QUALITIES NECESSARY FOR SUCCESS AS AN ARMY OFFICER: AN OBVERSE FACTOR ANALYSIS OF OFFICER OPINION

70 Pages·1.718 MB·English

by  CAMPBELL, JOEL TILLMAN, JR

QUALITIES NECESSARY FOR SUCCESS AS
AN ARMY OFFICER - AN 0BV3ESE
FACTOR ANALYSIS OF
OFFICER OPINION
DISSERTATION
Presented In Partial Fulfillment of the Eequlremente
for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the
Graduate School of The Ohio State
University
By
JOEL TILLMAN CAMPBELL, B.A., M.A.
The Ohio State University
1952
Approved by:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My appreciation ie due to Dr. Robert J. Wherry, for hie everwilling
and helpful couneel and advice in carrying out this study. I am also
indebted to the late Dr. Charles 1. Mosler and to Dr. Irwin K. Taylor
for assistance in the initial formulation of the problem, and to
Dr. Donald £. Baler and Colonel 7red C. Milner for permission to use
data from the files of the Personnel Research Section, Adjutant General's
Office.
My wife, Yolanda A. Campbell, has been my co-worker throughout
the study , in procedures and interpretation, as well as in the more
tedious clerical work. Without her assistance, the study would hardly
have been possible.
Also, I am very much Indebted to Mrs. Betty K. Boet and Mrs. Nancy
C. Meldrum for transforming my handwriting into something readable.
i
S05KT85
TABLE OP CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I Background 1
II Design of Study 6
III Interpreting the raotore 11
IV Comparison of Dealrable Quality Factors with
Bating of Persona Factors 20
V Summary and Conclusions 22
Bibliography 63
11
INDEX FOB TABLES
Table* Page Number
I ....................................................... 24
II ............................................................ 53
III .......................................... ............. 3U
IV ........................................................ 40
V ..................................................41
VI ........................................................ 54
VII ....................................................... 6l
VIII ....................................................... 62
111
QUALITIES NECESSARY FOB SUCCESS AS AH ARMY OFFICER --
All GBVERS8 FACTOR AJIALTSM OF OFFICER OPINION
CHAPTER I
BACKGROUND
Previous tfork In Validity of Ratings
In tho study of efflclenoy reporting and related areas, emphasis
haa been on overall rail41ty. This la to be expected and la not inproper,
slnoe the uaefulneaa of a rating procedure nuat be neaaured for the whole
group oonoerned.
There have been eone atudlea In differential validity. Theae have
largely been United to comparisona of the validity of a particular
rating procedure for groupa separated on various bases. For example,
the validity of the Army*s Officer Efficiency Report, WD AGO Form 67-1,
was determined for rateea of different grades and of different branches
of servloe.(lU) Several studies have considered rater characteristics
In reference to rating validity. Thus, the relative validity of ratings
by hard and lenient raters has been measured, (2, 16) as has the validity
of ratings by those who themselves receive high or low ratings.(17)
Perhaps It will be enlightening to Investigate whether different
groups are looking for different qualities as desirable. Specifically
considering Army officers, do all officers agree on what characteristics
are Important or are there different groups with differing views?
Inverse Factor Analysis
A technique for Isolating groups is available in obverse factor
analysis.
Stephenson and Thomson Independently proposed factorization of
correlations between persons as a distinct technique at about the same
1
2
tlme.(l8, 23) Even before this, however, Beebe - Center had used the
procedure In studying the hedonic value of odors.(1)
This method has been called variously "Q-technique," "Inverse
factor analysis,** and "obverse factor analysis." The title "Q-technique"
was suggested by Thomson and accepted by Stephenson, who then labelled
the conventional factorization of test correlations "r-technique."(21)
The term "inverse analysis," as Burt points out, Is subject to confusion
with the Inverse of a matrix. "The matrix of measurements with which we
start Is not the Inverse of, but a transpose of, that which Is correlated
In the usual way."*(5) Thurstone seems to prefer the term "obverse
analysis."(26)
Stephenson and Burt, on one hand, and Thomson, on the other, differ
as to the usefulness of the technique. Thomson held the view that It can
be applied only where the data can be ranked. Be applied It to such
situations as the ranking of esthetic values, or the grading of tests.
He feels that most test scores, being In different arbitrary values,
cannot be correlated legitimately. "But we meet at once with a serious
difficulty as soon as we attempt to calculate a correlation coefficient
between two persons........ To do so, we must find the average of
each column . . . . But to find the average of each column . . . is to
assume that these marks are in some sense oomnensurable up and down the
♦This point Is misquoted by Moore, Stafford, and Hsu(12) In their
otherwise very good review of the development of obverse factor analysis.
They state that "the matrix of correlations . . . . Is a transpose . . ."
3
column, although each entry la a mark for a different teat, on a scoring
ayateai vhlch la wholly arbitrary In each test."(25)
Burt replies that this objection Is no stronger for InteroorreletIons
between persons than for InteroorrelatIons between tests. "What we
correlate when we 'correlate tests' are measurements for certain persons'
traits; and what we correlate when we 'oorrelate persons' are In theory
measurements for the same traits In the same persons. The only difficulty,
therefore, Is to select traits and to find units which shall be consistent
with the particular form of statistical analysis in view. . . Once the
arbitrary measurements furnished by the tests have been changed to
standard measure, we can average the different tests with or without
additional weighting. That Is all that Is required for correlating by
persons."(5) Stephenson(20) also holds this view.
Stephenson and Burt disagree as to the Interpretation resulting
from factor analysis of persons. Stephenson feels that the "Q"
technique Is entirely different from "r" technique and that the Inter­
pretation Is necessarily different. He states that analysis of a set
of data Is not complete until both techniques have been employed.(4, 22)
Burt feels that the factors resulting are the same as those resulting
from analysis of tests, with the possible exception of the first general
factor.
Most of those who have commented on the point or who have used
the technique have not agreed with Stephenson's position. The general
opinion seems to be that It is a matter of convenience whether you
factor analyse Interoorrelatlons of persons or InteroorrelatIons of
tests.(5, k, 5, 6, 12, 27)
The Wherry -Gaylord Iterative Procedure
Factor analysis of either set of Interoorrelatloos has the obvioue
drawback that you first haws to compute the correlations. When the
number of variables becomes at all large, computation of lnteroorreletlone
becomes quite laborious.
Wherry and Geylord(28) proposed an iterative factor analysis procedure
vhlch does not require the computation of these lnteroorrelatlons.*
Wherry, Campbell, and Perloff(29) showed that the procedure extracted the
same factors es the Thurstone centroid method.
In this study, the Wherry-Gaylord procedure will be applied to the
obverse factor analysis problem of differentiating opinion groups among
Army officers.
Objectives of the Study
This study should yield three results:
(a) It should Indicate whether the Wherry-Gaylord procedure
will yield results when applied to en obverse factor analysis problem.
(b) It should provide some Indication as to whether factor
analysis of persons results In the same factors as the factor analysis
of Items In the Wherry, Campbell, and Perloff study.
(c) The analysis of a slightly different Instrument on a new
population will yield valuable Information to the agency furnishing the
raw data. To the extent that the Instrument has been changed, these
results will constitute a parallel to the validity extension problem In
•Working Independently, Loeringer, DuBols and their assoolates(9, 11)
seem to be developing a procedure very similar to the Wherry-Gaylord.
5
multiple correlation(13) to the extent that changes have been minor, It
will constitute a study paralleling the concept of cross-validation.
Since it waa felt that thes* changes were probably minor, It was expected
that the study would serve to throw light on (b) above.
6
CHAPTER II
DESIGN OEF THE STUDY
Population
Two hundred and fifty-nin© Army Officer© gar© their opinions on
deelrable officer qualifications in completing the Officer Qualification
Evaluation Form, ICL-1 B in January 19^-9« These responses were secured
as part of a larger study conducted hy the Personnel Research Scotion,
AGO, designed to lead to the forced choice sections of a revised Officer
Efficiency Report. (6, 15)
Design of the Form
The Items
The form oontalned 292 items pertaining to behavior or traits of
Aray officers. These items had been selected from essays written by
experienced Regular Army Officers in which they described outstandingly
good or outstandingly poor officers whom they had known. Pertinent
phrases were chosen from the essays and edited to make the phrase of
general application. Some of the items were favorable and some were
unfavorable. Some were stated positively and some were stated
negatively. The same area of behavior might be covered by several items
with slightly different phrasing. For example, in the general area of
energy were such items as: "lazy," "spends' long hours on the Job" "does
Just enough to elide by," "avoids work," "has a great capacity for
work," and "mentally lazy." The items were arranged in random order.
The list of the items is shown in Table I.
The Instructions
The directions for accomplishing the form were as follows: