Technical Paper 309 AD

_i

00 © © ©

9

MEASURING MOTIVATION AND JOB SATISFACTION

IN A MILITARY CONTEXT

Walter C. Borman Personnel Decisions, Inc.

and

Paul R. Bleda U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

:

(al to

Kill

I

'> (

9fl0

INDIVIDUAL TRAINING AND SKILL EVALUATION TECHNICAL AREA

•■*«. 1»i <**** ' 1 ) LJ ^>

NOV 6 19T8 if

(W r\] \:A[j)

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

September 1978

Approver! (or public relnaie, distribution unlimitrd.

o i 0 äl 019 ■-■_

■""»*"?W"'" ' I«.- *l .',: ■ .v.

U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency undei the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

JOSEPH ZEIDNP.R Technical Director

WILLIAM L. HÄUSER Colonel, US Army Commander

Research accomplished under contract to the Department of the Army

Personnel Decisions, Inc.

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION Primary distribution of thu report hat bun mad« bv ARI. Plane address corraipondanca

concarning distribution of raporli to U S. Army Research Institute for ihe Behavioral and Social Sciencai, ATTN PfrRI P. 5001 F'wnriower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333.

FINAL DISPpSITIQN Thu report may ba destroyed whan it n no Irnger naadad. Please do not return it to

tha U. S. Army Raiaarch Inintuta for the Bahavioral and Social Sciancai.

NOTE The findings in thu report are not to be conitruad a< an official Dapartmant of tha Army position,

unlan so designated by other aiirhomad documents.

JH.WJ-Jli.JU« I ■ ——

THIS DOCUMENT IS BEST QUALITY AVAILABLE. THE COPY

FURNISHED TO DTIC CONTAINED

A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF

PAGES WHICH DO NOT

REPRODUCE LEGIBLY,

i ;~v

Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Whmn Df Bntond)

1 "6

/ffij Walter C. k

REPO CUMENTATION PAGE WtPOWTNUMBER

Technical /f*aper.

X TITLE rmnmmp

2. GOVT ACCESSION NO

MEASURING MOTIVATION ANrWOB,w(SATISFACTION *IN A $ILITARY-£ONTEXT'# *"

7. AUTHORfa>

Walter C. /3orman Paul ^2Efij ($ »■ PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral anc Social Sciences

and Personnel Decisions, Inc.

II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRE3S

Army Deputy chief of Staff for Personnel Washington, DC 20310

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME ft AOORESSf" dlttotmnt from Controlling Olllc»)

/2/o2fc TL

READ INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

3 RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

5. TYPE OF REPORT ft PERIOD COVERED

• PERFORMINO ORG. REPORT NUMBER

«. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER«)

DAHC19-7J-C-OJ02'5 \

10. PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT. TASK AREA ft WORK UNIT NUMBERS

IS. SECURITY CLASS, (el thlm rmporl)

Unclassified

IS». uECLASSI FIT ATION/DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (ol thlt Sopor»)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (ol Ihm mbolrect mntond In Block 10, It dllloront /foot Roport)

(ft. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

It. KEY WORDS (Coivtnua on rovtmm old* II nocooomry mill Igontlly by block numbor)

Motivation Questionnaire Booklet Work-Related Satiafaction Combat Support Troops Convergent<-discriminant validity Replication Sample Disciplinary Actions

20. ABtTVtACY (Continue on >•!>•«■•• »Ittm II noeomOmwy mnd Identify by block numbor)

This investigation examined motivation, work-related satisfaction, and morale among enlisted persons in the Army. A review of relevant literature helped to delineate definitions of these constructs and to identify instruments to be administered in the field, A variety of civilian-oriented questionnaires and inventories was field tested, using 466 soldier« Representing 104 platoons and 16 companies) in one sampla and 614 soldiers (representing 47 platoons and 16 companies) in a separate sample. Analysis of the results

00 i JSTTI 1473 eomow or

>arate sample. Analysis of the results sheared six / /

. • 'if 01^—y&w I KÖV •• I« OMOUlTf | * j <J -*- v RT^/SmS

-r V- / —-/- SECURITY CLASWFICATIOM OF THIS RAae cm»*» oSTWni*r»d) mm I. I I ■ ■ ■

: f-fftr- ™*mmmmm$: ~~

unclassified

-k

MCUWITY CLAMiriCATIOM OF THI» PAOKgWlg Dim MiwO

20.

distinctly separate motivation/satisfaction constructs with acceptable con- vergent and discriminant validities. Composite measures of these six constructs correlated moderately with self-reports of plans to reenlist and pride in the Army but near zero with self-reported problem behavior. Advantages of such multimethod composite measures are discussed.

^

! I

»i

* . i •

Ü \X ! J '1 J ; —J

Unelaseified IICÜRITY CLAMIPICATION OF THIS PMtfHhun DM» Knfnd)

r '

m jC "'*ip\*~*- *■"■

Technical Paper 309

MEASURING MOTIVATION AND JOB SATISFACTION

IN A MILITARY CONTEXT

Walter C. Borman Personnel Decisions, Inc.

and

Paul R. Bleda U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

INDIVIDUAL TRAINING & SKILL EVALUATION TECHNICAL AREA

Submitted as complete and Approved By: technically accurate, by: Milton 8. Katz L Ralph Dusek, Director Technical Area Chief INDIVIDUAL TRAINING AND PERFORMANCE

RESEARCH LABORATORY

Joseph Zeldner TECHNICML DIRECTOR

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel Department of the Army

September 1978

Army Project Nun. oat Mot I vat Ion and 2Q782717A787 Morale

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

. w nip*' ,, i minimum .-rnrT^i-- ■ -,■■., ,.■■ ■ I

ARI Research Reports and Technical Papers are intended for sponsors of R&O tasks and other esearch 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 Form.

