A Factor-Analytic Study Of Military Leadership

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Request accessible transcript

Transcript (if available)

Content Copyright by
Alvin Marks
19S9
A FACTOR-ANALYTIC STUDY OF MILITARY LEADERSHIP
by
Alvin Marks
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Psychology)
January 195>9
•9
UNIVERSITY OR SO U T H E R N CALIFORNIA
GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES 7
This dissertation, written by
......... Alvin Marks.............
under the direction of^.?.G uidance Committee,
and approved by all its members, has been pre
sented to and accepted by the Faculty of the
Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of re
quirements fo r the degree of
D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y
January 1959
<; VI DANCE COMM 1TTF.K
i i v.
Chairman
. . . j, E J & ...
To Phoebe
For listening.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author wishes to express his appreciation to
Professor W. B. Michael for his guidance and encouragement
and to Professor J. P. Guilford who generously made the
resources of his Project on Aptitudes of High Level Person
nel available for all phases of this study.
My thanks, too, to the U. S. Marine Corps and the
20^ officers of the First Marine Division and the various
units of the Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California.
Special recognition is due Mr. Arthur Gershon for
supervising the assembly of the test materials and never
failing to meet a deadline, Miss Paula Jean Myers for her
accurate and dependable computational work, and Miss Marian
Reeb for her scoring and typing far into the night. The
"Project” personnel are to be congratulated for the incred
ible feat of scoring, check scoring, and completing the
final roster of over 13,000 entries with only three errors.
There is always one person who stands out as indis
pensable in a project of this kind. My special thanks and
gratitude to Mr. P. R. Merrlfleld who Is an unrelenting,
uncompromising, and outstanding teacher. His patience,
knowledge, and long hours of explanation are an integral
part of this 3tudy.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION....................................... 1
II. THE PROBLEM.....................................7
The factors............................... 7
The rating scale ........................10
The sample • • ............................... 10
The method ..................................12
III. THE TEST BATTERY................................l*fr
Description of the tests.................... 15
IV, THE RATING SCALE................................23
Description of the rating scale ........... ,23
V, COMPUTATIONAL PROCEDURES ........................ 33
Treatment of the test scores •••*,,*••33
Treatment of the rating scores 33
Intercorrelations and factor analysis • . • # 35
The aptitude factors...........* ..............*tl
The rating factors...........* ...............
VI. INTERPRETATION OF THE FACTORS......... .. . , , U-9
The aptitude factors............... **9
The rating factors............ ................. 56
VII, RESULTS............................... 61
The aptitude factors................... . . . 61
Vi
CHAPTER PAGE
The rating factors * . . • • ................. 61
Relationship between aptitude factors and
rating factors .......................... 63
Leadership criterion and aptitude factors* • 65
Other results **... .................. 65
VIII. DISCUSSION.....................................69
The aptitude factors ........... 69
The rating factors • ♦ * ................. 70
Other results . ...........................72
Conclusions..........................* • • 73
DC. SUMMARY....................................... %
The problem ••••*• ..... 76
Procedure................ 76
Results * .................................77
Discussion.............................. .. 77
REFERENCES........................................... 80
APPENDIX............................................. 88
LIST OF TABLES
table PAGE
I. Factors Hypothesized as Important to Military
Leadership ................................. 9
II* Frequency Distributions of Rank, Education,
and Age of 20*f Marine Corps Officers .... 11
III* Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliabilities
of Aptitude Test Scores .................. 3^
IV* Means and Standard Deviations of Peer and
Superior Ratings.......................... 36
V. Reliabilities, Communalities, and Correlations
of Peer and Superior Ratings.................37
VI. The Correlation Matrix............ 38
VII. Centroid Factor Matrix of Aptitude Measures . **2
VIII. Rotated Factor Matrix of Aptitudes.............**3
EC. Centroid Factor Matrix of Peer Ratings ....
X, Rotated Factor Matrix of Peer Ratings .... * + 6
XI. Centroid Factor Matrix of Superior Ratings • . 47
XII. Rotated Factor Matrix of Superior Ratings • * 4$
XIII. Rotated Factor Matrix of Aptitudes Grouped by
Variables and Showing Only Significant Load
ings (.30 or Greater).............. 50
TABLE
XIV.
XV.
XVI.
XVII.
XVIII.
XIX.
XX.
Rotated Factor Matrix of Peer and Superior
Ratings, Grouped by Variables and Showing
Only Significant Loadings (.30 or Greater) .
Correlations between Composites of Tests of
the Attitude Factors . . . . . . . . . . . .
Composite Correlations between Rating Factors
Correlations between Composites for Rating
Factors and Composites for Aptitude Factors
Composite Correlations between Criterion
(Superior-Leadership) and Aptitude Factors
Factor Item K e y .......... ..................
Item-Answer Assignment ................ . . .
viii
PAGE
58
62
64-
66
67
102
103
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
1« Frequency Distributions of Fitness Report
Ratings and Rating Form Used in This Study •
PAGE
. 68
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Within the area of military leadership, the problem
of officer selection and evaluation continues to be of
prime concern to the Armed Forces. The problem is not
essentially different from the problems involved in select
ing and evaluating leaders in areas other than the military.
Briefly, the problem resolves into two questions* (1) What
are the factors necessary to leadership, and (2) How can
they be measured?
The study of leadership is at least as old as
recorded systematized knowledge. A good example of inter
est in leadership is demonstrated in Plato*3 Republic. An
attempt to build a leadership theory along the same lines
is exemplified in Fisher's Analysis of the Mannheim Theory
of the Intellectual Elite (9).
One of the unique aspects of earlier leadership
theories is the assumption that the leader possessed cer
tain traits or characteristics that differentiate him from
the non-leader (2, 6, 12, 4-8). This assumption began to be
questioned in many studies as early as 1930 (5). The find
ings of numerous studies (1, 2, 9, 10, *K), ¥f, W to the
effect that Intelligence, conceived as a unitary trait, Is
not too Important to success as a leader, raised serious
doubts as to the legitimacy of such an assumption,
Stogdill (**5) among others (7, 12, MO have shown
that most trait studies show contradictory results* This
Is not to say that there are no trait theorists left.
Pennington has dropped Intelligence as a necessary trait
but his list of personality traits is still impressive (M)),
especially with regard to military leadership. Much
research is done in this area, still using the trait
approach (2, 9, 35, 39).
A new view of leadership Is that described by
Guilford (13) and others (3, M, 12, 33, 36, 37, 38, Ml, M2,
M3, MM) which views leadership from a behavioral and
situational point of view. In essence, this means leader
ship is a result of the situation, and the person posses
sing the information and trait3 that will satisfy the
needs of the situation will be the successful leader.
Guilford is quite explicit on thi3 point. He says*
There is considerable agreement among those who
have given the matter extended thought and examina
tion that leadership is definitely not a unitary
human commodity. As a concept, leadership is a
property of behavior more than it is of persons.
We do better to speak of leadership behavior than
of a leadership trait or even of leadership
traits. (13)
He points out that, depending upon the needs of the
sltuatlon} certain personal traits will be more pertinent
and more In demand than others* His definition of leader
ship traits Is as follows* "Leadership traits are those
that have a greater probability of being needed and of
Insuring success in situations that require leaders.*1 (13)
One of the implications of this point of view is that
almost everyone has potentiality for leadership under the
right circumstances.
Methods used to study leadership have ranged from
straight armchair speculation to highly scientific method
ologies. Stogdill (*t6) and Freeman (10) present much
information on methodology. Holley^ study of the rela
tionship of personality traits to military leadership (35)
is a good example of the use of one scientific approach to
the study of leadership* He uses a method which incor
porates experimental variables in both the predictors and
criteria. By factor-analytical methods he attempts to
determine whether the same factors are involved in both the
predictors and the criteria. This study utilizes a similar
approach.
An investigation of the measurement of factors
involved in leadership might best be accomplished through
a study of military leadership because the purposes)
methods, and success of the military leader are better
known and more clearly delineated than in other areas.
It is well known that selection devices and methods
used in the past have failed to predict, with more than
moderate success, those applicants who will become the
best military officers* One criterion in extensive use is
amount of education. In the U* S. Marine Corps a college
student who meets the prescribed physical, moral, and
academic requirements can be commissioned with a minimal
amount of training. This i3 true for other branches of
the Armed Forces. Another criterion (for men from the
ranks) is a minimum Army General Classification Test score
of from 115-120,*
When faced with the task of selecting large quanti
ties of leaders, such rough screening devices undoubtedly
serve to eliminate more potentially poor leaders than good
leaders. This approach, however, tells U3 very little
about the factors involved in leadership except to say that
*+
we believe that amount of education and intelligence has
something to do with leadership. It should be mentioned
here that obtaining a college degree might be more a
measure of persistence than amount of information learned.
Few batteries of tests for selecting leaders put much stock
*Varies with demand for officers.
**The term is used broadly here as the AGCT does not
expressly measure intelligence.
in any kind of intellectual criterion for leadership in
any areas (10, *f7).
In the area of evaluation, little headway has been
made in developing methods that will differentiate the
extremely good officer from the average officer. This is
hardly surprising since we are not sure what it is we want
to evaluate. The fitness report, which is used by most
services, often fails to distinguish between the extremes,
i.e., fails to differentiate the poor officer from the
j f i
good officer. Because of this lack of differentiation,
1
promotions and duty assignments are often based on factors
other than leadership.
It is recognized that much of this failure may
result from rater errors such as halo effects and leniency
errors, but it is more likely that the factors necessary
to good military leadership are not well enough defined
and thus not measured with sufficient accuracy to insure
good selection and accurate evaluation.
For reasons stated above, a military population
lends Itself well to an investigation of the factors and
the evaluation of possession of those factors Involved in
military leadership.
*
From opinions of officers who have served on pro-
motion selection boards and who have evaluated fitness
reports.
1
6
Guilford’a conceptualization of the structure of
intellect (1$, 31) provides the framework for studying the
role of intelligence in leadership by discarding the idea
of a unitary trait of intelligence such as our popular
notion of the I.Q. which with little reflection is seen to
be merely a measure of verbal and academic ability. Under
this new conceptualization may be considered a composite
of many separate aptitudes; by measuring these aptitudes,
the unique structure of the individual intellect may be
delineated. This study hypothesizes that there is a
A
unique combination of intellectual aptitudes that differ
entiate the military leader.
Two terms used throughout this study require defini
tions in order to avoid ambiguity and confusion in the
reader's mind. The term "military leadership" will mean
the ability to_inf_luence human behavior in such a manner
■ th a t, ajawa srH M fl flill fe a r y
cessfullv. The term "factor" will mean an aspect of
jn S e lle .stu a l bcorrelated measures of. intellectual behavior have in com
mon. i.e., psychological dimensions of an intellectual
nature that can be quantitatively and qualitatively
measured.
c
CHAPTER II
THE PROBLEM
This study attempts to* (1) establish those apti
tude factors considered important to military leadership
and determine the degree of existence of these factors in
a military population, (2) determine t£e relation of these
factors to military leadership, and (3) develop a rating
scale which will evaluate officers accurately in the
degree to which they possess these factors*
Xfre.FartPia
The determination of the factors to be included in
this Investigation was necessarily a priori and involved
the compilation of those aptitudes considered by military
leaders and this writer to be Important to military
leadership* A necessary consideration in the selection
of the factors so compiled, was the availability of rela
tively pure measures.
High ranking Marine Corps officers from the First
Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, California, and Headquar
ters Marine Corps were consulted. The aptitudes they
considered important agreed generally with the writer's
opinions and for that matter with the general concept of
leadership. The terminology used was both of the military
and lay variety. Intelligence, military bearing, flexible
thinking, honesty, courage, tact, etc., are examples of
attributes thought important. The author worked within
the framework of Guilford's "Structure of Intellect" (15*
31) in order to secure factors about which something was
known and for which relatively pure measures existed.
Flexible thinking, for example, seems to fit logically
the factors of spontaneous flexibility and adaptive flexi
bility. The factors selected, their definitions, and
references to research regarding each is given in Table I.
The existence of the factors in a military popula
tion was investigated by administering tests (to be
described later) to a large group of Marine Corps officers
and analyzing the results by factor-analytical methods.
The relation of the factors to military leadership
was to be determined by multiple regression methods between
factor test scores and the criterion. The criterion is
that part of the rating scale on which the individual
officer was rated specifically as to his leadership abil
ity. This criterion will be described in detail later.
The construction and description of the rating scale is
described in detail in Chapter IV.
TABLE I
FACTORS HYPOTHESIZED AS IMPORTANT TO MILITARY LEADERSHIP
Factors Definitions References
Perceptual
Foresight
Conceptual
Foresight
Penetration
Experiential
Evaluation
Sensitivity
to Problems
Adaptive
Flexibility
Spontaneous
Flexibility
General
Reasoning
Verbal Com
prehension
Originality
Ideational
Fluency
The ability to explore visually
possible courses of action In
order to select the most effec*
tlve one.
The ability to anticipate the
needs or the consequences of a
given problem situation.
The ability to see beyond the
Immediate and obvious.
The ability to appraise aspects
of common situations in terms
of agreement with experience.
tical problems.
The ability to change set in
order to meet new requirements
Imposed by changing problems.
sity of ideas in a situation t
is relatively unrestricted.
The ability to comprehend or
structure problems in prepara
tion for solving them.
Knowledge of words and their
meanings.
The ability to produce remotely
associated) clever) or uncommon
responses.
The ability to call up many
ideas in a situation in which
there is little restriction and
quality does not count.
(25)
(25)
( 28)
( 22)
(21, 26, 28)
(30f
25,
26,
(32j
28,
30
(17,
22,
28,
32)
2 b
29,
21,
27,
30,
(17,
22,
a
2 b
29,
21,
27,
30,
(21,
a
2 h
29,
26,
30,
‘S ;
30,
22,
&
25,
29,
The Ratiur Scale
The factor-based rating 3cale was developed in mul
tiple choice format* Each factor was represented by four
items which described what was believed to be the evidence
of that factor in Marine Corps situations* Each of these
items had five possible answers that were expected to
reflect differing degrees of possession of the factor by
the officer being rated. The rater was instructed to
select the one statement that best described the officer.
Since there were eleven factors and four items
representing each factor, the rating scale consisted of
forty-four items. An additional four items were included
which gave an over-all rating of the officer a3 a military
leader. These four items constitute the criterion men
tioned earlier.
The sample consisted of 20*f Marine Corps officers
stationed at Camp Pendleton, California. The rank of
these officers ranged from Warrant Officer to Major with
the bulk comprised of company grade ranks (Lieutenant and
Captain). The ages ranged from twenty-two to thirty-six
years and education ranged from the tenth grade to graduate
school. It 13 of some interest that only 3 per cent did
not graduate from high school while 79 per cent possessed
a Bachelor's degree or better. Table II gives this
TABLE II
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS OF RANK, EDUCATION,
AND AGE OF 204 MARINE CORPS OFFICERS
Rank N Education
(in years)
N Age N
Major 1 8 1 22
15
Captain 47 9
0 23 54
First Lieutenant
83
10 4 24 37
Second Lieutenant 69 11 2 25 22
Warrant Officer 4 12 22 26 15
13 27
8
14 8 28
7
15 2
29 12
16
137 30 7
17* 25 31
4
32
8
H
6
3
35
4
36 2
Total 204 204 204
H*
H
12
information in detail* Information on time in service was
not reported; however, no officer had less than eighteen
months in the Marine Corps.
The. Method
The purpose of factor analyzing the intercorrela
tions between aptitude tests is to determine if the tests
hypothesized to measure the postulated aptitude factors
would define these factors in a military population* The
aptitude tests used in this study had been used in other
studies and in batteries composed of different combina
tions of tests* If these tests are able to define the
same factors that they defined in other studies, we can
conclude that in so far as these particular factors are
concerned, Marine Corps officers do not differ as a popu
lation from the populations used in the other studies.
This method will also help us determine which tests measure
which factors for Marine officers so that we may find com
binations of tests which correlate with criterion variables.
The purpose of factor analyzing the rating scale is
to determine if its basic purpose was successful* The
rating scale was developed primarily to determine whether
the postulated aptitude factors could be separately rated
by raters having no knowledge of these factors. Since
the rating scale was designed to measure eleven aptitude
factors and one leadership factor, a factor analysis of
the intercorrelations of the items representing these
factors should result in twelve factors.
The intercorrelations of rating scale items should
be essentially zero. If the intercorrelations are high,
a factor analysis will determine to what degree the rater
was injecting his own interpretation into the rating scale.
CHAPTER III
THE TEST BATTERY
The selection of tests was restricted by the time
available for testing. Six hours were allotted} which
limited the selection to two measures for each factor
except for Verbal Comprehension and General Reasoning.
These two factors were well enough defined so that one
measure for each factor seemed adequate. Sensitivity to
problems did not inspire the same confidence as did the
others) so three measures were Included for this factor.
Nineteen tests were selected to compose the battery
of which two yielded two measures each, resulting in
twenty-one variables. All nineteen tests had been used
*
in previous studies except Match Problems III which was
adapted from an earlier form. The battery was assembled
into six test booklets, each requiring about one hour for
administration.
★
These studies were supported primarily by the
Office of Naval Research under Contract N6onr-23olO, with
Hr, J. P. Guilford as responsible investigator. This study
is one of a series in connection with the Project on Apti
tudes of High-level Personnel at the University of Southern
California. References 16-32 are reports of previous
studies.
A
15
The tests were administered by the writer to groups
of officers at Camp Pendleton, California. Size of the
groups varied from fifteen to forty. Three booklets (con
taining ten tests) were administered in the morning session
and three booklets (containing nine tests) in the afternoon
session. A one-hour lunch period intervened between the
two testing sessions. Examinees were informed at the
beginning of the morning session as to the general nature
and goals of the study. They were told that the results
would not become part of the official record and would be
divulged only to themselves. One of their senior officers,
in an effort to increase motivation, told them that the
study was important to the Marine Corps and asked them to
make a special effort. The same officer instructed the
examinees not to discuss the tests with any other officers
until the investigation was completed. A short smoking
break was given between test booklets. All testing was
done during working hours.
This writer feels that the promise of anonymity,
the individual report of results, and the motivating talk
of the senior officer, led to high motivation and perform
ance on the part of the individual examinee.
of tog.JEe.s£g
In the following pages are brief descriptions of
the tests* Each is numbered according to its assigned
16
variable number, followed by the name of the test and the
factor it measures. Following this information, an out
line of the particular task is given and in some cases a
sample item. The last line, following each description
gives the number of parts and working time.
1. Alternate Methods (Conceptual Foresight)
The examinee is given a number of tasks and is to
write several methods that might be used to accomplish
each task.
Sample item: A house located near a stream is on
fire. Twenty men, each carrying a bucket, arrive to help
put out the fire. The house is about twenty yards from
the stream. In how many ways could you organize this
bucket brigade to deal with the fire?
Parts: 4; items per part; 1} working time: 14- minutes
2. Apparatus (Sensitivity to Problems)
The examinee is given a list of twenty familiar
implements and asked to suggest two improvements on each
of them.
Parts: 2; items per part; lOj working time: 14 minutes
3. Brick Uses (Spontaneous Flexibility)
The examinee is to give as many U3es as he can think
of for a common brick scored according to the number of
different categories of uses that are given.
Parts: 1; working time: 10 minutes
w
17
if. Competitive Planning (Perceptual Foresight)
The examinee is to reconstruct the moves of two con
testants in filling in incompleted squares. He is
restricted to certain rules and must find the be3t solu
tion for both contestants under the given conditions.
Parts: 2; items per part: 20; working time: 20 minutes
5. Consequences, remote (Originality)
Certain changes in world conditions are postulated.
The examinee writes as many possible consequences as he
can. The score is number of remote or imaginative
responses.
Parts: 10; items per part: 1; working time: 20 minutes
6. ConsequencesT obvious (Ideational Fluency)
Same test as 5, but score is number of low quality,
unimaginative responses.
7. Match Problems III (Adaptive Flexibility)
A series of squares are presented to the examinee,
with the instructions that they are composed of matches
which may be removed. For example, a pattern of six
squares is presented, the task being to remove three
matches and leave four squares. Each item can be answered
by giving several different solutions, therefore several
such patterns are given in which the examinee can demon
strate different approaches to the solution.
Parts: 3? items per part: 5? working time: 18 minutes
18
8. Pertinent Questions (Conceptual Foresight)
The examinee is given a situation in which someone
must make a choice. His task is to ask four questions,
the answers to which would serve as a basis for making a
choice.
Sample items A student who has just graduated from
college is offered positions in two different part3 of the
country. What four questions have to be considered in
making a choice?
Parts* 2; items per part: *f; working time* 12 minutes
9. Planning Air Maneuvers (Adaptive Flexibility)
A number of diagrams are given, in the shape of
letters, with information that a pilot is to form these
letters by skywriting with his plane in the most economi
cal manner. In each item two letters are shown, to be
done in sequence, starting and ending at designated places
on the diagrams.
Part3* 2; items per part: 10; working time* 16 minutes
10. Plot Titles, hjfthquality (Originality)
A brief story plot i3 given and the examinee must
write several possible titles for it. He is instructed to
produce clever titles. Score is number of clever titles
produced.
Parts* *f; items per part: 1; working time: 12 minutes
11. Plot Titles, low quality (Ideational Fluency)
Same as test 10, but scored for the number of
19
non-clever titles produced.
12. Route Planning (Perceptual Foresight)
A number of diagrams are given In the shape of a
maze with four starting points and a common goal in the
center. There are several possible routes from each start
ing point to the goal. Various points are indicated along
each route by a letter. The task is to find the one letter
through which the examinee must pass in going from each
starting point to the goal.
Parts* 5; items per parti 8; working times 17 minutes
13. Seeing Deficiencies (Sensitivity to Problems)
The examinee is given a short description of a plan
or activity that for some reason will not lead to the
desired result. The task is to point out in what way the
plan is faulty.
Sample item: A growing city discovers pressing
needs to improve both its streets and its sewer system.
After due consideration) the council decides to work on
the street-improvement program first. What is wrong with
this plan?
Partsx 2; items per parts 10; working times 20 minutes
l*f. Seeing Problems (Sensitivity to Problems)
Names of common objects are given and the task is
to write down five problems that might arise in connection
with each of the objects.
20
Parts* 2j Items per part: 6; working time* 8 minutes
15. Shin Destination (General Reasoning)
A matrix of lettered points representing locations
on the ocean is presented to the examinee. In each item he
is given two letters. One as a starting point and one as a
destination. The task is to find the distance between the
points under varying types of conditions such as windj cur»
rent| and starting direction.
Parts* 1; items per part* 57? working time* 15 minutes
16. Similarities (Penetration)
The examinee is presented with two objects and is to
write down six ways in which the objects are alike.
Parts* 2; items per part: 6; working time* 10 minutes
17- Social Institutions (Penetration)
The examinee is presented with a list of familiar
social institutions or customs. The task is to suggest two
improvements for each of them which would be of benefit and
use to our society.
Parts: 2; items per part* 6; working timet 3D minutes
18. Social Situations (Experiential Evaluation)
The examinee is presented with social situations in
which a dilemma exists. Several alternate courses of
action are given. The examinee is to select the alterna
tive leading to the most desirable consequences for the
group.
21
Sample items You are on a week-end trip with a
group of friends* Most of them would prefer spending the
day hunting, but you would prefer to go fishing. You
should)
A* Go hunting with them
B. Tell them to go hunting, while you go fishing
C. Try to convince them that they will have a
better time fishing
D* Offer to toss a coin to decide whether the
whole group goes hunting or fishing.
Parts: 25 items per part: 15; working time: 10 minutes
19. Verbal Comprehension (Verbal Comprehension)
This 13 a test of understanding of words, similar
to the usual vocabulary test, in multiple-choice form.
Sample item: EARTH
A. Sugar
B. Farm
C. Soil
D* Sun
E. Horse
A choice is to be made as to which of the five
alternatives means about the same as the word given.
Parts: 1; items per part: HO; working time: 12.minutes
20. Unusual Details (Experiential Evaluation)
A number of sketches are presented to the examinee
22
in which there are two things that are unusual or do not
make sense In a commonly observed scene. The task is to
write down the two things that are wrong with each picture.
Partsi 2; items per parts 16; working times 8 minutes*
21. Unusual Uses (Spontaneous Flexibility)
Bach item lists a common object for which a standard
or usual use is given. The task is to list as many as six
other uses for which the object or part of it could be
employed.
Sample items A newspaper (used for reading), you
might think of the following other uses for a newspapers
A. To start a fire
B. To wrap garbage in
C. To swat flies
D. To make up a kidnap note
£• Etc.
Parts: 2; items per part: 3; working times 10 minutes
CHAPTER IV
THE RATING SCALE
The rating scale was pretested on Marine Corps offi
cers stationed at Santa Monica, California, and Camp
Pendleton, California, The suggestions of these officers
were considered with respect to how well the aptitude fac
tors were disguised, how realistic the situational items
were, and how objective the rater thought he was. The
majority of these officers could not relate the items to
specific factors. They agreed that the situations were
realistic and most of them felt that they were more objec
tive on this rating scale than on the currently used fit
ness report. The results of the pretesting were also
analyzed for, and showed symmetry of distributions. Per
sonnel on the Project for Aptitudes on High Level Personnel
evaluated the rating scale items for factor content without
prior knowledge of which item had been intended to measure
which factor. The project personnel were able to match
each, item with the intended factor.
Description of the Rating Scale
The rating scale appears in the appendix. Table XIX
2b
o
gives the item numbers which were intended to measure each
factor. Table XX gives the value of each answer in terms
of differing degrees of possession of the factor by the
officer to be rated.
In the following pages are brief descriptions of the
items making up the rating scale. Each item is numbered
according to its assigned variable number, followed by the
name of the factor it represents. Following this is a
sample item. Enclosed in parentheses, following the
answers to the item, is the order of value of each answer
as to degree of possession of the factor. The highest
value answer is given first, followed by others in descend
ing order to the lowest value answer which is given last.
Each item was scored on the basis of five points for the
highest value answer and one point less on a descending
scale, for each other answer. In item 1 below, for example,
the answers would be scored as follows:
b » 5
e =
a - 3
d = 2
e = l
1. Eer.ceBttta.l_ F.9r,gg3,Kfe$
In planning the route to an assault on an enemy posi
tion, this officer would most likely consider:
4
25
a. the ease of the route, obstacles, and cover
and concealment afforded by the route
b. the ease of the route, obstacles, cover and
concealment, vulnerability, and most other
pertinent factors
c. the route that was the easiest for his men
d. the easiest route, taking Into account the
natural obstacles on the route
e. the ease of the route, obstacles, cover and
concealment, and vulnerability.
(b-e-s-d-c)
2. Conceptual- goresight
A small patrol has located a fire direction center
In a church and determines that several civilians are being
held as hostages. The leader of the patrol knows that the
center Is holding up the advance of the division and elimi
nation of It Is crucial to victory* This officer would
most likely:
a* weigh all the advantages and disadvantages
of all possible courses of action and then
proceed to put the best plan Into operation
b* call upon higher command for orders as to
what to do
c. call In artillery and air and destroy the
center
d. consider a maneuver to free the civilians
and then destroy the center
e. consider a way of rendering the center
Ineffective without destroying It
(a-e-d-c-b)
3. Penetration
A group of officers are asked for suggestions to
improve a training program* This officer would most likely
suggests
a* only immediate and obviously needed changes
b, mostly long range and not too obviously
needed changes
c* some immediate, some long range, some
obviously needed changes and some not so
obviously needed changes
d, only long range and not too obviously needed
changes
e* mostly immediate and obviously needed
changes
(d-b-c-e-a)
*f* Experiential Evaluation
This officer is in charge of a patrol on a very
difficult mission* Near the end of the mission, the men
under his command, who are all good Marines, are about to
give up* This officer would most likely handle the situa
tions
a. better than most officers
b. as well as most officers
c. poorly
d. better than any other officer
e. less well than would most officers
(d-a-b-e-c)
5, Sensitivity to Problems
If this officer was asked to state the practical
problems in connection with using atomic artillery in an
amphibious landing, he would recognize and state*
a. more real problems than most other officers
b. more real problems than any other officer
c. a fevr real problems
d. as many real problems as most other officers
e. a few trivial problems
(b-«-d-c-e}
6. Adaptive Flexibility
This officer flnd3 himself in the following situa
tion* He is leading a combat patrol when (1) his objective
Is changed and he is in a bad position from which to take
the new object. (2) Four minutes later his supporting
fires are withdrawn. (3) Shortly after this he loses con
tact with half his men. (*0 A few minutes later he
realizes that he is lost. This officer would most likely*
a. change his tactics after occurrence (1) but
not change them again
b. not change his tactics at any time through
out the situation
c. change his tactics after occurrence (1),
again after occurrence (2), and not change
them after that
d» change his tactics after each occurrence
e. change his tactics after each of the first
three occurrences but not after the fourth
(d-e-c-a-b)
7. Spontaneous Flexibility
If this officer was asked for ideas on how to
improve markmanship, he would most likely come up with:
a. more different kinds of ideas than most
officers
b* as many different kinds of ideas as most
officers
c. some different kinds of ideas but fewer than
most officers
d* more different kinds of ideas than any other
officer
e. a few ideas
(d-a-b-c-e)
8. General Reasoning
In preparation for landing exercises, this officer
29
must handle troop loading, equipment loading, ammunition
distribution, landing assignments, shipboard watch, and
messing schedules. This officer could best handle*
a. one or two of these conditions
b. all of these conditions
c. several of these conditions
d. most of these conditions
e. one of these conditions
(b-d-c-a-e)
9. Verbal Comprehension
Considering the following words, EFFACE, FURTIVE,
ADHESIVE, IRASCIBLE, ESOTERIC, this officer would most
likely know the meanings of*
a. one of them
b. all of them
c. two of them
d. four of them
e. three of them
(b-d-e-c-a)
10. Os&glnalltg
If this officer was presented with a question such
as, “What would happen if the Marine Corps was disbanded
tomorrow?11, he would gives
a. a few but different responses
b. several diversified opinions
30
c. quite a few diversified and unusual
opinions
d. a few and similar responses
e. quite a few diversified opinions
(c-e-b-a-d)
11. Ideational Fluency
If a3ked for ideas on how to improve close air
support, this officer would most likely come up with*
a. some ideas but fewer than most officers
b. one or two ideas
c. more ideas than any other officer
d. as many ideas as most officers
e. more ideas than most officers
(c-e-d-a-b)
12. Leadership (Criterion)
In your opinion, this officer is*
a. not as good an officer as most other offi
cers
b. one of the most outstanding officers I
have ever known
c. an excellent officer
d. an average officer
e. a better-than-average officer
(b-c-e-d-a)
The forty-eight items of the rating scale were
31
randomized in blocks of twelve so that each factor item
appears only once in each block but not in the same posi
tion within the block* To illustrate, the factor of
Ideational Fluency is represented in items 10, 21, 3^, and
l+l.
The answer to an item reflecting the highest degree
of possession of the factor appears in each position (a, b,
c, d, e) 9 ♦ times* Each other answer, reflecting a diffext
ent degree of possession of the factor, appears in each
position an equal number of times. These positions were
assigned randomly.
Since the factors are not named and are described
in Marine Corps situations, and considering the randomiza
tion of Items and answers, it was hypothesized that the
rater would be forced to be objective#
Each officer was rated by two peer officers and two
superior officers. All raters were from the same military
unit as the ratees. A peer is an officer having the same
military rank and comparable military duties as the ratee.
A superior is an officer having a higher military rank and
higher military duties than the ratee. Thus, a platoon
commander with the rank of second lieutenant was rated by
two platoon commanders of the same rank, the company execu
tive officer with the rank of first lieutenant, and the
company commander with the rank of captain.
32
Instructions given to the raters appear in the
appendix* The rating form, enclosed in an envelope
addressed to the writer, was given to the rater by a
superior officer. The superior officer a3ked the rater to
rate the officer concerned. The rater was told to return
the rating and rating form in the sealed envelope via the
base mail system. All ratings and rating forms were so
returned. No rater rated more than four men.
o
CHAPTER V
COMPUTATIONAL PROCEDURES
Treatment of the Test Scores
The tests were scored according to pre-established
keys and protocols. Two scores were derived from each of
two tests: Consequences (remote and obvious) and Plot
Titles (high and low)• Frequency distributions were made
of all scores and inspected for symmetry. Scores from all
the tests showed a satisfactory symmetry of distribution.
Reliabilities were computed for the entire sample of
201 * except where the form of the test did not permit such
computation. There were three tests falling Into this
category: Brick Uses, Ship Destination, and Verbal Compre
hension. The reliabilities of these three tests were esti
mated, using their coramunalities a3 lower bounds. Means,
standard deviations, and reliabilities are reported in
Table III.
Treatment of the Rating Scores
The ratings were scored according to pre-established
keys. Twelve scores were derived from each set of ratings,
eleven scores representing a rating on degree of possession
TABLE III
MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS. AND RELIABILITIES
OF APTITUDE TEST SCORES
M rtt&
1. Alternate Methods
11A3
2.17
A3
2. Apparatus 2^.10
7.30
?•
Brick Uses
13.69
6.11
.57*
4. Competitive Planning
17.03 5.59 .67
5.
Consequences (remote) 14.04
6.53 .73
6. Consequences (obvious) 25.94
9.U .71
/ * Match Problems III 4.70 3.28
.55
0 * Pertinent Questions 26.61 3 M .65
9.
Planning Air Maneuvers 4.21
2.15 .34
10. Plot Titles (high) 6.20 3.22 .52
11. Plot Titles (low) 15.92 7.56 .82
12. Route Planning
29.03 7.38
.81
13. Seeing Deficiencies
9.51
3.14 .61
14. Seeing Problems
21.95 6.82 • 64
15.
Ship Destination
32.75 8.35
.61
16. Similarities 27.84
6.65 .50
17.
Social Institutions
15.07 4.31 .77
18. Social Situations 17.11 3.69
.44*
19.
Verbal Comprehension
2 5.77 6.37
.60*
20. Unusual Details
22.25 4.32 .72
21. Unusual Uses
14.73
4.83 .72
Reliabilities computed as alternate-form estimates
and corrected by Spearman-Brown formula, except as noted.
*
Communallties used as lower-bound estimates of
reliability.
**Computed by Phi coefficient.
35
of each factor and one score representing a rating on
leadership. Since each officer was rated by two peers and
two superiors, each score derived from a peer rater was
combined with its respective score from the second peer
rater. A similar combination took place for superior
raters. This gave two composite scores on each factor and
on leadership, one from the peers and one from the
superiors.
Frequency distributions were made of the composites
which showed a satisfactory degree of symmetry.
Means and standard deviations are reported in
Table IV, Reliabilities, commonalities, and correlations
are nhown in Table V.
Intercorrelations and Factor Analysis
Intercorrelation3 of the forty-five variables
(twenty-one test variables, twelve peer rating variables,
and twelve superior rating variables) were computed on the
Standard Western Automatic Computer (SWAC), Pearson r
coefficients were obtained between all variables. The
correlation matrix is presented in Table VI.
Three separate factor analyses were performed: one
on the twenty-one test variables, one on the twelve peer
rating variables, and one on the twelve superior rating
variables.
TABLE IV
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OP
PEER AND SUPERIOR RATINGS
M (T
Peers Super. Peers Super.
1. Perceptual Foresight
28.28
27.09 5.69 5.75
2. Conceptual Foresight 25A 2 2^.38 it. 28
*t.79
3.
Penetration
23.31 23.69
3.68
3.99
it. Experiential Evaluation 26.33
25.69 k. 23 *t.52
5.
Sensitivity to Problems 25.15 2*t.8o
3.85 k-M
6. Adaptive Flexibility
31.11 30.33
5.90 6A 7
7*
Spontaneous Flexibility 23.37 2*t.5o 3.77
*t.2*t
8. General Reasoning 29.9^ 29.18 k.6k
9.
Verbal Comprehension 23.82 2^.32
3.95 k.17
10. Originality
2*t.09
2*t.8l
5.25 5.71
11. Ideational Fluency 23.99
2^.66
3.87 ^.33
12. Leadership 23.98
2^.23 5.39 5.30
37
TABLE V
RELIABILITIES, COMMUNALITIES, AND CORRELATIONS OF
PEER AND SUPERIOR RATINGS
*
rtt
h2
**
ps
Peers Super. Peers Super.
(1) (2)
1. PF
.37 .55
.70
.67 .33
A 8
2. CF
.31
.50 .69 .69 .19
.28
3. Pe .22
.39 .36 A 2 .09 .23
k. EE
.31 .53 .76 .80 .30
.38
5. SP A3 .63
.70 .82 .18 * 2^ -
6. AX
A7 .53
• 7b .7b- .29 .39
7. sx A9
.W .65 .58
.18
.29
8. GR
.53 .39 .82
.75 .3^ A3
9. VC Al .52
A7 .33 .19 .38
10. 0 .18
.37 .51
.08
.17
11. IF
.51
A 2
.63 A5
• lb
.27
12. L .52
.57
.7b- .78 •bo
.53
*Speaman-Brown Estimate.
**(1) Obtained
(2) Corrected for attenuation in both peer and
superior reliabilities, using the highest estimate of
reliability.
TABLE VI
THE CORRELATION MATRIX*
APTITUDE MEASURES
1. Alternate Methods
2. Apparatus
Brick Uses
Competitive Planning
Consequences (remote)
Consequences (obvious)
5
I:
I:
Match Problems III
Pertinent Questions
9« Planning Air Maneuvers
10. Plot Titles (high)
11. Plot Titles (low)
12. Route Planning
13. Seeing Deficiencies
14-. Seeing Problems
15. Ship Destination
16. Similarities
17. Social Institutions
18. Social Situations
19. Verbal Comprehension
20. Unusual Details
21. unusual Uses
1
2
3
b
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12
13
11+
15
16
17
18
19
37
18
25
30 21 1+2 18 21+ 22 12 1+1
33
38 32 1+3 15 20
37
4o 26 38 3b 15 39
26
27
1+1
15 31+
28
30 39 b7 16 0 8
39 1*0 17 bO
27 38
32
12
31 13
12 22 28 22 36 i+l 10 21
18 26
17 17 20 37
16 28
07 09 37 21 22
**3 29 20
13 07
25 38 1+ 0
17
26 20 35 07 33 27 13 29 33 23 36 35 23 37
30 3b 27
20 26
17 23 19 25 39 17
28 26
23 * * 3 i*5
1 3 -0 8
21
15
28
3?
20 17 17
28
29-03 38 28 22 i + i +i+O 27 13 35
b2 39 32 16
35 23 3.7 12 27 23
26
35 32 26
33
1+6 20 19
18 26 12 28
07 19
28 12 15 09 3b 25 17 32 19
16
13 13
2b 27 31 07 33 25 29 27 15 00 11
29 25 21 32 29 27
39
22 1+1
13 09 27 3 9 -0 3 09
00
03 03 15-03
20 1+0--03- -18
12 15 12 37 13 17 38
26 3b 11
03 27 13
l+l 32 11+01 16
1+1
31+
22 21 29
28 28
35 25 29 03 27 25 39 36
36
39 3g
33
28 28 22
33
26 22
3? 17 25 15 13 25 32 1 + 1 +
31*
18 18
38
32
30
39
ft
1 + 3
29 3^
%
1 + 1 +
1 + 0
26
33
11
2 1 -0 3
32 20
i+l
32 11
36
8 1+2
1+2
31
39
2l+
27 %
^3
b7 1+1 20 35 1+5 27
1+ 0 16
29
HO 11+ 3b 31 39 29 09
15
16 10
13 23 13 13
20
13 27-03
01 30 18 2l+ 27 29 21
20 08 21 07
3 7 -0 8
35 19 13 30 -18 16
39
18
31 25 09 21
2b
27 09 33 31 25
1*1
23 30 09 23 31 32 29 38 31
18
17
3 2 bl b7
18
25 l? 29 3b 15 22 16 26 22 22 39 i + i + 10 18
1. Rating Form-Peer (PF)
2. Rating Form-Peer (CF)
. Rating Form-Peer (Pe)
. Rating Form-Peer (EE)
C fan\
-0 7- 0 1- 0 1 - 0 2 08 09 Ok 09 09
- 0 1 06 0 6 -0 8 07 05 0 2 07 19
-0 9 06 0 7 -0 3 o*+-oi 13 0 7 08
- 0 1 0 9 1 3 -0 3 07 08 07 05 11
r\£ r\n a a a « a Q a « a a 1 -* ■« o
01 13 08
07
H
?
0
09
10 00
02 08
03 05 0 7
01 10 08
07
02 10 00
-03
01+
05
10 11 0!+
01 09
08 10 11
0?
08 10 12
xo, social Situations
19. Verbal Comprehension
20. Unusual Retails
21. Unusual Uses
15 16 10 13 23
24 jO 2 . 7
32 4-1 47 18
13
20
13 27-03
0 1 30 18 24
27 29
21
35 19 13 30 -18 16
39
18
31 25 09 21
25
4l
23 30 09 23
3 1 32 29 38
31
18
17
29 34 15 22 16 24 26 22 22 39 44 10 18
1. Rating Form-Peer (PF)
2. Rating Form-Peer (CF)
3.
Rating Form-Peer (Pe)
4. Rating Form-Peer (EE)
5.
Rating Form-Peer (SP)
6. Rating Form-Peer (AX)
/ • Rating Form-Peer (SX)
O# Rating Form-Peer (GR)
9.
Rating Form-Peer (VC)
10. Rating Form-Peer (0)
11. Rating Form-Peer (IF)
12. Rating Form-Peer (L)
- 0 1 09 13-03 0 7 08
-0 6 07 06-02 0 8 -0 2
-0 1 08 10-04 0 2 07
07 13
03 09
-04 08 lit -03 10 01
-07 07 11-12 00-01
04
09 09
°Z
01 13 08
0 7 0 5 -0 1
09
10 00
02 07 19 08 02 08
03 05 0 7 0 1 10 08
07
13 07
08 12 02 10
00-03 04 05 10 11 04
07 05
11 18 01 09
08 10 11 05 08 10 12
03
11 18 06
03 15 03
0 2 0 5 -o4 02 08 10
04
07
10
07-07 05 05
06 10 04
0 5 03
01
06
03 09
01 00
07 0 6 -0 1 1 4 -0 5 13
00 10
06
07 09 11-01 00 04 04 0 2 03
0 5
01 01
21 19
13 16 00 12 12 13
1 1 1 3
12
03 27
14 12 08 12 04
03
06 0 8 00
13 19
08
13 02 08 10 02
05
08 06 10-04
0 7 09 07
08
03 07
18.-10
05
10 04 02 04 04 0 8
15
1. Bating Form-Superior (PF)
2. Rating Form-Superior (CF)
. Rating Form-Superior (Pe)
. Rating Form-Superior (EE)
5. Rating Form-Superior (SP)
6. Rating Form-Superior (AX)
7. Rating Form-Superior (SX)
8. Rating Form-Superior (GR)
9. Rating Form-Superior (VC)
10. Rating Form-Superior (0)
11. Rating Form-Superior (IF)
12. Rating Form-Superior (L)
01 Oit 07 *0*+ 14 0 9 -0 2 0 6 -0 1
00 08 08 0 5 1 8- 0 1 -0 2 0 5-Oit
-05 13 17 17 14 06 17 06 05
-02 12 11 01 20 10-05 O3 -O 6
0»t 09 07-05 13 09 00 04o4
03 05 04- 00 14- 02-05 10-04
03 07 08 02 08-02-05-05-02
02 13 12 02 10 08 03 04 02
20 24 18 09 25 14 20 15 14
02 09 12 15 07 01 10-04 09
03 03 09*03 2 1 -0 3 00 0 5 -1 0
-02 04 11 03 0 8 0 0 -0 8 03-02
12 0 6 -0 8 18 12 08
07 12 10
05
0 9- 0 9 -0 1 19 09 04 02 06 00 16
1 8 -0 9 0 5
16 08 14 12 10 12 17
13 0 5 -0 1 12 07 05
14
03 03
10 00-02 24 12 05
04 08 00
15
14 01-01 08
09 07 02 05
01 08
o4-o6 0 5 17 12
15
°3
07 12
05
18 0 2 08 14 14
09
08 11 01 09
12 02 12 29 09 24
27 20
15
18
10-09 03 13
04 10 08 06
03 14
17-10 09 19 12
05
05-05-08
21
10-01 00 22 10
03'03 07
04 10
^Decimal points have been omitted.
C X >
TABLE VI (Continued)
THE CORRELATION MATRIX
Aptitude Peer Rating
Measures Measures
20 21 1 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12
1. 24
?2
-07-01-09-01-06 -01 00 00 07 03 -04-07
2. 30 41 -01 06 06
09 07
0 8
05 02
13 09
0 8
07
3. 27
-01 06
07 13
06 10 16 10
23
08 14 11
4.
C
/ •
09
33
18
25
-0 2- 0 8 -0 3 - 0 3- 0 2 -0 4
08 0 7 04 0 7 0 8 -0 2
0 0 -0 5
0 9 0 7
00
25
0 8- 0 3 -1 2
10 10 00
6*
31 17 09 05-01 0 8- -02 07-04 08 01 11 01-01
7. 25 29 04 02
13 07 03
04 06 06 21 14
13
0 8
8. 41
31 * 09 07 07
05
11
07 03 07 19 12 02
03
.9. 23 15 09 19
0 8 11 18 10 09 09
13 0 8 08
07
10. 30 22 07
08 12 18 06
07
01 11 16 12 10 18
U. 09
16 01 02 02 01
03-07
00-01 00 04 02-10
12.
23
24
13
08 10
09 15 05 07 00 12
03 05 05
13. 31
26 08
03 00 08
03 0 5
06 04 12 17
08 10
14. 32 22 07 05-03 10 02 06 -01 04
13
06 06 04
15. 29 22 05
07 04 11 05 10 14 02 11 08 10 02
16.
3»
??
-01 01 05
05-04
04-05 03 13
00-04 04
17. 31
44
09
10 10 08 02 05 13 05 12
13 07
04
1 8. 18 10 10 08 11 10 08
03
00 01
03 19 09
08
19. 17
18 00
07
04 12 10 0 1 10 01 28 08
07 15
20. 24 08
09
04 06
05 13 -03 09
10 07
08
05
21.
24
0 5
04
03
10 12 04 16 06 26 06 08
07
_ A _ _
/ ^ p 'n C'A Lcr ■ C i ; n • i l l .£4
o5-oi
-01 -01
03 03
01 03
-05 03
03 oo
-09 03
00 12
16 22
01 02
02 03
-07-01
07
05
oB-03
07 04
10
11
0 2
05
o6 -
10
-01
14
04
0 2
13
11
06
08
06
10
04
0 2
- 0 1 0 1 05
05-■04 oi+-o5 03 13
00-04 04
09
10 10 08 0 2 05 13 05 1 2
13 07
04
10 08 li 10 08
03
00 0 1
03 19 09
08
00
07
04 12 10 0 1 10 0 1 28 08
°l
15
08
09
04 06
05 13 ■ -03 09
10 07
08
05
05
04 03
10 12 Ob 16 06 26 06 08
07
65 22 57 59
66
65
28
31
34 54
65 30 66 6b 58 48
67
3?
45
48 6 2
22 30 21 2b
07 31 25 34
33
37
16
57
66 21 67 6 2 49
68 34 50 74
59 6b 2k 67 55
70 42 44 52 65
66 58 07
62 55 38 71
24
23
32 6 2
45
48
31 49 55 38 50 b6
49 6o 42
65 67 25
68 70 71 50 43 45 63
28
37 3k 34 42 24 46
43
42 47 31
31 45 33
38 44
23 49 34 42 52 40
34 48
37
50 52 32 60 45 47 52
48
48
54 6 2 16 7b
65
62 42
63 31
4o
33
28 16 27
18
25 12 23 03 19
10 25
20 19
08 24 18 18 08
19 11
13
14 28
08 10 09
11
13
02 09 09
04 14
09 15
26
23 05 30
2b 18 16 18
07 22 21
31
23 19 05 25
18
17 15
14 09
18 21 25
29 29
11 30
26
29 15 32 09
18
15 27
24 17
14
23 17
16 18
17 02
13 19 22
k2 38 18
43 30 3b 22
34
21 27 29 37
02 06 21 01 01 00 15 02 19
18 14 06
04
07 15
10 07-01 05 07 05
08
°?
09
13
10
05
10 07 05
10 05
10
05
14 14
29 34 07 36
28
23
14 22 02 24
17
40
TABLE VI (Continued)
THE CORRELATION MATRIX
Superior Rating
Measures
1 2 3 ^ 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 12
1. 01 00-05 02 04 03 03 02 20 02 03 02
2. 04- 08 13 12 09 05 07 13 24 09 03 04
3. 07 0 8 17 11 07 04 0 8 1 2 18 12 09 H
4. -01* 05 17 01-05 00 0 2 0 2 09 15-03 03
5. I1 * 18 14 20 13 14 0 8 10 25 07 21 08
6. 09-01 06 10 09 02-02 0 8 14- 01-03 00
7. -0 2 -0 2 17-05 00-05-05 03 20 10 0 0 -0 8
8. 06 05 06 03 Ob 10-05 04 15-04 05 03
9. -01 04 05-06-04-04-02 0 2 14 0 9- 1 0 -0 2
1 0. 12 09 18 13 10 14 04 18 12 10 17 10
1 1. 06-09-09 0 5 0 0 0 1 -0 6 0 2 02-09-10-01
12. -0 8 0 1 05-01-02-01 05 08 12 03 09 00
1 3. 18 19 16 13 24 08 17 14 28 13 19 22
14. 12 09 08 12 12 09 12 14 09 04 12 10
15. 08 04 14 07 05 07 15 09 24 10 05 03
1 6. 07 0 2 12 0 5 0 4 0 2 03 0 8 27 0 8 0 5-03
1 7. 12 06 10 14 08 05 07 11 20 06-05 07
1 8. 10 00 12 03 00 01 12 01 15 0 3 -0 8 04
19. O* » 16 17 03 15 0 8 0 5 09 18 14 21 10
2 0. 0 5 -0 1 03 0 1 -0 5 0 3 -0 9 00 16 0 1 02-07
21. • -01-01 03 03 03 00 03 12 22 02 03-01
1 4. 12 09 Ob 12 12 09 12 14-
09
UH- 12 1U
15.
08 04 14
07 05 07 15 09 24 10
05 03
16. 07 02 12 05
04 02
03
08
27
08
0 5 -0 3
17.
12 06 10 14 08
05 07
11 20 06-05 07
1 8. 10 00 12
03
00 01 12 01
15 03
-08 04
19.
O'? 16
17 03 15
08
05 09
18 14 21 10
20. 05-01 03 01
-05 03-09
00 16 01 02-07
*
H
CM
• -01-01
03 03 03
00
03
12 22 02 0 3 -0 1
1. 33
20 08 26
23 29 24 42 02 04
13 29
2.
28
3.9 10 23 19 29 17 38 06
07
10 34
3.
16 08
09 05 05
11 14 18 21
15 0 5 07
4. 27
24 11 30 25 39 23 *+3
01 10 10 36
5.
18 18
13
24 18 26
17 30 01 07 07
28
6. 25
18 02 18
17 29
16 34-00-01
05 23
7.
12 08
09
16
15 15
18 22 15 05
10 14
8.
23 19 09
18 14 32 17 34
04
07 0 5 22
9. 03
11 04 07
05
09 02 21 19 05
10 02
10. 19 13
14 22 18 18
13 27
18 08 05 24
11. 10 14
09
21 21 15 19 29
14
03
14
17
12. 25
28
15 31 25 27 22 37
06
09
14 40
1 . 56 18
57 54 67 38 59
14
17 29 58
2. 56 29 63 67 54 56
51 29 25 47
63
3. 18
29 31 30
18
36 16 29
41 21
36
4. 57 63 31
76 61
53
66
25
26 44 72
5.
54 6 7 30 76 61 56 65 35 30 53
66
O
6. 67 54 18 61 61 35
68 16
17 32 53
7.
38 56 36 53
56
35 45 32 37 47 56
e
8. 59 51
16 66
65
68
45 17 25 36 6 2
9.
14 29 29 25 35
16 32 17 29 22
18
10. 17 25
41 26
30 17
P7
25 29 25
P1
11. 29 47 21
53
32 47
36 22
2 5 ,
43
12. 58
63
36 72 66
53
56 62
18
3 1 43
■r
o
*fl
The Aptitude Factors
The SWAC was employed to extract thirteen factors
from the test matrix, using Thurstone's centroid method.
The centroid matrix appears in Table VII.
It was necessary to perform 113 rotations by a
graphical method (50) in order to achieve a satisfactory
solution. The graphical rotations were directed toward
the approximation of simple structure, positive manifold,
and psychological meaningfulness (11, l1 *, ^9) • It is felt
that the first two criteria were met if one adopts the con
vention of plus or minus .10 being zero, and greater than
,30 as being a significant loading. Psychological mpaning
will be demonstrated in the next chapter. The rotated
factor matrix is given in Table VIII.
It was possible to identify eleven factors and two
residual factors. Each test had a loading of greater than
.30, which was selected a3 the point of significance, on at
least one of the non-residual factors.
The Rating Factors
The SWAC was also employed to extract seven factors
from each of the rating matrices using the same method as
with the test matrix. The peer rating centroid matrix
appears in Table IX and the superior rating centroid matrix
in Table XI.
o
TABLE VII
CENTROID FACTOR MATRIX OF APTITUDE MEASURES*
A B c D E F G H I J K L M h2
1
57 -15
08 22
25
06 11 -12 12 -02 -10 -10
55
2 61 -28 -13
07 05 05 -17
x3
-17
-06 08 -10 06 58
3 55
-24 08
-29
16
13
-14 -06 11 -12 10 04 -08
57
4
43 25 -35 09 07 -07 -07 19 11 -12 08 21 -07 51
5 55
-14 26
-13
-16
07
06 26
-15 -17 07 21 03
61
6 50 -21 -21 10 -30 08 11 -26
-03
04 12 10 -16
59
n
52 38 -13
-26. 06
09 09 -13
12 -08 -06 10 11 58
8 58 -21 17
06 14 -21
13 05 -05
16 -10 08 04
55
9 39
2b -20
09
04
-09
-11
-09 -20 -08
05
-06 08
34
10 Ob 26 -10 -11 12 -08
-13 -05 02 06 08 10
38
11 28
-51 -33 15
-14
15 17 15
-21 -14
-19 05 03
66
12 42
33 -31
-14 12 -25 17
04
-17
14 06 08 -09 57
58 17
16 12
13
11 -04 -16 14 10 -11 -09 55
1^
53 -05 09
04 -15 05
°?
21 -10 04
-09 03 40
15
5?
36 -09
14
13
-0^ 10 04
15
-08
17
-02
07
61
16 68 02 -06 -11 -22 05
10 12 18
13 15
-12 -07
64
65 -32 -07
14 04
19
04 -04 11
15
-11 14
15
68
18 34 14 21 21
-13
14- -12 06 06
19 07 09 15 35
19 37 35 43
-18
13 17 17
14 -08
-13
04 -06 10 60
20
53 -05 12 -04- -11 -22 10 -14 -10 09
08
-05 15
44
21
53 -15 -07
-26
27 12 -09
06 08 16
-07
-11 -02
53
^Decimal points have been omitted
-r
ro
TABLE VIII
ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX OF APTITUDES*
A **
2H-
b15
CO
H
O
D16
00
w"1
F19 G21 H18
I19 22
%
%
m5 1?
1 28 10 10
36 2b
3°
09
10 32 -09 -12 —09 -lH-
55
2 06 18 -01
29 21 £ l OH-
19
2b 2b 16 -18
19
58
3
16 16 10 18 5b 12 -10 08 26
19
-08 OH-
15 55
b 36 27
-08
-09 01 28
-05 -05 29
-02 35 15
Ob
53
5 -03
12 30 18 08
-05 25 39
bl
07
20
07
60
6 10 10 -20 -12
23
26 16 H3 30 lb -OH —OH-
-15 59
7
33
bQ
19
-11
23
-06 20 06 22 —05
IO 18 08
57
8 -08 -01
15 37
28 22 25 13
32 02 20 11 -10 5H-
9 25 33
-01 0H-
03 27 23 05
-06
09
20 00 01
35
10
°3
20 18
05 22 07 25
06 22 32 -1-3 10 02
37
11 -18
13
-20
25
-07
23
56
27
-06 08 -1H-
13 67
12 18
25 17
-16 20 22 18 12 -01 •lb 50 17
-08
59
X3
10 20
35
06 ih-
H3 29
Ob 20
05
-02 -09
-18
P
lb
27
0H-
07 19 15
00 12
38 23 15 -07
-10 bl
15
50 20 21 00
05 23
26
-05 3°
-01 20 0H-
-03 59
16 20 13 19 -12 29 09
16 20
H9 21
23
-20
-05 65
-05 16 -08
23 27
2Z
23
20 58 -OH -OH- -OH- 12 68
18 -Oh-
09
10
-05 -05
18 32 -16
35
22 -06 00 00 36
19 15 25 67
10 02 -01 11 -08 lb lb -08 11 02 62
20
09 03
1H-
17
2b
09
bl
25 lb 21 15
0H-
-05
HH-
21 00
23 15 15
52
13
01 -02
25
—06
13
-1H
17 52
^Decimal points have been omitted,
**Subscript indicates number of times axis was rotated.
4H-
TABLE IX
CENTROID FACTOR MATRIX OF PEER RATINGS*
A B C D E F G h2
1 72 -28
22 -15 -15
-10 06 70
2 79
-Ilf
07 07 -17
-04- 08
69
3
38 35 19 15 -09
06 16 36
i f 80 -2H -21
07 03
11 06 76
5
80 -10 -10 06 08 -16 06 70
6
69
-4H 10
-19 05
11 -12 7H
7 69
28
-05 -22 12 -12 11
65
8 81 -26
17
04- 24-
03
06 82
9 55 33
11 11
17
-OH
-07 4-7
10 58
35 -09
06
-15 -09 -10
51
11 68
35
-16 -OH 04-
09
08
63
12 76
-25 -25
IO -04-
13
-11 74-
4
Decimal points have been omitted.
It was necessary to perform twenty-seven rotations
by the same method outlined above in order to achieve a
satisfactory solution to the peer variables. The superior
solution required fourteen rotations by the same method.
Objectives of the rotations were the same as outlined for
the aptitude analysis and it is felt that these objectives
were met. The respective rotated factor matrices are given
in Tables X and XII.
9
o
TABLE X
ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX OF PEER RATINGS
**
Allf Bn C8
d7 E^
Gl
h2
1
17 63
b8 -01
-13
-20
-03 71
2
15 75 23 13
-12 -1^ -02
69
3 05 51
-21 -21 08 06
09 37
k
23
66 26 -11
03 07 77
5
32 65 19 29
Ob -20
09 69
6 16 50
65
22
-03
02 -08
75
7 58 53
06
-03
10 -01 16 66
8 12 69
k6 22 18 -06 18 82
9
26
53
t
o
CO
-01
35
02
03
b8
10
37
56 -20 01 06
-03
-16 52
11 k6 61 -11 08
05 17 09
6^
12 21 61 Zb
*+9
-10
05
-11 7b
Decimal points have been omitted.
Subscript indicates number of times axis was
rotated.
47
TABLE XI
CENTROID FACTOR MATRIX OF SUPERIOR RATINGS*
A B C D E F G h2
1 68 36 17 -05
-21 -08
-03 67
2 77 07
-16 -16 -18 02 07
69
3
44
-39
14 16 -12 16 -10 42
4
83
21
-13
12
09
16 -02 80
5 85
08
-13
-10 21 12 05 82
6 70
39
26 -14 04
-07 -07 74
7 69
-24
-15
04
-05
-10 12 58
8
73 31
11 10 21 -19
14
75
9 38 -31
08 -16
07 19 12
33
10 44 -42 21 16 04
-05 -03
44
11
57 -12 -25 -12 08
-15
-08
45
12 80
13
-12 29
-16 -02
03
78
*
Decimal points have been omitted.
48
TABLE XII
ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX OF SUPERIOR RATINGS*
**
A3
-0 “ 1
1
1
C1
D 7
e4
P3 G3
h2
1
-23 50 52
18 -21 -17 -05
68
2 -10
77
16 08 -20 -08 -01 68
3 45 36 14 20 -14 16
-05 44
4 -18
73
26
39 03
12
05
80
5
-10
83
22 18
17 07
04 82
6 -25
51
61
13 05 -13
-10 74
7 22 68
03
18 -06 -14
13
58
8
-19 54 46
29 19
-20 21 74
9
28
43
10 -14
05 17 05 33
10 52
33 19
18 04 -02 04
45
11
05
61
-05 13
11 -19 -09 45
12 -06 64
23 49 —21
-07
14
77
Decimal points have been omitted.
Subscript Indicates number of times axis vas
rotated.
CHAPTER VI
INTERPRETATION OF THE FACTORS
The Aptitude Factors
The factors are listed in the order In which they
appear at the head of the rotated matrix in Taole VIII.
Both test names and numbers are given, with the magnitude
of their loadings on the factor, and with loadings, If any,
on other factors appearing in parentheses. Only tests with
loadings of .30 or greater are listed as being representa
tive of fhe factor. This information Is given In Table XIII
for comparative purposes.
This ractor is Identified by it3 leading test, Ship
Destination. All three tests involve some figural aspects
but the fact that Ship Destination does not load signifi
cantly on the factors of perceptual foresight and adaptive
flexlDilltv indicates that these figural aspects are negli
giole. Competitive Planning Involves manipulation of
several variables under certain conditions to achieve a
Factor A.. -General Reasoning (GR)
15. Ship Destination
M-. Competitive Planning
7. Match Problems III
.50 (Pe .30)
50
TABLE XIII
ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX. OF APTITUDES GROUPED BY VARIABLES
AND SHOWING ONLY SIGNIFICANT LOADINGS (.30 OR GREATER)
GR AA. VC CF SX SP EE
IP
Pe 0 PF r r
A B C D E F G H I J K L M
15 50 30
7 33 **8
9 33
19 67
1 36 30 32
8 37 32
3 51 *
21 52
2 *fl
13 35 **3 ,
20 1*1
18 32 35
6 k8 30
11 56
16 **?
17 58
5 30 39 *U
10 32
12 50
if 36 35
i»f 38
*
Decimal points have Been omitted.
51
desired outcome. Match ProDlems III involves patterning
and manipulation under restricted conditions with several
possible outcomes. In this latter test, the aeslred out
come is not as clearly structured as in the former tests.
Ship Destination has consistently acted as a leading test,
being loaded highly on this factor In other studies (17,
The tests vnlch have loadings on this factor involve
principally figural materials. The factor is identified by
the mental processes involved, chiefly those of shifting or
changing set in order to make divergent approaches in
arriving at a solution. Match Problems III requires a
mental shifting to find alternate solutions to the same
problem. Planning Air Maneuvers requires the use of diver
gent approaches, under different conditions toward a unique
solution. This factor seems to represent ability to employ
a rlexible approach to the solution of a task. Other
studies (18, 21) support this interpretation.
19, 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32)
Factor B. Adaptive Flexibility (AX1
7. Match Problems III
9. Planning Air Maneuvers
.kQ (GR .33)
.33
Factor 0. Verbal Comprehension (VCl
19. Verbal Comprehension
13. Seeing Deficiencies
5. Consequences, remote
.67
.35 (SP .Jf3)
.30 (0 ,lfl
Pe .39)
52
This is the well-known ractor of verbal comprehen
sion. All of the tests loading on this factor involve
knowledge of words. Previous studies (17, 19, 21, 22, 25,
27, 28, 29, 30, 32) indicate this factor to oe clear-cut.
Seeing Deficiencies and Consequences, remote, both require
some verbal ability.
Factor D. Conceptual Foresight (CF)
The side loadings of the two tests on this ractor
leads one to speculate on the independence of the concep
tual foresight and penetration factors. It will be obvious
later that penetration has several other tests loading on
it which are clearly independent of conceptual foresight.
This factor appeared in another study (25) and is princi
pally identified by the requirement of having to anticipate
the needs of a given problem situation. It is logical that
some penetrative ability Is Involved.
Factor E. Spontaneous Flexibility (SX)
8, Pertinent Questions
1. Alternate Methods
.37 (Pe .32)
.36 (Pe .32
SP .30)
3. Brick Uses
21. Unusual Uses
.54
.52
Both of these tests have appeared on this factor in
several studies (21, 28, 30, 32). The absence of side load
ings lends support to the relative pureness of these two
tests. The absence of other test loadings established the
factor as well defined. Both of these tests require the
production of diverse ideas in a relatively unrestricted
situation.
All of the tests loading on this factor require the
recognition of problems. Test variable 1*+ (Seeing Prob
lems) was hypothesized to load on this factor. This test
did not require as high a degree of recognition of problems
as did Seeing Deficiencies and Apparatus. The ract that
Seeing Problems and Alternate Methods both load on the
penetration factor indicates more work is needed to clarify
the two factors. It is difficult to accept Seeing Problems
as requiring penetration whereas it would seem logical for
Seeing Deficiencies to require this ability. This factor
has appeared in other studies (21, 26, 28).
Factor F. Sensitivity to Problems (SP)
13. Seeing Deficiencies
2. Apparatus
1. Alternate Methods
A3 (VC .35)
A1
.30 (CF .36
Pe .32)
Factor G. Experiential Evaluation (EE)
20. Unusual Details
18. Social Situations
Al
.32 (P .35)
Both of these tests require the utilization of
knowledge gained through past experience in order to arrive
at a solution in a relatively well structured situation*
The loading of Social Situations on penetration may reflect
the fact that this test requires a Droader application of
past experience. The social aspects of the test may also
play a part in its relative complexity. Not too much is
Xnown about this factor and it has been demonstrated in
only one study (22).
Plot Titles, low quality, and Consequences, obvious,
25) • In both tests, quantity of ideas is scored without
regard to quality. It seems reasonable that the tests are
measuring fluency of ideas.
Factor I. .Penetration (Pe)
Factor H. Ideational Fluency_CIFJ
11. Plot Titles, low quality
6. Consequences, obvious
have been prominent on the same factor in other studies (21
17. Social Institutions
16. Similarities
5. Consequences, remote
.4-9
.39 (0 Al
VC .30)
.38
A. Seeing Problems
18. Social Situations
1. Alternate Methods
A5 (EE .32)
.32 (CF .36
8. Pertinent Questions
15o Ship Destination
6. Consequences, obvious
.32 (CF ,37)
.30 (GR .50)
.30 (IF A8)
SP .30)
This factor might well be a second order factor. It
is characterized by the large number of tests loading on it
55
as well as the fact that Seeing Problems, which was hypoth
esized to load on the sensitivity to problems factor,
loaded on penetration Instead. The two hypothesized tests,
Social Institutions and Similarities, turn out to be the
leading tests. The loadings of these two tests and the
fact that they do not load on any other factors makes
reasonable the interpretation of the factor as the ability
to see beyond the immediate or obvious. Another study (28)
supports the idea that this factor needs further refine
ment.
Factor J. Originality (0)
5. Consequences, remote (Pe .39
VC .30)
10. Plot Titles, high quality ,32
Both of these tests satisfy the definition of
Originality. Consequences, remote, has appeared on this
factor in other studies as has Plot Titles, high quality
(21, 251 26, 28, 29, 30, 32). The side loadings are
explainable in terms of the requirements of the tests.
Consequences involves some ability to see beyond the immedi
ate consequences. Plot Titles, high quality, Involves
mostly cleverness and it is somewhat surprising that it had
no side loading on verbal comprehension considering the
necessary involvement of knowledge of words and their mean
ings.
©
56
Factor K. Perceptual Foresight (PF)
12. Route Planning .50
*t. Competitive Planning .35 (GR .36)
Both of these tests involve figural material and
require visual exploration before deciding on a course of
action. The factor is easily identified in these terms.
The side loading of Competitive Planning points toward
some general reasoning ability as being required. It is
felt that this side loading is not due to the figural
aspects as Planning Air Maneuvers and Route Planning, both
of which involve figural material, had no side loadings on
the general reasoning factor. One other study discusses
this factor (25).
Factor L. Residual (r)
Factor M. Residual (r)
Factors L and M are considered to be residual fac
tors, with no tests having loadings of the magnitude of
greater than .20 on either of them.
The Rating Factors
The factors are listed in the order in which they
appear at the head of the rotated matrix in Tables X and
XII. The name of the factor that each variable was
hypothesized to measure Is given as well as the variable
number. The loadings on the factor for both peers (P) and
superiors (S) are given along with loadings, if any, on
other factors appearing in parentheses. Only loadings of
.30 or greater are listed as being representative of the
factors. This information is combined for all factors in
Table XXV for comparative purposes.
Factor A. Competence (C)
P s P s
11. Ideational Fluency .k6 (H .61 .61)
5.
Sensitivity to
.65 .83) Problems .32
(H
7.
Spontaneous Flexi
.58
.68) bility
.52
(H
.53
10. Originality
.37
(H .56 .33)
3.
Penetration
.^5
(H
.51 .36)
All of the items for the rating variables designed
to measure these aptitude factors describe situations that
imply competence in military situations. The possible
exception is in the Originality items. The inference made
here is that the raters were judging the ratees as to how
well they knew or could do specific military tasks.
Factor B. Halo (H)
Every variable is loaded on this factor in both the
peer and superior analyses and it is easier to make com
parisons by referring to Table XIII than to list each
variable and its loading here. This factor is interpreted
as a halo effect because every variable is loaded
6
1
8
12
4
11
5
7
10
3
9
2
58
TABLE XIV
ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX OF PEER AND SUPERIOR RATINGS,
GROUPED BY VARIABLES AND SHOWING ONLY
SIGNIFICANT LOADINGS (.30 OR GREATER)a
Rb L C I r H r r
Cc D A E B F G
Pd S ® P S P S P S P S P S P S
65 6l
4-8 52
46 46
4-9 4-9
44- 39
46
32
58
37 52
45
35
p s
50
51
63
50
69 54
61 64
66
73
61 61
65 83
68
56 33
51
53 43
75 43
aDecimal points have been omitted.
Factor symbol,
factor matrix designation.
dPeer.
eSuperior.
substantially on it in both analyses. It is distinguish
able from what is usually called a general factor on the
basis that the rating scales were not a sample of the
raters' behavior in the usual sense of the word. The rat
ing scales were samples of the raters' behavior as he rates
another person. There seems to be no other logical explan
ation of this phenomenon and calling it simply a general
factor would be avoiding an interpretation that seems logi
cal and reasonable.
It was discovered after this analysis was complete
•that Creager (8) had found a halo factor in an analysis of
ratings of foremen. He also found three other factors, one
of which, administrative skillsf comes close to what Is
called competence here. In an unpublished study, in
cooperation with the Institute for Personality Assessment
Research, ratings of creative traits emerged together on a
factor that could be interpreted as halo.
Factor C. Ruggednes_s (R)
P S P S
6. Adaptive Flexibility .65 .61 (H .50 .51)
1. Perceptual Foresight .48 .52 (H .03 .50)
8* General Reasoning ,46 .46 (H .69 .54)
These rating variables consisted of items which
referred to combat conditions. The inference is that the
rater was rating as to ability to function In a stress
situation. It therefore appears that competence or
I
60
intelligence was not crucial in the raters' judgments but
rather how "rugged" the ratee appeared in terms of "old
Corps" tradition.
Factor D. Leadership (L)
PS PS
12. Leadership .49 .*+9 (H .61 .61+)
4. Experiential Evaluation .44 ,39 (H .66 . 73)
The leadership variable identifies this factor. The
experiential evaluation items implied leadership decisions.
Factor E. Intellectual (I)
P S P S
9. Verbal Comprehension .35 (H .53 *43)
The interpretation of this factor is based on the
inference that the raters were confining their judgment to
intellectual behavior in the form of use and knowledge of
words. This factor did not appear in the superior analysis
and is considered a residual factor for superior.
Factor F_. Residual (r)
Factor G. Residual (r)
Factors F and G are considered to be residual fac
tors, with no tests having loadings of the magnitude of
greater than .20 on either of them.
o
CHAPTER VII
RESULTS
The . Aptitude Fact.ora
All of the hypothesized aptitude factors emerged and
all of the aptitude tests except one, were found loaded on
their hypothesized factors. Table XIII indicates that most
of the aptitude tests were relatively pure measures.
Twelve of these measures are of complexity one, seven are
of complexity two, and the remaining two measures are of
complexity three.
Penetration appears to be the only factor not per
mitting a clear interpretation. From the data shown in
Table VIII and Table XIII, It appears that penetration Is
possibly a second-order factor.
The relative Independence of the aptitude factors Is
demonstrated in Table XV.
The Rating Factors
Five factors emerged for the peer ratings: rugged
ness . leadership, competence, intellectual, and a halo
factor. The same factors emerged for the superior ratings
with the exception of the intellectual factor. The
62
TABLE XV
CORRELATIONS* BETWEEN COMPOSITES OF
TESTS OF THE APTITUDE FACTORS3
GR AX VC CF SX SP EE IF Pe 0 PF
GR 48 31
38
26 42
35 12
27 51
AX 30 25 31
36 30
16
38 27
48
14 VC
23 23 29 25
-16 20 4l
CF 47
??
39 55 bo 26
SX 46
27
26 56 42
25
SP
43 39
?8
46
33
EE 20 49 45
18
IF
53 29
18
Pe
49 34
0 18
PF
rla ♦ rlb * r2a ♦ r2b
where 1 and 2 are
*r 1 2 - ,
components in one
oc \fTT,
^12 \J‘
I ♦
^ab
composite
are those
, a
In
and
the
b
other. (See refer
ence 32)
aDecimal points have been omitted.
o
63
similarity of the two factor structures is shown in Table
XIV.
Although peers and superiors agreed on the meaning
and use of the rating scale (Table XVI), they did not agree
on the degree of possession of these attributes by the
ratees. Table V gives evidence of this low degree of
agreement*
The correlations between peers and superiors (Table
V) were corrected for attenuation in order to determine the
maximum possible agreement that could be expected to exist
between them. The results of these computations indicate
that there is little agreement between the peers and the
superiors* The highest agreement between them is on
leadership ratings. The lowest agreement is on the items
intended to measure originality. These items appeared on
the competence factor for both peers and superiors* It
would appear then, that the peers do not agree with their
superiors on the degree of competence of the ratee.
Table XVI indicates that the peers and superiors agree most
on leadership and least on competence. The same table
indicates that peers and superiors view leadership and
rueeedness as being more similar than any of the other
rating factors.
Relationship between Aptitude Factors and Hating Factors
The peer factor of Intellectual correlates, at a
o
6*f
TABLE XVX
COMPOSITE CORRELATIONS BETWEEN RATING FACTORSa
Rp Lp Cp Ip Rs Ls Cs
9s*
Rp 69
1+6
29 35 28 OM- 01
Lp
57 35 32 40 l*f ob
Cp 52 16 20
09
16
IP 07 05 05 19
Rs 68
23
16
Ls ko
23
Cs
_ *
9s
35
aDecimal points have been omitted.
*Not a rating factor.
o
65
significant level, with seven of the eleven aptitude fac
tors. Table XVII gives this information. Interestingly,
superior variable 9» which does not represent a rating fac
tor for superiors but does so for the peers, correlated
significantly with nine of the eleven aptitude factors.
The superior factor of competence correlates, at a signifi
cant level, with six of the eleven aptitude factors while
the same peer factor correlates with only one aptitude
factor. The other rating factors do not correlate signifi
cantly except in one or two cases.
Leadership Criterion and aptitude Factors
The general criterion (leadership rating) failed to
correlate with the aptitude factors. Table XVIII gives the
correlations between superior variable 12 (criterion) and
the composites of the aptitude factors. In view of the low
correlations, multiple regression computations were not
performed.
Other Results
The correlation matrix (Table VI) indicates that the
rating scale items designed to measure specific aptitude
factors, was unable to do so.
Frequency distributions of each group of rating
scale items intended to measure specific factors, showed
symmetrical distributions. Figure 1 shows a comparison
a
TABLE XVII
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN COMPOSITES FOR RATING FACTORS
AND COMPOSITES FOR APTITUDE FACTORSa
GR AX VC CF sx SP EE IF Pe 0 PF
Hp
08
09
01
03
06
07 12
03
06
07
Olf
Lp
07
11 Ilf* 00
13
11 10 -01
07
Ilf* 00
t o
(H
o Cp
13 13
10 00 18**
09 05
00 Olf 10
03
P
a
c a
Ip 11 21**
**
27 15
**
29
*
15
08 01
15*
**
25 07
W)
a
Rs 08
-03 07
06
03
12
07
06
09
18**--Olf
• r t
+>
c d
Ls
Cs
05
lif*
-07
*
15
07
**
18
01
00
08
12
17*
19**
00
07
ir\
o o
i
07
13
17*
18
01
Ilf*
Q b
9s 2^**
**
21
18**
**
21
**
23
**
32
**
20 10
o**
28
**
23 13
aDecimal points have been omitted.
bNot a rating factor.
t
67
TABLE XVIII
COMPOSITE CORRELATIONS BETWEEN CRITERION (SUPERIOR-
LEADERSHIP) AND APTITUDE FACTORS
GR AX VC CV SX SP EE IF P 0 PF
03 -.06 .10 .01 .06 .16 -.02 -.01 .02 .11 .02
Poor Leadership Good
FIGURE 1
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS OF FITNESS
REPORT RATINGS AND RATING FORM
USED IN THIS STUDY
Fitness reports
this study
CHAPTER VIII
DISCUSSION
The Aptitude Factors
One of the significant aspects of this study is the
fact that not only all of the hypothesized aptitude fac
tors emerged, but most of the aptitude tests were rela
tively pure measures. Table XIII indicates that
disregarding the factor of penetration, sixteen of the
measures are of complexity one and the remaining five
measures are of complexity two. This study can serve as a
demonstration of the advantages of carefully selecting
known and validated tests for a validation study.
The penetration factor needs further investigation
as a glance at Table VIII and Table XIII will indicate.
The composite correlations between combinations of tests
of the factors shown in Table XV indicate the advisability
of performing a factor analysis of the factors to give a
clearer picture of the factor structure. In the absence
of such an analysis, it seems reasonable to postulate
penetration as a second-order factor. It should be
pointed out that it Is possible that penetration may
appear complex as a function of this particular military
70
population.
The verification of these factors (with the possible
exception of penetration) leaves little doubt as to their
existence as meaningful psychological dimensions. The low-
order factor complexity of the aptitude tests indicates
that we have good instruments for measuring these factors.
The aptitude tests used in this study have been
used in other studies and in other batteries composed of
different combinations of tests. These tests were able to
define the same factors in other populations as they
defined in this study. This indicates that as far as
possession of these particular aptitude factors are con
cerned, Marine Corps officers do not differ from other
sample populations. The other sample populations included
both military and non-military samples.
The Rating Factors
The rating scale evidently did not measure the
degree of possession of the aptitude factors. The reason
for this failure is clear as a result of the two factor
analyses of the peer and superior ratings. The items on
the rating scale were evidently structured by the raters
as measuring three to four attributes. Inferentially it
appears that the peer raters viewed the items as reflect
ing ruggedness, leadership, competence, and Intellectual
71
ability. The superior raters viewed the items in the same
way except that they did not rate as if intellectual abil
ity were a separate dimension.
The question as to why the peers structured certain
items as intellectual ability and the superiors did not,
is one that must be answered by speculation. It is possi
ble that the peers are more impressed, and consider as
important, the ability to use and understand difficult
words. In view of the degree of education of this sample,
this would not be surprising. The superiors might not
only be less impressed by verbal ability but find them
selves in a position from which it is difficult to judge
possession of the ability.
A significant aspect of the rating analyses is the
similarity in the two factor structures shown in Table XIV.
This result cannot help but point out the advantages of
the factor-analytic methods used in this study.
The correlations between composites for the rating
factors shown in Table XVI include the variable for
superiors which identified the intellectual factor for the
peers. It is interesting to note that this superior varia
ble correlates with the aptitude factors as highly as the
peer factor of intellectual. It may be that the superior^
although not viewing Intellectual ability as an attribute,
are nevertheless taking it .into account.
72
It is significant that the frequency distributions
of rating scale items were symmetrical. The results from
actual fitness reports show a negatively skewed distribu
tion. It is difficult to determine whether this symmetri
cal distribution is the result of the hypothesized forced
objectivity of the rating scale or because the raters were
told that the results would not be shown to the ratees nor
would they become part of the official records.
The differences in the frequency distributions
between the rating scale used in this study and the fit
ness report used in the Marine Corps (Figure 1), indicate
that the former is a more sensitive measure than the
latter. The implications of this finding for the evalua
tion of officers are clear. Further investigation Is
needed to determine the reasons for the greater sensitiv
ity of the rating scale used in this study. Such an inves
tigation would greatly increase the value, and help accom
plish the purpose of the fitness report and other
instruments used to evaluate and discriminate between
military officers.
Other Results
Table XVII shows that superior variable 9 and the
peer intellectual factor do not correlate with the aptitude
factor of ideational fluency. This is interesting because
it is often assumed that many persons commonly associate
the expression of many ideas with intelligence. These
findings would seem to indicate that there is no necessary
relationship between the expression of many ideas and
intelligence as measured in this study. It should be
pointed out that the peer intellectual factor was deter
mined in large part by items of a verbal comprehension
nature. However, Table XV shows the aptitude factor of
verbal comprehension correlated -.16 with ideational
fluency and this was the only minus correlation appearing
in the correlations between aptitude factors. A conserva
tive interpretation would be that there is no relationship
between ideational fluency and verbal comprehension as
measured here.
From these data, one can infer that what peers view
as intellectual and superiors view as competence are
roughly, in this situation, the best predictors of aptitude
factors.
Table XVI indicates that peers view ruggedness and
leadership as being most similar and ruggedness and intel
lectual as being least similar. The pattern for superiors
is the same in this respect.
Conclusions
In view of the foregoing, it would appear that
Guilford is justified in his interpretation of leadership
7>+
as a property of behavior rather than as a "unitary, human
commodity" (13)• The alternate explanation would be the
possibility that the necessary factors involved in leader
ship are not yet known. In view of the amount of research
done in this area in the past, and considering the results
of this study, such an explanation does not seem reason
able. It appears that military leadership is so complex
and broad that it is not feasible to investigate a general
concept of leadership in terms of unique abilities and
traits.
The results of this study lead to the following
summarized conclusions:
1. The postulated aptitude factors do exist in a
military population.
2. The relationship of these factors to military
leadership as rated by associates is negligible.
3. The rating scale constructed to measure the
degree of possession of the aptitude factors
did not do so.
*f. Peers and superiors generally agree as to the
meanings and use of the rating scale but do not
agree on the degree of possession of the apti
tude factors by the ratees.
5. Peers are more impressed by intellectual
differences than are superiors.
Penetration is probably a second-order factor.
The aptitude measures used in this study were
relatively pure measures in this analysis.
Of the ratine items used in this study, verbal
comprehension ratings are the best predictors
of aptitude factors.
Both peers and superiors rated officers as to
leadership ability along a continuum which
shows an essentially normal distribution when a
check-list form of rating procedure was used.
CHAPTER IX
SUMMARY
The Problem
This study was designed to investigate the relation
ship between intellectual aptitudes and military leader
ship. It was also designed to develop a rating scale which
would accurately evaluate the degree of possession of these
aptitudes within the individual military leader.
It was hypothesized that eleven aptitudes were
important to military leadership. These factors are per
ceptual foresight, conceptual foresight, penetration.
experiential evaluation, sensitivity to problems, adaptive
flexibility, spontaneous flexibility, general reasoning. ,
verbal comprehension, originality, and ideational fluency.
Procedure
Nineteen aptitude tests, which were considered to
be relatively pure measures of the hypothesized factors,
were administered to 204- Marine Corps officers. Scores
were Intercorrelated and the matrix factor analyzed by the
centroid method. This was followed by graphic rotations,
using the triple criteria of positive manifold, simple
77
structure, and psychological meaningfulness.
Each officer tested was rated on the specially
developed rating scale by two peers and two superiors. The
scores were intercorrelated for the combined peer ratings
and separately intercorrelated for the combined superior
ratings. The two matrices were factor analyzed separately
by the same method.
Results
All hypothesized aptitude factors emerged and all
test3 except one were found loaded on their hypothesized
factors. All of the factors were relatively Independent
except penetration which might be a second-order factor.
Five factors emerged for the peer ratings: rueeed-
ness. leadership, competence, intellectual, and a halo
factor. The same factors emerged for the superior ratings
with the exception of the intellectual factor.
The rating factor intellectual predicted most of
the aptitude factors significantly. The other rating fac
tors did not predict significantly except in one or two
cases.
The general criterion (leadership rating) failed to
correlate with the aptitude factors.
, D . 3 . a c R S g i o a
The relative pureness of the aptitude measures and
o
validation of the aptitude factors was discussed. Penetra
tion as a second-order factor was suggested.
Reasons were suggested for the failure of the rating
scale criteria to predict the aptitude factors.
The possibility was advanced that leadership may
have to be regarded as a property of behavior rather than
of persons.
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
Argyris, Chris. Executive leadership. New York!
Harper and Bros., 1953*
Barnard, C. I. Organization and management.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956, 92-95.
Bass, B. M., Pryer, M. W., Gaier, E. L., and
Flint, A. W. Interacting effects of control, moti
vation, group practice, and problem difficulty on
attempted leadership. J. of Abn. and Soo._Psyohol.,
1958, 5k, 352-358.
Baxter, B., and Cassidy, R. Group experience.
New York: Harper and Bros., 19^3•
Bellingrath, G. C. Qualities associated with leader
ship in the extra-curricular activities of the high
school. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers
College, Columbia University, 1930, 17.
Bogardus, E. S. Leaders and leadership. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 193^.
Cartwright, Dorwin and Zander, Alvin. Group dynamics—
research and theory. Evanston, Illinois: Row
Peterson and Co., 1953, 536-538.
Creager, J. A., and Harding, F. D., Jr. A hierarchical
factor analysis of foreman behavior. J. of Applied
13
P2X 9tol., 1958, it2, 197-203.
9* Fisher, Margaret. Leadership and Intelligence.
New Yorks Bureau of Publications, Teachers College,
Columbia University, 195^*
10. Freeman, G• L., and Taylor, £• K. How to pick lead-
ers— a scientific approach to executive selection.
New Yorks Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1950.
11. Fruchter, Benjamin. Introduction to factor analysis.
New Yorks D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., 1951 * - *
12. Gordon, T. Group-centered leadership. Bostons
Houghton Mifflin Co., 1955.
13. Guilford, J. P. Personality. New Yorks McGraw-Hill
Book Co., 1958.
l*f. Guilford, J. P. Psychometric methods. 2nd ed.,
New Yorks McGraw-Hill Book Co., 195^.
15. Guilford, J. P. The structure of intellect. Psychol.
EUU., 1956, i3, No. if.
16. Guilford, J. P., Comrey, A. L., Green, R. F., and
Christensen, P. R. A factor-analytic study of
reasoning abilities, I. Hypotheses and description
of tests. Rep, psvchol. Lab.. No. 1. Los Angeless
Univer. of Southern Calif., June 1950.
17. Guilford, J. P., Green, R. F., and Christensen, P. R.
A factor-analytic study of reasoning abilities, II.
Administration of tests and analysis of results.
Rep, psychol. Lab., No* 3* Los Angeles: Univer. of
Southern Calif., April 1951* (Out of print)
18. Guilford, J. P., Wilson, R. C., Christensen, P. R.,
and Levis, D. J. A factor-analytic study of crea
tive thinking, I. Hypotheses and description of
tests. Rep, psvchol. Lab.. No. M-. Los Angeles:
Univer. of Southern Calif., April, 1951* (Out of
print)
19. Guilford, J. P., Green, R. F., Christensen, P. R.,
Hertzka, A. F., and Kettner, N. W. A factor-
analytic study of Navy Reasoning tests vith the Air
Force Aircrew Classification Battery. Rep, psychol.
Lab.. No. 6. Los Angeles: Univer. of Southern
Calif., June, 1952.
20. Guilford, J. P., Hertzka, A. F.', Berger, R. M., and
Christensen, P. R. A factor-analytic study of
evaluative abilities, I. Hypotheses and description
of tests. Rep, psychol. Lab.. No. ?• Los Angeles:
Univer. of Southern Calif., July, 1952.
21. Guilford, J. P., Wilson, R. C., and Christensen, P. R.
A factor-analytic study of creative thinking,
II. Administration of tests and analysis of results.
Rep.’psvchol. Lab.. No. 8. Los Angeles: Univer. of
Southern Calif., July, 1952. (Out of print)
22. Guilford, J. P., Hertzka, A. F.,eod Christensen, P. R.
83
A factor-analytic study of evaluative abilities,
II. Administration of tests and analysis of
results. Ren, psychol.,, Lab. f No. 9* Los Angeles*
Univer. of Southern Calif., July, 1953*
23. Guilford, J. P., Berger, R. M., and Christensen, P. R.
A factor-analytic study of planning, I. Hypotheses
and description of tests* Rep, psychol._Lab..
No. 10. Los Angeles* Univer. of Southern Calif*,
July, 195^*
2*t* Guilford, J. P., Kettner, N. W*, and Christensen, P. R.
A factor-analytic study across the domains of
reasoning, creativity, and evaluation, I. Hypothe
ses and description of tests. Rep, psychol* Lab..
No* 11. Los Angeles* Univer. of Southern Calif*,
July, 195*t.
25* Guilford, J. P., Berger, R. M., and Christensen, P. R*
A factor-analytic study of planning, II* Adminis
tration of tests and analysis of results. Rep.
psvchol. Lab.. No. 12. Los Angeles* Univer. of
Southern Calif., Hay, 1955*
26. Guilford, J* P., Kettner, N. W., and Christensen, P. R*
The relation of certain thinking factors to training
criteria in the U. S. Coast Guard Academy.
Rep, psvchol. Lab*. No. 13. Los Angeles* Univer.
of Southern Calif., May, 1955*
8k
27. Guilford, J* P., Kettner, N. W., and Christensen, P. R.
A factor-analytic investigation of the factor called
general reasoning. Rep, psychol. Lab., No. I1 * - .
Los Angeles* Univer. of Southern Calif., August,
1955.
28. Guilford, J. P., Kettner, N. W., and Christensen, P. R.
A factor-analytic study across the domains of
reasoning, creativity, and evaluation, II. Adminis
tration of tests and analysis of results. Rep.
psvchol. Lab., No. 16. Los Angeles* Univer. of
Southern Calif., March, 1956.
29. Guilford, J. P., and Christensen, P. R. A factor-
analytic study of verbal fluency. Rep, psychol.
Lab., No. 17. Los Angeles* Univer. of Southern
Calif., September, 1956.
30. Guilford, J. P., Frick, J. W., Christensen, P. R., and
Merrifield, P. R. A factor-analytic study of flexi
bility in thinking. Rep, psvchol. Lab.. No. 18.
Los Angeles: Univer. of Southern Calif., April,
1957.
31. Guilford, J. P. A revised structure of intellect.
Rep. P3ychol. Lab., No. 19. Los Angeles* Univer.
of Southern Calif., April, 1957*
32. Guilford, J. P., Christensen, P. R., Frick, J. W.,
and Merrifield, P. R. The relations of creative-
thinking aptitudes to non-aptitude personality
traits. Rep. psychol._Lab.. No. 20. Los Angelesx
Univer. of Southern Calif., December, 1957*
33. Hemphill, John K. Situational factors in leadership.
Columbus, Ohlox Ohio State University, 19**9.
3if. Hollander, E. P. Peer nominations as a predictor of
the pass-fail criterion in naval air training.
It 4ppl>, Pgy.ShPl* > 1951 *, 3* 150-153-
35. Holley, J. W. The Isolation by factor analysis of
personality traits in the domain of military leader
ship. Research Rpt.? AFPTRC-TN- 56-70, June, 1956.
36. Jennings, Helen H. Leadership and isolation.
New York* Longmans, Green and Co., 1950.
37. Laird, Donald A. The new psychology of leadership.
New Yorks McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1956.
38. Laird, Donald A. The technique of building personal
leadership. New Yorks McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc.,
19Mf.
39. Naval Academy. Leadership, U. S. Naval Institute,
19^9, PP. 259-272.
^fO. Pennington, L. A., Hough, R. B., Case, H. W. The
psychology of military leadership. New Yorks
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 19^3> PP* 101-125*
*fl. Pepinsky, P. N., Hemphill, J. K., and Shevitz, R. N.
Attempts to lead, group productivity, and morale
under conditions of acceptance and rejection.
J. of Abn. & Soc. psychol.. 1958, 5Z> **7-5**.
^2. Ross, H. G. and Hendry, C. E. New understandings of
leadership. New York* Association Press, 1957*
^3* Schmidt, W. H. Technique that produce teamwork.
New London* Arthur Craft Publications, 1951 * - .
Simpson, R. H. A study of those who influence and of
those who are Influenced In discussion. New York*
Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia
University, 1938.
^5. Stogdill, R. M. Personal Factors associated with
leaderships A survey of the literature.
J.__of psvch.. 19W, 2lt 35-71.
Stogdill, R. M., Shartle, C. L., Methods in the study
of administrative leadership. Research Monograph,
No. 80, Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State
Univ., 1955.
^7* Super, D. E. Appraising vocational fitness.
New York* Harper and Brothers, 19^9, p* 100.
Tead, Ordway. The art of leadership. New York*
McGraw-Hill, 1935> P* 20.
**■9. Thurstone, L. L. Multiple factor-analysis. Chicago*
I Chicago Univer, Press, 19^7.
i
!
50. Zimmerman, W. S. A simple graphical method for ortho
gonal rotation of axes. Psychometrlka, 19*+6, H *
51-55.
APPEND IX
OFFICER RATING FORM
MILITARY LEADERSHIP RESEARCH PROGRAM
Alvin Marks
Capt. USMCR
in cooperation with
UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
CAMP PENDLETON, CALIFORNIA
and
Project on Aptitudes of High-level Personnel
Grant N6onr-238lO
OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH
Psychological Laboratory
University of Southern California
1958
o
89
Note to the Ratine, Offleer
This rating form is part of a research program
designed to improve officer evaluation and determine the
factors Involved in good military leadership. The research
program is being conducted at the University of Southern
California and Camp Pendleton, California with the approval
of headquarters Marine Corps,
Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated and
will contribute Immeasurably to the determination of the
factors involved in effective military leadership and the
possibility of a more accurate rating form for the evalua
tion of officers.
-ta.the. Ra&AQK.Qf f i j .
This rating form is composed of forty-eight situa
tions, each of which is followed by five answers describ
ing an officer's possible behavior, reaction, or value in
the situation described. You are to marie the answer on
the answer sheet that most nearly describes the officer
you are rating. PLEASE DO NOT MARK THE RATING FORM. .You
may not have observed the officer in such situations and
it is possible that you have not observed him in similar
situations. THIS IS NOT IMPORTANT! Do your best to
imagine the officer in the given situation and pick the
answer that you think would most nearly describe him.
If you are uncertain, guesk. IT IS IMPORTANT- TO ANSWER
ALL QUESTIONS. Your first impression is usually the best.
Please mark each answer as you come to it and do. not go
back and change an answer after you have marked it. Mark
I only, one answer to an item. THIS IS AN EXPERIMENTAL FORM
!AND WILL' jaSj. BECOME PART OF THE OFFICER'S OFFICIAL RECORD*
OR REFLECT ON.HIM IN.ANY WAY. THE RESULTS OF YOUR RATING
WILL NOT BE MADE KNOWN TO THE OFFICER CONCERNED AND A.
CODING SYSTEM WILL INSURE HIS ANONYMITY.
90
1* In a situation where there are several possible routes
to an objective and this officer was ordered to lead
his unit to that objective by the fastest possible
route} he would most likely, in looking over a map of
the area, consider
a. distance, obstacles, condition of his men, equip-
ment they must carry, and all other relevant condi-
tions and requirements.
b. such factors a3 distance and obstacles
c. the shortest route to the objective
d. distance, obstacles, condition of his men, and
equipment that they must carry
e. distance, obstacles, and condition of his men.
2. A group of officers are asked for suggestions to
improve a training program. This officer would mo3t
likely suggest
a. only immediate and obviously needed changes
b. mostly long range and not too obviously needed
changes
c. some immediate, some long range, some obviously
needed changes, and some not so obviously needed
changes
d. only long range and not too obviously needed
changes
e. . mostly immediate and obviously needed changes.
3* If this officer was presented with a question such as,
"What would happen if the Marine Corps was disbanded
tomorrow?", he would give
a. a few but different responses
b. several diversified opinions
c. quite a few diversified and unusual opinions
d. a few and similar responses
e. quite a few diversified opinions.
1 +. In inspecting a barracks In which many deficiencies
exist, this officer would most likely notice
a. about 3/*f of deficiencies
b. a few of the deficiencies
o. most of the deficiencies
d. about half of the deficiencies
e. all of the deficiencies.
A
91
5. If this officer was asked to state the practical prob
lems In connection with using atomic artillery in an
amphibious landing, he would recognize and state
a* more real problems than most other officers
b. more real problems than any other officer
c. a few real problems
d. as many real problems as most other officers
e. a few trivial problems.
6. An objective must be reached under the following condi
tions! (1) the fastest, safest, and most direct route,
(2) maximum cover. (3) maximum concealment, (ty inex
perienced men,. (5; In daylight. This officer could
best handle
a* most of these: conditions In making a decision
b. one or two of thase> conditions In making a
decision
c. all of these: conditions In making a decision
d. several of thes:e> conditions In making a decision
e. one of these: conditions in making a decision.
7. Considering, the requirements of combat, during a war
you would
a. rather have this officer than any other officer In
your command
b. be glad to have this officer in your command:
. c. rather have' this officer than most officers In
your command
d. not particularly care to have this officer in
your command
e. be willing to have this officer in your command-*
8* This officer finds himself In the following situation!
He is leading a combat patrol when (1) his objective Is
changed and he is In a bad position from which to take
the new objective. (2) Four minutes later his support
ing fires are withdrawn and (3) shortly after this he
loses contact with half his men. (* f ) A few minutes
later he realizes that he is lost. This officer would
most likely
a. change his tactics after occurrence (1) but not
change them again
b. not change his tactics at any time throughout the
situation
c. change his tactics after occurrence (1), again
92
after occurrence (2), and not change them after
that
d* change his tactics after each occurrence
e« change his tactics after three of the occurrences
but not after the fourth*
9* Considering the following words, EFFACE, FURTIVE, ADHE
SIVE, IRASCIBLE, ESOTERIC, this officer would most
likely know the meanings of
a* one of them
b* all of them
c* two of them
d* four of them
e* three of them.
10* If asked for Ideas as to how to Improve military cour
tesy aboard the.base, this officer would most likely
come up with
a* as many Ideas as.most other officers
b* more Ideas than most other officers
c. a few Ideas
d* some Ideas but fewer than most officers
e* more Ideas than any other officer*
11* In planning a place of ambush for an enemy patrol, this
officer would most likely consider
a. the enemy's most probably route and the place on
that route offering the most concealment
b* the enemy's mo3t probably route and most probable
reaction, and the place offering the best conceal
ment under these conditions
c* the place that offered the best concealment
d. the enemy's most probable route and most probable
reaction, his own men's reaction, the best con
cealment, and pick the place under these condi
tions
e* all possible enemy routes, all possible reactions
of his own men as well as of the enemy, conceal
ment* and all other pertinent details before pick
ing the place of ambush*
12* At a meeting of officers, the Commanding General asks
for ideas on Improving morale on the base* This
officer would most likely come up with
a* a few similar ideas
b* more different kinds of ideas than any other
93
officer
c. more different kinds of ideas than most other
officers
d» some different kinds of ideas but fever than
other officers
e. as many different kinds of ideas as most other
officers.
13* If this officer was asked to suggest changes in the
training schedule that would leave more time for
close order drill, he would most likely suggest
a* mostly long range and not too obviously needed
changes
b. mostly immediate and obviously needed changes
a* some immediate, some long range, some obviously
needed, and some not so obviously needed changes
d. only long range and not too obviously needed
changes
e. only immediate and obviously needed changes*
If asked to set up an instruction course with restric
tions on space, cost, time, availability of instruc
tors. selection of students, and advice, this officer
coula best handle
a. several of these conditions
b. most of these conditions
o. all of these conditions
d. one of these conditions
e. one or two of these conditions.
15* A small patrol has located a fire direction center in
a church and determines that several civilians are
being held as hostages. The leader of the patrol
knows that the center is holding up the advance of the
division and elimination of it is crucial to victory.
This officer would most likely
a. weigh all the advantages and disadvantages of all
possible courses of action and then proceed to put
the best plan into operation
b. call upon higher command for orders as to what to
I do
i c. call in artillery and air and destroy the center
i d» consider a maneuver to free the civilians and
i then destroy the center
e. consider a way of rendering the center ineffective
without destroying it.
9^
16. In everyday conversation) this officer uses such words
as RENOUNCE, RAFFLE, MEAGER, OBSTINATE, and RESCIND
a. never
b. often
c. seldom
d. sometimes
e. always.
17. If this officer was asked for ideas on how to create
more interest in conserving government property, he
would most likely come up with
a. more different kinds of ideas than most other
officers
b. some different kinds of Ideas but fewer than most
officers
c. as many different kinds of ideas as most of the
officers
d. more different kinds of ideas than any other
officer
e. a few similar ideas.
Id. In Investigating an accident involving a military
vehicle and a civilian vehicle and where the drivers
have conflicting stories, this officer would most
likely notice
a. all of the discrepancies
b. about 3A- of the discrepancies
c. most of the discrepancies
d. a few of the discrepancies
e. about half of the discrepancies.
19. If this officer wa3 presented with a question such as,
"What would happen if all First Sergeants lost the
ability to speak?", he would give
a. a few but different responses
b. a few but similar responses
c. quite a few diversified and unusual opinions
d. quite a few diversified opinions
e. several diversified opinions.
20. In planning the route to an assault on an enemy posi
tion, this officer would most likely consider
a. the ease of the route, obstacles, and cover and
concealment afforded by the route
o
ooo
95
b. the ease of the route * obstacles, cover and con
' s . cealment, vulnerability, and most other pertinent
factors
c. the route that was the easiest for his men
d. the easiest route, taking Into account the natural
obstacles on the route
e* the ease of the route, obstacles, cover and con
cealment, and vulnerability*
21* If asked for Ideas on how to improve small unit leader
ship, this officer would most likely come up with
a* as many Ideas as most other officers
b* some Ideas but fewer than most other officers
c. more Ideas than any other officer
d. more Ideas than most other officers
e* very few ideas.
22. If this officer was asked what practical problems were
Involved In cold weather training, he would most
likely recognize and state
a. more real problems than any other officer
b* a few trivial problems
c. a few real problems
d. as many real problems as most other officers
e. more real problems than most other officers.
23* In your opinion, this officer Is
a. not as good an officer as- most other officers
b* one of the most outstanding officers I have ever
known
c. an excellent officer
d. an average officer
e. a better-than-average officer.
2k, This officer finds himself In the following situations:
He is the battalion adjutant when (1) a new commanding
officer institutes a change in policy regarding
liberty for the battalion. (2) A week later, after
the officer has Instituted the new policy, the command
ing officer returns to the old policy. (3) A new com
manding officer takes over and adds several additional
duties to the adjutants already long list of duties.
A week later (**) the Sergeant Major is transferred out
and no replacement is available. This officer would
most likely
a. adjust to situation (1) quite well but not to the
96
other situations
b. adjust to three of the situations quite well but
not to all four of them
c. adjust to two of the situations quite well but not
as well to the other two
d. not adjust too well to any of the situations
e. adjust to all of the situations quite well,
25* This officer is in charge of a patrol on a very diffi
cult mission# Near the end of the mission, the men
under his command, who are all good Marines, are about
to give up. This officer would most likely handle the
situation
a. better than most officers
b. as well as most officers
c. poorly
d. better.than any other officer
e. less well than would most officers.
26. If .this officer was asked for ideas on how to improve
safe driving and cut down accidents on the base, he
would most likely come up with
a. as many different kinds of ideas as most of the
officers
b. some different kinds of Ideas but fewer than most
officers
c. a few similar Ideas
d« more different kinds of Ideas than any other offi
cers
e. more different kinds of ideas than most other
officers.
27# In a parade honoring visiting dignitaries, this offi
cer must plan the parade, handle the transportation,
plan conferences for the VIP's* handle the publicity,
and coordinate the M.P.'s. This officer could best
handle
a. most of these conditions
b. all of these conditions
c. one or two of these conditions
d. several of these conditions
e. one of these conditions*
28. If presented with several plans of attack* each of
which contained certain disadvantages, this officer
would most likely
97
&• notice half of the disadvantages
b. notice 3 A of the disadvantages
c* notice most of the disadvantages
d. notice a few of the disadvantages
e. notice all of the disadvantages*
29. This officer has orders to secure an objective by any
means and at any cost within twenty-four hours* fie
had artillery and air at his disposal* fie would most
likely consider
a* one method of securing the objective
b* more methods than most other officers
c* more methods than any other officer
d* less methods than would most officers
e. as many methods as would most officers.
30. As a military leader) this officer Is
a* one of the most outstanding military leaders I
have ever known
b* below average
c. above average
d. better than most other officers
e. average*
31* If asked in what way Russia and America are similar,
this officer's answer would most likely be similar to
which of the following answers
a* they are both countries
b* they both have people living in them
c* they are both world leaders
d* they were both born of revolutions
e. they both have governments*
32* In planning a place of ambush for an enemy patrol)
this officer would most likely
a. consider all possible enemy routes and be pre
pared to set up an ambush on any one of them
b. consider several possible enemy routes and set up
an ambush on the best one
c. consider the enemy's most probably route and set
up the ambush on thl3 route
d* select the route that offered the best concealment,
e, consider all possible enemy routes} the possibil
ity of counter ambushes) and make a decision on
this basis.
98
33* TMs officer finds himself in the following situa
tions: (1) He is assigned to patrol a certain area,
with 100 men. (2) Later he is cut to 50 men with the
same area to be patrolled. (3) Still later he is cut
to 25 men, and finally (if) the area is doubled. This
officer would most likely
a. handle all the situations quite well
b. handle three of the situations quite well but not
the fourth
c. handle two of the situations quite well but not
the other two
d. handle the first situation quite well but not the
others
e. not handle any of the situations very well.
3If. If asked for ideas on how to improve close air support,
this officer would most likely come up with
a. some ideas but fever than most officers
b. one or two Ideas
c. more ideas than any other officer
d. as many ideas as most officers
e. more ideas than most officers.
35* If this officer was presented with a question such as,
"What would happen if Enlisted Men were allowed to run
the Marine Corps for a day?", he would give
a. several diversified opinions
b. quite a few diversified and unusual opinions
c. a few but similar responses
d. quite a few diversified opinions
e. a few but different responses.
36. In reading manuals, reports, and military books, this
officer usually understands
a. fewer difficult words than most officers
b. very few of the difficult words
c. as many difficult words as most officers
d. more difficult words than most other officers
e. more difficult words than any other officer.
37. If this officer was asked for Ideas on how to improve
marksmanship, he would most likely come up with
a. more different kinds of ideas than most officers
b. as many different kinds of ideas as most officers
99
c. some different kinds of ideas but fewer than most
officers
d. more different kinds of ideas than any other
officer
e. a few ideas.
38. If presented with several training guides) each of
which contains several weak points9 this officer would
most likely see
a. a few of the weak points
b. all of the weak points
c. most of the weak points
d. half of the weak points
e. 3/H of the weak points.
39. This officer is in charge of a patrol that gathers
vital information that can save the division from
disaster. The patrol is behind enemy lines and
chances of getting through are slim. He has no radio
communication. He would most likely be able to think
of
a. more courses of action than any other officer
b. more courses of action than most other officers
c. one course of action
d. as many courses of action a3 most officers
e. several courses of action but fewer than most
officers.
Ho. This officer is faced with the following situations:
(1) He takes over a combat unit in which morale is
very low. (2) He receives replacements with little
training when (3) his top NCO is rotated to the States.
A few days later (H) his best Lieutenant is given
command of another company. This officer would mo3t
likely
a. handle two of the situations quite well but not
the other two
b. handle the first situation quite well but not the
others
c. handle all the situations quite well
d. not handle any of the situations very well
e. handle three of the situations quite well but not
the fourth.
Hi. If asked for ideas on how to improve public relations)
this officer would most likely come up with
K>0„
a* some Ideas but fewer than most officers
b. more ideas than any other officer
c. a few ideas
•d. more ideas than most officers
e. as many ideas as most officers.
U-2. In planning a patrol through enemy territory with the
purpose of gaining the most information but avoiding
detection by enemy patrols, this officer would mo3t
likely consider
a. the route affording the best observation) the most
observation, and the mo3t concealment
b. the route affording the most observation and best
concealment
c. all routes as to observation) concealment) cover,
and other pertinent factors
d. the route affording the best observation
e. the route affording the best observation, most
concealment) and best cover.
*+3. In writing reports and correspondence, thi3 officer
usually uses difficult words
a. more than most officers
b. as much as most officers
c. less than most officers
d. more than any other officer
e. seldom.
M*. If asked in what way Officers and Enlisted Men were
similar, this officer's answer would most likely be
similar to which of the following answers:
a. They are both Marines.
b. They both have military rank.
c. They both have military duties to perform.
d. They are both citizens of the United States.
e. They both have the same purpose and goal.
This officer has been promoted and finds that some of
his Junior officers are quite a bit older than himself
and have had more experience in the Marine Corps.
This officer would most likely handle the situation
a. better than any other officer
b. poorly
c. better than most other officers
d. as well as most other officers
e. less well than most other officers.
101
if 6. If this officer was presented with a question such as,
"What would happen If a law were passed that Marine
Corps officers could not be married?", he would give
a. quite a few diversified and unusual opinions
b. a few but similar responses
c. quite a few diversified opinions
d. several diversified opinions
e. a few but different responses.
*f7. In preparation for landing exercises, this officer
must handle troop loading, equipment loading, ammuni
tion distribution, landing assignments, shipboard
watch, and messing schedules. This officer could best
handle
a. one or two of these conditions
b. all of these conditions
c. several of these conditions
d. most of these conditions
e. one of these conditions.
H-8. Evaluating this officer in terms of his over-all
worth to the Marine Corp3, you would Judge him to be
below average
b. above average
c. outstanding
d. average
e. excellent.
HAVE YOU ANSWERED EVERY ITEM? THANK YOU. 1
J
102
TABLE XIX
FACTOR-ITEM KEY
Factor Item Number
Perceptual Foresight 1 20 32 b2
Conceptual Foresight 11
15 29 39
Penetration 2 13 31
bb
Experiential Evaluation b 18
25
b$
Sensitivity to Problems
5
22 28
38
Adaptive Flexibility 8 2?+
33
**0
Spontaneous Flexibility 12
17
26
37
General Reasoning 6
lb 27 b7
Verbal Comprehension
9
16 36
b3
Originality
3 19 35
Ideational Fluency 10 21 3b bl
Leadership Rating
7 23 30 b8
103
TABLE XX
ITEM-ANSWER ASSIGNMENT
(Values of answers are as follows! 5 = highest possession
of factor} 1 s lowest possession of factor*)
a b c d e a b c d e
1.
5
2 1 i f
3
25. i f
3
1
5 2
2. l 4
3 5 2 26.
3 2 1
5
i f
3. 2
3 p
1 i f 4
5 2
3
1
4 .
3
1 4 2 5
28. 2
3
i f 1
5
5.
4
5
2
3
1
29.
1 4
5 2
3
6. 4 2 5 3
1 30. 5
1
3
i f 2
7. 5 3
4 1 2 31.
1 2 i f
5 3
8. 2 1
3 5
i f 32. i f
3
2 1
5
9.
1
5
2 4
3 5
4
3
2 1
10*
3
4 1 2 5
34. 2 1
5 3
4
11. 2
3
1 i f
5 35. 3 5
1 4 2
12. 1
5
i f 2
3
36. 2 1
3
i f
5
13.
4 2
3 5
1
3Z-
i f
3 2 5
l
l 4 .
3
i f
5
1 2
38.
1
5
i f 2
3
15. 5
1 2
3
i f
5
4 1
3
2
16. 1 i f 2
3 5
40.
3
2 5
1 4
2 3 5
l 41. 2
5
l i f
3
18.
5 3
4 1 2 >f2.
3
2 5
1 4
19. 2 1
5
i f
3 43. i f
3 2
5
1
20.
3 5
1 2 4 m4 . 1 4
3
2
5
21.
3
2 5
i f 1
!*?•
5
1 4
3
2
22.
5
1 2
3
i f 4 6 .
5
1 i f
3 2
23.
1
5
4 2
3
2 5 3
4 1
24. 2 4
3
1
5
4 8 . 1
3 5 2 4

Asset Metadata

Creator Marks, Alvin (author)

Core Title A Factor-Analytic Study Of Military Leadership

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Psychology

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,psychology, experimental

Language English

Advisor Michael, William B. (committee chair), Guilford, Joy P. (committee member), Thorpe, Louis P. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-23519

Unique identifier UC11357567

Identifier 5901855.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-23519 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 5901855-0.pdf

Dmrecord 23519

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Marks, Alvin

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA