Training and Evaluation Outlines (T&EO): Usage and Scoring ...

1 ARI Research Note 2019-01 Training and Evaluation Outlines (T&EO): Usage and Scoring Method Preference for Task Steps and Sub-steps Hayley S. Foo Army Research Institute Fort Hood Research Unit Brian T. Crabb, Chief June 2019 United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences A Directorate of the Department of the Army Deputy Chief of Staff, G1 Authorized and approved for distribution: MICHELLE L. ZBYLUT, Director Technical Review by Dr. Jeffrey E. Fite, Army Research Institute NOTICES DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this Research Note has been made by ARI.

2 Please address correspondence concerning distribution of reports to: Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, ATTN: DAPE-ARI-ZXM, 6000 6th Street, Bldg 464/Mail Stop 5610, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5610 FINAL DISPOSITION: This document may be destroyed when it is no longer needed. Please do not return it to the Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. NOTE: The findings in this note are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized documents. i REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. REPORT DATE (dd-mm-yy) 2. REPORT TYPE Final 3. DATES COVERED (from.. to) January 2015 January 2016 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Training and Evaluation Outlines (T&EO): Usage and Scoring Method Preference for Task Steps and Sub-steps 5a.

3 CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER 5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 662785 6. AUTHOR(S) Hayley S. Foo ( Army Research Institute) 5c. PROJECT NUMBER A790 5d. TASK NUMBER 215 5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences Fort Hood Research Unit Bldg 36000, Darnall Loop Fort Hood, TX 76544-0993 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 6000 6th Street, Bldg 1464/Mail Stop 5610 Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5610 10. MONITOR ACRONYM ARI 11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER 12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

4 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Subject Matter POC: Hayley S. Foo 14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words): A Training and Evaluation Outline (T&EO) describes the task, conditions, and standards for Training and is the Army standard for Training and evaluating individual and collective tasks. There is conflicting evidence on the extent to which T&EOs are used. This effort examined the frequency of T&EO use according to commission type (officers and noncommissioned officers), Training environment (Combat Training Center versus Home Station), and Career Management Fields (CMF). Performance on T&EO task steps and performance measures (sub-steps) are evaluated using GO/NOGO, a method that may not be sufficiently discriminative.

5 In order to determine the acceptability of using a numeric scale, preferences for GO/NOGO versus a numeric scale were examined. The results indicate that frequency of T&EO use was bimodal: falling in either < 40% or 60%. There was no strong preference for using GO/NOGO or a numeric scale for the task steps but a strong preference for using GO/NOGO for the sub-steps. The findings were the same regardless of commission type, Training environment, and CMF. 15. SUBJECT TERMS T&EO GO/NOGO Numeric Performance Measures SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 19. LIMITATION OF 20. NUMBER 21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON 16. REPORT Unclassified 17. ABSTRACT Unclassified 18. THIS PAGE Unclassified ABSTRACT Unlimited OF PAGES Brian T.

6 Crabb 254-288-3833 ii ARI Research Note 2019-01 Training and Evaluation Outlines (T&EO): Usage and Scoring Method Preference for Task Steps and Sub-steps Hayley S. Foo Army Research Institute Fort Hood Research Unit Brian T. Crabb, Chief Army Research Institute 6000 6th Street, Bldg 1464 Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5610 June 2019 Army Project Number Personnel Performance 2O262785A790 and Training Technology Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. iii Training AND Evaluation Outlines (T&EO): Usage AND Scoring METHOD PREFERENCE FOR TASK STEPS AND SUB-STEPS CONTENTS Page Method ..2 Participants and Procedure ..2 Data Analyses ..2 Results ..2 Demographics ..2 T&EO Usage : Overall Frequency ..3 T&EO Usage : Frequency by Commission Type, Training Environment, and CMF.

7 3 T&EO Task Steps: Overall Scoring Method Preference ..4 T&EO Task Steps: Scoring Method Preference by Commission Type, Training Environment, and CMF ..5 Performance Measures Task Sub-steps: Overall Scoring Method Preferences ..6 Task Sub-steps: Scoring Method Preference by Commission Type, Training Environment, and CMF ..7 Discussion ..8 References ..10 Appendix A. Interview A-1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. T&EO Usage ..3 Figure 2. T&EO Usage by Commission Type, Training Environment, and Other CMFs ..4 Figure 3. Scoring Method Preference for T&EO Task Steps ..5 Figure 4. Scoring Method Preference for T&EO Task Steps by Commission Type, Training Environment, and Other CMFs ..6 Figure 5. Scoring Method Preference for T&EO Task Sub-steps.

8 7 Figure 6. Scoring Method Preference for T&EO Task Sub-steps by Commission Type, Training Environment, and Other CMFs ..8 1 Training AND Evaluation Outlines (T&EO): Usage AND Scoring METHOD PREFERENCE FOR TASK STEPS AND SUB-STEPS Mission success requires a trained and ready force (Department of the Army, 2016). Thus, reliable and valid measures of unit Training readiness are essential. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) publications such as Training Circulars (TC) and Training & Evaluation Outlines (T&EO) provide the Army standards for Training and evaluating individual and collective tasks. A T&EO describes the task, conditions, and standards for Training , and four sections Plan, Prepare, Execute, and Assess that are evaluated.

9 Each section contains a list of task steps and performance measures (sub-steps), with each step and measure rated as GO/NOGO and the overall task assessed as T (Fully Trained), P (Practiced), or U (Untrained). The GO/NOGO checklist and TPU rating of Training readiness is used in both individual and collective tasks. Recently, the scale for the task proficiency standards has been expanded to T, T- (Trained), P, P- (Marginally Practiced), or U (Untrained). (Department of the Army, 2016). Operational units are expected to use Army standards ( , T&EO) to evaluate Training at home station. However, very little published data are available on the extent to which T&EOs are used. It has been claimed, without supporting evidence, that T&EOs were used extensively for home station Training (Fober, 1997).

10 The aim of the present study is to examine how often T&EOs are used, by determining the frequency of use according to commission type (officers versus noncommissioned officers [NCO]), Training environment (home station (HS) versus Combat Training Center [CTC]), and different Career Management Fields (CMF). In the past, a T&EO database was kept at the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC), one of the Army s three CTCs, with the goal of enabling trainers and researchers to study progress and trends in unit performance (Fober, 1993, 1997; Fober, Dyer, & Salter, 1994; Nichols, 1991). However, comparisons of TPU ratings on company tasks from five rotational units at JRTC showed that the scale did not discriminate performance among units. For example, performances on most (> 70%) company tasks were rated as U (Fober, 1997), suggesting a need for more sensitive and/or accurate measures of performance.