prioritization for a career i/i review of army ?· "hd-r133 2s3 project prioritization for a...
Post on 25-Apr-2019
Embed Size (px)
"HD-R133 2S3 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION FOR A CAREER MANAGEMENT FIELD i/iREVIEW OF ARMY MEDIC.. (I) ACADEMY OF HEALTH SCIENCES(ARMY) FORT SAM HOUSTON TX K FINSTUEN ET AL. JUL 83
,UNCLASSIFIED AH5-7 F/G 5/9 M
EEE EEEEE hh
1.0J111 II -W'*1.25 1 1.
MICROCOPY RESOLUTIM# TEST CHART,,ATM&GA BURAUM Of STANtS-1963-A
JI "t% %%
TECHNICAL REPORT AHS - 7
f. "PROJECT PRIORITIZATION FOR A CAREER MANAGEMENT FIELD REVIEW
OF ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT ENLISTED SPECIALTIES
DIECORT OF TAINIG DVELOMEN
DTJC1C C 1983
Thi,,, .. rpp ,v 83 09 2 3 006"-, pub".!,, ' Itsdiat'tbutton is uL.aw83 09 2,c-.00
UNCLASSIFIEDSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (,'hn Date Eherod)
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONSBEFORE COMPLETING FORM
I. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER
- 7 4/33 t;-34. TITLE (and Subtitle) S. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED
PRJECT PRIORITIZATICN FOR A CAREER .MANA(UEMEVr Final. FIELD REVIE3 OF ARMY MEDICAL DEPARM" 3rd & 4th Qtr FY 83
ELISTED SPECIALTIES 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER
7. AUTHOR(s) S. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(&)
Kenn FinstuenDonald A. Lacey
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT. TASK
Directorate of Training Development AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERSAcademy of Health Sciences, U.S. Army Assignment Control NumberFt. Sam Houston, Tx 78234 ALN 85785
II. CONTROIALING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE
July 1983Academy of Health Sciences, U.S. Amy 1s. NUMBER OF PAGESFt. San Houston, Tx 78234 58
14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADORESS(iI different from Cmtroll Office) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of thLe report)
I5a. DECLASSI FI CATION/DOWNGRADINGSCHEDULE
I. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of thie Report)
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.
17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered In Block 20, if different from Report)
IIII. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
is. KEY WORDS (Continue on rovers* id. if necessa mid Identify by block nober)
Career Management Field Mltiple Linear RegressionIterative Decision Method Army Medic Training
( Enlisted Medical SpecialtiesGroup Decision Making
&W ANIYTRACr (Vmn4nm - reven OM N eeeinywsj mad Identify by block ndlmbr)Tie purpose of this study was to construct an ordered list of Army Medical Depart-pent enlisted occupational specialties for the prioritization of review activitiesin the 91 Career Managenent Field. A panel of seven experts identified 10 factorspertinent to the Army medical mission. Using the Iterative Decision Method (IlM),experts rendered sets of independent and group revised judgments for the priorityof 30 military occupational specialties. The final Criterion List of medical jcswas examined to assess the impact of various decision factors at both the indivi-dual and group levels. Results indicated that the list was valid and defensible,W F!T 14n Ez.TIOn Of I EOV C IS OBSOLETEI'.JA D 7i 3 UNCLASSIFIED
i:SECUR ITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (W~bm DatEniad
Technical Report AHS-7
Project Prioritizaticn For A Career Management Field Review
Of Army Medical Department Enlisted Specialties
Kenn Finstuen, M.S., M.Ed., Ph.D. ':.
Individual Training Division
L7C Donald A. Lacey, MSC
Chief, Program Management Office
Directorate of Training DevelopmentA"'inFAccession For
Academy of Health Sciences, U.S. Army NTIS GRA&I "-.'-
Ft. San Houston, Tx 78234 DTIC TABUnannounced r.Justificatlon
APPROVED FOR DBAvailabilit, Codes
PUBLICATION/PRESENTATION lAvail , VorDist |Special
ACADEMY OF HEALTH SCIENCES D spec-a
UNITED STATES ARMY AFORT SAM HOUSTON. TEXAg [ A"I
DISCLIMER NOTICE: The views of theauthors are their own and do not purport
to reflect the position of the Department .of the Army or the Department of Defense
PURRSE: The major aim of this study was the systaatic construction of anordered list of medical specialties to be used to prioritize and guide anindepth review and evaluation of the enlisted occupational structure (CareerManagement Field 91) within the Army Medical Department (AmDD).
1. A panel of seven members from the Academy of Health Sciences (AHS) staffwas formed at the request of the Director of Training Development. Panelmembers represented a cross-section of AMEDD experiences including new equipmentschedules and purchases, the Army 1990 training plan, Air Land Battle 2000,manpower authorization criteria and Table of Organization and Fquipment (TOE)development, existing grade structure infeasibilities, and the diversity ofAMEDD enlisted assignments.
2. Panel members met on three occasions. In the first meeting participantsidentified a set of possible decision factors which formed the basis for theprioritization of a list of 30 military occupational specialty (NOS) items.An attribute dictionary of 10 factors for each MS was developed by the staffmTebers. A second meeting was employed to set the context for judging MOSpriorities and consisted of briefings concerned with new AMDD equipmentforecasts, the Army 1990 training plan, and an expected combat threat scenariopresentation. The Iterative Decision Method (IDP) was used to secure two roundsof judgr ents from the experts (Jl - J2). Each panel member independently rankeda deck of 30 MVS item cards (Jl) to indicate his or her preferred W)S order forconducting the indepth review project. Decision results ware compiled anddisplayed in a standard feedback graph which indicated the average rank and thepercent of disagreement associated with each NVS. During the final face-to-faceinteractive meeting (J2), agreed upon results for M0S items were reviewed anddiscussion was directed to the MOS item placements containing the iost disagree-ment.
3. To ensure that the final agreed upon Criterion List of medical specialtieswas based upon meaningful and appropriate information, a series of multiplelinear regression analyses were performed to assess the impact of various deci-sion factors upon initial and revised judgments at both the individual and theaggregated group level.
EULTS: An independent judgment (Jl) decision euation was constructed whichexpressed the individual decisions as a function of separate MIO iten predictors.The resultant equation produced a goodness-of-fit coefficient of R = .86. Inaddition, overall rater reliability as assessed by coefficient rho obtained anestimate of .94. These findings indicated that the panel membe-s-independentlyagreed upon the relative placement of 25 of the 30 Ps items (83.33%) and thatdifferences among the average ranks for these item were stable and consistent.only five items required discussion and revision. Once resolved, a final Crit-erion List was prepared. To assess the effects of revisions on decision making,correlation comparisons were made among expert raters and among the Jil and J2ranked lists. All correlations were positive and indicated a high level ofsimilarity. To assess the specific ixmact of decision factors upon the initial
4/ ir,',,."'"'% "?%[ ?"" " .... ' : [ " "%- """" ["""*$ "" ' "" ' """""~d" n i" ' " " i. sI oe """" nmnlad " " ''i" '-'[ '" .- "
roll ..- .tot, tl i n.-- ..
I., I. I --
Background ........................... 1
Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22;Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Procedure .......................... 3
Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Generation and Comparisons of MOS Criterion Lists ... ...... 6
Relations Between Decision Factor Attributes and Individualand Group Decisions ....... .... .... .... 15Relations between MOS attributes and individual decisions 17Relations between MOS attributes and group decisions . . 19
Demonstration of J2 Criterion As "Gender-free". ....... .... 21
Discussion and Reccmmendations ........ ................. 22References ....... .. .......................... ... 23
Appendix I - m1s Attribute Dictionary ... ............. .... 24
- LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONSFigure Page
1 Standard InM graphic display for 91 C F panel judgmentsof AMEDD MS ........ .. ...................... 7
".aeLIST OF TABLES.Table Paqe
1 Domain of AMEDD MOS considered in 91 CMF Priority Study 4
2 YM Attributes Developed for 91 CMF Study .... ........ 5
. 3 Zero-order Cbrrelations and Disagreement Percentages, wng Raters For J1 Independent MKS Rankinq Decisions 9
4 91 CIMF Project Final Revised Group Priorities .... .... 12
5 Zero-order Validities For Lists ...... ............. 13
6 Zero-order Validities For Individual Rater Decisions . . 14
7 Decision Factor Variable Specifications and DescriptiveStatistics ....... ...................... ... 16
8 Multiple Linear Regression Results For PredictingIndividual Decisions ..... ................. .... 18
9 Multiple Linear Regression Results For PredictingGroup Decisions ...... .................... .... 19
10 Hypothesis Test Results For Possible Effects Due'lb Gender ....... ....................... .... 21
* ='. . . . . . . . . . . .. "
' " .
. Project Prioritization For A Career Management Field Review
Of Army Medical Department Enlisted Specialties
The Program Ma