The Baseline Officer Longitudinal Data Set (BOLDS) was developed jointly by the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) and the U.S. Military Academy (USMA) to enable researchers to study the development of leader performance over time. Currently, BOLDS consists of data accumulated on USMA cadets from the Class of 1998. The measures in the database represent ten broad dimensions relevant to leader development: cognitive aptitude, complex problem-solving skills, tacit knowledge of military leadership, temperament, motivation, leadership style, leadership performance, physical fitness, cognitive-emotional identity development, and developmental experiences. This report identifies all of the measures included in BOLDS and describes their psychometric properties. Such documentation is essential to facilitate utilization of the database and to inform future data collections, which are scheduled to track this officer cohort throughout their military careers and to expand BOLDS to officers from other commissioning sources.

The Baseline Officer Longitudinal Data Set (BOLDS) was developed jointly by the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) and the U.S. Military Academy (USMA) to enable researchers to study the development of leader performance over time. Currently, BOLDS consists of data accumulated on USMA cadets from the Class of 1998. The measures in the database represent ten broad dimensions relevant to leader development: cognitive aptitude, complex problem-solving skills, tacit knowledge of military leadership, temperament, motivation, leadership style, leadership performance, physical fitness, cognitive-emotional identity development, and developmental experiences. This report identifies all of the measures included in BOLDS and describes their psychometric properties. Such documentation is essential to facilitate utilization of the database and to inform future data collections, which are scheduled to track this officer cohort throughout their military careers and to expand BOLDS to officers from other commissioning sources.

Every year, the U.S. Army must select from an applicant pool in the hundreds of thousands to meet annual enlistment targets, currently numbering in the tens of thousands of new soldiers. A critical component of the selection process for enlisted service members is the formal assessments administered to applicants to determine their performance potential. Attrition for the U.S. military is hugely expensive. Every recruit that does not make it through basic training or beyond a first enlistment costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. Academic and other professional settings suffer similar losses when the wrong individuals are accepted into the wrong schools and programs or jobs and companies. Picking the right people from the start is becoming increasingly important in today's economy and in response to the growing numbers of applicants. Beyond cognitive tests of ability, what other attributes should selectors be considering to know whether an individual has the talent and the capability to perform as well as the mental and psychological drive to succeed? Measuring Human Capabilities: An Agenda for Basic Research on the Assessment of Individual and Group Performance Potential for Military Accession examines promising emerging theoretical, technological, and statistical advances that could provide scientifically valid new approaches and measurement capabilities to assess human capability. This report considers the basic research necessary to maximize the efficiency, accuracy, and effective use of human capability measures in the military's selection and initial occupational assignment process. The research recommendations of Measuring Human Capabilities will identify ways to supplement the Army's enlisted soldier accession system with additional predictors of individual and collective performance. Although the primary audience for this report is the U.S. military, this book will be of interest to researchers of psychometrics, personnel selection and testing, team dynamics, cognitive ability, and measurement methods and technologies. Professionals interested in of the foundational science behind academic testing, job selection, and human resources management will also find this report of interest.

"The Army has assembled an archive of survey data for use in studies and analyses on practical issues pertinent to the career decisions of officers. This effort applied the analog approach for empirically deriving and validating measures in order to expand the value of the archive for longitudinal research on organizational commitment. Accordingly, an expert panel selected 13 questionnaire items that fit with the content domains of Meyer and Allen's (1991) affective commitment (AC) and continuance commitment (CC). It was expected that the average of responses to the items selected for a construct could serve as an analog scale for measuring the construct. To test this, the original Meyer and Allen items and the candidate analog items were administered to 404 Army officers. Confirmatory factor analyses showed that responses to the analog and original items defined dimensions representing AC and CC. Correlations of analog scale scores with rank and career intent were also similar to those obtained for the original scales. Use of the validated analog scales links findings from the Army archive to the wider research on organizational commitment and increases the certainty and applicability of these findings."--DTIC.

"This project sought to examine and improve the reliability of the scoring systems for three instruments which have been used in previous Army leadership research. Review of existing literature and interviews with project staff participating in prior research provided initial information concerning the strengths and weaknesses of the scoring systems for the three instruments. This information was used to recommend modifications to the original scoring systems. Six individuals were trained to use the modified scoring systems. The modified scoring systems were evaluated by rescoring responses randomly selected from the sample which had been scored according to the scoring systems originally developed for the leadership research program. Reliability estimates for the three modified scoring systems were consistently strong and showed improvements over those obtained through the original scoring systems. Interrater agreement indices were significant for nearly all ratings. Validity estimates provided evidence that each modified instrument was moderately to highly correlated with conceptually similar scores generated through the original scoring scheme. The report recommends use of the revised rating systems in future research to improve the quality of measurement from the three predictors."--DTIC.