Ss who served in a variety of training experiments were rated by Es in terms of “how hard they tried to achieve on the experimental tasks.” Reliability of the paired comparison procedure was .63. The only strong positive relation with performance, however, was with errors in a single difficult experiment held at the beginning of the program. It is suggested that raters were rating passive “cooperation” instead of “achievement effort.”
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbramsA. J.A further evaluation of a programed text on the use of the multimeter. U. S. Naval Personnel Res. Act. San Diego Tech. Bull., 1965, No. 65-12.
2.
BlumenfeldW. S.Interrater reliabilities of (partial pairing) paired comparison ratings and graphic scale ratings: a comparative note. J. educ. Res., in press.
3.
BraunsteinH. M.CheslerD. J.FordJ. F.RohwerW. D.RundquistE. A.Rule following versus stimulus structure training for concept attainment and transfer. U. S. Naval Personnel Res. Act. San Diego Tech. Bull., 1965, in press.
4.
BraunsteinD. N.CurranT. E.Training understanding of relative motion: IV. Further analysis of geographic model versus traditional instruction. U. S. Naval Personnel Res. Act. San Diego Tech. Bull., 1965, in press.
5.
DanielsR. W.Concept formation in passive sonar operator training. U. S. Naval Personnel Res. Act. San Diego Tech. Bull., 1965, in press.
6.
GuilfordJ. P.HoepfnerR.Current summary of structure-of-intellect factors and suggested tests. Rep. Psychol. Lab., Univer. of So. Calif., 1963, No. 30.
7.
KlippleA. G.An exploratory investigation of the effects of ambiguity in training materials on sonar cue judgments. U. S. Naval Personnel Res. Act. San Diego Tech. Bull., 1965, No. 65-13.
8.
MeyerJ. K.An experimental comparison of instructional techniques for use in teaching computer flow chart design. V. S. Naval Personnel Res. Act. San Diego Tech. Bull., 1965, No. 65-10.