F7

FONKW: "I>

So I I

High Levels of motivation, job satisfaction, and morale are impor- tant to the Army for the recruitment, retention, and career productivity of high-quality personnel, This report is the first of several designed to search for; develop, evaluate, and refine ways of understanding and measuring the work motivation, job satisfaction, and productivity of in- dividual soldiers. The project, was accomplished jointly by personnel of the Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) and Personnel Decisions, Inc., under contract DAHC 19-73-C-00J25 • Dr. D. Bruce Hell of the Individual Training and Skill Evaluation Technical Area, ART, was the contracting officer's technical representative. Work was done in response to Army Project 2Q762717A767, Techniques for Increasing Soldier Productivity. Another report, "Motivation, Satisfaction, and Mo- rale in Army Careers: A Review of Theory and Measurement" (ARI Technical Report TR-76-A7), has teer, produced from this effort.

•wi*- f .

MEASURING MOTIVATION AND dOB SI-'A' oli IM A fll i,'JTAI< i' ONTi.xa

bRIEE'

Requirement ■.

High lev/els of motivation, tant to the Army in recruiting < The aim of this research wa.3 to tial military use the available sati afaction.

job '.a i. i ifartinn, and morale are impor - nd ret.ent i.on of hi qh-qua 1 ity personnel, select, • ctorvt, and validate for f.- ■ * »■;i ci vJ 1 i an measures of mot i vat inn and job

Procedure:

A review of relevant literature helped to delineate d-l i n i t i on-; of mot i at ion anri job satisfaction and to identify appropriate measures t o be administered in the field. A variety of questionnaires, inventories, ami rating scales were field tested using 4f>6 enlisted soMi.-i-; (reprf- sentincj 104 platoons and 16 companies) stationed in Korea; a replication field tented 614 soldiers (r«pr ifH;r'i 'ng 47 platoons and 1h companies) stationed in Germany.

Findings:

Analysis oi the results showed si/ distinctly separate motivation/ satisfaction constructs: MotivatiOT\. Overall Satisfaction with the Army, Satisfaction with the Job, Satisfaction with Superior.-;, and Satisfaction with Coworkers, and Satisfaction with Pay. Within the six scales, 19 variables provide a consistent, meaningful, and empirically valid system. The system is closely related Lu ««-vei al s.: I i reported indicators of or- ganizational effectiveness, Lncluding pride in t'n<> Army and plans to reenlist.

Utilization of Findings:

The final set of instruments car, he used to measure attitudes and perceptions of soldiers, and thus assess area« of dissatisfaction or the perceived impact of organizational changes.

; Mb

m<l ■'■

'•■ , ij! ' , ri</;• iv v;'!'.-ii AND JOB ::AT, SFMTT"; IN A MJI.JTAI'V CONTFXT

"'/; !']•:;

IU"VODU'T;.Oi

MFTH' )i) . . .

1

2

f'i ••"";' inq , r i o ! : Testing: fViinp!'' 1 l-'if'.!'j Tosti i.'): Sampl < 'I • • • . :;>•!»•'■ ing Mear.nrpc to I'pproscni Constructs

5 6 6

PKr;rjL

i'denti fyimi Vali'l Motivation/Satisfaction Constructs in .'limpIn 7 and Selecting Scales and Items to M'-r::;iJ . • ■ Those Constructs

: ientj i'ying v.il. id Motivation/Satisfaction Constructs i.n 'in- Rep] i cation Sample

Crosn ValifjaiioP: Multiconstruct-Multimethod Results Final Sfiection of Variables i >- Lat i onu Among Motivation/Selection Constructs and

Arm/ Criteria

CONCLUSIONS

REFERENCES

DISTRIBUTION

7 10 11

11

1 1

15

17

.

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Initial pool of scales and items .

2. Summary of Sample I and Sample II factor analysis results

3. Multiconstruet-multimethod results for field test (Sample I) and replication (Sample IT) data .... 10

4. Correlations between Motivation/Satisfaction constructs and six self-report criteria . . 12

h

i*""""- I '."■|ff.l»Jl.»U- •&.- If»*»-

KiiZ-.SUfcl srTJ«FACTION H

AMT) -f"M

0*11 E*T

PRODUCT T or.

, instruments «cre

, r.ivr.i »n-criented ins ^ motivatlon

U1 ^ d valid ■*"""**" context, rcU H Txns in the nu.^^ry these domai** satisfaction tc> -

«t-ivation and BO tnitial et ton-

.dated as i»-^ gtudy were The aims «E <* re6 ln a

B£action could be ^^^ of

lb)« al9COaIt^« the relation of

a«d (° t0 /iteria. The ra- .elf— P°rtD;

rt " that military ,;U.bl« and vail- --itary con,,xt, — report «!«»•; ndUtary

S- ^Sd"satisfaction «> — ^t ^ ^^

ln addition, qeneral i^uo

. vhiB research. ,rH addressed in thie

_ „f i 4.«faction of ln-

K naraimoniously the sat* izational

irvq to tap contain 1«*<J rtoes each tneasu* Kendall,

, 4 variance? ,inT) (Smith, ^c

method wi- iml Index (JDI> inq satisfac

atu3 «ilin. 1969) P^-'iith and her J- ^ of -ati-i-*

°;ft reßultant set of facet meases nt a l-»^ of

-^•n^U^. «^'r,-l -dCysatisfactio, i» Z'tZ^ ^^ W° 8ame facet of satis; ordinations. of ^Uet «^»a

Relationships ^.^ ,nagnitude £%£^ componen^ . „, low to modeiave ^ qoa, a« correspondinq lf

factlon are '" lnq the Jul an ff>utld that c ^ fche work

rrar^-ion *«. ^ •*•

.

correlated . 1 fi - .60 (median r .39) in two different samples« Gillet

and Schwab (1975), using the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Weiss, Dawn, England, and Lofquist, 1967) and the JD1, found that the two methods

of measurinq satisfaction with pay, promotions, supervision, and cowork-

ers correlated .56, .57, .70, and .49 respectively. Thus, in these two

Studien at least, it appears that different measurement methods tap sone- whdt differen-: or substantially different corstructs.

This study addressed both tho.se satisfaction-measurement issues,

first, a conceptual-empirical approach identified satisfaction constructs

appropriate for describing military satisfaction "space." A careful lit-

erature review (Motowidlo, Dow 11, Hopp, Bormarii Johnson, and Dunnette, 1976) suggested the kinds of satisfaction facets most likely to be sali-

ent for military personnel. Instruments tapping these facets and the motivation domain were selected and administered to Army soldiers. Fac-

tor analyses then provided empirical information about what satisfaction and motivation constructs most, parsimoniously reflected the total vari-

ance in satisfaction/motivation instrument responses-

Second, multiple measures of each satisfaction and motivation facet were administered. Nine civilian-oriented instruments, two instruments

developed in the military, and two scales developed especially for this

study provided considerable conceptual overlap in the measurement of in- dividual satisfaction/motivation facets. This overlap made possible an

analysis of the convergent and discriminate validity of a relatively

large number of measures, thus extending the work of Evans (1969) and

Gillet and Schwab (1975).

METHOD

Pretest ing

A literature review determined the constructs most widely used in

describing aspects of motivation and satisfaction. The following con- structs were identified: (a) Mor^e and discipline, (b) motivation,

ger.c: *- .** t% *■ f' (d) pay satisfaction, (e) inb satisfaction.

(f) satisfaction with superiors, (g) satisfaction with coworkers, (h) satisfaction with career progress, (i) satisfaction with the organiza- tion, and (j) satisfaction with the general environment. Ne.xt, measures

which possessed good reliability and validity in prior research studies and which, as a group, reflected well the content of these 10 constructs

were identified. The preliminary pool of scales/items and the variables that they measured are shown in Table 1.

The protest booklet was completed by 141 enlisted persons (Specialist 5 and below) from support units ir a foreign location. On the basis of pretest experience, 54 of t s 67 pretest measures of satisfaction and mot ivai ion were retained for subsequent research steps.

rv-1

'ail BOMB

>-Äi" ■ lEMBw*- - 'in»ff"

Table 1

Initial Pool of Scales and Items

Tnstrument

Brayfield-Rothe Job Satisfaction Scales (Brayfield 6 Rothe, 1951)

Cureton Air Force Questionnaire (Cnreton, 1060)

Variable measured

Job satisfaction

Satisfaction with army Satisfaction with community Satisfaction with job Satisfaction with military Satisfaction with pay Satisfaction with unit

Job Descriptive Index (Smith, Kendall, 6 Hulin, 1969)

Satisfaction with coworkers Satisfaction with pay Satisfaction with promotions Satisfaction with supervisor Satisfaction with work

Job Invoivemeri t Scale (Lodahl & Kejner, 1965)

Military Morale Index

Minnesota Job Description Questionnaire (WeisE, Dawis, England, r. Lofquist, 1967)

Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Weiss, uawis England, * Lofquist, 196 7)

Patchen Motivation Scale (Patchen, 1965)

Protestant Ethic Scale (Blood, 1969)

Involvement with job

Morale

Job satisfaction

Extrinsic «atisfaction Intrinsic satisfaction

Motivation

Motivation

V': -f-ii'.i m^piwwuw

?%

Table 1 (continued)

Instrument Variable measured

Sears Questionnaire (Smith, 1963)

Self-Ratings

Satisfaction with Satisfaction with

and security Satisfaction with

identification Satisfaction with Satisfaction with Satisfaction with Satirfaction with

surroundings Satisfaction with

amount of work career future

company

coworkers financial rewards kind of work physical

supervision

Present mood about Army life Own morale Unit morale Effort Performance Job satisfaction in Army Life satisfaction in Army Effort for promotion How worthwhile to try hard

Sum of Prior Expectancies About Army Life

Sum of "Is Present Now" in Army Life Difference Between Prior Expectancies

and "Is Present Now" General satisfaction

Sum of Expectancies Sum of Valences (Desirability) Sur.i of Valences x Expectancies

Survey of Organizations (Taylor S Bowers, 1972)

Motivation

Conmunications flow Decislonmaking Group process Motivation conditions Opportunities for getting ahead Overall conditions to encourage

hard work Overall satisfaction

I '

—i i nppiüi

Table 1 (continued)

Instrument Variable measured

Survey of organizations (cont'd) (Taylor S. Bovers, 1972)

Peer goal emphasis Peer interaction facilitacion Peer support Pe«?r work facilitation Satiafac:ion with career progress Satisfaction with coworkers Satisfaction with job Satisfaction with organization Satisfaction with pay Satisfaction with supervisor Supfervisory goal emphastc Supervisory interaction

facilitation Supervisory needs Supervisory support Supervisory work facilitation

Field Testing: Sample I

The revised booklet was administered to 466 enlisted persons (Spe- cialist 5 and below) assigned to 104 platoons and lb companies in combat support and air defense artillery units. (Sample I). These respondents formed a convenience sample» they were those persons available diring the researchers' visits to each unit. Thus, the deor^e to wnich Sample I rep- resents the Army population is unknovn.

Responses to satisfaction and motivation measures were intorcorre- lated and factor analyzed to inv&atigate the underlying dimensionality of these domains in a military context. Factor aralyses results provided one scheme for identifying constructs that summarize the motivation/satisfac- tion of enlisted military personnel.

Besides satisfaction and -Valvation me&sures, the questionnaire book- let contained several self-report questions. Two items asked soldiers to report their intentions to reenlist (yes, not sure, or ro) and their pride in the Army (on a 5-point ßcale). Also included were two questions about the number of disciplinary actions (AWOL's, Article 15's) taken against the respondent over the preceding 12 months and two inquiries about problem behaviors exhibited by the respondent (number of sick calls the preceding month and number of times lowered in rank - i.e., "busted"). With this information, relationships between self-report criteria and motivation/ satisfaction in the Army could be assessed.

-i»*fc ■' '"^V-

MM ' '

'■-A^

Field Testing: Sample II

A replication study was performed to determine if the motivation/ satisfaction construct framework developed in Sample I provided a reason- able means of structuring data obtained from an independent sample of soldiers. We also intended to evaluate the generalizability of relation- ships between motivation/satisfaction and criterion variables. To accom- plish these goals, many of the motivation, satisfaction, and criterion measures included in the field test booklet were administered in Sample II to 614 enlisted personnel randomly selected from 16 company and 47 platoon-sized units. Half the units were combat-support troops; the rest were air-defense artillery units.

Selecting Measures to Represent Constructs

One important purpose of this research was to identify scales and items best suited for measuring salient satisfaction and motivation con- structs in the Army. Therefore, several criteria were used to select these measures.

1. The content of each scale/item was required to have a priori conceptual similarity to the construct it purported to measure.

2. The scale/item had to load on the same factor as other variables thought to measure that construct.

3. Each scale was to be characterized by high internal consistency.

4. Each construct was to be represented by no more than a single measure from any one instrument. Through this criterion we sought to prevent common method variance from artificially raising within-construct correlations among measures.

5. The Items or scales had to possess good convergent and discrim- inant validity (Campbell 5 Fiske, 1959). To develop relatively "pure" composites, only those scales/items showinq comparatively high correlations with other measures of the same construct (convergent validity) and relatively low correlations with mea- sures of other constructs (discriminant validity) were retained.

RESULTS

Identifying Valid Motivation/Satisfaction Constructs in Sample I and Selecting Scales and Items to Measure Those Constructs

For Sample I data, a five-factor principal-components solution rota- ted to the varimax criterion rwd'j best conceptual sense of the several solutions tried, and accounted for approximately 74% of the total vari- ance in the correlations among satisfaction and motivation measures. The ■. x* ■

0] .MI ti mm

factor labels, with percent of variance accounted for by each, are (a) Motivation (11%), (b) Overall Satisfaction with the Army (29%), (c) Satisfaction with the Job (13%), (d) Satisfaction with Superiors (7%), (e) Satisfaction with Coworkers (13%).

Table 2 shows the scales and items that loaded most highly on each factor. Measures associated with pay satisfaction loaded on the Overall Satisfaction factor. Since previous research suggested that Satisfaction with Pay should be treated as a separate construct, and since it emerged as an identifiable factor in a pretest factor analysis, Satisfaction with Pay was treated separately in subsequent analyses.

Applying the five scale/item selection criteria previously set forth, 22 measures (numbered in Table 2) were selected to represent the 6 moti- vation and satisfaction constructs. A multiconstruct-multimethod matrix (see Table 3) was developed to summarize the convergent and discriminant validity obtained with this 22-variable system. Diagonal indexes in the matrix were formed by transforming the correlations among variables within the construct to Fisher z scores and then computing the mean of theee z's. The numbers on the diagonal are the mean z'a transformed back to correla- tions. The off-diagonal correlations, representing the means of all the across-construct correlations between variables, also were calculated us- ing z transformations. In all cases, the diagonal correlations differ significantly from zero (.10 significance level) and are greater than are the off-diagonal indexes in the corresponding row or column. Further, for each pair of constructs, none of the across-construct correlations between individual measures is greater than any of the within-construct correlations between individual measures assigned to those constructs. Thus, the 22 variables included in this system demonstrate acceptable levels of convergent and discriminant validity as well as satisfying the other criteria set forth above.

Identifying Valid Motivation/Satisfaction Constructs in the Replication Sample

As in the Sample I analyses, a principal components analysis was performed on responses to the questionnaire booklet, with the resultant factors rotated to the varimax criterion. A six-factor solution appeared most psychologically meaningful for Sample II data; it accounted for 60% of the total variance in the responses. This solution included not only the five factors originally identified in the Sample I data, but also a Satisfaction with Pay factor.

I

■.

Correlations between factor loadings of the same named factors from Sample I and Sample II were as follows: Motivation, .73; Overall Satis- faction with the Army, .75; Satisfaction with the Job, .85; Satisfaction with Superiors, .67; Satisfaction with Coworkers, .85. Thus, the six- construct framework originally derived from Sample I received some con- firmation from the Sample II factor analytic results.

•m tK",m^H>, MB—I -?k^l!rhr-~-

SS! twm

Table 2

Summary of Sample I and Sample II Factor Analysis Results*

Satisfaction/motivation factorB Sample loadings

Sample I Sample II

Overall Satisfaction With the Army

Oireton satisfaction with the Army as a whole0

Sum of effort expectancies Prior expectations Cureton satisfaction with community Survey cf organizations overall satisfaction S00 opportunities for getting «head Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire extrinsic Own morale Cureton job satisfaction S00 satisfaction with pay MSQ Total

Satisfaction With Coworkers

.84 .66

.83 .34

.68 .56

.66 .61

.60 .43

.59 .38 .55 .29 .55 .70 .52 .49 .52 .17 .51 .33

• SCO peer support SOO peer goal emphasis SOO satisfaction with coworkers

• Job Descriptive Index Coworkers • (Sears Coworkers)

Sum of valencies x expectancies Self-rating of effort Self-rating of performance Self-rating of overall effectiveness

as a soldier .56 Self-rating of how worthwhile it is

to try hard .56 (Patenen motivation scale) .42

Job Satisfaction

.71 .48

.68 .66

.55 .71

.47 .53

Motivation

.70 .73

.63 .66

.59 .66

.60

.55

.42

• Sears kind of work • SOO satisfaction with the job • Brayfield-Rothe job satisfaction • JDI work • (Cureton job satisfaction)

.72 .74

.64 .67

.63 .71

.62 .67

.49 .66

li|Hm»l.tMH'

Table 2 (continued)

Sample loaciinqs

S.o tl.f*otlon/«otiv«tlon factors

Sample 1

Satisfaction With Super iors

. S00 supervisory support

# Sears supervision ^

Satisfaction With Pay

.58

.56 .51 .50

• SOO

• Sears

satisfaction with pay

Sample IX

.81

.70

.64

.57

.78

.67

.60

• JDI pay - financial rewards

contained in both sample questionnaire booklets are

selected to represent constructs based on

aonly scales/items

included.

»H.rt.« •«!« °r lte" """

.„Uud. of loaain,» for S»P1.

a separate factor

I.

.„ order of the mac

«s.tl.fMtl» »1th Pay —*«•« »

..i.,!r,,.,,-...-><w^ h* "w".. '

Tk»-'

Tab!« 3

Mul t-iconstruct-Mult imethod Rer.ults for Field Test (Sample I* rind Replication (Sampln II) Dflta'

Factor

1. Motivation

2. Overall satisfaction with 1 he Army

3. Satisfaction with the job

4. Satisfaction with superior»

5. Satisfaction with coworkers

6. Satisfaction with pay

45 48

37 42

64 61

40 46

S3 55

66 70

29 28

41 44

37 40

5B 61

19 21

26 22

27 27

34 27

44 39

15 17

41 36

30 22

22 25

16 10

44 44

All upper entries are derived from Sairple I data; lower entries are de- i.-ived from Sample II replication d?ta.

Cross validation; HultluunaLiuoL-MuItimetnod Results

Another approach to cross validating Sample I's construct framework was attempted uslnq the 22 variables selected to represent the motivation/ satisfaction constructs in Sample I. As an independent check on the con- vergent and discriminant validity of these variables, the construct frame- work represented by these 22 measures was submitted to a multiconstruct- multimethod analysis using the Sample II data. The results (see Table 3) indicate that construct measurement within this framework possesses con- sistent convergent and discriminant validities. All within-construct cor- relations differ significantly from zero at the .05 level and are greater than the off-diagonal correlation in corresponding rows and columns. Thus, in the Independent repli i sample, the 22 variables provided relatively "pure" construct m asut .-nient. of the six motivation/satisfaction dimensions.

10

I. -..*•

■TfT^'- «m jmmsuffß ■ i»aw» ■• ■;■"■'

-.I' 'P^^^?

Final Selection of Variables

Although Adequate cross-validity was shown for construct measurement, a decision was made to use data from both Samples 1 and II to form one final "best" group of variables to represent the SLY. motivation/satisfac- tion construct:s. Therefore, the five criteria for selecting measures of constructs were applied to the various scales and items using Sample II data« Measures were deleted from or add^d to the construct-meaEurement system it the criteria were better met in Sample II as a result of the additions/deletions as long as these revisions did not cause the criteria to be less well met in Sample I. Using this approach, four scales/items were deleted from the list of variables and one was added. Those deleted were: (10) "Worthwhile to Try Hard" (single item), (4) Minnesota Satis- faction Questionnaire, (22) Sears Financial Rewards, and (7) Sears Co- worker. The measure added was Survey of Organizations Single Item Mea- sure of Satisfaction with Coworkers.

Compared to the 22-variable system, the 19 variables provided some- what purer measures of motivation/satisfaction in Sample II without ad- versely affecting the Sample I multiconstruct-multimethod results. Thus.- the '9-variable system was used in subsequent analyses involving self- report Army criteria.

Relations Among Motivation/Satisfaction Constructs and Army Criteria

Table 4 depicts relationships between each motivation/satisfaction construct and several self-report criteria from Sample II. Two criteria, "Plans to Reenlist" and "Pride in the Army," are significantly related to all six constructs, with correlations ranging an high as .68. Rela- tionships between construct composites and self-report problem behaviors F -e much lower. Twenty of the 24 correlations are in the predicted direc- tion but only 10 reach significance at the .05 level. Further, the mag- gr.itude of these relationships is very small, with the maximum of approx- imately 2% of the criterion variance accounted for. Motivation is the only construct consistently related to problem behaviors, though again, the magnitude of these correlations is very low.

CONCLUSIONS

The primary practical intent of this project was to recommend ques- tionnaire measures suitable for assessing the motivation and satisfaction of enlisted persons in the Army. The first step in selecting these in- struments was to develop for the motivation/satisfaction "space" a com- prehensive frai.'fwnrk capable of describing the multivariate domain repre- sented by tncee fJt. ad constructs. Although conceptual issues dictated the initial selection of an extensive set of psychometric instruments, the final delineation of appropriate measures of the underlying constructs was determined empirically via a field test and a replication.

11

. %,;..*

c 0

•rH (0 P « 0 -H «j u

I*H 0) in P •H -H •P VH (0 U W V, 4J C U

■H a 4J 0)

t * a > i

a) •H '*-! rH p .-H Si 0 <D (fl x w H

C X 4) -H a) w ^ +J T) 0) c m <d

w w c -P o u X! £ CO +J

rH in U) C P. 0 M U 0

c. o H P U >, m A

M-l & U)

O •H B) 4J P U 0) <0 X

l+H rl w o

■rH 5 JJ o a) u w

c 0

P 0 U -H ■a P.

V) IX •H 3 P <n

$

t: o

•H

U Xi m 0 <w »o in

■H •P fl

c o

•rH l-l H-> rH (J <0 « P ^H ü in

fl IT

r: o

■H P m > •H P O s;

rH

a m 0) rH

05 tH 1 <u

IM p rH ■H

0) rH

W O

* * * « CM o

* * m IN •r i'

P

C 0) d

0 P

c a

rH Pu

« « * « ft CN o o

I

« r- m r- o I

o m o o

I

* o o

« + * * * * * * * « (-■ IT» <* i- 00 o *r oo oo in .- i£> o *- >- CN

1 1 o o

1 I o «-■

1 1 o o

1

* * * * ♦ * « * « « * r- ** CM «- 00 n r- m C* «- r- 5r CN ro ro •? o o

1 1 »- o t

o «■ 1 1

o o 1 1

* * T* 00 in •*

< G rH

■8 •H

o o « O l- T- O I I

VO CM O O I I

H <o <u Pi

(0 rH

«1

►J

in

12

in CM o o

i

* * « * * * * * « * r- CM 00 00 r- <J\ r~ oo TJ> •" r- f»l «0 «) i£ VC T- o

1 o o i

o •- 1 I

O O

* « « * « « « « « « * « * * * ¥ « CN ID r» r- rr CN CN >X) u oo KO O ■>* •* ITI H)

1 1 r- o

1 1 1 1 o •-

1 1

r-l p in ra TJ

in r-H

in w o T- r-l fc

rH JC (U (1) 13 (0 P

(J GS -0

U 0)

*8 cn

•H fe 1 M •rH •H < w H

ID

E .0 w

u o

ItH

in P o

■H P r0

r-H 91 U u o Ü

U V

H a § w rH

0 UH

0)

13 in c 0 •H p ft) iH

4) H m r- U o o 0 • • u

v v H gL ft ft a,

«P * « i.

-

' V',,

iTO

'factor analyse;, and conceptual considerations provided the rationale for selecting six constructs of practical and theoretical interest. Next, field test and replication data were examined to insure that the measures selected to tap these constructs <wX several reliability and validity criteria.

The 19-varLable/6-canstxnet system developed in the present project appears to provide a consistent, conceptually meaningful, and empirically valid framework for representing * he motivation/satisfaction domains of individual soldiers or of Army upits. The final set of instruments can measure feeliny states and perception«7 of soldiers, and can be incorpo- rated into a theoretically and pragmatically useful framework for eumma- rizing responses. The availability of such instrumentation makes possible the establishment of a formal audit procedure for evaluating Army motiva- tion and satisfaction on a continuing basis. Such feedback regarding the psychological orientation of enlisted personnel may enhance organizational effectiveness by identifying potential areas of dissatisfaction. The in- struments also may provide assessments of the impact of modifications on current training programs.

Further research is needed to assess the ability of satisfaction and motivation construct measures to predict relevant criteria. In this study soldiers' construct scores and their self-reported disciplinary outcomes and problem behavior showed low relationship. However, this finding may reflect the low base rates associated with these criterion measures and the difficulty in obtaining accurate self-reports of this kind of behav- ior. We advocate further attempts to predict individual and unit-level criteria usinq this construct system.

Finally, the multiconstruct-multimethod approach taken in this study has broad implications for motivation and satisfaction measurement. Mul- timethod composite measures of individual motivation and work-related satisfaction constructs allow for largely instrument-free measurement of these constructs. Relatively instrument-free measurement means that re- lationships between satisfaction/mot 1 vaHnn ronntruets and other varia- bles will not depend so much upon the particular scales or items employed. Multimethod composite measures with good convergent and discriminant val- idity should therefore lead to purer and more refined measurement of work motivation and satisfaction, and, eventually, to better understanding of these concepts.

-

13

mmmu^mmMM—fi "t&W

REFERENCES

i

•«4

Blood, M. R. Work Values and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1969, 53, 456-459.

Borman, W. C, Johnson, P. D., Motowidlo, S. J., & Dunnette, M. D. Measuring Motivation, Morale, and Job Satisfaction in Army Careers. Minneapolis: Personnel Decisions, Inc., 1975.

Brayfield, A. H., (. Rothe, H. F. An Index of Job Satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1951, 35, 307-311.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 1959, 56, 81-105.

Cureton, E. E. Dimensions of Airman Morale (Technical Note WADD-TN-60- 137). Lackland Air Force Base, Texas; Personnel Laboratory, Wright Air Development Division, 1960.

Evans, M. G. Convergent and Discriminant Validities Between Cornell Job Descriptive Index and a Measure of Goal Attainment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1969, 53, 102-106.

Gillet, B., & Schwab, D. P. Convergent and Discriminant Validities of Corresponding Job Descriptive Index and Minnesota Satisfaction Ques- tionnaire Scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60_, 313-317.

Lodahl, T. M., & Kejner, M. The Definition and Measurement of Job In- volvement. Journal of Appli.ec Tyi-chology, 1965, 49, 24-33.

Motowidlo, S. J., Dowell, B. E., Kopp, M. A., fcrman, W. C, Johnson, P. D., & Dunnette, M. D. Motivation, Satisfaction, and Morale in Army Careers; A Review of Theory and Measurement. ARI Technical Report TR-76-A7, December 1976. (NT1S No7~ÄrftC36390).

Patehen, H. Some Questionnaire Measures of Employee Motivation and Morale. Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1965.

Smith, F. J. Thg Sears Employee Attitude Survey Program. Speech deliv- ered to the Seattle Personnel Managers Association, January 1963.

Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement. New York: Rand McNally, 196^».

Taylor, J. C., s. Bowers, D. G. Survey of Organizations. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1S72.

15

-^ "

w

Weis:-, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, 1967, 22.

"*'*%*■

16

1 !

**m

DISTRIBUTION

ARI Distribution tut ^HIS PAGE IS BEST QUALITY PRÄCH.CAäöl ftiUM ÜOrY, BURMISh&D TO DDQ

I 1 i

j i

< M

4 OASD (M&RA)

2 HQDA (DAMI CSZ!

HQOA (DAPE PBR

HQDA1DAMAAR! HQOA (DAPEHRE POI HOC-, ISGROIDI HQOA IDAMI DOTCI HOD« (DAPC PMZ A|

HQOA IDACH PPZAI

HODA (DAPE HHE) HODA IOAPF MPOCI HQDA (IJAPF-DW) HOOA(DAPEHRL) HQDA (DAPECPSI HQDA (DAFD MFA)

HQDA (DARDARS P) HQDA IDAPCPAS A) HODA (DUSA ORI HQDA (DAMORQR)

HODA (DASG) HQOA IDAIO-Pll Chief. Consult Oiv (UA 0 ;SGI, Adalphi, MO

Mil AMI Hum Res, ODDFl&E, OAD (E&LSI

HQ USARAL, APO Seattle, ATTN. ARAGPfl

HQ Fint Army, ATTM: AFKAOI Tl HQ Fifth Army, Ft Sam Houston

D!r, Army Stf Studies Ofe, ATTN: OAVCSA (DSP) Ofc Chief of St«. Stutliis Ofc OCSPER, ATTt:: CPS/OCP The Army Lib, Pentagon, ATTN RSU Chief The Army Lib, Pentagon, ATTN: ANRAL Ofc, Asst Sect of thn Army IROiO) itch Support Ofc. OJCS USASA, Arlington, ATTN: IARD T

USA Rich Oft., Durham, ATTN: Life Sciences Dir USARIEM, tUUr.k, ATTN: SGRDUE CA

USATTC, Ft Clayton, ATTN: STETC-MOA USAIMA, Ft Bragg, ATTN: ATSU-CTDOM

USAIMA, Ft Bragg, ATTN: Marquat üb US «VAC Ctr & Sch, Ft McClellan. ATTN: Lib US WAC Ctr & Sdi Ft McClellen ATTN: Tng Dir

USA Ouarterm&ster Sch, Ft Lao, ATTN: ATS' .-TE Intelllgonco Material Oav Ofc, EWL, Ft Holabird

USA SE Signal Sch, Ft Gordon, ATTN: ATSO EA USA Chaplalr. Ctr ft Sch, Ft Hamilton. ATTN: ATSCTERO USATSCH. Ft Eustis, ATTN: Edue Advisor USA War Collage, Carlisle Barracks, ATTN: Lib WRAIR, Neur.,psychletry Div DLI, SDA, Monterey USA Concept Anal Agcy, Bathesda, ATTN: MOCA-WGC USA Concept Anal Agoy, Bethr-sda, ATTN: MOCA MR USA Concept Anal Agcy, Bathesda, ATTN: MOCA JF USA Arüc Tost Ctr, APO Seattle. ATTN: STEAC M0A8L

USA Artie Test Ctr. AMO Seattle. ATTN: AMSTEPLTS USA Armament Cmd, Rortstono Arsenal. ATTN: ATSKTEM USA Armament Cmd, Rock Island, ATTN; AMSARTDC FAA-NAFtC. Atlantic City, ATTN: I 'hrery FAANAFEC, Atlantic City, ATTN: Hum Eriujt Br FAA Aeronautical Ctr, Oklahoma City, ATTN: AAC 44D USA Fid Arty Soli. Ft Stil. ATTN: Library USA Armor Sch, Ft Knox, ATTN: Library USA Armor Sch, Fj Kwx. ATTN: ATSB-OI-E USA Armor Sch, Ft Knox, ATTN: ATSB-OTTP U8A Armor SVh, Ft Knox, ATTN: ATSB-CDAD

HQUSACDEC, Ft Ord, ATTN: Library HOUSACDEC, Ft Ord. ATTN: ATEC- EX-E-Hum Factors

USAEF.C, Ft Benjamin Harrison, ATTN: Library USAPACDC. Ft Benjamin Harrison, ATTN: ATCP- HR

USA Comm -Elect Sch, Ft Monmouth. ATTN: ATSN-EA

USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEl ,~CT -HOP USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEL -PA P USAEC, Fl Monmcuth, ATTN: AMSEL SI CB

USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN C. Fuel Dev Br USA Meterlals Sys Anal Agcy, Alwnfoon. ATTN: AMXSY-P Edgewood Arsenal. Aberdeen, ATTN: SAREA- BL H USA Ord Ctr & Sch, Abordeen, ATTN: ATSL-TEM-C USA Hum Engr Lab, Aberdeen. ATTN: Library/Dir USA Combat Arms Tng Bd, Ft Bcnning, ATTN; Ad Supervisor USA Infantry Hum Rsch Unit, Fl Bennlng, ATTN: Chief USA Infantry Bd, Ft Banning, ATTN: STEBC-TE-T

USASMA, Ft Bliss, ATTN: ATSS -LRC USA Air Def Sch, Ft Bliss, A i TN: ATSA -CTD-ME

USA Air Def Sch, Ft Bliss, ATTN: Tech Lib USA Air Dof Bd. Ft Bliss, ATTM: FILES USA Air Def Bd, Ft Bliss. ATTN: STEBD-PO USA Cmd & General Stf Collouo, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: Lib

USA Cmd & General Stf College, Ft Leavunworth, ATTN: ATSW-SE-L

USA Cmd & General Stf CollntoJ, Ft Loavenworth, ATTN: Ed Advisor USA Combined Arms Crnbl Dev Act. Ft Lravonworth, ATTN: DepCdr

USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dev Ar;, f, Leavenworth, ATTN: CCS USA Combined Arms Cmbt D»v Act, Ft Leavanworth, ATTN: ATCASA

USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dev Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: ATCACO- E USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dev Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: ATCACC-CI USAECOM, Night Vision Lab, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: AMSEL-NV-SD

3 USA Computer Sys Cmd, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: Tech Library USAMERDC, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: STSFB-DQ US/. Eng Sch, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: Library USA Topographic Lab, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: ETL TD-S USA Topographic Lab, Ft Be!voir, ATTN: STINFO Centirr

USA Topographic Lab, Ft üelvoir, ATTN: ETL GSL USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuc«, ATTN: CTD-MS USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATS-CTD-MS USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huechuc«, ATTN: ATSI-TE USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI-TEX-GS USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch. Ft Huachuca. ATTN: ATSI-CTS-OR USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI-CTD-DT USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI-CTD-CS USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN. DAS/SRD USA Intelligence Ctr 6 Sch, rt Hutchuca, ATTN: ATSI-TEM

USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch. Fi Huachuca, ATTN: Library CDR, HQ Ft Huachuca, ATTN: Tech Ref Div CDR, USA Electronic Prvg Grd, ATTN: STEEP-MT-S ' CDR, Project MASSTER, ATTN: Toch Info Center Hq MASSTER, USATRADOC, LNO Research Institute, HQ MASSTER, Ft Hood USA Recruiting Cmd, Ft Sherdien, ATTN: USARCPM-P

Senior Army Adv., JSAFAGOD/TAC, Elgin AF Aux Fid No. 9 HQ USARPAC. OCSPER, APO SF 96658. ATTN: GPPE-SE Stimton Lib, Acedamy ul Health Sciences, Ft Sam Houston

Marina Corps lnst„ ATTN: Dean- MCI HOU°)MC, Commandant, ATTN: Co* "TMT 51 HQUSMC, Commandant. ATI N: Code MPI -20 USCG Academy, New London, ATTN: Admission

USCG Academy, New London, ATTN: Library

USCG Training Ctr, NY, ATTN: CO USCG Training Ctr, NY, ATTN: Educ Svc Ofc

USCG, Psychol Rat Br, DC, ATTN: GP 1/62 HQ Mid-Range Br, MC Dot, Quantico, ATTN: PftS Div

17

L ■"-' ■■•'••

MW ajgajpatawaa»»" —"•

1 US MJ-I'IC Coroi Lialn-.r 0»'.. 'MC. Alexandria. ATTN: AMCOS-F

1 USATHAIKK; Ft Monrw, ATTN ATRO ED 0 USATRAOO'.. Fl Mow». ATTN ATPR -AD 1 USATRADOC, Ft Monrne, ATTN ATTS EA 1 USA For.jit (.mil. Ft MePhnrvtn, A I"TN Llbrery

2 USA Aviation t»«t Bil, Ft R'ick..(. ATTN: fjTEBü p0 1 USA Agi:y fin Aviation Satety, fi Rucket, ATTN: Library

1 USA Agcy (nr Aviation Safety. Ft Ruck»'. ATTN: Educ Advn-or 1 USA Avietion Sch, Ft Huckcr, ATTN: PO Drawer 0

1 HQUSA Aviation Sy« Cmd. St Louh, ATTN: AMSAV-ZDR 2 USA Aviation »yt Tnt Act.. Edwards AFB. ATTN: SAVTE-T 1 USA Air Def Sen, Fl Bli»s, ATTN: ATSA TEM 1 UTA Aii Mobility R«ch ft Dev I ah. Moffett Fid, ATTN: SAVOL-AS 1 USA Avution M\. Re< Tng Myt F» Pucker, ATTN: ATST-T-RTM

1 USA Aviation Sch, CO. Ft Ruck*, ATTN: ATST-D-A 1 HQ, OARCOM, Alexandria. ATTN: AMXCO-TL 1 HQ, OARCOM. Alexandria. ATTN: COR 1 US Military Acade.ny. West Point, ATTN: Sariils Unit

1 US Military Academy, West Poiht, ATTN: Oft of Milt Ldrihp 1 US Military Academy, West Point. ATTN: MAOR 1 USA Standardiietlon Q(., UK, FFO NY, ATTN: MASE-GC 1 Ofc of Naval Rich, Arlington. ATTN: Cod* 452 3 Ofc of Naval R-.ch, Arlington, ATTN: Cod» 468

1 Ofc of Naval Rich, Arlington, ATTN: Code 450

1 Ofc of Naval Rich, Arlington, ATTN Cod« 441

1 Nava1 Aarotpc Med Res Lab PenMcola, ATTN: Acoul Sch Dlv

t Naval Aerospc Mad Res Lib. Penucoli, ATTN: Cod« LSI 1 Naval Aarotpc Med Re? Lab. Pensecola, ATTN: Code LB 1 Chief of NavPurs, ATTN: PcrsOR

1 NAVAIRSTA. Norfolk, ATTN: Safety Cu 1 Nav Oceanogceuhic, DC. ATTN Codo 0251, Chart« & Tech 1 Canter of Naval Anal, ATTN: Doc Ctr

1 NavAirSyXom, ATTN: AIR 5313C 1 Nav BuMed, ATTN: 713 1 NevHelioopterSiibSmw ?, FPO SF BA601 1 AFHRl. (FT) V/lllum AFB 1 AFHRL(TT) Lowry AFB 1 AFHRL IAS) WPAFB, OH 2 AFHRL (DOJZ) Brook* AFB 1 AFHRL (DOJNI Lackland AFB 1 HÜUSAF (INYSO) 1 HOUSAF (DPXXA)

1 AFVTG (RDI Randolph AFB 3 AMRL IHF.I WPAFB, OH

2 AF ln$t of Tech, WPAFB, OH. ATTN: EME/SL

1 ATC (XPTD) Randolph AFD 1 USAF AeroMed Lib, Brook; AFB (SUL-4), ATTN: OOC SEC

1 AFOSR (NL), Arlington

1 AF Log Cmd. McClellen AFB, ATTN: ALC/DPCRB 1 Air Force Aceue'ny, CO. ATTN. D»tpi / "n\ Sw'i 6 NevPer» J, Dev Ctr, San Dlegn

2 Navy Med Neurocxvchlatric Hit h Unit. Sen Diego

1 Nav Electronic Lab, Son Diego, ATTN: Ret Lab 1 Nav TrrqCen, San Diego. ATTN: Code 0000-bb 1 NevPbstGreSch, Monterey, ATTN: Code 66Aa 1 NevPostGraSch, Monterey, ATTN: Code 2124 1 NevTrngErtuipCtr. Orlando, Al IN: Tech Lib 1 US Oept of Labor, OC, ATTN: Menpowor Admin 1 US Oiit of Justice, DC, Ar IN. iirwg Enforce Admin t Nat Bur of Standards, DC. ATTN: Computer Info Section 1 Nat Cloarlng Homo for Mlf loin. Rockvlltn 1 Denver Federal Ctr, Lukawood. ATTN. OLM

17 Defense Oociimentetloii Ointer

'■ Dir Psych, Army HQ, Ruuoll Ofci, Cenborr» , Sclo'ttific Advr. Mil öd. Army Hq. Runell Ofci, Cenbetre 1 Mil and Air Attache, Austrian FimiMty

1 Oniio dn Ri'chotch* Dee Facimtrs. Humalne du la Defense N'.ionala, flniMiili

7 Canadian Joint Staff Washington t C/Air Stiff. Royal Canadian AF, ATTN: Pets Std Anal Br

3 Chief, Cunadlan Del Rsch Staff, ATTN: C/CRDS(W) 4 British Dan* Staff. Drltlili Embatay, Weahlngton

18

1 Def »Civil Inst of Enviro Medicine, Canada 1 AIR CRESS, Kentlngton, ATTN: Info Syi Br

1 Mlllteerpaytu>lo»lek T|ene«t», Copehagen

1 Military Attache, French Embeaey. ATTN: Doc Sac 1 Medaeln Chef, C.E.RP.A.-Arsenal, Toulon/Naval Franca 1 Prln Sclafttlflc Off, Appf Hum Engr Rsch Olv, Ministry

of Defenee, New Delhi 1 Pers Rsch Ofc Library, AKA, Israel Defense Foren

1 Minister« van Offenste. OOOP/KL A'dSociaal Psychologische Zakan. The Hague, Netherlands

THIS PAGE IS B* 3 IS ILIIY PMCUCABJ*!