Technical Paper 344 FA -

T'VLDT
"VALIDITY
LEVE
OF PEER RATINGS OBTAINED
o DURING RANGER TRAINING

Arthur C. F. Gilbert and Ronald G. Downey 5

PERSONNEL AND MANPOWER TECHNICAL AREA .

F- .1

U. S. Army
Research Inetitute for the Behavioral and S&,.ial Sciences
October 1978

Approved for public r,,ovvl., dlottrib tlon unilmite(d.

DISCLAIMER NOTICE

THIS DOCUMENT IS BEST

QUALITY AVAILABLE. THE COPY
FURNISHED TO DTIC CONTAINED
A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF
PAGES WHICH DO NOT
REPRODUCE LEGIBLY.
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the
Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

WILLIAM L.. HAUSER

JOSEPH ZEII)NER ColonelI, US Army
Techickal Direcgtor Lomimasider

NOTICES

DISTRtBUuYON PrimGIy tiittrihUlion Of this report ha. beenrimade by AMt. Pleam addreiss Corte mondeerice
cimilwilimne difitributioii of rallorts to U. S. Army megwgrch Institute lta the 1sehavioral and Social Sciiancts,
At TN It' HIlP. 10011 'tr.~ Ave'iuv, Aleswanditi, Viluini M~33.

fI~PII~pN.This report meny,

FINL be destroyed when it is no longer needed. Plea. do not return it to
teU U.Army 11114argth Insvtitut for the Behavioral eMd Social Sciences,

~LThe findings in this report are not to be consitrued as an officlal Department ot the Army Pos1tion,
umless, so datigneatti by other muthorlitod docurment.
 Unclasaified
I:CuRITY CLASI1FICATION OF TIllS PAGE (WfmumVleto Knlos0d)
PAGE
RT EAD TNUTRUCTIONS
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PBEFORE COMPLETING FORM
.APR 01 N A.GOVT ACCESSION NO: S. RECIPIRNY'S CATALOG NUNSER

Technical Paper, .344'

4. TITLE (and.&fito) 5, TYPe or MEPO"T & PRI"OO COVEIREID

VALIDITY OF PEER RATINGS OBTAINED DURING ""

RANGER TRAINING 6- PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMNER

?I AUOINOR(q .. CONTMACTOM GRANT NUMIIM1o)

Arthur C. P. Gilibert: and lonald c. I)ownoy --

I- 1i1111ORMING
P AN&SADDIII
O-GANIZAT'ION NZii .. .. , A .UNIT'NPUNOWFSM'
A0122 IOM TASK
Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and
Social Sciences (PERI-IL)
5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22333
I I, CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRMSS II, REPORT DATE
Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel October
Oor 1978
8
Washington, DC 20310 NUMI9M 0F PA ,, -
14. NONITORING AGENCY NAME& A IORI'ItUI
Et0MI tW ConfMII,*I OflotI) 14. SECURITY CLASS. (of this "Polf)

Unclassified

i. DiSTRIOUTION STAT ;MENT(oI his. kepool)

Approved for open releaset distribution unlimited.

TATMITENT (oftho oSOeSo mnt.,od In &look 20, It 411116

17. DISTRIMUTON IN 10. 0 1ai)
P00

IS. SUPPLEME1NTARY NOTES

Portions of this paper prossiinted at 17th annual conference of the Military
Tosting Association, Sapttmb',r 1975.

* IS KEKY WORDS (Contimuo 4" tovootfoid., If n.* ~o84rV And Ido,,#D blook nuime.)
by
Peer rat knqm Prediction Validity
Associate rat ings Leadership Selection
Duty performance Correlation Officer training
Job performance Ranger training

26. Ai ACy ecolr. - ;e;Mv side It ne0lo0my OW idwIell by bloek neb.t')

-The purpose of this research was to evaluiate the validity of peer rat ihIgl
obtained during the Ranqtr course in predicting oubsequent performance in ac-
tual duty assiqnments. A criterion instrument was used to obtain ratings of
overall duty performance and of potont ial porformance In combat leadership,
technical-manaqorial lhadership, tactical knowledge, defining persona[ roles,
decisionmaking, defining functional roles, mottvatinq troops, and tactical
' knowledge. The relationships among the pvter ratings, measures of Ranger
(continued)...;

D ,ID M 1473 O,, NOV,

,EITIONO ItOSSOLCT, Unclassified
-- .SECURITY CLASBIPICATION bi THIS PAS! (014" Dote DnIvord)
 P-nn-"m,' _i..

aSurnYXY CLA"FICATION OF THIS PAG5K~M* boe ne. ________

20. (continued)

. performance and the critorion measures of performance and potential

',ourse
performance were assessed by coirelation techniques. Revults indicate tilat
the relationship between peer ratings and ratings of performance and poten--
tial performance was higher than for other measures of student performance
in the Ranger course.

iied
1
'ctiltiTYCLAMPII| , IC .J T7HS P AU]*I'.. A I' R,.
 TschiidcaI7~psr 344 *)7,'~ ~

VALIDITY OF-PEERB-ATINGS NED

F DURING RANGER TRAINING,
/~ Arhur C FGil~bert 00Ronald 0Dwe

Anthony E.Castelnovo
Work Unit Loader

PERSONNEL AND MANPOWER TECHNICAL AREA

Skibm"Itie as comple and Approved by

technically acecurate, by:
Ralph It.Canter Ef.RAlph Dusee
Technicall Area Chief PERSONNEL AND T14AINING
RESEARCH LABORATORY

Joseph Zoldnsr3
TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandiftl, VIroinis 22333
Off ice, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel
Department of the Army

Army Projeoct Number Officeor Assessment

XM1077 A7M &Development

Approved for oubimt eeMoe, distribution,un~linited

 ARI Research Reports and Technical Papers are intended for sponsors of
R&D tasks and other research and military agencies. Any findings ready for
implementation at the time of publication are presented in the latter part of
the Brief, Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formal recommen.
dations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military
agencies by briefing or Disposition Forn.

L .. . * . II.............
 FOREWORD

The Personnel and Manpower Technical Area of the Army Research In-
stitute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) conducts research
to provide scientific methods of identifyinq individuals with good lead-
ership potential, selecting officors for commissioning, and evaluating
officer performance. One means of prediction and assessing leadership
potential is through ahsociate evaluation), (%,-erratings), which have
long been used at the U.S. Military " andI irn Officer Candidate
Schools. In 1972, the office nf the M,,"ty Chief of Staff for Person-
nrl asked AR! to invemtigata the value of associate evaluations in all
officer schools, beginning with the Ranger course. ARI Research Problem
Review 76-8 presented the results of the initial program at the Ranger
school during FY 1973; this report describes the validation of those
initial Ranger peer ratings by comparing them with special evaluations
of the mame men's performance in FY 1976. The research was accomplished
wider Army Project 2Q762717A766, in response to requirements of the Of-
fice of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel. Portions of this paper
were presented at the 17th annual conference of the Military Testing
Association, 17-19 September 1975.

The associate evaluation program has become operational at other

officer training schools. Associate evaluation techniques are still
valuable for feedback and evaluation in officer acquisition and train-
ing proqrams, including ROTC, and are valuable predictors of officer
suCC|ss.

EP EIDNIER
Technical Director

t ,. .,
VALIDITY OF PEER RATINGS OBTAINED DURING RANGER TRAINING

BRIEF

Purpose:

To establish the validity of associate ratings obtained in selected

classes of the Ranger course in predicting subsequent performance in of-
ficer duty assignments.

Procedure:

Associate ratings and other measures of performance in the Ranger

course had bean obtained on 470 officers attending the first three Ranger
classes in FY 1973. In FY 1976 special-purpose performance evaluations
were obtained for 313 of the 470 officers and the two sets of evaluations
compared.

Findingst
Associate ratings obtained during Ranger training were found to be
predictive of all attributes measured by the performance evaluation
form. The highest degree of predictive validity was obtained for rat-
ings on the ability defined as "making decisions and initiating action
under pressure." Platoon associate ratings during training were bettor
predictors of ratings of performance or of potential performance than
squad peer evaluations. Both tactical officers' evaluations and total
Ranger course grades were found to be signifinantly related to several
scales of the performance evaluation, but to a lesser degree than either
form of peer evaluation.

Utilization of Findings:

Associate ratinqs appear to have substantial value in predicting

subsequent duty performanco of officers who attended the Ranger course.
VALIDITY OF PRir RATINGS OBTAINED DURING RANGER TRAINING

ccWENT8

Page

"NRODUCTIO. . ........................ . 1

OBJECTIVES . . .........................
. .

M ple . . . . . . . . . . . . .
...

Data Collection instruments ...... . . . . . . . . 2

Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

RPE ULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

DISCUSSION . . . . . . .
. . . . . 12

FRRSNC
DVISTRIAUTION , . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 15
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. ... 17

LIST OF TAILES

Table 1. Training evaluation scores for Ranger students . . . .. 3

2. Performance Evaluation Form scales, corresponding

factors, and abbreviated scale titles . . . 4

3. Officer performance scale .............. 5

4. Performance Evaluation Form scale means, standard

deviations, alpha coefficient reliabilities, and
number of subjects ... .......... .......... 7

5. Intercorrelations of the Performance Evaluation Form

scales . . . . . .. ..... ................. . . . ..... . 8

6. Intercorrelations of Performance Evaluation Form

ratings and Ranger training acoreg .... .......... ... 10

7. Intercorrelations of Performance Evaluation Form

rankinys and Ranger training scores* .... .......... ... 11
 Page

Table 0. Ranger training saore means and standard deviations

for the validity sample, and difference in mean scores
from the entire training sample ............ 13

21

4i-
 VAIIDITY 0)F P'EILK RAT.I.NS OBI'TAINErD
DURING RANGER TRAINING

I NTRODlUCT ION

The military has a long history of Using asisociate evaluations.

Some of the better known programs include the aptitude for service
ratings at the U.S. Military Academy (Ilaqjorty, 1963; Tobin & Macrum,
1967) , Officer Candidatu school rart tigs (Parrish & Drucker, 1957)
basic training ratings (eorldon & Modland, 1965), and the use of peer
ratings in the assessment of officers at the senior field grade level
(Downey, Medland, & Yatea, !976) . The success of these and other pro-
grams was a major factor in a 1972 decision by the office of thn Deputy
Chief of Staff for Personnel to investigate the use of associate rat-
ings in Army Officer training courses. Trho Ranger c~ourse was selected
as a pilot model for this appraisal technique because of the course's
importance for the Army leader's primary role in ground combat and be-
cause of the extensive field exercises involved.

Downey (1976) reported the results of an earlier phase of the re-

search that focused on the feasibility, reliability, and acceptability
of associate ratings in the Ranger courso. Generally, the results in-
dicated that, in this context, associate evaluations wore feasible in
terms of administration and automated scoring and were reliable across
different training periods and different groups of evaluators. How-
ever, even though Ranger course students generally expressed the opin-
ion that associate evaluations were appropriate and valid nmasures of
leadership, they wore not positive about the use of those evaluations
in an Army personnel system.

01M,I'C(T I VE's

The major objectiv, of this r~iearch was to establish the validity

of the associate rating,; obtainied by Downey in the Ranger course by
showing their ability to predict officer performance in subsequent duty
assignmunts. To mout this objective, it was necussaty to evaluate the
psychometric properties of the device designed to measure officers'
duty performanv'.. Another objective was to compare the relative effec-
tivenems of associate ratings with other training grades in predicting
duty petforman-e.

i-
 Peer rating evaluations and other information were collected on
470 officers who attended three different Ranger classes during FY 1973.
In FY 1976, performance ratings forms wore mailed for 427 (91%) of these
officers. Usable performance evaluation measures were returned and pro-
ceassed for 313 (73%) of those mailed. Thus, performance measurun were
obtained on 67% of the original sample of 470 officers.

Data Collection Instruments

Peer Evaluations. Tho peer evaluations had been obtained within

the traininq platoon. As an independent requirement, the Ranger course
student evaluation system also included peer evaluations, but within
the squad setting, In the platoon peer evaluations, each member was
required to nominate the eight highest and the eight lowest members of
the platoon whom he would most like or least like "to serve with in
combat because of his potential for effective leadership." Downey
(1976) describes this procedure in greater detail. The peer evalua-
tions were obtained at the end of each of the three phases of Ranger
training: a garrison phase at Fort Benning, Ga., a mountain phase in
Georgia, and a jungle phuae at Eglin Air Force Bass, Fla. A composite
peor evaluation score combining all three peer evaluations was also
derived.

Ranger Training Scores. A variety of training evaluation scores

was obtained on students attending the Ranger course: (a) nine dif-
ferent traininq grades, includinq three tactical training officers'
(TAC) evaluations, (b) three squad-level peer evaluations; and (c) a
final course grade. These scores aro shown in Table 1.
Performance Evaluation Form. Previnus research by Helme, Willemin,
and Grafton (1971) and lIelme, Willemin, ,and Day (1971) yielded eight
broad dimensions of leadurship style. 'Two other dimensions reflecting
consideration and the initiation of structure were identified by Stog-
dill (1974) and Fleishman (1974). Consequently, the criterion instru-
ment used in this research, the Performance Evaluation Form, was de-
signed to yield ratings along nine broad dimensions identified by these
research efforts, as well as one rating that reflected overall
performance.

The 10 scalhs ot thc Performance Evaluation Form are shown in

Table .1. Part .1of thv tform evaluates the officer's overall perfor-
maitco in hiki pt-incipal duty as inmont . Parts It aind III rate the of-
ficer's potont.il porformance alonq crucial dosmains of leadership.
Table 2 shows tht, difforent dimension,;, the scales that reflect these
dimensions, and Lho research source of those dimensions, as well as

S.,.., i.,. .,MA~lS.,Afllii, .d1.f~ii 1J~~iA

the abbreviated titles of che scales used in this report. On each
scale, the rater was required to rank order the seven scales in Part
II of the instrument, in terms of the officer's relative potential for
future assignment, and was also to rate the officer on a 7-step scale.
Parts I and III required only a rating.

Table .]

Training Evaluaition Scores for Ranger Students

Training grades:

Land navigation score

Physical training score
Practical work exam
Patrol grades
Tactical training officer's evaluation, Fort Benning
Tactical training officer's evaluation, mountain phase
Tactical training officer's evaluation, Florida phase
Spot reports
Special observations

Squad associate evaluationst

Port: Bonning
Mountain phase
Florida phase

Final course qrade

All ratinqs on thut scales of th. P'erformance E.valuation Form were

performed on a 7-step sualei the * steps of this scale are defined in
Tablo 3 iand are adapted fron previous work by Willemin (1965).

Four copies of. this criterion instrument wore mailed to the per-
sonnel officers responsible for the officer's records. one rating was
to be accompl.ished by the officer's immediate superior. A second rat-
ing was to be accomplished by a superior officer other than the officer's
immediate superior (but not nocessarily the indornlnk.1 official) who was
judqod to know t.he officer's performancoe. The two additional. ratings
were to be made by two c.osi assoclat-is who were judgted t.o know the
officer's portorlm'lnole. The t.hroo raturs other than the immediate
supervisoi- were duoi~inatud by th0 por.nontivL otfflcer aft.or talking with
t he L, Iler ' a Lnutud iodtt, Huporv i sot
 Table 2

Performance Evaluation Form Scales, Corresponding

Factors, and Abbreviated Scale Titles

Per formance Evaluation Abbreviated title

Torm scale Factor of scale

Part I
Duty performance Duty performance

Part II

Applying tactipal knowledge and Tactical staff skillsa Tactical knowledge

skills in suftort of combat
operations

Understanding mission and

ehe Team leadershipa Defining personal
clearly def*11ng poeronal roles
roles of subordinates in
its accomplishment

Making decisions and initiating Command of mena Making decisions

actions under pressure

Defining functional roles and Initiation of strucoturebeO Defining functional

duties in the process of do- roles
veloping subordinates to
fill assignments for long-
tem unit effoctiveness

Planning and orqanizing man- Executive directiona Planning and

power and matoriel to meet organization
situational roqul roeents

Motivating \:roops to accomplish- Considorationbto Motivating troops

inq the mission by taking
into consideration their
wll-being and morale

"Applying knowledqe of .locimtics Tochnical staff nkillsa Technical knowledge

and technivai. mattors to
so.lue sucpport ptoblemn

PartTI

t'ombat loadvri-hip Combat IcaIdertshipa Combat leadership

chti i c'a t-mana, "I a.t loadet'Shti| Tochn i ca I -managerial Tochnical-managerial

le~hidcrih ipa' leadership

Holme, Willtemilt a k tldton (l TI7.)

brleishmamn (1.014).
cSt oqdi 1I14
( -1)
 Table 3

Officer Porfurindince Scalea

Scale value Description

7 OUTSTANDING Far above the rLqqiremltnt_!" of tho iu.it.uition,

suggesting the highest kind of formal r"ecoq, i-,
tiern through meritorlour awamrd, or decoration

6 SUPERtOR Mi.eMiiL above the requiroments of the situa-

tion, suggesting formal reu.L .Ior through a
special (favorable) efficiency report, or
letter of coituntendation.

ABOVE AVERAGE Somewhat above the requrementu Ct the situa-

tion, suggesting Informal rc~inition throug|i
specific favorable comment in his regular ef-
ficioncy report, and through informal appreci-
ation or cotmendation.

4AVERAGe. F .. t.othL recguirements, of the situation,

suggesting -al.preciation (perhalli montly
unexpressod).

3 BELOW AVERAGE Somowhat b.low the rejdremen t3i of tLhe situa-

tion, though ouggostitg only the mildest kind
of corrective action through In formal recom-
mondatiorn for Improvement, or through change
of ditty assignment within the organIzatlion.

2 MARGINAL Markedly. oow the r. l.iemolit of the mitua-

tIoln, su qoHtillg formal corrective action
throutih a specvl t (lonfaverabb') .fficiency
report, adminint.rtilye admonition*, letter or
reprimand, lwmmary court., or tronsfor out. of
the orclani zatio.

I UN.13Avr7 AT'oHY _'.r bb,..1 ow.t

F. t'.'- n -tno
o.he t in t uot ion,
sugqest inq the mo.t drait'ic kinid of formal
correctiv actli onl t hrough roe l asi ii cat i on,
demotion, tl or'lli cou t, or boardi 111j Cut.of
t lie Army.

AAdapt ed from WiI leni n (I 965) .

S~ - I.I
-.-. .i ~...'.-.,
 I'4tkot.s of Iat i M] t 0o11s woV%) d iI ibilted for 42?7 of the off iWorn
who had attended the Hang:er course. Ratings wore obtained from the
supervisors of *112 off icera. Superior officers, ot;her than the imnmdi-
ate sulxsrv imors, v(coploeted ratings formn on 307 off i'txrt. Ratinqgi by
at least une adasociate were recuivod for 309 officeru, and ratinqs by
tWo associates wore received for 304 officers. A uisable set of ratinqg
was defined as one that had at least two ratings. In all, 313 usable
retuirns were received.

The reliability otnlAm~tes for rho two scaltin of Part IU of the

Performance Evaluat ion Form wuoe obteained using tho alpha cosfficient
(Cronbach, 1951) treating each rater am an item. The extent to which
the scales differentially reflected different types of leadership styles
was evaluated by appraising the vero correlations amony the ratinsju oni
these scales.

The validity of the associate rat.inis and oV the separate Ranger

training grades in predicting duty performance wou ovaluated by obtain-
ing the zoro ordor curelat.ions between each of theme measures and the
10 scales of the Poxformtanc Evaluation Form. Ilwo sepaorate Isoues re-
lating to the prodictive validities of the asssoviate ratings and the
Panger training grades were addrusuedi (a) conparison of the ability
of each of theme measures to predict total performance, and (b) comnpari-
son of the relationships of these measures with each of the other Per-
formance Evaluation Form scales,

Rt*:UII4P'fl

Table 4 shows t he numn and ntntndard doviatltos tfov the ratiqling

And ranki.ns of the alvca )of thit, -lrfoiunvaice ,viltlt ion ,'orm, alonl
with the alpha coeff'ic itnt rol iabilitty estimates and the numbers of
cases on which thes, statistics were' durived. The rollability esti-
mates for the rat ticti ranged from ,60 for duty perforilatance to .5 fo'
ro
inotivatinti troops. These reliability estimates are goinewhat Lower than
those reported by WA floenin (9iW), who reported a reliability estimate
of ,73 for four raters usinq the samno teohnique. The somewhat lower
roliability estimat:os obtained in thitt research coulhd be due to the
Caot that this siamploe of offiours was more homogeneouis with respect
to performanicei as Rangers, they were a more highly so lect: group, The
reliability entim~atos for the ankings Lf' the Sca-lesi rianlged from .5i8
for tat vti al know I edge' and ski ll to , II for dkelt lt e rt onl I.to l's.
ilq

1ht
114,cot' r
o tiollt 'llxteoli q hti lt, mlllit oI the' rat illtlNe eled t h' ulls of
thol'dlakIngs *xr'
arv uhowu ill 'Takilkx . 'l'
The xirh li t louioI amiong1 thet, ratili n
oil tho icalel oxt, 'te'ed t) w ith only tour exci|ltio.'t (all involvinq
tho techniical ksiowlidetivale), ll t t it h1) hand (tito ' l'tat tex1lll

Ii
 Ii

4,4

NN M
14 (4t
M ~

I I '

0 V W 0M~
-0
M~ ri "
~ . 0 b

4. 4*4
4-14
U .- '4'4

'214
in, 4-
ol4 .0
 tI 0.
W f P 40 4 4

0 in C

f i I

II

Q (1h m.4 Ir

elI g
0'
III

4.4

9 , c ~ C4 Y 'Y 41

A~~ IIt

II 4

-41

a a44 4~
ON 0 IV I

144 V '.'
4
Q) 44)4 U) 44
4C .) L

.H '4 4d
 among the rankings were moderate or low and generally negative in value.
Use of the ranking technique (ipsative scores) forced this negative re-
lationship, because if certain scales were ranked high, others had to
be ranked low.

The correlation between thu ratings and the rankings for the same
type of scale was low in all instances except one. The exception was
the scale that reflected ability in "making decisions and initiating,
action under pressure," which showed a correlation of .53 between the
rating and ranking techniques. Furthermore, the rankings on th4 de-
cision scale were more highly correlated with ratings on the other
scales with the exception of the scale that reflected "technical
knowledge."

The results indicated that both the ratings on each scale and,
where applicable, the rankings of the scales yielded approximately the
same reliability estimates, although the ratings were slightly higher.
The high intercorrelations among the ratings on the scales indicated
that these scales yielded little differentiation among the attributes
being measured. On the other hand, results of analyzing the ranking
indicated the most influential dimension in evaluating the overall duty
performance of the officer. This dimension was "making decisions and
initiating action under pressure," which yielded a correlation coeffi-
cient of .43 between rankings on this scale and duty performance. Even
though the rankings of the scales showed some degree of differentiation
among the attributes measured, this could be due to the forced proper-
ties of the ranking method rather than the stimulus material that con-
stituted the scale descriptions.

Table 6 shows the zero order correlations between each of the

Panger training scores, including associate ratings, and each of the
10 rating scales of the Performance Evaluation Form. For the Ranger
training scores, three types of evaluations--the platoon associate
evaluations, the squad peer evaluations, and the tactical officer's
evaluations--were combined across the three training phases to yield
one overall score for each. The correlations between each of the
Ranger training scores "nd each of the seven ranking scales of the
Performance Evaluation Form are shown in Table 7.

The results shown in Table 6 indicate that the platoon associate

ratings and the squad pear evaluations were statistically significant
predictor" of ratings on all 10 scales of the Pdrformance Evaluation
Form. The platoon associate evaluations yielded somewhat higher cor-
relations with the criterion measures than did the squad peer evalua-
tions. This could be due to the higher reliability of the platoon as-
sociate evaluations (Downey, 1976). Only in a few instances did the
other traininq scoros obtained in the Ranger course yield statistically
Lignificant correlations with the ratings of current performance or of
potential performance in future assignments. Of particular interest
here were the correlations between the criterion instrument scales and

' *,,
. . . .. . . ... . ... ... , , - . ..... . , , . . . . . . ..,. . , , . ... . . . . .. ,... . , , . .. .,9!
 Table 6

Interoorrelatione of Performance Nvaluation Form Ratings

and Ranger Training Score*
(n - 295)

Ranger Ratings
training scores 1 2 3 4 5 6 79 10

1. Platoon peer
evaluations .28" .330* .24** .31* .28** .35" .28**" 1*"* ... .)*,19A
2. Land navigation
score -. 03 -. 01 -. 04 .00 -. 04 -. 02 -. 05 -. 05 .04 -. 02

3. Physical training .06 .03 .03 .06 .09 .07 .06 .04 .12' .03

4. Praotioal work
exam -.10 -.07 -.06 .02 -. 07 .02 -.06 -.06 -.09 -. 0
1

5. Patrol grades .06 .08 .03 .05 .02 .O6 .01 .05 .02 -.01

6. TAC-evaluations .01 .07 .05 .12* .06 .08 .07 .04 .09 .03

7. Squad peer
evaluations .22* .22* .16"* .24"* .21** .26"* .18"* .15* .21"* .I**

8, Spot reports .02 .08 .03 .08 .03 .04 .03 .05 .06 -. 02

9. Special reports -. 04 .02 -. 02 .05 .01 .03 -. 02 -. 01 N., .0o

t0. Total Ranger

gradeb .01 .15* .08 .15* .08 .15, .07 .10 . 0 1t"

"1 w Duty performanco ratings

2 - Combat loadership ratings
3 * Teoh.-manag. leadership ratings
4 a Tactical knowledge ratings
5 - Defining personal roles ratings
6 Making decisions ratings
I - Defining functional roles ratings
A- Planning- organisation
1- Motivatinq troop ratings
10 - Technical knowledge ratings

Woiqhted sum of all training grades.

'p ' .05.

* .01. 10
 'rable 7

Interoorrelations of Performance Evaluation Form Rankings

and Ranger Traininq Scores
(n - 295)

Ranger training acores 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

1. Platoon peer
evaluation .17** .03 .34** -. 20"* -. 16.* .10 -. 25**
2. Land navigation
score .04 .17"* -. 01 -. 06 -. 03 .09 .09

3. Physical training -. 02 -. 04 .07 -. 04 -. 04 .05 -. 02

4. Practical work
.00 -. 04 .04 -. 09 .03 -. 06 .09

5. ',U.ol grades .07 .00 .09 .00 -. 04 -. 06 -. 05

S6. TAC-evaluations .13* -. 02 .14** -. 16'**-.12' .00 -. 02 ,

7. Squad peer

evaluations .13' .01 .32"* -. 18"* -. 11 .02 -. 18"*

S. Spot reports .12' -. 13' .06 -. 12' -. 02 .04 .01

9. Special reports .12" .01 .03 -. 09 -. 12% .02 .01

10. Total Ranger

gradeb .13' -. 08 .15"* .07 .07 .03 .11

aRankings woro.reversed so that a hiqh value representm most effective.

Scale designationsi
11 - Tactical knowledqe ranktnqs
12 - Defining personal ro.l.on rankin'.ij
13 a Makinq decimion rankinqt
14 - Defining functkonal roles rankings
15 w Planninq 6 orqanirnatlon rankintim
16 a Motivatinq troops rankings
17 - Technical knowlodqco rankinqw.
b!

Woiqhted sum of all Lraiiini grades.

*p . .05.
.*01.

11
total Ranger grade. The correlations between the total Ranger grade
and the scales reflecting combat leadership potential, tactical knowl-
edge, a-d decisionmaking were all significant at the .05 level.

The correlations shown in Table 7 between tho platoon associate

evaluations and the ranking of five of the Performance Evaluation Form
scales were statistically significant, but negative in three instances
(i.e., defining functional roles, planning and organization, and tech-
nical knowledge). slightly smaller but statistically significant con-
relations in the same direction were obtained between the squad peerl
evaluations and four of those five scales. The correlation between the
squad peer evaluations and the scale on technical knowledge was not
significant. Evaluations made by the tactical officer yielded statis-
tically significant corre].itjons with the ranking on four of the scales.
Further examination of Table 7 reveals other statistically significant
relationships between certain training scores and the criterion measures.
The negative validity coefficients for three of the ranking scales (de-
fining functional roles, planning and organisation, and technical knowl-
edge) would seoo to be a function of the iptative nature of the rankings.
This phenomenon may merely mean that officers not perceived high in
decisionmaking and tactical knowledge received lower rankings in these
areas. The intercorrelations of ratings would seem to confirm this
idea.
Again, both the platoon associate evaluations and the squad peer
evaluations were generally the best predictors of rankings of the scales
measuring potential performance. The platoon associate evaluations
yielded slightly higher correlations with the criteria than did the
squad evaluations.

Table 8 shows the means and standard deviations of the Ranger

training scores for the officer sample used in this research and the
difference between the mean scores of this sample and the mean scores
of the original sample of 470 officers who attended the course. The
decrease in sample size was due to the fact that performance ratings
could not be obtained on some officers because they had left the Army
or were in a transient status; in some instances, the Performance
Evaluation Forms were lost. Table 8 reveals that only minor differ-.
ences existed between the two samples and that these differences do
not represent any systematic bias in terms of training grades.

UISCUSSION

The roliabiliLy Omtimntns of oach of the ratinq scales of the

Performance Evaluat-Lton Form, an well as the rankings of the scales
which used rankings, wore considurad Hatisfactory for criteria. How-
over, the distribution of ratinqn on the different scalas showed a
tendency toward negative nkewnu tw.

1.2
 Table 8

Ranger Training Score Means and Standard Deviations for

the Validity Sample, and Difference in Mean
Scores from the antire Training Sample

Difference in
Ranger training scores M.an S.D. N means

Platoon evaiuAtions--serining 2.06 .28 307 0

Platoon evaluations--mountain 2.0 .28 313 0
Platoon *valuations--rlorida 2.02 .33 303 -.1
Land navigation 51.8 10.4 313 1.1
Physical training 2689 6.6 313 .9
Practical work exam 87.0 4.1 313 1,0
Patrol grades 350.2 32.7 305 .2
TAC *valuation--Benning 22.2 3,3 313 .7
TAC evaluation--mountain 25.8 3.2 313 1.0
ThC evaluation--Florida 27.0 2.6 305 -. 2
Squad avaluations--aenning 37.7 4.9 312 -. 4
squad *valuations--mountain S6.9 7.8 312 -1.0
Squad evaluations--Florida 55.4 6.3 303 -. 6
Spot reports -6.6 21.7 307 -. 4
Special reports -7.2 5.6 307 -1.2

Total Ranger performance 724.6 94.3 310 .2

Note. The training sample was made up,of individuals who went through
Ranger traininq but for whom validity data wore not collected
later.

aim

................
.....
 As mentioned previously, the ratings on the different scales
were highly intercorrelated. This indicates that, in this sample,
the instrument did not reflect the expected differentiation among
the attributes being assessed.
ter differentiate important typesRankings of the scales tended to bet-
of criterion performance.

In terms of predictive effectiveness of the platoon associate

evaluations, the validity of these evaluations of the Rangers' perfor-
mance were similar for all scales of the Performance Evaluation Form,
with the lowest correlation being obtained between platoon associate
evaluations and ability to apply technical knowledge. Of all the train-
ing scores, the peeo evaluation. yielded the highest relationship with
all of the ratings on the 10 scales of the criterion measure. The total
Ranger grade, as would be expected, was significantly correlated
(p 4 .05) with the soales reflecting combat leadership, tactical knowl-
edge, and decisionmaking. This is consistent with the nature and pur-
pose of Ranger training.

The rosults were not as cloarcut on the validity of peer evalua-

tions in predicting the rankings of the scales that reflect potential
performance. Significant positive relationships were found between
peer evaluations and both the tactical knowledge scale and the decision-
making scale. Significant negative relationships were discovered be-
tween peer evaluations and the scales that measured ability to define
functional roles, planning and organization, and technical knowledge,
given the "forced" nature of these rankings and the assumption that
low performers were generally ranked high in these areas.

In Summary# the scale* of the criterion instrument were found to

be reliable. A better degree of differentiation among the attributes
measured was obtained by rankings than was obtained by ratings. Associ-
ate evaluations obtained during Ranger training were found to be pre-
dictive for all attributes reflected in the criterion instrument, with
the highest predictive index obtained for ability to "make decisions
and initiate action under pressure." Platoon associate evaluations
were better predictorw of ratings of performance or potential perfor-
mance than were squad 1puer evaluations. Both the tactical officers'
evaluations and the total Ranger course grades showed significant but
smaller relationships than the peer evaluations with certain scales of
the criterion ratinqs.

14
 REFEHRNC ES

Cronbach, L. J. Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Teats.

Psychometrica&, 191, 16, 297-334.

Downey, R. G. Utilization of Associate Nominations in the U.S. Army

Training Environment: The Ranger Course. ARI Research Problem
Review 76-8s, October 1976.

Downey, R. G., Medland, F. F., & Yates, L. G. Evaluation of a Peer

Rating System for Prudicting Subsequent Promotion of Senior Mili-
tary Officers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1976, 61, 206-209.

Fleishman, E. A. Iventy Ycars of Consideration and Structure. In

the Study of Leadership. Carbondale, Ill. Southern Illinois

University Prose, 1974.

Gordon, L. V., a Medland, F. F. The Crose-Group Stability of Peer Rat-

ings of Leadership Potential. Personnel Psychology, 1965, 18,
173-177.

Haggerty, H. R. Status Report on Research for the U.S. Military Academy.

ARI Technical Research Report 1133, October 1963.

Helme, W. H., Willemin, L. P., & Day, R. W. Psychological Factors

Measured in the Differential Officer Battery. ARI Technical Re-
search Report 1173, July 1971. (AD 737 685)

Healmo, W. H., Willemin, L. P.,G Grafton, F. C. Dimensions of Leader-

ship in a Simulated Combat Situation. ARI Technical Research
Report 1172, July 1971. (AD 730 315)

Parrish, J. A., & Drucker, A. J. Personnel Research for Officer Candi-

date School. AR! Technical Research Report 1107, November 1957.

Stoqdill, R. M. Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Re-

search, New York_ The Free Press, 1974.

Tobint, D. J. , A Macrum, R. Hi. Leadership Evaluation. (Research re-

port.) Wont Poin~t, N.Y. : office of Military P~iychology An~d Lead-
erehJ.p, U.S. Military Ac'adomy, 1.1)67.

WillOmill, I,. P. C'iterion Anpectm on Army Rvsoarch on the Prediotion

of Officer Performanco. ARt lirt,irch Study 05-0, December 1965.

15
DISIRIBUTION

ANI Distribution List

4 CASD IMSRAI 2 HOUSAC0EC,1Pt Ord, ATTNi Library

2 HOCA IDAMI CIZ) I I4OUSAOVDC, Ft Ord, ATINt ATIC-SE(-E.-Humfedlott
1 HODA IDAPE-PEN 2 USASKC, Ft Senijemin Hartlorm, ATTN: Library
1 HOCA IOAMA-AR) I USAPACOC, Ft Benjamin eMorison, ATTN i ATOP-HR
I HODA ICAPF-H.HNEPOI I USA Commn-Eloot &ch, Ft Monmoufth, ATTN: ATIN-EA
I HOCA (F150,1101 I USAIC, Ft Monmouth, ATTNi AMBEL-CT-HOP
I HODA IDAMd*DQT-CI I USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ArrNt AMEEL-PA-P
I HODA (OAPC-PMZ.Al I USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN! AMBEL-61-CB
I HODA ICACH.PPZ.Al 1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN! C,PootDay Br
I HODA IOAPE.HNEI 1 USA Materials Sys Anal Agicy, Aberdeen, ATTNW AMXSY-lb
I; HOCA (CAPP.MPO-C) I E1dgewood Arsenial,
Aberdeen, ATTN: SAREA-BL-i4
IHODA (DAPt-OWl I USA Ord Cie &Bol, Abottleon, ATTN IATSL-TIM.-C
I JQODA IDAPUHPILI 2 USA Hum IEngrLob, Abefillec,, hAFNt Llbrorevslr
I 1400A IDAPECPSI I USA Combat Arms Tell Sd,Ft Sunning, ATTN: Ad Sujvwarvio
I HODA (DAPOMPAI I USA Ilmnwtfy Hum Ninth Unit, Pt Senning, ATTNt Chief
I HODA ICANC.ARS.PI USA Infantry oid,Pt Banning, ATTNi ESROC-TI-?
I 1400A IOAPVPAS.A) I USAIMA, Ft 01111, ATTNi ATSS.- LRC
I HODA IDUSACOtI I USA Alt Del Soft, Ft $llst, ATTN: A'fSA*.CTD-.MI
I HODA (OAMQORQj I USA Alr Dot Salt, Ft Sler, ATTt4: Tacih Lib
I HODA I90MG) I USA Ali Del Sd. Pt Eliot, ATTm: PILES
i HODA (DA IO.PI I USA Alt DeftEd, Ft El11% AYTm: IYED-.PO
I Chief, Contult Div (OA.OTIGI, AdelphiI, MO I VIA Cmd &Gmneral Sit College, Ft Leavenworth, ATTNi Lib
J Mil Asti. Hum Res,QODDNI, CAD RASL) I USA Cmad 6 General itf College, Ft Leavernworih, A'rTN: ATSW-59-L
I HO USARAL, APO Seattle, ATTN: ARAOP.N I USA Cmd OrGeneral Sit College, Ft Leavenworth, ATTNt Ed AdvIWo
i NO0 First Army, ArtN: APKA-Ol.TI I USA Combinetid Arms 3'rmitlt Day Act. Ft Loomavewtlh, ArnNt DepCdr
2 HO Fifth Army, Ft Sam Houton I USA Combined Armsa Cmbt 0ev Act, Irt Leavenworth, ATTN: CCI
1I Olt, Army Sit Studios Ota, ATTN: OAVOSA (DWIP 1IUSA Combined Armal Ombiv DavAct, 11% Leevenworlit, ArTNi ATCASA
I ONtChief of Sit, Studios Oft I USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dev Act, Ft Loervewiorh, ATTNt ATCACO-F
I OWNIt.N ATTN: CPI/OCP I USA Combined Arms Cnibt Dev Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTNi ATCACC-Ci
I The Army LIUi, Pentagon, ATTN! RIE Chief I USAICOM, Night Vislion Lob, PstSelvoiir AINt AMBEL-NV-80
I The Army LIUI, Pentagon, Ar!Ni ANFIAL 3 USA Computer Sys 0mb, Ft Belvair, ATTN i Tect Library
I Ofe, Ant bect of the Army (111110 1 USAMI HOC, Ilt lelvoir, ATTN: STIFE-DO
I Tech Suippon Oft,OJCU i USAin#gkit, Ft Volvoir. ATTN i Library
i USASkA,Aliuton, ATTNii IlAND.? I USA Topographie Lab, Ft Delvoir, AITNi inTL-TO-S
I USA Rict OfN, Duiham, ATTNi Life Sciences Div 1 USA Topographic Lob, Ft Selvoir, AT'TN i STINPO Canter
2 USARIEM, Natick. ATTHi WORDUE11CA I USA Topographic Lab, Ft Solvoit, AT'INi OTL-GIL
1 USAITT, Itt Clayton, ATT'N: STITC-MOA 1 USA Intelligfence Ctr 6 isth, Pt Huaietuca, ATTNi CYD-MS
I USAIMA, Ft Bragg, ATTh: ATSU.CTO-OM 1 USA Intelligences Otrt Sc5h,Pt lNuachuta, ATTN: ATS-CTD-M8
I USAIMA, Pt Bragg, ATIN: Merquat Lib I USA Intelligence CtirI. oh, Pt Huecttuca, ATTN: AlIt-TI
I USWAC Ctr AtSch, Ft McClellan, ATTN: LibI i USA rintelligence CtrltI. 5h, Fl Huachlica, ATTNi AISI-TiX -08
1 US WVAC Cit 6 Soft, FPtMcClellan, ATTN: Ting Dir I USA Intelligence Ctr Oa Soft,Ft Huuitu~a, AT"TN: ATSI-CTS-OR
I USA Quartevmesler Scit, Ft .eo,ATTN: ATIM ~E I USA Intelligence Ctr A5th, PstHuechuoa, ATT'N: ATNI-OTO-OT
I Intelligence Material Doey Ole, OWL, Pt Holahitrd IUSA Intelligance Ctr & Boh, Pt Huschuae, ATTNt ATBI-CTD--CS
I USA SE Signal 5th, Ft Gordon, ATTN ATSOSA I USA Intelligence Ctr A Itch. Pt Huechuoia, ATTN: DAI/UND
I USA Chaplain Ott &Sft, Pt Hamilton, ATTN! ATSC-TI.RO I USA Intelligence Citt Sch, Pt Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI-TIM
I USATSCII, Ft futIl,. ATTN: NOWAtlvlsor I USA intellognce Ctt &5th, Ft IHulchutta, ATTN! Library
I USA War College, Coo lisle barrecks, ATTN! Lib 1 CON, HO Pt Huethuca, ATTN: Tech Nef Dlv
2 WHAIR, Ne,,ropoycltwirv Div 2 CDN, USA Ellectranic PrvgOrd, ATTN: STEEP-MT-S
I CLI, SOA, Mtw~toray I CON, Project MAISrUEf. ATTN: Tech Info Canter
I USA Conoit Anal Apiey, Setlvrerls, ATTN: MOCAWOC t H4~ MASSTIR, USATRADOC, LNO
IUSA Ct~mept Anil Apjy, (tathoeasa, ATTN: MOCA-MA I Research Institute. HOCMABSITR, Ft Hood-
I USA Cryitcet Anal Allay, iletheicla, ATTN: MOCA.JP 'I USA RecultIng; Cmd, Ft Sherdlen. ATTN: USARCPM-P
i USA Ai fir Test Ott, APO Sealttl, ATTN; STEAC-MO-AiL I Senior Army Adv,, USAFAGOD/TAC, 11gm9i AP Aix PoldNo. S
I URA Aitir toot Cli, APO Seattle, ATTN: AMSTE-PL-Ti i HOIJSARPAC, DOVER, APO OF 26EBS, ATTN: OPPE-Sk
I URA Aimoianeril Cmit, Redstone Aiiwnal, ATTN: AT39-TIM I Stininon Lib, Acadlemy of Health Science,, Ft Sam Houlton
i USA Armaiment Cred, Riek Woeiw, ATTN! AMSAR.TOC I Marine Corps Init., ATTN: Dean-MCI
I FAA NAFIC. Atititntl City, ATTN! Llhtiryt I HQUSMC, Commandant, ATTN i Code MIMT El1
I FAA.NAP W. Atliamiti City, A'ITN: Hutm Etpi lit I I4OUSIVC, Commandant, ATI1N: Coda PI-20
I FAA Asmatiuteiivl 111,,Oklahoma City, ATTN: AAC-44D 2 USCG Academy, New Londron, ATTN: Actmistion
2 USA Philt Arty Soft. Ft Sill. ATTN: Libirary 2 USCO Academy, Now Londocn, ATTN: Library
I USA Ainitit &!It,Ft Knott, ATTN: Libitay 1 USCO Ttaining Ctr, NY, ATTN: CO
1 UStA Aiinot Schl,Pt Kit,,,, ATTN: ATSO.DI-E 1 USCO Training Ctr, NY, ATTN: Utlue Svc Oft
I USA Atttam Suhl,Ft Kima, ATTN: ATSBOCTIP I USCO, Payctiol Rooor, DC, ATTN i OP 1102
I UPIA
ArnmoAdi, Ft Knox, ATTN! AmBODCf
AC I HO Midl -aengeEr,Mr Dil, Quaniltir, ATTN! P&5 Div

17

NPAOX &Ah KA
 I US Mwirinv Coops Liationr Otc, AMC, Alexiandria, ATTNi AMvCGS-F I oaf SoCIivil nt of InvIro Iwodicln.o, Consolea
IUSATIIADOC, Ft Moniov, A7TTI; ATRO.-ED I AIR C111111, Kensingtoni, AITNi Info I", i.
S USATRADOC, Ft Manros, ATTN: ATIPR-AD 1 Milliliw~poil~ikel Timnin, Copoeltap
lxI USATRADOC, PitMortoe, ATTN: il lS-E I Millta" Ailtteahav, French Inflow, ATTN~ Do Ow f
I USA Forces Cmd. Pt McPherson, ATTNt Libray IIMIdI -n Cowl, C.1,1111.P.A
A-Artionel, Toultan/Nove Praince
2 USA Aviation Test BillPt Rocket, ATTN; STINO-PO IPrnii kiatfi. 0f, Aj* Hum IV flub Div, Ministy
1 USA Agvoy for Aviation Safett, FPtPuocker, ATTN! Library of Daelie', Now DOWh
I USA fty for Aviation SofetV, Ft Rucker, ATTN: laov Adviao I Peon flub OffeLibrary, AKA, IsraelOeforwwo Formo
I USA Aviationi Sch, PetRucker, ATTN- PO Drewe 0 11Minlatorl. van Doefrlewle, DOOPI'KL Aid leel"u
I 14'USA Aviationt Iy# Cmd, SitLouli, ATTNi AMIAV-ZOR Peb@kdt oln, The0Haiel, Notherolleodi
2 USA Avwiations I" Toit Act., filwar*s API. ATINi UAVTI-T
I USA AirDe 0 S ts.ho
r.h.F li, ATTN i ATSA YVM
t USA Alt Mobility High a Day Lob, Moffett laid, ATTh: SAVOL-AS
I USA Aviation Sch, Met TwigMot, PI Rucker, Arm:i ATST-T-RTM
I USA Aviation Soloo, CO. PotRuckewi, ATTN; ATST-D.-A
1 1H0,OAPIC(M, Alsoadidria, ATTh: AMXCD-TL
I iNO,DARGOM, Alexndtria, ATTN; CDR
I US Military Academiy, War Point, ATTN: Serials Unit
I US Miioiftr Aciadeimy, West Poilnt, ATTN: Ole of Milt Ldrahp
I US Mittitry Actiodanrty. Wast Potint, ATTN; MAOR
I VIA Stawidattliawllion 00, UK, 1Pro NY, ATTN MAASE-OC
I Wit of N,ivail Rith, ArloIngtonm, ATTN: Cod, 452
3 Oleirol Nouvel Rath, Ariltiglor, Al'T'N: Cods 4M6
I DiftitS Navot FelthArlingftri, Armr Cowl.4W.
I loutf Novol Rich, At~rlgiong , ATTNi Coda 441
1 Novel Atrrrtpo Mid AmtLab, Foivtlacula, ATTNI Acous kch Div
I Nival Aorno,ar Mod Rot Laft, Parvatolfa, ATTNi Coda LSII
I NyaalAami nt Mod Het Lob, Pinsaolaol, ATTN; Code L5
I (Chitwof Nayllut,, ATTN: Port-OR
I NAVAIRRIA, Norfoik, ATTN! Safety Ctr
I Nav Owwoaitogriliru, DC,ATTN! Cotla 0251, Chuart A Tech
I Caviar of Navali
Anal, ATTN -One thr
I in~vAirtiyiCt~no, ATTN: AIR-6313C
11Nov NuMtti, ATTNi: ?13t
I Navi~altoptoorli~tifua 2, PPOWP 90601
I APNPL (FT) William AF9
I API4ML IT ri Lowtv APB

11APMPL IASI WPAPS, OH

IAPIIPL (fl0JZ) Brooks APB
IAPHIIL IDOJNi Louckiln AFB
1
I HOUSAI (DPXXAI
1 APYT OI) iR~iIadidnipli APB
3 AMR L IHS) WPAPII, OH
2 AP Ivso,ofInch, WlPAFV, OH, ATTN: FN[U.'SL
I ATC IXiI`13l Pillidoiripi APLI
I USAF AvriiM,,i Lit, britiils APP (501L -4), ATTN: DOC SEC
I APUSR INLI.) Arlington
IAl: Lull L'mri, MrUleliart API, ATTN! AL.C.113PCRI
iAli Pompr Awtuilemv, CO, ATTN! Dept 'i not Mm
I Nuv~i'vis & Dowiet, SariDi..v.
2 Navy Mud Nnii oliovehilai in HMiti Wilt, Soo~n 04pg
INow tieirtticu luili,Nnoii01o'rpo, ATTNi Rot Lob,
I NowTimiti'',i, Knit I livlaii, ATTN: Cnite 11)000-.-
L
I Naivfi'ti(j Iliv, Mivittty. AliTN: Colowi 054ta
I NMvP',oit iinwr
i
oi, All1 N!12.,lo 111V~4
1 NolvTioiLiloijti(~i, t ililitlit A'l I N! iitl Lotb
I LIS~
Cktl.ft P.AFl
Liili,40i, N: Mraiilatrmir Ailini
I USnoipi of JiwusiN~,
i00, A ITN Doomi
Ittilorao Admin
I N61iti ,foti~l
siminw, I)(,,,%rTN: Comuiniiov Info Section

I L0il'voi Fr~al,'ill Ctot LWsiivnvutd. AT'TN: lit M

12 Dollirutsfr~niintomntattioi Comeitr
4 Oil Psitch, AosVinyt, flittaitil Oft,, (olaortnIrn
I loollnlifha Artvii, MotRot,ArootiNil, lusioll Ofits, Canbetrra
I Mil glil Ali AftutoVII0Autlit w P,4
Fitiiiy
I Aaiiliieitli l401001
Im iriuivii, 144'inallr doi ,eflafaito

)oC.'iiil .u~ili Staff W6111iiiifluti

I CAi Stall, Stiwytl Al. ATTN: PltwiStill Anal So
Vanitwlluii
:4
ON, Coinfit~in flail Muth1S1411.Armra CIC RDSIVI
4 lbillshtf0i Suiti. Nlinith tLioliad, wpohinngtii

18