UI. S. NA AL

RESEARCH REPORT SRR 66-7 NOVEMBER 1965

THE EFFECTS OF CORRECTING EARLY FITNESSREPORTS FOR SITUATIONAL FACTORS

William H. GithensBernard Rimland

John H. Steinemann

DISTRIBUTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS UNLIMITED

NPRA$N Df° AL6-

THE EFFECTS OF CORRECTING EARLY FITNESS REPORTSFOR SITUATIONAL FACTORS

by

William H. GithensBernard Rimland

John H. Steinemann

November 1965

PFOF60601O1Research Report SRR 66-7

Submitted by

B. Rimland, Ph.D., Director, Personnel Measurement Research Department

Approved by

E. E. Dudek, Ph.D., Technical DirectorG. W. Watson, Commander, USN

Officer in Charge

Distribution of this document is unlimited

U. S. Naval Personnel Research ActivitySan Diego, California 92152

BRIEF

The major purpose of this investigation was to determine theneed for making statistical corrections to the fitness reports ofjunior officers to adjust for possible inequalities due to extra-neous situational factors. The situational influences for whichcorrections were made were (a) type of duty stations at whichreports were made, (b) number of reports (up to 5) the officerhad received, (c) rater familiarity with the junior officer, asmeasured by the number of successive reports completed by thesame rater.

The analysis was conducted on the reports received during thefirst 18 months of active duty of 1,338 members of the NROTCgraduating Class of 1959. The sample was fractionated into groupshomogeneous with regard to the variables being studied. Standardscores were computed for each subgroup, and these were comparedwith raw, unstandardized average fitness scores for the totalgroup.

Although significant differences in fitness ratings wereattributable to factors (a) and (b) above, a correlation of .97was found between the standardized (corrected) scores and the raw,unstandardized scores, thus indicating the influence of the vari-ables corrected for to be practically negligible. An additionalfinding was that correlations of about .90 among the four scaleson the Fitness Report Summary Sheet permit these four scales to beaveraged without significant loss of information.

Although conducted in the process of developing a means forusing early fitness reports as a research criterion, the findingsof this study are encouraging in that they suggest the fitnessreport to be relatively uninfluenced by extraneous factors asused operationally.

iii

CONTENTS

Page

Brief ....................... ........................... iii

A. PURPOSE ............... ....................... .. 1

B. POPULATION .............. ..................... .. 1

C. DATA ................ .......................... .. 1

D. PROCEDURE

1. Report Number ........................ .... 22. Rater Familiarity ............. ................. 23. Type of Duty Station .............. ............ 24. Actual Performance Rating .............. 2

E. RESULTS

1. Means .................... ....................... 42. Intercorrelations .............. ................. 7

F. DISCUSSION

1. Station Differences ............ ................ 72. Rater Familiarity ............. ................ 93. Rating Number ................ ................... 94. Use of a Single Summary Score to Reflect an Officer's

Cumulated Fitness Marks .......... .............. 95. Standardization of Scores ..... ........ ........ 10

G. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... ............ . 10

REFERENCES ................. ......................... . 11

APPENDIX A -- Worksheet ........... ................. 12

v

TABLES

Page1. Rating Means, Standard Deviations and N's for Groups

By Type of Duty Station on First Fitness Report ........ 5

2. Significance Levels of Differences Between Duty StationsIn Mean Ratings on First Fitness Report ....... ........ 5

3. Fitness Scale "a" (Present Assignment) Means, StandardDeviations, and N's for Groups by Report Number, DutyStation, and Number of Reports by Same Rater .... ...... 6

4. Intercorrelations of Raw and Standardized FitnessReport Scores .................... ................. ... 8

vi

THE EFFECTS OF CORRECTING EARLY FITNESS REPORTSFOR SITUATIONAL FACTORS

A. PURPOSE

The primary purpose of this study is to determine if correc-tions are needed to compensate for the degree to which certainextraneous factors influence fitness report marks. Examples ofsuch extraneous factors are: number of fitness reports received,number of fitness reports received from the same rater, and typeof duty station at which ratings were received. Should the effectsof these extraneous factors be found to be significant, they shouldbe appropriately compensated for when fitness marks are being usedoperationally in making administrative decisions concerning navalofficers.

The development of a single summary type score to reflectfitness marks in general is a secondary purpose of this study.A single score to represent an overall evaluation of an officer'sperformance is frequently needed.

B. POPULATION

The population of this study consists of the 1,338 graduatesof these NROTC programs who were commissioned as Ensigns duringthe calendar year 1959. Of these there were 804 Regular and534 Contract students.

C. DATA

An Officer Summary Record (NAVPERS 1269 Rev. 7-57) was obtainedfor each officer in the population. These records include the follow-ing information abstracted from each fitness report completed for theofficer during his first 18-month period of active service: 1

Location and type of duty

Name of reporting senior

Rank of reporting senior

Rating score for Item 14a, "Present assignment"

1 The fitness form used during this investigation was NAVPERS 310Rev. 3-54 "Report on the Fitness of Officers," a copy of which is shownin Appendix A.

1

Rating score for Item 15, "Considering the possiblerequirements of war, indicate your attitude towardhaving this officer under your command"

Rating score for Item 16a, "In comparison with otherofficers of his grade and approximate length of service,how would you designate this officer?"

Rating score for Item 19, a summary score giving equalweight to the following six qualities: "Professionalknowledge, cooperation, judgement, leadership, promotionpotential, and management effectiveness"

D. PROCEDURE

The above fitness report information contained in the Officer

Summary Record for each officer was coded as follows:

1. Report Number

The fitness reports received by each officer were assigned achronological number; the first report received was assigned a one,the second a two, etc., to a maximum total of five reports. Manyofficers in the sample had less than five fitness reports available.

2. Rater Familiarity

The first fitness report submitted on a particular officer bya reporting senior was assigned a one, the second by the same raterwas assigned a two, etc.

