.~~ iL

NPBOC TB 77 39 AURLJST 1977

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

A PERSONNEL READINESS TRAINING PROGRAM:_ _ _ _

FINAL REPORT

APPROYE D FOR PUBLIC RELEA ~~ lD1STRIBUT’ON UNLIMITED

D D C N t1U~~~

1~t~

fnp1AUC 29 tr~

cD

~~ 1 w•

hiii _~ — — — — .‘.—

~

a’.. ,.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- - - ~~~~—~~~~— .-~~~~~~ -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --~~~~~~~~~~~--

N P R JC ‘I L\ 77 39 August i977

A 7ER S~)NNEL READI NESS T R A I N I N C PROGRAN :FINAL REPORT

Adolph V. Anderson4 Gerald J. Laabs

Edward J . P icker ingJim D . Winchell

Reviewed byRichard C. Sorenson

Approved byJames J. Regan

Technical D i rec to r

Navy Personnel Research and Development CenterSan Diego , Cal ifornia 92152

— ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

r

L N C i . A S S I F I E D ________________________A SSI~~.C,~T~~T N OF T~I S PAG E (W)~.n D.~. Anfe~e.J)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE F~~~~~Dc~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ L~~M

2. GOVT ACCE SSIO N P40. 3 RECIPI E N T S C A T A L O G NUM NER

(ond Subtitla) 5 T Y P E OF ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ co .EREI)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \( I~AXX RAM ~~~~~~ (~j ~1 Fina l ~~ p~~ t

INAL R 1~~~~~~ L_ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

44E O RT N uMB E R

________ ________ ... - - _~~

8. C O N T R A C T OR G R A N T N IJ MBEP- .~

/0 ~~~~~~~ \‘ ./t nder son~ ~~~ ~-~i~~~ra .1. i’~ cke r i ng /____________________ - 10 PRO~~~~~~~E EMENT ~~~~~~~A R E A & WO RP ( U N I T N U M R E ~~

- Nav y i r s ~~i I ~~-~ R e s e ar c h and ) ev t i o p m e n t C e n t e r’ ~ .~~63L~ .QNSan ~~‘. e , i i f e r 1 n~ 92152 / L~-~ ZOi O~~~PN . 24

I~~~~ON

~RO L LIRG OFF ICE NAME AND ADDR ESS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ DA~~E— — --1

-

- I I)~ Au gust ~~77

Nav y r s o n n e t kesear c~ a n i Development Cent er ~.—7~ ~~~~~~~~~San i i c~~ü , Ca~~~f o r n L . 92~~5.2 224 MON~ T O R I M G A G E N C Y NA M E & AO O R ESS( If dlf f er . . , I from ControIlin~ Office) - I S , S E C U R IT Y C L A S S ( o H h i~ ~epOr .

I/ I ~~~~ L’NCLAS S TFlI’i >

\ ‘ / ~ HSe OEC~~A $ S I Fj C A T I O N ’ DOW RA ~ T N ,SC ~i 6 Du L E

1 6 D I ST R I B U T I O N S T A T E M E N T (oI chi. R.porI)

Approved f o r publ ic release; d i s t r i b u t i o n unl imi ted .

17 . D I 5 T R I a u T I O N STATEM ENT (of Oi. ~~t,acI .n~.r.d in Block 20, ii diff.r.n t from Repor l) 4

/~/ / ~/ J ’ 7 / ~~f~~~#-

~~~ / — - -

-~~~~~~5 SuPP _ EMEN~~A R v sO ’rES

I ~ ~( E Y w~~ROS ( ConI Inue on ‘.,rC,•o aid. if ri .c..aary ~ id idenfiIy by block nw ,,ber)

j t , ’~~~~ ’ 5 L 1 ( I r h r n a n c u ~cs t i n ~’, I; j ~ ru i r 1 I a

F L~ t5 ~~ . ( ‘~~

~a - i i v ~U u c z~-u ‘ra i n ~ :~~A ‘. -~~~ c I’. on ar.,.. .i d. If n.c.a.a,y ~~d id.ntiVy by block numb.r~

~n i —or i i n ~ eG I L s s wi re used to d iagnose d e f i c i e n c i e s in •~ober ormanc e aI .In ~ F i C L per s u f l f l i’ I . Shipboard se i l — i n s t I on i l I m a t e r ii

~~ r t i t n ad L V i i i I ly ~r & scr i bed to cor rec t i d e n t i f i e d d e f i c i e n c ies . ‘i t s~ lngL t i - ì in ~ r . l i rams wer e d ev e lo p ed fo r t h r e e ap p l i c a t i o n s : ( 1. ) t i l L 5 1 i U

.. r A a - : a a r - C I I C I fl o 1 ) e r , L t i n g t h e AN / BQ R— 2 0 A , (2) the submar ~~ ~~~~~~~L e ( - i i r i LC ~~. ; 111,1 i u r ~a in n~- , t u e i ss Ic Test and Read iness Equipment (M RE ~1k 7

~~ ìu 2 ) , i f l J ~~) t u i - i o i~~~~-r i c hn~ c ian o j & r i t i n g and m a i n t a i n i n g t h e ~2 ì h

~~ 1473 EDITION OF I NOV 65 I SO B S O L E T E1 Nt i\s-~ ii’ I i )

S E C U R I T Y C L A S S I F I C A T I O N O F T~4 I S P A G E ~ 7r r ~ fl~~~o F- . ’.’~-

. .

~

T T ..~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T “-~

- .‘- -~~ “ -

~- . . - --. . - — -- .- — -—. - - - - . A

- - ~~~~~ - - - - -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I

UNCLASSIF IEDSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAO((~~i.I 0.1. Xnf.,, ~~

— ?.PSI Steam Propulsion Plant. Results from all three areas of application/ rev~a1ed substantial performance deficiencies. Providing testees feedbackinformation with respect to their deficiencies produced some minimal per-formance changes, but , even where these were statistically significant,they were not large enough to be of any practical significance. Resultsf or groups given remedial training prescriptions varied with the area ofapplication. The ineffectiveness of training prescriptions in some areasappeared to b~~~ ei~ated to failure to carry out the prescribed training .

UNCLASS IFIEDSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGC(W~i.i, 0.1. EnI.r.d)

- -

- - - ------ --~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FOREWORD

This Advanced Deve lopment e f f o r t was conducted in s u p po r t of P r o j e c tZOlOS—PN ì Z P N O 7 ) , E d u c a t i o n and Tra in ing Development , under the s po n s o r st i i p ofthe Chief of Naval Operations (OP—099). This is the f i f t h and f i n a l r ep o r tr e l a t i n g to S uhp r o j e ct Z0i08—PN . 24 , Personnel Readiness Tra in ing . The f L s trepor t , NP RD C Specia l Repor t 7 5—8 , A Personnel Readiness T ra in ing Pro~~r’~s:

I n i t i al i~ro~~ect D e v e i op m en t s , provided an overview of t he p r o j e c t . Subse quen tr epor t s , NP RD C Technica l Repor t 7 7 — 4 , A Personnel Read i ness T r a i n in g Pr og r am:Op e r a t i o n of t i e AN /BOR— 20A ; N1’RD C Technica l Repor t 77—19 , A P e r s o n ne lRead iness T r a i n ‘Log P r o gr a m : N a i n t e n a n c e of the Mis s i l e l e s t and R cuJ m ess}~gu i pment (NTR ~ >1k 7 Nod 2;~~ and NP RD C Technica l Report 7 7— 36 , A Pe r sonne lRead i ness T ra in ing Program: Ope ra t i on and Main tenance of the 1200 PSi S t e a mPropu l s ion P l an t , descr ibed the program in the th ree areas of a p p l i ca t i o n .This f i n a l r e p o r t summarizes f i n d i n g s and conclusions across all three appl i ca-t ions . it is p r i m a r ily intended for use by OP—O99 in p r omot ing m o d i f i c a ti o n sto tra ining that will increase Fleet read iness.

J. J. CLARK1NCommanding O f f i c e r

I

V

SUMMARY

ProbiL- -

Personne l who man the Nav y ’ ~ ships are not always capable of adequate i yp e r f o r m i n g the i r assigned du t ies . To improve personnel read iness , performanceinadequacies must be identified and corrected .

Oct ~ Ve

To develop and evaluate a personnel readiness training system designedto provide detailed i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of s ignif icant shipboard per formance d e f i c i e n c i e sand the capability to correc t those deficiencies.

Approach

Three areas of application were selected for study: (1) the submarineSonar Technician operating the AN/BQR—20A , (2) the submarine Missile Technicianmaintaining the Missiie Test and Readiness Equipment (MTRE Mk 7 Mod 2), and (3)the Boiler Technician operating and maintaining the 1200 PSI Steam PropulsionPlant . The experimental design called for three groups of subjects in eacharea of app l i ca t ion : a Control Group, a Diagnostic Feedback Group, and a —

Diagnostic Feedback + Training Group. All three groups wece administered adiagnostic pretest and , after an intervening period of approximately 5 mon ths ,the same test was renu mini stered as a posrLest.

Find ings

In all three areas , cr ctesting revealed substantial performancedeficiencies. Some minima l performance changes were related to receivingfeedback , but , even where these were statistically significant , they were notlarge enough to be oi any practical significance. Training materials producedsubstantial performance gains for the Sonar Technicians operating the AN /BC?R—20A.For the Missile Technician and Boiler Technician groups , there was little evidenceof improved performance due to training. Ineffectiveness of training materialsfor the Missile and Boiler Technicians appeared to be due to failure to use thematerials assigned .

Conclus ions

1. Significant performance deficiencies were present in all three app l i - i --tions of the Personnel Readiness Training investigation.

2. Explicit performance defic iencies can be identified by application ofproperl y designed testing procedures.

3. Perf ormance defic ienc ies can be corrected throug h remedial trainingif training materials and procedures are appropriately used .

4. There is a need to determine specific s1-’ ipboard training needs andto identify the sk i lls that are best learned aboard ship and those best learnedin shore installat ions.

-

~~~~edi~~ Y e yz~~

L ~~~~~~—- ~~~~~—~~~~ --

Recommend at ions

1. Where personnel performance deficiencies exist with respect toimportant requirements, the procedures used in this investigation should beconsidered .

2. The Navy should support studies to determine which skills should bedeveloped aboard ship and which can be acquired more economically ashore. - -

3. In order to systematically identify significant performance defici-encies, the Navy should proceed with the development of a comprehensive ‘job proficiency assessment system. Such a development has been initiated asSubproject P31, Performance Proficiency Assessment System, under Navy DecisionCoordinating Paper, Education and Training Development (NDCP Z0108—PN).

n

viii

— ~~~~~ ~~- - - - — ——-- - — ~—-—~~~~ - — —— - - - -“—-

~~~~~~~~~~~ - - .-- ~~ -~~~~-~~~~~~~- - -

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - .

CONTENTS

Page

IN~ RoD gC TIo\ 1

Problem 1O b j e c t i v e IBackground 1

PROG RAM OVERV IEW 3

The General Model 3Areas of Appl ica t ion 3Exper iL~ental Design 3Samples 4

Diagnostic Tests Remed ial Training Materials 4

RESU LTS AND DISCUSSION 7

Administrative Consideration 7Per f o rmance Def icienc ies 7Feedback 8Remed ial Train ing 8Imp lementation of a Personnel Readiness Training System 9

CONCLUSIONS 1

RECOMMEN DATIONS 13

REFERENCES 15

Rgi nRu ~ Ci. NOTE 15

APPENDIX — TESTING AND TRAINING MATERIALS DEVELOPED AS PART OFTHE PERSONNEL READINESS TRAINING SUBPROJECT A—U

DI STRTh UT I ON LIST

ix

~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

INTRO D1 C T I u N

~‘r ou ’i en

ders o m~~l who man the N a y ” s sh ips ar e not a l w a y s c a p a b le of a d e q u a t e lys i r ass Lglied d u t i es (Abrains & P t c k o r l a g , 1 962 ; Anderson , 1963;

a P i e s or in g , I - 1959b; > 1 - L a c u , Thole , Smith , Lane , & le ’ l e r i i ; i ,- ) . To im~ r ov o ~er .~~n r e r ead iness , p e r f o rmance in ad e qu a c i e s m u s t be~~~er~ t i f lea a t : cor r eL , ted

T oe ob ’l e c t ~vc a t h i s o c v u c e d development s u h pr o l e c t has been r~ d e v e l o pama cv a nt e a p ersonnel coo l n e s s t r a i n i n g sys tem ( l e s ign ed to provide d e t a i l e d

• i d e n ti f i c a t i o n of s i g n i f ic a n t shipboard p e r f o r m a n c e d e f i c ie n c i e s and thecapability to correct those deficiencies.

~~: round

Ta- r e c a ir e n e n t ~~r the Personnel Readiness T r a i n i n g s t u dy e n l - in a t c o w i t hVe n t u r e Team 43 , a group of m a n a g e m e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i v es d r m c a Fro m b o t h c:~~~ - ,

r i n m a l and research and deve lopment commands for the purpose of i d o a L i f ” ~~~:N~ v v a ~ - t s 0 0 0 C i r r eh i em s t h a t migh t be a l l ev ia ted ~y ap p r o p r i a t e devel a p m c a t a ie f f o r t .- . dne panel of Venture Team 4 3 , chaired by Capta in A l er N c N - ~ n O e lre r osc ’nr j i g the C h ie f of N.~v i J Educat ion and Tra in ing ( C N E T ) , con s m e r e .t r a i n i n g nr o b l em s . One such problem was tha t Fleet commanders lacked c - Y l ; e ” ’ ein the ab i l i t y of some sh ipboard p er s o n ne l to adequa te ly p 0 r t orm s i g n i fi c a nt• —.pects o f th e ir j o b s . In 1972 , the t r a i n i n g panel recommended u n d e r t a k i n ~tao devc l a m r ,cn t “ ion e v a l u a t i o n of a system f o r i d e n t i fy i n g and e or r c c t i : ’ ;- ’~h ’ c a r d c a r snn n c l p e r f o r m a n c e d e f iL i e n c i e s . The Chief of Nava l Opcra t~ ans ’0f 1 of j e s c ar c i t , d e v e l o p m e n t , Test , and Eva lua t ion (OP 9-; ’, , •a gr e e a to sun arttue s. an as a s u b p r o jc ct of Anvanced Deve lopmen t O b j e c t i v e 4 3—03 , a nd fao- : : in 0sas in i :~ ~red on 1 JuL y 19 7 3 .

~-a ~~- r e p o r t s have eea f 5 ’~ ~s~ ed on t h i s s ubp r n ~e c t . One d e s c rib e d m i t m 1sa.iprolect : eve l opmen ~ a ( i . aah s , Main , Ab ratu s , & S t e m n e r n un , N a t e l~ , and:1,0 O t h cT ‘ rc -e p r e s en t e d the r e s u l t s of s p e ci f i c a p p l i ca t i o n s (Laahs ,

& P i - k , ’ r i n g , 13 7 / ; o h s , Pooc h , P i c k e r i ng , 1977 ; V t n c i , e l , t , i’:n e l l ,d i :-: ‘.. - r i n r , 1976) . T~~L~ f i n a l r ep o r t , w~~~nout r e p e a t i n g a l l the d e t ~~i i s

t u e ir ev t on s r e n or t s , 1, p r e s e n t a compos i t e p ic t ure of the c a m p l e L e,, :ai-:v and a t t e m p t to assess i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e .

~~~~~~-- _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1

-

~~~

- • -

~~~~~~~~

- -

r • ‘

~~~~~~~~

•

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PROG RAM OV ERVIEW

The General Model

The main purpose of the Personnel Read iness Training e f f o r t was to evaluatea model testing and train ing program that diagnosed job relevant shipboardperformance deficiencies and then provided remedial training. This model isrepresented by the following general equation :

D iagno s t ic +

Remed ial =

EnhancedTesting Training Per fo rmance

Since the focus was on enhanced job performance , tests were cons t ruc ted toemphasize the demonstration of job skills. Training materials were nidularized ,self—instructional , and directed toward the correction of identified skibdeficiencies.

Areas of App lication

Since it was evident that a personnel readiness t r a in ing s tudy could notdeal with all important shipboard tasks, it was necessary to limit the effort toworkable proportions. After discussions with representatives of the C h i e f ofNaval Education and Training, the Chief of Naval Technical Training and N.ec vproject managers , it was decided to focus on the study of sets of tashs in ti i~~~

areas or application . The areas were chosen to include both surface and sun—

surface personnel and both maintenance and operational tasks. The three setof tasks were: (1) operation of the AN/BQR—2OA by Sonar Technicians on F l e e tBallistic Missile submarines , (2) maintenance of the Missile Test and Re~ d i n c s sEquinment by submarine Missile Technicians , and (3) operation and maint en i :. eof the 1200 PSI Steam Propulsion Plant by Boiler Technicians on cruisers anddestroyers. Each of these areas had been suggested to the research te am byindtvid uals who believed that performance in the area might be deficient .It was felt that the AN/BQR—20A , a passive real—time frequency analyzer , wa .. not

being operated to its full capabilities. The Missile Test and Read iness E q u i p m e n t(MTR E Mk 7 Mod 2) is very reliable ; because of this high reliability, maintenanccpersonneL are provided little opportunity to practice troubleshooting , sEl l I~~.Consequently, it was believed that when troubles did develop technicians mi g h tlack t iC capability to correc t them. Various reports indicated that toe1200 PSI steam propulsion plants were plagued by pr oblems , and it was f e l t t h a tmany of these problems were a result of training deficiencies.

Experimental Design

The experimental design called for three groups of subjects in each area ofappl ication. These groups were a Control Group, a Diagnostic Feedback Groan ,and a Diagnostic Feedback + Training Group. All three groups were administerec . adiagnostic pretest and , after an intervening period of approximately 5 months ,the same test was readministered as a posttest. For all groups , the timebetween i re— and posttest was occup ied with regular duties. After the pretest ,members of the Control Group were given only a percentage score on how t h e y hadp e r f o r m e d on the test without any specific feedback. They were not gmvensuggest ions or d i r e c t i o n s as to how the i r d e f i c i e n c i e s mig ht he correc ted .Members of the Diagnostic Feedback Group were given specific feedback information

~~d14’~ ?r~e Y~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~

with respect to the performance weaknesses revealed by the pretest but , likethe Control Group, they were not provided with any information on how to correcttheir deficiencies . Members of the Feedback + Traix1ing Group were givenimmediate feedback on their specific deficiencies and then were provided withan appropriate set of training materials to correct individual deficiencies.It was suggested that the time between pretest and posttest be partially occupiedin working with those training materials. In the BT application , two ships wereasked to have the assigned training materials completed on board ship ; theremaining two were asked to have them completed ashore.

Samples

The sampling unit for this study was a ship . Twelve ships were involvedfor each of the three areas of application: four ships for the Control Group,four for the Diagnostic Feedback Group , and four for the Diagnostic Feedback+ Training Group. On each participating ship, all pertinent personnel on boardwere included in the experimental program. Detailed descriptions of the samplesmay be found in the earlier reports in this series.

Diagnostic Tes ts

For each appl ica tion , a set of diagnostic tests was developed . These testsare described briefly in the following paragraphs. The appendix includes alist of all the testing materials.

For the AN/BQR—20A app lication , two diagnostic tests were developed ; aperformance test and a written test. The performance test covered the followingtasks: search, contac t invest igation, tracking, signal—to—noise ratiocalculation, and ping interception. The written test compriseJ 42 itemscover ing knowledge considered essential to the effective operation of theAN/BQR-20A.

For the MTRE Mk 7 application , four diagnostic tes ts were developed : apreventive maintenance test , a corrective maintenance test , a simulated trouble-shooting test , and a test equipment test. The preventive maintenance testconsisted of three problems in which the testees were required to performvarious maintenance checks on the actual MTRE equipment. The corrective mainte-nance test consisted of two troubleshooting problems on the MTRE equipment.The simulated troubleshooting test was a paper—and—pencil test designed tomeasure the ability of the MT to logically apply his knowledge of equipmen tmaintenance. The test equipment test , using a specially designed test—signal generator to provide inputs , involved use of the AN/USM—281A oscilloscope ,the John Fluke 8O3D/AG differential voltmeter , and the Simpson—volt—ohm micro—ammeter Model 269—2.

Two diagnostic tests were developed for the 1200 PSI Steam PropulsionPlant application. The first of these was a multiple—choice test on basicmechanical skills and knowledges. The second test was a multiple—choice teston the use of the Engineering Operational Sequencing System (EOSS) .

Remedial Training Materials

Remedial training mater ials , based on job task analyses, were assembledor developed for each of the three applications . These materials were packaged

4

.~~~ -.- .c ’ ~~:..L t a o ’ ~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 ansigacO in a o l a t ivel y S iLO l I : , - d u 1 e ~. U .~~~~~t C

of w,~~~~ to 55 aovo.i en v t h e di a gnost i c t e st s . T i e ap ger ~. ix 1 0 ~~~~~~~

list O i L i l O t r a n . i u g . ton i c r L ai s . The reader shou ld refer to earl ~er re i r t sfor a ~~ c~~i i e~ desc r i p t t ü t of t h o s e m a t e r i a l s .

IE SULTS AND D I SC I S S I G N

AEtnin I s : r at Ly e Cons ide rati on

c o n d a t of nov F l e e t study , no m a t t e r how ( l e s ig n e or o x t o u t ci., p1 e’ oS

00 ‘ e(t p ersonne l tha t are beyond the scope of t h e I r norma l d - ~ l o s.n those anstere times , sa iphoard manning is m i n i m a l it b0...t . Tbie ref c re , it

is ant ,~rpr~~,,ng t i c : i”~ ee: Commands a t a l l l e v e l s , f r o m ( l o o t Comnond ors in

C o l e : to snip ’s captain s , are r e l u c t a n t to add to the h~~rh~~ns o: t a e i r p or s o n n e ito o r d e r to p romote pro j ects tha t may or may not have b e n e f i c i a l r e s ult s inLhf ’ O~~j r C . Because of those considerations , i f t he s t ud y were to he done 0tn I l , it was necessary to accep t conditions that were undesirable from a s t r i c t l yexperimental point of view . For example , some of the assignments of shipsto c o n t r o l or e x p e r it o e r t a l groups in the submarine samples were toa de forthe convenience of Fleet personnel rather than on a strictly random basis.Ia the case of the BTs, original plans called for the rhipboard adminis—teation of certain hands—on performance tests. These performance testswere to: used because it was found that they would place an unacceptableaddir c-c- ai burden on toe ships involved. There is no doubt that theseexperim ental di~ fjculties hindered the conduc t of the research; however ,t he i r a c t u a l e f f e c t s on research resul ts cannot be precisely determined.

Another c r i t i c a l prob lem wi th respect to the measurement of sh ipboa rdper formance concerned de te rmin ing where performance should he measured . Itcan he argued that the most appropriate place and time for such measurementwould he a t the a c t u a l j o b site while the pe r fo rmance is being carried outduring regular shipboard operations. Although this would cer’ainly provide-the -createst face validity , there are many other factors to be ronsidered .For example , to get comparable measurements across a set of subjects , eachsubject must be given an opportunity to perform a standard task under standardc o n d i t i o n s and tha t p e r f o r m a n c e must be observed , recorded , and i nt e r p re t o d .The r equ i rement fo r a s tandard task immediately rules out observation ofper formance in a natural s e t t i n g , unless the task under consideration isone p e r f o r m e d on .i very frequent basis. While observers have been usedon board ship in the past to col lec t p e r f o r m a n c e da ta , shipboard o b s e r v a t i o nis a very costly process and one that is likely to substantial ly interferewith normal shipboard duties . Thus, all of the testing done as part of

~~~~ st u ~.v was carried out on shore , either in a specially equipped vanl~~~ated at dockside or at var ious t r a i n i n g f ac i l i t i e s . Any w i d e s p r ead .ip—p l i c a ti o n of d i a g n o s t i c t e . t i n C procedu re s s i m i l a r to the ones describedhere w o u l d p r o b a b l y r equ i r e a simi la r approach .

P e r f o r m a n c e D e f i c i e n ci e s

Resilts f r o m a l l th r e e areas of app lication revealed substantial per—fo r r .mi r o e d e f i c i e n c i e s . The a p p a r e n t reasons fo r these d e f i c i e n c i e s v a r i e dwith t ic area of application. For the Sonar Technic ians operating theAN / —20, it appeared that appropriate training had never been given , eitherin schools or on board ship, nor had an adequa te oper ator ’s manual beenprovided . For Missile Techni :ians operating the Missile Test and ReadinessEc,uipaoc .t , the n a t u r e a f the equipment appears to have contributed injire:c tlvto t r a i n i n g d e f i c i e n c i e s . The MTRE Mk 7 is very reliable and , typ h ally ,

~~~~~~~~ ~crQe 7~~,vi$~

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _ _ _

- -~~~—

~-=

one MT is assigned primary responsibility for that equipment during a specificpatrol. The rel iability of the equipment together with the limited assign-ment of maintenance responsibility provide the setting for the skill deterior-ation that occurs with nonuse . The problems of the Boiler Technicians operatingthe 1200 Pound Steam Propulsion Plant no doubt have many origins includ inginsuf f ic ient numbers of personnel , propulsion systems that are to some extentunique to each ship, and, for some propulsion system team members, inadequatebasic training.

Feedback

It should be recognized that the term “feedback,” as used in the Person-nel Readiness Training study, had a limited and specific meaning. It meantproviding an individual information about inadequacies in either his jobunderstanding or his job performance. The effects of providing feedbackinformation to others who might make decisions about personnel practiceswas not studied. Thus, supervisors , personnel managers , and school adminis-trators were not part of a feedback loop.

In the present case, in order for feedback to have resulted in beneficialchanges in performance , the individual concerned would have had to ac t onthe information he was given in such a way as to change his performancein the desired direction . Apparently , some minimal performance changeswere related to receiving feedback. However, even where these were statis-tically significant , they were not large enough to be of any practicalsignificance. The results indicate that informing an individual that hisperformance is deficient in some specific way is not by itself sufficientto produce important improvements in performance.

Remedial Training

As indicated in the section on experimental design, for each area ofapp lication investigated there were three groups of subjects: (1) a ControlGroup, (2) a Diagnostic Feedback Group, and (3) a Diagnostic Feedback +Training Group. The results for the groups given both diagnostic feedbackand remedial training prescriptions differed with the area of application.In the BQR—20A application , Lhe remedial training materials were utilized ,and that utilization produced significant improvements in measured aspectsof job performance. kith respect to the MTRE Mk 7 application , the traininggroup showed no differentia ll y greater Improvement in performance withrespec t to any one of the four diagnostic tests. When an attempt was madeto determine the reasons for this training ineffectiveness , it became evidentthat most of the 19 MTs in the training group did not recognize a need forthe training and therefore did riot complete their assigned lessons. Thiswas conf irmed both from self—reports during the posttesting and from progresschecklists that were returned by supervisors from the four submarines inthe training group. Only five MTs could be identified as having comple tedtheir assigned lessons. When the performances of the MTs who had comp le tedthe training were compared with that of comparable men in the other twogroups , the results , al though based on extremely small samples , suggestthat, had training been completed , performance would have improved.

8

fe- w~~t : . mi ~ i ’:s , L , o h l o j O the t r a in ing group sl ow cu ~~i [ t i e k V , . i O i i

~ f .npc voioot no. to cr . b u g . Here , too , it was found t h a t

~r a:rm ~~~ , end no: noo n c u p leted ; onl y 21 percent of the BTs cotop i O t i o t h e i rass~~g . c~ mo~ o ~~s. Special an a l yses of resul ts on the very ~nsi ll suas . r.C O o L O~~ complet ed E r n i o ~~ng do suggest t ha t if t r a i n i n g had been C omp i e t Ceperfu r ; .mcco Woo~~e unv e ~ ap r o v e u. There were ev iden t ly two ma in ro isonsf o r a~~n .~~e of t i e :rn.:ia~l a~.trrials by the BT group: a L,ck of tiao to

n :o~ r m ~~~~ Onu the poor shipboard stud y env ir inn ~ n:. ‘b.c

ols ~~o ~~ro ~~~~~ t o c om p le t e t r a i n i n g at a shore site c o m pi o t c u a t a r..~~~ nc: ~c:cea:~~gc of assigned mater ia l s .

O:~~er f ac to r s may hove contributed to d i f f e r e nc e s to t h e ext en t to ~~~m c ilog aate r :a:s wi-re used in the three a p p l i c a t i o n s . For o x . :- 1 e , the

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :in:erials were probab ly the most d i r ec t l y re la ted t j ob I r ’ o r o r l n e ,t;.ey wOre m>ackag eu in b r i e f e r lessons than the others , they wi r e desi gn ed

~~c :hn~ t h e m a j o r i t y of the t ra in ing could be done w h i l e t In ’ STs Wi r e s t a c i n gwatc0 , and STs evidently recognized a need for training in the areaS covered .

lml m o:a [Ion of a Personnel Read iness T ra in ing Sy stem

Toe erpose of toe Personnel Readiness Training subproject wn~ to developoral eva:ate a system for toe i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and cor rec t ion of sh ipboardp e r f o r m ance de f i c i enc ies. The th r e e areas of appl ica t ion i n v es r i y i : e i w e r eselectea as c h a r a c t e r i s t i c problem areas. Based on the r e s u l t s f rom thesen r5as , the system apPt’d:~. to be successful both in diagnosing performancecefici~ ocies and , where t r a i n i n g ma te r i a l s are used , in improving job pe r—ior :vince. however , if t he Personnel Readiness Training concept i~ to hemaxim~~i .ty js~ ful t o t i l e Navy , steps must be taken to make the system o p er a —:ioaa.~ . F igure i ou t l ines the m a j o r components of the Personnel Readinesslroja~ ag .5’:st~~O. It i .-. evident that , if the system is to he made opera—:ion~~l , th e agency or age cies responsible for implementing various aspectsof c~~- c~~~:eri wi l l have to be identified and funds must be allocated to

~u p a ’r t t oo program.

9

-j

r ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~

[..J~Li _______ ~~ ~n I ~~ j

“ ‘ ~~~. x u . i o. u t - t o £ — —~~ —

~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~Lfl1 ~ _ _ _ _ _

~g ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[~11 ‘I {dd “1 ~h

II ili.

_ _

Hw] __f ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ -. -

-

~~~~~~~

CONCLU SiONS

i n ~can: .~~r f e r , m c u o c e de f i c i enc ies were found in a l t t h r e e a p i 1 1 —t l e O - . a t no r’ersanne - - Rend boos.; Tra in ing i n v e s t i g a t i o n . I t is p robab le[ a : e o . . y L r a o L e d e f i c i e n c ies ex i s t in re la t ion to many o ther Fleet job~~~~~ ~S.

I. ~xoi. c~~t perlarnonce oeficiencies can be i den t i f i ed by application ofproper ly eea~ gaeu testing procedures.

3. ineru tifien performance d e f i c i e n c i e s can be corrected t l i r ou g i ; a p p r o p r i —O C r usc 0f pertinent remedial t r a in ing m a t e r i a l s and p rocedures . Flowever ,simply provid Lag shiphcard personnel with appropriate training packagesis not enough. Time and space for t r a i n i n g must no made available and ~ohincumbents must be motivated to engage in the training process.

4. ‘fia~re is a need to determine s p e c i f i c shipboard t r a in ing needs andto identif y toe skills that are test learned aboard ship and those bestlearnect in shore installations.

11

L .---- .-. -

~--.- . - -~~-I—

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ -

-

.-1 1 RiOi’i~ CN1)A’i’; CN S

I s r e ’o:l.lle.a. . C a u : 1

~~. ..e~ e cocr....~ Le j~~rvO perbc)000 L perfora.;: ’o d e f i c i e n cy X S C ~~

afthi :~~ s o r : to : a ;’:~~~o : c ;; . rements , rho proced~.ros useci ic thIs i n v t - ~on ~.ho . 1 no cr105. ~~~~: - ~~ • c t h is case , r e s p r o~ b e l l i t Ii ’s snoul d ho

~~~~~~ . 000 ~~~~~~ ,,ric. s: c ~~k’n LO hOV e . op a mecn r;~~.-,;:, ~~~~~~ lar :e t i - u : Su , w - .to as.: t . ~ in ’u;osrir tes :ing/romred~~n train ~ng ) ; C r i . i’-

:ms .e .,v :;.n ;&- to .;elo c o r r e c t s p e c i f i c c r i t i c 0 ; s s il 1 de f ~ l o O C i c o .

‘. 0 0 0~~ V ’~ s0o~~ a ~,u~~)O r c s tun los to determi oc wh icO sc :1 1 a so- old heO e V c ~ 000 a oca r i sO n r a which cau be or gal roe t ar e economic0 m ; y a sh o r e

3. iri am er to systematica lly ident £ f V s i gn~~t i c n n t p e r f o r n n : e de fic 1 0 0 —

a l es , ta~~ .\avy s h n u l~ pr oceed w i t h t he deve lopmen t ~ f a c o m p r e i l a m i s i v e l o br o t i t ieocy asse~~smen: s:n:efl.. Suc h a dove i o p m e n : bi~ s beer , ;n ~ t i ed ~~~

~ea ro ocr P~ : Performa nce Proficiency Assessment Svsto: : , i f Aa- ’ .n~ Oil

f e ve l a o -ao :it Zil L P-~— P’~.

i

~~dz#~ *j’e 3i

~ TTTmT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _____ -

~~~~~~~ ~~~~‘ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

RI’ Fi U N t ’ FS

A hr o r~-. , A . . ., a f t ~-~~e r i c g , E . .~~ . ‘ ‘ r i m e n t a l t r a i n u ~.i~__fil a e l l o u . -o int o e .s~ of i i or tr in i r eS I nne;ut : 1V. Diagnost I t e s t rca I t sfri .- fv a nc ’: s n ~ r -c adc~~ts (Technical Bulletin 62—9). Washington , P . d .:

of N0vn b P er sar ine ’ , ~u i y 1962.

Anocraro , A . V .o g, u t i l Izat ion , and p r o f i c iency of N a v y o ~- c t r o n i cc~~ -h n i r i a n s: V . An overview (Technical Bulletin 63—4 ). Washi ngton ,P. 1. : Bureau of N.1val Personnel , March 1963.

Ar,a~ r a m o , A . V., a P it kcr~ ng F . J . An informal i nves t ic, at li ii of t heof o dva n cea sonarmen in the use of test er1p u i p r l e n t (‘~emo

Re-Ic-rt 59—2). San Diego : Naval Personnel Research Activity, Julyl95~~. ~,a)

gneem~- rm , , A . V. , a Pickering, L. J. The ~roficiency of Pa cu fi c FleetSO0~~~~0ot l ir the use of el ectronic test equipment (Technical Bulletin59— ~~) ) . W~ sh i a g t on , D. C.: Bureau of Naval Personnel , November 1959. (b)

e d o DS , A . J., Harr is, H. T., Jr., & Pickering, E. J. A personne! reau1ne ssprodron: Operation and maintenance of the 1200 PSI St eam P ci —

ma s~ rin ?Thnt (NPRD C Tech. Rep . 7 7 — 3 6 ) . San Diego : Navy Personnel Resonr ’hnon Developmen t Center , June 1977.

Laabs , 0. J ., Panell , R. C . , & P icker ing , E. J. A personnel r e a d i n e s sI r.br~c rro~~r-a: l’4air,tenance of the Missile Test and Readiness Equip—

c c : ~X1RE ~~ ~ tod 2) (‘NPRDC Tech. Rep . 77— 19) . San Diego : Navy Personne1ae s 0 r ir~~h and Development Center , March 1977. (AD AO37 546)

~ha ,or: .n, J. C., Thohe , V. F., Smith , J. P . , Lane , A. E., S Pelen ni , d. A.P - . s c a n c i n r c u i z o d :)rofic iency test ing program for Fl cot: Jczeheh

Ill. Results , conclusions , and recommendation s (Technical- c t Ln 7 1— 5 ) . San Diego : Naval Personnel Tra ining R e s e a r c h 1 , a h - r ; t - v ,

Yboro h 1971 .

~~ r , : : o 1 l , J. P . , P a r c h , 1. C . , & P i c k e r i n g , F. J. A p er s o n n~~ - ; co - -

. 1 - . :- )ro’r:m: eo~~r; Ljon of the AN/BQR—2 0A (NPF D C Tech. F e p . -‘ 7 — ’

S.- ,o . .. - g o: N a vy Personnel Research and Development Center , Nov er:her 10 7 6 .

~A , - A C ii 435)

REFERENCE NOTE

1. P b s , G. J. , Ma~ n , x . E., Abrams , A. J., & Steinemann , J. H. A j o s . n c c

r. ainess trair . . ’~~iro p ram: I n i ti a l p ro jec t d e v e l o p m e n t (N P R )C S pe : n iR~’ or t 7 5 — 8 ) . Su~ Diego : Navy Personnel Research and Pevelopment Center ,A pri l97D.

~~~~edz,y~ Yc~ye y~~r,v,dr

_ _ _ _ _ _ -~~

.~~ift ’~~ r i . i i X

TRSl’~ N0 - P~P . ,~ :, b N 1 , \G -~\~~-P ’ 1A ~ D~~V F P ~) P l P i .-\S PART UPTi-. r, ’~t0 .’,N.h. .A I ’ i r S S iAIN ,

A-O

- - -

~~~— ~~L — -:-~-

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - -~~ ~~~ —- _____

--- - - - -~--—.-~~~~~~~~~ -. - -~~~~~~~~~~~ -~~~~~~~~- - --- ~~ ~~~- -— -- - - — ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I Ni AXD ‘.‘~A - N :111 MA’,’ i :O I ~‘P N D E V E L O P I : ) A S P ’ 1RT IC ’Ti . r . 1 1 P S N \ F L . -;E A J ) I N E S S ‘l’ItA I N I N C SU h PR ( ) . J E CT

A N / B C R — ’UA A p~~ ~c . :

I i r j ~ C o o 1’ost ~‘42 ; t e ns ) : Know, t -a Ctr S E s s e n t i n f o r ‘ ro~a r r~~~r a t I ( 0

of to e .~~./ ,3i~ o _ i) . ’i .

2. P c r f o; ’: anco ‘. 0 5 1 (~~3 p r ob l e m s) : Op er a t i o n of t h e AN / uh i P— JiA .

3. ~I,~~a ;c1 , :o. , ~~.1p~o 1r .. t r , ~~n i n g a. Kage on AN / hIR— rhA . CC ’i .o,,s ts ofsix wr. trer , I essrirs, f ,V e I, ;e roes , urn~ six h r 1 i S tO ~ i .SeG i n ‘on u : —t~ no w i th two 1/4” r , . .~ ng t~~pes. )

M TRE Pk 7 A c r i l ’ f c:~~~ I : ,:

1. Tes t S~~1o,,h i encr.itor (-:s ’;) for use with test o~ ‘t e n t t r a in i : , . ’arc ; tosti,’.g materials . (Proviaes for the gonemot man of r ,-.cre te AC 0nd ICe i ecr r l c al . s i gan l s t h o m s~ i ; u l ate slt~nals that may be d~~~o’t oc ~ n ‘ensure :on elec tronic . 04 u t p I L c n t . )

2. Preventive Ma~ n:enance Test (3 problems): Performan ce ( I f s t a n c a r opreveat.ve main:er,ar.ce procedures.

‘,~~. 111cmrecclve Maintenance Test (2 problems): Troubies~ octt n g the tiL 10 1

MTR F ec oipmer1t.

4. Simu lated Troubleshooting Test: Five Decision Measurement System (tThS)exerc l~c~ s/tests on trot.bleshooting MTRE. (These are paper— r.d—peoc il in fort:1;and invo lv e s t e p — b y — s t e p so lut ion of t r oub l e shoo t i ng p r o b l e r m s . La:ent—tma ’ocechri~~~ca are utiii zen for solution masking and response feedbac,c.)

5 . TeSt iIçu~:p m e n t Tes t : Skill P r o f i c i e n c y E x a m i n a t i on on usa of To~~:t.Cj L~ k t T , 00t . (inc l udes opera t ion of AN /US M—28 lA Oscil~~oscop o , D o l u o i ’ l u P r 8C 3P ’ AhserIes AC/DC Differential Voltmeter , and Siii~pson Mod el 2b’~— 2 V o l t — Ohn ; - - i - t i , r o n am e : e r . l

6. Self—study workbook on MTRE Maintenance Checks . (Cons-I sta of o; ghCaoduio ric~’c1 lessons.)

7. Self—study workbook on MTRE Troubleshooting Techni ;es. i~(’onai~~:s n i

six mduL . l r i z e a lessons.)

N . S e l f — s t u d y workbook on Use of Test Equipment . (‘i’~ o modul arized eS5: Son Oscilloscope , John Fluke Meter , and Volt—Ohxn—Microammetor.)

1 200 11 : 7 St ein Propulsion Plant Application

I. Multip le Choice Basic Mechanical Procedures Test 11 ’r Boiler ,o.’h n,cLo ~ s(11) 4 t e m s ) : (Keyed to 13 core modules developed by P r o p u l s i o n E n g ;n e ’ r i z i : . , hchoo l ,:;r eo ; i , a k ( s , and adapted fo r on—board t r a in ing by CNET. )

A-i

-‘

-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~-Lr~~, ~

~

2. Periortlanc , t~~st on doe of ibm ; L a c e r ing O p era t iona l Serp i ;: n~ S”si, F O S S) .

i . N~’ l f — s t O O V W , r i . oucs on ~~~ j io W 1 f Sn - ot ‘ Precaut ton

Prc- -~r.atcr.’.. text on - ~ o l ’ IP So

3. ~~t ci. p rc i uire f ri on ,C ~ — — , 15 t s05 , . . . . Au V .I . - ~, 0 5 .

A —

-

~

~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ :~:

D I S T R I B U T I O N LIST

Chief of Nava l Oper ci t ions ( t) P — 9 6 4 D ) , ( O P — 0 9 9 ) , (OP—OoYl Is), (OP -9 14) , ( u i l — 9 ,~h h )Chief of Naval Personnel (Pers—lOc), (Pers—2B)Chief of Nava l Edu -a t ion and ‘I’ r a i n ing ( N — 2 ) , (N—5) , (h—s) , (hI— 113), (11—003)Chief of Naval Technical T r a i n i n gChief of Nava l T e c h n i c a l T r a i n i n g ( 0 1 6 ) , ( N — 3 ) , ( N — I .)Chief of Nava l Mate r ía I ( N S P — I S O ) , (NS1’ — l 513 )Chief of Nava I E d u c a t i o n and ‘I ra i i l ug Su p p o r iChief of Nav a l Ethicc~L i on aDa T r a i n i n g Support ( QIA )Chief of Naval Research (450) (4)Chief of Naval Research (458) (2)Chief of Information (01—2252)Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower , Reserve Affairs arid log istics)Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and ,esecVe A f f a I r s )Director of Naval LaboratoriesCo m m ,u n d o r in Chief , U.S. Pacific FleetCommander in Chief , U.S. Atlantic FleetCommander Naval Sea Systems Command (NSEAO491) (PMS 301)Commander Naval Surfa ce Force , U.S. Pac ific FleetCommander Naval Surface Force , U . S . At l an t i c FleetComm ander Tra in ing Command , U.S. Pacific FleetCommander Tra ining Command , U.S. Atlantic FleetCommander Tra ining Command, U.S. Atlantic Fleet (N3A)Commanding Officer . Naval Education and Training Program Dovelo :1Ont Ce n t erCommanding O f f i c e r , Fleet Training Center , San DiegoCommanding Off icer , Naval Training Equipment CenterCommand ing Off icer , Naval Training Equipment Center (Technical l ibrary)Command ing Off icer , Naval Damage Control Training CenterCommanding Off icer , Naval Development and Training Center (Code 0123)Command ing Off icer , Naval Aerospace Med ical Institute (Lih ary ~- d e 12) (2iCommand ing Off icer , Fleet Combat Training Center , Pacific (Code cUE)Officer in Charge , Naval Education and Training Information Syst .-:; s Ac t ivity ,

Memphis DetachmentDirector , Training Analysis and Evaluation Group (TAEG)D i r e c t o r fo r Acquisition Planning , OASD(NRA&L)Military Assistant for Training and Personnel Technology, ))1)R5 . \D(EaLS)Secretary Treas urer , U.S. Naval InstituteSenior Member , Propulsion Examining Board (CINCPACFLT S t , i l : )Senior Member , Propulsion Examining Board (CINCLANTFLT Sta f)Coast Guard Headquarters (G—P—1/62)Army Research Institute for Behavioral and Social SciencesPersonnel Research Division, Air Force Human Resources Lab.rate v (Ah SC),

Brooks A ir Force BaseOccupational and Manpower Research Division, Air Force Hun a Re~ cu r o e s

Laboratory (AFSC), Brooks Air Force BaseTechnical Library, Air Force Huiuian Resources Laboratory, S aks A ir rorce tho seTechnical Training Division , Air Force Human Resources L.i$ i r a t c i’ ,

Lowr y A ir Force BaseFly ing Training Div ision , A ir Force Human Resources Laboral- ’r\ ,Williams Air Force Base

Advanced Sys tems Division, Air Force Human Resources Labor.-; erv -

Wrigh t—Patterson Air Force BaseProgram Manager , Life Sciences Direc torate , A ir Force Office of ,- c i~~n t i 1 i c

Research (AFSC)Director , Defense Activity for Non—Trad itional Educational Supp.’rtDefense Documentation Center (12)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -