TIER ONE PERFORMANCE SCREEN
Tonia S. Heffner,*, Len White, and Kimberly S. Owens
U.S. Army Research Institute
Arlington, VA 22202
ABSTRACT The ASVAB was developed to predict an
applicant’s likelihood of being trained to proficiency on
This research was designed to identify the most the necessary knowledge and skills to perform an Army
promising non-cognitive measures to screen Army job. Extensive research demonstrates that ASVAB
applicants. Soldiers were administered a non-cognitive performs exactly as it is intended to perform (Campbell
test battery at Army Reception Battalions. Performance, & Knapp, 2001); it is an excellent predictor of the “can-
attitudinal, and attrition data were captured from these do” (proficiency) aspects of performance. However, the
same Soldiers at the end of Initial Military Training, in ASVAB is not a strong predictor of the “will-do” or
their first unit of assignment, and from Army databases. motivational outcomes; e.g., non-academic attrition,
The results demonstrate that non-cognitive measures effort, physical fitness. To improve the selection of new
increase the prediction of the outcomes beyond that Soldiers and to increase flexibility within the personnel
which can be achieved with the existing selection tools. management system, the Army needs to predict which
Preliminary results from an initial operational test and applicants have not only the aptitude to become
evaluation continue to support these conclusions. The technically proficient, but also the motivation to
results have implications for tailoring applicant selection diligently perform at a high standard.
to current Army needs.
Findings from multiple research efforts have
1. INTRODUCTION demonstrated that ARI’s non-cognitive measures add to
the capability of educational attainment and the ASVAB
To meet current and future missions, the Army for predicting attrition and Army performance
needs flexibility within the personnel system to recruit components such as job effort, leadership, and personal
and access applicants with the greatest potential to discipline (Campbell & Knapp, 2001; Ingerick, Diaz, &
succeed in the Army. Such flexibility allows the Army Putka, 2009; Knapp, McCloy, & Heffner, 2004; Knapp
to adapt to changing economic, social, and global & Tremble, 2007). Non-cognitive is a comprehensive
conditions which may impact the recruiting environment. term which encompasses a broad spectrum of
In more favorable recruiting markets, the number of assessments. For this research, non-cognitive measures
applicants exceeds the number of Soldiers needed and were limited to temperament, or personality, and
the emphasis may be to “screen out” applicants with vocational interest assessments. The purpose of the
lowest potential. When the recruiting environment is research described in this paper was to conduct a large
very challenging, selection tools can help expand the scale, longitudinal examination of a battery of state-of-
recruiting market and “screen in” high potential the-art non-cognitive measures for predicting valued
individuals. As conditions change, a flexible personnel Army outcomes. The focus of this research is Tier 1
system must continue to maintain the high standards nonprior service applicants. The Tier 2 attrition screen
currently in place for applicant selection. (TTAS), which uses a non-cognitve measure, already is
in operation for selection of Tier 2 applicants (White,
To predict a recruit’s potential for lower attrition and Young, Heggestad, Stark, Drasgow, & Piskator, 2004).
higher performance, the Army uses educational Prior service Soldiers were excluded because they have
attainment and the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude different knowledge about and expectations of military
Battery (ASVAB) as screening tools. Educational Tier 1 service as well as an established record of success.
applicants, primarily high school diploma graduates, are
more desirable recruits because analyses have shown that 2. METHOD
they have lower attrition than Tier 2, or non-high school
diploma graduates (Strickland, 2004; Trent & Lawrence, 2.1 Reception Battalion Predictor Testing
1993). Although educational attainment does predict
attrition, it has a much weaker relationship with other A total of 8,103 Tier 1 nonprior service Soldiers
motivational outcomes; e.g., physical fitness, effort, participated in the research. The vast majority of the
leadership. Soldiers had 2-5 days time in service when they
completed the test battery. The sample was mostly male
(78%). Of the sample, 76% reported their race/ethnicity
as White, 16% reported African-American, and 15% precise measurement while simultaneously increasing
reported Hispanic. 1 An emphasis was placed on gaining testing efficiency and providing improved test security.
participation from Soldiers assigned to the military The TAPAS uses a paired forced-choice approach. Each
occupational specialties (MOS) of Infantryman (11B), applicant is required to select one of two statements that
Armor Crewman (19K), Military Police (31B), Health is most like him or her. The item bank of more than 600
Care Specialist (68W), Motor Transport Operator (88M), statements and the delivery software have been carefully
and Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic (91B) and from all developed so that no pair of displayed statements has one
components (Regular Army [RA], Army Reserve that is discernibly more socially desirable than the other.
[USAR] and Army National Guard [ARNG]). The statements are independent so each applicant will be
presented with different pairs of statements which makes
The Soldiers were administered the paper and pencil each applicant’s test virtually unique. The determination
non-cognitive test battery in large classrooms at the of the subsequent pairings is regulated by the previous
Reception Battalions. They were informed that the responses of the applicant. A sample item is presented in
research was voluntary and that the U.S. Army Research Figure 1.
Institute (ARI) would track their progress through their
Table 2. Definitions of TAPAS Dimensions
first term of enlistment to include administering
Achievement Individuals scoring high are hard working,
measures at the end of Initial Military Training (IMT), at ambitious, confident, or resourceful.
about 18 months time in service (TIS), and at about 36 Non- Persons scoring high tend to comply with
months TIS. The test administration took about two delinquency current rules and expectations; they dislike
hours. change and do not challenge authority.
Even- Persons scoring high tend to be calm, level
tempered headed, and stable.
Table 1. Predictor Sample Size by MOS and Component Intellectual High scoring individuals process information
MOS RA ARNG USAR efficiency quickly and are described by others as
knowledgeable, astute, or intellectual.
11B 1177 612 0
Optimism Persons scoring high have a general
19K 447 113 0 emotional tone reflecting joy or happiness.
31B 616 580 288 Physical Person scoring high are interested in physical
68W 114 148 45 Conditioning activities.
88M 162 262 88 Attention- Individuals scoring high seek social
91B 186 181 105 seeking stimulation; they are loud, loquacious,
Other 2668 1873 1113 entertaining, and even boastful.
3. PREDICTOR MEASURES Computer-adaptive testing was not feasible at the
Reception Battalions, so a carefully constructed paper
3.1 Non-cognitive Test Battery and pencil version of the TAPAS was created for this
research. Care was taken to capitalize on the advances of
The non-cognitive test battery consisted of six computer adaptive testing such as paring statements from
measures (see Knapp & Heffner, 2009) but this different dimensions, balancing statements for social
discussion will be limited to one temperament and one desirability, and ensuring that statements reflected equal
vocational interest measure, described below. levels of the underlying dimensions.
TAPAS. The Tailored Adaptive Personality Dimension Statements (always displayed in pairs)
Assessment System (TAPAS) is a 15 dimension Dominance I am not one to volunteer to be group
personality measure of which 7 are described in Table 2 leader, but I would serve if asked.
(Stark, Chernyshenko, & Drasgow, 2010). These Optimism My life has had about an equal share of
dimensions were selected based on past research and job ups and downs.
analyses as likely to be predictive of enlisted Figure 1. Sample TAPAS items
performance outcomes. The TAPAS normally
administered as an adaptive test designed to be
administered on the same computer platform as the The TAPAS provides two composite scores based
ASVAB so the transition to TAPAS would be seamless on the seven dimensions listed above. The “can do”
to the applicant. The advantage of a computer-adaptive score reflects learning-based aspects of performance.
test is that it allows each test to be tailored to an The “will do” score reflects the motivational aspects of
individual’s level of a particular attribute for more performance.
The numbers sum to greater than 100% because race Work Preferences Assessment. The Work
and ethnicity are two distinct questions. Preferences Assessment (WPA) is a vocational interest
measure designed to assess preferences for various work 4. OUTCOME ASSESSMENT
activities, work environments, and learning
opportunities. It is designed to assess “fit” between an 4.1 IMT Participants and Procedure
applicant and the types of jobs available in the Army.
The content is based on Holland’s (1997) theory of A subset of the Soldiers in the target MOS who were
personality and work environments which posits that participants in the predictor data collection (n = 2,294)
jobs can be rated and profiled on 6 dimensions: Realistic, also participated in the outcome data collection
Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and approximately two weeks before graduation from IMT
Conventional (see Figure 2 for sample statements). The (see Table 3). The sample was mostly male (91%), 86%
Soldier rates each statement based on how important it is reported their race/ethnicity as White, 7% reported
to his or her ideal job. Although the WPA has some African-American, and 7% reported Hispanic. Males
potential utility for selection, its real strength lies in the were slightly overrepresented because 11B and 19K are
potential to improve classification. restricted to males only. For AFQT category, 32% were
Category I or II, 28% were Category IIIA, 36% were
Category IIIB, and 3% were Category IV. The Soldiers
Dimension Statement were tracked by training company rather than
Realistic A job that requires me to get my hands individually and the entire company took the outcome
dirty. measures. The assessments were administered, in groups
Investigative A job that requires me to research topics no larger than 40 Soldiers, via computers using ARI’s
and write reports about what I find. Interform software. Outcome data collection took 90 to
Artistic A job that requires me to come up with 120 minutes per group and was proctored by project
creative ideas. staff.
Social A job in which I can learn how to
communicate better with people. Table 3. IMT Sample Size by MOS and Component
Enterprising A job in which advancement in the MOS RA ARNG USAR
organization is valued. 11B 551 122 0
Conventional A job in which I can learn more about 19K 354 113 0
managing an office. 31B 316 269 132
Figure 2. Sample WPA statements. 68W 42 71 22
88M 23 35 15
91B 102 78 40
3.2 Administrative Data
4.2 In-unit Participants and Procedure
From Army databases, demographic information
was acquired including gender, race, MOS, ASVAB
A subset of the Soldiers (n = 1,233) were
scores, and Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT)
administered the computerized outcome measures at
scores. The AFQT is a subscore of the ASVAB which is
about18 months TIS (see Table 4). The sample was
used to determine enlistment eligibility and other
mostly male (78%), 77% reported their race/ethnicity as
White, 14% reported African-American, and 16%
reported Hispanic. For AFQT category, 41% were
Applicants are assigned to one of six categories
Category I or II, 20% were Category IIIA, 34% were
based on their AFQT scores. Those above the mean are
Category IIIB, and 5% were Category IV. With the
assigned to Categories I (highest scorers), II (above
assistance of the Human Resources Command, we were
average), IIIA (slightly above average). Applicants
able to track the Soldiers to their posts and requested
scoring in Categories I-IIIA are given priority for
them, by name, to participate in the 90-120 minute
accession over those scoring below the mean.
testing sessions which were proctored by project staff.
Applicants below the mean are assigned to Category IIIB
(slightly below average) and Category IV (lowest
acceptable category). Category IV enlistments are Table 4. In-unit Sample Size by MOS and Component
greatly restricted and Category V applicants are not MOS RA ARNG USAR
enlistment eligible. 11B 184 21 0
19K 60 3 0
31B 108 49 28
68W 13 14 7
88M 23 14 10
91B 18 10 14
Other 374 160 123
4.3 Outcome Measures assessment regardless of whether they participated in the
IMT and/or in-unit data collections.
Job Knowledge. The Soldiers took one or two
knowledge tests depending on when they were tested and Attrition. Attrition data for the Regular Army
on their MOS. Both tests consisted of multiple choice, Soldiers was continuously provided at 3 month intervals
matching, ordering, and drag and drop (i.e., moving from the U.S. Army Accessions Command. Attrition
items around with a mouse on the computer screen) type data for this sample was not available for Army Reserve
questions. Graphics were liberally included in the tests and National Guard Soldiers.
to reflect the procedural aspects of some tasks and to
decrease the reading demand. Those Soldiers who were Training Performance. We collected training
in one of the target MOS listed above took an MOS- performance/test scores from the Resident Integrated
specific test. The number of possible points on these Training Management System (RITMS). Each
tests ranged from 90 to 168. For those Soldiers assessed Advanced Individual Training (AIT) course is divided
at the end of training, the test content was restricted to into performance blocks which represent training for a
content from the program of instruction (POI) for the specific topic area. Either a performance-based or test-
course whereas the tests administered at about 18 months based assessment was completed at the end of each
time in service included questions related to a broader performance block. To determine the training
scope of skill level 10 tasks. Soldiers tested in IMT only performance score, we averaged across the performance
took the MOS-specific test. The second knowledge test, blocks. Training performance was not available for all
which had 126 possible points, assessed warrior tasks MOS.
and battle drills (WTBD), or Soldier common tasks, and
was administered to every Soldier tested in-unit. Those Training Completion. From the Army Training
in a target MOS also took the MOS-specific test. Requirements and Resources System (ATRRS), we
collected data on the number of course restarts a Soldier
Army Life Questionnaire. The Soldiers in IMT and had and his or her graduation status.
in-unit completed a survey of their attitudes including
commitment, attrition thoughts, career intentions, 5. RESULTS
satisfaction with their jobs and the Army, and their
perceived fit with their MOS and the Army. The Overall, the results demonstrated that TAPAS can
Soldiers self-reported their Army Physical Fitness Test contribute to the prediction of Army performance and
(APFT) and Basic Rifle Marksmanship (BRM) scores. attrition at the end of IMT (Knapp & Heffner, 2009);
The Soldiers also reported their disciplinary incidents. Knapp & Heffner, 2010) and in-unit (Knapp, Owens, &
Discipline was very broadly defined to include formal Allen, 2010).
counseling or being placed on restriction as well as
Article 15s. 5.1 IMT Results
Ratings of Performance. Ratings of Soldier Figures 3-6 provide a sample of the IMT results.
performance at the end of IMT came from two different Figures 3 and 4 illustrate how TAPAS and WPA,
sources, the Soldier’s peers (up to four raters) and the respectively, can improve the prediction of attrition and
Soldier’s Drill Sergeants or Platoon Sergeants (two performance over and above the AFQT. TAPAS
raters). For the in-unit performance ratings, only first incremented the AFQT only a small amount for training
line supervisors provided ratings. exam grades, but incremented the AFQT significantly for
the other outcome measures which are largely
All Soldiers, in both IMT and in-unit, were rated on motivation-based. Likewise, the WPA did little to
8 to 14 dimensions of common performance such as peer increment over the MOS-specific job knowledge test, but
leadership, commitment & adjustment, job-specific task added significantly to the AFQT for the prediction of the
performance, and common task performance. For those motivation-based outcomes. Of particular note is the
Soldiers in the target MOS, the raters also were asked to large increment that the WPA provided over AFQT for
complete the job-specific task performance rating scales Army fit. This result supports the proposition that the
for their Soldiers. The number of dimensions ranged WPA can aid with classification.
from 5 to 9.
To better illustrate the impact of non-cognitive
4.4 Administrative Data assessment to improve applicant selection and function
as a recruiting market expander, the results will be
Administrative data were collected from a variety of presented within AFQT categories. TAPAS “passing”
Army databases. The administrative data was collected scores were defined by two different cut scores. Passing
for all Soldiers who participated in the predictor at the 50th percentile means that the Soldier scored above
the mean on both the “can do” and “will do” composites.
Approximately 38% of the Soldiers were labeled as
passing. The 50th percentile reflects use of TAPAS as a
market expander, i.e., does the applicant have the
potential to perform like a Soldier in a higher AFQT
category? Scoring above the 10th percentile on both
composites resulted in 87% of the Soldiers “passing.”
The 10th percentile reflects use of TAPAS as a “screen-
out” tool; i.e., is the applicant likely to perform poorly?
Soldiers in AFQT Category IIIB who passed the
TAPAS at the 50th percentile had significantly lower
attrition rates than the Soldiers in AFQT Category IIIB
who failed (7.8 vs. 14.2%; see Figure 5). Further, those
in IIIB who passed at the 50th percentile had lower
attrition than Soldiers in any other AFQT Category. For
Soldiers in the lowest acceptable AFQT Category, IV,
those who passed TAPAS at the 10th percentile had
training exam scores similar to Soldiers in higher AFQT
Categories and markedly higher scores that those who
failed TAPAS (see Figure 6).
Figure 3. Initial research findings for IMT: TAPAS increases
prediction of potential beyond AFQT.
Figure 5. Comparison of attrition by AFQT Category
and TAPAS score (50th percentile).
Figure 4. Initial research findings for IMT: WPA increases
prediction of potential beyond AFQT.
Figure 6. Comparison of training course grades by
AFQT Category and TAPAS scores (10th percentile).
5.2 In-unit Results & Putka, 2009; Knapp, McCloy, & Heffner, 2004;
Knapp & Tremble, 2007). Further, these results
The results for outcomes assessed in-unit were demonstrate that non-cognitive measures, in combination
consistent with the results in IMT. A low sample size for with the AFQT, can be used to “screen-in” applicants
AFQT Category IV Soldier prohibited any analysis for likely to perform better and have lower attrition than
this group. For Soldiers in AFQT Category IIIB, those their AFQT category alone would predict and to “screen-
who passed TAPAS at the 50th percentile had lower out” low-motivated applicants who are likely to be low
attrition rates at 21 months TIS than those who failed performers and high attrition risks.
TAPAS (see Figure 6). Likewise, Soldiers in AFQT
Category IIIB who passed the TAPAS as the 50th
percentile had lower reported disciplinary incidents than 6.0 INITIAL OPERATIONAL TEST AND
those who failed TAPAS or any other AFQT Category. EVALUATION
In response to these findings, the Deputy Chief of
Staff, G-1, implemented TAPAS for an initial
operational test and evaluation (IOT&E). The TAPAS is
being used as a Tier 1 enlistment eligibility test. To
evaluate the operational use of TAPAS, ARI and US
Army Accessions Command are conducting an
evaluation. Testing at all Military Entrance Processing
Stations (MEPS) began FY10 Q2. To date, more than
100,000 applicants have taken the TAPAS. The WPA is
undergoing final testing by the Defense Manpower Data
Center (DMDC) to be added to the ASVAB platform and
testing is expected to begin FY11 Q2.
Outcome data is being collected to validate TAPAS
Figure 7. Comparison of 21 month attrition by as an enlistment eligibility test, to define appropriate
AFQT category and TAPAS score (50th percentile). pass-fail scores, and to examine use as an assignment
tool. The Soldiers who took TAPAS at the MEPS are
being tracked and a subset will be assessed four (4) times
during their first and second terms of enlistment using a
research design similar to the one described above. The
four changes to the research design are: 1) the outcome
measures are being administered by the Drill Sergeants
or Platoon Sergeants, 2) Signal Support Specialist (25U)
and Human Resource Specialist (42A) were added to the
list of target MOS, 3) the WTBD knowledge test is being
administered in IMT along with the MOS test, and 4)
peer ratings are not being collected in IMT to reduce the
burden on the Drill Sergeants and Platoon Sergeants.
6.1 Preliminary Results
As of FY10 Q4, a small number of Soldiers (n =
429) took the TAPAS and have completed IMT. The
length of the Delayed Entry Program, i.e., the time from
signing a contract to beginning training, has delayed
Figure 8. Disciplinary incidents by AFQT collection of the outcome data. Of the participants who
category and TAPAS score (50th percentile). have completed IMT, the sample was mostly male
(81%), 65% reported their race/ethnicity as White, 11%
5.3 Results Summary reported African-American, 14% reported Hispanic, and
20% did not respond. For AFQT category, 39% were
This research supports earlier findings that non- Category I or II, 20% were Category IIIA, 24% were
cognitive measures contribute to prediction of “can do” Category IIIB, and 16% were Category IV. The large
performance and are strong predictors of “will do” number of Category IV Soldiers is an intentional
performance (Campbell & Knapp, 2001; Ingerick, Diaz, overrepresentation to ensure an analyzable sample size.
The following results should be interpreted very the Army. From a “screen-out” perspective, applicants
cautiously as they are based on very small sample sizes. who have a lower likelihood of completing training or
A second caution applies to the attrition results. In order the first term of enlistment can be excluded from
to have a larger sample size, the data were analyzed at 3 consideration – thus reducing training costs. From a
months time in service. For most Soldiers, this “screen-in” perspective, the results show that TAPAS
represents the completion of Basic Combat Training and has potential to help identify applicants who will perform
little to no MOS training. like applicants in the next higher AFQT category – thus
better identifying which applicants from a large group
Table 5. IOT&E Sample Size by MOS should be permitted to access and allowing for market
11B/C/X 198 expansion.
The pattern of results for 3 month attrition parallels
what was found previously (see Figures 5 & 7). Soldiers
in AFQT Category IIIB who passed TAPAS had lower
attrition than those who failed TAPAS. Attrition rates
for those who passed TAPAS in AFQT Category IIIB
were similar to those in other AFQT Categories. Figure 10. Training grades by AFQT category and
TAPAS score (50th percentile).
The use of non-cognitive assessments to improve
selection is relatively new, but the potential is great. In
addition to applicant selection, TAPAS is currently being
evaluated for in-service selection for special
assignments, officer selection, and applicant MOS
assignment. TAPAS also is being evaluated for Air
Force applicant selection.
The authors would like to thank Drasgow
Consulting Group, Dr. Fritz Drasgow, Project Director,
Figure 9. IOT&E 3 month attrition by AFQT score for their efforts under an SBIR Contract to support the
and TAPAS score development of the Tailored Adaptive Personality
Assessment System. We also thank the many contractors
Training grades for those AFQT Category IIIB from the Human Resources Research Organization, Dr.
Soldiers who passed TAPAS were slightly higher than Deirdre Knapp, Project Director, for their support for the
Soldiers who failed TAPAS and similar to the training measure development, data collection, and data analyses.
grades of IIIB Soldiers. The sample size, however, is too We appreciate the data collection assistance provided by
small to draw any conclusions. numerous ARI colleagues for this large effort. Finally,
we want to acknowledge the tens of thousands of
CONCLUSION Soldiers, noncommissioned officers, Army civilians, and
officers, particularly in the target MOS, who provided
Our results indicate that TAPAS improves the their time, patience, and organizational skills to make
prediction of Soldier attrition and performance beyond this research possible.
what is possible with current enlistment screens, ASVAB
and education credentials. Further, implementation of
TAPAS has the potential to provide numerous benefits to
Campbell, J. P. & Knapp, D. J. (2001). Exploring the Personnel Selection and Classification Measures
limits in personnel selection and classification. (Technical Report 1205). Arlington, VA: U.S.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and
Ingerick, M., Diaz, T., & Putka, D. (2009). Investigations Social Sciences.
into Army enlisted classification systems: Moriarty, K. O., Campbell, R. C., Heffner, T. S., &
Concurrent validation report (Technical Report Knapp, D. J. (2009). Validating future force
1244). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research performance measures (Army Class):
Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Reclassification test and criterion development
Knapp, D. J., & Heffner, T. S. (2009). Expanded Research Product 2009-11). Arlington, VA: U.S.
Enlistment Eligibility Metrics (EEEM : Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and
Recommendations on a non-cognitive screen for Social Sciences.
new Soldier selection (Technical Report 1267). Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., & Drasgow, F. (2010).
Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for Tailored Adaptive Personality Assessment System
the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (TAPAS-95s). In D. J. Knapp & T. S. Heffner
Knapp, D. J., & Heffner, T. S. (2009). Validating Future (Eds.), Expanded Enlistment Eligibility Metrics
Force Performance Measures (Army Class): End (EEEM : Recommendations on a non-cognitive
of training longitudinal validation (Technical screen for new Soldier selection (Technical Report
Report 1257). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army 1267). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research
Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Sciences. Strickland, W. J. (2004). A longitudinal study of first
Knapp, D. J., McCloy, R. A., & Heffner, T. S. (2004). term attrition and reenlistment among FY99
Validation of measures designed to maximize 21st enlisted accessions (FR-04-14). Alexandria, VA:
century Army NCO performance (Technical Human Resources Research Organization.
Report 1145). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Trent, T. & Lawrence, J. H (1993). Adaptability
Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social screening for the Armed Forces. Washington,
Sciences. D.C.: Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense
Knapp, D. J., Owens, K. S., & Allen, M. T. (2010). (Force Management and Personnel).
Validating Future Force Performance Measures White, L. A., Young, M. C., Heggestad, E. D., Stark, S.,
(Army Class): In-unit performance longitudinal Drasgow, F., & Piskator, G. (2004). Development
validation (Final Report FR-10-38). Alexandria, of a non-high school diploma graduate pre-
VA: Human Resources Research Organization. enlistment screening model to enhance the future
Knapp, D. J., & Tremble, T. R. (2007). Concurrent force. Paper presented at the 23rd meeting of the
Validation of Experimental Army Enlisted Army Science Conference, Orlando, FL.