3. Type of Duty Station

After discussion with a number of officers, the followingscheme for categorizing duty types was selected as being mostconsonant with the purposes of this investigation:

A. Large Combat Vessel

B. Small Combat Vessel

C. Non-Combat Vessel

D. Shore Duty in U.S.

E. Shore Duty Outside U.S.

F. Duty Under Instruction

4. Actual Performance Ratings

These were the rating scores obtained from the fitness

reports, see Appendix A:

2

a. Present assignment (Xa) (Item 14a)

b. Desirability (Xb) (Item 15)

c. Comparison (Xc) (Item 1 6 a)

d. Quality (X d) (Item 19)

The numerical weight for each scale value has been typewrittenon the form in the appendix. The Quality Rating is represented byan average of all the sub-scales included as part of Item 19.

Since it was felt that the index derived should reflect actualon-the-job performance and not academic ability, reports completedwhile on "Duty under Instruction" were eliminated from the analysis.

Four scores were then computed as follows:

1. Average Raw Score. The average (across all fitnessreports) for each of the four rating scores above were computedfor each officer:

Xa' Xb' Xc' Xd.

2. Summary Average Raw Score. This consists of the meanof the four Average Raw Scores for each officer:

Xa-d = (Xa Xb+ 7e + cd)/4.

3. Average Standard Score. In order to obtain a measurein which the influence of report number, rater familiarity, andtype of duty station have been statistically removed, standardscores were computed as follows. All fitness reports analyzedin this study were grouped so that within each group the fitnessreports were identical with respect to report number, raterfamiliarity, and type of duty station. Within each of thesegroups the raw scores were then converted to standard scoreswith a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10: Za, Zb, Zc, Zd.

The average of the standard scores for each of the fourratings_analyzed in this study was computed for each officer: Za, Zb, Zc,

Z d The number of reports on which the average was based ranged

from I to 5.

4. Summary Average Standard Score. This consists of themean of the four Average Standard Scores for each officer:

a--d (7a+ Zb+ fc+ Zd)/4.

3

Means were computed for fitness report marks associated witheach of the "Type of Duty Station" categories, significance testswere applied to differences between means, and correlations werecomputed between the various scores.

E. RESULTS

1. Means

Tables 1, 2, and 3 show the mean raw scores of the populationcategorized in various ways.

As indicated by the means in Table 1, the fitness report markswere skewed toward the positive end of each rating scale (the posi-tive end of the scale was coded 0, and the negative end of the scalewas coded 10). This is consistent with the frequently reportedskewness of military performance ratings.

Table 1 also shows that there is more variance (reflected bythe standard deviations) associated with the "Desirability" scalethan with the other scales. The mean fitness scores obtained whileon "U.S. Shore Duty," were more favorable (numerically lower) thanthe corresponding mean scores of other stations. With one exception,the mean scores for "Small Combat Vessel" were less favorable(numerically higher) than the corresponding mean scores of otherstations.

Table 2 shows the results of significance tests applied to thedifferences among the means shown in Table 1. "Shore Duty in U.S."is significantly better than the other types of duty station. Theonly other significant difference found was between "Large CombatVessel" and "Small Combat Vessel," ratings from the former beingmore favorable (lower numerically).

Table 3 presents the ratings on "Present Assignment" categorizedin terms of the situational variable being investigated. The previous-ly noted tendency for first fitness scores given at "U.S. Shore Duty"and on "Small Combat Vessel" to be better and poorer, respectively, thanreports given at other stations is herein shown 2 to also hold for laterfitness reports. A general tendency for mean fitness scores to improve

2- -

Columns XD and X B compared to Columns X A and X C and X E

4

TABLE 1

Rating Means, Standard Deviations and N's for GroupsBy Type of Duty Station on First Fitness Report

Type of Rating a Rating b Rating c Rating dDuty Station (Present Assignment) (Desirability) (Comparability) (Qualities)

N a SD XI SD N x SD N X SD

A. Large CombatVessel 348 2.82 1.39 348 2.57 1.72 348 3.05 1.45 335 3.10 1.24

B. Small CombatVessel 365 3.09 1.41 366 2.90 1.67 366 3.33 1.36 354 3.28 1.17

C. Non-CombatVessel 42 2.88 1.21 42 2.57 1.55 42 3.19 1.17 40 3.03 1.10

D. Shore Dutyin U.S. 225 2.41 1.14 225 2.18 1.42 221 2.65 1.08 215 2.60 1.04

E. Shore Dutyoutside U.S. 33 2.94 1.14 33 2.91 1.51 33 3.15 1.23 32 3.06 1.05

TABLE 2

Significance Levels of Differences Between Duty StationsIn Mean Ratings on First Fitness Report

(t-tests)

Rating a Rating b Rating c Rating dDuty Station (Present Assignment) (Desirability) (Comparability) (Qualities)

B C D E B C D E B C D E B C D E

A. Large CombatVessel .02 NS .005 NS .01 NS .005 NS .01 NS .005 NS .10 NS .005 NS

B. Small CombatVessel (-) NS .005 NS (-) NS .005 NS (-) NS .005 NS (-) NS .005 NS

C. Non-CombatVessel (-) .05 NS (-) NS NS (-) .01 NS (-) .05 NS

D. Shore Dutyin U.S. (-) .02 (-) .01 (-) .05 () .05

E. Shore Dutyoutside U.S. (-) (H) (-) (-)

Note.--

NS = not significant

a)

.0

CY).0

0. -H nM HH 0- _t o m O\ Q) caa) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H rd p S o - - l l o00-

C)W k I H ~ m -H HI q

CO-P. HI Q) .

ca 0)- 4 C0 U-\ 01\ t-L i Lf\-HY) 0C 0\ 0 0 *H- ca U

k O' H ~ tý _Hj- 40N Z0) ('J HU 0 0 02*

C12* C) 0z -H

H P C)~to0)_J - - t-- 00N \C10 00 0 0~ mm 0 CC) c o z

-4.' C co CCt HHH 0CM \10 L-OCNM \D y) a)C))JC

0 C O C HCM OH\ C! I OR J H-H RCY0 a) CO4.Cl'a) P4 C) M L\j 0)LC\Q'\A C\.O MCJ (Y) Cr- C\ m MO.00

Id HH 0 0)4-C

CO C)j *~ ..H- H mH (31\ CMCJJ U\ C.- VN C-) (D 0.0ý d0 4 -)~ \'H C~-j H\OC crrn -4~f 4.) Q-) a4Z

Q-'C C/2H- 0 rd (1) E

U a p H~ (n N HO\D t-O'Cm L- C\.O Of 'A n M4-)1> 02 *f

0) 00 -!tH CMHH CMHH n c L- 0 H 0 HY nH-OD _tL- -00L- NN O0 - :-(- 4J 4F-3 1

CM cMCý (Y/\C CMC\f\ rL4C0 C) pd CO!c 44 ý0 0I.

~Cd A SH ~ r - - 0P V' C)4-) Hý OH wNM- ~ 'Ha~ n-

to W - -:t-u-- cv h-\Lr,\ \%t- 00 HO\ C flmo mor -P tt0 4J4 rIqs!C -i

4M M~ 4 OH4r r 4r i0-HIr-

4 9i H . CdOH 0C\)C\)C)oLr\

Q)C)Ll Hf" UNH fft- CM C- -: \O~ (Y-) O( C

(t) H 0H aH-H4-) coi OH Y) ON-- Y)L - r\ _tc 1 H a > a ~

0d -: 0' j 0" LN\, f\ .0 L--Jr OOH D C\JMu 111. 0 fl _4 0C -) (y jr< 0P 4--) (1)0r 0(l~ - Q CM O M -H

COCk (1~) C z0 0 CMC CMCMC CMMCC QC)( a)C r.2

P -q 01\ ____(7\ E ___0 _;_\ __ M \,o _o ___) C) 00) *H3 ((1P4-

C)~~C -P1 -4ý:

cc ,O Cd H rd H- -P

coO O*\ N H\1 _t j r n- 0 CM0r-4 M (00 ) t-- ,D' C)-r 4

C)C C/c ýc ý 4 cýc ~ ýr ) -I HF!CPi HfC H H HH H HH H HCQ )4-) d

4)) H-H

CO~~~~ k~)H C c ) ( 0¼ Ot,. *HcHC d~~C) CM) CMC CMCMC HCCC MH )H

k0 0

0~o 0 (1)'C 1 H (

P4 -P H H-fCMj 1 HC~jm (0 HCC0..Hy,-: I HCMj _H-LCn -H. -H ;.4-P ~C) CH I Q.04-' Ki (1)

Pý PýI p- HOl c).

4-) C-) *

CO o -P -P d-rI-P E

4- HII HI r 4-) CFA k 0HI- HI) $:: 00- c

6

with each subsequent report3 is evident, but no trend associatedwith rater familiarity4 is evident from a visual inspection ofTable 3.

2. Intercorrelations

Table 4 presents the intercorrelations between the various rawand standardized scores for both the first report and averages basedon all reports.

F. DISCUSSION

1. Station Differences

The results of this analysis show a distinct difference in thefitness marks received by officers assigned to various types ofstations. If the assumption is made that there was no selectivedetailing on the basis of ability (i.e., no discrimination onability was used by detailing officers in assigning these officersto the types of billets herein analyzed), then to treat fitnessmarks from some types of duty stations (like Small Combat Vessel)as equivalent to fitness marks from other types (like Shore Station,U.S.) is, in effect, penalizing the officers at the former stationsand unduly rewarding officers at the latter stations.

If some type of selective detailing is operating, the equivalenceof ratings given at various types of duty stations depends on thedirection of the selective detailing. If there is a tendency toassign officers with greater general ability to U.S. Shore Stations,and to assign officers with less general ability to Small CombatShips, then the fitness marks received may truly be equivalent. Onthe other hand, should the detailing be in the opposite direction,the fitness marks would have even more inequality than Table 1 indi-cates. As will be noted in later discussions, this problem of differ-ences between duty stations in fitness reports is less serious than itseems.

3Numerically the means in Row I > the means in Row II > the meansin Row III, etc.

4 For example there is no trend shown in Column XBon the IVth reportthat corresponds to the increased rater exposure,_i.e., X is 2.30 forraters who for the first time rated the officer, X is 2.30 for 2ndreports by the same rater, 2.11 for 3rd reports by the same rater and2.41 for 4th reports by the same rater.

7

TABLE 4

Intercorrelations of Raw and Standardized Fitness Report Scores

RAW SCORES STANDARDIZED SCORES

FIRST REPORT ALL REPORTS FIRST REPORT ALL REPORTS

xa Xb X d X EaJ Xa xb xc xd X Za Zb zc Zd Za-*d Za Zo Zc Zd Zad

X 80 78 84 91 75 63 67 70 73 98 78 75 81 88 75 66 67 69 73

Xb 82 79 91 64 69 66 65 71 78 98 79 77 89 65 76 67 65 72

X 75 89 62 62 72 63 69 75 79 98 73 86 62 66 75 62 69

Xd 89 70 64 67 79 74 81 76 72 98 86 70 68 67 78 74

xabd (1st Rep. Average 73 71 73 75 78 89 89 87 86 93 74 75 74 74 77

Raw Score)

•a 87 88 91 96 72 61 58 67 69 97 84 84 88 93

gob 9 86 96 6o 67 59 61 66 85 97 87 84 93c 86 95 63 63 69 64 69 85 87 97 83 92c

xd 95 67 62 59 75 70 88 85 83 97 92

Xa1d (Summary Average Rai 70 69 66 71 73 93 93 92 92 97Score)

Z 79 76 83 90 76 67 68 70 73a

Zb 80 78 90 65 77 68 69 72

Z 74 88 63 66 (6 63 70c

Zd 88 71 69 68 80 75

Wod (1st Rep. Average Slandard Score) 73 75 74 74 77

87 87 91 96aZ b 89 8, 957 85 95

C'7d 95ZdZad (Summary Average St ndard Score)

RATING CODE:a Present assignment

Note. b Desirability in time of war

c Comparison with other officersDecimal point omitted. d Personal qualities

N ranges from 889 to 1261 e Combined traits

8

2. Rater Familiarity

These were non-existent or negligible in this analysis. That is,successive reports by the same rater did not show an increment overtime beyond that accounted for by the report number. (See Table 3and discussion.)

3. Rating Number

The general trend of more favorable ratings with later fitnessreports 5 , though statistically significant, does not markedly influencethe relative ranks of the officers rated. (See Section 5, below.)

It is interesting to note that the "higher rating over time"phenomenon takes place even though it would not theoretically occurif the directions for marking fitness reports were rigidly followed.Fitness marks are to be based on a comparison with other officers ofthe same rank6 and length of service. Since in each case the markingis to be made relative to other officers of equal rank and length ofservice even if all officers improved to the same extent (in anabsolute sense) over time, the distribution of marks assigned wouldtheoretically stay at the same level7.

4. Use of a Single Summary Score to Reflect an Officer's CumulatedFitness Marks

Justification for combining ratings must consider the amount ofvariance that will be masked by the combining process. The morehighly correlated the ratings the smaller will be the amount of infor-mation lost in the combining process and vice versa. Table 4 shows,underlined in the second diagonal subsection, the intercorrelationsbetween average raw scores across all reports. They range from .86to .91. Rimland (1959) has demonstrated stability in fitness marksafter the accumulation of 4-5 fitness reports. The average rawscores in the present study are based upon approximately 4-5 fitnessreports. The lowest average raw score intercorrelation is .86 (acrossall reports) which means that in this lowest relationship some variancewould be lost in combining the average raw scores. In the remainingcases less variance would be lost.

5 As seen in Tables 1 and 3, a general tendency for mean fitness

scores to improve with each subsequent report.

6All the officers in this sample were ensigns during the entire

period studied.

71t has been substantiated that fitness marks tend to be morefavorable with higher rank, so in actuality the instructions are notbeing rigidly followed.

9

The Summary Average Raw Score is a single score for each officer.If it is closely related to the Average Raw Scores representing eachrating then this Summary Average Raw Score may serve to representthe cumulative fitness marks of officers across all scales. As seenin the tenth column in the table the four average raw scores for eachrating are correlated .96, .96, .95, and .95 respectively with theSummary Average Raw Score. The Summary Average Raw Score thus repre-sents the four average raw scores fairly well (only 10% of the varianceis lost) and they in turn represent the cumulative fitness marksreceived.

5. Standardization of Scores

Standardizing scores, in the manner previously described, sta-tistically removes differences in marking characteristics betweenstations, between report numbers, and between degrees of raterfamiliarity. If a Summary Average Standard Score based on thesestandard scores differed greatly from the corresponding SummaryAverage Raw Score, it would indicate that these (extraneous) situ-ational variables (singly and/or interactionally) cumulatively arestrongly influencing the fitness marks. If, on the other hand, thereis a close relationship between the raw and standardized SummaryAverage Scores, the combined influence of these situational variableshas little influence on the fitness marks. The correlation betweenthe two scores (X a--d & Zda--d) can be seen to be .97 from Table 4

(last column, tenth row). This indicates that the latter alternativeis the actual one. Since the raw and the standardized (corrected)Summary Scores are essentially equivalent, the more simply attainedraw Summary Score is the more feasible of the two to use as a uni-tary score of over-all effectiveness.

G. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. There are differences in average fitness assigned ratingsof various types of duty stations, but these are relatively smallin comparison with the large individual differences found amongofficers in the ratings received.

2. Fitness marks assigned to ensigns tend to move toward morefavorable scores on succeeding reports.

3. Statistical corrections for type of duty station, raterfamiliarity, and report number need not be made in producing acriterion for research purposes, since the effects of thesecorrections are negligible.

10

4. The Summary Average Raw Score is a feasible unitary scorefor use as a research criterion of officer performance.

REFERENCES

Rimland, B. An analysis of officer fitness report summaries.Washington: Bureau of Naval Personnel, 1959. (TechnicalBulletin 59-18)

11

APPENDIX A

WORKSHEETNA"PWSIO- IE. 354W REPORT ON THE FITNESS OF OFFICERS

THE OFFICER REPORTD ON WILL FILL IN THE FIRST EL'VA S•TIONS:1. Haliff (140Q (fira) (If) I'* -Loma ~ o upi- (i) ts=OR L a

&SHIPON , STATION e 1u al C atr uc zor ATE Ro PRESENT am STATION

& OCCAS ION PMREONT, TmP or REPORI Ia. PERIOD OF REPORTimue. M " TACU•" oI r OP rFl STACNmI r0 r-i Ro- rFROM

ANNUAL LiJ MWORINOG SNOLJ 4W ORTIRE QI 19OULAN Li eRamEy LiSCILL FO TO11s.MTInES L - I , 1d id "weiel l , IntudS, wes de ma o0eOa*i dursoth retswd. Jft rraglo Mu1, b•d ar laglas dytit ed •/ ltsbd.,i u llasiudt Vg ee~pu,,s€Ol, sd Va~co sec •du dw . If aasesa,, ue aepaat ue• ak en s t• eoetm.ll

FOLLOWING TO K FILLE IN BY THE REPORTING OFFCRF5:12. EMRZPAEN OF COMMAND DURINg PRItOD OF THIS W

13. REFERENCE HERE AND APEIND MY COMMENDABLE OR ADVERS. ROOT ON THIS OFFICER IVD DURING THE PERIOD OF THIS REPORT

14 PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES (It tsSom hoses VU other ooJWN e o inAie erdend SapproeadC lNA o• fure•et eco, onstder requirements of At duties Sl analudate All performnee.)

o Outstanding ver. ]xcellent .perform. Competent and sil- Salsf.ctory par- I nadequte tter.T to s I mNt aI In mot a e ent performance tor IIncmot i formonce in manyT pects of duty of Il duty d ssn- In most aspects or aspects of ils duty aspects of his duty0 tl . HIgh- sment. Idmolout ot Is duty assign, aslsgnments. N= ass•g•ments. Needs

DUTY ASSIGNMENT B 17 qualfted competaent in most Ments. Frequently some Nuperv"slon. close supervisono.S of the uemaining s- demonstrates ezoel- Basically qualifiel. Ie Is not qualified.

Bm y (AdverseI lota.FuproeUy lUht performance. (Adve)V standing Palo-'I mme.

14 (a) Present Asslgnment 0 2 . 4 5 6 6 10(b) As Watch Officer

(c) Collateral Duties

(d) Technical Specialty

(a) Ship Handling

(f) In Admlnltratlon

(g) Ability to Command

(h) As Executive or Division Officer

(I) Duty on a Staff

(J) Other

15. conesdlIobaI tho issable rme qi•eamentsas f arthslsealy Prefse nator. InAdio"to se ottlOudo •used ohasine d45ro n• AN Fsr hil Ne plaSO sd I s 171 s I stbhfd 171 to hIns hi.?

lo eMceer undse smor saomeond. Would yauoi hvei him, L o 0• I aat? han hir? b .J ls hane him.? t (Adverse) 4

16. (a) In comparison with other officers of his grade and approximate length of service how would you designate this officer?

(b) For this report period Indicato In (b) how many officers of his grade you have designated In each category of (a).

One ef the few highly A very fine officer of A dependbl.e and typl- An acoeptable offloor Unsatisfactoryoutstaoding ovoer I gmeat value to the aely effective offlcer (Advnrse)

16a know aerv.ice(a)

(b)17. COMMENTS. In this section It tn iportoi thatA the ositlonding chaocerslties of the officer, end any weaknenses which seriously affect his performance of dut, be remerled T

eprainel should be rondse andconcrele n terms of xpetifji tramples of performance from which the more general factors can he inferred. Theeppraisalwilluitfptemar0aosegned I.iteos 14, p I, and 10. chum. In addition, the oppralsal should include oepeoanding quoltfeaictoIn anI fld such as the followanl: administratlon, planning, toplftscs, atedromics, samsceupone, and to dealing with the publdic is personal or offiial ctod rssla. 'Ilis spacer mueact abeo111ha&

it. NAME *RM~g AND P0.1 NUMIER OF REPORTING OFFICEIR. OFFICIAL STATM REILATIVE TOI OFFICEPIREPRTED ON.

Code used to designate reporting seniors: ENS (i) 1G{j) LT (3) LCDR (4) CDR (5) CAPT (6)

12

19. In comparison with other officers of his grade and approximate length of service or approximate length of duty assIgnment, to what degree has this officer exhibitedthe following qualities?

(a) PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE (Consider the requirements of his various duty asnignments and compare them to his professional knowledge.)

Hi exwoptlonsal knowlede Has excellent knowledge of Is well Inforrend on most Has satisfactory knowledge Sermo gape In his knowl-Not OBSERyEDo his duty eoss mes. must pbaese of his dutj phexu of big duty e@Mlan- of routine pbses o0hi duty edge of fundamentals of his

tro1selywell inlnd. assignments. Is weon. ment. Frequently demon- a soselgamen, duty assignments.Iformed on the remaining strata excelent knowledge.phI a.Oeomi0 lY dew: (Adverse)_a exceptional Impartad,.

a 0 ! .. 2 1 ... 3 4 I 6 1 8 10!(b) COOPERATION (Consider ability and willingneas to work In harmony with and for others.)

NOT OBSERVED Extremely snocessful in I Promotes harony in deal. Gets along well with most Indifferent to others. Inollned to cremte friction.

I working with oths HUs Iog with oths. A very Ipeople. Knows how to take Cooperatea occasionally. Generally not cooperative.a fn outstanding ability to good team worker. orders. Jltsinwithateem.createh-rusay. (Adverse)

0 1 1 1 ... 2 1 4 1 5 6 L 8 10•(c) JUDGMENT (Consider his ability to grasp a situation, think clearly, and develop correct and logical conclusions.)

Outstandingly sunsd and Exceptlonaly good judg. Judment i seually soumd Is prone to neglect or mis- Due to faulty ludgment, hisNOT OBSERVED logucal thinker with an ment based on moud evsau- and r seonabe. interpret facts. Ocenissi. delisens or recommends-

exceptional grasp of the ation of all the fatom ally commits errors in tiens are too frequentlyF] situation involved. involved. Judgment. wrong._____j(Adverse)"0 1 1 .... 3 4 1 5 6 { 8 ... 0 z(d) LEADERSHIP (Consider his ability In organizing, obtaining the cooperation of o -there, and In directing their efforts effectively.)

IOutstanding skill In direct. A consistently good leader. Capable leader. Develops Generally obtains elteetive Falls to command. Unable,-,~ ~~~~~ ~~ Ir efetv unit effepiree ets exerdtaes tovryeontwrriol.lut em-IcemtarsNOT OBSERVED Ing others results in a very Commands respect of hlb good ooperation and team cooperation under normal to exert control.effectl~~~~~~tm/t.~a wnpreoo enodnts vr fo, wrk in difficult cireum- circumstances,

ofidee eves n very tlive Under ediffit circuses. statnie. KnowshowtogveI (Adverse)~~~stna orders.e dffcltorcm

di~cit etroumestnem, saetuo, n~eJe_7 - o- 4 1 5 6 1•• ! 8 10•(a) PROMOTION POTENTIAL (Consider his capacity to handle Jobs of Increased scope and greater responsibllity, ability to learn rapidly, personality, self-improvement

efforts, special abilities, and training.)

Capableofinreasedrespob- Veryprnmisingpromotional Demonstratos promise for 1Prjenet lob is taxing his Definitely limited.NOT OBS•RVED slbility and rapid advance- material, I further growth at moderate opabilties. Requirs eon.

] ment. rot. aiderablteamount of training. (Adverse)0 o 1 2 1 3 1 4 I 5 6 1 10 ... ..m

(f) MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS (Consider his utilization of men. money, and materials.)

NOT OBSERVED Is most effective in tho utili. Is effeetive in acomplisbing Coneervemen, money, and Utilizes men, money, and Is needlessly wastelul ofcation of men, money, and extra savings in men mon- mateliefciveb m materials in a barely mtis. men money and materials.] materials. oy, and materials by Gi&pe Mlemeting and mitn- factory manner. Is irrsponsible in this

menting and maintaining log routine managenent regard.improved management pro- procedures, (Adverse)

____ Ostnres.

(1) REMARKS. Marks In any of the starred (1) boxes must be Justified In this section with a brief description of the factors which were considered In evaluating theofficer. The Justification should be in concrete and specific terms.

20. State your estimate of this officer's capacity for original and constructive profesnional work and Indicate to what degree his performance during this reportingperiod has reflected that capacity. State concrete attainments wherever possible, if not observed, so state.

21. (a) As a general rule, officers should not be shown their fitness reports by the reporting seniors unless the report contains adverse matter. An adverse reportmust be referred for statement pursuant to Article 1701-(8) Navy Regulations. His statement should be attached to this report.

(h) Heo lhb officrr rftnonrid on men this rppon? YES D] N O]

22. )artE FORWARDED ____________________23.__________________________________

(Sifal•nure of reporting oficer)

24. WORKSHEET(Signature of repular reporting senior if report is concurrent)

13

UNCTASTS'TEDSecurity Classification

DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA - R&D(Security claeailication of title., body of abstrect and indexing Iflnotatlon mutt be entered when the overell report is classified)

I. ORIGINATIN G ACTIVITY (Corporate author) 2a REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATIONU. S. Naval Personnel Research Activity UNCLASSIFIEDSan Diego, California 92152 2bUP

3. REPORT TITLE

THE EFFECTS OF CORRECTING EARLY FITNESS REPORTS FOR SITUATIONAL FACTORS

4. DESCRIPTIVE NOTES (Type of report and incluslve dates)

InterimS. AUTHOR(S) (Lot name. flint nome, Initial)

Githens, William H., Rimland, Bernard, Steinemann, John H.

4. REPORT DATE 74. TOTAL NO. OF PAGES 7b. NO. OF REPS

October 1965 18 1Ga. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO. S9& ORIG.INATOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S)

b. PROJECT No. Research Report SRR 66-7PFOI6060101

C. 9b.OTHER R PORTd€. S b. OrI�t ER ,qPORT NO(S) (Any othernumbere that may be aae&iged

d.

tO. A VA ILABILITY/LIMITATION NOTICES

Distribution of this document is unlimited

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 12. SPONSORING MILITARY ACTIVITY

Chief of Naval Personnel (Pers-A3)Navy Department

_Washington, D.C. 20370IS. ABSTRACT

The major purpose of this investigation was to determine the need formaking statistical corrections to the fitness reports of junior officers toadjust for possible inequalities due to extraneous situational factors. Thesituational influences for which corrections were made were (a) type of dutystations at which reports were made, (b) number of reports (up to 5), theofficer had received, (c) rater familiarity with the junior officer, asmeasured by the number of successive reports completed by the same rater.

The analysis was conducted on the reports received during the first 18months of active duty of 1,338 members of the NROTC graduating Class of 1959.The sample was fractionated into groups homogeneous with regard to thevariables being studied. Standard scores were computed for each subgroup,and these were compared with raw, unstandardized average fitness scores forthe total group.

Although conducted in the process of developing a means of using earlyfitness reports as a research criterion, the findings of this study wereencouraging in that they suggest the fitness report to be relativelyuninfluenced by extraneous factors as used operationally.

D D JAN84 1473 0101-8076800 UNCLASSIFIED

Security Classification

UNCLASSIFIED

Security Classificationi4 LINK A LINK 8 LINK C

KEY WOADS ROLE *5 ROLE WT ROLE T

INSTRUCTIONSt. ORIGINATING ACTIVITY: Enter the name and address imposed by security -Iaisifiration. using standard statementsof the contractor. subcontractor, grantee, Department of De. such as:fense activity or other organization (corporate author) issuing (I) "Qualified requesterq may obtain ropies of thisthe report, report from DDC."2a. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION: Enter the over. (2) "Foreign announcement and dissemination of thisall security classification of the report. Indicate whether report by DaC in not authorised.""Restricted Data" is included. Marking is to be in accord-ance with appropriate security regulations. (3) "U. S. Government agencies may obtain copies of

this report directly from DDC. Other qualified DDC2b. GROUP: Automatic downgrading is specified in DoD Di- users shall request throughrective 5200.10 and Armed Forces Industrial Manuel. Enterthe group number. Also, when applicable, show that optionalmarkings have been used for Group 3 and Group 4 as author- (4) "U. S. military agencies may obtain copies of thisized. report directly from DDC. Other qualified users

3. REPORT TITLE: Enter the complete report title in all shall request throughcapital letters. Titles in all cases should be unclassified.If a meaningful title cannot be selected without classifica-tion, show title classification in all capitals in parenthesis (5) "All distribution of this report is controlled. Qal-immediately following the title. ified DDC users shall request through

4. DESCRIPTIVE NOTES: If appropriate, enter the type of __."__

report, e~g., interim, progress. summary, annual, or final. If the report has been furnished to the Office of TechnicalGive the inclusive dates when a specific reporting period is Services, Department of Commerce, for sale to the public, indi-covered. cate this fact and enter the price, if known.

5. AUTHOR(S): Enter the name(s) of author(s) as shown on It. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES: Use ftur additional explana-or in the report. Entet last name, first name, middle initial. tory note%.If military, show rank and branch of service. The name ofthe principal author is an absolute minimum requirement. 12. SPONSORING MILITARY ACTIVITY: Enter the name of

the departmental project office or laboratory sponsoring (pay,6. REPORT DATE. Enter the date of the report as day, Ing for) the research and development. Include address.month, year; or month. year. If more than one date appearson the report, use date of publication. 13. ABSTRACT: Enter an abstract giving a brief and factual7i. TOTAL NUMBIER OF PAGES! The total page count summary of the document indicative of the report, even though7ad TOTALw NUMoR OFPAGES*Thetotal pagn e e counte h it may also appear elsewhere in the body of the technical oshould follow normal pagination procedures, i~e., enter the If addittonat spa'e is; required, a 'oniiuatioc sh 'shul

number of pages containing information. be attached.

7b. NUMBER OF REFERENCES: Enter the total number of It is highly desirable that the abstract of classified rirportsreferences cited in the report. be unclassified. Each paragraph of the abstract s:hall end withgo,. CONTRACT OR GRANT NIUMBER: If appropriate, enter an indication of the military -ecarity classification of the in-the applicable number of the contract or grant under which formation in the paragraph, represented as ITs) (s). (C: ir (U)the report was written. There is no limitation on the lenpth of thc abstract. How-Sb, &-, & 8d. PROJECT NUMBER: Enter the appropriate ever, the suggested length is from 150 ti 225 worlsmilitary depairtment identification, such as project number. 14 KEY WORDS: Key words are techn-cally meaningful termssubproject number, system numbers, task number. etc. 4KYWRS:eywrsrethnclymnnfutes

or short phrases that characterize a riport and may he used as9a. ORIGINATOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S): Enter the offi- index entries for cataliging the report. Key words must becial report number by which the document will be identified selected so that no secutrity classification is required. Identi-and controlled by the originating activity. This number muot fiers, such as equipment model designation, trade nasme, militarybe unique to this report. project c-ode name, geographic location, may be used as key9b. OTHER REPORT NUMBER(S): If the report has been words but will be followed by an indication of technical con.assigned any other report numbers (either by the originator text. The assignment of links. rates, and weights is optional.or by the sponsor), also enter this numberts).

10. AVAILABILITY/LIMITATION NOTICES: Enter any lim-itations on further dissemination of the report, other than those

UNCLASSIFIEDSecurity Classification

DISTRIBUTION LIST

Research Report (SRR)

Personnel Measurement Research Department

Commandant Chief of Naval Air Technical TrainingU.S. Marine Corps U.S. Naval Air Station(Code AOIB) (ATTN: Code 75)Washington, D.C. 20380 Memphis, Tennessee 38115

Commandant Chief of Naval Air Reserve TrainingU.S. Marine Corps Box 1(Code AA) U.S. Naval Air StationWashington, D.C. 20380 Glenview, Illinois 60026

Commanding Officer and Director Chief of Naval Air TrainingU.S. Naval Training Device Center U.S. Naval Air StationPort Washington, New York 11080 Pensacola, Florida 32508

Deputy Chief of Naval Operations Commanding Officer(OP-07116) U.S. Naval Examining CenterNavy Department Bldg. 2711Washington, D.C. 20350 U.S. Naval Training Center

Great Lakes, Illinois 60088Commanding OfficerFleet Anti-Air Warfare Training Center Commanding OfficerSan Diego, California 92147 U.S. Naval Receiving Station

Treasure IslandCommanding Officer San Francisco, California 94130Fleet Anti-Submarine Warfare SchoolSan Diego, California 92147 Commanding Officer

U.S. Naval Receiving StationCommanding Officer Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19112Fleet Training CenterU.S. Naval Station Commanding OfficerSan Diego, California 92136 U.S. Naval School of Aviation Medicine

U.S. Naval Aviation Medical CenterHuman Factors Operations Research Pensacola, Florida 32512

LaboratoryAir Force Systems Command Commanding OfficerBolling Air Force Base U.S. Naval Submarine Medical CenterWashington, D.C. 20332 U.S. Naval Submarine Base, New London

Groton, Connecticut 06342Management SchoolU.S. Naval Postgraduate School Commanding OfficerMonterey, California U.S. Naval Medical Research Institute

NMMCMarine Corps Institute Bethesda, Maryland 20014(Attn: Evaluation Unit)Washington, D.C. Director

U.S. Naval Personnel Research LaboratoryWashington Navy YardWashington, D.C. 20390 (3 copies)

Commanding Officer Commanding OfficerU.S. Naval Schools Command Service School CommandU.S. Naval Base U.S. Naval Training CenterNewport, Rhode Island 02844 San Diego, California 92133

Officer in Charge Commanding OfficerU.S. Naval Submarine School Service School Command, Bldg. 300Box 700, U.S. Naval Submarine Base U.S. Naval Training CenterNew London, Groton, Connecticut 06342 Great Lakes, Illinois 60088

Commander SuperintendentU.S. Naval Training Center U.S. Coast Guard AcademyGreat Lakes, Illinois 60088 New London, Connecticut

Commanding Officer and Director SuperintendentU.S. Naval Training Devices Center U.S. Naval Academy(Library) Annapolis, Maryland 21402Port Washington, New York 11050

SuperintendentOfficer in Charge U.S. Naval Postgraduate SchoolU.S. Navy Medical Neuropsychiatric (Library)

Research Unit Monterey, California 93940San Diego, California 92152

CommandantCommanding Officer U.S. Coast Guard (Code PTP)Nuclear Weapons Training Center, Washington, D. C.

PacificU.S. Naval Air Station, North Island 6570 AMRL (MRP)San Diego, California Wright-Patterson Air Force Base

Dayton, OhioOperations Analysis SectionHeadquarters SAC U.S. Army Adjutant General's SchoolOffutt Air Force Base Fort Benjamin Harrison, IndianaOmaha, Nebraska

U. S. Army InfantryCommander HRUPacific Missile Range Fort Benning, GeorgiaPoint Mugu, California 93041

U.S. Army Personnel Research OfficePsychiatry & Neurology Consultant Office, Chief Research and DevelopmentOffice of Army Surgeon General Department of the ArmyWashington, D.C. Washington, D.C. 20315

Scientific Director U.S. Army War CollegeU.S. Naval Submarine Medical Center Carlisle Barracks, PennsylvaniaU.S. Naval Submarine BaseNew London, Groton, Connecticut 06342 Chief, Bureau of Ships

(Attn: Code 364C)Navy DepartmentWashington, D.C. 20360

Central Intelligence Agency Commandant, FIRST Naval DistrictWashington, D.C. 495 Summer Street

Boston, Massachusetts 02110Chief, Bureau of Medicine & Surgery(Code 513) Commandant, THIRD Naval DistrictNavy Department 90 Church StreetWashington, D.C. 20390 New York, New York 10007

Chief, Bureau of Medicine & Surgery Commandant, FOURTH Naval District(Code 33) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19112Navy DepartmentWashington, D.C. 20390 Commandant, FIFTH Naval District

Norfolk, Virginia 23511Chief, Bureau of Yards and DocksNavy Department Commandant, SIXTH Naval DistrictWashington, D.C. 20390 U.S. Naval Base

Charleston, South Carolina 29408Chief of Naval Operations(OP-91) Commandant, EIGHTH Naval DistrictNavy Department New Orleans, Louisiana 70140Washington, D.C. 20350

Commandant, NINTH Naval DistrictCommanding Officer Building 1Air Force Personnel Laboratory Great Lakes, Illinois 60088(ASD - AFSC)Lackland Air Force Base Commandant, TENTH Naval DistrictSan Antonio, Texas 78558 Navy #116

%Fleet Post OfficeCommander New York, New York 09592Personnel Research LaboratoryAerospace Medical Division Commandant, ELEVENTH Naval DistrictAir Force Systems Command San Diego, California 92130Lackland Air Force BaseSan Antonio, Texas 78200 Commandant, TWELFTH Naval District

Federal Office Bldg.U.S. Army Leadership Training Center 50 Fulton Street(HRU) San Francisco, California 94102Presidio of Monterey, California

Commandant, THIRTEENTH Naval DistrictCommanding Officer and Director Seattle, Washington 98115U.S. Navy Electronics LaboratorySan Diego, California 92152 Commandant, FOURTEENTH Naval District

Box 110Chief of Naval Personnel Navy #128(Pers-A3) %Fleet Post OfficeNavy Department San Francisco, California 96614Washington, D.C. 20370 (1S copies)

Commandant, FIFTEENTH Naval DistrictDefense Documentation Center Navy #121Cameron Station %Fleet Post OfficeAlexandria, Virginia 22314 (20 copies) New York, New York 09589

Commandnt, SEVENTEENTH Naval District Personnel Planning and ResearchNavy 127 Raytheon Company%Postmaster (Attn: Dr. H. R. Brenner)Seattle, Washington 98790 Lexingtcn, Massachusetts

Commandant The Rand CorporationNaval District Washington D.C. (Library)Washington Navy Yard Santa Monica, CaliforniaWashington, D.C. 20390

Science Research Associates, Inc.Commander 259 East Erie StreetFleet Training Group, Code 51 Chicago, illinois 60600%FPO San Francisco, Calif. 96610Attn: Training Officer American Institute for Research

Project Talent OfficeUNCLASSIFIED ONLY 1808 Adams Mill Road, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20000Dr. Robert GlaserAmerican Institute for Research American Institute for ResearchDepartment of Psychology University of PittsburghUniversity of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15200Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15200

Applied Psychology Corp.Dunlap and Associates, Inc. 3717 North 27th StreetDarien, Connecticut 06821 Arlington, Virginia

Human Factors Research, Inc. Applied Psychological Services3040 State Street Wayne, PennsylvaniaSanta Barbara, California 93105

Dr. S. Rains WallaceHuman Resources Research Office Chief Behavioral and SocialAviation Detachment Science DivisionFort Rucker, Alabama Office of the Assistant Director

Department of DefenseHuman Factors Test Officer Washington, D.C. 20000Air Force Systems CommandLos Angeles, California Mr. Paul Brown

Office of the Chief of NavalNational Library of Medicine Operations (OP-OlBl)Washington, D.C. Room 4E487, The Pentagon

Washington, D.C. 20350National Research CouncilDivision of Anthropology & Psychology Chief of Naval OperationsWashington, D.C. (OP-03EG)

Navy DepartmentNational Science Foundation Washington, D.C. 20350Washington, D.C.

Dr. Joseph W. RigneyPersonnel Administration Department Department of PsychologyProctor & Gamble Company University of Southern California(Attn: Dr. W. Mollenkopf) Los Angeles, CaliforniaCincinnati, Ohio

System Development Corporation2500 Colorado AvenueSanta Monica, California

Directorate of Personnel Researchand Selection

Room 3003 "B" BuildingCanadian Forces HeadquartersOttawa, Ontario, Canada