ED 189 564

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTIONFEPORT NOPUB DATENOTE

DOCOMENT RESUME

CS 005 545

Massey, Randy H.: Mathews, John J.Reading .Grade Levels of Air Force CivilianPersonnel.Air Force Human Resources Lab., Brooks AFB, Texas.AFHRL-TR-80-11Jul 8018p.

AVAILABLE PROM National Technical Informati6n Service, Springfield,VA 22151.

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.*Adults: *Government EmOloyees; *Job Skills:*Occupations: Reading Ability: *Reading Achievement: ,

*Reading Research: Reading lkills; Reading TestsIDENTIFIS *Air Force

, DESCRIPTORS

ABSTRACTA study was_cOnducted to examine the reading levels

- of United States Air Force civilian employees according tooccupational groupt4gs and ograde structure. Approximately 1,050 AirVorce ,civilian subjects were tested on the Nelson-Denny. Rea ing Testor. tt4-CaliTornia Reading Test. Subjects were selected frOm jeight Air-forde bases*representing the valor commands.. The findingsdemonstrated that the reading grade level-and the gradeclassificat5on of subiects'were kssociated. However, manydifficulties are-a4soCiitted with the appWation and interpretation-'of the reading grade level concept as it'relates io occupatioAal

(Author/MKM)

11!

**********************************************************************)*' Reproductions su-pplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the origina.1 document. J*

*************1**************************************4******************

AFURL-M-80- 1 1

AIR FORCE

U s emuthie NT or iIALIfPOttt ATION 4 Wet PARCNA IONAI INSTITUT' OF_

IMUCATION

THIS (RN LIN% N T HAS OE EN A EPRO-ow t 0 E )(AC T L V AS RE (liven I ROMTHE PE TZSON ON OFK.ANIEAT TON ORI(A).-A TINt. ;I poIN Is or VIEW OTT OPINPONSSI A1 V D 00 NOT NE( ESSATAIL Y RE PRE-SENT OF i I( IAL NATIONAL INsTi TUT E OTI ClUt A II IN POSI T ION OR POI I( 'or

REAMN(; GRADE LEVEIS OF Ant PORCECIVRAAN PERSONNEL

tiv

Rtunty H. Massey, Capt, SAFJohn J. Mathews

A,

i eMANPOWER AND PyRSONNE1 DIVLSION

NBrooks Air Force Base,41rexas 78235

RE

8, July 1980

IntC.rim Re.poei k)r PeriodSeptembcri 978 becember 1 ;79 :

%...

URC .

.

.

ES LABO.RATORY .

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

V

, AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMANDBROOKS AIR FORCE BASE,TEXAS 78235

L

NO TIC E

When U.S. Government drawin specifications, Or other data are used for any purposeother than a definitely related -Government procurement operation, the Governmentthereby incurs nmesponsibility nor any obligation whatsoever, and the fact dot an'Government may.have formulated, furnished-, or in n y way supplied the said drawings,specifications, or other data is not to be regarded by implication or otherwise. as in any,manner licensing the holder or any other person or corporation, or con veyidg any rightsor permission to manufaMure, use, or sell any patented invention that may in any way berelated thereto.

This interim report was Imbmitted by the Minpower andt Personnel underProject 7719, with HQ Air Force Human H esourees Laboratory (AFS(:), Brooks AirForce Base, Texas 7/t235. Capt 11 andy H. M assey (M PAM ) was the Principal Investigatorfor the Laboratory.

This report has been %viewed by the Office of Public Affairs (PA) and itrreleasahle to theNational Technkal Information Service (NTIS). At NTIS, it will he available io thegeneral public, itkluding foreign nations.

This technical report has been rev iewea and is approved for pubhcation..

R A Y MOIN D E. CHRISTAL, Technical DirectorM anpower and Personnel Division

RON /al) W. TERN Y, Colnd, USAFCommander

-tr

I II. l.t...1Ited

SE CURI ASSIF IC A TWN or T )115 1. Ant out. fLrulirEPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

LAI) INS I NM 11-4,4',

1-7.11-17.-0n T NtIMflI 14

II; _Ito I I

TIlt. t ('.(1,1 obilttel1

: tOVT Al tt SSION NO 3 rt oPir NI'S C. A I As tlt: NO-1.4*It711

UI l" 4.1( \III 1 1 \ 1 1 \ II( I ()1« II \ lit \\ UNNI I

7 Au 1 H(111( .1

I(.,,1 II NI

.1(1111, .1 \Loh, v,k

9 114- .OnmINZI ORGAN1 1 (.T ION NAME AN() ADDFIE SS

.1111)I1M. It (11111 1111 )13 1.11)11

If" 1(1 11 111II an it esslItt ) c, I allot .1111f

1111)41k II 11 MCP 11841`.

CON r ROC( MG OFFICE N AME AND ADORE SS

Hy kit i III 1 II ILIIILIII It csouI crs Labot Mot 9 5f. I 'I( -)

Itutiuk.. ir 1:1111-1' it .the. TrNa,

S rr'oni A PC 111011 ov 1 14 1

11111 1111

sci)1 IQ I),, 4:I)

6 PE nroRMING oric, ntPoRT NumuL

13 t 11 Ai. 1 Olt (:J1AN NUMUr *ti

10 Ht4t55.F7 AM F L E.MEN T Prissa:( I I ASKAnt: A A riorIK IoNIT Nomtnns

12

;()3 f::19122.,E Pon 1 DATE.-

Jul% I 0110

II NUMBEn OF P AL.IS

I

T. M('-'1NI TURING AGENCY N AMU A APORESSW dilletont C:ultrollhvg Mittel IS 51 URI T 1..1 ASS ir'ol this r;pow

16 OISTRIPUTION t TAT EMEN 1 (ot MIN Repnti)

piu 0 rd tut public releiNe:

DECI ASS1 F IC A 1 IOW. CAWNGRADINGSCHEDUL E

7 DIST RI.BUTION ST A T EMEN T (of (he obal(Ael entered In Mock )0, If dillorew trona RPort)

la SuPPL EmENTARY NOTES 01:s.

19 KEY WORDS (Continue on reyornee iltle II necerIar)' ornd identify by (flock number)

ir force Civihan Realletig Grade I.cvelhCalirtil,nia U eadiiig Temr19 Ilion kr\adeh

elson-D(fwv It eliding TeSI

readabilitreading skillshteracy skillsOccupational grouping

20 ABSTRACT. (Contlns4 on lval 110 side it ncraary and ldontl(y by block rumber)The objective of 4is study was to examine the reading levels of Air Force civilians according to

occupational groupingg\iind grade structure. Civilian grade structure-Was coin possed of classification typesGeneral Schedule (C.S,);\W-age Supervisor (WS), and Wage Grade (WC) and grade levels (1, 3Approximately 1,050 Air O'orce civilian subjects were tested on the Nelson-Denny R eading Test (ND) or theCalifornia Reading Test (C.14. The ND was .administered to GS-7 and above and WS subjects. The CR wasadministered to GS.-1 through GS-6 and to Wage Grade (W.G) subjects becanse of the expecteitlower readinglevel of these groups. Subjects Were selected from eight Air Force bases representing the major cow wands.The GS, WG, and WS samples were seketed to he proportionate to the composition of the Air Force civilianpopulation.

DI) F3CATM.73 1473 4

-r

U nclassifiedSECURITY CL ASSIFICATION OF THIS P-AGE (*hen Dal. Enterad)

4 JUL 29198°

,r4

1

Unclassifie(lSICUNITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAOI(W)on D.C. Ignir&d)

hem 20 Continued:

Reading grade levels were reported for Air orce civihans according-to occupational groupings and gradeuructure. This study demonstrated that th RGL of subjects was assvciated with the grade of subjects;however4 the meaning of this association is not clear. Difficulties associated with the application and-interpretation of the RGL concept were discussed. It was cbneluded that other RCI, questions or associatedvariables need to be investigated to determine where the utility of R I. knowledge litts In selection, inclassification, revision of certain materials, or in dec.isions about the extent of remedial training and to whomit should be administered.

444

11.

a

UnclassifiedSEaURITNI CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAOIE(When Dots ITHIstod)

'PRIFACE

er-'

This research was conducted under Project 7719, Air Force Development of SclectiunAssignment, Performance Evaluativ, H etention and Utilization Devices;.Taiik 771912.Air Force Selection and ClassifkiitiA ProgrAms. Work unit 77191225 was established inresponSes to Requirement for Personnel Research (II PR 76-25) submitted by the AirVoice M anpower and Pertwancl Center (A FM 147M PC Y 1').

TABLE OF CONT6TS

I. Introduction

.0

Pa g e

5

11 111 1...t1Z1

S ubjects.

'rest? 6

Analysis '6

Ill. 'Discussion 6

IV. R esults 10

10V. CUnclusions

References ..,Appendix' A: Air-Foryx Bases, 1"articipating in Stirvey 13

Appendix B.: Sample Chafacteristics A 14

ppendix (:: List of Occupations in Surveys IS

LIST, OF TABLES,..

Thble -,., . Page

1 Reading Griide Level by Civilian Grade 6

2 Reading Grade lrevel Comparison for GS and \IJG Personnel & 7

3 Reading Grade Level by Civilian Grade . 7

4 Reading Grade Level Comparison for GS and WS Personnel 7

_ 5 Re,ding Grtide Level by WG Occupational Grouping 9

6 Reading Grade Level.by GS Occupational Grouping 91.,

..

_e

7,

r

READING GRADE LEVELS OF AIR FORCE CIVILIAN PERSONNI.

L IWIPODUCTION

The preponderance l't f past and p 1'51911 research by itahtary agencies on R ending Grade Level((RG1J (Duffy & Nugent, 1978; Hooke, DeLeo. & Slaughter, 1979, I:. niffin, Stevenson. l lare.Entin, Slaughter, & Hooke, 1979; 4 atheWs, Valentine. & Sellfturn, 1978: Mockovak. 1974: Stieht.1975) has been restricted to the study, of military subjects, and has primarily focused on selection.

a classification: and training of military personnel only. R esearch has shown that there iA II gap tbetween 'the reading requirement level and the average estimated reading ability of militaryliersonnel in many career fields (Duffy & Nugent, 1978; Mockovak, 1974). One approach to reetifythis problem is to simplify written materials so that they are easier to use (It oar%) & Lumsdainc,1511). Another approach is to improve individuals reading skills to those required oil the job (11 off,

Sticht, Joyner, Crtiff, & Burkett,. 1977; Jealous, Bialek, Pitpit, & Gordon, 1475; M cGaf( &Harding, 1974; Stieht, 1975). The first approach is moie cost effective and easier to impletrint, so aprogram has been initiated by the Directorate of Administration to make Air Force. publicationsmore corn prehensible.

A first step in determining how comprehensible Air Force publications are to the people who mustread them is to determine the R G I. of the target population. Although RGL research is available onmilitary personnel, no formal research has been conducted or reported for Air Forte civilianemployees. Prior military research has investigated reading levels according to specific occupationalgroupings (Duffy & Nugent, 1978; Mockovak, 1974). The purpose of this study was to examine thereading levels of Air Force civilians according to occupational groupings aind grade sun ure.Civilian grade structure is composed of classification types General Schedule (GS),iVage Super or

(WS), tend Wage Grade (WG) 'and grade levels (1, 2, 3, . . .). This a0prOach should provide usefuinformation and persOectives in examining reading levels of civilian personnel so that a better mamight be made between the RGL of employees and the RGL that is required to understand Air Fon.

publications.

R. MEMOD

Subjec ts,

Approximately.1,050 Department `of Air Force civilian subjects were tested on the Nelson-DennyBeading Test (N D) or the California Reading Test (CR ). The ND was administered to GS(-7 andabove and te *S subjects, and the CR was administered to GS-1 through GS-6 and to WG subjectsbecause of the expected'lowei reading level of these group Subjects were selected from eight AirForce bases representing the major commands (see Appendi A). A'ppendix B gives a More detailed

descriVion f the characteristits of the samples. The GS, C, and WS samples were selected to beproportion e to-, the composition of the- Air Force civilian population. Except for Pentagonexaminees, o14half tie Gal liample- of examinees was GS and one-halLwas WG.'All Pentagonexaminees were GS. In the Np sample, about 80% were GS and 20% WS, again except at thePentagon where all were G5:Each test administration was accomplished in two to four sessions.depending on facilities available at each base. Because participation was voluntary, fewer examineeswere tested than were cheduled.

5§9

z

4

The reading tests emploNed in !hit...study N4 ere the Nelson-Denn Beading Tst Form t: (Brown.1970 aiml relidiug siihtest of Ow California .1chievainent Test (Tiegs Clark. 19710 The

el.o Form C. has an BC I. range from academic grades 6 to 15 and is primarily targeted atAuld academic grader. 11 to 13. The l:alifornia K eadi4i test is primarily targeted at about academicgrades 9 to I. Both tests contain vo..a-b-ohtr<and reading comprehelliorn subtests which were score(lsejiaratek :iccording to the published test norms.

1)a ta Ana s

The published test norms were used to convert 1;aw Iwores to R G I. scores. General distributionalstatistics. including score means, medians. and standard deviations, were calculaned for the civiliangrade and occupational groupings. Due to small sample site in the original groupings. larger group-ings were obtained by collapsing some (lithe KM all er groups. To determine differences among the CBand N sample It t; I. eans for the various grade and occupational groupings, I tests for indiTendentsanwles were used. It- was hyrithesizeit that a significant positive eivilion_gracte-lt C.11. relationshipand a positive RC!. occupational complexity relatioqship would be found (i.e., the higher the gradeor occupational difficulty level, the_ higher Woul(l be the !ICI.).

IlL inscussioN

Table 1 shows the lC I. results by grade groupings for the CR sample. The mean It CI, for CS-I toCs-3 was 11.56 and fOr CS-4 CS-6 was 12.47: the mean difference was significant (p < .0005). The

RCL.'for WC-1 to WG -4 was 8.88, for WC-5 to WC-8 was 9.51, WC-9 to WC-10 was 11.25, andfor WC-11 and ahove was 12.26. The differenees among means for the WC 'groupings weresignifi-(-nit with the exception of the WC-I to WC-1 versus the WC-5 to.W C -8 comparison. The overallmean It C I. was 12,25 for CS-I to CS-6 personnel , and I0.59 for all WC personnel in the (At Hain plc(see Table 2). A t vine of 8.40 (p < .0005) was obtained for the ('omparison between CS and WCpersonnd. )

Ta4, 1. Iletyling C rade Level by (ivilianCalifornia Rending "[kat Sample)

(;61.1tde Mean RGL SD RC L I V lac

GS-1 to CS-3 , 85 11.56 2.11CS4 to GS-6 271 12.47 s1.77WG-1 to WV4 13 3.25

.64WC-5 toWC41 99 9.51 3.28

4.34**..WC-9 to WC-18 111 11.25 2.51

2,17*WC-11 d above 34 12.26 1:91

1*Significant**Significant at .0005.

a 6 9to

. el

TobIe 2 . Reading 1;rade Level Comparison for CS and WI; PertiOnnel(Califorilia Reading Test Sample)

Cti-I to CSA

Total N 356

lc. NI inlizin Il(; I,Mean 11(;1. 11.).225

,SI) RC!.i

_ *Significant at

All Wc crudes

, Table. 3 shows theRGL, results by grade for the NI) sample. The mean II GI, for GS-7 to GS-II was14.02. and for GS-12 and above was 14.65; the two means were siknifkantly different (p < .0005level).-The mean RGL for WS-1 to WS-8-was 10.55 and for WS-9 and above pe sonny! was 11.63.The obtaine dk t value of 1.31 between these two RGL means was not significant. ie overall meanRGL for GS- nd above personnel was 14.22, andliolie mean RC I, for all WS persomiel in the NDsample was 11.13 (see Table 4). A t value of 11.69 (p < M005 level) was obtained for the comparisonof GS and WS personnel.

Table 3. Reading Grade Level by Civilian Grade(Nelson-Denny Reading Test Sample)

Grade Mean RCI. SD RGL t Value

GS-7 to GS-11 191 14.02 1.563.58*

GS-12 and Above 90 14.65 .85

WS-1 to WS-8 22 10.55 2.61

4WS-9 and Above

426 11.63 3.05

1.31

,*Significant at .0005.

Table 4. Reading Grade Level Comparison for GS*.and WS Personnel.(Nelson-Denny Reading That Sample)

GS-7 to GS-13 All WS Grades

Total N 281 48

Median RGL 15.2 11.1

Mean RGL 14.22 11.13

SD RGE 1.40" 2.88t =11.69*

*significant at .0005.

7 Jo

Some pertinent R (;11, similarities are indicated in both the (R and the NI) maniples, e.g., the higher

the grade level grouping, the higher the reading level (see Tables I and 3). The mean 11C1. for 4 S -4

to CS-6 was significentl/ higher than for the CS-1 to CS-3 personnel in the CR sample, and the nisean

RCL for CS-I2 and above was significantly higher than Jor the CS-7 to CS-II porsonnel in the Nsample. This increasing RCL-grade relatUiqship W 118 indicat(d for all grade level groupings for CS,WC, and the WS personnel in both the NI) and (41- samples, although not all of these gra(iegroupings differed significantly. Another NI)-CR similarity is the significantly higher reading levelsof CS personnel over the WC and WS personnel. In the cn maniple, CS-1 to CS personnelpossessed a significantly higher reading level than did the W( personnel. In the NI) sample, CS-7and above personnel also possessed a significantly higher reading level than did the WS personnel.Ilowever, when examining the median RC I.s of the NI) and CR samples, the WS personnel medianR CI. of 11.1 was similar to the W G median reading level of 11.0. The CS-I to CS-6 personn(-1(median fiCt. =13.9) and the CS-7 and above persondel (median R CI, =15.2) median reading levelswere higher than either the WC or the WS personnel. In essence, the WS personnel reading levelsare much closer to those of WC [personnel than to those of CS personnel in the ND and the CRsamples. .

One implication for making Air Force publioations more comprehensible to civilian personnelincliides targeting the reading level of mainials and other written material to the reading level of theintefided audience. For example, written materials for GS personnel may not be appropriate for WCpersonnel. Another implication is that manuals or other written material should be targeted at thelowest grade level grouping that will receiv e such materials. M aterials written for higher GSpersonnel at tlieir remective reading level, particularly CS-12 and above, will engendercoMmunication difficiulties- if used or transmitted without modification to the lower CSorganizational levels. The same can also be said (1 communications between the WS or higher WCpersonnel and the lower WC personnel.

From a statistical viewpoint, in order to insure communication with at least 84% of the GS-I toGs.-3 personnel group (to include everyone from -1 Statistical deviation (SD) and above), a reading,materials R C I. no higher than 9.45 is required. If 93% group communication is desired (-1.5 SD andabove), an RGL of about 8.4 is required. SUice miscommunication is economically- costly, it is

recommended that reading target levels for written materials be set lower than the average reading ,

el of the cxpeeted audience SO as Ito insure maximum eommunication.

A comparison of the ND and CR samples reveals that the mean age of the CR sample was 40.4 andof the ND sample was 47.0. In fact, only about 2% of the t-ntire -sample was 22 or younger.Additionally, the mean educa6on for the CR sample was 12.29 and the N,D sample was 14.13. These

mean ages and education levels tend to suggest an older generation which has likely been withFederal Civil Service for many years. In essence, these data probably do not reflect those currentlyentering the Air Force work force. Ifit is believed that the general population has-suffered a decline

in reading skills (Harnischfeger & Wiley, 1975) and/or if selection pohcies have become less

restrictive, then the RGLs presented here should be considered tentative, or at best, as high RGLestimates for making policy decisions regarding the present or future A F civilian work force. Thedata suggest the desitability of preparing governmental reading materials with the lowest possible.RGL (difficulty level), so that the danger of miscommunication is reduced. The only other knownalternatives are to Offer remedial reading training to employees after they are hired, or >() refuse tohire those whose reading level is below the RGL of the material they are to read. The first of thesealternativ,ss could be costly and the second alterna*tive would restrict the applicant pool so severelythat filling j( 1) openings could become a serious problem.

Tables 5 and 6 show the WG and GS RGL results by\gentSral occupational groupings for the CR

samele. The Ni/G occupational groupings (Table 5) were obtained from the Dictionary ofOccupational Titles (DOT), developed by the V.S. Department -of Labor' (1965). The DOT isprobably the most complehensive and wide)), accepted compendium of occupational iqormation.The GS occupations were grouped according to the GS Position Classification PIan for government.

employees (Table 6).8

Table 5. Reading Cnule Level by WC Occupational (rouping(Califonnia Reading Test Sainple)

Oc cupationaGrouping

Occ upa tionaComplexity MeanHa nking RC 1.

SRC I.

t ra tios(": ompa ris na

M iscellaneo usOccupations

Serv iceOccupation8

StructuralOccupations

M achme TradeOccupations

Bench W orkOccupations

. 70 19.59 3,28

17 2 10.29 2.49

66 3 10,72 2.73

78 4 11.28 2.77

25 5 12.07 2.29

.81

.59

T.22

1.29

4-

Tab 446. Reading Grade Leyel by GS Occupational Grouping. (California Reading Test Sample),

Occupational Grouping

1 Supply (GS 000)*2 Business and' Industry

Group (GS. 1100)*3 Transportation (GS 2100)*4 General Administrative

Clerical, and Office ServiceGroup (GS 300)*

5 Personnel M anagement andIndustrial R elations G roup(GS 200).*

6 M athematics and ComputerScience Group (GS 1500and GS 330-335)*

7 , Accounting and BudgetGrquy (GS 500)*

8 M iscellaneohe

43

22.10

155

32

,15

3936

Men

11.88

12.11..

12.63

12.6712.35

11.95 '2.0212.03

.12.63 1.40

SDRG L

2.03

2,04

1:83

1.611.77

*Civil-Service Occupational Series.

9 2

14)hr (At sample ol WC occupational groupings. the mean BC!. ranged from a low of 9' :).9 toriscellaneous Occupations to a high of 12.07 for Bench Work Orenpatiofis (see Tilide

occopational OM pie level ranking was assigned bv the alithor, considering the task, training. andmental it-quirt:mews needed I)) the occupations intInded s ith'in each of the five WI: occlipationalcluster groupings (see Appendix C). For example. most of the jolissin M iscellancous Ot:cupationsrequire primarily physical .work. minimum training. little mental effort. and noncomplex task.

perforninnee. In contrast. Bench W ork Occupations require little philuical work, extensive spe cific

traming'and a high degree tif mental effort and task coin plexit y (troubleshooting and repairingsophisticated electrical and mechanical components), The-, Service Ocrupationg. StrmluralOccupations. and.M achine Trade Occupations also seem tn'varv.in- overall occopational coin plexU vas indicated in 'Fable 5. When the Occupational gronpings are ranked by. -complexity- of job. theRCI..s show -a perfeet rank order .relationship. The highest H( I is associated with the- must-complex group. the loWe'st with the leasu -complex- group. and SO 0 11 lulu lig the groups (see Table5)

Table shors the R CI. data by oci:upational groupings for GS pernonn,e1 in the (At sample. TheR CI...means ranged from a low of 11.88 for the Supply grouping to a high of 1,2.67 for theA eromiting mid Budget group. The CR sam ph: analysis by oceupational grouping indicated moreR CI. differences in the WC groupings than in the CS groupings. This is probably due to the widerdiversity of ability, training,tind tauk requireM ems required for WC acupations. For example, the'range of RC!. means in the (.11 liam ply for all WC occupations was 9.59 to 12.07, whereas the rangefor all CS occupations was 11.88 to 12.35. R l; I. standard deviations were also consistently higher inthe WG groups.

IV. 111.:SUL4

'The main findings of this study were as follows';

I. The GS-I to CS-6 peTsonnel possmed a significfsintly higher RCP,' than did the WC personnel inthe CR sample (12.25 v's. 10.59).

2. The (;S-7 to -CS-1.1 personnel obtained significantly higher 11 CI. scores than did the WSperSonnel in tlie NI) sample (14.22 vs. 11.13).

3. The median RGL for WS personnel of ni was more similar to the WC median HUI, (11.0)

than to the G.S personnel -in the CR sample (13.9) or in tle N D.sample (15.2).

4. The reading level of manuals and other written materials should be set lower than the R CI. ofthe expected .audience to insure maxim um, cpmmunieation.

V.'(ONCIAISIONS

Deciding what should be the RG I, of material that must be read by workers of a given grade in agiven job isliot an easy decision. In the first place, if material to be read is written at, say. a 9.011GLand if a measurement indicates that the average RGL of the people who will he required to read that.material is 9.0, it ig tempting to say that the reatling Material matches the reader and that there is nocommunication problem. However, an average RGL of 9.0 in the mesured population b y

definition, means that half the group would be below.that average and should therefore iiove sometrouble handling the material. It follows, thZ4, that if the attempted solution involves the rewriting,

on a less difficult level, of the material to be read, a decision must be made coneck)rning hdw far downthe RGL should be moved. The solution to this problem is complex and requites information nptcurrently available, for example, answets to the following questions.

J1 3o.

Is there some lower limit to bow inucli MCI. elm be reduced in a given d(winneut withoutincreasing the length of the materiol intolerably? Worded an-other .w Y. is there mini!. point 01diminishing returns in the effort to reduce the

2. W hat proportion of reading material must be read by varioutLgrades (and across variousoccupations)? To the. extent that the reading material is common across groups. to that etcnt Isdesi,cable to lower the It Cl..to the lowest practical level for all users of the material. regardlcss of thegrade of the prospective readers? r -

3. In an exercise to reduce It CI. from, say, 01 ti,L0.0, would it be significantiv more difficult tolower it to 730? Or 6.0? If ij is not more difficult, ITterr is even less reason to try to match It t; I.sacross subjects and materials. III is more difficulty, thed 4ecisions concerning the rediultion of Rof materials shoult be based on c *st=effectivenesswonsidertitions.

Becithse of ihe above reasoning, the findings of this study (namely, thatNhere are significantrelationships between the classification gra(le of ellibjects and their. R GE.) have little immediateoperational impact. Thi,s knowledge might be used in the future, in conjunction with the Missinginfottlhation listed above, to determine the priority of allocation of limited resources. Rewriting ofrequired materials might be donc first in those areas which.show the largest discrepancies betweenIt GI. of subjects and RCL of mXterials (after they are known). Even (his application is somewhatweak because of the possibility that the RGL-44 the subjects is almost certainly associated withgeneral mental ability of the subjects and that general mental ability is.associated with promotion onthe job. General mental ability may have been the primary determiner of advancement on the job,and it may be an unrelated circumstance that reading ability, because of its correlation with generalmental ability, happened to Valvfince also.

This is a far different matter from interpreting these findings to mean that the d ifferences in It CI.of subjects by classification grade implies any direct or necessary requirement 1*othigher ot timerdifficulty level of materials which must be read at the various levels.

This study demonptrates that the RGL of subjeCts is associated with ths classification grade of thesubjects'. It remains for further research to indicate where the utility of this knowledge liesin.

- selection, in revision of certain materials, in 4ecisions about the extent* remedial training and towhom it should be administered, or in some related activity.'

REFERENCES

Brown, IL, Nelson, & Denny, E.C. Examiner's manual, The Nelson-Denny Read ingTest. Boston, MA: Houghton.Mifflin Company, 1976.

Duk, TM., & Nugent, W.A. Reading skill fevels in tile Navy. NPR DC-TR -78-19. San Diego.CA:.Navy Personnel Research and Development Center, April 1978.

Hamischfognr, A., & D.E. Achievement g s I score dee.line: Do we need to worry?Monograph. Chicago, IL: CEM EL, lhc. ecember 1V75.

Hoehn, A. Lumsdahte, A.A. Design and use of job aids for communicating technicalin meition. AFPTRC-TR-58-7, AD-152 109. Lowry AFB, CO: Air Force Personnel andTr Ming Research Center, Air Research and Development Cninmand, January 1958.

4

a

Hooke:Lit, P.J., A Slaughter, Readability ill Air Force publications: Acriterion referenced evaluation. A HI R.1.-TR -79-21, A D -A 075 237. Lowry A F11,CO :Technical Training Division, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory, Soptembc:r 1,79.

Huff, K.H., Sdc ht, 'EC., Joyner, J.N., Groff, & BurkAt, J.R. A job-o riented reading pr ogr amfor the Air Force: Developmenttand field evaluation. AFIIRL-TR AD-A047203. Libowty AFB, (.:0;4 Technical Trning Division, Air Porce Human R csourcet3Laboratory, M ayt 1977.

Jeakms, F.S., Blalek, H.M., Pitph, F., & Conlon, P. Developing the potential of low -ability- personnel. HumR110 FR -WD-CA-75-b. Alexandria, V,A: Human ResourcA. Research

t Organization, June 1975. ,

J.D., Stevenson, C.11., Klare, G.R., EntinA,B., Slaughter, S.L., & Hooke, L Operationalconsquences. of literacy gap. AFHRL-,TR,-79-22, AD-A079 677. Lowry AFB, CO:Technical Training Division, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory, November 1979.

Mathews, JJ., Valentine, LD., $r., & Selbnarr, W.S. Prediction of read'ing grade levels ofservice applicants from Armed Services Vocational Aptitude llauery (ASV All).AFHRL-TR-7t1-82, AD-A063 656. Brks AMR, TX: Personnel Research Division, AirForce Human Resources Laboratory, Net-ember 1978.

MeGoff, & Hanling, F.D. A report on literacy training programs in the att ed forces.AFHRL-TR-73-69, AD-781 366. Alexandria, VA: Manpower Development bivision, AirForce Human Resourees Laboratory, April 1974.

Moekovak, W.P. Literacy skills and requireniAts in Air Force careert adders. AMR L-TR74-90, AD-A008 770. Lowry AFB', CO: Technical Training Division, Air Force HumanResources Laboratory, Deeemlier 1974.

Stieht, T.W. A program- of Army functional 'job reading tratning: Development,implementation', and delivery system. HumRRO-FR-WD-CA-75-rAlexandria, VA:H uman.R esources Research Organization, June 1975.

& Clark, W.W. Examiner's manual, Calife?1,ia Achievement Tests (Rea4ingSection 1 & 2). Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hifl, Del Monte Research Park, 1970.

U.S. Department of Labm:. Dictionary of occupational titles (3rd ed.),Vols. 1, 11. Supezintendantof Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, W.ashington, D.C., 1965.

1

1 5

12

(

APPENDIX A: AIR FORCE BASES, PA1TICIPAT1NC IN SURVEY

Location Air Force Command.

PentagonLaciland AFURandolph AFBKelly AFBMcClellan AFBAndrews AFB

'Carswell AFBEdwards. AFBBergstrom APBUnclassified

Air Force HeadquartersAir Training CommandAir Training.CommandLogistics CommandLogistics CummandMilitary Airlift CommandStrategic Air CommandSystems CommandTactical Air Command

k/

If

13

c

85101

10317918912457

157505

1,050

4

APPENDIX II,: SAMPLE ACTERISTIcti(Total N 1,050)

4111

Sex Civilian Category

M ale 59%

Female 40% WC 26%

I% Ws F 6%

2% *

100%100%

Race Test Taken

White 68% California Reading = 65%

Spanish American' = 18% Nelson-Denny Ready 34%

Black 9% % *

American Indian 1%

Oriental = 1% 100%

Other 2%

100%

*Invalid or nomippheable responses.

Jr-

APPENDIX C: HST NVACE GRADE M:::111"ATIONS IN SUR VFYS

M iscellaneous Occupations

Boiler Plant OperationBrakeman and ConductorEngineering Equipnkent Operator

quipment OperatorForklift OperatorLaborerPackerMaterials ExpeditorR iggerSandblasterTools and Parts AttendantWarehouseman

3. Structural Oceupation8

Asphalt yti orkerBlooker and BracerCarpenterCement FinisherCrane OperatorF.lectricianPainterPlumberSheet M etal M echanicWelderWood Workex

5. Bench Work Occupations

Electronic Integrated SystemsElectronic MechanicInstrument MechanicInstrument MakerOptical Instrument RepairerElectrical Equipment Repairer

2. Service treupations

Baker('.00kFood Service Worker'Lainulry W orkerNI ea CutterPest :OntrollerPrrast rJanitorStoreworker

4. M achine 'Trade Occupations

Air Conditioning MechanicAircraft MechanicA utomotive M echanicDI SinkerM achinistM aintenance MechanicM edical Equipment R epairerToolmakerUtility System Repairer

15 *u.S. GOVUNINNT PNOITIO OFrlets19so- 671-143/41