HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.gao/gaobaabrv0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
DOCUMENT RESUME
C0133 - [A0751218]
The Armyls Test of One Station Unit Training: Adequacy and
Value. FPCD-76-100; B-146890. February 9, 1977. Released
February 15, 1977. 26 pp.
Report to Rep. George H. Mahon, Chairman, House committee on
Appropriations; by Elmer B. Staats, Comptroller Genera]..
Issue Area: Personnel Management and Compensation: Training and
Education Programs (304).
Contact: Federal Personnel and Compensation Div.
Budget Function: National Defense: Department of Defense -
military (except procurement & contract.s) (051) ; National
Defense: Military Assistance (052).
Organization Concerned: Department of Defense; Department of the
Army.
CongrLssional Relevance: House Committee on Appropriations.
A yearlong Army test of a concept fcr providing tdsic
and advanced training at one station under a single cadre was
monitored. Findings/Conclusions: In order to implement the one
station unit training, many current training centers would be
closed and new construction costing about $300 million would be
necessary. The test results show that under the cne station
concept the training cycle can be reduced by tailoring the
training program to what is necessary for initial entry-level
skills. The test did not, however, examine whether similar
reductions in the cycle would be attained if a tailored program
were used for basic training at one station fol]cwed ty advanced
training at another station, !e Army did nct attempt tc shorten
the duration of the present initial entry training for .nfantry
to see if adequave training could be achieved with a savings of
cost and time. Tha training centers did not control or measure
the effect of unequal treatment or uncontrolled factors, which
could have biased test results. Weaknesses in test design and
implementation and the absence of control over other factors
also piodaced test results which do not show the relati-e merits
of alternate methods of training. Without data on whether this
traininci is tore effective and economical than other uethcds cf
training rec'.uits, neither the Army nor the Congress can
determine whLch method is better based on the Army's test. The
results of t.ae test are questionable. (Author/SC)
I](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobaabrv0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)