o f w o rd s, e n u n c ia tio n , gram m ar# U n c o n v in c in g STUDENTS NAME U _________ 5_______ Can e x p r e s s h i m s e l f a d e q u a t e ly b u t n o t fo rc e fu lly # O f te n p a u s e s f o r w o rd s o r has to re p e a t to c l a r i f y # O th e r s h a v e to f u lly re p h ra se h is re m a rk s# Mon DAILY RATINGS T u es Wed T h u r F ri 6 7 U s u a lly e x p r e s s e s id e a s c le a r ly # I s r e a s o n a b l y c o n v in c ­ in g * REMARKS 3 9 S p e a k s c l e a r l y # M akes m e a n in g c l e a r b y p r e ­ c i s e u s e o f w o rd s a n d fo rc e fu l illu s tr a ­ tio n s • ST A F F N O . RATER STUDENT vTORK SHEET R a te t h e s t u d e n t fro m 1 t o 9 on th e t r a i t d e s c r i b e d b e lo w by w r i t i n g t h e n u m b er t h a t b e s t a p p r a i s e s h i s w o rk o n t h i s p ro b le m i n t h e p r o p e r colum n o p p o s i t e h i s n am e . I f y o u f e e l t h a t y o u h a v e n o t h a d s u f f i c i e n t e v id e n c e t o r e n d e r a ju d g m e n t, p l a c e an X i n t h e p r o p e r co lu m n an d make p la n s f o r o b s e r v in g t h e s t u d e n t i n an a c t i v i t y in v o l v i n g t h e tra it# ORGANIZING ABILITY I n e f f i c i e n t p la n n in g , g e t s i n way o f o t h e r s c a u s in g l o s s o f t i m e ; f a l l s b e h in d s c h e d u le # STUDENT NAME P la n s own w o rk f a i r l y •w e ll, b u t i s d e f i c i e n t i n c o o r d i n a t in g # Mon T ues M e th o d ic a l w o r k e r ; f i t s i n w e l l ; t u r n s o u t w o rk o n s c h e d u le # DAILY RATINGS .Ted T h u rs F r i P la n n in g o f w o rk fu rth e rs p ro je c t; s t a f f a b le t o d e­ p en d on h i s m a in ­ t a i n i n g an a c c e l e r ­ a t e d s c h e d u le # W f T c i e n t p la n n in g and c o o rd in a tin g s a v e v i t a l tim e o r c o n trib u te t o su p e r­ i o r s o lu tio n # REMARKS oa H RATER STUDENT .YORK SHEET ST A FF N O . R a to th e s t u d e n t fro m 1 t o 9 on t h e t r a i t d e s c r i b e d b e lo w b y w r i t i n g t h e num ber t h a t b e s t a p p r a i s e s h i s w o rk on t h i s p ro b le m i n t h e p r o p e r colum n o p p o s it e h i s n am e. I f y o u f e e l t h a t y o u h a v e n o t h a d s u f f i c i e n t e v id e n c e t o r e n d e r a ju d g m e n t, p l a c e an X i n t h e p r o p e r colum n a n d make p la n s f o r o b s e r v in g t h e s t u d e n t i n a n a c t i v i t y i n v o l v ­ in g t h e t r a i t o COOPERATION E l GROUP 7Y0RK h _______ 5___________ 6 T ends t o be v a g u e , te d io u s , s tu b b o rn . Q u ib b le s , d i g r e s s e s . C o n t r ib u t e d b o th in f r e q u e n tly and b rie fly * STUDENT NAME O c c a s io n a lly d i g r e s s e s , q u i b b l e s , o r i s a n ta g o ­ n i s t i c . C o n trib u tio n s o f l i m i t e d v a lu e due t o b r e v ity o r in fre q u e n c y . Hon DAILY RATINGS Tues Vfed T h u rs F i t s i n ; p r e s e n ts no p ro b le m h i m s e l f ; p r o m o te s g ro u p w o rk m o d e ra te ly . P a rtic ip a te s une v e n ly . F ri 7________ 8 H e lp s t o c o r r e c t m i s u n d e r s ta n d i n g s ; p o in ts up d is c u s s i o n s . S p eak s on n um erou s t o p i c s , b u t n o t o b tru s iv e ­ ly 9___________ C la r i f ie s p o in ts # T akes a c tiv e p a r t in a l l d is c u s s io n s b u t is n o t d o m in e e r in g . Excel­ l e n t tim in g # REMARKS & RATER STAFF NO. STUDENT Y/ORK SHEET FINAL SCHOOL PROBLEM AIR COMMAND AND STAFF SCHOOL Rate th e student from I t o 9 on th e t r a i t described below by w ritin g th e number th a t b e st appraises h is work on t h is problem in the proper column opp osite h is name. I f you f e e l th at you have not had s u f f ic ie n t evidence t o render a judgement, place an X in th e proper column and make plans fo r observing th e student in an a c t i v i t y in v o lv in g th e tr a it. INITIATIVE P a ssiv e, l e t s others guide and stim u late; or lea d s a im le ssly . STUDENT NAME Assumes lead ersh ip only when pressed to do s o . Exerts l i t t l e h e lp fu l in flu en ce on course o f work or d isc u ssio n . Mon Tues A L O ccasionally assumes lea d ersh ip , u su a lly content t o fo llo w , Has some in flu en ce on course o f work and d isc u ssio n . DAILY RATINGS Wed Thurs F ri 8 Often takes lea d and i s accepted by o th e r s. Often d ir e c ts d isc u ssio n t a c t f u lly in to u se f u l channels* REMARKS Natural le a d e r . C la r if i e s is s u e s ; summarizes; stim u la tes p a r tic ip a tio n o f members. Takes major r e s p o n s ib ility fo r gu id in g work and d is c u ssio n . STUDENT WORK SHEET STAFF NO RATER* Rate th e student from 1 t o 9 on th e t r a i t described below by w ritin g th e number th a t b est appraises h is work on t h is problem in the proper column opp osite h is name* I f you f e e l th a t you have not had s u f f ic ie n t evidence t o render a judgment) p lace an X in th e proper column and make plans fo r observing the student in an a c t i v i t y in v o lv in g th e t r a it * THINKING* REACHING SOUND CONCLUSIONS 8 Confuses opinion w ith fa ct* Does not th in k problems through l o g i ca lly * Follows h ab it or r u le o f thumb* STUDENT NAME Tends to be unreliab le* Contributions l i k e l y to miss main is s u e involved* Mon Tues Thurs Contributions g en era lly good, w ell-th ou gh t out. F ri G enerally c le a r , un­ biased th in k er, pro­ ducing sound ideas* Good c r i t i c a l judg­ ment* Produces valu ­ a b le new id e a s, illu s t r a t io n s , summaries* Ex­ c e lle n t c r i t i o a l judgment* REMARKS £ RATERS STUDENT WORK SHEET STAFF NO Rate th e student from 1 t o 9 on th e t r a i t described below by w ritin g th e number th a t b est appraises h is work on t h i s problem in th e proper column opp osite h is name. I f you f e e l th a t you have not had s u f f ic ie n t evidence to render a judgment, place an X in th e proper column and make plans fo r observing th e student in an a c t i v i t y in v o lv in g th e t r a i t . KNOWLEDGE Lacks b a sic inform ation a p p lica b le to th e pro­ blem. STUDENT NAME Some knowledge o f f a c ts and f a c to r s , but r e l ie s c h ie fly upon personal exp erien ce. Hon Tues JL A pplies many f a c t s and ideas t o th e problem, but gaps are apparent. P ossess considerable background o f f a c t s and id eas a p p lica b le t o the problem. A. Gan marshal a great sto r e o f f a c ts and id eas t o cope w ith a l l a sp ects o f the problem. DAILY RATINGS Wed Thurs F ri 03. VJl 86 THE AIR UNIVERSITY AIR COMMAND AND STAFF SCHOOL Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama Evaluation Form a. For d e f in it io n o f t r a i t s se e Student Work Sheets (49A FSP FORM #8 Dtd 26 A p ril 49) - .M , ,QI?S R ating s c a le ; Above Average X_______ 1 JL& J - 2 ______ 4 ; 5 : 6_ 7 :__8 : 9 1 1 b. Below Average _ Average In str u c tio n Date Problem D esi m at ion STAFF ASSIGNMENT NAME AND RANK 49A FSP FORM #6 Bbd 26 Apr 49 AVERAGE (To one Decimal) EXPRESSION ORGANIZATION S t a f f or Gro UD No* COOPERATION INITIATIVE THINKING (SOUND CONCLUSIONS) Code No* o f Rater INSTRUCTIONS 1* Evaluation procedures fo r the student r a tin g of other stu dents w i l l be as follow s* a* Each student w i l l r a te each other stu dent on th e same s t a f f # The not observed (X) can and should be entered on th e form wherever ap p lica b le except as in d icated below* Rater* 1* C*G* and C/S W ill r a te on 6 c h a r a c te r is tic s 2. A - l, A-2, A -3, A-4 " " "6 3* A ssista n t A -l, A-2 A -3, A-4 " " •* 6 w Al l, S ta ff Members C.G. C/S A ll members o f th e ir r e ­ sp e c tiv e S ta ff S e c tio n s, and each other S e c tio n Chief* S e c tio n Chief and a l l other members o f the same s t a f f section * b* Students should m aintain work sh eets during each phase of th e problem in order to render an accurate and o b je c tiv e evalu­ a tio n o f each stu d en t of th e s t a f f a t th e completion of th a t phase* The r a tin g should r e f l e c t on ev alu ation o f stu d en ts' work throughout the e n tir e t a c t i c a l or s tr a te g ic phase o f th e School Problem* c* A f i n a l ra tin g w i l l be entered on t h i s form and turned in to th e in str u c to r upon completion* Work sh eets may be reta in ed by th e students* d* Code numbers w i l l be used by the r a tin g stu dents (Code No. w i l l correspond t o the number o f the issu ed f o ld e r ) . For stu ­ dents being r a ted , th e name (not th e Code No*) w i l l be used* 88 W AR D EPA R TM EN T IN STRU CTIO N S FO R RA TIN G COM M ISSIONED OFFICERS Significance of the Rating Scale. 1. Under General Qrders 46 and 85 (W. D., 1918) all officers in the Army below the rank of Brigadier General will be rated quarterly according to the Officers’ Rating Scale. Circular No. 73 (W. D., 1918) provides th at a final rating will be given each officer just prior to separation from the service. The rating of an officer is a numerical expression of the degree in which he possesses the five essential qualifications of an officer, namely; (1) Physical Qualities, (2) Intelligence, (3) Leadership, (4) Personal QualiUeSj and (5) General Value to the Service. The rating is made by comparing him in each of these respects with officers of the next higher rank. 2. Promotions, discharges, and subsequent appointments are determined as a rule by ratings. Making ju st and accurate ratings is therefore one of the most serious duties of an officer. Proper rating is largely dependent on the possession of an accurate Rating Scale. Each rating officer makes his own scale, using the reverse of this form. How to Make the Scale. 3. W rite on small slips of paper the names of from 12 to 25 officers of your own rank and not above the average age of th at rank. They should be men with whom you have served or with whom you are well acquainted. Include officers whose qualifications are extremely poor as well as those who are highly efficient. If these names do not include all the grades for each of the five qualifications, others m ay be added. 4. Look over your names from the viewpoint of Physical Qualities only. Dis­ regard every other characteristic of each officer except the way in which he impresses his men by his physique, bearing, neatness, voice, energy, and endur­ ance. Arrange the names on the slips of paper in order from highest to lowest on the basis of the physical qualities of the men. Select th a t officer who sur­ passes all the others in this qualification and enter his name on the line marked Highest under Physical Qualities. Then select the one who most conspicuously lacKs these qualities and enter his name on the line marked Lowest. Select the officer who seems about halfway between the two previously selected aftd who represents about the general average in physical qualities; enter his name on the line m arked Middle. Select the officer who is halfway between middle and highest; enter his name on the line marked High. Select the one who ranks halfway between middle and lowest; enter his name on the line marked Low. 5. in the same manner make out scales for each of the other four qualifica tions (Intelligence, Leadership, Personal Qualities, and General Value to the Service). 6. Each officer whose name appears on the scale should be one who exhibits clearly and distinctly the qualification and the degree of the qualification for which he has been chosen. 7. The names for Highest and Lowest on each section of the Scale must repre­ sent extreme cases. The name for the Middle should be th a t of an average officer, halfway between extremes. High and Low should be halfway between the Middle and the extremes. An even gradation of merit is important. 8. In making or using any section of the Scale, consider only the qualification it covers, totally disregarding all the others. 9. In rating' subordinates of more than one grade the best practice is to make separate scales for each grade, using always the names of officers one grade higher than th at of the subordinate to be rated. However, in exceptional cases good results have been secured where a Scale constructed of captains is used for rating lmth lieutenants and captains, and a Scale constructed of colonels is used lor rating all ranks of field officers. 1 - Army lia .tin g S c a l e I n s t r u c t i o n s Points for Special Attention 10. Rate your subordinate for Physical Qualities lirst. Con­ sider how he impresses his men by his physique, bearing, neat­ ness, voice, energy, and endur­ ance. Compare him with each of the five officers in section I of your Rating Scale, and give him the number of points following the name of the officer he most nearly equals. If he falls be­ tween two officers in the Scale, give him a number accordingly (e. g., if between Low and Midale, give him 7, 7 or 8). %, 11. R ate the subordinate in a corresponding manner for each of the other four essential qualifications. 12. In rating, make a man-toman comparison of the subordi­ nate with the officers whose names appear on your scale. Disregard the numerical equiva­ lent until you have made these concrete comparisons. 13. When rating several sub­ ordinates, rate all of them on each qualification before adding the total for any one. 14. This is not a percentage system and you snould not allow yourself to fix in mind any particular num ber of points you think the subordinate ought to get. 15. The total rating for a sub­ ordinate is the sum of the ratings you give him in the five separate qualities. If these directions are followed carefully the average of any considerable group of officers rated will not be over 60 points. 16. Each officer below the rank of Brigadier General will be rated by his immediate superior. Ratings will be revised or ap­ proved by the immediate superior of the officer making the rating. Each revising officer will be held responsible for the ratings made by his subordinates. 2 - Arm y R a tin g S c a l e I. Physical Qualities Physique, bearing, neatness, voice, energy and endurance. {Consider how he im­ presses his men in the above respects.) Highest................................................... l") High........................................................ 12 Middle.................................................... 9 Low.......................................................... (j Lowest..................................................... 3 II. Intelligence Accuracy, ease in learning, ability to grasp quickly the point of view of com­ manding officer, to issue clear and intel­ ligent orders, to estimate a new situation, and to arrive at a sensible decision in a crisis. Highest................................................... 15 High........................................................ 12 M iddle./................................................ 9 Low.......................................................... 6 i/owest.................................................... 3 III. Leadership Initiative,force, self reliance, decisive­ ness, tact,ability to inspire men and to command theirobedience, loyalty and cooperation. Highest................................................... 15 High........................................................ 12 Middle.................................................... 9 Low.......................................................... 6 Lowest.................................................... 3 IV. Personal Qualities Industry, dependability, loyalty, readi­ ness to shoulder responsibility for his own acts, freedom from conceit and selfishness, readiness and ability to cooperate. Highest................................................... 16 High ................................................. 12 M iddle.................................................... 9 Low......................................................... 6 Lowest.................................................... 3 V. General Value to the Service His professionalknowledge, skill and experience; success as anadministrator and instructor; ability to gel results. H ighest................................................... 40 H igh........................................................ 32 M iddle.................................................... 24 Low......................................................... 10 Lowest.................................................... ® 90 (SCALE D GRAPHIC RATING SCALE fo r EXECUTIVES, DEPARTMENT h ea ds, fo rem en and SUPKRVISOR9 INSTRUCTIONS FOR MAKING OUT THIS REPORT i Bsfcre M tm .ttla f I* f i l l lU i M ^ tn lM r, n - r a d c w h l l ; lb* d illiiitN W each quality leiasiJlatily W a r* ratine the supervisor hr tb i t quality. Bum y ear ratine m t U work this •aearriaar U actually delae a t tkic tiiM. ladicate jraur ratine la aach quality by plnriae a cback ( / ) a a tba Uaa jant where yaa t biah It eugbt ta be. F ar tantnaca, II la Quality I, yau tbiak tba pa men you ara ratlay ra a lu leraawbaro batw aaa ladiffareat and Favorable, put jo u r cback o a tba Uaa somewhere batw aaa tbaca two potnU. Afterwards road Sap^ lcaiiatary lestructlees aa ravsrto. — 81552:"." te " I . I . W I U O * -------------------------------------g qe o . m m SSS_________________________________3ALB3_________ .JffiBBB__________________fe5 £ u U _ ____SHSSSL Q U A L IT I E S report C onsider hi* success In win* ning confidenca a n d ran p a c t th ro u g h hln a p p a a ra n c a a n d m an n ar. IL C onaidar hln auccoaa In d o in g things In new a n d b a tte r w aya an d In a d a p tin g Im proved m etho ds Ito nlsi ow o n n w ork. III. C onsider his su ccess In win* ning tho c o o p eratio n o f his subordinates.in w eld in jrth em into a loyal a n d effective w orking unit. IV. C onsider his success In or* ganizing th e w o ik of his d e p a rtm e n t o r unit, b o th by delegating au th o rity w isely a n d b y m ak in g c ertain th a t rasulta a ra achieved. CIh m Iu w EES z fUaeles I.RrtiatoBl ASUUj V . C onsider h la su ccess In m a k ­ ing his d e p a rtm e n t o r u n it a sm o o th ru n n in g p art of th e w h o le o r g a n i z a ti o n ; h is know ledge a n d ap p reciatio n of th e p ro b lsm s o l o th e r da* p ertin en ts. lo O tu iw liw M S' V I. C onsider h is success in Im ­ proving his su b o rd in a te s by im p artin g in fo rm a tio n ,cre at­ ing interest,d ev elo p in g ta le n t a n d arousin g am bition. VII. C onsider his success In a p ­ plying specialized know ledge In his p articu lar field, w h eth er by h is ow n know ledge of way# a n d m e a n s o r th ro u g h hts u se of so u rc es of inform a­ tion. DATE.. KmU.u GwnT MUlatora.. f the PmIs Flaal ~R Rstlag, i l l Total Rating. S I-. •OVUU P i p . 5 - F a c e o f g r a p h i c r a t i n g s c a l e .f o r e x e c u t i v e s , d e p a r tm e n t h e a l s , forem en and s u p e rv is o rs SUPPLEMPfTAKV IMSTFUCTIOHS T O RATOR On the face of this S e a l* you have entered by a chock ( ✓) your judgment of th e tek tr finals to eevoe epocTsc quafitiat regarded a . important by the M > i | « a l I . addition, you w . rsqumtod to chock ( ✓> th e appropriate W m below, stating y ear reasons,adviosa •1 c , (a n e k i u t u r t , u d to give Ika d u M isfsi m sliss io g u d 8. I . T h is em ployee (individual b e in g rated ) sh o u ld b e considered for prom otion a t th e first opportunity. jL 2 . H e should b e tronsforred to o th e r work. R easons a n d euggested lin e o f w o rk ___ 3 . H e is am b itio u s to progress a n d should b e ad v ised haw b e e t to qualifyr hhhwealt ln y o li fo r aadd v ancem an cem en t. ■ •. CtWAidfl. Z y i f c l A ^ I k • R s n ia ito .n f c f tf tf e a A v r c . -fa u t 3rOi J , 4 . H e tfsaire s a d v ic e aa to h is p re s e n t a n d fo tu te opportunitie s. 6 . H e la ta k in g special courses & □ c fc r b H e dasirea s p e c ia l o r fu rth e r tra in in g 7 . A conference w ith th e P e rs o n n e l Division la desired w ith refar» l to th is em ploye- □ T H E GRAPHIC RATING SCALE FOR EXECUTIVES ITS P U R Pn".- AWT* USE 1. The Graphic Is a practical method through .which asch executive's and enr.H supervisor's ability and f i t a m for in* crossed responsibilities caa be haew a quickly, w ith a reasonable degree of accuracy and with uniformity throughout tbs Company. 2. P tt1- department M - i, chief d ark . a te . rates the group bonds, assistants and others in supervisory poeitioaa who are subordi­ nate to him. Conversely each person in d a executive or supervisory position is rated by several (usually three) superiors. This easuras a well-balanced judgment in each instance. W here marked differaaces of opinion occur, tbs reasons are discussed to find the facta. X This Rating Scale has been d en ted after careful caastdeiatiea ef the b est practices throughout the country. J t makes it petalbis for the department head, e re , t» form and express his judgments accurately an d with minimum effort. It protects tbs siiherdlaste g | g i g a l f n a p jtftdgBMUl A f t l l h t l l U l f E l d iil«C O i> idW iJ * p p M * a l « b il Iw iH M t 4. Each executive and supervisor in the Ceespeny U rated periedkally, every few w satht. This data is eatased ea the iadMduaTs Qualification Card and U tnadilsrsd in salary increase and in presaotina. —»*-gu *— hi- cv - t in - H — r» .-t i5. All ratiage are cosfideatisL A sj p sr i t '-*~g *-*------ **-------*~ the Personnel Division. F ig . h - Reverse o f g ra p h ic r a t i n g . s c a l e fo r e x e c u tiv e s , d ep artm en t heads, forem en, and s u p e rv is o rs 92 GRAPHIC RATING CARD Name o f S tu d e n t Ju d g e th e s tu d e n t i n eaoh q u a l i t y , in d e p e n d e n tly o f a l l o th e r q u a litie s . Indio a t e y our r a t i n g s i n eaoh q u a l i t y by p la o in g an "X" on t h e l in e a t a p o in t t h a t a p p ro x im a te ly r e p o r t s th e s t u d e n t 's s ta n d in g . 1 . I n te ll i g e n c e K een, th o ro u g h thixdosr 2. A le rt; good judgm ent P a i r u n d er­ s ta n d in g ; oommon sen se L earns p o o r ly ; unsound th in k e r D u ll; poor judgm ent F a irly in d u s ­ trio u s Takes th in g s easy Lazy I n d u s tr y E x c e p tio n ­ S te a d y , a lly h ard i n d u s t r i ­ w orker ous 3« A oouraoy 1+. C o -o p e ra tiv e n e ss E x trem ely a c c u ra te & o o re fu l High d e ­ g ree o f aoouraoy M o d erately a o c u ra te I h e x a c t, somewhat c a r e le s s S lo v e n ly U n u su a lly w illin g , o o -o p e ra tiv e Good to out­ w orker F a irly 00 - o p e ra tiv e D iffio u lt t o w ork w ith T ro u b le ­ m aker, a n ta g o ­ n is tic C r e a tiv e , E n e rg e tio , a g g re s s iv e , some o rig in a l­ o rig in a l ity M o d erately in d ep en d ­ ent Laoks o rig i­ n a lity or a g g re s ­ s iv e n e s s R o u tin e w o rk er; p a s siv e ReoogM e rits com plete n iz e d as c o n fid e n c e t r u s t ­ w o rth y F a irly r e lia b le D o u b tfu l re lia ­ b ility U n tr u s t­ w o rth y F a irly e f­ fe c tiv e le a d e r Unable to le a d ; unim­ p r e s s iv e S u b m issiv e, antagon­ i s t io o r re p e lle n t 5* I n i t i a t i v e 6 . M oral T r u s t­ w o rth in e s s 7* L e a d ersh ip A b ility C ap a b le , fo ro e fu l, w in nings "bom le a d e r " Leads w a ll u n der m ost o i r oum stanoes R a tin g C ard <1 93 TABLE XVIII A SUMMARY OP RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN TYffiNTY DIFFERENT STAPES ON THINKING IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM P o s itio n s C/fe A -l A-2 A-3 A— i+ a/A -1 A/A-2 223 170 176 229 19h 102 7 .0 6 .3 6 .7 6 .3 7 .0 79 75 76 77 6 . 1* 6 .2 5 .2 6 .2 R a t e r c ''- » ^ _ N o. o f ' R a tin g s S tu d e n ts A verage R a tin g No. o f R a tin g s In s tru c to rs A verage R a tin g T o ta ls a/A-■3 A/A-!* Comm T o ta ls O ff 30 157 131 172 6 .5 6 .7 6 .6 6 .3 6 .9 73 67 55 70 70 67 6 .3 6 .0 6.0 5 .3 6 .0 6 .5 6 1 .2 1 2 .5 12.7 12.1* 1 2 .3 13.1* 129.0 13.ii- 1 3 .0 1 2 .5 1 3 .0 1 3 .3 TABLE XIX AN ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE OF ORIGINAL RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN TVJENTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON THINKING IN THE TACTICAL PROBIEM S ouroe o f V a ria tio n D egrees o f Freedom T oted Between O f fio e r Means 231*7 W ith in O f fio e r R a tin g s b y th e S ane Group Sum o f S quares Mean Square 1727.66 0.71* 19 2323 6 7 .3 TABU! XX AN ANALYSTS OP VARIANCE OP RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN TWENTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON THINKING IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM S o u rc e o f V a ria tio n D egrees o f Freedom T o ta l Sum o f S q u ares Mean S quare F R a tio 19 2 .9 3 P o s itio n s 9 O.65 0.07 7 . 00** R a te r s 1 2 . 1S 2 . IS 21S . 00 ** I n te ra c tio n (P o s itio n s x R a te rs ) 9 0.10 0.01 1.00 0 .0 1 E rro r ** S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e 1% l e v e l . TABLE XXI A SUMMARY OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN TWENTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON INITIATIVE IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM P o s itio n s " -^ R a fc e d R a t e r 3 '" - ^ _ No. o f R a tin g s S'tudenfcs A verage R a tin g No. o f R a tin g s in s tru c to rs A verage R a tin g T o ta ls Causa T o ta ls O ff c/h A -l A-2 A-3 a- 4 a/ a - i 221 171 179 231 195 113 3U 15U 7 -0 6 .9 6 .3 7 .0 7 .1 6 .6 6 .3 6 .7 7 .0 6 .9 73 73 73 77 72 75 57 72 75 75 6 .6 6 .2 5 .2 6 .6 6.5 6 .0 5 .9 5 .2 6 .2 6 .2 6 1 .3 1 3 .6 13 . I 1 2 .6 1 3 .6 13.6 1 2 .6 12.7 12 .5 13-2 1 3 .1 130.6 A/A-2 a/ a -3 a/ a - 4 132 nk 6 3 .3 TABLE XXII AN ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE OF ORIGINAL RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN TWENTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON INITIATIVE IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM S o u rc e o f V a ria tio n D egrees o f Freedom Sum o f S q u ares Mean Square 1791 .os 0.75 2396 T o ta l Between O f fio e r Means 19 W ith in O f fio e r R a tin g s by th e Sams Group 2377 TABIE X X III AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN TWENTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON INITIATIVE IN THE TACTICAL PROBIEM S o u rce o f V a ria tio n Degreos o f Freedom Sum o f S q u ares Mean Square F R a tio 19 3.52 P o s itio n s 9 o .ss 0.10 10.00 R a te r s 1 2 .4 5 2.1+5 21+5.00 9 2377 0 .1 9 0.02 0.01 T o ta l In te ra c tio n ( P o s itio n s x R a te r s ) E rro r * ** S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e 3% l e v e l . S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e 1% l e v e l . ** ** 2.00* TABL5 XX.IV A SUMMARY OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTCBS TO STUDENTS IN TWENTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON COOPERATION IN THE TACTICAL PROBT£M P o s itio n s Vsss R ated Rator&v. No. o f R a tin g s S tu d e n ts A verage R a tin g C/fe A -l A-2 A-3 220 190 1S9 23 S 205 13S 99 172 155 1S9 7 .2 7 .1 7 .1 7 .2 7 .3 7 .1 7 .1 7 .0 7 .2 7 .2 79 79 7S 79 79 75 57 75 75 74 6 .9 6 .6 6.1 6 .6 6 .7 6 .3 6 .3 6 .1 6 .4 6 .7 64-7 14.1 1 3 .7 13.2 1 3 .3 14.0 1 3-4 1 3 .4 1 3.1 13.6 1 3 .9 1 3 6 .2 No. o f R a tin g s in s tru c to rs Average R a tin g T o ta ls A- 4 A /A -l A/A-2 A/A-3 A /a -4 Conn T o ta ls O ff TABLE XXV AN ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE OF ORIGINAL RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN TWENTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON COOPERATION IN THE TACTICAL PROBIEM Source o f V a r ia tio n Degrees o f Froedom T o ta l Between O ffio e r Means W ith in O ffio e r R atin gs by th e Sane Group 2544 Sum o f Squares Mean Square 19 2525 2 0 5 1 .1 4 O.&L 7 1 .5 97 TA H S 3X71 AN ANALYSE OF VARIANCE OP RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN TWENTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON COOPERATION IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM S ouroe o f V a ria tio n D egrees o f Freedom. T o ta l Sum o f S q u ares Mean Square F R a tio 19 3.ol* P o s i ti o n s 9 o . 52. 0 .0 6 6.00 R a te r s 1 2 .3 1 2.31 231.00 in te ra c tio n ( P o s itio n s z R a te rs ) 9 0.21 0.02 E rro r ** *♦ 2 . 00* 0.01 2525 * S i g n i f i c a n t a t th e 5% l e v e l ** S i g n i f i c a n t a t th e 1% l e v e l TABLE 3X 7II A SUMMARY OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN TWENTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON ORGANIZING ABILITY IN THE TACTICAL IROBIEM P o s itio n s ''d i l a t e d R a t e r s '" - '^ Ho. o f R a tin g s S tu d e n ts A verage R a tin g No. o f R a tin g s in s tru c to rs A verage R a tin g T o ta ls a/ a -1 A/A-2 a/ a -3 a/ a -U Com T o ta ls O ff C/6 A -l A-2 A-3 A-U 21 S 16U 166 230 136 97 73 136 112 159 6 .3 6 .9 6 .6 6 .7 6 .9 6 .5 6 .5 6 .3 6 .7 6 .7 73 77 7b 77 76 67 51 59 65 61 6 .2 6 .3 5 .S 6 .2 6 .6 6.1 6.1 5 .9 6 .1 6 .6 6 1 .9 1 3 .0 13.2 32 .k 1 2 .9 1 3 .5 12.6 12.6 12.2 1 2 .3 1 3 .3 123 .5 6 6 .6 9& TABIE XXVIII AH ANALYSE OF VARIANCE OF ORIGINAL RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN TWENTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON ORGANIZING ABILITY IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM Souroe o f V a r ia tio n D egrees o f Freedom T o ta l Between O ffio e r Means W ithin O ffio er R atin gs hy th e Sane Group 2225 Sum o f Squares lie an Square 19 2206 1922*15 0.37 TABLE XXEC AN ANALYSE OF VARIANCE OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN TWENTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON ORGANIZING ABILITY IN THE TACTICAL PROBIEM Souroe o f V a r ia tio n D egrees o f Freedom Sum o f Squares Mean Square F R a tio 19 2 .0 4 P o s itio n s 9 0 .7 7 0.09 9 .0 0 R aters 1 1 .1 1 1.11 111.00 m te r a o tio n (P o s itio n s x R a ters) 9 0 .1 6 0 .0 2 T o ta l Error ; 2206 ♦♦ 2 . 00* 0 .01 * S i g n i f i c a n t a t th e 57® l e v e l *+ S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e 1% le v e l M 99 TABIE XXX A SUMMARY OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN TWENTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON EXPRESSION IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM P o s itio n s —^ R a t e d R a te rS " " -^ ^ No. o f R a tin g s S tu d e n ts A verage R a tin g No. o f R a tin g s in s tru c to rs A verage R a tin g c/s A -l A-2 A-3 a - 1* A/A“l 221 190 191 239 203 126 96 170 li43 135 6 .3 6 .6 6 . 1* 6 .6 6 .6 6 .1 6 . 1+ 6 .3 6 .6 6 . 1+ 79 79 79 77 79 72 55 76 72 73 6 .5 5 .9 5 .6 6 .2 6 .1 5 .7 5 .9 5 .2 6 .0 6 .2 5 9 .9 1 1 .3 12.3 12.1 1 2 .6 12.6 121+.7 13.3 12.5 12.0 12.3 12.7 T o ta ls a/A -2 a/A -3 A/A-1+ Comm T o ta ls O ff 6U.3 TABLE XXXI AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF ORIGINAL RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN TWENTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON EXPRESSION IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM Souroe o f V a r ia tio n Degrees o f Freedom T o ta l Between O ffic e r Means W ithin O ffio er R atin gs by th e Same Group 2504 Sum o f Squares Mean Square 19 2li35 1791.31 0 .7 2 100 TABLE XXXII AN ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN TWENTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON EXPERSS ION IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM Souroe o f V a r ia tio n D egrees o f Freedom T o ta l Sum o f S q u ares Mean S quare F R a tio 19 2 .2 1 P o s itio n s 9 0 .3 7 0.10 10.00 R a te rs 1 1 .2 1 1 .21 121 . 00** I n te ra c tio n ( P o s itio n s x R a te r s ) 9 0 .1 3 0 .0 1 1.00 E rro r 2 I4E5 ♦♦ 0 .0 1 ♦ ♦ S ig n if ic a n t a t t h e 1% l e v e l . TABIE XXXIII A SUMMARY OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THIRTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON KNOWLEDGE APPLIED TO THE SOLUTION OF THE STRATEGIC PROBIEM P o s itio n s ■''•-\Rated R a te rS " --^ No. o f R a tin g s S tu d e n ts Average R a tin g No. o f R a tin g s I h s t r u o to r s Average R a tin g T o ta ls GG* C/S A -l A-2 A-3 A -l; A /A -l A/A-2 A/A-3 k/K -k Comm T o tOff a ls 377 151 263 236 320 233 136 199 231 179 236 6 .3 6.1; 6 .5 6 .6 6 .5 6 .7 7 .0 6 .6 7 .0 6 .3 7 .2 12-3 56 119 120 123 119 112 116 117 106 112 6 .3 6.1; 6 .3 6 .2 6.3 6.1; 6 .5 6.1 6 .7 6 .3 6 .6 1 3 .6 1 2 .3 1 2 .3 1 2 .3 1 2 ,3 1 3 .1 1 3 .5 12.7 13.7 71+-1 70.6 1 3 .1 1 3 .S U 4;.7 ♦ Commanding G en eral i 101 TABLE) XXXIV AN ANALYSE OF VARIANCE OF ORIGINAL RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THIRTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON KNOWLEDGE APPLIED TO THE SOLUTION OF THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM S o u ro e o f V a ria tio n D egrees o f Freedom T o ta l Between O f fio e r Means W ith in O f f io e r R a tin g s b y th e Same Group Sum o f S quares Mean Square 27142.10 0 .6 7 14092 21 14077 TABIE XXXV AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THIRTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON KNOWLEDGE APPLIED TO THE SOLUTION OF THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM S ouroe o f V a r ia tio n D egrees o f Freedom Sum o f S q u ares Mean Square T o ta l 21 I . 6L4 P o s itio n s 10 0 .2 2 0.022 1 O.56 0.560 10 0.20 0.020 R a te r s I n te ra c tio n ( P o s itio n s x R a te r s ) E rro r ll077 ** S ig n if ic a n t a t th e 1% l e v e l . 0.005 F R a tio 17 . 60 ** 112.00 ** 1 ** I4.OO 102 TABIE XXXVI A SUMMARY OP RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THIRTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON THINKING IN THE STRATEGIC EROBIEM P o s itio n s " -^ R a te d RatorS^-^_ No. o f R a tin g s S tu d e n ts Average R a tin g No. o f R a tin g s I n s tr u c t o r s Average R a tin g T o ta ls CG C/fe A -l A-2 A-3 A-U A /A -l a/A -2 A/A-3 A/A-U Comm T o ta ls O ff 3S2 155 2Jk 299 325 292 195 206 290 190 296 6 .2 6 .5 6 .6 6 .7 6.U 6 .7 6 .9 6 .6 7 .0 6 .9 6 .9 56 119 123 126 117 I lk 115 113 107 11J+ 6 .5 6 .2 6 .3 6 .3 6 .5 6 ,k 6 .1 6 .6 6 .3 6 .3 7 0.3 13.0 12 . S 1 3 .0 1 2 .7 1 3 .2 13-3 1 2 .7 13.6 13.2 13.2 k ik -3 121+ 6 .S 1 3 .6 TABLE XXXVII AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE CEP ORIGINAL RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THIRTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON THINKING IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM Souroe o f V ariation Total Between O ffioer Means Within O ffioer Ratings by the Same Group Degrees o f Freedom Sum of Squares Mean Square 315U.OO 0 .7 6 to i 21 1»170 7i+*0 103 TABUS XXXVIII AH ANALYSE OP VARIANCE OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THIRTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON THINKING IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM Souroe o f V a r ia tio n D egrees o f Freedom Sum o f S q u ares Mean S quare F R a tio T o ta l 21 1.3 7 P o s itio n s 10 0.50 0.050 10 . 00 ** 1 0 .6 2 0.620 121+.00** 10 0.25 0.025 5 . 00 ** R a te rs In te ra c tio n ( P o s itio n s x R a te r s ) E rro r 0 .0 0 5 1*170 ** S i g n i f i c a n t a t th e 1$ l e v e l . TA3IE XXXIX A SUMMARY OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THIRTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON INITIATIVE IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM P o s itio n s ~ -^ R a te d R a te rfT ''-^ ^ No. o f R a tin g s S tu d e n ts Average R a tin g No. o f R a tin g s in s tru c to rs Average R a tin g T o ta ls CG c/s A -l A-2 A-3 A-4 a / a - 1 a / a - 2 A/A-3 A/A-4 Comn ToOff ta ls 212 239 193 296 6 .9 6.7 7.0 6.9 6.3 74.9 124 124 127 121 113 120 113 110 115 6.3 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.3 13. 3 12.9 13.113.2 13.3 13.313.4 13.0 6.4 13.4 3^4 160 277 300 3 S3 29 S 137 6.9 6.5 126 55 6 .9 6.4 6.7 6.4 6.9 6.3 6 .3 6.3 70.7 13.1 13.1 145.6 6 .2 101+ TABIE XL AN ANALYSE OP VARIANCE OP ORIGINAL RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THIRTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON INITIATIVE IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM S ouroe o f V a r ia tio n D egrees o f Freedom T o ta l Sum o f S quares Mean Square 3300.70 0 .7 S 1*236 Between O f fio e r Means W ith in O f fio e r R a tin g s b y th e Same Group 21 1*215 TABLE XLI AN ANALYSE OP VARIANCE OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THIRTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON INITIATIVE IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM Souroe o f V a r ia tio n D egrees o f Freedom S un o f S q u ares Mean Square F R a tio T o ta l 21 1.33 P o s it i o n s 10 0.31 0.031 6.20** 1 0 .S 0 O.SOO 160 . 00 ** 10 0 .2 2 0 .0 2 2 U.140** R a te r s I n te ra c tio n ( P o s itio n s x R a te r s ) E rro r 1*215 * * S ig n ifio a n t a t th e 1% l e v e l . 0.005 105 TABLE XLII A SUMMARY OP RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THIRTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON COOPERATION IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM P o sitio n s -^ R a ted RaterS'''-^^ No. o f Ratings Students Average Rating CG A -l A-2 A-3 k-k A /A -l A/A-2 A/A-3 A/A-i+ Coma ToOff 161 292 317 390 312 213 235 302 213 310 7 .3 6 .9 7 .2 7 .2 7 .0 7 .2 7 .1 6 .9 7 .2 7 .1 7 .1 12k 56 125 12U 125 120 116 119 117 110 115 7 .1 6 .2 6 .6 6 .7 6 .6 6 .6 6 .I 4. 6 .3 13.2 6*5 6.J+ 6 .3 72.3 13*5 l3.Aj- 150 .U ih*3 1 5 .7 1 3 .2 1 3 .9 1 3 .6 1 3 .2 1 3 .5 1 3 .7 TABLE XLHI AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF ORIGINAL RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THIRTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON COOPERATION IN THE STRATEGIC PROBIEM Souroe o f V ariation T otal Between O ffioer Means W ithin O fficer Ratings by th e Same Group ta ls 320 No. o f Ratings In structors Average Rating T otals c/is Degrees o f . Freedom Sum o f Squares Mean Square 3 SOI.I 4O 0 .27 U321 21 Aj36 o 7 2 .1 106 TABLE XLIV AN ANALYSE OF VARIANCE OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THIRTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON COOPERATION IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM Souroe o f V a r ia tio n D egrees o f Freedom Sum o f S quares F R a tio Mean Square T o ta l 21 2 .2 3 P o s itio n s 10 0.1]2 O . 0I42. 1 1.53 1.530 255.00** 10 0.22 0.022 1 ✓ ** 1+.67 R a te rs I n te ra c tio n ( P o s itio n s x R a te r s ) 14-360 E rro r 7 . 00** 0.006 ** S i g n i f i c a n t a t th e 1% le v e l* TABLE XLV A SUMMARY OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THIRTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON ORGANIZING ABILITY IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM P o s itio n s ^ R a te d R a te r ^ ^ _ No. o f R atin gs Students Average R atin g No. o f R atings in str u c to r s A verage R ating T o ta ls CG C/% A -l A-2 A-3 a- 4 A /A -! A/A-2 a/A -3 A/A-4 comm ToOff t a l s 3^4- 147 263 220 372 279 169 124 254 170 261 6 .6 6 .4 6 .6 6 .7 6.1 6 .6 6 .2 6 .7 6 .7 6 .7 6 .7 126 54 121 121 123 119 99 106 110 96 105 6 .2 6 .2 6 .4 6*4 6 .3 6 .4 1 3 .4 1 2 .6 1 3 .0 1 3 .1 1 2 .4 1 3 .0 6 .6 6 .3 1 3 .4 1 3 .0 6 .5 13.2 6.2 6 .3 13.0 12.9 7 2 .6 7 0 .4 143 .0 107 table: 2L V T AH ANALYSIS CP VARIANCE OF ORIGINAL RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THIRTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON ORGANIZING ABILITY IN THE STRATEGIC PROBIEM Source of Variation Degrees of Freedom Total Between Offioer Means Sum of Squares Mean Square 3216.20 0.&2 39U& 21 Within Offioer Ratings by the Same Group 3927 TABLE XLVII AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THIRTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON ORGANIZING ABILITY IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM Mean Square F Ratio Degrees of Freedom Sum of Squares Total 21 0 .9 2 Positions 10 o.b5 0.014-5 7.50** 1 0 . 2R 0.220 36.67** 10 0 .25 0.025 4.17** Souroe of Variation Raters Lrteraotion (Positions x Raters) Error 3927 ** S ig n if ic a n t a t th e 1% l e v e l . 0 .006 lo g TABIE XLVIII A SUMMARY OP RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS El THIRTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON EXPRESSION IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM Positions CG ■'■''s^Rated R a t e r S '- ^ ^ c/s A-l A-2 A-3 Ark A/A-l A/A-2 a/a-3 A/A-k Comm ToOff ta ls N o. of Ratings Students Average Rating 333 159 292 317 391 305 196 229 300 202 309 6.7 6.5 6 .6 6 .2 6.5 6.7 6 . 2+ 6.3 6 .6 6 . 1; 71.9 56 121; 125 126 122 110 120 117 111 112 6 .1 6 .1 6.3 6 .2 6 .k 1 2 .6 1 2 .6 1 2 .9 12 . 1; 12.9 6 ,k 6 .1 13.1 12.5 No. of Ratings 126 Instructors Average Rating 6.5 13.2 Totals 6.5 6 . 2+ 6 .2 6 .0 63.7 13.2 12.3 12.1; 1^0 .6 TABLE XL IX AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE .OF ORIGINAL RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS E l THIRTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON EXPRESSION IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM S o u ro e o f V a ria tio n T o ta l B etw een O f f i c e r Means W ith in O f f io e r R a tin g s b y th e Some G roup D eg rees o f Freedom Sum o f S q u a re s Mean S q u are 3010.70 0.70 1*331 21 1*310 109 TABUS L AN ANALYSE OP VARIANCE OP RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THIRTY DIFFERENT STAFFS ON EXPRESSION IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM S o u rc e o f V a ria tio n D eg rees o f Freedom Sum o f S q u a re s Mean S q u a re F R a tio 9 . 20 ** T o ta l 21 1.02 P o s itio n s 10 0 . 1^6 0 . 0lj6 1 0.1*7 0.U70 9I4.OO 10 0.09 0 .0 0 9 l.SO R a te rs In te ra c tio n (P o s itio n s x R a te rs ) E rro r 14-310 ♦ ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e 1% l e v e l . 0.005 ♦♦ 110 TABLE LI NUMBER OP RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM Positions '''•^Rated T r a it& \^ Ratoas' \ C/fc A-l A-2 A-3 A-1+ A/A-l A/A-2 a/ a-3 A/A-1+ Comm. Total Off Aotual No. of Ratings 73 Knowledge Adjusted No. of Ratings 37 Aotual No. of Ratings 79 Thinking Adjusted Mo of Ratings ’ 33 Aotual No. of Ratings 73 In itia tiv e Adjusted Mo. of Ratings 31+ Aotual No. of Ratings 79 Cooperation Adjusted Mo.’ 31+ of Ratings Aotual No. of Ratings _ 73 Organising A b ility Adjusted Mo. of Ratings 91 Aotual No. of Ratings . 79 * Expression Adjusted No. of Ratings 35 Expeoted 30 Number 7b 77 76 77 69 53 69 73 70 716 33 36 35 36 77 59 77 32 73 300 75 76 77 73 67 55 70 7Q 67 7ll+ 3i+ 35 36 37 75 62 79 79 75 300 73 73 77 73 75 57 72 75 75 7b3 31+ 31+ 33 31*. 31 61 77 31 31 300 79 73 79 79 75 57 75 75 7b 750 31+ 31+ 31+ 31+ 30 61 30 30 79 300 77 7b 77 76 67 51 59 65 61 635 90 36 90 39 73 60 69 76 71 300 79 79 77 79 72 55 76 72 73 7l4l 35 35 S3 35 73 60 32 73 79 300 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 300 I ll TABIE L II NUMBER OP RATINGS GIVEN BY HETRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM P o s itio n s " ''\ R a t e d Tral&&,v. R a te c t^ ^ A o tu a l N o. o f R a tin g s Knowledge A d ju s te d No, o f R a tin g s A o tu a l No. o f R a tin g s T h in k in g A d ju s te d No. o f R a tin g s A o tu a l No* o f R a tin g s In itia tiv e A d ju s te d Mto, o f R a tin g s A o tu a l No. o f R a tin g s C o o p e ra tio n A d ju s te d N o. o f R a tin g s A o tu a l No. o f R a tin g s O rg a n iz in g A b ility A d ju s te d N o. o f R a tin g s A o tu a l No. o f R a tin g s E x p r e s s io n A d ju s te d N o. o f R a tin g s T o ta ls A o tu cd No. o f R a tin g s A d ju s te d N o. o f R a tin g s 0/s A -l A-2 A-3 A— 1+ a/a-1 a /a -2 a /a -3 a /a -4 Comm E x p e c te d O ff 7S 74 77 76 77 69 53 69 73 dum ber 70 SO 79 77 SO 72 SO 7S 7S 79 Si SO 79 75 76 77 72 67 55 70 70 67 SO Si 7S 79 So SO 76 Si SO 7S 77 7S 7*3 7S 77 73 75 57 72 75 75 SO 79 Si Si So So S4 S3 S2 S4 S6 79 79 7* 79 79 75 57 75 75 74 SI S2 Si S2 Si S5 S3 S5 S4 S4 7^ 77 74 77 76 67 51 59 65 61 SO SO 79 So 77 SO 7S 76 75 67 73 70 79 79 79 77 79 72 55 76 72 73 gl S2 S2 SO Si Si SO S7 SO S3 SO 4so 471 462 462 463 467 425 32S 421 430 420 4so 4&o 4so 4 so 4so 4so 4^0 4so 4So 4#o 112 TABLE L III NUMBER OP RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO THEIR FELLOW STUDENTS IN THE TACTICAL PROBIEM Positions v\ vRated T rai^& \^ R a te o '^ Aotual No. of Ratings Knowledge Adjusted llo. of Ratings Aotual tfo. of Ratings Thinking Adjusted No. of Ratings Aotual No. of Ratings in itia tiv e Adjusted ifo. of Ratings Aotual No. of Ratings Cooperation Adjusted No. of Ratings Aotual No. of Ratings Organizing AbilityAdjusted Wo. of Ratings Aotual No. of Ratings Expression Adjusted No. of Ratings Expected Number c/s A -l A-2 A-3 A-lj. A/A-l a/ a -2 A/A-3 A/A-1+ Com Total Off 213 170 173 229 193 10h 33 157 135 177 2J4O 137 190 252 212 Ilk 91 173 ll|3 19h 1301 223 170 176 229 19k 102 30 157 131 172 l& k 2J46 137 19k 252 2 lJk 112 33 173 1UJ+ 190 1300 221 171 113 8k 15k 132 17k 1654 2 la 136 195 252 212 123 91 168 124* 139 1301 179 231 195 1639 139 233 205 13S 99 172 155 139 1795 221 191 190 239 206 133 99 172 155 190 1301 213 16^ 166 136 97 73 136 112 159 15^1 19U 269 217 113 S5 159 131 136 1301 221 190 191 239 203 126 96 170 ih3 135 225 19U 195 2kk 207 129 93 17k li|6 139 1301 223 190 13S 99 172 155 139 1301 220 190 255 192 230 191 239 205 n (b t'A t l i / 113 TABLE LIV NUMBER OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO THEIR FELLOW STUDENTS IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM A o tu a l N o. o r R a tin g s T h in k in g A d ju s te d tto . o f R a tin g s A o tu a l N o. o f R a tin g s In itia tiv e A d ju s te d No. o f R a tin g s A o tu a l No. o f R a tin g s C o o p e r a tio n A d ju s te d No. o f R a tin g s A o tu a l N o. o f R a tin g s O rg a n iz in g A b ility A djus-w d No. o r R a tin g s A o tu a l N o. o f R a tin g s E x p r e s s io n A d ju s te d No. o f R a tin g s A o tu a l N o. o f R a tin g s T o ta l A d ju s te d No. o f R a tin g s Comm O ff 157 135 177 96 171 155 190 30 157 131 172 124 92 171 151 135 195 113 34 154 132 174 221+ 135 191 237 204 13s 97 163 152 137 220 190 139 233 205 99 172 155 139 163 114 133 17& 203 A -l A-2 A-3 213 170 173 229 193 104 33 221 134 127 22.3 170 176 229 194 102 £ A o tu a l No. o f R a tin g s Knowledge A d ju s te d No. o f R a tin g s / -4 c /s M P o s itio n s ^ " 'v R a te d T r a i t & '\ ^ R a te a \^ 235 a -4 a/ a - i 202 226 134 133 235 203 221 171 179 231 13s a / a - 2 a/ a -3 a a 223 205 202 245 214 213 164 166 230 136 97 73 136 112 159 221 177 ‘177 236 195 113 35 ll+S 129 171 126 96 170 143 135 224 205 204 246 212 153 111 136 165 193 630 515 946 303 1056 1339 n 4 o 11L+6 1434 1230 323 595 1032 930 1134 221 190 191 239 203 1321 1055 1074 1396 1176 TABLE L y NUMBER OP RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THE STRATEGIC PROBIEM Positions '^\R^.ted CG c/s TraitJ&v. Ratect^v^ Aotual No* of Ratings Knowledge Adjusted No, of Ratings Aotual No* of Ratings Tliinking Adjusted No, of Ratings Actual No* of Ratings m i'tiaiive Adjusted No, of Ratings Aotual No* of Ratings Cooperation Adjusted No, of Ratings Aotual rfo* of Ratings Organizing A b ility Adjusted No, of Ratings Aotual No* of Ratings Expression Adjusted No, of Ratings Expected Numbers A -l A-2 A-3 A-1+ A/a-1 A/A-2 aA -3 A/A-U Comm Totals Off 123 56 119 120 123 119 112 116 117 106 112 1223 126 123 126 122 115 119 .120 10S 115 1253 12l+ 56 119 123 126 117 114 115 113 107 114 1223 126 57 121 129 119 116 117 115 109 116 1250 126 55 12l+ 12l+ 127 121 113' 120 113 110 115 125& 125 55 123 123 126 120 117 119 in 109 114 12k3 120 57 122 125 125 12k 125 116 119 117 110 115 1251 12k 56 125 12k 125 120 116 119 117 110 115 1251 126 5k 121 121 123 119 99 106 no 13 k 57 12S 123 131 126 105 112 126 56 124 125 126 122 110 12l+ 56 105 1130 117 102 111 1251 120 117 111 112 121+9 124 325 126 122 110 120 117 111 112 120 52. 120 120 120 120 120 120 126 56 96 121+9 » 120 120 120 1252. 115 TABU3 LVI NUMBER OP RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO STUDENTS IN THE STRATEGIC EROBIEM P o s itio n s ^ v ^ R a te d CG c/s A -l Traifcfe^v. R a te c t\^ A o tu a l No. o f R a tin g s Knowledge A d ju s te d No, o f R a tin g s A o tu a l No. o f R a tin g s T h in k in g A d ju s te d No. o f R a tin g s A o tu a l No. o f R a tin g s In itia ti-re A d ju s te d tfo. o f R a tin g s A o tu a l No. o f R a tin g s C o o p e r a tio n A d ju s te d No. o f R a tin g s A o tu a l No. o f R a tin g s O rg a n iz in g A b ility A d ju s te d No< o f R a tin g s A o tu a l No. r6 f R a tin g s E x p r e s s io n A d ju s te d No, o f R a tin g s A-2 A-3 A-4 a/A-1 A/A-2. a/A-3 A/A-4 C o m Off 123 56 119 120 123 119 112 116 117 106 112 113 52 117 117 11s 119 120 120 122 119 120 12k 56 119 125 126 117 114 115 113 107 114 119 52 117 120 121 117 123 119 117 120 122 126 55 12k 12k 127 121 116 120 116 110 115 121 52 122 121 127 124 123 124 123 12k 56 125 12k 125 120 116 119 117 110 115 119 52 123 121 120 125 123 122 124 123 126 54 121 123 119 99 106 110 96 105 121 51 119 116 116 119 107 110 134 106 112 126 56 12k 125 126 122 110 120 117 111 112 121 52 122 122 116 124 122 125 120 750 716 669 696 692 6I4O 673 713 720 720 720 720 720 . t A o tu a l No* o f R a tin g s T o ta ls Aidj u s t e d No. o f R a tin g s 719 121 122 1 335 732 737 311 720 122 120 121 719 720 121 116 TABIB LY U NUMBER OF RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO THEIR FELLOW STUDENTS IN THE STRATEGIC PROBIBM P o s itio n s " v ^ R a te d CG c /s A -l A-2 A-3 A-b 377 151 263 236 330 233 136 199 231 179 236 2376 Ip.1 165 292 312 io h 309 203 217 306 195 312 3136 332 155 335 292 195 206 290 190 296 29 6U T ra i^ fe v . R a te ^ \ E x p ected Number CVl A c tu a l No. o f R a tin g s Knowledge A d ju ste d No. o f R a tin g s A c tu a l No. o f R a tin g s T hinkin g A d ju ste d No, o f R a tin g s A c tu a l No. o f R a tin g s in itia tiv e A d ju ste d No. o f R a tin g s A c tu a l No. o f R a tin g s C o o p e ra tio n Adjus'iied iJo. o f R a tin g s 'A o tu a l No. o f R a tin g s 6r g a n iz in g A b ility A d ju ste d No. o f R a tin g s A o tu a l No. o f R a tin g s E x p re s s io n A d ju ste d No. o f R a tin g s A /A -l A/A-2 A/A-3 A/A-4 Comm T o ta ls Off 299 koh i6 h 290 316 i*07 309 206 213 307 201 313 3135 l6 o 277 300 333 293 137 212 239 193 296 2979 hoh 163 292 316 hop 3lU 197 223 30k 203 312 3136 330 l6 l 293 317 390 312 213 235 302 213 310 3131 381 l6 l 293 318 391 312 213 235 302 213 310 313U 3*k lU7 263 230 378 279 169 I3 h 25h 170 261 2769 1j35 166 293 317 A|23 316 191 203 233 193 296 3136 383 159 292 317 391 305 196 229 300 202 309 3033 390 162 297 322 398 310 199 233 305 205 3 lh 3135 3 8U l6 l 293 317 391 312 213 235 302 213 310 3136 3 117 TABLE LVHI NUMBER OP RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO THEIR FELLOW STUDENTS IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM CG A o tu a l No* o f R a tin g s 377 Knowledge A d ju ste d No o f R a tin g s 379 A o tu al No* o f R a tin g s 332 b lin k in g A d ju ste d No o f R a tin g s 38k A c tu a l No* o f R a tin g s 3 ^ I n itia tiv e A d ju ste d ilo o f R a tin g s 366 A o tu al No* o f R a tin g s 330 C o o p e ra tio n A d ju ste d No o f R a tin g s 382 A o tu a l No* o f R a tin g s 3 8k O rg an izin g A b ility A d ju ste d No o f R a tin g s ‘386 A o tu a l &o* o f R a tin g s 383 E x p re s s io n A d ju ste d !No o f R a tin g s *385 A o tu a l No* o f R a tin g s 2290 T o ta ls A d ju ste d "ifo o f R a tin g s 2302 c /s A -l A-2 A-3 A-i* A /A -l A/A-2 151 263 236 330 233 136 199 231 179 236 156 237 302 3 36 299 207 222 297 199 303 155 CM P o s itio n s '' \ R a t e d T ra iS fc v . R atea^N ^ 299 3 83 292 195 206 290 190 296 160 293 316 392 309 217 230 306 212 313 160 277 300 3 83 293 137 212 239 193 296 166 296 317 389 315 209 236 305 215 313 161 293 317 390 312 213 235 302 213 310 167 319 335 397 330 233 262 319 237 323 ll t f 263 230 37 8 279 169 131+ 251+ 170 261 152 231 296 38k 295 133 205 263 139 276 159 292 317 391 305 196 229 300 202 309 165 312 335 39 8 323 219 255 317 225 327 933 1672 1799 2307 1769 131)6 1265 1716 111+7 1756 966 1788 1901 23I+6 1371 1276 11*10 1312 1277 1360 a/ a -3 A/A-1+ Coma O ff TABLE L3X HTERGORRELATIONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO CHIEFS OF STAFF IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM E xpres- O rganiz- Cooper­ I n i t i a ­ Think­ Knowl­ Composite s io n in g t iv e a tio n edge in g A b ility E x p ressio n •••• O rganizing A b ility <769 .696 .729 .SOI .731 .33U •• •• .653 .779 .330 .762 .912 ••• • .707 .719 .636 .319 ••• • • 777 .737 .9 0 a •••• .732 .921 •••• .330 C ooperation I n itia tiv e Thinking Knowledge •••• Composite - N - 73 TABLE LX 3NTERCQRREIATIONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO CHIEFS OF STAFF IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM E x p re s - O rg a n iz- C ooper- i n i t i a ­ T hink­ Knowl­ Composite edge in g tiv e s io n in g a tio n A b ility E x p re s s io n • ••• O rg a n izin g A b ility C o o p e ra tio n I n itia tiv e T h in k in g Knowledge Com posite N » 133 .ij3S .670 .602 .592 .791 .....................1+32 .690 .637 . 6l|2 .359 .667 .627 .633 .311 • • • • .61*3 .673 .363 • • • • .712 .3ii3 •• •21+5 .630 • • • • • • • e• • 119 TABLE LXI INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO OFFICERS IN CHARGE OF PERSONNEL IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM E xpres­ Organiz­ Cooper­ I n i t i a ­ Think­ Knowl­ Composite s io n ing t iv e edge a tio n in g A b ilit y CM O rganizing A b ilit y ••• • .525 .613 .590 .497 -7b5 •••• .621 .596 . 70k .711 .SOS •• •• .709 •773 . 6S0 •253 • • *f •753 .639 .S 63 ••• • .721 .912 •••• '.S 62 • E x p ressio n C ooperation I n itia tiv e Thinking Knowledge • ••1 Composite N - 72 TABLE LXII INTERCORRELAT IONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO OFFICERS IN CHARGE OP PERSONNEL IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM B x p re s- O rg a n iz- C ooper- i n i t i a ­ Think­ Knowl­ Composite edge tiv e in g s io n in g a t io n A b ility E x p re s sio n ..................... 633 . 552 .560 •551 •531 •759 O rg an izin g A b ility •• .. • 1^1 •70k .760 •673 •295 .... .701 .610 .551 .S30 •••• .661 • 6^7 .S56 •• •» •733 .S56 •• •• .S19 C o o p e ra tio n I n itia tiv e T h in k in g Knowledge Compos i t e N » iia • ••• TABLE LKIII INTERCORRELATIONS BETVUEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO OFFICERS IN CHARGE OF INTELLIGENCE IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM E x p ressio n O rganizing A b ility •••• *690 •5k5 • 591 .617 .560 •7&3 • •II •599 • ost 0 E xpres- O rganiz- Cooper­ I n it i a ­ Think­ Knowl­ Composite s io n in g edge a tio n t iv e ing A b ilit y .321 .760 .909 • • »• .606 .622 .637 • 775 •••• .762 •771 .336 !••• .739 .397 •••• .373 C ooperation I n itia tiv e Thinking Knowledge •••• Composite N - 72 TABLE LOT INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO OFFICERS IN CHARGE OF INTELLIGENCE IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM E x p re s- O rg a n iz- Coopor- i n i t i a ­ Think­ Knowl­ edge tiv e in g s io n in g a tio n A b ility CM .311 .623 .666 .327 .711 • 597 . 6olj. .317 ••• .669 .699 .353 •••• .770 .352. • .3 7 6 ,6 k l .560 .602 • .630 E x p re s s io n O rg a n izin g A b ility • •. • •639 .621 •••• C o o p e ra tio n I n itia tiv e T h in k in g Knowledge Com posite N = 73* Composite • • • • • ••• 121 TABIE LEV INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO OFFICERS IN CHARGE OF OPERATIONS IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM E xpres- Organiz- Cooper­ I n i t i a ­ Think­ Knowl­ s io n ing t iv e a tio n edge ing A b ilit y E x p ressio n Composite .7^9 .621+ • 595 .635 .623 .319 •••• •lH± •753 • 72S .720 .902 • •• • •15b .695 .691 .365 •••• • 72S •70b .369 Thinking .322 .335 Knowledge •• • • .371 •••• O rganizing A b ilit y C ooperatios I n itia tiv e • ••♦ Composite N “ 75 TABLE LXVI INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO OFFICERS HI CHARGE OF OPERATIONS IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM E x p re s - O rg an iz- Cooper­ I n i t i a ­ Think­ Knowl­ edge tiv e a ti o n in g s io n in g A b ility C o o p e ra tio n In itia tiv e T h in k in g Knowledge Com posite N - 195 .627 .5 ^1 .651 .637 .663 .322 ••• .617 •lob .637 .695 •••• .639 .632 .530 •199 •• •• •7b9 .702 .370 •••• .776 .391 • •• • .363 • ISO O rg an izin g A b ility • • *• CVJ u\ . E x p re s s io n Composite •••• TABLE LXVII 3NTERCGRHELATIONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO OFFICERS IN CHARGE OF SUPPLY IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM E x p re s- O rg a n iz - Coopor- I n i t i a ­ Think­ Knowl­ Composite s io n in g a tio n tiv e in g edge A b ility E x p re s s io n •••• O rg an iz in g A b ility *523 *520 .657 .569 . 67k •723 • ••• .79^+ , 6?k .749 .627 •&7k •••• .691 .712 .511 .2 l£ • •• • .656 .631 .255 •••• . 60S .372 •••• .S13 C o o p e ra tio n In itia tiv e T h in k in g Knowledge Composite N ■ 76 •••• TABLE LXVIII INTERCORRELAT I01E BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO OFFICERS IN CHARGE OF SUPPLY IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM E x p ressio n O rganising A b ility C ooperation I n itia tiv e Thinking Knowledge Composite N “162 Expres­ s io n Organ- Cooper- I n i t i a ­ Think­ Knowl­ Composite edge t iv e iz in g a tio n ing A b ility ♦• • • • 7JUi+ , 66U .739 .672 .722 .361 •••• *731 .7 66 .751 •779 .911 •• •• .733 .71U .652 .351 •••• •7bP •73U .293 •••• .736 .375 • #• • .277 ••• • 125 TJL3L3 LUX INT5RCQRRSLATIONS BETiQEH RATDKS C-I73K BT HSTSUCTQ3S TO ASSISTANT PERSONNEL OFFICERS IN TEE TACTICAL FH03IEH Expres- Organic- Cooper­ i n i t i a ­ Think­ Knowl­ Composite s io n in g a tio n t iv e ing edge A b ilit y 52U .591+ .623 . 66i; .607 •7*9 • • • • •lk& .669 .305 .632 •*h5 • • • • • 771 .769 • 657 •*77 • • • • .771 , 6h 6 •*75 Thinking •7*5 .927 Knowledge • #• • .3^3 E xp ression .................................. O rganizing A b ilit y C ooperation I n itia tiv e Composite • • • • N a 60 TA3LE LSX EITSRCCRRELATIOIE 3ETYl3EN RATINGS GIVEN 3Y STUDSNTS TO ASSISTANT PERSONNEL OFFICERS HI TE3 TACTICAL PROBLEM E xpres- O rganiz- Cooper­ i n i t i a ­ Think­ Knowl­ Composite t iv e ing edge a tio n s io n ing A b ilit y E xp ression Organizing A b ility Cooperation I n itia tiv e Thinking Knowledge Comoosite H = 36 • ••• .303 .551 .623 .666 .632 .321 •••• .72U •7*5 .759 .790 .933 • • «• .761 .6i}6 .662 .S 32 • ♦• • •72U •76U .392 •• •« •750 .S63 •• •• .373 •••• 12b TABLS LSXI INTERCORRELATIOKS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO ASS 1STANT INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS IN THE TACTICAL FROBISU E xpres- Organiz- Cooper­ i n i t i a ­ Think­ Knowl­ Composite s io n in g a tio n t iv e edge in g A b ilit y E xp ression • ••• O rganizing A b ility . 6 ll •5k9 .725 . 5I4S .717 .523 • • • t .656 •13k .692 .663 • • • • • .615 .659 .J50 •S35 • • • • .65 9 .100 .377 • • • • .165 .S ill • • • • .900 C ooperation in itia tiv e Thinking Knowledge Composite S57 • • • • N = k9 TABLE LEXII INTERCORRELAT IONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO ASSISTANT INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS IN THE TACTICAL FROBIEN E x p r e s - O rg a n iz- C ooper­ I n i t i a ­ T hink­ Knowl­ C om posite ed ge tiv e a t io n in g s io n in g A b ility E x p r e s s io n O r g a n iz in g A b ility C o o p e r a tio n I n itia tiv e T h in k in g Knowledge C om posite N » 7b •••• . 633 .611 .613 • 735 .1+72 •••• .729 .630 .725 .633 .376 •••• .309 .625 .625 .536 •••• .11b .65b .370 •••• .766 .330 •• • • .SiiO • ••• TABLE LXXHI INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO ASSISTANT OPERATIONS OFFICERS IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM E x p r e s - O r g a n iz - Cooper­ I n i t i a ­ T hink­ Knowl­ s io n in g edge a t io n tiv e in g A b ility • ••• O r g a n iz in g A b ility • 702 .665 .656 .5U3 .636 •812 ••t • .692 .723 .636 0 0 t*-• E x p r e s s io n C om posite .357 •••• •759 . 69S .73^ .891 •••• .633 .61+7 .862 •••• .737 •31+9 •••• .878 C o o p e r a tio n I n itia tiv e T h in k in g Knowledge C om posite •••• N “ 55 TABLE LXXIV INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO ASSISTANT OPERATIONS OFFICERS IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM E xpres- Organiz- Cooper­ i n i t i a ­ tUSJ c-' Knowl­ Composite edge t iv e a tio n s io n in g ing A b ilit y . 67^ .661 .667 .693 .685 .863 ••• • .623 .656 .676 c— • 00 .357 C ooperation .611 .593 .635 .816 I n itia tiv e •••• .662 .697 . 8i|6 ••• • .668 .820 ••• • .861 E xp ression Organizing A b ility Thinking Knowledge Composite N - 150 • •«• •••• TABLE LOT INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO ASSISTANT SUPPLY OFFICERS IN THE TACTICAL PROBIEM Expres- Organiz- Cooper­ In itia ­ Think­ Knowl­ edge sion ing ing ation tiv e A b ility Organizing A b ility .555 •454 . 6L}2 .1+95 .713 .767 • •• • .750 •742 .726 .655 .679 ••• • .656 .662 . 1+66 .505 ••• • .625 •6 lij. .565 •••• .617 .525 Cooperation In itia tiv e Thinking Knowledge • •• • 09. t-« O •••• • Expression Composite Composite e• •• N = 62 TABLE L O T I INTERC ORRELAT IONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO ASSISTANT SUPPLY OFFICERS IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM E xp res- O rganiz- Cooper­ I n i t i a ­ Think­ Knowl­ edge ing tiv e s io n in g a tio n A b ility E x p ressio n O rganizing A b ility C ooperation I n itia tiv e Thinking Knowledge Composite N » 106 •••• Composite .706 .1+77 .551 .656 • 545 .509 • ♦• • •643 .641 .605 .557 .560 •••• • 549 .619 .413 • 779 •••• .565 .550 .799 ••• • .600 .$36 ••• • 747 • •••• 127 TABIE LX3CVII INTERCCRRELAT I0K5 BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO COMMUNICATIONS OFFICERS IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM .................. 1+75 .521+ •570 .660 .1+53 .731 Organizing A b ility •*•• •331 •5S5 .592 •535 .761 • • • • .656 .552 .390 .727 •• • .695 .1+67 .61*2 •• • • . 6lS • • • • .690 in itia tiv e • Thinking Knowledge Composite 03. VJ1 Cooperation CO. Expression * Expres- Organis-Coopera- In itia­ Think­ Knowl­ Composite tiv e sion ing ation edge ing A b ility • • • • N » 59 TABLE LXXVIII INTERCORRELAT IONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO COMMUNICATIONS OFFICERS IN THE TACTICAL PROBLEM E xpres- O rganiz- Coopera­ i n i t i a ­ Think­ Knowl­ Composite edge t iv e ing s io n in g t io n A b ilit y E xp ression Organizing A b ilit y Cooperation in itia tiv e Thinking Knowledge Composite N » II4S •••• • 673 .1+90 .635 .761+ . 60S .335 • •• • .600 • 731 .713 .670 .370 •••• •71j2 .631 .590 .773 •••• .669 .672 .660 •• • • .71+3 .0 7 6 ••• • .633 123 TABIE LKXK INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO COMMANDING GENERALS IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM Expres- Organiz- Coopera­ In itia ­ Think­ Knowl­ Composite sion ing tiv e tio n edge ing A b ility Expression Organizing A b ility • ••• *300 .1 9 3 .352 •k3k • iM .633 •••• .5 5 1 .625 .519 .535 .790 • • •• .5 2 k .ii25 .352 .63S ••• • •61*1*. .610 .323 •••• .673 .327 • ••• . 63U Cooperation In itia tiv e Thinking Knowledge Composite •••• N * 12a tabus im INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN RATINGS GIVEN BY STUDENTS TO COMMANDING GENERALS IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM -j 09. - 'J E x p re s- O rg an !z- C oopera­ i n i t i a ­ Think­ Knowl­ Com posite edge tiv e in g s io n in g tio n A b ility .....................573 .5 7 5 .6 2 7 •599 .615 O rg an izin g A b ility • ••« .66k .710 • 6k5 .613 .350 •• • 69k .603 • 6k3 .255 •••• .661; .667 .330 •• .731 .239 • •7k9 C o o p e ra tio n in itia tiv e T hinking Knowledge Composite N - 373 • • • • • • • • E x p re s sio n 129 TABIE LXXXI INTERCORRELATIONS BETYffiEN RATINGS GIVEN BY INSTRUCTORS TO CHIEFS OF STAFF IN THE STRATEGIC PROBLEM .192 . . . . .112 -.153 .271 .5U3 .505 .309 .29U .683 • • • • .573 •37U • • • • Thinking • ••• Knowledge r£ I n itia tiv e LTV